Volume 2 — NOTES (continued 3)

Perry’s force, consisting of the steamers Mississippi, Spitfire (a vessel—similar to the Vixen—which had joined the squadron in November), Vixen and Scourge, the schooner-gunboats Reefer, Petrel and Bonita, the frigate Raritan (carrying 180 officers and men from the Potomac besides her own complement), the sloops Albany, John Adams, Decatur and Germantown, the bomb-vessels Vesuvius, Ætna and Hecla, and 300 officers and men from the ship-of-the-line Ohio, which stopped at Vera Cruz, on her way to the Pacific, to assist Scott, who were distributed on the Mississippi and smaller vessels, gathered first at Lobos Ids., where the forces were drilled about a day for the attack. Next, after having been separated by a norther, they met off the bar. The Mexicans were driven a short distance from the town, but further pursuit into the chaparral would have been vain. An expedition went some distance up the river from Tuxpán (Semmes, Service, 154). The city government had not wished Cos to defend the town, and hence he withdrew all his troops from town before the attack. Most of his troops soon scattered. The city would not help support them, but furnished the Americans with supplies cheerfully. At Perry’s request steps were taken to maintain order. He now left the Albany and Reefer off the river, and sent the Hecla to blockade Soto la Marina, the Germantown to search the coast north of Lobos Ids., the Ætna to occupy Tabasco River, the Porpoise and the Vesuvius to hold Laguna. Besides the flotilla mentioned above he probably had under his command at this time the gunboats Falcon and Tampico (vol. ii, p. 338; Ho. 1; 30, 2, p. 1182). For the loss of the Truxtun in Aug., 1846, which led to a great deal of discussion regarding the conduct of Carpender, her captain, see 162Conner, Aug. 24; 47Id.., Aug 24; 47Carpender to Conner, Aug. 24; Mason to Polk, Oct. 28, 1846; Semmes, Service, 82; N. Orl. Commerc. Bulletin, Sept. 8; Parker, Recolls., 78; Docs. in Conner papers; comte. gen. V. Cruz, Aug. 23 and docs.; Taylor, Broad Pennant, 260; Wash. Union, Sept. 12, 22; Nat. Intelligencer, Sept. 14.

An indefinite number of citations bearing upon the situation in Yucatan could be given, but the following are deemed sufficient. Bankhead, no. 11, 1846. Journal des Débats, Sept. 13, 1842. Constitutionnel, Nov. 2–3, 1846. Polk, Diary, Aug. 29, 1845; Feb. 27, 1847. Sen. 43; 30, 1. 49Bancroft to Conner, May 19, 1846. 49Mason to Id.., Oct. 16, 1846; Feb. 25, 1847; to Perry, Mar. 17, 1847. Semmes, Service, 84. 335Tinsley to Trist, Aug. 6, 1846. 335Robira to Id.., June 7, 1847. Sen. 40, 42, 43, 45, 49; 30, 1. Gaceta de Ciudad Victoria, Jan. 27, 1846. Picayune, Oct. 8, 1846; Jan. 12, 1847. México á través, iv, 599. Sen. 1; 29, 2, p. 382. Suárez y Navarro, Causas, 6–9. Richardson, Messages, iv, 581–3. Memoria de ... Relaciones, Dec, 1846. 76Barbachano, procl., July 2, 1846. Temístocles, Dec. 27, 1846. 13Pakenham, no. 33, 1847. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 256–7 (Walker). Wash. Union, Jan. 18, 1847. 366Declar. of Mérida. 166Perry to Conner, Dec. 27, 1846. 166Conner to Sands, Feb. 8, 1847. 166McFaul to ——, Nov. 12, 1847. Buchanan, Works, vii, 222. Ho. 1; 30, 2, pp. 1175–6 (Conner), 1204 (Perry). 165Gen. orders, Dec. 15, 1846. (May cruise) 47Perry, Dec. 27, 1846; Sept. 21, 1847. 47Conner, Dec. 29. May 15 Laguna port was opened to commerce; May 18 Frontera.

On the way to S. J. Bautista Perry had six men wounded. Many fell from exhaustion. June 30 on an expedition to Tamulté, about three miles out, three were killed and eight wounded. The Mexican leaders were Bvt. Gen. Domingo Echagaray and three Maldonado brothers.

Aug. 16, 1847, the squadron was disposed as follows: (Raritan and Albany had gone home); Mississippi, Pensacola; sloop Germantown, Antón Lizardo, preparing to distribute supplies; sloop Decatur, blockading Tuxpán; sloop Saratoga, V. Cruz, maintaining connection with the army and watching the police; sloop John Adams, expected from Tuxpán probably to join bomb-vessel Stromboli in Goatzacoalcos River; gunboats Reefer and Petrel at Tampico; gunboat Falcon at Alvarado; steamer Scourge, bomb-vessel Ætna, gunboat Bonita at Frontera; bomb-vessel Vesuvius, gunboat Mahonese at Laguna; steamers Vixen and Scorpion in reserve; steamers Spitfire and Petrita laid up with injured engines; bomb-vessel Hecla ashore on Alvarado bar. Aug. 18, 1847, Perry ordered that all merchant vessels should be visited on their arrival in port to detect irregularities (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 788).

Stockton intended to cruise for the protection of our whalers, etc., and also to invade Mexico by way of Acapulco (vol. i, p. 338); but affairs in California prevented. The Malek Adel was bravely cut out at Mazatlán, Sept. 7, 1846, under the Mexican guns. Guaymas was cannonaded because the Mexicans refused to give up two gunboats, preferring to burn them. As there were two harbors at Mazatlán, a single vessel could not blockade the port satisfactorily. In the spring of 1847 Shubrick was ordered to blockade both Mazatlán and Guaymas, but for this reason he kept both the Independence and the Cyane at Mazatlán. In Feb. and March, 1847, there might have been serious trouble between the British commander, Sir Baldwin Walker, and Captain Montgomery of the Portsmouth owing to conflicting orders and interests; but the former, having far the stronger force, knew he could afford to be considerate, and the latter treated British commerce so well that our government was thanked by England (13to Crampton, June 30, 1847; Sherman, Sloat, xxiv; and note particularly Journ. Milit. Serv. Institute, xxxii, 249–53). Shubrick was at Mazatlán in May, 1847, but left at the beginning of June. The Cyane remained a little longer. She and the Portsmouth anchored there, at the end of June, but both sailed away within two days. Biddle was ordered Jan. 6, 1846, to take command of the squadron, but did not receive the orders until Dec. 31 (at Lima). Mar. 2 he took command. His vessels then were the Columbus (74 guns) on which he arrived, Independence (razee, 54), frigates Congress (44) and Savannah (44), sloops Portsmouth (20), Levant (20), Cyane (20), Warren (20), Dale (16) and Preble (16), storeships Erie (8), Lexington (8) and Southampton (6), and the captured Malek Adel (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 948; 48Bancroft to Shubrick, Aug. 21, 1846). The Savannah and Levant went home; and the Warren, on account of its condition, was assigned to guard duty (120Shubrick to Stockton, Mar. 1, 1847). The Ohio reached the squadron in the early part of 1848. Besides blockading, cruising for prizes, looking after the American whalers, and watching for possible privateers, long voyages were necessary to obtain provisions and instructions. The latter were usually very tardy and the commanders had to follow their own judgment in the main. Monterey, Calif., was in general the base of operations.

Guaymas, a place of considerable importance, was summoned Oct. 19. The Mexican troops and people decamped, and the cannon were removed. Hence the cannonade did little harm. A civil official reported the evacuation to Lavallette of the Congress, who was there with the Portsmouth (Montgomery). As Campusano, who was believed to have 600–800 troops and 6–8 guns, remained in the vicinity and cut off water and provisions, the town was abandoned by its foreign residents also. American marines landed, but soon reëmbarked. Nov. 17 a landing party was ambushed in the town, and the Dale, then occupying the harbor, took part in the firing. One American was wounded. The harbor of Mazatlán was open to the worst winds.

Dec. 13 Americans routed a Mexican advanced party about twenty miles from the city, inflicting some loss and suffering none (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1083–4; Ho. 1; 30, 2, p. 1121). The Mexican blockade was evaded easily by bribery.

(Fortifications) Ho. 1; 30, 2, p. 1120 (Halleck), 1131 (Shubrick); 76J. P. Anaya, Mar. 11, 1848. (Safe) Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1083 (Shubrick).

(S. Blas) Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1084 (Shubrick); comte. gen. of Jalisco, Jan. 11; Feb. 22, 1848; Ho. 1; 30, 2, pp. 1127 (Bailey), 1128 (Chatard). S. Blas was blockaded under a fresh notice issued Jan. 1, in consequence of the delay. (Manzanillo) Ho. 1; 30, 2, p. 1129 (Shubrick); princ. comte., Colima, Jan. 18; comte. gen. Jalisco, Feb. 1, 29. Altata was blockaded Feb. 13 by a hired schooner, the Triton (76comte. gen. Sinaloa, Feb. 21). (Expeditions) Ho. 1; 30, 2, pp. 1133–7, 1158–61; comte. gen. Jalisco, Feb. 1. Jan. 31 Shubrick reported that not one Mexican cannon was mounted on the coast except at Acapulco (Ho. 1; 30, 2, p. 1129). Early in Nov., 1847, T. A. C. Jones set out from the east to meet the Ohio at Valparaiso and succeed Shubrick.

Mason to Stockton, Jan. 11, 1847. S. José was occupied Mar. 30; S. Lucas Apr. 3; La Paz Apr. 13. In August two companies of N. Y. volunteers under Lt. Col. Burton arrived on the ground. The passing of men and munitions from the mainland to the Peninsula was promptly cut off by our navy. The towns of Mulejé (opposite Guaymas) and Comandú, several hundred miles to the north of La Paz, were the centres of the opposition. Citizens of the former under Vicente Mejía and of the latter under J. M. Moreno, all commanded by Manuel Pineda, marched south with no little devotion. Pineda moved against La Paz (held by Burton); the other two leaders against S. José (held by Lieut. Heywood of the navy). The latter were repulsed without much difficulty, but only the arrival of the Cyane, Dec. 8, ended a series of small skirmishes at La Paz. In Jan. S. José had to undergo a more serious attack. By the twelfth our garrison (27 marines, 15 seamen, some 20 volunteers) found itself, after a desultory siege of about three weeks, in a critical situation; but on the fourteenth Du Pont arrived in the Cyane, and this ensured the defeat of the Mexicans on the following day. March 22 about 150 American troops, who had left Monterey Mar. 5, arrived at La Paz. Burton, having now about 270 men, assumed the offensive, and the skirmish of Mar. 30 at Todos Santos (without loss on the American side) ended the hostilities. The American casualties in all the skirmishing were insignificant. For the principal documents see Ho. 1; 30, 2, pp. 103–12, 1055–64, 1086–8, 1095–1102, 1110–2, 1117–8, 1122–7, 1129–31, 1137–55; Ho. 17; 31, 1; Sen. 18; 31, 1, pp. 293, 299, 488–504; Du Pont, Official Despatches, 23, 31, 35; 76Pineda to comte. gen. Sonora, Oct. 3, 1847; 47Shubrick, Dec. 4, 21; 76Princ. comte. of Mulejé to V. Mejía, Oct. 3; 76Pineda and Mejía, Oct. 3; 76Relaciones to Guerra, Feb. 26, 1848. U. S. Naval Instit. Proceeds., xiv, pp. 304–25.

Spain complained of us, but unjustly. Some thought inefficiency was shown by the number of American vessels lost (besides the Somers and the Truxtun, the Boston, the Hecla and the Neptune were wrecked, the Perry and the Cumberland were damaged, and some minor losses were suffered), but considering the character of the coast this opinion seems unfair. An important feature of the war was the demonstration of the superiority of steam vessels.

XXXI. THE AMERICANS AS CONQUERORS

By the end of the war desolation marked the route from the Rio Grande to Saltillo except at the sizable towns. To the credit of the volunteers it should be added that on Mar. 9, 1847, two priests and other citizens of Monterey presented a 93petition to Taylor to let the Kentucky regiment garrison the city, not only because those soldiers were accustomed to it, but because their “well known morality and good conduct” inspired “security and confidence.”

The number of citations could be multiplied, and the author may write an article or brief monograph on the subject.

Chihuahua was merely an addendum to Santa Fe. The people seemed to regard our troops “as a race of devils and with just reason,” wrote a soldier in his diary. Once two Americans, fighting in their cups, tore each other’s clothes off and went stark naked through the streets. Of course property suffered. The women, however, in spite of husbands, fiancés and priests, were devoted to the Americans, and when the time for evacuation came some followed their lovers for leagues, and a few even for days. For the state of things in Chihuahua: Sen. Misc. 26; 30, 1. The Anglo-Saxon, (Chihuahua), no. 1. Bustamante, Nuevo Bernal, ii, 110. Ho. Report 404; 30, 1, pp. 6, 13. Rondé, Voyage, 136, 138–9. 212Hastings, diary. 201Gibson, diary. Anzeiger des Westens, June 21, 1847 (Kribben). Republicano, April 10, 1847.

For the Mormons see vol. i, p. 290. P. St. G. Cooke, acting as It. col., led the Mormon battalion from Santa Fe, New Mex., to California.

There was special feeling about churches. The bishop of Puebla complained to Scott that our soldiers desecrated a church at Tlaxcala, and stole some priests’ robes. But the soldiers had found that the church was the base of the guerillas they were pursuing, and discovered the robes on the floor. Our officers made great efforts to prevent outrages here and to restore the stolen property (Brackett, Lane’s Brigade, 211; Zirckel, Tagebuch, 123; etc.). It seems to have been true that no church was desecrated by Americans that had not been desecrated by Mexicans, and used for hostile purposes.

Scott made the following daily details in order to ensure order and discipline (65gen. orders 298, September 24, 1847): “1. A general officer of the day to report to me; to superintend the good order and discipline of the garrison, visit the guards and outposts, organize patrols, and receive reports regarding order and discipline. 2. A field officer of the day of each division and of the cavalry brigade to superintend the troops in quarters, be present at the mounting and dismounting of the guards, have control of the in-lying pickets, etc. 3. One third of each regiment not on other duty will constitute its portion of the in-lying guard. 4. A captain or subaltern of the day of each regiment will superintend the quarters, attend the parading of regimental guards, have the roll called frequently and at unexpected times, visit company kitchens and messes, etc.” The drill of the troops was kept up, and of course it was only when off duty that they could be disorderly. Doyle reported that a gentleman from Pachuca, a place at some distance from Mexico, said: “Nothing can be better than the behavior of the American troops at Pachuca” (no. 5, 1848). On the other hand Lane’s men were guilty of excesses at Tulancingo. In 65gen. orders 395, December 31, 1847, Scott said: “Men free at home, must maintain the honor of freeman when abroad. If they forget that, they will degrade themselves to the level of felons and slaves, and may be rightfully condemned and treated as such; for felons, according to the laws of God and man, are slaves” (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1066).

Ripley (War with Mexico, ii, 571) complains that immorality was promoted at Mexico by giving licenses to gambling places; but it would not have been possible to prevent the soldiers from gambling among themselves and in “dives,” and no doubt Scott believed it would be best to have the gambling done where some control could be exercised over it, and where the men would not be in danger of the assassin’s knife. Ripley admits that gambling “flourished” before licenses were given (p. 570). Ripley suggests (p. 574) that “active operations would have been the immediate and effectual remedy” for the immorality; but, as we have seen, there were not enough troops, etc., for active operations, and perhaps shooting Mexicans needlessly would have been no better business than gambling. Ripley admits (p. 577) that most of the troops were kept outside the city. Riley’s brigade was at Tacubaya, Patterson’s division at S. Angel, and a part of Butler’s division at El Molino del Rey. The other part and Smith’s brigade remained in town.

XXXII. PEACE

The substantial war elements were the Eventualists, Monarchists and Santannistas. The 76archives for this time are full of reports of political disturbances.

Trist reopened the negotiations naturally by forwarding to Luis de la Rosa, the minister of relations, a letter (dated Sept. 7) written by him as a reply to the note and counter-projet of the Mexican peace commissioners dated Sept. 6. In this he argued that Texas possessed good grounds for rebelling, and became independent; that, having been rightfully annexed by the United States, she had to be protected against invasion; that any previously existing boundary between her and Mexico had been obliterated by the revolutionary war, and she had a right to claim the Rio Grande as the boundary; that as Mexico would not negotiate on the subject, Polk was compelled to accept that delimitation; that in the resulting war the United States had occupied Mexican territory and now justly held it by right of conquest, yet not by the odious title of conquest resulting from war without good cause—not from a mere desire of obtaining territory (Sen. 20; 30, 1, p. 21). This letter and a brief accompanying note, which stated that his powers had not been withdrawn and expressed a desire to resume the negotiations, were transmitted by Thornton, now acting (in the absence of Bankhead and Doyle) as British chargé, who strongly urged upon Rosa the renewal of the negotiations (52Trist, no. 19). Rosa replied favorably, but said he was too busy just then, and needed certain documents. Later Peña explained the delay as resulting from the provisional character of his administration (52to Trist, Nov. 22). In reality the government desired to ascertain and influence public and Congressional sentiment before acting (Exposición dirigida). Rosa’s reply to Trist said there appeared to be little hope of peace, but this was for self-defence (Trist, no. 20).

At the meeting Puebla, Querétaro, Michoacán, Guanajuato and S. L. Potosí states were represented by their governors, Zacatecas by her vice governor, and Jalisco by a commissioner. The President and the ministers were present. The meeting was advisory and confidential. The government took the ground that the war could not be continued and that Mexico should endeavor to obtain, not an honorable peace, but one as little humiliating as possible, and one that would save Mexican nationality; but it preferred war and promised to carry it on if given the necessary men and supplies. The governors naturally showed their repugnance to peace on such a basis, but could not offer adequate resources, and the one rational conclusion was inevitable. A report of the discussions may be found in the Gobernación archives, Mexico. The sessions began on Nov. 19 and concluded on Nov. 27. The insurrection came to a head on Dec. 19. News of Trist’s recall helped to quiet the war party (52Trist, no. 22).

A private 335note (Oct. 24) from Buchanan to Trist, taken in connection with Polk’s Diary, suggests a suspicion on the part of the administration that, in intimating that the United States might possibly not insist upon the Rio Grande line, Trist had purposely played into the hands of the Whigs, who were now asserting that the intermediate region did not belong to us. This suspicion and the idea that Trist was helping Scott to injure the President’s friends in the army would explain a great deal of wrath. Another personal 335note (Oct. 24) from Buchanan shows that the terms offered by Trist in September were now regarded as too moderate to be popular, and gives one the feeling that, especially since Trist had shown a disposition to weaken them, the prestige of the administration demanded his recall. Oct. 25 Buchanan said Trist had offered to give up a part of California, but Trist denied this (335memo.). Oct. 6 Marcy directed Scott to inform the Mexican authorities of Trist’s recall (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1008). Trist’s patriotism and sense of duty do not seem to have been affected by his recall. Nov. 27 he wrote to Buchanan that a commission should be sent to take up his work on the spot (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 230); and the next day, through Mrs. Trist, he 335adjured Buchanan to lose “not a minute” about this, proposing Scott and Butler. Dec. 31 Polk received indirectly a similar recommendation from Gen. Twiggs, and Sen. Davis (the Col. Davis of Monterey and Buena Vista) pointed out to him that, should Mexican commissioners go to Washington, probably their government would be overthrown during their absence, and they might be shot as traitors on their return (Diary, Dec. 31). Polk therefore virtually decided that Butler should take Trist’s place as well as Scott’s (ibid., Dec. 31; Jan. 2). Pillow (Address) attributed to his letter the recall of Trist.

