Ashbel Smith to Isaac Van Zandt, January 25, 1843

Summary: Smith updated Van Zandt on the Texas question among the European governments. All attempts to mediate between Texas and Mexico had failed, even though France joined in the mediations, because the British refused to let them succeed. At the same time, Smith learned that Britain outfitted two steamers for the Mexican navy in violation of British law. He speculated on the usual reasons for British actions toward Texas and then presented Van Zandt with some new theories. These included British offers to finance abolition in Texas or carve two territories out of Texas and make one of them a free state. Also thought Britain might be letting mediation dangle so as to make Texas suffer enough from Mexico so that the former might concede to abolition. Smith said Texas must never condone emancipation because to do so would be the death knell of the southern states. Finally, he included a letter urging Texas to get the United States and France to secure Texas independence for their own interests, especially since the two steamers built by Britain were financed by anti-slavery men determined to effect emancipation in Texas.

PARIS PLACE VENDOME

January 25, 1843.

Confidential

SIR

I never omit writing to our Government by the Liverpool and Boston Steamers. Some of my despatches are surely of considerable importance; yet from the tenor of the news from Texas, it appears that several of them have not been received.

The present letter will treat of a matter in my opinion of much importance. I regret that I cannot enter as fully into details on one portion of it as I desire.

You are of course aware of the Treaty whereby England agreed to use its good offices in mediating a peace between Texas and Mexico, and of the utter failure of that mediation.

You are also doubtless aware that I was instructed to invite the Govt. of France to act in concert with England and the United States in making a joint representation to Texas and Mexico--That France acceded to that invitation with alacrity and every manifestation of friendly spirit, and instructed its Ambassador at London to present this subject to the British Govt.;--and that the British Govt. positively refused to act in concert with France and the United States in this matter. The French Govt. on the refusal of Great Britian to act jointly, instructed their Minister at Mexico to tender separately their good offices to the Mexican Govt. to bring about if possible an amicable arrangement between this power and Texas. Here the mediation rests. Nothing has been accomplished nor is likely to be accomplished by any mediation in its present shape. The English influence at Mexico is alone paramount.

You are also aware that in the mean time two Steam Frigates, the Guadaloupe and Montezuma were fitted out in England for the Mexican Govt. Their models of building and arming, I was informed in London were furnished by the British Admiralty; they were fully armed, manned with British Seamen and commanded by officers of the Royal Navy. The Guadaloupe sailed from Liverpool with her armament mounted and ready to beat to quarters for action. Supplementary officers, gunners, went out to serve on board the other vessels of the Mexican Navy. These things were done with the full and avowed knowledge of the distination and purpose of these vessels by the British Ministry and in violation of their own laws, as was expressly declared in an order of the Lords of the Treasury, of which order I possess a copy.

In the replies however of Lord Aberdeen to my protests, he denies the fitting out of these vessels to be a violation of International Law.

There are many points and facts in our recent relations with England to which I would gladly call your attention; but I must omit them for want of space.

The English Govt. in recognising Texas were influenced by several considerations. One of these was our ceding to them "the right of search" which they made a sine qua non of recognition. England was particularly desirous at that time to isolate the United States on this great question. Next, that Govt. were afraid that Texas might be annexed to the American Union. They desired our separate ex-

istence for commercial reasons, as a consumer of their manufactures and a producer of cotton not subject to the tarriff restrictions of the United States, and also as a means of attacking that tarriff by smuggling through Texas. They desired our separate existence as interposing a barrier to the incroachments of the United States upon Mexico

There now exists another matter which has been entertained for some months in England; whether or not, for a longer period I am unable to say. I will develope it in a separate paragraph.

It is the purpose of some persons in England to procure the abolition of Slavery in Texas. They propose to accomplish this end by friendly negotiation and by the concession of what will be deemed equivalents. I believe the equivalents contemplated are a guarantee by Great Britian of the Independence of Texas--discriminating duties in favor of Texian products and perhaps the negotiation of a loan, or some means by which the finances of Texas can be readjusted. They estimate the number of Slaves in Texas at 12,000 and would consider the payment for them in full, as a small sum for the advantages they anticipate from the establishment of a free State on the Southern borders of the Slave holding States of the American Union.

In July last in London, two matters were submitted to me in conversation by a person then and now having relations with the British Govt. One was, whether the people of Texas would listen to and consider a proposition from the English Government to abolish Slavery in consideration of concessions and equivalent advantages to be offered by that Govt. The second matter was, whether Texas would not be induced to divide itself into two States, one slave-holding the other nonslave holding. It was argued that but few slaves would probably be introduced into Western Texas by reason of its proximity to Mexico, and that therefore, it would be conceding but little to establish "a free state" on this frontier; and the Colorado was proposed as a dividing line. I do not know to whom is due the initiative of these matters; but I was informed that the propositions in question, had been a subject of conversation with Lord Aberdeen. And I am aware that in another conversation in which Lord Aberdeen took part, it was maintained that the population which would flock into this "free state" from Europe would be enabled to vote down the Slave holders, and thus the Texians would of themselves establish an entire non-slaveholding country.

