Page images
PDF
EPUB

reception of Senhor Rebello as chargé d'affaires to the United States May 26, 1824.

Sen. Doc. 40, 54 Cong. 2 sess. 4; MS. Notes to For. Leg. III. 173; Adams
Memoirs, VI. 354, 355.

"The United States first acknowledged the independence of Brazil. The
political form of that Government occasioned no hesitation in its recogni-
tion by ours." (Mr. Forsyth, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hunter, Nov. 29, 1836.
MS. Inst. to Brazil, XV. 34, 38.)

Central American

States.

"The Federation of Central American States was recognized by the President's reception of Mr. Canaz as envoy extraor dinary and minister plenipotentiary August 4, 1824. Prior to that date two commissioners, diplomatic in character, had visited Washington, but the records of the Department [of State] do not disclose any act of the Government of the United States involving recognition or the intention to recognize. (See Notes to Legations, MSS., vol. 3, p. 184.)

"This Federation consists of the States of Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Salvador."

Report of Mr. Allen, Chief of Bureau of Rolls and Library, Jan. 1, 1897, Sen.
Doc. 40, 54 Cong. 2 sess. 5.

In this report the time and manner of the formal recognition by the United
States of the various members of the Federation as separate States are
given as follows:

Guatemala, April 5, 1844, by the issuance of an exequatur to a Guatemalan consul-general.

Salvador, May 1, 1849, by the issuance of a full power and letter of credence to Mr. E. George Squier, of New York, chargé d'affaires to Guatemala, to negotiate a treaty with Salvador.

Nicaragua, Dec. 24, 1849, by the President's reception of Mr. Eduardo Comachc as Nicaraguan chargé d'affaires.

Costa Rica, March 24, 1851, by the President's reception of Mr. Felipe Molina as Costa Rican charge d'affaires.

Honduras, April 18, 1853, by the dispatch of Mr. Solon Borland as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Salvador.

The independence of Peru was recognized by the United States by the appointment of Mr. James Cooley, of Pennsylvania, as chargé d'affaires, May 2, 1826.

Peru.

Sen. Doc. 40, 54 Cong. 2 sess. 13.

The Peru-Bolivian Confederation was recognized June 9, 1838, by the appoint. ment of Mr. J. C. Pickett, of Kentucky, as chargé d'affaires.

Bolivia was recognized as a separate State May 30, 1848, by the appointment of Mr. John Appleton, of Maine, as chargé d'affaires.

"The independence of Buenos Ayres, Colombia, and Mexico was recognized by England early in 1825. The recognition British recognition of Chile was postponed because of the instability of its internal condition. Both the British Government and the opposition were at one on the question of principle.

-Buenos Ayres,

Colombia, Mexico.

The words of Lord Liverpool may be quoted to show the views of Mr. Canning, of Lord Lansdowne, and of Sir James Mackintosh, as well as of himself. He had no difficulty,' he said, in declaring what had been his conviction during the years that the struggle had been going on between Spain and the South American provinces-that there was no right while the contest was actually going on. The ques

*

*

tion ought to be-was the contest going on? He, for one, could not reconcile it to his mind to take any such step so long as the struggle in arms continued undecided. And while he made that declaration he meant that it should be a bona fide contest?'

“Assuming that the recognition of the Spanish-American Republics by the United States and England may be taken as a typical example of recognition given upon unimpeachable grounds, and bearing in mind the principle that recognition can not be withheld when it has been earned, it may be said generally that

"1. Definitive independence can not be held to be established, and recognition is consequently not legitimate, so long as a substantial struggle is being maintained by the formerly sovereign state for the recovery of its authority; and that

"2. A mere pretension on the part of the formerly sovereign state, or a struggle so inadequate as to offer no reasonable ground for supposing that success may ultimately be obtained, is not enough to keep alive the rights of the state, and so to prevent foreign countries from falling under an obligation to recognize as a state the community claiming to have become one."

Hall, Int. Law, 4th ed. 90-93.

