Texas Annexation
David Carlson, Troy University
A “Reacting to the Past” Microgame
2016 2
CONTENTS Game Rules ...... 4 Game Summary...... 4 Game Schedule ...... 4 Roles ...... 4 Winning the Game ...... 5 Strategy ...... 5 Assignments ...... 5 Voting ...... 5 Rubric ...... 7 Game schedule (for instructors eyes only) ...... 8 Pregame ...... 9 Gameplay ...... 9 Postmortem ...... 11 What Really Happened? ...... 12 Roles ...... 16 William S. Archer (W-VA) ...... 17 Thomas Hart Benton (D-MO) ...... 19 Document: Benton Resolution, May 13, 1844 ...... 20 John MacPherson Berrien (W-GA) ...... 21 James Buchanan (D-PA) ...... 23 Spencer Jarnagin (W-TN) ...... 25 George McDuffie (D-SC) ...... 26 Ambrose H. Sevier (D-AR) ...... 28 Levi Woodbury (D-NH) ...... 29 Documents ...... 31 Doc. 1. Treaty Packet ...... 31 President John Tyler to the United States Senate ...... 31 A Treaty of Annexation, concluded between the United States of America and the Republic of Texas...... 38 Duff Green Letter...... 41 Speech of Lord Brougham in the House of Lords, August 18, 1843, as reported in the London Morning Chronicle ...... 43 Jackson Letter, March 11, 1844 ...... 45 Doc. 2. Evidence of British Intent ...... 46 Excerpt from diplomatic communique from Edward Everett, United States minister to England, November 3, 1843 ...... 46
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 3
Aberdeen Letter ...... 48 Doc. 3. Calhoun to Van Zandt and Henderson ...... 50 Doc. 4. Map of Texas, 1842 ...... 52
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 4
Game Rules
Game Summary
Texas Annexation is a short Reacting to the Past game designed as a final exam for an upper division course in the history of the Jacksonian era. In this game, students are divided into two factions debating the ratification of a treaty of annexation between the United States and the Republic of Texas drafted by Secretary of State John C. Calhoun and submitted to the United States Senate in April 1841. The debate takes into consideration questions of Manifest Destiny, imperialism, party politics, slavery, and sectionalism. Students may choose to ratify the treaty as written or endorse alternative proposals submitted during the course of debate.
Game Schedule
This game is designed for a single two hour class but may be divided into two one hour class periods if needed.
Roles
This game consists of eight roles, as follows:
Anti-annexation Faction
Sen. William S. Archer (W-VA) Sen. Thomas Hart Benton (D-MO) Sen. John MacPherson Berrien (W-GA) Sen. Spencer Jarnagin (W-TN)
Pro-Annexation Faction
Sen. James Buchanan (D-PA) Sen. George McDuffie (D-SC) Sen. Ambrose H. Sevier (D-AR) Sen. Levi Woodbury (D-NH)
Characters have certain predefine concerns about the Texas issue, but if those concerns can be met by well-reasoned arguments, characters may vote against their own faction’s interests. If the GM
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 5 considers a vote change to be too far removed from a character’s core beliefs, the GM may challenge the player to defend his vote.
The Game Master (GM) will assume the role of president of the Senate. In such capacity he will maintain order in the Senate, ensure proper decorum, and recognize senators to present their speeches.
Winning the Game
To win the game each faction must accomplish their factional goals. The anti-annexation faction must either prevent ratification of the treaty or gain passage of the Benton resolution. The pro- annexation faction must gain ratification of the treaty.
Strategy
Neither faction has sufficient members to guarantee their factional goals. It is thus incumbent upon them to lobby members of the opposing faction to secure the necessary votes for success.
Because both factions begin with an equal number of players, it is much easier for the supporters of the Benton resolution to gain a majority vote than it is for supporters of the treaty to gain a two thirds majority. This allows the game to approximate the historical realities which led to the treaty’s defeat.
Assignments
All players are required to give a five minute speech in support of their faction’s positions.
Speeches will also be submitted in writing using appropriate styles and formatting.
Voting
Each player has one vote.
No votes may be cast in absentia. Students absent for the vote will not have their votes counted.
Ratification of the treaty requires a two thirds majority.
Passage of the Benton resolution requires a simple majority.
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 6
In case of a tie, the GM may cast a deciding vote. This vote shall be given to the faction whose members collectively made the most cogent argument for their positions. The GM does not have any established goals or prejudices.
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 7
Rubric
Points will be earned as follows. Partial points may be earned for work that falls between point levels. The number of points earned will be multiplied by 6.25 to find your final exam grade.
Speech Points Criteria 4 Student presents a well-crafted argument 3 Student presents a moderately crafted argument 2 Student presents a poorly crafted argument 1 Student speech is unprepared 0 Work not attempted
Paper Points Criteria 4 Minimal to no grammatical, formatting, stylistic, or spelling errors 3 Moderate grammatical, formatting, stylistic, or spelling errors 2 Several grammatical, formatting, stylistic, or spelling errors 1 Frequent grammatical, formatting, stylistic, or spelling errors 0 Work not attempted
Discussion/Debate
Points Criteria Student demonstrates mastery of the material and is able to quickly and effectively respond to 4 questions and challenges Student demonstrates some mastery of the material and is able to respond to questions and 3 challenges with delays Student demonstrates minimal mastery of the material and struggles to respond to questions 2 and challenges Student demonstrates no mastery of the material and unable to respond to questions and 1 challenges 0 Work not attempted
Characterization Points Criteria 4 Student remains in character for the entire game 3 Student remains in character for most of the game 2 Student remains in character for some of the game 1 Student never achieves a proper character identity 0 Work not attempted
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 8
Game Scenario
President John Tyler, propelled into the presidency by the sudden death of his predecessor William Henry Harrison, is a man without a party. Elected as Harrison’s vice president in 1840 on the Whig ticket, Tyler has alienated himself by vetoing Whig proposals to resurrect the second Bank of the United States. Ostracized by the Whigs and yet not fully accepted by the Democrats, Tyler has decided to center his presidency on what he considers to be a unifying platform: expansion of the federal domain. He has dispatched Duff Green as consular agent to England to settle the border dispute between British Canada and Maine, and he has reopened negotiations with the Republic of Texas for (re)annexation. Many consider Texas to have been a part of the original Louisiana Purchase, frittered away by President John Quincy Adams and illegally given to Spain under the Adams-Onis Treaty in 1819.
Now, the president is in receipt of disturbing news. England has been approached by Northern abolitionists who seek financial and diplomatic assistance in eliminating slavery in Texas. Much worse, evidence suggests that England is actively courting Texas as an imperial ally. Annexation cannot wait. It must be accomplished now, before England can complete its aggressive plans.
Under a pledge by Secretary of State John C. Calhoun to provide military protection against Mexican border assaults, Texas President Sam Houston has signed a treaty of annexation that the president now submits to the United States for ratification. Accompanying the treaty, the president has provided several pieces of documentary evidence to support his claim that British actions in Texas present a clear and present danger that must be met. Texas must be brought into the Union now, not just for the protection of Texas sovereignty, but for the protection of United States and her interests.
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 9
Game schedule (for instructors eyes only)
Pregame
Prior to the beginning of the game the instructor should hand the following:
Game Scenario Role sheets Grading Rubric Treaty packet (Doc. 1) Map of Texas, 1842 (Doc. 4)
The GM should then review in general terms the rules of the game and answer any questions students have about their roles.
Student should spend the remainder of class reading and discussing President Tyler’s letter to the United States Senate (included in Doc. 1). Everyone should have a good understanding of the arguments presented for passage of the treaty before the game begins.
