96Political disturbances always offer pretexts for absurd and false rumors. Thus, during the past year the newspapers have given us the most alarming impressions, founded only upon hearsay or upon the false or imperfect understanding of facts in whose interpretation appearances only have been considered, without a previous examination of their true character and significance.
Such are the rumors spread abroad during the course of two years to the effect that the people of Texas have attempted and desire separation from the Mexican republic, that they have disobeyed the government, that they do not wish to be law-abiding, and other imputations with whose falsity the supreme government of the nation and that of the state of Coahuila and Texas are well acquainted. But the public, which has not had the requisite information, can not understand the origin of these calumnies or the appearances from which they have emanated; consequently, it is an act of justice, demanded by the circumstances, that it should be explained to the people, as well for their own satisfaction—since the Mexican populace has the right to be correctly informed concerning everything that bears relation to the common interest—as for the vindication of the worthy people of Texas, who, perhaps, on account of such rumors, have suffered unjustly in the good opinion of their fellow-citizens, which they deserve and ought to enjoy, as Mexicans who have never deviated in the slightest from their obligations.
For the proper understanding of the affairs of Texas a glance is necessary at the geographical and political situation of the country, at the character and occupations of its inhabitants, and at its productions, in order, in view of these premises, to answer the fundamental question, What are the true interests of Texas?
That district was a distinct and separate province under the Spanish government, and, as such, it was a participant in the war for independence, was represented in the constituent congress, and was provisionally united to Coahuila by the law of May 7, 1824, to form the state of Coahuila and Texas. It is exclusively agricultural, its inhabitants are tillers of the soil, and possess the virtues of industry, strength of character, regular habits, and ardent love of liberty and of prompt and wholesome administration of justice, which usually animate this important class in all enlightened countries. With their arms they have conquered those lands, warring incessantly against the savage Indians; with their plows they have made the desert disappear; and they are habitually enterprising.
The chief products of Texas are cotton, corn, beans, indigo, tobacco, garden vegetables, lard, cheese, butter, and all kinds of stock known in the republic. Its rivers and creeks afford abundant facilities for the establishment of mills and factories. The climate is hot in summer and cold in winter; it is unhealthful on the rivers and along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, which borders Texas from the Sabine river to the Nueces. There are ports adequate to accommodate, and abundant timber for the construction of, medium sized vessels.
Every one who has any knowledge in regard to the commerce of Texas must know that the Mexican markets are the best in the world for the products of Texas. Ginned cotton is worth seven or eight pesos 97 an arroba 98 in Mexico, Puebla, San Luis, etc., while in the United States of America and in Europe it is worth from two to four pesos. Corn in the ports of Matamoros, Tampico, Vera Cruz, and Campeche is worth from four to six pesos a fanego, 99 and in Texas it is worth from six reales 100 to one peso, and almost the same in New Orleans; in the Mexican ports lard is worth from one to two reales a pound, while in New Orleans and other parts of the North [North America] it is worth a half real at best, and the same proportion holds true with reference to all the products of Texas.
In regard to exportation to foreign countries, it is very evident that it can be carried on under the Mexican flag as easily as under that of any other nation whatever. The Texans would receive from foreigners merchandize in exchange for their products, while from their Mexican fellow-citizens they receive gold and silver.
The farmers of Texas believe that in agricultural products they can compete with the landowners and agriculturists of the southern part of the republic on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, because the habits of the Texans and their practical experience in the different branches of agriculture ought, for many years at least, to offset the advantage that the others have in the natural fertility of lands, the mildness of climate, and the nearness to market. Consequently they think that they can, in general, sell their products in the ports of the Gulf at a lower price than those of the same grade from the haciendas 101 of other districts are sold.
From this competition will always result a national benefit, since it will greatly hasten the advancement and the true aggrandizement and independence of the republic, for it will increase industry and agriculture in all sections, particularly as to those products adapted for export.
At the present time the exports of the republic are reduced to little more than gold and silver, whence it follows that the Mexicans are the miners for other nations. Let such a state of affairs change; let the imports be paid for with agricultural products such as sugar, cotton, indigo, cocoa, etc.; let mining unite with flourishing agriculture, and in a few years Mexico will present an interesting picture of wealth and prosperity hitherto unknown to the world.
Commerce by land from the ports of Texas to the interior of the republic presents advantages almost equal to the coast trade, since that country is level and very well adapted for highways to Monclova and the other towns of Coahuila, to El Paso del Norte in the state of Chihuahua, and to New Mexico. It is worthy of note that every year about two million pesos' worth of merchandise enters New Mexico and Chihuahua from Missouri across more than four hundred leagues of desert. This commerce from Missouri is entirely outside the course which the geopraphical situation of the country and nature itself has marked out; the ports of Texas were evidently designed for it. There is no difficulty in opening highways from Texas to the state of Chihuahua and to New Mexico, whose length would not be half the actual distance over which merchandize from Missouri is now transported, and they would pass throughout their whole extent within Mexican territory by the way of the interior of Texas, which can be settled and would afford abundant means for facilitating the transportation. The work of opening these roads is certainly of the greatest importance, since it would change the course of the commerce that now comes from Misouri from that foreign country to the Mexican ports of Texas, and consequently all the advantages from the payments for freight and transportation would pass from the freighters of Missouri to Mexican citizens; it would increase the income of the maritime custom-houses; it would distribute merchandize to the inhabitants of the interior at less cost than [if brought by the other route] from Missouri, on account of the reduction of the distance and of the expenses of transportation; it would attract settlers to the vast uninhabited districts of the interior, because of the advantage of establishing themselves along the road or near it, and thus without cost to the government would subdue the savage Indians who now are desolating the frontiers of Chihuahua; it would form a new and very strong chain to draw closer the union of Texas with the interior states of the republic, identifying their interests by means of a commercial intercourse, intimate, direct, and of mutual advantage; finally it would change the isolated and solitary position that Texas now occupies, bringing it into contact, through facility of transportation, with the most remote states of the interior. To establish these roads has been one of the favorite projects of the citizen Austin, who has labored with enthusiasm for the advancement of this, his adopted country; but it is a great enterprise and beyond the common routine of slow progress, and consequently it needs the support of the general and state governments, and their favor in the concession of certain privileges and special advantages.
