Chapter II: Letter 1: Justice on the side of Texas in her war with Mexico

JUNE, 1846.

_To the Editor of the Commercial Journal_:

We continually meet with the phrases in newspapers, English and
American, and especially in Mexican documents, “the robbery and
plunder of Mexico, of her province of Texas,” and of the
“ingratitude of the people of Texas.” These expressions, from
frequent use, have come to have some meaning attached to them
with those who are not acquainted with the true history of the
case. Now what is Mexico, and what particular right had she ever
to Texas? She was once a vice-royalty of Spain, composed of
various Intendencies, or local and subordinate Governments.
These Intendencies, taking advantage of the troubles of old
Spain, set up for themselves, and endeavored to throw off the
Spanish dominion, practising the same thing that Texas has done
as respects Mexico; and if Texas has been ungrateful to Mexico,
for the same reason Mexico has been ungrateful to Spain. But the
struggle for independence was carried on by them separately, and
independently of each other; not united like the British
Colonies in the Revolutionary War. It may be new to some to be
told that Texas not only achieved her own independence without
the aid of any Mexican Province or Intendency, but was actually
the means, through the Americans then inhabiting the country,
with the aid of citizens of the United States, of enabling the
other Mexican Provinces to gain _their_ independence. Before I
am done this will be demonstrated. Mexico owes a debt to the
American people of Texas and of the United States, for her
independence, _if it be worth anything_, and, consequently, the
ingratitude is on her side. But her efforts were finally
successful through the treachery of Iturbide. He was a traitor
to Spain, in whose employment he was, and by one of those
military revolts, since of daily recurrence in the mis-named
Republic of Mexico, overturned the Spanish authority, and
proclaimed himself Emperor! The empire was soon after overturned
by something approaching nearer to a popular revolution in the
Intendencies or Provinces. An attempt at something like a
Republic, followed the downfall of the Emperor. States were
formed out of the Intendencies, and a confederated Republic, in
imitation of the United States, was established in form, but in
form only. Texas, with parts of two other Intendencies, was
constituted one of these States. The confederated Republic was
not long lived. It fell to pieces or was overturned by the
military chiefs, and then each State, was again compelled to
look out for itself. Some submitted, some were subdued by this
military power, the only real power; and others still retain
their preference for the federative system, although compelled
to submit to the central authority. The only one which _did not
submit to the overthrow of the Constitution by a military
usurper, was ungrateful Texas_.

Santa Anna, after having expelled Iturbide, next overturned the
federative system, restored the central power of the city of
Mexico, and at the same time grasped the substance of absolute
power, prudently avoiding the name of Emperor. Troops were sent
to Texas, and these _ungrateful_ people were generously called
upon, _to give up their religion and surrender their rifles_!
The consequence was, that Coss and his fourteen hundred men were
driven over the Rio Grande. People talk of the Texans having no
cause of war, now I ask any one, who has a drop of American
blood in his veins, to say, what he would think of an order by a
military despot, to the people of Alleghany county for instance,
_to give up their religion and their arms_? But then did not
Mexico make grants of land to these ungrateful American
settlers, and did not that entitle her to call upon those
settlers to comply with her moderate requests?[1] It is true,
Mexico did make grants of land in Texas; yes, of land which did
not belong to her, for they were won from Spain by the Texan
Americans themselves, who constituted nine tenths of the people
of that part of the country. And what was the next movement on
the part of Mexico? These grants were made during the federative
system—Americans were invited on account of their valuable
assistance in contending against the Spanish monarchy, and
guarding the frontier against hostile Indians—but when they were
no longer needed, when the lands improved by them, tempted the
cupidity of the military despots, and when their sturdy habits
of independence and love of liberty stood in the way of the
despotic schemes of the military aspirants and plunderers of
Mexico, the next thing was to expel, or exterminate, the
ungrateful and hated North Americans. Santa Anna marched at the
head of ten thousand men for this holy purpose. We may judge of
the humane and civilized spirit of these barbarians, (for whom
so much sympathy is ignorantly felt by some of our fellow
citizens,) by the murder of Fanning and four hundred American
Texans in cold blood, after a surrender as prisoners of war!
This more than diabolical atrocity, is scarcely equalled by the
murder of the Huguenots by the fanatical ruffian, Pedro
Menendez.

Footnote 1:

Terms of reproach like these have been applied to the Texans,
even from the pulpit, by learned divines, who are better
theologians, than jurists or statesmen. As moral men, they
ought to beware how they cast reproach on their neighbors,
without being sure of their facts; and even then, tempered by
charity. If the allusion is to the grants of land made by
Mexico, those grants were made from the most interested
motives. Texas contained but two small towns, San Antonio and
Nacogdoches; all the rest was a wilderness, wandered over by
the Camanches and Lipans, and other hostile Indians, with the
exception of the few American settlements formed by hardy
American pioneers, and maintained by the rifle, at the
constant risk of life. The object of the Mexican Government
was to cover their frontier from Indian depredations by
placing an advanced guard of our countrymen between them and
their savage enemies. The lands of Texas were worse than
useless and worthless to Mexico, because they merely served as
the place of refuge for her savage enemies; she, in fact, gave
nothing that was of any value to her; on the contrary, the
grants were intended for her own advantage and security. But
for these settlements, her whole frontier would have been laid
waste; and many a bloody battle was fought, and many a Texan
life was lost in the border war of which the Mexican Provinces
reaped the benefit. But for the Texans, it is difficult to
say, what would have been the condition of the internal
provinces at this day. After expending millions in money and
labor—after opening farms, building towns, and rearing vast
herds of cattle, the Mexicans begin to discover its value, and
conceived the idea of placing their peon slaves on the
improved lands, which were to be parcelled out among military
chiefs. Besides, the sturdy republican predilections of the
Americans settled in Texas, and their intelligence, were
annoying to the leaders of the military despotism of Mexico.
It was conceived, that the purpose for which they were invited
to take possession of the dangerous post of frontier settlers,
was now accomplished, and that their further services could be
dispensed with; and, at the same time, gratify the cupidity of
their military chieftains. It was they who were frustrated in
the _attempt to steal the Texan lands_, while the Texans did
nothing more than defend their own—that which they had
created, _and which had never been the property of Mexico_.

