Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

I. IT WAS WELL KNOWN THAT TEXAS HAD NO JUST CLAIM TO THE RIO Grande.

"It is believed that Mexico is concentrating troops on the Rio Grande, where Texas has, as yet, established no posts." p. 53.

Mr. Jones, President of the republic of Texas, issued a proclamation on the 4th of June, 1845, at the end of which he says, "I do hereby declare and proclaim a cessation of hostilities by land and sea against the republic of Mexico."p. 63. But the Mexican forces were still east of the Rio Grande, though west of the Nueces. The chargé saw the effect which this proclamation, issued under such circumstances, would have upon the claim to the Rio Grande; this will appear in the sequel.

June 23d, 1845, he writes to Mr. Buchanan, "It is the policy of those who are on the side of Mexico, . to throw upon the United States the responsibility of a war for the country between the Nueces and the Rio Grande. That territory, you are aware, has been in the possession of both parties. Texas has held in peace Corpus Christi; Mexico has held Santiago. Both parties have had occasional possession of Loredo, and other higher points."-p. 74.

June 22d, he writes to Commodore Stockton in relation to the prospects of a war, and adds, "It is to be hoped, however, that Mexico . . . will yet prefer to settle by treaty the points in dispute," that is, the question of limits. - p. 78.

Again, July 2d, he writes to Mr. Buchanan, "My position is that we can hold [because we have a good title] Corpus Christi and all other points up the Nueces. If attacked, [while in territory which the Mexicans acknowledge as part of Texas] the right of defence will authorize us to expel the Mexicans as far as the Rio Grande."— p. 78.

"The government [of Texas] left for treaty arrangement the boundary question in the propositions for a treaty of definite peace."-p. 79. This refers to "the preliminary articles of the negotiation" offered by President Jones to the Mexican government. The 3d article is as follows: "Limits and other subjects of mutual interest to be settled by negotiation." p. 55.

June 28th, he writes to General Taylor, advising him where to station his troops. "Corpus Christi is said to be as healthy as Pensacola, a convenient place for supplies, and is the most western point now occupied by Texas."-p. 83. Yet Corpus

Christi is on the west bank of the Nueces.

"The occupation

of the country between the Nueces and the Rio Grande is a disputed question."— p. 83.

July 11th, he thus writes to Mr. Buchanan :

"You will have observed that in my correspondence with this government [of Texas] there has been no discussion of the question of limits between Mexico and Texas. The joint resolutions of our Congress left the question an open one, and the preliminary proposition made by this [the Texan] government [namely, the third article quoted on the last page]... left the question in the same state, and although this [the Texan] government has since indicated a point on the Rio Grande for the [future] occupation of cur troops, I did not consider this circumstance as varying the question, since the President, but a few weeks before, issued a proclamation suspending hostilities between Texas and Mexico, the practical effect of which was to leave the question precisely as it stood when our joint resolutions passed, Mexico in possession of one portion of the territory, [between the Nueces and the Rio Grande] and Texas of another. If the President of Texas, instead of giving that proclamation the scope he did, [by making an entire suspension of hostilities while the Mexican army was on the east of the Rio Grande,] had made it conditional upon the withdrawal of all Mexican authority to the west bank of the Rio Grande, or in failure thereof, [of withdrawing the forces beyond that river] had notified Mexico that forcible means would have been continued, to maintain the jurisdiction of Texas as far as that river, the case would have been different, and our rights and duties consequent upon an invasion of Texas, [an invasion by Mexico of the territory between the Rio Grande and Nueces, after her [the Mexican] acceptance of our proposals, would have been accordingly changed." That is, Mexico would have acknowledged that our claims to that territory had a respectable foundation. But the Texan President had little confidence in that claim, and never offered such a condition! "Hence you will have perceived, that in my reply to Mr. Allen's [the Texan Secretary of State] note of the 26th ult., I omitted an allusion to his suggestion of a point on the Rio Grande for the occupation of our troops."

The reason doubtless was because Mr. Donelson knew the occupation of a point on the Rio Grande was an act of war against Mexico, and did not himself wish to take the initiative by commencing hostilities.

"The proclamation of a truce between the two nations, founded on propositions mutually acceptable to them, leaving the question

of boundary not only an open one, but Mexico in possession of the east bank of the Rio Grande, seemed to me inconsistent with the expedition that in defence of the claim of Texas, our troops should march immediately to that river. What the Executive of Texas had determined not to fight for, but to settle by negotiation, to say the least of it, could as well be left to the United States on the same conditions."

Mr. Donelson took this course because he did not wish to have a public altercation with the Texan President " in regard to an important measure of his administration." Still he thinks the Texan "claim" to the Rio Grande ought to be maintained. The only question was,

Whether, under the circumstances, we should take a position to make war for this claim, in the face of an acknowledgment on the part of this [the Texan] government that it could be settled by negotiation. I at once decided that we should take no such position, but should regard only as within the limits of our protection that portion of territory actually possessed by Texas, and which she did not consider as subject to negotiation. The Congress of Texas. . . would have passed a resolution . . . affirming the claim to the Rio Grande .. if they had deemed it expedient in this matter to manifest their disapprobation of the treaty preferred by President Jones, or to oppose the inference which might be drawn from his proclamation, that Texas admitted the right of Mexico to keep an armed force this side of the Rio Grande." - p. 89.

