v'iv 
 
 % 
 
 

£ 407 
 '1115 
 Copy 1 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. R. M. McLANE, OF MARYLAm 
 
 ON 
 
 THE WAR WITH MEXICO. 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 19, 1848. 
 
 
 l^i 
 
 '9> 
 
 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE 
 
 1848. 
 

SPEECH. 
 
 In Committee of the Whole on the state of the 
 Union, on the Resolutions referring the Presi- 
 dent's Message to the various Standing Com- 
 mittees, 
 
 Mr. McLANE said: 
 
 He somewhat regretted that it was his fortune to 
 follow in debate the gentleman from New Hamp- 
 shire, [Mr. Tuck,] whose allusions to the subject of 
 slavery were offensive to the pride and refinement 
 of every gentleman, he hoped, from every State of 
 our Federal Union, who respected and venerated 
 our Federal Constitution. If, in the course of his 
 remarks, he should have occasion to refer to the 
 same subject, he should do so with great respect 
 for the local institutions of every State in the 
 Union, be it free or slave, however much he might, 
 as the representative of a slave State, feel wounded 
 at the offensive allusions so freely offered in thi.s 
 House by gentlemen who regarded themselves as 
 men of a single idea. 
 
 Mr. McL. continued, and said, that but for the 
 extraordinary declaration made by this House, at 
 the motion of an honorable gentleman from Mas- 
 sachusetts, [Mr. AsHMCN,] denouncing this war 
 as "unconstitutional,"&c.,&c.,I should notthink 
 it within my range to engage the attention of the 
 committee with the origin of the Mexican war. 
 Whatever opinion I might have entertained, I 
 could not have reconciled myself to a voluntary 
 expression of sentiment, the record of which on 
 the Journal of this House necessarily discredited 
 our own Government, and falsified the records of 
 both branches of the National Legislature. Sir, had 
 we thought it wise to abandon the war, and with- 
 draw our armies to the east of the Rio Grande, 
 and adhere for the future to a defensive war with 
 Mexico, it would be, in my judgment, unneces- 
 sary, if not derogatory, to raise an issue of veraci- 
 ty with a former Congress — appealing to partisan 
 zeal at home or abroad to determine whether it-e or 
 cur predecessors have voted " a falsehood." But to 
 make such a declaration after we have refused to 
 withdraw our armies, exposes to insult and shame 
 the brave men we have pushed forward into Mex- 
 ico — aiding^ and comforting , and encouraging their 
 enemies, v/hile we chill and demoralize public sen- 
 timent at home, and render it impossible to raise 
 succor and reinforcement for those whom we re- 
 fuse to recall, on the same day and hour that we 
 discredit and dishonor their service. 
 
 I regret that a majority of this House have taken 
 a very different view of our mutual obligations; 
 and, in my judgment, insensible to the honor of the 
 Government and the pride of our illustrious soldiers, 
 they would attach their falsification of the nation- 
 al record to a vote of thanks, by which it was 
 proposed that the Congress of the United States 
 should convey to General Taylor some light ex- 
 pression of the respect and admiration felt for him 
 by his fellow-citizens. This association of such 
 a declaration with the name of General Taylor, 
 will appear still more unfortunate when some ref- 
 erence IS had to the particular aicts of the President, 
 which constituted the illegality or unconstitutional- 
 ity of the war. There are those in opposition, sir, 
 who consider the annexation of Texas as the^rsf 
 and great violation of law that caused the war, and 
 the military and civil conduct of the President 
 as the immediate occasion of the war ; others, who 
 justify the act of annexation as legal and constitu- 
 tional, without regard to its wisdom or expediency, 
 are obliged to rest the illegalitij and unconstitutioii- 
 alitxj of the war upon the orders of the President, 
 which they allege were issued without the concur- 
 rence of Congress, and immediately caused the 
 war. It would be difficult, sir, to determine which 
 of these propositions involves the most inconsist- 
 ency, supposing either to be the ground of com- 
 plaint against the Government of the United States. 
 If the annexation of Texas was the illegal and 
 unjustifiable casus belli, ihcxi the occupation of any 
 part of Texas, east or west of the Nueces, was 
 necessarily an immediate act of ofience on the part 
 of the American Executive. But it was also neces- 
 sarily the result of that obligation to execute the 
 law of annexation imposed by the Constitution on 
 the President. 
 
