Congressman Lincoln and the return of the wooden leg of General Santa Anna

[Thomas Thorne]

To argue that treaties between states that define borders that have been accepted for over 165 years are less legitimate than the boundary demanded by the losing side in multiple wars can lead to no end of mischief.

Of course the terms imposed by Texas in the War of Independence and the United States in the Mexican War relating to the Southern borders of Texas were coercive. That is typical in situations in which states wage war against each other and one side loses. The Mexican government's reaction to the peace imposed by Sam Houston in 1836 was not just disagreement over which river was the boundary of Texas but rejection of the very idea of an independent Texas republic. Mexican armies subsequently invaded the Republic of Texas on multiple occasions and twice seized San Antonio.

It is interesting that the Mexican government only offered to recognize Texan independence provided that Texas not become part of the United States but this offer was made too late to affect the annexation of Texas. As a sweetener Mexico even offered to submit the southern boundary dispute to arbitration by Britain and France.

In the last century perhaps the most famous coercive peace was the Treaty of Versailles where a defeated Germany accepted among other things loss of territory to an independent Poland. Of course the Germans could have refused to accept the treaty but to do would have resulted in the resumption of World War I which the Allies by the disarmament of the German armed forces via the 1918 Armistice clauses made any German military resistance hopeless.

Now we know what happened when the Germans feeling as aggrieved as the most fiery Mexican patriot sought to overturn the loss of territory they thought was rightfully theirs. The Poles and the majority of inhabitants of the Mexican cession might disagree with nationalisms not their own.
Tom