THE QUARTERLY OF THE TEXAS STATE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION
VOLUME V. JULY, 1901, TO APRIL, 1902.
PUBLICATION COMMITTEE. John H. Reagan, Z. T. Fulmore, C. W. Raines, George P. Garrison, Mrs. Bride Neill Taylor. EDITOR. George P. Garrison. AUSTIN, TEXAS: PUBLISHED BY THE ASSOCIATION. 1902.The Texas State Historical Association.
Organized March 2, 1897.
PRESIDENT.
John H. Reagan.
VICE-PRESIDENTS.
Guy M. Bryan, 1 F. R. Lubbock,
Mrs. Julia Lee Sinks, T. S. Miller.
RECORDING SECRETARY AND LIBRARIAN.
George P. Garrison.
CORRESPONDING SECRETARY AND TREASURER.
Lester G. Bugbee. 1
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL.
Mrs. Dora Fowler Arthur, George P. Garrison,
W. J. Battle, F. R. Lubbock,
R. L. Batts, T. S. Miller,
Lester G. Bugbee, 1 C. W. Raines,
Rufus C. Burleson, 1 John H. Reagan,
Beauregard Bryan, Mrs. Julia Lee Sinks,
Guy M. Bryan, 1 Mrs. Bride Neill Taylor,
Z. T. Fulmore, Dudley G. Wooten.
CONTENTS.
NUMBER 1; JULY, 1901.
The Escape of Rose from the Alamo W. P. Zuber 1
Reminiscences of Capt. Jesse Burnam 12
Capt. Joseph Daniels Adele B. Looscan 19
The Annexation of Texas and the Mexican War Z. T. Fulmore 28
Dr. Rufus C. Burleson Harry Haynes 49
Book Reviews and Notices 61
Notes and Fragments 66
Affairs of the Association 71
NUMBER 2; OCTOBER, 1901.
Reminiscences of Sion R. Bostick 85
The Connection of Peñalosa with the La Salle Expedition E. T. Miller 97
Reminiscences of Texas and Texans Fifty Years Ago W. D. Wood 113
Guy Morrison Bryan George P. Garrison 121
The Old Fort on the San Saba River as Seen by Dr. Ferdin and Roemer in 1847 Adele B. Looscan 137
The Early Settlers of San Fernando I. J. Cox 142
Book Reviews and Notices 161
Notes and Fragments 164
Affairs of the Association 170
NUMBER 3; JANUARY, 1902.
The Beginnings of Texas R. C. Clark 171
Father Edmond John Peter Schmitt I. J. Cox 206
The Mexican and Indian Raid of '78 212
Book Reviews and Notices 252
Notes and Fragments 263
Queries and Answers 267
NUMBER 4; APRIL, 1902.
The Quarrel Between Governor Smith and the Provisional Government of the Republic W. Roy Smith 269
Genealogical and Historical Register of the First General Officers of the Daughters of the Republic of Texas, Elected in 1891 Mrs. Adele B. Looscan 347
Book Reviews and Notices 352
Notes and Fragments 355
Affairs of the Association 357
Vol. V. JULY, 1901. No. 1.
The publication committee and the editor disclaim responsibility for views expressed by contributors to the Quarterly.
I wish to say something in self-defense and for the truth of history, concerning my published account of the escape of a man whose name was Rose from the Alamo, March 3, 1836. The occasion of what I have to say is that I have been reliably informed that my account of that escape has been contradicted. I have not seen any published contradiction of it by any reliable authority, neither do I know of any reliable person who has publicly contradicted it; yet I am led to believe that such contradictions, though unreliable, have made an impression upon the minds of some well meaning persons. Therefore I feel called upon to present the case more fully.
It should be remembered that I learned the facts, though secondhand, from Rose himself. He recited them to my parents, who, in turn recited them to me.
I must admit that, after years of reflection, I arrived at the opinion that in my first writing on this subject as published in Richardson's Texas Almanac for 1873 I erred in stating Rose's service in the French army; and I wish to explain how I did so. My father was then afflicted with deafness, and was very liable to misunderstand many things that were told to him. Learning that Rose had served in Napoleon Bonaparte's army, he understood him to say that he had served under that general in Italy, as well as in Russia, and so I then stated; but my mother, whose hearing was unimpaired, did not hear him say that he had served in Italy, though she did hear him say that he had served in the invasion of Russia, and on the retreat from Moscow. On later reflection, I infer that my father was mistaken regarding the service in Italy. Remembering his habits, I now believe that Rose told him something which he had learned of the Italian campaign, and my father inferred that he had served in it also. I also believe that I would have done better to omit Rose's estimate of the number of slain Mexicans that he saw near the Alamo, when he looked down upon them from the top of the wall. Of course, being horrified at the hopeless condition of the garrison, as Travis had just explained it, he saw what appeared to him a great number, and he had no leisure even to think of counting them. He only said that they seemed to be so many. The rest of his statement was all repeated to me by my mother, and I vouch for its correctness. In my account of this escape in Mrs. Pennybacker's History for Schools, I have made the needed corrections, and I affirm that I believe my entire statement in that excellent little book to be correct.
Now, were I to admit Rose's entire statement to be false, yet I would contend that no person is now able to disprove it. The Alamo was not in 1836, as now, in the heart of the city of San Antonio, but a considerable distance from it. The town then covered about one-half of the peninsula formed by the horseshoelike bend of the San Antonio river; and that the west end of it was farthest from the fort, while the east end, next the fort, was uninhabited and covered by a dense mesquite thicket, which obstructed the view between the town and the fort. The view between the fort and the small suburb of Laveleta was likewise obstructed. This was the situation when I explored part of the ground in 1842. During the siege, though the people in the town heard the reports of fire-arms, as used by the besiegers and the besieged, none of them could see what was done about the fort without needlessly risking their own lives, which they probably had no inclination to do. The men in the fort (all but Rose), were killed, none surviving to tell the story. Mrs. Dickinson and Travis's negro were shut up in rooms, and could not see what was done outside the fort, nor much that was done in it. None of the Mexicans knew all that was done, and the official reports of the Mexican officers were not distinguished for veracity. Then, how can any person at this late period disprove Rose's statement of what occurred about the fort?
I must notice an error which has been thrust into history, which seems to have been relied upon as a disproof of Rose's statement. That is, that, prior to March 3d, 1836, no Mexican soldier had approached within rifle-shot of the Alamo. 3 But both probabilities and facts are against this assertion. We know that Santa Anna, during his Texas campaign in 1836, perpetrated some gross blunders; but, to say that he stormed the Alamo without first having it closely reconnoitered to obtain, so far as practicable, a knowledge of the strength of its walls and of the condition of its defenders would be to accuse him of incredible stupidity, and to say that he delayed doing so till after the ninth day of the siege would be an accusation to the same effect. To my mind, it would be clear without positive evidence that, for this purpose, before the ninth day he sent scouting parties even to the ditches which surrounded the walls. As such approaches could not be made in daylight, they were of course made in the night, when but few persons even in the Mexican army were aware of them, excepting those who participated in them. And, of course, the watchful inmates must have slain a large number of those who thus approached.
But we are not without positive evidence that such approaches were made. At least, I have it. Colonel Travis had not leisure to write everything in his dispatches, and of course he sent out as couriers some of his most reliable men, who would state facts and nothing else. His last courier, sent out on March 3d, 1836, who arrived at Washington-on-the-Brazos on the morning of March 6th, stated to members of the Convention then sitting in Washington, that the enemy had more than once approached to the walls of the fort. Of course, I infer that the courier meant that they approached to the brinks of the ditches which were as near toward the walls as they could proceed. On the next day, March 7th, Dr. Anson Jones, afterward President of the Republic, passed through Washington, halting there; and several members of the Convention repeated to him what the courier had told them of such approaches. On the night of the same day, Dr. Jones arrived at the residence of Mr. A. D. Kennard, Sr., twenty-three miles east-northeast of Washington, and stayed there till after breakfast on the next morning, March 8th, 1836, when he repeated to several other gentlemen what had been told by the courier to members of the Convention, and by them to him, of several approaches by the enemy to the walls of the Alamo. He did not say how often they had approached, but his expression was “more than once.” Dr. Jones does not tell this in his Republic of Texas; nevertheless, I was then at Mr. Kennard's, en route, as I thought, for the Alamo, and I heard him repeat this statement. 4 Thus we have excellent positive evidence that, before the 3d of March, 1836, some Mexican soldiers did, more than once, approach within rifle-shot of the Alamo, and nearer than that.
Rose left the Alamo on the afternoon of March 3d, and historians say that the courier, Captain Smith, left on the night of the 3d. If it were certain that Smith left on the night following the 3d after Rose left, this would prove Rose's statement to be false; for Smith said nothing of Travis's speech. But Smith certainly left before that night. I have no doubt that he left on the 3d, and in the night; but his departure evidently was on the morning of the 3d, between midnight and daybreak—say, soon after midnight. He could not have escaped the vigilance of the Mexican guards earlier than about midnight, as they were on strict watch for men from the Alamo. But suppose he left about midnight following the 3d. Then he would have, at most, three days in which to ride to Washington, where he arrived on the morning of the 6th. The distance from San Antonio to Washington was one hundred and eighty miles, and to cover this distance in three days would have required him to go sixty miles per day; but he could not have ridden at that rate during three successive days, without great danger of breaking down his horse. Suppose, however, that he left soon after midnight on the morning of the 3d. This would give him four days in which to ride the one hundred and eighty miles; that is, forty-five miles per day, which is reasonable. So I opine that Smith certainly left before the delivery of Travis's speech. 5
I have now to refer to a striking instance of interpolation in a history by an officious publisher or printer. I have no doubt that the historian Thrall was a truthful and conscientious gentleman, but evidently he sometimes relied too much upon his memory in stating historical facts; and his publisher or printer added to his mistakes. This is demonstrated in a passage, in which it is said:
“Travis now despaired of succor; and, according to an account published in 1860, by a Mr. Rose, announced to his companions their desperate situation. After declaring his determination to sell his life as dearly as possible, and drawing a line with his sword, Travis exhorted all who were willing to fight with him to form on the line. With one exception, all fell into the ranks; and even Bowie, who was dying with the consumption, had his cot carried to the line. The man who declined to enter the ranks that night made his escape. [This tale is incredible, since he reported large pools of blood in the ditch, close to the wall, when no Mexican had then approached within rifle shot.]” 6
This passage is evidently the work of more than one writer. Had its authors intended to embrace as many errors as possible within a given space, they could scarcely have crowded more into a paragraph of the same length. The statement referred to was not published in 1860, nor by a Mr. Rose. The man who declined “to enter the ranks” (that is, to cross the line) did not wait till that night to make his escape. That statement did not mention a ditch. And Mexican soldiers had, more than once, “approached within rifle-shot” of the fort, and nearer than that. Rose was the author of that statement, which he made orally, but not its writer or publisher; moreover, it was not written till 1871, and it was first published in Richardson's Texas Almanac for 1873.
But Mr. Thrall is responsible for only the first three errors, to wit: those relative to the date and publisher of the statement and the time of the man's escape. These are comparatively unimportant.
The last three errors are between brackets, showing that, without authority from Mr. Thrall, they are interpolated by the publisher or printer. They are the assertion that Rose's statement “is incredible”; the allusion to a ditch; and the assumption that “no Mexican had then approached within rifle-shot.” It is fortunate for Mr. Thrall that the authors of these eccentricities relieved him of the responsibility for them, by inserting them between brackets.
Mr. Thrall himself, in effect, gave full credit to Rose's statement, as is evidenced by a passage in his biography of Col. James Bowie, the facts of which he could have obtained from no other source than Rose's statement, as first published by me. In it he says:
“During the siege, when Travis demanded that all who were willing to die with him defending the place should rally under a flag by his side, every man but one promptly took his place, and Bowie, who was sick in bed, had his cot carried to the designated spot.” 7
But even here is an instance of our historian's too great reliance upon his memory, though the mistake is in a mere want of precision. Travis requested all his comrades who would stay with him and die fighting not to “rally under a flag by his side,” but to step across a line which he had drawn with his sword.
It may be thought that, under such excitement as Rose must have suffered before leaving the Alamo, his memory must have been blunted. On other subjects, it may have been blunted; but, as to the substance of Travis's speech, which he afterwards repeated in his manner, the excitement only sharpened his memory. That speech was a sudden revelation to him, and every idea expressed thereby sank deep into his soul and stamped its impression there.
With the explanations already given, it does seem to me that, without further comment, every item in Rose's narrative ought to be accepted as quite reasonable and credible; but, as some persons seem determined to discredit it, and I know not what points may yet be assailed, I prefer to subject it to a severe sifting.
Rose was in the Alamo a short time before it fell. While the mass of his contemporaries lived, this was acknowledged even by those who affected to discredit the rest of his statement, and none but two unnamed tramps are known to have asserted otherwise. In evidence of this fact, and of the consequent inference that he was one of the men who perished in that fort, his name was on the first partial list of those heroes, including only seventeen, which was published soon after the fall of the Alamo, in the Telegraph and Texas Register, at San Felipe. It was also on the more extensive list in Richardson's Texas Almanac for 1860, on page 82; and it has been further recognized by the inscription of his name on two Alamo monuments, one of which yet stands; that is, the one in the porch of the old capitol at Austin, which was destroyed by fire in 1881, and the present one in front of the new capitol. In the three lists first mentioned, the Christian name is omitted. The two printed lists named him as “— Rose, Texas,” that is, of Texas; and on the destroyed monument it was simply “— Rose.” Yet, no one who knew the author of the narrative under consideration doubted that he was the man referred to, and I am sure that he was the only Rose in the Alamo. On the new monument now standing, the name is inscribed “Rose, J. M.,” for J. M. Rose. It is on the fourth pillar, the first name after that of David Crockett. 8 I understood his name to be Moses Rose; but by whom or why the “J” is now prefixed is unknown to me. I know that he was generally understood to be in the Alamo when last heard of before its fall. However, he was not one of the heroes who died in defense of that fortress, and his name ought to be erased from the monument.
Colonel Travis was known to be an apt extemporaneous speaker; and I judge that all who knew him believed that, if any man could, under the trying circumstances, deliver such a speech as Rose affirmed that he delivered in the Alamo on March 3d, 1836, Travis was the man. I do not doubt that, to one unaware of the known facts, it would seem a high pitch of absurdity to believe that, under such circumstances, any man could deliver such a speech. Yet it would seem more absurd to believe that one hundred and eighty men would stay in a fort, and die fighting in its defense, rather than surrender or retreat; yet more absurd that they would die without first mutually pledging their honor to do so; and equally absurd that any orator could, by a speech, induce them so to pledge themselves. But it would be far more absurd to believe that they would make this pledge without being induced to do so by such a speech. Nevertheless, we know that, whether such an appeal was made to them or not, and whether they so pledged themselves or not, they did stay, fight, and die. Knowing this, we must pronounce Rose's account of that speech and of that mutual pledge reasonable and credible.
Is it incredible that, when all the other men in that little garrison covenanted to stay there and fight to the death, Rose alone declined to do so, and resolved on an attempt to escape? I believe that a majority of men will admit that, if similarly situated, they might do as Rose professes to have done. Is it incredible that, to disencumber himself for descending from the top of the wall on the outside, he threw down his wallet of clothes, which fell into a puddle of blood, part of which adhered to some of his garments, and on drying glued them together? My mother saw her black servant-girl, Maria, take those garments out of the wallet and find them so glued. On leaving the fort, he did not attempt to go east through the Mexican army, by which he would have been killed or captured, but went west, through San Antonio; then south, down the San Antonio river, about three miles; then east, through the open prairie, to the Guadalupe river, carefully avoiding roads after leaving San Antonio, from fear of encountering Mexican scouts. Is this incredible? Any prudent man would have traveled the same route. Is it incredible that he saw no person in San Antonio; but, so far as he saw, all doors in the town were closed? The danger of the time was sufficient to cause the people of the town to keep themselves shut up in their houses. Is it incredible that, after leaving San Antonio, he saw no person till after crossing the Colorado, and only one family at home between the Colorado and the Brazos? His road down the San Antonio river did not then lead by any residence; nor did it till more than six years later. There were then no residences between San Antonio and the Guadalupe excepting a few ranches on the Cibolo, and avoiding roads he passed between these. All families on the Guadalupe had left on the “Runaway Scrape” excepting those of De Leon's Colony, which was below his route, and the people of Gonzales, which was above it. 9 After resting three days on the Guadalupe, and proceeding slowly, on account of his lameness, to the Colorado, he arrived at that river after nearly all the people between it and the Brazos had left home; and only one family remained on his route between those two rivers. I could name that family; but, for personal reasons, I prefer not to do so unless it shall become necessary. Is it incredible that, in his haste to get away from danger, he traveled all the first night out, but was bewildered and made but little progress? Is it incredible that, in his attempt to travel during that night, his legs were gored by hundreds of the large cactus thorns which abound in that region? Is it incredible that he did not take leisure to relieve himself of them till they had worked so deep into his flesh that he could not bear the pain of drawing them out? My parents drew those thorns from his legs with nippers. Is it incredible that he crossed rivers by rolling seasoned logs into the streams, seating himself upon them, and paddling across with his hands? Other men who could not swim have done so, and why not he? Is it incredible that, after traveling two days without food and being hungry, sore, lame, and weary, he rested three days at an abandoned house at which he found plenty of provisions? Is it incredible that he rested during some time with the only family that he found at home west of the Brazos? Is it incredible that two unknown men, professing to live in Nacogdoches, spent a night with that family, and, when about to leave, drew the landlord out where Rose could not hear them and told him that they knew Rose to be an impostor, who had never seen the Alamo, and advised him to send him away immediately? The landlord told many persons that they did so. It is not incredible that honorable men residing at Nacogdoches would then be traveling in that abandoned region, from which the Texas army was retreating, and to which the Mexican army was advancing. Had their purpose been, as they professed, to confer a favor upon the landlord, they would have tendered their advice in Rose's presence. What could they have intended? The only conceivable object was to gain the landlord's favor, and thereby to save their bill for accommodations. Is it incredible that the landlord did as those tramps advised him to do? It is surprising, yet true. He, as well as Rose, said that he did so; and he said so boastingly to many persons. Is it incredible that a man of very tender sensibility was so wounded and discouraged by such treatment that he resolved never again to say that he had been in the Alamo? Such a resolve was foolish, and injurious to himself, yet he said that he had made it, and I believe that generally he had stood to it. Is is not most probable that his subsequent reticence on this subject was what prevented his statement from being inserted in the early histories of Texas? Is it incredible that, his rash resolve notwithstanding, when he found friends who had seen his name on a partial list of the heroes of the Alamo, who believed his report, and who kindly ministered to his affliction, he, at their request, narrated to them his escape and journey to their residence? Finally, is it incredible that, yielding to their importunities, he repeated his story to them till they knew it by heart?
Now, I have directed attention to about all the notable items of Rose's narrative. And when they are compared, which one of them is absurd or incredible? To my mind, every statement therein is reasonable and credible; yet to some minds his story may seem too much like truth to be accepted as such.
My writing down of Rose's narrative was incidental to a more important purpose, which was to preserve the substance of Colonel Travis's speech to his fellow-heroes of the Alamo, on March 3d, 1836. Rose's disconnected recitals of that speech, my mother's repetition of them to me, and my many rewritings of the same, by which I compiled the disconnected parts into a connected discourse, all are explained in my account of the adventures of Rose, in the revised edition of Mrs. Pennybacker's History of Texas for Schools, pp. 183-188, especially pp. 187-188. The speech itself, as compiled by me, fills a foot-note in the same book, pp. 139-140. The first issue of the revised edition contains one misprint, p. 139, which has been corrected in subsequent issues. It represents Travis as saying that the enemy outnumbered the defenders “two to one.” The correction is “twenty to one.”
Now, I think I have fully explained this affair; and what is the conclusion? One of two hypotheses is evidently a fact. Rose's statement is either true or false. If it be false, who fabricated it? The guilt would rest upon one of three persons; that is, upon Rose, upon my mother, or upon myself. Rose, being illiterate, could not possibly have manufactured what is represented to be Travis's speech. I do not believe that my mother could have done so, if she would; and I am sure that she would not. I do not know that I could have done so, if I would, and I would not have perpetrated such a fraud,—to save my own life. My sole purpose was to perpetuate the memory of what I knew to be of great historical importance; that is, the substance of Colonel Travis's speech to his comrades in the Alamo, and to show how I learned it. If I have succeeded, I have done well; and, if I have failed, I enjoy the consolation of knowing that my failure is in a just and truthful cause. If the present generation and posterity refuse to do me justice, God will award it to me in the day of final account. But I am not distressingly anxious for what the world may say about my veracity, for I believe that my reputation as a truthful man is well established; and, even should I be mistaken on this point, I have a clear conscience, and this is better than all things else on earth.
I was born in Kentucky, Madison county, September 15th, 1792, being the youngest son of seven. My father died when I was quite young, and my mother moved to Tennessee in my sixteenth year, and settled in Red Fork County, near Shelbyville. We were very poor.
In my twentieth year, I married an orphan girl, named Temperance. I was still poor. I made rails for a jack-leg blacksmith, and had him to make me three knives and forks, and I put handles to them. My wife sold the stockings she was married in—made by her own hands—for a set of plates, and spun and wove cloth for sheets and tick for feathers. I traded for a small piece of land, and then we were ready for housekeeping. We used gourds for cups.
In my twenty-second year, I went into the war of 1812. John Hutcheson was my captain, and Col. John Coffee commanded the brigade. During this campaign I contracted a disease, and the physicians advised me to seek a warmer climate.
I started with nine families besides my own, and settled on Red River, at Pecan Point. From there I went to the interior of Texas, stopping for a few months where Independence now is. I had three horses, and brought what I could on them, my wife bringing her spinning wheel, and weaving apparatus.
We got out of bread before we stopped. Being too feeble to hunt, I employed an old man to keep me in meat. I had fixed up a camp, so that my family could be comfortable. My man failed to kill a deer, and we were out of food for two days. At last I heard one of my children say, “I am so hungry.” I had been lying there hoping to hear the old man's gun. I was too feeble to hunt, but I got up and began to fix my gun slowly. I listened all the time for the old man's gun. I didn't feel as though I could walk, but I started on my first hunt. I had not gone far when I saw two deer, a fawn and its mother. I shot the fawn first, knowing the doe would not run far, then I shot and killed her. “Oh ho!” said I, “two deer in one day, and my first hunt!” I took the fawn to camp to my hungry children, and took William, my oldest boy, and a horse after the doe. My wife had dressed a skin and made William a shirt, but it lacked one sleeve, so she dressed the fawn skin that day and made the other sleeve.
It was while camped at Independence that I saw my first Indian. I went out to kill a deer and had killed one and was butchering it, when an Indian came up and wanted to take it from me. I would not let him have it, but got it on my back the best I could and started for camp. The Indian began to yell, I suppose for help, but I would have died rather than give the deer up. I thought if there was only one I would put my knife in him and save my gun for another. I walked along as fast as I could, he pulling at the deer and making signs that he wanted it on his back. I could not put it down to rest, so I walked into a gully and rested it on a bank, the Indian all the time making frightful threats and grimaces. Oh, but I was mad! When I got to camp it was full of Indians, and every one had been dividing meat with them. I told them I would not give them a piece to save my life, and that if that Indian came about me I'd kill him.
I stayed in that camp four or five months, and then moved down on the Colorado to what is now the John Holman plantation. It was the league that Austin had surveyed for me, my name being the thirteenth on the list of Austin's colony. All the colony had moved further down, so it was the highest upon the river of any of the settlements, and most exposed to Indians. All my neighbors moved down for protection, and at last I had to go, but did not stay long. I went back and built me a block house to fight from. It was at this place I had my trouble with the Indians in recovering the horses they tried to carry off. 11
We were still out of bread, and it had been nine months since we had seen any. A man from lower down the country came up and told me that he had corn that he had planted with a stick. There were no hoes nor plows in the Colony. I gave him a horse for twenty bushels and went sixty miles after it with two horses, and brought eight bushels back. I walked and led my horse. I had prepared a mortar before I left home to beat it in, and a sieve made of deer skin stretched over a hoop and with holes punched in it. I had always young men about me for protection, and they would generally beat the corn. Then we would have to be very saving, of course, and were allowed only one piece of bread around.
During the time I was without bread, a man stayed all night with us who had just come to the country. He had some crackers and gave the children some. My son took his out in the yard, made him a little wagon and used the crackers for wheels.
Our honey we kept in a deer skin, for we had no jars, jugs, nor cans. I would take the skin off a deer whole, except having to cut it around the neck and legs, and would tie the holes up very tight. Then I would hang it up by the fore legs, and we had quite a nice can, which we always kept pretty well filled.
About this time my oldest daughter's dresses were worn out before we could get any cotton to spin, and she wore a dress of dressed buckskin. I never wore a deer skin shirt, though there were many that did. I had pants and a hunting shirt made of deer skin. My wife colored the skin brown and fringed the hunting shirt, and it was considered the nicest suit in the Colony.
At one time while in the camp at Independence, I had but six loads of powder. A traveler stopped at my camp, and I asked him if he had any. He said he had. I had a Mexican dollar that Colonel Groce gave to one of the children for dried buffalo meat. He asked me if I would sell him some. I told him no, but he could take as much as he wanted. But, not wishing to accept in that way, he gave one of the children the dollar. I gave it to the traveler and told him to give me as much as he could, for I was nearly out and did not know where to get any. He asked for a teacup and filled it about two-thirds full. At one time I had twelve loads and killed eleven deer with them.
You ask me to tell you about taking the man's leg off. 12 I was living on the Colorado at that time. His name was Parker, and he lived on the opposite side of the river. His leg was terribly diseased, and he begged us to cut it off two months before we consented. One day he sent for me. I went over, and he took hold of my hand with both his and said, “Oh, have you come to take my leg off?” I said “Yes, I have come to do anything you want me to do.” “That is right,” he said. “If I die I don't want to take it with me.” So Tom Williams, Kuykendall, Bostick, and I undertook the job with a dull saw and shoe knife, the only tools we had. I heated and bent a needle to take up the arteries with. I was to have the management of it and hold the flesh back, Tom Williams was to do the cutting of the flesh, Bostick to saw the bone, and Kuykendall to do the sewing. I took his suspenders off and bandaged the leg just above where we wanted to cut. I put a hair rope over the bandage, put a stick in it, and twisted it just as long as I could; then I was ready to begin operations. When Mr. Kuykendall began to sew it he trembled, so I took the needle and finished it. Parker rested easy for several days; but the third day he complained of his heel hurting on the other leg, and the eleventh day he died. 13
The first fight we had with the Indians was at Skull Creek. We were commanded by Bob Kuykendall, who had eighteen men in the fight. We killed fourteen Indians and wounded seven, who afterwards went and complained to the general government. We lost not a man. I killed one and wounded two. 14
I served as lieutenant under Kuykendall, and after two or three months took his place as captain.
The next fight with the Indians I had was in the recovery of some horses at what is now known as the John Holman plantation, where I first settled on the Colorado. There were seven families living above, who were compelled to move further down into the settlements. They were stopping with me, and the horses belonged principally to them. The Indians had been concealed in the bottom waiting for an opportunity to steal horses. One morning at daylight, three Indians were seen driving horses by a man living with me. They were aiming for the head of the prairie on Williams's Creek. He ran in and gave the alarm, before I was out of bed. I had William, my oldest son, to saddle my horse, which I always kept secure, while I got ready. My horse was very fast, and he was the only one left. I mounted him, taking a pair of holster pistols and a rifle. The Indians were in sight when I started, and they were three-quarters of a mile from the house when I overtook them, in plain view of my family and those who were camped there at the time. I ran up within forty yards of them, dismounted, and attempted to fire on them; but they jumped about so that it was impossible to get a true shot at them, still driving the horses before them. I again mounted and pursued them.
By this time the Indians that had remained in the bottom joined them, making twelve in number. Seeing my only resort was to stampede the horses, I made a charge, yelling and shooting at the same time. The Indians stopped and prepared for me, thinking I would run through them, as the Mexicans always did. Attention being drawn from the horses, they turned towards home, as I expected. No sooner was this done than I charged in between them and the Indians. They fired one gun and a number of arrows, but none hit me. I succeeded in recapturing the horses, eight in number.
In 1824, I was informed by Captain White, an old trader who ran a small vessel, that there were Indians at the mouth of the Colorado river. He lived at La Bahia, and had started from there, and embarked at Port Lavaca in his little boat loaded with salt to trade for corn. He steered up the Colorado to what is called the Old Landing, two miles from the mouth. The Carankawaes were camped there, and they requested him to stop on his return with corn, as they wanted to trade with him. After landing he left a Mexican and a little boy in charge of his boat. He went up Peach Creek to the Kincheloe settlement in search of corn. There he told of the Indians' being at the mouth of the river. These Indians were hostile to the whites. The settlers sent a runner to me, sixty miles above. I received the news as I was on my way to the field to plow. Taking my harness off and putting my saddle on, I was ready in about a half hour. Having but two neighbors near me I left them, and went to Judge Cummings', fifteen miles below on my route. From this settlement I took half the men, which was seven, leaving the others to watch the Wacoes. I always left half the men at home for protection. I then went to the Kincheloe settlement, and took five from there, which made my number twelve, White in the meantime had exchanged his salt for corn, the corn to be delivered and the salt to be received at the boat. So we started on our march with a sack of corn apiece on our horses, having sixty miles to go. We camped after leaving Kincheloe's at Jenning's camp, where Captain Rawls joined me with twelve men. He had gone to the assistance of Captain Jones on the Brazos. On his return to Kincheloe's settlement he heard that I had left there with only twelve men. He never unsaddled, but came on and overtook me at the place mentioned.
Next morning I started, expecting to go to where White had landed that night. Knowing I would be seen in the daylight, I waited in the postoaks until dark, then marched on, traveling twenty miles to reach the landing. We were very sleepy and tired, after traveling one hundred and twenty miles.
White was to inform the Indians of his return by making a camp-fire, a signal used by them. He gave the signal just at day-light. I left twelve of my men at the boat, for fear the Indians might come in a different direction, while I took the other half and went afoot down the river, to the Indians' landing place, about a hundred yards below where White had landed to wait for them.
About half an hour by sun the Indians came rowing up the river, very slowly and cautiously as though they expected some danger. The river banks were low, but with sufficient brush to conceal us.
Just as they were landing, I fired on them, which was intended as a signal for my men to fire. My signal shot killed one Indian, and in less than five minutes we had killed eight. The other two swam off with the canoe, which they kept between them and us; but finally one of them received a mortal wound from one of my men named Eray, 15 who took rest on my shoulder while I took hold of a bush to steady myself, and as one of the Indians raised his head to guide the canoe he received the shot. I returned home without the loss of a man.
White wanted to go down the river, so I sent some of my men with him for fear he would be molested by the remainder of the Indians. Three men went with him until they thought him out of danger, and then came back. He was taken after they left him, but through the entreaties of the Mexicans who were with him, he was turned loose. 16
HISTORIAN, DAUGHTERS OF THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS.
The following is a brief sketch of the life of one whose best years were spent at the capitals of Texas, and whose distinguished service as a military man was equaled by his efficiency in the civil service of the Republic of Texas.
Joseph Daniels was born in Boston, Massachusetts, July 26th, 1809. He went to New Orleans, Louisiana. in 1830, and there raised the first military company made up wholly of Americans ever organized in the city. It was called the Louisiana Greys, and he was its first lieutenant, a man named Brush being captain.
When, after the battle of San Jacinto, General Sam Houston, wounded, went to New Orleans, Lieutenant Daniels was detailed to go with his company to meet the general, and escort him to the city. This was the first meeting of the two men, whose acquaintance cemented into the warm friendship which lasted with their lives. The admiration which young Daniels felt for General Houston induced him to follow him to Texas, which he did in 1837, settling first at Houston, then the capital of the Republic.
