ecognized by Mexico,
but the frontier within which that independence formally existed was
left quite undefined, and the Texan view of it differed materially from
the Mexican. The United States, by annexing Texas, had shouldered this
dispute and virtually made it their own.

It is seldom that historical parallels are useful; they are never exact.
But there are certain real points of likeness between the war waged by
the United States against Mexico in the 'forties and the war waged by
Great Britain against the Boer Republics between 1899 and 1902. In both
cases it could be plausibly represented that the smaller and weaker
Power was the actual aggressor. But in both cases there can be little
doubt that it was the stronger Power which desired or at least
complacently contemplated war. In both cases, too, the defenders of the
war, when most sincere, tended to abandon their technical pleas and to
take their stand upon the principle that the interests of humanity would
best be served by the defeat of a "backward" people by a more
"progressive" one. It is not here necessary to discuss the merits of
such a plea. But it may be interesting to note the still closer parallel
presented by the threefold division of the opposition in both cases. The
Whig Party was divided in 1847, almost exactly as was the "Liberal"
Party in 1899. There was, especially in New England, an ardent and
sincere minority which was violently opposed to the war and openly
denounced it as an unjustifiable aggression. Its attitude has been made
fairly familiar to English readers by the first series of Lowell's
"Bigelow Papers." This minority corresponded roughly to those who in
England were called "Pro-Boers." There was another section which warmly
supported the war: it sought to outdo the Democrats in their patriotic
enthusiasm, and to reap as much of the electoral harvest of the
prevalent Jingoism as might be. Meanwhile, the body of the party took up
an intermediate position, criticized the diplomacy of the President,
maintained that with better management the war might have been avoided,
but refused to oppose the war outright when once it had begun, and
concurred in voting supplies for its prosecution.

The advocates of the war had, however, to face at its outset one
powerful and unexpected defection, that of Calhoun. No man had been more
eager than he for the annexation of Texas, but, Texas once annexed, he
showed a marked desire to settle all outstanding