The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association, Volume 9, July 1905 - April, 1906 Page: 31
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. 31
had said justified the inference that England, although deploring
the existence of slavery, ever contemplated any interference with
the institution in America. These incidents served to bring out
the attitude of England on the question of slavery, and slavery in
Texas in particular; but they were not able to counteract the ef-
fects produced by the events of the summer of 1843. For in Oc-
tober, 1843, less than two months after Lord Aberdeen used in
the House of Lords the language that caused the excitement, Up-
shur informed Isaac Van Zandt, the Texas charge d'affaires at
Washington, that recent happenings in Europe had given a new in-
terest to the subject of annexation, and that he was prepared to
make propositions on the subject to Van Zandt as soon as the latter
should be authorized to receive them. The result of this was that
when Calhoun wrote Pakenham his note of April 18, 1844, he
was able to inform him at the same time that he had negotiated
a treaty of annexation with Texas.1
(3) England aroused by prospect of annexation.-The repre-
sentatives of the English government had learned before
this that Texas was again actively engaged with the annexa-
tion question. In March, 1844, Elliot in a note to Anson Jones
asked whether Texas was considering the American propositions
for annexation, saying that Mexico could not be expected to enter
into any arrangement with Texas as long as annexation was im-
mediately in view. Jones said in reply that, since Texas had
given up hope of peace with Mexico, and since the door to annexa-
tion had been unexpectedly opened, the Texas Congress had in-
structed President Houston to negotiate on the subject, in ac-
cordance with which instruction General Henderson had been sent
to Washington. Ashbel Smith wrote on June 2 that the annexa-
tion treaty was receiving much attention in England, and that
1Niles' Register, LXV 49 ("Debate in Parliament relative to Texas"),
LXVI 164-165 (Upshur to Murphy, Aug. 8, 1843), 166-167 (Upshur to
Everett, Sep. 28, 1843), 169 (Everett to Upshur, Nov. 3, 1843), 170
(Upshur to Thompson, Nov. 18, 1843), 171 (Pakenham to Upshur, Feb.
26, 1844), 172 (ICalhoun to Pakenham, Apr. 18, 1844), 202-203 (Paken-
ham to Calhoun, Apr. 19, 1844, Calhoun to Pakenham, Apr. 27, 1844;
Pakenham to Calhoun, Apr. 30, 1844), 225 ("Annexation of Texas");
Everett to Smith, Oct. 24, 1843; Smith to Everett, Oct. 31, 1843; Aber-
deen to Pakenham, Dec. 26, 1843; Ups'hur to Van Zandt, Oct. 16, 1843.
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/m1/35/: accessed April 24, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Texas State Historical Association.