one　so　to　enter　me　is　what　my　word　and　honor　forbid。
  I　got　some　letters　intimating　a　probability　of　so　much　difficulty
  amongst　our　friends　as　to　lose　us　the　district；　but　I　remember
  such　letters　were　written　to　Baker　when　my　own　case　was　under
  consideration；　and　I　trust　there　is　no　more　ground　for　such
  apprehension　now　than　there　was　then。　　Remember　I　am　always　glad
  to　receive　a　letter　from　you。
  Most　truly　your　friend；
  A。　LINCOLN。
  SPEECH　ON　DECLARATION　OF　WAR　ON　MEXICO
  SPEECH　IN　THE　UNITED　STATES　HOUSE　OF　REPRESENTATIVES；
  JANUARY　12；　1848。
  MR　CHAIRMAN：Some　if　not　all　the　gentlemen　on　the　other　side　of
  the　House　who　have　addressed　the　committee　within　the　last　two
  days　have　spoken　rather　complainingly；　if　I　have　rightly
  understood　them；　of　the　vote　given　a　week　or　ten　days　ago
  declaring　that　the　war　with　Mexico　was　unnecessarily　and
  unconstitutionally　commenced　by　the　President。　　I　admit　that　such
  a　vote　should　not　be　given　in　mere　party　wantonness；　and　that　the
  one　given　is　justly　censurable　if　it　have　no　other　or　better
  foundation。　　I　am　one　of　those　who　joined　in　that　vote；　and　I　did
  so　under　my　best　impression　of　the　truth　of　the　case。　　How　I　got
  this　impression；　and　how　it　may　possibly　be　remedied；　I　will　now
  try　to　show。　　When　the　war　began；　it　was　my　opinion　that　all
  those　who　because　of　knowing　too　little；　or　because　of　knowing
  too　much；　could　not　conscientiously　approve　the　conduct　of　the
  President　in　the　beginning　of　it　should　nevertheless；　as　good
  citizens　and　patriots；　remain　silent　on　that　point；　at　least　till
  the　war　should　be　ended。　　Some　leading　Democrats；　including　ex…
  President　Van　Buren；　have　taken　this　same　view；　as　I　understand
  them；　and　I　adhered　to　it　and　acted　upon　it；　until　since　I　took
  my　seat　here；　and　I　think　I　should　still　adhere　to　it　were　it　not
  that　the　President　and　his　friends　will　not　allow　it　to　be　so。
  Besides　the　continual　effort　of　the　President　to　argue　every
  silent　vote　given　for　supplies　into　an　indorsement　of　the　justice
  and　wisdom　of　his　conduct；　besides　that　singularly　candid
  paragraph　in　his　late　message　in　which　he　tells　us　that　Congress
  with　great　unanimity　had　declared　that　〃by　the　act　of　the
  Republic　of　Mexico；　a　state　of　war　exists　between　that　government
  and　the　United　States；〃　when　the　same　journals　that　informed　him
  of　this　also　informed　him　that　when　that　declaration　stood
  disconnected　from　the　question　of　supplies　sixty…seven　in　the
  House；　and　not　fourteen　merely；　voted　against　it；　besides　this
  open　attempt　to　prove　by　telling　the　truth　what　he　could　not
  prove　by　telling　the　whole　truth…demanding　of　all　who　will　not
  submit　to　be　misrepresented；　in　justice　to　themselves；　to　speak
  out；　besides　all　this；　one　of　my　colleagues　＇Mr。　Richardson＇　at　a
  very　early　day　in　the　session　brought　in　a　set　of　resolutions
  expressly　indorsing　the　original　justice　of　the　war　on　the　part
  of　the　President。　　Upon　these　resolutions　when　they　shall　be　put
  on　their　passage　I　shall　be　compelled　to　vote；　so　that　I　cannot
  be　silent　if　I　would。　　Seeing　this；　I　went　about　preparing　myself
  to　give　the　vote　understandingly　when　it　should　come。　　I
  carefully　examined　the　President's　message；　to　ascertain　what　he
  himself　had　said　and　proved　upon　the　point。　　The　result　of　this
  examination　was　to　make　the　impression　that；　taking　for　true　all
  the　President　states　as　facts；　he　falls　far　short　of　proving　his
  justification；　and　that　the　President　would　have　gone　further
  with　his　proof　if　it　had　not　been　for　the　small　matter　that　the
  truth　would　not　permit　him。　　Under　the　impression　thus　made　I
  gave　the　vote　before　mentioned。　　I　propose　now　to　give　concisely
  the　process　of　the　examination　I　made；　and　how　I　reached　the
  conclusion　I　did。　　The　President；　in　his　first　war　message　of
  May；　1846；　declares　that　the　soil　was　ours　on　which　hostilities
  were　commenced　by　Mexico；　and　he　repeats　that　declaration　almost
  in　the　same　language　in　each　successive　annual　message；　thus
  showing　that　he　deems　that　point　a　highly　essential　one。　　In　the
  importance　of　that　point　I　entirely　agree　with　the　President。　　To
  my　judgment　it　is　the　very　point　upon　which　he　should　be
  justified；　or　condemned。　　In　his　message　of　December；　1846；　it
  seems　to　have　occurred　to　him；　as　is　certainly　true；　that　title…
  ownership…to　soil　or　anything　else　is　not　a　simple　fact；　but　is　a
  conclusion　following　on　one　or　more　simple　facts；　and　that　it　was