Gameplay
It is strongly suggested that the GM call senators to present their speeches in the following order:
McDuffie Benton Woodbury Jarnagin Sevier Berrien Buchanan Archer
Following the speech by Sen. Berrien, the GM should hand out copies of Document 2 (Evidence of British Intent). These documents provide counter evidence to the claims of the pro-treaty faction that England is taking an active role in promoting abolitionism within the Republic of Texas. The GM may alternatively read the following summary:
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 10
“A diplomatic communique from Edward Everett, United States minister to England, dated November 3, 1843, reports that the minister has had a conversation with British Foreign Secretary Lord Aberdeen. Aberdeen affirms that England has recognized the independence of Texas and has been treating with its government on such grounds. She has advised Texas officials, in keeping with Her Majesty’s general interest in the abolition of slavery around the world, that the British government prefers the Republic of Texas act to work toward the same. But Her Majesty’s government has made no promises nor reached any agreements to pressure or assist Texas to that end. In an official statement, Aberdeen has pledged that ‘we shall not interfere unduly, or with an improper assumption of authority . . . in order to insure the adoption of such a course. We shall counsel, but we shall not seek to compel, of unduly control, either [the United States or the Republic of Texas]. So far as Great Britain is concerned, provided other States act with equal forbearance, those governments will be fully at liberty to make their own unfettered arrangements with each other, both in regard to the abolition of slavery and in all other points.”
Very astute players may point out that Great Britain has offered to arbitrate the dispute between Texas and Mexico. If this happens, allow players to consider the implications of this offer, but before the final vote provide them with a copy of Document 3 (Calhoun to Van Zandt and Henderson) refuting claims of active arbitration efforts. The GM may alternatively read the following summary:
“Secretary of State John C. Calhoun is in receipt of a letter from Isaac Van Zandt and J. Pinckney Henderson, Texas commissioners to the United States. They affirm that in a convention between Texas and Great Britain, the British government agreed to offer its mediation for the settlement of the difficulties between Mexico and Texas. England’s decision to refer to Texas as a “department” of Mexico has led President Sam Houston to decline the offer. Negotiations for an arbitrated mediation involving Great Britain have been terminated with no current plans for renewal. Likewise, no agreements between Mexico and Texas for further talks are scheduled.”
The negotiations having thus terminated, and this agreement being held to be null and void, there is at present no subsisting arrangement of any character between Mexico and Texas.
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 11
Postmortem
Following the final vote, the GM will lead the class in a postmortem evaluation of the game.
Which factors play the greatest role in determining their character’s vote? Was the annexation vote a referendum on diplomatic or domestic policy? Under what circumstances might the vote have turned out differently?
The GM may elect to hand out What Really Happened? or discuss with the class the actual events behind the game.
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 12
What Really Happened?
President John Tyler, propelled into the presidency by the sudden death of his predecessor William Henry Harrison, was a man without a party. Elected as Harrison’s vice president in 1840 on the Whig ticket, Tyler had alienated himself early in his administration by vetoing Whig proposals to resurrect the second Bank of the United States. Ostracized by the Whigs and yet not fully accepted by the Democrats, Tyler sought political counsel from faction of Southern states rights politicians who shared his proslavery expansionist views. Under their guidance, Tyler came to accept that the acquisition of Texas would assure him of a second term in the White House.
Early in 1843, Tyler dispatched Duff Green as consular agent to England to negotiate a border dispute between British Canada and Maine. While there, Green discovered an alleged plot by American abolitionists to seek financial assistance from Lord Aberdeen, British Foreign Secretary, for the abolition of slavery in Texas. Green promptly notified the president who ordered Secretary of State Abel P. Upshur to investigate. Upshur, in turn, messaged Edward Everett, United States Minister Great Britain, expressing his contempt England anti-slavery diplomacy and threatening that any attempt by Great Britain to interfere with slavery in Texas would be seen as a violation of American sovereignty rights under the Monroe Doctrine. Upshur then leaked the letter to the public to inflame popular sentiment.
At the same time, President Tyler contacted the US Minister to Mexico, Waddy Thompson, to verify the information. Although the claims of British-abolitionist alliances proved false, the president did learn that Aberdeen had offered to negotiate a settlement between Mexico and Texas. The news of British interference reinforced Tyler’s growing belief that the annexation of Texas should be his primary policy initiative. In September 1843, he opened secret negotiations with Texas minister to the United States Isaac Van Zandt.
Van Zandt, however, was not authorized to engage in diplomatic negotiations for annexation with the United States. That previous summer, Texas President Sam Houston had reopen talks with the Mexican government under the aegis of Great Britain to seek a settlement to their border disputes. Houston had given up on negotiations with the United States. Previous attempts to join the union had been rebuffed, and with the presidential election of 1844 rapidly approaching, he believed neither political party was willing to risk supporting annexation. Instead, it appeared some sort of settlement might allow Texas to remain an independent self-governing state within the Mexican Republic. There was no need to deal with the United States.
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 13
Upshur, however, was undeterred. He continued his courtship, finally dispatching an appeal to Houston assuring him that the political climate of the United States had changed. More and more people had accepted that Texas should be part of the union. When Upshur offered a verbal assurance of military defense, despite having no authority to do so, should Mexico invade, Houston accepted Upshur’s offer and urged the Texas Congress to reopen annexation negotiations with Washington.
As US-Texas negotiations near their completion, Tyler turned to Mississippi Senator Robert J Walker to prepare a public presentation of the pro-annexation argument. Published in pamphlet form as “Letter of Mr. Walker,” Tyler’s surrogate explained that Texas could be acquired in numerous constitutional ways and that the United States had a moral responsibility for territorial expansion based on the political precepts of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. To southern planters and Northern businessmen, still struggling to recover from financial panic of 1837, Texas promised a ready market for excess slaves, commodities, and goods. And to allay anti-slavery fears of an expanding slave south, he argued that Texas would serve as a “safety valve” through which free and enslaved blacks could be “diffused”– to use Jefferson’s phrase –westward in a gradual exodus toward Mexico and Central America. Over time, the United States would be rid of its slave population and free of a black presence.
Tyler submitted his Texas treaty to the United States Senate on April 22, 1844, including with it a copy of the Packenham Letter. Written to British minister Richard Packenham by Secretary of State John C. Calhoun, who had assumed office following the untimely death of Upshur the previous February, the letter denounced British anti-slavery interference in Texas and framed the acquisition of Texas as an emergency measure safeguarding a cornerstone of American civilization. The purpose of the letter was not only to unite the South behind the acquisition but to serve warning that the North should support Texas or potentially lose the South.
After debate, the Senate defeated the Tyler treaty on a largely party line vote. Whigs almost unanimously rejected the treaty while Democrats tended to support it. The loss was not unexpected. Whigs had thought the treaty the election year ploy of a weak president. Northern and southern Democrats divided over the proslavery rhetoric of Calhoun’s Packenham Letter. Defeated, too, were Tyler’s presidential ambitions. The Whig Party refused to nominate Tyler for a second term, choosing instead party founder Henry Clay. Clay ultimately lost to Tennessee Democrat James K Polk.
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 14
But Tyler was undeterred. When the lame-duck Congress reconvened in December 1844, Tyler pressed action on annexation before Polk could take office. In his annual congressional address on December 4, he declared the Democratic victory a mandate for Texas annexation and asked Congress to adopt a joint resolution to accomplish what the treaty could not. Statutory annexation would be easier to pass, he argued, requiring only a simple majority in each house. On February 27, 1845, less than a week before Polk's inauguration, the Texas admission bill gained final approval. President Tyler signed the bill on March 1, 1845, admitting Texas as a federal territory.
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 15
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 16
Roles
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 17
William S. Archer (W-VA)
Born March 5, 1789
Anti-annexation
You are a lawyer, a former member of the Virginia House of Burgesses, who served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1820-1835. Now serving in the United States Senate you serve as the chair of the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Naval Affairs.
You oppose the annexation of Texas and are concerned that your pro-annexation colleagues are basing their support on faulty logic. Many of them claimed that Texas, its wealth and resources, are too important to pass up. Such claims are immaterial. The same argument could be made for the acquisition of Belgium or any other European nation. Yet no one would make such an argument. It has no place in the Texas debate.
