These consisted, in the first instance, in the aid afforded by citizens of the United States in the struggle of Texas with Mexico for her independence. But this did not begin with that struggle, but with the efforts of Mexico herself to throw off the allegiance of Spain, in which she was so materially aided by the Americans of Texas, and who continued to be invited into that country for the purpose of giving strength to the Mexican cause. Serious offence was given to Spain in consequence of this volunteer aid of our citizens to her revolted provinces, but, certainly, there was no complaint on the part of those provinces. Their situation changed as soon as they won their independence, and when Texas revolted in consequence of alleged oppression, Mexico assumed the position before occupied by Spain, and complained of the aid afforded by citizens of the United States to Texas. Here is, no doubt, the ground of the ill-feeling on the part of Mexico towards us. How far we are responsible for the acts of our citizens, beyond our jurisdiction, is a question which opens a wide field for discussion, and is one which cannot be discussed in these cursory letters. All I shall say, is, that Mexico had the same right to complain that Spain had, and no more and even less, for it was the consequence of her own act, in calling in our countrymen to help her against Spain. I avoid saying any thing here, as to the merits of the quarrel between Texas and Mexico.
In the contest which ensued between these belligerents, Mexico put forth her whole strength—she entered Texas with a powerful army, commanded by her Chief Magistrate in person, who was at the same time her most distinguished military leader—a leader, who had put down the constitution of 1824, and concentrated the whole power of the State in his own person, and in the person of his own military subordinates. The invasion was followed by the signal defeat at San Jacinto, by General Houston, and a treaty, acknowledging the independence of Texas, and recognizing the Rio Grande as the Southern boundary. I do not mean to discuss the diplomatic question involved in this treaty, my object being in this place, merely to state facts.[[6]] Subsequently, with the exception of some inroads on either side, the war ceased—the cause of Mexico became hopeless—the independence of Texas was not only recognized by us, but also by other neutral nations. Her inability to re-conquer Texas, was confessed by Mexico herself; she was even willing to acknowledge her independence on the condition that Texas would not unite herself to the United States—condition which no nation in our place would fail to regard as offensive. Next follows the act on our part in which was merged all other offences, and was, before-hand, declared by Mexico, not only as a cause of war, but equivalent to a declaration of war—the annexation of Texas with its consent. The act has been generally condemned by the whig press, and yet, it is sustained by very high authority: Mr. Webster, as Secretary of State, holds this language: “Mexico may have chosen to consider Texas as having been at all times since 1835, and still continuing, a rebellious province, but the world has been obliged to take a different view of the matter. From the time of the battle of San Jacinto to the present moment, Texas has continued to exhibit the same internal signs of national independence as Mexico herself, and with quite as much stability of government.” Again he repeats, “since 1837, the United States have regarded Texas as an independent sovereignty as much as Mexico.” He says further, “the constitution, public treaties, and laws, oblige the President to regard Texas as an independent State, and its territory no part of the territory of Mexico.” In a late public speech at Springfield, Mr. Webster uses the following language, “I do not admit that it was a just ground of complaint on the part of Mexico, that the United States annexed Texas to themselves.” From my own unassisted reasoning, I had arrived at the same conclusion with Mr. Webster. The ground taken by the great statesman against the war, was not on account of the annexation of Texas, but of the march of Gen. Taylor, by the order, or sanction of Mr. Polk, whose practical result was inevitable hostilities, which ought not to have been brought on without the express sanction of Congress, and while there was still a possibility of negotiating. The first, is a question between Mr. Polk and his country, with which Mexico has nothing to do; the other, is a mere question of probability, depending on the willingness on our side to negotiate, and the willingness, or the contrary, on this part of Mexico, to meet us. I will add, that the taking of California and New Mexico are acts arising out of the war, and not causes leading to it.
[6]. The able speech of Mr. Kauffman in Congress on this subject is not easily refuted. As a jurist, I do not hesitate to pronounce the treaty valid.
Let us now consider the provocations and complaints on our side; these commenced before any of the alleged grievances on the part of Mexico. They may be placed under two heads; first, the refusal to pay American citizens the debts contracted by their government for the means of carrying on their war of independence; and secondly, for outrages committed on the persons of our people while in the pursuit of their lawful business, and for the illegal seizure and confiscation of their property. The second head covers much the largest amount of injuries complained of: they consist of seizure of vessels in port on false or frivolous pretexts; of goods and merchandise for public use; of forced loans and civil injuries to persons, and wanton confinement to loathsome prisons, where many perished or lost their health. There were beside, anomalous cases, [[7]]some of them involving immense losses, breaking up mercantile establishments, producing ruin, and irreparable injury.
