THE "BARGAIN OF 1844 AND THE WILMOT PROVISO 143
there should be found such a backwardness on the part of southern gentlemen to give it their aid" j 1 that if Calhoun were "a true mother" he would surely "not be willing to cut the child in two and give away one half." 2
Two or three days later, when "Mr. Rhett, Mr. Yancey, and others of the Southern phalanx" in the House took the same ground as Calhoun in the Senate, Douglas of Illinois "at first intimated, and subsequently rather broadly charged upon the Southern members of the party, an attempt to 'play a game' treacherous to the West. He asserted distinctly that the Oregon and Texas annexation projects had their birth in the Baltimore convention. * * * There they were 'cradled together' with a distinct understanding that if the West sus- tained the South in securing Texas, the South would sustain the West in their claims to Oregon." 3 Houston of Texas and Rhett of South Carolina entered formal denials of having had "any hand in the game ;" but in milder form Douglas persisted in his charge and was supported in it by McDowell of Ohio and Smith of Indiana. 4
Still, a few days later Wentworth of Illinois renewed the charge. "The South and West went together for Texas," he told the Southern Democrats, and now they should "go to- gether for Oregon. The West certainly so expected. If they did not go together, there was a class of politicians who would make a great deal of capital out of it ;" they were already predicting that "the South, having used the West to get Texas, would now abandon it [the West] and go against Oregon." Yancey of Alabama demanding if he meant "to intimate that there was any bargain between the South and West" to that effect. Wentworth denied that he had "said there was any such bargain," for to say so "would only implicate himself as a party to it after having voted for Texas." 5
So, through six of the nine months of this session of Con- gress, ran on charge, denial, and even countercharge; most
1 Cong. Globe, 15, in.
2 As reported by Niles' Register, LXIX, 279 (Jan. 3, 1846).
3 Ibid., 289-290 (Jan. 10, 1846).
4 Cong. Globe, 15, 125, 140, 143, 159.
5 Cong. Globe, 206, 207.
