[2.] Sierra, Evol., i, 223. [13]Thornton, no. 6, 1847. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 571. [52]Trist, nos. 18, 22–3. Picayune, Nov. 30, 1847; Feb. 20, 1848. Protesta de la Diputación. Tributo á la Verdad, 58. Nacional, Jan. 8, 19, 1848. [80]Olaguíbel, proclam., Dec. 9, 1847. [335]Thornton to Trist, Dec. 5, 1847. Rivera, Jalapa, iv, 23, 40, 45, 74. Correo Nacional, Feb. 7, 19; Mar. 21, 1848. (Aguas Cal.) [76]Guerra to Relaciones, Jan. 24, 1848. [76]Olaguíbel, Nov. 29. [76]Gov. Oaxaca to Relaciones, Dec. 27. Monitor Repub., Nov. 15, 27, 29; Dec. 29, 1847. [366]Correspondence between gov. S. L. Potosí and A. O. de Parada. [335]Trist, memo, of second conference. [256]J. Parrott to Marcy, Dec. 20, private, 27 private, 28, private, 1847. No. American (Mexico), Dec. 14, 1847. [169]Taylor to Crittenden, Nov. 1, 1847. [304]Duncan to Quitman, Nov. 27, 1847. Webster, Letters, 343. [61]Scott, Sept. 18. (Bankhead) [132]Cushing to Buchanan, Oct. 31, 1847. [125]Bonham to mother, Dec. 7, 1817; Jan. 12, 1848. Gallatin, War Expenses. [345]Poinsett to Van Buren, June 4, 1847; Mar. 9, 1848. [304]Duncan to Quitman, Nov. 27. No. American (Mex.), Dec. 14. P. F. Smith, supra. Eco del Comercio, May 9, 1848. Correspondant, Nov. 15, 1847. Times, Jan. 15, 1848.
The substantial war elements were the Eventualists, Monarchists and Santannistas. The [76]archives for this time are full of reports of political disturbances.
[3.] Polk, Diary, Nov. 20, 23, 30; Dec. 4, 18, 1847. [132]Donelson to Buchanan, May 15, 1847, private. Ho. 60; 30, 1, 1037 (Marcy). [52]Trist, no. 22. P. F. Smith: note 1. Richardson, Messages, iv, 537–46. See chap. xxix, [p. 183]. Had the war continued it would not have been against Paredes or Santa Anna and the military class. It would have seemed to be a war of conquest directed against the Mexican nation, and even the peace party would have had to turn against us.
[4.] Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 585. [13]Thornton, nos. 6, 7, 1847. [52]Trist, nos. 16, confid., 18–20. [335]Id.to Rosa, Oct. 20, 1847. Monitor Repub., Nov. 8, 10, 13; Dec. 29. Ho. 69; 30, 1, p. 58 (Rosa). Richardson, Messages, iv, 572. Rivera, Jalapa, iv, 22–3. México á través, iv, 704–5. Exposición ó Programa. Negrete, Invasión, iii, app., 483, 516.
Trist reopened the negotiations naturally by forwarding to Luis de la Rosa, the minister of relations, a letter (dated Sept. 7) written by him as a reply to the note and counter-projet of the Mexican peace commissioners dated Sept. 6. In this he argued that Texas possessed good grounds for rebelling, and became independent; that, having been rightfully annexed by the United States, she had to be protected against invasion; that any previously existing boundary between her and Mexico had been obliterated by the revolutionary war, and she had a right to claim the Rio Grande as the boundary; that as Mexico would not negotiate on the subject, Polk was compelled to accept that delimitation; that in the resulting war the United States had occupied Mexican territory and now justly held it by right of conquest, yet not by the odious title of conquest resulting from war without good cause—not from a mere desire of obtaining territory (Sen. 20; 30, 1, p. 21). This letter and a brief accompanying note, which stated that his powers had not been withdrawn and expressed a desire to resume the negotiations, were transmitted by Thornton, now acting (in the absence of Bankhead and Doyle) as British chargé, who strongly urged upon Rosa the renewal of the negotiations ([52]Trist, no. 19). Rosa replied favorably, but said he was too busy just then, and needed certain documents. Later Peña explained the delay as resulting from the provisional character of his administration ([52]to Trist, Nov. 22). In reality the government desired to ascertain and influence public and Congressional sentiment before acting (Exposición dirigida). Rosa’s reply to Trist said there appeared to be little hope of peace, but this was for self-defence (Trist, no. 20).
