more than fifteen thousand negroes must have been landed! Sir T. F. Buxton stated that in 1837 and 1838, no less than "fifteen thousand negroes had been imported from Africa into Texas." Other accounts rate the number still higher. One Taylor, of Barbadoes, was convicted of sending free negroes to this new market, and selling them. The Albany Argus of 1844, mentions the case of one man who sent ten thousand dollars to Cuba for the purchase of human beings. The emigrants from the United States had a palpable motive to expose this infamous traffic, and seek to extinguish it, because it cheapened their own slaves. *

The project of annexation was not suffered to sleep, but from year to year was cherished and developed by its zealous and untiring friends. The great end, too, which it would eventually subserve, was kept distinctly in view.

Mr. Upshur, Secretary of State, wrote to W. S. Murphy, chargé d'affaires of the United States in Texas, in a letter dated Washington, Aug. 8, 1843, as follows; "The establishment, in the very midst of our slave-holding States, of an independent Government, forbidding the existence of slavery, and by a people born for the most part among us, reared up in our habits, and spreading our language, could not fail to produce the most unhappy effects upon both parties. If Texas were in that condition, her territory would afford a ready refuge for the fugitive slaves of Louisiana and Arkansas, and would hold out to them, an encouragement to run away which no municipal regulations of those States could possibly counteract.”

*

"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.” †

*Moody's Facts for the People, pp. 69, 70.

† 28th Congress, 1st Session, Senate, 341, pp. 21, 22.

On Sept. 22d, the subject was renewed; he said: "there is no reason to fear that there will be any difference of opinion among the slave-holding States; and there is a large number in the non-slave-holding States; with views sufficiently liberal to embrace a policy absolutely necessary to the salvation of the south, although, in some respects, objectionable to themselves." *

He wrote to Mr. Murphy, Jan. 16, 1844, "if Texas should not be attached to the United States, he cannot maintain that institution ten years, and probably not half that time." †

Said Mr. Murphy to Mr. Upshur, Sept. 23d; "Saying nothing therefore which can offend even our fanatical brethren of the North; let the United States espouse at once the cause of civil, political and religious liberty (?) in this hemisphere; this will be found to be the safest issue to go before the world with." ‡

*

He wrote on Sept. 24th;

"The

Constitution of Texas § secures to the Master, the perpetual right to his slave, and prohibits the introduction of slaves into Texas from any other quarter than the United States.

"If the United States preserves and secures to Texas the possession of her Constitution, and present form of Government, then we have gained all we can desire, and also all that Texas asks or wishes."

"Take this position on the side of the constitution and the laws, and the civil, political and religious liberties of the

* 28th Congress, 1st Session, Senate, 341, p. 26. ‡ Ibid. p. 25.

† Ibid. p. 46.

§ Art 8. Sec. 1. Laws of Texas. "The Legislature shall have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves, without the consent of their owners, nor without paying their owners previously to such emancipation, a full equivalent in money for the slaves so emancipated."

people secured thereby, (saying nothing about abolition) and all the world will be with you." *

Mr. Upshur writes, Nov. 21, 1843, in a letter to Mr. Murphy, "we regard it, (annexation) as involving the security of the South; and the strength and prosperity of every part of the Union."

It would be easy to quote by chapter and verse, from the official documents of the time, many passages of a similar import. But as Mr. Calhoun has said, "I may now rightfully and indisputably claim to be the author of that great event," (annexation), let us look at his declarations on this subject.

His language was to Mr. Pakenham, the British Minister, April 18, 1844: "It is with still deeper concern the President regards the avowal of Lord Aberdeen of the desire of Great Britain to see slavery abolished in Texas.‡

And on the 19th, he wrote to Mr. Green, chargé d'affaires to Texas: "It was impossible for the United States to witness with indifference the efforts of Great Britain to abolish slavery there." §

Respecting the Treaty of Annexation, then under negotiation, he wrote to the British Minister, on the 27th, that "It was made necessary in order to preserve domestic institutions, placed under the guaranty of their (United States

* 28th Congress, 1st Session, Senate, 341, pp. 23, 24.