It has been said that Trist’s decision was due to Scott, but Trist was not under Scott’s control. Scott tried without success to dissuade him from breaking with Polk (335statement by Trist in his papers). Trist 335wrote to his wife, Dec. 4, “Knowing it to be the very last chance, and impressed with the dreadful consequences to our country which cannot fail to attend the loss of that chance,” I decided to-day at noon to attempt to make a treaty; the decision is altogether my own. Sen. Rep. 261, the basis of which was evidently supplied by Trist, says that Freaner, the correspondent of the New Orleans Delta, was “the only man who had been in any way instrumental in determining Mr. Trist to make the attempt.” It has also been said that Scott and Trist wished to make the treaty because Polk now wanted more of Mexico, and they desired to “spite” him; but neither man was of such a type, no suggestion of the scheme appears in Trist’s official or personal letters or in Thornton’s reports to the Foreign Office, and public considerations are quite enough to explain Trist’s course. Sen. Rep. 261 says that on Dec. 4 occurred an incident “in itself of the most casual, and trivial, and commonplace kind,” which led to Trist’s making the treaty. This has been thought to mean the postponement of the train with which he was to have gone down; but the above description does not seem to fit this important occurrence, and the author is inclined to believe that it refers to a chance meeting of Trist and Freaner, while Trist’s decision hung in the balance. Freaner was regarded by Trist as an honest man of unusual sagacity, and he was a strong, sympathetic character. Peña held that, since his peace commissioners had been appointed, he could deal with the subject through them only, and hence, as they were at a distance, he could not possibly send a proposal to Mexico for Trist to carry home, as it was suggested to him to do. Trist counted on one fact as lessening his responsibility: the government could disavow his work without embarrassment (52no. 22). See Napoleon’s dictum (chap. xxvii, note 17, p. 398).

Doyle arrived at Vera Cruz on Nov. 30, and soon received from the Foreign Office a despatch (13no. 40) making clear its attitude of benevolent neutrality (Doyle, no. 3). Polk’s message encouraged the Eventualists, because it showed that if they could defeat the present negotiations, the war would continue, the peace party would fall from power, and then the Eventualists would have American support in setting up a government according to their ideas. Rincón pretended to be ill. Associated with the ministry of Relaciones at this time as confidential advisers were such men as Pedraza, Lafragua and Cuevas.

Trist relied for guidance on his original instructions (Ho. 69; 30, 1, pp. 43–7), the projet of a treaty accompanying the instructions (ibid., p. 47), 52instructions of July 13 and 19, 1847, former treaties of the United States, and our general principles and policy (52Trist, no. 27). See also Polk’s Diary, Apr. 13, 1847. In regard to the western end of the boundary the instructions were faulty, and Trist found it necessary to use his judgment (52enclosure in his no. 27). Greatly fearing the designs of the Monarchists, he desired to have a secret article binding upon Mexico the constitution of 1824, and was willing to promise in return that enough American troops to support the government should remain five years; but the proposition was declined (13Doyle, no. 10, 1848). There was a difficulty in doing anything about Tehuantepec, for British interests were involved, and that matter was dropped by Trist in order to facilitate the adjustment of the boundary (Exposición, supra). It did not signify much now, for the United States had its eye upon a better route (J. S. Reeves in Amer. Hist. Rev., x, 323). The subject that consumed the most time was the status of the people of the surrendered territory (Trist, no. 27). The Mexicans asked that their civil law should continue to rule there until the territory should be organized into states, but Trist (perhaps in the interest of slavery) would not consent (13Doyle, no. 10).

Peña became the chief executive again because the expiration of Anaya’s term (ordered by the Congress that elected him to occur on Jan. 8, since it was expected that the new Congress would have assembled by that date) left the country without a head, and the position devolved upon him as chief of the supreme court. L. de la Rosa was then appointed minister of relations. The plan of the S. L. P. governor was that four states—S. L. P., Zacatecas, Guanajuato and Jalisco—should combine, repudiate the national government, and continue the war, expecting other states to join them; but public opinion, even in his own state, failed to support him. Almonte was actively working against peace at this time, basing his arguments particularly on the attitude of the peace party in the United States and the poverty of the American treasury. Jan. 30 he called attention to the Whig majority in our House, said our Congress would probably refuse to send more troops to Mexico, and urged the Mexican government to procrastinate. The reply of the government was a mere acknowledgment of receipt. Feb. 14 he argued that Walker’s report showed we could not continue the war much longer. On the other hand there seems to be some reason to believe that personal relations and interests may have influenced the Mexican commissioners in favor of making the treaty (Puga y Acal, Documentos, letter no. 74). Marcy to Scott, Oct. 6, 1847: Your military operations are not to be modified by Mexican proposals to negotiate (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 140).

The Mexican government naturally desired to keep all information about the treaty from its enemies. The public came to believe, however, that an important act had taken place on Feb. 2. Freaner carried the treaty to Washington. For two weeks escorts had been waiting at the proper points on the road to Vera Cruz. The Spanish representative, under his instructions, took no part in these negotiations. The Prussian minister, lacking both official authorization and personal influence, was equally inactive. France had no minister on the scene.

Ripley (War with Mexico, ii, 557) says that “no man who so palpably disobeys the direct instructions of his government” as did Trist, could be fit to negotiate a treaty; suggests (p. 564) that it was improper to let the British coöperate in the matter; and argues (pp. 582–4) that Scott should have broken up the negotiations or else assumed the full responsibility for them, withholding from the Mexican government the fact of Trist’s recall. All this and the rest are mere fault-finding, and the critic could and would have been much more severe, had the course he recommended been adopted. Of course he proves the obvious facts that Scott and Trist, in the interest of two nations and to accomplish what their government ardently desired, at great personal risk disregarded mistaken instructions, accepted British assistance without which they would probably have failed, and obtained a treaty which Polk himself, though he hated both of them, felt constrained to accept; but this was a truly glorious achievement. Scott had no right to act as Ripley says he should have done. The armistice, a military affair, was properly his concern, but negotiating a treaty was diplomatic business. Mackintosh, says Ripley (p. 563), had a hand in the negotiations, but this seems to be an error. Rives (U. S. and Mexico, ii, 524–5) says “it might perhaps have been well to replace Trist by a stronger man.” But every possible man had been considered (p. 126), and a stronger man would probably have tried to drive the Mexicans and have failed. Trist they liked and trusted, yet could not deceive or frighten.

The chief points of the treaty signed on Feb. 2 were as follows (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 38): Art. 1. Peace. 2. Immediate armistice, and so far as possible a restoration of the constitutional order in the places occupied by the Americans. 3. After ratification by both governments the blockade to cease, the customhouses held by the Americans to be given up, and the interior to be evacuated as soon as practicable. Mexico to assist. Duties collected after Mexico’s ratification to be paid over to her. 4. Immediately on the exchange of ratifications all Mexican places and public property to be given up, and all prisoners surrendered. The process to be completed within three months, unless the sickly season should require American troops to remain longer at designated points. 5. The new boundary (Rio Grande, southern and western lines of New Mexico, the Gila, the Colorado, the line between upper and lower California). The line to be run and marked by a joint commission within a year after the exchange of ratifications. No change in it to be made except with the free and formal consent of both nations. 6. The United States may navigate the Gulf of California and the Colorado to the Gila, and the two governments will arrange for “a road, canal, or railway” within a marine league of the Gila, should it be found practicable. 7. The navigation of the Gila and of the Rio Grande to New Mexico to be free to both countries. 8. All Mexicans in the transferred territory may go or stay, will have full power over their property, and may elect within a year to remain Mexican citizens. 9. Mexicans not so electing shall be “admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the federal constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States,” and meantime shall have the rights “now vested in them according to the Mexican laws.” No interference with Roman Catholic worship, property or ecclesiastical administration. 10. Mexican grants of lands (made before May 13, 1846) to be valid, and the period for fulfilling conditions to be reckoned from the exchange of ratifications. 11. The United States to prevent or punish Indian incursions from its territory, and exact satisfaction for damage done, etc. 12. The United States to pay Mexico $15,000,000. (As to method of payment, see p. 248.) 13. The United States to pay the claims against Mexico already decided. 14. Also to assume all other claims arising before Feb. 2, 1848. 15. The latter claims are to be passed upon by an American commission (which will be supplied by Mexico, on demand, with needed books, etc.), and not more than $3,250,000 may be paid to satisfy the claims. 16. Each nation may fortify any point within its territory. 17. The commercial treaty of 1831, so far as compatible with this treaty, revived for eight years. 18. Supplies for American troops in Mexico to enter free of duty. 19. Provisions respecting merchandise brought into Mexican ports occupied by the Americans. 20. A provision regarding certain merchandise arriving at Mexican ports shortly after the restoration of the customhouses. 21. Should difficulties arise between the two countries, negotiations and arbitration—not reprisals or hostilities—to be employed, unless the circumstances forbid. 22. Provisions for resident merchants and prisoners in case of war between the two nations. 23. Ratifications to be exchanged at Washington in four months or, if practicable, sooner. Secret article. The four months of Art. 23 may be extended to eight months.

An apparent inconsistency may be noted here, for on p. 138 of vol. i it was intimated that an agreement with Mexico was needed to fix the boundary of Texas. The explanation is that the United States had demonstrated its ability to hold the line, but the republic of Texas was not strong enough to prevent Mexican troops from going and remaining north of the Rio Grande.

The Mexican commissioners rejected the line of 32°, desired by the United States (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 91), for three reasons: 1, it would be for a long distance only a mathematical boundary; 2, it was liable, when surveyed, to cut off important points like Paso del Norte; 3, it would prevent land communication between Sonora and lower California (Exposición dirigida). It was proposed at one time to divide S. Diego, but for that concession Trist demanded too much. Besides, S. Diego belonged distinctly to upper California. Lower California was relinquished because inaccessible and poor. Not only for sentimental reasons but because otherwise the treaty, they believed, could not possibly be ratified, the Mexican commissioners were determined to hold all of Sonora and Chihuahua. Tamaulipas, happily, had made no protest against relinquishing her claim to the intermediate region (52Trist, no. 27). To ask the consent of the people in the acquired territory was not deemed necessary by the United States (Butler, op. cit., i, 83–4), but citizenship was not forced upon Mexicans by the treaty (art. viii). Art. x was demanded by the Mexicans (13Doyle, no. 10, 1848). Art. xix harmonized the American pledge that goods imported during our occupation of the ports should pay only the American tariff (52Buchanan to Trist, June 14, 1847), with the Mexican view that our tariff could not be operative beyond the limits of our occupation (Exposición dirigida).

An error regarding the assumption of our claims has prevailed. Two classes of claims were provided for: 1, those liquidated under the convention of 1839 but not covered by the three Mexican instalments (vol. i, p. 81); 2, all unliquidated claims antedating Feb. 2, 1848. Under the first head the United States paid, under the act approved July 29, 1848 (Statutes at Large, ix, 265), $2,090,253.19 including interest (A. J. Peters, asst. sec. treas. to the author, Nov. 30, 1915); under the second head the claims commission awarded (in 1852) $3,208,314.96, including interest (Sen. 34; 32, 1; documents preserved in the state dept.). The treaty provided that under the second head the U. S. should not be liable for more than $3,250,000. The phraseology of our projet regarding this matter, when literally translated, did not readily penetrate the Mexican mind, and hence was re-worked (Sen. 52; 30, 1, p. 294). Roa Bárcena (Recuerdos, chap. xxxiv) gives many interesting details derived from the papers of Couto. Other details may be found in the Trist papers, Doyle’s reports, and the Exposición dirigida (Negrete, Invasión, iv, 296).

