THE QUARTERLY OF THE TEXAS STATE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
VOLUME I. JULY, 1897. NUMBER 1.
AUSTIN, TEXAS: PUBLISHED QUARTERLY BY THE ASSOCIATION. Price, SEVENTY-FIVE CENTS per number.
CONTENTS.
President's Address O. M. Roberts.
History of Texas Geography Z. T. Fulmore.
Tribal Society among Texas Indians M. M. Kenney.
Editors and Newspapers of Fayette County Julia Lee Sinks.
Expulsion of the Cherokees from East Texas John H. Reagan.
John Crittenden Duval William Corner.
Thomson's Clandestine Passage Around Nacogdoches W. P. Zuber.
Historical Sketch of the Association; Constitution.
Notes.
The Texas State Historical Association.
O. M. ROBERTS, President.
VICE-PRESIDENTS.
Dudley G. Wooten, William Corner,
Guy M. Bryan, Mrs. Julia Lee Sinks.
LIBRARIAN.
George P. Garrison..
SECRETARY AND TREASURER.
Lester G. Bugbee.
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL.
O. M. Roberts, George P. Garrison, Mrs. Dora Fowler Arthur,
Dudley G. Wooten, Eugene Digges, Rufus C. Burleson,
Guy M. Bryan, Z. T. Fulmore, M. M. Kenney,
William Corner, C. W. Raines, R. L. Batts,
Mrs. Julia Lee Sinks, F. R. Lubbock, Mrs. Bride Neill Taylor.
PUBLICATION COMMITTEE.
O. M. Roberts.
George P. Garrison, Dudley G. Wooten,
Z. T. Fulmore, Mrs. Bride Neill Taylor.
Papers read at the meetings of the Association, and such other contributions as may be accepted by the Committee, will be published in The Quarterly.
The Association was organized March 2, 1897. There are no qualifications for membership. The annual dues are two dollars. The Quarterly is sent free to all members.
Contributions, applications for membership, etc., should be addressed to
LESTER G. BUGBEE Secretary and Treasurer, Austin, Texas.
THE QUARTERLY OF THE TEXAS STATE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION
VOLUME I. JULY, 1897, TO APRIL, 1898.
PUBLICATION COMMITTEE. O. M. Roberts, George P. Garrison, Dudley G. Wooten, Z. T. Fulmore, Mrs. Bride Neill Taylor. AUSTIN, TEXAS: PUBLISHED BY THE ASSOCIATION. 1898The Texas State Historical Association.
Organized March 2, 1897.
PRESIDENT.
O. M. Roberts.
VICE-PRESIDENTS.
Dudley G. Wooten, William Corner,
Guy M. Bryan, Mrs. Julia Lee Sinks,.
RECORDING SECRETARY AND LIBRARIAN.
George P. Garrison.
CORRESPONDING SECRETARY AND TREASURER.
Lester G. Bugbee.
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL.
O. M. Roberts, George P. Garrison, Mrs. Dora Fowler Arthur,
Dudley G. Wooten, Eugene Digges, Rufus C. Burleson,
Guy M. Bryan, Z. T. Fulmore, M. M. Kenney,
William Corner, C. W. Raines, R. L. Batts,
Mrs. Julia Lee Sinks, F. R. Lubbock, Mrs. Bride Neill Taylor.
PUBLICATION COMMITTEE.
O. M. Roberts.
George P. Garrison, Dudley G. Wooten,
Z. T. Fulmore, Mrs. Bride Neill Taylor.
CONTENTS.
NUMBER 1; JULY, 1897.
President's Address O. M. Roberts 3
History of Texas Geography Z. T. Fulmore 9
Tribal Society Among Texas Indians. M. M. Kenney 26
Editors and Newspapers of Fayette County Julia Lee Sinks 34
Expulsion of the Cherokees from East Texas John H. Reagan 38
John Crittenden Duval William Corner 47
Thomson's Clandestine Passage around Nacogdoches W. P. Zuber 68
Historical Sketch of the Association; Constitution 71
Notes 75
NUMBER 2; OCTOBER, 1897.
Annexation of Texas Sam Houston 79
Defunct Counties of Texas R. L. Batts 87
Reminiscences of Austin and Old Washington J. K. Holland 92
Enduring Laws of the Republic of Texas C. W. Raines 96
The Old Three Hundred Lester G. Bugbee 108
Fight on the Frio, July 4, 1865 John S. Ford 118
Ven. Maria Jesus de Agreda: A Correction Edmond J. P. Schmitt 121
Notes and Fragments 125
Questions and Answers 129
The Affairs of the Association 129
NUMBER 3; JANUARY, 1898.
Prehistoric Races in Texas O. M. Roberts 145
Thoughts on Economic History C. E. Dutton 151
Avar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca Miss Brownie Ponton. Bates H. McFarland. 166
J. Pinckney Henderson F. B. Sexton 187
Who Was Juchereau de Saint-Denis? Edmond J. P. Schmitt 204
Some Obscure Points in the Mission Period Walter Flavius McCaleb. 216
Notes and Fragments 226
Questions and Answers 228
The Affairs of the Association 229
NUMBER 4; APRIL, 1898.
Establishments of the University of Texas O. M. Roberts 233
The Real Saint-Denis Lester G. Bugbee 266
The Old Mexican Fort at Velasco Adèle B. Looscan 282
Recollections of Early Schools M. M. Kenney 285
Some of My Early Experiences in Texas Rosa Kleberg 297
Notes and Fragments 303
Questions and Answers 307
Affairs of the Association 312
Vol. I. JULY, 1897. No. 1.
The subject of my remarks upon this occasion is “The Uses of the Texas State Historical Association.” There have been in the past two such associations instituted in the city of Austin, in which I participated, that failed to be continued in operation. It is to be hoped that this one has been organized under such circumstances as that it will be a permanent institution.
As declared in its constitution, “The objects of the Association shall be, in general, the promotion of historical studies; and, in particular, the discovery, collection, preservation, and publication of historical material, especially such as relates to Texas.”
It is proper that the collection of the materials of history should not be confined exclusively to Texas, though they may be most important in forming a complete history of Texas. For being one of a number of associated States, in the same country, and under a common government, there will necessarily be subjects of a general character that will affect Texas in a way to become a part of its history, as well as those arising within its own territorial boundaries. Its objects are not so much to induce the writing of a connected and complete history as to furnish the facts for that object in the future. In a country like Texas, of a great diversity of conditions, employments, and habits, it is beyond the capacity of one person to bring to view all the facts pertaining to each part of the country. Therefore, it is proper that there should be an association of persons, so situated as properly to co-operate in doing the work. Nor should their efforts be confined to literary and scientific subjects, but should embrace material developments and everything else that tends to form the habits, character, and actions of the people of every class and condition.
True history consists of a descriptive record of the people, their actions, and beliefs that prompt to action, in the whole range of human effort, during any given period and throughout a succession of periods of time up to the present. For the present is the matured product of the past, as every effect is the result of the contributory causes that produced it. One difficulty of our understanding the condition of things of the present time is the indefiniteness and generality of our information of the past, as well as of the present. For instance, we may look over our constitutions and statutory laws and inferentially learn that certain actions performed by some persons at certain times were by common sentiment deemed to be prejudicial to the good of society by the penal enactments of the time. And that other actions were performed at different times may be likewise inferentially learned by laws conferring the rights of person and property. Such information, so obtained, would be indefinite. So, too, the information about the past obtained from books of history, especially in a new country like Texas, is generally too indefinite to be entirely satisfactory; because such books for the most part give an account of the important actions of the government and of its changes, under the control of political parties, and of wars, and of institutions organized from time to time in obedience to public sentiment. Still, those accounts are usually of a very general character.
To illustrate the ideas sought here to be conveyed: We can learn from the laws and the public action of the government that a penitentiary was established in Texas at a certain time, and has since then been kept in operation. From those sources we would fail to learn what was the condition of things that created the public sentiment that caused it to be established, what have been the employment of the convicts, how they were confined and treated, and what has been its general result as a mode of punishment of crimes up to the present time. All that would be its history as a part of the history of the country. We may learn from the laws and histories of Texas that Texas has had several state capitols, but they fail to inform us as to the reasons of its removal from one place to the other, what conveniences were afforded at each, what important events occurred in each, and especially the long struggle in the effort to keep it at Austin, together with a specific account of the steps taken for, and work performed in, the erection of the splendid granite capitol in which the State's offices are located, and the Legislature is held. This would bring to view a connected account of the subject from the early days of Texas, as a separate government, to the present time. A most abundant amount of the materials of history could be developed by an account being given in the same way, including the past reaching up to the present, of cities, towns, and counties of Texas. That of San Antonio and Bexar county would reach back into the last century, and the progress to its present large proportions would exhibit many remarkable events peculiar to itself, and numerous acts and characters of men, who have in various ways contributed to its growth and importance, who are unknown in general history, as well as those who are so known. The same in some degree may be said of Goliad and Nacogdoches, and Laredo and Ysleta. An account of Galveston, Velasco, Houston, San Augustine, Clarksville, and some other places, would reach back to an early part of this century. An account of Corpus Christi, Gonzales, Bastrop, Austin, Crockett, Palestine, Henderson, Marshall, Paris, Dallas, Sherman, and Fort Worth, would reach back within the first half of this century. Both before and after that time, numerous towns have been established, the founding and progress of which, in the regions of country in which they are situated, would furnish much material for history.
In addition to these partially local sources of historic material, there are many others, more general in their scope, that are available. Of such are waves of public sentiment that have passed over the country and moved the people to action, such as Know-Nothingism, Greenbackism, the Granger Lodges, the Alliances, the numerous fraternities, the labor unions, the spirit of combination in everything.
Whether they are permanent or ephemeral, the actions under them become facts of history, and leave their impress upon the people and the country.
Another prolific source is to be found in the immense growth of the objects of government, in the increase of its officers, its courts, its asylums, in its State frontier protection, its penitentiaries, its high schools of all grades, its system of new education in common schools, and in numerous other governmental affairs, whose operations and particular modes of proceedings, with their results, are but partially and generally indefinitely known now by the mass of people, an intelligible explanation of which would afford much data for history of the present.
There are existing subjects of a material and industrial character worthy of notice, such as the introduction and use of barbed wire and improved machinery, with their results upon production. The introduction and use of electricity as a power, and its probable extension and advantages. The use of water-power in machinery and irrigation; the extent of it in this State, and the manner in which it should be used when practicable, consistent with individual rights and the public good. The bicycle, its use and effects. Overflows of rivers, and the responsibility of governments to relieve the sufferers, who expose themselves to the danger of them with their persons and property. Storms, tornadoes, and cyclones, as they have prevailed in the different parts of Texas. Long drouths, with their causes and effects. Epidemics, and the quarantine in Texas. Prehistoric men and lower animals, their remains, and the evidences of their former existence in Texas. Mines and minerals, with their present development and probable extent in the future.
There are also subjects which may be considered, to some extent, speculative, that may furnish instructive studies for forming future sentiment, if properly presented. One of them is Paternalism in government, with the questions, what is it, to what extent has it entered the rule and operation of the government in Texas, to what extent can it be allowed to enter, consistently with personal liberty and the public good. Private corporations, their great increase in this State, and their effects. Life and fire insurances, and their effects. Municipal corporations, the reasons for their creation, and the extent of the powers permissible to be granted them by the state government, and the limitations of injurious action upon the citizens controlled by them. The state associations of teachers, of the bar, and of officers, now being held annually, their origin and objects, with their results. The drummers, as a commercial institution, their origin and practice. Hypnotism, its proper and improper use. Amusements prevalent in the past and at present, with their effects on the social condition. Anecdotes, even, if properly presented and are illustrative of noble actions, important public transactions, or the characters of persons that have made themselves useful in life, may, and often do, enter into the general history of a country. Also, biographies of persons, of both men and women, in any sphere of life, whose conduct furnish a commendable example for the imitation of others, are instructive lessons in history.
Without further enumeration, it may be said that any and everything that the people do or think, that tends to form habits of life, or to build up prevailing institutions affecting society, constitute material for history, and may be properly presented to this Association as such.
It is not to be supposed, however, that this Association is designed to be made the arena of acrimonious discussions, or of personal criminations and recriminations of any kind. On the contrary, every contribution should, as is expected it will, assume a high tone of impartial philosophic exposition of every subject written and presented to it.
If this Association shall be perpetuated, with the full and efficient efforts of its members, until the materials for the past successive periods shall have been collected and brought up to the present time, then the work will be easy in bringing to light the annual occurrences of each year as time passes. When that is accomplished, and some able historian of the future shall undertake to present to the public the complete history of Texas, it will be found that his work will fill four or five large volumes, instead of one or two volumes, as we are now accustomed to see it presented.
In conclusion, it may be remarked that as the events of the past history of the country enter into and aid in giving shape to the condition of things existing at the present time, the study of history is important in all branches of learning as a help to understand the present. Still, “the world moves,” and new elements of human thought and action are being added, day by day as time passes, to the already accumulated materials of history, which are difficult to be grasped and understood fully in their comprehensive details and significance by any one person. They constitute the proximate impulses to public and private conduct for the time, and their comprehension is of the first importance in every department of useful knowledge.
One of the greatest benefits that this Association can confer upon the country would be to cause the present state of things as they transpire to be developed intelligibly, so as to be generally understood.
The great diversity of jurisdiction exercised over the area embraced within what is now known as Texas, and the geographical changes consequent upon the many political vicissitudes through which it has passed, render the history of its political geography peculiarly interesting, though complicated, and in many respects puzzling.
It is probable that no part of the Western world has been subject to so many sovereignties, or has furnished so many bases for international contention.
All that part of its geographical history prior to 1819 is involved in an uncertainty and obscurity which has baffled the patience and genius of even so great an exploiter as Mr. H. H. Bancroft, and if we were to content ourselves with the progress he and other historians have made, and with the conclusions arrived at by them, many disconnected fragments and political coincidences would remain as idle excrescences upon the pages of our history, and among the accumulated piles of annals covering a period of over two hundred years.
As these fragments are gathered up, one by one, and classified in the order of their significance and logical relation to each other, it begins to dawn upon us that the various processes through which we have grown into our present proportions have followed each other in a somewhat orderly development, and that the time may come when it shall be possible for that interesting period of our history to be presented as a harmonious and philosophical story.
Unrequited individual effort has accomplished nearly all that has been accomplished along that line, but when we reflect upon the fact that much that is material to our history is buried among the tomes at Madrid, Mexico City, Guadalaxara, Zacatecas, San Luis Potosi, Queretaro, Saltillo, Arizpe, Chihuahua, and even in our own San Antonio, and all in a foreign language, the present generation may almost despair.
What is here contributed is intended as a pioneer effort to classify some of the most important events which go to make up our geographical history.
Prior to 1685, Spain had accumulated many evidences of a claim to title to most of what is now known as Texas, but no beneficial use or occupation having followed her various discoveries and explorations, her right was merely nominal. The discovery of America by Columbus in 1492, and the empty ceremony of a confirmation of her title to the whole of the Western continent, two years later, by Pope Alexander VI, constituted the beginning of Spain's claim. The discovery of the main land of the continent, bordering the Gulf of Mexico, and the formal assertion of Spanish dominion by Ponce de Leon in 1513, gave an additional claim to all that territory extending from the peninsula of Florida to Yucatan, named Florida by its discoverer. This was followed by the explorations of Pineda in 1518, Lucas Vasquez de Ayllon in 1525, and others; but the results were of no great practical importance until those under the auspices of Velasquez culminated in the conquest of Mexico by Cortez in 1521. By this conquest, Spanish occupation extended up the Gulf coast as far as the Panuco river, which became the western boundary of “Florida.” Panfilo de Narvaez had been sent to Mexico to supplant Cortez before the final consummation of the conquest, but was defeated by Cortez, and, returning to Cuba, and afterward to Spain, he secured from Charles V a concession of “Florida” in 1526. In 1528, well equipped for the purpose, he landed at Tampa Bay and undertook an expedition which ended in disaster. The same concession was made to Ferdinand de Soto in 1537, and he was provided with the means for exploration and conquest. His expedition, though more successful than that of de Narvaez, also ended in disaster. A small remnant of de Narvaez's men, headed by Cabeza de Vaca, having escaped the perils of the sea, were stranded on the coast of what is now Texas, and, making efforts to reach Mexico, traversed a part of what is now Western Texas, while De Soto's expedition, after his death, traversed a small portion of what is now the extreme northeastern portion of Texas. In 1540, Coronado, in his expedition, touched the extreme western limit of Texas, and other explorers from time to time traversed the western limits of the country, but no effort was made towards a permanent occupation before 1690.
The descent of La Salle down the Mississippi river and his formal assertion of French dominion in 1682, and the permanent occupation and use which followed after 1699, severed the claim of Spain to what was then called Florida. With this, perhaps the most important event in the history of the geography of the American continent, properly begins the history of the geography of Texas. Two hundred years had now elapsed since the discovery of Columbus. The splendid empire over which Charles V. and Philip II. had reigned had now dwindled into a second-rate monarchy, and the pretentious claims of Spain in the western world had been curtailed by certain international laws to whose operations she had been subjected by the nations of Europe. Her claims had been gradually pushed down to the southern border of the continent, and France now stood an impassable barrier between her possessions east and west of the Mississippi river. Florida had now lost its identity west of the Mississippi, and held a most slender tenure north of the 31st parallel and west of the Perdido river.
In parcelling out the American continent among the nations of Europe, two international laws had come to be regarded as binding: One provided that occupancy of the continent at the mouth of a river emptying into the sea entitled the occupant to all country drained by that river; the other provided that when two nations made discoveries on the same coast, the middle distance between them became the boundary. Under the former, France acquired her title to all the Mississippi river watershed, a title disputed later in other regions, and by virtue of other claims, the merits of which are immaterial to our subject.
La Salle named the country discovered, Louisiana. The French colony located there grew and prospered to such a degree that Antoine Crozat, the merchant prince of his day, sought and obtained the privilege of its exclusive commerce in 1714, and engaged St. Denis in furthering the enterprise. The establishment of a trade with Mexico enlisted the energies of St. Denis, and he soon began to project plans for a commercial connection with the inhabitants of that distant region. His first step was the establishment of a trading post at Natchitoches, on Red river. From that point he had surveyed and marked out a highway from Natchitoches to the Rio Grande, conspicuous in the subsequent history of the country as the “old San Antonio road.” He visited the authorities of Mexico on the Rio Grande, and his negotiations finally resulted in the policy, on the part of Spain, of taking possession of what had, then, become known as Texas.
The establishment of missions, presidios and settlements was then undertaken on a scale sufficient to insure Spanish dominion over the entire territory of Texas.
In the establishment of these settlements, due regard was had to the rights of France to Louisiana, by fixing the most easterly Spanish settlement at Adaes, about twenty miles west of the most westerly French settlement at Natchitoches. As that settlement was on the east bank of the Red river, the Spanish authorities located Adaes near the junction of several small streams which united and formed a tributary of Red river, and thus laid the foundation for a claim to all the Red river watershed on the west and south, and subsequently asserted their claim to the main stream of that river.
Shortly after these occurrences, a war broke out between the two nations, and French troops took advantage of the opportunity to invade Texas and drive the Spaniards west of Trinity river. The latter soon re-established their settlements, strengthening that at Adaes so as to be prepared for any further encroachments by the French. A peace was shortly afterwards declared, but the French declined to entirely give up the territory, and insisted upon having the Rio Grande as the western boundary of their claim, basing their right upon the discovery and attempted settlement on Matagorda bay by La Salle in 1685. Since the conquest of Cortez in 1521, Spain's dominion on the coast had not extended farther north than the Panuco river, and the French contended that as the Rio Grande was the middle distance between that river and Matagorda bay, the boundary of France properly extended to that river. No serious effort, however, was made to maintain that claim. Matters remained in statu quo between Natchitoches and Adaes until 1735, when the French moved their settlement from the east to the west side of Red river, several miles nearer Adaes. This action met with little opposition beyond a protest from the Spanish commandant at Adaes.
The opposing claims stood thus, each nation successfully resisting the further advance of the other, until 1762, when Louisiana was ceded to Spain by France. As this cession mentioned nothing as to the boundary between Louisiana and Texas, it remained unsettled until 1819. In 1800, Louisiana was retroceded to France, just as France had ceded it to Spain, and in 1803 France sold it to the United States, with no specification as to the western boundary, thus devolving the responsibility of a final adjustment upon the United States and Spain.
After thus quieting all attempts at French invasion on the east, Spain realized the necessity of extending actual dominion over all the territory claimed by her, and especially over that unoccupied part of her territory exposed to the Gulf of Mexico. There was a scope of country north of the Panuco river, bounded by the provinces of Nuevo Leon on the west, Coahuila on the north and northwest, and Texas on the northeast, which had remained in possession of the native tribes of Indians ever since the conquest. The measures adopted for bringing that region under the jurisdiction of Spain finally culminated in the establishment of the province of Nuevo Santander, now the State of Tamaulipas, and in definitely fixing the western boundary of Texas.
No definite boundaries had been fixed to any of the provinces named contiguous to this vast country, for the reason that their colonial development had not required it, but the area extending 100 leagues north and 50 leagues west, extending from the Panuco river to the Rio Grande, was regarded generally as the limits of the new territory to be brought under the civil jurisdiction of Spain; in other words, the Rio Grande was regarded as the southwestern limit of the province of Texas, when the work of subjugating and civilizing this area was entrusted to Escandon.
