timent, as no party lines, at the period of its utterance, had been drawn in reference to its possession. All desired it, but it was in a position to be acquired only by purchase of a foreign nation.

That Mexico should, in the chagrin and folly of her course, endeavor to force the allegiance of Texas, was a circumstance to be anticipated. Where injustice makes up the policy of a nation, desperation ever finds an apologist in pride, and patriotism a virtue in necessity. Her pretensions of right to govern Texas, when she had proved herself utterly incapable of protecting the ordinary interests even of a single city of her dominion, are absolutely too ridiculous to merit serious refutation. If Texas were not entitled to independence after the events of her revolution, then no people can ever hope to be fully justified in opposing tyranny, or in any attempts to establish justice and equality among men.

And yet, while we would not impute to Mexico utter ignorance of her own demerits, we cannot but think that she has been encouraged in her downward course in consequence of opinions expressed by public men of the United States. If she would not hesitate knowingly to persist in wrong, we may well suppose that she would eagerly seize all flattering or promising influences that seemed to favor her desperate and ill-featured

cause.

A distinguished citizen of Kentucky,* in a letter written in 1844, says, "I consider the annexation of Texas at this time, without the assent of Mexico, compromising the national character, and involving us certainly in a war with Mexico, and probably with other foreign powers.”+

Mr. Clay was a candidate for the presidency, and more than

* Hon. Henry Clay.

† And yet, in 1847, in a speech delivered at Lexington, he asks, "Who would now think of perpetrating the folly of casting Texas out of the confederacy, and throwing her back upon her independence, or into the arms of Mexico? Who would seek to divorce her from this Union?" And why not? If annexation were an act of injustice to Mexico, it could not be "folly" to repair the wrong.

any other man, perhaps, the chief of a powerful party. A single word from his lips or pen would afford such a nation as that of Mexico encouragement in the greatest folly, in the most hopeless cause. We would not speak lightly of a man who has filled with honor so many pages of his country's history; but while we admit his merits, and the correctness of some of his views on questions of public importance, we cannot but regret that want of consistency which charity would attribute to his party prepossessions rather than to his judgment.

Mr. Clay has not been alone in the expression of views tending to encourage Mexico. Some of our State governments adopted resolutions; public men and editors expressed opinions for party purposes, defending the cause of Mexico against their own country. It has been asserted that Santa Anna prepared a document made up of speeches and editorials put forth in this country concerning the war, for circulation among his soldiers and people.* It is easy to see how the doubts of a powerful enemy would have more influence in Mexico, than any knowledge of strength, where weakness prevailed, or of any confidence of success, in the absence of means and system.

It is a plain, open case. The facts are before us. Speculation is unnecessary. A knowledge of common justice and national law gives us no alternative but to read the evidence, and see the legitimate conclusion.

In a speech delivered in the U. S. Senate, March, 1848, by Mr. Webster, we find the following paragraph, in the emphatic language of that distinguished senator :

that no

"I state now, sir, what I have often stated before man, from the first, has been a more sincere well wisher to the government and people of Texas than myself. I looked upon the achievement of their independence in the battle of San Jacinto as an extraordinary, almost marvellous, incident in the

See speech of Colonel Burnet, delivered at Philadelphia; of Colonel Doniphan, at St. Louis; and the statements of Wynkoop, and Morgan, and of other officers, published in the journals.

affairs of mankind.

was among the first disposed to acknowl

edge her independence."

In 1842, Mr. Webster, then secretary of state, in a despatch to the minister of the United States at Mexico, said, “From the time of the battle of San Jacinto, in April, 1836, to the present moment, Texas has exhibited the same external signs of national independence as Mexico herself, and with quite as much stability of government. Practically free and independent; acknowledged as a political sovereignty by the principal powers of the world; no hostile foot finding rest within her territory for six or seven years; and Mexico herself refraining for all that period from any further attempt to reëstablish her own authority over the territory."

