army—the militia of Texas are so remote from the border and so inefficient when they arrive, that we can not depend upon their aid." Sir, he has assumed the responsibility of defaming the character of men, who, to say the least of them, had never given the least occasion for such an imputation as this—men who would have rallied to his standard in a moment if he had given the least intimation to them—men who would have periled everything in defense of their territory—men who, in recollection of former deeds, would have offered up their hearts' blood in vindication of the honor of the flag of that Union with which they had become incorporated, and to which the bright lustre of their own lone star had been added. Yet he says the army was in a position of peril, and he could not depend upon them. When, I ask, had they ever been inefficient or delinquent in time of peril, or recreant in the hour of danger? Yet here a high functionary of the Government, the head of a gallant army, whose heart ought to have been filled with admiration of valorous deeds, and ready to award the tribute that is due to unconquerable courage, stigmatizes the men of Texas as inefficient and unreliable in time of peril. Experience had never enabled him to judge of them, and was this, then, no manifestation of prejudice? Why, sir, two hundred and fifty rangers, if he had called them into service, would have repulsed any attempt that might have been made to cross the Rio Grande. And the songs of peace would have been heard uninterruptedly until this day upon the banks of that river. Five hundred Texan rangers would have been more than enough to accomplish the object. Yet, instead of calling them to his aid according to his authority under the Government, he denounces them as unreliable; and when at last they were called upon, what did he do? Did he permit them to advance, or to pursue the enemy, for it was the first opportunity they had of encountering them upon equal terms? No. They were restrained, fretting like chafed lions, anxious for the pursuit, while he permitted commands to be led in advance by men unacquainted with Mexican warfare, colonels from the interior were permitted to lead the advance through the dense chaparrals and jungles of Mexico, and the brave Texans were confined to southern plains, exposed, untented, beneath southern suns, to endure disease and death; but, fortunately for the survivors, the day was not distant when they could give new manifestations of irresistible valor, worthy of the cause in which they were engaged. At Monterey it was Texans who first took the Bishop's Palace, a key to victory. Gillespie's monument stands upon the heights, a record of unshrinking gallantry. The Plaza, too, was virtually in possession of the Texans, when the flag for the armistice was received, and orders were sent into the city to stay the daring enterprise of those who were on the eve of possessing the Plaza, and who hesitated in rendering obedience to the order, as they deemed victory within their grasp. Their gallantry on this occasion was no security against obloquy and defamation; even after the peerless bravery displayed on this occasion, they were denounced and stigmatized as the veriest refuse of men, and as a dishonor to the army. Is it strange then, sir, that a prejudice, so easily conceived and strongly entertained, should now extend to the invasion of our constitutional rights as a State? Is it strange that our civil rights should be no more respected now, than was our military character then? No, sir, it is not strange.
But I will read for the information of the Senate and of the world, if it chooses to be concerned with matters of such minor importance, further evidence of encroachments upon the rights of Te.xas as a sovereign State. Let me ask, was it