As we have seen, the Mexican government had frowned on elections held in occupied territory, probably fearing American pressure upon the voters. The reader may note an apparent inconsistency here. The war is represented sometimes as so lucrative that its continuance was desired by Mexicans, and yet it is said that the districts occupied by our troops felt its burdens, and for that reason desired peace. Both currents of sentiment existed. In some districts and at some times the one predominated; in other districts and at other times the other. Doyle assisted materially in the armistice negotiations. The armistice was signed on Mar. 2. Its terms were: 1, suspension of hostilities; 2, neither side to extend its occupation of territory; 3, all civilians to travel freely, all military persons under white flag; 4, “contributions” for February and March under American 65orders 376 and 395 to be suspended, etc.; 5, Mexicans to exercise full political rights, and officials recognized by the Mexican government to be recognized by the Americans; *6, no Americans to interfere with Mexican elections; *7, Mexican authorities to levy and collect taxes; *8, Mexican postal facilities might be re-established, and the Americans would protect them; *9, the Mexican government might take the stocks of monopolized articles; *10, public offices not occupied by Americans to be given up, and also, as soon as conveniently possible, all religious and charitable buildings; *11, Mexican courts to act exclusively except when a person belonging to the American army was originally a party, or the interest of the American government is concerned; *12, police to be established; *13, person and property to be protected; *14, Mexico to act freely against savages on the northern frontier, and American commanders to help with influence; 15, church property to be respected; 16, armed bodies assembled anywhere, to commit hostilities not authorized by either government, to be opposed by both governments; 17, the armistice to remain in force during the period fixed by the treaty, unless notice of terminating it is given. The starred articles have particular reference to territory occupied by the Americans. Some of the articles merely make obligatory what the Americans had been doing. Next after Art. 1, Art. 16 was chiefly important. The purpose of it was to prevent insurrections, and it could not fail to have that effect. The first intention was to keep Art. 16 secret, but the wisdom of publishing it soon became clear. The armistice was published at Querétaro on March 11. Some slight and unavoidable violations of it, particularly in the pursuit of guerillas, occurred, but no serious trouble.

Polk intimated to the Senate that the treaty would need to be amended. Trist was confidentially authorized to pay $20,000,000 for what he actually obtained, $5,000,000 more for Lower California, and $5,000,000 for the right of transit across the isthmus of Tehuantepec (Polk, Diary, Apr. 13, 1847; Ho. 69; 30, 1, p. 44).

Buchanan probably desired to have the treaty go to the Senate. He would then share in the credit of the administration, should it be popular, and in the contrary event would be able to say that he opposed it (Polk, Diary, Feb. 21). Polk’s accepting the treaty as the best agreement that could be obtained under the circumstances completely vindicated Trist’s decision to make it and Scott’s coöperation.

In April, 1848, the question of occupying Yucatan came up. The indigenes appeared to be on the point of exterminating the whites and as a desperate resource Yucatan offered herself simultaneously to England, France and the United States. Apr. 29 Polk recommended intervention to Congress, and this has been thought (Ills. State Hist. Soc. Trans., 1912, 17–23) to mean that he was ready to take Yucatan, upset the treaty, and bring about the dismemberment—perhaps the annexation—of Mexico. But the treaty, which had now been ratified by our Senate, contained in art. 5 a provision expressly intended to prevent us from annexing more of Mexico’s territory without her consent (see Buchanan to Hilliard, Works, viii, 56), and to believe that after giving this pledge our Executive proposed to reverse his entire policy regarding Mexico and be guilty of such bad faith would require much more evidence than we have. It seems to the author that humanity combined with an avowed desire to keep European powers out of Yucatan fully explain what Polk did (see Polk’s Diary, Apr. 25). Congress decided against occupying Yucatan. Its troubles were settled by an agreement between the two parties (Nat. Intelligencer, May 17).

The Whigs were suspected of trying to gain enough Democratic support so that they could not be charged with beating the treaty as a party (Polk, Diary, Mar. 3; Public Ledger, Mar. 8). Webster’s policy was not only unpatriotic but unintelligent, for a continuation of the war would probably have led either to defeat or to larger acquisitions; but perhaps he believed no bad results would occur before the next Presidential election. He knew the country as a whole wanted the treaty ratified for the sake of peace (Writings, x, 7), and he was unable to make the New England Whig Senators join him against the treaty. Calhoun wrote to Gallatin that, owing to diversity of opinion in the Senate, not even a majority could have been obtained for any proposition different from the corresponding proposition of the treaty (198Mar. 13, 1848). What increased the danger involved in rejecting the treaty was the prospect that, with both Scott and Taylor out of the field, operations—even should they not become unsuccessful—would lack the interest which had largely prevented the public from thinking of the cost and other ills of the conflict, and hence it would be impossible to support the war (132W. R. King to Buchanan, Oct. 5, 1847; Seward, Seward at Wash., i, 62). Feb. 28 the committee on foreign relations reported the treaty without recommendation. Webster at once proposed a commission. His motion was tabled Mar. 2 (Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 4, 9).

For Frémont (Benton’s son-in-law) see chap. xxxi, note 19.

Benton was probably opposed to the treaty also because he had held that Texas ended at the Nueces. There was a particular reason for saying that we obtained the new territory by cession rather than by conquest. The latter construction would have raised the troublesome questions, What place is there under our Constitution for a conquered province, and what right has our government to hold foreigners in subjection (210B. Tucker to Hammond, Mar. 16, 1848)? Four senators did not vote. For an analysis of the vote see Rives, op. cit., ii, 636–7.

The amount paid for nominal services in securing the consummation (in Mexico) of Trist’s treaty was $28,728.67, while he received nothing for doing the real work. Years later he was paid (Sen. Rep. 261; 41, 2). It is true that disgust with Polk’s course toward Scott and himself, and particularly with Polk’s employing a man like Pillow, led Trist to say he would not serve again under Polk (335Nov. 28, 1847); but had the President now acted a manly part, Trist would no doubt have accepted the appointment given to Sevier. For R. E. Lee’s feeling on the matter see Lee, Gen. Lee, 46. In the night of Mar. 11 Maj. Graham left Washington to notify Butler of the ratification of the treaty (Polk, Diary). Buchanan’s letter to the minister of relations (Ho. 50; 30, 2, pp. 47–52) gave a conciliatory explanation of the amendments.

It was feared that Polk’s haste in sending Sevier and Clifford would lead the Mexican Congress to feel that we were eager for peace; that the inexperience of those diplomats might tempt the Mexicans to test their ability; that the recall of Scott and Trist would have an unfavorable influence, and that Mexican Congressmen might hold off in order to be bought by the Americans with funds said to have been provided for the purpose (Polk, Diary, Feb. 7). On the other hand the refusal of the government to appropriate any part of the fifteen millions coming from the United States produced a good effect. It was an excellent sign that Almonte failed to get elected to the Senate. A quorum assembled May 3. Congress opened formally May 7. By May 9 the treaty was before it.

Peña said he regretted the amendments but—especially since no new negotiation was deemed possible—did not think the treaty should be rejected on account of them. The vote in the Chamber of Deputies, May 19, was 51 to 35; in the Senate, May 24, 33 to 4 (60Butler to Marcy, May 26). Action of the New Mexico Legislative Assembly looking toward absorption in the United States was of great assistance, for it stopped the cry that loyal citizens were being sold. Some 300–500 American deserters, who were at Querétaro, took a strong stand for peace, because they were likely to be captured and shot, should the war continue; and the Mexicans felt considerable responsibility for the deserters. Polk’s Message of Dec. 7, 1847, declared strongly for pushing the war at the expense of Mexico, if she would not make a treaty, and announced that California and New Mexico would not in any event be relinquished. Under this spur our Congress voted additional forces. The Whigs held off, but dared not refuse to support the war (p. 291). The speeches particularly worthy of attention were those of Cass (Mar. 14) and Webster (Mar. 23). Noisy popular demonstrations of joy were lacking because there had been no business disturbances, no invasion and no sinking of ships, the seat of war was distant, for nine months nothing striking had occurred there, Taylor and Scott were out of the field, and few had personal reasons for feeling interested in our Mexican relations.

Apparently the Mexican government deferred the appearance of Sevier and Clifford at Querétaro (especially as they insisted upon having an American escort) lest it should seem to be acting under pressure or lest some untoward accident should occur. This course was doubtless wise. May 19 they were invited to come, for the Deputies had just ratified the treaty and the Senators were sure to do so. Sevier was ill on May 26. He returned to the United States soon after the formalities were concluded, but Clifford remained as our minister. Rosa arrived at Washington in November, 1848, as the minister of Mexico. During their stay at Querétaro our commissioners were led to embody in a protocol some explanations of the treaty. In 1849 the Mexicans asserted that the protocol gave them additional advantages; and the Whigs—apparently encouraged by Benton, who was accused of acting in collusion with the Mexican minister—undertook to make trouble for the administration and perhaps invalidate the treaty. But it was unreasonable to pretend that such a document could modify a treaty previously ratified by the American Senate and the Mexican Congress. Besides, Sevier and Clifford gave explicit notice, before drawing up the protocol, that they had no power to modify the treaty (52Clifford to Cuevas, Apr. 30, 1849). At length the Mexican government admitted formally that the protocol was merely explanatory (52Lacunza to Clifford, July 13, 1849). See also on this subject Ho. 50; 30, 2, pp. 76–9. Polk, Diary, Feb. 4, 6, 8, 10, 1849. Foote, Remins., 332–5. Sen. 1; 31, 1, pp. 69–89. Ho. 5, pt. 1, 31, 1, pp. 69–89. Meigs, Benton, 378–9. Richardson, Messages, iv, 679–87. Foster, Amer. Diplom., 320. Buchanan, Works, viii, 350 (to C.).

