The treaty of peace caused no serious trouble. As early as January, 1846, _Le Journal des Débats_ said the Americans would soon have California, and thus prepared its readers for the main feature of our terms. The United States will obtain California, for Mexico cannot pay an indemnity, echoed _Le National_. In reply to Aberdeen's hint on the opening of hostilities, that it would be imprudent for this country to appropriate any Mexican territory, McLane remarked that "it was at present not easy to foresee all the consequences of a war which Mexico had so wantonly provoked, and in which the United States had so much injustice and so many wrongs to redress"; and no British statesman could have failed to understand what this meant.[35.37] When Polk's Message of December, 1846, clearly showed that we expected to retain California, the British newspapers set up an incoherent, savage growl; but the triumphs at Vera Cruz and Cerro Gordo made it plain that we had earned--or were likely to earn--the rights of a conqueror, and must be taken seriously. Bancroft soon wrote that England was "preparing to hear of our negotiating for half, or two thirds, or even the whole of Mexico"; and Palmerston himself said we might as well take it all. "You are the Lords of Mexico," exclaimed Lord Ashburton to our minister. After the occupation of the capital even _Le Journal des Débats_ admitted that the only possible indemnity would be a province or two, and _Britannia_ remarked, "From this time the whole country must be considered as part of the territory of the United States." "It is becoming a fashion, rather, to expect the absorption of all Mexico," reported Bancroft.[35.37] [OUR PEACE TERMS ACCEPTABLE TO EUROPE] When the treaty arrived in Europe, the convulsions of widespread revolution had begun there, people on the continent were too busy to think much about our gains, and the British did not wish to think of them; but the general sentiment of those who considered the matter appears to have been surprise at our moderation. Humboldt, though a citizen of Mexico, conceded that our terms were proper; and the critical _Journal des Débats_ remarked, "Assuredly this is sparing a foe who lies in the dust." Such a characterization of our behavior was for us a legitimate source of pride; and, as the respect universally paid to valor and success accompanied it all over Europe, we had ample reason to feel gratified.[35.37] XXXVI CONCLUSION 1825-1848