In 1746 he subjugated most of the savage tribes inhabiting this region, and in 1748 was entrusted to complete the work and bring the region under the complete dominion of Spain. He proceeded with his forces as far east as the Rio Grande, and established missions and settlements. The Governor of Texas at that time was making Adaes his capital, under orders from the viceroy, in order that he might watch the movements of the French, and be in a position to guard the eastern boundary of the province against encroachment. Escandon dispatched a part of his forces in the early part of 1749 across the Rio Grande, and they proceeded as far east as the Rio Guadalupe, where they found the old mission, La Bahia del Espiritu Santo, virtually abandoned, and took charge of it. In going thus far, they exceeded the limit of the territory originally contemplated in the commission to Escandon—instead of stopping when he had traversed the distance of 100 leagues, his forces went 185 leagues. When this was ascertained, he was ordered by the solicitor general of New Spain to move back to the San Antonio river. The doors, bells, and other movable appurtenances to the mission were taken down and carried to Santa Doretea (now Goliad), and the mission and presidio established there, and the San Antonio river was for a time regarded by the authorities of Nuevo Santander as the eastern boundary of that province.
Affairs were in this shape when the Governor of Texas resumed his residence at San Antonio, soon after the cession of Louisiana to Spain, and after all causes for French encroachment on the east had been removed. In the interim between 1750 and 1764, the authorities of Nuevo Santander issued titles to land as far east as the San Antonio river, and exercised jurisdiction in other ways. This brought about a conflict between the respective provinces. The territory of Coahuila and Nuevo Leon had also been encroached upon by the authorities of Nuevo Santander. To settle disputes as to the extent of the boundaries of Santander, and determine its jurisdiction over such territory as was contiguous to these provinces, and to protect the vested rights acquired within the disputed boundaries, the complaints of the Governors were laid before the proper authorities at Mexico City and Madrid. All disputed matters were adjusted by decrees, which were formulated into a royal cedula. To this cedula was attached a map designating the boundaries. It was filed among the archives in 1805, and photographic copies of this map have been used in judicial proceedings in the courts of Texas affecting titles to lands situated in the disputed territory. By this map, the western boundary of Texas began at the mouth of the Rio Nueces, thence up that river to its junction with Moros creek, thence in a northeasterly direction to near the Garza crossing of the Medina river, thence up that river to its source, thence in a direct line to the source of the San Saba river; thence northwesterly to the intersection of the 103d meridian of west longitude and the 32d parallel of north latitude, thence northeasterly to the intersection of Red river by the 100th meridian, thence down said river. The first call from the source of the Medina is northeasterly, but the source of the San Saba is the point aimed at. A previous map of Humboldt, compiled from an official map in use at Mexico, and used in the debate over the compromise measures pending before the United States Congress in 1850, corresponded in many respects with this. The parallels and meridians of Humboldt's map were more than 170 miles from their true location, as since ascertained, but, taking the natural objects called for, they corresponded in most essentials, as far as the lines went, with the royal map of 1805. 2
Such were the western boundaries of Texas in 1803, when the dispute as to the eastern boundary of Texas was again taken up by the United States and Spain.
The sale of Louisiana was bitterly opposed by Spain, and formal delivery of possession of the territory had not been made when Napoleon sold it to the United States, and only twenty days elapsed between the delivery by Spain to France and the delivery by France to the United States.
Spanish forces were reluctantly withdrawn from New Orleans and transferred to the western border of Louisiana. Much diplomatic correspondence ensued touching the boundaries, but no practical results followed until late in 1806, when the United States mobilized troops west of Red river. To counteract this, Spanish troops were mobilized east of the Sabine, when, on the 5th of November, 1806, the two armies confronted each other. An armed conflict seemed imminent, when an armistice was agreed upon, by which hostilities were to cease until such time as the two nations should otherwise settle the question of boundary. It was agreed between the respective commanders that a strip of country, since famous as the “Neutral Ground,” should not be encroached upon by either nation. The eastern limit of this neutral ground was a line equidistant between Adaes and the Arroyo Hondo, and the western limit the Sabine. Northern and southern limits were not fixed. The matter of the eastern boundary remained in this state for about thirteen years. Spain conceded nothing beyond what she had virtually conceded to France seventy years previously. In the meantime, the United States ignored Spain's claim to the main stream of Red river. Louisiana was admitted as a State in 1812. Civil jurisdiction was extended west of Red river below the neutral ground whenever the necessities of her increasing population demanded it. Arkansas Territory was cut off, and Indian Territory set aside as a reservation for the Cherokees and other Indians. Indian Territory embraced the Red river watershed west of Arkansas on the south, as well as north of Red river.
Spain had always claimed to the main stream of Red river, and had assigned the territory to Texas and New Mexico. On the other hand, Mr. Jefferson and his advisers and their successors claimed the Red river watershed on the south as well as north. Nacogdoches was the most northerly settlement in Texas, and Captain Pike's chart had located it about eighty miles south of the 32d parallel, and thus, with the aid received from Humboldt's map, fixed in his mind this parallel as a proper division line between Spain and the United States south of Red river. Before the ratification of the treaty of 1819, Cherokee Indians began to occupy Indian Territory, the treaty having been made with them in 1817, so that when the country was wrested from Spain by Mexico they had begun to occupy the country on both sides of the river. Finding themselves cut off by the treaty ratified in 1821 by Spain and in 1822 by Mexico, they applied to the latter for proprietary rights to the country north of the 32d parallel, south of Red river; but failing in this, they obtained a permissive occupancy. In the Fredonian war in 1826, this was agreed upon as a line between them and Edwards' colonists. In 1835, a treaty was made with them, recognizing their rights to the sovereignty of the soil; but, being provisional, it was repudiated by the Republic of Texas, which, though refusing to recognize them as constituents of the sovereignty, continued their permissive occupancy until their alliances with the enemies of the Republic of Texas forfeited that right, and they were driven from Texas.
By the treaty of 1819 (ratified by Spain in 1821, and by Mexico in 1822), boundary disputes between Spain and the United States were finally adjusted. By that treaty, the boundaries between the two nations were fixed as follows: Beginning at the mouth of the Sabine river, thence up its west bank to the point where it is crossed by the 32d parallel of north latitude; thence north to Red river; thence up that stream to where it is intersected by the 100th meridian of longitude west from Greenwich; thence due north to the Arkansas river; thence up that river to its source; thence north to the 42d parallel of north latitude; thence west to the Pacific Ocean. This took from Spain all territory east of the Sabine, below the 32d parallel, and added it to Louisiana, while it took from the United States the whole of the Red river watershed on the south from Louisiana and Arkansas to the 100th meridian, and the whole of the Mississippi river watershed west of that meridian, south of the Arkansas river. Florida was purchased by the treaty, so that it was tantamount to an even exchange of territory. The feeble claim which the United States asserted to the Rio Grande was formally abandoned.
The United States had a valid claim to the Mississippi river watershed, extending to the Rocky Mountains, but De Onis, the Spanish minister who negotiated for Spain, by representing to Mr. Adams that the source of Red river was only a few leagues from Santa Fe, and that such proximity of the two nations might endanger their peace, and that the intermediate country was so impregnated with nitre as not to be susceptible of habitation, and, therefore, valueless, induced Mr. Adams to stop at the 100th meridian.
These were the limits to Texas when the country was wrested from Spain by Mexico in 1821, and the limits as recognized by Mexico in 1822.
Mexico having become a Republic, and adopted a constitution in 1824, consolidated the territory of Texas with that of Coahuila, and organized the two into one State, known as the State of Coahuila and Texas, with no change in boundaries while it remained under the sovereignty of Mexico.
Liberal colonization laws, a homestead exemption of 4428 acres of land to heads of families, and one-fourth that quantity to single persons, protection against debts contracted prior to removal to Texas, freedom from taxation for ten years, and many other inducements, soon brought an influx of Anglo-American population. After a prosperous growth of ten years, events began to transpire which had their culmination in the separation of Texas from Mexico, and its erection into an independent Republic in 1836.
The Congress of the Republic of Texas, on the 19th of December, 1836, fixed the western boundary at the Rio Grande, from its mouth to its source, and from its source to the 42d parallel of north latitude.
The only area within this limit adversely occupied was the inhabited portion of New Mexico east of the Rio Grande, known as Santa Fe. With a view to establishing peaceful relations with that part of the country, President Lamar had fitted out an expedition in 1841. Upon their arrival in New Mexico, they were treated as public enemies, made prisoners, and sent to Mexican prisons.
During the next year, Mexico made two efforts to regain a portion of Texas, one in the spring, another in the fall of the year; but both were driven back across the Rio Grande. Nothing further had been done in the way of exercising jurisdiction over any unoccupied territory when the subject of annexation to the United States began to be agitated in both countries. Annexation was consummated in 1845 by Texas merging herself into the United States as a State. There were certain stipulations of the terms known as Articles of Annexation. One of them devolved upon the United States the responsibility of settling boundary disputes with other nations; another provided for the erection of four additional States out of her territory when the State desired; and another provided that the line of 36 degrees 30 minutes should be respected as to slavery.
At the time of the adoption of these articles of annexation, the only nation disputing the boundaries of Texas was Mexico, and that dispute was not as to any western boundary, but was as to the right of Texas to establish a boundary at the Sabine, Mexico still refusing to recognize her right as an independent nation to fix any boundary. Annexation was fully consummated in February, 1846, and the United States began to move her troops from the outposts of Louisiana to the western borders of Texas. This was regarded as a casus belli, and the troops of the United States were attacked by those of Mexico. War followed, and, after it, in 1848, came the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. By this treaty, the boundary line between the two Republics began “in the Gulf of Mexico three leagues from land, opposite the mouth of the Rio Grande; * * * thence up the middle of the river * * * to the point where it strikes the boundary of New Mexico; thence westwardly along the whole southern boundary of New Mexico (which runs north of the town called Paso) to its western termination; thence northward along the western line of New Mexico until it intersects the first branch of the River Gila; * * * thence down the middle of said branch and of said river until it empties into the Colorado; thence across the Colorado, following the division line between Upper and Lower California, to the Pacific Ocean.”
The southern and western limits of New Mexico, mentioned in this article, are those laid down in the map entitled “Map of the United Mexican States, * * * Published at New York in 1847 by J. Disturnel.”
This treaty settled the only dispute as to boundaries which had previously existed between Texas and Mexico, but boundary troubles did not cease with this. The United States now raised the question of a boundary between Texas and New Mexico, the claim of Texas to all that portion of the States of Tamaulipas and Coahuila, east of the Rio Grande, being conceded. The title to Santa Fe was denied, and the matter furnished the basis for a long debate in both houses of the United States Congress. Senator Rusk's contention was that the old maps proved nothing, and afforded little or no light upon the subject, and took the position that the claim of Texas to the Rio Grande had its origin in the revolution of Texas, citing numerous official acts on the part of Mexico, beginning with the capitulation of General Cos at San Antonio in December, 1835, and ending with the address of the Mexican peace commissioners to the people of Mexico in 1848. Mr. Volney E. Howard, in the lower house of Congress, went more fully into the details of the errors of old maps, exposing most of them, and resting his claim mainly upon a proper construction of the Articles of Annexation, one of his strongest points being that as the United States, in one of the articles, had expressly recognized the right of Texas to territory north of 36 degrees 30 minutes, beyond and outside of any limit which either Spain or Mexico had ever assigned to Texas, the right of Texas to it differed in no wise from her right to Santa Fe, and both having been acquired by the same acts, one could not be recognized without the other; in other words, the language of the article included Santa Fe. The debate became sectional, and the views of the partisans culminated in the compromise act of November 25, 1850, by which Texas, in consideration of $10,000,000, gave up all territory north of 36 degrees 30 minutes, and all west of the 103d meridian of west longitude as far south as the 32d parallel of north latitude. The area thus parted with embraced more than 100,000 square miles, now included in New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, and Oklahoma.
There was yet another adjustment to be made. The treaty of 1819 described the 100th meridian “as laid down on Melish's map.” This meridian was more than 100 miles east of the true 100th meridian. In the act of December 19, 1836, the Republic of Texas made her eastern boundaries coterminous with the western boundary of the United States, as fixed by the treaty of 1819. The area between the true 100th meridian and the 100th meridian according to Melish's map, extended from Red river north to the parallel of 36 degrees 30 minutes, and was more than 100 miles in width, embracing an area of about 16,000 square miles. According to strict construction of the treaty of 1819, this strip belonged to Texas. It was held by the Supreme Court of the United States, however, that Texas was estopped from claiming this strip, for the following reasons:
1.Because, by the compromise act of 1850, wherein she ceded all territory north of 36 degrees 30 minutes and west of the 100th meridian, it meant the true meridian and not the Melish meridian.
2.In the creation of the counties of Lipscomb, Hemphill, and Wheeler, the true 100th meridian was made their eastern boundary.
3.The ascertainment of the true 100th meridian had been acquised in, recognized and treated as the true boundary by various acts of Texas, and that both governments had treated that as the proper boundary in the disposition they made of the territory involved, through a long series of years.
This view being virtually conceded as to all the strip, except 3840 square miles east of the true 100th meridian, and between the forks of Red river, the question for solution was, as contended by the United States, whether the line following the course of Red river eastward to the 100th meridian met the 100th meridian at the point where it intersected the lower fork of Red river, or whether it intended the upper fork, as contended by Texas. At the former place, the United States had erected a monument to indicate the intersection of Red river by said meridian, in 1857. On the same meridian, where it met the 36 degrees 30 minutes paralle, another monument was erected. In other words, which was the main stream of Red river? If the north fork, then the area was in Texas; if the south fork, it was outside of Texas.
This question was submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States, and by that tribunal was held as belonging to the United States.
Thus, it will be seen that Texas lost the territory which was regarded as belonging to her up to 1749, by the unauthorized expedition of Escandon east of the Rio Grande; lost all that portion of her territory east of the Sabine below the 32d paralle, and gained the Red river watershed on the south as far west as the 100th meridian, by the treaty of 1819; regained the country east of the Rio Grande which she lost in 1749, and acquired all of Coahuila and New Mexico, east of the Rio Grande, in 1836; compromised her claim to more than 100,000 square miles of territory, in 1850; and, by failing at the proper time to assert her claim, lost about 16,000 square miles between Red river and the parallel of 36 degrees 30 minutes between the 100th meridian and the line specified in the treaty of 1819, and formally claimed by the act of her Congress in December, 1836. As a province, her territory on the east and west was curtailed, and her northern boundary enlarged. As a separate political entity, she was merged into a State of Mexico, and virtually lost her political identity; marked her limits by the sword in 1836, and in 1850 sold about one-fourth of her domain to the United States, and by want of due diligence has conferred a prescriptive title to the 16,000 square miles upon the United States.
These are the main steps by which she has adjusted her outward form and assumed her present proportions. The processes by which her political subdivisions have developed towards fixity are some-what less interesting, though peculiar, and, in their initial steps, different from those of any State of the American Union.
To get even a superficial comprehension of these, some knowledge of the political structure of the several sovereignties under which she has maintained her identity is necessary.
Exclusive of the ecclesiastical and military establishments, the civilized population of the country was not sufficient to require any sort of civil establishment until after San Antonio had been settled. About the year 1715, the municipality of Bexar was created to meet the needs of that settlement. Under the then status of population it was unnecessary, as well as impracticable, to assign any definite limits to that municipality. The functions of the officers of the municipality were judicial and executive only. Unlike the British-American system, the citizen had no voice whatever in shaping the political policies of the country, even in the smallest details of local polity. In Florida, California, and other States where beginnings were Spanish, as well as in Texas, whatever local civil government existed, existed under the form of the municipality. When Florida passed under the sovereignty of the United States, the municipality lost its identity. Mexico adopted a constitution in 1824, and made a subdivision intended to be political, and called it the Department, but, except in Texas, colonial development was not sufficiently advanced to afford a test of its merits as a part of the machinery of republican government.
Texas began her existence as a separate province of Spain in 1727, and in the long interval that elapsed between that date and 1824 only two additional municipalities came into permanent existence—La Bahia and Nacogdoches.
Under the Constitution of 1824, the municipality was retained, with no radical changes of function, and, colonial development in Texas being rapid, the number of municipalities was increased, so that, at the meeting of the Consultation in 1835, the number was eighteen, and, to meet the needs of the settlements, five new ones were created, so that, at the date of the formation of the Constitution of the Republic, there were twenty-three.
Texas was annexed to Coahuila, and jointly they became the State of Coahuila and Texas, and the latter was constituted the Department of Bexar. Each department was to have an executive officer, called Political Chief. While he was doubtless intended to be an executive officer simply, the Constitution of Coahuila and Texas clothed him with many judicial powers. Each department was also entitled to a representative in the State Congress of Coahuila and Texas. This representative was chosen by a departmental electoral college, which had been previously elected by a college of ayuntamientos, elected by the direct votes of such suffragans as, under the rigid suffrage laws of the State, were entitled to the elective franchise. The ratio of representation in the Federal Congress was one to every 40,000 of population; and in the State Congress, one to every 7500. The inhabited area of Texas at that time extended from San Antonio in the west to Nacogdoches in the east, and to Red river in the northeast, and inland from the Gulf as far as the falls of the Brazos. The great diversity of interests implied by this extent of area was intensified by the incongruity of the population inhabiting it. It goes without saying that this sort of political structure was wholly unsuited to the development of a truly republican system of government, and wholly out of harmony with the ideas of the Anglo-American republicans, who now began to realize the need of some efficient system of local government. To partially meet this want, the territory of Texas was about equally divided into two departments, Bexar and Nacogdoches, in 1831. With the exception of a small settlement around Nacogdoches, this virtually separated the Anglo-American and native Mexican population, and in 1834 a new department was created, mostly from the Department of Nacogdoches, and called the Department of Brazos. This was exclusively under the control of Anglo-Americans, and for the first time in the country's history an Anglo-American Political Chief was appointed. With the rapid increase in population came the greater necessity for a more efficient system of local government. This led the people, in 1832, to a concert of action to secure it. This resulted in an assembly constituted by representatives from the municipalities, so that each center of population might have a voice in formulating some political policy for the country. There was another meeting of the same sort in 1833.
The main object of these meetings was to secure separate statehood for Texas. This was refused. During the two years following, the President of Mexico assumed dictatorial powers, and the emergency for separate political action arose. The people again assembled in 1835, and by representatives from all the eighteen municipalities adopted a plan of government, inviting five other centers of population to participate, which they constituted municipalities. This assembly was known as the Consultation of 1835. Texas was constituted a separate State; the Political Chiefs of Nacogdoches and Bexar were ordered to cease their functions, and the Political Chief of the Department of Brazos was transformed into the Governor of Texas. This ended the department as a part of the political machinery of Texas, and the municipality took its place eo instanti, as the political unit. The only remnant of Mexican structure under this plan was the executive council selected to aid the Governor, which soon showed its want of adaptation to needs of representative government. The powers of this assembly being limited, a convention composed of representatives from all the municipalities, and clothed with plenary powers, was called to meet March 1, 1836. This convention promptly convened on that day, and, on the next, declared Texas independent, and framed the Constitution for the new Republic. That Constitution provided for dividing the territory into counties, to be not less than 900 square miles in area; a provisional government was organized; the Constitution submitted to and adopted by the people in September following. In October, the first Congress of the Republic of Texas assembled, and, instead of formally dividing the Republic into counties, recognized the existing municipalities as such, defined and adjusted their boundaries, subdivided them, and created new ones as circumstances required it, and provided such machinery as was requisite to an efficient system of local republican government. The ayuntamiento, the alcalde, and other relics of Spanish monarchy, gave way to the county court, the justice of the peace, the sheriff, and other insignia of a truly representative government. From 1836 to 1897, the process of subdivision has gone steadily on, until, from the twenty-three municipalities, with a vote of 4322, we have grown into 244 counties, 224 of which are organized, having a vote of 540,000, and in the peaceful enjoyment of all the blessings which a truly republican form of government vouchsafes.
What the future geography of our State will be, it is not the province of this paper to discuss. The basis for that article of annexation which provided for the erection of her territory into five States has long since ceased to exist, and the article itself stands upon the pages of our history as a mere relic, into which no magic of political ambition can ever infuse life; the memories of the Alamo, Goliad, and San Jacinto, are every year taking deeper hold in the minds and hearts of the people; her 750,000 school children march each year more proudly to the music of the battle songs of '36; the orator, poet, and historian are every year embalming the glories of the struggle which gave birth to the young empire. United from Sabine Pass to El Paso, and from Texarkana to Brownsville, by hands of steel, common and equal partners in an indivisible heritage of a university and other higher institutions of learning, in a common school endowment of $12,000,000, and a landed endowment equal in area to the State of Indiana, all cementing her citizenship into one common policy, our unity becomes more compact as the years roll by.
Her political subdivisions, however, will continue. Areas which produced 350,628 bales of cotton in 1870, and 3,154,000 in 1894, 6,000,000 bushels of corn in 1850, and 107,000,000 in 1895; which had only 571 miles of railway in 1870, and 9500 in 1895, and have made giant strides in all those things that contribute to human happiness and human greatness, will allow no pent-up Utica to circumscribe their powers, but will continue to burst their bands and readjust themselves to the constant demands of new conditions as long as civilization shall endure.
When we seek to know the early stages of human society, we derive aid in the Old World from the light of written history, which discloses with more or less clearness the conditions existing in the past for some thousands of years, supplemented by a twilight of old tradition.
In the New World, however, the light of written history closes in sudden darkness only four centuries back, and is but feebly supplemented by obscure tradition of short duration. As to the peculiar race of men who inhabited these regions before that time, we are thrown upon the resources of natural history. The fragments of flint weapons and rude pottery which are here found buried in the soil, sometimes in deep strata, inform us that these continents were inhabited by savage people in very great antiquity. The mounds and traces of fortifications widely dispersed, and the socalled ruined cities of Mexico, Central America, and Peru, inform us that the builders were tribes, and that from time to time partial civilizations arose among them and progressed to the point of erecting great public structures and executing rudimentary works of art, and lapsed again into barbarism and savagery, as it has done in the Old World within recorded time.
But there is another trace, which we may say has been recently discovered, and which is both more ancient and more distinct than any mounds or ruins. The great advance in recent years in the science of Comparative Philology, or the science of language, has opened to us “vistas into the past hitherto undreamed of,” and affords a record of great antiquity of many barbarous, unlettered tribes and nations. We are thus enabled to trace migrations which occurred long before the dawn of history, even in the Old World. In the western hemisphere we are enabled, by comparing the languages of the aboriginees, to locate the grand divisions of the race in times much earlier than our histories of discovery disclose, or their traditions indicate, and to trace some of their wanderings long forgotten among them.
The region of North America which the fortunes of war and political council have now defined as the State of Texas was in the early years of this century inhabited by about thirty tribes of Indians. Twelve tribes of these spoke dialects of the Caddo language, which is an offshoot of the Pawnee stock, including the tribes of the Ricaree and Mandan far up the Missouri river, and farther north. The intervening region, more than a thousand miles in extent, was peopled by tribes alien in speech and unconnected with either. At what time the parent stocks parted company is unknown. But as their languages had diverged so much as to be not readily understood by each other, we know that the time had already been considerable when these tribes were first discovered.
The twelve tribes of the Caddo stock were the Caddos, Adaes, Bedaes, Keechies, Nacogdoches, Ionies, Anadarkos, Wacos, Tawakanees, Towash, and Texas. All inhabiting east of the Brazos, from about a hundred miles from the coast, northward nearly to the Arkansas river. Of course, there was no distinct boundary. The Indian tribes knew nothing of a country. They believed that they had a right to the land the same as to the air and water throughout the universe as known to them. The tribes above named hunted across the country as far west as the San Antonio river; but their permanent villages and habitual ranges were within the vague limits described. They had a tradition that they had formerly been confederated together, forming one nation; but whether they were at that time one tribe, from which smaller ones broke off, as bees swarm from the parent hive, is unknown. They were more advanced toward civilization than other tribes north of Mexico, and afford the best examples of tribal government and society.
Of the thirty tribes alluded to as forming our aboriginal population, two obscure tribes, the Coushatta and Alibama, occupied villages on the Neches and Trinity rivers not far from Nacogdoches, where they still remain. They also are offshoots far removed from their parent stock, the Muscogee of Georgia and Florida, with many intervening alien tribes. The Lipans ranged from the Rio Grande to the Brazos, along the foot of the mountains. They were an Apache tribe, and their speech a dialect of the Athabascan language, prevailing in the far north, from Hudson bay nearly to the Pacific ocean. They also must have broken off from the parent stock in ancient times.
The Comanches, more numerous and powerful than all other tribes combined, roamed the great plains, from Oregon southeastward nearly to the Gulf of Mexico. Their language is a dialect of the Shoshone, spoken by the Bannocks of Montana and the Piutes of Southern California. They were ferocious savages, but their tribe was particularly well organized.
Three tribes of the thirty spoke, each, a language peculiar to itself, in which no connection can be traced with any other tongue. The first and worst of these was the Carankawa, inhabiting along the coast from Galveston westward—a tribe of cannibals, noted for their gigantic stature and hideous aspect. All of them were over six feet in height, and each man carried a bow as long as himself, from which they shot arrows with great force and precision. Their language was an almost inarticulate guttural, impossible of imitation, and the lowest form of human speech.
The second of the three tribes, unconnected with any other stock by affinity of speech, was the Tonkaway, ranging from the Brazos to the Nueces, and from near the coast to the mountains. They were friendly with the white people, and often joined in expeditions against the Comanches, with whom they were always at war. They were in alliance with the Lipans, though there was no affinity of speech between them.
The other solitary tribe was the Kioways, roaming the great plains with the Comanches, with whom they were in alliance, though there was no resemblance between their savage tongues. The rest of the thirty tribes were small and obscure; many of them perished before any vocabulary of their languages was secured.
The first mention in history of any of our tribes is in 1530, when a Spanish officer reports capturing, near the Rio Grande, one of the Texas nation, whom he made his servant.
About 1536, Cabeza de Vaca, with several companions, members of a Spanish expedition which was shipwrecked on the coast, spent six years among the aboriginees in Texas. De Vaca has left a narrative of their somewhat severe experience. He names several tribes, none of which we are able to recognize. His dscription of the country, however, and some incidents, indicate some of the same tribes we know; one of these is mention of the extemporaneous fortification, which we know as the rifle-pit, used by the Tawakanas, which I supposed was a modern invention of that tribe, who alone used that defense against the white people in our time, but which, it is plain from the old narrative, was understood and used by a tribe in Texas more than three centuries before. His description of the Indians on the coast also tallies with our knowledge of the Carankawas. About 1630, Maria de Agreda, a Spanish missionary lady, spent some years among the wild tribes of Texas. None of her writings are known to be in existence, but she is quoted by Father Manzanet, in 1692, he having seen her report to the “Father Custodian of New Mexico.” In this quotation, there is mention of the “Kingdom of the Theas,” showing that the same tribes then inhabited this country which we found two hundred years after.
The French expedition of La Salle, in 1685, of which a narrative has survived, describes the Carankawas, and the Cenis, a Caddo tribe on the Neches, at whose village the distracted Frenchmen were kindly treated.
Captain Francisco de Leon's expedition, in 1692, crossed Texas from the Rio Grande to Red river. The narrative by Father Manzanet, the missionary priest who accompanied it, gives a full account of the various tribes visited by them in “This province of the Texas, which by another name is called Acenay, and also some chiefs of the Cadodoches.” The French governor, D'Iberville, about 1714, gives a list of tribes, in which the Caddos, Comanches, and Lipans, appear. From that time to the advent of the American settlers, a hundred years later, there is frequent mention of our tribes.
It is plain, then, that the aboriginal tribes which occupied Texas had come from widely different and distant localities, arriving in different ages, extending back some four centuries, and in all probability very many ages. There is nothing to indicate a common parentage but the race, while their languages, having no common radical words, show that their ancestors were aliens in extremely ancient times. Yet, all the tribes were organized on the same identical plan. There was but little difference in their low scale of advancement, yet there was a difference.
Taking a low tribe for an example. It was divided first into two bands, or brotherhoods. The members of each were prohibited from marrying in their own band, but had to seek husband or wife, as the case might be, in the opposite division. Thus the bands were continually changed and perpetually renewed. The Carankaways were divided into two such bands, each with a chief. The only two of whom we have any knowledge did not agree in the policy they were to pursue toward the white people. But tribal law did not admit of separation; and the advocate of peace was overruled, and all involved in common destruction. The Tonkaways, also a tribe low in the social scale, had this division into two equal classes; but they had, also, as had many other tribes, a secondary division into classes, each of whom was designated by the name of some beast or bird, and had a chief. Theoretically, they were married by clans, though to all appearance they were individual families, each occupying a tent or hut. The affection of the men for their wives and children was to all appearance the same as in civilized nations. But their way of designating kinship showed that it was clanship. The children all belonged to the mother's clan. The mother's sister was not the aunt, but ranked as mother, and her children were brothers and sisters, not cousins; while the mother's brother was uncle, and his children cousins. The father's sister was aunt, and her children cousins of his children; but his brother was not uncle, but counted as father, and his children brothers and sisters. There was some property—a few utensils and horses—but, upon the death of the owner, his children did not inherit, because they did not belong to his clan; but his nephews and nieces inherited, because they belonged to his clan.
This curious arrangement preserved the equality of the members of the tribe, whose government was a pure democracy. The men of the nation assembled to discuss the policy of their small state in two bands, on either side of a council fire, or place marked as such, for it was often imaginary. The speeches were made by chiefs of clans, and the vote taken of all the men. Such a council they held in this city when it was a small group of cabins in the wilderness in 1841, upon the occasion of the death of a chief, to select a successor. Their sessions were long, and discussion very earnest. A delegation of Lipans, with whom they were in alliance, attended in some advisory capacity, and the election was at last satisfactorily adjusted.
The Caddo tribes had an identical organization, with the addition, perhaps, of more deference and ceremony in the treatment of the chiefs. As described by Manzanet in 1692, the principal chief of the Texas held a court, whose amusing state and ceremony suggests children playing king and queen. Their councils were held in the same manner as those which I have just described, and questions of life and death were decided by a vote of the whole tribe. They had one law which I very much wish could be established in the land to which they have left their name. It was prohibited for any one in a quarrel (of which they had many) to strike a tribesman with a weapon. All their contests had to be settled with the fist. They had no dead-letter laws, and this one was, we are assured, effectively enforced. They had more property than other tribes; good huts, dress and ornaments, and some store of provisions. Manzanet, who passed some time at the village of the Texas in 1692, expressed surprise and perplexity at their rules of marriage and inheritance. Had he taken the pains to inquire, he would have found the same in all tribes of savages.
The Comanches were divided into ten clans, each with a chief, and they kept separate camps, but their law forbade them to marry in their own clan. They had a head chief over all, but their government was a pure democracy, and all questions were settled by a council, either of clan or tribe, according to the importance of the matter.
Such a council was held on the Staked Plain in 1843, to decide upon the fate of the ambassadors sent by President Houston to invite them to a treaty. About five hundred assembled, sitting in circles in a council tent. Eack speaker, as his turn came to speak, delivered a vociferous oration in an invective tone, but never interrupted. When all who were entitled to speak (probably the clan chiefs) had spoken except the old head chief, the interpreter brought word to the ambassadors that all the speakers favored putting them to death. But the head chief, whose time it was to speak, remained silent, and no one moved or spoke from noon to 4 o'clock in the evening. Either he was pondering the weighty question, or seeking by this long silence to impress upon his audience the importance of the matter before them. Whatever might have been his motive, this long argument of silence has always impressed me as a notable example of mute eloquence. When he did speak, it was in a stentorian voice and long-continued. He succeeded in turning enough that when the vote was taken the ambassadors were spared.
In all Indian tribes, provisions were shared as long as there were any in the camp; and they all fasted alike in case of need, and none went hungry if any of the tribe had provisions; and this rule extended to prisoners and enemies as well.
They were notoriously improvident and careless of the future. But their wandering life is chargeable with much of their improvidence; and, on the other hand, the fact that they hunted in parties, and could of right claim a share of the game taken each day, explains some of their willingness to divide provisions, which in some cases I saw were refused, and in others grudgingly given.
In the Comanche tribe, I think the children belonged to the clan of the father. They may have changed from one plan to the other. The clans would remain the same. It would favor the idea of property, and a tendency to recognize superior families, which in time might have progressed toward civilization. I do not know what the rule was in the other tribes, but believe they all recognized descent only from the mother.
It has been the commonly received theory that the Indian tribes by some intuition recognized the Creator, whom they worshiped as the Great Spirit. I could never verify this theory. In 1692, the Texas worshiped a deity whom they called “Ayemat Caddi,” Chief Spirit, or Spirit of the Chief, Spirit of the Father of the Tribe — some traditional and probably fabled hero from whom they claimed descent. And such ancestor-worship existed wherever traces of it have been sought.
All tribes believed in a man's other self, which left him in sleep and wandered in the realm of dreams, returning when he awoke. Hence the impression that the other self could be recalled; and the custom in many tribes, among whom were the Tonkaways, to call the name of one recently dead, begging him to return and inhabit the body; which, in case of trance, must sometime have been verified after many hours of apparent death. So, also, they buried provisions and weapons with the dead, believing that they took the spirit of those things with them. The Comanche, when lighting the pipe of peace at a treaty, blew the first puff of smoke towards the sun, the second to the earth, and the third to the air and sky, thus seeming to recognize spirits in those powerful elements.
