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.
Pages:
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286