The federal system has as its foundation the general and individual happiness; and the distinct parts of a society thus constituted are cemented, to form the national unity, by private interest and advantage working in harmony with the common welfare. Applying these principles to Texas, it is evident that instead of there being any antagonism between its own welfare as a state of the Mexican federation, and the common interests of the national unity, the pecuniary as well as all other interests of Texas bind more closely its union to the Mexican republic and must be better promoted with Texas as a part of Mexico than as a part of any other nation whatever.
Without further extending this general view, and in order not to weary the reader, these premises are sufficient in reason and sound politics to answer the important question, What are the interests of Texas?
The Texans are persuaded that these interests demand for them a local government as a state of the Mexican federation, and that, as such, the very nature of things will strengthen more and more the union of the state with the republic. It would not be strange if the landowners 102 should desire the separation of Texas from Mexico to prevent competition in agricultural articles; but it would be so if the Texans should seek it only to lose the best market for their products.
But it will be asked, Whence have arisen so many rumors concerning the separation of Texas from the Mexican republic? How is it that the public has been deceived by such erroneous and false impressions concerning this point? Why was the citizen Stephen Austin, agent and commissioner of the people of Texas to the supreme government of the federation, imprisoned and kept almost a year in the dungeons of Mexico?
A satisfactory reply to these questions will be found in a brief review of the political occurrences in that country in recent years. From an examination of these events the impartial man can not fail to be convinced that all the equivocations and false rumors that have appeared in the newspapers have arisen solely from having inferred positive facts and definite results from superficial appearances of things, without the thorough knowledge of them, obtained by previous analysis, so necessary to clarify the truth and to secure the practical and genuine demonstration which justice, patriotism, national honor, and the true interests of the country demand. Finally, by sounding the intentions of the inhabitants of Texas, bearing in mind the circumstances, an impartial and just judgment concerning the matter will be formed.
In the year 1821 Texas was scantily populated by civilized people, but was full of savage and roving Indians; since of the first there were only the old villas of Béjar and Bahía del Espíritu Santo, whose united population at the time did not exceed three thousand five hundred inhabitants.
In this year was begun the settlement of those deserts by means of foreign colonists whom the empresario Stephen Austin brought to the country under the authority which, previous to the change of government, had been conceded to his father. Protected by the liberal system which was the outgrowth of independence, Texas continued its progress until in 1830 the growth of population and the consequent social needs began to involve grave inconvenience on account of the bad organization of the local government.
The system established for the local administration of Texas by the government of Coahuila and Texas, although perhaps the best that the circumstances permitted in 1825, when it was organized, was never adequate, and, as the country became settled, grew to be unbearable. In all Texas there was not one justice of the peace, and the alcaldes, in all important civil and criminal affairs, had to consult with the assessor of the capital of the state, two hundred and fifty or three hundred leagues distant.
In the year 1832 the evils which grew out of this situation became so extreme that the ayuntamientos earnestly petitioned the legislature of the state, begging for adequate reforms in all branches of public administration. The ayuntamiento of Béjar, on the 19th of December, 1832, gave a long enumeration of these evils It should be observed that this town is the old capital of Texas, that its population is composed entirely of native Mexicans, and that its memorial was adopted by the people in mass meeting. Speaking of the administration of justice, this memorial says: “In the judicial department there has never been the proper organization, and it may be said with well founded reason that in this branch there is not, nor has there been, any government in Texas.”
The same memorial, referring to the anti-constitutional and inadequate laws that were passed by the state legislature when the capital was in Saltillo, says: “The people of Texas could have declared themselves in a state of nature and proceeded at once to the organization of a government of their own adequate to their needs and local conditions, and their not having done so, though possessing the right, is and ought to be a satisfactory and conclusive reply to the accusations and calumnies with which certain enemies of Texas have attempted to deceive the Mexican people, scattering vague and false rumors against the colonists and other inhabitants of this country.”
This memorial concludes its argumentative part in these terms: “The grievous situation of this valuable portion of the republic, and the only hopes of remedy that remain are finally demonstrated. Your Honor, persuaded of the importance of this petition and of the necessity for it, will surely appreciate the sincere and frank language with which this body has explained itself in the name of the sentiments that animate this vicinity, which, openly and without thinking even remotely that under any aspect there is a question of disavowing the dear and priceless name of Mexican which it possesses, begs your Honor will do it the justice of believing that the motive of this memorial, besides its evident right, is to avoid the most extremely irreparable consequences, which, perhaps, are already showing themselves and will be very difficult to remedy in the deplorable event of not heeding its demands. Heaven endow your Honor with foresight and due justice to examine impartially this interesting subject!”
The memorial of the villa of Bahía del Espíritu Santo (now called Goliad), also an old Mexican settlement, is even more energetic than that of Béjar. All the ayuntamientos of Texas drew up similar memorials.
What has been set forth on this point is sufficient to show to the public that the evils from which Texas was suffering at that time were of the greatest gravity, and that all the discontent there resulted from the absolute lack of adequate local government and from no other cause.
