For the moment we will pass over the right of Mexico, and only consider the territory to have been in dispute. While territory remains in this situation, and before the claims of the parties have been adjusted, the right of one claimant is always presumed to be equally good with that of the other. In the first encounter between detachments of the two armies, the attack was made by the Americans. The American blood shed, in the language of the executive, on our own soil, and about which so much patriotic indignation was wasted, turned out to have been shed by a Mexican company in repelling a charge of American cavalry, in self-defence, against a wanton attack made upon it by the direction of the executive of the United States, and under an order from the commander-in-chief to capture and "destroy" it.

Now if the invasion of that territory and the shedding the blood of Americans there by Mexico were a sufficient cause of war for us, its prior invasion, the first attack and the shedding the blood of Mexicans there by us were at least an equal cause of war for her.

But moreover, its own acts show that the ex

ecutive, when it made that declaration to the world, knew it to be totally and unqualifiedly untrue. We know that this is strong language; but when the occupation of territory by Mexico, which government knew to be her own, and for which it had just offered her five millions of dollars, is pronounced to be a sufficient cause of war against her, how can the inconsistency be reconciled? The one must have been squandering, or the other must be false.

There appears also in the executive a desire to kindle in the minds of our people a spirit of war against Mexico. Having, in pursuit of its remorseless purpose brought the two countries into collision, its next object was to enlist the enthusiasm of the people in the war which it purposed to wage. "Texas organized counties extending to the Rio Grande, their inhabitants are represented in your congress," proclaims the government which had just been officially informed that Corpus Christi was the most western point occupied by that state. "After the battle of San Jacinto, Mexico never crossed the Rio Grande," proclaims the same authority, whose merchants paid duties to Mex

ico at Point Isabel, and which had ordered General Taylor to respect her posts and citizens east of that river. "Louisiana extended to the Rio Grande. That was the boundary of our original possessions. Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Pinkney, Adams, Benton and Clay, have all declared it," announces the executive, laboring by the introduction of a blind and antiquated claim to excite the national pride and to complete the confusion in which it had involved the transaction. "Patriots of America, avenge the blood of your fellow-citi zens shed on you own soil!" echo throughout the land the organs of that government which had just offered to Mexico five millions of dollars for the country. The excitable nation swallows this series of falsehoods, and rushes with a blind enthusiasm into the contest. Thus the object of government was attained, we were involved in war with Mexico, and our citizens believed the scandalous deception that she was the aggressor, and we the wronged and insulted nation, compelled to fight, but ready to sacrifice all but our honor for the sake of peace.

CHAPTER IX.

THE Declaration of War. The duty of Congress. The consequences which would have followed the performance of that duty.

IN his message of the 11th of May, the president declared that war existed, and notwithstanding all our efforts to avoid it, existed by the act of Mexico herself; and recommended the most prompt and energetic measures to bring the war to a speedy and successful termination.

An act providing for the prosecution of "the existing war," and authorizing the president to employ the entire military force of the country, and to accept the services of fifty thousand volunteers for its prosecution, was passed by congress on the 13th, the preamble of which declared, that "by the act of the republic of Mexico, a state of war exists between that gov ernment and the United States."

Let us suppose a great and christian government, a friend of peace, to have become so little the slave of pride, that it is willing to acknowledge that it has done wrong. Let us suppose, that this government claims the title to territory which has been for a long time in the possession of another power, that it has recognized the claims of this power, and has provided that the dispute should be settled by negotiation. Let us further suppose, that while the question remains yet unsettled, the execu tive of this government should send an army to take possession of the entire territory in dispute; that this army after being encamped for a month on its farthest boundary where it had committed undisguised acts of hostility, having received protests from the inhabitants and authorities against its advance, and orders from the government to retire, is at last attacked, and after some bloodshed becomes placed in a perilous situation, and the executive should communicate these facts to the legislature. What course of conduct might we expect that body to adopt? Would it declare that war existed by the act of its adversary, and place means in the hands of the executive to prose