Abraham Lincoln's Speech against the Mexican War
"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" - A. Lincoln
January 12, 1848
|
|
| Abraham Lincoln was a bitter opponent of US President James Polk's predatory War on Mexico, a debt Mexico repaid in full during the Civil War. If Benito Juarez had not occupied the attention of the French invading Mexico, the French Emperor would almost certainly have intervened on behalf of the slavers and the Civli War might well have been lost. Lincoln sheltered Juarez's family in the White House as Juarez fought the French. |
Mr. Chairman:
Some if not all the gentlemen on the other
side of the House, who have spoken addressed the committee
within the last two days, have spoken rather complainingly, if I have rightly
understood them, of the vote given a week or ten days ago, declaring that the
war with Mexico was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the
President--
I
admit that such a vote should not be given, in mere party wantonness, and that
the one given, is justly censurable, if it have no other, or better foundation--
I am one of those who joined in that vote; and I did so under my best impression
of the truth of the case-- How I got this impression, and how it may
possibly be removed, I will now try to show-- When the war began, it was my
opinion that all those who, because of knowing too little, or because of
knowing too much, could not conscientiously approve the conduct of the
President, in the beginning of it, should, nevertheless, as good citizens and
patriots, remain silent on the point, at least till the war should be ended--
Some leading democrats democrats, including Ex President Van
Buren, have taken this same view, as I understand them; and I adhered to it, and
acted upon it, until since I took my seat here; and I think I should still
adhere to it, were it not that the President and his friends will not allow it
to be so-- Besides the continual effort of the President to argue every silent
vote given for supplies, into an endorsement of the justice and wisdom of his
conduct -- besides that singularly candid paragraph, in his late message in
which he tells us that Congress, with great unanimity, only two in the Senate
and fourteen in the House dissenting, had declared that, "by the act of the
Republic of Mexico, a state of war exists between that Government and the United
States" when the same journals that informed him of this, also informed
him, that when that declaration stood disconnected from the question of
supplies, sixtyseven in the House, and not fourteen merely, voted against it --
besides this open attempt to prove, by telling the truth, what he could
not prove by telling the whole truth -- demanding of all who will not
submit to be misrepresented, in justice to themselves, to speak out -- besides
all this, one of my colleagues (Mr. Richardson)2
at a very early day in the session brings brought in a set of
resolutions, expressly endorsing the original justice of the war on the part of
the President-- Upon these resolutions, when they shall be put upon
on their passage I shall be compelled to vote; so that I can not be
silent, if I would-- Seeing this, I set went about preparing
myself to give the vote understandingly when it should come-- I carefully
examined the President's messages, to ascertain what he himself had said and
proved upon the point-- The result of this examination was to make the
impression, that taking all for true, all the President states
as facts, he falls far short of proving his justification; and that the
President would have gone farther with his proof, if it had not been for the
small matter, that the truth would not permit him. Under the impression
thus made, I gave the vote before mentioned-- I propose now to give, concisely,
the process of the examination I made, and the how I reached
the conclusion I reached, did-- The President -- in his first
war message of May 1846, declares that the soil was ours on which
hostilities were commenced by Mexico; and he repeats that declaration, almost in
the same language, in each successive annual message, thus showing that that
he esteems that point, a highly essential one-- In the importance of that point,
I entirely agree with the President-- To my judgement, it is the very point,
upon which he should be justified, or condemned-- In his message of Decr. 1846,
it seems to have occurred to the President, him, as is
certainly true, that title, ownership -- to soil, or any thing else, was
is not a simple fact; but is a conclusion springin following
one or more simple facts; and that it was incumbent upon him, to present the
facts, from which he concluded, the soil was ours, on which the first blood of
the war was shed--
[Note 2 ID: William A. Richardson was a Democratic political contemporary of Lincoln's in Illinois. He served in the House of Representatives between 1847 and 1856, and in 1861-1863, after which he was a United States Senator until 1865. He was a close political ally of Stephen A. Douglas.]
Accordingly a little below the middle of page
twelve in the Message of Decr. 1846 last referred to, he enters
upon that task; forming an issue, and introducing testimony, extending the
whole, to a little below the middle of page fourteen-- Now I propose to try to
show, that the whole of this, -- issue and evidence -- is, from beginning to
end, the sheerest deception-- The issue, as he presents it, is in these words
"But there are those who, conceding all this to be true, assume the ground
that the true western boundary of Texas is the Nueces, instead of the Rio
Grande; and that, therefore, in marching our army to the east bank of the latter
river, we passed the Texan line, and invaded the teritory of Mexico"-- Now
this issue, is made up of two affirmatives and no negative;and Mr. Polk
is too good a lawyer to not know that is wrong, when truth is the object of
pursuit-- The main deception of it is, that it assumes as true, that one
river or the other is necessarily the boundary; and cheats the
superficial thinker entirely out of the idea, that possibly the boundary
is somewhere between the two, rivers, and not actually at
either-- A further deception is, that it will let in evidence, which a true
issue would exclude-- A true issue, made by the President, would be about as
follows "I say, the soil was ours, on which the first blood was
shed; there are those who say it was not "ours" I now proceed
to examine the President's evidence, as applicable to such an issue as this--
it was not"--
I now proceed to examine the Presidents evidence, as applicable to such an issue-- When that evidence is analized, it is all included in the following propositions --
1-- That the Rio Grande was the Western boundary of Louisiana as we purchased it of France in 1803--
2 That the Republic of Texas always claimed the Rio Grande, as her Western boundary--
3 That by various acts, she had claimed it on paper--
4-- That Santa Anna,3 in his treaty with Texas, recognised the Rio Grande, as her boundary--
[Note 3 ID: Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna was president of Mexico and commander-in-chief of its army in 1836.]
