Page images
PDF

Records, we pronounce every word of all this statement utterly without foundation in fact. The country where our army was found when the first blood was shed, was not American soil. It was in the peaceable possession and actual occupancy of Mexico, and under her undisputed jurisdiction, as it had always been since she was a nation, and as Spain had possessed and governed it before her. If the United States once preferred a claim, as against Spain, to the Rio del Norte as the boundary of French Louisiana, the pretension was yielded by solemn treaty with that power in 1819. Thus the Sabine was settled as the boundary of our possessions in that direction, and the Republic of Mexico became the undisputed mistress of the country from that river westward. Texas with Coahuila was a State of the Mexican Confederation, and the indisputable limit of Texas in the south-west was the Nueces. Texas revolted and established her independence; and when she annexed herself to the United States, the Nueces was still her boundary, except that she had so far encroached on the neighboring loyal State of Tamaulipas, as to have a small settlement on the right bank of that river, over which she exercised jurisdiction. Thus far the just claim of Texas may go, and no farther. Beyond Corpus Christi, or San Patricio, in that direction, she had neither possession nor jurisdiction. Thence began a desert, a hundred and twenty miles wide, and reaching to within a few miles of the Rio Grande, where was a long established Mexican population, under undisputed Mexican jurisdiction. Here it was the first blood was shed in this war. The claim which Texas asserted to the whole of this country between the rivers Nueces and del Norte, and that which the President has set up after her example, rest on a title which is no better than a base and impudent forgery. It is a naked paper title in the shape of legislative enactments, made by the party setting up the claim, and having not a shadow of right to stand upon. A man could as well make himself a deed of his neighbor's farm, and establish a right under it in a court of justice. The most distinguished men of the President's own party have derided and denounced this claim of title: Benton, Wright, Woodbury, have done so. The President himself has

repudiated the main ground of the claim set up by Texas—her Legislative Act of 1836, declaring the Rio Grande to be her boundary in its whole extent; for this would give her a large part of New Mexico, and he has, by the most unequivocal acts, treated this part of her claim with contempt. Though it be true, therefore, that the President asserted a claim for a boundary on the Rio Grande, when this war was begun, yet it was only a claim, and had not a shadow of truth and justice to support it. The boundary between the State of Texas and the Republic of Mexico was undefined, and so considered and left by Congress in the Act of Annexation. It was no further undefined and in dispute, however, than as Texas had laid the foundation of a claim to some territory on and adjacent to the right bank of the Nueces, by having established and exercised actual jurisdiction over some small settlements along there. But because this left the President at liberty to plant one foot on the Nueces, it did not authorize him to plant the other on the Bravo, and so claim the whole country embraced in his colossal stride. Considering the hold which Texas has acquired on the Mexican side of the Nueces, and looking at the peculiar topography of the country, the true boundary separating the two countries, would be the broad desert between the two rivers, the line of which might properly run through its centre. We have not a doubt that Mexico would have consented to this, if it had been proposed or suggested. In effect, indeed, this is what she herself proposed. She offered to have the uninhabited desert preserved forever as a bounda, and barrier, to secure each country from the other. She knew very well that peace could never be maintained, if the Anglo-Saxon was to be planted on one side of a narrow stream like the Rio del Norte, from which he could look into the windows of the Mexican on the opposite side; and she refused to make that river the boundary. Besides, though the real value of the country was not great, yet there were Mexican citizens who had their home on the left bank of that river, and she nobly declared that “it was not for the Mexican government to weigh the price of the attachment of the citizen to the soil on which he is born.” “As to these Mexicans, can a government go and sell them like cattle!” We do not hesitate to say that the claim of title, or right, asserted by the President to the entire tract between the Nueces and the Bravo, was a baseless pretension, set up to cover a foregone resolution, right or wrong, to make it a part of the territory of the United States. And the demand, therefore, at the conferences near Chapultepec, of “a boundary on the Rio Grande,” as an ultimatum, notwithstanding the offer of Mexico to make the desert, intermediate the two rivers, in effect, the frontier of the two countries, was, in truth, like those for California and New Mexico, a naked demand for the further dismemberment still of Mexico, to be assented to by that power, under the penalty of the immediate resumption and prosecution of the war against her. We have said, that from the termination of the conferences between Mr. Trist and the Mexican Commissioners, the war became explicitly and without disguise a war for the Conquest and Dismemberment of Mexico. We say that Conquest and Dismemberment became the sole object of the war. We have shown precisely what particular portions of the Mexican dominions were demanded to be ceded to the United States, and that, in every instance, these were naked demands, without any just pretence of right or title, and without any excuse or apology, to be found in any remaining cause of complaint against Mexico, or any unsatisfied claims upon her for indemnity, existing when the war commenced, or to which the war could have any just relation. We have shown how every other demand of the American Commissioner, except only his naked demands for the dismemberment of the Mexican empire, was met by the most ample offers and concessions on the part of the Mexican Commissioners, leaving, in very truth, nothing else but those demands for dismemberment for the war to stand on. It is only necessary to add here, that there were just two things embraced in the Counter-Project of a treaty presented by the Mexican Commissioners, which would have been deemed inadmissible by Mr. Trist, and which, there cannot be a doubt, would have been adjusted without

