Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

June 22d, 1845, he writes to Captain Stockton, "The prospect of a Mexican war is so immediate as to justify your remaining on the lookout for the worst. It is openly threatened by Mexico." p. 78.

June 26th, he writes to Mr. Buchanan,

"The very preference manifested by . . . Texas for annexation. . . must be mortifying to the pride of Mexico, and may very probably induce her to commence against this country sudden and active hostilities.". - p. 80.

June 28th, he thus writes to General Taylor: invasion of Texas may be confidently anticipated." July 24th, 1845, he writes to Mr. Buchanan,

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

"The common opinion of the citizens best acquainted with the Mexican population is, that the [Mexican] government will be obliged to declare war."

P. 96.

III. THERE WAS A SCHEME TO THROW THE BLAME OF THE WAR UPON MEXICO.

June 11th, 1845, he writes to Mr. Buchanan, "Care will be taken to throw the responsibility of aggressive measures on the government of Mexico." p. 56.

Again to the same, June 23d,

"If she undertakes such an expedition, she of course puts upon the hazard of war the whole claim, and gives us the right of going not only to the Rio Grande, but wherever else we may please.” p. 74.

July 2d:

"It is better for us to await the attack than incur the risk of embarrassing the question of annexation with the consequences of immediate possession of the territory to the Rio Grande. You will find that I have guarded every point." "It appeared to me wiser to look for some advantage from the assailing movement threatened by Mexico, than to resist the passage [by the Texan Congress] of... a law .. putting the Texan forces under the Major-General, the effect of which would have been the immediate expulsion of all Mexican soldiers found on the east bank of the Rio Grande. If by such a law the whole of the Texan claim, in respect to limits, could have been taken out of dispute, its passage would have been insisted upon; but as there would have remained all the Santa Fe region, it occurred to me well enough that the subject is left as it is by this Congress." — p. 79.

June 28th, he writes to General Taylor,

"I would by no means be understood as advising you to take an offensive attitude in regard to Mexico. . . . The probability is, if Mexico undertakes the invasion, that she will attempt to drive you from the points suggested for your occupation [Corpus Christi and a point between that and San Antonio]. In that event, your right of defence will of course authorize you to cripple and destroy the Mexican army in the best way you can. You can safely hold possession of Corpus Christi and all other points up the Nueces, and if Mexico attempts to dislodge you, drive her beyond the Rio Grande." - pp. 93, 94.

Mr. Slidell, the pacific Envoy of the United States-who does not seem to understand the policy of his superiors — on the 27th of December, 1845, thus writes to Mr. Buchanan :

"The desire of our government to have peace will be taken for timidity; the most extravagant pretensions will be made and insisted upon, [by Mexico] until the Mexican people shall be convinced by hostile demonstrations that our differences must be settled promptly, either by negotiation or the sword."

We cannot forbear giving the opinion of some other men, and very eminent too, not only in the estimation of the democratic party, to which they belong, but in that of the country at large. The first is from a speech of the late Hon. Silas Wright, a man richly entitled to a distinguished place among the politicians of the day. In his address, delivered at Watertown, New York, in the summer of 1844, he says,

"I felt it my duty to vote as a Senator, and did vote against the... treaty for the annexation [of Texas]. I believed that the treaty.. embraced a country to which Texas had no claim, over which she had never asserted jurisdiction, and which she had no right to cede. . . . The treaty ceded Texas by name, [but] without an effort to describe a boundary. The Congress of Texas had passed an act declaring . . . what was Texas. . . . We must take the country as Texas had ceded it to us, and in doing that

we must do injustice to Mexico, and take a large portion of New Mexico, the people of which have never been under the jurisdiction of Texas. This to me was an insurmountable barrier. I could not place the country in that position."

The authority of Col. Benton is confessedly great in all matters relating to our western boundaries. He merits the gratitude of the nation for his able discussion of our claims to

"the whole of Oregon." His motives may have been what his opponents alleged; we have nothing to do with that matter, only with his discussion, his facts, and his arguments. His speech in the Senate, on the 16th, 17th, and 20th of May, 1844, is well known. We give the resolutions offered by that distinguished member of the democratic party, on the 13th of May, while the treaty was still pending.

"Resolved, That the ratification of the treaty for the annexation of Texas to the United States would be an adoption of the Texian war with Mexico by the United States, and would devolve its conduct and conclusion upon the United States.

66

Resolved, That the treaty-making power does not extend to the right of making war, and that the President and Senate have no right to make war, either by declaration or adoption."

In his speech, after reciting the rights already claimed by Texas, he goes on to prove that this territory includes towns and villages and custom-houses in the peaceful possession of Mexico.

