Early Diplomatic Relations Between The United States and Mexico THE ALBERT SHAW LECTURES ON DIPLOMATIC HISTORY By the liberality of Albert Shaw, Ph.D., of New York City, the Johns Hopkins University has been enabled to proAdde an annual course of lectures on Diplomatic History. The courses are included in the regular work of the Department of History and are published under the direction of Professor John H. Latan6. THE ALBERT SHA^V LECTURES ON DIPLOMATIC HISTORY, 1913 Early Diplomatic Relations BetAA'^een The United States and Mexico BY WILLIAM R. MANNING, Ph.D. Adjunct Professor of Lati-n-A-merica-n Histor-y in the University of Texas BALTIMORE The Johns Hopkins Press 1916 Copyright 1916 By The Johns Hopkins Press Cb5"3 77 PRESS OF THE NEW ERA PRINTING COMPANY UNCASTER, PA. 3aT CONTENTS Page Preface vii CHAPTER I Beginnings: Early Mexican Representatives at Washington i CHAPTER n Tardy Appointment and Cool Reception of the First United States Minister to Mex ico 31 CHAPTER HI British Influence in Mexico and Poinsett's Struggle Against it 55 CHAPTER IV Cuba Saved to Spain 89 CHAPTER V Diplomacy Concerning the Opening of the Santa Fe Trail 166 CHAPTER VI Denunciation of Poinsett Because of His Relations with the York Masons 190 O 0\ CHAPTER VII "^ Obstacles in the Way of Concluding a Com- Q^ MERCIAL Treaty 205 VI contents CHAPTER VIII Commercial Controversies 252 CHAPTER IX Texas and the Boundary Issue 277 CHAPTER X Public Attacks on Poinsett and His Recall. 349 CHAPTER XI Comments on Authorities 378 PREFACE The diplomatic relations between the United States and Mexico before 1830 have heretofore been passed over rapidly by students in this field of history in order to dwell more fully on the events leading to the Texas Revolution, the admission of Texas into the Union, and the war between the United States and Mexico. Partial explanations have been made of the attempts of the Adams administration in 1827 and the Jackson administration in 1829 to acquire peaceably by purchase the whole or a part of Texas. Hostility to Poinsett because of his relations with Mexican offi cials and his connection with the organization of lodges of York Masons has been frequently mentioned, to be bitterly condemned by many, enthusiastically praised by others, and mildly excused by a few, but adequately explained by none. Practically no attention has been paid to the dififi culties and consequent delays in the establishment of a permanent representation of Mexico in Washington, or the much longer and much less excusable delays in the selection and sending of a United States minister to Mexico. While the political schemers in Washing ton were delaying this important appointment in order to use it as a political pawn, the English cabinet under the astute leadership of Canning with his violent antip- vni preface athy to the " Yankee " government was making good use of its advantage to establish, by means of semi official agents and flattering assurances, a powerful British influence over the Mexican government and to elicit the deep gratitude of the Mexican people for British promises of favor and protection which made the earlier recognition of Mexico's independence by the United States seem of trifling importance and made the declarations of Monroe's famous message appear to be of little value and to have been dictated by selfish interests. Poinsett's efforts to recover for his government the prestige which he felt had been lost by this delay led him to adopt methods which he considered necessary for the preservation of liberty and the prevention of monarchy in Mexico, but which involved hira in charges of having meddled in the in ternal affairs of that country. The suspicions thus engendered of the motives of Poinsett and his govemment made it next to impos sible for him to carry to a successful conclusion any of the negotiations with which he was charged. The motive for his effort to ward off the impending Mexi can attack on Cuba was suspected. His attempt to open easy trade intercourse by way of the Santa Fe Trail was distrusted. His insertion in the commercial treaty of provisions which were distasteful to Mexico but which he considered liberal or absolutely necessary was resisted until his persuasion induced the Mexican negotiators to yield ; and then because of these provi sions the Mexican Congress delayed ratification or preface ix refused it. His able championship of the cause of United States merchants, investors, and travelers in their controversies with Mexican officials widened the growing breach. His schemes for getting Texas were met from the first by a flat refusal ; and his govern ment's persistently repeated renewal of them roused bitter hostility. Attempts to remove suspicions and allay fears only increased them. Political enemies of those who were friendly to Poinsett's policies fanned the smoldering embers of distrust into flames of bitter hatred for him and the government which sent and kept him there. The few years of orderly govern ment in Mexico during which under more favorable circumstances friendly relations inight have been estab lished with the United States, thus obviating a half century of discord and a century of distrust, were passed in quibblings and misunderstandings. In a careful study of these quibblings and misun derstandings during the years 1825 to 1829 are to be found the origin and to a considerable extent the ex planation of those apparently irreconcilable differences which grew greater and greater during the next two decades, finally provoking the war which resulted not only in the United States keeping Texas but seizing more than half of the remainder of Mexican territory, thereby confirming the worst fears and suspicions that Mexico had entertained of the motives of her northern neighbor. The sources that have been drawn upon for this study are described in the comments on authorities at X preface the end of the volume. By far the larger part of the information has been taken from manuscripts in the archives of the Department of State in Washington and of the Ministry of Foreign Relations in Mexico. Only a few of either have been published. And of those published most are only extracts, the cipher pas sages and other more important portions having been withheld because at the time when the documents were pubhshed these portions could not have been in cluded without involving the Washington government in difficulties with Mexico or with discordant factions within the United States. The chapter on "Texas and the Boundary Issue" has already been published in very nearly its present form in the seventeenth volume of the Southwestern Historical Quarterly; portions of the third, sixth, and tenth chapters in a modified form under the title, " Poinsett's Mission to Mexico : a Discussion of his Interference in Internal Affairs," have been published in both English and Spanish in the seventh volume of the American Journal of International Law, and its Spanish edition. La Revista Americana de Derecho In- ternacional ; the Mississippi Valley Historical Review, volume I, has printed in a modified form the chapter on " Diplomacy Conceming the Opening of the Santa Fe Trail " ; and the proceedings of the Panama-Pacific Historical Congress at San Francisco in 191 5 contain a portion of the chapter on "British Infiuence in Mexico." For courteous treatment and liberal assistance, I hereby acknowledge my indebtedness to Senor Las- preface XI curain, who was minister for foreign relations in the Madero cabinet, and Sehors Galindo and Camarena in charge of the archives of that office; to Ambassador Henry Lane Wilson, and Secretary O'Shaughnessy in charge of the Embassy archives; to Dr. Buck and others in the archives df the Department of State at Washington, and Mr. Stanton in the library of that department; and to Dr. Bishop and his assistants of the Library of Congress, and Dr. Hunt of the Manu scripts Division of that library. For assistance in correcting manuscript and reading proof, I am under obligations to my wife. William R. Manning. University of Texas, Austin, October, 1915. CHAPTER I Beginnings: Early Mexican Representatives at Washington Difficulties and delays attended the opening of the permanent legation of Mexico at Washington; but they were not due to any lack of interest on the part of the new Mexican government. The importance of establishing friendly relations with the neighboring republic to the north at the earliest possible moment was fully appreciated. Within less than three weeks after the provisional government was fully organized a minister plenipotentiary had been appointed and was preparing to go to Washington. It was on September 27, 1821, that Iturbide's army entered the city of Mexico and took possession of the quarters which had been vacated only four days earlier by the royalist troops. On September 28, the Pro visional Junta was formally installed. On October 4, the cabinet of four ministers was formed. On Oc tober 25, a citizen of the United States by the name of Wilcocks wrote to John Quincy Adams, the secretary of state at Washington, concerning the friendly atti tude of the new government toward the United States. He said: "On this subject I have had various confer ences with the leading members of the administration, whose sentiments will be fully explained to you shortly by Don Juan Manuel de Elizalda, the minister pleni- 2 MEXICAN representatives AT WASHINGTON potentiary that is already named and now preparing to go to Washington."^ The portfolio of foreign affairs in this first Mexi can ministry was held by Jose Manuel de Herrera. On November 30, he despatched the first diplomatic communication which passed from the new govern ment to that of the United States. After announcing the triumph of the revolution and the establishment of the independent government, he said : " The Governing Regency immediately thought it a primary obligation upon them to communicate with all despatch to the na tions these events, which have gloriously terminated our war of liberty. . . . The people of Mexico . . . are desirous of being united to all governments by means of friendly alHances and connections. . . . The United States of North America have a prefer able right to demand of the Mexican Empire these considerations, the more just and reasonable because they are supported by the well-known maxims of pol icy. . . . Even nature herself has separated these na tions from Europe by immense seas and placed them 1 Wilcocks to Adams, Mexico, October 25, 1821, American State Papers, Foreign Relations, IV, 841 ; British and Foreign State Papers, IX, 431. For the organization of the Mexican government see Bancroft, History of Mexico, IV, 731-736. In the preceding thirty pages is an account of the proclama tion of the Plan of Iguala in February, 1821 ; of the startling success of the independence movement under this plan through the succeeding spring and summer ; and of the treaty of Cor doba of August 2S by which O'Donoju, the newly arrived viceroy, accepted the plan in his sovereign's name and agreed to turn over the government to Iturbide. MEXICAN REPRESENTATIVES AT WASHINGTON 3 upon the same continent . . . that they might make common cause in reciprocally supplying their neces sities and cooperating for their mutual felicity." In closing he announced that the legally authorized envoy would soon come to Washington to act as the medium of communication "between two nations destined to be united in the bonds of the most intimate and cordial fraternity."^ The prompt measures thus taken by the first govern- 2 Herrera to Adams, Mexico, November 30, 1821, MS., De partment of State, Notes from the Mexican Legation, I. This despatch was borne by Wilcocks, mentioned above. The origi nal Spanish document, signed by Herrera, accompanies the translation from which these extracts are quoted. The de spatch was received at Washington, March 13, 1822. In view of the accepted notion to the contrary, it is inter esting to notice in this document the importance which the new government attached to establishing their relations with foreign powers. Bancroft, History of Mexico, IV, 753, says : " It is inconceivable that it should have taken no effective steps to establish friendly relations with foreign powers. . . . All it did, however, was to pass a resolution for the appoint ment of four envoys to be sent respectively to South America, the United States, England, and Rome." He cites an act of February 7, 1822, apparently unaware of the earlier steps. Bancroft seems to be following Alaman, Historia de Mejico, V, 470, which says : " Estrano parecera que la junta no hubiese tratado del punto mui importante de las relaciones exteriores," and gives as the only thing done the provision for the four envoys mentioned in the quotation from Bancroft. For the order of February 7, 1822, see Coleccion de Ordenes y Decretos de la Soberana Junta y Soberanos Congresos, I, 115. Ibid., II, 41, is a decree of 4 de mayo de 1822, declaring that all envoys to foreign powers should be natives of Mexico or residents of at least seven years' standing. This order was not to apply to appointments already made. 4 MEXICAN REPRESENTATIVES AT WASHINGTON ment of independent Mexico to open diplomatic rela tions with the United States were in keeping with a plan that had been uniformly followed by the various short-lived insurgent governments which had at tempted during the preceding eleven years to establish the independence of their country. Each of them had, as one of its first duties, despatched a minister to open relations with the United States. After five such offi cially appointed envoys had attempted in vain to get out of the troubled country, Herrera, now the first minister for foreign affairs of independent Mexico, had actually reached New Orleans in 1815. Before he could start from there for Washington, the gov ernment which he represented was overthrown. But a letter addressed by him to President Madison accom panied by copies of his credentials and several other very interesting documents reached the Department of State and are filed in its archives.' His brief resi- s Herrera to President of the United States, Nueva Or leans, I de marzo de 1816, MS., Department of State, Notes from the Mexican Legation, I. The most important docu ment accompanying it is a letter of the Supreme Government of Mexico to the President of the United States, dated Purua- ran, 14 de julio de 18x5, which gives a lengthy account of the revolutionary struggle, tells of the organization of a govern ment and the proclamation of a constitution, and introduces Herrera as minister plenipotentiary. There are also two decrees of the same date describing the official seal and the flags of the new state, and a decree of July 3 relating to cruisers. These manuscripts are not bound in the volume but are fas tened together by a clip and inserted under the front cover of the volume. Earlier efforts of transient insurgent governments to open relations with the United States were the following: In De- MEXICAN REPRESENTATIVES AT WASHINGTON 5 dence in the United States as a diplomatic represen tative of this earlier insurgent government doubtless had much to do with his being chosen to direct the foreign policy of his country, now that its indepen- ence seemed to be assured. Although Herrera in tended to open relations with the United States at once, and took steps to do so, circumstances prevented. Sickness delayed the departure of Elizalda, the first appointee, and ultimately it became necessary to ap point another in his stead, he not having so much as started.*cember, 1810, Letona was started by Hidalgo's embryonic government as envoy to the United States, but was captured on his way to Vera Cruz and took poison to escape the ven geance of the viceroy. In February, 181 1, Aldama was started overland and got as far as Bexar in Texas where, in March, he fell a victim to the counter revolution which had ended the short-lived insurgent government of Casas. After Hidalgo's capture, Morelos sent David and Tabares as his agents to secure the aid of the United States; but Rayon, claiming superior authority over Morelos, turned them back. In 1813, Rayon sent Peredo to negotiate a treaty with the United States, but the royalists prevented his departure from the country. In October, 1814, Bustamante started as revo lutionary minister to the United States, but failed to reach the coast. In July, 1815, after the insurgent government under the leadership of Morelos had proclaimed its consti tution, Herrera was sent as its minister plenipotentiary, with the result mentioned above. The foUowing Mexican agents without full diplomatic character reached the United States and attempted unsuccessfully to open diplomatic relations : Gutierrez de Lara in 1812; T^do in 1813^ and Humbert in 1814. See Bancroft, History of Mexico, IV, 234 and fol lowing, passim. j * Herrera to [Cortes], 18 de junio de 1822, MS., Depart ment of State, Notes from the Mexican Legjation, I. 6 MEXICAN REPRESENTATIVES AT WASHINGTON A communication from Iturbide direct to President Monroe dated January 8, 1822, introduced a certam Captain Cortes, who was coming in a semi-diplomatic capacity, but whose chief purpose was the purchase of vessels in ports of the United States with which to begin the formation of a Mexican navy. In the ab sence of an official representative he was for several months the medium of communication between the governments. Iturbide poHtely requested President Monroe to have the goodness to assist Cortes in the discharge of his commission.^ Manuel Zozaya was the man chosen for the post at Washington when it was found that the first appointee could not go. This choice was made as early as March, 1822. But his departure was delayed, first by lack of funds due to the embarrassed condition of the finances of the new govemment, then by a congres sional investigation of the instructions which he had been given." Even before the assembling of this first Congress discord between it and the provisional execu tive, dominated by Iturbide, had appeared. As the discord increased it paralyzed all activities of the gov- 5 Iturbide to Monroe, Mexico, 8 de enero de 1822, MS., De partment of State, Notes from the Mexican Legation, I. This was enclosed with a letter of Cortes to Monroe, not dated but postmarked " Philadelphia 20 June." Through this agent, Cortes, Iturbide exchanged letters, portraits, and compliments with Henry Clay. See Cortes to Clay, Philadelphia, June 19, 1822, enclosing Iturbide to Clay, May 6, 1822, in Colton, Henry Clay, IV, 64, 65. Zavala, Ensayo Historico, I, 303-305, dis cusses the mission of Cortes. « Zamacois, Historia de Mexico, XI, 181. MEXICAN REPRESENTATIVES AT WASHINGTON "J ernment. In the midst of the struggle the executive urged Congress to take the necessary steps to open diplomatic relations especially with the United States and England.'' Finally by the coup d'etat in May Iturbide was proclaimed emperor by the populace, and Congress was intimidated into endorsing the appoint ment. In July his coronation took place. ! *^ -^- In the reorganized ministry the emperor retained Herrera as minister for foreign relations. In spite of the governmental confusion which continued through out the year 1822, he persisted in his efforts to open relations with the United States. Finally in the latter part of September Zozaya, who had been appointed under the provisional junta early in the year, was ready to start to Washington as the representative of the empire. In Zozaya's letter of introduction dated September 24, Herrera acknowledged the receipt of a communication from the government at Washington announcing that a minister to Mexico would be ap pointed ; said the announcement was exceedingly pleas ing to him ; and continued : " The Imperial Govern ment wishing to give to its northern neighbors the most solemn proof of its anxious desire for amicable relations and cordial intercourse is sending the Ex cellent Sefior D. Manuel Zozaya with full power and authority as its envoy extraordinary and minister pleni potentiary, who will have the honor of placing this communication in the hands of Your Excellency."^ ¦^ Secretario de Guerra to Secretario de Relaciones, 24 de abril de 1822, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. 8 Herrera to Adams, 24 de septiembre de 1822, MS., Depart- 8 MEXICAN REPRESENTATIVES AT WASHINGTON It was more than a month after this letter of intro duction was written and the formalities of his appoint ment were attended to before his instructions were drawn up and signed. But the embassy started at once, leaving the instructions to follow. They were dated October 31, 1822. After being told how he should proceed to open communication with the gov ernment on his arrival in the United States, he was instructed to solicit the recognition not only of the Mexican empire, independent of all connection with Spain, but also of the imperial dynasty which it had created. He was to negotiate reciprocally advantage ous treaties of amity, commerce, and limits; and in case war should be declared with Spain, he should at once procure a treaty granting to Mexico naval as sistance from the United States on terms as advantage ous as possible. If he could not get such aid in any other way, he was authorized to offer a money pay ment for it. He was to use the newspapers of the United States to correct errors that had been published concerning the events leading to the establishment of independence; and was to disseminate by the same means a knowledge of any facts hitherto not made public which would tend to establish the honor and ment of State, Notes from the Mexican Legation, I, and La Diplomacia Mexicana, I, 75. Page 76 of the last gives the credential letter from Iturbide to Zozaya, dated 25 de sep tiembre de 1822. On page 79 is the announcement of Tor- rens as secretary of legation, dated 26 de septiembre de 1822. Other brief notes of 26, 27, and 28 de septiembre relate to expenses, escort, acceptance, and affixing the seal. The min ister's full name was Jose Manuel Bermudez Zozaya. MEXICAN REPRESENTATIVES AT WASHINGTON 9 credit of the empire. He was also authorized to ne gotiate a loan of ten million pesos." His private in structions of the same date provided for the negotia tion of treaties of limits, extradition of criminals, and protection of the common frontier, matters which will be discussed in subsequent chapters. He was to watch and report any movements in European coun tries that had anything to do with Mexican affairs or conditions. He was to report as accurately as pos sible the military and naval strength of the United States government.^" Before these instructions were sent a report reached Mexico to the effect that Zozaya had been captured by pirates in the Gulf of Mexico. To make sure that his efforts should not thus be thwarted when success seemed so near, Herrera g.ppointed a substitute. On the same day that the instructions were sent to Zozaya, he wrote to Cortes, who was still in the United States, telling him of the report, but saying that he had doubts of its truth. However, he appointed Cortes to take the place of Zozaya in case the rumor should prove to be true ; and copies of the instructions and credentials were sent to guide him if the duties of the embassy should thus devolve on him.^^ But fortunately the 8 Herrera to Zozaya, Instrucciones, 31 de octubre de 1822, La Diplomacia Mexicana, I, 82. ^^ Herrera to Zozaya, Instrucciones Reservadas, 31 de octu bre de 1822, La Diplomacia Mexicana, I, 85. ^1 Herrera to Cortes, 31 de octubre de 1822, La Diplomacia Mexicana, I, 88. Poinsett, who later was appointed United States minister to Mexico, was at this time traveling in the country and heard the same report. Santa Maria, the Colom- IO MEXICAN REPRESENTATIVES AT WASHINGTON report proved to be without foundation. The voyage was uneventful, if one can judge from Zozaya's simple narrative. In his report to the home government all he said about it is : " On the 27 of October we sailed from Alvarado and on the 28 of November we an chored in Hampton Roads." Two days later they landed at Baltimore. Finding it necessary for the credit of Mexico that he should at once join Cortes in Philadelphia, he set out for that city on December 3, sending his secretary, Torrens, to Washington to announce his arrival and prepare for his reception.^^ bian minister to Mexico, wrote him 25 de noviembre de 1822, "se teme aqui que el Enviado Zozaya ha ya caido en manas de piratas." MS., Poinsett Papers, vol. II, in Pennsyl- sylvania Historical Society collection. 12 Zozaya to Secretario, Filadelfia, 7 de diciembre de 1822, La Diplomacia Mexicana, I, 89. In view of the subsequent financial difficulties of the legation, it is interesting to notice what a heavy drain on its scant allowance was necessary at the very outset in order to maintain the good name of the empire. He says : " Luego que Uegue aqui me dirigi sin per- dida de momento, a informarme de los particulares de la comision del seiior Cortes, no exigiendole yo y antes por el contrario habiendole manifestado que no tenia ordenes para mezclarme en este asunto; y el juicio que he formado de sus trabajos lo expongo en oficio numero 3. Contrayendome a las urgencias de que hablan las cartas acompaiiadas, me pene- tre de elias y de la necesidad que habia de numerario para cubrir el credito del Imperio y salvar el respetable nombre de Augustin Primero, tan comprometido en esta vez, y no contando con otros fondos que los que traje para mi sub- sistencia, los aplique al objeto de la comision. Tan urgente me parecio la necesidad, que crei deber ocurrir a ella aunque me expusiese a hacer el papel mas menesteroso en un pais estrano ; y de los once mil pesos que habia puesto en el Banco de estos Estados, solo me reserve mil pesos para comer entre MEXICAN REPRESENTATIVES AT WASHINGTON II On November 28 of this year 1822 Adams had written in his diary : " From Mexico we have been informed of the appointment of two successive min isters plenipotentiary, with assurances that they were coming immediately; but there is no appearance of either of them yet."^^ Eight days later, however, Adams received a letter from Zozaya dated at Balti more on December 3 announcing his arrival in the country and saying that he would proceed to Wash ington in a few days. In the meantime his secretary, Torrens, would deliver this note and the accompanying one from the secretary of state of Mexico," and would arrange for an interview.^^ On December 10 Adams received another note from Zozaya written the same day on which it was received announcing that he had arrived in Washington.^^ tanto se reciben los auxilios del Imperio y los diez mil re- stantes los he entregado al seiior Meade para que pague a los jornaleros y que cubra en parte algunas de las principales obligaciones que tiene contraidas. Of reci tambien para el mismo objeto mi plata labrada, pero el seiior Cortes no ha querido se haga uso de ella. Esto supuesto, yo y mi comitiva quedamos aqui a subsistir con mil pesos y algunas antici- paciones que he hecho a los que tienen sueldo. No traje un medio real para gastos extraordinarios y esto solo basta para que su Majestad Imperial se pen etre de mi situacion." 13 Adams, Memoirs, VI, iii. 1* Herrera to Adams, 24 de septiembre de 1822, MS., Depart ment of State, Notes from the Mexican Legation, I, and La Diplomacia Mexicana, I, 75. 15 Zozaya to Secretary of State, Baltimore, December 3, 1822. The signed original in Spanish accompanies the trans lation. IS Zozaya to Secretary of State, Washington, December 10, 12 MEXICAN REPRESENTATIVES AT WASHINGTON With this was enclosed Zozaya's full power signed by Iturbide." The commission of Torrens as secretary of the legation and a list of ten minor officials and domestics connected with the legation were also in cluded. Two days later, according to previous ar rangement, occurred the formal presentation of Zozaya. It was this reception of the Mexican envoy on De cember 12, 1822, that completed the American recog nition of Mexican independence. Nine months earlier a message of the President had recommended to Con gress the recognition of Mexico and other Spanish- American countries ; and two months thereafter Con gress passed a resolution sustaining the administra tion by making appropriations to establish missions. But no minister for Mexico was yet appointed, and no specific diplomatic act had yet actually recognized the new government in Mexico. Furthermore the change in the government of Mexico which had oc curred subsequent to the message and resolution above mentioned left some uncertainty whether the envoy of the emperor would be received and the government of the empire recognized. It was this element of uncertainty which justified the note of triumph in the report which Zozaya wrote to his government on December 20 telling of his recep tion. He declared: "I hasten to take advantage of 1822, original and translation, MS., Department of State, Notes from the Mexican Legation, I. 1' Iturbide to Zozaya, September 25, 1822, MS., Department of State, Notes from the Mexican Legation, I ; and La Diplo macia Mexicana, I, 79. MEXICAN REPRESENTATIVES AT WASHINGTON 1 3 the favorable opportunity which has just presented itself to inform Your Excellency of the fact that, in spite of the diligent efforts both public and private of some of the enemies of our country to prejudice this government against the form of our government and against its representative, on the twelfth of the present month I was presented by the secretary of state to the president of these States, by whom I was received with the same courtesy and the same ceremony with which the ministers of other powers are received ; and when I had delivered to him my credentials he replied to me that I was recognized as a public minister and an envoy extraordinary and plenipotentiary the same as other foreign ministers resident in the country. . . . And on the day following my presentation and recog nition it was officially announced in the ministerial paper entitled the National Intelligencer, of which I am sending Your Excellency a copy. "I have been informed that the Spanish minister handed this govemment a note protesting against the recognition of our independence and against my recep tion in this capital, in case I should be admitted in the character of a plenipotentiary of Mexico." He says he had not been able to learn with certainty the reason, but it was a fact that the Spanish minister alone of all the foreign ministers was absent from Washington; and intimates his belief that the Spaniard's absence was to avoid being in Washington when the Mexican envoy should be received.i^ 15 Nota del Ministro Zozaya, 20 de diciembre de 1822, La Diplomacia Mexicana, I, 94. Bocanegra, Memorias de Mexico 14 MEXICAN REPRESENTATIVES AT WASHINGTON Several days following his formal reception were consumed in ceremonial calls and state dinners. On December 24 the President gave a banquet in Zozaya's honor at which there were forty invited guests. A day or two later he was entertained by the secretary of state, and then by the secretary of the treasury. The Mexican minister's presence among the repre sentatives of powers that had not recognized his gov ernment created a situation that was uncomfortable for him, for them, and for the authorities at Wash ington. The absence from the President's banquet of the British minister and some others called forth speculations and attempts at explanation from Zo- zaya.i* EUisen, the Russian representative, in ex plaining the awkward situation to his government said Adams had suggested to him that an easy way out of the difficulty would be for him not to take advantage of the invitation which he had received to Independiente, I, 118, tells of Zozaya's reception, saying that news of it reached Mexico in February, 1823. Alaman, His toria de Mejico, V, 8x5, mentions it. It is not necessary to study here the steps leading to the recognition of Mexican independence by the United States. The attitude toward Mexico was practically the same as that toward the other Spanish-American countries. For a detailed study of the policy of the United States toward all of these new states see Paxson, Independence of the South-American Republics: a Study in Recognition and Foreign Policy, 137- 177- For a brief study see McMaster, History of the People of the United States, V, 42. "Nota del Ministro Zozaya, 26 de diciembre de 1822, La Diplomacia Mexicana, I, 97. In this letter he tells more in detail of his presentation and of the customs of the diplomatic corps in Washington. MEXICAN REPRESENTATIVES AT WASHINGTON 1 5 be present. The French representative had received the same suggestion from Adams. Ellisen says he allowed himself to profit from a hint that so strongly resembled advice.^" After the few days of bustling activity and cour teous formalities following his reception Zozaya passed a winter of inactivity. On April 30, 1823, he announced to Adams that he was going to return to Mexico for a time. Later he would bring his family with him to Washington.^i Before he had left, a letter reached him from a new minister for foreign relations in Mexico telling him that the imperial gov emment which had sent him had been overthrown. He was instructed to give to the government at Wash ington information of Mexico's "political regenera tion which all the nation has welcomed with the ^c Ellisen to Nesselrode, 13/25 de Decembre 1822, American Historical Review, XVIII, 542. His explanation of the pro longed absence of the Spanish minister is the same as Zozaya's. He says : " On suppose que la presence de I'agent Mexicain a Washington est un des motifs qui ont engage le ministre de sa Maj este Catholique a prolonger son sej our a New- York." Stratford Canning, the British minister, wrote in the fol lowing spring : " A minister from Mexico we have had at Washington during the whole of the winter. The imperial character of his government and his total ignorance of Eng lish have prevented his forming any intimate relations in society. He has behaved quietly and looks exceedingly like Sousa, the old Portuguese ambassador in London, except that he has not the advantage of green goggles." Stratford Can ning to Bagot, Washington, March 30, 1823, Josceline Bagot, George Canning and His Friends, II, 163. 21 Zozaya to Adams, Philadelphia, April 30, 1823, MS., De partment of State, Notes from the Mexican Legation, I. 1 6 MEXICAN REPRESENTATIVES AT WASHINGTON greatest enthusiasm." He immediately wrote to Adams enclosing this communication from the new governraent.^^ Iturbide's nine months' tenure of the imperial crown had been anything but comfortable to him or satisfactory to his people. Discord with his Congress had continued until October, 1822, when that body was forcibly dissolved. In December, Santa Anna had raised the standard of revolt and declared for a republic. The emperor's supporters rapidly fell away from him. In February, 1823, the commander of his army turned it against him. In March he resigned his crown. The fragment of the Congress which he had reconvened declined to act on his resignation, de claring his coronation to have been a work of violence and void of right. He was exiled to Italy ; but pen sioned for his services on condition that he remain in Italy. In response to orders from the new government Zozaya replied on May 20 : " With respect to the ad vice which Your Excellency has given that I should refrain from beginning or continuing any negotia tions until I should receive instructions from the exist ing executive power [I need only say that] it is wholly unnecessary, for no negotiation whatever has 22 Zozaya to Adams [May 16], 1823, enclosing translation of lUueca to Zozaya, Mexico, April 4, 1823, MS., Department of State, Notes from Mexican Legation, I. With these were enclosed also six official orders printed in Spanish, issued by the supreme executive power, organizing the new govern ment. MEXICAN REPRESENTATIVES AT WASHINGTON 1 7 been begun. Indeed, if it can be said that I have done my country any service on this mission, that service can consist only in my having done nothing, at least so far as the foreign loan is concerned which I was authorized to negotiate and could have placed suc- cessfully."^^ Colonel Jose Anastasio Torrens, secretary of the legation, was left as charge d'affaires.^* The lack of funds to meet the expenses of the legation which had embarrassed the minister was still more troublesome to the charge. The financial difficulties of the gov ernment in Mexico, due to its uncertain tenure, made it impossible to supply the needs. During these early years there was a constant clamor for more funds to enable it to maintain its dignity and sustain the credit of the country. In the absence of the necessary funds, various devices and subterfuges were resorted to. 23 Nota del Ministro Zozaya, 20 de mayo de 1823, La Diplo macia Mexicana, I, no. In this he told of the debt he had incurred for the running expenses of the legation. He also told of his having planned before receiving the communica tion to return to Mexico, and of his having presented Torrens as charge. On the day following that on which this letter was written he said he would leave for New Orleans, and study there the conditions on the frontier between the two countries that he might report them the better when he should reach Mexico. 2* Torrens to Secretario, Filadelfia, 31 de mayo de 1823, La Diplomacia Mexicana, II, 9. In this Torrens tells of the arrival of commissioners from San Salvador in Central America, who came to ask that the United States accept their country as a state of the union. For later notices concerning this commission see pages 12, 20, 32, 33, of the same volume. 1 8 MEXICAN REPRESENTATIVES AT WASHINGTON In order to escape the social obligations of the capital, Torrens resided much of the time in Philadelphia. When his credentials from the new government ar rived he did not have money enough to pay the ex pense of a trip to Washington and at the same time pay his board bill at the Philadelphia boarding-house, in the payment of which he was several weeks behind. So he decided to write Adams that a slight indisposi tion prevented him from coming immediately to pre sent the credentials which he had just received; but he would have the honor of doing so a few weeks later. He enclosed copies of them.^= He felt that it would be necessary for him to be in Washington in the winter during the sessions of Congress ; but he had concluded to stay there for not more than a month at a time, thus relieving himself of the necessity of taking a house and keeping a coach, which custom had rendered essential.^" When Richard Meade learned that Torrens was unable to go to Washington for lack of funds he promised to pay the board bill.^'^ But in the middle of December he was still in Philadelphia. President Monroe had sent word that his presence in 25 Torrens to Secretario, Filadelfia, 22 de noviembre de 1823, La Diplomacia Mexicana, II, 48; Torrens to Adams, Filadelfia, 29 de octubre de 1823, enclosing the copy of his credential letter, Supreme Executive Power to President of the United States, Mexico, 23 de agosto de 1823, MS., Depart ment of State, Notes from the Mexican Legation, I. The credential letter is printed in La Diplomacia Mexicana, II, 28. 26 Torrens to Secretario, 22 de noviembre de 1823, La Di plomacia Mexicana, II, 55. 2'' Torrens to Secretario, Filadelfia, 2 de diciembre de 1823, La Diplomacia Mexicana, II, 63. MEXICAN REPRESENTATIVES AT WASHINGTON 1 9 Washington was necessary. So on December 19 he started for the capital.^^ In spite of the scantiness of funds he was still there three months later since Meade had agreed to advance what money he should need till funds from Mexico should arrive. For econ omy's sake he was living with the secretary of lega tion and consul-general of Colombia ; but he found this very unsatisfactory.^" Later the President of the United States declared that it was improper for diplo matic agents to reside away from Washington, since they had to be summoned and awaited every time it became necessary to treat with them.^" For several months after assuming the duties of the legation Torrens was left without instructions or cre dentials from the new government, or even official no tices of occurrences in Mexico. He frequently com plained of this neglect and the embarrassment which it occasioned for him and for the interests of his gov ernment.^^ When in August, 1823, Lucas Alaman, then minister for foreign relations, had the new cre dentials ready to send, he explained that the delay had been due to the fact that the new executive did not feel itself authorized to enter into relations with 28 Torrens to Secretario, Filadelfia, 16 de diciembre de 1823, La Diplomacia Mexicana, II, 69; Torrens to Secretario, Washington, 26 de enero de 1824, La Diplomacia Mexicana, II, n. 29 Torrens to Secretario, Washington, 23 de marzo de 1824, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. 2" Torrens to Secretario, Filadelfia, 14 de julio de 1824, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. SI See La Diplomacia Mexicana, II, 13, IS, 18, 19, (>% 72. 20 MEXICAN REPRESENTATIVES AT WASHINGTON foreign countries until the Congress should take action on the matter. That body had not acted until July 21, although the executive had requested authority as early as April 5, preceding. For some reason the re quest had not been submitted to the Congress until July 13.^^ Torrens's credential letter which Alaman addressed to the President of the United States in the name of the supreme executive power of Mexico de clared that from the moment when it was put in charge of the government its first and most ardent desire had been to strengthen the relations with the United States. Now finding itself able to do so, it named Torrens for the purpose.^s On December 22, 1823, as soon as he 32 Minuta de Ministro Alaman, 21 de agosto de 1823, La Diplomacia Mexicana, II, 26. Decreto de Congreso de 21 de julio de 1823, Coleccion de Ordenes y Decretos de la Soberana Junta y Congresos, II, 152: " Se autoriza al supremo poder ejecutivo para que abra, por ahora, relaciones de amistad con las potencias que juzge oportuno." S3 Supreme Executive Power to President of the United States, 23 de agosto de 1823, La Diplomacia Mexicana, II, 28. No new instructions came for Torrens, so he took it for granted that he was to be guided by those which the imperial government had given to Zozaya. La Diplomacia Mexicana, II, S3. It is interesting to notice again the great respect, bordering on veneration, which the Mexicans had for Henry Clay. The letter from Iturbide to Clay of the preceding year is men tioned in note s above. The new supreme provisional gov ernment addressed him as follows : " Mexico, 27 de agosto de 1823. Al Honorable Seiior Enrique Clay. El Supremo Go- bierno Provisional de la Nacion Mexicana, Ueno de gratitude por el interes que usted con tanta energia ha manifestado por este pais, se ve en la grata obligacion de manifestarle cor- dialmente aquella, tanto en su nombre como en el de todos los habitantes de Mexico. MEXICAN REPRESENTATIVES AT WASHINGTON 21 arrived in Washington Torrens handed to Adams the " El Soberano Congreso de la Nacion, reinstalada por los heroicos esfuerzos de los patriotas, ocupado indefatigable- mente en trazar las lineas del grandioso edificio de nuestra futura prosperidad identificada con la de nuestros hermanos de esos Estados, al paso que ofrece testimonios del reconoci- miento mas sincere a los que han peleado por la independen- cia mexicana sabe ser agradecido a los buenos deseos y oficios de cuantos los han prestado al pais para hacer valer sus derechos y contribuir a su bienestar futuro. " Entre todos ocupa usted un lugar mui distinguido, y asi es tambien el aprecio que el Supremo Poder Ejecutivo, en consonancia con aquellos sentimientos, tributa a sus singulares talentos y sublimes virtudes patrioticas, congratulandose al considerar que cuando todo nos anuncia aqui el establecimiento firme y duradero de un sistema de gobierno analogo a las circunstancias de nuestro pais, ya destruido el que se habia instalado ; y que sobre haber sido obra de la violencia habia degenerado en despotico con demasiada velocidad, hallara en usted un firme amigo que contribuira a nuestra apetecida felicidad. " Hecha como esta hace tiempo, la convocatoria para el nuevo Congreso Constituyente, que debe reunirse a lo mas tarde el dia ultimo de octubre de este aiio y que toda la Nacion aguarda con la mayor ansia y las mas f elices disposi- ciones deben esperarse de tan augusta Asemblea toda clase de bienes y cuantas ventaj as son imaginables para esta naciente Estado, que tiene el mayor anhelo por estrechar mas y mas los vinculos de amistad y f raternidad con los norte-americanos y reproducir a V. los sentimientos mas puros de benevolencia. " Con ellos y los de la mayor consideracion, me protesto su muy obediente servidor." This was signed by Alaman. La Diplomacia Mexicana, II, 30. The original of this in MS., Relaciones Exteriores, is accom panied by the following note : " El Soberano Congreso al paso que ofrece testimonios de gratitud a los heroes que han peleado derramando su sangre y perecido en la causa de su independencia no puede desentenderse de la simpatia y buenos deseos manifestados por sus hermanos de la Republica adya- 22 MEXICAN REPRESENTATIVES AT WASHINGTON original of his credential letter, of which he had sent a copy two months earlier.^* On December 6, Torrens had written from Phila delphia telling of the reception of the President's an nual message, which contained the declarations des tined to become famous as the Monroe Doctrine. He quoted the significant clauses, said they were very popular and were applauded by all the public papers, and declared they meant that the United States would break their neutrality in case any power should aid Spain to conquer America. Already ships were or dered to the Gulf of Mexico to watch developments.^^ cente de los Estados Unidos de America; y reconociendo con agradecimiento las amistosas disposiciones de los patriotas ciudadanos de dhos. Estados, confia que no considerera odioso el hacer mencion particular del individuo que ha dada las pruebas mas relevantes del interes que toma en nros. negocios. " Por tanto se ha servido resolver que el Supremo Poder Ejecutivo haga presente al Honorable Enrique Clay, los satis- factorios que han sido al Congreso de la Nacion Mexicano, sus activos esfuerzos en apoyo de los derechos de nra. Nacion, en que ha manifestado su amor a los interesos de la humanidad y a la libertad de los pueblos, en cuya virtud se le suplica acepte este testimonio de su mas sincere agradeci miento, como una ligera prueba de su consideracion y respeto a sus conocimientos pollticos." 3* Torrens to Secretario, Washington, 26 de enero de 1824, La Diplomacia Mexicana, II, 72. 35 Torrens to Secretario, 6 de diciembre de 1823, La Diplo macia Mexicana, II, (tJ. A study of the character of and evolution of the Monroe Doctrine is not necessary here, though its connection with the subject matter of this and the two following chapters is very close. Numerous special treatises on the subject are easily available. MEXICAN REPRESENTATIVES AT WASHINGTON 23 About a month before Monroe's famous message was read in the United States Congress, the Mexican foreign minister, Alaman, had read to the new Mexi can Congress a memorial setting forth the state of that country's relations with other powers. He de clared : " During the first steps of our political exist ence, our foreign relations have necessarily been very limited; for while our attention was occupied with domestic dissensions, it was not possible for the na tion to be represented with the requisite dignity and consistency to render it respectable in the eyes of other nations. Our independence has nevertheless been solemnly recognized by the United States. . . . The friendship and good understanding with that na tion continues undisturbed."^* It was not the intention of the new government to leave the post at Washington filled merely by a charge. Steps were taken to send again a fully accredited min ister plenipotentiary. Zozaya, who had returned to Mexico after one winter at Washington, was not sent back as he had thought he would be. He had been the representative of the empire. The new republican government chose a new man to represent it. The first that it selected was Colonel Melchor Muzquiz. He was appointed in April, 1824, but various cir cumstances delayed his departure, and finally he de ss Alaman, Memoria que el Secretario de . . . Relaciones . . . presenta al Soberano Congreso . . . 8 de noviembre de 1823. Poinsett, Notes on Mexico, 311, quotes a translation of the sarae. The translation given in British and Foreign State Papers, X, 1070, is dated November i. 24 MEXICAN REPRESENTATIVES AT WASHINGTON cided that it would be impossible for him to go.^' A few days after the resignation of Muzquiz had been accepted, Pablo Obregon was appointed in his stead. This was early in August, 1824. Preparations were made for his early departure.^^ His credentials were signed on August 30.^" Obregon was thus the fourth minister plenipoten tiary whom the various governments in Mexico had accredited to the govemment of the United States. He was the second actually to reach his post, and the first who really had any important dealings with the administration at Washington. The real beginning of s'f Bocanegra, Memorias . . . de Mexico Independiente, I, 299; Alaman to Torrens, 7 de abril de 1824, La Diplomacia Mexicana, II, 78. For the decree of Congress of 8 de abril de 1824, approving the appointment of Muzquiz, see Coleccion de Ordenes y Decretos de la Soberana Junta y los Congresos, III, 41. Secretario to Torrens, 10 de juho de 1824, MS., Rela ciones Exteriores, announced that it was impossible for Muz quiz to go and another would be appointed. 38 Secretario to Torrens, 21 de julio de 1824, tells of the resignation of Muzquiz and the selection of Obregon. The latter's commission was dated 4 de agosto de 1824. The ap proval of Congress bears the same date. Obregon's accept ance is dated S de agosto de 1824. All of these documents are in MS., Relaciones Exteriores. The congressional ap proval is in Coleccion de Ordenes y Decretos de la Soberana Junta y los Congresos, III, 63. On October 2, Torrens in Washington acknowledged the receipt of the letter of July 21. Torrens to Secretario, 2 de octubre de 1824, MS., Rela ciones Exteriores ; and La Diplomacia Mexicana, II, 8s. See Bocanegra, Memorias . . . de Mexico Independiente, I, 323, and Zavala, Ensayo Historico, I, 299, for brief discussions of Obregon's appointment. 39 President of Mexico to President of the United States, 30 de agosto de 1824, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. MEXICAN REPRESENTATIVES AT WASHINGTON 2$ the Mexican legation dates from his arrival. The first article of his general instructions reminded him of the fact that the government to which he was going had so early recognized the independence of Mexico, and instructed him to cultivate and strengthen the friendly relations thus estabUshed, avoiding every motive for complaint or discord. The first article of his secret instructions told him how these friendly relations might be strengthened. President Monroe's message at the beginning of the last session of Con gress, he was told, indicated that the United States was disposed to make common cause with the other independent governments of the American continent in resisting the threatened aggression of the Holy Al liance. He was to leam what assistance Mexico might expect from the United States in case of an attack by the European powers, and was to use his influence to further any tendency that he might discover to help the new governments. He was to appoint and super vise the Mexican consuls at the various ports of the United States and on the frontier posts through which immigrants from the United States were entering the Mexican republic. He was to fix regulations for is suing passports to such, and see that none entered Mexico without passports. He was also to issue regu lations for the shipment of goods from ports of the United States into Mexico, and through his consular appointees enforce those regulations. His instruc tions concerning treaties of amity, commerce, boun- 26 MEXICAN REPRESENTATIVES AT WASHINGTON daries, and other matters will be studied in the sub sequent chapters dealing with those subjects.*" On September 26, he embarked at Mocambo, near Vera Cruz;" and on October 20 he landed at New York.*2 On October 22 Torrens wrote from Phila delphia to Adams announcing Obregon's arrival at New York and saying that the new minister would soon proceed to Washington.*^ Obregon and Torrens together arrived in Washington on November 15. The latter introduced the former to Secretary Adams on the 17th when arrangements were made for the formal presentation of the new minister to President Monroe. On the following day, November 18, the presentation ceremony occurred, completing the rec ognition of Obregon as minister plenipotentiary.** *» Instrucciones de Obregon, Mexico, 30 de agosto de 1824 and Instrucciones mui Reservadas, MS., Relaciones Exte riores. *i Obregon to Secretario, Mocambo, 26 de septiembre de 1824, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. *2 Obregon to Secretario, New York, 21 de octubre de 1824, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. *3 Torrens to Adams, Philadelphia, October 22, 1824, MS., Department of State, Notes from the Mexican Legation, I. ** Obregon to Secretario, Filadelfia, 26 de noviembre de 1824, MS., Relaciones Exteriores; and Torrens to Secretario, Filadelfia, 27 de noviembre de 1824, La Diplomacia Mexicana, II, 86. Obregon to Adams, Washington, 16 de noviembre de 1824, MS., Department of State, Notes from the Mexican Legation, I, announces his arrival at the capital. The cre dential letter declared : " Animados como siempre del mas vivo deseo de continuar y estrechar las relaciones amistosas que f elizmente existen entre estos y esos Estados, y que debe hacer mui firmes y duraderas la identidad de las intereses de una y otra nacion hemos resuelto nombrar al Exmo. MEXICAN REPRESENTATIVES AT WASHINGTON 27 Torrens took formal leave at the same audience at which he presented the new minister, and his duties as charge at Washington ceased. He had already been appointed to a similar position at Bogota and received instructions to proceed directly from Washington to his new post in Colombia.*^ There we shall find him doing important service for his country in connection with the schemes of Colombia and Mexico for inter vening in the affairs of Cuba. On the last day of the year 1824, Obregon had an audience with President Monroe to present a personal letter from the newly elected President of Mexico, Guadalupe Victoria, to the President of the United States, announcing that on October 4, preceding, the Mexican Congress had adopted a federal constitution Sor. D. Pablo Obregon Ministro Plenipotenciario y enbiado estraordinario de esta Republica en esos Estados." This was dated Mexico, 30 de agosto de 1824, and signed by Bravo, Guerrero, and Dominguez in the name of the supreme execu tive power, and addressed to the President of the United States. A copy of this was enclosed with Obregon to Adams, 16 de noviembre de 1824, above; and the original was pre sented at the audience of November 18. MS., Department of State, Notes from the Mexican Legation, I. For a brief account of Obregon's reception see Bocanegra, Memorias . . . de Mexico Independiente, I, 365. This quotes from the Aguila Mexicana, 10 de enero de 1825, the presentation address and response. *5 Torrens to Secretario, 27 de noviembre de 1824 La Di plomacia Mexicana, II, 86; Torrens to Adams, December 10, 1824, MS., Department of State, Notes from the Mexican Legation, I. In the last he offers to bear despatches from the United States government to its minister at Bogota, whither he was going as quickly as possible. 28 MEXICAN REPRESENTATIVES AT WASHINGTON for the country. He added : " I deemed it of the first importance to discharge before aU things the grateful task of making it known to Your Excellency, and also [of informing you] that I am in possession of the office of President." On receiving the announcement, President Monroe said it was an event the communi cation of which he received with the greatest satis faction.*" The administration of President Victoria which be gan at this time and lasted for a little more than four years was the longest period of orderly government that Mexico has ever enjoyed, with the exception of the period of the rule of Porfirio Diaz. Mexico gave promise of becoming a country of such rank and im portance that it seemed well worth while for the United States not only to establish a legation at its capital, but to put in charge of that legation a fully accredited minister of recognized talents and expe rience to establish and defend the important interests of the United States in the new country. All negotiations of importance during the period covered by this study were destined to be carried on in Mexico City between the United States minister there and the Mexican cabinet. Although no very im portant negotiation was entrusted to him, yet Obregon's presence in Washington was of great value to his gov- 46 Adams, Memoirs, VI, 456. Guadalupe Victoria to Presi dent of the United States, Mexico, October 26, 1824 MS., De partment of State, Notes from the Mexican Legation, I. The Spanish original signed by Victoria accompanies the transla tion from which the above is quoted. MEXICAN REPRESENTATIVES AT WASHINGTON 29 emment. He was eyes and ears for it, reporting all he could hear or see, which would concern his country, of occurrences not only in the United States but in Europe as well. In this capacity he served his country faithfully for nearly four years. His government's un stable financial condition made it impossible to supply him with funds sufficient to maintain his country's credit and dignity or his own comfort. Finally driven to distraction by financial embarrassment, by ill health, probably by bad news from home, and, it was thought also, by disappointment in love, he terminated his serv ices by committing suicide.*'^ *^ He had repeatedly requested his recall. Before he had been in Washington two years he wrote that the grave in firmity from which he was suffering and of which he had previously written made continuous exertion impossible; and he asked to be permitted to withdraw from his post and re turn home. Obregon to Secretario, 20 de agosto de 1826. In the following winter he asked that his recall be sent as soon as possible, alluding to pecuniary and other difficulties. Same to same, 21 de febrero de 1827, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. In August, 1828, Obregon announced to the State Depart ment his intention of absenting himself from the United States on a visit to Mexico, giving ill health as his reason. He said that he would leave Montoya as charge d'affaires. A little less than a month later Montoya announced the death of Obregon. Obregon to Clay, August 14, 1828, and Montoya to Clay, September 11, 1828, MS., Department of State, Notes from the Mexican Legation, I. On the same day on which he announced Obregon's death to the State Department Montoya wrote a long account of it to his government. Beginning by saying that Obregon had retired to return to Mexico leaving him as charge and that one of his first duties was the unpleasant one of telling of Obregon's suicide, he speculated at length on the probable 30 MEXICAN REPRESENTATIVES AT WASHINGTON cause for the deed. He said that no declaration of motives could be found. But it seemed that the minister had offered his hand to a young lady, a resident of the United States, and had been refused. This made a deep impression on his too vivid imagination and was probably the final cause of his complete loss of balance. But the absolute failure of his means of subsistence and the consequent necessity of retiring from his post in order to sell his furniture had aggravated the malady from which he was suffering. In spite of his melancholy, however, Obregon had given no sign of attempt ing to take his life until two or three days before his death. Up to that time he had been engaged in arranging his papers and preparing for the journey which he expected to make by way of New Orleans. At that time he had received some letters. Montoya was uncertain whether they brought disa greeable domestic news, or whether Obregon imagined some misfortune that did not exist. But it was certain that on the very day on which he had received the correspondence he had broken out with a declaration that he would not now go to Mexico but would stay in the United States. He had made good this declaration by the catastrophe which had just oc curred. Taking advantage of the absence of the legation officials, Obregon had hanged himself from the ceiling of his room. An enclosed medical certificate of a physician who had been summoned in hope of restoring life told the facts so far as known. Death certificate, dated lo de septiembre de 1828, and Montoya to Secretario, 11 de septiembre de 1828, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. CHAPTER II Tardy Appointment and Cool Reception of the First United States Minister to Mexico Athough the government of Mexico was very slow in establishing its legation in Washington, yet the Washington government was slower still in opening the United States legation at Mexico. Furthermore the delays were less unavoidable. The equivocal char acter and uncertain tenure of the various shortlived governments of Mexico had something to do with the delays on both sides. But there were other reasons, the motive for which was far less creditable to the Washington administration. There were strong suspi cions — and there is little doubt that those suspicions were well founded — that this and other diplomatic ap pointments were intentionally delayed to be used as political capital. The relation between the appoint ment of a minister for Mexico and the notorious presi dential contest of 1824 is so intimate that in order to understand the former it is essential to refer fre quently to the latter. For two or three years before it occurred that coming conflict cast its shadow over the country and influenced the conduct of the Washington cabinet, and especially that of the secretary of state, who was one of the most important participants in the conflict. To appreciate the difficulties which the first 31 32 appointment and reception of first minister encountered when he finally reached Mexico, which difficulties he felt were a consequence of the long delay, it is also desirable to understand the causes for the delay. On March 7, 1822, the day preceding the one on which President Monroe sent his famous message to Congress recommending the recognition of the inde pendence of Mexico and of several other Latin-Ameri can countries. Secretary Adams wrote: "There has been hitherto no agent of the United States in Mexico ; but among the papers herewith submitted is a letter recently received from a citizen of the United States, who has been some years residing there, containing the best information in possession of the government concerning the late revolution in that country."i Wil cocks, the citizen here mentioned, arrived in Washing ton a few days afterward and, on March 13, delivered to the State Department the despatch dated Novem ber 30, preceding, sent by Herrera, the minister for foreign relations of the new Mexican executive, men- 1 Adams to Monroe, March 7, 1822, American State Papers, Foreign, IV, 819. For the President's message to Congress of the following day, see the same, 818; or British and For eign State Papers, IX, 366. Concerning the recognition of Mexican independence by the United States, see footnote 18, chapter I, above. The letter referred to by Adams is that of Wilcocks, dated October 25, 1821, cited in footnote i, chapter I, above. It is a long laudatory account of the character and work of Itur bide. It reviews also the progress of the revolution from its beginning in 1810. UNITED STATES MINISTER TO MEXICO 33 tioned above as the first diplomatic communication which passed between the governments.^ Adams replied to Herrera's letter on April 23. In the meantime Congress had almost unanimously en dorsed the President's proposal to recognize the new states. In this reply Adams told Herrera that the President would appoint a minister to represent the United States at Mexico.' Almost as soon as it was decided that the United States should recognize the new states the question presented itself whether min isters should be appointed and despatched at once ; or whether the government at Washington should await the arrival of an agent from each of those states and then send one of the same rank in exchange. The cabinet was not unanimous for either proposition. Adams thought the latter course should be pursued, but was not insistent. The indecision caused delay. The matter was discussed in April, 1822, again in June, and as late as November without a definite deci sion being reached.* The arrival and reception of Zozaya, the minister from Mexico, early the follow ing month removed this ground for delay.* Early in January of 1823 the selection of a minister for Mexico was taken up in eamest, the President having decided that the position should be filled at once. 2 See footnote 2, chapter I, above. -" Herrera to Adams, September 24, 1822, MS., Department of State, Notes from Mexican Legation, I, acknowledges this letter from Adams of April 23. * Adams, Memoirs, V, 492; VI, 24 no. ° See chapter I, above. 34 APPOINTMENT AND RECEPTION OF FIRST At President Monroe's request Adams offered the post to Senator Brown of Mississippi on January lo. That gentleman expressed his appreciation of the confidence which the President thus showed in him but declined, "the state of society and the condition of the country being such that he could not think of tak ing his wife there, and he could not think of going without her." The President had thought Brown pe culiarly fitted for the mission because of his wealth, ability, handsome person and polished manners. When Brown declined Monroe was disappointed and some what perplexed to find another so well fitted." In this same month Poinsett returned from Mexico where he had spent the autumn of the preceding year studying the conditions of the country. The report which he sent to Monroe with reference to the stability of the imperial government, then in control, was not encouraging. After telling of the disturbed condition of the country, he said: "It is difficult therefore to form a correct opinion of the result of this contest although I am disposed to believe that Iturbide cannot maintain himself many months on the throne. At all events it becomes an important question whether the United States ought to sanction and recognize as legitimate a government erected and supported by violence and oppression. By recognis ing the Emperor during the present contest we give him an advantage over the repubUcan party. We take part against the majority of the nation.'"' " Adams, Memoirs, VI, 121-123. 7 Poinsett to Monroe, Washington, January [— ], 1823, MS., UNITED STATES MINISTER TO MEXICO 35 In spite of this advice the President did not at once desist from his attempts to fill the Mexican position. On January 12, 1823, just after Brown's refusal, Adams had suggested to Monroe that the Mexican mission be offered to Andrew Jackson. The Presi dent thought Jackson's quickness and violence of tem per might make the expediency of his appointment questionable. Adams believed he would do nothing to injure the interests of his country; but said there was a more serious difficulty. The legislature of Ten nessee had nominated him for the presidency in the election to take place the next year. To send him on a mission would look like trying to get him out of the way. The President agreed that there was some danger of that.* To get Jackson out of the way was exactly what Adams wanted to do, though he probably would not have admitted it even to himself. But of course he did not want it to look as if he were trying to do so. He had already attempted to rid himself of a still more formidable rival, as he thought, by suggesting that Henry Clay be honored by being appointed first minister to Colombia, as a reward for Clay's long and enthusiastic advocacy of the cause of human lib erty and the recognition of the independence of the Poinsett Papers, volume II, Pennsylvania Historical Society Archives. This is in Poinsett's own hand. The day of the month is not given. See below, footnote 25, this chapter, for the copy of this report filed in the archives of the Department of State. 8 Adams, Memoirs, VI, 128. 36 APPOINTMENT AND RECEPTION OF FIRST Spanish-American states, which advocacy had consid erably embarrassed Adams in the slow, cautious pol icy which he had pursued in the matter." In spite of the difficulty, however, Adams addressed a letter to Jackson on February 19, 1823, enclosing the latter's commission from the President as minister to Mexico, adding the gentle compliment, " Permit me to express my own hopes that our country may on this occasion have the benefit of your services. "i" The honor came as a complete surprise to Jackson ; but he rose to the occasion. Nearly a month later he replied that the President had said he was under no obligation to ac cept since he had not been consulted before the nom ination was made. As a sort of sugar-coating for the dose of disappointment, and to conceal his real motive as artfully as Adams had done, Jackson said he believed that no American minister could at the time effect any beneficial treaty with Mexico, because that country was engaged in a new struggle for lib erty against the efforts of the usurper Iturbide to establish himself as emperor. Furthermore, because of his own well known sympathies for the republi cans of Mexico he thought it would be embarrassing "Adams, Memoirs, VI, 26. It is interesting to note the magnanimity with which Adams felt he was acting. He says : " In pursuing a generous policy towards him, as an enemy and a rival, I do some violence to my own inclination, and shall be none the better treated by him ; but I look to personal con siderations only to discard them, and regard only the public interests." 10 Adams to Jackson, February 19, 1823, MS., Department of State, Instructions, IX, 169. UNITED STATES MINISTER TO MEXICO 37 for him to go as minister to the imperial govern ment.^^ The expected collapse of Iturbide's empire very shortly after Jackson's refusal of the mission and the long period of uncertainty during which the Mex ican government was being reorganized caused the government at Washington to abandon for the time its efforts to fill the post. In October, 1823, Torrens, then Mexican charge in Washington, told his gov ernment that the reports of recent events in Mexico and especially letters from citizens of the United States living in Mexico had influenced the govern- 11 Jackson to Adams, March is, 1823, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. Between the time of Jackson's appointment and his refusal, Zozaya, the Mexican minister lately arrived in Washington, wrote to his govern ment of the choice, and of the probability that Jackson would not accept. La Diplomacia Mexicana, I, 104. The date of Zozaya's letter is incorrectly given as 28 de diciembre de 1822. It says : " El 23 de enero, cuando todo lo que corria era contrario al Imperio, y cuando todavia ni aun podian tenerse las instrucciones de Mr. Poinsett, porque no habia llegado, procedio el Presidente al nombramiento de Ministro para Mexico, con el caracter de Enviado Extraordinario y Plenipotenciario, lo mismo que yo he venido aqui, a difer- encia de los demas lugares de America para los que los nom- brados no tienen el caracter de Enviados Extraordinarios. " EI nombramiento recayo en el General Jackson, el militar de mas reputacion en todos estos Estados, y tanto que se tiene por uno de los candidates para las elecciones de Presi dente. No ha venida su contestacion oficial para saber si admite el cargo, pere per neticias privadas recibidas ayer, he sabido que ne lo admite, . . ." Reeves, J. S., Diplomacy Under Tyler and Polk, 60, men tions Jackson's appointment and refusal; also Rives, United States and Mexico, 1821-1848, I, 46. 38 APPOINTMENT AND RECEPTION OF FIRST ment at Washington and that all talk of sending an envoy had been suspended.i^ It was not until the beginning of the next year that the matter was again seriously taken up. On Jan uary 5, 1824, Adams entered in his diary the fact that he had discussed the fitness for the mission of Ninian Edwards, who had been territorial governor of IlKnois during the whole of that commonwealth's territorial period and was just about to complete his term as one of the first two senators from that new state. On January 17 he says he had urged President Monroe to appoint Edwards although Adams felt that he had been mistreated by Edwards. The President favored G. M. Dallas who was also urged for the appointment by the Pennsylvania delegation in Congress. But Adams opposed Dallas on the ground that "he was 12 Torrens to Secretario, Filadelfia, 21 de octubre de 1823, La Diplomacia Mexicana, II, 43. He says : " Desde les pri- meros movimientos del Gral. Santana, cuando se prenuncio en Veracruz por la libertad, comenzaron los particulares a desconfiar de que nos pudiesemos consolidar, a lo que ayuda- ban las cartas de los mismos americanes de los E. U., estable- cidos en Mexico, que se publicaban en las Gacetas, y de las cuales la major parte se reducia a describirnos llenos de vicios que nos hacian incapaces de fermar un gobierno repub- licano. Esto no dejo de influir en el Gobierno, pues me consta que, habiendo renunciado el Gral. Jackson el destine de Enviado a Mexico, se habia dispuesto que fuese el Secre tarie como Encargado de Negocios ; lo cual se suspendio y ne se ha vuelto a hablar mas de Enviado, sobre todo, despues del ultimo movimiento del Gral. Santana, que acabo de perdernos el cencepto, tanto mas, que lo suponian de acuerde con San Juan de Uliia, para dividirnos y que triunfase el partide borbonista que creian existente." UNITED STATES MINISTER TO MEXICO 39 not yet of the age and political standing suitable for that appointment." The fact that the influence of the appointment on the coming presidential election was a matter for serious consideration is evident from Adams's statement, " as to its bearing on the presiden tial election, I must be indifferent between Mr. Ed wards and Mr. Dallas, both of whom are avowed partisans of Mr. Calhoun."is jjg .^^^g apparently satis fied that the post should go to the Calhounites, since the great South Carolinian's ambition had been post poned for the present by conceding to him the position of vice-president on the ticket in the famous contest of that year. Adams's influence prevailed. Edwards was nominated, and on March 4, 1824, his nomina tion was confirmed by the Senate.^* A few days later he resigned his seat in that body, and in less than a month had left Washington for his home in Illinois to prepare for an early departure for Mexico.^^ 13 Adams, Memoirs, VI, 227, 233, 234 241, 243. Torrens to Secretario, 4 de febrero de 1824 La Diplomacia Mexicana, II, 76, mentions the proposed appointment of Dallas, but says objections had arisen. 1* Jackson to Edwards, March 4 1824, congratulating him on his appointment, Washburne, the Edwards Papers, 222; Rufus King to Edwards, March 4, 1824, the same, 222. Adams, Memoirs, VI, 245. 1^ Edwards to Adams, March 9, 1824, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. This shows anxiety to get to Vera Cruz as soon as possible to avoid being on the coast during the rainy, sickly season. Torrens te Secretarie, Washington, 23 de marze de 1824, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. In this letter the Mexican charge told his government of Edwards's appointment, resignation from the Senate, and pro posed route, saying he would probably arrive in July. 40 APPOINTMENT AND RECEPTION OF FIRST At this juncture the relation between the appoint ment to Mexico and the exciting presidential con test of 1824 becomes more intimate and interesting. Just about the time Edwards was leaving Washington some unkind things were said about him by supporters of Crawford, the fourthi* candidate for the presidency. While on his way towards Illinois Edwards returned the compliment by addressing to the House of Repre sentatives a communication declaring himself to have been the author of an anonymous statement which had appeared some time before charging Crawford with official misconduct as secretary of the treasury. He now renewed the accusation. This caused great ex citement. A congressional investigating committee was appointed, and given power to send for persons and papers. Monroe was very indignant at Edwards and thought he ought to resign at once. He instructed Adams to request Edwards not to proceed on his mis sion for the present but to await the orders of the committee.i^ Edwards returned to Washington. The investigation was poUtical rather than judicial, and eminently unfair to Edwards, being in the hands of Crawford's friends. Calhoun had foreseen that it 18 Adams, Clay, and Jackson, already mentioned, were the other three. 17 Adams to Edwards, April 22, 1824 MS., Department of State, Instructions, X, 171; Adams, Memoirs, VI, 296-301; D. P. Cook te Edwards, April 17, 1824 Washburne, The Edwards Papers, 223. Torrens to Secretario, 5 de mayo de 1824 MS., Relaciones Exteriores, said it was thought that another minister would be chosen, since it was supposed that Mexico would take Edwards's appointment as an insult. UNITED STATES MINISTER TO MEXICO 4 1 would be so. In a preliminary report of the Senate committee all the facts charged by Edwards were admitted ; but Crawford was acquitted of any evil in tention. Then to throw dust into the air in hope that Crawford might hide behind the cloud, some indiscreet things that Edwards had said and done were brought forward and discussed. Monroe brought pressure to bear and on June 22, after he found further resist ance hopeless, Edwards resigned, declaring to the President that he thereby made a voluntary surrender of what his enemies had tried to force from him, and that his sole reason for doing it was to relieve Monroe from any further embarrassment because of him. A cabinet meeting in session when the resignation was presented agreed that Edwards was a much injured man.i^ This Edwards-Crawford controversy occupied most of the attention of the cabinet meetings from 13 Edwards to the President, June 22, 1824, enclosing his resignation of the same date and saying that he was unde cided whether he should accompany it with an explanation of his reasons or not, MS., Department of States, Despatches from Mexico, I; same to same, same date, in Washburne, The Edwards Papers, 224-229, explains at length his reasons. Rives, United States and Mexico, 1821-1848, I, 46, mentions Edwards's appointment and resignation. An amount equal to a full year's salary, $9,000, had been advanced to Edwards to purchase an outfit, and the govern ment experienced difficulty in getting him te refund. He had actually purchased part ef his outfit. He finally agreed to repay two thirds, though he said he believed the government had no legal right to claim it. Adams to Edwards, October 9, 1824 MS., Department of State, Instructions, X, 213; Ed wards te Adams, November 10, 1824, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. 42 APPOINTMENT AND RECEPTION OF FIRST May 1 8 to June 22, if one can judge from the space given to it in the hundred pages of Adams's diary cov ering this period.i" It was the influence which the affair exerted on the election, and the fact that the administration was dragged into the controversy, that made it seem so important. The resignation of Edwards left the Mexican post still vacant, and the interests of the United States in Mexico still neglected. Some suspected and charged that this and other vacant diplomatic posts were being held open by Adams to purchase support in the presi dential conflict.^" He declared that this was a mistaken notion, and that he would as soon all should be filled ; but still they remained open. The threatened return to power of Iturbide after his year of exile had some thing to do with delaying again the Mexican appoint ment. As the delay lengthened the number of candi dates for the Mexican place increased. The most 19 Adams, Memoirs, VI, 296-395. Torrens to Secretario, 10 de julio de 1824, La Diplomacia Mexicana, II, 80, tells of Edwards's detention, of the congressional investigation, and of Edwards's resignation. He said the talk now was of choosing another. 2" Torrens to Secretario, 10 de julio de 1824, La Diplo macia Mexicana, II, 80, says: "El Presidente se ha visto tan atacado por los diferentes partidos acerca de la presi- dencia, que le acusan de parcialidad en el nombramiento de Jos empleos, haciendolos recaer en los amigos del que el prefiere para su sucesor, que ye cree dificil que se resuelva a nombrar alguno antes de la reunion del Senado, el primer lunes de diciembre. Sin embargo, nombrando al General Har rison, no se expone a la censura, por considerarse diche Gen eral amigo politico de Mr. Crawford." UNITED STATES MINISTER TO MEXICO 43 prominent were Dallas, who had been urged when Edwards was appointed, and who later was vice-pres ident; Henry Wheaton, later so prominent in Ameri can diplomacy and as a writer on international law; Thomas H. Benton, who was urged for the place by Poinsett when Monroe first suggested the latter for it ; and William H. Harrison, whom Clay favored for the place, who was himself anxious for it and had solic ited and obtained many recommendations for it, and who was later appointed minister to Colombia.^i When the resignation of Edwards was imminent Poinsett was considered for the place. In July, a month after Edwards resigned. Southard of the Navy Department asked Poinsett confidentially if he was willing to go to Mexico, if he could go at once, and if his absence would affect the vote of his state in the coming election.^^ In November a long, very cordial letter from a very intimate friend had closed with the statement: "As I perceive no appointment yet made for Mexico I cannot avoid hoping that if our presidential question can be fortunately adjusted, the 21 Adams, Memoirs, VI, 413-41S, 484-524; Lyman, Diplo macy ef the United States, II, 484. Obregon to Secretario, 2 de febrero de 1825, MS., Relaciones Exteriores, said in order te prevent the Mexican appointment from being regarded as a price for purchasing votes, it appeared that the pest would be filled at once. He expected the appointment to go to Ben ton, or to Everett (later appointed to Madrid) ; but said nevertheless it might be that the project would prevail for sending Mr. Poinsett, a person known in Mexico. 22 Southard to Poinsett, Navy Department, July 17, 1824, MS., Poinsett Papers, volume II, Pennsylvania Historical So ciety Archives. 44 APPOINTMENT AND RECEPTION OF FIRST one which we all desire may yet be made."^' In Jan uary Monroe had offered Poinsett the place ; but Poin sett urged Benton instead. The reasons for Poinsett's self-denial Adams discovered later. As soon as the House of Representatives had decided that Adams should be president the Calhounites began urging Poinsett for the office of secretary of state to forestall the expected appointment of Clay ; but in spite of the opposition, and in spite of the fact, which Adams and Clay foresaw, that it would give color to the " corrupt bargain " cry, and in spite of the fact that Adams dis liked Clay personally, the latter was given the coveted first place in the cabinet. This exalted position hav ing eluded Poinsett's grasp, he was willing to accept the Mexican post, having been previously assured that his nominee, Benton, would in no case be appointed. He accepted it on March 6, the next day after Adams had tendered him the appointment. Clay wished William H. Harrison to have it; but he had no ob jection to Poinsett.^* Two days later the appointment was confirmed by the Senate. 23 Stephen Elliote te Poinsett, Charleston, November l6, 1824, MS., Poinsett Papers, volume II, Pennsylvania Histor ical Society Archives. 2* Adams, Memoirs, VI, 484 506, 522-524. On March 7, Obregon told his government that, as he had said formerly might be done, Poinsett had been selected and would start early next month. At the end of March he told of Poinsett's departure for Norfolk, whence he would sail for Mexico. Poinsett was taking, for Obregon, to the Mexican foreign office a number of books and papers. Obregon to Secretarie, 7 de marzo, 28 de marzo, and 30 de marze, de 1825, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. UNITED STATES MINISTER TO MEXICO 45 Probably no man in the country had the knowledge and experience which could have so well qualified him for the place as had Joel R. Poinsett. At the time of his appointment he was a congressman from South Carolina. He was a careful student and a polished gentleman. He had traveled extensively in Europe. In 1810 he had gone to South America with a com mission from President Madison to report on condi tions in Argentina and Chile, then just beginning their struggle for independence. In 1822 he went on the similar mission to Mexico already mentioned, was favorably received, learned much of the country and people, and made an intelligent and, as events proved, a prophetic report to the State Department which was the principal reliance of the government in shaping its policy with reference to Mexico.^^ In 1824 he 1 published his Notes on Mexico, giving an account of \ his travels two years earlier and his comments on po litical conditions.^" 25 Poinsett's Report, MS., Department of State, Duplicate Despatches from Poinsett. This is not dated nor is it ad dressed to the department er any individual. It fills sixty manuscript pages, and is accompanied by an appendix of equal length. It begins with the Iturbidist movement of February, 1821 ; tells in considerable detail of the struggles between Iturbide and the legislative body, of the erection of the em pire, of the ambition and stubbornness of the emperor, and of the beginning of the movement against him; and closes in December, 1822, the time of Poinsett's departure from Mexico. 28 Poinsett, Notes on Mexico, made in the Autumn of 1822, accompanied by an Historical Sketch of the Revolution, and Official Reports, 359 pages. Zavala, Ensayo Historico, I, 241, pays a tribute to Poinsett's astuteness in foretelling events. 