State of the Union AddressesPolk, James K. (James Knox)
History
State of the Union Addresses
Polk, James K. (James Knox)
Presidents -- United States -- Messages; United States -- Politics and government -- Sources
Since 1837 the United States have regarded Texas as an independent
sovereignty as much as Mexico, and that trade and commerce with citizens of
a government at war with Mexico can not on that account be regarded as an
intercourse by which assistance and succor are given to Mexican rebels. The
whole current of Mr. De Bocanegra's remarks runs in the same direction, as
if the independence of Texas had not been acknowledged. It has been
acknowledged; it was acknowledged in 1837 against the remonstrance and
protest of Mexico, and most of the acts of any importance of which Mr. De
Bocanegra complains flow necessarily from that recognition. He speaks of
Texas as still being "an integral part of the territory of the Mexican
Republic," but he can not but understand that the United States do not so
regard it. The real complaint of Mexico, therefore, is in substance neither
more nor less than a complaint against the recognition of Texan
independence. It may be thought rather late to repeat that complaint, and
not quite just to confine it to the United States to the exemption of
England, France, and Belgium, unless the United States, having been the
first to acknowledge the independence of Mexico herself, are to be blamed
for setting an example for the recognition of that of Texas.
And he added that--
The Constitution, public treaties, and the laws oblige the President to
regard Texas as an independent state, and its territory as no part of the
territory of Mexico.
Texas had been an independent state, with an organized government, defying
the power of Mexico to overthrow or reconquer her, for more than ten years
before Mexico commenced the present war against the United States. Texas
had given such evidence to the world of her ability to maintain her
separate existence as an independent nation that she had been formally
recognized as such not only by the United States, but by several of the
principal powers of Europe. These powers had entered into treaties of
amity, commerce, and navigation with her. They had received and accredited
her ministers and other diplomatic agents at their respective courts, and
they had commissioned ministers and diplomatic agents on their part to the
Government of Texas. If Mexico, notwithstanding all this and her utter
inability to subdue or reconquer Texas, still stubbornly refused to
recognize her as an independent nation, she was none the less so on that
account. Mexico herself had been recognized as an independent nation by the
United States and by other powers many years before Spain, of which before
her revolution she had been a colony, would agree to recognize her as such;
and yet Mexico was at that time in the estimation of the civilized world,
and in fact, none the less an independent power because Spain still claimed
her as a colony. If Spain had continued until the present period to assert
that Mexico was one of her colonies in rebellion against her, this would
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account