THE QUARTERLY OF THE TEXAS STATE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION
VOLUME X. JULY, 1906, TO APRIL, 1907.
PUBLICATION COMMITTEE. David F. Houston, W. J. Battle, George P. Garrison, Z. T. Fulmore, Mrs. Bride Neill Taylor. EDITOR. George P. Garrison. ASSOCIATE EDITORS. Herbert Eugene Bolton. Eugene C. Barker. AUSTIN, TEXAS: PUBLISHED BY THE ASSOCIATION. 1907.The Texas State Historical Association. Organized March 2, 1897.
PRESIDENT,
David F. Houston.
VICE-PRESIDENTS:
A. W. Terrell, Beauregard Bryan,
R. L. Batts, Milton J. Bliem.
RECORDING SECRETARY AND LIBRARIAN,
George P. Garrison.
CORRESPONDING SECRETARY AND TREASURER,
Charles W. Ramsdell.
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL:
Mrs. Dora Fowler Arthur, George P. Garrison,
W. J. Battle, D. F. Houston,
R. L. Batts, T. S. Miller,
Herbert E. Bolton, S. H. Moore,
S. P. Brooks, Mrs. Bride Neill Taylor,
Beauregard Bryan, John C. Townes,
Z. T. Fulmore, E. W. Winkler,
Dudley G. Wooten.
CONTENTS.
NUMBER 1; JULY, 1906.
The Louisiana-Texas Frontier Isaac Joslin Cox 1
Land Speculation as a Cause of the Texas Revolution Eugene C. Barker 76
Documents Relating to the Organization of the Municipality of Washington, Texas 96
Notes and Fragments 101
Affairs of the Association 103
Book Reviews and Notices 110
NUMBER 2; OCTOBER, 1906.
The Founding of Mission Rosario: A Chapter in the History of the Gulf Coast Herbert E. Bolton 113
The Seat of Government of Texas Ernest William Winkler 140
Sketch of the Life of Oliver Jones, and of His Wife, Rebecca Jones Adele B. Looscan 172
Notes and Fragments 181
Book Reviews and Notices 183
NUMBER 3; JANUARY, 1907.
The Seat of Government of Texas Ernest William Winkler 185
A Study of the Route of Cabeza de Vaca James Newton Baskett 246
Book Reviews and Notices 280
NUMBER 4; APRIL, 1907.
A Glimpse of Albert Sidney Johnston Through the Smoke of Shiloh J. B. Ulmer 285
Spanish Mission Records at San Antonio Herbert E. Bolton 297
A Study of the Route of Cabeza de Vaca James Newton Baskett 308
Martin McHenry Kenney Charles W. Ramsdell 341
A Letter From Mary (Mrs. Moses) Austin 345
A Letter From the Army of the Early Republic 347
Book Reviews and Notices 349
Questions and Answers 353
Affairs of the Association 354
INDEX TO VOLUME X.
Adams, Wirt, formation of cavalry regiment 286
Affairs of the Association 103-109, 354
Aguayo, San Miguel de, 13, 116
Aguayo, Mission San José de, records of 305
Alarcón, Martin de, defines boundary of Texas 11
Allcorn, Elijah 97
Allcorn, John H. 97
Allcorn, J. J. 97
Allcorn, W. E. 97
Allen, A. C., promoter of Houston, Texas 168
Allen, John K., promoter of Houston, Texas 168
Allen, Thomas G. 97
Altamira, on the boundary of Texas, 20
Angelino, Angel, map of Texas 35
Atkinson, Jesse B. 97
Arthur, Dora Fowler 354
Austin, Texas, site of the permanent capital, 220; first sale of lots in, 225; plan of the city, 228; public buildings of, 231; removal of the government to 233
Austin, Henry, offers land for capital site 197, 204
Austin, Mrs. Moses, letter from 343-47
Austin, S. F., expressions on the land speculations 88
Ayers, David 177
Balantine, James 98
Barker, Eugene C., Land Speculation as a Cause of the Texas Revolution 76-95
Barr, R., offers land at Tenoxtitlan for capital site 197
Barnett, G. W. 97, 198
Barrett, D. C. 144
Barrios y Jauregui, Jacinto de, fosters trade with French in Louisiana 21
Baskett, James Newton, A Study of the Route of Cabeza de Vaca, 246-79, 308-40
Bastrop, Baron de 140
Battle, W. J. 354
Battle of Nueces, a pamphlet by John W. Sansom 110
Batts, R. L. 354
Beales, Hiram 97
Bean, P. E. 59
Benavides, Alonso 3
Beranger, exploration of Texas coast 12
Biedma 323
Bird, Ollie, The First Free Public School Building Erected in Texas, review of 101-102
Black, J. W., offers land at Sulphur Springs for capital site 197
Blancpain, French trader 21, 22
Bliem, Milton J. 354
Blount, William, designs on Louisiana 65
Bolton, Herbert E., on the name of Father Massanet, 101; The Founding of Mission Rosario: A Chapter in the History of the Gulf Coast, 113-139, 249; Spanish Mission Records at San Antonio 297-307; 324, 339, 350
Book Reviews and Notices 110, 183, 280, 349
Borden, Thomas H., 163; offers land for capital site 200
Bowie, James, land speculations 77, 86
Bray, William L. 324, 339
Bryan, Beauregard 354
Bucareli, founding of 31
Bunton, J. W. 191
Burleson, Aaron 217
Burnet, D. G., opinion on land speculations 83
Burton, I. W. 215
Byars, Noah T. 98
Casas, Brother Antonio 137
Cadillac, de la Mothe de, attempts to open trade with Mexico 8
Camberos, Father Juan de Dios, plan for conversion of Cujanes Indians 128
Campbell, Isaac 215
Capital of Texas, choosing a permanent site for, 188; report of first commissioners, 191; sites proposed, 197; report of second commissioners, 199-292; report of joint committee thereon, 203-4; report of third commissioners 216-20
Carondelet, Baron de, commissions Philip Nolan 55
Cartwright, Jesse, offers land for capital site 202
Chambers, Talbot, land commissioner of Robertson's Colony 86, 97
Chambers, Thomas J., prevents land frauds in 1834, 79; offers land for capital site 197
Chanie, J. B. 97
Cheney, John Vance 339
Cheney, W. P. 285
Chisholm, John D., designs on Louisiana 65
Chriesman, Horatio, 97, 191; offers land for capital site 197
Clampitt, Francis W. 97
Clark, Daniel 56
Clark, James 97
Clow, Robert J. 98
Cocos, see Indians.
