British interests and activities in Texas, 1838-1846

Front matter

\X

.

* <tf

Preface

The material for the lectures included in this volume was gathered by research in the Public Record Office in London during the winter of 1 907-1 908. That time was spent in an examination of documents and correspondence connected with English-American relations from 1815 to 1855, after which date they are inaccessible. Such papers are chiefly in the foreign office correspondence and, while they throw much light on many controverted points in history, they are nowhere more illuminating than in the matter of the British attitude toward the American annexation of Texas. Hence the invitation of the Department of History of the Johns Hopkins University to deliver the Albert Shaw Lectures in Diplomatic History in May, 1909, seemed to be most opportune and I gladly presented there the result of my work relating to Texas. This presentation is purely technical, and, while seeking to meet doubtful points, it depends upon documentary substantiation only. It might be indefinitely elaborated by citations from secondary authorities, or greatly bettered by a more complete portrayal of contemporary conditions. The purpose of the lectures forbade this. The California chapter, previously printed in the American Historical Review, is added because of its intimate connection with the Texan question.

Many friends have greatly aided me by suggestion and advice in the general field of English-American

Vlll PREFACE.

relations, but to these my thanks have been previously expressed and need not be intruded in this preface. Three there are, however, to whom so much of the profit of the work in England is due that they must again submit to the expression of my gratitude. The kindly services and interest of the Honorable Whitelaw Reid will always be remembered; Dr. J. Holland Rose saved me weeks of wearisome delay in getting access to needed documents by the care with which he guided my preliminary requests through the intricacies of official formality; and Mr. Hubert Hall of the Public Record Office extended, as always, that generous and scholarly aid which American students of history know so well. To these my thanks are again especially expressed.

Ephraim Douglass Adams.

Stanford University, California, February I, 1910.

CHAPTER I. First Indications of British Interest

Between the years 1840 and 1846 the question of the extent of British interests in Texas and of British activities in relation to the independence of that State attracted much attention throughout the United States. The belief was prevalent that Great Britain was directly interfering in the affairs of Mexico and Texas for the purpose of preventing the annexation of Texas to the United States, of securing abolition within the State of Texas itself, and of thereby exercising an influence tending to the abolition of slavery within the United States. That this belief in British intent and proposed interference existed there can be no doubt, and, admitting its existence, neither is there doubt of its influence and importance in shaping American national policy. By contemporary politicians, and particularly by those from the South, the idea that Great Britain was planning to intervene was urged with notable effect in the closing year of Tyler's administration, and it played an important part in the campaign that resulted in the election of Polk. The use made by Calhoun of what is known as the Pakenham-Calhoun correspondence, which relates the policy of Aberdeen, is of course well known, and at the time there was little question, save in extreme abolition circles, that the allegations of Calhoun had some foundation in fact.

Later historical judgment, however, has generally tended to deny the truth of contemporary opinion in 2 13 this matter. Thus, Schouler regards Tyler and Calhoun as lacking in candor in attributing to Great Britain abolition designs upon Texas. Von Hoist, who until recently had made the most extended examination of the whole question, similarly asserts the insincerity of Calhoun, though acknowledging the natural and logical grounds of any suspicion of Great Britain. H. H. Bancroft goes beyond these two writers in denying that there was in the mind of the advisers of Great Britain any purpose whatever to secure abolition in Texas. The most recent work treating of American diplomacy under the administrations of Tyler and Polk, written by Professor Reeves, and forming one of the series of Albert Shaw Lectures, asserts that Aberdeen was throughout this period the true friend of the United States. This last statement does not necessarily deny a policy of interference in Texas upon the part of Aberdeen, but it clearly leaves the inference that Aberdeen was accused upon insufficient grounds.

It is the purpose of the present work to offer the results of a recent study of British interests and activities in relation to Texas within the period from 1838 to 1846. The materials for this were largely found in the diplomatic correspondence between British foreign ministers and their agents in Mexico, Texas, and the United States ; in the recorded interviews with the representatives of these states in London; and in the private letters of many interested persons, addressed to the foreign office. All of this material is preserved at the Public Record Office in London, and with it, also, the complete records of the British consulates in Texas up to the annexation of that Republic by the United States.

It is not the intention to present a general picture of British diplomacy in this period, or even to explain British interests in Mexico where those interests do not have a direct bearing upon what was attempted in Texas or in regard to that State. Nor is it intended to dwell upon, or to explain, the objects and diplomacy of Texas aside from their relation to British activities. The center of interest in this study is emphatically in the objects, activities, and accomplishments of the British goverment and its agents. Naturally the policy and acts of the United States in relation to Texas must be kept clearly in mind throughout, for an understanding of British action can be secured only by complete knowledge of the acts and efforts of the United States within the same period and by constant reference to them. It is fortunate that such matter was presented in a most scholarly and authoritative manner in 1906 by Mr. Reeves, and in attempting to follow the explanations here given of British activities his volume will be invaluable.

