THE QUARTERLY  OF THE  TEXAS STATE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.

Vol. V. APRIL, 1902. No. 4.

The publication committee and the editor disclaim responsibility for views expressed by contributors to the Quarterly.

THE QUARREL BETWEEN GOVERNOR SMITH AND THE  COUNCIL OF THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT  OF THE REPUBLIC ¹

W. Roy Smith.

In studying any period of warfare we shall usually find the writers devoting pages to the details of military operations, while the government, which provides for the army and makes those operations possible, is dismissed in a few lines. No explanation of this is necessary. In one case the subject matter is interesting and dramatic, in the other it is apt to be dry and technical. Nevertheless, the purely military historian is often compelled to turn his attention to the government in order to understand events which would otherwise be inexplicable. Could any one imagine a history of the Seven Years' War with Pitt left out, or of our own Civil War without an account of the work of Chase and Seward? That is to say, in time of war neither the government nor the army can be considered apart from the other. The object of this paper will be to give a somewhat detailed account of the quarrel between Governor Smith and the council of the provisional government of Texas in 1835-1836, with a view to showing its mischievous effect upon the campaign against the Mexicans.

I.  THE BEGINNINGS OF THE MEXICAN REPUBLIC.

In order to understand the condition of affairs in Texas in 1835 it is necessary to begin with the revolt which established the independence of Mexico. This movement, like so many others of the time, had its origin in the French Revolution. If the liberal ideas of the Revolution did not give the actual motive power, the interference of Napoleon in Spain certainly furnished the occasion.

Ever since her expansion into an empire at the time of the Renaissance, Spain has followed the policy of giving special privileges in her colonies to favored classes in the mother country. It was against such a system that the Mexicans took up arms. Their particular grievances are summarized by Bancroft under three headings: social jealousies, exclusion from preferments, and commercial monopolies. ² In other words, Spaniards in Mexico possessed, by favor of the home government, certain social, political, and commercial privileges, which were denied to the nativeborn inhabitants.

The spirit of revolt, kept down for centuries by the power of the church and by the lack of national self-consciousness, was sure to manifest itself when a favorable opportunity arose. This opportunity came when Napoleon overthrew the Bourbons and placed his brother Joseph on the Spanish throne (1808). Even then, while civil war was raging in Spain and the Mexicans might easily have acquired their freedom, there was a delay of two years before the revolt actually broke out. The priest Hidalgo, the first of the popular leaders, was executed in 1811 and the movement was carried on by Morelos. The Spanish liberal constitution of 1812 served to quiet matters for a time, but Ferdinand VII, on regaining his throne, revoked this in 1814 and resumed the old absolutism.

After the death of Morelos (1815) the revolt was carried on in a haphazard fashion until it was given a new impetus by the successful liberal movement in Spain in 1820. The liberal constitution was extended to Mexico, and met with considerable opposition from the privileged classes. Don Agustin Iturbide, an ambitious young officer, was placed in command of a large army with orders from the royalist viceroy to make a demonstration against the liberal government and re-establish the absolute rule of the king. After coming to an agreement with the insurgent chief, Guerrero, Iturbide issued the famous plan of Iguala, February 24, 1821. In this document he declared himself in favor of a constitutional monarchy, independent of Spain, with Ferdinand or some prince of the royal family at its head. ³ By the treaty of Cordova the new viceroy, O'Donoju, acknowledged the independence of Mexico. A provisional junta was formed and Iturbide was elected president of the council of regency created to administer the government until a permanent arrangement in accordance with the plan of Iguala could be perfected.

A constituent congress was at once elected in which there were three parties: one desirous of a constitutional monarchy with a Bourbon prince at its head, according to the original plan; a second favoring the election of Iturbide as emperor; and a third composed of those who wished to establish a republic. By a coup d'état, on the night of May 18, 1822, Iturbide triumphed, and on the following day he was formally elected emperor. He had acquired the throne only by overcoming a strong opposition, but, instead of attempting to conciliate his enemies, he proceeded to rule arbitrarily, dissolved congress, and governed through a junta established by himself. A revolt was at once begun under Santa Anna, Victoria, and other republican leaders, and on the 19th of March, 1823, Iturbide was compelled to abdicate. The generals Victoria, Bravo, and Negrete now formed a provisional regency to administer the government until a constitution could be adopted.

A second constituent congress was elected and met in November, 1823. After some debate, it adopted the Acta Constitutiva, January 31, 1824, declaring in favor of a federal system. Work on the constitution itself went on through the year 1824. Each part of it, as soon as it was passed, was given the force of law, and on the 4th of October, 1824, the constitution was formally adopted as a whole. Inasmuch as this constitution was the basis of the federal system and was often appealed to by the Texans in their struggle against centralism, a brief summary of its leading features may not be out of place. In the first place, it is modeled after the constitution of the United States. Eighteen states and three territories were recognized, Coahuila and Texas being united to form one state. The legislature was to be composed of two houses, a senate with two representatives from each state chosen by the state legislature, and a house of representatives elected by direct vote and apportioned according to population, as in the United States. During the recess of congress the senior senators from the various states remained at the capital and formed an executive council to assist the president. Congress and not the courts was made the final interpreter of the constitution. No provision was made for trial by jury. But perhaps the most notable non-republican feature present in the minds of the Texans, on November 7, 1835, when they declared in favor of the “republican principles” of the constitution of 1824 was in regard to the establishment of a state religion. Article Three states that “The Religion of the Mexican Nation is, and will be perpetually, the Roman Catholic Apostolic. The Nation will protect it by wise and just laws, and prohibit the exercise of any other whatever.” Other clauses provided for freedom of the press, abolition of torture and arbitrary imprisonment, and the establishment of copyright and patent laws. ⁴

A decree of the constituent congress, passed May 7, 1824, united Texas to Coahuila ⁵ and declared that they should form one state until Texas possessed sufficient population to be admitted as a separate state. A convention elected in the new state formed a provisional government, passed colonization laws, and finally, on the 11th of March, 1827, adopted a state constitution. ⁶ The territory of the state was divided into three departments, Monclova, Saltillo, and Bexar, the last including the old province of Texas. Catholicism was made the state religion, and all others were forbidden. Congress was to consist of one house containing twelve deputies chosen by indirect vote. There was to be a governor, a vice-governor, and an executive council also elected indirectly. Over each of the three departments was to be a political chief, and each municipality ⁷ was to be governed in local affairs by an ayuntamiento, consisting of one or more alcaldes and syndics and a board of aldermen elected indirectly by the people. Article 192 states that “one of the principal subjects for the attention of Congress shall be to establish in criminal cases the trial by jury,” and to gradually extend it to civil cases. There was an effort made to carry out this provision, at least so far as Texas was concerned, by Decree Number 277 of April 17, 1834, which gave Texas a special judicial system and established trial by jury. This is mentioned merely because it is so frequently alleged that the state refused to make any effort to satisfy the demands of the Texans. In this connection reference might also be made to the attempts of the state to establish a public school system. ⁸ The first governor under the new constitution was José Maria Viesca.

Before returning to the complications of the central government a few words should be said in regard to the Anglo-American settlement of Texas. The first American colony was planted on a tract of land along the Brazos river granted to Moses Austin by the Spanish government, January 17, 1821. Austin died in June, and his son, Stephen F. Austin, brought out the first colonists in December. The overthrow of Spanish rule and the subsequent changes in the government already referred to, made it necessary for Austin to go to the City of Mexico for a confirmation of his grant. The work of colonization proceeded rapidly in spite of the fact that all colonists were required to accept the Catholic religion. According to Brown there were twenty-six empresario grants made between April 14, 1823, and May 11, 1832. ⁹

---

II. THE SUBVERSION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 1824.

It is unnecessary to detail the many changes which took place in the federal government. Suffice it to say that, in 1829, Guerrero became president, after defeating Pedraza, who had been rightfully elected, and Bustamente became vice-president. Taking advantage of a Spanish invasion, Bustamente overthrew Guerrero and established a despotism. His decree of April 6, 1830, prohibiting the further settlement of Americans in Texas caused dissatisfaction among the colonists, as did also the arbitrary conduct of Bradburn, one of his officers stationed at Anahuac on Galveston Bay. The result was that when Santa Anna took up arms in favor of liberalism and against Bustamente, the Texans supported the former. The two leaders compromised by restoring the exiled Pedraza to the presidential chair, December 26, 1832.

