The wish of the Mexican government had been to open the peace negotiations by making an armistice. To the Americans this could offer little advantage, for the only enemies they now had to fear were guerillas, and these recognized no laws. To Peña, on the other hand, it meant security from hostile expeditions, larger revenues, diminished expenses, Congressional elections in the territory under American control, and hence the political support of those who felt the burdens of war. But Scott, while ready to grant a virtual immunity from attack during the negotiations, was neither authorized nor willing to sign an armistice at that stage; and to have done so, indicating that peace was contemplated, would have endangered the plans of the Mexican government itself. In order, however, to bring about the execution of the treaty our commissioner had to demand of Scott a pledge that he would send out no more expeditions until new instructions, issued after the arrival of the treaty at Washington, should reach him. In short, he requested the General to disregard the orders of a government eager to put him in the wrong; and Scott, placing the public weal above all personal considerations, promptly consented.[14]
The second article of the treaty provided expressly for a suspension of hostilities, and in view of its previous anxiety to obtain that concession, the Mexican government was expected to act in the matter at once; but it procrastinated so much as to excite suspicions of bad faith at the American headquarters. This conduct, however, was merely owing to its constitutional apathy; and on the twenty-second of February, 1848, Generals Mora and Quijano opened negotiations with Worth and Smith at the capital. True to the Mexican practice, followed on almost every occasion since the first of our dealings with Mexico, they began with what Doyle fairly characterized as “exorbitant” demands. For example, they asked for the evacuation of the capital, Puebla, Jalapa and Vera Cruz, and for concessions incompatible with the treaty of peace itself.[14]
But Worth and Smith, assuming promptly a just and firm attitude, as our civil officials ought to have done from the beginning, refused to consider such demands, and the Mexicans then withdrew them. Everything within reason, however, was granted. Doyle called the armistice, indeed, “very favourable” to the weaker side, and the ratification of it on March 4 and 5 by the Mexican and American commanders-in-chief supplemented happily the treaty of peace. Not only that, but it stopped for the time being every attempt at revolt, for under one of the articles insurgents were to be opposed by the armies of both nations. Paredes and Almonte found it wise to be quiet, and—as we have observed—Santa Anna sailed away.[14]
AMERICAN IDEAS ABOUT MEXICO
The treaty, conveyed with extraordinary speed, reached the White House on February the nineteenth, but whether it did well to arrive so soon—or even to arrive at all—appeared extremely doubtful. As we have learned, a strong appetite for territory had existed in the United States before the war, and Mexico had looked inviting. In January, 1846, Baker of Illinois suggested in Congress the absorption of that country. By the following July a somewhat organized annexation party existed at New York, and later Senator Dickinson became its champion. The wish to acquire soon became strong. Perhaps Moses Y. Beach visited Mexico in this cause. Certainly Mrs. Storms, who accompanied him, worked actively for it, and his paper ardently recommended annexation as not only advantageous for the United States but sure to benefit Mexico.[15]
Other papers warmly took up this idea, arguing that Providence called upon us to regenerate her decadent population. “The Spanish have ceased to rule in Mexico,” announced the Democratic Review as its watchword in February, 1847. Secessionists like Simms of South Carolina thought the proposed confederacy would need that country to give it bulk; and by a different route Senator Hannegan of Indiana, representing the strong expansionist sentiment of the West, arrived at the same point of view in regard to annexing Mexico.[15]
The recall of Trist, which seemed to give the United States a free hand, and also the plan to extend our occupation of her territory, which logically pointed that way, strongly promoted the idea, for besides the obvious tendency of these measures they were supposed to mean that Polk had that end in view. The attitude of men high in the administration circle produced a similar effect. Bancroft held that we should “rescue a large part of Mexico from anarchy.” Cass used language that suggested rescuing the whole, and followers of his talked that way explicitly. Apparently he thought he could win the next Presidential election on this issue; and the war party at his back offered Mexico as a reward for supporting its views. Buchanan, at first opposed to the acquisition of any territory, trimmed his sails to the rising breeze, and wrote that if Mexico did not conclude the war, it would be necessary for us to “fulfill the destiny” assigned to us by Providence. Walker, who knew more about the far southwest than any other man at Washington, favored annexation strongly, and even tried to drag the subject into his annual report. Indeed, the financial editor of the New York Herald saw in him the regenerator of Mexico; and very likely he himself, as head of the treasury, dreamed of winning immense economic triumphs in that field.[16]
Soon after 1848 came in, the annexation cause began to put on a bold front. Naturally the younger element in the party and the country felt inclined to take it up. Crocodile tears were shed over the “poor foundling”—though a future heiress—placed by Divine Providence at our threshold. The danger that England or France might ravish it away from us came to the fore. Conquest was pronounced in the Senate a legitimate method of expansion. Orators in both Houses pointed more plainly toward an extension at the cost of Mexico. Declarations in the contrary sense indicated the force of the current. Senator Niles believed that substantially all of the Democrats among his colleagues would fall in with the plan. Enthusiastic citizens acclaimed it. Speculators fancied it would help their schemes in various ways. Capitalists believed that by stimulating enterprise it would enlarge and continue the demand for money. Manufacturers and high tariff men argued that it would increase the national expenses and therefore the duties. Army officers could see a wide field for them; and the opponents of slavery, led by the National Era, felt that Mexican plantations would draw away the negroes—now understood to be unprofitable—of Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia. Public meetings became excited on the subject. The country is going mad for Mexico, inferred Buchanan; and Walker believed that only a systematic newspaper agitation was needed to ensure success.[17]
THE QUESTION BEFORE POLK