example, should seek redress from the very tribunal that had wronged
him (Ellis in Sen. 160; 24, 2, p. 64). In 1834 Simon McGillivray, a
director of the United Mexican Mining Company, wrote thus to the British
minister: Even when we obtain report after report and decree after
decree against the confiscation, already effected, of our property, "we
never can succeed in obtaining the enforcement of such Decrees, because
the parties against whom they are given are Mexicans of influence or
connexion in the place, and we, the claimants for justice, are only
foreigners"; and three months later the minister (no. 61, 1834) reported
that a letter from the governor of the state "in substance fully admits"
this. Once when Baldwin obtained a verdict, the judge would not execute
it, and the Doctor had to flee for his life (Ellis in Sen. 160; 24,
2, p. 65). Under such circumstances, to deny the right of injured
foreigners, especially the unpopular Americans, to invoke the aid of
their governments was plainly unfair, and so France and England held as
firmly as did the United States.
3.29. =11=Canning, March 25, 1825. Ho. 266; 27, 2, p. 321
(Webster). This obligation grows out of the benefits conferred by
recognition.
3.30. (Early) Ellis in Sen. 160; 24, 2, p. 68. (Avoid) Ho. 351; 25,
2, p. 40 (Van Buren). (Covered) =231=Butler to Jackson, June 23,
1831. (Amicable) Ho. 351; 25, 2, pp. 92 (Livingston); 160 (Forsyth).
As the net result of four years of effort Butler was informed that
full specifications must be given; yet no attention was paid to a
group of cases thus made out and proved (Ho. 351; 25, 2, p. 499). Then
he was told that the claimants must come to the treasury department
in person, that nothing would be done until all the American claims
should have been presented, and that a call from our minister would
not advance matters (_ibid._, 501-3). Evidently all this was to gain
time, and it was fairly characterized by our secretary of state as
a denial of justice (_ibid._, 144). In November, 1832, a bearer of
despatches from Butler to our government was detained on his way to
Vera Cruz by the governor of Perote castle, and was there robbed of
his papers, though a passport from the national government established
his official character. The case was both simple and outrageous. Our
minister insisted upon an investigation; but in February, 1834, he found
that (confessedly "on account of some trifling difficulty") it had been
suspended, and in the following April was merely informed, in reply to
an inquiry, that it was again proceeding (_ibid._, 462, 470, 517, 521).
3.31. Sen. 160; 24, 2, pp. 62, 112, 156 (Ellis). =52=Forsyth to
Ellis, July 20, 1836. =52=Monasterio to Ellis, Oct. 21; Nov. 15,
1836. Pakenham, no. 96, 1841. (Withdrew) Ellis, no. 46, Jan. 12, 1837.
He gave the fortnight's notice on Nov. 4. Gorostiza, Correspondencia.
(Approval) Sen. 160; 24, 2, p. 84 (Monasterio); Sen. 189; 24, 2. Kohl,
Claims, 18. Even the philo-Mexican Thompson said that a discussion with
that government in writing was as "endless as the web of Penelope"
(Recolls., 228).
3.32. =58=Jackson, Mar. 12, 1823 (he thought himself too
sympathetic toward Mexico to be our minister there). (Agreed) Ho. 351;
25, 2, pp. 581, 601. _Diario_, Feb. 2, 1836. Messages, Dec. 5, 1836;
Feb. 6, 1837 (Richardson, Messages). Ho. 139; 24, 2, p. 1. Jackson
has been said by a certain school of historians to have used our
claims (in the February Message) as a bludgeon to force Mexico to sell
Texas. But was his temper such that he did not care to assert American
rights unless to gain territory? What cession was he aiming at when he
enforced our claims against France? And if Mexico felt (as she asserted:
_Diario_, _supra_) that baseless grievances of ours were to be used as
a pretext for trouble, why did she not make haste and refute them? From
every sane point of view, indeed, the charge looks absurd. As early
as March, 1833, Butler was urged to settle the boundary negotiation
at once, lest a step toward independence on the part of Texas should
make it impossible to obtain that territory by arrangement with Mexico
(Smith, Annex. of Texas, 21); yet now, after four years have passed,
and after that province has practically effected its independence,
Jackson is accused of trying to compel a cession of it from Mexico.