46 APPOINTMENT AND RECEPTION OF FIRST To the average person Poinsett's chief title to fame does not rest on his filling this diplomatic position, or a number of other official posts which he held before or after; but on the fact that he made known to the world the beautiful Christmas flower which in honor of him was named " poinsettia." However even this discovery was a result of his residence in Mexico ; for it was in Mexico that he found the flower and from there that he brought it to the attention of the botan ical world. In the instructions which Clay drew up on March 26, 1825, to govern Poinsett's conduct in Mexico, the latter was reminded of the great interest in and im portance of his mission. Its purpose was "to lay for the first time the foundation of an intercourse of amity, commerce, navigation, and neighborhood which may exert a powerful influence for a long period upon the prosperity of both states." The fact is dwelt upon that the territory of the United Mexican States is coterminous with that of the United States, render ing the relations with them more important than with any other of the new states. He was told that in point of population, position, and resources, they ranked among the first powers of America; and that their early history was not surpassed in interest by that of any other part of America. He was to bring to the attention of the Mexican govemment the kindly feeling and sympathy with which the United States Brown's History of Texas, I, 81, give^^vKry_incorrect ac count of Poinsett's career before the lime" of his arrival in Mexico. UNITED STATES MINISTER TO MEXICO 47 had looked upon the long struggle of the new states against the tyranny of Spain, the fact that the United States had recognized their independence at the earliest practicable moment and long before any other country had done so, and the message of President Monroe warning European governments against interfering in the affairs of the American states. He was to say, however, that the United States expected in return no special favors or privileges ; but that this govemment did expect that no such favors or privileges would be extended to any European power unless at the same time they were extended to the United States. He was asked to express the compliment felt by the United States in that the Mexican states had copied so largely the federal constitution of the former; and was told to show an unobtrusive readiness to explain to the Mexican government the workings of that constitu tion." It was Poinsett's over-enthusiastic belief in the ab solute necessity of maintaining the federal form of govemment, when he found that centralizing tenden- 27 Clay to Poinsett, Instructions, March 26, 1825, MS.; De partment of State, Instructions, X, 225. Extracts from these instructions containing most ef the facts given above are printed in American State Papers, Foreign, V, 908, and VI, 578, and in British and Foreign State Papers, XIII, 485, bear ing the date March 25. The autograph copy of these instruc tions in the archives of the United States Embassy in Mexico bears the date March 25. Only such portions of Poinsett's instructions are mentioned here as could have influenced his personal conduct in his rela tions to the Mexican government. The instructions intended to govern his negotiations will be studied in connection with those negotiations. 48 APPOINTMENT AND RECEPTION OF FIRST cies in Mexico threatened its overthrow, which led him to engage in the activities that gave rise to the charges against him of meddling in the internal affairs of Mex ico. And it was in this injunction of Clay's to show an unobtrusive readiness to explain to the Mexican government the workings of the constitution that he could find the only excuse for his actions. Obregon wrote his government that Poinsett was pronounced in favor of the cause of the American continent and the republican system; that he had a good opinion of the state of Mexico; and that he was especially in structed to prevent England from being granted special favors in return for her tardy recognition. He told of Poinsett's visit to Mexico in 1822 and of his memoirs subsequently published; and inserted a line in cipher declaring, "in my conception he is not a person of great talents."^* 28 The cipher is as follows : en mi co n ce p to -no es IS 414 S3 IIS 33 118 5S2 SSI 321 pe r so na de g ra n de s ta le n to s 318 120 521 215 34 17 220 115 34 121 222 321 115 522 121. Obregon to Secretario, 30 de marzo de 1825, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. On the eve of Poinsett's departure C. C. Cambreleng wrote to him a long, friendly, facetious letter saying, among ether things : " Make a good commercial treaty for us and take care that John Bull gets ne advantage of you — if an3rthing get the weather gauge of him — If you can get Texas for some of the lands of the poor Indians of the wilderness you will seen be a great man among us — or if you can contrive to make Cuba independent, protected by the United States, Mexico, and Colombia, you have a fair chance and I wish you luck — for it is pretty much everything in political whatever it may be in other matters." Cambreleng to Poinsett, New York, March 30, 1825, MS., Poinsett Papers, volume II, Pennsylvania His- UNITED STATES MINISTER TO MEXICO 49 While this appointment had been knocked about as the football of politicians in Washington, American interests at the new capital were being neglected. The United States might have turned to good account the advantage she naturally gained by recognizing the in dependence of Mexico and other Spanish-American states nearly three years before England took the same step. But when on May 5, 1825, Poinsett wrote from Vera Cruz giving notice of his arrival, he had to re port that British agents had anticipated him in making a treaty. The instructions to the commissioners from that country had arrived two months earlier, just about the time of Poinsett's appointment. The treaty was already concluded; the lower house of the Mexican Congress had already ratified it and he had no doubt the Senate would do so soon.^^ The abstract recogni tion and philanthropic declarations of the United States had interested Mexico for a time and had elicited admiration and gratitude; but dilatoriness in opening communications had made the attitude of the Washington govemment seem cold and platonic. If England's advances had been long delayed they had been pressed with ardor when once begun, and had torical Society Archives. This familiar comment probably reflected pretty closely what his friend knew to be Poinsett's own sentiments. The latter's actions with reference to the three matters here specifically mentioned, British influence, Texas, and Cuba, show, as will be explained later, that these playful injunctions did net fall on deaf ears, though his policy varied in detail from these suggestions. 29 Poinsett to Clay, Vera Cruz, May 5, 1825, MS., Depart ment of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. 5 so APPOINTMENT AND RECEPTION OF FIRST elicited an enthusiastic response. Herein was the beginning of Poinsett's troubles. At a later period many Mexican writers, looking back to the time of Poinsett's arrival and firmly be lieving, though unable to produce conclusive evidence, that he was largely responsible for the confusion and disorders into which the country had fallen, alluded to his arrival as an unlucky or dismal day for the re- public.'^" In Poinsett's letter of May 5, mentioned above, he announced that he would leave Vera Cruz the next day and proceed with all possible despatch to the capital. But the speed which he made was of the Spanish variety. He reported that his reception everywhere was friendly. The attentions given him were not only respectful, but extremely kind. He was accorded mih tary honors and every distinction. As was customary he went to Jalapa and waited there for a reply to his 3" The following quotation from the Voz de la Patria, II, numero 7, 11 de febrero de 1830, is typical of the bitterly prejudiced but generally believed statements of the character and influence of Poinsett. Reviewing the history of the Mexi can government during the time of Poinsett's mission, and alluding to his arrival, the writer says: "En este misma aciage dia, un cerreo estraordinario llegado de Veracruz aviso que habia desembarcade Mr. Ricardo Joel [sic] Poinsett, ministro plenipotenciario de los Estades-Unidos del Norte de America: al saberla el general Wilkinson que se hallaba en Miexico, pregunto el que le anuncio esta neuva, ^que crimen habria cometida este desgraciado pueblo, que el cielo en su colera le mandaba tal hombre para que le cause las mayores desgracias? Dentro de breve se cumpli6 este vatecino." UNITED STATES MINISTER TO MEXICO 5 I note informing the government of his arrival.'^ While at Jalapa he was informed that he would be expected to delay his entrance into the city of Mexico until the conclusion of a five days' religious festival being cele brated at San Augustin, a village just outside the capital. During the delay he lodged at the country home of Wilcocks, the United States consul, near by, and visited the scene of festivity every day. The holidays, he reported, were celebrated by early mass and late orgies. From daylight to ten o'clock the churches were filled. At twelve all went to the cock pit. The afternoon and night were passed in gam bling, in which all ages, sexes, and conditions joined; and in dancing on the green as long as daylight lasted, then after dark in the cock-pit. It was in the cock-pit that he had the honor of meeting two members of the cabinet, the secretary of state and the secretary of 31 Poinsett te Clay, Vera Cruz, May s, 1825, and same to same, Mexico, May 28, 1825, MS., Department of State, De spatches from Mexico, I. Governor Barragan to Secretario, Veracruz, 3 de mayo de 1825, told of Poinsett's arrival, and said provision had been made for his journey te and his lodgment at Jalapa. A reply te this ef 10 de mayo approved the governor's conduct. Poin sett to Alaman, Sacrificios, May 4 1825, gives official notice of his arrival. A reply of 10 de maye acknowledged Poin sett's note, enclosed a passport for him to continue his journey to the capital, and told that orders had been given providing for the security and comfort of the trip. Alaman te Gover nor of Puebla, 10 de mayo, instructed the latter to provide for Poinsett. A reply ef 15 de maye said the order had been complied with, and Poinsett had just arrived. MS., Rela ciones Exteriores. 52 APPOINTMENT AND RECEPTION OF FIRST the treasury. He entered the capital on May 25.=^ Next day he announced to Alaman his presence and asked for an opportunity to present his credentials. Alaman replied May 27, appointing June i for Poin sett's reception by the president.^^ On the day preceding Poinsett's reception the British charge. Ward, was formally received by Pres ident Victoria. On that occasion the latter had em phasized the importance of Great Britain's recogni tion of Mexican independence, aUuded to the English as " that great people who sustain the liberties of the world," and said he had every reason to beUeve that the friendship of the two nations would be perpetual. In Poinsett's report to Clay he said in view of this speech he thought it necessary to set the conduct of the United States toward these countries in its true Ught ; and in a cipher paragraph added : " It is manifest that the British have made good use of their time and opportunities. The President and three of the secre taries — those of state, treasury, and ecclesiastical af fairs — are in their interest. We have a very re spectable party in both houses of Congress; and a vast majority of the people are in favor of the strictest union with the United States. They regard the British with distrust." In the speech which he felt called upon to make at his own presentation next day, Poinsett seized the opportunity to say, as Clay had in- 32 Poinsett to Clay, May 28, 1825, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. 33 Poinsett to Alaman, May 26, 1825, and Alaman to Poin sett, 27 de mayo de 1825, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. UNITED STATES MINISTER TO MEXICO 53 structed, that it was peculiarly flattering to the United States that a constitution so similar to their own had been adopted by Mexico. Then he dwelt upon the sympathy with which the government and people of the United States had watched the progress of the movement toward independence; told of the recogni tion of that independence within less than a year after it was declared ; and mentioned the subsequent declara tion against any attempt of any European govem ment to deprive them of independence. In these steps, he reminded them, the United States had taken the lead; and now the freest govemment of Europe had followed. President Victoria's brief reply was re spectful but entirely non-committal, and lacked the enthusiasm which marked his speech to the British representative the preceding day.^* 3* Poinsett to Clay, June 4 1825, enclosing a copy of the speech ef President Victoria to the British charge on May 31 ; of Poinsett's address of June i ; of Victoria's reply to the last of the same date; of Wilcocks's to Poinsett, May 12, and Poinsett's reply, to the last, of May 15 arranging the reception ceremonies. MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. Poinsetfs address and Victoria's reply are printed in Bocanegra, Memorias para la Historia de Mexico, I. 379-382. A copy ef Poinsett's speech in English with a Spanish translation is in MS., Relaciones Exteriores. With them is Poinsett's credential letter, dated March 14 1825, and signed by J. Q. Adams and H. Clay. An account of these receptions in Voz de la Patria, II, numero 7, compares Ward and Poinsett, complimenting the latter's linguistic ability but casting reflections on his character : " El dia primero de Junio hizo lo mismo Mr. Poinsett, enviado de Norte America : su arenga estuve mejor dicha que la del de Inglaterra, y mas larga, pues posee el idioma espanel muy regularmente por desgracia nuestra, para causarnos infinites males." 54 FIRST UNITED STATES MINISTER TO MEXICO Thus early Poinsett began definitely to endeavor to exert an influence on the Mexican government in order to counteract what he thought was undue English in fluence. It is clear, however, that he did this not for his own pleasure or profit, nor even for the benefit of the United States, but for the good of Mexico espe cially, and incidentally for the advantage of all the free governments of America as opposed to the des potic system of the European powers. Paxson, Independence of the South American Republics, 252, says that Ward's reception occurred May 21, and cites as evi dence a letter of that date in the British Foreign Office ar chives. This must be an error. Rives, United States and Mexico, 1821 to 1848, I, 48, says : " Ward was received as charge by the Mexican government on May 31 of the same year. England thus anticipated by ene day the presentation of the credentials ef the American min ister to Mexico." He says almost nothing about nearly two years of negotiations that had preceded this formal reception, and had entrenched England so strongly in the good graces of the Mexican government and people. CHAPTER III British Influence in Mexico, and Poinsett's Struggle Against it It is desirable at this point to review briefly the re lations between England and Mexico during the three years preceding Poinsett's arrival in order to under stand how the former acquired the influence in the latter which Poinsett felt it so necessary to counter act. In 1822 as soon as Canning took control of the British foreign office he began seriously to consider the question whether England should recognize the new Spanish-American states. To WelUngton, who was sent to represent England at the Congress of Verona, Canning wrote on " September 27, 1822, that he must under no circumstances, pledge his govern ment against recognition, and instructed him to hint that England might be compelled to recognize the col onies before Parliament met."^ On December 21 of the same year he instructed Mackie, whom he was despatching on a special mission to Mexico, to acquire inforraation concerning the probable stability of the iTemperly, Life of Canning, 175, citing a Foreign Office manuscript. Rives, United States and Mexico, 1821-1848, I, 46-48, makes the relations between England and Mexico from 1822 to 1825 seem very unimportant. 55 56 BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO Iturbide government, the attitude toward Spain, and the disposition toward British commerce. Mackie was authorized to declare the friendly disposition to ward Mexico and the determination of England to maintain a scrupulous neutrality between Spain and her late colonies so long as the contest between them should continue. He was to learn whether Mexico would be favorable toward a mediation by Great Britain between the new govemment and the mother country.^ Mackie reached Mexico about the middle of the next year, a few months after the overthrow of Itur bide. On July 27, 1823, the new provisional govern ment appointed Victoria to confer with the British agent. Four conferences were held between them within the next month.^ This was looked upon by the Mexicans at the time, and afterward continually al luded to, as the beginning of diplomatic relations be tween Mexico and Great Britain. On Mackie's return in November he bore to Migoni (who was already in England attempting to raise a loan for his govem ment) a commission as Mexico's confidential diplo- 2 Canning to Mackie, December 21, 1822, Mexico, Tratados y Cenvenciones, II, 301; Paxson, Independence ef the South American Republics, 204. 3 Mexico, Tratados y Cenvenciones, II, 301-307, gives Vic toria's instructions dated 27 de julio de 1823, and the minutes of the four conferences held 31 de julio, 6 de agosto, 7 de agosto, 19 de agosto de 1823. La Diplomacia Mexicana, II, 9S-132, gives these, and several communications between Vic toria and his government concerning the conferences. BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO 57 matic agent in London.* It will be noticed that the instructions were given to Mackie only a few months after the message of the President of the United States and the resolution of Congress had declared for recog nition. Mackie's arrival in Mexico was almost two years before Poinsett's. The fact that the former was only a confidential agent while the latter was a minister plenipotentiary made little difference to the Mexican mind. He was a representative of the British government. When in 1823, in spite of England's protest, the other European powers intervened to restore absolute government in Spain, Canning advanced a step fur ther in his approach toward opening friendly rela tions with the new states. It was the proposal of those powers to hold a conference on Spanish-Amer ican affairs that furnished the occasion for Canning to make to Rush, the United States minister in Lon- * See Zavala, Ensayo Historico, I, 198, which says : " Este fue el principio de las relaciones diplomaticas entre ambas naciones." On page 253 he compares the English manner of recognizing Mexico with that of the United States and com ments on tJie difference. On page 265 he tells of the com mission which Mackie bore to Migoni. La Diplomacia Mexi cana, II, 150-206, gives the correspondence between Migoni and his government from his appointment, August 2, 1823, till after his displacement by Michelena nearly a year later. Paxson, Independence of the South American Republics, 218, tells of Mackie's exceeding his instructions by interfering to prevent Mexico from concluding a commercial treaty with Spain which he thought was nearing completion and consid ered inimical to the policy and commerce of the British Empire. 58 BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO don, the well-known proposals for a joint declaration by England and the United States of their policy with reference to the new governments and their relation to the mother country. Canning was not yet prepared formally to recognize the independence of the new states, and declined to do so when Rush made that a necessary condition for his taking the responsibility of agreeing to the joint declaration in the name of his government.^ But shortly afterward, on October 9, 1823, in his conference with the French minister, Polignac, Can ning made the declaration, also well known, "That the British government were of the opinion that any attempt to bring Spanish America again under its an cient submission to Spain must be utterly hopeless; . . . [and] that the junction of any foreign power in an enterprize of Spain against the colonies . . . [would be considered] a motive for recognizing the latter without delay."" On the day foUowing that on which the above decla ration was made. Canning instructed a commission, composed of Hervey, O'Gorman, and Ward, to go to Mexico and, if certain prescribed conditions should be found to exist there, invite that government to send a representative to England to arrange for the 5 For Canning's proposals see Moore, Digest of Interna tional Law, VI, 386-392; or Chadwick, United States and Spain, Diplomacy, 187-189 ; or any careful study of the evolu tion of the Monroe Doctrine. 8 British and Foreign State Papers, XI, 49-51 ; Paxson, In dependence of the South American Republics, 206. BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO 59 interchange of diplomatic missions. They were to make it clear " that so far is Great Britain from look ing to any more intimate connection with any of the late Spanish provinces than that of friendly political and commercial intercourse, that His Majesty could not be induced by any consideration to enter into any engagement which might be considered as bringing them under his dominion. Neither, on the other hand, would His Majesty consent to see them (in the event of their final separation from Spain) brought under the dominion of any other power."^ If a dis position should be found to establish a monarchical government under a Spanish prince the commission ers were to encourage it; but they were "not to at tempt to prescribe to the Mexican authorities this, or any particular course of action."" This pledge that England would not take any of the former Spanish colonies for herself nor consent to any other power's taking them was of immense value to Mexico. It was far more positive than the Monroe declaration, and was clearly disinterested, which that was not. It should be noticed that these instructions were given some two months before Pres ident Monroe's message was pubUshed. Not only '' Quoted by Paxson, Independence of the South American Republics, 210, citing a Foreign Office manuscript. Migoni to Alaman, 9 de octubre de 1823, La Diplomacia Mexicana, II, 168, told of the appointment ef this commission and its prepa ration for departure. 8 Further instructions to Mexican Commissioners, October 10, 1823, Paxson, Independence ef the South American Re publics, 2H-213, citing Foreign Office manuscript. 6o BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO was this more positive and disinterested, but the power and prestige of England left much less doubt of her ability to afford the protection thus pledged. This of course was not a public document; but its content was made known to the Mexican government. In the same month of October, 1823, Torrens wrote that the government at Washington was being roused from its apathy by reports of England's opening rela tions with Mexico which might be to the disadvantage of the United States." It was only a few days before Torrens wrote this letter that President Monroe had received Rush's despatches telUng of the proposals by Canning for the joint declaration by England and the United States, mentioned above, and had asked the advice of Jefferson and Madison to guide him and his cabinet in replying to the English proposals. In spite of the fact that the two ex-presidents and most of the cabinet favored meeting the English advances and joining in the declaration, even at the expense of abandoning their hope of acquiring Cuba, Adams's de termined stand for independent action prevailed. Late in November he wrote to Rush at length con- » Torrens te Secretarie, Filadelfia, 21 de octubre de 1823, La Diplomacia Mexicana, II, 45 : " En la de 18, hai noticias per la via de la Habana, que corroberan las del 14; y ademas le que se dice de un agente que regresaba a Londres con ideas favorables respecte a la consolidacion de nuestro Gobierno, y que suponian haber cocluido una negociacion con Mexico, hara que este Gobierno saiga de la apatia y procure estrechar relaciones con nosotres, por temor de que los ingleses se adelanten y cencluyan un tratado que les quite algunas ven taj as en el comercio." BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO 6 1 cerning Canning's proposals and concluded by declar ing : " We believe, however, that for the most effectual accomplishment of the object, common to both govern ments, a perfect understanding with regard to it being estabUshed between them, it will be most advisable that they should act separately ."i" A few days later, in keeping with the determination of Adams, the so- called Monroe Doctrine was proclaimed to the world in the President's message to Congress. Thus while England was privately renouncing any selfish intentions and generously pledging to Mexico (and other Spanish-American states) her protection against any power except Spain, the United States was refusing to join with England in publicly proclaim ing similar principles. Furthermore the reason that Adams refrained from joining in the self-denying declaration was that he did not want to pledge the United States against acquiring Spanish-American territory if the opportunity should later present itself. The motives underlying the policy of the United States could not have been certainly known in Mexico; but 1" Adams to Rush, November 29, 1823, MS., Department of State, Instructions, X, 120. Another letter from Adams to Rush written the same day contains virtually the same decla ration as the so-called Monroe Doctrine. Ibid., 125. Adams to James Brown, minister to Paris, December 23, 1823, ibid., 150, instructs the latter to be guided by the President's mes sage to Congress at the beginning of the session in all of his communications with the French court concerning Spain and the Spanish-American countries. Fer the influence of Can ning's proposals on the Cuban policy of the Washington cabi net, see the chapter en Cuba Saved to Spain, below. 62 BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO it was strongly suspected at the time that they were selfish; and subsequent events unfortunately tended to confirm the suspicion. It is not improbable that the Mexican officials were privately informed of Can ning's offer to join the United States in the declaration of principles and of Adams's refusal to accede to the proposal. In view of Torrens's suggestion only a few weeks before that England's advances toward Mexico were rousing the Washington government from its apathy, it is quite possible that the Mexican officials looked upon the declaration of Monroe's message as a result of England's friendship, and as an effort on the part of the United States to snatch from England some of the benefits of that friendship. The British commission consisting of Hervey, O'Gorman, and Ward, whom Canning had instructed on October lo, 1823, reached Mexico just before the end of the year.n The commissioners were too en thusiastic in their efforts to produce a favorable im pression in Mexico concerning the attitude of Eng land, and in their attempt to convince Canning that the Mexican government was stable. After only about three weeks they despatched a very favorable report, in spite of the fact that the serious Lobato revolt was then in progress. About a week later Hervey guar anteed a loan to carry the Mexican govemment over the crisis. When the report reached London, Can ning rebuked the commission for sending it " not only 11 Paxson, Independence of the South American Republics, 219 ; Bocanegra, Memorias, I, 288 ; Bancroft, History of Mex ico, V, so; Alaman, Historia de Mejico, V, 782. BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO 63 'before you had allowed yourselves time to form a mature judgment,' but at 'a moment of public dis turbance.' " And when he learned of the loan he re called Hervey for guaranteeing it. Morier, who was sent to supersede Hervey as head of the commission, was told " ' that you are sent to ascertain the fact of Mexican independence, not actively to promote it; and to form and report an opinion of the stability of the government, not to prescribe its form or attempt to influence its councils.' "i^ But these rebukes were unknown to the Mexican people and the ultra-favorable acts of the commis sioners were accepted as expressive of the sentiments of the British government. The gratitude of the Mexicans for the support which they felt they were receiving from England is shown by the fact that late in April, 1824, the question was considered by the executive and Congress whether the approaching birth day of the king of England should be publicly cele brated. It was decided that there should be no offi cial demonstration on the occasion.i3 In response to the invitation which the British com mission was authorized to extend, Michelena was ap pointed on March 2, 1824, Mexican minister to Lon don; and Rocafuerte, a native of Quito but a citizen 12 Paxson, Independence of the South American Republics, 219, citing Foreign Office manuscripts : Canning to Hervey, April 23, 1824; same to same, July 20, 1824; and Canning to Morier, July 30, 1824. 13 Secretario de Relaciones al Congreso, 21 de abril de 1824, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. 64 BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO of Mexico, accompanied him as interpreter and secre- tary.i* On May i, 1824, they left Tampico ; and they landed at Portsmouth on June 24. Iturbide had just left on his return to Mexico. The ex-emperor's act had shaken confidence and would retard England's recognition of Mexico, Michelena reported; but he said he would do all he could to counteract the un favorable impression. He reported that public opin ion was decidedly in favor of early recognition; and the govemment seemed to agree. On June 25 he ad dressed a note to Canning saying that as a result of the mission of Mr. Hervey the Mexican government had sent him in the same capacity and he asked that a day be appointed on which he might present his cre- dentials.i^ Within less than a week Canning had re ceived him with great friendliness, though without formally recognizing his government.^' Through the latter half of the year 1824 the Mex ican representative had several conferences with Can- 1* La Diplomacia Mexicana, III, 3-6, gives Michelena's cre dentials and instructions, dated March 2, 1824. Fer brief allu sions to this mission see Bocanegra, Memorias, I, 296; Za vala, Ensayo Historico, I, 302; Alaman, Historia de Mejico, V, 782; Bancroft, History of Mexico, V, 51. La Liave had been appointed and resigned. See La Diplomacia Mexicana, II, 257-283. 15 Michelena to Secretario, Londres, 26 de junio de 1824, enclosing Michelena to Canning, 25 de junio de 1824 MS., Relaciones Exteriores; La Diplomacia Mexicana, III, 18, 25. 1" Canning to Michelena, Londres, 26 de junio de 1824 Michelena to Secretario, 27 de junio de 1824 and same to same, 3 de julio de 1824 MS., Relaciones Exteriores; La Diplomacia Mexicana, III, 24, 25, 27. BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO 65 ning at which the most important matter discussed was the probability of Spain's accepting the mediation of England between herself and her former colonies, which mediation had been accepted by Mexico and had been urged upon Spain for many months but in vain. Formal recognition was delayed by England in the vain hope that Spain might be induced first to recognize her former colonies in return for special favors.^^ Finally Canning's patience was exhausted by Spain's repeated delays, and at the very end of the year 1824 he wrote to inform the Spanish government of his resolution to recognize the new states.^^ On January 3, 1825, he announced his determination to the diplo matic corps in London. On the same day he sent in structions to Morier and Ward to guide them in nego tiating a treaty with IMexico. This act constituted a recognition of the independence and sovereignty of the new government.i^ 1' Numerous despatches between Michelena and the Mexi can government in MS., Relaciones Exteriores ; also in La Diplomacia Mexicana, III, 31-138. isTemperley, Life of Canning, 187; Paxson, Independence of the South American RepubUcs, 243, citing Foreign Office manuscript Michelena to Secretario, 30 de diciembre de 1824 La Diplomacia Mexicana, III, 139, announced with tri umph England's recognition: "El Ser Supremo que dirige la suerte de las naciones, ha viste el merite y sacrificios de la nuestra ; les aprecio y decidio en nuestra favor la gran causa. Todo esta acabado; la Inglaterra reconece nuestra Inde pendencia." 1' Paxson, Independence ef the South American Republics, 220, 224, citing Foreign Office manuscripts ; Bocanegra, Me- 66 BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO The Spanish government protested vigorously but without avail.2" Equally futile were the remonstrances of the London representatives of the other European powers.^^ England's efforts to induce Spain to admit British mediation continued even after the new states were recognized. During the first half of 1825 sev eral notes passed and several conferences were held between the British foreign office and the Mexican agents. But each time the report was that no progress had been made and that there was little prospect that Spain would ever consent to treat with her former colonies. ^^ morias, I, 376; Alaman, Historia de Mejico, V, 815; Zamacois, Historia de Mejico, XI, 608. The last two give January I as the date ef Canning's announcement to the diplomatic corps. 2" Canning to Los Rios, 25 de marzo de 1825, MS., Rela ciones Exteriores. This is a long memorial, of which the transcript covers nine typewritten pages, replying te an official note of Zea, the Spanish foreign minister, ef January 21, 1825, pretesting against English recognition. It reviews the rela tions between England and Spain since the beginning ef the French Revolution, and especially since 1809, refuting Zea's charges that England was violating treaties and national rights in recognizing the American states. Canning justifies England's conduct. There is an abstract of the Zea and Can ning notes enclosed with Poinsett to Clay, September 25, 1825, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. The memorial of Canning is in Annual Register, LXVII, part two, 51. See also Paxson, Independence of the South American Republics, 244-247. 21 Paxson, Independence of the South American Republics, 247-250. 22 Michelena to Secretario, Londres, 6 de febrero de 1825 ; same to same, 6 de marzo de 1825, enclosing a memorandum of a conference between Michelena and Planta, Canning's BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO 67 Morier, who had been appointed to supersede Her vey and had received his instructions from Canning late in July, 1824,^^3 ^^d found an enthusiastic wel come awaiting him. On November 17, 1824, the Mex ican government had reported to its agent in London that Morier had reached Jalapa and that the proper steps had been taken to receive him with fitting splen dor.^* Early in January, 1825, the minister for for eign relations, Alaman, in his report to the Mexican Congress on foreign affairs dwelt on the value to Mex ico of England's friendship. Concerning the danger of European intervention in 1823, he said : " England, in reply to the invitation of the minister of king Fer dinand, declined attending the proposed congress ; and, in papers presented by the English Ministry to the secretary, of 4 de marzo de 1825 ; Canning to Michelena and Rocafuerte, May 20, 1825, inviting them to a conference; Memorandum of the conference of Michelena and Rocafuerte with Canning and Planta, 21 de mayo de 1825; MS., Rela ciones Exteriores ; and same in La Diplomacia Mexicana, III, 154, 160, 169, 180, 182. Shortly after this, Michelena received instructions to leave Rocafuerte as charge in London and return home te repre sent his government in the approaching congress at Panama. [Secretarie] to Michelena, Mexico, 2 de abril de 1825, MS., Relaciones Exteriores ; La Diplomacia Mexicana, III, 176. 23 Canning to Morier, July 30, 1824, Paxson, Independence of the South American Republics, 220, citing Foreign Office manuscript. 2* [Secretario] to Michelena, 17 de noviembre de 1824 MS., Relaciones Exteriores, says : " El S" Morier esta ya en Jalapa y el Govierne ha tomado ya las medidas convenientes p" pro- porcionarle q'° pueda necesitar y recibirlo con el decoro y esplendor q" correspende. El S"' Harbey [Hervey] saldra de aqui para esa corte dentro de 6 a 8 dias." 68 BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO Parliament, which were pubUshed, she frankly dis closed the liberal principles which were to guide her conduct. Without refusing to recognize our inde pendence, England desired that Spain should first take the important step, indicating, at the same time, that she would not long wait the tardy policy of the Cab inet of Madrid; and she frankly declared that she could not suffer any power or league of powers, to interfere with an armed force as the auxiliary of Spain, in the questions pending between her and her colonies. ... A minister plenipotentiary was ap pointed to the government of His Britannic Majesty so soon as its friendly dispositions were known; . . . The diplomatic agents from that government have been received and regarded with the consideration due to a nation which was the first among those of Europe to open relations of friendship and good correspon dence with the republic."^^ 25 British and Foreign State Papers, XII, 984, 985. Some light is cast on Alaman's notion of the relative value te Mexico of the friendship of England and of the United States by noticing the attention which he gives to each in this report. Not more than half as much space is devoted to the latter as to the former; and there is a marked difference in the enthu siasm. Just following the statement concerning England's declaration against the interference of any power or league of powers to assist Spain against her colonies, he says : " The determination ef the president of the United States of America, announced in his message to the last congress, was of a simi lar character." And further on he says: "The friendship that has subsisted with the United States of America, since the declaration of independence, has not been interrupted. That government has appointed a minister plenipotentiary to reside near this republic; and the delay of his arrival has had BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO 69 When Canning's instructions of January 3, 1825, reached Morier and Ward, they at once entered upon negotiations which resulted in a treaty signed on April 6. In accord with the friendly attitude hitherto main tained by the British commissioners, this treaty in cluded provisions decidedly favorable to Mexico. Speaking of the privileges therein provided for Mex ican shipping interests, the Mexican foreign office de clared to its agent in London that a thousand advan tages had been gained.^° It was so favorable to no connection with [effect upon?] the friendly relations that unite the two states. Den Pable Obregon has been sent by this republic to that government with a similar rank, and, according to official communications, he has been received and recognized by the president at Washington." 2* [Secretarie] te Rocafuerte, 7 de junio de 1825, MS., Rela ciones Exteriores. The statement is as follows : " un articulo espreso del tratado, en el que se lograron mil ventaj as que probablemente no hubieran podide conseguirse por una decla- racion espontanea de esa Gob°." Fer the text of the treaty both in Spanish and English, see Mexico, Tratados y Cenvenciones, II, 307-321. For brief comments on it, see Bocanegra, Memorias, I, 377; Alaman, Historia de Mejico, V, 815; Zamacois, Historia de Mejico, XI, 608; Zavala, Ensayo Historico, I, 321-330; Bancroft, His tory of Mexico, V, 51. In spite of the recommendation to Congress that the treaty should be kept secret it had been published. The responsi bility for its publication, it was said, could not be located. Rocafuerte in London was notified ef this so that he might be able to explain to the English government that the publi cation could not be prevented. Secretario to Rocafuerte, 25 de maye de 1825, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. It was later charged that the writer of this letter, Alaman, the negotiator of the treaty, was himself responsible for the publication. If so this letter was intended merely for a blind. yo BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO Mexico, indeed, and so at variance with the practices of England that it could not be accepted. " It is not to be expected," wrote Canning with exasperation as he rejected the whole treaty and ordered the negotia tion of a new one, "that we wiU abandon ' for the sake of this new connexion, principles which we never have conceded, in our intercourse with other states, whether of the old world or the new, either to considerations of friendship, or to menaces of hostility.' "^'^ It was late in the year before news of Canning's rejection of the treaty reached Mexico. Thus it is seen that during the first few months of Poinsett's stay in Mexico the popularity of England in that country was at the flood tide, and Mexican gratitude for England's friendship was unbounded. It is not at all strange that President Victoria should have valued England's friendship more highly than that of the United States, or that his address on the occasion of the formal reception of the British charge should have been more enthusiastic than his reply to Poinsett's speech on the following day. This would have been but natural even if the United States had been officially represented at the Mexican capital as early and as continuously as England had been. Not only was British influence in Mexico dominant when Poinsett arrived, but Canning was consciously and intentionally exerting it to counteract that of the United States. A memorandum which was consid- 27 Paxson, Independence of the South-American Republics, 220, quoting from Canning to Ward, September 9, 1825, and citing Foreign Office manuscripts. BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO 7 1 ered by a cabinet meeting in December, 1824, and which seems to have been inspired by Canning, makes this certain if the document can be accepted as gen uine, which seems probable. This, it will be remem bered, was only a few days before the policy of British recognition was announced. Speaking of two mo tives for recognizing Mexico and Colombia, of which one was the investment there of English capital, the memorandum continues : " The other and perhaps still more powerful motive is my apprehension of the am bition and the ascendancy of the U[nited] S [tates] of Am [erica] : It is obviously the policy of that Gov[ernmen]t to connect itself with all the powers of America in a general Transatlantic League, of which it would have the sole direction. I need only say how inconvenient such an ascendancy may be in time of peace, and how formidable in case of war. " I believe we now have the opportunity (but it may not last long) of opposing a powerful barrier to the influence of the U[nited] S [tates] by an amicable connection with Mexico, which from its position must be either subservient to or jealous of the U[nited] S [tates]. In point of population and resources it is at least equal to all the rest of the Spanish colonies ; and may naturally expect to take the lead in its con nections with the powers of Europe. I by no means think it at present necessary to go beyond the rela tions of amity and commercial intercourse; but if we hesitate much longer, and especially if our commer cial treaty [July 23, 1824] with Buenos Ayres should 72 BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO not take effect, all the new states will be led to con clude that we regret their friendship upon principle, as of a dangerous and revolutionary character, and will be driven to throw themselves under the protec tion of the U[nited] S [tates], as the only means of security."^^ After the policy of recognition had been announced and the instructions for negotiating the treaties had been despatched. Canning declared in a letter of Jan uary 8, 1825 : " The thing is done. . . . The Yankees wiU shout in triumph; but it is they who lose most by our decision. The great danger of the time — a danger which the policy of the European system would have fostered, was a division of the World into Euro pean and American, Republican and Monarchical; a league of worn-out Gov[ernmen]ts, on the one hand, and of youthful and stirring nations, with the U [nited] States at their head, on the other. We slip in be tween ; and plant ourselves in Mexico. The Un [ited] States have gotten the start of us in vain ; and we link 23 Temperley, " Later American Policy of George Canning," American Historical Review, XI, 781, citing British Museum manuscripts. He says of this, on page 780, " It is the memo randum ' which enabled us to carry Colombia tee [as well as Mexico] at the Cabinet,' "¦ and cites Canning to Granville, December 17, 1824. Temperley explains, page 779, "The object of the present article is to show that the later American policy of George Canning was intended to defeat certain claims and preten sions of the Monroe Doctrine. These were the principles which forbade future colonization in America to European powers, and the principle which tended to make America a separate world from Europe." BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO 73 once more America to Europe. Six months more — and the mischief would have been done."^° Canning's opposition to the United States was shown not only in his Mexican policy, but also in his dealings with the assembled representatives of the American states at Panama in 1826. In instructing the repre sentative whom England had been invited to send to that congress Canning said: "You will understand that to a league among the states, lately colonies of Spain, limited to objects growing out of their common relations to Spain, H[is] M[ajesty']s Gov[ernmen]t would not object. But any project for putting the U [nited] S [tates] of North America at the head of an American Confederacy, as against Europe, would be highly displeasing to your Gov [ernmen] t. It would be felt as an ill retum for the service which has been rendered to those states, and the dangers which have been averted from them, by the counte nance and friendship, and pubUc declarations of Great Britain ; and it would too probably at no very distant period endanger the peace both of America and Europe."^" Although Poinsett could not have known in 1825 exactly what England's policy was, nor the steps 23 Temperley, American Historical Review, XI, 781, note, citing two places where the letter was already printed. 30 Temperley, American Historical Review, XI, 787, citing Public Record Office manuscripts. Fer English opposition te the interests ef the United States at the Panama conference, and especially to the policy of the United States concerning Cuba, see below, chapter on Cuba Saved to Spain, and foot note IOI to same chapter. 74 BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO whereby she had gained a dominant influence in Mex ico, yet he saw that the influence existed and felt that it was inimical to the United States. He believed that it was even more inimical to the interests of Mex ico and of all free governments in America. In struggling to resist this influence he was not fighting windmills. Cambreleng's playful injunction written to him just as he was starting for his post, " Make a good commercial treaty for us and take care that John Bull gets no advantage of you — if anything get the weather gauge of him," must have seemed to him, when he received it just after his arrival, Uke the sound of a herald's trumpet summoning him to a genuine battle.^i As soon as he landed on Mexican soil he scented the conflict and prepared for the fray. In Poinsett's mind he early divided all Mexicans into two classes, those friendly to the American sys tem championed by the United States, and those friendly to the European system championed by Eng land. In a cipher paragraph of a letter to Clay of August 5, 1825, he said that the President of Mexico was a weak man and was controlled by his ministers, especially the secretary of state and secretary of the treasury. The former (Alaman), he declared, was a man of good natural talents and better educated than is common among men of his class in Mexico. He was director of an English mining company and con sequently favored British interests. The latter (Es- teva), he added, was a man of tolerable abiUty but 31 See footnote 28 of the preceding chapter. BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO 75 without education. He was attached to England be cause English men of means loaned the government money to help him out of his official difficulties. From this, English influence had profited enormously. These opinions, he said, were not the result of the treatment he had received, for that had been only the most friendly. On the other hand he added : " There is an American party in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, in point of talents much the strongest; but the government have an ascendency over both bodies."^^ On September 24, Clay wrote, in reply to Poinsett's despatch of June 4,^^ that the prevalence of British influence in Mexico was to be regretted; but that it could hardly be made the subject of formal complaint if it were merely the effect of British power and British capital fairly exerted, and if not rewarded by favors to British commerce or British subjects to the prejudice of American. But, he added, against any partiality or preference to any foreign nation to the disadvantage of the United States Poinsett was to remonstrate.^* 32Peinsett to Clay, August 5, 1825, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. The brief paragraph quoted above telling of the American party appears in the copy of the letter in the volume of Duplicate Despatches from Poinsett but not in the regular volume. 33 See the preceding chapter, and footnote 34 of the same. 3* Clay to Poinsett, September 24 1825, MS., Department of State, Instructions, X, 225. This paragraph is not contained in any of the printed extracts from this letter cited in note 20 of the chapter on Texas and the Boundary Issue, below. y6 BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO Before this cautious advice could reach Mexico a sort of "palace revolution" had occurred. The strongest British sympathizers had left the cabinet and those who remained, as weU as President Victoria, were entirely favorable to the United States. Poin sett was in high favor. How it happened is told in a letter to Clay of October 12, 1825, all in cipher and covering twelve pages. Poinsett began by telUng how England had secured her overwhelming influence. He explained that in 1823, after the overthrow of Iturbide, Victoria had met the unofficial British agent. Dr. Mackie, who had proposed that Mexico should offer certain commercial privileges to Great Britain in return for British recognition; that a Mexican agent was thereupon sent to London to invite the Eng Ush government to send commissioners to treat, hint ing that they might expect privileges ; that in response to this invitation the commissioners had come and had concluded a treaty; that Victoria thus considered the establishment of friendly relations with England his own work; and that a flattering personal letter from Canning had further bound Victoria to the Eng Ush cause. Poinsett further said that the English commissioners had won over Tornel, the President's secretary, whom he called "a vain and venal man," and further on, " a very bad man without a single re deeming quality," and believed "to be in the pay of the British charge d'affaires." Tornel exercised a This letter of Clay's was written before he had received Poin sett's ef August 5, cited in note 32 of this chapter. That came to the State Department on October 3. BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO "J"] great influence over Victoria. So did Alaman, the secretary of state, and Esteva, of the treasury. These three had concocted a scheme to introduce into the cabinet the Bishop of Puebla, a European Spaniard, whose influence was dangerous to these countries ; but counter influence prevented the appointment and set about an attempt to induce the president to dismiss Alaman. The British charge. Ward, because of per sonal pique at Alaman, exerted his influence to the same end. Alaman, learning of the combination against him, resigned. Then came the "revolution." Esteva had already deserted Alaman and, Poinsett continued, "hastened to assure me of his earnest de sire to see our countries united and an American sys tem formed on the principles he knew I had at heart. . . . Esteva is a man of great activity and of some talents ; he came over to the American party only be cause he perceived the impossibility of sustaining him self independently of it." Victoria's attitude also suddenly changed. Of him Poinsett said, " The Pres ident sent me word that he wished to have an inter view with me, and notwithstanding I requested him to appoint a time convenient to him to receive me, he insisted on coming to me. Our interview was very friendly and in the course of it he gave me repeated assurances of regard for the United States and of his American sentiments. The President is a very good man with no bad dispositions, but he is very vain and is badly surrounded." It had been suggested to Poinsett that Victoria's 78 BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO attachment to England sprang from a hope that Great Britain might assist in placing a Mexican on the throne of Mexico to prevent other powers of Europe from placing a member of some of their royal houses on the throne. Poinsett thought the President was unwilling to leave office; but the con stitution forbade his reelection, which under the circumstances was a dangerous provision. He de clared that Victoria was not and never would be a real friend to the United States. He had become reconciled to Poinsett but disliked him. The man who had told Poinsett of Victoria's dynastic ambi tion and had been most influential in ousting Alaman and effecting this change in the sentiments of the ex ecutive wa_s__Arisge, a daring and intriguing man of talents professing a zeal for America and declaring himself anxious to promote Poinsett's views. He had been useful but Poinsett did not repose entire confi dence in him. Neither did he feel any confidence in Esteva, for, he said, " on the very day that he declared himself to me he told the grossest falsehoods of me to Mr. Ward, which occasioned in great measure the difference between that gentleman and myself. The state of society here is scarcely to be credited. I hardly know a man however high his rank or office whose word can be relied on." Poinsett declared that he would have kept aloof from such men, but he had found it necessary to form a party out of such ele ments as the country afforded, or leave the EngUsh complete masters of the field. The friends of the BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO 79 latter country were alarmed, and could not conceal their mortification or fears. Ward had sent a mes senger to Canning with most exaggerated accounts of Poinsett's influence. The latter added, " His want of tact and overwrought exertions may contribute to es tabUsh that influence he so much dreads." In con clusion Poinsett explained that "the country is tran quil and I see no cause to fear any convulsion except that in a republic without virtue and with a large standing army there is always danger."^^ This de spatch was dated almost three weeks after the minis terial crisis had occurred.^* To counteract Ward's report to Canning, Poinsett had written to Rufus King, the United States min ister in London, telling the circumstances that had oc curred in order that King might be able to give any explanation that might be needed. In the letter to King he explained that Ward had been forming a European party, which activity had resulted in iden tifying Great Britain's policy with that of the other European powers.^' In his long cipher despatch to Clay, Poinsett prac tically claimed to have brought about this change in the government through the group of men which he 35 Poinsett to Clay, October 12, 1825, all in cipher, covering twelve pages, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. 36 Resignation of Alaman, 23 de septiembre de 1825, and acceptance^oFTainer 27 -de^ptiembre "dTe" 1825, MS., Rela ciones Exteriores. Zavala, Ensayo Historice, I, 342. 37 Poinsett to Rufus King, October 10, 1825, enclosed with Poinsett to Clay, October 12, 1825, cited in note 35, above. So BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO alluded to as an American party. ItsjgurpQse was to resist the centralizing tendency and preserve and per petuate the federal form of government, to which Poinsett was so strongly attached and which he be lieved was the only hope for preserving free govern ment in Mexico. Four years later, in referring to his part in effecting this peaceable poUtical revolution, Poinsett explained that the cordiality of the demo cratic party, his own principles, and the hostility of the aristocratic party all tended to cause him to seek his associates among the popular party. He believed that England was making efforts to obtain a domi nant influence in Mexico as she had in Portugal. He believed too that this would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. Learning that the democratic party intended to effect a revolution by force to get control, he advised them to use the more moderate measures of organization, use of the fran chise, and establishment of their own press. They took his advice and were eminently successful.** Poinsett's dislike of Tornel, the President's secre tary, reflected in his report of October 12, above, was heartily reciprocated by the latter. He did all he could to counteract Poinsett's influence at the time; and in a book which he published several years later he spoke of the minister's arrival as an iU-fated hour for the republic; reviewed his career and acknowl edged his ability; told of his attracting to himself 38 Poinsett to Secretary ef State, March 10, 1829, MS., De partment ef State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO 8 1 little by little persons possessed of state secrets and from them organizing a party, exciting their natural animosities against their rivals; and characterized his conduct as unbecoming in a diplomat.'" Ala man, too, was bitterly hostile toward Poinsett, as might have been expected, and later declared that Poinsett planned to remove the aristocratic influ ence from the government to substitute, not a democracy, for that was impossible in a country in which the mass of the people took no part in public affairs, but the uncontrolled domination of a few am bitious individuals of less respectable connections.*" The testimony of both of these is decidedly prejudiced, but it expresses a feeling that later became almost universal. And although Poinsett did what he felt was for the good of the country it must be admitted that from the standpoint of Tornel, Alaman, and others of their faction there was some justification for their violent hostility to him, even if there were no other ground on which to base their charge that he meddled in Mexican internal affairs than Poinsett's own account studied above of the way in which the change in the government was effected. On the other hand it is certain that Poinsett's belief was not un founded that England was trying to exert an influence hostile to the American system which had been enun ciated by Monroe and was now championed by Adams 39 TorngtJBreve Reseiia Historico, 38. *" Alaman, Historia de Mejico, V, 823. 82 BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO and Clay and accepted by Poinsett as the guiding principle of the relations of the American states.*^ The influence which Poinsett was so pleased to see in control of affairs remained dominant. Some three months later he reported to Clay that the executive had openly avowed a change in policy from the cen- tralista party to the federalista. Poinsett's agency in bringing about the change, he said, had drawn upon him the odium of the centralistas. They were de claring, he continued, his purpose to be to gain such influence that the government would consent to any proposal he might make regarding limits.*^ There was probably little if any truth in the assertion; but if he was trying to do so events proved that he failed signally in this purpose.*^ What he really did toward bringing about this change was known only to the few most intimately concerned in keeping it secret. Some things, however, became known, for, as he said in another connection, "there are no secrets in Mex ico." The uninitiated naturally suspected much more than existed, hence the criticisms and attaclts that shortly began so seriously to embarrass Poinsett. The displacement of English sympathizers in the Mexican ministry by what Poinsett called an Amer- *i Much interesting light remains to be cast on this matter 1 of the conflicting interests of England and the United States) at the Mexican capital and the conflicting intrigues of Poinsett and Ward, by a careful study of Ward's correspondence with his government while charge in Mexico. *2 Poinsett to Clay, January 4, 1826, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. *3 See below, chapter' on Texas and the Boundary Issue. BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO 83 ican party had nothing to do with England's rejec tion of the Mexican treaty. The conferences at which Canning declared the treaty inadmissible occurred late in July, 1825; and the change in the Mexican ministry did not take place until late in September. It is probable that news of the rejection of the treaty reached Mexico about the time of the cabinet up heaval; but this is not certain.** If it did, it doubt less had much to do with the sudden change from sympathy with England to sympathy with the United States. The messengers from Mexico bearing the treaty reached London July 16. On July 27 at a confer ence which Rocafuerte had with Canning and two other British officials the treaty was discussed at length. At the close of the conference Canning de clared that the seventh and eighth articles would have to be radically changed, or the treaty would have to be rejected. Rocafuerte did not have sufficient author- ** Rocafuerte to Secretario, 21 de julio de 1825, announcing the arrival at London of the messengers with the treaty bears a marginal note indicating that a reply to it was sent 29 de septiembre. There is nothing to indicate how long it had been in the office before the reply was sent. Neither is there anything to indicate the date of the receipt at Mexico of Roca fuerte to Secretario, 2 de agosto de 1825, telling of the rejec tion of the treaty. But it was probably late in September er early in October. MS., Relaciones Exteriores. Alaman's resignation was accepted on September 27. See above, note 36. The reorganization ef the cabinet in favor 1 of the American party took place between this and October 12, the date of Poinsett's long cipher despatch telling about it. See above, note 35. 84 BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO ity to make the necessary changes. The seventh pro vided that a ship should be considered Mexican if two thirds of its crew had been admitted into the service with the knowledge of the government. There was no requirement conceming citizenship. Article eight embodied the " flag shall cover the goods " prin ciple which England had never admitted in her rela tions with any nation. Canning declared that, in case of war between England and the United States (or any other power), by combining the privileges con ceded to Mexico in the two articles in question, all enemy property could be carried in what were really enemy ships but had been transformed in a night into Mexican ships. This he declared would be too great an advantage for England's enemies. A clause stipulating that merchant vessels of either nation should under no circumstances be embargoed in ports of the other, without the payment of full indemnity, was also strenuously resisted.*^ Morier, who with Ward had negotiated the treaty that was rejected, was sent back to Mexico with strict instructions to negotiate a new treaty which should not contain the objectionable clauses. He reached Mexico about the end of the year, 1825.*° Until *5 " Memorandum de una conferencia tenida en Londres el 27 de julio de 1825 entre los sefiores Ministros el Honorable S"' Jorge Canning, Ministro de Relaciones, el Senor Planta I" secretario del Ministro de Relaciones, el Huskisson, Min istre de la camara de comercio; y Don Vicente Rocafuerte," MS., Relaciones Exteriores. *3 Poinsett to Clay, January 4, 1826, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO 85 about the middle of December Poinsett seems not to have learned of the rejection of the treaty in Eng land.*^ Neither England's rejection of the treaty nor the Mexican cabinet upheaval changed entirely the feeling of gratitude to England for the stand which that power had taken in supporting the interests of Mexico (and other new Spanish- American states) against the pro jects of Spain and the other reactionary European powers. On the first of January, 1826, President Victoria, in his speech at the opening of Congress, de clared that the month of January of the year just closed was worthy of eternal commemoration because it was then that Great Britain had announced to the powers her intentions to recognize and enter into relations with the new American states, and thereby defeated the designs of the continental powers. He said: "Thus has been revealed the secret of their ulterior intentions, and they have been forced to con fess that they renounced for the future aU armed in tervention in subjects relating to the insurgent Amer icans." He dwelt on the value to Mexico of this gen erous act of Great Britain, which was the more flat tering because it met with the general approbation of the EngUsh nation. He then mentioned the exchange of diplomatic agents between Mexico and England and the arrival, two weeks earlier, of Morier who came to revise the treaty .*» *7 Poinsett te Clay, December 16, 1825, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. *3 Victoria's message to Congress, January i, 1825, enclosed 86 BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO But to the great satisfaction of Poinsett, Victoria, after finishing his review of relations with European governments, continued: "With respect to the na tions of the happy hemisphere of Columbus, justice and gratitude compel us to mention, before all others, the most ancient state of America, and the first of the civilized world which solemnly proclaimed our rights, after having preceded us in the heroic resolution of shaking off a dependence on the mother country. The United States of the North, models of political virtue and moral rectitude, have advanced under the system of a federative republic, which, having been adopted amongst us, by the most spontaneous act on record, exalts us to a level with the country of Washington, and establishes the most intimate union between the neighboring countries. A plenipotentiary from that nation accredited to our government is commissioned to conclude treaties which, without delay, shall be laid before your chambers. The most urgent point is the definitive regulation of the limits between the two nations; and the government is preparing surveys which will facilitate the conclusion of the negotiation on the unalterable bases of liberality and good faith."*' This virtually announced the supremacy of the in- with Poinsett te Clay, January 4, 1826, cited in note 46 above; also British and Foreign State Papers, XIII, 1067. Ibid., 1104 is a memorial of the Secretario de Relaciones te the Con gress, some time in the month ef January. It gives a brief account of relations with England during 1825. The same was enclosed with Poinsett to Clay, February 18, 1826, MS., Depart ment of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. *9 British and Foreign State Papers, XIII, 1069. BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO 87 fluence favorable to the United States and also the government's change from the centralist to the fed eralist party. Had Poinsett dictated this portion of the message, as he might have done if he had wielded the influence which his enemies and those of the gov ernment suspected, he could hardly have worded it in more flattering terms. He could not now complain, as he had done seven months earlier, that Victoria's allusions to England were more enthusiastic than those to the United States. The new negotiations for the treaty with England were conducted in profound secrecy, even the clerks of the foreign office not being permitted to copy or translate the protocols. They had not gone very far, however, when it became evident that no treaty could be made in keeping with the strict instructions which Morier bore. Consequently in March, 1826, he aban doned the attempt and returned to London, having insisted that one of the secretaries of the Mexican cabinet accompany or follow him with full power to conclude a treaty in London.^" Camacho, the secretary for foreign relations, was chosen. Poinsett wrote to Clay that the Mexican Senate did not want a secretary to go out of the country, and at first refused to ratify the appointment. But, he said, the British charge declared that no one but a secretary would be acceptable, and " that by re fusing to ratify the nomination of Camacho, the Sen ate would occasion a rupture between the two powers, 50 Poinsett to Clay, February i, 1826, MS., Department ef State, Despatches from Mexico, I. 88 BRITISH INFLUENCE IN MEXICO — conduct which could only be imputed to the secret influence of those who sought to divide the old world from the new, in order that they might govern the latter; meaning of course the United States." Ca macho's appointment was finally ratified.^^ He went to London ; and just before the end of the year 1826, a treaty was concluded which omitted the provisions objectionable to England. In the middle of 1827 the ratifications were exchanged. It was submitted to Congress and proclaimed to the nation on October 25, 1827.=^ =1 Poinsett to Clay, April 8, 1826, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. For brief reviews ef Camacho's mission and the treaty which he negotiated, see Zavala, Ensayo Historico, I, 360; Zamacois, Historia de Mejico, XI, 615; Ban croft, History of Mexico, V, 51. 52 For the treaty both in English and Spanish, see British and Foreign State Papers, XIV, 614-629. For the submission to Congress and proclamation, see Coleccion de Ordenes y Decretos de la Soberana Junta y los Congresos, IV, 87. CHAPTER IV Cuba Saved to Spain Before the Mexican cabinet changes had occurred which displaced English influence in Mexico by that of the United States, a serious international question had arisen which vitally affected the relations between the United States and Mexico, and the relations of each of these governments with England. It also in fluenced the relations of all three of these powers with other governments of both America and Europe. That question was, what would become of Cuba and Porto Rico in case Spain should lose her feeble hold on them, which seemed certain to occur. All of the possessions of Spain on the continents of North and South America were irrevocably lost. Every one expected a change of some kind in the rela tions between Spain and her only remaining American possessions, these two important West India islands. Each government concerned feared that the change might be adverse to its interests. The following are some of the questions that were in the minds of states men concerning the islands : Would they be ceded to France in return for French support of Spanish ab solutism? Would they be given to England to pur chase that government's assistance in freeing Spain from French domination ? Would they be revolution- 90 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN ized and annexed by Colombia or Mexico, or held in joint control by them? Would the combined Spanish- American states soon to assemble in the conference at Panama unite in freeing them to become members of the federated states of the new world ? Would they at tempt to free themselves by their own unaided efforts ? If so, could they remain free? If not, to whom would they appeal for assistance, — ^to their sister Spanish- American states, to the United States, or to England ? Would the price of such assistance be absorption by the power which gave it? " In 1825 the London Courier described Cuba as the ' Turkey of trans-Atlantic politics, tottering to her fall, and kept from falling by those who contend for the right of catching her in her descent."'i The uncer tainty and the wide-spread interest in the subject fur nished an occasion for Clay just after he had taken charge of the State Department to engage in one of the most far-reaching and most interesting diplomatic games ever played by an American secretary of state. In order to appreciate fully the situation when he took control it is necessary to study briefly some of the 1 Callahan, Cuba and International Relations, 140. Temperley says : " Cuba has well been termed the ' Turkey of transatlantic politics,' for the destiny of Cuba was the problem which engaged the attention of all the diplomats of the age. . . . Thus arose a strange kind of triangular duel, France suspecting England and the United States, the United States suspecting England and France, England suspecting France and the United States." Temperley, " Later American Policy of George Canning," American Historical Review, XI, 789. And see Latane, United States and Spanish America, 89. CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN 91 communications concerning Cuba that had passed in the two or three years preceding. American statesmen had for some time been look ing forward with confident expectancy to a time when Cuba should belong to the United States ; but how and when the acquisition should be brought about no one attempted to foretell. The recent acquisition of Flor ida after more than a decade of agitation and negotia tion made the addition of Cuba seem the next logical step. As early as 1809, when Napoleon seeming to be firmly established in Spain was expected to attempt to extend his system to the Spanish colonies, Jefferson, who had just retired from the presidency, wrote to Madison, his successor, that Napoleon would have to acquiesce in our seizure of the Floridas if we wished to take them, and would also, he thought, " consent to our receiving Cuba into our Union to prevent our aid to Mexico and the other provinces."^ Similar senti ments were frequently expressed by many American public men during the following years of Spanish- American confusion. In the autumn of 1822 the advisability of the early annexation of Cuba was discussed in the cabinet. A secret agent from Havana had tried to get assurance that Cuba would be admitted to the union in case she should declare her independence, as was contemplated, and should ask admission. " Calhoun expressed great anxiety to get Cuba as a part of the United States in 2 Chadwick, United States and Spain, Diplomacy, 216 ; La tane, United States and Spanish America, 90-93- 92 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN order to avert the danger of its revolution by negroes, and its possession by the EngUsh — but as we were not then ready to risk a war with England, which the an nexation of Cuba might have occasioned, he advised that the Havana overtures should be answered by per suading them for the present to adhere to Spain. He thought, however, that there could be no more objec tion to the acquisition of Cuba than to the purchase of Louisiana, and suggested that the matter should be made the subject of a communication to Congress." Adams, then secretary of state, opposed Calhoun's policy because of the danger of complications with England, which would probably result in British pos session of Cuba. He " thought it best to advise noth ing, but simply to say that the Executive was not com petent to promise the Cubans admission into the Union, and that our relations to Spain would not allow us to encourage such a proposal — at the same time men tioning our friendly sentiments to Cuba, and the ' com mon interests which point to intimate connections be tween Cuba and the United States.'" The policy of Adams was adopted.* Early in the foUowing year the 3 Callahan, Cuba and International Relations, 124 ; Adams, Memoirs, VI, 70-72. Forsyth te Adams, Madrid, November 20, 1822, told of fears that the Spanish government entertained of a Cuban inde pendence movement being fostered in the United States. Same to same, December 13, 1822, told of Spanish reinforce ments having been sent to the West Indies. Adams to For syth, December 17, 1822, told ef suspicions that England was treating with Spain for Cuba, and asked him to obtain correct information on the subject, and if he should find it true to CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN 93 Mexican minister, lately arrived at Washington, re ported to his government that Cubans were in the United States to promote a union with this country, and that the proposition was very pleasing to the people of the republic* In returning from the visit which he had made to Mexico in the autumn of 1822, Poinsett spent a few days in Cuba in January, 1823. He gave a glowing report of the picturesqueness, fertiUty, and resources of the island. He said he had " never seen so much shipping and such an appearance of business, in any port in the United States, except New York." He en larged on the danger to the interests of the United States if any great maritime power should obtain pos session of the island, saying it would tend to provoke a war with that power and at the same time give such power an advantage. He continued, " Cuba is not only the key to the Gulf of Mexico, but of all the maritime frontier south of Savannah, and some of our highest interests, political and commercial, are in volved in its fate. We ought to be satisfied that it should remain dependent on Spain ; or in good time be entirely independent of every foreign nation."^ declare that the United States wished Cuba to remain in its connection with Spain. House Executive Documents, 32 Con gress, I session, number 121, pages 3-5. * Zozaya to Secretario, 11 de enero de 1823, La Diplomacia Mexicana, I, 105. » Poinsett, Notes on Mexico, 209-223. He gives statistics concerning the population showing the proportion of whites, free colored, and slaves ; and discusses the fear of a servile revolt. He speculates on the probability of a revolution 94 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN When in 1823 French armies were again marching into Spain, commissioned this time by the European powers recently assembled in the Congress of Verona, it was apprehended that Cuba would probably be the price which France would exact for restoring Spanish absolutism. In case England should assist Spanish liberalism against France, Adams supposed that Cuba and Porto Rico would be England's reward. In his instructions to the American minister at Madrid on April 28, 1823, Adams declared : " Cuba, almost in sight of our shores, from a multitude of considera tions has become an object of transcendent importance to the commercial and political interests of our Union. ... In looking forward to the probable course of events for the short period of half a century, it is scarcely possible to resist the conviction that the an nexation of Cuba to our federal republic will be indis pensable to the continuance and integrity of the Union itself." He said the United States were not at the time prepared to take the island; "but there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation, and if an apple, severed by the tempest from its native tree, cannot choose but to fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravi tate only toward the North American Union, which, by the same law of nature, cannot cast her off from its bosom." The minister was instructed to declare against Spain and the possibility of an attack by Mexico and Colombia. CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN 95 to the Spanish government the wish of his govern ment "that Cuba and Puerto Rico may continue in connection with independent and constitutional Spain."" A month before Adams sent the above instructions, the British minister in Washington wrote : " With re spect to Cuba, an idea has gone abroad that Spain is to put us in possession of that island, and Clay and his friends in the West conceive that such an arrange ment might interfere with the comfortable navigation of the Gulf of Mexico. The newspapers have taken up the question, and it is gravely debated among them whether the President ought or ought not to interfere to prevent so formidable an increase of British power."^ In April there was submitted to George Canning a memoir relating to the advisability and feasibility of a seizure of Cuba by the British govern- * Adams to Nelson, April 28, 1823, House Executive Docu ments, 32 Congress, i session, number 121, page 6; Chadwick, United States and Spain, Diplomacy, 183 ; Callahan, Cuba and International Relations, 129 ; Latane, United States and Spanish America, 97; McMaster, History of the People of the United States, V, 435. 'Stratford Canning to Bagot, March 30, 1823, in Bagot, George Canning and his Friends, II, 163. The French minister, Neuville, had told Crawford, the sec retary of the treasury, confidentially in June, 1822, that his government knew for a certainty that Great Britain had for two years been negotiating with Spain for Cuba, and had offered Gibraltar and a large sum of money. This was dis cussed in a cabinet meeting of November 28, 1822. Adams, Memoirs, VI, 112. Latane, United States and Spanish Amer ica, 93, discusses the attitude of England late in 1822 in view of the piracy in the West Indies. 96 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN ment in compensation for the increase in French pres tige due to the contemplated invasion of Spain. The memorialist, in discussing "the ambition and aims of the United States, points out that the possession of Cuba would counterpoise the acquisition of the Flori das by the States, which enlargement of the dominion in itself menaced the British West Indies." He dis cusses the probability that the island would be seized by the United States, or be wrested by France under one pretext or another from the puppet government of Spain ; and " wonders that Great Britain has not be stirred herself before." He enlarges on the value the islands would have for England and the ease from a military standpoint with which they could be seized. He then "sets out at full length all the arguments which morally and politically might be insisted upon to justify the annexation of Cuba by Great Britain."^ Conceming the Cuban situation Jefferson wrote to Monroe on June 11, 1823, that "he thought its pos session by England would be a calamity and he sug gested that if the United States could get England to join us in a guaranty of Cuba's independence against all the world except Spain it would be nearly as valu able to the United States as if she owned it." Mon roe repUed on June 30 : " I have always concurred with you in the sentiment that too much importance could not be attached to that island, and that we ought if 8 Colonel Evans te Canning, April 9, 1823, in E. J. Staple- ton, Official Correspondence of George Canning, I, 116. This is the editor's condensed summary of Evans's memoranda. See also Latane, United States and Spanish America, 96. CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN 97 possible to incorporate it into our Union, availing our selves of the most favorable moment for it, hoping also that one would arise when it might be done with out a rupture with Spain or any other power."" In October, 1823, Monroe asked Jefferson's advice con cerning the reply that should be made to the well- known proposals which Canning had made to Rush during the preceding summer. The successful ter mination of the French invasion of Spain had precipi tated the decision of Canning to throw the weight of England into the scale to prevent France and her al lies from restoring to Spain her American colonies. Therefore he proposed in these conferences with Rush that England and the United States make the joint declaration of the principles on which they would act with reference to the new states. The principle which was of special interest with reference to Cuba was that in which Canning proposed that each power should de clare that " it aimed not at the possession of any por- " Callahan, Cuba and International Relations, 131. On March 17, 1823, Monroe himself had proposed that the United States should offer te Great Britain to make a mutual pledge that neither power would take Cuba. Adams and Cal houn both opposed; but ne conclusion was reached. Adams, Memoirs, VI, 138. On April 2 Calhoun declared that he was in favor of going to war, if necessary, to prevent Great Britain from taking Cuba, provided the islanders were united against England. Ibid., 139. On learning that there were few in Cuba who favored Eng land and many who favored the United States, Jefferson changed his mind about the joint guaranty and retracted his advice ef June 11. See Latane, United States and Spanish America, 98. 