A review of the causes and consequences of the Mexican war

Introduction

The writer is a believer in the Divine authority of the Scriptures — he acknowledges no standard of right and wrong but the Will of God, and denies the expediency of any act which is forbidden by laws dictated by Infinite Wisdom and Goodness. This avowal will prepare the reader to find in the following pages many opinions not ha-inng the stamp of public approbation. Patriotism, honor, glory, and national prosperity, are terms to which the Christian and the mere politician attach different ideas, and estimate by different standards. He who admits the authority of the Bible will not I'eadily acknowledge that whatever is "highly esteemed among men" must be right, nor that what is unpopular is, of course, wrong.

In the following Review, the public conduct and opinions of public men are freely and fearlessly canvassed, but in no instance, it is hoped and believed, at the expense of truth. In justice to the writer, the reader is earnestly entreated to bear in mind the distinction between the statement of a fact, and the ox-

4 IMXRODtiOTlON.

pression of an opinion. Conscious of his own anxious' and often laboiious efforts to secure accuracy of detail, and of quotation, the author flatters himself that his facts Avill be found incontrovertible — for his opinions he claims no infallibility, and anticipates no general assent.

The Review has far loftier objects than those of an historical record. It aims to recommend and enforce the duty of preserving Peace, by exhibiting the wickedness, the baseness, and the calamitous consequences of a victorious War, effecting all the ends for which it was waged. It seeks to warn the country against that admiration of military prowess, which, by degrading in the public estimation the virtues which conduce to the happiness and security of society, and by fostering the arts and passions which minister to human destruction, is corrupting the morals and jeoparding the liberties of the Republic. It strives to excite the abhorrence of the good for that statesmanship which seeks the aggrandizement of the country in defiance of the laws of God ; while by presenting a true portrait of the patriot, it would fain afford some aid in detecting spurious resemblances.

Such are the purposes for which the design of the Review was conceived and executed. The author hopes for a hearing, not from the selfish throng ignobly struggUng in the political arena for ofEce, and power, and money, and lavishly squandering in the strife their own truth and honor, and the pubhc good ; but from that

INTRODUCTION. 5

small, yet increasing number, who are inquiring how far their relations to the State are to be governed by the precepts of Christianity.

The maxim that " all's fair in politics," and the monstrous frauds, falsehoods, and forgeries, attending almost every important election, illustrate the lamentable fact, that in general " Religion has nothing to do with politics." But religious people in vast numbers have much to do with politics, and too often seem to think that in their character of office-holders, or office-seekers, they have received a dispensation from the obligations of the Moral Law. Such persons, should they deign to read the ensuing pages, may possibly be reminded with profit, that moral responsibility is not attached solely to such of our actions as may be termed private and domestic, but that " God will bring every work into judgment" — works done in pohtical meetings, at elections, and even on the floor of Congress : and, that as there is an express prohibition against following " a multitude to do evil," no majority, however great, can be pleaded in justification of crime, or in mitigation of punishment.

Contents

C^AP. Paob

I. Early efforts to wrest Texas from Mexico, . . 9

II. Independence of Texas, 16

Chapter I. Eaely Efforts To Wrest Texas From Mexico

Louisiana was ceded by France to Spain in 1V62, and restored to the former power in 1800. Three years after, it was ceded by France to the United States. In none of these cessions, was there any specification of boundaries. The territory was a vast undefined region east of the Mississippi ; and with rare exceptions, untenanted by civilized inhabitants. It, of course, adjoined the Spanish dominions in Mexico, but the separating line could not easily be ascertained. As the American settlements in Louisiana extended, the question of boundary necessarily became a matter of discussion, between the governments of Spain and the United States. This question was finally settled in 1819, by a treaty with Spain, in which the contracting powers severally ceded to each other, all claims to territory beyond their respective sides of a defined line.

In 1820, the State of Missouri, formed out of the Louisiana territory, was admitted into the Union as a slave State. To facilitate its admission, and to overcome the formidable opposition of the Northern States, to the incorporation into the confederacy of another slaveholding State, the slaveholders proposed and effected the celebrated Missouri compromise, a law declaring that in future slavery should be prohibited north of 36° 30" north latitude.

