407 
 
 .05 
 X 
 
fa, 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OP 
 
 
 HON. S. A. DOUGLAS, OF ILLINOIS, 
 
 ON 
 
 THE WAR WITH MEXICO, 
 
 AND 
 
 THE BOUNDARY OF THE RIO GRANDE 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1848. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE, 
 
 1848. 
 
THE WAR WITH MEXICO, &c. 
 
 OR th Bill to raise, for a limited time, an additional 
 
 Military FWce. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS said : I hope it will not be inferred 
 from the array of books with which I am sur 
 rounded, that I intend subjecting the Senate to the 
 infliction of hearing them read. My only object 
 in bringing them here is,* to be enabled to respond 
 at once to inquiries, if any should be made, as to 
 the authority upon which my statements of fact 
 may be predicated. I shall state no fact for the 
 accuracy of which I have not the most conclusive 
 authority in the books before me. I regret that 
 I did not conclude to participate in the discussion 
 at a period sufficiently early to have enabled me to 
 make the requisite preparation. If I had done 
 so, I should have beer) able to compress what I 
 have to say within a much smaller compass, and 
 to have said it in a manner more satisfactory to 
 myself and more intelligible to the Senate. I had 
 supposed that the only question presented by the 
 bill was, to determine whether the additional force 
 provided for was necessary for the prosecution of 
 the existing war to a speedy and honorable termi 
 nation. The war has been in progress nearly two 
 years. Its legal existence was recognized on the 
 13th of May, 1846, and it existed, in fact, prior to 
 that time, as the official reports of the battles of 
 Palo Alto and Resaca will show. The campaign 
 of 1846 resulted in a series of the most brilliant vic 
 tories that ever adorned the arms of any nation. 
 States and territories were overrun and subjected, 
 equal in extent to one-half of the Mexican Confed 
 eracy. California, New Mexico, Chihuahua, Coa- 
 huila, New Leon, and Tamaulipas, besides many 
 important towns and cities in other States, were 
 reduced to our possession. The official reports of 
 these conquests are to be found in the published 
 documents of last session. The President of the 
 United States, in his message at the beginning of 
 that session, gave us a succinct history of the prog 
 ress of our arms in these several Mexican prov 
 inces, and suggested the propriety of " providing 
 ' for the security of these important conquests, by 
 
 * making an adequate appropriation for the purpose* 
 
 * of erecting fortifications, and defraying the ex- 
 
 * penses necessarily incident to the maintenance of 
 
 * our possession and authority over them." In the 
 same message he referred to the three-million ap 
 propriation which he had asked for at the previous 
 
 \ session, and renewed the recommendation. He 
 
 \referred to the appropriations which were made in 
 
 Anticipation of the Louisiana and Florida treaties 
 
 as precedents in this case, and adds, that " it was 
 
 ' m contemplation, at the time those appropriations 
 
 were made, to acquire Louisiana from France, 
 and to purchase the Floridas from Spain, and 
 that they were intended to be applied as a part of 
 the consideration which might be paid for those 
 territories." Upon this exposition of the prog 
 ress of the war, and of the policy of the^G-overn- 
 ment in reference to it, the President asked for 
 more men and money, for the purpose of conduct 
 ing a campaign into-the very heart of Mexico of 
 reducing her capital, and of holding possession of 
 the whole country, until she should accede to such 
 terms of boundary and indemnity as we should 
 deem just and honorable. The men and money 
 were freely voted, including the three-million ap 
 propriation ,which was intended to be applied in part 
 payment the first instalment, for instance for 
 such territory as we might acquire from Mexico in a 
 treaty of peace, in addition to what should be deem 
 ed adequate remuneration for the expenses of the 
 war, and indemnity to our citizens. I shall excise 
 no surprise, therefore, when I say, that I was not 
 prepared to hear this unqualified denunciation of 
 the war and of the recommendations of the Presi 
 dent for its vigorous prosecution especially from 
 those Senators who voted for all the war measures 
 of last session and the preceding one. I was not 
 prepared to hear them denounce the war as unjust, 
 unnecessary, and unconstitutional much less as a 
 war of conquest, of rapine, and robbery. We 
 have heard these denunciations, within the last 
 few days, poured forth from the lips of Senators 
 with a solemnity that would seem to carry convic 
 tion, at least to the minds of those who made them, 
 that they were well merited-, and, what is more 
 astonishing, we have heard them from Senators 
 who, by their votes, if not their speeches, have 
 sustained every war measure which has passed 
 since hostilities first commenced by the act of 
 Mexico. They now contend, not only that the 
 war was unnecessary and unconstitutional, but 
 that the President of the United States is the sole 
 author of the iniquity. Do gentlemen suppose 
 that they can throw the responsibility of their 
 own acts upon the President of the United States ? 
 Do they imagine that they can make the people 
 believe that the Executive is alone responsible for 
 all the consequences that may flow from the faith 
 ful execution of the laws which they enact, and, 
 under the Constitution, compel him to execute? If 
 it be a war of iniquity and injustice, you are the 
 transgressors 1 If it be a war of robbery, you are 
 the robbers! If it be a war against and in viola 
 tion of the Constitution, yours is the treason! 
 You voted for it, under the solemnity of your 
 
 i 
 
 >.er 
 
oaths. You voted the men and the money. You 
 voted to recognize the legal and constitutional ex 
 istence of the war. You helped to pass the law, 
 and made it the sworn duty of the President to see 
 it faithfully executed. It is your war^, as much as 
 his and ours; and you will not b& permitted to 
 escape your share of its responsibility, while you 
 participate in the credit which you claim from 
 having given it your support. I do not intend to 
 cast any unkind reflections upon any Senator, but 
 I do think that I am fully justified by the record 
 in the observations which I have just made. It 
 would seem that a great discovery has recently 
 been made that the Congress of the United States 
 has been acting under an entire misapprehension 
 in regard to the nature and character of this war. 
 We are now told that the President has changed 
 his ground", and now assigns causes and reasons 
 totally different and inconsistent with those which 
 he gave at the last and preceding sessions; that the 
 causes then were, " that American blood has been 
 shed "Upon American soil;'' the reasons now given 
 for its prosecution are, "indemnity for the past 
 and security for the future." The Senator from 
 Delaware has made these two extracts from the 
 President's messages the subject of much mirth 
 and wit. He has told us that indemnity for the 
 past means one-half of Mexico, and security for 
 the future the other half. Convinced by this won 
 derful discovery that his efficient support of this 
 war has been yielded under a fatal delusion as to 
 its true character and objects, he feels constrained, 
 now that he has recovered his mental vision, to 
 make atonement for the past by withholding sup 
 plies in future. I cannot concede that there has 
 been any change in the line of policy originally 
 announced by the Executive and supported by his 
 friends on this subject. We stand where we then 
 stood. The causes and the objects of the war re 
 main unchanged. They were then, and are now, 
 comprised in the two brief extracts which have 
 been so frequently quoted "American blood has 
 been shed upon American soil;" " Indemnity for 
 the past and security for the future." 
 
 In the President's message of the llth of May, 
 1846, in pursuance of which the original act recog 
 nizing the existence of a state of war was passed, he 
 referred to " the grievous wrongs perpetrated by 
 Mexicans upon our citizens, throughout a long 
 period of years, remaining unredressed" "solemn 
 treaties pledging her public faith for this redress 
 having been disregarded" " our commerce with 
 Mexico having been almost annihilated our mer 
 chants having been deterred from prosecuting it 
 by the system of outrage and extortion which the 
 Mexican authorities have pursued against them, 
 while their appeals, through their own Govern 
 ment, for indemnity have been made in vain." 
 
 These outrages upon our flag and citizens had 
 been so enormous, that General Jackson, during 
 his Presidential term, felt himself constrained to 
 call the attention of Congress to them in a special 
 message, and to express his decided opinion that 
 they were sufficient, at that time, to justify imme 
 diate war. They continued with renewed insult 
 and injury under Mr. Van Buren's administra 
 tion, and he, too, expressed similar opinions to 
 Congress upon the subject. The appropriate com 
 mittees of both Houses of Congress, as near as I 
 now recollect, made reports in which they fully 
 concurred with the Executives in the opinions they 
 
 had expressed as to the nature and extent of the 
 outrages, and the justice of the remedy suggested. 
 Congress allowed their sympathy for the weak 
 ness and degradation of a nominal sister republic 
 to prevail over their sense of duty to the citizens 
 and flag of our own country. Had we acted with 
 the promptness which characterized the British 
 and French Governments in cases precisely simi 
 lar, we should have taught Mexico a lesson long 
 ago, which would have deterred her from acts of 
 hostility upon this country, and saved us the pre 
 cious blood and treasure which have been so freely 
 poured out in this war. The descent of the French 
 fleet upon Vera Cruz, and the capture of the fa 
 mous castle of San Juan de Ulua, for some of 
 these very outrages committed indiscriminately 
 u,pon French and American citizens, are familiar 
 to the Senate. We all remember that the indem 
 nity and satisfaction were forthcoming on the day 
 appointed by the French Admiral. England, whose 
 subjects had suffered in conjunction with those of 
 France and our citizens, made her demand, accom 
 panied with the notice, that if it was not promptly 
 responded to, her fleet would immediately sail from 
 the Jamaica station. The money was paid, be 
 cause the demand was made in a tone that Mexico 
 could understand. America spoke, as one sister 
 would speak to another, in a voice of kindness and 
 sisterly affection, but it fell upon Mexican earys as 
 an unknown tongue. Mexico, mistaking our mag 
 nanimity for pusillanimity, treated our complaints 
 with contempt, and our remonstrances with defi 
 ance. 
 
