University of California Berkeley SPEECH OF MR. f UPHAM, OF VEKMONT, ON THE TEN REGIMENT BILL, AND THE MEXICAN AR. DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY 15, 134&* Mr. PRESIDENT : I do not know, sir, that I shall be able, in the humble part I am about to take in this debate, to impart any thing of interest or freshness to the subject, or to bring any new contri bution of facts to bear upon the questions I propose to discuss. Almost every topic connected with, or growing out of the existing war with Mexico, has been alluded to and ably commented upon by honorable Senators, who have preceded me on the floor. But, sir, exhausted as the subject is, I cannot content myself with a silent vote on the question. Believing, as I do, that under existing laws, our force in Mexico can be increased to nearly sixty- five thousand men, and that the more vigorous prosecution of the war for the purposes now avowed,, would be dishonorable to the country, I shall be compelled to record my vote against this bill. But, I shall do it, sir, with no view to embarrass the Executive in his efforts for an honorable peace ; but to prevent the forcible dismemberment of a weak, distracted sister republic, and to preserve untar nished the fair fame of the country, which I prize infinitely higher than any territorial acquisitions we can make, or any glory we can win, by the success of our arms. The honorable Chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, in his eloquent remarks the other day, in support of this bill, ex pressed a desire that it might pass without opposition, and that the discussion, which he was aware would arise upon the war policy of the Administration, and which he had no desire to avoid, might be had upon some other measure, hereafter to come before the Senate. This bill, he thought, was safe, and common ground, upon which we could all meet and act together. Sir, safe as the honora ble Senator may think the ground to be on which he stands, 1 cannot occupy it with him, because, in my judgment, it is dangerous ground. This bill is the first of a series of measures, which, ifcarried out to the full extent of Executive recom mendation, must bring our free institutions into great peril, and, I fear, in the end, overthrow them. The recommended increase of the army, from sixty-five thousand to nearly ninety-five thousand men, to be engaged in the conquest of foreign States and provinces, is a proposition too startling for me to support. Here, sir, I must pause, and here I must stand until I am well convinced that this measure is necessary to vindicate the rights and maintain the honor of the country. The cry is onward ; and onward, at all hazards, the Administration seems determined to go until the whole Mexican republic falls beneath our conquering arms. We preach the doctrine of non interference in the affairs of other nations, and still raise armies to invade and conquer a neighbor ing republic. We proclaim the great principle of self-government, and the right of every people to form their own institutions, and at the same time we send our conquering armies to force upon a distant and reluctant people, forms of government which they have no capacity to maintain, and to which they are utterly opposed. We condemn the dismemberment of Saxony, the annexation of the republic of Genoa to the kingdom of Sardinia, and the absorption of Venice by Austria, and still we go on with the work of dismemberment and annexation ourselves. We denounce Russia, Prus sia, and Austria, for the dismemberment of Poland, .and at the same time we are attempting to dis member a sister republic ; and if she refuses to submit to our demands, the absorption of her whole territory, the honorable Chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs says, may be the penalty- she will be compelled to pay for her obstinacy. Mexico, sir, is in our power she lies quivering and bleeding at our feet we can destroy her n:\tionality and blot her name from the map of nations but such an act of injustice, violence, and. outWe would bring down upon our heads the just indignation of all Christendom, and brand us as 1 a natW of robbers. Mr. YOOTE. I am quite sure that the Senator has no desire to misrepresent any Senator on this side of thexjhamber. Certainly he has not heard either the Chairman of the Committee on Military- Affairs, or ahy other Senator on this side, give expression to the opinion that it might become poll- Towers, printefy corner of D and 7th sts. opposite National Intelligencer. tic to absorb the whole of Mexico. The absoption of Mexico has been uniformly spoken of by us as a thing to be deprecated, but from which, if forced upon us, we were to educe all the good that was possible. Mr. UPHAM. I have no desire to misrepresent any Senator, but I understood the honorable Chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, in alluding to this subject, to say, that it might be necessary, in order to bring the war to an honorable close, to absorb the whole of Mexico. However, I have his remarks before me, and will read them. In the debate on the instructions to General Scott to occupy the republic of Mexico, the Senator said : " I repeat what I before said, that the longer Mexico continues her obstinate rejection of reasonable indemnity, and the greater the exertion she compels us to make, the greater will be our demands and the heavier her losses. What we would have accepted last year, or even at the commencement of the pres ent campaign, we may well refuse now ; and what we would accept now, we may well refuse after a few months. And how much the public sentiment of this country may demand a year or two years hence, if the war continues so long, 1 do not pretend to predict. We may have to make the great ex periment so dreaded by the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator frum Kentucky, and annex the domains of Mexico to our own. This is the penalty which national injustice has often been called to pay,, and which Mexico may be preparing for herself." Mr. CASS. I have again and again been^alled upon to state the purport of the remarks to Ivhich the honorable Senator alludes, and I do hope that it will not be necessary to enter into any expla nation with regard to them hereafter. I am confident that the Senator does not intentionally mis take my views ; but I will repeat, that all along I have deprecated the absorption of the whole of Mexico ; but, as the Senator from Mississippi has correctly said, I added, that if forced upon us, we must make the most of it. At the time when the honorable *Senator from South Carolina (Mr. CAL- HOUN) introduced his resolutions, I stated distinctly, that if Mexico protracteu this war, the public opinion of the country might manifest a desire for the annexation of the whole of that country. But I never expressed any opinion in favor of such a result : but, on the contrary, deprecated it as a thing to be feared and avoided. Mr. UPHAM. The position, then, that the Senator has assumed is, that such might be the con dition of things, such might be the obstinacy of Mexico in refusing to yield to our demands, that we might be compelled to prosecute the war to such an extremity as would lead to the destruction of her nationality, and the absorption of her whole territory by the United States. And, sir, notwith standing this result is deprecated, and, I have no doubt, sincerely, still, in my humble judgment, the tendency of the measures recommended by the President, if carried out to the full extent, must inevitably result in the absorption of the whole country ; and 1 think I can see in the signs of the times enough to alarm the country in reference to this subject. Such a policy has been more than dimly shadowed forth in the resolutions introduced by the honorable Senators from New York and Indiana. The former suggested to the country the propriety and expediency of strengthening our commercial relations by the annexation of contiguous territory. The latter avowed the constitu tional power and authority of our Government to hold and govern Mexico as a dependant province. Sir, I have seen it avowed in the proceedings of public meetings, in the speeches of our military officers who have won glory and renown upon the battle-fields of Mexico, and who have returned because there are no more laurels to be gained, and have undertaken to indoctrinate the people of this nation that it is our duty or destiny to carry into Mexico our free institutions, and that this war ought to be prosecuted until her government is overthrown, and a more liberal government estab lished, to be sustained by the power of our arms. What] Are we, then, to become a nation of propagandists'? Why, sir, some gentlemen have gone so far as to denounce every man who raises his voice against the prosecution of a war, for the purpose of forcing upon Mexico a government of which she does not approve, as traitors to their country! Such is the sentiment expressed in the speech of Colonel Morgan which I have before me. " As Christians," says he, " we are bound to protect the Mexicans from the bad intentions of their rulers." " And," he adds, " all who will advocate the withholding of supplies, or withdrawing our armies, disguise their sentiments however they may, under whatever artful plea they choose, are traitors at heart." Yes, sir, every