 On the other hand, if the act of annexation was 
 legal and constitutional, but regarded by Mexico as 
 an act of war, then no movement of the Execu- 
 tive connected with the defence of the new terri- 
 tory, even without the concurrence of Congress, 
 can be treated as the cause of the war. Sir, the 
 course of the Opposition on this point renders it 
 necessary to look back a little at the history of this 
 "act of annexation." I shall not, however, weary 
 the committee with more on this point than a re- 
 view of facts, which confute the declaration that 
 the President, by his own illegal act in occupying 
 the territory west of the Nueces, without the con- 
 currence of Congress, caused the war. It will not 
 
be denied, sir, that the act of anneTcation was a 
 formal act of the law-making; power of our Gov- 
 ernment. The army of the United Stales was not 
 moved beyond tiic Sabine until a convention of the 
 people of Texas had accepted the terms of annex- 
 ation offered by Conjjrcss. This was in the sum- 
 mer of 1845, when the Government of the United 
 States assigned General Taylor to the command of 
 the army of observation, destined to defend and 
 protect the soil of Texas, informing him that his 
 ultimate destination would be the western frontier 
 of Texas, on or near the Rio Grande. (See Mr. 
 Bancroft's despatch in June or July, 1845.) In 
 December, 1845, Congress was informed that Gen- 
 eral Taylor had been assigned to the defence of the 
 country west of the Rio Grande. In the same 
 month, and after receiving this information. Con- 
 gress, by a formal act, consummated annexation, 
 ond extended American jurisdiction over the whole 
 of Texas, without reserve or limitation. A refer- 
 ence to this act of admission of the State of Texas 
 (29th December, 1845) will show that it was the 
 State of Texas that was admitted, wiiU a consti- 
 tution alieady formed, affirming the declaratory 
 statutes which defined the boundary west to the 
 Rio Grande; and with such boundary she was ad- 
 mitted a Stale into the Union. This act of Con- 
 gress settles the question at issue, and establishes 
 the concuirence of Congress with the President in 
 taking possession and sovereignly over the country 
 west to the Rio Grande; for on the same day an- 
 other act was passed, extending, in general terms, 
 the laws of the United States within the State of 
 Texas. 
 
 Mr. CRISFIELD here interposed, to say that 
 his colleague was wrong in point of fact. 
 
 Mr. McLANE said, that if he was wrong in 
 the statement he had made, the burden and all the 
 injury would rest upon him. 
 
 'Mr. BOYD and Mr. CRISFIELD here made 
 8ome additional remarks, which were not audible 
 to the reporter, being addressed to Mr. McLane, 
 near whom both gentlemen were seated. 
 
 Mr. McLANE replied, that it was to him a mat- 
 ter of indifference, whether the Texan constitu- 
 tion of 1836 did or did not define her boundary. 
 
 Mr. K..A.UFMAJM, of Texas, being appealed to 
 by several gentlemen around him, (interposing,) 
 said: The constitution of the Republic of Texas 
 did not define the western boundary of that State. 
 It was defined, however, by a la^o of the first Con- 
 gress of the Republic of Texas, passed in Decem- 
 ber, 1836. The constitution of the Slate of Texas 
 declares all laws of the Republic of Texas in force 
 not repugnant to the United States Constitution, 
 or the annexation resolutions. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS asked the gentleman from Texas 
 whether ^he boundary of Texas, as described by 
 tlie act of her Congress of 1836, included Santa Fe? 
 Mr. KAUFMAN replied that it did; that it in- 
 cluded all the territory east of the Rio Grande, from 
 its mouth to its source; and that the Congress of 
 the United States which passed the annexation 
 .resolutions, approved March 1, 1845, understood 
 that Texas included Santa Fe ; for it provided that 
 States formed out of Ike territory of Texas north of 
 36^ degrees should be free Stales; while Santa Fe 
 is south of 36| degrees north latitude. Mr. K. fur- 
 ther said, that the Republic of Texas, previous to 
 annexation, had established post routes from Bexar 
 to Laredo, on the east bank of the Rio Grande, 
 