On the 9th of November, 1838, he was appointed captain of the Milam Guards. His commission was signed by Sam Houston, President, and Geo. W. Hockley, Secretary of War. He remained for two years in Houston, and then, becoming attached to the service of the government of the Republic (holding various positions—chief clerk of the General Land Office under Col. Thos. Wm. Ward at one time, and at another acting postmaster general), he removed his residence with the seats of government to Austin, to Washington-on-the-Brazos, and thence to Austin again.
While in the latter city he became captain of the Travis Guards, and was also appointed aid-de-camp to the executive with the rank of colonel of cavalry, his commission being signed by Sam Houston, President, and Wm. C. Hamilton, Acting Secretary of War, December 5th, 1844.
In June, 1846, Captain Daniels was appointed assistant quartermaster U. S. A., with rank of captain on the staff of Gen. John A. Quitman. He served as aid to that general in the battles of San Augustine, Coyoacan Batteries, Chapultepec, and Mexico, and was brevetted for gallant and meritorious conduct in the battles of Contreras and Cherubusco.
August 28th, 1847, General Quitman's division was the first to enter the City of Mexico after its capture, and as the quartermaster Major Daniels made all the public seizures, some of which were of great value. He resigned at the close of the war and went to San Francisco, California, where he died May 25th, 1886, at the age of 76 years and 10 months.
Major Daniels left a widow and two children, having been married October, 1839, to Ann Van Versel, of New Orleans, Louisiana. The marriage took place in Houston, Texas, where the only surviving daughter, Josephine F., was born. Three other children died in infancy, and Sam Houston, named after his father's old friend, was born after the removal to California.
The family history of Major Daniels is mingled with the beginnings of colonial independence in New England, and the strong Southern character of his wife, together with their long residence in Louisiana and Texas made them and their family representative of the best of the old South, forming a part of a circle of California society at once distinctive and distinguished.
The son and daughter maintain a deep reverence and love for the old ideals bequeathed to them. Josephine F. Daniels has been a member of the Daughters of the Republic of Texas from the first year of the society's organization, always testifying her zeal in the furtherance of objects for which the association was formed. Sam Houston Daniels has long held a highly responsible position in the Bank of California. A business man of the first ability, he takes an active interest in all questions of public importance, and is a member of the patriotic associations, “Sons of Pioneers” and “Sons of the Golden West,” who commemorate the lives and services of the California pioneers and important events of the history of the State.
Among the papers of Major Daniels were found a number of army orders issued to him while captain of the Milam Guards, which illustrate the nature of the service of this company in times of danger from Indians. On November 9th, 1838, Mr. Daniels received his commission as captain of the company he had organized and drilled. In the Telegraph and Texas Register of October 27th, 1838, is the following notice:
“The President arrived in the city on Monday last. He was escorted into the city by the Milam Guards. Their commander, Capt. Daniels, has gained much credit for his untiring exertions in behalf of the company, and is reputed one of the best drill officers in the country.”
The following orders show that the company was immediately called into service, and they also help to throw light on its movements:
Ordnance Dept., Houston, 14th Nov., 1838. To Capt. Daniels.
Sir: You are hereby authorized to take possession of any public arms you may find in the hands of the citizens of this place.
Robt. Olmer, Capt. of Ord'ce.
Headquarters near McCurley's, Nov. 29th, 1838. (By express.) To Capt. Joseph Daniels, Commanding Milam Guards.
Sir: By order of Gen. Baker I am directed to rendezvous on the Little Brazos at the house of Jesse Webb, 20 miles above Nashville. You will repair to that post with all possible diligence. It is unnecessary to urge dispatch to a soldier.
You will pass through a country infested with small bands of Indians, and it will be necessary to use every precaution to prevent them from stealing horses.
By order of Geo. W. Bonnell, Major Commanding.
Headquarters, Nacogdoches, Dec. 2d, 1838. Capt. Joseph Daniels.
Sir: You will march the Milam Guards to Fort Houston 17 and take command of that post, where you will be joined by the company under the command of Capt. Box. Immediately after your arrival at Fort Houston you will send out spies and ascertain where the enemy is, and if not found in numbers over one hundred you will give them battle. You will use the greatest precaution in the event the enemy is to be found to collect all the force you can. You will, if it is found necessary, order Capt. Worthem's company to join.
Yours respectfully, K. H. Douglass, Brig. Gen'l 3rd Brigade, T. M. P. S.—You will draw from Fort Luz Beef to last 100 men 20 days. K. H. D.
Brigade Order.
Houston, Jany. 8th, 1839. To Capt. Joseph Daniels of the Milam Guards.
Sir: With the company under your command you will march forthwith to the Falls of the Brazos 18 and there station yourself, for the purpose of giving protection to the frontier against Indian depredations.
You will daily send out flankers to the right and left of your position for the purpose of discovery, and you will exercise all the diligence and vigilance which a soldier's pride should always call forth, and which I am sure you will not be wanting in.
You will be as economical as possible, and not consume more of the provisions of that section of the country than necessity shall imperiously require.
You will report as often as convenient your progress in the object contemplated. The destiny of upper Brazos is in a measure committed to the custody of the Milam Guards, and I am sure they will return from the discharge of that duty with the gratitude of the people as their reward.
Your Obdt., Moseley Baker, Gen. 2nd Brigade. A. M. Tomkins, Aid.
Camp Arnold, Banks of the Navasota, January 14th, 1839. To Capt. J. Daniels of the Milam Guard.
Sir: In compliance with an order from you of this date to summon twelve of the Milam Guards to act as jurors in investigating the circumstances attending the death of our unfortunate friend and brother soldier, Sergeant Robt. Hamet Breedin, I have the honor to report that I have performed said duty by appointing John Chenoweth, O'Neill, Wm. G. Evans, Lewis Way, Lyman Tarbox, Best, James Duncan, Lee, Joseph Wells, Thomas Waters, Joseph Little and Jno. E. Jones said jury, and by submitting the following evidence elicited at the inquest, together with the verdict rendered in accordance therewith.
Very respectfully, yr. obt. serv't, Jos. C. Eldredge, 1st Sergeant Milam Guards.
Jury Room, Jan. 14th, 1839.
A jury having been empaneled and duly sworn by Capt. Jos. Daniels of the Milam Guards for the purpose of ascertaining the manner and circumstances attending the death of Sergt. R. Hamet Breedin proceeded to the examination of the following witnesses:
Wm. T. Carter being duly sworn, testified as follows: “I, together with Patrick D. Cunningham, was in charge of the packmules, and at the time of the accident was in advance of the company, and had stopped at the roadside to let our horses graze and to light a pipe. We dismounted, and I asked Mr. Cunningham twice if his gun was loaded; he replied that it was not. He then laid his rifle in the hollow of his right arm, and primed it. I had a piece of rag rubbed with powder in my hand ready to light. I was facing Mr. Cunningham with my back to the road when the explosion took place. I turned around and saw Sergt. Breedin in the act of falling from his horse. I ran up and caught him in my arms, and called him twice by his name, but he did not speak. His face was from me, so that I could not see whether he made an attempt to do so. I laid him on the ground, and in less than five minutes he was dead. I heard no words pass between Sergt. Breeden and Mr. Cunningham; had halted about ten minutes when Sergt. B. rode up. He had his back toward us, about fifteen paces distant, and I deem his death to have been purely accidental.”
Battinger being called and duly sworn, testified as follows: “Sergt. Beedin, Carter, Cunningham and myself were somewhat in advance of the company. Carter and Cunningham dismounted. I was perhaps sixty yards distant, and heard them speaking of making a fire, but not Breedin. Heard Carter ask Cunningham if his gun was loaded. I did not hear Cunningham reply or pass a word with Sergt. Breedin. Immediately after I heard the explosion I turned and saw Carter catch Breedin as he was falling from his horse in his arms and laid him on the ground. I then ran up and found him dead. I did not hear him speak a word.”
Patrick D. Cunningham, being called, stated as follows: “I was in advance of the company driving the pack-mules; stopped with Carter to light a pipe. Carter asked me if my rifle was loaded. I told him no; had forgotten at the time that it was loaded, but since recollect that I fired it off last evening and loaded it again this morning to shoot some game, but before I had primed it the game flew, and I was ordered to assist in packing mules, laid down my rifle and so forgot about its being loaded. Sergeant Breedin rode up a few minutes before the rifle went off. I was holding it in the hollow of my left arm, having just primed, snapped it for the purpose of lighting a rag held by Mr. Carter, when it went off, and I saw Sergt. Breedin falling from his horse. I never had an angry word or dispute with Sergt. Breedin.”
The foregoing is the evidence given before the jury at an inquest held on the body of Sergeant R. H. Breedin this day.
(Signed) John Chenoweth, Foreman. Jos. C. Eldridge, Clerk. We, the jury, find that Sergeant Robert Hamet Breedin, of the Milam Guards, came to his death by the accidental discharge of a rifle in the hands of Patrick D. Cunningham. John Chenoweth, Foreman.
By the 21st of February, 1839, the Milam Guards seem to have been again in Houston, as shown by the following receipt:
Houston, Feby. the 21st, 1839.
Rec'd of J. W. White, Lieut. of the Milam Guards, sixteen Public Horses and two Mules in Low order, also six Sadels and Bridels and Two Blankets.
P. Caldwell, Q. Master.
On February 24th, of the same year, Captain Danlels received the following:
Houston, Texas, February 24th, 1839. To Joseph Daniels, Esq.
Sir: You are hereby appointed a captain in the first regiment of infantry in the Texian army, and will receive your Commission as soon as the same is ratified by the Senate at their next Session. In the meantime you will discharge faithfully the duties devolving on you as such, and will be obeyed and respected accordingly.
By Order of the President, Mirabeau B. Lamar.
Your obedient Servant, A. Sidney Johnston, Secretary of War.
The last document in my possession relating to the Milam Guards in connection with Captain Daniels is as follows:
Capt. Daniels of the Milam Guards will deliver to the order of Capt. Holliday twenty muskets belonging to the government.
Geo. W. Hockley, Col. Ord. Ord'n Department, 7th October, 1839.
On December 19, 1839, the Morning Star, a newspaper published at Houston, Texas, mentions that the Milam Guards are petitioning Congress for an act of incorporation, and says: “We trust their prayers may be granted. When the fierce savages of the East threatened death and ruin to the frontier settlers, they marched with promptitude to the rescue. Congress should encourage the organization of volunteer forces. * * * To Capt. Daniels and his brave comrades we wish success in their efforts.”
When Capt. Daniels entered the service of the government and removed from Houston, James Reilly became captain of the Milam Guards.
The following papers relate to Capt. Daniels's service as captain of the Travis Guards at Austin:
Republic of Texas, County of Travis.
By the authority of the Republic of Texas and the power vested in me as sheriff of said county, have this day summoned Captain Daniels to call out the Travis Guards to assist in arresting Castro and Flacco, chiefs of the Lappan tribe of Indians, and bring them before some justice of the peace to answer the charge of some of their tribe's having murdered one James Boyse on the 2nd inst.
A. C. Macfarlane, Sheriff T. C. Austin, October 3rd, 1841.
Capt. D.
Sir: You will hold yourself in readiness until you hear from me, as I am going to see Castro and Flacco, and in case of any resistance I will send you a message, when you will proceed to the camp of the Indians, if not otherwise instructed.
Yours, A. C. Macfarlane.
Capt. J. Daniels, Travis Guards.
Dr. Sir: You will much oblige me by letting the bearer have five of the short Roman swords belonging to your company for the use of the Masonic procession.
Yours truly, George K. Teulan, Chairman Com. Arr. Austin, June 23rd, 1841.
Besides the actual service in the field performed by these two companies whenever the needs of the country required, they were to the front in all leading social functions. The newspapers of the day publish notices of military balls given to celebrate the battle of San Jacinto, and the journal of the Milam Guards contains the following resolution regarding such a ball: “And be it further resolved, that said ball shall be strictly a military ball, and none others than heads of families, the officers of army and navy will be invited except by special invitation of the committee on invitation. Adopted April 16, 1839. Jos. C. Eldridge, Sec. pro tem.”
It is probable that no period in the history of the United States, with the possible exception of that embracing the Civil War and its immediate causes, has monopolized so large a share of the attention of history writers and others as the period between 1840 and 1850, the leading events of which were the annexation of Texas and the Mexican War. The men and events of no period have been more persistently maligned and more recklessly distorted. The poison that permeates the larger histories carries unmistakable evidences of the ignorance and prejudice that darkened the minds of the authors. The smaller histories, and especially school histories, which for the most part are compiled from the material furnished by the larger histories, have, unintentionally, no doubt, as a rule, selected out many fragments that are real Trojan horses, and baleful in making impressions upon the minds of the young. I have recently examined two Southern school histories, which bear many evidences of having been dressed up to suit the sectional sentiment supposed to predominate in the South, with several doses of this poison extracted along with other matter.
The very strained and elaborate efforts made in the political campaign of 1844 to blacken the reputation of the Texas pioneer and his work as a nation builder, as well as the libelous defamation of statesmen and citizens of the United States, who actively, yet legitimately and honorably, aided in so great a consummation as the annexation of Texas, it would seem ought to have been consigned to the museum of the history of partisanship in this country, but such is not the case. The newspaper, the pamphlet, the speech, the sermon, the vituperation, the billingsgate that appealed to the baser passions of men from 1840 to 1850, have been exalted to the plane of history, and such men as Jackson, Calhoun, Houston, Polk and other illustrious statesmen are gathered in a group with the Texas pioneer, and they are summed up as swindlers, robbers, liars, thieves, cowards, adventurers, slavocrats, “foul mouthed tobacco-spurting Indian killers, demagogues and politicians hunting around to steal a slice of land suitable for slave labor.” 19 This forceful, if not elegant, characterization is expurgated before it reaches the school room.
The main end at which all the labor of this class of historians is aimed is to show, in the first place, that the annexation of Texas to the United States was the culmination of a deliberate scheme to enlarge the area of slavery, and was therefore a measure purely in the interests of the slaveholder. To establish this they hold up the Texas pioneer as a mere instrument in the hands of the slave-holder to make Texas a slave colony, and say that when Texas became large enough to make a respectable show of a rebellion, the revolution against Mexico was precipitated, the slaveholder furnishing the men and means requisite to the success of that revolution. And the effort has been to show, in the second place, that the immediate cause of the war in 1846 was the unwarranted and unprovoked invasion of Mexican territory, which forced Mexico, in self-defense, to attack United States forces and thus become technically responsible fot that war. 20
A very wide range of facts is drawn upon to establish these propositions—facts selected out from a great mass and grouped so as to give plausibility to their theories. To reply in detail to these would consume more than two entire issues of The Quarterly. In lieu thereof some general facts will be given, which will serve, in the main, as an answer to the whole.
As the annexation of Texas and its logical sequence, the acquisition of territory to the Pacific, was the second great step in the history of territorial expansion, a glance at the history of expansion in general in the United States will afford some light upon the attitude assumed in some sections against the measure.
Sectional jealousy is coeval with the history of the country. In the original formation of the Union it manifested itself in various ways. The purchase of Louisiana in 1803, however, was the culmination, in the eyes of New England, of a series of outrages in that section which justified extreme measures. To meet the argument that the larger part of the acquisition would be in the northern section of the Union, they said, “This will be formed into new States, and the South will use them to govern the East, until growing in numbers themselves, will combine to rule both the South and East. Under either set of rulers, New England is doomed.” Public meetings were held, resolutions adopted, and memorials prepared looking to the formation of a northern confederacy. New York was to be secured by the influence of Aaron Burr, who, as part of the scheme, became a candidate for governor of his State. His defeat, to take the lead in a similar scheme a year or two later, together with discouragements from the great mass of censervative citizens, put an end to the first effort at secession. The agitation, however, led to the preparation of a constitutional amendment restricting congressional representation of the Southern States to the actual number of the free white population. The proposition to submit it to the people passed the lower house by the aid of Southern votes, but failed to pass the Senate. 21
The fight on the Louisiana question, however, did not stop at this point. Every obstacle that partisan genius could invent was put in the way of establishing a territorial government over Louisiana. The same constitutional questions were raised by the Federalists of that day as are now raised by Democrats over our recent acquisitions, and the same answers made by the strict constructionists of that day as are now made by the loose constructionists.
