The appearance of this volume is one of many indications that thoughtful students of American history are beginning to see the other side, even in such a heat-provoking controversy as that relative to the causes of the Mexican War. The time seems to have come, indeed, for reconsideration of the subject and for a searching examination of the conclusions relative thereto which have been given general currency by such historians as Schouler and von Holst and by the text-book makers who have followed them. Old views should not be discarded simply because they are old, nor the new accepted because of their newness; but all should be brought to the test of a searching and dispassionate review, and valid evidence should be critically distinguished from that which is not valid. Mr. Owen protests against the methods that have been used by most historians in dealing with the Mexican war, and challenges their conclusion as to its injustice. The method which he condemns consists in using unsupported opinion and assertion as determinative evidence; and his allegations against many prominent writers that have somehow been led to use it are convincingly sustained. Another feature of the method in question which might well have been criticized more severely is that of using uncertain interpretations of such statements as Polk's remark to Bancroft forecasting the work of his administration, or such documents as the instructions to Larkin concerning the policy to be pursued in California, as if they were not open to doubt. The conclusion that the war was unjustifiable Mr. Owen refuses to accept because it has been reached only by the use of the method against which he inveighs.
In order to make it possible to judge how far the personal equation appears in his work, Mr. Owen tells something of his antecedents. The son of a Free-Soiler, and himself an employe of the "underground railroad," a Federal soldier during the Civil War, a supporter of Fremont, and of Lincoln, Grant, and several other Republican presidents, he sees nothing in his personal experiences to give him "an undue liking for the ways of the slaveholders," or any prejudice for or against any National administration "Unless it be a strong impression made by General Hawley's repeated expression, 'Uncle Sam is a gentleman.' " And he adds concerning Uncle Sam: "Only when anything said against him is proved can it be received in silence—and with sadness." From such utterances can be judged the spirit in which the book is written.
One chapter is given to the opinion of Senator John M. Niles. A brief discussion of Niles's personality and antecedents, showing his anti-slavery tendencies, as well as his courage and strength of character, is summed up in the statement, "It is difficult to imagine a man more fit in 1848 to form a deliberate and intelligent judgment upon this subject [the causes of the war with Mexico], or more absolutely to be relied on for an honest and fearless one, than Senator Niles." Then is quoted from a speech delivered by Niles in the Senate, February 9, 1848, an expression of his judgment concerning the justice of the war, the essence of which is in the following words: "We stand well in relation to this war before the world, and have nothing to fear from the impartial judgment of posterity."
After a brief argument for the principle that "character is evidence," and that it "goes far, and ought to go very far, toward making people incredulous of charges of baseness made against men of honorable repute," Mr. Owen proceeds to consider the character of the American people, of the Anglo-American colonists of Texas, and of the Mexicans. He then gives a summary review of the causes of the war, with a brief glance at the conflict itself and its consequences; the tendency of his argument being to show that the war was just, and that the charge of improper motives which has been so freely and persistently made against those who are responsible for it can not be sustained.
A few inaccuracies are to be noted. "William G. Wooten," p. 94, note, should be Dudley G. Wooten; "Colonel Ugart[e]chea," p. 105, should be Lieutenant Castañeda; "Castrillo," p. 115, should be Castrillon; "and May 1, 1846," p. 252, is not the proper date of the passage of the joint resolution of annexation.
Concerning the question as to Austin's map which Schouler describes as having been published in 1837, it should be noted that the first draft of the map was made in 1829, and that it was first published in 1833 by H. S. Tanner of Philadelphia. The reviewer has seen copies of the first edition and of another published in 1840 and a photograph of a copy of an edition published in 1836. How many other editions there may have been, he is unable to say; neither can he tell how far the additions and variations that appear in that of 1836 were authorized by Austin himself. Certainly no map appearing in 1837 could be claimed to represent Austin's views at the time of its publication; for he died on December 27, 1836.
On the whole, while Mr. Owen has taken, on one or two points, e. g., that of the Texan claim to the Rio Grande boundary previous to annexation, rather extreme ground, his work is a valuable addition to the literature of its subject; and it could be read with profit by many of the best known historians of our time.
G. P. G.How to cite:
"The Justice of the Mexican War: a Review of the Causes and Results of the War, with a View to Distinguishing Evidence from Opinion and Inference", Volume 012, Number 3, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online, Page 241 - 243. http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v012/n3/review_7.html
[Accessed Wed Dec 3 23:15:22 CST 2008]
