[WRONGFUL DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST MEXICO.]
Letter to Hon. Robert C. Winthrop, Representative in Congress from Boston, October 25, 1846.
Sir,—Newspapers, and some among your friends, complain of the manner in which many of your constituents are obliged to regard your vote on the Mexican War Bill. This vote is defended with an ardor such as even Truth, Freedom, and Right do not always find in their behalf,—while honest strictures are attributed to personal motives, sometimes to a selfish desire for the place you now hold, sometimes even to a wanton purpose to injure you.
All this may be the natural and inevitable incident of political controversy; but it must be regretted that personal feelings and imputations of personal selfishness should intrude into the discussion of an important question of public duty,—I might say, of public morals. As a Whig, never failing to vote for you when I had an opportunity, I have felt it proper on other occasions to review your course, and to express the sorrow it caused. For this I am arraigned; and the question of public morals is forgotten in personal feeling. This is my excuse for recalling attention now to the true issue. Conscious of no feeling to yourself personally, except of good-will, mingled with the recollection of pleasant social intercourse, I refer with pain to your vote, and the apologies for it which have been set up. As one of your constituents, I single you, who are the representative of Boston, among the majority with whom you acted. I am not a politician; and you will pardon me, therefore, if I do not bring your conduct to any test of party or of numbers, to any sliding scale of expediency, to any standard except the rule of Right and Wrong.
To understand your course, it will be necessary to consider the action of Congress in declaring war against Mexico. I shall state the facts and conclusions briefly as possible.
By virtue of an unconstitutional Act of Congress, in conjunction with the de facto government of Texas, the latter was annexed to the United States some time in the month of December, 1845. If we regard Texas as a province of Mexico, its boundaries must be sought in the geography of that republic. If we regard it as an independent State, they must be determined by the extent of jurisdiction which the State was able to maintain. Now it seems clear that the river Nueces was always recognized by Mexico as the western boundary; and it is undisputed that the State of Texas, since its Declaration of Independence, never exercised any jurisdiction beyond the Nueces. The Act of Annexation could not, therefore, transfer to the United States any title to the region between the Nueces and the Rio Grande. That region belonged to Mexico. Certainly it did not belong to the United States.
In the month of January, 1846, the President of the United States directed the troops under General Taylor, called the Army of Occupation, to take possession of this region. Here was an act of aggression. As might have been expected, it produced collision. The Mexicans, aroused in self-defence, sought to repel the invaders from their hearths and churches. Unexpected tidings reached Washington that the American forces were in danger. The President, in a message to Congress, called for succors.
Here the question occurs, What was the duty of Congress in this emergency? Clearly to withhold all sanction to unjust war,—to aggression upon a neighboring Republic,—to spoliation of fellow-men. Our troops were in danger only because upon foreign soil, forcibly displacing the jurisdiction and laws of the rightful government. In this condition of things, the way of safety, just and honorable, was by instant withdrawal from the Rio Grande to the Nueces. Congress should have spoken like Washington, when General Braddock, staggered by the peril of the moment, asked the youthful soldier, "What shall I do, Colonel Washington?" "RETREAT, Sir! RETREAT, Sir!" was the earnest reply. The American forces should have been directed to retreat,—not from any human force, but from wrong-doing; and this would have been a true victory.
Alas! this was not the mood of Congress. With wicked speed a bill was introduced, furnishing large and unusual supplies of men and money. In any just sense, such provision was wasteful and unnecessary; but it would hardly be worthy of criticism, if confined in its object to the safety of the troops. When made, it must have been known that the fate of the troops was already decided, while the magnitude of the appropriations and the number of volunteers called for showed that measures were contemplated beyond self-defence. Self-defence is easy and cheap. Aggression and injustice are difficult and costly.
The bill, in its earliest guise, provided money and volunteers only. Suddenly an amendment is introduced, in the nature of a preamble, which gives to it another character, in harmony with the covert design of the large appropriation. This was adopted by a vote of 123 to 67; and the bill then leaped forth, fully armed, as a measure of open and active hostility against Mexico. As such, it was passed by a vote of 174 to 14. This was on the 11th of May, 1846, destined to be among the dark days of our history.
The amendment, in the nature of a preamble, and the important part of the bill, are as follows.
