practically to this (see Forsyth in Sen. 160; 24, 2, p. 157): the
essential point was to respect Mexico's territory; by the right
of occupation, at least, her territory extended to the well-known
Sabine River; the United States forces were therefore bound under all
circumstances to remain east of that stream, and should some of our
citizens be robbed and murdered, we could call upon Mexico to pay
compensation and protect the rest; after almost endless evasions it
would appear that she had no power to fulfill her treaty obligations,
and therefore, since that fact was known to all the world, she should
not be expected to comply with our wishes; and then, should we please,
we could declare war. In other words, for the sake, at most, of a
technicality, they would have had us quietly see irreparable injuries
done that we could have prevented and had known Mexico could not
prevent, and then do irreparable injuries ourselves to punish her for
her involuntary helplessness.
As for the evidence of danger (which Gaines was instructed to examine
carefully), Gorostiza declared it was fabricated in order to excuse the
crossing of the boundary and get American troops into Texas--thus giving
the rebels at least the moral support of their presence and infringing
upon the rights of Mexico (Pakenham, no. 94, 1836; Ho. 256; 24, 1, p.
20; Gor., Correspondencia, xxvii), and he protested that his country was
incapable of stirring up the savages against our border (Sen. 1; 24,
2, p. 84; =77=Gor. to Relaciones, Oct. 4). But there is not the
slightest sign that he made the difficult and extended investigation
requisite as a basis for denying the testimony presented to Gaines,
whereas he was capable of asserting, more than a month after the
battle of San Jacinto, that the news of it was "entirely destitute of
authenticity," and stating that he had "reasons for believing it to have
been expressly forged in Texas" or at least to have been exaggerated
"to the very confines of the ridiculous" (Sen. 1; 24, 2, p. 33). His
contention was therefore valueless, and almost equally so was that of
certain Americans, against the evidence of danger. One such opinion,
however, is entitled to notice. It came from the governor of Louisiana
(Macomb: Ho. 256; 24, 1, p. 55). But (1) the governor, who was far
from the scene, merely expressed a view unsupported by evidence; (2)
there may have been good reasons why he did not wish to have citizens
of Louisiana called out, as Gaines proposed, to do arduous and perhaps
perilous military service; and (3) it may have seemed undesirable to
have the American army, which made a good market in the western part of
the state, move to Nacogdoches and obtain supplies there. Gaines appears
really to have had adequate grounds for crossing the Sabine. A letter
from the Texas secretary of state to the President of Texas (Tex. Dipl.
Corr., i, 84), which no one can imagine was "fabricated," shows that
Gaines insisted upon having the facts, and that strong evidence was
presented to him (see also Bee in Sen. 14; 32, 2, p. 53). May 5, 1836,
the _National Intelligencer_ printed a letter dated April 20, which
stated that the writer heard, when about six miles from Nacogdoches,
that the Indians were coming, felt satisfied the news was correct, and
saw the people fleeing in the utmost alarm. It was deemed necessary to
divert some of the few Texan troops, desperately needed at the front,
in order to ward off the danger from Indians (Brown, Texas, ii, 89,
90). The governor of Arkansas called out forces to protect the frontier
(N. Orl. _Courier_, Sept. 27, 1836). The other evidence cited above in
the references, when taken together and fairly weighed in view of the
circumstances, has also a very substantial value. The part of it most
doubted, probably, is that referring to a Mexican agent engaged in
rousing the Indians against the whites; but we have documentary proof
that early in 1839 Mexicans tried officially to do this, and employed
the very man who was charged with similar activities in 1836 (Sen. 14;
32, 2, pp. 31-6; also 47). See also the =77=reply of Relaciones
to Martínez's despatch of Oct. 10, 1838. It should be remembered (1)
that Gaines, charged with the defence of the frontier against a wily,
treacherous and savage foe, could not afford to take chances; and
(2) that even fabricated evidence, if it possessed all the marks of
credibility, would have been sufficient ground for acting.
