"Daniel O'Connell, Texas," Telegraph and Texas Register, January 1, 1840
Summary: The editor attacked British abolitionist Daniel O'Connell for his speeches against slavery and Texas. O'Connell called for the British to refuse to recognize Texas and even proposed setting up a colony of free blacks on the border of Texas. The paper claimed O'Connell would rather incite civil war than leave freemen to decide their own fate. The editor asked why O'Connell did not turn his energies to the problems of poor Englishmen and Irish instead of meddling in affairs that were none of his business. Also predicted that despite the efforts of men like O'Connell, Texas would continue to expand with the aid of the United States.
From the N.O True American.
DANIEL O'CONNELL--TEXAS
Mr O'Connell, not content with his endeavors to improve political and moral condition of his own countrymen, in the largeness of his heart, has turned his special attention to Texas. But what is singular in this matter, is that he does not meet the subject with reason and argument but launches out into the ocean of impotent abuse, recrimination and misrepresentation. One would think, to look at the condition of the English and Irish people, that the field for his operations was quite large enough at home. The "Liberator" has not yet performed any one of the labors of Hercules, demanded at his hands, by his admiring countrymen. It is true he has managed to keep himself in the public eye--but no more. The cause, herefore, of his officious interference in the concerns of Texas, must be ascribed, not to sincerity of purpose, but to his ambitious design of occupying the lofty position of Agitator, conscious that he cannot reach a higher point. But leaving motives out of the question, let us take a brief view of his celebrated letter to the members of the British and Foreign AntiSlavery Society, dated Darrynane Abby, October 14, 1838. In this letter, Mr. William Kennedy who visited Texas last summer, comes in for a huge share of abuse.
He says "It is necessary to awake the best feelings of the British nation, in order to prevent the mischiefs and miseries which must ensue from the establishment of another slave-holding state." Here is an open avowal of the British Abolitionists of interference in the concerns of Texas, for the destruction of the young Republic, by attacking its domestic institutions. The impudence of this avowal is only equalled by the blindness of Mr. O'Connell to the "miseries and mischiefs" of the poor population in England and Ireland. What would he say, if a party in this country were to hold this language in relation to the further subjection of the people of India by British troops, and yet it would not savor more of interference in what does not concern us than this bold intrusion of English and Irish abolitionists in the affairs of Texas.
After lauding the exertions of the Society in trying to prevent the recognition of Texas by England, Mr. O'Connell says--"The Necessity for further exertion is obvious and pressing. France has recognized these pirates--France--at whose name humanity has so often had cause to shudder, seems to be reckless of all principle, and only to calculate on some paltry mercantile gain. France has given its barbaric sanction to the existence of a community fraught with so much crime, and pregnant with so much misery to a large number of our fellow creatures." Conscious of the defect in his right to interfere in the concerns of Texas, Mr. O'Connell finds it very convenient to call the Texian pirates. This is ever the resort of those who tread on ground they have no right to occupy. Does he know who the Texians are? Does he not know that they are intelligent, honest and upright anglo-Americans from the United States?--men in whose veins not a particle of base blood flows. Does he not know that these very anglo-Americans are the descendants of Englishmen, Irishmen Scotchmen and Welchmen, and that they look upon it as a right to extend their sway wherever the road to conquest is open? Doe not the English do the very same thing? Are they not enacting at this very time in India, what he calls the Texian farce? Mr. O'Connell deserves to be blamed for looking only on the surface of things. If he be a statesman and a philosopher, he takes good care to conceal it. As to the abuse of France for being the first European nation to acknowledge Texas, and it does not deserve notice, but in passing we cannot help noticing the coincidence between our own condition and that of Texas. France, despised France, illiberal France, has, in each case, outstripped liberal and enlightened England, in hailing the accession of the United States and Texas into the rank of nations. The world will decide between the claims of France and England to that true love of liberty which wants not for paltry, party considerations, but extends the hand at once to the freeman, wherever he may be found.
The Liberator, in the bigness of his designs, proceeds: "I respectfully submit to the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society this duty properly belongs. First, to make the British people perfectly acquainted with the accurate details of all the abominations belonging to Texas. Its history is of short date, scarcely exceeding ten years, but it is a monstrous tale of blood and crime. Secondly, to obtain as much cooperation in England as possible, in order effectually to prevent the recognition of Texas as a state. And thirdly to form an act upon the best plan of constricting the Texian marauders, by organizing a powerful colony of men of color upon the most convenient tract in the Mexican republic, which may be conceded for that purpose."
Here is a man, who, pretending to honesty, good sense and a love of truth, proclaims a LIE so huge that it is a wonder his arm was not paralyzed in writing it. What! The claim of Texas, 'monstrous tale of blood and crime!" The people of Great Britain have been greatly imposed upon by the lying stories of conceited and impudent travelers in the U. States, but the rapid intercourse between the countries of late has dissipated these fables and the states are beginning to be understood. With Texas, the same game is to be played over, and in the foremost rank [illegible word] stands Daniel O'Connell. Oh, shame upon [illegible word] [illegible word] [illegible word] [illegible word] subterfuges. As to the second [illegible word] [illegible word] [illegible word] [illegible word] with abolitionism, and is in manifest [illegible word] [illegible word] [illegible word] [illegible word] rights. But the third plan developes[sic] [illegible word] [illegible word] and selfishness of policy, that we came to believe Mr. O'Connell to be in earnest. He would light the flames of civil war and heap all its horrors upon the heads of both Mexicans and Texians to prevent the establishment of slavery in Texas. He would see the [illegible word] banks of the Colorado deluged with blood in preference to seeing them bloom with the yellow harvest and the snowy cotton plant because the labor might be performed by negroes in servitude. He would pour out upon Texas its usual calls to cure one even of doubtful character [illegible word] [illegible word] [illegible word] [illegible word] prove Mr. O'Connell to be a statesman, to be worthy of the confidence placed in him by his countrymen? Reverse the proposition. We, in the U. States, feel for the starving and disfranchised people of England and Ireland. We would see them admitted to the privileges of freemen. To secure them this inestimable right, would we be justified in placing a "powerful colony" of free Americans upon a tract of their uncultivated lands--and such lands abound even in England and Ireland; in order to counteract the further progress of tyranny and usurpation? Yet the latter proposition has as much justice in it as that of Mr. O'Connell's.
For the tract thus to be occupied by this colony, the "seaboard to the North of the Rio Grande," is selected by Mr. O'Connell. Here is a man interfering in the concerns of other countries. when he is even ignorant of its geography!
Again, we are told that the objection to the acknowledgement of Texas, by England, is the treaty of the latter with Mexico, and that Mexico cannot give up any portion of her sea coast from the Sabine to Honduras. This may be so, but while Mr. O'Connell is prating of his colony scheme, and Lord Palmerston is deciding upon the power of Mexico to yield her seacoast, the star of Texas will move onwards, and her flag float over the harbors from the Sabine to Vera Cruz. And what is more, Anglo Americans, with slaves at their heels, will be the conquerors despite the ravings of the Liberator' and Joseph Sturges.
In our next, we shall still further develope[sic] this impudent interference of the English and Irish abolitionists in the affairs of Texas. They call her a "contemptible power," but they forget that she has a neighbor who will be at her side in the hour of peril.
Source Copy Consulted: "Daniel O'Connell, Texas," Telegraph and Texas Register, January 1, 1840, pp. 2-3