University of California Berkeley 
 
H 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 or 
 
 MR. CHARLES HUDSON, OF MASS., 
 
 u 
 
 ON THE 
 
 SUBJECT OF THE WAK, WITH MEXICO. 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAY 14, 1846. . 
 
 The House being in Committee of the Whole on the Army Appropriation Bill 
 Mr. HUDSON, of Massachusetts, having obtained the floor, said: 
 Mr. CHAIRMAN: Under ordinaiy circumstances I should not have ob 
 truded myself upon the attention of the committee. But we are now at 
 war with a sister Republic; we are engaged in a contest commenced by the 
 Executive without just cause, and in direct violation of the fundamental 
 principles of our Constitution. Believing this to be the case, I feel it my duly 
 to bear testimony against this procedure; and I am the more inclined to do 
 this, because I was one of the few, or as gentlemen on the other side of 
 the House have, sneering, said, one of the ignoble fourteen, who had the 
 independence to follow^ their own sense of duty, and to vote according to 
 the dictates of their own consciences. I bring no accusation against others. 
 The subject was presented by the majority of the House in the most em 
 barrassing form, and gentlemen, of honesty of purpose, might differ upon 
 the final vote. As I claim sincerity for myself, I do not question the sin 
 cerity of my friends, whose minds were brought to a different result. 
 
 But the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. DOUGLASS) in reply to my friend from 
 Ohio, (Mr. DELANO,) has told the committee that it is treason to the country 
 to denounce the war now it is declared . He seems to admit that the remarks 
 of the member from Ohio would have been unobjectionable, if they had 
 been made before the war bill had become a law. But, sir, I recognise no 
 such distinction under the circumstances of the case. We know the man 
 ner in which that bill was passed , the hot haste with which it was pressed 
 through this house, and I intend that it shall be known eleswhere. So 
 far as my feeble powers extend, I intend the country shall know with what 
 rashness and indecent haste all the evils of war have been brought upon the 
 country. A message was received from the President of the United States 
 with reference to our relations with Mexico. This message was accompan 
 ied with voluminous correspondence which passed between our Govern 
 ment and Mexico, and also between the Executive and Gen. Taylor. The 
 House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the subject. 
 The debate, by a vote of the dominant party, was limited to the short space 
 of two hours. One hour and a half of that time was consumed in reading 
 the correspondence, and even then one half of the papers were not read. 
 
The chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs called up a bill, which 
 had been for some time upon our tables., which simply authorized the Pres 
 ident to accept the services of volunteers, should they be necessary to defend 
 our own soil , or repel invasion from our territory . This bill was under debate 
 for some thirty minutes, but no Whig was able to obtain the floor. Then, 
 for the first time, a declaration of war was mentioned, and sundry amend 
 ments to that effect were offered. When the time for discussion expired, 
 the committee passed upon the amendments, and the bill was immediately 
 reported to the House, and passed under the previous question. Thus, sir, 
 was war declared after a debate of some thirty minutes only, and that con 
 fined entirely to a few brief remarks by four members of the Democratic 
 party. Not an individual of the minority was permitted to say a word upon, 
 the great and absorbing question of peace and war. The House knows, 
 and the country shall know, the hasty and inconsiderate manner in which 
 they have been involved in all the horrors of war. A grosser instance of 
 precipitancy and rashness cannot be found in the history of any assembly 
 calling itself a deliberative body. 
 
 Thus, sir, were the Whig party in the House compelled, by a tyrannic 
 majority, to pass upon this great question without a single word of debate 
 on their part, and without having one-half of the documents which were 
 submitted by the President read ! And now we are told, by the members 
 of the same dominant party, that it is treasonable to speak against a mea 
 sure thus hastily and tyrannically forced through the House, without de 
 bate, amid scenes of excitement arid confusion. Opposition to this mea 
 sure, we are told, would have been proper before it had passed; but now, 
 being at war, all opposition to the measure shows a want of patriotism, and 
 a disposition to take sides with the enemy. Sir, I admit no such principle; 
 I will submit to no such iron rule. And has it come to this, that all debate 
 is to be suppressed in this Hall that freedom of speech is to be denied to 
 the representatives of a free people? A doctrine more despotic was never 
 advanced. According to this doctrine, if the President, led on by vain am- 
 "bition, or by a treasonable desiie to raise himself to a throne on the ruins of 
 our free Government, has the wickedness to trample upon the prerogatives 
 of Congress, and commence an unjust war with a foreign power, we are to 
 submit in silence, because hostilities have already commenced. We are to 
 stand by in meek submission, and see our right invaded, and the property 
 and lives of our citizens wantonly sacrificed, because a drilled majority of 
 political partisans may have succeeded in pressing through Congress, with 
 out debate, an endorsement of Executive usurpation. I say, sir, I will 
 countenance no such doctrine; I will submit to no such dogma. Under 
 the peculiar circumstances of the case I will speak, and speak as freely this 
 day as I would have spoken on Monday last. And though the gentleman 
 from Illinois very modestly brands those as cowards who voted against the 
 declaration of war, I will assure him that I have the moral courage to 
 speak my own sentiments; and neither his dogmatical declarations, nor the 
 awful nods of his head, shall restrain me. I will speak as I think, regard 
 less of the frowns or sneers of that gentleman or his friends. I make no 
 pretensions to bravery; but it frequently requires more moral courage to 
 stand alone, or with a small minority, than it does to follow the multitude 
 in the moment of popular excitement. 
 Mr. Chairman, I was one of the fourteen who voted against the passage 
 
of the war bill. I voted against it for various reasons; and, among others, 
 for this: I believe the preamble, and its repetition in the first section of the 
 bill, to be untrue. The preamble is as follows: " Whereas, by the act of 
 the Republic of Mexico, a state of war exists between that government and 
 die United States." 
 