It has been said that there was no moral element in their vague religious beliefs, but this must be taken with grains of allowance. The virtues of savages, courage and fidelity to the tribe, were, in their belief, to be finally rewarded, and this belief must have reflected some influence on tribal society.
We may finally remark upon the persistence of the tribe. While there is a remnant of the tribe left, its members persist in maintaining its old tribal organization. There is no instance of a tribe, as such, adopting the political or social organizations of civilization.
The study of tribal society throws light on some subjects which have hitherto been dark to us. We are not yet removed by very many ages from the time when our ancestors had similar tribal organizations; and as we see our domestic animals repeating with amusing fidelity the precautions and preparations which their wild ancestors made for their surroundings, the reasons for which have wholly ceased, but the instinct remains, so we find our ignorant and simple-minded, or, as Carlyle says, “dim instinctive classes,” continually proposing political measures, which probably served for small tribes of ancient savages, but are preposterous in civilized and modern nations.
The first newspaper established in Fayette county was called “The La Grange Intelligencer,” published by James P. Longley, and edited by Wm. P. Bradburn, a gentleman of Nashville, Tenn., who had lived sometime in Mexico.
Through the influence of James K. Polk, a friend of the family, he received the appointment of midshipman in the United States Navy, on board the old “Constitution.” His uncle, General Bradburn, who figured in the early history of Texas, having no children of his own, persuaded him to resign his commission and accept his adoption as son and heir. Sudden death overtook the uncle before his affairs were legally adjusted in favor of the nephew, and the property passed into other hands. So Mr. Bradburn came to Texas, like many others, to seek fortune, and “The La Grange Intelligencer” was established by James P. Longley, in part to give him business, and in part to support General Burleson for the Presidency.
The paper did not come up to their expectations, and Mr. Bradburn removed to Louisiana, and settled in New Orleans, where he officiated at times as assistant editor of the New Orleans Tropic, Picayune, and Bulletin, so I am informed by his relatives.
In 1848, when political strife was running high, he was solicited by prominent men of Iberville parish to edit the Southern Sentinel, which, under his guidance, became a great favorite. He still owned and edited that paper when he died, leaving an estate valued at $50,000.
The next person who edited the La Grange paper was a legal gentleman, Fields, who had very little editorial acumen. In fact, this editor of ours had hardly found his place in life. It was told of him that in the San Saba fight under Colonel Moore he stood behind a tree to shoot, and the tree was too small for the man, or the man was too large for the tree. In turning to load his gun, an unlucky shot hit him in the back. Enraged at this irony of fate, he lost all fear, and in stamping and cursing he ended this day of martial achievement. As an editor, extracts from other papers were the tree he hid behind to load his gun, his own ammunition falling short often. As to his legal attainments, his knowledge of courts must have been very small, for upon one occasion, when a judgment was rendered against him, he indignantly turned to the sheriff, and pointing to the judge, said, “Sheriff, arrest that man!” This circumstance was told the writer by Judge Devine, who was opposing counsel. After that, he went to the Congress of the Republic when it met in the town of Washington in 1843. So, you see, in those days we bestowed honors freely.
It will be seen that our editor was a brave but unfortunate warrior, the fates being against him; an editor whose chair of office, like the tree, could not screen him; a lawyer whose feats as a legal knight might rival Don Quixote in assumption, and whose wisdom as a legislator the archives of the Republic alone can tell.
The county paper passed into other hands, and the heading was changed to “The Far West,” exact date unknown, for I have been unable to find a single copy of that paper. It was under the leadership of Mr. Wm. G. Webb, who informs me that all the files in his possession were consumed in the fire which destroyed a large portion of the southern side of the public square in La Grange.
Mr. Wm. G. Webb, editor of “The Far West,” settled in La Grange from Georgia as a young lawyer. A man of cautious, persistent cast of mind, whose success as an editor must have been satisfactory. He became one of the leading attorneys at the La Grange bar, more from his thorough determination than from brilliancy, being not unlike one of Dr. Warren's characters, described as literally crawling over his cases until he mastered every point.
The next record of the newspapers of La Grange attainable was the “Texas Monument,” which made its appearance July 20, 1850. It was published by a committee, incorporated by the Legislature of Texas, the proceeds, after the expenses were paid, to be appropriated to erecting a monument to the decimated Mier prisoners and the Dawson men, on the bluff opposite La Grange. The bill of incorporation was approved January 19, and the paper commenced in July, with the late Colonel Dancy as editor, and Mr. Launcelot Abbott as publisher. It was an ably conducted paper; would stand fair, very fair, as a county paper among the present journals of the State. There was the record of much patriotism and very little crime, that great deformity of the issues of the present day. Under the supervision of Colonel Dancy, who filled the editorial chair for a year, it was in all respects a success. Having to incur a debt of $1400 for press and material, at the close of the first year it was almost liquidated, according to an editorial written by himself before resigning, and the aim was then to devote the proceeds, beyond the expenses, to the building of the monument. It was greatly to be regretted that the paper lost the energy and enthusiasm of Colonel Dancy, for in the hands of his successor, Mr. J. H. Kuykendall, who was quite as capable, but in bad health, the paper began to decline. He had been, in 1840, a representative from one of the lower counties in the Congress of Texas, and was hailed as a successor to Colonel Dancy, but from ill health he soon wearied of it and resigned.
The next person who took charge of the paper was Dr. Wm. P. Smith, traveling agent and correspondent for the paper—an old citizen of the county. I am unable to find files of that paper to give exact dates, but tradition places him in the editorial chair, not long perhaps, for near this time (1853) it was ably edited by Mr. Albert Posey, a young gentleman from Alabama, of fine cast of mind and cultivation, who left a strong impression on the minds of those who knew him. He died young.
Dr. Smith took an active part in consolidating the three charters—spoken of elsewhere—which formed the foundation of the Rutersville Military School.
October 24, 1854, Mr. A. R. Gates became proprietor and editor of the paper, still called “The Monument.” He was a native, I believe, of Alabama; had not long been in the country; was an educated, well read, but rather silent man.
In 1855, “The Monument” merged into “The La Grange Paper,” edited by Mr. Wm. B. McClellan, who in an editorial in his first issue said the monumental committee had long since abandoned the idea of sustaining the press for the noble purpose for which it was originally procured. Alas!
As “The La Grange Paper,” it lasted but a short time, though the editor, Mr. McClellan, had a bright style of handling ordinary subjects, a happy faculty for county newspapers. He was a good man, and was loved best by those who knew him best.
October 6, 1855, the “True Issue” made its appearance; Mr. B. Shropshire and R. M. Tevis as editors and proprietors. They had purchased the printing press and material of the La Grange Paper.
February 2, 1856, Mr. Shropshire and Mr. Gossler had charge of the “True Issue.” Mr. B. Shropshire, editor of the “True Issue,” was long a resident of La Grange, practiced law at that bar, was of fine appearance, popular manners, and a progressive cast of mind. He was district judge when he died, in 1867. With him at first was Mr. Tevis, who, I believe, still practices law in Galveston. Mr. Gossler was for a long time connected with the newspaper of La Grange.
In 1861, the old Monument press was sold by Mr. Gossler, who had become sole proprietor, to Mr. J. V. Drake, who issued a paper from the old press called “The Observer.”
In the first half of the year 1839 the Cherokee Indians occupied that part of Texas which is bounded on the east by the Angelina river, on the west by the Neches river, on the south by the old San Antonio road, and on the north by the Sabine river. What is now Cherokee and Smith counties covers substantially the same territory. At that time, the Shawnee Indians occupied what is now Rusk county, their principal village being near where the town of Henderson is now situated. The Delaware Indians then lived in the eastern part of what is now Henderson county. Less than two years before that time, the Kickapoo Indians lived in the north-eastern part of what is now Anderson county; and in a hotly contested battle between them and their Mexican allies and the Texans, they were defeated and driven from that part of the county. The whites charged the Cherokees with stealing their horses and with an occasional murder of white people. This their Chief Bowles denied; and alleged that the thefts and murders were committed by wild Indians, who came through his country. But in 1838 the Cherokees murdered the families of the Killoughs and Wilhouses, several in number, and broke up the settlement of whites in the vicinity of Neches Saline, now the northwest part of Cherokee county. There was no question about these murders being committed by the Cherokees, and that Dog Shoot, one of their head men, led in this massacre. Complaints of thefts and murders by the Cherokees became so numerous, and were so authenticated, as to cause the President of the Republic, General M. B. Lamar, to send a communication to Chief Bowles, through the Indian agent, Martin Lacy, Esq., making certain recitals evidencing hostility to the white people. Among the facts so recited, as I remember them, one was that in the year 1836, when the people of Texas were retreating from their homes before the advancing army of the Mexican general, Santa Anna, that he, Chief Bowles, assembled his warriors on the San Antonio road, east of the Neches, for the purpose of attacking the Texans if they should be defeated by Santa Anna. Another was that, in the preceding January, 1839, General Burleson had captured some Cherokees on the upper Colorado, on their return from the City of Mexico, accompanied by some Mexicans, and bearing a commission to Chief Bowles as a colonel in the Mexican army, and a quantity of powder and lead, and instructions for his co-operation with the Mexican army, which was to invade Texas during the then coming spring. And also calling attention to the murders and thefts which had been committed on the people of Texas by the Cherokees; and upon these statements, saying to Chief Bowles that Texas could not permit such an enemy to live in the heart of the country, and that he must take his tribe to the nation north of Red river.
President Lamar in that communication said to Chief Bowles that he had appointed six among the most respectable citizens of the Republic, and authorized them to value the unmovable property of the Cherokees, which was understood to be their improvements on the land, but not the land, and to pay them for these in money. I knew some of these men at the time as most worthy citizens. One of them was Judge Noble, of Nacogdoches county. The President also said to them that they could take all their movable property with them and go in peace. But that go they must; peaceably if they would, but forcibly if they must.
It is proper for me to say that I have seen, in the State Department, a paper purporting to be a communication from President Lamar to Chief Bowles, supposed to be the one announcing his views as to the necessity of the removal of this tribe. Dr. W. G. W. Jowers and myself, and one Cordra, a half-breed, accompanied Mr. Lacy, the Indian agent, when he took the President's communication to Bowles. Cordra went along as interpreter, as Bowles could not speak English and the agent could not speak the Cherokee language. Dr. Jowers was afterwards a member of the House of Representatives and of the Senate of Texas several terms. The paper then read and interpreted to Chief Bowles contained, in substance, what I have said, and is very different from the paper in the office of the Secretary of State. Indian Agent Lacy lived on the San Antonio road about six miles east of the Neches river. Chief Bowles lived about three miles north of Mr. Lacy.
When we reached the residence of Bowles, he invited us to a spring a few rods from his house, and, seated on a log, received the communication of the President. After it was read and interpreted, he remained silent for a time, and then made a denial of the charges contained in that communication, and said the wild Indians had done the killing and stealing, and not his people.
