The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association, Volume 9, July 1905 - April, 1906 Page: 33
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Diplomatic Relations of England and nRepublic of Texas. 33
the negotiation in Texas, intimating that instructions on the sub-
ject had already been sent to Elliot.1
(4) Defection of France and change in the attitude of Mexico.
-England was by this time thoroughly aroused to the danger of
annexation unless determined measures were at once taken to pre-
vent it, for she saw that the Texas people were strongly in favor
of it, and that the American government had come to take the
same position. In this state of affairs Lord Aberdeen was no doubt
annoyed by indications that France, which was acting in concert
with England, was not disposed blindly to follow the English
policy, which was now to interfere authoritatively to prevent an-
nexation. In January, 1845, Lord Aberdeen brought to Terrell's
attention published letters of John C. Calhoun and William R.
King, the American minister at Paris, which developed the fact
that Guizot had told King that France would not consider annexa-
tion of sufficient importance to interrupt friendly relations with
the United States. Aberdeen investigated the matter through
Lord Cowley, the British ambassador at Paris, who reported that
Guizot had told him that France was ready to unite with Great
Britain and to go the whole length proposed by her, this being the
guaranty of the recognition of the independence of Texas without
further molestation, and that the two powers were prepared at
any moment to sign with Texas a diplomatic act making the guar-
anty. The conflict between Guizot's statements to King and to
Lord Cowley was not irreconcilable, but it seems to have given
Aberdeen a feeling of uncertainty. Before the end of the month
Terrell learned from Aberdeen that the French government, in
view of a new development, no longer considered a diplomatic
act necessary, though Guizot still spoke of a certain "moral guar-
anty which the two governments will have given to Texas, if at
their instance she shall withhold her assent to annexation to the
United States." This Aberdeen understood to mean the moral
obligation under which England and France would rest to main-
tain the independence of Texas if at their solicitation she should
decline annexation. The new development in question was a
1Elliott to Jones, Mar. 22, 1844; Jones to Elliot, Mar. 25, 1844; Smith
to Jones, Jan. 29, June 2, June 14, and June 24, 1844; Jones to Smith,
July 14. and Aug. 1, 1844; Terrell to Smith, Jan. 21, 1845.
Here’s what’s next.
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
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/m1/37/: accessed July 24, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Texas State Historical Association.