the writings-2-第5章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



impropriety；　be　called　her　last　will　and　testament；　revoking　all

others…makes　no　such　claim。　　But　suppose　she　had　always　claimed

it。　　Has　not　Mexico　always　claimed　the　contrary？　　So　that　there

is　but　claim　against　claim；　leaving　nothing　proved　until　we　get

back　of　the　claims　and　find　which　has　the　better　foundation。

Though　not　in　the　order　in　which　the　President　presents　his

evidence；　I　now　consider　that　class　of　his　statements　which　are

in　substance　nothing　more　than　that　Texas　has；　by　various　acts　of

her　Convention　and　Congress；　claimed　the　Rio　Grande　as　her

boundary；　on　paper。　　I　mean　here　what　he　says　about　the　fixing　of

the　Rio　Grande　as　her　boundary　in　her　old　constitution　（not　her

State　constitution）；　about　forming　Congressional　districts；

counties；　etc。　　Now　all　of　this　is　but　naked　claim；　and　what　I

have　already　said　about　claims　is　strictly　applicable　to　this。

If　I　should　claim　your　land　by　word　of　mouth；　that　certainly

would　not　make　it　mine；　and　if　I　were　to　claim　it　by　a　deed　which

I　had　made　myself；　and　with　which　you　had　had　nothing　to　do；　the

claim　would　be　quite　the　same　in　substanceor　rather；　in　utter

nothingness。　　I　next　consider　the　President's　statement　that

Santa　Anna　in　his　treaty　with　Texas　recognized　the　Rio　Grande　as

the　western　boundary　of　Texas。　　Besides　the　position　so　often

taken；　that　Santa　Anna　while　a　prisoner　of　war；　a　captive；　could

not　bind　Mexico　by　a　treaty；　which　I　deem　conclusivebesides

this；　I　wish　to　say　something　in　relation　to　this　treaty；　so

called　by　the　President；　with　Santa　Anna。　　If　any　man　would　like

to　be　amused　by　a　sight　of　that　little　thing　which　the　President

calls　by　that　big　name；　he　can　have　it　by　turning　to　Niles's

Register；　vol。　1；　p。　336。　And　if　any　one　should　suppose　that

Niles's　Register　is　a　curious　repository　of　so　mighty　a　document

as　a　solemn　treaty　between　nations；　I　can　only　say　that　I　learned

to　a　tolerable　degree　of　certainty；　by　inquiry　at　the　State

Department；　that　the　President　himself　never　saw　it　anywhere

else。　　By　the　way；　I　believe　I　should　not　err　if　I　were　to

declare　that　during　the　first　ten　years　of　the　existence　of　that

document　it　was　never　by　anybody　called　a　treatythat　it　was

never　so　called　till　the　President；　in　his　extremity；　attempted

by　so　calling　it　to　wring　something　from　it　in　justification　of

himself　in　connection　with　the　Mexican　War。　　It　has　none　of　the

distinguishing　features　of　a　treaty。　　It　does　not　call　itself　a

treaty。　　Santa　Anna　does　not　therein　assume　to　bind　Mexico；　he

assumes　only　to　act　as　the　PresidentCommander…in…Chief　of　the

Mexican　army　and　navy；　stipulates　that　the　then　present

hostilities　should　cease；　and　that　he　would　not　himself　take　up

arms；　nor　influence　the　Mexican　people　to　take　up　arms；　against

Texas　during　the　existence　of　the　war　of　independence。　　He　did

not　recognize　the　independence　of　Texas；　he　did　not　assume　to　put

an　end　to　the　war；　but　clearly　indicated　his　expectation　of　its

continuance；　he　did　not　say　one　word　about　boundary；　and；　most

probably；　never　thought　of　it。　　It　is　stipulated　therein　that　the

Mexican　forces　should　evacuate　the　territory　of　Texas；　passing　to

the　other　side　of　the　Rio　Grande；　and　in　another　article　it　is

stipulated　that；　to　prevent　collisions　between　the　armies；　the

Texas　army　should　not　approach　nearer　than　within　five　leagues

of　what　is　not　said；　but　clearly；　from　the　object　stated；　it　is

of　the　Rio　Grande。　Now；　if　this　is　a　treaty　recognizing　the　Rio

Grande　as　the　boundary　of　Texas；　it　contains　the　singular　feature

