THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS AND THE MISSISSIPPI
DEMOCRATS
1
The shelving of Van Buren at the Baltimore convention in 1844
and the selection of Polk as the leader of the party committed
to the immediate annexation of Texas was, as is well known, pri-
marily the work of a group of Mississippi politicians led by Robert
J. Walker. The action of these delegates in thus violating their
instructions, on the whole, met with the full approval of their con-
stituents.
2 With truth Walker has been styled "the architect of
the democratic imperialism under which Texas was annexed," but
he was only the foremost of a coterie of aggressive Mississippi
politicians that included Jefferson Davis, who, with Walker, was
eager to take over all of Mexico,
3 and A. G. Brown, a remarkable
leader who represented the small slaveholders and the non-slave-
holders of his state, and who was more radical than Davis in his
views upon annexation and slavery.
4
Mississippi afforded a fruitful soil for the propaganda of Walker,
Davis, Brown, Foote and Huston in furtherance of the cause of
annexation. Before the independence of Texas was achieved,
voices were raised in the state in advocacy of annexation. Highly
significant in this connection is the report of a select committee
of the legislature in 1837 which declared "the annexation of Texas
is essential to the safety and repose of the southern states."
5 Fur-
thermore, in Mississippi as elsewhere in the South annexation in
1844 "was still a popular measure with most Whig voters,"
6 Typ-
ical of Whig sentiment until the Texas question became in the
South a matter of party strife, was the declaration of a leading
Whig journal which welcomed the annexation issue as showing
who were for "Texas and liberty to the South, or against Texas
and white freedom in the South"; for the acquisition of Texas
would give the South an equality in the Union by which she could
maintain her rights and meet the North upon fair ground.
7
While there is abundant evidence of the genuineness of the sen-
timent in Mississippi with reference to the desire for annexation,
it would be a mistake to suppose that annexation was the only
issue that was felt to be involved in the presidential election of
that year. Responsible spokesmen of the Democratic party deemed
other matters besides the acquisition of Texas to be at stake;
party doctrine touching the questions of a national bank, the tariff,
internal improvements, are a continually recurring theme in the
public prints, in the speeches of campaign orators, and in well-
nigh numberless resolutions adopted during the summer and fall
of 1844 in meetings held throughout the state in furtherance of
the cause of annexation.
8 As proof of this may be cited the con-
servative expressions of the Mississippian,
one of the leading or-
gans within the state, whose tone at times resembled that of the
leading Whig journals. This paper was friendly to annexation,
and readily admitted that the South favored the acquisition of
Texas because her influence now on the wane in the councils of
the nation would be greatly augmented by the increase of slave
territory, but the editor refused "to sink the other questions into
insignificance," and deplored the hot-headed movements of those
who would make the annexation question the sole issue of the
campaign. The South should beware of deserting its "natural
allies," the Democracy of the North; the disunionist proceedings
of any group of southern men as well as the activities of the abo-
litionist faction at the North were condemned in bitter terms;
the southern people had ample security for their rights in the con-
stitution. "So long as the Union lasts, the South is safe.
9
If further proof were needed of the fact that other issues be-
sides annexation were believed to be at stake in this campaign,
10
it is to be found in the addresses of the central state committee of
the Democratic party, among whose twelve members occur the
names of Quitman and Boger Barton. These addresses thus rep-
resent the views of the official spokesmen of the party in Mis-
sissippi, and in one of the addresses annexation is almost dealt
with as if it were a side issue; for only the barest allusion is made
to Clay's position on the Texas question. Both of the documents
on the other hand take up twenty columns of the newspapers in
setting forth in a most exhaustive manner the Democratic creed
touching a national bank, the tariff, internal improvements, and
distribution of the revenue derived from the proceeds of the public
lands. On the whole the question of annexation is dealt with in
a temperate manner in the address first put forth,—as "possibly
paramount to any or all of other great questions," though if war
with Mexico must come as a result of redeeming the pledge of
the treaty of 1803, let it come. It was argued that the extension
of slave territory would render slave labor more valuable, while
not increasing the evils of slavery, for the free blacks could be
colonized in Mexico. Reference is made to the economic argument
that Texas as an ally or a dependency of England would enable
that country to derive its supply of cotton from the region be-
yond the Sabine; granting that the extension of the national
territory might depress the value of lands in the South, none but
speculators would suffer. Those who predicted disunion in con-
sequence of annexation were little better than traitors, "who would
rend asunder the Union rather than new States should exercise
the constitutional right of being admitted into the Union."
11
Whig party organs complained bitterly of the action of promi-
nent Democratic leaders, who canvassed the state from one end
to the other, haranguing their audiences upon the subject of
"democracy and Texas." In the language of their opponents, de-
nunciation of Henry Clay constituted "the weapon of their war-
fare and annexation was the burthen of their song." But while
the necessity of annexation on account of the sectional interest
involved were stressed by Huston, Quitman, Foote and others,
this was by no means the sole issue to which reference was made
in their speeches. For a number of reasons the annexation of
Texas seemed a desirable thing to the people of Mississippi just
as it did to those of other southern states. One of the Texan
commissioners to the United States referred, though with exag-
geration, to the "run mad annexation excitement in the southern
states.
12 As has been pointed out, the subject of annexation
was a theme upon which it was easy for orators to kindle enthu-
siasm among those who gathered at barbecues during the summer
months.
13 "Poke & Texas, that's the thing, it goes like wild-fire
with the folks as kant rede, nor don't git no papers." Thus did a
disgusted Whig sum up the argument for the democratic nomi-
nees so far as the undiscriminating masses were concerned.
14 By
many the desirability of annexation was put upon grounds of
broad national interest, though it is difficult to believe that such
considerations outweighed those of a sectional cast. It was as-
serted that the peace, security and interests of the whole nation
required immediate annexation to the United States, whose good
faith was pledged to carry out the treaties of 1803 and 1819. In
Mississippi as elsewhere a potent consideration was "a
spontaneous
desire to regain a valuable piece of property that had been surren-
dered imprudently and could now be had at a bargain."
15 It is
not surprising that on the whole the legal considerations involved
received comparatively little attention from popular orators and
partisan editors. It seemed to be generally assumed that all
doubt as to any constitutional impediment touching annexation
had been resolved "by the unanswerable argument of our illus-
trious fellow-citizen, Martin Van Buren." Among the reasons
assigned by the legislature for instructing their representatives, in
congress "to urge zealously and perseveringly the immediate and
indissoluble annexation by treaty of the republic of Texas to the
United States" was the fact that the two countries were contig-
uous in geographical position, inhabited by kindred people, spoke
a kindred language, produced the same staples, cherished the same
commercial interests, and were animated by the same love of lib-
erty.