But after all the real issue was the good faith of our government in
authorizing Gaines (while requiring him to maintain our neutrality)
to cross under extreme circumstances the Sabine (Gorostiza in Sen. 1;
24, 2, p. 44; Von Holst, U. S., ii, 584, note 1); and this good faith
was clearly maintained at Washington. In the very letter demanding his
passports Gorostiza admitted that Forsyth's assurances appeared to
dispose of the possibility that Gaines's movement had a bearing on the
boundary question (Sen. 1; 24, 2, p. 104). It has been felt that Forsyth
was sometimes rather curt with him, but Gorostiza was almost, if not
quite, insulting. The Mexicans had some reason to be suspicious and a
full right to be on their guard, but they went farther than right and
reason warranted.
3.13. See Smith, Annex. of Texas, pp. 52-63, for a discussion of
this subject and references to the sources. Ethel Z. Rather in _Tex.
State Hist. Assoc. Qtrly._, xiii, 155-256. Sen. 1; 25, 2, pp. 133
(Castillo); 135 (Forsyth); 145 (Monasterio). =52=W. Thompson to
Bocanegra, April 25, 1843. Pakenham, no. 64, 1836. Memoria de ...
Relac., Jan., 1838. Mem. de ... Guerra, Jan., 1844.
The situation of Texas after 1836 was precisely the same as that of
Mexico from 1821 until recognized by the mother-country in 1836, and
during this period she regarded herself and was regarded generally,
except by Spain, as independent. Mexicans refused to accept this obvious
analogy on the ground that the Mexican revolution was mainly the work of
native-born citizens, while most of the Texans had been born elsewhere.
But an adopted child has all the rights of a natural child. See chap.
iv, note 1.
3.14. _Diplomatic strife, 1842-3._ Smith, Annex. of Texas, 38.
Bocanegra to Webster, May 12, 31, 1842: Ho. 266; 27, 2, pp. 5, 15.
Webster to Thompson, nos. 9, 11, 1842; Jan. 31, 1843. Thompson
to Webster, nos. 3, 4 and June 2, 1842; Jan. 5 and no. 15, 1843.
=52=_Id._ to dipl. corps, July 30, 1842. =351=Tyler to
Webster, July 10, 1842. =52=W. S. Parrott, private, July 29,
1837. =52=B. E. Green, no. 8, 1844. =13=Bocanegra to Doyle,
April 19, 1843; reply, April 20. =52=S. Anna, decree, June 17,
1843. =52=Upshur to Thompson, no. 43, 1843. =52=Bocanegra
to Thompson, Sept. 10, 1842. =76=_Id._, circular, May 31, 1842.
Pakenham, nos. 49, 75, 1842. Sen. 341; 28, 1, p. 71 (Thompson). Texas
Diplom. Corresp., i; 567 (Reily); ii, 163 (Eve). Memoria de ...
Relaciones, Jan., 1844. _Diario_, Oct. 4, 1842. Thompson, Recolls., 82.
Zavala, Revols., ii, 152-3. Sen. 1; 27, 3, pp. 146, 156 (Thompson);
146, 157 (Bocanegra). Ho. 266; 27, 2, pp. 7, 17 (Webster); 5, 15, 19
(Bocanegra); 21 (Thompson). Reeves, Amer. Diplom., 97, 99 (Adams).
Smith, Annex. of Texas, 131. (Mexican threats, 1843) _Ibid._, 42.
Richtofen, Zustände, 48. =11=To Deffaudis, no. 28, Apr. 27, 1836.
(The translations of Mexican documents published by our government are
cited, unless there is a particular reason for not doing so. In many
cases they could be better, but they were for the American government
and people the official versions.)
Oct. 4, 1842, the official journal reprinted this from _El Provisional_:
"Who is not aware of that criminal connivance, that stubborn and
insolent protection, which--in violation of righteous law and in
violation of the treaties with Mexico--is given by the policy of North
America to a Department filled with rebels from every land, who are
determined to ruin it completely and to soil the dignity and honor of a
lawfully constituted government?" Webster made the same protest (against
raids) to the Texans as to the Mexicans.
3.15. =52=Thompson, Jan. 5, 1843. =52=_Id._ to Bocanegra,
Dec. 30, 1842. Ho. 166; 27, 3, pp. 1-93. Bancroft, Calif., iv, 302-29.
