Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1847-10-07

Otitrereu uf ne 4Hnssdchtlscfs Hht otdIt Cofi-
ren,ion, held at Springfield, on Wednesday,
September 2s&, ls47.
The President introduced the Hon DAN.
lei WEBSTER TO the Convention, who was
greeted with hearty and prolonged applause.
The distinguished Senator then com.
meneed an able, argumentative. and unn-
sually interesting and important speech,
which was Of an hour and a half duration.
He defined his position upon the war and
the questions growing out Of It, with dis
tinciness, holiness aud hrmness After
some siaiesmanlike comments upon the
character Of governments, the duty Of ale
glance, the constitution 30 TAR as II relates
TO the war-making power. and the call for
4 firm discharge Of his duty, which the pre-
sent nomination Of our State officers makes
upon every psiriO;, he proceeded directly to
the war topic
The crisis now at hand needs consider
ate, energetic, and constitutional action.
But he deprecated violent movements. Nio-
lent counscls are weak cOunsels. Violent
language is weak language Our boldest
resolutions must recommend themselves by
their strength, decOrum. dignity and res
pect Il is not the noisiesi waters that are
the deepest Nor is the spirit which IS IN
clined to oyerpower dangers al their DIS
lance. the most certain to Withstand them
when they approach.
Mr. Webster held this Mexican war 10 be
unconstitutional in lis origin, and founded
an p-etexi. The laws Of nations divide mo-
lives Tor war into those which are good and
those which are vicious Wars which are
commenced and carried on for renown,
conquest, and similar objects, are vicious
There NAV be sufficient causes for war
between two nations, but not good motives
for one. Causes require something else
motives. good motives are requisite. The
character Of the war against Mexico Is VI
cious; il is a war of pretexis. The real
motive Of ii Is not distinctly zvowed. There
are three pretexts-all Of them unfounJed
on which tins war is sought to be placed
by its origiuators and defenders. The Pre-
sident, IN his message 10 Congress, May ii
1876, puts It on the fact that the Mexieans
have invaded American territory and shed
American blood. In my opinion, this is not
correct. As early as January, 1876, our
army was advanced beyond the Mexican
boundaries Of Texas, aud upon The left bank
Of the Rio Grande occurred the first hostll-
tiles, and the first shedding Of American and
Mexican blood. Was this the invasion OF
American territory, and the spilling Of Ame-
rican blood upon such territory! Ii was
soil claimed BY the United States Executive
NOT By CongresS-and also claimed by the
~
her territory as the capital itself, and II was
moreover in her actual possession. Our
troops were marched into a country claimed
and occupied By the Mexicans-is moi this
war on our part! The Presidents state
ment was not correct in point Of fact, and
cannot be made 50. This Is a pretexr.-
Other causes were brought forward after
she war commenced. One was, that Mex
leo would not receive our Minister PlenIpo-
Tertiary Is that cause Of WARRIOR an Ex-
ecutiVe war! Congress would not declare
war on such grounds. At any rate, II vas
not a circumstance that called for such
speedy action, that the Executive could moi
Law it before Congress, then IN session II
is but another Of tue unfounded preIexis OF
which this war is sought 10 be defended
Still another-and the thi-d-of these pre-
texts is, that Mexico had declined 10 pay
her debts due citizens of this country. Tn;
was not put forth ia the act OF Congress de
clarinr war TO exist. II is an after thought
This matter Of debs was one of long stand
ing; many sessions OF Congress had beer
held during the existence of the debt. Ne
no war was declared on tins ground. And
IL it was a cause for the war, II surely al
forded no pretence for an Executive war
as this is Ii Is pretext, and nothing 5u
a pTetexi What, then, was the object o
the war; | do not profess TO possess NOR:
sagaciiy than other men; but to me the an
swer 10 this question Is as PLAN ar turn
pike-as visible as the sun that now shine
upon US. An eminent statesman-perhap
the most emineni-of the party OF the ad
minIstration indeed, he IS so eminent tina
the wonder IS that the administration doe
not belong to him. instead Of he 10 the ad
minisiraiIon; this gentleman, mean NJ
Calhoun, declared al the last session o
Congress, that il there had been no annex
alton Of Texas, there would have beer
no war; and that the immediate cause o
the war was the ordering, by the Executive
be II remembered, Of our troops TO advance
from Corpus Christi to the Rio Grande
Hence this question IS sellled-no anneks
ton, no war.
am no apologis; for Mexico. have
poor opinion of the Mexican government
l pity the people Of the country, and should
pity them the more if they knew the stat
they we're in. II is the worst governed 0
any county in the world that claims 10 b
civilized Ii has been for twenty years ih
prey OF every military upsiart, who had mon
ey enough TO get up a miserable army
From 1896, when was the battle Of San ia
einio, 10 1912, Mexico had no aulhorii
over Texas, no just claim upon her terri
tory. In lS41-2-3, Texas was an indie
pendent goyernmens. so nominaliy, so pTsc
iically, so recognized by our own and oihe
governments Mexico had no ground O
complaint in the annexation Of Texas; "
are the party to eomplain-we did not wan
Texas. But she did take offence she pei
sisted in claiming Texas as her province
long as il had been an independent terrific
", and broke Off terms OF amiiy with gu
government, calling home her ministers. an
refusing TO receive our own. But this wa
not War--yery far from H. i contend thu