USA > Texas > The history of the republic of Texas, from the discovery of the country to the present time; and the cause of her separation from the republic of Mexico > Part 10
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37
"5th. For the act of violence committed on my person, and abuse to which I have been exposed, in compelling me to come again ashore, on the 4th inst., merely because 130 volunteers, under the command of General Thomas J. Green, recently landed off the beach at Velasco from New Orleans, had, with tumults and with threats, requested that my person should be placed at their disposal.
"Finally. I protest against the violence kept up towards me, by being placed in a narrow prison, surrounded by sentinels, and suffering privations which absolutely render life insupportable, or tend to hasten death ; and finally, for being uncertain in regard to my future fate, and that of the other prisoners, notwithstand- ing a solemn treaty."
To this protest the Texan president (Burnet) replied, stating that it was with profound mortifica- tion that he could not control popular excitement, which had constrained the government to deviate for a season from the terms of the treaty relative to his conveyance to Vera Cruz. And lastly, that the privations as alleged by Santa Anna, were those to which the government of Texas itself was exposed.
.
121
SANTA ANNA SENT TO WASHINGTON.
However, after much nasal vociferations on the part of the orators, it was agreed that Santa Anna should be sent to Washington, in the United States, in the custody of three commissioners, the Texans having previously exacted a solemn pledge from Santa Anna that he would use all his moral and political influence in bringing about the recognition of the independence of Texas by Mexico.
The Mexican government and general congress disavowed all the acts of Santa Anna while a pri- soner, in which situation he had no right to exercise the functions he assumed in the convention with Houston for the retreat of the Mexican army. And General Filisola, upon the well known princi- ple that a prisoner forfeits all command, was put upon his trial for having obeyed the injunctions of Santa Anna which accompanied that convention. Santa Anna, while commanding the troops, could not constitutionally act as president of the republic ; and upon receiving that command the vice-president took his place. Santa Anna's presidential attributes, therefore, remained in abeyance, and the Texans who exacted from him the above-mentioned pledge, ought to have been aware of its nullity.
CHAPTER IV.
The miraculous Success of the Texans-Friendly Disposition of Mexico towards her Colonists -- Enormous Indemnity de- manded by the Texans for supposed Wrongs-Trial by Jury- Mr. Secretary Forsyth's Correspondence with the Mexican . Ministers -- Capture of Mexican Vessels by the United States- Blockade of Mexico by the French-Defeat of the French by the Mexicans -- Mexican Statesmen-General Characteristics of the Mexican Nation-Mr. Kennedy's Picture of Texas in 1836 -Proposed Annexation of Texas to the United States-Anti- National Scheme-Admiral Baudin at Tampico and Galveston -Acts of the Mexican Congress relating to British Creditors - Boundaries and Maps of Texas-Convention between Eng- land and Texas -- Friendly Disposition of Mexico towards England-High Tariff the salvation of Mexico -- The Federal- ists defeated by Arista-The New Republic of Rio Grande- Canales at Austin and Galveston -- The Texans join in an at- tempt to revolutionize Mexico-Total failure of the Scheme --- Canales' Convention with Reyes.
THE miraculous success of the Texans seemed to embarrass them more than a complete defeat, being convinced, as every reader of these pages must be, that they had no just cause of rebellion. That they had suffered neither in person nor property, and yet they demanded the most enormous indemnity ever yet sought by any race of men; that they had, in short, no territorial rights to be violated, and yet they claimed the sovereignty of a territory
123
SENTIMENTS OF A MEXICAN MERCHANT.
nearly as large as that of the whole of France; and which has been recognised by foreign powers on the erroneous assumption that Texas was an inde- pendent republic de facto. In order to sustain these assertions, I will avail myself of information given to the British public, by a "Mexican mer- chant" of the highest respectability.
" From what I have endeavoured to show in the preceding pages,* the reader will perceive that no justification whatever of the rebellion of Texas can be sought for in the conduct of Mexico towards her colonists ; the Texans, or rather the American land speculators, were so clearly the aggressors, that were the Mexi- cans to reconquer the country and appropriate her own lands afresh, no nation could interfere, with any shadow of right, and much less would it become Lord Palmerston to interpose the mediating influence of her Majesty's government, unless upon the basis of 168,000,0007. of territory detached from Mexico, to be compensated for ; 168,000,000l. of territory gained by the American adventurers, most of them pennyless five years ago, to be accounted for ; and 33,750,000l. of lands mortgaged to British subjects by the Mexican government in 1837, in the full right of Mer sovereignty, to be secured.
