The annexation of Texas

Front matter

Brigham Young University

FROM

Call y

Preface

The annexation of Texas, it can justly be said, was a very interesting, important, complicated and critical affair. It involved issues and consequences of no little moment in our domestic politics. It gave us an area greater than England and France together, with a port that ranks very near the head of our list, and paved the way for the acquisition of San Francisco and our far Southwest. It led to our greatest and most brilliant foreign war. It extinguished a nation that might have become a strong and unfriendly rival and might have caused the disruption of the Union. It removed an excellent opportunity for certain leading European powers to interpose in the affairs of this continent and in particular to embarrass the development of the United States. It presented a field of battle on which our diplomats and those of England, France, Mexico and Texas waged a long and intricate struggle with all their skill and with a full determination to succeed ; and it brought these five nations to the verge of war. Such an episode would appear to merit a detailed study, especially since very different opinions regarding it still prevail ; and as the author, while gathering data for a history of our Mexican War, found many essential materials for a thorough treatment of the subject, he has felt under obligation to complete and present them.

As the footnotes indicate, the monograph is based almost exclusively (with the exception of certain preliminary matters) on first-hand sources, though all previous works of any importance on the subject have been fully examined. Use has been made of substantially all the diplomatic papers — American, British, French, Mexican and Texan — bearing upon the question, and also, as may be seen by the account of the Sources in the Appendix, a rather large amount of other valuable material both manuscript and printed, such as executive and legislative documents, letters, speeches, diaries and periodicals. All discoverable sources of information, indeed, have been examined. In this way a closer approach to completeness has been attainable, and at the same time it has been possible to avoid errors into which a writer depending upon a portion of the data would not infrequently fall without even suspecting danger.

v

V yi PREFACE.

Secondly, by making a painstaking study of public opinion in the countries chiefly concerned it has been feasible to ascertain the causes which controlled or influenced official action in certain important cases. Thirdly, attention has been paid to a number of subsidiary topics which throw a strong light upon the subject. Such are the British designs with reference to slavery in Texas and the United States, the political condition of northern Mexico at this period, the possibilities before Texas as an independent nation, the danger to the United States involved in her permanent nationality, the scheme of a new confederacy, the status and influence of the annexation issue in the politics of this country, and several others. Fourthly, the desire has been to avoid leaving the matter, as it is easy to do when using first-hand sources, in such a condition that the reader could not see the forest for the trees. And finally a strong and long-continued effort has been made to secure not only completeness but accuracy. Of course perfection has not been reached, however, and it is hoped that all mistakes may be pointed out. The truth of history is surely more important than a writer’s dream of an impossible inerrancy, and serious criticism, based upon knowledge, is co-operation of a most useful kind.

Those who were pleased to commend the style of the author’s latest work, Our Struggle for the Fourteenth Colony , may feel surprised that the present volume is so different. It seems to him clear, however, that one’s manner of writing should depend on one’s subject and object. In the former case his dominant theme was the early, impulsive stage of a popular revolution in the name of Liberty, and his principal business was to recount the out-door proceedings — often peculiarly dramatic and exciting — of ardent and (frequently somewhat crude young men; whereas at present his concern is with diplomats and statesmen pursuing with dignity and deliberation their profoundly studied lines of policy. The earlier book, in order to make the extraordinary facts entirely comprehensible to minds quite unfamiliar with such a state of things, endeavored to place its readers in the thick of events and impart in some degree a sense of the agitation and enthusiasm of the time, to which end a vivid and rather highly colored style, answering to the character of the persons and events presented, seemed appropriate and even necessary ; but now one is occupied with complicated intellectual efforts of a high order, which are best viewed from an

PREFACE.

elevation and a distance ; and these require only to be mad as clearly, calmly and unobtrusively as possible.

