title: Speech of Mr. David Fisher, of Ohio, on the loan bill, delivered in the House of representatives of the U. S., February 9th, 1848.
text: FLM 2015 024458 □□□□5021741 % < vfvT*’ A • ■A 0 ,• $ 0 *- *■'«'• •* a* v . ~ O V ^ * ** V a * .V-' <* • * A° «*- /-^L> % o°* .•*" + O * njV <*» « *C> <0 V *•"% *> #: ' , *Oha**\« <1>* CV * ^'J  # 1 A*^ * W * p ^ c ** ^ * <> *•* * * £ CT o 0 " « ♦ ^o ** « ° ' V?> v * * * o- <T\ <9 - "A c# •' ‘^EX '- «t. v^ » <-6 ^ * ,„v v 4 o * • v& • *- * * -t ^ ., +0' : *w£ftp;. ,1 br •imtiQ?*' **o • a5 ^ V*SMfr> >>°%. "*Syissh° °"° V?^ ^ *"‘ l * A? <$\ **»0° ^ O "i'c* ° ^v> *QK* r$* A^ ♦ •/Awvk® ^ V 9 ® r Vv * » ,a\ V "V » 4 ^ t#* ° • sSSv * c9^ * «/ ^ » ♦ £* 4 <2. V «•* .. <, -...* ,6 V *o, ♦ # r'^,%'U -° v .‘j^",’*' °j a , « ,VA * ^ ^°' 7 ^ ^ ^ * w*V V*- ^ e * A. ** .....'V A* .Wfe,' C ° ^ < 1 ^ o V* ... °’J- * V *«?v 7 » ,<v A > ♦ *S V . i -.. %* \) 1 • O * /. O m l cfi ^r, - * V ^A • 4 rfy V ' o, T v 7 ;«* A 0 ° .‘i 4 '> °o A* ,C^,*. ^ "bv* r • «£>. A v * fc : %. ^ * J>% o A° -.* . 0 ' « 0 * * * ^b C * K^ # ‘ # o 0 -^w *° ^ °* • M, ’•<■>' ^'•••••\/ \ ‘‘ . ** :«'■ r* -ImI- : °wW\\yY <'V ,v/ ^k J liSIr« * » • . * * A <\* * r o.»' j bv^ # «V»* ^ ** ^ 4 * • ** A A >/ Sjjrtol* *+ < *•- ofc "% a O m l • • -a.^ O * r\ ~ ° * 0 ' <v ^ * # / i • a° ■**. *♦ .**«“»-•- *■ 3 W w **' e ♦ / v T , A <* * 4 ' ^ 9 j> ^ * * v ’ 4 * ^ ^ 0’ "> * • 4 ^ V o * A V .... (\> . 0 * 0 + **^-s C V/ 0 * - W- sj* A * V* A^ *- t ,J j» V » . A A. *„ ,* v ^ *. s 4 A <\ "O 9 n J -4 ,^. o V . > 0 ^ ♦ 6 ^' ? ^k>‘ # «* 6^ \ X > * O *• x ^A r - cmJ +*' o ^ '% *• '■ ' - -^°. ° ^ & * «* A^^<» o *.*’ A <b ^ '* ^ o 4 -• ^ .0 ^ # # f AV » V c ^ A * ffim • ^ av *. r vv A : * «? ^ * o . » * <G V ^ r° V 4 < , < 5 ° .-A 5 W. ^ ^ <y c !=> ^ : » «p ^ « ,0 V \D ♦ aV Q*9 ** r 0 * ♦ O v ♦ c^sXtw^^. O % o y ♦ * * A • o * 'X ^ » ‘ V s ^ iV . »■ ' « <? A* '~JT? 7 -Zr <L, ^‘Xf^'^o 0 ,,\''‘.t.’ f 0 ^ -r >’^ - c» < 0 ^ s ’ _ + ^ A »» y# ®- c\ »v t ^ A ♦ * **£> AT * f{(\S« /K° ^r> & * • <• ^ ^r» 7 ^ v ^ Ay ^ * rf s % A <b> '° • 4 * AV ^ '* **" < v 'O • A ” ’ l * * ft k 0 " ® # l < # ^ A’ • V* * 'vX-X*. MR. DAYID FISHER, OF OHIO, THE LOAN BILL, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE U. S., February 9th, 1848. WASHINGTON: PRINTED BY J. & G. S. GIDEON. 1848. C , U, ' . . • M\:: ; .. i‘ ;. . : ' r- ■ * ■. SPEECH. The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and having under ■consideration the Loan Bill, Mr. FISHER, of Ohio, said, Mr. Chairman: There is a bill now before the committee, authorizing the President of the United States to borrow eighteen millions five hundred thousand dollars. It becomes us all to inquire what is the cause of this difficulty, and of the Gov¬ ernment being involved to the extent that renders it necessary to ask for a loan of that amount. The people should know what brought about this state of things; whether we came into this condition by fair, just, and honorable means—a thing they never can learn from the President and his friends. My colleague, (Mr. Vinton,) the other day, showed clearly that it was the object of the Administration to conceal all the odious measures it contemplated from the people, who, as the sovereigns of the country, have a right to know the truth. He (Mr. V.) has shown that the Administration has over-estimated the income of the Government upon the one hand, and the expenditures upon the other; and by that means they have fallen short by the sum now asked for to defray the expenditures of the present fiscal year. So the people have this amount more to pay than they were told they would have the last session of Congress. And though we voted against a direct tax a few days since, we will have to come to it before this war debt can be extinguished; for I feel confident that no duty which can be laid upon imports will more than pay the ordinary expenses of the Government and the interest on the public debt, if the war is closed to¬ morrow. I must say, here in my place, (and I intend to speak plainly and candidly on this subject,) that it has been the policy of this Administration, from the commencement of this war to the present time, to keep the people in ignorance of the true causes which led to it, and of the real condition of this country as affected by the war. It is certainly a fact that cannot be concealed, that the present war cannot be justified by a statement of facts and fair argument. Consequently, the Pre¬ sident, in his messages, has been driven to the necessity of making statements that were utterly untrue. His advocates, also, are driven to the necessity either of abandoning him, or of supporting him in his false position. And it is to be regretted that they have selected the latter alternative; their premises being false, they cannot be sustained by unsophisticated truth. Hence, if sus¬ tained at all, it must be done by assertions which have no foundation in truth, or fallacious arguments which are foreign to the subject. This may, indeed, seem to some to be a strong position; but I hope to make it good before my hour expires. It will be impossible for me to trace out all the untrue statements, in the short