In the summer of the year of 1832 the principles of the plan of Vera Cruz obtained a foothold in Texas. In June a portion of the people pronounced in its favor, and in July and August all Texas. The military detachments also adhered to the aforesaid plan, and set out by sea and land to join the liberal forces at that time. During these events there were some collisions between the military and the inhabitants, as was the case in all part of the republic and as very naturally would happen in time of a national revolution. Persons who either did not understand these events or desired to misinterpret them limited themselves solely to appearances and to the material fact of the collisions, without analyzing the causes or the principles that influenced the inhabitants who were caluniously charged, because of false impressions, with the design of separating themselves from the Mexican republic.
The memorials to the state legislature in December did not have the desired results. Things were going from bad to worse. Savage Indians were menacing the whole frontier. A general conflagration was compassing the entire republic, and the Texans could see nothing except a direful future. If those people under circumstances so critical and alarming had in fact declared their separation from Coahuila seeking relief and order in their own resources, taking the place wished for in the Mexican federation, it is probable at least that impartial men would have given their approbation on principles of necessity and self-preservation. They did not do it, nor did they attempt it. What they did was to come together peaceably in conventions, by means of delegates chosen by popular vote, in order to present their needs to the general Mexican government and to seek timely remedies.
Through the newspapers this step of calling the convention has been attacked. In “La Razon y la Ley,” published in Saltillo, it was denominated as anticonstitutional, unknown to the laws, and revolutionary. If it would not seem burlesque irony it might be asked of the editors of this periodical whether the pronunciamientos, including that of Saltillo itself of the past year, are not revolutionary, and whether they are constitutional, and known to the laws. The object that the pronunciamientos have had has been to change the government with arms in hand, to establish some law or authority, or to seek reforms by force. Would to heaven all pronunciamientos that have been and shall be were exactly like that of the Texas convention! No force was employed. Popular elections were held to name agents and commissioners. And for what purpose? In order respectfully and in a fitting and peaceable manner to present to the general government the needs of the people.
This is indeed a right of petition which belongs to every free people and is an essential part of the republican system, because it is born of the fundamental principle that the will of the people forms the safest standard to guide the deliberations of public agents, and that this will ought to be expressed in the simplest and most direct manner, not by means of insurrections, clash of arms, threats, nor with lack of respect.
The convention was held in the town of Austin, a central point, on April 1, 1833. The people of Texas were there represented by fifty commissioners or delegates. Memorials directed to the general government were drawn up, among them one soliciting the erection of Texas into a state of the Mexican federation separate from Coahuila; and citizen Stephen Austin was chosen as commissioner or agent of Texas to carry them up to the supreme government and to urge action concerning them in the capital of the republic. These specific and sole purposes of the convention accomplished, it was dissolved and its members withdrew to their homes.
It is important to bear in mind the basis upon which Texas founded its claim to become a state. It has already been seen that it is to the interests of Texas to bind closer its union to Mexico, and that the only cause of the discontent, as well as of the desire of its inhabitants to make of their country a state of this republic, separate from Coahuila, is the lack of local government and the consequent danger of internal anarchy and of war with savage Indians. The means adopted was that of assembling a convention to present memorials, because this was most in harmony with republican institutions and was the best that the circumstances permitted.
Concerning the necessity of making Texas a state and the important advantages that would result to the republic in general and to Coahuila and the neighboring states in particular, there was no difference of opinion among the people; because they understood that country, as a part of Coahuila, to be rather an appendix to the Mexican republic than anything else, but as a state of the federation it would form an essential and integral portion of the body social of the nation, and consequently its union would be as much more binding and intimate as in the whole of a thing that of the parts that constitute it in a material sense is [closer than the union of an appendix to the whole]. The Texans, therefore, desiring and striving for their separation from Coahuila and the erection of Texas into a separate state, believed that they were acting as faithful Mexican citizens who understood their duties and aspired to fulfill them, and as honorable men who were seeking their individual welfare and happiness.
The memorial of the convention is extensive. It contains a minute exposition of the deplorable situation of that country as regards its internal affairs; of the evils which it was suffering, and of those that were threatening it; of the general and particular advantages that would result from the formation of a state; and it considers the question from the standpoint of policy. It makes no charges or accusations against Coahuila for failures in its intentions, or for bad faith in regard to Texas; on the contrary, it attributes to it the merit of having desired to serve the interests of Texas in general. But it shows that this is impossible through the very nature of things, the difference in situation, climate, products, occupations, character of inhabitants, the distance which separates one people from the other, and the consequent difficulty about the needs of Texas being understood by the legislatures and governments of the state with that definiteness so indispensable for proper and adequate legislation, and especially by a legislative body three-fourths of whose members are from Coahuila.
This has not been a matter of private quarrels and hatred between Texas and Coahuila—nothing of the kind; it is a question of sound policy, of reason, of impartial justice, and of public and private convenience. The following recapitulation presents in summary the principal basis upon which the convention rested its memorial. 103
1st.The provisional union of Texas and Coahuila and the right that was guaranteed to the first by the law of May 7, 1824, to dissolve this provisional union when it should have the requisite elements to figure as a state by itself.
2nd.Texas possesses elements sufficient for this, its inhabitants desire it, and its situation, isolated and removed from the inhabited portion of Coahuila, requires it; because it is separated by an unpopulated district of one hundred leagues, to cross which is always dangerous, on account of savage Indians, and at times impossible because of swollen rivers and creeks.
3rd.Texas has a natural right to organize itself as a state and to take this rank at the side of the other states, because it was at the time of independence a distinct province which effectively contributed with its blood and its resources to the common cause of the country; and because it has at all times upheld the national rights in that remote portion of the Mexican territory which it has conquered from savage Indians, causing by its own efforts the unpopulated wastes to disappear, and which it has defended against all kinds of enemies. This natural right was recognized, and it was in no manner abrogated or weakened by the union of Texas and Coahuila; for the aforesaid law of May 7, 1824, gives to this union a provisional character, leaving to the Texans the decision as to when it should cease. These are the terms of the law: “Coahuila and Texas shall form a state, but as soon as the latter shall be in a position to figure as a state by itself it shall notify the general congress for its decision in the matter.”
