History of the War Between Mexico and the United States with a Preliminary View of its Origin Part 3

From this sketch it will be perceived that Spain, although willing to forego the continuance of war, and to save the point of honor between herself and the rebellious provinces when it was impossible to recover her dominion over them, nevertheless, clung with stupid pride to her abstract right of reconquest for a long period after she had substantially acknowledged their freedom. The dismemberment of Spain was, of course, an event which the monarch could not behold without regret, for it was natural that he should seek to transmit his dominions to posterity uncurtailed of their fair proportions. Yet, in the adoption of a diplomatic _ruse_,--in the truce of twelve years,--there was a degree of wisdom which it would have been well for Spain to recollect when it became evident that the revolt of her American colonies was about to terminate in their independence. The pa.s.sions between the belligerents would have had time to cool. The common ties of blood and language might gradually have bound up the wounds made by war. The intervention of friendly powers would have obtained concessions from the discreet parent,--and thus Peru and Mexico might still have shone as the brightest jewels in the Spanish crown. No quarrel ever terminated in perfect re-establishment of amity without tolerance or retraction on the part of one of the disputants. Superior force may overawe into silence or crush by its ponderous blows, yet the non-resistance and taciturnity which ensue are but the repose that precedes the hurricane, in which the elements seem gathering strength to pour forth their wrath with irresistible fury.

So was it with Spain and her American colonies. Instead of soothing and pacific measures, tending to allay resentment and bring back the rebel to allegiance, the utmost violence was at once adopted both in deeds and language, and scenes of barbarity were enacted by Calleja and his myrmidons from which the heart recoils with horror.[31]

Severe as was the lesson taught by the conduct of Spain to Mexico, that republic, nevertheless, resolved not to profit by it when she, in turn, saw one of her States discontented with her misrule and usurpations. If Texas had been soothed; if justice had been speedily done; if the executive had despatched discreet officers, and reconciled the differences between the North American emigrants and the Spaniards, not only in civil and munic.i.p.al government, but in religion and temper,--Texas might not have been lost to Mexico,--but, invigorated by a hardy and industrious population, would have poured commercial wealth into her coffers, and furnished her factories among the mountains with an abundance of that staple which the native Indians are as unused as they are unwilling to cultivate. Had Mexico been even as wise as Philip, in 1609, and saved her punctilious honor by a twelve years truce, she would only have postponed the settlement of her difficulties, until her internal affairs became sufficiently pacific to enable a firm government to act with discretion and justice.

Since the year 1843 the Texas question has been so much a matter of party dispute in the United States that the true history of the revolt seems to be almost forgotten. I shall not hesitate therefore to recount some of the events connected with it, because they are relevant to the issue between us and Mexico, as well as necessary to the elucidation of the justice of her quarrel.

It is an error that the Texan rebellion was conceived in a spirit of sheer fraud upon Mexico; and writers who seek to stigmatize it thus are entirely ignorant of its origin.

The contest that arose between the central and federal parties in Mexico immediately after the establishment of independence has been narrated in a preceding chapter. The first _federal_ const.i.tution is an almost literal copy of our own; but its equitable and progressive principles did not suit the military despots who, whilst they commanded the army, held the physical power of Mexico in their hands. The consequence was that during the administration of the first president, Victoria, there were _p.r.o.nunciamientos_ against federation and in favor of centralism, by _Padre Arenas_, and at Tulancingo, under the "plan of Montayno."

Quarrels in the party lodges of the Yorkinos and Escossceses--the liberalists and centralists--next arose;--and, finally, the revolution under the "plan of Toluca," destroyed the cherished const.i.tution of 1824, by striking a death blow at the federative principle. This plan vested the power in a central government, abolished State legislatures, and changed those States into departments under the control of military governors, who were responsible to the chief authorities of the nation alone. These principles were embodied in the new const.i.tution of 1836, and were, of course, distasteful to every friend of genuine liberty.[32]

Meanwhile, the beautiful province of Texas had not been an unconcerned spectator of events. Bordering on the Gulf of Mexico, and stretching along our Southern boundary, it contained an extensive territory, fine rivers, wide prairies, and a soil capable of maintaining near ten millions of people.--Such a country naturally attracted the attention of the people of the United States, numbers of whom are always ready, with the adventurous spirit that characterises our race, to seek new lands and improve their fortunes by emigrating from the crowded places of their birth. The project of colonizing Texas, had, therefore, struck an intelligent citizen of our country; and, on the 17th of January, 1821, Moses Austin obtained permission from the supreme government of the eastern internal provinces of New Spain at Monterey, to settle a colony of emigrants in Texas. Accordingly, in the following winter, his son, Stephen F. Austin, who undertook the enterprize in obedience to a testamentary request of his father, appeared on the Brazos with the first Anglo-American settlers.