Moreover he was at this very time rejecting the petition of Texas to
be annexed (_ibid._, 63). Besides, in April, 1836, the envoys of Texas
at Washington had been instructed to enter a "_solemn protest_ ...
against the right of Mexico to sell or the U. S. to purchase [Texas]"
(Tex. Dipl. Corres., i, 76). Even more surprising, the charge is made by
representatives of the anti-slavery historical school, which denounced
Jackson for wickedly conspiring at this precise juncture to help
establish Texas as an independent nation by precipitately recognizing
her. The truth is that while engaged in no conspiracy, he now favored
the recognition of Texas, and hence one could not accept the opposite
and inconsistent view even were it otherwise possible to do so. Probably
the fact that Jackson had settled our long-standing claims against
France by adopting a firm attitude influenced him in regard to Mexico.
(Rupture) Memoria de ... Relaciones, Jan., 1838.
3.33. Ho. Report 281; 24, 2. Sen. 189; 24, 2. =52=Buchanan to
Slidell, no. 1. Tex. Dipl. Corres., i, 181-3, 187-92 (Wharton); 218-21
(Catlett); 273-4 (Greyson); 284-8 (Hunt). Ho. Report 7=52=; 29, 1.
Buchanan, Works, iii, 213, 233, 415.
3.34. Ellis had taken the legation papers to Washington. Sen.
1; 25, 2, pp. 105, 108, 109 (Forsyth). =52=Greenhow, Aug. 12,
1837. Certain historians drawing their views largely from the heated
anti-slavery writers of that period have been led to misrepresent our
relations with Mexico as much as our conduct with reference to Texas. At
this point it has been alleged that the United States required Mexico
to examine and settle a large number of complicated cases within a
week, which our acceptance of the dilatory reply proves that we did not
require. Greenhow was merely directed to say that [for the convenience
of the Mexican government] he would remain seven days and bring back any
communication it should wish to make (=56=Forsyth to Greenhow, May
27, 1837). That country, on the other hand, had decreed in May that all
pending grievances of the two nations might be settled by arbitration,
but that should the United States refuse complete satisfaction of any
demands Mexico should present, or delay it beyond the time fixed under
the arbitration treaty, commercial intercourse with this country should
be cut off and preparations be made for war (Ho. Report, 1056; 25, 2, p.
9; Dublán, Legislación, iii, 392). Sen. 1; 25, 2, p. 111 (Cuevas).
3.35. Sen. 1; 25, 2, pp. 113-27 (Martínez); 30 (Forsyth). Forsyth
to Ellis, no. 3, May 3, 1839. Ho. Report, 1056; 25, 2. In respect to
one clear case, already many years old, Martínez promised that "every
exertion" should be made to have it taken up by the next regular
Congress; but when that Congress met, the minister of relations
did not even mention it (_ibid._). Mayer, War, 343. Ho. 351; 25,
2, pp. 758 (Forsyth); 759 (Greenhow). Richardson, Messages, iii,
377-9. =53=Martínez to Forsyth, Apr. 7, 1838; reply, Apr. 21.
=77=Martínez, no. 1, res., 1837. Martínez coupled his proposal of
arbitration with a demand that the United States should reaffirm our
neutrality. This was an affront, but Forsyth merely expressed surprise.
3.36. The plan of arbitration was first brought to the attention of
our government during the latter part of Dec, 1837. Ho. Report, 1056;
25, 2. Ashburnham, no. 42, 1838. (Surprise) =52=W. D. Jones, nos.