 and from Corpus Christi to Point Isabel, and that 
 evenj portion of territory east oftheRio Grande, from 
 its mouth to its source, and north to the 42d degree of 
 north latitude, vas included by different acts nf the 
 Congress of the Republic (if Texas, previous to annex- 
 ation, willunlhe limits of some organized or establish- 
 ed county of said Republic ! 
 
 Mr. McLANE continued. Subsequently (he 
 .said) Congress organized the revenue districts in 
 Texas, in such wise that one district was bounded 
 on the west by the J^ueces, another on the east by 
 the Nueces, and the west by the Rio Grande; and 
 the Senate confirmed the nomination of revenue 
 officers assigned to the districts so located. Sir, 
 I would remark that I am not now engaged with 
 an examination of the boundary question between 
 Texas and Mexico; I am considering thecalunmy 
 thrown upon this Government by the declaration 
 that the occupation of the country between the 
 Nueces and the Rio Grande was the illegal and 
 unconstitutional act of the President, without the 
 concurrence of Congress. Sir, I think it just to 
 get rid of this issue, before I engage with any ex- 
 amination of the real origin of the war; for I con- 
 sider the declaration, so often repeated by the 
 Opposition, that the occupation of the country 
 between the Nueces and the Rio Grande was the 
 act of the President, without the concurrence of 
 Congress, to be in itself a calumny. 
 
 I present, therefore, in this connection, to the at- 
 tention of the committee, that in June, 1845, Gen- 
 eral Taylor had indicated to him the extent of 
 country to the Rio Grande, claimed as Texas, un- 
 der the act of annexation, receiving at the same 
 time his orders to defend and protect that territory; 
 while Congre.«^s, in December, 1845, on their first 
 meeting were informed fully by the President of 
 his action in Texas — to which they took no excep- 
 tion; but, on the contrary, legislated, without re- 
 straint and without limit, for all the territory 
 claimed as Texas; and particularly committed it- 
 self to this territory west of the Nueces, by further 
 and particular legislation in the establishment of a 
 custom-house and revenue di.-5trict west of that 
 river. Upon this state of facts, I feel constrained 
 to regard as a calumny the assertion that the terri- 
 tory west of the Nueces was occupied by the ille- 
 gal and unconstitutional order of the President of 
 the United States loithout the concurrence of Con- 
 gress. 
 
 Sir, I have seen it suggested from the Opposition 
 that the war, though just and honorable as the re- 
 sult of annexation as between Mexico and the 
 United States, yet, as between the different branches 
 of this Government, there exists a responsibility 
 with the Executive, peculiar and painful, created 
 by the rash act of the President in ordering the 
 troops to the Rio Grande, provoking the state of 
 active hostilities. 
 
 Such a conclusion could only result, sir, from 
 the struggle of a generous spirit, under the impulse 
 of patriotism, called to an unwilling association 
 with the Opposition. Such an assault on the Presi- 
 dent, like the broad declaration affirmed by this 
 House, and already referred to, must be refuted 
 by a simple review of the history of annexation; 
 and coming from ihe Opposition, under all the ex- 
 isting circumstances, it is even more unwarrant- 
 alile than the abstract denunciation of the illegality 
 and unconstitutionality of such an order. In re- 
 pelling this assault upon the wisdom and capacity 
 