man, every citizen, every member of Congress who believes it to be his duty to raise his voice against the further prosecution of the war, for the purpose now avowed by the Admin istration, is denounced by this orator as a " traitor at heart," and unworthy of the confidence of the people. I also have in my possession a speech of Captain Stockton advocating the same principle, that the army shall not be withdrawn until the overthrow of the Mexican Government, and the es tablishment of a government there upon liberal principles, be accomplished. He holds the following language: " I would insist, if the war were to be prolonged for fifty years and cost money enough to demand from each of you half of all that you possess, I would insist that the blessings of civil and religious liberty should be guaranteed to Mexico." I believe that the sentiments advanced by Colonel Morgan and Captain Stockton, so 6r from uniting with disapprobation on the occasions on which they were expressed, elicited the most une quivocal marks of favor. Those gentlemen, indeed, seem to have been preparing the minds of the people for the unqualified admission of the doctrine, that it is the duty of the Government to extend itself over the whole American continent. At the sapper given to Colonel Morgan, the following toasts were received with the greatest enthusiasm : " THe Destiny of the United States Government To overshadow the whole of North America ; there fore we may as well begin with Mexico." " The American Continent An Almighty hand has rolled the barrier of the seas around it, to mark it as one republic. " No pent-up Utica contracts our powers, " But the whole boundless continent is ours." " The Isthmus of Panama The next resting-place in the extension of freedom's area." " Now, sir, these significant indications strongly impress upon my mind the conviction, however much the result may be deprecated, that great efforts are making to convince the people, that it is the destiny of our Government to extend its jurisdiction over the entire continent. An ocean-bound republic is spoken of with apparent seriousness. Let it not be said that these indications are to be lightly regarded. They proclaim, in language not to be mistaken, the interpretation which masses of the people have put upon the policy which the Government seems to have adopted. And, sir, if this perilous career of conquest on which we have entered, is not to be arrested till our arms shall have subjugated the whole American continent, it is surely time that the country understood it. It is time that the voice of warning should arouse the people to a full sense of the impending danger. Our Government was not constructed with a view to wars of aggression and conquest. The armies contemplated by the Constitution are armies of defence, and not of ag'gression armies to defend our own territory, not to invade the territories of other nations. The unlimited power to raise and support armies, conferred upon Congress by the Constitution, was looked upon with great jealousy by the people. It was assailed in the State conventions, and elsewhere, with great zeal and pertinacity, as dangerous to liberty, and subversive of the State governments. It was said, that the power bein* unlimited, Congress might keep large armies constantly on foot, and thus exhaust the resources of the country; and that we might be compelled to live under a government of military furce. To these suggestions it was replied, that the power was necessary, and that to be of any value, it rnugr. be unlimited ; that the power was exclusively confined to the legislative body, to the representatives of the States, and to the people of the States, and that it would be safe in their hands; that the power was necessary, because we were surrounded by the colonies and dependancics of powerful for eign governments, whose maritime powers might furnish them with the means of annoyance, and mischief, and invasion ; that it was necessary to protect our frontiers against the Indians, and to man our forts and garrisons in different parts of the country. Here, sir, you have the reasons for which the power " to raise and support armies" was deemed necessary. The conquest of foreign States and provinces was never dreamt of by the framers of the Constitution. But the wisdom of the past, with the " progressive democracy" of the present day, is folly; and, indeed, so rapid has been the advancement beyond that old-fashioned democracy, which prevailed in the better days of the re public, that calls have been actually made for conventions of the people to reconstruct the government. To carry out these splendid schemes of national aggrandizement, it has been found necessary to wage war against the freedom of speech and the press ; a war infinitely more dangerous to the liber ties of the people than a war of conquest. The message of December, 1846, contains the declaration of war against free discussion, and I beg leave to read it : " The war 1ms been, (says the President,) represented as unjust and unnecessary, and one of aggres sion, on our part, upon a weak nnd injured enemy. Such erroneous views, though entertained by lew, have been widely circulated not only at home, but have been spread throughout Mexico and ihe whole world. A more effectual means could not have been devised to encourage the enemy and protract the war lhanto advocate and adhere to their cause, and thus give them aid and comfort." Here, sir, is a bold, and I was about to say, shameless. attempt, on the part of the Executive, t stifle all inquiry into the origin, necessity, justice, and purposes of this war. All who dare call in question the power of the President to wage war, and to prosecute it for the purposes of conquest and plunder, are denounced as traitors to their country. And all who doubt the necessity of the war and think it could, and should, have been avoided, are held up as adhering to, and advocating the cause of the enemy. These denunciations, sir, coming from that high source, should notfoe suffered to pass unnoticed and uncondemned. The framers of the Constitution, regarding free dis cussion as the great safeguard of liberty, declared, in the first article of amendments, that "Con gress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press." This right of free dis cussion belongs to the people, and no power on earth should be permitted to abridge or impair at, It is the great power that overturns despotisms and builds up republics it shakes tyrants from their thrones and confers the blessings of liberty upon millions of our race it kindled the fire of oar own revolution and made us a free and independent nation and it is the best security we can haw \for the preservation of our liberties. It was Sheridan, I believe, who, in speaking in the House them a corrupt House of Lords ; give them a venal House of Commons : give them a tyran nical PrWe ; give them a truckling Court; and let me but have an unfettered press, and I will tiy them to encroach a hair's breadth upon the liberties of England." If the free>tom of the press were so essential to the protection of British liberty, it must be *e- rnrded as infinitely more important to the security of a Government like ours, founded upon and de- Baring its support from enlightened public opinion. But, to pass on : gentlemen have searched jfcc precedents for this war, and the Senator from Illinois imagines that he has discovered one in tiie war of 1812. " That war," he says, ".was declared in the same form and almost in the same language as the present." Sir, did President Madison announce to the country that war existed between the United States and Great Britain ? Or did he inform Congress that long-existing diffi culties between the two countries remained unsettled ? that he had exhausted all his power in mak ing pacific efforts ; and that he was unable to bring the controversy to a close ; and that it was fer Congress to decide whether or not an appeal to arms should be made in order to vindicate our honor and sustain our rights ? Hear his language : u We behold, in fine, on tho side of Great Britain, a state of war ngninst the Tniied States ; and on tltt fcide of the United States, n t-tate of peace towards Great Britain. Whether the L nited States shall continue passive under these progressive usurpations and these accumulating wrongs ; or, opposing force to force in defence of their national rights, shall commit our just cause into ihe hands of the Almighty disposer of events, avoiding all connexions which might entangle it in the contest or visws of other Powers, and preserving a constant readiness to concur in an honorable establishment of peace and friend ship, is a solemn question, which the Constitution wisely confides to the legislative depanment of the Government. In recommending it to their early deliberations, I ara happy in the assurance that the de cision will be worthy the enlightened and patriotic councils ol'a virtuous, a free, and a powerful nation. 