It was not long however, before it was discovered that this Missouri compromise, together with the southern boundary of the United States, as defined in the Spanish treaty of 1819, had reduced within comparatively narrow limits, the area from which slave States might hereafter be formed ; with the exception of Florida, the territory south of the Missouri compromise line, was not probably sufficient for more than two States.

The State of Louisiana was separated from the Spanish province of Texas, by the Sabine river, and the soil, climate, and position of that province, rendered it a desirable acquisition to the slaveholding interest. Various expedients were from time to time devised, to obtain possession of this coveted territory — forcible seizure — colonization— purchase — independence, and annexation. The first was attempted soon after the Spanish treaty, had extinguished all claims of the United States to Texas, as included within the territory of Louisiana.

A man named James Long, without about seventy- five lawless adventurers, left Natchez on the 1*7 th June, 1819, and proceeded to Nacogdoches, about forty miles within the limits of Texas. On the 23d of the same month, he there issued a proclamation which may be regarded as the first step in that career of fraud, falsehood, and violence, which ultimately led to the annexation of Texas, and the war against Mexico. In this document, which was probably prepared in the State of Mississippi, Long, styling himself President of the Supreme Council of Texas, declared '' that the citizens of Texas, have long indulged the hope that in the adjustment of the boundaries of the Spanish possessions in America, and of the territories of

REVIEW OF THK MEXICAN WAR. 11

the United States, they should be included within the limits of the latter." As this hope had been dissipated by the recent treaty, the proclamation proceeds to announce the independence of the Republic of Texas. This paper, was of course, intended as an invitation to American citizens to repair to Long's standard, and participate with him in the intended plunder; and it was consequently pubhshed in the Louisiana Herald, printed in New Orleans.

In a little while, the whole party were dispersed, some being killed, and the others taken prisoners by the Spaniards.*

The plan of colonization was next adopted. Moses Austin of Missouri, in 1821, obtained leave from the Spanish authorities, to introduce three hundred families into Texas, on certain conditions. The permission was granted, as is said, on the representation of Austin, that Catholics were oppressed in the United States, and it was agreed that all the settlers to be introduced by him, should be of the oppressed religion. Austin dying, the grant was in 1823, renewed to his son, who commenced a colony on the Brazos, with emigrants from Tennessee, Mississippi, and Louisiana. By the renewed grant, the settlers, it is asserted, were to be exclusively Catholics; but whatever was their creed in other respects, they were beUevers in the right of man to hold property in man, and accordingly carried their slaves with them.

In 1826, a body of emigrants from the United States, settled about Nacogdoches, again raised the standard of insurrection under a man of the name of Edwards, and published a declaration of independence. They were, however, soon crushed by the Mexican forces.

At the date of the boundary treaty, Mexico was a * Speech of Mr. Severance in H. of R.,Feb. 4, 1847.

12 HEVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.

slaveholding country, and its near propinquity to our own settlements, was on that account viewed with less jealousy by southern statesmen.

The planters, as we have seen, might cross the hne with their slaves, and pursue the cultivation of sugar and cotton ; nor was any difficulty apprehended with regard to the recovery of fugitives slaves from the States.

These border relations were, however, changed by a decree of the Mexican Congress of 13th July, 1824, prohibiting the introduction of slaves from foreign countries. /'The Mexican Constitution, adopted the same yearrv •declared that no person should hereafter be bo7'n a slave ; / thui providing for the gradual but total abolition of slavery throughout the Republic.

The United Provinces of Coahuila and Texas, formed

/one State, and its Constitution adopted in 1827, contained

/ an article giving freedom to all who should be hereafter

/ born, and prohibiting the introduction of slaves. The

( work of emancipation was completed by a decree of the

^ Mexican Congress of 15th September, 1829, manumitting

' every slave in Mexico.

These successive measures not only frustrated the views of the colonists, and discouraged further emigration from the slave States, but greatly iriitated and alarmed the whole sla\eholding interest. The future area of slavery had been greatly contracted by the boundary treaty, and the Missouri compromise ; and now that area was to be bounded on the south and east, as Avell as on the north, by an unlimited area of freedom. Under such circumstances, American slavery was doomed. The influence of the free States would soon predominate in the general government, and the growing spirit of abolition would not only extend into the south itself, but would in various ways, endanger the security and permanency of slave property. The colonists in Texas, were at present too feeble to break the yoke of freedom imposed on them by the Mexican Government. Against that Government, the United States liad no pretext for war ; and the treaty of boundary was too recent and too e.xplicit, to permit any claim being made to the territory of Texas. But one resource was left, and that was purchase.