The footnotes cover all the statements of the text except matters of common knowledge, but of course a fact once pro\ not proved again. To some readers the number of references seem unnecessarily great, and so they appear to the author him But as almost every foot of the ground is controversial, the centage that could safely be omitted is rather small, and the s would hardly justify the abandonment of a complete and system for one of the opposite character. In order not to fi page with annoying figures, the references — standing in the of the statements they support — are grouped by paragraphs, an indication of the bearing of the reference is given when this is m obvious. Naturally in some cases a citation confirms more than a single sentence, and it should be remembered, too, that for reasons of convenience the first page of a document is the one specified unless there is a particular occasion for doing otherwise. To carry such a body of figures with perfect accuracy through the processes of compiling, revising, copying and printing is extremely difficult, especially as the author’s attention is liable to be diverted momentarily from the mathematics to the meaning of the citation; but it can be said that unsparing pains have been taken to ensure correctness, and that a trained historical worker has gone over the entire work of verification independently.

While engaged on this investigation at the Public Record Office, London, the author was so fortunate as to have for neighbor Dr. Ephraim Douglass Adams, the fruit of whose researches, covering to a small extent the same ground as this volume, has recently been offered to the public. As it fell to the present writer in another place to view that monograph, British Interests and Activities in Texas , in the manner which it invited by describing itself as “purely technical,” he will only say here — though it does not need to be said — that anything coming from such a source deserves very careful attention, and express the hope that all concerned with Texan history will read the book. One cannot help wishing that Professor Adams’s investigations had extended to the Texan, Mexican and American archives. Mention must also be made of an interesting and valuable work by Dr. Jesse S. Reeves, entitled American Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk, based largely on documents which he as well as the present writer was permitted to examine at the State

PREFACE.

lent, Washington. Neither of these volumes, it is proper to as read by the author of The Annexation of Texas until .he completion of his own manuscript. In this place, too, the ttant investigations conducted by a number of Texan scholars nade known to the public in various learned periodicals, notably Quarterly of their State Historical Association, are entitled to a ful and very respectful recognition.

inally the author desires to acknowledge with the highest appren the indispensable assistance of President Roosevelt, Presi- Diaz, Secretary of State Root, Minister of Foreign Relations seal, Senator Lodge, and Ambassadors Reid at London, White aris and Clayton at Mexico; and to express a warm sense of ligation to his distinguished friends Dr. J. Franklin Jameson, Mr. Worthington C. Ford and Mr. Gaillard Hunt for aid in his search for documents. To the many others who have kindly co-operated in minor yet important ways, particularly by granting permission to examine the MSS. in their custody, his thanks are likewise very cordiallv tendered.

Boston, July 26, 1911.

J. H. S.

Contents

I. The Beginnings of the Annexation Question ... i -JI. Texas and Mexico, 1836-1843 34

III. Texas and the United States, 1836-1843 52

IV. Texas aNd Europe, 1836-1843 76

I

First of all, in approaching our difficult subject, it will be useful to refresh the memory regarding certain main facts of Mexican history. The outbreak of the revolt against Spain took place in 1810; and in September, 1821, Iturbide, the brilliant leader of the revolutionary forces, entered the capital in triumph. Eight months later, after much political wrangling, he was proclaimed Emperor by some of his troops, and this usurpation was grudgingly, but of necessity, ratified by the Constituent Congress then in session. Before long, however, a military officer at Vera Cruz named Santa Anna, who had fallen out with Iturbide and understood how much hostility against the Emperor there was, revolted in favor of a republican system ; and, as the insurrection proved successful, Iturbide soon resigned the throne and left the country. In October, 1824, a federal constitution, based in a considerable measure upon that of the United States, was proclaimed; and Victoria, elected President under this organic law, served his term without interruption.1

1 General Note. — The text is based mainly on diplomatic correspondence, and when nothing to the contrary is indicated in the footnotes, it may be understood that a despatch to a minister or consul proceeded from the foreign affairs department of his government, and that a despatch from such an official was addressed to that department. Thus “To Butler, Sept. 28, 1833,” means a despatch from the American department of State to Butler, and “ Butler, Jan. 10, 1832,” means a despatch from him to the department. Also, if nothing to the contrary is indicated, it may be assumed that the documents are to be found as follows : American despatches in the archives of the State department at Washington ; British at the Public Record Office, London, in the Foreign Office volumes ; Mexican in the archives of the Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores, Mexico City ; and Texan in two volumes entitled Texan Diplomatic Correspondence published by the American Historical Association. The French archives for the annexation period are not accessible ; but all the essential documents have, it is believed, been discovered. Some were printed in French periodicals ; some exist in the American or Mexican archives ; and since England and France co-operated in the Texas affair, a much larger number are filed in the British records. As a rule the printed version of a document is cited, if it has been published in full and with substantial accuracy ; and in these cases the reader is of course informed where to look for it. In a few cases, it will be seen, no numbers are attached to despatches, but any one who looks up the references given will easily find them.