The northwest. 61Price to Rails, Apr. 16; 61Id.to vice gov. Chihuahua, Apr. 16; México á través, iv, 710; 76Price to Mex. commrs., May 1; 69Wool to Marcy, June 22; 61Id.. to adj. gen., July 6. On Aug. 6 news of peace and the retention of upper Calif. (which went overland from La]* Paz in Lower Calif.) reached Mason at Monterey. He then ordered the N. Y. vols. discharged. This process was completed on Oct. 26 (Sen. 18; 31, 1, pp. 573, 626). 61Mason to adj. gen., Aug. 19 (anticipatory orders given to Burton in Lower Calif. to evacuate on learning of peace). Sen. 18; 31, 1, p. 513 (Burton to Mason, June 27: official news of peace have come).

Naval evacuation. Ho. 50; 30, 2, p. 52 (Buchanan). 48Mason to Shubrick or Jones, Mar. 11, confid. 48Id.to Jones, June 27 (Polk wished to retain Lower Calif., but did not wish to prevent peace by insisting; do what you rightfully can to help friendly Mexicans come to the U. S., if they wish to do so). July 15 at La Paz 47Jones and Shubrick agreed that such persons should be transported to California, and that, in extreme cases of destitution caused by Mexican vengeance, reasonable compensation should be made out of the military contributions collected in that quarter. 76Comte. gen. Sonora, July 13 (U. S. vessels left Guaymas July 5). Gaxiola, Invasión, 215 (Lavallette evacuated Mazatlán June 17). The treaty had been received at Mazatlán on June 13. Ho. 50; 30, 2, p. 52 (B.). 52Jones to Anaya, June 13.

Arrangements were made by Butler and the ayuntamiento so that local Mexican guards began to patrol the city as soon as the Americans marched out (92memo.). Our troops began to leave the capital on May 30 (60Butler to Marcy, June 2). The order of march was: heavy artillery; Patterson’s division (vols.); Marshall’s division (vols.); Col. Bonham and third division (regulars); Kearny and second division (regulars); Butler and first division (regulars). Divisions were as a rule two days apart. Worth remained at the capital for a time after June 12 to dispose of surplus property. After Butler sailed (June 21) Worth was in command. July 6 Polk presented the consummated treaty to Congress, recommending the appropriation of $12,000,000 for Mexico, provision for a commissioner and a surveyor to run and mark the boundary line, and provision for commissioners to adjust the American claims against Mexico assumed by the United States (Richardson, Messages, iv, 587–93). Herrera was declared President on May 30.

It seems unnecessary to cite the numerous orders regarding details.

For the embarkation see Ho. 1; 30, 2, p. 201. For one reason or another a few men remained in Mexico. There was a plan to march some of the troops north from the capital, but it did not seem wise to ask the consent of the Mexican Congress. The original intention was to have the men going by water land as near their homes as practicable, but the northern men objected strenuously to the tedious voyage. The Mexicans and Americans awaiting execution were released. The members of the Mexican Spy Co. were offered $20 apiece and a trip to Texas. Our sick and wounded soldiers were provided for on their arrival in the United States.

XXXIII. THE FINANCES OF THE WAR

The clergy may have given something in addition to the $1,500,000. See the end of chap. xxi, p. 15. The arrangement with the bondholders was known as the “conversion of 1846.” This loan gave Mackintosh a particular reason for desiring to have peace made. The loan was to have been repaid in nine months. During July and August, 1847, Santa Anna appears to have raised in one way and another, as indicated in the text, about $1,000,000. The pay of officials was reduced or withheld. For forced loans see chap. i, note 7. In July, 1847, though foreigners were exempt from forced loans, Santa Anna evaded the agreement by taking money without going through the ceremony of promising to repay it.

The huge state debts were mostly due to extravagant enterprises often supported by fraudulent banking. Delinquency was in reality a salutary suspension of payments that prevented bankruptcy, but the creditors did not know this at the time, and felt little disposed to be charitable.

Walker’s report of December 3, 1845, enunciated and defended his tariff principles (Ho. 6; 29, 1). These were: 1, to collect only enough revenue for the economical administration of the government; 2, to have no duty higher than the lowest rate that will yield the greatest revenue (e.g. some luxuries are so easily smuggled in that a high duty would produce little); 3, below such a rate to permit discrimination, if thought desirable (e.g. less on necessaries than on luxuries); 4, to lay the maximum rate on luxuries; 5, to have only ad valorem duties; and, 6, to discriminate against no section or class of the nation. He expressed the opinions that many of the high duties were becoming prohibitive and therefore unprofitable, and that the increased risk and costs of transportation during a war would cause nearly all of them to become so. Besides, he said, “at least two thirds of the taxes imposed by the present tariff are paid, not into the treasury, but to the protected classes” (Niles, Aug. 1, 1846, p. 349). Walker also charged that the specific duties, which formed a part of the 1842 tariff, taxed most highly the cheapest articles and therefore produced relatively little (Sen. 105; 29, 2: to Dallas). It was argued by others that war would sufficiently hinder importing to make a protective tariff unnecessary (Wash. Union, May 28, 1846).

The essential idea underlying the tariff of 1846, though it was not strictly a revenue tariff, was that it would increase the revenue by stimulating importation. But opponents argued that unless Europe should take a greatly increased quantity of our agricultural products—which there was no reason to expect—we could not pay for larger imports; while, should foreign goods be “dumped” at low prices upon our markets, American manufacturers would be ruined. Even in the year ending June 30, 1845, the balance of trade had been $7,251,589 against us, and we had exported $8,606,495 in specie (Bankers’ Mag., i, 136). Under the tariff of 1842 the average rate of duty was 24 per cent; under that of 1846, 18 per cent.

One natural effect of the uncertainty caused by the new fiscal laws was to check business, but this was offset by its tendency to check speculation and inflation. The specie feature tended to contract the currency, and many deemed this unfortunate in view of the large calls for money likely to result from the war. Good judges thought its enforcement would have to be deferred, therefore. A special cause of alarm was that in preparing for the second war with England the duties had been increased instead of reduced. Senator Haywood of North Carolina opposed the new scale of duties as sure to plunge the country into debt, opposed putting them into effect so promptly (Dec. 1, 1846), and opposed the adoption of such a combination of new financial measures (Wash. Union, Aug. 18, 1846). He therefore resigned, and this endangered the plan of the administration.

The warehouse system consisted in deferring the payment of assessed duties without an interest charge, the government retaining the goods meanwhile as security for the eventual payment of them. Goods could therefore wait for a purchaser, instead of going—if not at once in demand—for what they would bring at a forced sale. This encouraged importation and built up extensive stocks, which in turn attracted purchasers from afar (Walker, report, Dec. 9, 1846, in Sen. 2; 29, 2). This system, like that of the sub-treasury, proved highly advantageous. The specie provision of the sub-treasury bill required the government to accept only specie after Dec. 31, 1846, and to pay out only specie after Mar. 31, 1847 (U. S. Stat. at Large, ix, 64), with the exception of treasury notes.

The warehouse bill also delayed the payment of duties. Walker’s estimate of the customs revenue for 1846–7 was $27,835,731 (report, Dec. 9, 1846, in Sen. 2; 29, 2). The receipts were actually $23,747,865 (report, Dec. 8, 1847, in Ho. 6; 30, 1). Walker pointed out that nearly half a million was due on warehoused goods (Niles, July 31, 1847, p. 337); but these goods might not all have been imported, had it been necessary to pay the duties at once, and some of them were practically sure to be exported, and hence not all the duties assessed upon them could be considered a part of the revenue, as Walker intimated. The Democrats feared that taxes would make the war unpopular, and the Whigs hoped to obtain that result by less expensive methods.

The Act of July 22, 1846, was based upon and virtually embodied that of Oct. 12, 1837. Notes redeemed could be reissued. Any fraction of the $10,000,000 could be issued in notes or in stock (bonds) at the President’s discretion, but the amount of both could not exceed that figure. The bonds were to conform to the Act of Apr. 15, 1842, and to “be redeemable at a period not longer than ten years from the issue thereof.” Walker thought that only a war with a powerful maritime nation, exposing our commerce to peril and causing a great loss in customs revenue, would be thought to warrant excise and direct taxes. (The idea of a direct tax was widely unpopular, because such a tax would be based upon population, and therefore would favor the capitalistic sections.) Before issuing treasury notes Walker used up much of the surplus lying in the banks. The notes were issued at par. They could not become a circulating medium. For redemption they went to the city banks. So long as these banks had deposits of public funds, they were accepted as cash. After that, their tendency was to fall. About Oct. 1, 1846, the notes were quoted at 98–1/2 in St. Louis. For a time the New Orleans banks would not receive the notes, but retaliation brought the banks round. Since only specie and treasury notes were to be receivable after Jan. 1, 1847, for dues to the government, the sub-treasury Act aided the notes. On the other hand the issuance of the notes offset the specie requirement of that Act, and therefore prevented or modified some of its anticipated consequences—particularly a drain upon the specie of the banks. One advantage of the notes was that, should the war suddenly end, they could be withdrawn and the interest on them stopped. This was not true of loans.

The authority to issue these notes was limited to one year; but on Jan. 28, 1847, the time was extended to six months after the ratification of peace with Mexico, with the proviso that the notes thus authorized should not exceed $5,000,000 in amount (§ 15, U. S. Stat. at Large, ix, 121–2). In his report of Dec. 9, 1846, Walker stated that $3,853,100 of these notes had been issued, $1,766,450 bearing interest at one tenth of 1 per cent (De Knight, Currency, 69), and the residue at 5–2/5 per cent per annum payable on redemption. Nov. 2, 1846, treasury notes of prior issues amounting to $412,283.97 were outstanding. The surplus, July 1, 1846, was $9,126,439. Sept. 29, 1846, the treasury contained “only a fraction over” four millions (Polk, Diary, Sept. 29).