† Printed speech in the Senate, Feb. 24, 1847, p. 3.

28th Congress, 1st Session, Senate, 341, p. 50.

Mr. Benton well criticised this extreme sensitiveness, in his speech in the Senate on the Treaty of Annexation, May 16, 18 and 20, 1844. Reported in the National Intelligencer, May 30, 1844. "Great Britain avows all she intends, and that a wish- to see slavery abolished in Texas; and she declares all the means which she means to use, and that is, advice where it is acceptable.

"It will be a strange spectacle, in the nineteenth century, to behold the United States at war with Mexico, because Great Britain wishesto see the abolition of slavery in Texas."

§ 28th Congress, 1st Session, Senate, 341, pp. 54, 66.

and Texas) respective constitutions, and deemed essential to their safety and prosperity."*

And in a speech in the Senate, Feb. 24, 1847, he said,— "Sir, I admit, even at that early period, I saw that the incorporation of Texas into this Union, would be indispensable both to her safety and ours. I saw that it was impossible that she could stand as an independent power between us and Mexico, without becoming the scene of intrigue of foreign Powers, alike destructive of the peace and security of both Texas and ourselves. I saw more: I saw the bearing of the slave question at that early stage, and that it would become an instrument in the hands of a foreign Power, of striking a blow at us; and that two conterminous slave-holding communities could not co-exist without one being wielded to the destruction of the other.”†

The Galveston Gazette, April, 1844, rejects the idea that any-thing less than slavery over the whole vast region of Texas would be accepted by the Southern States. It says that, "It is thrown out, in some of the papers of the United States, that the annexation of Texas is to be a measure effected by a compromise, a condition being that the Territory of Texas is to be divided into three States, in one of which slavery is to be tolerated while it is to be prohibited in the others. This idea, we think, must have originated from

*This panic was afterwards confessed by some of the chief actors in annexation to be a mere ruse, got up for the sake of effect, and without any substantial foundation in facts. See Gen. Samuel Houston's Letter to a friend on the subject, published in 1848, and his speech in the Senate, Feb. 19, 1847, Congress. Globe, 29th Congress, 2d Session. p. 459. And yet so strong was the jealousy of foreign interference thus excited, that Mr. Choate used this language in his speech in the Senate on the Treaty of Annexation, May 22, 1844; Sir, besides the apprehension that England will, by treaty or influence, induce Texas to emancipate her slaves, besides this, there is not even the pretence of a reason for this war (by the separation of Texas from Mexico) on your friend. This apprehension is all."

† Printed speech, p. 8.

other than official sources; and the measure proposed would, we believe, be far better calculated to defeat than to secure the success of the project of annexation. It might satisfy the North; but it would displease the South in the same proportion, and would, we feel confident, never receive the sanction of the slave States."

Numerous testimonies to the deep interest taken by Southern statesmen in the measure of annexation, as destined to enlarge, not "the area of freedom," but of slavery, may be gathered from the discussions both in and out of Congress, on the Treaty offered to the Senate for confirmation by President Tyler. In his Message of April 22, 1844, he said: "At the same time, the Southern and the SouthWestern States will find, in the fact of annexation, protection and security to their peace and tranquillity, as well against all domestic as foreign efforts to disturb them.”*

Mr. McDuffie took the same view, in his speech in the Senate, May 23, 1844, reported in the National Intelligencer, June 8th. Speaking of the African race, he said: "That population in the United States cannot be diminished, but must be increased. Now, if we shall annex Texas, it will operate as a safety-valve to let off the superabundant slave population from among us, and will, at the same time, improve their condition; they will be more happy, and we shall be more secure. But if you pen them up within our present limits, what becomes of the free negroes, and what will be their condition?"

Mr. Archer, of Virginia, asked in the Senate,† June 8, 1844: "Did this result, of keeping open a drain for slave labor in Texas, involve no advantage to the slave holding States? Certainly, the highest advantage. But it was not

* 28th Congress, 1st Session, 341, p. 6.

† 28th Congress, 1st Session, Appendix to Congressional Globe, May, 1844 p. 696.