The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-05-11

can create state Of war-it requires two nations To
make peace. Suppose the other nation declares
war-suppose Mexico declares war, are You at
peace' What an absurd doctrine is that ! know
OF no intermediate state between peace and war.
Are you at peace with Mexico' Are we at this
moment al peace with MexIcoi No. Ii is state
OF war Every gentlemen here knows that there
have been dozen wars IN Europe without any de-
elaratlon of war on either side. The war Of l755
was such war. So was the Of 1904. The
honorable gentleman from South Carolina
says we are in a state of hostility but
not in state Of war. Now | am not
going to dispute about words, but | deny
the doctrine advanced by him in toto. What is the
difference between hostility and war; Suppose
Mexico issued orders to privateers tomorrow, are
you to wait for declaration Of war; II an inva-
der approaches, can you not drive him OFF, Are
we not now In that state OF hostility which gives
the legitimate consequence of war; for one wish
TO be distinctly understood, that whether war be de-
clared or not, are now in position in which all
the legitimate rights and consequences Of war exist
We are placed IN solemn position. This is a
most solemn crisis But IL we advance to our duty
| with hrmness, prompdtude, and decision, our
| course is plain and honorable before the world. If
we do not act in that spiritf we make half war and
half Peace-if we say TO Mexico, Advance, and
| wen fight YOU If not, we will remain quiet" we
| will dshonor ourselves forever in the eyes Of man.
kind What have We TO gain by such conduct
The advantage is altogether on the side of Mexico.
/
pleases. There is but one course for 10 take.
| Push an expedition into Mexico, till we compel her
| TO make peaee-not to hold the country, but COM
| pei her to make such peace as we have u right TO
| demand.
Mr. CALHOUN again rose and said: entirely
concur in the separation ofthe message respect TO
its reference. Now hope that there will not be the
slightest difference Of opinion but the utmost una
nimlty and promputude Of action in repeng inva-
sion. One part of my object was 10 bring about
1 At Of hav falt Al.
aukwardness Of blending the two subjects contained
| in the message together-the solemnity of the one
requiring deliberaon, the urgency of the other de-
handing promptltude of action. Both subjects are
| now properly disposed Of, and there will be ample
time hereafter TO discuss the various points connect
ed with the one, whilst the other will not be subject
ed to any improper or dangerous delay. The SEMI
tor from Michigan Mr.. CAssl repealed no observa-
| ton Of mine. His remarks had not the slightest
reference TO anything said ! said in the sense of
the constitution could be declared only by Con-
gress; that it was only through the exercise of the
authority Of Congress that that Of things called
war" could be announced TO the country and the
world. There Is no question between him and my
| self The question is between him and the co nsti.
tuition. IL would be great abuse Of language then,
in constitutional sense, to call this a state
| of IL is, If have got the true
account, a state Of invasion NOT even of
| hosues been tho United States and Mexico IL
is state Of hostility between the two forces on the
|
tie all our accounts at once, Is that grave question to
which ! alluded and with regard to which said
agreed with the senator from Ohio, Mr. Allen
IN the expression of opinion that 1t ought to be
most carefully examined, and that then we should,
with the utmost decision, proceed to discharge our
duty
| Mr. ALLEN. | do not rise TO continue this de-
4 bate but simply that so much Of the annual
message Of the President as relates TO Mexico be
printed in connexon with the message and docu-
L plaT afaH 10 tba a.. H..
| Mr.. MOREHEAD said: have no objection to
the division of the message rise for the purpose
of saying one word in answer to what has fallen
from the senator from Michigan; and before come
to the immediate point to which desire to to call the
attention of the Senate, must be permitted to ex-
press my surprise that the honorable gentleman
tMr CAssl should think it subject Of congrat-
ulation at all that any senator should express
such sentiments those which fell from the
senator form Delaware Mr.. CLAvros.l The
gentleman from Michigan expressed his personal
qualification that any senator should arise and avow
his purpose Of standing by his country in such an
emergency. trust that that sentiment is a common
sentiment entertained by every member of the Sen
ate Of the United States trust that it is not so
singular as to be made properly the subject of spe-
cial remark But with regard to the point assumed
by him, whether there is now existing between
the United States and Mexico desire to add one
word. 1t is well known to US all that the power to
declare war belongs exclusively to the Congress of
1
States has constitutional power involve the ma
ton in But if war does exist at this time be-
tween the United States and Mexico, it may follow
that the President of the United States NAV involve
the country in without the assent of the egisla-
tive department of the government. | can very
well conceive case-and trust that the allusion |
am about to make will not be regarded as having
| any reference TO the present circumstances can
very well conceive case in which the army of the
United States might be directed to assume position
| N IF
as to demand from the Mexican government that she
| should repel such an invasion of her terrtory-an
invasion made by the President of the United States
Suppose she did repel such INVASION ard hostlities
arose between this government and that Of Mexico,
would that be war according to the constitution of
| the United Statesa Now hold that it is competent
alone for Congress to declare when war does exist
| between this government and any other nation In
this view of the case do think that there does
exist, nj this moment, between the two nations
IN tho constitutional sense; and think that there is
very essential difference between the existence of
| hostillties, as such, and actual war There was
period in the history of the government which il oc-
ours to me to point out, when that distinction was
practically carried out. 1t period in the history
Of the government when hostile relations subssted be.
tween the French Republic and ours. There were
aggressions committed upon the high seas upon
our commerce. We complained of that to the
French government There were claims which the
French government had against u.s. and which that
government insisted were not fulfilled, and made
formal complaint 10 government to that
effect. Step after step in the controversy led US at
last TO hostile relations, and the Congress Of the
United States adopted various measures indicating
the existence Of hostilities, but there was no war
declared, and no actually existed between the
two governments, although there was very extern
sive series Of hostile Indications on the ocean and
hostile action on the part Of one government to- |
wards the other, yet not amounting, understand,
to actual war as intended by the constitution. 1t
was, however, state of hostility which made it |
necessary for the Congress of the United States to
adopt various measures authorizing the Executive |
to repel aggression the part of France. | will
not deain the Senate. hope the distinction will |
be seen clearly enough, and that the Senate will
insist on the recognition of that distinctions and in
conc u7ion, hope that the portion of the message
relating to the foreign relations of the govern
ment will be referred to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
Ne nI L Ii