Others claim that Texas can legitimately request to join the United States because as a sovereign power Texas can decide its own fate. But when questioned about the basis of Texas sovereignty, most resort to the argument that the United States has recognized Texas as independent and thus its status is assured. Texas’ independence, and the right to recognize Texas sovereignty, is not subject to U.S. law. It is a diplomatic concern between the Republic of Texas and the Republic of Mexico. United States law cannot give Texas dispossessory rights over their lands.
These same people argue that Texas has given its consent to annexation. But you question when that assent was given. To the best of your knowledge, the last polling of Texas public opinion was taken seven or eight years ago. Back then there were only seven or eight thousand people – mainly Americans – who lived there. By some counts, Texas’s population has grown to over 150,000 and includes a mixture of Americans, Tejanos, Mexicans, Indians, and other races and nationalities. It is irresponsible to judge the will of a diverse Texas population by a vote held several years ago.
There is also a constitutional issue. While it’s true the Constitution allows Congress to admit new territories, it is wrong to consider Texas is merely a territory. The United States has recognized Texas as a distinct political entity, a State, vested with treaty making authority. Thus it does not fall under the constitutional provision for admitting territories. United States might admit Texas as a
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 18 state, but such admission would require the consent of both houses of Congress, not simply Senate approval such as that being sought for Calhoun’s Texas treaty.
Lastly, you are quite disappointed with those Southern senators who use the defense of slavery as a reason for expanding territorially. This implies that southern slavery is weak and needs to expand to survive. It also implies that southern states require federal assistance in order to maintain slavery’s viability. It is your firm belief that the southern states are fully vested with the authority and ability to maintain slavery on their own. Slavery should not be made an issue in the Texas affair as it injects sectional issues into what should be a national debate.
Source: Congressional Globe, 28th Congress, Senate, 1st session, pp. 693-696.
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 19
Thomas Hart Benton (D-MO)
Born March 14, 1782
Anti-annexation
You are one of the founding members of the Democratic Party, a close friend and supporter of Andrew Jackson (even though you once shot him in a duel), and an ardent champion of westward expansion. Initially you believed that the natural border of the United States was the Rocky Mountains, but later came to embrace a more continental vision. Any unsettled lands between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans were “insecure” and thus open for claims and settlement. Your advocacy of hard money (gold and silver specie) and your support for President Jackson’s war on the Bank of the United States were your way of limiting soft money (paper money) speculation in frontier lands and encourage settlement. In fact, you were the author of the first Homestead giving land grants to anyone willing to work the soil, and worked tirelessly for the displacement of Native Americans in favor of European settlers.
This Texas business, however, has you worried. For one, the actions of President John Tyler and Secretary of State John C. Calhoun have been far from above reproach. Their clandestine efforts to broker a treaty with the Republic of Texas can only be interpreted as election-year politics. Tyler, for one, has little to show for his accidental presidency. Rejected by the Whigs and distrusted by Democrats, the president will do anything to garner public favor and assure his reelection. Calhoun, on the other hand, has his sights on the presidency as well. You have a deep distrust of the South Carolinian. Calhoun tends to think of things in sectional terms, of what will benefit the South and the institution of slavery above all else. This is dangerously shortsighted. His actions in the nullification crisis ten years ago demonstrated that he was willing to put the union at risk in order to benefit his state. Now he is willing to risk the union in order to secure lands for the expansion of southern slavery. The annexation of territory should be a national, not simply a southern, good.
You are also quite wary of the claims that Great Britain poses an immediate threat. You see no evidence. In fact, the only evidence you do see is that the annexation of Texas will place us in a precarious position with the Republic of Mexico. As long as Mexico holds out hope that it can reclaim possession of the Texas lands, you believe the United States should continue to watch and wait for the most opportune moment for a consensual annexation.
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 20
In addition, you do not see American expansionism as imperialistic. The expansion of the United States into uninhabited or unclaimed lands was perfectly acceptable. But the annexation of what many consider to be an independent nation reeked of imperialism. The American Revolution had been founded on the rejection of imperial rule, and for the United States to embrace empire building would be a rejection of their revolutionary heritage.
Your concerns have led you to draft a resolution opposing Secretary of State Calhoun’s treaty. During your speech you will present this resolution for debate and passage.
Source: Congressional Globe, 28th Congress, Senate, 1st session, pp. 474-486, 497-499, 568-576, 607- 611.
Document: Benton Resolution, May 13, 1844
Resolved, That the ratification of the treaty for the annexation of Texas to the United States would be an adoption of the Texian war with Mexico by the United States, and would devolve its conduct and conclusion upon the said United States.
Resolved, That the treaty-making power does not extend to the power of making war, and that the President and Senate have no right to make war, either by declaration or adoption,
Resolved, That the country dismembered from the United States by the treaty of 1819 with Spain, comprehending Texas and a large territory between the Red river and the Arkansas, and being geographically appurtenant to the United States, and essential to their political, commercial, and social system; ought to be reunited to the American Union as soon as it can be done With the consent of a majority of the people of the United States and of Texas, and when Mexico shall either consent to the same, or acknowledge the independence of Texas, or cease to prosecute the war against her [the armistice having expired] on a scale commensurate to the conquest of the country.
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 21
John MacPherson Berrien (W-GA)
Born August 23, 1781
Anti-annexation
You are a prominent Savannah planter, lawyer, and statesman who owns more than 100 slaves on your coastal Georgia plantation. Your belief in slavery is absolute, and you tolerate no questioning of the rights of individuals and states to protect and preserve that institution. In 1824, the United States Revenue Cutter Dallas captured The Antelope, a Spanish-owned slave transport ship, off the coast of Florida under the suspicion that it was illegally transporting slaves to the United States. The resulting legal battle over whether the slaves onboard should be freed became the first U.S. case to question the legality of the international slave trade. It also provided you an opportunity to defend the institution of slavery. Slavery "lay at the foundation of the Constitution," you argued, and "the very foundation” of the union. It was a powerful defense of property rights and elevated your standing in the increasingly pro-slavery Democratic Party. Andrew Jackson was so impressed he nominated you to serve as his Attorney General, an office you held from 1829 to 1831.
This is not to say your relationship with Jackson and Democrats was always smooth. During the Nullification Crisis, you sided with South Carolina and the right of a state to protect its sovereignty against federal encroachment. It was disagreement with the administration so intense that you resigned as Attorney General to resume your private legal practice and join the infant Whig Party under Henry Clay. You now serve that party and your state in the United States Congress.
You are opposed to the annexation of Texas but not for the reasons many people believe. Some worry that the United States has no authority to bring territories in by treaty. Not so. The United States has ample authority. Some believe that annexation would bring war with England. Again, not so. The Texas coast has few if any harbors appropriate to military landings. Still others worry that annexation will benefit the South. Once again, not so. The Missouri Compromise gives the north a much greater opportunity to bring in free states than Texas does for slave. Besides, vast areas of Texas are ill-suited for slavery and could come in as free as well. In fact, annexation will weaken the south by stripping from it wealth and resources as people migrate west.
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 22
No, those common complaints hold little merit for you. Your concerns are more diplomatic in nature. The United States currently has a peaceful relationship with Mexico, and you wish to see this relationship continue even as that nation and the Republic of Texas skirmish over Texan independence. If the United States annexes Texas as a territory or state, it inherits this conflict. Annexation will not start war; the war already exists, and the United States will be sucked into it. Annexation would, in effect, be a violation of the existing peaceful treaties between two nonbelligerent countries.
Annexation would also be a violation of the national honor. Many of your colleagues like to draw a parallel between the American Revolution and Texas’ fight for independence. But you do not see the connection. France came to the aid of the colonies, helped secure their independence, and then left them alone. That is not what the U.S. intends to do now. We will not gain Texas independence and then leave them to enjoy that freedom. No! We act out of greed and dominion and hope to secure Texas liberty merely to capture it for our own use. It is a violation of the principles upon which this nation was founded.
Lastly, annexation would be a violation of the core principles of nationhood. As a constitutional layer, you are well versed in the writings of Vattel, Grotius, and other European legal scholars. They all agree that the most important task of any government is to protect the existence of the nation and the state. If Texas is truly an independent republic as they claim, then they violate the basic principles of their own existence to offer themselves up for dominion by a foreign government.
