be a war not merely of interest, but of strong and stormy passions, growing out of the relative situation of the two nations, and out of the very points of resemblance, which will but render the separation of the parties the wider, and the struggle the longer and the bitterer. It will do no good to shut our eyes to the prospect before us. Danger can neither be averted nor avoided by indifference, nor by presumption. Let us look our difficulties and our duties fully in the face. Let us make preparation adequate to the conjuncture. Let us exhibit to England and to Europe the spectacle of an undivided people, anxious for peace, but ready for war. In the language of Mr. Madison, "let us put the United States into an armor, and an attitude demanded by the crisis, and corresponding with the national spirit and expectation."

One war has already found us unprepared. And what that condition of things cost in blood, and treasure, and disaster, those of us who went through the struggle can well remember; and those who have come upon the stage of action since that period, may learn from the history of the times. And, perhaps to a certain extent, this must be so, and always will be so. We are all opposed to great military establishments in time of peace. They are as dangerous as they are expensive. And they will therefore never be engrafted into the permanent institutions of the country. But when war threatens, we should commence our preparations, and press them with an energy and a promptitude commensurate with the danger.

The President has discharged his duty ably, patriotically, fearlessly. Let us now discharge ours-not by words merely, but by deeds. The best support we can give him is to respond to his declarations by our actions. It is my firm conviction, and I do not hesitate thus publicly to avow it, that the best, if not the only hope that we have of avoiding a war with England, is by exhibiting a public and united determination to prosecute it, should it come, with all the energies that God has given us, and by an instant and serious consideration of the preparations necessary for such offensive and defensive measures as may be required, and as prompt an adoption of them as a just regard to circumstances may demand. Our country is extensive. In many portions of it the population is sparse. The frontier, both Atlantic and inland, is long and exposed.

Our defensive works are unfinished, and some of them are unfurnished. I do not know, but I fear that many important branches of supply are inadequate. Our navy, and especially the steam portion of it, is not upon a scale commensurate with our wants, if war is almost upon us. That navy fought itself into favor, and its country into honor, in the seemingly unequal and almost desperate struggle into which it so gallantly went in the last war. And another contest would find it equally true to its duty, and to the public expectations. I trust the time will never again come, when it will be a question in a great crisis, whether the navy shall be dis

mantled and rot in our docks, or whether it shall be sent out to gather another harvest of glory upon the ocean. It is the materiel for military and naval operations it is first necessary to procure. Men we have ready; and such is the patriotism inherent in the American character, that they never will be found wanting in the hour of difficulty and of danger. Our militia requires a new and an efficient organization. It is a reproach to us that we have suffered this important branch of national defence to become so inefficient. It has almost disappeared from the public view. Both the laws upon this subject and the administratian of them, require immediate and severe examination; for this is one of the great bulwarks of the country in the hour of danger. It has shown its patriotism and valor upon many a bloody field, and the future, if it should need its services, will witness its devotion to the country, whenever and wherever and however it may be tried. Many of the supplies required for the operations of war, demand time and care for their collection and preparation; and we must remember that we have to do with a people whose arsenals and dock yards are filled to repletion; whose supplies are upon a scale equal to any probable demand upon them; whose gigantic military and naval establishments announce their power and maintain it; and the structure of whose Government is better fitted than ours for prompt and vigorous and offensive action.

It is in the spirit of these views that I have submitted the resolutions before the Senate, and in which I ask their concurrence.

A great responsibility is upon us. We shall best discharge it by firmness, and by a wise forecast, which, while it steadily surveys the danger, makes adequate provision to meet it. By thus acting, we shall give a practical approbation of the course of the President; we shall show to our constituents that their interests are safe in our hands; we shall speak neither in a deprecating tone, nor in a tone of defiance, but of firmness, to England; and we shall give to the nations of Europe a proof that Republics are as jealous of their rights and honor, and as determined to maintain them, as monarchical governments.

The resolutions were unanimously adopted.

CHAPTER XIII.

The Slavery question-Position of Gen. Cass-The Wilmot Proviso and Mexican War-Remarks of Gen. Cass in the Senate, February 10th, 1847, on the appropriation of three millions to bring the war with Mexico to a close-His remarks on voting against the adoption of the Wilmot Proviso-Gen. Cass' letter to A. O. P. Nicholson, of Tennessee-His desire for a vigorous prosecution of the war-Tribute of praise to the Army in Mexico-Origin of the war.