 Now, sir, I regard this preamble as utterly false false as a whole, and 
 false in each of its recitals. It is not true that war existed before the pas 
 sage of that act. There had been a collision between our troops and those 
 of Mexico; but a collision of forces in a single instance, and at a particular 
 point, does not amount to war, in the legal and constitutional sense of that 
 term. By the Constitution of this country and of Mexico the power to de 
 clare war is vested in Congress, and not in the President or the command 
 ing general. We have no authority for saying that the Mexican Govern 
 ment had declared war, and we know that our Congress had given no 
 authority to the President to march his troops upon a disputed territory in 
 possession of the Mexicans. There is also a manifest distinction between 
 hostilities and war. When war is proclaimed by the constituted authority , 
 the whole nation and the world are bound to take cognizance of it, and to 
 govern themselves according to the rules of constitutional and international 
 law. But there may be outbreaks or collisions at a particular point, hostili 
 ties within a limited sphere, and even letters of marque and reprisal may be 
 granted to one or more injured subjects, under certain circumstances, and 
 with suitable limitations, without being in a state of war, in the legal sense 
 of that term. When war exists neutral nations are bound to take notice of 
 it; but the same is not true in every case of hostility. We have several ex 
 amples in our own history which will illustrate this distinction. The at 
 tack upon the Chesapeake by an English cruiser, before the late war with 
 England, was an act of hostility, but neither nation regarded it as war. 
 The same is true of the destruction of the Caroline on the Canadian fron 
 tier. The capture of Monterey, a Mexican town upon the Pacific, by 
 Commodore Jones, in 1843, is another case in point. Each of these cases 
 shows that there may be acts of hostility between the forces of two powers, 
 raid yet the relations of peace may be preserved. The declaration, there 
 fore, that war existed, is not sustained by facts. We had no evidence of its 
 existence at that time; on the contrary, all the evidence we had before us 
 went to sustain the opposite conclusion. I .could not, therefore, subscribe 
 to the declaration that war already existed.* 
 
 The preamble states not only that war exists, but that it exists by the act 
 of the Republic of Mexico. This declaration I believe to be untrue. Mexi 
 co with all her faults has not. in this case, been the aggressor. The state 
 ment which ascribed the war to the acts of Mexico is clearly and conclu 
 sively contradicted by the facts in the case. I might go back to the com 
 mencement of the Revolution in Texas, and show that the Government of 
 
 "* Since the delivery of the Speech, we have received the Manifesto of Paredes, dated " Na 
 tional Palace of Mexico, April 23, 1846," only one day before the collision on the Rio Grande, 
 in which he says most emphatically, " I solemnly announce thai I DO NOT declare war against the 
 United States of America, because it pertains to the august Congress of the nation, and not to the Ex 
 ecutive, to settle definitely the reparation which so many aggressions demand. But the defence 
 of Mexican territory, which the United States troops invade, is an urgent necessity, and my 
 -responsibility would be immense before the nation, did I not give commands to repel those 
 forces, which act like enemies. I have so commanded." 
 
the United States have not maintained a policy strictly neutral, as they were 
 bound to do. But in the act of annexation, we not only violated our own 
 organic law, but violated our faith pledged to Mexico by solemn treaty. 
 But, sir, I will not rely upon that act, unjust as I believe that to have been. 
 I will take the case as it stood after the joint resolution was passed; and I 
 believe that our conduct towards Mexico is entirely indefensible. Texas 
 was annexed to the United States, and on the supposition that that act was 
 valid, what did it include? What did we annex? The old province of Texas 
 was bounded on the southwest by theNueces, which does not approach within, 
 one hundred and fifty miles of the position occupied by Gen. Taylor. The 
 Texas which has been annexed to the United States was the old province 
 of Texas; the Texas which formed one of the States or departments of Mex 
 ico; the Texas which rebelled against the parent government, and set up a 
 government for herself; in a word, the Texas which was bounded by the riv 
 er Nueces. It is true that the Texan Congress in 1836 passed an act de 
 claring that their republic was bounded westerly by the Rio Grande. But 
 what title had she to the territory lying westof heroriginal limits? She could 
 have none but that of conquest. And did she ever carry her conquest up to the 
 Rio Grande? Nothing like it; every attempt she made proved a signal fail 
 ure. The population upon the Rio Grande never rebelled against Mexico 7 
 were never conquered by Texas, or submitted to Texan law or authority. 
 Texas made several attempts to plant her standard upon the banks of that 
 river, but in every attempt her forces were either captured or driven back. 
 With what propriety, then, can we maintain that the wilderness or desert 
 country between the Nueces and Rio Grande ever belonged to Texas? A 
 large strip of country on the left or eastern bank of the Rio Grande has ever 
 been in possession of Mexico, and we have acknowledged that possession 
 both before and after annexation. At the last session of Congress, an act 
 was passed allowing a drawback upon foreign merchandise imported into 
 this country, and exported to Canada and Mexico; and among the places 
 mentioned in Mexico was Santa Fe. And during this session Mr. Secre 
 tary Walker, in his report on the finances, says: "The act of March 3d , 1845, 
 allowing a drawback on foreign imports, exported from certain of our ports 
 to Canada, arid also to Santa Fe and Chihuahua, in Mexico, has gone to 
 some extent into effect, and is beginning to produce the most happy results.' 1 
 
 Here, sir, we have the most positive recognition on the part of our Govern 
 ment that Santa Fe belongs to Mexico, and is included within her lawful 
 territory. But every one knows that Sante Fe is on the east side of the 
 Rio Grande. How then can it be pretended, for a single moment, that the 
 whole country, or that any part of the country bordering upon that river, be 
 longs to Texas, and hence is a part of the United States? There is no au 
 thority at all for that plea; not one particle of proof that the Rio Grande is 
 our true boundary ; except the act of the Texan Congress, and that we have 
 confessed to be invalid by admitting Santa Fe, a town on the east side of 
 that river, to be a part of the Mexican territory. At that place we have a 
 consul; there we have been paying duties on merchandise; and when the 
 expedition to Santa Fe was captured, our Government interceded with the 
 Mexican Government for the release of our citizens; admitting in the cor 
 respondence itself that Santa Fe rightfully belonged to the Mexican Repub 
 lic. 
 