time allotted me, that have been made by the President and his advo¬ cates. When I say that their statements are untrue, I mean that they are so in the abstract, and do not wish to be understood as saying that they have ac¬ tually lied, for I cannot enter into their motives; they may have done it all through ignorance, for what I know. But whether ignorantly or wilfully, the effect is the same on the community, and should be exposed. But they have the means of knowing better, and therefore it is their duty to do it; and wherever knowledge is a duty , ignorance is a crime. Whatever it is a man’s duty to know, he does know, in the estimation both of the laws of God and man, and. consequently is held responsible for the same. The Administration and its advocates have placed themselves in a position unenviable indeed. Their statements, their arguments, their assertions, with regard to the commence¬ ment and conduct of this war, will go down to future generations, contradicted by the public record and the history of the country. 4 It is my design, at present, to direct my attention to the subject of the war, though, perhaps, this subject has been sufficiently discussed, and I do not ex¬ pect to present anything entirely new to this committee. But every man has his own peculiar manner of presenting facts and arguments; and as there have already been copious quotations made from public authorized documents, over and over again, on this side of the House, which remain uncontradicted by the opposite party, and will forever remain so, going to prove every position I shall assume, I think I can economize time by a mere statement of well-known facts,, without stopping to read those quotations over again. But, at the same time, having all the documents before me to prove every fact I shall state, the proof shall be forthcoming if any gentleman sees proper to contradict my statements, and call my attention to them. Now, Mr. Chairman, in order to argue any question fairly, it is absolutely necessary, in the outset, in order that their arguments might be directed to the points at issue, for the opposing parties to ascertain what is the real difference between them, and then direct their arguments accordingly. What, then, is the difference between the parties in regard to this war? The President and his party assume that the war is just on our part—commenced by the act of Mexico; that the Mexicans shed the first blood—shed American blood upon American soil; that they struck the first blow, &c. Now, I say, without fear of successful contradiction, that not one single assertion made here is true, nor can they be proven. They are mere assertions; and as an offset I here assert , that they are not true; and my assertions are as good as theirs, until they prove to the contrary, which I am sure they will never do. Their assertions being affirmative, the burthen of proof of course devolves on them. But their repeated attempts and failures but too clearly prove that their assertions are without foundation. Now, if all, or one single one, of the four last statements can be proven, then will I admit the truth of the first one. Prove that the war was commenced by the act of Mexico, that they shed the first blood—shed American blood upon American soil—or that they struck the first blow, and I will admit that the war was just on our part. Not one single particle of evi¬ dence has been or can be produced, from Gen. Taylor’s despatches to our Gov¬ ernment, or from any other public document, that the Mexicans struck the first blow; or that they commenced hostilities in the affair with Captain Thornton, upon which the declaration “that war exists by the act of Mexico” was found¬ ed. Gen. Taylor, in his despatch upon that subject, says, that Thornton’s command “became engaged with a very large force of the enemy, and after a short affair, in which some sixteen were killed and wounded, appear to have been surrounded, and compelled to surrender.” Now, there is just as much evidence, in this account of the engagement, that the Americans commenced, as there is that the Mexicans did. But, “American blood was shed upon American soil.” That “American blood was shed” is true; but that it was “shed upon American soil” is not true. There has not been a single hostile Mexican foot placed, nor one drop of American blood shed, on American soil, since the annexation of Texas, if ever; and I challenge proof to the contrary. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. McLane) said, the other day, that he considered the war “una¬ voidable on our part.” Unavoidable! Was the annexation of Texas un¬ avoidable? Was the marching of our army to the Rio Grande, amongst, the Mexican citizens—the blockading that river, the pointing of our guns into 5 Matamoras, and the charge made by Capt. Thornton upon the Mexicans, all unavoidable on our part? It appears to me that no candid man can say, or even think so. And I am sure no candid man will say that the present war would have existed, if we had not done those things? And that the annexation of Texas was the remote, and the marching of our army to the Rio Grande the immediate, cause of the war, no one can dispute. But gentlemen on the opposite side, in their extreme anxiety to defend the President, place themselves in rather a ludicrous position. They contend that the war is exceedingly popular with the people, and becoming more so every day; and yet they resort to every subterfuge to shift the responsibility upon somebody else, and even to try to convince the people that the Whigs are re¬ sponsible for it all! Some, to save the President from the odium justly due to him for commencing the war unnecessarily and unconstitutionally, say that the annexation of Texas was the cause of the war; hence, the Congress that an¬ nexed her, and John Tyler, are responsible. Others say—No; we admit that the march of our army to the Rio Grande was the cause of the war, and that this was done by the order of the President; but then, but then—What? Why, Gen. Taylor recommended it; hence he is responsible. But when gentlemen are driven from all these positions, as a last resort they unite and say, that the 'territory lying between the Nueces and the Rio Grande belonged to Texas, and, therefore the President had a right to order the army there, to defend our, own territory. Now, Mr. Chairman, as the President and his friends have thus far failed, and I know must forever fail, to prove that this territory did belong to Texas, it may not be amiss for me to show that it did not. Where there are so many conflicting statements and irreconcileable assertions, it becomes necessary for us to ascertain whether there is not some position, or ground, upon which all parties agree, as a basis from which to argue. Well, this ground I find here. All parties agree that the territory between the Nueces and the Rio Grande did once indisputably belong to Mexico. It has, too, been admitted here, and not disputed, that originally Texas did not extend further west than the Nueces river, and that the country west, up to the Rio Grande, belonged to the depart¬ ments of Tamaulipas, Coahuila, and New Mexico. This all being true, I ask, when and how did Texas subsequently become the owner of that territory? In answer to this, it has been said, by the President and his friends, that Lou¬ isiana once extended to the Rio Grande. Well, what then? Does it follow, as a matter of course, that therefore Texas did, too? Louisiana once extended to St. Louis, and included it; and therefore St. Louis is now in Texas! But this position, I believe, is pretty much abandoned by the opposite party. I shall therefore pursue it no further. But, says the opposite party, Santa Anna once, while a prisoner, made a bar¬ gain with the Texans that, if they would release him, he would give them the country up to the Rio Grande! If Mr. Polk was now in the war with Mexico, and should be taken prisoner, could he barter away a part of two or three of our States for his release? If he could, I really think it would be a bad bar¬ gain for the United States. Satan proposed to our Saviour on the mount, if he would fall down and worship him, he would give him all the kingdoms of the world; while, at the same time, the poor devil did not own one foot of land. And so it was with Santa Anna. He did not own one foot of land in all that territory. This argument is also nearly abandoned by the opposite side of the House. Thus, then, the only remaining claim of Texas that is urged is based upon her own declaration. The Texan Congress, in December, 1836, declared— yes, declared —that the Rio Grande, from its mouth to its source, was their western boundary; and, therefore, she owns all that country. Well, that is a pretty easy way to get land. If a mere declaration will give title to land, 6 what is there to prevent any gentleman upon this floor from having as much? land as he wants? If you desire your neighbor’s farm that you sold to him, just declare that some creek or river (I suppose no other boundary would do) is your boundary on the other side of his farm. And if your neighbor is unwil¬ ling to give up his farm, just enter a suit of ejectment against him, and em¬ ploy Mr. Polk, or some of the learned gentlemen who advocate his cause, to defend your claim, and they will demonstrate to any court that a mere declara¬ tion is a far better title to land for you than your neighbor’s, even if he proves that he bought it ol you, and paid for it, and has occupied it for thirty years, and for that long has declared it to be his, and every body else has acknow¬ ledged his right. Now, shocking as this may appear to the common sense of every man, yet it is a parallel case to the one we have in hand. The territory of which I am speaking is said once to have belonged to us. If so, we sold it to Mexico for Florida. She bought it, and paid us for it, and has occupied and declared it to be hers for near thirty years, and no one disputed her title from 1819 until 1836, when Texas declared it was hers. And now the President of the United States, in his public messages, and his advocates in their speeches, proclaim to the world that it is our own soil, that it is American soil, &c., without any other title than the declared title of