Now, that great statesman, Mr. Webster, has proved on various occasions, and especially in his Philadelphia speech, that annexation of Texas to the United States was no cause of war, because Texas was as much an independent State as Mexico. The act was no more a cause of war on the part of Mexico, than her annexation to the United States would have been a cause of war on the part of Texas. If Mr. Webster be correct, and I think his argument unanswerable, was Mexico justifiable in the course pursued by her towards us on account of that act? Was she justifiable in withdrawing her minister, and ordering away the minister of the United States? These were very high handed and insulting measures, and attended, necessarily, with the serious consequence of putting an end to all peaceful modes of adjusting differences, and leaving the only alternatives of, submission, or war, on our part. But, under the circumstances in which Mexico was placed towards us, it was an act of gross injustice, as well as insult. She had a treaty obligation to fulfil, in the payment of several millions, as the indemnity for wrongs done to American citizens, and demands had been made upon her for several millions more, which remained unadjusted. There was, also, a question of boundary to settle—all these matters must be settled either peaceably, or by war—if peaceably, the continuance, or re-establishment of diplomatic intercourse, was indispensable. Her conduct was like that of the debtor who cuts the acquaintance of his creditor, and thinks by that means, to avoid fulfilling his obligations. Let me ask, what would have been the course pursued, (if placed in our situation,) by England or France, or any other high minded Government? I ask any candid man to say, whether they would have borne it as patiently as we have done? I would ask whether there was as much forbearance shown by us with Louis Philippe, on the subject of the French indemnity, or with England in the Northern boundary, and Oregon question? That nation assumes an awful responsibility, which, like Mexico, puts an end to the peaceable ways of diplomacy, leaving no alternative but horrid war, or base submission. Mexico should have paid her debt before she put an end to peaceful intercourse, and she could not do it without injustice, while there were claims still depending. All arguments drawn from considerations of forbearance, humanity, generosity, expediency, are for ourselves—Mexico is entitled to no part in them. In my estimation, the great error of Mexico, if so mild a term can be applied, consists in her having terminated all peaceful modes of settling differences; for, as there is no common arbiter between independent nations, their differences in that case, must be settled by war, or not at all.
I am again sustained, by the opinion of Mr. Webster, in respect of the refusal of Mexico to the re-establishment of diplomatic relations proposed by us; and again, in her refusal to meet the more recent overtures for negotiation. The first improper conduct of Mexico has been greatly aggravated by these acts. It has been urged, that Mexico was willing to receive a commissioner, to treat in relation to Texas. It is surprising to me, that any one should not see the folly of this proposition. It was only saying, “as you have wronged us, in the annexation of Texas, we will permit you to offer us suitable reparation, and this must precede all other matters between us.” The ignorance and presumption of such an idea, is truly Mexican. [[5]]If they were sincere in their desire to discuss the subject, what objection could there be to receiving an ambassador, clothed with full powers to settle all matters in dispute? What right had Mexico to require us to admit, that annexation was an aggression on her rights? There was no proposition to discuss the question of boundary, as is frequently asserted, which would be inconsistent with her pretensions. But even that could be more fully settled by one having full authority, than by a mere special commissioner, with limited powers. The whole was but a diplomatic quibble—a deceitful evasion. In the opinion of Mr. Webster, Mexico was wrong in putting an end to diplomatic relations; she was wrong in rejecting our minister under a frivolous pretext, and she continues in the wrong in rejecting overtures of peace, after the commencement of hostilities. Here was a direct advance on our part, superseding the necessity of mediation, a measure only adopted to save the pride of either party, in being the first to propose a peace. In all this, Mexico is in the wrong; and here is the whole question, as between her and the United States. The degree of forbearance to be shown, is a question for ourselves alone. The first blow was struck by Mexico, unless the provocation of our march to the Rio Grande, be considered the first blow. There is nothing left for us, but to prosecute the war until Mexico shall be willing to enter into peaceable negotiation. Some appear to think that she would be most likely to re-establish diplomatic relations, by our withdrawing our fleets and armies. But this would only be an experiment, and might fail; and if it should fail, our work would have to begin again. This was done when Mr. Slidell landed at Vera Cruz, but without success. Can we place sufficient confidence in Mexico, even after the most positive and distinct assurances, and still less without any such assurances? For my part, I have no confidence either in the good faith of her present rulers, or in the stability of her Government. What, then, is to be done? I see no way but to retain the advantages we already possess, and to prosecute the war on her territory, as other wars, under like circumstances, would be prosecuted by other nations. What is there to prevent her from entering into negotiations at once? Pride—folly—but we were not too proud to negotiate with England, at the moment when the war was hottest. At the very moment of signing the treaty of Ghent, the British Commissioner supposed, and ours also, that the British troops were in possession of Louisiana, and one of them observed to the American Commissioner. “You have reason to be satisfied, for you have now regained New Orleans.” The idea of falling back on the Rio Grande, in the visionary hope of coaxing Mexico to make peace, and then in case of her refusal, retaking Monterey and Tampico, and the valley of the Rio Grande, would be like the fisherman, who after having one good haul, throws back the best fish into the sea, for the pleasure of retaking them!