 Though our Government had by public acts acknowledged the country* 
 
bordering upon the Rio Grande on the east, to be a part of the Republic 
 of Mexico, the treaty got up by President Tyler and his Secretary of State, 
 attempted clandestinely to obtain all the territory east of that river. The 
 language of the treaty was general. It provided that the Republic of Tex 
 as, with all its territory, 'should be ceded lo the United States. But, sir, though 
 this language was general, and seemed to imply that the country ceded was 
 nothing more than Texas proper, the country bounded westerly by the Nue- 
 ces; yet when the President was pressed by the Senate to furnish a map and 
 description of the country to be annexed, he laid before them a map of the 
 country to the Rio Grande, with the clause of the act of the Texan Congress, 
 claiming all the country east of that river. But Mr. Calhoun,the Secretary of 
 State, though he had affixed his name to that stealthy treaty, and was the 
 master-spirit in the whole transaction, feeling conscious, as it would seem, 
 that the act of the Texan Congress had no validity, in his note to Mr. 
 Greene, our charge at Mexico, enjoined it upon him to assure the Mexican. 
 Government that the boundaries were not fixed, and that this Government 
 would exercise a liberal policy in relation to that subject. His words are 
 these : " You are enjoined, also, by the President to assure the Mexican 
 Government that it is his desire to settle all questions between the two 
 countries which may grow out of the treaty, or any other cause, on the 
 most liberal and satisfactory terms , including that of boundary; and with 
 that view the minister who lias been recently appointed will be shortly sent 
 with adequate powers." In the same note he directs Mr. Green to assure 
 the.Mexican Government '' that the Government of the United States has 
 taken every precaution to make the terms of the treaty as little objectiona- 
 able to Mexico as possible; and, among others, has left the boundary of 
 Texas without specification, so that the boundary might be an open, 
 question, to be fairly and fully discussed, and settled according to the 
 lights of each, and the mutual interest and security of the two countries." 
 
 Now, sir, does not this amount to a full confession, on the part of Mr. 
 Calhoun, that the Rio Grande was not the boundary of Texas? If he re 
 lied upon the act of the Texan Congress, why permit the line to be drawn 
 in question, and propose to submit it to negotiation? The fact is, that 
 act of the Texan Congress is a perfect nullity. No man knows better 
 than Mr. Calhoun that a boundary is a question to be settled by two na 
 tions, and any declaration by one is entirely void. Settling territorial 
 limits is to be regarded in the light of a contract, and as necessarily implies 
 two parties as any other contract whatever. Hence it is the vei y perfection 
 of absurdity to rely upon the declaration of Texas as deciding this ques 
 tion. It is, therefore, a matter of profound astonishment that the Presi 
 dent, in his late message, should so presume upon the ignorance of Con 
 gress, as to present that ex parte act of Texas as having any bearing upon 
 this question. But the tieaty was rejected by the Senate. And no objec 
 tion was urged with more force than the one we are considering, that it 
 attempted to carry the western boundary of Texas to the Rio Grande, far 
 beyond the true limits of Texas. 
 
 The distinguished Senator from Missouri, Mr. BEXTON T , when speaking 
 against the treaty, said: '-The one half of the department of New Mexico, 
 with its capital, becomes the property of the United States; an angle of 
 Chihuahua also becomes ours; a part of the department of Coahuila. not 
 populated on the left bank, which we take, but commanded from the right 
 
by Mexican authorities; the same of Tamaulipas, which covers both sides 
 of the river from its mouth for some hundred miles up, and all the left bank 
 of which is in the power and possession of Mexico. These, in addition to 
 old Texas; these parts of four States; these towns and villages; these peo 
 ple and territory; these flocks and herds; this slice of the Republic of Mex 
 ico, two thousand miles long and some hundred broad, all this our Presi 
 dent has cut off from its mother empire, and presents to us, and declares it 
 ours, till the Senate rejects it!" 
 
 "The treaty, in all that relates to the boundary of the Rio Grande, is an 
 act of unparalleled outrage on Mexico. It is the seizure of two thousand 
 miles of her territory without a word of explanation with her, and by virtue 
 of a treaty with Texas, to which she is no party." 
 
 "Having shown the effects of the treaty on the Rio Grande frontier, I 
 take up the treaty itself, and under all its aspects, and in its whole extent, 
 and assume four positions in relation to it, viz. 
 
 1. That the ratification of the treaty would be, of itself, a war between the 
 
 United States and Mexico. 
 
 2. That it would be an unjust war. 
 
 3. That it would be a war unconstitutionally made. 
 
 4. That it would be a war upon a weak and groundless pretext ." 
 
 The treaty failing, the subject at the next session was brought forward in 
 a form to obviate in some degree this objection of the Senator of Missouri. 
 The joint resolution of annexation provides that "the tem(ory properly in 
 cluded within, and rightfully belonging to, the Republic of Texas, may be 
 erected into a State, &c." But the first condition imposed upon Texas'in 
 the resolution was tin's: "Said State to be formed , subject to the adjust 
 ment by this Government of all questions of boundary that may arise with 
 other Governments.' 1 '' 
 
 Here, sir, we have a full recognition of the unsettled state of the western 
 boundary of Texas. The language is selected with caution "the territo 
 ry properly included within, and rightfully belonging to Texas,' 1 '' and this 
 is followed with a provision that all questions of boundary which may arise 
 with other governments, shall be settled by the United States and that other 
 government. These provisions can have no significancy on the supposition, 
 that the boundary mentioned by the Texan Congress is valid. Not only 
 the resolutions of annexation implied that the boundary of Texas did not 
 extend to the Rio Grande, but Mr. C. J. Ingersoll , the chairman of the 
 Committee on Foreign Affairs, who brought the subject before the House r 
 and opened the debate, gave As the fullest assurance that it did not ap 
 proach within a hundred miles of that river. His declaration is this : 
 "The territorial limits (of Texas) are marked in the configuration of this 
 continent by an Almighty hand. The stupendous deserts between the rivers 
 Nueces and Bravo (Rio Grande) are the natural boundaries between the 
 Anglo-Saxon and the Mauritanian races. There ends the valley of the 
 West. There Mexico begins. While peace is cherished, that boundary 
 will be sacred. Not till the spirit of conquest rages will the people on 
 either side molest or mix with each other." He virtually admits that we 
 shall have no right even up to the desert by virtue of annexing Texas, for 
 he speaks of buying our peace with Mexico, and obtaining the country up 
 to the great desert by the offer of money. " Although the public corres 
 pondence between the two North American republics," says he, "has be- 
 