Overcome at this point, the next opposition was to the admission of Louisiana as a State. Josiah Quincy, then representing Massachusetts in the United States Senate, and the leader of the opposition, again raised the secession flag, but the disadvantages of a minority and the overshadowing importance of the war with England soon relegated this opposition to the rear. 22
In the negotiations which led to the treaty of 1819, although John Quincy Adams was the especial champion of the claim of the United States to Texas, New England opposition to the acquisition of Florida was so extreme that President Monroe and the slave-holding members of his cabinet, as a concession to New England feeling, forced Mr. Adams to give up, not only Texas, but over 60,000 square miles of what was confessedly a part of the Louisiana purchase, and therefore a part of United States territory, so that more area was lost than gained by the Florida purchase and treaty of 1819, irrespective of any claim which the United States had to Texas proper. 23
Coming on down to the annexation of Texas, opposition arose from the same source, with John Quincy Adams, the former expansionist, in the lead. No invective was too strong, no vituperation too bitter, and no constitutional construction too strained for his opposition to the measure. Finding that the former efforts at secession were fruitless, Massachusetts now adopted the plan of South Carolina, and by legislative action solemnly nullified the acts of Congress, and unless recently repealed this nullification still stands as part of the law of Massachusetts. 24
The present attitude of Ex-Governor Boutwell, Senator Hoar, and Edward Atkinson upon the matter of expansion is therefore historically and geographically consistent.
To determine the question as to whether the early movements made towards the peopling of Texas were due to the inspiration of the slave holder, we need only note one or two or the formative influences of that period.
Moses Austin, in whose mind the colonization of Texas originated, was a Connecticut man, born and educated in that State. He came to Virginia and remained several years, but never engaged in planting. In his mining operations he imported English laborers. Just before the expiration of President Washington's last term, he left Virginia and went to Missouri, and there engaged first in mining, then in banking. When Missouri reached the necessary stage of development to entitle her to admission as a State into the Union, Austin, true to the instincts of the pioneer, left and came to Texas. His son, Stephen F. Austin, who succeeded him in his colonizing enterprise, was, like many Southern men of that day, an avowed opponent of the institution of slavery. The promulgation of the Monroe doctrine in 1823 was a virtual guaranty of the autonomy of Mexico, and the relations between that country and the United States at that time were of the friendliest character. Many individual citizens of the United States had aided Mexico in her revolution, and the Monroe doctrine was an especial sign of the friendship of the Northern republic. The result was the enactment of liberal colonization laws in terms inviting population to her borders. In response to this, besides Austin, a number of empresarios entered into contracts to bring in settlers. Of these, Robertson, DeWitt, Edwards, Milam, Thorn, and Chambers were from the slave holding States, and Burnet and Vehlein from the non-slave holding States; De Leon, Dominguez, Zavala, Filisola, and Padilla were Mexicans; Purnell, Drake, Exeter, Wilson, S. J. Wilson, and Beales were Englishmen; Cameron a Scotchman; and Powers, McMullen, and McGloin, Irishmen. The only empresarios who actually introduced permanent settlers into the State, besides Austin, were Robertson, De Witt, De Leon, Powers, and McMullen and McGloin. Those introduced into the colonies of the three first named constituted ninety per cent. of the population in 1835. Austin was a pioneer by inheritance and education. Robertson, though a native of North Carolina, was carried when a child to Tennessee by his father, who was the brother and partner of Gen. James Robertson, the founder of Nashville. De Witt was a native Kentuckian, but like Moses Austin, went to Missouri at an early day, and was a conspicuous factor in its development from a wilderness to a State. Austin's colonists were from all parts of the United States and the principal countries of Europe. As many as sixty families came to his colony at one time from the State of New York. The colonists of Robertson and De Witt were principally from Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri. As a rule, they were a race of pioneers, the boldest and most successful that had ever reclaimed any part of the great area of the United States. The pioneers of the North who crossed the Alleghanies were not able to cope with the savage in Ohio until Mad Anthony Wayne planted the flag in advance of the outermost settlements. As he pushed on to Indiana and Michigan, Wm. Henry Harrison performed the same service, and later on, Zachary Taylor cleared the wilderness of Illinois and Wisconsin. In the Southeast the same policy had to be pursued by the government of the United States in driving back the Seminoles, Creeks, and others, but the westward stream that started out from Virginia and the Carolinas crossed the Alleghanies and unaided drove out the savages, reclaimed the fertile territory of Kentucky and Tennessee, demanded an outlet through the Mississippi, spurred Mr. Jefferson to purchase Louisiana, crossed the Mississippi, settled Missouri and Arkansas and started them on their career as States in the Union, and from 1822 to 1836 struggled and fought in Texas against the greatest odds of any pioneer population in the history of the country.
This was the predominant element that gradually coalesced with kindred spirits from all climes and laid the political foundations of Texas. In the organization of the first government, David G. Burnet, a New Jersey man, was president, and Lorenzo De Zavala, of Mexico, vice-president. Maine gave Ebenezer Allen, the second attorney general, and Timothy Pilsbury, one of the first representatives both in the Texas and the United States Congress. From New Hampshire came Joshua Fletcher, first treasurer of the provisional government; from Vermont, Ira Ingram, first speaker of the Texas Congress, and Royal T. Wheeler, one of the first justices of the supreme court; from Massachusetts, Anson Jones, third president, and Asa Brigham, first treasurer of the Republic; from Connecticut, besides the Austins, Eliphalet M. Pease, comptroller, member of the legislature and governor, and Ashbel Smith, minister to Great Britain and France; from New York, Gail Borden, member of the Consultation, Jno. P. Borden, first commissioner of the general land office, Thomas H. Borden and Francis A. Moore, editors and proprietors of the quasi official newspaper of the Republic, Louis P. Cook, second secretary of the navy, Erastus Smith, Thos. J. Pilgrim, and others conspicuous in the various walks of life; from Pennsylvania, S. Rhoads Fisher, first secretary of the navy, David S. Kaufman, several times speaker of the lower house of Congress and one of the first two members for Texas in the United States Congress; from Ohio, Governor Robinson and General Sydney Sherman; from Indiana, John Rice Jones, postmaster general; from Illinois, M. B. Menard; while from Great Britain and Germany there were Cameron, Ward, Linn, Erath, and numerous others prominent both in civil and military affairs.
The leading Mexicans in Texas were also in full sympathy with the revolution, Navarro and Seguin being among the most prominent. The latter commanded a company at San Jacinto which responded with enthusiasm to the battle cry “Remember the Alamo.”
The constitution of the Republic of Texas is a model of its kind, and it is said that Daniel Webster characterized it as having no superior, and no equal save the constitution of the United States. Imprisonment for debt was abolished fifteen years in advance of any legislation by the United States Congress in that direction. A homestead law was enacted, which has been the model for all the States of the Union to pattern after. In property rights the wife was made equal with the husband, and many other laws may be cited as showing advanced and enlightened statesmanship.
The first efforts of the people in 1832 and 1833 to secure separate statehood have been grossly misrepresented. 25 The political machinery of the dual State of Coahuila and Texas was wholly unsuited to a republican form of government. So late as 1834, there were but two representatives in the congress of that State from Texas, pretending to represent a population scattered over 200,000 square miles of area, and widely diversè in race, education, and political traditions. There were Mexicans at Nacogdoches, San Antonio, and Goliad; Irish at Refugio and San Patricio; and Americans in the central, southern, and eastern portions of what is now the State, pursuing different occupations and having different wants, all with a capital over a thousand miles distant, with no railroad nor telegraph, nor even well defined roads, having department chiefs with undefined powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, and a suffrage system so hampered as to render it useless, no laws being published and distributed among the masses. These were but a few of the many insuperable obstacles to the maintenance of a republican government in the dual State of Coahuila and Texas.
The revolution which began in Texas in 1835 owed its existence to causes not confined to Texas. The movement was quite general throughout Mexico, but in those States nearest to the national capital the presence of an organized military force under the direction of Santa Anna rendered actual resistance useless. Zacatecas made a bold stand, but her defeat was so crushing as to put the whole population of Mexico at the feet of the usurper. Coahuila was in a state of anarchy, and under the power of one of Santa Anna's generals, and it remained for Texans either to abandon their homes and fly across the Sabine, or to remain and resist. They did the latter, not as a separate and independent sovereignty, but as a State under the Mexican flag. The heroes of the Alamo perished fighting under that flag, and while the declaration of independence was being adopted in convention at Old Washington Santa Anna was held in check at San Antonio by Travis and his men. These aspects of the Texas revolution seem to have been ignored by so careful a historian as Woodrow Wilson.
Two attempts had been made by John Quincy Adams, and one in the early part of General Jackson's administration, to purchase Texas from Mexico, neither of which was inspired by the residents of Texas.
After the battle of San Jacinto the policy of anexation was generally favored in Texas, but the overtures of Texas met with no favorable response in the United States. As Texas grew in population and wealth the annexation sentiment grew in the United States, but it took no practical shape until after Mexico made two feeble and ineffectual attempts to invade Texas in 1842. A successful defense of her territory against all attempts at reconquest, and the maintenance of a well organized civil government from 1836 on in the minds of many justified a recognition of her status as an independent sovereignty. The United States and the leading countries of Europe had treated her as such, and in 1843 an anexation treaty was proposed, which was vehemently opposed by New England, with John Quincy Adams in the lead. The United States was officially notified by Mexico that such a step would be regarded as a cause for war. 26 This threat afforded the Whigs an excuse for opposing annexation, and that party as a mass resisted the measure. The result was that when it was submitted to Congress, in 1844, it was defeated by a decisive vote. From this action of Congress the friends of annexation appealed to the people, and the issue of annexation overshadowed all others in that notable campaign which resulted in the election of Mr. Polk to the presidency. An analysis of that vote, by States, will show that it was neither a Northern nor Southern nor a slaveholder's movement. The non-slaveholding States of Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan, with an aggregate white population of 6,201,991 (census of 1840), voted for it, while the non-slaveholding States of Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Ohio, with an aggregate white population of 3,281,401, voted against it. The slaveholding States of Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri, with an aggregate white population of 2,489,358, voted for it, while the slaveholding States of Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky, with an aggregate white population of 2,092,515, voted against it. This result, too, was in spite of the fact that Henry Clay, than whom no statesman in the history of the United States ever had a larger personal following, was at the head of the opposition. The campaign literature of that day shows that the main argument used throughout the United States, outside of New England, against annexation, was that the annexation of Texas would necessarily result in Mexico's waging war. This is significant in considering further on which nation was responsible for the Mexican war.
In view of this sentiment in the United States, another treaty was prepared late in 1844. When news of this reached the ears of the Mexican minister at Washington, he promptly notified the authorities that “Should the United States commit the unheard of attempt (inaudite atentado) of appropriating to themselves a portion of Mexican territory he would demand his passport and his country would declare war.” 27 In other words, if Texas was annexed, or attempted to be annexed to the United States, Mexico would declare war. The resolution to annex Texas did pass both houses of Congress, and the minister as promptly demanded his passports and left the country. It is well to note at this juncture that the United States was the first country to recognize the independence of Mexico as a republic, and to establish diplomatic relations with her; and that Spain did not acknowledge the independence of Mexico until sixteen years after independence was actually won, but chose to regard her as a revolting province. This was the attitude of Spain and Mexico when San Jacinto was fought. Following the example of her mother country, Mexico refused to acknowledge Texas independence and chose to regard her as a revolting province; hence Almonte's reference to it as a part of the territory of Mexico. In the mean time, however, Mexico had solemnly covenanted that she would, and she actually did, recognize the independence of Texas, upon condition that Texas would annex herself to no other country, and gave Great Britain and France as security for the permanent autonomy of Texas.
In view of the threatening aspect of affairs, President Polk (called by H. H. Bancroft, Von Holst, and that numerous class of historians, “Polk the Mendacious”) referred in his message of December 2, 1845, to the situation in the following clear and succinct statement: “Texas has declared her independence and maintained it by her arms for more than nine years. She has had an organized government in successful operation during that period. Her separate existence as an independent state has been recognized by the United States and the principal powers of Europe. Treaties of commerce and navigation had been concluded by different nations, and it had become manifest to the whole world that any further attempt on the part of Mexico to conquer her, or overthrow her government, would be vain. Even Mexico herself had become satisfied of this fact, and while the question of annexation was pending before the people of Texas, the government of Mexico, by a formal act, agreed to recognize the independence of Texas on condition that she would not annex herself to any other power. The agreement to acknowledge the independence of Texas, with or without this condition, is conclusive against Mexico. The independence of Texas is a fact, conceded by Mexico herself, and she has no right or authority to prescribe restrictions on the form of government which Texas might afterwards choose to assume.”
New England was now ablaze with excitement. The legislature of Massachusetts solemnly nullified the annexation resolutions, as before stated, and every form of opposition, except open rebellion, was manifested throughout that region, and others that caught the contagion.
The Mexican minister left Washington on the 7th of March, four days after the approval of the resolutions by President Tyler. When the news reached Mexico, that country was excited from center to circumference. On the 29th of the same month their Congress decreed a large loan to meet the expenses of what they termed “the impending war.” The condition of affairs was officially announced to the nation, and the people were summoned to arms in defence of their rights and honor. On the 4th of June the President issued his proclamation, stating that Mexico would oppose annexation with all the strength at her command, and would put into the field the whole strength of the army. On the 12th of July Condé, the war minister, issued a circular letter announcing that the government had decided on a declaration of war, and on the 16th he ordered the filling up of contingents of troops “for the war which she wages against the United States.”
In the meantime Texas was arranging her part of the annexation. A special session of her Congress was called to meet June 16th, and on the 23rd it accepted the terms and called a convention of the people to meet July 4th, ratify annexation, and to frame a constitution. This was done with but one dissenting voice. The United States had not yet sent a soldier west of the Sabine, but in view of the threats of Mexico, the commands then on the western border of Louisiana, where they had been stationed since 1819, were filled out so as to reach 1500 men.
On the 20th of July the supreme government of Mexico decided, with the unanimous consent of the council, that “From the moment when the supreme government shall know that the development of Texas has annexed to the American Union or that troops from the Union have invaded it, it shall declare the nation at war with the United States.” 28
On the 12th of August, Gen. Taylor's troops arrived at Corpus Christi.
Notwithstanding the war-like movements in Mexico in March, April, May, June, and July, the United States learned that Herrera, who was installed as president on the 16th of September, was willing to negotiate with a view of settling all matters in dispute. Accordingly, Consul Black was sent to him to ascertain whether Mexico would receive an envoy empowered to settle all matters in dispute between the two countries. Herrera was in the embarrassing position of being in favor of negotiating a peace, yet at the head of a government whose people were clamoring for war and denouncing as perfidy and treason all attempts to negotiate a peace. 29 As was natural in such a situation he answered evasively to the effect that Mexico would receive a “commissioner authorized to settle the present dispute in a peaceable, honorable and just manner,” whereupon President Polk sent John Slidell, who arrived at Mexico City on the 8th of December.
In the meantime the divisions of Paredes, Gaona, and Arista had been sent to the Rio Grande, or, as the Mexicans said, “to the front.” Paredes had proceeded on his way as far as San Luis Potosí, where he learned of the contemplated negotiations. He stopped his division and issued a pronunciamento announcing that he would reorganize the government on a military basis, and was on his way back to Mexico when Slidell arrived. Under such circumstances Slidell presented his credentials as envoy extraordinary; but the government refused to receive him, on the ground that he had not come as a commissioner to settle the present matter in dispute, but as an envoy authorized to settle all disputes. He remained in Mexico until Paredes arrived. On the 16th of December Paredes deposed Herrera, and after some ineffectual attempts at negotiation, Slidell returned to the United States. 30
Advised of these events General Taylor was adding to his forces at Corpus Christi, and getting things ready to resist the threatened invasion of Texas. In October the people of Texas ratified the new State Constitution, and the terms of annexation. In December Congress passed the act extending the United States laws over Texas, and on the 19th of February following the last formal act was performed which made Texas a State of the Union. Negotiations were at an end, and on the 12th of March General Taylor broke camp and started his army for the Rio Grande. This was the line chosen by Mexico as her front, rather than the Nueces. In his instructions to General Taylor, the President took the extra precaution to order him to act strictly on the defensive, and if he should find any occupied garrisons on the left branch of the Rio Grande to take all needful precautions against a hostile collision. He arrived opposite Matamoras in April, and immediately dispatched General Worth across the river with a courteous note addressed to the Mexican commander at Matamoras expressing the desire that the two armies maintain peaceable relations pending the settlement, by their respective civil authorities, of all matters in controversy between the two governments. The only reply to this was a curt note to the effect that his movements were considered as acts of war.