of the President in one particular act of adminis- 
 tration, it must be observed, that even in view of 
 the act of territorial occupation west of the Nueces, 
 this advance to the Rio Grande was not made for 
 months after our armies were posted west of the 
 Nueces, and for months after Congress had actu- 
 ally extended American laws and American life 
 into that territory; nor until months after General 
 Taylor, who was intrusted with the defence and 
 protection of Texas, had repeatedly urged and ad- 
 vised ihe movement, upon high considerations of 
 military and political propriety; nor until months 
 after the organization of the Mexican armies on 
 the banks of the Rio Grande river, under peremp- 
 tory orders to cross that river, and seek our peo- 
 Ele at Corpus Christi, or wherever else they might 
 e found. This movement, made with caution, 
 with care, in a purely defensive spirit, subordinate 
 and secondary to the occupation of the country 
 west of the Nueces, which was made six months 
 before the advance to the Rio Grande was ordered; 
 and this movement, which was withheld for 
 months, at the expi-ess command of the President, 
 that every possible effort to settle differences by 
 negotiation might be exhausted, is seized upon by 
 one branch of the Opposition as an illegal and un- 
 constitutional act, by another as an unwise one, 
 and by both, as the cause of the war, proximate 
 or remote. 
 
 Sir, one other ground of reproach is relied on by 
 the Opposition, which is to attach the responsibil- 
 ity of this war to the President. He is denounced, 
 sir, for electing the alternative joint resolution for 
 the admission of the State of Texas into the Union, 
 rather than the resolutions which proposed nego- 
 tiation. Sir, not to remark that tlie President's 
 predecessor had already made the election, let me 
 only suggest that Congress authorized the election; 
 and that it savors somewhat of presumption, to 
 argue now, in the dark, that a different election 
 would have avoided wac For one, sir, I believe 
 the alternative election of negotiation would have 
 lost Texas altogether. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I think the war — 
 
 1st. In its origin, just, honorable, and necessary, 
 (1 mean unavoidable.) 
 
 2d. I think it is being prosecuted with the avow- 
 ed object of conquering a peace, which would se- 
 cure indemnity for the past and security for the 
 future. 
 
 3d. I think indemnity and security may consist 
 in pecuniary, territorial, or commercial conditions, 
 altogether or severally. 
 
 4th. I think the war-power under our Federal 
 Constitution omnipotent under the recognized laws 
 of nations, as established on principles of humari- 
 ity and civilization. 
 
 5th. I would inquire how shall this war-power 
 be exercised in the further prosecution of the ex- 
 isting war with Mexico. 
 
 What, sir, are the facts which develop the ori- 
 gin and history of this war? In 183G, the Pccpub- 
 fic of Texas accomplished a revolution with the 
 sioord. I do not speak of the country formerly 
 known as Louisiana, and alleged to have been 
 bounded by tlie Rio Grande; I do not speak of 
 the Mexican department of Texas, alleged to have 
 been bounded by tlie J^ueces; !)nt, sir, I speak 
 of the revolutionized Republic of Texas — consist- 
 ing of the people of the department of Texas, 
 and portions of the people of Tamaulipas and 
 
 Coahuila — who, after driving the Mexican ar- 
 mies beyond the Rio Grande, and at once or- 
 ganizing a Government, declared that river to be 
 their western boundary; and, from that time to 
 the present, maintained complete and undisturbed 
 possession of the soil west to the Rio Grande; so 
 far as concerned their intercourse with the United 
 Slates and the nations of- the earth who had re- 
 cognizfed their national independence — England, 
 France, and other great Powers inclusive. Within 
 these limits of boundary, they exercised in their 
 intercourse 'with these nations all the rights of 
 sovereignty; and even in their relations with Mex- 
 ico, actually making peace on the recognition of 
 such boundaries, stipulating for the withdrawal 
 of the Mexican armies to the west of the Rio 
 Grande, and the release of the Mexican command- 
 er-in-chief, and further maintaining such boundary 
 against all subsequent efforts of Mexico to obtain 
 a permanent footing on that soil from which her 
 armies had been driven in the war of the revolu- 
 tion; while the people who continued to inhabit 
 such territory were recognized as citizens of Tex- 
 as, tendering^lheir allegiance, and being represent- 
 ed in the Congress of Texas, and, I believe, in 
 the very Convention that accepted our terms of 
 admission. These acts of sovereignty have been 
 often referred to in this House. As one act of 
 such sovereignty, Texas became a State of our 
 Federal Union, bringing with her the old quarrel 
 with Mexico, which, at the time of annexation, was 
 the Mexican claim to all of Texas; and this quar- 
 rel, to the extent of war with Mexico, or other 
 Powers interfering with the "act of annexation," 
 I cheerfully assume as the price of Texas. 
 
