Editing John C. Calhoun (section)

=== Appointment and the Annexation of Texas ===
{{main|Texas annexation}}
When Harrison died in 1841 after a month in office, Vice President [[John Tyler]] succeeded him. Tyler, a former Democrat, was expelled from the Whig Party after vetoing bills passed by the Whig congressional majority to reestablish a national bank and raise tariffs.<ref>{{cite web |url = https://millercenter.org/president/tyler/domestic-affairs |title = John Tyler: Domestic Affairs |publisher = University of Virginia Miller Center |access-date = June 2, 2016 }}</ref> He named Calhoun [[United States Secretary of State|Secretary of State]] on April 10, 1844, following the death of [[Abel P. Upshur]], one of six people killed when a cannon exploded during a public demonstration in the [[USS Princeton disaster of 1844|USS ''Princeton'' disaster]].

[[File:John C. Calhoun, U.S. Secretary of State.jpg|thumb|upright|Calhoun, during his tenure as Secretary of State (April 1844 – March 1845)]]
Upshur's loss was a severe blow to the Tyler administration. When Calhoun was nominated as Upshur's replacement, the White House was well-advanced towards securing a treaty of annexation with Texas. The State Department's secret negotiations with the Texas republic had proceeded despite explicit threats from a suspicious Mexican government that an unauthorized seizure of its northern district of [[Coahuila y Tejas]] would be equivalent to an act of war.{{sfn|May|2008|p=105}} Both the negotiations with Texas envoys and the garnering of support from the U.S. Senate had been spearheaded aggressively by Secretary Upshur, a strong pro-slavery partisan.{{sfn|Howe|2007|p=677}} Tyler looked to its ratification by the Senate as the ''sine qua non'' to his ambition for another term in office. Tyler planned to outflank the Whigs by gaining support from the Democratic Party or possibly creating a new party of discontented Northern Democrats and Southern Whigs.{{sfn|May|2008|p=100}}

Calhoun, though as avid a proponent for Texas acquisition as Upshur, posed a political liability to Tyler's aims.{{sfn|Holt|2004|p=35}} As secretary of state, Calhoun's political objective was to see that the presidency was placed in the hands of a southern [[Fire-Eaters|extremist]], who would put the expansion of slavery at the center of national policy.{{sfn|Howe|2007|pp=680–681}}

Tyler and his allies had, since 1843, devised and encouraged national propaganda promoting Texas annexation, which understated Southern slaveholders' aspirations regarding the future of Texas.{{sfn|Howe|2007|p=677}} Instead, Tyler chose to portray the annexation of Texas as something that would prove economically beneficial to the nation as a whole. The further introduction of slavery into the vast expanses of Texas and beyond, they argued, would "diffuse" rather than concentrate slavery regionally, ultimately weakening white attachment and dependence on slave labor. This theory was yoked to the growing enthusiasm among Americans for [[Manifest Destiny]], a desire to see the social, economic and moral precepts of republicanism spread across the continent.{{sfn|May|2008|pp=99–101}}{{sfn|Varon|2008|p=184}} Moreover, Tyler declared that national security was at stake: If foreign powers—Great Britain in particular—were to gain influence in Texas, it would be reduced to a British cotton-producing reserve and a base to exert geostrategic influence over North America. Texas might be coerced into relinquishing slavery, inducing slave uprisings in adjoining slave states and deepening sectional conflicts between American free-soil and slave-soil interests.{{sfn|May|2008|pp=97–98}} The appointment of Calhoun, with his southern states' rights reputation—which some believed was "synonymous with slavery"—threatened to cast doubt on Tyler's carefully crafted reputation as a nationalist.{{sfn|May|2008|p=110}} Tyler, though ambivalent, felt obliged to enlist Calhoun as Secretary of State, because Tyler's closest confidantes had, in haste, offered the position to the South Carolinian statesman in the immediate aftermath of the ''Princeton'' disaster. Calhoun would be confirmed by Congress by unanimous vote.{{sfn|May|2008|p=109}}

In advance of Calhoun's arrival in Washington, D.C., Tyler attempted to quickly finalize the treaty negotiations. [[Sam Houston]], President of the Texas Republic, fearing Mexican retaliation, insisted on a tangible demonstration of U.S. commitments to the security of Texas. When key Texas diplomats failed to appear on schedule, the delay compelled Tyler to bring his new Secretary of State directly into negotiations.{{sfn|May|2008|p=110}} Secretary Calhoun was directed to honor former Secretary Upshur's verbal assurances of protection{{sfn|Howe|2007|p=679}} now offered by Calhoun in writing, to provide for U.S. military intervention in the event that Mexico used force to hold Texas. Tyler deployed U.S. Navy vessels to the Gulf of Mexico and ordered army units mobilized, entirely paid for with $100,000 of executive branch contingency funds. The move side-stepped constitutional requirements that Congress authorize appropriations for war.{{sfn|May|2008|p=110}}

On April 22, 1844, Secretary Calhoun signed the treaty of annexation and ten days later delivered it to the Senate for consideration in secret session.{{sfn|Howe|2007|pp=679–680}} The details of the treaty negotiations and supporting documents were leaked to the press by Senator [[Benjamin Tappan]] of Ohio. Tappan, a Democrat, was an opponent of annexation and of slavery.{{sfn|Howe|2007|p=680}} The terms of the Tyler–Texas treaty and the release of Calhoun's letter to British ambassador [[Richard Pakenham]] exposed the annexation campaign as a program to expand and preserve slavery. In the Pakenham letter, Calhoun alleged that the institution of slavery contributed to the physical and mental well-being of Southern slaves. The U.S. Senate was compelled to open its debates on ratification to public scrutiny, and hopes for its passage by the two-thirds majority required by the Constitution were abandoned by administration supporters. In linking Texas annexation to the expansion of slavery, Calhoun had alienated many who might previously have supported the treaty.{{sfn|May|2008|p=113}}

On June 8, 1844, after fierce partisan struggles, the Senate rejected the Tyler–Texas treaty by a vote of 16–35, a margin of more than two-to-one.{{sfn|Howe|2007|p=680}} The vote went largely along party lines: Whigs had opposed it almost unanimously (1–27), while Democrats split, but voted largely in favor (15–8).{{sfn|May|2008|pp=114–115}} Nevertheless, the disclosure of the treaty placed the issue of Texas annexation at the center of the 1844 general election.{{sfn|May|2008|p=115}}{{sfn|Varon|2008|p=167}}