The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Complete

A >> Abraham Lincoln >> The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Complete


(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 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 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
treaty--that 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 President--Commander-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 Mississippi--that is, just
across the street, in that direction--whom 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 right--a 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 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
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 motive--what, I will not stop now to give my opinion
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 into it, and was
swept on and on till, disappointed in his calculation of the ease with
which Mexico might be subdued, he now finds himself 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 telling us that "to reject indemnity, by refusing to
accept a cession of territory, would be to abandon all our just demands,
and to wage the war, bearing all its expenses, without a purpose or
definite object." So then this national honor, security of the future,
and everything but territorial indemnity may be considered the
no-purposes and indefinite objects of the war! But, having it now settled
that territorial 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. Again, the
President is resolved under all circumstances to have full territorial
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 territory. 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. Lest the questions I have suggested be considered speculative
merely, let me be indulged a moment in trying to 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 territory, and that by far the better half, so far as
concerns our ability to make anything 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
its lands, or all that are valuable, already appropriated as private
property. How then are we to make anything out of these lands with this
encumbrance on them? or how remove the encumbrance? I suppose no one
would say we should kill the people, or drive them out, or make slaves of
them, or confiscate their property. How, then, can we make much out of
this part of the territory? If the prosecution of the war has in expenses
already equalled the better half of the country, how long its future
prosecution will be in equalling the less valuable half is not a
speculative, but a practical, question, pressing closely upon us. And yet
it is a question which the President seems never to have thought of. As
to the mode of terminating the war and securing peace, the President is
equally wandering and indefinite. First, it is to be done by a more
vigorous prosecution of the war in the vital parts of the enemy's
country; and after apparently 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, trusting in our protestations, to set
up a government from which we can secure a satisfactory peace; telling us
that "this may become the only mode of obtaining such a peace." But soon
he falls into doubt of this too; and then drops back on to the already
half-abandoned ground of "more vigorous prosecution." All this shows that
the President is in nowise 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 new, he snatches up the old
one again, which he has some time before cast off. His mind, taxed beyond
its power, is running hither and thither, like 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 nowhere
intimates when the President expects the war to terminate. At its
beginning, General Scott was 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,
regulars and volunteers, doing all that men could do, and hundreds of
things which it had ever before been thought men could not do--after all
this, this same President gives 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 his mental
perplexity.

The following is a copy of the so-called "treaty" referred to in
the speech:

"Articles of Agreement entered into between his Excellency
David G. Burnet, President of the Republic of Texas, of the one
part, and his Excellency General Santa Anna, President-General-in-Chief
of the Mexican army, of the other part:

"Article I. General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna agrees that
he will not take up arms, nor will he exercise his influence to
cause them to be taken up, against the people of Texas during the
present war of independence.

"Article II. All hostilities between the Mexican and Texan
troops will cease immediately, both by land and water.

"Article III. The Mexican troops will evacuate the territory
of Texas, passing to the other side of the Rio Grande Del Norte.

"Article IV. The Mexican army, in its retreat, shall not
take the property of any person without his consent and just
indemnification, using only such articles as may be necessary for
its subsistence, in cases when the owner may not be present, and
remitting to the commander of the army of Texas, or to the
commissioners to be appointed for the adjustment of such matters,
an account of the value of the property consumed, the place where
taken, and the name of the owner, if it can be ascertained.

"Article V. That all private property, including cattle,
horses, negro slaves, or indentured persons, of whatever
denomination, that may have been captured by any portion of the
Mexican army, or may have taken refuge in the said army, since
the commencement of the late invasion, shall be restored to the
commander of the Texan army, or to such other persons as may be
appointed by the Government of Texas to receive them.

"Article VI. The troops of both armies will refrain from
coming in contact with each other; and to this end the commander
of the army of Texas will be careful not to approach within a
shorter distance than five leagues.

"Article VII. The Mexican army shall not make any other
delay on its march than that which is necessary to take up their
hospitals, baggage, etc., and to cross the rivers; any delay not
necessary to these purposes to be considered an infraction of
this agreement.

"Article VIII. By an express, to be immediately despatched,
this agreement shall be sent to General Vincente Filisola and to
General T. J. Rusk, commander of the Texan army, in order that
they may be apprised of its stipulations; and to this end they
will exchange engagements to comply with the same.