[5.] [52]Trist, nos. 19, 23. Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 239. Rivera, Jalapa, iv, 23. Monitor Repub., Nov. 17, 18, 23, 27; Dec. 26. (Deserters) Nat. Intellig., June 24, 1848. [76]Rosa to govs., Oct. 20. [75]Report of the meeting of governors. México á través, iv, 706. [335]Thornton to Trist, Nov. 25, 1847. Dublán, Legislación, v, 305. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 567–8, 571–6. [335]Davidson to Thornton, Nov. 23. Picayune, Nov. 30.]
At the meeting Puebla, Querétaro, Michoacán, Guanajuato and S. L. Potosí states were represented by their governors, Zacatecas by her vice governor, and Jalisco by a commissioner. The President and the ministers were present. The meeting was advisory and confidential. The government took the ground that the war could not be continued and that Mexico should endeavor to obtain, not an honorable peace, but one as little humiliating as possible, and one that would save Mexican nationality; but it preferred war and promised to carry it on if given the necessary men and supplies. The governors naturally showed their repugnance to peace on such a basis, but could not offer adequate resources, and the one rational conclusion was inevitable. A report of the discussions may be found in the Gobernación archives, Mexico. The sessions began on Nov. 19 and concluded on Nov. 27. The insurrection came to a head on Dec. 19. News of Trist’s recall helped to quiet the war party ([52]Trist, no. 22).
[6.] Pillow, address in Chicago Daily Democrat, Sept. 15, 1857. Polk, Diary, Oct. 4, 5, 20–3, 25; Dec. 30, 1847; Jan. 2, 1848. [52]Sec. state to Trist, Oct. 6, 25. Richardson, Messages, iv, 541. [335]Memo. of Trist on despatch of Oct. 6. Sen. Rep. 261; 41, 2. Ho. 69; 30, 1, pp. 59–61 (Trist).
A private [335]note (Oct. 24) from Buchanan to Trist, taken in connection with Polk’s Diary, suggests a suspicion on the part of the administration that, in intimating that the United States might possibly not insist upon the Rio Grande line, Trist had purposely played into the hands of the Whigs, who were now asserting that the intermediate region did not belong to us. This suspicion and the idea that Trist was helping Scott to injure the President’s friends in the army would explain a great deal of wrath. Another personal [335]note (Oct. 24) from Buchanan shows that the terms offered by Trist in September were now regarded as too moderate to be popular, and gives one the feeling that, especially since Trist had shown a disposition to weaken them, the prestige of the administration demanded his recall. Oct. 25 Buchanan said Trist had offered to give up a part of California, but Trist denied this ([335]memo.). Oct. 6 Marcy directed Scott to inform the Mexican authorities of Trist’s recall (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1008). Trist’s patriotism and sense of duty do not seem to have been affected by his recall. Nov. 27 he wrote to Buchanan that a commission should be sent to take up his work on the spot (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 230); and the next day, through Mrs. Trist, he [335]adjured Buchanan to lose “not a minute” about this, proposing Scott and Butler. Dec. 31 Polk received indirectly a similar recommendation from Gen. Twiggs, and Sen. Davis (the Col. Davis of Monterey and Buena Vista) pointed out to him that, should Mexican commissioners go to Washington, probably their government would be overthrown during their absence, and they might be shot as traitors on their return (Diary, Dec. 31). Polk therefore virtually decided that Butler should take Trist’s place as well as Scott’s (ibid., Dec. 31; Jan. 2). Pillow (Address) attributed to his letter the recall of Trist.
[7.] Sen. Report 261; 41, 2. Ho. 69; 30, 1, pp. 59–66 (Trist). Sen. 60; 30, 1, p. 61 (Peña). [52]Trist, nos. 21, 23. [13]Thornton, nos. 11, 14, 1847. [335]Id.to Trist, Nov. 22, confid.; Nov. 22, private; Nov. 25. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 583, 585. [335]Trist to Thornton, Nov. 24, confid., Nov. 25, private. [75]Peña at meeting of govs. [52]Peña to Trist, Nov. 22. Trist’s departure had to be delayed by the necessity of testifying at Pillow’s trial.