terity ever raise their hands against their brethren they may not be able to say, 'Our fathers entailed this upon us.'"
Here Barnwell of South Carolina, Berrien of Georgia, and Davis of Mississippi, made explanatory statements on behalf of their States, and in defence of the Nashville Convention; when Houston responded:
"I meant no reflection on the gentleman from South Carolina, whose demeanor has excited my admiration. As to the Nashville Convention, in Georgia only 3,500 out of 90,000 votes were cast. It is the duty of every friend of the Union to frown down any such means of action as this convention. As to Mississippi, my information is that not one-half of the counties were represented; that several counties represented were by proxies, and some were delegates constituted such by meetings of not exceeding eight or ten persons. I was witness of one case; as I passed by, only seven persons were assembled. As to the statement of the Senator from Mississippi that the rights of Texas were endorsed by that convention he would ask if that endorsement were necessary. Go to the yeomanry, the hard-handed men of the country, the man of substance, and he will tell you, with his family gathered around him: 'This is my home, this is my wife, and these are my children; and thus surrounded, I am as happy and proud as the monarch on his throne. Here the Constitution protects me; and am I going to place all these endearments on the hazard of disunion? Never, never will they do it! I tell you the people are right. Give to them but the benefit of their constitutional guarantees, and all the factions of the day, all the abstractions that can be conjured up by disaffection, by broken-down politicians, by disappointed spirits, by men who have heretofore advocated nullification, by loafers who live upon excitement, and by reckless demagogues—in spite of them all, I say, the South will hug the Union to her heart as the last blessing of heaven."
On the 15th August, in the midst of the general debate, continued from the 30th July, Houston was called out by a dishonorable attempt to involve him in a traitorous scheme. Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, called attention to an anonymous publication, which stated that in January, 1850, he had been called on by a Mexican General, who consulted him as to a plan for a union of Mexico with a Southern confederacy, of which Houston was to be made President. The writer stated that when the plan was presented to Houston he "indignantly refused to have anything to do with the base and traitorous scheme," and that he declared he was not a Cataline to betray his country. It was stated that Calhoun was fully aware of the proposition, but was opposed to any action until after the effort to amend the Constitution should have failed. It was further stated that Gen. Houston had in his possession the paper, and that he knew the author of the conspiracy. After the reading, Butler, of South Carolina, called out Gen. Houston, who declared the article to be simply a "canard," utterly unjust to Mr.
