causes of such fearful consequences. They received the pointed censure of the wisest and best in the freest countries of Europe. They were soon weighed in the balances, and found wanting, by the votes and voices of a majority of the popular branch of the American Legislature. They were divested of most of their plausibility by the progress of the war, the conditions on which peace was made, and the revelations of subsequent political history; and they now stand in the judgment of impartial history convicted, condemned, and sentenced to go to "their own place."

The first, in order of time and importance, of these pretexts for war, was the non-fulfilment by Mexico of her agreement to indemnify the citizens of the United States for wrongs inflicted upon their business and commerce.

The subject is elsewhere considered in other connections in this review, but the following condensed statement by the venerable Albert Gallatin, will afford all the necessary information to make our argument intelligible:

"It may be proper, in the first place, to observe, that the refusal of doing justice in cases of this kind, or the long delays in providing for them, have not generally produced actual war. Almost always, long-protracted negotiations This has been strikingly the

have been alone resorted to. case with the United States.

The claims of Great Britain

for British debts, secured by the treaty of 1783, were not settled and paid till the year 1803; and it was only subsequently to that year that the claims of the United States, for depredations committed in 1793, were satisfied. The very plain question of slaves carried away by the British forces in 1815, in open violation of the treaty of 1814, was not settled and the indemnity paid till the year 1826. The claims against France, for depredations committed in the years 1806 to 1813, were not settled and paid for till the year 1834. In all these cases peace was preserved by patience and forbearance.

"With respect to the Mexican indemnities, the subject had been laid more than once before Congress, not without suggestions that strong measures should be resorted to. But Congress, in whom alone is invested the power of declaring war, uniformly declined doing it.

"A convention was entered into on the 11th of April, 1839, between the United States and Mexico, by virtue of which a joint commission was appointed for the examination and settlement of those claims. The powers of the commissioners terminated, according to the convention, in February, 1842. The total amount of the American claims presented to the commission, amounted to $ 6,291,605. Of these, $2,026,140 were allowed by the commission; a further sum of $928,628 was allowed by the commissioners of the United States, rejected by the Mexican commissioners, and left undecided by the umpire; and claims amounting to $3,336,837 had not been examined.

"A new convention, dated January 30, 1843, granted to the Mexicans a further delay for the payment of the claims which had been admitted, by virtue of which the interest due to the claimants was made payable on the 30th of April, 1843, and the principal of the awards and the interest accruing thereon, was stipulated to be paid in five years, in twenty equal instalments every three months. The claimants received the interest on the 30th of April, 1843, and the three instalments. The agent of the United States, having, under peculiar circumstances, given a receipt for the instalments due in April and July, 1844, before they had been actually paid by Mexico, the payment has been assumed by the United States and discharged to the claimants.

"A third convention was concluded at Mexico on the 20th of November, 1843, by the plenipotentiaries of the two governments, by which provision was made for ascertaining and paying the claims on which no final decision had been

made. In January, 1844, this convention was ratified by the Senate of the United States, with two amendments, which were referred to the Government of Mexico, but respecting which no answer has ever been made. On the 12th of April, 1844, a treaty was concluded by the President with Texas, for the annexation of that republic to the United States. This treaty, though not ratified by the Senate, placed the two countries in a new position, and arrested for a while all negotiations. It was only on the 1st of March, 1845, that Congress passed a joint resolution for the annexation.

"It appears most clearly that the United States are justly entitled to a full indemnity for the injuries done to their citizens; that, before the annexation of Texas, there was every prospect of securing that indemnity; and that those injuries, even if they had been a just cause for war, were in no shape whatever the cause of that in which we are now involved."

Thus far Mr. Gallatin; from which, and from other general knowledge on the subject, no doubt possessed by our readers, we come to the following conclusions:

1. That the claims made by us on other nations, though long refused, were not deemed sufficient causes of war.

2. That Congress, the proper war-making power, had repeatedly declined resorting to arms to collect these debts of Mexico.

3. That, on the whole, the conduct of Mexico, considering her disordered condition, would, upon the question of indemnities, compare not unfavorably with that of England and France.

4. That the annexation of Texas was the chief cause of the non-fulfilment of her engagements by Mexico.

5. That the large amount of claims preferred, and the

* Peace with Mexico, p. 2.

much smaller amount allowed by the umpire, leads to the strongest conviction that many of them were fraudulent, an inference fully sustained by an examination of them individually as published in the reports and documents of the time.*

6. That, although these difficulties were assigned as the cause or excuse for war, subsequently, yet at first, both in the documents of the Executive and the legislative branch of the Government, no explicit declaration was made, when war was declared, of the indebtedness of Mexico to the United States as a bonâ fide reason for fighting.

The next pretext was the refusal by Mexico, in 1845 - 6, to receive Mr. Slidell as Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, to reside in that Republic. The whole history of that affair is recorded in the journals of the day, and the documents of Government, and need not be tediously repeated here. The main facts are these, and they are not disputed by any party. After the passage of the joint resolution for the annexation of Texas, in March, 1845, Almonte, the Mexican Minister at Washington, demanded his passports and returned home. In September, the President of the United States made proposals for restoring a cordial understanding between the two countries. The Mexican Government replied that they felt deeply injured, but would receive a commissioner to "settle the present dispute," referring to the Texas question, provided the naval forces, placed in a menacing attitude in sight of Vera Cruz, were recalled. This was done by the United States. Mr. Slidell, of Louisiana, was appointed Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary. He arrived in the city of Mexico Dec. 6, 1845, and left the country about the 1st of April, 1846. He was not recognized by the Mexican Government, as was alleged on their part, because he came as a

* 27th Congress, 2nd Session, Executive Documents, No. 21.

resident Minister, and not as a Commissioner. But a change of the national administration from the hands of the pacific Herrera to those of the warlike Paredes, which occurred in the interim, was a great obstacle to the success of his mission.

By a comparison of dates, however, it will be found that the American Minister was not finally rejected until after the gates of war were thrown open by the order to Gen. Taylor to take his position of offence on the east bank of the Rio Grande.

Mr. Slidell wrote home,† Dec. 27, 1845, that on the 21st of that month he had "received from Pena y Pena his promised reply, conveying the formal and unqualified refusal of the Mexican Government to receive me in the character for which I am commissioned." This letter was not received by the authorities at Washington, until Jan. 23, 1846, and, therefore, could not have been the basis of the order of Jan. 13th, ten days before, ordering Gen. Taylor to invade the disputed territory on the Rio Grande. Mr. Buchanan states explicitly in a letter to Mr. Slidell, of Jan. 28, 1846, that his despatches of the 27th and 29th of December were received on the 23d instant. ‡

+

But Herrera's power was overturned, and Paredes came to the head of affairs on Jan. 3, 1846. Still, there was hope even with the new warlike administration, of negotiating a treaty. On March 1st, Mr. Slidell, at Jalapa, had letters from the city of Mexico, which spoke "confidently of his reception,"§ and gave information of it to the Department

* 30th Congress, 1st Session, House of Representatives, Executive Documents, No. 60: "The delay has arisen solely from certain difficulties occasioned by the nature of the credentials." See the Letter of Pena y Pena to Mr. Slidell, Dec. 16, 1845. See his letter also to the Mexican Council, Dec. 11, 1845.

† 30th Congress, 1st Session, House of Representatives, Executive Documents, No. 60, p. 32.