5-- That Texas before, and the U S. after, annexation had exercised jurisdiction beyond the Nueces -- between the two rivers--
6 That our Congress, understood the boundary of Texas to extend beyond the Nueces--
Now for each of these in it's turn--
His first item is, that the Rio Grande was the
Western boundary of Louisiana, as we purchased it in 1803 of
France in 1803; and seeming to expect somebody to dispute with him about
the truth of it, this to be disputed, he argues over the amount of
nearly a page, to prove it true; at the end of which he lets us know, that by
the treaty of 1819, we sold to Spain the whole country from the Rio Grande
eastward, to the Sabine, -- to Spain-- Now, admitting for the
present, that the Rio Grande, was the boundary of Louisiana, what, under heaven,
has had that to do with the present boundary between us
and Mexico?-- How, Mr Chairman, the line, that once divided your land and
from mine, can still be the boundary between us, after I have sold
my land to you, is, to me, beyond all comprehension-- And how any man, with an
honest purpose only, of proving the truth, could ever have thought of
introducing such a fact to prove such an issue, is equally incomprehensible--
His next piece of evidence is that "The Republic of Texas always claimed
this river (Rio Grande) as her western boundary" That is not true, in
fact-- Texas has claimed it, but she has not always claimed it--
There is, at least, one distinguished exception Her state constitution, -- the
republic's most solemn, and well considered act -- that which may, without
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 nothing but claim
against claim, leaving nothing proved, until we get back of the claims,
and find which has the best 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, that
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 &c
&c-- 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 substance --or 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 conclusive --
besides 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 Nile's Register volume 50, page 336-- And if any
one should suppose that Nile'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 certainty, by enquiry at the State Department, that the
President himself, never saw it any where else-- By the way, I belive 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 any body, calledhimself 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 it's 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 teritory 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 Texan army shall
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, recognising 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 -- Lest it be supposed that I
misapprehend this document, I here give it entire--4
[Note 4 Lincoln appended a copy of this "treaty" to his speech. See Articles of Agreement with General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, President-General-in-Chief of the Mexican Army, May 14, 1836.]
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 first
rate as excellent so far as it goes; but it does not
it go far enough?-- He tells us it went beyond the Nueces; but he does
not tells 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 two
rivers-- Some simple minded people, think it is possible, to
cross one river and go beyond it without going all the way to the
next river 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 much does far is this piece
of land back of from being all there is between those rivers,
that it is just one hundred and fifty two feet long and by
fifty feet wide, and no part of it much within a hundred miles
of either river-- He has a democratic
neighbour between him and the Mississippi, -- that is, just across the street,
in that direction of that river -- whom, I am sure, he could
neither persuade nor force to give up his house & lot
to him; 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 understand 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 proved 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 true, a singular fact, that if any one
should declare that the President sent the army into the midst
of a settlement of Mexican people, who had never submited, 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 President has said, which would either admit or deny the
declaration-- This strange omission, it does seem to me, could not have happen
occured by 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 desparate case, employing every artifice
to work round, befog, and cover up, with many words, some point arising in the evidence,
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 that
such bias, it still does appears to me, that just such, and
from just such necessity, is the President's struggle in this case--
Some time after my colleague (Mr. Richardson)
introduced the resolutions I have mentioned, I introduced a preamble,
resolution, and interrogatories, 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 its 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 teritory 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 right -- a right, which we
hope and belive, 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 the such people of an existing
government that canmay revolutionize, and make their own,
of so much of the teritory as they inhabit-- More than this, a majority
of any portion of the such people of an existing
government, -- may revolutionize, putting down a minority,
intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement-- Such
minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution-- It is not
the qual 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 statement-- After this, all Mexico, including Texas,
revolutionized against Spain; and still later, Texas revolutionized against
Mexico-- Now, In our view, just so far as she carried her
revolution, 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 evasion -- no
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 give
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 with
it 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 motive -- what, I will not stop now to give my opinion upon
concerning -- to involve the two countries in a war, and trusting to escape
scrutiny, by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military
glory -- that attractive rainbow, that rises in showers of blood, that serpent's
eye, that charms to destroy -- he plunged himself and the nation
into it, and has swept, on and on, till, disappointed in his
calculation of the ease with which Mexico might be subdued, he now finds