98 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN tion of them."i° In giving the advice which Monroe requested, Jefferson showed that he was reluctant to abandon his hope that Cuba might some time belong to the United States. He said, " I candidly confess that I have ever looked on Cuba as the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of states." Yet, as he had advised in the preceding June, he added now, " I have no hesitation in abandon ing my first wish to future chances, and accepting its independence, with peace and the friendship of Eng land, rather than its association at the expense of war and her enmity. I could honestly, therefore, join in the declaration proposed." Madison, whose advice was also asked, agreed that Canning's propositions should be accepted; but he seemed to think that they would apply only to those former possessions of Spain that had already declared their independence. For he raised the question : " What is the extent of Mr. Canning's disclaimer as to ' the remaining possessions of Spain in America ? ' Does it exclude further views of acquiring Puerto Rico, etc., as well as Cuba?"" The adroit suggestion of Adams that he thought it would be better, since the two countries now under stood each other, for each to enunciate its principles separately had its origin largely in his desire to avoid 1" Moore, Digest of International Law, VI, 386-392 ; Tem perley, Life of Canning, 179; Chadwick, United States and Spain, Diplomacy, 187; Callahan, Cuba and International Re lations, 135; or any careful study of the evolution of the Monroe Doctrine. See also the chapter on British Influence in Mexico, above. 11 Chadwick, United States and Spain, Diplomacy, 190-195. CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN 99 doing anything that would make it impossible to ac cept Cuba in case the "laws of poUtical gravitation" should cast that island into the bosom of the United States. He said: "The object of Canning appears to have been to obtain some public pledge from the gov ernment of the United States, . . . against the ac quisition to the United States themselves of any part of the Spanish-American possessions."^^ Mexico was no less interested than the United States in the fate of Cuba. In this same month of October, 1823, Torrens, the Mexican charge at Wash ington, wrote his government that he had learned through the minister from Colombia of the intention of that government soon to send an expedition to promote revolutionary movements in Cuba, to prevent that island's being used as a base of operations for Spanish attacks. Torrens expressed his belief that if Mexico would join Colombia they could together undertake the enterprise which perhaps would result in the liberty of the island and dislodge the Spaniards from their last stronghold.i^ One of the duties with which Obre gon was charged when in 1824 he was sent as the new Mexican representative at Washington was to study movements going on in Cuba, learn the disposition of its inhabitants, endeavor to establish good relations 12 Adams, Memoirs, VI, 177; Temperley, "Later American Policy ef Canning,'' American Historical Review, XI, 790. For Adams's reply to Rush, see chapter en British Influence in Mexico, above. 13 Torrens to Secretario, 13 de octubre de 1823, La Diplo macia Mexicana, II, 42. lOO CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN with them, and encourage the party favoring inde pendence.!* At the same time, Torrens, who was be ing transferred from the post of Mexican charge at Washington to a similar position at Bogota, was also instructed to establish communications with the people of the island if he had opportunity, using every effort to encourage and strengthen the party which seemed to exist there favorable to union with Mexico. He was also to learn the views of Colombia and discover whether that country was maintaining relations with Cuba or was forming plans to foster movements fav orable to a union of the island to its own dominions.!^ Before reaching his post Torrens reported from Cara cas in January, 1825, that a "Habanero" who had accompanied him from Philadelphia had introduced him to others at Caracas who were on their way to solicit from Colombia the equipment of an expedition to assist in liberating their island. Torrens thought they would succeed, and had prepared to establish re lations with the societies that should be formed to pro mote the independence- of Cuba.i" In May he re ported that when he got to Bogota, he found a Cuban who had been there a year soliciting aid; but having failed to get the hoped for aid there the Cuban had now determined to approach Mexico, and would start 1* Instrucciones mui reservadas de Obregon [30 de agosto de 1824], MS., Relaciones Exteriores. 1^ Instrucciones Reservadas de Torrens [30 de agosto de 1824], MS., Relaciones Exteriores. IS Torrens to Secretario, Caracas, 28 de enero de 1825, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN IOI for that country in a few days. Torrens had loaned him money for the journey and hoped the Mexican government would obtain large advantages through him.i'' On hearing of the triumphant conclusion of Bolivar's campaign in Peru and his defeat of the last Spanish army on the continent, the Mexican govern ment supposed that the "Liberator" would now de vote his entire strength to getting possession of Cuba and Porto Rico. The Mexican minister in London was told by his government that Mexico ought to take possession of Cuba herself if possible, or should at least see to it that the island should remain independ ent and prevent any neighboring nation from being aggrandized by the acquisition of so rich a possession. For this reason General Bustamante had been de spatched as quickly as possible as a fully accredited minister to Bogota to propose that Mexico and Colom bia should unite their forces and operate in concert to make Cuba independent under their joint protection.!^ Several months before Mexico had made this pro posal, the British government suspected that such had been made; and Canning remarked to . Michelena, the 1' Torrens to Secretario, Bogota, lo de mayo de 1825, same to same, 20 de mayo de 1825, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. It is interesting to notice that the bearer of these despatches from Torrens was Basadre and that he was to go by way of Jamaica. It was Basadre who sent from Jamaica the sensa tional despatches concerning the French operations in the West Indies two months later, studied below in this chapter and in note 38. 13 Secretario te Michelena, in cipher [ ? de marze] de 1825, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. I02 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN Mexican envoy, that he had heard that Mexico and Colombia had combined their naval forces to operate against Cuba.!" England had for more than a year been endeavoring to induce Spain to recognize the in dependence of her revolted possessions in America, of fering as an inducement to guarantee to Spain the pos session of Cuba, and urging that it would be well worth while to do so in order to prevent that island from falling into Yankee clutches.^" In a conference at the British Foreign Office in March, 1825, Michelena revealed more of the hopes and intentions of his government concerning Cuba than he was authorized to do. He stated several reasons why he thought Cuba would soon be liberated from Spain. The first was Spain's impotence to pro tect her islands from the scandal of piracy ; the second was their great distance from the center of power; the third was the desire for independence aroused by the example of the new states on the continent; and the fourth was the spirit of liberalism carried to the island from the Peninsula. Its small population, he said, would not permit it to maintain complete inde pendence. Mexico would Uke the opinion of Great Britain on the question whether that power would be willing to see it attached to some power on the con tinent. He declared that it was near Mexico by way of Yucatan; that it had always been dependent on 1" Conference ef 30 de noviembre de 1824 enclosed with Michelena to Secretarie, Londres, 7 de diciembre de 1824, MS., Relaciones Exteriores ; La Diplomacia Mexicana, III, 124 20 Temperley, Life ef Canning, 184. CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN 1 03 Mexico ; that it might be considered a vast storehouse and dockyard provided by nature for Mexico; and that it was the key to the great gulf around which the Mexican people extended. For these reasons Mexico, he insisted, had the best right to Cuba in case it should be separated from Spain, an event which must be foreseen. He explained in conclusion that Mexico wished to put herself in accord with Great Britain in an affair of such transcendent importance.^! When the government in Mexico received a copy of this communication they rebuked Michelena, saying it would have been better if he had not touched upon the subject, since he had announced pretentions and hopes which it would have been better to conceal until a more definite plan should be formed.^^ Michelena's bold step had been inspired by news that he had received from Obregon in Washington telUng of a bill that had been introduced in Congress for the suppression of piracy in the West Indies. Comments in newspapers, Obregon said, showed that the Anglo American people desired Cuba, or that they desired to see the island independent at least. He thought the suppression of piracy was only a pretext. Considering that this matter was Ukely to lead to war between Washington and Madrid and to the seizure of Cuba by the United States, and thinking that he ought to discover the attitude of the English govern- 21 Michelena to Planta, 4 de marzo de 1825, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. 22 Secretario te Rocafuerte, 7 de junio de 1825, MS., Rela ciones Exteriores. 104 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN ment in such event, Michelena asked for and was granted the conference.^^ The government in Mex ico had been equally panic-stricken by Obregon's re ports of the congressional discussions and on their receipt wrote Michelena that the proposed action against the pirates was probably but an excuse for provoking hostilities with Spain in order to acquire the island.^* After telling his government of Poin sett's appointment as United States minister to Mex ico, Obregon said that Poinsett had introduced a pro posal into Congress to promote the independence of Cuba as the surest means of exterminating piracy there. His proposition had not been accepted since the policy of the government was peace. The piracy bill had been passed but in a modified form, merely authorizing the President to increase the number of ships to protect American commerce. Thus, he said, had ended a matter which in the beginning had ap peared to look toward the seizure of Cuba.^^ 23 Michelena to Secretario, 6 de marzo de 1825, MS., Rela ciones Exteriores; La Diplomacia Mexicana, III, 160. The conference occurred on March 2. On account of Canning's sickness Planta, his under secretary, represented him. Be cause of the great importance of the matter Planta asked fer a memorandum which he could hand to Canning. The memo randum was given en March 4, as cited in note 21. 2* Obregon te Secretario, 13 de enero de 1825, same to same, 10 de febrero de 1825, Secretario to Michelena, in cipher, [ ?] de marzo de 1825, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. 25 Obregon to Secretario, 7 de marze de 1825, MS., Rela ciones Exteriores. For the methods, the boldness, and the wealth of the Cuban pirates and the Spanish officials' tolerance ef the outrage, see Poinsett, Notes on Mexico, 220. CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN I05 From the foregoing discussion it is seen that the United States, Mexico, and England each feared at the beginning of 1825 that the others were planning to take Cuba. Each was determined if possible to prevent either of the others from getting Cuba. And each desired if possible to get Cuba itself. But each would rather see Cuba independent than in the posses sion of either of the others. France and Colombia were almost as much interested and as much feared as the other three. Spain was vitally concerned as the rightful possessor. Russia was soon to be drawn in as a disinterested umpire. Thus seven nations were in volved in the negotiations that are studied in the fol lowing pages. Shortly after Clay had taken up his duties as secre tary of state the Washington government matured its plan with reference to Cuba. Before the end of the first month, in instructing Poinsett for the mission to Mexico, Clay said: "The United States have no de sire to aggrandize themselves by the acquisition of Cuba. And yet if that island is to be made a depend ency of any one of the American states, it is impos sible not to allow that the law of its position proclaims that it should be attached to the United States." He thought if Spain would not make peace it was not un likely that a combined effort would be made by Mex ico and Colombia to seize the islands. The United States could not see this without apprehensions. From the point of view of productions, he argued, those powers could not want them; while to the United I06 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN States from that standpoint they would be very desir able. If they should pass under the domination of any European power except Spain the United States would have just cause for alarm. It would probably be best for all parties if Cuba were independent, provided she could maintain her independence. The United States, he continued, " are not disposed them selves to interfere with its present actual state; but they could not see with indifference any change that may be attempted in it." Poinsett was authorized to disclose frankly the feeUngs and interests of the United States if it should become necessary. He was to use every endeavor to learn the purpose of Mexico, and to keep a vigilant eye on every movement toward Cuba.^° Having taken this step to reveal to Mexico his pol icy. Clay next disclosed it to the parent country, en deavoring to use it to induce Spain to terminate the hopeless struggle and recognize the new American states. Everett, the new minister to Spain, was in structed, April 27, 1825, to approach that court in the most conciliatory manner possible; but to express the feeling of the United States that the cause of Spain in her former continental possessions in America was irretrievably lost, and that there was danger of her losing what she still feebly held in the Antilles if the war should continue. Clay declared that the armies 26 Clay to Poinsett, March 26, 1825, MS., Department of State, Instructions, X, 225. This portion ef Poinsett's instruc tions is not printed in the extracts in American State Papers, Foreign, V, 908, nor in the House Executive Documents, 25 congress, i session, number 42, page 5. CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN 107 of the new states no longer had employment on the continent, but could not be disbanded so long as peace was not made. "And from the proximity and great value of Cuba and Porto Rico is it not to be antici pated that they will aim, and aim a successful blow too, at those Spanish islands ? Whilst they could op erate from without, means would doubtless be [em ployed] at the same time to stimulate the population within to revolt. And that the disposition exists among the inhabitants, to a considerable extent, to throw off the Spanish authority, is well known. It is due to the United States to declare that they have constantly declined to give any countenance to that disposition. ... If the war should continue between Spain and the new republics, and those islands should become the object and the theatre of it, their fortunes have such a connection with the prosperity of the United States that they could not be indifferent spec tators; and the possible contingencies of such a pro tracted war might bring upon the government of the United States duties and obligations, the performance of which, however painful it should be, they would not be at Uberty to decline." If Mexico and Colombia should seize them, their navies, he argued, were not strong enough to hold them. The people of the islands were incapable of maintaining self-government. The result, should this country not interfere, would prob ably be that they would fall into the hands of some European power friendly to Spain. "As the views and poUcy of the United States in regard to those I08 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN islands may possibly have some influence, you are authorized frankly and fully to disclose them. The United States are satisfied with the present condition of those islands, in the hands of Spain, and with their ports open to our commerce as they are now open. This government desires no change of that condition." It was not for the sake of the new repubUcs that the President wished to see the war terminated, since it would probably be to their interest to have it continue, but, he told Everett, for the sake of Spain, for the cause of humanity, and for the repose of the world.^^ Clay was not satisfied with direct efforts alone to induce Mexico and Colombia to keep hands off Cuba, and to convince Spain that she ought to make peace to save Cuba. He endeavored to bring indirect pressure to bear upon the court of Madrid through those Euro pean powers which were supposed to exert a powerful influence on Spanish policy. He began with that power whose influence had for more than a decade been dominant in the councils of the reactionary states. On May lo, 1825, Henry Middleton, the minister to Russia, was given instructions for the purpose, which he was authorized to communicate to the court at St. Petersburg. They spoke in complimentary terms of Russia's influence on world affairs, of her disinter ested position in the existing conflict between Spain and her former possessions, and of the emperor's 27 Clay to Everett, April 27, 1825, MS., Department of State, Instructions, X, 302; extracts in American State Papers, For eign, V, 866; British and Foreign State Papers, XIII, 430; Chadwick, United States and Spain, Diplomacy, 206. CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN 109 great influence at Madrid; and asked him to employ that influence in a pacific mediation between Spain and the new American states. The philanthropic Clay appealed through his minister to the humanitarian instincts of the great Alexander. The latter was re minded of the great length of the conflict; of its in- evitableness sooner or later had it not occurred when it did; of the fact that there was absolutely no hope that Spain would ever be able to recover control on the continent ; and of the further fact that she was in imminent danger of losing her remaining possessions in the Antilles. It would be well worth while for Spain to sacrifice her pride and make peace in order to save these valuable islands. He was also reminded of the great international importance of and interest in Cuba, and was told that, " If peace should be longer deferred, and the war should take the probable direc tion which has been supposed, during its further progress other powers not now parties may be col laterally drawn into it. From much less considerable causes the peace of the world has been often disturbed. From the vicinity of Cuba to the United States, its valuable commerce, and the nature of its population, their government cannot be indifferent to any political change to which that island may be destined. Great Britain and France also have deep interests in its for tunes, which must keep them wide awake to all those changes. In short, what European state has not much at stake, direct or indirect, in the destiny, be it what it may, of the most valuable of the West India islands ? IIO CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN The reflection and the experience of the Emperor on the vicissitudes of war must have impressed him with the solemn duty of all governments to guard against even the distant approach of that most terrible of all scourges by every precaution with which human pru dence and foresight can surround the repose and safety of states. " Such is the view of the war between Spain and the new republics which the President desires you most earnestly, but respectfully, to present to his Im perial Majesty. From this view it is evident that it is not so much for the new states themselves as for Spain that peace has become absolutely necessary. Their independence of her, whatever intestine divi sions may, if intestine divisions shall, yet unhappily await them, is fixed and irrevocable. She may, in deed, by a blind and fatal protraction of the war, yet lose more: gain, for her, is impossible. In becoming the advocate for peace one is the true advocate of Spain. If the Emperor shall, by his wisdom, enlighten the councils of Spain, and bring home to them a con viction of her real interests, there can be no fears of the success of his powerful interposition. You are authorized, in that spirit of the most perfect frank ness and friendship which have ever characterized aU the relations between Russia and the United States, to disclose, without reserve, the feelings and the wishes of the United States in respect to Cuba and Porto Rico. They are satisfied with the present condition of those islands, now open to the commerce and en- CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN III terprise of their citizens. They desire for themselves no poUtical change in them. If Cuba were to declare itself independent, the amount and the character of its population render it improbable that it could main tain its independence. " Such a premature declaration might bring about a renewal of those shocking scenes of which a neighbor ing island was the afflicting theatre. There could be no effectual preventive of those scenes, but in the guaranty, and in a large resident force, of foreign powers. The terms of such guaranty, and the quotas which each should contribute of such force, would create perplexing questions of very difficult adjust ment; to say nothing of the continual jealousies which would be in operation. In the state of possession which Spain has, there would be a ready acquiescence of those very foreign powers, all of whom would be put into angry activity upon the smaUest prospect of a transfer of those islands. The United States could not, with indifference, see such a transfer to any European power. And if the new repubUcs, or either of them, were to conquer them, their maritime force as it now is, or for a long time to come is Ukely to be, would keep up constant apprehensions of their safety. Nor is it beUeved that the new states desire, or will attempt, the acquisition, unless they shaU be compeUed in their own defence, to make it, by the unnecessary prolongation of the war. Acting on the poUcy which is here unfolded, the government of the United States, although they would have been justified to have seized 112 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN Cuba and Porto Rico, in the just protection of the lives and the commerce of their citizens, which have been a prey to infamous pirates finding succor and refuge in Spanish territory, have signally displayed their patience and moderation by a scrupulous respect of the sovereignty of Spain, who was herself bound, but has utterly failed, to repress those enormities. "Finally the President cherishes the hope that the Emperor's devotion to peace, no less than his friend ship for Spain, will induce him to lend the high author ity of his name to the conclusion of a war the further prosecution of which must have the certain effect of an useless waste of human life." This remarkable despatch contained more than three thousand words. The above quotation includes about one fourth of it. Middleton was authorized to communicate it all at once or a little at a time as his judgment should dic- tate.^^ The sentiments of the Russian government were not unknown to Clay and Adams. Many communications 28 Clay to Middleton, May lo, 1825, MS., Department of State, Instructions, X, 331 ; MS., Relaciones Exteriores ; Amer ican State Papers, Foreign, V, 846; British and Foreign State Papers, XIII, 403. "To guard against any accident which might befall the original," a copy ef this instruction ef May 10 was mailed by separate conveyance a little more than a fortnight later. See Brent to Middleton, May 26, 1825, MS., Department of State, Instructions, X, 365. The careful editor of the very interesting correspondence of the Russian Ministers in Washington, 1818 te 1825, states in correctly that this despatch is not in the American State Pa pers. See American Historical Review, XVIII, 561. CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN 113 had passed between the two governments during the years immediately preceding.^" The Russian minister, to whom Middleton's instructions were shown a few days after they were written, " spoke in terms of high commendation of this measure, and said, without be ing able to anticipate what the Emperor's determina tion upon it may be, he is quite sure that it wiU be 29 See Adams, Memoirs, VI, 191-222, passim ; and " Corre spondence of the Russian Minister in Washington, 1818-1825," American Historical Review, XVIII, 309-345, and 537-562. On November 9/21, 1818, ibid., 317, Nesselrode wrote from Aix- la-chapelle te Peletica in Washington : " Si done, a Votre ar- rivee a Washington, le gouvernement Americain n'a point encore resolu la reconnaissance des Colonies Espagnoles in- surgees, il Vous est tres-expressement recommande de cher cher a dissuader le Cabinet de Washington de cet acte d'hos- tilite envers I'Espagne." On July 13/25, 1822, ibid., 342, Nesselrode wrote Baron Tuyll in Washington : " Si la cennaissance du desir qu'aurait I'Empereur de voir cet etat de paix se prolonger, pouvoit porter le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis a ne modifier en rien les dispositions qu'il a manifestees envers I'Espagne et a ne pas s'armer contre elle dans le lutte que soutiennent ses prov inces d'Outre-mer, vous n'hesiteriez point a exprimer les veeux de Sa Maj este Imperiale." On December 2/14, 1822, ibid., 540, Nesselrode again wrote Tuyll : " Nous ne pretendons pas arreter la marche de I'avenir ; I'affranchisement de I'Amerique Meridionale est probable, il est imminent peut-etre, mais, je le repete, c'etait une raison de plus aux yeux de I'Empereur, peur souhaiter que Sen Ministre engageat le gouvernement des Etats-Unis a suivre un systeme inoffensif a I'egard de I'Espagne." These com munications shew a desire to maintain peace, although in other respects they differ radically from the position of the United States. It is safe to assume that their spirit, at least, was made known to the government at Washington. 114 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN received and treated by him with great consideration, and as an act equally marked by moderation, candor, and friendly feeling towards him on the part of the United States. He said he was very desirous that there should be time for this measure to have its full effect," and asked Adams's consent for him to com municate it to the Russian ambassadors at Paris and London, hoping through them to exert some friendly influence at Madrid earlier than could be done through St. Petersburg to dissuade Spain from doing anything further to precipitate the apprehended attack by Mex ico and Colombia. Adams consented, and conversed at length with the baron on the occasion for, the char acter of, and the motives for the proposed mediation.^" In his conversations with Adams, Baron Tuyll seems to have gotten a more definite notion than Middle- ton's instructions gave of how far the interests of the United States might in certain contingencies carry them. At least Nesselrode understood Tuyll to re port that Adams had declared that if Cuba and Porto Rico were to become the possession of any American power the United States might find it necessary to insist on being that power.^i This is however no more than the despatch to Middleton darkly hints at. The instructions to Everett at Madrid contain a stronger hint at such a feeling ; and those to Poinsett at Mexico openly suggest it. On the day after he had written Middleton's instruc- 3" Adams, Memoirs, VII, 8-10. 31 Nesselrode to Tuyll, le 4 de septembre 1825, American Historical Review, XVIII, 562. CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN II5 tions. Clay told Rufus King, who was just ready to set out on his second mission to the court of St. James, that the coincidence in the policy of the United States and England with reference to the war between Spain and the new states required frankness in our inter course with that court. In this spirit he was to make known the desire of the President to see the war hon orably terminated. He was told of the above in structions to Poinsett, Everett, and Middleton, and a copy of the last was enclosed. In concluding the brief note Clay said : " If Great Britain, and the other principal European powers, would heartily unite with the United States in these pacific endeavors, the Pres ident entertains the confident hope that a stop would be put to the further and unnecessary effusion of human blood."^^ Two days later James Brown, the minister to the French court, was told that Poinsett and the other ministers to the new states had been instructed to use their best efforts to bring about peace between Spain and those states. " But it is in Europe more than in America that our efforts must be directed. And the strong ground to take is that peace is more necessary to Spain than to the new republics." He was told that Everett was to endeavor to convince Spain of such 32 Clay to King, May 11, 1825, MS., Department of State, Instructions, X, 345. Baron Tuyll's communications to the Russian ambassadors at London and Paris concerning the mediation were, at Adams's request, carried by King in order that the matter might first reach the English court through the United States minister. Adams, Memoirs, VII, 10. Il6 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN necessity; Middleton was to enlist the sympathy and good offices of Russia ; and King had similar instruc tions with reference to Great Britain. A copy of Mid dleton's instructions was enclosed, and Brown was re quested to open the matter with the French govern ment. In concluding this despatch, which was also brief. Clay said: "By a concerted system of action, direct and collateral on Spain, it is hoped that she may be made to see the necessity of peace. And great confidence would be placed in this hope, if Russia and France, the powers most likely to influence the coun cils of Spain, would lend their hearty cooperation."^3 As a part of the concerted action being brought to bear on Spain, Clay mentioned in this letter to Brown the fact that, "Information has reached us that the local authorities of Cuba have petitioned the King of Spain to acknowledge the new republics and close the war." The Mexican minister in Washington had told his govemment the same on May 8. He said the ayuntamiento of Havana had some time before peti tioned the Madrid government for reinforcements to enable them to hold the island ; but now, fears having increased, that body had petitioned the parent gov ernment to recognize the independence of the conti nental states as the only means of saving the island. In explanation of the reason for these increasing fears Obregon said that the spirit of independence was in creasing in the island because of the good order which they saw established in those continental states and 33 Clay to James Brown, May 13, 1825, MS., Department of State, Instructions, X, 356. CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN I17 the disorderly condition of affairs which the blunders of the Spanish government allowed to prevail in the island.^* Before Clay's efforts at combined mediation had time to produce any results a series of events occurred in the West Indies which caused him considerable anxiety and threw Mexico into a fever of excitement. These were connected with certain mysterious move ments of French naval vessels which strengthened suspicions already existing of French intentions on Cuba. Since the beginning of the year reports had been coming from various sources that Spain was gathering reinforcements in the ports of the Peninsula to send to Havana for protecting and preserving order in the islands and operating from there against Mex- co, Central America, and Colombia.^^ The fact that 3* Obregon te Secretario, 8 de mayo de 1825, MS., Rela ciones Exteriores. 3s The Mexican minister in Washington wrote his govem ment on February 2 that reports had reached him ef two ships fitting out in Ferrel. Six days later he enclosed a clip ping from the Washington Gazette saying that a frigate, three sleeps of war, and several transports had already reached Havana from Spain, and others were coming te make an at tack from there on Vera Cruz. On March 30 he told of the arrival of the new reinforcements in Cuba. In this letter he said he had offered rewards to Cuban exiles whom he was in teuch with to induce them te burn the Spanish ships that had recently come. On July 11 he reported three thousand men on their way from Coruiia te reinforce the garrison of San Juan de Ulua in Vera Cruz harbor, the only remaining Spanish post in Mexico. Obregon te Secretario, 2 de febrero, 8 de febrero, 30 de marzo, 11 de junio de 1825, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. Il8 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN reinforcements were coraing, though learned with re gret and fear, occasioned no surprise. But when cer tain transports reached Havana they were accom panied by a French war vessel. This was disquieting. Alaman, the foreign minister in Mexico, reported the fact to Rocafuerte, the charge in London, saying that the transports had apparently come from the Canary islands without naval convoy, trusting in the protec tion of French ships to get to their destination. This was regarded as a violation of neutrality, since the troops were evidently directed against Mexico and Co lombia. It looked to him Uke another bit of double deaUng and bad faith similar to placing the cordon of French sanitary police along the Pyrenees before the invasion of Spain. Rocafuerte was asked to bring the matter to the attention of the EngUsh government and ask that cabinet to solicit an explanation from France.^^ Obregon writing from Washington of the matter said all that was certainly known was that the Michelena reported from London that, in a conference ef May 21, Canning had told him that the troops being collected at Coruiia ostensibly for Peru were really going to Havana; and Michelena had replied that opinion in the island was be coming unfavorable to the Peninsula because of the unwise measures of the Madrid government. Rocafuerte wrote on July 9 that merchants of Cadiz and Havana had agreed to stand the cost of an expedition of 12,000 men against Panama or Mexico. One vessel had left Cadiz and three more were about to sail. Michelena to Secretarie, 21 de marze de 1825 ; Rocafuerte to Secretario, 9 de julio de 1825, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. 36 Alaman to Rocafuerte, i de junio de 1825, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN II9 French vessel had pursued the same course at the same time and entered the harbor of Havana with the Spanish transports. In acknowledging and com menting on this, the despatch from the Mexican for eign office said there must have been a design in the meeting ; and Obregon was asked to bring the matter to the attention of the United States government.^' Before any explanation of the above had been made another French movement in West Indian waters roused new and more serious suspicions. A Mexican agent in Jamaica reported to his government late in July that a French fleet of twenty-eight vessels had suddenly appeared at Martinique, and its movements were mysterious. A French ship had just brought to Santiago de Cuba the new Spanish governor. Some of the French ships had been seen off the island of Santo Domingo moving in the direction of Havana. He enclosed a clipping from a Jamaica paper saying that French troops had disembarked in Cuba.^* This startling news reached Mexico August 15, 1825. The next day Alaman hastened to show the correspondence to Ward, the British charge, and then to Poinsett. Ward and Poinsett, whose relations had been harmonious up to this time, conferred re garding the matter, and the former talked with Presi- 37 Obregon te Secretario, 2 de julio de 1825, and reply, 7 de septiembre de 1825, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. 38 Basadre to [Secretario], Kingston, 24 de julio de 1825, and 27 de julio de 1825, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. See note 17, above. Callahan, Cuba and International Relations, 142, discusses briefly the appearance of the French fleet in the West Indies. I20 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN dent Victoria. As a motive, Poinsett suggested to Alaman that possibly Spain had decided to cede the island to France rather than have it wrested from her through an independence movement encouraged from Mexico. To confirm his suspicion he alluded to the fact that a Cuban, who had visited Santa Anna in Yucatan some months earlier and had represented himself to be an agent of the Cuban patriots and sug gested to Santa Anna the invasion of Cuba for which the latter immediately began preparations, was now back in Cuba and in favor with the Spanish authori ties. Poinsett told Alaman that this might have been but a ruse to discover the intentions of Mexico, which, thus discovered, would doubtless be considered such "as would justify any measures Spain and France might think proper to take for its preservation." In the hurried conferences mentioned above it was arranged that identical notes should be presented to Ward and Poinsett with reference to the matter. The notes declared that the President of Mexico saw in these movements of French war vessels an act hostile to the independent states of America; they referred to the declaration of President Monroe against the interference of any third power in the conflict be tween Spain and her former dominions; argued that this conduct of France was certainly such interfer ence ; and asked that each bring the matter to the at tention of his government in order that his govern ment might demand of France such explanations as the case required. Poinsett objected to the language CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN 121 of the note in one particular as the note was originally drawn because, he said, it implied that the declara tion of Monroe gave Mexico the right to demand that the United States should interfere on behalf of the new states. It was modified so as to remove the im plication and the change was also indicated to Ward. Alaman had shown some hesitancy in making the notes to the governments of England and the United States identical. Ward and Poinsett appealed to President Victoria and were assured that the notes should be identical. He " expressed his dissatisfaction at the conduct of Mr. Alaman and declared that he himself was ignorant of the arrival of this important intelli gence until he saw it published in the ' Sol.' Such conduct on the part of the Secretary is inexplicable and almost incredible."^" This evidence of discord between the President and his chief adviser occurred six weeks before the latter's resignation, discussed in the preceding chapter. The newspaper which had published the correspond ence was owned, and presumably also edited, by Ala man. An editorial of the same day on which the cor respondence was pubUshed (also the same on which 39 Poinsett to Clay, August 17, 1825, and enclosures, Ala man to Poinsett, August 16, 1825, and Poinsett to Alaman, August 17, 1825, MS., Department ef State, Despatches from Mexico, II ; American State Papers, Foreign, VI, 364 ; British and Foreign State Papers, XIII, 995. And see alse Poinsett to Clay, August 21, 1825, MS., Department ef State, Despatches from Mexico, I ; extracts are in American State Papers, For eign, V, 909, and in British and Foreign State Papers, XIII, 122 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN the hurried conferences occurred) had declared : " In our opinion this movement can have no other object than to cover the island of Cuba from the designs of the United States and from those attributed to Colom bia and Mexico." On the same day Poinsett addressed a spirited note to Alaman protesting that in the edi torial the designs of Colombia and Mexico were rep resented as hypothetical, while those of the United States were represented as positive. Poinsett declared that the United States never did entertain such de signs and had disavowed all such; and asked Alaman to use his influence with the editor to have the mis taken impression corrected. Alaman's reply, also of the same day, promised, if possible, to have an article inserted in the next day's issue correcting public opin ion on the matter.*" The alarm caused by these French movements in the West Indies proved happily to be a false one. When the explanations called for by England and the United States at Mexico's request were made it was affirmed that the convoying of the Spanish transports from Martinique to Havana by the French cruiser had been solely on the order and responsibility of the French commander at Martinique; and had been dis avowed by the government and prohibited for the fu ture.*! Canning in writing to the British representa- 4" Poinsett to Alaman, August 16, 1825 ; Alaman to Poinsett, August 16, 1825 ; and Poinsett to Clay, August 17, 1825, MS., Department of State, Duplicate Despatches from Poinsett. *i Rocafuerte to Secretario, 9 de agosto de 1825, saying that Canning had promised to question France, but that ne expla- CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN 1 23 tive at Paris said he hoped this explanation which Villele and Damas had given was true; "But," he continued, "I confess I have my doubts, whether it was not (a prescribed I will not say) a permitted ex periment, to see how far a French force might be in cidentally and imperceptibly slipped into Havannah. Villele ought to know that our eyes are open to the possibility of such a manoeuvre. He ought to know, too, that we would not put up with it."*^ The large French fleet whose movements had occa sioned by far the greater alarm had gone to the West Indies, ostensibly, at least, to attend and solemnize the ceremonies connected with French recognition of the independence of Hayti. After performing that cere mony it had touched at Havana, then visited Norfolk, and sailed from there late in August, part of it re turning to France and the rest to the naval station at Martinique.*' The Spanish government declared to nation had yet been given him; Obregon to Secretario, 18 de septiembre de 1825, enclosing Rocafuerte te Obregon, 12 de agosto de 1825, telling what the French government had declared te the English. All in MS., Relaciones Exteriores. *2 Canning to Granville, June 21, 1825, in Stapleton, Official Correspondence of Canning, I, 376. This shows that the ex planation had been asked and given long before the Mexican government's note of June i, requesting such, could have been received. Before the French movement had occurred Can ning had said : " I have seme reason to believe that Polignac is instructed, or is disposed without instruction (I would not undertake te say which) to hint at the possibility of the occu pation of the Havannah by France. That will never do." Ibid., 265. *3 Obregon te Secretarie, 18 de septiembre de 1825, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. The address of President Boyer of 124 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN Nelson, the retiring United States minister at Madrid, that " His Majesty has at no time thought of conced ing to any power the islands of Cuba and Porto Rico, and, so far from such a purpose, is firmly determined to keep them under the dominion and authority of his legitimate sovereignty."** After the uncertainty con ceming the French operations had been cleared up and the excitement had passed, Clay declared to the French government through Brown, the minister at Paris : " The President conceives it due to the friendly relations which happily subsist between the two na tions, and to the frankness by which he wishes all their intercourse to be characterised, that the purpose of any similar movement hereafter, made in a season of peace should be communicated to this government. . . . The President cannot suppose a state of things in which either of the great maritime powers of Europe, with or without the consent of Spain, would feel itself justified to occupy, or attempt the occupa tion of Cuba or Porto Rico without the concurrence or at least the knowledge of the United States."*'^ In July II, 1825, accepting the Ordinance of the King of France recognizing independence is in British and Foreign State Papers, XIII, 999. Temperley, "Later American Policy ef Canning," American Historical Review, XI, 791, says the French fleet " came ostensibly to collect a debt from Hayti." ** Clay te Poinsett, September 24 1825, MS., Department of State, Instructions, X; extracts from this letter not including this portion are in American State Papers, Foreign, VI, 581, and House Executive Documents, 25 congress, i session, num ber 42, page 7. "^5 Clay to James Brown, October 25, 1825, MS., Department of State, Instructions, X, 404; British and Foreign State Pa pers, XIII, 424. CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN 1 25 carrying out these instructions Brown declared, as he was authorized to do, that the United States " could not consent to the occupation of those islands by any other European power than Spain, under any con tingency whatever." The French minister admitted that the United States had a right to be informed of the reason for such a movement as that of the French fleet and said it was "a departure from the rule, but that, in future, the United States should be duly apprised of the objects of every such squadron sent into their vicinity."*^ In the same letter in which Canning expressed his suspicions of the French explanation of the matter of the French convoy of Spanish troop ships, he stated positively England's policy with reference to Cuba, which was practically the same as that of the United States, namely, " As to Cuba, you cannot too soon, nor The greatest interest attaching to this French movement in the West Indies se far as students of the history of the United States are concerned grows out of the fact that it furnished an opportunity for what is usually thought of as Clay's interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. See Man ning, " Statements, Interpretations, and Applications ef the Monroe Doctrine from 1823 te 1845 " in the Proceedings ef the American Society of International Law for 1914, pages 34-59. See also below, the chapter on Negotiations for a Commercial Treaty and footnote 16 of that chapter. In December Clay's letter te James Brown of October 25 was shown to the Mexican minister. Obregon to Secretarie, 15 de diciembre de 1825, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. *3 Brown to Damas, January 2, 1826, American State Pa pers, Foreign, V, 882 ; British and Foreign State Papers, XIII, 444. Brown to Clay, January 10, 1826, American State Papers, Foreign, V, 881 ; British and Foreign State Papers, XIII, 443. 126 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN too amicably, of course, represent to Villele the im possibility of our allowing France (or France us, I presume), to meddle in the internal affairs of that colony. We sincerely wish it to remain with the mother country. Next to that I wish it independent, either singly or in connection with Mexico. But what cannot or must not be, is that any great mari time power should get possession of it. The Amer icans (Yankees, I mean) think of this matter just as I do."« Canning assumed a cynical and suspicious attitude toward Clay's effort at combined mediation between Spain and her former possessions. After an inter view on the subject he said he found King, the United States minister, " relying with a simpleness which ap peared quite childish on the good sense of the conti nental powers, for the advice which they would give to Spain, and on the awakened good sense of Spain for listening to that advice when given. I set him right upon these points; on which if his government blunder as sincerely as he appears to do, there is per haps no harm done beyond the loss of time, but if — *^ Canning to Granville, June 21, 1825, in Stapleton, Official Correspondence of Canning, I, 276. Latane, United States and Spanish America, loi. See also Stapleton, A. G., Life of Canning, III, 142-150; and Temperley, "Later American Policy of Canning," American Historical Review, XI, 790, which says that Canning feared the United States mere than France. Temperley, Life of Canning, 188, says that Eng land's recognition of the Spanish-American states " restrained the pretensions of the Yankees, and preserved Cuba te Spain." CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN 1 27 as the suspicion sometimes comes across me — this bonhomie is affected by the U [nited] S [tates] G[ov- ernment] for the express purpose of being enabled to cry out and take a new line on the disappointment of their groundless expectations, why then the Yan kees may be just the rogues that we have always hitherto taken them to be, but which I was wilUng to hope they might have resolved to be no longer."** Fully persuaded that Clay's plan would fail, as a counter proposition he proposed that Great Britain, France, and the United States should unite in dis claiming any intentions on the islands, thus calming the fears of Spain and preparing her for receiving peace proposals. But as Adams had evaded the issue two years earlier when Canning tried to get the United States government to commit itself against the an nexation of any former Spanish possessions, so Clay evaded it now. He repUed through King that Can ning's proposal was likely to defeat its avowed pur pose and encourage Spain to continue the war since it would relieve her of the fear of seizure by any of these three powers. A few days later, after he had learned that France had refused to accede to Canning's pro posal. Clay sent through King a copy of the letter of October 25 to Brown at Paris warning the French government that the United States " could not consent to the occupation of those islands by any other Euro pean power than Spain"; and said if Great Britain *3 Canning to Liverpool, August 6, 1825, in Stapleton, Offi cial Correspondence of Canning, I, 283. 128 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN should direct her ambassador at Paris to protest in Uke manner nothing more would be necessary.*" When the excitement concerning the movements of the French fleet was at its height Clay took steps to reveal to Mexico the efforts he had begun some months earUer to induce Russia, France, and England to bring pressure to bear on Spain to prevail on her to ac knowledge the independence of her former continental possessions in order to save the islands. At a con ference early in August he read to the Mexican min ister portions of the instructions which he had sent for the purpose to the American ministers to those three courts;^" and in September he sent to Poinsett in Mexico a copy of the instructions to Middleton given May lo, authorizing him to communicate it to the Mexican cabinet.^! Cubans who desired to revolutionize the island and join it to the United States had come to Baltimore *" Clay to King, October 17, 1825, MS., Department of State, Instructions, X, 394; and same to same, October 26, 1825, ibid., 405. For Canning's proposal see also Latane, United States and Spanish America, loi ; and Callahan, Cuba and International Relations, 147-151. On page 152 this last writer says that Canning, on receipt ef Clay's suggestion that England should declare te France her unwillingness te see Cuba pass to any other European power than Spain, declared that he had already stated to France practically the same thing in the previous July, and so there was no reason now for repeating it at someone else's suggestion. 5" Obregon to Secretario, 8 de agosto de 1825, MS., Rela ciones Exteriores. =1 Clay to Poinsett, September 24 1825, as cited in note 44 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN 1 29 during this same exciting summer and solicited aid from the United States, ostensibly for suppressing an apprehended slave insurrection. According to Obre gon's report the Cubans were given to understand that the government of the United States would not vio late its neutrality by assisting a revolt; but that the island would be received if it should become inde pendent and offer itself. Obregon added that if the island should be taken by the United States thus it would have to be at the cost of a war with England and probably with France. At the same time Cuban revolutionary agents were operating in Mexico. On July 5 President Victoria had been informed by eleven natives of Cuba that they had determined to form an association named a "Junta for the promotion of Cuban Liberty," to be composed of Cubans resident in Mexico and of Mex icans desiring the liberty of Cuba. They wished his approbation. In reply they were told that the presi dent saw with satisfaction their efforts for the Uberty of their country ; but that he could not authorize the formation of the junta since that fell under the juris diction of the government of the Federal District. The matter was taken up with the local authorities, and after some deliberation the organization was authorized. It was effected on the very day on which the news of the appearance of the French fleet in the West Indies was published. Two days later the gov ernor of the Federal District wrote the minister for foreign relations that on the evening of August 16 an 10 130 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN officer of the district government had attended and presided over a meeting of the Cubans; that a pres ident and secretary had been elected from their own number; and that among the Mexicans elected to membership were Bravo, the vice-president, and Santa Anna. In reply the govemor was told that the pres ident wished him to take care that the meetings of the junta should be orderly ; that the name of the gov ernment be not used ; and that nothing be said about intervention, either in the meetings or in the manifesto which the junta was going to send to their com patriots.^^ Poinsett reported in September that "the principal officers in the army and many of the most distinguished members of both houses of Congress" had united with the Cuban junta. ^^ Although Santa Anna's preparations in the early spring to invade and revolutionize Cuba from Yucatan had been on his own responsibility,^* and he had been "2 Eleven Cubans to Victoria, s de julio de 1825, to which the names of all are signed and a list attached of twenty- three Cubans resident in Mexico City; Victoria to Cubans, 15 de julio de 1825; Governor of Federal District te Secre tario, 3 de agosto de 1825, and reply of 6 de agosto de 1825; Governor of Federal District to Secretarie, 18 de agosto de 1825, and reply of 20 de agosto de 1825; all in MS., Rela ciones Exteriores. And see Zavala, Ensayo Historico, I, 387-408. 53 Poinsett to Clay, September 13, 1825, in cipher, MS., De partment of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. An extract from this despatch but not including the cipher portion is in American State Papers, Foreign, V, 852; and in British and Foreign State Papers, XIII, 415. 5* Obregon to Secretario, 21 de mayo de 1825, enclosing clip pings from American papers commenting on the expedition, CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN 13 I cashiered for his conduct, yet a few weeks later the government had itself decided to undertake the same. Just before the end of May the foreign office in Mex ico wrote Obregon that the president had decided to assist with Mexican forces in effecting the liberation of Cuba, and had promised the Cubans that it should be done the following winter.^^ A few days later a letter to Rocafuerte in London said recent news from Havana had caused the government to decide on this step. Relations had been established with the island to facilitate a happy outcome of the enterprise, and nothing would be omitted to assure it. To that end he was urged to hasten the coming of ships being purchased in England, since they would be the chief reliance. He was told to say nothing to the British some saying Bolivar was behind it, and ethers believing Eng land was furthering it, and mentioning England's ambition te get control of Panama to construct a canal there; same to same, 8 de julio de 1825; and Secretarie te Obregon, [?] de agosto de 1825, telling of Santa Anna's removal from his command because of this and other acts; all in MS., Rela ciones Exteriores. " II avait ete grand bruit demierement d'une expedition, qui devait sortir de Campeche, sous les ordres de General Santa- Anna, et etait destinee a envahir I'ile de Cuba. Les feuilles Americaines contenaient meme une proclamation, que ce General avait addressee a cette ecasion a ses troupes. Mais cette nouvelle est aujourd'hui contradite et Ton pretend que ce plan a ete abandonne." Tuyll to Nesselrode, Washington, le 14/26 Mai 1825, American Historical Review, XVIII, 559. ^5 Obregon to Secretario, 17 de septiembre de 1825, in cipher, acknowledging receipt of a letter of 28 de mayo, telling the decision of the president ef Mexico, MS., Relaciones Exte riores. 132 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN government of the matter till plans should be com pleted.^^ In the middle of June Poinsett said Bolivar was urging that the Panama congress assemble three months earlier than had been planned, and he believed the purpose was to concert plans for attacking Cuba. The Colombian minister had made proposals to Mex ico for a joint attack on Cuba, and the Congress had discussed the raatter in secret session, deciding that such action would be inexpedient at present. In cipher Poinsett declared the fact was that the Colombian pro posal was refused because Mexico was ambitious to undertake the enterprise alone; and this Mexican jeal ousy of Colombia was the greatest reason for hoping that nothing would be undertaken at present. In order to avert the attack Poinsett suggested that this jealousy ought to be cultivated and that the people of Cuba ought to be encouraged to resist Mexican or Co lombian interference.^^ The excitement about the middle of August over the French fleet in the West Indies caused Congress to devote another secret ses sion to the proposed invasion. Numerous military juntas had been held to consider the matter. The wish to anticipate Colombia was manifest.^* =3 [Secretario] to Rocafuerte, 8 de junio de 1825, in cipher, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. He was told that the subject was to be discussed by the conference at Panama and it was still uncertain whether the enterprise would be undertaken by Mexico alone or by the allied countries. 5' Poinsett to Clay, June 15, 1825, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. S3 Poinsett te Clay, August 21, 1825, as cited in note 39, pre ceding. This portion of the letter is in cipher and not printed. CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN 1 33 About the middle of September Poinsett told in cipher that the Cuban Junta had presented a memorial to the Congress urging that the expedition be sent at once. He said it would have the support of the executive, and it was probable that the Congress would act favorably.'^" The Mexican Eagle, the organ of the executive, told on September 19 of the arrival of one of the ships purchased in England, and said: "The navy of Mexico begins to figure among those of the new republics of America. The happy union of the island of Cuba to the Mexican confederation would give us in time the most powerful navy in America and one of the most brilliant that floats on the seas."'" At the end of October Poinsett told Clay, again in cipher, that the Mexican cabinet "has re solved, on the arrival bf the vessels of war now fitting out in the United States and of a squadron which is expected daily from Colombia and which has been subsidized by Mexico, to put on board of these vessels two thousand men to send them to cruise off Cuba and to land the men on some convenient point of the island where they expect to be joined by the patriots." He said however that the project had met with some opposition in the Congress, and if carried out it would have to be solely on executive authority and with in adequate suppUes. He expected the project to fail and produce only the most disastrous consequences, s" Poinsett te Clay, September 13, 1825, as cited in note 53, preceding. ^" Aguila Mejicana, 19 de septiembre de 1825, MS., Depart ment ef State, Despatches from Mexico, I. 134 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN for he feared that one or both parties might arm the blacks as auxiliaries. The Mexican government did not know that he was acquainted with their plans, so he could not speak openly on the subject; he would endeavor, however, to discourage the attempt."! jj^ an all cipher despatch of December 2, 1825, Poinsett said : " The Cabinet of Mexico immediately after the surrender of the Castle of UUoa [Uliia] proposed [again] to Congress to undertake an expedition against the island of Cuba." The lower house debated the matter for two days in secret session and rejected it by the narrow margin of two. When defeat was seen to be inevitable the ministry tried to withdraw the proposition without a vote, in order that the execu tive might undertake a partial expedition as outlined above without appearing to act in direct contradiction to the Congress. But the house insisted on deciding the issue.'^ During the last three months of 1825 frequent re ports from Obregon and Rocafuerte indicated that Spain, very far from thinking of ceding Cuba to a European power or permitting it to be seized by an American power, was collecting new reinforcements in the ports of Spain and despatching them under convoy to Havana to defend the islands against all comers."^ Obregon, knowing what the Mexican cab- 31 Poinsett to Clay, October 29, 1825, in cipher, MS., Depart ment ef State, Despatches from Mexico, I. 32 Poinsett to Clay, December 2, 1825, in cipher, MS., De partment of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. 33 Obregon to Secretario, 8 de octubre de 1825, and same te CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN I35 inet was planning to do, and not knowing that Poinsett was on the inside and reporting the plans to the cab inet at Washington, declared to his government on November 30 that the loss to Spain of the islands was nearer than the United States supposed and feared. He suspected that Spain would seemingly yield to the diplomatic pressure being brought to bear on her and enter into negotiations as she was being urged to do ; but with no other object than to neutralize the projects of Colombia and Mexico for invading and freeing the island. Obregon's opinion was confirmed a few days later by a Colombian who told him that a large force was being prepared at Cartagena supposedly to aid in liberating Cuba."* As a suggestion of the probable reception awaiting a Mexican Uberating expedition Obregon told of the sensation produced at Havana when on December 5 a Mexican war vessel had ar rived bearing the former Spanish commander of the fort of Uliia in Vera Cruz harbor, which had surren dered to the Mexican forces a Uttle more than a fort night before. The two Mexican commissioners in same, 10 de octubre de 1825 ; Rocafuerte te Secretario, 19 de octubre de 1825, saying that three thousand recruits forced against their wish to embark at Ferrol had sailed for Havana conveyed by two frigates and three brigs ; Obregon to Secre tario, 13 de noviembre de 1825, reporting the same as the last ; same to same, 12 de diciembre de 1825, saying that a letter from Porto Rico of November 20 told ef the arrival there of the expedition; same te same, 7 de enero de 1826, enclosing a newspaper report that a fleet of four vessels had reached Havana on December 18, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. 3* Obregon to Secretario, 30 de noviembre, and 10 de diciem bre de 1825, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. 136 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN charge who had landed from the vessel received an ovation everywhere, expressive of the joy which the Cuban people felt at having them in the city. The Spaniards were amazed and frightened at this display of attachment to Mexicans, and at the sight of the Mexican flag in port. The friend who had written this news told Obregon that the strength of the inde pendence party was colossal. It would be more ac curate, the friend had added, to say that it included all the island except half of the city of Havana, which was European. A powerful but ill equipped army was waiting to join the invader who should come to Uberate them."^ On the last day of the year Obregon reported that Clay in a recent conference had shown much un easiness, had asked if Obregon thought there was any danger of Cuba's being attacked that winter, had said there were rumors that Mexican and Colombian agents were raising an expedition in the United States for the purpose, and declared that such action could not be permitted under the neutrality law. With refer ence to Clay's efforts to bring pressure to bear on Spain through Russia and other European powers, Obregon said he believed that this country was merely negotiating, intriguing, and inspiring fear to prevent Mexico and Colombia from freeing Cuba."" On Feb- 35 Obregon to Secretario, 28 de enero de 1826, enclosing a letter dated Havana, 28 de diciembre de 1825, MS., Rela ciones Exteriores. 36 Obregon te Secretario, 31 de diciembre de 1825, MS., Re laciones Exteriores. CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN 1 37 ruary i, 1826, he wrote that news had come that a Spanish fleet of six vessels was about to sail from Havana for Cartagena to blockade the latter harbor and prevent the departure of the expedition there pre paring against Cuba. Since the surrender of Uliia, and because of the consequent increase of the inde pendent spirit in Cuba he feared Spain might yield to the influence of the combined mediation and make peace to save the islands."' Early in December, 1825, Clay had given instruc tions to a resident of New Orleans who was to visit Cuba as a confidential agent, because of "the very great interest which the United States have in the future fortunes of Cuba, and the present dangers to which that island is exposed from foreign attack as well as from internal commotion." The character and condition of the population, the natural resources of the island, the political sentiment of the people and especially their attitude toward Mexico and Colombia, and the probable ability of the Spanish authorities to resist foreign attack or internal commotion were the matters which he was especiaUy charged to report upon. He was merely to study and report movements and not to promote or encourage them. " Our posi tion being that of peace with Spain and neutrality in the existing war between her and the new republics, fixes our duties in reference to any commotions which may be either meditated, or in fact may arise in the island. And if they should happen to be of a char s' Obregon te Secretario, 28 de enero de 1826, and same to same, i de febrero de 1826, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. 138 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN acter, or take a turn, which would require of the United States, from the relations in which they stand to the island, to interpose their power, it wiU be time enough for the government here to consider and de cide the nature of their intervention when the exi gency arises.""^ The effect of Clay's overture to Russia did not be come known to him until nearly the end of the year 1825. His instruction of May 10 to Middleton reached the latter July 10. Four days later Mid dleton addressed a note to Count Nesselrode, the Rus sian foreign minister, enclosing with it the entire letter of instructions from Clay."" In the reply which was given after seven weeks of deliberation Nesselrode declared: "His Imperial Majesty felicitates himself 38 Clay te Thomas B. Robertson, December 7, 1825, MS., Department of State, Instructions, X, 418. Robertson de clined the mission ; but a little more than a year later a simi larly instructed secret agent did go. See Adams, Memoirs, VIII, 20, and below in this chapter. 39 In this long complimentary note, Middleton said, " il croit ne pouvoir mieux faire que de lui envoyer ci-pres copie d'une depeche en forme d'Instruction qu'il vient de recevoir, et de le prier de veuloir bien la mettre sous les yeux de Sa Maj este I'Empereur, done I'intervention amicale, invoquee avec succes dans plus d'une ecasion, peut encore en ce moment servir a la fois les interets de I'Europe et de I'Amerique. . . . Mais si les Etats Unis ont vii avec satisfaction les efforts des Nations du Contenent Americain, pour se soustraire au Joug de la Domination Espagnole, il n'en est pas de meme pour ce qui regarde les lies de Cuba et de Porte Rico. Le caractere de la population de ces lies rend extremement problematique leur capacite de maintenir I'lndependance." Middleton te Nesselrode, le 2/14 JuiUet, 1825, British and Foreign State Papers, XIII, 490; Middleton te Clay, July 15/27, 1825, ibid., 409, and American State Papers, Foreign, V, 849. CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN 1 39 with having inspired this confidence in the United States of America, and the undersigned is charged to invite Mr. Middleton to convey to his government the assurance of the high value at which the Emperor es timates those sentiments, of which new evidence is furnished by its present propositions. The opinions of His Imperial Majesty as to the question discussed by Mr. Clay in his despatch cannot be concealed from the Cabinet of Washington. His Imperial Majesty has ever thought that justice, the law of nations, and the general interest in having the indisputable titles of sovereignty respected, could not allow the determina tions of the mother country in this important case to be prejudged or anticipated. On the other side, when ever Spain has wished to discuss the future condition of South America she has addressed overtures to all the allied powers of Europe. It will not be possible, therefore, for His Imperial Majesty to change prin ciples in this negotiation nor to institute it separately ; and until positive information has been received of the ulterior views of Spain in regard to her American possessions, of her decision upon the proposition of the United States, and of the opinions of her allies in relation to the same subject, Russia cannot give a definite answer." In the meantime he hoped the United States would " use their infiuence in defeating, as far as may be in their power, every enterprise against these islands."'" Middleton wrote Clay that '"Nesselrode to Middleton, August 20/[September i], 1825, American State Papers, Foreign, V, 850; British and Foreign State Papers, XIII, 410. 140 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN the position of the Russian government was such that nothing more definite or satisfactory could be said officially. But he understood that the emperor would use his influence to bring the war to a close, and that instructions had been communicated for that purpose to the Russian representatives at Madrid and the other allied courts.'! Adams understood the Russian minister in Washington to corroborate Middleton's opinion of the emperor's attitude.'^ In commenting on the Russian reply Clay agreed with Middleton in believing that the appeal to Russia " has not been without favorable effect." It was " per haps not to be expected that previous to consultations with them [the alUed powers] language more expUcit should be held. ... It authorizes the belief that the preponderating influence of Russia has been thrown into the scale of peace. Notwithstanding predictions of a contrary result confidently made by Mr. Secre tary Canning, this decision of the Emperor corre sponds with the anticipations which have been con stantly entertained here ever since the President re- ^1 Middleton to Clay, August 27/September 8, 1825, Ameri can State Papers, Foreign, V, 849; British and Foreign State Papers, XIII, 410. '2 Adams, Memoirs, VII, 88. Nesselrode wrote Tuyll, le 4 7bre 1825, " L'Empereur desire que vous y puisiez des argu- mens pour demontrer d'une part a Mr. Clay qu'il nous etait impossible de faire un autre accueil a ses propositions, et peur lui prouver cembien Sa Maj este Imperiale se plait a recon naitre la confiance et I'amitie, que lui temoignent les Etats Unis ; cembien Elle souhaite que ces sentimens president tou jours aux relations existantes entre les deux Puissances." American Historical Review, XVIII, 561. CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN 14I solved to invoke his intervention." Clay then told of the efforts which he was making to induce Mexico and Colombia to suspend their anticipated operations against Cuba till the final results of the mediation could be learned, and declared : " On this subject it is proper that we should be perfectly understood by Russia. For ourselves we desire no change in the possession of Cuba, as has been heretofore stated. We cannot allow the transfer of the islands to any European power. But if Spain should refuse to conclude peace, and obstinately resolve on continuing the war, al though we do not desire that either Colombia or Mex ico should acquire the island of Cuba, the President cannot see any justifiable ground on which we can forcibly interfere. ... If the war against the islands should be conducted by those republics in a desolating manner; if contrary to all expectations they should put arms in the hands of one race of the inhabitants to destroy the lives of another ; if in short they should countenance and encourage excesses and examples, the contagion of which from our neighborhood would be dangerous to our quiet and safety, the government of the United States might feel itself caUed upon to interpose its power."'^ This veiled threat conveyed 73 Clay te Middleton, December 26, 1825, MS., Department of State, Instructions, X, 424; American State Papers, For eign, V, 850; British and Foreign State Papers, XIII, 412. In the debates in Congress on the mission to Panama, Calla han says that Forsyth declared " he desired to see Spain hold Cuba, but he opposed any interference against the rights ef Mexico and Colombia to conquer it in order to end the con test with Spain; Cuba was 'the jungle in which the Royal 142 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN through Russia was probably intended to frighten Spain into making peace. Furthermore in case the apprehended attack by Colombia and Mexico should occur, the United States government would be able to point to this warning as a justification for seizing Cuba should that step be decided on, as was likely. Although Clay felt that the United States could not, in case the war should long continue, interfere to prevent the anticipated attack, yet he determined to do all he could in a friendly manner to forestall it for the present. On December 20 he handed iden tical notes to the Mexican and Colombian ministers in Washington asking the suspension for a limited time of any projects which their respective countries might be forming against Cuba, in order to give Russia time to act.'* A copy of the identical note was sent to Poinsett in Mexico and another to Anderson, the American minister to Colombia, with the request that each further the purpose of it as far as might be in his power.'^ The Colombian minister replied on De cember 30 that he would send the note to his govern ment ; but said he thought the reports of preparations Tiger hides himself,' and they had a right to drive the tiger out." Callahan, Cuba and International Relations, 155. 7* Clay to Obregon, December 20, 1825, enclosed with Obre gon to Secretario, 14 de enero de 1826, MS., Relaciones Exte riores. Clay to Salazar, identical with this, is in American State Papers, Foreign, V, 851; and in British and Foreign State Papers, XIII, 414. _, Poinsett _ '5 Clay to Anderson' December 30, 1825, MS., Department of State, Instructions, X, 426. CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN 1 43 in Colombia for attacking Cuba had little or no truth in them. He argued at length that such an attack by Colombia on the headquarters of the enemy would be entirely justified. He expected the congress at Pan ama to decide the fortunes of the islands.'" Poinsett had not mentioned to the Mexican cabinet until December lo the efforts of his government to bring pressure to bear on Spain through Russia. On that date he communicated a copy of the instructions to Middleton given just seven months earUer. The reply from Camacho, then minister for foreign rela tions, expressed the satisfaction of President Vic toria." On February i, 1826, Poinsett reported that Victoria, after asking and receiving a full explanation of the attitude of the United States regarding Cuba, had expressed himself as satisfied and declared that Mexico " had no intention to conquer or keep posses sion of the island, [but] that the object of the expe dition which they contemplated was to assist the revo lutionists of Cuba to drive out the Spaniards, and in case they succeeded to leave that people to govern themselves." Poinsett told him it was to be regretted 73 Salazar to Clay, December 30, 1825, American State Pa pers, Foreign, V, 856 ; British and Foreign State Papers, XIII, 426. Obregon's reply merely stated that he would transmit the proposal to his government. Obregon to Clay, January 4, 1826, American State Papers, Foreign, V, 857; British and Foreign State Papers, XIII, 428. '7 Poinsett to Camacho, December 10, 1825, MS., Relaciones Exteriores ; Camacho to Poinsett, December 31, 1825, enclosed with Poinsett to Clay, January 14, 1826, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. 144 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN that this declaration had not been made earlier, since a very different notion of Mexico's intentions had been held. A report had recently come from the Mex ican charge at Bogota saying that a Colombian expedi tion was about ready to start to foment a revolution in Cuba ; and the charge had advised Mexico to antici pate Colombia in this movement, because he believed it to be the object of Colombia to attach that island to her already vast possessions.'^ A few days earlier the question of the invasion of Cuba had been again agitated in Congress in connection with a motion in the Senate to permit the executive to send troops out of the country. This motion was rejected. But the Senate passed another motion granting permission to the executive to undertake an expedition against Cuba jointly with Colombia. This motion was in the form of two resolutions that had been drawn by a commit tee after consultation with the executive. The reso lutions declared : " First — The government is hereby authorized in combination with that of the republic of Colombia to undertake a military expedition in order to assist the efforts of the inhabitants of Cuba to achieve their independence. Secondly — In the event of the cause of liberty succeeding in the island the gov ernment is particularly directed to cause to be estab Ushed in it a national representation on the basis of the rights of the people of the new republics of Amer ica." When these resolutions came before the Cham 's Poinsett te Clay, February i, 1826, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN 1 45 ber of Deputies that house voted "to postpone the further consideration of the question until the execu tive could submit to the consideration of Congress the plans which may be agreed upon at Panama."'" Early in March Poinsett communicated to the Mex ican cabinet the reply of Nesselrode to Middleton and the inferences drawn from it by both Middleton and Clay. But the communication was received with cool ness. The reasons which, at Clay's suggestion, Poin sett had urged for suspending the expedition he feared would rather tend to hasten it. The Mexican gov ernment, he said, did not fear Spain and was indif ferent whether that government recognized Mexican independence or not. Neither did they longer fear a European alliance, since they took it for grsmted that any designs of those powers would be kept in check by the United States and Great Britain. The greatest apprehension was lest the powers might compel Spain to make peace on condition of Cuba and Porto Rico be ing guaranteed to her, " which would deprive Mexico of the advantage and glory of emancipating those ^" Poinsett to Clay, January 28, 1826, and February i, 1826 ; Poinsett to Brent, February 10, and Poinsett to Clay, Feb ruary 25, 1826, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. In the last Poinsett says that the Chamber of Deputies were opposed to the measure, and this postponement was to avoid having it carried over the adverse vote of that house. The constitution provided that " if an act which origi nates in ene house be rejected in the other, it shall again be taken up by the house in which it originated, and if it passes by a majority of two thirds, it shall become a law, unless re jected by more than two thirds of the other house." The vote in the Deputies was 36 to 20, a little less than two thirds. II 146 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN islands." The reason the Mexican government was so ready to grant every assistance in their power to Colombia was that they feared that power might lib erate the islands unassisted and hold them. "The only assistance, however, the executive can grant, without consulting Congress, is to send their fleet to cooperate with that of Colombia, which I think they will be disposed to do if they can do no more."*" Discouraged by the indefinite postponement of the official assistance which they were expecting, the Cuban patriots determined to organize a private ex pedition, asking the Mexican executive for financial assistance. If disappointed in this they expected to go to the United States and endeavor to raise an ex pedition, borrowing money in England. They were determined if possible to anticipate Colombia in rais ing the standard of revolt. If then Colombia should come to their assistance that power could only claim corapensation and would have no sufficient excuse for retaining the island. Late in March Poinsett re ported that these Cubans, thinking they had not been very well treated by the Mexican government, had de cided to leave the country and go to offer their serv- 80 Poinsett te Clay, March 8, 1826, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. Temperley's notion of the real desire of Mexico concern ing Cuba and Spanish recognition is exactly the reverse of what Poinsett understood. Temperley says : " It is probable that even the much vaunted project of an attack upon Cuba by the Spanish-Americans was only a threat te dispose Spain toward recognition." "Later American Policy ef Canning," American Historical Review, XI, 792. CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN 1 47 ices to Colombia. This they did in spite of the efforts of the Mexican executive to detain them in hope of gaining some advantage from their being on board the Mexican vessels that it was still hoped might go to liberate their island.*! A messenger had recently brought news from Colombia which, though great secrecy was supposed to be observed, Poinsett had learned related to the large squadron then fitting out in Cartagena for Cuba. Bolivar himself, it was said, would arrive in April to take command. Poinsett still believed that the Mexican fleet would be sent by the ex ecutive to cooperate with Colombia, and that as many troops would be put on board as might by a forced interpretation be considered marines. This Poinsett believed would be done in spite of the fact that he had communicated to the President and the secretary for foreign relations Clay's request that all projects against Cuba be suspended until the results of the joint media tion be known. To his proposals and arguments Vic toria had repUed coldly that he would give the sug gestions their due weight.*^ As late as April, 1826, Clay had not learned that Russia had made any effort at Madrid in response to his overture of nearly a year before. He attributed this partly to the death of the Emperor Alexander; but Nicholas had announced his intention of carrying out his brother's policies. Through Everett, the min- 31 Poinsett to Clay, March 24 1826, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. 32 Poinsett to Clay, March 18, March 24 and April 8, 1826, MS., Department ef State, Despatches from Mexico, I. 148 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN ister at Madrid, Clay informed that court of his re quest to Colombia and Mexico to suspend operations against Cuba, and of the announcements to England and France declaring that the United States could not see any European power acquire them either with or without the consent of Spain. "And the forbear ance of the United States in regard to them may be fully reUed on from their known justice, from their patience and moderation heretofore exhibited, and from their established pacific policy. If the acquisition of Cuba were desirable to the United States, there is be lieved to be no reasonable prospect of effecting at this conjunction that object. And if there were any the frankness of their diplomacy, which has induced the President freely and fully to disclose our views both to Great Britain and France, forbids absolutely any movement whatever at this time with such a pur pose." This he said was "almost equivalent to an actual guarantee of the islands to Spain. But we can enter into no stipulations by treaty to guarantee them."