Replies

And to top it all off, a simple glance at the history of Velasco reveals that Lincoln was perpetrating a falsehood when he claimed that it did not set the border at the Rio Grande!

An original copy of the second half of the treaty exists in the Texas Archives: http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasures/republic/velasco-private-1.html

Who's propagating half truths now? What Lincoln is referring to is the first half of the treaty--the public half. The part you're referring to is the secret, second treaty. And here's what the Texas State Library site you linked to says about it: "On May 26, General Vicente Filisola began withdrawing Mexican troops in fulfillment of the public treaty. However, the Texas army blocked Santa Anna's release by the Texas government. Moreover, the Mexican government refused to accept the treaties on the grounds that Santa Anna had signed them as a captive. Since the treaties had now been violated by both sides, they never took effect. Mexico was not to recognize Texas independence until the U.S.-Mexican War was settled by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. "

Who's propagating half truths now? What Lincoln is referring to is the first half of the treaty--the public half. The part you're referring to is the secret, second treaty.

Yeah, secret in 1836. Lincoln spoke in 1846 by which time the treaties were already entered records. That he premised his speech on the wrong half of the treaty indicates either gross ignorance or willful deception on his part. That would make Lincoln either a fool or a liar - I'll let you pick which one.

And here's what the Texas State Library site you linked to says about it

I'm amused at how willing you are to take your history lessons out of the unsourced snippets of a bureaucracy, but what we do know of the 1840's indicates that Texas very much so considered the treaty to be valid and binding. Polk's speech treated it the same, referencing the Rio Grande boundary stipulation. The only people who seemed to have an issue with it at the time were, obviously, the invading Mexicans and those giving them aid and comfort in the minority party of Congress, among them Lincoln.

Since the treaties had now been violated by both sides, they never took effect.

Is this a new rule of treaties? Consider the Treaty of Paris (1783). It called for the following:

...his Brittanic Majesty shall with all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any Negroes or other property of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies, garrisons, and fleets from the said United States, and from every post, place, and harbor within the same

And:

It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.

The British violated the first one and the Americans the second. The Americans also continued to persecute loyalists after the war, something banned by the treaty. Does this mean that the Treaty of Paris never took effect?

Of course, the Treaty of Paris also said there should be perpetual peace between his Brittanic Majesty and the American states and that navigation of the Mississippi River shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain. So much for "perpetual" and "forever".