16 It may well be believed, however, that such considerations
were subordinate to the political motive, for previous legislatures
had linked the annexation question with the perpetuity of slavery
in the most emphatic manner.
17
As might be expected, much stress was placed by writers and
speakers upon the so-called economic arguments for annexation;
appeal was made to the letters of Jackson and of Walker in which
had been set forth the civil, military and commercial importance
of Texas.
18 Annexation it was asserted would open up new mar-
kets for the manufactures of northern states, for the agricultural
products of the middle and western states, all of which would in-
volve an increase of shipping and an expansion of commerce.
19
This argument put forth by Huston in an elaborate exposition
of the reasons for immediate annexation was intended to reconcile
northern sentiment to an increase of slave territory; for first and
last Huston was the most extreme advocate of annexation be-
cause of its bearing upon the question of slavery. Others argued
that annexation would bring a reduction in the price of lands in
consequence of the extension of the national domain, and would
prevent Texas as an independent state from supplying the Eng-
lish market with cotton to the ruin of the southern planter.
20
Governor Brown dwelt upon the danger of Texas as a rival in
the production of cotton in case that country became a part of
the dominions of England.
21 Texas as a free-labor nation, argued
the Free
Trader,
would glut English markets not only with cotton,
but with tobacco and rice as well.
22
Reference has been made to the fact that during the years that
intervened between the attainment of independence and the emer-
gence of annexation as an issue in party politics, deep concern was
manifested in Mississippi at the danger that was believed to
menace the South and its interests unless Texas were annexed.
Men in Mississippi as elsewhere in the lower South had come to
believe that the annexation of Texas was all essential to the pres-
ervation of the Union. It would have been most surprising,
therefore, if in the campaign of 1844 this argument had not re-
ceived cordial and wide-spread support. Second only in impor-
tance to what may be termed this sectional motive was the deep-
seated anti-British sentiment which manifested itself mostly,
though by no means exclusively, in the newspapers. At no period
of our history perhaps has what Secretary John Hay once char-
acterized as a mad-dog hatred of England, been more pronounced
than it was in the discussions which took place in connection with
the subject of annexation. And one of, if not the chief, causes
of this antipathy for England was dread of that country's abo-
litionist designs in Texas.
In his inaugural address of January 11, 1844, Governor Brown
urged that annexation under any circumstances was desirable,
since such a measure was intimately connected with the prosperity
of the state, in fact with its very existence as an independent
member of the confederacy. England, where anti-slavery senti-
ment was so pronounced, was said to have proposed the total abo-
lition of slavery in Texas, her government to reimburse the slave
owners, "So long, however, as Texas maintains her independence,
and adheres to her present form of government, it is not indis-
pensable, especially if she repel, as I trust she ever will, with
becoming energy, all attempts to unsettle her domestic policy on
the subject of slavery. And shall we stand idly by, whilst Texas,
and with her our institutions are drawn inch by inch into the
meshes of a wily nation, that has never failed to do us injury?"
The most important consideration was that from Texas might be
carved independent states that would offset Wisconsin, Iowa, and
the unsettled territory of the northwest; this would preserve the
political equilibrium of the Senate, so absolutely essential to the
safety of the domestic institutions of the South, increase the in-
fluence of that section in the councils of the nation, "secure to
Mississippi peace in the exercise of her domestic policy, and a
proud independence as a separate member of the confederacy
23
In these words were summed up what was in all probability the
most potent argument for annexation that was to be heard so
often during the weeks and months that followed the nomination
of Polk and Dallas. Governor T. M. Tucker, in presenting to
the legislature for consideration and action a resolution unani-
mously passed by the legislature of Alabama advocating annex-
ation, used these words: "I unite in opinion with the people of
Alabama, in believing that the annexation of Texas to the United
States, is not only indispensable to the institutions of the Southern
States, but also to the peace and commerce of the United States."
24
It is not difficult to believe that "the peace and commerce of the
United States" was a secondary consideration in the minds of
these two Mississippi governors, and that their chief concern arose
from the danger that confronted their section unless more slave
territory was added to the Union. The legislature of Mississippi
was not slow in acting upon the suggestions of its governors; nor
is this surprising in view of the action taken by previous legis-
latures in putting the desirability of annexation exclusively upon
grounds of a sectional cast, while at the same time slavery was ex-
tolled as the very palladium of their prosperity and happiness.
25
The subject of annexation engaged the attention of the state legis-
lators during the months of January and February. More than
twenty pages of the senate journal are devoted to the "Address
of a Citizen of Texas," which was in the nature of a reply to the
manifesto put forth by Adams and some twenty other members
of congress remonstrating against the annexation of Texas. One
extract may be quoted as conveying the tenor of the whole: "Texas
will be the instrument in the hands of Great Britain to drive you
from your homes and to wrest from you your property."
26 The
final vote on the preamble and resolutions adopted was 62 to 10,
nine Whigs voting in the affirmative. The most significant reso-
lution adopted declared, "That in the judgment of the Legisla-
ture, if the desired annexation should not be affected, it will be
incompatible with the rights, interests and tranquillity of the
United States, for any European power to obtain possession of
the territory of Texas, or to secure a commanding influence in
her councils; and that such an attempt would be considered by the
United States as a sufficient cause for war."
27
More far-reaching in its effects so far as the outcome of the
election was concerned, was the aggressive campaign carried on
by the group of party leaders whose names have been mentioned
above.
Among these was Jefferson Davis, who was one of the pres-
idential electors on the Democratic ticket. In his public utter-
ances Davis by no means confined himself to the Texas question, but
took up one by one the issues which divided the two parties, deal-
ing with them in a clear and convincing manner. High hopes
were entertained by democratic journals of the future which
awaited Davis as the favorable impression which he made upon
his hearers increased from day to day. "He is the pride of old
Warren, and is destined soon to be the pride of the State and of
the whole country." "Mr. Davis is the impersonation of the true
spirit of the South. He will do more to win back the former
spirit and admiration of the world to her, than any man we could
send to public life. We predict that he becomes the Calhoun of
Mississippi."