On the 12th of April, General Ampudia sent him a note peremptorily ordering him to move back across the Nueces, under penalty of immediate hostilities. 31
On the 26th of April a squadron of cavalry was ambushed and captured by some Mexican troops that had crossed the river, and with this and the siege of Fort Brown and the battle of Palo Alto on the 8th of May, the Mexican war was launched, the war which the historians before mentioned are handing down to us as the war of “Polk the Mendacious.”
According to the Mexican, New England, and whig theory, the boundary between the United States and Mexico was the Sabine, and therefore, the moment a United States soldier crossed the Sabine, Mexican territory was invaded, and the United States would be the aggressor. Santa Anna's announced purpose when he took charge was to drive the Gringos across the Sabine, but in actual practice the Rio Grande was, and for ten years previously had been, the extreme outpost of Mexico.
There never had been any dispute between Texas and Mexico as to a boundary line between them. Such a dispute would have been on the same plane as a dispute between Virginia and the United States as to whether the Potomac or Rappahannock was the boundary between that State and the United States. The recognition of such a dispute by Mexico would have been tantamount to an acknowledgment of the fact that Texas was sovereign, and therefore separate from Mexico, a concession of the only point at issue between Mexico and Texas.
The idea, so often expressed, especially in our school histories, that the Mexican war was occasioned by a dispute over the territory between the Nueces and Rio Grande was a political afterbirth, having only a very remote connection, if any at all, with the real cause of that war. It was a partisan invention of the enemies of annexation, used as a means of placing the responsibility for the war upon President Polk, and all that he represented in that brilliant epoch of American history. Once concede the fact that the country between the Nueces and the Rio Grande actually belonged to Mexico in 1845 and 1846, and all the odium which the most extreme partisans would cast upon the Southern people generally, and the old Texan in particular, immediately attaches.
If anything in the history of Mexico, Coahuila, Chihuahua, New Mexico, Tamaulipas, and Texas is well established, it is the fact that Texas had no definite, officially defined western boundaries prior to December 19, 1836, when she defined that boundary by act of her Congress. In the discussions of the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States over the compromise measures of 1850, with every known source of information available to the able and learned men who for days and weeks investigated the subject, no fact was brought out which showed that Texas had any well defined permanent boundaries on the west, nor had she any fixed boundaries on the east and north until the treaty of 1819 fixed them. The facts from which H. H. Bancroft, Von Holst, and a large majority of the leading historians of the United States indulge the presumption that the westward march of General Taylor from the Nueces to the Rio Grande was an invasion of Mexico involves a recapitulation of the history of the western boundary of Texas in so far as the same is accessible. The Constitution of the United States makes it the duty of the President, when there is threatened invasion, to mobilize troops and repel it. As Texas, after July, 1845, was to all intents and purposes, save the perfunctory acts necessary to adjust her governmental machinery to statehood, a State of the United States, President Polk would have been justified not only in ordering General Taylor to the Nueces, but to the Rio Grande and beyond. President Jackson, Lincoln, or Cleveland would have taken such a course at least five months sooner than President Polk did.
As the boundary question has been pushed to the front as a material matter among the causes of the Mexican war, and it has been assumed as a matter of fact that the Rio Grande was not the western boundary of Texas, and that all territory between that river and the Nueces was Mexican territory, a review of the history of the subject may not be out of place. It has received elaborate attention in speeches made in both houses of Congress, in newspapers, magazines and such pro hac vice productions as Jay's Review of the Mexican War. The discussion takes up several hundred pages of the Congressional Globe, and is marked by a research almost without parallel in the parliamentary history of the United States Congress, but in all these one will search in vain for any reference to any law, decree, order, treaty, or other official designation of the Nueces or any other western boundary of Texas. All the learning on the subject is based upon a common repute in sections remote from either river, a common repute by no means general except in so far as geographers made it so by making maps, which themselves were based upon hearsay testimony.
Taking this as a basis for determining whether or not Texas ever had any actual western boundary line prior to 1845, except such as was marked by the sword in the struggle with Mexico, we find— First.
That the Rio Grande was its ancient western boundary before it became a province of Spain, and continued to be the generally regarded boundary line up to the middle of the 18th century.
Second.That since that time the line had been variously regarded as at the Aransas, the San Antonio, the Medina, and the Nueces.
H. H. Baneroft, who has compiled probably the most elaborate history of Mexico extant, and who may be regarded as standard authority on that subject, when discussing questions free from the polar disturbance of the slavery issue, says, in Vol. I, History North Mexican States and Texas, on page 375, “Coahuila, in the 17th century, was the region north of 26° between the Bolson de Mapimi on the west and the Rio del Norte on the east.”
Writing of a later period he says (Ibid., p. 604): “Coahuila extended northeast across the Rio Del Norte, to the Medina, which was generally regarded as the boundary between that province and Texas.”
How, when, or by what authority the boundary line was moved from the Rio Grande to the Medina, he does not state; but, in a note, says: “This boundary is not a satisfactory one. * * * As a matter of fact there were no exact bounds, for none were needed. * * * Why the Medina, rather than the Nueces or Hondo, was generally spoken of as the boundary it is hard to determine.”
As Tamaulipas was not organized until after the middle of the 17th century, we have to rely upon the circumstances attending the subjugation of that region and its organization into a province to determine what was regarded as the boundary between that province and Texas.
In this connection it must be remembered that the local affairs of the provinces of Mexico under Spain were under the control of a tripartite government, ecclesiastical, civil, and military, first one and then another, particularly the military and ecclesiastical, performing all the functions of government. Their jurisdictions, functional and territorial, were different, and in speaking generally of divisional lines there is uncertainty as to which is meant, military, civil, or ecclesiastical.
When José de Escandon, a military subaltern at Querétaro, was commissioned to subjugate, settle, and organize the Tamaulipas region, the extent of his operations north confined him to a distance which took him to the Rio Grande. When he reached that point he stopped, but permitted Basterra, one of his captains, to go on to the Nueces. This officer went as far east as the Guadalupe river to the old mission, La Bahía del Espíritu Santo. He dismantled this mission and re-established it an Santa Dorotea (Goliad), on the San Antonio river. Accompanying his official report was a map, entitled “Colonia de Nuevo Santander,” 32 with that river as the eastern bounds of his province. From this circumstance the San Antonio river was regarded as the boundary, notwithstanding the fact that San Antonio, further up the same river, was and had been the capital of Texas since 1715. This continued to be regarded as the boundary until the Nueces was put down upon the maps as such, it is said, about the year 1805.
In 1833, Texas, which had been attached to Coahuila since 1824, petitioned the Mexican government for separate statehood, and now arose the first occasion for Mexico, as a republic, to officially consider the question.
Santa Anna commissioned Almonte, a man of wide learning, and his trusted adviser, to visit Texas and acquire such information as would enable him to intelligently consider and act upon the petition, and among other things to thoroughly explore and mark out a western boundary line.
The general features of Almonte's report are familiar to the student of Texas history. In the matter of a boundary he said: “Notwithstanding the fact that up to this time it has been believed that the Rio Nueces is the dividing line between Texas and Coahuila, 33 for it appears so on the maps, I am informed by the government that in this an error has been made by the geographers, and that the true line ought to commence at the mouth of the Aransas and run thence to its source; thence in a direct line to the confluence of the San Antonio with the Medina river, continuing thence up the left bank of the Medina to its source; thence in a straight line to the boundaries of Chihuahua.” 34
Almonte, in this definition of a boundary, ignores Tamaulipas, has Coahuila extending down to the mouth of the Aransas, makes the Nueces appear as an old boundary between Texas and Coahuila, and leaves more than one-half of the western part of Texas without a boundary,—all of which shows that the highest authorities in Mexico were totally ignorant of the actual geography of the country.
The petition of Texas was not granted, and this proposed boundary came to naught. It is cited as an illustration of the character of knowledge the most prominent Mexican officials had so late as 1835.
When the people of Texas determined, in 1835, to rid the country of the presence of the Mexican army, they made the Rio Grande their boundary, it being the most natural, the most convenient, and for nearly one hundred years the most generally recognized western boundary; and from December, 1835, up to the battle of Palo Alto, the evidence is well nigh conclusive that both Mexico and Texas regarded and treated it as the western boundary. In November, 1835, the Texans captured Fort Lipantitlan, the only garrisoned fort between the Nueces and Rio Grande. In December they captured San Antonio and a garrison of 1600 Mexican troops, and paroled them upon the condition, among others, that they leave Texas,—not by going beyond the Nueces, but beyond the Rio Grande. In April, 1836, they captured Santa Anna and the force immediately under him, and stipulated with him that his life (which had been forfeited by the Goliad massacre) should be spared, and the bulk of his army be permitted to retire, unmolested, across the Rio Grande, which in future should be the recognized western boundary of Texas. It is true Santa Anna was a prisoner when he made this agreement, but he obtained for himself and his army every benefit asked, and upon principles of equity its annulment by Mexico was not justified. Its binding force in morals and law was recognized and insisted upon by Filisola, his next in command, who asserted that the army was saved from destruction and a national disgrace avoided by it.
Santa Anna's ideas as to a western boundary may be inferred from an expression in a letter to President Houston, November 5, 1836, in which he referred to it as a matter that had been “pending many years.” This period, of course, long antedated the Texas revolution.
After the armistice between Texas and Mexico, in June, 1844, General Woll, in command of the frontier forces of Mexico, issued his proclamation from beyond the Rio Grande, denouncing as “traitors all who should be found at the distance of four leagues from the left bank,” not of the Nueces, but “of the Rio Grande,” 35 clearly indicating his idea as to where the boundary was.
In February, 1847, Santa Anna, in writing to his government concerning a peace messenger that had been sent to him by General Taylor, said, “I observed we could say nothing of peace while the Americans were on this side of the Bravo,” showing that he still thought the Americans would be in their proper place anywhere east of the Rio Grande.
The matter can hardly be better stated than it was by the Mexican peace commissioners, who said, “The intention of making the Bravo a limit has been announced in the clearest terms for the last twelve years. *** After the battle of San Jacinto, in 1836, that was the territory we stipulated to evacuate, and which we accordingly did evacuate by falling back on Matamoras. In this place was stationed what was called the army of the north; and though it is true that expeditions and incursions were made upon them, even as far as Bejar, we have very soon evacuated, leaving the intervening space absolutely free, and General Taylor found it so when he entered there by order of his government”—an admission that if the Nueces had ever been a boundary, it had been changed to the Rio Grande by the Texans, long before General Taylor entered.
Mr. Von Holst, who professes to have visited Texas, characterizes this strip as a desert one hundred and sixty miles wide by about one hundred and twenty long, and he says that being a desert it was the suitable and proper boundary; but Mr. Bancroft, on the other hand, considers it land suitable for slave labor. The slave population, in 1860 in this area, outside of Corpus Christi, was ninety-nine, and the assessed valuation for 1899 over $22,000,000, while its real value will approximate $50,000,000, a sum considerably in excess of the assessed values of the entire State of Texas in 1846.
Much stress has been laid upon actual occupancy as necessary to title, as well as upon the fact that Texas had never exercised actual jurisdiction over this strip. It must be remembered that Texas started on her career as a republic with a population of only about 30,000, and with an area of over 300,000 square miles. If her title had depended upon actual occupancy, thousands of square miles would still be “no man's land,” although her population has swelled to 3,000,000. The exercise of jurisdiction is an incident of population. The ability to drive away intruders, and to continuously protect territory from intrusion, was the basis of the claim to the dominion which Texas had over this strip. When General Taylor took possession he did so by permission of Texas. Mexico had never driven an intruder from it since 1836, whereas Texas had driven the Mexicans from it, in November and December, 1835, in 1836, in March, 1842, in September, 1842, and in 1845 her constructive possession was as complete as it was to over 200,000 square miles of other territory, conceded by all to belong to Texas proper.
Von Holst says 36 that Texas admitted that she had no title west of the Nueces by making an alliance with the leaders of the movement for the Republic of the Rio Grande. In this he has been misinformed. President Lamar not only refused 37 to enter into any such alliance, but ordered 38 the forces that had gathered on the west bank of the Nueces to disperse.
Time and space will not allow a notice of the many errors in fact, and still more in conclusion, that now pass current as the history of annexation and the Mexican war. When they are sifted out and weighed, it will clearly appear that the origin, growth, and development of Texas into a republic and her subsequent annexation to the United States was neither a Northern nor a Southern, but a purely Western movement, neither long retarded by the abolitionist nor hastened by the slaveholder, nor seriously affected by the political storms of the East; but a movement having its inspiration in the minds of a class which before the beginning of the last century crossed the Alleghanies and gave to civilization the fertile valley of the Mississippi. It will be seen that its motive power was neither sectional nor political in the partisan sense of that term, and that it was neither unlawful nor immoral. Had it been political aggrandizement, Texas would long since have had in the Senate of the United States ten instead of two representatives, with a corresponding increase of power in the electoral college. It was not a move in the interests of slavery, as annexation affected that institution neither one way nor the other. Texas had the option in 1845 of remaining a separate republic, with slavery, and guarantees from the two most powerful nations of the earth, or of casting her lot with the United States. She chose the latter in the face of the dangers that then threatened that institution.
The immediate cause of the Mexican war was not a matter of boundary, for no such question was in dispute between Texas and Mexico, such a thing being the subsequent outgrowth of partisan invention. Between the United States and Mexico the expressed, sole cause was annexation. The conservative elements in Mexico were powerless before the tornado of public sentiment that swept her on into a desolating war.
When the final verdict of history is reached, and the partisan excrescences that now disfigure its pages are pruned away, that period, instead of being one of the darkest, will become one of the brightest beacons that light the path of the Anglo-American, and the memories of Houston, Jackson, Calhoun, and Polk, and the rest of that illustrious band of statesmen that added Texas to the galaxy of States, will be cherished by all true Americans; while the Texas pioneer will stand facile princeps in the van of the movement that has conquered a continent and given to mankind the greatest, the best, the freest, and the most just government on earth.
It is a most remarkable fact that those who bore a conspicuous part in the early struggles and triumphs of Texas were either the direct descendants of some of the most famous families on the continent, to which belonged distinguished statesmen, soldiers, and politicians, or else they were young men who gave promise of the highest usefulness in their sphere in life. Dr. R. C. Burleson, the subject of this memoir, forms no exception to this rule. His progenitors include men distinguished in every business and calling, during the colonial, revolutionary, and constitutional periods of the history of the United States. Possessing a dauntless and dashing element of character, they spent little time in hesitation and hovering around the old homestead in their youth, but pushed out and became powerful factors in the moral and material development of twenty-two States and Territories.
All the members of the American branch of the Burleson family have descended from two brothers: Sir Edward Burleson, who settled in Jewett City, Conn., in 1716, and Aaron Burleson, who settled in North Carolina in 1726. The descendants of these brothers have constituted two separate families, those of Sir Edward being Western people, in the common acceptance of that term, and those of Aaron being intensely Southern in sentiment and sympathy. Jonathan, a descendant of Aaron, son of John, and father of the subject of this sketch, was born near Lexington, Ky., October 6th, 1789. Both John Burleson and his wife, Abigail Adair, were strong in mind and resolute in purpose, and possessed that daring and courage always and everywhere a characteristic of pioneers. After attaining his majority and wedding Miss Elizabeth Byrd, Jonathan moved to Alabama, and settled on a farm near Decatur. Here he lived and died after amassing a large fortune, and raising a family of thirteen children. Rufus C. Burleson, seventh of these children, was born August 7th, 1823.
