beloved and familiar flag float over their newly formed republic, the emblem of patriotism and the guarantee of protection. Why should this be refused them? It was the ardent desire of a free people. It would add to the greatness and luster of the United States; it would assure, at least for a time, the balance of power between the States. It would reunite with the growing United States a people of kindred blood who would otherwise found a rival republic, and were already invited to form European alliances which, in a few years, might become dangerous. What reason of justice, broad philanthropy, or true patriotism could be alleged against the annexation? It was thought sufficient by many, in the diseased state of the public mind, to utter the portentous word—"Slavery !" "It will extend the slave area and prop the tottering slave power.
It is needless to our purposes to follow the negotiations for the annexation of Texas through all the details of diplomacy, Congressional debate and popular discussion. It is sufficient to note that annexation was favored almost universally at the South and strongly opposed by Northern abolitionists.
Texas applied for annexation in 1837. The application was declined by President Van Buren, but gave rise to animated discussion in all parts of the country. Congress was flooded with petitions and memorials. The State legislatures of Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Ohio and Michigan passed resolutions opposing annexation; while the legislatures of Tennessee, Alabama, South Carolina and Mississippi passed resolutions strongly urging it. The question meanwhile remained in abeyance. But matters were brought to a crisis by the presidential election of 1844, in which the questions of the annexation of Texas and the exclusive occupation of Oregon were made the leading issues.
The Texans had begun to show some resentment at the reception of their overtures, and entertained propositions
