158: "Nothing can exceed, I have always thought, the obstinacy and senselessness manifested by Mexico in refusing for so many years to acknowledge the independence of Texas"; xiii, 351: Our annexing Texas gave Mexico no just ground of complaint (Sept. 29, 1847). In his Memoria of Jan., 1849, the Mexican minister of relaciones called the refusal of Mexico to recognize the annexation of Texas a caprice or whim (capricho). (Never) See note 5. 137Gallatin to Calhoun, Mar. 3, 1848.
2. Sen. 1; 28, 1, pp. 25 (Bocanegra); 27 (Thompson); 34 (Upshur).
3. Sen. 1; 28, 1, pp. 38, 42 (Almonte); 41, 45 (Upshur). 53Memo. of conference between Upshur and Almonte. 53Almonte to Upshur, Apr. 22, 1844. Smith, Annex. of Texas, 194.
4. Smith, Annex. of Texas, 199, 288. Sen. 341; 28, 1, p. 53 (Calhoun).
5. Smith, Annex. of Texas, 289-295. 77Relaciones to Almonte, May 30, 1844. According to Santa Anna's published account of the interview, which doubtless misrepresented the bearer of despatches, Thompson said the assent of Mexico was an essential preliminary to the annexation of Texas, and plainly recognized her ownership of the province, and the President replied that the right of subjugating it would be transmitted to posterity, and assent would never be given to its absorption in the United States. In reply to Bocanegra's assertion that the United States had now recognized Mexico's claim to Texas Calhoun sent word to the Mexican government that we recognized no such claim, but held that Texas was an independent nation both in fact and in right (Ho. 2; 28, 2, p. 23). In Tyler, Tyler, ii, 692, is a statement, apparently based on good authority, that Mexico consented to cede Texas for $15,000,000; but internal evidence and many facts are decidedly against it, and the author has not found the slightest evidence in its support. It was made forty years after the event, and probably was due to a misunderstanding or defective recollection.
Out of this affair grew a diplomatic tilting-match (Ho. 2; 28,2). Bocanegra, though personally agreeable and officially painstaking, dignified and courteous (Thompson, Recolls., 82) was not a great logician; and the son of Duff Green could hardly be regarded as an intellectual giant. Still, certain points emerged from the discussion. The Mexican planted himself on the technical theory of ownership, accused the Texans of stealing the territory which they had been graciously permitted to occupy, and charged the United States in the usual manner with violating treaties and international law. Green, on the other hand, relied upon facts: the fact of actual Texan independence, the fact that Mexico herself owed her existence to a revolution, and the fact that she had regarded herself as independent and had been so regarded by other nations long before the mother-country would recognize her. But the correspondence as a whole was indecisive, disagreeable, and exasperating.
6. Smith. Annex. of Texas, 273-9, 365-7.
7. Smith, Annex. of Texas, 416-7. Shannon and Rejón: Sen. 1; 28, 2, p.47; Ho. 19; 28,2. 52Rejón to Shannon, Nov. 21, 1844. Buchanan to Shannon, no. 10, 1845. 13Bankhead, no. 67, 1844. Von Holst, U.S., ii, 685. Jameson, Calhoun Correspondence, 662. Tyler, Message, Dec. 18, 1844 (Richardson). N. Y. Eve. Post, Dec. 18, 1844. (Rejón) Sosa, Biografias; 52B. E. Greene, no. 17, 1844. N. Y. Herald, Dec. 16, 1844. Nat. Intelligencer, Dec. 20, 1844. Democ. Review, Feb., 1847, 99, 100. Richtofen, Zustände, 54-6. Rejón, Justificación.