132-3, 1838. Mexico proposed arbitration to France also, but met with
a refusal (México á través, iv, 411). Later, Martínez proposed to give
the arbitration a scope that would have included Mexican complaints
regarding Texas. To admit such diplomatic and political questions would
have made the affair practically endless, and thus have nullified it
so far as its essential object, the adjustment of private claims,
was concerned; and our government properly refused to accept this
proposition (Moore, Internat. Arbit., 1217).
3.37. Ho. 252; 25, 3, pp. 24 (Martínez), 27. Ho. 190; 26, 1. Moore,
Internat. Arbit., 1216-8. Forsyth to Ellis, no. 3, May 3, 1839. To save
time, the United States transported Martínez's courier to Vera Cruz, but
the man spent about three weeks in making the four-days' trip from the
port to the capital (_ibid._). =53=Forsyth to Martínez, Mar. 16,
1839. (Excuse) Ho. 252; 25, 3, p. 21 (Jones, Jan. 10); Ho. Report, 320;
25, 3. (Disavowed) Ho. 252; 25, 3, pp. 2, 14.
3.38. Pakenham, no. 60, 1840. (Waived) Memoria de ... Relaciones,
Jan., 1841. Moore, Internat. Arbit., 1221-3. Castillo and León declined
to take an oath in the regular way, saying that each had administered
it to the other. The United States was represented by ex-Senator John
Rowan and W. L. Marcy. Rowan was succeeded by H. M. Breckenridge.
=52=Buchanan to Slidell, no. 1, 1845.
3.39. Ho. 252; 25, 3, p. 11 (Forsyth). Ho. 57; 27, 1. Sen. 320;
27, 2, pp. 185 (Webster); 22-9, 90, 92, etc. Sen. 61; 27, 1 (Marcy and
Rowan, May 26, 1841). Sen. 411; 27, 2 (com. for. rels.). Ho. 269; 27, 2
(Leggett case).
Castillo and León insisted that cases should come before the board only
by documents presented through one of the governments--a process likely
to consume much time. When Rowan withdrew in August, 1841, and Marcy
desired to proceed even under this disadvantage, his Mexican colleagues
gained a delay of about six weeks by refusing to do so (Moore, Inter.
Arbit., 1235. Sen. 320; 27, 2, p. 254). They falsely asserted that four
particular claims, three of which were accepted by our commissioners and
the fourth was paid later by our government, had been withdrawn by the
American minister at Mexico, and by thus holding them back for some two
months defeated them (Sen. 320; 27, 2, pp. 179, 251-3).
Under the treaty, that country was positively bound to furnish the
evidence called for in support of the claims, and W. S. Parrott's
requisition was the first or among the first made out and forwarded.
None of his papers came, however, for seven months, and those received
were taken without leave from the custody of the board by Castillo and
León, and held back for nearly two months more; a part of them had
evidently been mutilated or forged; only about one half of the number
specified were furnished, though it was known that all were under the
control of the government; and more than 2000 pages actually prepared
for transmission seem to have been withheld (Sen. 320; 27, 2, _passim_).
Leggett's case, another of the principal ones, was vitally damaged by
documents afterwards fully proved to be spurious (Moore, Internat.
Arbit., 1277-8), and as the claimant certainly would not have presented
them against himself, they must have come from the Mexican government.
Ho. Report 1096; 27, 2, p. 22: "For the rest, the Committee, while they
abstain [as was proper in official action] from imputations on the
commissioners of the Mexican Republic, yet cannot but perceive that
the instructions under which those commissioners acted, and the course
they pursued, in the organization, proceedings, and final action of the
commission, were of most questionable validity, and operated to the
serious injury of the parties interested." The American commissioners
expressed the belief that had the board been acting half the time
between Aug. 25 and the day it took up the first case on its merits,
all the cases would have been "finally adjusted" (Sen. 320; 27, 2,
p. 197). The claims left undecided in the umpire's hands amounted to
$1,864,939.56, and those which the board had not time to consider to
$3,336,837.05 (Moore, Internat. Arbit., 1232).
