been received February 26, containing a statement from Lord Aberdeen, Minister for Foreign Affairs, that Great Britain desired to see slavery abolished in Texas eventually, as elsewhere, but disclaimed any intention to exercise undue influence to that end. This note was answered by Secretary Calhoun April 18, in which he stated that the avowal of Lord Aberdeen on this subject made it "the imperious duty of the federal government to conclude, "in self-defense," a treaty of annexation with Texas. As to this transaction, the historian Von Holst, in his biography of Calhoun, says: "It may not be correct to apply, without modification, the code of private ethics to politics; but however flexible political morality may be, a lie is a lie, and Calhoun knew there was not a particle of truth in these assertions." 2

This is strong language, but it seems to be justified by the facts. Calhoun's attitude had been declared eight years before; it was well known that President Tyler had been using every influence to bring about annexation; negotiations to that end were on foot before the British minister's note was received; and if it had never been written the action of the Executive Department of the United States would have been exactly the same. Aside from Lord Aberdeen's dispatch, it was well known that British and French influences were at work to prevent, if possible, the absorption of Texas into the Union. The Texan debt was largely owed in England, and it was the policy of that country 1 For correspondence, S. Doc. 341, pp. 48-53; 36–67. 2 Von Holst's Calhoun, 233.

to encourage an independent nation.1 Besides, a strong belief existed among the Southerners that unless annexation was successful, Texas would, under European influence, soon abolish slavery. The Aberdeen dispatch only served to confirm the preconceived opinions and resolutions of the administration.

The treaty was held back in the Senate till the Democratic National Convention of 1844 had declared for "the re-annexation of Texas," in the hope that this declaration would aid in securing its ratification. On June 8, 1844, the treaty was rejected by a vote of thirty-five to sixteen."

3

Not discouraged by this failure, President Tyler sent a message two days afterwards to the House of Representatives transmitting documents, and stating that Congress was "fully competent, in some other form of proceeding, to accomplish everything that a formal ratification of the treaty could have accomplished; but no action was taken upon this suggestion before the adjournment, and the subject was postponed till after the presidential campaign. The election resulted in the choice of Polk, the champion of annexation. Encouraged by this result, President Tyler, in his last annual message in December, 1844, recurred to his previous suggestion that Congress might bring about the desired end by another method than a treaty, and recommended annexation by joint resolution. A joint

1 For British action and as to abolition of slavery in Texas, S. Doc. 341, pp. 18-42.

2 2 Benton's View, 619.

♦ 4 Richardson's Messages, 345.

8 4 Richardson's Messages, 323.

resolution to this effect was passed March 1, 1845, after a long and animated debate.1 The vote in the House was 128 to 98, and 27 to 25 in the Senate.2 This This precedent of Congress was followed in the recent admission by joint resolution of the Hawaiian republic; the action, however, in the latter case was taken upon a two thirds majority in both houses. The resolution

3

was accepted by Texas July 4, 1845. On March 6, the Mexican minister demanded his passports and left the United States, and in May the United States minister likewise left Mexico. It was apparent that this action would lead to war with Mexico, and both governments took measures to prepare for the coming conflict.

The serious state of our foreign relations on the south made it necessary that some adjustment should be reached of the territorial dispute with Great Britain as to the Pacific coast, which had existed for a gener ation, and which had been greatly intensified because of domestic partisan measures. The Oregon boundary question had received the attention of Mr. Calhoun while Secretary of State, but little progress was made by him towards a settlement, he holding that time was steadily working in favor of American interests through increased immigration. Besides, the annexation of Texas was nearest to his heart, and he did not consider it good policy at that time to push England

15 Stat. at Large, 797.

2 2 Benton's View, chap. 148.

8 Other official documents not above cited: S. Doc. 1, 24th Cong. 2d Sess. pp. 27-105; S. Doc. 160; H. Doc. 40, 25th Cong. 1st. Sess.; H. Ex. Doc. 266, 27th Cong. 2d Sess.