Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

of sovereignty and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants west of the Nueces."

4. Congress understood that the Rio Grande, from source to mouth, was the boundary of Texas in 1845, when the act of annexation was passed. "This was the Texas which ... was admitted as one of the States of our Union."

All this is specious-at least to one who knows nothing of the facts; very plausible to one who is more a subject of Authority than a subject of Reason. But certainly Mexico had never admitted the Rio Grande from source to mouth as her boundary on this side. We think there is no controversy about the limits of Texas, except as it borders on the Mexican territory. Yet uncertainty of limits is recognized by America in the very act of annexation. The " The "joint resolutions" say: "1. Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the republic of Texas may be erected into a new State.' And "2. Said State to be formed subject to the adjustment of the government of all questions of boundary that may arise with other governments.” Here the limits are admitted to be doubtful, and are to be adjusted by the government.

Suppose this were all, that the boundary was simply doubtful-what was the just and proper course to pursue? to send an army to the extreme and doubtful limit of the territory which we claimed? If so, then Mexico - who thought at least her claim equally good-had the same right. What if that course had been pursued with England in settling the question of the "northeastern boundary," or the boundary of the Oregon territory; what if England had acted by the same rule, and the two nations, without a single attempt to settle the matter by negotiation, had sent an "army of occupa tion" to take military possession, each power up to the extent of its own claims? Why it would have been-like what we have seen in Texas.

But why did not the American government resort to nego tiation? Because the Mexican government would not receive a special commissioner appointed for that work? Not at all: she rejected Mr. Slidell because he was not such a special commissioner. "The sword," says somebody, "ends all popular evils, but cures none." It certainly begins a great many. The reason why the American government sent the sword before the negotiator will appear in due time.

It is by no means clear that the Americans had a good and

clear title to the Rio Grande, from end to end. A claim is one thing, a clear title is a little different. Did the American government claim the Rio Grande as the boundary of Louisiana, as ceded by France in 1803? So we claimed western Florida as a part of the same Louisiana. Mr. Jefferson, in 1805, said its limits were "the Perdito on the east, and the Brazo [the Rio Grande] on the west." It turned out to be a mistake. The claim was purely diplomatic, the claim of much in order to get all that could be had. Such are the morals of pedlers in politics as of pedlers in other wares. America had a claim to the whole of Oregon, from San Francisco to the Russian settlements. Mr. Polk himself claimed up to 54. 40, and with "the settled conviction that the British pretensions of title could not be maintained to any portion of the Oregon territory." He asserted "our title to the whole Oregon territory," and thought it was "maintained by irrefragable facts and arguments." The legislature of one of the New England States, we are told, went further, and declared our right up to 54. 49. But, somehow, in the thaw of a negotiation, the claim gradually melted away, and reached no further than the 49th parallel of latitude.

It would be easy to show, whatsoever was the true western boundary of Texas, that it was not the Rio Grande. However, we do not intend at present entering upon that discussion. The reader will find much valuable information in the speech of Mr. Senator Benton, and in the two able and learned speeches of Mr. Severance, of Maine, delivered the one in the House of Representatives at Washington, Feb. 4th, 1847, and the other in the Legislature of Maine, July 27th, 1847. We shall for the present confine ourselves to the correspondence between Mr. A. J. Donelson and Mr. Buchanan, only premising that Mr. Donelson was sent by the American government in March, 1845, to Texas, to complete the work of annexation. We shall show from this correspondence

1. That it was well known that Texas had no just claim to the Rio Grande as her western boundary.

2. That war was expected as the consequence of the annexation of Texas.

3. That there was a concerted scheme to throw the blame of the war upon Mexico, by provoking her to commence hostilities.

*The correspondence is published in Doc. No. 2, 29th Congress, 1st Session.

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.

[ocr errors]

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,

[ocr errors]

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.

« AnkstesnisTęsti »