*' This declaration against any treaty guaranty was in reply to a suggestion which Everett had made in a despatch of January i preceding that he thought Spain might like to have the United States or the Spanish- American states offer to guarantee to Spain the pos session of the islands in return for recognizing the in dependence of the continental states. It had been in 33 Clay to Everett, April 13, 1826, MS., Department of State, Instructions, XI, 21 ; extract in House Executive Documents, 32 congress, I session, number 121, page 18. CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN 1 49 the latter part of September, 1825, that Everett had found his first opportunity to approach the Spanish government with the suggestion that the United States would like to see Spain make peace with and recog nize the independence of her former possessions, as he had been instructed by Clay in April of that year. The Spanish minister, Zea, had listened respectfully but had replied most positively that the king would never abandon his claim to the colonies; that the in dependent party was not so strong in them as was gen erally supposed and a reversion to the Spanish cause was expected ; that the cause of Spain was just and for that reason Providence would interpose in Spain's be half ; and that the king was ready to sacrifice every thing rather than surrender what he knew to be his right. Everett expressed his regret but considered it useless to enter into an extended argument.** On Oc tober 20, 1825, Everett reported that the Spanish gov ernment had just learned for the first time of the overture which the United States had made to Russia asking that power to use its good offices to bring about peace. At Zea's request Everett had told what he knew of the instruction to Middleton. Zea " re plied that these proceedings of the government of the United States placed him under the necessity of de claring, in the most positive manner, the King's un alterable resolution never to abandon his rights, and to reject all offers of mediation, or of amicable inter- 3* Everett to Clay, September 25, 1825, American State Pa pers, Foreign, V, 795 ; British and Foreign State Papers, XIII, 432- 150 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN vention, which should contemplate an acknowledge ment of the independence of the new states." He added that Spain was ever ready to listen to any pro posal or treat those states with the greatest indul- ence on the basis of a retum to their former allegi ance.*^ Late in November Everett told of a minis terial change which he had for a time hoped might cause Spain to listen more favorably to the mediation ; but he found that the sentiment had not changed though the Duke del Infantado, the new minister, was less positive in his declarations.*" In his letter of January i, alluded to above, Everett told of the reorganization of the Council of State with a number of prominent American loyalists among its member ship and said he hoped this indicated a more favorable attitude toward the new states ; but there was no cer tainty that it did.*' Before the ministerial change Zea had asked Everett to put in writing a statement of the principles upon which his govemment based its attitude. After that change the Duke del Infantado expressed his willingness to receive such a statement. Everett was very careful and very deliberate in pre paring his note. Finally on January 20, 1826, he pre sented it. It contained more than twelve thousand words, reviewing at great length the revolt of the col- 35 Everett to Clay, October 20, 1825, American State Papers, Foreign, V, 795 ; British and Foreign State Papers, XIII, 433. 33 Everett to Clay, November 21, 1825, American State Papers, Foreign, V, 879; British and Foreign State Papers, XIII, 439. 37 Everett te Clay, January i, 1826, American State Papers, Foreign, V, 880; British and Foreign State Papers, XIII, 441. CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN 151 onies and the attitude of the United States toward the new states and toward Spain, and enlarging upon all of the arguments which Clay had suggested to in duce Spain to recognize the continental states in order to save to herself the possession of the islands.** Everett had tried to learn from the Russian minis ter at Madrid what the attitude of the Russian gov ernment was toward the proposal of the United States that the emperor should try to induce Spain to recog nize the new states ; but d'Oubril, the Russian envoy, was very guarded in his language. He would not admit that the emperor intended to encourage Spain to persist in her policy; but Everett said it was gen erally understood that Russia's influence was being so employed.*" On April 21, 1826, Clay asked Middleton to ascer tain from the Russian government what had been done by it with reference to the proposed mediation, saying Everett's reports indicated that the Russian minister's influence at Madrid seemed to favor the continuance of the war."" A little more than a month later, in tell ing Middleton that the Colombian government had 88 Everett to Duke del Infantado, January 20, 1826, Ameri can State Papers, Foreign, VI, 1006; British and Foreign State Papers, XVI, 856. 89 Everett to Clay, October 20, 1825, as cited in note 85, above. On December 12 Everett wrote that word from Brown at Paris indicated a favorable reception at St. Peters burg ef Middleton's overture and a prospect fer a favorable effect. "" Clay to Middleton, April 21, 1826, MS., Department of State, Instructions, XI, 23. 152 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN agreed to suspend hostilities against Cuba, Clay said : " You will avail yourself of this note to urge the Rus sian government to new efforts to bring about peace, as well as to let you know the result of those which you expected would be employed at the instance of the late Emperor in the course of the last summer.""! But notwithstanding these suspicions and indica tions to the contrary, Russia's influence at Madrid had been pacific, although it had yielded no results. In June, 1826, Rocafuerte in London wrote his gov ernment that England and the United States were ad vocating the cause of the new states with vigor; and France, Austria, and Russia were in accord and urging Spain to yield to reason and circumstances."^ In July Everett wrote Clay that the Russian minister at Madrid had told him of receiving new instructions to urge Spain to give an answer to the overtures which he had made the preceding October when he handed to the Spanish court a copy of Clay's letter to Middle- ton requesting Russia's mediation. As an additional motive the minister was now asked by his govern ment to urge the effort of the United States, hitherto successful, to restrain the new states from attacking "1 Clay to Middleton, May 26, 1826, MS., Department of State, Instructions, XI, 81. "2 Rocafuerte to Secretario, 10 de junio de 1826, MS., Rela ciones Exteriores. Everett had told Clay on October 20, 1825 (see note 85), that he had learned from the British min ister at Madrid that the British government was making no attempt to influence the decision of Spain. He said that France and some other European powers were trying to pre vail on Spain te alter her policy. CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN I 53 Cuba. In keeping with these new instructions d'Oubril had urged the Spanish cabinet to give a reply, but without effect."* Middleton wrote Clay, also in July, 1826, that Nesselrode had declared in reply to his inquiry that the original request of Clay had been for warded at once to Madrid, accompanied by observa tions which should have assured a favorable recep tion, but that no reply had been given. Notwith standing the fact that the Russian envoy had again been instructed to urge Spain to make reply, since courtesy demanded a reply from Russia to the United States, still no reply had come."* Two months later Middleton said he felt sure that for the entire year the counsels of Russia to Spain had been pacific ; and that it could have been only through a misapprehen sion that the Russian minister at Madrid was thought to be exerting an influence adverse to peace."^ Maltitz, the Russian representative in Washington, told Clay in November, 1826, that the Emperor Alexander had instructed d'Oubril to urge Spain to consider the pro posal of the United States and give an answer; that d'Oubril had scrupulously executed the instructions; and that the present Emperor Nicholas had twice instructed d'Oubril to the same effect."" In reply to "3 Everett to Clay, July 7, 1826, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. This letter and those cited in the four following notes were enclosed with Obregon te Secretario, 9 de abril de 1827. "* Middleton to Clay, July 18/30, 1826, MS., Relaciones Ex teriores. "5 Middleton te Clay, September 8/20, 1826, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. "« Maltitz te Clay, November 18/30, 1826, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. 154 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN the last. Clay said it was gratifying to know that the new emperor was pursuing the same policy as the old ; and affirmed that the policy of the United States with regard to Cuba and Porto Rico remained un changed. But, he added, although the new states at the request of the United States had refrained from attacking the islands, yet Spain had sent a formidable new fleet from Havana to attack those states. If Spain should persist in this policy and the new states should find it necessary for their own safety to at tack the islands the United States could not then inter pose, except in their own interests."' Although Clay's efforts with Spain seconded by European powers had proved fruitless, his efforts with Colombia and Mexico were proving more successful. At the end of May, 1826, Poinsett had written that President Victoria had created a sensation by making a statement in his message to Congress which indi cated that the projected expedition against Cuba had been abandoned for the present at least. In view of the fact that the matter was to be discussed at the congress at Panama the Mexican government had shown some anxiety to know what the attitude of the United States would be in case the invasion of Cuba should be decided on by that congress. Poinsett thought a firm stand taken by the United States would prevent such decision."* Thus Mexico had practicaUy "' Clay te Maltitz, December 23, 1826, MS., Relaciones Ex teriores. "8 Poinsett te Clay, May 31, 1826, MS., Department ef State, Despatches from Mexico, I. CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN 155 complied with Clay's request though it had not prom ised to do so and no official communication of the fact had been made. Colombia not only complied with the request but sent through the American minister at Bogota an express declaration that the projected in vasion had been postponed until the sense of the congress at Panama should be known."" It was to look to the interests of the United States respecting Cuba and Porto Rico which President Adams urged as the chief reason for the United States sending representatives to the congress at Panama. In the congressional discussions in the spring of 1826 over the Panama mission the fate of Cuba and Porto Rico was also the matter of most vital concern. The nearness of Cuba to the southern states, the presence there of a large slave population, the certainty that the slaves would be liberated if Cuban independence should be established by the new states, and the dire consequences that might ensue in the southem states as a result, made it imperative that the government should be vitally concerned in the matter. The repre sentatives of the United States were pledged by Adams's promises to Congress to use their influence to restrain the new states from attacking the islands.!"" The representative whom England was invited to "" Clay to Poinsett, June 23, 1826, MS., Department ef State, Instructions, XI, 139. 100 Por discussions of the Panama mission in its relations to the interests of the United States in Cuba, see Chadwick, United States and Spain, Diplomacy, 209-215 ; and Callahan, Cuba and International Relations, 153-156. 156 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN send to Panama was instructed to pursue a very dif ferent course. Canning apparently hoped thereby to gain favor with the new states and increase their al ready existing suspicion of the motives of the United States. After reminding that representative that the United States, France, and Great Britain all earnestly desired that Cuba remain a colony of Spain, he de clared that the last, " so far from denying the right of the new states of America to make a hostile attack upon Cuba, . . . uniformly refused to join with the United States in remonstrating with Mexico and Co lombia against the supposed intention, or intimating that we should feel displeasure at the execution of it. We should indeed regret it but we arrogate to our selves no right to control the operations of one bellig erent against another. The government of the United States however professes itself of a different opinion. It conceives that the interests of the United States would be so directly affected by either the occupation of Havana by an invading force, or by the conse quences which an attack upon Cuba, even if success ful, might produce in the interior of the island, that the cabinet of Washington hardly disguises its inten tion to interfere directly, and by force, to prevent or repress such an operation. Neither England nor France could see with indifference the United States in occupation of Cuba."!"! 1"! Canning to Dawkins, March 18, 1826, quoted by Tem perley, American Historical Review, XI, 792. Temperley says that Vaughn, the English minister at Washington, had actually suggested to Clay an interference by the United States te dis- CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN I 57 As is well known the congress at Panama amounted to very little. Neither the English nor the American representatives were present. Only a few of the Spanish-American countries were represented. Poin sett wrote : " I have been assured that, although the present condition of the islands of Cuba and Puerto suade Mexico and Colombia from attacking Cuba; but that Canning disavowed the act and wrote Vaughn fresh instruc tions, saying, " If it had been intended that you should treat ... in a matter so delicate, as the proposed interference of neutral powers to controul the legitimate operations of bel ligerents against each ether, you would not have been left without instructions, upon a point of as much novelty, as delicacy and importance. If the United States think their interests likely to be affected by the continuance of the war between Spain and the new transatlantick States they are probably right, and perfectly at liberty to employ their good offices to bring about a pacification. " We have long endeavored to do so but in vain ; and Spain has been uniformly the recusant party. If the United States think that particular interests of their own require that a certain operation of war should not be undertaken by one of the belligerents, — it is a question, and a very nice one for them, . . . but it is manifest that we have net the like interest either te induce or to justify us in so unusual an interposi tion. ... If it be merely the interests of the United States that are concerned, that ground of interference can enly be long te them, nor is there any obligation on us, to share the odium of such an interposition." Ibid., 791, citing a Public Record Office MS. See above, note 92, for Everett's statement of what he had learned at Madrid concerning England's attitude. Callahan, Cuba and International Relations, 144, says that England had in 1824 and 1825 made several attempts to dissuade Mexico and Colombia from this very movement against Cuba. See the preceding chapter en British influence in Mexico for Canning's opposition to the influence of the United States. 158 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN Rico was considered by the American plenipotentiaries at Panama, to be incompatible with the safety of these countries, and the policy of subduing them by force formed a frequent topic of conversation in that as sembly, still no decisive measures with respect to them were resolved upon, nor are they mentioned in the secret convention concluded between the Spanish American states. The plenipotentiaries were prob ably deterred from acting upon this very important subject both by the language which has been held by the president [of the United States] with regard to these islands, and by the inability of the governments of Mexico and Colombia, at this time, to undertake any expensive expedition."!"^ A month later Poin sett wrote: "Although the secret treaty of Panama contains no direct provisions respecting Cuba, still it is understood that its ratification will, by combining the two squadrons of Mexico and Colombia, enable this governraent to undertake the long projected expe dition against that island."!"* Cuban patriots in Mexico did not yet abandon hope of obtaining help in freeing their island. Adopting a plan that had been successfully employed to get funds in various European states to promote the recent revo lution in Greece, a group of Cubans residing in Vera Cruz made, in October, 1826, a systematic appeal to i"2 Poinsett to Clay, September 23, 1826, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, II ; British and Foreign State Papers, XIII, 990. i"3 Poinsett to Clay, October 21, 1825, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, II. CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN I 59 all lovers of liberty to contribute privately funds to equip an expedition. A collector was named for each state of the Mexican federation. In most cases he was a high official. For example, Esteva, secretary of the national treasury, was made collector for the Federal District. Money thus collected was to be for warded to an agent in New York to be used in pur chasing supplies for an expedition. Nothing of im portance came from their plans.!"* Again in May, 1827, Poinsett said a new report had come "that an expedition is fitting out in Colom bia for the invasion of either Cuba or Porto Rico," and he would not be surprised if something of the kind would yet be attempted. The Mexican govem ment would view such an attempt with great jeal ousy.!"^ ^^ ^j^g same time Obregon in Washington was urging his government to seize Cuba, arguing that Spanish dominion in the islands was incompatible with the tranquility and welfare of Mexico and there was 1"* Lemus to Commandant de Queretaro, Veracruz, 9 de octu bre de 1826, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. In most of the states the Commandant General was chosen. A copy of this letter was sent to each. Before accepting the charge these officials consulted the central government. See Pedraza, secretario de guerre, to secretario de relaciones, 27 de octubre de 1826, enclosing a letter from the Commandant de Queretaro dated 24 de octubre de 1826, and a copy ef Lemus to the latter, cited above. Sanchez y Core to Secretario, Guadalajara, 18 de noviembre de 1826, says that a deputy in the congress of the state of Jalisco had been asked to collect funds for the Cuban Junta, and asks advice. All these are in MS., Relaciones Exteriores. i"5 Poinsett to Clay, May 12, 1827, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, II. l6o CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN no other way to terminate the war. Furthermore he declared that if it should faU into the hands of some other European power it would endanger Mexico; but if possessed by Mexico it would balance Euro pean influence in the Antilles.!"" Poinsett wrote in December that the Mexican government was prepar ing to send the fleet to Cartagena to join that of Co lombia; but he understood that it was with the inten tion of sailing against the coast of Spain instead of attacking Cuba.i"' The most serious obstacle which had hitherto stood in the way of the Mexican execu tive's sending the expedition to Cuba was removed by a law of May 12, 1828, granting permission for the executive at its discretion to send national troops out side the bounds of the republic, mentioning as the ex press purpose the waging of war against the island of Cuba or other points still dependent on the govern ment of Spain.!"* g^^ jj^ ^j^jg yg^,. 1828 a period of internal disorder and factional strife began in both Mexico and Colombia which rendered any foreign enterprise impracticable. In 1827 another danger had threatened Cuba and 1°" Obregon to Secretario, 9 de abril de 1827, MS., Rela ciones Exteriores. The next month he told of a Cuban named Montenegro whom he had met in Philadelphia and who, he thought, would be useful te Mexico in any enterprise against Cuba. Same to same, 18 de maye de 1827, ibid. 1"' Poinsett to Clay, December 6, 1827, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, III. i"8 Mexico, Leyes, Decretos, y Ordenes que forman el Derecho International, 1164 It is addressed to Pedraza, sec retario de guerra, and signed by the president and secretary of each of the chambers of Congress. CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN l6l had given Adams and Clay considerable anxiety for a time. There was a probability that England and Spain would be involved in war over their conflicting policies and interests in Portugal. On October 6, 1826, Canning wrote Liverpool: "One single word I must add in the deepest secrecy. God forbid war; but if Spain will have it, ought not we to think of the Havannah? Where else can we strike a blow? and what other blow would be so effectual? It would settle all better than half a dozen Peninsular cam paigns."!"" Gallatin then in London was approached by the Mexican minister, it seems, with a suggestion to make Cuba independent under the joint guaranty of Great Britain and all of the American states. It is said that Gallatin favored the plan and recommended it to Clay ; and that he also approached Canning on the matter but found him noncommittal.!!" In spite of Canning's secrecy his plans became known. On August 17, 1827, Everett in Madrid wrote Clay that England was planning to effect a revolution in the Canary islands and Cuba in order "to establish the British influence in these islands [and] in the end, probably, to obtain territorial possession of them." The sources of information were such, Everett thought, as to leave no doubt of the facts.!!! Everett 1"" Canning te Liverpool, October 6, 1826, in Stapleton, Offi cial Correspondence of Canning, II, 144. 11" Callahan, Cuba and International Relations, 157. Ill Everett te Clay, August 17, 1827, House Executive Docu ments, 32 congress, i session, number 121, page 19. As evi dence, Everett enclosed a copy, which had been given him in 12 1 62 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN took advantage of the first good opportunity that pre sented itself to declare to the Spanish govemment, " it is impossible for them [the United States] to view with indifference these movements of the British gov ernment, considering it, as they do, as a settled prin ciple that the island of Cuba must in no event, and under no pretext, pass into the possession of, or under the protection of, any European power other than Spain."!!2 Adams and Clay thought this danger together with that which was threatening from Mexico and Colom bia justified them in sending a secret agent to Havana to report confidentially on the sentiment in the islands toward the various nations concerned. Besides re peating the instructions which he had written for a secret agent late in 1825, Clay asked this agent to learn what the attitude of the inhabitants would be toward a colonial connection with Great Britain, in case the existing relations of that power and Spain should result in war and England should attack Ha the strictest confidence, ef a despatch dated June i from the Spanish minister at London. That minister had said that the information had been given to him by the Duke of Welling ton. Everett said it was strange that the duke should have revealed such ; but thought it " was probably owing to the strong feeling of disgust and bitterness with which he has been inspired by the late change in the administration." See also Chadwick, United States and Spain, Diplomacy, 216. 112 Everett to Salmon, December 10, 1827, enclosed with Everett to Clay, December 12, 1827, House Executive Docu ments, 32 congress, i session, number 121, pages 22 and 21. And see Chadwick, United States and Spain, Diplomacy, 217. CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN 1 63 vana; and he was also to learn the Spanish means for resisting such attack."* During the last year of the Adams-Clay adminis tration anxiety concerning Cuba was not entirely re lieved; but no important diplomatic communications passed. The Jackson administration continued prac tically unchanged the policy of their predecessors. In October, 1829, Van Buren said to Van Ness, the new minister to Madrid : " As it is not impossible that Spain, in her present embarrassed and dependent situation, might be induced to yield her assent to a temporary occupation of it [Cuba], as a pledge for the fulfill ment of her engagements, or to part with her right of property in it for other considerations affording immediate relief in the hour of her distress it is the wish of the President that the same watchfulness which had engaged the attention of your predecessors in relation to this subject should be continued during your administration of the affairs of the legation." He was told that the United States could not enter into engagements to guarantee the possession of Cuba to Spain; but, alluding to the danger from Mexico 113 Clay te Daniel P. Cook, March 12, 1827, MS., Depart ment of State, Instructions, XI, 267. This shows that Adams and Clay were aware of the English designs long before the information from Everett came. For the instructions te Robertson in 1825, see above, this chapter, and note 68. The former agent did not go; but Cook went, had several inter views with the Spanish governor, Vives, and reported. This confidential mission was the subject for a congressional inves tigation in the next year, and occasioned considerable embar rassment for the administration. Adams, Memoirs, VIII, 20-21. 164 CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN and Colombia, Van Buren declared: "This govem ment has every reason to believe that the same influence which once averted the blow ready to fall upon the Spanish islands would again be found effectual on the recurrence of similar events."!!* In this same month of October Poinsett told of a new movement of the Mexican government the purpose of which, he thought, was to incite a slave revolt in Cuba.!!' gj^ ^eeks later Van Buren instructed Butler, who was to replace Poinsett at Mexico, to remonstrate against the alleged intention of Mexico to excite the slave rebellion."" Late in 1830 the minister at Madrid was told that Mexico had given "assurance that no such measures will, in any event be resorted to." In this same letter he was told that the new states had given notice that if Spain persisted in her refusal to make peace and recognize them, they would find it necessary to attack the islands. In view of this he reaffirmed the position of Adams and Clay that the United States was content to have Cuba remain in the possession of Spain ; could not consent to its transfer to any European power ; and greatly pre ferred that it should not pass to either of the South American states ; but " the President does not see on 1!^ Van Buren to Van Ness, October 2, 1829, House Execu tive Documents, 32 congress, i session, number 121, pages 27 and 28. !!= Poinsett to Van Buren, October 14 1829, MS., Depart ment of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. 113 Van Buren to Poinsett, November 30, 1829, enclosing the despatch to Butler, MS., Department of State, Instructions, -XIV, 148. CUBA SAVED TO SPAIN 1 65 what ground he would be justified in interfering with any attempts which the South American states might think it for their interest, in the prosecution of a de fensive war, to make upon the islands," unless the slaves should be armed."' "'Van Buren to Van Ness, October 13, 1830, House Ex ecutive Documents, 32 congress, i session, number 121, page 28. CHAPTER V Diplomacy Concerning the Opening of the Santa Fe Trail Among the early matters to furnish occasion for diplomatic communications between Poinsett and the Mexican government was one providing for the sur vey, marking out, and protection of a road leading from the frontier settlements of the United States on the Missouri river to the nearest settlements in New Mexico. In the years immediately foUowing the col lapse of Spanish power in Mexico the trade which had previously maintained a precarious and fitful ex istence by way of this route grew by leaps and bounds.! 1 The purpose here is te study the diplomatic relations be tween the United States and Mexico concerning the opening of the Santa Fe Road. No attempt is made to trace the growth, extent, or importance of the Santa F6 trade. Much less is any space given to recounting the hardships suffered by the traders or the many interesting and tragic events of which they left accounts. A brief summary of such matters may be found in Bancroft's " History ef Arizona and New Mexico," page 329 and following. In the footnotes to these pages Bancroft gives the sources which he used. One of the most extensive, interesting, and important ef them, Josiah Gregg's " Commerce of the Prairies, er the Journal of a Santa Fe Trader during eight Expeditions, . . ." in two volumes. Second Edition, published by Langley, New York, 1845, has recently been made easily available in the collection of re prints of " Early Western Travels " by the late R. G. Thwaites, published by A. H. Clark Company, 1905, volumes XIX and 166 OPENING OF THE SANTA FE TRAIL 1 67 Under Spanish dominion it had been hampered by the usual unreasonable restrictions. In the period of un certainty and confusion during the rapidly changing provisional governments in Mexico between 1821 and 1824 these restrictions were not enforced. They were not, however, formally removed. Neither did the of ficials at Mexico welcome the news of the growing intercourse on the far northern frontier.^ About the middle of 1823, Torrens, the Mexican charge at Washington, reported that an expedition was about to set out from Kentucky for Santa Fe. Its purpose seemed to be to open up a mine which had been discovered. It appeared too that they were going to take with them wagons loaded with merchandise. He thought that if orders were not given to prohibit or regulate this traffic numberless other adventurers would soon undertake it. If so they would introduce a contraband trade, and would trick the simple na tives into parting with their scanty earnings.* Two months later, he said, a subsequent report had stated that the mine which the expedition was intended to exploit was within the limits of the United States.* XX. Henry Inman's " Old Santa Fe Trail," Maemillan Com pany, 1898, repeats many of Gregg's most exciting stories and adds others. 2 Bancroft, History of Arizona and New Mexico, 329, incorrectly says : " With the end of Spanish rule ceased all opposition to the traffic en the part of the Mexican authorities." 3 Torrens to Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores, 21 de junio de 1823, La Diplomacia Mexicana, II, 13. * Torrens te Secretario, 21 de agosto de 1823, La Diplomacia Mexicana, II, 21. 1 68 DIPLOMACY CONCERNING THE Shortly after receiving the first of these notes from Torrens, the government at Mexico sent instructions concerning the matter to the political chief of New Mexico. He was told that both the working of the mine and the contraband trade in which Torrens thought the expedition from Kentucky would engage were contrary to the laws; and that foreigners were expressly prohibited from working mines until they should have become naturalized citizens. He was in structed to see that the regulations governing these matters be enforced and that the establishment of foreigners there be prevented until a colonization law should be passed establishing rules for their admis sion.^ Toward the end of the same year Torrens re ported that a mercantUe expedition to Santa Fe had returned with more than four hundred horses and mules, a quantity of beaver skins, and a considerable amount of money." ] With the substitution in 1824 of trains of wagons for the earUer trains of mules or other pack-animals the trade passed the experimental stage and henceforth attracted the attention of merchants with more capital to invest and more influence. Memorials from Mis souri people demanded provision for and protection of the trade. In January, 1825, Senator Benton in troduced a biU into Congress (which was passed shortly after and approved on the last day of the Monroe ad- " Alaman te Jefe Politico de Nuevo Mexico, 20 de agosto de 1823, La Diplomacia Mexicana, II, 17. 3 Torrens to Secretario, 16 de diciembre de 1823, La Diplo macia Mexicana, II, 70. OPENING OF THE SANTA FE TRAIL 1 69 ministration) providing for a commission to survey and mark out a road from the Missouri river to the Arkansas river, which was the international boundary according to the treaty with Spain. The President was also authorized to cause the marking of the road to be continued from the boundary to Santa Fe under regulations to be agreed upon between the two gov ernments. The consent of the Indian tribes along the route was to be obtained for the marking of the road and its use by citizens of the United States and Mexico. Treaties were to be made with the Indians pledging protection for them.' The measures taken by the Congress of the United States early in 1825 to establish and protect the trade with northern Mexico were watched with jealous in terest by Obregon, who had reached Washington in the preceding autumn as minister from Mexico. He reported that the commerce from Missouri was attract ing much attention ; that consuls had been appointed to go to Santa Fe, Chihuahua, and Saltillo to look after the interests of the traders ; that no salaries were pro vided for them ; and that, since the fees would be in sufficient to support them, they were to be permitted to engage in trade themselves. These facts and the character of the persons who' were likely to desire such posts made it certain, he thought, that contraband trade would be engaged in. This necessitated the es tablishment at St. Louis of a Mexican consul to watch ' For the text of the bill, see Gales and Seaton's Register ef Debates, 18 congress, 2 session, I, appendix, 102. See also Bancroft, History of Arizona and New Mexico, 333. 170 DIPLOMACY CONCERNING THE the trade, and to prevent fraud and the introduction of Anglo-American settlers.* On the receipt of this letter from Obregon the government at Mexico ap proved the establishment of a Mexican consul at St. Louis ; and said that the United States consuls which had been appointed for Santa Fe, Chihuahua, and Sal tillo would not be granted their exequaturs until the treaty between the two countries establishing provi sions for the purpose had been agreed upon." Obre gon had been instructed to undertake no negotiation for such a treaty, and was told that it would have to await the arrival in Mexico of the minister whom the United States government was sending to Mexico. The instructions which Poinsett had received just before his departure for Mexico included a copy of the act of Congress providing for the road. He was asked to assure the Mexican government that the pro ject for the construction of this road had originated in a spirit of friendship for Mexico and a desire to open up commerce and friendly intercourse between the two countries by way of that route. It was sup posed. Clay added, that Mexico would be willing to bear the expense of constructing the road within Mex ican territory .1° On June 17, 1825, a Uttle more than two weeks * Obregon to Secretario, 30 de marzo de 1825, MS., Rela ciones Exteriores. " Secretario to Obregon, 28 de maye de 1825, MS., Rela ciones Exteriores. i"Clay to Poinsett, March 26, 1825, MS., Department ef State, Instructions, X. OPENING Ot THE SANTA FE TRAIL 17I after Poinsett's reception by the President of Mexico, he addressed Alaman on the subject of the road, en closing a copy of the act of Congress. He said that three commissioners had been appointed by the Presi dent of the United States and were proceeding to their work; that they were not to pass the boundary until an agreement had been reached with Mexico for the purpose ; and that although the boundary was not yet agreed upon between the United States and Mexico yet the road was for mutual benefit and it would make little difference so far as it was concerned where the boundary should ultimately be located. He em phasized the friendly spirit in which the enterprise had been undertaken, and said he was authorized to receive from the Mexican government propositions for its completion and for regulating intercourse be tween the two countries. He described the route hitherto taken by the caravans, named the Indian tribes along it, told of the treaties being made with them, and said that the enterprise would probably have a wholesome effect on the Indians.!! In his despatch to Clay of the next day enclosing a copy of this note, Poinsett said that Alaman was opposed to making any arrangement with reference to the proposed road until the question of the boundary line should be settled.!* It was more than a month after receiving Poinsett's 11 Poinsett to Alaman, June 17, 1825, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. A copy of the same is in MS., Relaciones Exteriores. 12 Poinsett to Clay, June 18, 1825, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. 172 DIPLOMACY CONCERNING THE note before the Mexican government replied. On July 20 Alaman said that he had delayed in the hope of being able to make proposals at the same time concerning other very important related matters ; that it would not be easy to separate the negotiations con cerning the road from those concerning limits and a general commercial treaty ; that the Mexican govern ment was convinced that the road would be useful and beneficial for both countries ; and that Mexico would be disposed to concur in the plan of the United States. But the President thought that it would be better to undertake first the negotiation of the treaties of com merce and limits, leaving the arrangement for the road as a dependent matter.!* jj^ j^jg despatch transmitting Alaman's note to Washington, Poinsett said he feared that the Mexicans were resolved to postpone marking out the road until a commission should have examined that portion of the country with a view to the settle ment of the boundary line.i* On July 27, in replying to Alaman's note, Poinsett said that he regretted the delay it would cause in marking out the road if the 13 Alaman to Poinsett, July 20, 1825, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. The same in Spanish is in MS., Relaciones Exteriores. In this note Alaman declared the unwillingness of Mexico te make a boundary treaty until a commission should be sent to examine the country near the proposed boundary. He suggested that this should be a joint commission, and that it should be charged with completing the construction of the road. See below, the chapter on Texas and the Boundary Issue, and also that on Negotiations for a Commercial Treaty. 1* Poinsett to Clay, July 22, 1825, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. OPENING OF THE SANTA FE TRAIL 1 73 Mexican government should insist on concluding first the treaties of commerce and limits, or on waiting until a commission should explore the country; and that such postponement would injure the profitable commerce just coming into existence between New Mexico and the western states of the United States. He still hoped, he said, that the President of Mexico would alter his determination and authorize Alaman to enter into negotiations on the subject of the road.!^ About two weeks passed after receiving Poinsett's note before Alaman responded to it. In the mean time information had come which strengthened the determination of the Mexican government. On August 5 that government had received from the governor of Chihuahua a report concerning the north eastern frontier country. This report had been written on May 13 in response to a request which the govern ment had made on April 19 preceding. It described the country drained by the Missouri and the Arkansas rivers, telling of the contour and appearance of the prairie lands, of the numerous rivers affording drain age and water communication, of the crops for which the region was adapted, of the birds and animals, and of the Indian tribes inhabiting the country. The Anglo-Americans, he said, knew the region better than the Spaniards and Mexicans did ; and because they knew of its resources they had taken advantage of Spanish ignorance to obtain it. The government of the United 15 Poinsett to Alaman, July 27, 1825, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. The same is in MS., Rela ciones Exteriores. 174 DIPLOMACY CONCERNING THE States was encouraging settlement in this country, the writer of the report added, and he thought the plan to open commerce with Mexico was for the purpose of fostering such settlements. When the old restric tions were relaxed, he said that goods began to come from the United States into the northern Mexican set tlements at one third of their former cost; and that because of this the people welcomed the Anglo-Amer icans. He thought this trade would help to civilize the troublesome Indians, and would be to the advan tage of the distant and detached territory of New Mexico; but he believed the consequent increase of Anglo-Americans in the neighboring territory of the United States might crowd more Indians back on the unprotected Mexican frontier. He thought that an effort should be made to preserve harmony with the United States; but that only such advantages should be conceded as would be compatible with Mexican interests. The country on the Mexican side, he de clared, should be colonized by Mexico, and for this purpose an increase of forces was needed.!" 13 Governor Urquidi of Chihuahua to Secretario, 13 de mayo de 1825, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. The transcript of the report of which this is a condensed translation covers seven typewritten pages. Accompanying this report in the archives are numerous orders to various officials enclosing copies of it or portions of it and commenting on its signifi cance. The most interesting is that to the secretary for war ef August 5, 1825, asking that the necessary precautionary measures be taken. On October 26, following, Pedraza of the war department wrote to the office of foreign relations saying that troops had been sent to Chihuahua and New Mexico. OPENING OF THE SANTA FE TRAIL 175 It was on August lo, five days after receiving this report, that Alaman wrote in reply to Poinsett's note of July 27, saying that the President found it impos sible to hasten the time for concluding the arrange ments concerning the road. He said that it would help to shorten the necessary delay and make it pos sible to afford some protection in the meantime, if Poinsett would be so kind as to report as soon as pos sible the results of the United States commission which was surveying the portion of the road on their side of the present boundary.!' jj^ transmitting Ala man's note to Clay, Poinsett said that he had made no further proposition since he considered it useless.!* When Clay received Poinsett's reports of the diffi culties that he was encountering in trying to get the Mexican government to consent to the opening of the 1^ Alaman to Poinsett, August 10, 1825, MS., Department of State, Duplicate Despatches from Poinsett. The same in Spanish is in MS., Relaciones Exteriores. Having decided to postpone the opening of the road, it is interesting to notice the additional reason which Alaman discovered and urged. Poin sett had tried to spur the Mexicans to activity by saying that if the matter were not soon arranged still further delay would be occasioned because it would be necessary for Congress to act again and make additional provision. Alaman now said that because of the similarity ef the Mexican constitution to that of the United States it would be necessary fer the presi dent of Mexico to submit to the Mexican Congress the matter ef the road, just as the United States Congress had acted on the measure. But that could not be done until the next regu lar session, since the existing special session was prohibited by the constitution from considering any matter not named in the call for the special session. 1* Poinsett to Clay, August 17, 1825, MS., Department of State, Duplicate Despatches from Poinsett. 176 DIPLOMACY CONCERNING THE road, he said in reply that the President of the United States regretted to leam of the reluctance of Mexico to agree to the measure. Clay declared that the road was intended for purely commercial purposes, and that no misconception could be greater than that it had originated in a desire for territorial acquisition. The road, he added, would be to the advantage of both countries; and if either could lose anything it would probably be the United States, since many en terprising citizens were Ukely to be induced to emi grate to the Mexican provinces. He observed that the road already existed in fact. It was merely pro posed to render it plainer and more useful.!" The local authorities in New Mexico were vitally interested in the trade with the Anglo-Americans. In September, 1825, Storrs, one of the citizens of the United States who was then at Santa Fe, and whose report of the preceding year had been presented to Congress by Senator Benton early in 1825 when the latter was urging his bills for protecting the trade, wrote to Narbona, the governor of New Mexico, in reply to inquiries received shortly before. After an swering specific questions concerning the trade and concerning the reports which he had made to his own govemment about it, Storrs insisted that the traders from the United States had not knowingly violated any of the laws of Mexico. He emphasized the sym pathy which the United States had shown for the Spanish-American states while they were struggling 1" Clay to Poinsett, September 24 1825, MS., Department of State, Instructions, X, 225. OPENING OF THE SANTA FE TRAIL 1 77 against Spain ; cited the declaration of President Mon roe against the expected interference of the European powers to assist Spain; and declared that the desire to open the proposed road arose not merely out of a wish to profit from the trade but to bind closer the interests of the two sister republics.^" In the spring of 1825, Escudero, a member of the legislature of the state of Chihuahua, set out from the city of that name to travel in the United States. He was interested in the trade and wished to study the institutions of the neighboring republic. He went by way of El Paso and Santa Fe. On June 9, while at the latter place, he was given a commission by Baca, then political chief of New Mexico, authorizing him to enter into arrangements with the authorities in the United States to check robberies and murders by In dians along the borders.^! In accepting the commis sion Escudero said he would bear all of the expense himself.^^ After his arrival at St. Louis he entered into relations with WiUiam Clark, the superintendent of Indian affairs. The latter addressed a courteous note to Escudero on September 25 saying that the United States was desirous of seeing peace and secur ity maintained along the border, teUing of the com mission which was at that time engaged in marking 2" Augustus Storrs to Governor Narbona, Santa Fe, 25 de septiembre de 1825, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. 21 Baca to Escudero, Santa Fe, 9 de junio de 1825, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. 22 Escudero to Baca, Santa Fe, 9 de junio de 1825, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. 13 178 DIPLOMACY CONCERNING THE out the road and making treaties with the Indians for the protection of the citizens of both countries, and adding that there was a project on foot for establish ing a military post on the Arkansas to protect the trade route; but declaring that he had no power to treat with Escudero."* Obregon in Washington, seeing newspaper accounts of the arrival of Escudero at St. Louis and of his attempt to treat with the authorities there, sent a despatch concerning the matter to his gov ernment on October i.^* Another report was sent by Obregon on January 16, 1826, saying that Escudero had come on to Washington and had there endeavored to take up the matter with the government. After conferring with him Obregon was convinced that the commission which he bore did not confer on him authority sufficient to treat with the United States gov ernment. Escudero had thereupon abandoned his ef forts and returned to Mexico, asking Obregon to ex plain his mission to the govemment. Obregon added the suggestion that the central authorities at Mexico should inform the officials of the provinces concerning the proper method of treating with foreign powers.^^ As soon as Obregon's first report of the matter, dated October i, reached Mexico the central govem ment wrote to the poUtical chief of New Mexico de- 23 Clark to Escudero, St. Louis, September 25, 1825, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. 2* Obregon te Secretario, i de octubre de 1825, MS., Rela ciones Exteriores. 25 Obregon te Secretarie, 16 de enero de 1826, MS., Rela ciones Exteriores. OPENING OF THE SANTA F^k TRAIL 1 79 manding a full and circumstantial account of the mis sion.^" In the meantime Baca had been replaced at Santa Fe by Narbona. The latter referred the matter to the former, and on January 30, 1826, received a re ply enclosing a copy of the commission which had been conferred on Escudero on June 9, preceding. Baca gave as his motive his insatiable desire for the happi ness of the region. Furthermore, he explained that the expedition involved no cost to the government, since Escudero bore all of the expense himself.-' On February 4 Narbona despatched his predecessor's ex planation to the government at Mexico.^* The commission which the Congress at Washington had provided for early in 1825 was appointed on March 16, by James Barbour, secretary of war, and proceeded to survey the portion of the road within the Umits of the United States as established by the treaty with Spain. The commission consisted of George C. Sibley and two others.^" They employed a 23 Secretario to Jefe Politico, 9 de diciembre de 1825, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. 2' Baca to Narbona, Santa Fe, 30 de enero de 1826, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. 23 Narbona to Secretario, Santa Fe, 4 de febrero de 1826, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. In the documents Narbona is usually addressed as Governor instead of Political Chief, the term applied te Baca. For a brief account of Escudere's mission, see Bancroft, History of Arizona and New Mexico, 334. Hc says : " Not much is definitely stated as to the nature and results of this mission." 2" A copy of James Barbour to Benjamin H. Reeves, George C. Sibley, and Pierre Menard, Department of War, March 16, l80 DIPLOMACY CONCERNING THE surveyor and several assistants. The survey was be gun on June 17, 1825, at Fort Osage,*" on the Mis souri river. It was completed to the Arkansas river, a distance of 416 miles, by September 11. The docu ment which conferred the commission on them had informed them that arrangements would be made with the Mexican government for continuing their work from there to Santa Fe, and that additional instruc tions for the purpose would reach them by the time they got to the boundary so they could continue with out delay. But their instructions were not there. They waited eleven days hoping to receive some word concerning them. Then two of the commissioners and most of the party returned to Missouri ; but Sib ley and the surveyor and a few others went on to 1825, is enclosed with Poinsett to Alaman, June 17, 1825, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. Bancroft, History of Arizona and New Mexico, 334, and G. C. Broadhead, " The Santa Fe Trail " in Missouri Histor ical Review, IV, 314, both give Thomas Mather instead of Me nard as the third member of the commission. The treaties made with the Osage and the Kansas Indians in 1825 were signed by Reeves, Sibley, and Mather. See American State Papers, Indian Affairs, II, 610. Doubtless Menard did not accept the commission, or resigned, and Mather was appointed instead. J. C. Brown of St. Louis was employed as surveyor. Brown's " Field Notes," giving minute descriptions of the route, includ ing directions for travelers, distances between camping places, supplies ef fresh water and of wood fer fuel and other mat ters, have recently been published in the Eighteenth Biennial Report of the Kansas State Historical Society, 117-125. 3" Broadhead, in the Missouri Historical Review, IV, 314 says that Fert Osage was on the site of the present town of Sibley, Missouri, near the Missouri river, twenty-five miles east of the western boundary ef the state. OPENING OF THE SANTA FE TRAIL l8l Santa Fe to be ready to cooperate in the following spring in any measures which the Mexican govern ment might have taken by that time. Sibley reached the neighborhood of Santa Fe late in October. From there he wrote to Poinsett at Mex ico, telling what had been done, saying that the author ities in New Mexico had no instructions or advice con cerning the survey, and urging Poinsett to tell him as soon as possible what the government at Mexico in tended to do about the matter. He explained to Poinsett that the whole length of the proposed road would be about seven hundred and forty miles ; " and," he said, " in the whole distance there is not an obstruc tion that ten men cannot easily remove in a few hours. In fact there cannot be said to be any obstruction. The country is level and the surface is firm ; and, with the exception of some twelve or fifteen miles only, the whole distance is through an open prairie. ... A few hundred dollars will be sufficient to remove all ob structions that lie in the way in the mountains. And if the Mexican government will take measures to se cure the good conduct of the Indian tribes within their territory (who are in the habit of infesting the route and robbing traveUers who are engaged in this trade to and from Missouri), there cannot be a doubt but the establishment of this great national highway will prove greatly beneficial to the citizens of both repub lics, and particularly to those of New Mexico."*! 31 Sibley to Poinsett, San Fernando, New Mexico, Novem ber 12, i8^, enclosed with Poinsett te Camacho, Secretary of Foreign Relations, January i8, 1826, MS., Relaciones Exte riores. 1 82 DIPLOMACY CONCERNING THE After Sibley had been for about two months in New Mexico he submitted to Governor Narbona a report of his work and a map showing the route. Besides the facts contained in the report to Poinsett, this told of the treaties made with the Indian tribes within the United States and of the intention of the United States government to establish a military post on the Arkansas river for the protection of the route against Indian attacks, and suggested that the lawless Indians within the Mexican borders could be easily restrained by the establishment of two similar posts between the Arkansas and the mountains, for which suitable sites could be found. He added that he could not for a moment doubt that the govemment of Mexico would not only sanction the establishment of the contemplated road but would also take effective measures to secure it from the depredations of Indian tribes within its jurisdiction.32 On the next day after he had received Sibley's report Governor Narbona for warded it to the government at Mexico asking that the proper instructions be sent to him for dealing with the situation.®* On January i8, 1826, shortly after receiving Sib ley's letter of November 12, Poinsett handed it to the secretary for foreign relations. At the same time he communicated to the govemment the content of Clay's note of September 24, 1825, expressing the regret of 32 Sibley to Narbona, Santa Fe, January 5, 1826, MS., Rela ciones Exteriores. 33 Narbona to Secretario, Santa Fe, 6 de enero de 1826, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. OPENING OF THE SANTA FE TRAIL 1 83 the government of the United States at learning of the reluctance of the Mexican government to cooperate in opening the road, and saying that it was intended for purely commercial purposes and would have no effect whatever on the location of the boundary. To defer marking out the road, Poinsett added, and thereby deny to the merchants the benefit of it until a future arrangement could be made to which it had no neces sary relation did not seem politic or advisable. In conclusion Poinsett declared: "As the commissioners on the part of the United States are on the spot, I can not reject the hope that this government will revise its former decision on this subject and, if it does not aid the efforts of the commissioners of the United States, will at least permit them to accomplish the object of their appointment and complete the demarkation of this road from the frontier of New Mexico to the city of Santa Fe."** In writing to Clay on the samel day Poinsett said that the President of Mexico had submitted to the Congress the question of opening the road, and had promised to endeavor to obtain an early decision. But the deliberations of that body, Poinsett added, were interminable. However as soon as a decision should be reached he would communi cate it to the United States commissioner then wait ing at Santa Fe.*^ Three months more passed without a decision. Fi- 3* Poinsett to Camacho, January 18, 1826, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. 3= Poinsett te Clay, January 18, 1826, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. 1 84 DIPLOMACY CONCERNING THE nally on April 17, 1826, Poinsett wrote to the secretary for foreign relations saying that he was compelled again to bring to the latter's notice the matter of the opening of the road. He said that the commissioner of the United States, after waiting for several months at Santa Fe for an answer from the Mexican govern ment, was about to return to the state of Missouri. "It would be a subject of regret," he added, "that the expense of making the joumey to Santa Fe with surveyors and the necessary instruments should have been incurred in vain; and I beg Your Excellency to solicit the consent of His Excellency, the President of the United Mexican States, to the survey and marking out of the western section of the proposed road from Santa Fe to Missouri by Mr. Sibley on his retum homeward."*" A Uttle less than a month later, on May 13, 1826, the Mexican government wrote to Governor Narbona of New Mexico saying that in view of a note from the plenipotentiary of the United States the President of Mexico had decided to authorize Narbona to permit Mr. Sibley to survey the western part of the road. The work was to be limited, however, to the survey alone. He was not to cut down trees or erect marks along the route.*' On the same day, Poinsett was in formed of the orders which had been sent to the au thorities at Santa Fe. He was told that for the pres- 38 Poinsett to Secretary for Foreign Relations, April 17, 1826, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. 37 Secretario to Gobernador del Nuevo Mexico, 13 de mayo de 1826, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. OPENING OF THE SANTA FE TRAIL 1 85 ent it was impossible for the Mexican govemment to send an agent to cooperate with Mr. Sibley in the sur vey.** When these orders reached Santa Fe, Gover nor Narbona transmitted them on June 14 to Mr. Sib ley, who acknowledged them five days later, saying that he would determine what he should do, in view of the very restricted permission, as soon as his col leagues, who were expected soon, should arrive.*" The writer does not have at hand certain proof of just what was done by the commission on the retum. But it seems that the restricted instructions were obeyed to the letter, that the route was surveyed from the neighborhood of Santa Fe to the border on the Arkansas, but that no monuments were erected.*" 3* Camacho to Poinsett, 13 de mayo de 1826, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. An English translation of this note is in MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I, enclosed with Poinsett te Clay, May 17, 1826. 39 Sibley to Narbona, Taos, June 19, 1826, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. He acknowledges Narbona's note ef June 14, communicating the permission. Narbona to Secretario, 30 de junio de 1826, transmitted Sibley's reply te the government at Mexico. *" Broadhead, in Missouri Historical Review, IV, 315, says : " During 1826 the commissioners obtained authority from the Mexican government to examine routes in their territory; and a survey was begun at Fernando de Taos and ran to connect with the survey of the year before. ... A map of the survey was placed in the office of the War Department at Washington City and was seen there only a few years age.'' This article then goes en te describe two maps made by J. C. Brown, the surveyor employed by the commission, showing the route from Fort Osage to Santa Fe, and a third map showing the route from the United States boundary to Santa Fe. One of the first two, Broadhead says, is dated October 27, 1827, and bears 1 86 DIPLOMACY CONCERNING THE When Clay received Poinsett's report concerning the authorization which had been sent to Santa Fe for Sibley's return survey, he said: "The restricted per mission given in regard to the proposed road from Missouri into the territories of the United Mexican States does not seem Ukely to be productive of much good."*! From this time, the middle of 1826, until the early part of 1830, with which date this study closes, very little mention is made in diplomatic communications conceming the Santa Fe road or the Santa Fe trade. In April, 1827, Poinsett wrote to Clay concerning a claim against the Mexican government which he had been asked to present for losses to merchants of the United States occasioned by an attack of Comanche an endorsement by Colonel John I. Abert of the corps ef engi neers in 1844 saying that it is the original plat of the survey. He continues : " A manuscript atlas in the hand writing of Geo. C. Sibley shows route from boundary of Missouri to Fernando de Taos with notes and directions for travelers." Bancroft, History of Arizona and New Mexico, 334, says : " The road was never marked by mounds beyond the Arkansas, and enly in part te that river," citing Gregg and Prince as authority. He says also : " It does not appear, however, that the traders ever made use of the road as surveyed, preferring to follow the earlier trail." The Eighteenth Biennial Report of the Kansas State His torical Society for 1911-1912, pp. 107-125, contains a valuable " Report of a Committee Appointed to prepare a correct Map of the Old Santa Fe Trail across the State of Kansas." To this is appended the map and the "Field Notes" of J. C. Brown, the surveyor, cited in footnote 29, above. «i Clay to Poinsett, June 23, 1826, MS., Department of State, Instructions, XI. OPENING OF THE SANTA FE TRAIL 1 87 Indians. He said that those Indians were as likely to attack citizens of Mexico as citizens of the United States. If the latter should press claims which the former alike suffered he feared that Mexico might prevent such trade altogether, either by directly pro hibiting it or indirectly hampering it. Further he said if such claims, even though always bona fide, should be pressed against the government of Mexico, then Mexican citizens might press similar but ficti tious claims against the United States for losses within the borders of the latter. He beUeved a claim to be fraudulent which Escudero had made and received in demnity for on the ground that he had been plundered by Osage Indians. He said that Mexico was suspi cious of the United States, and did not really desire the trade by way of the interior. The govemment was continually making complaint of the insolence of the traders from the United States and their sale of arms to the Indians; and was trying to put into the treaty an article prohibiting all trade with the In dians.*^ In spite of insufficient protection, and consequent losses by Indian attacks, the Santa Fe trade continued to grow, with a few reverses. In 1829 the long ex pected military force was furnished by the United States to escort the traders.** In April, 1830, Van *2 Poinsett te Clay, April 13, 1827, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, II. For pasmient of Escudere's claim see Clay to Poinsett, January 5, 1827, MS., Department of State, Instructions, XI, 227. *3 In response te a resolution of the United States Senate, 1 88 DIPLOMACY CONCERNING THE Buren, then secretary of state, wrote to Butler, the charge at Mexico, telling of the army contingent which the United States was equipping to protect the trade with northern Mexico; and instructed him to en deavor to induce the Mexican government to supply a similar force to meet the caravans on the frontier and escort them to the civilized settlements in Mexico. Or if this was impossible he was to try to get the consent of that government for the United States troops to guard the caravans to the nearest civilized Mexican settlements. The last, he was told, would be a very delicate matter.** a report was made by the War Department January lo, 1827, on the " expediency of providing for the establishment of a military post on the trading route between Missouri and Mexico for the protection of that trade." The report advised against the establishment of a permanent post because of the great length of the route to be protected, the great distance a post on the Arkansas would be from the nearest settlements, and the consequent difficulty of keeping the post supplied. It suggested instead that an armed force should be provided to travel with the caravans, having a place of rendezvous, only, on the Arkansas. See American State Papers, Military Affairs, III, 615. Major Riley was in command of this first escort. He and his command accompanied the wagon train in 1829 te the Arkansas where he expected to tum back. But Indians at tacked the train a few miles beyond the Arkansas, and the traders appealed to Riley for protection. He crossed into Mexican territory and drove away the Indians, and continued with the train as far as the Cimarron [Semirone in the docu ment], where he turned back. After his return to Ft. Leaven worth he sent a report to the War Department. See Ameri can State Papers, Military Affairs, IV, 277. **Van Buren to Butler, April i, 1830, MS., Department of State, Instructions to American States, XIV, 176. OPENING OF THE SANTA FE TRAIL 1 89 The commercial treaty which Butler concluded with the Mexican government on April 5, 1831, and which was ratified just a year later contained an article in tended to regulate the trade by this route. It de clared: "For the purpose of regulating the interior commerce between the frontier territories of both re pubUcs, it is agreed that the executive of each shall have power, by mutual agreement, of determining on the route and establishing the roads by which such commerce shall be conducted; and in all cases where the caravans employed in such commerce may require convoy and protection by military escort, the supreme executive of each nation shall, by mutual agreement, in like manner, fix on the period of departure for such caravans, and the point at which the military escort of the two nations shall be exchanged. And it is fur ther agreed, that, until the regulations for governing this interior commerce between the two nations shall be established, the commercial intercourse between the state of Missouri of the United States of Amer ica, and New Mexico in the United Mexican States, shall be conducted as heretofore, each government affording the necessary protection to the citizens of the other."*5 Writers of popular narratives of events along the trail tell of United States troops escorting wagon trains to the Arkansas, and sometimes into Mexican territory, and of the coming of Mexican troops to meet and escort traders to Santa Fe.*" *5 United States, Treaties and Conventions, 1776-1909, 1, 1095. *3 In the books cited in footnote i, above. CHAPTER VI Denunciation of Poinsett Because of His Rela tions WITH THE York Masons In spite of clerical opposition. Masonry was already flourishing in Mexico before Poinsett's arrival in 1825. But aU of the lodges hitherto fully organized and having a charter belonged to the Scottish rite. The secrecy of the lodges made them a fertile field for the growth and spread of political doctrines. The centralista faction dominated them everywhere and their influence was reactionary. Federalistas felt that it was necessary to oppose their influence in order to prevent a return to the monarchical system. Just at the time when the changes were occurring in the government which Poinsett spoke of as the or ganization of an American party, and when that party was getting control of the cabinet,! lodges of York rite Masons began to be organized. They immediately spread with great rapidity, were everywhere controlled by federaUsta partisans, and soon began a violent po Utical agitation against the supposed European and monarchical tendencies of the centralistas exerted through the Scottish rite lodges. A bitter hostility sprang up between the two rites, which shortly either absorbed or obscured aU other issues and caused the 1 Discussed above in the chapter entitled British Influence in Mexico, and Poinsett's Struggle Against it. 190 denunciation of POINSETT I9I two chief political parties to abandon their old names for the respective designations of the rival rites. Poinsett's relations with the York rite leaders, which became manifest at the time when they were securing control of the government, were the chief cause of the fierce denunciations which the defeated faction soon began to hurl at him, and which interfered so seriously with the conduct of his negotiations. In his correspondence at the time of their forma tion, Poinsett did not hesitate to acknowledge that he had taken part in their organization. In a letter of October 14, 1825, to Rufus King in London, he said he had encouraged and assisted in their organization and had entertained the members at his home. The meeting had been reported to Ward, the British charge, by Tornel as having been entirely poli tical; emd that gentleman had been given a false notion of the toasts. Subsequenly Ward had given a diplomatic dinner to the secretaries of state and foreign miriisters to which he had not invited Poin sett. At this dinner Ward's friends had indulged in toasts allusive to pending negotiations between the United States and Mexico of not a very friendly tenor, and those toasts had been published at Ward's request. The factions which Poinsett classed as the enemies of the government, — the European Spaniards, the Bour- bonistas, and the centralistas, — had been displeased, he said, at the good understanding that had hitherto existed between the representatives of England and the United States, and had worked on Ward to break 192 DENUNCIATION OF POINSETT it up. In closing, Poinsett said he would await infor mation from King concerning opinion in London about Ward's activities before he attempted to retaliate for the insult which he felt Ward had offered.^ Later in explaining to Clay the attack of the legis lature of the state of Vera Cruz upon him, discussed below in this chapter, Poinsett said the most serious charge made against him was that he had established the York Masons; and explained to Clay just what part he had taken in their organization. He regretted that Masonry should have been made an instrument of political intrigue. He said that lodges of York Masons had already existed in Mexico before his arrival, but that they were without charters. Members of these had asked him to secure a charter from the grand lodge of New York, which he had not hesitated to do. The persons who made the request were all members of the government or interested in maintaining the existing order of things and in preserving the tran quility of the country. He said they were General Guerrero, a distinguished revolutionary officer; Es teva, secretary of the treasury; Arispe, secretary of grace and justice; Zavala, a member of the Senate and later governor of the state of Mexico; and Al- puche, a member of the Senate. He said he had no notion that such men had in view any project to dis organize the government. As soon as the Yorkinos were publicly accused of perverting the organization to political purposes, he said he had withdrawn from 2 Poinsett to Rufus King, October 14 1825, MS., Depart ment ef State, Despatches from Mexico, I. DENUNCIATION OF POINSETT 1 93 their meetings. But he excused them by saying that the Scottish rite Masons had long been organized, and that their opponents had only followed their example in political activity. He said further that the progress of the Yorkino cause had been so rapid as to lead the people to attribute it to some secret cause. They see in this "the direction of some able hand, and have thought proper to attribute the success of the repubUcan party, the consolidation of the fed eral system, and the establishment of liberal prin ciples exclusively to my influence."* Zavala, to whom Poinsett referred as friendly and useful and a leading member of the Yorkino lodge, later pubUshed a brief account of the formation of the lodges. He says the project was formed by Alpuche and joined by Esteva, Arispe, Victoria and others; that its purpose was to oppose the Escoceses (Scots) ; that five lodges were formed; and that Poinsett was then asked to obtain for them a charter from the grand lodge of New York. This step and the installation of the grand lodge in Mexico, he says, was the only in terference by this American, who, he continues, be cause of his share in the movement has been calum niated by aristocrats and various European agents in Mexico who have taken more part than he in the af fairs of the country.* Tomel, the bitter enemy of 3 Poinsett te Clay, July 8, 1827, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, III. * Zavala, Ensayo Historico, I, 346. This was published in 1831. On page 385 he says : " los periodicos del otre bando le acusaban de haber faltade a la primera obligacion de un min- 14 194 DENUNCIATION OF POINSETT Poinsett, gives an account as prejudiced against him as Zavala's is in his favor.^ Nearly every writer on Mexican history of this period has expressed an opinion on Poinsett's merit or demerit in the matter. Most of these writers have followed either Tornel or Zavala, and show their prejudice either for or against him." Poinsett did not say that the purpose of the move ment was poUtical, neither did he say that it was not, istro extrangero, que es la de no mezclarse en las cuestiones interiores del pais en que egercen su mision, y en donde ne estan de consiguiente sugetos a los leyes comunes. La acusa- cion en el fondo era injusta.'' On page 339, he pays a glowing tribute to Poinsett's ability and acknowledges his uninterrupted friendship, which shows, of course, that he is a prejudiced witness. 5 Tornel, Breve Reseiia, 45. 3 Accounts bitterly condemning him are: Alaman, Historia de Mejico, V, 822, 824; Bocanegra, Memorias para la Historia de Mexico, I, 382, 389-39S, H, 13, 17-22; Rivera, Historia de Jalapa, II, 366-369; and Zamacois, Historia de Mejico, XI, 620. H. H. Bancroft, History of Mexico, V, 32, quotes Zavala and exonerates Poinsett. Romero, Mexico and the United States, 349, says, " It seems that while he desired the success of the Yorkinos, he was not the founder of that ledge." Rob inson, Mexico and Her Military Chieftains, shows his lack of accuracy by saying, page 146, " Mr. Poinsett, it may be pre sumed, never had any connection with either branch of the order in Mexico." McMaster, History of the People of the United States, V, 540, states correctly but very briefly the part Poinsett took in organizing the lodges. Yoakum, in Comprehensive History of Texas, I, 124, gives a brief and substantially correct statement. Rives, United States and Mexico, 1821-1848, I, 164-165, also gives a brief and substantially correct account, though he seems unnecessarily harsh in his criticism of Poinsett, and says little about the extenuating circumstances. Justin H. Smith has recently published a defense of Poinsett in the Proceedings Qf the Amerjgw Antiquarian Society. DENUNCIATION OF POINSETT I95 although he said that it had been reported to be such. However, the fact that the organization was ef fected at the very time that he was forming what he repeatedly spoke of as an American party, and that the leaders of that party were also leaders in the lodges, is presumptive evidence that he had some no tion of the use to which they would be put. But later when the Yorkinos had enjoyed a phenomenal growth and when the names of the old centralista and federaUsta parties had everywhere been aban doned for the respective designations, Escoceses and Yorkinos, he said, in August, 1826, that he was sorry the Masonic meetings had become political. But he suggested an excuse for the faction which he favored by saying that the Escoceses had long existed and been hostile to the United States before the York inos were organized.'' Two months later he reported that the election which had just taken place for mem bers of the state legislatures had gone generally in favor of the Yorkinos. The legislature of the state of Mexico, hitherto controlled by the Escoceses, all of whom had been defeated in the election, refused to yield their seats to their victorious rivals. Thus tri umphant in the state elections of 1826, the Yorkinos ' Poinsett to Clay, August 26, 1826, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, II. In this he said there was a third party called Los Piadosos, opposed to all Masonic influence, but that it received almost ne support. In January he had written that Masonry was flourishing and that, except the president, all the cabinet and all the leading men in the country were Masons, even some of the higher clergy being members. 196 DENUNCIATION OF POINSETT planned already to capture the presidency two years later; and Poinsett knew their plans. In a cipher paragraph of this despatch of October 21, 1826, he said : " The man who is held up as ostensible head of the party and who will be their candidate for the next presidency is General Guerrero, one of the most dis tinguished chiefs of the revolution. Guerrero is un educated but possesses excellent natural talents, com bined with great decision of character and undaunted courage. His violent temper renders him difficult to control, and therefore I consider Zavala's presence here indispensably necessary, as he possesses great influence over the general." He had just told of Zavala's having been offered the position of Mex ican minister to the United States and said: "I was not sorry that he declined it; he is one of the most efficient leaders of the party friendly to the United States, the Yorkinos, and is more useful here than he would be in Washington." He told of the schemes of those in the cabinet who were endeavoring to rid that body of the Yorkino dominance, said they exer cised great influence over the indecisive character of the President, and declared that if their schemes suc ceeded that official would find himself, as before Poin sett's arrival, surrounded by a few supporters hostile to the majority in Congress and the country.* A month later he reported that there were election dis turbances; but that he did not expect a violent rup- " Poinsett te Clay, October 21, 1826, nearly all of the facts here given being in cipher, MS., Department ef State, De spatches from Mexico, II. DENUNCIATION OF POINSETT 1 97 ture, and was using every effort on his part to prevent such.' In the latter part of June, 1827, Poinsett was pub licly and violently arraigned in a long manifesto is sued by the legislature of the state of Vera Cruz. It declared that "a sagacious and hypocritical foreign minister as zealous for the prosperity of his own coun try as inimical to ours," being jealous of Mexican prosperity which would soon eclipse that of his own country, and jealous also of the friendly relations of Mexico with Great Britain which might prove disad vantageous to the interests of the United States, had established the York Masons, a hundred' times more dangerous than twenty battalions of the tyrant of Spain. For an invading army would be met as an enemy by a united country ; but the Yorkinos had been organized to destroy the Escoceses and the consequent internal dissensions were diffusing a want of confi dence throughout the country, dividing it against it self. It declared that the Escoceses well deserved de struction for their ambition and centralist tendencies ; but that many moderate men of that faction had been displaced that their positions might faU to their more ambitious opponents. It declared both Yorkinos and Escoceses injurious, and demanded the enforcement of laws already existing which prohibited all Masonic associations.!" 8 Poinsett te Clay, November 15, 1826, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, II. 1" Manifesto of the Congress of Vera Cruz te the Mexican Nation, June 19, 1827, translation covering twenty-six manu- 198 DENUNCIATION OF POINSETT A short time after this violent attack, Poinsett pub lished in Spanish a pamphlet which he called " An Ex position of the policy of the United States toward the Republics of America," replying to the charges in the manifesto. He reviewed at length the uniformly friendly policy of the United States and of himself for Mexico, and declared that far from being inimical to the prosperity of Mexico or the other republics the United States "are desirous to see their neighbors wealthy and powerful in order that they may be more efficient allies and more profitable customers." He quoted from a discourse which he had himself pro nounced in favor of the recognition of these states in which he had expressly refuted the argument that their prosperity would hurt the United States. Fur ther the United States were far from thinking the friendship of Great Britain for Mexico injurious to them. On the contrary the United States invited Great Britain to join them in recognizing the new states; and when that was not done urged Great Britain to follow their example, and rejoiced when she did. In answer to the charge that he was con script pages, enclosed with Poinsett to Clay, July 8, 1827, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, III. A printed copy in Spanish is in the volume of Duplicate De spatches from Poinsett. The manifesto declared also that many Iturbidistas were members of the York lodges, and that their purpose was to bring about the return of the empire with Iturbide's son at its head. This Poinsett considered toe absurd to need argument. It is, however, a fact that later Iturbidistas cooperated with the Yorkinos ; but that was probably because Bourbonistas cooperated with the Escoceses. DENUNCIATION OF POlNSETT 1 99 trolling the prevailing party in the federal govern ment, he argued that the vexatious delays in his nego tiations proved the falsity of it. He declared that he had had no part in the perversion of the Masonic lodges to political purposes, and that since they had been so perverted he had withdrawn from their meet ings. He insisted that he had not interfered with the internal concerns of the country unless advocating the superiority of republican institutions and explaining the workings of United States institutions be consid ered interfering.!! In his long letter of July 8, 1827, already mentioned, Poinsett explained to Clay the situation and the events that led up to it. He said he had abstained from de manding satisfaction for this unprovoked and unjus tifiable insult because the state of Vera Cruz had re cently committed acts of rebellion against the sov ereignty of the federal government and was then main taining a defiant attitude. There was hardly any way short of civil war that the federal government could have forced the state to give satisfaction. If he had demanded satisfaction and had not promptly received it he would have been compelled to demand his pass ports and leave the country, placing the United States 11 Poinsett's Exposition ef the Policy of the United States toward the Republics ef America, dated July 4 1827, enclosed with Poinsett te Clay, July 8, 1827, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, III. A printed copy in Spanish is in the volume of Duplicate Despatches from Poinsett. It is also in print in pamphlet form, though rare. English transla tions of it were printed in various newspapers at the time. The manuscript copy covers sixteen pages. 200 DENUNCIATION OF POINSETT and Mexico in collision, which he thought the govern ing faction in Vera Cruz desired. He regretted that the legislature of Vera Cruz had thus violated the law of nations and every principle of decency and good faith by publishing suspicions derogatory to the character of a friendly nation and the reputation of a foreign min ister. But they were also guilty of violating the fed eral constitution. The maintenance of the federal form was sure to involve the central and local govern ments in disputes concerning sovereignty. The other states were giving proofs of attachment to the federal government and the state of Vera Cruz would have to submit. The general government had lamented the attack but was slow in acting and hitherto had lacked the energy to make itself obeyed in the state of Vera Cruz. He said the errors of Mexico ought to be viewed with indulgence. Their long period of political tutelage to Spain and their lack of experience in deal ing with foreign nations was their only excuse. It was not strange that they should confuse the duties and rights of different organs of government. He said he had always made every effort to show the friendly disposition of the United States, and ren dered cheerful service to those who applied for ad vice or assistance in the framing of laws or in under standing the working of constitutional principles. He had uniformly exhorted them to submit to any tem porary evil rather than resort to violence. This con duct had drawn upon him the odium of those who sought to overthrow liberal institutions. The neces- DENUNCIATION OF POINSETT 20I sity for thus defending his conduct was painful, he said, but there was no alternative.12 Before this explanation had been received at Wash ington, Sergeant had returned from Mexico where he had gone to cooperate with Poinsett in the mission to the congress at Tacubaya, the unsuccessful attempt at a continuation of the Panama congress of the pre ceding year. President Adams entered in his diary on August I the statement that " Mr. Sergeant thinks not favorably of the proceedings of Mr. Poinsett dur ing his residence in Mexico." Adams also says that Sergeant had handed him a private letter from Poin sett in which the latter said he had received an inti mation from the President of Mexico that his recall would be demanded.!