The Compromise of 1860, not 50!

[cw1865]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:T...36_to_1848.PNG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:W...c_of_texas.png

Its a good image showing the disputed boundary.

[trice]

Originally Posted by cw1865

Its true, traditionally the boundary was considered to be the Nueces. However, the land between the Nueces was essentially a no man's land (not that Mexico wasn't claiming it, just that there really just wasn't much there. The 'difference' on the Gulf isn't actually what matters, its obviously how the river tails off that makes a big difference.

Yes, Santa Anna is a prisoner, but he IS the government. What happens is that essentially Santa Anna becomes a dictator, disbands Congress - sections of the nation go into open rebellion (its not JUST Texas), Santa Anna loses at San Jacinto and gives Texas independence with the Rio Grande, and THEN the Mexican nation reasserts control and declares Velasco Treaties null and void.

Well, no. That may be a very nice way for Texans to justify this to themselves, but it is obvious that the people making the deals at the table in 1836 did not agree with this view.

For example, in the original agreement I pointed you to, they include this article:
=====
10th. The President Santa Anna, and the Generals Don Vicente Filasola, Don Jose Urea, Don Joaquin Ramires y Sesma, and Don Antonio Gaona, do, by this act of subscribing this instrument, severally and solemnly pledge themselves on their inviolable parole of honour, that in the event the Mexican Government shall refuse or omit to execute, ratify, confirm and perfect this agreement, they will not, on any occasion whatever, take up arms against the people of Texas, or any portion of them, but will consider themselves bound, by every sacred obligation, to abstain from all hostility towards Texas or its citizens.
=====
Very clearly, they understood that Santa Anna could be over-ruled and did not have the power to make a binding agreement with them in his then-current situation (i.e., as a prisoner, with his life at stake). What they are discussing here is a personal agreement between the local military commands, with the hope that it will be approved by higher authority.

Now, this boils down to the Treaties of Velasco (the public one and the secret one). Those are tainted by Santa Anna's situation (a prisoner with his life on the line, and the main argument is whether he'll be shot, hung, or what). At this point Santa Anna needs to get back down to Mexico City and re-establish his control or none of this will count. Santa Anna himself had given up the Presidency and appointed a successor on January 27, 1835. While no one doubted he was the power behind the scenes, he was not head of the Mexican government when he lost the battle of San Jacinto.

Originally Posted by cw1865

Another thing to consider is what the Rio Grande and Nueces AREN'T - Neither river is a true 'cultural frontier' in the same way that the Rhine is or the Alps are. At best the Nueces is a PROVINCIAL boundary and obviously a '19th century' one at that. Look at some contemperanous boundary disputes, ie. UK/USA up in the Northwest where US is claiming a nice chunk of British Columbia and the UK is claiming into what is now Oregon (pretty wide discrepancy).

We are talking about legal boundaries here, not a "cultural frontier".

The Nueces strip was NOT considered part of Texas at that time. It never had been considered part of Texas. The "PROVINCIAL boundary" is there because it is a Mexican province -- just as US states such as Ohio and Kansas have boundaries established by the US government. Very obviously, it is a "'19th century' one" because the time was 1836 and that is in the 19th Century. Why would some later time matter?

Originally Posted by cw1865

Bottom line here is that whereas the US is blessed with relatively effective leadership, the Mexicans get cursed with Santa Anna and the only reason why Mexicans challenge it after US annexation is because they think they can win (Mexicans have more troops in Matamoros than Taylor brings).

This is the might makes right argument. The truth is that the Mexicans repudiated the treaty of Velasco in 1836, ten years before the US annexation, and that there was fighting in this area during that decade between Mexico and Texas. Texas NEVER established their claim to the area, which has what can only be called a very dubious claim to the Nueces strip, and the US President knew it when he deliberately inflamed it into a war. You will find that Abraham Lincoln, U. S. Grant, and Robert E. Lee all concurred that this was an unjust war based on a false claim.

Regards,
Tim

[cw1865]

"Texas NEVER established their claim to the area." (I mess up the quote feature somehow)

How do you explain Corpus Christi then? (and to be honest I don't know if that guy thought he was in Texas or Mexico, but he was an Anglo)

But on a very simple level, Velasco can be interpreted to mean that Mexico will recognize Texan independence with a boundary at the Rio Grande and in exchange hostilities will cease. A repudiation of the Treaty means that Mexico is simply denying its existence. And there's the rub; the problem isn't JUST the boundary, by repudiating the treaty, the Mexican government isn't just claiming up to the Nueces, they're claiming Texas, and they even tell the US that an annexation of Texas will be considered an act of war.

