Monday, June 9, 2014

Congressman Alexander H. Stephens to James Thomas*, May 17, 1844

Washington, D. C., May 17, 1844.

Dear Thomas, Your favour from Savannah was duly received yesterday and I feel greatly obliged to you for it. I was not unapprised of the movements of the Locos at home upon the new issue got up by Captain Tyler, nor was I at all surprised at it, as I remarked in the House. So soon as the late tariff bill “humbug” was disposed of I had no doubt as a party, like most men when publicly condemned in the last court, they would in mass cut out for Texas! And so it seems what I predicted as a result has come to pass. But it will avail them nothing. Mr. Tyler may consider that the people of this country are as much lost to all sense of national honor as he is of personal, and that they place no higher estimation upon good faith than he does, but he will find himself mistaken and will be brought to see that they do not look upon breach of faith, meanness and perfidy in the same light that he does. I wish I had time to write you a full letter upon this subject but I have not. Suffice it to say that the whole annexation project is a miserable political humbug got up as a ruse to divide and distract the Whig party at the South, or peradventure with even an ulterior view — that is the dissolution of the present Confederacy. That is not yet quite free from disguise but I only believe it lies near Mr. Calhoun's heart. And as for Tyler, he would willingly destroy a country which he has [word illegible] deceived and betrayed when he is satisfied that he can no longer be its chief ruler. He and Calhoun both know that the Senate would never prove themselves so lost to all sense of national honor and good faith as to ratify their treaty. This they know well. As for Tyler I do not know but he fool-like did think that perhaps others had as little regard for these qualities as himself and had as little abhorrence for meanness and perfidy as himself. But Calhoun knew better. It is all a trick — one of his desperate moves or strokes to produce dissention in the country for his own personal aggrandizement. But as I said, he will not succeed. Van Buren will be nominated at Baltimore, a kind of [schism?] will ensue and the dissenters will run a Texas man for the South and Van Buren will run at the North, and the whole for the purpose if possible of driving the election to the House where they know Van Buren will be elected. For it is now the general belief that without some such trick Clay's election is inevitable. So far as Tyler is concerned in the project it has been for his own aggrandizement. So far as Calhoun is concerned it has been done to [set?] up a Southern party. So far as the Locos are concerned — I mean by them the old Simon pures, it has been to distract the Whigs, upon the old principle “divide and conquer”. But again I say it will not succeed. When the people of Georgia see all these facts and know everything relating to the treaty it will be by all sensible men of all parties I think universally condemned. But I have not time to give you details. You may have seen it said in the papers that he (Tyler) has actually called out our military forces and stationed two regiments on the confines of Texas and several sail in the Gulph — a virtual declaration of war — without consulting Congress. This is true, and a greater outrage upon the constitution has never been committed by any President. I should not be surprised if he is impeached.

[P. S.] I have not got time to look over the [above?] to see if spelling is correct.

[Marginal P. S.] Chappell1 is completely off, and every Whig should know it.
________________

* A prominent attorney of Sparta, Ga., whose daughter married Stephens's half-brother Linton Stephens in 1852.

1 Absalom H. Chappell, Democratic congressman from Georgia, 1843-1845, standing for reelection in 1844.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 57-8

No comments: