No. 132.

Report on the War with Mexico

PREPARED BY CHARLES SUMNER.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, House Bill No. 187, April, 1847.

In an age when peace prevails over a larger surface of the globe than has ever before confessed its benign presence, our country finds itself involved in war. The general harmony is broken by our discord with a neighbor and sister republic. Enormous appropriations of money are diverted from purposes of usefulness and beneficence. Life, which a refined Christian civilization daily regards with new reverence, is squandered in bloody death on the field of battle. Many, after sinking under the privations and hardships of the camp, and the pernicious influences of an unaccustomed climate, have laid their uncoffined bones far away from their homes. Families are made desolate. Wives, mothers, daughters, and sisters are now mourning husbands, sons, fathers, and brothers whose faces they shall never again behold, whose dying agonies were relieved by no voice of kindness, no solace of prayer. The spirit of war, so adverse to the interests of republicanism and the spirit of the gospel, now predominates in the councils of our country, summoning all its energies to the contest.

It becomes important, then, to inquire into the nature of the contest and the duties of citizens in regard to it. Is this unseasonable discord - this sacrifice of treasure and life, this laceration of sacred ties, this invocation of the demon of war necessary and unavoidable? Is it in a just cause? Is it in a cause which can challenge the benediction of good patriots, and the countenance and succor of Heaven? If it be

men and

not, how can the mighty evil be redressed, and its continuance and recurrence be prevented?

ORIGIN AND CAUSE OF THE WAR.

To answer these inquiries, it will be proper, in the first place, to consider the origin and cause of the war. History and offcial documents have already placed these in a clear light. They are to be found in two important acts of our government, both of which were in flagrant violation of the Constitution of the United States. The first is the annexation of the foreign State of Texas, and its incorporation into our Union, by joint resolutions of Congress. This may be called the remote cause. The immediate cause was the order from the President, bearing date January 13, 1846, to General Taylor, to break up his camp at Corpus Christi, the extreme western point of the territory actually possessed by Texas, and march upon the Rio Grande. This, which was in itself an act of war, took place during the session of Congress, but without its knowledge or direction. Let us endeavor to comprehend the character and consequences of these acts.

THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.

The history of the annexation of Texas cannot be fully understood without reverting to the early settlement of that province by citizens of the United States. Mexico, on achieving her independence of the Spanish crown, by a general ordinance, worthy of imitation by all Christian nations, had decreed the abolition of human slavery within her dominions, embracing the Province of Texas. She had declared expressly "that no person thereafter should be born a slave, or introduced as such, into the Mexican States; that all slaves then held should receive stipulated wages, and be subject to no punishment but on trial and judgment by the magistrate." At this period, citizens of the United States had already begun to remove into Texas, hardly separated, as it was, by the River Sabine from the slaveholding State of Louisiana. The idea was early promulgated that this extensive province ought to become a part of the United States. Its annexation was distinctly agitated in the Southern and Western States in 1829; and it was urged on the ground of the strength and extension it would give to

the "Slave Power," and the fresh market it would open for the sale of slaves.

The suggestion of this idea had an important effect. A current of emigration soon followed from the United States. Slaveholders crossed the Sabine, with their slaves, in defiance of the Mexican ordinance of freedom. Restless spirits, discontented at home, or feeling the restraint of the narrow confines of our country, joined them; while their number was swollen by the rude and lawless of all parts of the land, who carried to Texas the love of license which had rendered a region of justice no longer a pleasant home to them. To such spirits, rebellion was natural.

It soon broke forth. At this period the whole population, including women and children, did not amount to twenty thou sand; and, among these, most of the older and wealthier inhabitants still favored peace. A Declaration of Independence, a farcical imitation of that of our fathers, was put forth, not by persons acting in a Congress or in a representative character, but by about ninety individuals,— all, except two, from the United States,-acting for themselves, and recommending a similar course to their fellow-citizens. In a just cause the spectacle of this handful of adventurers, boldly challenging the power of Mexico, would excite our sympathy, perhaps our admiration. But successful rapacity, which seized broad and fertile lands, while it opened new markets for slaves, excites no sentiment but that of abhorrence.