He then entered into a defense of the title of his tribe to the country which they occupied, as I have described it. He said that after his band separated from the old Cherokee nation, they, under him as their chief, settled at Lost Prairie, north of Red river, now in Arkansas; that after living there for a time, they moved to the Three Forks of the Trinity river, now Dallas and the surrounding counties; that he had intended to hold that country for his tribe, but that the other Indians disputed his right to do so, and claimed it as a common hunting ground; that he remained there with his tribe about three years, in a state of continual war with the other Indians, until about one-third of his warriors had been killed; that he then moved down near the Spanish Fort of Nacogdoches (I use his expression); and that the local authorities permitted him to occupy the country which his tribe then occupied; that he then went to the City of Mexico, and got the authority of the Mexican government to occupy that country, and that during the Revolution of 1835-36 the Consultation representing Texas recognized his right to that country by a treaty.
It is proper here to state that the Consultation did appoint General Houston and Colonel Forbes, and authorized them to make a treaty with the Cherokees. I am not informed as to the extent of the powers conferred on them for that purpose. A treaty was agreed to between them and the Cherokees, and reported to the Consultation, which adjourned without ratifying the treaty so made; and it, with its powers, was superseded by the Convention, which formed the Constitution of the Republic; and that Convention rejected the treaty which had been agreed to by General Houston and Colonel Forbes. That is the treaty to which Chief Bowles referred. So that the Cherokees had no higher title to the country they then occupied than the privilege of occupancy during the pleasure of the sovereign of the soil.
After his statement as to the right of his tribe to that country, Chief Bowles stated to Mr. Lacy that he had been in correspondence with John Ross, the chief of the original tribe of Cherokees, for a long time, looking to an agreement between them to unite the two tribes and go to California, and take possession of a country out of the reach of the white people. It will be remembered that this was about ten years before the cession of California by Mexico to the United States, and when but little was known of that country by our people. And he offered to produce and have read to Mr. Lacy a bundle of letters on this subject, which he said was as large as his thigh. Mr. Lacy waived the necessity of their production, saying that the statement of Chief Bowles was sufficient on this subject. Chief Bowles then said that he could not make answer to the communication of the President without consulting his chiefs and head men, and requested time to convene his council. Thereupon it was agreed between them to have another meeting a week or ten days later (I do not remember the exact length of time), to give time for the council of the Cherokees to meet and act.
On the day appointed, Agent Lacy returned to the residence of Chief Bowles, accompanied by Cordra, the interpreter, and by Dr. Jowers and myself. We were again invited to the spring, as upon our first visit. The grave deportment of Chief Bowles indicated that he felt the seriousness of his position. He told Mr. Lacy that there had been a meeting of the chiefs and head men in council; that his young men were for war; that all who were in the council were for war, except himself and Big Mush; that his young men believed they could whip the whites; that he knew the whites could ultimately whip them, but that it would cost them ten years of bloody frontier war. He inquired of Mr. Lacy if action on the President's demand could not be postponed until his people could make and gather their crops. Mr. Lacy informed him that he had no authority or discretion beyond what was said in the communication from the President. The language of Chief Bowles indicated that he regarded this as settling the question, and that war must ensue. He said to Mr. Lacy that he was an old man (being then eighty-three years of age, but looking vigorous and strong), and that in the course of nature he could not live much longer, and that as to him it mattered but little. But he added that he felt much solicitude for his wives (he had three) and for his children; that if he fought, the whites would kill him; and if he refused to fight, his own people would kill him. He said he had led his people a long time, and that he felt it to be his duty to stand by them, whatever fate might befall him.
I was strongly impressed by the manly bearing and frankness and candor of the agent and the chief. Neither could read or write, except that Mr. Lacy could mechanically sign his name. And during their two conferences they exhibited a dignity of bearing which could hardly have been exceeded by the most enlightened diplomats. There was no attempt to deceive or mislead made by either of them.
The whites on the one side and the Indians on the other at once commenced preparations for the conflict. Chief Bowles took his position east of the Neches river, in the northwest corner of what is now Cherokee county, concentrating his warriors and collecting his families there. He was joined by the Shawnees, the Delawares, and by warriors from all the wild tribes of Indians, and there were at that time a good many of them. Colonel Rusk, with a regiment of volunteers, was first in the field on the side of the Texans. Vice-President Burnet, then Acting President of the Republic (President Lamar, with the leave of Congress, was temporarily absent from the Republic), General Albert Sidney Johnston, the Secretary of War, and Adjutant-General Hugh McLeod, accompanied this regiment. It went into camp about six miles to the east of Bowles' camp, and for ten days or more negotiations were carried on between the belligerents, Bowles negotiating to gain time to collect the warriors from the wild tribes, and the Texans negotiating to gain time for the arrival of Colonel Burleson's regiment of regulars from the west, and Colonel Landrum's regiment of volunteers from the red lands.
During this time an incident occurred which might have been of a very serious character. A neutral boundary had been agreed on between the belligerents, and the men of neither side were to pass it without notice. Acting President Burnet, the Secretary of War, Adjutant-General McLeod, Colonel Rusk, and a few others, had gone to the camp of the Indians, under a flag of truce, to conduct negotiations, as they had done on previous days. Colonel Jim Carter and a few others, acting as scouts, found John Bowles, a son of the chief, and a few other Indians, who had passed the neutral boundary, and gave chase for them. The Indians escaped, and when they reached their camps reported that they had been run in by the Texans. This caused violent excitement among the Indians, and the gentlemen named reported that it seemed for a time that they were to be attacked by the Indians, in which event their massacre would have been inevitable. But explanations were made, which allayed the excitement. At the subsequent meetings for negotiation, the Texas officials took with them an escort of thirty picked men. An agreement was made that neither party was to break up camp or make any move without giving notice to the other party. On the 13th or 14th of July, Colonel Burleson's regiment of regulars, and Colonel Landrum's regiment of volunteers, reached the camp of the Texas forces. And early on the morning of the 15th Chief Bowles sent his son, John Bowles, accompanied by Fox Fields, under a flag of truce, to notify the Texans that he would break up camp that morning and move to the west of the Neches river. On reaching headquarters under a flag of truce, they delivered their message to General Johnston, and having done so, inquired if they could return in safety. They both spoke English very well. General Johnston told the messenger that his father had acted honorably in giving the notice according to agreement, and that he would see that they had safe conduct out of our camp; and he detailed a number of men, with orders to see them safely a half-mile beyond our line of pickets. He also told them to inform Chief Bowles that the Texas forces would break up camp that morning and pursue him.
On the assembling of this little army of three regiments, the volunteers wanted Colonel Rusk for their commander, while the regulars preferred Colonel Burleson for that position. These two patriots and heroes of the Revolution, which made Texas a Republic, did not desire to antagonize each other, and either of them was willing that the other should command. But it was agreed to solve the question by having General Kelsey H. Douglass elected as brigadier-general and placed in the chief command. And when this army broke up its camp on the morning of the 15th of July, 1839, to pursue the Indians, Colonel Landrum was ordered to move up on the east side of the Neches river, and be in position to intercept the Indians if they should turn northward, as it was expected they would. The regiments of Colonel Rusk and Colonel Burleson moved to the west, passing through the camp which had been occupied by the Indians, and crossing the Neches on their trail.
Chief Bowles had taken position on a creek some six miles west of the Neches with a part of his warriors, and had sent the families with the balance of the warriors to a position about six miles north of where he made this stand. His men occupied the bed of a creek, which, running from north to south, made a sudden bend to the east, and his position was immediately above this bend.
After the Texans crossed the Neches, scouts were thrown forward, with directions if they found the Indians in position to give battle, to keep up a desultory firing at long range, without exposing themselves too much, so as to give notice of the position of the Indians. As the command advanced, and when the firing of the scouts was heard, Colonel Rusk's regiment was ordered to advance on the north side of the creek they were on, and Colonel Burleson's regiment was ordered to cross the creek and advance on the south side of the creek, so as to put the Indians between these regiments. When the troops reached the bend of the creek, which was the extreme right of the line occupied by the Indians, Rusk's regiment wheeled to the right and formed in front of the Indians, while Burleson's regiment turned to the right and passed up into the rear of the Indians. This was an hour or two before sundown. A battle ensued, which, however, did not last long. Dr. Rogers and Colonel Crain were killed, and some six or eight Texans were wounded; and it was reported that the Indians left eighteen dead on the field, and the remainder of them were routed and joined the others some six miles to the north, near the Neches, and just north of the Delaware village. The Texans camped for the night near the battlefield. And fearing that the Indians might break up into small bands and attack the more exposed frontier settlements, a number of squads were detached from the command and ordered to proceed to the exposed parts of the frontier to defend the families of the whites.
On the morning of the 16th of July, the Texans, thus reduced in number, took up the line of march in pursuit of the Indians, and found them, soon after passing the Delaware village, in a very strong position. They occupied a long ravine, deep enough to protect them, with gently sloping open woods in front of them. Our line of battle was formed on a low ridge in front of them, and skirmishers thrown forward, who were at once engaged with the skirmish line of the Indians. Every sixth man of our command was detailed to hold and guard our hourses. This, with the details sent away the night before, had considerably reduced our fighting force, and we were confronted by the entire force of the Indians, which, from the information we afterwards received, considerably outnumbered the Texans who participated in the battle.
The scene at that time made a very vivid impression on my young mind. The Delaware village, in our immediate rear, was wrapped in flames, and the black columns of smoke were floating over us; the skirmishers were fighting in front of us, and our line of battle advancing to the conflict.
The battle lasted about two hours. We had six men killed and thirty-six wounded. The Indian loss was very much greater. During this engagement, Chief Bowles was a very conspicuous figure. He was mounted on what we call a paint horse, and had on him a sword and sash, and military hat and silk vest, which had been given to him by General Houston. And thus conspicuously mounted and dressed, he rode up and down in the rear of his line, very much exposed during the entire battle. Our officers two or three times ordered the men to advance nearer the line of the Indians, and then would order them to fall back, in the hope that in this way the Indians might be drawn from their strong position. And just as this was done the last time, word ran along our line that the Indians were in our rear getting our horses. This came near producing a panic. Colonel Len Williams and Ben A. Vansickle, who were with us, and who understood and could speak the Cherokee language, told us that at that time they could hear Bowles, who was urging his warriors to charge, and telling them that the whites were whipped if they would charge.
When at last the Indians retreated, Chief Bowles was the last one to attempt to leave the battlefield. His horse had been wounded many times, and he shot through the thigh. His horse was disabled and could go no further, and he dismounted and started to walk off. He was shot in the back by Henry Conner, afterwards Major Connor; walked forward a little and fell, and then rose to a sitting position facing us, and immediately in front of the company to which I belonged. I had witnessed his dignity and manliness in council, his devotion to his tribe in sustaining their decision for war against his judgment, and his courage in battle, and, wishing to save his life, ran towards him, and, as I approached him from one direction, my captain, Robert Smith, approached him from another, with his pistol drawn. As we got to him, I said, “Captain, don't shoot him,” but as I spoke he fired, shooting the chief in the head, which caused instant death. It ought to be said for Captain Smith that he had known of the many murders and thefts by the Indians, and possibly did, in the heat of battle, what, under other circumstances, he would not have done, for he was esteemed as a most worthy man and citizen.