himself, where, he knows not where-- How like the half
insane mumbling of a fever-dream, is the whole war part of his late message! At
one time telling us that Mexico has nothing whatever, that we can get, but
territory; at another, showing us how we can support the war, by levying
contributions on Mexico-- At one time, urging the national honor, the security
of the future, the prevention of foreign interference, and even, the good of
Mexico herself, as among the objects of the war; at another, that
telling us, that "to reject indemnity by refusing to accept a cession of
teritory, would be to abandon all our just demands, and to wage the war, bearing
all it's expenses, without a purpose or definite object" So then,
the national honor, security of the future, and every thing but teritorial
indemnity, may be considered the no-purposes, and indefinite
objects of the war! But, having it now settled that teritorial indemnity is the
only object, we are urged to seize, by legislation here, all that he was content
to take, a few months ago, and the whole province of lower California to boot,
and to still carry on the war -- to take all we are fighting for, and still
fight on-- Not, when we shall have got enough to square
the books accounts, nor even to give Mexico any account whatever for
it-- Again, the President is resolved, under all circumstances, to have
full teritorial indemnity for the expenses of the war; but he forgets to tell us
how we are to get the excess, after those expenses shall have surpassed
the value of the whole of the Mexican teritory-- So again, he insists
that the separate national existence of Mexico, shall be maintained; but he does
not tell us how this can be done, after we shall have taken all
her territory for indemnity-- Lest the questions, I here
suggest, be considered speculative merely, let me be indulged a moment in trying
show they are not-- The war has gone on some twenty months; for the expenses of
which, together with an inconsiderable old score, the President now claims about
one half of the Mexican teritory; and that, by far the better half, so far as
concerns our making ability to make any thing out of it-- It
is comparatively uninhabited; so that we could establish land offices in it, and
raise some money in that way-- But the other half is already inhabited, as I
understand it, tolerably densely for the nature of the country; and all it's
lands, or all that are valuable, alreadare we remove the
encumbrance? I suppose no one will say we shall should kill the
people, or drive them out, or make slaves of them, or even confiscate their
property-- How then can we make much out of this part of the teritory? If the
prossecution of this war has, in expenses, already equalled the betterspeculative,
but a practical question, pressing closely upon us-- And yet it is a
question that which the President seems to never have thought
of-- As to the mode of terminating the war war, and securing
peace, the President is equally wandering and indefinite-- First, it is to be
done by a more vigourous vigorous prossecution of the war in
the vital parts of the enemies counties, country; and, after
apparantly talking himself tired, on this point, the President drops down into a
half despairing tone, and tells us that "with a people distracted and
divided by contending factions, and a government subject to constant changes, by
successive revolutions, the continued success of our arms may fail to secure
a satisfactory peace" Then he suggests the propriety of wheedling the
Mexican people to desert the counsels of their own leaders, and to adopt
those of ours, and trusting in our protection so to
set up a government from which we can secure a satisfactory peace; telling us at
the end, that "this may become the only mode of obtaining such
a peace." But soon he falls into doubt of this too; and then falls
drops back on to the already half abandoned ground of "more vigorous
prossecution-- All this shows that the President is, in no wise, satisfied with
his own positions-- First he takes up one, and in attempting to argue us into
it, he argues himself out of it; then seizes another, and goes through
the same process; and then, confused at being able to think of nothing further,
new, he snatches up the old one again, which he has some time before cast off-- His
His mind, tasked beyond its power, is running hither and thither, like an
ant on a hot stove some tortured creature, on a burning surface,
finding no position, on which it can settle down, and be at ease--
Again, it is a singular omission in this
message, that it, no where intimates when the President expects the the
war to terminate-- At the it's beginning, of the war,
Genl. Scott5was, by this same President, driven
into disfavor, if not disgrace, for intimating that peace could not be conquered
in less than three or four months-- But now, at the end of about twenty months,
during which time our arms have given us the most splendid successes -- every
department, and every part, land and water, officers and privates, regular and
volunteers, doing all that men could do, and hundreds of things which it
had ever before been thought men could not do, -- at the end of,
after all this, this same President gives us a long message, without showing us,
that, as to the end, he himself has, even an imaginary conception-- As I
have before said, he knows not where he is-- He is a bewildered, confounded, and
miserably perplexed man-- God grant he may be able to show, there is not
something about his conscience more painful than all his mental perplexity!
Note:
Lincoln gave his speech on January 12, 1848 on the floor of the House of
Representatives. This manuscript is a revised draft of the speech, which he
submitted to the Congressional printers for publication in the Congressional
Globe Appendix (the names of printers assigned to set up type for different
parts of the speech are occasionally visible on the document).
Lincoln was initially very proud of this speech, in which he accused President
Polk of conscious wrong-doing in calling for war against Mexico on the grounds
that he did. Lincoln actually proposed to Congress that the place where the
'Treaty' with Mexico was signed be marked, not in commemoration but as a
memorial, as "the spot where the outrage was committed".
Note: Winfield Scott had served in the Army since the War of 1812, and he would be general-in-chief at the outbreak of the Civil War. He was a Whig in politics and thus so suspect of being politically ambitious by the Polk administration as to have been recalled from Mexico a few days before this speech.