aniards. Its origin and exact signification are
unknown; but it is believed to be an Indian, and perhaps Aztec, term of
scorn and opprobrium.

[17] A _federal_ government, similar to our own, was established in
Mexico in 1824, and overthrown in 1835, to yield to a _central_
constitution. In the meanwhile, the centralists were almost always at
war, openly or secretly, against the _federalists_.

[18] Macaulay's Essays, vol. 2d, p. 356, Bost. Ed.

CHAPTER II.

Origin of the war considered--True objects of contemporaneous history
--Motives for war--No single act caused it--Difference between war
and hostilities--Mexican revolution--Federalism and Centralism--
Operation of the Constitution of 1824--History of our commercial and
diplomatic relations--Bad conduct of Mexico in regard to our claims,
compared with that of other nations--Commission--Award of umpire--
Subsequent course of Mexico--History of the seizure and surrender of
Monterey, on the Pacific, by Commodore Jones in 1842--Secretary
Upshur's censure of his conduct--Ill feeling in Mexico towards the
United States in consequence of this seizure.

An artist in portraying a face or delineating a landscape, does not
imprint upon his canvass, each line and wrinkle, each blade of grass or
mossy stone, yet a spectator recognizes in the complete painting, those
broad characteristics of truth which establish a limner's fidelity. So
it is with the historian. Whilst seeking for accuracy in all his
details, he aims, chiefly, at exactness in his ruling principles and
general effect, but he leaves the minute inelegances and tasteless
incidents to those whose critical fervor delights in detecting them.

It is not alone in the detail of facts that the historian is liable to
incur censure, especially when he writes a contemporaneous narrative. It
is almost impossible to suppose that he will divest himself so
completely of party feeling, as to compose an unprejudiced work. Some
critics have even declared that a historian should possess neither
religion nor country, and would thus force us to believe it utterly
impossible to be impartial unless an author were an infidel or a
cosmopolite.

The age is so characterized by political rancor and so little by true
statesmanship, that it is not surprising to hear such opinions even from
experienced and patient scholars. Yet I have always thought that a
writer who undertakes the task