4th.Texas has the right, as its interest requires, to cement and secure its permanent union with the Mexican federation, which it can accomplish only as an integral part of the body social, and not as a mere appendix.
5th.Likewise the common right that is guaranteed it in the system adopted by the Mexican republic of promoting its welfare and internal tranquility by an adequate organization of a local government.
6th.Also the right and the natural duty that belongs to every people of saving itself from anarchy and ruin on the principle of self-preservation.
This extract is sufficient to show the principles upon which the convention rested in asking the general congress to admit Texas as a state into the Mexican federation.
Since the chief object of this explanation is to throw light upon the conduct of the inhabitants of Texas by a frank and brief statement of the purposes that guided them and the motives that influenced them, it is necessary to examine here the views published by some relative to the interpretation that the Texas convention gave to the above-mentioned law of May 7, 1824, which interpretation they characterized as revolutionary. Observe that it is not intended to reply to any periodical in particular, but to all in general.
The constituent act, decreed on January 31, 1824, established the state of the East, composed of the provinces of Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and Texas; that of the North, composed of Chihuahua, Durango, and New Mexico; and that of the West, of Sonora and Sinaloa. This organization was afterward changed by decrees of the constituent congress; that of the 7th of May, 1824 established the states of Nuevo Leon and Coahuila and Texas; and by other decrees the state of the North was divided, leaving united only Sonora with Sinaloa and Coahuila with Texas.
It must be borne in mind that when the state of Sonora and Sinaloa was established there was expressed in the decree no condition or proviso that would give to that union a temporary or provisional character; while in the one relating to Coahuila and Texas there were such conditions, as has been shown by giving the terms of the decree. It must also be remembered that the delegate from Texas to the constituent congress was opposed to the union with Coahuila, as he informed his constituents, and consented only in consideration of that proviso or reservation to Texas of its rights.
The interpretation, so condemned by some, which the convention gave to this decree of May 7, is very natural. According to this interpretation the decree gave Texas the right to organize as a state by act of the general congress without having to obtain the approbation of three-fourth of the other states; otherwise it would have been no more than a ridiculous concession, granting only the privilege of petitioning the general congress without previous permission of that number of states; they, as the people of any part whatever of the republic, would have had that privilege, or it may be that right, without the necessity of a special decree.
But it is objected that, by the constitution sanctioned October 4, 1824, subsequent to the decree of May 7, this decree was nullified, and that, in order to be admitted as a state, Texas was subjected to the conditions and formalities of paragraph 7, article 50 of the constitution. The convention thought that the constitution sanctioned the establishment of the state of Coahuila and Texas, leaving in force all the particular guarantees conceded by previous special laws; since it can not be supposed that when the constitution was sanctioned, as a solemn guarantee of acquired rights, it would at once operate to destroy that right which Texas had obtained through a law drawn up by the same constituent legislators. The constitution did not change the provisional character that the law of May 7 gave to the union of Coahuila and Texas, especially since Texas consented to the union in confidence that the law asserted its temporary character.
The convention likewise thought that paragraph 7 of article 50 applied to the states whose territory had not previously been divided, such as Mexico, for example, or to those that were composed of two or more ancient provinces whose union was not merely provisional, such as Sonora and Sinaloa, to divide which the aforesaid paragraph 7 must be observed. But, in order to separate Texas from Coahuila, this is not necessary; since evidently it was the intention of the constituent congress that by right each should preserve its separate unity, their names being joined and their governments being united provisionally for convenience until Texas should have the elements for a government by itself.
It seemed to the convention that the object of paragraph 7, referred to above, was to prevent congress itself from surprising the nation with any change in the number or territorial organization of the states, which is avoided in demanding by fundamental law the knowledge and approbation of three-fourths of them. The convention believed that this principle was not applicable to Texas, because the states themselves, through their representatives in the constituent congress, gave a provisional character to the union of Texas to Coahuila, with the object, then declared and sanctioned, of admitting it as a state whenever it should have the elements to figure as such. Consequently the other states should not be surprised if Texas constitutes itself a state with only the approbation of the general congress, because this sovereign resolution would be no more than the carrying out and fulfillment of another already sanctioned about eleven years ago, and the perfection of an edifice whose foundations were laid by the Mexican nation represented in the constituent congress.
To claim that the special condition or circumstance of the law of May 7 should have been expressed in the constitution, in order to be considered valid after the sanction of the fundamental law, is to claim that the same provision should be decreed twice. It was necessary that the constitution should include at the time of its publication the number of states that existed on October 4, 1824, because otherwise it would have presented an imperfection.
The argument that the Texans have made relative to this point is founded exactly upon the elementary principles of legislation. Since there was not in the constitution a clause definitely repealing the special law of May 7, it could not be the intention of the framers of the constitution to repeal it; since this must necessarily have been done in express terms. This is the more evident from the objection that the special law is supposed to be annulled because the general law does not contain explicitly the same provision.
But for the principal purpose of this explanation, the vindication of the conduct of the inhabitants of Texas, the matter of chief import here is a question of the construction or interpretation of a law important to Texans, because they believed that the national as well as their individual interests required that their district be made into a state with the least possible delay. The convention has expressed its opinion on this subject; each citizen has the right to do the same, without, on that account, having imputed to him base intentions of violating the constitution or insulting the government, with the like of which Texas has been slandered upon this point. According to the constitution the only authority competent to pass judgment upon the meaning of the constitution itself or of the special laws is the general congress. To this authority the Texans submitted the question by sending up their memorial; to slander them for only having thought in such a manner concerning a point, which at best is of a nature to admit of controversy, certainly shows a lack of justice and candor of which no impartial Mexican can approve.
Let us now direct attention to subsequent events. For this it is necessary to keep well in mind that at the time of the convention and for many months afterward the situation of Texas, on account of the lack of local government, danger from Indians, and other causes explained above, was so critical that public opinion among the majority showed itself very decidedly in favor of a local organization in fact, in case remedies were not provided by the government before the end of 1833.
The commissioner Austin set out from Texas toward the end of April of that year. He went by Matamoros and reported the purposes of his mission and the state of affairs in Texas to the general commandant of the eastern states, Don Vincente Filisola, who was in that place. He then embarked at the Brazo de Santiago for Veracruz and arrived in Mexico, July 18, after having been delayed by a long voyage and by various accidents.
He was very well received by the vice-president and ministers then in power. Without delay he presented the memorials of the convention and set forth the chief purposes of his mission, as well as others, such as the establishment of a weekly mail between Monclova and Nacogdoches (it had previously been every fifteen days), the extension of it to the dividing line of the United States of America at the Sabine River, and the establishment of another route between Matamoros and Goliad; certain reforms in the Texan custom-houses, the payment of presidial companies, and the circulation of the official newspaper, The Telegraph, to the ayuntamientos of Texas—all very necessary measures for binding closer the connection of those distant countries with the rest of the republic.
The citizen Austin, although of a disposition naturally conservative, has had the misfortune of becoming involved in the political affairs of these times of social fluctuations. He has endured almost a year of incarceration in the ex-prisons of the inquisition and others in Mexico, and his name, much to his regret, has figured in the newspapers in connection with the most false and unjust representations. In order to form an impartial judgment in regard to his conduct and intentions, it is necessary to bear in mind what has been said concerning the political status of Texas, and to take into consideration the fact that Austin's attitude was much affected by his position as agent and commissioner for Texas and as a faithful citizen desirous of fulfilling his duties under the peculiar and trying circumstances in which he found himself.
The months of July, August, and September passed without the accomplishment of anything in regard to the affairs of Texas. The civil war toward the close of September and the beginning of October assumed a dubious aspect, and opinion varied concerning the stability of things. The end of the year was approaching, which was the limit of time that public opinion in Texas believed it possible to wait for improvements in the situation before proceeding to a local organization by popular action.
This disagreeable and dangerous outlook could not but arouse in Austin much alarm and make upon him a deep impression. Republican by education, frank to an extreme, with exaggerated ideas, perhaps, in regard to the sacred obligations of a public agent to his constituents; bound to Texas by all local relations resulting from fourteen years of labor as principal in the most important colonization contracts to people it, and to its inhabitants by sufferings, common interests, and mutual friendships; little accustomed to the equivocal manner and language of courts, and anxious to fulfill his obligations as commissioner and citizen; and expecting to see an immediate overthrow of order in Texas, he orally made a very energetic statement of his opinions to the most excellent vice-president and others concerning the delay in attending to the petitions of Texas.
Unfortunately his arguments were understood in an entirely different sense from that in which he naturally would have spoken and intended and desired to speak; and he was accused of having expressed himself with threats. There have been very false reports in the public papers in regard to this point, charging Austin with having insulted the government. Such charges are the result of having misinterpreted appearances; for it seems that this happens by some fatal chance in everything relative to Texas. An explanation of this matter certainly is due to the public and to the commissioner of Texas, in order to enable impartial men, in the light of the circumstances, to form a correct judgment.
Austin said to the government in substance, but, according to his judgment, respectfully, that in his opinion there would be an overthrow of order in Texas at the end of the year if at least some remedies were not applied for the troubles there, because the inhabitants, in their urgent, keen, and extreme distress, had taken the position that, if the government would or could not attend to their needs, they would act for themselves.
Now suppose the fact to have been as Austin represented and believed it to be. As a Mexican citizen and as a commissioner of Texas appointed to represent the truth, was it his duty to state it frankly and openly, or not? Would he have complied with this duty by concealing the dangers with courtly words and deceiving the government with a sense of security in regard to the tranquility of Texas?
The earnest desire and the great concern that Austin felt at that time for the early consummation of these affairs may perhaps have made him overstep, in his manner of expressing himself, the rigid formalities of policy and etiquette, and in spite of the fact that his recollections in the matter absolve him from this fault, which truly is very foreign to his character, it must be assumed that it was so, because, though what he said gave rise to offense and irritation at the time, afterwards when all was calm it produced a different effect through an explanation of his intentions and true object. Impartial men, and even those who made the charges, will form their own opinion; before Austin left Mexico the most excellent vice-president (as Austin understood) was completely satisfied.
At this time Austin believed that the evils were increasing, and, despairing then of being able to secure the remedies that the people of Texas expected, fearing a popular uprising there, and believing that, in the event that it should really and actually take place, the public interest would be served by having it directed by the civil authorities, he wrote a letter, dated October 2, to the ayuntamiento of Béjar, the capital of Texas, whose inhabitants are all Mexicans by birth, recommending, in substance, that it consult with the other ayuntamientos, in order that they might place themselves at the head of the popular movement, providing, by way of precaution, a local government under the law of May 7, 1824, in the event that the anarchic tendencies came to a head through desperation. Austin wished by these purely preventive means to avoid the fatal and lamentable consequences that would result from a popular outburst.
The letter was discovered. This occurrence has been the only motive for Austin's arrest, extended imprisonment, the judicial proceedings against him, and the unjust charges of some journalists who allowed themselves to be carried away by appearances not considered, still less analyzed, and not in the least understood.
Suppose the danger of these popular uprisings in Texas imminent, would it not have been better for the general welfare and for the particular interest of that country that the ancient capital, Béjar, should have taken the wise precaution to forestall the outbreak of public disorder? Undoubtedly it would. And Austin in this conviction recommended it, unconstrained by the consequences to his own person, because to have hesitated would have made him unworthy of the trust that had been conferred upon him.
A short time after having written the letter referred to, everything changed favorably. Perhaps Austin may be blamed for rashness and for having allowed himself to be deceived by appearances that incited him to write the letter. This charge, however, can be made only by one who is not thoroughly informed concerning the affairs of Texas at that time, and by one who adjusts his prudent foresight of an event in accordance with its results, paying no heed to its origin or to the unforeseen turns that may occur. But be that accusation what it may, it will at most amount to an error, and certainly it was one of judgment and nothing more. Austin at least has the consolation of having been himself the victim, and the only victim, of its consequences.
The civil war ended in Guanajuato on October 7, 1833. The houses devoted themselves with energy to the despatch of business, and in that month issued a decree of the greatest importance to Texas and very satisfactory to its inhabitants. Austin did not lose a moment in announcing this happy turn of affairs to the ayuntamientos and people of Texas, uttering a grand eulogy upon the attitude of congress, recommending the greatest tranquility and calmness, and himself remaining in Mexico to push on the business of his mission that still remained pending.
On November 5 of the same year the most excellent president general, Don Antonio Lopez de Santa-Anna, convoked a special assembly of ministers, at which Austin was present, to discuss the petition of Texas to be admitted into the federation as a state. After a frank discussion, in which Austin supported the claims of his constituents wherever possible and firmly objected to the idea dropped during the discussion of making Texas a territory, because such were the special and positive instructions of his constituents (see No. I), 104 the government decided that, while not ready to discuss that question with a view to acting then, it was disposed to favor, at the opportune time, the claims of Texas to become a state; that the local administration of Texas should be improved so far as it would depend upon the general government to do it, by assisting the presidial companies, establishing mails etc., and urging the government of the state of Coahuila and Texas to provide for reforms suitable for Texas, particularly the establishment of justices of the peace, trial by jury, and other similar things.
Austin, satisfied with the very friendly disposition of the supreme general government shown in favor of Texas, and content with the remedies he had secured and the recommendations to the government of the state of Coahuila and Texas, suspended for the time his efforts in regard to the demand for the erection of the latter into a state; and, on December 10, he set out with a passport from Mexico to Monclova, the capital of his state, in order to urge before the legislature, which would open its sessions in January, the much desired reforms in the administration of justice, and other measures of local interest to Texas. Before leaving Mexico Austin received from the Minister of Relations, for the satisfaction of his constituents, the letter copied as No. II 105 and placed at the end of this explanation.
Austin arrived at Saltillo, January 3, 1834, and was presented to the general commandant who showed him an order from the most excellent vice-president for his arrest and conveyance to Mexico as a prisoner to answer charges that the government had to make against him, without saying what they were. This order grew out of the discovery of his letter of October 2, which came to the knowledge of the government after his departure from this capital. Upon arriving as a prisoner in Mexico he was placed in the ex-prison of the inquisition, incomunicado. An indictment was based upon this letter which has led to so many recriminations that to hear them burst forth, although only through ignorance or bad faith, one would believe that it was the terrible box of Pandora. But the impartial man will judge this letter in view of what has been said concerning it in this explanation, and, for this purpose, an exact copy of it is appended as No. III. 106 The criminal case against Austin has continued almost a year, only a little less than the time his imprisonment lasted; for he obtained his liberty on the 25th of last month. His excellency, the president general, concerned for his 107 vindication, has continually used his high and honorable influence to cut short that useless trial, in so far as the independence of the judiciary has permitted it, after having had the goodness, as soon as he assumed the supreme government, to relieve Austin from his status as incomunicado and to ameliorate his confinement. The consideration of his excellency for Austin honors the latter more than any accusations or calumnies whatever that may appear can injure him.
This sketch of the chief facts relative to Texas and of the principles that have been at work in these events is sufficient for the public to pass judgment upon them. It is evident that the inhabitants of Texas have not deviated in the slightest from their duties as Mexican citizens. On the contrary, though desiring the reforms necessary for their individual welfare and happiness, they have not lost sight of the general prosperity and well-being of the nation to which they belong.
In regard to Austin, public opinion will pass judgment upon his conduct, in so far as it may be conceded that a tribunal, as inexorable as it is honorable, should occupy itself with an individual. Brought to Texas by an enterprising spirit, Austin left his native country, the United States of America, where he was and is yet respected. He became naturalized here. He has labored, to the best of his ability, to plant new colonies and to serve humanity 108 and his adopted country. He has offered services that have deserved the thanks of the general government and of the state of Coahuila and Texas, especially at the time of the administration of the worthy general, Victoria. The agent of an honorable people, determined, and of a character resolute in upholding their rights, or what they believe to be such, he had to work constantly and courageously, as the commissioner of such constituents, at the affairs that were entrusted to him in accordance with his instructions. He did so, and if in this he committed an imprudence, he believes that it is much less serious than to have erred in the direction of weakness and negligence.
The principles of local reforms that have animated the Texans were and are certainly sound; nevertheless, the excitement among them, on account of the imprisonment of their commissioner, might have produced mischievous results. He attempting to prevent this as opportunely as possible and before being confined incomunicado in his dungeon—shame to the republic—wrote to his constituents charging them, and begging his personal friends, to act with moderation, and censuring in very strong terms any sort of excitement, giving them to understand also that his return to Mexico was necessary in order to vindicate his honor and good name, and that they should have no fear of the result. And what is more, in his letters he even exonerated the government from blame in regard to the sentence for his imprisonment. Such was his determination to avoid any disagreeable consequence that might occur; and in truth the communications of Austin had the desired effect, for his constituents yielded to his counsels and suggestions. Let this conduct attest his good faith.
