of slavery by the amendment which he had introduced; that he (Mr. S.) regarded the agitation of that subject as premature, and not properly connected with the appropriation asked for at this time. If this amendment should be adopted, he would be constrained to vote against the bill. He feared it was offered to defeat the appropriation. He regretted the factious opposition manifested...

Mr. McKAY withdrew the bill moved by him, and submitted a modified proposition, as follows:

Whereas a state of war now exists between the United States and the Republic of Mexico, which it is desirable should be speedily terminated upon terms just and honorable to both nations: And whereas assurances have heretofore been given to the Government of Mexico that it was the desire of the President to settle all questions between the two countries on the most liberal and satisfactory terms, according to the rights of each and the mutual interests and security of the two countries: And whereas the President may be able to conclude a treaty of peace with the Republic of Mexico prior to the next session of Congress, if means for that object are at his disposal: And whereas, in the adjustment of so many complicated questions as now exist between the two countries, it may possibly happen that an expenditure of money will be called for by the stipulations of any treaty which may be entered into: Therefore,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the sum of thirty thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, to enable the President to enter upon negotiations for the restoration of peace with Mexico, whenever it shall be in his power to do so.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the sum of two millions of dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, to enable the President to conclude a treaty of peace with the Republic of Mexico, to be used by him in the event that said treaty, when signed by the authorized agents of the two Governments, and being ratified by Mexico, shall call for the expenditure of the same, or any part thereof, full and accurate accounts for which expenditure shall be by him transmitted to Congress at as early a day as practicable.

Mr. WILMOT moved an amendment, to add at the end of Mr. MCKAY'S modified bill the following:

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.

Mr. WICK moved to amend the amendment by inserting therein. after the word "territory," the words "north of 36° 30′ north latitude."

The amendment to the amendment was disagreed tonoes 89.

ayes 54, The question recurring on the original amendment of Mr. WILMOT, tellers were asked and ordered; and, the question being taken, it was decided in the affirmative ayes 83, noes 64.

So the amendment was adopted.

And the question being on the passage of the bill,

Mr. BRINKERHOFF demanded the previous question; which was seconded, and the main question was ordered.

Mr. HOPKINS demanded the yeas and nays; which were refused. Tellers were then called for and refused.

And the question, "Shall this bill pass?" being taken, by division of the House, was decided in the affirmative- ayes 87, noes 64. So the bill was passed.

137. THE WHIGS AND THE MEXICAN WAR

In great measure for reasons of supposed party expediency, the Whigs in Congress elected to oppose the Mexican War, condemning Polk's administration in the harshest terms for having entered into it. Polk, himself, considered such opposition purely factious. The following speeches, made on February 11 and 12 of 1847, state the causes for the opposition of the Northern and Southern Whigs. Corwin and Stephens were respectively from Ohio and Georgia.

Congressional Globe, Vol. 16, Appendix, pp. 237-246, 395–399. MR. CORWIN said:

... Mr. President, it is a fearful responsibility we have assumed; engaged in flagrant, desolating war with a neighboring republic, to us

thirty millions of God's creatures look up for that moderated wisdom which, if possible, may stay the march of misery and restore to them, if it may be so, mutual feelings of good will with all the best blessings of peace.

... The President, without asking the consent of Congress, involves us in war, and the majority here, without reference to the justice or necessity of the war, call upon us to grant men and money at the pleasure of the President, who they say is charged with the duty of carrying on the war and responsible for its result. If we grant the means thus demanded the President can carry forward this war for any end or from any motive without limit of time or place.

...I looked to the President's account of it, and he tells me that it was a war for the defense of the territory of the United States. I found it written in that message, Mr. President, that this war was not sought nor forced upon Mexico by the people of the United States... Sir, I know that the people of the United States neither sought nor forced Mexico into this war, and yet I know that the President of the United States, with the command of your standing Army, did seek that war, and that he forced war upon Mexico...

...how will it be pretended that that country lying between the Nueces and the Del Norte, to which your Army was ordered and of which it took possession, was subject to Texan law and not Mexican law?.. Do you hear of any... Anglo-Saxon making cotton there with their negroes? No; you hear of Mexicans residing peacefully there, but fleeing from their cotton-fields at the approach of your Army... If there were a Texas population on the east bank of the Rio Grande why did not General Taylor hear something of those Texans hailing the advent of the American Army, coming to protect them from the ravages of the Mexicans and the more murderous onslaught of the neighboring savages?

Do you hear anything of that? No! On the contrary, the population fled at the approach of your Army. In God's name I wish to know if it has come to this, that when an American army goes to protect American citizens on American territory they flee from it as if from the most barbarous enemy? Yet such is the ridiculous assumption of those

who pretend that on the east bank of the Rio Grande where your arms took possession there were Texas population, Texas power, Texas laws, and American (United States) power and law...

... What is the territory, Mr. President, which you propose to wrest from Mexico? It is consecrated to the heart of the Mexican by many a well-fought battle with his old Castilian master. His Bunker Hills and Saratogas and Yorktowns are there! The Mexican can say, "There I bled for liberty; and shall I surrender that consecrated home of my affections to the Anglo-Saxon invaders? What do they want with it? .. The Senator from Michigan says he must have this. Why, my worthy Christian brother, on what principle of justice? "I want room! "

Sir, look at this pretense of want of room. With twenty million people you have about one thousand million acres of land, inviting settlement by every conceivable argument, bringing them down to a quarter of a dollar an acre, and allowing every man to squat where he pleases. But the Senator from Michigan says we will be two hundred millions in a few years, and we want room. If I were a Mexican I would tell you, "Have you not room in your own country to bury your dead men? If you come into mine we will greet you with bloody hands and welcome you to hospitable graves."

Why, says the chairman of this Committee on Foreign Relations, it is the most reasonable thing in the world. We ought to have the Bay of San Francisco. Why? Because it is the best harbor on the Pacific! It has been my fortune, Mr. President, to have practiced a good deal in criminal courts in the course of my life, but I never yet heard a thief arraigned for stealing a horse plead that it was the best horse that he could find in the country! We want California? What for? Why, says the Senator from Michigan, we will have it; and the Senator from South Carolina, with a very mistaken view, I think, of policy, says you cannot keep our people from going there. I do not desire to prevent them. Let them go and seek their happiness in whatever country or clime it pleases them. All I ask of them is not to require this Government to protect them with that banner consecrated to war waged for principles; eternal, enduring truth... But you still say you want room for your people. This has been the plea of every robber chief from Nimrod to the present hour. I dare say when Tamerlane descended from his throne built of seventy thousand human skulls, and marched his ferocious battalions to further slaughter, I dare say he said, "I want room.".. Alexander, too, the mighty "Macedonian madman," when

he wandered with his Greeks to the plains of India, and fought a bloody battle on the very ground where recently England and the Sikhs engaged in strife for room was, no doubt, in quest of some California there... Mr. President, do you remember the last chapter in that history? It is soon read... Ammon's son, (so was Alexander named,) after all his victories, died drunk in Babylon! The vast empire he conquered to "get room" because the prey of the generals he had trained; it was disparted, torn to pieces, and so ended...

Mr. President, if the history of our race has established any truth it is but a confirmation of what is written, "the way of the transgressor is hard." Inordinate ambition, wantoning in power and spurning the humble maxims of justice, has, ever has and ever shall end in ruin... It is my fear, my fixed belief, that in this invasion, this war with Mexico, we have forgotten this vital truth...

But, Mr. President, if further acquisition of territory is to be the result either of conquest or treaty then I scarcely know which should be preferred, eternal war with Mexico or the hazards of internal commotion at home, which last I fear may come if another province is to be added to our territory. There is one topic connected with this subject which I tremble when I approach, and yet I cannot forbear to notice it... I allude to the question of slavery. Opposition to its further extension, it must be obvious to every one, is a deeply rooted determination with men of all parties in what we call the non-slaveholding States. New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, three of the most powerful, have already sent their legislative instructions here. So it will be, I doubt not, in all the rest... How is it in the South? Can it be expected that they should expend in common their blood and their treasure in the acquisition of immense territory, and then willingly forego the right to carry thither their slaves and inhabit the conquered country if they please to do so?

Sir, I know the feelings and opinions of the South too well to calculate on this. Nay, I believe they would even contend to any extremity for the mere right had they no wish to exert it. I believe, and I confess I tremble when the conviction presses upon me, that there is equal obstinacy on both sides of this fearful question... Should we prosecute this war another moment or expend one dollar in the purchase or conquest of a single acre of Mexican land the North and the South are brought into collision on a point where neither will yield. Who can