Page:The War with Mexico, Vol 2.djvu/490

472

Diary, Feb. 21). Polk's accepting the treaty as the best agreement that could be obtained under the circumstances completely vindicated Trist's decision to make it and Scott's coöperation.

In April, 1848, the question of occupying Yucatan came up. The indigenes appeared to be on the point of exterminating the whites and as a desperate resource Yucatan offered herself simultaneously to England, France and the United States. Apr. 29 Polk recommended intervention to Congress, and this has been thought (Ills. State Hist. Soc. Trans., 1912, 17-23) to mean that he was ready to take Yucatan, upset the treaty, and bring about the dismemberment — perhaps the annexation — of Mexico. But the treaty, which had now been ratified by our Senate, contained in art. 5 a provision expressly intended to prevent us from annexing more of Mexico's territory without her consent (see Buchanan to Hilliard, Works, viii, 56), and to believe that after giving this pledge our Executive proposed to reverse his entire policy regarding Mexico and be guilty of such bad faith would require much more evidence than we have. It seems to the author that humanity combined with an avowed desire to keep European powers out of Yucatan fully explain what Polk did (see Polk's Diary, Apr. 25). Congress decided against occupying Yucatan. Its troubles were settled by an agreement between the two parties (Nat. Intelligencer, May 17).

21. Sherman Letters, 46-7. Polk, Diary, Feb. 28. Public Ledger, June 15, 1849 (Dallas). N. Y. ''Journ. Commerce,'' Feb. 25-6; Mar. 1, 11. Niles, Feb. 26, 1848, pp. 401-3. 139Fulton to Campbell, Mar. 5. 198Berrien to Gallatin, June 7. Morse, J. Q. Adams, 307-8. Adams was stricken down two days after the treaty reached Washington. By this time the Senators understood its contents fairly well, no doubt.

22. Polk, Diary, Feb. 25-Mar. 10; Apr. 27. 13Crampton, no. 21, 1848. Meigs, Benton, 378. Benton, View, i, 694. 210Woodward to Hammond, Feb. 23. 210Alvord to Id., Feb. 24. Calhoun Corresp., 743 (to Mrs. C.), 745 (to T. G. C.). (Politicians) Benton, View, ii, 710. 253McLean, remarks. 345Blair to Van Buren, Mar. 3, 1848. N. Y. ''Journ. Commerce,'' Feb. 25; Mar. 1-3, 7, 11. Sen. 52; 30, 1, pp. 3-37 (proceedings). Wash. Union, Mar. 2, 4. Balt. Clipper, Mar. 4. Balt. Patriot, Mar. 3. ''Nat. Intellig., Feb. 28; Mar. 4. Public Ledger,'' Feb. 24. N. Y. Herald, Oct. 30, 1847. Johnson, Douglas, 123. Webster, Writings, x, 3-33. Boston Courier, Feb. 24, 1848. ''Cong. Globe,'' 30, 1, app., 497 (Dayton).

The Whigs were suspected of trying to gain enough Democratic support. so that they could not be charged with beating the treaty as a party (Polk, Diary, Mar. 3; Public Ledger, Mar. 8). Webster's policy was not only unpatriotic but unintelligent, for a continuation of the war would probably have led either to defeat or to larger acquisitions; but perhaps he believed no bad results would occur before the next Presidential election. He knew the country as a whole wanted the treaty ratified for the sake of peace (Writings, x, 7), and he was unable to make the New England Whig Senators join him against the treaty. Calhoun wrote to Gallatin that, owing to diversity of opinion in the Senate, not even a majority could have been obtained for any proposition different from the corresponding proposition of the treaty (198Mar. 13, 1848). What increased the danger involved in rejecting the treaty was the prospect that, with both Scott and Taylor out of the field, operations — even should they not become unsuccessful — would lack the interest which had largely prevented the