1841-1842 exasperated by the reproaches which the Whig members heaped upon him, and that may have influenced his action. But the two main reasons usually assigned for the President's course were, first, his constitutional scruples, with the accompanying desire to maintain his character for consistency; and, second, his wish to secure the support of the Democratic party and become its candidate for the Presidency at the next election. Whatever the motive, the veto had the effect of alienating the Whigs from Tyler, while on the other hand it greatly pleased the Democrats, a body of whom called upon him at the White House and congratulated him on the courage he had shown. Three days after the return of the bill the entire Cabinet, except Mr. Webster, resigned, and Webster remained until the following year only in order to complete the every important negotiations which he had begun with Great Britain for the settlement of the Northwest boundary dispute, as well as the complications arising on account of the recent insurrection in Canada - but not, however, without strong criticism and abuse from many quarters. Simultaneously with the resignation of the Cabinet the Whig members of Congress held a meeting and issued a manifesto declaring that the President had betrayed the party for selfish purposes, and was unworthy of its confidence, and proclaimed that henceforth all political connection between them and John Tyler was at an end. After this, Whig indignation meetings and burnings in effigy were the order of the day.14 The dissolution, however, was not entire, for the President was still able to find enough distinguished men to fill up the five Cabinet vacancies among those who, like himself, had once been Jackson Democrats, and who had left the Democratic party for the same reason as himself. Aside from the bank project, the Whig programme was carried through with little difficulty. As has been said, the independent treasury scheme was done away with. This was followed by the enactment of a bankruptcy law and the adoption of Clay's pet scheme for distributing among the States the proceeds from the sales of public lands, although the latter never went into effect. A still more important measure was the enactment in 1842 of a new tariff law. It will be remembered that by the compromise of 1833 all rates in excess of twenty per cent. ad valorem were to be reduced by a sliding scale until June 1, 1842, after which a twenty per 14 Schurz, "Life of Clay," vol. ii. p. 216. 1842 cent. schedule was to be maintained. This large reduction, however, threatened to bring about a deficit in the treasury. Accordingly the Whig Congress resolved to forestall such a contingency by raising the duties, and four years later this act was superseded by the Democratic tariff of 1846. The domestic tranquillity of Tyler's administration was unbroken, except that in Rhode Island a disturbance of more than local interest occurred as a result of an effort to extend the suffrage in that State. Until 1842 the fundamental law of Rhode Island was embodied in the old charter granted by Charles II. nearly two hundred years before, and which had been altered only so far as was made necessary by the displacement of British sovereignty. It contained several archaic features, among which was a provision restricting the suffrage within narrow limits. In 1841 a popular movement was set on foot to extend the suffrage, and a rival government was established under the leadership of one Dorr. In the course of time a conflict occurred and each government appealed to the President for support. The President recognized the old government and the "rebellion" soon collapsed; but a new constitution was adopted and the suffrage was widely extended.15 With regard to the foreign relations of the United States during Tyler's administration, the chief incidents of note were the settlement of the long standing boundary dispute with Great Britain, and the annexation of the Republic of Texas. On account of the employment of loose and ambiguous language in the Treaty of 1783 with Great Britain, a dispute had arisen between the two governments as to the boundary line between Canada and Maine. There was likewise some disagreement as to the St. Croix River, which was described in the treaty as the boundary from its mouth to its source. Article V. of the Treaty of Ghent provided for the appointment of a mixed commission to determine the true boundary; but, as has been stated in a previous chapter, the commissioners were unable to reach an agreement. By the same article it was provided that in the event of the failure of the commissioners to agree, the question should be referred to the arbitration of some friendly sovereign or state. Meantime there occurred between the settlers of Maine and New Brunswick a collision, which is locally known as the "Aroostook War," and to which reference was made in the 15 See the case of Luther vs. Borden, "U. S. Supreme Court Reports," vii. Howard, p. I. 1842 preceding chapter. After a good deal of diplomatic wrangling the dispute was referred in 1827 to the King of the Netherlands for arbitration. Instead of awarding the disputed territory to one or the other of the claimants, he proposed a compromise line, which it was contended he had no authority to do. His decision was therefore rejected and efforts were again made to settle the controversy by diplomacy.16 This was one of the problems which