CHAPTER XXXVII

TERRITORIAL EXPANSION

From the signing of the Florida treaty in 1819 to the end of the War with Mexico in 1848 the problem of Texas was almost constantly before Congress, the various administrations, and the country at large. After that time it became fashionable for historians to subject the Texas policy of the United States to the severest criticism. Both the annexation of the province itself, and the war which followed were denounced as high crimes, committed by a great nation upon weak, unoffending, and defenseless Mexico. For a more reasonable interpretation of the dealing of the United States with Texas and Mexico scholars are deeply indebted to the researches of the late Professor George Pierce Garrison, and of Justin H. Smith.

TEXAS

Geographically, Texas is an integral part of the great central plain of the United States, and of the southern cotton belt. Historically it may have been a part of the Louisiana Purchase. No one ever knew definitely whether the United States acquired title to it in 1803 or not, because no boundary had been agreed upon. In 1819, in return for Florida, the United States relinquished all claim to Texas, and John Quincy Adams promptly tried to buy the country back.

American interest in Texas was a product of the widening field of cotton culture. As the Southwest gradually filled up, pioneer planters began to try their fortunes beyond the Sabine River. The fact that there was an international boundary to be crossed did not bother them; indeed for a time it was a distinct advantage. Neither Spain nor Mexico had ever occupied Texas, and the Mexican government seemed anxious to have the soil cultivated. Large land grants were promised to promoters who would bring in a certain number of settlers. Moses Austin for example received a grant for a colony, under which each head of a family would receive approximately four thousand five hundred acres of land. The same liberal terms were included in grants to other empresarios. In addition to the hundreds of thou

sands of acres given away, the Mexican government was prepared to sell some of the best cotton land in Texas for twelve and a half cents an acre, as compared with a dollar and a quarter for similar land in the United States.

The Austin grant, with Stephen Austin in charge, was settled in 1822. In less than seven years twelve thousand colonists came into Texas from the United States, and by 1844 over fifty thousand had settled there. For this heavy immigration the spendthrift land policy of the Mexican government was primarily responsible. Just as the Devil entered the Ark in Kipling's Legend of Evil, the Americans went to Texas, on the owner's invitation, and from the Mexican standpoint, once in, they proved just as embarrassing to the host. It was impossible for any large group of Americans from the United States to live comfortably under Mexican control, because the two types of civilization were hopelessly dissimilar.

The history of Mexico as an independent nation is a story of successive revolutions, of which there were eight distinct ones in eighteen years. In 1824 the Mexicans had adopted a federal constitution, based in large measure upon that of the United States. Under this Texas and Coahuila formed a single state. The first president by some miracle managed to remain in office for the full term of four years. There were revolutions in 1828, 1829, and again in 1832, the last of which brought Santa Anna into power. It was apparent to any observer that the government was at the mercy of almost any revolutionary leader, and that it could neither maintain order at home nor fulfill its obligations abroad.

By 1827, following a small insurrection of some of the American colonists in Mexico, the Mexican government issued orders prohibiting any further American immigration. This order was not enforced. In 1829, the government of Mexico declared slavery abolished, but because of Austin's protest, the state of Texas was exempted from the operation of the order. Because of the conviction that cotton could not be grown profitably without slave labor, the inauguration of this new policy created additional ill-feeling between the two groups. In 1830, a more determined effort was made to prevent any further American immigration. Mexican decrees forbade any person to enter the country from the north, without a Mexican passport, and prohibited any importation of slaves into any part of Mexico, Texas included. Another order specifically prohibited any more

Americans from settling in Texas. Troops were sent in to enforce the decrees, recently arrived immigrants were expelled, and prospective settlers were stopped at the border. At the same time, the Mexican authorities planned to colonize Texas with ex-convicts.

After Santa Anna came in there was a temporary relaxation in the enforcement of these orders. Then, in 1835, he became even more severe than his predecessors. Santa Anna declared himself dictator, and in doing so he completely ignored the constitution. With an arbitrary executive order he destroyed the rights of the states, and placed them under governors appointed by himself. Next he announced that the militia should be reduced to the proportion of one man for every five hundred in the population, and he ordered all inhabitants not enrolled in the militia to give up their arms. Compliance with this arrangement would have left the Americans at the mercy of the Indians, and of the ex-convicts, recently sent into Texas in accordance with the plan already announced. The disarmament scheme practically put an end to any hope of even a working agreement between Mexicans and Texan colonists. If there was any one absolute essential in pioneer life, it was the rifle, as Santa Anna might have known. The government of the United States would never have been able to enforce a decree of that sort on any of the various frontiers, certainly not in Tennessee or Kentucky before 1800, in Missouri before 1820, or in Kansas in 1855.