Source: Congressional Globe, 28th Congress, Senate, 1st session, pp. 701-704.
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 23
James Buchanan (D-PA)
Born April 23, 1791
Pro-annexation
You are a lawyer and War of 1812 veteran from Pennsylvania. Originally a Federalist, you had opposed the War of 1812, only to change your mind following the British invasion of Maryland in 1814 and enlist as a private in the Pennsylvania militia. You were elected as a Federalist to the U.S. Congress in 1821 and served five terms.
With the demise of the Federalist Party you found a new political home in Andrew Jackson’s fledgling Democratic Party, serving President Jackson as his minister to Russia from 1832-1833. In the early 1840s you put yourself before the party as a possible presidential nominees only to resign from the campaign to support James K. Polk. You now sit as Pennsylvania’s ranking Democratic senator in Congress.
You understand the questions people have concerning Texas annexation. But those concerns are adequately met by the fact that annexation is overwhelmingly supported by the people of Texas. If this is what Texans want, who are we to question them or the means by which their democratic desires are met?
Besides, the benefits that will accrue to the United States far outweigh any claims of diplomatic impropriety. An American Texas will close the western frontier and protect the Mississippi River valley and its tributaries. An independent Texas – or even worse a British or Mexican Texas – leaves the southern tributaries in foreign hands and opens the entire riverine system to disputes over rights of ownership and passage.
An American Texas will provide markets for northern goods and secure to the United States ownership of all the best cotton-producing lands on earth.
An American Texas could draw slaves gradually westward to a region more conducive and accepting to their race. Mexico is already made up of Spanish, Indians, and blacks, and there is no prejudice against their kind. As southern cotton lands become exhausted, the westward migration
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 24 will rid the United States of slaves and slavery. The only question to be considered is how to divide the Texas lands into free and slave states to best facilitate this process.
Source: Congressional Globe, 28th Congress, Senate, 1st session, pp. 720-727.
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 25
Spencer Jarnagin (W-TN)
Born 1792
Anti-annexation
You are Tennessee lawyer now serving as a Whig senator from that state. For you, this whole Texas business is one big fraud, a land grab, and a political ploy by an “accidental president” to secure his place in history.
You see several problems in the proposed treaty. First, the treaty is premised on the claim that we are “reannexing” lands that rightfully belonged to the United States following the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. But our actions belie our words. If the United States had legal claim, but why do we treat Texas as a foreign state? Why do we allow Mexico to repeatedly invade American territory? And why do we send diplomatic emissaries to represent the United States in the Texas capital? In fact, the United States has never had a right of possession to the Texas territories. And even claims that we gained possession by treaty from France are nullified by the fact that France has not controlled that land since 1686.
Second, the treaty being presented to the Congress for ratification is not actually a treaty. Treaties are between two independent nations, but Texas has not made good on its independence. Conflicts still exist between Mexico and Texas over whether the Republic is truly independent and whether it can protect that independence. If Texas cannot claim independence; this document cannot be a treaty. And if it’s not a treaty, the Senate has no authority to act on it.
Third, the “treaty” agrees that the United States would assume Texas debts as well as all lands controlled by the Texas government. But there are no current accountings of what those debts are, how much land Texas actually controls, and where the boundaries of Texas are. It would be foolhardy for the United States to make an agreement based on such incomplete information.
Source: Congressional Globe, 28th Congress, Senate, 1st session, pp. 682-689.
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 26
George McDuffie (D-SC)
Born August 10, 1790
Pro-annexation
Although you were born in Georgia, you fell under the wing of South Carolinian John C. Calhoun at a young age. Calhoun himself sponsored your education at the best academies. You graduated from South Carolina College in 1813, were admitted to the bar in 1814, and went into partnership with Eldred Simkins at Edgefield, South Carolina. Since then you have served in the South Carolina General Assembly (1818–1821) and in the United States House of Representatives (1821–1834).
The trajectory of your political thinking mirrored that of your mentor. Although you believed in states’ rights, nationalism consistently held sway and tamped down the most radical elements of decentralization. You may have opposed federally sponsored internal improvement as an unconstitutional expansion of federal power, but you were more than willing to support the National Bank as a necessary component of an emerging national market. By the 1830s, however, you had followed Calhoun into a more radical defense of the rights of states. When South Carolina convened its Nullification Convention to oppose federal tariff laws, you became one of its most prominent members. Now seated in the United States Congress, you have become, like Calhoun, an eloquent champion of state sovereignty.
You are also a vehement supporter of the institution of slavery, and this whole Texas dispute is raising some serious concerns. England’s open support for world-wide abolition is bad enough, but the recent evidence that the crown has been working to end slavery in Texas crosses the line. Even if the accusation is proven false (which you doubt) the simple fact that England wants to end slavery around the world is reason enough to oppose its every action in that regard. The United States and Texas are part of the world, aren’t they? And hadn’t England done very much the same thing to protect its domestic institutions? When Revolutionary France expressed its desire to end monarchy in Europe, England attacked. France had taken no overt steps, but England attacked nonetheless. Why should the United States not be afforded the same right to defend its institutions? Texas must be brought into the Union to end British aggression and protect southern slavery.
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 27
Personality: As a young man, you were known to be rather quiet, taciturn, and humorless, more likely to immerse yourself in deep thought than commune with friends. But that does not mean you are above confronting those who impugn your honor. Back in 1822, a dispute over states’ rights with Colonel William Cumming, a Georgia planter, had led to a duel. Cummings shot lodged in the small of your back and could not be removed. Yopu have walked with a limp ever since. The pain can be unbearable, and frequently leads you to outbursts of rage when challenged.
Source: Congressional Globe, 28th Congress, Senate, 1st session, pp. 451-452, 529-533.
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 28
Ambrose H. Sevier (D-AR)
Born November 4, 1801
Pro-annexation
You are an attorney, politician, and planter from one of Arkansas’ dominant political families. Known as the “Father of Arkansas Statehood” you were instrumental in gaining full admission of the Arkansas territory to the United States. In 1836 you were elected as the first member of the United States Congress from that state and have served ever since. You are also chair of the Committee on Indian Affairs and a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations.
You consider it reprehensible that we have not already annexed Texas. In fact, the tendency of some of your colleagues to question the independence and strength of the Republic of Texas only encourages and invites the Mexican government to increase its attacks. Mexican history is shown that those people are incapable of self-government, are bigoted, superstitious, cruel and ignorant. They are mongrels, mixed with the blood of blacks and the Spanish and re-crossed again with Indian. To reject this treaty, would be to place the future of fellow white men in the hands of savages.
It is also frightening that American concerns for British and Mexican actions have tended to place the demands of foreign governments above the needs of our own people. Our primary concern should be the safety and security of our fellow Americans living in the Republic of Texas. They are not, as some in the Congress have characterized them, a “restless, dissatisfied, and lawless” population who would bring nothing but violence and criminality to American culture. They are, in fact, former members of our own states, Americans, who share the same values as we.
You are particularly proud that a considerable portion of Texas was once a part of your state. As a young attorney, you would travel throughout the Arkansas counties of Miller and Lafayette, now part of Texas, and knew these people as friends, clients, and colleagues. Your fight for the admission of Texas is personal.
Source: Congressional Globe, 28th Congress, Senate, 1st session, pp. 557-560.
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 29
Levi Woodbury (D-NH)
Born December 22, 1789
Pro-annexation
You are a prominent New Hampshire lawyer who has served in numerous political positions: New Hampshire state senate (1816- 1817), New Hampshire State Supreme Court (1817-1823), New Hampshire governor (1823-1824), United States Secretary of the Navy under President Andrew Jackson (1831-1834), and Secretary of the Treasury under Jackson and Martin Van Buren (1834-1841). Now sitting in the United States Congress, you serve as the Commerce Committee. Throughout all of your official holding, however, you have remained a consummate legal thinker. This has led many to consider you an independent and moderate legal thinker, a trait that has proven a liability in politics where your colleague tend to assign moderation as a sign of indecisiveness.