Texas. The admitted ownership and occu¬ pation of Mexico have to give place to the declaration of Texas, and thousands of their citizens killed for refusing to give it up. And Mr. Polk is so certain that this “declared” title is so “clear and unquestionable,” that, rather than our own country should be disgraced by giving it up, he will spend twenty thou¬ sand of the lives of our own countrymen and two hundred millions of money. Now, as Mexico did own that territory beyond doubt, Texas could have got it from her in but one of two ways—by conquest or treaty. Did Texas ever conquer it? If so, when? She declared it was hers in 1836. Then she must have conquered it before that time, or the declaration was not true. Then how came it to pass that, nine years afterward, when our army marched into that country, it was found settled by citizens of Mexico, obedient to her laws, and Texas not attempting to exercise jurisdiction over them? No one pretends h> say that Texas ever got this country by a fair treaty. So, if she did not get it by one of these two ways, I am sure she never got it at all. Again: If Texas had a right to any part of the country on the Rio Grande, she had a right to the whole, from the mouth to the source, including all the Santa Fe country, for the same title is set up to all that there is to a part. But the President told us, in his annual message of 1846, that the Congress of Texas had extended their civil and political jurisdiction over the country to the Rio Grande; that they organized counties, established courts of justice, a custom-house, post offices and post roads, a land office, &c., &c. Who be¬ lieves all this? There is not a word of truth in it, only so far as Corpus Christi is concerned, where not more than ten or a dozen familes resided. All the other citizens, amounting to some thirty thousand, who resided in that coun¬ try, always had been, and still were, under the jurisdiction of Mexico. Strange as it may appear, in the same message that the President tells us that Texas extended her jurisdiction over the country up to the Rio Grande, from its mouth to its source, he says: “The province of New Mexico, with Santa Fe, its capital, has been captured, and that we had acquired military posses¬ sion of it.” What? The country captured where Texas had her custom¬ house, her post offices and her post roads, her courts of justice, and exercised jurisdiction, civil and political! Now, these assertions of the President are just as true as the declaration that the Rio Grande was the boundary of Texas, and the declaration that “war exists by the act of Mexico.” But, we are asked, where, then, is the true boundary of Texas? This ques¬ tion was fully and fairly answered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Ste- 7 phens) a day or two since. He said: “Her boundary extended just so far as her revolution successfully extended, and no farther. Her title to any portion of the territory depended solely upon the right of revolution, ” &c. This is, evidently, a correct view of the subject; and had the people on the Rio Grande revolutionized with Texas, the boundary of revolutionary Texas would have been the Rio Grande. But they did not, as every gentleman upon this floor well knows. Again: I asserted, in the outset, that misstatements of facts were constantly resorted to in support of this war. I hope the committee will indulge me for a few moments till I present a few instances. In the other end of the Capitol the following was asserted by Mr. R. Johnson, of Md., and is now in print before me: “ Now, what are the clear and indisputable facts ? The United States had received the Re¬ public of Texas into the Union without antecedently defining her boundaries, and under a con¬ stitution which reiterated what had been, as far back as 1836 , a part of her original constitution as an independent Republic—that the Rio Grande, from its source to its mouth, was her south¬ western boundary.” Now, I have but one single objection to all this, and that is, that there is not one word of truth in it. Neither the constitution of the Republic of Texas, nor that of the State of Texas, says one single word about the Rio Grande being the boundary. The constitutions of both are before me; any gentleman is at liberty to examine them now , and convict me if I am in error. But upon these erroneous statements the gentleman founds a lengthy argument that the terri¬ tory is ours, and we were bound to defend it up to that river. Again, he says, in the same speech: “From 1843 no Mexican soldier ever crossed the river, (Rio Grande,) and no civil officer of Mexico ever exercised jurisdiction over it. ” Now, like the first, this has not a particle of truth in it, as I shall show presently. Precisely the reverse is true. No Texan soldier, after 1843 was ever on that river, and no Texas civil officer ever exercised jurisdiction over that country. If there were any, they certainly can be named or pointed out, by our opponents. The gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. McLane,) said the other day that Texas, “after driving the Mexican armies beyond the Rio Grande, and