The following day Gorostiza inquired if the American government had received official information confirming the newspaper accounts that Gaines had occupied Nacogdoches,50 the reply being that the last despatch received at the War Department was to the effect that he was encamped at Camp Sabine." 51 On August 4 Gorostiza presented a most strenuous protest against the order authorizing Gaines to occupy Nacogdoches. He pointed out that, on the same theory of interference, it would likewise give the first Mexican general who might reach the Sabine the right of taking a position at Natchitoches, or farther still, in order to drive away the tribes of Indians who might have some intention of entering Mexico. Gorostiza adroitly gave the government an opportunity of throwing the burden upon Gaines. He said that he "has been acting, perhaps without knowing it, under the influence of the friends of Texas, and of the Texians themselves, and that his good faith was constantly beguiled. ''52 The opportunity was ignored; instead, the sending of troops to Texas was brought up. Dickins stated that L. Saunders, the United States district attorney for Kentucky, had found that those who had gone were merely emigrants seeking cheap lands; there had been great excitement because some Kentuckians had been killed in Texas and the papers had published articles to cheer the Texans in their struggle for independence, an explanation which must have amused Gorostiza.53 The Mexican minister at this time was in somewhat of a quandary. He knew that orders had been issued to Gaines but he was unable to ascertain whether the overt act had been committed. He ascertained, however, that the order to Gaines had been issued by the War Department the day before Forsyth had 50 Gorostiza to Dickins, August 2, 1836, House Ex. Docs., 24 Cong., 2 Sess., I, Doc. 2, p. 46. 51 Dickins to Gorostiza, August 4, 1836, ibid., 46. Complaints of Gorostiza 203 told him that he was ignorant of the subject. This, of course, completely dispelled any confidence the Mexican representative might have had in the government. In communicating with his own Department of Relations, he said: "I think that no commentaries are needed, to show the true character and value of such conduct. 9754 Gorostiza next called the attention of the State Department to the fact that Texas had declared a blockade of Matamoros. He held that, as Texas was not an independent power, to declare a blockade was an act of piracy.55 To this the reply was made that the United States had already taken measures to protect its own commerce, and would observe the same strict neutrality as it had in the revolt of the Spanish American colonies.56 Jackson's letter of August 5 to the governors was also sent to Gorostiza.57 The Mexican minister heartily agreed with Jackson's view that Gaines had acted in an unwarranted manner, and then continued: But is it also to be understood that the President withdraws or will withdraw from General Gaines the authorization which he had given him on the 25th of April, and had confirmed on the 11th of July, to advance with his troops as far as Nacogdoches? If Mr. Forsyth can answer the undersigned in the affirmative, he will be fully satisfied, and will, in fact, acknowledge that there is no need of Mr. Forsyth's again occupying himself with those notes.58 Shortly after this Gorostiza complained that General Dunlap had raised three thousand troops in Tennessee for the Texan service, to which reply was made that the attention of the dis 59 54 Two letters, Gorostiza to Minister of Relations, August 18, 1836, House Ex. Docs., 25 Cong., 2 Sess., VII, Doc. 190, pp. 96-97. 55 Gorostiza to Dickins, August 21, 1836, House Ex. Docs., 24 Cong., 2 Sess., I, Doc. 2, pp. 54-55, 56 Forsyth to Gorostiza, August 31, 1836, ibid., 55. 57 Forsyth to Gorostiza, August 31, 1836, ibid., 57-59. 58 Gorostiza to Forsyth, September 3, 1836, ibid., 61-62. 50 Gorostiza to Forsyth, September 9, 1836, ibid., 63. trict attorney of Tennessee had already been called to the matter.60 61 On September 10 Gorostiza wrote that he was convinced that Gaines had occupied Nacogdoches, and urged a reply to his previous communication. Two days later he protested against the action of the collector of the custom-house at New York in allowing the "Brutus," which flew the Texan flag, to enter that port, recognizing the flag, and when the Mexican consul complained, replying that her commander carried a commission from the president of the republic of Texas.62 Forsyth answered that the action of the collector was not looked upon as a breach of neutrality, as the United States was following out the same course which had been preserved between Spain and her revolted provinces. 63 On September 23, a personal conference occurred between the secretary of state and the Mexican minister, at which the former attempted to allay the fear of the latter because of the occupation of Mexican soil, but without apparently changing the views of Gorostiza. Two days later he was shown an abstract of two letters from Jackson to Gaines, which cautioned the American general against holding communication with Mexican or Texan leaders, to observe a strict neutrality, and to withdraw. from Nacogdoches, if he were convinced that the Mexicans had not incited the Indians to war and that they would cease hostilities; but if these conditions did not prove to be true, he was to summon two thousand volunteers from Arkansas and Missouri, and to advance the whole force to Nacogdoches or to any other point favorable for the protection of the frontier. One of the letters further said: "General Gaines must act according to his own discretion, upon the information he may obtain, always 60 Forsyth to Gorostiza, September 16, 1836, House Ex. Docs., 24 Cong., 2 Sess., I, Doc. 2, pp. 63-64. 61 Gorostiza to Forsyth, September 10, 1836, ibid., 66–67. 62 Gorostiza to Forsyth, September 12, 1836, with inclosures, ibid., 63 Forsyth to Gorostiza, September 20, 1836, ibid., 78-79. 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. There was no recourse; the resources of diplomacy were exhausted, and on October 15 Gorostiza demanded his passports.67 66 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.69 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.70 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."1 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. translation appears in House Ex. Docs., 25 Cong., 2 Sess., VII, Doc. 190, pp. 61-120. A 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 ete 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. |