of　stipulating　that　Texas　shall　not　go　within　five　leagues　of　her

own　boundary。



Next　comes　the　evidence　of　Texas　before　annexation；　and　the

United　States　afterwards；　exercising　jurisdiction　beyond　the

Nueces　and　between　the　two　rivers。　　This　actual　exercise　of

jurisdiction　is　the　very　class　or　quality　of　evidence　we　want。

It　is　excellent　so　far　as　it　goes；　but　does　it　go　far　enough？　　He

tells　us　it　went　beyond　the　Nueces；　but　he　does　not　tell　us　it

went　to　the　Rio　Grande。　He　tells　us　jurisdiction　was　exercised

between　the　two　rivers；　but　he　does　not　tell　us　it　was　exercised

over　all　the　territory　between　them。　　Some　simple…minded　people

think　it　is　possible　to　cross　one　river　and　go　beyond　it　without

going　all　the　way　to　the　next；　that　jurisdiction　may　be　exercised

between　two　rivers　without　covering　all　the　country　between　them。

I　know　a　man；　not　very　unlike　myself；　who　exercises　jurisdiction

over　a　piece　of　land　between　the　Wabash　and　the　Mississippi；　and

yet　so　far　is　this　from　being　all　there　is　between　those　rivers

that　it　is　just　one　hundred　and　fifty…two　feet　long　by　fifty　feet

wide；　and　no　part　of　it　much　within　a　hundred　miles　of　either。　He

has　a　neighbor　between　him　and　the　Mississippithat　is；　just

across　the　street；　in　that　directionwhom　I　am　sure　he　could

neither　persuade　nor　force　to　give　up　his　habitation；　but　which

nevertheless　he　could　certainly　annex；　if　it　were　to　be　done　by

merely　standing　on　his　own　side　of　the　street　and　claiming　it；　or

even　sitting　down　and　writing　a　deed　for　it。



But　next　the　President　tells　us　the　Congress　of　the　United　States

understood　the　State　of　Texas　they　admitted　into　the　Union　to

extend　beyond　the　Nueces。　　Well；　I　suppose　they　did。　　I　certainly

so　understood　it。　　But　how　far　beyond？　　That　Congress　did　not

understand　it　to　extend　clear　to　the　Rio　Grande　is　quite　certain；

by　the　fact　of　their　joint　resolutions　for　admission　expressly

leaving　all　questions　of　boundary　to　future　adjustment。　　And　it

may　be　added　that　Texas　herself　is　proven　to　have　had　the　same

understanding　of　it　that　our　Congress　had；　by　the　fact　of　the

exact　conformity　of　her　new　constitution　to　those　resolutions。



I　am　now　through　the　whole　of　the　President's　evidence；　and　it　is

a　singular　fact　that　if　any　one　should　declare　the　President　sent

the　army　into　the　midst　of　a　settlement　of　Mexican　people　who　had

never　submitted；　by　consent　or　by　force；　to　the　authority　of

Texas　or　of　the　United　States；　and　that　there　and　thereby　the

first　blood　of　the　war　was　shed；　there　is　not　one　word　in　all　the

which　would　either　admit　or　deny　the　declaration。　　This　strange

omission　it　does　seem　to　me　could　not　have　occurred　but　by

design。　　My　way　of　living　leads　me　to　be　about　the　courts　of

justice；　and　there　I　have　sometimes　seen　a　good　lawyer；

struggling　for　his　client's　neck　in　a　desperate　case；　employing

every　artifice　to　work　round；　befog；　and　cover　up　with　many　words

some　point　arising　in　the　case　which　he　dared　not　admit　and　yet

could　not　deny。　　Party　bias　may　help　to　make　it　appear　so；　but

with　all　the　allowance　I　can　make　for　such　bias；　it　still　does

appear　to　me　that　just　such；　and　from　just　such　necessity；　is　the

President's　struggle　in　this　case。



Sometime　after　my　colleague　＇Mr。　Richardson＇　introduced　the

resolutions　I　have　mentioned；　I　introduced　a　preamble；

resolution；　and　interrogations；　intended　to　draw　the　President

out；　if　possible；　on　this　hitherto　untrodden　ground。　　To　show

their　relevancy；　I　propose　to　state　my　understanding　of　the　true

rule　for　ascertaining　the　boundary　between　Texas　and　Mexico。　　It

is　that　wherever　Texas　was　exercising　jurisdiction　was　hers；　and