 The President of the United States, in the mes 
 sage to which I have referred, spoke of these 
 things as just ground of complaint and indemnity, 
 but not as the causes of the existing war. For he 
 informed us that the war existed by the act of 
 Mexico that the Mexican army had "invaded 
 our territory, and shed American blood upon 
 American soil." The precise spot is not stated, 
 but the locality is well known to have been on the 
 left bank of the Rio Grande, opposite, and not far 
 from, Matamoros. Then and there the war actu 
 ally commenced, the Mexican army making the 
 attack the commanding-general having, on the 
 morning of the same day, given notice to General 
 Taylor that " he considered hostilities commenced, 
 and should prosecute them." This was on the 
 24th of April, 1846. The battle of Palo Alto was 
 fought on the 8th, and Resaca de la Palma on the 
 9th, of May. Congress recognized the existence 
 of the war, and placed at the disposal of the Presi 
 dent ten millions of money and fifty thousand vol 
 unteers, besides the army, the navy, and the mili 
 tia of the United States, for its vigorous prosecution. 
 The law passed almost unanimously, there being 
 only fourteen dissenting voices in the House, and 
 two in the Senate. If the war is unconstitutional 
 now, I suppose it was equally so then; and if it 
 was unconstitutional then, it must necessarily be 
 db now, unless that law legalized it, or (if I may 
 be allowed to invent a more impressive term,) con- 
 stitutionalized it. In either event, Congress sanc 
 tioned it by a vote almost unanimous, irrespective 
 of party distinctions; and confirmed it by furnish 
 ing men and means to an almost unlimited extent. 
 I now submit it to the consciences, as well as the 
 patriotism, of Senators who voted for that law, if 
 they are not estopped from saying that the war is 
 either unjust, unnecessary, or unconstitutional," 
 
But I will return to the recently-made discovery, 
 that the President has changed his grounds in re 
 gard to the causes of the war, and the objects for 
 prosecuting it. I have shown that the causes 
 which produced it remain unchanged, and that the 
 President set forth the insults to our flag, and the 
 injuries to our commerce and citizens, as griev 
 ances to be redressed, in the message to which the 
 act of the 13th of May, 1846, was a patriotic re 
 sponse. I now wish to invite the attention of the 
 Senate especially those Senators who have hith 
 erto supported the war, and now oppose it upon 
 the ground that the President has recently shifted 
 positions by setting up a claim for indemnity to 
 the following extracts from a document which was 
 sent to General Taylor, from the War Department, 
 on the 4th of June, 1846, and by him promulgated 
 to the Mexican people: 
 
 st *fl Proclamation by the General commanding the Jlrmy of 
 the United States of America, to Hie people of Mexico: 
 11 After many years of patient endurance, the United States 
 are at length constrained to acknowledge that a war now 
 exists between our Government and the Government of 
 Mexico. For many years our citizens have been subjected 
 to repeated insults and injuries, our vessels and cargoes have 
 bc;eri seized and confiscated, our merchants have beenjpluu- 
 dered, maimed, imprisoned without cause and without rep 
 aration. At lenjrtii your Government acknowledged the 
 justice of our claims, and agreed by treaty to make satisfac 
 tion, by payment of several millions of dollars; but this 
 treaty has been violated by your rulers, and the stipulated 
 payments have been withheld. Our late effort to terminate 
 all difficulties by peaceful negotiation has been rejected by 
 the dictator Paredes, and our minister of peace, whom your 
 rulers had agreed to receive, has been refused a hearing." 
 
 This is the first statement which our Govern 
 ment ever made to Mexico, of the purposes for 
 which the war she had made upon us, was to be 
 prosecuted on our part. 
 
 Let me read another extract from the same doc 
 ument it is a choice morsel: 
 
 " We come to obtain reparation for repeated wronss and 
 
 injuries ; we come t.y obtain indemnity for the past and secu 
 rity for the future." 
 
 The identical words which have frightened the 
 Senator from Delaware from his propriety, if not 
 his duty, and which, when found in the President's 
 late message, have converted the Senator from a 
 firm friend to an irreconcilable opponent of the 
 war, upon the ground that they furnish evidence 
 of a change of policy on the part of the Execu 
 tive ! If indemnity for the past means one-half of 
 Mexico, and security for the future the other half, 
 why did not the Senator then see as clearly as he 
 now sees, that it was the object of General Taylor, 
 as well as the President, to conquer and hold the 
 whole of Mexico ? Why did he not then, as well 
 as now, denounce the war as a stupendous scheme 
 of rapine and robbery? Again, sir, it will be 
 remembered, as I have already remarked, that the 
 official reports, containing the detailed history of 
 our conquests in California, New Mexico, Coa- 
 huila, New Leon, Tamaulipas, and Tabasco, were 
 before us at the last session of Congress. W^ 
 also had before us at the same time the voluminous 
 correspondence between the Departments of War 
 and Navy, and our generals and commodores com 
 manding our armies and navies in Aiexico, and 
 upon her coast. The Senator from North Caro 
 lina, who favored the Senate with his views a few 
 days ago, quoted largely from that correspondence, 
 as published in the documents of the last Congress, 
 to show that the President designed from the be 
 
 ginning to conquer and hold a large portion of the 
 territory of Mexico. He felicitated himself that 
 he had established this position beyond all contro 
 versy, by extracts from the instructions of the 
 Navy Department to Commodores Conner, Sloat, 
 and Stockton, and from the War Department to 
 Generals Taylor and Kearny. Indeed, all the 
 arguments upon which Senators rely to prove that 
 this is a war of conquest and robbery, repugnant 
 to the genius, and fatal to the permanence of our 
 institutions, are founded upon informatioffcommu- 
 nicated at the last session, and which was, or ought 
 to have been, as familiar to them then as now. 
 Besides, sir, the fact that the President, at the 
 opening of the last session, renewed his recom 
 mendation of the three million bill, with the distinct 
 intimation that it was intended as the first instal 
 ment, in part payment of whatever territory we 
 might acquire from Mexico by a treaty of peace 
 and limits, after deducting all claims for indemnity, 
 was sufficient notice that the Executive did, at that 
 time, contemplate a cession of territory by Mexi 
 co, to the value of three millions of dollars at 
 least, over and above the indemnity for injuries to 
 our citizens, and the expenses of the war. Tnus, 
 with a full knowledge of the origin and history of 
 the war of the extent of our conquests, and the 
 line of policy in reference to its further prosecu 
 tion, the war bills of the last session were passed, 
 making liberal provision in men and means, not 
 only for holding what we had conquered, but for 
 making new conquests in the very heart of Mexico. 
 These bills received the cordial and powerful sup 
 port of Senators, who now tell us that we ought 
 to withhold all further supplies, because the Presi 
 dent has changed his whole policy, and converted 
 it into a war of conquest. 
 
 Sir, I do not understand that it is, or at any 
 time has been, a war of conquest, in the proper 
 sense of that term, much less a war of robbery. It 
 is a war of self-defence, forced upon us by our ene 
 my, and prosecuted on our part in vindication of 
 our honor, and the integrity of our territory. The 
 enemy invaded our territory, and we repelled the 
 invasion, and demanded satisfaction for all our 
 grievances. In order to compel Mexico to do us 
 justice, it was necessary to follow her retreating 
 armies into her territory, to take possession of 
 State after State, and hold them until she would 
 yield to our reasonable demands; and inasmuch 
 as it was certain that she was unable to make in 
 demnity in money, we must necessarily take it in 
 land. Conquest was not the motive for the prose 
 cution of the war; satisfaction, indemnity, secu 
 rity, was the motive conquest and territory the 
 means. 
 
 Mr. President. I cannot dwell longer on the incon 
 sistencies in which gentlemen on the opposite side 
 involve themselves. I have already dwelt too long 
 on these preliminary questions. I must proceed 
 at once to the main point of my argument. 1 pro 
 pose to examine the question, whether, on the 24th 
 of May, 1846, American blood was shed on Ameri 
 can soil by the Mexican army. That the Mexi 
 can forces crossed the Rio Grande on that day 
 attacked and killed American soldiers stationed on 
 the left bank, is conceded. But it is denied that 
 the left bank of that river was American soil; or, 
 in other words, that the Rio Grande was the bound 
 ary line between Mexico and the. United States, 
 after the admission of Texas into the Union. It 
 
is my present purpose to establish the affirmative 
 of this proposition. 
 
 I will premise, that, in my judgment, a radical 
 error has generally obtained in regard to the char 
 acter of the revolution which resulted in the estab 
 lishment of the Republic of Texas. It seems to 
 have been generally supposed that Texas rebelled 
 against the constitutional authorities of Mexico, 
 and, by means of a successful revolution, estab 
 lished her independence. No such thing. Texas 
 never rebelled never revolted. Precisely the 
 reverse was the fact. A few military leaders, 
 with Santa Anna at their head, conspired and 
 rebelled against the Republic of Mexico seized 
 the reins of government abolished the Federal 
 Constitution and the State governments and es 
 tablished a military despotism in their stead. 
 That rebellion, which commenced in the city of 
 Mexico, assumed the dignity of a successful revo 
 lution, and by the aid of the army extended its 
 power from State to State, until it had reduced to 
 subjection all that portion of the Republic of 
 Mexico which lies to the south and west of the 
 Rio Grande. The people on this side of the Rio 
 Grande took up arms in defence of the consti 
 tutional government of the Republic of Mexico 
 State and Federal maintained their authority, and 
 limited and confined the power of the revolutionary 
 government to the right bank of that river. To 
 show that I am clearly right in this position, it 
 will be necessary for me to refer somewhat in 
 detail to the most prominent facts connected with 
 the history of Texas, as well as the revolution 
 which led to the establishment of that Republic. 
 From the date of the Louisiana treaty in 1803 to 
 that of the Florida treaty in 1819, this Government 
 uniformly claimed the Rio Grande as the westers 
 boundary of the United States. In 1805, Messrs. 
 Monroe and Pinckney declared to the Spanish 
 minister, that the United States considered their 
 title to the Rio Grande as complete, under the 
 Louisiana treaty, as to the island of New Orleans. 
 As late as 1818, Mr. Adams, Secretary of State 
 under Mr. Monroe, after carefully reviewing all 
 the evidences of title, referring in detail to all the 
 musty records, maps, and geographies of France 
 and Spain, as well as England, affirmed the propo 
 sition that our title was as good to the Rio Grande 
 as to the island of New Orleans. In the mean 
 time, and before the cession of the country be 
 tween the Sabine and the Rio Grande to Spain by 
 the Florida treaty, many American citizens had 
 emigrated to that territory, in the full confidence 
 that the Government of the United States intended 
 to maintain its claim to the country, and that they 
 would be protected in the enjoyment of their rights 
 as American citizens. When they found them 
 selves abandoned by their own Government, and 
 by a treaty stipulation converted into the degraded 
 subjects of a foreign prince, they instantly raised 
 the standard of rebellion, protested against the 
 ratification of the treaty, and proclaimed their firm 
 resolve, in case it should be ratified, to free them 
 selves by force of arms from Spanish dominion. 
 The treaty was finally ratified in 1821, and the 
 same year these Americans in Texas joined the 
 Mexicans in a revolt, the object of which was, to 
 throw off the Spanish yoke and establish for j 
 themselves a republican government similar to [ 
 our own. The revolution was successful, and on J 
 the 4th day of October, 1824, the Federal con- | 
 