 
 
come angry , I am happy to be authorized to assure the House, that those 
 best acquainted with the true state of things, apprehend little or no danger 
 of war the main sinew of war, money , will heal the breach and the contro 
 versy amicably." Here is a frank confession that the contemplated boun 
 dary was (he great desert, and even that could be obtained only by the pay 
 ment of money. And what has been the policy of our Government since 
 the adoption of that joint resolution ? Why, the President informed us in 
 his annual message, that he had appointed a distinguished citizen of Lou 
 isiana, and sent him to Mexico "to adjust and definitively settle all pending 
 differences between the two countries, including those of boundary be 
 tween Mexico and the State of Texas." And in his recent message, he 
 says, that Mr. Slidell "was intrusted with full powers to adjust both the 
 questions of the Texas boundary and of indemnification of our citizens." 
 
 Now, in view of all these numerous confessions, on the part of our own 
 Government, is it not perfectly preposterous in the Executive to main 
 tain that our title is "clear and unquestionable" up to the Rio Grande? 
 Have we any better claim to the country up to the bank of that river oppo 
 site Matamoras, than we have in the neighborhood of Santa Fe ? The Pre 
 sident in his late message relies upon the act of the Texan Congress, which 
 made the Rio Grande, through its whole course, the boundary, when he 
 himself, through his Secretary of the Treasury, has told us that Santa Fe, 
 on the east of that river, is included in the Republic of Mexico. 
 
 But, sir, while I am upon this subject, I wish to pay my respects to the 
 gentleman from Illinois, (Mr. DOUGLASS,) who favored us with his views 
 upon this subject yesterday. The gentleman gave us as rare a specimen of 
 advancing and retreating, of playing off and on, as we often witness. In 
 the first place, he attempted to substantiate our title to the whole country 
 east of the Rio Grande by referring to the early boundaries of Texas. Buf ; 
 after he had demonstrated that to his own satisfaction, he confessed that 
 these old boundaries, and consequently his argument founded upon them, 
 was nothing to his purpose. The question, he said, was not how the Pro 
 vince of Texas was bounded, but how the Republic of Texas was bounded. 
 In this way he yielded all arguments drawn from the boundaries prior to 
 1836; and then, to show that he had no settled principle upon the subject, 
 he returned to the question of the early boundary, and referred to the argu 
 ment of my venerable colleague, (Mr. ADAMS,) when he was Secretary of 
 State. This vacillating course, this employing and rejecting almost every 
 argument in succession, has left but little which requires any reply. There 
 are, however, a few points which demand a passing notice. The gentle 
 man told us that there were some soldiers in the revolutionary army of Texas 
 who came from the country west of the Nueces, and from this he argued 
 that all that country fell within the Republic of Texas. But does not every 
 one see the utter fallacy of this reasoning ? I presume there might have 
 been some soldiers in the Texan army from the country west of the Nueces, 
 but to every one west of that river there were, I presume, ten from the 
 country east of the Sabine. And if this fact proves that the country between 
 the Nueces and the Rio Grande is included in Texas, the same argument 
 would prove that a large section of the United States was rightfully includ 
 ed in that republic. But, sir, the question is not from what country or sec 
 tion of country the soldiers came, but over what country did they extend 
 their arms. And I say, without fear of contradiction, that they never were 
 
8 
 
 able to extend their conquests to the Rio Grande. They have at different 
 periods made attempts at conquering the country, but have always been re 
 pulsed or captured . 
 
 The gentleman has said that one member of the Texan Congress had 
 resided west of the Nueces, and hence he inferred that all that country to 
 the Rio Grande belonged to Texas. But admitting the fact to be as he has 
 stated, the conclusion does not follow. The distance fro n the Nueces to 
 the Rio Grande is some hundred and sixty miles, and even if it should be 
 admitted that a few men residing in the immediate valley of the Nueces, 
 should call themselves Texans, and consent to be governed by Texan laws, 
 this does not justify the inference that the Texans possess the whole country 
 up to the Rio Grande. It is also true that men residing east of the Rio 
 Grande are represented in the Mexican Congress, and that fact is as good for 
 them as the other is for us. 
 
 Again, the gentleman has told us that this whole country is included in 
 one of the congressional districts in Texas. The State is, I believe, divid 
 ed into two districts; but it is manifest that whatever may be the lan 
 guage of their law, it can include no territory but what is rightfully theirs. 
 Again, the gentleman says, that this country is included within one of our 
 collection districts, and is subject to our revenue laws. This statement, bor 
 rowed from the message of the President, requires great qualification. It is 
 true that a collection district has been established at Corpus Christ! , which 
 happens to be on the west side of the Nueces at its mouth. But that our 
 revenue system is extended west to the Rio Grande, is not true. And though 
 the message seems designed to give that impression, the documents submit 
 ted with the message expressly contradict it. Gen. Taylor, in his despatch 
 dated Corpus Christi, Feb. 26, 1846, informs the President that he had 
 taken every opportunity of giving the impression to the Mexicans "that the 
 Mexicans, living on this side (of the Rio Grande) will not be disturbed in 
 any way by our troops; that they will be protected in all their rights and 
 usages; and that every thing which the army may need will be purchased 
 from them at fair prices. 1 also stated that, until the matter should be final 
 ly adjusted between the two Governments, the harbor of Brazos Santiago 
 would be open to the free use of the Mexicans as heretofore. The same 
 views were impressed upon the Mexican custom-house officer at Brazos 
 Santiago by Captain Hardee, who commanded the escort which covered 
 the reconnoissance of Pradre island." 
 
