Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

clined further diplomatic intercourse. Had Mexico been as powerful as England, the affair of annexation would not have been disposed of so easily. But Mexico was distracted and weak.

Another alleged offence committed on the part of Mexico, is her refusal to receive the American plenipotentiary, Mr. Slidell. Here are the facts in the case, as the President states them: On the 15th of September, 1845, the American consul at the city of Mexico was instructed by his gov ernment" 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." On the 15th of October, the Mexican government assented. The assent was made known to the American government on the 9th of November, and the next day Mr. Slidell was appointed "envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, with full powers to adjust and definitely settle, all pending differences between the two countries, including those of boundary between Mexico and the State of Texas."

He reached Vera Cruz on the 29th of November, and Mexico on the 6th of December, 1845. But the government of President Herrera-who had seemed desirous of settling the difficulties by peaceful negotiation was tottering. General Paredes, a military man, had thrown the country into confusion, and declared against receiving a minister of peace from the United States. The Mexican government was alarmed, and refused to receive Mr. Slidell, on the ground that America had not sent the envoy on "a special mission confined to the question of Texas alone," but had given him the general powers already mentioned. The 30th of December, Paredes himself came into power, "a military usurper, who was known to be bitterly hostile to the United States." On the 1st of March, 1846, Mr. Slidell presented his credentials to the new government, desiring to be accredited in the regular manner; on the 12th, the request was finally rejected, and he soon returned home.

"Thus," says the President, "was the extraordinary spectacle presented to the civilized world, of a government in violation of its own express agreement, having twice rejected a minister of

* Mr. Polk's first Message, p. 8.

peace, invested with full powers to adjust all the existing differences between the two countries, in a manner just and honorable to both. I am not aware that modern history presents a parallel case, in which, in time of peace, one nation has refused even to hear propositions from another for terminating existing difficulties between them."— p. 19.

Mr. Polk must be a forgetful politician not to remember that the court of France rejected Mr. Pinckney in 1797, and actually expelled him from their territory. Yet Mr. Pinckney was not altogether like "one of the most illustrious citizens of Louisiana," but a man well known for his public services; "A character," says Mr. Adams, once his rival," whose integrity, talents, and services placed him in the rank of the most esteemed and respected in the nation." The insult then offered to America by the French "Executive Directory," in the most public and official manner, is certainly no "parallel" to the conduct of Mexico. To make that insult yet keener, the Directory informed Mr. Monroe- the former minister, who had been recalled, but was still residing at Paris-that they "will not receive another minister plenipotentiary from the United States until the grievances of which France has complained have been redressed." "The Executive Directory know of no minister plenipotentiary from the United States," said they. Yet the burthen of grievances had been created by France. America had endured most astonishing outrages, as well as insults,† which nothing but a remembrance of her timely aid in '78 and her continued help in the remaining portion of the war of our revolution, enabled the nation to endure.

But what said the Republican party? Did they maintain that the dignity of the nation was insulted? did they insist that we must go to war to wipe off the stain, because the French did not pay our just demands, and because a minister had been ignominiously expelled from the French soil? We are sorry to recall old animosities and will pass over the matter with all possible briefness and delicacy. The conduct of that party is well known; their apology for the conduct of

* Message to 5th Congress-Special Session-May 16th, 1797.

† See the Reports of Messrs. Randolph and Pickering on the French depredations upon American commerce, in American State Papers, Class I. Foreign Relations, Vol. I. p. 424, et seq., p. 748, et seq., and Vol. II. p. 28, et seq., p. 116, et seq., et al. The whole history of these troubles has now become interesting once more. See Vol. II. p. 5–244.

It was

the Directory. But America did not declare war. proposed by the party hostile to the administration, that an extraordinary minister suiting "the solemnity of the occasion," should be sent to represent the "temper and sensibilities of the country." Messrs. Pinckney, Gerry, and Marshall were appointed commissioners, and instructed" to terminate our differences in such manner, as ... might be the best calcu lated to produce mutual satisfaction and good understanding." Their treatment was a disgrace to the French nation. Two of them demanded their passports and returned home. Mr. Gerry remained till officially and peremptorily recalled. Still there was no war. America was put in a state of defence. not in a state of offence. The opposition then made to even these measures is well known. Some were desirous of war; still pacific counsels prevailed. The reason was the Amer ican government desired to keep the peace. Yet the depredations committed on the property and persons of American citizens were enormous. "Occasion," says Mr. Marshall, was repeatedly taken to insult the American government; open war was continued to be waged by the cruisers of France on American commerce; and the flag of the United States was a sufficient justification for the capture and condemnation. of any vessel over which it waved." More than three hundred American vessels had been taken by the French, and the amount of their depredations was estimated at over $15,000,000. Still, President Adams said

