[5.] Benton states that Polk relied for peace upon the project of replacing Paredes with Santa Anna, which will be mentioned later in this chapter (View, ii, 680). He also charges (ibid.) that the administration—particularly Walker—was influenced by a wish to bring about the payment of American claims and make good certain speculations in Texas lands; but it was proper that the claims should be paid, and there is no proof of the second point.
[6.] Benton hesitated, and May 11 Polk counted on his opposition (Diary). In the debates on the annexation of Texas the Senator had denied that her territory extended to the Rio Grande (Smith, Annex. of Texas, 264, note), and he did not approve of Taylor’s going there. Besides, he desired to see the Oregon issue settled before coming to an issue with Mexico. Possibly Calhoun’s anxiety to prevent or defer war helped to drive Benton to the opposite side ([354]Welles papers; Polk, Diary, May 3, 11, 1846).
[7.] One may also view the matter at a slightly different angle. It was possible for Mexico, on learning that General Taylor had advanced peaceably to the Rio Grande, to say, Very well, he may occupy the disputed district jointly with us for the present. England and the United States maintained a peaceable joint occupation of Oregon for years. Taylor’s advancing, therefore, did not per se and necessarily create a state of war. Now the United States did nothing else that could fairly be termed aggressive; but Mexico, by attacking American troops engaged in peaceful reconnoitring, destroyed the state of potential harmony, and consequently the state of war that ensued existed by her act. C. J. Ingersoll stated later (Cong. Globe, 29, 2, app., 125) that the language of the preamble was adopted for the purpose of conciliating, not offending, the Whigs; and one can see that it might seem likely to be easier for them to accept the war as an accomplished fact than to vote for a declaration.
[8.] From what is known of Calhoun’s designs (Smith, Annex. of Texas, 209–216) this statement seems reasonable, and it is supported by positive evidence (chap, vi, note 10). [232]Calhoun to —–, Nov. 7, 1846: The triumph of abolitionism at the north would cause disunion, for the southern people are determined to defend their rights.
[9.] To justify Calhoun’s theory the Constitution should have been made to read: “Congress shall have power to declare war, and without such a declaration the United States shall never be at war,” which would have been manifestly ridiculous; and the provision in article i, sect. 10, that a state, when in imminent danger, might begin war, should have been cancelled. Doubtless for partisan reasons, Webster (Curtis, Webster, ii, 301) took the same position as Calhoun, saying that Congress could not “create a fact”—i.e. could not state that war existed before it had declared war. Von Holst on the other hand, in order to face the tolerably evident certainty that we had a legal war with Mexico, says (United States, iii, 253) that Congress made Polk’s lie [that war existed] into a fact! Many members of Congress had too little confidence (Calhoun to Thompson: Am. Hist. Rev., i, 314) in their knowledge of the situation to feel positive as to the full justice of the American cause, but this did not affect the validity of their action. Particularly noticeable was the rejection (27 to 97) of Delano’s proposition that nothing in the war bill should be construed as approving of the President’s conduct in taking armed possession of the intermediate region. Thus a much discussed question was formally raised and formally decided. [132]King to Buchanan, June 1.
[10.] Discussion of the proceedings. (Feeling) [354]Welles papers. (Assured) Polk, Diary, May 11, 1846. (Congressmen) Meigs, Benton, 360; Benton, View, ii, 680. Tribune, May 15. Journal of Commerce, July 1, 1847. Weekly Herald, May 16, 1846. (Dissensions) Boston Atlas, May 18, 1846; Jameson, Calh. Corresp., 1038 (Harris); Polk, Diary, Apr. 30; [345]Polk to Van Buren, Jan. 4; Feb. 22, 25, 1845; [345]Wright to V. B., Jan. 17, 1845; [345]Butler to Polk, Feb. 27, 1845; [345]V. B. to Polk, Feb. 27, 1845; [345]S. T. Van Buren to M. V. B., Mar. 2, 3, 4, 1845; [297]Cave Johnson to Polk, June 13, 1844; and see chap, xxxiv. (Offices) Polk, Diary, May 10; June 22, 1846, and passim. [210]Holmes to Hammond, May 10, 1846. Lalor, Cyclop., iii, 1105. (Whig vote) [260]Winthrop, Mex. War Bill, 108; Nat. Intelligencer, May 16, 1846; N. Y. Journal of Comm., Dec. 11, 1847; Wheeler, Hist, of Cong., i, 411; Von Holst, U. S., iii, 251. Calhoun to Clemson, Jan. 29, 1846; to A. P. C, May 14; to J. E. C, May 29; to Clemson, July 11; to J. E. C, July 29, in Calhoun Corres., 679, 691, 693–4, 700–1; also 707. [345]Welles to Van Buren, July 28, 1846. Polk, Diary, Apr. 18, 21, 1846. Calhoun in Sen., Feb. 24, 1847: Cong. Globe, 29, 2, p. 501. Hunt, Calhoun, 279. Niles, May 16, 1846, p. 162. (Endorsed, etc.) Cong. Globe, 29, 1, p. 802 (Crittenden). Cong. Globe, 30, 1, app., 367 (Stanton). Johnston and Browne, Stephens, 210. [132]King to Buchanan, June 1, 1846. Pierce, Sumner, iii, 108, 139. [132]Buchanan, memo. Holmes of New York proposed in the House, May 11, that sect. one of the war bill should not apply southwest of the Nueces except for the rescue of our army. This was rejected by 8–122. May 12 Senator Crittenden, one of the foremost Whigs, proposed to substitute in the war bill the words “for the purpose of repelling the invasion” in place of the words “prosecute said war, etc.” This recognized the territory as American. His proposal was supported by twenty senators (Cong. Globe, 29, 1, p. 803).