In January, 1823, a national colonization law, approved by the Emperor Iturbide, was adopted by the Mexican congress, and, on the 18th of February, a decree was issued authorizing Austin to proceed with the founding of his colony. This decree, after Iturbide's abdication and the downfall of the Imperial government, was confirmed by the first executive council in accordance with a special order of the Mexican congress.

In 1824, the federal const.i.tution was adopted and proclaimed as the established polity of the land;--and, at this period, the character of Texas begins for the first time to a.s.sume an independent aspect, for, by a decree of the 7th of May, it was united with Coahuila, and, under the name of Coahuila and Texas, formed one of the const.i.tuent, sovereign States of the Mexican confederacy. Up to this period, whilst all was proceeding well in the capital, the scheme of emigration, seems to have met with no discouragement. By an act pa.s.sed in August, 1824, another _general_ colonization law was established;--and, by a _State_ colonization law of Coahuila and Texas, foreigners were invited to settle within the limits of that especial jurisdiction. Thus it was that State sovereignty first accrued to Texas and Coahuila under the federal system,--a system similar to the one under which the colonists had formerly lived in our Union and under which, by the adoption of their own State laws, they signified their willingness to become members of the Mexican confederacy. This State sovereignty was never resigned, but, on the contrary, was always distinctly a.s.serted. The federation existed precisely for the same purposes that the union of our States was formed; and, as soon as the const.i.tution was destroyed by intrigue and revolutionary violence in 1835, the several States were remitted to their inherent rights, independent of any military despot who succeeded in seizing the central power. Meanwhile our people had flocked to Texas under the belief that a const.i.tution which was a transcript of our own, would secure peace and prosperity to settlers. Accustomed to find laws observed and the const.i.tution indestructible, they expected to encounter the same regularity and firmness in that virgin State. They were industrious in their pursuits, and willing to abide the settlement of all quarrels in the capital; nor was it until long after the federal and centralist disputes commenced, that they began even to notice the political convulsions which were so ominous of disaster. The quiet and orderly conduct of our emigrants was, nevertheless, not regarded so favorably by the Mexicans. The rapidly growing strength of the Texans and their strict devotion to republicanism, attracted the jealousy of the supreme government; and when a Mexican begins either to fear or to doubt, the provocation is quite enough to convert him into an oppressor.

Accordingly, on the 6th of April, 1830, an arbitrary law was pa.s.sed by which the future immigration of American settlers to Texas was prohibited. Military posts of _surveillance_ were established over the State, and ignorant and insolent soldiers of another race, began to domineer over a people whom they regarded as inferiors. At length the civil authorities of Texas were entirely disregarded, and the emigrants. .h.i.therto unused at home or abroad to an armed police, or to the sight of a uniform except on parade days, suddenly found themselves subjected to the capricious tyranny of military rule.[33]

On the 26th of June, 1832, the colonists took arms against this despotic interference with their const.i.tutional freedom and besieged and captured the fort at Velasco. The garrison at Anahuac and that at Nacogdoches, were next reduced; and, in December of that year, when hostilities were suspended between Santa Anna and Bustamante, the colonists were again restored to the enjoyment of their rights guarantied under the const.i.tution.

In May 1824, Texas had been promised a separate State const.i.tution as soon as she was prepared for it, but upon application to congress in 1833, after framing a suitable instrument in general convention at San Felipe, her request was denied. In 1835 the crisis at length arrived.

The federal const.i.tution fell. The resistance of several States to this despotism was suppressed by force. The legislature of Coahuila and Texas was dispersed at the point of the bayonet. Zacatecas, a brave stronghold of federalism, was a.s.saulted by the central chiefs and her people butchered. And, finally, the whole republic, save Texas, yielded to Santa Anna.