[5]. Mr. Gallatin makes a strange mistake, when he says, that the refusal, was to receiving a resident minister. The refusal was on account of his not being a mere Commissioner on the single subject of Texas! What reasonable objection could there be to a resident minister, after a treaty of peace? And if no such treaty were made, then the minister clothed with those powers would take his departure, as a matter of course. Mr. Gallatin speaks very lightly of a suspension of diplomatic intercourse! I regard this, under the circumstance, as most serious. But there was more than suspension; Mexico declared all negotiations at an end, and war was, therefore, the only alternative.
Letter 11.
The causes of the war.—The complaints on either side.
February, 1847.
Sir: The tendency of public opinion throughout the civilized world, and especially in the United States, against all wars, may be justly set down as an evidence of the progress of civilization. There are many who regard all war, defensive as well as offensive, as wicked and inexcusable. Others, justify defensive wars only, as if it were possible for one to defend himself by merely warding off the blows of the assailant. Some regard wars made for conquest merely, as unlawful, and no sound moralist can approve of a war instigated by a motive so unjust and dishonest. But when war is once begun, it unavoidably becomes offensive, as well as defensive, in order to bring the opposite party to terms—it necessarily becomes a war of conquest by holding the enemy’s territory as a lawful acquisition, until restored by treaty of peace, if restored at all. No one nation has yet abandoned the practice of war, and I cannot well understand how it can do so, while it is continued by others. In the present unregenerated state of the world, wars are therefore regarded by practical men, as sometimes unavoidable, and even necessary and just. It was the opinion of Washington, that the best security for peace, is in being well prepared for war; and it may be added, to impress other nations with respect or fear of our military prowess. I am convinced, that our last three years war with Great Britain, ensured us a long peace, not only with that power, but with others. I am equally certain, that but for our seven years of revolutionary war, we should have been neither a free nor an independent nation—our magnificent country would not have been “the land of the free, and the home of the brave.” If all wars are “murders and robberies,” as some philanthropists contend, there must be a revolution in our sentiments towards Washington and his brave companions in arms, who offered up their lives for the blessings of freedom and self-government, and of peace, which we have enjoyed.
But I am free to admit, that a civilized nation cannot, without just reproach, engage in a war that is unjust, and that is not, in a certain sense, unavoidable. The nation ought to go beyond, rather than fall short of the strict measure of justice, and she ought to exhaust every means of maintaining peace, before resorting to the ultimate ratio.
It is my intention in this letter to took into the causes which have led to the war in which we are now engaged with Mexico. I must premise, that we must take the world as we find it, and we must decide according to the ethicks and practice of the most civilized nations, and not according to standards of morality, which, although perfect in themselves, are inapplicable to the present imperfect state of mankind. It is again to be observed, that among nations, there is no common judge, to whom they are willing to submit their differences, and to obey the decision. Each is the judge in its own case, and if one should be disposed to do even more than justice, the demands of the other may be out of all reason. It is a rare thing in modern times, for two powerful civilized nations to be involved in hostilities, without previous differences, misunderstandings, or mutual aggressions, and without, also, previous unsuccessful attempts to adjust their differences in a peaceful way. Let us first consider the complaints of Mexico.