[11.] Livermore, for example, argued in this way (War, 15): Texas was annexed for the protection of Southern institutions; the war with Mexico resulted from the annexation of Texas; therefore the war with Mexico was due to the slaveholders’ interest in slavery. But both of his premises need qualification; and the conclusion, so far as it suggests that the war was the necessary and designed consequence of the slaveholders’ action in the Texas matter, does not follow. The abolitionists were enthusiastic, earnest, and on the outside of things. Hence they were naturally and almost unavoidably over-suspicious. Von Holst (U. S., iii, 302) says that the radical wing of the southern Democratic party openly avowed that the war with Mexico was a southern war; but was not Calhoun the leader and prophet of that wing? A few public men, the Charleston Patriot and Courier, and the Federal Union of Alabama looked upon the war as for the interest of the South; but it does not appear that they had any appreciable influence in bringing it about.
[12.] The occasion of the war was Taylor’s going to the Rio Grande; but see chap, vii, p. 154.
[13.] Apparently one might say that—since Polk intended to recommend redress of our grievances—war was sure, without reference to the annexation of Texas, to come. But we are tracing the cause of an actual, not of a possible, war; and the President’s recommendation might not have proved effectual. Benton (View, ii, 679) said that without the clash of arms it would have been difficult, perhaps impossible, to bring about war. Calhoun (Sen., Feb. 24, 1847: note 10) said it could not have been done. This opinion, however, was biased.
[14.] The cause of the war. Polk, Diary, Dec. 19, 23, 1846; Jan. 5, 23, 1847. Webster, Private Corresp., ii, 283. [370]Taylor to Davis, Apr. 18, 1848. [32]Buchanan to Shields, April 23, 1847. (Bulwark) Smith, Annex. of Texas, 132, 134–5, 204–8. (Unsuitable) [132]Donelson to Buchanan, May 15, 1847. No. Amer., Feb. 10, 1847; Thompson in Wash. Union, Oct. 25, 1847, and Greenville (S. C.) Mountaineer, Oct. 21. Bourne, Essays, 227, 235. Charleston Mercury, Dec. 30, 1847 (long argument against annexing Mexican territory). W. Thompson to Calhoun, Dec. 18, 1847 in Jameson, Calhoun Correspondence, 1149 (slavery will not exist in Mexico). [137]Fisher to Calhoun, Aug. 22, 1847. [137]J. A. Campbell to Calhoun, Mar. 1, 1848. (Aiken) Boston Courier, Dec. 2, 1847; Mar. 9, 1848. [132]King to Buchanan, June 11, 1847. N. Y. Tribune, Nov. 26, 1847. [157]Lamar to Cobb, June 24, 1846. (Toombs) Cong. Globe, 29, 1, app., 133. So. Qtrly. Rev., Nov., 1850, 427–34. (Benton) Abr. Deb., xvi, 87; Benton, View, ii, 678. (Clay) Schurz, Clay, ii, 290. (Winthrop) Wash. Union, Sept. 30, 1846; Oct. 25, 1847; Winthrop, Winthrop, 59. (Douglas) Cutts, Questions, 154. (Johnson) Brown, Cong. Globe, 29, 2, app., 354. (Van B.) Wilson, Rise and Fall, ii, 9; Smith, Annex. of Texas, 243. Amer. Historical Association Rep., 1911, ii, 95 (Glenn). (Organs) Mr. Winthrop’s Vote. (Sumner) Sumner, report, 30. (Report) Wash. Union, Feb. 25, 1847. (Agree) Winthrop in Wash. Union, Sept. 30, 1846. (Paredes) Diario, July 30, 1846. (Almonte) N. Y. Sun, Nov. 26, 1846 (Caractacus); Monitor Repub., May 9, 1847. Gordon, Aberdeen, 183. Mofras, Expédition, 8. Polk, Message, May 11, 1846 (Richardson). Cole, Whig Party, 121. See also the conclusion of chap. [v].