 Sir, observe the conduct of the two Governments 
 in their intercourse, now that the act of annexation 
 has transferred this intercourse to the Federal Ad- 
 ministration ; see the insolence of Mexico and the 
 forbearance of the United States; see the declara- 
 tion of Almonte, withdrawing from our country 
 on the passage of the act of annexation ; see every 
 subsequent stage of the controversy between Mex- 
 ico and the United States, and every despatch of 
 every minister, in every change of a changing 
 Government. The offence was the act of annex- 
 ation. That act was the act of Congress, and the 
 occupation of any part of Texas was an offence in 
 the eyes of Mexico ; but the occupation of any and 
 every part was the dnlij of the President, and had 
 necessarily the concurrence of Congress, in virtue 
 alone of the original act of annexation, which was 
 a just, a wise, a constitutional act, and in advance 
 sanetioned by the will of the peop.a of the United 
 States, and ratified by the people of a free and 
 sovereign republic, holding dominion from the 
 Sabine "west to the Rio Grande. Seethe subse- 
 'quent and subordinate ground of complaint, aris- 
 ing out of the disputed boundary question — sup- 
 posing the major, offence of annexation reconciled; 
 and, in this connection, observe the cautious, for- 
 bearing, conciliating course of the American Exec- 
 utive, holding the American forces on the extreme 
 eastern border of the disputed territory until every 
 effort for a peaceful adjustment of differences seem- 
 ed hopeless ; and further observe the cautious, de- 
 fensive policy adopted in occupying and defending 
 the soil uf this new State. 
 
 On the other hand, sir, see the war issue on 
 which Paredes overthrew the Government of Her- 
 rera, confessedly because the annexation of Texas 
 
6 
 
 was cause of war. Arid here, sir, in this Paredcs 
 revoliUion, may be seen really the occasion nf hos- 
 tililirs, if gentlemen wish to refine upon the orio;in 
 of the Mexip.an war; for, sir, this revnlunon 
 once accomplished, see the oflcnsive, hostile, ag- 
 gressive s[)irit with which the Mexican army 
 was ordered to talce/orcib/e possession not only of 
 that territory which, in some collatpral issues of 
 the negotiation, had been styled dlspulril, but also 
 of the territory of Texas all the way to the Sabine. 
 Surrenderirig then, sir, all the advantage which re- 
 sults from the acknowledged sovereignly of Texas 
 to the Rio Grande, and the transfer of that sover- 
 eignty to tlie Federal Government, we can aflbrd 
 to stand upon the issue oCopposilion, now very nat- 
 urally adopted by our beateti and desperate enemy, 
 and acknowledge, for the moment, that Texas, to 
 the Nueces, was legally and rightfully occupied by 
 our troops, and that all beyond, to the Rio Grande, 
 was disjmted territory., For, sir, the American 
 Government took defensive possession, and the 
 Mexican Government offensive possession of this 
 territory, contemporaneously — hostilities occur- 
 ring at a moment when the American general was 
 ordered to act defensively, and the Mexican to in- 
 vade and act ofi'ensively. 
 
 What can be more conclusive to establish the 
 necessity, the justice, and the obligation of honor, 
 imposed upon our Government to recognize and 
 engage in the prosecution of such a war? What 
 more conclusive to establish the wisdom and for- 
 bearance of the Executive? And yet the Congress 
 that recognized such a war are branded as voting 
 a "falsehood," and the Executive arm is paralyzed 
 by the denunciation of a majority of this House — 
 a denunciation pov.-erless but for insult, since we 
 hear nothing of impeachment, the only legitimate 
 fruit of such a denunciation. 
 
