ing against
slavery, until it has created in our country a fanaticism of slavery
which was quite as relentless in its obstinacy. It was therefore,
natural that individuals who had refused our own congress the right to
interfere with slavery, by denying the privilege of petition for the
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, should resist most
ardently the jesuitical propagandism of a foreign power.

This was a question of grave importance to the south. It was an avowal
of European policy that struck a death blow at American property; nor
was it therefore at all surprising to see Mr. Calhoun, our secretary of
state, who was a native and inhabitant of that part of the union, at
once seize upon the project of prompt annexation as the only means of
counteracting the evils of British diplomacy. If expressions, similar to
those used by Lords Aberdeen and Brougham in the English parliament, had
been casually uttered in the warm debates of our congress, perhaps but
little attention would have been paid them by reflecting men; yet the
most trifling observations of British statesmen always deserve notice,
because they are well pondered and deliberately made. The opinions of
Lord Brougham, assented to by the silence of Lord Aberdeen, had
consequently an emphatic significance; and although the British minister
of foreign affairs, as well as the envoy at Washington, subsequently
disclaimed any attempt to interfere with the internal system of the
United States, yet there can be no doubt that they wished to modify the
condition and laws of a southern neighbor so as to effect indirectly
what prudence taught them to avoid openly.[45] "Great Britain," said
Lord Aberdeen, in a despatch to the Hon. Mr. Pakenham, on the 26th
December, 1843, "does not desire to establish in Texas, whether
partially dependent on Mexico or entirely independent, any dominant
influence. She only wishes to share her influence equally with other
nations. Her objects are purely commercial, and she has no thought or
intention of seeking to act directly or indirectly, in a political
sense, on the United States through Texas."

It cannot be expected--for it is not the nature or policy of
governments--that statesmen should disclose to each other, with perfect
frankness, all their international ambitions, projects or hopes. A wise
diplomacy conceals these things whilst in progress. But all governments
take means to obtain secretly, as far as they are able, a