present pecuniary advantage, nor did it tend to the extension of slave-holding influence in the government."

Mr. Foster, Senator from Tennessee, was frank and open in his avowal in the same debate: "It cannot be denied, Sir, but that the measure is essentially Southern in its character and purposes, and intended, if its policy is hereafter faithfully executed, to protect the South and the South West, both at home and from abroad, in the more peaceful and secure enjoyment of certain property, guarantied to the inhabitants. of that section of the Union, by the solemn sanctions of the Federal Constitution."

The N. H. Patriot, May, 1844, avowed, that "Slavery and the defence of slavery, form the controlling considerations urged in favor of the treaty (of annexation), by those who have been engaged in its negotiations."

Mr. Preston, of South Carolina, in a speech at Baltimore, quoted in the National Intelligencer, Oct. 31, 1844, says: "Annexation was desired, for the purpose of sustaining and extending the institution of slavery, a motive by which he could not be governed. The institution of slavery was one which belonged exclusively to us of the South; it was our own domestic affair; we were to take care of it for ourselves, without any extraneous interference; and he would be the first to resist any such interference. But when he attempted to acquire territory, with a view and for the purpose of extending slavery beyond its proper limits, the case was altered; we had changed our position from the defensive to the aggressive. Were we, who boast of our free principles, to raise the black flag and go to war with a sister republic, to extend the institution of slavery?"

The New York Evening Post, April, 1844, took a similar view of the subject, in an article on the Treaty: "It is evident, that this presents to the people of the Union a question entirely new, and which they cannot avoid. This issue is not as to the abolition of slavery in the Southern

States, the District, nor the Territories of the Union, but whether this government shall devote its whole energies to the perpetuation of slavery; whether all the sister republics on this continent, which desire to abolish slavery, are to be dragooned by us into the support of this institution."

Mr. Calhoun writes a letter to Mr. Pakenham, April 18, 1844, in which he goes into a labored defence of slavery; seems almost to doubt whether the Free States have done well in abolishing it; declares that Texas is to be annexed, to guard against the danger of its being abolished in the Southern States; and finally declares: "That what is called slavery is in reality a political institution; essential to the peace, safety, and prosperity of those States of the Union in which it exists."*

The diplomatic agents, both American and Mexican, agreed as to the object of annexation, however they might differ as to its means and modes.

S. Bocanegra, Minister of Foreign Relations in Mexico, wrote to Mr. Green, chargé d'affaires to the United States, May 30, 1844:† "But when, in order to sustain that slavery, and avoid its disappearance from Texas and from other points, recourse is had to the arbitrary act of depriving Mexico of an integral part of her possessions, as the only certain and efficacious remedy to prevent what Mr. Green calls a dangerous event;' if Mexico should be silent, and lend her deference to the present policy of the Executive of the United States, the reproach and the censure of nations ought to be her reward."

Mr. Green had previously said, on the 23d of the same month, what would justify this Mexican inference: "The undersigned is also instructed to state to the Mexican Gov

*28th Congress, 1st Session, Senate, 341, p. 53.

† Ibid. 2d Session, House of Representatives, Ex. Doc. 2, p. 54. Ibid. p. 52.

ernment, that this step (Treaty of Annexation) was forced upon 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. It was impossible for the United States to witness with indifference the efforts of Great Britain to abolish slavery in that territory. They could not but see that she had the means in her power, in the actual condition of Texas, to accomplish the objects of her policy, unless prevented by the most efficient measures; and that, if accomplished, it would lead to a state of things dangerous in the extreme to the adjacent States, and to the Union itself."

The same idea was continued by Mr. Shannon, American Minister to Mexico, in a letter to S. Rejon, the Mexican Secretary, Oct. 14, 1844:* "It (annexation) has been a measure of policy, long cherished and deemed indispensable to their (United States') safety and welfare, and has, accordingly, been an object steadily pursued by all parties, and the acquisition of the territory made the subject of negotiation by almost every administration for the last twenty years. This policy may be traced to the belief, generally entertained, that Texas was embraced in the cession of Louisiana by France, to the United States, in 1803, and was improperly surrendered by the Treaty of Florida, in 1819; connected with the fact, that a large portion of the territory lies in the Valley of the Mississippi, and is indispensable to the defence of a distant and important frontier. The hazard of a conflict of policy upon important points, between the United States and one of the leading European powers, since the recognition of Texas, has rendered the acquisition still more essential to their safety and welfare; and accordingly, has increased in proportion the necessity of acquiring it."

* 28th Congress, 2d Session, House of Representatives, Ex. Doc. 2, p. 47.

The Treaty of Annexation was lost in the Senate, by a vote of 35 to 16; but when, in 1845, the mode of annexation by Joint Resolution of the Senate and the House of Representatives was under debate, avowals equally bold were made of the pro-slavery views of its warmest friends. I quote out of a multitude only a few of the most explicit declarations.

Mr. Holmes, of South Carolina, member of the House of Representatives, inquired, during the discussion: "Would Southern gentlemen consent to divide Texas into two States: one slaveholding, and one not?· slavery to be admitted into the portion adjacent to the South, while free labor was confined to the portion which bordered on Mexico. Would any Southerner agree to this? Would he cut off his own egress, and fetter the energies of the slave-holding community? If any Southern man assented to such a proposition, he must be either a fool or a knave: a fool, not to perceive its bearing; and a knave, if perceiving it he did not resist it."

Mr. Merrick, of Maryland, said in the Senate:† "The domestic tranquillity of the country is endangered, and if you reject Texas now for reasons such as these, think you that the South will sit down quietly under it? Will the spirit of abolition cease to goad and war upon the sensitive interest of the South? And to what must its assaults inevitably lead? We are now in a minority in both houses of Congress, in point of fact, on this question. Restore the balance of power, and all will be safe. The South does not want power to encroach upon the North; no one dreads or thinks of that. But we need power to defend and protect ourselves. It has grown into a maxim, that the best security for peace is to be prepared for war. The best security for the South is to be able to protect herself.

The

* Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 28th Congress, 2d Session,

P. 108.

† Ibid. p. 233.

balance of power once restored, abolitionists would then let us alone, and this blighting agitation would die its natural death. For these reasons, sir, I am warranted in saying, that, for the purpose of preserving domestic tranquillity, we should admit Texas."

Mr. Ashley, of Arkansas, said in the same debate in the Senate: * "That if Texas should not be admitted, the Southern States must be depopulated. It might be true, that the admission of Texas would change the local position of some of our planters; but that was a matter very immaterial, because their relation to the Union and to the government would still continue the same. All the cotton raised by our citizens would be raised within our own country, and by men having the same feelings and interests with ourselves."

Mr. Johnson, of Louisiana, made these remarks:† "The measure was boldly opposed, in and out of Congress, on the ground that it would perpetuate slavery, and add to the strength and power of the Southern States. Such an opposition, proceeding from such sources, for such purposes, had operated powerfully on his mind in favor of annexation."

"The State he had the honor in part to represent was as deeply interested in the slave question as any other in the Union; and could it be supposed that he could listen with indifference to such attacks, made on the rights of property of its citizens, or oppose a measure calculated, in his opinion, to strengthen those rights, and to promote the permanent prosperity and glory of the nation?”

The Washington Union of May 23, 1845, quoted with approbation the words of an American, who had lately been in Texas, and who congratulated the editors on the success

*Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 28th Congress, 2d Session, p. 287.

† Ibid. p. 224.