" These are the important interests that require to be provided for in any treaty for the acknowledgment of Texan independence by Mexico. If the Texans expect that the Mexican congress will ever throw away land to the value of 168,000,000l. without an adequate compensation, they will find themselves greatly mis- taken ; and they will be still more mistaken if they think that Lord Palmerston, so justly renowned for his treaties, will nego- ciate upon so partial and unjust a basis, giving away 15,000,000
" The author I am quoting alludes to his work called " Texas and Mexico," by a Mexican merchant, published by Messrs. Smith and Elder.
1
124
ALLEGED GRIEVANCES OF THE TEXANS.
of acres of land belonging to his own countrymen, and who have a title to it vastly preferable to that of the Texans, inas- much as they have paid Mexico upwards of 10,000,000l. between principal and interest, as a consideration for 45,000,000 acres ; whereas the Texans, for the whole 224,000,000 acres, never paid one-thousandth part of the amount, even including the 30,000 dollar job."
Here, then, we find that the Texans, amounting in all to about 15,000 souls at the time they de- clared their independence, demand of Mexico by way of indemnity for the Mexican nation, or, as the Texans have it, Santa Anna's daring to change the system of government from federal to central, the exorbitant sum of 168,000,000/. : to justify this, is the declaration of the independence of " the good people of Texas,"# dated March 2, 1836, which was drawn up by their soi-disant representatives " in convention assembled," and accompanied by the following list of supposed grievances :-
" Ist. That the Mexican government had induced them to colonise Texas under the faith of a written constitution, by virtue of which they were to enjoy the same institutions they had been accustomed to in their own country ( United States) :+ but that the Mexican nation, having changed that federal constitution, (to central republican,) they had no other alternative but to abandon their homes, acquired with so much pain, or to submit to a military and religious despotism.
* Vide Appendix.
t As these institutions are state and federal, democratic repub- lican, I must again beg of the reader to bear in mind the conduct of the Texans during the reign of federalism.
125
ALLEGED GRIEVANCES OF THE TEXANS.
"2nd. That their interests had constantly suffered from a partial and jealous legislation, imposed upon them by a hostile majority, in a foreign language, and at a great distance from their homes.
" 3rd. That their republican constitution (which perpetuated slavery and denied the negro any religious rights, and which they, the Texans, had prepared for Texas as a separate state) had been rejected by the Mexicans.
"4th. That Austin had been imprisoned for the support he gave in Mexico to their application to congress to declare Texas 2 separate state.
" 5th. That trial by jury was denied to them.
" 6th. That the rights of man had been trampled on, and military despotism exalted to crush civil liberty.
" 7th. That they had not been allowed to exercise their religion.
" Sth. That government required that several of their fellow citizens should be delivered up, troops having been sent to arrest them, and take them away.
"9th. That their commerce has been exposed to violence and privations, foreigners having been authorized to take posses- sion of their ships and convey the property of their fellow citi- zens to distant ports, there to be confiscated."
Such were the inconsistent, and indeed false
1 grievances of the Texans, on which the following observations appeared in the London newspapers, and which I give on the manuscript authority of their author :
" Ist. That the colonists were admitted into Texas on the faith of the law of the 4th of January, 1823, enacted under the monarchical government of Iturbide, and not under the faith of a federal republican constitution.
.
126
OBSERVATIONS ON THE TEXAN GRIEVANCES.
"2nd. That the trial by jury was refused to them because Texas, not being a separate state during the federal constitution, but forming only part of the state of Coahuila, unless the legis- lature of this state adopted the trial by jury for the whole state. the Texans could not be favoured with it.
" 3rd. That the said law of January 4, 1823, and other pos- terior laws, established as a necessary condition that the colony should be Roman Catholics, simply because it was the universal religion of Mexico, and therefore, to avoid religious brawls, the Mexican government was justified in not allowing the public exercise of any other religion ; but, independent of this, the only thing prohibited to them was the erection of temples of public worship, otherwise they have never been molested on account of their religious tenets ; and moreover, in the year 1834, a law was passed by Congress for the protection of persons of all religious denominations.