at once organizing a government, declared that river to be their western boundary; and, from that time to the present, maintained complete and undisturbed pos¬ session of the soil west to the Rio Grande!” Now, to speak plainly, this asser¬ tion has not the least foundation in truth. Why do not gentlemen, who make such statements, point out some officer, civil or military, or even a single Texan private family, that resided on or within one hundred miles of the Rio Grande ? To this question there is but one true answer, and that is because they can’t do it. No, but we must take their mere ipse dixit for it, in place of proof against the public record—their own former acknowledgments, and the history of the country. How do these assertions agree with the President’s declaration that our army captured Santa Fe, a place which every body knows is far this side of the Rio Grande, and never had been interrupted by Texas? After the annexation of Texas Mr. Donelson, our charge d’affaires in that State, says, to Mr. Buchanan, our Secretary of State: “Above the point on the Rio Grande, where it enters New Mexico, there has been no occupancy by Texas; and it is obvious, so far as that region is concerned, no military move¬ ment could have taken it out of the category in which it is left by the terms of our joint resolution.” In the same despatch he again says: “The proclamation of a truce between the two nations (Texas and Mexico) left Mexico in possession of the east bank of the Rio Grande.” And in a letter of June 30th, after annexation, he sqys again: “Corpus Christi is said to be as healthy as Pensacola, a convenient place for supplies, and is the most western point now occupied by Texas.” And I now assert, arM challenge proof to the contrary, that, besides some ten or a dozen families at Corpus Christy there was not another family lived west 8 of the Nueces that was under the jurisdiction of Texas. I know it has been said that San Patricio was on the west side of that river, but such is not the fact, for it is on the east side. The President says, too, in his annual message of 1845, when our ajmy was at Corpus Christi: “I therefore deemed it proper, as a precautionary measure, to concentrate a sufficient military force on the western frontier of Texas.” Again, in the same message, he says: “After our army and navy had re¬ mained on the frontier and coasts of Mexico for many weeks, without any hos¬ tile movement on her part,” &c. The Secretary of War also wrote a letter to General Taylor, on the 8th July, 1845, thus: “Mexico has some military es¬ tablishments on the east side of the Rio Grande, which are, and for some time have been, in the actual occupancy of her troops,” &c. General Taylor, in his despatch of February 26th, 1846, to this Government, after stating that he had represented to the Mexicans that his movement to the Rio Grande would not be of a hostile nature, says: “The same views were impressed upon the Mexican custom-house officer at Brasos Santiago, by Captain Hardie.” General Taylor also informed our Government that he was met by a large force of Mexicans at the Little Colorado, and that, on his approach to Point Isabel, the Mexicans fired the town and fled. What, now, becomes of the assertions of the gentleman from Maryland, and all other assertions of a kindred nature? They are here positively contradicted by Mr. Polk, the Secretary of War, Mr. Donelson, and General Taylor. Now, take your choice whom you will believe. But, as I have shown, that whilst our army was at Corpus Christi, Mr. Polk said they were on the western frontier of Texas, and on the eastern frontier of Mexico, and that no hostile movement was made by the latter. And then, in a little more than one month after this statement, he ordered our army to ad¬ vance 150 miles west to the Rio Grande, and of course that distance into the Mexican territory, according to his own showing. Well, the army marched according to orders, they threw up breastworks opposite Matamoras, pointed their guns into that city, blockaded the mouth of the river, and General Taylor then wrote to our Government that this would “compel the Mexicans either to withdraw their army from Matamoras, where it could not subsist, or to assume the offensive on this side of the river.” In other words, either retreat, starve, or come over and fight us. In addition to this, in a despatch dated April 23, one day before the affair with Captain Thornton, General Taylor says: “A few days since he sent Lieutenants Dobbins and Porter to scour the country, and that Porter, at the head of his own detachment, surprised a Mexican camp, drove away the men, and took possession of their horses;” and that in this affair Porter and another man (he had no doubt) were killed. Then, on the 24th, the affair took place with Capt. Thornton, of which I have before spoken, which made the President proclaim that “American blood was shed upon Ame¬ rican soil,” 150 miles west of where he had a month before said “was the western frontier of^exas!” This is, now, an incontrovertible account of the causes and commencement of the war, which the President