The New era. [volume] ([Portsmouth, Va.]) 1845-1847, 1846-05-21
TIL E. N E w Err A
MR.. DOUGLASS SPEECH.
Concluded


not a prisoner of war at the time, and in duress.
when he executed that treaty.
Mr. Douglass, in reply. Santa Ana was
prisoner of war at the time, and so was the entire
government Of Mexico. he heing the government,
de Jncto, ard clothed with all the powers of gov.
ernment, civil and military. The government
was prisoner at the time, and in dnress But
will il be c"ntended that that circumstances rem.
dered its obligation the less obligatory? We are
now at war with Mexicn. Our armies will soon
march into The heart ofthat country | trns, they
will penetrate as far as the capital, and capture
the army. people. and governmeDi-make them
all prisoners of war. and keep them in duress
until they shall conclude treaty of peace and
boundary with us. by which they shall! not only
recognise the Rio Del Norte, but such other line
as We shall choose To dictate accept. Will the
gentleman from Massachusetts cnntend that n
treaty made with us>nnder those circumstances.
would notbe binding. because, forsoo,h, the gov
eminent was prisoner at the time7 How is a
conquered nation ever To make peace, if the gen
ileman's doctrine is To prevail2 They refuse to
make peace before they are Conquered because
they hope for victory. They are incompetent 10
do so afterwards. because they are in dnress -
Surely an unfortunate and defeated belliperent
would he in most lamentable condition Too
imbecile to resist dlsarmed, conquered, still in
competent Ia make treaty of peace, and adjust
the matter in dispute Oh such fair and equitable
terms as magnanimons fne shall propose, be-
canse the war OF aggression which they com.
menced has resulted disastrously. and made them
captives fear that if this doctrine shall pre-
vail these gentlemen will soun find their Mexican
friends in most pliable condition. Perhaps. if
that government should be reduced To captivity.
these gentlemen would require that our armies
should retire within our own territory. and SET
the government al liberty. before negotiations for
peace conld he opened. This may he their view
of the subject, hut doubt whether il is the view
which the American government or the American
people will deem it their duty To act upon Oar
crude notions Of things may teach us that the ciry
at Mexico would be the most suitable place TO
form treaty Of peace
MIR. Adams. Has not that treaty with Santa
Anna heen discarded by the Mexican goyernmen,
since2
Mr. Douglass. presume it has. for am not
aware of any treaty or compac, which that gov
eminent ever entered into that has not either been
violated or repudiaIed by them afterwards And
our treaty stipulatons with them furnish annie
ground for this presumption. have not deemed
II necessary to inquire, therefore, what particular
acts of disavowal have been since adopted by the
Mexican government. II is sufficient for nv
purpose that The treaty was entered INTO and
sanctioned by the government de facto for the
are binding on the nation against foreign ma
lions, without reference to The mode in which
that government was established whether bv
revolution, usurpation. or righ,ful and constitn-
tional means.
MIR. Adams. deny i'll deny the proposition.
Mr. Douglass. do moi intend TO enter into =
discussion of The law of nations with the learned
gentleman from Massachusetts. will only say
that | understand all writers on the law of ma
lions 10 lay down the principle as have stated.
Certainly the practice and usages of all civilized
nations sanction it, of which history furnishes us
innnmerable examples. Mexico herself was
nothing but a government de facto in the strict
legal sense Of the term al The time of the
Texan revolution. She had revolied from Spain
IN 1921, and had successfully maintained her
national existence. but her independence was
not recognised by the mother country until De-
cember, 1856 Yet We had recognised her ex.
isience as government de facto in the mean
time, and had entered into treaties of commerce.
as well as Of boundary. These treaties were
made with the existing government for the
time being. whether a constitutional repnblic
military despolism, OF dictatorship. We never
pretended to inquire into the question whether The
government had been rghIfully formed OF not il
was sufficient for our purposes that il was the ex
isting government de fdcto. So il was with
Texas. She became independent de fncfo in
1886. and we recognised her independence as sucb
Immediately afterwards and so did England
France, and most Of the great powers of the globe
All other nations formed treaties with her as =
government de facfo, without inquring who had
been right and who in the wrong in her reyolu-
lionary struggle. We purchased Louisiana from |
Napoleon, usurper at the head Of a military des
potism. Does the gentleman deny the VALIDITY
of the acts Of the British government during The |
times of Oliver Groin we'll because il was mere
government de fdcto, established in blood in |
violation Of the British constiiuiion7 Manv of |
the mportan, treaties affecting the destiniex
Of Europe were made with the British govern.
ment during that period. Who ever thought or
denying their validity because they had been
made by government de fdcto which had been
reared on the ruins Of the British monarchy p
The doctrine of the gentleman from Massachu-
sets is novel one--it finds no sanction I'm the
books, and no examples in history.
The universal doctrine is that the acts Of the
government de facto, are binding upon the nation
Is against other nations, from tho consequences of
which it cannot release itself by subsequent re.
yolution. II is immaterial to me, therefore, wbe.
her Mexico has, or has not, since repudiated
Santa Annals treaty with Texas. II was exc.
,uted at the time by competent authority. She
,vailcd herself of all Its benefits BY virtue of
t.. she saved the remnant Of her army from total
humiliation. Under it she was enabled to re-