Tri-weekly journal., 1847-10-16
MASSACHUSETTS STATE CONVENTION.
MR.. WEBSTER'S SPEECH.


mount interest. and his manner Of presenting
them so forcible, that our readers will thank us
for presenting them at the earliest possible day.
Mr.. WEBSTER'S SPEECH.
AT the re-assembling of the convention in
the afternoon, the President introduced the
Hon. Daniel Webster, who was greeted with
hearty and prolonged applause.
The distinguished Senator then commenced
an able, argumentative, and unusually interes-
ting and important speech, which was of an
hour and half's duration. He defined his po-
sition upon the war and the questions growing
out of it, with distinctness, boldness and firm
ness.
After some statesman-like comments upon
the character of Governments, the duty of al
legiance the constitution so far as it relates to
the war-making power, and the call for firm
discharge of his duty which the present nomi-
nation of our national officers makes upon ev-
cry patriot, he proceeded directly to the war
topic. The crisis now at hand needs consid-
crate, energetic and constitutional action
But he deprecated violent movements. Vio-
lent counsels are weak counsels. Violent Ian
guage weak language Our boldest resolutions
must recommend themselves by their strength,
decorum, dignity and respect. 1t is not the
noisiest waters that are the deepest. Nor is it
the spirit which is inclined TO overpower dan
gers at their distance the most certain to with
stand them when they approach.
Mr.. Webster held this Mexican war to be
unconstitutional in its origin, and founded on
pretext. The laws of nations divide motives
for war into those which are good and those
which are vicious. Those whichare commen-
ced and carried on for renown, conquest and
similar objects are vicious. There may be suf-
ficient causes for war, between two nations,
but not good motives for one. Causes require
something else; motives are requisite. The
character of the war against Mexico is vicious;
it is war of pretexts. The real motives Of il
is not distinctly avowed.
There are three pretexts-all of them un-
foundetl-on which the war is sought to be
placed by its originators and defenders. The
President in his message to Congress, May IL
1916, puts it on the fact that the Mexicans
have invaded American territory, and shed A
merican blood. In my opinion this is not cor
rect. As early as January, 1916, our army
was advanced beyond the Mexican boundaries
of Texas, and upon the left bank of the Rio
Grande occurred the first hostilities and the
first shedding of blood. Was this invasion oi
American territory and the spilling of Ameri-
can blood on such territory? 1t was soil claim
ed by the United States Executive-not by
Congress-and also claimed by the Mexican
government for as much part of her territory
as the capital itself, and it was moreover inhel
actual possession.
Our troops were marched into country
fhfsdr on our paff h'riF rte rfasxsiffdaeRht rfasxsiffdeRht ne
; ment was not correct in point of fact, and can
: not be made so. This is a pretext. Othel
: causes were brought forward after the war com
t menced. One was, that Mexico would not re
; ceive our Minister Plenipotentiary Is tha
cause of WARRIOR an Executive war? Con
j, gress would not declare war on such grounds
AT any rate 1t was not a circumstance tha
called for such speedy action that the execu
tive could not lay it before Congress, then be
fore him. 1t is but another of the unfoundet
pretexts on which the war is sought to be de
: Tended.
: Still another-and the third-of these pre-
G texts is, that Mexico had declined to pay he
debts due citizens of this country. This wa
,f not put forth in the act of Congress declarin.
r war to exist. 1t is an after thought Thi
Z matter of debt was one Of long standing; man,
sessions of Congress has been held during tn
existence of the debt. Yet no war was de
clared on this ground. And if it was a caus
: for the war, it surely afforded no pretence 70
; an executive war, as this is. 1t is pretex
: and nothing but pretext.
w Hdl tuCH was OUJCCl vi war; u
e not profess to possess more, If so much, sagaci
e ty then other men; but to me the answer t
this question is as plain as turnpike, as visi
bic as the sun that now shines upon us.
;. An eminent statesman-perhaps the mos
|. emnent-of the party Of the administration
- indeed he is so eminent that the wonder
that the administration does not belong to him
= instead of he to the administrations this ger
ie tleman, mean Mr.. Calhoun, declared at tn
last session of Congress, that if there had bee
e no annexation of Texas there would have bee
as no war; and that the immediate cause of tn
N war was the ordering, by the Executive, be
- remembered, of our troops to advance froi
of Corpus Christi to the Rio Grande. Hence tn
ID question is settled-no annexation no war.
y am no apologist for Mexico have poo
at opinion of the Mexicon government. pit
the people of the country, and should pity thel
the more if they knew the state they were il
tbs the worst governed of any country in tt
y. world that pretends to be civilized. 1t h;
h. been for twentyyears the prey of every milital
ho upstart, who had money enough to get up
J" miserable army. From 1886, when was Il
e' battle of San Jacinto, to 1912, Mexico had I
authority over Texas, no just claim upon h
ng territory. In l84l-2-3, Texas was an ind
"a, as pendent government, so nominally, SO pract
bn 1 cally, so recognised by our own and other go
nd ernments. Mexico had no ground of cor
on plaint to the annexation of Texas; we are Il
he party to complain-we did not want Texas
me But she did take offence. she perssted in clair