In the meantime the dissatisfaction among the Texans was increasing. The decree of May 7, 1824, provided that Texas should become a separate State as soon as its population warranted. Many of the settlers now believed that the time had come, especially since they had many grievances against the state government. A convention to consider these grievances met at San Felipe de Austin in October, 1832, and adjourned after a few days to meet the following April. At this meeting a constitution and a memorial to the Mexican congress were drawn up. ¹⁰ Stephen F. Austin was appointed to carry the memorial to the City of Mexico. He arrived there at the time when Santa Anna was rising into prominence. Meeting with ill success and being thrown into prison because of an intercepted letter, Austin did not return to Texas until September, 1835. It is very likely that Santa Anna consented to his release then only because he believed that Austin would use his influence to quell the rebellious spirit among the colonists. ¹¹ The crafty Mexican sent expressions of kind regard to the Texans, but gave no practical answer to the memorial.

Santa Anna soon succeeded in gaining complete control over the government and at once showed his intention to overthrow the federal system. The congress of 1835 was a pliant tool in his hands. Among its acts were a decree diminishing the number of the militia and disarming the remainder of the inhabitants, another banishing Gomez Farías, the leader of the republicans, and a third declaring Zacatecas, which had refused to adhere to the centralist program, in rebellion. The last mentioned decree was mercilessly acted upon by Santa Anna himself. In Coahuila the two parties of centralists and federalists were very much influenced by local considerations. By a decree of March 9, 1833, the capital had been removed from Saltillo to Monclova, and since that time there had been continual rivalry between the two cities. The government at Monclova issued a protest against the high-handed policy of the president, but the people of Saltillo welcomed the change and gave active assistance to General Cos when he was sent by Santa Anna to overthrow the state government. Governor Viesca, driven from Monclova, attempted to establish a government with headquarters at Bexar. A large party among the Texans were so angry at the reckless squandering of public lands by the state that they refused to support the governor, preferring rather to make their peace with Santa Anna and even consenting to the centralist program, if they might only avoid war. The war party, on the other hand, was in favor of overlooking all minor differences and joining with the followers of Viesca to overthrow Santa Anna and re-establish the constitution of 1824.

The first outbreak of hostilities came in June, 1835, when William Barrett Travis with a small body of men ejected Tenorio, collector of the port, from Anahuac on Galveston Bay. The peace party condemned this act, and, at a meeting at San Felipe, July 17th, appointed Edward Gritton and D. C. Barrett to proceed to Matamoros and assure General Cos of the loyalty of the Texans and of their condemnation of the recent outrage. ¹² Both went to Bexar and had a conference with Colonel Ugartechea, lieutenant of General Cos. Mr. Gritton then returned to San Felipe for further instructions. The two were to meet at Goliad and go on to Matamoros. But the San Felipe meeting had dissolved, and for lack of further instructions the mission was abandoned.

With fresh aggressions on the part of the centralists the war party continually grew in strength. The necessity of union and organization early made itself felt, and committees of safety and correspondence were formed in the various municipalities. These remind us very much of the committees of correspondence which preceded the American War of Independence. The first committee was organized May 8, 1835, at Mina, now Bastrop, and D. C. Barrett was an active member. ¹³ Later on, when charges of disloyalty were made against him, this fact seems to have been forgotten.

Various other settlements followed the lead of Mina, and a further step in the process of union was taken August 20th, when the committee of Columbia issued an address to the people of Texas “requesting them to coöperate in the call for a consultation of all Texas.” ¹⁴ The address was sent throughout the country, and, on October 5th, elections were held in each municipality to select delegates to meet at the town of Washington on the 15th of the month.

Affairs now moved on rapidly. General Cos invaded Texas early in September, and, acting under instructions from him, Colonel Ugartechea ordered the people at Gonzales to surrender a cannon which they had in their possession. The alcalde of the town refused to give it up and applied to the committee of safety at Mina for aid. The application was forwarded to the central committee at San Felipe. Stephen F. Austin, who had recently returned from captivity in Mexico, advised the people to retain the disputed gun and promised them assistance. ¹⁵ A repulse of the Mexicans sent to take the cannon aroused considerable enthusiasm, and volunteers arrived in such numbers as to suggest the idea of an attack on Bexar. General Houston was elected to the command of the troops in the department of Nacogdoches on the 8th of October. ¹⁶ On the same day Austin left San Felipe and, arriving at Gonzales, was elected commander-in-chief of the troops stationed there on the 11th, and on the 13th took up his line of march for Bexar. ¹⁷

Meanwhile Santa Anna had issued the famous decree of October 3, 1835, dissolving the constitutional state governments and providing for an administration by a governor and departmental council directly responsible to the central government at the City of Mexico.

---

III.  THE CONSULTATION.

In accordance with the call of the committee of Columbia, the Consultation met at San Felipe de Austin on the 16th of October, 1835. R. R. Royall was elected chairman, and Samuel Whiting secretary. An adjournment was then taken till the next day, when the following preamble and resolutions were adopted:

“Whereas, there is not a sufficient number of members present to form a quorum of the Consultation, owing to the members being absent in the army, therefore be it

“Resolved, That the members present adjourn until the first day of next month or as soon as a quorum can meet at this place so as to afford an opportunity, to those who may desire, to join the army in defense of their country.

“Resolved, That those who can not join the army may remain here with permission to unite with the Council of Texas ¹⁸ and have access to all the intelligence in possession of the council relative to the present crisis.

“Resolved, That they be requested to transmit all the information of importance to the several municipalities of which they have been delegated—and whatever else which is right they ought to do.” ¹⁹

The Consultation met again on November 1st, but failed of a quorum until the 3d. On that day it organized by electing B. T. Archer president, and P. B. Dexter secretary. On taking the chair, Dr. Archer delivered an eloquent address in which he advised a declaration setting forth to the world the causes which impelled the Texans to take up arms and the objects for which they fought. He suggested the establishment of a provisional government consisting of a governor, lieutenant governor, and council, clothed with wide legislative and executive powers. The organization of the militia, the conclusion of a treaty with the Cherokee Indians, and the establishment of a mail service, were also recommended. In conclusion, he said: “I do not view the cause in which we are engaged as that of freemen fighting alone against military despotism; I do not view it as Texas battling alone for her rights and liberties; I view it in a nobler, more exalted light; I view it as the great work of laying the corner-stone of liberty in the great Mexican Republic.” ²⁰ From these words it would seem that even Dr. Archer, who afterwards contended so zealously for independence, was not then in favor of an absolute separation from Mexico.

Mr. Royall next presented a report from the so-called Permanent Council, of which he had been president. They had established mail routes, closed the land offices, appointed an army contractor, sent an address to the people of the United States, and appointed Thomas F. McKinney an agent to borrow $100,000. ²¹

On Mr. Royall's motion, a committee of twelve, composed of one member from each jurisdiction, was appointed to make a declaration setting “forth to the world the causes which have impelled us to take up arms, and the objects for which we fight.” The chair appointed:

• From Columbia, J. A. Wharton.

• From Austin, William Menifee.

• From Matagorda, R. R. Royall.

• From Harrisburg, L. de Zavala.

• From Washington, Asa Mitchell.

• From Gonzales, W. S. Fisher.

• From Mina, R. M. Williamson.

• From Nacogdoches, Sam Houston.

• From San Augustine, A. Huston.

• From Bevil, W. Hanks.

• From Liberty, H. Millard.

• From Viesca, S. T. Allen.

From this list, as well as from the general list of delegates present, it will be seen that only twelve municipalities were represented on November 3d. This fact should be borne in mind, as it may have some bearing on the question of a quorum in the council, raised at a later time.

Discussion arose on November 5th over the nature of the declaration to be adopted by the committee. There is a tradition, and Mr. Williams in his Life of Houston states it as a fact, that a declaration in favor of absolute independence was passed, and that General Houston, after prevailing upon some one who had voted for it to move a reconsideration, made a powerful speech against it and the matter was defeated. ²² The journal of the Consultation, however, makes no mention of this whatever, and, so far as I know, there is no documentary evidence to sustain the statement. If it be true, it is probable that the matter was kept out of the journals for fear of alienating the Liberal party among the Mexicans. The journal, however, does say that “Mr. S. Houston offered a resolution instructing the committee of twelve to draw a declaration in favor of the constitution of 1824, which was opposed by Mr. Wharton and withdrawn by the mover.” ²³ Mr. J. W. Robinson, afterwards lieutenant-governor, spoke in favor of independence, and Mr. D. C. Barrett in opposition.

