Treaty fails of Ratification

85

submitting it to Congress. 46 On the following day the treaty was ratified by the Senate, and Poinsett sent it to the United States with the full knowledge that it could not arrive within the time limit and that it would have to be submitted a second time to the United States Senate.47

On April 30 Clay informed the Mexican representative at Washington that the treaty had been ratified by the United States Senate and asked that the ratifications be exchanged," but Obregón was forced to confess that he had not yet received the treaty from his government. On August 2 he informed Clay that he had the ratified treaty in hand and that he was ready to exchange ratifications,50 but he was informed that, as the time limit had expired, the matter would have to be referred again to the Senate. Soon after, Obregón was taken seriously ill and died on September 10. J. M. Montoya, chargé d'affaires, conducted the Mexican legation,52 until the arrival of José María Tornel, who was appointed envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary on November 27, 1829.53 Adams' administration closed without an exchange of ratifications. It was for Jackson's administration to complete the work of his predecessor.

51

46 Poinsett to Clay, April 24, 1828, Congressional Debates, XIV, Pt. 2, App., 135.

47 Poinsett to Clay, April 26, 1828, ibid., 135. 48 Clay to Obregón, April 30, 1828, ibid., 140.

49 Obregón to Clay, May 1, 1828, ibid., 140.

50 Obregón to Clay, August 2, 1828, ibid., 140.

51 Brent to Obregón, August 2, 1828, ibid., 140.

52 Obregón to Clay, August 14, 1828; Montoya to Clay, September 11, 1828, House Ex. Docs., 25 Cong., 2 Sess., XII, Doc. 351, pp. 633–635. 53 Guerrero to Jackson, November 17, 1829, ibid., 639–640.

CHAPTER V

DIPLOMACY RELATIVE TO THE MEXICAN BOUNDARY AND EFFORTS TO PURCHASE TEXAS, 1829-1835

On March 4, 1829, Andrew Jackson took the oath of office as President of the United States and two days later Martin Van Buren was appointed Secretary of State. On April 16 Montoya, the Mexican chargé, addressed a note to Van Buren in which he informed the secretary that he had been given full power to effect the exchange of ratifications of the treaty of limits. He observed that Adams' objection to the treaty was caused by the expiration of the time limit, which made it necessary to submit it again to the Senate; this he supposed had been done at the recent session and he now desired to know if Van Buren were ready to make the exchange.1 Van Buren informed him that no action had yet been taken, and that when the commercial treaty was received, both would be submitted to the Senate.2

Poinsett remained in Mexico for a time under the Jackson administration. A few days after the President's inauguration. he wrote that the Mexican President and Alamán had formed a plan to negotiate a new treaty by which the United States would be reduced to the margin of the Mississippi, on the grounds that Spain had been unjustly deprived of a large part of her territory. He said that the line of the treaty of 1819 had been secured only by the threat that, if the Sabine were not agreed upon, the United States would assume the Rio Grande

1 Montoya to Van Buren, April 16, 1829, House Ex. Docs., 25 Cong., 1 Sess., Doc. 42, p. 49.

2 Van Buren to Montoya, April 22, 1829, ibid., 49–50.

Butler Suggests the Neches Boundary

87

boundary. He said that Congress was wiser than the executive and had compelled the President to confirm the treaty. He again addressed Van Buren in similar vein in July.*

Anthony Butler, an old friend of Jackson, who had been interested in Texas lands, appeared in Washington soon after the inauguration as an applicant for office. He talked freely with the President and Van Buren regarding Texan affairs and eventually drew up a statement regarding the geography and productions of the province, and another paper setting forth arguments for the sale of Texas to the United States. In the latter he suggested that the Neches was the stream called the Sabine in the treaty of 1819. The ideas of Butler became the basis of the policy of the Jackson administration.5

The American minister was informed that he was to open negotiations for the purchase of a part or practically all of Texas. The reasons assigned were that the frontier and New Orleans must be protected and the inhabitants of the Mississippi Valley must be forever secure in the undisputed and undisturbed possession of the navigation of the great river. It was proposed that the United States purchase all that portion of Texas lying east of a line which should begin at the gulf,

in the centre of the desert or Grand prairie, which lies west of the Rio Nueces, and is represented to be nearly two hundred miles in width, and to extend north to the mountains. The proposed line following the . . . centre of that desert north, to the mountains dividing the waters of the Rio Grande del Norte from those that run eastward to the Gulf, and until it strikes our present boundary at the 42d degree of north latitude.