"Article IX. That all Texan prisoners now in the possession
of the Mexican army, or its authorities, be forthwith released,
and furnished with free passports to return to their homes; in
consideration of which a corresponding number of Mexican
prisoners, rank and file, now in possession of the Government of
Texas shall be immediately released; the remainder of the Mexican
prisoners that continue in the possession of the Government of
Texas to be treated with due humanity,--any extraordinary
comforts that may be furnished them to be at the charge of the
Government of Mexico.

"Article X. General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna will be sent
to Vera Cruz as soon as it shall be deemed proper.

"The contracting parties sign this instrument for the abovementioned
purposes, in duplicate, at the port of Velasco, this fourteenth day of
May, 1836.

"DAVID G. BURNET, President,
"JAS. COLLINGSWORTH, Secretary of State,
"ANTONIO LOPEZ DE SANTA ANNA,
"B. HARDIMAN, Secretary of the Treasury,
"P. W. GRAYSON, Attorney-General."




REPORT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
JANUARY 19, 1848.

Mr. Lincoln, from the Committee on the Post-office and Post Roads, made
the following report:

The Committee on the Post-office and Post Roads, to whom was referred the
petition of Messrs. Saltmarsh and Fuller, report: That, as proved to
their satisfaction, the mail routes from Milledgeville to Athens, and
from Warrenton to Decatur, in the State of Georgia (numbered 2366 and
2380), were let to Reeside and Avery at $1300 per annum for the former
and $1500 for the latter, for the term of four years, to commence on the
first day of January, 1835; that, previous to the time for commencing the
service, Reeside sold his interest therein to Avery; that on the 5th of
May, 1835, Avery sold the whole to these petitioners, Saltmarsh and
Fuller, to take effect from the beginning, January a 1835; that at this
time, the Assistant Postmaster-General, being called on for that purpose,
consented to the transfer of the contracts from Reeside and Avery to
these petitioners, and promised to have proper entries of the transfer
made on the books of the department, which, however, was neglected to be
done; that the petitioners, supposing all was right, in good faith
commenced the transportation of the mail on these routes, and after
difficulty arose, still trusting that all would be made right, continued
the service till December a 1837; that they performed the service to the
entire satisfaction of the department, and have never been paid anything
for it except $----; that the difficulty occurred as follows:

Mr. Barry was Postmaster-General at the times of making the contracts and
the attempted transfer of them; Mr. Kendall succeeded Mr. Barry, and
finding Reeside apparently in debt to the department, and these contracts
still standing in the names of Reeside and Avery, refused to pay for the
services under them, otherwise than by credits to Reeside; afterward,
however, he divided the compensation, still crediting one half to
Reeside, and directing the other to be paid to the order of Avery, who
disclaimed all right to it. After discontinuing the service, these
petitioners, supposing they might have legal redress against Avery,
brought suit against him in New Orleans; in which suit they failed, on
the ground that Avery had complied with his contract, having done so much
toward the transfer as they had accepted and been satisfied with. Still
later the department sued Reeside on his supposed indebtedness, and by a
verdict of the jury it was determined that the department was indebted to
him in a sum much beyond all the credits given him on the account above
stated. Under these circumstances, the committee consider the petitioners
clearly entitled to relief, and they report a bill accordingly; lest,
however, there should be some mistake as to the amount which they have
already received, we so frame it as that, by adjustment at the
department, they may be paid so much as remains unpaid for services
actually performed by them not charging them with the credits given to
Reeside. The committee think it not improbable that the petitioners
purchased the right of Avery to be paid for the service from the 1st of
January, till their purchase on May 11, 1835; but, the evidence on this
point being very vague, they forbear to report in favor of allowing it.




TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON--LEGAL WORK

WASHINGTON, January 19, 1848.

DEAR WILLIAM:--Inclosed you find a letter of Louis W. Chandler. What is
wanted is that you shall ascertain whether the claim upon the note
described has received any dividend in the Probate Court of Christian
County, where the estate of Mr. Overbon Williams has been administered
on. If nothing is paid on it, withdraw the note and send it to me, so
that Chandler can see the indorser of it. At all events write me all
about it, till I can somehow get it off my hands. I have already been
bored more than enough about it; not the least of which annoyance is his
cursed, unreadable, and ungodly handwriting.