Mr. Gallatin says: "The Republic of Texas did, by an act of Dec. 1836, declare the Rio del Norte to be its boundary. It will not be seriously contended that a nation has a right, by a law of its own, to determine what is or shall be the boundary between it and another country. The act was nothing more than the expression of the wishes or pretensions of the government. As regards right, the act of Texas is a perfect nullity.'

Up to the last moment before the war broke out, Gen. Taylor acknowledged that the question of boundaries was open; for, in his reply to Gen. Ampudia, who commanded him to retire beyond the Nueces, he said, April 12, 1846: † "I have been ordered to occupy the country up to the left bank of the Rio Grande, until the boundary shall be definitively settled."

A work, entitled The Republic of the United States of America, embracing a review of the war and defending it, says, p. 112: "By the act of annexation, the question of boundary between Mexico and Texas was left an open one, to be decided by negotiation between the governments of Mexico and the United States."

The Message of the President of the United States, in relation to the territories of New Mexico and California, of July 24, 1848, states: "That the province of New Mexico, according to its ancient boundaries, as claimed by Mexico, lies on both sides of the Rio Grande. That part of it on the east of that river was in dispute when the war between the United States and Mexico commenced. *

Though the republic of Texas, by many acts of sovereignty which she exerted and exercised, some of which were stated in my Annual Message of December, 1846, had established her clear title to the country west of the Nueces, and bordering on that part of the Rio Grande which lies below

*Peace with Mexico, p. 7.

† 30th Congress, 1st Session, Ex. Doc. No. 60, p. 139.

the province of New Mexico, she had never conquered or reduced to actual possession, and brought under her government and laws, that part of New Mexico lying east of the Rio Grande, which she claimed to be within her limits. On the breaking out of the war, we found Mexico in possession of this disputed territory. As our army approached Sante Fé, (the capital of New Mexico,) it was found to be held by a governor under Mexican authority, and an armed force collected to resist our advance. The inhabitants were Mexicans, acknowledging allegiance to Mexico. The boundary in dispute was the line between the two countries engaged in actual war, and the settlement of it, of necessity, depended on a treaty of peace.”*

Observe, this was a region east of the Rio Grande. Observe, too, that as Santa Fé, on the Upper Rio Grande, was confessedly not brought under the government and laws of Texas; so was neither the port of Point Isabel, nor other towns and villages on the Lower Rio Grande. All that can be predicated of one can be of the other, so far as their being "conquered and reduced to the actual possession" of Texas was concerned.

Finally, we quote at length a most significant passage on the special subject of the boundary, and the general question of the war, from "the author" of annexation himself, Mr. Calhoun, whose sincerity in declaring his opinions, whatever we may think of their nature and bearing, never has been called in question.

He says: "It is true Mexico claimed the whole of Texas; but it is equally true that she recognized the difference, and showed a disposition to act upon it, between the country known as Texas proper and the country between it and the Del Norte. It is also true, that we and Texas recognized the same difference, and that both regarded the

* The italics are ours.

† Printed speech, United States Senate, Feb. 24, 1847, pp. 12, 13.

boundary as unsettled; as the resolution of annexation, which provides that the boundary between Texas and Mexico shall be determined by the United States, clearly shows. It is worthy of remark, in this connection, that this provision in the Joint Resolution is understood to have been inserted, in consequence of the ground taken at the preceding session by the Senator from Missouri, on the discussion of the treaty, that the Nueces was the western boundary of Texas, and that to extend that boundary to the Rio del Norte would take in part of Tamaulipas, Coahuila, and New Mexico. What, then, ought to have been the course of the executive, after annexation, under this resolution? The very one which they at first pursued, to restrict the position of our troops to the country actually occupied by Texas at the period of annexation. All beyond, as far as the executive was concerned, ought to have been regarded as subject to the provisions of the resolutions, which authorized the government to settle the boundary.

66

*

Why negotiate, if it were not an unsettled question? Why negotiate, if the Rio del Norte, - is, as it was afterwards assumed, was the clear and unquestionable boundary? And if not, upon what authority, after the attempt to open negotiation had failed, could he determine what was the boundary, viewing it as an open question? Was it not his plain duty, on such an occurrence, to submit the question to Congress, which was then in session, and in whom the right of establishing the boundary and declaring war was clearly invested? Had that course been adopted, I greatly mistake if the sense of this body would not have been decidedly opposed to taking any step, which would have involved the two countries in war. Indeed I feel a strong conviction, that if the Senate had been left free to decide on the question, not one-third of the body would have been found in favor of war. As it was, a large majority felt themselves

compelled, as they believed, to vote for the bill recognizing the existence of war, in order to raise the supplies of men and money necessary to rescue the army under Gen. Taylor, on the Del Norte, from the dangers to which it was exposed."

CHAPTER VII.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

Let us hope, then, that the law of nature, which makes virtuous conduct produce benefit, and vice loss to the agent, in the long run, which has sanctioned the common principle, that honesty is the best policy, will in time influence the proceedings of nations as well as individuals; that we shall at length be sensible, that war is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; that it multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses.' - JEFFERSON.

NOTWITHSTANDING the foregoing irrefragable proofs that the boundary between Texas and Mexico was in dispute, it has been asserted that the Louisiana purchase, of 1803, extended to the Rio Grande. So it was claimed, as it is customary to have "a large margin for negotiation." But it was a trick of diplomacy. Western Florida was laid claim to, as a part of the same purchase, but the claim did not stand. So Oregon was claimed, to 54° 40′, but the treaty reduced the line down to 49. These large margins of claims are the last things a reasonable being would suppose that nations would be willing to earry before the bar of the Public Opinion of Christendom, as adequate causes of war. If annexation was but re-annexation, why did the United States sleep so many years, and allow an independent republic of Texas to swallow up the claim, and put in peril of

perpetual alienation, or of foreign domination, the rights of the American Union, from the Sabine to the Rio Grande ? *

The defence that is set up on the ground that Texas, when she became independent, claimed to the Rio Grande, and that Santa Anna, in 1836, allowed the claim, is equally futile. Why Texas aspired so far, is confessed in the quotation already made from Mr. Ashley, in which he vouches for the reason why that was done, on the very competent authority of the President of the Texan Convention that formed the Constitution. The fact that Santa Anna was a Texan prisoner of war, which is stated at the very head of the preamble of the alleged treaty, and in imminent danger of having his head cut off† if he did not concede all that was required of him, is a sufficient answer to that branch of the argument.‡ A compulsory obligation of that kind,

* Hon. J. Q. Adams said, in the House of Representatives, May 13, 1846, "I wrote that despatch as Secretary of State, and endeavoured to make out the best case I could for my country, as it was my duty. But I utterly deny that I claimed the Rio del Norte as our boundary, in its full extent. I only claimed it a short distance up the river, and then diverged to the northward some distance from the stream." - Appendix to the Congressional Globe, p. 907, 29th Congress, 1st Session.

† Article 8th of the "Treaty." "The President and Cabinet of the Republic of Texas, exercising the high powers confided to them by the people of Texas, do, for and in consideration of the foregoing stipulation, solemnly engage to refrain from taking the life of the President, Santa Anna, and of the several officers of his late army," etc. And article 11th threatens, in case of refusal to enter into such an agree ment, such treatment as Texas might deem proper in view of Mexican cruelties!

Gen. Lamar, Secretary of war of Texas, says, in a letter to the President, Burnet, May 12, 1836, "What good can they hope to result from an extorted treaty? General Santa Anna is our prisoner of war. * * * What he assents to whilst a prisoner, he may reject when a freeman."