In a speech delivered by the Hon. R. Johnson, of Maryland, in the U. S. Senate, on the 10th and 11th January, 1848, he says, "Sir, annexation of itself would not have been war; Mexico had no right to make it a cause of war. Texas' independence had been too long established and undisturbed to have her absolute right of sovereignty called in question."

Texas became independent of Mexico in the same manner that our States became independent of Great Britain; and if her title among nations was not good, then there is no reason why ours should be. This being admitted, the event of annexation was not a matter within the control of Mexico, much less could it be cause for war. That it was no cause of war in the opinion of Mexico herself, may be inferred from the fact, that she offered to acknowledge the independence of Texas, provided she would reject all propositions of annexation to the United States; or, in other words, if she would not add to the power of a country already too great to be balanced in the scales of European politicians.*

The short sentence of Mr. Clay, in 1844, was just enough to be dangerous to Mexico, and troublesome to foreign poli

* See the able speech of the Hon. J. A. Dix, delivered in the U. S. Senate, Jan. 1848.

ticians. It justified war on her part, and expectation of aid from foreign governments. It led to destruction without any responsible guaranty of aid or safety. It was a text for a Guizot or a Palmerston. Its apocryphal character was not suspected. It was proved, however, by experiment. Mexico was compelled to act without the poor benefit of her own cowardice, and to find, in the end, nothing but contempt and derision where she was persuaded to look for aid and sympathy.

Texas was annexed by act of Congress on the part of the United States, and by Congress and by a convention of the people on the part of Texas.* The authority under which the act of Congress was passed on the part of the United States, is in the Constitution. The language is simple, and cannot be misunderstood. It is this: "New States may be admitted by Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress."

case.

That the act of annexation was in conformity to the Constitution of the United States, is obvious from the facts in the The fact that Texas was an independent nation makes no element of the question whatever, inasmuch as she was divested of national prerogatives, before she was admitted as a State of the Union.

There is another alleged cause of the war, in the act of the war department of the United States, ordering General Taylor to the Rio Grande.

This was a prudential measure, on the part of our government, to prevent hostilities by being prepared for them, and properly makes a portion of our next chapter. It is simply a historical question as to the first act of hostility between the two nations in the commencement of a war, but in no sense can it be regarded as the cause. If it were the cause of the war, to what cause are we to attribute the assembling of two armies

*See Appendix I.

in hostile proximity, and both stationed at a great distance from their respective governments? So far from being the cause, or even a cause of the war, it is not to be classed with the measure of annexation as one of the results of the causes which we have enumerated. It was purely a preventive measure on the part of our government, and only as such intended and authorized.

COMPARATIVE VIEW OF THE ACTS OF THE TWO GOVERNMENTS.

ASSUMED POSITION AND NATIONAL RELATIONS OF MEXICO.

Although the loss of Texas was a consequence of the bad faith of Mexico, still Mexico was induced to assume that annexation was sufficient cause of war. What combination of influences led that nation to take such a position is still a matter of some uncertainty. It is true, desperation is frequently indicative of weakness, and boldness or rashness is made to represent power. But acts of rashness may be generally traced to ulterior motives, to some contingent redemption or aid that may be possible, or probable, though not certain. A bold position in a nation which is wrong may cost nothing, and a compromise between right and extravagant claim may sometimes render it a source of gain. That Mexico was really ignorant of her own character, we cannot believe. That she was not fully aware of her own weakness, all must admit. That the embarrassments and confusion of her own affairs led her rulers to suppose that nothing could happen to add new misery to her condition, is more than probable. She supposed her chance for charity among nations about equal to that of justice. She was honored with marks of sympathy, but she was deceived by supposing they would be redeemed by acts of aid.

In what proportion, therefore, the various influences made up her inducements to action, it is difficult to determine. Perhaps it is unnecessary. It is probable, however, that her very existence required action, and in her pride and weakness she