I am disgusted when I hear persons talk of the injured Mexicans,
when such butcheries as these are passed _in almost approving
silence_. But Santa Anna met, not indeed _with the fate he
deserved_, but such an overthrow, as every true lover of liberty
and political justice ought to desire. His forces were driven
across the Rio Grande; Texas declared her independence; she
successfully maintained it, and proclaimed the Rio Grande as her
boundary, and has devolved that _claim_ upon us. Upon this mere
outline of facts, I appeal to every just and unprejudiced,
unbigoted man, to say, how has Texas been ungrateful to Mexico,
and how have we, or Texas, been guilty of robbing Mexico of an
independent State, which has fairly united her fate with ours?
Mr. Webster says, Mexico is “the most ill-governed country on
earth;” and I will add, that her Government is the most
faithless, unprincipled, and cruel. For the honor of humanity,
there are noble exceptions, doubtless, among the people and her
public officers, nevertheless, such, with too much truth, is the
general character of both.

In 1812, a young man of the name of Magee, who had been a
Lieutenant in the United States service, after resigning for the
purpose, assembled a force of American riflemen between the
Sabine and the Trinity Rivers, and raised the standard of revolt
against Spain, ostensibly under a native named Bernardo. At this
time, the different attempts at revolution throughout the
vice-royalty, had been completely put down, and the last rebel,
Hidalgo, publicly executed. Magee took Nacogdoches, then marched
to La Bahia, where, with four hundred Americans, he withstood a
siege of three months, the American riflemen making such havoc
among the Spanish soldiers in their occasional sorties, that
their commander was compelled to raise the siege and retreat to
St. Antonio; Magee, in the meantime died, not more than
twenty-two years of age. The Americans, in all, about three
hundred, and one hundred Indians, pursued the royal troops until
within twelve miles of St. Antonio. Here they were drawn up
twelve hundred strong, with six pieces of artillery. A charge
was made by the American riflemen, the artillery taken; and on
the same day they took possession of the town. About six months
after this, General Elisondo, with sixteen hundred men, who had
approached the place, was attacked by the Americans with about
nine hundred, (three or four hundred of them native Texans,) and
completely routed. Two Spanish armies were thus entirely
destroyed. A third, under Arredondo, would have shared the same
fate, but for the desertion of Manchaco who led the Texan
Spaniards.

It thus appears, that the revolutionary fire was kept alive in
Texas when every where else extinguished. It was the means of
exciting other revolutionary attempts in different parts of
Mexico. Even after Texas was reduced by the Spanish troops, new
attempts were continually made by Americans, and with partial
success, to regain it. It was, through the medium of Texas, that
supplies were continually obtained to aid the Mexicans in all
their struggles for independence. Hundreds of Americans
sacrificed their lives in every part of Mexico in support of the
cause. In the unfortunate expedition of General Mina, not less
than three hundred Americans embarked, few of whom ever
returned. I am well convinced that without the aid of the
ungrateful Texans, in the supply of men, arms, and means of war,
Mexico could not have gained her independence. And what was the
return made to the citizens of the United States for this, and
for being first to take her by the hand, and recognize her as an
independent Republic? It was natural for Americans to sympathize
with their countrymen in Texas when oppressed by Mexico, and a
determination avowed to exterminate them; and hence, the
principal cause of offence to Mexico, which instigated the
shocking treatment of American citizens engaged in their lawful
pursuits in that country, under the faith of treaties. Nothing
was more common than the imprisonment of Americans in the horrid
prisons of Mexico; for personal liberty, which to us, is the
dearest thing on earth; with them, is the cheapest. Our trade
with Mexico was almost annihilated. In every instance in which
American vessels were seized under some frivolous pretext as an
excuse for plunder, every one on board was thrown into prison
among the vilest malefactors, and compelled, for an indefinite
period, to undergo every kind of suffering, under which a large
proportion actually perished. A stupid and barbarous prejudice—a
fiendish hostility, seems to prevail among the great body of
that people where no opportunity has been afforded of becoming
personally acquainted with us. It reminds one of the ignorant
self-conceit and arrogance of the Chinese, and there seems to be
no way of securing their esteem and respect, but by adopting the
course pursued by the English with the “Celestials.” Our long
forbearance has doubtless tended to encourage this insolence.
They received a timely check from the French when the castle of
Ulloa was battered down with so little ceremony, and the
authorities required to pay on the deck of Admiral Baurin’s
vessel, a million of dollars, as the estimated value of their
plunder of French subjects. They now entertain a high opinion of
French civilization and politeness. England has always held them
under her thumb, by loans, investments, and cajolery, and they
now look to her for aid, support, and sympathy. England has a
deep stake in Mexico; it is to be expected therefore, that she
will sympathize with _her own interests_; that she will do all
she can to excite against us the prejudices of the Mexicans,
exhibiting our conduct through a jaundiced medium, both to
Mexicans and Europeans. No pains will be spared to place us
before the world as in the wrong in this contest. American
editors ought to be on their guard against such partial and
interested representations as that of J. D. Powell’s, “Chairman
of the South American and Mexican Association,” as well as
against the low and scurrilous slanders of the British presses
of Montreal.

H. M. BRACKENRIDGE.

------------------------------------------------------------------------