smallest exertion, either as regards living, or anything else, except liquor. "'42

Having considered at length the activities on the border, it is time to turn again to affairs at Washington. On July 11 Cass replied to Gaines' letter of June 7 in which that officer had stated that he was regretful that he had suspended the movements of volunteers. The Secretary of War expressed himself as fearful of the Indian situation. He now instructed Gaines that, if he considered it necessary, he might advance as far as Nacogdoches without hesitation, a view concurred in by the President. No mention was made of state troops, as Cass then had no definite information that the call had actually been made.43

It will be observed that the attitude of the war department was much bolder than that of two months previous. There were two probable reasons for it: first, the legislation for which Cass had asked had been passed; and secondly, he had evidently become convinced that Gaines, rather than Macomb, had given the true border conditions.

But the fair weather predicted by Cass' letter was not to continue, as Jackson decided to stop the sending of troops by the governors. On August 5 he addressed a letter to Governor Cannon, in which he stated that he wished to maintain a strict neutrality and believed that to sanction so large a mobilization would furnish the government of Mexico a reason for supposing that the United States might be induced, for inadequate causes, to overstep the lines of neutrality. That he was piqued because Gaines had acted on his own authority, is evident from the fact that he criticized the governor for considering instructions for a requisition in May to apply also to one in June. Gaines also came in for criticism:

42 Riley to Gaines, August 24, 1836, House Ex. Docs., 25 Cong., 2 Sess., XII, Doc. 351, pp. 815-818.

43 Cass to Gaines, July 11, 1836, House Ex. Docs., 25 Cong., 2 Sess., VII, Doc. 190, p. 97.

The Government of the United States having adopted, in regard to Mexico and Texas, the same rule of neutrality which had been observed in similar cases before, it was not to have been expected that General Gaines should have based his requisition for additional military force on reasons plainly inconsistent with the obligations of that rule. Should Mexico insult our national flag, invade our territory, or interrupt our citizens in the lawful pursuits which are guaranteed to them by the treaty, then the Government will promptly repel the insult, and take speedy reparation for the injury. But it does not seem that offences of this character have been committed by Mexico, or were believed to have been by General Gaines.

The President also stated that there was no reason to justify apprehension of extensive Indian hostilities, but if more troops were needed, they would be asked for from Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois. He also said that before leaving Washington, being then at the Hermitage, he had directed the Secretary of War to inform Gaines of the apportionment which had been made under the new volunteer act, and that he had given him permission to call upon Arkansas and Missouri for a thousand men from each.44

Jackson's position, then, was to acquiesce in the occupation of Nacogdoches, to make it possible to call for troops from Arkansas and Missouri, but to countermand Gaines' other requisitions. It is evident that the latter was a departure from the course pursued in the previous May and June. An examination of certain other events transpiring at this time may throw some light on the actions of the President.

Austin and other Texan governmental agents had been in the United States urging that their country be annexed or its independence recognized.45 Jackson was considering the question deeply at this time. Determined to get at the true state of affairs, he despatched Henry M. Morfit to Texas to examine and make a

44 Jackson to Cannon, August 5, 1836, House Ex. Docs., 25 Cong., 2 Sess., VII, Doc. 190, pp. 101–102. See also Niles' Register, L, 412-413, and Barker, in The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, I, 21-22.

45 Texan Dipl. Corres., I, 76-77, 79-80, 84-86, 89-92.

report of the exact state of affairs. Morfit was then on the way and Jackson was waiting to receive his first report.46

To sum up the reasons of Jackson for his action in stopping the sending of troops: first, he did not consider an Indian outbreak as imminent; second, he did not wish to hamper the administration in its future course, whatever that might be, by unnecessarily irritating Mexico; and third, he wished to get definite information before taking the next step. Satisfied that, for the time being, Texas was in no immediate danger of being reoccupied by Mexico, he was willing to wait until sure of his ground without aggravating the case more than necessary.

Gaines heard of the action of the President late in August in a letter from Governor Cannon. Although the Mexican invasion did not materialize, he still insisted that there was danger of an Indian war and that the Mexicans were still tampering with the Indians.*7 47 The country remained in a state of alarm for some time, and reports continued to come in regarding possible Indian hostilities, but there was no uprising,5° and domestic and financial troubles prevented Mexico from invading Texas.51 The troops, however, were allowed to remain at Nacogdoches.

