which enveloped them gave way, and we discovered our glorious flag waving in the breezes of the capital, and the city itself invested by our army. "If we recorded our history on stone, as was done in the primitive ages of the world, we should engrave this series of glorious deeds upon tables of marble. But we shall do better; we shall engrave it upon our hearts, and we shall commit it to the custody of the press, whose monuments, frail and feeble as they appear, yet from their wonderful power of multiplication, are more enduring than brass or marble, than statues or pyramids, or the proudest monuments erected by human hands. Let it be remembered, sir, that these battles were fought in a great measure by new and undisciplined troops, hastily called at home, and speedily marched to the seat of warfare. By men who had abandoned the duties and comforts of domestic life, and who made war not a trade as in Europe, but a temporary employment in order to defend the interests and honor of their country. And even the small regular army, which existed at the commencement of the war, had seen little active service in the field, and that not with a civilized foe, but in murderous conflicts with Indian tribes, where there was much exposure to meet and little glory to gain. Many of the officers and soldiers, and indeed a great majority of them, and some of their commanders, too, saw the first gun fired in the very field which they illustrated by their deeds, and moistened with their blood, honor, then, to the highest and to the lowest, to the greatest and the least-honor to the living and the dead-those who survive to enjoy it, and to the memory of those who sleep in a soldier's grave, far from the land they loved so well. And happy am I to see upon this floor at this moment, particularly one of the gallant officers, who have inscribed their names high upon the military roll of their country, and there are others like him in this city, who have returned from the campaign in which they distinguished themselves, bearing upon their persons ineffaceable marks of courage and patriotism. A kind Providence has permitted them to come back, and the plaudit of grateful millions" well done good and faithful servants" is the proud welcome which greets them. Let modern philanthropists talk as they please, the instincts of nature are truer than the doctrines they preach. Military renown is one of the elements of national strength, as it is one of the proudest sources of gratification to every man who loves his country and desires to see her occupy a distinguished position, among the nations of the earth. I should have been proud to have been in Europe during our military operations in Mexico-proud to witness the effect of the skill and prowess of our army upon the statesman and politicians and communities of the old world." When it is remembered that the American army was then three thousand miles from home, in the very citadel of the enemy, and surrounded by seven or eight millions of the inhabitants of the country they had invaded, and who would gladly seize the first opportunity to massacre every one of them, it is difficult to conceive how any one can reasonably dissent from the position assumed by Gen. Cass, or consider him too urgent in asking the attention of the Senate to a subject involving such momentous consequences. Yet, the proposition met with powerful opposition from distinguished Senators, and the debate upon it was prolonged through a period of three months. The final vote was taken on the 17th of March, 1848, and the bill passed the Senate, the vote being twenty-nine in favor of its passage and nineteen against it. The origin of the war with Mexico, has been the subject of much difference of opinion; and as an authentic and reliable statement of its origin and commencement, the following extract from the speech of Gen. Cass, delivered March 17th, 1848, in the Senate, is here inserted :- "But it has been said, not in Mexico, but here, that the origin of this war was not in the annexation of Texas, but because we carried her boundary to the Rio Grande, and took possession of the country between the Nueces and that river. Who says this, Mr. President? Not the government or people of Mexico, but citizens of our own country, who find a cause of offence for the enemy, which they have failed to discover for themselves. The Nueces is an American, not a Mexican boundary. The Texas of Mexico was Texas to the Sabine, with no intermediate boundary. In all the communications with the Mexican Government, as I have had occasion to say before, no distinction is made between the Nueces and the Rio Grande. And the occupation by our forces, of the country between these rivers, was never presented as an exclusive cause of complaint, nor indeed noticed in any matter whatever. It was the annexation and occupation of Texas, and not of any particular portion of Texas, which led to the reclamations, and finally to the hostilities of Mexico. It was a question of title, and not of boundary; a claim of right, which went for the whole, and would never be satisfied with the relinquishment of a part. When the act for annexation passed, the Mexican minister in this country immediately protested against that measure; declared it to be just cause of war, and at the same time demanded his passports, and left the country. And the supreme Government of Mexico, in March, 1846, informed Mr. Slidell, that it looked upon "annexation as a casus belli; and, as a consequence of this declaration, negotiation was, by its very nature, at an end, and war was the only recourse of the Mexican Government." And, in conformity with these views, forces were collected on the Rio Grande, in order that Mexico might take the "initiative" in hostilities against us, to borrow the expression of General Paredes in his orders to the commanding general. And, sir, these warnings and threatenings were no vain declarations. Mexico said what she would do, and she did as she said. She declared to us, that if we annexed Texas she would go to war. We annexed Texas, and she went to As early as April, 1846, and before the movement of General Taylor could have been known in Mexico, her President directed the general upon the frontier to "attack" our army by every means, which war permits. war. Who, then, sir, has a right to say, what the Mexican Government has never said that they went to war, not because we annexed Texas, but because we took possession of the country west of the Nueces? In all the diplomatic correspondence between the two Governments, there is no allusion to that river, nor is any greater claim advanced to one of its banks, than to the other. Why, then, when our country is summoned to trial at the bar of the public opinion of the world, why should the American Senate swell the catalogue of an enemy's grievances, and make out a better case for Mexico than she has made for herself? In our endeavor to do right to others, let us not do wrong to ourselves. Let us distrust our own judgment, when we find ourselves inclined to take a more favorable view of the cause of Mexico, than she has taken for herself. Let us yield