Chapter XII: Letter 11: The causes of the war.—The complaints on either side

FEBRUARY, 1847.

SIR: The tendency of public opinion throughout the civilized
world, and especially in the United States, against all wars,
may be justly set down as an evidence of the progress of
civilization. There are many who regard all war, defensive as
well as offensive, as wicked and inexcusable. Others, justify
defensive wars only, as if it were possible for one to defend
himself by merely warding off the blows of the assailant. Some
regard wars made for conquest merely, as unlawful, and no sound
moralist can approve of a war instigated by a motive so unjust
and dishonest. But when war is once begun, it unavoidably
becomes offensive, as well as defensive, in order to bring the
opposite party to terms—it necessarily becomes a war of conquest
by holding the enemy’s territory as a lawful acquisition, until
restored by treaty of peace, if restored at all. No one nation
has yet abandoned the practice of war, and I cannot well
understand how it can do so, while it is continued by others. In
the present unregenerated state of the world, wars are therefore
regarded by practical men, as sometimes unavoidable, and even
necessary and just. It was the opinion of Washington, that the
best security for peace, is in being well prepared for war; and
it may be added, to impress other nations with respect or fear
of our military prowess. I am convinced, that our last three
years war with Great Britain, ensured us a long peace, not only
with that power, but with others. I am equally certain, that but
for our seven years of revolutionary war, we should have been
neither a free nor an independent nation—our magnificent country
would not have been “the land of the free, and the home of the
brave.” If all wars are “murders and robberies,” as some
philanthropists contend, there must be a revolution in our
sentiments towards Washington and his brave companions in arms,
who offered up their lives for the blessings of freedom and
self-government, and of peace, which we have enjoyed.

But I am free to admit, that a civilized nation cannot, without
just reproach, engage in a war that is unjust, and that is not,
in a certain sense, unavoidable. The nation ought to go beyond,
rather than fall short of the strict measure of justice, and she
ought to exhaust every means of maintaining peace, before
resorting to the _ultimate ratio_.

It is my intention in this letter to took into the causes which
have led to the war in which we are now engaged with Mexico. I
must premise, that we must take the world as we find it, and we
must decide according to the ethicks and practice of the most
civilized nations, and not according to standards of morality,
which, although perfect in themselves, are inapplicable to the
present imperfect state of mankind. It is again to be observed,
that among nations, there is no common judge, to whom they are
willing to submit their differences, and to obey the decision.
Each is the judge in its own case, and if one should be disposed
to do even more than justice, the demands of the other may be
out of all reason. It is a rare thing in modern times, for two
powerful civilized nations to be involved in hostilities,
without previous differences, misunderstandings, or mutual
aggressions, and without, also, previous unsuccessful attempts
to adjust their differences in a peaceful way. Let us first
consider the complaints of Mexico.

These consisted, in the first instance, in the aid afforded by
citizens of the United States in the struggle of Texas with
Mexico for her independence. But this did not begin with that
struggle, but with the efforts of Mexico herself to throw off
the allegiance of Spain, in which she was so materially aided by
the Americans of Texas, and who continued to be invited into
that country for the purpose of giving strength to the Mexican
cause. Serious offence was given to Spain in consequence of this
volunteer aid of our citizens to her revolted provinces, but,
certainly, there was no complaint on the part of those
provinces. Their situation changed as soon as they won their
independence, and when Texas revolted in consequence of alleged
oppression, Mexico assumed the position before occupied by
Spain, and complained of the aid afforded by citizens of the
United States to Texas. Here is, no doubt, the ground of the
ill-feeling on the part of Mexico towards us. How far we are
responsible for the acts of our citizens, beyond our
jurisdiction, is a question which opens a wide field for
discussion, and is one which cannot be discussed in these
cursory letters. All I shall say, is, that Mexico had the same
right to complain that Spain had, and no more and even less, for
it was the consequence of her own act, in calling in our
countrymen to help her against Spain. I avoid saying any thing
here, as to the merits of the quarrel between Texas and Mexico.