"Whereas, by the act of the Republic of Mexico, a state of war exists between that Government and the United States,—
"Be it enacted, &c., That, for the purpose of enabling the Government of the United States to prosecute said war to a speedy and successful termination, the President be, and he is hereby, authorized to employ the militia, naval, and military forces of the United States, and to call for and accept the services of any number of volunteers, not exceeding fifty thousand, and that the sum of ten millions of dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated for the purpose."
This Act cannot be regarded merely as provision for the safety of General Taylor; nor, indeed can this be considered the principal end proposed. It has other and ulterior objects, broader and more general, in view of which his safety, important as it might be, is of comparative insignificance; as it would be less mournful to lose a whole army than lend the solemn sanction of legislation to an unjust war.
This Act may be considered in six different aspects. It is six times wrong. Six different and unanswerable reasons should have urged its rejection. Six different appeals should have touched every heart. I shall consider them separately.
First. It is practically a Declaration of War against a sister Republic. By the Constitution of the United States, the power of declaring war is vested in Congress. Before this Act was passed, the Mexican War had no legislative sanction. Without this Act it could have no legislative sanction. By virtue of this Act the present war is waged. By virtue of this Act, an American fleet, at immense cost of money, and without any gain of character, is now disturbing the commerce of Mexico, and of the civilized world, by the blockade of Vera Cruz. By virtue of this Act, a distant expedition, with pilfering rapacity, has seized the defenceless province of California. By virtue of this Act General Kearney has marched upon and captured Santa Fe. By virtue of this Act General Taylor has perpetrated the massacre at Monterey. By virtue of this Act desolation has been carried into a thousand homes, while the uncoffined bodies of sons, brothers, and husbands are consigned to premature graves. Lastly, it is by virtue of this Act that the army of the United States has been converted into a legalized band of brigands, marauders, and banditti, against the sanctions of civilization, justice, and humanity. American soldiers, who have fallen wretchedly in the streets of a foreign city, in the attack upon a Bishop's palace, in contest with Christian fellow-men defending firesides and altars, may claim the epitaph of Simonides: "Go, tell the Lacedæmonians that we lie here in obedience to their commands." It was in obedience to this Act of Congress that they laid down their lives.
Secondly. This Act gives the sanction of Congress to an unjust war. War is barbarous and brutal; but this is unjust. It grows out of aggression on our part, and is continued by aggression. The statement of facts already made is sufficient on this head.
Thirdly. It declares that war exists "by the act of the Republic of Mexico." This statement of brazen falsehood is inserted in the front of the Act. But it is now admitted by most, if not all, of the Whigs who unhappily voted for it, that it is not founded in fact. It is a national lie.
"Whose tongue soe'er speaks false
Not truly speaks; who speaks not truly LIES."
Fourthly. It provides for the prosecution of the war "to a speedy and successful termination,"—that is, for the speedy and successful prosecution of unjust war. Surely no rule can be better founded in morals than that we should seek the establishment of right. How, then, can we strive to hasten the triumph of wrong?
Fifthly. The war has its origin in a series of measures to extend and perpetuate slavery. A wise and humane legislator should have discerned its source, and found fresh impulses to oppose it.
Sixthly. The war is dishonorable and cowardly, as the attack of a rich, powerful, numerous, and united republic upon a weak and defenceless neighbor, distracted by civil feud. Every consideration of honor, manliness, and Christian duty prompted gentleness and forbearance towards our unfortunate sister.
Such, Sir, is the Act of Congress which received your sanction. Hardly does it yield in importance to any measure of our Government since the adoption of the National Constitution. It is the most wicked in our history, as it is one of the most wicked in all history. The recording Muse will drop a tear over its turpitude and injustice, while it is gibbeted for the disgust and reprobation of mankind.
Such, Sir, is the Act of Congress to which by your affirmative vote the people of Boston are made parties. Through you they are made to declare unjust and cowardly war, with superadded falsehood, in the cause of Slavery. Through you they are made partakers in the blockade of Vera Cruz, the seizure of California, the capture of Santa Fe, the bloodshed of Monterey. It were idle to suppose that the soldier or officer only is stained by this guilt. It reaches far back, and incarnadines the Halls of Congress; nay, more, through you, it reddens the hands of your constituents in Boston. Pardon this language. Strong as it may seem, it is weak to express the aggravation of this Act. Rather than lend your hand to this wickedness, you should have suffered the army of the United States to pass submissively through the Caudine Forks of Mexican power,—to perish, it might be, like the legions of Varus. Their bleached bones, in the distant valleys where they were waging unjust war, would not tell to posterity such a tale of ignominy as this lying Act of Congress.