For you the Texas question is a legal one and nothing more. Opponents of re-annexation argue that Congress has no authority to bring in new states from lands outside the original national boundaries. It’s a form of originalist thinking you find limited. The Founders may have had no indications that the nation would expand to the Rocky Mountains but they certainly did not reject the thought. Thus, the idea that the Constitution only applied to those lands under American control at the time of ratification was wrong. A correct reading would apply its terms to all lands then in the United States and all those who may come in as states and territories in the future.
Other opponents challenge the legal right of Texas to offer its lands for admission. They claim that much of the Texas territorial land rightfully belongs to Mexico and was illegally seized by Texans during their revolution. But your examination of the documents and treaties proves that France had settled the Texas lands five years before the Spain, staking a claim to possession that trumped the claims of Spain. France had sold those Texas lands to the United States in 1803 with the Louisiana Territory, and if not for the diplomatic debacle that was the Adams-Onis Treaty in 1819, it would still be a part of the United States. Everyone realizes President John Quincy Adams had made a mistake in turning Texas over to the Spanish and this is our chance to rectify that mistake. Even if Spain had legal claim, Texas’ revolution and Mexico’s utter failure to regain territorial control rendered their possessory claims void. Texas has every right to dispose of its lands as it sees fit.
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 30
Even if these concerns were met, still other opponents argue, the time is not right to admit Texas for it would surely mean war with Mexico. We may convince ourselves that Mexican claims are invalid, but Mexico still believes in them, and they might prove willing to declare war on the United States to defend them. Ifs and what-ifs. No one can tell the future. All we can do is manage our diplomatic affairs in as forthright a manner as possible and let the chips fall where they may. The world will recognize the validity of our claims and hold those who threaten war in contempt.
As to the concerns that Texas will shift the balance of national power in favor of the South and West, you are not concerned. Texas has such vast resources and such grand geographic range that the region will by natural tendencies divide itself into northern and southern sections, as well as agricultural and industrial sections. In the long run, balance will be maintained.
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 31
Documents
Doc. 1. Treaty Packet
President John Tyler to the United States Senate
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith, for your approval and ratification, a treaty, which I have caused to be negotiated between the United States and Texas, whereby the latter, on the conditions therein set forth, has transferred and conveyed all its right of separate and independent sovereignty and jurisdiction to the United States. 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 18031, by France, to the United States.
The country thus proposed to be annexed has been settled principally by persons from the United States, 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, devotion 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. Its territory is separated from the United States, in part, by an imaginary line, and by the river Sabine for a distance of 310 miles; and its productions are the same with those of many of the contiguous States of the Union.
Such is the country, such are its inhabitants, and such its capacities to add to the general wealth of the Union. As to the latter, it may be safely asserted, that in the magnitude of its productions it will equal, in a short time, under the protecting care of this Government, if it does not surpass, the
1 The Louisiana Purchase
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 32 combined production of many of the States of the Confederacy. 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, particularly the coastwise trade, which this new acquisition is destined in time, and that not distant, to swell to a magnitude which cannot easily be computed; while the addition made to the boundaries of the home market, thus secured to their mining, manufacturing, and mechanical skill and industry, will be of a character the most commanding and important. Such are some of the many advantages which will accrue to the Eastern and Middle States by the ratification of the treaty--advantages, the extent of which it is impossible to estimate with accuracy or properly to appreciate. 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, in the important articles of beef, pork, horses, mules, &c., as well as in breadstuffs.
At the same time, the Southern and South western 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; thus consecrating anew the Union of the States, and holding out the promise of its perpetual duration. Thus, at the same time that the tide of public prosperity is greatly swollen, an appeal, of what appears to the Executive to be of an imposing, if not of a resistless character, is made to the interests of every portion of the country. Agriculture, which would have a new and extensive market opened for its produce; commerce, whose ships would be freighted with the rich productions of an extensive and fertile region; and the mechanical arts, in all their various ramifications, would seem to unite in one universal demand for the ratification of the treaty. But important as these considerations may appear, they are to be regarded as but secondary to others.
Texas, for reasons deemed sufficient by herself, threw off her dependence on Mexico as far back as 1836, and consummated her independence by the battle of San Jacinto, in the same year; since which period, Mexico has attempted no serious invasion of her territory; but the contest has assumed features of a mere border war, characterized by acts revolting to humanity. In the year 1836, Texas adopted her Constitution, under which she has existed as a sovereign Power ever since, having been recognised as such by 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 ninety-three persons, declared her anxious desire to be admitted into association with the United States, as a portion of their territory. This vote, thus solemnly taken, has never been
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 33 reversed; and now, by the action of her constituted authorities, sustained as it 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 United States, concurring with her, has seen no sufficient reason to avoid the consummation of an act esteemed to be so desirable by both.
It cannot be denied, that Texas is greatly depressed in her energies by her long-protracted war with Mexico. Under these circumstances, it is but natural that she should seek for safety and repose under the protection of some stronger Power; and it is equally so that her people should turn to the United States, the land of their birth, in the first instance, in pursuit of such protection. She has often before made known her wishes; but her advances have, to this time, been repelled. The Executive of the United States sees no longer any cause for pursuing such a course. 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, who, looking with more wisdom to their own interests, would, it is fairly to be presumed, readily adopt such expedients; 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. To say nothing of the impolicy of our permitting the carrying trade and home market of such a country to pass out of our hands into those of a commercial rival, the Government, in the first place, would be certain to suffer most disastrously in its revenue by the introduction of a system of smuggling, upon an extensive scale, which an army of custom-house officers could not prevent, and which would operate to affect injuriously the interests of all the industrial classes of this country. Hence would arise constant collisions between the inhabitants of the two countries, which would evermore endanger their peace. A large increase of the military force of the United States would inevitably follow, thus devolving upon the people new and extraordinary burdens, in order not only to protect them from the danger of daily collision with Texas herself, but to guard their border inhabitants against hostile inroads, so easily excited on the part of the numerous and warlike tribes of Indians dwelling in their neighborhood. Texas would undoubtedly be unable, for many years to come, if at any time, to resist, unaided and alone, the military power of the United States; but it is not extravagant to suppose that nations reaping a rich harvest from her trade, secured to them by advantageous treaties, would be
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 34 induced to take part with her in any conflict with us, from the strongest considerations of public policy. Such a state of things might subject to devastation the territory of contiguous States, and would cost the country, in a single campaign, more treasure, thrice told over, than is stipulated to be paid and reimbursed by the treaty now proposed for ratification.
I will not permit myself to dwell on this view of the subject. Consequences of a fatal character to the peace of the Union, and even to the preservation of the Union itself, might be dwelt upon. They will not, however, fail to occur to the mind of the Senate and of the country. Nor do I indulge in any vague conjectures of the future. The documents now transmitted along with the treaty lead to the conclusion, as inevitable, that if the boon now tendered be rejected, Texas will seek for the friendship of others. In contemplating such a contingency, it cannot be overlooked that the United States are already almost surrounded by the possessions of European Powers. The Canadas, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, the islands in the American seas, with Texas, trammelled by treaties of alliance, or of a commercial character, differing in policy from that of the United States, would complete the circle. Texas voluntarily steps forth, upon terms of perfect honor and good faith to all nations, to ask to be annexed to the Union. As an independent sovereignty, her right to do this is unquestionable. In doing so, she gives no cause of umbrage to any other Power; her people desire it, and there is no slavish transfer of her sovereignty and independence. She has for eight years maintained her independence against all efforts to subdue her. She has been recognised as independent by many of the most prominent of the family of nations, and that recognition, so far as they are concerned, places her in a position, without giving any just cause of umbrage to them, to surrender her sovereignty at her own will and pleasure. The United States, actuated evermore by a spirit of justice, has desired, by the stipulations of the treaty, to render justice to all. They have made provision for the payment of the public debt of Texas. We look to her ample and fertile domain as the certain means of accomplishing this; but this is a matter between the United States and Texas, and with which other Governments have nothing to do. Our right to receive the rich grant tendered by Texas is perfect; and this Government should not, having due respect either to its own honor or its own interests, permit its course of policy to be interrupted by the interference of other Powers, even if such interference was threatened. The question is one purely American. In the acquisition, while we abstain most carefully from all that could interrupt the public peace, we claim the right to exercise a due regard to our own. This Government cannot, consistently with its honor, permit any such interference. With equal if not greater propriety might the United States demand of other Governments to surrender their numerous and valuable acquisitions, made in past time, at
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 35 numberless places on the surface of the globe, whereby they have added to their power and enlarged their resources.
