4. TEXAS. $ 103. By the treaty signed at Washington, Feb. 22, 1819, by Mr. John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State, on the part of the Treaty of 1819. United States, and Señor Don Luis de Onis, Spanish minister, on the part of His Catholic Majesty, the territory called Texas, lying between the Rio Grande del Norte, or Rio Bravo, and the river Sabine, a territory long in dispute between France and Spain, and after 1803 between Spain and the United States, was acknowledged to belong to Spain. Subsequently, on the independence of Mexico, it became a part of that country." "It is now well known that Mr. Adams maintained that the Rio Grande was the true southwestern boundary of the United States, and that he was overruled by a majority of the Cabinet, who concurred with Mr. Crawford in holding that Florida was so essential to the Southeastern States that the movement to obtain it should not be clogged by debatable demands for territory to the southwest. But even then there were statesmen, among whom was Mr. Clay, who, with the interests of the Mississippi Valley at heart, held that Texas was not only far more valuable and important to the United States than Florida, but that Texas already rightfully belonged to the United States. Whether General Jackson, who was appealed to by Mr. Adams for support on this issue, agreed with Mr. Adams as to making the Rio Grande the boundary, has been much disputed. Many years afterwards, when the annexation of Texas was opposed by Mr. Adams as an undue extension of slave territory, he produced his diary to show that General Jackson had advised its surrender by President Monroe. This was emphatically denied by General Jackson. The manuscript correspondence on file in the Department of State leads us to an intermediate position. General Jackson, when the Florida treaty was under consideration, approved of it as affording a settlement greatly to be preferred to a continuance of the border and Indian warfare which then existed on the Florida lines, or to a war with Spain which might be of indefinite duration and cost; and in view of what appeared to him the overwhelming importance of this issue he overlooked that of the southwestern boundary. There is nothing to show that the nature of our title to Texas, surrendered by the Florida treaty, was at that time brought to his notice. To President Monroe, however, the strength of this title was well known, and his voluminous unpublished correspondence shows with what conscientious and patient care it was considered by him. The ultimate annexation of Texas to the United States he seemed to consider as inevitable, and he declared over and aThat Texas was properly a part of Louisiana, see Adams, History of the United States, II. 7, 256, 294-300; III. 33-34, 40, 69, 80, 78, 139, 310. over again that he would not permit it to be held by any European power but Spain. But the Missouri question was then looming portentously before his anxious eyes. He saw a great party in the North which was opposed to any extension of slave territory; he himself was no enthusiastic defender of slavery. If Texas had then been won, it could only have been brought into productive occupancy by slavery, affording a new stimulus to a surreptitious slave trade. In the course of time the dominant race of the North would flow down into it and take possession of it and occupy it, but that time had not yet come. It was better not to press a claim now for a territory for which we were not quite ready, when the effect might be to impede our acquisition of a territory which we needed at once. It is remarkable that this view of the acquisition of Texas was not shared by Mr. Adams, in whose mind the dangers of the extension of slavery had not yet become such as to influence his political course. He not only urged the assertion of our title to Texas, necessarily then a slave State, but he assented to the Missouri compromise, which gave the Southwest to slavery. The issue, in fact, was fraught with consequences which Mr. Monroe was the only leading statesman of his day to foresee. Texas, which would have then made six States of the size of Pennsylvania, would have been brought into the Union, and with the population which would soon have poured into its fertile plains, might have rivaled the Northwest as a field for pioneer settlement. Whatever might have been the effect of this on the future, in the final struggle with slavery, there is no question that the introduction of such an element of contention at that time would have been to expose the work of maintenance of the Union, which Mr. Monroe considered to be his especial charge, to perils he was unwilling to encounter." Note of Mr. Wharton, Int. Law Dig., 1st ed., II. 284-285, §161a. Question of limits and annexation. In the instructions given to Mr. Poinsett, as United States minister to Mexico in 1825, it was suggested with reference. to the limits between the two countries, under Art. III. of the treaty between the United States and Spain of Feb. 22, 1819, that "if the line were so altered as to throw altogether on one side Red River and Arkansas, and their respective tributary streams, and the line on the Sabine were removed further west," the United States would as an equivalent for the proposed cession stipulate to restrain, as far as practicable, the wild Indians inhabiting the territory from committing hostilities and depredations. on the Mexican territories and people." @ Mr. Clay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Poinsett, March 26, 1825, H. Ex. Doc. 42, 25 Cong. 1 sess.; Br. and For. State Papers, XXVI. 830. In 1829 Mr. Poinsett was directed to open negotiations for the purchase of "all that part of the province of Texas which lies east of a line beginning at the Gulf of Mexico, in the centre of the desert, or Grand Prairie, which lies west of the Rio Nueces, and is represented to be nearly two hundred miles in width, and to extend north to the mountains, the proposed line following the course of the centre of that desert or prairie north to the mountains, dividing the waters of the Rio Grande del Norte from those that run eastward