28 At a democratic meeting held at Natchez on July
12 for the purpose of extolling the nominees of the Baltimore
convention, one of the speakers was Colonel Davis. Among the
resolutions passed on this occasion was the following: "That the
democracy of this country look upon the immediate re-annexation
of Texas to the family of the Union, as an act expedient and
necessary for the safety, the perpetuity, the glory, and the honor
of the whole nation."
29 There is no reason for believing that put-
ting the annexation of Texas upon broad grounds of national in-
terest did not meet with the entire approval of Davis; a wide gulf
separated him from those extremists in the state who pronounced
themselves ready to advocate disunion in the event of the failure
of annexation. In a word, his attitude on the whole reflected
more faithfully than did Robert J. Walker the sentiment enun-
ciated by the latter: "It is a great question of national interest
too large and comprehensive to embrace any party or section less
than the whole American people"; for while Walker in his famous
letter did put the annexation of Texas upon national grounds, in
his pamphlet entitled "The South in Danger" he appealed to nar-
row sectional interests, recommending annexation solely on the
ground of perpetuating and extending the South's peculiar in-
stitution. When the campaign of that summer came to an end,
Davis had made a reputation for himself as an able and a zealous
advocate, a talented and fearless speaker, and one whose speeches
combined an unusual degree of power and elegance.
30 The fol-
lowing summer he was chosen by the democratic state convention
as one of Mississippi's representatives in congress.
31
Henry S. Foote in his advocacy of annexation emphasized the
benefits to be derived solely from a sectional point of view.
32
Foote possessed a vigorous mind and was a man of unbounded
energy. Of limited education he made extraordinary efforts to
supply the deficiencies of earlier years. Of a courteous and affable
demeanor in private life, his coarse attacks upon his political op-
ponents drew forth allusions in kind from them and from the
organs of the Whig party.
33 He would assail the town Whigs as
the "most incorrigible of sinners" in that they opposed a measure
fraught with so much importance to both countries; from the
stubborn members of that party in Natchez and other Mississippi
towns nothing was to be expected; it was to the plain men of the
country,--the planters--whose all was at stake, that he looked for
opposition to Clay and to abolitionism.
34 Yet as is well known
it was from these very planters, Whig in politics and owners of
three-fourths of the slaves in the black belt, that the most pro-
nounced opposition to annexation came. In fact, it was a source
of frequent complaint on the part of the Whig journals that three-
fourths of those who made the most fuss about Texas and abo-
litionism and southern rights did not possess a single slave.
35
No Mississippian of prominence had been more deeply stirred
by the events of the Texas revolution than John A. Quitman, who
threw himself with ardor into the cause of the struggling Texans.
36
Like many another of his contemporaries he had zealously sup-
ported Van Buren until the appearance of his Texas letter.
37
With characteristic zeal he devoted his time and energy to the
canvass waged in support of the nominees of the Baltimore con-
vention. As early as January of the presidential year General
Quitman was urging the citizens of every county to hold meetings
upon the subject of annexation.
38 At a meeting held in Jackson
on Friday evening, May 10, a long series of resolutions was pre-
sented by Quitman on behalf of the committee appointed to con-
sider the subject of "reannexation." Besides dwelling upon argu-
ments with which we are already familiar, these alluded to the
menace to the country as a whole, and especially to the south-
western states if this territory should fall under the control of
England. Indicative of the aggressive attitude of Quitman was
the fifth resolution which, in the light of later day events, pos-
sesses an especial interest. This affirmed, the "United States
have not only the right, but are in duty bound by a just, wise, and
rational exercise of their influence and power to interpose in the
dissensions and wars of their neighbors, when these have a ten-
dency to disturb the peace and security of our frontier, or threaten
to destroy the happiness, prosperity, and safety of any portion of
our country." Especially significant as indicating a leading mo-
tive behind the desire for expansion was the seventh resolution,
which declared "Re-annexation paramount to all other political
questions of the day,--beneficial to the whole country, of deep and
vital interest to the people of the slave states and essential to
the prosperity, repose and safety of the southwest."
39
A figure that became well known to the voters of Mississippi
during this memorable campaign was Felix Huston. He had
figured prominently in the events connected with the Texas revo-
lution of eight years before, was at one time in command of the
Texan army and would have welcomed an opportunity to invade
Mexico.
40 Huston was a fiery radical, representing the attitude
of the extremists in his advocacy of annexation. A Whig in pol-
itics until the Texas question became an issue in the canvass of
1844 and for a number of years a law partner of Sergeant S. Pren-
tiss in New Orleans, he now became one of the most energetic ad-
vocates of the election of Polk and Dallas. Small in numbers,
Huston and his following made up what may be termed the ir-
reconcilables of the Democratic party so far as their attitude
toward annexation was concerned.
In military affairs Huston had acted on the principle that "a
short fight and long negotiation is not the way to gain a profit by
victory."
41 He now proceeded to put the opponents of immediate
annexation on the defensive by an aggressive campaign in which
extreme measures were urged in the event of annexation failing
of achievement. In a democratic meeting held on July 3 at
Natchez--the home of the "purse-proud speculating aristocrats"--
addresses were delivered by Huston and Quitman, in the course
of which the former vehemently attacked England's supposed
abolitionist designs in Texas. The acquisition of Texas was de-
picted as being of vital importance to the South, necessary to
the peace and security of the Union. Clay's letter upon the sub-
ject of Texas was assailed, and his election denounced as a great
national evil; for deny it as they might, emancipation was one
of the great objects of the Whig party.
42 In an open letter ad-
dressed to the Whigs of Louisiana and Mississippi Huston affirmed
that his reasons for leaving the Whig party was not so much on
account of the stand that party had taken on the annexation of
Texas, but chiefly because that question involved the more serious
one of the abolition of slavery. Huston had convinced himself
that a Whig victory would mean an irretrievable blow at the in-
stitutions and prosperity of the South, ample proof of which was
to be found in the utterances of the northern Whigs, the burden
of which was the "sin and odium of slavery." The letter closed
with the prediction that the anti-slavery crusade threatened utterly
to prostrate the southern states or to force the union to its termi-
nation. Southern Whigs then should hesitate to fasten humiliat-
ing chains on the southern states or to drive them to desperation.
