Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1847-10-14

most serious and ANXIOUS consideration OF
all Wings throughout the country. But let
our counsels be as temperate as they are
firm and decided.
There are those who think that violence
is strength. hold that to be a great mis-
take. Violent connsels are weak counsels !;
violent conduct is weak conducts violent
language is always weak language. Our
highest purposes, ! may say, our boldest re-
solves then most recommend themselves to
the acceptance of the community, when they
are announced, certainly with clearness and
force, but also with decorum and dignity !;
with a Just respect for ourselves and just
respect for others. The great dramatst in
structs those who excel in the power of
moving mems minds, not to tear passion
to rags and tatters, but, in the torrent and
whirlwind of their emotions, to observe a
Just temperance, that sobriety Of sentiment,
that sobriety of language, which proves men
in earnest. Allow me to say it is not the
nosiest waters that are the deepest; nor has
it always been found that that spirit which
is most inclined to vapor when danger and
disaster are at distance, is the iirmest in
breasting them on their near approach.
With these remarks, sir, upon the tone
and temper, which, in my opinion, belong
to all constitutional Wings, here and else
where, [ shall proceed to make few re-
marks upon the leading and interesting top
les of the day.
have said, sir, that we are engaged in a
war; in my opinion unnecessary, and, there
fore, unjustifable / hold it to be war
unconstitutional in its origin. ] hold it to
be war founded upon preteXts. Sir, the
law of nations, embodying the general sense
of mankind, instructs us that the motives of
war are good or vicious. Where war is
founded on a conviction of necessity, in a
sole desire to promote the public good or
defend the national interest, is good mo-
tive. When founded in any oblique pur-
pose, or unjust motive, when waged only for
conquest, for gain, or for acquisition, for
renown, to crafty private ambition, or for
party purposes, the motive is vicious And
the law of nations goes farther. 1t MAIN
talns this distinction, that there may be
causes for war which would justify the
war so far as the opposite nation was con-
cerned, and yet not furnish a good motive
for war because good motives for war,
while they require always a good cause, re-
quire something else. They require that
war should not be waged except from ne
cessity, and for just and important rights of
the country.
Now, sir, the law of nations instructs us
that there are wars of pretexts. The hlsto-
ry of the world proves that there have been,
and we are not now without proof that there
are, wars waged on pretexts that is on pre-
fences, where the cause assigned is not the
true cause. That, ! believe upon my con-
science, is the true character of the war now
waged against Mexico. | believe it to be
a war of pretexts; a war in which the true
motive isnot distinctly avowed, but in which
pretences, afterthoughts, evasions, and other
methods are employed to put case before
the community, which is not the true case
| think, sir, there are three preteXts, all
unfounded, upon which this war has been
attempted to be justified, i'll various modes
and on various occasions. The President
of the United States, in his war message Of
the 18th of May, 1916, put the ground o
declaring war upon the fact that the Mexi
can government had invaded the territory
of the United States, and shed American
blood upon American soil. Now, in my
Judgment, this is not correct statement o
the case The President of the United
States had ordered the Army of the Unitet
States, as early as January, 1916, to NOV,
beyond what Mexico insisted was the boun
Diary of Texas, and place itsefupon the Ri
Grande. After that position had been tax
en-, blood was indeed shed on the left banl
| of that river. But was that American soil
1t was soil claimed, indeed, by the Unite
States, but which claim Congress had neye
asserted. 1t was territory claimed also b
Mexico, as much and as firmly as the cit
of Mexico itself; and it was, at the time, i
the actual possession of Mexico. The mos
! favorable presentment, therefore, is this
that we, having a claim to the territory
which the other party was in possession
marched an army into it to take possession
Is not that war upon our side! l am (
opinion, therefore, that the declaration in II
, message of the lth of May, 1916, upo
which the act of Congress, of the 18th, WI
founded, the declaration that war eXistc
, "by the act Of Mexico" cannot be mao
out by any evidence in point of fact. An
if so, then the cause assigned i'll the Pres
dents Message was preteXt.
5 Now, look upon the war as common
. ed. The army of the United States was o
5 dered to advance into the territory elaine
e by Mexico, and actually possessed by he
r If it were our own case, ] have no dou
! that we should regard such an invasion
r our possessions, as an act of war.
Y But, although this was the main point u
t on which the recognition of war was place
= by the President, no sooner was the war d
] clared, than further preteXts were resortt
to. One was. the refusal Of the Mexico
t government to receive our Minister; b
e where was that ever made a cause of wa
!, and especially of Executive war? Becau
i a foreign Government chooses not to ha
S diplomatic intercourse with us, is it for t
d President to say that that is just cause
;, war? 1t is no just cause; and, even we
It it just and proper, it is no sudden emerge
# cy, authorizing the Executive to plunge t
i Government into hostlities especially VIII
l. Congress is in session, ready, at any N
J. ment, to receive official information irc
B.; the President, and to act upon it. I To-
e upon it, therefore, that this ground is me
n pretext.
d Then comes another. Mexico, it is sa
IT had declined and refused to pay the del
s. due from herself to citizens OF the Unit
l. States. / believe that is true. But Il
II Il. O. "A