During his presidency, Martin Van Buren viewed Texas annexation as political albatross around the neck of the Democratic party especially if it led to war with Mexico. While his predecessor Andrew Jackson approached the subject cautiously, Martin Van Buren outright rejected it. Texas just was not a priority for Martin Van Buren unlike Jackson who during his first term made it a priority to purchase the province of Texas from Mexico and was willing to risk war with Mexico if Congress approved.
According to the Miller Center, Andrew Jackson's attempts to purchase Texas from Mexico as helping "helped sow seeds of mutual distrust that would bear fruit in war between the United States and Mexico a decade later". During Jackson's first term he assigned agent Anthony Butler to negotiate the terms of sale, but the negotiations devolved into a downward cycle of bribery and personal influence. To make matters worse, under the mismanagement of Butler, claims regarding the seizure of American vessels, mistreatment of citizens and injustices inflicted on merchants piled up. It got so bad that President Jackson labeled Butler a "scam" believing him to be a notorious liar and a self-promoting diplomat. If the shady negotiations and mismanagement of claims weren't bad enough, the constant flow of American settlers into Texas agitated Mexico and aroused suspicions of an American scheme to get Texas. Texas was off the table for Jackson. In fact, when Texas did separate from Mexico on May 11, 1836, Jackson prudently refused to recognize the republic without full congressional approval.
Nevertheless, Jackson still took a hardline against Mexico when it came to damage claims made by American citizens against Mexico. On this matter, Jackson was still willing to risk war with Mexico as long as the actions he took were viewed as just and approved by Congress. In his last months of his presidency, Jackson urged Congress to authorize the use of naval force against Mexico if the Mexican Government refused to "to come to an amicable adjustment of the matters".
"we should act with both wisdom and moderation by giving to Mexico one more opportunity to atone for the past before we take redress into our own hands. To avoid all misconception on the part of Mexico, as well as to protect our own national character from reproach, this opportunity should be given with the avowed design and full preparation to take immediate satisfaction if it should not be obtained on a repetition of the demand for it. To this end I recommend that an act be passed authorizing reprisals, and the use of the naval force of the United States by the Executive against Mexico to enforce them, in the event of a refusal by the Mexican Government to come to an amicable adjustment of the matters in controversy between us upon another demand thereof made from on board one of our vessels of war on the coast of Mexico." - Andrew Jackson 1836
Jackson seemed willing to use force and even enter into war with Mexico, but successor, Martin Van Buren however did not. Instead, Van Buren chose to dwell on what he called, "the aggravating circumstances connected with our claims upon Mexico". Van Buren referenced his predecessor's attempts to recommend a "final demand of redress, with a contingent authority to the Executive to make reprisals if that demand should be made in vain.". According to Van Buren, before any reprisals are taken, Congress wanted the President to make one last demand. That demand had been sent to Mexico but came back empty. It was now up to Congress to determine a course of action for reprisal. Jackson wanted to use Naval force, but Van Buren seemed to pull back some. Instead, he told Congress it was his "painful duty" to ask Congress to decide on "the measure of redress". While Jackson requested "the use of the naval force of the United States by the Executive", Van Buren whatever their decision be, he would faithfully execute it.
"it has become my painful duty to return the subject as it now stands to Congress, to whom it belongs to decide upon the time, the mode, and the measure of redress. Whatever may be your decision, it shall be faithfully executed." - Martin Van Buren 1837
The process and procedures seemed to be the same, but the tone was much different. Van Buren did not want war with Mexico and would do nothing to provoke it. As for Texas, despite a formal proposal from Texas Minister Memucan Hunt Jr in August of 1837, Van Buren did not even mention it in his state of the Union Address. For the next four years, Texas annexation would be on the back burner. Here is an excerpt from President Martin Van Buren's first State of the Union address on our relations with Mexico.