Although I carefully noted these conversations from the mark of the person with whom I had them, I did not probably fully estimate their significancy

I may be mistaken in regard to the equivalents to be offered by England as they were not dwelt upon in detail. But in regard to

the two propositions, one to abolish slavery throughout the entire territory; the other to establish a nonslave holding state in Western Texas; and in regard to the personal standing and relations with the Govt. of the Gentleman making the propositions, I cannot be in error.

Until within a few months the British Govt. undoubtedly desired the establishment of peace between Texas and Mexico--Texas remaining a slave holding country--chiefly from an apprehension, that if the contest continued Texas might be thrown into the American Union. That Govt. are now convinced that Texas cannot be admitted into this Union, and that a decisive attempt on the part of the Southern States to receive Texas would endanger the stability of the Union

Have the British Govt. now the same motives as formerly for desiring peace between Texas and Mexico? May they not imagine that the present disturbed condition of our country continuing--enterprise and industry being paralyzed--our citizens being wearied out with a harasing war, which has checked Emigration, prevents the cultivation of our soil and the development of our resources. We may be more ready to yield the point of slavery in exchange for England's guarantee of our Independence and some commercial and financial advantages? Whether the equivalents mentioned will be those proposed. I repeat, I do not certainly know. But rely on it, as certain, that in England it is intended to make an effort, and that some things are already in train to accomplish if possible the abolition of slavery in Texas. And might not Texas exhausted as just described, listen in a moment of folly to such overtures from the British Govt?

In the meantime, rely on it we have nothing to expect from the continued offer of British mediation to Mexico on its present basis.

As little have we to expect from the good offices of France, although sincerely and faithfully employed, so long as they are separately exerted as at the present time.

The independence of Texas and the existence of Slavery in Texas is a question of life or death to the slave holding states of the American Union. Hemmed in between the free states on their northern border, and a free Anglo Saxon State on their southern border and sustained by England, their history would soon be written

The Establishment of a free state on the territory of Texas is a darling wish of England for which scarcely any price would be regarded as to great. The bargain once struck what remedy remains to the south?

France and the United States might conjointly decide at once the affairs of Texas and Mexico without the concurrence of England

The generous promptness with which France acceded to the former invitations induces me to believe she would cooperate with the United

States on an invitation emanating from this Power. France will not take the initiative and make the invitation to the United States.

Does it not behoove the American people particularly of the Slave holding states to look to this subject; and the American Government single handed or in concert with France to declare to the world their determination to maintain the Independence of Texas and the integrity of her institutions?

The foregoing letter has been drawn up in haste. Some things have been omitted which it would have been well to mention. I might have explained how the recal of the British officers was a practical nullity. But notwithstanding the haste, every sentiment I have expressed has been carefully weighed

I am with sentiments of great respect Your very

obedient humble Servant

signed, ASHBEL SMITH

To Hon. ISAAC VAN ZANDT

Charge' de Affaires of Texas at Washington City

A correct copy

ASHBEL SMITH.

(Copy)

No 2

ASHBEL SMITH TO MR. VAN ZANDT.

* * * The subject of the accompanying letter and the purposes there mentioned will perhaps occasion some surprise and at first be difficult of belief. You may however rely on the facts, and that something has been brewing for some time past in England, having for its end the establishment of a non-slave-holding state in our territory. Whether these projects will ever assume a definite outward form and be put into action, or whether the English Govt has taken any further part therein, further than to have had information of the same I am yet unable to say.

If the southern states are wise, they will require the general Govt to express a decided opinion in regard to the Independence of Texas, and to the termination of the contest between us and Mexico, and further to declare that they will not permit Texas to become in any way a dependance on any foreign power.

The contest with Mexico has now assumed a much graver character than formerly. The British holders of Mexican stocks were the securities of the Mexican consul at London for the building of the Guadalupe and Montezuma steamers. This is a certainly known fact. Large quantities of Mexican stock were issued in London secretly as

you have probably seen, and sold, as was believed, to furnish Mexico the means to operate against Texas. Most of the bondholders are violent anti slavery men, their hostility to Texas as a slave holding country is extreme, and while it continues such, they would spare no money to subjugate the country, as they believe it would be doing God service. The English Govt may be a very impartial looker on of the contest now waging with Mexico, but it is nevertheless practically true that we have now to contend with Mexico, aided with British mercenaries and British money.

In France I find the best disposition to think favorably of us and although they felt a little sore from the difficulty between the late administration and their Charge' d'affaires, they would forget it all, and do us every good in their power, did not the opposition prints of Texas so bewray[sic] our country, defame our Government and caluminate our administration that persons in Europe cannot put confidence in the permanence of our institutions or credit our ability for self government. They await further developments.

My position, you naturally will conceive, is not very pleasant--having to contend against the misrepresentations of Texas by our own citizens. But for these calumines of our own, we might have been recognized by nearly every power in Europe.

With sentiments of great esteem I am truly yours

signed ASHBEL SMITH

The Hon Mr VAN ZANDT

Charge' d' affaires du Texas.

Source Copy Consulted: Ashbel Smith to Isaac Van Zandt, January 25, 1843, George Garrison, ed., Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1908, (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1911), 3 vols., 3: 1103-1108