to the Gulf; and until it strikes our present boundary at 42° north latitude." Various substitutionary lines were suggested with a view to meet any objections on the part of Mexico. The boundary then assumed by Mexico was "deemed objectionable, as well on the ground of its alleged uncertainty as for reasons of a different character," among which were the difficulties to which it gave rise in the repression of smugglers and outlaws, and the prevention of Indian depredations." In 1835 Colonel Anthony Butler, who bore to Mr. Poinsett the instructions of 1829, and who, later in the same year, succeeded Mr. Poinsett as the diplomatic representative of the United States in Mexico, was directed to offer half a million dollars for the bay of San Francisco and certain adjacent territory, the port of San Francisco being considered especially desirable as a place of resort for the numerous American whaling vessels operating in the Pacific. Mr. Butler was also to continue his efforts to obtain the cession of Texas. The independence of Texas was declared by a convention of delegates of the people on March 2, 1836. In the following year the Government of the United States repelled an overture of annexation.d Texan independ ence. "The Government of the United States sees with pain a prospect of the immediate resumption of active military operations between Texas and the Mexican Republic. While it claims no right to interfere in the controversy between those countries, it can not, under existing circumstances, be indifferent to a renewal of hostilities between them. Nearly seven years have now elapsed since Texas has maintained its independence, unmolested by invading troops. In that a Mr. Van Buren, Sec. of State, to Mr. Poinsett, Aug. 25, 1829, H. Ex. Doc. 42, 25 Cong. 1 sess.; Br. and For. State Papers, XXVI. 850. A treaty confirming the limits under the Spanish treaty was signed by Mr. Poinsett, Jan. 12, 1828 (Am. State Papers, For. Rel. VI. 946), but the ratifications were not exchanged till April 5, 1832. See, as to delays in its execution, Br. and For. State Papers, XXVI. 870–872, 880 et seq.; treaty between the United States and Mexico of April 3, 1835; and Int. Arbitrations, II. 1213, touching the incident of the Gorostiza pamphlet. Mr. Forsyth, Sec. of State, Aug. 6, 1835, MS. Inst. Mex.; H. Ex. Doc. 42, 25 Cong. 1 sess.; Br. and For. State Papers, XXVI. 887; Mr. Forsyth, Sec. of State, to Mr. Butler, Nov. 9, 1835, MS. Inst. Mex. S. Ex. Doc. 415, 24 Cong. 1 sess.; Br. and For. State Papers, XXIV. 1269. d H. Ex. Doc. 40, 25 Cong. 1 sess.; Br. and For. State Papers, XXV. 1404. time she has contracted treaties with other powers in both hemispheres and has been making progress in the arts of peace. Events have detached her from Mexico and existing circumstances can not fail to indicate to all intelligent observers that her ultimate reannexation is among the things most to be doubted. It is notorious that the language, the laws and the habits of the people of the two countries are dissimilar, that in these and in other respects differences exist so wide, as not to promise happiness to a union between the population of the two states. Texas was heretofore the remotest northeastern province of Mexico, its distance from the Mexican capital is very great, and the character and population of the intervening country are such that Mexico could hardly hope to exercise over Texas an efficient authority. Without Texas, Mexico would still be not only one of the largest sovereignties of the world, but would possess territory which, for its position and other great natural advantages, would be difficult to be surpassed. Her jurisdiction would still extend over a vast space, embracing even in the same latitude, in consequence of the different degrees of elevation belonging to its different parts, almost every climate and every production of the habited globe, while with ports on both oceans, she offers facilities of commerce to the whole world. On the other hand Texas is sufficiently large for a respectable community. Her limits are defined and peace, with an opportunity of improving her resources, are much more important to her than any chances of territorial acquisition. The Government of the United States feels a strong interest in the welfare of both countries. Both are our neighbors, they are among the newly organized governments, the regenerated systems of this hemisphere. For their own prosperity as well as for the convenience and advantage of neighboring States, they require repose, security, and vigorous application to the arts of peace. Under these circumstances the President directs that if you should receive from the Mexican Government any intimation of its desire for the interposition or mediation of this Government for the purpose of bringing about peace between Texas and Mexico, you wi state that such interposition or mediation will be cheerfully granted. So long, however, as either of those parties shall be resolved to remain at war with the other, and unless both of them shall request the mediation of the United States, the President would not be inclined to interfere. The opinion of this Government was expressed in a letter from Mr. Forsyth to Mr. Dunlap, late representative of Texas here, and in the letter of General Jackson to General Santa Anna, therein referred to, a copy of both of which is now transmitted. "Although policy and duty dictate this reserve on our part, it is not to be disguised that the immediate and permanent interests of the a It is "are" in the record, but this doubtless is a copyist's error for "is," unless, indeed, the word "with," in the preceding line, should be "and,” H. Doc. 551-29 line beginn Grand Prai to be nearly mountains, desert or p Rio Grande until it stril substitution. tions on the was "deem uncertainty were the dif glers and ou In 1835 ( instructions Mr. Poinsett Mexico, was Francisco an being consi numerous A! Butler was a Texan indepen ence. "The Gov of the imme Texas and the fere in the con ing circumst them. Nearl tained its in a Mr. Van Bu Cong. 1 sess.; B1 under the Span Papers, For. Rel 1832. See, as to 880 et seq.; treat Arbit |