It is an indisputable fact, that the annexation of Texas, then at war with Mexico, was tantamount to a declaration of war, and that the comparative weakness of Mexico alone prevented its Government from considering it as such.
Under these circumstances, it was evidently the duty of the United States to use every means to soothe and conciliate the Mexicans, and to wait with patience for an unconditional recognition of the independence of Texas, till the feelings excited by our aggression had subsided.
It has been shown that after Mexico had resorted, as a substitute for war, to the harmless suspension of the ordinary diplomatic intercourse, the attempt to make it retract that measure, before any negotiations for the restoration of harmony between the two countries should be entered into, was neither countenanced by the acknowledged law of nations, nor necessary for any useful purpose, nor consistent with a proper and just sense of the relative position in which the aggressive measure of the United States had placed the two countries. But that the refusal of Mexico to submit to that additional contumely, should have been considered as an insult to the United States, betrays the pride of power, rather than a just sense of what is due to the true dignity and honor of this nation.
It has been demonstrated, that the republic of Texas had not a shadow of right to the territory adjacent to the left bank of the lower portion of the Rio Norte; that though she claimed, she never had actually exercised jurisdiction over any portion of it; that the Mexicans were the sole inhabitants; and in actual possession of thatdistrict; that therefore its forcible occupation by the army of the United States was, according to the acknowledged law of nations, as well as in fact, an act of open hostility and war: that the resistance of the Mexicans to that invasion was legitimate; and that therefore the war was unprovoked by them, and commenced by the United States.
If any doubt should remain of the correctness of these statements, let them be tested by the divine and undeniable precept, "Do unto others as you would be done by."
If at this moment France was to contract a treaty of defensive and offensive alliance with Mexico, a treaty taking effect immediately, and pending the war between the United States and Mexico, and binding herself to defend it with all her forces against any and every other Power, would not the United States at once consider such a treaty as a declaration of war against them?
If, in lieu of declaring war against Great Britain, in the year 1812, the United States had only suspended the ordinary diplomatic relations between the two countries; and Great Britain had declared that she would not enter into any negotiation for the settlement of all the subjects of difference between the two countries, unless the United States should, as a preliminary condition, restore those relations; would not this have been considered as a most insolent demand, and to which the United States never would submit?
If the United States were, and had been for more than a century, in possession of a tract of country, exclusively inhabited and governed by them, disturbed only by the occasional forays of an enemy; would they not consider the forcible military invasion and occupation of such a district by a third Power, as open and unprovoked war, commenced against them? And could their resistance to the invasion render them liable to the imputation of having themselves commenced the war?
Yet it would seem as if the splendid and almost romantic successes of the American arms had, for a while, made the people of the United States deaf to any other consideration than an enthusiastic and exclusive love of military glory; as if, forgetting the origin of the war, and with an entire disregard for the dictates of justice, they thought that those successes gave the nation a right to dismember Mexico, and to appropriate to themselves that which did not belong to them.
But I do not despair, for I have faith in our institutions and inthe people; and I will now ask them whether this was their mission? and whether they were placed by Providence on this continent for the purpose of cultivating false glory, and of sinking to the level of those vulgar conquerors who have at all times desolated the earth.
The people of the United States have been placed by Providence in a position never before enjoyed by any other nation. They are possessed of a most extensive territory, with a very fertile soil, a variety of climates and productions, and a capacity of sustaining a population greater, in proportion to its extent, than any other territory of the same size on the face of the globe.
By a concourse of various circumstances, they found themselves, at the epoch of their independence, in the full enjoyment of religious, civil, and political liberty, entirely free from any hereditary monopoly of wealth or power. The people at large were in full and quiet possession of all those natural rights, for which the people of other countries have for a long time contended, and still do contend. They were, and you still are the supreme sovereigns, acknowledged as such by all. For the proper exercise of these uncontrolled powers and privileges, you are responsible to posterity, to the world at large, and to the Almighty Being who has poured on you such unparalleled blessings.