 stitution of the Republic of Mexico was adopt 
 ed. During the revolution a provisional govern 
 ment had been established, for the purpose of 
 affording protection to the inhabitants,, and giving 
 energy and proper direction to their patriotic 
 efforts in behalf of freedom. By an act of this 
 provisional government, Texas, with her own 
 consent, had been temporarily united with the 
 province of Coahuila, with this limitation, " until 
 j Texas possesses the necessary elements to prove 
 i a separate State of herself." In 1820, after the 
 | Florida treaty had been signed, and before the 
 revolution broke out, Moses Austin had procured 
 from the Spanish authorities a grant of land upon 
 which he was authorized to locate a colony of 
 emigrants. He having died before the conditions 
 of the grant could be complied with, his son, Ste 
 phen P. Austin, procured its renewal and confirm 
 ation by the revolutionary authorities the next 
 year, and proceeded to establish his colony under 
 the protection of the provisional government. I 
 have called the attention of the Senate to these 
 facts, for the purpose of showing that the early 
 American settlers in Texas were not a lawless 
 band of intruders, who had forced their way into 
 the Country, in defiance of the laws and constitu 
 tional authorities. With the same view I will read 
 the first section of the colonization law of the State 
 of Coahuila and Texas, passed March 24, 1825: 
 
 " All foreigners, who, in virtue of the general law of the 
 28th August, 1824, which guaranties the security of their 
 person aiul property, in the territory of the Mexican nation^ 
 wish to remove to the settlements of the State of Coahuila 
 and Texas, are at liberty to do so ; and the said State invites 
 and calls them." 
 
 Yes, sir, the State of Coahuila and Texas, in 
 pursuance of the colonization law of the Federal 
 Government, " invites" and " calls" foreigners to 
 come and settle within its limits. She went fur 
 ther, and offered large tracts of land as induce 
 ments to come, and conferred all the rights and 
 privileges of citizenship upon every emigrant who 
 might respond to the call. On the llth day of 
 March, 1827, the constitution of the State of Coa 
 huila and Texas was adopted. It had been form 
 ed in conformity with the Federal constitution, 
 and in pursuance of an act of the Federal Con 
 gress. This State constitution, and the constitu 
 tion of the Republic, may be considered as the 
 articles of compact the bond of union between 
 the State and the Confederation. They contain 
 the terms and the conditions upon which the State 
 of Coahuila and Texas constituted. a member of 
 the confederacy. I have these two instruments 
 before me, and will invite the attention of the Sen 
 ate to the first five articles of the constitution of 
 the State of Coahuila and Texas: 
 
 ART. 1. The Sftite of Coahuila and Texas is the union of 
 all the Coahwltezanos. 
 
 ART. 2. It is free, and independent of the other Mexican 
 States, and of every other power and dominion whatsoever. 
 
 ART. 3. The sovereignty of the Stole re.-ides originally 
 and essentially in the general mass of the individuals v:ho com 
 pose it ; but they shall not, of themselves, exercise any other 
 aetsof sovereignty than those pointed out in this constitu 
 tion, and in the form which it provides. . 
 
 ART. 4. In all subject* relating to the Mexican Confeder 
 acy, the State delegates its powers and rights to the general 
 Congress of the same ; bat in all that belongs to the internal 
 government arid administration of said State, it retains its 
 liberty, independence, and sovereignty. 
 
 ART. 5. Wherefore, the right of establishing its funda 
 mental laws through the medium of its representatives, in 
 conformity to the basis establL-hod in the constitutive act 
 and general constitution, belongs exclusively to the said 
 State. 
 
These were the conditions upon which the Tex- 
 ans became citizens of the Mexican confederacy, 
 and were the terms alone upon which they could 
 be required or expected to continue such. They 
 had been invited and called there, through the col 
 onization laws, with the guarantee that they should 
 be protected in the enjoyment of all their rights as 
 citizens, agreeably to the forms of the constitution. 
 They were " free and independent of the other 
 Mexican United States, and of every other power 
 and dominion whatsoever." They continued true 
 and law-abiding citizens, faithful to the constitu 
 tion of the State and the confederation until their 
 seat of government was invaded about the 1st of 
 June, 1835, by a revolutionary army from the city 
 of Mexico, a portion of the members of the Legis 
 lature, which was then in session, captured and 
 imprisoned, and the rest compelled to save their 
 lives by flight, and seek a place of refuge on this 
 side of the Rio Grande. The inhabitants between 
 that river and the Sabine instantly took up arms 
 in defence of their liberties and republican institu 
 tions, and for the purpose of checking the progress 
 of the invading revolutionary army. For the pur 
 pose of concentrating their forces, and giving energy 
 and a proper direction to their patriotic efforts, 
 they assembled in convention on the 3d of Novem 
 ber, 1835, and, after making a " solemn declara 
 tion" of the causes which had compelled them to 
 take up arms, proceeded to organize a provisional 
 government. I will read the first and the conclu 
 ding paragraphs of this declaration : 
 "Declaration of the People of Texas, in General Convention 
 assembled. 
 
 " Whereas, General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna and 
 other military chieftains have, by fosceof arms, overthrown 
 the Federal institutions of Mexico, and dissolved the social 
 compact which existed between Texas and the other mem 
 bers of the Mexican Confederacy ; now, the good people of 
 Texas, availing themselves of their natural rights, 
 " SOLEMNLY DECLARE, 
 
 " 1st. That they have taken up arms in defence of their 
 rights and liberties, which are threatened by the encroach 
 ments of military despots, and in defence of the republican 
 principles of the Federal Constitution of Mexico." 
 
 11 These declarations we solemnly avow to the world, and 
 call God to witness their truth and sincerity, and invoke 
 defeat and disgrace upon our heads, should we prove guilty 
 of duplicity." 
 
 Now, sir, I propose to invite the attention of the 
 Senate to the state of things then existing in the 
 city of Mexico, and to trace the causes which had 
 rendered it necessary for the Texans to take up 
 arms in defence of the constitution and liberties of 
 the Republic of Mexico, which were in danger of 
 being overthrown by military despots. In 1834, 
 Santa Anna, who had been elevated to the Presi 
 dency by the military power, (deposing Busta- 
 mente, the acting President, who had become very 
 obnoxious to the people,) and had subsequently 
 been confirmed in his seat by a popular election, 
 proceeded to execute the design he had formed of 
 subverting the constitutional government of Mexi 
 co, and of establishing a military despotism in its 
 place. In May of that year he dissolved the con 
 stitutional Congress by a military order, and at the 
 same time by a similar order abolished the " coun 
 cil of government." This council was composed 
 of one senator from each State, and was required, 
 by the constitution, to remain in session during 
 the recess of Congress, to act as the advisers of 
 the President of the Republic, and to " see that the 
 constitution is strictly observed." The council of 
 government was invested with various other pow 
 
 ers and duties, which will be found in the fifth 
 section of the constitution of 1824, which I hold 
 in my hand, and would invite the attention of Sen 
 ators to 113th and 116th articles, but will not take 
 the time to read them.* 
 
 I will here read a short extract from Mrs. Hoi- 
 ley's "Texas," to show how these changes in 
 the government were effected, and a new Congress 
 assembled : 
 
 "The constitutional General Congress of 1834, which was 
 decidedly republican and federal, was dissolved in May of 
 that year, by a military order of the President, before its 
 constitutional term kad expired. The council of govern 
 ment, of half the Senate, which, agreeably to the constitu 
 tion, ought to have been installed the day after closing the 
 session of Congress,- was also dissolved ; and a new, revo 
 lutionary, and unconstitutional Congress was convened by 
 another military order of the President. This Congress 
 met on the 1st of January, 1835." a 
 
 One of the first acts, if not the very first, of the 
 new Congress, was to depose the constitutional 
 Vice President, Gomez Farias, and to substitute in 
 his place General Barragan, one of Santa Anna's 
 co-conspirators. The next act of this revolution 
 ary Congress is thus stated by Mrs. Holley: 
 
 "By another decree it united the Senate with the House 
 of Representatives in one chamber, and, thus constituted, 
 it declared itself in vested with full powers as a national con 
 vention. In accordance with these usurped powers, it pro 
 ceeded to annul the Federal Constitution and system, and 
 to establish a central or consolidated government." 
 
 1 also hold in my hand another work " A His 
 tory of South America and Mexico," by a distin 
 guished member of this body in which the facts 
 of this revolution are recorded with great clear 
 ness and precision. I read from Niles's History 
 of Mexico: 
 
 " Pronunciamentos were again resorted to; these were 
 now made to favor centralism, and on the strength of these 
 resolutions of town meetings, manufactured by order of the 
 bishops of each diocese, Congress proceeded to abolish the 
 constitution 0/1824, ABOLISHING AT THE SAME TIME ALL THE 
 STATE CONSTITUTIONS AND STATE AUTHORITIES." 
 
