READINGS- Texas Annexation
Lone Star Republic
As the first president of the Republic of Texas (or Lone Star Republic), Sam Houston applied to the US government for his country to be annexed, or added to, the United States as a new state. However, Presidents Jackson and Van Buren both put off the request for annexation primarily because of political opposition among Northerners to the expansion of slavery and the potential addition of up to five new slaves states created out of the Texas territories. The threat of a costly war with Mexico also dampened expansionist zeal. The next president, John Tyler (1841-1845), was a Southern Whig who was worried about the growing influence of the British in Texas. He worked to annex Texas, but the US Senate rejected his treaty of annexation in 1844.
Because slavery was allowed in Texas, many Northerners were opposed to its annexation. Leading the Northern wing of the Democratic Party during the campaign for the election of 1844, former president Martin Van Buren opposed immediate annexation. Challenging him for the Democratic nomination in 1844 was the proslavery, pro-annexation Southerner, John C. Calhoun. The dispute between these candidates caused the Democratic convention to deadlock. After hours of wrangling, the Democrats finally nominated a dark horse (less known candidate). The man they chose, James K. Polk of Tennessee, had been a protégé of Andrew Jackson. Firmly committed to expansion and manifest destiny, Polk favored the annexation of Texas, the “reoccupation” of all of Oregon, and the acquisition of California. The Democratic slogan “54’40 or Fight!” appealed strongly to American westerners and Southerners who in 1844 were in an expansionist mood.
Henry Clay of Kentucky, the Whig nominee, attempted to straddle the controversial issue of Texas annexation, saying at first that eh was against it and later that he was for it. This strategy alienated a group of voters in New York State, who abandoned the Whig Party to support the antislavery Liberty Party. In a close election, the Whigs’ loss of New York’s electoral votes proved decisive, and Polk, the Democratic dark horse, was the victory. The Democrats interpreted the election as a mandate to add Texas to the Union.
Outgoing president John Tyler took the election of Polk as a signal to push the annexation of Texas through Congress. Instead of seeking Senate approval of a treaty that would have required a two-thirds vote, Tyler persuaded both houses of Congress to pass a joint resolution for annexation. This procedure required only a simple majority of each house. Tyler left Polk with the problem of dealing with Mexico’s reaction to annexation.
Controversy Over the Annexation of Texas
William Ellery Channing in Opposition to the Annexation of Texas:
The question of annexation of Texas to the US first came before Congress in 1837 when the newly independent Republic of Texas asked for either annexation to the US or recognition from the US as an independent republic. In 1837 William Ellery Channing, a noted Unitarian minister from Boston and an active abolitionist, wrote to Senator Henry Clay on his reasons for opposing the annexation of Texas. Portions of his now famous letter appear below. Annexation was not given in 1837, due to the strength of the anti-slavery forces, but on March 3, 1837, recognition was granted to the new Republic of Texas.
I proceed now to a conclusion of what is to me the strongest argument against annexing Texas to the United States. This measure will extend and perpetuate slavery… As far back as the year 1829, the annexation of Texas was agitated in the Southern and Western States; and it was urged on the ground of the strength and extension it would give to the slaveholding interest. In a series of essays ascribed to a gentleman, now a senator in Congress, it was maintained, that 5 or 6 slaveholding states would by this measure be added to the Union; and he even intimated that as many as 9 states as large as Kentucky might be formed within the limits of Texas. In Virginia, about the same time, calculations were made as to the increased value which would thus be given to slaves, and it was said, that this acquisition would raise the price 50%. Of late the language on this subject is most explicit. The great argument for annexing Texas is, that it will strengthen “the peculiar institutions” of the South, and open a new and vast field for slavery…
By this act, slavery will be perpetuated in the old states as well as spread over new. It is well known, that the soil of some of the old states had become exhausted by slave cultivation. Their neighborhood to communities which are flourishing under free labor, forces on them perpetual arguments for adopting this better system. They now adhere to slavery, not on account of the wealth which it extracts from the soil, but because it furnishes men and women to be sold in newly settled and more southern districts. It is by slave breeding and slave selling that these states subsist. Take away from them a foreign market, and slavery would die. Of consequence, by opening a new market, it is prolonged and invigorated. By annexing Texas, we shall not only create it where it does not exist, but breathe new life into it, where its end seemed to be near. States, which might and ought to throw it off, will make the multiplication of slaves their great aim and chief resource… I now ask, whether, as a people, we are prepared to seize on a neighboring territory for the end of extending slavery? I ask, whether, as a people, we can stand forth in the sight of God, in the sight of nations, and adopt this atrocious policy? Sooner perish! Sooner be our name blotted out from the record of nations!...