Your mission is, to improve the state of the world, to be the "Model Republic," to show that men are capable of governing themselves, and that this simple and natural form of government is that also which confers most happiness on all, is productive of the greatest development of the intellectual faculties, above all, that which is attended with the highest standard of private and political virtue and morality.
Your forefathers, the founders of the Republic, imbued with a deep feeling of their rights and duties, did not deviate from those principles. The sound sense, the wisdom, the probity, the respect for public faith, with which the internal concerns of the nation were managed, made our institutions an object of general admiration. Here, for the first time, was the experiment attempted withany prospect of success, and on a large scale, of a Representative Democratic Republic. If it failed, the last hope of the friends of mankind was lost or indefinitely postponed; and the eyes of the world were turned towards you. Whenever real, or pretended apprehensions of the imminent danger of trusting the people at large with power, were expressed, the answer ever was, "Look at America!"
In their external relations the United States, before this unfortunate war, had, whilst sustaining their just rights, ever acted in strict conformity with the dictates of justice, and displayed the utmost moderation. They never had voluntarily injured any other nation. Every acquisition of territory from Foreign Powers was honestly made, the result of Treaties, not imposed, but freely assented to by the other party. The preservation of peace was ever a primary object. The recourse to arms was always in self defence. On its expediency there may have been a difference of opinion; that, in the only two instances of conflict with civilized nations which occurred during a period of sixty three years, (1783 to 1846), the just rights of the United States had been invaded by a long continued series of aggressions, is undeniable. In the first instance, war was not declared; and there were only partial hostilities between France and England. The Congress of the United States, the only legitimate organ of the nation for that purpose, did, in 1812, declare war against Great Britain. Independent of depredations on our commerce, she had, for twenty years, carried on an actual war against the United States. I say, actual war, since there is now but one opinion on that subject; a renewal of the impressment of men sailing under the protection of our flag would be tantamount to a declaration of war. The partial opposition to the war of 1812, did not rest on a denial of the aggressions of England and of the justice of our cause, but on the fact that, with the exception of impressments, similar infractions of our just rights had been committed by France, and on the most erroneous belief, that the administration was partial to that country, and insincere in their apparent efforts to restore peace.
At present, all these principles would seem to have been abandoned. The most just, a purely defensive war, and no other is justifiable, is necessarily attended with a train of great and unavoidable evils. What shall we say of one, iniquitous in its origin,and provoked by ourselves, of a war of aggression, which is now publicly avowed to be one of intended conquest.
If persisted in, its necessary consequences will be, a permanent increase of our military establishment and of executive patronage: its general tendency, to make man hate man, to awaken his worst passions, to accustom him to the taste of blood. It has already demoralized no inconsiderable portion of the nation.
The general peace, which has been preserved between the great European powers during the last thirty years, may not be ascribed to the purest motives. Be these what they may, this long and unusual repose has been most beneficial to the cause of humanity. Nothing can be more injurious to it, more lamentable, more scandalous, than the war between two adjacent republics of North America.
Your mission was, to be a model for all other governments and for all other less favored nations, to adhere to the most elevated principles of political morality, to apply all your faculties to the gradual improvement of your own institutions and social state, and, by your example, to exert a moral influence most beneficial to mankind at large. Instead of this, an appeal has been made to your worst passions; to cupidity, to the thirst of unjust aggrandizement by brutal force; to the love of military fame and of false glory; and it has even been tried to pervert the noblest feelings of your nature. The attempt is made to make you abandon the lofty position which your fathers occupied, to substitute for it the political morality and heathen patriotism of the heroes and statesmen of antiquity.
