Part 27

What may we expect from him as to the _Mexican War_? This brings me to a melancholy inquiry, on which I am the less disposed to dwell because it has already been so fully considered. Will he ascend to the heights of a true civilization, and, while branding the war as unjust, call at once for its cessation, and the withdrawal of our forces? There is no reason to believe that he will. He voted for the Act of Congress under which it is now waged, and by that disastrous vote made his constituents partakers in a wicked and bloody war. At a later day, in an elaborate speech,[200] he vindicated his action, and promised "not to withhold his vote from any reasonable supplies which may be called for" in the prosecution of the war,--adding, that he should vote for them "to enable the President to achieve that _honorable peace_ which he has solemnly promised to bring about at the earliest possible moment" _by the sword_. And, pray, what is Mr. Winthrop's idea of an "honorable peace"? Is it peace imposed upon a weak neighbor by brute force, the successful consummation of unrighteous war? Is it the triumph of wrong? Is it the Saturnalia of Slavery? Is it the fruit of sin? Is it a baptism of blood unjustly shed? In the same speech, with grievous insensibility to the sordid character of the suggestion, he pleads for the maintenance of the old Tariff, as necessary to meet "the exigencies" of the Mexican War. "In a time of war, like the present, more especially," he says, "_an ample revenue should be the primary aim and end of all our custom-house duties_." Perish manufactures, let me rather say, if the duties by which they seem to be protected are swollen to feed "the exigencies" of unjust war! Afterwards, at Faneuil Hall, before the Whig Convention, he shows a similar insensibility. Nowhere does he sound the word _Duty_. Nowhere does he tell his country to begin by doing right. Nowhere does he give assurance of aid by calling for the instant stay of the war.

[200] Speech on the Tariff, June 25, 1846.

There are those who, admitting that his vote was a mistake, say that we are not to judge him on this account. Can we afford to send a representative who can make such a mistake? But it is a mistake never by him acknowledged as such. It is still persisted in, and hugged. Among the last words of warning from the lips of Chatham, as he fell at his post in the British Senate, almost his dying words, were "against co-operation with men who still persist in unretracted error."

In his vote for the Mexican War Mr. Winthrop was not a Whig. He then left the party: for surely the party is not where numbers prevail, but where its principles are recognized. The true Whigs are the valiant minority of _fourteen_. Once in Roman history, the vestal fire, the archives, the sacred volumes of the Republic, were in the custody of a single individual, in a humble vehicle, fleeing from the burning city. With him was the life of the Republic. So in that small minority was the life of the Whig party, with its principles and its sacred fire.

The true Whig ground, the only ground consistent with professed loyalty to the sentiment of duty, is uncompromising opposition to the war, wheresoever and howsoever opposition may be made. Expecting right from Mexico, we must begin by doing right. We are aggressors, and must cease to be so.

This is the proper course, having its foundations in immutable laws. Let me repeat, that our country must do as an individual in like circumstances. For, though politicians may disown it, there is but one rule for nations and for individuals. If any one of you, fellow-citizens, finding yourself in dispute with a neighbor, had unfortunately felled him to earth, but, with returning reason, discovered that you were wrong, what would you do? Of course, cease instantly from _wrong-doing_. You would help your neighbor to his feet, and with awakened benevolence soothe his wounded nature. Precisely so must our country do now. This can be only by the withdrawal of our forces. Peace would then follow. The very response sent to the Roman Senate by a province of Italy might be repeated by the Mexicans: "The Romans, having preferred _justice_ to _conquest_, have taught us to be satisfied with submission instead of liberty."

That I may not found these conclusions upon general principles only, I would invoke the example of English Whigs, Chatham, Camden, Burke, Fox, and Sheridan, in opposition to the war of our Revolution,--denouncing it at the outset as unjust, and ever, during its whole progress, declaring their condemnation of it,--voting against supplies for its prosecution, and against thanks for the military services by which it was waged. Holding their example as of the highest practical authority on the present question, and as particularly fit to be regarded by all professing to be Whigs in America, I make no apology for introducing the authentic evidence which places it beyond doubt. This is to be found in the volumes of the Parliamentary Debates. I am not aware that it has ever before been applied to the present discussion, although it is in every word especially applicable.

I begin with that famous instance where two officers--one the son of Lord Chatham, and the other the Earl of Effingham--flung up their commissions rather than fight against constitutional liberty as upheld by our fathers. In the case of the latter especially the sacrifice was great; for he was bred to arms, and enjoyed the service. From his place in the House of Lords, May 18, 1775, he vindicated his act in the following terms.