=285=Narváez to Vanderlhinden, Dec. 10, 1842. Richman, California,
273-4. Bandini, California, 136-8. =13=Letter from S. Gabriel, Nov.
11, 1842. _Diario_, Jan. 7, 1843. =47=Jones, Aug. 31; Sept. 1,
1842. Reeves, Amer. Diplomacy, 103-7. =351=Letters from J. Tyler to
Webster. México á través, iv, 493. _Nat. Intelligencer_, Mar. 14, 1843.
Adams, Memoirs, xi, 346. N. Orl. _Bee_, Jan. 13, 1843. Memphis _Eagle_,
Nov. 5, 1845.
Jones sailed with the frigate _United States_ and the sloop of war
_Cyane_. After leaving Monterey he proceeded to Los Angeles to meet
Micheltorena and explain the affair. Almonte, the Mexican minister at
Washington, demanded that an example should be made of Jones, but he was
merely recalled--a fully sufficient punishment. Indeed, our government
commended his zeal (=47=Jones to Bancroft, Oct. 3, 1845).
3.16. Ho. 351; 25, 2, p. 576 (Butler).
3.17. Sen. 390; 28, 1, pp. 6 (Bocanegra; documents); 9 (Thompson,
with extract from treaty). =52=Shannon to Rejón, Sept. 30, 1844.
Tyler, Message, Dec. 3, 1844, in Richardson, Messages, iv, 334. See also
documents cited with reference to the Santa Fe expedition.
3.18. Ellis, no. 24, June 9, 1840. Forsyth to Ellis, Aug. 21, 1840.
=52=Memorial of the prisoners, May 25, 1840. =52=J. O. Jones
to Ellis, June 23, 1840. =52=Statements of prisoners, particularly
Graham's of May 29, 1840. =52=Larkin, Mar. 22; April 20, 1840.
=52=Legaré to Thompson, no. 36, May 12, 1843. =52=Farnham to
Ellis, June 23, 1840. Richman, California, 266. =13=Palmerston to
Mexican minister, Aug. 11, 1841. =11=Captain of _La Danaide_ to
Cyprey, July 8, 1840. Royce, California, 36. Pakenham, nos. 66, 78, 88,
1840; 37, 118 (merely a scheme to weaken the opposing faction in Cal.),
1841. Memoria de ... Guerra, Jan., 1841. Moore, Internat. Arbit., 3242-3
(a judicial review of the case and award of damages to victims. One of
them received $38,125). Pakenham obtained a revocation of the order of
expulsion by demanding his passports (no. 88).
3.19. =45=Ranson to Eve, April 28, 1842. =45=Bee to
Roberts, July 13, 1841. Kendall, Narrative, _passim._ Yoakum, Texas, ii,
321-3. Garrison, Texas, 245-6. Smith, Annex. of Texas, 37. Sen. 325;
27, 2, pp. 3, 6, 8 (Webster); 19, 29 (Ellis); 33, 100 (Bocanegra); 48,
50 (Falconer; Van Ness particularly); 94 (Thompson). Ho. 266; 27, 2, p.
34 (Thompson). Pakenham, no. 15, 1842. Memoria de ... Relaciones, Jan.,
1844. =11=To Deffaudis, no. 28, Apr. 27, 1836.
3.20. Ho. 42; 25, 2, p. 20, 23 (Alamán). Poinsett, June 18, 22,
1825. Martínez, no. 7, 1832. N. Y. _Herald_, Nov. 11, 1843. Boston
_Atlas_, Jan. 26, 1844. =52=Camacho to Poinsett, May 13, 1826.
=231=Butler to Jackson, Jan. 2, 1833. Sen. 1; 28, 1, p. 36. Tyler,
Tyler, ii, 289. Ho. 351; 25, 2, p. 71 (Van Buren, Mar. 1). See also
chap. xiv.
3.21. Upshur to Thompson, no. 51, Oct. 20, 1843. =13=S. Anna,
proclam., Oct. 5, 1843. Sen. 1; 28, 2, p. 21 (Calhoun). Sen. 1; 28, 1,
pp. 30 (Thompson); 31 (decree); 34 (Upshur). Sen. 390; 28, 1, pp. 16,
18 (Thompson). =52=B. E. Green, April 8, 1844. =52=Bocanegra
to Thompson, Oct. 20, 1843. =52=Thompson to Bocanegra, Nov. 23,
1843. =52=Shannon to Rejón, Oct. 25, 1844. =52=Rejón to
Shannon, Oct. 11, 1844; Nov. 22, 1845. Bankhead, nos. 1, 4, 1844.
