1

joint resolution affirming that, " by the act of the Republic of Mexico, a state of war exists between that government and the United States." Although the policy which brought about the war was opposed by a large part, if not by a majority, of the people of the United States, the joint resolution was promptly passed with slight opposition, only two votes in the Senate and fourteen in the House being recorded against it.

The acquisition of the vast territory which was brought about by the Mexican War is a subject which belongs rather to our military history than diplomacy. But such an important event must not be passed over too briefly. For some years previous to the war rumors were from time to time put in circulation that Great Britain was contemplating a new foothold on the Pacific, and, to forestall these designs, as early as 1835 Secretary Forsyth proposed to the Mexican government the purchase of California, but without a favorable response. Some years later Commodore Jones, of the United States navy, in cruising along the coast, received a report that California had been ceded by Mexico to Great Britain, and he thereupon landed a force at Monterey and declared California annexed to the United States; but having ascertained that the report was unfounded he withdrew his force and sailed away. The government disavowed his act as done without authority.2

The war consisted of a series of continuous victories for the American armies under Generals Taylor and 19 Stat. at Large, 9; May 13, 1846.

2 Ex. Doc. 166, 27th Cong. 33d Sess. vol. 5.

Scott, and the occupation of the City of Mexico1 by the latter. Mexico was torn by internal dissensions, due in great part to the machinations of Santa Anna, but its people made a heroic but hopeless resistance, and its government never failed, in its relations with the United States, to bear itself with dignity and courage.

Notwithstanding the large vote by which the war was declared, it was not a popular measure with the American people. There was a feeling that by a more temperate and honorable course it might have been avoided. In this sentiment men of opposite parties like Clay and Webster, Calhoun and Benton, participated. "Why not," exclaimed Benton, "march up to fifty-four forty as courageously as we march upon the Rio Grande? Because Great Britain is powerful and Mexico is weak." 2 Even after the brilliant victories of our armies, in the first general election following the declaration of war, a majority opposed to the administration was chosen to Congress. When it assembled a resolution was passed by the House that the war with Mexico was "unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President of the United States." this resolution Webster said in the Senate, March 23, 1848: "I hold that to be the most recent and authentic expression of the will and opinion of the majority of

Of

1 On its occupation by the army, General Scott made a levy upon the city of $150,000 for the benefit of his soldiers. The greater portion of this sum was used under a special act of Congress to found a Soldiers' Home, which now adorns the suburbs of the city of Washington. 9 Stat. at Large, 596.

2 2 Benton's View, 610.

the people of the United States." In this Congress there appeared for the first time two members, who were to play an important part in a national drama, of which this war may be properly termed the prelude Abraham Lincoln 2 and Jefferson Davis.

But this sentiment of condemnation did not prevent President Polk from obtaining from Congress all necessary measures to prosecute the war with vigor and the ratification of his action when the terms of peace came to be acted upon. After the occupation of Vera Cruz by General Scott, the President determined to send a special commissioner to accompany the army on its march towards the City of Mexico, as he proposed to embrace any opportunity to negotiate terms of peace. The person selected for this mission was Nicholas P. Trist, the chief clerk of the Department of State, who had formerly acted as private secretary to President Jackson and as consul at Havana. He carried with him a draft of treaty prepared by the Secretary of State, Mr. Buchanan. He was treated by General Scott as an unwelcome guest, calculated to interfere with his military operations, and after reaching the City of Mexico, owing to the indifference of Scott, he had to resort to the good offices of the secretary of the British legation to secure communication and contact with the Mexican peace commissioners. This young secretary, Edward Thornton, years afterwards represented the British government as minister at Washington in a long and honorable service.

15 Webster's Works, 274.

2 For Lincoln's speech on the war, 1 Nicolay and Hay's Lincoln, 261.

When Trist submitted to the Mexican commissioners Secretary Buchanan's terms of peace, they rejected them as onerous and unreasonable. Upon receipt of Trist's report at Washington, he was ordered to cease further negotiations and return to the United States. The President reported to Congress that "his recall would satisfy Mexico that the United States had no terms of peace more favorable to offer;" and that any offers which Mexico might make were to be transmitted by the commanding general to Washington. For some time after Trist received the instructions respecting his recall, no safe opportunity for his return through the enemy's country was afforded, and meanwhile the Mexican commissioners manifested a desire to reopen the negotiations. In violation of his instructions Trist resumed his conferences which resulted in the treaty of peace of February 2, 1848, named, from the village in the vicinity of the City of Mexico where it was signed, Guadalupe Hidalgo. Its terms were substantially those drafted by Secretary Buchanan.

A strange sequel is connected with the negotiations. Trist's failure to proceed to Washington brought from the executive an order for his arrest and forcible return to the United States, but when it arrived he had achieved success in the signing of the treaty and the order was not executed. On reaching Washington, he found that his pay had been stopped from the date of his recall, and that he was dismissed in disgrace from the service. Twenty-two years afterwards this matter was made a subject of investigation, and a report from the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. The re