[7.] For this paragraph. Buchanan, Works, vi, 484–5. [59]Confidential circular, May 14, 1846. See also Ho. Rep. 752; 29, 1, pp. 50–2.
[8.] For commercial reasons Spain was particularly jealous of our blockade, and although treated with special indulgence, she complained more than any other power; but no real friction resulted. See chap. xxx, [notes 7], [8].
[9.] For these two paragraphs. [52]Martin, no. 13, May 15, 1847. Gutiérrez de Estrada, México en 1840, p. 32. Gaceta de la Nueva Granada, Aug. 16, 1846, etc. Peruano, passim. Comercio, passim. [72]Span. govt. to capt. gen. Cuba, June 18, 1846 (including correspondence with the Spanish minister at Washington). Dix, Speeches, i, 214, note. Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 207. Heraldo, Apr. 26, 1847. Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1009. Buchanan, Works, vii, 290–2; viii, 282–3, 298–9. [52]Irving, July 18; Aug. 15; Oct. 8, 1846. [52]Saunders, nos. 1, Aug. 6; 6, Nov. 16, 1846; 8, Feb. 13; 24, Nov. 6, 1847.
R. M. Saunders, the American minister, mistakenly invited an offer of mediation from Spain, but she felt very much afraid that we should reject it, and also that it might give offence to England and France. No written communications on the subject passed between him and the Spanish government, however. El Heraldo also remarked that the war would tend to unite the Spaniards of both Americas against the U. S., and that Spain, seizing the opportunity, should offer them her protection and tolerate no other influence. Such a suggestion was not likely to help Mexico.
[10.] [108]Bancroft to Polk, June 3, 1847. [355]Wheaton, no. 287, June 23, 1846. [181]Donelson to Buchanan, July 7, 19; Sept. 18, 1846. [132]Id.., Jan. 8; Feb. 21, private, 1847. [181]Canitz to Wheaton, June 25, 1846.
Baron Gerolt, the Prussian minister at Washington, sympathized with and assisted our government ([181]Buchanan to Donelson, May 23, 1848).
[11.] [297]McLane to Polk (received June 21, 1846). [13]To Bankhead, nos. 18, 34, May 31; Oct. 1, 1845; 15, June 1, 1846. [52]McLane, nos. 5, Sept. 18, 1845; 50, 54, 55, 69, May 29; June 3, 18; Aug. 15, 1846. [77]Murphy, no. 2, Jan. 1, 1846. [52]King, no. 28, June 1, 1846. Journal des Débats, Feb. 4, 1845. [137]Saunders to Calhoun, June 27, 1846. Gordon, Aberdeen, 183–4. London Morning Post, Jan. 17; Apr. 5, 1846. [335]McLane, May 29, 1846. Morning Chronicle, Feb. 3; May 30, 1846. Morning Herald, June 24, 1846. Britannia, May 3, 1845. Times, Sept. 1, 1845; May 14; June 1, 11; Aug. 25, 31, 1846. [13]Bankhead, no. 94, Sept. 29, 1845. [52]Everett, no. 337, July 4, 1845. Calhoun Correspondence, 698.
[12.] McLane did not feel quite so confident. His private [297]letter of January 17, 1846, to Polk said that in case of war with England he was not sure popular sentiment would be able to restrain the French government; but the representative of Mexico at Paris believed that in such an event the government would probably be unable to “neutralize the effects of the innate hatred of the French toward their neighbors and rivals,” the British ([77]Mangino, Jan. 29, 1846, res.).
[13.] [77]Garro, May 30, 1845, res. [11]Mexique, xi, 215 (Deffaudis). [297]McLane to Polk, Jan. 17, 1846, private. Charleston Mercury, Sept. 8, 1846 (Paris letter). [52]King, nos. 25, 28, 29, Jan. 30; June 1, 30, 1846. National, June 27, 30, 1846. Correspondant, May 1; Nov. 15, 1846; Jan. 15, 1817. Morning Chronicle, Feb. 3, 1846. Journal des Débats, Feb. 4; July 9, 1845.
[14.] Aberdeen’s intimation was construed in England as an offer of mediation, while the American government insisted that no such offer was made by him; but this difference of view did not lead to friction. Pakenham told Buchanan he had received no instructions on the subject, but knew that his government would be glad to bring about peace by interposing its good offices. Buchanan replied that he was afraid formal mediation would prove a vain and “entangling” affair for the mediating power. So thought Pakenham, for he believed the United States would make territorial demands which England would not be willing to countenance or advise Mexico to accept. Buchanan added that we should be glad to have England persuade Mexico to listen to reason, since our government was anxious to establish peace on just and even generous terms ([13]Pakenham, no. 82, June 28, 1846). Pakenham concluded that our government relied on “the anxiety which England must feel, for the sake of her trade with Mexico and the safety of British interests committed in so many ways in that country, to see peace reëstablished between the two Republics” ([13]Id.., no. 93, July 13, 1846). Senator Archer hinted to Polk that he (Archer) could bring about mediation through his friend Pakenham, but met of course with no encouragement (Polk, Diary, Sept. 4, 1846).