At the time of the Louisiana purchase there were joint claims of France and Spain to the territory lying west of the Sabine River,1- France basing its rights upon the occupation by La Salle, and Spain upon the general extent of her Mexican possessions. The United States in acquiring Louisiana obtained the rights of France to regions west of the Sabine, which in the opinion of Jefferson were valid.2 The question, however, remained in dispute till 1819, when the United States, in her treaty with Spain, using in the negotiations the map of John Melish, "improved to Jan. 1, 1818," abandoned all claims beyond the Sabine. This line was reaffirmed by a treaty with Mexico, then become (1821) independent, in 1828,4 and again after Texas acquired independence, by a treaty with that new commonwealth in 1838. Texas by this time was largely populated from the Southern States, and tenders to purchase the region had been made by the United States government in 1827 and 1829, but Mexico declined to sell.5 The American organizing spirit of the settlers finally made of that part of the joint territory of Texas and Coahuila, which was under American influence, a separate State of the Mexican dominion, and when Santa Anna in 1835 attempted to reduce its political con

dition to one of greater dependence on the central government, a revolution followed, and on March 1, 1836, a declaration of independence was promulgated.1 Gen. Houston, in April, led a small band of Texans against Santa Anna's much larger force, captured the Mexican President, and wrung an acknowledgment of independence from him, and opened the way for regular diplomatic relations with the United States, which however, in 1837, refused to entertain the Texan proposals for annexation, while they acknowledged her independence.2 The course of politics in the United States, however, soon built up a Southern party of annexation, which readily found Northern adherents; and the scheme was formulated, or, as its opposers contended, a plot was devised, which, after being defeated by the Senate of Tyler's time, was consummated in Polk's administration.4

The movement towards annexation had been for some time gathering impetus,5 and party lines became sharply drawn, — the South and its sympathizers deeming the representation that it would give them in Congress necessary to offset the growing preponderance of the North. In the North the opponents divided themselves into those who would preserve that preponderance, as destined to exterminate slavery, who held the measure to be beyond the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution, and who deprecated it as a step to war with Mexico and further conquest. Calhoun was the leader of the aggressive annexationists.6 The final annexation complicated the question of bounds. The successors of Santa Anna did not agree to his recognition of Texan independence, and it was a dispute in any event whether the limits of Texas on the Mexican side should be the Nueces River or the Rio Grande, still farther to the west. Beyond the

1 Of the separate histories of Texas (on the name of Texas, see Mag. Amer. Hist., Feb., 1882, p. 145; and H. H. Bancroft's No. Mexican States, 391), covering its pre-annexation days, the chief is H. Yoakum's Hist. of Texas, 1685-1846 (N. Y., 1856), in two vols. Others of less importance are by N. D. Maillard (London, 1842); J. M. Morphis (N. Y., 1874); and H. S. Thrall (N. Y., 1876). The best account of the disruption from Mexico is in H. H. Bancroft's Mexico, v. ch. 7. An address by an actor of the times, Ashbel Smith, Reminiscences of the Texas Republic (Galveston, 1876), makes no. 1 of the Publ. of the Hist. Soc. of Galveston. There are various papers on the history of Texas during its republic days in the Texas Almanac for 1859, and in the Mag. Amer. Hist.: vol. ii., the Alamo (p. 1) and Houston (p. 577); iii., in 1836 (May); iv., San Jacinto (p. 32); viii., San Jacinto (p. 55); ix., the colonization (p. 157); xi., the republic (p. 38); xi., Houston's Indian life (p. 401); xii., the diplomacy leading to annexation (p. 101), — not to name others, and Reuben M. Potter is the author of many of them. The career of Sam. Houston is closely connected with the theme. Cf. C. Edward Lester's Sam. Houston and his Republic (1846), written with Houston's privity; a Life of S. H. (N. Y., 1855); William Cary Crane's Life and select literary remains of Sam. Houston (Philad., 1885), in two vols., formed with the aid of Houston's papers, and embodying his messages, etc., as President of Texas. Another personal narrative is Col. [David] Crockett's exploits and adventures in Texas; together with a topographical, historical, and political view of Texas. Written by himself. The narrative brought down from the death of Col. Crockett to the battle of San Jacinto, by an eye-witness (Philad., 1836). Other contemporary records are: Henry Stuart Foote's Texas and the Texans (Philad., 1841), in two vols., to the end of the Texan revolution; W. Kennedy's Rise and Progress of Texas (London, 1841; N. Y., 1844). Cf. also A Texas scrap-book. Made up of the history, biography, and miscellany of Texas and its people (New York [1875]); and Benton's Thirty Years' View (i. ch. 144-5). There are also contemporary observations in C. Newell's Hist. of the Revolution in Texas (N. Y., 1838), and in The origin and true causes of the Texas insurrection (Philad., 1836).

