Withdrawal of the Mexican Minister 205 bearing in mind the neutral position of the United States with regard to the contending parties in Texas, and the obligations of the treaty in reference to the Mexican authorities.''64 On October 1 Gorostiza protested against American troops fraternizing with those of Texas, and demanded a reply to his previous requests that the troops be withdrawn.65 The State Department, after a delay of nearly two weeks, flatly refused to comply.c There was no recourse; the resources of diplomacy were exhausted, and on October 15 Gorostiza demanded his passports.67 69 Five days later they were issued to him with a polite note.68 He shortly after left the country and arrived at the City of Mexico in the middle of December. Before his departure he published, at Philadelphia, a pamphlet in Spanish in which he reviewed the boundary question and gave portions of the correspondence between him and the Department of State. These were distributed to various members of the diplomatic corps at Washington. The publication of the correspondence was looked upon as a breach of diplomatic propriety, and the matter was called to the attention of the Mexican government, which, however, upheld its minister.71 64 House Ex. Docs., 24 Cong., 2 Sess., I, Doc. 2, pp. 81-83. Jackson's letters bore date of September 4, 1836. 65 Gorostiza to Dickins, October 1, 1836, ibid., 88. 70 Gorostiza, Correspondencia que ha mediado entre la Legacion Extraordinaria de Mexico y el Departamento de Estado de los Estados-Unidos, sobre paso del Sabina por las tropas que mandaba el General Gaines. A translation appears in House Ex. Docs., 25 Cong., 2 Sess., VII, Doc. 190, pp. 61-120. 71 Report of Forsyth, December 2, 1837, Sen. Docs., 25 Cong., 2 Sess., I, Doc. 1, pp. 29-36. CHAPTER XI THE TREATY OF LIMITS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS With the opening of diplomatic relations between the United States and the republic of Texas, the boundary question entered upon a new phase. On the eighteenth day of November, 1836, W. H. Wharton was given his instructions as minister plenipotentiary of the new republic to the United States. His mission had two great objects, to obtain the recognition of the independence of Texas, and annexation. It was believed that the latter might be brought about by a treaty, in which full provision should be made for the protection of Texan interests, one of which was the question of boundaries, at that time undefined by Texan congressional action.1 In regard to the boundaries, the instructions in part read: We claim and consider that we have possession to the Rio Bravo del Norte. Taking this as a basis, the boundary of Texas would be as follows. Beginning at the mouth of said River on the Gulf of Mexico, thence up the middle thereof, following its main channel, including the Islands to its most northerly Source, thence in a direct line to the United States boundary under the treaty of De Onis at the head of Arkansas river, thence down said river and following the United States line as fixed by said De Onis treaty to the Gulf of Mexico at the mouth of Sabine . The said treaty of De Onis calls for the West bank of Sabine, and the South bank of Red and Arkansas rivers as the line. It is believed that the chartered limits of Louisiana calls for the middle of Sabine, if so there will probably be no difficulty in making our line to correspond with that of Louisiana-so as to give to us the right of landing, Ferries etc without molestation on the West Side. The same alteration should be made if practical as to the Red River and Arkansas river lines, by fixing them in the middle of those rivers, 1 Marshall, in Texas State Historical Association, The Quarterly, XIV, 281-285. Instructions to Wharton 207 but should this be objected to, it is presumed the right of landing, and the free use and controul of the banks on our side to low water mark will be secured to us.2 Private instructions were also given to Wharton concerning the occupation of Texan soil by American troops; to quote: President Burnet wrote officially to Genl. Gaines, that it would be agreeable to the Government of Texas, should he establish his headquarters at, or occupy the post of Nacogdoches for the purpose of restraining the Indians. You [Wharton] will endeavor to ascertain the real views of the United States government in occupying that post, and whether it is seriously contemplated to insist on the River Necnes as the constructive line under De Onis' treaty, instead of the Sabine, as laid down in Millish's [Melish's] map of 1818, which is positively and definitely fixed by said treaty as the boundary line. This government cannot admit of any construction that will fix the line at the Neches, or make any variations of this kind from the said treaty of De Onis, and should there be any attempt on the part of the United States government to move the line to the Neches, and thus claim the country between that River and Sabine, you will solemnly protest against it as an infraction of said Treaty of De Onis, and an invasion of the rights and territory of Texas.3 A month later the Texan government, by an act of congress. defined the boundaries, the governmental act agreeing with those as laid down in Austin's instructions to Wharton. It was also provided that the president negotiate with the United States for ascertaining and defining the boundary as previously agreed in the treaties with Spain. Shortly after, General Memucan Hunt was sent to the United States as minister extraordinary to assist Wharton. In his instructions no mention was made of the boundary, but the negotiation of a treaty of commerce urged.5 was 2 Austin to Wharton, November 18, 1836, Tex. Dipl. Corr., I, 127-134. 