CHAPTER III.
The origin of the war—History of the pacification between Spain and Holland in 1609—Spain and Mexico should have followed the example—The Texas question—Origin of the Texas revolution—True history of it—Resistance to the Central despotism of Santa Anna—Mexican war against Texas—Independence of Texas—Santa Anna's retraction in 1846 of his anti-federative opinions.
The student of Mexican history, at this period, will derive instruction from a narrative of the connexion which once existed between Spain and the Netherlands and its fatal rupture.
After the fall of the duke of Burgundy in 1477, his daughter Mary brought the low countries to Austria by her marriage with the Emperor Maximilian; and his grandson, Charles V, united these provinces with Spain. During the reign of Charles, their ancient liberties were carefully respected, and the country prospered whilst the Protestant religion spread throughout it in spite of stern opposition. But when his successor, Philip II, mounted the throne, all prudence in the government of the Belgic and Batavian provinces seems to have been abandoned, and unbridled persecution was let loose on the civil and religious rights of the people. Granvella and the bloody duke of Alva were the monarch's instruments in this sad misgovernment, which resulted in a total renunciation of allegiance to the king of Spain. Long and bitter was the rebellion,—continuing from the middle of the sixteenth century to the year 1609,—when the Spanish claim to the sovereignty of the new republic of Holland was virtually resigned under the form of a truce for twelve years between the belligerents.[30]
The independence of the united provinces was thus, in fact achieved, and it was recognized by all the great powers of Europe except Spain; still Holland went through the thirty years war, before her nationality was secured by the peace of Westphalia.
From this sketch it will be perceived that Spain, although willing to forego the continuance of war, and to save the point of honor between herself and the rebellious provinces when it was impossible to recover her dominion over them, nevertheless, clung with stupid pride to her abstract right of reconquest for a long period after she had substantially acknowledged their freedom. The dismemberment of Spain was, of course, an event which the monarch could not behold without regret, for it was natural that he should seek to transmit his dominions to posterity uncurtailed of their fair proportions. Yet, in the adoption of a diplomatic ruse,—in the truce of twelve years,—there was a degree of wisdom which it would have been well for Spain to recollect when it became evident that the revolt of her American colonies was about to terminate in their independence. The passions between the belligerents would have had time to cool. The common ties of blood and language might gradually have bound up the wounds made by war. The intervention of friendly powers would have obtained concessions from the discreet parent,—and thus Peru and Mexico might still have shone as the brightest jewels in the Spanish crown. No quarrel ever terminated in perfect re-establishment of amity without tolerance or retraction on the part of one of the disputants. Superior force may overawe into silence or crush by its ponderous blows, yet the non-resistance and taciturnity which ensue are but the repose that precedes the hurricane, in which the elements seem gathering strength to pour forth their wrath with irresistible fury.
So was it with Spain and her American colonies. Instead of soothing and pacific measures, tending to allay resentment and bring back the rebel to allegiance, the utmost violence was at once adopted both in deeds and language, and scenes of barbarity were enacted by Calleja and his myrmidons from which the heart recoils with horror.[31]
Severe as was the lesson taught by the conduct of Spain to Mexico, that republic, nevertheless, resolved not to profit by it when she, in turn, saw one of her States discontented with her misrule and usurpations. If Texas had been soothed; if justice had been speedily done; if the executive had despatched discreet officers, and reconciled the differences between the North American emigrants and the Spaniards, not only in civil and municipal government, but in religion and temper,—Texas might not have been lost to Mexico,—but, invigorated by a hardy and industrious population, would have poured commercial wealth into her coffers, and furnished her factories among the mountains with an abundance of that staple which the native Indians are as unused as they are unwilling to cultivate. Had Mexico been even as wise as Philip, in 1609, and saved her punctilious honor by a twelve years truce, she would only have postponed the settlement of her difficulties, until her internal affairs became sufficiently pacific to enable a firm government to act with discretion and justice.
Since the year 1843 the Texas question has been so much a matter of party dispute in the United States that the true history of the revolt seems to be almost forgotten. I shall not hesitate therefore to recount some of the events connected with it, because they are relevant to the issue between us and Mexico, as well as necessary to the elucidation of the justice of her quarrel.
It is an error that the Texan rebellion was conceived in a spirit of sheer fraud upon Mexico; and writers who seek to stigmatize it thus are entirely ignorant of its origin.