To Mexico, the Executive is disposed to pursue a course conciliatory in its character, and at the same time to render her the most ample justice, by conventions and stipulations not inconsistent with the rights and dignity of the Government. It is actuated by no spirit of unjust aggrandizement, but looks only to its own security. It has made known to Mexico, at several periods, its extreme anxiety to witness the termination of hostilities between that country and Texas. Its wishes, however, have been entirely disregarded. It has ever been ready to urge an adjustment of the dispute upon terms mutually advantageous to both. It will be ready at all times to hear and discuss any claims Mexico may think she has on the justice of the United States, and to adjust any that may be deemed to be so on the most liberal terms. There is no desire on the part of the Executive to wound her pride, or affect injuriously her interest; but, at the same time, it cannot compromit by any delay in its action the essential interests of the United States. Mexico has no right to ask or expect this of us--we deal rightfully with Texas as an independent Power. The war which has been waged for eight years has resulted only in the conviction, with all others than herself, that Texas cannot be reconquered. I cannot but repeat the opinion, expressed in my message at the opening of Congress, that it is time it had ceased. The Executive, while it could not look upon its longer continuance without the greatest uneasiness, has nevertheless, for all past time, preserved a course of strict neutrality. It could not be ignorant of the fact of the exhaustion which a war of so long a duration had produced. Least of all was it ignorant of the anxiety of other Powers to induce Mexico to enter into terms of reconciliation with Texas, which, affecting the domestic institutions of Texas, would operate most injuriously upon the United States, and might most seriously threaten the existence of this happy Union. Nor could it be unacquainted with the fact, that although foreign Governments might disavow all design to disturb the relations which exist under the Constitution between these States, yet that one, the most powerful amongst them, had not failed to declare its marked and decided hostility to the chief feature in those relations, and its purpose, on all suitable occasions, to urge upon Mexico the adoption of such a course in negotiating with Texas as to produce the obliteration of that feature from her domestic policy, as one of the conditions of her recognition, by Mexico, as an independent State. The Executive was also aware of the fact, that formidable associations of persons, the subjects of foreign Powers, existed, who were directing their utmost efforts to the accomplishment of this object. To these conclusions it was inevitably brought by the documents now submitted to the Senate. I repeat, the Executive saw Texas in a state
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 36 of almost hopeless exhaustion, and the question was narrowed down to the simple proposition, whether the United States should accept the boon of annexation upon fair and even liberal terms, or, by refusing to do so, force Texas to seek refuge in the arms of some other Power, either through a treaty of alliance, offensive and defensive, or the adoption of some other expedient, which might virtually make her tributary to such Power, and dependent upon it, for all future time. The Executive has full reason to believe that such would have been the result, without its interposition, and that such will be the result, in the event either of unnecessary delay in the ratification, or of the rejection of the proposed treaty.
In full view, then, of the highest public duty, and as a measure of security against evils incalculably great, the Executive has entered into the negotiation, the fruits of which are now submitted to the Senate. Independent of the urgent reasons which existed for the step it has taken, it might safely invoke the fact, which it confidently believes, that there exists no civilized Government on earth, having a voluntary tender made it of a domain so rich and fertile, so replete with all that can add to national greatness and wealth, and so necessary to its peace and safety, that would reject the offer. Nor are other Powers, Mexico inclusive, likely, in any degree, to be injuriously affected by the ratification of the treaty. The prosperity of Texas will be equally interesting to all, in the increase of the general commerce of the world: that prosperity will be secured by annexation.
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 thirteen 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. Each State commits, with perfect security, to that common Government those great interests growing out of our relations with other nations of the world, and which equally involve the good of all the States. Its domestic concerns are left to its own exclusive management. But if there were any force in the objection, it would seem to require an immediate abandonment of territorial possessions which lie in the distance, and stretch to a far-off sea; and yet no one would be found, it
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 37 is believed, ready to recommend such an abandonment. Texas lies at our very doors, and in our immediate vicinity.
Under every view which I have been able to take of the subject, I think that the interests of our common constituents, the people of all 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 of rejecting it is wisely devolved on the Senate by the Constitution of the United States.
JOHN TYLER.
Washington, April 22, 1844.
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 38
A Treaty of Annexation, concluded between the United States of America and the Republic of Texas.
The people of Texas having, at the time of adopting their constitution, expressed by an almost unanimous vote, their desire to be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and being still desirous of the same with equal unanimity, in order to provide more effectually for their security and prosperity; and the United States, actuated solely by the desire to add to their own security and prosperity, and to meet the wishes of the Government and people of Texas, have determined to accomplish, by treaty, objects so important to their mutual and permanent welfare:
For that purpose, the President of the United States has given full Powers to John C. Calhoun, Secretary of State of the said United States, and the President of the Republic of Texas has appointed, with like powers, Isaac Van Zandt and J. Pinckney Henderson, citizens of the said Republic, and the said plenipotentiaries, after exchanging their full powers, have agreed on and concluded the following articles:
ARTICLE I.
The Republic of Texas, acting in conformity with the wishes of the people and every department of its government, cedes to the United States all its territories, to be held by them in full property and sovereignty, and to be annexed to the said United States as one of their Territories, subject to the same constitutional provisions with their other Territories. . .
ARTICLE II.
The citizens of Texas shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property and admitted, as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the federal constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.
ARTICLE III.
All titles and claims to real estate, which are valid under the laws of Texas, shall be held to be so by the United States; and measures shall be adopted for the speedy adjudication of all unsettled claims to land, and patents shall be granted to those found to be valid.
ARTICLE IV.
The public lands hereby ceded shall be subject to the laws regulating the public lands in the other Territories of the United States, as far as they may be applicable. . .
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 39
ARTICLE V.
The United States assume and agree to pay the public debts and liabilities of Texas, however created, for which the faith or credit of her government may be bound at the time of the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty; which debts and liabilities are estimated not to exceed, in the whole, ten minions of dollars, to be ascertained and paid in the manner hereinafter stated. . .
ARTICLE VI.
In order to ascertain the full amount of the debts and liabilities herein assumed, and the legality and validity thereof, four commissioners shall be appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, who shall meet at Washington, Texas, within the period of six months after the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty, and may continue in session not exceeding twelve months, unless the Congress of the United States should prolong the time. . .
ARTICLE. VII.
Until further provision shall be made, the laws of Texas as now existing shall remain in force, and all executive and judicial officers of Texas, except the President, Vice-President and Heads of Departments, shall retain their offices, with all power and authority appertaining thereto, and the Courts of justice shall remain in all respects as now established and organized.
ARTICLE VIII.
Immediately after the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty, the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint a commissioner; who shall proceed to Texas, and receive the transfer of the territory thereof, and all the archives and public property and other things herein conveyed, in the name of the United States. He shall exercise all executive authority in said territory necessary to the proper execution of the laws, until otherwise provided.
ARTICLE IX.
The present treaty shall be ratified by the contracting parties and the ratifications exchanged at the City of Washington, in six months from the date hereof, or sooner if possible.
