We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 December 2015
The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 acquired for the United States one-half of Mexican territory, while the Gadsden Purchase of 1853 secured a more level route for railroads destined to connect the south and the far west. Impatient investors, however, sought immediate union with the west, and the shortest route at hand was across the isthmus of Tehuantepec in southern Mexico. The Department of State advanced these interests, and only on failure turned their efforts to an overland route across Northern Mexico. This latter route would have connected Matamoros on the Rio Grande and Atlantic with Matzatlan on the Pacific. To this goal, Delphy Carlin, an American long-experienced in trade with Mexico, urged Secretary of State Lewis Cass. He was convinced that a line skirting the mountains and connecting these ports would be an ideal boundary; that “all north of that red line is a nuisance to Mexico.”
1 Delphy Carlin to Secretary of State, August 15, 1859. Miscellaneous Letters, Record Group No. 59, MS, National Archives. Carlin at this time was writing from Brooklyn.
2 Manning, William R., Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, Inter-American Affairs, IX (Mexico) (Washington, 1937), 201.Google Scholar
3 Callahan, J. M., American Foreign Policy in Mexican Relations (New York, 1932), p. 211.Google Scholar
4 Manning, op. cit., DC, 89. Secretary Daniel Webster to Robert P. Letcher, August 19, 1851.
5 Ibid. It is to be recalled that the United States urged the boundaries of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo on the basis of her ability to control the Indians.
6 Manning, op. cit., IX, 90.
7 Manuel Larrainzar (Washington) to Secretary Marcy, April 21, 1853. Manning, op. cit., IX, 557. This reluctance of the United States to enforce “neutrality” became an almost constant complaint of Mexico, even into the twentieth century. See Berbusse, Edward J. S.J., “Neutrality-Diplomacy of the United States and Mexico, 1910–1911,” The Americas, XII, 3 (January, 1956), 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Rippy, J. Fred, The United States and Mexico (New York, 1931), chs. 4 and 5.Google Scholar
9 Callahan, op. cit., p. 208.
10 Manning, op. cit., IX, 850.
11 Callahan, op. cit., p. 231.
12 Ibid., p. 231. In describing the Rangers’ return, Professor Callahan speaks of a Mexican ambuscade as a “treacherous Mexican attack.” It is interesting to remark the historians of the United States who justify United States pursuit across international boundaries, while denying the simultaneous obligation to prevent Indians from the United States invading Mexico. In this, they approve Secretary Marcy’s policy. Manning, op. cit., IX, 197. Secretary Marcy to Juan N. Almonte, January 23, 1856.
13 Callahan, op. cit., p. 231.
14 See Villegas-Mendoza, José, “Early Diplomatic Relations Between Britain and Mexico, 1822–1824, A Study in Recognition,” MS thesis for the degree of Master of Arts, Fordham University Library.Google Scholar
15 Delphy Carlin (Brooklyn) to Secretary Cass, August 15, 1859. Miscellaneous Letters, Record Group No. 59, MS, National Archives.
16 Cuevas, Mariano, Historia de la Iglesia en Mexico, V (México, 1946), 295.Google Scholar Also, Mateos, José M., Historia de la Masoneria en Mexico, II (México, 1887), 119.Google Scholar
17 Cuevas, op. cit., V, 308.
18 Cuevas, Mariano, Historia de la Nación Mexicana, III (México, 1952), 94–101.Google Scholar It is to be noted with regret that Mr. Callcott has no comment on the injustice of this legislation; but merely attributes the failure of the constitution to clerical pressure and the vacillation of Comonfort. Callcott, Wilfred H., Liberalism in Mexico, 1857–1929 (Stanford University, 1931), pp. 4–13.Google Scholar
19 Callahan, op. cit., p. 230. James Gadsden (Mexico) to Secretary Marcy, April 3, 1855.
20 Gadsden to Marcy, August 1, September 2, 1854. Manning, op. cit., IX, 729–730.
21 Ibid. Also, Gadsden to Marcy, May 18, 1855. Manning, op. cit., IX, 771–776.
22 Gadsden to Marcy, October 2, 1854. Manning, op. cit., IX, 731–732.
23 Juan N. Almonte (Washington) to Secretary Marcy, May 14, 1855; Juan Alvarez (Mexico) to Gadsden, Dec. 11, 1855; Manuel Robles Pezuela, May 9, 1856. Manning, op. cit., IX, 767–768, 811, 832.