I

In 1828 Pedraza was chosen in his place, but a revolution forced Congress to annul the election and give the office of chief magistrate to the popular soldier, Guerrero. During the summer of 1829 a Spanish expedition, designed to bring Mexico back to her allegiance, landed on the^ coast, but from a variety of causes, among which was incompetence and perhaps was treachery, finally surrendered; and Santa Anna, the Mexican leader, became a popular hero. In the following December Bustamante, though he occupied the second place in the government, organized a revolution ; and Guerrero, after a brief struggle, took flight, was treacherously captured and was shot. Three years later an uprising engineered by Santa Anna overthrew Bustamante in turn, and the victor was soon afterwards elected President. Before long he nullified acts of Congress, forbade that body to assemble, changed State and city administrations at his will, and sanctioned a revolutionary Plan that pointed to him as the one

The American Secretaries of State principally concerned were Forsyth, Webster, Upshur, Calhoun and Buchanan. The American ministers most frequently mentioned were Everett at London, King and Martin (charge) at Paris, Ellis, Thompson and Green (charge) at Mexico, and in Texas the charges La Branche, Eve, Murphy, Howard and Donelson. The British foreign minister chiefly concerned was Lord Aberdeen ; and the principal British representatives abroad were Cowley at Paris, Fox and then Pakenham at Washington, Pakenham and then Bankhead (and Doyle, charge) at Mexico, and Elliot and Kennedy (consul) in Texas. The leading Mexican Ministers of Foreign Relations during the period were Bocanegra, Rejon and Cuevas; and the principal representatives abroad, Almonte at Washington, Arrangoiz (consul) at New Orleans, Murphy at London and Garro at Paris. The Texan Secretaries of State requiring mention here were Jones, Ashbel Smith and Allen; and the chief representatives in foreign parts Reily, Van Zandt, Henderson and Raymond (charge) at Washington, and Henderson, Ashbel Smith and Terrell in England and France. The French minister of foreign affairs was Guizot ; and the most important foreign representatives in the field of this history were Sainte Aulaire at London, Pageot at Washington, Cyprey at Mexico, and Saligny in Texas. In the case of all officials not named above, the needed indications are given in the footnotes.

To avoid marring the text with innumerable ^figures, the references, standing in the order of the statements they support, are grouped by paragraphs, and when it has seemed necessary, a catch-word has been introduced to indicate the bearing of the citation. As a rule a document is cited only once, even though used more than once, in the notes of a paragraph, but if used in the next paragraph it is again cited.

The following abbreviations, besides a few that require no explanation, have been used in the footnotes: Adv., Advertiser; arch., archives; Bank., Bankhead ; Buch., Buchanan; Bull., Bulletin; Com., Commercial; conf., confidential ; con., consular; Const., Constitutional ; corr., correspondence ; Crit., Crittenden ; Debats, Journal des Debats; desp., despatch; Diario, Diario del Gobierno Mexicano ; dipl., diplomatic ; Don., Donelson ; Enq., Enquirer ; F. O., Foreign Office (British) ; Hend., Henderson ; Intell., Intelligencer ; Journ., Journal; leg., legation; Lib., Liberator ; Madis., Madisonian ; Memor., Memoranda ; min., minister; Nat., National; Niles, Niles’ Register; Pap., Papers; Penn., Pennsylvanian ; Pub. Rec. Off., Public Record Office; Relac., Relaciones ; Remin., Reminiscences ; Repub., Republican; res., reservada; Spect., Spectator; Sria., Secretaria ; Van B., Van Buren ; Van Z., Van Zandt.

