their persons liberated. All property taken was returned, and the Mexican army, unmolested, marched with its effects beyond the Rio Grande. The end of law is justice between men, and between nations. The rights of nations are defined by law or by treaty. Both law and treaty are sustained by power. The law of the strongest is executed. Our views as to what constitutes the strength of a nation the reader will find in other chapters of this work. The object of treaties is to supersede the frequent exercise of power in the adjustment of undefined rights, by embracing conditions applicable to the positive and probable wants and interests of the high contracting parties. As the peace of nations is preserved or disturbed according to the good or bad faith in which treaties are observed, they cannot be too solemnly regarded. Attempted fraud in a treaty should be met with universal reprobation. Its condemnation and consequent penalties should be commensurate with the great evils which it is calculated to produce, if successful. It would be a dangerous incitement to lessen the serious importance of national compacts. Such compacts should be held as sacred as the flag of truce, not to be counterfeited or violated with impunity. In this case, a counterfeit treaty was attempted by the president of Mexico and imposed upon Texas. It was honorable on the part of Texas, false on the part of Mexico. If Mexico deemed it just to renounce the treaty, her power should have reached the treason that sanctioned it. Its authors should have been tried as traitors, or returned to the confinement from which its conditions had freed them. The army of Mexico should have been marched back to Texas, to be resurrendered to those who had been made the subjects of the treachery. It is a safer precedent to sanction such a treaty, under the circumstances, than to sanction its violation in the principal officers of the nation. It would indeed be a precedent of the most dangerous tendency. If Mexico rejected the acts of her president, which involved the safety of her army, there is no good reason why it should be done at the expense of Texas. It was eminently a treaty on the side of humanity. Mexico had murdered, by the orders of her government, the soldiers of Texas who had surrendered as prisoners of war; and what would have been the measure of retaliation in this case, it is difficult to say. It unquestionably prevented much bloodshed and suffering. It may have saved the Mexican army and the chief magistrate of the Mexican nation from slaughter; and shall it now be tolerated, either in theory or practice, that Mexico may gather her strength to massacre the Texans, at whose hands they were permitted to live? Shall Texas surrender the only considerations which Mexico gave, and which would have been ratified by the Mexican government, if Santa Anna and his troops had been held as securities? or if Santa Anna and his officers had demanded it as necessary to their honor and integrity? Never. To admit such a principle is against the best good of civilized nations; to sanction it, an outrage upon humanity. If Mexico was false to the treaty, Texas could be true to herself. The same power that compelled terms was able to defend them.* The same power that humbled Santa Anna was able to punish his perfidy. Texas had her boundary lines marked by the best blood of her citizens, and her energy was equal to her wants in the defence of her rights against Mexico. Let us examine how this subject was viewed by the government of the United States. It is with the sentiment of proud * Mr. Pillsbury, member of U. S. Congress, 1847, and long a resident of Texas, in a speech before the house, says, "That all attempts at maintaining Mexican posts east of the Rio Grande had been frustrated by the Texans, and the Mexicans driven west of the Rio Grande. No Mexican forces could maintain themselves, as was frequently attempted; all Texas would have rushed to arms to drive them back." See the excellent speech of the Hon. Mr. Norris, delivered before the house in February, 1847. satisfaction that we find our government, in respect to this matter, consistent from the beginning. Right at first, and right to the last. The boundary of Texas was taken as declared by that nation, and protected accordingly. Nothing else was proposed, nothing else would have been approved, by Texas. When annexation had been accomplished, orders were given amply to meet the case. Our government had no discretion to exercise. Its duty had been marked by lines that could not be erased or altered, it was imperative. Where but to the frontiers of a country should troops be ordered to protect its territory and to repel an invasion? Should possession be given that it might be regained? Should outrages be permitted that they might be avenged? Should life be exposed that it might realize the privileges of escape? Should advantages be allowed to be seized that might compromise our rights? Should our general government assume to act for Texas, and to disregard her sovereignty by recognizing new boundaries? No such policy was conceived. No such policy was executed. No such policy would have been sustained by the people of our country.* Let us examine the record, and see what were THE PRECAUTIONARY ACTS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERN MENT. The president of the United States, in his message of December, 1845, says, "The moment the terms of annexation offered by the United States were accepted by Texas, the latter became so far a part of our country, as to make it our duty to afford such *We are happy to find that these positions are ably sustained by a distinguished jurist of the U. S. Senate, the Hon. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland. In some of his exceptions to the defence of the administration, however, as corollaries from his own premises, we have a striking example of how a logician may be lost in the politician. His truths master his politics. protection and defence," (against invasion.) "I therefore deemed it proper, as a precautionary measure, to order a strong squadron to the coasts of Mexico, and to concentrate a sufficient military force on the western frontier of Texas. Our army was ordered to take position in the country between the Nueces and the Rio del Norte, and to repel any invasion of the Texan territory which might be attempted by the Mexican forces." OCCUPATION ON THE RIO GRANDE ADVISED BY MR. Donelson. Mr. Donelson to Mr. Buchanan, May 11, 1845. "It may be considered as certain the Congress of Texas, soon after the assemblage of the 16th of June, will accept our proposals, and call a convention for the purpose of carrying them into effect. Of course, if war be declared against us, Texas will be its theatre, and the earlier we are in possession of the commanding points on the Rio Grande, the sooner we shall be able to bring it to a close." TROOPS REQUESTED FOR THE PROTECTION OF TEXAS. Mr. Donelson to Mr. Buchanan, May 24, 1845. "As soon as the Texan government accepts our proposals, it will be proper, in compliance with the request already communicated to you, to send our troops to the frontier.” SOLICITUDE OF TEXAS WITH REGARD TO MEANS OF DEFENCE. Mr. Allen to Mr. Donelson, May 19, 1845. "The undersigned deems it his duty respectfully to inquire of Mr. Donelson, whether, under such circumstances, (of threatened invasion,) calculated to excite the reasonable apprehensions of the people of Texas, and especially to disturb the tranquillity of the settlements along her western frontiers, it would not be alike proper and consistent for the United States to extend its protection to this people." DEFENCE OF TEXAS ORDERED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Secretary of War to General Taylor, May 28, 1845. "Should the territories of Texas be invaded by a foreign power, and you shall receive certain intelligence through her functionaries of the fact, after her convention shall have acceded to the terms of annexation contained in the resolution of the Congress of the United States, you will at once employ, in the most effective manner your judgment may dictate, the forces under your command, for the defence of these territories, and to expel the invaders.' Here was an order to General Taylor "to expel the invaders," if notified to do so by the "functionaries" of Texas. We need not add, that if the Mexican troops had crossed the Rio Grande, the notice would have been given, and General Taylor would have executed the order. POSTS SUGGESTED ON THE RIO GRANDE. Mr. Donelson to Mr. Buchanan, June 2, 1845. "It is believed that Mexico is concentrating troops on the Rio Grande, where Texas has as yet established no posts. If this be so, it is possible that Texas may send a force there to remove intruders. But such a movement, if made, will be independent of the United States." This shows the determination of Texas, that she was unwilling to leave her boundary unprotected, if threatened, even for a few days, or until the act of annexation should be accomplished. THE RIO GRANDE RECOGNIZED AS THE BOUNDARY OF TEXAS. Mr. Bancroft, acting Secretary of War, to General Taylor, "The point of your ultimate destination is the western frontier of Texas, where you will select and occupy, on or |