1 ' Upon this message Congress announced to the country, by its legislative act, that a state of war eristed between the two Governments. How was it with the existing war ? What was the char acter of the message received llth May, 1846? Did it set forth the wrongs perpetrated by Mexi co ; that the President had exerted all the powers conferred on him by the Constitution to effect a rific adjustment without success ; and that it was a question for Congress to decide upon the fur- r steps to be taken to vindicate the rights and maintain the honor of the country ? No, sir ! The first announcement to the country of the existence of the war was by Executive message. How, air, I ask, could war exist between a foreign Government and the United States without the knowl edge and consent of the war-making power? Had the President any authority to declare war? Uo, sir, that power is vested, exclusively, in Congress. How then can there be any analogy be tween the two wars that of 1812 having been declared according to the form of the Constitu tion, whilst the present war was waged by the Executive in open violation of the Constitution. But die Senator says the war of 1812 met with "violent opposition from the pulpit and the press, and fie has given us specimens of the fulminations of the one, and the rantings of the other. For what purpose were these extracts read ? Were they designed to instruct Senators in the discharge of their functions, or were they intended to operate on public opinion to excite prejudices in the minds of the people, against all who felt it to be their duty to oppose the policy recommended by the administration, for the further prosecution of this war, with a view to the dismemberment of a sister republic 1 If this war cannot be sustained upon its merits if it be necessary to sustain the policy of its further prosecution by such a course of argument as that, adopted by the Senator from Illinois, I think, the sooner it is brought to a close, the better it will be for the honor of all con cerned. Most of the opposition to the war of 1812 grew out of the particular policy recommended for its prosecution. An increase of the army had been recommended for the invasion of Canada, nd it was objected that the war ought to be a maratime war ; that we should build up a navy, man it, and prepare ourselves te meet the enemy upon the ocean, where the injuries had been received, which we had armed ourselves to redress. Whoever looks at the debates upon appropriation bills fcrthe support of the war of 1812, will find that most of the opposition was based upon the ground that the naval power should be augmented to meet the enemy on the ocean, instead of increasing the *rmy for the invasion of Canada. But to pass to another point. I stated in the outset that, under existing laws, our force in Mexico could be increased to nearly 65,000 men. Now, sir, is this true ? The honorable Senator from Mississippi, the other day, said, that he did not so understand it. To nettle this question I will refer to the report of the Secretary of War. He says the twenty-five regiments of the regular army, as distinguished from volunteer force, when fiHed to the limit fixed by law, would be 28,814, exclusive of officers; but the actual strength iife says, is new about 21,533 : it will, therefore, require 7,381 enlisted men to complete the regular Military establishment. There are now in the service, engaged for the war, says the Secretary, twenty-three regiments of volunteers, seven battalions, and thirty-three companies not organized nrto regiments or battalions ; but the rank and file of all those, the Secretary thinks, do not exceed 20,000 men ; and that to give those serving for the war their complete organization, will require an addition of about 12,500 men. The force in Mexico at this time, including the regiments from Michigan, and the two battalions now n the way, is 45,700. In addition to this number, the Executive, under existing laws, has the power to enlist upwards of 7,000 regulars, and to call into the field 12,500 volunteers, to serve daring the war making in all 65,200. If the 5,000 seamen and marines, also engaged in (he war, be added, we then have a numerical force naval and military of 70,200 men. If we add to this force the troops proposed by this bill, 10,000 regulars, we shall have an army in Mexico of upwards of 80,000 ; and if the volunteer bill is to pass, we shall have a force of upwards of 100,000 ; and that, too, after the country has been virtually conquered by less than one-fourth of that number. Sir, I can see no necessity for the force contemplated by this bill. When the regiments of the iiae, and the volunteer regiments, are filled up, we shall have a force amply sufficient to prosecute 5 the war ' with increased energy and power, in the vital parts of the enemy's country" and thfete all the President desires. The Secretary of War says : " Our further operations in Mexico must he conducted in one of the three following modes. FittST,tD take and hold an indemnity line ; to recede from all places and positions now occupied in advance of it, and cease from all aggressive operations beyond that line. SECOND, to overrun the whole country, anfc hold all the principal places in it by permanent garrisons ; and, THIRD, to retain what we now posses*, open lines of communication into the interior, and extend ouroperations to other important places, asvvr means and the prospect of advantages shall indicate, keeping a disposable force always ready, withia> approachable limits, to annoy the enemy, to seize supplies, enforce contributions, and frustrate his efforts to collect means and assemble troops for the purpose of protracting the war " The Secretary, after discussing the comparative merits of these modes of conducting the wir, comes to the conclusion that the third mode is preferable, and adopts it. Now, sir, what force as necessary to carry it out 1 I have examined this question with some care, and I cannot resist the conclusion that the force now authorized by law is sufficient. This conviction has been forced upon my mind by the success which has hitherto attended our arms, and by the despatch of GeneraJ Scott, under date of September 18th, 1847. General Taylor, at the battle of Palo Alto, with . force of 2,300, defeated a Mexican army of 6,000. At Resaca de la Palma, with a force of only 1,700, he defeated 6,500 Mexicans. At Monterey, with 6,645 men, he stormed and took the strong fortresses of the city, and compelled the surrender of a Mexican army 10,000 strong. And at Buen& Vista, with 4,759 regulars and volunteers, he defeated Santa Anna at the head of 20,000 well arme2 Mexicans. General Scott, at the head of 11,000 men, compelled the surrender of Vera Cruz ami. the strong castle by which it was defended. At Cerro Gordo, with an army of 8,500, he met and defeated a Mexican army of 12,500. At Contreras, San Antonio, and Churubusco, with 8,497 meOt, he defeated a Mexican force of 32,000. And with 7,190 men, he entered and took the city of" Mexico, defended by an army of 35,000 Mexicans. Now, sir, it seems to me that, after these brilliant victories, with a force 25,000 less than we can now put into the field, the force proposed by this bill is unnecessary. But, sir, what says General Scott, in his despatch of the 18th of September, 1847 ? He says, that with the force en route and 4,000 more, soon to follow, he can hold the city of Mexico with a garrison of 7,500 men, against any attack external, or combined with an intenwfl insurrection, and have an ample surplus force to occupy Puebla, Perote, Jalapa, the National Bridge, the Paso de Obijos, Santa Fe, and Vera Cruz ; and, as a modification of this plan, he says that, witfe a total of 30,000 men, the principal mining districts of the country may also be occupied, and a se cure transit given to gold and silver bullion which, paying the customary duties, would cover a con siderable part of the expenses of occupation. But this is not all, sir. General Sc.ott further suggests that to augment the army to 50,000, would enable it to occupy all the state capitals and principal cities to drive guerrillas and robbing parties from the great highways of trade to seize into oar hands all the revenues of the country, and to keep the Central Government in constant motion anfl alarm until constrained to sue for peace. Does the President desire to accomplish more than Gene ral Scott says can be accomplished by a force of 50,000 ? If he does, what is it? Is it to annihi late the sovereignty of Mexico and make her a dependant province of the United States 1 Such. a. purpose has been denied by his friends on this floor. What then can be desired from the passage & this bill but the patronage it will confer upon the President ? It will give him an opportunity to ap point five or six hundred officers, to be engaged in recruiting soldiers for the next Presidential cam paign. The measure is not wanted for an increase of soldiers in Mexico, but for an increase til" officers at home. The rank and file of the army can be increased 20,000 without this bill, but there can be no increase of officers unless it passes. Fill up the regular and volunteer regiments now in the field, and, after that is done, if more men are necessary for the prosecution of the wa?, ask for them, and, I presume, they will be granted. But, sir, I will leave this branch of the subject, and pass on, to show that the character and ob jects of the war have changed ; and that its further prosecution, for the purposes now avowed, woulS be dishonorable to tKe country. When Texas was annexed to the United States, its western boundary was left an open question, to be settled by