4
ever. But the causes of the two wars are not more antagonistical than the objects for which they were commenced and prosecuted. The war of 1812 was a war of defence; the present war is one of aggression; that was carried on for the furtherance of the freedom of the seas, this for the extension of slavery on shore. During almost the whole period of that war, some portion of our territory was in possession of the enemy. We were constantly exposed to attacks upon the coasts, and to incursions of the ruthless savages on our western frontiers. Our ports blockaded, our soil trampled by the foot of the foe, and wet with the blood of our own citizens; the blaze of the cabin in the wilderness, arid of the Capitol in this city, all conspired to wake the patriotism of our citizens, and called upon them to avenge the wrongs of their country, and to protect their homes, and defend their wives and their children. But how is it now? Is our country invaded, or even in danger of invasion? Nothing like it. We are spreading all the horrors of war in a foreign country; we are taking the advantage of the weakness and poverty, of the distraction and disorders of a sister republic, to overrun her territory, that we may filch from her a portion of her possessions. We are called upon, not by the dictates of pure patriotism, but by the promptings of a vile ambition, to prosecute this war. We are asked to clothe the President with power to entice the young men of the country from the habits of industry, and from the pursuits of peace, that their bones may bleach upon the sickly plains, or amid the mountain passes of Mexico. Does not this hasty glance at the two wars show at once, and conclusively, that there is no just comparison between them? They are, in fact, the very antipodes of each other. In their causes, and the purposes for which they are prosecuted, they are as far asunder as the poles. The one was just, the other is unjust; the former was defensive, the latter is aggressive; that was prosecuted in defence of freedom, and this is waged to extend slavery.
But, Mr. Chairman, we are told that we must stand by our country in time of war; that war is the law of the land, and, like all other laws, must be obeyed by every good citizen. I readily admit that every patriot should stand by his country, and is bound to obey the laws of the land. But this is perfectly consistent with withholding supplies. We, as members of Congress, areas much bound by the laws of the land as private citizens. Nay, we are placed here to support the laws, and to preserve them inviolate. And first and foremost in this list is the supreme law of the land, the Constitution of the United States. Every member, in taking his seat, takes upon himself a solemn oath to support the Constitution of the country. Now, one of the great objects of that sacred instrument is to secure popular rights, and this is to be effected by keeping each department of the Government distinct and separate. The President is entrusted with the power of executing the laws, but the power of making them is devolved upon Congress. If we attempt to encroach upon the Executive, we violate our organic law; and we are guilty of a similar violation, if we tamely submit to the encroachments of the Executive upon the prerogatives of Congress. In relation to war, it is the prerogative of the President, as commander-in-chief, to direct the military movements; but the framers of the Constitution have wisely vested in Congress the whole subject of supplies, whether it be of money or of men. "Congress shall have power to raise and support armies," is the language of the Constitution itself. If we think the President is prosecuting a war for an improper object, or an unholy end, it is not only our right, but our duty, to restrain him; and this can only be done by
