The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-09-12
tract from the letter of Mr. Lanzas TO Mr. Slidel dated
the 18th OF March, 1915 Here, sir, speaking oil the an
nexalon of Texas, he says:

neXalIon oil Texas, he says:
"A fact such this speak with greater exactnes so
sy that Mexico for her honor, should repe 1t WIN
proper hrnness and dignity. The government had
beorehand declared at would look upon such act
eass oe and as consequence OF this deca ration nego
tiaoh was ny It's very nature, at an end ana war was Inc
only recourse of the Mexican government"
Sir not word of complaint here uttered about the
removal OF the army to the Rio Grande In point OF ac
the army mad not been removed and was not Tor fourteen
days thereafter Mexico, therefore, did not, and has not
al any me complained OF this act asserted 1t to be the
cause OF war On the contrary before the army was re-
moved to the Rio Grande, and when every effort was
being made to reopen negotiations and to preserve peace
she tells minister, who had been sent for that pur-
pose, that annexation closed the door to negotiaon and
war was the only recourse of the Mexican government
This argument, them of the wing party IN this country
that the removal OF the army to the ko Gande brought
on thus unnecessary and unconstitutional WaT--ls lay
and positively denied by the Mexican authorities This,
sir Is an idea first conceived the United States ana
never thought OF in Mexico. had hoped that there was
too much love OF country and patriotism among all par
ties of our own countryen to permit any from nventng
and asserting charges and allegations which had no foun-
daton In TACT for the purpose OF placing our own country
III the wrong and enemy IN the right When engaged
in war with foreign nation. But In this 1t seems
have been mistaken.
Mr. President desire go further and to refue and put
down. hope forever another position assumed IN this
country equally unfounded that 49, that peace could
have been preserved by sending special commissioner to
Mexico, with power settle all questions growing out OF
the annexation of Texas, instead of sending, did,
minister clothed with those powers. In letter from our
consul Mr. Black Mexico TO the Secretary of State he
the Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs. on the subject
of Mr. Slides mission to Mexico: This letter is dated
the th of December 1S45 and refers to conversation
which took place the goth of November preceding, in
which the Mexican minister, after speaking of the arri
val OF Mr. Slldell at Vera Cruz, said
'That ought be. The did expect
prepared receive him. and he desired if possible
that he would to the capital disembark
his doing his appearance in the capital at this
time might prove destructive to the government and thus
autli lrnn>v
ing traitors for entering into this arrangement with you
1.-THE consult told him that regretted mis- had not been
known in time the would now be his way to
this capital and that the Mexican government had set no
knew there was no time set Mr. Pena Peha proceeded
Their that the government itself was well disposed,
affair was commenced now ii would endanger exist
ence; that the government were preparing the thing col
they expected have finished by January and then they
would be able proceed wit moro security that the
eminent afraid that the appearance OF the envoy at
might terminate in its destruction"
This, Mr. President, the true reason why Mr..
Slidell was not received by the Herrera administration
1t was, MIR. Pena Pena said, because they were
afraid of revolution which might terminate in the
Sir were these fears thus expressed by Mr.. Pena we'll
ounded' Sir the revolution did take place, and did
suit predicted, in the expulsion from power of the
Herrera administration, the Both OF December, 1914
But, sir this is not all my proof. | have more and
stronger still shall read sir, extract from the let
ter of Herrera to the Mexican minister of foreign affairs,
commissioners to treat with the United States. This
letter is dated the 25h OF August 1877, in which he
'As Mexican who desires the welfare of his country
ought to state to your exceency that being at the head OF
the government in the year Sl5, passed, when the
eminent of the United States first moved in sending
missioner arrange the differences which, account OF
the Texas question: disturbed the harmony which ought to
exist 6etwesn two noermnons republics for no other act
lug himself and having his propositions heard my admin
sration illuminated in the atrocous manner
for this act alone the revolution which displaced me from
the command was set loot and II We're now to take
newa of the which then place and best
suit from existing through negotiations how
ever honorable would be received than it might be
they were undertaken by persons who may have had 20
part in that affair"
To this letter the Mexican minister answered on the
next day, as follows
i MExIco August 26, lsi7.
"MosT EXCELLENT SIR: have made known to his excel
ency the acting President you cxceleneys note Of yeser
for the purpose of listening the propositions for
peace which the government of the United States wishes
make through their commissioner and, in reply, he
directs inform you, have the honor 10 do, that
those which led your appointment, they show that
two distinct admin straions according to their different
circum stances, have concued IN one essential point
namely. proprey of hearing propositions, the
object of which evils of the Conse
que,y his exceency insists upon his desire that your
ceency should charge Of this weighy and delicate
business for which purpose he appeals 10 your well
patriotism, and 10 the good disposition which you have
evinced to serve the republic"
Not one word in all this to the character of Mr.
Sde whether he was to appear under the name of a
ties being the under both titles No. sir this pre-
text did not enter into the objections to his reception by
the Mexican government So far from it, that Herrera
the then President, who rejected Mr. Slide for the
sons given by Mr. Pena Pena, now In this note, sub
stantlaly reafrms what said by Mr. Pena to Mr.
Black Sir comment on these documents is unnecessa-
ry they are self evident
Bat, sir. will now return to the main question; thai
is, Did annexation produce the war? have read you
portion of the correspondence OF the Mexican govern
ment which think fully sustalns my position. | now
proceed to examine correspondence with a view
to see if can, what they thought would be the result
such policy This, sir, becomes the more Important
the senator from South Carolina Mr. CALHOUN who was
then Secretary of State, and such negotiated the
treaty of annexation, has denounced the unjust
and the preamble in the act asserting that If brought
on by the act of Mexico, being false and untrue
and who asserts that the brought on by the
Executive removing army to the Rio Grande What
sir, did he think would be the effect of annexation!
propose to compare his opinions when Secretary with
his opinions now, when Senator. In June, 1884, the
SENATOR as Secretary of State, addressed letter to
minister in Mexico and, in speaking of the treaty Of
doing so, TO have acted with the concurrence of Mex
leo, If circumstances had permtted-no because he be
leved that she had any rghfu claim of sovereignty t.
Texas or that the latter was not competent OF ltse
to transfer the full and complete right and title to its terri
tory but because, in desire to preserve the
friendly relations with Mexico were disposed to trea
her with respect however unfounded we believed he
claim to Texas to be- 1t in conformity with that de
sire that the instructions were given to make the commu
nicaton to the Government OF Mexico, announcing thu
signature OF the treaty. and our readiness TO adjust al
countries, on the most liberal terms.
nj MpyirO IF ,p0rx M,