difficulty, if Mr. Trist's demands for territory had not put an end to all hopes of peace. Mexico asked for indemnity to her citizens for injuries sustained from our troops in the prosecution of the war; and she wished to levy duties on goods found in her ports, which had been imported under the authority of the President, and had paid duties into his military chest. The President makes the most of these objectionable claims, in his Message, calling them a part of the Mexican ultimatum, and forgetting entirely that the Mexican Commissioners, in presenting their Counter-Project, referred to them expressly as matters of “minor moment,” which could occasion no serious difficulty. It is certain that the negotiations for peace did not fail on account of these matters of “minor moment,” but that they did fail solely on the ground of the naked demands of our Commissioner, as the President’s ultimatum, for the dismemberment of the Mexican empire. Let it be observed, then—let the people of this abused country understand—that it was upon such an issue as we have here demonstrated—upon the President's demands and ultimatum, for the dismemberment of Mexico, and upon that issue only— that this war was begun de novo, after the breaking up of the conferences near Chapultepec. Upon this Issue of Dismemberment, the awful battle of El Molino del Rey was fought. Upon this Issue of Dismemberment, the terrible conflict at Chapultepec was waged, and the murderous affairs at the gates of Belen and San Cosme were enacted. Upon this Issue of Dismemberment, the proud capital of the enemy was entered, sword in hand, and the colors of the United States hoisted on the National Palace. Wonderful achievements all—brilliant and glorious feats of arms— if only they had been exhibited in a cause where national justice and honor, and human rights and human liberty, were to be defended ! But every blow was struck— every life sacrificed—every gaping and hideous wound inflicted—upon this naked Issue of Dismemberment! Upwards of sixteen hundred gallant American citizens and noble spirits—and among them some of the most valued in the land—were struck down in these battles alone; and of the enemy, whole hecatombs were sacrificed; all, all, upon this naked Issue of Dismemberment Mexico would not consent to dismemberment, for a consideration in money, and so the war was begun de noro, and prosecuted at the cost of such a horrible amount of human sacrifice. We are already beyond the limits of the proper space allotted for this article, and we must hasten to a conclusion, before we have half finished what we would have said about the President's Message and the War. The Message shows us plainly enough what perplexity the President has suffered, since he has found, what all considerate and wise men understood before, that Mexico is no nearer submitting to his demand for her dismemberment, now that her capital has fallen, than she was before. Let the country ponder well what he has finally brought his courage up to propose as the future policy to be pursued. Instead of moderating his demands, he actually proposes to enlarge them. He now demands Lower California with the rest. He now calls upon Congress to aid him, by legislative acts and ample military supplies, in appropriating permanently to ourselves, and without any reference to Mexican consent, both the Californias, the whole of New Mexico, and the tract between the Nueces and Bravo. Of course, they can only be appropriated as countries conquered in war. And we are not to content ourselves'with taking, and governing, and defending these countries, but we must still prosecute the war, “with increased energy and power in the cital parts of the enemy’s country.” We must hold her other towns and provinces, so far as already overpowered, and as many more as we can yet conquer, by military occupation, and we must try to feed our armies on the substance of the Mexican people. And all this we must do, in order to compel Mexico to cease her resistance to us, and consent

and submit—as a lamb submits to the slaughter—to the enforced and enlarged dismemberment of her empire, which we are resolved to complete and execute. All that is asked of her is, that she shall allow us, without gainsaying or resistance, to appropriate to ourselves, including Texas, only a little more than half of her territorial empire; we generously consenting that, for the present, she shall keep what is left. She has offered us enough for ample indemnity; but she must give us the rest, according to our demands, or suffer the horrors of an eternal war in the cital parts of her country ! What will Congress do on this great theme and subject 2 Near the close of tha last session the Whigs in both Houses— in the Senate, on the motion of Mr. BERRIEN, from the South ; in the House, on the motion of Mr. WINTHRop, from the North —voted in solid column, with only one nominal exception in each House, for restricting the Executive in the conduct of the war, so that it should not be prosecuted for the dismemberment of Mexico. The Whigs in the present Congress will not forget this example. Can there be a sane man in Congress, or in the country, who has the true honor and the safety of the country at heart, and is governed by any notions of common justice, who will not say, with Texas yielded and the vexed question of Annexation at rest; with the broad desert between the Nueces and the Bravo for a boundary and frontier separating Texas from Mexico; and with five degrees, or 100,000 square miles, of the territory of Upper California for our indemnity, including the finest harbor and bay in that part of the Pacific ; that we ought to have peace with Mexico 2 God help this infatuated country, if peace may not be embraced and secured on the offer of such terms as these ! D. D. B.