In the List of Sources will be found full titles, dates of editions, etc., of the publications cited.

source of authority. In effect he thus became dictator; and a new Congress, elected under these auspices, was ready of course to accept his acts. A centralized form of government was now adopted in place of the federal system, and in October, 1835, the State legislatures were replaced with Departmental councils.2

April 28, 1836, Spain acknowledged the independence of Mexico. The following year, Santa Anna having been defeated and captured by the Texans, Bustamante came again to the head of affairs; but at one time a revolt at the capital — finally quelled — succeeded in taking possession of the palace and making him a prisoner. The French war of 1838 cost Santa Anna a leg but made him once more the idol of the nation ; and in 1841 a fresh revolution gave him a virtual dictatorship. It was proposed, however, to draw up a legal constitution later, and the following year a Congress met for this purpose; but it was forcibly dissolved. Early in 1844 Santa Anna exchanged his dictatorship for a constitutional presidency, but in December, having exhausted the patience of the nation, he was overthrown by a truly popular outbreak and Herrera succeeded him. A closer examination of the history would show many instances in which, no less truly than by force of arms, the constitution and the laws were nullified in high official action ; but this bare catalogue of essential facts is enough to prove that in reality that interesting but “ unfortunate ” country, as its public men of all shades concurred for many years in styling it, possessed at this time neither law nor constitution, and that its government was conducted in a manner to which no American could possibly have felt reconciled.

Next in order comes naturally a recapitulation of the principal incidents of early Texan history. This brings us at once to the cauldron of anti-slavery agitation; and, in order to understand the subject, we must endeavor to realize the two points of view in that controversy. In both cases this is done with difficulty. On the one side it shocks us to find men of intellect and station laboring deliberately in the cause of human slavery, and many of us can hardly view anything done by them without a sense of distrust. We are ourselves, however, in somewhat the same situation as were they. Our competitive social system admittedly inflicts much suffering and many wrongs, while it rewards with honors and wealth not a few who rank low if judged by the moral and intellectual standards we

2 So much of the early part of this chapter concerns matters of common knowledge that few references are needed. (Overthrow of the constitution, etc.) Bancroft, Pac. States, xi., 143; Yoakum, Texas, i., 366; Mexico a traves, iv., 340-345.

profess to believe in. With more or less justice pictures of life about us rivalling in blackness any from Uncle Tom's Cabin can be drawn, and the victims are often of a far more sensitive quality than were the slaves. Yet we do nothing about the matter, disclaiming responsibility for a regime thrust upon us, and honestly believing that its destruction would do vastly more harm than good. Just so the slaveholder defended himself ; and in addition he pointed to the recognition of his system, not only by thinkers like Plato, but by the New Testament and the American constitution, his loftiest standards of moral and political wisdom. Doubtless we can detect the fallacies in his argument, but there are persons who offer to do as much for ours ; and this thought may reasonably help us to view with some charity the Southern practices of a former day.

On the other side, we are staggered to find men of pure character and noble aims asserting mere suspicions as positive facts, trampling rough-shod on the dearest sentiments and interests of fellow-countrymen, exerting their utmost efforts to discredit their lawful rulers, and in some cases espousing the side of any nation that seemed ready to attack their own. But here again harsh criticism would of course be an error. These individuals, looking at things with the singleness of vision common among reformers, viewed slavery with such horror that upholders of it appeared to them capable of almost any crime. As many inner facts of our politics and diplomacy could not at the time be fully revealed, they were very much in the dark. It therefore seemed entirely justifiable to place the worst construction upon all mysterious doings of the other party, and quite proper to secure the aid of their sleepy neighbors by shouting “ Fire ! ” at the first sign of a spark. In particular, they believed that the annexation of Texas meant the infernal consecration of the United States to a blood-stained and ruinous career of aggression in the interest of slavery. Dr. William E. Channing, a noted clergyman of Boston, said, “ Our Eagle will whet, not gorge, his appetite on his first victim, and will snuff a more tempting quarry, more alluring food, in every new region which opens southward”; John Quincy Adams wrote in his diary: “The annexation of Texas to this Union is the first step to the conquest of all Mexico, of the West Indies, of a maritime, colonizing, slave-tainted monarchy, and of extinguished freedom ” ; and . one can hardly be surprised that in such a mood patriots and philanthropists could not wait for the slow investigation and careful balancing of facts, even so far as the evidence was at that time accessible. For us, however, the institution of slavery is neither an interest to be defended nor ^n outrage to be denounced, but merely a bygone state of things, through which — as through many another unfortunate condition of society — the evolution of the human race has carried it; and we can therefore devote ourselves to an investigation of our subject with no prejudice except in favor of historic truth.3