  incumbent　upon　him　to　present　the　facts　from　which　he　concluded
  the　soil　was　ours　on　which　the　first　blood　of　the　war　was　shed。
  Accordingly；　a　little　below　the　middle　of　page　twelve　in　the
  message　last　referred　to　he　enters　upon　that　task；　forming　an
  issue　and　introducing　testimony；　extending　the　whole　to　a　little
  below　the　middle　of　page　fourteen。　　Now；　I　propose　to　try　to　show
  that　the　whole　of　thisissue　and　evidenceis　from　beginning　to
  end　the　sheerest　deception。　　The　issue；　as　he　presents　it；　is　in
  these　words：　〃But　there　are　those　who；　conceding　all　this　to　be
  true；　assume　the　ground　that　the　true　western　boundary　of　Texas
  is　the　Nueces；　instead　of　the　Rio　Grande；　and　that；　therefore；　in
  marching　our　army　to　the　east　bank　of　the　latter　river；　we　passed
  the　Texas　line　and　invaded　the　territory　of　Mexico。〃　　Now　this
  issue　is　made　up　of　two　affirmatives　and　no　negative。　The　main
  deception　of　it　is　that　it　assumes　as　true　that　one　river　or　the
  other　is　necessarily　the　boundary；　and　cheats　the　superficial
  thinker　entirely　out　of　the　idea　that　possibly　the　boundary　is
  somewhere　between　the　two；　and　not　actually　at　either。　　A　further
  deception　is　that　it　will　let　in　evidence　which　a　true　issue
  would　exclude。　　A　true　issue　made　by　the　President　would　be　about
  as　follows：　〃I　say　the　soil　was　ours；　on　which　the　first　blood
  was　shed；　there　are　those　who　say　it　was　not。〃
  I　now　proceed　to　examine　the　President's　evidence　as　applicable
  to　such　an　issue。　　When　that　evidence　is　analyzed；　it　is　all
  included　in　the　following　propositions
  （1）　That　the　Rio　Grande　was　the　western　boundary　of　Louisiana　as
  we　purchased　it　of　France　in　1803。
  （2）　That　the　Republic　of　Texas　always　claimed　the　Rio　Grande　as
  her　eastern　boundary。
  （3）　That　by　various　acts　she　had　claimed　it　on　paper。
  （4）　That　Santa　Anna　in　his　treaty　with　Texas　recognized　the　Rio
  Grande　as　her　boundary。
  （5）　That　Texas　before；　and　the　United　States　after；　annexation
  had　exercised　jurisdiction　beyond　the　Nuecesbetween　the　two
  rivers。
  （6）　That　our　Congress　understood　the　boundary　of　Texas　to　extend
  beyond　the　Nueces。
  Now　for　each　of　these　in　its　turn。　　His　first　item　is　that　the
  Rio　Grande　was　the　western　boundary　of　Louisiana；　as　we　purchased
  it　of　France　in　1803；　and　seeming　to　expect　this　to　be　disputed；
  he　argues　over　the　amount　of　nearly　a　page　to　prove　it　true；　at
  the　end　of　which　he　lets　us　know　that　by　the　treaty　of　1803　we
  sold　to　Spain　the　whole　country　from　the　Rio　Grande　eastward　to
  the　Sabine。　　Now；　admitting　for　the　present　that　the　Rio　Grande
  was　the　boundary　of　Louisiana；　what　under　heaven　had　that　to　do
  with　the　present　boundary　between　us　and　Mexico？　　How；　Mr。
  Chairman；　the　line　that　once　divided　your　land　from　mine　can
  still　be　the　boundary　between　us　after　I　have　sold　my　land　to　you
  is　to　me　beyond　all　comprehension。　　And　how　any　man；　with　an
  honest　purpose　only　of　proving　the　truth；　could　ever　have　thought
  of　introducing　such　a　fact　to　prove　such　an　issue　is　equally
  incomprehensible。　His　next　piece　of　evidence　is　that　〃the
  Republic　of　Texas　always　claimed　this　river　＇Rio　Grande＇　as　her
  western　boundary。〃　　That　is　not　true；　in　fact。　　Texas　has　claimed
  it；　but　she　has　not　always　claimed　it。　　There　is　at　least　one
  distinguished　exception。　　Her　State　constitution　the　republic's
  most　solemn　and　well…considered　act；　that　which　may；　without
  impropriety；　be　called　her　last　will　and　testament；　revoking　all
  others…makes　no　such　claim。　　But　suppose　she　had　always　claimed
  it。　　Has　not　Mexico　always　claimed　the　contrary？　　So　that　there
  is　but　claim　against　claim；　leaving　nothing　proved　until　we　get
  back　of　the　claims　and　find　which　has　the　better　foundation。
  Though　not　in　the　order　in　which　the　President　presents　his
  evidence；　I　now　consider　that　class　of　his　statements　which　are
  in　substance　nothing　more　than　that　Texas　has；　by　various　acts　of
  her　Convention　and　Congress；　claimed　the　Rio　Grande　as　her
  boundary；　on　paper。　　I　mean　here　what　he　says　about　the　fixing　of
  the　Rio　Grande　as　her　boundary　in　her　old　constitution　（not　her
  State　constitution）；　about　forming　Congressional　districts；
  counties；　etc。　　Now　all　of　this　is　but　naked　claim；　and　what　I
  have　already　said　about　claims　is　strictly　applicable　to　this。
  If　I　should　claim　your　land　by　word　of　mouth；　that　certainly
  would　not　make　it　mine；　and　if　I　were　to　claim　it　by　a　deed　which
  I　had　made　myself；　and　with　which　you