The War with Mexico, Volume 1 (of 2)Smith, Justin Harvey
History
The War with Mexico, Volume 1 (of 2)
Smith, Justin Harvey
Mexican War, 1846-1848
The decision of Herrera's administration to reject Slidell, our minister
of peace, was generally regarded--except by the partisan opponents of
our government--as a crowning proof of the vanity of forbearance and
a loud call for action. This nation, said the St. Louis _Republican_,
"owes it to herself and her character, and the just appreciation of her
ministers and her standing in all foreign countries not to suffer so
open an insult to her representative to pass unnoticed." "The indignity
to our Minister requires atonement," was the crisper utterance of the
_Picayune_, which was widely recognized as the best informed authority
on Mexican affairs among our newspapers. The revolution of Paredes
appeared to be a further evidence of hostility. The government of
Mexico, observed the _Delta_ of New Orleans, has been overthrown with no
pretext except the necessity of active war against the United States;
so let war be waged. Finally, the definitive rejection of our peace
overture, announced in Castillo's defiant and offensive note, supplied a
conclusive argument in the opinion of many against further hesitation.
"We have borne and forborne long enough, and a resolute stand should be
taken at once," was the comment of the _Missouri Reporter_. "The United
States," declared the New Orleans _Commercial Bulletin_, "have borne
more insult, abuse, insolence and injury, from Mexico, than one nation
ever before endured from another ... they are now left no alternative
but to extort by arms the respect and justice which Mexico refuses to
any treatment less harsh."[6.6]
[BELIEF THAT EUROPE WAS BEHIND MEXICO]
Another consideration that intensified public sentiment was the
suspicion, which in many cases deepened into something more, that
she was to be used against us by the monarchies of Europe, and in
particular by Great Britain. In 1842, when she made forays into Texas
and threatened a serious invasion, it became a very prevalent opinion
in the United States, reported the Mexican consul at New Orleans, that
England stood behind these movements; and later that country was justly
believed to be working in Texas to defeat and injure us. Her influence
at Mexico was understood to be powerful; and the Americans, not aware
what elements of strength Mexico felt able to count upon, thought she
certainly would not defy us unless assured of foreign support. "Our
people are prone to the opinion, whether well or ill-founded," said the
_Commonwealth_ of Lexington, Kentucky, in February, 1846, "that that
ambitious and mischievous government [of Great Britain] is at the bottom
of Mexican hostility towards us." This was provocation enough. "To fight
the Britishers, all the States are one," complained the London _Times_,
and on this point it was doubtless much closer to the fact than in most
of its deliverances on American affairs.[6.7]
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account