On his maternal side he was a lineal descendent of Sir William Byrd, founder of Richmond and Petersburg, Va., and Governor William Adair, of Kentucky, and inherited in no mean measure the courage and wisdom of these famous foundation builders in American history. Young Rufus was a precocious boy; and this precocity did not fade with his youth, as is often the case, but grew with his manhood and developed with his growth. At the early age of seven years he was ambitious to become a great scholar, a great lawyer, and a great orator, and laid his ambition, plans, and purposes before his father, whose pride and sympathies were thoroughly arroused in his boy's high aims and ideals.
At this tender age he had received some instruction at home, and had developed many of the qualities of the student. As a further means of preparation for a university course, he was placed in a country school taught in the neighborhood, where he made marked progress notwithstanding many interruptions. In the autumn of 1837 he entered Summerville Academy. He continued his work in this school until 1839, when he entered a select school at Danville, conducted by Dr. A. B. Sims, the course in which was correlated with that in the highest educational institutions of the State. Having finished the course there in less than twelve months, he returned to his father's home and again entered the school at Decatur. He remained in this school only one year.
Up to this time his intention was to study law and devote his energies and abilities to that profession; but he attended a revival meeting conducted by Rev. W. H. Holcombe in a Baptist church near his father's plantation, professed conversion, and immediately abandoned his plan, and resolved to prepare himself for the ministry. When he gave up his purpose of studying law, it became necessary to remodel his course of instruction, and in 1840, at the age of 17, he matriculated in Nashville University, and began to prepare himself for entrance into a theological seminary.
While in Nashville his health was greatly impaired by close application and confinement, and he was carried to his father's farm to recuperate. Here he studied Greek, Hebrew, and Bible history until 1842, when he accepted a tempting offer to teach a private school in Mayhew Prairie, Mississippi. This experience as a teacher, when his tastes and predilections were in a formative state, leads on to his career in Texas, where he elected to make education the work of his life. Having ample means to prosecute his law studies without performing the drudgery usually incident to a young lawyer's life, it is reasonable to say that but for his work at Mayhew Prairie he never would have engaged in teaching, and that disposition to instruct the young which afterward became in him an overweening, consuming desire would never have been formed; and, if it had not, the university at Waco, for which he did so much, might have gone like many other institutions of learning in the State, and never attained its present splendid proportions.
He taught in Mississippi from 1842 to 1845, then tendered his resignation, returned to his home, and in 1846 entered the Western Baptist Theological Seminary at Covington, Ky. He finished the course and received his diploma at this seminary June 21, 1847, and while yet standing within the shadow of the walls of his alma mater, surrounded by preceptors and class-mates, he raised his boyish face toward the skies, stretched his arms to the West, with both eyes closed as if to shut out the world, and said: “This day I solemnly consecrate my life to Texas.”
How well this resolution was executed, and what a potent power Dr. Burleson has been for more than a half century in the moral, educational, and material development of Texas, every page reciting the history of this State tells unmistakably. With him a resolution was much more than mere words, for both principle and sentiment were involved.
He offered his services as missionary to Texas to the missionary board of the Southern Baptist Convention, they were accepted, and he was assigned as missionary pastor to a small church in the frontier village of Gonzales. He spent some time before fixing a date for his departure in the study of the history of Texas and its people, and reviewing the lives of eminent pioneers, who had founded governments, churches, and great institutions of learning, that all mistakes might be as far as possible avoided in his field of operations.
He left Covington for Texas in the fall of 1847, and while at his father's house, near Decatur, en route, for a last visit and day of rest, he was informed that Dr. Wm. M. Tryon, pastor of the Baptist church at Houston, had died of yellow fever, and he had been chosen as his successor by both the missionary board and the church. He was only 24 years old, and felt his inability to take up the work of this great man; but he often remarked in after life, when reciting the incident, “A small voice whispered in my ear, `My grace is sufficient.”' The journey to New Orleans was made by private conveyance, and from there he took a steamer for Galveston, landing in that seaport January 5th, 1848. He proceeded to Houston and assumed his new charge in that month. His preaching was so acceptable, and his administration of this pastorate so wise, that the State soon became filled with his fame and praise. While serving this church as pastor, his determination to consecrate his life to Texas was subjected to a severe test in a great variety of ways. He was prostrated with yellow fever in 1848, fell helpless and insensible on the streets a victim of cholera in 1849, was offered the pastorate of a wealthy church at Huntsville, Alabama, was elected corresponding secretary of the Southern Baptist Publication Society, and later on was offered the presidency of Union University, Tennessee, as well as the presidency of Shreveport University, Louisiana. All these scourges, misfortunes, and tempting honors would have been enough to move an ordinary man to forget his vow and turn his back on the people with whom he had resolved to rise or fall. Not so with him.
In 1848 the scattered churches in Texas decided to hold a general conference for the purpose of discussing the advisability of forming a State convention. Pastor Burleson was elected a delegate to the conference from the Houston church, and took his seat in that body September 8th, 1848. He had been in the State at this time only eight months. His participation in the organization of the Baptist General Convention on that occasion in Anderson marks Dr. Burleson's entrance into public life in Texas. From that time on to his death in Waco a few weeks ago no history of Texas can be written, and especially no history of the Baptist church, without mention of the great service he rendered the State.
At the close of the second session of the Union Association held at Clear Creek in 1841, the formation of a Baptist education society had been recommended. In 1842 the business of this association had been so disturbed by the Mexican invasion that nothing had been done in the way of carrying the resolution adopted the previous year into effect.
In 1843 the society had been formed, and R. E. B. Baylor elected president, and Dr. Wm. M. Tryon secretary. In 1844 the society had resolved to found a Baptist State university. The charter had been issued by the Republic of Texas February 1st, 1845, and the institution had been named in honor of Judge R. E. B. Baylor. On the 15th of May, 1845, the board of trustees had met and received and considered the bids of the several places that were candidates for the location, and Independence had been selected. January 12th, 1846, Dr. Henry L. Graves had been elected president, and the institution had been fairly launched in the young Republic May 18th, 1846. Dr. Graves continued in office for five years, when he severed his connection with the school and moved to Fairfield. At a session of the board, commenced on the 13th and concluded on the 18th of June, 1851, Dr. R. C. Burleson was nominated for the presidency by Judge A. S. Lipscomb, of that first famous Supreme Court, and elected without a dissenting vote.
As stated, Dr. Burleson's first impulse after graduation was to do something for Texas and her struggling people, so while living in Covington, Ky., February 4th, 1847, he had accepted an agency for Baylor University, canvassed the States of Ohio, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Alabama, and received some appreciated collections, not only of money, but books and scientific, chemical, and philosophical apparatus for the school. Having decided to accept the position to which he had been so heartily elected, he tendered his resignation as pastor of the church at Houston, which was accepted amidst sighs and sorrowing by the congregation, and June, 1851, he moved to Independence and threw his soul and splendid abilities into the work of raising that school to a high standard.
This institution was born in a storm, and lived in a storm up to the time Dr. Burleson was placed at the helm. The determination to establish it was reached in 1841, before the excitement of the Revolution of 1836 had subsided, and during the period when the most serious conflicts between the early settlers and Indians occurred. It was formally established in 1845, while the exciting campaign which resulted in the annexation of Texas to the United States was distracting the attention of the people. It had scarcely emerged from the feverish conditions engendered by this controversy when war was declared between the United States and Mexico, March 11th, 1846, and the school struggled for existence during that sanguinary conflict. Every interest of the new country, political, commercial, educational, and religious was in an embryonic state, and for this reason the institution had not grown as rapidly, nor fulfilled its mission as quickly as its wise and unselfish projectors had hoped. When, therefore, Dr. Burleson assumed control, he found the attendance small, the buildings inadequate and unsuitable, only a trifle on hand in the way of a reliable endowment fund, insufficient apparatus, and, worst of all, the friends of the school discouraged and without heart. Even the learning, wisdom and enthusiasm which the recently elected president brought with him to the position did not reinspire the trustees and friends of the school. They argued that while he was the very best man for the position whose services were available, still he was only 28 years old, and with no experience as a college president. The discouragement and demoralization of the board, however, did not discourage nor demoralize this young president. He took the field and advertised the school liberally through the channels at that time available, as a result of which, when the fall session of 1851 opened, the attendance was largely increased. With each succeeding year he got a better grasp of the situation, and a clearer conception of the work. The friends took courage and came manfully to his support, new buildings were erected, the endowment fund was increased from one to twenty thousand dollars, the apparatus was added to, and a library was started. Dr. Burleson developed such administrative ability and such qualities as a leader that in 1855, four years after he took charge, the school was beyond the experimental stage, was regarded as one of the fixed institutions of the country, and had a reputation coextensive with the State. He worked on until Baylor University was known in every State in the Union, and catalogued by the London Times in 1860 as one of the prominent institutoins of learning in America.
Dr. Burleson continued in the presidency of the school at Independence until 1861, when, owing to some irreconcilable differences between himself and faculty and the board of trustees, he tendered his resignation.
In 1855 Trinity River Association decided to establish an associational school. In 1856 it was located at Waco, and christened Trinity River High Male School. A female department was provided for and located at Hillsboro, but was never opened. February 2d, 1860, the high school at Waco was chartered by the State, and rechristened Waco Classical School. In June, 1861, Dr. Burleson was offered and accepted the presidency of this school, moved to Waco, and induced the board of trustees to change the name of the school to Waco University.
The conditions with which he was confronted at Waco in 1861 were somewhat similar to those that existed at Independence in 1851, ten years before, but he was ripe in experience, and hence troubles were trifles when cast athwart his purpose. Here, as at Independence, the attendance increased from a mere handful to a mighty force of young people, all diligently preparing themselves for the conflicts and struggles of life.
Baylor University at Independence was still the State denominational school. Dr. Wm. Carey Crane, a ripe scholar and a grand character, was president, and standing manfully to his guns. Independence, while one of the most charming spots in the State, and associated with the dearest memories of Texas, had been left off all the railroads constructed in the country, and was, therefore, inaccessible. For this reason a demand came from all portions of the State for a consolidation of the schools at Waco and Independence, and the location of the consolidated school at some more accessible point. The friends of the Independence school opposed this movement, and an acrimonious discussion was brought on, in which Dr. Burleson took no part, except to say that Waco and Baylor would sustain themselves, and if the denomination wanted anything bigger and better than either, the whole State was open, and the Baptists had a perfect right to undertake the work of establishing it; but that, if it was decided to change the location of Baylor, Waco University was ready to furnish her elder sister at Independence a domicile and shelter. By some Dr. Burleson's position on this question was misunderstood, and for this reason I indicate the stand he took on “consolidation and removal,” and which I learned from him through many conversations while the agitation was going on.
The Baptist State Convention met in Lampasas in October, 1884, and the question of the removal of Baylor University was the question of most interest before that body. After a spirited debate, running through the greater part of two days and nights, a compromise resolution was passed by which a settlement of the question was reached. The substance of this resolution was that the buildings, grounds, and other property of Baylor University was to be turned over to Union Association for educational purposes, and the name and State-wide character of the school removed. This resolution also included Baylor Female College at Independence.
For the purpose of executing the provisions of this resolution a committee with plenary powers was created by the convention. This committee, after several sessions, met in Temple in November, 1884, and, after the propositions from towns that had announced as candidates for the location had been opened and considered, decided to remove Baylor Female College from Independence to Belton, consolidate Baylor with Waco University, and locate the consolidated University at Waco. There was effected at the same time a partial consolidation of the faculty of the two schools, and also of the boards of trustees. Dr. R. C. Burleson was elected president of the two universities thus merged into one, and Dr. Reddin Andrews vice-president.
Dr. Burleson, who was now 62 years old, felt the school to be his creation; and, while he claimed no proprietary rights, he had managed it with great success in the past, and felt fully competent to do so in the future. The board of the unified school recognized and respected Dr. Burleson's long service and ability, but were self-assertive, feeling that they had some authority which president and faculty were bound to respect. Hence arose something of a clash, with which it would hardly be profitable to deal here.
In 1898 Dr. Burleson was 75 years old, and the trustees of the university, to relieve him as far as possible from the weight of responsibility and worry, elected him president emeritus on full pay, and thus ended his public life.
In a sermon preached in Brenham in 1888, Dr. Burleson used this language, which is given in full, as it contains an item of history which has not found its way into any of his biographies: “I have spent the last forty-seven years with the young in college halls. I have instructed in the last thirty-seven years in the halls of Baylor University over four thousand five hundred young ladies and gentlemen. As agent of the Peabody fund for Texas, I canvassed one hundred and twenty-seven counties and addressed not less than sixty thousand young people on the subject of education.” Dr. Burleson continued to represent this fund for several years, and discharged the duties of this high trust with so much skill that Dr. B. Sears, the general agent, paid him a just and deservedly high compliment in a public address delivered in Galveston shortly before his death.
In his public addresses before and after the war between the States he advocated putting the provisions of the statutes and the State constitution for the establishment of a university and other educational institutions into practical effect. He earnestly insisted that specially trained teachers for the public school system of Texas should be provided, and it was very largely through his efforts that the Sam Houston Normal Institute at Huntsville was founded. For thirty-seven years he had been not only a college president, but a teacher also, and knew from observation and experience the value of special preparation for the profession of teaching.
Dr. Burleson's forethought and wisdom came to his help when the subject of co-education was being discussed by the scholars of the world, and he may be said to be a pioneer in this great forward movement. When he took charge of Baylor University at Independence in 1851, he maintained that the boys and girls ought to be educated separately, and through his efforts a male and a female department were established, which had no more connection than if they had been operated under different names in widely separated towns. When, however, he took charge of Waco University in 1861, ten years later, his mind had undergone a complete change on this subject, and he earnestly advocated co-education before the trustees of that school. They adopted the policy, and Waco University has the proud distinction of being one of the earliest institutions in the world to put co-education to a practical test. Now there are more than two hundred of the higher institutions of the world that are co-educational, and Dr. Burleson's wisdom is fully endorsed by the world's most distinguished and successful scholars and teachers.
Dr. Burleson was elected president in 1851, and served Baylor [Waco] University continuously for exactly fifty years. The school received his constant attention. He was the first to be seen on the campus in the morning, and the last to retire at night. During this half century of service as the controlling spirit in an institution founded in a howling wilderness, his enthusiasm knew no abatement.
In 1853 Dr. Burleson was happily wedded to Miss Georgiana Jenkins, daughter of Judge P. C. Jenkins, a distinguished lawyer who came to Texas in 1836 from Georgia. He was a graduate of Mercer University, and was a conspicuous character among the great men of the early days. Miss Jenkins was a most charming and cultured young lady. She graduated at Judson Institute, Marion, Alabama, with high honor. She was of a family of educated, intelligent people, who attached much importance to mental culture, and no step in Dr. Burleson's life was more fortunate than this union. She was his constant companion and counselor. When he was confronted with difficulties and became greatly perplexed, Mrs. Burleson always maintained her coolness of judgment. Hers is a most beautiful character, and thousands of former students of Baylor hold her in tenderest esteem. To her husband she was a constant living inspiration and stimulus.
In 1847 the degree of A. M. was conferred upon Dr. Burleson by Nashville University, and in 1867 the degree of D. D. by Howard College, Alabama. In 1882 Keachi College, Louisiana, conferred on him the degree of LL. D. In 1878 and 1879 Dr. Burleson was moderator of the General Association that included the whole of what is known as North Texas in its jurisdiction, and later was president of the Baptist General Convention several years.
Dr. Burleson may be said to have been an enthusiast on the subject of Texas history, and contributed many valuable and interesting articles to the press on various historical subjects. He was a member of the Texas State Historical Association, and promoted the purposes of the association by all means and in all ways in his power. For the last few years before his death he was engaged in preparing for publication a book entitled Fifty-three Years in Texas, which Mrs. Burleson will complete and give to the public. This work includes the presentation of a great variety of subjects, from the standpoint of personal knowledge, and will be a most valuable contribution to the history of Texas. Mrs. Burleson having come to Texas eleven years before her husband, and having been a student of current events as well as a scholar, it is most fortunate that the completion of the work will be under her direction.