 Here, Mr. Chairman, we have the authority of General Taylor for the 
 fact that the Mexicans were in possession on the east bank of the Rio Grande, 
 that Mexicans were living there, that they had the navigation of the harbor 
 of Brazos Santiago, and had a custom-house and custom-house officers 
 there. How, then, could the message declare with propriety, or even truth, 
 that our revenue laws were extended over the whole country between the 
 Nueces and the Rio Grande? Gen. Taylor further informs us, that in ap 
 proaching Point Isabel he found it in flames, and that on arriving there, he 
 learned that the "port captain, who committed the act," had made his es 
 cape, and that with the exception of two or three inoffensive Mexicans, the 
 rest had left the place for Matarnoras. This evidence is clear and conclu 
 sive that the Mexicans were in possession of the country on the east bank of 
 the Rio Grande. In fine, the Executive has long been in possession of this 
 fact . The Secretary of War ; Mr . Marcy ; in his order to Gen . Taylor, dated 
 
July 8, 1845, says: "This Department is informed that Mexico has some 
 military establishments on the east side of the Rio Grande, which are, and 
 for some time have been, in the actual occupancy of her troops." 
 
 We have then the most conclusive evidence that Mexico was in possession 
 on the left bank of the Rio Grande, having citizens living there, custom 
 houses and military posts there. What, then, becomes of the declaration 
 of the gentleman from Illinois, or the declaration in the message from which 
 he borrowed it, that we were in possession, and that our laws were extended 
 over the whole country between the Nueces and the Rio Grande ? But the 
 gentleman from Illinois has another argument, on which he places great re 
 liance; that at a certain time an armistice was concluded between the Mex 
 icans and Texans, and one provision was that the Mexican forces should 
 be withdrawn to the right bank of the Rio Grande. Now, I would gladly 
 ask that gentleman, whether he has any confidence in an argument of this 
 sort ? Does not every one know that nothing is more common in such cases 
 than to agree that the armies on both sides shall be withdrawn from the 
 scene of action ? But who ever thought before, that such an agreement for 
 the time being would settle the future boundary of the two countries? The 
 Mexican might with more propriety rely upon the fact that General Taylor 
 took his first position upon the Nueces, to prove that that river, and not the 
 Rio Grande, was the true boundary. 
 
 There is, in my apprehension, one capital defect in all the argument ad 
 duced to carry the Texan boundary west to the Rio Grande. There may 
 be, and probably are, a few persons living immediately upon the west bank 
 of the Nueces, who have acted with the Texans. They have been cut off 
 from the Valley of the Rio Grande by the wilderness and deserts which lie 
 between those two rivers, and may have regarded themselves as belonging 
 to Texas. But this, if it be admitted to the fullest extent, does not prove 
 that Texas has ever extended her laws one hundred and fifty miles far 
 ther to the Rio Grande, and over people of another race, speaking another 
 language, and owing allegiance to another government. Texas has no title 
 to herself except what she obtained by revolution, that is, by conquest and 
 possession. Did she carry her arms west to the Rio Grande? She has 
 made several attempts, and has always been defeated in each case her 
 forces have been driven back or captured. Does she hold the country west 
 of the Nueces, except perhaps a very small portion in the immediate vicin 
 ity of the river? There is not a particle of evidence that she does. Mex 
 ico being the original owner, on every principle of law, would still continue 
 to own all except what actually revolted or was conquered by Texas. 
 And as Texas never conquered the country up to the Rio Grande, and as it 
 is now, or was on the approach of General Taylor's army, inhabited by the 
 subjects of Mexico who owed allegiance to that government, and who 
 were so faithful to their own country as to burn their dwellings on the ap 
 proach of the American army, and cross the river to their own countrymen, 
 I contend that there is not a particle of proof that the whole country east 
 of the Rio Grande belonged to Texas, or belongs to the United States. 
 
 The President himself has furnished evidence that the Mexicans were in 
 possession in the valley of the Rio Grande ; and the most that can possibly 
 be said is, that the territory is in dispute. In all such cases, possession is 
 a good title as against an imperfect one. We had, therefore, by no princi 
 ple of law a right to dispossess her by arras ; pending the controversy; and 
 
10 
 
 especially as she was willing to receive a special minister to treat expressly 
 upon this subject of boundary. The advance of our army, therefore, was 
 an act of aggression. We have encroached upon territory where she had 
 the possession, and claimed to have a perfect title. Let a case like this be 
 submitted to any court of justice, and the verdict would be rendered against 
 
 us. 
 
 I will even go farther. If our title were the best, or we were m posses 
 sion up to the banks of the Rio Grande, even then we should be the ag 
 gressors, according to General Taylor's own account. In his despatch of 
 the 15th of April, he says that he blocked up the Rio Grande, and stopped 
 all supplies for Matamoras. This was the first act of aggression. For at 
 that time it is not pretended that the Mexicans had made any attack upon 
 our troops. Col. Cross had been missing for a few days, but the worst ap 
 prehension was that he might have been murdered by some " banditti 
 known to be in the neighborhood." And what provocation had General 
 Taylor for blockading Matamoras, and cutting off the supplies for the Mex 
 ican army ? He tells us that he had received a despatch from General Am- 
 pudia, summoning him to withdraw his force within twenty-four hours, 
 and to fall back beyond the Nueces. Was this summons an act of hostili 
 ty? It was not so regarded by General Taylor, for in his note in reply , he 
 says the responsibility will rest upon those " who rashly commence hostili 
 ties." So, according to his own confession, before the Mexicans had com 
 menced hostilities, he blockaded their town and cut off their supplies. Does 
 not this make us the aggressors? Have we in time of peace a right to 
 blockade the Mexican ports, and so cut off supplies from their army ? This 
 is not a threat, but an act of hostility. We were not only the aggressors in 
 invading a country in possession of Mexico, but we were guilty of the first 
 overt act. And I should like to be told, even if the Rio Grande w^re the 
 true boundary, whether the Mexicans were not justified in crossing the river 
 to cut off General Taylor's supplies, after he had blockaded the port and cut 
 off theirs? The aggression was on our part. We commenced hostilities. 
 