I have said, that it was attempted to pervert even your virtues. Devotedness to country, or patriotism, is a most essential virtue, since the national existence of any society depends upon it. Unfortunately, our most virtuous dispositions are perverted, not only by our vices and selfishness, but also by their own excess. Even the most holy of our attributes, the religious feeling, may be perverted from that cause, as was but too lamentably exhibited in the persecutions, even unto death, of those who were deemed heretics. It is not, therefore, astonishing, that patriotism, carried to excess, should also be perverted. In the entire devotedness to their country, the people, everywhere and at all times, have been too apt to forget the duties imposed upon them by justice towards other nations. It is against this natural propensity that you should be specially on your guard. The blame does not attach to those who, led by their patriotic feelings, though erroneous, flock around the national standard. On the contrary, no men are more worthy of admiration, better entitled to the thanks of their country, than those who, after war has once taken place, actuated only by the purest motives, daily and with the utmost self-devotedness, brave death and stake their own lives in the conflict against the actual enemy. I must confess, that I do not extend the same charity to those civilians, who coolly and deliberately plunge the country into any unjust or unnecessary war.
We should have but one conscience; and most happy would it be for mankind, were statesmen and politicians only as honest, in their management of the internal or external national concerns, as they are in private life. The irreproachable private character of the President, and of all the members of his administration, is known and respected. There is not one of them who would not spurn with indignation the most remote hint that, on similar pretences to those alleged for dismembering Mexico, he might be capable of an attempt to appropriate to himself his neighbor's farm.
In the total absence of any argument that can justify the war in which we are now involved, resort has been had to a most extraordinary assertion. It is said, that the people of the United States have an hereditary, superiority of race over the Mexicans, which gives them the right to subjugate and keep in bondage the inferior nation. This, it is also alleged, will be the means of enlightening the degraded Mexicans, of improving their social state, and of ultimately increasing the happiness of the masses.
Is it compatible with the principle of Democracy, which rejects every hereditary claim of individuals, to admit an hereditary superiority of races? You very properly deny, that the son can, independent of his own merit, derive any right or privilege whatever, from the merit or any other social superiority of his father. Can you for a moment suppose, that a very doubtful descent from men, who lived one thousand years ago, has transmitted to you a superiority over your fellow-men? But the Anglo-Saxons were inferior to the Goths, from whom the Spaniards claim to be descended; and they were in no respect superior to the Franks and to the Burgundians. It is not to their Anglo-Saxon descent, but to a variety of causes, among which the subsequent mixture ofFrenchified Normans, Angevins and Gascons must not be forgotten, that the English are indebted for their superior institutions. In the progressive improvement of mankind, much more has been due to religious and political institutions, than to races. Whenever the European nations, which, from their language, are presumed to belong to the Latin or the Sclavonian race, shall have conquered institutions similar to those of England, there will be no trace left of the pretended superiority of one of those races above the other. At this time, the claim is but a pretext for covering and justifying unjust usurpation and unbounded ambition.
But admitting, with respect to Mexico, the superiority of race, this confers no superiority of rights. Among ourselves, the most ignorant, the most inferior, either in physical or mental faculties, is recognized as having equal rights, and he has an equal vote with any one, however superior to him in all those respects. This is founded on the immutable principle that no one man is born with the right of governing another man. He may, indeed, acquire a moral influence over others, and no other is legitimate. The same principle will apply to nations. However superior the Anglo-American race may be to that of Mexico, this gives the Americans no right to infringe upon the rights of the inferior race. The people of the United States may rightfully, and will, if they use the proper means, exercise a most beneficial moral influence over the Mexicans, and other less enlightened nations of America. Beyond this they have no right to go.
The allegation that the subjugation of Mexico would be the means of enlightening the Mexicans, of improving their social state, and of increasing their happiness, is but the shallow attempt to disguise unbounded cupidity and ambition. Truth never was or can be propagated by fire, and sword, or by any other than purely moral means. By these, and by these alone, the Christian religion was propagated, and enabled, in less than three hundred years, to conquer idolatry. During the whole of that period, Christianity was tainted by no other blood than that of its martyrs.
The duties of the people of the United States towards other nations are obvious. Never losing sight of the divine precept, "Do to others as you would be done by," they have only to consult their own conscience. For our benevolent Creator has implanted in the hearts of men the moral sense of right and wrong,and that sympathy for other men, the evidences of which are of daily occurrence.