In the contest which ensued between these belligerents, Mexico
put forth her whole strength—she entered Texas with a powerful
army, commanded by her Chief Magistrate in person, who was at
the same time her most distinguished military leader—a leader,
who had put down the constitution of 1824, and concentrated the
whole power of the State in his own person, and in the person of
his own military subordinates. The invasion was followed by the
signal defeat at San Jacinto, by General Houston, and a treaty,
_acknowledging the independence of Texas, and recognizing the
Rio Grande as the Southern boundary_. I do not mean to discuss
the diplomatic question involved in this treaty, my object being
in this place, merely to state facts.[6] Subsequently, with the
exception of some inroads on either side, the war ceased—the
cause of Mexico became hopeless—the independence of Texas was
not only recognized by us, but also by other neutral nations.
Her inability to re-conquer Texas, was confessed by Mexico
herself; she was even willing to acknowledge her independence on
the condition that Texas would not unite herself to the United
States—condition which no nation in our place would fail to
regard as offensive. Next follows the act on our part in which
was merged all other offences, and was, before-hand, declared by
Mexico, not only as a cause of war, but equivalent to a
declaration of war—the annexation of Texas with its consent. The
act has been generally condemned by the whig press, and yet, it
is sustained by very high authority: Mr. Webster, as Secretary
of State, holds this language: “Mexico may have chosen to
consider Texas as having been at all times since 1835, and still
continuing, a rebellious province, but the world has been
obliged to take a different view of the matter. From the time of
the battle of San Jacinto to the present moment, Texas has
continued to exhibit the same internal signs of national
independence as Mexico herself, and with quite as much stability
of government.” Again he repeats, “since 1837, the United States
have regarded Texas as an independent sovereignty as much as
Mexico.” He says further, “the constitution, public treaties,
and laws, oblige the President to regard Texas as an independent
State, _and its territory no part of the territory of Mexico_.”
In a late public speech at Springfield, Mr. Webster uses the
following language, “I do not admit that it was a just ground of
complaint on the part of Mexico, that the United States annexed
Texas to themselves.” From my own unassisted reasoning, I had
arrived at the same conclusion with Mr. Webster. The ground
taken by the great statesman against the war, was not on account
of the annexation of Texas, but of the march of Gen. Taylor, by
the order, or sanction of Mr. Polk, whose practical result was
inevitable hostilities, which ought not to have been brought on
without the express sanction of Congress, and while there was
still a possibility of negotiating. The first, is a question
between Mr. Polk and his country, with which Mexico has nothing
to do; the other, is a mere question of probability, depending
on the willingness on our side to negotiate, and the
willingness, or the contrary, on this part of Mexico, to meet
us. I will add, that the taking of California and New Mexico are
acts arising out of the war, and not causes leading to it.

Footnote 6:

The able speech of Mr. Kauffman in Congress on this subject is
not easily refuted. As a jurist, I do not hesitate to
pronounce the treaty valid.

Let us now consider the provocations and complaints on our side;
these commenced before any of the alleged grievances on the part
of Mexico. They may be placed under two heads; first, the
refusal to pay American citizens the debts contracted by their
government for the means of carrying on their war of
independence; and secondly, for outrages committed on the
persons of our people while in the pursuit of their lawful
business, and for the illegal seizure and confiscation of their
property. The second head covers much the largest amount of
injuries complained of: they consist of seizure of vessels in
port on false or frivolous pretexts; of goods and merchandise
for public use; of forced loans and civil injuries to persons,
and wanton confinement to loathsome prisons, where many perished
or lost their health. There were beside, anomalous cases,
[7]some of them involving immense losses, breaking up mercantile
establishments, producing ruin, and irreparable injury.

Footnote 7:

Such as that of Aaron Ligett, who introduced steamboats on the
Tobasco river, according to a contract with the government;
his boats were seized for public use, his merchandize
confiscated, and business and credit destroyed. There is the
case of Dr. Baldwin, who was induced to establish saw mills,
which were seized when they became profitable, and the lands
purchased by him confiscated. There is the case of the
empressario contracts in Texas, where lands were granted by
Mexico, on condition of colonizing, and when the company
brought out colonies at great expense, they were forcibly
prevented from taking possession—colonists driven off or
imprisoned, and the goods and effects of the company seized.

