the writings-2-第6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！



in　the　same　language　in　each　successive　annual　message；　thus

showing　that　he　deems　that　point　a　highly　essential　one。　　In　the

importance　of　that　point　I　entirely　agree　with　the　President。　　To

my　judgment　it　is　the　very　point　upon　which　he　should　be

justified；　or　condemned。　　In　his　message　of　December；　1846；　it

seems　to　have　occurred　to　him；　as　is　certainly　true；　that　title…

ownership…to　soil　or　anything　else　is　not　a　simple　fact；　but　is　a

conclusion　following　on　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。



Accordingly；　a　little　below　the　middle　of　page　twelve　in　the

message　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　thisissue　and　evidenceis　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　Texas　line　and　invaded　the　territory　of　Mexico。〃　　Now　this

issue　is　made　up　of　two　affirmatives　and　no　negative。　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；　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。〃



I　now　proceed　to　examine　the　President's　evidence　as　applicable

to　such　an　issue。　　When　that　evidence　is　analyzed；　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　eastern　boundary。



（3）　That　by　various　acts　she　had　claimed　it　on　paper。



（4）　That　Santa　Anna　in　his　treaty　with　Texas　recognized　the　Rio

Grande　as　her　boundary。



（5）　That　Texas　before；　and　the　United　States　after；　annexation

had　exercised　jurisdiction　beyond　the　Nuecesbetween　the　two

rivers。



（6）　That　our　Congress　understood　the　boundary　of　Texas　to　extend

beyond　the　Nueces。



Now　for　each　of　these　in　its　turn。　　His　first　item　is　that　the

Rio　Grande　was　the　western　boundary　of　Louisiana；　as　we　purchased

it　of　France　in　1803；　and　seeming　to　expect　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　1803　we

sold　to　Spain　the　whole　country　from　the　Rio　Grande　eastward　to

the　Sabine。　　Now；　admitting　for　the　present　that　the　Rio　Grande

was　the　boundary　of　Louisiana；　what　under　heaven　had　that　to　do

with　the　present　boundary　between　us　and　Mexico？　　How；　Mr。

Chairman；　the　line　that　once　divided　your　land　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　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　th