Collard, E. 145
Coles, John P. 97, 99
Collot, Victor, reconnaissance of Mississippi Valley 64-65
Concepción, Nuestra Señora de la Puríssima, mission of, 298; records of 304
Concord, the Story of 351
Connelly, Isaac 98
Connor, John W. 97
Cooke, L. P. 215
Cooper, Alfred M. 97
Coopwood, Bethel 329-33
Copanes, see Indians.
Copenhavn, William 98
Cortablan, French trader 22
Cox, I. J., The Louisiana-Texas Frontier 1-75
Croix, Cabellero de, inspection of Texas 33, 36
Crunden, F. M. 339
Crozat, Antoine, grant to Louisiana, 8; succeeded by the Western Company 11
Cujanes, see Indians.
Cummins, M. 97
Cureton, C. M. and H. J. 280
Dalton, Louise 339
Davenport, Samuel, settles at Nacogdoches 60
Davis, Joshua H. 347
Davis, Miss Texas J. 347
De Leon, Alonso, destruction of La Salle's forts, 5; establishment of missions 6
De Soto, death at mouth of Red River 322
Deussen, Alexander 324, 339
Dillard, Thomas 97
Dolores, Fray Juan Mariano de los 122, 301
Du Pratz, le Page, his boundary of Louisiana 20
Durst, John, land speculation of 82
Eberle, Mrs. 179
Eblin, John 199
Eblin's League, chosen for capital site, but vetoed by President Houston 205
Endicott, Andrew 56
Escandón, José de, Count of Sierra Gordo, plans for subduing the Texas Gulf coast 120-22
Escovar, Father Joseph, pastor of mission Rosario 138
Espada, mission San Francisco de la, 298; records of 306
Espejo, his journel helps determine the route of Cabeza de Vaca 315
Espinosa, on boundary of Texas 20
Evans, Moses 98
Evitt, T. G. 97
Flores, Manuel 225
Forest, Right Rev. Bishop J. A. 297
Fulmore, Z. T. 283
Gaines, F. Y. 285
Ganuza (or Lanuza or Lamuza), Father 137
García, Fray Diego Martín 123, 299
García, Luciano 140
Garrison, George P., Westward Extension 281
Gifford, L. R. 339
Gonzales, Fray Juan Joseph 123, 301
Gonzales, José 19
Graham, Joshua 97
Grahams, John 97
Grant, James, land speculations 85
Gray, James 98
Greer, J. A. 191
Gregg, —., offers land for capital site 197
Gregory, T. W., The Ku Klux Klan 349
Grimes, Jesse 99, 145
Gritten, Edward, on land speculations 92
Groos, Jacob 97
Guapites, see Indians.
Guthrie, John F. 97
Hadley, Joshua 99
Hall, John W., 99; offers land for capitol site 195
Hall, W. A. 97
Hancock, G. D. 217
Harpe, Bernard de la 11, 12, 15
Harris, David N. 172
Hawkins, Isaac H. 97
Hearin, R. M. 289
Henrey, Samuel 98
Herrall, J. W. 217
Hill, William W. 97
Hodge, F. W. 320, 339
Hood, J. L. 145
Horton, A. C. 215
Houston, Capital of Texas 167
Houston, David F. 354
Houston, Sam, proposes nullification of fraudulent land grants 93
Hoxey, Dr. Asa 77, 96, 97, 197
Hyerbipiamo Indians 299, 300
Iberville, plan for exploration of Texas 7
Indians: the Karankawa group (Caranguas, Cocos, Copanes, Cujanes, Guapites), 114, 115, 116, 117, 122-28; the Jaranames, 117; the Tamiques, 117; tribes mentioned by de Vaca 263-4, 267
Jack, Patrick C. 198
Jackson, E. D. 97
Jefferson, Thomas 144, 55, 56
Johnson, A. E. C. 145
Johnson, F. W., land speculations 80, 48-86
Johnston, Albert Sidney, A Glimpse of through the Smoke of Shiloh, by J. B. Ulmer 285-96
Jones, A. H., description of the Texan assault on San Antonio 181-82
Jones, Lewis 98
Jones, Oliver, sketch of, by Adéle B. Looscan 172-80
Jones, Rebecca, sketch of, by Adéle B. Looscan 172-80
Jones, William C. 98
Karankawa, see Indians.
