One of the first attempts in the 1840s to revive the issue of the annexation of Texas was a letter written by Thomas Gilmer and published in the Madisonian on January 23, 1843. Gilmer argued that Texas, unless acquired by the United States, would come under the political and economic influence of Great Britain and the abolition of slavery would be effected there. Gilmer's letter was sent by Congressman Aaron V. Brown of Tennessee to ex-president Andrew Jackson for comment. Jackson's reply of February 12, 1843, which is reprinted here, was first published a year later without his consent to enlist Democratic support for the annexation of Texas and to dissuade the Democrats from choosing Martin Van Buren, who opposed immediate annexation, as their presidential nominee.

Yours of the 23rd ultimo has been received, and with it the Madisonian containing Governor Gilmer's letter on the subject of the annexation of Texas to the United States.

You are not mistaken in supposing that I have formed an opinion on this interesting subject. It occupied much of my attention during my presidency, and, I am sure, has lost none of its importance by what has since transpired.

Soon after my election, in 1829, it was made known to me by Mr. Erwin, formerly our minister at the court of Madrid, that while at that court he had laid the foundation of a treaty with Spain for the cession of the Floridas and the settlement of the boundary of Louisiana, fixing the western limit of the latter at the Rio Grande, agreeably to the understanding of France; that he had written home to our government for powers to complete and sign this negotiation; but that, instead of receiving such authority, the negotiation was taken out of his hands and transferred to Washington, and a new treaty was there concluded, by which the Sabine, and not the Rio Grande, was recognized and established as the boundary of Louisiana.

Finding that these statements were true, and that our government did really give up that important territory when it was at its option to retain it, I was filled with astonishment. The right of the territory was obtained from France. Spain stood ready to acknowledge it to the Rio Grande, and yet the authority asked by our minister to insert the true boundary was not only withheld but, in lieu of it, a limit was adopted which stripped us of the whole of the vast country lying between the two rivers.

On such a subject, I thought with the ancient Romans, that it was right never to cede any land or boundary of the republic, but always to add to it by honorable treaty, thus extending the area of freedom; and it was in accordance with this feeling that I gave our minister to Mexico instructions to enter upon a negotiation for the retrocession of Texas to the United States. This negotiation failed, and I shall ever regret it as a misfortune to both Mexico and the United States.

Mr. Gilmer's letter presents many of the considerations which, in my judgment, rendered the step necessary to the peace and harmony of the two countries; but the point in it, at that time, which most strongly impelled me to the course I pursued was the injustice done to us by the surrender of the territory, when it was obvious that it could have been retained without increasing the consideration afterward given for the Floridas. I could not but feel that the surrender of so vast and important a territory was attributable to an erroneous estimate of the tendency of our institutions, in which there was mingled somewhat of jealousy to the rising greatness of the South and West.

But I forbear to dwell on this part of the history of this question. It is past and cannot now be undone. We can now only look at it as one of annexation, if Texas presents it to us; and if she does, I do not hesitate to say that the welfare and happiness of our Union require that it should be accepted.

If, in a military point of view alone, the question be examined, it will be found to be most important to the United States to be in possession of that territory.

Great Britain has already made treaties with Texas, and we know that farseeing nation never omits a circumstance, in her extensive intercourse with the world which can be turned to account in increasing her military resources. May she not enter into an alliance with Texas? And reserving, as she doubtless will, the northwestern boundary question as the cause of war with us whenever she chooses to declare it, let us suppose that, as an ally with Texas, we are to fight her! Preparatory to such a movement, she sends her 20,000 or 30,000 men to Texas; organizes them on the Sabine, where her supplies and arms can be concentrated before we have even notice of her intentions; makes a lodgment on the Mississippi; excites the Negroes to insurrection; the lower country falls, and, with it, New Orleans; and a servile war rages through the whole South and West.

In the meanwhile, she is also moving an army along the western frontier from Canada, which, in cooperation with the army from Texas, spreads ruin and havoc from the Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico.

Who can estimate the national loss we may sustain before such a movement could be repelled with such forces as we could organize on short notice?

Remember that Texas borders upon us, on our west, to 42° of north latitude, and is our southern boundary to the Pacific. Remember, also, that if annexed to the United States, our western boundary would be the Rio Grande, which is of itself a fortification on account of its extensive, barren, and uninhabitable plains. With such a barrier on our west we are invincible. The whole European world could not, in combination against us, make an impression on our Union. Our population on the Pacific would rapidly increase and soon be strong enough for the protection of our Eastern whalers, and, in the worst event, could always be sustained by timely aids from the intermediate country.

From the Rio Grande, over land, a large army could not march or be supplied, unless from the Gulf by water, which, by vigilance, could always be intercepted; and to march an army near the Gulf, they could be harassed by militia and detained until an organized force could be raised to meet them.

But I am in danger of running into unnecessary details, which my debility will not enable me to close. The question is full of interest, also, as it affects our domestic relations and as it may bear upon those of Mexico to us. I will not undertake to follow it out to its consequences in those respects, though I must say that, in all aspects, the annexation of Texas to the United States promises to enlarge the circle of free institutions, and is essential to the United States, particularly as lessening the probabilities of future collision with foreign powers, and giving them greater efficiency in spreading the blessings of peace.