Good offices, Amer

"In considering that war (between Spain and her colonies), as in considering all others, we should look back upon the ican and Euro- past, deliberately survey its present condition, and pean, with Spain. endeavor, if possible, to catch a view of what is to come. With respect to the first branch of the subject, it is, perhaps, of the least practical importance. No statesman can have contemplated the colonial relations of Europe and continental America without foreseeing that the time must come when they would cease. That time might have been retarded or accelerated, but come it must in the great march of human events. An attempt of the British Parliament to tax without their consent the former British colonies, now these United States, produced the war of our Revolution, and led to the establishment of that independence and freedom which we now so justly prize. Moderation and forbearance on the part of Great Britain might have postponed, but could not have prevented, our ultimate separation. The attempt of Bonaparte to subvert the ancient dynasty of Spain, and to place on its throne a member of his own family, no doubt hastened the independence of the Spanish colonies. If he had not been urged by his ambition to the conquest of the pen

insula, those colonies, for a long time to come, might have continued quietly to submit to the parental sway. But they must have inevitably thrown it off, sooner or later. We may imagine that a vast continent, uninhabited or thinly peopled by a savage and untutored race, may be governed by a remote country, blessed with the lights and possessed of the power of civilization, but it is absurd to suppose that this same continent, in extent twenty times greater than that of the parent country, and doubling it in a population equally civilized, should not be able, when it chooses to make the effort, to cast off the distant authority. When the epoch of separation between a parent state and its colony, from whatever cause, arrives, the struggle for self-government on the one hand, and for the preservation of power on the other, produces mutual exasperation and leads to a most embittered and ferocious war. It is then that it becomes the duty of third powers to interpose their humane offices, and calm the passions and enlighten the counsels of the parties. And the necessity of their efforts is greatest with the parent country, whose pride and whose wealth and power, swelled by the colonial contributions, create the most repugnance to an acquiescence in a severance which has been ordained by Providence.”

Mr. Clay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Middleton, minister to Russia, May 10, 1825,
MS. Inst. to U.S. Ministers, X. 331-2; Br. and For. State Papers (1825-1826),
XIII. 403.

See also Message of President J. Q. Adams, Feb. 1, 1826, Am. State Papers,
V. 794, relative to the intervention of foreign governments to induce Spain
to acknowledge the independence of the American governments. This
document comprises (1) an instruction of Mr. Clay to Mr. A. H. Everett,
April 27, 1825, to urge recognition upon Spain; (2) a report, Sept. 25, 1825,
of a conversation on the subject between Mr. Everett and Mr. Zea, the
Spanish Minister of State; (3) a report, Oct. 20, 1825, of another conver-
sation, in which Mr. Zea inquired as to the communications made by the
United States to Russia, commented on the British and other offers of
mediation, and declared the resolution of the King to reject all offers that
contemplated the acknowledgment of independence.

In conformity with the views expressed by Mr. Clay in the foregoing extract, the United States sought, by direct representations, as well as by the counsels which it solicited friendly European governments to tender, to induce Spain to recognize the independence of Mexico and of the Central and South American governments. The reasons for this step were elaborately presented in a note addressed by Mr. Alexander H. Everett, then United States minister at Madrid, to the Duke del Infantado, principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, January 20, 1826. In the course of this note Mr. Everett, referring to the great change in the situation of the Spanish-American governments as indicated by the Panama Congress, said: "This change in their position is evidently one of vast consequence. It calls imperiously upon the Spanish Government to consider well the system

upon which it is now proceeding, and to examine anew the whole subject of its relations with these states. It has also been thought, by the Government of the United States, that the occurrence of this remarkable event furnishes an occasion upon which the neutral and friendly powers might, with propriety, renew their good offices in attempts to bring about a reconciliation between the parties to the war. They have been induced by this motive to communicate their opinions and their wishes to His Majesty's ministers in a more formal manner at this time than they have hitherto employed, and to invite the leading powers of Europe to concur with them, as far as they might think it expedient, in the same great and benevolent purpose. France and Portugal have lately led the way in a course of proceeding similar to that which is now recommended to His Catholic Majesty. It only remains for the King to give one signal proof of magnanimity and wisdom in order to complete the pacification of the whole American continent." a