=13=Foreign Office to Doyle, no. 30, 1843 (While every independent
nation has, _e.g._, an abstract right to close its ports, "the practical
assertion on the part of any Nation of an extreme abstract right may,
and often does, involve, if not actual hostility, at least a degree of
unfriendliness almost amounting to hostility.") France also protested
(Green, _supra_).
3.22. =13=Tornel, order. Sen. 390; 28, 1, pp. 3-15.
=52=Bocanegra to Thompson, Dec. 22, 1843. =53=Almonte, Feb.
6, 1844. =52=Shannon to Rejón, Oct. 10, 1844. Sen. 1; 28, 2, p. 21
(Calhoun). =13=Doyle, nos. 65, 90 (order executed in Sonora), 1843.
=13=E. Barron, no. 10, Oct. 19, 1843.
Another objection to the modified order was that, as the British
minister maintained in another case, while the general government itself
might with justice banish undesirable foreigners, it had no right to
delegate such a power to distant subordinates practically exempt from
supervision, to be exercised by them as prejudice, caprice, and possibly
avarice might suggest and without giving the victim a chance to defend
himself or settle his affairs (Pakenham, no. 78, 1840). Thompson was
described by his French colleague as inexperienced (=11=no. 108,
1842).
3.23. These are too numerous to be catalogued here, but a few can be
cited as illustrations. General Terán seized the schooner _Topaz_ and
compelled her to transport some of his troops. During the voyage the
Mexican officers and soldiers killed the master, and, returning to port,
had the crew imprisoned on the charge of having done it. The vessel was
held, and property on board seized (Moore, Intern. Arbit., 2992). The
schooner _Hannah Elizabeth_, stranded on the Texan coast, was fired upon
by a Mexican vessel of war, and her crew and passengers were put in jail
(Sen. 1; 25, 2, p. 85. Ho. 351; 25, 2, p. 167). The Mexicans asserted
that the schooner was carrying contraband of war; but if so, the Mexican
officer did not know this when he opened fire, and anyhow no penalty
except the confiscation of the cargo could rightfully have been exacted.
Our acting consul at Tabasco was arrested and publicly ill-treated,
because he would not legalize documents intended, in his opinion, to
defraud an insurance company (Sen. 1; 25, 2, p. 89). The brig _Fourth
of July_ was sent to Vera Cruz for sale to the Mexican government, and
before the sale was made officers and soldiers took possession of her,
ran up their flag, arrested the captain, and disregarded the protest of
our consul (_ibid._, p. 91). A boat-load of seamen from our sloop-of-war
_Natchez_ landed at Vera Cruz, became intoxicated while the midshipman
in command of them was in conference with our consul, and, as the result
of a quarrel with a fisherman, were severely handled by the Mexican
guard. As they were now unable to manage the boat in the rough sea,
the midshipman, on the advice of the consul, requested the captain
of the port to take charge of them over night. The next morning the
authorities would not give them up to him, nor was our consul permitted
to communicate with them (_ibid._, p. 93). Two Americans were arrested,
maltreated and imprisoned at Matamoros on the baseless suspicion that
they intended to visit Texas, and the premises of our consul were
forcibly entered, searched and robbed (_ibid._, 94; Ho. 351; 25, 2, p.
172). A lieutenant of the American revenue cutter _Jefferson_, going
ashore at Tampico to see our consul, was arrested, and his boat's crew
were imprisoned. For this outrage the Mexican government removed the
responsible officer, General Gómez, but soon afterwards he was given
a better post at Vera Cruz, and showed his unchastened spirit in the
_Natchez_ affair (Sen. 1; 25, 2, p. 98. Sen. 160; 24, 2, p. 70: Ellis).
