GDG- defends his "spot resolutions"

[Dennis Lawrence]

Wednesday, January 12, 1848.
Washington, DC.

	

Lincoln attacks Polk's war policy. He defends his "spot resolutions" and 
attempts to disprove Polk's contention that Mexicans began war. "The 
President is, in no wise, satisfied with his own positions," he declares. 
". . . He is a bewildered, confounded, and miserably perplexed man. God 
grant he may be able to show, there is not something about his conscience, 
more painful than all his mental perplexity!"

 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Speech in United States House of Representatives: The War with Mexico [1]
Mr. Chairman: January 12, 1848

Some, if not all the gentlemen on, the other side of the House, who have 
addressed the committee within the last two days, have
Page  432
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. [2] 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 removed, I will now try to show. When the war began, 
it way 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 endorsement 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, only 
two in the Senate and fourteen in the House dissenting, 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, sixtyseven 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) [3] at a very early day in the session brought 
in a set of resolutions, expressly endorsing 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 can not 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 messages, to ascertain
Page  433
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 farther 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 esteems 
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 Decr. 
1846, it seems to have occurred to him, as is certainly true, that 
title---ownership---to soil, or any thing else, is not a simple fact; but 
is a conclusion following 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 this,---issue and 
evidence---is, 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 Texan line, 
and invaded the teritory 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 Presidents evidence, as applicable to such an 
issue. When that evidence is analized, it is all included in the following 
propositions:

Page  434
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 Western 
boundary.

3. That by various acts, she had claimed it on paper.

4. That Santa Anna, in his treaty with Texas, recognised the Rio Grande, as 
her boundary.

5. That Texas before, and the U. S. after, annexation had exercised 
jurisdiction beyond the Nueces---between the two rivers.

6. That our Congress, understood the boundary of Texas to extend beyond the 
Nueces.

Now for each of these in it's 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 1819, 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. [4] 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
Page  435
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 &c &c. 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 had had nothing to do, the claim would be quite the same, in 
substance---or rather, in utter nothingness. I next consider the 
President's statement that Santa Anna in his treaty [5] with Texas, recognised
Page  436
the Rio Grande, as the western boundary of Texas. Besides the position, so 
often taken that Santa Anna, while a prisoner of war---a captive---could 
not bind Mexico by a treaty, which I deem conclusive---besides this, I wish 
to say something in relation to this treaty, so called by the President, 
with Santa Anna. If any man would like to be amused by a sight of that 
little thing, which the President calls by that big name, he can have it, 
by turning to Niles' Register volume 50, page 336. And if any one should 
suppose that Niles' Register is a curious repository of so mighty a 
document, as a solemn treaty between nations, I can only say that I 
learned, to a tolerable degree [of] certainty, by enquiry at the State 
Department, that the President himself, never saw it any where else. By the 
way, I believe I should not err, if I were to declare, that during the 
first ten years of the existence of that document, it was never, by any 
body, called a treaty---that it was never so called, till the President, in 
his extremity, attempted, by so calling it, to wring something from it in 
justification of himself in connection with the Mexican war. It has none of 
the distinguishing features of a treaty. It does not call itself a treaty. 
Santa Anna does not therein, assume to bind Mexico; he assumes only to act 
as the President-Commander-in-chief of the Mexican Army and Navy; 
stipulates that the then present hostilities should cease, and that he 
would not himself take up arms, nor influence the Mexican people to take up 
arms, against Texas during the existence of the war of independence[.] He 
did not recognise the independence of Texas; he did not assume to put an 
end to the war; but clearly indicated his expectation of it's continuance; 
he did not say one word about boundary, and, most probably, never thought 
of it. It is stipulated therein that the Mexican forces should evacuate the 
teritory of Texas, passing to the other side of the Rio Grande; and in 
another article, it is stipulated that, to prevent collisions between the 
armies, the Texan army should not approach nearer than within five leagues---of
Page  437
what is not said---but clearly, from the object stated it is---of the Rio 
Grande. Now, if this is a treaty, recognising the Rio Grande, as the 
boundary of Texas, it contains the singular feauture [sic], of stipulating, 
that Texas shall not go within five leagues of her own boundary.