24 John Forsyth (Mexico) to Secretary Cass, April 4, 1857. Manning, op. cit., IX, 903–908.
25 Marcy to Forsyth, August 16, 1856. Manning, op. cit., IX, 209.
26 Forsyth to Marcy, November 8, 1856. Ibid., p. 855.
27 Ibid., p. 856.
28 Forsyth to Marcy, February 2, 1857. Ibid., p. 889.
29 Marcy to Forsyth, March 3, 1857. Ibid., p. 219.
30 Secretary Cass to Forsyth, March 11, 1857. Manning, op. cit., IX, 219.
31 Forsyth to Cass, April 4, 1857. Ibid., p. 908.
32 Forsyth to Cass, April 11, 1857. Ibid., p. 911.
33 Ibid.
34 Cass to Forsyth, July 17, 1857. Ibid., pp. 223–238.
35 Callahan, op. cit., pp. 249–253.
36 Cass to Forsyth, January 6, 1858. Manning, op. cit., IX, 249.
37 With the withdrawal of Comonfort from Mexico, on January 21, 1858, the vacuum of power came under dispute by Conservatives and by the two factions within the Liberal Party: the “Moderados” under Zuloaga and with the blessing of Comonfort, and the “Puros” of Benito Juarez. The latter argued that, in the defection of Comonfort, the Constitution of 1857 provided that he, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, should become President; and he so declared himself under the “Proclamation of Guanajuato.” Zuloaga, on the other hand, was selected by 27 representatives of the provinces, as Interim President in the absence of Comonfort. The government of Juarez vigorously enforced the “Reform” through the nationalization of church property, civil marriage, the secularization of cemeteries, the forbidding of members of the civil government to attend church functions, and the use of confiscated church property for the backing of a loan from the United States. Terror entered into the “Reform” in the form of sacking churches and convents and the exiling, shooting or imprisoning of priests. See Ugarte, José Bravo, Historia de México, Compendium, III (México, 1948), 220.Google Scholar
38 Forsyth to Cass, February 13, 1858. Manning, op. cit., IX, 968.
39 Ibid., p. 969.
40 Forsyth to Cass, March 1, 1858. Ibid., p. 970.
41 Forsyth to Luis G. Cuevas, March 22, 1858. Ibid., p. 973.
42 Ibid., p. 975.
43 Cuevas to Forsyth, April 5, 1858. Ibid., p. 977.
44 Forsyth to Cuevas, April 8, 1858. Ibid., p. 979.
45 Forsyth to Cass, April 16, 1858. Ibid., p. 983.
46 Forsyth to Cass, June 17, 19, 1858. Ibid., pp. 994–1000.
47 Forsyth to Cuevas, June 21, 1858. Ibid., p. 1006.
48 Cass to Forsyth, July 15, 1858. Ibid., p. 253.
49 Forsyth to Cass, July 1, 1858. Ibid., pp. 1011–1018.
50 Forsyth to Cass, May 7, 1858. Despatch, MS, National Archives. Only part of this document is cited by Callahan; all is omitted by Manning. Cuevas, in his Historia de la Nación Mexicana, III, gives the full document; see pp. 117–118.
51 Cuevas, ibid., p. 120.
52 Forsyth to Cass, August 1, 1858. Despatch No. 85, MS, National Archives. Not cited in Manning.
53 Cuevas, , Historia de la Nación Mexicana, III, 123–125.Google Scholar Also, see Planchet, Regis, La Cuestión Religiosa en México (El Paso, 1927), chap. 4.Google Scholar
54 de Zamacois, Niceto, Historia de México desde sus tiempos mas remotos hasta nuestros dias, XV (Barcelona, 1878–1888), 178.Google Scholar Also see The Daily Register, Mobile, Alabama (May, 1859).
55 Manning, op. cit., IX, 1020. Forsyth to Cass, August 31, 1858.
56 Callahan, op. cit., p. 259.
57 Manning, op. cit., IX, 255. Cass to William Churchwell, Dec. 27, 1858.
58 Churchwell to Cass, February 8, 1859. Manning, op. cit., IX., 1025.
59 Churchwell to President Buchanan, February 22, 1859. Manning, op. cit., IX, 1032. The original of this letter is among the Buchanan Papers in the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Italics mine.
