American History

Recent events confirm the most dubious fears of the party. President James Polk has ordered General Zachary Taylor to seize Texan territory claimed by the Mexican government. The Mexican government has demanded the withdrawal of US forces to the Nueces. Reports say that General Mariano Arista is preparing his forces for war. Then storm breaks out. On April 25, 1846, the Mexican cavalry attacked US patrols in the contested territory. About 16 soldiers are killed. Some of the survivors return to Fort Brown.

The government seems to be indifferent to the call of the people of the north. The war will extend slavery to Mexican territory, under the guise of freedom and democracy. It cannot be denied that those who support the war are mostly Southerners. After the president received the news of the massacre, he declared that Mexico has invaded American territory. He urged Congress to declare war against Mexico. On May 13, 1846, the US Congress declared war against Mexico.

At face, the declaration seems to be a continuous call of the country, as majority of the representatives and senators voted for it. It is though strange that almost all southern Democrats supported the declaration. These Democrats may gain something from the war or at least gain for slavery. The party opposed the war because it violates the slavery amendment  that is, the extension of slavery beyond the Indiana territory. The president, however, is adamant, personally requesting the party to support the war effort.

On the final passage of the declaration, 14 Whigs voted no, including the eminent John Quincy Adams, former US president. It is wrong to question the morality of these individuals, as evidence shows that the president has pressured them to supporting the war declaration. By demagoguery, President Polk has touched on the fragile emotions of the American people, without due countenance for sustained debate. Members of the party have no choice but to concede this important but unnecessary endeavor. But, the stand of the party remains firm  that war with Mexico is an opportunity for Southerners to extend slavery to Mexican territory. Slavery is morally wrong  a principle so opposed to the principle of freedom and equality. As Daniel Webster argues
Now, Sir, upon the general nature and influence of slavery there exists a wide difference of opinion between the northern portion of this country and the southern. It is said on the one side, that, although not the subject of any injunction or direct prohibition in the New Testament, slavery is a wrong that it is founded merely in the right of the strongest and that is an oppression, like unjust wars, like all those conflicts by which a powerful nation subjects a weaker to its will  Mr. President, in the excited times in which we live, there is found to exist a state of crimination and recrimination between the North and South. There are lists of grievances produced by each and those grievances, real or supposed, alienate the minds of one portion of the country from the other, exasperate the feelings, and subdue the sense of fraternal affection, patriotic love, and mutual regard.

It is though not enough to say that slavery is wrong or morally incriminating. The actions of Southern Democrats seem to confirm that there is indeed a conspiracy to extend slavery to acquired Mexican territory. John Sullivan, editor of the Democratic Review, argues that the war will open new opportunities for the South. What are these opportunities There is labor, land, and capital  the necessary requirements of an extended Slave power.

The party though is not the only one who opposes the war effort. Throughout the country, opposition is an ever-present reality. Joshua Giddings argues that the war is a murder of the Mexicans  it is an unjust war dedicated to the perpetuation of an economic power that the north itself cannot effectively oppose. Abraham Lincoln contests the general causes of the war, demanding that the president should prove that there was indeed a legitimate US claim on the disputed territories. The nominal party leader, Robert Toombs states that the president has usurped the power of the Congress. Abolitionists criticized the war as an attempt of southern slave owners to extend their influence in the federal government.

In the House of Representatives, John Quincy Adams delivered a speech attacking Southern politicians for supporting the war. Adams feared that the South would use the war as an instrument for the perpetuation, and even the extension of slavery into new territories.

Having fully established the prima facie facts of the case, let this criticism serve as a guide to correct political action. Party leaders raise concern about the possible effects of the war  the secession problem, the political division between the North and the South. To quote Daniel Webster
Then, Sir, there are the Abolition societies, of which I am unwilling to speak, but in regard to which I have very clear notions and opinions. I do not think them useful. I think their operations for the last twenty years have produced nothing good or valuable. At the same time, I believe thousands of their members to be honest and good men, perfectly well-meaning men. They have excited feelings they think they must do something for the cause of liberty and, in their sphere of action, they do not see what else they can do than to contribute to an Abolition press, or an Abolition society, or to pay an Abolition lecturer. I do not mean to impute gross motives even to the leaders of these societies, but I am not blind to the consequences of their proceedings.

The correct political action in this case is to negotiate with the government of Mexico and withdraw all forces 5 miles from the disputed territories. By negotiating, the United States is setting an example to the world  that disputes can be resolved by diplomatic means. This will also erase the fear that the war is an attempt to extend slavery to disputed territories.