 I will read another paragraph, to show the pre 
 cautions which were taken by the usurpers to co 
 erce the acquiescence of the people in the military 
 despotism which they were about to establish on 
 the ruins of the republican system: 
 
 II Symptoms of opposition having been exhibited in some 
 of the" States against this act of Congress, levelling the whole 
 structure of their State Governments, and in fact annihi 
 
 * SECTION 5th. Of the Council of Government. 
 
 113. During the recess of Congress there shall be a Coun 
 cil of Government, composed of one-half of the members of 
 the Senate, one for each State. 
 
 116. The attributions of this Council are the following : 
 First, to see that the constitution is strictly observed, and 
 the constitutional acts and general laws, and to give their 
 advice in any incident relative to these objects. Second, 
 to lay before the President any observations conducive for 
 the better compliance of the constitution and laws of the 
 Union. Third, to determine of themselves only, the advice 
 of the President, the calling of extraordinary sessions of 
 Congress ; but in either, it shall require the vote of two- 
 thirds of the councillors present, as stated in attributions 17 
 and 18 of article 110. Fourth, to grant their consent to the 
 calling out of the local militia, in the manner stated in arti 
 cle 110, attribution 11. Fifth, to approve the appointment 
 of officers designated in attribution 6, article 110. Sixth, to 
 give their consent in the case referred to in article 112, re 
 striction first. Seventh, to name two individuals who shall, 
 in conjunction with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 
 provisionally exercise the supreme executive power, aa 
 prescribed in article 97. Eighth, to administer the oath 
 stated in article 101 to those individuals of the supreme ex 
 ecutive povyer, in the terms provided in this constitution. 
 Ninth, to give their opinion on subjects referred to them by 
 the President, by virtue of the 21st faculty of article 110, and 
 all business wherein he may consult their. 
 
8 
 
 fating the very name of State, provision was made by Con 
 gress for a large increase of the standing army, and a con 
 siderable force was ordered to be permanently quartered in 
 each State, under the command of the new Governors now 
 to be appointed by the President." 
 
 The decree for the establishment of the new gov 
 ernment bears date the 3d of October, 1835, and is 
 "formed upon the plan of Toluca for a basis." I 
 have no less than three other histories before me, 
 in which the same transactions are recorded, and 
 all agree on every material point. I will read from 
 them if any Senator shall desire it. The presence 
 of the military kept the people in subjection, and 
 the revolution was complete so far as the capital 
 was concerned. Its power extended in every; di 
 rection. State after State submitted uncondition 
 ally before the march of the revolutionary army, 
 until it took up its position on the borders of 
 Zacatecas.* Here, for the first time, it met with 
 formidable opposition. Alvarez, the republican 
 Governor of that State, had raised an army of five 
 thousand men, and awaited the approach of the 
 revolutionists, for the purpose of deciding the fate 
 of the Republic, its constitution and liberties, by 
 the wager of battle. Santa Anna, who command 
 ed his troops in person, knew too well the charac 
 ter of these stern republicans to hazard his life and 
 fortunes upon the issue of an engagement with 
 them. They had fought with him and under him 
 in achieving the liberties of the country they had 
 been his main reliance in many a hard-fought bat 
 tle in resisting the encroachments of despotism 
 they had been instrumental in his elevation to the 
 Presidency, under the conviction that he, who had 
 contributed so much to achieve, would exert him 
 self to preserve their liberties. He feared, as well 
 he might, a trial of strength with such men in such 
 a cause. In this emergency he resorted to his 
 usual recourse stratagem. Several of his most 
 reliable officers in the revolutionary army deserted 
 their posts, effected their escape, and joined the 
 patriots, with the avowed purpose of fighting in 
 defence of the constitution. They tendered their 
 services to command the patriot army, and unfor 
 tunately the offer was accepted. They marched 
 the Zncatecans out to meet the enemy, and placed 
 them in a position where Santn Anna surrounded 
 and murdered more than one-half of them before 
 the rest were aware of the treachery of their offi 
 cers. The slaughter was indiscriminate, and con 
 tinued for two entire days. It was not confined 
 to those who bore arms. The streets of the city 
 of Zacatecas were deluged in blood. The unof 
 fending citizens shared the fate of those who had 
 engaged in battle. Even foreigners, who had 
 taken no part in the contest, were not permitted to 
 escape the general massacre. 
 
 Those who survived, now submitted uncondi 
 tionally to the power of the usurper, and no further 
 resistance ensued. The revolutionary army now 
 turned its course towards Monclova, the seat of 
 government for the State of Coahuila and Texas, 
 for the purpose of chastising the Coahuiltexanrts 
 for their obstinacy in adhering to the republican 
 constitution. The Legislature of that State had 
 solemnly protested against those revolutionary 
 movements, and announced its determination to 
 sustain and enforce the constitution and form of 
 government which all were sworn to support. 
 For this offence, General Cos, the brother-in-law 
 of Santa Anna, dispersed the Legislature by mili 
 tary force, captured and imprisoned a portion of 
 
 the members, while the others only saved them 
 selves by fleeing across the Rio Grande. The 
 Senate will pardon me for reading a single para 
 graph on this point from the report of General 
 Austin to the Texas convention, on the 30th of 
 November of that year: 
 
 "The constitutional authorities of the State of Coahuila 
 and Texas solemnly protested against the change of gov 
 ernment, for which act they were driven by military force 
 from office, and imprisoned. The people of Texas protested 
 against it, as they had a right to do, for which they have 
 been declared rebels by the Government in Mexico." 
 
 Prior to the capture of Monclova, and in antici 
 pation of such an event, the Legislature had au 
 thorized Governor Viesca to remove the archives 
 of State, and convene the representatives of the 
 people at such point on this side of the Rio Grande 
 as he should designate. General Cos pursued and 
 captured the Governor and archives, together with 
 the gallant Colonel Milam, who afterwards fell so. 
 gloriously while storming San Antonio, and threw 
 them into prison. At this period the actual war 
 commenced between the republicans on this side 
 of the Rio Grande, and the revolutionists from 
 the other side : the former fighting in defence of 
 their State and Federal constitutions, and the latter 
 for their total overthrow. There is no room for 
 controversy as to'the causes of that war, and the ob 
 jects to be attained by the triumph of the one party 
 or the other. It was a direct issue between con 
 stitutional republicanism and military despotism. 
 The revolution had already been successful to the 
 right bank of the Rio Grande, and its victorious 
 armies were now preparing for new conquests on 
 this side of that river. The republicans instantly 
 seized their arms and attacked the garrisons, 
 which the usurper- had taken the precaution to 
 station at various points, for the purpose of over 
 awing the people and holding them in subjection 
 to the new government which he was about to 
 establish. All their early efforts were crowned 
 with success. Victory perched upon their ban 
 ners at every point. Gonzales, Conception, Go- 
 liad, San Patricio, and finally San Antonio all 
 surrendered to the republicans before Christmas. 
 While these important movements were being 
 enacted in the field, the republicans had not been 
 unmindful of the necessity of establishing a pro 
 visional government, to combine and consolidate 
 their resources, and give force and direction to their 
 efforts. After the capture and imprisonment of 
 Governor Viesca, who had been authorized by the 
 Legislature to assemble the representatives of the 
 people at such point as he should designate, they 
 were left to select their own time and place of 
 meeting. They did assemble at San Felipe de 
 Austin on the 3d day of November, 1835, and put 
 forth the " solemn declaration," to which I have 
 already called the attention of the Senate, and pro 
 ceeded to form a provisional government. In that 
 declaration, it should be born in mind, they state 
 distinctly that they had taken up arms in defence 
 of the republican principles of the constitution of 
 1824. The revolutionary army, under General 
 Cos, had passed the Rio Grande and marched 
 upon San Antonio, and a republican army was 
 immediately organized and sent to repel the inva 
 ders. 1 will not weary the Senate with the details 
 of the movements on the plains of San Antonio. 
 The gallant conduct of the heroic Milam, in lead 
 ing the storming party into the very heart of the 
 city, and his fall, just as victory was within his 
 
9 
 
 grasp, have commanded the admiration and sym 
 pathy of his countrymen. The next in command 
 finished the work which had been so gloriously 
 commenced, and General Cos and his entire army 
 became prisoners of war to the republicans. I 
 hold in my hand the terms of capitulation entered 
 into on the llth of December, 1835, and invite the 
 especial attention of Senators to the articles which 
 I shall read : 
 "Capitulation entered into by General Martin Perfecto dc Cos, 
 
 of the Permanent Troops, and' General Edward Burleson, of 
 
 the Colonial l^roops of Texas. 
 
 "l>t. That General Cos and his officers retire, with their 
 arms and private property, into the interior of the Republic, 
 under the parole of honor; that they will not in any way 
 oppose the reestablishment of the Federal Constitution of 
 1824. 
 
 ******** 
 
 "3d. That the General take the convicts brought in by 
 Colonel Ugvirtechea beyond the Rio Grande. 
 
 ******** 
 
 " 14th. General Burleson will furnish General Cos with 
 such provi?ions as can be obtained, necessary for his troops 
 to the Rio Grande, at the ordinary price of the country." 
 
