Letter 10.

Annexation of Texas—The suspension of diplomatic relations, the immediate causes of the war.

February, 1847.

Sir: In these letters, I have endeavored to repress all party feeling, thinking it a duty, in a contest with a foreign nation, in time of actual war, to take the side of my country, unless so grossly and palpably in the wrong, as to admit of no justification or defence. I repeat, that it is my sincere conviction, that justice is on our side, and this after as full, and dispassionate an examination of the subject as I am able to bestow. The contrary, is generally assumed, or taken for granted, by the party to which I belong; and yet the speech of Mr. Webster, at Philadelphia, which expresses the same opinion, is highly applauded. He condemns the administration of Mr. Polk, (not the cause of the country,) solely on the ground of bringing on a state of actual hostilities, without the previous approbation of Congress, while he admits, that Mexico is in the wrong in the causes which led to it the annexation of Texas. But the act of the President, is a domestic question between him and American people. The causes previously existing, and which would have justified Congress in making war, constitute a different question from that of expediency, or of the distribution of powers, under the Constitution. He concedes, that if the constituted authorities of the Union had thought proper to resort to this course, there was ample cause to justify it. To this, I assent, and will endeavor to give the reasons on which my opinion is founded, according to my view of the subject; professing, at the same time, a sincere respect for the opinion of those who may differ from me. I admit that the march from the Nueces to the Rio Grande, had the effect ofhasteninghostilities; but, in my opinion, it did do more than hasten, forthe appeal of arms was inevitable on the annexation of Texas, unless Mexico receded entirely from the ground she had taken; of which, I did not see the slightest probability, unless compelled to do so, by the consequences of war, whether begun by her or by us.

Mexico denounces the war as being aggressive on our part, but in all the official State Papers of the high functionaries of that Republic, (I do not refer to subordinate officers or generals,) in all their manifestos, that aggression is distinctly declared tobe the annexation of Texas. It was on this ground, that she put an end to all diplomatic intercourse, after having previously announced that she would consider annexation as equivalent to a declaration of war, on our part. It was on this ground, that she refused toresumea diplomatic intercourse, and enter into negotiation for a peaceful adjustment of existing differences, until satisfaction should first be made for the alleged wrong. She has not limited her complaints of alleged aggression to the march of our troops to the Rio Grande; her complaint is, the being deprived of her province of Texas, which she will never renounce; and she declares her determination never to listen to overtures of peace, until that province shall be evacuated by us. Has she, on any occasion, shown a willingness to accept any other boundary than the Sabine? I have seen no intimation of this kind, emanating from her President or Congress. The contrary is unchangeably persisted in.[4]In fact, it could not occur while she persists in her right to the whole of Texas. The annexation is thecasus bellion the part of Mexico—the paramount consideration—every thing else, is but incidental, or subordinate. The very idea of fixing any other boundary, would imply a relinquishment of her claim.

4.There is no distinct assertion of boundary in any of her official papers down to thewar proclamationof the 23d of April, 1846.

Now, that great statesman, Mr. Webster, has proved on various occasions, and especially in his Philadelphia speech,that annexation of Texas to the United States was no cause of war, because Texas was as much an independent State as Mexico. The act was no more a cause of war on the part of Mexico, than her annexation to the United States would have been a cause of war on the part of Texas. If Mr. Webster be correct, and I think his argument unanswerable, was Mexico justifiable in the course pursued by her towards us on account of that act? Was she justifiable in withdrawing her minister, and ordering away the minister of the United States? These were very high handed and insulting measures, and attended, necessarily, with the serious consequence of putting an end to all peaceful modes of adjusting differences, and leaving the only alternatives of, submission, or war, on our part. But, under the circumstances in which Mexico was placed towards us, it was an act of gross injustice, as well as insult.She had a treaty obligation to fulfil, in the payment of several millions, as the indemnity for wrongs done to American citizens, and demands had been made upon her for several millions more, which remained unadjusted.There was, also, a question of boundary to settle—all these matters must be settled either peaceably, or by war—if peaceably, the continuance, or re-establishment of diplomatic intercourse, was indispensable. Her conduct was like that of the debtor who cuts the acquaintance of his creditor, and thinks by that means, to avoid fulfilling his obligations. Let me ask, what would have been the course pursued, (if placed in our situation,) by England or France, or any other high minded Government? I ask any candid man to say, whether they would have borne it as patiently as we have done? I would ask whether there was as much forbearance shown by us with Louis Philippe, on the subject of the French indemnity, or with England in the Northern boundary, and Oregon question? That nation assumes an awful responsibility, which, like Mexico, puts an end to the peaceable ways of diplomacy, leaving no alternative but horrid war, or base submission. Mexicoshould have paid her debt before she put an end to peaceful intercourse, and she could not do it without injustice, while there were claims still depending. All arguments drawn from considerations of forbearance, humanity, generosity, expediency, are for ourselves—Mexico is entitled to no part in them. In my estimation, the greaterrorof Mexico, if so mild a term can be applied, consists in her having terminated all peaceful modes of settling differences; for, as there is no common arbiter between independent nations, their differences in that case, must be settled by war, or not at all.