said, and Congress declared , “exists by the act of Mexico.” It is by no means agreeable to me to place my own Government in a wrong position, neither will I do it. But I will place the facts before you and the country, and if the Government has placed itself in that position I can’t help it, neither need it look for my feeble support in that wrong position. I go for my country by going against this pernicious war, because it is against my country—both against its honor and interest. For, notwithstanding our many victories, every Mexican we have slain has not only cost us the life of one of our own citizens, but at least ten thousand dollars per head beside. But more of this hereafter. I think I have now established the following facts; first, that Texas did once belong to Mexico; that she rebelled, and a few families on the other side of the Nueces at Corpus Christi rebelled with her, and thereby became a part of the Republic of Texas. Second. That the people on the Rio Grande, from its mouth to its source, never did rebel, never was conquered, nor did Texas ever exercise jurisdiction over them. Third. That, nine years after the declaration of Texan independence, they were found obedient citizens to the Mexican Government and country, wherein they were born, by the army ot the United States, and conquered—a thing which Texas had failed to do. Now, Mr. Chairman, suffer me to examine for a few moments if the princi¬ ples sought to be established by the Administration, and its advocates, would not subvert all former laws and principles, and even common sense, and finally end in the ruin of our own Government. I will now illustrate, by supposing a case, which no gentleman will dispute, being analogous and exactly in point. The Sabine river is now the boundary between the State of Texas and Louisia¬ na, Arkansas, and Missouri, as the Nueces river was between Texas and Ta- maulipas, Coahuila, and New Mexico. Suppose Texas were now to rebel against the United States, as she did against Mexico, and a few families in Louisiana, on the east side of the Sabine, were to rebel with her, and she were to declare her independence, and would also declare that the Mississippi river, from its mouth to its source, was her eastern boundary, and at the end of nine years would become annexed to Mexico, and Mexico would send an army, first to the east side of the Sabine, and from thence to the Mississippi river opposite New Orleans, amongst the peaceable inhabitants of Louisiana, and erect their batte¬ ries and point their guns over into New Orleans; and further, would blockade the Mississippi river, so as to compel our forces that might be in New Orleans either to retreat, stay there and starve, or cross over and fight them. Would this be an aggression, or cause of w r ar, or not, on the part of Mexico? Mr. Brown, of Virginia, inquired whether the Rio Grande was not blockaded by General Taylor on his own authority? I am establishing the fact and its inevitable consequences, and that is suffi¬ cient for this portion of my argument; for, by whomsoever the Rio Grande was blockaded, the President subsequently sanctioned and approved it. The act was the same aggressive act, whether done by the President or by Gen. Taylor. My purpose is, by this illustration, to ascertain whether the gentleman opposite would consider it an aggressive act for a Mexican general to blockade the Mis¬ sissippi river, and not aggressive for the American general to blockade the Rio ■Grande. If you say it would not, I ask why it would not; the cases are analo¬ gous. But the President and his advocates, if consistent, would say, that there was no aggression on the part of Mexico in all this; that the Mexican army on¬ ly came into their own territory to defend it; that they had a just right to block¬ ade the river, and that our forces must not cross over to the other side, for the Mexicans might attack them, and, per chance, our forces might kill some of them, and that would be shedding Mexican blood upon Mexican soil, and war would then “ exist by the act of the United States.” Mr. Polk, according to his own principles, would then order our army back from New Orleans to keep them from starving, instead of going over to defend his countrymen ! And if the Whigs were then to dispute the justice of such a course in Mexico, as they 10 surely would, that it was an invasion of our territory, a just cause of war, &c. ? we, of course, would be answered, that we were only a set of Mexican Whigs, and traitors to our country. And Mr. Polk would come out in a long message, and prove conclusively, that all that portion of Louisiana west of the Mississippi, with Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, and a large portion of Wisconsin, belonged to Texas. And to prove it, he would tell us that a half dozen families lived in Louisiana east of the Sabine, who rebelled with Texas, and that they had a post office and a custom house there, and sent a member to the convention that de¬ clared the Mississippi was their eastern boundary. And further, that all that country once belonged to Louisiana, and so did Texas, and he was once