 [Mr. JONES, of Georgia. 1 wish to ask the gentleman from Massachu 
 setts, whether he has any authority for saying that the Mexicans crossed the 
 river simply to cut off General Taylor's supplies.] 
 
 I will not higgle with the gentleman from Georgia about terms. I sup 
 pose that General Arista had sent his troops across the river to oppose Gen 
 eral Taylor, by throwing themselves between him and his supplies. I re 
 gard Arista's movement as a hostile one, brought on by the hostile move 
 ments of our own troops. Our forces had blockaded Matamoras, and cut 
 off the supplies from the Mexican army; and the Mexicans, in return, at 
 tempted to intercept our supplies. Both were acts of hostility. I knowna 
 difference between attacking the army itself, and cutting off' their provisions 
 and munitions of war. It is as much an act of hostility to cut off an 
 army by famine as by the sword. Or, if gentlemen regard nothing as war 
 but an actual collision of forces, we have no evidence that the Mexicans 
 made the first attack. General Taylor in his despatch does not pretend it. 
 
 From the view I have taken of this whole subject, it appears to me that 
 we have been the aggressors. We annexed Texas to this Union. But the 
 Texas we annexed was limited in her territory to the Nueces, or that im 
 mediate vicinity. Though she had made several attempts to extend her 
 territory by arms to the Rio Grande, she had always been unsuccessful. 
 
11 
 
 The whole country east of the Rio Grande to the Nueces, or certainly to 
 the desert, remained in the hands of the Mexicans. They had settlements 
 in the territory ; they had military posts there, and custom-houses, which 
 we have always acknowledged as belonging to Mexico, by paying duties 
 there to. the Mexican government. Though Texas had laid some claim to 
 the territory, Mexico was in possession, and we had always acknowledged 
 it. And yet the President of the United States, without authority of 
 law, sends our army to dispossess the Mexicans by taking possession of 
 the territory, and planting our standard on the banks of the Rio Grande 
 the very extreme point to which the most sanguine ever laid claim. 
 General Taylor had, also, by the direction of the Executive, erected a 
 battery opposite Matamoras, with his guns pointing into the town, as 
 if to awe them into submission. This can be regarded in no other 
 light than an act of aggression. So impatient was the Executive to dis 
 possess the Mexicans, and take possession of the, whole country between 
 the Nueces and the Rio Grande, that as early as June, 115, before 
 annexation had been consummated, Mr. Bancroft, the acting Secretary of 
 War, in his instructions to General Taylor, informed him that his " ulti 
 mate destination" was the Rio Grande. This is followed up by an. 
 order of August 23d, 1845, in which we find the following : u Should 
 Mexico assemble a large body of troops on the Rio Grande, and cross it 
 with a considerable force, such a movement must be regarded as an invasion, 
 of the United States, and the commencement of hostilities." In an order 
 of August 30th, 1845, the Secretary of War goes further, and says : u An 
 attempt to cross the river with a large force, will be considered by the Pres 
 ident as the commencement of hostilities. There may be other acts on the 
 part of Mexico which would put an end to the relations of peace between 
 that Republic and the United States. In case of war, either declared or 
 made manifest by hostile acts, your main object will be the protection of 
 Texas; but the pursuit of this object will not necessarily confine your ac 
 tion within the territory of Texas. Mexico having thus commenced hos 
 tilities, you may, in your discretion, should you have sufficient force and 
 be in a condition to do so, cross the Rio Grande, disperse or capture the 
 forces assembling to invade Texas , defeat the junction of troops uniting 
 for that purpose, drive them from their positions on cither side of that river, 
 and, if deemed practicable and expedient, take and hold possession of 
 Matamoras and other places in the country. I scarcely need to say that 
 enterprises of this kind are only to be ventured on under circumstances pre 
 senting a fair prospect of success." 
 
 Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that no man can read these orders, and 
 review the whole course of the President, without perceiving that the Ex 
 ecutive was seeking an occasion against Mexico using every means in his 
 power, and means which by the Constitution he did not possess, to bring 
 on a war with that Republic. And after these numerous acts of aggression, 
 the President has the effrontery to tell us in his late message, that " war 
 exists, and notwithstanding all our efforts to avoid it, and exists by the acts 
 cf Mexico herself." 
 
 Sir, I regard this declaration as utterly untrue. And as it was incorporated 
 into the bill and preamble, I could not vote for it. I believed the preamble 
 to be false, and was satisfied that it was connected with the bill for the pur 
 pose of shielding the President. I believe that this recognition of existing- 
 
12 
 
 war was connected with the supplies for the array, for the purpose of com 
 mitting as many as possible to this base war of conquest, and to this gross 
 encroachment upon the Constitution. Regarding the preamble as false, 
 and the war inexpedient, and one got up for the purpose of conquest, I 
 could not, as a faithful representative of the people, give it my support. I 
 believe I should have been false to truth, to justice, and to the best inter 
 ests of my country, if I had given my sanction to such a measure. 
 