The government as early as the loth March, 1827, instructed Mr. Poinsett, our Minister in Mexico, that we wished to change the existing boundary, making it begin at the mouth of the Rio del Norte (Rio Grande), thence up the river to the Rio Puereo, and then with the last river to its source ; thence North to the Arkansas, and with this to the 42° North Lat. ; and that for this change of boundary we would give one million of dollars. This modest proposal included almost the whole of Texas as at present claimed.

The idea of purchase now took strong hold of the southern mind ; and great efforts were made to enlighten public opinion on the importance of Texas, and the necessity of its acquisition. In 1829 a series of newspaper essays on the subject appeared from the pen of Mr. Benton, a distinguished Senator from Missouri. Of the character of these essays some opinion may be formed from the following notices of them in the journals of the day.

The Edgefield Carolinian, speaking of Texas, remarked, " Some imposing Essays, originally published in the St. Louis Beacon, with the signature of ' Americanus,' and attributed to Col. Benton of the Senate, explaining the circumstances of the treaty of 1819, and displaying the advantages of the retrocession, have operated on the public mind in the West Avith electrical force and rapidity. The writer produces strong circumstantial proof that the surrender of Texas resulted from the subserviency of our 3 negotiator to Spain in her contest with Mexico, together with the powerful subsidiary motive of hostility to the southern and western sections of our coxmtry. Araericanus exposes the evils to the United States of this surrender under twelve distinct lieads. Two of them of particular interest to this section of the country, that it brings a non-slaveholding empire in juxta- position with the sluveholding South-west, and diminishes the outlet for the Indians inhabiting the States of Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee."

A BaUiraoi'e paper, speaking of the essays of " Americanus," says, " One of the reasons that he assigns for the purchase of Texas is, that five or six more slaveholding States may thus be added to the Union. Indeed, he goes farther than this in one of his calculations, and estimates, that ' Nine more States as large as Kentucky,^ may be formed within the limits of that province."

A Charleston paper treating of the same subject, observed, " It is not imposssible that he (President Jackson) is now examining the propriety and practicability of a retrocession of the vast territory of Texas ; an enterprize which could not fail to exercise an important and favorable influence upon the future destinies of the South, by increasing the votes of the slaveholding States in the United States Senate."

/"^ Judge Upsher, of Virginia, afterwards Secretary of State under President Tyler, remarked, the same year, in the Virginia Convention, " If Texas should be obtained, which he strongly desired, it would raise the price of slaves, and be a great advantage to the slaveholders of that State." Mr. Doddridge, in the same debate, asserted, " The acquisition of Texas will greatly enhance the value of the property in question." Debates, p. 89. Mr. Gholston, of the Virginia Legislature in 1832, said, " He

KEVIEVV OF THK MEXICAN WAR. 15

believed the acquisition of Texas would raise the price of slaves fifty per cent, at least." Virginia being a breeding State, these gentlemen were anxious to obtain Texas as a new and extensive market for their staple commodity,' To stimulate the action of the Government, rumors were set afloat of the intentions of Great Britain to possess herself of Texas ; an artifice practised without intermission from 1829 to the day of annexation. The following from the New Orleans Creole, of 1829, is a specimen: "A rumor reached us by the last packet from Mexico, that a company of British merchants had offered to advance $5,000,000 to the Mexican Government on the condition that the Piovince of Texas should be 2^laced under ike protection of Great Britain^

President Jackson entered fully into the views of the slaveholders, and on the 2oth August, 1829, Mr. Poinsett was instructed to offer five millions for Texas. Although this bid so greatly exceeded the former, it was promptly rejected. The offer was, according to a Mexican journal, followed by another : " When he (Poinsett) found his offer objectionable, he further insulted the nation by proposing a loan of ten millions (as a pawnbroker would) upon the pawning of Texas until repaid, which insidious proposal was meant to fill the country of Texas with Anglo-Americans and slaves, and to hold it after in any event."