Kenney, Martin McHenry, by Chas. W. Ramsdell 341-42
Kervey, Samuel 98
Kerr, James 91
King, Grace 339
Knowlton, F. H. 324, 339
Kuykendall, Abner 174
La Fora, map of Texas 35
Langara, Juan de, map of Texas 35
Land Speculation as a Cause of the Texas Revolution, by Eugene C. Barker 76-95
La Salle 4-5
Law, Robert A. 354
Letter from the army of the Early Republic 347-48
Lewis, William 97
Livendais, protest against Spanish port on the Trinity 23
Lomax, John A. 353
Long, W. W. 285
Looscan, Adéle B., Sketch of the Life of Oliver Jones, etc. 172-80
Lopez, Father 137
Lott, John 98
Louisiana, boundary, 8, 11; cession to United States 72-74
Lumpkin, P. O. 198
Lynch, James 98
Lyon, Frank 286
Mal-Hado, identified as Galveston Island 249, 256-58
Manlove, B. 144
Margil, Father 11
Marsh, Shubael 97
Martin, M. T. 98
Martos y Navarrete, Angel de 24-26
“Massanet” or “Manzanet”? by Herbert E. Bolton 100
Massé, a French trader 22
Mason, John T. 79, 81, 92, 94
Mathe, Nicolas de la 32
Matthews, Annie 342
McFarland, Bates H. 249
McGehee, John G. 191
McKinney, Thomas F. 78, 93
Mendoza 331
Menefee, William 215
Mercer, Peter M. 98
Merrill, —., 339
Mezières, Athanase de 30-31
Milam, B. R. 77
Miller, Julia 349
Miller, J. B. 96
Miller, Samuel R. 98
Miller, William H. 97
Millican, E. M. 145
Miranda, Francisco de 42
Mitchell, Asa 99, 145
Missions, 6, 10; Adaes, 129; Ais, 129, 131, 132; Candelaria, 119; Concepción, 298; Luz, 119; Nacogdoches, 129; Rosario, the Founding of, 113-39; 132-39; San Antonio de Valero, 298; San Francisco Solano, 298; San Francisco de la Espada, 298; San Ildefonso, 119; San José de Aguayo, 298; San Juan Capistrano, 298; San Lorenzo, 119; San Saba, 119; San Xavier de Náxera, 119, 298; Espíritu Santo de Zuñiga; Mission Records at San Antonio, by Herbert E. Bolton 297-307
Money, J. H., offers land for capital site 197
Moore, James 97
Moore, John H., offers land for capital site 202
Moore, Samuel P. 54
Morfí, Augustin de 34
Moris, S. 98
Morris, Bethel 98
Moscoso 322
Mota-Padilla, Matias de la 20
Murphy, Edward 60
Nava, Pedro de, permits Nolan to buy horses in Texas 55
Newell, John 97
Newlands, Alexander 84
Niebling, F., offers land for capital site 197
Nixon, George A. 86
Nolan, Philip 51, 57, 58, 59
Norwood, Jesse A. 292
Oconor, Hugo 30
O'Fallon, Dr. James 44
O'Reilly, Alexander 27
Orobio y Basterra, Prudencio de 21, 121
Oviedo, importance of his testimony on the route of de Vaca 246
Pacheco, Rafael Martin 28
Padilla, Juan Antonio 77
Parker, Laura Bryan 343-45
Payne, Epps D. 97
Peebles, Robert 80, 84-86
Perry, A. G. 145
Perry, James F., offers land for capital site 197, 204
Peñalosa 4, 5
Pierson, J. G. W. 145
Piszina, Manuel Ramirez 122
Ponton, Brownie 249, 327, 328
Posadas, Father Alonzo 4
Questions and Answers 353
Rab, —., offers land for capital site 202
Raines, C. W. 280, 354
Raines, Emory 198
Ramón, Domingo de 10, 116
Ramsdell, Chas. W., Martin McHenry Kenney 341-42; 354
Reynolds, A. C. 99
Richards, Mordecai 59
Ripperdá 39
Rivera, Pedro de 18
Roberts, Stephen R. 97
Robertson, Sterling C., offers land for capitol site 197
Robinson, Baldon 97
Rodriguez, Juan, chief of the Hyerbipiamo Indians 301
Rogers, James 217
Rosario, The Founding of, by Herbert E. Bolton 113-39
Rose, Dr. J. N. 324, 339
Royall, R. R. 147
Rubí, Marqués de 29
Ruffin, Sam 286
Saint Denis 9, 10, 19, 20
San Antonio de Valero, mission of 10, 298
Sandoval 19, 20
San Felipe de Austin 140, 141, 142-47
San Francisco Solano, mission of 298, 300
San Jacinto, reprint of Houston's report of the battle of 348
San Juan Capistrano, mission of 298, 306
Santa Ana, Father Benito Francisco de 123, 304
San Xavier de Náxera, mission of 298
Saul, Thomas S. 98, 99
Savage, T. J. 296
Schrenk, Herman von 339
Scurlock, William 191
Sedano, Brother Francisco 137
Shiloh, the battle of 290-96
Simms, Bartlett 174
Simpson, J. W. 98
Smyth, George W. 86
Solís, Father 136-9
Soop, F. 97
Splann, J. M. 98
Stevens, Ashby R. 97
Sutherland, George 198
Swayne, Josephine Latham 351
Swisher, James G. 97
Taylor, Charles S. 86
Taylor, Lawrence S. 349
Terán, Domingo de 6
Terrell, A. W. 354
Texia, name proposed for capital of Texas
The Louisiana-Texas Frontier, by I. J. Cox 1-75
The Seat of Government of Texas, by Ernest William Winkler 140, 171, 185-245
The Storming of San Antonio 181-82
Thomas, Isaac 97
Thompson, John 97
Thomson, D. T. A. 97
Thwaites, R. G. 339
Trast, David 98
Trelease, William 339
Ulmer, J. B., A Glimpse of Albert Sidney Johnston through the Smoke of Shiloh 285-96