 Such was the fate of the first revolutionary army 
 that invaded Texas defeated , captured, and de 
 pendant upon the generosity of the Texans for 
 provisions to enable them to return to their own 
 country. But there are two important points 
 in these articles of capitulation, which we should 
 constantly bear in mind while discussing the bound 
 ary of the Rio Grande. The first is, that General 
 Cos and his army were released upon the condi 
 tion " that they will not in any way oppose the 
 reetablishment of the Federal Constitution of 
 1824;" and secondly, that they should retire into 
 the interior of the Mexican Republic, taking with 
 them the convicts "beyond the Rio Grande," 
 being furnished with supplies by General Burleson 
 'to that river. The preliminary conditions were 
 complied with on both sides, arid here ended the 
 first Mexican campaign into Texas. There was 
 not a Mexican garrison nor a Mexican soldier left 
 on this side of the Rio Grande. One campaign 
 had placed the whole country in the acknowledged 
 and undisputed possession of the Texans. The 
 withdrawal of the enemy's troops gave the Texans 
 time for deliberation to devise and establish for 
 themselves a more perfect government. On the 
 2d day of March, 1336, they adopted " the unani 
 mous declaration of independence;" and on the 
 17th of the same month , they signed and published 
 the constitution which I hold in my hand. It is 
 the "Constitution of the Republic of Texas;" 
 which, on all essential points, conforms to the 
 principles of the Mexican constitution of 1824, 
 and our own free institutions. By looking over 
 the signatures to this constitution, as well as the 
 declaration of independence which preceded it, I 
 find an important fact, which may throw some 
 light on the question of boundary. From the 
 municipality or county of Bexar, I find the follow 
 ing names, viz: Francisco Rouis, Antonio Na- 
 varro, J. B. Bodgett. From the municipality or 
 county of San Patricio, are the names of John 
 Turner, B. B. Goodrich, Jesse Grimes, J. G. 
 Swisher, G. W. Burnett. Now, sir, by reference 
 to Mitchell's map, which I have before me, I find 
 these municipalities or counties laid down as ex 
 tending from the Nueces to the Rio Grande; and 
 in Mrs. Holley's Texas, I find a very interesting 
 account of the town of San Patrick, on the west 
 side of the Nueces, and which, I understand, was 
 
 the seat of justice of the county of San Patricio, 
 until it was removed to Corpus Christi, by the act 
 of the 18th of January, 1845. 
 
 I will read Mrs. Holley's 'description of San 
 Patrick, written in the year 1836: 
 
 San Patrick. This is an Irish colony, situated in Mc- 
 Mullen's and McGloin's gram, on the right hank of the 
 Nueces. A number of Irish families have settled here, and 
 many others will probably find an asylum, with the certain 
 prospect of plenty and independence. The settlement of 
 Irish colonies in this grant is the great object of the Em- 
 presarios, who are themselves 'exiles of Erin.' The Mexi 
 can garrison at this place surrendered to the patriots on the 
 3d October, 1835." H^CUOFT LIBRARY 
 
 I shall have occasion, before I close my remarks, 
 to refer to the various acts of the Texan Congress, 
 fixing the times of holding courts in the counties 
 of San Patricio and Bexar, and especially the act 
 of the 24th of May, 1838, establishing the dividing 
 line between them. I will here content myself 
 with the remark, that by that act, the boundary 
 was declared to be a direct line from a certain point 
 on the Rio Frio, thirty miles above its junction 
 with the Nueces, to the town of Laredo, on the 
 left bank of the Rio Grande. I am not now dis 
 cussing the question as to the boundaries of the 
 department called Bexar or Texas under the Span 
 ish Government, or during the revolutionary strug 
 gle of the Mexican people for independence; much 
 less the idle and useless question as to the imagin 
 ary boundary, during the period that Texas and 
 Coahuila constituted one State in the Mexican con 
 federacy. I care not whether Coahuila and Tam- 
 aulipas were supposed to have theoretical pos- 
 j sessions on this side of the Rio Grande prior to 
 j the overthrow of the Federal constitution of 1824. 
 If they had such possessions, they lost them when 
 they lost their State sovereignty, by acquiescing 
 in the revolution, and submitting to the degrada- 
 i tion of becoming a mere department in Santa Anna's 
 military despotism, with their diminished and cur 
 tailed limits. By that act of submission they for 
 feited all ri:ht to require their fellow-citizens on 
 this side of the Rio Grande to become co-sufferers 
 in their degradation. The bond of union was dis 
 solved by their own act, and by their wrong; and 
 the people on this side, in the counties of San 
 Patricio and Bexar, had a right to be represented, 
 as they were represented, in the convention which 
 proclaimed the independence and formed the con 
 stitution of the Republic of Texas. The question 
 now to be determined is, what were the bound 
 aries of the Republic, not the department of Texas. 
 I have shown that the first invading army had been 
 captured, and sent beyond the Rio Grande, and 
 that, on the first day of January, 1836, there was 
 not a Mexican soldier on this side of that river. 
 While the Texans were engaged in improving and 
 remodeling their civil institutions, Santa Anna was 
 preparing and organizing a new army of invasion. 
 He crossed the Rio Grande, and entered the set 
 tlements of Texas with two invading columns 
 the one in the direction of San Antonio, and the 
 other upon Goliad. The slaughter of Travis and 
 his fellow-patriots in the Alamo, and the murder of 
 Fannin and hisentirecommand atGoliad, after they 
 had entered into a capitulation and become prisoner's 
 of war, foreshadowed the fate of all who might fall 
 into the hands of the Dictator. The work of de 
 struction continued, with fire and sword, until the 
 two hostile armies met on the banks of the San 
 Jacinto. There, on the 21st of April, 1836, the 
 
 lAMCROPT UBKAR' 
 
10 
 
 gallant little Texan army, under the command of 
 the distinguished Senator befoi-e me, literally an 
 nihilated the Mexican forces, leaving more than 
 one-half of them dead upon the field, and capturing 
 the r$st not allowing even one to escape to tefl 
 the tale of the terrible retribution which the God of 
 Battles had inflicted upon them for their merciless 
 crimes. The murderer of Fannin and his men was 
 now a captive pleading for his life in the hands of 
 the Texan General. The generals of the two 
 armies, and the Executives of the two nations, (for 
 such they were now acknowledged to be,) imme 
 diately opened negotiations for a treaty of peace, 
 independence, and boundaries. At length, on the 
 12th of May, 1836, the treaty was signed by Presi 
 dent Burnett and his cabinet on the part of the Re 
 public of Texas, and General Santa Anna on the 
 part of Mexico. The caption shows who were 
 the parties to this treaty. I will read it: 
 
 "Articles of agreement and solemn compact, made and 
 adopted by James G. Burnet, President of the Republic of 
 Texas, and the undersigned members of the cabinet thereof, 
 on the one part, and Don Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, 
 President of the. Republic of Mexico, and Don Vincente 
 Filisola, general of division, Don Jos6 Urea, Don Joaquim 
 Ramires y Sesma, and Don Antonio Goana, generals of bri 
 gades of the armies of Mexico." 
 
 After a preamble, the first article proceeds as fol 
 lows: 
 
 " Therefore, it is agreed by the President Santa Anna, 
 and the Generals Don Vincente Filisola, Don Jose" Urea, 
 Don Joaquim. Ramires y Sesma, and Don Antonio oana 
 
 "1st. That the armies of Mexico shall, with all practi 
 cable expedition, evacuate the territory of Texas, and retire 
 to Monterey, beyond the Rio Grande." 
 
 The second article provides that the Mexican 
 army " shall abstain from all pillage and devasta 
 tion" on their retreat. I will invite especial atten 
 tion to the third, and a part of the fourth articles, 
 as follows: 
 
 " 3d. That the army of Texas are to march westwardly, 
 and to occupy such posts as the commanding general may 
 think proper, on the east side of the Rio Grande or Rio 
 Bravo del Norte. 
 
 4th. That the President Santa Anna, in his official char 
 acter as chief of the Mexican nation, and the Generals Don 
 Vincente Filisola, Don Jos6 Urea, Don Joaquim Ramires y 
 Sesma, and Don Antonio Goana, as chiefs of armies, do 
 solemnly acknowledge, sanction, and ratify, the full, entire, 
 and perfect independence of the Republic of Texas, with 
 such boundaries as are hereafter set forth arid agreed upon 
 for the same." 
 
 The fifth article prescribes the boundaries of the 
 Republic of Texas. I will read so much as relates 
 to the southwestern boundary: 
 
 "5th. That the following be, ancl the same are hereby, 
 established and made the lines of demarcation between the 
 two Republics of Mexico and Texas, to wit: The line shall 
 commence at the estuary or mouth of the Rio Grande, on 
 the western bank thereof, and shall pursue the same bank 
 of the said river to the point where the river assumes the 
 name of the Rio Bravo del Norte, from which point it shall 
 proceed on the said western bank to the head waters, or 
 source of said river, it beins understood that the terms Rio 
 Grande and Rio Bravo del Norte apply to and designate one 
 and the same stream." 
 
 The sixth ,and seventh articles relate to the re 
 lease of prisoners and the restoration to Texas of 
 all fortresses, artillery, and munitions of war_with- 
 in her limits. 
 
 In article eighth, Texas undertakes, in consider 
 ation of the foregoing provisions, to spare the life 
 of Santa Anna and his officers, and to restore them 
 to their liberty. 
 
 Article ninth is as follows: ^ 
 
 "9th. The release of the President Santa Anna shall be 
 made immediately on receiving the signatures of Generals 
 
 Don Vin cen te Filisola, Don Jose" Urea, Don Joaquim Ramires 
 y Sesma, and Don Antonio Goana, to this agreement, and 
 his conveyance to Vera Cruz as soon afterwards as may be 
 convenient." 
 