As this state at once resolved to maintain her sovereignty and federative rights, corresponding committees of safety and vigilance were promptly formed in all the munic.i.p.alities. An immediate appeal to arms proclaimed the people's resolution to adhere to the const.i.tution; and at Gonzales, Goliad, Bexar, Conception, Sepantillan, San Patricio, and San Antonio, they were victorious over the centralists. In November, 1835, the delegates of the Texan people a.s.sembled in "general consultation,"

and declared that "they had taken up arms in defence of the federal const.i.tution of 1824, and that they would continue faithful to the Mexican confederacy as long as it should be governed by the laws that were framed for the protection of their political rights; that they were no longer morally or politically bound by the compact of union; yet, stimulated by the generous sympathy of a free people, they offered their a.s.sistance to such members of the confederacy as would take up arms against military despotism. This patriotic manifesto declaring at once the freedom of Texas and offering to other parts of Mexico a defensive alliance in favor of const.i.tutional liberty, found no response from the overawed States, and thus Texas was abandoned to the mercy of a military president, who signalized his campaign of 1836 by acts of brutality which must forever consign his name to infamy."[34] Notwithstanding Santa Anna's successes at San Antonio and his frightful ma.s.sacres, General Houston, the commander of the Texan forces, met and conquered the Mexicans on the 21st of April, 1836, in the brilliant action at San Jacinto, and thenceforth, in the emphatic language of an American statesman "the war was at an end."[35]

"No hostile foot found rest" within her territory for six or seven years ensuing this event, and Mexico, by confining her a.s.saults to border forays practically abstained from all efforts to re-establish her dominion.[36] In this peaceful interval the country rapidly filled up with emigrants; adopted a const.i.tution; established a permanent government, and obtained an acknowledgement of her independence by the United States and other powers. It was then supposed that nearly one hundred thousand people occupied the territory; and, in 1837, they sought to place themselves under the protection of our confederacy. But our government declined the proposition made through the Texan plenipotentiary, upon the ground that the treaty of amity and peace between the United States and Mexico should not be violated by an act which necessarily involved the question of war with the adversary of Texas.[37]

This brief history of the Texan revolt against centralism seems to place the authorities of that country on a firm basis of natural and const.i.tutional right. In the constant conflicts that have taken place throughout Mexico between the federalists and centralists, or rather between democracy and despotism, Texas attempted no more than any of the liberal States of Mexico would have done, had not the free voice of educated patriots been elsewhere stifled by military power. The only difference between them is, that in Texas there was an Anglo-American population bold and strong enough to maintain republicanism, whilst in Mexico, the mongrel race of Spaniards and Indians was too feeble to resist effectually.

From 1836 to 1846 Santa Anna diligently persevered in the support of his central usurpation. But in the latter year the principles of the Texan revolution obtained a decided victory over military despotism, and even Santa Anna himself, who had been the originator of all the revolutions of his country, the disturber of its peace, and destroyer of its political morality was forced to make a humiliating confession of his errors.

It will be remembered that he was exiled from Mexico in the year 1845, and resided in Havana until the summer of 1846, when a revolution against the government of Paredes prepared the way for his return. On the 8th of March, 1846, in writing to a friend a letter which has since been published he declares that: "the love of provincial liberties being firmly rooted in the minds of all, and the democratic principle predominating every where, nothing can be established in a solid manner, in the country, which does not conform with these tendencies; nor without them can we attain either order, peace, prosperity, or respectability among foreign nations. To draw every thing to the centre, and thus to give unity of action to the republic, as I at one time considered best, is no longer possible; nay more, I say it is dangerous; it is contrary to the object which I proposed for myself in the unitarian system, because we thereby expose ourselves to the separation of the northern departments, which are the most clamorous for freedom of internal administration."[38]

In this remarkable retraction of Santa Anna's despotic principles, Texas finds a perfect vindication of her revolt. It would have been well for Mexico had her military president been willing to make the same concessions before the memorable battle of San Jacinto!

FOOTNOTES:

[30] Arnold's third lecture on modern history.

[31] Robinson's Memoirs of the Mexican Revolution, pages 20, 22, 24.

[32] Mexico as it was and as it is, pp. 336, 339. Foote's History of Texas.

[33] Doc.u.ment No. 40, H. of R. 25th cong. 1st sess. p. 4.