In tracing the history of British interest in Texas, it is at once to be noted that the inception of that interest was connected with the traditional British policy of supporting Mexico as a barrier against the United States. This policy had the support of Canning as early as_i825, and had been steadily continued by British foreign ministers after his time. Meanwhile, British commercial interests in Mexico were greatly extended, and Mexican trade had constantly increased. A large part of the Mexican debt was held by British bondholders. When, therefore, Texas declared her independence, on March 2, 1836, it was only natural that the British government should hope for a speedy reconquest of the revolted province. This did not mean, however, that any active steps looking toward such a reconquest were taken by Palmerston, who was then foreign secretary, or that any such policy was publicly urged upon the English government. It was, in fact, quite generally recognized that the Mexican government had not given such evidence of strength as to warrant a positive belief in its permanence and stability. Still, the interest of Great Britain seemed unquestionably to lie upon the side of Mexico rather than upon the side of Texas. It was well understood in England that Texas would soon attempt to secure from other states a recognition of her independence, and before any such overture had been made to Great Britain the attention of the House of Commons was called to the situation in Texas by some of the avowed friends of Mexico. On June 5, 1836, Mr. Barlow Hoy brought up the question of the existence of slavery and the slave-trade in Texas, with a view to discovering whether or not the government had any purpose of interfering to check these evils. 1 Palmerston replied that Texas was in a state of revolt, thus implying that for the present Great Britain could make no suggestions. Two months later, on August 5, Hoy brought the matter more directly before the Commons by introducing a motion instructing the government to take such measures as might be necessary to secure the fulfillment of existing treaties with Mexico " and prevent the establishment of slavery and traffic in slaves in the province of Texas." 2 In a speech supporting this motion Hoy emphasized as the essential

1 Hansard, 3d Ser., XXXIV, 1107.

2 Hansard, 3d Ser., XXXV, 928-942.

interests of Great Britain in Mexico, first, the large amount of British money invested in Mexican trade; second, the danger of the annexation of Texas by the United States, in which case England must consider " what vast commercial advantages the latter would gain over this country ; " and third, the probability that slavery would be permanently established in Texas. He asserted that it was wrong for Great Britain to " allow slavery to take deep root in situations with respect to which this country, had both the power and right to interfere in suppressing it." He concluded by urging Palmerston to send a naval force to aid Mexico in recovering control of the province of Texas. Other speakers urged that action was necessary in order to defend the commercial interests of Great Britain, and that England could not " allow the United States to pursue a system of aggrandizement."

The reply of Palmerston indicated that no serious attention had been aroused by Hoy's motion, for it stated that that motion was partly unnecessary and partly premature. Palmerston expressed disbelief in the existence of any extensive African slave-trade with Texas, evaded entirely the question of slavery within Texas, and asserted confidence in the integrity of the United States government, though acknowledging that the people of the United States, as distinguished from the government, had given real aid to Texas. He did not believe that the United States intended to annex Texas, but he added that if, in the future, there should be any evidence of such an intention, it " ought seriously to engage the attention of the House and of the British public."

The debate was of no real importance, nor does it indicate, perhaps, the positive sentiments or intentions of British officials. The fact that it is the only definite reference to Texas made for several years by the House of Commons indicates rather the general lack of public interest in the question. The tone of this brief debate, however, is interesting in that it shows a certain arrogant assumption on the part of Great Britain that she could easily settle the matter if she should care to interfere, while the points brought out by the speakers indicate even thus early the two main elements of later British opposition to the American annexation of Texas. One of these elements was philanthropic, being directed toward the question of slavery in Texas ; the other was purely commercial and selfish, and turned upon the rivalry of Great Britain and the United States in the commercial development of the Gulf of Mexico. The points thus brought forward were later frequently cited in American newspapers as evidence of the real intentions of Great Britain in regard to Texas, while Palmerston's hint that British interests could not permit annexation served to irritate further a hypersensitive American public.

