t; .... JAMES PINCKNEY HENDERSON IN EUROPE: THE DIPLOMACY OF THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS, 1837-1840 by STEVEN GRADY GAMBLE, B.A., M.A. A DISSERTATION IN HISTORY Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approve(^/9 December, 19 76 (Lop-2 Copyright by STEVEN GRADY GAMBLE 1976 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am deeply indebted to Professor James V. Reese for his direction of this dissertation and to the other members of my committee. Professors Seymour V. Connor, Brian L. Blakeley, Harry A. Jebsen, Key Ray Chong, and Dahlia J. Terrell for their helpful criticism. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii INTRODUCTION 1 Chapter I. THE DIPLOMATIC CONTEXT: THE UNITED STATES AND TEXAS, 1836-1837 8 II. BRITAIN: THE TEXAS QUESTION, 1836-1837 ... 37 III. BRITAIN: THE INITIAL MEETING 84 IV. BRITAIN: DELAY AND DISAPPOINTMENT 116 V. FRANCE: THE PRELIMINARY CONTACTS 162 VI. FRANCE: FRUSTRATION AND POSTPONEMENT . .19 7 VII. FRANCE: SUCCESS 225 VIII. BRITAIN: A FINAL ATTEMPT 249 EPILOGUE 300 BIBLIOGRAPHY 304 • • • 111 INTRODUCTION The migration of settlers from the United States to the Mexican province of Texas in the 1820s and 1830s was still another step in the western advancement of American civilization in the nineteenth century. Encour­ aged by the promise of cheap Texan land, immigrants came by the hundreds, and by the early 1830s these expatriates had achieved numerical superiority. In 1834, Santa Anna emerged as dictator of Mexico, dissolved Congress, and abrogated the Constitution of 1824, the republican docu­ ment under which the American settlers had immigrated and which granted the provinces a large degree of self- government. The inhabitants of Texas rebelled against Santa Anna and his Centralist government, proclaiming their fight to be for the reestablishment of the 1824 constitution. By March 1836, this struggle had developed into more than a constitutional battle; it had become a war for independence. After declaring their freedom from the Mexican government, the Texans established their credibility on the battlefield of San Jacinto. However, regardless of the immediate success enjoyed by the neophyte Republic of Texas, her people faced a clouded future, unsure of their destiny. During her decade of existence, the Republic never attained security. In fact, much of her history was that of a struggle for survival, be it on the military, eco­ nomic, or diplomatic front. The leaders of Texas developed a variety of strategies for meeting this situation, pro­ posing first one course and then another which they hoped would achieve stability. Thus, much of the political his­ tory of the Republic was shaped by the conflict among the advocates of the different proposals for dealing with the unusual circumstances in which the Republic existed. Insofar as defense was concerned, for example, some, like Mirabeau B. Lamar, favored an aggressive policy toward Mexico, urging that the best method to gain security was to take the fight to a divided Mexico. Others, like Sam Houston, argued that the proper course was "to let sleeping dogs lie," to do nothing which might provoke the Mexicans to lay aside their own domestic differences over the one issue which might unite them, the desire to reconquer Texas In economic matters, the divisions were far less severe; the major problem, fiscal instability, affected all segments of the Republic's populace. Once again dif­ ferent solutions were suggested to solve this problem, ranging from a large loan from foreign sources to the utilization of land scrip as currency. However, all such schemes for economic stability would become invalid un­ less investors could be convinced that the Republic's future was assured. In the early months of the Republic, the great majority of her citizens favored a panacea—annexation to the United States. If Texas could become incorporated into the Union, her defensive worries would be assumed by the mother country, her financial problems could be alle­ viated, and her future would be assured. However, owing to various considerations, President Andrew Jackson delayed recognition until his final day in office and refrained from accepting the Republic's annexation proposal. Thus, Texas was left to determine her own fate. As the months passed and it became clear that no immediate attempt to reinvade Texas would follow on the heels of the Republic's victory at San Jacinto, and as the evidence mounted that a union with the United States was not imminent, it became apparent to the Texan officials that European powers should be approached for assistance. Many felt that an acknowledgment of the Republic's inde­ pendence by one or more of the major nations of the world would foster great political and economic security and increase the possibility for annexation. However, even in the area of diplomacy differences appeared among political leaders and factions. Most Texans continued to believe that annexation was their only salvation and thus felt that a relationship with any European nation was important only as it affected