The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association, Volume 9, July 1905 - April, 1906 Page: 27
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Diplomatic Relations of England and Republic of Texas. 27
is difficult to reconcile these two acts, but some light is thrown
on the subject by the fact that the assurance to England was given
for the immediate purpose of conveying the news that Texas did
not intend in the matter to make use of the services of General
Hamilton, who had proposed to end the war by a secret negotia-
tion at Washington between himself, the American government,
and Almonte, the Mexican minister. The English and French gov-
ernments, however, decided to exercise their mediation, but to act
independently. By the end of the year Smith had expressed it
as his opinion that English mediation under the treaty negotiated
by Hamilton and Palmerston was utterly hopeless, and the Texas
government felt that war must be actively renewed unless friendly
powers succeeded in prevailing upon Mexico to make peace.'
3. Annexation Promoted by English Efforts to Secure the Aboli-
tion of Slavery in Texas.
(1) Reported utterances of Aberdeen. - Aberdeen's policy
during this period was such as indicates that he felt
that he had the Texas situation still in hand. He seems
to have considered that there was no reason to fear that
annexation would soon again become an active issue. Thus,
at a time when the situation was really delicate and
when the success of his policy demanded the greatest caution on his
part, he undertook an aggressive measure by which he played di-
rectly into the hands of his opponents. The annexation party in
the United States under the leadership of such men as John C.
Calhoun and President Tyler was preparing to make annexation
the foremost issue in American politics, and it was bad policy on
England's part to take any steps that would give color to the asser-
tion that she was interfering in Texas in such a way as to disturb
the interests of the United States. Such a step was taken by
Aberdeen in his stand on the question of slavery in Texas. It was
perfectly well known that England desired to see the universal
'Jones to Smith, June 7, 1842; Smith to Guizot, Aug. 15, 1842; Smith
to Aberdeen, Aug. (no day given, but evidently in latter part of month),
1842; Smith to Jones, Aug. 31, Oct. 17, and Nov. 30, 1842; Terrell to
Smith, Oct. 15, and Dec. 7, 1842; Hamilton to Jones, Nov. 24, 1842;
Jones to Van Zandt, Dec. 25, and Dec. 26, 1842.
Here’s what’s next.
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas State Historical Association. The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association, Volume 9, July 1905 - April, 1906, periodical, 1906; Austin, Texas. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth101036/m1/31/: accessed April 27, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Texas State Historical Association.