We find as early as the first term of Gen. Jackson, the most
ruinous complaints on the part of our fellow-citizens of the
wrongs inflicted on them by Mexico. They are such, says he, “as
cannot be tolerated by any government endued with a just
self-respect, with a proper regard for the opinions of other
nations, or with enlightened concern for the permanent welfare
of those portions of its people who may be interested in foreign
commerce.” After enumerating the various classes of outrages, he
adds, “citizens of the United States have been imprisoned for
long periods of time, without being informed of the offences
with which they were charged. Others have been murdered and
robbed on the high seas by Mexican officers, without any attempt
to bring the guilty to justice.” In a subsequent message to
Congress, he declares, “that such conduct _would justify
immediate war, in the eyes of all nations_.” The same language
was repeated by the subsequent administration, in still stronger
terms. All this was previous to the alleged wrongs on our part,
in respect to Texas, and the only excuse was the revolutionary
state, and the consequent disorders under which Mexico was then
a sufferer; and this plea, untenable as it is, was respected to
such a degree, as to amount to a denial of justice to our own
citizens. The American sufferings were aggravated by seeing the
prompt and decisive measures of the French to redress similar
outrages, when Admiral Baudin blew up the castle of San Juan de
Ulloa, and compelled the Mexican government to pay a million of
dollars on the deck of his vessel. How is it possible, after
these facts, to say, that our complaints against Mexico were
fictitious or exaggerated? Under the commission extorted from
her, without which, an open rupture must have followed, after
ascertaining three millions of just claims, an amount much
larger was left unadjusted, in consequence of the expiration of
the time limited for the duration of the commission, and even
that time shortened one half by the delays of the Mexican
commissioners. Instead of exacting payment at once, of the debt
thus ascertained and admitted to be due, we showed her every
indulgence, by consulting her convenience as to the time and
mode of payment. That debt still remains unpaid, and the
remaining claim unadjusted. Now, I would ask, whether, under the
circumstances, she was not bound to keep open diplomatic
relations for the purpose of providing payment for the amount
due, and for a proper adjudication of the remainder? She has
thought proper to take offence at the annexation of Texas, and
to put an end to diplomatic relations, and of course, of
peaceful negotiation on that, as well as on other subjects. The
act of recalling a minister, and sending passports to the
foreign plenipotentiary, according to the modern law of nations,
is equivalent to an express declaration of war, and hostilities
might be expected to follow as a matter of course.[8] It looks
very much as if the annexation was merely laid hold of as a
pretext to avoid paying her debts, and making compensation for
the wrongs she had perpetrated on our citizens. The closing of
diplomatic relations was itself a great outrage, considering the
relation in which she stood towards us. There was, certainly, no
obligation on our part to take any step towards a renewal of
those relations—we might have proceeded according to the usages
of nations to take the law on our own hands, and compel her to
give, what we might consider, a just indemnity. But unlike other
nations, we pursued a humane and moderate course; we attempted
again and again, to negotiate, but without success; and perhaps,
at the expense of national dignity. And even after the
commencement of hostilities, after every success obtained by our
army, the olive branch was held forth, and as often rejected.

Footnote 8:

See _Kent’s Commentaries._—“Since the time of Binkershock, it
has been settled by the practice of Europe, that war may
lawfully exist by a declaration which is unilateral only, _or
without any declaration on either side_.”

In the war between England and France in 1778, the first
public act on the part of the English government, was
recalling its minister, and that single act was considered by
France as the breach of the peace between the two countries.
There was no other declaration of war, though each government
afterwards published a manifesto in vindication of its claim
and conduct. The same things may be said of the war which
broke out in 1793, and again in 1803.