Webster, when he became Secretary of State in 1841, took up with great earnestness, remaining in the Cabinet after his colleagues had all resigned in order to bring to a successful close the negotiations which he had begun. Finally he reached an agreement with Lord Ashburton, the British minister, and embodied it in a treaty which was promptly ratified by the Senate. It adopted a compromise line by which seventwelfths of the territory in dispute was assigned to the United States, and $250,000 was to be paid to the States of Maine and Massachusetts by the United States Government as compensation for their losses.17 The St. John's River was to be free and open to both parties. The treaty also contained an agreement upon the part of both the United States and Great Britain to use their joint efforts to suppress the slave trade, and for the mutual extradition of criminals, seven distinct offenses being recognized. Other questions were considered, but no conclusion arrived at.18 In the United States the treaty was severely denounced, but in spite of all criticism the Senate gave its approval by the large vote of thirtynine to nine, and by those best informed it was considered a great diplomatic triumph which brought credit to the administration. Likewise in Great Britain it was criticised as the "Ashburton Capitulation," and Lord Palmerston went so far as to say that Lord Ashburton was influenced in the negotiations by the fact that he had an American wife. III ANNEXATION OF TEXAS By the Treaty of 1819 with Spain it will be remembered that the United States relinquished whatever claim she had to Texas, 16 Moore, "International Arbitrations," vol. i. p. 138. 17 Ibid., vol. i. p. 157. 18 Foster, "Century of American Diplomacy," pp. 286-289. 1842 then a part of Mexico. The only basis of such a claim was that Texas had been included in the Louisiana Purchase. This claim. was not generally regarded as being of sufficient weight to insist upon, and when it was relinquished in 1819 there was no general objection. There were a few, however, among them Henry Clay, who maintained that the United States had a clear title to Texas and strenuously denied the right of the President to cede it away by treaty. Whatever may have been the right of the United States to Texas before the Treaty of 1819 with Spain, it is certain that it had no claim thereafter. In 1821 Mexico, together with the other Spanish-American colonies, revolted and established her independence under a republican form of government. In 1824 two of the leading Mexican states, Texas and Coahuila, were united into a single commonwealth, much to the disgust of Texas. Already, as the result of a large land grant to Moses Austin, a farseeing colonizer from Connecticut, a considerable influx of families from the United States had begun. In fact the rush of settlers with their slaves from the States to the fertile lands of Texas was now so rapid that they soon outnumbered the native population.19 The Mexican authorities came to look upon this movement with jealousy, and by successive decrees slavery was abolished in Mexico, the importation of slaves into Texas from foreign countries was prohibited, and the immigration of all persons from the United States was forbidden. Little or no attention was paid to any of these decrees, and the Mexican Government found itself powerless to enforce them. In the meantime the government of the United States was making efforts to purchase Texas. In 1827 the Adams administration offered one million dollars for Texas, and in 1829 Jackson proposed to increase the amount to five millions; but Mexico refused to sell. Finally, in 1835, Santa Anna, the President of the Republic of Mexico, undertook to displace the federal form of government and substitute a centralized system by which the States were to be reduced to the status of provinces. Thereupon the inhabitants of Texas rose in revolt, and entered upon their struggle for independence — a struggle which for heroism, determination and thrilling interest is unsurpassed in American history. In October, 1835, a body of Texans defeated a detachment of Mexicans at Gonzales and put them to flight. They soon followed up 19 See Garrison, "History of Texas," pp. 137-153. 1842 this victory with an energetic campaign against the frontier posts held by the Mexicans. In the same month a small detachment under Colonel Bowie and Captain Fannin defeated a much larger force of Mexicans near Mission Conception. The capture of the Mexican army at Béjar in December left not a man in arms against the Texans north of the Rio Grande. In March, 1836, a detachment of Texans under command of Fannin was captured near Goliad, and 370 of them were marched out under guards and shot down by their captors, the Mexicans justifying their conduct on the ground that their victims were filibusters from the United States. The Mexicans had already laid siege to the Alamo, an old Spanish mission building at San Antonio, held as a fort by Colonel Travis, and threatened to put the garrison to the sword if they did not surrender immediately. In spite of the fact that Travis had only a handful of men, and only a few bushels of corn, he answered the demand with a cannon shot, and in a letter "to the people of Texas and all the world," declared that he would never surrender or retreat. On March 6 the Alamo was taken by storm, a desperate hand-to-hand struggle ensued, and all but about |