43
"Without Texas we cannot sustain slavery for ten years. If we
must give up slavery, let us make the best terms we can; if not,
let us unite for our preservation and be prepared for any emer-
gency. If Texas is lost, political and fanatical abolitionism will
stalk boldly into the halls of Congress, headed not only by the
Adamses and Giddingses, but such as Webster and Seward, who
will heap contumely and scorn on the Southern States and con-
stantly endeavor to bring their moral character, their social rela-
tions, and their institutions into contempt." If the anti-slavery
and abolition spirit continued to increase, then the Union could
not and ought not to be preserved; and in any event it could not
last unless based on an equality of feelings and interests.
As an ally of a foreign power Texas would be a constant menace
to the southwestern border, whilst the possession of Galveston
would cut us off from the navigation of the Gulf. To offset these
impending dangers the only hope of the South lay in an alliance
of that section with the democracy of the North and the states of
the further West.
44 Thus did Huston set forth the views of the
cotton South; his course in Mississippi politics at this time antici-
pated the attitude of such men as William J. Yancey, of Alabama,
"the orator of secession," and of Robert Barnwell Rhett, of South
Carolina. He was the most radical of the group of leaders whose
names have been mentioned in connection with the aggressive cam-
paign that was being waged for the extension of slave territory;
under their guidance Mississippi was preparing to become "the
most aggressive expansionist state in the Union in the years just
preceding the civil war."
45
The fear that the South had begun to entertain for its peculiar
institution from the time of the Missouri Compromise question
46
was naturally greatly intensified in consequence of the abolitionist
propaganda, while in Mississippi pro-slavery sentiment had become
crystallized prior to the decade with which we are dealing. When,
therefore, Huston, Foote, and Brown pointed out the urgent need
of "the annexation of Texas as essential to the future safety and
repose of the Southern States," their arguments found a ready
response in the minds of their hearers, Not only did the anti-
slavery agitation in the United States lead "many of our southern
citizens to long for separation and a union with slave-holding
Texas";
47 it also accentuated the deep dread of a servile insur-
rection that hung over the slave section;
48 and as abolitionism
assumed more and more of a political character, pro-slavery senti-
ment became intensified at the south, and grew more insistent in
its demands for territory for further expansion.
49
sectional grounds was advanced; in numerous public meetings,
many of them non-partisan, and representing practically every
section of the state, resolutions were adopted demanding re-annex-
ation as of vital importance to the security and perpetuity of
southern institutions. In the meetings in which members of both
parties participated, they avow their intention "to bury the toma-
hawk of party warfare and contend shoulder to shoulder for the
cause of annexation." It is not surprising to find the makers of
these resolutions condoning, as the legislature had done seven
years before, the institution of slavery. "Southern slavery con-
fers countless blessings on both master and slave," runs one reso-
lution; another "solemnly asserts the right to extend slavery as
our wishes or interest may dictate." "Re-annexation" is declared
to be paramount to all other political questions of the day. The
burden of scores of resolutions representing every section of the
state is that annexation was "absolutely and indispensably neces-
sary to the preservation of our domestic institutions," and that
right soon. To oppose annexation--and it was only from the abo-
litionists that opposition came--was "to strike a death-stab at the
institutions of the South in their tenderest and most vital point."
While it was criminal and dangerous to postpone such a "great
national blessing" as the annexation of Texas, the measure was a
question of life and death with southern men, with the citizens
of the slaveholding states. "So essential do we deem it to the
very existence of our domestic institutions, and the security of
our families and firesides, that all who oppose obstacles to this
great measure are foes to the prosperity and enemies to the se-
curity of our domestic institutions." If Texas were refused, no
alternative would be left but for her to make terms with England,
"our deadliest enemy"; for the thing most to be apprehended at
this time was British interference with slavery. 50 Allusion to the
possibility of England exerting her influence in a manner danger-
ous to the peace and safety of the southern states is a continually
recurring theme in the arguments advanced by the advocates of
annexation; and there can hardly be a doubt that the supposed
designs of Great Britain upon Texas was a potent factor in crys-
tallizing the sentiment for annexation. It was held to be degrad-
ing to the national honor "to sue for the consent of any other
power, to be deterred by foreign threats," "Should England, the
imperious mistress of land and sea, the especial guardian of the
negro race, wherever that guardianship can redound to her own
advantage," --be permitted to interfere with affairs on this con-
tinent? A deadly blow would be aimed at the South if England
should join with Mexico in the abolition of slavery. In fact,
Mississippi afforded a conspicuous instance of the "continuous
drumbeat of resentment and defiance against foreign interposi-
tion." 51
As a rule disunion was deprecated as "the greatest evil that
could befall us," but now and then an element representing the
"left wing" or the "chivalry," as it was termed, would obtain con-
trol of a meeting, and then resolutions of an even more sectional
cast than those described above would be the order of the day.
One such group of "rabid milliners" in a meeting at Columbus de-
clared that no man should be voted for who had not been the
open, fearless, and consistent advocate of annexation; if the treaty
of annexation, then pending, should be rejected, the South should
hold a convention to act as emergencies might require; in the
language of Jackson, it was a case of "peaceably if we can, forcibly
if we must."
52
With one important exception, the tone of the public prints of
Mississippi touching annexation may be summed up in the words,--
"'twere well done if it were done quickly."
The reasons for annexation which are dwelt upon with most in-
sistence by the party organs are similar to those with which we
have become familiar. The most widely read and influential
party journal perhaps was the Mississippi
Free
Trader,
published
at Natchez, and edited for a time by John F. H. Claiborne, the
well-known historian. From the beginning to the end of the
campaign this paper strove to impress upon its readers the im-
portance from every angle to the South of annexation. For this
would ensure the safety of the southwest, secure the command of
the Gulf, crush the abolitionist intrigues of England, and above
all, give the slaveholding states a perpetual majority in the Senate
of the United States. In editorial after editorial the Whigs of
the North were charged with being open and avowed abolitionists,
who were creating in the masses a deep and an undying hostility
to the southern slaveholder,—"having read us out of the church
of God they claim the privilege of interfering in our domestic
relations and of promoting the abolition of slavery throughout the
world." As the day of election drew near, the Free
Trader
be-
came almost frantic in its appeals to the "patriots of all parties"
to awake to a sense of their danger involved in the election of
Clay; the mass of the northern Democrats were with the South
on the Texas question; only the election of the Democratic nom-
inees could save the freemen of the South from being driven in a
few years either "to abolish slavery or to defeat it with their
swords."