 The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. DOUGLASS) has pronounced everyone 
 a hypocrite, a traitor, and a coward, who voted against the bill, and who 
 charged the Executive as the aggressor in this case. But, sir, I shall not 
 be deterred from what I consider to be my duty by any such intimidation, 
 I come not here to bow to Executive dictation, or to register the edict of 
 James K. Polk, or any other President. I have no ambitious ends to 
 answer no patronage to seek no high political aspirations to gratify; and 
 hence shall not be very solicitous of courting Executive favor, or flattering 
 the morbid sensibility of noisy and restless demagogues. But although 
 that gentleman may brand us as cowards, I will assure him that neither 
 the strength of his voice, nor the violence of his gesticulations, nor the 
 spasmodic emotions of his patriotism, will in the slightest degree alarm me. 
 The gentleman may 
 
 " Shake his ambrosial locks, and give the nod," 
 
 and some gentlemen may, perhaps, tremble in his presence; but I shall 
 remain unawed. Yes, he may 
 
 " Assume the god, 
 
 Affect to nod, 
 
 And seem to shake the spheres;" 
 
 but he will not shake my convictions of duty, or my determination to obey 
 them . 
 
 The gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. THURMAN,) who addressed the com 
 mittee yesterday, read numerous extracts from the federal papers, published 
 during the late war with England. He has produced these extracts with 
 an air of triumph, as if he had demolished his colleague at a blow, be 
 cause that gentleman had applied to the present war some of the epithets 
 which had been applied to the war of 1812. But granting all that the 
 gentleman has said, what does it prove? His colleague had denounced 
 the present war and its authors; and he meets it by saying that the war of 
 1812 was denounced. He does not attempt to show that the present war 
 is just, or that the Executive has not transcended his powers, but contents 
 himself with a low attempt to create a popular prejudice against his col 
 league. If he felt competent to meet the arguments of his colleague, 
 why did he not do it? Why depend upon the old cry of Federalism ? I 
 do not know the source whence the gentleman obtained his " elegant ex 
 tracts," but it is suggested by gentlemen around me, that he might have 
 obtained them from his Democratic friend now at the head of one of the 
 departments, who was formerly so zealous a Federalist, that he is said to 
 have remarked, that if he thought he had one drop of Democratic blood ia 
 his veins, he would apply the lancet and let it out. 
 
 While the gentleman was denouncing the '-immortal fourteen," and 
 representing them as enemies of their country; he ought to have recollected 
 
13 
 
 that two of them from his own State had proved their courage and their 
 patriotism by fighting the battles of their country; and some of the rest of 
 that number have seen more of the tented field, I presume, than that gen 
 tleman himself. 
 
 As to his attack upon the Federal party, in 1812, 1 have nothing to say. 
 They need no defence from me. They numbered in their ranks some of 
 the wisest statesmen and firmest patriots of the country. If they erred, I 
 am not responsible for their errors, having never belonged to that party. 
 Though young at that period, my feelings were enlisted on the other side in 
 politics. 
 
 [Mr. SIMS, of South Carolina, made some inquiry about the conduct of 
 the Federalists at that period.] 
 
 1 should be pleased to hear the gentleman, but my time will not per 
 mit. It is rare that we, upon this side of the house, can obtain the floor; 
 and I have no time to be catechised by the gentlemen on the other side; they 
 will have their turn hereafter. But if the gentleman from South Carolina 
 is troubled about threats of disunion,! will ask him what he thinks of more 
 modern threats of nullification and disunion in another quarter. He may 
 perhaps understand that better. 
 
 But we are charged with withholding succor from our gallant little army in 
 the hour of its peril with being indifferent to its present alarming condi 
 tion. This charge, sir, is founded upon an entire misrepresentation of the 
 facts in the case. Does any person believe that any of the troops, raised by 
 virtue of our act of war, can reach the Rio Grande before the fate of our 
 army will be decided for good or for evil ? The collision between our 
 forces and those of Mexico took place on the 24th of April, and the subject 
 was brought before us on the llth of May, seventeen days after the event. 
 We could not expect that the subject would be disposed of here under two 
 or three days, and the intelligence of our action could not reach General 
 Taylor before the last of May, some thirty-five days after the first collision. 
 It is also manifest that volunteers could not be raised, organized, and sent to 
 the scene of action before the middle of June. Some six or eight weeks 
 must elapse before the troops, raised by our act, could reach General Tay 
 lor's camp. How, then, can it be pretended that our action could have any 
 reference to the immediate condition of our army? From the facts , submit 
 ted by General Taylor, it appears to be certain that the fate of his army 
 must be decided for weal or for woe within a short time. The Command 
 ing General also informs us that he had, in virtue of authority reposed in 
 him, called upon the States of Texas and Louisiana for 5,000 men ; and 
 he had authority to call upon several other States. The call for these 
 troops was made on the 26th of April, and would reach the authorities of 
 those States ten or twelve days before the intelligence of the collision 
 reached us. These troops would be sent irrespective of any action by this 
 body, and it is upon them and others, which he was authorized to call for, 
 that General Taylor must depend. It is not true, therefore, that the fate 
 of oiir army depended upon any action of ours. Our action had reference, 
 not to the immediate fate of the army, but to the future operation of that 
 army. It was a question not of immediate succor to our own troops, but 
 of the conquest of Mexico. This was in fact the question which the ma- 
 I jority pressed upon the House; and if our army should have suffered by 
 the defeat of that bill, the responsibility would have rested upon those who_, 
 
14 
 
 to gain party ends, were pleased to connect the question of supplies with 
 gross falsehoods, and a war of conquest and aggrandizement. 
 