The contest that arose between the central and federal parties in Mexico immediately after the establishment of independence has been narrated in a preceding chapter. The first federal constitution is an almost literal copy of our own; but its equitable and progressive principles did not suit the military despots who, whilst they commanded the army, held the physical power of Mexico in their hands. The consequence was that during the administration of the first president, Victoria, there were pronunciamientos against federation and in favor of centralism, by Padre Arénas, and at Tulancingo, under the "plan of Montayno." Quarrels in the party lodges of the Yorkinos and Escossceses—the liberalists and centralists—next arose;—and, finally, the revolution under the "plan of Toluca," destroyed the cherished constitution of 1824, by striking a death blow at the federative principle. This plan vested the power in a central government, abolished State legislatures, and changed those States into departments under the control of military governors, who were responsible to the chief authorities of the nation alone. These principles were embodied in the new constitution of 1836, and were, of course, distasteful to every friend of genuine liberty.[32]
Meanwhile, the beautiful province of Texas had not been an unconcerned spectator of events. Bordering on the Gulf of Mexico, and stretching along our Southern boundary, it contained an extensive territory, fine rivers, wide prairies, and a soil capable of maintaining near ten millions of people.—Such a country naturally attracted the attention of the people of the United States, numbers of whom are always ready, with the adventurous spirit that characterises our race, to seek new lands and improve their fortunes by emigrating from the crowded places of their birth. The project of colonizing Texas, had, therefore, struck an intelligent citizen of our country; and, on the 17th of January, 1821, Moses Austin obtained permission from the supreme government of the eastern internal provinces of New Spain at Monterey, to settle a colony of emigrants in Texas. Accordingly, in the following winter, his son, Stephen F. Austin, who undertook the enterprize in obedience to a testamentary request of his father, appeared on the Brazos with the first Anglo-American settlers.
In January, 1823, a national colonization law, approved by the Emperor Iturbidé, was adopted by the Mexican congress, and, on the 18th of February, a decree was issued authorizing Austin to proceed with the founding of his colony. This decree, after Iturbidé's abdication and the downfall of the Imperial government, was confirmed by the first executive council in accordance with a special order of the Mexican congress.
In 1824, the federal constitution was adopted and proclaimed as the established polity of the land;—and, at this period, the character of Texas begins for the first time to assume an independent aspect, for, by a decree of the 7th of May, it was united with Coahuila, and, under the name of Coahuila and Texas, formed one of the constituent, sovereign States of the Mexican confederacy. Up to this period, whilst all was proceeding well in the capital, the scheme of emigration, seems to have met with no discouragement. By an act passed in August, 1824, another general colonization law was established;—and, by a State colonization law of Coahuila and Texas, foreigners were invited to settle within the limits of that especial jurisdiction. Thus it was that State sovereignty first accrued to Texas and Coahuila under the federal system,—a system similar to the one under which the colonists had formerly lived in our Union and under which, by the adoption of their own State laws, they signified their willingness to become members of the Mexican confederacy. This State sovereignty was never resigned, but, on the contrary, was always distinctly asserted. The federation existed precisely for the same purposes that the union of our States was formed; and, as soon as the constitution was destroyed by intrigue and revolutionary violence in 1835, the several States were remitted to their inherent rights, independent of any military despot who succeeded in seizing the central power. Meanwhile our people had flocked to Texas under the belief that a constitution which was a transcript of our own, would secure peace and prosperity to settlers. Accustomed to find laws observed and the constitution indestructible, they expected to encounter the same regularity and firmness in that virgin State. They were industrious in their pursuits, and willing to abide the settlement of all quarrels in the capital; nor was it until long after the federal and centralist disputes commenced, that they began even to notice the political convulsions which were so ominous of disaster. The quiet and orderly conduct of our emigrants was, nevertheless, not regarded so favorably by the Mexicans. The rapidly growing strength of the Texans and their strict devotion to republicanism, attracted the jealousy of the supreme government; and when a Mexican begins either to fear or to doubt, the provocation is quite enough to convert him into an oppressor. Accordingly, on the 6th of April, 1830, an arbitrary law was passed by which the future immigration of American settlers to Texas was prohibited. Military posts of surveillance were established over the State, and ignorant and insolent soldiers of another race, began to domineer over a people whom they regarded as inferiors. At length the civil authorities of Texas were entirely disregarded, and the emigrants hitherto unused at home or abroad to an armed police, or to the sight of a uniform except on parade days, suddenly found themselves subjected to the capricious tyranny of military rule.[33]
On the 26th of June, 1832, the colonists took arms against this despotic interference with their constitutional freedom and besieged and captured the fort at Velasco. The garrison at Anahuac and that at Nacogdoches, were next reduced; and, in December of that year, when hostilities were suspended between Santa Anna and Bustamante, the colonists were again restored to the enjoyment of their rights guarantied under the constitution.
In May 1824, Texas had been promised a separate State constitution as soon as she was prepared for it, but upon application to congress in 1833, after framing a suitable instrument in general convention at San Felipe, her request was denied. In 1835 the crisis at length arrived. The federal constitution fell. The resistance of several States to this despotism was suppressed by force. The legislature of Coahuila and Texas was dispersed at the point of the bayonet. Zacatecas, a brave stronghold of federalism, was assaulted by the central chiefs and her people butchered. And, finally, the whole republic, save Texas, yielded to Santa Anna.