53
So far as the other Democratic journals are concerned, most of
them simply reiterated the arguments of the Free
Trader
in favor
of annexation. The radical Vicksburg
Sentinel
declared that all
other questions were mere moonshine compared with the annex-
ation issue, involving as it did the great contest between slave in-
stitutions and abolition. It solemnly warned southern Whigs
"there is swelling up on all sides a feeling against slavery, in-
creasing so fast that this may be the last Congress in which the
South, will have it in her power to protect herself.
"54 It was
enough for the Sentinel
and
Expositor
that Jackson had pro-
nounced in favor of immediate annexation, for the editor would
"sooner pin our political faith to the cast-off shoes of the old
veteran and champion than to the brains of most other men."
Admiration was expressed for the delicacy and honesty of Van
Buren,--but "we go for Texas now,
for Texas always."
55 The
most important contribution made to the subject by the Independ
-
ent
Democrat
was comprised in an editorial entitled "Party Divi-
sions." In this the writer urged a new alignment of parties: in
the first place, northern and southern Democrats had little in
common save opposition to a national bank, which question was a
"mere bagatelle"; too many northern Democrats were opposed to
free trade, too many had voted for the admission of abolitionist
petitions. The southern branch of the Whig party was more akin
politically to southern Democrats than to the northern Whigs. In
short, the time had come when parties in the South should unite
against the enemies of free trade, of southern slavery and of the
annexation of Texas.
56 Upon receipt of the news of the passage
by the House of Representatives of the resolution in favor of an-
nexation, the Columbus
Democrat
exclaimed: "Now is the golden
moment; if the resolution is not acted on at this session, Texas will
be lost to us forever,"—in which event a Whig Senate "must
forever bear the curses and execrations of an outraged and an in-
jured people.
57 The slogan of the Holly
Springs
Guard,
the lead-
ing organ of the party in the northern part of the state, was "For
annexation cost what it may"; for the measure was fraught with,
the immediate and permanent welfare of the South and West. In
an editorial entitled "Measures, not Men," the editor used this
language: "The Democracy of the South must proclaim to the
world their determination to forsake all else and cleave to south-
ern interests and institutions. Clay has but to speak and his
servile horde cry, 'Vive le roi,'—but his election spells ruin for
the South."
58
Radical in the extreme were the Southern
Reformer
and the
Jeffersonian.
The former journal declared the rejection of the
treaty "an audacious outrage upon the rights of a free people.
. . . The South indignantly calls upon the foul traitors who
have despised and vilified her authority to resign their seats."
The action of South Carolina in threatening disunion was con-
doned by the Jeffersonian:
for the existence of such threats "our
northern taskmasters must shoulder the responsibility." "Our
Federal Union--it must be preserved; if it must be sacrificed,
let the fair fields of the South be the theatre, where the last strug-
gle shall be made."
59
The question may naturally be asked, What evidence is there
that such arguments as were urged by the public prints of the
state and by such men as Huston and Quitman for immediate an-
nexation were decisive in influencing to any marked degree public
sentiment? In other words, were those voters who turned the
scale in favor of Polk and Dallas influenced by the danger to south-
ern institutions rather than by any other issue of the campaign?
So far as reflecting voters are concerned it would seem that the
very vehemence with which Democratic journals and the more
radical advocates of annexation depicted the dire consequences that
would ensue in the event of Clay's election would cause their ar-
guments to be dismissed as mere campaign gusto. On the other
hand it is not difficult to believe that in the mind of many a voter
the question would naturally arise, "Suppose after all a real dan-
ger does confront the South?" Few would stop to think that the
election of Polk did not necessarily imply the immediate annex-
ation of Texas, and a ballot cast for the Democratic nominees
would register a protest against, the unholy designs of England
upon Texas. For a number of reasons as has been shown the
acquisition of Texas seemed a desirable thing to the people of
Mississippi, just as it did to those of other southern states. From
the "procurement of Louisiana" to the acquisition of the Philip-
pines, the party of expansion has always triumphed at the polls
when the issue has been put squarely before the American people.
And while partisan organs naturally exaggerated the advantages
that would accrue from the incorporation of Texas within the
national domain, and depicted in lurid colors the danger to south-
ern interests from the loss of Texas, when we take into consid-
eration the prominence generally given to the annexation issue,
the non-partisan character of many of the meetings held to fur-
ther the cause of expansion, the comparatively wide-spread and
deep-seated apprehensions entertained by reason of the abolitionist
propaganda, it would seem the conclusion may fairly be drawn
that one of, if not, the most potent argument with the mass of
Democrats and certainly with those Whigs who deserted their
party, was the fear of losing Texas and the consequent danger to
the slave interests of the South. There can hardly be any doubt
that the continued reiteration of the danger to southern institu-
tions unless more slave territory were secured had its weight with
Whig voters; for as the campaign drew to a close, evidence con-
tinued to accumulate of the falling away of voters within the
ranks of the followers of Clay. And the most plausible explana-
tion that can be offered for this was the fear that the election of
the great Whig leader would involve the loss of Texas, with all
the benefits that it was pictured would accrue from its possession,
besides injuring the South in its most vital interests.
The support accorded Robert J. Walker by Democratic jour-
nals of the state may be accounted for on purely partisan grounds,
though first and last Walker proclaimed "the only hope of the
South is in the annexation of Texas"; but the deep admiration
entertained for the character and talents of Calhoun by journals
of every shade of political opinion within the state can be fully
explained, it would seem, only by reason of the fact that above
all others he was recognized as "the bold and fearless assertor of
southern rights," "the undisputed champion of the domestic in-
stitutions of Mississippi and her sister states," the one who had
put the subject of annexation "before the Senate and people of
the United States as a sectional question, necessary to the salva-
tion of the South and her peculiar institutions."
60
From communications of individuals as set forth from time to
time in different journals may he gathered the drift of public
opinion so far as the "average citizen" is concerned. One such
correspondent hailing from Warren county argued that the broad
foundation upon which opposition to Texas rested was hostility to
the domestic institutions of the South. He recurs to what had
become almost a shibboleth of party doctrine: "If not annexed
now, Texas will be lost forever. It is idle to preach delay; the
time of action has arrived; if neglected, the opportunity of an-
nexing Texas will probably be lost forever, and British emigrants
controlling her elections will soon rear a power hostile to our gov-
ernment and deeply dangerous to the South."