Perhaps it will be asked, Why did Austin not inform the general government of his letter of October 2 at the time when he wrote it or before leaving Mexico in the month of December, if his intentions were so good? Austin might have done it certainly; but his doing otherwise does not belie his good faith; rather the sincerity itself with which the letter was written clears him of the charge. And this sincerity and his good intentions are corroborated by the fact that the author of the letter remained in Mexico two months after writing it, urging reforms, and that he returned to Texas by the principal road to Monclova, the capital of the state and the residence of the authorities of Coahuila and Texas.
But would it have been prudent that Austin should make another representation to Señor Farías concerning the deplorable consequences that were impending on account of the evils that Texas suffered, when his excellency had been so disturbed upon another occasion, through having interpreted Austin's frankness in a sense contrary to that in which he wished to express himself? The measure that he proposed in his letter was directed toward escaping from anarchy and total ruin; the object being, of course, since it was difficult to form any idea of the result of the civil war, that Texas should not become involved in it. If, then, the letter referred to a case which, although it was very probable from the political situation and by the coincidence of certain circumstances that it would happen, yet might not take place—as indeed it did not through the providence of heaven—it was undoubtedly useless to trouble his excellency, already well on his guard, about a future contingency.
Austin was so far from believing that he had committed any fault that, as has been shown, he remained in Mexico two months, after having written the letter of October 2, furthering the interests of Texas in whatever manner it was possible. And when, thanks to his efforts, he obtained the repeal of article 11 of the law of April 6, 1830, he, by his communication during the same month of October in which he figured so conspicuously, and before this happy outcome had been published, contradicted and took back all the ideas expressed in the first letter, as the reading of that communication, a copy of which is given here as No. IV 109, will show.
If Austin had not been thoroughly possessed with enthusiasm for the prosperity of this country of his, instead of having undertaken the toilsome and costly journey from Texas to Mexico, all at his own expense, instead of laboring with ceaseless zeal and earnestness for the happiness of Texas, separated from his family and suffering the inconveniences and annoyances that these efforts involved, especially those at the court, he would have remained at home, letting things go from bad to worse, as they would have done in the natural course of events, without running the risk of becoming involved in the political labyrinth.
The man of honor who works with a clear conscience convinced of the uprightness of his intentions rests in his good faith and scorns the interpretations of malice or suspicion. For he will always find a guarantee in the laws or in the opinion of men of impartial judgment who examine things to the bottom, and not superficially or according to their appearances. Such is the guarantee in which the slandered people of Texas and their commissioner trust for a just judgment that shall decide whether either the one or the other has merited the accusations and calumnies with which they have been reproached.
For greater clearness in these matters—this has been the cause of some diffuseness in this explanation, which the reader will please pardon—it is necesary to observe that, in the end, public order in Texas was not and is not being upset; that the legislature of Coahuila and Texas of 1834, adopting the suggestions of the supreme general government of 1833 made at Austin's instigation, and heeding the just claims of the Texans, has improved the laws and the local administration of that country. With these reforms even the efforts toward separation from Coahuila have entirely ceased, and the inhabitants of Texas are quiet, devoting themselves to the cultivation of their lands, to the development of their country and their individual progress, through the exportation of agricultural products, and to the pleasures of domestic life, unmindful of insurrections, political upheavals, or revolutions.
Mexico, January 18, 1835.
“It may perhaps happen that the general congress would prefer a territorial government, believing it to be more adaptable to the circumstances of Texas. Upon this point the convention desires that you understand explicitly that a territorial government is not the object of our petition, that the country will not be satisfied with it, and in the change to it no more will be accomplished than passing from one evil to another, leaving future experience and future sufferings on the part of Texas to prove which of the two evils is the more fatal to its prosperity. You ought, therefore, to resist, respectfully but firmly, anything that tends to impose upon us a form of territorial government.”
Taken from the original. Mexico, January 18, 1835.
Austin.
Chief office of the Secretary of State, Department of the Interior.
The petition that the colonists of Texas addressed to the general congress for the formation of that portion of the Mexican territory into a state absolutely independent of that of Coahuila was referred to the Chamber of Deputies on August 21, last, attention being called to the importance of the matter and the desirability of prompt consideration thereof. Thus you have been informed in this office, and you have been advised of the measures that the government has taken in regard to that colony. One, among others, has been to urge the government of the state to secure for the colonists all the privileges of which they are worthy as Mexican citizens, in civil as well as as in criminal affairs. To this end were indicated the measures that ought to be put into execution for the most undeviating and suitable administration of justice in each branch. One method was the establishment of juries, wholly in conformity with the petition of the colonists themselves, without the government's being able to do anything else, because that was not within the scope of its authority. In regard to congress, you are already informed of the law that it has seen fit to pass, repealing the 11th article of the law of April 6, 1830, and providing that this repeal shall not take effect until six months after its publication.
His excellency, the president, orders me to make this communication to you, in order that you, who have been entrusted with securing a favorable outcome for the petitions of the colonists, may inform them of the result that has now been attained, in the conviction that, since the supreme government is disposed to favor their claims in all that relates to the development of that colony and to facilitate the administration of justice, you may assure them that it 110 will help toward and use all its influence to secure this important object, and therefore that all improvements and reforms conducive thereto will continue, both for the purpose of enabling Texas to become a state or territory of the federation, and to secure meanwhile good order in its internal administration.
In regard to the other petitions that you have urged concerning the establishment of mails and the reduction or removal of duties upon certain articles, they have been referred to the Treasury Office, and through it you should be informed of the decision of the supreme government, if, as this minister believes, it has been notified through that channel of the status of this affair.