The failure of Mr. Poinsett to obtain from Mexico a stipulation to surrender fugitive slaves, gave a new stimulus to the efforts of the slaveholders to possess themselves of Texas

Chapter II. Independence Of Texas

The insurrectionaiy efforts under Long and Edwards having failed, tlie Colony under Austin having yielded as yet no ald_ to the slaveholding interest in the United States, all hopes of acquiiing Texas by purchase being now abandoned, and no pretext for war with Mexico existing, the slaveholders, as a last resort, determined to effect the separation of the Province from the Mexican Republic, as a necessary preliminary to annexation. Coming events were thus shadowed forth in an article published in 1830, in the Arkansas Gazette: " No hopes need be entertained of our acquiring Texas (by purchase) until some party more friendly to the United States than the present, shall predominate in Mexico ; and perhaps not imtil the People of Texas shall throw off allegiance to that government, which they will no doubt do, so soon as they have a reasonable pretext for doing so. At present they are probably subject to as few exactions and impositions as any people under the sun." It will be observed that the writer takes for granted that ive shall acquire Texas, as soon as the American settlers shall have a pretext for revolting from Mexico. At a Congressional election held about this time in the State of Mississippi, the following interrogatories were addressed to certain of the candidates-i^" Your opinion of the acquisition of Texas, and how — whether by force or treaty ; and whether the law*

* Passed by Mexico in 1830, and repealed in 1883.

preventing the emigration of Americans is not evidence of apprehension that that province wishes to secede fiom the Mexican Government, and whether, if requested, we ought to give the seceders military assistance ; and what would be the effect of the acquisition of Texas upon the planting interest ?"

" The South," said the Mobile Advertiser at this time, "wish to have Texas admitted into the Union for two reasons ; first, to equalize the South with the North ; and secondly, as a convenient and safe place calculated from its peculiarly good soil and salubrious climate, for a slave population." The same year, Mr. Samuel Houston of Tennessee, disclosed to a friend (Robert Mayo, M.D.), •who communicated the intelligence to the President, that he was organizing an expedition with recruits from the United States, for the purpose of wresting Texas from Mexico ; and soon after it was announced in a Louisiana paper, that Houston had gone to Texas, the editor adding, " we may expect shortly to hear of his raising his flag."

One mode of effecting a revolution was to enlist the pecuniary interests of as many American citizens as possible in the independence of Texas. Vast grants of land had been made by the State Legislature to a few individuals. These grants were of course worthless till sold out in parcels. Many of the patentees resided in the United States, and joint-stock companies were formed for the sale of these lands. Three of the most notorious of these companies, \vz. : " The Galveston Bay and Texas Company," "The Arkansas and Texas Company," and "The Rio Grande Company," were established in New York. Care was taken to enlist prominent politicians in these companies ; and great efforts were made to distribute the scrip, or certificates of partial purchases, as widely as possible. This scrip was of little value while Texas continued undei 2* the government of Mexico, but in case of independence followed by annexation might prove a fortune to the holder. In this manner, a powerful pecuniary interest was excited in the free States in behalf of Texas.*

The plans of the conspirators in Texas were aided in 1832, by the withdrawal of the Mexican troops, in consequence of one of those political revolutions with which the Republic had been frequently afflicted since its independence. In this state of things, fresh emigrants found no difficulty in entering the territory with their slaves. The colonists, however, experienced an obstacle to their views in their union with Coahuila, in as much as their representatives were in a minority in the joint Legislature. The first step, therefore, to independence, was the dissolution of the connection between the two provinces. For this purpose, the colonists in 1833 organized themselves into a distinct and separate State. This organization was in direct and palpable violation of existing laws. The Mexican Congress refused to recognize the separate State of Texas. A small body of troops was sent into the insurgent territority, and driven out. The standard of rebellion was raised, Texan agents traversed the United States, addressing public meetings, enlisting troops, and despatching military supplies to the revolted province. On the 2d March, 1836, the insurgents issued their declaration of independence,! and fifteen days after adopted a Constitution establishing perpetual slavery.

* After the Texan revolution, an alderman of the New York Corporation introduced a resolution, overflowing with patriotism, and calling upon Congress to acknowledge the independence of Texas. The surprise occasioned by this extraordinary attempt in a civic body to influence the foreign relations of the national government,' was dissipated by the discovery, that the mover of the resolution was secretary to one of the Texan land companies

t Of the fifty-sevon signers to this declaration, fifty were emigrants from the slave States, and only three Mexicans by birth, and these, it i? said., largely intereet*;d in Texan land speculationp.

REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR. IS

Chapter III

PROFESSIONS AND CONDUCT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERN- MENT IN REFERENCE TO THE WAR BETWEEN MEXICO AND TEXAS.

The Government of the United States has at all times been hberal in its professions of neutrality in regard to belligerents, and has on various occasions endeavored to prevent its citizens from engaging in hostilities against friendly powers. In 1793, President Washington issued his proclamation warning American citizens against " committing, aiding or abetting hostihties against any of the Powers at war," and threatening with prosecution all who should " violate the laws of nations," with respect to the belligerents. Washington's subsequent acts abundantly evinced the sincerity of his proclamation.

In 1806, President Jefferson issued a proclamation declaring, that " sundry persons, citizens of the United States, are conspiring and confederating together to begin and set on foot a military expedition against the dominions of Spain ; fitting out and arming vessels in the western waters of the United States ; collecting arms, military stores and other means ;" and he commands all such persons to cease all further proceedings as they will " incur prosecutions with all the rigor of the law." He moreover enjoined it upon all mihtary officers of the army and navy of the United States, " to be vigilant in bringing to condign punishment persons engaged in those unlawful enterprises."

In 1S15 a similar proclamation was issued by President Madison against persons chiefly in Louisiana, who were preparing to invade the Spanish provinces.

In 1838, President Van Buren by proclamation informed the citizens of the northern frontier who were aiding the Canadian rebels, that, by compromitting the neutrality of the Government, they would render themselves liable to arrest and punishment, " under the laws of the United States, Avhich will be rigidly enforced."

It thus appears that from 1793 to 1838, our Government had acknowledged the duty, and professed the ability, to punish its citizens for violating the neutral obligations of the nation. " .•

In 1835 and 1836, Texas was at open war with Mexico, part of the time as an insurgent province, and part of the time as a separate Republic. The first official act of the government manifesting its sympathy for the insurgents, was the appointment in 1835 oi four consuls to reside among them. The appointment was of itself insulting to the Mexican government, and was undoubtedly made for the purpose of stationing in Texas confidential agents who might facilitate the progress of revolt, independence, and annexation.

The embarrassment and perplexity into which Mexico was thrown by the revolt of Texas, and the aid openly fuiTiished the insurgents from the United States, encouraged the Cabinet at Washington once more to press their proposal for purchase, and Mr. Butler, the minister in Mexico, was instructed (16th August, 1835), to negociate for a cession of the territory bounded by the Rio Grande from its seurce to the 37th degree north latitude, and thence to the Pacific including the whole of Texas, Santa Fe, and a large poi-tion of California !* • Ex. Doc. 1st S€«s., 25th Congress.

It may readily be supposed that the Federal administration was not very zealous in prohibiting succor to the Texans, who were laboring to secure to the United States a very large portion of this coveted territory.

On the 29th October, 1836, the Me.xican Minister informed the Secretary of State that no less than twelve vessels were about to sail from New York and New Orleans with military stores, and that on the 10th of the month an armed schooner had sailed from New Orleans for Texas, without papers from the Mexican Consul, and he demanded the interposition of the Government to prevent such breaches of neutrality. In consequence of this application, the Secretary (Mr. Forsyth) addressed a circular to various United States' Attorneys, directing them to " prosecute all violations of those laws of the United States which have been enacted for the purpose of preserving peace and of fulfilling the obligations of treaties with foreign nations." The cold generality of this circular indicated the temper and wishes of its author, which were no doubt perfectly understood by the prosecuting officers to whom the order was addressed. Notwithstanding the publicity and notoriety of the " violations," not an individual was ever punished for participating in them, nor was an officer of the Government ever dismissed or censured for treating the circular as a mere matter of form. A few months after the date of the circular, Mr. N. C. Read, United States' District Attorney in Ohio, addressed a public meeting in that State, called in aid of the Texans, and proposed the following resolution, which was adopted : — " Resolved, that no law, human or divine, except such as are framed by tyrants, and for their benefit, forbids our assisting the Texans ; and such law, if any exists, we do not as Americans choose to obey." At the same meeting, a Committee was openly appointed " to

22 RrviEvr or the Mexican war.

assist Captain Lawrence in raising recruits and funds for the cause of Texas."/ We have no evidence that the extraordinary conduct of the Ohio prosecuting ofBcer impaired the confidence the Government had placed in him. Nevertheless, Mr. Forsyth assured the Mexican Minister that " all measures enjoined and warranted by law have been and will continue to he taken to enforce respect by the citizens of the United States within their jurisdiction to the neutrality of this Government."