As this state at once resolved to maintain her sovereignty and federative rights, corresponding committees of safety and vigilance were promptly formed in all the municipalities. An immediate appeal to arms proclaimed the people's resolution to adhere to the constitution; and at Gonzales, Goliad, Bexar, Conception, Sepantillan, San Patricio, and San Antonio, they were victorious over the centralists. In November, 1835, the delegates of the Texan people assembled in "general consultation," and declared that "they had taken up arms in defence of the federal constitution of 1824, and that they would continue faithful to the Mexican confederacy as long as it should be governed by the laws that were framed for the protection of their political rights; that they were no longer morally or politically bound by the compact of union; yet, stimulated by the generous sympathy of a free people, they offered their assistance to such members of the confederacy as would take up arms against military despotism. This patriotic manifesto declaring at once the freedom of Texas and offering to other parts of Mexico a defensive alliance in favor of constitutional liberty, found no response from the overawed States, and thus Texas was abandoned to the mercy of a military president, who signalized his campaign of 1836 by acts of brutality which must forever consign his name to infamy."[34] Notwithstanding Santa Anna's successes at San Antonio and his frightful massacres, General Houston, the commander of the Texan forces, met and conquered the Mexicans on the 21st of April, 1836, in the brilliant action at San Jacinto, and thenceforth, in the emphatic language of an American statesman "the war was at an end."[35]
"No hostile foot found rest" within her territory for six or seven years ensuing this event, and Mexico, by confining her assaults to border forays practically abstained from all efforts to re-establish her dominion.[36] In this peaceful interval the country rapidly filled up with emigrants; adopted a constitution; established a permanent government, and obtained an acknowledgement of her independence by the United States and other powers. It was then supposed that nearly one hundred thousand people occupied the territory; and, in 1837, they sought to place themselves under the protection of our confederacy. But our government declined the proposition made through the Texan plenipotentiary, upon the ground that the treaty of amity and peace between the United States and Mexico should not be violated by an act which necessarily involved the question of war with the adversary of Texas.[37]
This brief history of the Texan revolt against centralism seems to place the authorities of that country on a firm basis of natural and constitutional right. In the constant conflicts that have taken place throughout Mexico between the federalists and centralists, or rather between democracy and despotism, Texas attempted no more than any of the liberal States of Mexico would have done, had not the free voice of educated patriots been elsewhere stifled by military power. The only difference between them is, that in Texas there was an Anglo-American population bold and strong enough to maintain republicanism, whilst in Mexico, the mongrel race of Spaniards and Indians was too feeble to resist effectually.
From 1836 to 1846 Santa Anna diligently persevered in the support of his central usurpation. But in the latter year the principles of the Texan revolution obtained a decided victory over military despotism, and even Santa Anna himself, who had been the originator of all the revolutions of his country, the disturber of its peace, and destroyer of its political morality was forced to make a humiliating confession of his errors.
It will be remembered that he was exiled from Mexico in the year 1845, and resided in Havana until the summer of 1846, when a revolution against the government of Paredes prepared the way for his return. On the 8th of March, 1846, in writing to a friend a letter which has since been published he declares that: "the love of provincial liberties being firmly rooted in the minds of all, and the democratic principle predominating every where, nothing can be established in a solid manner, in the country, which does not conform with these tendencies; nor without them can we attain either order, peace, prosperity, or respectability among foreign nations. To draw every thing to the centre, and thus to give unity of action to the republic, as I at one time considered best, is no longer possible; nay more, I say it is dangerous; it is contrary to the object which I proposed for myself in the unitarian system, because we thereby expose ourselves to the separation of the northern departments, which are the most clamorous for freedom of internal administration."[38]
In this remarkable retraction of Santa Anna's despotic principles, Texas finds a perfect vindication of her revolt. It would have been well for Mexico had her military president been willing to make the same concessions before the memorable battle of San Jacinto!
FOOTNOTES:
[30] Arnold's third lecture on modern history.
[31] Robinson's Memoirs of the Mexican Revolution, pages 20, 22, 24.
[32] Mexico as it was and as it is, pp. 336, 339. Foote's History of Texas.
[33] Document No. 40, H. of R. 25th cong. 1st sess. p. 4.
[34] A full account of this campaign will be found in a work entitled "Primera Campaña de Tejas," published in Mexico in August 1837, by Don Ramon Martinez Caro, who was Santa Anna's military secretary during the campaign. He treats his former chief with unsparing severity, and very clearly attributes to him all the ferocious acts of the war. In Thompson's "Recollections of Mexico," a conversation of the ex-minister with Santa Anna will be found, in which his exculpation is attempted, pp. 68, et seq.
[35] Mr. Webster's letter to Waddy Thompson, 8th July, 1842.
[36] Webster to Thompson ut antea.
[37] Letter of Mr. Forsyth to General Hunt, 25th Aug. 1847. Doc. No. 40, H. of R., 25th congress, 1st session.
[38] Translation of a letter from General Santa Anna, in Mexico as it was and as it is.—4th edition, page 414.