The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Volume 2

A >> Abraham Lincoln >> The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Volume 2


And whereas, This House is desirous to obtain a full knowledge of all the
facts which go to establish whether the particular spot on which the
blood of our citizens was so shed was or was not at that time our own
soil: therefore,

Resolved, By the House of Representatives, that the President of the
United States be respectfully requested to inform this House:

First. Whether the spot on which the blood of our citizens was shed, as
in his message declared, was or was not within the territory of Spain, at
least after the treaty of 1819, until the Mexican revolution.

Second. Whether that spot is or is not within the territory which was
wrested from Spain by the revolutionary government of Mexico.

Third. Whether that spot is or is not within a settlement of people,
which settlement has existed ever since long before the Texas revolution,
and until its inhabitants fled before the approach of the United States
army.

Fourth. Whether that settlement is or is not isolated from any and all
other settlements by the Gulf and the Rio Grande on the south and west,
and by wide uninhabited regions on the north and east.

Fifth. Whether the people of that settlement, or a majority of them, or
any of them, have ever submitted themselves to the government or laws of
Texas or of the United States, by consent or by compulsion, either by
accepting office, or voting at elections, or paying tax, or serving on
juries, or having process served upon them, or in any other way.

Sixth. Whether the people of that settlement did or did not flee from the
approach of the United States army, leaving unprotected their homes and
their growing crops, before the blood was shed, as in the message stated;
and whether the first blood, so shed, was or was not shed within the
inclosure of one of the people who had thus fled from it.

Seventh. Whether our citizens, whose blood was shed, as in his message
declared, were or were not, at that time, armed officers and soldiers,
sent into that settlement by the military order of the President, through
the Secretary of War.

Eighth. Whether the military force of the United States was or was not so
sent into that settlement after General Taylor had more than once
intimated to the War Department that, in his opinion, no such movement
was necessary to the defence or protection of Texas.




REMARKS IN THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

JANUARY 5, 1848.

Mr. Lincoln said he had made an effort, some few days since, to obtain
the floor in relation to this measure [resolution to direct
Postmaster-General to make arrangements with railroad for carrying the
mails--in Committee of the Whole], but had failed. One of the objects he
had then had in view was now in a great measure superseded by what had
fallen from the gentleman from Virginia who had just taken his seat. He
begged to assure his friends on the other side of the House that no
assault whatever was meant upon the Postmaster-General, and he was glad
that what the gentleman had now said modified to a great extent the
impression which might have been created by the language he had used on a
previous occasion. He wanted to state to gentlemen who might have
entertained such impressions, that the Committee on the Post-office was
composed of five Whigs and four Democrats, and their report was
understood as sustaining, not impugning, the position taken by the
Postmaster-General. That report had met with the approbation of all the
Whigs, and of all the Democrats also, with the exception of one, and he
wanted to go even further than this. [Intimation was informally given Mr.
Lincoln that it was not in order to mention on the floor what had taken
place in committee.] He then observed that if he had been out of order in
what he had said he took it all back so far as he could. He had no
desire, he could assure gentlemen, ever to be out of order--though he
never could keep long in order.

Mr. Lincoln went on to observe that he differed in opinion, in the
present case, from his honorable friend from Richmond [Mr. Botts]. That
gentleman, had begun his remarks by saying that if all prepossessions in
this matter could be removed out of the way, but little difficulty would
be experienced in coming to an agreement. Now, he could assure that
gentleman that he had himself begun the examination of the subject with
prepossessions all in his favor. He had long and often heard of him, and,
from what he had heard, was prepossessed in his favor. Of the
Postmaster-General he had also heard, but had no prepossessions in his
favor, though certainly none of an opposite kind. He differed, however,
with that gentleman in politics, while in this respect he agreed with the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Botts], whom he wished to oblige whenever it
was in his power. That gentleman had referred to the report made to the
House by the Postmaster-General, and had intimated an apprehension that
gentlemen would be disposed to rely, on that report alone, and derive
their views of the case from that document alone. Now it so happened that
a pamphlet had been slipped into his [Mr. Lincoln's] hand before he read
the report of the Postmaster-General; so that, even in this, he had begun
with prepossessions in favor of the gentleman from Virginia.

