[5.] [52]Clay to Poinsett, Mar. 26, 1825; Sept. 24, 1825; Mar. 15, 1827; Van Buren to Poinsett, Aug. 25, 1829. [231]Butler to Jackson, June 23, 1831. Poinsett, no. 12, Aug. 5, 1825. (Officials) [52]Morfit, no. 7, Sept. 6, 1836; Ho. 35; 24, 2, p. 17. (Ten times) Memoria de ... Relaciones, Dec, 1846, p. 76. (Indians) [13]Ashburnham to Backhouse, July 26, 1838. (Victoria) [13]Ward, no. 54, 1825. (Trouble) Clay, supra; [135]Jackson, several letters to Butler.
[6.] Poinsett’s correspondence with Clay, Van Buren, and Alamán: Ho. 42; 25, 1, pp. 19–29. Amer. State Papers: Foreign Relations, vi (folio ed.). [296]Notes in Poinsett papers. Commerc. Rev., July, 1846, 21–4, 27–42 (Poinsett). Poinsett, nos. 12, 1825; 113, 115, 1828; 166, 1829. (Urgency) [52]Tornel to Poinsett, June 27, 1827. (Dropping) [77]Martínez, Nov. 2, 1837; Poinsett, no. 113, 1828; Adams, Memoirs, ix, 377–8; [52]Consul Taylor, Nov. 7, 1829. He dropped the project of buying territory because he saw it would give offence. Treaties and Conventions (Haswell, ed.), 661–3, 675. Ho. 42; 25, 1, pp. 27–8. (Reached, etc.) Ho. 351; 25, 2, pp. 40 (Van Buren to Butler); 190, 285, etc. (Poinsett). Ho. 42; 25, 1, pp. 8 (Clay); 10 (Van Buren); 38 (Butler, Dec. 21); 46–8. (Charged) Filisola, Memorias, ii, 602; Tornel, Reseña, 79, 80; Zavala, Revoluciones, i, 384; Richtofen, Zustände, 44.
Before the paper was placed in Poinsett’s hands he knew it would reach Washington too late (to Clay, Apr. 24: Ho. 42; 25, 1, p. 28), and hence it was unnecessary, as it would have been dishonorable and dangerous, to withhold it. (May 10) Ho. 351; 25, 2, p. 202. As the instructions to buy territory were repeated in 1829 (note 5) when Mexico was at war with Spain, it has been urged by some Americans that we showed a mean disposition to take advantage of a neighbor’s difficulties. But it is rather kind than otherwise to offer even a low price for real estate when the owner is in straits for cash, and Mexico was free to consult her own interest about selling. The instructions of 1829 were, however, wholly inoperative at that time.
That a people so fond of indirect methods and so destitute of principle in public affairs were suspicious of the United States was not, however, surprising. It was known of course that up to 1819 we had claimed the Rio Grande boundary. When Poinsett found that Victoria and Alamán intended to reassert the boundary pretensions of Spain, he endeavored to discourage them by replying that in such a case the old claim of the United States also would be revived (to Clay, Sept. 20, 1825).
In 1827 members of the Chamber of Deputies expressed the opinion in debate that the United States was at least privy to a recent insurrection in Texas, and a leading newspaper asserted that we had encouraged it (Poinsett, no. 74, 1827). Among the attacks upon the unfortunate Guerrero was the charge—based, it was alleged, upon documents—that he was plotting to sell us territory in that quarter (Pakenham, no. 18, 1831). Bravo, after a visit to this country, brought out a pamphlet in 1829, declaring that “the politicians and journalists” of the United States were “at present occupied about the dismemberment” of Mexico. The following July Bocanegra, minister of relations, hearing of our customary militia drills and armed escorts for traders in the far west, demanded the meaning of these operations, and in spite of sensible reassurances from the American minister, he felt so much disturbed as to commit a real offence against him and the United States by repeating his inquiry (Ho. 351; 25, 2, pp. 288, 292). The next year, when our squadron set out for a cruise in the Gulf, Alamán represented this to Congress as a threatening movement (Filisola, Memorias, ii, 601). A pamphlet issued at New York to point out the value of Texas was attributed to our government (Pakenham, no. 24, 1830), and the Mexican agent at London endeavored to excite the British cabinet regarding the supposed peril of his country ([77]Gorostiza, Apr. 22, 1830). European diplomatic representatives at Mexico fanned this flame. In particular Ward, the British minister, did his utmost to increase the alarm regarding Texas (nos. 32, 54, 64, 1825). See W. R. Manning in Southwest. Hist. Qtrly., Jan., 1914. For American feeling toward Mexico see chap. xxxvi, [note 1].