negotiation, between the Mexican Government and ours. The President, in his mes sage of May llth, 1846, informed Congress that a strong desire to regulate and adjust our boundary and other causes of difference with Mexico, on fair and equitable principles, induced him, in Sep tember, 1845, to seek the re-opening of diplomatic regulations between the two countries ; that the Mexican Government, in October following, agreed to receive a minister from the United States in vested with full powers to settle and adjust all matters in difference between the two Governments^ that an envoy from the United States repaired to Mexico, with full powers to adjust every existing difference ; and that the Mexican Government had not only refused to receive him, or listen to his propositions, but, after a long continued series of menaces, had invaded our territory, and shed the blood of our fellow-citizens on our own soil. This message was accompanied by about one hundred and fifty pages of manuscript documents. The usual motion to print the documents was made,brtt it was^voted down by Senators on the other side of the chamber. A call for the reading was then made, but that also was refused, and the bill of the 13th May, 1846, was passed by a vote of forty yetar to two nays. The unanimity with which this bill was passed, has been frequently referred to, as evi dence to sho\y that Congress was almust unanimously of the opinion that Mexico commenced the 6 war. The President, in his last annual message, referred to it for that purpose. He snys.in sub stance, that Congress, by the act of the 13th May, 1846, declared, with great unanimity, that " by the act of the republic of Mexico, a state of war exists between that Government and the United States, there being but two negative votes in the Senate and fourteen in the House of Representa tives." Now, sir, I propose to present to the Senate and the country all the facts connected with the passage of that bill. The bill originated in the House of Representatives. On the 27th of January, 1846, Mr. Haralson, from the committee on Military Affairs, reported a bill to authorize the President of the United States, undef certain circumstances therein mentioned, to accept the services of volunteers, and for other purposes. On the llth of May, Mr. Brinkerhoff moved to amend the bill by inserting a new section with a preamble, in the words following : " whereas, by the act of the republic of Mexico, a state of war exists between that Government and the United States." The amendment was carried by a vote of 123 yeas to 67 nays ; and, on the same day, the bill passed the House by a vote of 174 to 14. So it appears that 67 members of the House voted against the preamble to the bill. Well, sir, what is the history of this bill in the Senate 1 On the 12th of May, it came up for consideration, and Mr. Huntington, then a Senator from Connecticut, since deceased, moved to amend it by striking out the preamble : and the journal shows that, the metion failed by a vote of 18 yeas to 28 nays all the Senators on this side of the chamber, with the exception of three, voted in the affirmative. A motion was then made by the honorable Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. CIUTTENDEN,) to take a vote upon the preamble alone, but the chair ruled that it could not be separated from the bill, and the motion was decided out'of order. The bill was then pressed to a vote and passed yeas 40, nays 2. Mr. Berrien, Mr. Evans, Mr. Huntington, and Mr. Cal- houn declining to vote, and eleven Senators on this side of the chamber voting yea with a protest against the preamble to the bill. This, sir, is a concise history of the progress of the bill through tie two Houses of Congress. Now, I ask, in all candor, what excuse can the President render to the country for asserting in ^is message, that both branches of Congress, with great unanimity, declared that the war existed by the act of Mexico, there being but fourteen negative votes in the House of Representatives and two in the Senate ? Sir. the journal of the House shows 67 negative votes, and the journal of the Senate shows 18, making in the whole 85. Mr. CLAYTON. Will the Senator allow me a word ? Mr. UPHAM. Certainly. Mr. CLAYTON. At the time the bill passed this Senate, those of us who voted for its passage after our failure in the effort to strike out the preamble, as the Senator from Vermont has stated, put to the gentlemen on the other side the excessive hardship of calling upon us to vole for a bill, the object of which was to send supplies for the army, with a preamble containing a statement of a matter of fact of which we had not evidence before us. We repeatedly demanded the separa tion of the two propositions, but the separation was refused, the President of the Senate deciding that we had no right to call for a division of the question. Then we insisted upon it that we should have the right to vote upon the bill protesting against the preamble. And the Senator from Missouri now in my eye will recollect perfectly that he said on that occasion, that such would be our right ; and such was the understanding, that if we gave our votes in favor of the bill, we were to be regarded as voting for the supplies, but not in favor of the preamble. This is t&e simple fact of the case, and that such was the understanding is well known. A Senator now deceased, (Mr. Speight,) distinctly, and over and over again, said that such was the understanding with regard to our vote. It is a gross misconception, then, to suppose 'that we voted for the preamble, or ever meant to vote for it. I hope this statement will be sufficient to prevent any injustice being done us upon this subject in all future time. Mr. UPHAM. I thank the honorable Senator for the additional information he has given upon the subject the country should have the whole truth in regard to the matter. Appeals were fre quently made to Senators on the other side of the chamber, to strike out the preamble to the bill, as no evidence of its truth had been exhibited, and take a unanimous vote for the supplies ; but they refused to do it. We must vote for the bill as it was, they said, or take the responsibility of Toting against it. General Taylor had been ordered to the left bank of the Rio Grande with a small force, and fears were entertained, that he would be unable to sustain himself, without rein forcements ; and the bill was passed for his relief. No intimation was made by the Executive, that the war had been waged with a view to the permanent acquisition of Mexican territory by con quest. The message declared it to be a war of defence, and not of aggression. " Mexico," says the message, " has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory, and shed American blood upon the American soil." To enable the President to repel this invasion, and " to grosecute the war to a speedy and successful termination," I voted for the bill of the 13th May, 1846. Well, sir, what said the President in regard to the war, in his message of December, 1846 1 Hear few language : " The war has not been waged with a view to conquest ; but having been commenced by Mexico, it has been carried into the enemy's country, and will be vigorously prosecuted there, with a view to obtain an apaorable peace." Here, sir, conquest, " with a view to permanent occupancy of Mexican territory," is disavowed. "" 1 The war had been carried into Mexico, to cripple her power, and compel her to make an honorable peace. Again, sir, the President, in his message of August 4th, 184G, says : " Equally anxious to terminate, by a peace honorable to both parties, as I was originally to avoid the ex isting war, I have deemed it my duty agnin to expend the olive branch to Mexico. Should the Govern ment of that republic accept the offer, in the same friendly spirit by which it was dictated, negotiations will speedily commence for the conclusion of a treaty." " A peace honorable to both parties" was the object desired. "The chief difficulty to be antici pated in the negotiation," says the President " Is the adjustment of the boundary between the parties, by a line which shall be at once satisfactory and convenient to boih, and Mich as neither wdl hereafter, be inclined to disturb. This is the best mode of securing perpetual peace and good neighborhood between the two republics. Should the Mexican Government, in order to accomplish these objects, be willing to cede any portion of their territory to the United States, wo ought to pay them a fair equivalent ; a just and honorable peace, and not conquest, be ing our purpose in the prosecution of the war." The boundary question was the matter in dispute between the two countries and should the Mexican Government, for the purpose of establishing a line convenient for both parties, be willing to cede a portion of her territory to the United States, we ought to pay a fair equivalent for it. No cession of territory was to be required without the free consent of the Mexican Government. But this is not all, sir ; the President asked for an appropriation of $3,000,000, to enable him to advance a portion of the consideration money, for any cession of territory the Mexican Government might be willing to make. The character and objects of the war having been thus announced to Congress and the country, I, with most of the Senators