" 4th. That the Texans required by the government to be given up were the promoters of the riots of 1835, and surely govern- ment had a right to seize them by force, as any other country would have done, if they were not delivered up.
"5th. That their commerce was never other than an uninter- rupted series of smuggling transactions, and the Mexican g- vernment did perfectly right in sending cruisers to put an end to such scandalous transactions. These are, no doubt, . these foreigners,' as the Texans call them, authorised to take the property of their fellow-citizens to distant ports, there to be confiscated."
The foregoing remarks, and the circumstances attending the colonization of Texas, already alluded to, will enable the reader duly to appreciate the justice of the complaints of the colonists. It is therefore easy to perceive that these complaints are but a miserable pretext to hide the real motive of the Texan insurrection. Indeed, the colonists would
1
127
ANGLO-AMERICAN DESIGNS.
never have thought of taking arms against Mexico had they not been urged to it by their countrymen, the North Americans of the southern states, whose ambition to possess that portion of the Mexican territory, which is much larger than any one of the states which compose their union, cannot be a mat- ter of doubt. " Let us excite the Texans to revolt- let us next aid them to declare their independence of Mexico-and lastly, let us prevail upon them loudly to proclaim their free will to be incorporated with the North American States." Such is, and such has been, the only object of the Anglo-Americans ; and now it remains to be seen what part will be taken by the government and people of the United States to secure these objects.
It is a well-known principle of the law of nations, that a government cannot allow subjects or citizens living under it, to perform acts of hostility against another nation with which it is at peace. All these acts are considered as acts of piracy, and punished as such. In spite of this, the American government suffered its citizens to indulge in all sorts of hostilities against Mexico. Public sub- scriptions were opened at New Orleans, and other towns, for the benefit of the Texans-the public papers announced, day after day, the sailing of ves- sels from the American ports, with arms, ammuni- tion, and men, to the assistance of the Texans. Nay, an expedition took place from New Orleans, in November, 1835, publicly prepared in that port,
-
128
OPERATIONS OF THE AMERICAN LAND FORCES.
which proceeded to Tampico, took possession of the fort at the bar, and attacked the town called Santa Anna de Tamaulipas. The invaders were repulsed with great loss, and the survivors obliged to seek safety in flight. This was not all. In July, 1835, the troops under the command of the American general, Gaines, entered the Mexican territory, and occupied the town of Nacogdoches, under pretext that it was necessary to keep in awe certain tribes of Indians, who were stated to have perpetrated two murders, and committed other acts of violence, at Navasola. This town is in Texas, twenty-nine miles west of Nacogdoches, and since the American go- vernment felt bound to protect the inhabitants of Navasola, it seems that it already considered Texas as a part of its territory.
While the American land forces were busy in occupying Mexican frontier towns, an American ship, assisted by a Texan steamer, captured the Mexican war schooner Correo on the 1st of Septem- ber, 1835, because, in fulfilment of her duty, she strove to check the contraband trade on the Mexi- can coast. The commander and officers were de- prived of their baggage and papers, sent with the vessel to New Orleans, there to be tried on a charge of piracy, and set at liberty before any sentence was passed on them, but without receiving satisfaction or indemnity, on the plea that their commission from the Mexican government was not sufficiently proved. After the loss of their papers, they ap-
129
MEXICAN ENVOY SENT TO WASHINGTON.
pealed to the Mexican consul to certify their legi- timacy. The consul lost no time in doing so; but it was of no avail.
The culpable toleration of the United States Go- vernment in regard to hostilities practised by Ameri- cans against Mexico-the occupation of her territory by General Gaines, and the capture of the Correo, were objects surely important enough for explanation and satisfaction. Accordingly an Envoy Extraordinary was sent to Washington about the month of Febru- ary, 1836, by the Mexican government, to expos- tulate on these matters; but, during the space of eight months, and in spite of the envoy's efforts, not a single word of satisfaction could be elicited from the American government. The most precise answer that could be got from Mr. Sec. Forsyth on the subject of the occupation of the Mexican terri- tory was, " that Government had not given instruc- tions to General Gaines to go as far as Nacogdoches, but had, on the other hand, recommended him not to go beyond the said town." 1
Under these circumstances the Mexican envoy considered his mission at an end, asked for his passport, and prepared to return to his country; but previous to leaving the United States he pub- lished his correspondence with the American go- vernment.
