The Republic of Texas’ (1836–1848) foreign policy in the context of international relations in the 1st half of the XIX century

Stanislav Kovalskyi, Ph.D. in History, Associate Professor, Mechnikov Odessa State University

Abstract

Republic of Texas’ topic is far from being at last place in modern American historiography because of its being as a question of historical precedent, one of the models of US political boundaries expansion. The diplomatic aspect of the former Mexican province becaming an independent state appeared to be one of the most important but least studied. This article is devoted to international problems of existence of the Republic of Texas, the process of its international recognition and incorporation of international relations in the first half of the nineteenth century.

Studying this perspective, the author also notes that special attention should be paid to international and diplomatic aspects of the Republic of Texas formation in the context of the current system of international relations in nineteenth century. This approach allows us to establish the legitimacy of Texas in legal terms of the era, which is defined by the degree of Texas’ recognition on the world stage, autonomy in diplomatic decision and it’s matching to the international system. Despite the large number of unpublished documents on sending themes in the USA, there virtually are no works on the problems of Texas during the period of its independence in modern Ukrainian historiography. This creates a scientific need for researching the subject.

In conclusion the author tells that Texas was the product of international relations that existed in the first half of the nineteenth century and was significantly different from the current state of affairs. In terms of that times’ legal traditions existence of the Republic was justified by Vienna system’s duality that allowed an exception for the American region in connection with the interests of the US and subregional doctrine. The main feature that made the Republic a legitimate subject of international relations,as the scientist stressed, was its international recognition

Keywords
 Republic of Texas, diplomacy, the Vienna system, the Monroe Doctrine

Full text
PDF

References

  1. KOVALSKYI S.V.(2014) Diplomatiia Respubliki Tekhas (1836–1845) v ekspansionistskoi politike SShA. Іntehratsіinі protsesy v mіzhnarodnykh vidnosynakh: іstorіia і suchasnіst. Mykolaiv.
  2. (1836) Odesskij vestnik. 24 September.
  3. ADAMS E.D. (1910) British interests and activities in Texas, 1838–1846. Baltimore: Thr John Hopkins Press.
  4. Anson Jonse to Wm. Henry Daingerfild, February 20, 1843. In G.P. Garrison ed. (1911) Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas. Part III. Correspondence with European States. Washington: Government Printing Office. pp.1546-1548 p.
  5. BARKER N.N. (1967) The Republic of Texas: A French View. Southwestern Historical Quarterly. Vol. 71. No.2. pp.181-193.
  6. BROWN A.H. (1930) The Consular Service of the Republic of Texas. The Texas State Historical Association. 3. pp.184-230.
  7. BARR A. (1973) Black Texans. A History of African Americans in Texas, 1528–1995. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
  8. Convention of Friendship, Commerce and navigation between the Republic of Texas and Hanseatic Republics of Lubeck, Bremen and Hamburgh. In G.P. Garrison ed. (1911) Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas. Part III. Correspondence with European States. Washington: Government Printing Office. pp.1563-1569.
  9. Count Mole to J. Pinckney Henderson, September 30, 1838. In G.P. Garrison ed. (1911) Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas. Part III. Correspondence with European States. Washington: Government Printing Office. pp. 1222-1224.
  10. J. Pinckney Henderson to Count Mole, June 1, 1838. In G.P. Garrison ed. (1911) Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas. Part III. Correspondence with European States. Washington: Government Printing Office. pp.1208-1216.
  11. J. Pinckney Henderson to R. A. Iron, June 2, 1838. In G.P. Garrison ed. (1911) Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas. Part III. Correspondence with European States. Washington: Government Printing Office. pp.1206-1207.
  12. R. A. Iron to J. Pinckney Henderson, August 7, 1838. In G.P. Garrison ed. (1911) Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas. Part III. Correspondence with European States. Washington: Government Printing Office. pp.1217-1218.
  13. James Hamilton to Abner S. Lipscomb, January 4, 1841. In G.P. Garrison ed. (1911) Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas. Part III. Correspondence with European States. Washington: Government Printing Office. pp.1525-1527.
  14. James Hamilton to Abner S. Lipscomb, July 3, 1840. In G.P. Garrison ed. (1911) Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas. Part III. Correspondence with European States. Washington: Government Printing Office. pp.1531-1533.
  15. SMITH J.H. (1911) The Annexation of Texas. New York: Macmillan Press.
  16. Terrorist Organization Profile: Republic of Texas (RoT). National Consorcium for the Study Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. [Online]. Avaliable from: http://www.start.umd.edu/tops/terrorist_organization_profile.asp?id=95.
  17. (1898) The Declaration of Independence made by the People of Texas in General Convention, at Washington, on march 2, 1836. The Laws of Texas, 1822–1897. Vol.I. Austin, pp.1063-1067.
  18. Wm. Henry Daingerfild to Anson Jones, September 25, 1843. In G.P. Garrison ed. (1911) Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas. Part III. Correspondence with European States. Washington: Government Printing Office. pp.1548-1553.

DOI http://doi.org/10.17721/2521-1706.2016.02.228-235