of slaveholding States? Here again, if we judge him by the past, he is
wanting. None can forget that in 1845, on the Fourth of July, a day
ever sacred to memories of Freedom, in a speech at Faneuil Hall, he
volunteered, in advance of any other Northern Whig, to receive Texas
with a welcome into the family of States, although on that very day
she was preparing a Constitution placing Slavery beyond the reach of
legislative change.
The conclusion is irresistible, that Mr. Winthrop cannot fitly
represent the feeling palpitating in Massachusetts bosoms, and so often
expressed by our Legislature, with regard to Slavery.
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.