Passing from the character and consequences of your vote, I proceed to examine the grounds on which it is vindicated: for it is vindicated, by yourself, and by some of your friends!
The first vindication, apology, or extenuation appears in your speech on the Tariff, delivered in the House of Representatives, June 25th. This was a deliberate effort, more than six weeks subsequent to the vote, and after all the disturbing influences of haste and surprise had passed. It may be considered, therefore, to express your own view of the ground on which it is to be sustained. And here, while you declare, with commendable frankness, that you "would by no means be understood to vindicate the justice" (why not say the truth?) "of the declaration that war exists by the act of Mexico," yet you adhere to your vote, and animadvert upon the conduct of Mexico, in refusing to receive a minister instead of a commissioner, as if that were a vindication, apology, or extenuation! Do we live in a Christian land? Is this the nineteenth century? Does an American statesman venture any such suggestion in vindication, apology, or extenuation of war? On this point I join issue. By the Law of Nations as now enlightened by civilization, by the law of common sense, by the higher law of Christian duty, the fact presented in your vindication can form no ground of war. This attempt has given pain to many of your constituents hardly less than the original vote. It shows insensibility to the true character of war, and perverse adherence to the fatal act of wrong. It were possible to suppose a representative, not over-tenacious of moral purpose, shaken from his firm resolve by the ardors of a tyrannical majority ordaining wicked things; but it is less easy to imagine a deliberate vindication of the hasty wrong, when the pressure of the majority is removed, and time affords opportunity for the recovery of that sense of Right which was for a while overturned.
Another apology, in which you and your defenders participate, is founded on the alleged duty of voting succors to our troops, and the impossibility of doing this without voting also for the bill, after it was converted into a Declaration of Falsehood and of War. It is said that patriotism required this vote. Is not that name profaned by this apology? One of your honored predecessors, Sir, a Representative of Boston on the floor of Congress, Mr. Quincy, replied to such apology, when, on an occasion of trial not unlike that through which you have just passed, he gave utterance to these noble words:—
"But it is said that this resolution must be taken as 'a test of
Patriotism.' To this I have but one answer. If Patriotism ask me to
assert a falsehood, I have no hesitation in telling Patriotism, 'I am
not prepared to make that sacrifice.' The duty we owe to our country
is, indeed, among the most solemn and impressive of all obligations;
yet, high as it may be, it is nevertheless subordinate to that which we
owe to that Being with whose name and character truth is identified.
In this respect I deem myself acting upon this resolution under a
higher responsibility than either to this House or to this people."[194]These words were worthy of Boston. May her Representatives never more fail to feel their inspiration! "But," say the too swift defenders, "Mr. Winthrop voted against the falsehood once." Certainly no reason for not voting against it always. But the excuse is still pressed, "Succors to General Taylor should have been voted." The result shows that even these were unnecessary. Before the passage of this disastrous Act of Congress, his troops had already achieved a success to which may be applied the words of Milton:—
"That dishonest victory
At Chæronea, fatal to liberty."
But it would have been less wrong to leave him without succors, even if needful to his safety, than to vote falsehood and unjust war. In seeing that the republic received no detriment, you should not have regarded the army only; your highest care should have been that its good name, its moral and Christian character, received no detriment. You might have said, in the spirit of virtuous Andrew Fletcher, that "you would lose your life to serve your country, but would not do a base thing to save it." You might have adopted the words of Sheridan, in the British Parliament, during our Revolution, that you "could not assent to a vote that seemed to imply a recognition or approbation of the war."[195]
Another apology is, that the majority of the Whig party joined with you,—or, as it has been expressed, that "Mr. Winthrop voted with all the rest of the weight of moral character in Congress, from the Free States, belonging to the Whig party, not included in the Massachusetts delegation"; and suggestions are made in disparagement of the fourteen who remained unshaken in loyalty to Truth and Peace. In the question of Right or Wrong, it is of little importance that a few fallible men, constituting what is called a majority, are all of one mind. Supple or insane majorities are found in every age to sanction injustice. It was a majority which passed the Stamp Act and Tea Tax,—which smiled upon the persecution of Galileo,—which stood about the stake of Servetus,—which administered the hemlock to Socrates,—which called for the crucifixion of our Lord. These majorities cannot make us hesitate to condemn such acts and their authors. Aloft on the throne of God, and not below in the footprints of a trampling multitude, are the sacred rules of Right, which no majorities can displace or overturn. And the question recurs, Was it right to declare unjust and cowardly war, with superadded falsehood, in the cause of Slavery?
