Page:The War with Mexico, Vol 1.djvu/501

472

reconnoitring, destroyed the state of potential harmony, and consequently the state of war that ensued existed by her act. C. J. Ingersoll stated later (Cong. Globe, 29, 2, app., 125) that the language of the preamble was adopted for the purpose of conciliating, not offending, the Whigs; and one can see that it might seem likely to be easier for them to accept the war as an accomplished fact than to vote for a declaration.

8. From what is known of Calhoun's designs (Smith, Annex. of Texas, 209-216) this statement seems reasonable, and it is supported by positive evidence (chap. vi, note 10). 232Calhoun to, Nov. 7, 1846: The triumph of abolitionism at the north would cause disunion, for the southern people are determined to defend their rights.

9. To justify Calhoun's theory the Constitution should have been made to read: "Congress shall have power to declare war, and without such a declaration the United States shall never be at war," which would have been manifestly ridiculous; and the provision in article i, sect. 10, that a state, when in imminent danger, might begin war, should have been cancelled. Doubtless for partisan reasons, Webster (Curtis, Webster, ii, 301) took the same position as Calhoun, saying that Congress could not, "create a fact" — i.e. could not state that war existed before it had declared war. Von Holst on the other hand, in order to face the tolerably evident certainty that we had a legal war with Mexico, says (United States, iii, 253) that Congress made Polk's lie [that war existed] into a fact! Many members of Congress had too little confidence (Calhoun to Thompson: Am. Hist. Rev., i, 314) in their knowledge of the situation to feel positive as to the full justice of the American cause, but this did not affect the validity of their action. Particularly noticeable was the rejection (27 to 97) of Delano's proposition that nothing in the war bill should be construed as approving of the President's conduct in taking armed possession of the intermediate region. Thus a much discussed question was formally raised and formally decided. 132King to Buchanan, June 1.

10. Discussion of the proceedings. (Feeling) 354Welles papers. (Assured) Polk, Diary, May 11, 1846. (Congressmen) Meigs, Benton, 360; Benton, View, ii, 680. Tribune, May 15. Journal of Commerce, July 1, 1847. Weekly Herald, May 16, 1846. (Dissensions) Boston Alas, May 18, 1846; Jameson, Calh. Corresp., 1088 (Harris); Polk, Diary, Apr. 30; 345Polk to Van Buren, Jan. 4; Feb. 22, 25, 1845; 345Wright to V. B., Jan. 17, 1845; 345Butler to Polk, Feb. 27, 1845; 345V. B. to Polk, Feb. 27, 1845; 3458. T. Van Buren to M. V. B., Mar. 2, 3, 4, 1845; 297Cave Johnson to Polk, June 13, 1844; and see chap. xxxiv. (Offices) Polk, Diary, May 10; June 22, 1846, and passim. 210Holmes to Hammond, May 10, 1846. Lalor, Cyclop., iii, 1105. (Whig vote) 260Winthrop, Mex. War Bill, 108; ''Nat. Intelligencer, May 16, 1846; N. Y. Journal of Comm.,'' Dec. 11, 1847; Wheeler, Hist. of Cong., i, 411; Von Holst, U. S., iii, 251. Calhoun to Clemson, Jan. 29, 1846; to A. P. C., May 14; to J. E. C., May 29; to Clemson, July 11; to J. E. C., July 29, in Calhoun Corres., 679, 691, 693-4, 700-1; also 707. 345Welles to Van Buren, July 28, 1846. Polk, Diary, Apr. 18, 21, 1846. Calhoun in Sen., Feb. 24, 1847: Cong. Globe, 29, 2, p. 501. Hunt, Calhoun, 279. Niles, May 16, 1846, p. 162. (Endorsed, etc.) ''Cong. Globe,'' 29, 1, p. 802 (Crittenden). ''Cong. Globe,'' 30, 1, anp., 367 (Stanton). Johnston and Browne, Stephens, 210. 132King to Buchanan, June 1, 1846. Pierce, Sumner, iii, 108, 139. 132Buchanan, memo. Holmes of New York proposed in