 Satisfied, then, sir, that the war is just, honor- 
 able, and necessary, I desire, in the second place, 
 to ascertain if it is prosecuted with an honorable 
 and intelligent purpose. The war message of 
 May, ]846, and every subsequent annual message 
 and special message, have all declared that the war 
 is prosecuted with the sole object of conquering a 
 satisfactory peace ; and these Executive declara- 
 tions have been understood to involve the princi- 
 ple of demanding indemnity, both for the expenses 
 of the war, and the past injuries and wrongs 
 inflicted by Mexico upon citizens of the United 
 States. In view, then, of these two positions, and 
 the repeated rejection of our peaceful overtures, I 
 see no course left to this Goverimient, but the con- 
 tinued prosecution of the war, until the power that 
 governs Mexico is subdued; we then dictate our 
 own terms, and accomplish our avowed purpose 
 of conquering a peace. I thus distinguish, sir, be- 
 tween the conquest of peace and the subjugation* 
 of the poicer that governs a country, and the subju- 
 gation or annihilation of the country itself, with all 
 its institutions and municipal existence. 
 
 Here, sir, arises an interesting inquiry. Such 
 a subjugation of the power that govern.^ Mexico 
 once accomplished, what indcmnily shall be de- 
 manded? This inquiry must be resolved before 
 we can wisely apply our war-making power in the 
 further prosecution of the war; for, m the enun- 
 ciation of my third pro})osition, 1 have stated, in 
 terms somewhat comprehensive, the scope of in- 
 ternational indemnity. I feel constrained, sir, to 
 pass over, without consideration, the idea of a 
 
 simple pecnniary indemnity, or a pecuniary guar- 
 antee of security for the future in our relations 
 with Mexico. I distrust, utterly, all expectation 
 of ever obtaining such. So, sir, in regard to mere 
 abstract territorial acquisition. 1 cannot believe 
 that the mere acquisition of a portion of the Mex- 
 ican territory, embracing even the valley of the 
 Rio Grande, to the whole extent of territory com- 
 prised east of the Sicrrn J*/a(ire, and including New 
 Mexico and California — which, though .somewhat 
 beyond the recommendation of the President, has 
 beensHggcs/e(<by very eminent military authority — 
 would in itself constitute a .satisfactory indemnity 
 for the war alone; much less would such an acqui- 
 sition, in my judgment, give us security for the 
 future. Such an acquisition of territory, com- 
 bined with certain fixed commercial relations, and 
 the occupation of such points on the seacoast and 
 in the interior as would ensure their faithful exer- 
 cise and enjoyment, might, perhaps, satisfy the 
 just demands and expectations of a wise American 
 policy. Nothing short of such a result, sir, would 
 constitute a satisfactory peace, in my judgment. 
 To accomplish this result, the existing Govern- 
 ment of Mexico must be absolutely sulijugated. 
 When this crisis is reached, American statesmen, 
 who may be intrusted with the administration of 
 Government, in my opinion, will take a yet more 
 coiTiprehensive view of this question oC indenuiity; 
 and, rejecting altogether the idea of territorial ac- 
 quisition, they would, perhaps, guarantee to the 
 whole people of Mexico republican government, 
 civil and religious liberty, equal rights and equal 
 laws, in tlieir relation of indeyiendent several 
 States, or in any independent confederate relation 
 they may desire to assume. None of the evils in- 
 cident, or believed to be incident, to the denation- 
 alization of Mexico, could then occur; but, like 
 the other inhabitants of the North American con- 
 tinent, who have been subjugated by the United 
 States, they will enjoy thfit degree of civilization' 
 and independence for which they may be fitted, 
 and the free and glorious civilization of our people 
 will press onward until it covers the American 
 continent. The coinmercial relations thus secured 
 with seven or eight millions of people, from whom, 
 though adjacent in territory, we have been almost 
 excluded by the prejudices of an eighth or tenth 
 of the Mexican nation, in alliance with the arts 
 and intrigues of European traders and mission- 
 aries, would constitute an ample, a glorious indem- 
 nily; while the liberated millions of Mexico would 
 bless the sword of the conqueror, and spurn the 
 rude despotism of the privileged classes, who now 
 sport with and oppress them. To this end, sir, 
 I would myself be willing at this time to prose- 
 cute the war. The power to declare war, and 
 make rules for the government of our armies, and 
 our captures on land and sea, is annjile to fill the 
 measure of glory and freedom which I think this 
 war will yet secure to the Mexican people. I 
 would desire at once, sir, to extend our revenue 
 laws over Mexico, and push the war vigorously 
 to the occupation and subjugation of every Mexi- 
 can State. When these brilliant results should be 
 accomplished — and the task is more simple than we 
 generally concede — I, for one, shall be content to 
 leave with our existing Government the adjust- 
 ment of a satisfactory peace — assured, as I am, 
 that no peace will ever be deemed satisfactory and 
 honorable that does not stijuiiate for " indemnity 
 