The discussion was continued on November 6th, and the question was finally put in the following form by Mr. Houston: “All in favor of a provisional government upon the principles of the constitution of 1824 will say aye.” The vote resulted in ayes thirty-three, nays fourteen. Mr. Wood moved to enter the ayes and nays on the journal, but, after some remarks had been made by Mr. Wharton, withdrew it. ²⁴

The committee, with Mr. Wharton as chairman, appointed to draw up a declaration, reported on the 7th, and the declaration was submitted section by section. On the reading of the first section, Mr. Parker moved that the word “republican” should be inserted before “principles.” This was agreed to, and the various sections were unanimously adopted as follows:

“Whereas, General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna and other military chieftains have, by force of arms, overthrown the federal institutions of Mexico, and dissolved the social compact which existed between Texas and the other members of the Mexican confederacy—Now, the good people of Texas, availing themselves of their natural rights, solemnly declare:

First.

“That they have taken up arms in defence of their rights and liberties, which were threatened by the encroachments of military despots, and in defence of the republican principles of the federal constitution of Mexico of 1824.

Second.

“That Texas is no longer, morally or civilly, bound by the compact of union; yet, stimulated by the generosity and sympathy common to a free people, they offer their support and assistance to such of the members of the Mexican confederacy as will take up arms against military despotism.

Third.

“That they do not acknowledge that the present authorities of the nominal Mexican Republic have the right to govern within the limits of Texas.

Fourth.

“That they will not cease to carry on war against the said authorities whilst their troops are within the limits of Texas.

Fifth.

“That they hold it to be their right, during the disorganization of the federal system and the reign of despotism, to withdraw from the union, to establish an independent government, or to adopt such measures as they may deem best calculated to protect their rights and liberties; but that they will continue faithful to the Mexican government so long as that nation is governed by the constitution and laws that were formed for the government of the political association. ²⁵

Sixth.

“That Texas is responsible for the expenses of her armies now in the field.

Seventh.

“That the public faith of Texas is pledged for the payment of any debts contracted by her agents.

Eighth.

“That she will reward by donations in land, all who volunteer their services in her present struggle and receive them as citizens.

“These declarations we solemnly avow to the world, and call God to witness their truth and sincerity; and invoke defeat and disgrace upon our heads should we prove guilty of duplicity.” ²⁶

On motion of Mr. Houston all the members present on November 8th signed the declaration. In addition to the conservative wording of this document itself, there is other evidence to show the general feeling of the members of the Consultation in regard to the relation which Texas should sustain to the Mexican government. Thus certain papers from sympathizers in New Orleans were laid before the Consultation, and the letter in reply contained the expression, “To defend the rights guaranteed by the constitution of 1824.” Furthermore, on motion of Mr. Barrett, Lorenzo de Zavala was requested to translate the declaration into Spanish for circulation among “our Mexican fellow citizens of the republic.” ²⁷

The final vote on the declaration, thirty-three to fourteen, shows, however, that some of the members were in favor of an absolute declaration of independence. Doubtless, too, many of the thirty-three believed that independence must come and voted as they did purely on the ground of expediency, thinking that thereby the Texans would get aid from the Liberals in Mexico and impress the civilized world that they were fighting for constitutional liberty. During the subsequent struggle many patriotic men continued to believe that this was the best course to pursue. Stephen F. Austin was one of its most ardent advocates until he went to New Orleans in January, 1836, and learned that public sentiment in the United States demanded an absolute declaration. ²⁸ The advocates of the one policy, among whom was the council of the provisional government, looked largely to the Liberal Mexicans for support and consequently wished to carry the war into Mexico. The advocates of the other distrusted the Mexicans, opposed the invasion of their country, and looked to the United States for help. Governor Smith approved of this plan of action. This difference of view was the real cause of the controversy between the governor and council. D. C. Barrett, of Mina, the leader of the opposition to the governor, was a thorough partisan of the conservative policy and clung to it zealously even after it was evident that Liberalism had been crushed out in Mexico.

Immediately after the adoption of the declaration of November 7th, the following committee was appointed to draft a plan for a provisional government: Messrs. Millard, Jones, Wilson, Dyer, Hoxie, Lester, H. Smith, Arrington, Thompson, Robinson, Everitt, and A. Huston. ²⁹ Two days later Mr. Millard informed the Consultation that the business had been entrusted to two subcommittees, which were ready to report through their respective chairmen. Mr. Henry Smith read the plan for the civil department of the government, and Mr. A. Huston the plan for the military. The preamble of Smith's report was stricken out on motion of Mr. Barrett. The journal does not indicate the nature of Barrett's objections, but it is possible that the preamble was too independent in tone. The entire report was referred to a new committee, of which Barrett was chairman. The other members were Messrs. Hanks, Williamson, Parker, and Zavala. ³⁰ This little incident may be partly the cause of the subsequent ill-feeling that existed between Smith and Barrett.

The committee of five made its report on the 10th, and the house went into committee of the whole to consider it. After a short sitting they reported favorably on Barrett's plan. On the following day the Consultation took up the report of the committee of the whole and read and adopted the plan section by section.

The document thus adopted as the organic law of Texas consisted of twenty-one articles. ³¹ The provisional government was to consist of a governor and lieutenant-governor elected by the Consultation as a whole, and a general council composed of one member from each municipality, elected by the separate delegations. The powers and duties of these officials were given in some detail, but many questions were left in uncertainty. In the first place, the relations between the governor and council were not clearly expressed. Although Article Four “clothes the Governor with full and ample executive power,” it goes on to say that he shall have “full power by himself, by and with the consent of the council,” to perform certain executive functions therein enumerated. Article Three, moreover, states that one of the duties of the council is to “advise and assist the Governor in the discharge of his functions.” From this it would seem that the council was to serve as a king of executive or administrative board. Serving in this capacity it should have been presided over by the governor himself, and there would have been no need for a lieutenant-governor. But the council also had almost unlimited legislative powers. ³²

The governor, however, regarded himself as the executive, par excellence, and the council as a purely legislative assembly. Thus, in his very first message, he styles himself, “the Supreme Executive,” and the council is always addressed as “the Legislative Council.” ³³

Among other provisions that became important at a later period are those to the effect that officers should be appointed by the general council and commissioned by the governor, ³⁴ and that they should take an oath to support “the republican principles of the constitution of 1824” and to “obey the Declarations and Ordinances of the Consultation.” ³⁵ The eleventh article provided that when charges were preferred against any officer of the provisional government for malfeasance or misconduct in office, he was to be tried before the council and if he was found guilty by a two-thirds vote he was to be dismissed from office by the governor. Two-thirds of the members-elect of the council were to constitute a quorum to do business.

Thus far the discussion has been confined to the legislative and executive departments with special reference to those provisions which throw light upon the subsequent controversies. Articles 5, 6, and 7 established a judicial system. In each municipality two judges, a first and a second, were to be nominated by the council and commissioned by the governor. The second judge was to act only in the absence or inability of the first. These judges were to have jurisdiction over all crimes and misdemeanors recognized by the common law of England, were to possess full testamentary powers, were to constitute a court of record for conveyances and to serve as notaries public. Jury trial was provided for, and the procedure in criminal cases was based upon the common law of England. In general then the common law of England was followed, but the judges were empowered “to grant writs of sequestration, attachment, or arrest, in all cases established by the civil code or code of practice of the State of Louisiana, to be regulated by the forms thereof.”

The land offices were closed and provision was made for the appointment of persons to take charge of the records. The political chiefs of the three departments of Nacogdoches, Brazos, and Bexar were ordered to cease their functions and transmit the departmental archives to the governor and council. The municipalities were authorized to continue to elect their alcaldes and other local officials.

The provisional government was to go into operation immediately after the adjournment of the Consultation and continue until the Consultation reassembled, or until other delegates were elected and a new government was established.

After the adoption of the plan for the formation of the government, the report on the military department was read and adopted. This document consists of twelve articles. ³⁶ A regular army was to be created consisting of eleven hundred and twenty men enlisted for two years, or for and during the continuance of hostilities. One major-general, who was to be commander-in-chief of all the forces called into the public service during the war, was to be elected by the Consultation and commissioned by the governor. He was to be subject to the orders of the governor and council. ³⁷ His staff was to consist of an adjutant-general, an inspector-general, a quartermaster-general, a paymaster-general, a surgeon-general, and four aids-de-camp, appointed by the major-general and commissioned by the governor. While in the field the army was to be governed by the rules, regulations, and discipline of the army of the United States.

