with the people by its boldness and blindness, but turning out when examined by facts and figures to be only a baseless dream. Though the measure cannot be regarded as unjust toward Mexico, still we must admit that we had no immediate use for the country, and that our people permitted vague and idle apprehensions to blind them against the very serious and unhappy consequences which might reasonably have been apprehended from its annexation; that in an hour of excitement they rushed, without cause and without reflection, to the attainment of an object whose ultimate possession was certain, and which at another time might have been secured under far better auspices.

But, besides all this, the act was wrong; for no nation has the right knowingly to put its own tranquility, and the harmony of the world in jeopardy; to incur the danger of a war without a great necessity; but it is its high duty to sacrifice its own apparent interest, if necessary, to the promotion and perpetuation of peace.

CHAPTER III.

A VIEW of some of the leading events in the intercourse between the two countries, from August, 1843, to October, 1845, showing that the design of declaring war against the United States on account of annexation, if ever seriously entertained, was at the last date entirely abandoned by Mexico. The advance to Corpus Christi.

We have in the preceding chapters examined the measure of annexation from every point of view from which it can be considered as effecting our relations with Mexico. We have shown it to have been the primary occasion of the late unhappy war. We have pointed out the influences by which it was brought about. We have examined its abstract justness toward Mexico, and have seen that it afforded to that republic no ground of complaint. We have considered its expediency, and have found it to have been, although not unjust, yet unwise and wrong.

Though the annexation of Texas, effected at a period of much excitement, and under the influences which we have described, must be

regarded as the occasion of the war, it was not its efficient cause. The war was not its We shall see as we necessary consequence.

proceed that, had the subsequent conduct of the United States been marked by conciliation and forbearance, there is every probability that all differences growing out of this measure would have been amicably settled by negotiation.

The Mexican government first takes official notice of the project for annexation in August 1843, when its minister of foreign relations, Mr. Bocanegra, writes to our minister that "the Mexican government has collected sufficient evidence from the American press that a proposition for the incorporation of the so-called republic of Texas is to be submitted to congress at its next session," and adds that his "government will consider the passage of such an act as equivalent to a declaration of war against the Mexican republic."

The next month the same functionary writes again, that "Mexico will regard the annexation of Texas as a hostile act." General Almonte, the Mexican minister, resident at Washington, announces to our secretary of state, in November following, that "Mexico must consider such

an act as a direct aggression, and is resolved to delare war as soon as it shall receive information of its adoption." Mr. Bocanegra, immediately after the treaty of annexation had been sent to the senate, issues a circular to the foreign ministers resident in Mexico, in which he styles the act "a declaration of war between the two nations." General Almonte, a few days after the resolution of congress consenting to annexation had been approved by the president, demands his passports and returns to Mexico. In the following month, April, 1845, Mexico breaks off her diplomatic relations with the United States in her own capital, declaring that the territory of Texas belonged to her by a right which she will maintain at whatever cost. In June next, president Herrera issues a proclamation, announcing that Mexico will resist by arms the proposed annexation.

This surely appears warlike enough. It would seem as if the indignation of Mexico had indeed been aroused, and that she was determined never to endure the indignity and wrongs to which she fancied herself about to be subjected. But high sounding words are very cheap in Mexico. Her actual forcible op

position to the measure was in strange contrast with her threats. We will go back in our narrative a year before the time of President Herrera's proclamation, when the warlike farce began.

In June, 1844, Santa Anna, then president of Mexico, issues a requisition for thirty thousand men and four millions of dollars to prosecute the war against Texas. A large force is raised, and such is the despatch that before the same month is passed we find the invading army encamped at Mier, on the very border of the devoted state. General Woll, being instructed by his government to wage a war of extermination, then makes a proclamation denouncing the traitor's doom against every person found beyond the distance of one league from the Rio Grande.

Santa Anna at the same time publishes a decree, that every foreigner found on Mexican soil with arms in his hands should instantly be put to death without quarter or distinction. But no action whatever follows this exhibition of paper ferocity. Texas remains undisturbed, and the Mexican army remains at Mier.

In the winter following Herrera is chosen to

2