Vaca, Cabeza de, A Study of the Route of, by James Newton Baskett, 246-79, 308-40; map of the route, 264, 320; discussion of the route proposed by other writers, 327-33; tabulation of time and distance of the itinerary, 333-35; discussion of the conflicts between Oviedo and de Vaca, 335-37; chronology of the journey 338
Vallejo, Father 131
Vandera, Logan 217
Vasquez, J. A. 174
Vial, Pedro 36
Villa-Señor, Joseph Antonio de 20
Walkerston, J. F. Q. 98
Walker, Edwin, agent of the government in sale of lots at Austin 227
Ward, Thomas W., builder of Texas capitol at Houston 170
Washington, Texas, Documents relating to the organization of the first municipality of, 96-100; seat of the convention of 1836 150, 153
Western Company, the, succeeds Crozat in Louisiana 11
Westover, Ira 176
Wharton, William H. 215
Whiteside, James 97
Widen, L. E. 339, 354
Wilkinson, General James 51, 57
Wilkinson, J. G. 97
Williams, O. W. 328-9
Williams, S. M. 80, 82, 84-86, 92
Williamson, H. J. 98
Williamson, R. M. 90, 91, 146
Winkler, Ernest William, Documents relating to the Organization of the First Municipality of Washington, 96-100; The Seat of Government of Texas, 140-71, 185-245
Winship, George P. 321, 339
Wood, J. H. 98
Wyche, John J. 97
X. Y. Z. affair 66-68
Ybarbo, Antonio Gil 32
Young, Charles J. 98
FELLOWS AND LIFE MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION
The constitution of the Association provides that “Members who show, by published work, special aptitude for historical investigation, may become Fellows. Thirteen Fellows shall be elected by the Association when first organized, and the body thus created may thereafter elect additional Fellows on the nomination of the Executive Council. The number of Fellows shall never exceed fifty.”
The present list of Fellows is as follows:
Barker, Mr. Eugene C. Kenney, Capt. M. M.
Batts, Judge R. L. Kleberg, Rudolph, Jr.
Bolton, Prof. Herbert Eugene Lemmon, Prof. Leonard
Casis, Prof. Lilia M. Looscan, Mrs. Adele B.
Clark, Prof. Robert Carlton McCaleb, Dr. W. F.
Cooper, President O. H. Miller, Mr. E. T.
Coopwood, Judge Bethel Pennybacker, Mrs. Percy V.
Cox, Dr. I. J. Rather, Ethel Zivley
Estill, Prof. H. L. Shepard, Judge Seth
Fulmore, Judge Z. T. Smith, Dr. W. Roy
Gaines, Judge R. R. Townes, Prof. John C.
Garrison, Prof. George P. Williams, Judge O. W.
Gray, Mr. A. C. Winkler, Mr. Ernest William
Houston, Prof. D. F. Wooten, Hon. Dudley G.
The constitution provides also that “Such benefactors of the Association as shall pay into its treasury at any one time the sum of thirty dollars, or shall present to the Association an equivalent in books, MSS., or other acceptable matter, shall be classed as Life Members.”
The Life Members at present are:
Brackenridge, Hon. Geo. W. Cox, Mrs. Nellie Stedman
Vol. X. JULY, 1906. No. 1.
The publication committee and the editors disclaim responsibility for views expressed by contributors to The Quarterly.
To the average American citizen of a century ago Texas was practically unknown, while Louisiana meant little more than a vague geographical expression to designate a shadowy region rendered marvelous by three centuries of Latin-American exploration and occupancy. He knew only that within the unknown limits of the Southwest conquistador and coreur-de-bois.. Franciscan and Jesuit had played uncertain parts in an ineffectual struggle to stem the westward course of the Anglo-Saxon. In this struggle Spaniard and Frenchman had fought each other for the sake of colonial empires that they barely grasped before they were obliged to combine against the Anglo-American invader, who threatened to dispossess both of their uncertain tenure. Under these circumstances, when Louisiana was ceded to the United States the question of metes and bounds for the new acquisition was a puzzling one upon which past events could throw but little light, and that greatly distorted.
Louisiana, under French domination, had been an intrusive colony effectually separating two portions of the Spanish empire in North America, and because of its important strategic position it was destined to contribute materially to the ultimate overthrow of this empire. The fact that the final blow was delayed until a new nation could administer it was due not to any lack of strength in the situation of the colony, but to the peculiar social and political ties that under Le Grand Monarque and his immediate successor bound France to Spain. For this reason certain phases of Louisiana's territorial history under the Bourbon kings of France and Spain are of importance, even if resulting in no definite limits for the province, since they indicate in a general way what the ultimate determination of those limits must be.