 But we are told, by gentlemen on this floor, that it is treason to oppose the 
 Government in time of war. Sir, I have no sympathy with that dastard 
 ly sentiment. What ! has it come to this, that a weak or wicked Execu 
 tive may usurp power, and involve the nation in an unjust war, and an 
 unscrupulous majority may press through the House, without debate, a bill 
 sanctioning that iniquitous procedure, and then all mouths must be closed 
 on the subject? Is this the liberty and the only liberty granted to the 
 representatives of a free people ? Is it treason to point out the faults of a 
 corrupt Administration? Are we to submit in all things to the will of the 
 President? If so, we have nothing left of liberty but the name. We are 
 already under a despotism. Such doctrines may answer for corrupt syco 
 phants, who bow to the Executive for place, but they are unworthy of free 
 men. I protest against all such corrupt and corrupting sentiments. Trea 
 son to speak against the measures of the Administration, because we are at 
 war ! Sir, I have from my earliest boyhood had a profound veneration for 
 the Earl of Chatham, arising from the manly course he pursued in the 
 English Parliament in pleading the cause of America. He spake freely of 
 the impolicy and the injustice of the mother country towards the Colonies. 
 He commenced his patriotic course before the war began, but he did not 
 cease with the breaking out of hostilities. He plead for America; he ex 
 posed the Administration; he denounced their measures as infamous, while 
 the war was in progress. When opposing the administration, he employed 
 language like this : c< Sir, / rejoice that America has resisted; three mil 
 lions of people so dead to all feelings of liberty, as voluntarily to submit to 
 be slaves, would be fit instruments to make slaves of all the rest." " The 
 Americans have been wonged; they have been driven to madness by in 
 justice" " If I were an American, as lam an Englishman, while a 
 foreign troop was landed in my country,! never would lay down my arms 
 NEVER, NEVER, NEVER! I solemnly call upon your lordships, and 
 upon every order of men in the state, to stamp upon this infamous proce 
 dure the indelible stigma of public abhorrence." Such was the language 
 of the friends of liberty on the floor of Parliament; and that body, even 
 under that tyrannic administration , had not the hardihood to attempt to 
 suppress it. The last act of his life was an effort in behalf of the Co 
 lonies. The opposition in Parliament have always spoken with freedom 
 in peace and in war. This is English liberty. Pitt, and Barre, and 
 Burke, and all the leaders of the opposition, even at that day, were too en 
 lightened, had too ardent a love of liberty, to subscribe to the degrading and 
 cowardly sentiment which we hear proclaimed upon this floor, in the hall 
 of an American Congress. 
 
 I have no boasts to make of my devotion to my country. I am a citi 
 zen of this country. This is the land of my birth. My lot is cast in the 
 United States, and my fortune is connected with hers. When she is right, 
 I will sustain her; and if I believe her to be in the wrong, I will not give 
 her up, but will point out her errors, and do all in my power to bring her 
 into the right; so that, if war must come, and our young men must be 
 offered on the altar of our country, we may safely commend them to the 
 God of battles to that Being who rules in the armies of heaven and among 
 the inhabitants of the earth. I desire the prosperity of my country, and 
 
15 
 
 nothing but my devotion to her interest, and to the higher principles of 
 moral rectitude, induced me to separate from those with whom I have 
 generally acted. I could not consent to involve my country in a war which 
 I believe to be unnecessary and unjust a war of conquest brought about 
 by ambitious men to answer personal and party purposes. 
 
 Before I conclude my remarks, I must notice another subject closely con 
 nected with this, and one out of which our present difficulties have grown. 
 Gentlemen with whom I have acted on this floor will bear me witness, that 
 I have not been in the habit of going out of my way to attack the institu 
 tions of the South . Though I have always regarded slavery as an evil 
 a political and moral wrong having no power over it in the States, I have 
 been disposed to leave it with those who have it in their keeping to manage, 
 according to their own sense of propriety. But, when gentlemen throw 
 this subject in my path when they bring it up here for action, and ask me 
 to give a vote upon it, I will speak and act freely I will not give it my 
 countenance it shall not be extended by me. This war is one^of the first 
 fruits of the annexation of Texas. And that measure was got up and con 
 summated to extend and perpetuate slavery. Mr. Calhoun, in the corres 
 pondence submitted with the treaty, avowed this to be the primary object 
 of annexation. I opposed it then, and I voted against the war because its 
 object is to extend, not the "area of freedom," but the area of bondage. 
 And I wish to commend this subject specially to the gentleman from Illi 
 nois, whose bosom glows with such ardent patriotism, that he is willing to 
 spill rivers of blood in this war with Mexico. That gentleman was bora 
 in a State where the blight of slavery was never known, and his residence 
 is now in a free State. All his associations, we may suppose, have been in 
 favor of freedom , and yet he is willing to aid in riveting fellers upon others 
 now as free as himself. Yes, Mr. Chairman, though he professes an ardent 
 love of liberty, and would have us believe that his bosom was warmed by 
 the very fires of patriotism, he is desirous of spreading the curse of slavery 
 over a large section of country where it is now unknown . He is so devoted 
 to his country, and so in love with her institutions, that he is willing- to 
 sustain, with blood and treasure, an institution at war with the first princi 
 ples of a republican government liberty and equality. He denounces 
 Mexico as an uncivilized and barbarous power, and still he aspires to be a 
 leader in a policy designed to extend and perpetuate slavery, and to plant 
 on the soil of Mexico an institution which she, barbaious as she is, and 
 corrupt as the gentleman would represent her to be, would not permit to 
 pollute her soil. This is the position of the gentleman who denounces all 
 as traitors who will not bow to the dictation of the majority on this floor. 
 
 He may occupy that position, but I confess that I do not covet it. I 
 agree with the late Whig candidate for the Presidency, Mr. Clay, "that all 
 wars are to be regarded as great calamities, to be avoided if possible; and 
 that honorable peace is the wisest and truest policy for this country." I 
 agree with him, also, that in a war for conquest, and especially in a war to 
 extend and perpetuate slavery, we should stand disgraced in the eyes of the 
 civilized world. In such a war, I fear that victory itself would prove a 
 defeat, and that a triumph over our enemies in foreign countries, would 
 eventuate in the destruction of our free institutions at home. War under 
 any circumstance is a great calamity. But when it is waged with 
 out an adequate cause when it is carried on to gratify an inordinate am- 
 
16 
 
 -bition, or an unholy spirit of conquest, it is more than a'calamity it is a 
 crime of the deepest dye. And the administration which shall use the 
 power reposed in it for good, for such wicked purposes, merits and justly 
 merits public execration. Let those in power look well to it that this ex 
 ecration does not fall upon their heads. They may think it a light thing, 
 but let them remember that blood shed for unrighteous purposes will cry 
 from the ground to him " who bringeth the princes to nothing, and who 
 taketh up the isles as a very little thing."