Printed a month after the conclusion of the Mexican-American War, the remarkably frank letters extracted here nonetheless concern the Republic of Texas, the abolition of slavery, and British interference in American affairs.
The first is from the Earl of Aberdeen to Richard Packenham, who was then British Ambassador to Mexico: “Great Britain has recognised the independence of Texas, and having done so, she is desirous of seeing that independence finally and formally established, and generally recognized, especially by Mexico … we have put ourselves forward in pressing the government of Mexico to acknowledge Texas as independent. But in thus seeming acting we have no occult design, either with reference to any peculiar influence which we might seek to establish in Mexico, or in Texas, or even with reference to the slavery which now exists, and which we desire to see abolished, in Texas.” The letter pledges the non-intereference of England in the matter while emphasising her wish to see slavery abolished across the world.
Pakenham had evidently communicated the substance of the letter to the United States and received a reply from the Secretary of State, John C. Calhoun. He forwarded Calhoun’s reply to the Earl of Aberdeen, stating that it announces “the conclusion of the treaty (for the annexation of Texas to the United States)” as well as his own response.
Replying at the behest of the President (John Tyler), Calhoun is pleased to note the pledge of non-interference with matters concerning the United States, though “regards with deep concern the avowal, for the first time made to this government, ‘that Great Britain desires, and is constantly exerting herself to procure, the general abolition of slavery throughout the world.’” He adds that Britain by suggesting that “the abolition of slavery one of the conditions on which Mexico should acknowledge her independence” was in fact guilty of that very same interference which the Unbited States could not ignore.
Calhoun then embarks on an extraordinary defense of slavery. He quotes statistics concerning the Black populations of Florida, Maine, and Massachusetts, to argue that “[t]he census and other authentic documents show that in all instances in which the states have changed the former relation between the two races, the condition of the African, instead of being improved, has become worse.”
Both Pakenham exchange further notes, enclosed here, accusing each other of wilfully misreading their correspondence.
OCLC lists three copies at Baylor University, Sul Ross State University (Texas), and UCLA.