From their position at the mouth of the Mississippi the intrusive French faced a double competition in their attempt to control the surrounding Indians. Within less than a century the anvil of Spanish conservatism, ineffectual but dogged, and the hammer of English expansion crushed French control of the Mississippi, and that great river became the unavailing barrier between the Power of the Past and the Power of the Future. When the latter changed its national designation, but not its stock characteristics, European diplomacy offered the new nation an opportunity to make the vast interior of the continent a political as well as a geographical unit. Then the thin line of fortifications and settlements that imperfectly marked the western limit of France's colonial empire again sprang into international importance. For this reason a comprehensive view of the early history of the Louisiana-Texas frontier is necessary to a proper appreciation of the events following 1803.
By the middle of the sixteenth century Cabeza de Vaca had performed his wonderful journey across the continent; while De Soto and Moscoso in the east and Coronado in the west, unconsciously carrying their explorations nearly to the same point, had penetrated far into the interior and formed the basis for future claims to the region away from the coast. 1 By the end of the century Spanish power was strongly established in New Mexico, but to the east it was still far south of the Rio Grande Valley. Spanish writers believed, however, even at this period, that by means of inter-tribal communication Spanish influence penetrated from New Mexico, Florida, and Coahuila to the Mississippi region. 2 This necessarily slight influence, if it existed, may have been somewhat strengthened by the explorations of Espejo, Sosa, Oñate, and Martin and Castillo, who before the middle of the seventeenth century crossed the Rio Grande and penetrated as far as the Pecos or possibly to the Tejas Indians. 3
This gradual extension of communication from the westward toward the east might have been met by a counter-current had the Spanish government acted favorably upon a report made in 1630 by Friar Alonso Benavides, the custodian of the missions of New Mexico. In the course of his missionary journeys in the vicinity of Santa Fé, the worthy father heard of the Indians of Quivira and of the Aijaos, located some one hundred and fifty leagues to the eastward. He proposed 4 the conversion of these Indians and the opening of communication with them, and ultimately with New Mexico, from the Gulf coast in the vicinity of Espíritu Santo Bay. Although his proposal naïvely disregards certain important geographical factors revealed by later exploration, had it been acted upon it might have led to an effective occupation of the Gulf coast at some point west of Florida. For nearly half a century, however, the report remained undisturbed in the Spanish archives, until the proposals of La Salle and of Peñalosa suggested the danger of French encroachment from this same direction.
Later Spanish writers were wont to exaggerate the Spanish influence during the period before the French came into the Mississippi Valley. They even claimed that the province of Texas then extended from the San Antonio to the Mississippi, notwithstanding the fact that within this space there had been no Spanish settlement, and at most only an occasional visit by some explorer or enthusiastic missionary. The only evidences of Spanish proximity, to say nothing of possession, according to the testimony of later French and Spanish writers, was the presence among the Indians of certain articles of Spanish commerce, obtained through intertribal communication, and a knowledge of a few simple church rites, doubtless conveyed in the same way or by very infrequent visits from representative friars laboring among distant tribes. For all practical purposes the Mississippi Valley, in the days of Benavides, was still an open field for European colonization. The only result of another half century of exploration and missionary effort beyond the Pecos, seconded by an appeal over the head of an indifferent viceroy to the Council of the Indies, was a royal order, issued in 1685 to Friar Alonzo Posadas, to make an exhaustive report upon explorations east of the Rio Grnade. 5 In this very year, however, the Spanish policy of documents was threatened by a French policy of deeds, for La Salle's abortive colony on the coast of Texas opened a new phase of the Louisiana question.
I. THE GENESIS OF THE TEXAS FRONTIER.
Although LaSalle's landing upon the coast of Texas, in 1685, was wholly unintentional, he at the time was engaged in a project which was the result of a policy definitely pursued by the French government since the rediscovery of the Mississippi by Hennepin. An important motive in this policy was the desire to open up a way to Mexico for the purpose of carrying on an illicit trade in time of peace, or of seizing the rich silver mines of the outlying provinces in time of war. This desire was hinted at in the paten issued to La Salle in 1678, 6 was the burden of the proposals of the adventurer Peñalosa in 1682 and 1684, 7 and was even an important motive of the projects of LaSalle. 8 In pursuit of this motive LaSalle proposed to utilize the mouth of the Mississippi, discovered by him in 1682, as a base of operations against New Biscay; while Peñalosa wished to direct an expedition against the same province from the mouth of the Rio Grande 9 or of the Pánuco. Additional important motives were the desire for a commercial colony at the mouth of the Mississippi and the conversion of the natives 10, but the attraction of the Mexican mines long remained to fire the imaginations of French explorers. 11
The attempts of Peñalosa and the grant to LaSalle roused the Spanish Council of the Indies to make an inquiry concerning the possibility of an invasion from the Gulf of Mexico. 12 When the certainty of LaSalle's attempt became apparent, the viceroy of New Spain authorized no less than six expeditions by land and sea, between 1686 and 1689, to find and break up his infant colony, 13 but these discovered only the wreck of one of LaSalle's ships to reward their search. Finally in April, 1689, another land expedition, under Alonso de León, known in Texas history as the first entrada, succeeded in reaching the site of LaSalle's feeble settlement some two months after the destruction of its surviving members by the Indians. 14 The expedition of the following year burned this fort and removed all other vestiges of the temporary sojourn of the French upon the Lavaca River.
