Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

though entertained by but few, have been widely and extensively circulated, not only at home, but have been spread throughout Mexico and the whole world. A more effectual means could not have been devised to encourage the enemy and protract the war, than to advocate and adhere to their cause, and thus give them 'aid and comfort.”. P. 4.

This reminds us of what George III. said to the lord mayor of London, in 1775. "It is with the utmost astonishment that I find any of my subjects capable of encouraging the rebellious disposition that unhappily exists in some of my col onies in North America." Some of the subjects, however, did continue to advocate and adhere to the cause of the rebels, affording them aid and comfort. The king thought it was moral treason, a protracting of the war. They had truth and justice on their side, and against them - King George the Third.

Mr. Polk proceeds to state the case of America against Mexico. The Americans had suffered many grievances from the Mexicans. "The wrongs we have suffered from Mexico, almost ever since she became an independent power, and the patient endurance with which we have borne them, are without a parallel in the history of modern civilized nations." Soon after her independence, she commenced "a system of insult and spoliation;""our citizens employed in lawful commerce were imprisoned, their vessels seized, our flag insulted in her ports." Change of rulers brought no change in this system, continues the President; the American government made repeated reclamations, which were followed only by new outrages; promises of redress were postponed or evaded. The commercial treaty of 1831 produced no change. In 1837, General Jackson declared that such conduct "would justify in all nations immediate war." Yet he thought we should give Mexico one more opportunity to atone for the past before we resorted to war. Accordingly, negotiations were entered into in 1837, and the Mexican government promised to do all which reason or justice required. This was in July, but in December the promise had not been fulfilled. Mr. Polk distinctly declares," had the United States at that time adopted compulsory measures and taken redress into their own hands, all our difficulties with Mexico would probably have been long since adjusted, and the existing war have been avoided." - p. 7.

This is a plain statement. But if the Mexicans began the war in 1846, because the Americans annexed Texas, we can

not see how any one act of the Americans in 1837 could have prevented it, unless indeed Mexico had been so weakened as to be unable to wage a war! But the President does not see that he is tacitly admitting that the Mexicans did not begin this war, all of whose causes we are to seek previous to 1837. A compound issue is a difficult one to plead. We beg the reader to notice that the President admits that the causes of the Mexican war-the seizure of American property and men, insults to our flag- are all anterior to the year 1837, and might have been disposed of then, if we had then sought redress in the usual way- by war. Of course all that has occurred since can be but accessory after the fact!

But a new negotiation was begun; the convention of April 12th, 1839, took place this was the first convention. In August, 1840, a Board of Commissioners, with powers limited to eighteen months, was organized to adjust the claims of American citizens against Mexico. An umpire, appointed by the king of Prussia, came to assist in the work. The Board allowed American claims to the amount of $2,026,139. 68; the American commissioners allowed also $928,627.88, which the Mexican commissioners had not time to examine. Thus there was a total of $2,954,767.56, which the American commissioners demanded of Mexico. Other claims, amounting to $3,336,837.05, were also presented, which the American commissioners had not decided upon when their period of service came to an end. Mexico acknowledged her obligation to pay the $2,026,139.68, but, unable to pay immediately, asked for more time.

A second convention took place January 30th, 1843, and an agreement was made that the interest due on the acknowledged claims should be paid on the 30th of the next April, and the residue of principal and interest in twenty instalments, one payable each three months. The interest was paid and three of the instalments, as they severally became due, though we are told, such was the poverty of the Mexican government, that some of the money could only be raised by forced loans.

On the 20th of November, 1843, a third convention was concluded upon by the Mexican government, for the purpose of ascertaining and settling all other claims not previously

*The character of these claims and the gross imposture of many of the claimants were well exposed by Mr. J. S. Pendleton, a member from Virginia, in a speech, Feb. 22, 1847.

adjusted by the first convention, in 1839. The American authorities offered some amendments to the Mexican scheme, which it seems the Mexican government did not accede to, and so the convention never took place.*

In brief, then, letting alone the insults offered to our flagand we know not how they can be shaken out of its folds this is the sum of actual and tangible grievances. Mexico owes us about $2,000,000, and does not pay. The President thinks war ought to have been declared long ago.

"In so long suffering Mexico to violate her most solemn treaty obligations, plunder our citizens of their property, and imprison their persons without affording them any redress, we have failed to perform one of the first and highest duties which every government owes to its citizens. We had ample cause of war against Mexico long before the breaking out of hostilities. But even then [it is doubtful to what time then refers] we forbore to take redress into our own hands, until Mexico herself became the aggressor, by invading our soil in hostile array and shedding the blood of our citizens. Such are the grave causes of complaint against Mexico." Message of 1846, p. 9.