[7.] Treaties and Conventions: note 6. Treaties in Force (1899), 389–90. [52]McLane to Butler, Jan. 13, 1834. [52]Butler to García, Sept. 6, 1833. [231]Id., to Jackson, Mar. 7, 1834. Ho. 42; 25, 1, p. 59 (Livingston). Ho. 351; 25, 2, pp. 40–53, 556. [77]Castillo, no. 71, Dec. 7, 1833. (Denounced) [77]Castillo, no. 2, res., Jan. 22, 1835. The boundary was not run, for the battle of S. Jacinto occurred just after the exchange of the ratifications.
8. Ho. 42; 25, 1, pp. 17, 21; 33 (Butler); 49 (Van Buren). Ho. 351; 25, 2, pp. 190, 210, 287 (Poinsett); 369–70, 410. Foreign Rels., folio ed., vi, 583–600. (Treaty) Ho. 225; 22, 1. Treaties and Conventions (Haswell, ed.), 664–74. Sen. Exec. Journ., iii, 568–72, 605–6. (Dark) Ward, [no. 103], Sept. 9, 1826. (Victoria) Poinsett, no. 12, Aug. 5, 1825. [77]Montoya, no. 25, Sept. 19, 1829.
One of the two objectionable articles in the treaty of 1828 concerned the returning of fugitive slaves, and has been characterized by certain writers in the United States as a gross insult to Mexico; but that country had not yet abolished slavery, and her Cabinet, which possessed a full share of pride, accepted the article.
[9.] Sierra, Evolution, i, 178. [77]Montoya, no. 30, Dec. 10, 1829. [52]Van Buren to Butler, Oct. 16 (P. S., Oct. 17), 1829. (Friend) [77]Tornel, no. 3, res., Mar. 6, 1830; Ho. 351; 25, 2, p. 381; [52]Butler, July 9, 1834. [135]Butler, Notes on Texas. [135]Id. to Jackson, Jan. 4, 1827. [77]Almonte to Mex. Leg., Washington, July 22, 1834. (Ignorant) Ho. 351; 25, 2, p. 381. (Careless) [52]Ellis, June 25, private; July 16; Oct. 15, 1836; [52]Forsyth to Butler, Nov. 9, 1835; to Ellis, Jan. 18, 1837. (Consuls) [52]Wilcocks, Feb. 15, 1833; [52]W. S. Parrott, Oct. 24, 1835. (Spirits) [52]Butler, Aug. 26, 1833.
[10.] Poinsett reached the conclusion that endeavoring to buy Texan territory would anger Mexico and lead her to seek European support (Ho. 351; 25, 2, p. 286), but Butler stimulated Jackson to take the matter up. [52]Butler’s correspondence, including letters to and from Mexican officials. Many of these documents were printed with substantial correctness in Ho. 256; 24, 1; Ho. 42; 25, 1; Ho. 351; 25, 2. [296]Notes from Butler, Wilcocks and Zavala, to Poinsett. Corresp. with Jackson in [231]Jackson papers and [135]Butler papers (for deciphering a number of the latter the author is indebted to Dr. E. C. Burnett of the Dept. of Hist. Research, Carnegie Instit.). [77]Tornel, no. 3, res., 1830. [77]Castillo, no. 8, res., 1835. Sen. Exec. Journ., iv, 488, 502. [52]Ellis, May 19; June 25; July 16; Oct. 15, 1836; to Jackson, Aug. 26. Pakenham, nos. 6, 7, 1830; 11, 1836. Barker in Nation, xcii, 600–1; in Amer. Hist. Rev., July, 1907, 788–809. Filisola, Mems, ii, 590, 612. Adams, Mems., ix, 377–8. Benton, View, ii, 659. Bankhead, no. 125, 1845. Mosquito Mex., Aug. 4, 1835.