Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, IA [i.e. Ind.]) 1839-1854, 1847-10-19
Mr.. Nvebster's speech at Springfield.

ton, held in that town w ednesday, which W.
hasten to lay before our readers, in preference
to waiting for a more full report in the Boston
papers,
The distinguished Senator then commenced al
able, argumentatve and unusually interestins
and important speech, which was of an hour ane
a half's duration. He defined his position upoi
the and questions growing out of it, witt
distinctness, holiness and firmness.
After some statesmen-Ike comments upon the
character of G overnme nts the duty of allie glance
tho Constitution so far as it relates to the war
making power, and the call for firm discharge
ofhis duty which the present nomination of GU,
National officers, makes upon every patriot, he
proceeded to the w ar topic. The crisis now al
hand needs considerate, energetic and constitu-
tional action. But he deprecated vioen. move
ments. Violent COUNCILS weak counsels-
Our boldest resolutions must recommend them
selves by their strength, decorum. dignity and
respect. 1t is not tho noisiest waters that the
deepest. Nor is it the spirit which is inclined to
overpower the dangers at the If distance the most
certain to withstand them when they approach
/ Mr.. Webster held this Mexican war to be I'M
constitutional in its origin, and founded on pre-
text. The laws of nations divide motives for war
into those which are good and those which are
vicious. Those which commenced and car
ried on for renown. conquest and similar objects
are vicious. There may BIO sufficient cause for a
War. between two nations. but net good motives
for Causes require something else; motives,
good motives ara reqaisito. The character of the
war against Mexico is vicious; it is a war of pre-
texts The real motive Of it is not distinctly
avowed.
There three pretexts-all Of them un
founded-on which this war is sought to be placed
by its orginators and defenders. The Preside Mt
in his Message to Congress, Nav II IaAr. r~''
~ IacI tnat the Mexicans have invaded
American territory and shed American blood
In my opinion this is not correct. As early as
January, 1876 army advanced beyond
the Mexican boundaries of Texas, and upon the
left bank of the Rio Grande occurred the first
hostilites and the first shedding of American and
Mexican blood. Was this the invasion Of Ameri
can territory and the spiing of American blood
such territory? 1t was soil claimed by the
United States Executive-not by Congressman
also claimed by the Mexican government for
much part of her territory the capital itself,
and it was moreover in her actual possession.
Our troops were marched into country
claimed and occupied by the Mexcans-is not
this part7 The Presidents statement
was not correct in point Of fact, and cannot be
made So This is a preiext. Other causes were
brough forward after the commenced. One
was, that Mexico would not receive our Minister
Plenipotentiary. Is that cause of WARRIOR
Executive war? Congress would not declare
war on such grounds. At any rate it was not a
circumstance that called for such speedy action
that the executive could not lay it before Con-
gress, then before him. 1t is but another of the
unfounded pretexts which the war is sought
to be defended.
Still anothsr--and the third-of these pretsxts
is, that Mexico has declined TO pay her debts due
citizens Of this country. This was not put forth
in the act of Congress declaring war to exist
It was after thought. This matter of debt
was one of long standing; many sessions of Con-
sr~~. h.l h~~~ hold |.-'.g tho e.i.se.ee ~f thA
debt. Yet no war was eciared this ground.
And if it was a cause for the war, it surely af-
forded no pretence for an executive war, this
is. 1t is pretext and nothing but pretext
What then the object of the war?-I do
not profess to possess more, if SO much, sagacity
than other men; but to me the answer to this
question is as PLAIN as turnpike, AZ visible as
the sun that now shines upon us.
An eminent statesnan-perhaps the most en-
insnt-of the party of the administration; in
deed he is emine Mt that the wonder is that the
administration does not belong to him, instead
of he to the administration; this gentleman.
mean Mr.. Calhoun, declared at the last session
of Congress. that if there had been no annex
alton of Texas there would have been no war;
and that the immediate Of the was
the ordering. by the Executive, be it remember
ed, Of our troops to advance from Corpus Chris
set.led-no annexation no war.
lam apologist for Mexico. have a poor
opinion of the Mexican government pity the
people of the country, and should pity them the
more if they know the state they were in. 1t is
the worst governed Of any country in the world
that pretends to be civilized. II has been for
twenty years the prey Of every military upstart.
who had money enough to get up miserable ar
Jacinto, to ls42, Mexico had no authority ova-
Texas. no just claim upon her territory. In
lo4l-2-3. Texas was independent govern
ment, SO nominally, SO practically, recogni-
zed by our own and other governments. Mex
CO had ground of complaint to the annexation
of Texas; We are the party to complain-we did
not want Texas. But she did take offence: she
persisted in claiming Texas her province
long as it had been Independent territory, and
hroke off fepu,s au,ifv an.