That LaSalle's settlement upon the coast of Texas was wholly unintentional is shown by the fact that he continued long after his arrival to regard the Bay of St. Louis as one of the mouths of the Mississippi; and that when he learned his mistake he made three desperate but unavailing attempts to find “the fatal river.” 15 The strategic point both for commerce and for warfare, according to his various memoirs, was the mouth of the Mississippi, and Matagorda Bay (his Bay of St. Louis) was too far away to give him the desired control of this point. His various expeditions into the interior of Texas, extending as far as the country of the Cenis Indians, revealed to him many traces of communication between the natives and the neighboring Spaniards of New Mexico, and also evidences of hostility on the part of the Indians toward these same Spaniards, due, as later writers explained, to the recent rising of the New Mexican Indians. 16 LaSalle, however, was unable to take advantage of this hostility to further the ends of France; and his explorations were equally futile, since they depended for a base of operations upon a settlement that was unable even to maintain itself while its leader sought to transfer it to the Mississippi. Had the colony, despite the mistake in its location, succeeded in establishing itself upon the coast of Texas, it would still have been more difficult to maintain it there than at the mouth of the Mississippi, owing to its separation from Canada by an additional hundred leagues of fairly dangerous seacoast. It must inevitably have remained a thing apart, constantly menaced by savage and Spanish foes. In view of this fact and of its early extinction it affords, therefore, only a slender basis for French and American claims to Texas.
The entradas of 1689 and 1690 established Spanish missions in northeast Texas among the Indians of that name, while that of 1691-92 penetrated, under Don Domingo Terán, to the River of the Cadodachos (Red River), of which it made a perfunctory examination. 17 This last expedition, however, was a failure so far as its main purpose,—the permanent establishment of the Spanish in Texas,—was concerned; and in 1693 the missions among the Texas Indians were abandoned, so that the entire province reverted to the undisturbed possession of its savage inhabitants.
For a time the exigencies of European war prevented Louis XIV from continuing the exploration and settlement of the Mississippi Valley. When, in 1697, the return of peace permitted him to turn his attention again to these projects, there was an additional motive for haste in the prospect that the English would soon become the bitter rivals of the French for the possession of the Mississippi Valley. 18 The prospect of this vigorous opposition in the east determined that the location of the new French settlement should be to the eastward of the Mississippi. The Sieur d'Iberville, the leader of the new expedition, proposed Pensacola Bay as the most likely place for his colony, although he decided also to explore the Bay of St. Louis to learn its feasibility for a settlement. 19 When, however, early in 1699 he reached the vicinity of Pensacola, he found that the Spaniards had preceded him some four months and had already erected a small fort there. 20 As Iberville was under strict orders not to molest the Spaniards, he continued his explorations farther to the westward, sent his brother Bienville to explore the Mississippi as far as the Natchez, and left a garrison of eighty men in a fort at Old Biloxi, not far from Mobile Bay.
On his return to France Iberville submitted to the Minister of the Marine a plan of exploration in which he proposed to send his brother Bienville up the Mississippi and the Red rivers as far as the country of the Cadodachos. From these villages expeditions should explore each of the forks of the Red River, to determine how far each was navigable. Upon their return the expedition should proceed overland to the country of the Cenis (Texas) and thence to the habitation erected by LaSalle. Meanwhile, he himself should explore the coast as far as the Pánuco and then return to the above rendezvous on St. Louis Bay. If necessary, Iberville would then pass to the country of the Cadodachos and return by river to Biloxi. 21
Had the leader been able to carry out this far-reaching plan of exploration, it is probable that the French would have made good their claim westward as far as St. Louis Bay, or even to the Rio Grande. But when in the spring of 1700 Bienville and Saint Denis ascended the Red to the Natchitoches, they found it impossible to penetrate higher up by water. The Indians, too, were unwilling to attempt the journey overland. Consequently they were forced to descend by the same route without farther exploration. 22
Aside from an uncertain trading expedition by Saint Denis in 1705, 23 which may have extended as far west as the Rio Grande, the French for a time made no attempt to operate beyond the Valley of the Red River. But from this stream they evidently carried on an extensive trade with the Cenis and the Natchitoches Indians. By the year 1700, then, the French sphere of influence, if we may use the term, extended up the Red River as far as modern Natchitoches, while that of the Spaniards barely reached the Rio Grande at the Presidio of San Juan Bautista.
The grant by Louis XIV to Antoine Crozat, in 1712, marks a rude attempt to give Louisiana some sort of delimitation. By its terms the colony extended from the country of the Illinois (with trading privileges on the Missouri) to the Gulf, and from the Carolinas to New Mexico. 24 While this document should be given no more weight than is accorded to the “sea to sea” charters of the early English colonies, and while it was founded upon no more accurate geographical knowledge than they, yet as the first attempt to define Louisiana it has had considerable importance in succeeding diplomatic history. Apparently it was as definite as the French government wished to make it. 25 The grant was also of especial importance in that it ushered in a new era for the French colony—an era in which commercialism prevailed to the detriment of political and territorial interest.