61 Another citizen
expressed the belief that unless Polk was elected, in a few years
the country would be divided in name, as it already was in fact,
into a northern and a southern confederacy. "It is high time the
South should begin to act with a concerted spirit."
62 To another
it was perfectly evident that the secret of the opposition to Texas
was because the South believed annexation was necessary to give
security and perpetuity to her slave property. To still another
the great question was, "Shall we erect a bulwark against European
attacks upon our domestic safety, or suffer a foreign power to get
such a foothold as will enable it to break down the established
institutions in which the South is vitally interested?"
63
In conclusion a few comments may be quoted as indicating the
bearing of the election upon the question of annexation from the
point of view of certain spokesmen of the Democratic party. Dur-
ing the course of a speech upon the Oregon bill, January 30, 1845,
in the national house of representatives, Jacob Thompson of Mis-
sissippi spoke as follows: "If, in the late election, the American
people did not clearly and distinctly settle the subjects of Texas
and Oregon, they settled nothing.
"64 According to the Columbus
Democrat,
the issue had been fairly made up and a "majority of
the people have decided that Texas must and shall be annexed.
"65
"Annexation," declared the Holly
Springs
Guard,
"was the great
and paramount issue of the last campaign.
"66 A meeting of the
democratic association of Adams county affirmed that the voters
had, in addition to declaring against the policies of the Whig party,
solemnly decided "that the soil and sovereignty of Texas is not to
be left to British cupidity.
"67 The Ripley
Advertiser
was con-
vinced that Texas and Oregon were directly in issue at the last
election, a decision being explicitly expressed by the American
people.
68
The Southern
Reformer,
upon receipt of the news of annexation,
issued an extra edition heralding the "Great and Glorious Vic-
tory." "It is with feelings overflowing with joy that we announce
to our people the annexation of Texas by the American Congress."
To Robert J. Walker was due the thanks and praise of his fellow
countrymen, "who will hold his action in grateful remembrance
during his yet more brilliant career."
69 This was a well deserved
tribute to the man to whom more than to any other the annexation
of Texas was due. In annexation the Vicksburg
Sentinel
saw the
rebuke of abolitionism and of the spirit that culminated in the
Hartford convention. "The South is safe! The Union will be
preserved!"
70 In an address to the citizens of Wilkinson county,
Douglas H. Cooper, a politician of some local prominence, spoke
as follows: "The Democrats of 1844 thought the best and in fact
the only way to prevent the designs of England in regard to Texas
was to take that republic under the protection of the United States,
and fight for it afterwards
if necessary. Hence in supporting an-
nexation they were asserting and maintaining the great American
doctrine of non-interference, by monarchical governments, with
the affairs of this hemisphere."
71 In a eulogy of Polk delivered
by C. S. Tarpley in the Mississippi House of Representatives, Feb-
ruary 22, 1850, the speaker after referring to the fact that it was
left to Polk to grace his administration by adding the "lone star"
to our galaxy, gave expression to the following sentiment: "Here
was a conquest not marked with blood, or sullied with national
crime." By this act a fresh guarantee had been given to southern
rights.
72
In summarizing the results that may fairly be deduced from the
foregoing study, the conclusions arrived at are in a measure the
same as those which have been set forth by other writers in deal-
ing with the annexation question in the presidential campaign,--
namely, that in Mississippi as elsewhere there was no clear-cut
issue between annexation and anti-annexation, but that those who
voted for Polk were influenced by a number of considerations;
yet it is perfectly evident, it would seem, in view of the evidence
that has been presented, that could every other issue have been
eliminated, an overwhelming majority of the voters of Mississippi
would have recorded a preference in favor of the immediate an-
nexation of Texas. The most potent consideration by which the
advocates of annexation were moved was unquestionably a desire
to protect the declining slave interests of the South. Second only
to this was probably the determination to prevent interference on
the part of England, whose abolitionist designs were chiefly feared;
practically every other reason why the presence of a foreign power
upon the southwest border would work injury to the South and
to the nation as a whole is to be met with in the arguments ad-
vanced by the advocates of annexation in Mississippi.
73
FOOTNOTES:
Department of Archives and History, where most of the material upon
which this paper is based was obtained. The admirable organization of
this valuable collection, and the never failing courtesy of the Director,
Dr. Dunbar Rowland, combine to render the student's task an unusually
pleasant one.
nomination of the ex-president was confidently expected, though a lead-
ing Whig organ declared the leaders of his party had been looking for
an excuse for three years to drop Van Buren. By some the defeat of
Governor Runnels as far back as 1835 was cited as evidence of "how
heavy a weight Van Burenism is for a candidate in Mississippi." At the
Democratic state convention held in Jackson on January 8, Van Buren's
only competitor for the leading place on the ticket was John C. Calhoun,
who received only one-third as many votes as his competitor. The nomi-
nation of Van Buren was made unanimous and to Polk fell the second
place on the ticket, an honor which had been accorded him four years
before. It is true the more radical Democratic organs threatened to bolt
the ticket in the event of Van Buren's nomination, but this was solely
on account of his opposition to immediate annexation; the more conserva-
tive journals, while regretting his attitude upon annexation, urged the
party leaders to stand by the nominees of the national convention. "The
South must not alienate the Democracy of the North." It should be
noted that the odium which Van Buren is said to have incurred in the
South is reflected, so far as Mississippi is concerned, only in the prints
of the Whig party, whose editors referred to him as the "didapper little
politician," and as a matter of course assailed the "execrable malpractices
of his administration." Pittsburg Bulletin, Dec. 10, 1835; Woodville
Republican, Apr. 11, 1840, May 27, 1843; Mississippi Free Trader, Jan.
11, 1843, Jan. 17, May 15, 1844; Sentinel and Expositor, Apr. 16, 1844;
Vicksburg Sentinel, May 17, 1844; Port Gibson Herald, May 23, 1844;
Mississippian, May 15, 22, 29, 1844; Constitutionalist, May 11, 1844. Cf.
Cole, Whig Party in the South, 12-13.
Hist. Soc., XIV, 33. Governor Brown's name deserves to be recalled, if
for no other reason, on account of the splendid services he rendered his
state in laying the foundations of a system of public school education.