The declaration of Mr. Van Buren, the personal fiiend of General Jackson, and his successor in office, is a singular commentary on this official and solemn pledge. " Nothing is either more tiue or more extensively known, than that Texas was wrested from Mexico, and her independence established through the instrumentality of citizens of the United States." *

To a second remonstrance from the Mexican Minister against the aid so openly and scandalously afforded by American citizens to the Texans, Mr. Fx)rsyth returned, 29th Januarj', 1836, the following most extraordinary reply : " No sooner was it apparent that the dispute between Texas and the dominant party m the other IMexican States would be carried to extremities, and indications observed of a design in some of the citizens of the United States to take a part in the struggle, all the 7neasit7-es in his power were adopted hj the President to prevent any interference that could by possibility involve the United States in the dispute, or give just occasion for suspicions of an unfriendly design on the part of the Government to intermeddle in the domestic quarrel of a neighboring State."

Six days before these solemn and official assurances were given, a course of measures had been commenced

* Printed Letter to Mr. Hammet, 20th April, 1844.

by the President wliicli exhibits the veiy peculiar view he ■was pleased to take of neutral obligations.

On the 23rd January, General Gaines ^as directed to take a position near the western frontier ot the State of Louisiana, to prevent the contending parties from entering into the United States' territory ! He was reminded that, by treaty with Mexico, each power is required to prevent by force " all hostilities and incursions on the part of Indian nations within their respective boundaries." Supposing this order to have been given in good faith, its sole object could have been to protect the Texans from assaults by American Indians. There was no reason whatever to apprehend that the Texans, Americans themselves, and daily receiving supplies from their countrymen, would make hostile incursions into the American territory. The Mexicans had neither the disposition nor the ability to invade the United States. There was, moreover, no proof that the American Indians intended any aggressions upon the Texans. The army was stationed on the frontier of Texas for objects very different from those which were avowed. Commanded by a General devoted to the cause of annexation, it gave countenance and support to the Texans in their struggle ; and, should more efficient aid be needed, no small portion of its men, arms, and ammunition, would readily find their way into the Texan camp. It is to be observed, moreover, that Gaines was not directed to prevent Amerkmi citizens from corapromitting the neutrality of the Government. Regiments raised in the Southern States might freely pass his tent on their way to wage war against a friendly power. In deference to our treaty stipulations, Indians were to be restrained from entering Mexico ; but foes far more dangerous to the Mexicans than savages were to have free admittance. General Gaines was a willing in-

24 EEVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.

strument ; and, in acknowledging the rfceipt of the orders seni to him, showed that lie thoroughly understood the purposes for which they were issued. "Should I (said he in his letter to the Secretary of War of 29th March, 1836,*) find any disposition on the part of the Mexicans or their red brethren to menace our frontier, I cannot but deem it my dut3^ not only to hold the troops of my command in readiness for action, in defence of our slender frontier, but to anticipate their lawless movements by crossing our supposed or imaqinary national boundary, and meeting the savage marauders u'herever they may be found in their approach towards our frontier." In other words, he would march to the rescue of Texas, should the Mexican forces advance into the revolted province. A few days after the date of this letter, the General, in his hot zeal, made a requisition on the Governors of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee, each for a battalion of volunteers to p)'>'otect the frontiers ! The General and the Cabinet acted in perfect unison. The former had hinted his readiness to cross the imaginunj boundary, for the purpose of anticipating the appi'oach of the Mexicans. The latter, on the 25th April, informed him there was reason to believe the Indians would be induced to join the Mexicans, and in that case, should the contending parties approach the frontier, he may advance as far as Nacogdoches. On the 4th May, he is informed " that the Secretary of War had written to the Governors of Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alabama, requi)ing them to furnish him with such militia force as he may require to pro'.ect the Western frontier of the United States from hostile incursions." The General had, on his own responsibility, called for four battalions from four States. The President, still more provident, * Ex. Doc, 1st Sees. 21th Cong. Vol. 6.