"First, there is the department . . of New Mexico. . . . This department is studded with towns and villages, is populated, well cultivated, and covered with flocks and herds. On its left bank, (and I only speak of the part which we propose to re-annex,) is first the frontier village, Taos, 3000 souls, where the custom-house is kept, at which our Missouri caravans enter their goods. Then comes Santa Fe, the capital, 4000 souls; then Albuquerque, 6000 souls; thence some scores of other towns and villages, all more or less populated, and surrounded by flocks and fields. Then come the departments of Chihuahua, Coahuila, and Tamaulipas, without settlements on the left bank of the river, but occupying the right bank, and commanding the left. All this-being parts of four departments now under Mexican governors, or governments, is permanently re-annexed to this Union, if this treaty is ratified, and is actually re-annexed for the moment by the signature of the treaty, according to the President's last message, to remain so until the acquisition is rejected by rejecting the treaty."

"The President in his special message. . informs us that we have acquired a title to the ceded territories by his signature to the treaty, wanting only the action of the Senate to perfect it; and that in the mean time he will protect it from invasion, and for that purpose has detached all the disposable parts of the army and navy to the scene of action. This is a caper about equal to the mad freaks with which the unfortunate Emperor Paul, of Russia, was accustomed to astonish Europe, about forty years ago. By this declaration, the thirty thousand Mexicans on the left half

of the Valley of the Rio del Norte are our citizens, and standing -in the language of the President's message-in a hostile attitude towards us, and subject to be repulsed as invaders. Taos, the seat of the custom-house, where our traders enter their goods, is ours; Santa Fe, the capital of New Mexico, is ours; Governor Armijo is our governor, and subject to be tried for treason if he does not submit to us; twenty Mexican towns and villages are ours; and their peaceful inhabitants, cultivating their fields and tending their flocks, are suddenly converted, by a stroke of the President's pen, into American citizens, or American rebels ! This is too bad; and instead of making themselves party to its enormities, as the President invites them to do, I think rather that it is the duty of the Senate to wash its hands of all this part of the transaction by a special disapprobation. I therefore propose as an additional resolution,

[ocr errors]

"Resolved, That the incorporation of the left bank of the Rio del Norte into the American Union, by virtue of a treaty with Texas, comprehending, as the said incorporation would do, a part of the Mexican departments of New Mexico, Chihuahua, Coahuila, and Tamaulipas, would be an act of direct aggression on Mexico, for all the consequences of which the United States would stand responsible."

In the remainder of his speech, Mr. Benton made four points; namely,

1. "That the ratification of the treaty would be, of itself, war between the United States and Mexico."

2. "That it would be unjust war."

3. "That it would be war unconstitutionally made." 4. "That it would be war upon a weak and groundless pretext."*

In his speech delivered in the secret session, and of course not published, he declared that if America claimed to the Rio Grande, "if there were but one man of Spanish blood in all Mexico, and he no bigger than Tom Thumb, he would fight."

Yet further, Senator Ashley, of Arkansas, in his speech, said though not in the corrected copy, "I will here add, that the present boundaries [of Texas] I have from Judge

The whole speech of Mr. Benton is worthy an attentive reading at this time. It may be found in the " Globe" of that period. In connection with the third point, we would quote the letter of Chancellor Kent, dated May 21st, 1844. ".. I think there can be no doubt, that the enormous abuses and stretch of power by President Tyler afford ample materials for the exercise of the power of impeachment, and it is an imperative duty on the House of Representatives to put it in practice." 3

NO. I.

Ellis-the president of the convention that formed the constitution of Texas, and also a member of the first legislature under that constitution were fixed as they now are [to the Rio Grande] solely and professedly with a view of having a large margin in the negotiation with Mexico, and we had no expectation of retaining them as they now exist on our statute book."

We will now return to the mission of Mr. Slidell, and state the facts so far as we can gather them. We shall rely wholly on official documents accompanying the President's special message of May 11th, 1846, "relative to an invasion and commencement of hostilities by Mexico." It contains the correspondence of the American consul at Mexico, and Mr. Slidell, with the previous Mexican authorities. This correspondence, however, is but imperfectly published. The frequent asterisks show how much is still concealed from the public eye, no doubt for very good reasons. The instructions of the American government to Mr. Slidell are not in this document, nor do we remember ever to have seen them in print. What adds to the difficulty is this: the documents of the Mexican authorities are not published in their original language, but in a translation, on which we cannot always place entire confidence. Indeed, one very important phrase is made to receive two very different translations, as we shall presently show.

On the 17th of September, 1845, Mr. Buchanan, at the command of Mr. Polk, desired Mr. Black, the American consul at Mexico, "to ascertain from the Mexican government whether they would receive an envoy from the United States, intrusted with full power to adjust all the questions in dispute between the two governments."-p. 8. -p. 8. Mr. Black made the inquiry, and Mr. Peña y Peña, the "minister of foreign relations and government," thus replied, Oct. 25th, 1845:

"In answer, I have to say to you, that although the Mexican nation is deeply injured by the United States, through the acts committed by them in the department of Texas, which belongs to this nation, my government is disposed to receive the commissioner of the United States who may come to this capital, with full powers from his government to settle the present dispute in a peaceful, reasonable, and honorable manner; thus giving a new

*Doc. No. 196, 29th Congress, 1st Sess., Ho. of Rep.

« AnkstesnisTęsti »