Near the close of the seventeenth century, a Canadian seigneur named La Salle planted a colony on the Texas coast near the mouth of the Colorado river; and this achievement gave France a claim to a broad but vaguely defined region in that quarter, included under the name Louisiana. The United States asserted for many years that the title extended to the next large stream, the Rio Grande, and there are indications that France held the same view. Here, however, it need only be said that in such cases the right from discovery has a wide yet not unlimited reach, and that the claims of the United States are now generally regarded as too broad. In 1763 Louisiana was transferred to Spain, in 1801 was retroceded, and finally in 1803 was purchased by the United States. Article III. of the treaty by which we secured it read as follows : “ The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States and admitted as soon as possible according to the principles of the Federal Constitution to the enjoymtnt of all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States. ...” Texas, however, had been and continued to be under Spanish jurisdiction; and it shared to some extent in the Mexican revolution.4

In 1819 the United States surrendered, as part of the consideration for Florida, whatever territory we possessed beyond the Sabine, the language of the treaty being as follows: “The United States hereby cede to His Catholic Majesty, and renounce forever, all their rights, claims, and pretensions to the Territories lying West and South of the above described Line ; and, in like manner, His Catholic Majesty cedes to the said United States all his rights, claims, and pretensions, to any Territories, East and North of the said Line,

3 (Channing) Jay, Mexican War, 106. Adams, Memoirs, xii., 49. It is rather curious to note that the denunciations of the annexation project uttered by eloquent men like Channing and Adams continue to exert their influence, both directly and by reflection in the works of other writers, although time has shown how far astray were the apprehensions upon which they were based.

4 (La Salle) Garrison, Texas, 21. (Claim based upon La Salle’s expedition) -Winsor, America, vii., 551. Treaties in Force, 176. Bancroft, Pac. States, xi., 4, 1 7* and for himself, his heirs, and successors, renounces all claim to the said Territories forever.”5

Now there appears at once to be something wrong here. This language implies that the United States had extended west of the Sabine, and if they had, the territory owned there was a part of Louisiana; so that, as we had promised to admit to the Union all the inhabitants of Louisiana, we had no right to make the cession of 1819. In reply, it has been argued that in reality no cession took place; that such phaseology was employed to make it look as if Spain were getting something in that quarter and so reconcile her to the surrender of Florida. But in fact she seems to have admitted that we had a valid claim to territory beyond the Sabine, so that a real surrender of ownership would appear to have taken place on the part of the United States.6

At any rate, these two treaties gave rise later to certain views which were so interwoven with the issue of annexation that it is well to explain them on the threshold. The wording of 1819 seemed to many a proof, confirmed by the arguments put forth on our part in the preceding discussions with Spain, that Texas had formerly belonged to the United States ; and the point that at most Spain conceded our claim to but a part of the region covered by that name was easily overlooked. Hence arose the term “ re-annexation,” which became very popular with the advocates of the measure, because it seemed to imply that were Texas acquired, we should only be recovering our own, and also because it appeared to ease the constitutional difficulty of introducing a foreign state into the Union. The additional fact that Spain was probably willing in 1819 to let us have certain territory beyond the Sabine made men feel that the United States had somehow been defrauded ; and the evidence, including a letter from President Monroe himself, that so great a sacrifice was deliberately made to please New England, naturally intensified this feeling in the Southwest. Further it was often argued that since the United States were bound to admit the people of Louisiana to the Union, the cession of 1819 was void, and Texas (all of it, so men assumed) continued to be ours. If this was the correct view, the revolution of 1836 was an insurrection against the United States, which our government could not possibly