* Obregon wrote his govern ment that in a conference some time in August Clay had expressed disapproval of Poinsett's conduct in so far as he had mixed in the intemal affairs of the country. When the news of the Vera Cruz attack first arrived, about the middle of August, the National 12 Poinsett to Clay, July 8, 1827, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, III. This letter covers twenty manuscript pages. Much of it is occupied with a review of the origin, composition, and principles of the Scottish party, of the part Poinsett had taken in the organization of the York Masons, and of the pohtical activities of the Yorkinos to counteract that of the Escoceses. See above, this chapter. Rivera, Historia de Jalapa, II, 426, gives a brief study of the Vera Cruz Manifesto and the attendant rebellious move ments in the state of Vera Cruz. Most ef the other Mexican historians cited in notes 4-6, above, also discuss the manifesto. 13 Adams, Memoirs, VII, 312. 202 DENUNCIATION O'F POINSETT Journal had expressed the same sentiment as Clay; but on August 31 the National Gazette had praised Poinsett's conduct, and a few days later both the Na tional Intelligencer and the National Journal approved it. Consequently Obregon thought the government must have received further information convincing them that Poinsett's conduct was excusable, since one of these papers was official and the others were sup porting the administration. The action of the legisla ture of Vera Cruz was looked upon as revolutionary, he said, and as showing a lack of respect for the federal government. It had been intimated to him that Poin sett would probably be recalled in spite of his conduct being approved.!* It was on August 31 that the De partment of State received Poinsett's letter of July 8 with the enclosed manifesto and his answer. But Adams and Clay did not act precipitately nor enthusiastically in exonerating Poinsett. It was al most three months after the receipt of his explanation before they passed judgment. On November 19, 1827, Clay wrote Poinsett that the President approved his conduct and did not consider that he had inter fered in the politics of Mexico, since no co-mplaint had come fro-m the Mexican govern-ment of his con duct. It was thought best to make no formal com plaint of the act of the Vera Cruz legislature. But Poinsett was asked to remonstrate informally with the 1^ Obregon to Secretario, 13 de septiembre de 1827, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. DENUNCIATION OF POINSETT 203 President of Mexico, and say that if the Mexican gov ernment had any complaint to make concerning Poin sett the government of the United States was ready to receive such complaint in the regular manner. In conclusion Clay said that the President did not desire the termination of Poinsett's mission ; but if his posi tion had become unpleasant, and if he desired to re turn, he might do so. It had been rumored, he was told, that he was thinking of returning. The matter was left entirely to his own feelings and discretion.!" While the polite circumlocution of Clay left the matter optional with Poinsett, yet it was not very far removed from a gentle hint that Poinsett's voluntary return might be more desirable than his remaining at Mexico. It is interesting to note that the only reason given why the President did not consider that Poin sett had interfered in the politics of Mexico was the fact that "no complaint had come from the Mexican government of his conduct." If that government had been as friendly toward Poinsett as the opposition supposed and charged, it would not have been ex pected to complain of his conduct, although he should have been doing what the opposition, or even an un prejudiced judge, might have called interfering in the politics of Mexico. It is the writer's beUef that in this, as in other acts for which Poinsett was severely criticized, he was con scientiously doing what he thought was for the highest 1= Clay to Poinsett, November 19, 1827, MS., Department of State, Instructions, XII, 36. 204 DENUNCIATION OF POINSETT good of Mexico, even at the risk of incurring hostile criticism or of doing what might be technically termed interfering. Far from being the only, or the last, pub lic criticism of his conduct the Vera Cruz manifesto was destined to be followed by many, and more violent, attacks.!" 18 See below, chapter X. CHAPTER VII Obstacles in the Way of Concluding a Commer cial Treaty The instructions which were to guide Poinsett in negotiating a treaty of amity, commerce, and naviga tion with Mexico were contained in his general in structions given by Clay on March 26, 1825.1 It will be recalled that he was instructed to say that the United States had not claimed and would not claim any special favors or concessions in return for the service rendered Mexico and other Spanish-Amer ican states by recognizing them before other powers were willing to take such a step and by warning other powers against aiding Spain to regain her lost col onies. But the United States government did expect that those states, and especially Mexico, would not extend to any European states "any favors or privi leges which shall not be equally extended to us." As a model which Poinsett should follow in a general way, he was given a copy of a treaty which had been concluded in the preceding October with the republic of Colombia.^ A copy of the instructions which had 1 See above, chapter II, on Tardy Appointment and Coel Reception of the First United States Minister te Mexico. 2 Fer the treaty with Colombia, see American State Papers, Foreign, V, di^T. 205 206 OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF guided Anderson in negotiating that treaty were in cluded as a part of Poinsett's instructions.* About six weeks after his reception in Mexico, Poin sett had his first conference with Alaman, then secre tary for foreign relations, on the proposed treaty nego tiations. At that meeting it was agreed to separate the two most important matters, commerce and boun daries, and conclude a special treaty for each. A dif ference of opinion concerning the method of procedure in locating the boundary line made it impossible to reach a speedy conclusion in that matter.* Poinsett expressed a wish that the commercial treaty might be concluded early enough to enable the Mexican Con gress to approve it in time to send it to Washington before the opening of the next session of the Congress there. Alaman said that was one of the objects in calUng the special session of the Mexican Congress which was to convene the following month. ^ On August 10, 1825, Alaman informed Poinsett that the Mexican negotiators were ready to proceed at once with the negotiations for the commercial treaty. President Victoria had appointed Esteva, secretary of the treasury, to act with Alaman in the negotia- 3 Clay to Poinsett, Instructions, March 26, 1825, MS., Depart ment of State, Instructions, X, 225; American State Papers, Foreign, V, 908, or VI, 578. * See below, chapter IX, on Texas and the Boundary Issue. '' Poinsett to Clay, July 18, 1825, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I; House Executive Documents, 25 congress, i session, number 42, page 19 ; British and Foreign State Papers, XXVI, 831. CONCLUDING A COMMERCIAL TREATY 207 tion." On August 22, the negotiators had their first conference, at which their respective full-powers were exchanged, and an agreement was reached that Poin sett should draw up a pro jet of a treaty and present it at the next conference as a basis for discussion.' The second conference was held on September 13, about three weeks after the first. In the meantime Poinsett had drawn the projet as agreed. The fourth article contained a provision to which the Mexican negotiators immediately objected. Its purpose was to define the privileges which United States merchants, vessels, and goods should enjoy in the ports of Mex ico, and, reciprocally, the privileges which Mexican merchants, vessels, and goods should enjoy in the ports of the United States. In drawing this article, Poinsett had followed the instructions which he had received from the State Department before leaving Washington. In those instructions Clay had called attention to the fact that the Colombian treaty which he was en closing as a model for Poinsett to follow in most re gards contained a provision securing the "most favored nation " treatment for the merchants of each in the ports of the other.* This, he said, was the old 6 Alaman to Poinsett, August xo, 1825, MS., Department of State, Duplicate Despatches from Poinsett. ' Protocol of First Conference, August 22, 1825, Mexico, Tratados y Cenvenciones, II, 61 and 90; American State Papers, Foreign, VI, 583. For Poinsett's projet, see the last, 601. * The provision of the Colombian treaty was as follows : Article 3, " The citizens of the United States may frequent all the coasts and countries of the republic of Colombia, and 208 OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF rule but its apphcation frequently involved nations in difficulties and misunderstandings. It was often very difficult for one government to learn just what favors or privileges had been granted by the government of another nation to the merchandise of a third nation. Poinsett was instructed to endeavor to establish "the more liberal footing of reciprocity between the resi dent citizen and the foreigner. ... By placing the admission into the ports of Mexico of a vessel of the United States and her cargo, being of their produce or manufacture, upon the same footing with the ad mission into those ports of a like cargo imported in a vessel owned by a resident citizen of Mexico, and vice versa, the simplicity which it is desirable the rule should possess will be secured." Just before stating the new rule Clay said : " It is better to avoid sowing the seeds of all collisions and misunderstandings ; and that desirable object the President thinks will be best accomplished by adopting a plain and familiar rule for the two parties themselves, instead of referring each of them to that complicated rule which may hap- reside and trade there in all sorts of produce, manufactures, and merchandise, and shall pay no other or greater duties, charges, or fees whatsoever, than the most favored nation is or shall be obliged to pay; and they shall enjoy all the rights, privileges, and exemptions in navigation and commerce which the most favored nation does or shall enjoy, submitting them selves, nevertheless, to the laws, decrees, and usages there established, and to which are submitted the subjects and citi zens ef the most favored nations. " In like manner the citizens of the republic ef Colombia," etc., as above, the names only being changed. American State Papers, Foreign, V, 697. CONCLUDING A COMMERCIAL TREATY 2O9 pen to exist between either and third parties." It was anticipated that Poinsett would experience no diffi culty in inducing Mexico to adopt the new simple rule. But if he should be unable to induce Mexico to treat on this basis, then he was authorized to follow the "most favored nation" rule of the Colombian treaty.® The Mexican plenipotentiaries declared the new rule inadmissable in the present state of their commercial marine; for, on account of the very superior tonnage of the merchant marine of the United States, the principle of reciprocity would work wholly to the latter's advantage. Poinsett did not easily yield the point. He urged that his government desired to in troduce the principle into their treaties with all na tions. Ten European states, some large and some small, had already admitted it. Between some of them and the United States as great disparity of ton nage existed as between the United States and Mex ico.!" The Mexican negotiators said that the British plenipotentiaries had endeavored to introduce into the treaty between Great Britain and Mexico the same principle which Poinsett was urging ; but the Mexican government had refused for the "reasons just as signed, and therefore could not, with propriety or 8 Clay to Poinsett, Instructions, March 26, 1825, MS., Depart ment of State, Instructions, X, 225; American State Papers, Foreign, V, 908, or VI, 578. 13 The nations were Great Britain, Russia, Netherlands, Prussia, Hamburg, Bremen, Liibeck, Oldenburg, Norway, and Sardinia. 15 2IO OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF consistency, agree to introduce it into a treaty with the United States." Still Poinsett was not ready to yield ; and it was agreed that he should present a note ex plaining his views on the matter.n Instead of the article which they objected to in Poinsett's projet the Mexican plenipotentiaries urged the substitution of the fourth article of the treaty, just referred to, which had been concluded with Great Britain but not yet ratified. Besides providing for the "most favored nation" treatment of the merchandise of either nation in the ports of the other (which Poin sett wa)s authorized to agree to and would probably have accepted), it contained an additional provision to which Poinsett objected most emphatically. This was in the form of an exception to the " most favored na tion " rule, and was intended by Mexico to be a means 11 Poinsett to Clay, September 13, 1825, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I ; American State Papers, Foreign, V, 852 ; British and Foreign State Papers, XIII, 455. Protocol of Second Conference, September 13, 1825 ; Ameri can State Papers, Foreign, VI, 583; Mexico, Tratados y Cen venciones, II, 62 and 91. In view of the fact that one of the reasons for the rejection of the British treaty was the provision in its seventh article defining what should be considered a Mexican vessel, it is interesting to note that, when in this second conference the Mexican negotiators insisted on introducing the same pro vision into the treaty with the United States, Poinsett said the British plenipotentiaries had in this matter conceded a great deal; but since his government desired to fester the commerce of the American republics, he would act with equal liberality and admit an article in the same terms. For the rejection of the British treaty, see above, chapter III en British Influence in Mexico. CONCLUDING A COMMERCIAL TREATY 211 for strengthening the bonds of sympathy between Mexico and the other new Spanish- American countries. After the customary statement of the rule and the declaration that any concession or particular favor granted by either to any third nation should be imme diately extended to the other of the contracting powers, it added " excepting only the American nations which were formerly Spanish possessions, to which on ac count of the fraternal relations that unite them to the United Mexican States the latter may grant special privileges which shall not be extended to the do minions and subjects of H [is] B[ritannic] M[ajesty]." Poinsett objected to the exception, declaring that no distinctions should be introduced into the relations of the different members of the American family of na tions. It was to the interest of the European powers, he argued, to introduce such distinctions ; but he in sisted that the republics of America were all united by the same interests to oppose the European system. The policy of the United States, he said, gave them a right to expect that no such distinctions should be made. Furthermore he declared that the United States already had a treaty with Colombia which did not contain any such provision, hence the exception would be rendered nugatory so far as that state was concerned. Probably the treaties with Chile and Buenos Ayres were also concluded ; and certainly they would contain no such provision. The Mexican pleni potentiaries injudiciously suggested that war might dissolve the treaties between the United States and 212 OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF those Spanish-American countries, in which case Mex ico might wish to show her sympathies with the latter. Poinsett replied that this was conclusive evidence why his nation should never accede to such a provision. This exception to the "most favored nation" rule and also the new "perfect reciprocity" rule were reserved for further discussion. After disposing of several minor matters this second conference ad journed. In Poinsett's letter to the government at Washington, written the same day on which this con ference was held, he declared in cipher, "I most strenuously opposed the exception above cited, and, as at present advised, will never sign a treaty on such terms." He added the statement that the President and plenipotentiaries of Mexico were obstinately bent on carrying this point, and earnestly asked if Clay thought he ought to yield it. Five days after the second conference Poinsett ad dressed to the Mexican plenipotentiaries his note set ting forth his views in support of his claim that the " perfect reciprocity " rule of the projet was superior to the "most favored nation" principle which they desired to substitute for it.i^ On the following day, September 19, the third conference was held. Most of the remaining articles of the projet were consid ered. Some were adopted. Others were reserved for future discussion.!3 12 Poinsett to Mexican Plenipotentiaries, September 18, 1825, American State Papers, Foreign, VI, 585 ; Mexico, Tratados y Cenvenciones, II, 95. 13 Protocol of Third Conference, September 19, 1825, Ameri- CONCLUDING A COMMERCIAL TREATY 213 At this juncture the progress of the negotiation was disturbed by the ministerial revolution which Poinsett took an active part in and which replaced what he caUed the British party with what he referred to as an American party, composed of those who were friendly to him, to the federal system, and to the influence of the United States. Alaman, the minister for foreign relations and chief negotiator of the treaty then being discussed with Poinsett, resigned.!* To succeed Ala man, Camacho was chosen. He was not in Mexico at the time. His absence threatened to suspend Poin sett's negotiation. Being anxious to conclude it in time for it to reach Washington before President Adams's annual message to Congress, Poinsett urged President Victoria to permit Alaman to continue the discussions. If that were impossible he asked that some one be appointed temporarily to act as negotia tor. Pedraza, the secretary for war, was thereupon made minister for foreign relations ad interi-m and given full powers. He presented his credentials at the fourth conference, on September 27, and the ne gotiation proceeded. Several minor matters were dis posed of and some time was spent in consideration of the most important unsettled matter, that is, the ex ception in favor of the Spanish-American States.!" can State Papers, Foreign, VI, 586; Mexico, Tratados y Cen venciones, II, 66 and 97. 1* For the ministerial changes, see above, chapter III. IS Poinsett te Clay, September 28, 1825, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I; American State Papers, Foreign, V, 852; British and Foreign State Papers, XIII, 416. 214 OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF At the fifth conference, which occurred on Septem ber 28, an earnest effort was made to conclude the negotiation immediately. The secretary of the treas ury, who was one of the negotiators, had found it necessary to leave Mexico city and spend some time at Vera Cruz. If it were not concluded before his de parture the delay would defeat the plan to get it to Washington before Congress should assemble. The proposed exception in favor of the commerce of the former Spanish colonies occupied the entire time of this fifth conference. The Mexican plenipotentiaries said that President Victoria was so decided with ref erence to the exception that they feared it would be impossible to conclude a treaty without it. In the forenoon of this day, before the conference began, an attempt was made through an unofficial agent to reach a compromise. This agent was the priest Arispe with whom Poinsett claimed to be on intimate terms and who had been useful to him in effecting the ministerial revolution. It will be recalled that in the earUer conferences one of Poinsett's chief argu ments against the exception was that Colombia, and probably also other Spanish-American states, had made treaties which would render the exception nuga- The last paragraph of Poinsett's letter is emitted in the pub lished documents. Protocol of the Fourth Conference, Sep tember 27, 1825, American State Papers, Foreign, VI, 588; Mexico, Tratados y Cenvenciones, II, 69 and loi. Protocol ef the Fifth Conference, September 28, 1825, American State Papers, Foreign, VI, 588; Mexico, Tratados y Cenvenciones, II, 71 and 102. CONCLUDING A COMMERCIAL TREATY 21 5 tory. The compromise which Arispe was sent to sug gest to Poinsett was "to annex a condition, that the exception should extend only to those Spanish-Amer ican nations who would treat with Mexico on the same terms." Poinsett replied that he would have to persist in his objection, since any distinctions at all among the nations of America would in his opinion be destructive of the best interests of the hemisphere. Poinsett's visitor appeared to be convinced and went away promising to use his influence to induce the Pres ident and plenipotentiaries to yield the point. To meet Poinsett's objection that Great Britain would probably refuse to ratify the exception the plenipotentiaries proposed the insertion in the treaty with the United States of a proviso declaring, " with respect to the exception ... it shall be understood in the same terms which finally shall be agreed upon . . . between Mexico and England." But Poinsett an swered that he would rather leave it as it stood than consent to be governed by the decision of Great Britain. They then raised the question as to their situation in case their treaty with England, contrary to Poinsett's beUef, should be ratified after they had consented to make a treaty with the United States without the ex ception. Poinsett did not reply directly; but he ar gued the improbabiUty that Great Britain would ratify it. However he urged that the interests of Great Britain were European, and if she did ratify the ex ception it would doubtless be with the express purpose of introducing dissensions between the American na« 2l6 OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF tions. On the other hand the interests of the United States, he repeated, were distinctly American ; and the desired union between aU of the American repubUcs could exist only "on the basis of the most perfect equality and reciprocity." He urged that the policy of the United States with respect to the struggling Spanish-American states had been such as to entitle his country to expect privileges at least as great as those of any of the Spanish- American countries. The Mexican negotiators then declared that "we had no right to insist upon being placed on the same footing with the Spanish-American states unless we were willing to take part with them in their contest with Spain." Poinsett replied that this would be in the highest degree impolitic. It was true, he admitted, that the United States could crush and annihilate Spain and put an end at once to the conflict, provided other European countries should not interfere. But such a step would be sure to precipitate a union of the European powers against the American, to the decided detriment of all concerned. On the same day on which this conference occurred Poinsett reported to Clay that the disagreement over the proposed exception had prevented the conclusion of the negotiations for the present. After recounting the arguments at great length he said he had broken up the conference "with a positive declaration that, putting out of view my duty as representative of the United States, I regarded the proposed exception in favor of the nations which were formerly Spanish CONCLUDING A COMMERCIAL TREATY 217 possessions so contrary to the best interests of the Americas that I never would agree to its insertion in a treaty between the United States and any of the American republics." He concluded his letter by de claring his own opinion to be "that the interests of the United States will be better consulted by having no treaty at all with Mexico than by concluding one with this condition." He would persist, as a sine qua non, in his opposition to the insertion of the ex ception. If Adams and Clay differed from him he asked to be informed. Even if they should, he said he would yield with infinite reluctance. They did not differ from him. On November 9, 1825, the very next day after receiving Poinsett's let ter of September 13 reporting the discussions at the second conference when the difference concerning the exception first arose, Clay replied: "The President approves of your refusal to accede to that exception." He declared that the United States felt themselves jus tified, because of the attitude they had preserved to ward the new states, in demanding of Mexico perfect reciprocity in this respect. He argued that there was nothing in the former common dependence that should govern nations no longer bound by any ties of common aUegiance. " But if the fact of the Spanish dominion having once stretched over the new states is to create an exception of commercial privileges in their behalf, the United States upon a similar ground have a right to demand the benefit of it; for the same Spanish dominion once, and at no very distant day, extended 21 8 OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF over the larger part of their territories, and all of that part which is coterminous with those of the United Mexican States." Concerning the claim that the new states had been waging a common war against a common enemy. Clay argued, " The United Mexican States have, it is true, been waging a war with Spain contemporaneously with the other states, but hitherto there has been no cooperation of arms between them. The United Mex ican States have alone sustained their contest. If the idea of those fraternal relations is to be sought for in the sympathy between the American belligerents, this sympathy has been equally felt and constantly ex pressed throughout the whole struggle by the United States. They have not indeed taken up arms in sup port of the independence of the new states; but the neutrality which they have maintained has enabled them more efficaciously to serve the cause of inde pendence than they could have done by taking part in the war. Had they become a belligerent [he declared, as Poinsett had done to the plenipotentiaries] they would, probably, have drawn into the war on the other side parties whose force would have neutralized, if it had not overbalanced their exertions." By maintain ing neutrality, he declared, the United States had been enabled to render assistance more valuable than mih tary cooperation. They had disconcerted the designs of the European alliance by declaring against the in terference of such powers in support of Spain. " There is a striking inconsistency," Clay continued, CONCLUDING A COMMERCIAL TREATY 219 " in the line of policy which the United Mexican States would seem disposed to pursue toward the United States. They would regard these states as an Amer ican nation or not accordingly as it shall suit their own purposes. In respect to commerce they would look upon us as an European nation, to be excluded from the enjoyment of privileges conceded to other American nations. But when an attack is imagined to be menaced by Europe upon the independence of the United Mexican States, then an appeal is made to those fraternal sympathies which are justly supposed to belong to our condition as a member of the Amer ican family."!" In concluding the letter to Poinsett Clay declared: " The President indulges the confident expectation that upon reconsideration the Mexican government will withdraw the exception. But if it should continue to insist upon it you will, upon that ground, abstain from concluding any treaty and put an end to the negotia tion. It is deemed better to have no treaty, and abide by the respective commercial laws of the two countries, than to subscribe to a principle wholly inadmissable, and which, being assented to in the case of Mexico, might form a precedent to be extended to others of the new states."!^ 13 He alludes here to the episode ef the French fleet in the West Indies in the preceding summer and Mexico's appeal to the declaration ef Monroe's message of 1823. See above, chapter IV en Cuba Saved to Spain, and footnote 45. 1' Clay to Poinsett, November g, 1825, MS., Department of State, Instructions, X, 407; American State Papers, Foreign, VI, 582; British and Foreign State Papers, XIII, 421. 220 OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF It is interesting to notice the complete agreement between the views of Poinsett and of the government at Washington. Even the words of this concluding paragraph of Clay's instruction of November 9 agree almost exactly with the concluding words of Poinsett's despatch of September 28. When exactly a month after writing this instruction Clay received that de spatch, he repUed on the same day, December 9, merely referring to his instruction of November 9 as a com plete reply. He added the assertion that no power except Mexico had attempted to reserve the right to grant special favors to other Spanish-American powers.!* It was more than seven months before negotiations were resumed where they had been broken off by Poin sett's refusal to admit the provision allowing Mexico to grant special favors to other Spanish-American powers which might not be claimed by the United States under the "most favored nation" clause. In February, Poinsett had told Clay that he thought it would not be poUtic to evince great anxiety to renew the negotiation; for he considered it more important to make a treaty on liberal principles than to make it quickly. However he still hoped to have it before the end of the session of Congress.!* At the sixth conference, held on May 6, 1826, the 1* Clay to Poinsett, December 9, 1825, MS., Department of State, Instructions, X, 420; British and Foreign State Papers, XIII, 494 i» Poinsett te Clay, February 18, 1826, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. CONCLUDING A COMMERCIAL TREATY 221 Mexican plenipotentiaries yielded their demand for the exception in favor of the Spanish-American states ; and at the seventh conference on May 17 Poinsett reciprocated by yielding the point he had urged pro viding for perfect reciprocity of tonnage dues. There upon the "most favored nation" principle was ac cepted by both parties without modification and em bodied in the treaty. These two difficulties being removed by mutual concessions, the next six confer ences followed in fairly rapid succession through the month of June. The fourteenth and last, at which the treaty was signed, occurred on July 10, 1826.^" Most of the thirty-four articles were agreed to with little or no discussion and only slight modifications. There were however a few matters that occasioned ex tended discussions and exchanges of notes. In Poinsett's projet which formed the basis for the discussions he had embodied the principle, " free ships shall make free goods." But he had added an exception intended to exclude from the advantages of the provision property belonging to subjects of a gov ernment that did not recognize the principle. Poin sett's exception was directed chiefly against Great Britain, which govemment still stubbornly refused to admit the principle. The Mexican plenipotentiaries did not object in the least to the principle ; nor did they object to the exception in itself. But negotiations were then pending for a commercial treaty with Great 20 For the protocols of the Sixth to the Eleventh Confer ences, see American State Papers, Foreign, VI, 592 te 600; or Mexico, Tratados y Cenvenciones, II, 74 to 128. 222 OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF Britain also ; and they feared that if they admitted the exception it would interrupt their negotiation with that power. They thought under the circumstances that Poinsett ought not to insist on the exception as a sine qua non. He said he would not; but convinced of its justice and importance he urged it strenuously. Finally he yielded and struck out the exception.^! In explaining to Clay his efforts to get the exception in troduced he said, " The opposition to it was much more formidable than would appear from the proto cols ; and although I hinted that I should adhere to its introduction into the treaty, I should not have felt my self justified in making it a sine qua non. The estab lishment of the principle I deemed of paramount ira portance, and yielded the exception only on convic tion that the Mexican government would not agree to it, pending their present negotiations with Great Britain."^^ Another point over which serious discussion arose was a provision in the third article allowing the mer chants and traders of each nation to enter freely and conduct their business in the ports and territories of the other. The Mexicans endeavored to add a pro vision excepting from the privileges of this article all European Spaniards who had been naturalized in the United States since 1820, because they feared that 21 Poinsett to Mexican Plenipotentiaries, June 16, 1826, American State Papers, Foreign, VI, 597. Protocol ef Thir teenth Conference, June 17, 1826, ibid., 598. 22 Poinsett to Clay, July 12, 1826, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, II. CONCLUDING A COMMERCIAL TREATY 223 Spain would introduce Spaniards into Mexico under the guise of naturaUzed citizens of the United States. Poinsett strenuously opposed the exception. In ex plaining the matter to Clay, he said : " I induced them to waive the discussion at that time by declaring that I never would consent to insert any exception to this article in the body of the treaty, and that all allusion to it must be postponed until we had concluded the treaty. I consented to it at length as an additional article, because from the manner in which the Mex ican plenipotentiaries persisted in introducing it, I felt convinced that they considered it essential to the liber ties of this country to preserve the right they con tended for; nor do I think them wrong in their esti mate of the danger of admitting indiscriminately all Spaniards, wherever established and at all times. Cir cumstances may arise which might render it extremely dangerous to throw their country open to such persons. There are too many of them here now; and I never have met with one European Spaniard, wherever domiciliated, favorable to the cause of American in dependence. I yielded, however, not to their argu ments, but to the necessity and urgency of the case." In introducing the matter Poinsett had said to Clay : "I am fully aware of the objections which wiU occur to you on reading the first additional article to this treaty. They are weighty ; but this government would have made no treaty without such a provision."^* 23 Poinsett to Clay, July 12, 1826, MS., Department ef State, Despatches from Mexico, II. And Protocol of the Thirteenth Conference, American State Papers, Foreign, VI, 598; Mex ico, Tratados y Cenvenciones, II, 85. 224 OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF With his letter of July 12, Poinsett enclosed copies of the treaty signed two days earlier.^* The original was retained to be sent as soon as the Mexican gov ernment should indicate its readiness to exchange rati fications. In this as in so many other cases Poinsett found that government intolerably slow. Late in Oc tober he wrote Clay that the treaty was not yet sub mitted to the Mexican Congress, in spite of repeated promises that it should be. He said there seemed to be a jealous dread of too intimate relations with the United States. This unfriendliness of the executive, he added, was not shared by the people or the Con gress. ^^ Two months later Poinsett had to report that the treaty was still unratified by the Mexican Congress. In spite of that fact he had judged it advisable to send the official copy by his secretary of legation, Mr. Mason. He did not mean by doing this that he thought the United States ought to ratify it first. In fact he advised the contrary. His purpose in sending Mr. Mason at that time was that he might converse freely with Clay and Adams on the relations between the two countries.^" 2* For the text of the treaty, see American State Papers, Foreign, VI, 608. A copy of Poinsett's projet precedes. 25 Poinsett to Clay, October 21, 1826, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, II. 23 Poinsett te Clay, December 29, 1826, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, II. Most ef this six-page letter was a reply to one which Clay had addressed te him on September 27, 1826, MS., Department of State, Instructions, XI, 159. Clay had understood from the protocols which ac companied the copy of the treaty that Mexico had reserved CONCLUDING A COMMERCIAL TREATY 225 On March 12, 1827, Clay wrote to Poinsett ex pressing great surprise that the intent of Mexico re garding the ratification of the treaty had not been com municated within the prescribed time, eight months, which had expired two days before Clay wrote this letter. This unaccountable delay was less justifiable on the part of Mexico, he said, than it would have been on the part of the United States, since the treaty had been made under the constant and immediate supervision of the Mexican government. Further more the ratifications were to have been exchanged in Washington. If it had been agreed that they should take place at Mexico, he declared, the United States govemment would have made some response within the prescribed time. On the arrival of Mr. Mason with the official copy of the treaty the President had, on February 12, sub mitted it to the Senate.^^ This was done. Clay ex plained, so that if the Senate had advised ratification, and if the Mexican ratification had arrived within the prescribed time, the President could have exchanged the right to subject United States shipping to exorbitant dis criminating duties for the benefit of Mexican shipping, but that the United States was not to retaliate. Poinsett's long letter was to explain that his argument in the protocol was to show hew unequally the "most favored nation "principle might operate. He did not intend, ner was he understood, he said, to pledge the United States net to meet with countervailing duties any discriminations in favor ef Mexican tonnage. 27 Adams te the Senate, February 12, 1827, American State Papers, Foreign, VI, 578, communicating the treaty and docu ments. 16 226 OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF the ratifications even if the Senate had not then been in session. Furthermore, if the Senate desired to sug gest changes or amendments this could be done with better grace before it was known whether or not the Mexican government desired modifications. But even if the Senate had consented to the ratification of the treaty unchanged, and if notice should come that the Mexican government had agreed to do the same, it would now be necessary to resubmit it to the Senate since the time had expired. The Senate had, by the resolutions adopted Feb ruary 26, advised and consented to the ratification of most of the provisions ; but there were certain parts which had not received the approbation of that body. The Senate, as Poinsett had anticipated would be the case, objected to the first additional article, which ex cluded from Mexico "persons born in the European dominions of His Catholic Majesty." This was de clared to be repugnant to the constitution, which pro vided that the native and the naturalized citizen, " with few exceptions applicable to ourselves alone," have the same rights. The Senate proposed to substitute in the third article of the treaty the word " citizens " for the word " inhabitants." That would leave only a very few who would be affected by the first additional article ; and it was hoped that this would obviate the repugnance of the Mexican government to the omis sion of that additional article. Clay further said that the consent of the Senate to the sixteenth and seventeenth articles, which embodied CONCLUDING A COMMERCIAL TREATY 227 the principle, " free ships shall make free goods," de pended on the addition to the sixteenth of the follow ing: "Provided, however, and it is hereby agreed, that the stipulations in this article contained declaring that the flag shall cover the property shall be under stood as applying to those powers only who recognize this principle ; but if either of the two contracting par ties shall be at war with a third, and the other neutral, the flag of the neutral shall cover the property of the enemies whose governments acknowledge this prin ciple and not of others." This was the exception which Poinsett had tried in vain to introduce. Clay said such was the limitation on the principle in the treaty with Colombia; and it would be simply refusing to a power the benefits of a principle to which it would not subscribe. The objection which the Mexican pleni potentiaries had urged to so limiting this principle when the treaty was being negotiated had been re moved; for the treaty between the Mexican govern ment and England had now been ratified. The third amendment proposed by the Senate was that the duration of the treaty should be fixed at six years instead of twelve as the treaty provided. To make this change more palatable to the Mexican gov ernment, Poinsett was authorized to agree that it should remain in force beyond the term of six years until one of the parties should give six months' written notice of a desire to terminate it. In concluding his long instruction to Poinsett Clay declared : " If the Mexican government will not agree 228 OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF to the amendments proposed by the Senate, no alter native will then remain but to terminate the negotia tions." He had previously said that the Senate at tached most importance to the first and third amend ments, and added : " It is believed that, without these, the Senate would never advise the ratification of the treaty. You will use your best exertions to prevail on the Mexican government to consent to all the pro posed amendments."^* Not only had the Mexican ratifications not reached Washington when Clay wrote the above instruction two days after the time limit for exchanging the rati fications had expired, but the Mexican Chamber of Deputies had not even acted on the treaty at that time. Nearly a month later, on April lo, 1827, Poinsett wrote that the Mexican Chamber had not yet acted. He enclosed, however, a report that had been made some time before by the committee on foreign rela tions of that Chamber. This report never was adopted; but it is interesting as showing the senti ment of the members of the Chamber who were most informed upon and responsible for its foreign policy. The report declared that the committee had considered the treaty daily for three months. It had wished to report earlier; but did not wish to make an incom plete or ill advised report. Difficulties in securing de sired documents, inexact translations of some articles, and obscure meanings of others all had caused delays. Repeated conferences had been held with the Mexican 28 Clay to Poinsett, March 12, 1827, MS., Department of State, Instructions, XI, 261. CONCLUDING A COMMERCIAL TREATY 229 negotiators of the treaty. The committee had dis trusted its own abiUty ; and was the more scrupulous because "the treaty is made with a nation whose existence was half a century earlier than ours, and which is skilful in the mazes, ambiguities, and trans formations (sic) of diplomacy, while we are beginning this difficult career with the candour of youth." They first considered whether the time had come when a treaty should be made with the United States ; and decided in the affirmative, since it would increase the prestige of the country among foreign powers and also increase the internal stability. This had been recognized by the sister Spanish-American states, who had not only concluded treaties among themselves but with the United States and England. They recognized the fact that Mexico owed a debt of gratitude to the United States for first showing sympathy with and recognizing the independence of the new states. "Even now its government acts with greater frank ness than others, since it receives a Minister Plenipo tentiary of Mexico in which character our agent in England is not considered." The treaty would es tablish confidence and invite foreign capital, and thus increase the wealth, population, and prosperity of the country. All of the articles of the treaty were reviewed and commented upon. SUght, immaterial modifications of many were suggested; but few serious objections were raised, until they came to the thirty-third article. That article declared : " It is likewise agreed that, in 230 OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF the event of any slaves escaping from their owners, residing in the States or Territories of one of the con tracting parties, and passing over into the States or Territories of the other, it shall be lawful for the owner or owners of such slaves, or their lawful agents, to require the assistance of the authorities of the country where they may be found for their arrest, de tention, and custody, and for that purpose the pro prietors, or their agents, shall address themselves to the nearest magistrate or competent officer. On such demand being made, it shall be the duty of the magis trate or competent officer to cause the said slaves to be arrested and detained; and if it shall appear that such slaves be actually the property of the claimant, the magistrate or competent officer shall surrender them to the proprietors, or their agents, to be con veyed back to the country from whence they had es caped." The same article provided for the extradi tion of murderers and forgers.^* For some unaccountable reason this article had been adopted by the negotiators without discussion. All that is said in the protocol is: "The thirty-third ar ticle, relating to the delivery of fugitive slaves and of murderers and forgers taking refuge in the territories of either of the contracting parties, was read and agreed to."*" But whatever was the motive for this silence on the part of the Mexican negotiators, whether inadvertence, indifference, or fear of obstructing the 23 American State Papers, Foreign, VI, 612. 30 See Protocol of the Twelfth Conference, June 16, 1826, American State Papers, Foreign, VI, 595. CONCLUDING A COMMERCIAL TREATY 23 I negotiations, the committee on foreign relations of the Chamber did not pass over it in silence. It declared unequivocally : " The Committee trusts that the Cham ber wiU be pleased to reject the thirty-third article re specting the restoration of slaves. The slave makes use of the inalienable right which the author of nature has conceded to him, when he procures his liberty. The chambers have shown themselves determined to erase this stain and to preserve our institutions. It is also to be observed that the reciprocity which is estab lished in this article is nominal, since there are no slaves belonging to Mexico on the frontiers of the States of the North. "The Committee is, moreover, aware that in the colonies of our neighbors on the frontiers, slaves are worked, who alone can withstand the labors to which they are condemned by their deplorable fate. Who will not allow that it is expedient for us to remove our neighbors from the frontiers even by indirect means ? "*! They advised the insertion as additional articles of the two following provisions : " that the treaty of limits between the two nations shall be concluded at the latest within two years"; and that "untU the contracting parties fix definitely the Umits within the time ap pointed, the stipulations of the treaty of amity, settle raent of differences, and limits between His Catholic 31 For further attempts to check the settlement of Anglo- Americans on the Texas frontier by making it illegal to retain or reclaim slaves in Mexican territory, see below, chapter on Texas and the Boundary Issue. 232 OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF Majesty and the United States of America signed on the twenty-second of February, 1819, by Don Luis Onis and John Quincy Adams shall be in force."*^ Before the Mexican Chamber of Deputies had acted on this report of its committee on foreign relations. Clay's instruction of March 12, studied above, reached Poinsett. On May 10 the latter acknowledged its re ceipt, and repUed: "I have already signified to this government the resolutions of the Senate of the United States with regard to the treaty, and proposed to re new the negotiations." The treaty was still before the house, he added, but would be withdrawn by the executive. In conclusion he declared he was not sur prised at the Senate's action with the treaty. His only motive for allowing the insertion of the additional ar ticle was to avoid breaking off negotiations a second time and leaving the field entirely to the British. "You can form no idea of the difficulties of treating with these people. They want good faith themselves, and are constantly afraid of being deceived."33 Three months later Poinsett wrote that President Victoria had invited him to a conference, received him cordially, and expressed an earnest desire to reopen negotiations at once, indicating that there was a dis position to yield the points which the United States 32 Report ef the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Chamber ef Deputies on the Treaty between the United States and Mexico, enclosed with Poinsett to Clay, April 10, 1827, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, II. 33 Poinsett to Clay, May 10, 1827, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, III. CONCLUDING A COMMERCIAL TREATY 233 Senate considered necessary.** After another three months had passed without renewing the negotia tions, Poinsett again wrote, "The President repeated to me the other day his disposition to conclude them as soon as possible and his wilUngness to cede the points in dispute between the two governments," say ing the delay had been caused by the illness of one of the negotiators.*^ One month later still, Victoria re peated his explanation, assuring Poinsett, however, that the negotiations would be resumed within a week.*" But nearly two months more passed before the first conference occurred in the renewed commer cial negotiations. The sickness of the n^otiator was not the only or the most serious obstacle. In April, 1827, when the Chamber of Deputies was considering whether it would ratify the commercial treaty which had been concluded July 10, 1826, studied above, a resolution had been adopted declaring against further consideration of that treaty until an article should be inserted settling the boundary dispute. Finally concluding that it was useless to try further to secure the cession of Texas or any portion of it, Poinsett conceded the Mexican de mands and hastily concluded a boundary treaty which was signed January 12, 1828.*' This insuperable ob- 3* Poinsett te Clay, August 10, 1827, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, III. 35 Poinsett to Clay, November 10, 1827, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, III. 36 Poinsett to Clay, December 8, 1827, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, III. 37 See below, chapter on Texas and the Boundary Issue. 234 OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF stacle being removed, the commercial negotiations were shortly resumed and concluded almost as rapidly as the boundary treaty had been. The first conference occurred on February 4. Poin sett read a note setting forth the resolutions of the United States Senate. The first disputed matter settled was that in the first additional article of the rejected treaty conceming the exclusion from Mexico of persons living in the United States who had been born in the European dominions of the king of Spain. Poinsett urged the constitutional point that the United States was under the necessity of securing for natural ized citizens the same privileges as for native-born citizens. He offered, as the Senate had proposed, to substitute in the third article the word " citizens " in stead of the word " inhabitants " in order to limit the privilege to bona fide naturalized citizens. The Mex ican negotiators showed the difficulty of distinguishing between real and pretended citizens. Poinsett prom ised that this would be accomplished by care in issuing and scrutinizing passports. The first additional ar ticle was thereupon withdrawn and the proposed sub stitution made in the third article. The next disputed point settled was one which Poin sett had held out for strenuously in the first negotia tion, in obedience to his original instructions from Clay, but which he had finally yielded, and which the United States Senate had allowed to pass. Poinsett found the Mexicans now not only willing but glad to yield the point in principle for the future ; but for the pres ent they found a way to retain the less liberal provi- CONCLUDING A COMMERCIAL TREATY 235 sion. This secured the "perfect reciprocity" in stead of the "most favored nation" treatment as between United States and Mexican importers with respect to tonnage dues, port charges, etc., and was accomplished by substituting instead of articles five and six of the former treaty the fifth and sixth articles of the treaty which had since been concluded and rati fied between Mexico and Great Britain.** An addi tional article of that treaty, however, suspended the operation of the " perfect reciprocity " clause for ten years on account of the backward state of the Mexican merchant marine. That additional article was also included in this treaty. In the meantime Mexico was required to accord only the "most favored nation" treatment. The next point discussed was the demand of the United States Senate for the insertion in the sixteenth and seventeenth articles, embodying the principle, " free ships shall make free goods," of the provision limiting its advantages to the property of enemies whose governments acknowledge the principle. The Mexicans were not prepared to yield this without re sistance, and consequently no agreement was reached at the first conference. It was arranged that the Mex ican plenipotentiaries should present in writing the next day their arguments against the exception.*'' 3* For the British Treaty, see British and Foreign State Papers, XIV, 614 For the original treaty between the United States and Mexico, see American State Papers, Foreign, VI, 608 ; and for the revised, see the last, 952. 39 Protocol of the First Conference, February 4 1828, en closed with Poinsett to Clay, March 8, 1828, MS., Department 236 OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF It will be remembered that this exception was di rected principally at Great Britain and that the Mex icans refused in the former negotiation to admit it for fear it would prevent England from ratifying the treaty then pending between that government and Mexico but subsequently ratified. In their note which was dated February 6 the plenipotentiaries referred to Poinsett's arguments of two days earlier in favor of the exception and declared : " The undersigned have to observe that the reasons alleged are reduced simply to the same which were advanced by your ex cellency, with the same intention, in the conferences held on the 13th and 17th of June, 1826, and which were extended with more exactness in your note of the last date; but as all these were refuted at that time by the arguments of the undersigned, and as your excellency, on that account, agreed to adopt the stipu lation of the principle without any limitation, they do not perceive any reasonable motive at present which could justify their conduct if they were to change their opinion and accede to the exception proposed by your excellency, in conformity to the wishes of your government. It is true that the Mexican United States have not now the powerful obstacle which, at the period of the first negotiations, prevented them from admitting an exception in some manner odious, and which might, on that account, have retarded the conclusion of pending treaties with a third power. of State, Despatches from Mexico, III. This letter of March 8 is printed in American State Papers, Foreign, VI, 950; but the protocol is omitted. CONCLUDING A COMMERCIAL TREATY 237 But it is likewise true that, after having celebrated those treaties, the good faith and honor of the govern ment are interested ; that, on the part of Mexico, there should be no variation in the principle of conduct which it had proposed to follow invariably, and which probably had an influence on the minds of the other party in settling those conventions. The undersigned, in virtue of these reasons, cannot persuade themselves that the government of the United States of America should insist on the insertion of the proposed addition to the sixteenth article as a sine qua non. . . ."*" In replying to the Mexican note Poinsett said he "did not consider the arguments he had used during the former conferences and in his note of the 17th of June, 1826, as refuted by the Mexican Plenipoten tiaries. He yielded the point in dispute at that time to his earnest desire not to embarrass the negotiations then pending between Mexico and Great Britain." He then argued, by citing a supposed state of war, the injustice of applying the rule without the excep tion, and the advantage it would be to an infant mari time state to extend the rule, and continued : " The rule is aUke poUtic and humane; but to make it just the qualification proposed is absolutely essential. It has been adopted in this manner by all the new repub Ucs of America with whom the United States have celebrated treaties, and it would be unjust towards them to form a convention with Mexico wherein the *" Camacho and Esteva to Poinsett, February 6, 1828, Amer ican State Papers, Foreign, VI, 948. 238 OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF principle was admitted without the exception. The only alternative the undersigned can offer is to omit the principle altogether. If it be inserted at all in the treaty, it must be accompanied by the proposed qualification. With respect to the obUgation which it is supposed that Mexico has contracted in her nego tiations with Great Britain, the undersigned will merely observe that there exists the most positive proof that Mexico would have obtained the same terms from that nation even if the principle and proposed quahfication had been introduced into the former treaty. Great Britain had no right to exact or expect that Mexico should renounce an important rule, af fecting her most vital interests, after having made a treaty with Colombia, subsequent to that concluded between the United States and that republic, in which the principle of ' free ships making free goods,' to gether with the proposed qualification, had been intro duced. It is not probable, therefore, that the circum stance of the omission of the proposed qualification in our former treaty had any influence on the negotia tions between this country and Great Britain. If the great maritime powers, with only one exception, have deemed it politic to adopt this salutary rule, how much more important must it be to the rising but infant states of America. To the undersigned it appears of the last importance to settle by treaty, in this hemi sphere, a question which has occasioned so many acts of violence and so many wars in the other. The states of America ought to be governed in their inter- CONCLUDING A COMMERCIAL TREATY 239 course with each other by the strictest rules of human ity and justice, and every means [ought to be] re sorted to that human wisdom can suggest in order to avoid future cause of war, of which the converse of the principle here contended for has proved so fruitful a source."*! At the second conference, which took place on Feb ruary 10, the Mexican plenipotentiaries consented to admit the exception to the sixteenth article rather than abandon entirely the principle, " free ships shall make free goods," which Poinsett had declared was the only alternative. A minor matter conceming In dian tribes was also settled at this conference.*- Four days later, on February 14, 1828, the treaty was signed.** In Poinsett's letter of February 22, transmitting this treaty and that of Umits which had been concluded January 12, preceding, Poinsett told Clay that all of the alterations suggested by the United States Senate had been introduced into the treaty except that re lating to the duration of the treaty. This Poinsett had not insisted upon because the term of ten years was *i Poinsett to Camacho and Esteva, February 8, 1828, Amer ican State Papers, Foreign, VI, 949- This note and that of February 6 to which it replied were enclosed witli Poinsett to Clay, February 23, 1828, MS., Department ef State, Despatches from Mexico, III. *- Protocol of Second Conference, February 10, 1828, en closed with Poinsett to Clay, March 8, 1828, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, III. •*3 For the treaty, see American State Papers, Foreign, VI, 952. A Spanish version follows the English. 240 OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF specified in the additional article suspending the " per fect reciprocity" clause. This had been borrowed from the British treaty, and had been embodied by Mexico in other treaties containing the same provi sion. For the sake of uniformity the Mexicans were very anxious to have it in the treaty with the United States also. Poinsett agreed to let the twelve year period of the original treaty stand; but he accom plished the essential purpose of the Senate by intro ducing into the thirty-fourth article a provision that at the end of six years from the exchange of ratifications alterations could be made in the treaty and would be considered a part of it, having the same force as those provisions now agreed upon.** Again the thirty-third article relating to the arrest and return of fugitive slaves had been adopted without any indication in the protocols that it was even dis cussed by the negotiators. On March i, two weeks after the treaty had been signed and almost one week after Poinsett had despatched it to Washington, a special conference was held between him and Camacho at the latter's request in order that an explanation might be given of some matters concerning which doubts had arisen in the minds of members of the Mexican government. Some minor misunderstand- ** Poinsett to Clay, February 22, 1828, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, III ; American State Papers, Foreign, VI, 948. A second additional article provided that the treaty should remain in force even beyond the term of twelve years until six months after ene of the contracting governments should give notice of its desire to terminate the treaty. CONCLUDING A COMMERCIAL TREATY 24 1 ings were easily removed concerning the interpreta tion of provisions relating to blockades and to the ad mission of consuls. Then coming to the most im portant point, Camacho urged the objections of his government to the thirty-third article, and proposed that it be modified so as not to come into such violent colUsion with the feelings of the Mexican people. He proposed to accomplish this " either by an agreement on the part of Mexico to pay for such fugitive slaves, or in some other manner." Poinsett replied that the thirty-third article seemed to him to be indispensable. He argued that the United States government was compelled to protect its citizens in the possession of their property. The provision in the Mexican consti tution for the emancipation of slaves, he said, would be considered by the slaves as an invitation to them to escape. If there were no treaty provision for their return their owners, he insisted, would be compelled to pursue them across the border and recover them. This would continually disturb the peace along the borders. If Mexico should undertake to remunerate the owners of escaped slaves for their loss, it would be a constant and heavy drain on the resources of Mexico, and besides would involve the two govern ments in continual difficulties. The supposition that the absence of a provision for the return of slaves would discourage slave owners from settling on or near the borders of Mexico and hence be beneficial was, he argued, not well founded. Furthermore, he urged that the real interests of Mexico demanded that 17 242 OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF the region near the border be settled by an orderly and law abiding population, for if it should not be settled by such a people it would become a rendezvous for disorderly characters. Slave owners, he insisted, were an especially desirable and orderly class. In conclusion he said he would not have insisted on the provision as a sine qua non; but the only alternative that he could have accepted would have been com pensation for escaped slaves. The serious objections to that he had already urged.*'^ The proposed change was not made. In his letter to Clay of March 8, 1828, with which the protocol of this conference was enclosed, Poinsett said: "With regard to the article relative to fugitive slaves, I used very strong language, because I thought it politic, so to do. I do certainly consider that ar ticle as very important to the future good understand ing between the two nations, and shall use every means in my power to have it ratified by this Congress." The complete satisfaction of the administration and the Senate at Washington with Poinsett's negotiation of the revised treaty is reflected by the promptness with which it was approved. On April 21, 1828, Clay acknowledged receipt of the treaties and said they *5 Protocol of a conference between Poinsett and Camacho, March i, 1828, enclosure with Poinsett to Clay, March 8, 1828, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, III. This protocol is in both Spanish and English in parallel columns, and extends ever more than twenty pages. It is not printed in American State Papers, Foreign, VI, 950, with Poinsett's brief letter ef March 8, with which it was an enclosure. CONCLUDING A COMMERCIAL TREATY 243 would be immediately laid before the Senate for their advice.*" Three days later Adams transmitted the commercial treaty to that body ;*^ and on the same day it was received by the Senate and referred to the com mittee on foreign relations.** One week later. May i, 1828, the committee on foreign relations reported the treaty without amendment. On the same day it was considered by the committee of the whole, Ukewise without amendment, and reported. Immediately, by unanimous consent, a motion was considered to ad vise and consent to the ratification of the treaty. The motion was carried without a dissenting vote, — forty yeas, and no nays.** It is worthy of mention here that the treaty of limits received at almost the same time the same prompt treatment, and almost as enthusiastic approval.^" In the Congress at Mexico action was very different from this in the Senate at Washington. In spite of Poinsett's efforts to secure its ratification, he had to write Clay on May 21, 1828, more than three months after the signing of the treaty, that the Mexican Congress had adjourned that day, and, he was sorry to say, without ratifying the treaty. The lower house had acted on it, rejecting two articles. The first was that relating to the rendition of fugitive slaves. It *" Clay to Poinsett, April 21, 1828, MS., Department ef State, Instructions, XII, 98. ^^ Adams to Senate, April 24, 1828, American State Papers, Foreign, VI, 952. The treaty follows. ** Senate Executive Journal, April 24, 1828, III, 605. *9 Senate Executive Journal, May I, 1828, III, 606. 50 See below, chapter on Texas and the Boundary Issue. 244 OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF had been rejected, he said, entirely on philanthropic principles, and added : " Such are most likely to in fluence the young legislators of a young nation." The other rejected article related to the maintenance of peace between the Indians on either side of the border. This action was not final, however, and he hoped to be able to carry both articles at the coming extraordinary session of the Congress, which would take place in August."! Two weeks later he wrote that the secre tary for foreign relations had most ably and zealously defended the rejected articles; and added, that offi cial "thinks that we shall succeed in passing them through the Senate in a manner that will secure their passage in the House on a question of reconsidera- tion."^2 Late in September Poinsett wrote: "I am waiting with great impatience for the Senate of Mexico to con clude their discussions on the treaty";"* and early in October he addressed a note to Cafiedo, the secretary for foreign relations, asking an explanation for the delay, and complaining that other treaties subsequently negotiated had been acted upon. He added that while all governments were entitled to sufficient time for deliberation, it was unreasonable and contrary to prac- 31 Poinsett to Clay, May 21, 1828, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. 52 Poinsett to Clay, June 4 1828, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. "Poinsett to Clay, September 25, 1828, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. CONCLUDING A COMMERCIAL TREATY 245 tice to aUow the time set in the treaty for ratification to pass without action or explanation.^* Poinsett's impatient outburst was followed a few days later by action ; but the action was very different from what he desired. The Senate had discussed the treaty for three days in secret session, — October lo, II, and 13. Instead of rejecting only two articles, as the lower house had done earlier, it rejected fourteen, namely, the sixteenth to the twenty-fifth, the thirtieth, the thirty-second, thirty-third, and thirty-fourth. The extract from the proceedings of the Senate which Poinsett sent to Clay indicate, however, that the most serious and perhaps the only insuperable obstacles were found in the same articles which the lower house had rejected. The first of these, article 32, agreed that each nation would restrain the Indians within its borders from making incursions into the terri tories of the other. It was urged that it was impos sible to prevent incursions of Mexican Indians at times into the Mexican states ; and it would be much more difficult to prevent them from making incursions into the United States, which this article bound Mex ico to do. It was article 33, providing for the rendition of fugitive slaves, that was most severely attacked. The extract from the Senate proceedings says: "Against the 33d article were objected aU the arguments which militate against slavery, and the horror which it has 3* Poinsett to Cafiedo, October 4 1828, enclosed with Poin sett to Van Buren, July 2, 1829, MS., Department ef State, De spatches from Mexico, IV. 246 OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF always inspired in the Mexican Republic, and which their Congress has manifested by a multitude of de crees; and it would be most extraordinary that in a treaty between two free republics slavery should be encouraged by obliging ours to deliver up fugitive slaves to their merciless and barbarous masters of North America. It was added that even the second part [concerning the extradition of murderers and forgers], could not be approved, because a perfect reciprocity could never be effected, it being the well- known custom of the United States of the North never to deliver up their criminals to the powers who de mand them ; and this it is which has considerably aug mented their population. The only reply made was that in nations where slavery exists the slaves are the property of their masters ; and that security for prop erty ought to be stipulated for between two friendly nations ; and that facilities ought not to be afforded to criminals to commit offences with impunity, because in that case crimes would be so multiplied that it would be impossible to restrain them; and that this must take place if by the rejection of the article our criminals can take refuge in the United States of the North, and those of that country come here." Against the thirty-fourth article it was urged that if the two powers should wish to enter into any new negotiation they would find their hands tied by this treaty until after the long period of six years."" '^^ Extract from a debate in the Mexican Senate, October 10, II, and 13, 1828, enclosed with Poinsett to Clay, November 15, 1828, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. CONCLUDING A COMMERCIAL TREATY 247 In a letter to Clay on October 22, 1828, Poinsett said: "This result was not altogether unexpected by me. A majority in the Senate have always been ex ceedingly adverse to any connection with the United States. They dislike our repubUcan institutions, es pecially as they were the occasion of their adoption in this country. They are and ever have been essen tially monarchical and European in their principles; and while they affect to believe that the United States are jealous of the rising greatness and prosperity of this Empire, are in reaUty envious and apprehensive of their neighbors. If the treaty be again passed in the Chamber of Deputies by a majority of two thirds, it will be returned to the Senate, when one third of the votes of that body will be sufficient for its ratifi- cation."^" This shows that Poinsett had not utterly abandoned hope. Now he turned to the lower house to use his best efforts. On November 15, he wrote that he had " furnished a member of the House with the necessary arguments to rebut those used by the Senate. It is very vexatious to have to contend with the extreme ignorance and presumption of this body ; and it is per fectly impossible to anticipate their objections.""'' Some nine months later, Poinsett said that the Mex ican Senate, when it rejected the above mentioned articles, declared that it would agree to no treaty S3 Poinsett to Clay, October 22, 1828, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. °' Poinsett to Clay, November 15, 1828, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. 248 OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF with the United States which contained any provisions other than those in the treaty between Mexico and Great Britain. In this same letter, which was addressed on July 22, 1829, to Secretary of State Van Buren, and which re viewed at length aU of Poinsett's negotiations with Mexico for the information of the new Jackson ad ministration, Poinsett said that after the Senate action of the preceding October the treaty had been sent back to the Chamber of Deputies where it still remained when this letter was written without having been acted upon. In explaining the motive for the Senate's ac tion, he repeated practically what he had said to Clay nine months before: "A majority of the Mexican Senate, elected during the reign of the monarchical faction throughout this union, are opposed to the es tablishment of friendly relations between the United States and Mexico ; and now, aware of the determina tion of the executive to return the treaty to Congress with such observations as will probably lead to the restoration of the liberal principles it contains, they will delay its despatch as long as they possibly can, both in the expectation of creating an unfriendly feel ing between the two countries and of wearing out my patience."'* A week before writing this long review Poinsett had said that General Guerrero, the new President of Mex ico, " told me a few days ago that he was determined 38 Poinsett to Van Buren, July 22, 1829, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. CONCLUDING A COMMERCIAL TREATY 249 the plans of these men should not prevail." As a means for counteracting their influence President Guerrero had signified his desire for an extraordi nary session of Congress. " One of the objects is de clared to be the immediate despatch of the treaty of navigation and commerce between our two repub Ucs.""* The Congress met in special session a few days later, but its attention was absorbed by other matters, the chief of which was the Spanish invasion. The long growing but hitherto covert opposition to the supposed influence of Poinsett over the govemment of Guerrero burst into open and public declarations of hostility and demands for his removal from the country. President Guerrero, whose hold on the govemment had been very precarious from the time of his inaugu ration in the spring, was weakening. Even before the public attacks on Poinsett, Guerrero had yielded to the opposition and written a letter asking the Washing ton government to recall him."" Under these circum stances nothing further was done with the pending commercial treaty during the brief remainder of Poin sett's residence in Mexico. On October i6, 1829, Secretary Van Buren, in in structing Anthony Butler, who was being sent as charge to succeed Poinsett, declared that the conduct of Mex ico, whether caused by a mistaken policy, an un- so Poinsett to Van Buren, July 15, 1829, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. 3" For a full account ef these matters, see below, chapter on Public Attacks en Poinsett and his Recall. 250 OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF friendly disposition, or the influence of foreign na tions hostile to the United States, had deeply wounded the sensibilities of the people of the United States. After reviewing the slow progress of the fruitless four year negotiation and contrasting the promptness of the Washington govemment in acting on the two treaties with the dilatory policy of Mexico, he de clared that the latter had again permitted the time allowed for exchanging ratifications to pass without action. He added that they still had not acted, and declared: "The solemn compact has again been can celled ; and if, by the law of nations, blame is incurred by a state which refuses to sanction the obligation which its authorized agent has contracted in its name, that blame rests on Mexico, by whose act this obliga tion has twice been disregarded.""! Thus within the period which this study properly covers no treaty of commerce was concluded. But to show that the negotiations were not wholly fruitless it should be added that on April 5, 183 1, while Butler was representing the United States in Mexico, a treaty was signed which was ratified by both powers and of which the ratifications were exchanged exactly one year later, the last day on which they could be ex changed according to the provision Umiting the time within which the exchange must be effected. Butler's treaty of 1831 embodied nearly all of the articles con tained in Poinsett's treaty of February 14, 1828. In 31 Van Buren to Butler, October 16, 1829, MS., Department of State, Instructions, American States, XIV, 149; House Documents, 25 congress, 2 session, number 53, page 51. CONCLUDING A COMMERCIAL TREATY 25 I many of them there were immaterial verbal changes. A few important changes were made. The most striking as well as important was the entire omission of the article requiring the rendition of fugitive slaves. The agreement to restrain the frontier Indians re mained practically as Poinsett had drawn it. The thirty-second article of Butler's treaty was entirely new. Its purpose was to regulate and protect the commerce between Missouri and New Mexico, — the Santa Fe trade. The twelve year period for which Poinsett's treaty was to endure was changed to eight years in Butler's, and beyond that time until one year after either power should serve notice of an intention to terminate it, instead of six months as Poinsett had arranged. For the exchange of ratifications instead of six months, an entire year was allowed, and, as stated above, they were not exchanged until the last day. The additional article suspending the operation of the "perfect reciprocity" arrangement of the fifth and sixth articles was limited to six years instead of ten as in Poinsett's treaty."^ 32 United States, Treaties and Conventions, from 1776 to 1909, I, 688; Mexico, Tratados y Cenvenciones, I, 150 and 163. CHAPTER VIII Commercial Controversies In the absence of a treaty to regulate the commerce between the two countries, continual disputes arose over the rights and privileges of United States mer chants and merchandise in Mexico. Importers, ship owners, and masters of vessels complained of mis treatment at the hands of Mexican officials at the ports of entry. On the other hand Mexican officials com plained of violations of Mexican laws by those who brought goods from the United States. Much of Poinsett's time while in Mexico was occupied in at tempts — frequently vain attempts — to adjust such disputes. It will be recalled that when Obregon set out from Mexico in September, 1824, to represent his govern ment in the United States he was instructed to appoint and supervise Mexican consuls in the United States and through them enforce regulations governing the shipment of goods to Mexico.! To make sure that these consuls would have opportunity effectually to supervise shipments and enforce regulations, he was instructed to require that every invoice for such goods should be certified by a Mexican consul at the port of origin. To make sure that shippers would submit 1 See above, the chapter on Beginnings : Early Mexican Representatives at Washington. 252 commercial controversies 253 to this requirement, a drastic penalty was provided for its violation. Any goods found in a Mexican port of entry for which such consular certificate could not be produced was, because of that fact, to be seized as contraband. Obregon was instructed to cause to be published in the papers of the United States both the requirement concerning the consular certificates and the penalty for its violation. In order to insure the faithful enforcement of these regulations by the consuls, Obregon was instructed to exercise great care in their selection, choosing persons of known credit and good reputation, preferring always ^Mexican citi zens if such were available, and avoiding naming any Spaniard.^ As instructed, Obr^on appointed consuls for the principal exporting cities of the United States,* and they proceeded to obey their instructions regarding the issuance of consular certificates. Their diUgence in 2 Secretario to Obregon, Instrucciones, 30 de agosto de 1824 MS., Relaciones Exteriores. In the rough draft of these in structions from which the transcript was made there is oppo site the beginning of the third paragraph, which relates to the consular certificates, a marginal note reading " 3° Suprimida " ; but the paragraph must have been restored, since its instruc tions were obeyed. * Obregon to Clay, May 11, 1825, tells of the appointment of vice-consuls for New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, and requests exequaturs fer them. Same te same, February 5, 1827. announced a new vice-consul for Philadelphia and requested an exequatur for him. Same to same, July 2, 1827, announced an appointment for Charleston. Montoya to Clay, October 22, 1828, did the same for New Orleans. Same to same, January 2, 1S29, did likewise for the Florida ports, MS., Department of State, Notes from Mexican Legation, I. 2 54 commercial controversies the matter is partially accounted for by the fact that there was a fee of two dollars to be paid for issuing each certificate. Every separate invoice had to have its own certificate. Merchants were in the habit of send ing two invoices with each shipment. A single ship frequently carried as many as sixty different ship ments. This meant a tax of two hundred and forty dollars paid to Mexican officials on a merchant vessel before it even started for Mexico.* Many vessels neglected to secure these certificates in spite of the drastic penalty, expecting to evade it in some way when they reached the Mexican port. Probably some vessels left port before Mexican consuls had been established there. Possibly some were ignorant of the regulation. In the latter part of the year 1825 the Mexican port officials began to enforce the regulation and to apply the penalty if the certificates were not forth coming. On October 29 Poinsett wrote to Clay that three vessels from Philadelphia had been seized at Alvarado because they were without the certificates. On Poinsett's bringing the matter to the attention of the govemment at Mexico the goods had been re leased to the consignees on bond, until the legality of the procedure should have been determined. The central government had taken the matter under ad visement, Poinsett said, and some general measures * Poinsett to Secretario, November 16, 1826, enclosed with Poinsett to Clay, December 23, 1826, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, II. commercial controversies 255 would be determined upon." A few days later one member of the ministry wrote to another saying that he believed an injustice had been done to United States shipping by requiring the certificates and thought it would be expedient to suspend the measure. This communication was handed to Poinsett and en closed by him with his letter to Clay on December i." When Clay received Poinsett's report of the seizures he called the matter to the attention of Obregon and received from that gentleman a note of January 4, 1826, defending the consular certificates and the regu lations requiring them, of which he was the author.^ On March 20, 1826, Clay told Poinsett of the seizure of a vessel called the Fair A-merican in a Mexican port because her master had been unable to present a certificate from the Mexican consul at the port of origin.* Before the arrival of Clay's instruction the case had been brought to the attention of Poinsett and he had explained it to the Mexican government and demanded the restoration of the goods." On April 30 Poinsett told Clay of this note to the Mexican gov- 5 Poinsett to Clay, October 29, 1825, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. 3 Poinsett to Clay, December i, 1825, enclosing Esteva to Liave, November 7, 1825, MS., Department of State, De spatches from Mexico, I. ^Obregon to Clay, January 4, 1826, MS., Department of State, Notes from Mexican Legation, I. * Clay to Poinsett, March 20, 1826, MS., Department of State, Instructions, XI, 18. 