same time, upon the same subjects, but with conflicting views, to Mr. Black, to Mr. Slidell, and to the council. It is proper that such acts should be pointed out and condemned, so that the inducements to wrong may be lessened, and the incitements to right increased. We now come to another important question.

WAS THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT JUST TO MEXICO ON THE SUBJECT OF BOUNDARY.

We have seen that our government was faithful and prompt in affording protection to Texas against foreign invasion; we have contrasted the acts of favor of the United States with those of hostility on the part of Mexico; and we now proceed to inquire whether the government of the United States, in striving to be just to Texas, has been just to Mexico, in regard to the boundary lines between the two countries.

The boundaries of Texas were those secured by revolution. They were marked by the sword, and confirmed by possession. Her battles were fought by her own citizens, and with none but with the armies of Mexico. Her victories were at the expense of Mexico-strength measuring strength. Her independence was to the exclusion of Mexico, and self-established. Her government was organized, and endowed with vitality; and Mexico lost all right there, by being unable to sustain it, and she lost all power within the limits of the State by withdrawing her forces. Texas stood acknowledged as one of the great family of nations. She had marked her own boundary lines; and she had entire confidence in the justice of her claims to limits as they were defined in her statute-book.

By the act of annexation, the question of boundary between Mexico and Texas was left an open one, to be decided by negotiation between the governments of Mexico and the United States. It was embraced in the instructions given to Mr. Slidell, but, as we have seen, it was not even considered.

It became the first question with the government of the

United States, when asked to give protection, how far it should be extended.

HOW IS TEXAS BOUNDED?

It was not a question within its own control, to be decided according to its own interests or views. There were two parties to be consulted. Texas had her rights, and so had Mexico. Texas made her claims, but Mexico disputed them. Mexico made no question with regard to boundary. Her claim was one of title and sovereignty. The people of Texas were claimed to be the subjects of Mexico; and the territory of Texas a part of her national domain, undivided and indivisible. In this posture of affairs what course could be safely pursued by the United States? Mexico claimed the whole, and refused to negotiate.

So far as the claim of Mexico was involved, the United States had decided it, by acknowledging the independence of Texas. Other nations had done the same. This question was indeed no longer open for discussion; it had been settled. The supposed interest of Mexico remained at issue, to be adjusted whenever she was prepared to negotiate. The interest of Texas was defined in her own public acts, and she claimed her own rights as she had in her own sovereignty declared them. The government of the United States was

* See Appendix Q.

In the letter of the Mexican commissioners to Mr. Trist, when negotiating for a treaty of peace, September 6, 1847, they say,

"The existing war has been undertaken SOLELY on account of the territory of the State of Texas, respecting which the North American Republic presents as its title the act of the said State by which it was annexed to the North American confederation, after having proclaimed its independence of Mexico. The Mexican Republic offering (as we have informed your excellency) to consent, for a proper indemnification, to the pretensions of the government at Washington to the territory of Texas, THE CAUSE OF THE WAR has disappeared, and the war itself ought to cease."

the adjusting power between the two parties.

Mexico refused to speak, and the boundary of Texas, as claimed by her own government and people, was the only one offered. Our right to fix the boundary was only by negotiation with Mexico, and that was declined. The government of the United States, therefore, had no alternative, but to defend the territory of Texas as claimed by her government.*

But another question arose, and it has received much attention. It was one of supposition. It was asked, “Suppose Mexico were to give up Texas, and acknowledge her independence, to what boundary would she give her assent?" Whatever may have been our opinions upon this question, nothing was more certain than that we had no authority to decide it. It was not for us to assume a position for Mexico which her government had positively disclaimed. We had no right to sit in judgment upon a boundary question in which her interest was involved without her consent. Mexico cannot have the privilege of two positions in respect to the same interest. She must stand as claiming all Texas, or a part of Texas, but she must make her election which. She did, indeed, make her election, but her friends made a different one.† We insist that she shall speak for herself. No party has a right to speak for her, when her

* 66

'Well, then, were the United States at liberty to surrender a portion of that territory? Why, that would have been a flagrant violation of the implied contract which the joint resolutions of Congress had completed. Could the president of the United States take upon himself the responsibility of such an assumption as that Texas, after becoming one of the United States, had ceased to have her limits up to the Rio Grande? He could not. And if he could not surrender any part of that territory, how could it be that this was the president's war? Mr. Soule's Speech, U. S. Senate, February, 1847.

+ That Congress was really in favor of the advance of General Taylor to the Rio Grande, may be inferred from the votes of that body on the amendments offered by Mr. Holmes and by Mr. Delano. These were intended to be acts of censure or disapproval of the government in taking possession of territory beyond the Nueces. The former was rejected by a vote of 122 to 8; the latter by a vote of 97 to 27.

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.

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 one. 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