Page:The War with Mexico, Vol 2.djvu/481

Rh

74. Correo Nacional, Feb. 7, 19; Mar. 21, 1848. (Aguas Cal.) 76Guerra to Relaciones, Jan. 24, 1848. 76Olaguíbel, Nov. 29. 76Gov. Oaxaca to Relaciones, Dec. 27. Monitor Repub., Nov. 15, 27, 29; Dec. 29, 1847. 366Correspondence between gov. S. L. Potosí and A. O. de Parada. 335Trist, memo. of second conference. 256J. Parrott to Marcy, Dec. 20, private, 27 private, 28, private, 1847. No. American (Mexico), Dec. 14, 1847. 169Taylor to Crittenden, Nov. 1, 1847. 304Duncan to Quitman, Nov. 27, 1847. Webster, Letters, 343. 61Scott, Sept. 18. (Bankhead) 132Cushing to Buchanan, Oct. 31, 1847. 125Bonham to mother, Dec. 7, 1817; Jan. 12, 1848. Gallatin, War Expenses. 345Poinsett to Van Buren, June 4, 1847; Mar. 9, 1848. 304Duncan to Quitman, Nov. 27. No. American (Mex.), Dec. 14. P. F. ''Smith, supra. Eco del Comercio,'' May 9, 1848. Correspondant, Nov. 15, 1847. Times, Jan. 15, 1848.

The substantial war elements were the Eventualists, Monarchists and Santannistas. The 76archives for this time are full of reports of political disturbances.

3. Polk, Diary, Nov. 20, 28, 30; Dec. 4, 18, 1847. 132Donelson to Buchanan, May 15, 1847, private. Ho. 60; 30,1, 1037 (Marcy). 52Trist, no. 22. P. F. Smith: note 1. Richardson, Messages, iv, 537-46. See chap. xxix, p. 183. Had the war continued it would not have been against Paredes or Santa Anna and the military class. It would have seemed to be a war of conquest directed against the Mexican nation, and even the peace party would have had to turn against us.

4. Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 585. 13Thornton, nos.6,7,1847. 52Trist, nos. 16, confid., 18-20. 335Id. to Rosa, Oct. 20, 1847. Monitor Repub., Nov. 8, 10, 13; Dec. 29. Ho. 69; 30, 1, p. 58 (Rosa). Richardson, Messages, iv, 572. Rivera, Jalapa, iv, 22-3. México á través, iv, 704-5. Exposición ó Programa. Negrete, Invasión, li, app., 483, 516.

Trist reopened the negotiations naturally by forwarding to Luis de la Rosa, the minister of relations, a letter (dated Sept. 7) written by him as a reply to the note and counter-projet of the Mexican peace commissioners dated Sept. 6. In this he argued that Texas possessed good grounds for rebelling, and became independent; that, having been rightfully annexed by the United States, she had to be protected against invasion; that any previously existing boundary between her and Mexico had been obliterated by the revolutionary war, and she had a right to claim the Rio Grande as the boundary; that as Mexico would not negotiate on the subject, Polk was compelled to accept that delimitation; that in the resulting war the United States had occupied Mexican territory and now justly held it by right of conquest, yet not by the odious title of conquest resulting from war without good cause — not from a mere desire of obtaining territory (Sen. 20; 30, 1, p. 21). This letter and a brief accompanying note, which stated that his powers had not been withdrawn and expressed a desire to resume the negotiations, were transmitted by Thornton, now acting (in the absence of Bankhead and Doyle) as British chargé, who strongly urged upon Rosa the renewal of the negotiations (52Trist, no. 19). Rosa replied favorably, but said he was too busy just then, and needed certain documents. Later Peña explained the delay as resulting from the provisional character of his administration (52to Trist, Nov. 22). In reality the government desired to ascertain and influence public and Congressional sentiment before acting (Exposición dirigida). Rosa's reply to Trist said there appeared to be little hope of peace, but this was for self-defence (Trist, no. 20).