The act of withdrawing a minister, is one of a most decisive
character, for _actual hostilities_ may exist without a state
of war, as in the war of 1756 between France and England, and
between us and France in 1798. The act of taking the fort of
Mobile under Mr. Madison’s administration in 1812, was an act
of hostility, and yet our diplomatic relations still
continued—it was made the subject of complaint by Spain, and
defended or excused by our government. If diplomatic relations
had been discontinued, there would have been no redress for
Spain, but in returning the blow. Hence, I contend, that the
party which closes these relations, and prevents the peaceful
adjustment of injuries, is responsible for all the
consequences.

It has been said, that the annexation of Texas by us was virtual
war, that is, equivalent to an express declaration. If so, it
was in consequence of the declaration of Mexico, that she would
so consider it, but not as in its very nature precluding
negotiation. On the contrary, the administration has been blamed
for not negotiating, and that too, _whether Mexico would or
not_. No—the act of war, was in closing the door to peaceful
settlement, by means of plenipotentiaries, authorized to adjust
not a single isolated question, _but all matters in dispute_.

A minister, clothed with full powers, was sent by us to Mexico
after the hasty and inconsiderate step taken by her, a piece of
condescension, which can only be ascribed to an extreme desire
on our part to preserve peace. Our plenipotentiary was not
received, and for what reason? Was it because he was not
accredited, or not clothed with sufficient power to adjust _all_
existing differences, the only grounds which could be fairly
assigned? No—the objection was, that these powers were _too
full_, instead of being confined to one topic, the annexation of
Texas. He was told, that a commissioner with powers to settle
that single question, would be received, but without power to
discuss any other, and consequently, without power to discuss
even that, which was necessarily complicated with others. The
representative, of course, could not divest himself of his
powers—he went not only to do justice to Mexico, but demand
justice of her. But, this is but a very imperfect view of the
case. The willingness to receive _a commissioner_, went on the
assumption, that we were in the wrong in the question of
annexation, notwithstanding the ground taken by Mr. Webster, as
Secretary of State, in his letter to Bocanega. Let us look at
the letter of Pena y Pena, of the 15th October, 1845:

“In answer, I have to say to you, that although the Mexican
nation is _deeply injured_ by the United States, through the
acts _committed by them in the department of Texas_, which
belongs to this nation, my government is disposed to receive the
commissioner _to settle the present dispute_, in a peaceful,
reasonable, and honorable manner, thus giving a new proof, that
even in the midst of its injuries, and of its firm decision to
_exact adequate reparation_ for them, it does not _repel_ with
_contumely_, the measure of reason and peace to which it is
uninvited by its adversary.”

It seems then that Mexico does not _repel with contumely_, the
commissioners sent to make _ample reparation_ for the wrong done
her in the department of Texas! The wrong done, _is to be taken
for granted_, not to be discussed; the _measure of reparation_
only, is to be debated. It is impossible to conceive of any
thing more humiliating and insulting, whether it proceed from
design or stupidity. A high minded nation could not brook such
arrogance for a moment, and this from a power which admitted
herself to be our debtor to the amount of millions which she is
unable to pay! It would have been much more in place, for our
minister to say, that the payment of that debt ought to precede
any demand for _reparation_, on account of the alleged injury
from annexation of Texas. I verily believe, that Mexico is the
only power in the world to whom we should permit such language.
At her instance, we had previously withdrawn our squadron from
her coast; and now, forsooth, she condescends to permit us to
ask her forgiveness, and make ample reparation for what she
pleases to consider the injuries done her in her department of
Texas.[9]

Footnote 9:

The battles afterwards fought, appear to have enlarged the
vision of our enemy. No objections in the subsequent attempts
at negotiation with Mr. Trist, were alleged against his too
ample powers. She was willing to yield California for a
consideration, and Texas, with the boundary of the Nuesees,
then mentioned for the first time; and provided, slavery was
not introduced in the ceded territories, and provided, also,
that _religious toleration_ were secured! No one, after this,
will deny, that the war has been productive of something to
compensate for its horrors.

------------------------------------------------------------------------