 It will be borne in mind, that the generals named 
 in the ninth article were not prisoners, and that 
 after the capture of Santa Anna, General Filisola 
 succeeded to his powers as commander-in-chief of 
 the Mexican army. The remaining articles relate 
 to the mode in which these were to be executed. 
 General Filisola, and the other officers named in 
 the ninth article, did subsequently sign and ratify 
 this treaty; and, in pursuance of it, were permitted 
 to retire, with the forces under their command, in 
 peace and security beyond the Rio Grande. Here 
 ends the history of the second invasion of Texas 
 by Mexico. Like the first, it resulted in the total 
 annihilation of the invading army its defeat and 
 capture. Texas was now free and independent, 
 without a hostile foot upon her soil. There was 
 not a Mexican soldier to be found on this side of 
 the Rio Grande. Those who survived the battle 
 of San Jacinto, and returned to their own country, 
 did so by the permission of the Texan army, and 
 under the sanctity of a treaty stipulation that the 
 Rio Grande should forever remain the line of " de 
 marcation between the two Republics of Mexico 
 and Texas." It does seem to me that I might stop 
 here with safety, and rest the question of the bound 
 ary of the Rio Grande upon the incontrovertible 
 facts which I have brought to the notice of the 
 Senate. But, sir, I am well aware, that while no 
 Senator will controvert the truth of any one mate 
 rial fact which I have stated, or the fairness and 
 impartiality with which all my facts have been 
 presented, yet it will be said that the treaty to 
 which I have alluded was not binding upon the 
 Mexican nation, because Santa Anna was a prisoner 
 of war, in captivity, at the time of its execution. I 
 do not deem it necessary to make an argument on 
 this point, so far as Santa Anna is himself con 
 cerned, for it can make no difference with the re 
 sult. General Filisola, and the other generals who 
 subsequently signed and ratified that treaty, in 
 conjunction with him, were not prisoners of war 
 were not in duress or captivity when they exe 
 cuted it. They were at the head of their respect 
 ive commands, in the full enjpyment of all their 
 faculties, and the free exercise of all their rights, 
 when they signed and ratified the instrument. 
 They acted upon their own judgments and of their 
 own volition, and made no pretext of duress or 
 coercion. If, then, the captivity of Santa Anna 
 deprived him of the faculties of volition and action, 
 Filisola succeeded to his 'position of commander- 
 in-chief of the army, and was duly invested with all 
 the powers of which he had been deprived. But, sir, 
 I cannot concede that the acts of Santa Anna were 
 not binding upon himself and his Government. We 
 must bear in mind that the Government of Mexi 
 co at that time was a military despotism, erected 
 upon the ruins of the Republic, after the Federal 
 constitution had been abolished. Santa Anna was 
 the head of that Government, (if, indeed, he was 
 not the Government itself;) and the people were 
 responsible for his acts, because they had submit 
 ted to his rule, and acquiesced in his authority. 
 The government had no rightful existence, and no 
 other authority than that which resulted from vio 
 lence and power. It had extended its authority, 
 by successful revolution, to the Rio Grande, and 
 
11 
 
 to that extent the people were bound by its acts. 
 It had failed in two successive attempts to estab 
 lish its power on this side of that river, and the 
 evidence of that failure is to be found recorded in 
 letters of blood in the treaty of San Jacinto, sealed 
 with the impress of the government's captivity, and 
 witnessed by the dead of more than one half of the 
 revolutionary army. The failure of Mexico to 
 conquer and reduce to subjugation, is conclusive 
 evidence of the right of the inhabitants to govern 
 themselves. This treaty is an acknowledgment of 
 that right, and, as such, is good evidence of the 
 independence and boundaries of the Republic of 
 Texas. I do not insist that the treaty conferred 
 any new rights upon Texas, either in respect to 
 her independence or limits; for they existed before 
 the treaty was signed and independent of its pro 
 visions. Her inalienable right of independence 
 resulted from the subversion of the constitutional 
 government of the Mexican confederacy; the fact 
 of independence, with the boundary of the Rio 
 Grande, was evidenced by the total annihilation of 
 every revolutionary army which had presumed to 
 enter her territory, and the expulsion of every 
 hostile foot from her soil. The treaty is a valid 
 acknowledgment of both the right and the fact. It 
 was entered into for a consideration, which, it is 
 reasonable to suppose, was not only desirable, but 
 invaluable to Mexico. The life of her Chief Magis 
 trate, and the safety of thousands of her soldiers 
 and officers, depended upon it, and were secured by 
 it. In fact, the whole conduct of the Government 
 of Mexico, from the date of that treaty through a 
 long series of years, has clearly shown that she re 
 garded the Rio Grande as the boundary of Texas: 
 but claimed the rightofreconquest,as she is pleased 
 to term it, inasmuch as the treaty had not been 
 ratified according to the forms of the constitution, 
 which had been abolished nearly two years previ 
 ous. Texas was permitted to remain in the 
 undisturbed possession of the territory for years. 
 Invasion and conquest were constantly threatened, 
 but no attempt was ever made to carry the threat 
 into execution by a regularly-appointed army until 
 the year 1842, six years after the battle and treaty 
 of San Jacinto. Iif that year, General Vascus 
 ventured to cross the Rio Grande, and, by a rapid 
 movement, succeeded, on the 6th of March, in 
 reaching and plundering San Antonio. The Tex- 
 ans instantly seized their arms, and prepared to 
 chastise and repulse the invaders. The result is 
 thus recorded in Green's Mier Expedition: 
 
 " A large number had already assembled under their vet 
 eran leader, General Edward Burleson, always the first in 
 the field and foremost in the fight. The ENEMY FLED BEFORE 
 THEM TO THE RIO GRANDE, one hundred and fifty miles 
 distant." 
 
 This was the end of the third regular invasion 
 of Texas by Mexico. The invading army only 
 escaped the fate of the two preceding ones by a 
 hasty flight before the Texans across the Rio 
 Grande. Now for the fourth and last invasion 
 which Mexico ever attempted, unless, indeed, 
 the marauding party under Canal es, which was 
 promptly met and repulsed, is entitled to the dig 
 nity of that designation. About the 1st of Sep 
 tember, 1842, General Woll crossed the Rio Grande 
 with his army, and, by rapid marches, took pos 
 session of San Antonio on the llth of that month. 
 A few days afterwards he succeeded in capturing I 
 
 and murdering a small party of Texans in the 
 vicinity of that place. For the result of this inva- - 
 sion, I will invite the attention of the Senate to the 
 passages which I will read from the work I have 
 just quoted: 
 
 "After the massacre of Dawson and his men, General 
 Woll made a triumphal entry into >San Antonio with lii^ fif 
 teen prisoners and some two hundred of his own wounded, 
 arid prepared for a hasty retreat towards the Rio Grande. 
 Tliis retreat was greatly hastened upon hearing that Colonels 
 Mayfield, Moore, and McCullough, and others, were coming 
 up with reinforcements to Caldwell. With all General 
 Woll's hurry in his flight homeward, at the Rio Hondo he 
 found Caldwell upon his heels. His retreat became a flight 
 and a panic; and had the Texans charged him, as all' now 
 agree, and as all then seemed to be anxious to do, his whole 
 force would have fallen an easy prey. Much has been said 
 against Caldwell and others for not so doing ; and the blame 
 has been charged upon several; but the writer has not been 
 able to satisfy his mind that any particular individual was 
 to blame. It seems to be one of those mischances in war, 
 more the result of accident, or the want of promptness, than 
 the absence of bravery. It was, however, a national misfor 
 tune that he teas 1 permitted to escape to the west sitJe of the Rio 
 Grande, after murdering forty-one, and carrying off sixty- 
 seven of our best citizens." 
 
 Thus ended the fourth and last invasion of Texas 
 by Mexico. If at any time marauding parties ever 
 crossed the Rio Grande and approached the settle 
 ments, their flight, before Hays's and McCul 
 lough 's rangers, was more rapid than their origin 
 al march. The repulse and retreat, of General 
 Woll's army in the fall of 1842, again left Texas 
 in the undisputed enjoyment of her whole territo 
 rial limits, as defined in the treaty of San Jacinto, 
 and vindicated by her arms whenever invaded, 
 since the date of General Cos's capitulation in 
 1835. I have said that Hays and McCullough 
 always held the marauding parties in check, and 
 repulsed them whenever they invaded the country. 
 On this point 1 will read a paragraph from the 
 speech of Mr. KAUFMAN, of Texas, in'the House 
 of Representatives, on the 27th of June, 1846: 
 
 " Indeed, the Texas rangers, under the gallant Hays and 
 McCullough, have for years held undisputed sway over that 
 territory, [the country between the Nueces and the Rio 
 Grande,) and we have had such occupation of it as the con 
 dition and wants of our population permitted and required. 
 No Mexican forces have ever been stationed on the left [of the 
 Rio Grande] all their war manifestoes are dated on the 
 Tight" 
 
 I am aware that I am accumulating evidence on 
 this point beyond what ought to be required to 
 convince the most incredulous mind. Yet I must 
 be permitted to call the attention of the Senate to 
 one item more: I allude to the armistice which 
 was concluded between the Governments of Mexi 
 co and Texas, on the 15th of February, 1844, and 
 the proclamation of General Woll, announcing the 
 reopening of hostilities from and after the llth of 
 June of that year. The hostilities which were 
 reopened existed only on paper, if we except the 
 cruel and barbarous treatment of the Texan pris 
 oners who had been so unfortunate as to fall into 
 the hands of the Mexicans in the previous cam 
 paigns. General Woll, acting under the express 
 orders of the Mexican Government, at Mier, June 
 20, 1844, issued an order or proclamation, of which 
 the third section is as follows: 
 
 "3. Every individual who may be found at the distance 
 of one league from the loft bank of the Rio Bravo [Rio 
 Grandf,] will be regarded as a favorer and accomplice of the 
 
 USURPERS OF THAT PART OF THE NATIONAL TERRITORY, aild 
 
 as a traitor to his country." 
 
