Page:The War with Mexico, Vol 2.djvu/526

508

Dr. J. M. L. Mora, beginning in April, 1847, endeavored to secure British aid in settling the terms and guaranteeing the permanence of peace, and did not give up until near the end of June, 1848; but Palmerston would not meddle, and cautioned the representative of England that, should a request for British mediation be presented to him, he should simply say the proposition would be transmitted to London. Dec. 28, 1847, the British Foreign Office wrote to Thornton (13no. 2) that Cuevas had asked England to guarantee the treaty of peace; that it was highly improbable the United States would join in making this request; that to guarantee the treaty without a joint application would be equivalent to a contingent alliance with Mexico against the United States; and that England was not likely to take that step in any event.

 

1. Webster in the Senate, June 24, 1846: "We certainly wished her [Mexico] success. . . . We wished her well; and I think now that the people of the United States have no desire, it would give them, I think, no pleasure, to do her an injury beyond what is necessary to maintain their own rights. The people of the United States cannot wish to crush the republic of Mexico; it cannot be their desire to break down a neighboring republic; it cannot be their wish to drive her back again to a monarchical form of government, and to render her a mere appanage to some one of the thrones of Europe" (Writings, ix, 158). Crittenden spoke as follows in the Senate, May 11, 1846: From the first struggle for liberty in South America and Mexico, it was the cherished policy of this country to extend to them sympathy, comfort, and friendship. . . . They were regarded as a portion of that great system of republics which were to stand forth in proud contrast with the Governments of the Old World. . . . As the head of the republican system, our policy was to cheer and cherish them, and lead them in the way to that liberty we had established, and of which we had set the example. . . it was our interest to cherish them, and cultivate their friendship" (Cong. Globe, 29, 1, p. 788). As it may be thought that these statements were made for public effect, the following passage is quoted from resolutions passed by the people of Bloomington (now Muscatine), Territory of Iowa, June 5, 1846: "Mexico, being a sister republic, has been looked to by citizens of the United States with the sincere hope that that country would become an enlightened, free and liberal nation. . . and thereby, become another beacon (as the United States already is) to the monarchies of the world, to show them that men are capable of governing themselves, and let them see the advantages of a free, republican government" (Iowa and War, no. 12). These statements were no doubt fundamentally true despite the resentment produced by the outrages perpetrated upon Texans and Americans, etc., which was mainly directed toward official Mexico.

Senator Hannegan rebuked sentimentality (often feigned for political reasons) in these words: I cannot "participate in the sympathy which I have heard invoked in behalf of Mexico as a sister republic. In the first place the wrongs she has done us, and our citizens resident within her borders, show no very sisterly affection on her part; and in the next, I must confess my want of sympathy with any people where anarchy rules in the name of liberty. Her history is a libel upon republican government. When human sympathy shall follow insubordination, misrule,