Thus do I set forth the character of your act, and the apologies by which it is shielded. I hoped that you would see the wrong, and with true magnanimity repair it. I hoped that your friends would all join in assisting you to recover the attitude of uprightness which becomes a Representative from Boston. But I am disappointed.
I add, that your course in other respects has been in disagreeable harmony with the vote on the Mexican War Bill. I cannot forget—for I sat by your side at the time—that on the Fourth of July, 1845, in Faneuil Hall, you extended the hand of fellowship to Texas, although this slaveholding community was not yet received among the States of the Union. I cannot forget the toast,[196] on the same occasion, by which you were willing to connect your name with an epigram of dishonest patriotism. I cannot forget your apathy at a later day, when many of your constituents engaged in constitutional efforts to oppose the admission of Texas with a slaveholding constitution,—so strangely inconsistent with your recent avowal of "uncompromising hostility to all measures for introducing new Slave States and new Slave Territories into our Union."[197] Nor can I forget the ardor with which you devoted yourself to the less important question of the Tariff,—indicating the relative value of the two in your mind. The vote on the Mexican War Bill seems to be the dark consummation of your course.
Pardon me, if I ask you, on resuming your seat in Congress, to testify at once, without hesitation or delay, against the further prosecution of this war. Forget for a while Sub-Treasury, Veto, even Tariff, and remember this wicked war. With the eloquence which you command so easily, and which is your pride, call for the instant cessation of hostilities. Let your cry be that of Falkland in the Civil Wars: "Peace! Peace!" Think not of what you call in your speeches "an honorable peace." There can be no peace with Mexico which will not be more honorable than this war. Every fresh victory is a fresh dishonor. "Unquestionably," you have strangely said, "we are not to forget that Mexico must be willing to negotiate."[198] No! no! Mr. Winthrop! We are not to wait for Mexico. Her consent is not needed; nor is it to be asked, while our armies are defiling her soil by their aggressive footsteps. She is passive. We alone are active. Stop the war. Withdraw our forces. In the words of Colonel Washington, Retreat! retreat! So doing, we shall cease from further wrong, and peace will ensue.
Let me ask you to remember in your public course the rules of Right which you obey in private life. The principles of morals are the same for nations as for individuals. Pardon me, if I suggest that you have not acted invariably according to this truth. You would not in your private capacity set your name to a falsehood; but you have done so as Representative in Congress. You would not in your private capacity countenance wrong, even in friend or child; but as Representative you have pledged yourself "not to withhold your vote from any reasonable supplies which may be called for"[199] in the prosecution of a wicked war. Do by your country as by friend or child. To neither of these would you furnish means of offence against a neighbor; do not furnish to your country any such means. Again, you would not hold slaves. I doubt not you would join with Mr. Palfrey in emancipating any who should become yours by inheritance or otherwise. But I do not hear of your effort or sympathy with those who seek to carry into our institutions that practical conscience which declares it to be as wrong in States as in individuals to sanction slavery.
Let me ask you still further—and you will know if there is reason for this request—to bear testimony against the Mexican War, and all supplies for its prosecution, regardless of the minority in which you are placed. Think, Sir, of the cause, and not of your associates. Forget for a while the tactics of party, and all its subtle combinations. Emancipate yourself from its close-woven web, spun as from a spider's belly, and move in the pathway of Right. Remember that you represent the conscience of Boston, the churches of the Puritans, the city of Channing.
Meanwhile a fresh election is at hand, and you are again a candidate for the suffrages of your fellow-citizens. I shall not anticipate their verdict. Your blameless private life and well-known attainments will receive the approbation of all; but more than one of your neighbors will be obliged to say,—
"Cassio, I love thee,
But nevermore be officer of mine!"
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
Charles Sumner.
October 26, 1846.
REFUSAL TO BE A CANDIDATE FOR CONGRESS.
Notice in the Boston Papers, October 31, 1846.
