The Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1837-1867, 1847-10-16

'WHt&Uctd, (.lIS') Sept 20, lSII.
(EXTRACTS.)
] have said sir that we are engaged in n
war, in my opinion unnecessary, and there
fore, unlustifiahle. / hold it TO be war I'M
constitutional in its origin. hold it to be a
war held upon preteXts. Sir, the law of ma
tons, embodying the general sense of man
kind instructs us that the motives Of war are
good or vicious. Where war is founded on
a conviction of necessity, in sole desire 10
promote the public good or defend the ma
| tonal interest," it is good motive. When
founded in any oblique purpose, or unjust pur-
pose, when wngcd only for conquest, for gnin,
for acquisition, for renown, TO crafty private
ambition, or for party purposes. the motive is
vicious. And the law ofnutions goes farther.
1t maintains this Distinction that there may
be causes for a war which would justify the
war so far ms the opposite nation was con-
cerned, and yet not furnish good motive for
II war; because good motives for war, while
they require always good cause, require
something else They require that the war
should not he wngcd except from necessity,
and for just and important rights ofthe coun-
| try.
Now, sir, the law of nations instructs us
that there are wars of pretexts. The history
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 pretences
where the cause assigned is not the true
cause. That, believe upon my conscience,
is the true character ofttIe war wagcd against
Mexico. believe it to be n war of prctcXts,
a war in which the true motive is not dis
linctly nvowed, but in which pretcnccs, at-
terthoughts, evasions, and other methods are
employed to put case before the commuul-
ty, which is not the true case.
! | think, sir, there are three prcteXts,all un-
founded, upon whs war has been attempted
to he Justified in various modes aud on va
rious occasions. The President of the Uni
ted States, in his war message of the lth Of
May, 1916, puts the ground of declaring war
upon the fnri that tho Mexican govorumo mt
had invaded the territory ofthe United States,
and shed American blood upon American
soil Now, in my judgment, this is not n
correct statement of the case. The Presi-
dent Of the United States had ordered the ar
my of the United States, as early us January,
1876, to move beyond what Mexico insisted
was the boundary of Texas, and place itself
upon the Rio Grande. After that position
had been taken, blood was indeed shed on
the left bank of that river. But was that a.
merican soil? 1t was soil claimed, indeed,
by the United States, but which claim Con-
gress had never asserted. 1t was territory
claimed also by Mexico, us much and as firm
~ as the city Of Mexico itself; and it was at
the time, in the actual possession of Mexico.
this: that we having u claim to territory Of
which the other party was III possession,
marched an army into it TO take possession.
Is not that war upon our side? | am of o.
pinion, therefore, that the declaration in the
message Oft the 18th of May, 1916, upon
which the act of Congress OF the 18th was
founded, the declaton that war existed "by
the act of Mexico" cannot he made out by
any evidence in point of fact. And ifso then
the cnuSp nSSUned in tho prpSibent,S Mec-
sage was a preteXt
Now, look upon the war as commenced.
The army oftho United States was ordered
! to advance into territory claimed by Mexico,
and actually possessed by her. fit were our
own case, have no doubt that we should
regard such an invasion of our possessions,
as an act of war.
But, although this was the main point up
on which the recognition ofwar was placed
; by the President, no sooner was the war de-
Clared, than further preteXs were resorted to.
One was, the refusal ofthe Mexican Govern
ment to receive our Minister; but where was
that ever made cause ofwar? and especial
Iy of Executive war? Because a foreign
Government chooses not to have diplomatic
intercourse with us, is it for the President to
say that that is a just cause of war? 1t is TO
just cause; and, even were II Just and proper,
; it is no sudden emergency, authorizing the
Executive to plunge the Government into
hostities especially when Congress is in
session, ready, at any moment, to receive Of
fetal information from the President and 10
act upon it. ] look upon it therefore, that
this ground is mere preteXt.
Then comes another. Mexico, it is said
had declined and refused to pay the debts
due from herself TO citizens of the United
States. believe that is true. But that was
not put forth as the cause of war in the ines.
sage of the President, on the 18th of May
1916. 1t is not i'll the act of Congress of the
18th ofMay. 1t is not, therefore, the cause
put upon record for the act OF the Govern
, ment. 1t is an afterthought. And here, a
gain, this matter of debts and claims of cit
zens of the United States upon Mexico is of
long standing, and was well known to Con,
gress, to whose attention it had often beer
> called. Yet Congress, the constitutional, and
. only constitutional war-making power, had
f., never judged it proper to declare war agains
Mexico on this accouct. The conduct of
Mexico was as reprehensible six months be
fore, as on that day; but there had been man
, ifested no disposition to make it a cause of
war with her.
To say therefore, that this war was found
= ed upon the refusal of Mexico to pay hel
debts, is preteXt, and nothing but pretext
, Well then, sir, what was i'll truth, the rea
object of the war? If all these things were
pretexts, what was, in fact, the true motive!
So far as we can now scrutnizo the motives
so lar as we can look into the designs aud OBJ
ects ofour rulers, what was the motive, the
purpose, the impulse oftho heart which LED
to the measures that brought about this war: