own acts have become a part of history.* If she claims all, as was the case, then the act on the part of the United States in sending troops to the Rio Grande was no more an act of hostility than if they had been sent to Galveston. The question to be decided by the United States was, so far as Mexico was concerned, whether troops should be sent to any part of Texas not to what parts, for the same question was involved in regard to every part. It was impossible to conform to the requisition of Mexico, for it would have been in contradiction to our own acts, and to those of other countries with respect to Texas. It then remained that we should defend the boundary of Texas, and be true to that until we should have evidence that a different one was required by justice; and hence it was left an open question by the act of annexation.

No other position was tenable for Mexico. If she had adopted a policy for herself, similar to the one which her affected friends have defended on her account, our government doubtless would have received a communication from Mexico, through Mr. Slidell, or Mr. Buchanan, something like the following:

"If we show that we can recover Texas, as we have sworn to try, then the United States have committed hostilities by marching troops into the first rod of that country. But, if we cannot recover Texas, then you have committed hostilities by marching troops to the Rio Grande; for, if we cannot get all Texas, we shall claim a part, as if no revolution had taken place, and we had only to fix a friendly boundary. If, however, Texas succeeds in defending the soil to the Rio Grande against us, then you have committed no acts of hostility at all.

"What you do will be judged of entirely by what we are able to do. As our military power is not great, we think it would be an act of magnanimity on the part of the United States to permit us to continue hostilities if successful; but if unsuccessful, to allow us to close all differences in a friendly way, as if no war had existed.”

*See Appendix R.

This is a literal statement of the positions in which some of the friends of Mexico have placed her.

Even Mexico would not consider itself much honored by such absurdity.

But, as much argument has been based upon supposition in the controversy, we are ready to meet the question,

HAS TEXAS A JUST CLAIM TO MAKE THE RIO GRANDE

her boundary, by virtue of her revolution? This boundary has always been claimed by Texas, according to settled principles of international law; and, until Mexico can prove to the contrary, the United States are pledged to hold it sacred.

one.

We have made a quotation from a speech of the Hon. T. J. Rusk, U. S. senator from Texas,* which briefly and clearly gives evidence that the claim of Texas is a just There have been some able speeches upon this subject, made by members of Congress, and if we do not quote from them, it is because our limits forbid it. General Rusk was distinguished in the revolution of Texas, and he speaks from personal knowledge. Besides, there is a candor and simplicity in his remarks, which incline us to a feeling of confidence in his statements.

The same power which made Texas free and independent of Mexico, claimed the Rio Grande as the boundary.† If the power was equal to title and sovereignty, was it not equal to a declaration of its boundary, admitting that she had no

*See Appendix S.

In an article upon Texas, published in the Cincinnati Gazette, November, 1829, a writer, who professes a practical acquaintance with his subject, says,

'The term Texas is usually understood to designate the whole tract of country lying between the south-western boundary of the United States and the River Rio Grande, alias, the Rio Bravo del Norte."

Mr. Ward, once British chargé d'affaires in Mexico, in his work on Mexico, says, "It is now seven years since the design of appropriating to themselves the fertile province, (Texas,) and thus extending their frontier to the Rio Bravo del Norte, was first attributed to

other claim? When the independence of Texas was acknowledged by the United States and by other nations, she had declared her boundary; and if this had been considered an element as absolutely inconsistent with her claims to sovereignty, if it had been viewed as a gross infringement upon the rights of Mexico according to the laws of nations, it should have been noticed by these nations as a bar to their acknowledgment.*

the United States," &c. This work was noticed by the National Intelligencer, October 21, 1829, under the following head: “Prospect of the annexation of Texas to the United States."

In an article published in the New York Courier and Inquirer, November 8, 1834, on the boundary of Texas, in case of annexation, the writer says, "What that boundary will ultimately be, it is impossible to say; but it is so obviously the interest, both of Mexico and the United States, to make the Rio Grande the dividing line, that we do not doubt, sooner or later, that river will be fixed upon by the two governments."

We give these extracts mainly for the purpose of showing the popular sentiment in regard to the boundary of Texas long before it became a party question.

* This principle was recognized by the British government, in regard to a different boundary, when called upon to acknowledge the independence of Texas. "While the Texan commissioner at the court of St. James was negotiating the acknowledgment of the independence of his country by England, Lord Palmerston called the attention of General Henderson, the Texan minister, to the extraordinary claim set up by the president of Texas, and objected to go on with the negotiation, lest the acknowledgment of the country might be construed to sanction its asserted claim to Northern Mexico and California. The commissioner replied, that he had no authority to commit his government on the question of boundary. Nevertheless, the independence of Texas was then acknowledged by the British government, and with full knowledge and admission by them of President Lamar's claim. General Lamar, in his first message as president of the Republic of Texas, claimed all the country lying west of Texas to the Pacific.". Gilliam's Mexico, p. 388. If Lord Palmerston had foreseen the event of annexation, the independence of Texas, most likely, would not have been acknowledged by England at that time. See Appendix T.

The formal recognition of a new government is an important act, and involves important principles. These principles are entirely national in their character, and relate to the well-being of nations as such. Ephemeral governments would be national evils; and governments of outrage would be national wrongs. Although one nation cannot determine for another nation its form of government, nor direct its foreign or internal policy, still, it has a right to require conformity to certain great principles of justice which make up the common law of nations. It may not be the right of a nation to demand such conformity of another, except when called upon to grant an act of recognition. This recognition should always be on the side of justice and humanity not according to the views of one nation, but of all nations that come within the sphere of civilization.

The United States had agreed to take the title of Texas to sovereignty, and if this does not embrace rights as to its own boundary, it is inconsistent with itself.

But with the spirit of equity let us examine

which gives the Rio Grande as the true boundary between the two nations.

This is said to be no treaty, because it was not ratified by the government of Mexico. In this respect it would be defective as a treaty between two nations, if made under ordinary circumstances. The circumstances in this case, however, were peculiar and extraordinary.

1. Mexico was governed at that time by a military dictator, and he was, ex officio, commander-in-chief of the Mexican

army.

2. Under his command the army invaded Texas; was defeated and captured.

3. Santa Anna, as commander-in-chief of the Mexican army, was a prisoner of war; but as dictator of Mexico, he

* See Appendix G.

fully represented the treaty-making power of his own governhe was, in fact, the government.*

ment,

4. He proposed and urged a treaty, agreeing to all the stipulations required by Texas, and it was executed by himself as president of Mexico and by the chief officers of his army, the second in command, Filisola, at the head of five or six thousand men, being at liberty to act his pleasure, to confirm the act of his commander or to reject it. He confirmed it, and the army and its officers were liberated.

5. The president solemnly pledged himself to use his influ ence with his government to ratify the treaty; but he violated his promises, and by his government it was denounced and proclaimed as void, because, as was falsely alleged, it was extorted from their president while prisoner of war.†

On the part of Texas, all the stipulations of the treaty were honorably fulfilled. The lives of the prisoners were saved, and * Vattel says, "The same power who has the right of making war, of determining on it, of declaring it, and of directing its operations, has naturally that likewise of making and concluding a treaty of peace."

In his despatch to the government ad interim, dated June 10, 1836, General Filisola, who was never a prisoner, says,

"His excellency, (Santa Anna,) in my humble opinion, in the treaties agreed upon, and that I had the honor to send to your excellency, acted with entire liberty, and nothing more in view than the interest of his country."

Santa Anna, in his letter of July 4, 1836, says,

"When I offered to treat with this government, (Texas,) I was convinced that it was useless for Mexico to continue the war. I have acquired exact information respecting the country, which I did not possess four months ago. I have too much zeal for the interests of my country to wish for any thing which is not compatible with them. Being always ready to sacrifice myself for its glory and advantage, I never would have hesitated to subject myself to torments of death, rather than consent to any compromise, if Mexico could thereby obtain the slightest benefit. I am firmly convinced that it is proper to terminate this question by political negotiation."

See the very able speech of Senator Johnson, (H. V.,) delivered in the U. S. Senate, January, 1848.