Next comes the evidence of Texas before annexation, and the United States, 
afterwards, exercising jurisdiction beyond the Nueces, and between the two 
rivers. This actual exercise of jurisdiction, is the very class or quality 
of evidence we want. It is excellent so far as it goes; but does it go far 
enough? He tells us it went beyond the Nueces; but he does not tell us it 
went to the Rio Grande. He tells us, jurisdiction was exercised between the 
two rivers, but he does not tell us it was exercised over all the teritory 
between them. Some simple minded people, think it is possible, to cross one 
river and go beyond it without going all the way to the next---that 
jurisdiction may be exercised between two rivers without covering all the 
country between them. I know a man, not very unlike myself, who exercises 
jurisdiction over a piece of land between the Wabash and the Mississippi; 
and yet so far is this from being all there is between those rivers, that 
it is just one hundred and fiftytwo feet long by fifty wide, and no part of 
it much within a hundred miles of either. He has a neighbour between him 
and the Mississippi,---that is, just across the street, in that 
direction---whom, I am sure, he could neither persuade nor force to give up 
his habitation; but which nevertheless, he could certainly annex, if it 
were to be done, by merely standing on his own side of the street and 
claiming it, or even, sitting down, and writing a deed for it.

But next the President tells us, the Congress of the United States 
understood the state of Texas they admitted into the union, to extend 
beyond the Nueces. Well, I suppose they did. I certainly so understood it. 
But how far beyond? That Congress did not understand it to extend clear to 
the Rio Grande, is quite certain by the fact of their joint resolutions, 
for admission, expressly leaving all questions of boundary to future 
adjustment. And it may be added, that Texas herself, is proved to have had 
the same understanding of it, that our Congress had, by the fact of the 
exact conformity of her new constitution, to those resolutions.

I am now through the whole of the President's evidence; and it is a 
singular fact, that if any one should declare the President sent the army 
into the midst of a settlement of Mexican people, who had never submited, 
by consent or by force, to the authority of Texas or of the United States, 
and that there, and thereby, the first blood of the war was shed, there is 
not one word in all the President
Page  438
has said, which would either admit or deny the declaration. [6] This 
strange omission, it does seem to me, could not have occurred but by 
design. My way of living leads me to be about the courts of justice; and 
there, I have sometimes seen a good lawyer, struggling for his client's 
neck, in a desparate case, employing every artifice to work round, befog, 
and cover up, with many words, some [7] point arising in the case, which he 
dared not admit, and yet could not deny. Party bias may help to make it 
appear so; but with all the allowance I can make for such bias, it still 
does appear to me, that just such, and from just such necessity, is the 
President's struggle in this case.

