quest of Mexico, which, he argued, would be the disastrous result of any attempt to strengthen the army of occupation.
Crittenden objected on another ground.
He thought that the additional force asked for should be composed of volunteers rather thare of a conquered country and a suspended autonomy haunted Calhoun, so did the bugbear of a military Frankenstein appal Crittenden.
In answer to the fear of ultimate absorption, entertained by Calhoun and those who, with him, foresaw the dismembeonizing a country.
We cannot do that.
In neither of these modes, then, have we ever conquered Mexico.
Referring to Crittenden's dread of the regular soldier, Mr. Davis skilfully drew the distinction between him and the volunteer.
If this couly enough — with one single exception — the discussion was participated in by men of the same mind.
That exception was Crittenden, of Kentucky, who had insisted on the old Whig idea of centralized power.
He was in favor of the largest latitude to b
r men were admitted into the senatorial arena.
One of these was John P. Hale, of New Hampshire, the other was Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinoisrange comrades were found.
With Bagly, strict constructionist, went Hale, unrelenting sectionalist.
It may be added, here, that in his su a firebrand was hurled into the Senate.
This came from the hand of Hale, of New Hampshire, in the shape of a bill introduced by him, relatinn that to be accorded to another kind of property — that in slaves.
Hale could not but be aware that the mere reading of such a bill would befor the peace of the country, to be kept from the Senate.
Then came Hale's bill.
Submitted and read early in the day, it more than startled tt, of Florida.
Douglas, of Illinois, sided, rather cynically, with Hale.
Cameron, of Pennsylvania, could not see what had induced the Senatoor from the fires of the Missouri Compromise, even then building.
Hale throughout the discussion was cool, because it was a mere matter of