Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

proof, that even in the midst of its injuries and of its firm decision to exact adequate reparation for them, it does not repel with contumely the measure of reason and peace, to which it is invited by its adversary.

"As my government believes this invitation to be made in good faith,... it also hopes that the commissioner will be a person endowed with the qualities proper for the attainment of this end; that his dignity, prudence, and moderation, and the discreetness and reasonableness of his proposals will contribute to calm, as much as possible, the just irritation of the Mexicans, and in fine, that the conduct of the commissioner on all points may be such as to persuade them that they may obtain satisfaction for their injuries, through the means of reason and peace, and without being obliged to resort to those of arms and force."

p. 12.

Mr. Polk asked if Mexico would receive an envoy "with full power to adjust all the questions in dispute." Mexico offers to receive one with full powers to settle the present dispute in a peaceful, reasonable, and honorable manner. She does not offer to receive a resident minister, nor a special minister to settle "all the questions in dispute," but only the

present dispute," namely, the difficulties growing out of the matter of Texas. Not a word is said in the correspondence of the parties about a minister "to reside near the Mexican government," as a permanent representative. Perhaps Mr. Peña y Peña ought to have distinctly stated that Mexico would not receive such a minister. He only told what Mexico would receive; not what she would not. Still further, it seems there was a "council of government," whom Mr. Peña y Peña did not consult before answering Mr. Black's note, and offering to receive a special commissioner.

Mr. Slidell was sent, furnished with a "letter of credence" from President Polk, authorizing him "to reside near the government of the Mexican republic, in the quality of envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States."-p. 22. It is quite plain Mr. Slidell was not such a commissioner as Mexico had offered to receive. The difference between an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, sent "to reside near the government," and a special commissioner sent to adjust a single dispute, is as obvious as the difference between an egg and an apple.

66

After various preliminaries, Dec. 8th, Mr. Slidell asked to be accredited as " envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary," "to reside near the government of the Mexican

republic. As no formal answer came, he renewed the request on the 15th. The next day (Dec. 16th), the Mexican minister answers, that

The delay has "arisen solely from certain difficulties occasioned by the nature of these credentials as compared with the proposition made by the United States, through their consul, to treat peacefully upon the affairs of Texas... It has been found necessary to submit the said credentials to the council of government, for its opinion with regard to them."—p. 25.

Dec. 20th, Mr. Slidell was officially informed by Senor Peña y Peña,

That the supreme government "does not conceive that, in order to fulfil the object proposed by the said consul in the name of the American government and accepted by the undersigned [Peña y Peña], it should admit his excellency Mr. Slidell in the character with which he is invested."

[ocr errors]

"This proposition, as well as its acceptance, rested upon the precise and definite understanding that a commissioner should be ad hoc that is to say, commissioned to settle, in a peaceful and honorable manner, the questions relative to Texas... Mr. Slidell does not come invested with that character, although it is true, that in the credential letter brought by his excellency Mr. Slidell, it is stated that he is informed of the desire of the President of the United States to restore, cultivate, and strengthen friendship and good correspondence between the two countries. It is also no less true that in this clause the single word restore is by no means sufficient to give to Mr. Slidell the special character of commissioner, or plenipotentiary ad hoc - to make propositions as to the affairs of Texas, calculated to establish peace firmly and to avert the evils of war by adequate agreement." “The admission of such a minister [an absolute and general minister, an ordinary plenipotentiary, to reside near the Mexican government,'] should be... preceded by the agreement, which the United States propose to enter into, for the establishment of peace and good correspondence with Mexico, interrupted by the occurrences of Texas,this point being, from its very nature, necessary to be attained before any other; and until it shall have been entirely and peacefully settled, not even an appointment should be made of a resident minister, by either of the two governments."

"The supreme government of Mexico, therefore, cannot admit his excellency Mr. Slidell to the exercise of the functions of the mission conferred on him by the United States government. But as the sentiments expressed by the undersigned . . . are in no wise changed, he now repeats them, adding that he will have the

...

utmost pleasure in treating with Mr. Slidell, as soon as he shall have presented credentials authorizing him expressly and exclusively to settle the questions which have disturbed the harmony and good understanding between the two republics, and which will bring on war between them unless such settlement be effected in a satisfactory manner, to which the proposition of the government of the United States related, and under the express understanding of which the proposition was accepted by the Mexican government." - pp. 41, 42. See also p. 44.

To this Mr. Slidell angrily replies, on the 24th of December, and makes a remarkable mistake on referring to the letter of the Mexican government offering to accept a commissioner. Mr. Slidell says, "The Mexican government declared itself disposed to receive the commissioner of the United States, who might come to their capital with full powers to settle these disputes in a peaceful, reasonable, and honorable manner.' -p. 35. Whereas the Mexican minister only expressed a readiness to receive a commissioner with full power settle the present dispute."-p. 32. - p. 32. Comment is needless.