Mr. Donelson thought it inexpedient "for Texas to attempt a forcible possession of the Rio Grande," because

"Leaving out of view the difficulty of conducting such an enterprise against the consent of the [Texan] Executive, the influence on the... Mexican population [the entire population] bordering the Rio Grande would have been unfavorable to the United States. These people, long harassed by the military exactions of their own government, [the Mexican government, though Mr. Polk insists that Texas for more than nine years has exercised sovereignty here.] seek for nothing so ardently as escape from violence. . . . They have been often visited by the Texans, who in revenge of their slaughtered comrades, and of the faithless conduct of Santa Anna, have not been disposed to mitigate the blows of retaliation." On the other hand, "Texas, by remaining passive, . . . is gradually strengthening her ability to introduce, by peaceful means, her authority as far up the Rio Grande as she may please."- p. 90.

Mr. Donelson then states the grounds on which the claim to the Rio Grande would be defensible.

1. "The revolutionary right of the people of Texas to resist oppression and enforce such a political organization as they deemed necessary."

2. "The acknowledgment of Santa Anna in 1836, by which Texas was prevented from following up the advan tages of victory, among which was the opportunity of estab lishing herself on the Rio Grande."

[ocr errors]

3. "The capacity of Texas, if not now, at least in a short period, to establish by force her claim to this boundary. This capacity is fairly inferrible from the offer of Mexico to recognize her independence, and is self-evident to all who have any knowledge of the relative power and position of Mexico and Texas."

4. "The United States, . . . in addition to the foregoing grounds, will have the older one, founded on the Louisiana claim."

5. "But... all these considerations are but subsidiary to the necessity which exists for the establishment of the Rio Grande as the boundary between the two nations." "Texas has at pleasure taken possession of her [the Mexican] posts there, and has only suspended jurisdiction because it was inconvenient to maintain it. . . . On such grounds it cannot be doubted that Mexico already considers the whole of the territory between the Rio Grande and the Nueces as lost to her."

"There is a disposition in some members to resort to some action, the expectation of Texas that the Rio Grande will be maintained as the boundary, but no provision making this a sine qua non in our action hereafter will be adopted." 91, 92.

pp.

In

Let us take a word of comment from another source. 1836, General Jackson sent Mr. Morfit to Texas, to learn the state of things. Mr. Morfit thus writes, in August, 1836:

"It was the intention of this [the Texan] government, immediately after the battle of San Jacinto, to have claimed from the Rio Grande along the river to the thirtieth degree of latitude, and thence due west to the Pacific. It was found, however, that this would not strike a convenient point in California, . . . and that the territory now determined on would be sufficient for a new republic." "The political limits of Texas proper were the Nueces

River on the west," &c. "The additional territory claimed by Texas since the declaration of independence, . . will increase her population at least 15,000."-Doc. of Ho. of Rep., 2d Sess., 24th Cong, No. 35.

Mr. C. J. Ingersoll, in his speech on the 3d of March, 1845, said,

"The .. deserts between the Nueces and the Bravo [the Rio Grande] are the natural boundaries. . . . There ends the Valley of the West. There Mexico begins. While peace is cherished that boundary will be respected. Not till the spirit of conquest rages will the people on either side molest or mix with each other."

II. WAR WAS EXPECTED AS THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE

ANNEXATION.

In his letter of June 4th, 1845, to Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Donelson says,

"I look

"If Mexico takes possession of the country between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, and comes still further east within the Texan territory, . . . are the United States to stand still? . . . Mexico has about seven thousand troops on the Rio Grande." upon war as inevitable, - a war. . intended. . to deprive both Texas and the United States of all claim to the country between the Nueces and the Rio Grande.” — p. 54.

June 22d, writing to Mr. Buchanan, he says, "The British minister who has been recently to Mexico-informed President Jones that he thought war would be the consequence of the determination of Texas to accept the terms of annexation." - p. 55.

66

Again, in writing to Mr. Allen, June 11th, 1845, he says,

'Mr. Allen remarks that a new invasion of Texas may be reasonably apprehended, if the proposals [of annexation] lately received from the United States . . . should be accepted.'

'Such a war would be hastened and occasioned by the acts and aimed at the interests, no less of the United States than of Texas.' . . . The undersigned is authorized to say that a force consisting of three thousand men, . . . will be prepared to act without a moment's delay," &c. - p. 57.

...

Again to the same, June 13th

"Such an invasion, occasioned by the acts of the United States, ... it will of course be the duty of the President of the United States to repel."— p. 69.

« AnkstesnisTęsti »