The last three articles provided for the organization of the militia. All able-bodied men between the ages of sixteen and fifty were to be subject to military duty. They were required to assemble in their respective municipalities on the 3d of December and elect a captain and two lieutenants for every fifty-six men. If there were as many as five companies in a municipality they constituted a regiment. Militia officers received their commissions from the governor.

The important part of the plan is that dealing with the regular army. It gives in general outline the methods to be followed in the organization of the army and leaves the details to the provisional government. The constant quarrels between the governor and council, however, tended to delay this all-important work. The fact must be kept in mind that this plan referred entirely to a regular army to be created at some time in the future and had nothing to do with the volunteer force then carrying on a campaign around San Antonio de Bexar under the command of General Austin. As a matter of fact the Consultation adopted a committee report on November 13th in which it was expressly declared that it had no control over the volunteer army. The distinction between the regular and volunteer armies and the powers of the major-general were never very clearly defined, and much of the subsequent trouble was due to this confusion.

After attending to some business of minor importance, the Consultation proceeded, on November 12th, to elect officers for the provisional government. Mr. Martin nominated Stephen F. Austin for governor, and Mr. Parmer nominated Henry Smith. Mr. Everitt nominated J. W. Robinson for lieutenant-governor. The vote stood:

Smith 31

Austin 22

Robinson 52

On motion of M. W. Smith, Sam Houston was elected major-general of the armies of Texas. On motion of Mr. A. Huston, it was resolved that three commissioners should be appointed by the house as agents to the United States. B. T. Archer, W. H. Wharton, and Stephen F. Austin were elected. The following council was then chosen by the various delegations present:

• Austin, William Menifee.

• Nacogdoches, Daniel Parker.

• San Augustine, A. Huston.

• Washington, Jesse Grimes.

• Viesca, A. G. Perry.

• Mina, D. C. Barrett.

• Liberty, Henry Millard.

• Tenehaw, Martin Parmer. ³⁸

• Gonzales, J. D. Clements.

• Matagorda, R. R. Royall.

• Harrisburg, W. P. Harris.

• Columbia, E. Waller.

• Bevil, W. Hanks.

On motion of Mr. Waller, the name of the municipality of Columbia was changed to Brazoria, and the seat of government was removed from the town of Columbia to the town of Brazoria. Brazoria had been the original seat of government, but a decree of the state government issued in March, 1834, had made the removal and changed the name of the municipality. ³⁹

The Consultation now resolved not to consider any further business upon which the governor and council could act. It was also ordered that a messenger should be sent to the volunteer army then before Bexar to request General Austin to report immediately to the provisional government and secure his commission as agent to the United States. ⁴⁰

On November 13th, Mr. Barrett, chairman of the committee to which had been referred certain documents received from the army before Bexar, reported. The committee stated that it had certain subjects to refer to the Consultation. The first related to the granting of letters of marque and reprisal. The report then proceeded as follows:

“The second contemplates an expedition from New Orleans against Matamoros. This subject your committee regard as important, and concur with the views of the commanding general ⁴¹ as to its certain effects, of crippling the enemy and distracting his movements. Your committee, however, from documents now in their possession, have it in their power to inform this house, that a small force, of one hundred and fifty men, commanded by General Mexia, armed and equipped at his own expense, has sailed from New Orleans for the port of Tampico or Matamoros, ⁴² and that a descent upon that quarter, from whatever source, in the opinion of your committee, will produce the consequences of annoying the enemy at an unexpected point, and prevent reinforcements being sent to Bexar. Should further operations hereafter seem expedient, in aiding the enterprise of General Mexia, it enters into the duties of the governor and council of Texas.”

The next two sections recommend a vote of thanks to Major Belton, of the United States army, for offering his services as inspector of arms and ammunition, and to Stephen F. Austin, James W. Fannin, and Benjamin F. Smith, for placing their land and property at the disposal of the house to be used in raising funds for the common good. The final section is as follows:

“Your committee before closing their report, would respectfully call the attention of this house to the army now in the field. This force is composed of volunteers from every rank of citizens in the country, whose services generally commenced before the assembling of this house; and as their movements have hitherto been regulated by officers of their own choice, no obligation can be imposed upon them to submit to the control of the provisional government; advisory communications are all that can be made to them; nevertheless, your committee recommends that every honorable inducement should be held out for their continuance in their country's service, at any rate until a regular army be ready to take the field, should Bexar so long hold out against their efforts. ***” ⁴³

By adopting this report the Consultation put the stamp of its approval upon the plan for an expedition against Matamoros and admitted that neither it nor the provisional government which it created had any control over the volunteer army.

The Consultation adjourned on November 14th with the understanding that it was to convene again on the 1st of March unless called together sooner by the governor and council.

---

IV.  BEGINNING OF STRIFE BETWEEN THE GOVERNOR AND COUNCIL.

Before going into a detailed account of the doings of the general council, which met for the first time on November 14th, it will be necessary to give a brief description of the campaign then going on around San Antonio de Bexar. After defeating the enemy at Gonzales on October 1st, the volunteer army took up its march for Bexar on the 13th under the command of General Austin. The intention was to storm that stronghold, then held by a large force of Mexicans under General Cos. On the 20th the army reached Salado Creek, some five miles from its destination. A few days later General Austin sent forward Colonel Bowie and Capt. J. W. Fannin with a small detachment of men to reconnoitre the old missions near the town and secure a suitable camping place for the army. They slept near the mission of Concepcion on the night of the 27th and awoke the next morning to find themselves surrounded by about four hundred Mexicans. The Texans took their stand in the river bottom and repulsed the enemy in spite of their superiority in numbers. ⁴⁴ This success, known as the battle of Concepcion, filled the army with enthusiasm and some were anxious to attack Bexar at once. The majority of the officers, however, regarded such an attempt as impracticable at that time, and it was abandoned. ⁴⁵

The army spent the month of November in idleness. An occasonal skirmish with the enemy was all that there was to relieve the monotony of the camp. Seeing the dissatisfaction that was arising and realizing that provisions were becoming scarce, Austin issued an order, November 21st, for the storming of Bexar on the following morning. Brown states that the matter was submitted to a vote of the soldiers, and as a majority of them opposed the plan the order was countermanded. ⁴⁶

On November 24th, Austin left the army for San Felipe in order to receive his commission and join his colleagues in their misson to the United States. A number of the men left the army at the same time to go to their homes. The remainder, among whom was a company from New Orleans known as the Greys, elected Colonel Burleson to succeed Austin as commander-in-chief. Burleson appointed Frank W. Johnson as his adjutant-general, ⁴⁷ and Peter W. Grayson and William T. Austin his aids-de-camp.

The aggressive force of the Texans was not confined entirely to the so-called volunteer army. Thus, a small band of fifty colonists under Captain George Collinsworth attacked the post of La Bahia (Goliad) on the 8th of October and compelled it to surrender. Lieutenant-Colonel Sandoval and the other officers captured were sent to San Felipe, where they gave no little trouble to the Consultation and later to the provisional government. Captain Collinsworth now joined the main army on its march to Bexar and left Captain Dimit in command at Goliad. On November 3d, Captain Dimit sent out a detachment under Adjutant Westover to attack the Mexican garrison at Lipantitlan, a small place on the Nueces River above San Patricio. Westover succeeded in capturing one party of Mexicans and routing another before returning to Goliad.

Just ten days before the election of General Burleson as commander-in-chief on November 24th, the Consultation had adjourned and the provisional government had gone into operation.

The general council held its first meeting at 2 p. m. on November 14, 1835, Lieutenant-Governor Robinson in the chair. The following members were present:

• Austin, Wylie Martin.

• Nacogdoches, Daniel Parker.

• San Augustine, A. Huston.

• Washington, Jesse Grimes.

• Viesca, A. G. Perry.

• Mina, D. C. Barrett.

• Liberty, Henry Millard.

• Tenehaw, Martin Parmer.

• Gonzales, J. D. Clements.

• Matagorda, Chas. Wilson.

• Harrisburg, W. P. Harris.