and security," and security gua.,....;^d by treaty 
 stipulations — not alone in view of our immediate 
 relation to Mexico, but in view of all the relations 
 which Mexico and the United States hold to Euro- 
 pean nations. Sir, in my own humble sphere of in- 
 tercourse, I havegathered such intelligence in regard 
 to the relations of Paredes and the monarchical 
 party in Mexico with certain powers in Europe, 
 that I cannot consent to confine my view simply 
 to the relations of the United States with Mexico, 
 when I consider the conditions indispensable to 
 the idea of future security in the pursuit of our 
 own American policy. AH who have observed 
 the intimate relations existing between Paredes 
 and Queen Christina, and the present political 
 connection existing between the latter and the 
 French and Spanish Governments, will be at no 
 loss to appreciate the importance of these cons d- 
 erations. 
 
 I do not advocate, sir, any mission of philan- 
 thropy; I do not justify any spirit of propagand- 
 ism, on the part of the American Government. 
 But I look to the actual condition of Mexico, 
 without inquiring whether the present war was 
 caused by iVIexico or the United States, or whether 
 it has produced the present state of affairs — 
 which, in my judgment, demands from this Gov- 
 ernment firmness and resolution, in securing steady 
 regulations and treaty stipulations beyond the 
 power of English or French intrigues to disturb, 
 whether those intrigues are confined to efforts 
 which would exclude us from commercial inter- 
 course with Mexico, or have the more enlarged 
 purpose of establisiiing, in the place of the anar- 
 chical Government now existing, a monarchy under 
 the protection of European Powers. 
 
 But, sir, I do not presume to press these views 
 at this time. I am quite content to' support the 
 policy of the Administration, as presented in the 
 President's message, and take at once the territoral 
 indemnity recommended by him; though I would 
 venture to hope his recommendation might be ex- 
 tended to include the valley of the Rio Grande 
 south to Tampico, as well as New Mexico and 
 California. Such an acquisition of territory, com- 
 bined with the measures recommended by the 
 President, or the extension of a judicious revenue 
 system over Mexico, and a continued prosecution 
 of the war, would constitute, in my judgment, a 
 policy which will yet receive the sanction of the 
 American people. 
 
 Sir, in viewing the more enlarged and compre- 
 hensive policy indicated in the remarks I have just 
 submitted, I would observe that such a policy, 
 though it certainly embraces the whokofMtxico in 
 its influence, and is intended to give moral and 
 physical life to the people and institutions of that 
 portion of the American continent, must not be 
 confounded with the simple proposition of the de- 
 nationalization of Mexico and the annexation of 
 that country and people as an integral and sover- 
 eign portion of our own Confederacy. Nine-tenths 
 of the people of Mexico are hardly less aboriginal, 
 and certainly not so well cultivated and advanced, 
 as the Chodaxv, or even the Cherokee Indians, who, 
 as a people, though conquered, are still left to the 
 enjoymenlof civil and religious freedom; instituting 
 their own fundamental laws, and enacting their own 
 municipal regulations, under the most improved 
 and independent system of republican government 
 within the territory and jurisdiction of the United 
 
 States, yet not constituting an integral and sover- 
 eign portion of the Confederacy itself. Neverthe- 
 less, sir, their laws, their public schools, their civil 
 and religious cultivation, present types of a civil- 
 ization in few respects inferior to our own. 
 