on this side of the chamber, at the last session of Congress, voted men and money for its prosecution. And, sir, to show that our votes were given with no view to the acquisition of Mexican territory by conquest, I refer to the amendment offered by the honorable Senator from Georgia, (Mr. BERRIEN,) to Senate bill, No. 105, "making further appropriation to bring the existing war with Mexico to a speedy and honorable conclusion," com monly called the three million bill. The following are the words of the amendment : " Provided always, and it is hereby declared to be the true intent and meaning of Congress, in making this appropriation, that the war \vivh Mexico ought not to be prosecuted by this Government, with any view to the dismemberment of that republic, or to the acquisition, by conquest, of any portion ol her ter ritory. That this Government, ever desirous t<-> maintain and preserve peaceful and friendly relations with all nations, and particularly with the neighboring republic of 31exico, will always be ready to enter upon negotiations with a view to terminate the present unhappy conflict, on terms which shall secure the just rights, and preserve inviolate the national honor of the United States and Mexico. That it is es pecially desirable, in order to maintain and preserve (hose amicable relations which oughtalways to exist between neighboring republics, that the boundary of the State of Texas should be definitively settled, and that provision be made by the republic of Mexico for the prompt and equitable adjustment of the just claims of our citizens on that republic." On the question, " shall this amendment be adopted 1" it was determined in the negative, by a vote of yeas, twenty-four nays, twenty-nine every Senator on this side of the chamber, with the ex ception of Mr. JOHNSON, of Louisiana, voting in the affirmative. Here, sir, is the recorded opinion of the Whigs of the Senate, that this war ought not to be prosecuted with a view to acquisition, by conquest, of any portion of Mexican territory. And here, too, is the recorded opinion of the democracy of the Senate, in direot opposition to that expressed by the whigs. The issue-is fairly joined and to the country I am perfectly willing to submit the decision of the question. I have shown, I think, sir, by evidence which Senators on the other side of the chamber are not at liberty to dispute, that up to the close of the last session of Congress, the acquisition, by conquest, of Mexican territory, was disavowed by the Executive. What, sir, is the character of the war now ? For what purpose is it to be prosecuted " with increased energy and power in the more vital parts of the enemy's country ?" It is, sir, to compel Mexico to cede to the United States nearly one half of her republic more than 700,000 square miles of her territory, and more than three hundred thousand of her people. This cession of territory is demanded, it is said, because Mexico has protracted the war by obstinately refusing to receive the olive branch, when offered by our Govercment. Mexico, it is true, agreed to receive a Commissioner, to adjust the ques tion of boundary between the two Governments, but the President senta Minister Plenipotentiary, and she rejected him ; expressing, however, at the same time, her willingness to receive him in the character of Commissioner. But, sir, did she reject the olive-branch when offered by Commissioner Trist at the gates of her capital ? No, sir, she received it crimsoned as it was with the blood of her slaugh tered women and children. And what were the terms of peace offered by our Government ? They were first, the Rio Grande for our western boundary ; second, the cession to the United States, of New Mexico and the two Califomias ; and third, a right of way across the Isthmus of Tehuan- tepec. And, in consideration of these demands, if conceded, we proposed, first, to renounce all claims for the expenses of the war ; second, to assume and pay the claims of our citizens on the Mexican Government, (supposed to be about $5,000,000,) and third, to pay Mexico such additional sum in money as the territory ceded might be worth over and above our claims upon her Gonernment. The sum offered by Mr. Trist is stated to have been from fifteen to twenty millions of dollars and that, too, after our demand had been reduced to the ultimatum of the President. Well, sir, what was the reply of the Mexican Government to our demands ? It was, in the language of the Mexican Com missioners to Mr. Trist, that " The existing war was undertaken solely on account of the territory of the State of Texas respect ing which, the Nor;h American republic presents as i'.s title the act of the said State by which it was an nexed to the North American confederation, after having proclaimed it* independence of Mexico. The Mexican republic offering (as we have inlormed your excellency) to consent, for a proper indemnification, to pretensions of the Government of Washington to the territory of Texas, the cau.se of the w:ir has disap peared, and the war itself ought to cease, since there is no warrant for its continuance. To the other terri tories mentioned in the fourth article of your excellency's draught, no right has heretofore been as>ericd by the republic of North America, nor do we believe it possible lor it. to assert any, consequently, it could not acquire them except by the right of conquest, or by the title which willresult from the cession or sale which Mexico might now make. But, as we are persuaded, that the republic of Washington will not only absolutely repel, but will hold in abhorrence the first of these titles, and as, on the other hand, it would be a new thing, and contrary to every idea of justice, to make war upon a people lor no other reason than because it refused to sell territory which its neighbor sought to buy, we expect from the jus tice of the government and people of Worth America, that Uie ample modification which we have to pro pose to the cession of territory, contemplated in the fourth article, will not be a motive to persist in a war which the worthy General of the North American troops has justly styled unnatural." In regard to the Rio Grande as the western boundary of the State of Texas, anil the cession of" Lower California, the Commissioners say : " That Mexico cannot cede the belt which lies between the left bank of the Bra^ (Rio Grande) and the right of the Nueces. The reason entertained for this is not alone the full certainty that such territory never belonged to the State of 1 exas, nor is it founded upon the great value in the abstract wlr el i is placed upon it It is because that tract, together with the Bravo, [Rio Grande,] forms the natural frontier of Mex ico, both in a military and commercial sense ; and the frontier of no Stale ought to be sought, ami no State should consent to abandon its frontier. But, in order to remove all causes of trouble hereafter, the Government of Mexico engages not to found new settlements nor establish colonies in the space between the two rivers ; so that remaining in its present uninhabited condition, it may serve as an equal security to both republics. That Lower California, which would be of little advantage to the republic of North America, oilers great embarrassments to Mexico considering the position of that peninsular, opposite our coast of Sonora, from which it is separated by the narrow gulf of (. ortes. Your Excellency has appre ciated our remarks on this point, and we have been gratified to see that you have yielded to them. The preservation of Lower California would be enough to make it indispensable to keep a part of Upper Cali fornia ; for, otherwise, that peninsula would be without any communication by land with the rest of the republic, which is ahvays a great embarrassment, especially for a power like Mexico, which is not mari time." As to the cession of New Mexico the language of the Mexican Minister is : " We cannot yield New Mexico, whose inhabitants have manifested their will to make a part of the Mexi can family with nv)re enthusiasm than any other oi' the republic. These deserving Mexicans, abandoned to their fate by some administrations without protection, so many times, even from the incursions of the savages have been the Mexicans most truly patriotic; because, forgetting their domestic complaints, they have only agreed that they are and wish to be of the family; exposing and sacrificing themselves already many times to the vengeance of their invader, which has been excred against them ; and discon certed and discovered their plans, they have again conspired. And to these Mexicans can a government go an 1 sell them like cattle ? Never ! And if perish by that the nationality of the rest of the republic,, we 1T.11 all perish together." And as to the right of way across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, the Commissioners say : "That forae years since the Government of the Republic granted to a private contractor a privilegei -with reference to this object, which was soon transferred, with the sanction of the Government, to Eng lish subjects, of whose rights Mexico cannot dispose." These are the reasons, sir, assigned by .the Mexican Government for rejecting the terms of peace offered by Mr. Trist, and, in the present pcsture of affairs, without a word of comment, I submit them