[7]. Such as that of Aaron Ligett, who introduced steamboats on the Tobasco river, according to a contract with the government; his boats were seized for public use, his merchandize confiscated, and business and credit destroyed. There is the case of Dr. Baldwin, who was induced to establish saw mills, which were seized when they became profitable, and the lands purchased by him confiscated. There is the case of the empressario contracts in Texas, where lands were granted by Mexico, on condition of colonizing, and when the company brought out colonies at great expense, they were forcibly prevented from taking possession—colonists driven off or imprisoned, and the goods and effects of the company seized.
We find as early as the first term of Gen. Jackson, the most ruinous complaints on the part of our fellow-citizens of the wrongs inflicted on them by Mexico. They are such, says he, “as cannot be tolerated by any government endued with a just self-respect, with a proper regard for the opinions of other nations, or with enlightened concern for the permanent welfare of those portions of its people who may be interested in foreign commerce.” After enumerating the various classes of outrages, he adds, “citizens of the United States have been imprisoned for long periods of time, without being informed of the offences with which they were charged. Others have been murdered and robbed on the high seas by Mexican officers, without any attempt to bring the guilty to justice.” In a subsequent message to Congress, he declares, “that such conduct would justify immediate war, in the eyes of all nations.” The same language was repeated by the subsequent administration, in still stronger terms. All this was previous to the alleged wrongs on our part, in respect to Texas, and the only excuse was the revolutionary state, and the consequent disorders under which Mexico was then a sufferer; and this plea, untenable as it is, was respected to such a degree, as to amount to a denial of justice to our own citizens. The American sufferings were aggravated by seeing the prompt and decisive measures of the French to redress similar outrages, when Admiral Baudin blew up the castle of San Juan de Ulloa, and compelled the Mexican government to pay a million of dollars on the deck of his vessel. How is it possible, after these facts, to say, that our complaints against Mexico were fictitious or exaggerated? Under the commission extorted from her, without which, an open rupture must have followed, after ascertaining three millions of just claims, an amount much larger was left unadjusted, in consequence of the expiration of the time limited for the duration of the commission, and even that time shortened one half by the delays of the Mexican commissioners. Instead of exacting payment at once, of the debt thus ascertained and admitted to be due, we showed her every indulgence, by consulting her convenience as to the time and mode of payment. That debt still remains unpaid, and the remaining claim unadjusted. Now, I would ask, whether, under the circumstances, she was not bound to keep open diplomatic relations for the purpose of providing payment for the amount due, and for a proper adjudication of the remainder? She has thought proper to take offence at the annexation of Texas, and to put an end to diplomatic relations, and of course, of peaceful negotiation on that, as well as on other subjects. The act of recalling a minister, and sending passports to the foreign plenipotentiary, according to the modern law of nations, is equivalent to an express declaration of war, and hostilities might be expected to follow as a matter of course.[[8]] It looks very much as if the annexation was merely laid hold of as a pretext to avoid paying her debts, and making compensation for the wrongs she had perpetrated on our citizens. The closing of diplomatic relations was itself a great outrage, considering the relation in which she stood towards us. There was, certainly, no obligation on our part to take any step towards a renewal of those relations—we might have proceeded according to the usages of nations to take the law on our own hands, and compel her to give, what we might consider, a just indemnity. But unlike other nations, we pursued a humane and moderate course; we attempted again and again, to negotiate, but without success; and perhaps, at the expense of national dignity. And even after the commencement of hostilities, after every success obtained by our army, the olive branch was held forth, and as often rejected.
[8]. See Kent’s Commentaries.—“Since the time of Binkershock, it has been settled by the practice of Europe, that war may lawfully exist by a declaration which is unilateral only, or without any declaration on either side.”
In the war between England and France in 1778, the first public act on the part of the English government, was recalling its minister, and that single act was considered by France as the breach of the peace between the two countries. There was no other declaration of war, though each government afterwards published a manifesto in vindication of its claim and conduct. The same things may be said of the war which broke out in 1793, and again in 1803.
The act of withdrawing a minister, is one of a most decisive character, for actual hostilities may exist without a state of war, as in the war of 1756 between France and England, and between us and France in 1798. The act of taking the fort of Mobile under Mr. Madison’s administration in 1812, was an act of hostility, and yet our diplomatic relations still continued—it was made the subject of complaint by Spain, and defended or excused by our government. If diplomatic relations had been discontinued, there would have been no redress for Spain, but in returning the blow. Hence, I contend, that the party which closes these relations, and prevents the peaceful adjustment of injuries, is responsible for all the consequences.
It has been said, that the annexation of Texas by us was virtual war, that is, equivalent to an express declaration. If so, it was in consequence of the declaration of Mexico, that she would so consider it, but not as in its very nature precluding negotiation. On the contrary, the administration has been blamed for not negotiating, and that too, whether Mexico would or not. No—the act of war, was in closing the door to peaceful settlement, by means of plenipotentiaries, authorized to adjust not a single isolated question, but all matters in dispute.