Dr. Burleson was a member of the Texas Veterans' Association, and took a deep interest in its success and welfare. He served as its chaplain from 1898 to the time of his death. In a letter dated March 28th, 1901, addressed to Mr. E. Pennington, of Brenham, he stated that he was collecting data and material, and proposed when his book had been finished to write a history of the association from its organization. He did not expect to live to complete it, but would leave the work in such a shape that when the last member had “crossed to the other side” the final chapter could be written, and the record of the association rounded up and forever closed.
Dr. Burleson's ambition was to obtain for Baylor University a high place among institutions of learning in America, and he felt that he had accomplished as much, but this by no means affected his interest in the cause of education in general. In 1870 he attended the meeting of the National Educational Association held in Niagara Falls, New York, and made much reputation through the breadth of his views expressed in an address delivered before that learned body of men. He continued to attend the annual meetings of the association, and at one time was made one of the vice-presidents. He was also much interested in the work of the Texas Teachers' Association, and attended nearly all the meetings, and presided over its deliberations for several years.
Three elements of character appeared in Dr. Burleson in an eminent degree: courage, coolness, and continuity of purpose. “Never get mad, never get scared,” was one of his mottoes, and he adhered to it religiously. He was as courageous as Julius Cæsar, and he never lost his temper. He was a stranger to the feeling of discouragement, and when every condition seemed to conspire to defeat his purpose and scatter the work of his hands into viewless air, it was then his determination conquered all obstacles. When he was confronted with a mighty difficulty, his slender form seemed to take on the proportions of a giant. Another remarkable element of character was his endurance, physical and mental. On one occasion this writer saw him step out on the campus at Independence, where a hundred boys were playing “hot ball,” and offer himself as a target for the whole crowd. He was pelted a hundred times with solid rubber balls, and one hundred blue spots must have been made on his body, but he was as obdurate and unmoved as the sturdy liveoak under which he stood while the fun was going on. The sport over, he saluted the boys, and bowed himself from the campus, his face wreathed in smiles when he was unquestionably suffering the greatest pain.
Anecdotes and incidents without end could be given illustrating his coolness, courage, and good nature; but the limits of this article forbid their recital. I have to add only the following editorial from the Galveston News of May 15th, the morning his death was announced:
“Rev. Rufus C. Burleson, who died yesterday at Waco, has stood for many years with the leading divines and educators of the country. He came to Texas in 1848, and has since that time been an active and telling force in the intellectual and moral progress of the State. Dr. Burleson's work as a missionary in pioneer times led to the establishment of Baylor University, and under his presidency the institution flourished and prospered. There are in all portions of Texas men and women who will remember with a tear the earnest and zealous old man whom they learned to love during their college days. Others will recall the venerable man of the pulpit to whose sermons they have listened, the genial old preacher who delighted to recall the adventures and triumphs of early days in Texas. Evidences of the zeal and energy of the deceased are to be found in many places, and thousands of living witnesses stand ready to honor the dead. It is set down that Baylor University is `a monument to his genius and industry.”'
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTICES.
In a booklet of 45 pages Miss Arie M. Claiborne has told for her school children the “ Story of the Alamo.” The picture which it presents is quite vivid, and gives a good idea of the stirring scenes of the siege and assault.
The Publications of the Southern History Association for March contains the Secretary`'s Report of the Annual Meeting of the Association, a continuation from the January number of E. A. Smith's History of the Confederate Treasury, a biographical sketch of William Vans Murray by Clement Sullivane, and an interesting review by Dr. J. L. M. Curry of The Calhoun Letters.
The May number contains the conclusion of Prof. Smith's paper, a biographical sketch of General Muhlenberg by M. J. Wright, and the Carrington Genealogy by J. B. Killebrew. Both issues contain the usual number of pages devoted to Reviews and Notices and to Notes and Queries.
The American Historical Review for April contains an account of the meeting of the American Historical Association at Detroit and Ann Arbor; The Year 1000 and the Antecedents of the Crusades, by George L. Burr; The Political Influence of the University of Paris in the Middle Ages, by Charles Gross; The Rise of Metropolitan Journalism, 1800-1840, by Charles H. Levermore; Sherman's March to the Sea, by James F. Rhodes; and French Experience with Representative Government in the West Indies, by Paul S. Reinsch. The documents in this number are entitled The Society of Dissenters founded at New York in 1769, and Miranda and the British Admiralty. The remaining matter consists of the usual excellent series of Reviews of Books and News and Notes. The Review is a great credit to American Scholarship.
A Catalogue of Franciscan Missionaries in Texas (1528-1859). —By Rev. Edmond J. P. Schmitt, Fellow and Life Member of the Texas State Historical Association. Austin. MCMI. Pp. 16.
In these few pages are summed up the results of much patient research in the records of the missions which are preserved in the archives of the diocese of San Antonio, and of wide reading on subjects brought into notice by the lives of the frailes whose names are here gathered. The notes especially show indefatigable industry and scholarship. This was the last work of Father Schmitt, whose death occurred shortly after it came from the press. He was yet a very young man, and of great promise, and his death will be deeply regretted by students of Southwestern history.
Boonesborough; Its founding, pioneer struggles, Indian experiences, Transylvania days, and revolutionary annals.—With full historical notes and appendix. By George W. Ranck, Member of the Filson Club. Illustrated. Louisville: John P. Morton &Company. 1901. Pp. xi+286.
This is No. 16 of the valuable series that the Filson Club is publishing. Though in paper covers, the volume has, in all its appointments, the air of good taste and abundant means. One especially attractive feature is the well chosen list of half-tone illustrations. The narrative is preceded by an appreciative introduction by Col. R. T. Durrett, president of the club. The subject with which Mr. Ranck has to deal is one full of inspiration for those who understand and sympathize with the pioneer work by which the West was really won—an inspiration which he has not failed, in a very marked degree, to catch. It is not easy to get the true perspective of our history. It may be that men like Daniel Boone, or even George Rogers Clark, did not have the depth of insight or conscious largeness of purpose that appears in the work of Washington or Madison or Hamilton, and that they builded wiser than they knew; but what if Great Britain had emerged from the struggle of the Revolution with its tenacious grasp still fixed on the West—the land where, as Woodrow Wilson shows, the true type of Americanism has developed? What would the United States have been? Let the historian that gives a hundred pages to the war with Great Britain and passes over with brief and careless mention the work of Boone and Clark justify himself if he can. The reviewer is of the opinion that such historians can learn much worth their knowing from the publications of the Filson Club, and especially from this number, which deals with the central feature in the making of Kentucky.
The appendix covers 118 pages, and includes a list of documents for which the serious student of Western history will be especially grateful. When history like this which Mr. Ranck has had to write shall be presented in the same scientific and intelligent manner, its importance and interest, falsely considered by some only local, will take on their true national aspect.
The Laws of Texas, 1822-1897.—Compiled and arranged by H. P. N. Gammel, of Austin, with an introduction by C. W. Raines. Volume IX. Austin: The Gammel Book Company. 1898. Pp. 1399.
This volume contains the legislative enactments, both general and special, for the decade beginning with the year 1879.
The constitution of 1876 having prohibited almost all kinds of private legislation, the special laws are not of great general interest, though they are very valuable to persons interested in the development of the larger cities of the State, whether that interest be special in the particular cities whose charters are granted, repealed, or amended during that time, or general in the subject of social and political growth. The general laws, on the other hand, embrace many acts of individual importance, and give very plain insight into many of the social and political influences then at work in this State.
With increase of population and business necessarily come increase in legislation. Notwithstanding the constitution of 1876 had doubled the working force in our courts of last resort by the creation of the court of appeals, still the supreme court was made to work off the accumulation of old business and keep up with the new. Responding to this, the Legislature, by act approved July 9th, 1879 (Acts 1879, p. 30), created a commission of arbitration and award to which any civil suit pending in either the supreme court or the court of appeals could be referred by consent of the parties. This was to continue two years. At the expiration of that time the commission was continued with somewhat different powers, but for the same purpose (Acts 1881, p. 4). The Legislature then sought permanent relief by proposing an amendment to the constitution increasing the number of judges in the supreme court. This was defeated. In March, 1887, the expedient of the commission was again resorted to (Acts 1887, p. 74), and another amendment to the Constitution was proposed. This also was defeated (Acts 1887, p. 158), and no further attempt at relief was made until after 1879.
Corporate activity had become great and many people were becoming alarmed at the massing of capital and enterprise. The first legislative expression of this uneasiness is found in the Quo Warranto Act, passed July 9, 1879 (Acts 1879, p. 43). This is a substantial re-enactment of the Statutes of 9th Anne, and gives to the law officers of the government and to the courts much greater power over private corporations than either had theretofore possessed. On April 10, 1883 (Acts 1883, p. 67), the office of State engineer was created. His duties were largely connected with railroads and their business. This did not prove satisfactory. March 28, 1885 (Acts 1885, p. 65), the proper officers throughout the State were required to begin prosecutions against all private corporations violating Sections 5 and 6, Article 10, of the constitution. On the same day an act was passed requiring all railroad companies to maintain their general offices within the State (Acts 1885, p. 67). The next session of the Legislature, on April 2, 1887 (Acts 1887, p. 116), passed quite a stringent law, attempting to regulate foreign corporations in their Texas operations. Next came the statutes regarding receivers, authorizing the courts through these instrumentalities to take charge of and operate railroads and other corporate enterprises for causes enumerated in the statute (Acts 1887, p. 119). This was followed by the trust law in 1889 (Acts 1889, p. 141). On April 8, 1889 (Acts 1889, p. 171), the joint resolution submitting the amendment to the constitution providing for the railroad commission was passed. This amendment was adopted, and thus was laid the constitutional foundation for our present commission law. April 3, 1889, the law regarding foreign corporations was amended to make it conform to the constitution (Acts 1889, p. 87). In March, 1889 (Acts 1889, p. 130), the law requiring corporations to keep their principal offices in the State was amended so as to make it more stringent.
Legislation during this period evidences a complete change in the State's policy as to the use of lands owned or controlled by it. Early in 1883 (Acts 1883, pp. 2 and 3), all such lands were withdrawn from sale. As soon as the plan could be matured and legislation effected, a land board was created, through which such lands were to be sold and leased, in conformity to the scheme contained in the act (Acts 1883, p. 85). This was on April 13. On the next day two very important land laws were approved. The first provided for disposition of minerals in the public and school lands (Acts 1883, p. 100), and the second was known as the Land Fraud Act (Acts 1883, p. 106). Prior to act of April 13, 1883, the doctrine of “free grass” had obtained. No leasing of public lands had ever been authorized, but these lands were used by all persons for grazing purposes. That act provided for acquiring exclusive rights in such land, and authorized its enclosure. The natural consequence of this change is indicated in the necessity for a called session early in 1884 for legislation respecting conditions in the West, and the enactment by it of laws: first, making fence cutting a felony (Acts 1884, p. 34); second, imposing severe penalties for enclosing lands without lawful authority (Acts 1884, p. 37); and, third, regulating the extent to which fences could be maintained without gates or passways through them (Acts 1884, p. 37).
It was during this period that the University was established and put into actual operation (Acts 1881, p. 79).
Many changes, in the main for the better, were made in the public school system at this time, and a great many other interesting and important statutes are contained in this volume, but these suffice to show its great usefulness and value from the historical standpoint especially.
John C. Townes.
NOTES AND FRAGMENTS.
A Correction.—The translations published in the April Quarterly, under the head L'Abeille Americaine, should have been credited to Mr. William Beer, Librarian of Howard Memorial Library, New Orleans.
The Austin Papers, the precious collection so carefully guarded by Colonel Bryan during his life, are left by his will to be given to some State institution, according to the judgment of his executors, these being his son, Guy M. Bryan, and his daughter, Miss Hally Ballinger Bryan, and of his nephew, Judge Beauregard Bryan. In making this provision, however, Colonel Bryan expresses himself in favor of the State University, and it is understood that the bequest will follow his preference. The papers are now stored in the basement of the State capitol, but it is expected that they will be transferred to the vault of the University this fall.
Miss Casis, whose work has been so helpful in the past to students of the University and others wishing to use the Spanish sources of Southwestern history, is again copying documents from the Archivo General in the city of Mexico. Mr. R. C. Clark, who graduated from the University of Texas in June, and who holds a graduate scholarship in the University of Wisconsin for next year, is assisting her. Miss Casis expects to complete during her stay in Mexico the work begun last summer of copying the two volumes in the archives entitled Documents para la Historia de la Provincia de Texas. These documents contain the history of the beginnings of the province, and of the first ninety years under Spanish domination. Duplicate copies are to be made, one set for the State library, which is to pay part of the expense, and one for the University.
Letter from a “Mier” Prisoner to His Mother.—Among all the tragic incidents of the history of the Texas Revolution and the later efforts to maintain her dearly bought independence, none equal in pathos those which deal with the prison life of the unfortunate men who, in 1842, banded together for the invasion of Mexico, and became known in history as the Mier expedition.
The term “Decimated Mier Prisoners” is aptly applied to those of this expedition, who having been made prisoners by the Mexicans, were marched to the Hacienda Salado, where an escape was planned and effected. After enduring untold hardships most of them were recaptured, and having been brought back to Salado, were granted a commutation of the sentence of death, and were allowed the privilege of deciding their fate after the manner of a lottery. The prisoners numbered one hundred and seventeen; so, that number of beans, seventeen of which were black, the rest white, were placed in a jar and held over the heads of the unfortunate men, and they were compelled to draw, each a single bean, knowing that the black ones represented the death of seventeen of their number. No more cruel device could have been conceived; the situation was one to try the fortitude of the most heroic, and some of the prisoners were mere boys, but instances of self-sacrifice were not wanting, and all met their fate bravely. They had learned the lesson of the stoic; they feared not to die, but feared a coward's death.
Relics of this most tragic event are extremely rare; hence the value attached to the following letter from one of the prisoners to his mother, written just after drawing a black bean, and about half an hour before he was led out blindfolded to be shot. It was written on coarse paper with a pen and ink, and in a firm hand. The execution took place March 25th, 1843:
“Mexico. “Dear Mother:
“I write you under the most awful feelings that a son ever addressed a mother, for in half hour my doom will be finished on earth, for I am doomed to die by the hands of the Mexicans for our late attempt to escape the [torn out] G. Santa Anna that every tenth man should be shot. We drew lots. I was one of the unfortunates. I cannot say anything more. I die, I hope, with firmness. Farewell, may God bless you, and may He in this my last hour, forgive and pardon all my sins. A. D. Headenberge will should he be [blot] able to inform you. Farewell,
“Your affectionate son, “R. H. Dunham.”
The foregoing letter was obtained through the courtesy of W. P. Doran, of Hempstead, it having been given him by the sister of Mr. Dunham, Mrs. R. J. Wood, who also lives at Hempstead. She is now very old, and can remember nothing of the manner in which her mother came into the possession of the letter. It was probably carried by one of the survivors of the “death lottery” through their long, weary march to the City of Mexico, and carefully preserved until his own release enabled him to return home and deliver the precious missive in person.
Adèle B. Looscan, Historian, Daughters of the Republic of Texas.
The Stephen F. Austin Statue Fund.—Mrs. Joseph B. Dibrell, chairman of the Stephen F. Austin Statue Fund Committee, has sent out the following circular, which will explain itself, and which needs no word of exhortation to commend it to the patriotism of the Texas people:
“The Daughters of the Republic of Texas, acting through this committee, have formed the desire to place in one of the niches in the capitol at Washington, D. C., the marble statue of Stephen F. Austin. Some years ago Congress, prompted by motives patriotic and for the purpose of encouraging art, passed an act authorizing each State to place the statues of two of its most representative men in niches provided in the national capitol for such purpose. The Legislature of Texas has authorized the Daughters of the Republic of Texas to fill one of the niches set aside to Texas with the statue of Stephen F. Austin, known to history as the `Father of Texas,' and one of her most unselfish patriots. This laudable work must be accomplished by the efforts of the Daughters of the Republic of Texas by means of soliciting subscriptions for such fund, by entertainments and by all other proper means calculated to effect the object designed. The statue can be executed for the sum of $4000, and with little additional funds can be placed in the niche awaiting it.