As to the report, he had but one remark to make: he had carefully
examined it, and he did not understand that there was any dispute as to
the facts therein stated the dispute, if he understood it, was confined
altogether to the inferences to be drawn from those facts. It was a
difference not about facts, but about conclusions. The facts were not
disputed. If he was right in this, he supposed the House might assume the
facts to be as they were stated, and thence proceed to draw their own
conclusions.

The gentleman had said that the Postmaster-General had got into a
personal squabble with the railroad company. Of this Mr. Lincoln knew
nothing, nor did he need or desire to know anything, because it had
nothing whatever to do with a just conclusion from the premises. But the
gentleman had gone on to ask whether so great a grievance as the present
detention of the Southern mail ought not to be remedied. Mr. Lincoln
would assure the gentleman that if there was a proper way of doing it, no
man was more anxious than he that it should be done. The report made by
the committee had been intended to yield much for the sake of removing
that grievance. That the grievance was very great there was no dispute in
any quarter. He supposed that the statements made by the gentleman from
Virginia to show this were all entirely correct in point of fact. He did
suppose that the interruptions of regular intercourse, and all the other
inconveniences growing out of it, were all as that gentleman had stated
them to be; and certainly, if redress could be rendered, it was proper it
should be rendered as soon as possible. The gentleman said that in order
to effect this no new legislative action was needed; all that was
necessary was that the Postmaster-General should be required to do what
the law, as it stood, authorized and required him to do.

We come then, said Mr. Lincoln, to the law. Now the Postmaster-General
says he cannot give to this company more than two hundred and
thirty-seven dollars and fifty cents per railroad mile of transportation,
and twelve and a half per cent. less for transportation by steamboats. He
considers himself as restricted by law to this amount; and he says,
further, that he would not give more if he could, because in his
apprehension it would not be fair and just.




1848
DESIRE FOR SECOND TERM IN CONGRESS
TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON.

WASHINGTON, January 8, 1848.

DEAR WILLIAM:--Your letter of December 27 was received a day or two ago.
I am much obliged to you for the trouble you have taken, and promise to
take in my little business there. As to speech making, by way of getting
the hang of the House I made a little speech two or three days ago on a
post-office question of no general interest. I find speaking here and
elsewhere about the same thing. I was about as badly scared, and no worse
as I am when I speak in court. I expect to make one within a week or two,
in which I hope to succeed well enough to wish you to see it.

It is very pleasant to learn from you that there are some who desire that
I should be reelected. I most heartily thank them for their kind
partiality; and I can say, as Mr. Clay said of the annexation of Texas,
that "personally I would not object" to a reelection, although I thought
at the time, and still think, it would be quite as well for me to return
to the law at the end of a single term. I made the declaration that I
would not be a candidate again, more from a wish to deal fairly with
others, to keep peace among our friends, and to keep the district from
going to the enemy, than for any cause personal to myself; so that if it
should so happen that nobody else wishes to be elected, I could not
refuse the people the right of sending me again. But to enter myself as a
competitor of others, or to authorize any one so to enter me is what my
word and honor forbid.

I got some letters intimating a probability of so much difficulty amongst
our friends as to lose us the district; but I remember such letters were
written to Baker when my own case was under consideration, and I trust
there is no more ground for such apprehension now than there was then.
Remember I am always glad to receive a letter from you.

Most truly your friend,
A. LINCOLN.




SPEECH ON DECLARATION OF WAR ON MEXICO

SPEECH IN THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
JANUARY 12, 1848.

MR CHAIRMAN:--Some if not all the gentlemen on the other side of the
House who have 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 remedied, 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 that point, at least till
the war should be ended. Some leading 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 indorsement 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 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
sixty-seven 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] at a very early day in the
session brought in a set of resolutions expressly indorsing the original
justice of the war on the part of the President. Upon these resolutions
when they shall be put on their passage I shall be compelled to vote; so
that I cannot be silent if I would. Seeing this, I went about preparing
myself to give the vote understandingly when it should come. I carefully
examined the President's message, to ascertain what he himself had said
and proved upon the point. The result of this examination was to make the
impression that, taking for true all the President states as facts, he
falls far short of proving his justification; and that the President
would have gone further 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 how I reached the conclusion I
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 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 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
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 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 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.