Tri-weekly journal. (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1847-188?, 1848-02-05


provided with train of artillery, if he had had
a suitable apparatus for engineers he would
under the order of June 18th have advanced,
and taken possession of Point lsabel-expelling
the Mexicans from that position, and placing il
under the control of the United States If he
had done so, would he not have been obeying
the orders of this government? Was it not
what was designed by this government, that
he should do If the means had been in his pos
session? 1t is evident it was so designed, be-
cause when they had given him the means and
the same order-he assumes the position with
the entire appreciation and support of the gov
eminent.
Well, now, was not this singular mode of
proceeding, if the object had been to preserve
peace and amity between the two nations!-I
Offence having been taken for some cause, real
or supposed, before the President sends his mis-
sion of peace--a month before he sends it-an
order is issued-the object and scope of which
was to place military force within the territory
claimed and occupied by Mexico. Now, is 1t
not obvious that had such movement been
made, it was calculated to rouse the indigna-
ton of Mexico, and to prevent the possibility
Of settlement OF aedifferences between the two
countries? Ifn,gotiaton was desirable, if the
President himself desired to settle differences
upon amicable terms-would he have pres
sed a mission of peace by an aggression up
on the power with which he desired to restore
friendly relations2 But, be it re nembered |
have shown to the Senate already, that the
President considered 1--WE have it under his own
hand in the orders transmitted to his officers J
that the expulsion Of the Mexicans from the
left bank of the Rio Grande-the removal of
their settlements-was an act of aggression,
hostile act, an act to be avoided in order to in
sure the peaceful settlement Of our difficulties,
~. ~
currence ofactual war.
Thus, i seems to me, that not only did the
President bring on the war by an unlawful and
unconstitutional act, but that he has prosecut-
ed it for the purpose of conquest. And in the
next place, Mr.. President, il is TO be remarked,
that the President of the United States has not
made known to Congress the views which he
had in contemplation in carrying on this war
with Mexico and submitted to the Judgement
of Congress, whether tn, were willing to pros
ecute war for the purpose Of making a per-
manent conquest of the territory ola neighbor-
ing republic. On the contrary, sir, in the Pres
ident's special message of the 4th of August,
1916, to the Senate, he says expressly:
"Thc chief difficulty TO he anticipated in the nego-
tiaton is the adjustment OF the boundary between the
parties, by line which shall once be satisfactory
and convenient TO both, and such neither will
hereafter be inclined 10 disturb This is the best mode
between the two republics Should the Mexican gov
eminent, in order to accomplish these objects, be will
ling to cedo any portion OF their territory to the Uni
ted States, we ought TO pay them fair equivalent;
n just and honorable peace, and not conquest being
our purpose in the prosecution OF the war"
Now what idea the President attaches to the
notion Of conquest, do not know? To me il
seems plain that what had been directed to be
done before this message was written, and
which was afterwards done by the miltaryand
naval officers Of the Government without re-
buke, and with the express recognition of the
President Of the IT, States, is direct, clear, aud
unquestlonable, conquest. ! understand con-
gust in this connection as meaning to seize the
territory Of another nation by force--whether
IL is to be held by force, or whether a consent
to our retaining it, is to be extorted by the pow
er of our arms.
Again, sir, the Presidents message at the last
session Of Congress expressly declared that
Conquest was not the purpose FOR which he
prosecuted the war; that he recommended q
vigorous prosecution of the war as a means oil
bringingi ii TO a speedy and honorable conclu-
sion. And recollect well, sir, at the last ses
sion that when resolution was moved by
member Of this body, directing the committee
on Territories to consider as TO the propriety o.
establishing some species of legislative author
ity over the territories of the enemy which haC
been taken into our possession, the honorable
Senator from Missouri; who is not now in hi,
seat, in his strong manner denounced in his
place the proposition on the ground that it at
tributed to the President of the U. States what
would be an absurdity- he had spoken o.
those portions of Mexico as being territories o
the u. States. This the honorable Senator char
ncterized as an absurdity.
Mr.. Wescott--Monstrosity
Mr.. Badger-Yes, monstrosity. But, sir
this year the tone Of the message is materially
changed. The President has got new phrase
He now says, not that he is not carrying OF
the war for the purpose of conquest, but tina
it is no part of his Intention to conquer Mexi
co and destroy her nationality. Conquest wa
not the object of the war, Of more or less, o
the whole or part; but now the President in
forms us that it is not his purpose to conque
Mexico-not his purpose to take the whole O
the country, and destroy the nationality o
Mexico. But he is clear, that under no cir
cunstances ought the United States to surren
der New Mexico and the two CALIFORNIA;
Now, il seems to me that it was the duty OF tn
+ President Of the United States to have explain
ed to Congress fully what his real purpose was
II he intended at the last session to actual
conquer and retain by force-to retain, unde
all circumstances. the territory acquired fror
. Mexico--he should have so told Congress
But he told us no such thing. On the con
7 trarV he leaves us to suppoSe that thourh thes