The annexation of Texas, if it should be accomplished, would do much to determine the future history and character of this country. It is one of those measures, which call a nation to pause, reflect, look forward… The chief interest of a people lies in measures, which, making, perhaps, little noise, go far to fix its character, to determine its policy and fate for ages, to decide its rank among nations. … it will commit us to a degrading policy, the issues of which lie beyond human insight. In opening to ourselves vast regions through which we may spread slavery, and in spreading it for this, among other ends, that the slaveholding states may bear rule in the national councils, we make slavery the predominate interest of the state… Slavery will be branded on our front, as the great Idea, the prominent feature of our country. We shall renounce our high calling as a people, and accomplish the lowest destiny to which a nation can be bound. … Are we prepared to couple with the name of our country the infamy of deliberately spreading slavery? And especially of spreading it through regions from which the wise and humane legislation of a neighboring republic hade excluded it? We call Mexico a semi-barbarous people; and yet we talk of planting slavery where Mexico would not suffer it to live… the plea on which we have rested, that slavery was not our choice, but a sad necessity bequeathed to us by our fathers, will avail us no longer. The whole guilt will be assumed by ourselves.
John Tyler in Favor of Annexation of Texas:
The slavery issue was responsible for the defeat of two more proposals for the annexation of Texas during the period 1837-1844. One of these was during the presidency of John Tyler. The reading which follows is an excerpt from President Tyler’s speech to the Senate on April 22, 1844, introducing and explaining the importance of ratifying his annexation treaty.
I transmit herewith, for your approval and ratification, a treaty which I have caused to be negotiated between the US and Texas, whereby the latter, on the conditions therein set forth, has transferred and conveyed all its rights of separate and independent sovereignty and jurisdiction to the US. In taking so important a step I have been influenced by what appeared to me to be the most controlling considerations of public policy and the general good, and in having accomplished it, should it meet with your approval, the Government will have succeeded in reclaiming a territory which formerly constituted a portion, as it is confidently believed, of its domain under the treaty of cession of 1803 by France to the US.
The country thus proposed to be annexed has been settled principally by persons from the US, who emigrated on the invitation of both Spain and Mexico, and who carried with them into the wilderness which they have partially reclaimed the laws, customs, and political and domestic institutions of their native land. They are deeply indoctrinated in all the principles of civil liberty, and will bring along with them in the act of reassociation devolution to our Union and a firm and inflexible resolution to assist in maintaining the public liberty unimpaired- a consideration which, as it appears to me, is to be regarded as of no small moment. The country itself thus obtained is of incalculable value in an agricultural and commercial point of view. To a soil of inexhaustible fertility it unites a genial and healthy climate, and is destined at a day not distant to make large contributions to the commerce of the world… A new and powerful impulse will thus be given to the navigating interest of the country, which will be chiefly engrossed by our fellow citizens of the Eastern and Middle States, who have already attained a remarkable degree of prosperity by the partial monopoly they have enjoyed of the carrying trade of the Union,… which this new acquisition is destined in time,… to swell to a magnitude which cannot easily be computed… Texas, being adapted to the culture of cotton, sugar, and rice, and devoting most of her energies to the raising of these productions, will open an extensive market to the Western States… At the same time, the Southern and Southeastern States will find in the fact of annexation protection and security to their peace and tranquility, as well against all domestic as foreign efforts to disturb them, thus consecrating anew the union of the States and holding out the promise of its perpetual duration… But important as these considerations may appear, they are to be regarded as but secondary to others… In the year 1836 Texas adopted her constitution, under which she has existed as a sovereign power ever since, having been recognized as such my many of the principal powers of the world; and contemporaneously with its adoption, by a solemn vote of her people, embracing all her population but 93 persons, declared her anxious desire to be admitted into association with the US as a portion of their territory. This vote, thus solemnly taken, has never been reversed, and now by the actions of her constituted authorities, sustained a sit is by popular sentiment, she reaffirms her desire for annexation. This course has been adopted by her without the employment of any sinister measures on the part of this Government. No intrigue has been set on foot to accomplish it. Texas herself wills it, and the Executive of the US, concurring with her, has seen no sufficient reason to avoid the consummation of an act esteemed to be so desirable by both.