The work of rebellion sped. Citizens of the United States joined its fortunes, not singly, but in numbers, even in armed squadrons. Our newspapers excited the lust of territorial robbery in the public mind. Expeditions were openly equipped within our own borders. Advertisements for volunteers summoned the adventurous, as to patriotic labors. Military companies, with officers and standards, directed their steps to the revolted province. During all this period the United States were at peace with Mexico. A proclamation from our government, forbidding these hostile preparations within our borders, is undeniable evidence of their existence, while truth compels us to record its impotence in upholding the sacred duties of neutrality between Mexico and the insurgents. The Texan flag waved over an army of American citizens. Of the six or eight hundred who won the battle of San Jacinto, scattering the Mexican forces and capturing their general, not more than

fifty were citizens of Texas, having grievances of their own to redress on that field.

This victory was followed by the recognition of the independence of Texas by the United States; while the new State took its place among the nations of the earth.* Its Mexican rulers were succeeded, not by people nurtured on the soil, but by citizens of our country. As, in the story of Baron Munchausen, the bear devoured the horse between the very shafts of the carriage, until he found himself in its place, drawing the vehicle, so did the greedy adventurers from our country, with an unprecedented rapacity, eat themselves into the possession of this rich province of Mexico.

Certainly our sister republic might feel aggrieved by this conduct. It might justly charge our citizens with disgraceful robbery, while, in seeking the extension of slavery, they repudiated the great truths of American freedom. Meanwhile Texas slept on her arms, constantly expecting new efforts from Mexico to regain her former power. The two combatants regarded each other as enemies. Mexico still asserted her right to the territory wrested from her, and refused to acknowledge its independence. Texas turned for favor and succor to England. The government of the United States, fearing it might pass under the influence of this power, made overtures for its annexation to our country. This was finally accomplished by joint resolutions of Congress, in defiance of the Constitution, and in gross insensibility to the sacred obligations of amity with Mexico, imposed alike by treaty and by justice, "both strong against the deed." The Mexican minister regarded it as an act offensive to his country, and, demanding his passport, returned home.

OBJECTS OF ANNEXATION.

To appreciate fully the character of this act, it will be proper to consider briefly the objects contemplated by it, or, in other words, the reasons which induced it. These are placed beyond question by authentic public documents, and by the confessions of a leading statesman in open debate. It is not to be disguised that there were some considerations, of less importance, which operated on certain minds; but the grand impelling motive was the desire to extend the institution of slavery,

"Nothing is more true or more extensively known," said Mr. Van Buren, in 1844, than that Texas was wrested from Mexico, and her independence established, through the instrumentality of citizens of the United States."

and to strengthen the political combination and power which are founded upon it. At the time it took place, England was supposed to be exerting her influence to induce Texas to abolish slavery. This excited the alarm of the government of the United States. Mr. Secretary Upshur, by a letter dated August 8, 1843, addressed to Mr. Murphy, our chargé at Texas, says, "The establishment, in the very midst of our slaveholding States, of an independent government, forbidding the existence of slavery, and by a people born, for the most part, among us, reared up in our habits and speaking our language, cannot fail to produce the most unhappy effects upon both parties."- "Few calamities could befall this country more to be deplored than the establishment of a predominant British influence, and the abolition of domestic slavery, in Texas." By his letter to Mr. Murphy, dated January 16, 1844, he says: "If Texas should refuse to come into our Union, measures will instantly be taken to fill her territory with emigrants from Europe. . . . The first measure of the new emigrants, as soon as they shall have sufficient strength, will be to destroy that grand domestic institution upon which so much of the prosperity of our frontier country depends. I will add that, if Texas should not be attached to the United States, she cannot maintain that institution ten years, and probably not half that time."

Similar views were expressed, with his accustomed frankness, by Mr. Calhoun, when Secretary of State. Without quoting these at length, as they appear in his different communications to Mr. Green and Mr. Pakenham, it will be sufficient to present the following passage from his letter to the latter, bearing date April 27, 1844: "The treaty of annexation was made necessary, in order to preserve domestic institutions, placed under the guaranty of their respective constitutions, and deemed essential to their safety and prosperity." And recently, on the floor of the Senate at Washington, he has avowed the same motive, adding that he thought there was danger that the institution of slavery might be abolished in Texas, and that he had seized the golden moment for the purpose of giving it perpetuity.

CONSEQUENCES OF ANNEXATION.

Such was the character of this act, and the object proposed A republic, whose animating principle is freedom, here

by it.