The aggravating circumstances connected with our claims upon Mexico and a variety of events touching the honor and integrity of our Government led my predecessor to make at the second session of the last Congress a special recommendation of the course to be pursued to obtain a speedy and final satisfaction of the injuries complained of by this Government and by our citizens. He recommended a final demand of redress, with a contingent authority to the Executive to make reprisals if that demand should be made in vain. From the proceedings of Congress on that recommendation it appeared that the opinion of both branches of the Legislature coincided with that of the Executive, that any mode of redress known to the law of nations might justifiably be used. It was obvious, too, that Congress believed with the President that another demand should be made, in order to give undeniable and satisfactory proof of our desire to avoid extremities with a neighboring power, but that there was an indisposition to vest a discretionary authority in the Executive to take redress should it unfortunately be either denied or unreasonably delayed by the Mexican Government.
So soon as the necessary documents were prepared, after entering upon the duties of my office, a special messenger was sent to Mexico to make a final demand of redress, with the documents required by the provisions of our treaty. The demand was made on the 20th of July last. The reply, which bears date the 29th of the same month, contains assurances of a desire on the part of that Government to give a prompt and explicit answer respecting each of the complaints, but that the examination of them would necessarily be deliberate; that in this examination it would be guided by the principles of public law and the obligation of treaties; that nothing should be left undone that might lead to the most speedy and equitable adjustment of our demands, and that its determination in respect to each case should be communicated through the Mexican minister here.
Since that time an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary has been accredited to this Government by that of the Mexican Republic. He brought with him assurances of a sincere desire that the pending differences between the two Governments should be terminated in a manner satisfactory to both. He was received with reciprocal assurances, and a hope was entertained that his mission would lead to a speedy, satisfactory, and final adjustment of all existing subjects of complaint. A sincere believer in the wisdom of the pacific policy by which the United States have always been governed in their intercourse with foreign nations, it was my particular desire, from the proximity of the Mexican Republic and well-known occurrences on our frontier, to be instrumental in obviating all existing difficulties with that Government and in restoring to the intercourse between the two Republics that liberal and friendly character by which they should always be distinguished. I regret, therefore, the more deeply to have found in the recent communications of that Government so little reason to hope that any future efforts of mine for the accomplishment of those desirable objects would be successful.
Although the larger number--and many of them aggravated cases of personal wrongs--have been now for years before the Mexican Government, and some of the causes of national complaint, and those of the most offensive character, admitted of immediate, simple, and satisfactory replies, it is only within a few days past that any specific communication in answer to our last demand, made five months ago, has been received from the Mexican minister. By the report of the Secretary of State herewith presented and the accompanying documents it will be seen that for not one of our public complaints has satisfaction been given or offered, that but one of the cases of personal wrong has been favorably considered, and that but four cases of both descriptions out of all those formally presented and earnestly pressed have as yet been decided upon by the Mexican Government.
Not perceiving in what manner any of the powers given to the Executive alone could be further usefully employed in bringing this unfortunate controversy to a satisfactory termination, the subject was by my predecessor referred to Congress as one calling for its interposition. In accordance with the clearly understood wishes of the Legislature, another and formal demand for satisfaction has been made upon the Mexican Government, with what success the documents now communicated will show. On a careful and deliberate examination of their contents, and considering the spirit manifested by the Mexican Government, it has become my painful duty to return the subject as it now stands to Congress, to whom it belongs to decide upon the time, the mode, and the measure of redress. Whatever may be your decision, it shall be faithfully executed, confident that it will be characterized by that moderation and justice which will, I trust, under all circumstances govern the councils of our country.
References
“First Annual Message.” First Annual Message | The American Presidency Project, 5 Dec. 1837, www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/first-annual-message-4
“Special Message” | The American Presidency Project, 6 Feb. 1836, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/special-message-4019
https://millercenter.org/president/jackson/foreign-affairs
Jonas, Peter M. “William Parrott, American Claims, and the Mexican War.” Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 12, no. 2, 1992, pp. 213–40. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3124152.
No comments:
Post a Comment