 The principal and main objection, sir, that I have 
 heard advanced cigainst the partial acquisition of 
 Mexican territory, will doubtless be applied to the 
 policy here indicated, and lies in the supposed ex- 
 tension oC slavery among a people and over territory 
 from which it is now excluded by municipal law. 
 This objection, sir, 1 regard as of little weight — 
 not because I am in anywise insensible to the out- 
 rage which such a forced extension of such an in- 
 stitution over an unwilling people would constitute. 
 I regard this objection, sir, of little weight, because 
 I do not believe the act of acquisition, of itself, 
 would necessarily extend this institution over the 
 territory so acquired. Still less do I believe that 
 the subjugaiion of all Mexico, and the subsequent 
 government of that country by the inhabitants 
 thereof, under free and republican institutions, 
 would ever result in the extension of slavery be- 
 yond the limits where it now exists. Further, 
 sir, I do not believe that any act of the Federal 
 Government of the United States can either create 
 or abolish slavery anywhere, within or without our 
 present limits. The powers of our Federal Gov- 
 ernment over the institutions of slavery are limited, 
 1st, to their enumeration, in fixing the ratio of con- 
 gressional representation; 2d, to their arrest and 
 restoration when fugitives from labor; and 3d, to 
 prohibit their importation or their immigration 
 from abroad subsequent to the year 1808. Terri- 
 tory acquired by the United States with slavery 
 existing therein as a domestic municipal institution, 
 as Florida and Louisiana, would remain slave terri- 
 tory without regard and without the sanction of 
 treaty stipulations to make it so, or to guaranty 
 its existence. 
 
 On the other hand, territory acquired without 
 the existence therein of this municipal institution, 
 would remain /cee, so far as any power of Con- 
 gress to create it there, or to declare that it should 
 exist there, is concerned. The people who may 
 have abolished it therein, or who may have failed 
 to create it there, are alone possessed of sover- 
 eignty over it — being a purely domestic, local, and 
 peculiar institution, recognized by the Federal Con- 
 stitution as such within the limits of such sov- 
 ereignty as may have established it — an institution 
 recognized as existing in virtue of a sovereivnty 
 apart from, and independent of, the Federal Con- 
 stitution, though not inconsistent with it. Hf-nce it 
 is, sir, I believe territory acquired by the United 
 States, either by purchase or conquest, and inhabited 
 by people who become citizens of the Ui?ited States, 
 will maintain and establish such municipal institu- 
 tions as are most acceptable to their own will and 
 wish, if consistent with the Constitution and laws 
 of the United States and the reserved rio"hts of th^ 
 States. Entertaining these views on the subie<-c 
 of slavery, I may be permitted to say that I feel, 
 as the representative of a southern State, wounded 
 and offended at the style of langui.o-e so often in- 
 dulged in by gentlemen on this fl-)or, who treat 
 this question as men of a single id(:a, (jenouncing 
 the institution and those who live in it u;;..'. ; , and 
 though myself born north of Maso n.^:' Oixon's 
 line, I still lived sufiiciently in th i^.j-.^t of the 
 black and slave race to understand , , , they were 
 
8 
 
 capable of far more enlightened and Christian 
 principles of aclioh, and love to tlieir nci^libors 
 and fellow-men, than 1 have ever witnessed in the 
 conduct of any branch of the Abolition party, here 
 or elsewhere. And, in conclusion, I would say, 
 that I hold the opinion that Congress is under the 
 
 011 446 843 5f 
 
 obligation to vote promptly men and moneyfor the 
 vigorous prosecution of a war that will conquer a 
 glorious and satisfactory peace, reducing Mexico 
 to complete subjection, leaving us to dictate tcnns, 
 which 1" would have illustrate our humanity, our 
 wisdom, and our justice. 
 
 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 01 1 446 843 5 # 
 
 HOLUNGER 
 pH8.5