In pursuance of this policy the new governor of Louisiana, M. de la Mothe de Cadillac, in 1713, sent a vessel to Vera Cruz to open up a commerce, with that port, but in this he was unsuccessful. 26 The next year, however, Cadillac made a second attempt that was destined to have important effects upon the Frinch territorial claims to the west. In this he engaged M. Louis de Saint Denis, a French captain of Canadian extraction who had long been employed in the service of the colony, to open up an overland trade with Mexico.
To accomplish his task Saint Denis passed in September, 1713, up the Red River as far as the Natchitoches and there built two houses, one for his goods and one for the guard to watch them. For several months Saint Denis carried on a vigorous trade in live stock with the Cenis and other Indian tribes. We learn from a letter addressed in 1711 to the governor of Louisiana, that he had expected to find among these Indians a certain Spanish friar, Father Hidalgo, whom he was to assist in establishing a mission—a project that seemed to promise the opportunity to open up the desired trade. In this, however, he was disappointed, and after a return to Natchez for more goods, he pushed on through Texas with a few French and Indian companions, and early in 1715 reached the Rio Grande at the Presidio of San Juan Bautista.
From this point, after a few weeks' delay, he was taken to the City of Mexico, where his coming, though expected, caused great official activity. His presence in the country and his plans for internal trade revealed to the astonished Mexican officials the ease with which the French traders could enter their outlying provinces and endanger their hold upon the country beyond the Rio Grande, if not on the hither side of the river. Under the circumstances the aroused officials speedily planned the reoccupation of Texas. For personal reasons, and doubtless to help on the general scheme for the introduction of trade Saint Denis readily agreed to enter the Spanish service and to guide the proposed expedition to the country of the Texas Indians, where his influence would assure the Spaniards a welcome reception. 27 While accepting Spanish service and urging upon his new employers the advantages of the Mississippi as the eastward boundary of their possessions, he told them that the French claimed to Rio Grande, as a result of La Salle's luckless voyage. At the same time, although the above action rendered his recommendation useless, he wrote the governor of Louisiana, on September 7, apprising him of the proposed expedition to Texas and advising that the king of France should demand the Rio Grande as the western boundary of Louisiana. The governor should also make an establishment on the Madelaine (Guadalupe) for the purpose of controlling the mines in the interior of Mexico. 28
The result of the entrada of 1716, under the double leadership of Captain Domingo Ramón and Saint Denis was the reoccupation of the eastern frontier of Texas by the Spaniards. By means of mission station and presidial guard, aided by native converts, they hoped to impede future French encroachments. During 1716 and 1717 six missions were established in the country to the eastward of the Trinity River, the last of which, among the Adaes Indians, was only eight leagues from Natchitoches, a fort erected by the French in 1716. 29 The first step in the Spanish reoccupation of Texas was thus accomplished. Frontier outposts—religious in character it is true, but effective if well supported—were placed so as to cut off French aggression by the land route through the Texas Indians, and orders were given to prevent these missions themselves from forming the channel of French contraband trade. 30
These remote missions, far from the base of supplies, and garrisoned by few soldiers, were insufficient to hold the province completely, even if the missionaries were equally zealous in national and religious propaganda. Consequently the recommendation was made to advance missions to the San Antonio River, as a sort of half-way point, and to occupy the bay of Espíritu Santo (Matagorda) in order to open a communication by sea from Vera Cruz. This would prevent its use for the purpose of carrying on contraband trade, and forestall the French claim to the Rio Grande. 31
In accordance with the first of these suggestions the mission of San Antonio de Valero was founded near the site of modern San Antonio, in 1718, to keep open communication between the Rio Grande and the eastern missions. The suggestion with regard to the bay of Espíritu Santo was not followed out till 1722. With these measures Spain may be said to have acquired a more certain hold upon Texas, and to have extended her frontier to the Adaes mission, a few leagues west of the Red River.
The years following 1716 served to limit more definitely the Spanish and French frontiers. In 1717 Antoine Crozat gave up his commercial privileges in Louisiana and was succeeded by the Western Company. The change was beneficial in introducing more settlers among the French. Among those who obtained concessions was Bernard de la Harpe, whose land was located among the Cadodachos, on the Red River beyond the post of Natchitoches, where in 1717 the Spanish friars had made an unsuccessful attempt to found a mission. 32 In the latter part of 1718 La Harpe started out to take possession of his grant. Having established a post about a hundred leagues above Natchitoches in the country of the Nassonites, and mindful of the ever present commercial motive of his immediate employers—the Western Company—he attempted to open up a clandestine trade with Father Margil, a Franciscan friar connected with the Texas missions, by promising him a liberal commission on all sales made through his instrumentality. 33
Instead of indignantly rejecting this underhand method of advancing the spiritual interests of his missions, the priest promised to aid him by such secret means as were possible for one of his profession. 34 Meanwhile La Harpe reported his arrival to Don Martin de Alarcón, the commander of the Spanish troops in Texas, and thus provoked with that officer a warm correspondence which led each to a declaration of national limits. 35 Alarcón in his letter of May 20, 1719, expressed his surprise at the presence of Frenchmen in the country of the Nassonites, which they must know belonged to the Spanish king as an appurtenance of New Mexico. He advised him to retire from his position, before he should force him to do so. In reply La Harpe not only claimed that the Nassonite post belonged to the French, because situated upon one of the tributaries of the Mississippi, but also asserted that the whole of the province of Texas formed part of Louisiana, by virtue of the settlement made by LaSalle in 1685, and subsequent acts of possession, which, however, he did not specify. He closed his letter with a challenge for Alarcón to come and dispossess him, but the latter did not see fit to make the attempt.