Some time after my colleague (Mr. Richardson) introduced the resolutions I 
have mentioned, I introduced a preamble, resolution, and interrogatories, 
[8] intended to draw the President out, if possible, on this hitherto 
untrodden ground. To show their relevancy, I propose to state my 
understanding of the true rule for ascertaining the boundary between Texas 
and Mexico. It is, that wherever Texas was exercising jurisdiction, was 
hers; and wherever Mexico was exercising jurisdiction, was hers; and that 
whatever separated the actual exercise of jurisdiction of the one, from 
that of the other, was the true boundary between them. If, as is probably 
true, Texas was exercising jurisdiction along the western bank of the 
Nueces, and Mexico was exercising it along the eastern bank of the Rio 
Grande, then neither river was the boundary; but the uninhabited country 
between the two, was. The extent of our teritory in that region depended, 
not on any treaty-fixed boundary (for no treaty had attempted it) but on 
revolution. Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have 
the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new 
one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,---a most sacred 
right---a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor 
is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing 
government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, 
may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they 
inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may 
revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about 
them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, 
of the tories of our
Page  439
own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or 
old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones. As to the country now in 
question, we bought it of France in 1803, and sold it to Spain in 1819, 
according to the President's statements. After this, all Mexico, including 
Texas, revolutionized against Spain; and still later, Texas revolutionized 
against Mexico. In my view, just so far as she carried her revolution, by 
obtaining the actual, willing or unwilling, submission of the people, so 
far, the country was hers, and no farther. Now sir, for the purpose of 
obtaining the very best evidence, as to whether Texas had actually carried 
her revolution, to the place where the hostilities of the present war 
commenced, let the President answer the interrogatories, I proposed, as 
before mentioned, or some other similar ones. Let him answer, fully, 
fairly, and candidly. Let him answer with facts, and not with arguments. 
Let him remember he sits where Washington sat, and so remembering, let him 
answer, as Washington would answer. As a nation should not, and the 
Almighty will not, be evaded, so let him attempt no evasion---no 
equivocation. And if, so answering, he can show that the soil was ours, 
where the first blood of the war was shed---that it was not within an 
inhabited country, or, if within such, that the inhabitants had submitted 
themselves to the civil authority of Texas, or of the United States, and 
that the same is true of the site of Fort Brown, then I am with him for his 
justification. In that case I, shall be most happy to reverse the vote I 
gave the other day. I have a selfish motive for desiring that the President 
may do this. I expect to give some votes, in connection with the war, 
which, without his so doing, will be of doubtful propriety in my own 
judgment, but which will be free from the doubt if he does so. But if he 
can not, or will not do this---if on any pretence, or no pretence, he shall 
refuse or omit it, then I shall be fully convinced, of what I more than 
suspect already, that he is deeply conscious of being in the wrong---that 
he feels the blood of this war, like the blood of Abel, is crying to Heaven 
against him. [9] That originally having some strong motive---what, I will 
not stop now to give my opinion concerning---to involve the two countries 
in a war, and trusting to escape scrutiny, by fixing the public gaze upon 
the exceeding brightness of military glory---that attractive rainbow, that 
rises in showers of blood---that serpent's eye, that charms to destroy---he 
plunged into it, and has swept, on and on, till, disappointed in his 
calculation of the ease with which Mexico might be
Page  440
subdued, he now finds himself, he knows not where. How like the half insane 
mumbling of a fever-dream, is the whole war part of his late message! At 
one time telling us that Mexico has nothing whatever, that we can get, but 
teritory; at another, showing us how we can support the war, by levying 
contributions on Mexico. At one time, urging the national honor, the 
security of the future, the prevention of foreign interference, and even, 
the good of Mexico herself, as among the objects of the war; at another, 
telling us, that ``to reject indemnity, by refusing to accept a cession of 
teritory, would be to abandon all our just demands, and to wage the war, 
bearing all it's expenses, without a purpose or definite object[.]'' So 
then, the national honor, security of the future, and every thing but 
teritorial indemnity, may be considered the no-purposes, and indefinite, 
objects of the war! But, having it now settled that teritorial indemnity is 
the only object, we are urged to seize, by legislation here, all that he 
was content to take, a few months ago, and the whole province of lower 
California to boot, and to still carry on the war---to take all we are 
fighting for, and still fight on. Again, the President is resolved, under 
all circumstances, to have full teritorial indemnity for the expenses of 
the war; but he forgets to tell us how we are to get the excess, after 
those expenses shall have surpassed the value of the whole of the Mexican 
teritory. So again, he insists that the separate national existence of 
Mexico, shall be maintained; but he does not tell us how this can be done, 
after we shall have taken all her teritory. Lest the questions, I here 
suggest, be considered speculative merely, let me be indulged a moment in 
trying [to] show they are not. The war has gone on some twenty months; for 
the expenses of which, together with an inconsiderable old score, the 
President now claims about one half of the Mexican teritory; and that, by 
far the better half, so far as concerns our ability to make any thing out 
of it. It is comparatively uninhabited; so that we could establish land 
offices in it, and raise some money in that way. But the other half is 
already inhabited, as I understand it, tolerably densely for the nature of 
the country; and all it's lands, or all that are valuable, already 
appropriated as private property. How then are we to make any thing out of 
these lands with this incumbrance on them? or how, remove the incumbrance? 
I suppose no one will say we should kill the people, or drive them out, or 
make slaves of them, or even confiscate their property. How then can we 
make much out of this part of the teritory? If the prosecution of the war 
has, in expenses, already equalled the better half of the country, how long 
it's future prosecution, will be in equalling, the less valuable half, is 
not a speculative, b
Page  441
question, pressing closely upon us. And yet it is a question which the 
President seems to never have thought of. As to the mode of terminating the 
war, and securing peace, the President is equally wandering and indefinite. 
First, it is to be done by a more vigorous prossecution of the war in the 
vital parts of the enemies country; and, after apparantly, talking himself 
tired, on this point, the President drops down into a half despairing tone, 
and tells us that ``with a people distracted and divided by contending 
factions, and a government subject to constant changes, by successive 
revolutions, the continued success of our arms may fail to secure a 
satisfactory peace[.]'' Then he suggests the propriety of wheedling the 
Mexican people to desert the counsels of their own leaders, and trusting in 
our protection, to set up a government from which we can secure a 
satisfactory peace; telling us, that ``this may become the only mode of 
obtaining such a peace.'' But soon he falls into doubt of this too; and 
then drops back on to the already half abandoned ground of ``more vigorous 
prossecution.[''] All this shows that the President is, in no wise, 
satisfied with his own positions. First he takes up one, and in attempting 
to argue us into it, he argues himself out of it; then seizes another, and 
goes through the same process; and then, confused at being able to think of 
nothing same process; and then, confused at being able to think of nothing 
new, he snatches up the old one again, which he has some time before cast 
off. His mind, tasked beyond it's power, is running hither and thither, 
like some tortured creature, on a burning surface, finding no position, on 
which it can settle down, and be at ease.