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 40
In witness whereof, we, the undersigned plenipotentiaries of the United States of America and of the Republic of Texas, have signed, by virtue of our powers the present treaty of Annexation, and have hereunto affixed our seals respectively
Done at Washington, the twelfth day of April, eighteen hundred and forty-four
[Seal] J C. CALHOUN
[Seal] ISAAC VAN ZANDT
[Seal] J PINCKNEY HENDERS0N
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 41
Duff Green Letter
Secretary of State Abel Upshur to William S. Murphy, U.S. charge d-affaires in Texas
August 8, 1843
… A private letter from a citizen of Maryland2, then in London, contains the following passage:
I learn, from a source entitled to the fullest confidence, that there is now here a Mr. Andrews, deputed by the abolitionists of Texas to negotiate with the British government. That he has seen Lord Aberdeen3, and submitted his project for the abolition of slavery in Texas, which is, that there shall be organized a company in England, who shall advance a sum sufficient to pay for the slaves now in Texas, and receive in payment Texas lands; that the sum thus advanced shall be paid over as an indemnity for the abolition of slavery; and I [am] authorized by the Texian minister4 to say to you, that Lord Aberdeen has agreed that the British government will guaranty the payment of the interest on this loan, upon condition that the Texian government will abolish slavery…
A movement of this sort cannot be contemplated by us in silence. Such an attempt upon any neighboring country would necessarily he viewed by this government with very deep concern; but when it is made upon a nation whose territories join the slaveholding States of our Union, it awakens a still more solemn interest. It cannot be permitted to succeed without the most strenuous efforts on our part to arrest a calamity so serious to every part of our country…
If such an attempt were confined to the abolitionists of Texas, it would scarcely merit grave consideration. Their numbers, it is believed, are very small; and the state of public opinion in that country is by no means favorable to the success of their enterprise. But if it be a fact that it has engaged the attention of Lord Aberdeen, and that he has pledged the co-operation of the English government to a certain extent, it possesses an importance which demands our serious attention. It cannot be supposed that England means to limit her designs to the emancipation of a few thousand slaves. She would have ulterior objects far more important to her, and far more interesting to us…
2 Duff Green, former editor of the The United States Telegraph, and member of President Andrew Jackson’s “Kitchen Cabinet,” was in Europe as an emissary from President John Tyler to negotiate a settlement to the disputed boundary between Maine and Canada.
3 George Hamilton-Gordon, 4th Earl of Aberdeen, British Foreign Secretary.
4 Ashbel Green, Texas chargé d ’affairs to England
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 42
We might probably consider this as part of a general plan by which, England would seek to abolish domestic slavery throughout the entire continent and islands of America, in order to find or create new markets for the products of her home industry, and at the same time to destroy all competition with the industry of her colonies. In the great staples of sugar and cotton; her colonies of the East and West Indies are unable to compete with the slave labor of the United States, Texas, and Brazil…
It is an important thing to England to obtain an influence over the policy of Texas; and the present situation of that country offers her every encouragement to make the attempt. Pressed by an unrelenting enemy on her borders, her treasury exhausted, and her credit almost destroyed, Texas is in a condition to need the support of other nations, and to obtain it upon terms of great hardship and many sacrifices to herself. If she should receive no countenance and support from the United States, it is not an extravagant supposition that England may and will reduce her to all the dependence of a colony, without taking upon herself the onerous duties and responsibilities of the mother country. The aid which it is said she now offers toward the abolition of slavery, although probably not; the first, is a very important step; it will be followed by others, which will not fail to establish for her a controlling influence for many years to come…
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 43
Speech of Lord Brougham5 in the House of Lords, August 18, 1843, as reported in the London Morning Chronicle
Lord Brougham said that, seeing his noble friend at the head of the Foreign Department in his place, he wished to obtain some information from him relative to a State of great interest at the present time—namely, Texas. That country was in a state of independence, de facto, but its independence had never been acknowledged by Mexico, the State from which it was torn by the events of the revolution. He was aware that its independence had been so far acknowledged by this country that we had a treaty with it.
The importance of Texas could not be underrated. It was a country of the greatest capabilities, and was in extent fully as large as France. It possessed a soil of the finest and most fertile character, and it was capable of producing nearly all tropical produce, and its climate was of a most healthy character. It had access to the Gulf of Mexico, through the river Mississippi, with which it communicated by means of the Red river. The population of the country was said to exceed 240,000, but he had been assured by a gentleman who came from that country, and who was a member of the same profession as himself, that the whole population, free and slaves, white and colored, did not exceed 100,000; but he was grieved to learn that not less than one-fourth of the population, or 25,000 persons, were in a state of slavery. This point led him to the foundation of the question which he wished to put to his noble friend. There was very little or no slave trade carried on with Texas from Africa, directly; but a large number of slaves were constantly being sent overland to that country. Although the major part of the land in Texas was well adapted for white labor, and therefore for free cultivation, still the people of that country, by some strange infatuation, or by some inordinate love of immediate gain, preferred slave labor to free labor. As all access to the African slave market was shut out to them, their market for slaves was the United States, from whence they obtained a large supply of negro slaves. The markets from whence they obtain their supply of slaves were Georgia, the Carolinas, and Virginia, which States constantly sent their surplus slave population, which would otherwise be a burden to them, to the Texan market. No doubt it was true, as had been stated, that they treated their slaves tolerably well, because they knew that it was for their interest to rear them, as they had such a profitable market for them in Texas. This made him irresistibly anxious for the abolition of slavery in Texas; for if it were abolished
5 Henry Brougham, 1st Baron Brougham, former Lord Chancellor of England (1830-1834)
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 44 there, not only would that country be cultivated by free and white labor, but it would put a stop to the habit of breeding slaves for the Texan market: the consequence would be that they would solve this great question in the history of the United States, for it must ultimately end in the abolition of slavery in America. He therefore looked forward most anxiously to the abolition of slavery in Texas, as he was convinced that it would ultimately end in the abolition of slavery, throughout the whole of America. He knew that the Texans would do much, as regarded the abolition of slavery, if Mexico could be induced to recognize their independence. If, therefore, by our good offices, we could get the Mexican government to acknowledge the independence of Texas, he would suggest a hope that it might terminate in the abolition of slavery Texas, and ultimately the whole of the southern States of America. The abolition of slavery in Texas must put an end to one of the most execrable crimes (for he would not designate it by the honorable name of traffic) that could disgrace a people—namely, the rearing and breeding of slaves or the being engaged in the sale of our fellow-creatures.
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 45
Jackson Letter, March 11, 1844
Hermitage
The present golden moment to obtain Texas must not be lost, or Texas must, from necessity, be thrown into the arms of England, and be forever lost to the United States! Need I call your attention to the situation of the United States, England in possession of Texas, or in strict alliance, offensive and defensive, and contending for California? How easy would it be for Great Britain to interpose a force sufficient to prevent emigration to California from the United States, and supply her garrison from Texas! Every real American, when they view this, with the danger to New Orleans from British arms from Texas, must unite heart and hand in the annexation of Texas to the United States. It will be a strong iron hoop around our Union, and a bulwark against all foreign invasion or aggression. I say again, let not this opportunity slip to regain Texas, or it may elude our grasp forever, or cost us oceans of blood, and millions of money, to free us front the evils that may be brought up on us! I hope and trust there will be as many patriots in the Senate as will ratify the treaty, which, I have no doubt, will be promptly entered into. I again say to you, that this moment must not be lost, or real necessity may compel Texas to look elsewhere for protection and safety.