Professor Tucker proved, it was said, that Walker’s argument for free trade made an error of $1,000,000 per year in the productive industry of the United States. Stewart of Pennsylvania charged him in Congress with a number of errors. Rockwell of Connecticut made a startling analysis of treasury statements (Cong. Globe, 30, 1, pp. 404–7); but it would lead us too far afield to enter upon such a discussion. $4,999,149 of the loan was issued (Bayley, Nat. Loans, 71). On $363,900 there was an average premium of .277 of 1 per cent, while the rest went at par (De Knight, Currency, 70). Opponents of the government attributed the success of the loan to Marcy’s statement that it would not be necessary to call for more volunteers. As a new call for volunteers went out almost immediately after the bids were opened, he was charged falsely with having played a trick on the public (N. Y. Express, Nov. 18, 1846). For the truth in this matter see vol. i, p. 351. Most of the loan was taken at New York, but it became fairly well distributed. Walker’s offering the loan only ten days after advertising an issue of $3,000,000 in notes (Niles, Nov., 1846, p. 147) was rather alarming, it must be admitted. A less reasonable criticism on his policy was that he could and should have borrowed liberally June 1 and July 1 at 5 per cent. At those dates he had a large surplus, the tariff had not been changed, and the administration did not expect a serious war.

The estimated deficit, July 1, 1847, was $4,779,042 (Walker, report, Dec. 9, 1846 in Sen. 2; 29, 2). By the Act of Jan. 28, 1847, the treasury notes were to be redeemable in one or two years, to bear interest (not more than 6 per cent) at the discretion of the President, and to be convertible into bonds. None could be issued, used as security for loans, or bought up by the government, at less than par plus the accrued interest. New notes could be issued for those redeemed, but the total outstanding amount of notes and bonds issued under the Act could not exceed $23,000,000. The public lands were in effect pledged as security for the loan, which was made payable at any time after Dec. 31, 1867. The Act provided that the notes to be issued under it and all previous treasury notes could be converted into 6 per cent stock (bonds).

It was predicted that the loan could not be placed at better than 90, if at all (N. Y. Express, Dec. 14, 1846). Bids (to be in by Apr. 10) for $18,000,000 of it were invited on Feb. 9, 1847. The New York and Boston banks appear to have agreed on a price, but some New York capitalists offered more, and they in turn were outbid by Corcoran and Riggs of Washington, who seem to have taken a very large part of it. The bids above par totalled about $55,000,000, and the premiums offered ran as high as 2 per cent. It has been called a mistake to pay 6 per cent on long-term bonds, and this is proved by the premium they soon commanded. But before the bonds were issued grave doubts regarding their acceptability were entertained, and a saving in interest was of relatively little importance. Many had expected that the whole amount($23,000,000) would be issued in treasury notes and practically increase the amount of the currency; but the amount issued at first was largely taken for investments (N. Y. Herald (weekly), Mar. 20, 1847). Hence the currency in circulation was diminished. However, the specie coming from abroad soon made up for this.

Bids for $5,000,000 of notes were invited on Feb. 26. The Rothschilds (represented by A. Belmont) were soon understood to be interested, and were in fact successful to a large extent in the bidding. Their bidding encouraged American capitalists. Probably the notes could safely, and therefore should, have been made convertible into 5 per cent, instead of 6 per cent, bonds. The interest paid on them at redemption was 5–2/5 or 6 per cent (De Knight, Currency, 71).

June 1, 1817, Walker reported treasury notes as outstanding (minus $789,700 of cancelled notes on hand): of issues prior to July 22, 1846, $303,817; of issues under the Act of July 22, $3,565,600; of issues under the Act of Jan. 28, $8,100,000; net total, $11,179,717 (Niles, June 5, p. 224). About the middle of August, 1847, they sold at 106–1/2, but within a week (probably because reports that Scott had captured Mexico City were found to be false) they fell at New York to 103–1/2. The issuing of more notes was objected to on the ground that it would virtually mean a government bank controlled by a party. It was argued by some that notes for small amounts bearing interest at a nominal rate should have been put out. These, it was said, would have been purchased by persons of small means, who actually put their savings into specie needed by the government. The question was raised why Polk asked in December, 1846, for funds to cover the fiscal year 1847–8 (N. Y. Express, Dec. 14, 1846). Walker’s report included estimates for that period, but this fact does not seem to be an adequate explanation. One suspects that Polk and Walker knew the money would be needed, and thought this the easiest way to get it.

In Dec., 1847, Polk had to admit that a deficiency of $15,729,114 on June 30, 1848, was probable. The British minister reported that one reason for proposing the tax on tea and coffee was a wish to defeat anticipated attempts of the protectionists to repeal the tariff of 1846. It was suspected that Walker made the appeal to Congress in order to display his influence or to relieve that body of responsibility for modifying the tariff it had so recently voted. The motives of the House were mixed. Some members doubtless objected to the plan on principle, others because they wished to be consistent with their action in accepting that tariff, others because the estimated return from such a tax ($2,500,000 or $3,000,000 per year) did not seem enough to meet the requirements, and others, perhaps, to rebuke what struck them like dictation on Walker’s part; but the main considerations appear to be those mentioned in chap. xxxiv (e.g., p. 285.) The vote in the House was taken Jan. 2, 1847. Walker persisted, but without effect. Benton’s idea was adopted in 1854. See “Public Lands, Bill to reduce and graduate the price of,” in Senate index of Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 1 and 2 sess.; 30 Cong., 1 sess., etc.

We do not positively know that Walker originated the idea of the tariff in Mexican ports, nor that it had any relation to the tea and coffee tax; but one would naturally assume as much, and so the Washington Union stated (Niles, Apr. 24, 1847, p. 113). At first, however, Walker did not perceive that the tariff would have to rest upon the President’s military authority. Contributions took the place of the pillage formerly practised in war. An advantage of the plan, perhaps not contemplated at first, was that it would greatly discourage smuggling, and therefore, since imports would mostly have to pass the inspection of American officers, contraband could much more fully be excluded. This tariff was fiercely attacked in Congress, but the position of the Executive was impregnable. Complaint was also made that Americans as well as neutrals had to pay it; but had they not done so, they would have been able to defy competition, foreign nations would have complained, the Mexicans would have benefited by the low prices of merchandise, and the United States would have obtained no revenue.

The American policy prior to March 31, 1847, is shown by Walker’s circular of June 30, 1846 (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 158) and by Marcy’s 63instructions to the commanding officer at Tampico, Dec. 15, 1846. The latter said: Only United States vessels may enter, and those only when carrying articles produced in the United States or imports upon which United States duties have been paid, and on all such goods no duties will be charged. “But in a spirit of accommodation” clearances to Tampico of cargoes of foreign products, etc., in American vessels will be granted (duties having been paid) without being unloaded in the United States. Vessels admitted at Tampico may take out return cargoes of the property of Americans or neutrals without paying export duties; and specie belonging to neutrals may be freely exported. Indeed this export of specie should be encouraged, since it prevents Mexico from seizing the means of waging war. Pakenham complained that this policy would give American goods (which would not have to pay a duty) a monopoly of the Mexican market; but it seemed impossible at this time to run the risk of the military injury liable to result from admitting neutral vessels generally. He seems to have felt inclined to protest, but he did not find that the ministers of France, Spain and Germany intended to do so (13no. 147). Previous to Dec. 15, 1846, American goods had been extensively smuggled into Mexico across the Rio Grande, and of course that process continued.

In some cases the Mexican tariff was reduced very much more than one half, and many articles of daily use, that had previously been prohibited, became available. No tonnage dues were assessed on vessels (chartered by the United States) laden exclusively with supplies for our army or navy (60Marcy to Scott, May 10, 1847), and United States officers, soldiers and sailors were exempted from the operation of the order to pay duties (Richardson, Messages, iv, 548). At Matamoros, Tampico and Vera Cruz the military governors acted as collectors. At places held by the navy, naval officers did so. On the Pacific coast it proved necessary to modify the tariff. June 11, 1847, the regulations were somewhat modified (Polk, Diary, June 11), and additional changes were made in Nov., 1847 (Polk, Diary, Nov. 6; Sen. 14; 30, 1, p. 11). July 31, 1847, the duty on books was made 20 per cent ad valorem (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 585).

Chargé Martin reported from Paris that the French newspapers, alarmed by the protest of the Mexican consul at Havre, called on their government to demand guaranties from ours. Martin justly took the position that our admitting French commerce to Mexican ports was a pure favor, to be enjoyed at the risk of those caring to take advantage of it, but expressed the opinion freely that in the treaty of peace we should protect the interests invited by our policy, as in fact we pledged ourselves to do and did (Walker, report, Dec. 8, 1847 in Ho. 6; 30, 1, 619; chap. xxxii, p. 468).

The governor of Tamaulipas wrote frankly to the central government that prohibition would merely promote robbery and smuggling while injuring good Mexicans. He therefore did nothing except to collect a duty. Yet Gates, commanding at Tampico, had to send escorts with traders, and could not fully protect them.

During the year ending June 30, 1848, almost thirty-seven and a half millions in breadstuffs were exported (Walker, report, Dec. 9, 1848 in Ho. 7; 30, 2). As early as March, 1847, the Bankers’ Magazine estimated the increase in the value of our “present” exports of grain and cotton as $12–15,000,000. The customs receipts for the year ending June 30, 1847, were $23,747,865; for the following year $31,757,071. Of course the rising tide of prosperity, besides increasing the customs receipts and bringing specie, enhanced the credit of the government generally, and assisted the country in other ways to support the burden of the war. The crops of 1847 were fine in Europe; the importations were found there to have been excessive; and prices fell sharply. British business proved to be far less solid than it had been supposed to be. Bancroft, our minister, reported “a whirlwind of bankruptcies overspreading the land” (no. 46, Dec. 4, 1847). Orders for American goods were cancelled. Owing to a want of confidence the practice of consigning goods to English houses, with bills drawn on the consignees for a considerable part of their value, was to a large extent abandoned. Every vessel from England brought large parcels of American bonds to be sold for what they would fetch. Early in November the rate of exchange went up and specie began to be exported from this country, though much remained in the interior. Numerous failures occurred in the United States. All called in their resources. But here the trouble did not prove to be long or very serious; and while another year of war might have caused embarrassment, the country, despite the revolution in France, soon found itself comfortable.

The debate in the House began Feb. 8 and ended Feb. 17. In the course of the discussion it came out that the treasury really had about $7,000,000 more than had been supposed, but that $4,000,000 were desired by the war department to make good certain deficiencies. The amount of the loan was therefore reduced from $18,500,000 to “not more than” $16,000,000 (Bayley, Nat. Loans, 73). The power to borrow under this Act was to continue one year. The bonds were to bear not more than 6 per cent interest, be sold at not less than par, and be reimbursable at any time after July 1, 1868. Before July 1, 1868, the secretary could purchase the bonds at the market price (but not below par). Coupons could be attached to the certificates, and such certificates be transferable by mere delivery. The secretary of the treasury was required to advertise for bids—these to be received 20–60 days from the date of the earliest advertisement at Washington. In order to give the loan the aid of assured peace, Walker arranged the advertising so as to defer the time of opening the bids until June 17, 1848. The premium obtained was $487,169. Though assisted with this loan, the treasury ended the fiscal year with a balance of only $153,535.