taken prisoner by the Texans, and he told them if they would let him go, they might have all that country. This is now a fair picture of the doctrine advocated by the President and his party; and, I think, all will join with me in saying, that the establishment of such principles would be subversive of all law, reason, and common sense, and would prove destructive of our own Government. And while we are advocat¬ ing our right to practise such abominable outrages upon the rights of others, we are advocating the right of others to practise them upon us. He who heads a mob to kill and rob his neighbor, by that act, authorizes his neighbor to kill and rob him upon the same principle. So in the case before us. All the out¬ rages we have committed upon Mexico and all the false assertions and arguments used by the Administration and its supporters to justify them, are of equal force and validity in favor of other nations and states against us; and, if established as correct, will prove destructive of our own Government and' Union. South Carolina, in the event of successful nullification, might thus have claimed to the Potomac, or wherever el-se she pleased; and because she claimed it, according to the doctrine sought to be established, she would have been entitled to it. Nor would it stop with nations or states; it would descend to private life; the only tenure by which an honest man would hold his land, or other property, would be the will of his dishonest and thieving neighbor. Such would be the end of the principles sought to be established by the Administra¬ tion, and it ought to be opposed by every lover of justice, and by every honest, upright, true patriot. Again, Mr. Chairman. The President, in order to cover up and conceal all these enormities from the people, has presented the Mexican robberies and out¬ rages upon some of our citizens, in years gone by, in exaggerated and glowing colors, as a justification of the present war. Well, sir, this demonstrates the doctrine for which I have been contending, the President himself being witness. Because Mexico robbed us, he therefore thinks it just and right to rob her, there¬ by placing himself in the same category of robbers with Mexico, and so justifies the right to rob. I do not justify Mexico in robbing our citizens; if I did, I would justify the President in robbing her, and so justify other nations in rob¬ bing us also. But, the truth is, the Mexican spoliations upon our citizens had been, in part, and the balance were, in progress of peaceful negotiations. A part had already been paid, and all would have been before this "time, had not the President acted towards Mexico as the silly man in the fable did with his goose, which laid a golden egg every day. In order to obtain all the eggs at once, he ripped open the goose, and thereby lost eggs, goose and all. But how these acts of Mexico prove that she commenced the war, is beyond my com¬ prehension. For, to say the least of it, it is very bad logic to say that Mexico robbed some of our citizens twenty years ago, and therefore in 1846 she invaded 11 our territory and commenced the war. But I look upon this as an admission by the President that he commenced the war; for to say that she committed spo¬ liations upon our citizens, and therefore we commenced the war, would be much, better logic. Again, the rejection of Mr. Slidell is also urged in justification of the war. But this, like the other, if it prove any thing, proves that we commenced the war, because they rejected him. For to say that, because she rejected him, she therefore commenced the war, is the height of folly. Much has been said by the President about Mexico rejecting Mr. Slidell, after agreeing to receive him. Now, the truth is, in that case Mexico did not agree to do any thing but what she said to the last she would do. She agreed to receive a commissioner to settle the boundary, and for this she contended to the vey last. Mr. Polk also agreed to send a commissioner; but, instead of doing this, he sent an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to reside near the government of Mexico; as if there were no difficulty between the two governments. Mexico refused to receive him in that character, and insisted on a commissioner. But Mr. Polk, rather than do it, sent our army into their territory—Mr. Buchanan says, “in anticipation of Mr. Slidell’s rejection.” But, after Mr. Polk had accomplished his object—had got into a war, and thousands of lives were lost —then he could send a commissioner , instead of an envoy extraordinary. Why did he not do this at first? Just because he was afraid they would settle the difficulty without glorifying his administration by a war. I certainly believe that Mr. Slidell was sent to Mexico in that character on purpose that he should be rejected; and I feel confident that any one who will trace the proceedings of the President, will come to the same conclusion. When our army was at Corpus Christi, and was said by Gen. Taylor to be in a proper position to defend Texas, and all was calm and tranquil, the President, through the Secretary of War, would urge upon