Avowedly limiting his treatment to diplomatic history, Dr. Reeves has chosen to restrict further his subject-matter to the four important questions which, in these two administrations, were prominent in the public mind, and has omitted the lesser problems of foreign relations. These four matters were all concerned with the territorial limits of the United States, and involved as the other parties to the disputes Great Britain and Mexico: with the former, the boundaries on the northeast and the northwest were at issue: with the latter, Texas and California constituted the debatable ground In each case Dr. Reeves has given a careful outline of the earlier phases of the controversy, afterwards developing in detail the settlement—whether by peaceful negotiation or as the result of war—which was reached under Tyler and Polk. The masterful and patient work of Webster, and the successful accom*plishment of the Ashburton treaty are discussed and brought to a con*clusion in the early chapters: our relations with Mexico are then traced to the time of Webster’s resignation from Tyler’s cabinet; the question of the annexation of Texas as handled under Tyler by Upshur, and after the latter’s tragic death, by Calhoun, is brought down to the beginning of Polk’s administration and to the annexation by joint resolution: next is taken up the northwestern boundary question in its origin, through the period of joint occupation, and the Oregon treaty of 1846: finally Polk’s determination to have California, the missions of Parrott and Slidell, Polk’s negotiations with Santa Anna through Atecha and Mackenzie, and the curious selection, as confidential agent to arrange a peace, of Nicholas Philip Trist, bring the volume to a close with the conclusion of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
The negotiations with Great Britain during the period under con*sideration have been thoroughly worked over, and in a new treatment of them it is the author’s judgment of persons and cases rather than additions to our knowledge that is of chief interest. Dr. Reeves’ narrative is eminently fair in its tone, and is cordial in its appreciation of Lord Ashburton, Lord Aberdeen and Sir Robert Peel. But about the dealings with the Mexican government, the causal relations between the Texas and California questions and the Mexican war, and the personality of President Polk, there has been more of an air of mystery. It is in just this field that the clear analysis and keen criticism of Dr. Reeves’ book are most apparent. The central thesis is this: that the Mexican war and the conquest of California formed a distinct episode, completely disassociated from the annexation of Texas.
Hence Dr. Reeves stands in the attitude of sharp criticism of the older view elaborated in Von Holst’s history, that these two events were but links in the chain of a southern conspiracy for territorial expansion in the interest of slavery [emphasis added]. Dr. Reeves’ conclusions thus far agree with those of another grateful student of this period, Prof. George P. Garrison of Texas. With Dr. Reeves’ account of Jackson’s policy toward Texas should be compared the article in the
American Historical Review for July, 1907, by Prof. E C. Barker.
The author gives succinctly the reasons for the misconception of Polk and his administration. These were “the rapid succession of political events ending in civil war” by which “public attention was drawn away from the causes to the consequences of the Mexican war.” Books appearing soon after the event, animated not by a spirit of unbiased historical investigation, but written with the professed purpose of pre*senting a brief against the aggressions of slavery, have furnished in large measure the materials for the history of the period. The treat*ment of the subject of the Mexican war in the ‘reviews’ of Jay and Livermore, well-constructed and widely distributed as they were, and fortified by an examination of published documents and newspapers, has grown into the narrative of Von Holst.
The sources, and especially the record of Parrott’s mission and the instructions given to Slidell prove, on the contrary, two things: (1) that the Mexican war was
not the result of the annexation of Texas, and (2) that the reopening of diplomatic negotiations with Mexico was for the purpose of securing California by purchase. Claims against Mexico unsettled since Jackson’s day, the undetermined boundary of Texas, Mexico’s unwillingness or inability to pay in cash were to lead to a demand for territory; and the clash of the Mexicans with Taylor was a lucky accident, not the cause of the war, which would have been declared whether this had taken place or not.