to justice what we refuse to patriotism. There is no want of shrewdness in Mexican statesmen. They have made the best of their own case; and if they have omitted the passage of the Nueces in the catalogue of their wrongs, we may be sure it was no special wrong in their eyes; and that it was not because we crossed that river, but because we entered Texas, that our enemy attacked us, and thus commenced the war. What judgment, then, are we to pronounce upon the measures, which were directed to be taken by the President, previously to the commencement of the war by Mexico? This question is in fact a double one, involving two considerations: one, affecting our relations with other countries, and the other our own institutions only. The former touches our character and conduct before the nations of the earth, while the latter relates only to ourselves. This war was commenced by Mexico, that is, Mexico first attacked our troops; but I agree, that if we pushed an armed force within the Mexican frontier without cause, that measure throws on us the guilt of this war. How stands this matter? 1. It seems now to be generally agreed on all hands, that the mere annexation of Texas gave to Mexico no just cause of war, and it follows, that if its boundaries extended to the Rio Grande, then we did only what we had a right to do in marching our forces to that river, and are not responsible for results. Both of these points I have noticed, and the last has been conclusively established by the excellent views taken of the title of Texas by the Senators, to whom I have referred. 2. If the title to the country from the Nueces to the Rio Grande was in dispute between the parties-and I believe no one here has ventured to deny, that we had some well founded claims to it—and Mexico was preparing to take possession of it, we had a right to anticipate her, and thus to assert our own title. 3. But taking the strongest ground against ourselves, that we had no title whatever to the Rio Grande, still we had a right to go there, if we considered such a measure necessary to our defence, and if the preparations of Mexico announced a design to attack us. Did they announce such a determination? No one here, sir, will deny that fact. I shall not detain the Senate with the various proofs, spread through the history of our intercommunication with Mexico, from the first suggestion respecting annexation, till her army crossed the Rio Grande in order of battle. The protest of her minister here-the declaration of her Government-its formal annunciation to the European diplomatic agents accredited to itthe public order of its generals, and the collection and movement of its forces, left no doubt of its designs, and if they had, the result would have disclosed them. The movement of our troops, under these circumstances, became a defensive measure; for, as has been well remarked by the honorable Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. BUTLER,] it is not necessary for the justification of a nation, that it should await an impending attack. That power, in fact, commences the war, which makes the first threatening preparations for it, and not the one, which merely strikes the first stroke. If a government collects its forces, marches them to its frontier, and makes public preparations for passing it, and thus for war, at the same time openly avowing its determination to commence it, both the reason of mankind and the usage of nations, authorize the people, whose peace is thus threatened, to anticipate their adversary, and to repel the threatened attack, by an attack of their own. This course is strictly defensive, and modern history abounds with examples illustrative of the principle. So much for the question between us and Mexico, as to the commencement of the war. As to the internal question relating to the conduct of the President, it admits of but one answer. That cases may occur, in which it is his duty, under his constitutional power, to repel an actual or threatened invasion before Congress can act upon the subject, no one can doubt; and for myself, I could never see any just constitutional or legal objections to the course he pursued in this whole affair. But there is one other consideration, which is decisive, and that is, that the orders for the movement of the troops to the Rio Grande were given by the President on the 13th of January, 1846, and thirteen days before that, an act of Congress had been passed recognizing our jurisdiction west of the Nueces. It was the duty of the Executive to carry it into effect, and thus consider the boundary of Texas, as extended beyond that river. As the "initiative" was taken by our adversary, we took the defensive, and the attack being inevitable, it was for us to choose where to receive it. Such, I repeat, is the law of nations, and such the practice of nations. CHAPTER XIV. APPROPRIATIONS for Improvement of Rivers and Harbors- Difficulties surrounding the question of the right of Congress to make such appropriation s-Gen. Cass' opinions on that subject-He sustains the position of Gen. Jack sonProceedings in the Senate-Remarks and Vote of Gen. Cass-Further remarks -Chicago Convention-Its object--Foresight of Gen. Cass in anticipating the results of that Convention-His letter declining an invitation to attend it-Unjust and unfounded inferences drawn from the letter-Gen. Cass' exposition of his views on the Constitutional right of Congress to make Appropriations for the Improvement of Rivers and Harbors, delivered in the Senate, March, 1851. The subject of appropriating public money for the improvement of our North-western rivers and harbors is one which is of the first importance to a large and constantly increasing portion of the people of the United States. Unfortunately, owing to the variety of interests which the extent of our country has created, this question has become involved with other measures of public expenditure, not necessarily or naturally connected with it. The constitutional right of Congress to appropriate the money of the United States, for the improvement of our rivers and harbors on our lakes, has been designedly connected with the question of the right of that body to commence and prosecute a general system of internal improvement, so that those who are of the opinion that the constitutional right exists in the former case, while it does not in the latter, are compelled, by the peculiar mode of legislation which has obtained in regard to bills authorizing appropriations of public money for river and harbor improvements, to oppose the system entirely as it is presented to them. If the sole question were the expenditure of the amount, upon localities having a national position in the trade and commerce of the country, it is apprehended that there would be few who would oppose it. But when an expenditure, clearly right and proper, palpably authorized by the constitution, and national in its use, is so identified with and made dependent upon one just as clearly wrong and unauthorized as the other is right, that the one cannot be obtained without the other, the friends of the former are forced by constitutional obliga |