History of the War Between Mexico and the United States, with a Preliminary View of its Origin, Volume 1Mayer, Brantz
History
History of the War Between Mexico and the United States, with a Preliminary View of its Origin, Volume 1
Mayer, Brantz
Mexican War, 1846-1848
In 1810, President Madison believing that the United States had too long
acquiesced in the temporary continuance of this territory under Spanish
domain, and that nothing was to be gained from Spain by candid
discussion and amicable negotiation for several years, solved the
difficulty by taking possession of Mobile and Baton Rouge and extending
our jurisdiction to the Perdido. This possession, he took means to
ensure, if needful, by military force. Mr. Madison's conduct was
assailed in congress by the federalists who regarded it as an
unjustifiable and offensive demonstration against Spain, but it was
defended with equal warmth by the opposition,--especially by Mr.
Clay,--and the Rio Perdido has ever since continued to form the western
limit of Florida.[96]
* * * * *
When nations are about to undertake the dread responsibility of war, and
to spread the sorrow and ruin which always mark the pathway of
victorious or defeated armies, they should pause to contemplate the
enormity of their enterprise as well as the principles that can alone
justify them in the sight of God and man. Human life cannot be lawfully
destroyed, assailed or endangered for any other object than that of just
defence of person or principle, yet it is not a legal consequence that
defensive wars are always just.[97]
"It is the right of a State," said that profound moralist and statesman,
Sir James Mackintosh, "to take all measures necessary for her safety if
it be attacked or threatened from without: provided always that
reparation cannot otherwise be obtained; that there is a reasonable
prospect of obtaining it by arms; and that the evils of the contest are
not probably greater than the mischiefs of acquiescence in the wrong;
including, on both sides of the deliberation, the ordinary consequences
of the example as well as the immediate effects of the act. If
reparation can otherwise be obtained, a nation has no necessary, and
therefore no just cause of war; if there be no probability of obtaining
it by arms, a government cannot, with justice to their own nation,
embark it in war; and, if the evils of resistance should appear on the
whole greater than those of submission, wise rulers will consider an
abstinence from a pernicious exercise of right as a sacred duty to their
own subjects, and a debt which every people owes to the great
commonwealth of mankind, of which they and their enemies are alike
members. A war is just against the wrongdoer when reparation for wrong
cannot otherwise be obtained; but is then only conformable to all the
principles of morality when it is not likely to expose the nation by
whom it is levied to greater evils than it professes to avert, and when
it does not inflict on the nation which has done the wrong, sufferings
altogether disproportioned to the extent of the injury. When the rulers
of a nation are required to determine a question of peace or war, the
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account