8 Poinsett te Secretarie, April 20, 1826, enclosure " A " with Poinsett te Clay, July 12, 1826, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, II. 256 commercial controversies ernment of ten days earlier and said the secretary of the treasury had " written to Refugio for a statement of the circumstances in relation to this extraordinary affair."!" About six weeks later the Mexican govern ment affirmed its opinion that the want of consular certificates justified the seizure. On July 8 Poinsett addressed to the secretary for foreign relations a long and vigorous note defending the schooner Fair American, condemning what he called the unjust and irregular consular regulations of Mr. Obregon, and demanding the restitution of the cargo with indemni fication for the owners.!! These notes made it clear that the views of the two governments were diametri cally opposed in the matter. In his despatch transmit ting to Clay this correspondence with the Mexican government Poinsett said he had always considered Obregon's consular regulations irregular; had always opposed their execution; and had received from the Mexican President and ministers assurances that they should be modified. Because of them, trade from the United States had been repeatedly plundered in a shameful manner by Mexican officials. He was col lecting evidence in all such cases and would demand restitution.!2 1" Poinsett to Clay, April 30, 1826, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. 11 Camacho to Poinsett, June 12, 1826, enclosure " B," and Poinsett to Camacho, July 8, 1826, enclosure " C " with Poin sett te Clay, July 12, 1826, MS., Department ef State, De spatches from Mexico, II. 12 Poinsett to Clay, July 12, 1826, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, II. commercial controversies 257 Of the many subsequent seizures for the same reason that one which elicited the most vigorous pro test from Poinsett and furnished occasion for the most extensive correspondence was the case of the brig Delight. After a second cargo of this vessel had been seized Poinsett protested to the Mexican govern ment, September 29, 1826, that according to the com mercial usage of nations these regulations were illegal. Mexico, he said, had obligated herself to observe those usages by the mere fact of her having declared herself an independent nation. He showed also that the regu lations were contrary to the true interests of Mexico since they were turning United States shipping away from Mexico.!* In writing to Clay concerning this new case, Poinsett dwelt at length on the irregularity, illegality, and injustice of the consular certificates. There was not even a Mexican law to justify them, he said. They seemed to rest solely on the authority of Mr. Obregon, whose only justification was an order from Alaman. The Mexican cabinet were not agreed upon the matter. Some opposed and some favored the continuance and strict enforcement of the regula tions. The dispute concerning the Fair American was not yet adjusted. In these two and other similar claims nearly a miUion dollars' worth of United States property were involved.!* q^ November 8 Clay in is Poinsett te Esteva, September 29, 1826, enclosed with Poinsett to Clay, October 21, 1826, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, II. 1* Poinsett to Clay, October 21, 1826, MS., Department ef State, Despatches from Mexico, II. 18 258 commercial controversies structed Poinsett to demand the restoration of the cargo of the brig Delight, to repeat his remonstrance against the consular certificates, " and to require that they be either altogether dispensed with or placed upon some less questionable authority."!" Long before Clay's instruction arrived Poinsett had repeated his protests several times. On November 16 in view of new seizures he declared that the United States government would "insist on their citizens be ing indemnified for their losses."!" And on Decem ber 8 he showed the Mexican government the unfair ness of the regulations in view of the fact that this hardship was suffered only by that nation which had proved itself most friendly to Mexico and had first recognized Mexican independence, while those nations which had not yet recognized Mexico were permitted to trade without these hardships.!' In transmitting these notes to Clay, Poinsett declared: "A more flagrant and unjustifiable violation of the property of our citizens never occurred in any country."!* It was still a year and a half after the exchange of IS Clay to Poinsett, November 8, 1826, MS., Department of State, Instructions, XI, 187. This was written long before the receipt of Poinsett's letter of October 21, which did not reach the State Department until December 24 13 Poinsett to Secretario, November 16, 1826, enclosure " A " with Poinsett to Clay, December 23, 1826, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, II. 1^ Poinsett te Secretarie, December 8, 1826, enclosure " B " with Poinsett to Clay, December 23, 1826, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, II. 1* Poinsett to Clay, December 23, 1826, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, II. commercial controversies 259 these vigorous notes before the controversy over the consular regulations was settled. On July 14, 1828, Poinsett transmitted to Clay a note from the Mexican secretary for foreign relations stating that consular certificates to the invoices of goods would no longer be required. Poinsett suggested that notice of the re moval of the troublesome regulations be pubUshed throughout the United States.!^ Thus ended this con tention which had troubled the commercial and diplo matic relations between the two countries for three years. Another cause of discord was unfair tariff charges in Mexican ports on merchandise from the United States. Difficulty on this score had begun long before Poinsett's arrival in Mexico. In November of 1824 after a vessel had unloaded a part of its cargo of cotton goods from the United States an order from the secretary of the treasury arrived, arbitrarily in creasing their valuation so that without any change in the tariff rates the duties were practically doubled. The order was to become effective immediately and was even retroactive, affecting goods already landed. The United States consul protested and the valuation was reduced to the former standard. Among the early notes from Poinsett to the Mexican government was one of July 18, 1825, protesting against the in justice of such a measure, arguing its irregularity ac cording to the practice of nations, asking that the in is Poinsett to Clay, July 14 1828, enclosing Cariedo to Poin sett, June 19, 1828, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. 26o commercial controversies jured merchants be reimbursed for excess duties paid while the order was in force, and that they be relieved from the payment of a considerable sum still due. In his report of the matter to Clay, Poinsett said that a new tariff was one of the subjects to be considered by the extraordinary session of Congress soon to as semble. He promised to use every effort to have man ufactured goods from the United States placed at a lower rate.^" About three months later Poinsett re ported that the secretary of the treasury had refunded to the merchants the excess duties which they had paid because of the arbitrary increase in valuation in the case referred to above.^i But this was only one of many similar cases. ^^ This acknowledgment of its error and reversal of its action in one case did not deter the Mexican gov ernment from similar action subsequently. Late in 1826 it again tried suddenly to augment its income at the expense of foreign merchants. This time instead 23 Poinsett to Clay, July 18, 1825, enclosing Poinsett to Alaman, July 18, 1825, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. 21 Poinsett to Clay, October 6, 1825, MS., Department ef State, Despatches from Mexico, I. 22 Poinsett to Clay, December i, 1825, enclosing Poinsett to Suberville, November 11, 1825, and Poinsett to Camacho [?], tells of another claim almost the same as. the above, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. Clay to Poinsett, December 7, 1826, MS., Department of State, In structions, XI, 218, transmits papers relating te another such claim. Poinsett to Clay, January 25, 1827, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, II, acknowledges Clay's of December 7. commercial controversies 261 of increasing the valuation it increased the tariff rate, affecting the increase in duties directly instead of in directly. This order affected cotton goods from Eng land equally with those from the United States. Pro tests came from the merchants of both countries against having the increase become immediately effec tive without previous notice. Poinsett sent a note of remonstrance to the Mexican government on Decem ber 28, 1826, showing the illegality of the measure ac cording to the practice of nations, its injustice to the foreign merchants, and the inevitable ultimate de crease in the revenue of Mexico since the duty was made practically prohibitive. He demanded the res toration of the old duties for all goods then in the ports of Mexico or on the way from the United States. Through the United States consul at Vera Cruz Poin sett advised the merchants not to land their goods but to return them to the United States rather than pay the exorbitant duties. He said if the British mer chants would do the same the Mexican government would soon submit.^* 23 Poinsett to Clay, December 27, 1826, enclosing Poinsett te Secretarie, December 28, 1826, MS., Department ef State, Despatches from Mexico, II. Accompanying these there is also a letter from British merchants to the British consul com plaining of the same, and the letter from Poinsett te the consul at Vera Cruz, advising that the cargoes be returned. Poinsett te Clay, March 28, 1827, enclosed an act of the Mexi can Congress fixing the valuation of cotton goods. Same to same, June 5, 1827, told ef a law admitting building timber free for two years, which he suggested should be published. Poinsett to Van Buren, May 23, 1829, told of a law prohib iting the importation of certain products, which Poinsett 262 commercial controversies Many United States vessels and cargoes were seized in Mexico on various pretexts. Some were released after being held for a time, others were confiscated and sold. The instructions which Poinsett was given when he was preparing to start for Mexico told him of a schooner which had been seized in Vera Cruz har bor. It was supposed that the Mexican government would attempt to justify the seizure on the ground that it was violating the Mexican blockade of the castle of San Juan at the entrance to the harbor, which castle was still held by Spain. Clay declared that such an excuse would not be valid unless there had been a sufficient naval force outside the harbor to make the vessel's approach hazardous, or unless she had been warned of the existence of the blockade before she entered.^* In 1825 a vessel was seized on the ground that it thought would nearly ruin the commerce with the United States and decrease the Mexican revenue by one third. He enclosed a copy and suggested that it be published for the protection of shippers, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, III and IV. 2* Clay te Poinsett, March 26, 1825, MS., Department of State, Instructions, X, 225. Clay te Poinsett, April 16, 1825, said that Obregon had called to request a public notification by the United States government of the fact that the Castle of San Juan was blockaded by the Mexican government. The United States consul at Alvarado had declared that he would not respect the blockade until notified by his own gov ernment of its existence. Clay declared that the consul was mistaken and that Obregon had been se informed. Poinsett was asked to notify all United States consuls in Mexico that it was not necessary for their government to notify them of a blockade to make it worthy of respect. commercial controversies 263 was carrying goods which were the produce of Spain and hence excluded from Mexico. Clay said it was asserted that they were not of Spanish but French origin, and asked Poinsett to take such steps in the case as he might think proper and necessary.^" A similar case was brought to the attention of the State Department late in 1826. A cargo of white wax had been seized because it was thought to have been of Spanish or Cuban origin. The documents submitted showed on the contrary that it was of Russian origin and was owned by citizens of the United States. Clay asked Poinsett to aid in procuring the restoration of the goods and damages for their detention.^" A very interesting claim was that of a New York insurance company against the Mexican govemment which had its origin in 1824 and was kept pending for more than three years. A vessel named the Lib erty, carrying a cargo of goods which it had been for bidden to land after August 20, 1824, started from the port of origin in the United States in time to reach its destination before that date. But an accident en route caused the owners of the vessel to abandon it for lost, turning it and its cargo over to the insurance company. The latter recovered the vessel and sent it on to its 25 Clay to Poinsett, September 12, 1825, MS., Department of State, Instructions, X, 378. 26 Brent te Poinsett, November 29, 1826, and Clay to Poin sett, December 21, 1826, MS., Department of State, Instruc tions, XI, 217, 223; and Poinsett to Clay, March 7, 1827, en closing several documents shewing that he had already been working on the case for more than a year, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, II. 264 COMMERCIAL CONTROVERSIES destination. In the meantime the law had gone into effect which excluded the cargo, and it was seized as contraband. The company insisted that the delay was unavoidable and put in a claim to recover. Poinsett wrote Clay on October 6, 1825, that he was not sure of the justice of the case and would await advice be fore presenting the claim.^'^ Clay replied the follow ing May,^* and in August Poinsett said he would pre sent the claim and press it vigorously. He said delay would be unavoidable and justice was uncertain.^' In November of the next year Poinsett sent his last report on the matter to Clay enclosing correspondence with the Mexican government. A note of June 13, 1827, while not denying the justice of the claim, had said that the owners ought to claim damages not from the government but from the offending officials, bas ing their decision on an old Spanish law.*" One of th^ prohibited articles was sugar. In 1826 a ship owned in the United States was bound from a Chinese port for Lima in Peru with a cargo of sugar. It was compeUed by distress to put into the harbor of San Bias and land its cargo to repair damages. 27 Poinsett to Clay, October 6, 1825, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. 28 Clay to Poinsett, May 11, 1826, MS., Department ef State, Instructions, XI, 70. 29 Poinsett to Clay, August 26, 1826, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, II. 30 Poinsett te Clay, November g, 1827, enclosing Poinsett to Secretario, May 25, 1827, and Espinosa to Poinsett, June 13, 1827, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mex ico, III. COMMERCIAL CONTROVERSIES 265 When ready to continue its voyage it was prevented from reloading its cargo, and, instead, the government officials confiscated the sugar. Poinsett addressed a note on October 24, 1826, to the secretary for foreign relations asking the release of the cargo. The request was granted.*! Even after goods had successfully passed the port of entry they were not sure of being exempt from seizure and confiscation by Mexican officials because of some petty irregularity. A law of the state of Tamaulipas had fixed a definite route for goods in transit from Tampico to San Luis Potosi, and de clared that any goods found off this route would be considered contraband. In the spring of 1828 a car rier with goods belonging to citizens of the United States had been compelled to deviate from this route because of the scarcity of water. The goods con formed in every other way with the requirements. They were confiscated by officials because they were found off the established route. In a note of May 8, 1828, Poinsett protested to the secretary for foreign re lations and demanded the restoration of the goods or, in case they had been sold, compensation for them.*^ A few days later Poinsett addressed another note ex plaining that a small quantity of arms not embraced within the Mexican law prohibiting the importation 3! Poinsett to Clay, December 13, 1826, with enclosures, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, II. *2 Poinsett to Cafiedo, May 8, 1825, enclosed with Poinsett to Clay, July 15, 1828, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. 266 COMMERCIAL CONTROVERSIES and sale of arms had been detained at San Luis Potosi. Two days after this note was written asking their restoration a reply came saying that orders had been given to restore the arms.** In the summer of 1829 after the Spanish forces which had been occupying Tampico had evacuated that port, two schooners from the United States ar rived loaded with provisions intended for the Spanish army. They were prohibited articles according to Mexican law, and both vessels and cargo were seized. The secretary for foreign relations brought the matter to Poinsett's attention, saying it was a case for de cision by the courts. The latter replied the following day that the cargoes were subject to confiscation but not the vessels, and that his government would hold the Mexican government responsible for any damage or loss to the vessels.** Even money belonging to citizens of the United States was not exempt from seizure by Mexican officials.*" 33 Poinsett to Cafiedo, May 29, 1828, and Caiiede te Poin sett, May 31, 1828, enclosed with Poinsett to Clay, July IS, 1828, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. 3<'Viesca to Poinsett, November 10, 1829, and Poinsett te Viesca, November 11, 1829, enclosed with Poinsett to Van Buren, November 11, 1829, MS., Department of State, De spatches from Mexico, IV. 35 Clay to Poinsett, March 28, 1826, told of the seizure of a large sum of money belonging to a certain Jethrew Mitchell while on its way from Mexico to Vera Cruz. Eleven docu ments were sent in support of the claim for Poinsett's use in negotiating for the recovery of the money, MS., Department of State, Instructions, XI, 20. Clay to Poinsett, May 26, 1828, sent documents in support ef the claim of a man named COMMERCIAL CONTROVERSIES 267 In his letter to Clay of August 26, 1826, concerning the claim of the insurance company studied above, Poinsett expressed his regret that an organized sys tem of smuggling from the United States to Mexico went far to justify the Mexican officials in suspecting every ship. He wished a stop could be put to this il legitimate trade in order to secure fair treatment for legitimate traders. The Mexican government made frequent complaints to Poinsett because of the conduct of these contraband traders from his country. In January, 1826, the secretary for foreign relations brought to Poinsett's attention what he called the out rage committed by the brig Nile. Her captain had been carrying on a contraband trade in the port of Mazatlan. He was summoned by the alcalde of the port to answer before the local tribunal. Learning that the custom house officials were preparing to in tercept him, he retired to his vessel and prepared to resist. He sent word to the commissary that he had powder and balls to sustain the sale of his cargo, if necessary. He hurled curses at the officers as he re tired, and actually fired a cannon. He sailed away with out permission and without examination by the com mandant as the regulations required. Furthermore he left unpaid more than four hundred dollars of charges. In closing his first note on the subject Camacho re quested that " Your Excellency will be pleased to cor- Massacot, ef Baltimore, who had suffered unjust treatment by Mexican ofiicials at Sisal and lest more than fifteen hun dred dollars in money, MS., Department of State, Instruc tions, XII, 105. 268 COMMERCIAL CONTROVERSIES rect these disorders and to cause the subjects of your government to comply with the laws of the Republic." He asked also that the offending captain should be punished when the vessel should arrive in the United States. Poinsett apologized promptly, reported the outrage to his government, and said he had no doubt that proper punishment would follow.*" In Sep tember Obregon brought the matter directly to Clay's attention.*^ In April, 1826, the Mexican government called attention to an outrage committed by the schooner Eagle. This vessel had been captured at Sisal by a Mexican gunboat because she carried ten thousand doUars' worth of Spanish goods. She was placed in charge of a prize crew and ordered to Campeachy for adjudication. Before reaching that port the captain and crew of the vessel mutinied against the prize crew, overpowered them, took control of the ship, and sailed away for New Orleans. Camacho dwelt at length on the horrible offense that had thus been com mitted against the honor and dignity of his govern ment, declared that the insults of American seamen had been " frequently repeated and with a degree of insolence and violence more proper to banditti than to republicans," and demanded satisfaction in the name 33 Camacho to Poinsett, January 24 and 31, 1826, and Poin sett to Camacho, January 25, and March 5, 1826, all enclosed with Poinsett to Clay, March 8, 1826, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. 37 Obregon te Clay, September 25, 1826, enclosing seven documents from several Mexican officials relating to the case, MS., Department of State, Notes from the Mexican Legation. COMMERCIAL CONTROVERSIES 269 of the President of Mexico. Poinsett replied three days later that he would lay the circumstances before his government and believed some means would be adopted to satisfy the demands of the Mexican gov ernment. However he protested against the harsh language directed at United States seamen in general. He added that, however much it was to be regretted, the fact that smuggling existed was not to be wondered at, since it had continued for so long on the coasts of Mexico, and had even been encouraged during the long independence struggle so recently ended.** In reply to Poinsett's report of the matter Clay approved his resentment of the harsh criticism of United States of the conduct of the commander of the Eagle, and ship masters in general, but expressed disapproval said if the vessel should again come within the juris diction of Mexico and should be seized the United States would acquiesce in the arrest and punishment of the commander.*' In September Obregon in the name of his government demanded the capture, trial, and punishment of the captain of the Eagle, and the restoration to liberty of the Mexicans whom he had made prisoners.*" In September, 1827, Poinsett presented a claim ** Camacho to Poinsett, April 24, 1826, and Poinsett te Camacho, April 27, 1826, enclosed with Poinsett to Clay, April 30, 1826, MS., Department ef State, Despatches from Mex ico, II. 39 Clay to Poinsett, June 23, 1826, MS., Department of State, Instructions, XI, 139. *o Obregon to Clay, September 25, 1826, MS., Department of State, Notes from the Mexican Legation, I. 270 COMMERCIAL CONTROVERSIES for damages because of the long detention without adjudication of the United States schooner Su perior, which had been seized on a charge of smug gling, but which charge Poinsett claimed was not well founded. A reply of three weeks later said that, if an injustice had been done, the injured parties should prosecute their case in the competent tribunals.*! In April, 1828, the Mexican government complained of the conduct of the master of the ship Correo, which had been detained at Mazatlan on a charge of smug gling, but had eluded the officers and escaped from custody. He complained also of two other vessels, the Franklin and the Boston, which had been carry ing on illicit trade in California waters. Poinsett promised to communicate these cases to his govern- ment.*2 The conduct of Mexican naval vessels and of Mex ican privateers in preying on the commerce of Spain, and their use of United States ports, led to complica tions in the diplomatic relations. One of the most compUcating circumstances was that Captain Porter, a citizen of the United States, had accepted a com mission as commander of the Mexican navy ; and had been supplied with a number of blank commissions which he was authorized to fill out and distribute to *! Poinsett to Secretario, September 13, 1827, and Espinosa to Poinsett, October 5, 1827, enclosed with Poinsett to Clay, November 9, 1827, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, III. *2 Caiiede te Poinsett, April i6, 1828, and Poinsett to Cariedo, April 20, 1828, enclosed with Poinsett to Clay, July 14 1828, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. COMMERCIAL CONTROVERSIES 27 1 United States vessels whose owners wished to under take the business of privateering in the name of Mex ico.** In May, 1827, Clay wrote a note to Obregon complaining that Commodore Porter was abusing the hospitaUty which had been extended to him at Key West, and was using that port as a rendezvous in which to recruit the Mexican privateering fleet and from which to prey upon Spanish commerce in ways inconsistent with the neutral position of the United States. A few days later Obregon promised Clay that he would take the necessary steps to prevent the further violation of the neutrality of the United States, wrote a letter to Porter asking him to respect that neutrality, and brought the matter to the atten tion of his government at Mexico.** Clay instructed Poinsett to approach that government also on the sub ject.*" Poinsett presented his note concerning the matter in July. The Mexican government communi cated with Porter, and in October informed Poinsett that he had left Key W'est.*" But this did not end the trouble growing out of «3 Poinsett to Clay, July 8, 1B26, MS., Department ef State, Despatches from Mexico, II. ** Clay to Obregon, May 21, 1827, Obregon to Clay, 26 de mayo de 1827, Obregon te Porter, June 21, 1827, and Obregon te Secretario, 3 de agosto de 1827, the last enclosing copies of the others, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. ¦*5 Clay te Poinsett, May 31, 1827, MS., Department of State, Instructions, XI, 361. *3 Poinsett te Secretarie, July 18, 1827, and Espinosa to Poinsett, October 3, 1827, enclosed with Poinsett to Clay, October 5, 1827, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, III. 272 COMMERCIAL CONTROVERSIES Porter's commissions and the conduct of the privateers holding authority from him. Commodore Ridgeley in the United States service stationed at Pensacola wrote Poinsett in April, 1828, that Porter had published a statement offering commissions to any who would ac cept them to search for Spanish goods. Poinsett's note of protest to the Mexican government shortly after receiving this declared that Porter was going further than ever known before in his violation of the principle, "neutral flags cover enemy's goods." He showed how injurious this would be to the trade of the United States and how dangerous it would be to the peace between the United States and Mexico. Since the conduct of Porter had been based by the Mexican government on an old Spanish law, Poinsett claimed exemption for United States vessels carrying Spanish goods under the treaty between the United States and Spain of 1895. But, he added, Mexican goods could not claim exemption from seizure by Spanish privateers because Mexico did not recognize that principle. In its reply the Mexican government merely explained its regulations governing the con duct of privateers and the treatment of goods taken as prizes, but did not disavow or promise to check Porter's acts.*^ *' Ridgeley to Poinsett, April 13, 1828, Poinsett te Ridgeley, May 12, 1828, and Poinsett to Caiiedo, May [12], 1828, en closed with Poinsett to Clay, May 20, 1828; and Caiiedo te Poinsett, May 13, 1828, and Poinsett to Canedo, June 3, 1828, enclosed with Poinsett to Clay, July 15, 1828, MS., Depart ment of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. COMMERCIAL CONTROVERSIES 273 In April, 1828, Obregon addressed a note to Clay complaining that the collector of customs at Key West had ordered out of that port a Mexican man-of-war which had arrived there with a Spanish prize. The collector claimed that the captor had violated the neu trality laws. Permission to repair damages had even been refused, it was said; and when the man-of-war declined to proceed elsewhere its prize was seized by the custom house officers and the Mexican flag hauled down from her mast. The Mexican minister de manded satisfaction for the insult to his government and indemnity for the interested parties.** In May the Mexican government asked Poinsett to explain the occurrence. Poinsett replied that he was at a loss to account for the seizure unless some law of the United States had been violated by the captor, or un less it was not a regularly commissioned vessel. Some of the commissions which Porter had granted, he said, would come under the last head.** In August another note from the Mexican government to Poinsett de scribed the conduct of the coUector of Key West as an An unsigned note but apparently in Poinsett's hand written on the blank page following his signature to a despatch to Clay of June 4, 1828, says : " Private orders have been given by the Commodore not to molest our vessels or search them. This order has been confidentially communicated to me." ** Obregon to Clay, April 18, 1828, MS., Department of State, Notes from the Mexican Legation, I. *9 Caiiedo to Poinsett, May 17, 1828, and Poinsett to Caiiedo, May 20, 1828, enclosed with Poinsett to Clay, July 15, 1828, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mex ico, IV. 19 274 COMMERCIAL CONTROVERSIES insult to Mexican citizens and the Mexican flag, and asked reparation. He promised in turn that the Mex ican commanders who had suffered the insult should be brought to trial if they were charged with improper conduct. Poinsett replied that the United States would give satisfaction if it should prove that the col lector had acted improperly. A letter to Poinsett from Commodore Ridgeley at Pensacola declared that the conduct of the commanders of the Mexican privateers had been disgraceful to Mexico, and enclosed papers in support of his declaration. Poinsett answered him that the evidence he had submitted was insufficient and asked for more."" In reporting the matter to Clay Poinsett said the commander of the English forces in the West Indies had ordered the seizure of any Mexican vessel which should attempt to take any enemy goods from an English ship. This he said had created a sensation. He advised that the United States should take the same step."! Porter was only the most prominent of many citi zens of the United States who entered the Mexican naval service, some voluntarily and others against their will. In April, 1826, a note from Poinsett 3" Caiiedo to Poinsett, August i6, 1828, Poinsett te Canedo, August 21, 1828, Ridgeley to Poinsett, August 18, 1828, and Poinsett to Ridgeley, September 7, 1828, enclosed with Poin sett to Clay, September 15, 1828, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. 31 Poinsett to Clay, Septernber 15, 1828, MS., Department ef State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. This is not the letter referred to in note 50, but another of the same date. COMMERCIAL CONTROVERSIES 275 complained that a Mexican press gang had recently seized in Vera Cruz a number of seamen from United States merchant vessels. Several others were being detained on Mexican ships of war after their term of service had expired, and others had been dismissed unpaid. He asked the punishment of offending offi cials and the release of the detained seamen."^ About a year later Poinsett protested against the concealment on a Mexican war vessel of deserters from merchant vessels of the United States. He said if this were allowed to continue it would cause great injury to commerce. The Mexican secretary for war claimed that sailors from merchantmen were free to enter whatever service they chose ; but gave orders for deal ing with those who were responsible for concealing the deserters. Poinsett protested vigorously against the assertion that sailors from merchantmen were free to change employment whenever they chose."* Besides the controversies arising directly out of com mercial transactions Poinsett was frequently called upon to present claims against the Mexican govern ment for losses to merchants and travelers at the hands of robbers and bandits. From the mass of 32 Poinsett to Secretario, April 11, 1826, enclosed with Poin sett te Clay, April 30, 1826, MS., Department ef State, De spatches from Mexico, I. "* Poinsett to Secretario, March 7, 1827, Espinosa to Poin sett, March 20, 1827, Poinsett to Secretarie, March 26, 1827, enclosed with Poinsett to Clay, April 12, 1827, MS., Depart- rnent of State, Despatches from Mexico, II. 276 COMMERCIAL CONTROVERSIES correspondence concerning claims which has accumu lated in the archives of the Mexican foreign office one is almost forced to the conclusion that the adjudi cation of these claims has been the principal business of that office from its inception to the present time."* 3* The documents in the archives of the Department of State in Washington relating te these are too numerous, and most of them of too little value, to cite. The archives of Re laciones Exteriores in Mexico contain boxful after boxful ef correspondence on these claims. CHAPTER IX Texas and the Boundary Issue It is the purpose of this chapter to consider diplo matic relations only. Intemal affairs in Texas will be aUuded to only when they furnish an occasion for or exercise an influence upon diplomatic communications. The secret instructions given on October 31, 1822, to Zozaya, the first Mexican minister to the United States, required him to ask the views of that government with reference to the limits of Louisiana. He was told that the imperial Mexican government considered the treaty of February 22, 1819, between the United States and Spain valid, and was disposed to carry out its provisions for establishing permanent landmarks. He was to learn whether any settlements had been effected or were being planned which would prejudice the rights of the empire under that treaty.! Spain's refusal to ratify the treaty for almost two years in the vain effort to induce the United States to agree not to recognize her rebellious colonies had delayed its execution until Mexico had become de facto independent. The recognition of that inde pendence by the United States in the early part of 1 Instrucciones Reservadas para Zozaya, 31 de octubre de 1822, La Diplomacia Mexicana, I, 85. This treaty, later known as the Florida Treaty, is always spoken ef in the cor respondence of the time as the Treaty ef Washington. 277 278 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 1822 made it necessary to reckon henceforth with Mexico in any matter conceming the southwestern boundary. In the meantime much had been said con cerning the treaty and the claim to Texas which many asserted the United States had acquired in purchasing Louisiana from France. There was a strong disposi tion on the part of many people, some having consid erable influence with the government, to take advan tage of the change of sovereignty to regain the terri tory which they insisted had thus been bartered away.2 This sentiment in the United States was strengthened by a statement of Onis, the Spanish negotiator of the treaty, to the effect that "it is improperly called a treaty of cession, as it is in reality one of exchange or permutation of one small province for another of double the extent, richer and more fertile."* The language of Onis also strengthened the sus picious fears of the Mexican govemment concerning the intentions of the United States. Elsewhere he 2 The discussion of the basis for, the character of, and the justice of this claim is not in place here. See Rives, United States and Mexico, 1821-1848, I, 1-26; Smith, Annexation of Texas, 5-8; Babcock, Rise of American Nationality, 285-289; Cox, "Louisiana-Texas Frontier," Texas Historical Quar terly, X, 1-75, XVII, 140-187; and Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas, II, 46 ; and footnotes in each. For the discussion by President Monroe's cabinet of the question whether the provisions of the treaty for marking out the boundary line should be carried eut in conjunction with the commission to be appointed by Spain, or whether Mexico should be consulted, see Adams, Memoirs, V, 493. 3 Onis, Memoir, 146. Onis, Memoria, was printed in Madrid in 1820, and this translation was printed in Baltimore in the following year. TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 279 says, " The Americans at present think themselves su perior to all the nations of Europe; and beUeve that their dominion is destined to extend now to the Isth mus of Panama and hereafter over all the regions of the new world. Their government entertains the same ideas, and the whole course of its policy calculates upon the illusions of these flattering expectations."* The ephemeral republic proclaimed by Long in 1819 and the colonization enterprises of the Austins and others in the following years confirmed the suspicions of the Mexicans. Less than a month after Minister Zozaya had landed at Baltimore, less than two weeks after his formal reception at Washington, and only two days after the banquet which President Monroe gave in his honor, he wrote his government on De cember 26, 1822, that he had discovered ambitious views with reference to the province of Texas. In the national Congress and in the state legislatures, he said, there was talk of enlarging the army and militia, which movement he believed had no other object than that arising out of their ambition for Texas. He de clared : " In time they will be our sworn enemies, and foreseeing this we ought to treat them as such from the present day."" In August, 1823, Torrens, the Mexican charge, wrote his government that he fre- *Onis, Memoir, 23. 3 Nota del Ministro Zozaya, 26 de diciembre de 1822, La Diplomacia Mexicana, I, 103. He virtually repeats the lan guage of Onis when he says : " La seberbia de estos repub- licanes no les permite vernes como iguales sino come infe riores ; su evanecimienta se extiende en mi juicio a creer que su capital lo sera de todes las Americas." 28o TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE quently noticed the public papers enlarging on the fine location and fertility of the territory of Texas and reminding the government that it ought not to have lost the opportunity to obtain this rich province from Spain; and one of the objections which the ene mies of the secretary of state were urging against his candidacy for the presidency was that he had ceded the province to the Spaniards. In the same letter Torrens advised his government not to permit the American population to become preponderant in Texas." Mex ican authorities in Texas were at the same time send ing alarming reports of the activities of United States military establishments near the border. As a result of these the imperial government had sent a secret emis- 3 Nota del . . . Torrens, 21 de agosto de 1823, La Diplo macia Mexicana, II, 22. Ibid., 50-53, under date 22 de no viembre de 1823, Torrens writes at length concerning pro posed Anglo-American colonies in Texas, saying among other things, " mi opinion es, que intentando algunes agentes de Nuevo Orleans hacer establicimientes de angle-americanos en Texas, con el mismo objeto que lo habian hecho en Baton Rouge, de adquirir una influencia y maioria en la poblacion y hacerlos declarar que querian unirse a los Estados Unidos, promovieron expediciones al principio come auxiliares de les independientes a quienes dieron las instrucciones que descubrio Mercado ; y despues que vieron que Mexico estaba casi pacifico, se propusieron adular a los realistas diciendo que iban a ayudar a exterminar la canalla de insurgentes, creyendo Uevar al cabo de este modo su primer projecte. Per tante, me parece peligroso permitirles establecerse en gran numero y formando pueblos separados, porque este vendria a ser el origen de disensiones con los Estados Unidos." He asks for instructions concerning the course he should pursue regard ing limits. He had not received ans^thing on that subject since the change in the government. TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 28 1 sary into Texas in the latter part of 1822 to ascertain the true intentions of the United States.' On October i, 1823, Alaman, who was secretary for foreign affairs of the provisional government which had taken control after the fall of Iturbide in the spring, instructed Torrens to use all his skiU and energy to have the boundary which had been estab lished between the United States and Spain confirmed and marked out.* When Torrens received this in struction he asked an interview with Adams before delivering any note on the subject to learn in advance whether there would be any difficulty in carrying it out. On January 26, 1824, he wrote that he had dis covered some difficulties. The time provided in the treaty for the appointment of commissioners by both governments to mark the boundary had expired. Then a proclamation of the king of Spain had de clared null and void everything that had been enacted by the constitutional government which had ratified the treaty. He proposed to wait fifteen or twenty days before he handed the government a note asking its intentions. According to that explanation he would word his reply; but he would insist that the attitude of Spain had nothing now to do with the matter, and 'Bugbee, "Texas Frontier, 1820-1825," "4 (reprint from Publications of the Southern History Association). As evidence he cites letters in the Bexar Archives. * Alaman to Torrens, I de octubre de 1823, La Diplomacia Mexicana, II, 33. Alaman's memorial te Congress, November I, 1823, in British and Foreign State Papers, X, 1072; and Poinsett, Notes on Mexico, 311. He says the charge has been instructed to secure the confirmation of this line. 282 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE that Mexico and the United States should proceed to carry out the treaty, naming their commissioners to mark the boundary, if not by virtue of the fourth ar ticle of the Spanish treaty, then by a new convention. He was sure the government would attempt to gain some advantage by this new pretext, and would not be surprised if the troops on the frontier should be or dered to advance into Mexican territory, so unlimited was their ambition for Texas. General Jackson, to whom he had been introduced, had declared in his presence that the government ought never to have lost the opportunity to obtain it. In the same conversation Jackson had said the way to obtain a territory was to occupy it and after having possession treat for it, as had been done in Florida. It would not be strange, Torrens said, if the coming election should result in his elevation to the presidency, in which case he would be sure to employ this method." The note which Torrens presented February 15, 1824, declared that the supreme executive power of Mexico, wishing to remove all matters that might af fect the good understanding which it desired to main tain with the United States, had instructed him to ask "that the limits between the two countries be fixed according to the third article of the treaty of Washington of the 22d of February, 1819, . . . I have therefore the honor to transmit the present com munication to your Excellency in order to ascertain whether the Executive of the United States is disposed 9 Neta del . . . Torrens, 26 de enero de 1824, La Diplo macia Mexicana, II, 73. TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 283 to acknowledge the said article, and will accordingly appoint the commissioners aforesaid; requesting at the same time that your Excellency may be pleased to inform me as early as convenient of the intention of the President of the United States on the subject."!" A little more than a month after presenting this note Torrens wrote his government that he had received no reply.!! pj^g months after its presentation he wrote that he had asked an interview with the secre tary of state to learn why no reply had been sent.!* But StiU no reply came. On April 15, 1824, the po Utical chief of the Department of Texas had written the government at Mexico that he was certain "the United States was ' trying to annul or at least has the idea of annuUng' the treaty of 1819, and he beUeved the American government would then assert its claim to the banks of the Rio Grande." Similar alarming reports from the same source followed. From various officials in Texas many letters were sent warning the government against the danger of permitting Anglo- American colonists to come in such large numbers into that territory.!* 13 Torrens to Adams, February 15, 1824, House Executive Documents, 25 congress, i session, number 42, page 6 ; British and Foreign State Papers, XXVI, 828. 11 Torrens te Secretarie, 23 de marze de 1824, MS., Rela ciones Exteriores. 12 Torrens to Secretario, 14 de julio de 1824, MS., Rela ciones Exteriores. 1* Bugbee, "Texas Frontier, 1820-1825," 115, citing Bexar Archives. A letter of September 19, 1824 from the political chief of Bexar said: "The Anglo-American government counts this province as its own and includes it on its maps, 284 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE When in the middle of 1824 Obregon was appointed minister to Washington his secret instructions, dated August 30, told him the reports of Torrens indicated that the United States had intentions on Mexican ter ritories in the Californias, New Mexico, and Texas; and with reference to the last those intentions were general and public. Obregon was told to pay par ticular attention to this matter. At this time the Mex ican government seems to have been uncertain whether this was or was not an opportune time to press the negotiation for a treaty of limits. In the original draft of these secret instructions in the archives of the foreign office in Mexico, there was inserted and then erased a paragraph saying he was not to begin the negotiation for the treaty of limits till circum stances were more favorable; but if necessity should arise to say anything about the matter he was to claim the Umits of the treaty of 1819. Immediately fol lowing this erased paragraph is one which completely reversed it. In that he is told that the principal object of his mission is the negotiation of a treaty of Umits as early as possible and in the most advantageous terms. He was to use his best efforts to secure the acknowledgment of the treaty concluded between the United States and Spain. If before such negotiation should be completed the United States or its citizens should attempt the occupation of any territory be longing to Mexico under that treaty he should formu late claims on it as a basis. He was told that great tracing its boundaries from the sources of the Rio Grande to its mouth on the coast ef Tamaulipas.'' TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 285 circumspection was necessary in reference to all who came from the United States since there was danger of the introduction of spies or of invaders in disguise. In carrying out his general instructions regarding the admission of colonists he was to bear in mind these secret instructions. All reports on these matters were to be in cipher.!* Obregon's general instructions bearing the same date as his secret instructions told him that coloniza tion was one of the most important matters then oc cupying the attention of the government. He was asked to call attention to the general law of August 18, 1824, on the subject and to pubUsh its regulations in the newspapers of the United States. All colonists from the United States, he was reminded, must bear passports and recommendations from Mexican diplo matic or consular agents in the United States. It was necessary to know the place of origin, the means of support, and the character of all colonists or em- presarios. Those under suspicion, vicious adven- 1* Instrucciones mui Reservadas, 30 de agosto de 1824, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. It is interesting .to note in this connection that Mexicans thought of asserting a claim te the Oregon country. Torrens wrote that the settlement of that country was being consid ered in the United States Congress, where it was being urged that to leave this territory occupied by Indians with England on one side and Mexico on the other to intrigue with the In dians was dangerous to the United States and could de more harm than all Europe. Torrens added that he thought it would be dangerous to Mexico te permit the United States te occupy it. Torrens te Secretario, 5 de maye de 1824, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. 286 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE turers, or vagabonds were to be excluded. But in dustrious persons, especially artisans, shipbuilders, and fishermen, were to be encouraged and given lands.!" Before the time of Poinsett's appointment as min ister from the United States to Mexico in March, 1825, no reply had been made to Torrens's note of more than a year earlier and no negotiation had been under taken for the settlement of the boundary. With the new minister, Obregon, no communication had passed on the subject. In the instructions which were given to Poinsett on March 26, 1825, by Clay, the secretary of state under the new Adams administration, the third article of the treaty of 1819 with Spain was quoted describing the boundary line, and the fourth article providing for its demarcation was mentioned. He was told that the treaty had not yet been carried into execution, but that " having been concluded when Mexico composed a part of the dominions of Spain 13 Instrucciones, 30 de agosto de 1824, MS., Relaciones Exte riores. For the text of the colonization law see Mexico, Leyes, Decretos y Ordenes que forman el Derecho Interna- cional, 125. For a discussion ef the law, see any Texas his tory. On March 23, 1824, Torrens had reported te his government that the Swiss consul at Washington had asked him if there would be any objection to receiving colonists from Switzer land; and he had replied that he thought they would be re ceived since they were an industrious people and could not be enemies to liberal institutions. Torrens to Secretario, 23 de marzo de 1824, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. On July 10 the government at Mexico approved this act of Torrens and authorized him to assure the Swiss consul that Catholics from his country would find a favorable reception. Secretario to Torrens, 10 de julio de 1824, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 287 [it] is obligatory upon both the United States and Mexico." Torrens's note of February 15 of the pre ceding year is cited as indicating the wiUingness of Mexico to accede to that treaty. But Clay continued : " Some difficulties may possibly hereafter arise be tween the two countries from the line thus agreed upon, against which it would be desirable now to guard, if practicable ; and as the government of Mex ico may be supposed not to have any disinclination to the fixation of a new line which would prevent those difficulties, the President wishes you to sound it on that subject; and to avail yourself of a favorable dis position, if you should find it, to effect that object. The line of the Sabine approaches our great western mart nearer than could be wished. Perhaps the Mex ican government may not be unwilling to establish that of the Rio Brassos de Dios, or the Rio Colorado, or the Snow Mountains, or the Rio del Norte in lieu of it. By the agreed line, portions of both the Red River and branches of the Arkansas are thrown on the Mexican side, and the navigation of both of these rivers, as well as that of the Sabine, is made common to the respective inhabitants of the two countries. When the countries adjacent to those waters shaU be come thickly inhabited, collisions and misunderstand ings may arise from the community thus established, in the use of their navigation, which it would be well now to prevent." As an additional motive to induce Mexico to consent to such an alteration Clay suggested that it would place the capital of Mexico nearer the 288 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE center of the Mexican territories, and, further, that the troublesome Comanche Indians would be left to the United States. These arguments, if ever pre sented, were probably about as convincing as it would be for a large land owner to say to a neighboring small farmer, "Your house is not in the middle of your fields. Give me forty acres next to my Une and you will not have to go so far to work. Besides, this field contains an ugly patch of thistles which my superior industry and intelUgence will enable me to cope with more successfully than you can." Clay showed that he was not prepared to insist on a change of the line or to urge the matter unduly by saying, in conclud ing his instructions with reference to the boundary: " But if you should find that the Mexican government is unwilling to alter the agreed line in the manner proposed and that it insists upon the execution of the third and fourth articles of the treaty before men tioned, you are authorized to agree to the recognition and establishment of the line as described in the third article, and to the demarcation of it forthwith, as is stipulated in the fourth."!" 13 Clay to Poinsett, March 26, 1825, MS., Department of State, Instructions, X, 225. Extracts are printed in House Executive Documents, 25 congress, i session, number 42, page 5 ; and in British and Foreign State Papers, XXVI, 829. For brief discussions of Poinsett's instructions concerning Texas, see Rives, United States and Mexico, 1821-1848, I, 166 ; Reeves, Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk, 61 ; Garrison, Texas, 170; Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas, II, 88; Mc Master, History ef the People of the United States, V, 460 ; Von Hoist, Constitutional and Political History of the United TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 289 Before Poinsett had opportunity to open negotia tions respecting the boundary, in fact only two days after his formal reception by the President of Mex ico, that official received an interesting sidelight on Poinsett's personal views with reference to the most desirable location of the boundary line. On June 3, 1825, a man named Azcarate who had been an official close to Iturbide wrote a letter to President Victoria saying that when Poinsett arrived at the coast of Mex ico in 1822 he was received by General Santa Anna as an official envoy, and when he reached the capital he was supposed by all to have this character and was so presented to the emperor. After the presentation Poinsett had told the writer that he desired an inter view to speak of an interesting matter. At the time appointed the writer met him, expecting the communi cation to be official. With a map before him Poinsett pointed out the line of 181 9 but said he thought it was not a desirable one, and then traced a line which showed that he desired to absorb all Texas, New Mex ico, and Upper California, and parts of Lower Cali fornia, Sonora, Coahuila, and Nueva Leon. Repress ing his anger Azcarate repUed that by virtue of the treaty of Iguala [Cordoba?] the Mexican government would always respect the Onis treaty and would never cede a handbreadth of territory. An appointment was made to continue the interview the next day. States, 1828-1846, 553 ; Falconer, Discovery of the Mississippi, 48; Kennedy, Texas, I, 370; Adams, "Texas Speech" in House of Representatives, 1838, 106. 290 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE In the meantime Azcarate saw Iturbide, explained the matter, and received authority to use his judgment in finding definitely the character of the proposals that Poinsett had to make. Before entering on the discussion at the second meeting Azcarate presented his credentials and asked for Poinsett's. The latter thereupon declared that he came in no public character but merely as a traveler, and was only expressing his own personal opinion. Although it was evident that the discussion could be only an academic one, never theless the interview was continued and Azcarate was able, he said, to perceive five purposes which Poinsett had in mind: namely, to get possession of rich min eral lands; to gain ports on both seas for controlling the commerce between them; to get control of the fur trade with the Indians ; to get control of the fish eries in the Californias ; and to monopolize the coast ing trade on both seas. Azcarate concluded his obser vations by saying that in his conception the establish ment of limits was to be the apple of discord between the United States and Mexico. His desire for the happiness of the fatherland was his motive, he told Victoria, for making this communication. He said it was possible that slight errors might have crept into this account of the interview, but it was substantially true and could be verified from a report in the office of foreign relations which he delivered to Iturbide at the time without preserving a copy.i^ 17 Azcarate to Victoria, 3 de junio de 1825, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. Azcarate was appointed minister to England in 1822 by the imperial government, but did not ge. See Boca- TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 291 On July 12, 1825, about six weeks after Poinsett's reception, occurred his first conference with Alaman, the Mexican minister for foreign relations, conceming the boundary. In it he had " suggested that, although the government of the United States held itself bound to carry into effect the treaty of limits concluded with the king of Spain the 22d of February, 1819, stiU it would appear more becoming the independent char acter of this government to lay aside that treaty alto gether, and to endeavor to establish a boundary which would be more easily defined, and which might be mutually more advantageous. The secretary expressed himself much gratified by such a suggestion, and pro posed that the two governments should forthwith ap point commissioners to make a reconnoissance of the country bordering on the Une formerly settled with Spain, so as to obtain such information in regard to that portion of our respective territories as would en able us to act understandingly on the subject." Poin sett objected that such a commission would delay the negotiation at least two years since it would take nearly a year to arrange for the commission and another year to do its work and make a report. Alaman re plied that his government would be very unwilling negra, Memorias, I, 76. Poinsett tells of his presentation to Iturbide on November 3, 1822, but of course says nothing of this conversation with Azcarate. In his description ef the emperor Poinsett shows his antipathy te monarchy in general and to the imperial system of Iturbide in particular. Poin sett, Notes on Mexico, 67-69. 292 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE to fix the limits on the very slender information which it then possessed.!* On the matter of the difference of opinion as to the proposed commission to examine the country near the border an exchange of formal notes occurred a few days later in which each gave at length his reasons for the position he had taken. Poinsett referred the mat ter to his government.!' As Poinsett anticipated, the government at Washington refused to accede to the proposal for a joint commission since such was con sidered unnecessary and would be reversing the usual procedure, which was to decide on the principle and then send the joint commission to mark the line in ac cordance with the agreement. If examination were needful before deciding on the line it would be better for each government to send a separate commission. The United States had no objection to Mexico's do ing so if that govemment desired; but hoped no un necessary time would be lost in resuming the nego tiation.^" 13 Poinsett to Clay, July 18, 1825, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I; extracts in House Executive Documents, 25 congress, i session, number 42, page 19; and British and Foreign State Papers, XXVI, 831. 19 Alaman to Poinsett, July 20, 1825, and Poinsett to Alaman, July 27, 1825, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I; House Executive Documents, 25 congress, i ses sion, number 42, page 20; British and Foreign State Papers, XXVI, 831. 2° Clay to Poinsett, September 24 1825, MS., Department of State, Instructions, X, 835 ; extracts in American State Papers, Foreign, VI, 581 ; House Executive Documents, 25 congress, I session, number 42, page 7; and British and Foreign State Papers, XXVI, 836. TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 293 In reporting to Clay on July 27 what had passed between himself and Alaman on the subject, Poinsett said : " I find that there exists great apprehension in the minds of the people of this country that the gov ernment of the United States contemplate renewing their claim to the territory north of the Rio Bravo del Norte ; and it may be of some importance to consider their great sensibility on this subject." He added in cipher : " It appears to me that it will be important to gain time if we wish to extend our territory beyond the boundary agreed upon by the treaty of 1819. Most of the good land from the Colorado to the Sabine has been granted by the State of Texas and is rapidly peopling with either grantees or squatters from the United States, a population they will find difficult to govern, and perhaps after a short period they may not be so averse to part with that portion of their ter ritory as they are at present."^! A little more than a week after sending this first report on limits Poinsett again wrote in cipher : " I feel very anxious about the boundary line between the two nations. While it will be politic not to justify their jealous fears on that sub ject by extravagant pretensions, I think it of the [greatest] importance that we should extend our ter ritory toward the Rio del Norte either to the Colorado 21 Poinsett to Clay, July 27, 1825, MS., Department ef State, Despatches from Mexico, I; extract not including the cipher portion in House Executive Documents, 25 congress, i session, number 42, page 20; and British and Foreign State Papers, XXVI, 833. The cipher portion is quoted in Reeves, Diplo macy under Tyler and Polk, 62; and in Rives, United States and Mexico, 1821-1848, I, 168. 294 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE or at least to the Brazos. We ought to have on the frontier a hardy race of white settlers, which the cUmate of that region of country situated between the Mississippi and the Sabine wiU not admit of."^^ Five days later another despatch to Clay, mostly in cipher, told of Alaman's declaring, in what was sup posed to be a secret session of the Congress, that the United States ought to be regarded as enemies rather than as friends, because : " Mexico had everything to fear from our ambitions and nothing to hope from our friendship. He cited the treaty of limits with Spain as an instance of our disposition to encroach upon her territory. There are a few members of both houses disposed to view the treaty of 1819 in the same light, and it is possible if the question be left open and the discussion renewed this government may revive the absurd pretensions of Cevallos with regard to the western boundary of Louisiana. I am thus particular because I think it advisable that the Pres ident should be possessed of every circumstance that can aid him to come to a correct decision upon this subject."^* Poinsett's suspicions that the Mexican officials were going to try to push the line further east instead of permitting the United States to push it west proved to be well founded. It is interesting to notice that 22 Poinsett to Clay, August 5, 1825, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. See Reeves, Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk, 63. 23 Poinsett to Clay, August 10, 1825, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 295 this determination on the part of Mexican officials to recover territory which Spain had ceded to the United States manifested itself almost immediately after re ceiving from the governor of Chihuahua the long, in teresting, and enthusiastic report on the extent, the fertility, and the importance of the country drained by the Missouri and Arkansas rivers, reviewed above in the chapter on Diplomacy Concerning the Santa Fe Trail. In an interview respecting the boundary on Sep tember 20, 1825, Alaman asked Poinsett to trace on a map the boundary between the United States and Spain as defined by the treaty of 1795. Poinsett did so and then asked why the Mexican negotiator had wished it done. The latter replied that he thought it advisable to specify the ancient boundary in the com mercial treaty they were about concluding and leave it so until the new line should be agreed on in the new treaty of limits to be concluded. Poinsett then de clared to Alaman that before 1819 the United States had claimed to the Rio Bravo del Norte and Spain had claimed to the Mississippi. He also asserted that the treaty of that year with Spain was binding on the Mexican States, having been concluded before their emancipation from Spain and since acknowledged by their accredited agent in the United States. It was only motives of delicacy toward Mexico that had pre vented the United States from carrying that treaty into full effect. It was the same motive that had caused him to propose the conclusion of an entirely 296 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE new treaty. But he would not yield one square inch of land which had been included within the limits of the United States according to that treaty. In his opinion a more advantageous line might be drawn; but such was not to be sought for east of the Sabine or north of the Red river or the Arkansas. Finally Poinsett asserted that he would not consent to the in sertion of any such article in the commercial treaty without at the same time renewing in it the claim of the United States to all of the country north and east of the Rio Bravo del Norte.^* In October, 1825, the radical change occurred in the Mexican ministry which displaced partisans of the centralist faction and replaced them with federalists favorable to the interests of the United States. It was thought that Poinsett had been largely instrumental in bringing about the change and it was suspected that he was using his influence to secure a treaty of limits through his friends which would extend the borders of his country at the expense of Mexico. But if he was trying to do so, as he probably was not, he was unsuccessful. One of the new ministry writing to another on November 7, 1825, reminded him of the "memorable words of the laws of the Indies, which say, 'We promise and give our honor and royal word 2* Poinsett to Clay, September 20, 1825, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, I ; House Executive Docu ments, 25 congress, i session, number 42, page 23 ; British and Foreign State Papers, XXVI, 835. It was on August 5 that the government received the report from the governor of Chihuahua. See footnote 16 of the chapter on Diplomacy Concerning the Santa Fe Trail. TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 297 for US and our successors, that never shall be alienated or separated in whole or in part, either its cities (of America) or inhabitants, for any cause or reason, or in favor of any person whatever. And if we or our successors should make any donation or alienation con trary to the aforesaid, it is nuU and such we declare it.' " According to this the whole Florida treaty was null. But in this minister's conception there was an other reason why Mexico was at liberty to ignore the Florida treaty if desirous of doing so. He declared that the treaty, though approved by the Spanish cortes, did not have the " consent of the Mexican delegation, which refused to sign it."^" Thus within a few months after the negotiations had begun each government discovered that the other, while claiming to be willing to ratify and abide by the treaty of 1819, was really wishing to secure the ex treme Umits claimed by the United States on the one side and by Spain on the other before that treaty was concluded. Each had also discovered that the other was determined not to give up anything which that treaty secured to it. But each hoped something would happen to break down the determination of the other. Having thus found it impossible to come to any under standing for the time regarding the matter of limits, little of importance passed between the negotiators on the subject for more than a year. In the meantime the influence was working which 25 Esteva to Liave, November 7, 1825, enclosure with Poin sett to Clay, January 4, 1826, MS., Department ef State, De spatches from Mexico, I. 298 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE Poinsett had said would probably in time make Mex ico less unwilling to part with Texas. The settle ment of the territory was progressing rapidly. Obre gon in Washington reported to his government that these settlements were Mexican only in name, belong ing in customs and inclinations almost wholly to the United States.^" Indians in Texas were becoming more and more troublesome as they saw their lands being so rapidly taken away from them. The minis ter for war notified the minister for foreign relations that officials near the border complained of the sale of arms and ammunition to the Indians by citizens of the United States.^^ On June 16, 1826, Camacho, the secretary for foreign relations, called the matter to Poinsett's attention,^* and on June 20, Poinsett re ported the complaint to Clay.^* Steps were taken to locate a Mexican consul at Natchitoches in Louisiana to prevent the importation of arms by that route and 23 Obregon to Secretario, 12 de noviembre de 1825, MS., Re laciones Exteriores. 27 Pedraza to Secretario, 10 de febrero, 24 de febrero, and 9 de junio de 1826; and Blanco t6 Secretarie, 7 de agosto de 1826; MS., Relaciones Exteriores. 28 Camacho to Poinsett, 20 de junio de 1826, MS., Relaciones Exteriores ; and MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, II. 29 Poinsett to Camacho, June 20, 1826, MS., Relaciones Ex teriores ; Poinsett to Clay, June 20, 1826, MS., Department ef State, Despatches from Mexico, II. The last declares that hostile tribes in Mexico were in the habit of capturing defence less Mexicans and carrying them across the border where United States citizens ransomed them and held them till their friends in Mexico redeemed them. This it was said encour aged Indian warfare. TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 299 to enforce the regulations restricting the admission of colonists.*" In March Poinsett protested against cer tain grants of land which he heard had been made near the border in Texas, saying he would not con sider any grant as valid which was made while nego tiations were pending in case such grants should Ue in territory ultimately included in the United States.*! When in June, 1826, the negotiations for the commer cial treaty were nearing conclusion the Mexican pleni potentiaries proposed an additional article declaring that the contracting parties would take into considera- 33 Erasmo Seguin of Bexar was appointed to the post in January, 1826; but in May he asked te be relieved from serving because of his ill health, because of the unhealthful- ness of the climate of Natchitoches, and because he could not take his numerous family with him. Credentials and detailed instructions for him accompanied his letter of appointment. Secretario to Seguin, 21 de enero de 1826, and Seguin to Sec retario, 28 de marze de 1826, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. Bernardo Gutierrez, the commandant of Tamaulipas, wrote in March urging the appointment ef a consul for Natchitoches and recommending a resident of the place named Juan Cortes whom he had seen there in 1812. Pedraza to Secretarie, 7 de marze de 1826, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. *! Poinsett to Clay, March 18, 1826, MS., Department ef State, Despatches from Mexico, I; House Executive Docu ments, 25 congress, i session, number 42, page 24. Poinsett told ef the effort of John D. Hunter to obtain a grant ef land for Indians who were anxious to move over the frontier from the United States into Texas. The '" govern ment refused to give them a large tract ef land where they might remain in a body; but offered te settle them in different parts of the country." Poinsett thought it would not be politic for the United States to permit Indians thus to move in bodies across the border. Poinsett to Clay, April 30, 1826, MS., De partment of State, Despatches from Mexico, I. 300 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE tion as soon as possible the negotiation of a treaty of limits, and in the meantime would facilitate in any way needed the work of the commissions sent by either power to examine the country near the proposed boun dary; and declaring also that unauthorized acts or settlements by the citizens of one country in territory that should fall to the other should not constitute valid claims.-'- In accepting the article Poinsett de clared it was totally unnecessary because the United States considered the treaty of 1S19 with Spain bind ing and was ready to execute it. "The undersigned was instructed, however, by his govemment to accede to the wishes of Mexico, if it desired to fix a new line, which might obviate some difficulties which are supposed to attend the existence of the present limits as agreed upon by the treaty aforesaid. But he was especially instructed not to insist upon changing this Une contrary to the wishes of the Mexican govern ment, but to agree to carry aU the provisions of the treaty of Washington concluded between the United States of America and Spain into full effect, so far forth as relates to the boundaries of the two coun tries, if required to do so by the Mexican govern ment."** At the end of the year 1826 an event occurred in *2 Camacho and Esteva to Poinsett, June 19, 1826, American State Papers, Foreign, VI, 599; Mexico, Tratados y Cenven ciones, II, 125. 3* Poinsett to Plenipotentiaries, June 26, 1826, American State Papers, Foreign, VI, 599; Mexico, Tratados y Cenven ciones, II, 126. For the additional article seo the last, 144. TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 3OI Texas which partially fulfilled Poinsett's prophecy made a year and a half earUer. This was the well known Fredonian revolt. It was led by Hayden Ed wards who had received from tho Mexican authorities a large enipresario grant in the neighborhood of Na cogdoches, which grant had subsequently been revoked because he had been unsuccessful in his indiscreet though well meant efforts to overcome difficulties that were all but insuperable. Blinded with anger and a desire for revenge anil fatuously hoping the people of the other .\nglo-Anierican colonies would come to his assistance, he and a few associates formed a treaty with the Cherokee Indians, issued a declaration of in- ilepeiulence, raised a red-and-white flag symbolizing a union between the red and the white men, and drew a line dividing Texas between the two races. Austin issued a violent denunciation of the revolt ; and mem bers of his and other colonics joined the Mexican authorities to put it down. The Fredonians unsup ported and discouraged disbanded with scarcely an attempt at resistance.-' 3* Most writers on Texas history have discussed the ques tions whetlier Edwards was justified in starting the revolt and whether -Austin was justified in opposing it. G. M. Bryan, in Comprehensive History of Texas, I. 506-534. gives .1 full and careful account, quoting a large number of documents from the Austin papers. He explains without unduly condemning Edwards's actions, .^nd fully justifies Austin's. Yoakum, in the same volume, ii4-i_n, justifies Edwards and mildly accuses Austin. Brown, Texas. I, 131-140. is more s\nnpathetic with the Fredonians than Bryan but not se enthusiastic as Yoakum. He says: " .Vustin was justified in his course but not in his denunciations." Foote, Texas and the Texans, I, 213-292, 302 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE This independence movement, athough in itself the merest fiasco, is of very great importance as marking a turning point in the relations between the two coun tries. It created a great sensation in both and fur nished the occasion for numerous diplomatic com munications. Obregon in reporting the revolt to his government said the Americans established in Texas never ceased disturbing the tranquility of Mexico. They considered themselves a colony of their father land, and expected to reunite themselves to it as soon as they could. They took their slaves where the laws did not permit slavery, and in order to save their property they broke away from Mexico. In view of the character of the people on the frontier he be lieved that the only way to maintain peace there was gives a long sympathetic account of the revolt, quoting many letters and enthusiastically praising B. W. Edwards, who was his personal friend. He explains without condemning Austin's attitude. Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas, II, 98- iio, gives an impartial account, explaining without severely condemning either. Garrison, Texas, 165, says that Edwards would have found it difficult to avoid trouble " even if he had shown the utmost prudence ; but his want of caution, net to say his improprieties, lay on him heavy responsibility for the result. . . . The whole affair was se confused that one grows weary of seeking to locate the blame." Barker, in the Texas Historical Quarterly, XIII, 259, says : " Austin's part was an important one. He gave Edwards sage advice which, if he had followed it, would have enabled him to avoid most of his trouble; and in the end took the enly possible course to pre serve the confidence of the government and the interests of the colonists." Miss Rather, in the same magazine, VIII, 112, explains the De Witt Colony's opposition to the Fredonians. A recent brief account of the Fredonian revolt is given by Miss Howren, in the same magazine, XVI, 382. TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 303 to allow no more American colonizers within the limits of Mexico, to fill the territory with vigorous and re spectable Mexican people, and to establish a sufficient military force there to protect them. He was satis fied that the United States government had nothing to do with the affair ; but compared this with similar re volts that had occurred earlier at Baton Rouge and in West Florida and had been preludes to the seizure of territories there.'" On February i6, 1827, Obregon had an interview with the secretary of state on the matter. Clay had said that the President was infinitely sorry and wished him to convey to the Mexican government the friendly sen timents of the United States. Three days later Clay addressed to Obregon a formal note declaring : " In formation having reached this city of disturbances in the province of Texas, adjoining the territory of the United States, which appear to threaten the peace of the United Mexican States, I hasten by the direction of the President to express to you the very great regret which he feels on account of the existence of those disturbances. The frankness which has ever charac terized the government of the United States in all its intercourse with foreign powers and the friendly feel ings which it cherishes for the welfare of the Republic of the United Mexican States supersede altogether any necessity for the assurances which, nevertheless, I 33 Obregon to Secretario, 8 de febrero, and 10 de febrero de 1827, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. With these letters and ethers of earlier and later dates Obregon enclosed newspaper clippings giving reports of the revolt. 304 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE take pleasure in giving that the Government of the United States has not given the smallest countenance or encouragement to those disturbances. The Presi dent has directed orders to be conveyed to that por tion of the military force of the United States which is stationed on the Mexican frontier to give no aid or succor of any kind to those who have taken arms against or may oppose the authority of the Govem ment of the United Mexican States; and he will see the restoration of tranquility with much satisfac- tion."33 On February 21, 1827, Poinsett wrote telling the effect produced in Mexico when news reached there of the Nacogdoches revolt. In the debate in the Mex ican Congress members had not hesitated to express their opinion that the government of the United States " was privy to this movement, if indeed it had not en couraged it. The latter opinion is boldly avowed by the Sol, a paper extremely inimical to the interests of the United States." The Congress had appropriated five hundred thousand dollars to put down the insur rection.*' About two weeks later Poinsett wrote that 33 Obregon to Secretario, 17 de febrero, and 21 de febrero de 1827, the latter enclosing a copy of Clay to Obregon, Feb ruary 19, 1827, quoted above, and also Obregon te Clay, 20 de febrero de 1827, politely acknowledging Clay's of the preced ing day, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. 37 Poinsett to Clay, February 21, 1827, MS., Department ef State, Despatches from Mexico, II. Early in February the Mexican foreign office had told Poinsett of a raid by Anglo- Americans on Nacogdoches, which had occurred on Novem ber 22, 1826. After committing some depredations they had TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 305 the expedition against the insurgents in Texas had started for Vera Cruz whence it would sail for Mata gorda, the rendezvous. It would consist of one thou sand troops and would be joined by ten thousand others from the interior provinces. "A desire was manifested to evince on this occasion great promptness and energy, so as to prevent similar attempts being made elsewhere." In a conference which Poinsett had with President Victoria the latter had said he was satisfied that the government of the United States had not encouraged the tevolt ; but expressed a desire that the President of the United States should give some public manifestation of his disapprobation.** The troops intended for Texas were assembled in Vera Cruz, and although word came of the collapse of the revolt still they prepared to go to the Texas coast to guard against similar outbreaks. The large force of provincial troops were not to join them, however, as originally planned. But the expedition got no fur ther than Vera Cruz. The state government endeav- left, declaring that they would return on December 15. Poin sett replied that he had transmitted this complaint to his gov ernment and felt sure that the aggressors would be punished. On receiving the complaint Clay returned to Poinsett a copy of orders which he had sent to the military authorities on the border, and which he said he believed would put a stop to the offense and secure the punishment of the guilty. Espinosa to Poinsett, February 2, 1827 ; Poinsett to Espinosa, February 4 1827 ; Poinsett to Clay, February 7, 1827 ; MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, II ; and Clay to Poinsett, March 24, 1827, MS., Department of State, Instructions, XI, 283. 38 Poinsett to Clay, March 8, 1827, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, II. 21 306 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE ored to make use of them to resist the national author ity ; and in June the central authorities recalled them to Mexico city.