The recognition of Texas by the United States was delayed for some time upon various grounds, but was finally granted when a charge d'affaires was sent to that State, on March 7, 1837. Other countries were slower to recognize. It was undoubtedly a part of a plan for ultimate American annexation that British and French recognition of Texas should be secured, thus preparing the way for a denial of any right on the part of Mexico to resist annexation. Texas had, in fact, made a proposal to the United States for anf

nexation, and had been definitely refused by Forsyth, the American secretary of state. This was in August of 1837. Two months earlier, in June, General J. Pinckney Henderson had been sent to England for the purpose of securing English recognition. 3 He was well received, but the English government expressed no active interest in the matter, and finally, on December 27, a definite refusal was given him. Meanwhile, however, the refusal of the United States to consider any annexation project and the subsequent withdrawal by Texas of its offer somewhat changed the situation. Palmerston was increasingly confident that American annexation plans were unlikely to meet with success. Yet he preferred to postpone British recognition, though willing to take steps looking toward it later on. Accordingly, he gave notice to Henderson that until the time for recognition should arrive, the trade of Texas " would be treated as a part of Mexico," and " vessels under the Texas flag or with clearances from Texas custom houses would be admitted into English ports under the terms of the commercial treaty between England and Mexico." 4 This peculiar

8 Henderson was born in North Carolina in 1808, was admitted to the bar in 1829, and, after several years of practice, removed to Mississippi in 1835. He soon became interested in the Texan revolution, joined the Texan army, and was appointed a brigadier-general. In 1837 he was elected secretary of state, and in 1839 was sent to Europe to secure foreign recognition. On his return to Texas in 1840 he resumed the practice of the law, but in 1844 was sent to Washington by President Houston as a special minister to negotiate a treaty of annexation. In 1846 he was elected governor of Texas. In 1858 he was appointed senator from Texas, and died in the same year at Washington.

"Worley, "Texas and British Designs," p. 5. In Texas State Hist. Assoc. Q., XI, no. 1.

arrangement, by which a state regarded as in revolt from the parent state was given the trade privileges of the latter, did not satisfy the government of Texas in any respect, but was accepted as an indication of greater concessions to be made later. In truth, however, the real reason for the arrangement lay in the necessity for it felt by the British trade interest itself. Meanwhile Henderson, though disappointed with the results of his British mission, had proceeded to France, and had secured the recognition of Texas from that power.

The manuscript material in the British Public Record Office indicates clearly that in the years 1837 and 1838 very little interest was attached by diplomats to the situation in Texas. Palmerston sent to the minister in Mexico but one instruction referring to Texas, and that was merely to notify him that Henderson, the Texan envoy, had arrived in London, and that the British government had not as yet reached any decision with regard to Henderson's proposals. Yet as early as 1837 considerable newspaper gossip in America accused Great Britain of a plan to acquire Texas by means of a transfer of the province by Mexico to the bondholders of the Mexican debt. The records of the foreign office contain no trace whatever of this purported sale or of any similar scheme. English interest was, in fact, almost wholly directed in this year toward the question of French reprisals then being undertaken against Mexico because of her refusals to adjust various French claims. Palmerston, reflecting this general British interest, yet desiring at the same time to preserve the good-will of France, was distinctly embarrassed by the French activities upon the coast of

Mexico. British merchants were themselves extremely vexed at the delay of Mexico in meeting their own claims, 5 and to this extent they sympathized with the claims of French merchants and the action of the French government. When, however, the French government sent a fleet to Mexico to blockade Mexican ports and force a settlement of French claims, the trade of Great Britain was seriously interfered with, and numerous complaints were made to the British government. 6 Before France had fully prepared this plan of bringing pressure to bear upon Mexico, an agreement had been reached with Palmerston by which it was understood that the British fleet -in the Gulf of Mexico was not to interfere with that of France, but the limits of French action had not been completely defined. The theory of France, acquiesced in by Palmerston, was that the expedition of the French squadron and its acts upon the coast of Mexico did not constitute war. When the French squadron actually blockaded Mexican ports, however, it was difficult to consider the situation as other than a warlike one. British merchants asserted that if war did not exist, they had a perfect right to clear their vessels for Mexican ports, and that the French squadron had no right to interfere with the entry of British vessels into such ports. Palmerston at first refused to listen to this argument, but the complaints became so numerous that he finally stated that British vessels might clear for some nearby " neutral " port with the idea that if upon arriving at such port the vessel should find no actual blockade before the Mexican port it desired to

"F. O. Mexico, 121, Dom. Var.

enter, it might proceed upon its journey and depend upon British protection in case of interference by the French. 7 The use here of the word " neutral " was unfortunate, for the reply of the merchants promptly pointed out that if " neutral " ports existed in the case in question, then a state of war actually existed also between France and Mexico, and in that case only those Mexican ports actually closed by an efficient blockading squadron should be regarded as closed to British merchants. The difficulty of Palmerston was increased by the fact that in 1837 Great Britain had blockaded the coast of New Granada in exactly the same manner in which France was now blockading Mexico, and yet had asserted that no war existed. In the present case Palmerston finally took the advice of a queen's advocate, Hodson, and was told that in fact Great Britain had been at war with New Granada, and that France was now technically at war with Mexico. 8

