I have therefore, in studying this subject carefully, been led to the opinion that no single act or cause can be truly said to have originated the war between the United States and Mexico; but that it occurred as the result of a series of events, and as the necessary consequence of the acts, position, temper, passions, ambition and history of both parties since our international relations commenced.
The reader will observe that I draw a distinction between the war and hostilities. I shall discuss the latter question in the portion of this volume which relates to events on the Rio Grande.[19]
In the preceding chapter I have glanced at the character of the people of Mexico, and I trust that the sketch I gave will be continually remembered as illustrating the people with whom we are dealing. When our first envoy, Mr. Poinsett, was despatched, he found Mexico pausing to recover breath after her revolution. The bad government of Spain had been followed by the turmoil and bloodshed of the rebellion, and that, in turn, was succeeded by the anarchy of a distracted republic. Revolution has followed revolution so rapidly since then, that the historian, at a loss to discover their causes, can scarcely detect their pretexts. For twenty years past we have been so accustomed to hear of a new military outbreak in Mexico that the familiarized act seems to be only the legitimate order of constitutional change. Passion, ambition, turbulence, avarice, and superstition, have so devoured the country, that during the whole of this period, Mexico, whilst presenting to foreign nations, the external appearance of nationality, has, in fact, at home, scarcely ever enjoyed the benefit of a real or stable government that could make an impression upon the character of the people or their rulers. It is true that, at first, she sought to adopt our federal system; but the original difference between the colonial condition of things in the two countries, made the operation of it almost impossible. The British provinces of North America, with their ancient and separate governments, very naturally united in a federation for national purposes, whilst they retained their freedom and laws as independent States. But the viceroyalty of Mexico, when it revolutionized its government, was forced to reverse our system,—to destroy the original central power, and, subsequently to divide the territory into departments, or states. Until the year 1824, nothing of this kind existed in Mexico. The whole country from the Sabine to its utmost southern limit, was under the central rule of a viceroy, with the same laws, religion, priests, judges, and civil as well as military authorities. The constitution of 1824, for the first time broke up the consolidated nation into nineteen states, and then, by the same legislative act, recomposed them in a federative union. The constitutions of these nineteen states, consequently, were creative of differences that never existed before, and the unity of power, will, and action, which previously existed was destroyed forever. This was, naturally the origin of jealousies, parties, and sectional feeling; and the result was, that the revenues of the country became wasted whilst their collection was impeded, and that a people unused to freedom and chiefly composed of illiterate creoles, were confounded by a scheme of government whose machinery was too intricate.[20]
The state and municipal governments of Mexico were, consequently, always quite as incompetent for self-rule as the central authority. In addition to this, they were cordially jealous of the national powers. This arose from the state fears of consolidation; and, as it was with these municipal authorities, as well as with the corrupt government officers, that our citizens were chiefly brought in contact in the ports, it is not at all wonderful to find them soon complaining of oppression and burthening the records of our legation with their grievances. When our ministers sought to obtain redress, the Mexican government was reluctant to undertake the investigation of the subject; and, when it did so, continually encountered delay and equivocation on the part of the local authorities. The distant peculator was anxious to escape the penalty of his fault by procrastination, and the Mexican secretary of state, ever willing to uphold his national pride by concealing or not confessing the villainy of his subordinate, was ready to sustain him by an interminable correspondence.
The history of the diplomatic and commercial relations between the United States and Mexico, as exhibited by congress in all the published volumes of national documents, presents a series of wrongs, which the reader will find ably recapitulated in a report[21] made by Mr. Cushing in the year 1842. Our claims, arising from injuries inflicted by Mexico, were no ordinary demands founded on mere querulousness, or contrived with a view to obtain money fraudulently from that republic. They were brought to the notice of the ministry of foreign affairs by all our envoys, and their justice urged with ample proof; until, at length, upon the return of Mr. Powhatan Ellis to the United States, in the year 1837, after demanding his passports, they became the subject of a message from President Jackson in which he alleges that all his efforts of pacific negotiation had been fruitless and that he found it both just and prudent to recommend reprisals against Mexico. This serious aspect of our difficulties immediately commended the subject to the notice of committees in both houses of congress, and whilst they sustained the president's opinion of the character of our wrongs, they recommended that a forbearing spirit should still characterize our conduct, so that, "after a further demand, should prompt justice be refused by the Mexican government, we might appeal to all nations not only for the equity and moderation with which we had acted towards a sister republic but for the necessity which will then compel us to seek redress for our wrongs either by actual war or reprisals."[22]
"Shortly after these proceedings"—says President Polk—"a special messenger was despatched to Mexico, to make a final demand for redress; and on the 20th of July, 1837, the demand was made. The reply of the Mexican government bears date on the 29th of the same month, and contains assurances of the anxious wish of the Mexican government 'not to delay the moment of that final and equitable adjustment which is to terminate the existing difficulties between the two governments;' that nothing 'should be left undone which may contribute to the speediest and most equitable termination of the subjects which have so seriously engaged the attention of the United States,' that the 'Mexican government would adopt, as the only guides for its conduct, the plainest principles of public right, the sacred obligations imposed by international law, and the religious faith of treaties,' and that 'whatever reason and justice may dictate respecting each case will be done.' The assurance was further given that the decision of the Mexican government upon each cause of complaint, for which redress had been demanded, should be communicated to the government of the United States by the Mexican minister at Washington.
