Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1846-07-23
EXTRACTS FROM THE SPEECH OF HON.
CHARLES HUDSON, OF MASS ON THE
WAR WITH MEYICO

WAR WITH MEXICO.
Mr.. Chairman,-I was one of the fourteen who
voted against the passage of the war bill. voted
against it for various reasons; and among others,
for this believe the preamble and its repetition
in the first section of the bill, to be untrue. The
preamble is as follows; Whereas, by the act of
the Republic of Mexico, war exists between that
Government and the United States"
Now, sir, regard this preamble as utterly false
false a whole, and false IN each of its rectals
1t is not true that existed before the passage
of that act. There had been collision between
our troops and those Of Mexico; but collision of
forces in single instance, and at particular point
does not amount to war, in the legal and eonsttu-
tional sense of that term. By the Constitution of
this country and of Mexico, the power TO declare
war Is vested In Congress, and not in the President
or commanding General. We have no authority
for saying that the Mexican Government had de-
clared war, and we knew that our Congress had
given no authority to the President 10 march his
troops upon disputed territory in possession of the
Mexicans There is also q manifest distinction
between hostihties and car. When war is pro-
clamed by the constituted authority, the whole ma
ton and the world bound to take cognizance of
1t, and to govern themselves according to the rules
of constitutional and international law. But there
may be outbreaks or collisions at q particular point,
hostlites within limited sphere, and even letters
OF marque and reprisal may be granted TO one or
more injured subjects, under certain circumstances,
and with suitable limitations, without being in
state of war, in the legal sense of that term
When war exists, neutral nations are bound to take
notice of it, but the same is not true in every case
OF hostility. We have several examples in our own
history which viii illustrate this distinction. The
attack upon the Chesapeake by an English cruiser,
oeiore the late war with England, was act of
hostility, but neither nation regarded it as war;
Tine same is true OF the destruction of the Caroline
on the Canadian frontier. Tie capture of Moner-
ey, Mexican town upon the Pacific, by Commo-
hnrn lone n
OF these cases shows that there may be acts of hos
hity between the forces of two powers and yet the
relations OF peace may be preserved. The decar-
ation therefore, that war existed, is not sustained
by facts. We had no evidence of its existence at
that tlme on the contrary, all the evidence we had
before us went to sustain the opposite conclusion.
could not, therefore subscribe to the declaration
that war already existed"
The preamble states not only that war exists, but
that ersts 6y the acts Of the Republic of Merico.
This declaration believe to be untrue. Mexico
with all her faults, has not in this case, been the
aggressor The statement which ascribed The war
to the acts of Mexico, is clearly and conclusiyelv
contradicted by the facts in the might go
back to the commencement of the revolution in
Texas, and show that the Government of the United
States have not maintained policy strictly neutral,
as they were bound to do. But in the act Of an
nexatlon, we not only violated our own organic law,
but violated our faith pledged to Mexico by solemn
as | believe that to have BEEN will take the case
as it stood after the joint resolution was passed
and j believe that our conduct towards Mexico is
entirely ndefenslble Texas was annexed to the U.
States, and on the supposition that that act
valid, what did 1t include? What did we annex 4:
The old province OF Texas bounded on the
southwest by the Nueces, which does not approach
within Que hundred and fifty miles of the position
occupied by Gen. Taylor, The Texas which has
been annexed to the United States the old
province of Texas; the Texas which formed one
of the State or departments of Mexico; The Tex
as which rebelled against the parent Government,
and set up Government of its own; in word,
the Texas which was bounded by the river Nue.
ces. 1t is true that the Texan Congress, in 1886,
passed an act declaring that their Republic was
bounded westerly by the Rio GranGe Bnt what
title had she to the territory lying west of her orig
inal limits She could have none but that of con-
quest. And did she ever carry her conquest up to
The Rio Grandc? Nothing like it; every attempt
she made proved signal failure. The population
upon the Rio Grande never rebelled against Mexl-
CO, were never conquered by Texas, or submitted
to Texan law or authority. Texas made seyeTas
attempts to plant her standard upon the pahhs Oh
that river but in every attempt her forces were ell
Their capturde or driven back With what proprie-
ty, them can we maintain that the wilderness OF
desert country between the Nueces ana the MO
Grande ever belonged to Texas a large strlP OF
country on the left or eastern bank OF the MO
Grande has ever peeh III posseosioh Va t'NH'No'
and we have acknowledged that possession both
before and after annexation AT the last session OF
Congrerss an act was passed allowing drawback
nnon foreign merchandise imported into this coun-
try, and exported to Canada and Mexico; and a.
the delivery Of have sseysd the Man
sto Paredes dated National Palace OF Mexico, Api -,
1867 only day before the collision the Rio Gande, IN
he most emphatioay s0iemnly announce that
declare against Uited States u dmerea because
pertains the august Congress eff he nation and not TO the I-
the alton which many nggres-
defence OF Mexican territory which the
United troops invade, necessity and my res
possibility would before the naton did not give
commands epe those forces, which act like enemies nave
SO commanded"