One who thinks for himself, is very apt to think alone, or with a minority, especially in our free republic, where there is such proneness in opinion to run into party. The individual is restrained by party trammels from asserting his independence, and he must adopt all the articles of political, as well as religious creeds, or be expelled from the church. Although agreeing with the whigs generally, I could not agree with them in our late war with Mexico, that justice was on the side of that republic; still less could I approve of the constant condemnation of the war in which we were engaged. I applied the same principle to that war that I did to the late war with Great Britain, that is to say, that it becomes every citizen to sustain his country against the common enemy, both by word and deed.
The letters now collected and submitted to the public, were written in this spirit. The author has endeavored to treat with respect the opinions of those who differed from him. He does not think he can be justly censured by any one for attempting to prove by fair and honest reasoning, that his country was in the right, and the enemy in the wrong. He may be condemned by his party at the present day, but at a future day the judgment may be reversed. These letters may serve as materials for history. There will be no difficulty in finding the records of the arguments of the administration party, which promoted and defended the war; or of the opposition, which denounced it. But before making up a verdict, the voice of the small number dissenting from the latter ought also to be heard. It is with this view chiefly, that these letters are collected and preserved. There is, besides, usually a freshness in the commentaries on contemporary or passing events, which cannot be attained by historical compilation, however elegant and philosophic, while the former, may be but rude and unpolished.
The author, although desirous of the annexation of Texas, was fearful of the consequences of any acquisition of territory on our southern borders, for the single reason, that it might endanger the harmony of the Union. He foresaw great evils and dangers arising from the quasi independence of Texas, and from the certainty of the occupation of Upper California by Great Britain, in case it did not fall into our hands. Looking into the future, both of these points presented the probability of fearful collisions with that power. We had a Scylla and Charybdis before us; our bark could not strike upon both; but whether it will escape both, the Almighty, who has thus far favored us in a peculiar manner, can alone determine. As to Mexico, I have long been of opinion, that we could never have a peace on a lasting foundation, without a war. If that neighboring and jealous people had still remained united to the Spanish monarchy, it would have been the same thing. This event was but removed farther off, or postponed by the acquisition of Louisiana and the Mississippi, but soon or late, a collision was inevitable; and nothing else would determine the terms on which we should live in future, as neighbors. To other persons, all this may appear visionary and idle, the mere dreams of the closet. Be it so—let my opinions pass for what they are worth; they are, at least, those of a thinker, an observer, and an actor on the scene.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the Editor of the Commercial Journal:
We continually meet with the phrases in newspapers, English and American, and especially in Mexican documents, “the robbery and plunder of Mexico, of her province of Texas,” and of the “ingratitude of the people of Texas.” These expressions, from frequent use, have come to have some meaning attached to them with those who are not acquainted with the true history of the case. Now what is Mexico, and what particular right had she ever to Texas? She was once a vice-royalty of Spain, composed of various Intendencies, or local and subordinate Governments. These Intendencies, taking advantage of the troubles of old Spain, set up for themselves, and endeavored to throw off the Spanish dominion, practising the same thing that Texas has done as respects Mexico; and if Texas has been ungrateful to Mexico, for the same reason Mexico has been ungrateful to Spain. But the struggle for independence was carried on by them separately, and independently of each other; not united like the British Colonies in the Revolutionary War. It may be new to some to be told that Texas not only achieved her own independence without the aid of any Mexican Province or Intendency, but was actually the means, through the Americans then inhabiting the country, with the aid of citizens of the United States, of enabling the other Mexican Provinces to gain their independence. Before I am done this will be demonstrated. Mexico owes a debt to the American people of Texas and of the United States, for her independence, if it be worth anything, and, consequently, the ingratitude is on her side. But her efforts were finally successful through the treachery of Iturbide. He was a traitor to Spain, in whose employment he was, and by one of those military revolts, since of daily recurrence in the mis-named Republic of Mexico, overturned the Spanish authority, and proclaimed himself Emperor! The empire was soon after overturned by something approaching nearer to a popular revolution in the Intendencies or Provinces. An attempt at something like a Republic, followed the downfall of the Emperor. States were formed out of the Intendencies, and a confederated Republic, in imitation of the United States, was established in form, but in form only. Texas, with parts of two other Intendencies, was constituted one of these States. The confederated Republic was not long lived. It fell to pieces or was overturned by the military chiefs, and then each State, was again compelled to look out for itself. Some submitted, some were subdued by this military power, the only real power; and others still retain their preference for the federative system, although compelled to submit to the central authority. The only one which did not submit to the overthrow of the Constitution by a military usurper, was ungrateful Texas.