3.24. British complaints were almost numberless: _e.g._ Ward,
no. 77, 1826; Pakenham, nos. 48 of 1827, 119 of 1828, 37 of 1830;
=13=Ashburnham, nos. 16 of 1837 and 74 of 1838 (a man persecuted
with a "tissue of iniquities" for years); Bankhead to Bocanegra, July 4,
1844.
The Foreign Office distinctly stated that contract and treaty rights
were denied (=13=Aberdeen to Mex. min., Nov. 1, 1843; to
Pakenham, no. 19, Aug. 15, 1836). =77=Dec. 31, 1844, it made this
statement: "In Mexico British Subjects have been oppressed, harassed,
and maltreated without redress except that which has been extorted by
unceasing remonstrance.... The expostulations of Great Britain ... have
been with very few exceptions contumeliously set at naught; and the same
illegal exactions which have been the subject of those expostulations
have been repeated, while yet the former grievance was unredressed." The
British minister complained, _e.g._, that the coast officials annoyed
his fellow citizens; that frequently to their injury the constitution
was violated by state authorities; that some of them were persecuted,
imprisoned, or expelled from the country in defiance of law; that
money was extorted from them under threats. A loud =52=protest of
American ship captains, Campeche, May 26, 1835, illustrates well the
tricks and outrages to which our commercial interests were subjected.
What abuse and tyranny our citizens were liable to suffer in the
interior is shown by the memorial of Augustus Storrs and twenty others,
Chihuahua, April 17, 1832, transmitted through C. W. Davis, who was
described by our secretary of state, Nov. 24, 1832, as a respectable
citizen of the U. S. who had long been practising medicine at Chihuahua
(Ho. 351; 25, 2, p. 87). (France) Coxe, Review, 69; Barker in _Texas
Review_, Jan., 1917; Rives, U. S. and Mexico, i, 433.
3.25. The international tribunal was established under the Claims
Convention of 1839, and the national tribunal under the treaty of 1848
and a United States Act of 1849. It should be remembered that the
amount of our claims was substantial. The total receipts of the U. S.
government for the fiscal year ending with June, 1845, were less than
$30,000,000. It is true that many of the claims were exaggerated, and
some of them a great deal; but this does not matter, for what the United
States asked was an investigation of the demands, not the payment of
any one at its face. Still, as the inflation of the claims has been
urged as an excuse for inattention to them, a word upon that point is
desirable. The amounts demanded in such cases are always made as great
as possible, and in the instance of Mexico there were special grounds
for exaggeration. Our claimants, so far as just in their demands, were
entitled to as high interest as other creditors of that government, and
the rate it had to pay was very large. In 1832, for instance, this was
four per cent a month (Butler, no. 32, 1832), and in 1844 two per cent a
month besides six per cent for brokerage (Bankhead, no. 112, 1844). At
such rates longstanding claims mounted high, and when the interest was
scaled down to five per cent in the process of adjudication (Sen. 320;
27, 2, p. 237), they naturally seemed to have been exorbitant. Indeed,
the claims were entitled to even a higher interest than loans, for a
good deal of trouble--sometimes an extraordinary deal--was necessary to
prove them. "The authorities here can prove anything," reported even
the philo-Mexican Waddy Thompson (no. 4, 1842); and this was only one
of numerous obstacles. Probably, too, there was more uncertainty as to
eventual payment. Again, if paid at all, the claims were likely to be
settled in treasury notes of little value. In fact, all those accepted
by the international tribunal already mentioned were actually so payable
(Calhoun in Sen. 1; 28, 2, p. 21), and these notes were worth at the
time only about thirty cents on the dollar (Thompson, Recolls., 223).
Yet the degree of inflation was much less than has been supposed. The
most conspicuous instance was that of W. S. Parrott, who demanded
$454,504.01 as principal (Sen. 320; 27, 2). Thompson declared
(=52=Nov. 20, 1843) that Parrott was hardly entitled to two per
cent of what he asked; but on inquiry a very different conclusion is
reached. Parrott was a sufficiently good man to be employed as consul
and confidential diplomatic agent by the United States, yet for some
reason he was deeply disliked by the Mexican government, and the
courts seemed determined to ruin him (Moore, Intern. Arbit., 3011).