TEXAN INDEPENDENCE

It might have been more fitting, from the standpoint of abstract ethics, for the Texans to submit to Santa Anna, but the frontier had a code of its own. No group of American pioneers placed in similar circumstances would have yielded. Or, they might have returned to the United States. Again the pioneer code comes in. No true frontiersman ever went back, certainly not in the face of any such danger as that in Texas. One other course was open, namely to fight, something which the pioneers were always ready to undertake, if necessary. Before the final break, the Texans announced their readiness to comply with the provisions of the constitution, which Santa Anna had destroyed, but they made it plain that they would have nothing to do with him in his capacity of dictator, except to fight him. In March, 1836, the Texans declared their independence, and established a republic.

TEXAN INDEPENDENCE

399

In the war that followed, there were a few spectacular episodes in which every Texan takes pride. As the Mexican forces were about to capture the Texas town of San Antonio, the defenders, one hundred and eighty in number, shut themselves up in the Alamo, and held off three thousand Mexicans for a week. Every man of the defenders was killed. The next development filled the Texans with a hatred of the Mexicans even more bitter than the feeling before independence. Mexican forces captured the town of Goliad, and a few days later, massacred the Texans in cold blood. At that point Sam Houston collected the Texans, and after a brilliant attack upon the Mexican position on the San Jacinto River, inflicted a decisive defeat upon them. Two days later some Texan scouts found Santa Anna hiding in the grass. It speaks well for Houston that he prevented his men from giving the Mexican chief, who was responsible for the massacre at Goliad, what he deserved. Thanks to Houston's clemency, he was allowed to return to Mexico, after he had signed a treaty practically recognizing the Rio Grande as the southwestern boundary of Texas. Once he was free, characteristically enough, he repudiated his agreement, on the ground that it had been made under duress.

Once independence had been achieved, the Texan government sent a commission to the United States, with an offer of annexation. Jackson refused to consider the offer, although at the very end of his term he recognized the independence of the new nation.

Because of the bearing of the subsequent annexation of Texas upon the war with Mexico, it is necessary to find out if possible whether Texas had any right to rebel, and whether or not the United States was in any way officially implicated in the revolution. It is impossible to lay down any dogma about revolution. Every revolution, successful or otherwise, is always justified by the revolutionists, and condemned by the other side. It may be worth noting that Mexican independence was based upon revolution, against grievances no more serious than those under which the Texans had labored. When it came to arguing about the right to rebel, the Mexicans logically could say little.

As for the second question, there was a belief at the time that the United States had encouraged the rebellion, and of course the Mexicans believed this. Even American Congressmen asserted that the failure of Mexico to reestablish her authority was due to help given by the government of the United States. According to Justin H.

Smith, these charges have no foundation in fact. The United States lived up to its obligations as a neutral in most scrupulous fashion. Moreover, the theory that the rebellion had been instigated from Washington is absurd on its face. The Mexicans furnished all the impulse that was necessary.

It is true that American pioneers continued to cross the line, during the rebellion, as before, but the federal government has no authority to prevent citizens of a state from leaving the country. They carried arms, and American merchants sold arms, to both sides. But that is not a violation of official neutrality. The American government was in no way concerned with the rebellion.

Mexico, however, refused to recognize the independence of Texas, and although she could not possibly recover the state, she could make its citizens uncomfortable by occasional threats.

Between 1836 and 1845 the Texan government tried various diplomatic experiments. In 1838, it withdrew the offer of annexation which it had made to the United States, in order to have a free hand in dealing with other powers. France, and Great Britain more particularly, were deeply interested in Texan prospects. The new republic had enough cotton land to supply raw material for the English factories. Thus, by encouraging the Texans, the British might free themselves from their dependence upon cotton from the United States. Moreover, Texas might grow by occupying New Mexico and California. If that should come to pass, the United States might find a dangerous rival in the Southwest, supported by Great Britain. France recognized Texan independence in 1839, Great Britain in 1842. Moreover, responsible English officials made it clear that they were opposed to any attempt of the United States to annex Texas. But at the time, the British government was in no position to block the United States by force, so no serious difficulties developed.

ANNEXATION

In the meantime the United States, under Tyler, was seriously considering annexation. In April, 1844, a treaty of annexation was signed, but it met defeat in the United States Senate. The reason for that action, absurd as it now seems, was slavery. All abolitionists, and many milder antislavery leaders were keenly opposed to the admission of any more slave territory. President Tyler then advised Congress to provide for annexation by joint resolution.