66

"In demonstrating . . . that we do not fear war in the necessary protection of our rights and honor, we shall give no room to infer that we abandon the desire of peace. . It is peace that we have uniformly and perseveringly cultivated, and harmony between us and France may be restored at her option.” *

We are surprised that Mr. Polk should lay any stress on the refusal of Mexico to receive Mr. Slidell. To receive a minister is a duty of imperfect obligation, as the Publicists would have told him. Any State may refuse to receive a particular person as minister, without violating the comity of nations, if she objects to the personal character of the man, or to the diplomatic character of the minister. This is so

* Adams's Second Annual Address, Dec. 8th, 1798. See too the "Address in Reply," by the House of Representatives.

well understood that it is useless to refer to authorities.* The refusal to receive Mr. Slidell - for the reasons given was a matter of no great magnitude or importance. Mexico had never agreed to receive a minister with full powers, to reside near her government as a permanent representative of the nation, only a commissioner to treat in reference to the Texan difficulties. But take the President's statement of the case; admit that it was foolish on the part of Mexico, under such circumstances, to reject Mr. Slidell, because America had committed a breach of diplomatic etiquette; suppose it was weak and silly-it was certainly no ground for war. It is quite plain that Mr. Slidell was a very unsuitable person to send on a mission of peace to an offended nation. His correspondence proves this. He may be a very illustrious citizen of Louisiana; but few men in America, we think, out of that State, ever heard much good of him before his appointment to this mission. His conduct while there reflects no honor on America. We cannot think he was sent there with the serious intention of settling the difficulties in a just and honorable manner. Indeed, some of his instructions seem given him quite as much with a view to influence public opinion in America, as to have an effect on the Mexican government. This will appear by the following extract from Mr. Buchanan's letter to him, under date of March 12th, 1846:

"On your return to the United States, energetic measures against Mexico would at once be recommended by the President; and these might fail to obtain the support of Congress, if it could be asserted that the existing government [that of Paredes, the military president, who succeeded Herrera,] had not refused to receive our minister."

This was written nearly two months after General Taylor had been ordered to move to the Rio Grande. The " energetic measures" were already commenced, though without the knowledge of Congress. America was invading territory which Mexico claimed, and at the same time instructing her minister to present his credentials with a view to adjust the difficulties in a pacific way! This, we confess, is extraordinary. The President did not know the minister would be rejected by Paredes when he ordered General Taylor to advance into Tamaulipas, and he was not rejected till two months

* Any one may see the authorities in Wheaton's Law of Nations, Part III.

ch. 1.

after that order. But we must return to this mission of Mr. Slidell in another page.

The man who could logically adduce the above grievances in order to justify America, would do it with the tacit admission that she began the war; else why undertake to justify it? If Mexico began the war, that was her business. She is to justify it if she can. America may have a thousand reasons for making a war, but if she has not made it, she has no reason for undertaking to justify a war which she did not begin. The President may state other grievances, but not in such a connection, or for such a purpose as the present. But now he abandons that part of the argument; the issue is changed. It is Mexico that began the war. But how? By invading our territory. The Mexican general, says Mr. Polk, "had collected a large army on the opposite [the west] shore of the Rio Grande," "invaded our territory, and commenced hostilities by attacking our forces." Thus Mexico " consummated her long course of outrages by commencing an offensive war, and shedding the blood of our citizens on our own soil."

It is true that on the 4th of April, 1846, General Paredes did order the commander on the Texan frontier to attack the enemy "by every means which war permits," and on the 18th of April, to the same person, adds, "I suppose you either fighting already or preparing for the operations of a campaign." "It is indispensable that hostilities be commenced, yourself taking the initiative." But where was the enemy to be attacked; was he to take the initiative by making an invasion or repelling one?

To answer this question, we are to show what was the western boundary of Texas. Was it the Rio Grande, the Nueces, or some line between them, or elsewhere? Mr. Polk claims to the Rio Grande. These are the arguments which he adduces.

1. "Texas as ceded by France in 1803 has been always claimed as extending west to the Rio Grande," and accordingly the United States asserted and maintained their territorial rights to this extent till 1819, when it was ceded to Spain. It is on the strength of this claim that annexation is

a re-annexation.

2. The republic of Texas always claimed this river- from the mouth to the source as her western boundary, and it was recognized as such by Santa Anna himself, in 1836.

3. For more than nine years Texas "exercised many acts

« AnkstesnisTęsti »