Early in October Cass resigned to become minister to France, 52 and B. F. Butler temporarily filled the position of secretary of war. 53 Early in October Gaines left the frontier to attend the military inquiry which had been called to meet at Fredericktown, Maryland, on November 7.54 Before his departure, he made

46 Several of Morfit's letters appear in Congressional Debates, XIII, Pt. 2, App., 83-96. Also in Sen. Docs., 24 Cong., 2 Sess., Doc. 20, as an appendix to Jackson's message of December 21, 1836.

47 Gaines to Cannon, August 28, 1836, Niles' Register, LI, 87–88.

48 Houston to Citizens of Texas, August 29, 1836, ibid., LI, 67.

49 Report of Juan Francisco Basques, September 7, 1836, House Ex. Docs., 25 Cong., 2 Sess., XII, Doc. 351, p. 819.

50 Yoakum, History of Texas, II, 191.

51 Ibid., II, 202.

52 Niles' Register, LI, 82.

53 House Ex. Docs., 24 Cong., 2 Sess., I, Doc. 2, pp. 103-105.

54 House Ex. Docs., 25 Cong., 2 Sess., III, Doc. 78, pp. 123, 129.

Troops Withdrawn from Nacogdoches

185

several changes in the disposition of the troops. Five companies of the Sixth and two companies of the Third Infantry were returned to Fort Jesup. Major Riley was ordered to take three companies of the Sixth Infantry to a position on the Sabine River ninety miles north of Camp Sabine. Major Belknap, with two companies of the Third and two of the Seventh Infantry, was ordered to Camp Sabine.55 Brigadier-General Arbuckle, stationed at Fort Gibson, was left in command during the absence of Gaines.

In his report of November 30, 1836, Macomb stated that, according to the latest advices he had received, there were four hundred and twenty-eight men at Nacogdoches. From the reports of Lieutenant-Colonel Whistler, he was of the opinion that there was no necessity for the continuance of the force at that place.

From the views taken of the state of affairs on the Mexican frontier by the general officer [Arbuckle] who has succeeded General Gaines in the immediate command in that quarter, and the instructions he has received, the belief is entertained, that by this time the United States troops at Nacogdoches have been withdrawn, and returned to their respec tive stations within our borders.56

Thus ended the occupation of eastern Texas. The year had brought forth many changes in the country across the Sabine. The occupation of the territory could no longer be of advantage to the United States in the policy of either annexation or recognition; therefore it was abandoned. It remains, however, for us to consider the diplomatic situation which resulted from the occupation.

55 Letter of October 6, 1836, from the Army and Navy Chronicle, in Niles' Register, LI, 162.

56 House Ex. Docs., 24 Cong., 2 Sess., I, Doc. 2, pp. 129–130, 142–143.

CHAPTER X

THE MISSION OF GOROSTIZA

Having examined the military activities of 1836, it is time to turn to the diplomatic side of the case. The most important actor was Gorostiza, the special envoy of the Mexican government, who was sent to Washington to handle a most difficult situation. In order to understand his position and that of the United States government, it seems necessary to give a brief statement of the attitude of the government at Washington toward the Texan revolution, showing what measures were taken to preserve neutrality, how the officials carried out the instructions, and what was the attitude of the courts.

The enthusiasm and sympathy of the people of the United States led to frequent acts in the autumn of 1835 and during 1836, which were in violation of the neutrality act of 1818.1 New Orleans was naturally the point of greatest activity, being the port closest to Texas. Forsyth accordingly addressed a letter to Governor Edward D. White of Louisiana, asking him to interfere in any movements on foot and arrest the parties concerned. He also wrote to Henry Carleton, United States district attorney for the eastern district of Louisiana, saying,

It is the fixed determination of the Executive, faithfully to discharge, so far as his power extends, all the obligations of the Government, and that obligation especially requires that we shall abstain, under every temptation, from intermeddling with the domestic disputes of other nations.

1 Winston, in The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, XVI, 27-62, 277283; Rives, The United States and Mexico, I, 362-371; Barker, in The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, I, 5-7, 10-15.

2 Forsyth to White, October 27, 1835, House Ex. Docs., 25 Cong., 2 Sess., III, Doc. 74, p. 3.