It seems unnecessary to add anything respecting that false glory which, from habit and the general tenor of our early education, we are taught to admire. The task has already been repeatedly performed, in a far more able and impressive manner, than anything I could say on the subject. It is sufficient to say that, at this time, neither the dignity or honor of the nation demand a further sacrifice of invaluable lives, or even of money. The very reverse is the case. The true honor and dignity of the nation are inseparable from justice. Pride and vanity alone demand the sacrifice. Though so dearly purchased, the astonishing successes of the American arms have at least put it in the power of the United States to grant any terms of peace, without incurring the imputation of being actuated by any but the most elevated motives. It would seem that the most proud and vain must be satiated with glory, and that the most reckless and bellicose should be sufficiently glutted with human gore.
A more truly glorious termination of the war, a more splendid spectacle, an example more highly useful to mankind at large, cannot well be conceived, than that of the victorious forces of the United States voluntarily abandoning all their conquests, without requiring anything else than that which was strictly due to our citizens.
I have said that the unfounded claim of Texas to the territory between the Nueces and the Rio Norte, was the greatest impediment to peace. Of this there can be no doubt. For if, relinquishing the spirit of military conquest, nothing shall be required but the indemnities due to our citizens, the United States have only to accept the terms which have been offered by the Mexican Government. It consents to yield a territory five degrees of latitude, or near 350 miles in breadth, and extending from New Mexico to the Pacific. Although the greater part of this is quite worthless, yet the portion of California lying between the Sierra Neveda and the Pacific, and including the port of San Francisco, is certainly worthmuch more than the amount of indemnities justly due to our citizens. It is only in order to satisfy those claims, that an accession of territory may become necessary.
It is not believed that the Executive will favor the wild suggestions of a subjugation, or annexation of the whole of Mexico, or of any of its interior provinces. And, if I understand the terms offered by Mr. Trist, there was no intention to include within the cessions required, the Province of New Mexico. But the demand of both Old and New California, or of a sea-coast of more than thirteen hundred miles in length (lat. 23° to 42°), is extravagant and unnecessary. The Peninsula is altogether worthless, and there is nothing worth contending for South of San Diego, or about lat. 32°.
In saying that, if conquest is not the object of the war, and if the pretended claim of Texas to the Rio del Norte shall be abandoned, there cannot be any insuperable obstacle to the restoration of peace, it is by no means intended to assert that the terms heretofore proposed by either party are at this time proper. And I apprehend that the different views of the subject entertained by those who sincerely desire a speedy and just peace, may create some difficulty. There are some important considerations which may become the subject of subsequent arrangements. For the present, nothing more is strictly required than to adopt the principle ofstatus ante bellum, or, in other words, to evacuate the Mexican territory, and to provide for the payment of the indemnities due to our citizens. The scruples of those who object to any cession whatever of territory, except on terms unacceptable to the Southern States, might be removed by a provision, that would only pledge a territory sufficient for the purpose, and leave it in the possession of the United States until the indemnities had been fully paid.
Was I to listen exclusively to my own feelings and opinions, I would say, that, if the propositions which I have attempted to establish are correct; if I am not mistaken in my sincere conviction, that the war was unprovoked by the Mexicans, and has been one of iniquitous aggression on our part; it necessarily follows that, according to the dictates of justice, the United States are bound to indemnify them, for having invaded their territory, bombarded their towns, and inflicted all the miseries of war on a people, who were fighting in defence of their own homes. If all this be true, theUnited States would give but an inadequate compensation for the injuries they have inflicted, by assuming the payment of the indemnities justly due to their own citizens.
Even if a fair purchase of territory should be convenient to both parties, it would be far preferable to postpone it for the present, among other reasons, in order that it should not have the appearance of being imposed on Mexico. There are also some important considerations, to which it may not be improper to call at this time the public attention.