"Ever since I was of an age to have any ambition at all, my highest has been to serve my country in a military capacity. If there was on earth an event I dreaded, it was to see this country so situated as to make that profession incompatible with my duty as a citizen. That period is in my opinion arrived.... When the duties of a soldier and a citizen become inconsistent, I shall always think myself obliged to sink the character of the soldier in that of the citizen, till such time as those duties shall again, by the malice of our real enemies, become united."

These generous words found an echo at the time. A note in the Parliamentary History says, "The Twenty-second Regiment of Foot, in which he held a captain's commission, being ordered to America, he resolved, though not possessed of an ample patrimony, to resign a darling profession, and all hopes of advancement, rather than bear arms in a cause he did not approve"; and the record proceeds to say that "the cities of London and Dublin voted him their thanks for this conduct."[201] If a soldier could bear testimony against an unjust war, it was easy for others not under the constraint of martial prejudice to do so. The sequel shows how the example prevailed.

[201] Vol. XVIII., col. 688. See also Annual Register for 1776, Vol. XIX. p. 42

First came the famous Duke of Grafton, who, in the House of Lords, on the Address of Thanks, October 26, 1775, after the Battles of Lexington and Bunker Hill, said:--

"I pledge myself to your Lordships and my country, that, if necessity should require it, and my health not otherwise permit it, I mean to come down to this House in a litter, in order to express my full and hearty disapprobation of the measures now pursuing, and, as I understand from the noble Lords in office, meant to be pursued. I do protest to your Lordships, that, if my brother or my dearest friend were to be affected by the vote I mean to give this evening, I could not possibly resist the faithful discharge of my conscience and my duty. Were I to lose my fortune and every other thing I esteem, were I to be reduced to beggary itself, the strong conviction and compulsion at once operating on my mind and conscience would not permit me to take any other part on the present occasion than that I now mean to adopt."

A protest at the close of this debate was signed by several peers, containing the following emphatic clause:--

"Because we cannot, as Englishmen, as Christians, or as men of common humanity, consent to the prosecution of a cruel civil war, so little supported by justice, and so very fatal in its necessary consequences, as that which is now waging against our brethren and fellow-subjects in America."

This was echoed in the House of Commons, where, on the same Address, Mr. Wilkes said:--

"I call the war with our brethren in America an unjust, felonious war.... I assert that it is a murderous war, because it is an effort to deprive men of their lives for standing up in the just cause of the defence of their property and their clear rights. It becomes no less a murderous war with respect to many of our fellow-subjects of this island; for every man, either of the navy or army, who has been sent by Government to America, and fallen a victim in this unnatural and unjust contest, has in my opinion been murdered by Administration, and his blood lies at their door. Such a war, I fear, Sir, will draw down the vengeance of Heaven upon this devoted kingdom."

Mr. Fox expressed himself as follows:--

"_He could not consent to the bloody consequences of so silly a contest_ about so silly an object, conducted in the silliest manner that history or observation had ever furnished an instance of, and from which we were likely to derive nothing but poverty, misery, disgrace, defeat, and ruin."

He was followed by the eminent lawyer, Serjeant Adair:--

"I am against the present war, because I think it unjust in its commencement, injurious to both countries in its prosecution, and ruinous in its event.... I think, from the bottom of my soul, that the Colonies are engaged in a noble and glorious struggle.... Sir, I could not be easy in my own mind without entering the strongest and most public protestations against measures which appear to me to be fraught with the destruction of this mighty empire. _I wash my hands of the blood of my fellow-subjects_, and shall at least have this satisfaction, amidst the impending calamities of the public, not only to think that I have not contributed to, but that I have done all in my power to oppose and avert, the ruin of my country."

During another debate in the Lords, November 15, 1775, that strenuous friend of freedom and upholder of Whig principles, Lord Camden, declared himself thus:--

"Peace is still within our power; nay, we may command it. A suspension of arms on our part, if adopted in time, will secure it for us, and, I may add, on our own terms. _From which it is plain, as we have been the original aggressors in this business, if we obstinately persist, we are fairly answerable for all the consequences._ I again repeat, what I often urged before, that I was against this unnatural war from the beginning. I was equally against every measure, from the instant the first tax was proposed to this minute. When, therefore, it is insisted that we aim only to defend and enforce our own rights, I positively deny it. I contend that America has been driven by cruel necessity to defend her rights from the united attacks of violence, oppression, and injustice. I contend that America has been indisputably aggrieved.... I must still think, and shall uniformly continue to assert, that Great Britain was the aggressor, that most, if not all, the acts were founded in oppression, and that, if I were an American, I should resist to the last such manifest exertion of tyranny, violence, and injustice."

On another occasion, in the Commons, December 8, 1775, Mr. Fox expressed himself thus sententiously:--

"I have always said that the war carrying on against the Americans is unjust."

