Texas was one of the unities that composed the general mass of the nation, and as such participated in the war of the Revolution, and was represented in the Constituent Congress of Mexico that formed the constitution of 1824. This Constituent Congress, so far from destroying this unity, expressly recognized and confirmed it, by the law of May 7th, 1824, which united Texas with Coahuila provisionally, under the especial guarantee of being made a state of the Mexican confederation as soon as it possessed the necessary elements. That law and the federal constitution gave to Texas a specific political existence, and vested in its inhabitants special and defined rights, which can only be relinquished by the people of Texas acting for themselves as a unity and not as a part of Coahuila, for the reason that the union with Coahuila was limited, and only gave power to the state of Coahuila and Texas to govern Texas for the time being, but always subject to the vested rights of Texas. The state, therefore, cannot relinquish those vested rights, by agreeing to the change of government, or by any other act, unless expressly authorized by the people of Texas to do so; neither can the general government of Mexico legally deprive Texas of them without the consent of this people."* Under the constitution of Coahuila and Texas, also, the latter was absolutely "free and independent of the other united Mexican States."+

The history of the revolution in Texas must be familiar to every American reader, and it is therefore unnecessary

* Speech of Colonel Austin, quoted in Foote's Texas and the Texans, vol. ii.,

p.

62.

+ Kennedy's Texas, vol. ii.,p. 444.

to present here the details of that memorable struggle. In 1833, the people of Texas adopted a state constitution, and in accordance with the guarantee of 1824, ap plied for admission into the Mexican confederacy as a separate state. The request was denied, by the authorities of the general government of Mexico, and that under circumstances, and in a manner, which reflected lasting disgrace upon them. Two years later the confederacy was dissolved, and a consolidated government established in its stead, in October, 1835, by the dictator Santa Anna. The confederation being broken, each one of its members was from that moment absolved from all allegiance to the central authority. Availing herself of her indisputable right and privilege, Texas promptly refused to acquiesce in the new order of things, and by a solemn decree proclaimed her independence of the central government of Mexico.* This declaration was maintained by force of arms; and on the 21st of April, 1836, the last considerable army ever sent by Mexico to subjugate Texas, was completely vanquished and overthrown, on the banks of the San Jacinto.

From this time forth, the efforts of Mexico to reduce Texas to submission to her power and authority, were confined to border forays and predatory incursions, in which acts of wanton cruelty and injustice, unworthy of a civilized nation, were committed by the officers of her armies. Yet they found it utterly impossible to obtain undisturbed possession of any portion of the territory north of the Rio Grande, which Texas now claimed to be her southern and western boundary, and below the moun*Kennedy's Texas, vol. ii, pp. 61, 89, 111.

tainous barriers at El Paso; and each year that rolled by, only served to demonstrate more clearly, the inability of Mexico to subdue the people of Texas.

The independence which Texas had achieved, was acknowledged by the government of the United States, in March, 1837, and shortly afterward, by England, France, Holland, and Belgium. This acknowledgment only admitted that Texas was de facto independent, and left the question, whether or no she was a de jure government, to be determined by subsequent events. But after six years had passed without any serious efforts aving been made by Mexico to conquer Texas, the American Secretary of State instructed the representaive of his government in the former country, that the United States regarded Texas as an independent state, equally with Mexico, and as forming "no part of the territory of Mexico." "From the time," said the dispatch, "of the battle of San Jacinto, in April, 1836, to the present moment, Texas has exhibited the same external signs of national independence as Mexico herself, and with quite as much stability of government. Practically free and independent, acknowledged as a political sovereignty by the principal powers of the world, no hostile foot finding rest within her territory for six or seven years, and Mexico herself refraining for all that period from any further attempt to reestablish her own authority over the territory."*

This affirmation, authoritatively made by the American government, of the principle, that a revolted province, by maintaining a successful resistance to the authority * Dispatch of Mr. Webster, July 8, 1842.

of the mother country-admitting that such was the relationship between Mexico and Texas, as was claimed by the former for a period of six or seven years, acquired the right to be regarded, for all and every purpose, as an independent nation, was communicated to the Mexican authorities. A feeble and puerile effort was then made to subjugate Texas, but like all former attempts, it terminated in disaster and disgrace. General Woll crossed the Rio Grande at three different times, in the fall of 1842, and succeeded in capturing a Texan court, jury, lawyer, witnesses, and a few spectators, whom he found in session at San Antonio de Bexar; but when the alarm was given that the Texan troops were approaching, the marauding parties under his command fled across the Rio Grande, as if some avenging demon was upon their track.

So ended the attempt of Mexico to extend her supreme authority over the soil and the people of Texas; and in view of these historical facts, how can it be contended for a moment, that she had the least right to complain of the United States, for entering into negotiations for the acquisition of Texas, without reference to, or consultation with her? Whatever claims she might originally have had, her utter inability to maintain them was so palpable, that when she again announced her intention to enforce them, it excited the ridicule of all Christendom. Let it be conceded even, that Texas was a revolted state, and not a seceder from a confederacy which had been violently ruptured by an usurper. She had defied the power of the mother country-she had achieved her independence; and the fact that she was so independent, had

been duly acknowledged by most of the great powers of the world. Will it be argued, that Mexico should herself have acknowledged that independence, and abandoned her claims? Centuries might have elapsed,—this might never have been done,—and yet not a single Mexican soldier dared to set his foot on the left bank of the Rio Grande for purposes of conquest. Was the authority of Cromwell during the Protectorate, or of the Empire under Napoleon, ever questioned, because the dynasties which they had overthrown had not acknowledged that authority? William III. and Louis Philippe were at the head of revolutionary governments, but was the royal power ever gainsayed, because the Stuarts or the elder branch of the Bourbon family had not surrendered their claims? Who ever contended, that the treaties concluded by Holland for half a century prior to the recognition of her independence by Spain, by the United States previous to 1783, or by the South American States before they were acknowledged to be independent by the mother countries, were void and of no effect? Did Mexico, indeed, entertain any scruples when she entered into a treaty with the United States, regulating the boundaries of her territory, in the year 1828, and long before Spain recognized her independence?

It was not only desirable that Texas should be annexed, in the opinion of Mr. Polk, but he thought it should be done immediately, for these reasons: While the treaty of 1844 was under consideration in the Senate of the United States, all the official correspondence between the representatives of the two governments was most unadvisedly made public; and from this it appeared, that