60 Churchwell to Cass, February 8, 1859. Manning, op. cit., IX, 1025.
61 Consul Pickett (Vera Cruz) to Cass, April 6, 1858. Consular Despatches, MS, National Archives.
62 R. B. J. Twyman to Cass, July 28, 1858. Consular Despatches, MS, National Archives. Marked “Unofficial”.
63 Twyman to Cass, December 2, 1858. Consular Despatches, Record Group No. 59; also, December 7, 1858. Confer Miscellaneous Correspondence, Record Group No. 84. Twyman to Black (Consul in Mexico City), December 26, 1858.
64 Twyman to Cass, January 21, 1859. Consular Despatches, MS, National Archives.
65 Twyman to Cass, July 28, 1858. Consular Despatches, MS, National Archives. Marked “Unofficial”.
66 Robert M. McLane, in the House of Representatives, January 19, 1848. See Congressional Globe.
67 Ibid.
68 Cass to McLane, March 7, 1859. Manning, op. cit., IX, 258.
69 McLane to Cass, April 7, 1859. Ibid., IX, 1043.
70 José María Mata to Cass, April 26, 1859. Ibid., IX, 1066.
71 John Black to McLane (Mexico City), May 1, 1859 Ibid., IX, 1076–1078.
72 McLane to Cass, May 7, 1859. Despatch, MS, National Archives. The dispute within the Liberal Party was over the disposition of Church property.
73 McLane to Diez de Bonilla (Foreign Minister of Miramón Government), June 11, 1859. Manning, op. cit., IX, 1083.
74 Diez de Bonilla to McLane, June 25, 1859. Ibid., IX, 1096.
75 McLane to Cass, Despatches from Mexico, Vol. 25. National Archives. Not in Manning.
76 McLane to Cass, January 7, 1860. Despatches from Mexico, MS, National Archives. The part of the document cited is not in Manning. Also, see McLane to Cass, December 22, 1860, MS, National Archives. Not in Manning documents.
77 Enclosure in despatch of McLane to Cass, June 22, 1859. Manning, op. cit., IX, 1089.
78 Ibid.
79 Melchor Ocampo (Foreign Minister of Juarez) to McLane, July 9, 1859. Manning, op. cit., IX, 1101.
80 McLane to Cass, July 10, 1859. Ibid., IX, 1105.
81 Cass to McLane, July 30, 1859. Ibid., p. 275.
82 Cass to McLane, November 4, 1859. Ibid., p. 277.
83 McLane to Cass, December 14, 1859. Ibid., pp. 1137–1145.
84 Cass to McLane, January 7, 1860. Ibid., p. 281.
85 McLane to Cass, Nov. 5, 1860. Ibid., p. 1221.
86 Charles Le Doux Elgee to Cass, March 6, 1860. Diplomatic Despatches marked “private and confidential,” MS, National Archives. Not in Manning.
87 Ibid.
88 Cass to McLane, March 8, 10, 1860. Manning, op. cit., IX, 282–283.
89 Cass to McLane, April 28, 1860. Ibid., p. 284.
90 Ibid.
91 McLane to Cass, March 30, 1860. Ibid., IX, 1170–1173.
92 Chargé George R. Mathew to Black, September 27, 1859. Miscellaneous Correspondence, Record Group No. 84. Vol. C. 8. 2.
93 Mathew to McLane, Dec. 11, 1859. MS, National Archives. Not in Manning.
94 Ibid.
95 McLane to Mathew, Dec. 16, 1859. MS, National Archives. Not in Manning.
96 Enclosure with Despatch No. 72 of McLane to Cass, March, 1860. It is a summary of Miramón’s ideas as summarized in an “expediente” of the Vera Cruz Government. Miramón offered this armistice on March 2, 1860.
97 McLane to Cass, March 30, 1860. Manning, op. cit., IX, 1172.
98 Mathew to McLane, May 19, 1860. Ibid., p. 1187.
99 McLane to Mathew, May 25, 1860. Ibid., p. 1189.
100 Mathew to McLane, July 13, 1860. Ibid., p. 1196.
101 McLane to Cass, June 30, 1860. Ibid., p. 1195.
102 Cass to McLane, September 20, 1860. Ibid., p. 289.
103 Cass to McLane, ibid., p. 291.
104 Ibid.
105 Benito Juarez to McLane, December 22, 1860. Enclosure in McLane’s despatch No. 114 to Cass, MS, National Archives.