Gen. Taylor the necessity of more troops—that the enemy was collecting forces to make an attack upon him. The General, on more than one occasion, told him that it w T as all a mistake—that no warlike demonstrations were being made by the enemy—that no troops were collecting, but all was quiet on the Rio Grande: and this, too, w r as done up to the very time Gen. Taylor was ordered to march, and even for months afterwards. Texas, nor none of her citizens, asked for any further protection than they had, while our army was at Corpus Christi. It is therefore a folly to talk about our army marching to the Rio Grande to protect Texas, for it is not true; that was not the object; the object was to bring on a war, and this was accomplished. The facts and arguments which I have now presented, with others of a kin¬ dred nature, have long since convinced me of the truth of the resolution we some time since adopted, and for which I voted with a clear conscience, and will again, if opportunity serves, viz: “That this war was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President of the United States.” Unnecessa¬ rily begun, because the honor and interest of the country did not demand it; unconstitutionally begun, because the President began it, by invading the terri¬ tory of a neighboring nation, with whom, he said, we were at peace; while his constitutional rights are restricted to u repelling invasion and suppressing insur¬ rection.” Whether I have succeeded in bringing any one else to the same conclusion at which I have arrived, I will leave to future developments. Another thing, Mr. Chairman: Ever since the commencement of the war, the President has, upon all occasions, boasted of the liberal and honorable terms of peace he proposed to Mexico, and told us that Mexico would not accept terms of peace. But who can tell whether the terms proposed by the Presi¬ dent were liberal and just terms, or not? We have, by resolution, asked him what those liberal terms were, that we might judge for ourselves, of which he so much boasted; but he answers us that we have no right to know—that it is inconsistent with the public interest for us to know. I, for one, certainly have 12 not sufficient confidence, either in his judgment or word, to take for granted that the terms were just and liberal, without knowing the facts in the case. If the President will tell us the terms Mr. Slidell was authorized to offer, and what amount of money Mr. Trist was authorized to pay for the territory which he was instructed to demand, then we will judge for ourselves whether the terms were liberal or not. Until this is done, the President should cease to prate about his liberality and the obstinacy of Mexico. My own opinion is, that he has never yet offered such terms as he desired or expected Mexico to accept. Mr. Slidell, I have no doubt, was sent to Mexico, not to restore peace, but to bring on a war; or why, when they asked for a commissioner , did he send them an envoy extraordinary ? Why, when they asked for a fish, did he give them a serpent? But Mexico refused our terms of peace proposed by Mr. Trist. Well, Mr. Polk also refused their terms of peace proposed to Mr. Trist; and how can we tell who is most to blame, until we know what those terms were? Mexico has as much reason to say that we refused to make peace as we have to say that she refuses to make peace. Now, sir, I believe, and have always believed, if the President would offer Mexico just and fair terms of peace, we could have obtained it at any time. But the President has not desired peace; an apology for the conquest of the whole of Mexico has been sought, and this will be the motto of the party in Jthe next Presidential campaign, if peace is not made before. But as war now exists, our opponents appear to think that we have nothing 'to do with the manner in which it was commenced, but our only business is to give all the assistance to the President he asks for, without reference to its be¬ ginning, whether right or wrong. But the manner of its commencement has every thing to do with our knowing how to terminate it justly. A jury will not be likely to render a very just verdict between two disputing neighbors without knowing who was the aggressor in the beginning. The President claims in¬ demnity for the expenses of the war upon the supposition that his statement Is true, “that Mexico invaded our territory, and shed American blood upon American soil.” Well, if this was true, his claim would be a just one. But in order to ascertain whether the claim is just, we must ascertain, by examin¬ ing the witnesses, whether his charge against Mexico, upon which he 'predicates his claim, is true. This I have done, and find by his own contradictory state¬ ments, as well as other testimony, that there is no truth in it. Hence his claim fails to be just. The evidence produced in this case clearly proves that the Pre¬ sident of the United States unnecessarily and unconstitutionally began this war; that he was the invader and aggressor. Consequently, he ought not only to pay our expenses of the war, but that of Mexico also. At any rate, that is my verdict. 