He was therefore entitled to punitive damages, but none were allowed
him. The cost and annoyance of prosecuting his case were excessive.
All the excuses for inflation mentioned above applied in his case.
A considerable amount included in his claim had to be thrown out on
purely technical grounds; and a large part had to be ignored because
(in violation of her agreement) Mexico would not let him have certain
specified papers that were needed to prove it. And yet, after all these
deductions had been made, our own treasury paid him under the treaty
of 1848 the sum of $71,000 as principal (Moore, 1284). In many cases
the percentage of inflation was low. For example, in the case of claims
aggregating $595,462 the tribunal awarded $439,393 after scaling the
interest down to five per cent (Ho. Report 1096; 27, 2, p. 8). In fact
the awards were probably a somewhat uncommonly high percentage of the
amount claimed in such cases. It has commonly been said (_e.g._ Von
Holst, U. S., iii, 205) that on the conclusion of the war we discharged
Mexico from all obligation on account of our claims ($8,491,603) yet
bound ourselves to pay only $3,250,000, thus admitting that our claims
were nearly three times too large; but the second of these two sums
corresponds to only a part of the first (Treaty with Mexico, Arts,
xiii-xv: Stat. at Large, ix, 933).
3.26. Itúrbide seized the cargo of the _Louisa_, and the Mexican
government not only acknowledged the debt but paid a fraction of it
(Ho. Report 1056; 25, 2). The Mexican supreme court ordered the money
actually realized from the unlawful sale of the _Cossack_ and her cargo
to be paid to her master, but it was not paid (_ibid._). The decree of
the Mexican supreme court of 1821 in favor of this claim was presented
in support of it by the U. S. secretary of state, yet that government
alleged in Nov., 1837, that the claim had just been "for the first time
brought forward" (_ibid._). Cox and Elkins furnished supplies to General
Herrera (Moore, 3430). Chew and Eckford built war vessels for Mexico
(Moore, 3428-9). Parrott made advances on a bill of exchange drawn by
Herrera (Moore, 3429). Green supplied money to a war vessel that put
in at Key West in distress (Moore, 3425). A sum of money on its way to
Peter Harmony, a New York merchant, from his Mexican consignee, was
seized by the government (Moore, 3044). Contrary to law, a forced loan
was extorted from Ducoing (Moore, 3409). Aaron Leggett carried on an
extensive logwood business in Tabasco; but the action of Mexicans in
seizing vessels of his for military use entirely ruined him (Moore,
1275), and even Santa Anna admitted that his claim was just (Butler,
Feb. 8, 1836). Sixteen bales of wax were confiscated as of Spanish
origin, when the fullest certificates, including that of the Mexican
vice-consul at New York, proved that it came from Russia (Poinsett in
Ho. 351; 25, 2, p. 248). Gahagan was inhumanly persecuted and for a time
rendered insane, because in a perfectly lawful and respectful manner
he tried to prevent the authorities from illegally appropriating his
employer's property (Moore, 3240). Santangelo, a naturalized American,
was expelled without trial and thereby ruined, in direct violation of
the treaty of amity (Moore, 3333). A case of which the essentials, at
least, were simple is also worthy of mention. Evidently to drive him
away and get his property, Dr. Baldwin, described by our minister as
"a gentleman of great respectability and intelligence" (Ellis, Nov.
8, 1836), was prosecuted on the basis of depositions which a superior
Mexican court admitted were forgeries, was falsely charged with
murdering a woman and firing on a soldier, was put into the stocks and
then imprisoned while suffering from a freshly broken leg, and in short
was persecuted by the local authorities for a term of years (Moore,
3235-40). Other cases, though less easily stated, were not less clear;
yet Mexico would give no redress. See Forsyth's despatch of May 27, 1837
(Sen. 1; 25, 2, p. 105).
3.27. This point was taken advantage of by the clever Mexicans
to the utmost, and it illustrates one of the great embarrassments
encountered in dealing with them. Because they had the words
"constitution," "courts," and "law" they pretended to have the
realities. It was as if they had coined lead at the mint and required us
to accept it as silver, while it passed among themselves for merely what
it was. See also Ashburnham, no. 11, 1838. For the character of Mexican
courts see vol. i, 12-13.