God and Liberty. Mexico, December 7, 1833.
Garcia. To Colonel Stephen F. Austin. A faithful copy taken from the original that is in my possession. Mexico, January 18, 1835. Austin.
In the letter that I addressed you on the 14th of August, last, I expressed the opinion that the affairs of Texas would turn out favorably. Since then there have been very few sessions of congress on account of cholera. The events of the civil war also have delayed all public affairs in such a way that nothing has been accomplished, and I am sorry to say that in my opinion nothing will be done, and that it is difficult to form an idea of the result of the civil war.
In this state of affairs I recommended that all the ayuntamientos of Texas put themselves into communication with each other without delay for the purpose of organizing a local government for Texas, in the form of a state of the Mexican federation founded upon the law of May 7, 1824, and have everything ready to accomplish this in union and harmony as soon as it is known that the general congress has refused its approbation.
This step is absolutely necessary as a preparatory meaure, because there is now no doubt that the fate of Texas depends upon itself and not upon this government; nor is there any doubt that, unless the inhabitants of Texas take all its affairs into their own hands, that country is lost.
I am firmly persuaded that the measure that I recommend is the only one that can be adopted to save us from anarchy and total ruin. This being my conviction, I hope that you will not lose a single moment in addressing a communication to all the ayuntamientos of Texas, urging them to co-operate in the plan of organizing a local government independent of Coahuila, even though the general government should deny its consent.
God and Texas. Mexico, October 2, 1833.
Stephen F. Austin. To the Illustrious Ayuntamiento of Béjar.
Copy of a letter addressed by citizen Stephen Austin to all the ayuntamientos of Texas.
Article 11 of the law of April 6, 1830, has been repealed, and the affairs of Texas and of the whole republic have taken on the most favorable and flattering aspect.
God and Liberty. Mexico, October 30, 1833.
Stephen F. Austin. To the Illustrious Ayuntamiento of Béjar.
The great importance of opening roads direct from Texas to Chihuahua and New Mexico, to which reference has been made on page 6, 111 of this pamphlet, and the importance that those countries would acquire through becoming peopled by means of colonies thus established in the interior of Texas—for instance, upon the head waters of the Rio Puerco and the banks of the Rio Bravo in the neighborhood of El Paso del Norte—require that a little more attention be given to this matter.
The most of the barbarous tribes that menace the frontiers of those states, traversing the immense deserts east of the Rio Bravo, are but wanderers and enemies of civilized settlements. If any of them have been subdued, this result has been possible only through force and under the shadow of these settlements, consequently the most certain and effective method for protecting the frontiers from the incursions to which they are exposed is to people the country. But, today, two serious difficulties are encountered in carrying settlers to those vast deserts—one, the lack of security, and the other, the absence of open roads to accomplish the necessary transportation. But these difficulties can be overcome by continuing the establishment of colonial settlements from those that already exist in Texas (which will serve as the bases and starting points from which this chain should begin) in the direction indicated above until those near El Paso del Norte are reached. These settlements will be able to sustain each other, like a line of fortifications, without burdening the government. In this manner Texas has been peopled, beginning near the coast and penetrating the interior by degrees.
The privileges, of which mention has also been made, that are needed for these enterprises, are these: exemption for a short time from duties on merchandize carried over these roads, and a concession of lands to empresarios, to colonists, and to settlers who open the roads or come to reside near them.
With these means of communication in operation, and supposing at the same time that the one from Missouri through New Mexico is open, the most extensive immigration and concourse of settlers would follow; since those who could not come by one way might come by the other; and the inhabitants of the northern and western interior states would obtain the great advantages that competition—which must naturally be aroused between the merchants of the Texas ports and the importers by the Missouri route—always brings, for it is a general rule that such competition produces low prices of goods and better service to the consumers.
In translating the document the aim has been to render it into as good English as possible without departing too far from the literal expression of the original. This expression, however, is elliptical and involved, and hence many difficulties have arisen in the translation. In cases of doubt effort has been made to preserve the thought rather than the form. The punctuation and capitalization of the document have in some instances been departed from, in order to comply with modern English standards. The paragraphing, except in the concluding parts of the letters given as appendices, and the italicising of English words, however, are the same as in the original.
Acknowledgments are due to Miss Lilia M. Casís, Dr. George P. Garrison, and Dr. Herbert E. Bolton for various helpful suggestions and corrections.—Ethel Zivley Rather.
97. That is, Mexican dollars. By an act of Congress, approved June 25, 1834, the Mexican dollar was made legal tender at its face value in the United States (Dunbar, Laws of the United States Relating to Currency, Finance, and Banking from 1789 to 1896).
98. The arroba is a measure of weight equivalent to twenty-five pounds.
99. The fanega is a measure of capacity equivalent to about fifty-five liters.
100. The real is one-eighth of a peso.
101. This might be freely translated, country estates.
102. That is, the landowners of southern Mexico.
103. In the translation of this summary it has been thought best to preserve the form of the original, which for some of its heads has complete propositions and for others abbreviated expressions or phrases.
104. Page 255.
105. Pages 255-256.
106. Pages 256-257.
107. That is, Austin's.
108. Literally, to serve philanthropy, servir á la filantropía.
109. Page 257.
110. That is, the government.
111. See pages 235-236.
How to cite:
Rather, Ethel Zivley, "EXPLANATION TO THE PUBLIC CONCERNING THE AFFAIRS OF TEXAS, BY CITIZEN STEPHEN F. AUSTIN. Translation ", Volume 008, Number 3, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online, Page 232 - 258. http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v008/n3/article_3.html
[Accessed Tue Dec 2 0:52:30 CST 2008]