wherever　Mexico　was　exercising　jurisdiction　was　hers；　and　that

whatever　separated　the　actual　exercise　of　jurisdiction　of　the　one

from　that　of　the　other　was　the　true　boundary　between　them。　　If；

as　is　probably　true；　Texas　was　exercising　jurisdiction　along　the

western　bank　of　the　Nueces；　and　Mexico　was　exercising　it　along

the　eastern　bank　of　the　Rio　Grande；　then　neither　river　was　the

boundary：　but　the　uninhabited　country　between　the　two　was。　　The

extent　of　our　territory　in　that　region　depended　not　on　any

treaty…fixed　boundary　（for　no　treaty　had　attempted　it）；　but　on

revolution。　　Any　people　anywhere　being　inclined　and　having　the

power　have　the　right　to　rise　up　and　shake　off　the　existing

government；　and　form　a　new　one　that　suits　them　better。　　This　is　a

most　valuable；　a　most　sacred　righta　right　which　we　hope　and

believe　is　to　liberate　the　world。　　Nor　is　this　right　confined　to

cases　in　which　the　whole　people　of　an　existing　government　may

choose　to　exercise　it。　　Any　portion　of　such　people　that　can　may

revolutionize　and　make　their　own　of　so　much　of　the　territory　as

they　inhabit。　　More　than　this；　a　majority　of　any　portion　of　such

people　may　revolutionize；　putting　down　a　minority；　intermingled

with　or　near　about　them；　who　may　oppose　this　movement。　　Such

minority　was　precisely　the　case　of　the　Tories　of　our　own

revolution。　　It　is　a　quality　of　revolutions　not　to　go　by　old

lines　or　old　laws；　but　to　break　up　both；　and　make　new　ones。



As　to　the　country　now　in　question；　we　bought　it　of　France　in

1803；　and　sold　it　to　Spain　in　1819；　according　to　the　President's

statements。　　After　this；　all　Mexico；　including　Texas；

revolutionized　against　Spain；　and　still　later　Texas

revolutionized　against　Mexico。　　In　my　view；　just　so　far　as　she

carried　her　resolution　by　obtaining　the　actual；　willing　or

unwilling；　submission　of　the　people；　so　far　the　country　was　hers；

and　no　farther。　　Now；　sir；　for　the　purpose　of　obtaining　the　very

best　evidence　as　to　whether　Texas　had　actually　carried　her

revolution　to　the　place　where　the　hostilities　of　the　present　war

commenced；　let　the　President　answer　the　interrogatories　I

proposed；　as　before　mentioned；　or　some　other　similar　ones。　Let

him　answer　fully；　fairly；　and　candidly。　Let　him　answer　with　facts

and　not　with　arguments。　　Let　him　remember　he　sits　where

Washington　sat；　and　so　remembering；　let　him　answer　as　Washington

would　answer。　　As　a　nation　should　not；　and　the　Almighty　will　not；

be　evaded；　so　let　him　attempt　no　evasionno　equivocation。　　And

if；　so　answering；　he　can　show　that　the　soil　was　ours　where　the

first　blood　of　the　war　was　shed；that　it　was　not　within　an

inhabited　country；　or；　if　within　such；　that　the　inhabitants　had

submitted　themselves　to　the　civil　authority　of　Texas　or　of　the

United　States；　and　that　the　same　is　true　of　the　site　of　Fort

Brown；　then　I　am　with　him　for　his　justification。　　In　that　case　I

shall　be　most　happy　to　reverse　the　vote　I　gave　the　other　day。　　I

have　a　selfish　motive　for　desiring　that　the　President　may　do　this

I　expect　to　gain　some　votes；　in　connection　with　the　war；　which；

without　his　so　doing；　will　be　of　doubtful　propriety　in　my　own

judgment；　but　which　will　be　free　from　the　doubt　if　he　does　so。

But　if　he　can　not　or　will　not　do　this；if　on　any　pretence　or　no

pretence　he　shall　refuse　or　omit　it　then　I　shall　be　fully

convinced　of　what　I　more　than　suspect　already　that　he　is　deeply

conscious　of　being　in　the　wrong；　that　he　feels　the　blood　of　this

war；　like　the　blood　of　Abel；　is　crying　to　heaven　against　him；

that　originally　having　some　strong　motivewhat；　I　will　not　stop

now　to　give　my　opinion　concerning　to　involve　the　two　countries　in

a　war；　and　trusting