For the olive branches (i.e. offers to treat) see pp. 122–4. A particular difficulty in attempting to live on the country would have been the general sparseness of the population, especially since the Americans had to keep together. For this reason, though some of the enemy expected us to rouse the nation by undertaking to enforce such a policy, the wiser Mexicans did not look for it. On the ground that places would be occupied alternately by the contending armies, the British chargé at Washington deplored the order to exact contributions; but the course of the war preserved the Mexicans from this misfortune in a way he did not anticipate.

Besides the $150,000, Scott collected some $70,000 (about $12,000 captured at Cerro Gordo, nearly $50,000 for captured tobacco, and smaller amounts for licenses, etc.). Polk was accused of inconsistency for holding that Mexico could pay us no indemnity except in territory and yet expecting to draw large revenues from that country (Amer. Review, Jan., 1848, p. *2). The reply is threefold: 1, in the latter case he assumed that Mexico was to be deprived by military force of the revenues normally used by a nation; 2, even if a Mexican government might have had the physical power to raise a cash indemnity for us, it could not actually have obtained the money from the people for that purpose, as our own armies were expected to do by force; and, 3, Polk’s expectations were not realized. Polk was also charged with encroaching upon the prerogatives of the House both in taxing the Mexicans and in spending the proceeds. Webster and Calhoun concurred in this view (Cong. Globe, 30, 1, 495–6). But if Gen. Taylor had a right—as all admitted—to impress a Mexican donkey into the service of his army, Polk had a right to do all that he did in this regard. The authority of the commander-in-chief in the enemy’s country, waging war according to the Constitution, was quite broad enough to cover it. See Cong. Globe, 30, 1, app., 423–4.

The estimated possible revenues were as follows: import duties, $12,000,000; duties on goods passing to the interior, $2,400,000; direct taxes on real estate, professions, trades, etc., $3,000,000; duties on the production of gold and silver, $600,000; melting and assay dues, $50,000; export duties on coined gold and silver, $1,000,000; revenue from the monopolies, $3,525,000 (61Memoir). Transit dues on animals and goods, including the duties at city gates (alcabalas), were to be discontinued. For a short time in 1847 Perry allowed logwood to be exported under a 10 per cent duty. It seemed impracticable to seize the mines, for the miners would probably have fled on the approach of American troops.

Scott resolved not to take the ordinary state and city revenues, because he felt that such a course would be “to make war on civilization”; since every civilized community requires the means of paying for administration, without which it would fall into anarchy (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 1049). His broad taxation orders were based upon an announced intention of spreading over the country. He proposed to send out expeditions soon. One actually proceeded, as we have seen, to Toluca, another to Cuernavaca, and another to the important mining town of Pachuca (Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 1048, 1061–2). The occupation of Córdoba and Orizaba was partly in pursuance of the same policy (61Scott to Twiggs, Dec. 26, 1847). He proposed in particular to send 7000 men to San Luis Potosí in order to open the communication between Tampico and the mining city of Zacatecas. But his lack of troops and the peace negotiations prevented this.

In order to force the products of the mines into circulation for the benefit of both Americans and Mexicans, Scott forbade the exportation of gold and silver bullion, and on gold and silver coin exported he imposed a duty of 5 per cent (65gen. orders 362). Walker’s and Polk’s views on these points had been different from Scott’s, and Scott’s action was taken subject to revision at Washington, where he presented his reasons. At the end of April, 1848, Walker’s instructions were put into force by General Butler.

Scott instructed his officers to execute his orders in a conciliatory manner, if possible, but apply force should that be necessary. Should there be no other way, the commanding officer was to collect the assessment in money or some equivalent from the wealthier inhabitants.

In the northeast Wool carried out the financial purposes of the government to the best of his ability, beginning at Saltillo as early as May, 1847, with a revenue system, the occupation of buildings, and the seizure of cattle, mules, etc. He punished refractory towns and places violating pledges of neutrality with special taxes. Mar. 2, 1848, he reported that all were paying their taxes. The owners of houses taken for the use of the army were indemnified through a tax on all the real estate of the vicinity. In northwestern Mexico only coast towns were in our hands. California and New Mexico, which the United States government intended to retain, were of course viewed in a different light. Naturally all possible attempts were made by the Mexicans to protect their property against us. Subsistence, forage, etc., continued to be paid for, since the interests of the army prescribed that policy still. Our officers were not permitted to have any interest (e.g. claim for special services) in cases of seizure, etc.

Import, export and tonnage duties produced in all only $3,434,665; contributions from other sources, $553,055; captured money and property, $163,573; assessments on states and the City of Mexico, $225,649; and state and municipal revenues, together with some other sources of income, $163,055. From these amounts the costs of collection, drawbacks on goods disposed of to men in the service, and the expenses of the state and municipal governments had to be deducted. It was to make up for surrendering the monopolies that Scott quadrupled the state assessments originally contemplated. $769,650 derived from the military contributions were applied on the first instalment due to Mexico. All of the $3,000,000 appropriated by the Act of March 3, 1847, was paid to her shortly after she ratified the treaty of peace (Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 107–9; Richardson, Messages, iv, 588).

Scott spent nearly $64,000 of the funds that he derived from the Mexicans for blankets and shoes given to private soldiers; and $10 each were given to a large number of wounded men when they left the hospital. Probably Belmont’s arrangement left the Rothschilds a handsome profit, for John Parrott, who had been our consul at Mazatlán, offered, if the government would open a credit of two or three millions in London, to take charge of supplying cash in Mexico at the rate of five dollars for every pound sterling, and a pound sterling would have cost the government only about $4.80. One main purpose of our government in laying an export duty on gold and silver was to facilitate the exchange of treasury notes for specie with Mexican citizens; but probably little was accomplished, for nearly all the specie in Mexico was held by foreigners. In the offices at Washington a good deal of carelessness in making estimates and handling funds appears to have prevailed (e.g. Polk’s Diary, Aug. 18–28, 1847), and Walker’s relations with Belmont and with Corcoran and Riggs were perhaps a little too intimate (ibid.); but one finds no reasons for suspecting Walker of crookedness. Of course property was handled more or less wastefully in the field, and contractors took an advantage sometimes. Roa Bárcena (Recuerdos, 249) states that some men buying grain, etc., for the American army required the sellers to give receipts for larger sums than were paid to them. See also Polk, Diary, July 10, 1847. The largest loss resulted from Gaines’s unauthorized calls for troops, which probably cost $1,500,000 (13Pakenham, no. 74, 1847).

In a sense the war with Mexico cost too little. The estimates were pared below our needs. Troops could not be called out when they should have been. Transports and many other necessaries were lacking at critical times. This point will come up in the text of the next chapter. At the end of the war the country and the treasury were in a sound condition, and the government’s income was ample. A period of solid prosperity ensued. It may be worth mention that American capitalists offered more than $100,000,000 for the less than $50,000,000 of government securities, and that the total received by the treasury in premiums was $555,511 (Walker, report, Dec. 9, 1848, in Ho. 7; 30, 2).

An account of the money market during the war (based mainly on the financial columns of the New York Weekly Herald) may be of interest. During the early spring of 1846 the Oregon controversy with England was a strong depressing influence. The outbreak of the war with Mexico caused a panic (May 11), but this passed immediately (May 12), and by May 19 the market was rather buoyant, largely in consequence of favorable news from Taylor. It then declined; but about the middle of June there was a plethora of money, and much activity prevailed in consequence of the settlement of the Oregon controversy. This faded gradually away into dulness, but quickened again about the first of August. Fluctuations followed. The first half of September saw a decline. Sept. 5 United States bonds that had sold at 113 before the war brought only 102, but the prospect of foreign demands for grain caused a revival (Sept. 20-Oct. 3). Dulness then returned; the general feeling about the war was reflected in very low prices about the middle of November, and Dec. 7 was a “blue day.” Though the treasury required all payments to it to be in specie on and after Jan. 1, 1847, it did not begin to pay out specie until Apr. 1. Hence it piled up coin during the interim. Jan. 3, 1847, the market was rather stringent. During the second half of February, the Bank of England rate rose from 3 to 4. Prices continued to decline until by April 4 good prospects at the seat of war and an influx of specie turned the tide. May 1 the New York banks were said to have more than $12,000,000 in specie. May 10 Reading R. R. difficulties precipitated a panic, but this was only a flurry. Money was extremely abundant in a few days (May 19) and prices advanced until about the middle of July. During the second week of August the increasing war expenses bore hard on the market, and treasury notes fell about 2 per cent. About Oct. 1 the report that Scott had entered Mexico City was found to be untrue, and a panic set in (Oct. 4), due to that fact and bad news regarding the financial situation in Europe. The “explosion” of “corners” followed. By Nov. 11 the banks were “shaking in the wind,” and a crisis came on at once (Nov. 14). Paper money was loudly called for. After a troubled month, however, money became much easier and prices responded (Dec. 19). Another month, and the banks (really in a tight place themselves) were believed to be tightening everything to force a change in the financial policy of the government (Jan. 25, 1848); but by Feb. 10 natural conditions revived buoyancy, and there was a loud call for more treasury notes. Things then quieted down, but the arrival of the draft of a treaty stimulated activity once more. Absurd rumors about the terms of the treaty next caused a temporary reaction; but when it was accepted, prices went up (Mar. 11). For the day-by-day prices of United States securities, Dec. 1, 1846, to Dec. 1, 1847, see Ho. 6; 30, 1, p. 71.