• Cf. the message of President Jackson, Dec. 21, 1836, on the political, military, and civil condition of Texas, in Doc. 20, 24th Cong., 2d sess. (Washington, 1836). Van Buren sent in a message on the subject, Sept. 30, 1837. The conservative revolt from any spirit of acquisition is well shown in Dr. W. E. Channing's Letter to Henry Clay (Boston, 1837), which the Mexican papers were glad to translate and publish (Mexico, 1837).

3 Cf. Messages of May 31 and June 3, 1844; and the Report of Com. on Foreign Affairs, Feb. 4, 1845; Theo.

• Niles's Reg., lxii. 138; Benton's Thirty Years, ii. ch. 24; Von Holst's History, ii. ch. 7; Yoakum's Texas, ii. ; Lester's Sam. Houston; Jay's Review of the Mexican War; S. J. May's Reminiscences of the Anti-Slavery Conflict; Goodell's Slavery and Anti-Slavery.

• Cf. Benton's Debates, xii. 764; his Thirty Years, ii. ch. 135, 138-142, 148; and Roosevelt's Benton, ch. 13; Von Holst's History, ii. 551, 585, and his Calhoun, 222; Calhoun's Works, iv. ; Niles's Reg., lxvi. 172, 230; Tucker's U. S., iv. 232, 329; L. G. Tyler's Tylers, ii. 250, and his paper in the Mag. Amer. Hist., Juné, 1882, p. 377. The constitutional argument in opposition found its strongest presentation in Webster (Benton's Debates; Webster's Speeches; Curtis's Webster, ii. 233, 247, 253). J. Q. Adams had attacked the project early and late (Von Holst, ii. 603; Debates, xiii., xvi.; his Memoirs, xi.). The antislavery front is depicted in such books as Wilson's Slave Power; Greeley's Amer. Conflict, ch. 12; George W. Julian's Polit. Recoll., 1840-1882 (Chicago, 1884), and the numerous anti-slavery writings of that and of later days. In general, on the political aspects of the movement, see Benton's Debates, xv., etc.; Niles's Reg., lxvi.; Von Holst, ii. and iii.; Draper's Civil War, i. ch. 22; Schurz's Clay, ii. ch. 24, 25; Parton's Jackson, iii. 654; Sumner's Jackson, 355; the speeches of all the leading political characters, like Clay, Calhoun, Choate (S. G. Brown's Life of R. Choate, 3d ed. 149), Winthrop (Addresses, i.), not to name others. Tucker and Gay are the only considerable general histories of repute which come down late enough. The popular periodical treatment will be reached through Poole's Index, p. 1296; the large number of Congressional documents through Poore's Desc. Catalogue, p. 1376. The resolutions in Congress to annex and admit Texas are in Statutes at Large, v. 797 ; ix. 108. Some of the more essential documents are in the Statesman's Manual, Donaldson's Public Domain, 121; and those bearing on constitutional relations are in Towle, p. 367, etc. There is no good key to the numerous pamphlets which the discussions elicited. One of the earliest surveys among such is Veto's Thoughts on the proposed Annexation of Texas, originally published in the N. Y. Evening Post, and later separately. 7 The Texas government, Dec. 19, 1836, had announced the Rio Grande as its bounds on Mexico.

Nueces, however, Texas had not established practical jurisdiction. The attempt of the United States to take military occupation of the country up to the Rio Grande brought on the Mexican War, as was evidently hoped that it would.