Mexico has been given great credit for sending many original documents
on a hazardous journey; but, had they been lost, the claimants would
have suffered and she would have profited. She had time enough and
clerks enough to make this risk unnecessary. Also Mexico has been given
great credit for accepting certain indisputable claims growing out
of her revolutionary war, which pro-Mexican Americans have declared
it was outrageous to present; but as she had formally recognized in
1824 all debts of the revolutionists, there was no escape. Numerous
claims failed to be considered because presented too late, but this
was doubtless mainly or wholly due to the attitude of the Mexican
commissioners, which made it appear more than doubtful for a long time
whether it would be worth while to incur the trouble and expense of
making up the cases. In fact the notice of the state dept. (Washington
_Globe_, Apr. 16, 1840) that the commission would meet was falsified
by the non-appearance of Castillo and León in time (Sen. 320; 27, 2,
p. 23). Much time and expense were needed to get papers from Mexico,
etc. The Mexican commissioners took the unreasonable ground that all
undecided claims, considered by the board, were extinguished (Sen. 411;
27, 2, p. 3).
3.40. Moore, Internat. Arbit., 1232, 1245. Ho. Report 752; 29, 1.
Pakenham, nos. 49, 97, 1842. Ho. 144; 28, 2, p. 20 (Green). Besides the
twenty instalments a preliminary payment, covering the interest that
would be due, April 30, 1843, on the awards, was to be made on that date
(Moore, Internat. Arbit., 1246).
A forced loan was ordered for the payment of the interest and principal
of the awards (Voss in Ho. 133; 29, 1, p. 7. Sen. 85; 29, 1; Negrete,
Invasión, iv, 327); and the goods of all who would not or could not
meet their assessments were confiscated and sold amid the lamentations
of the owners and general curses against the United States (Bustamante,
Gobierno, 130). Nearly all the proceeds of the forced loan were,
however, used for other purposes (Green in Ho. 19; 28, 2, p. 32). Our
agent was finally given drafts for the next instalments after the third,
and supposing these would be cashed, he receipted for them in full
(Buchanan, Nov. 19 in Ho. 133; 29, 1, p. 3); but the government stopped
all such payments (B. E. Green, Dec. 17, 1844) and refused to give up
the receipts (Ho. 133; 29, 1, p. 11). In short, it pursued a course that
was not only dishonorable but positively fraudulent. To make all this
the more exasperating, the nation was permitting Santa Anna to expend
great amounts.
In the treaty of January, 1843, Mexico promised to make a new convention
providing for the settlement of all our outstanding claims, including
those not adjudicated by the joint commission. Delay and evasion
followed, of course; but in October of that year the British minister
severed diplomatic relations with Mexico, and in November, 1843,
probably in order to be on good terms with us in case of a war with
England, she signed the proposed convention (Doyle, no. 79, 1843).
The United States accepted the plan of a joint commission, as Mexico
desired, but required that it should meet at Washington. This appears
to have been just. The claimants were all Americans, were numerous,
had a great number of papers which it was not advisable to take abroad
by sea, and could not, without much inconvenience and loss, expatriate
themselves for an indefinite period. Another objection was even more
serious, perhaps. Pakenham (no. 14, 1842) wrote emphatically to his
government that a commission of this kind should not sit at Mexico,
because the pressure of public sentiment would not allow the Mexican
members to act properly on the claims of aliens, and because the foreign
ministers, from whom the actual umpire would almost necessarily be
selected, were more or less entangled in similar cases, and therefore
would not be thought impartial.
