But it is not enough that Mr. Calhoun's statement * Cong. Globe—29th Cong., 2d Sess , p. 495 should be falsified by himself. We summon a witness far more competent, and quite as credible as himself. Gene- ral Houston may well be called the father of the Texan Repubhc, having commanded its army on the field of San Jacinto, and afterwards presided over its councils as Pre- sident. The treaty with England was negotiated under his direction, and he was necessarily intimately acquainted with all the foreign relations of Texas. He was, more- over, chosen by the State of Texas to represent her in the United States Senate. On the 19th February, 1847, he declared in his place in the Senate, " England never pro- posed the subject of slavery or of abolition to Texas England never made a suggestion to Texas which, if she had pursued or accepted, would have degraded her in the eyes of the purest patriot that ever lived. Captain Elliot (British Minister in Texas) required nothing but commer- cial relations between England and Texas, and an inter- change of her fabrics for the products of the South.''* So much for the monstrous assertion that the treaty of annexation " was forced upon the Government of the United States in self-defence, in consequence of the policy adopted by Great Britain in reference to the abolition of slavery in Texas."
The treaty referred to was submitted to the Senate on the 22d April, 1844, and was rejected by that body by a vote of thirty-five to sixteen, Mr. Upshur's pledge to the Texan Government, that two-thirds of the Senate would approve of it, notwithstanding. Under no circumstances could this treaty have received the consent of two-thirds of the Senate, but the greatness of the vote against it was owing to other causes than hos- tihty to annexation. Mr. Tyler was the most unpopular President that had ever occupied the Executive Chair.
- Cong. Globe—29tli Cong. 2d Sess., p. 469.