Again, it is a singular omission in this message, that it, no where 
intimates when the President expects the war to terminate. At it's 
beginning, Genl. Scott [10] was, by this same President, driven into 
disfavor, if not disgrace, for intimating that peace could not be conquered 
in less than three or four months. But now, at the end of about twenty 
months, during which time our arms have given us the most splendid 
successes---every department, and every part, land and water, officers and 
privates, regulars and volunteers, doing all that men could do, and 
hundreds of things which it had ever before been thought men could not 
do,---after all this, this same President gives us a long message, without 
showing us, that, as to the end, he himself, has, even an immaginary 
conception. As I have before said, he knows not where he is. He is a 
bewildered,
Page  442
confounded, and miserably perplexed man. God grant he may be able to show, 
there is not something about his conscience, more painful than all his 
mental perplexity!
Annotation

[1]   AD, DLC-RTL. The manuscript is followed throughout. Lincoln's 
emendations, presumably inserted in printer's proof, in the Congressional 
Globe Appendix, pp. 93-95, are given in footnotes. In addition to these 
sources for the speech as written, there is the detailed report of the 
speech as delivered, printed in the Congressional Globe, Thirtieth 
Congress, First Session, New Series, No. 10, pp. 154-56, which was copied 
by the Illinois Journal, February 10, 1848.

[2]   James K. Polk.

[3]   William A. Richardson, Democrat, from Rushville, Illinois, who had 
been elected to the House to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of 
representative-elect Stephen A. Douglas.

[4]   In the text of the Congressional Globe Appendix, Lincoln inserted at 
this point the following sentence: ``The outrage upon common right, of 
seizing as our own what we have once sold, merely because it was ours 
before we sold it, is only equalled by the outrage on common sense of any 
attempt to justify it.''