To provide, as Mexico demanded, for the arbitration of private Mexican
grievances, which that government admitted unofficially did not exist,
would have been to cast a gratuitous aspersion upon ourselves; and to
allow the presentation of a national claim on account of Texas (which
also was demanded), besides enabling Mexico to nullify through her
pretensions and endless declamations the essential purpose of the
treaty, would have been to question the good faith of our official
declarations of neutrality, and make it possible for a subject of some
foreign power--the umpire--to impose upon us an immense indemnity,
which would also have been a monumental impeachment of our honor. No
sovereign state would place itself in so dangerous and ridiculous a
position. Accordingly the Senate of the United States eliminated these
features of the agreement signed by Minister Thompson. The justice of
its action Mexico did not undertake seriously to deny, and she promised
immediate attention to the subject; but once more she resorted to
dilatory tactics, and thus her promise of January, 1843, one important
consideration for granting a delay in the payment of our awards, was
evaded.
One difficulty needs to be faced here. The United States defended
itself for certain breaches of neutrality on the part of American
citizens during the revolutionary war of Texas on the ground that they
could not legally be prevented; why then could not Mexico plead the
legal impossibility of preventing local authorities and citizens from
committing outrages against Americans? In reply it may be said (1)
that there was no analogy between the two cases. While our government
may have asked that such outrages be prevented, its real demand was
that compensation be paid; our breaches of neutrality were political
offences, and therefore called for different treatment than the civil
grievances on which these claims were based; the former could not be
proved (Smith, Annex. of Texas, pp. 23-24), while the latter could be;
and the former, unlike the latter, could not properly be redressed by
the payment of a definite amount of money. (2) We have abundant reason
to believe that if Mexico had been able and had desired to present a
bill for damages on account of such breaches of neutrality, it would
have been examined fairly and promptly by the American government. As a
single illustration of the ability of Mexico to pay our claims, it may
be mentioned that in 1844 Santa Anna and the Lizardi banking house, in
combination, robbed the treasury of about $1,200,000 (Mofras, Explor.,
i, 65).
IV. RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO, 1843-1846
4.1. See Smith, Annex. of Texas, text, notes, and index, particularly
pp. 68, 74, 78, 85-7, 94, 99, 194-5, 199, 210, 273, 288-95, 409-31, 464.
Webster: _ibid._, 194. See remarks in chap. iii, note 13. =137=Donelson
to Calhoun, Jan. 8, 1848. =77=Doyle, British chargé, to Bocanegra,
April 20, 1843: "The undersigned must remind His Excellency that Texas
has been recognized as an independent nation by the Government of Her
Majesty, and that treaties have been negotiated with that Republic as
independent." =77=Cyprey, the French minister, to Bocanegra, April 20,
1843: "The Mexican Cabinet has doubtless overlooked the fact that with
respect to France and most of the states of Europe Texas is absolutely
in the same position as that in which Mexico was before her independence
had been recognized by Spain."
As early as 1839 Gorostiza admitted privately that Mexico had lost
Texas (=11=E. de Lisle, June 21); and in 1840 the French government
notified Mexico that its recognition of Texas was merely the acceptance
of a _fait accompli_ (=11=to Cyprey, no. 4, May 6). Webster, Writings,
ix, 158: "Nothing can exceed, I have always thought, the obstinacy
and senselessness manifested by Mexico in refusing for so many years
to acknowledge the independence of Texas"; xiii, 351: Our annexing
Texas gave Mexico no just ground of complaint (Sept. 29, 1847). In his
Memoria of Jan., 1849, the Mexican minister of relaciones called the
refusal of Mexico to recognize the annexation of Texas a caprice or whim
(capricho). (Never) See note 5. =137=Gallatin to Calhoun, Mar. 3, 1848.
