The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1848-03-30

past, with the laWleSS and turbulent prOpcn
. sites of q people whose element, from thu
period of their first national existence to the
Y present day, has been anarchy and revolu
ton I l need only say to you, sir, that j
such an event as the incorporation of tina
country into this Union should occur, We
+ could not make its population harmonize with
our own. Sir, am not disposed to intimate
authoritatively, nor in manner which will
, admit Of that construction, that the consc,
: quence will be a dissolution of the Union
but may be permitted to say, in reference
to my own constituency and the kindred pop
uation of the North, that in my humble
Judgment, if "thrty new states" are to be
added to the Union from this conquered
country, it will be beyond our power, if we
would, to hold that Union together. Sir my
opinions are decided in regard to this matter.
| want no persons admitted into this political
family who are not of the Anglo Saxon race,
unless it be a race that can analgamate with
us and be lost in one homogeneous mass.
Sir, think the ground taken by the hon
orable Senator from Maryland, who is not
now present exhibited much more ration
al view of the subject. He told us that our
indemnity consisted in military glory, in the
briliancy of our achievements, in the exhi-
bition of our power, in the results of our SPLEEN
did military career. | agree, sir, with the
honorable Senator that this is all the indcm-
nifty which we can get; and believe if the
honorable Senator were now present he
would agree with me that, if this is to be our
indemnity in Gods name, we have had
enough Of it, Sir, is there any new lustre to
be added to our career Of conquest, any new
additional reputation to be acquired-is it
| ~, &C
this Republic, that we should proceed to
trample under foot, to denationalize and re-
ducc 10 perpetual subjugation, foe who has
lost the power Of resistance? Sir, l am so
unfortunate that | have not looked upon the
glory and splendor Of military achievements
with the same sentiment Of unmingled admi
ration as others may have done. am con-
strained to say that | have turned disguised
from the revolving details of human slaughter
which the history of this war presents Sir,
| have been disposed to ask, in the name Of
the country-in the name Of a Christian
pcoplc-in the name Of humanity-yes, sir,
in the name of hunanitys God, for what RAJ
tional purposes are these scenes Of human
butchcry enacted Sir, when | am told that
the object is the glory of military achieve
ments, confess that my feelings revolt at it.
no, eIi, II Ills bC tllC pun pOStj III l1SdfCu
name let us be satisfied with what we have
done. Let us pursue this object no further.
What opinions must be entertained in other
quarters of the world in relation to this Mex
lean war? 1t must be regarded as war for
national plunder-I was about to say, of ma
tional piracy. And, instead of adding to the
honor of the nation it will call down upon us,
if persisted in, the cXecrations of the civilized
world. But, sir, leave this point of the
subject.
Mr.. President, it is somewhat amusing to
witness the various phases which this subject
has assumed. In May, 1916, We were told
that American blood had been shed upon
American soil. We were told that the honor
of the nation was involved, and we were call
cd upon to vote for declaration of war, be-
cause the indignity which had been inflicted
upon US by the shedding of American blood
upon American soil called loudly for retr-
button But, sir, soon this became war of
indemnity. We were pursuing this war for
the purpose of indemnifying ourselves for
claims which our citizens had against Mexico
and while we were pursuing it for this pur
pose, and justifying it upon this ground, we
were told that Mexico herself began it; as if
the process of collecting this debt hal begun
not on the part fthe creditor, but Of the debt
or. But We we're soon told that no inlemni-
ty could be had except by the acquisition Of
territory; that Mexico had no other means
for indemnitying u.s. We were next further
informed that we must occupy all Mexico, in
order to distress her and bring her to terms;
yet this was no war of conquest. 1t was
war for territory, which was to be acquired
by force, and kept by force, but not a war of
conquest Yes, sir, year ago we were told
that it was not war Of conquest, but war
of indemnity. Now, after the success Of the
last campaign, we are told that ii is still a war
for indemnity for conquest but that we
must hold on to what we have got, and when
we Get possession Of the rest of Mexico, we
can then determine for ourselves whether we
will keep it. Here is subtle Distinction
1t is acquiring the territory Of neighboring
nation by force, and keeping it by force, but
it is not conquest. 1t is a distinction between
robbing your ncighbor, and Selling him and
taking from him by force the contents of his
pocket. What next?
We are now told that the object is the con-
quest of Mexico, and the whole of Mexico
The wise distinction to which | have advert
verted has become obsolete 1t is now con-
quest; and conquest without any declaration
of purpose, under any circumstances, or at
any time, to relinquish our acquisitions
The honorable chairman of the Committee on
Military Affairs, if understood him, said that
the purpose is the conquest of the country,
and that whether we shall retain it or not,
when conquered is question TO be settled
hereafter.
Mr.. CAss. IF the honorable Senator will
allow me: l said that the object was conquest,
with view of conuucrinr peace
Mr.. PHELPS. All it is a conquest of the
country for the purpose Of conquering peace
VIII the honorable Senator tel me how the
conquest Of the country is to result in the
conquest of peace? You propose the occu.
patton of the whole country, to displace its
Government, to seize its revenues, to take its
i ........- =.