• Brazoria, John A. Wharton.

• Bevil, Wyatt Hanks.

• Jefferson, Claiborne West.

• Guadaloupe Victoria, J. A. Padilla ⁴⁸

The governor sent in his first message to the council on November 16th. In the opening sentence he called himself, “the supreme executive of the free and sovereign state of Texas.” ⁴⁹ The members were urged to be morally courageous, to provide for the army, to raise a company of rangers, establish a revenue system, organize the militia, and locate the seat of government. ⁵⁰

The following standing committees were appointed: on military affairs—Wharton, A. Huston, and Hanks; on affairs of state and judiciary—Barrett, Padilla, and Parker; on naval affairs—Perry, Harris, and West; on land and Indian affairs—Martin, Parmer, and Grimes; on finance—Millard, Wilson, and Clements. ⁵¹

On November 17th it was decided by a vote of eight to six that the seat of government should be removed to Washington. This was incorporated in the sixth section of an ordinance, passed the next day, entitled “An ordinance creating the offices of treasurer, secretary to the executive, and clerks to the several committees.”

The council, on the morning of the 20th, passed “An ordinance declaring the mode of passing, signing, and publishing the ordinances, decrees, and resolutions of the provisional government of Texas.” This provided that ordinances passed by the council must be acted upon by the governor within three days, or else they would become laws without his signature. If he returned them with his objections within the specified time, a two-thirds vote could override his veto. A peculiar feature to be noted here is that the organic law adopted on November 11th did not give the governor any veto power at all. Hence the only such power possessed by him was derived from this ordinance, which mentions it in a matter of fact manner. Strange to say, Smith actually vetoed the very measure which conferred the power upon him and the council sustained his objections. He wished the law amended so that bills would be subject to his consideration for three days after their reception in his office instead of three days after passage. ⁵²

Objection was also made to the ordinance of November 18th, creating certain offices under the provisional government, on the ground that the salaries of the officials were much too high, considering the impoverished condition of the country. The sixth section of the bill, removing the government to Washington, likewise failed to meet his approval. The ordinance was taken up the next day, November 21st, but did not pass over the veto, although four of the members voted for the sixth section. ⁵³ This is the first indication of any difference of opinion between Smith and the council, and in this case there is no evidence of ill feeling.

An ordinance of the 21st, authorizing Thomas F. McKinney, of Velasco, to borrow $100,000 for the public service, seems to have caused the first breach of friendly relations. ⁵⁴ The so-called “Council of Texas,” of which Mr. Royall was president, had, on October 27th, authorized McKinney to make this loan, and the Consultation had approved its acts. Consequently the council was simply confirming authority already granted.

Governor Smith kept the ordinance the full three days allowed him by law, and then returned it with his objections. He stated that as agents had already been appointed by the Consultation to proceed to the United States the proposed mission of Mr. McKinney would be an encroachment on their powers. In conclusion, the council was exhorted to make out instructions for these agents. Either this objection failed to appeal to the council, or else it was becoming tired of the governor's continual exercise of the veto power. At any rate, on motion of D. C. Barrett, it took the ordinance under consideration, and by unanimous vote passed it over the veto. ⁵⁵

During the three days interval in which the McKinney ordinance was lying in the governor's office the council was attending to ordinary business. On the 22d, Mr. Power was received as a member from Refugio. This municipality had not been actually represented in the Consultation, although it had elected delegates. The council examined the credentials of these delegates before allowing Mr. Power to take his seat. This procedure was in accordance with the first article of the organic law, which provided that members of the council must be chosen from among the delegates to the Consultation. ⁵⁶ A similar course was pursued in the case of Goliad, and on the 23d Mr. Ira Westover, representing that municipality, was admitted to the council. ⁵⁷ The addition of these two municipalities brought the total up to seventeen, although the entire number was never represented at any one time. According to the opinion of some, notably General Houston, ⁵⁸ it would have required two-thirds of seventeen, that is to say, at least twelve members, to constitute a quorum. The organic law, however, states in Article Three that “two-thirds of the members-elect shall form a quorum to do business.” The term “members-elect” would of course include only those actually elected who had not resigned.

The legislation during the interval from the 21st to the 24th was mainly directed toward the organization of the army and navy. On November 21st, Mr. Wharton introduced an ordinance to raise a regular army in accordance with the military plan adopted by the Consultation on November 11th. It was to consist of one regiment of artillery of 560 men and one regiment of infantry of 560. The pay and rations of the army were fixed, and United States army regulations adopted. ⁵⁹ An ordinance was also passed on the 22d granting letters of marque and reprisal and establishing a navy. ⁶⁰ The army ordinance was approved, but that for the navy met the usual fate. The governor objected that the privileges granted to privateers were too unbounded, the government taking all the responsibility without any share in the prizes likely to be captured. He said that if the section creating a navy had been embodied in a separate ordinance he would have approved it. ⁶¹ In accordance with this advice, two separate measures were passed, one creating a navy, and the other granting letters of marque and reprisal with ample protection to the government. ⁶² The governor sent in a message on November 27th, saying that he had approved the two bills, and that he had signed the McKinney ordinance, passed over his veto.

One other measure passed at this time should be mentioned, because of its subsequent importance. It will be remembered that on the 20th Smith vetoed an ordinance for creating certain provisional offices and removing the seat of government to Washington. On the 24th the council passed a new ordinance leaving out the clause in regard to the seat of government, and reducing the salaries of officials in accordance with the governor's advice. One clause of this law required that “All demands upon the Treaurer shall be upon the order of the General Council, approved and signed by the Governor and attested by the Secretary of the Executive.” ⁶³ In other words, the consent of the governor was made necessary to the appropriation of public money. As we shall see, the council subsequently repealed this ordinance when it wished to vote money for an object of which the governor did not approve.

The closing days of November present no features of special interest. General Houston, commander-in-chief of the regular army, had established his headquarters at San Felipe. He urged the immediate organization of the army, and, on November 28th, officers for the infantry and ranger corps were elected. ⁶⁴ On the 30th, General Austin arrived direct from the volunteer army at Bexar, which place he had left on the 24th. He was invited to a seat within the bar of the council, and made a brief speech, stating that he had arrived on his way to the United States as commissioner, and that he was ready to do anything in his power for the good of the country. ⁶⁵ Colonel Gonzales, a prominent Mexican republican and former officer in the army, also addressed the council and gave his views on public affairs. ⁶⁶

Mr. John McMullen, Mr. Bowers, and Mr. Ayres presented certificates of election as members of the Consultation from San Patricio, and on December 1st Mr. Ayres took his seat as a member of the council. This increased the total number of municipalities represented to eighteen. ⁶⁷

A brief summary of this chapter is necessary in order to obtain a clear view of the situation on December 1, 1835. The council had up to that time passed about twenty ordinances and decrees, over some of which there was a slight difference of opinion with the governor. An ordinance creating certain offices under the government was passed on November 18th, and vetoed by the governor on the 20th because of high salaries and the removal of the seat of government. Another ordinance, obviating the difficulties, passed on the 24th and approved on the 26th, required all orders on the treasurer to be approved and signed by the governor. An ordinance regulating the method of procedure in legislation was passed on the 20th, vetoed the same day, amended in conformity with the governor's objections, and approved on the 23d. An ordinance for grantng letters of marque and reprisal and creating a navy was passed on the 22d and vetoed on the 24th, and separate ordinances for the two objects were passed on the 25th in accordance with the governor's request, and the two were approved on the 27th. In these cases, although the executive had exercised his veto power rather freely, there does not seem to have been any breach of friendly relations between him and the members of the council. It is to the McKinney ordinance, passed on the 21st, that we can trace the beginnings of discord. In his message of the 24th, objecting to the bill, the governor used moderate language and gave what were apparently sound reasons for his conduct. Still it seems fair to infer from the haste and unanimity with which the matter was passed over his veto, that either the council regarded his objections as unreasonable, or else some feeling of a personal nature must have existed.

---

V.  GONZALES, TREASURY, AND MEXIA TROUBLES.

Up to this time, December 1st, the chronological order of the journal has been followed. Henceforth it will be necessary for the sake of clearness to discuss the subject topically, by outlining the growth of the various differences between Governor Smith and the council. Although two or more of these controversies often occupied the attention of the government at once and to some extent reacted upon each other, nevertheless it will be advisable to treat them more or less separately in order to avoid confusion. There is, however, running through all the various complications one unifying element to which attention has already been called. The solution to the problem lies in a consideration of the different views of the two parties in regard to the relations which Texas should sustain toward the rest of Mexico. The members of the council, thoroughly in harmony with the declaration of November 7th and the organic law to which that body owed its existence, were in favor of fighting as Mexican citizens for a restoration of the federal system. Their policy, then, was to help the Mexican Liberals as much as possible, and to carry the war into the enemy's country. Smith, however, seems to have had in view the ultimate independence of Texas from the very first. He was accordingly opposed to helping the Liberal Mexicans restore the federal constitution of 1824 for the simple reason that he did not wish Texas to remain a part of Mexico, either centralized or federalized. This theory will serve to explain most of the differences, if not all. The matters over which they quarreled may be enumerated as follows: 1. the question of aiding Colonel Gonzales; 2. the manner of drawing drafts on the treasurer; 3. the relations with General Mexia; 4. the call of a convention; 5. the Barrett and Gritton appointments; 6. the Matamoros expedition. These have been arranged, as far as it could be done conveniently, in the chronological order of their beginnings.

Colonel José Maria Gonzales, a Mexican Liberal refugee, had appeared before the council on November 30th and given his views on the volunteer army then besieging Bexar. A committee appointed to explain to him the nature of the provisional government reported, on December 1st, that Gonzales and his men were ready to join the army on the same terms as other volunteers, and the committee further recommended that five hundred dollars be advanced to assist him. ⁶⁸ In accordance with this recommendation the council, on December 3d, appropriated the amount named. ⁶⁹ Lieutenant-Colonel Sandoval, who had been captured at Goliad on October 8th and sent to San Felipe for safe-keeping, now expressed a desire to help the Texans and asked for permission to join Colonel Gonzales. The request was referred to the committee on military affairs. Its report, presented on December 6th, is of considerable importance as showing that in spite of the conservative attitude of the council as a whole, some few of its members were in favor of a declaration of independence. An extract is as follows:

“From the manner in which our most sacred and inalienable rights have been assailed and threatened by the Mexican government, and their treatment now towards us, and what we may expect in future, should they have the power; would have justified us, in making the declaration long ere this, that we were absolved from all allegiance to or connection with said government.” ⁷⁰

Meanwhile Gonzales had gone to Bexar, but Governor Smith wrote to General Burleson, on December 9th, to keep a careful watch on his movements, as he (Smith) had no confidence in Mexicans. ⁷¹

Perhaps anticipating opposition from Smith in its program of assisting Mexican Liberals such as Gonzales and Mexia, the council passed a resolution, December 2d, changing the manner of drawing drafts on the treasurer. That part of the ordinance of November 24th which required the approval and signature of the governor was repealed and the signature of the chairman of the finance committee was made sufficient for all orders on the treasurer. ⁷² This would allow the council to vote money in secret session and draw on the treasurer for it without the governor's being any the wiser. The ordinance really went too far, however, and placed power in the hands of the finance committee that should have been retained by the entire council. Governor Smith called attention to this in his veto message of December 6th, and urged that, since they were without the proper functionaries of secretary and comptroller, as many checks and balances should be incorporated in their system as was possible without producing complexity. ⁷³

The ordinance was taken under consideration on December 10th and passed over the veto by a vote of twelve to two. ⁷⁴ Still the governor's objections made some impression. On the 11th a resolution was passed providing for a “Standing Committee of Public Accounts,” whose duty it was to receive, audit, and register all accounts and report to the council twice a week. ⁷⁵ Finally, on December 26th, an ordinance was passed creating the offices of auditor and comptroller of the public accounts. This was a long step toward system and regularity, but Governor Smith vetoed the bill, basing his objections on certain phrases which he maintained were liable to misconstruction. Perhaps the real reason was that he was opposed to having the immediate supervision of all expenditures taken out of his hands. The council immediately passed the ordinance by a unanimous vote. ⁷⁶

The question of aiding General Mexia occupied the attention of the government during the month of December. The quarrel over this matter, on which the governor and the council had decidedly different views, reacted on the other differences and helped to widen the breach. Reference has already been made to Mexia's unsuccessful expedition against Tampico in the month of November and the recommendation of the Consultation to the effect that “should further operations hereafter seem expedient in aiding the enterprise of General Mexia it enters into the duties of the governor and council of Texas.” After his failure at Tampico, Mexia did not give up hope, but applied to the provisional government for aid in fitting out another expedition. Before the question came to a vote in the council, Captain Miracle, a Mexican Liberal refugee, arrived at San Felipe direct from the interior and gave important information relative to the movements of the Liberals. Some members of the council had a conversation with Miracle and reported in a secret session held on December 5th:

“That he left Mier on the Rio Grande the 19th ult. and was dispatched by Canales (a lawyer of talents and influence) and by Molano, formerly lieutenant-governor of the state of Tamaulipas, Tobar, formerly a senator of the federal party in congress, and several other men of influence who live in Matamoros and in other parts of Tamaulipas—

“The objects of his mission are to see the governors Viesca and Zavala and ascertain from them what was the character and intention of the revolution in Texas, for so many reports had reached there on this subject that they were in doubt—

“He states that Canales has two hundred men at a place called Palo Blanco this side of the Rio Grande within two days march of San Patricio on the Nueces—that Molano and Tobar who live in Matamoros have everything arranged with the principal inhabitants of that place to take up arms the moment all is ready—

“That the governor of the former state of Tamaulipas, Vital Fernandez, has an understanding with General Mexia to join the cause—that General Lemur and his brother and many others of the principal men of New Leon are also in the combination, and many of the officers who are now on the march against Texas—that the company of troops at Lipantitlan or San Patricio is also gained over and ready to join Gonzales or Canales when called on—

“He also says that the state of Jalisco (better known here by the name of Guadalaxara) has refused to submit to the decree of the 3d of October last, and that General Montenegro of the liberal party had defeated General Paredas in Jalisco. Also that the people of Morilla had represented against it, and were ready to resist. ***

“That Canales, Molano, Tobar, Lemur, and all the other liberals are only waiting to hear from Governors Viesca or Zavala, or both, as to the objects of the revolution in Texas—Should it be to sustain the federal system, they will all unite and rise in mass—take Matamoros—attack the troops that are coming on against Texas—revolutionize the whole state of Tamaulipas—appropriate the proceeds of the custom houses of Matamoros and Tampico to the expenses of the war, etc.

“They all admit that Texas ought to declare independence in case the central government is firmly established, but that she ought first to make an effort, in union with the liberals, to save the federal system.

“Such in substance is the information given by Captain Miracle. He was an officer of the army at Zacatecas—is a Columbian by birth—Governor Viesca has confidence in him.” ⁷⁷

It is not to be wondered at that the members of the council were considerably influenced by this glowing account of the strength of the Liberals in the interior, and became more determined than ever to carry out their program of restoring the federal system. Nor can we blame them for thenceforth holding, that the word “independence was not to be spoken even in a whisper”; for, in case of a declaration of independence, this prospect of help would immediately fade away. The council was in this frame of mind when the resolution came up on December 6th authorizing “William Pettus, contractor for the volunteer army, in conjunction and with the advice of T. F. McKinney,” to fit out General Mexia “with the object of carrying the war into the enemy's country.” General Mexia was required to report his plan of operation through Pettus to the provisional government. The ordinance was at once passed.

On December 9th, the following message from the governor was received:

“Gentlemen: I herewith transmit to your honorable body the following bills, which I have had under consideration. The one authorizing persons to be appointed to make provision for General Mexia, etc., as it stands, I can not approve, for the following reasons:

“First. I have no confidence in General Mexia's coöperating in the smallest degree in our favor. That his intention to make a descent on the seaports west of us is for the purpose of robbing, to recuperate his own desperate fortunes, I have no doubt; but can see no possible advantage he would be to Texas. What his designs or intentions really are, I have no right to know; but really think it would be unwise to run this government to the expense necessary to fit him out, without having any guarantee from or control over him or his conduct. Furthermore, as the bill runs, it would seem the outfit would be made before this government would be advised of his plans. Besides, I consider it bad policy to fit out, or trust Mexicans in any matter connected with our government, as I am well satisfied that we will in the end find them inimical and treacherous. ⁷⁸ For these and many other reasons not enumerated, I can not sign the bill. Three other bills which I have also transmitted to you, I have approved.

“With sentiments, etc., I am,  “Your obedient servant,  “Henry Smith, Governor.  “Dec. 9th, 1835.” ⁷⁹

The ordinance returned was taken up at once, and passed over the veto by a unanimous vote. The affair now assumed a new aspect, because of the movements of the army before Bexar. About the night of the 9th or the morning of the 10th, word was received from the army that it had begun the storming of Bexar, and was in need of reinforcements. ⁸⁰ The thought naturally suggested itself that General Mexia and his men might be sent in response to the call. Accordingly the council resolved, on December 10th, that Mexia should be requested to proceed to Bexar, and Colonel Power was instructed to notify him. ⁸¹ The members of the council, like many of the army officers, believed that a descent upon Matamoros would follow the fall of Bexar. Consequently, in requesting Mexia to coöperate with the volunteer army, they did so with the belief that this would be the best method of capturing Matamoros by a union of all forces. If Captain Miracle's report concerning the strength of the Liberals in the interior was correct, such an attack at that time would very likely have been successful.

Colonel Power set out at once for General Mexia's camp at the mouth of the Brazos. In the meantime, Colonel Pettus, the government contractor, had gone down and stated his mission to the general, and informed him of the council's desire to know his plan of operations. Mexia readily agreed to return to San Felipe with Pettus and explain his plans to the council. On their way up, they met General Austin at Columbia, December 14th. The two generals held a long conference, and Mexia showed a number of letters recently received from the interior, which indicated that the Liberals were still strong and active. General Austin was favorably impressed with the Mexican leader, and wrote the council a confidential letter urging it to give him all the aid in its power. He also advised it to remain true to the declaration of November 7th as a matter of policy, if for no other reason. ⁸²

Colonel Pettus, in his report to the council, December 17th, stated that he had gone down to Quintana to make arrangements for General Mexia. The general wished to carry his men by sea to Copano, where they could be used either for an attack on Matamoros or to help the army before Bexar. The men refused to proceed that way, and were placed upon the steamboat Laura and brought up to Columbia. On reaching there they were met by Colonel Power with news of the assault on Bexar and the request of the army for reinforcements. Pettus decided to send forward the forces at once, but was unable to obtain a sufficient number of horses. The Americans and Mexicans under Mexia's command soon fell into a dispute over the horses. The Americans obtained possession of them and proceeded to Bexar, while the Mexicans returned to Quintana with the general. Colonel Pettus went on to say that the accommodations furnished to General Mexia were considerable, as would be seen by his monthly report. ⁸³

Colonel Power likewise made his report on the 17th. He said that he had met Mexia at Columbia, and that he refused to go to Bexar, his object being to proceed to Copano and join the two hundred Mexicans at Palo Blanco and from there take Matamoros if possible. Mr. Fisher, Mexia's secretary, stated “that the general could not place his military character at stake by accepting a command under the provisional government of Texas as Mr. Viesca is not governor.” Mr. Power went on to say that Mexia would shortly arrive in San Felipe to confer with the governor and council in regard to blockading the ports of Vera Cruz and Tampico. ⁸⁴

The council was displeased with Mexia's refusal to coöperate with the volunteer army, and, it seems, instructed Mr. McKinney not to give him any further assistance. ⁸⁵ Still it was not willing to admit that the governor's opinion of Mexicans in general was correct. A committee report adopted on the 23d approved the principle of aiding Mexican Liberals, but urged that so far as possible they should depend upon their own resources.

The report is as follows:

“Your select committee of five to whom was referred the letters of General Mexia and others, report—

“That on examining all the papers and documents concerning the claims, plans of coöperation with, and proposals of assistance to, the people of Texas from General Mexia and other Mexican liberals, they would advise that the order from the general council to T. F. McKinney, of the 17th instant, be countermanded, as your committee can find no reasons for declining the aid of General Mexia, or the aid and coöperation of any Mexican liberals, whose cause is our cause, as opposed to military despotism; and advise that the advances made to General Mexia by government agents be respected. But, your committee are under the necessity of recommending to this council the avoidance of future responsibility and advances on account of our Mexican fellow citizens, whose interests are directing their efforts against centralism, in common with ourselves. Our treasury is barren—our resources for present operations must be drawn from foreign capitalists—and of consequence doubtful. And if the Mexican patriots are induced to act in the common cause, let them depend upon their own resources, as Texas does upon hers. Texas asks no pecuniary aid at the hands of her Mexican brethren nor is she able to extend it to them. Her citizens will resist the oppression of their rights, at every hazard, with or without the assistance of anybody on earth, resting confident that the justice of her cause will secure the sanction of our omnipotent God, who will sustain them in their noble efforts to sustain the natural rights of man.

“D. C. Barrett, Chairman,  “Select Committee of Five.  “Dec. 23rd, 1835.” ⁸⁶

After this date matters of more importance occupied the public attention. On January 4, 1836, the council adopted a committee report explaining their treatment of Mexia and outlining their general policy of dealing with Mexican Liberals:

“As regards the communication concerning General Mexia, your committee do not incline to censure any of the proceedings of this body in relation to him; acting as they did from information received at different times, showing indecision in the character and determination of General Mexia, and hearing his conduct complained of by those who have been under his command, every action of this house in relation to the matter has resulted from a sense of duty to the country. But your committee are of opinion, that the declaration of November 7th and organic law, which constitutes the basis of the provisional government of Texas, and the solemn obligations of the members who compose that government to sustain its principles, in spirit and in letter, are fundamental principles, that must be observed as well for the present safety of our citizens, and future hopes of security to the country, as for the conscientious fulfillment of the duties they assumed. And whatever may be the private feelings in regard to any other policy, all attempts to sustain principles, and carry into effect plans, differing from that already adopted, would be, in the minds of your committee, in the highest degree criminal, in any officer, who has assumed the responsibilities of acting under its provisions and directions. Our course, therefore, is a plain one. While supporting the `republican principles of the constitution of 1824,' which places us as one of the belligerents in a civil war, we are requred to coöperate, and act in concert with all Mexican citizens also favorable to the confederation and opposed to a central form of government. In doing this we fulfill a paramount duty, and pursue the dictates of the clearest policy for sustaining Texas in her present dangerous conflict.

“D. C. Barrett,  “Chairman Committee of State.” ⁸⁷

This report is the last heard of Mexia under the provisional government. Of his subsequent history it is sufficient to say that he continued to hold out against the centralists until 1839, when he was captured near Puebla, Mexico, and put to death. ⁸⁸

---

VI.  DISPUTE OVER THE CALLING OF A CONVENTION AND THE BARRETT  AND GRITTON APPOINTMENTS.

The provisional government had been in operation only a few weeks when the question of calling a convention came up. The municipalities of Texas had not all been represented in the Consultation, and the act of that body providing that it should meet again on March 1st aroused indignation in certain parts of the country. ⁸⁹ Some even went so far as to say that the members were anxious to retain power in their own hands and were afraid to leave to the people the privilege of electing delegates to a new convention.

The first action taken on the matter by the council was on December 1st, when a resolution was introduced by Mr. Parker providing for the election of delegates to a convention to be held March 1st. The resolution was read and ordered to a second reading on next day, but it seems not to have come to a vote. Mr. Barrett introduced a similar resolution on December 4th, and it was laid on the table. ⁹⁰ Governor Smith urged immediate action on the matter, but business of more pressing importance occupied the attention of the council, and the resolution was not taken up and passed until December 10th. After a long preamble setting forth the natural rights of man and his duty to oppose tyranny, it went on to provide that a “convention of delegates of the people for each municipality of the three departments of Texas shall be called, to assemble on the first day of March next, at the town of Washington.” The delegates “are clothed with ample, unlimited, or plenary powers as to the form of government to be adopted.” It went on to state that the election should be held on February 1st, and that “all free white males and Mexicans opposed to a central government” should be allowed to vote. The fourth section apportioned the delegates among the various municipalities, allow-Bexar, among others, four votes. ⁹¹

The following message from the governor was read on December 12th:

“Gentlemen: *** I have signed the revenue, postoffice, and many other bills of minor importance, all of which I transmit to you with one to call the convention, not approved, inasmuch as I consider it in some degree exceptionable.