I am again sustained, by the opinion of Mr. Webster, in respect of the refusal of Mexico to the re-establishment of diplomatic relations proposed by us; and again, in her refusal to meet the more recent overtures for negotiation. The first improper conduct of Mexico has been greatly aggravated by these acts. It has been urged, that Mexico was willing to receive acommissioner, to treat in relation to Texas. It is surprising to me, that any one should not see the folly of this proposition. It was only saying, “as you have wronged us, in the annexation of Texas, we will permit you to offer us suitable reparation, and this must precede all other matters between us.” The ignorance and presumption of such an idea, is truly Mexican.[5]If they were sincere in their desire to discuss the subject, what objection could there be to receiving an ambassador, clothed with full powers to settle all matters in dispute?What right had Mexico to require us toadmit, that annexation was an aggression on her rights? There was no proposition to discuss the question ofboundary, as is frequently asserted, which would be inconsistent with her pretensions. But even that could be more fully settled by one having full authority, than by a mere special commissioner, with limited powers. The whole was but a diplomatic quibble—a deceitful evasion. In the opinion of Mr. Webster, Mexico was wrong in putting an end to diplomatic relations; she was wrong in rejecting our minister under a frivolous pretext, and she continues in the wrong in rejecting overtures of peace, after the commencement of hostilities. Here was a direct advance on our part, superseding the necessity of mediation, a measure only adopted to save the pride of either party, in being thefirstto propose a peace. In all this, Mexico is in the wrong; and here is the whole question, as between her and the United States. The degree of forbearance to be shown, is a question for ourselves alone. The first blow was struck by Mexico, unless the provocation of our march to the Rio Grande,be considered the first blow. There is nothing left for us, but to prosecute the war until Mexico shall be willing to enter into peaceable negotiation. Some appear to think that she would be most likely to re-establish diplomatic relations, by our withdrawing our fleets and armies. But this would only be an experiment, and might fail; and if it should fail, our work would have to begin again. This was done when Mr. Slidell landed at Vera Cruz, but without success. Can we place sufficient confidence in Mexico, even after the most positive and distinct assurances, and still less without any such assurances? For my part, I have no confidence either in the good faith of her present rulers, or in the stability of her Government. What, then, is to be done? I see no way but to retain the advantages we already possess, and to prosecute the war on her territory, as other wars, under like circumstances, would be prosecuted by other nations. What is thereto prevent her from entering into negotiations at once? Pride—folly—but we were not too proud to negotiate with England, at the moment when the war was hottest. At the very moment of signing the treaty of Ghent, the British Commissioner supposed, and ours also, that the British troops were in possession of Louisiana, and one of them observed to the American Commissioner. “You have reason to be satisfied, for you have now regained New Orleans.” The idea of falling back on the Rio Grande, in the visionary hope of coaxing Mexico to make peace, and then in case of her refusal, retaking Monterey and Tampico, and the valley of the Rio Grande, would be like the fisherman, who after having one good haul, throws back the best fish into the sea, for the pleasure of retaking them!

5.Mr. Gallatin makes a strange mistake, when he says, that the refusal, was to receiving aresident minister. The refusal was on account of his not being a mere Commissioner on thesingle subject of Texas! What reasonable objection could there be to a resident minister, after a treaty of peace? And if no such treaty were made, then the minister clothed with those powers would take hisdeparture, as a matter of course. Mr. Gallatin speaks verylightlyof asuspensionof diplomatic intercourse! I regard this, under the circumstance, as most serious. But there was more than suspension; Mexico declaredall negotiationsat an end, and war was, therefore, the only alternative.

Back to Index Next