I should have answer’d your letters of Septr. 6th much sooner but for my engagements in the late Canvass & my necessary absence from the State since its termination. I remember the conversation alluded to by Mr. Blair. We had many others previous to that time on the subject of annexation & untill about the time of the publication of Mr. Van Burens letter against it, I knew of no one apparently more ardent in its support than he was. He knew that Genl. Jacksons letter to me had much influence in inducing Mr Tyler to enter upon the accomplishment of that great measure & for weeks if not for months held that letter or a copy of it, in his possession ready for publication whenever it was believed by me that the proper time had arrived. The distinct understanding between us was, that its publication was to be followed up by the ablest editorials in the Globe: & I think if that paper is examined it will be found that Mr. Blair, did write & publish one or more, just before the appearance of Mr Van Buren’s letter. That letter & the subsequent course of Mr. Benton, were understood to effect the public course of Mr Blair—but not to change his personal & sincere wish for the success of the measure. This is not strange when it is rememberd. that whilst Mr. Benton & Mr. Van Buren were so hostile to annexation, in the form at least then proposed, Genl Jackson towards whom Mr Blair’s devotion was well known, was doing all he could by his correspondence with me, with Mr. Blair himself & many others to bring about its accomplishment. I sincerely sympathized with him in the delicacy & embarrassment of his position & felt free to converse with him, as he manifested a desire to do, when we met on the occasion alluded to, on Pennsylvania avenue, he going toward the Capital I returning from it about the hour of adjournment. In that conversation he expressd. his deep regret, at the wide difference of opinion & want of harmony which had sprung up on the question & earnestly put to me the question whether in my opinion, there was no way, by which the party could be united on it. My reply was prompt & ready. I said Mr. Benton ought to recede from his Bill which stood out in the opinion of nearly every body as hostile & antagonistic to the resolution of the house. That the substance of the provisions of his bill, might be thrown into the form of a resolution & then added as an amendment, not a substitute, to that of the house. This course would require no concession from either branch of the party & ought & would I thought heal up the breach that seemed every day deepening & widening in the democratic party. My reply was the more prompt because I had meditated much on the subject & had days before taken steps as Mr. Jacob Thompson & probably Mr. Senator Sevier would inform you, which I have allways considerd as having led to the “Walker amendment” finally adopted & voted for by Mr. Benton & Mr. Tappan themselves.

Mr. Blair asserts, that these votes & others were procured solely by the pledges which he says you gave & yet I apprehend that various senators who attended the Caucus which took into consideration, this mode of passing the measure, can recollect no dissent then given by any of the Senators mentioned by him as having only assented to it on the ground of your pledges, given subsequent to that Caucus if given at all.

I should suppose Mr Senator Walker could inform you who was at that caucus—Was Mr. Benton there & did he signify any opposition to it—Was Mr Tappan there & did he give into it on account of your assurances to Mr Blair or any body else & in fact was any thing said at that meeting about your having given any pledges at all to any body or through any body? If I understand the period when Mr Blair says he consulted you, it must have been after the meeting to which I allude & at which the Walker amendment was agreed upon as one on which the whole party could probably harmonize. I do not pretend to know the particulars of that meeting—who were there &c. as it was one composed only of Senators. I speak of it only as I heard at the time & I feel sure that I never understood that its action was at all influenced by any thing coming from you in the way alleged, & I regarded it at the time as the ripening & consummation of the plan which I had proposed through Mr. Jacob Thompson & Mr Senator Sevier, two warm, energetic & very useful friends in its final accomplishments. I give these details now for the first time in any written communication, because they are well calculated to refute the idea which Mr. Tappan seems to have taken up, that the plan of blending the two propositions originated with you, when I feel very sure that your attention had not been turned with any particularity to the merits of the respective forms of annexation then pending.

Mr Blair speaks of my having desired him to see Mr Benton & the friends of his proposition, submit my plans to them, & then see you on the subject, &c. If he would reflect a little he could readily see why I would hardly ask his agency in submitting any plan of mine (as mine) to the consideration of Mr Benton at that period; but on the suggestion of the doubts which he says he expressd. whether the plan mentiond would be satisfactory, I might well have replied as I think it probable I did, that all parties were present in the city & he on friendly relations to all & he as a democrat & a good friend to annexation ought & could ascertain from them whether such a plan would be satisfactory.

Whether Mr Blair ever had any interviews with you, I never heard from you or him—although intimate with both—nor did I ever hear from him or any body else during my stay at Washington, any complaints of your having violated any pledges or disappointed their expectations in any part of your action on the subject of annexation. I heard it is true in some quarters complaints of the action of Mr. Tyler as indelicate & precipitate, (which I was far from thinking myself) but none whatsoever of yours.

I have looked over the letters of both these gentlemen & feel at some loss to understand the precise impression intended to be made by them. Was it to shew that the Van Buren or Benton wing of the democratic portion of the Senate, although they voted for annexation ought not to be responsible for the war that followed, because Mr. Bentons form was the pacific one? And how was it more pacific towards Mexico? Both forms were intended to annex Texas to the United States & if that was done, the country would be lost by Mexico, by one mode as much as by the other—both forms then were equally hostile to her & neither could be regarded as pacific. Annexation in any form, was to be the cause of offence to her, not the mode or the terms of it. Mr. Blair states the motive for clinging to Mr Benton’s proposition, to be, to render annexation more palatable to Mexico, by giving her a pecuniary consideration, for the territory desired by the U. States & to which Texas could justly assert any title. Now this is very strange language indeed, when it is rememberd. that the commissioners contemplated in Mr. Benton’s resolution, were not to go to Mexico at all—were to have no communications with her & therefore could have no influence by pecuniary considera[tion]1 or otherwise in reconciling her to annexation. The house resolution left the Western boundary (the only one disputable) subject to negotiation & the general diplomatic powers of the President could have offerd (as it subsequently did) any amount of money to render annexation pallatable to Mexico. To suppose it proper for the President to have selected Mr. Bentons proposition rather than that of the house, for any of the reasons set forth by Mr. Blair or Mr. Tappan, is therefore evidently absurd & inconsistent with the stubborn facts of the case. Every Member of the house who voted for the resolutions of that body, must feel some degree of reflection cast upon him by those letters; for if it was such an outrageous act in the president (Mr. Tyler [& yourself])2 to select & submit, these resolutions, leading so directly & inevitably to War as these gentlemen pretend, it must have been highly censurable in them to have voted for them. The Spirit in which Mr. Tappan’s was written may be judged of by noticing the paragraph in which, speaking of his vote against the Tyler Treaty, he says “it appeared to me (him) that the whole affair afforded evidence of a daring conspiracy to divide the Union by arraying the free & slave States against each other”—a daring conspiracy—the whole affair of it—to divide the Union!—& yet that Senator knows from various publications which must have met his eye, that Genl Jackson’s great name lay at the bottom of this imperfect measure—That Mr. Tyler never ventured upon it, untill he had the assurance that Genl Jackson would stand by him in it. He knows too, that the large majority of his own party (we thought all of them) at the Baltimore convention approved & even demanded the annexation of Texas & yet the whole affar of it, in the summer of 1848, seems to him a daring conspiracy to dissolve the Union!

You must pardon me for making these comments, beyond a simple statements of conversations &c. for I have had to bear the force of these letters in my late canvass of the State, in which they have done some damage to the democratic party & in which I have been compelled to point out their errors & absurdities.