His zeal was probably responsible for the passage of the act chartering
the state university in 1844; while in response to his appeal the legisla-
ture passed the act of March 4, 1846, the "first statute in Mississippi
contemplating a uniform and general system of common schools." Ed-
ward Mayes, History of Education in Mississippi, 278-279 (Washington,
1899).
fifths and even nine-tenths of the people of Mississippi were in favor of
annexation. Mississippian, May 15, 1844; Free Trader, May 29, 1844;
Columbus Democrat, Mch. 1, 1845; Raymond Gazette, Sept. 19, 1845. The
Constitutionalist, a Whig organ, declared after the election, that it was
absolutely necessary that Texas form part of the Union. (Mch. 27, 1845).
All through the campaign Whig leaders and newspapers protested that
they were not opposed to the annexation of Texas per se, but only to the
manner of its accomplishment. In other words, partisan considerations
overrode what they admitted was for the best interests of their section.
The very fact that Tyler and Calhoun had proposed the scheme was
enough to condemn it in the eyes of every orthodox Whig. And after
the appearance of Clay's letter upon the subject, the only course left
his followers was to subordinate their real desires in the matter of
annexation to the exigencies of political expediency. "We go for Henry
Clay Texas or no Texas," sums up the attitude of the party in Mississippi,
as elsewhere in the South. But the significant thing is that prior to 1844
the Whigs of the state were eager for the acquisition of Texas on purely
sectional grounds. Cf. Constitutionalist, May 15, 1844.
Weekly Courier and Journal, Feb. 27, Mch. 17, 24, 1837.
the election of 1844 the voters had declared against a national bank,
the destruction of the veto power, and the assumption of debts, in addi-
tion to deciding the question of annexation. A correspondent writing
under the designation of "Old Republican," protested that while so far
as Mississippi was concerned the cry was "immediate annexation, that
was only one of the questions to be settled by the forthcommg election
"Is it not apparent," asked the writer, "to the most common minds that
in the North and throughout the world, there is a moral influence being
brought to bear against slavery which, if it does not preclude utterly the
admission of another state into the Union, will make it dangerous to
attempt it? It is to the northern Democracy the South is in-
debted for its institutions." Free Trader, Nov. 26, 1844; Mississippian,
July 5, 1844.
26, Aug. 2, Sept. 27, Oct. 30, 1844.
the exception of the portion dealing with Texas. The most interesting
part of both manifestoes is a section entitled, "What is Democracy?" All
the "beauties of the democratic faith" are said to flow from the mem-
orable declarations of Jefferson and his compeers that all men are created
free and equal. "Many of our opponents are opposed to poor men
voting or taking part in the administration of the government. They
estimate a man's talents and virtues according to his acres and dollars";
they would create distinctions in society, would elevate the few at the
expense of the many; in their view government is a "divine thing that
must not be touched by the rude hands of the people." On the contrary,
the upholders of the divine principle of the immortal declaration favored
universal suffrage, regardless of property qualifications. Professor Dodd
has pointed out that the last reference to the Declaration of Independence
by the Democratic party in its national platform was in 1840.
held by the Whigs. Port Gibson Herald, July 4, 18, 1844.
at Ripley by Foote and Davis. Like many another Whig he saw or
professed to see in the Texas movement nothing more than an issue of
narrow proportions: "I guess the General [Foote] has lots of land out
in Texas."
The Independent Democrat, Feb. 17, 1844, declared one of the principal
reasons why the admission of Texas was favored was because it involved
an extension of the principles of free trade.
222; Cf. Reeves, Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk, 92.
set forth the iniquities of a protective tariff, this stalwart democratic
iournal deplored the ruin of tariffs and manufactures in consequence of
an independent Texas throwing open her ports to the commerce of the
world, thereby deluging the Mississippi valley with goods duty free.
mett, a member from Mississippi, presented in the national House of
Representatives resolutions "passed with great unanimity" by the legis-
lature of his state in favor of annexation. Hammett's attitude upon this
and other questions of a sectional nature may be gathered from a single
sentence of a speech delivered by him in the House the previous month:
"Let the struggle then come when it might, in the South there would be
no distinction between Whig and Democrat." These same resolutions
were presented by Robert J. Walker in the Senate. Cong. Globe, 28
Congress, 1 Session, 408, 235, 410.
the House to the effect that a select committee of five members be in-
structed to bring in a bill declaring war against Mexico; the resolution
was promptly rejected. Not quite two weeks later the Senate by a
unanimous vote, including eight Whigs, adopted a set of resolutions on
annexation. On February 10 the House considered the Senate resolutions
concerning annexation which had been referred to a committee of eleven
members. According to the Free Trader the theme called forth some of
the "tallest speaking" which had been heard in the legislature up to that
time. Among prominent Whigs who opposed the measure were J. S.
Yerger, of Vicksburg, and Luke Lea, of Hinds county. A minority report
was presented by George Winchester, of Natchez, the "citadel of whiggery,"
to the effect that it was incompatible with the rights and interests of the
United States for any European government to obtain possession of the
territory of Texas, or to interfere in its domestic affairs; the motion
was lost by a vote of 58 to 15. An amendment to the majority report
offered by Yerger of Vicksburg was also lost by a vote of 55 to 15. A
leading Whig lawyer of Jackson writing to Robert J. Walker commented
upon the action of the Whig members as follows: "I regret to say that
the want of unanimity in our late legislature was occasioned by a few,
a very few Whigs, who have thereby sealed their political destiny, and
incurred universal condemnation." House Journal, 120, 622-623; Senate
Journal, 195; Free Trader, Feb. 21, 1844.
bold, free form and gesture," and spoke of the gentlemanly deportment
and kindly feelings that marked his canvass. Davis did not escape
criticism at the hands of the opposition journals, but the shafts aimed at
him were devoid of malice and coarseness, in striking contrast to the
attacks made upon some of the other leaders, as Foote. One Whig
journal after referring to his eulogy of Calhoun at the Jackson conven-
tion, "which made some of the friends of 'Old Hickory' look sick," spoke
of him as a "gentleman of pleasing manners and address, possessing a
musical and well-modulated voice." Another leading Whig organ, while
complimenting his courtesy and his bearing toward his opponents, charged
the speaker with skimming over the questions at issue, "touching only
upon those points calculated to operate upon the feelings or interests of
his audience." Another Whig after listening to the "school boy candi-
date," spoke of the excruciating effects upon his audience when at the
close of his exordium, "Jeff Davis" drew from his pocket his written
speech and proceeded to deal in a laborious manner with the issues of
the campaign. The leading organ of the state right element attacked
Davis because the young aspirant for political honors had declared in
favor of military colleges in every state where the youth might be edu-
cated at public expense; too many aristocratic notions had been instilled
into him at West Point. Vicksburg Sentinel, June 30, Nov. 3, 1845;
Yazoo Democrat, Sept. 10, 1845; Columbus Democrat, Aug. 10, 1844; Port
Gibson Herald, July 4, 18, 1844; Vicksburg Weekly Whig, Aug. 16, 1844;
Raymond Gazette, Oct. 24, 1845.
of the delight it was to listen to his "soft and mellow utterances, his
lucid arguments, and poetic fancy." Davis, Recollections of Mississippi
and Mississippians, 193.