7 Ibid., Palmerston to Powles, November 15, 1838.

8 Palmerston's action in regard to the French squadron upon the coast of Mexico is interesting. He had agreed with France not to interfere with this punitive expedition, and yet, at the same time, he did not wish it to appear to Mexico that he had made such an agreement. Great Britain was still regarded by Mexico as her chief support and most friendly adviser, and this was true in spite of recent irritating incidents which had arisen between the two countries. Palmerston therefore gave instructions to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty that the British squadron in the Gulf of Mexico, which was under the command of Sir Charles Paget, should not interfere with Admiral Baudin of the French navy, but that Paget was not to let Baudin know that he had such instructions. Paget was to cruise somewhere near the French squadron, keeping track of the operations of that squadron, and if he found that Baudin was going to bombard some Mexican fortresses upon the coast, then Paget was to withdraw conveniently, or be called away. Palmerston knew, in fact, that

The importance of this episode and of British interest in it, both public and official, when considered in relation to British policy toward Texas, lies in the evidence it presents that as yet Mexico and Mexican trade relations occupied the center of the British stage. Texas had so far secured but scant attention from the British public or government. From Mexico itself, however, there came indications that British agents were more interested in the Texas situation than was the home government. Pakenham, the regular minister in Mexico, was in England upon leave of absence during a large part of 1837 and 1838. 9 The reports of Ashburnham, Pakenham's substitute for -this period,

the plan of the French squadron was to bombard San Juan de Ulua as a punitive measure against Mexico. It was thus a somewhat involved instruction that was given to Paget. He was not to interfere with Baudin, yet Baudin was not to know that he had such instructions. He was not to be present when Baudin actually punished Mexico, so that Mexico should not understand that an agreement existed between England and France. Thus the " honor " of the British navy was to be preserved, as well as its prestige in the Gulf of Mexico, and the friendly relations of Great Britain and Mexico were not to be endangered. F. O. Mexico, 121, Secret, Palmerston to Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, October 9, 1838.

9 Sir Richard Pakenham, born in 1797, spent nearly all of his mature life in the British diplomatic service. He was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, and in 1817 was attached to the embassy at The Hague. After some years of service in European posts he became, in 1826, secretary of legation at Mexico, and in 1835 was made minister there. In December, 1843, while in England on leave of absence, he was appointed minister plenipotentiary to the United States, retiring from this post in 1847, and retiring from the service rather than return to the United States, where he thought he had not been well treated. He later reentered the service in 185 1 as minister at Lisbon, but retired permanently in 1855. He died in 1868.

furnish clear proof of the activity of Great Britain at this time in offering advice to the Mexican government, and even in attempting to impose a policy. The tone of British ministers in Mexico, apparent in their despatches, shows distinctly Great Britain's assumption of the right to advise and her exercise of that right in a way that would have been resented by a stronger power. This advice was constantly given upon questions of both domestic and foreign policy, yet Ashburnham clearly pictured the hopeless weakness of the Mexican government and the disturbing revolutionary elements, and frankly conceded the impossibility of a payment by Mexico to her English bondholders.

It is in this connection that the situation in Texas received notice, for Ashburnham favored British recognition of Texas upon the grounds that Mexico could not possibly reconquer that province and that Texas, if recognized, might perhaps do something for English creditors. He also pointed out that so long as any hope existed in Mexico of the recovery of Texas there would be disorders and disturbances within Mexico itself, and he volunteered the opinion that even if Texas were reconquered, Mexico " would be wholly incapable of checking the slave-trade there." 10 His despatch outlining these ideas was received at the foreign office at the moment when that office was considering the acts of the French upon the Mexican coast and the complaints of the British shippers arising therefrom. For this reason no attention was paid to it. In October, 1838, Pakenham set out upon his re-

10 F. O. Mexico, 114, Ashburnham to Palmerston, June 24, 1838.

turn to Mexico, and the written instructions given to him treated mainly of the relations with the French and of the compromise which he was to suggest for the purpose of settling French-Mexican difficulties. He had, however, verbal instructions with regard to Texas which will appear in his acts in Mexico in the next year. 11 It is clear therefore that Palmerston was not ready as yet to take up seriously the question of the recognition of Texas. Henderson, after his first failure in London, had gone to Paris, and succeeded a little later in securing French recognition. He then returned to Texas. It was at this point that diplomatic representatives of the United States in Europe first evinced a direct interest in securing British recognition for Texas. Cass, the United States minister at Paris, urged Henderson, by letter, to secure the recognition of some continental governments if possible and thus bring pressure to bear upon England. But for some time nothing came of this suggestion. Thus the year 1838 closed without any evidence of a real interest in Texas on the part of Great Britain.