THE position of Gen. Cass in regard to the Slavery question, has been objected to by some of his democratic friends and by his political opponents, as inconsistent with his relations to the northern portion of the Union. His decided opposition to what is so well known as the "Wilmot Proviso," so far as its application was attempted in Congress in the creation of territorial governments, and in relation to the particular time when the attempt was made, has rendered him the most conspicuous among statesmen, against whom the friends and supporters of the proviso have arrayed themselves. The principle of this celebrated proviso, which has caused so great excitement and agitation throughout the United States for the past five years, was first introduced in the House of Representatives by a member from Massachusetts, (Hon. Mr. Winthrop) and applied to the Oregon bill. Subsequently, when war existed between the United States and Mexico, the President, desirous of terminating speedily and honorably, hostilities between the two nations, recommended Congress to authorize the expenditure of a sum of money necessary to accomplish that object. The chief obstacle in the way of an arrangement, was the settlement of a boundary line between the two Republics; an adjustment of which might probably require some concession on the part of Mexico, for which an equivalent in money would be acceptable. For the purpose indicated by the President, a bill was introduced in the House of Representatives in August, 1846, placing at the disposal of the Executive two millions of dollars. During the discussion of this bill, which was just at the close of the session, Mr.

Wilmot, Representative from Pennsylvania, offered the following as an amendment to the bill:

66

Provided, That, as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, by virtue of any treaty which may be negotiated between them, and to the use by the Executive of the moneys herein appropriated, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory, except for crime, whereof the party shall first be duly convicted."

The bill passed the House with this amendment on the 8th of August, 1846, the vote being eighty-seven in the affirmative and fifty-four in the negative. The bill was then sent to the Senate, and on Monday, August 10th, was, on motion of Senator Lewis, of Alabama, taken up for consideration. Mr. Lewis moved to strike from the bill the proviso which had been adopted in the House. This motion provoked a debate which did not terminate in time to allow a vote to be taken on the bill, (Hon. Senator Davis, of Massachusetts, occupying the remainder of the session in opposition to the bill and motion of Mr. Lewis,) before the time. of the final adjournment of Congress arrived. As no vote was taken, it is not known what would have been the fate of the bill in the Senate, although in secret session before the introduction of the bill in the House, thirty-three Senators approved of the appropriation; but the proviso was not then incorporated in it.

At the subsequent session of Congress, the President renewed the recommendation of his special message of the previous session. Action thereon was had in Congress, and when the bill making a special appropriation of three millions to bring the war with Mexico to a speedy and honorable conclusion, came up for consideration in the Senate. Gen. Cass supported the appropriation, and in the course of his speech reviewed the relations between the two countries, the peculiar character of the war, and the propriety of legislating in regard to it, as the President recommended.

The following extracts are taken from a speech of Gen. Cass, delivered February 10th, 1847:

"We are at war with Mexico, brought on by her injustice. Before peace is established, we have a right to require a reasonable indemnity, either pecuniary or territorial, or both, for the injuries we have sustained. Such a compensation is just in itself, and in

One memorable When the allies en

strict accordance with the usages of nations. proof of this has passed in our own times. tered Paris, after the overthrow of Napoleon, they compelled the French Government to pay them an indemnity of fifteen hundred millions of francs, equal to three hundred millions of dollars. In the condition of Mexico, there is no disposition in this country to ask of her an unreasonable sacrifice. On the contrary, the wish is everywhere prevalent, and I am sure the Government participate in it, that we should demand less than we are entitled to. No one proposes a rigid standard, by which the indemnity shall be measured. But there are certain territorial acquisitions, which are important to us, and whose cession cannot injure Mexico, as she never can hold them permanently. We are willing, after settling the indemnity satisfactorily, to pay for the excess in money. The Senator from South Carolina has stated the proposition very distinctly, any excess on our part we are willing to meet, as we ought, by the necessary payment to Mexico.'"

6

"It is now objected to, as an immoral proposition, a kind of bribery, either of the Government of Mexico, or of its Commanding General; and the honorable Senator from Maryland, who is not now in his seat, said emphatically and solemnly, 'that this project of terminating the war by dismembering a sister republic, is so revolting to my moral sense of propriety, honor and justice, that I should see my arms palsied by my side, rather than agree to it.' The dismemberment' of which the honorable member speaks, is previously defined by himself. That is the term he gives the acquisition, but I call it purchase. He says the money will go to Santa Anna and pay the army, which will thus be secured, and the poor 'downtrodden' people be transferred to this country in spite of themselves,' in consequence of this 'pouring of gifts into the hands of their tyrants.'

66

Now, sir, there is no such proposition, as I understand it, nor anything like it. The object of the President has been distinctly stated by himself. It is to have the money ready, and if a satisfactory treaty is signed and ratified, then to make a payment into the treasury of Mexico, which will be disposed of by the Government of that country, agreeably to its own laws. The propositions, both at the last session of Congress and at this, were identical. The difference in the phraseology of the appropriation has been satisfactorily explained by the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and seems to me of very little consequence. Be that as it may, it is not a subject which can produce of itself any practical difficulty. For if there is any member of the Senate, who is willing to vote for the appropriation in the form in which it was presented last year, and is unwilling to vote for it in this, the Committee on Foreign Relations will cheerfully assent to the substitution of the latter for the former."

"As to the idea, that such an arrangement is something like bribery, it seems to me it will not bear the slightest investigation.