"These solemn assurances, in answer to our demand for redress, were disregarded. By making them, however, Mexico obtained further delay. President Van Buren, in his annual message to congress of the 5th of December, 1837, states that 'although the larger number' of our demands for redress, and 'many of them aggravated cases of personal wrongs, have been now for years before the Mexican government, and although the causes of national complaint, and those of the most offensive character, admitted of immediate, simple, and satisfactory replies, it is only within a few days past that any specific communication in answer to our last demand, made five months ago, has been received from the Mexican minister;' and that 'for not one of our public complaints has satisfaction been given or offered; that but one of the cases of personal wrong has been favorably considered, and but four cases of both descriptions, out of all those formally presented, and earnestly pressed, have as yet been decided upon by the Mexican government.' President Van Buren, believing that it would be vain to make any further attempt to obtain redress by the ordinary means within the power of the executive, communicated this opinion to congress, in the message referred to, in which he said that 'on a careful and deliberate examination of the contents,' of the correspondence with the Mexican government, 'and considering the spirit manifested by the Mexican government, it became his painful duty to return the subject, as it now stands, to congress, to whom it belongs, to decide upon the time, the mode, and the measure of redress.'
"Instead of taking redress into our own hands, a new negotiation was entered upon with fair promises on the part of Mexico. This negotiation, after more than a year's delay, resulted in the convention of the 11th of April, 1839, 'for the adjustment of claims of citizens of the United States of America upon the government of the Mexican republic.' The joint board of commissioners created by this convention to examine and decide upon these claims was not organized until the month of August, 1840, and under the terms of the convention they were to terminate their duties within eighteen months from that time. Four of the eighteen months were consumed in preliminary discussions on frivolous and dilatory points raised by the Mexican commissioners; nor was it until the month of December, 1840, that they commenced the examination of the claims of our citizens upon Mexico. Fourteen months only remained to examine and decide upon these numerous and complicated cases. In the month of February, 1842, the term of the commission expired, leaving many claims undisposed of for want of time. The claims which were allowed by the board and by the umpire, authorized by the convention to decide in case of disagreement between the Mexican and American commissioners, amounted to two millions twenty-six thousand one hundred and thirty-nine dollars and sixty-eight cents. There were pending before the umpire when the commission expired additional claims which had been examined and awarded by the American commissioners, and had not been allowed by the Mexican commissioners, amounting to nine hundred and twenty-eight thousand and twenty-seven dollars and eighty-eight cents, upon which he did not decide, alleging that his authority ceased with the termination of the joint commission. Besides these claims, there were others of American citizens amounting to three millions three hundred and thirty-six thousand eight hundred and thirty-seven dollars and five cents, which had been submitted to the board, and upon which they had not time to decide before their final adjournment.
"The sum of two millions twenty-six thousand one hundred and thirty-nine dollars and sixty-eight cents which had been awarded to the claimants, was an ascertained debt by Mexico, about which there could be no dispute, and which she was bound to pay according to the terms of the convention. Soon after the final awards for this amount had been made, the Mexican government asked for a postponement of the time of making payment, alleging that it would be inconvenient to pay at the time stipulated. In the spirit of forbearing kindness towards a sister republic, which Mexico has so long abused, the United States promptly complied with her request. A second convention was accordingly concluded between the two governments on the thirtieth of January, 1843, which upon its face declares, that, 'this new arrangement is entered into for the accommodation of Mexico.' By the terms of this convention, all the interest due on the awards which had been made in favor of the claimants under the convention of the 11th of April, 1839, was to be paid to them on the 30th of April, 1843, and "the principal of the said awards, and the interest accruing thereon," was stipulated to "be paid in five years, in equal instalments every three months." Notwithstanding this new convention was entered into at the request of Mexico, and for the purpose of relieving her from embarrassment, the claimants only received the interest due on the 30th of April, 1843, and three of the twenty instalments. Although the payments of the sum thus liquidated, and confessedly due by Mexico to our citizens as indemnity for acknowledged acts of outrage and wrong, was secured by treaty, the obligations of which are ever held sacred by all just nations, yet Mexico violated this solemn engagement by failing and refusing to make the payment. The two instalments due in April and July, 1844, under the peculiar circumstances connected with them, were assumed by the United States and paid to the claimants. But this is not all of which we have just cause of complaint. To provide a remedy for the claimants whose cases were not decided by the joint commission under the convention of April the 11th, 1839, it was expressly stipulated by the sixth article of the convention of the 30th of January, 1843, that 'a new convention shall be entered into for the settlement of all claims of the government and citizens of the United States against the republic of Mexico which were not finally decided by the late commission which met in the city of Washington, and all claims of the government and citizens of Mexico against the United States.'