It is this publication which has given so much offence to Mr. Forsyth, and has formed the last of one of those interminable communications
130
AMERICAN DIPLOMACY.
from the American government to the congress, in which transatlantic diplomatists are ever wont to indulge. However, admitting that such publication, so long as the author remained in the country en- joying his diplomatic functions (although he had declared his mission at an end) be' contrary to diplomatic usage, yet this is but matter of form, and surely not enough, in the present age, about which to shed human blood.
It may be said, that if the nature of the cor- respondence published had been such as to reflect honour on his government, Mr. Forsyth would not have been so susceptible on the score of diplo- matic form. Had the Mexican envoy deferred his publication until after his arrival in his own coun- try, Mr. Forsyth would have been deprived of one of the grandest subjects of complaint against Mexico.
The case of the Mexican brig-of-war, Urrea, has not been properly explained by Mr. Forsyth. It is as follows. The Mexican cruisers captured on the coast of Texas several American ships laden with arms, ammunition, and other implements of war, which were destined for the insurgents of that province ; this among nations is called " war con- traband." These vessels were sent to Matamoros according to articles 18 and 20 of the treaty of 1831. The United States corvette, Natchez, retook one of these vessels on the 16th of April. 1837, whilst she was at anchor in the Brazos de
3
131
AMERICAN DIPLOMACY.
Santiago, and what is more, fought and captured, in spite of peace and friendship between both coun- tries, the Urrea, which was also at the same port. Now, although it may be true that the vessels were not comprised in the second part of the said article, (20th of the treaty,) as it was acknowledged by the Mexican government, is it to be tolerated, that the commanders of ships of war shall, of their own accord, commit hostilities in order to obtain satisfaction for infractions of the treaty which in their opinion may have taken place ? Are all the officers of the United States as much authorized as the government to make reprisals ?
Let the grievances alluded to in Mr. Forsyth's report against Mexico, nay, let the whole list of fifty-seven complaints be produced by his ex- cellency, and let them all be compared to one only that Mexico can bring against the United States. The world will pronounce its verdict, and this verdict is earnestly solicited, as it has been proved that the Texans had not the slightest cause to revolt against their adopted country-that they had merely been the abject instruments of American ambition- that the American government has seconded this ambition with all its might, though at the same time professing to maintain feelings of the tenderest love for Mexico -- that that government had no reasonable cause to declare war against the Mexi- cans-and finally, that its only object for bringing on a war was to remove obstacles which peace with
K 2
132
FRENCH BLOCKADE.
Mexico would have opposed to the annexation of Texas to the United States. " Texas," to use Mr. Forsyth's own expression, "must justly or un- justly, by hook or by crook, become part of our country, for we have been longing for it these fifty years." If Mr. Forsyth had written these words to congress, he would have been less diplomatic, but he would have been more sincere. However, Texas does not yet belong to the United States!
While this correspondence was pending between the United States and the republic of Mexico, the Jatter was making preparations to retrieve the sur- prise at San Jacinto, from which she was, however, diverted by the unjustifiable blockade of her shores by the French, from the 16th of April, 183S, to the 9th of March, 1839. The object of the blockade was to obtain from Mexico an indemnity of 600,000 dollars to make good the losses sustained by the French residents in Mexico during the war of in- dependence, which the Mexican government met by stating they were " a nation always agitated by revolutions : as such suffered all the consequences of a state of revolution, popular tumults, robberies, plunderings, assassinations, unjust devices ;" and since they were obliged to suffer all these evils, " we consider that the foreigners who may be in our country must suffer like ourselves, without a chance of redress or compensation :" and further, " that all foreigners who have arrived in Mexico since the war of independence well knew that the
-
133
CONFERENCE AT JALAPA.
country was in a disturbed state; wherefore all such foreigners have their eyes open, and of their own accord and free will chosen to come into the coun- try and take the consequences of such a disturbed state of affairs, consequently they have only them- selves to blame, and have no right whatever to complain on account of their sufferings :" and " that the Mexican government therefore did not conceive itself bound to indemnify the French residents in Mexico for the losses and miseries they sustained in consequence of the revolutionary disturbances which in past years have occurred, and that if it was obliga- tory on the government to indemnify foreigners for all the exactions and expenses they have endured, all the treasures of the republic would not suffice."