The families of the Indians were camped in the Neches bottom, in thick woods. After the battle, our command camped at the edge of the bottom very near the Indians, but made no attack on them. That night we could hear the hum and bustle of their camp the greater part of the night, and the next morning they were gone in the direction of the Grand Saline, in what is now Van Zandt county; and while our troops followed them to the Grand Saline, they did not overtake them.
Colonel Landrum, it was said, was misled by his guide and did not reach the balance of the command until after the battles. The Indians dispersed, some going to the cross timbers, some to the north of Red river, and some to Mexico. A year or more later—I do not remember the precise date—the wives and some of the children of Chief Bowles came to the Rio Grande at Laredo, and asked permission to pass through Texas on the way to the Cherokees north of Red river, and President Lamar granted their request, furnished them an escort, and transportation and rations, on their way through Texas. I saw them on the San Antonio road east of the Neches.
Whatever apology may be necessary for the imperfections of this paper may be found in the fact that it has been very hurriedly prepared, under a constant pressure of very exacting official duties, without time for careful revision.
In order to avoid egotism, I omit the mention of a number of incidents, which might be of interest as personal reminiscences.
In the fall of 1835 the Texans had made the first Declaration of Independence. War was begun with the incident at Gonzales. Austin had declared that “War is our only recourse. There is no remedy. We must defend our rights, ourselves and our country by the force of arms.” There had been engagements with the enemy at Goliad and at Concepcion, and San Antonio was being besieged. Similar sentiments to those of Austin had been expressed by several Committees of Safety. At a general Consultation of Delegates from the various Districts there had been made a solemn Declaration of Rights. Officers of a Provisional Government had been elected, and a regular army had been planned and organized. Events of great significance had followed, and were to follow, each other in rapid succession. Everything was stir, activity, and expectation. There was a new order of things at hand.
And these matters had been noised abroad in the United States. The National enthusiasm and sympathy was almost entirely with the Colonists. In the Southern States that sympathy took the form of an earnest desire to help the struggling Texans in a material way. There was a song of arms and of men. There had been intimations from the Colonists that arms and men might be badly needed. New Orleans was the first to send a company of volunteers. Georgia quickly followed with another, and Kentucky with yet another. It seemed merely a matter of geography as to who should be first in the field. Many other companies were formed of foreign material already on hand.
The Kentucky Company was organized at Bardstown, Kentucky, in November, 1835. Burr H. Duval was its elected Captain. They marched to Louisville, sailed down the Ohio and Mississippi rivers to New Orleans, and in a couple of weeks or so were at the mouth of the Brazos.
All these volunteers brought with them a magnificent enthusiasm, such as was exhibited by the Georgians in a letter to Fannin, on their arrival at Velasco. They were almost all of them animated with one prime idea, to fight for their kindred, and the secondary consideration, if they should be on the winning side, of prospective homes and rewards. Travis finely put these ideas, besides other thoughts more glorious still, into words: “Take care of my little boy. If the country should be saved, I may make him a splendid fortune; but if the country should be lost and I should perish, he will have nothing but the proud recollection that he is the son of a man who died for his country.” The volunteers came, believing that the colonists stood shoulder to shoulder with an enthusiasm equal to their own. They were ignorant of the already manifested local politics. Thus early in the day there were factions, jealousies, and worse to follow, conspiracy, treason, disobedience, and incapacity, an evil distemper to which most of them were to fall victims,—a shuffling faithlessness to which they were to be sacrificed. These intrigues and dissensions, this want of unity of purpose, began to discover itself to the new arrivals, and in short order they were themselves affected. Fannin above everything had entreated discipline, discipline he was not quick to exercise on himself. It was a house divided against itself, and there is small wonder that there came a crash. Alas, the sad lessons they were to learn! Lessons by which they would never profit, but which were destined to give the surviving elements a singleness of purpose, the destruction, in succession, of the forces of Johnson and Grant, King, Ward, and Fannin's own—and the sacrifice of the men in the Alamo. In the halt between opinions, Travis and his men, in the Alamo, touched the topmost note of heroism.
Yoakum says that Fannin was complaining much, “and with justice, of the apathy of the Texans in not turning out more willingly to meet the enemy at the frontier, and stated the fact that he could not find a half-dozen Texans in his ranks;” while Houston had said of the volunteers, “Better material never was in ranks.” Captain Burr H. Duval strongly states, on March 9th, that not one Texan had “yet made his appearance at this post” (Goliad). But I will here give in full that letter to his father, which I have the privilege of making public for the first time. I recommend it for study, for it throws an interesting side-light on the unfortunate state of affairs:
[The following is a copy of a letter written by Burr H. Duval to his father, William P. Duval, Governor of Florida, dated March 9th, 1836, eighteen days prior to his death at the Goliad massacre, March 27th, 1836. This copy is verbatim et literatim. The original is written on cream-laid quarto letter-fly. The edges of the sheet indicate that the paper is hand-made. The hand-writing is good, firm, and neat. The last page contains no part of the body of the letter, but was left blank, as was the early fashion, to form the envelope by folding and to receive the address, post-marks, etc. A copy of the latter is here made at the end of this copy of the letter.]
GoliadMarch 9th, 1836. Dear Father,
It has been some time since I have had an opty. of writing to you, A gentleman leaves here to day for the U. States but have my doubts if he gets fifty miles from this post as we are surrounded by Mexican troops— By last express, yesterday, from San Antonio we learned that their [our 3] little band of 200 still maintained their situation in the Alamo, the fort outside of the town— They have been fighting desperately there for 10 or 15 days against four or five thousand Mexicans Santa Anna is there himself and has there and in this vicinity at least six thousand troops— Contrary to the expectation of every one he has invaded the Country when least expected— Not a Texian was in the field, nor has even one yet made his appearance at this post— The greater portion of the Mexican troops are mounted, and of course have greatly the advantage over us— We now muster at this post 400 strong, and from the preparations we have made shall be enabled to give any number a desperate fight— San Antonio I fear has fallen before this;—from its situation and construction, I cannot believe it possible so small a band could maintain it against such fearful odds— D. Crockett is one of the number in the fort— We are expecting an attack hourly. An express yesterday was chased in by 200 cavarly eighteen miles from this— Sixty miles south of this is another party of 650 who have been quartered at San Patricio for some days, waiting reinforcements. Several of our parties of 20 and 30 have been cut off by them—As I anticipated, much dissention prevails among the Volunteers, Col. Fannin, now in command (Genl. Houston being absent), is unpopular— and nothing but the certainty of hard fighting, and that shortly, could have kept us together so long— I am popular with the army, and strange as you may think it could lead them or the majority of them where I choose— They have offered to give me every office from a Majority to Comdr. in Chief— I have seen enough to desire no office for the present in Texas higher than the one I hold— I have fifty men in my Company, who love me and who cannot be surpassed for boldness and chivalry— With such a band I will gain the laurels I may wear or die without any— I am situated at present with my company, in a strong stone house immediately across the street and opposite one of the bastions of the fort— from the bastion I have built a Bridge to the top of the house on which is placed a Brass Six Pounder— the best and most commanding situation we have— before I am driven from it hundreds must perish— I have seen something of the country since I last wrote you having been out for some days at a time on several expeditions— It is decidedly a richer country than I expected to find, and must be more healthy than any other southern country— at least this part of it— the country is high and dry tho generally level and the rivers, at least this, the San Antonio, descends with the velocity of a mountain stream— In many parts water and timber is too scarce, and the Northern winds are frequent and last from one to three days blowing with great violence. The climate of Florida I think is greatly preferable, but it can not be compared to this in point of soil— We have just learned from Washington (the seat of Govt. that they have declared Independence— If such be the fact of which I have no doubt— we must whip the Mexicans— For young men who wish to acquire distinction and fortune now is the time— Tell all who are friendly to the cause of Texas to lend a helping hand and that quickly, The little band of Volunteers now in the field must breast the storm and keep a powerful army in check until relief is at hand or all is lost— We want provisions arms &men. I have never seen such men as this army is composed of— no man ever thinks of retreat, or surrender, they must be exterminated to be whipped— Nothing can depress their ardour— we are frequently for days without anything but Bull beef to eat, and after working hard all day could you at night hear the boys crowing, gobling, barking, bellowing laughing and singing you would think them the happiest and best fed men in the world—
Do all you can for Texas— Yr. affectionate son B. H. Duval. N. B— If there sh 4in my letter that could benefit Texas make it public— To His Excely, Wm. P. Duval. The letter is addressed and stamped as follows: For (Postmark) New Orleans, La, Apr 19 His Excelly— Wm. P. Duval Tallahassee Florida (Postmark undecipherable, but looks like) 22 A P (in writing) 25 The letter was wafered with a red wafer.
Ten days after that was written a finger of the hand that penned it was shot away by a Mexican bullet, and Captain Duval had heard at the Battle of Coleto (in the words of his brother) “Bullets singing like mad hornets around” him. Eighteen days after, the writer was dead, lying amidst “the pallid upturned faces of his murdered companions.” In the meantime, he had learned that human hope is ofttimes dust and ashes, that human trust is a broken reed, that a man may gain laurels, as he did, and die in the winning, and that there is a limit to the bravest man's endurance.
The Battle of Coleto was a hard fight against overwhelming odds; it was not lost, if lost at all, for want of gallantry, unless it was the lack of valor displayed by the troop of horsemen under Horton. Had these men made a dash through the lines to their comrades it is more than likely a retreat to the timber on the Coleto might have been effected. The conduct of this troop, at any rate, suffers in comparison to that of the Gonzales troopers who joined the devoted band in the Alamo but five days before that post fell. The retreat of Horton's company cut off the possibility of moving the wounded, for the beset lost their teams during the fight. A fatal mistake, not the first by a long list, had been made in halting in the open and on ground that was wholly unsuited for defense. The moment needed a hero of action—a leader, who, like Travis, could fire even worn-out men with the idea that surrender was out of all question. On the testimony of Duval, they would have needed but little persuasion, they had the spirit, “they must be exterminated to be whipped.” Such errors as those which divided the force—the failure to relieve Travis, the tardy obedience of orders to retreat, the halting in the prairie—were now followed by the error of surrender. The result is an exceeding great pity for their fate; but the glory of the Alamo, which they might, at least, have shared, is not theirs.
Such of the force, with a few exceptions, as were able to march, were taken heavily guarded to Goliad. Carts, in the next few days, returned for the remainder, mostly wounded. The men believed that they had made an honorable surrender, and that they were to be treated as prisoners of war. But they had Santa Anna to deal with, a man of great vanity, and him they did not understand. The seriousness with which Santa Anna took himself would be amusing if the results had not been so tragic. He thought that his puny campaign and battles were of Napoleonic importance. He was a Dictator; obstacles must be swept from his path. What were the lives of ordinary men to the will of a genius? These prisoners were a drag on his advance, they needed a large guard, they were an expense. He perhaps stored u