BOUNDS WEST OF THE MISSISSIPPI.*

* The 49th parallel was, by the convention of 1818, made the northern boundary west of the Lake of the Woods to the Rocky Mountains, which are indicated by the line of crosses (xxxx); thence to salt water, by the treaty of 1846; and finally determined, as run among the islands, out to the ocean by the arbitration of the German emperor in 1872. The purchase of Louisiana (1803), as covering the territory west of the Mississippi to the Rocky Mountains, left the bounds on the Spanish possessions somewhat uncertain till the Florida treaty of 1819 settled the line as beginning at the Gulf of Mexico, thence passing up the Sabine River along the dotted line to the Red River, which it followed, and then turning due north on the line (— -) to the Arkansas River, thence to its source, from which it ran due north to the 420 N. lat., and thence to the Pacific. The annexation of Texas (1845) included the territory between the Sabine and the Rio Grande, and up the latter to its source, and thence due north to an affluent of the Arkansas, out of which, by purchase from Texas, the United States added portions to other States, as the map shows. The narrow strip between the Indian Territory and New Mexico was retained as public lands. The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) added the region south of 42° and west of the upper Rio Grande and the meridian line from its source, and north of Rio Gila and the connecting lines from its mouth to the Pacific, and from its source to the Rio Grande. The strip between Rio Gila and the present bounds on Mexico ( -), stretching from the Colorado to the Rio Grande, constituted the Gadsden purchase (1853). Maps showing the territorial acquisitions and changes in boundaries are numerous: in Donaldson's Public Domain, Walker's Statistical Atlas, Census of 1870; McMaster's United States, ii.; Fisher's Outlines of Universal History; H. E. Scudder's Hist. United States, 279; Alexander Johnston's United States, 167; Mag. Amer. Hist., Oct., 1886, p. 333; Fournal Amer. Geog. Soc., xiv. (1882); Bulletin, no. 3, accompanying a paper by General E. L. Viele on the "Frontiers of the United States," not to name others. These maps not infrequently fail to correspond with each other in minor particulars, as in including Oregon in Louisiana (McMaster's is far wrong in the bounds of Oregon), the making of Kentucky a part of the Public Domain, the extension of Louisiana to the Perdido River; and unless the scale is large, the projection at the Lake of the Woods and the Pennsylvania triangle are often overlooked.

For general treatment of the subject see S. W. Stockton on "The areas and political divisions of the United States, 1776–1876,” in the Statistical Atlas of the Ninth Census, and B. A. Hinsdale's "Bounding the Original United States,” in Mag. Western History, Sept., 1885, p. 412; and of course the government publications of Donaldson and Gannett.

Texas had undertaken her revolt from Mexico with little or no financial resources,1 except so far as her public lands could be pledged for revenue and she could collect import duties. To meet these loans she reserved these public lands at annexation, and losing her duties, the settlement of the future bounds which she should have as a State secured to her a sum of $10,000,000 from the United States in compensation for lands which she claimed by a northerly extension of her territory, and which she abandoned under the Congressional Boundary Act of Sept. 9 (consummated Dec. 13), 1850. New Mexico had been occupied during the war by Gen. Kearny,2 and was now set up as a territory, with bounds on the State of Texas fixed by the 32° parallel of N. latitude and the 103° meridian, while a strip between 36° 30′ and 37° N. lat., and lying between the Indian Territory and New Mexico, was also included in the cession.8

The annexation under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo added to the United States the territory of California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, the westerly portions of New Mexico and Colorado, and the southwesterly part of Wyoming, and necessitated a new boundary line on Mexico, running from the Pacific easterly in an irregular way, mainly in the direction of the 33d degree of north latitude, till it reached the Rio Grande, then to the Gulf of Mexico.5

At the time of the acquisition of Louisiana there was no exact knowledge of the headwaters of the Mississippi. The French had best known the upper valleys, both of the Mississippi and the Missouri, and the original authorities are given by Margry.6 After the occupation of Louisiana, the United States government dispatched an expedition under Zebulon Montgomery Pike to discover the springs of the great river.7