The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association, Volume 5, July 1901 - April, 1902 Page: 36
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
36 texas Ilistorical Association Quarterly.
as an independent sovereignty. The United States and the leading
countries of Europe had treated her as such, and in 1843 an anexa-
tion treaty was proposed, which was vehemently opposed by New
England, with John Quincy Adams in the lead. The United
States was officially notified by Mexico that such a step would be
regarded as a cause for war.1 This threat afforded the Whigs an
excuse for opposing annexation, and that party as a mass resisted
the measure. The result was that when it was submitted to Con-
gress, in 1844, it was defeated by a decisive vote. From this action
of Congress the friends of annexation appealed to the people, and
the issue of annexation overshadowed all others in that notable
campaign which resulted in the election of Mr. Polk to the presi-
dency. An analysis Qf that vote, by States, will show that it was
neither a Northern nor Southern nor a slaveholder's movement.
The non-slaveholding States of Maine, New Hampshire, New
York, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan, with an
aggregate white population of 6,201,991 (census of 1840), voted
for it, while the non-slaveholding States of Vermont, Massachu-
setts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Ohio, with an
aggregate white population of 3,281,401. voted against it. The
slaveholding States of Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Ala-
bama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri, with an
aggregate white population of 2,489,358, voted for it, while the
slaveholding States of Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, Ten-
nessee, and Kentucky, with an aggregate white population of
2,092,515, voted against it. This result, too, was in spite of the
fact that Henry Clay, than whom no statesman in the history of
the United States ever had a larger personal following,,was at the
head of the opposition. The campaign literature of that day
shows that the main argument used throughout the United States,
outside of New England, against annexation, was that the annex-
alion of Texas would necessarily result in Mexico's waging war.
This is significant in considering further on which nation was
responsible for the Mexican war.
In view of this sentiment in the United States, another treaty
was prepared late in 1844. When news of this reached the ears of
'The Mexican government had repeatc-dy, without any sort of qualifica-
tion, signified to the United States that it would consider the amnexation
of Texas as a declaration of w'ar. Vou EHo1ls, Vol. II, p. 80.
Here’s what’s next.
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas State Historical Association. The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association, Volume 5, July 1901 - April, 1902, periodical, 1902; Austin, Texas. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth101021/m1/42/: accessed May 25, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Texas State Historical Association.