to the Senate and the country. But Mexico did not here throw away the olive branch and seize the sword. No, sir, she offered her project of a treaty, by which she proposed, first, to yield Texas proper to the United States ;. second, to maintain the desert country between the Nueces and the Rio Grande in its uninhabited state as a national frontier ; and third, to cede to the L T nited States more than one-half of I'pper California, including the port and bay of San Francisco. The territory she proposed to cede com prises about 200,000 square rniles, or an area larger than all New England, New York, New Jer sey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland. This proposition was rejected by our Commissioner, and hostilities renewed. "The bonndary of the Rio Grande," says the President, " And the cession to the United States of New Mexico and Upper California, constituted an ultimatum which our commissioner was, under no circumstances, to yield." Mr. Trist, therefore, was bound to reject the terms of peace offered by Mexico. "The terms of a treaty proposed by the Mexican commissioners," says the President, "were wholly inadmissible. They negotiated as if Mexico were the victorious and not the vanquished party. It con tained no provision for the payment by Mexico of the just claims of our citizens." Is this, sir, a just, true, and impartial representation of the terms of peace proposed by Mexico? Did she take the stand of a victorious party, and claim concessions from us ? Did she refuse to make provisions for the payment of the just claims of our. citizens 1 Wha.t consideration, sir, was 9 *he to receive for the two hundred thousand square miles of territory she proposed to cede to th* United States, but a discharge from those claims'? I am not prepared to estimate the value of the territory Mexico proposed to cede to the United States. It may have been insufficient to pay the just claims of our citizens upon that Government ; but the port and bay of San Francisco alone, I know> have been considered of great value to the United States. It does, however, appear from the message, that the cession of territory demanded by our Com missioner, was of greater value than a fair equivalent for our just demands ; for he " was author ized to stipulate for the payment of such additional pecuniary consideration as was deemed rea- ronable." Now, sir, I propound to gentlemen on the other side of the chamber this question : Was it just and honorable to demand of Mexico, with a victorious army thundering at the gates of her capital, a cession of territory of greater value than a fair equivalent for our just demands ? This is an important question, and., I hope, it will be answered before the debate closes. But, sir, the war is now raging, and to show the purpose for which its more vigorous prosecu tion is recommended and desired> I refer to the last annual message of the President. He says that " Since the liberal proposition of the United States was authorized tob'e made ih April last, large ex penditures have been incurred, and the precious blood of many of our patriotic fellow-citizens has been shed in the prosecution of the war. This consideration, and the obstinate perseverance of Mexico in pro tracting the war, mu.*t influence the terms of peace which it may be deemed proper hereafter to accept. " Our arms having been every where victorious, having subjected to our military occupation a large portion of the enemy's country, including his capital, and negotiations for peace having failed, the impor tant questions arise, in what manner the war ought to be prosecuted 1 and what should be our future poli cy ? I cannot doubt that we should secure and render available the conquests which we have already made ; and that, with this view, we should hold and occupy, by our naval and military forces, all the ports, towns, cities, arid provinces now in our occupation, or which may hereafier fall into our possession ; that we should press forward our military operations, and levy such military contributions on the enemy, as may, as far as practicable, defray the future expense of the war. " Had the Government of Mexico acceded to the equitable and liberal terms preposed, th it mode of ad justment would have been preferred. Mexico having declined to do this, and failed to offer any other terms which could be accepted by the United States, the national honor, no less than the public interr ests, requires that tho war should be prosecuted with increased energy and power, until a just and satisfac tory peace can be obtained. In the meantime, as Mexico refubes all indemnity, we should adopt mea sures to indemnify ourselves, by appropriating permanently, a portion of her territory. Early after the commencement of the war, JNew Mexico and the Californias were taken possession of by our forces; Our military and naval commanders were ordered to conquer and hold them, subject to be disposed of by a treaty of peace. " These provinces are now in our undisputed occupation, and have been so for many months ; all re sistance on the part of Mexico having ceased within their limits. I am satisfied tnat they should never be surrendered to Mexico. Should Congress concur with me in this opinion, and that they should be re tained by the I'nited States as indemnity,! can perceive no good reason why the civil jurisdiction and laws of th3 United States should not at once be exlended over them. To wait for a treaty of peace, such as we are willing to make, by which our relations towaids them would not be changed, cannot be good policy ; whilst our own interest, and that of the people inhabiting them, require that a stable, res ponsible, and free government under our authority should, as soon as possible, be established over tfiem. Should Congress, therefore, determine to hold these provinces permanently, and that they shall hereafter be considered as Constituent parts of our country, the early establishment of territorial governments over them will be important for the more perfect protection of persons and property; and 1 recommend that such territorial governments be established." " Had the Mexican Government acceded to the equitable and liberal terms proposed last April," a cession of about one half of her republic would have satisfied the President ; but her rejecliori of our terms>and the large expenditures of blood and treasure, occasioned by the renewal of hos tilities, " must," he says, " influence the terms of peace which it may be deemed proper hereafter to accept/' How much he intends hereafter to claim, he has not condescended to inform us. New Mexico and the Californias, he says, are in our possession, and ought never to be surrendered to Mexico. The other Mexican provinces; in our possession, are to be held as a means of coercing Mexico to accede to our terms of peace. Well, sir, what are our terms of peace 1 What does the Presi dent desire to coerce Mexico to do ? Why, sir, to sell us fifteen or twenty millions of dollars worth of her territory. This is the plain English of the whole matter, and, in my judgment, it is a pro ceeding dishonorable to tke country, and I will wash my hands of all participation in it. If we must take Mexican territory to pay the claims of our citizens upon that Government, let us be contented with a cession sufficient for that purpose. Mexico is under no obligation to sell us her territory, and the war ought not to be continued for a single hour to compel her to do it. But this measure has been recommended by the administration, and the honorable Senator from Ar kansas, (Mr. SEVIER,) says, that is sufficient for him. It is not 'sufficient for me. I must act on my own responsibility, and not on the responsibility of the Executive. I must be satisfied that the measure is necessary to vindicate the rights and sustain the honor of the country, before I can support it. Again, sir, it has been more than intimated by honorable Senators on the other side of the cham- fcer, who have participated in this debate, that the only test of true patriotism and real love of 10 errantry, is a cordial support of all the measures recommended by the administration, for the farther prosecution of this war ; and that opposition to them is opposition to the country, and taking sides with the enemy. Sir, I claim to be as patriotic, and as ready to stand by the country, in peace and in war, as Senators over the way. But it is one thing to stand by the country, and quite a differ ent thing to stand by the administration. In standing by the country, I find myself compelled to oppose the measures recommended by the administration, because, in my judgment, if carried out, they would prove ruinous to the country. But, Mr. President, the honorable Senator from Illinois, (Mr. DOUGLASS,) said he was surprised to hear this war and the recommendations of the President for its vigorous prosecution denounced, "especially from those Senators who voted for all the war measures of the last session and the preceding one." The war measures, sir, for which we have heretofore voted, were recommended, the President informed us, with no view to the acquisition of Mexican territory, by conquest a just and honorable peace, and not the forcible dismemberment of the Mexican republic, was the purpose avowed for the prosecution of the war; But, sir, the war, since the last