*" Although Adams and Clay in the note of February 19, quoted above, distinctly disavowed for the govern ment any connection or sympathy with the revolt in Texas, yet they appeared ready to take advantage of the event to see if it had produced the change in senti ment at Mexico which Poinsett had predicted. Clay wrote on March 15, 1827, that the numerous and ex tensive grants of land by the Mexican authorities "to citizens of the United States in the province of Texas authorize the belief that but little value is placed upon the possession of that province by that government. These grants seem to have been made without any sort of equivalent, judging according to our opinions of the value of land. They have been made to, and apparently in contemplation of being settled by, citi zens from the United States. These emigrants will carry with them our principles of law, liberty, and religion; and however much it might be hoped that they might be disposed to amalgamate with the ancient inhabitants of Mexico, so far as political freedom is concerned, it would be almost too much to expect that all colUsions would be avoided on other subjects. Already sorae of these colUsions have manifested themselves, and others, in the progress of time, may be anticipated with confidence. These collisions may 39 Poinsett to Clay, March 24 June 5, June 16, and June 20, 1827, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, II. TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 307 insensibly enlist the sympathies and feelings of the two republics and lead to misunderstandings. " The fixation of a Une of boundary of the United States on the side of Mexico, should be such as to se cure, not merely certainty and apparent safety in the respective limits of the two countries, but the con sciousness of freedom from all danger of attack on either side, and the removal of all motives for such attack. That of the Sabine brings Mexico nearer our great commercial capital than is desirable; and al though we now are, and for a long time may remain, perfectly satisfied with the justice and moderation of our neighbor, still it would be better for both parties that neither should feel that he is in any condition of exposure on the remote contingency of an alteration in existing friendly sentiments. " Impressed with these views, the President has thought the present might be an auspicious period for urging a negotiation, at Mexico, to settle the boun dary between the territories of the two republics. The success of the negotiation will probably be pro moted by throwing into it other motives than those which strictly belong to the subject itself. If we could obtain such a boundary as we desire, the Government of the United States might be disposed to pay a rea sonable pecuniary consideration. The boundary which we prefer is that which, beginning at the mouth of the Rio del Norte in the sea, shall ascend that river to the mouth of the Rio Puerco, thence ascending this river to its source, and from its source, by a line due 308 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE north, to strike the Arkansas, thence following the course of the southern bank of the Arkansas to its source, in latitude 42° north,*" and thence by that parallel of latitude to the South sea. The boundary thus described would, according to the United States Tanner's map, published in the United States, leave Santa Fe within the limits of Mexico and the whole of Red River or Rio Roxo and the Arkansas, as far up as it is probably navigable, within the limits as signed to the United States. If that boundary be un attainable, we would, as the next most desirable, agree to that of the Colorado, beginning at its mouth, in the bay of Bernardo, and ascending the river to its source, and thence by a line due north to the Ar kansas, and thence, as above traced, to the South sea. This latter boundary would probably also give us the whole of the Red River, would throw us somewhat farther from Santa Fe, but it would strike the Ar kansas possibly at a navigable point. To obtain the first-described boundary, the President authorizes you to offer to the Government of Mexico a sum not ex ceeding one million of dollars. If you find it im practicable to procure that line, you are then author ized to offer, for the above line of the Colorado, the sum of five hundred thousand dollars. If either of *3 This error, which was commonly made, was due to loose ness of statement rather than to ignorance. The treaty of 1819 used this language, but added " if the source of the Ar kansas River shall be found to fall north or south of latitude forty-two, then the line shall be run from the said source due south or north as the case may be, till it meets the said par allel, etc." TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 3O9 the above offers should be accepted, you may stipu late for the payment of the sum of money, as you may happen to agree, within any period not less than three months after the exchange at the city of Washing ton of the ratification of the treaty." Then follow instructions for stipulating, in case of success, that there should be common navigation of and common jurisdiction over the boundary river; that bona fide land grants should be confirmed; that the inhabitants should be given full rights as United States citizens ; and that the delivery of the territory should be simul taneous with the payment of the consideration. A copy was enclosed of Clay's note to Obregon of Feb ruary 19, "in order to put you in possession of what has occurred here, and to enable you to efface any im pression, should such exist at Mexico, that the United States have given countenance to the insurrection."*! That Adams and Clay were in hearty accord in this attempt to purchase Texas cannot be doubted. On the day preceding that on which the instruction was sent the former entered in his diary that the latter " spoke of a draft he had some time since submitted of an in struction to Poinsett to propose to the Mexican Gov ernment the purchase of the province of Texas to the Rio del Norte or the Colorado. I asked him to let me *! Clay to Poinsett, March 15, 1827, MS., Department ef State, Instructions, XI, 270 ; Extract in House Executive Docu ments, 25 congress, i session, number 42, page 8; and British and Foreign State Papers, XXVI, 837. See Rives, United States and Mexico, 1821-1848, I, 169, for a brief allusion te this attempt te purchase. 3IO TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE see the draft again." The next day he entered the statement that Clay " read his instruction to Poinsett to propose the purchase of Texas. I advised him to leave out the offer of ships of war, and offer only money."*^ In his long speech, or rather series of speeches, several years later on the Texas question and the right of petition Adams cited this instruction but did not dwell on the motive.** He declared that previous to this time he had uniformly favored ac quiring Texas, saying : " I had myself, in the negotia tion of our treaty with Spain, labored to get the Rio del Norte as our boundary, and I adhered to the de mand till Mr. Monroe and aU his cabinet directed me to forego it."** *2 Adams, Memoirs, March 14 and 15, 1827, VII, 239, 240. *3 Adams, " Texas Speech " in House of Representatives, 1838, 107. He said this offer was found to be highly disa greeable to Mexico, so was not pressed. ^* Adams's speech of April 15, 1842, Niles, Register, LXII, 138. In this speech he argued that because he wanted Texas in 1825 and 1827 when slavery had been abolished there and could not have been restored had it been acquired then, was ne reason why he should be criticised for opposing the acquisi tion of Texas later. For brief studies ef the attempt te purchase Texas in 1827, see Barker, "Jackson and the Texas Revolution," American Historical Review, XII, 788; Reeves, piplomacy under Tyler and Polk, 63; Garrison, Westward Extension, 87; Bancroft, History of Mexico, V, 155; Von Heist, Constitutional and Political History of the United States, 1828-1846, 554; Mc Master, History of the People ef the United States, V, 460; Yoakum, in Comprehensive History ef Texas, I, 135; Ken nedy, Texas, I, 370; Jay, Review of the Mexican War, 13; Robinson, Mexico and her Military Chieftains, 144. Most of these say that Poinsett did not present the proposal to the TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 3 II When Poinsett received Clay's proposal to buy Texas he wrote : " I fear the sum offered for the ter ritory is too small. The expenses of the Government are so great that they don't regard so insignificant a sum as a million as of much use to them."*" However, he cautiously approached the Mexican government on the subject a few days later. On May 19, 1827, he wrote the secretary for foreign relations suggesting that the fortunate settlement of the difficulties in Tex as suggested the importance of settling as early as possible and in a permanent manner the boundaries between the two countries. He added that he had been instructed by his government to call attention to this fact and say that he was fully empowered to treat on the subject.*" Some time later he again cautiously approached the Mexican authorities on the subject, this time definitely suggesting the idea of purchase, though not in an official manner. Early in the next year he wrote Clay : " I have taken great pains to ascertain what prospect of success there would be of the Congress ratifying the treaty if I could have pre vailed upon the plenipotentiaries to alter the limits Mexican government, citing Clay's " Raleigh Letter " of 1844 Niles, Register, LXVI, 152, which says that Poinsett " fore- bore even te make an overture fer that purpose." No serious regular negotiation was undertaken; but Poinsett did sound the authorities on the subject. Adams, Memoirs, XI, 365, says the offer was rejected. *3 Poinsett te Clay, May lo, 1827, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, III. See Reeves, Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk, 64. •*3 Poinsett to Secretary of State of Mexico, May 19, 1827, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. 312 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE in the manner suggested by you, and am convinced that the attempt would fail and only excite an un friendly feeling. I have therefore abandoned it alto gether. In a private conversation with one of the plenipotentiaries, I hinted at a remuneration in money to the Mexican government as an inducement to ex tend our boundary to the Rio del Norte; but he as sured me it would be impossible to obtain either the consent of the government or of the Congress to such a measure, because it would be considered a dismem berment of the Mexican territory, which is prohibited by the constitution. If both governments should fix upon the Rio del Norte or any other point as the limits of the republics, the state of Texas would have no right to complain; but the general government could not sell any part of that state to us without violating the constitution and legitimate rights of Texas."*' Apart from these two very cautious attempts of Poinsett to open negotiations for carrying out Clay's instructions of March 15, 1827, for the purchase of Texas, nothing of importance on the subject of limits *7 Poinsett to Clay, January 8, 1828, MS., Department ef State, Despatches from Mexico, III. The above portion of this letter is omitted from the extract printed in House Execu tive Documents, 25 congress, 1 session, number 42, page 26; and British and Foreign State Papers, XXVI, 841. It is interesting to notice that the Mexican negotiator based his argument for the unconstitutionality of the sale of Texas on the doctrine of state rights. If the matter could have been submitted to a vote of the people of the state the diffi culty would probably have disappeared very quickly. In 1829 Van Buren suggested that this be done. See below. TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 3I3 passed between the two governments from that time until the beginning of the following year. In the meantime the Mexican commission to examine the country near the proposed boundary had completed its slow preparations and started to the scene of its labors. The two years which Poinsett had said would be neces sary to complete the work, if a joint commission were sent as Alaman proposed, had more than passed before the Mexican commission started from the city of Mex ico. In July, 1826, Poinsett wrote that a commission had been appointed and that General Mier y Teran had been placed at its head. That gentleman had told Poinsett that he expected to start in September of the same year; but the latter supposed his departure would not take place before October.** It did not. Neither did it occur for more than a year later than that. On September 6, 1827, the Mexican Congress appropriated fifteen thousand dollars to defray the expenses of the commission.*" A month later Poin sett wrote Clay that the commission had still not de parted because the money was not in the treasury, and he was still trying to convince the government of the uselessness of the mission till the treaty had settled the boundary."" But stiU they persisted; and *8 Poinsett to Clay, July 12, 1826, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, II; House Executive Documents, 25 congress, i session, number 42, page 24; British and For eign State Papers, XXVI, 837. *9 Mexico, Leyes, Decretos, y Ordenes que forman el Derecho Internacienal, 139. 39 Poinsett to Clay, October 6, 1827, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, III; House Executive Docu- 314 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE the money was soon forthcoming. On November 10, 1827, the commission started from the city of Mexico. Almost four months later it arrived at Bexar, March I, 1828, and was ready to begin its work."! At about this time there came into the Mexican foreign office two extensive reports tracing the history of the Louisiana-Texas boundary from a very early period, in an effort to get at a historical basis for fixing the boundary."^ These seem to have strength- ments, 25 congress, i session, number 42, page 25 ; British and Foreign State Papers, XXVI, 840. 31 Berlandier y Chovel, Diario de Viage de la Comision de Limites, . . . bajo . . . Mier y Teran, 7 and 115. This seems te be a very much condensed and slightly changed translation of a manuscript in French by Berlandier filling seven octave volumes on travels in Mexico and Texas between 1826 and 1834. This and a few other Berlandier manuscripts ef in terest in the history of Texas, continuing down as late as the Mexican War of 1846 to 1848, have recently been purchased by the Library of Congress at Washington. Berlandier was the naturalist of the expedition, and his notes are of value chiefly from the scientific, especially the geographical stand point. The passport for General Teran, which the Mexican gov ernment had requested, was delivered by Clay te Obregon on March 24, 1828, House Executive Documents, 25 congress, i session, number 42, page 42 ; British and Foreign State Papers, XXVI, 844. 32 One of these is the " Informe de Padre P. M. J. Puellas acerca de los limites de Texas," dated Zacatecas, 28 de no viembre de 1827, a report concerning documents in archives in that city on the subject. The other is "Extractos de la memoria del Padre Pichardo, y de les infermes del ministre y consul de Espaiia en los Estados Unidos acerca de limites de Texas e invasiones en su territorio.'' The transcript of these extracts covers fifty typewritten pages and reviews sev- TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 315 ened the already existing determination of the govern ment not to yield Texas or any portion of its territory. Although the Mexican negotiators had repeatedly insisted that it would be necessary to have the infor mation which the Teran commission was to gather before the treaty of Umits could be concluded, yet it had hardly departed before preparations were made to renew the negotiations immediately,"* and had hardly gotten half way to the scene of its labors when a treaty was signed. When the commercial treaty which had been concluded July lo, 1826, was consid ered by the Mexican Chamber of Deputies early in the next year, that chamber passed a resolution de claring it would not consider that treaty further until an article should be inserted recognizing the validity of the treaty of 1819 between the United States and Spain so far as it had to do with the boundary."* On January 8, 1828, after Poinsett had been trying in vain to induce the Mexican government to renew the negotiation for a commercial treaty (to take the place of that mentioned above, which the legislative bodies of both governments had refused to ratify), he wrote eral hundred pages of manuscripts, MS., Relaciones Exte riores. "3 Translation of Speech ef Victoria to Congress, December 24 1827, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mex ico, III. 3* Resolution of April 2, 1827, Mexico, Tratados y Cenven ciones, I, 113; Poinsett to Clay, January 8, 1828, MS., Depart ment ef State, Despatches from Mexico, III; extracts in House Executive Documents, 25 congress, i session, number 42, page 26 ; British and Foreign State Papers, XXVI, 841. 3l6 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE Clay that the Mexican negotiators had insisted that Mexico was "invested with all the rights of Spain and bound by all the obligations of the mother country . . . and in short declared that if I did not consent to comply with the resolution of the Chamber of Depu ties it would be useless to discuss the other articles of the treaty, as it was certain that Congress would not ratify any treaty which did not contain such a provi sion. I withdrew my opposition ; but observed that, as the treaty of navigation and commerce was for a lim ited period and that of limits perpetual, it would be better to make them distinct conventions, to which proposition the Mexican plenipotentiaries consented." It was in this connection that Poinsett explained in cipher, as quoted above, his cautious hint to one of the negotiators that the United States was willing to purchase Texas. He concluded that cipher : " Believ ing, therefore, that any attempt to alter the former treaty of limits would prove ineffective and only ex cite unfriendly feelings, I shall accept the proposal of the Mexican plenipotentiaries and renew the treaty of Washington of 1819.""" The first conference in the negotiation of the bound ary treaty had occurred on the day on which Poinsett wrote the above explanation of his reasons for aban- 33 Poinsett to Clay, January 8, 1828, cited in note 54. The Mexican negotiators, in explaining to the foreign office, said that they beUeved the United States would not have at tempted te change the boundary unless they had expected to gain an advantage at the expense of Mexico. Camacho and Esteva te Espinosa, 12 de enero de 1828, Mexico, Tratados y Cenvenciones, I, 114. TEXAS AND TIIE BOUNDARY ISSUE 317 doning Texas. After the Mexican negotiators had explained their position Poinsett " replied that, al though the limits as settled by the treaty of Washing ton were liable to some objections and might be al tered advantageously for both parties as he had before frequently explained, still if the Govemment of Mex ico insisted upon the execution of articles three and four of that treaty he could not object to it. . . . Any alteration of the treaty of Washington must depend upon the mutual consent of the present contracting parties.""" In the second conference, which occurred on January lo, the negotiators agreed upon the pre amble declaring the purpose of the treaty and the first article, saying, " The two high contracting parties will proceed forthwith to carry into full effect the third and fourth articles of said treaty.""' The second ar ticle of this treaty is in the exact words of the third article of the treaty of 1819; and the third article of this is the same as the fourth of that. The fourth and last article of this treaty says "the ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington within the term of four 33 Protocol of first conference, January 8, 1828, House Ex ecutive Documents, 25' congress, i session, number 42, page 27 ; British and Foreign State Papers, XXVI, 841 ; Mexico, Tra tados y Cenvenciones, I, 109. It was also enclosed with Poin sett to Clay, February 7, 1828, MS., Department of State, De spatches from Mexico, III. 37 Protocol of second conference, January 10, 1828, House Executive Documents, 25 congress, i session, number 42, page 28; British and Foreign State Papers, XXVI, 843; Mexico, Tratados y Cenvenciones, I, no, 112. 3l8 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE months, or sooner, if possible." On January 12, it was signed."* Thus after a deadlock of more than two years over the question of limits the treaty was negotiated and signed all within four days. But they who marry in haste repent at leisure. The four months designated within which ratifications should be exchanged af forded ample time in case action should be prompt; but it did not allow for much unnecessary delay, since it required approximately two months for a messenger to pass from Mexico to Washington. The conclusion of the boundary treaty had removed the obstacle to the negotiation of the treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation, which was signed almost exactly a month later. Since the two were complementary the former was held till the latter was ready. That the govern ment at Washington might have time to consider the treaty of limits and be ready to ratify it within the time allowed, Poinsett forwarded a copy of it on Feb ruary 7, when he foresaw that the commercial treaty would soon be concluded."" On February 22 his mes senger set out from the city of Mexico bearing the official, signed copies of both treaties, that of limits of 33 For the treaty, see American State Papers, Foreign, VI, 946; Mexico, Tratados y Cenvenciones, I, 115, 117. For a brief account of the negotiation, see Rives, United States and Mexico, 1821-1848, I, 170-171. 39 Poinsett to Clay, February 7, 1828, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, III; extracts in House Ex ecutive Documents, 25 congress, i session, number 42, page 26; and same congress, 2 session, number 351, page 189; British and Foreign State Papers, XXVI, 843. TEXAS AND TIIE BOUNDARY ISSUE 3I9 January 12, and that of amity and commerce of Feb ruary 14, 1828."° In Poinsett's letter of February 7, cited above, he gave some reasons for his abandoning Texas in addi tion to those explained in his letter of a monlh earlier. He said : " This government and people have been kept purposely in a continual state of excitement upon this very delicate question. We have been represented by the agents of certain European powers as the natural enemies of Mexico ; and our desire to make alterations in the treaty of limits concluded with Spain and to deprive them of a portion of their territory was con stantly urged in proof of our bad faith and insatiable ambition. It becanie necessary, therefore, for me to use very cautious language upon this subject, and in aU my conversations and notes in relation to the ques tion of limits to endeavor, if any change were made, that it should be at the suggestion of this government, so that the honorable dealing of the United States in this respect might at aU times be manifest.""! The Adams administration were apparently fully convinced by these two letters of Poinsett that it was useless to altenipt longer to obtain Texas. Neither was there any considerable opposition in the Senate. Action was as prompt as could be desired. On April 0" Poinsett te Clay, February 22, 1828, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, III; American State Papers, Foreign, VI, 948; House Executive Documents, 25 congress, 2 session, number 351, page 190. ni Poinsett to Clay, February 7. 1828, as cited in note 59. This very interesting portion ef this letier is not printed in any of the three extracts cited in that note. 320 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 21 Clay wrote Poinsett that the latter's messenger had arrived with the treaties and that they would be im mediately laid before the Senate for their advice and consent."2 On the same day the treaty of limits was transmitted to the Senate by President Adams,"* and referred by that body to its committee on foreign rela tions."* One week later that committee reported it back without amendment ; the committee of the whole considered it at once also without amending and re ported it to the Senate ; and that body immediately pro ceeded by unanimous consent to consider the resolu tion to advise and consent to its ratification, and ap proved the resolution, thirty-eight yeas to three nays."" Two days later, April 30, 1828, Clay wrote Obregon, the Mexican minister in Washington, " I am ready to proceed in the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty at any time that may suit your convenience within the period prescribed," reminding him that only a few days remained."" On May I Obregon acknowledged Clay's note of the day before, expressing his regret that he did not have it in his power to effect the exchange imme diately, and explaining that he had not yet received 32 Clay to Poinsett, April 21, 1828, MS., Department of State, Instructions, XII, 98; House Executive Documents, 25 con gress, 2 session, number 351, page 17. 33 American State Papers, Foreign, VI, 946. 3* Senate Executive Journal, III, 604. 33 Senate Executive Journal, 605. Those opposing were Benton, Elhs, and Smith of South Carolina. 33 Clay to Obregon, April 30, 1828, House Executive Docu ments, 25 congress, i session, number 42, page 46 ; British and Foreign State Papers, XXVI, 846. TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 32 1 the ratification by his own government."' There re mained eleven days before the time set for exchang ing the ratifications would expire. In Mexico, on the other hand, action on the treaty was very different. Poinsett reported on April 24 that its progress had been delayed by the extreme indolence of the man who had been secretary of state. He had kept the treaty for more than two months without presenting it to the Congress although Poinsett had warned him repeatedly of the prejudice to Mexi can interests caused by the delay."* It had to be acted on by the both houses of the Mexican Congress. The lower house had ratified it before Poinsett wrote this letter of April 24,"" and two days later he wrote that the Senate had ratified it. The action of the Congress, he said, was prompt enough but it was impossible to get it to Washington in time to exchange the ratifications before the four months' time limit should expire.'" 37 Obregon te Clay, May i, 1828, House Executive Docu ments, 25 congress, i session, number 42, page 46; British and Foreign State Papers, XXVI, 846. 33 Espinosa, who had been secretary ef state for foreign relations for nearly two years, was succeeded by Caiiedo on March 8, 1828. See Bocanegra, Memorias, I, 557. This was not quite two months after the treaty had been signed. Had the new secretary and both houses of Congress acted as promptly as did the authorities at Washington there still would have been time. 39 Poinsett to Clay, April 24, 1828, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV; House Executive Documents, 25 congress, i session, number 42, page 28; British and For eign State Papers, XXVI, 845. '"' Poinsett to Clay, April 26, 1828, MS., Department ef State, Despatches from Mexico, IV; House Executive Documents, 22 322 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE In Spite of this the Mexican ratifications were trans mitted to Obregon -with instructions to effect the exchange, and that minister notified Clay on August 2, 1828, that he had just received them and was ready to effect the exchange when convenient to the United States government; but he was informed that since the time limit had expired the treaty would have to be laid before the Senate again at the next session to get its approval before the exchange could be effected.'! Although Poinsett's advances had been very guarded and he had not really made any offer to purchase Texas, yet the fact that the United States wished and was endeavoring to do so became known, since, as Poinsett said, there were no secrets in Mexico. Greatly exaggerated reports concerning the matter reached European courts. In the middle of the year 1828, Rocafuerte, the Mexican representative in Lon don, wrote his government that a rumor was current in diplomatic circles there to the effect that Mexico had already ceded Texas to the United States for the sum of thirty-five million pesos; and that this was the result of the scandalous intrigues of the minister 25 congress, i session, number 42, page 29; British and For eign State Papers, XXVI, 845. '1 Obregon to Clay, August 2, 1828, and Brent te Obregon, same date. House Executive Documents, 25 congress, i ses sion, number 42, pages 47, 48 ; British and Foreign State Pa pers, XXVI, 846, 847. On May 10 Caiiede had informed Poin sett ef the ratification by his government, House Executive Documents, 25 congress, 2 session, number 351, page 202. For a brief discussion ef this treaty and its failure, see Rives, United States and Mexico, 1821-1848, I, 170. TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 323 of the United States at the Mexican capital. He said he could not beUeve it, but neither could he deny it.'- As soon as Rocafuerte's letter reached Mexico his govemment instructed him to deny the rumor at once since it was utterly without foundation.'* In the latter part of this year 1828, a curious re quest for the cession of Texas reached the Mexican government from a very different source and for a very different purpose. It came from London but not from the British government. It is of small impor tance but of considerable interest. Robert Owen, the well known socialistic philanthropist, presented through Rocafuerte a request that the govemment of Mexico should cede to him the state of Coahuila and Texas as a place where he might work out his philanthropic plans for the benefit of all mankind. He proposed that it should be an entirely independent state, and that its independence should be guaranteed by Mex ico, the United States and Great Britain. As the chief consideration other than the philanthropic ones which should induce Mexico to grant his request, he argued, " That it is a frontier province between the Mexican and North American republics which is now settling under such circumstances as are likely to create jealousies and irritations between citizens of these states and which most probably at some future period will terminate in a war between the two re- '2 Rocafuerte to Secretarie, Londres, 16 de julio de 1828, | MS., Relaciones Exteriores. '"' ' ' ¦ """*'" ' ~ - ' "~- '* [Secretario to Rocafuerte], 22 de septiembre de 1828, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. 324 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE publics. This consideration alone, in the opinion of many experienced statesmen, would render it a wise measure in the Mexican republic to place this province under the new arrangements about to be proposed." In Rocafuerte's letter transmitting the memorial he said he had told Owen that there was not the sUghtest prospect of the government's granting the request, for, " although it is very beautiful, very plausible, and very philanthropic on paper it is unrealizable in practice."'* Numerous notes passed between Poinsett and the Mexican government concerning difficulties arising out of the operation of a law which had been passed in September, 1823, allowing goods intended for con sumption in Texas to come in duty free for seven years. Poinsett presented complaints that officials were not allowing this privilege. Caiiedo declared that an erroneous interpretation had been placed on the law, that there were many frauds practiced, and that to prevent these it had been ordered that all goods should pay the duty, but that afterwards reimbursements should be made for goods proved to have been used in Texas. The privilege was still abused and merchants of Monclova complained because they no longer had the benefit of it. Poinsett argued with the Mexican officials that the lax enforcement of the law by the Mexican authorities on the coast had encouraged mer chants of the United States to engage in this trade and that they should not be made to suffer by the sudden '* Rocafuerte te Secretarie, Londres, 15 dejulie de 1828, and Owens's memorial accompanying, MS., Relaciones"'''^''*^ TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 325 withdrawal of the privilege. He attempted to have time allowed to notify shippers. But an order was issued in April, 1828, to treat as contrabandists all who attempted to land goods under the law. Poin sett informed Clay, April 23, 1828, that the Mex ican government had decided to put a stop immediately to the free entry of goods for consumption by the in habitants of Texas.'" In the absence of treaty stipulations for the purpose there was no regular means for the recovery by the United States of absconding debtors, runaway slaves, and escaped criminals who had taken refuge in Mex ican territory. Clay wrote Poinsett in January, 1828, that information had come to Washington to the effect that impediments were placed in the way of recover ing such, especially in Texas. A resolution of the House of Representatives had assumed the existence of such impediments and called on the President for '3 Poinsett to Secretario, September 10, 1827, MS., Rela ciones Exteriores. Caiiedo to Poinsett, April 8, 1828; Poin sett te Caiiedo, April 11, 1828; Canedo te Poinsett, April 21, 1828; enclosures with Poinsett to Clay, July 15, 1828, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. Poinsett to Clay, April 23, 1828, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, III. The last is printed in House Executive Documents, 25 congress, 2 session, number 351, page 201. Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas, II, 114, says the exemption expired in 1830. This is the time it should legally have expired had it net been withdrawn. He probably follows Filisela, Memorias, I, 163, which says, " al acabar aquel mismo aiio de 1830 debian terminar las escenciones y privilegios con- cedidos a los distritos de Tejas, Monclova, y Rio Grande, para la intreduccion libre de derechos de todo lo que necesitasen para el uso de aquellos habitantes." 326 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE information regarding the matter. Obregon had de clared that he knew of no such obstacles. Poinsett was instructed to make inquiries and in case he found that such existed he was to protest against them.'" In April, 1828, Clay instructed Poinsett to ask the sur render of several persons named Hardin who were charged with having committed an atrocious murder in Tennessee and had fled to Texas. The treaties con cluded and just received, he said, provided for such extradition, but since ratifications had not been ex changed it could not be demanded. On June 3 Poin sett presented the request. Expecting that there would be a long delay before the government decided what to do, he applied through a friend directly to the governor of the state of Coahuila and Texas asking that the men be secured until the government should decide. But only three days after the request was presented Canedo replied to Poinsett that the President had directed the governor of Coahuila and Texas to arrest and surrender the murderers. Later that gov ernor wrote Poinsett directly that he would do so." '3 Clay to Poinsett, January 12, 1828, MS., Department of State, Instructions, XII, 53 ; Clay to Adams, January 14, 1828, and Adams to House of Representatives, January 15, 1828, American State Papers, Foreign, VI, 822. '7 Clay to Poinsett, April 21, 1828, MS., Department of State, Instructions, XII, 98; House Executive Documents, 25 con gress, 2 session, number 351, page 17. On pages 18-32 are the documents containing the charges against the Hardins ; Poin sett to Caiiedo, June 3, 1828, Caiiedo to Poinsett, June 7, 1828, Poinsett to Clay, July 12, 1828, MS., Department of State, De spatches from Mexico, IV ; the last is printed in House Execu tive Documents, 25 congress, 2 session, number 351, page 214. TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 327 The Fredonian revolt that had collapsed so speedily early in 1827 was only the beginning of a series of disturbances in Texas during the following two years which called for the exchange of numerous diplomatic notes. In August, 1827, Obregon wrote his govem ment of another attack which it was reported would soon be made on Nacogdoches by a band who had set out from New Orleans under the guise of a surveying party going to mark out a grant of land that had been made in Texas, but upon reaching the border had assumed a warlike aspect and were planning the de scent on Nacogdoches with the assistance of the Chero kee Indians.'* In October of the same year he wrote that there was talk of the United States taking con trol of the disorderly Mexican territory south of the Red river, to prevent the Indians residing there from making attacks on citizens of the United States north of that river. Obregon advised his govern ment to take steps to prevent this.'" In April, 1828, Caiiedo complained to Poinsett that a party of fifteen men from the United States had made an irruption into Texas and at Nacogdoches had declared them selves the advance guard of a republican army con sisting of several hundred which was going to march on Bexar or Guadalupe. Poinsett replied promptly Poinsett to Clay, June 9, 1828, MS., United States Embassy Archives, Mexico. This last is missing in the files of the De partment of State. '3 Obregon te Secretario, 10 de agosto de 1827, MS., Rela ciones Exteriores. 79 Obregon to Secretario, 13 de octubre de 1827, MS., Rela ciones Exteriores. 328 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE that he would submit the matter to his government and ask that measures be taken to prevent such move ments.*" Indians were causing trouble by attacking each other across the border. In July, 1828, Caiiedo called Poinsett's attention to the fact that the Co manche Indians living in Mexican territory had asked permission to pursue and recover property that had been taken from them by Indians from the United States who had returned thither. The request was denied through respect for the territory of a friendly state.*! About the middle of the year 1828 reports reached the government in Mexico that Spanish refugees in New Orleans were planning to cooperate with the Spanish authorities in Cuba in an expedition to the Texas coast. Orders were at once despatched to the governor of Coahuila and Texas to remove all Span iards from the coast as soon as the expedition should approach ; and a secret agent was sent to New Orleans *3 Caiiedo to Poinsett, April 12, 1828, Poinsett to Canedo, April 19, 1828, enclosures with Poinsett to Clay, July 14, 1828, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. In Poinsett to Clay, April 23, 1828, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, III, and House Executive Docu ments, 25 congress, 2 session, number 351, page 201, mention is made of this raid; and also of the violation ef Mexican sovereignty by a party ef one hundred hunters near the north ern limit ef California. Poinsett explained that this was prob ably due te ignorance of the exact location of the line. *! Caiiede te Poinsett, July 15, 1828, enclosed with Poinsett to Clay, July 16, 1828, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV; House Executive Documents, 25 congress, 2 session, number 351, page 242. TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 329 to keep the government informed. That agent re ported in September that there certainly had been talk of such a movement early in the year; but the schemers had neither sufficient men nor money. Their chief, Jose Lara, had gone to Cuba, expecting a re ward for his zeal. In November the same secret agent reported a still more visionary movement. This was led by a Spanish officer who had been expelled from Mexico. He was trying to incite the poorest of his countrymen and some Mexicans of the same class to join him in a disorderly plundering raid. He as sured them that they could collect a hundred and fifty or two hundred men, go to Texas and proclaim the Devil, if they wanted to, surprise some settlements, and get away with what they could carry .*^ These movements amounted to nothing and would not de serve serious notice in themselves; but the Mexican authorities were unduly alarmed at them and they had no little influence on the rising tide of hostility in Mex ico for the United States which so deeply affected the diplomatic relations. Similar reports continued through 1828 and 1829, from agents both in New Or leans and in Texas, especially from General Teran who was near the border as head of the boundary commission. On July 29, 1829, Bocanegra, who was 32 Pedraza to Secretario, 22 de julio de 1828, Secretario to Pedraza, 26 de julio de 1828, Secretario to Gobernador de Coahuila y Texas, 26 de juho de 1828, Gobernador de Coahuila y Texas to Secretario, 11 de agosto de 1828, Secretario de Relaciones te Secretario de Guerra, 27 de agosto de 1828, Martinez to Secretario, Nuevo Orleans, 23 de septiembre, and 17 de noviembre de 1828; all MS., Relaciones Exteriores. 330 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE then secretary of state for foreign affairs, wrote Poinsett that he was instructed by President Guer rero to communicate intelligence just received from New Orleans. It was to the effect that Jose Lara was enlisting men in New Orleans under a commis sion from the government of Havana, and that he had already sent to that government more than four hundred recruits. It was also reported that at sev eral places along the border United States troops were being collected and drilled and supplies collected. He asked that these acts in violation of neutrality and in aid of the Spanish expedition against Mexico be pre vented.** Two days after receiving this Poinsett made a spirited reply, declaring that the vigilant exe cution of the laws in the United States against foreign enlistment made incredible such things as Bocanegra said were going on in New Orleans. He ventured to suggest that Lara was doing no more than transport to Cuba Spaniards expelled from Mexico who were unable to support themselves and were willing to take advantage of the offer made by the captain general of Cuba of refuge and support in that island. He declared that he had no knowledge of such military preparations on the border as Bocanegra had men tioned except from statements published in libellous papers in Mexico by enemies of the liberties of Amer ica who were striving to disturb the friendly relations between the two republics. They had no foundation in fact. He said that if Spain attacked Mexico the United ** Bocanegra to Poinsett, July 29, 1829, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 33 1 States would remain neutral ; but would be friendly and sympathetic with Mexico.** In reporting to Van Buren, the secretary of state in the new Jackson ad ministration, this correspondence with Bocanegra, Poinsett said that the conduct of the Mexican govern ment with reference to all foreign nations was ridicu lous and ought only to excite our compassion. They regarded Mexico as the most favored nation on earth and thought all others were jealous of her, especially the United States. He said that General Teran had never ceased to arouse the fears of the government regard ing the attitude of the United States toward Texas; and frequent insinuations by Europeans of American designs on Texas confirmed these fears. He had seen a letter of June 3 from Teran, " who has always been attached to the English interests. This person as sures the government in his last despatches that we are making vast preparations to attack that country and have already fifteen thousand men on the fron tier." Teran enlarged on the great size, fertiUty and natural resources of Texas, and the consequent reasons why Mexico should never yield possession.*" Another note from Bocanegra on August 20 telling of more positive announcements of military preparations in the United States against Mexico elicited the next day pointed denials from Poinsett and renewed declara tions of the friendly disposition of the United States 8* Poinsett to Bocanegra, July 31, 1829, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. 85 Poinsett to Van Buren, August 2, 1829, MS., Department ef State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. 332 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE for Mexico. He said he thought that the agents of the government gave too easy credence to false state ments. In reporting this correspondence to Van Buren Poinsett said he had declared in a conference with Bocanegra on the subject that until the treaty of amity and commerce should be ratified military move ments on the frontiers must be expected. The treaty contained a provision for restraining the Indians on the border. He had said that, if Mexico did not re strain her Indians from attacks on the United States side, the United States would pursue such tribes for punishment even to the gates of Mexico. In the be ginning of this letter to Van Buren Poinsett explained that the Mexican Senate had addressed to Bocanegra an insolent demand for information regarding the re ported activities of the United States, and Poinsett beUeved that body wanted to plunge the country into war with the United States hoping that such a war would overthrow the existing state of things in Mexico. He declared : " I will not therefore suffer myself to be provoked; nor will I personaUy yield to their attacks, altho' my residence in this country has become almost insupportable."*" It will be recalled that it was the second of August, 1828, when Obregon was told that the ratifications of 33 Bocanegra to Poinsett, August 20, 1829, Poinsett to Boca negra, August 21, 1829, Poinsett to Van Buren, August 22, 1829, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV ; all of these except the important beginning ef the last are in House Executive Documents, 25 congress, 2 session, number 351, pages 291-294. TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 333 the boundary treaty of January 12, 1828, could not be exchanged till that treaty should again be acted upon by the Senate of the United States at the next session, because the four months' time Umit had expired.*' This necessarily delayed the matter till the following winter. But action was not taken even then. In the middle of April of the following year Montoya, the Mexican charge at Washington, brought the matter to the attention of the new Jackson administration by saying in a letter to Van Buren that he presumed the treaty had been presented to the Senate as had been said would be necessary, and by asking whether the secretary of state was now ready to proceed with the exchange of the ratifications, explaining that the Mexican government, desirous of effecting the ex change, had invested him with full powers for the purpose. Van Buren replied that he was not fully informed as to the reasons why the preceding admin istration had not again submitted the treaty of limits to the Senate; but supposed it was because Mexican action on the commercial treaty was expected and it was desired to have the Senate act on the two together, and this expectation had been disappointed. It would be necessary stiU to submit the treaty to the Senate to be acted upon again, and he promised that it should be submitted at the next session. In the meantime he hoped the Mexican ratifications of the commercial treaty would arrive so the two could be submitted to the Senate together.** Thus the exchange had again 8' See above, this chapter. 88 Montoya to Van Buren, April 16, 1829, and Van Buren 334 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE been delayed, this time for nearly a year. But before this year had expired the new administration had de termined to try its hand at negotiating a new treaty of limits which should supersede the other and give Texas to the United States. Early in March, 1829, in reviewing at length, for the information of the new administration, the whole of his diplomatic activities and difficulties in Mexico, Poinsett discussed very briefly the boundary negotia tions.*" Again in July he reviewed his negotiations for the treaties, tracing those for the treaty of limits to the conclusion of the pending treaty a year and a half earlier, and concluded by declaring : " I am still convinced that we never can expect to extend our boundary south of the river Sabine, without quarrel ing with these people, and driving them to court a more strict alliance with some European power."*" This renewed assertion of Poinsett's belief that it would never be possible to secure Texas peaceably did not reach the Department of State until nearly a month after the new administration had matured its project for the acquisition of Texas and despatched instruc- to Montoya, April 22, 1829, House Executive Documents, 25 congress, I session, number 42, page 49; British and Foreign State Papers, XXVI, 848. 89 Poinsett to Secretary of State, March 10, 1829, MS., De partment of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. 90 Poinsett to Van Buren, July 22, 1829, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV; House Executive Docu ments, 25 congress, i session, number 42, page 29, prints a brief extract ; and the rest is in the same, 2 congress, number 351, page 285. This was received at the Department of State on September 22. TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 335 tions for the purpose. It is doubtful whether it would have affected the situation even had it arrived before the instructions were sent. The plan seems to have developed slowly. Nearly six months of Jackson's term was gone before it took shape. The earUest documentary evidence of the growth of the plan which is preserved in the correspondence of Van Buren is a report of Anthony Butler. It is not dated but seems to have been presented about August ii, 1829, since a letter from Jackson of the following day says, " I am pleased with the document you sent me respecting Texas, and will be happy to see you and Col. Butler whenever it may suit your convenience." That this was not the origin of the project is evident from But ler's opening his report with the statement, " In nego tiating for Texas a variety of considerations present themselves," and his reference later to the " anticipated negotiation." He discusses at considerable length the soil, climate, resources, and water ways of Texas and the value of the province to the United States. " The considerations which present themselves " he discusses under seven heads. In Van Buren's instructions he embodied nearly every suggestion which Butler here makes. In addition to his arguments Butler adds a gentle appeal to personal ambition by suggesting that the people of the south and west are so vitally inter ested in the matter "as to secure for that man who may accomplish the recovery of Texas their thanks, their confidence, and their gratitude," which, he adds, 336 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE is likely hereafter to amount to something more than complimentary toasts or newspaper eulogisms. Jack son's letter referred to above shows that they had been studying with some care Poinsett's explanations of the reasons why the offer to purchase Texas in 1827 had failed, for he says that the constitutional question can be solved ; and that two million added to the one million offered will amend the Mexican constitution. Another document which seems to have had a marked influence in shaping the final instructions is an un signed and undated " Project for the acquisition of [the] province of Texas " which sets forth the motive for the negotiation by saying, " To counteract the evils growing out of the surrender of that part of Louisiana west of the Sabine and east of the Rio del Norte or Grand river, it is proposed to open a negotiation for the retrocession of the same to the United States." It gives several suggestions as to how Poinsett might approach the Mexican government and says that the present threatened invasion of Mexico by Spain and the deranged condition of the finances "makes the time a very propitious one for the ascertainment of her views in regard to this territory as Mr. P. can give his enquiries the character of individual soUci tude for her welfare and a desire to relieve her em barrassments rather than turn them to the advantage of his own country." On August 13 Jackson made a rough outline draft of the instructions to be given to Poinsett. With these various documents as a basis Van Buren prepared first a rough outline draft and TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 337 then the complete instructions which were dated August 25, 1829."! 91 Butler te Secretary ef State [August 11, 1829]; Jackson to Van Buren, August 12, 1829; "Project for [the] acquisition of the provinofe of Texas " [August 13, 1829] ; Jackson's draft of instructieiis to Poinsett, August 13, 1829; Van Buren's outline draft of instruction to Poinsett, which covers 16 manuscript/ijages ; First Draft in several different hands with numerous 'corrections and containing practically everything in the final instructions, and covering 32 pages ; Second Draft dated August 25, 1829, covering 37 pages ; all in Van Buren MSS., Library of Congress, IX and X. The conjectural dates have been adopted from the Library of Congress Calendar ef the Van Buren Papers, prepared by W. C. Ford and Elizabeth West, and printed in 1910. Jackson's draft of August 13 is printed in Reeves, Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk, 65, note. This writer cites the Jackson Papers as the place where the manuscript is found. This must be an error. Most writers on Texas history discuss these instructions of August 25, 1829, and in connection with them mention the offer to purchase made by Clay on March 15, 1827, and his original instructions te Poinsett on March 26, 1825, te nego tiate for a westward extension of the boundary. See Miss Howren, " Causes and Origin of the Decree of April 6, 1830," Southwestern Historical Quarterly, XVI, 383-387; Barker, " Jackson and the Texas Revolution," American Historical Re view, XII, 789; McMaster, History of the People ef the United States, V, 461 and 542-555, which dwells at great length on the efforts of the Jacksonian newspapers to facili tate the purchase; Kennedy, Texas, I, 372. The following five give very brief discussions : Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas, II, 89; MacDonald, Jacksonian Democracy, 211; Yoakum, in Comprehensive History of Texas, I, 129; the remainder are strongly prejudiced: Von Hoist, Constitutional and Political History of the United States, 1828-1846, 555 ; Jay, Review of the Mexican War, 15; Adams, "Texas Speech" in the House of Representatives, 1838, 114-121 ; Tornel, Tejas y los Estados Unidos, 3, 10; Filisela, Memorias, I, 158-162. 23 338 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE These instructions begin by saying : " It is the wish of the President that you should, without delay, open a negotiation with the Mexican government for the purchase of so much of the province of Texas as is hereinafter described, or for such a part thereof as they can be induced to cede to us." The President was convinced of the necessity of the proposed acquisi tion in order to guard the western frontier, protect New Orleans, and secure the undisturbed possession of the valley of the Mississippi river with all its tribu taries. " The boundary at present assumed by Mex ico is deemed objectionable " for various reasons which he sets forth. There was some uncertainty as to which of two streams emptying into Sabine Bay was the true Sabine river. Whichever it should be that river was navigable only by small vessels and never would sustain sufficient commerce to warrant the maintenance there of custom houses, without which it would be " impossible to prevent that frontier from becoming the seat of an extensive system of smuggUng." The lands east of the Sabine were poor and occupied by persons of an objectionable character who would continue to create incessant difficulties and broils which would foster and influence the "spirit of jealousy to which our neighbors are already too much inclined." In enumerating the reasons which ought to induce Mexico to be wiUing to make the cession he begins by saying : " Nothing would be more adverse to the feelings of the President than to give that government reason to believe that he is TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 339 capable of taking advantage of their necessities to ob tain from them any portion of the Mexican territory, the cession of which would impair the true interests or commit the honor of that country." He then ar gues : " The comparatively small value of the terri tory in question to Mexico; its remote and discon nected situation ; the unsettled condition of her affairs ; the depressed and languishing state of her finances ; and the still, and at this moment particularly, threat ening attitude of Spain all combine to point out and recommend to Mexico the policy of parting with a portion of her territory of very limited and contingent benefit to supply herself with the means of defend ing the residue with the better prospect of success and with less onerous burdens to her citizens. It is for the federal government of Mexico, if they approve of the policy of doing so, to judge of their constitu tional power to make the cession. It is believed that no doubt could exist on that account if the consent of the state of Coahuila were obtained; and if the view we take of the true interests of the repubUc of Mexico are not founded in error, it is supposed that such con sent would not be withheld." An argument, as to suggesting which Poinsett was to use his judgment, was that the internal disturbances and revolutions of Mexico rendered a dissolution of the repubUc pos sible ; and it was generally conceded that in such event Texas would be the first to strike a blow for inde pendence, the example of which would endanger the unity of the rest. The aggressive character of the 340 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE settlers on the United States side of the border; the settlement of adventurous persons in the prohibited zone on the Mexican side; and the lack of harmony between the non-Spanish settlers in Texas and the government were all causes of discord and heartburn ings between the two governments that should be removed if possible. The Comanche Indians in Texas were very troublesome to the settlements and occa sioned great expense to the Mexican government to maintain garrisons there. Other tribes were mov ing into the region and increasing the trouble. The territory of which the cession was desired by the United States was described as all lying east of a line drawn through the center of the desert or Grand Prairie between the Nueces and the Rio Grande "north to the mountains dividing the waters of the Rio Grande del Norte from those that run eastward to the Gulf, and until it strikes our present boundary at the forty-second degree of north latitude." If Poinsett found that the Mexican government objected to this line because it contained the large Mexican settlements of San Antonio de Bexar and La Bahia, but still found that government disposed to part with any portion of the territory in question, then he was authorized to accept any of three other lines, regarding those farthest west as most desirable. The second should begin at the mouth of the La Vaca, ascend the left bank of that stream to its head, then due north to the Colorado, up the west bank of that river to its head, and "thence by the most direct course that will intersect our line TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 341 at the forty-second degree of north latitude and in clude the head waters of the Arkansas and Red rivers." The third line was to commence at the mouth of the Colorado and foUow its west bank all the way and thence as described in the second. The fourth was to follow the west bank of the Brazos from its mouth to its source and thence to the forty-second degree as the two previous. Poinsett was authorized to make such alterations in these lines as should appear to him clearly beneficial. " The line proposed as the one most desirable to us would constitute a natural separation of the resources of the two nations. It is the center of a country uninhabitable on the Gulf; and on the mountains so difficult of access and so poor as to furnish no inducement for a land inter course; and of course no theatre for those differ ences that are almost inseparable from a neighbor hood of commercial interests. It corresponds with the habitual feelings of the people of Mexico and with the avowed policy of the Mexican govemment by causing a wide separation and difficulties of inter course between the inhabitants of the two countries, and by preventing those excitements and bickerings invariably produced by the contiguous operation of conflicting laws, habits, and interests." The price to be offered for Texas, Van Buren introduces by saying, "The President does not desire the proposed cession without rendering a just and fair equivalent for it. He therefore authorizes you to of fer to the Mexican government for a cession accord- 342 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE ing to the first-mentioned boundary a sum not ex ceeding four millions of dollars ; and so strong are his convictions of its great value to the United States that he will not object if you should find it indispens ably necessary to go as high as five millions." For each of the other Unes Poinsett was authorized to de cide upon and offer what he considered a proportion ate amount of the purchase price. It would be prefer able to make the payments in three or four equal an nual installments ; but if necessary the whole sum could be paid within four months after the exchange of ratifications and delivery of the possession of the ceded territory. In case of success other details are provided for such as rights of navigation and juris diction, validity of land grants, and the extension of personal and political rights to the inhabitants of the ceded territory.*^ Anthony Butler, the author of the report mentioned above as one of the principal bases of the instructions to purchase Texas, was selected by the administra tion to bear the letter to Poinsett. When in the middle of October of this year 1829 Poinsett was recalled at the request of the Mexican government, Butler, al- 92 Van Buren to Poinsett, August 25, 1829, MS., Department of State, Secret Record, I, 39; House Executive Documents, 25 congress, i session, number 42, page 10; British and For eign State Papers, XXVI, 850. This was not entered in the regular volume of Instructions ; nor in the regular volume ef the Archives of the United States Embassy in Mexico. Jackson's " full power " to Poinsett to negotiate concerning the matter bears the same date as the instruction. See also Van Buren MSS., Library ef Congress, X. TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 343 ready on the ground, was appointed to represent the United States at Mexico, with the rank of charge. On October 17 Jackson signed the letter investing But ler with fuU power to conduct the negotiation for Texas. The instructions of August 25, which he had borne to Poinsett, were to be his guide."* Poinsett, convinced of the uselessness of attempting to acquire Texas, and feeUng that his influence with the government was gone, appears to have refrained 9* Butler's commission as bearer of the despatch is Van Buren te Butler, August 24 1829, MS., Department ef State, Secret Record, I, 52 ; his " full power " te negotiate is Jack son to Butler, October 17, 1829, on page 53 of the Secret Record. His instructions to negotiate are Van Buren te Butler, October 16, and the postscript to that letter dated October 17, 1829, House Executive Documents, 25 congress, 2 session, number 351, pages 40-53. " Butler, an old comrade in arms of Jackson, . . . lacked moral character and fitness fer any position of trust. No worse selection for a diplomatic position could have been made. . . . [He] was charged with being a speculator in Texas lands, a gambler, a drunkard, and a liar. But this last epithet came from Jackson himself seme years after wards, when his shortness of memory afforded him an easy escape from the entanglements of fact. It is safe to say that Butler's mission, discreditable and even disgraceful, had much to do with the unsatisfactory course ef eur diplomatic rela tions with Mexico which ended in war. When Butler appears for the first time upon the stage of diplomacy, he had recently been in Texas and professed te be familiar with the proposed river boundaries. Sent to Mexico as bearer of despatches to Poinsett, he went overland, again through Texas, and secretly. . . . From 1829 to 1836, during practically all of Jackson's term, Anthony Butler represented, or rather misrepresented, the United States in Mexico." Reeves, Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk, 68. 344 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE from even suggesting the new project. But the fact that the United States was ready to make a proposi tion for the purchase of Texas became pubUc shortly after Poinsett's departure. On January 9, 1830, a paragraph appeared in the newspaper called El Sol declaring that, "A few days before the departure of Mr. Poinsett from this capital, the American Colonel Butler arrived here, commissioned, as it is said, by the government of Washington, to negotiate with ours for the cession of the province of Texas for the sum of five millions of dollars. As we are not in formed that, so far, the colonel has made any over tures on the subject, we presume that he does the new administration the justice to suppose it incapable of lending itself to a transaction as prejudicial and de grading to the republic as it would be disgraceful to the minister who would subscribe to it." Butler was mystified at being so quickly found out. He wrote Van Buren the next day that the paragraph was "a very remarkable one. You perceive that they under take not only to assert that the object of my mission is the purchase of Texas, but they also state a price to be paid for the cession ! I have not time to say much on this matter at present, but I will endeavor to un ravel the mystery hereafter.""* In the weeks preced ing and following this a multitude of violently anti- American newspaper articles and pamphlets issued from the Mexican press, voicing the suspicion gen- 9* Butler to Van Buren, January 10, 1830, and enclosure. House Executive Documents, 25 congress, 2 session, number 351, page 310. TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 345 eraily felt that the United States was attempting to dismember the Mexican republic. As evidence of the desire of the government and people of the United States for Mexican territory they unfortunately had the numerous articles which had been appearing in the administration newspapers in the United States dwell ing on the value of Texas and the desirability of its ac quisition.^" Finally the administration at Washington came to the conclusion that it was unwise, for the time being at least, to endeavor to make the purchase ; and Van Buren wrote Butler April i, 1830: "The unsettled state of affairs in Mexico, and the excitement growing out of it, to which reference has already been several times made in the course of this communication, have induced an apprehension on the part of the President that the present is not an auspicious moment for the successful opening of the negotiations which form the object of the instructions from this department of the 25th of August, 1829. To watch the state of the public mind, the opinions of the principal members of the government, and hear what is said on all sides, is all that is, for the present, expected from your agency in the matter. In doing this the greatest cau tion and circumspection is enjoined upon you ; and the exercise of the most guarded discretion will be neces sary on your part not to commit yourself or your gov ernment upon any point connected with the subject. You will, also, in informing this department of the 93 See McMaster, History of the People of the United States, V, 543-547- 346 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE result of your observations and reflections, adopt every measure which prudence will suggest to insure the safety of your communications. If, however, an op portunity should present itself to carry into effect the wishes of your government, in this respect, you will not fail to embrace it upon the principles and accord ing to the instructions already given to you."*" It is the purpose of this chapter to trace the rela tions between Mexico and the United States respect ing Texas and the boundary only through the year 1829. The instruction of April i of the following year is introduced to show that the Jackson administration virtually withdrew the offer of the preceding August. In the hands of most diplomatic agents this instruc tion, taken together with the state of public opinion in Mexico, would have ended completely all effort to obtain the cession of Texas. But it was not so with Butler. He interpreted the last sentence quoted as leaving the matter entirely to his discretion. On re ceiving the letter he replied : " I am glad that you adopt the opinion that the present time is inauspicious for the commencement of the negotiation for Texas, and have placed under my discretion the period and the manner of opening that subject. That discretion shall be exercised with all proper caution, and my judgment taxed to the extent of its powers for secur ing success."*' During the six years of his residence 93 Van Buren to Butler, April i, 1830, House Executive Documents, 25 congress, 2 session, number 351, page 62. 9' Butler to Van Buren, May 21, 1830, House Executive Documents, 25 congress, 2 session, number 351, page 326. TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 347 he never abandoned the project, showing in his corre spondence with the officials of the government in Washington an unblushing readiness to resort to brib ery and trickery when he found that legitimate diplo matic effort would not accomplish his purpose."* To show the ultimate failure of all negotiations respect ing the boundary up to this date, the subsequent fate of the treaty of Umits pending at this time should be briefly traced. It will be recalled that it was con cluded January 12, 1828, and that, owing to delay on the part of Mexico the exchange of ratifications was not effected within the stipulated time Umit of four months. On April 5, 1831, an additional article was concluded renewing the treaty and extending the time for exchanging the ratifications one year from that date."* On April 5, 1832, the last day allowed, the ratifications were exchanged. This time the Mex ican government acted nearly three months before the expiration of the time ; but the United States delayed until the last day, the Mexican representative having declared two days earUer that his government had in structed him not to exchange the ratifications of the commercial treaty unless those of the treaty of Umits could be exchanged at the same time, and the United States Senate having advised and consented to its rati fication on the day preceding the exchange.!"" The 98 See Barker, " Jackson and the Texas Revolution," Ameri can Historical Review, XII, 791-797- 99 United States, Treaties and Conventions, 1776-1909, I, 1084 19" United States, Treaties and Conventions, 1776-1909, I, 348 TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE one year provided in article three within which com missioners should meet to begin marking the line ex pired without Mexico's acting, though the United States had been prompt enough this time;i"i and on April 3, 1835, a second additional article was agreed to which provided that the commissioners should be appointed within one year from the exchange of the ratifications of this second additional article. But the ratifications of this article were not exchanged till April 20, 1836,!"^ when Texas had wrested her inde pendence from Mexico by force of arms. The com missioners never met. With the attempts of the Mexican govemment in September, 1829, and April, 1830, to stop immigra tion into Texas from the United States, the relations between Texas and Mexico and the relations between Mexico and the United States respecting Texas enter a new phase. This has been, and is being, treated with sufficient fullness by students of the Texas Revolution, the Texas national period, and the annexation of Texas to the United States. 1084 ; and Montoya to Livingston, March 26, 1832, House Ex ecutive Documents, 25 congress, I session, number 42, page 51 ; and same to same, March 31, 1832, in the same document, page 53; also same to same, April 3, 1832, in the same docu ment, page 57. 191 Castillo to McLane, December 2, 1833, House Executive Documents, 25 congress, i session, number 42, page 60; same to same, same document, page 62; McLane to Butler, Jan uary 13, 1834 same document, page 16; and Butler to Lom bardo, December 21, 1834, same document, page 38. 192 Mexico, Tratados y Cenvenciones, I, 180. CHAPTER X Public Attacks on Poinsett and His Recall Poinsett's part in the organization of the York Masons, the beginning of the political activity of those lodges, and the early attacks on him because of his re lations with them have been considered in a previous chapter.! 'pjjg Yorkino party, which had come into existence in the early part of 1826 and before the end of the year had grown so strong as to carry most of the state elections, continued to grow and retained its influence. The Escoceses, the Scottish Masons, unable to retain or regain influence and still attribut ing the growth and power of their opponents to the magic influence of Poinsett over the government and the Yorkinos, resorted first to innuendo and then to violence, in order to drive him from the country. Zavala, who was a Yorkino, says that the newspapers which the opposing factions established declared with as much ignorance as impudence that so long as the Escoceses had control the government was tranquil and prosperous ; but that as soon as the Yorkinos at tempted to take part in the government disorder and anarchy prevailed. He says that this is the argument of the tyrant who has monopolized power and wishes to keep it from the people. Just so, he continues, the iThat on Poinsett's Relations with the York Masons. 349 350 PUBLIC ATTACKS ON POINSETT king of Spain argued that, so long as the Spaniards were allowed to rule America and the natives did nothing but obey, all was quiet; but as soon as the natives began to assert their rights the struggle began and peace vanished.^ The Yorkinos also published papers to advocate their cause. These became the objects of suspicion and attack from their opponents who declared that they were subsidized by Poinsett and were working for the interests of the United States as opposed to those of Mexico.* 2 Zavala, Ensayo Historice, I, 354 In the preceding seven pages Zavala reviews the party strife. The tone of these newspaper criticisms of Poinsett and ef the government sup posed to be dominated by him is shown in the following ex tracts from Voz de la Patria, II, numero 8, 15 de febrero de 1830 : " Ne afligan menos la Patria los males politicos que ya comenzaban a manifestarse, y cujo origen f ental se debe casi esclusivamente a la instalacion de los logias de los Yorki nos en Mexico. . . . Poinsett, el regulader y arbitro de este establecimiento, de que se ha Uamado Sumo Pontifice, mui luego procuro sacar todo el partide posible para llenar sus objetos principales; a saber destruir nuestra Republica, y en- grandecer la del Norte America, por ser on [en] su cencepto incompatible la existencia de ambas. . . La mano artera de Poinsett movia a su placer los hiles de esta trama : este hombre insidioso de la humanidad, y cujo nombre hace temblar a las republicos de Chiloe y Buenos-Aires, de donde fue lan- zado como una mala y daiiina bestia." 8 Aviraneta, a European Spaniard traveling in Mexico, was told in Vera Cruz " que el Mercurio es un peri6dice suben- cionado por Poinssete [sic] enviado de les Estados Unidos: es un periodico yorkino, para promover la espulsion de los comerciantes y propietaries Espanoles del teritorio del repub lica, y substituir la influencia del pueblo Yanki." See Avi raneta e Ibargoyen, Memorias Intimas, 1825-1829, in D. Luis Garcia Pimentel, Documentos Historicos de Mejico, III, 45. PUBLIC ATTACKS ON POINSETT 35 I On November lo, 1827, Poinsett reported to Clay an act which it is difficult to see how he could have defended from the charge of interfering in Mexican poUtics. As has been shown in preceding chapters Guerrero had been closely associated with what Poin sett frequently alluded to as the American or demo cratic party. He was also a member of the Yorkino lodges, an active spirit in their organization, and practically the head of the order. In October, 1826, Poinsett had predicted that Guerrero would be the Yorkino candidate for the next presidential election. He now proceeded to assist in making his prophecy come true. Against the wish of his friends in the government Guerrero had declared that he was going to join the movement, at the time becoming popular, for ex pelling from Mexico all remaining European Span iards. These friends appealed to Poinsett to per suade Guerrero to abandon his designs, and to await patiently the effect of his friends' efforts to have him elected next year as successor to Victoria. He had written the desired letter, Poinsett told Clay, and Pres ident Victoria had thanked him for writing it. Guer rero had replied in a tone of great intimacy, modestly declaring his unfitness for the high office which Poin sett had thus informed him his friends wished him to On page 58 he says : " Les escritores del Mercurio son hom- bres vendidos al ore que desparama Peinsset [sic] a manos Uenas, entre los incautios mejicanos." A brief outline ac count ef the party strife is printed in Martinez, Sinepsis His torica de las Revoluciones, I, 58. 352 PUBLIC ATTACKS ON POINSETT become a candidate for. Poinsett virtually admitted that this was interference by telUng Clay he wished President Adams to understand that he had never taken any step toward interfering in the affairs of Mexico " without the knowledge and consent and gen erally at the solicitation of the government."* If the government had been as subservient to Poinsett as his critics supposed it to be, he would have had no diffi culty in obtaining their consent. It was the suspicion that he and the government were in accord that occa sioned their most serious criticism. But from the tone of Poinsett's letter to Clay it is evident here also, as in other cases where his acts might be considered of doubtful propriety, that he was doing what he believed to be for the good of Mexico, and deemed necessary in order to prevent that country from suffering serious evils which he thought he foresaw. The danger which he and Guerrero's friends fore saw this time was real. Within less than a month he reported that there had been an insurrectionary move ment in Puebla and in Vera Cruz the purpose of which was to force those states to expel the European Span iards. In the latter state it had accomplished its pur pose immediately, the legislature yielding without re sistance; but in the former it had resulted in blood shed. These and similar movements elsewhere were being promoted by a secret society that had been or ganized for the purpose by leading members of the Yorkino party and modeled on the Italian Carbonari. * Poinsett to Clay, November lo, 1827, MS., Department ef State, Despatches from Mexico, III. PUBLIC ATTACKS ON POINSETT 353 The new organizations had spread rapidly and vir tually controlled the whole country. They were pre paring to manage the election of Guerrero in the com ing campaign." Disturbances rapidly developed. Party controversy became more bitter. Poinsett reported on January 9, 1828, that the Escoceses, despairing of regaining their influence by peaceable means, had appealed to arms. He confessed that he had not foreseen this conflict because he did not think the leaders of that party would be so rash. On December 23, preceding, the Plan of Montaiio had been proclaimed and a revolution started to force its adoption. The plan contained four demands : The first was the extermination of all secret societies. The second was the dismissal of certain ministers. The fourth was the maintenance of the existing con stitution and laws. But the principal demand was the third, which was aimed directly at Poinsett and de clared: "The Supreme Govemment shall, without an instant's delay, furnish the envoy of the United States to this republic with his passports to leave the country." The fourth demand is the stock argument of the revo lutionist that he is not trying to destroy the govern ment or the laws but to maintain them. The second grew out of the belief that the ministers were the tools of Poinsett and working for the interests of the s Poinsett to Clay, December 8, 1827, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, III. He said an act for the expulsion of the Spaniards was before the lower house of the national Congress and would probably pass. 24 354 PUBLIC ATTACKS ON POINSETT United States. The purpose of the first was the de struction of what was considered a gigantic organiza tion which enabled Poinsett and his friends to dom inate the country. Thus the other three demands grew out of and were but corollaries to the third, the ostensible purpose of which was to rid the country of what was felt to be the baneful influence of the United States minister. As a matter of fact it was the des perate effort of a disappointed and despairing political faction to regain control by voicing what was thought to be a popular demand. But they were mistaken in the strength of their cause, although at first it seeraed formidable and had high official sanction. Nicholas Bravo, the vice-president and titular head of the Scot tish Masons, took the field at the head of the revolu tionary forces. But General Guerrero, titular head of the York Masons, led the government troops and overthrew Bravo and his associates in less than a month and with scarcely an effort. Movements simi lar to this and in sympathy with it were expected to follow shortly in many places. In Vera Cruz the stan dard of revolt was raised and the governor headed the movement. Active measures prevented such risings elsewhere. Other states hastened to express their in dignation and Vera Cruz retracted its position. The diplomatic corps in the city had openly advo cated the cause of the insurgents; but Poinsett was sure that they had acted without instructions. They had been deceived into thinking the movement would easily succeed because the social aristocracy belonged PUBLIC ATTACKS ON POINSETT 355 to Bravo's party. Poinsett added : " It is needless to say that I have pursued a different course. The cause of free institutions is the cause of America, and al though I have taken no part in the contest and ob truded no advice, I have not withheld my opinion and counsel whenever it has been asked by this gov ernment or by those connected with it." Speaking of the demand that he be sent out of the country he de clared : " These people [the Scottish party] persist in regarding me as the principal obstacle to their success and as directing not only the operations of the oppo site party but of the govemment." In closing this long report of the revolt and its collapse he said he considered the event fortunate since it had overthrown the faction concerning whose plots there had been great uneasiness." After telling, on February 9, of the coUapse of the revolt Poinsett showed that he was thinking of making his escape from the continual in sinuations and attacks made by the party opposed to the government. He said: "Although very desirous to avail myself of the permission of the President to terminate my mission, I shall wait until the treaties are ratified, and until I can leave this country without « Poinsett to Clay, January 9, 1828, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, III. The most radical York inos wished to execute the rebels ; the Escoceses wished to proclaim an amnesty for all. Wisely a middle course was pursued. They were allowed te go into exile, and ultimately to return. See Bancroft, History of Mexico, V, 37-40; Ri vera, Historia de Jalapa, II, 450; Alaman, Historia de Mejico, V, 836-839; and Rives, United States and Mexico, 1821-1848, I, 172- 356 PUBLIC ATTACKS ON POINSETT prejudice to the interests which have been entrusted to me.'" The failure of the Montaho revolt left the Yorkinos in control of the government. The fact that it had ostensibly been directed at Poinsett and had failed to drive him out of the country confirmed the popular notion of his magic influence over the government and country." In July, two months before it occurred, Poinsett wrote that excitement over the coming presi dential election was high, and there was talk of revis ing the election laws. He believed the popular party would prevail; but feared a revolution over this and the disordered finances. After the election and before the result was known he wrote that the candidate of the aristocratic party seemed to lead, and added that if Guerrero, the popular candidate, should not be elected he believed the people would rise against the choice ' Poinsett to Clay, February 9, 1828, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, III. The President's per mission to terminate his mission here referred to was con tained in Clay to Poinsett, November 19, 1827, mentioned above at the close of the chapter en Poinsett's Relations with the York Masons. 