In 1830 Mr. Van Ness, when sent as minister to Spain, was enjoined to pursue the course which had been pointed out to several of his predecessors, by availing himself of "every fit opportunity," so far as it might be done without exciting jealousy and irritation, to impress upon the Spanish Government the expediency of recognizing the independence of Spain's former American colonies. Mr. Van Ness is also advised that the diplomatic representative of Mexico in Washington had just stated in an official communication that the British Government had informed that of Mexico that it had taken measures to induce the Spanish Government by friendly advice and remonstrance to consent to the recognition of the independence of the South American States." In the autumn of 1834 Mr. Van Ness had the satisfaction of informing his Government that, as the result of its good Consent of Spain to offices, Spain was ready to enter into negotiations with Negotiate; Atti the Spanish-American states with a view to recognize their independence. A copy of the note of Mr. Martinez de la Rosa, principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, of September 12, 1834, in which this decision was expressed, was communicated by the Department of State to each of the representatives of those states in Washington, with the statement that Mr. Van Ness would be instructed to afford to the commissioners, to whom the negotiations might be entrusted, such good offices with the Spanish Government as might be desirable. Mr. Van Ness was instructed accordingly. He was also directed to guard against any effort on the part of Spain "to obtain, in consideration of her acknowledgment of

tude of United States.

a Am. St. Pap., For. Rel., VI. 1007. See also Br. and For. State Papers (1828-1829), XVI. 856; Adams' Memoirs, V. 488-491; Phillimore, Int. Law, 3d ed., II. 545.

Mr. Van Buren, Sec. of State, to Mr. Van Ness, No. 19, Oct. 13, 1830, MS. Inst. to U. S. Ministers, XIII. 184.

the independence of her former colonies, some peculiar advantages in trade, or some extraordinary privileges for her citizens, to the prejudice of other friendly nations." Such an arrangement, it was declared, "would be peculiarly prejudicial to the interests of this country, and would form a just ground of complaint against those whom the Government of the United States was the first to recognize in their independent character, and for whose prosperity it has never ceased to manifest the most friendly and anxious concern."

Mr. Forsyth, Sec. of State, to Mr. Van Ness, No. 69, Nov. 18, 1834, MS. Inst.
Spain, XIV. 52; Mr. Forsyth, Sec. of State, to Señor Don J. M. de Castillo
y Lanzar, Mexican chargé d'affaires, Nov. 10, 1834, MS. notes to Mex.
Leg. VI. 3; same to same, Aug. 21, 1834, Id. VI. 1.

10. TEXAS.

§ 37.

"The right of one independent power to recognize the fact of the existence of a new power about to assume a position Report of Mr. Clay. among the nations of the earth is incontestable. It is founded upon another right, that which appertains to every sovereignty, to take care of its own interests by establishing and cultivating such commercial or other relations with the new power as may be deemed expedient. Its exercise gives no just ground of umbrage or cause of war. The policy which has hitherto guided the Government of the United States in respect to new powers has been to act on the fact of their existence, without regard to their origin, whether that has been by the subversion of a pre-existing Government or by the violent or voluntary separation of one from another part of a common nation. In cases where an old and established nation has thought proper to change the form of its Government, the United States, conforming to the rule which has ever governed their conduct, of strictly abstaining from all interference with the domestic concerns of other states, have not stopped to inquire whether the new Government has been rightfully adopted or not. It has been sufficient for them that it is, in fact, the Government of the country, in practical operation. There is, however, a marked difference in the instances of an old nation which has altered the form of its Government and a newly organized power which has just sprung into existence. In the former case (such, for example, as was that of France) the nation had existed for ages as a separate and independent community. It is a matter of history, and the recognition of its new Governments was not necessary to denote the existence of the nation; but with respect to new powers the recognition of their Governments comprehends, first, an acknowledgment of their ability to exist as independent states, and secondly, the capacity of their particular Governments

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »