sedulously promoting the policy of immigration, territorial settlement and slavery agitation. Their territories were ready for admission as States, and public sentiment was pressing the alignment of political parties on the geographical line of slavery. A majority in the Senate and entire control of the government was almost within their grasp. Should the South be permitted to bring in new territory and thus escape the net which had been so ingeniously spread? They argued that the annexation of Texas was a conspiracy to extend slavery. It would be robbing Mexico. It would be bad faith. It would be a violation of the Constitution. It would involve war. It would be a ruinous policy. It was morally wrong.
The advocates of annexation used arguments much stronger and more patriotic. They demonstrated the right of Texas to seek annexation, the right of the United States to accept it. They pointed out the many advantages of union both to Texas and to the United States, commercial, social and political ; and the many disadvantages to both in remaining apart. They showed that Texas could never again become a part of Mexico, and if not annexed to the United States must become a nucleus of European influence in America. Every motive of interest and sentiment prompted a union with a free people of our own blood who were already assimilated to our institutions. It was argued that those who opposed annexation under the guise of a newly aroused moral crusade against slavery were mainly those who had always obstructed territorial acquisition in every form. If the South should gain the immediate advantage in a political point of view, yet it was no dangerous advantage, and could only enable that section to maintain an equipoise of power; while those who opposed annexation so vehemently were striving to attain a complete and dangerous control of every branch of the government. This reasoning convinced the American people, as the verdict of the