So, EVEN IF, the treaty can properly be repudiated by Mexico (on the basis that Santa Anna has no authority; and I still say a repudiation is spurious), the US is still within its rights to send troops right to the Rio Grande to challenge Mexico to 'Come and Take It'

So, yes, you're correct, the US is clearly out to take Mexican lands, but the Mexicans are itching for a fight too, they have designs on New Orleans and frankly they initiate the first engagement because they think they can win.

Lincoln is famous for challenging Polk to show him the spot. I know of Grant's objections to the conflict, but Lee? wasn't familiar with that and actually am a little bit surprised because generally Southerners are for this one. (Grant and Lee are too junior for their opinions to matter at the time)

Oh, and by the way, NEVER argue your side in Texas, they actually might kick your a-- ;-) (joking)

[trice]

Originally Posted by cw1865

"Texas NEVER established their claim to the area." (I mess up the quote feature somehow)

How do you explain Corpus Christi then? (and to be honest I don't know if that guy thought he was in Texas or Mexico, but he was an Anglo)

Beats me. What is it you think changes anything and want me to explain?

Originally Posted by cw1865

But on a very simple level, Velasco can be interpreted to mean that Mexico will recognize Texan independence with a boundary at the Rio Grande and in exchange hostilities will cease. A repudiation of the Treaty means that Mexico is simply denying its existence. And there's the rub; the problem isn't JUST the boundary, by repudiating the treaty, the Mexican government isn't just claiming up to the Nueces, they're claiming Texas, and they even tell the US that an annexation of Texas will be considered an act of war.

Sure. But unless Mexico accepts the Treaties of Velasco, the border of Texas is the Nueces River, as it has been all along. The only way the treaty gets accepted is if Santa Anna gets back to Mexico City and seizes control again. The government rejected the treaty; Santa Anna went into exile. No treaty, no change of the border. That is the way it works.

Originally Posted by cw1865

So, EVEN IF, the treaty can properly be repudiated by Mexico (on the basis that Santa Anna has no authority; and I still say a repudiation is spurious), the US is still within its rights to send troops right to the Rio Grande to challenge Mexico to 'Come and Take It'.

Nope. First of all, the Texans knew at the time that the Mexican government COULD reject the treaty, which is why it is in the original agreement at San Jacinto. There is no doubt about that, so you cannot say this is "spurious".

Second of all, the US had no say in the matter of where the border was (even granting the annexation was legal, which many Americans disagreed with). Mexico got to decide where the border was because this was part of Mexico. Texas either has the pre-revolution border, or what they can get Mexico to accept in a treaty. No treaty, so it is still the Nueces.

The President decided he wanted it all, so he staged a situation where a fight would start, marching troops into an area that was -- to say the least -- unresolved. Everyone knew it. R. E. Lee, before he started for the front, wrote a letter describing his feelings about this unjust war; Grant wrote of it in his Memoirs; Lincoln and others made speeches about it in the halls of Congress. Polk and the Manifest Destiny types just got away with it, and the country was pleased enough with victory and expansion to let it slide.

Originally Posted by cw1865

So, yes, you're correct, the US is clearly out to take Mexican lands, but the Mexicans are itching for a fight too, they have designs on New Orleans and frankly they initiate the first engagement because they think they can win.

Sure they think they can win that fight; so what. The US Army had marched well past the Nueces before it started, spoiling for a fight. Polk wanted the war and provoked it -- but the border of Texas hadn't changed in decades, and it was not the Rio Grande.

Originally Posted by cw1865

Lincoln is famous for challenging Polk to show him the spot. I know of Grant's objections to the conflict, but Lee? wasn't familiar with that and actually am a little bit surprised because generally Southerners are for this one. (Grant and Lee are too junior for their opinions to matter at the time)

Lee's was in a private letter as he was leaving Washington for the front. It was a common opinion at the time.

Originally Posted by cw1865

Oh, and by the way, NEVER argue your side in Texas, they actually might kick your a-- ;-) (joking)

Nah, I know a few Texans. <g>

Regards,
Tim

[cw1865]

I still don't have this quote feature worked out, so try to follow me a little bit - if I am getting confused on the quotes, just let me know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865
"Texas NEVER established their claim to the area." (I mess up the quote feature somehow)

How do you explain Corpus Christi then? (and to be honest I don't know if that guy thought he was in Texas or Mexico, but he was an Anglo)

Beats me. What is it you think changes anything and want me to explain?
I was just responding to your assertion that Texas never exercised authority over the strip. Its clear that between San Jacinto and the US annexation that Texas, essentially being the weaker party is sitting back essentially awaiting the results of the internal strife in Mexico (Mexico subduing other renegade provinces).
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865
But on a very simple level, Velasco can be interpreted to mean that Mexico will recognize Texan independence with a boundary at the Rio Grande and in exchange hostilities will cease. A repudiation of the Treaty means that Mexico is simply denying its existence. And there's the rub; the problem isn't JUST the boundary, by repudiating the treaty, the Mexican government isn't just claiming up to the Nueces, they're claiming Texas, and they even tell the US that an annexation of Texas will be considered an act of war.