 This order is important in two points of view: 
 first, that while Mexico claimed the whole of Tex- 
 
12 
 
 as, as her national territory, she at that time 
 regarded and acknowledged the Rio Bravo, or 
 Grande, as the boundary. She had previously 
 declared the inhabitants of Texas rebels and trai 
 tors, who were to be put to immediate death; and 
 by this order that sentence was applied to every 
 person, whether Mexican or Texan, who should 
 be found at the distance of three miles from the 
 Rio Grande, upon the ground that the fact of being 
 there was conclusive evidence that they favored 
 the Texan cause. A Mexican might cross the 
 river to the left bank, and save h ; s life by showing 
 that he was not a Texan; but if he went one league 
 from the Rio Grande, death was his portion, and 
 no excuse or explanation would be received. The 
 next point upon which this order is important, is 
 to be found in the fact of its express acknowledg 
 ment, that the Texans were in possession of the 
 country: 
 
 "Every individual who may he found at the distance of 
 one league from the left bank of the Rio Bravo, will be re 
 garded as a favorer and accomplice of the USURPERS OF THAT 
 
 PART OF THE NATIONAL TERRITORY." 
 
 .It appears, then, that the Texans had usurped the 
 territory on the left bank of the Rio Bravo, or 
 Grande. To usurp, accord ins: to Webster, is " to 
 seize and hold in possession by force or without right." 
 I have already disposed of the question as to the 
 right of Texas " to seize and hold in possession 
 by force" the country between the Nueces and 
 the Rio Grande; and it is sufficient for my pur 
 pose that Mexico, in 1844, acknowledged the fact 
 that Texas had seized and did then hold it in pos 
 session by force. I have now traced, with a mi 
 nuteness which I fear has been tedious, every 
 important fact, bearing upon the question of bpund- 
 ary, since the subversion of the federal constitu 
 tion of 1824. In the examination of this subject, 
 my mind has been powerfully impressed by the 
 circumstance, that in every invasion which Mex 
 ico has ever made of -the territory of Texas, the 
 Rio Grande has been uniformly mentioned as the 
 line which the army crossed, and beyond which it 
 retreated whenever it was permitted to escape. 
 The same may be said of the capitulations and 
 treaties with the two captive armies. The Nueces 
 is not even alluded to, nor can the name be found 
 in any one of them. This circumstance is a pow 
 erful argument of itself, and is forced to make a 
 deep impression upon the mind of every impartial 
 man. 
 
 Having shown that Mexico has never held any 
 portion of the country this side of the Rio Grande 
 (of course I speak of the lower Rio Grande) since 
 the subversion of the constitution of 1824, and that 
 Texas has promptly repelled every invasion of 
 her territory, I now propose to show that she has 
 occupied and governed it by her civil institutions 
 during.that whole period. I have already shown 
 that every Mexican garrison between the Nueces 
 and the Rio Grande, as well as in ail other por 
 tions of Texas, was reduced and captured in the 
 fall of 1835 that the counties of San Patricio and 
 Bexar were represented in the convention which 
 established the provisional government in Novem 
 ber, 1835, and also in the convention which de 
 clared the independence, and formed the constitu 
 tion of the Republic of Texas in March, 1836 
 and that by that constitution each of those coun 
 ties constituted a congressional district, with the 
 
 right of sending representatives and senators to 
 the Congress of the Republic. I have referred 
 also to the act of the Texan Congress of the 24th 
 of May, 1838, defining with greater certainty the 
 dividing line between those counties from the 
 Nueces to the Rio Grande, and confirming the 
 surveys of land which had been made by the 
 county surveyors of both respectively. On the 
 19th of December, 1836, the Congress of Texas 
 passed an act defining the boundaries of the Re 
 public, and adopting those designated in the treaty 
 of San Jacinto. On the 4th of February, 1842, an 
 act was passed fixing the times of holding the 
 higher courts in the counties of San Patricio and 
 Bexar, and for other purposes. On the 18th of 
 January, 1844, another act was passed regulating 
 the times of holding courts in those counties; and 
 on the 31st of December, 1844,' an act was passed 
 changing the times of holding courts in those coun 
 ties. On the 18th of January, 1845, an act was 
 passed removing the seat of justice of San Patricio 
 county to Corpus Christi, and providing for the 
 appointment of a presiding jud:e of the county- 
 court. On the 1st of February, 1845, an act provi 
 ding for the resurvey of all the land in the counties 
 of San Patricio and Refugio, the title of which 
 was derived from the Mexican Government or the 
 State of Coahuila arid Texas, and for returning the 
 plats to the general land office of Texas. I have all 
 these ads before me, but will not stop to read 
 them, unless desired by some* Senator. During 
 the whole of the period from the establishment of 
 the Republic, these counties were represented in 
 the Congress of Texas. They were also repre 
 sented in the convention of the people of Texas, 
 which agreed to the terms of annexation, and 
 which formed the constitution of the State of 
 Texas, with which she was admitted into our 
 Federal Union. I hold in my hand the present 
 constitution of Texas the same upon which our 
 act of Congress was founded, admitting her into 
 the Union as a State, upon an equal footing 
 with the original States; and, in the 30th section 
 of the 3d article, I find that the county of San 
 Patricio is constituted a representative district with 
 one representative, and the county of Bexar with 
 two representatives; and in the thirty-second sec 
 tion of the same article is the following provision: 
 " The county of Bexar, the eighteenth district, shall 
 elect one senator. The counties of Goliad, Refu 
 gio, and San Patricio, the nineteenth district, shall 
 elect one senator." 
 
 The third section of the thirteenth article is as 
 follows: 
 
 " SECTION 3d. AH laws and parts of laws now in force in 
 the Republic of Texas, which are not repugnant to the Con 
 stitution of the United States, the joint resolutions for an 
 nexing Texas to the United States,' or to the provisions of 
 this constitution, shall continue and remain in three as the 
 laws of this State, until they expire by their own limitation, 
 or shall be altered or repealed by the Legislature thereof." 
 
 Now, sir, this provision ratifies and continues in 
 force all the acts of the Texan Congress to which 
 I have referred the act declaring the Rio Grande 
 to be the boundary of the Republic the act estab 
 lishing the boundary lines of counties from the 
 Nueces to the Rio Grande the several acts pro 
 viding: for the surveys of lands and fixing the times 
 of holding courts in those counties all are con 
 firmed by this section of the constitution. The 
 Congress of the United States must &e presumed 
 
13 
 
 to have been familiar with these laws and this sec 
 tion of the constitution, when the act was passed 
 admitting her into the Union. This presumption 
 is greatly strengthened by the fact, that within a 
 few days after the admission of Texas, Congress 
 passed an act extending our revenue laws over the 
 territory of the State, and establishing a port of 
 delivery, among other places, at Corpus Christi, in 
 the county of San Patricio. 
 
 I have now concluded all I have to say on the 
 question of boundary. Whether I have succeeded 
 in establishing the boundary of the Rio Grande, is 
 for the Senate and the country to judge. One 
 thing is certain: Mexico never dreamed of any 
 other boundary than that of the Rio Grande or the 
 Sabine. She was in possession of the country to 
 the Rio Grande, and claimed the right to conquer 
 to the Sabine. This was the position of Mexico 
 towards Texas, as stated by herself, when the lat 
 ter was annexed to this country and admitted into 
 the Union. 
 
 The question now arises, who commenced the 
 present war the United States or Mexico ? This 
 seems to be a disputed point between the two great 
 political parties in this country, although the gov 
 ernments of the two belligerent countries agree in 
 relation to it. Our Government has officially de 
 clared, in the form of a solemn law, all the depart 
 ments concurring, that the war was commenced 
 by " the acf. of Mexico." This is our statement 
 of the question. Now for the Mexican side of 
 the case", as stated by her President and Ministers 
 of War and Foreign Affairs. I read from the 
 President's annual message of December 8, 1846. 
 
 " The apprehensions of a contemplated Mexican invasion 
 have been since fully justified by the event. The determi 
 nation of Mexico to rush into hostilities with the United 
 States was afterwards nvinifested from the whole tenor of 
 the note of the Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs to our 
 minister, bearing date on the I2tli of March, 1846. Paredes 
 had then revolutionized the government, and his minister, 
 after referring to the resolution for the annexation of Texas, 
 which had been adopted by our Congress in March, 1845, 
 proceeds to declare, that ' a fact such as this, or, to speak 
 ' with greater exactness, so notable an act of usurpation, 
 'created an imperious necessity that Mexico, for her own 
 ' honor, should repel it with proper fir .nness and dignity. 
 ' The Supreme Government had beforehand declared, that it 
 ' would look upon such an act as casus belli; and, as a con- 
 * sequence of this declaration, negotiation WHS, by Us very 
 < nature, at an end, and war was the only recourse of the Mex- 
 ( ican Government.' 
 
 " It appears, also, that on the 4th of April following, Gen 
 eral Paredes, through his Minister of War, issued orders to 
 the Mexican General in command on the Texan frontier to 
 ' attack' our army ' by every means which war permits.' To 
 this General Paredes had been pledged to the army and people 
 of Mexico during the military revolution which had brought 
 him into power. On the 18th of April, 1846 ; General Pa 
 redes add essed a letter to the commander on that frontier, 
 in which he stated to him, 'At the present date, I suppose 
 'you at the head of that valiant army, either fighting already, 
 or preparing for the operations of a campaign ;' and sup 
 posing you already on the theatre of operations, and with 
 all the forces assembled, it is indispensable that hostilities be 
 commenced) yourself taking the initiative against the ene 
 my.' 
 
