[90] See "Matthew Carey's general map of the world,"—29th map—published 1814.—Kennedy's Texas, p. 4.—Mrs. Holley's Texas.—History of Texas, by D. B. Edwards, preceptor of Gonzales Seminary, Texas, 1836, p. 14. He says:—"Texas is bounded on the north by Red river, which divides it from Arkansas, Ozark District, and New Mexico; on the south by the Gulf of Mexico and the Rio de las Nueces, which divides it from the States of Coahuila and Tamaulipas; on the east by the eastern branch of the river Sabine and the State of Louisiana; on the west by the State of Coahuila and the territory of New Mexico."
Accompanying the work is a map of Texas with boundaries, as laid down above. In a note on one corner of the map, speaking of the Rio Grande, he says: "If this river should ever become the western boundary of Texas (as desired by the inhabitants) it will add a hundred miles to its sea-coast and fifty thousand square miles to its superficies; the southern section of the surface is sandy, barren prairie, almost destitute of water; and its northern rocky, sterile mountains, nearly as destitute of timber."
[91] Primera Campaña de Tejas: by Ramon Martinez Caro, secretary of Santa Anna, pp. 122, 125.
[92] Mr. Donelson wrote to Mr. Buchanan on the 2d July, 1845, from Washington, Texas, as follows: "My position is that we can hold Corpus Christi and all other points up the Nueces. If attacked, the right of defence will authorise us to expel the Mexicans to the Rio Grande. It is better for us to await the attack than incur the risk of embarrassing the question of annexation with the consequences of immediate possession of the territory on the Rio Grande. * * * The government left for treaty arrangement the boundary question in the propositions for a definitive treaty of peace. H. of R. doc. No. 2, 29th cong. 1st sess. pp. 78, 79.
[93] I am informed by Mr. Parrott, the secretary of legation who accompanied Mr. Slidell, that no form of letters of credence—or evidence of powers as "commissioner to settle the Texan dispute," would have secured a hearing for our envoy. The mob, the army, and Paredes were determined that no missionary of peace should be received from the United States.
[94] The claim of Frederick the IInd to Silesia was considered plausible. As Bohemia renounced not only the possession, but all its rights to Silesia by the treaties of Breslau and Berlin and other subsequent treaties, the kings of Prussia pretended, that by virtue of the renunciation, they became sovereign dukes of the country and not subject to the emperor in their new character. To this claim it was replied that Bohemia being an imperial State, could not, of its own authority, destroy the feudal tenure by which Silesia was attached to it, and through it to the empire. The question was rendered more intricate, for one party considered Bohemia feudal only as to the electoral dignity, but as a kingdom free and independent of Germany. The Germans argued that Silesia was part of the empire, the Prussians considered it a separate and independent State. Frederick took advantage of these "state right" doctrines to sustain his claim, as Texas took advantage of her state right sovereignty when the central despotism of Santa Anna overthrew the federal constitution of 1824.
[95] Arnold's fourth lecture on Modern History.
[96] Waite's State papers, 1809-11, p. 261; and Clay's speech on the line of the Perdido.
[97] Pufendorf, Lib. VIII, c. 6.—Note by Barbeyrac.