[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

THE proceedings of the Convention at Chicago in July last, and the hope founded upon them of an early and favorable action of Congress on the subject of river and harbor improvements, give a new interest to what has heretofore been said and written, touching the extent of the power of Congress in making the desired appropriations. In this connection, several of the doctrines advanced by Mr. Calhoun, in his Report to the Senate on the Memorial of the Memphis Convention, hold a conspicuous place; and, from the character of their author, as well as the novelty and importance of the principles presented, are worthy of a special examination. Such an examination we propose to give, prefacing what we may offer with a brief abstract of so much of the Report as comes within my purpose.

Convinced of the importance of the navigation of the Mississippi and its great tributaries, and of the indispensable necessity of removing the obstructions to them, Mr. Calhoun raises the inquiry, by whom these obstructions shall be removed. “Who,” he asks, “has the power, and whose duty is it, to improve the navigation of the Mississippi and its great tributaries 2" He answers: “It is certainly not that of individuals. Its improvement is beyond their means and power. Nor is it that of the several States bordering on its navigable waters: it is also beyond their means and power, acting separately. Nor can it be done by their joint action. There are sixteen States, and two Territories that soon will be States, lying either wholly or partly within the valley of the Mississippi, and there is still ample space for several more. These all have a common interest in its commerce. Their united and joint action would be requisite for the improvement of its navigation. But the only means by

WOL. I., NO, I, NEW SERIES. 2

which that could be obtained is expressly prohibited by the 10th section of the 1st article of the Constitution, which provides that “No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation.' But if neither individuals nor States, acting separately or jointly, have the power to improve its navigation, it must belong to the Federal Government, if the power exists at all, as there is no other agency or authority, in our system of government, by which it could be exercised. But if it does, it must be comprised among the expressly granted or enumerated powers, or among those necessary and proper to carry them into effect; as under the one or the other all the powers belonging to it are to be found; and thus the question is presented for consideration—is it to be found in either ?” Whether the needful power be found in either the express or implied powers, the Report proceeds to consider; and after denying that it is to be found in the clause giving to Congress the power “to levy and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,” or that it is to be found in the category of necessarily implied powers, it expresses the opinion, “after full and ma- ture consideration of the subject,” that it is to be found in the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States,” and more specifically, in that to regulate it among the States. After expressing this opinion of the existence and origin of the power, the Report goes on to explain what the Committee “believe to be the nature and extent of the power;” and, on this point, the Committee are of opinion that the words “among the States’ restrict the power to the regulation of the commerce of the States with each other, as separate or dis

all, all, upon this naked Issue of Dismemberment Mexico would not consent to dismemberment, for a consideration in money, and so the war was begun de noro, and prosecuted at the cost of such a horrible amount of human sacrifice. We are already beyond the limits of the proper space allotted for this article, and we must hasten to a conclusion, before we have half finished what we would have said about the President's Message and the War. The Message shows us plainly enough what perplexity the President has suffered, since he has found, what all considerate and wise men understood before, that Mexico is no nearer submitting to his demand for her dismemberment, now that her capital has fallen, than she was before. Let the country ponder well what he has finally brought his courage up to propose as the future policy to be pursued. Instead of moderating his demands, he actually proposes to enlarge them. He now demands Lower California with the rest. He now calls upon Congress to aid him, by legislative acts and ample military supplies, in appropriating permanently to ourselves, and without any reference to Mexican consent, both the Californias, the whole of New Mexico, and the tract between the Nueces and Bravo. Of course, they can only be appropriated as countries conquered in war. And we are not to content ourselves'with taking, and governing, and defending these countries, but we must still prosecute the war, “with increased energy and power in the cital parts of the enemy's country.” We must hold her other towns and provinces, so far as already overpowered, and as many more as we can yet conquer, by military occupation, and we must try to feed our armies on the substance of the Mexican people. And all this we must do, in order to compel Mexico to cease her resistance to us, and consent

and submit—as a lamb submits to the slaughter—to the enforced and enlarged dismemberment of her empire, which we are resolved to complete and execute. All that is asked of her is, that she shall allow us, without gainsaying or resistance, to appropriate to ourselves, including Texas, only a little more than half of her territorial empire; we generously consenting that, for the present, she shall keep what is left. She has offered us enough for ample indemnity; but she must give us the rest, according to our demands, or suffer the horrors of an eternal war in the rital parts of her country ! What will Congress do on this great theme and subject 2 Near the close of the last session the Whigs in both Houses— in the Senate, on the motion of Mr. BERRIEN, from the South ; in the House, on the motion of Mr. WINTHRop, from the North —voted in solid column, with only one nominal exception in each House, for restricting the Executive in the conduct of the war, so that it should not be prosecuted for the dismemberment of Mexico. The Whigs in the present Congress will not forget this example. Can there be a sane man in Congress, or in the country, who has the true honor and the safety of the country at heart, and is governed by any notions of common justice, who will not say, with Texas yielded and the vexed question of Annexation at rest; with the broad desert between the Nueces and the Bravo for a boundary and frontier separating Texas from Mexico; and with five degrees, or 100,000 square miles, of the territory of Upper California for our indemnity, including the finest harbor and bay in that part of the Pacific ; that we ought to have peace with Mexico? God help this infatuated country, if peace may not be embraced and secured on the offer of such terms as these ! D. D. B.

« PreviousContinue »