After the appearance of Mr. Sumner's letter to Mr. Winthrop, there was a disposition with certain persons feeling strongly on Slavery and the Mexican War to seek a candidate against the latter. Mr. Sumner again and again refused to accept a nomination. Besides his constant unwillingness to enter into public life, he would not consent that his criticism of Mr. Winthrop should be weakened by the imputation of an unworthy desire for his place. In his absence from Boston, lecturing before Lyceums in Maine, a meeting of citizens was convened at the Tremont Temple on the evening of October 29, 1846, to make what was called an "independent nomination for Congress." The meeting was called to order by Dr. S.G. Howe, and organized by the choice of the following officers: Hon. Charles F. Adams, President,—J.P. Blanchard, Samuel May, George Merrill, Dr. Walter Channing, Dr. Henry I. Bowditch, and R. I. Attwill, Vice-Presidents,—Charles G. Davis and J.H. Frevert, Secretaries. A committee was appointed to draft resolutions and nominate a candidate. This committee, by its chairman, John A. Andrew, afterwards Governor of Massachusetts, reported an elaborate series of resolutions, setting forth reasons for a separate nomination, and concluding with a resolution in the following terms.
"Resolved, That we recommend to the citizens of this District as a candidate for Representative in the National Congress a man raised by his pure character above reproach, whose firmness, intelligence, distinguished ability, rational patriotism, manly independence, and glowing love of liberty and truth entitle him to the unbought confidence of his fellow-citizens,—CHARLES SUMNER, of Boston,—fitted to adorn any station, always found on the side of the Right, and especially worthy at the present crisis to represent the interests of the city and the cardinal principles of Truth, Justice, Liberty, and Peace, which have not yet died out from the hearts of her citizens."
Mr. Andrew followed the reading of the resolutions with a speech, in which he vindicated the position of Mr. Sumner as follows.
"Mr. President, I shall have done no adequate justice to the views of the committee, to this meeting, to the distinguished friend of Peace and Liberty to whose nomination this crowded assembly has with such gratifying and enthusiastic heartiness so unequivocally responded, nor, indeed, to my own feelings, until I shall have made a single statement of fact in regard to the attitude of Mr. Sumner himself towards the act we have just felt it our duty to perform.
"This nomination, grateful as it may be to his feelings, considered as an evidence of personal attachment and respect on the part of so many of his friends and fellow-citizens, will find him wholly unprepared for its reception; more than that, as I myself do know, he will hear of it with surprise and regret. Though I am unaware that any member of the committee, other than myself, has had any immediate personal knowledge of the views likely to be entertained by him in this regard, I say, what no living man can truly dispute or honestly question, that this nomination has been made upon the entire responsibility and sense of duty of this committee,—not only without the knowledge, approbation, or consent of Mr. Sumner, but in the face of his constant, repeated, and determined refusal, at all times, to allow his name, even for a moment, to be held at the disposal of friends for such a purpose.
"A delicate and sensitive appreciation of his attitude, as one of the earliest, strongest, and most open of those opposed to the dealings of our present member of Congress with the matter of the Mexican War, determined Mr. Sumner, although looked to by—may I not say every individual who sympathizes in this present movement of opposition, as the man to bear our standard on the field of controversy?—determined him to resist every effort to draw him forth from the humblest station in our ranks.
"He would think, write, and speak as his own mind and heart were moved; but he would do nothing, he would permit nothing to be done, for himself, for his own personal promotion."
Mr. Andrew then proceeded to mention what induced the committee to disregard Mr. Sumner's known wishes.
The resolutions were adopted unanimously. A committee of vigilance was appointed. Mr. Sumner's letter to Mr. Winthrop, with the report of this meeting, signed by the President and Secretaries, was printed on a broad-side.
Meanwhile Mr. Sumner returned from Maine, when, on learning what had passed, he at once withdrew his name in the following notice.
Late last evening, on my return from Bangor, where I had been in pursuance of an engagement made last August, I was surprised to find myself nominated as candidate for Congress.
I have never on any occasion sought or desired public office of any kind. I do not now. My tastes are alien to official life; and I have long been accustomed to look to other fields of usefulness.
My name has been brought forward, in my absence, without any knowledge or suspicion on my part of such a purpose, and contrary to express declarations, repeatedly made, that I would not, under any circumstances, consent to be a candidate.
Grateful for the kindness of friends who have thought me worthy of political confidence, and regretting much that it is not bestowed upon some one else, who would fitly represent the idea of opposition to the longer continuance of the unjust war with Mexico, I beg leave respectfully, but explicitly, to withdraw my name from the canvass.
Charles Sumner.
Saturday, October 31.