Santa Anna, after having expelled Iturbide, next overturned the federative system, restored the central power of the city of Mexico, and at the same time grasped the substance of absolute power, prudently avoiding the name of Emperor. Troops were sent to Texas, and these ungrateful people were generously called upon, to give up their religion and surrender their rifles! The consequence was, that Coss and his fourteen hundred men were driven over the Rio Grande. People talk of the Texans having no cause of war, now I ask any one, who has a drop of American blood in his veins, to say, what he would think of an order by a military despot, to the people of Alleghany county for instance, to give up their religion and their arms? But then did not Mexico make grants of land to these ungrateful American settlers, and did not that entitle her to call upon those settlers to comply with her moderate requests?[1] It is true, Mexico did make grants of land in Texas; yes, of land which did not belong to her, for they were won from Spain by the Texan Americans themselves, who constituted nine tenths of the people of that part of the country. And what was the next movement on the part of Mexico? These grants were made during the federative system—Americans were invited on account of their valuable assistance in contending against the Spanish monarchy, and guarding the frontier against hostile Indians—but when they were no longer needed, when the lands improved by them, tempted the cupidity of the military despots, and when their sturdy habits of independence and love of liberty stood in the way of the despotic schemes of the military aspirants and plunderers of Mexico, the next thing was to expel, or exterminate, the ungrateful and hated North Americans. Santa Anna marched at the head of ten thousand men for this holy purpose. We may judge of the humane and civilized spirit of these barbarians, (for whom so much sympathy is ignorantly felt by some of our fellow citizens,) by the murder of Fanning and four hundred American Texans in cold blood, after a surrender as prisoners of war! This more than diabolical atrocity, is scarcely equalled by the murder of the Huguenots by the fanatical ruffian, Pedro Menendez.
Footnote 1:
Terms of reproach like these have been applied to the Texans, even from the pulpit, by learned divines, who are better theologians, than jurists or statesmen. As moral men, they ought to beware how they cast reproach on their neighbors, without being sure of their facts; and even then, tempered by charity. If the allusion is to the grants of land made by Mexico, those grants were made from the most interested motives. Texas contained but two small towns, San Antonio and Nacogdoches; all the rest was a wilderness, wandered over by the Camanches and Lipans, and other hostile Indians, with the exception of the few American settlements formed by hardy American pioneers, and maintained by the rifle, at the constant risk of life. The object of the Mexican Government was to cover their frontier from Indian depredations by placing an advanced guard of our countrymen between them and their savage enemies. The lands of Texas were worse than useless and worthless to Mexico, because they merely served as the place of refuge for her savage enemies; she, in fact, gave nothing that was of any value to her; on the contrary, the grants were intended for her own advantage and security. But for these settlements, her whole frontier would have been laid waste; and many a bloody battle was fought, and many a Texan life was lost in the border war of which the Mexican Provinces reaped the benefit. But for the Texans, it is difficult to say, what would have been the condition of the internal provinces at this day. After expending millions in money and labor—after opening farms, building towns, and rearing vast herds of cattle, the Mexicans begin to discover its value, and conceived the idea of placing their peon slaves on the improved lands, which were to be parcelled out among military chiefs. Besides, the sturdy republican predilections of the Americans settled in Texas, and their intelligence, were annoying to the leaders of the military despotism of Mexico. It was conceived, that the purpose for which they were invited to take possession of the dangerous post of frontier settlers, was now accomplished, and that their further services could be dispensed with; and, at the same time, gratify the cupidity of their military chieftains. It was they who were frustrated in the attempt to steal the Texan lands, while the Texans did nothing more than defend their own—that which they had created, and which had never been the property of Mexico.
I am disgusted when I hear persons talk of the injured Mexicans, when such butcheries as these are passed in almost approving silence. But Santa Anna met, not indeed with the fate he deserved, but such an overthrow, as every true lover of liberty and political justice ought to desire. His forces were driven across the Rio Grande; Texas declared her independence; she successfully maintained it, and proclaimed the Rio Grande as her boundary, and has devolved that claim upon us. Upon this mere outline of facts, I appeal to every just and unprejudiced, unbigoted man, to say, how has Texas been ungrateful to Mexico, and how have we, or Texas, been guilty of robbing Mexico of an independent State, which has fairly united her fate with ours? Mr. Webster says, Mexico is “the most ill-governed country on earth;” and I will add, that her Government is the most faithless, unprincipled, and cruel. For the honor of humanity, there are noble exceptions, doubtless, among the people and her public officers, nevertheless, such, with too much truth, is the general character of both.