6 Treaties in Force, 594.

6 Onis, the Spanish representative, claimed credit for having obtained a more valuable territory in exchange for Florida : Woodbury, Works, i., 362 ; Onis, Memoria, 1820. (See also Forum, July, 1901, p. 537-)

recognize ; but no one observed this. Moreover, if the treaty was invalid, Florida still belonged to Spain; but nobody thought of returning Florida, and in fact that could not be done. Technically, then, a wrong had perhaps been inflicted upon a very small number of persons residing in northeastern Texas; but far more harm would have been caused by upsetting the treaty of 1819, and the only practicable course was to abide by that agreement. The United States, therefore, could no longer assert the slightest claim to any territory beyond the Sabine.7

To complicate matters, however, certain Americans who had crept into Texas and remained there unmolested, rebelled soon after this treaty was made, because — as they alleged — their expectation of being incorporated in the United States had been frustrated by the agreement with Spain, and the only resource left them was to become independent. It is by no means clear that such newcomers could fairly appeal to the promise of 1803, but it was easy and perhaps natural to describe their action as a protest on the part of Texas against the cession to Spain; and thus was reinforced considerably the feeling that the territory still belonged of right to the United States. Another view also grew out of these facts. It was held by some that, as the United States did not admit Texas to the Union yet possessed no power to surrender it, the region became de facto independent, simply because no nation could maintain a claim to it. In reality this and all the other theories are to be brushed aside. Texas belonged to Spain ; it recognized the Spanish government; and the application of Moses Austin for permission to plant a colony there was made to and granted by the Spanish authorities. Yet it is useful to see how easily many honest and fairly intelligent men could lose themselves, especially when influenced by feeling, in these convenient and somewhat plausible ideas.8

As Mexico succeeded to the authority of Spain, Texas became inevitably Mexican, and this connection was further proved by her sharing in the rebellion against the mother country and by her sending a representative to the Constituent Congress of 1824. When the federal constitution was adopted, not having enough population to stand by herself, she was made a part of the compound State Coahuila-Texas ( Coahuila y Tejas), with a distinct intimation that later she was to be given a constitution of her own. Now all the

7 Monroe to Jefferson, May, 1820: Wash. Globe, Feb. 17, 1845 (see also Madis., April 15, 1844).

8 Bancroft, Pac. States, xi., 47, 48, 60.

States of the confederation, Coahuila-Texas like the rest, were termed sovereign and independent; and hence it came to be urged sometimes in discussing annexation that Texas, even under Mexican rule, was really independent. This view, however, arose from a misconception. During the rule of Spain these States — such of them as had at that time a distinct existence and a name — were merely provinces, with no pretensions to mutual independence. Their position was, therefore, very different from that of the British-American colonies. But whea the federal constitution was drawn up, it became necessary to assume that there were separate political entities to combine, for otherwise a confederation was impossible, and hence they were called forth into a theoretical existence. In reality the States, despite their high-sounding titles, were still neither sovereign nor independent. Some of them, notably Yucatan, undertook to apply the theory under the form of secession ; but such a step was the signal for war. In a word, then, Texas, while she remained a part of Mexico, had no real title to sovereignty; and this was the more true because she was not an actual but only a prospective State.9

In 1825 President Adams and Henry Clay, then Secretary of State, undertook to acquire the whole or a large part of Texas by negotiation with Mexico, and the desire of our government to obtain the territory was enough to cause alarm. Moreover Ward, the British representative at Mexico, now began to warn the authorities against the danger of permitting Americans to settle beyond the Sabine; and Tornel, one of the most active and ingenious of the Mexican public men and peculiarly unfriendly toward the United States, who was now a Deputy in Congress and private secretary of the President, may safely be presumed to have supported that view. The following year a small rebellion of American settlers took place in Texas, as a result of the arbitrary and illegal action of the authorities, and this was distinctly ominous. Orders were therefore issued in 1827 and 1828 for the purpose of preventing or hindering