999

،، to

There was evidently a mistake—or a blunder—on the part of the American government. The Mexican government gave America a chance to rectify the error, by recalling Mr. Slidell and sending a special commissioner in his place, with such powers as the occasion demanded, or sending such powers to Mr. Slidell. We think the government of France, of England, or even of Austria, would have done so. We have before shown what was done by President Adams when Mr. Pinckney was rejected. But March 21st, 1846, Mr. Buchanan thus writes to Mr. Slidell:

"Should the Mexican government, by finally refusing to receive you, consummate the act of folly and bad faith of which they have afforded such strong indications, nothing will then remain for this government but to take the redress of the wrongs of its citizens into its own hands. In the event of such a refusal, . . . you ought ... so to conduct yourself as to throw the whole odium of the failure of the negotiation upon the Mexican government." "The desire of the President is, that you should conduct yourself with such wisdom and firmness at the crisis that the voice of the American people shall be unanimous in favor of redressing the "In wrongs of our much injured and long suffering claimants." the meantime, the President, in anticipation of the final refusal of the Mexican government to receive you, has ordered the army of Texas to advance and take position on the left bank of the Rio Grande; and has directed that a strong fleet shall be assembled

in the Gulf of Mexico. He will thus be prepared to act with vigor and promptitude the moment that Congress shall give him authority."— p. 45.

On the first of March, Mr Slidell writes to Senor Castillo y Lanzas, successor of Peña y Peña, and says,

"The President is unwilling to take a course which would inevitably result in war [!] without making another effort to avert so great a calamity. He wishes, by exhausting every honorable means of conciliation, to demonstrate to the civilized world, that if its peace shall be disturbed, the responsibility must fall on Mexico alone. He is sincerely desirous to preserve that peace; but the state of quasi hostility which now exists on the part of Mexico [by her declining to receive Mr. Slidell] is one which is incompatible with the dignity and interests of the United States; and it is for the Mexican government to decide whether it shall give place to friendly negotiation, or lead to an open rupture.” — P. 54.

To this, Senor Castillo y Lanzas replied, on the 12th,

"That the Mexican government cannot receive him [Mr. Slidell] as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to reside near it.... It is true, that the warlike display with which the American Union presents herself-by sea, with her squadrons on both coasts; by land, with her invading forces advancing by the northern frontiers; [where the President had ordered them two months before, without waiting till Congress gave him authority,] at the same time that by her minister plenipotentiary propositions are made for conciliation and accommodation would be a sufficiently powerful reason for not listening to them, so long as all threatening shall not be withdrawn, even to the slightest appearance of hostility. But even this is waived by the government of the republic, in order that it may in all frankness and loyalty enter into the discussion, relying solely upon reason and facts. . . . The vehement desire of the government of the United States to extend its already immense territory at the expense of that of Mexico, has been manifest for many years; and it is beyond all doubt that, in regard to Texas at least, this has been their firm and constant determination; for it has been so declared categorically and officially by an authorized representative of the Union, whose assertion, strange and injurious as was its frankness, has nevertheless not been belied by the United States.*

[ocr errors]

Even Mr. Van Buren, writing to Mr. Hammett, said, (April 20th, 1844,) Nothing is either more true or more extensively known, than that Texas was wrested from Mexico, and her independence established through the instrumentality of citizens of the United States."

"Considering the time as having come for carrying into effect the annexation of Texas, the United States, in union and by agreement with their natural allies and adherents in that territory, enacted the means for the purpose. The project was introduced into the American Congress. It was, at first, frustrated, thanks to the prudential consideration, the circumspection, and the wisdom, with which the Senate of the United States then proceeded. Nevertheless, the project was reproduced in the following session, and was then approved and sauctioned in the form and terms known to the whole world.

"A fact such as this, or to speak with greater exactness, so notable an act of usurpation, created an imperious necessity that Mexico... should repel it with proper firmness and dignity. The supreme government had beforehand declared that it would look upon such an act as a casus belli; and as a consequence of this declaration, negotiation was by its very nature at an end, and war was the only recourse of the Mexican government.

"But before it proceeded to recover its outraged rights, propositions were addressed to it from the so called President of Texas, which had for their object to enter into an amicable accommodation upon the basis of her independence; and the government agreed to hear them, and consented to name the commissioners who, with this view, were sent to it from Texas.

"Moments so precious were not thrown away by the agents of the United States in Texas. Availing themselves of the statu quo of Mexico, they so prepared matters and directed affairs, that the already enacted annexation to the American Union should follow almost immediately."

"Thus this incorporation of a territory which had constituted an integral part of that of Mexico during the long period of the Spanish dominion, and after her emancipation, for so long a time, without any interruption whatever, and which measure had been recognized and sanctioned by the treaty of limits between the Mexican republic and the United States of America-was effected by the reprobated means of violence and fraud.

"Civilized nations have beheld with amazement, at this enlightened and refined epoch, a powerful and well consolidated State, availing itself of the internal dissensions of a neighbouring nation, putting its vigilance to sleep by protestations of friendship, setting in action all manner of springs and artifices, alternately plying intrigue and violence, and seizing a moment to despoil her of a precious part of her territory, regardless of the

The recent letter of Mr. Tyler in the Washington (weekly) Union, of Aug. 12th, is a good commentary on this part of the letter.

« AnkstesnisTęsti »