[5]   The text of the so-called ``treaty,'' printed following Lincoln's 
speech in the Congressional Globe Appendix is as follows: Articles of an 
agreement entered into between his Excellency David G. Burnet, President of 
the Republic of Texas, of the one part, and his Excellency General Santa 
Anna, President-General-in-Chief of the Mexican army, of the other part

ARTICLE 1. General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna agrees that he will not take 
up arms, nor will he exercise his influence to cause them to be taken up, 
against the people of Texas, during the present war of independence.

ART. 2. All hostilities between the Mexican and Texan troops will cease 
immediately, both by land and water.

ART. 3. The Mexican troops will evacuate the territory of Texas, passing to 
the other side of the Rio Grande Del Norte.

ART. 4. The Mexican army, in its retreat, shall not take the property of 
any person without his consent and just indemnification, using only such 
articles as may be necessary for its subsistence, in cases when the owner 
may not be present, and remitting to the commander of the army of Texas, or 
to the Commissioners to be appointed for the adjustment of such matters, an 
account of the value of the property consumed, the place where taken, and 
the name of the owner, if it can be ascertained.

ART. 5. That all private property, including cattle, horses, negro slaves, 
or indentured persons, of whatever denomination, that may have been 
captured by any portion of the Mexican army, or may have taken refuge in 
the said army, since the commencement of the late invasion, shall be 
restored to the commander of the Texan army, or to such other persons as 
may be appointed by the Government of Texas to receive them.

ART. 6. The troops of both armies will refrain from coming into contact 
with each other; and to this end, the commander of the army of Texas will 
be careful not to approach within a shorter distance than five leagues.

ART. 7. The Mexican army shall not make any other delay, on its march, than 
that which is necessary to take up their hospitals, baggage, &c., and to 
cross the rivers; any delay not necessary to these purposes to be 
considered an infraction of this agreement.

ART. 8. By an express to be immediately despatched, this agreement shall be 
sent to General Vincente Filisola, and to General T. J. Rusk, commander of 
the Texan army, in order that they may be apprized of its stipulations; and 
to this end, they will exchange engagements to comply with the same.

ART. 9. That all Texan prisoners now in the possession of the Mexican army, 
or its authorities, be forthwith released, and furnished with free 
passports to return to their homes; in consideration of which, a 
corresponding number of Mexican prisoners, rank and file, now in possession 
of the Government of Texas, shall be immediately released---the remainder 
of the Mexican prisoners that continue in the possession of the Government 
of Texas to be treated with due humanity; any extraordinary comforts that 
may be furnished them to be at the charge of the Government of Mexico.

ART. 10. General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna will be sent to Vera Cruz as 
soon as it shall be deemed proper.

The contracting parties sign this instrument for the above mentioned 
purposes, in duplicate, at the port of Velasco, this 14th day of May, 1836.

DAVID G. BURNET, President.

JAS. COLLINGSWORTH, Secretary of State.

ANTONIO LOPEZ DE SANTA ANNA.

B. HARDIMAN, Secretary of the Treasury.

P. W. GRAYSON, Attorney-General.

[6]   At this point in the Congressional Globe Appendix, Lincoln emended 
the next sentence as follows: ``In this strange omission chiefly consists 
the deception of the President's evidence---an omission which, it does seem 
to me, could scarcely have occurred but by design.''

[7]   Lincoln emended ``point arising in the case'' to ``position pressed 
upon him by the prosecution.''

[8]   Supra, under date of December 22, 1847.

[9]   At this point Lincoln emended as follows: ``; that he ordered General 
Taylor into the midst of a peaceful Mexican settlement, purposely to bring 
on a war; that originally . . .'' etc.

[10]   Winfield Scott. Both General Scott and General Taylor were Whigs, 
and administration leaders feared the increase of their popularity. Scott 
justifiably suspected the administration of withholding complete 
co-operation. On January 2, Scott was recalled; on January 31 and April 17, 
Lincoln voted in favor of resolutions requesting the President to explain 
the suspension. On April 22, Scott was superseded by General W. O. Butler.