8 Looking back after Poinsett's departure on the period of strife during his stay in Mexico, Vez de la Patria, II, numero 14 II de marzo de 1830, says: "Poinsett mandaba a Victoria, come a un piljuanejo, y este no queria oir mas vez que la de Poinsett, . . . Poinsett llevaba adelante su influjo, y sacaba de el todo el partide posible. Figurabase ser algun dia el arbitre de la nacion." Ibar's Muerte Pelitica de la Republica, niimere 11, 20 de maye de 1829, speaks ef " las miras ambiciosas de ese ministro estrangero, agente pagado por el gabinete de Norte-America para remacharnos las cadenas de la esclavitud." PUBLIC ATTACKS ON POINSETT 357 which should be made. On September 25, 1828, he wrote that the election had resulted in the choice by a very narrow majority of Pedraza, the aristocratic can didate, over Guerrero, the popular nominee. In antici pation of this the radical Yorkinos had already ap pealed to arms in the state of Vera Cruz under the leadership of Santa Anna, who had raised a cry for the preservation of the federal system of government, for the sovereign rights of the people, for the immortal Guerrero, and for the expulsion of the European Span iards. During the first four days of December there was fighting in the streets of Mexico City, Poinsett wrote on the tenth of that month, which resulted in the complete success of the revolutionists. Pedraza, the President-elect and according to Poinsett the cause of all the trouble, had fled ; and Guerrero, the defeated candidate, was made secretary for war instead of Pedraza in the cabinet of President Victoria. Notice had been sent to both factions struggling throughout the country to cease hostilities. The principal agent in effecting the revolution, Poinsett said, was Zavala, who had been forced into the ranks by unwise attacks on him in the Senate, charging him unjustly with hav ing been in communication with the insurrection. The secretary of state had come to Poinsett and revealed his fears that England or some other foreign power would interfere. Poinsett calmed his fears by declar ing that no power had any right to interfere. During December the country was in a state of anarchy. But toward the end of the month most of the states had 358 PUBLIC ATTACKS ON POINSETT given in their adherence; and early in the new year the last resistance had ceased. Poinsett declared it to be his belief that it had been the federal institu tions only that had saved Mexico from a military des potism. He deplored the violence that had resulted but declared that if ever a revolution could be justified this was, for the oligarchy had again gotten control and the weak Victoria had yielded to them a second time. Many of the popular party had been impris oned without cause. The election had been by states, each having one vote cast by its legislature. When the votes were counted by the national Congress it was declared that Pedraza had received a majority of the votes, but that public opinion had pronounced so positively against him that even he had felt the neces sity of resigning all claims to the office. In conse quence of this the choice was reduced to the next highest. Therefore Guerrero was declared elected. During the remainder of the unexpired presidential term civil commotions continued in some of the states in resistance to the government and the declared re sult of the election ; and the national Senate, still dom inated by the aristocratic party, was also resisting the will of the people especially in the matter of the ex pulsion of Spaniards and in declaring amnesty for the participants in the late revolution. But early in March Poinsett reported that quiet had been restored through out the country and the choice of Guerrero seemed to be giving general satisfaction. And on April 3, 1829, he reported that Guerrero had been inaugurated as PUBLIC ATTACKS ON POINSETT 359 President on the first of the month, and that the re pubUc was tranquil. On April 15 he said the Pres ident seemed about to confine his cabinet to members of the popular party, which Poinsett considered a wise move. Poinsett's friend, Zavala, had been made sec retary of the treasury, and would, he thought, give general satisfaction." In his long recapitulation on March 10, 1829, for the benefit of the new Jackson administration at Wash ington of all that had passed since he had been in Mexico, after teUing how the members of the defeated Scottish party and the representatives of the foreign powers had all abused him both publicly and privately, and after reviewing the attacks upon him by the legis lature of Vera Cruz and Puebla, and recounting the suspicions and charges against him in connection with the Montaiio revolt and the revolution following the elections of 1828, Poinsett declared his belief that "there is no instance on record of a foreign minister having been so persecuted in any country." He real ized that it was hard to believe this hatred was not due 9 This account of the campaign, the election, and the results is taken entirely from Poinsett's letters to Clay running throughout the nine months, as follows : July 16, 1828 ; Sep tember 17, 1828; September 25, 1828; October 22, 1828; De cember 10, 1828; December 17, 1828; December 24, 1828; De cember 27, 1828; January 8, 1829; January 10, 1829; January 23, 1829; January 31, 1829; March 3, 1829; April 3, 1829; and April 15, 1829; all in MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. Rives, United States and Mexico, 1821-1848, I, 173-177, gives a good account of the election and the revolution fol lowing it. 360 PUBLIC ATTACKS ON POINSETT to improper interference. But it had resulted purely from his efforts to prevent the encroachments of Euro pean powers. If he had chosen to witness such with indifference, he said he could have passed on smoothly and insignificantly. But he did not think this the proper course; and had cheerfully borne the obloquy which his conduct had brought upon him, caring only that his actions should be fully understood in the United States and especially by the government.!" It 19 Poinsett to Clay, March 10, 1829, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. In this long letter cov ering 42 pages, commenting further on the persons and prin ciples involved in the revolutionary events of recent months, Poinsett said that Pedraza was a political turncoat; he had fought during the war for independence in the Spanish service against the insurgents ; he went as a deputy to the Cortes in Spain; en his return he became a minister of Iturbide; later he was a leader in the overthrow of Iturbide and an adherent of the Scottish party; on the discovery ef the plot of Friar Arenas and the connection of the Scottish party with it, he deserted that party and won popularity in the punishment ef those conspirators and in assisting to overthrow General Bravo ; he became secretary fer war ; and when it was desired to divide the York party he was chosen as the instrument, having friends in all ef the opposing factions. His success in the election for president was due to the fact that some of the state legislatures had been chosen while the Scottish party was in the lead. The Senate and Supreme Court of the federal government were both still of that faction. He be lieved if the reactionary factions had used their advantage with moderation they could have retained power; but their persecution drove Santa Anna, Zavala, and ethers to take refuge in revolution. Poinsett defended the army that took Mexico by assault, and said the cruelties that had been attributed to it had been greatly exaggerated. He blamed the government for not PUBLIC ATTACKS ON POINSETT 36 1 should be noticed here again that Poinsett does not claim not to have interfered in i\Iexican political af fairs, but endeavors to defend his actions from the charge of improper interference by explaining his motive. The opposition to the election of Guerrero thus acquiesced in his inauguration in April, 1829, and it seemed for a time that his administration would suc ceed in maintaining quiet in the countrj-. But the opposition to Poinsett, because he was popularly sup posed to have been largely instrumental in bringing about the %-ictor}' of the new govemment, never ceased. Attacks by the public press became more frequent, more virulent, and more unreasonable. A periodical of Jtme 6, 1829, asked in inflammatory language why all Mexicans did not unite in one terrific cry that having prevented the attack en the city by a vigorous defence at first; and when they had failed te de that he thought they should have accepted the proffered opportunity to capitulate before the attack began. The opposition ef the recent revolu tionists to the Spaniards, he said, could be explained by re viewing the poUtical interference of the Spaniards, whe had been uniformi}- trying te restore Spanish control. The Senate still refused to pass a law expelling the Spaniards as the revo lutionists demanded because the Spaniards had uniformly sup ported the Scottish party which still prevailed in that body. He feared that this might cause some further disturbance. For reviews of the election of 1828 and the disturbances fol lowing, in addition to Rives, cited in note 9, see Bancroft, History of Mexico. V, 40-45; Zavala, Ensayo Historico, II, 101-148; Alaman, Historia de Mejico, \', 839-843; Zamacois, Historia de Mejico, XI, 671-715. Zavala's account is of course prejudiced in favor of the revolution, since he was one of the chief leaders in it 362 PUBLIC ATTACKS ON POINSETT would penetrate the sordid deafness of those con trolhng the government demanding that the country should rid itself of that bold and intriguing minister, the sole source of all of the country's evils and mis eries. On June 24 the same periodical declared that if the republic of North America really wished to show that she desired the friendship and good faith of Mexico she ought to order this astute and intrigu ing minister to withdraw from Mexican soil. Let those States know that the Mexican nation detested him and justly desired his expulsion.n On July 15 Poinsett wrote that Mexico was in a critical condition. The dissolution of the confederacy seemed inevitable unless some popular military chief seized control to save it; and that would be a death blow to free institutions. Added to the danger of in vasion from Spain was the opposition in the states to the federal government and the dissensions between states. Many Mexicans were so desirous of chang ing the form of the government that they would rather deliver the country to a foreign prince than see it continue in its present form. He believed European governments were intriguing to bring about such a change; and said he would like to know the attitude of the administration. For himself, he thought it 11 lbar, Muerte Pelitica de la Republica Mexicana, niimere IS, 6 de junio de 1829; numero 19, 24 de junio de 1829; numero i, 11 de marzo de 1829; numero 6, 23 de abril de 1829; and numero 26, 18 de julio de 1829. The last declares that it is alse said with some reserve that Poinsett was a paid agent of the Madrid government te assist in the Spanish reconquest. PUBLIC ATTACKS ON POINSETT 363 could not accord with the interests of the United States to permit any European power to obtain undue influence in these states.!- At the end of July, 1829, the legislature of the state of Mexico addressed a memorial to President Guerrero requesting the dismissal of Poinsett. It was a long diatribe based confessedly not on facts proved but on a general belief that he was secretly opposed to the interests of Mexico, that he was the cause of dis cord in Mexico, and that his presence was undesirable. It called to witness the cry of alarm which was re sounding throughout the republic against him. It declared that his character of a diplomat ought to have caused him to refrain from all interference in internal affairs. The legislature would not say, as some thought, that he was the controlling spirit of the ad ministration ; but it was well known that he had been instrumental in organizing one of the secret societies whose struggle was the cause of the country's disasters. It had been suggested that the interests of the United States being opposed to those of Mexico made it de sirable to prolong the discord in the latter and the agent of those states was maintained in Mexico for that purpose. Whether this suspicion was true or not the character of their envoy was such as to adapt him for carrying out such a policy. His natural talents, his smooth and elegant manner, his erudition, his cheerful disposition, and his professed devotion to re publicanism aU adapted him for poUtical manipula- 12 Poinsett to Van Buren, July 15, 1829, MS., Department ef State, "Despatches from Mexico, IV. 364 PUBLIC ATTACKS ON POINSETT tions. If this was not the policy of that government why did not the President or cabinet at Washington voluntarily recall him, knowing the discord he was causing, to prevent new catastrophes and avoid com promising the friendly relations of the countries ? In closing, the legislature requested the President of the republic to give orders that Poinsett be given his pass ports to leave the country.!^ In the following weeks the legislatures of several other states made the same request. A few days after the first attack Poinsett published a lengthy reply to the suspicions and charges declaring that they were without foundation. In this he said that he felt com passion rather than anger, and closed with a paternal exhortation breathing good will for the Mexican people as a whole in spite of the attacks which a faction were making upon him. He declared that there was no jealousy in the United States for Mex ico but a desire for the latter's prosperity; and ap pealed to Mexicans to imitate the institutions and the characteristics which made the United States great.!* In Poinsett's letter to Van Buren of August 7, tell ie Manifesto of the Legislature of the State of Mexico, Tlalpam, 31 de julio de 1829, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. A translation of this is enclosed with Poinsett te Van Buren, August 7, 1829, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. A pamphlet containing the same printed in Spanish accompanies. 1* Poinsett's reply, August 2, 1829, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV, enclosed with Poinsett te Van Buren, August 7, 1829. The English translation covers 26 pages. The same printed in Spanish accompanies. PUBLIC ATTACKS ON POINSETT 365 ing of the manifesto and his reply he said he would be sensibly mortified in reporting the attacks that had been made on him if he could attribute them to any misconduct or want of prudence on his part. He de clared that the suspicions and conjectures were utterly unfounded ; and said that he had not interfered in the intemal affairs of the country nor deviated from the frank, open, manly policy which distinguishes the in tercourse of the United States. He was not conscious, he said, of any offense unless his uncompromising re pubUcan principles and friendly intercourse with leaders of the popular party could be considered such. He said that the aristocratic, monarchical, and Euro pean factions which were in control when he arrived in the country had attributed their faU to him; but it was really due to the institutions of the country. They still believed him the soul of the existing gov ernment and wished to overthrow him. He said this faction were telling the people of Mexico that the United States was jealous of Mexico and had in structed him to throw obstacles in the way of progress. They even went so far as to say that the cabinet in Washington had caused the death of their minister Obregon (who had committed suicide) and therefore they argued publicly that the people of Mexico would be justified in assassinating Poinsett. He said that he had had frequent interviews with President Guer rero, who had expressed his regret at the attack and his own satisfaction with Poinsett's conduct, and had spoken in strong terms of the infamy of those who 366 PUBLIC ATTACKS ON POINSETT thus sought to interrupt the friendly relations of the two republics. The President had said that he re garded it really as an attack on those in control of the government.!" Although Poinsett asserts that he had not interfered in the internal affairs of the country, and asserts that h^ was not conscious of any offense, yet in this very defense of his conduct he admits his friendly inter course with members of me popular party, and by im plication his unfriendliness for the members of the op posing factions. This was exactly their complaint against him. Poinsett's frequent and lengthy defenses of his con duct in his correspondence with the government at Washington were apparently occasioned by a feeling that his conduct was not fully approved there. Com munications from Clay had been very infrequent for some time before the close of the Adams administra tion; and it was several months before Van Buren, the new secretary of state, wrote to him, except on 15 Poinsett to Van Buren, August 7, 1829, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. Zavala, who was in the ministry ef Guerrero at the time of the legislative attacks, but who resigned soon after, says that back of all these attacks could be seen the hand of two of the other ministers, Herrera and Bocanegra. The timid and uncertain policy of Guerrero, who was aware of their plans, he says, enabled them to de this. Zavala, Ensayo His torico, II, 197. lbar, Muerte Pelitica de la Republica, numero 32, 8 de agosto de 1829, says : " ^ Quien fue el que mando asesinar a nuestro enviado a los Estados Unidos del Norte, al virtuose Obregon? Poinsett. Conocidas son las intrigas de este ministro infame, y hey se han presentado a todo luz." PUBLIC ATTACKS ON POINSETT 367 matters of mere routine. This neglect was the occa sion of some complaint by Poinsett. Finally on Oc tober 16, 1829, the Jackson government passed its opinion on his conduct. Van Buren said he regretted to learn that there was a prejudice against Poinsett of the strongest and, there was every reason to fear, of the most incurable type ; and continued : " The only ground upon which this state of feeling appears to be justified, is the allegation on the part of those who entertain it, that you have availed yourself of your situation to intermeddle in the domestic affairs of that Republic. The suspicions entertained on this sub ject — the existence of which he sincerely deprecates — the President feels himself justified, by all the infor mation of which he is possessed, in considering with out just cause. The fact that no complaint has at any time been made by the authority to which you are accredited, which would be the most likely to be in formed of such interference, if it did exist, and the first to feel aggrieved thereby ; your knowledge of the established policy of this government in that respect, and its decided repugnance to all intermeddling in the internal concerns of other states ; your own assurance to the contrary; and the confidence which the Presi dent reposes in your discretion and patriotism — secure him from the apprehension that the present embar rassed state of our affairs with that country is attribut able to the indiscretion of the representative of the United States." But he said whatever the cause of those suspicions might be they existed and were be- 368 PUBLIC ATTACKS ON POINSETT lieved by the President to interfere in the relations of the two countries. Since Poinsett, availing himself of the permission granted by the preceding administra tion, had already expressed a wish to return, the President, Van Buren said, "gives his assent to your resignation. It is, however, his anxious wish that your return should not be attended by any circum stance which might wear the appearance of censure, or afford countenance to the imputations of your ene mies." The way to prevent this " assent to your resig nation" from having the appearance of censure was outlined in the following paragraph. If by the time he should receive this letter there should have been such an effectual change in sentiment toward him in Mexico as to render his continuance agreeable and to lead him to think he could carry into effect the views of his govemment, it would accord with the Pres ident's wishes that he should remain where he was. He was to be at liberty to speak freely in his inter views with public men of his freedom of election to return or remain.!" Jackson and Van Buren apparently had no expec tation that there would be such a change in sentiment toward Poinsett that he would think of remaining. The belief that the prejudices were of an incurable character had been expressed in the beginning; and the whole tone of the letter, especially the instructions conceming taking leave, seems to assume that he would return. A charge was appointed and sent to take his 18 Van Buren te Poinsett, October i6, 1829, MS., Depart ment ef State, Instructions, American States, XIV, 141. PUBLIC ATTACKS ON POINSETT 369 place. The apparently optional character of the recall seems to have been simply a device to " save the face " of Poinsett. Unless there should be an "effectual change in sentiment " there was really no option. But if the apparent option in Poinsett's recall had been a real option on October i6, a chain of circum stances which had been in operation for more than three months culminated the next day to make his re call positive. On October 17 Montoya, the Mexican charge in Washington, handed to Van Buren a letter from the President of Mexico to the President of the United States demanding the recall of Poinsett. This had been written on July i, 1829, a full month before the manifesto of the legislature of the state of Mex ico had been presented to Guerrero requesting him to order that passports be given to Poinsett. President Guerrero said to President Jackson : " Of late, public opinion has pronounced itself against him in the most conclusive, general and decided manner, as appears from the writings published almost every day in nearly all the states of the confederation. The public clamor against Mr. Poinsett has become general, not only among the authorities, and men of education, but also among the vulgar classes ; not only among the in dividuals who suspected him, but also among many of those who have been his friends. To Mr. Poinsett are attributed the misfortunes which have befallen the Republic, and it has even been unhesitatingly sup posed that he had a direct influence over the proceed ings of the government, in consequence of which they 25 370 PUBLIC ATTACKS ON POINSETT have not been received by the public with the respect which is due to them. Owing to the general distrust of Mr. Poinsett the relations between the two republics have not been attended with that success which had been anticipated." The fact that Poinsett's recall had not previously been demanded in spite of the fact that his presence had caused these embarrassments is sug gested as evidence that the Mexican government was unwilling to do anything to disturb friendly relations. " But," tbe Mexican President continued, " things have now arrived at such a point that the government of Mexico would fail in its performance of its most es sential duties if it forebore from asking of that of the United States the recall of its minister. . . . The course of events may be such as to require of the gov ernment of Mexico, as a duty, the exercise of its rights to grant the necessary passports to Mr. Poinsett before the receipt at Mexico of the answer of the government of the United States of America. In such case (which God forbid) the government of Mex ico trusts that that of the United States of America which is characterized by the impartiality and Uber- ality of its principles and institutions, will appreciate the propriety of a step of this nature, which it would itself adopt if placed in the same situation and under similar circumstances."!' In the note to Montoya en closing this demand for Poinsett's recall the Mexican 1' Guerrero te Jackson [July i, 1829], MS., Department of State, Notes from Mexican Legation, I, enclosed with Mon toya to Van Buren, October 17, 1829. The Spanish original of Guerrero's letter accompanies this translation. PUBLIC ATTACKS ON POINSETT 37 1 government told its charge that it wished to do noth ing to disturb peaceable relations with the United States ; but instructed him to ask an audience, express a sincere desire to preserve harmony, explain the situ ation in Mexico with respect to the United States min ister, and say that the Mexican government found it self unhappily but necessarily compeUed to ask that minister's recall.!^ On October 17, Van Buren added a postscript to his letter of the preceding day to Poinsett revoking the option of remaining or returning, thus making it a positive recall. He added : " In the absence of a con trary allegation on the part of the Mexican govern ment, and confiding in your assurances, he [President Jackson] still allows himself to believe that the preju dices against you are without just cause."!" Although the Jackson administration thus officially exonerated Poinsett again, yet the wording is such as to indicate that the approval was not very enthusiastic and was 18 Secretarie to Montoya, i de julio de 1821, MS., Rela ciones Exteriores. 19 Postscript, October 17, to Van Buren to Poinsett, Octo ber 16, 1829, MS., Department of State, Instructions, American States, XIV, 141. Jackson te Guerrero, October 17, 1829, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. A postscript of October 17, 1829, attached te Van Buren to Butler of October 16, indicates that Jackson and Van Buren thought the attacks on Poinsett due to the failure of the Mexican government to protect him rather than te his actions. House Documents, 25 congress, 2 session, number 351, page 52. Jackson's reasons for recalling Poinsett, quoted from the Jackson Manuscripts, are printed in Reeves, Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk, 68. 372 PUBLIC ATTACKS ON POINSETT given only because there was no positive assertion by the Mexican government that the prejudice against him was with just cause. There is a slight indication that the administration was not fully convinced of Poinsett's innocence, or was somewhat provoked at his conduct, in the fact that on this same day, Oc tober 17, a draft which Poinsett had drawn on the department was protested because of what was re garded as a small irregularity in the way he had re tained for himself the sum of money due to the dif ference in the rate of exchange between the two coun tries.^" The matter could have been arranged in a manner less humiliating to Poinsett had it been so desired. This seems to have been "the last straw that broke the camel's back." In Montoya's letter to his govemment telling of his presenting the de mand for the recall he too assumed the innocence of Poinsett because of the absence of allegations of his guilt. He said he was persuaded that there were no 29 Van Buren to Poinsett, October 17, 1829, MS., Depart ment of State, Instructions, American States, XIV, 148. When Poinsett was embarrassed by learning that his draft had been protested he said he regretted that this had been thought necessary, since he would have made good the differ ence with pleasure if he had known that the department wished him to do so. He explained hew he had been drawing his salary and why he had drawn in that way, and closed by saying, "[I will] be perfectly content with the decision of the Department with respect to the draft fer £100 on Londen provided the government will refund the amounts fer which I have given them credit, on account of the favorable state of exchange between Mexico and the United States." Poin sett to Van Buren, December 9, 1829, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. PUBLIC ATTACKS ON POINSETT 373 grounds for the charges made in Mexico that the United States was jealous of the prosperity of Mex ico.^! In the instructions which were written on October 16 for Butler, who was to take Poinsett's place if the latter should retum, there is a positive statement of the government's desire that such actions as Poinsett's should not be repeated. Van Buren said : " With re spect to your future official correspondence with the government of Mexico, and your intercourse, public and private, with the people and their functionaries, the past strongly admonishes you to avoid giving any pretext for a repetition against yourself of the im putations which have been cast upon Mr. Poinsett, of having interfered in the domestic concerns or politics of the country; or even showing any partiality to wards either of the parties which now appear to divide the Mexican people. The manifestation of such a preference, or of any connexion, remote as it might be, with their political associations, might again be construed into a wish to influence or foment their party divisions. The President, therefore, expects you to exercise the most sedulous care in guarding against similar imputations, and wishes you to use 21 Montoya to Secretario, 19 de octubre de 1829, MS., Rela ciones Exteriores. Fer brief discussions of Poinsett's recall, see McMaster, History of the People of the United States, V, 549 ; Bancroft, History of Mexico, V, 81 ; Bocanegra, Memorias para la His toria de Mexico, I, 382, II, 23; Zamacois, Historia de Mejico, XI, 810; Zavala, Ensayo Historico, II, 197; Mayo, Political Sketches, 95. 374 PUBLIC ATTACKS ON POINSETT your utmost endeavors in allaying the irritation which seems to pervade a large portion of the people, and to do away the groundless and unjust prejudices which have been excited against the government of the United States. A social, open, and frank deportment towards men of all classes and all parties; a proper degree of respect for their opinions whatever they may be ; a ready frankness in explaining the true pol icy of your govemment, without attempting to obtrude your views where they are not desired ; and the most guarded care in condemning or censuring theirs, are among the means which the President would suggest as most likely to command the confidence of the people, and to secure for yourself a proper standing in the opinion of their pubUc functionaries."^^ It was on December 9, 1829, that Poinsett's recall reached him.2^ The Mexican government had not found it necessary to give him his passports as Guer rero's letter demanding his recall said might have to be done. But Poinsett had himself asked permission in a letter of November 4 to return home.^* On De- 22 Van Buren to Butler, October 16, 1829, MS., Department of State, Instructions, American States, XIV, 149; House Documents, 25 congress, 2 session, number 53, page 51. It should be mentioned here that Butler's conduct in Mexico was far worse than Poinsett's, that his motives were less unselfish, and that his recall also was demanded. See above, the latter part of the chapter on Texas and the Boundary Issue. 23 Poinsett to Van Buren, December 9, 1829, acknowledging receipt of his recall, MS., Department ef State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. 2* Poinsett to Van Buren, November 4 1829, MS., Depart- PUBLIC ATTACKS ON POINSETT 375 cember 25 he had a conference with the provisional executive and took formal leave.^" On the last day of the year the provisional President of Mexico in a letter to the President of the United States acknowledged the latter's note of October 17 announcing Poinsett's re call and said that act was looked upon as a testimony to the sincere friendship of the United States for Mexico.^" ment ef State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. This says that he had asked the commander of the United States squadron in the West Indies to send a warship to the Mexican coast to take him from the country. 26 Poinsett to Van Buren, December 26, 1829, saying that he had taken leave on the preceding day and expected to depart January 2, 1830, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. A new revolution had overthrown Guerrero. He had fled, and Vice-President Bustamante had taken control. Poinsett to Viesca, 15 de diciembre de 1829, asked an audience to pre sent his letter of recall ; Secretario to Poinsett, 24 de diciembre de 1829, in reply, appointed December 25, MS., Relaciones Exteriores. Poinsett left Mexico on January 3, 1830, and arrived at New Orleans on February 2. Poinsett to Van Buren, New Orleans, February 3, 1830, MS., Department of State, Despatches from Mexico, IV. 28 Provisional President of Mexico to President of the United States, 31 de diciembre de 1829, MS., Relaciones Exte riores. Accompanying this is Secretario te Poinsett, 31 de diciembre de 1829, granting privilege to leave and assigning an escort. About the middle of December a circular letter was sent by the central government te the governors of the states telling of Poinsett's recall. This and congratulatory replies to it from fifteen of the state governments are in an expediente in MS., Relaciones Exteriores. 376 PUBLIC ATTACKS ON POINSETT The government at Washington realized that a crisis had been reached in the relations between the two countries, and that there was Uttle prospect for a sat isfactory conclusion of the pending negotiations. This was made clear in the instructions which had been given to Butler, who now became the United States charge in Mexico. In those instructions Van Buren declared: "From a full and deliberate review of the course which Mexico has allowed herself to pursue to wards us, the President is well satisfied that but little of real advantage to the country can be expected from your labors until an entire change be effected in the disposition of that republic towards the United States. . . . He is deeply and painfully impressed with the unfriendly and undeserved conduct of Mexico towards us, her neighbor and sister republic, . . . her earliest and best friend." The letter then reviews at length the attitude of the United States during the struggle of Mexico and other colonies for independence and the early recognition by the United States of that in dependence. Butler was instructed to protest pacific ally but firmly against Mexico's long continued un friendliness, and to say that the feelings of the people of the United States had been deeply wounded by the repeated attacks on their representative. It was de clared in conclusion that the Mexican government could do much to redress the wrongs of the past by a speedy ratification of the pending treaty of commerce. If it should be ratified substantially as agreed upon and not with its most valuable stipulations expunged, PUBLIC ATTACKS ON POINSETT 377 then the pending treaty of limits would be submitted to the United States Congress along with that of com merce, in spite of the fact that the remissness of Mex ico had caused the treaty of Umits to lose all of its obligatory character.^' 27 Van Buren to Butler, October 16, 1829, MS., Department of State, Instructions, American States, XIV, 149. CHAPTER XI Comments on Authorities manuscripts Manuscripts in the Archives of the Department of State, Washington, D. C. : Despatches from Mexico, volumes I, II, III, and IV, and one volume of Duplicate Despatches from Poinsett, which contains some letters and many en closures not in the regular volumes. Except a few letters at the beginning of the first, all five of these volumes are filled with letters and enclosures to the department from Poinsett in Mexico between the years 1825 and 1829. Instructions to United States Ministers in foreign countries, volumes IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, and XIV. Of coujfee the instructions to the legation in Mexico occupy only a small part of these six volumes, since they include also instructions to all other countries where the United States had representatives. The last one, or possibly two, of these volumes is marked Instructions to American States, which became a sep arate series at that time. Secret Record, volume I, contains the instruction of Van Buren to Poinsett for the purchase of Texas in 1829. Notes from the Mexican Legation in Washington to the Departraent of State, volume I. These are not 378 COMMENTS ON AUTHORITIES 379 of very great importance or interest, since no impor- ant negotiation was conducted in Washington. Notes to the Mexican Legation in Washington were of still less value. Manuscripts in the Archivo de Relaciones Ex teriores, Mexico: These are not bound, nor are they filed in any permanent form. Most of them are sewed together or merely folded in tiny bundles, called expedientes, each containing letters which deal with the same or closely related subjects. They can be, and frequently are, moved about and mixed up, so cannot be des ignated except by the name of the archive, "Rela ciones Exteriores." Fifteen hundred or sixteen hun dred pages of typewritten transcripts were made and used for this study. They are now the property of the School of History of the University of Texas and are filed in its archives. Photostat copies have been made by the Manuscripts Division of the Library of Congress at Washington. Manuscripts in the Archives of the United States Embassy in Mexico: Despatches from the Secretary of State of the United States, one volume; Despatches to the Secre tary of State of the United States, two volumes ; Notes to the Mexican Government, one volume ; Notes from the Mexican Government, one volume; Miscellaneous Papers, DupUcate Despatches, etc., one volume. Nearly all of these series extend several years beyond 380 COMMENTS ON AUTHORITIES the period covered by this study. Comparatively few manucripts relating to this period are to be found in the Embassy archives of which duplicates or the originals do not exist in the archives of the Depart ment of State at Washington. Only in such cases have they been cited. Poinsett Manuscripts in the Archives of the Penn sylvania Historical Society, Philadelphia: Only a few volumes of this large collection relate to the period of Poinsett's residence in Mexico. And of these most are personal letters, nearly all being written to Poinsett. Only a very few are cited. Van Buren Manuscripts in the Library of Con gress, Washington, D. C. : Volumes IX and X contain the lengthy, interesting, and important documents showing the origin and growth of Jackson and Van Buren's plan for purchas ing Texas in 1829. PUBLISHED DOCUMENTS American State Papers, Foreign Relations, volume V (1858), and volume VI (1859). Edited under authority of Congress and published by Gales and Seaton, Washington. The first of these contains a few and the second a large number of communica tions between the Department of State and Poinsett. But many of them are only extracts, the most interest ing portions, nearly always including the valuable cipher paragraphs, being omitted. In most cases the COMMENTS ON AUTHORITIES 38 1 documents here have been cited as well as the manu scripts in the archives. House of Representatives, Executive Documents, 25 Congress, i Session, number 42. This is a coUection of documents, filUng ninety-four pages, transmitted by the President at the request of Congress, contain ing negotiations relating to the boundary, and printed in 1837. House of Representatives, Executive Documents, 25 Congress, 2 Session, number 351. This collection contains more than eight hundred pages of documents, most of them concerning the boundary, submitted by the President in 1838. House of Representatives, Executive Documents, 32 Congress, i Session, number 121. This collection of fifty-nine pages relating to Cuba was submitted by the President and printed in 1852. Many important documents were withheld in all three of these house executive document collections, and of those printed many were only extracts. They have been cited in the same way as the American State Papers mentioned just above. British and Foreign State Papers, compiled by the Foreign Office, and published by the government, Lon don. Volumes IX, XIII, XVI, and XXVI contain documents important for this study. Many of these documents are also found in one or more of the pre ceding collections of American official documents. Frequently two of these documentary sources have been cited in addition to the manuscript sources since 382 COMMENTS ON AUTHORITIES few have access to the archives and not many libraries are likely to contain all three documentary collections. La Diplomacia Mexicana, published by the Secre- taria de Relaciones, Mexico, Volume I, 1910; II, 1912; III, 1913. These three volumes are the beginning of what promises to be a monumental collection of Mex ican diplomatic correspondence. They do not extend beyond the early part of 1825. They are of value not only for the history of Mexico but for the his tory of all countries that have had relations with Mex ico. Tratados y Convenciones concluidos y ratificados por la Republica Mexicana. Edicion oficial, Mexico, 1878, two volumes. Leyes, Decretos, y Ordenes que forman el Derecho Internacional Mexicano. Mexico, 1879. This and the two volumes mentioned in the preceding paragraph are bound uniformly and the three are known col lectively as "Derecho Internacional" parts i, 2, and 3. Treaties and Conventions between the United States and Other Powers, 1776-1909. Compiled by W. M. Malloy under authority of the government and pub lished by the Government Printing Office, 1910. Two volumes, but paged continuously as one. Senate Executive Journal, volume III, pubUshed by the govemment. Correspondence of the Russian Ministers in Wash ington, 1 81 8-1 825, American Historical Review, XVIII, 309-345, and 537-562. This casts several in teresting side Ughts on matters in this study. COMMENTS ON AUTHORITIES 383 Coleccion de Ordenes y Decretos de la Soberana Junta provisional gubemativa y los Soberanos Con gresos Generales de la Nacion Mexicana. Segunda edicion, coregida y aumentada por una comision de la Camara de Diputados. Mexico, 1829. Many of the books listed below contain important official documents also, a few of them being largely composed of such. SECONDARY SOURCES The following books have been useful for all or several of the subjects studied: Adams, J. Q., Memoirs. Edited by C. F. Adams. 12 volumes. Philadelphia, 1874-1877. This author ity, which is indispensable for the study of any sub ject in American history during the long public career of Adams, reveals a great many interesting facts con- concerning the inner working of the United States govemment while he was secretary of state and pres ident, which was during almost the entire period cov ered by this study. Alaman, Lucas, Historia de Mejico desde los Prim- eros Movimientos que prepararon su Independencia en el alio de 1808 hasta la Epoca presente. 5 volumes. Mexico, 1 849-1 852. This is devoted principally to the revolution. The last volume covers the period from 1821 onward, and most of that is devoted to the period before the end of 1824. Bancroft, H. H., History of Mexico. 6 volumes. San Francisco, . The last hundred pages of 384 COMMENTS ON AUTHORITIES volume IV, 1886, and the first hundred of volume V, 1887, cover the period of this study. They are vol umes XII and XIII of his collected Works. Bocanegra, J. M., Memorias para la Historia de Mexico Independiente. Edicion oficial. Mexico, Im- prenta del Gobierno, 1892. 2 volumes. He was in the cabinet during the last year of Poinsett's residence in Mexico, was hostile to Poinsett and largely instru mental in demanding his recall. Clay, Henry, Works. Edited by Calvin Colton. 6 volumes- New York, 1863. The fourth volume con tains a few documents of minor importance for this study. Gales and Seaton's Congressional Debates. Latane, J. H., Diplomatic Relations of the United States and Spanish America. [Shaw Lectures for 1899]. Johns Hopkins Press, 1900. This excellent book covers too long a period to deal in great detail with subjects considered in this study. McMaster, J. B., History of the People of the United States from the Revolution to the Civil War. New York, Appleton. Volume V, 1900, covers the period of this study, but deals very briefly with most matters. Martinez, Victor Jose, Sinopsis Historica, Filisofica, y Politica de las Revoluciones Mexicanas. 2^ Edicion, Mexico, 1884. This is not well organized, but con tains many interesting observations and some valuable facts. Moore, J. B., Digest of International Law, 8 vol umes. Washington, Government Printing Office, 1916. COMMENTS ON AUTHORITIES 385 Not a great deal of matter bearing on this study is given by Moore, but what he gives is valuable. Niles, Register, too well known to need comment, is valuable for contemporary opinion, and some docu ments. Paxson, F. L., Independence of the South American Republics: A Study in Recognition and Foreign Pol icy. Philadelphia, 1903. For matters relating to the recognition of Mexican independence this is valuable. Other matters it does not claim to treat. [Poinsett, J. R.], Notes on Mexico, made in the Autumn of 1822, ... by a citizen of the United States. Philadelphia, 1824. This gives his observa tions during his unofficial travels two and a half years before he went as minister to Mexico. Poinsett, J. R., Exposicion de la Conducta Politica de los Estados Unidos para con las Nuevas Republicas de America. This is the pamphlet issued by Poinsett in Mexico in 1827 in answer to the attacks made upon him in the Vera Cruz manifesto. Reeves, J. S., American Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk. [Shaw Lectures for 1906]. Johns Hopkins Press, 1907. Chapter III reviews in a brief but valu able manner the relations between Mexico and the United States concerning Texas from 1825 to 1840. Rivera, Manuel, Historia Antigua y Moderna de Jalapa y de los Revoluciones del Estado de Vera Cruz. 5 volumes. Mexico, 1869. The second volume covers the period from 1816 to 1830, and gives some im portant facts. 26 386 COMMENTS ON AUTHORITIES Rives, G. L., The United States and Mexico, 1821- 1848. 2 volumes. Scribners, 1913. This is a valu able work but gives comparatively little that is new concerning diplomatic relations during the period cov ered by this study. Zamacois, N., Historia de Mejico desde sus tiem- pos mas remotas hasta nuestras dias. Barcelona and Mexico, 1879. Volume XI covers the period from 1 82 1 to 1829. It is popular in style, is arranged chron ologically by years and sometimes by months, and is not accurate. It gives brief allusions to foreign rela tions. Zavala, D. Lorenzo, Ensayo Historico de las Revo luciones de Mejico desde 1808 hasta 1830. Volume I, Paris, 1831 ; volume II, New York, 1832. The writer figured prominently at times in opposition to the government, at other times in the government. He was a close friend of Poinsett's and favored the latter's American policies, consequently he is preju diced. For the chapter on British Influence in Mexico, and Poinsett's Struggle Against It, the following are valuable: Alaman, Lucas, Memoria que el Secretario de Rela ciones presenta al Soberano Congreso, 8 de Noviembre de 1823. Mexico, [1823]. A translation of this under date, November i, is in British and Foreign State Papers, X, 1070. Bagot, Joceline, George Canning and his Friends. 2 volumes. London, Murray, 1909. This gives a COMMENTS ON AUTHORITIES 387 great many valuable letters to and from Canning and other officials. Paxson, F. L., " England and Mexico, 1824-1825," in Texas Historical Quarterly, IX, 138-141. This very brief article casts light on the struggle between Poinsett and the British charge. Ward. Stapleton, A. G., Political Life of George Canning, from 1822 to 1827. 3 volumes. London, 1831. Chapter VIII in volume II on Spanish America is es pecially valuable. Stapleton, A. G., George Canning and His Times. London, 1859. This contains valuable additions to the preceding work. Stapleton, E. J., Some Official Correspondence of George Canning. 2 volumes. London, Longmans, 1887. This contains a great many letters valuable for both this chapter and that on Cuba Saved to Spain. Temperley, H. W. V., Life of Canning. London, Finch, 1905. The mechanical features of this are not careful, but it contains many valuable things, especially in the chapter on Canning and the New World. Temperley, H. W. V., "Later American PoUcy of George Canning," in American Historical Review, XI, 779-797. This article is based largely on Public Rec ord Office manuscripts, and is very interesting and valuable. Tornel y Mendivil, Jose Maria, Breve Resena His torica de los Acontecimientos mas notables de la nacion Mexicana desde el ano 1821 hasta nuestros dias. Mexico, 1852. This reflects clearly the writer's hatred for Poinsett. 388 COMMENTS ON AUTHORITIES In addition to the manuscripts and documents, and the books in the first group, the following are valuable for the chapter on Cuba Saved to Spain : Callahan, J. M., Cuba and International Relations, A Study in American Diplomacy. Johns Hopkins Press, 1899. The absence of any citation of authori ties in this is a bar to confidence in what appears from the text to be a very careful study based largely on documentary sources. Chadwick, F. E., The Relations of the United States and Spain, Diplomacy. Scribner's, 1909. For the chapter on the Santa Fe Trail the follow ing contain some valuable material: Bancroft, H. H., History of Arizona and New Mex ico, [Works, volume XVII]. San Francisco, 1889. Broadhead, G. C, " The Santa Fe Trail," in the Mis souri Historical Review, IV, 309-319. Gregg, Josiah, Commerce of the Prairies, or the Joumal of a Santa Fe Trader. 2 volumes, second edition. New York, 1845. The same is reprinted in volumes XIX and XX of Thwaites, Early Western Travels. A. H. Clark, 1905. Inman, Henry, The Old Santa Fe Trail. Macmil- lans, 1898. This is a popular account of adventures. "The Santa Fe Trail. A Brief Summary of the Trail through Kansas, with the report of the Commit tee appointed to prepare a correct Map." In the Eighteenth Biennial Report of the Kansas State His torical Society, 1911-1912, 107-125. This contains COMMENTS ON AUTHORITIES 389 a large folded map, and the Field Notes of Joseph C. Brown, surveyor of the United States Surveying Ex pedition of 1825-1827. The following contain contemporary comment in Mexico hostile to Poinsett: Aviraneta e Ibarg6yen, D. Eugenio, Mis Memorias Intimas, 1825-1829. In D. Luis Garcia Pimental, Documentos Historicos de Mejico, tomo III. Mejico, Paris, Madrid, 1906. The author was a Spanish mer chant traveling ostensibly on private business, but loyal to the Spanish government. [Bustamante], Voz de la Patria, II, numbers 4, 8, 15, and others, passim, to 35, January to May, 1830. lbar, Francisco, Muerte Politica de la Republica Mexicana. This is a violent periodical running through thirty-four numbers from March 11 to August 29, 1829. The following are of especial value for the chapter on Texas and the Boundary Issue: Adams, J. Q., Speech upon the Right of Petition and the Annexation of Texas, delivered in the House of Representatives from June 16 to July 7, 1838. Washington, 1838. Bancroft, H. H., North Mexican States and Texas, volume II, [Works, volume XI]. San Francisco, 1889. Barker, E. C, " Stephen F. Austin and the Inde pendence of Texas," in the Texas Historical Quar terly, XIII, 257-284. 390 COMMENTS ON AUTHORITIES Barker, E. C, " Jackson and the Texas Revolution," in the American Historical Review, XII, 788-809. Berlandier, Luis, y Chovel, Rafael, Diario de Viage de la Comision de Limites . . . bajo . . . Don Manuel Mier y Teran. Mexico, 1850. This was the commis sion sent in 1827 to examine the country near the pro posed boundary. This book is frequently catalogued under the name of Teran. It seems to be a much con densed and somewhat disorganized translation of Btr- landier's extended manuscript journal in French, which fills seven volumes and which was recently acquired by the Library of Congress, Manuscripts Division. The original journal pays attention to scientific rather than to political matters. Brown, J. H., History of Texas, from 1685 to 1892. 2 volumes. St. Louis, copyright 1892. This is of smaU value for this study, and is not always to be depended upon. Bugbee, Lester G., "The Texas Frontier, 1820- 1825," in the Publications of the Southem History Association, March, 1900. Comprehensive History of Texas, 1685 to 1897, edited by D. G. Wooten. 2 volumes. Dallas, 1898. This is a cooperative work of which some parts are very valuable. Cox, I. J., " The Louisiana-Texas Frontier," in the Texas Historical Quarterly, X, 1-75 and XVII, 140- 187. Falconer, Thomas, On the Discovery of the Mis sissippi and on the Southwestern, Oregon, and North- COMMENTS ON AUTHORITIES 39 1 western Boundary of the United States. London, 1844. Filisola, Vicente, Memorias para la Historia de la Guerra de Texas. 2 volumes. Mexico, 1848, 1849. Garrison, G. P., Texas, A Contest of Civilizations [American Commonwealths Series]. Houghton, 1903. Jay, Wm., A Review of the Causes and Conse quences of the Mexican War. Boston, 1849. Kennedy, William, Texas : The Rise, Progress and Prospects of the Republic of Texas. 2 volumes. London, 1841. Mayo, Robert, Political Sketches of Eight Years in Washington. Baltimore, 1839. This is an attack on the Jacksonian policy with reference to Texas and Mexico. Onis, D. Luis de. Memoir upon the Negotiations between Spain and the United States, which led to the treaty of 1819. Baltimore, 1821. Rather, Miss Ethel, " De Witt's Colony," in Texas Historical Quarterly, VIII, 95-191. Smith, J. H., The Annexation of Texas. Baker and Taylor Company, 191 1. Except for a few introduc tory discussions Smith's important work is upon a period later than this study. Tornel y Mendivil, Jose Maria, Tejas y los Estados Unidos de America, en sus relaciones con la Republica Mexicana. Mexico, 1837. This is occupied largely with a study of the French basis for the claim of the United States to Texas. It gives very little of im portance from a diplomatic standpoint. 392 COMMENTS ON AUTHORITIES Van Buren Papers, Calendar of, Prepared from the original manuscripts in the Library of Congress, by Elizabeth Howard West. Washington, 1910. Von Hoist, H., Constitutional and Political History of the United States, 1828-1846. Translated by J. J. Lalor. Chicago, 1888. The author studies the Texas question as an episode in slavery expansion, and is strongly prejudiced. INDEX Adams, J. Q.: candidate for the presidency in 1824, 31; atti tude toward Cuba in 1822, 92; expectation that the United States would ultimately pos sess Cuba, 94. Alaman: foreign minister in Mex ico, ^-j, 74; high appreciation of British friendship, 68; fa vored British interests, 74; in fluence over President Vic toria, 'JT,, opposition to, and resignation of, tj^ 121; his hostility to, and published criticism of Poinsett, 81; con ferences with Ward and Poin sett concerning the French fleet, 119; declarations con cerning the Santa Fe road, '/71-173, 175; opens the nego- t. ations for a commercial treaty, 206 ; negotiations con cerning Texas and the boun dary, 291-296. Aldama: Hidalgo's agent to the United States in 181 1, 5, note. Alexander I, emperor of Russia: asked by Clay to mediate be tween Spain and the former Scpanish colonies, 108-1 14. Alpuche: a York Mason, 192. American party in Mexico: 78, 80, 83; relations with York Ma sons, 190. Anderson, minister to Colombia: notified of Clay's attitude to ward Cuba, 142; concludes a treaty with Colombia, 206. Arispe: influence in effecting the ministerial change, 78; friend ship for the United States, 78; a York Mason, 192; at tempt to facilitate the com mercial negotiation, 215. Azcarate: report of a conversation with Poinsett in 1822 concern ing the boundary, 289-290. Baca_, political chief of New Mex ico: his commission to Escu dero, 177. Bandits, Mexican : attacks on United States traders and merchants, 275. Benton, Thomas H. : mentioned for the post of minister to Mex ico, 43 and note; presents bill in Congress for marking out the Santa Fe road, 168. Birthday of the king of England: discussion as to whether it should be celebrated in Mex ico, Sz. Blockaded port : obligation of United States vessels enter ing, 262 and note. Bocanegra: secretary of state for foreign affairs, 330. Boston, the: carrying on illicit trade in California waters, 270. Boundary: see Texas and the boundary issue. Brassos: see Brazos. Bravo, vice-president of Mexico: a member of the Cuban Junta, 130; headed the Montaiio re volt, 354. Brazos, the river: a possible bound ary, 287, 294, 341. British Commission to open diplo matic relations with Mexico: 58-59, 62; its hasty report, 62. 393 394 INDEX British mediation between Spain and Mexico, 6s, 66. British minister at Washington: absents himself from a ban quet in honor of the Mexican minister, 14 ; on the attitude of the United States towara Cuba, 95. British recognition of Mexican in dependence: 52, 55, 58, 64, 65 and note, 76, 85; motive for, 71-72; invited by the United States, 198. British treaty: negotiated, 49; in structions for, 6s, 69; favor able to Mexico, 69; concluded, 70; rejected by Canning, 70, 83; reasons for rejection, 83- 84; Morier sent to negotiate a new one, 84, 85; his failure, 87; a Mexican agent sent to London to negotiate, 87; con cluded and ratified, 88; urged by the Mexican plenipoten tiaries as a model for a treaty with the United States, 210; exception to "most favored nation " rule, 211. Brown, James: minister to France, Clay's instructions to con cerning Cuba, 115. Brown: senator from Mississippi, offered the post of minister to Mexico, 34. Bustamante ; insurgent agent to the United States in 1814, 5, note. Bustamante: Mexican minister to Colombia to arrange for a joint seizure of Cuba, loi. Butler, Anthony: instructions to, as charge concerning the pending commercial treaty, 249 ; conclusion of the com mercial treaty, 251; proposes to the Jackson administration a plan for purchasing Texas, 335 ; bearer of a despatch in structing Poinsett to try to purchase Texas, 342; his char acter, 343, note; warned against interfering in Mexi can affairs, 373, 376. Calhoun: his desire to have Cuba for the United States, 91. Camacho, secretary for foreign re lations: to go to England to negotiate a treaty, 87-88; suc cessful, 88; a negotiator for a commercial treaty with the United States, 213 and fol lowing. Cambreleng, C. C : advice to Poinsett, 48, 74. Caiiedo, secretary for foreign af fairs: a negotiator for a com mercial treaty with the United States, 244 and following. Canning, George: British foreign minister, 55; early attitude toward Mexican independence, 55 j opposes a European con ference on Spanish- American affairs, 57; proposals to Rush concerning the Spanish- Ameri can states, 60, 97 ; Adams's answer, 61; rebukes his com mission to Mexico for its hasty report, 62-63; opposi tion to the influence of the United States in Mexico, 70- 73 1 opposition to the United States at the Panama con gress, 73; personal letter to Victoria, 76; reasons for re jecting the treaty with Mex ico, 83-84; suspects French movements in the West In dies, 122; declares England's policy toward Cuba, 125; cyn ical attitude toward Qay's overture, 126 ; his counter proposal, 127; instructions to the British representative to the Panama congress, 156; considers seizing Cuba, 161. INDEX 395 Canning, Stratford: British min ister in \^ 'ashington, 15, note; comment conceming the atti tude of the United States to ward Cuba, 95. Casas: head of an insurgent gov emment in Texas, 5, note. Centralista: a political party in Mexico, 82; relations with the Scottish Masons, 190 and fol lowing. Chihuahua: a United States con sul for, appointed, 169, 170; govemor of, sends a report conceming the frontier, 173, 295; Escudero, a citizen of, in the United States, 177. Claims: of United States citizens against Mexico, 252-276. Clark, William, superintendent of Indian affairs at St. Louis: relations with Escudero, 177- Clay, Henry: exchanges portraits with Iturbide, 6, note; Mexi can regard for, 20-22, note ; Adams's plan to get rid of him by making Hitti minister to Colombia, 35; his advocacy of the cause of the Spanish- American states, 36; secretary of state, 44; instructions to Poinsett, 46; cautious advice conceming British influence, 75; far reaching negotiations conceming Cuba and Spain's relations with ter former col onies, 105-163; his instmc- tions to Poinsett conceming Texas and the boundary, 286- 28S; attempt to purchase Texas, 306-310- Cockpit: Poinsett meets two mem bers of the Mexican cabinet in, 51- Colombia : intention to send an expedition to Cuba, 94* note, 99, 100, 101, 105, III, 132- I34» 143-147. 154. 159; Clay's effort to restrain, from attack ing Cuba, 14J. Cxjlombian treaty: a copy of, given to Poinsett to use as a model for a treaty with Mexico, 205. Colonization: Mexican law regu lating, 285; Mexican restric tions on, 285. Colorado, the river : a possible boundary, 287, 293, 308, 340, 341- Comanche Indians: attacks by, along the Santa Fe Trail, 186. Commercial controversies: 252- 276; over consular certificates, 252-259; over unfair tariff charges, 259-261 ; seizure of cargoes for various causes, 262-266; disorderly conduct of United States shipmasters, 267-270 ; Mexican complaints of the seizure of their vessels in United States ports, 275- 274 : LTnited States seamen forced into the Mexican serv ice, 274. Commercial treaty : obstacles in the way of concluding, 205-251; opening of negotiations, 205- 207; "reciprocity" treatment, 20S-210, 212, 221; proposed exception to the '* most fa vored nation '' clause in favor of the Spanish-American states, 211, 21 4-22 1 ; " free ships, free goods " principle with an exception against Great Britain, 221-222, 227; ac cepted, 235-239; attempt to exclude from Mexico Span iards naturalized in the United States, 222, 226, 234; con cluded and signed on July 10, 1826, 224; Mexican delay in ratifying, nullifies, 224, 225, 22S; United States Senate ac cepts, with certain modifica tions, 226-228; adverse report 396 INDEX of the committee of the Mex ican Chamber of Deputies, 22S-232; fugitive slave pro visions opposed in Mexico, 229-231, 240-242, 243, 245; negotiations resumed, 232; treaty of limits concluded and signed as an indispensable preliminary to resuming com mercial negotiations, 233 ; " reciprocity " treatment se cured, 235; second treaty con cluded on February 14, 1828, 239 ; prompt ratification of, at Washington, 242 ; delays in ratification at Mexico, 243- 249; fourteen articles of, re jected, 245 ; negotiations re sumed by Butler and con cluded and ratifications ex changed, 250-251. Consular certificates: required by Obregon's regulations, 252 ; penalty for neglect to procure them, 253; cost of procuring, 254; controversies occasioned by, 254-259. Consuls of Mexico in the United States : Obregon to appoint and supervise, 25, 252-254. Correo, the : detained on a charge of smuggling, 270. Cortes: Iturbide's agent in the United States, 6; to serve as minister in case of Zozaya's capture by pirates, 9. Crawford: candidate in the elec tion of 1824, 40; controversy with Ninian Edwards, 40-42. Cuba: saved to Spain, 89-165 ; hope of United States ofiicials for obtaining, 60, 91, 103, 105, 114; probability that Spain would lose, 89, 102, 107; probable fate of, 89; the Turkey of trans-Atlantic poli tics, 89; plans to ask admis sion of, to the United States, 91 ; attitude of the United States govemment toward, in 1822, 92; Poinsett visits, 93; his advice concerning, 93; possibility of attacks upon, from Mexico and Colombia, 94, note, 99, 100, IOI, 105, III. 13 1-134, i43-i47» 1 54» 159; expectation of Adams that the United States would possess, 94; belief in the United States that Spain planned to cede Cuba to Eng land, 95; memorial to Canning concerning the advisability of seizing, 95-96; attitude of the United States govemment to ward, in 1823, 96-99; Mexican interest in, 99-104; Obregon instructed to watch move ments in and cultivate friend ship with, 99; Torrens to learn the attitude of Colom bia toward, 100; Bolivar ex pected to seize, loi; Mexican ambition for, revealed to Canning by Michelena, 102 ; Clay's instruction to Poinsett concerning, 105; Qay's rep resentations to Spain concern ing, 106-108; Clay's represen tations to Russia concerning, 108-114; Qay's representa tions to England concerning, 1 14-1 1 5 ; Clay's representa tions to France concerning, 115; Spanish government of, desires Spain to recognize the new Spanish states, 116; French war vessel accom panies Spanish transports to, 117-119, 122; French fleet in the neighborhood of, causes uneasiness, 1 19-123; Clay's protest to France against French movements, 124-125; Canning's declaration of Eng land's policy toward, in 1823, INDEX 397 125; Canning distrusts Clay's policy toward, and submits a counter proposal, 126-128; Clay reveals to Mexico his negotiations conceming, 128; effort in the United States to promote the independence of, 128; Cuban junta in Mexico seeks for aid, 129-130; Mexi can plans for freeing, 130-134; cordial reception of a Mexi can vessel at Havana, 135; Clay's fear of a Mexican at tack upon, 136; Clay instructs a confidential agent to, 137, 162; Nesselrode's reply to Clay's overture, 138-140; Clay reiterates to Russia his policy, 141; Clay's effort to prevent Mexico and Colombia from attacking, 142; Poinsett's ne gotiations with Mexico con ceming, 143-147; resolutions of the Mexican Congress con ceming, 144; Clay's negotia tion with Spain conceming, 147-153; Mexico and Colom bia suspend plans for attack ing, 154; fate to be consid ered by the Panama congress, 155-158; danger of seizure by England, 161; Jackson ad ministration continues the pol icy of its predecessor, 163- 165. Cuban Junta in Mexico: organ ized to promote Cuban inde pendence, 129; urges Mexico to aid Cuba, 133- Cubans: seek aid in the United States, 128; disappointed in Mexico, tum to Colombia, 146; new project for collect ing funds in Mexico, 158. Dallas, G. M.: candidate for the post of minister to Mexico, 38, 43. David: insurgent agent to the United States, 5, note. Dawkins: British agent to go to the congress at Panama, 73, 156-158, and note. Delight, the brig: cargo seized for lack of consular certifi cates, 257. Democratic party in Mexico: friendly to Poinsett and the United States, 80. Eagle, the: outrage of, 268. Edwards, Hayden: leader of the Fredonian revolt, 301. Edwards, Ninian: selected as min ister to Mexico, 38, 39; charges of, against Crawford, 40; charges investigated, 40- 41 ; resignation of, 41. Election of 1824: relation of, to the appointment of ^ minister to Mexico, 31, 39, 40, 42 and note, 43. Elizalda: appointed Mexican min ister to the United States, i; unable to go, 5. Ellisen: Russian minister in Wash ington, 14. Envoys, early Mexican: 4-5 and note. Escoceses: See Scottish Rite Ma sons. Escudero: travels in the United States, 177; relations with Indian agent Clark at St Louis, 177; at Washington, 178; retum of, to Mexico, 178; claim of, for Indian at tacks, 187. Esteva: secretary of the treasury in Mexico, 74 ; an English par tisan, 75; deserts British party and joins American, 77, 78; among the York Masons, 192. European congress on Spanish- 398 INDEX American affairs: opposed by Canning, 57, 97. European party in Mexico: formed by Ward, 79; connection with Scottish Masons, 190. Everett: considered for post of rainister to Mexico, 43, note; minister to Spain, 106; in structions concerning Cuba, 106-108; negotiations with the Spanish government, concern ing Cuba, 161. Fair American, the: seized for want of consular certificates, 255-256. Federalista party: 82; relations with the York Masons, 190 and following. Financial difficulties of the Mexi can legation: 10, note, 17-19; a cause of Obregon's suicide, 30- ,,-F'lorida Treaty: boundary line of, to be observed until a new treaty should be concluded, 277-285, 289, 291, 295, 297, 300, 315. 317- Foreign relations : early interest of the Mexican government in, 3, note; importance of, appreciated, 20. Franklin, the: carrying on il licit trade in California waters, 270. Fredonian revolt: 301 and note; its influence on diplomatic re lations, 302-312; effect of the news of, in Mexico, 304; prep arations to suppress, 305. " Free ships, free goods " prin ciple: urged by Poinsett, but with an exception against Great Britain, 221-222, 227; the exception accepted, 235- 239. French convoy for Spanish trans ports: 117-119, 122. French fleet in the West Indies: suspicious movements of, 119- 123; Clay's protest against, 124-125. Guerrero: n. leader of the York Masons, 192; Yorkino candi date for the presidency, 196; attitude toward the pending commercial treaty, 248, 249; informed by Poinsett that the Yorkinos desire him for their candidate, 351; suppresses the Montano revolt, 354; narrow defeat in the election of 1828, 357; declared elected after the successful candidate had fled, 358; recognized as president, 359j 361; demands Poinsett's recall, 369-371; overthrown by a revolution, 375, note, Hardins: fugitives in Texas charged with murder in Ten nessee, 326. Harrison, W. H. : candidate for the post of minister to Mex ico, 43. Herrera: minister for foreign af fairs in Mexico, 2; letter of, to Adams, 2 ; mission of, to the United States in 1815, 4 and note. Hervey: one of Canning's com mission to open diplomatic re lations with Mexico, 58, 62; guarantees a Mexican loan, 62; recalled because of it, 63. Holy alliance: Mexican desire for assistance frora the United States against, 25. Indians: provisions of commercial treaty concerning, 245; in Texas troublesome, 298; sale of arms to, a cause of com plaint, 298; attacks of, near the border, 327. INDEX 399 Iturbide: triumph of the revolu tion under, i ; letter of, to President Monroe, 6; conflict with his Congress, 6; ex changes portraits with Henry Clay, 6, note; made emperor, 7; overthrown and exiled, 15-16; threatened return of, 42; leaves England on his re turn, 64. Jackson, Andrew: a candidate for the presidency in the election of 1824, 35; appointment of, as minister to Mexico, 36; does not accept, 36; attitude toward Texas, 282; attempt to purchase Texas, 334-342. Jefferson: his advice asked by Adams concerning Canning's proposals to Rush, 60; his de sire for Cuba, 91, 98; advo cates joining England in guar anteeing the independence of Cuba, 96; retracts this advice, 97, note; advice that the United States join England in the proposals which Can ning made to Rush, 98. Key West: improper use of as a naval base by Mexican com manders, 271. King, Rufus: Poinsett's letter to, concerning Ward's political activity, and the Mexican ministerial change, 79; Clay's instructions to, concerning Cuba, 114-iis; Canning's con ferences with, 126; Poinsett's letter to, concerning the York Masons, 191. Lara, Jose: a Spaniard in New Orleans plotting against Texas, 329, 330. La Vaca, the river: considered as a possible boundary, 340. Letona: Hidalgo's agent to the United States in 1810, 5, note. Liberty, the: seized for carry ing contraband, 263-264. Limits: See Texas and the boun dary issue. Limits: treaty of with the United States to be negotiated, 9. Loan: a Mexican, to be negotiated in the United States, 9. Louisiana: limits of, 2^7, 314. Mackie: Canning's special agent to Mexico, 55; his conferences with Victoria, 56, -^6. Madison: his advice asked by Adams concerning Canning's proposals, 60; advice given, 98. Maltitz, Russian minister in Wash ington: on Russia's attitude toward Spain, 153. Martinique: French commander at, responsible for French convoy of Spanish transports, 122. Mason: sent from Mexico to Washington with official copy of the commercial treaty, 224. Masons, Scottish: See Scottish Rite Masons. Masons, York: See York Rite Ma sons. Mazatlan: conduct of the com mander of the brig Nile at, 267. Meade, Richard: advances money to the Mexican charge, 18, 19. Merchants, United States: at tacked by robbers in Mexico, 27s. Michelena: appointed Mexican minister to London, 63; re ceived by Canning, 64; re called from London to repre sent Mexico at Panama, 67, note; reveals too much con cerning Mexico's ambition for Cuba, 102. 400 INDEX Middleton, Henry, minister to Russia: Clay's instructions to, concerning Cuba, Spain, and the new Spanish states, io8- 114; negotiations with Russia concerning Clay's overture, 138-140, 153. Mier y Teran: chief of the Mex ican boundary commission, 313; reports concerning Texas, 329* 33^- Migoni: Mexican agent in Lon don, 56. Monroe Doctrine: note of Mex ican charge concerning, in December, 1823, 22; reference to, in Poinsett's instructions, 47: in his speech at his for mal reception, 53 ; compared with England's assurance to Mexico, 59; selfish motive of the United States, 61 ; Can ning's opposition to, 72; Poin sett corrects Alaraan concern ing, 121. Montano: plan of, starting a revo lution and demanding Poin sett's removal, 353-356- Montoya: Mexican charge at Washington, 29, note; presents a demand for Poinsett's re call, 369. Morier: supersedes Hervey as English commissioner 1.0 Mex ico, 63; welcomed in Mexico, 67; concludes a treaty which is rejected by Canning, 69 ; sent to negotiate a new treaty, 84; his failure, 87. " Most favored nation " provision in the commercial negotiation: 207; proposed exception to it in favor of the Spanish- American states, 211-212, 214- 217; causes the negotiation to be suspended, 216, 220; Clay's arguments against the excep tion, 2 1 7-220 ; the exception yielded by Mexican negotia tors, 221. Muzquiz: appointed Mexican min ister to the United States, 23; unable to go, 24 and note. Nacogdoches: Fredonian revolt at, 301; new attack expected, 327. Narbona, governor of New Mex ico: letter of Storrs to, con cerning trade, 1 76 ; Sibley's letter to, concerning the Santa Fe road, 182; receives per mission for Sibley to make a restricted survey, 185. Natchitoches: plans for placing a Mexican consul at, 298. Navy, the Mexican: an agent for, in the United States, 6; bril liant hopes for, 133; Porter, an American citizen, made commander of, 270-272; ir regular conduct of, at Key West, 272-274. Nesselrode, Russian foreign min ister: reply to Clay's overture for joint intervention in Spain, 138-140; declarations to Middleton concerning Rus sian mediation in Spain, i53' New Orleans : attadcs on Texas expected from, 328. Newspapers: Mexican minister to the United States instructed to make use of them, 81*" Nile, the brig: outrage of, 267. Norte, Rio del: See Rio Grande. Obregon, Pablo; as minister States, 24; 25; arrival Washington,services, 28; ties of, 29 of, 29 and concerningtrade, 169; appointment of, to the United his instructions, and reception at 26; value of his financial diflicul- and note; suicide note ; despatches the Santa Fe concerning Escu- INDEX 401 dero's mission, 178; consular regulations issued by, 252, 255; his instructions concern ing Texas and the boundary, 284-286, O'Donoju: last Spanish viceroy of Mexico, 2, note. O'Gormon: one of Canning's com mission to open diplomatic re lations with Mexico, 58, 62. Onis: Spanish negotiator of the Florida treaty, 278; language of, concerning that treaty, 278; language concerning the future ambition of the United States government, 279, Osage, Fort: starting point from which the Santa Fe road was surveyed, 180. d'Oubril, Russian minister at Ma drid: his communications with Everett concerning Russia's attitude toward Cuba and the proposed mediation, 151-153. Owen, Robert: asks the cession of Coahuila and Texas for a philanthropic socialistic ex periment, 323, "Palace revolution": British in fluence in the Mexican min istry replaced by United States influence, 76, 213. Panama congress : Canning's op position to the influence of the United States at, 73; debates in the United States Congress concerning, 155; fate of Cuba to be considered at, 155-1S8; meager results of, 157. Pedraza : Mexican secretary for war to assist in the commer cial negotiations, 213; success ful candidate in the presiden tial election of 1828, 357; his flight when a revolt against his election started, 357; Poin sett's estimate of his charac ter, 360, note. 27 Peredo: insurgent agent to the United States, in 1813, 5. note. Piracy in the West Indies: bill in the United States Congress for suppressing, 103; Poinsett's proposal to promote the inde pendence of Cuba in order to overthrow, 104 and note; ef fect of, on the United States, 112. Poinsett, Joel R.: visit to Mexico in 1822 and report to the De partment of State, 34, 45 ; considered for the post of minister to Mexico, 43 ; offered the place, 44; a candidate for the position of secretary of state, 44 ; appointed minister to Mexico, 44; his earlier career, 45; his "Notes on Mexico " published, 45; dis coverer of the poinsettia, 46; Clay's instructions to, 46; attachment to the federal form of government, 47 ; charged with meddling in the inter nal affairs of Mexico, 48; reaches Mexico, 49 ; slow progress, 50-52; formal re ception, 52; opposes British influence, 74-82 ; Mexican hostility to, 80-82; his bill in Congress to promote Cuban independence, 104; suggests motive for French movements in the West Indies, 120; con fers with Ward concerning the French movements, 119- 121; communications to the Mexican government concern ing Cuba, 143-147; negotia tions concerning the Santa Fe Trail, 170-173. i75. 182- 185; denunciations of, because of his relations with the York Masons, 190-204; his expla nations to Clay, 199-201; criticized by Sergeant and dis- 402 INDEX approved at Washington, 201; qualified approval, 202; nego tiations for a commercial treaty, 205-251 ; negotiations to settle commercial contro versies, 252-276; negotiations concerning Texas and the boundary issue, 286-344; bis personal views concerning a desirable boundary, 289-290; public attacks on him and his recall, 349-377; samples of violent newspaper attacks against him, 350, note; in forms Guerrero that the York inos wish the latter to be a candidate for the presidency, 351; Montaiio revolt to force Poinsett's dismissal, 353-356; his reports concerning the election of 1828, and the Yorkino revolt following, 356- 359; felt that he was unjustly persecuted, 359; justifies his conduct, 360; hopeless polit ical confusion in Mexico, 362; state legislatures ask his dis missal, 363, 364; again de fends his conduct, 364-366; Jackson and Van Buren's qualified approval, 366-368; a hint that he should resign, 368; his recall demanded by the President of Mexico, 369- 371; recalled, 371. Poinsettia: the flower discovered by Poinsett and named for him, 46. Polignac: Canning's declaration to, S8. Porter, Comraodore: a citizen of the United States in the Mex ican naval service, 270-272; authorized to issue coramis sions to privateers, 271; makes improper use of hos pitality at Key West, 271. Porto Rico: probability that Spain would lose, 89; probable fate of, 89; effect of Canning's proposals to Rush upon, 98. Privateers: Commodore Porter authorized to grant letters to, 270-272. Provisional Junta, the Mexican : organized, 1. Puebla, Bishop of: attempt to get him into the Mexicau cabi net, 77. " Reciprocity " treatment: en deavor to introduce, into the commercial treaty, 208-210, 212; yielded by Poinsett, 221; voluntarily offered by Mexican negotiators, 235; in- .cluded in the final treaty, 251. Recognition of Mexican inde pendence by the United States, 12 ; President Mon roe's message recommending, 32, 33, 47, 49, 53; attempt of Spain to prevent, 277. Ridgeley, United States com mander at Key West : con cerning the conduct of Mex ican privateers at Key West, 272-274. Rio del Norte: See Rio Grande. Rio Grande: considered as a pos sible boundary, 283, 287, 293, 296, 307, 340. Rocafuerte : secretary of the Mexican legation in London, 63; charge, 67, note; con ference with Canning con cerning the rejected treaty, 83-84; writes from London concerning a rumor that Mexico had ceded Texas to the United States, 322, Rush, Richard: Canning's pro posals to, 57, 60, 87. Russia: Clay's overture to, on be half of Spain, 108-114; ef- INDEX 403 forts of, to influence the United States attitude toward Spain, 1 13, note ; reply to Clay's overture, 138-140; Clay restates the attitude of the United States toward Spain and Cuba, 141; repre sentations to Spain concern ing Cuba, 147, 149, 151-153. Russian minister at Washington: absents himself from a ban quet in honor of the Mexican minister, 14. Sabine : not a desirable bound ary, 287, 294, 307, 338. St. Louis: Mexican consul estab lished at, 169 ; Escudero treats with the superintend ent of Indian affairs at, 177. St. Petersburg, court of: Clay's overture to, on behalf of Spain, 108-114. Saltillo: a United States consul for, appointed, 169, 170. Salvador: commissioners from, asking admission to the United States, 17, note. Santa Anna: his rebellion against Iturbide, 38, note; his pro posed expedition to Cuba, 120, 130 and note ; a mem ber of the Cuban Junta in Mexico, 130; heads the Yorkino revolt against the success of the Escoceses in the election of 1828, 357. Santa Fe: effort of Clay to get, for the United States, 308. Santa Fe trade: 166-170, 174; New Mexican interest in, 176; not desired by Mexico, 187; continued growth of, 187; provision for the regu lation of, in the commercial treaty of 1831, 251- .Santa Fe Trail: 166-189; early trade by way of, 1 66-170, 174; Poinsett opens negotia tions concerning, 170-173; re port of the governor of Chi huahua concerning the fron tier, 173; negotiation sus pended, 175; Storrs's letter to the governor of New Mexico concerning trade along, 176; Escudero's expedition along, 177-179; United States com mission to survey, 179-182; ease with which the road could be opened, 181; Poin sett's continued negotiations concerning, 182-185; quali fied consent of the Mexican government, 185; claims for Indian attacks along, 186; growth of trade by way of, 187-189; treaty provision reg ulating this trade, 189, 251. Scottish Rite Masons: political activity of, 190 and follow ing; Montan,o revolt sup ported by, 353-356; success in the election of 1828, 357; Yorkino revolt against, 3 57. Seguin, Erasmo : appointed Mex ican consul for Natchitoches, but declined, 299, note. Sergeant: return from Mexico and report concerning Poinsett's conduct, 201. Sibley, George C. : chief of the commission to survey the Santa Fe road, 179-182, 185. Sisal: capture of a United States ship at, because it carried Spanish goods, 268. Slaves, fugitive: Mexican objec tions to having a provision in the commercial treaty for the return of, 229-231, 240- 242, 243, 245; omitted from final treaty, 251. Smuggling: from the United States into Mexico, 267. Snow Mountains: a possible bound ary, 287. 404 INDEX "El Sol," a Mexican newspaper: Poinsett objects to an edi torial in, 121 ; expressed be lief that the United States govemment had encouraged the Fredonian revolt, 304. Southwestern boundary: See Texas and the boundary issue. Spain: Mexican expectation of assistance from the United States against, 8; Clay's rep resentations to, conceming Cuba, and the recognition of her former colonies, 106-108; determination to retain Cuba, 134. ^371 produce of, ex cluded from Mexican ports, 263, 268; delay in ratifying the treaty of 18 19, 277. Spanish minister : protests against the reception of the Mexican minister at Washington, 13. Storrs: representation to the gov ernor of New Mexico con cerning the Santa Fe trade, 176. Sugar; importation of, prohibited, 264 ; a cargo of, unjustly seized at San Bias, 264. Superior, the: seized on a charge of smuggling, 270. Tabares: an insurgent agent to the United States, 5, note. Tacubaya: attempted continua tion of the Panama congress at, 201. Tamaulipas: law of the state of, fixing a certain route for goods in transit, 265. Tampico : Spanish occupation of, 266 ; provisions from the United States intended for the Spanish army seized at, 266. Tariff charges: unfair, 259-261. Teran: See Mier y Teran. Texas and the boundary issue : 277-348; Zozaya instructed to negotiate a boundary treaty, 9; negotiations for the bound ary treaty separated from those for commerce, 206 ; Mexican demand for the speedy conclusion of ^ treaty of limits, 231, 233; a treaty signed hastily on January 12, 1828, 233; Mexican apprehen sions of United States inten tions, 277-283; instructions to Mexican agents conceming, 277, 281, 284-286; Mexican indecfsion conceming the time to begin negotiations, 284; Clay's instructions to Poinsett in 1825 concerning, 286-^88; Poinsett's personal views in 1822 conceming a desirabTe line, 289; beginning of nego tiations conceming, 291; a joint boundary commissiou proposed but rejected, 291; the claims of the two coun tries irreconcilable, 293-297 ; disturbances on the Texas border, 29S-301; influence of the Fredonian revolt on diplo matic relations, 301-310; at tempt of Adams and Clay to purchase Texas in 1827, 306- 310; the offer rejected by Mexico, 311; Mexican com mission to exaraine the coun try near the boundary, 313; Mexican demand for a treaty of limits before a commercial treaty, 315; a treaty hastily concluded confirming the line of 1819, 316-319; Poinsett's reasons for abandoning Texas, 319; prompt ratification at Washington, 320; delay at Mexico until too late to ef fect the exchange, 321; ru mor in London that Mexico had ceded Texas to the INDEX 405 United States, 322; Robert Owen's request for Texas, 323; goods for consumption in Texas admitted free of duty, 324; criminals from the United States refugees in Texas, 325 ; new disorders in Texas, 327-332; the treaty still unratified in 1829, 333; Poinsett believes that Mexico will never cede Texas will ingly, 334; Jackson and Van Buren's plan for purchasing Texas, 334-342; opposition in Mexico, 344; attempt aban doned by the Washington government, 345; Butler's persistence, 346 ; Poinsett's boundary treaty of 1828 finally ratified by both coun tries and ratifications ex changed, 347; revolt of Texas before the commission to mark the boundary ever met, 348. Tornel: President Victoria's pri vate secretary, 76; Poinsett's estimate of him, 76; opposi tion to Poinsett, 80; pub lished criticism of Poinsett, 81; misinforms Ward con cerning Poinsett's relations to the York Masons, 191. Torrens: secretary of the Mexi can legation at Washington, 8, note, 10; charge, 17; fi nancial embarrassment of, 18; credentials and instruc tions delayed, 19, 20; trans ferred to Colombia, 27, 100; advice concerning Cuba, 99; instructed to learn the atti tude of Colombia toward Cuba, 100; notices concern ing expeditions from the United States to Santa Fe, 167; reports designs of United States toward Texas, 279; note to the United States government concern ing Texas and the boundary, 282; delay of the United States in answering, 283, 286; this note later cited by Qay, 287. Trade: Obregon to issue regula tions governing, 25; trade to Santa Fe, 166-170, 174. Treaty of commerce, etc. : ob stacles in the way of, 203- 251. Tuyll, Russian minister in Wash ington: conversations with Clay and Adams concerning Cuba and Spain, 113, 114. Van Buren, secretary of state: instructions concerning Cuba and Spain, 163-165; instruc tions to Butler concerning the Santa Fe trade, 188; reports to, from Poinsett concerning Texas, 331-334; instructions to Poinsett to purchase Texas, 338-342; qualified approval of Poinsett, 366; warns Butler against interfering in Mex ico, 373- Vaughn: British minister in Wash ington, reproved by Canning for his communications with the United States concerning Cuba, 156, note. Vera Cruz: attack by the legisla ture of, on Poinsett, 197- 204. Verona: congress of, 94. Victoria, Guadalupe: letter to the President of the United States, 27; orderly govern ment under, 28; his confer ences with Mackie, 56, 76; Poinsett's estimate of him, 74; friendly to British in fluence, 76, 78, 85; change from British to American 4o6 INDEX party, 77, 88; his dynastic ambition, 78. Ward, British charge in Mexico: formally received, 52; one of Canning's commission to open diplomatic relations with Mex ico, 58, 62; opposes Alaman, 77 \ differences with Poinsett, 78; exaggerated report to Canning concerning Poinsett's influence, 79; friendly confer ence with Poinsett, 119-121; misinformed concerning Poin sett's relations with the York Masons, 191. Washington, treaty of: same as Florida treaty. See 277, note. Wellington: his instructions as representative to the congress at Verona, 55. Wheaton, Henry: considered for post of minister to Mexico, 43. Wilcocks : Adams's adviser in Mexico, I, 32; in Washing ton as bearer of a despatch, 32; consul of the United States in Mexico, 51. Yorkinos: See York Rite Masons. York Rite Masons: denunciations of Poinsett because of his re lations with, 190-204; polit ical succcss of, 193 and fol lowing, 349-353; Montano re volt against, 353-356; York ino triumph, 356; narrowly lost the election of 1828, 357; revolt of, against the success ful Escoceses, 357. Zavala: a York Mason, 192, 196; exonerates Poinsett, 193; In fluence over Guerrero, 196; offered the position of min ister to the United States, 196; exonerates the York Masons, 349; principal agent in starting the Yorkino re volt against the result of the election of 1828, 357. Zea, Spanish foreign minister: his protest against British recognition of Mexico, 66, note ; communications with Everett concerning Cuba, 149. Zozaya: chosen as minister to the United States, 6; his cre dential letter, 7 and note; his instructions, 8; reported captured by pirates, 9; reaches the United States, 10 ; re ceived by President Adams, 12; cordial treatment of, 14; Stratford Canning's descrip tion of, 15, note; departure from Washington, 15-17; not returned, 23 ; co-mments on Jackson's appointment as min ister to Mexico, 37, note; his instructions conceming Texas and the boundary, 277; report concerning United States in tentions on Texas, 279.