During the summer of 1839 there began in Mexico that series of suggestions looking toward pacification

11 The customary historical treatment of the American claims urged upon Mexico some years earlier is to assert that President Jackson used unwarranted pressure upon Mexico in demanding satisfaction of such claims, and that he did this for the purpose of bringing about a relation between the United States and Mexico favorable to an American annexation of Texas. Considered in the light of what France actually did in the year 1838 and of the support given to French action by Great Britain, the pressure exerted by Jackson does not seem excessive, and the accusation of an ulterior motive needs greater proof than has yet been given of it.

and recognition which until 1846 occupies a large part of the correspondence from the British minister in Mexico. These suggestions were various. Some of them resulted in definite attempts upon the part of British agents to bring about a permanent peace between the two states. All of them involved more or less the same ideas and somewhat the same plans, and the story of them will therefore require a certain amount of repetition. This is, however, necessary in order to understand clearly in each year just what was the attitude of the British government and its agents.

Pakenham had arrived in Mexico early in the spring of 1839. I n May he received a letter from a Mr. Gordon, of New Orleans, 12 outlining a plan which was to be presented at the hands of a Mr. Bee, the Texan secretary of state under Lamar's presidency. Gordon was a representative of the house of Lizardi and Company, a British firm which more than any other was held to represent the commercial interests of Mexico in London. Lizardi and Company were directly occupied also in attempting to secure payment for the English bondholders of the Mexican debt. Thus Gordon, in writing to Pakenham, may be understood to have had in mind, first, the interest of the bondholders, second, the interests of Mexico, and only indirectly the interest of Texas. In his letter to Pakenham, Gordon stated that he had no admiration for the Texans, but that there was no prospect of a Mexican reconquest of the province, and that Mexico must therefore make the best of a bad situation and drive the best bargain possible with the Texan government. He wrote that

12 F. O. Mexico, 125, Gordon to Pakenham, April 29, 1839.

Bee was prepared to offer five million dollars for the recognition of Texan independence, but upon condition that the Texan boundary should be advanced from the Nueces to the Rio Grande. Gordon therefore proposed that Mexico should satisfy the claim of the English bondholders to the extent of five million dollars by locating lands for them within the disputed territory between these rivers, accepting the five million dollars from Texas, and then agreeing to the line claimed by Texas. This, he urged, would be a good business operation for Mexico, would give the bondholders the exact territory they desired, and would be of great benefit to Texas inasmuch as it would bring into this particular territory a large number of English and Dutch settlers.

Upon the receipt of this letter from Gordon, Pakenham made inquiries of the Mexican government, and outlined the suggestions made in the letter, but he found that Bee had already been notified by that government that Mexico would have nothing to do with any project involving the recognition of Texas, and that this reply had been made even without waiting to hear what Bee had to propose. Pakenham, in his despatch to Palmerston reporting this matter, stated that this had seemed to him a proper opportunity to carry out the verbal instructions given him by Palmerston at their last interview just previous to Pakenham's departure for Mexico. 13 The interview had occurred in October, 1838, and Pakenham's report of what he now urged upon the Mexican government thus indicates Palmerston's project in that month. Pakenham urged the importance of a prompt recog- 13 F. O. Mexico, 125, Pakenham to Palmerston, June 3, 1839.

nition of Texan independence, laying stress upon the advantage to Mexico when there should be a barrier state between it and the United States. Gorostiza, the foreign minister, replied that he agreed perfectly as to the importance of such an arrangement, but that the Mexican government dared not risk so unpopular an act, and he hinted that as a preliminary to a possible future recognition Mexico might welcome from England a suggestion for a suspension of hostilities. In reply to this, Pakenham was very cautious, but stated that England would probably be willing to suggest an armistice if previously assured that Texas sincerely desired it. In regard to the boundary desired by Texas, Gorostiza asserted that Mexico would never consent to such limits, and that if a boundary were some day fixed, it would be desirable to have it " guaranteed by some powerful European government." " I thought," wrote Pakenham, " I might at once assure him that no European power would be found willing to undertake the responsibility of such a guaranty." At the conclusion of his despatch, Pakenham summed up the situation : " Reconquest is admitted to be impossible, and yet a feeling of mistaken pride, foolishly called regard for the National honor, deters the Government from putting an end to a state of things highly prejudicial to the interests of Texas and attended with no sort of advantage to this Country."