We do not by any means approve of the whole conduct of Mexico in her dealings with America, but there were many circumstances which palliated that conduct. She did not pay the money, for she had no money to pay with, and no credit to borrow with. In 1845, Mr. Slidell wrote to the American government that her "finances are in a condition utterly desperate. The amount of public debt does not fall much short of $150,000,000," and interest was paid on but a small part of it. Is it a thing unheard of for one State to delay paying the claims of another- unheard of to wait a long time before such a payment? The government of Bavaria has a large claim on the government of France-a very just claim too, as it seems to us- pending at this moment. King of the French can pay it, but does not. How long did America wait for the payment of her French claims, and her Neapolitan claims? Nay, how long has the State of Massachusetts waited for the payment of her claims against this

[ocr errors]

The

*For official accounts of these matters, see Mr. Polk's message of Dec. 2d, 1845; of December 8, 1846; Mr. C. J. Ingersoll's report on the war with Mexico, June 24, 1846, with Mr. Howard's report, July 7th, 1838, and the minority report of Mr. Cushing, of the same date.- Doc. No. 752. Ho. of Rep., 29th Congress, 1st Session. See the usual commentaries in the speeches of the times.

very American government, which in 1837 ought to have taken her Mexican sister by the throat, and sold all that she had, that payment might be made, and promptly too? The President is not very desirous to pay the claims which American citizens had against France prior to 1800, though the American government itself owes the money to her own citizens. Mr. Polk himself, by his veto, forbade the payment, after Congress had appropriated the funds. If Mexico had been able and would not pay, the case would have been quite different.

[ocr errors]

We have seen now "the grave causes of complaint" "the ample causes of war" "the wrongs which we have suffered"" without a parallel in the history of modern civilized nations." Let us now come to the smaller matters, the minor grievances. We must go a little into the history of the times. In 1845, the formalities were completed for the annexation of Texas to the United States. The causes of annexation are well known, the South did not wish a non-slaveholding State on the southwestern frontier. The economical, the moral, the political effect of such a State was clearly foreseen. The Institution of Slavery was in danger. It seems to be thought by some, that while Slavery stands, the South will stand, when Slavery falls, the South will fall, and then the North, the Union, Freedom, and the Rights of Man. The method by which annexation was brought about is also pretty well known, the machinations of the great southern politicians, the tameness, the servility, the stupidity of many of the northern members of Congress. All this is well known, but getting better known. The recent letters of Mr. Houston, Mr. Tyler, and Mr. Spencer, shed some light on the matter. When the political excitement of our day has passed by, and some future historian of Democracy in America studies the subject afresh, and with impartial eyes, he will write in sadness a dark chapter. We know not which he will blame most bitterly, the Democrats or the Whigs; but perhaps the latter, as apparently acting against their convictions and without faith. The effects of that annexation will appear in due time, and may be a little different from what the annexers intended.

[ocr errors]

Mexico claimed Texas, but offered to recognize her independence and abandon her claim, on condition that Texas would not annex herself to America. There was a nominal war between Texas and Mexico, not a war de facto, but de jure.

The accident follows the substance; when America took Texas it was for better or worse. She took her war along with her the war de jure, though not at that time de facto. Mexico protested against annexation as an "act of aggression the most unjust which can be found recorded in the annals of modern history, despoiling a friendly nation of a considerable portion of her territory," and on the 6th of March, 1845, her minister demanded his passports, and all regular diplomatic intercourse came abruptly and formally to an end.

Now in 1836, General Jackson thought it a delicate matter to recognize the independence of Texas, and said in his message

"The acknowledgment of a new State as independent is at all times an act of great delicacy and responsibility; but more especially so when such a State has forcibly separated itself from another, which still claims dominion over it. A premature recognition under these circumstances, if not looked upon as justifiable cause of war, is always liable to be looked upon as proof of an unfriendly spirit to one of the contending parties." But in all former cases, 66 so wisely consistent with our just principles has been the action of our government, that we have under the most critical circumstances, avoided all censure, and encountered no other evil than that produced by a transient estrangement of good will in those against whom we have by force of evidence been compelled to decide." "The uniform policy and practice of the United States is to avoid all interference in disputes which merely relate to the internal government of other nations, and constantly to recognize the authority of the prevailing party, without reference to our particular interests and views, or to the merits of the original controversy." He considers the power of recognizing the independence of a new State as "equivalent under some circumstances to a declaration of war. It will always be considered most... safe that it should be exercised, when probably leading to war, with the previous understanding of that body by whom war can alone be declared.". - Jackson's Message, Dec. 21st, 1836.

When France acknowledged the independence of the United States in 1778, the English government considered the acknowledgment an unjustifiable aggression. No publicist, we think, would doubt, that if France had then annexed the United States to herself, the annexation offered a just ground for the declaration of war on the part of England. But Mexico did not declare war against America, in 1845; she made no preparations for war. She only protested, and de

[blocks in formation]
« AnkstesnisTęsti »