session of Congress, has assumed a new character. Its more vigorous prosecution is now recommended for a new object, and one that we have never approved, but uniformly con demned. We have never voted men nor money for snch a war as the President now avows this to be. The war for which we voted supplies was a war " waged with no view to conquest." The honorable Senator, therefore, ought to feel no surprise at the stand we take against this bill. But, sir, I will leave this subject and pass to a brief review of the measures which occasioned the war, viz: the annexation of Texas, and the order of the 13th of January, 3846, for the march of the army from Corpus Christi to the left bank of the Rio Grande. For the.se two measures the democratic party and the President are responsible. And I therefore charge upon them this war, and all the blood and treasure it has cost the country. The annexation of Texas was a party mea sure. It was a scheme, devised by the democracy of the south, to prevent the abolition of slavery in Texas ; and, when first announced, it met with no favor from the democracy of the north. It was denounced with great violence, and in language somewhat offensive, by the party press, and in the conventions of the people. The Globe, the leading democratic press in this city, joined in the opposition, and it was continued up to the meeting of the democratic convention in Baltimore in May, 1844. Now, sir, as the honorable Senator frem Illinois thought it his duty to convey through the Senate to the country the denunciations of a portion of the clergy and the press against the war of 1812, I will follow his example, and present to the Senate the denunciations of the north ern democracy against the annexation of Texas, when the scheme was first announced to the coun try. I shall do this, sir, with no view to cast reproach upon the people of Texas, but to show that, with the northern democracy, obligations to country are sometimes overcome by obligations to party. On the 20th of November, 1843, the Dover Gazette, N. H., a democratic paper, in an article against annexation, spoke of Texas in the following language : " Texas can hardly be in a worse state than it is now the most wicked, vile, God-abandoned place of which we have any knowledge its history would make the savage blush with shame. Yet t'lere are some who desire to effect an union between Texas and this country, as if we had not enough guilt and crime already upon our shoulders. We wish rather that we could fix an impassable gulf between us and its borders, that its breath of pestilence might never reach our shores. Heaven save us from a union with Texas." The New Hampshire Nashua Gazette (democratic paper) of November 9, 1843, in speaking of the annexation of Texas eaid : "The object- and design throughout all is as black as ink bitter as hell." " We hope, and sincerely trust there will be no truckling on the part of our northern representatives, when this mighty project shall come up before them in all its questionable shapes." The New Hampshire Patriot (democratic paper) of November 23, 1843, speaking of annexation said; " He, (the President) and his gang will probably attempt to throw this question into Congress as a fire brand. It may produce mischief, but we trust that the democrats have good sense enough to avoid being distracted by the acts of the enemy." The Dover Gazette, New Hampshire, in the fall of 1843, in an article against the admission of Texas, among other things, said : " The admissioR of Texas into the Union would be a public disgrace, and disgrace us in the eyes of all the civilized world. It would array against us the moral influence of all Christendom, and draw upon us the just retribution of an offended God." At a democratic convention held at Readfield, Maine, in the summer of 1843, to nominate a candidate for Congress, for the 3d Congressional District, the following resolution was adopted : Resolved, That the impropriety and inexpediency of the annexation of Texas to the United States, op pose insuperable objections to its admins-ion into the Union ; and that the silly representation of federal presses, that the democratic party are in alliance with the slave power of the South, in a systematic de sign to effect the admission of Texas, is entirely unsupported by any facts, or by the slightest indications in any quarter, giving such a supposition the appearance of truth ; and is, therefore, a wilful and delibe rate fabrication of the federal party for base and partisan purposes." Here, Mr. President, we have the views of the patriotic democracy of the 3d Congressional Dia- ttigt in Maine upon the subject of Texas annexation* The charge that the democratic party were 11 m favor of the measure, is declared to be a wilful falsehood, tittered by the federal parry for base and partisan purposes. But, sir, this hostility to annexation was not confined to the 3d Congressional District in Maine, the democracy of the whole State opposed it by strong resolutions passed in the House of Representatives in tne winter of 1843. Here, sir, are the resolutions of the Democratic Legislature of Massachusetts passed in 1843 I Resolved, That under no circumstances whatever, can the people of Massachusetts regard ihe proposi tion to admit Texas inio the Union, in nny other light than as dangerous to its continuance in peace, in prosperity, and in the enjoyment of tho^e blessings which it is the object of a free government to secure. Resolved, That, l he Senators and Kepreteutatives of Massachusetts, in the Congress of the United States, be requested to spare no exertions to oppose and, if possible, to prevent- -the adoption of the proposition referred to. Resolved, That his excellency, the Governor, be requested to transmit one copy of these resolutions to the executive of each of the United States, and a like copy to each Senator ana Representative in Con gress from Massachusetts." The democracy of Massachusetts regarded the admission of Texas into the Union as dangerous to its perpetuity, and under no circumstances whatever, could they consent to it. Ex-President Van Buren in a letter to Mr. Hammett, under date of April 20, 1844, opposed an nexation, because, in his judgment, it would involve us in a war with Mexico. And the Washington Globe of the first of May, 1844, contains the following editorial article: " We concur witli Mr. Van Buren fully and cordially in this view, and say it is the only wise, honora ble, safe, and practicable course. Mexico and Texas are now at war ; the armistice admits it, (a circum stance of which we were not apprised when we wrote our first article on this subject;) and to adopt the Texans as our citizens at this time, is to rrake ourselves a party to the war, and to take upon ourselves the business of its conclusion, either by negotiation or by arms. It requires no declaration of war from Mexico to involve us. From the moment we admit Texas, we make her a territory of the Union ; and it would be unlawful and punishable in her to treat with Mexico or to fight alone with Mexico. The United States alone could treal or fight ; and thus, from the day of the ratification of this treaty, the United States and Mexico would be at war; commerce between them would cease, and they would re main at wa ? , and commerce remain broken up, until the negotiation;) or the arms of the Urited States ter minated the adopted war. This is clear common sense, and no one can deny it." " We have been looking a little further in the published documents which accompany the treaty, and every step amazes us more and more. We find that Lord Aberdeen ana the British Minister here utterly deny the Duff Green story, sent from London in August Jafct, of the designs of England upon Texas, which is made ihe foundation of this whole proceeding. We believe it can easily be proved, that the whole scheme of getting up the Texas question, precisely as that question now is, existed long before Duff Green furnished that pretext, and that all this story of British interference, now put forth as the pretext for the moment, ha* been invented siftce the movement was organized." Globe, May 4, 1844. " If the General Government should take this step, in violation of the treaty with Mexico, would the character of our country be left to our posterity the same noble and honorable inheritance which was handed down to us by Washington, Jefferson, and Jackson ? " We do not believe the great mass of our countrymen are willing to sacrifice the honor, the renown, and the real glory of thi. country lor any earthly acquisition. If then, Texas has admitted, by a solemn proclamation, the existence of a war between her and Mexico ; if the Government of the United States has, by a solemn official document, declared its full knowledge that this is the state of the relations be tween Texas and Mexico, how can the President and Senate of the United States, without sacrificing the honor of the country, adopt this war with Mexico, in the face oi our treaty of peace with that country. Globe, May 15, 1844. Here, sir, we have not only a full endorsement of Mr. Van Buren's views against annexation, but a strong argument showing that Mexico and Texas were at war, and that the adoption of the measure would make us a party to the war, and compel us to bring it to a conclusion, either by ne gotiation