… The hazard of now defeating her wishes may be of the most fatal tendency. It might lead, and most probably would, to such an entire alienation of sentiment and feeling as would inevitably induce her to look elsewhere for aid, and force her either to enter into dangerous alliances with other nations… or she would hold out the proffer of discriminating duties in trade and commerce in order to secure the necessary assistance. Whatever step she might adopt looking to this object would prove disastrous in the highest degree to the interests of the whole Union… But one view of the subject remains to be presented. It grows out of the proposed enlargement of our territory. From this, I am free to confess, I see no danger. The federative system is susceptible of the greatest extension compatible with the ability of the representation of the most distant State or Territory to reach the seat of Government in time to participate in the functions of legislation and to make known the wants of the constituent body. Our confederated Republic consisted originally of 13 members. It now consists of twice that number, while applications are before Congress to permit other additions. This addition of new States has served to strengthen rather than to weaken the Union. New interests have sprung up, which require the united power of all, through the action of the common Government, to protect and defend upon the high seas and in foreign parts…
Under every view which I have been able to take of the subject, I thing that the interests of our common constituents, the people of the States, and a love of the Union left the Executive no other alternative than to negotiate the treaty. The high and solemn duty of ratifying or rejecting it is wisely devolved on the Senate by the Constitution of the United States.
Henry Clay in Opposition to the Annexation of Texas:
On April 27, 1844, in a letter to a Washington newspaper, the Daily National Intelligencer, Senator Henry Clay expressed his reasons for opposing President Tyler’s treaty for the annexation of Texas. Clay became the presidential candidate for the Whig party in the 1844 election, running against the Democratic Party candidate and annexationist, James K. Polk, and many historians feel his opposition to the annexation of Texas cost him the election in November. Excerpts from Clay’s letter appear below.
… The rejection of the overture of Texas, some years ago, to become annexed to the US, had met with general acquiescence. Nothing had since occurred materially to vary the question. I had seen no evidence of a desire being entertained, on the part of any considerable portion of the American people, that Texas should become an integral part of the US… To the astonishment of the whole nation, we are now informed that a treaty of annexation has been actually concluded, and is to be submitted to the Senate for its consideration… If, without the loss of national character, without the hazard of foreign war, with the general concurrence of the nation, without any danger to the integrity of the Union, and without giving an unreasonable price for Texas, the question of annexation were presented, it would appear in quite a different light from that in which, I apprehend, it is now to be regarded…
… Annexation and war with Mexico are identical. Now, for one, I certainly am not willing to involve this country in a foreign war for the object of acquiring Texas. I know there are those who regard such a war with indifference and as a trifling affair, on account of the weakness of Mexico, and her inability to inflict serious injury upon this country. But I do not look upon it thus lightly. I regard all wars as great calamities, to be avoided, if possible, and honorable peace as the wisest and truest policy of this country. What the US most needs is union, peace, and patience… Assuming that the annexation of Texas is war with Mexico, is it competent to the treaty-making power to plunge this country into war, not only without the concurrence of, but without designing to consult Congress, to which by the Constitution, belongs exclusively the power of declaring war?...
It is useless to disguise that there are those who espouse and those who oppose the annexation of Texas upon the ground of the influence which it would exert, in the balance of political power, between two great sections of the Union. I conceive that no motive for the acquisition of foreign territory would be more unfortunate, or pregnant with more fatal consequences, than that of obtaining it for the purpose of strengthening one part against the other part of the common Confederacy [the Union]. Such a principle, put into practical operation, would menace the existence, if it did not certainly sow the seeds of a dissolution of the Union. It would be to proclaim to the world an insatiable and unquenchable thirst for foreign conquest or acquisition of territory. For if today Texas be acquired to strengthen one part of the Confederacy, tomorrow Canada may be required to add strength to another. And, after that might have been obtained, still other and further acquisitions would become necessary to equalize and adjust the balance of political power. Finally, in the progress of this spirit of universal dominion, the part of the Confederacy which is now weakest, would find itself still weaker from the impossibility of securing new theaters for those peculiar institutions which it is charged with being desirous to extend.
But would Texas, ultimately, really add strength to that which is now considered the weakest part of the Confederacy? If my information be correct, it would not. According to that, the territory of Texas is susceptible of a division into five States of convenient size and form. Of these, two only would be adapted to those peculiar institutions to which I have referred, and the other three, lying west and north of San Antonio, being only adapted to farming and grazing purposes, from the nature of their soil, climate, and productions, would not admit of those institutions. In the end, therefore, there would be two slave and three free states probably added to the Union. If this view of the soil and geography of Texas be correct, it might serve to diminish the zeal both of those who oppose and those who are urging annexation…