The Continental Monthly, Vol. 6, No. 6, December 1864: Devoted To Literature And National PolicyVarious
History
The Continental Monthly, Vol. 6, No. 6, December 1864: Devoted To Literature And National Policy
Various
Literature, Modern -- 19th century -- Periodicals; United States -- Politics and government -- 19th century -- Periodicals
But there are complaints from the so-called Democratic party that the
President, and especially the Secretary of State, have surrendered the
Monroe doctrine, and abandoned Mexico to her fate. There is no truth in
this accusation. The President and the Secretary of State, _as regards
the future_, are wholly uncommitted on this question, unless, indeed, it
be for Mexico, by announcing that the people of the loyal States are
unanimously in her favor. I say they are uncommitted for the future, and
the real objection to their course is this: that they have not gratified
the South and its Northern allies, by engaging, ere this, in a war with
France, so as to bring her vast forces in aid of the Confederate
government. Indeed, Mr. Seward is cursed everywhere by the Confederates
and their allies throughout Europe for preventing a war, _at this time_,
on the Mexican question, between France and the United States, 'There is
a time for all things,' and, as I have said before, our only question
_now_, is the salvation of the Union; and when that is secured, will be
the proper period to consider other subordinate questions, foreign or
domestic. No man can speak with more feeling on this question than
myself, for it is a well-known fact that I earnestly opposed, as a
member of the Cabinet of Mr. Polk, the Mexican treaty of 1848, among
other reasons, upon the suggestion then made by me, that if we abandoned
Mexico, it would subject us to the danger of European interference there
(just as it has occurred) by force of arms. That treaty was carried by a
constitutional majority of only three votes, mainly through the
instrumentality of Mr. Calhoun, who was against the invasion of Mexico,
and for 'masterly inactivity,' resting on the banks of the Rio Grande,
because he knew (as declared in my Texas letter of January, 1844)
'Slavery never could cross the Rio Grande,' and that, as a consequence,
all of Mexico which we would permanently hold, as we ought to have done,
from Texas to Tehuantepec, would, Mexico having abolished Slavery, have
become Free States. I believed also that the permanent occupation and
annexation of Mexico would have forever settled all the dangers of the
Slavery question, because it would have flanked the Slave States of the
Southwest, by many powerful Free States adjacent on the Southwest,
containing already seven millions of people, most of whom were of the
colored race, and who would have fought to the last against the
reestablishment of Slavery.
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