4.2. Sen. 1; 28, 1, pp. 25 (Bocanegra); 27 (Thompson); 34 (Upshur).
4.3. Sen. 1; 28, 1, pp. 38, 42 (Almonte); 41, 45 (Upshur). =53=Memo. of
conference between Upshur and Almonte. =53=Almonte to Upshur, Apr. 22,
1844. Smith, Annex. of Texas, 194.
4.4. Smith, Annex. of Texas, 199, 288. Sen. 341; 28, 1, p. 53 (Calhoun).
4.5. Smith, Annex. of Texas, 289-295. =77=Relaciones to Almonte, May
30, 1844. According to Santa Anna's published account of the interview,
which doubtless misrepresented the bearer of despatches, Thompson said
the assent of Mexico was an essential preliminary to the annexation of
Texas, and plainly recognized her ownership of the province, and the
President replied that the right of subjugating it would be transmitted
to posterity, and assent would never be given to its absorption in
the United States. In reply to Bocanegra's assertion that the United
States had now recognized Mexico's claim to Texas Calhoun sent word to
the Mexican government that we recognized no such claim, but held that
Texas was an independent nation both in fact and in right (Ho. 2; 28,
2, p. 23). In Tyler, Tyler, ii, 692, is a statement, apparently based
on good authority, that Mexico consented to cede Texas for $15,000,000;
but internal evidence and many facts are decidedly against it, and the
author has not found the slightest evidence in its support. It was made
forty years after the event, and probably was due to a misunderstanding
or defective recollection.
Out of this affair grew a diplomatic tilting-match (Ho. 2; 28, 2).
Bocanegra, though personally agreeable and officially painstaking,
dignified and courteous (Thompson, Recolls., 82) was not a great
logician; and the son of Duff Green could hardly be regarded as an
intellectual giant. Still, certain points emerged from the discussion.
The Mexican planted himself on the technical theory of ownership,
accused the Texans of stealing the territory which they had been
graciously permitted to occupy, and charged the United States in the
usual manner with violating treaties and international law. Green,
on the other hand, relied upon facts: the fact of actual Texan
independence, the fact that Mexico herself owed her existence to a
revolution, and the fact that she had regarded herself as independent
and had been so regarded by other nations long before the mother-country
would recognize her. But the correspondence as a whole was indecisive,
disagreeable, and exasperating.
4.6. Smith, Annex. of Texas, 273-9, 365-7.
4.7. Smith, Annex. of Texas, 416-7. Shannon and Rejón: Sen. 1; 28, 2,
p. 47; Ho. 19; 28, 2. =52=Rejón to Shannon, Nov. 21, 1844. Buchanan to
Shannon, no. 10, 1845. =13=Bankhead, no. 67, 1844. Von Holst, U. S.,
ii, 685. Jameson, Calhoun Correspondence, 662. Tyler, Message, Dec.
18, 1844 (Richardson). N. Y. _Eve. Post_, Dec. 18, 1844. (Rejón) Sosa,
Biografías; =52=B. E. Greene, no. 17, 1844. N. Y. _Herald_, Dec. 16,
1844. _Nat. Intelligencer_, Dec. 20, 1844. _Democ. Review_, Feb., 1847,
99, 100. Richtofen, Zustände, 54-6. Rejón, Justificación.
A recent Mexican author has said that "perfidy," which the Mexicans
loved to charge against the United States at this period, was made
impossible by the publicity of our diplomatic affairs (Búlnes, Mentiras,
167). It should be remembered that we had a perfect right to seek, in
the way we had sought, to acquire Texas--_i.e._ by purchase.
4.8. Sen. 1; 29, 1, pp. 38 (Almonte); 39 (Buchanan). Smith, Annex. of
Texas, 420-3. Shannon, no. 10, Apr. 6, 1845. Bankhead, nos. 30, 38,
1845. Richardson, Messages, iv, 388. O Se Hace la Guerra. _Diario_, May
12. Memoria de ... Relaciones, Dec., 1846.
"Is it possible," exclaimed _La Voz del Pueblo_ of March 26, "that
Mexico is a nation of slaves, a wandering tribe, to be the prey of other
nations? Eleven years of war [to gain our independence], all the victims
executed, all the costly sacrifices made,--have these been in vain? War
and only war can save us"--"war without quarter," "extermination and
death." For other references and quotations see Smith, Annex. of Texas,
425-7. =52=Dimond, nos. 244-5, 249, etc., 1845. Min. of treasury to
Deputies, Apr. 19, 1845 (_Diario_, Apr. 20). =56=W. S. Parrott, Apr. 26.