Peace with Mexico

by Albert Gallatin

The President designates by the name of Texas, the cession of Louisiana by France to the United States; and he again calls the territory ceded to Spain by the Florida treaty of 1819, the Texas. He intimates that the claim of the United States to the territory between the Sabine and the Rio Norte, was derived from the boundaries of Texas, and that by claiming as far west as this river, the United States did recognize that it was the boundary of the Texas. I really do not understand what is meant by this assertion.

The United States claimed the Rio Norte as being the legitimate boundary of Louisiana, and not of Texas. Neither they nor France had ever been in possession of the country beyond the Sabine. Spain had always held possession, and had divided the territory into provinces as she pleased. One of these was called Texas, and its boundaries had been designated and altered at her will. With these the United States had no concern. If their claim could be sustained, it must be by proving that Louisiana extended of right thus far. This had no connection with the boundaries which Spain might have assigned to her province of Texas. These might have extended beyond the Rio del Norte, or have been east of the Rio Nueces. There is not the slightest connection between the legitimate boundaries of Louisiana, and those of the Spanish province of Texas. The presumed identity is a mere supposition.

It is not necessary to discuss the soundness of the pretensions to the Rio Norte, asserted by Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Monroe, since they were yielded in exchange of Florida and some other objects by the treaty of 1819; a treaty extremely popular at the time, and the execution of which was pressed with great zeal and perseverance.

Whenever ultimately ceded to Mexico, that republic fixed its boundaries as it thought proper. Texas and Cohahuila were declared to form a state; and the Rio Nueces was, made the boundary of Texas. When Texas declared itself independent, it was the insurrection of only part of a state; for Cohahuila remained united to Mexico. But the Rio Nueces was the boundary between the department of Texas and the state of Tamaulipas. The whole contested territory lies within the limits of Tamaulipas, which never was, under the Mexican Government, connected in any shape with Texas.

The question now under consideration is only that between the United States and Mexico; and in that view of the subject, it is quite immaterial whether the acts of the United States emanated from Congress, or from the Executive. No act of either, recognizing the country beyond the Nueces, as a part of the territory of the United States, can be alleged against Mexico, as a proof of their right to the country thus claimed. Any such act is only an assertion, a declaration, but not an argument sustaining the right. It is, however, proper to observe here, that the port of delivery west of the Nueces, erected by the act of Congress "To establish a collection district in the state of Texas," was at Corpus Christi, a place which was in the actual possession of that state.

It must also be premised that, in the joint resolution for the annexation of Texas, the question of the boundary between it and Mexico was expressly reserved, as one which should be settled by treaty between the United States and Mexico.

The only arguments in the President's message, which sustain the right of Texas to territory beyond the Nueces, are contained in those passages, in which it is asserted, that the jurisdiction of Texas had been extended and exercised beyond the Nueces: that the country between that river and the del Norte had been represented in the Congress and Convention of Texas, had taken part in the annexation itself, and was now included within one of our congressional districts.

But it is not stated in the President's message, how far beyond the Nueces, the jurisdiction of Texas had been extended, nor what part of the country between that river and the del Norte had been represented in the Congress and convention of Texas, and was then included within one of our congressional districts.

Now the actual jurisdiction beyond the Nueces never extended farther than the adjacent settlement of San Patricio, consisting of about twenty families. That small district, though beyond the Nueces, was contiguous to, and in the actual possession of Texas. On this account it might be rightfully included within the limits, which we were bound to protect against Mexican invasion.

But what was the country between this small settlement of San Patricio, or between Corpus Christi and the Rio del Norte, over which it might be supposed from the message, that the jurisdiction of Texas had been extended; so as to be included within one of our congressional districts? Here again, Texas had erected that small settlement into a county called San Patricio, and declared that this county extended to the Rio del Norte. This, like all other declaratory acts of the same kind, was only an assertion not affecting the question of right. The State of Texas might, with equal propriety, have declared that their boundary extended to the Sierra Madre or to the Pacific. The true question of right to any territory beyond the Mexican limits of the Department of Texas depends on the facts: By whom was the territory in question actually inhabited and occupied? and had the inhabitants united with Texas in the insurrection against Mexico?