1844.
1844; Vicksburg Weekly Whig, Aug. 26, 1844.
foco who never owned a negro in the world, and in all probability never
will by means of honest industry, talk in the most alarming tone about
the institution of slavery, and insinuating that those who own hundreds
of slaves are colleaguing with the abolitionists of the North?" Cf. Con -
stitutionalist, Dec. 25, 1844; Free Trader, Oct. 23, 1844; Cole, Whig Party
in the South, 104; Phillips, "The Southern Whigs," Turner Essays in
American History, 219.
194.
to draft a constitution and by-laws for the "Texas Annexation Associa-
tion," the object of which was to promote "by all quiet, legal, and con-
stitutional means, immediate reannexation."
As was to be expected, this change of front on the part of one who
for twenty years had been a follower of Clay led to bitter attacks being
made upon Huston by the Whig journals of New Orleans and of
Mississippi. These charged him with being a speculator in Texas lands,
and made "the most infamous insinuations and slanders" as to General
Huston's motives in advocating annexation. They made light of his argu-
ment that annexation was necessary to strengthen the South against the
North, ridiculed his "blood-red efforts to be eloquent" as well as his
speeches in which he saw "prefigured the lusty strides of John Bull."
Democratic organs within the state took up the cudgels vigorously in
his behalf, praised his speeches as "ardent and effective specimens of
elocution," and declared he had been actuated by principle in abandoning
an old and personal friend. Stress was laid upon the fact that he had
renounced a highly lucrative law practice to aid Texas, returning from
that country a poor man. It was added somewhat naively that his entire
landed interest in Texas could be had for a good saddle horse and $500
in gold. While the estimates assigned for his losses in Texas by partisan
journals were doubtless exaggerated, the fact remains that large sums
were laid out by him in equipping armed emigrants at the time of the
Texas revolution. Vicksburg Sentinel, June 24, 1844; Free Trader, May
29, July 3, Aug. 4, 1844; Woodville Republican, May 25, 1844; Inde-
pendent Democrat, May 25, 1844; Port Gibson Herald, July 4, 1844. Cf.
Kennedy, History of Texas, 11, 241.
gatherings which Huston addressed was one at Port Gibson in August. If
we are to believe a Whig reporter who was present on that occasion, Huston
after dwelling upon the paramount importance of annexation as involving
the very existence of Southern prosperity, and more especially the fate
of the institution of slavery, indulged in language something like the
following: "That when it comes to fighting, the South could just whip
any force that could be arrayed against it—we had the hearts and the
hands to carry us in triumph through any war, foreign or domestic
. . . of all the people on the footstool of the Almighty, we were un-
questionably the most impregnable--we had the nerve, money and mili-
tary to fight long, fight victoriously, to fight on a full belly without any
prospect of want." Port Gibson Herald, July 18, 1844.
V, 422.
New Orleans Bee, Sept. 25, 1835. In 1835 Huston contributed to the
New York Courier and Enquirer a letter upon this subject. In 1850 the
views set forth in this letter were elaborated in a very interesting
pamphlet entitled "The Military Strength of the Southern States, and
the Effects of Slavery Therein. Addressed to the Southern Convention."
where the Democratic champions grappled with each other on the Texas
question, Columbus Whig, May 23, 1844.
240; Washington Daily Globe, June 19, 1844, quoting the New York
Herald of June 18.
temporary newspaper accounts.
at Holly Springs on May 15, "we are hewers of wood and drawers of
water to the North." A group of citizens in Claiborne county declared
that while they grieved to see the Union threatened, nevertheless they
desired the immediate annexation of Texas. If justice to Texas was not
consonant with our treaty stipulations to Mexico, and the chances of
war with England, "we dare frankly and boldly to meet the responsibili-
ties of the alteration," for there were causes that justified the abrogation
of all treaties. The Texas Association of Holmes county declared in a
meeting at Franklin on June 8 that the opposition of Clay and Van
Buren was a "mere temporizing expedient of political chicanery to secure
the support of Northern abolitionists."
politicians were seeking to array the moral and religious feeling of the
world against Southern institutions.
1844; Jan. 30, Feb. 14, 1845.
The Free Trader, Oct. 30, 1844, commented: "South Carolina erred, but
was pure and patriotic."
1845. Cf. Diary of James K. Polk (Ed. Quaife), IV, 41.
Mch. 19, 1845. Cf. Smith, Annexation of Texas, 307: "Clay appeared
cold, timid, and anti-Southern compared with Polk."
Oxford Observer, Yazoo Democrat, and Ripley Advertiser all urged that
annexation would strengthen the political power of the slaveholding
states; this was the first great desideratum, while the usual train of
advantages were set forth which it was held would accrue in consequence
of incorporating Texas within the Union. Radical Democrat, July 27,
Aug. 10, 27, 1844; Oxford Observer, Aug. 10, 1844; Yazoo Democrat,
Nov. 12, 1844; Dec. 10, 1845; Ripley Advertiser, Feb. 22, 1845.
1844; Holly Springs Guard, Feb. 14, Men. 27, 1844; Columbus Democrat.
Feb. 22, 1845. Cf. Dodd, Jefferson Davis, 72; Reeves, Diplomacy under
Tyler and Polk, 137; Cole, Whig Party in the South, 12. Claiborne, Life
and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, I, 111, refers to Calhoun's un-
popularity in Mississippi at an earlier period.
to believe that any of these had a decisive influence in arousing a genuine
sentiment in favor of immediate annexation; of these the most potent
perhaps was the danger to be apprehended from the possibility of Texas
as an independent state supplying England with cotton to the injury of
the Southern states.
How to cite:
James E. Winston, "Annexation of Texas and the Mississippi Democrats", Volume 25, Number 1, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online, http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v025/n1/contrib_DIVL227.html
[Accessed Thu Dec 4 12:28:39 CST 2008]