ger existing, the grant, which could not remain in abeyance, reverted to the people.

The government established by Santa Anna could not exercise rightful jurisdiction over Texas, for no competent authority had granted to it the power. The only restraint on the entire sovereignty of Texas was contained in the constitution of the United Mexican States. The binding force of that instrument having been destroyed, the only restraint upon her was gone, and she was by the usurping act of Santa Anna free and independent. Her declaration was only the announcement of a fact that existed without her agency, and which undeclared would have been no less a fact.

It will be observed that the revolution was not by Texas, but against her. Its object was to change her from an independent state to a province of a consolidated military power. If her independence had rested on the right of revolution, it would have existed subject for a time to the right of re-conquest. Her independence de jure would not be established until it had been acknowledged by her former government, or the right to re-conquer her had been lost by neglect. But she had never revolted. The revolution in Mexico, failing to

despoil her of the sovereignty which she possessed as a state of that confederacy, and destroying the only political restraint, the only superior government which she had before known, left her entirely free and sovereign.

It follows, then, that the invasion of Texas in 1836 was an attempt by a foreign tyrant to conquer an independent state, to subjugate a free people; and that the recognition of her independence by the government of Santa Anna, or its successors, was no more necessary to its completeness than would have been its acknowledgment by any other government which had never exercised sovereignty over her, and to which she had never owed allegi

ance.

From these considerations it follows, that the annexation of Texas to the United States was a measure which involved no right of Mexico, and which furnished to her no cause of complaint.

It is said that war existed between the two countries, and that by the annexation we assumed the war. It follows from what we have seen, that if Mexico had then renewed her war against Texas, it would have been an unjust invasion. However, then, the question should

have been considered in the light of expediency, it is clear that our duty to Mexico did not require us to refrain from the adoption of the measure because an unjust invasion by her might be apprehended. We arrive then at the conclusion that this act of our government was consistent with exact justice to Mexico.

But this is not the only view of the case which our subject presents. There arises in the consideration of this measure another question scarcely inferior in interest and importance: Was it the part of wisdom at that time to exercise this right which the United States possessed?

It does not belong to us in this essay, be it understood, to examine the domestic questions to which annexation gave rise, or to discuss the character of that measure as viewed in a domestic light. Its consideration lies within the province of this work only so far as it ef fected our relations with Mexico, and was the occasion of the war.

Was the annexation of Texas expedient and right, in view of the effects upon our relations with Mexico, which might reasonably have been apprehended from it? This is the only question which remains for us to examine; with

the propriety or impropriety of the measure in other respects we have here nothing to do.

We believe annexation at that time to have been in this respect inexpedient and wrong. It was certain that its tendency would be to alienate from us the good will of the Mexican people and government, to interrupt the harmony which should exist between the two republics, and to arouse illiberal and unfriendly feelings.

The boundary between Texas and Mexico was unsettled, and it was urged that by this act we should involve ourselves in a dispute with Mexico, which might be productive of difficulty, and perhaps of unhappy consequences. Experience has shown that this apprehension was too well founded. Moreover, Mexico had announced to the world that she should consider the proposed annexation a sufficient cause of war, and should fight for the maintenance of her rights. The probability that she would put her threat into execution, and actually undertake a war so unjust, so idle, and for the support of which she was so entirely destitute of resources, was certainly not very strong, but such an event was by no means impossible.

It would surely have been unwise for the United States to have adopted a measure from which consequences such as these might be apprehended, without an adequate reason. Did any such reason exist in this case? The many bonds of sympathy between our country and Texas; the unity of position, of people, of climate, of products, of interests, together with the political situation of the rest of the continent, rendered it evident that the question of annexation was one of time alone-that from the silent influence of natural causes that newborn republic must at some early day become a portion of our own. "As respects Texas," said Mr. Benton, "her destiny is fixed."

It

Time has shown that a very undue importance was attached to the considerations which precipitated the adoption of that measure. is now generally admitted that the apprehension of British interference in any manner which should have influenced our action on that question was entirely groundless.

The idea so much dwelt upon, of the great value of the country as a means of national defence, and of the necessity of acquiring its possession instantly, was shown at the time to be unwarranted and visionary, finding favor