 Thus we find that the Mexican Minister of For 
 eign Affairs, on the 12th of March, 1846, notified 
 our minister, that " NEGOTIATION WAS, BY ITS VERY 
 
 NATURE, AT AN END, and WAR WAS THE ONLY RE 
 COURSE OF THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT;" and that 
 on the 18th day of April, 1846, the President of 
 Mexico instructed the general of the Mexican 
 army that it was " indispensable that hostilities be 
 commenced, YOURSELF TAKING THE INI 
 
 TIATIVE AGAINST THE ENEMY." Mexico aVOWS 
 the act. It is her pride and boast that she com 
 menced the war that she took the "initiative," 
 and struck the first blow. She makes no com 
 plaint of General Taylor's march from Corpus 
 Christi to the Rio Grande. She knew nothing of 
 that movement at the time she gave orders for the 
 commencement of hostilities. Her complaint was, 
 that our armies were stationed on the west side of 
 the Sabine that we had incorporated the country 
 between the Sabine and the Rio Grande into our 
 Union, and deprived her of the right which she 
 claimed of reconquest. This was her grievance; 
 and for this grievance she boasted that she had the 
 chivalry to make war against the United States, 
 and take the mitiative. She knew nothing of the 
 distinctions in the strength of her title on the one 
 side or the other of the Nueces until she found it 
 explained in the speeches of American Senators. 
 Those speeches are the foundations of her better 
 title to the country west than east of that river. 
 Up to the commencement of this war, the name of 
 the Nueces river cannot be found in any Mexican 
 document civil or military addressed to this 
 country or Texas, in which she claims a better or 
 any other title to that river than to the Sabine. 
 Her separate title to the Nueces is a Whig title, 
 originating in this country, and derived from Whig 
 newspapers and speeches, and adopted by the 
 Mexican authorities, for the first time, in the ne 
 gotiation with Mr. Trist " on the Chapultepec 
 causeway." She rjow claims it, because she is 
 told that it is hers; but she is unable to compre 
 hend, much less explain, upon what principles her 
 separate and better title rests. I repeat, that this 
 line of the Nueces was manufactured in this 
 country, for the purpose of erecting a platform 
 from which to assail the President of the United 
 States, and through him the Democratic party. 
 The idea was conceived after the passage of the 
 act of the 13th of May, 1846, recognizing "a state 
 of war by the act of Mexico," and by gentlemen 
 who voted for that law. Why did they not then 
 tell us that the President had invaded the territory 
 of Mexico in violation of the Constitution of the 
 United States, and instruct him to withdraw the 
 army within the line of our rightful boundary, in 
 stead of furnishing ten millions of dollars and fifty 
 thousand men to prosecute the invasion to the 
 vitals of Mexico? I suppose the answer will be, 
 if any answer shall be made, that they at that time 
 were as ignorant as Mexico herself of the exist 
 ence of any better title to the one side than the 
 other of the Nueces. 
 
 But, sir, there is one point more to which I wish 
 to address a few remarks. It is strenuously in 
 sisted, here and elsewhere, that the letter of the 
 Secretary of War, of the 13th of January, 1846, 
 ordering General Taylor from Corpus Christi to 
 the Rio Grande, was the real cause of the war. 
 Some go so far as to charge the President with 
 giving the order for the purpose of producing 
 war; while others, who are more charitable, con 
 tent themselves with saying that it was an act so 
 imprudent and reckless, that any man in his senses 
 ought to have known that war would have been 
 the inevitable consequence. It often becomes 
 necessary in military movements, on a theatre 
 remote from the capital, to trust much to the supe 
 rior local knowledge and discretion of the com- 
 
14 
 
 man ding general in respect to the proper disposition | But, sir, who are the men that condemn this 
 of the forces under his command. Such was the . order, and for what purpose is the condemnation 
 case in this instance. General Taylor was put in made at this time? They are the professed advo- 
 full possession of the views of the Government, in cates of the election of General Taylor to the 
 sending him to Texas, and left to select his own Presidency, and the order is condemned for the 
 positio'n. Those views were, the defence of. the purpose of making political capital for themselves 
 western boundary of Texas from invasion, and the ; and their candidate, against the Democratic party, 
 preservation of friendly relations with Mexico, if j Under the influence of the same patriotic motives, 
 possible. He selected his position at Corpus j it has suddenly been discovered, by a portion of 
 
 Christi, and after remaining there several months, 
 on the 4th of October, 1845, he wrote to the de 
 partment as follows: 
 
 " SIR: I beg leave to suggest some considerations in rela 
 tion to the present position of our force, and the dispositions 
 which may become necessary for the more effectual prose 
 cution of the objects for which it has been concentrated." 
 
 After a detailed exposition of the reasons for the 
 recommendation which he was about to make, he 
 proceeds as follows: 
 
 " For these reasons, our position thus far has, I think, been 
 the best possible ; but now that the entire force will soon be 
 concentrated, it may well be a question whether the views 'of 
 Government will be best carried out by our remaining at this 
 point. It is with great deference that 1 make any suggestions 
 on topics which may become matter of delicate negotiation ; 
 but if our Government, in settling the question of boundary, 
 makes the line of the Rio Grande an ultimatum, I cannot 
 doubt that the settlement will be greatly facilitated and hastened 
 by our taking possession at once of one or two suitable points 
 on, or quite near, that river. Our strength and state of prep 
 aration should be displayed in a manner not to be mistaken. 
 However salutary may be the effect produced upon the bor 
 der people by our presence here, we are too far from the 
 frontier to impress the Government of Mexico with our 
 readiness to vindicate by force of arms, if necessary, our 
 title to the country as far as the Rio Srande. The < army of 
 occupation' will in a few days be concentrated at this point, 
 in condition for vigorous and efficient service. Mexico 
 having as yet made no positive declaration of war, or com 
 mitted any overt act of hostilities, I do not feel at liberty, 
 under my instructions, particularly those of July 8, to make 
 a forward movement to the Rio Grande without authority 
 from the War Department." 
 
 These are the recommendations of General Tay 
 lor : "I cannot doubt that the settlement will be 
 greatly facilitated and hastened by our taking pos 
 session at once of one or two suitable points on, 
 or quite near, that river," the Rio Grande. " I do 
 not feel at liberty, under my instructions, parti 
 cularly those of the 8th of July, to make a for 
 ward movement to the Rio Grande, without au 
 thority from the War Department." General 
 Taylor was the commanding general on the the 
 atre of action. He had better opportunities of 
 knowing the movements, intentions, and feelings 
 of the Mexicans, than any one else. He had pre 
 viously, July 20, 1845, given the department this 
 assurance : " and the department may rest assured 
 that I will take no step to interrupt the friendly- 
 relations between the United States and Mexico. 5 ' 
 Relying'upon the faith of this assurance, and upon 
 his better means of information, the department 
 complied with his request, and gave him the de 
 sired order " for a forward movement to the Rio 
 Grande." General Taylor had recommended it 
 as a peace measure, calculated to facilitate and 
 hasten the settlement of the boundary question; 
 and in that view, and on that recommendation, the 
 order was given. It is clear, therefore, that Gen 
 eral Taylor, and he alone, is responsible for that 
 order. If it was right and wise, his is the merit; 
 and if it was wrong, he ought as I have no doubt 
 he is perfectly willing to take the responsibility. 
 I have no doubt that the order was an act of pol 
 icy and wisdom nay, of necessity. 
 
 those who voted for the war, that it was unjust, 
 unnecessary, and unconstitutional. They can see 
 no hope of rescuing the ship of state from the 
 hands of the wicked rulers who are directing its 
 course, except by the elevation to the Presidency 
 of a man, whose very name has been introduced 
 to the knowledge of the civilized world only by 
 his extraordinary success in shedding human 
 blood in an unjust cause! By denouncing the war 
 as a scheme of rapine and robbery, they, in effect, 
 charge Generals Taylor and Scott, and all the offi 
 cers and men under their command, with being a 
 band of successful robbers, murderers, and pirates, 
 whose only title to the ^gratitude of their country 
 men is derived from a series of unparalleled tri 
 umphs in violation of the Constitution of their 
 country, over a weak and an unoffending people! 
 Should it hereafter be to us a matter of surprise to 
 hear all Europe, whose jealousy has been aroused 
 by our growing greatness and importance among 
 the nations of the world, denounce us as a nation 
 of robbers and pirates, when they can refer to the 
 speeches of American Senators for the truth and 
 justice of their statements? Suppose gentlemen 
 succeed in making the world believe that the war 
 in which we are engaged, and which has been 
 sanctioned by the nation according to all the forms 
 and solemnities known to the Constitution, is un 
 necessary and unjust a war of rapine and rob 
 berytheir only triumph of which they can boast 
 will be, that they have rendered the name and 
 the fame of their country infamous in the eyes of 
 Christendom. Whose heart did not swell and 
 pulsate with patriotic pride as he heard the shout 
 of the glorious victories achieved by our country 
 men wafted from the plains and mountains of 
 Mexico, striking terror to the hearts of all ene 
 mies of republican institutions, and demonstrating 
 that ours is the first military, as well as civil power, 
 upon the globe? Sir, I shall never forget the proud 
 and grateful emotions of my own breast, when the 
 response was heard from all parts of the Union to 
 the call for volunteers in the summer of 1846, 
 showing that more than three hundred thousand 
 had tendered their services, when only fifty thou 
 sand could be received. Was that response 
 prompted by a love of plunder and robbery; or 
 was it a patriotic response from the hearts of free 
 men, burning with a fervent desire to avenge their 
 country's wrongs and vindicate her rights? Shall 
 it be said that in republican America the only 
 sentiment which can animate and arouse the whole 
 people which can quell partisan strife and oblit 
 erate party distinction, for a time is an insatiable 
 lust for rapine and robbery, upon our unoffending 
 and unfortunate neighbors? Such must be the 
 fruits of the victory, if gentlemen triumph in the 
 efforts they are now making in regard to this war. 
 
 All the emotions of my heart and the feelings of 
 National andlState 
 My own State has 
 
 my nature revolt at the idea, 
 pride rebels at the thought. 
 
15 
 
 sent nearly seven thousand men to this war, and 
 has offered up more lives on the field of battle, and 
 sacrificed more by the diseases of the country, 
 than any other State in the Union. Their patri 
 otic deeds of noble daring have shed honor upon 
 the State, as well as glory upon the American 
 arms. I feel grateful to them the living and the 
 
 dead for the services they have rendered and the 
 renown they have won. Every other State has 
 had its share in the glory of 'this war. If they 
 have not furnished as many men, it was because 
 the Government declined to receive them. All 
 have done their duty, and all ought to feel proud 
 of their achievements.