public, to the vote of the people of Texas, and the result was overwhelmingly in favor of the proposition. A few years earlier, conditions in the United States had been much more favorable for such a movement; but, at the time when it actually came, slavery was forcing itself into notice as the fundamental issue of American politics, and the contest over the right of petition was rousing an antagonism to the institution in the North that acted with paralyzing effect on the instinct of expansion.1 Many, like Adams, were now willing to forego any further territorial accession altogether if it involved an enlargement of the slave-holding area; and these joined at once in determined opposition to the wishes of Texas and of the South. The leaders were generally disconcerted by the appearance of this new and unmeasured force in American politics. Only men like Adams and Calhoun, with whom conviction did not bow to expediency, spoke out unmistakably concerning Texas. Even the impetuous and decided Jackson seems to have recognized from the first the danger of precipitating the question. He was never hesitant or cautious except when confronted by the problems involved in dealing with Texas; but in this case his reserve and delay seem almost to reach the point of temporizing and of following the lead of Congress. Early in July, 1836, both the 1 Cf. Hart, Slavery and Abolition (Am. Nation, XVI.), chap. Senate and House passed resolutions-the Senate unanimously, and the House by a vote of 128 to 201-to the effect that Texas should be recognized when the assurance was obtained that it could properly maintain its independence. The subsequent vote, however, of the Texans in favor of annexation tended to handicap the struggle for recognition by connecting the two. Jackson's policy towards Texas was marked by unusual circumspection: his convictions on the subject were positive enough, and his tendency to delay recognition was perhaps due at the outset to his fear of a mischievous reaction on the interests of Van Buren, whom it was his darling project to elect as his successor, and later to his habitual persistence in a policy once adopted, and to his desire not to embarrass the new administration by bequeathing to it a toovigorous programme. In the summer of 1836 he sent an agent, Henry M. Morfit, to Texas to report on its condition and prospects; and on December 22 he submitted the report to Congress along with a message in which, in accordance with the views of Morfit, he recommended that recognition be postponed. Nevertheless, the Senate, on March 1, 1837, passed a resolution recognizing Texas, an appropriation was made to cover the expense of a Texas diplomatic agency, and Alcée La Branche was sent to the new republic as chargé d'affaires. 1 Cong. Globe, 24 Cong., 1 Sess., 603, 616. The recognition of Texas opened the way for the effort to secure annexation after Jackson's retirement; and on August 4, 1837, Memucan Hunt, the Texan minister at Washington, in accordance with the instructions of his government, addressed Secretary Forsyth a proposal to negotiate a treaty to that effect. Van Buren, however, while he may have been deceived by the noise and strength of the wind, in seeking to determine which way it blew, at least knew where the storm-centre of American politics lay. On August 25 the offer was refused, in terms too positive to admit of its being pushed further.1 The refusal of the president to negotiate a treaty of annexation turned attention towards the possibility of reaching the same result by means of an act of Congress. This alternative the Texans had been considering from the very beginning of the movement, and it was they who first suggested it. The instructions of Stephen F. Austin, Texan secretary of state, to William H. Wharton, minister to the United States, dated November 18, 1836, show that Wharton was expected, in pushing annexation, to deal with either the president or Congress.2 The message of Governor McDuffie to the South Carolina legislature on his retirement from office at the close of the year 1836 indicates that he was looking 1 For the whole correspondence, see Sen. Exec. Docs., 25 Cong., I Sess., I., No. 40. 2 MS. Diplomatic Correspondence of Texas, file 52. 1 for an effort at annexation by act of Congress; 1 and the report of the Senate committee of federal relations, to which the part of the message concerning Texas was referred, gives evidence of the same expectation. The alternative method, however, is more definitely set forth in the instructions given December 31, 1836, by J. P. Henderson, acting secretary of state of Texas, to Memucan Hunt, who was just leaving to join Wharton at Washington.3 Henderson says: "In the event that there should be doubts entertained whether a treaty made with this government for its annexation to the United States would be ratified by a constitutional majority of the Senate of the United States you are instructed to call the attention of the authorities of that government to the propriety and practacability of passing a law by both houses (in which it would require a bare majority) taking in this country as a part of her Territory, this law could be passed, (provided Congress has the power to do so) based upon the vote of the people of Texas at the last election, but in framing such an act great care should be used in order to secure all the rights of Texas and its citizens as fully as you are instructed to have them attended to in any treaty which may be made, if such an act is passed you can give that government the fullest assurance that it will be approved by this government 2 Ibid., 277. 1 Niles' Register, LI., 229. 3 MS. Diplomatic Correspondence of Texas, file 701. } and people. But inasmuch as this is rather a novel position you will speak of it with great prudence and caution." On the Texan side the alternative of congressional action was never lost sight of. August 10, 1837, Hunt wrote to R. A. Irion, Texan secretary of state, expressing his fears of the disposition of the United States government-meaning, of course, the executive department-to delay annexation, and suggesting that he be authorized, if necessary, to bring the subject before Congress.' This would require that Irion should address a proposal of annexation to some member of Congress, with a statement of the terms and a request to present it to that body; the name of the member was to be left blank for Hunt to supply. He was of the opinion that, if it were determined to proceed in spite of the opposition of the president, the plan he suggested would be the most feasible that could be used. On September 18, in another letter to Irion, Hunt expressed the hope that a resolution requesting the president to instruct the secretary of state to ask the Texan minister for the terms on which Texas sought admission to the Union would be adopted by one of the houses of Congress, and that a motion to accept the terms would prevail in both. The president, he thought, would sign it." 1 MS. Diplomatic Correspondence of Texas, file 728. |