Again, in the Lords, March 5, 1776, the Earl of Effingham said:--

"I never can stand up in your Lordships' presence without throwing in a few words on the justice of this unnatural war."

In the Commons, March 11, 1776, Colonel Barré, Mr. Burke, Mr. Fox, all vied in eulogy of General Montgomery, the account of whose death before Quebec had arrived a few days before.

The same spirit was constantly manifest. In the Commons, April 24, 1776, in the debate on the Budget, embodying taxes to carry on the war against America, Mr. Fox laid down the constitutional rule of opposition to an unjust war.

"To the resolutions he should give his flat negative, and that not because of any particular objections to the taxes proposed (although there might be a sufficient ground for urging many), _but because he could not conscientiously agree to grant any money for so destructive, so ignoble a purpose as the carrying on a war commenced unjustly, and supported with no other view than to the extirpation of freedom_ and the violation of every social compact. THIS HE CONCEIVED TO BE THE STRICT LINE OF CONDUCT TO BE OBSERVED BY A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT.... He then painted the quarrel with America as unjust, and the pursuance of the war as blood-thirsty and oppressive."

Colonel Barré followed, and adopted the phrase of Mr. Fox, "giving his flat negative to the resolutions, _as they were calculated to tax the subject for an unjust purpose_."

The Duke of Grafton, in the Lords, October 31, 1776, repeated the sentiments he had avowed at an earlier day.

"He pledged himself to the House, and to the public, that, while he had a leg to stand on, he would come down day after day to express the most marked abhorrence of the measures hitherto pursued, and meant to be adhered to, in respect to America."

On the same night, in the Commons, Mr. Fox exclaimed:--

"The noble Lord who moved the amendment said that we were in the dilemma of _conquering or abandoning America. If we are reduced to that, I am for abandoning America._"

In the Commons, November 6, 1776, Mr. Burke likened England to a "cruel conqueror."

"You simply tell the Colonists to lay down their arms, and then you will do just as you please. Could the most cruel conqueror say less? Had you conquered the Devil himself in Hell, could you be less liberal?"

Colonel Barré, in the Commons, February 10, 1777, insisted:--

"America must be reclaimed, _not conquered or subdued_. Conciliation or concession are the only sure means of either gaining or retaining America."

The Budget came up again in the Commons, May 14, 1777, when Mr. Burke spoke nobly:--

"He was, and ever would be, ready to support a just war, whether against subjects or alien enemies; but where justice, or a color of justice, was wanting, he should ever be the first to oppose it."

All these declarations were crowned by Lord Chatham's motion in the Lords, May 30, 1777, to put a stop to American hostilities, when he spoke so wisely and bravely.

"We have tried for unconditional submission: _try what can be gained by unconditional redress_.... We are the aggressors. We have invaded them. We have invaded them as much as the Spanish Armada invaded England.... In the sportsman's phrase, when you have found yourselves at fault, _you must try back_.... I shall no doubt hear it objected, 'Why should we submit or concede? Has America done anything, on her part, to induce us to agree to so large a ground of concession?' I will tell you, my Lords, why I think you should. _You have been the aggressors from the beginning.... If, then, we are the aggressors, it is your Lordships' business to make the first overture._ I say again, this country has been the aggressor. You have made descents upon their coasts; you have burnt their towns, plundered their country, made war upon the inhabitants, confiscated their property, proscribed and imprisoned their persons. _I do therefore affirm, that, instead of exacting unconditional submission from the Colonies, we should grant them unconditional redress._ We have injured them; we have endeavored to enslave and oppress them. Upon this clear ground, instead of chastisement, they are entitled to redress."

Again Lord Chatham broke out, November 18, 1777, in words most applicable to the present occasion.

"I would sell my shirt off my back to assist in proper measures, properly and wisely conducted; _but I would not part with a single shilling to the present ministers_. Their plans are founded in destruction and disgrace. It is, my Lords, a ruinous and destructive war; it is full of danger; it teems with disgrace, and must end in ruin.... If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms!--never!--never!--never!"

The Duke of Richmond, in the Lords, on the same occasion, returned to the charge in a similar spirit.

"Can we too soon put a stop to such a scene of carnage? My Lords, I know that what I am going to say is not fashionable language; but a time will come when every one of us must account to God for his actions, and how can we justify causing so many innocent lives to be lost?"

In the Commons, December 5, 1777, Mr. Hartley, the constant friend of America, brought forward a motion:--

"That it is unbecoming the wisdom and prudence of Parliament to proceed any farther in the support of this fruitless, expensive, and destructive war, more especially without any specific terms of accommodation declared."

The Marquis of Rockingham, in the Lords, February 16, 1778, exclaimed:--

"He was determined to serve his country _by making peace at any rate_."

