Page:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 5).djvu/77

Rh accordance with Gen. Taylor's suggestion, ordered a forward movement, in obedience to which that officer advanced from his camp at Corpus Christi toward the Rio Grande, and occupied tin- district in debate. Thus brought face to face with Mexican troops, he was attacked early in May with 0.000 men by Gen. Arista, who was badly beaten at Palo Alto with less than half that number. The next day Taylor attacked Arista at Resaea de la Palina, anil drove him across the Rio Grande.

On receipt of the news of thesr events in Washing- ton, President Polk sent a message to congress, in which he declared that .Mexican troops had at last shed the blood of American citizens on American soil, and asked for a formal declaration of war. A bill was accordingly introduced and passed by both houses, recognizing the fact that hostilities had been begun, and appropriating $10,000,000 for its prosecution. Its preamble read as follows : " Whereas, by the act of the republic of Mexico, a state of war exists between that government and the United States." The Whigs protested against this statement as untrue, alleging that the president had provoked retaliatory action by ordering the army into Mexican territory, and Abraham Lincoln introduced in the house of representatives what be- came known as the " spot resolutions," calling upon the president to designate the spot of American territory whereon the outrage had been committed. Nevertheless, the Whigs voted for the bill and gen- erally supported the war until its conclusion. On 8 Aug. a second message was received from the president, asking for money with which to pur- chase territory from Mexico, that the dispute might be settled by negotiation. A bill appropriating $2,000,000 for this purpose at once brought up the question of slavery extension into new territory, and David Wilmot. of Pennsylvania, in behalf of many northern Democrats, offered an amendment applying to any newly acquired territory the pro- vision of the ordinance of 1781, to the effect that " neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory except for crime, whereof the party shall first be duly con- vieted." The Whigs and northern Democrats united secured its passage, but it was sent to the senate too late to be acted upon.

During the same session war with England re- garding the Oregon question seemed imminent. Bv the treaties of 1803 with France, and of 1819 with Spain, the United States had acquired the rights of those powers on the Pacific coast north of California. The northern boundary of the ceded territory was unsettled. The United States claimed that the line of ."i4 4(1 north latitude was such boundary, while Great Britain maintained that it followed the Columbia river. By the convention of 1827 the disputed territory had been held joint- ly by both countries, the arrangement being ter- minable by either country on twelve months' no- tice. The Democratic convention of 1844 had de- manded the reoccupation of the whole of Oregon up to 54 40', " with or without war with Eng- land." a demand popularly summarized in the campaign rallying-cry of " Fifty -four -forty or fight ! " The annexation of Texas having been ac- complished, the Whigs now began to urge the Demoi-raN to carry out their promise regarding Oregon, and, against the votes of the extreme southern Democrats, the president was directed to give the requisite twelve months' notice. Further negotiations ensued, which resulted in the offer by Great Britain to yield her claim to the unoccupied territory between the 49th parallel and Columbia river, and acknowledge that parallel as the north- ern boundary. As the president had subscribed to the platform of the Baltimore con vention, he threw upon ilie senate the responsibility of deciding whether the claim of the United States to the whole of Oregon should be insisted upon, or the compromise proposed by her majesty's government accepted. The senate, by a vote of 41 to 14, de- cided in favor of the latter alternative, and on 15 June,184(j, the treaty was signed.

Two other important questions were acted upon at the first session of the 39th congress, the tariff and internal improvements. The former had been a leading issue in the presidential contest of 1844. The act of 1842 had violated the principles of the compromise bill of 1833, and the opinions of the two candidates for the presidency, on this issue, were supposed to be well defined previous to the termination of their congressional career. Mr. Polk was committed to the policy of a tariff for revenue, and Mr. Clay, when the compromise act was under discussion, had pledged the party favorable to protection to a reduction of the imports

to a revenue standard. Previous to his nomination, Mr. Clay made a speech at Raleigh, N. C., in which he advocated discriminating duties for the protection of domestic industry. This was followed by his letter in September, 1844. in which he gave in his adhesion to the tariff of 1842. Probably alarmed at the prospect of losing votes at the south through his opposition to the annexa- tion of Texas, and seeing, defeat certain unless he could rally to his support the people of the north, Mr. Clay made one concession after another, until he had virtually abandoned the ground he occu- pied in 1833, and made himself amenable to his own rebuke uttered at that time: "Whatman." he had then asked, " who is entitled to deserve the character of an American statesman, would stand up in his place in either house of congress and disturb the treaty of peace and amity?" Mr. Polk, on the other hand, had courted criticism by his Kane letter, dated 19 June, 1844, which was so ambiguously worded as to give ground for the charge that his position was identical with that held by Henry Clay. In his first annual message, however, he explained his views with precision and ability. The principles that would govern his administration were proclaimed with great boldness, and the objectionable features of the tariff of 1842 were investigated and exposed, while congress was urged to substitute ad valorem for specific and minimum duties. The terms ' protection to American industry.'" he went on to say, "are of popular import, but they should apply under a jn-t system to all the various branches of industry in our country. The farmer, or planter, who toils yearly in his fields, is engaged in domestic industry.' and is as much entitled to have his labor ' protected ' as the manufacturer, the man of commerce, the navigator, or the mechanic, who are