“My objections are confined to the third and fourth articles, and are these: that the Mexican population within our limits, particularly where they are unmixed with other population, could not properly be tested, at an election, to know whether they were in favor of centralism or not—that being made the touchstone of eligibility. Under existing circumstances, I consider one fact plain and evident: that they who are not for us must be against us. In my opinion they should be so considered and treated. Actions always speak louder than words; and a very great proportion of the inhabitants of Bexar afford fair examples. They have had, it is well known, every opportunity to evince their friendship by joining our standard. With very few exceptions they have not done so, which is evidence, strong and conclusive, that they are really our enemies. In many instances, they have been known to fight against us. I therefore consider that they should neither be entitled to our respect or favor, and as such not entitled to a seat in our councils. As it respects the other Mexican jurisdictions that are intermixed in our population, where the touchstone could be more properly applied—it would be different. I therefore, hope you will reconsider the bill, and make the alterations suggested, as I consider the objections reasonable and justly founded.

“I am,  “Your obedient servant,  “Henry Smith, Governor.  “Dec. 12th, 1835.” ⁹²

On the next day, the resolution was reconsidered and passed over the governor's veto unanimously. The foregoing message contained language with regard to the Mexicans very similar to that used in the message vetoing the Mexia resolution. These and various other affairs reacted on one another, and all together stirred up considerable feeling. The trouble next to be considered, however, was much more personal in character.

“An ordinance and decree establishing and imposing duties on imposts and tonnage, and for other purposes,” was passed on December 8th and approved by the governor on the 12th. The coast was divided into five revenue districts in each of which there was to be a collector of the port. Elections for these officers took place in the council on December 11th. This was before the governor actually returned the bill approved, but as it presumably had been in his office for three days, it had become valid without his signature. At this election, Mr. Edward Gritton was chosen collector of the port at Copano in the Aransas district.

On December 11th, also, Mr. Kerr presented a resolution in the council providing for a “judge advocate general, for the armies of Texas, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of colonel in the line.” It was adopted, and, at the evening session, Mr. D. C. Barrett, member of the council from Mina, was elected judge advocate general. ⁹³

On the 17th Governor Smith sent in a message objecting to the two appointments above mentioned. “I never can extend to them commissions,” said he, “unless compelled by a constitutional majority of your body, for the reasons which follow: first, of Mr. Gritton, as collector of revenue for the port of Copano. It is well known that Mr. Gritton made his first appearance in Texas as Secretary of Colonel Almonte, who was an avowed spy upon us under the orders of Santa Anna, ⁹⁴ an Englishman by birth and a Mexican by adoption and long residence; allied to our enemies by affinity and commerce, he has not joined our army and I have ever considered him a spy upon us. * * *

“Respecting Mr. D. C. Barrett, I regret extremely that it is my disagreeable and painful though bounden duty to object to his appointment as `judge advocate general of all the armies of Texas, with the rank and pay of colonel in the line.'

“I object in the first place, because the office is new and unheard of in the country. And secondly, I am bound to prefer against Mr. Barrett the following specification of charges.”

The governor then, according to Brown, enumerated six charges, of which Yoakum gives the following: “He alleged that he [Barrett] had forged an attorney's license, in North Carolina; that he had taken fees on both sides of a case as an attorney; that he had passed counterfeit money knowingly; that he had embezzled the funds furnished himself and Gritton as an outfit, when sent on an embassy to Cos the previous summer, without going to their intended destination, or reporting their proceedings.” ⁹⁵

Although the entire council was inclined to resent this attack on Mr. Barrett, many of the members began to realize that it was not good policy to create new offices and then fill them from their own ranks. Mr. Power offered a resolution on the 17th providing that no member of the council should be eligible to any office created by them. ⁹⁶ The question came to a vote on the 21st, and was defeated by eight to seven, as follows: noes, Menifee, Linn, Hanks, Kerr, Millard, Barrett, Royall, Parker; ayes, Clements, Harris, West, Power, McMullen, Thompson, and Mitchell.

Two days later, it was resolved that the message of the 17th should be filed, but not entered on the journal, and Mr. Menifee introduced a “resolution denying the right of the executive to veto appointments to office,” which was passed on December 25th in the following form:

1.

“Resolved, by the general council of the provisional government of Texas, that this council does not recognize or acknowledge any power in the executive branch of the said government to object to or veto appointments to offices made by the council. That the appointing power is exclusively with the council, and the commissioning is the duty of the governor consequent upon his office, and even if otherwise, the veto as returned upon the list of officers appointed by this council, dated the 11th inst., was not returned within the three days prescribed by the `ordinance and decree declaring the mode of passing, signing, and publishing the ordinances, decrees and resolutions of the provisional government of Texas.' The list of officers appointed was sent to the executive office the 12th of December and returned December 17th.

2.

“Resolved, that by the eleventh article of the organic law this council can only consider `charges and specifications,' preferred against a member of this council, `for malfeasance or misconduct in office.'

3.

“Resolved, that the charges of this character preferred by the governor in his message of the 17th inst. against D. C. Barrett, the general council repel, as being untrue—and the other charges are not a subject matter proper to be investigated by this council, according to the aforesaid article of the organic law.

4.

“Resolved, that the Governor be [and] he is hereby requested to issue commissions forthwith to the persons named in the certified list of persons elected under date of the 11th inst.

5.

“Resolved, that the Governor be furnished with a copy of the foregoing resolutions.” ⁹⁷

Nothing more is heard of this affair, and it is to be supposed that Gritton accepted the position as collector. Barrett, though judge advocate general of the army, continued to retain his seat in the council and to take a prominent part in the opposition to the governor.

---

VII.  THE REGULAR AND THE VOLUNTEER ARMIES.

The Consultation, on November 11th, had adopted a plan to raise a regular army, and the council, on November 24th, passed an ordinance to that effect, which was approved by the governor on the 26th. The army was to consist of one thousand one hundred and twenty men, enlisted for two years or during the war. There was to be one regiment of artillery and one of infantry. Each volunteer was to receive six hundred and forty acres of land. General Houston, the commander-in-chief, took up his headquarters at San Felipe. On December 4th he wrote to the council urging an immediate organization of the army, especially the appointment of officers for the various companies. ⁹⁸

The letter was referred to the committee on military affairs, which reported on December 6th that the council had thrown no obstacle in the way of raising a regular army, but that, on the contrary, it had been as “expedite in the enactment of ordinances—election of officers—and every other necessary arrangement *** as could be done under the press of business and the distracted state of our affairs.” Much of the council's time, the committee maintained, was occupied in providing for the volunteer army, upon which “rests the hopes and fortunes of the people of Texas,” and it could not be overlooked “to gratify the wishes of General Sam Houston, by proceeding immediately to the appointment of the officers of the regular army.” ⁹⁹ The appointment of officers was to be postponed for another reason. It was urged that every inducement should be held out to volunteers; and, if all the offices were filled at this time, it would, by closing “the door for promotion,” prevent many ambitious young men of the United States from coming to the aid of Texas. The committee went on to recommend the establishment of headquarters “at Gonzales or some other suitable place on the frontier.” ¹⁰⁰

On December 7th the council elected a colonel, lieutenant-colonel, and major for the regiment of infantry, and a colonel and lieutenant-colonel for the artillery, J. W. Fannin being elected colonel of artillery. ¹⁰¹

Governor Smith sent in a message on the 8th, urging the immediate organization of the army, and, on the 11th, the council elected officers for five companies of artillery. ¹⁰²

Houston would seem to have been satisfied to some extent with this, for, on December 12th, he issued a proclamation to the people of Texas in which he used the following language: “A regular army has been created and liberal encouragement has been given by the government.”

The following measures of the council relative to the regular army will serve to show that it did perhaps all in its power to insure the success of that branch of the service:

1.

December 12th. “A resolution authorizing the commander-in-chief to accept the services of five thousand auxiliary volunteers, and other purposes.” The “other purposes” referred to a resolution instructing the commander-in-chief to remove his head-quarters to Washington.

2.

December 14th. “An ordinance and decree increasing the bounty to soldiers of the regular army.”

3.

December 18th. “An ordinance and decree augmenting the regular army by creating a legion of cavalry.”

4.

December 21st. An ordinance appropriating forty thousand dollars for the army. ¹⁰³

Meanwhile, the volunteer army was not neglected, as ordinances for its relief, passed on November 19th, 24th, 27th, and 28th, and December 1st and 5th, will abundantly testify. That army was still occupying San Antonio de Bexar, and its leader, Colonel Johnson, in