Sure. But unless Mexico accepts the Treaties of Velasco, the border of Texas is the Nueces River, as it has been all along. The only way the treaty gets accepted is if Santa Anna gets back to Mexico City and seizes control again. The government rejected the treaty; Santa Anna went into exile. No treaty, no change of the border. That is the way it works.
Santa Anna does go into exile, but he comes back like a bad hangover! Without a treaty there is no recognition of an independent Texas, a state of belligerence is still in effect. Between Jacinto and US Annexation, the Mexicans DO stage raids of Texas north of the Nueces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865
So, EVEN IF, the treaty can properly be repudiated by Mexico (on the basis that Santa Anna has no authority; and I still say a repudiation is spurious), the US is still within its rights to send troops right to the Rio Grande to challenge Mexico to 'Come and Take It'.

Nope. First of all, the Texans knew at the time that the Mexican government COULD reject the treaty, which is why it is in the original agreement at San Jacinto. There is no doubt about that, so you cannot say this is "spurious".
I say its spurious because clearly the Mexican government does not wish to recognize the results of San Jacinto; after their army is sent back.

Second of all, the US had no say in the matter of where the border was (even granting the annexation was legal, which many Americans disagreed with). Mexico got to decide where the border was because this was part of Mexico. Texas either has the pre-revolution border, or what they can get Mexico to accept in a treaty. No treaty, so it is still the Nueces.
The US becomes the successor to Texas’ claims after annexation. For purposes of the Nueces/Rio Grande dispute we have to assume that the annexation is legal (US courts have held it to be so obviously, but if we begin to argue that point this will go way off on another tangent) Only the Federal government has authority to negotiate international boundaries. While I agree that the Nueces was the border between Texas and Coahuila (which are actually in the same department making it more like a county line than a state line), it does not mean that the border cannot be reset as a result of conflict. What Texas is saying to Mexico is that if you wish hostilities to cease, you must recognize Texas WITH a boundary at the Rio Grande. This is not an unreasonable boundary adjustment; after all the Texans WIN the battle. Any treaty that comes out of a war can be said to be made ‘under duress’, as in under duress of further hostilities, ie. accept our terms or continue to fight. And the Mexicans continue to fight, Santa Anna goes into Texas again in 1842.

The President decided he wanted it all, so he staged a situation where a fight would start, marching troops into an area that was -- to say the least -- unresolved. Everyone knew it. R. E. Lee, before he started for the front, wrote a letter describing his feelings about this unjust war; Grant wrote of it in his Memoirs; Lincoln and others made speeches about it in the halls of Congress. Polk and the Manifest Destiny types just got away with it, and the country was pleased enough with victory and expansion to let it slide.
I knew of Grant’s objection, but Lee surprises me because he’s a Southerner. Generally the Southerners are for the Mexican American war hoping to carve slave states out of the resulting territory and the Northerners are against it, of course being free soilers. The raging debate has more to do with slavery than with the actual merits of the disputed border.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865
So, yes, you're correct, the US is clearly out to take Mexican lands, but the Mexicans are itching for a fight too, they have designs on New Orleans and frankly they initiate the first engagement because they think they can win.

Sure they think they can win that fight; so what. The US Army had marched well past the Nueces before it started, spoiling for a fight. Polk wanted the war and provoked it -- but the border of Texas hadn't changed in decades, and it was not the Rio Grande.
This is the 19th century, when you win wars you win land. Great example is Alsace-Lorraine changing hands after Franco-Prussian War, WWI, and WWII (twice)
Santa Anna issues a cassus belli, he invades Texas in 1842, I’m sorry but if that isn’t spoiling for a fight I don’t know what is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865
Lincoln is famous for challenging Polk to show him the spot. I know of Grant's objections to the conflict, but Lee? wasn't familiar with that and actually am a little bit surprised because generally Southerners are for this one. (Grant and Lee are too junior for their opinions to matter at the time)

Lee's was in a private letter as he was leaving Washington for the front. It was a common opinion at the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865
Oh, and by the way, NEVER argue your side in Texas, they actually might kick your a-- ;-) (joking)

Nah, I know a few Texans. <g>

The statement, “The border is the Rio Grande,” is virtually Gospel in Texas ;-)