Andrew Jackson
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 46
Doc. 2. Evidence of British Intent
Excerpt from diplomatic communique from Edward Everett, United States minister to England, November 3, 1843
I had an interview with Lord Aberdeen6 the first day of his return to town, having requested it while he was yet in the country. I had several matters to bring to his notice, as you will have seen from the preceding dispatches forwarded by this steamer. Having disposed of them, I then, in obedience to your instructions, alluded to the agency which the British government were supposed to be exercising to procure the abolition of slavery in Texas. Lord Aberdeen said he was glad I had mentioned this subject; for it was one on which he intended himself to make some observations. His attention had been called to some suggestions in the American papers in favor of the annexation of Texas to the Union, by way of counteracting the designs imputed to England; and he would say that if this measure were undertaken on any such grounds, it would be wholly without provocation. England had acknowledged the independence of Texas, and had treated, and would continue to treat her, as an independent power. That England had long been pledged to encourage the abolition of the slave-trade and of slavery, as far as her influence extended, and in every proper way, but had no wish to interfere in the internal concerns of foreign governments. She gave her advice, where she thought it would be acceptable in favor of the abolition of slavery, but nothing more. In reference to Texas, the suggestion that England had made, or intended to make, the abolition of slavery the condition of any treaty arrangement with her, was wholly without foundation. It had never been alluded to in that connexion. General Hamilton7, as commissioner from Texas, had proposed that England should make or guaranty a loan to Texas, to be used to aid her in obtaining guaranty Mexico the recognition of her independence, and in other ways to promote the development of her resources; and he himself (Lord Aberdeen), had at first thought somewhat favorably of the proposition, considering Texas as a fine, promising country, which it would be good policy to help through her temporary embarrassments. But on mentioning the project to his colleagues, they deemed it wholly inexpedient, nor did he himself continue to give it countenance; nor was the loan, as proposed by General Hamilton, and at first favorably viewed by himself, in the slightest degree connected with the abolition of slavery as a condition or consequence. In the
6 George Hamilton-Gordon, 4th Earl of Aberdeen, British Foreign Secretary.
7 General James Hamilton, former governor of South Carolina named as financial commissioner for the Republic of Texas to seek commercial treaties with and loans from European partners.
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 47 course of the last summer he had been waited upon, as he supposed I was aware at the time, by a deputation of American abolitionists, who were desirous of engaging the British government in some such measure, (viz; of a loan, connected with the abolition of slavery,) but that he had given them no countenance whatever; he had informed them that, by every proper means of influence, he would encourage the abolition of slavery, and that he had recommended the Mexican government to interest itself in the matter; but he told them, at the outset, that he should consider himself bound in good faith to repeat everything that might pass between them to the Texan charge d'affaires. 8
8 Ashbel Green, Texas chargé d ’affairs to England
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 48
Aberdeen Letter
Lord Aberdeen9 to Sir Richard Pakenham, British minister to the United States
Foreign Office, Dec. 26, 1843.
As much agitation appears to have prevailed of late in the United States relative to the designs which Great Britain is supposed to entertain with regard to the Republic of Texas, her Majesty's government deem it expedient to take measures for stopping at once the misrepresentations which have been circulated, and the errors into which the government of the United States seems to have fallen on the subject of the policy of Great Britain with respect to Texas. That policy is clear and simple, and may be stated in a few words. Great Britain has recognised the independence of Texas; and, having done so, she is desirous of seeing that independence finally and formally established, and generally recognised, especially by Mexico. But this desire does not arise from any motive of ambition or of self-interest, beyond that interest, at least, which attaches to the general extension of our commercial dealings with other countries.
We are convinced that the recognition of Texas by Mexico must conduce to the benefit of both these countries and, as we take an interest in the well-being of both, and in their steady advance in power and wealth. We have put ourselves forward in pressing the government of Mexico to acknowledge Texas as independent. But in thus acting we have occult design, either with reference to any peculiar interest which we might seek to establish in Mexico or in Texas, or even with reference to the slavery which now exists, and which we desire to see abolished in Texas.
With regard to the latter point, it must be and is well known both to the United States and to the whole World, that Great Britain desires, and is constantly exerting herself to procure, the general abolition of slavery throughout the world. But the means which she has adopted, and will continue to adopt, for this humane and virtuous purpose, are open and undisguised. She will do nothing secretly or underhand. She desires that her motives may be generally understood, and her acts seen by all.
With regards to Texas, we avow that we wish to see slavery abolished there, as elsewhere, and we should rejoice if the recognition of that country by the Mexican government should be accomplished by an engagement on the part of Texas to abolish slavery eventually, and under
9 George Hamilton-Gordon, 4th Earl of Aberdeen, British Foreign Secretary.
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 49 proper conditions, throughout the republic. But although we earnestly desire and feel it to be our duty to promote such a consummation, we shall not interfere unduly, or with an improper assumption of authority, with either party, in order to insure the adoption of such a course. We shall counsel, but we shall not seek to compel, of unduly control, either party. So far as Great Britain is concerned, provided other States act with equal forbearance, those governments will be fully at liberty to make their own unfettered arrangements with each other, both in regard to the abolition of slavery and in all other points.
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 50
Doc. 3. Calhoun to Van Zandt and Henderson
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, May 15, 1844.
The undersigned, Secretary of State of the United States, will thank Mr. Van Zandt and General Henderson to furnish him with any information that may be in their power in reference to any armistice, or proposed armistice, between Texas and Mexico, and the circumstances connected with the same.
The undersigned avails himself of the opportunity to offer Mr. Van Zandt and General Henderson renewed assurances of his distinguished consideration.
J. C. CALHOUN.
Messrs. Van Zandt and Henderson to Mr. Calhoun
The undersigned, &c., in reply to the note of Mr. Calhoun, Secretary of State of the United States, of yesterday's date, have the honor to submit for his information the following facts in relation to the origin and history of the alleged armistice between Mexico and Texas, to which he refers:
"By the terms of a convention concluded between Texas and Great Britain, on the 14th of November, 1840, the British government agreed to offer its mediation for the settlement of the difficulties between Mexico and Texas, upon the basis of the recognition of the independence of Texas by Mexico. In pursuance of this convention, the mediation of Great Britain was tendered to and declined by Mexico, information of which was communicated to the President of Texas. Afterwards, in the year 1842 representations were made by Texas to Great Britain, France, and the United States, requesting their joint interposition for the settlement of the difficulties between Mexico and Texas. To this request, the governments of France and the United States indicated their ready willingness to accede. The British government, however, for reasons deemed by it sufficient, declined to be thus associated, suggesting, at the same time, that each might act separately. Subsequently, the Texan charge d'affaires in London was informed by the minister of foreign affairs of the British government, that the mediation, as before pursued, was utterly hopeless, and that her Majesty’s charge d'affaires in Mexico had been directed to propose a new feature in the same to Mexico.
"In the month of May, 1843, in reply to the representations upon the subject made by her Britannic Majesty's charge d'affaires in Mexico to General Santa Anna, the latter indicated his willingness to
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 51 agree to a suspension of hostilities, and to receive commissioners from Texas, to treat on the terms of a peace. This fact was communicated by her Britannic Majesty's charge d'affaires in Texas to the President of Texas on the 10th June, 1843, who, no the 15th of the same month, issued his proclamation for an armistice, annexing certain stipulations by which it should be terminated. When these were communicated to General Santa Anna, through the British charge d'affaires, who declined to assent to them, suggesting that it would be better that the terms, duration, &c , should be arranged by commissioners appointed by the respective governments for that purpose. Information of this was communicated to the Texian government, both through the British charge d'affaires in Texas, and in a communication from General Woll to General Houston, in which it was stated, in substance, that he (General Woll) was authorized by General Santa Anna to appoint commissioners to meet any persons similarly commissioned by Texas to, arrange the proposed armistice. In pursuance of this, the Texian commissioners were appointed, and proceeded to Mexico. They were instructed that no arrangement made by them would be binding until approved by the President. When the agreement entered into by them was submitted to the President of Texas, he declined approving it. Referring to Texas as a department of Mexico was a sufficient reason for its prompt rejection, and precluded all possibility of official action tinder it.”
The negotiations having thus terminated, and this agreement being held to be null and void, there is at present no subsisting arrangement of any character between Mexico and Texas.
The undersigned avail themselves of this occasion to offer to Mr. Calhoun renewed assurances of their distinguished consideration.
ISAAC VAN ZANDT,
J. PINCKNEY HENDERSON.
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game 52
Doc. 4. Map of Texas, 1842
Source: George Folsom, Mexico in 1842: A Description of the Country, Its Natural and Political Features (New York: Charles J. Folsom; Wiley and Putnam; Robinson, Pratt and Co., 1842).
Texas Annexation: A Short Reacting to the Past Game