Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1847-01-29
speech Of Hon. Jo.eph u. Root, OF Ohio,
: rrr MEXICAN wAE.
house ef Representatives., Deosabsr "a, 1876.
Mr.. R,sor. Of OHIO. rise and said.

Mr.. hpcr, oi Uhio, rose and said;
Mr. Chairman: Theremarks which am about
70 submit TO the committee, will be directed 10
thar portion ofthe document under consideration
which relates 10 the war. / hardly know what
20 cat this part ofIhe message. Il seems to be
intended as an exposition, OF as a defence, of the
Presidents views and policy concerning the COM
meucement and prosecution OF the war. and yet
n ls manifestly imperfect as either. No one,
think, can read the message without being con-
vlRced that something has been kept back; that
the President must possess information which
would shed light on the motives which led to the
commencement Of the war; and which he has not
communicated to Congress. There is msiery
hanging over the arrangement with Santa Anna,
the o6ec, Of the 1.-TWO million BILL" and the al
tempt to establish civil government over the con-
qaered departments Of Mexico, which ought TO
be removed, and which the President undoubted-
ly could remove. Still he discloses enough to
show, thai in what he has had TO DO with the war
he has committed grave errors.
l shall venture upon an examination of the
sublect with what light we have for the country
- impatient TO know more than seems likely To
Be learned from the President, or his friends
here, of the origin, objects, and probable conse-
quences Of this war.
The first question thar | shall consider is, had
we good cause for the war against Mexico at the
tune Of It's commencement Sir, invoke the
scrutiny of the archer of hearts when declare
that believe we had not. tmay be that hold
extreme opinions on this point. | confess that
regard war as so dreadful a curse, so uncondiuon-
ally condemned by the Christian rrligion-bv
Christ's own words and example, that nothing
saor oil The sIerncat necessity can Justify ii in my
opinion.
What causes Of complaint did we have. or
rather what cause of complaint did we alledge
We had against Mexico That she Withheld
the indemnify" that she owed, and had agreed
% pay our citizens, was one. And il was true.
But had she the means Of paying the indemnify
within the time stipulated in the treaiyl We
all know that she had not. This was wrong in
her undoubtedly. She had no right to BE- so
poori but was her poverty good cause for us to 90
10 war with her! How long must we fight her
before she will be able to pay her dcbtsl She
never denied them. She never, like some other
sovereign States, pretended that her debts were
unconstitutional. She was too barbarious 10 know
o that refined defence to an action on a bond,
called repudidiion.
may be told that she might have paid her
debts IN land; but would our citizens, to whom
she owed money, have taken land for paymentl
Perhaps our Government would have received
t1c land OF Mexico, given her discharge from
the claim of our clizens, and undertaken TO settle
with them; but would the citizens have consen.
ted to such an arrangement! do not believe
that they would, nor do believe thar they ever
VIII, unlll the fate Of the "Fronch Spoliation bill"
Is forgotten. Aud illhey would have consented,
would our Government have taken the land of
Mexico without her rights of sovereignty over it
and its inhab'tauIsl Certainly not. And how
would II look in this nineteenth century, and in
this country, whore We profess to respect the
rights OF the cltlzen so much, for Mexico to turn
out her people and their land in payment of her
debts they all tho while protesting against ,hr
translerl
Another complaint that we ulledgcd arains,
Mexico was, that she would not settle the disDu.
It'd boundary between her territory and ours. -
Was this qWte true, or rather was it the whole
ruth! twas true that she had refused to treat
with, or even 10 receive our minister, Mr.. SlidcIl,
Offering however at the same time to receive and
treat with commissioner on the subject of the
boundary dispute; but our President insisted that
she should treat with full minister, aud of all
matters OF difference between tho two countries.
or not at all. Perhaps Mexico was wrong in this.
am not well enough acquainted with The rules
Of diplomacy to decide the point, but do pro.
tess 10 know something of the human heart. and
President ought to know enough of il 10 know.
that the last thing men give up is their pride, and
the trst hing thai they insist upon is etaucttc.
And SO Il is Of nations, sir. The stronger can
well aIIord to yield to the weaker the point of
etiquette, and courtesy requires that it should;
but We have made II a cause Of war against Mex.
lco. But suppose that it was not mere e,auette.
Suppose that Mexico, Instead of offering to treat
with commissioner, had rejected your PROPOSE
ton altogether, and proudly told YOU, tbat unljl
you could make more reasonable ono, all at.
temps to effect settlement of the boundary diff.
iicu!ty would be useless. Would that have been
sufficient cause for war; II might have been
as against Mexico, but it was not so deemed ns
against Great Britain. Our President bore all
this, and more too, from tho latter country, with
patience truly admirable. It is true that he
made itIlc buster just to keep up appearances,
but at heart he was amlcaby disposed, and never
required 10 be put under bond to keep the peace
towards Great Britain, When Congress ceased
- hold him, he ceased to fight. lie only said
that our dispute with Ih2t country must be settled
within year, or he should maintain our RIGHTS
in Oregoni and by way of keeping his promise
10 the letter. he accepted the first proposition for
settlement that Great Britain made, bvwhich
he yielded up to her an immense territory, 10
which he had said that our tltle was clear and
indpuable, and which was all that there WAS
really any dispute about. Towards Mexico. how.
syer, hts bearing has been very different. She
must settle all disputes at once, with ilst such
tcrras as be pleased 10 dictate, or he goes to war
win her why lhls difference in his manner OF
treating with the Two nations! lsit because one
is powerful aud the other weak; or is il becm,sc
the territory in dispute with one must needs be
free, and that in dispute with the other would. il
h. could get il, be slave territory