expectant of office, is a personage rarely to be found in our Republic. To pursue measures supposed to be popular, affords a very uncertain indication of virtuous motives.

It seems impossible that any candid person acquainted with the origin and causes of the Mexican war, should insist that its necessity and justice were so palpable as to exclude all doubt: or that the assertion that the Mexicans commenced the war by invading the United States, and shedding American blood upon American soil, is supported by such irrefragable testimony, that no well-informed man can honestly deny its truth. Many of the democratic members of Congress, in their reproaches of the Whigs for voting for a war which they denounced as unjust, declared such a war to be the greatest of crimes, and those who prosecuted it, guilty of murder. Even Mr. Polk's organ thus abused the Whigs for voting thanks to victorious Generals :-" None but the Whigs would think of rewarding men volunteering to fight in a war unconstitutionally commenced by one man, and prosecuted in contempt of national honor." Yet this same ready tool had been lavish of his charges of treason against all who opposed the war, whatever might be their conscientious opinion of its character. But if an unjust war be indeed a crime, involving its authors and abettors in the guilt of murder, it is most remarkable that not one Democrat in two successive Congresses, found his conscience burthened with the momentous question, whether the Mexican war was or was not unjust! Probably not two of these gentlemen entertained precisely the same opinion on the great truths of scripture, yet not a solitary individual of the party saw aught but verities in Mr. Polk's messages! When we remember the diversities of the human mind, and the complicated and contradictory tes

timony in relation to the origin of the war, and the wide difference of opinion respecting it, throughout the nation, the unanimous, unfaltering faith of these gentlemen is a moral phenomenon. Their faith, however, was counted to them, if not for righteousness, at least for obedience, and opened to many of them a vista to future office and power. Under such circumstances, their support of the war cannot be taken as irresistible proof of their patriotism. Nor is the evidence of the patriotism of their opponents afforded by their vote for an acknowledged falsehood, and their grant of men and money to wage a war admitted to be iniquitous, of a more conclusive character. The Democrats, according to the orthodox rule, showed their faith by their works, while the unbelieving Whigs rested their justification on their works alone. Denying the necessity, expediency, and justice of the war, as well as the wisdom and integrity of Mr. Polk, they surrendered to him the army and navy, with an additional force of 50,000 men, and all the money he desired, to carry fire and sword into Mexico, and to dismember that Republic. To have done all this with a single desire to benefit their own country, would have been at least a very questionable benevolence, and a very ambiguous patriotism.

Mr. Clay, the distinguished and beloved leader of the Whig party, in a public speech delivered in Kentucky, declared that the preamble to the war bill, "falsely attributed the commencement of the war to the act of Mexico." He then added- "I have no doubt of the patriotic motives of those who, after struggling to divest the bill of that flagrant error, found themselves constrained to vote for it; but I must say, that no earthly consideration would have ever tempted me to vote for a bill with a PALPABLE FALSEHOOD stamped on its face. Almost idol

izing truth, as I do, I never, never could have voted for the bill." Of course, Mr. Clay's patriotism so far differs from that of the gentlemen alluded to, that it cannot lead him to sacrifice TRUTH for the cause of his country. He then goes on to remark, that the war of 1812, against Great Britain, was of a widely different character from the present, being a just war, and so admitted by its opponents, who, from motives of policy, refused to support it, and that in consequence, "they lost, and justly lost the public confidence," that is, they lost their political ascendency. He then asks the following very significant question: "Has not the apprehension of a similar fate, in a case widely different, repressed a fearless expression of their real sentiments in some of our public men?" This interrogatory has all the force of an assertion. To what public men does he refer? Surely not to. Mr. Polk and his party. His remarks irresistibly confine his question to the " some Whigs in Congress, who, from fear of losing their popularity, as the Federalists had before done, voted for the "palpable falsehood," the war and the supplies. If he intended to intimate, and on no other supposition is his language intelligible, that these Whigs voted as they did from selfish considerations, it is deeply to be lamented that a man almost idolizing truth, should have hazarded the declaration, that he had no doubt of their patriotic motives. We have already noticed the frank admission of the American Review, a Whig organ, that on this occasion the Whig members seemed more solicitous about "personal popularity" than for the cause of " TRUTH AND RIGHT."

Subsequent developments have abundantly confirmed the intimations of Mr. Clay and of the Review. It has been shown by the declarations of certain Whig members of Congress, published in the newspapers, that on the

day war was declared, they were urged to vote for the bill, on the ground that "it would be bad policy to oppose the bill," and that this opinion was supported by a reference to the political fate of those who had opposed the war of 1812 against Great Britain. In a deliberate consent to sacrifice the peace of the country, to squander its treasures and its blood, and to trample under foot both truth and justice, from considerations of party policy, and for the purpose of acquiring personal popularity, and with it, office and its emoluments, it is not easy to detect those “patriotic motives" which Mr. Clay very courteously and undoubtingly attributes to the Whig members who voted for the war.

On the 13th May, 1846, Congress voted that "By the act of the Republic of Mexico, war existed between that Republic and the United States." On the 31st January, 1848, a new House of Representatives voted, that this same war was "unconstitutionally and unnecessarily begun by the President of the United States." In the affirmative of this latter vote, we find recorded the names of fifteen Whig Members who had belonged to the late house, and whose names are also recorded in the affirmative of the former vote. The last declaration, however truthful, was no doubt considered equally good policy with the first, inasmuch as a presidential election was approaching, and it was expedient to throw odium on the rival party, and on Mr. Polk its acknowledged head.

One of the gentlemen who voted for both declarations thus expressed his opinion of this self-same war: “Entertaining these views upon the origin and purposes of the war, I can consider it in no other light than as a NATIONAL CRIME; but, independent of this, it is an offence against the moral spirit of our time, a retrograde step in the movement of humanity, a violent wresting of

our national energy and national resources, to unnatural and mischievous uses. I have no desire that a single Mexican wife should be made a widow, a single Mexican child an orphan; and I would rather that my country should sit down in honest shame, than purchase, at the price of rapine, and tears, and blood, the unjust glory' of waving her flag over all the wide continent that stretches between the stormy Atlantic and the shores of the tranquil sea:

'One murder makes a villain, thousands a hero.'"*

A little timely reflection might have warned this gentleman that the fifty thousand troops he voted to place under the orders of Mr. Polk to prosecute 66 a national crime," might peradventure cause many Mexican widows and orphans, acquire by conquest "unjust glory," and make more than one "hero."

He alone who governs himself by the laws of God will act consistently; while he who follows the ever-varying monitions of party policy will often be found wandering in tortuous paths.

History and daily observation compel the conviction, that patriotism is more frequently professed than practised, and that much which assumes the name, and passes current with the world, is utterly spurious. Yet it is also true, that the patriotism which seeks the public good, in obedience to the Divine will, and in accordance with the precepts of the Gospel, far from being an imaginary, is a real and active virtue. It is, indeed, to be found in camps and senates, but these are not its exclusive nor its favorite haunts. This patriotism inspires many a prayer for the peace, virtue, and happiness of the nation, and prompts innumerable efforts and costly sacrifices of time and money for the temporal and spiritual welfare of our fellow-coun

*Speech of Mr. Marsh, Feb. 18, 1848.-Con. Globe.