relations with the United States. Others dissented, how­ ever, pointing to the benefits of European relations in a state of permanent independence for some indefinite length of time. But whether annexation or lasting independence was the goal, all agreed that European recognition was very desirable, either as a tool with which to prod a reluctant United States into accepting the Republic's annexation proposal, or as an essential step in gaining ap­ proval of Texas' loan requests and land titles. Further­ more, recognition was a prerequisite to obtaining the commercial treaties needed to establish a healthy economy. Thus, regardless of the motivation, virtually all of the leaders of the Republic agreed by the spring of 1837 that a representative should be dispatched to Europe to approach the major powers concerning acknowledgment of Texan inde­ pendence . The European diplomacy of the Republic of Texas has been an area of concentration for several scholars, but virtually all have chosen to focus on the period from 1840-1845. Electing to analyze the role European nations played in the annexation of Texas to the United States, these historians treat the 1836-1839 period only in passing or for background. Several monographs regarding the Repub­ lic's negotiations with Britain exist which discuss, in varying degrees of detail, the diplomacy of the late 1830s. Ephraim D. Adams, in British Interests and Activities in Texas, 1838-1846, exhibits the traditional view that the existence of slavery in the Republic was the chief impedi­ ment to recognition during the period from 1836-18 39, while Stanley Siegel and Seymour V. Connor second Adams' asser­ tion as well as emphasize Britain's desire to avoid the rupture with Mexico that would undoubtedly occur should she acknowledge Texan independence. Much less has been written regarding French rela­ tions with Texas during this period. Joseph Schmitz's Texan Statecraft and Herbert R. Edwards, "Diplomatic Rela­ tions between France and the Republic of Texas, 18 36-1845," provide an outline of the diplomacy, but neither contains 2 comprehensive analysis. Furthermore, both were written Ephraim D. Adams, British Interests and Activities in Texas, 1838-1846 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1910) 18; Seymour V. Connor, Adventure in Glory (Austin: Steck- Vaughn Company, 1965), 58-59; Stanley Siegel, A Political History of the Texas Republic, 1836-1845 (Austin: Univer- sity of Texas Press, 1956), 88; see also, Joseph VI. Schmitz, Texan Statecraft, 1836-1845 (San Antonio: The Naylor Com- pany, 1941), 64; Justin H Smith, The Annexation of Texas New York, 1911; reprint ed., New York: Ams Press, 19 71) , 78; J. L. Worley, "The Diplomatic Relations of England and the Republic of Texas," Texas State Historical Association Quarterly, X (July, 1905), 4; Mary Lee Spence, "British Interests and Attitudes regarding the Republic of Texas and Its Annexation by the United States" (Ph.D. disserta­ tion. University of Minnesota, 1957), 7, 238; and Philip C. Sturges, "Great Britain and the Annexation of Texas" (Ph.D. dissertation. University of Utah, 1951), 54-55. ^Schmitz, Texan Statecraft, 67-79; Herbert R. Edwards, "Diplomatic Relations between France and the Republic of Texas, 1836-1845," Southwestern Historical Quarterly, XX (January, 1917), 209-241; see also Mary K. Chase, Negociations de la Republique du Texas en Europe, 1837-1845 (Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honore Champion, 1932), 23-40. prior to the publication of Nancy Barker's The French Legation in Texas, an excellently edited work which supplies previously unexamined material relative to the 3 French policy toward Texas. The conclusions of these scholars are generally based on rather cursory, and, in some cases unanalytical and uncritical, examinations of relevant documents, espe­ cially those edited by George P. Garrison in Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas.4 While slavery and relations with Mexico were undoubtedly important factors in European policy toward the Republic, perhaps they were not the only major considerations. The ultimate decision on the extension of recognition to Texas in the late 1830s was a determination reached by officials who had to evaluate the impact recognition would have on their own nation's foreign, domestic and colonial affairs. An examination of these considerations should depict a clearer, more complete picture of the various issues which impacted on diplomacy. It should also provide a test of the valid­ ity of conclusions reached, at least partially, by induc­ tive rather than deductive methods. Nancy Nichols Barker, trans, and ed.. The French Legation in Texas, 2 vols. (Austin: Texas State Histori­ cal Association, 1971). ^George P. Garrison, ed.. Diplomatic Correspon­ dence of the Republic of Texas, 3 vols. (Washington, D. C American Historical Association, 1908-1911) (hereafter referred to as TDC). To treat the Republic's European diplomacy from 1836-1839, it is necessary to study and evaluate the activ­ ities of the Texan agent in Europe, James Pinckney Hender­ son.