Our population may at this time be assumed, as amounting to twenty millions. Although the ratio of natural increase has already been lessened, from thirty three to about thirty per cent in ten years, the deficiency has been, and will probably continue, for a while, to be compensated by the prodigious increase of immigration from foreign countries. An increase of thirty per cent, would add to our population six millions, within ten, and near fourteen millions in twenty years. At the rate of only twenty five per cent, it will add five millions in ten, and more than eleven millions in twenty years. That the fertile uncultivated land, within the limits of the States admitted, or immediately admissible in the Union, could sustain three times that number is indubitable. But the indomitable energy, the locomotive propensities, and all the habits of the settlers of new countries are such, that, not even the united efforts of both Governments can or will prevent their occupying within twenty if not within ten years, every district, as far as the Pacific, and whether within the limits of the United States or of Mexico, which shall not have previously been actually andbona fideoccupied and settled by others. It may be said that this is justifiable by Natural Law; that, for the same reason, which sets aside the right of discovery, if not followed by actual occupation within a reasonable time, the rights of Spain and Mexico have been forfeited by their neglect, or inability, during a period of three hundred years, to colonize a country, which, during the whole of that period, they held undisputed by any other foreign nation. And it may perhaps be observed that, had the Government of the United States waited for the operation of natural and irresistible causes, these alone would have given them, without a war, more than they want at this moment.
However plausible all this may appear, it is nevertheless certain, that it will be an acquisition of territory for the benefit of the people of the United States, and in violation of solemn treaties. Not only collisions must be avoided, and the renewal of another illicit annexation be prevented; but the two countries must coolly consider their relative position; and whatever portion of territory, not actually settled by the Mexicans, and of no real utility to them, they may be disposed to cede, must be acquired by a treaty freely assented to, and for a reasonable compensation. But this is not the time for the discussion of a proper final arrangement. We must wait till peace shall have been restored, and angry feelings shall have subsided. At present the only object is Peace, immediate peace, a just peace, and no acquisition of territory, but that which may be absolutely necessary for effecting the great object in view. The most simple terms, those which will only provide for the adjustment of the Texas boundary and for the payment of the indemnities due to our citizens, and, in every other respect, restore things as they stood before the beginning of hostilities, appear to me the most eligible. For that purpose I may be permitted to wish, that the discussion of the terms should not be embarrassed by the introduction of any other matter. There are other considerations, highly important, and not foreign to the great question of an extension of territory, but which may, without any inconvenience or commitment, be postponed, and should not be permitted to impede the immediate termination of this lamentable war.
I have gone farther than I intended. It is said that a rallying point is wanted by the friends of peace. Let them unite, boldly express their opinions, and use their utmost endeavors in promoting an immediate termination of the war. For the people, no other banner is necessary. But their representatives in Congress assembled are alone competent to ascertain, alone vested with the legitimate power of deciding what course should be pursued at this momentous crisis, what are the best means for carrying into effect their own views, whatever these may be. We may wait with hope and confidence the result of their deliberations.
I have tried, in this essay, to confine myself to the questions at issue between the United States and Mexico. Whether the Executive has, in any respect, exceeded his legitimate powers; whether he is, for any of his acts, liable to animadversion, are questions which do not concern Mexico.
There are certainly some doubtful assumptions of power, and some points on which explanations are necessary. The most important is the reason, which may have induced the President, when he considered the war as necessary and almost unavoidable, not to communicate to Congress, which was all that time in session, the important steps he had taken, till after hostilities, and indeed actual war had taken place. The substitution, for war contributions, of an arbitrary and varying tariff, appears to me to be of a doubtful nature; and it is hoped, that the subject will attract the early attention of Congress. I am also clearly of opinion, that the provisions of the law respecting volunteers, which authorizes them to elect their officers, is a direct violation of the constitution of the United States, which recognizes no other land force than the army and the militia, and which vests in the President and Senate the exclusive power of appointing all the officers of the United States, whose appointments are not otherwise provided for in the constitution itself. (With respect to precedents, refer to the act of July 6th, 1812, chap. 461, (cxxxviii.) enacted with due deliberation, and which repeals, in that respect, the act on same subject of February 6th, 1812.)
Transcriber's Note:Page 10: Changed adequte to adequatePage 28: Changed oppropriate to appropriate