"Untitled," Telegraph and Texas Register, November 2, 1836

Summary: Reprinted an article from a London newspaper favorable to Texas independence. The article defended the Texans by calling Santa Anna a usurper and said that the United States sending troops into Texas was the same as Britain sending troops into Spain. Also supported Texas annexation to the United States because the author said Britain had no say in the matter and that annexation would in fact decrease the slave trade. Warned that any Englishman of abolitionist persuasion thinking of starting a war with the U.S. over this issue was foolish and would never get support from the English people.

The following extract from the London Sun, we feel much pleasure in presenting to our readers, not only because it is avowedly the organ of the present Government of England, and therefore may be considered a transcript in its editorial articles of the prevalent opinions of the Administration; but the sound policy of its views--the accurate antithesis it proclaims to the world between the "freemen of Texas," and "the usurper Santa Anna," and the hope it indulges amounting to certainty of our annexation to the States, indicating a strong presumption that England too only awaits the request to proclaim Texas free and independent, would tender it an unpardonable omission on our part to suppress a document of so much importance.

FROM THE LONDON SUN.

The war whoop has been raised in another quarter by a Mr. Hoy and a Mr. Ward. We are now to go to war--God save the mark--with the United States of America. Of all the moon-calf Quixotisms projected by the pugnacious statesmen of Britain for the last hundred years, this would be the most absurd. Our league with the despots of Europe against France was not a greater dereliction of principle: our appearance at New-Orleans was less degrading. We have our national feelings--prejudices as warm and powerful as many who talk more about them; but if our pugnacious praters in the Senate succeed in innoculating ministers with their folly, we shall not break our hearts even tho[sic] the "ould General" gives the expedition fitted out such another drubbing as he gave the last.

What is the case of these talking heroes who speak not "daggers," like Hamlet, but great guns, regular forty pounders! General Santa Anna has usurped the supreme power of Mexico. The rights of the confederate States of the Mexican Union have been grossly outraged. Texas has asserted its independence. We are told that we are bound to support Mexico. The speakers mean to say that we are bound to support the usurper, Santa Anna, against the freemen of Texas. To interfere between the Mexicans and Texians would be either to interfere in a family squabble between two districts of the same [illegible word] it would be to take part with one of two belligerent powers to subdue the other to its dominion. Either the one or the other [illegible word] be contrary to every sound principle of international law, and to the interests of Britain.

But, say our wiseacres, the United States are taking part in the war between Texas and Mexico,(always meaning between the Texians and Gen. Santa Anna.) In the first place, this is not true. America has taken no part in the war. Volunteers have been raised in America, and have marched into Texas, just in the same way as volunteers have been raised in England and transported into Spain; that is all. If there be any difference it has been here, that the mass of the American auxilliary troops, in so far as individual character is concerned, seems to be of a more respectable "caste," than the British. With what face could Britain take upon it to forbid America to do in Texas what Britain is doing in Spain?

If Texas succeed in vindicating its independence; if independent Texas seeks to strengthen itself against Mexico by getting itself incorporated into the American Union; if the American Union listen to the petition of Texas and stamp another star on its banner, WHAT IS THAT TO US? WHAT RIGHT HAVE WE TO SAY "NO" TO FORBID THE BANS?

We have just as much right as America would have had to forbid the union of England and Ireland. But we are told that this union between Texas and the United States will favor the slave trade. Every new State, say these wise men, retains its internal laws on being admitted into the Union; slaveholding States retain their slaves. Texas, which is a slave-trading State, will continue to trade in slaves. They overlook an important distinction. Every State admitted into the Union retains its internal arrangements, the municipal laws, as far as they are consistent with democratic republicanism. But every State admitted into the Union conform to its public law, by which it is guided in its dealings with external nations. The possession of slaves is a matter of local municipal law; the carrying on of the slave trade is a matter of international law. We believe one of the surest means to check the slave trade in the Gulf of Mexico would be to incorporate Texas into the N. American Union. Again, we are told that Britain ought not to allow the United States to extend their territory. Why? Will the extension do Britain any harm? Let the Union extend as it will while its present constitution endures, it never can be an aggressive warlike nation.--And for other considerations, the better regulated policy which would be introduced into Texas (we will be reminded of Lynch law, but all things are good or bad by comparison) would be in favor of trade. Of one thing we may be sure, that the Texian deputies in Congress will be strong anti-tariff men, and that is in our favor.

We regret to see Lord Palmerston seeking to conciliate the "sons of thunder," by affecting a coincidence of sentiment. He ought to have assumed the manlier and more Christian tone assumed by Lord Glenelg towards Sir Benjamin D'Urban and the Cape Colonists, who are whining and wincing, like hounds held in the leash, praying to be let slip upon the Caffres. He should have advised the dreamers of hot dreams, that it was sometime expedient for those whose hot blood made them over valiant at times, to lose a few ounces in the dog days by leeching or the lancet.

To speak seriously: we know that war, horrible though it be, is at times unavoidable. But it is not an undertaking to be asked in the light dare-devil fashion with which we enter upon a Christmas frolic--nor are those who would run upon it with their eyes shut, the persons most likely to carry it on with sagacity and foresight to a successful termination. We will tell the lovers of war two things upon which they would do well to reflect: Situated as this country at present is, the first serious war in which Britain is engaged will blow up the national debt. The blowing up of the national debt will be followed in a week by a national convention. All who approve of the end, and think that the end sanctifies the means, cannot do better than persist in urging the nation to go to war.

Source Copy Consulted: "Untitled," Telegraph and Texas Register, November 2, 1836, p. 3