At last, in the Lords, March 23, 1778, the Duke of Richmond brought forward a motion for the withdrawal of the forces from America.

The same question was presented again in the Commons, November 27, 1780, on a motion to thank General Clinton and others for their military services in America, when Mr. Wilkes laid down the true rule.

"I think it my duty to oppose this motion, because in my idea every part of it conveys an approbation of the American War,--a war unfounded in principle, and fatal in its consequences to this country.... _Sir, I will not thank for victories which only tend to protract a destructive war...._ As I reprobate the want of principle in the origin of the American War, I the more lament all the spirited exertions of valor and the wisdom of conduct which in a good cause I should warmly applaud. Thinking as I do, I see more matter of grief than of triumph, of bewailing than thanksgiving, in this civil contest, and the deluge of blood which has overflowed America.... I deeply lament that the lustre of such splendid victories is obscured and darkened by the want of a good cause, without which no war, in the eye of truth and reason, before God or man, can be justified."

Mr. Fox followed in similar strain.

"He allowed the merits of the officers now in question, but he made a distinction between thanks and praise. He might, admire their valor, but he could not separate the intention from the action; they were united in his mind; there they formed one whole, and he would not attempt to divide them."

Mr. Sheridan joined in these declarations.

"There were in that House different descriptions of men _who could not assent to a vote that seemed to imply a recognition or approbation of the American War_."

All these words are memorable from the occasion of their utterance, from the statesmen who uttered them, and from the sentiments avowed. The occasion was the war of Great Britain upon our fathers. The statesmen were the greatest masters of political wisdom and eloquence that England has given to the world. The sentiments were all in harmony with what I have urged on the present occasion. Orators contended with each other in the strength of their language. Lord Camden averred that "Great Britain was the aggressor." The Duke of Grafton declared, that, "while he had a leg to stand on," he would express his "abhorrence" of the war. Chatham gave utterance to the same sentiment in one of his most magnificent orations. And Wilkes, Sheridan, Fox, and Burke echoed this strain, all insisting that the war was unjust, and must therefore be stopped.

Thus far I have quoted testimony from Parliamentary debates on our own Revolution; but going farther back, we find similar authority. When Charles the First sent assistance to the French against the Huguenots in Rochelle, the officers and men did more than murmur; and here our authority is Hume. The commander of one of the ships "declared that he would rather be hanged in England for disobedience than fight against his brother Protestants in France."[202]

[202] Hume, History of England, Chap. L.

They went back to the Downs. Having received new orders, they sailed again for France.

"When they arrived at Dieppe, they found that they had been deceived. Sir Ferdinando Gorges, who commanded one of the vessels, broke through and returned to England. All the officers and sailors of all the other ships, notwithstanding great offers made them by the French, immediately deserted. One gunner alone preferred duty towards his king to the cause of religion, and he was afterwards killed in charging a cannon before Rochelle."[203]

[203] Hume, History of England, Chap. L.

The same sentiment prevailed also in the war upon Spain by Cromwell, when several naval officers, having scruples of conscience with regard to the justice of the war, threw up their commissions and retired. Here again Hume is our authority.

"No commands, they thought, of their superiors could justify a war which was contrary to the principles of natural equity, and which the civil magistrate had no right to order. Individuals, they maintained, in resigning to the public their natural liberty, could bestow on it only what they themselves were possessed of, a right of performing lawful actions, and could invest it with no authority of commanding what is contrary to the decrees of Heaven."[204]

[204] Ibid., Chap. LXI.

Here again it is soldiers who refuse to fight in unjust war.

Such is the doctrine of morals sanctioned by English examples. Such should be the doctrine of an American statesman. If we apply it to the existing exigency, or try the candidates by this standard, we find, that, as Dr. Howe is unquestionably right, so Mr. Winthrop is too certainly wrong. Exalting our own candidate, I would not unduly disparage another. It is for the sake of the cause in which we are engaged, by the side of which individuals dwindle into insignificance, that we now oppose Mr. Winthrop, bearing our testimony against Slavery and the longer continuance of the Mexican War, demanding the retreat of General Taylor and the instant withdrawal of the American forces. Even if we seem to fail in this election, we shall not fail in reality. The influence of this effort will help to awaken and organize that powerful public opinion by which this war will at last be arrested.

Hang out, fellow-citizens, the white banner of Peace; let the citizens of Boston rally about it; and may it be borne forward by an enlightened, conscientious people, aroused to condemnation of this murderous war, until Mexico, now wet with blood unjustly shed, shall repose undisturbed beneath its folds.

INVALIDITY OF ENLISTMENTS

IN THE MASSACHUSETTS REGIMENT OF VOLUNTEERS FOR THE MEXICAN WAR.

ARGUMENT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, JANUARY, 1847.