3 Private instructions to Wharton, ibid., I, 135-140. 4 Laws of the Republic of Texas, I, 133-134. 5 Henderson to Hunt, December 31, 1836; Henderson to Forsyth, December 31, 1836, Tex. Dipl. Corr., I, 161-166. On January 11 Wharton presented the views of his government on the boundary question to Forsyth, the secretary of state of the United States. He said that he had recently been informed that the Caddo were meditating an invasion of Texas; in consequence he requested that United States troops should continue to occupy Nacogdoches or some other point on the frontier, but he further declared that the continued occupation of Nacogdoches or of any other point west of the Sabine would settle nothing in relation to the boundary, the Texan government expecting to have the boundary settled according to the treaty of 1819. Recognition and annexation, however, were uppermost in the minds of Wharton and Jackson, and the minor question of boundary received no immediate attention." Jackson's course at this time was extremely cautious. Morfit's report on Texan conditions was not overly favorable, neither was it such as to withhold the President. To other causes Jackson's course must be attributed. The wave of enthusiasm which had swept over the country in the spring of 1836 had somewhat subsided, and the northern opposition to slavery was beginning to crystalize against the acquisition of Texas. Gorostiza's spirited protests and ultimate withdrawal presaged war. Fortunately a way was opened opportunely by which Jackson might hope to see the coveted country brought to the verge of acquisition and without a war. Upon his release from a Texan prison, Santa Anna was sent to Washington, where he held out the idea that, when he was sent back to his own country, he could secure the recognition of Texan independence or the annexation of Texas to the United States for a compensation. If the former were attained, Texas could thereafter follow her own course and annexation might eventually be accomplished without a war. Jackson's course was probably influenced by Santa Anna's first suggestion. He de 6 Wharton to Forsyth, January 11, 1837, Tex. Dipl. Corr., I, 175. 7 Wharton to Houston, February 2, 1837, ibid., I, 179–181. termined upon recognition, one of his last official acts being the appointment of a chargé to Texas. The claims set up by Texas, and subsequent legislation concerning public lands, brought about a collision with Arkansas. The first of the Texan land laws was passed on December 22, 1836; it provided that a general land office and ten sub-offices were to be established and opened on June 1 of the following year. One of these was to be located at the house of George Wright on Red River. The district about it was to be known as the Red River District and was to be bounded by a line beginning at the Sulphur Fork of Red River and running up that river to the crossing of Trammel Trace, thence on that trace to the Sabine River, up that river to its source, thence due north to Red River, and from there to the point of beginning. This law did not meet with the approval of Houston, but was passed over his veto.s President Houston took no steps to carry it out, and in his message at the opening of the second session, advised that some plan be formulated which would ascertain all the located lands of the country, in order that the vacant lands might be taken up. He stated that the northeastern boundary especially needed attention, but that the treaty of 1819 so well defined the boundary that no trouble was anticipated. He urged that provision be made for the appointment of a commissioner to run the boundary." On June 12, 1837, the Texan congress passed a supplementary land act which provided that the law was to go into operation on October 1. It further declared that all empresario grants had ceased on the day of the declaration of independence and that all vacant lands were the property of the republic.1o It must be remembered that the United States at this time was proceeding on the assumption that the Neches instead of the Sabine was the boundary. If such were the case, the territory 8 Tex. Dipl. Corr., I, 193; Laws of the Republic of Texas, I, 216–224. Crane, Life and Select Literary Remains of Sam Houston of Texas, 282-287. 10 Laws of the Republic of Texas, I, 263-264. |