“All lovers of Texas and of her early unparalleled history are appealed to for help by liberal contributions, and by all other means, to raise the fund desired. At the suggestion of the chairman of the committee of the Stephen F. Austin Statue Fund, Hon. W. B. Wortham, president of the First National Bank of Austin, Texas, has been chosen treasurer. The names of all those making contributions and the amounts contributed by each will be published in the annual report of the Daughters of the Republic of Texas.
“It is the purpose of the Daughters of the Republic of Texas to ask the next Legislature to fill the remaining niche in the national capitol with the statue of the illustrious Gen. Sam Houston. Stephen F. Austin was first selected owing to his chronological precedence, and the Daughters, knowing the State would respond to the call for the Houston statue, and realizing the large amount necessary for both, preferred to rely upon the generosity of the public for the Stephen F. Austin fund.
“We hope you will send to the chairman of this committee, Mrs. Joseph B. Dibrell, at Seguin, Texas, any contribution you may see fit to make for this fund, and the same will be promptly forwarded to the treasurer by her. This work must be performed and without delay, and every daughter and son of the Republic of Texas is earnestly requested to go to work in earnest and assist in accomplishing the great work now begun. They are reminded of the patriotism and unfaltering courage and energy of their fathers, and they must not recognize the word failure.”
Funeral of the “Heroes of the Alamo.”—Everybody who knows the story of the Alamo remembers how, by the orders of Santa Anna, the bodies of its gallant defenders were, as Yoakum expresses it, “thrown into heaps and burnt”; but perhaps fewer know that their ashes ever received the honor of a military funeral, and there is reason to believe that most of those who know are in error as to the place of interment.
Col. Juan N. Seguin, who took command of San Antonio for the Texans after the battle of San Jacinto, says, in a letter dated March 28, 1889: “I collected the fragments, and placed them in an urn, and buried it in the Cathedral of San Fernando immediately in front of the altar—that is, in front of the railing and near the steps.” This statement has gained a good deal of publicity through its incorporation by Hon. Seth Shepard in his monograph, “The Siege and Fall of the Alamo” (in A Comprehensive History of Texas, I, 637-48), and has received general credence, notwithstanding the vehement denials of the San Fernando clergy. It appears, however, that Seguin's memory played him false; for, in the Telegraph and Texas Register of March 28, 1837, there is a detailed description of the funeral, to which, of course, his simple statement, made after a lapse of exactly fifty-two years, must give first place. The account in the Telegraph is as follows:
“In conformity with an order from the general commanding the army at headquarters, Col. Seguin, with his command stationed at Bexar, paid the honors of war to the remains of the heroes of the Alamo; the ashes were found in three places, the two smallest heaps were carefully collected, placed in a coffin neatly covered with black, and having the names of Travis, Bowie and Crockett engraved on the inside of the lid, and carried to Bexar, and placed in the parish church, where the Texian flag, a rifle and sword were laid upon it for the purpose of being accompanied by the procession, which was formed at 3 o'clock on the 25th of February; the honors to be paid were announced in orders of the evening previous, and by the tolling knell from day-break to the hour of interment; at 4 o'clock the procession moved from the church in Bexar in the following order:
“Field officers; staff officers; civil authorities; clergy; military not attached to the corps, and others; pall bearers; coffin; pall bearers; mourners and relatives; music; battalion; citizens.
“The procession then passed through the principal street of the city; crossed the river; passed through the principal avenue on the other side; and halted at the place where the first ashes had been gathered. The coffin was then placed upon the spot, and three volleys of musketry were discharged by one of the companies; the procession then moved to the second spot, whence part of the ashes in the coffin had been taken, where the same honors were paid; the procession then proceeded to the principal spot and place of interment, where the graves had been prepared; the coffin had been placed upon the principal heap of ashes, when Col. Seguin delivered a short address in Spanish, followed by Major Western in English, and the ashes were buried. * * *.”
From this description, could not some one well acquainted with San Antonio locate, at least approximately, the place of the burial?
This extract from the Telegraph has been printed before, being quoted by a writer from Houston, Texas, who signed himself C. H. C., in the Magazine of American History, II, 309-11.
Eugene C. Barker.
AFFAIRS OF THE ASSOCIATION.
The San Jacinto Day Meeting.—In accordance with the notice sent to members, the Association was called to order in Room 44 of the University building by President Reagan, Monday afternoon, April 22, 1901. In the absence of the Secretary, Dr. Battle was asked to act in that capacity.
The amendments to the constitution as printed in the announcement sent out to members were adopted seriatim, and the amended constitution was adopted as a whole by a unanimous vote. The officers of the past year were elected for the ensuing year. Professor R. L. Batts was elected member of the Council from the Fellows for the term ending 1904; and Mrs. Bride Neill Taylor from the members for the term ending 1906.
After an interesting talk from the President on the historical heritage of the State of Texas, the possibilities of the future, and the opportunities of the Association, the meeting was adjourned.
The revised portion of the constitution are given below. The revisions are printed in italics and placed in brackets. Where the changes are simple additions, they are inserted at the proper points; but where they take the place of other provisions they are inserted immediately thereafter, the words for which they are substituted being enclosed in parentheses. Words enclosed in parentheses not followed by brackets are simply to be omitted:
Art. IV. ¶2. The President, Vice-Presidents, and Corresponding Secretary and Treasurer shall be elected annually by the Association (from among the Fellows).
¶4. The Executive Council, (a majority) [five] of which shall constitute a quorum, shall consist of the following:
¶5. The [Ex-Presidents], the President, the four Vice-Presidents, the Recording Secretary and Librarian, [the Corresponding Secretary and Treasurer], the State Librarian, three Fellows, five Members.
Art. V. ¶4. [Members or Fellows may be dropped from the rolls of the Association at the discretion of the Council for nonpayment of dues.]
Art. VII.—Amendments.—Amendments to this Constitution shall become operative after being recommended by the Executive Council and approved by two-thirds of the (entire membership of the Association, the vote being taken by letter ballot). [members present and voting at any regular meeting; provided, that notice of the proposed amendment shall be given in the announcement of the meeting.]
The members of the Association will regret to hear that Professor Bugbee, who has been Corresponding Secretary and Treasurer since its organization, and to whose intelligent and faithful service much of its success has been due, has found himself under the necessity of resigning on account of ill health. His duties will be discharged, until his successor can be elected, by Mr. E. C. Barker. Professor Bugbee has obtained a leave of absence from the University, and expects to spend some time in New Mexico. He goes followed by innumerable good wishes and hopes for his speedy restoration and return to his work.
Until this year the regular annual meetings of the Association have been held at the University on the day following Commencement. The time has been found very unsuitable, mainly for the reason that all those who attend the Commencement exercises—as most of the members in Austin do—have little energy left for the meeting of the Association. The Council will soon take up the selection of another date, and it is hoped that the time chosen will be satisfactory enough to become fixed permanently.
The Texas Veteran's Association has sustained a sad loss in the death of its President, Col. Guy M. Bryan, and its Chaplain, Dr. Rufus C. Burleson. They went out almost together, Dr. Burleson dying May 14, and Col. Bryan June 3.
Dr. Burleson's life was devoted mainly to the work of education in Texas. A biographical sketch of him appears in this number. He was a member of the Council of the Association from its organization till his death, and was most energetic and faithful in the discharge of his duties as such. He never missed a meeting that he could attend. Few men in Texas had such intimate connection with so many lives, and he will be widely mourned.
In the death of Colonel Bryan the Association has lost one of its most loyal and enthusiastic members. He was its Second Vice-President during the first year of its existence, and First Vice-President thereafter to the end of his life. Colonel Bryan was a man of remarkable fine instincts and lofty character. He was devoted to Texas, in whose history he had played a prominent and useful part; and his friends feel it particularly appropriate that he should have spent his last moments in the shadow of the grand new capitol, which stands the most peculiar symbol of the greatness of the State he loved so well.
GUY M. BRYAN,
Member of Texas House of Representatives 1847-1853, (Speaker) 1873-1875, 1877-1879, 1885-1889.
Member of Texas Senate, 1853-1857.
Member of United States Congress, 1857-1859.
President Texas Veteran's Association, 1901.
Vice-President Texas State Historical Association, 1897-1901.
Born, January 12, 1821.
Died, June 3, 1901.
RUFUS C. BURLESON,
President Baylor University, 1851-1861, 1884-1898.
Born, August 7, 1823.
Died, May 14, 1901.
2. Read at the annual reunion of the Texas Veterans and the Daughters of the Republic at Austin, April 22, 1901.
Among the details of the defense of the Alamo, as it is frequently described, is a speech by Travis in which he tells his companions how desperate their case is, and at the conclusion of which he draws a line on the ground wth his sword, and asks all who are willing to stay and die with him to cross it and stand beside him. The authority for this is the story told by Rose to the parents of Captain Zuber, repeated by them to himself, and first published by him in The Texas Almanac for 1873.—Editor Quarterly.
3. Rose asserted in the story of his escape that when he left the Alamo he saw numbers of dead Mexicans lying near the walls.—Editor Quarterly.
4. During many years I was ignorant of the identity of this courier, but I have learned from Bancroft's history that he was Capt. John W. Smith (Bancroft's North Mexican States and Texas, Vol. II, p. 213, foot note 26). It was this same Capt. John W. Smith who piloted Capt. Albert Martin's company into the Alamo on the night of March 1, 1836. (Ibid., p. 209.) His bearing Travis's last dispatch preserved his life. He was an honorable citizen of San Antonio, and represented Bexar district in the Texas Senate in 1842.
5. In the letter carried by Smith Travis says, “Col. J. B. Bonham *** got in this morning at eleven o'clock.” See Foote's Texas and the Texans, II, 220.—Editor Quarterly.
6. Thrall's History of Texas, p. 242.
7. Thrall's History of Texas, p. 506.
8. See Scarff's A Comprehensive History of Texas, Vol. I, p. 710.
9. Our little army was then meeting at Gonzales, and for the time protecting that town.
10. This sketch is contributed by Mrs. Julia Lee Sinks, who obtained it from Captain Burnam's daughter, Miss Sada Burnam. Miss Burnam acted as her father's amanuensis after he became blind. Captain Burnam appears to have signed his name as it is given here, but it is more frequently spelled Burnham.—Editor Quarterly.
11. See the account, pp. 15-17.
12. This was doubtless the question of Mr. Burnam's daughter.
13. I presume this to be the only surgical report on record for the early days. It is certainly very unique.—J. L. S.
14. I subjoin a short account of the Skull Creek fight, given me by Col. John H. Moore.—J. L. S.
“A short time before the fight with the Carankawaes, three men came over the raft from Matagorda, having their boat there in waiting to carry their purchases up the river. Their names were Alley, Loy, and Clark. They were attacked not far from the mouth of Skull creek. Alley and Loy were killed, but Clark, having concealed himself in the cane brake, escaped. The evening previous to the fight a man by the name of Robert Brotherton had been wounded in the back by the Indians, which was the immediate cause of pursuit. A man by the name of Strickland and I went out as scouts to find their whereabouts. My ear first caught a sound that was rather unusual. `Stop Strickland,' said I after listening, but he remarked that it was only the thumping of wild turkeys. `No,' said I, `it is the beating of bamboo root for bread.' Still Strickland adhered to his first opinion; but when a child cried he believed me then.
“At once we returned to our company, which was commanded by Mr. Kuykendall and numbered about twenty-two men. We made our way to the bottom, got between the creek and the Indians, and surprised them, driving them out into the prairie. Twenty-three were left dead, without the loss of any of the whites. Clark heard the firing and afterwards, wounded as he was, made his way to our camp. [Yoakum and John Henry Brown both write the name Brotherton as given above; but the carefully ascertained list of the Old Three Hundred as given by Professor Bugbee, Quarterly, I, 110 ff., contains the name Robert Brotherington, who was no doubt the same person. The form given by Professor Bugbee must be correct, since it was copied from the signature of the man himself.—Editor Quarterly.]
“The Carankawaes were a tribe of large, sluggish Indians, who fed mostly on fish and alligators, and occasionally, by way of feast, on human flesh. They went always without moccasins, striding through briars unharmed, making such tracks as would hardly be attributable to a human being. Each man was required to have a bow the length of himself. The fight was an entire surprise. We all felt it was an act of justice and of self-preservation. We were too weak to furnish food for Carankawaes, and had to be let alone to get bread for ourselves. Ungainly and repugnant, their cannibalism being beyond question, they were obnoxious to the whites, whose patience resisted with difficulty their frequent attacks upon the scanty population of the colonies, and when it passed endurance they went to their chastisement with alacrity.
“This was the first fight with the Indians in Austin's colony.”
15. This name follows the copy in the handwriting of Mrs. Sinks. Perhaps it should be Gray. There was a Gray, but no “Eray” in the Old Three Hundred.—Editor Quarterly.
16. See Yoakum's History of Texas, I, 225-6, for an account of this affair which gives it clearer justification.—Editor Quarterly.
17. Fort Houston was near where Palestine is located, at present the home of Judge John H. Reagan.
18. The present site of Waco.
19. Bancroft's Hist. of Mex., Vol. V., p. 307; Von Holst's Const. and Pol. Hist. U. S., Vol. II, p. 512 et seq.
20. The spirit of the partisan is nowhere more manifest than in the following: “The Texan army under Houston amounted to only eight hundred men [at San Jacinto] of whom it is said not more than fifty were citizens of Texas.” Von Holst's Constitutional Hist. U. S., Vol. II, p. 570. In support of this statement, Wise, of Virginia, is quoted in a foot note as saying “It was they [the people of the great valley of the Mississippi] that conquered Santa Anna at San Jacinto, and three-fourths of them after winning that glorious field had peaceably returned to their homes.” To this is added, by Von Holst, “in the United States.” It is susceptible of almost positive proof that ninety-eight per cent. of those who fought at San Jacinto were already settled in Texas or remained in the Republic after the Revolution.
21. McMaster's Hist. People U. S., Vol. III, p. 45 et seq., and authorities.
22. McMaster's Hist. People U. S., loc. cit.
23. Benton's Thirty Years' View, I, 15 et seq.
24. Von Holst, Vol. II, p. 117.
25. Von Holst (Vol. II, p. 562), giving J. Q. Adams as his authority, after saying that “the next aim of the conspirators was the separation of Coahuila and constituting Texas a separate State,” said that the design of the colonists “to declare their independence in a convention on the 1st of April, 1833,” was known to Jackson. The facts were that the convention of 1832 adjourned with the understanding that another would be held in 1833, not to declare independence from Mexico, but to secure a separate existence as a Mexican State. This was well known both in the United States and Texas, and not a secret understanding between Jackson and the so-called Texas conspirators, as Mr. Adams tried to show.
26. The Mexican government had repeatedly, without any sort of qualification, signified to the United States that it would consider the annexation of Texas as a declaration of war. Von Holst, Vol. II, p. 80.
27. Bancroft's Hist. of Mexico, Vol. V, p. 342 et seq.; Von Holst, Vol. II, p. 80 et seq.; Niles Register, Vol. LXVIII, pp. 134 and 305, and authorities.
28. Von Holst, Vol. I, p. 80 et seq.
29. Bancroft, Hist. Mex., Vol. V, p. 290 et seq.
30. Bancroft, Hist. Mex., loc. cit.
31. Ibid.
32. Ban. Hist. Mex.; Prieto Hist. Tamaulipas, p.—
33. It was not and never had been. The Nueces was supposed to be the line between Texas and Tamaulipas.
34. Documentos para la Historia de Mexico, IV, 22.
35. Von Holst says, “Whoever came within a mile of the left border of the Rio Bravo was to be shot.” Vol. I, p. 683.
36. Vol. II, p. 86.
37. Brown, Hist. Tex., Vol. II, p. 173.
38. Thrall, Hist. Tex., p. 307.
How to cite:
"Issue View", Volume 005, Number 1, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online. http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v005/n1/issue.html
[Accessed Mon Nov 23 1:54:07 CST 2009]