or by arms. Well, sir, as the northern democracy anticipated, the " fire-brand" was thrown into Congress. On the 22d of April, 1844, President Tyler transmitted to the Senate, for ratification, a treaty annexing the republic of Texas to the United States. And what was its fate? Why, sir, it was rejected by a vote of 16 yeas to 35 nays. Every democratic Senator from the north, with the exception of Mr. Woodbury, from New Hampshire, voted against it. The rejec tion of the treaty, however, was but a temporary defeat of the measure. The Baltimore Conven tion, assembled for the purpose of nominating democratic candidates for President and Vice Presi dent, took the foreign relations of the country in charge, and resolved upon the re-annexation of Texas and the re-occupation of Oregon. How, Mr. President, was this resolution received by the northern democracy ? New York rebelled at once. The leaders of the party came out in a circu lar denouncing it as an unauthorised interpolation into the democratic creed, and refused to sustain it. Mr. Van Buren, their favorite candidate for the Presidency, had been rejected by that conven tion for his opposition to annexation.; and Mr. Polk, known to be friendly to the measure, had re ceived the nomination. In this condition of things, it was a work of some difficulty to reconcile the democracy of New York to the nominees of the convention. But difficult as the task seemed, it was at length accomplished. 'The honorable Silas Wright, who was a member of the Senate in 1844, and had voted against the treaty of annexation, and who was kncwn to be "strongly opposed to the measure, was nominated as a candidate for governor. This nomination reconciled the de mocracy to vote for Mr. Polk, provided no democratic member of Congress should be elected who was not pledged against annexation. The news of this arrangement of family difficulties in New York was soon conveyed to the New England democracy. Mr, Wright'* aomiaatioD, it wa fiaid> 12 would secure New York to Mr. Polk, and New England must come in and sustain the party. 6p= position to annexation soon began to die away, and, in a few weeks, the whole democratic party wheeled into the ranks and gave their support to the nominees of the convention. Now, sir, to keep up the party character of the measure, I will go back to the resolution of an- 1 nexatiort. In the winter of 1845, after the election of Mr. Polk, a joint resolution was introduced into the House of Representatives for the annexation of Texas to the United States, and, on the same day, I believe, a resoluiion for the same purpose was introduced into the Senate. On the 25th of January, the test vote was taken on the resolution in the House of Representatives, and it was passed Yeas, 113, Nays, 106, every whig in the House, with the exception of three from Tennes see, two from Georgia, and one from Alabama, voting in the negative. The House resolution came to the Senate, and the honorable Senator from Alabama, (Mr. BA<;- BY,) among others, made an able speech against it. He denied the constitutional power of Con gress to bring into the Union a foreign State, by a joint resolution ; that power, he maintained, be longed, exclusively j to another branch of the government, viz : the treaty making power. After this avowal of the Senator from Alabama, that he could not support the resolution as it came from the House, Mr. Walker, then a Senator from Mississippi, moved an amendment conferring upon the President the power to withhold the resolution, if, in his judgment and discretion, he should deem it most advisable, and to negotiate with the republic of Texas for her admission into the Union. The amendment was adopted. A motion was then made, by a Senator on this side of the chamber, to strike out the first and Second sections of the resolution and confine the President to negotiation alone for the acquisition of the country. This measure was opposed and defeated the Senatof from Alabama voting with the majority. The resolution was then passed by a vote of 27 yeas, to 25 nays, every democratic Senator voting in the affirmative, and every whig Senator, with the ex ception of Mr. HENDERSON, from Mississippi, Mr. JOHNSON, from Louisiana, and Mr. MEKRICK, from Maryland, voting in the negative. Mr. BAGBY. I do not suppose for a moment that the Senator intends to do me the slightest injustice in reference to what I said then or at any time; What I then said was ; and I repeat it now, that I never would vote for the resolutions as they came from the House of Representatives, but that I would vote for the proposition as amended by the Senate. I disclaimed the idea of its being indispensably necessary to annex Texas by treaty, but said it might be done by treaty, or compact, and cited the compact between the United States and Georgia, in 1802, as a case in point. Mr. UPHAM. The Senator opposed the resolution as it came from the House. Mr. BAGBY. Decidedly. Mr. UPHAM. No consideration could induce me to misrepresent the honorable Senator in any speech he has made, or any vote he has given upon this question. I alluded to the speech and votes of the Senator for the purpose of showing that the first and second sections of the resolution presented to the republic of Texas, never had a majority of the Senate in their favor. The democratic Senators from the North who voted against annexation in 1844, Toted for it in 1845. Now, what happened in the nine months that elapsed between tfee rejection of the treaty and the passage of the resolution, to change their minds upon the subject ? Were the objections urged against the measure less formidable in 1845 than they were in 1844 ? Was annexation less objectionable to the democracy of the North after it became a party measure than it was before it assumed a party character 1 These are questions worthy of consideration, and on some convenient occasion I hope they will be answered. The resolution of annexation having passed both Houses of Congress, President Tyler, on the 1st of March, 1845, approved it ; and the next day he sent oft' his messenger with directions to submit the first and second sections of the resolution to the republic of Texas, as an overture for her admission, as a State, into our Union. In this condition of affairs, President Tyler retired, and the new administration came into power ; and what, sir, was the first act of the new President? It was to declare his approval of the resolution for the annexation of Texas, and to assure the coun try that, in his opinion, our title to the Oregon country was "clear and unquestionable." But, sir, it has been said by Senators, on the other side of the chamber, that President Polk is in nowise responsible for the manner of annexation. The Senator from Tennessee, (Mr. TURNEY,) in his speech the other day, said that annexation took place under the Tylr administration ; that Presi dent Polk had no connexion with it or power over it ; that Mr. Tyler, in the last hours of his ad ministration, selected the mode of annexation, and thereby deprived the new administration of the power to withhold the resolution and negotiate for the acquisition of the country. Mr. President, the honorable Senator is laboring under a great mistake in this matter. Mr. Polk had as much to do in selecting the mode of annexation as Mr. Tyler. He not only approved of the proceedings of President Tyler, but directed our Charge d' Affairs in Texas to present the first and second sections of the resolution to that republic for her acceptance. The message of Decem ber 2, 1845, will settle this question. The President says : " In pursuance of the joint resolution of Congress, fjr annexing Texas to the United States, my prede cessor, on the tliird day of March, 1845, elected to submit the first and second sections of that resolution to the Republic of Texas,, as an overture, on the part of the United States, for her admission as a State into our Union. This election I approved, and accordingly the charge d'affaires of the United States, in 'ixaa, under instructions of the lOihof March, 1845, presented these sections of the reflation for the acceptance of that republic." 13 Here, Mr. President, is a full approval of all the proceedings of Mr. Tyler, touching the manner of annexation. The first and second sections of the resolutions were presented to Texas for her acceptance, under instructions from President Polk, given seven days after Mr. Tyler's term of of fice had expired. Mr. Polk was not bound by the proceedings of his predecessor. He had full power to withhold the resolution, and proceed by negotiation, if he preferred that mode of acqui sition. But, Mr. President, it is time to leave this branch of the subject, and pass to the order of the 13th of January, 1846, for the march of the army from Corpus Christi, to the left bank of the Rio Grande. This order, in my judgment, was an act of Executive usurpation, and the immediate cause of the war. If our army had remained at Corpus Christi, the acquisition of Texas would, to use the lan guage of the President " Have been a bloodless achievement. No arm of force would have been raised to produce the result. The sword would have had no part in the victory..' The resolution of annexation declares: " That Congress dolh consent, that the territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State,