Other financial legislation of the war period. U. S. Statutes at Large, ix, p. 35, Act of June 27, 1846, sec. 2: $75,000 in U. S. stock belonging to the Seneca Indians to be cancelled, and interest to be paid them on a credit of that amount to be entered on the books of the secretary of the treasury. P. 94, Act of Aug. 10, 1846: Mexican Indemnity Stock (see Bayley, National Loans, 71, modified by statements of this work). P. 106, Act of Aug. 10, 1846: Treasury notes, stolen and put into circulation, to be redeemed by the government. P. 125, Act of Feb. 11, 1847, sec. 9: Any non-commissioned officer, musician and private entitled under this Act to receive a certificate or warrant for 160 acres (or 40 acres) may take instead of it $100 (or $25) in 6 per cent treasury scrip, redeemable at the pleasure of the government. P. 248, Act of July 19, 1848: Three months’ extra pay to all who actually served out their term or were honorably discharged, or the heirs of those who lost life or died after being honorably discharged. P. 249, Act of July 21, 1848: Act of July 4, 1836, granting half-pay and pensions to widows, orphans, etc., made applicable to cases of these in the Mexican War. P. 412, Act of March 3, 1849: To provide for settling accounts of those who received money from military contributions, etc., in Mexico. P. 414, Act of March 3, 1849: To provide payment for property lost or destroyed in the military service of U. S. P. 520, Act of Sept. 28, 1850: Bounty lands to be given to certain officers and soldiers who served in the Mexican War.

XXXIV. THE WAR IN AMERICAN POLITICS

What is said of Polk in this and succeeding paragraphs should be supplemented by referring to vol. i, pp. 128–9 and to the concluding chapter.

Taking advantage of the feeling about Polk’s personality and methods, his enemies felt warranted in straining points against him. It was called treachery to negotiate with Santa Anna while negotiating with Paredes (No. American, Dec. 15, 1846), even though the latter negotiation had practically ended before the former began. His dwelling upon our claims against Mexico in his annual Message of 1846, which it was quite proper to do in reviewing the Mexican situation, was represented as an afterthought, intended to justify a blow already struck and discrediting the assertion that Mexico had caused the war by invading our territory (Boston Atlas, Dec. 12, 1846). It was pointed out that the proclamation sent to Taylor for distribution ascribed to the United States aims different from those professed in the Message of May 11 (Nat. Intellig., Aug. 14, 1846), as if Polk could be required to say everything every time.

The “Conservative” party arose in 1837 from the opposition to Van Buren’s sub-treasury plan, which Silas Wright championed. Many honest Conservatives, realizing they had been mistaken, left the party; but their places were taken by canal claimants.

Stephen A. Douglas, who stood quite close to the administration, said in the Senate: “Conquest was not the motive for the prosecution of the war; satisfaction, indemnity, security, was the motive—conquest and territory the means” (Cong. Globe, 30, 1, app., 222).

The proper stand for the Whigs was pointed out by Gov. Briggs of Massachusetts in general orders: “Whatever may be the difference of opinion as to the origin” of the war, the constitutional authorities have declared that a war exists; patriotism and humanity dictate that it should be brought to a speedy and successful end; hence all should coöperate (Niles, July 11, 1846, pp. 293–4). It will be noted that the author is dealing in this chapter with politics, not the convictions of private persons, which, even when mistaken, were entitled to respect, because sincere and associated with worthy sentiments.

Another interesting fact was that on Mar. 26, 1846, McIlvaine of the House, discussing an appropriation bill, raised the issue that in sending Taylor to the Rio Grande Polk had been “invading Mexico,” yet, although the bill was objectionable from several points of view, it passed by a vote of 111 to 38 (Cong. Globe, 29, 1, pp. 558, 574). See also Lumpkin’s speech, ibid., 834–7. Polk was mercilessly ridiculed for believing that Santa Anna would favor peace, but his opponents had to admit that a Whig general, Taylor, believed (or appeared to believe) Ampudia’s assertions to the same effect (chap. xii, p. 504) made under circumstances that rendered the idea far less plausible.

Polk’s Message of May 11 mentioned, as was natural, the rejection of Slidell and the failure of Mexico to pay our claims, but its practical gist was contained in the following sentence: “As war exists, and, notwithstanding all our efforts to avoid it, exists by the act of Mexico herself, we are called upon by every consideration of duty and patriotism to vindicate with decision the honor, the rights, and the interests of our country.”

In the office of the sec. of relaciones was found a large collection of extracts from American speeches and newspapers (N. Y. Herald, Feb. 5, 1848: Gen. Pierce). Whig journals assured Mexico that her cause was just; that a majority of the Americans detested the war; that our treasury could not bear the cost; that our government was incompetent; that it was disloyal to our commanders; that our armies could not win the war; that soon the administration would be rebuked and its policy be reversed. The government “stand ready to yield anything that Mexico may demand as the price of peace,” asserted the N. Y. Courier and Enquirer (Wash. Union, July 10, 1847). For numerous other quotations see Cong. Globe, 30, 1, app., 347. April 27, 1847, El Progreso of Querétaro said: The peace party in the United States “have been encouraging us to sustain ourselves until we could obtain from them a satisfactory arrangement of our difficulties as soon as they should come into power” (Wash. Union, May 28, 1848).

Allen of Ohio, noted for vanity and a powerful voice, felt so disgusted about the outcome of the Oregon business, that at the beginning of this session he threw up the chairmanship of the committee on foreign relations and declined to serve on any committee. Niles, an excellent man, was a protectionist, like the Pennsylvania Senators. Hannegan was a man of force but a rabid westerner. He, Dickinson and Breese were distinctly Cass men. Calhoun’s partisans were Butler (So. Carolina), Lewis (Alabama) and the Florida senators, while Colquitt and Speight were thought to be guided considerably by him; but as time went on his influence over most of this group waned. Of the Whig Senators Webster spent most of his time in the practice of law. Crittenden was in general honest and sensible; but he and Clayton had induced Jarnagin to vote for Walker’s tariff, believing that it would discredit the Democrats, and the failure of this unworthy trick damaged their prestige considerably. Clayton had unusual ability and experience, but was crafty and insincere. Mangum enjoyed a deserved respect, but was not of striking ability.

Of the House Democrats, P. King stood high in the confidence of his colleagues, and had no little skill in leading. C. J. Ingersoll was the most important Pennsylvanian, but his attainments and eloquence were accompanied by erratic judgment. Thurman surpassed the other Ohio Representatives in good conduct and talents, but Brinkerhoff displayed more activity than he. Douglas ranked first in the Illinois group, and perhaps first among the supporters of the administration in the House. Dromgoole (Virginia) possessed remarkable legislative abilities and reputation; but did not care to exert himself overmuch. McKay (North Carolina) and Haralson (Georgia) were chairmen, respectively, of the ways and means and the military committees, but did not distinguish themselves. Rhett, an able and acute man, was a more consistent representative of South Carolina principles than Calhoun. Of the Whigs Severance (Maine) possessed more than average ability. Winthrop (Massachusetts) was a gentleman, a fine speaker and debater, honest, scholarly and conservative—an ideal public man. Hudson (Massachusetts) had energy and character but was too partisan. J. R. Ingersoll (Pennsylvania) had good abilities and good sense. Giddings (Ohio) has to be considered a calculating fanatic, not enthusiast, of the abolition school. Vinton (Ohio) stood among the best on either side of the House in wisdom, sincerity and good conduct.

“Old Whitey,” it will be recalled, was Taylor’s favorite horse. When the author refers to the course of “the Whigs” or “the Democrats” it is to be understood, of course, that exceptions existed.

The National Intelligencer had the hardihood to state (Dec. 25, 1846): “It is the opinion of the President that the fact of conquest annexes foreign provinces to the United States.” The Texans complained because the part of New Mexico claimed by them was occupied by Kearny; but since the enemy had held it by military force this action was proper, and Buchanan assured Henderson that the temporary military occupation would not affect the rights of his state (Buchanan, Works, vii, 215). The author did not find Harrison’s proclamation in Ms.; but Mr. D. M. Matteson discovered it in Niles, Nov. 27, 1813, p. 215. Copies of official documents in the Burton Historical Collection, kindly furnished to the author, throw further light on the fact that American sovereignty over a portion of Canada was declared in 1813. The subject is certainly an interesting one.

The Proviso, offered as an amendment to the $2,000,000 and $3,000,000 bills, was objected to because: 1, J. Q. Adams, Benton and others argued that any territory acquired from Mexico would come to us “free” by law, and slavery would not exist there unless subsequent legislation and also the natural conditions should be favorable to it; 2, the question would necessarily be settled when Congress should have to decide regarding the government of such territory, and present action would not bind a future Congress; 3, it did not relate to American territory, property or citizens—in short it related to nothing that existed; 4, the only way to reach the end aimed at by the Proviso would be through a treaty, and, should the treaty be violated, Mexico would have a right to interfere with our domestic affairs; 5, the President would have no right to sign such a treaty, for the subject belonged to Congress; 6, the American Senate would not ratify such a treaty, and hence the adoption of the Proviso would prevent peace and the acquisition of territory; 7, it was insulting to Mexico to legislate about territory belonging to her, would scandalize the world, and might prolong the war; 8, the Proviso stood in the way of needed war legislation, tended to alarm the South and lessen its interest in the war, incited to discord at a time when harmony was peculiarly desirable, promoted sectionalism, and, if adopted, might render the administration powerless to wage the war successfully. As is well known, Brinkerhoff of Ohio was the father of the Proviso, but for strategical reasons Wilmot was asked to introduce it. Wilmot himself did not insist upon the Proviso, when Polk explained to him some of the difficulties. For a convenient review of the later history of the Proviso principle see Lalor, Cyclopædia, iii, 1115–7. The Proviso threatened Whig unity and success, of course, because the northern wing and the southern wing of the party could not agree regarding slavery.

Berrien’s words (Benton, Abr. Debates, xvi, 42): The war “ought not to be prosecuted ... with any view to the dismemberment of that republic, or to the acquisition by conquest of any part of her territory”; this government “will always be ready to enter into negotiations, with a view to terminate the present unhappy conflict on terms which shall ... preserve inviolate the national honor ... of Mexico”; “it is especially desirable ... that the boundary of the State of Texas should be definitely settled, and that provision be made by the republic of Mexico for the prompt and equitable settlement of the just claims of our citizens.” Naturally the Whigs endeavored to recommend the “No territory” idea by dwelling on other points (e.g. the country was already large enough; this plan would prevent a struggle between North and South over slavery; without it no treaty with Mexico could be ratified). How much merit these arguments possessed, it is unnecessary to point out; but no doubt there was more or less honest belief in them, especially among the rank and file. The people in general, however, were against giving up all the fruits of our victories, and even Calhoun admitted that we could not get out of the war with credit unless we made a large gain in territory.