Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

be assembled? Quite as little. On the 13th of January, 1846, Mr. Marcy thus writes to the cautious General:

"I am directed by the President to instruct you to advance and оссиру with the troops under your command, positions on or near the east bank of the Rio del Norte, as soon as it can be conveniently done. . . . It is not designed, in our present relations with Mexico, that you should treat her as an enemy; but should she assume that character by a declaration of war, or any open act of hostility towards us, you will not act merely on the defensive." pp. 77, 78.

ras.

On the 11th of March, the American army moved from Corpus Christi, and on the 21st, reached the Rio Grande, and took position on its eastern bank, opposite the town of MetamoOn the 18th of March, Senor Mejia, commander-in-chief of the forces opposed to the Americans, issued his proclamation. In this he 66 says, It has been reserved for the United States to practise dissimulation, deceit, and the basest treachery, in order, in the midst of peace, to appropriate to herself the territory of a friendly nation, who had honorably confided in the sincerity of her promises, and in the solemnity of her treaties. . . . What hopes, therefore, can the Mexican republic entertain of treating with an enemy who, at the very moment he endeavours to lull us into security by opening diplomatic negotiations, proceeds to occupy a territory which never could have been the object of the discussion now pending? The limits of Texas are fixed and well known; they have never extended beyond the Nueces."-p. 110. The 23d of March, Senor Cardenas sent a letter to General Taylor, protesting against his invasion of the Mexican territory, "without previous declaration of war, and without an explicit announcement of his design." He speaks of this act as "contrary to the practice of civilized countries and the clearest principles of the law of nations."

On the 12th of April, the Mexican general ordered General Taylor to retire within twenty-four hours, or war would follow. On the 24th of April, General Arista, the Mexican commanderin-chief, informed General Taylor that "he considered hostilities commenced, and should prosecute them," and on the same day a slight skirmish took place, though on the Mexican soil.

The remaining history is but too well known already. The message of the President, May 11th, 1846, the vote of Congress, the conduct of the democratic party and the whig party

- all these are well known. The President may declare that "war exists by an act of Mexico," the Congress may vote it to be true; that changes nothing. They cannot create a fact by a vote. It was the American government that made the war; unconstitutionally made a war which is unjust, mean, cowardly, and wicked even amongst wars.

Well said the Mexican commissioners, but a month ago "We must confess, not without a blush, that we are exhibiting to mankind the scandal of two Christian people, of two republics, in the presence of all the monarchies, mutually doing one another all the harm they can, by disputes about boundaries, when we have an excess of land to people and cultivate on the beautiful hemisphere where Providence caused us to be born." Which nation should blush? Let Mr. Calhoun answer. He said, in his speech in the Senate, Feb. 12th, 1847,

"If the annexation of Texas had not taken place, there would have been no war with Mexico, but that annexation was not the cause of the war. The immediate cause of the war was the marching of our troops from Corpus Christi to the Rio del Norte. If General Taylor had remained with his forces where he was, there would have been no invasion, there would have been no conflict."*

For the statements we have made, we have not relied on the speeches of partisan leaders, delivered for the purposes of a party hostile to the administration; we have not depended on the miserable secrets of conversations, private letters, and cabinet discussions, since public and well-known documents furnish the only sure ground on which we can stand. The American Congress, Representatives and Senate, with unanimity almost unexampled, threw the blame of this iniquity upon the innocent, and declared that the war existed by the act of Mexico. Only fourteen in the House, only two in the Senate, voted against the bill which made this declaration, and which turned the treasure, the talent, the energy, and the life of this terrible American nation against the miserable and distracted people of Mexico. What shall we say of that declaration? It was a lie! War existed by an act of the American government; we think no honest man, informed of the facts, can be so simple as to doubt it. The Mexicans say that the

* But see Senator Benton's speech of Feb. 24th, 1847.

conduct of America is unparalleled in the history of modern nations. Mr. Castillo y Lanzas is here mistaken. It is not wholly so. There is one parallel to our course of aggression upon Mexico. That is the-partition of Poland. While reading anew the public documents relative to this matter, the corresponding points in that infamous parallel have forced themselves upon us. "That," says a distinguished writer on public law, was "the most flagrant violation of natural justice and international law which has occurred since Europe first emerged from barbarism." Over Mexico as over Poland, it was only necessary to stoop, and you could pick up what you would. There, too, was a territorial claim, a pretence for re-annexation. There as here the spoiler feared the interference of England and France, and employed "dissimulation, deceit, and the basest treachery." The manifestoes of Russia, Prussia, and Austria, setting forth their respective claims, are well known; the writings of suppliant slaves, who, at a tyrant's bidding, contended for their country, however bounded, their country, right or wrong-will not soon be forgot. The language of two of the chief-magistrates of America, solemnly written in their messages and sent to Congress, the nation, and the world

language professing the desire of peace, the love of justice and of right, have brought back to our memory the intense irony, cruel and malicious, of the diplomatists of that period. "The courts," says a diplomatic note dictated by the Spoilers, and sent in September, 1773, to the government of the Polish nation, "the courts [that is, of Russia, Prussia, and Austria] are so deeply interested in preserving the peace of Poland, that while they are busy in getting the treaties ready to be signed and ratified, their ministers think they ought not to lose a moment of that interval so precious for the restoration of the order and tranquillity of that kingdom." We need not point out the parallels in the messages of Presidents Tyler and Polk, or in the speeches and resolutions of their sycophants and their slaves. The democrat has learned of the despot, and American Diplomacy, though but a babe, and inexperienced, already rivals her European parents, long ago cradled at Vienna, Moscow, Rome, or Byzantium, rocked by the tyrants of the earth, and now hoary with centuries of crime - treason against mankind.

We

Shall we pause now, and pass judgment on the conduct. of the two administrations most busy in this crime? have stated the facts. Shall we declaim against such infamy?

We cannot. Our pen falls to the ground; our lips are silent; eloquence were folly, genius impotence, in such a work. We pass away from that theme.

"To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
To throw a perfume on the violet,
To smooth the ice, or add another hue
Unto the rainbow, or with taper-light

To seek the beauteous eye of heaven to garnish-
Is wasteful and ridiculous excess."

What has been the conduct of the famous men of America? Great Statesmen are the mountains of the world which earliest show the dawn and latest hold the lingering rays of the departing sun; foremost prophets of the day when morning promises to come; most conservative of light when darkness shrouds the vulgar plains. But great Politicians are but the steeples of America, whose topmost summit bears-a weather-cock. There are, in America, amongst her children, four famous men. We shall not now discuss their general merits, nor attempt to decide whether they are politicians who interpret the interests of a party, or statesmen that incarnate principles in a nation's life. These four tower far above the vulgar mass that drive a thriving trade in politics; are most conspicuous men-beheld far off at sea. They have been long in public life, and all four may be deemed competitors for the chair of the President. What has been their conduct? Mr. Benton spoke nobly against annexation, and-voted for it. Voted also for the war. Mr. Calhoun,so oftne superior to party ties,-is the author of annexation, and voted for the war. These two belong to the party in power, and men might have looked for their allegiance. The two others are hostile to the administration: have they been hostile to the war? Mr. Clay is a private man-and therefore has not been called on to take any official stand in relation to this matter. But in December, 1846, at the celebration of a memorable event in the history of America, he was toasted at table, and made a reply, which was thus reported in the newspapers of the time. "Although leading a life of retirement, I am not wholly unobservant of the proceedings relating to the condition, welfare, and prospects of our country. And when I saw around me to-night, Gen. Brooke, and other old friends, I felt half inclined to ask for some nook or corner in the army, in which I might serve, to avenge the wrongs done to my country. I have thought that I might yet be able to capture or

slay a Mexican. I shall not be able to do so, however, this year, but hope that success will still crown our gallant arms, and the war terminate in an honorable peace." To add yet more to the shame of America, this speech was delivered at the dinner of the Sons of New England, on the 22d of December, met to celebrate the landing of the Forefathers of New England on Plymouth rock. Poor men! in that puritanic blood of theirs was there no tinge from the heart of the Pilgrims? Could they not, on that day, amid the feasting, the wine, and the revelry, amid the politicians, and the generals, and the "great applause," could they not for a moment think of those outcasts of the world who came in the name of Justice to found a state? Oh, no. How could they think of that? There stood one of the foremost men of America, hoping to "capture or slay a Mexican!" the son of some woman that never injured him-who might go down, heart-broken and refusing to be comforted, in sorrow to her grave. Alas-could he have known it- vain man, how soon is he doomed to weep at the "inscrutable Providence," by which his own son, the dear one, lies slain, in battle-not slain by a great statesman, but by some vulgar bullet of a nameless soldier, who fought for his country, her altars, and her homes, while the American volunteer fell inglorious and disgraced, a willing murderer, in that war so treacherous and so cruel. The father who had hoped to "slay a Mexican," shall find but sad consolation kissing the cold lips of his only son. Is Providence so "inscrutable ?" He who would deal death upon the sons of other men- shall he not feel it in his own home?

But the great champion of the north, that man of giant intellect which dwarfs his three competitors to littleness, himself perhaps unequalled among living men in magnificence of understanding- he has stood on Plymouth Rock, and his words which found a footing there have gone as pilgrims to be forefathers of mighty deeds at least in humbler men! How broke the thunders of that unequalled eloquence, which so oft before had shaken every heart? Did he thunder in the Senate, and lighten all over the land till wondering nations saw it from afar? Let us look at this. He had condemned annexation. "It struck a blow at the influence of our institutions. . . . Thank God I did not slumber over that danger." He had condemned the war; it was "illegal," unconstitutional, unjust; "a war of pretexts," "a presidential war;" the President's action was "an impeachable offence;" the Mexicans were

[blocks in formation]
« AnkstesnisTęsti »