For this territory Poinsett was authorized to offer four million dollars, and, if indispensably necessary, five millions.

3 Poinsett to the Secretary of State, March 10, 1829, Congressional Debates, XIV, Pt. 2, App., 135.

4 Poinsett to Van Buren, July 22, 1829, ibid., 135-136.

5 Rives, The United States and Mexico, I, 235-238; Barker, in The American Historical Review, XII, 790.

If Mexico objected to selling the region about La Bahia and San Antonio de Bexar, he was authorized to agree to any of the following lines. The second proposal was to run the line along the west bank of the Rio de la Baca to its source, then north to the Colorado, up that stream to its source, and thence up the most direct line that would intersect the forty-second parallel and include the head waters of the Arkansas and Red rivers. The third proposal was for a line along the Colorado to its source, and from this point to follow the line of the second proposal. A fourth and last proposition was for a line following the Western bank of the Brazos to the head of its most westerly branch, and then as before to the forty-second parallel. In case that any of these lines were agreed upon, compensation was to be made to Mexico in proportion to the amount of land obtained. In Jackson's memorandum, mention is made of the Trinity as a boundary, but the line was not incorporated in the instructions.

The western limit of Louisiana was also discussed. Van Buren stated that, of the two streams which emptied into Sabine Bay, the western one was the more considerable, and might, with reason, be claimed as the one referred to in the treaty of 1819. He said that the Sabine was navigable only for small craft, that the lands on the east side were poor and those on the Mexican side were good; in consequence, the Mexicans would naturally become numerous in that locality and incessant broils would ensue. It does not seem within the bounds of reason that an American Secretary of State could have been ignorant of the boundary as laid down in the treaty of 1819. The argument that your lands are good, that mine are poor, that therefore I ought to have your lands, could hardly be convincing to Mexico."

The Mexican government was extremely suspicious of Poinsett. He was a prominent York rite Mason and assisted in organizing many lodges in Mexico. The party in power was

6 Van Buren to Poinsett, August 25, 1829, Congressional Debates, XIV. Pt. 2, App., 127-130; Reeves, American Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk, 65-67, note.

identified with the Scottish rite lodges, and it was but natural that Poinsett's masonic activities should arouse suspicions. Open threats were made against him and the state legislature of Vera Cruz demanded his recall. Poinsett defended himself as best he could, proclaiming his innocence in pamphlets and newspapers.7

8

He did not succeed in allaying suspicion; every action of the American government was studiously watched, and when it was rumored that United States troops had recently been stationed along the frontier, Bocanegra, the Secretary of State and of Foreign Affairs, demanded the reason for such action. Poinsett declared that no such movement of American troops had taken place; but if the border Indians were not restrained, it would be necessary for the United States to pursue and chastise them, "even under the walls of Mexico. ''10

In view of Poinsett's unpopularity, the Mexican government determined to ask for his recall, its wishes being communicated to Van Buren on October 17.11 The United States government had already determined upon the recall and on the previous day had prepared a note informing Poinsett that his mission was at an end. It was not despatched, however, until after Montoya presented his request.12

The mission was offered to General James Hamilton of South Carolina, but because of domestic engagements, he was unable to accept,13 and Colonel Anthony Butler of Mississippi

7 Niles' Register, XXXIII, 13–14; ibid., XXXIII, 23–26; ibid., XXXIV, 140; ibid., XXXV, 155. Poinsett, Manifiesto de los Principios Politicos; Poinsett, Esposicion de la Conducta Politica de los Estados Unidos para con las Nuevas Republicas de America; Poinsett, Contestacion del Ministro Americano, a la Escitativa de la Legislatura del Estado de Mexico.

8 Bocanegra to Poinsett, August 20, 1829, House Ex. Docs., 25 Cong.,

2 Sess., XII, Doc. 351, pp. 292–293.

Poinsett to Bocanegra, August 21, 1829, ibid., 293–294.

10 Poinsett to Van Buren, August 22, 1829, ibid., 291–292.

11 Montoya to Van Buren, October 17, 1829, ibid., 638–639.

12 Van Buren to Poinsett, October 16, 1829, ibid., 35-39; Reeves, American Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk, 68-70, note.

13 Kennedy, Texas, I, 374, note.