Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

they proceeded, they would rouse a feeling at the South that would rend the bonds of this Union, as Sampson burst the withes that bound him. Was this the doctrine that was to be acted on, that, acquire what territory we might, free labor might be suffered to go there, but the men of the South should not take their slaves with them there? If this thing was to be done, this government would be unequal, and its days would be numbered."

Mr. Dargan, from the same State, also said: "What would be thought by the volunteers from the South, when it was announced to them that slavery was to be excluded from the territory, their arms had acquired? This question must be settled before we proceed to acquire more territory, for afterwards it will be too late.”

*

*

*

*

*

"Say to the South, that they are only fighting to make free territory, that it is only for this that the brave men of Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, are periling their lives, and they will demand the settlement of this question now, preliminary to any further prosecution of the war."

Mr. Sims, of South Carolina, in a speech in the House of Representatives, Jan. 28, 1847: "And I have no doubt, — I express the opinion here, that every foot of territory we shall permanently occupy south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes, will be slave territory." In reply to a question by Mr. Burt, whether it would be in consequence of the state of public opinion in the Northern, Western, or Middle States? or whether it was in consequence of the known determination of the Southern people, that their institutions shall be carried into that country, if acquired? Mr. Sims answered: "It is founded on the known determination of the Southern people, that their institutions shall be carried there; it is founded on the laws of God, written on

* Moody's Facts, pp. 126, 127.

the climate and soil of the country; nothing but slave labor can cultivate profitably that region of country. I have no idea that the North or the West will resist to the death. This Union never will be dissolved on that question.”

*

Mr. Roberts, of Mississippi, demanded in the House of Representatives, Feb. 4, 1847: “And are we to tell a Butler, a Quitman, a Davis, a Yell, a Price, a Pillow, and a host of other, Southern gentlemen, officers, and soldiers, who have bravely volunteered, and shed their blood, and dissipated their treasure, who represent millions of slave holders, that, after the territory that may be acquired has been purchased at so fearful a cost, they, or their wives, or their children, or their friends, or relatives, shall not go upon the territory to possess it, people it, and cultivate it, and build upon it, for themselves and their children? No, sir; they will tell us, and I tell you, the South will have her rights, come what may."

Mr. Calhoun † in the Senate maintained, in like manner, the right of slave-holders to carry their slaves, and hold their slaves in the new territories conquered from Mexico: “The case of our recently-acquired territory from Mexico, is, if possible, more marked. The events connected with the acquisition are too well known to require a long narrative. It was won by arms, and a great sacrifice of men and money. The South, in the contest, performed her full share of military duty, and earned a full share of military honor; has poured out her full share of blood freely, and has and will bear a full share of the expense; has evinced a full share of skill and bravery, and if I were to say even more than her full share of both, I would not go beyond the truth; to be attributed, however, to no superiority in either respect, but to accidental circumstances, which gave both its

* Printed speech, pp. 6, 7.

† Printed speech, p. 12, June 27, 1848.

officers and soldiers more favorable opportunities for their display. All have done their duty nobly, and high courage and gallantry are but common attributes of our people. Would it be right and just to close a territory thus won against the South, and leave it open exclusively to the North? Would it deserve the name of free soil, if one half of the Union should be excluded and the other half should monopolize it, when it was won by the joint expense and joint efforts of all? Is the great law to be reversed, that which is won by all should be equally enjoyed by all?"

Forcibly and unanswerably was it argued by Mr. Dix of New York in the Senate, Feb. 28, 1849:* "When the war with Mexico was commenced, we were charged with the intention of acquiring territory with a view to carrying slaves into it. The charge was denied. We repelled the imputation as doing injustice to our motives. Yet, in the very first attempt to establish a government for that territory, the right is insisted upon, the purpose is confessed. Whether the Mexican Government was aware of this imputation, I do not know; but in the negotiation with Mr. Trist, the Mexican commissioners wished us to stipulate not to carry slavery into the territory which was proposed to be ceded.†

[blocks in formation]

"These Mexicans, whom we have been accustomed to

* Printed speech, p. 11.

"13th. The United States shall compromise themselves not to permit slavery in the part of the territory which they may acquire by this treaty." Preliminaries of the Mexican Commissioners, Aug. 24,

1847.

Mr. Trist, in a letter to Mr. Buchanan, Sept. 4th, mentions that this topic came up in discussion; that the commissioners assured him that if it were proposed to the people of the United States to part with a portion of their territory in order that the Inquisition should be established in it, the proposal would not awaken greater abhorrence than that awakened in Mexico by the prospect that slavery would be introduced in any territory parted with by her; that he assured them

consider half-civilized, vanquished in the field, driven from their capital, compelled to make peace with us almost on our own terms, and forced to cede a portion of their territory, implore us not to carry slavery into it. Sir, I ask how should we stand before the world, liberal and enlightened as we are, proclaiming to mankind the principle of human liberty as one of the inalienable rights of our race, if we were to disregard these entreaties?”

As

We deem the frank statements of Calhoun, and others, sufficient proof that the South would neither have embarked in nor pursued the Mexican war, had they supposed that the new conquests would become free territories and states. this is only a review, and not a history of the war, it is sufficient to give a specimen of the large amount of documentary evidence existing upon this subject.

We are obliged, therefore, shocking as the statement is, and blushing for our native land as we do, while we record it, to declare that the paramount cause and motive of the war with Mexico, without doubt or controversy, was territorial aggrandizement, under the dominion of domestic slavery and the internal slave-trade. This cause, first advocated by a few, and afterwards entangling the nation, severed the province of Texas from Mexico, and annexed it to the United States. This cause carried the sword in its devastating career from Palo Alto to Buena Vista, and from Vera Cruz to the city of Mexico. times, made slaves of its captives; but it reserved to this advanced period of the world its chief exploit of seeking to

War has, in former

that he did not differ with them probably on slavery, considered in itself, but that they had erroneous impressions of slavery as it existed in the United States, and that he could not accept the new territory on condition that slavery was excluded, not if its value were increased tenfold, “and, in addition to that, covered a foot thick all over with pure gold." The topic was dropped. 30th Congress, 1st Session, Senate, Ex. Doc., 52, pp. 199, 315.

convert the land of freedom, which it had conquered, into the area of slavery, and of spreading over new parallels of latitude the blight of national injustice and eternal wretchedness.

CHAPTER IV.

PRETEXTS FOR WAR.

"I believe that if the question had been put to Congress before the march of the armies and their actual conflict, not ten votes could have been obtained in either house for the war with Mexico under the existing state of things."-WEBSTER.

THE chief motive to this war, however it might be incidentally dropped by incautious lips or pens in the ardor of debate, or in the anonymous newspaper article, was yet too culpable to be openly avowed in the documents of a republican government. More plausible reasons were assigned. The United States were represented as the injured and insulted party. The war was claimed to be a war of self-defence. The vindication of national rights and honor was loudly insisted on, and a spectator might have supposed that our existence as a people was in danger, and that nothing but the most energetic measures could avert the impending ruin. But we find, now the smoke has cleared away, and the excitement is over, and we can view things calmly and considerately, that what were alleged as reasons for the war with Mexico, prove to have been but windy pretences. Many patriotic and good men of all parties in the United States, did not at the time regard them as worthy

« AnkstesnisTęsti »