was called by Mr. Tyler to the office of Secretary of State, and, availing himself of the facilities afforded by his new office, prosecuted with vigor the work of opening another and most extensive slave market.

On the 13th September, 1843, he informed Mr. Thompson of the intention of the Government to remonstrate, in a formal manner, with Mexico, unless she shall make peace with Texas, or shall show a disposition and ability to prosecute the war with respectable forces. This was only another device to provoke a quarrel. The idea of our being offended with Mexico, because she was dilatory in killing our friends and brethren in Texas, was too ridiculous to be seriously pressed, even by Mr. Tyler's administration. A letter written by Upsher, a few days before, to Murphy, our agent in Texas, reveals the true reason why the Cabinet had indulged the thought of bullying Mexico into a peace with Texas. On the 8th September, he tells Murphy, there is a rumor of a plan in England, to raise money for the Texan government, wherewith to abolish slavery, by indemnifying the masters, and that the English capitalists were to take Texan land in payment. "Such an attempt," said the Secretary, ever anxious for the anticipated market for Virginia slaves, "upon any neighboring nation, would necessarily be viewed by this Government with very deep concern; but when it is made upon a nation whose territory joins the slave-holding States of our Union, it awakens still more solemn interest. It cannot be permitted to succeed withous most strenuous efforts on our part to avert a calamity so serious to every part of our country. Few calamities could befal this country more to be deplored than the establishment of a predominant British influence, and the ABOLITION OF DOMESTIC SLAVERY IN TEXAS."*

* Ex. Doc., 1st Sess., 28th Cong. No. 271.

The correspondence between Upshur and Murphy is one of the most humiliating to a true-minded American, of any that has ever disgraced the annals of his country. "So far as this Government is concerned," writes Upshur, September 22d, 1843, "We have every desire to come to the aid of Texas in the most prompt and effectual manner. How far we shall be supported by the people, I regret, is somewhat doubtful. There is no reason to fear there will be any difference of opinion among the people of the SLAVE-HOLDING STATES." Murphy, in his reply, September 24th, 1843, takes the liberty of giving the Secretary of State some shrewd advice,-"Say nothing about abolition ;" and again, in another letter, "Do not offend our fanatical brethren of the north. Talk about civil and political and religious liberty. This will be found the safest issue to go before the world with." In other words, go before the world with a lie in your mouth about the rights and liberty of Texas, which is already as free as we are, and conceal from the people of the north, that our only object is to extend and perpetuate negro slavery. The advice was partially followed, and the cry of "extend the area of freedom" was raised by the slaveholders and their northern allies. But "out of the fulness of the heart the mouth speaketh," and before long, all disguise was set aside, and the true object boldly and unblushingly avowed "before the world," both by the Government and by southern legislatures and popular meetings. The story of the contemplated pecuniary contribution in England to advance the cause of human liberty in Texas, was unfortunately without foundation; like a multitude of similar falsehoods in relation to the anti-slavery interference of England, it was intended to facilitate annexation. On the 17th October, Upshur proposed to the Texan agent a treaty of annexation. The

Mexican Minister at Washington, aware of the intrigues of the Cabinet, gave notice, that if Texas were received into the Union, he must ask for his passports. Mr. Upshur replied in an insulting tone, declining all explanation, and treating with scorn the intimation of Mexican hostility. In the mean time, the Texans having shown less eagerness to enter into the proposed treaty than Upshur had anticipated, he became alarmed, and thought proper to menace even the free and independent Republic of Texas. He wrote to Murphy (January 16th, 1844,) of course for the information of the Texan leaders, that in case annexation should be declined by the latter, "Instead of being, as we ought to be, the closest friends, it is inevitable we shall become the bitterest foes ;" and he warns them, that without annexation, Texas "cannot maintain that institution (slavery) ten years-probably not half that time." To remove all apprehension, that, if Texas should consent to a treaty of annexation, she might be subjected to the mortification of having the treaty rejected for want of the constitutional majority of two-thirds of the Senate in its favor, he hazarded, in his desperation, the following most extraordinary assertion :— "Measures have been taken to ascertain the opinions and views of Senators upon the subject, and it is ascertained that a clear majority of twothirds are in favor of the measure!!" The fact that this very Senate, whose votes Mr. Upshur professed to have canvassed, rejected the treaty, by a majority of more than two-thirds, throws a painful suspicion upon the personal veracity of the American Secretary; and the more so, as no explanation was ever given to the public of the wonderful discrepancy between his canvass and the actual

vote.

Great Britain thought proper to disavow the machinations which it had been deemed expedient by the parti

sans of Texas to ascribe to her. Our Government was, on the 8th April, officially informed, that it was indeed well known to the whole world that Great Britain desired the abolition of Slavery wherever it existed, but that she would not unduly interfere to accomplish it-that she aimed at no dominant influence in Texas, and that, in striving for human liberty, the Government would not "openly nor secretly resort to any measures which can tend to disturb the tranquillity, or thereby affect the prosperity of the American Union." This avowal, so frank and honorable, so becoming a free and a christian people, perhaps hurried the conclusion of the treaty, as it removed one of the pretended reasons alleged for its necessity. Four days after the British document was received, Mr. Calhoun, as Secretary of State, to which office he had been appointed on the death of Mr. Upshur, had the gratification of signing a treaty with Texas, by which that State was annexed to the American Union.

In the proud elation of feeling caused by so signal a triumph in the cause of human bondage, Mr. Calhoun replied on the 8th April, 1844, to the communication from the English Minister. He declared that the President viewed with deep concern, the desire avowed by Great Britain for the abolition of slavery; that in his opinion, Texas by herself, could not withstand a compliance with this desire, and therefore "It is the imperative duty of the Federal Government, the common representative and protector of the States of the Union, to adopt, in selfdefence, the most effectual means to resist it ;" and that, in obedience to this obligation, a treaty of annexation had been concluded. "And this step" (he asserted) " had been taken as the most effectual, if not the only means of guarding against the threatened danger." The next day he addressed a letter to the American Agent in Mexico,

announcing the conclusion of the treaty, a step, he says, "which was forced on the Government of the United States in self-defence, in consequence of the policy adopted by Great Britain in reference to the abolition of slavery in Texas."

The audacious mendacity of this declaration is the more remarkable, as Mr. Calhoun's own language bears witness to its falsity. The readers of these sheets have already had abundant proof, that the annexation of Texas was prompted by other motives than "self-defence" against the anti-slavery policy of Great Britain, as manifested in that Republic. So early as the 27th May, 1836, immediately after the rumor of the battle of San Jacinto, and even before the official account of the victory had reached Washington, and while Great Britain was wholly ignorant of the existence of such a Republic as Texas, Mr. Calhoun, in his place in the Senate, proposed the recognition of the Independence of Texas, and her immediate admission into the Union!! In his speech on the occasion, he remarked, "There were powerful reasons why Texas should be a part of this Union. The southern States, owning a slave population, were deeply interested in preventing that country from having the power to annoy them.”* A revolted province was in actual war with the parent country, and, while the slain in the last battle were still unburied, this champion of slavery proposes the instant incorporation of this province into the Union for the benefit of the slaveholders-utterly reckless of the wickedness of the act, trampling under foot the obligations of neutrality, and regardless of the calamities. of war which such a measure would inevitably inflict upon nis country.

But it is not enough that Mr. Calhoun's statement

* Cong. Globe-29th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 495