Thus commenced the notable conference at Jalapa between the Mexican minister and Admiral Baudin, plenipotentiary of France, which led to a long correspondence, that has been translated and priblished in England. The following is a copy of the final answer of the Mexican Minister for Foreign Affairs to Admiral Baudin's demands, dated Jalapa, 26th November, 1838 :-
" The undersigned has the honour to transmit to his Excellency the plenipotentiary of France, the reply, as promised in his note of the 20th instant, delivered a few hours before his Excel- leney Jeft this city for the anchorage of Sacrificios.
" With very painful feelings, the undersigned has read the dispatch of M. Baudin, dated the 21st, wherein, after apprizing
134
MEXICAN REPLY TO FRANCE.
him that he would await for an answer until the 27th instant, states that if the convention then sent should not be fully and completely satisfactory to France, which would not be the case unless it was drawn up in the very terms dictated by his Excel- lency, hostilities would begin immediately. This announce- ment has served to confirm the opinion previously entertained by the undersigned, that M. Baudin's manner of carrying out the mission entrusted to his charge, was rather different from the character ostensibly given to it. The full powers wherewith his Majesty has been pleased to accredit his Excellency as plenipo- tentiary to the government of the republic, breathe nothing but the most friendly sentiments of peace and good-will ; this was what chiefly induced the undersigned not to throw any obstacle in the way of this negotiation, to make a journey to this city to confer with M. Baudin in the formal and regular manner cus- tomary in similar transactions. Bearing the credentials of the King of the French, and coming in the character of a pacific diplo- matist, as the plenipotentiary of his Majesty, the undersigned was nothing less than astonished at hearing his Excellency de- clare that he only consented to leave his squadron out of deference to the Mexican government. As little can he comprehend how the rear-admiral can have supposed such an important negotiation could be concluded in three days, much less that it could be carried on with his Excellency at Sacrificios, when presenting himself in a character very different from that in which the government of his Majesty had announced him to that of the republic.
"Nevertheless, the undersigned will not contradict his own feelings, nor the conduet which he has hitherto observed through- out the discussion of this serious question, which now appears likely soon to be decided ; remembering also the considerations due to humanity and civilization, the undersigned desires not to dwell upon the points of form and etiquette connected with the conferences and correspondence held with M. Baudin, and there- fore proceeds at once to present to his Excellency, in the accom-
135
MEXICAN REPLY TO FRANCE.
panying plan, the final conditions which the Mexican govern- ment considers reconcileable with the interests and honour of both countries.
" His Excellency will easily perceive that it is substantially the same with the plan previously proposed, although with some variations and modifications, not unfrequent in the arrangement of this description of treaties. Before proving to his Excellency that in the accompanying plan every reasonable concession is made compatible with the honour of the republic, and that his Majesty ought not to insist upon more, he proposes to state briefly that the last plan presented by his Excellency is in some of its articles irrelevant to the questions in dispute, and nothing respectful to the Mexican government.
" It is stipulated by the 1st article that until a definitive treaty shall have settled the political and commercial relations between the two countries, they shall be regulated by the declarations of 1827, (forgetting that these declarations were never ratified by the Mexican government, and refused by the congress,) particu- larly as refers to the 7th, 9th, and 11th articles. The under- signed considers it would be wholly out of place here to discuss the conditions contained in these declarations, but he cannot avoid claiming the attention of his Excellency to the inconve- nience of taking these declarations as the basis whereon to con- struet a treaty, they themselves having been solemnly disapproved by the highest authorities of the republic. On the other hand, the undersigned considers that by the ninth article of the accom- panying convention -similar guarantees to those contained in the declarations are secured to the French residents, and in a manner much more suited to this transaction.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.