[34] A full account of this campaign will be found in a work ent.i.tled "Primera Campana de Tejas," published in Mexico in August 1837, by Don Ramon Martinez Caro, who was Santa Anna's military secretary during the campaign. He treats his former chief with unsparing severity, and very clearly attributes to him all the ferocious acts of the war. In Thompson's "Recollections of Mexico," a conversation of the ex-minister with Santa Anna will be found, in which his exculpation is attempted, pp. 68, _et seq._

[35] Mr. Webster's letter to Waddy Thompson, 8th July, 1842.

[36] Webster to Thompson _ut antea_.

[37] Letter of Mr. Forsyth to General Hunt, 25th Aug. 1847. Doc. No. 40, H. of R., 25th congress, 1st session.

[38] Translation of a letter from General Santa Anna, in Mexico as it was and as it is.--4th edition, page 414.

CHAPTER IV.

Origin of the war continued--Proposed annexation of Texas to the United States by treaty--Efforts of several administrations to recover Texas after the Florida treaty--President Tyler's objects--Mexican opinions--British intrigue--British views relative to Texas--Defeat of the treaty in the senate--French opinions.

There is no doubt that although the government of the United States was anxious to preserve a strict neutrality between the belligerents in 1837, and, thus, to avoid a.s.suming the war with Mexico by annexing an insurgent State, it, nevertheless, refused the proffered union with regret. From the earliest period, our statesmen contended that, by the Louisiana treaty, we acquired a t.i.tle to Texas extending to the Rio Grande, and that we unwisely relinquished our t.i.tle to Spain by the treaty of 1819 which subst.i.tuted the Sabine for the Rio Grande as our western boundary.[39] But, divested as we were by solemn compact with Spain, of what may have been our territory under the treaty with France, it was idle to regard Texas as a proper subject for restoration to the Union whilst active hostilities were waged by Mexico. Nevertheless, such was the evident value of the province, and such the anxiety to regain our ancient limits that before the outbreak of the revolution, Mr. Clay, as secretary of state under the administration of Mr. Adams, in March of the years 1825 and 1827, directed Mr. Poinsett, our envoy in Mexico, to negotiate for the transfer of Texas. This direction was repeated by Mr.

Van Buren to our minister in August, 1829; and was followed by similar instructions from Mr. Livingston on the 20th of March, 1833, and by Mr.

Forsyth on the 2d of July, 1835. President Jackson, however, was not contented with negotiations for that province alone; but, looking forward, with statesmanlike forecast, to the growth and value of our commerce in the Pacific ocean as well as on the west coast of America, he required the secretary of state, in August, 1835, to seek from Mexico a cession of territory, whose boundary, beginning at the mouth of the Rio Grande, would run along the eastern bank of that river to the thirty-seventh degree of lat.i.tude, and continue thence, by that parallel, to the Pacific. This demand, if granted by Mexico, not only secured Texas, but would have included the largest and most valuable portion of California together with the n.o.ble bay of San Francisco, in which our navy and merchantmen might find a safe and commodious refuge.[40]

Our anxiety to reannex Texas by peaceable negotiation was not met, however, by a correspondent feeling upon the part of Mexico.

Mr. Poinsett, on his return from Mexico, informed Mr. Clay that he had forborne even to make an overture for the repurchase of Texas, because he knew that such a negotiation would be impracticable, and believed that any hint of our desire would aggravate the irritations already existing between the countries.[41] The events which subsequently transpired in Texas, during the period when emigration increased from the United States, to that of the actual outbreak of hostilities, prevented the formation, in Mexico, of any party favorable to such an enterprise; and, after the war began, all hope of negotiation between us was dispelled.

"A leading member of the Mexican cabinet once remarked to me," says Mr.

Thompson, in his Recollections of Mexico,[42] "that he believed the tendency of things was towards the annexation of Texas to the United States, and that he greatly preferred such a result either to the independence of Texas or any connection or dependence of Texas upon England; that if it became an independent power, other departments of Mexico would unite with it either voluntarily or by conquest, and that if there was any connexion between Texas and England, English merchandize would be smuggled into Mexico through Texas to the utter ruin of Mexican manufactures and revenue.

"In one of my last interviews with Santa Anna," continues the American minister, "I mentioned this conversation. He replied with great vehemence that he would 'war forever for the reconquest of Texas, and that if he died in his senses his last words should be an exhortation to his countrymen never to abandon the effort to recover the province;'

and, added he: 'you know, sir, very well, that to sign a treaty for the alienation of Texas would be the same thing as signing the death warrant of Mexico, for, by the same process, the United States would take one after another of the Mexican provinces, until they possessed them all.'"

Such were the feelings of Mexico in regard to annexation, and such the anxieties in cabinets of all parties in the United States to restore our ancient limits, when the presses of our country intimated, in the year 1844, that President Tyler was negotiating a treaty of union with Texas as an independent power. It was on the eve a presidential canva.s.s; and whilst the inc.u.mbent of the executive chair sought very naturally to present himself to the people with the successful results of a popular and beneficial negotiation, there were other candidates who opposed the measure both on principle and policy, as well as on account of the mode in which it was to be effected.

I might very properly in this historical sketch pa.s.s over the narrative of annexation, and, deal with the union, ultimately effected between Texas and the United States as the only important fact. Texas, bound to the North American confederacy by a solemn act of congress,--the indisputable const.i.tutionality of which is implied in its pa.s.sage,--is, indeed, the only subject which the historian is compelled to regard.

Whatever results ensued, whether they were perceived and predicted by the statesmen of the time, or, were entirely latent until developed during the last two years, must be entirely attributed to the act of congress which consummated annexation and reposed in the hands of a president the executive power of solemnizing the union. Nevertheless, I believe it due to impartial history that I should state concisely the causes which seem to have provoked annexation, and, indeed, rendered it almost necessary at the time when it occurred.

We have seen that active hostilities by Mexico against the insurgents had either ceased for nearly seven years, or had been confined to such border forays as resembled predatory incursions rather than civilized hostilities. Statesmen, in all parties, regarded the war as ended; for Mexico, impoverished by the thriftless administrations that ruled and plundered her during the short intervals between her revolutions, was in no condition to carry it on with reasonable prospects of success.

France, England, Belgium and the United States, had acknowledged Texan independence and established diplomatic relations with the republic.

Emigrants settled the interior, and invited accessions. The const.i.tution and laws of the nation were fixed upon a firm basis, while the government was conducted with ability. A lucrative commerce from foreign countries began to pour into the territory. New towns sprang up every where, and Texas exhibited to the world every evidence of an orderly, well regulated government, with infinitely greater strength and stability than the military republic from which she was divorced.

Mexico, nevertheless, refused to recognize her independence notwithstanding her inability to make any effort for reconquest. The leading men of Texas anxiously desired that their national independence should continue, and the moral sense of the world, in contrasting the superior progress of the Anglo-American race with the anarchy and feebleness of Mexico, was naturally solicitous to behold the infant colony successful rather than to see it fall a prey to the pa.s.sions of a people with whom it had no sympathy, and, in whose victory, they might witness the outpouring of a pent up wrath which would never cease in its vindictive persecutions until the province was entirely desolated.[43]

This was not alone the common feeling in the United States, but it prevailed in Europe also. The British minister of foreign affairs, Lord Aberdeen, and that zealous partizan of liberty, Lord Brougham, took occasion in the house of peers in August, 1843, to express their solicitude as to the prospects of Texas. Lord Brougham characterized it as a country as large as France, possessing the greatest natural capabilities, but, at the same time he perceived in it an embryo state, (a large portion of whose soil was adapted to cultivation by white labor,) which might become a boundary and barrier against the slavery of the United States of America. If, by the good offices of England, Mexico could be induced to acknowledge Texan independence upon the condition of abolis.h.i.+ng slavery, he suggested the hope that it would lead to the extinction of slavery in the southern States of our Union.

Lord Aberdeen replied to Lord Brougham, that England had not only acknowledged her independence, but had also negotiated with Texas a treaty of commerce as well as one for the abolition of the slave trade.

He did not believe that there was any importation of slaves into Texas by sea, but, he alleged, there was a large influx of slaves from the United States to that country. As soon as negotiations were commenced with Texas, the utmost endeavors of England had been used to end the war which prevented the full recognition of the independence of Texas by Mexico; but all their endeavors had been met by difficulties, although he was happy to declare that an armistice had been established between the two powers which he hoped would lead to the absolute acknowledgment of her independence. In the existing state of negotiations between the parties, however, he thought it would not contribute to an useful end to express any opinion as to the state of those negotiations, nevertheless he a.s.sured his n.o.ble friend that the matter would be pressed by every means in the power of her majesty's ministers.