During the remainder of the year La Harpe occupied himself in explorations to the west and northwest of his position, with the design of opening up a route to New Mexico, but reached no farther than a branch of the Arkansas in latitude 37° 45‐, where he erected a cross upon which were carved the royal arms. 36
This year, 1719, is celebrated in the history of the Louisiana frontier because of the precipitate retreat of the Spanish missionaries and presidial troops from eastern Texas to the San Antonio River. War had broken out in Europe between France and Spain, and news of this event first reached the French colonial authorities. To Blondel, the French commandant at Natchitoches, the occasion seemed to afford a chance to extend the opportune protection of his garrison over the neighboring Spanish missions grouped about Adaes. Such a move might be necessary in view of the fact that most of the surrounding Indians were of French predilection. Unfortunately the missionaries and the small presidial guard did not understand his motive for advancing, and by a precipitate retreat to the San Antonio they threatened to destroy the future of French contraband trade on the Texas border. Rather than lose so important a trading center as Adaes—a post established with great expenditure of French and Spanish effort—La Harpe, when his attention was called to the matter, forced Blondel to write a most humble letter supplicating the friars to return and re-establish their missions. 37
In obedience to orders from France, Bienville, in August, 1720, despatched a certain M. Beranger to reconnoitre St. Bernard's Bay to determine its feasibility for a settlement. Three months later Beranger returned, leaving a guard of five men, four of whom afterwards perished. As a result of his report, Bienville made La Harpe the commander of a formal expedition to plant a colony near the scene of LaSalle's disastrous settlement. He bore with him the survivor of Beranger's guards and was expressly ordered to use force to dispossess the Spaniards should he find them in the vicinity. As these orders were in conformity with royal instructions of November 16, 1718, they may be regarded as the definite assumption, by the French government, of a claim based upon LaSalle's unfortunate mistake. La Harpe immediately discovered that the neighboring Indians were utterly opposed to his settlement, and in view of his slender resources retreated to Mobile. This ended the last formal attempt of the French to take possession of the Texas coasts. 38
Following the events of 1719, the speedy restoration of peace produced the counter movement of the Spaniards which resulted in a permanent occupation of eastern Texas by their presidials and missionaries. A patriotic resident of the province of Coahuila, the Marqués de San Miguel de Aguayo, was the leader of this fifth and last of the entradas which marked the establishment of the Spaniards in Texas. Some years before, the Marqués had besought the privilege of subduing and settling the province of Texas at his expense, but his plan had not then been judged expedient. Now the Mexican authorities, spurred on by Espinosa, president of the east Texas missions, gladly accepted the renewal of Aguayo's offer, which insured the peaceful reoccupation of the positions abandoned in 1719. 39
Aguayo's imposing force of more than 500 men would have been sufficient to deter French opposition, had the latter cherished any such thought. Far from this, however, Saint Denis met the Spaniards at the Neches, reported the retirement of the French to Natchitoches, and, by means of his influence among the Indians, smoothed the way for the re-establishment of the Spaniards at Adaes. The Spanish diario of the journey, however, is filled with suspicious references to the supposed desire of the French to penetrate to New Mexico or to the interior of Texas—a desire that would be precluded by Spanish possession of the frontier beyond the Sabine.
The double-dealing Saint Denis passed to Mobile to report to Bienville the arrival of the Spaniards. Despite Bienville's protest, the latter proceeded to reoccupy the various missions and posts formerly belonging to them, although the French commandant at Natchitoches wished them to await the return of Saint Denis. Some little exchange of courtesies for the purpose of spying out each other's strength resulted in the decision of each, in accordance with definite instructions from the home governments, to commit no overt act of hostility, but to restore the status quo of 1719. Thus the French did not hinder Aguayo in rebuilding the presidio of Adaes within seven leagues of Natchitoches, and at the same time they remained equally undisturbed within their post. It is true that Bienville, then acting as governor of Louisiana, opposed this movement, but Saint Denis on the frontier and the Western Company at home were equally concerned to re-establish the Spaniards in their vicinity, so the protests of the governor counted for naught.
The reoccupation of Adaes in 1721, and the resulting establishment during the following year of a post on Espíritu Santo Bay, emphasized the permanency which the authorities of New Spain wished to impart to the organization of Texas. The attempt to preserve as an aboriginal wilderness the country between themselves and the nearest European colonists had failed; so, then, there was no recourse but to carve out a buffer province from the territory of the Indians. The danger that threatened from LaSalle became a serious menace in the person of Saint Denis with his double-dealing policy, and, therefore, within less than a decade the outposts of Spanish civilization must advance from the Rio Grande to Adaes, in order to confront on the remotest confines of the viceroyalty the invasion that seemed to endanger the mines far within the interior. Neither France nor Spain effectively occupied the country to which each laid claim; but the reoccupation of Adaes by the Spaniards and the unmolested continuance of the French at Natchitoches—both as the result of direct orders from the home governments—constituted a sort of informal acknowledgment that these posts were for the future to mark the respective limits of Texas and of Louisiana.
Meanwhile, farther within the interior, the French and Spaniards were marking out lines of colonial expansion which though ineffectual to control this portion of the continent, served to define more clearly their tentative frontier limits nearer the coast. At the mouth of the Arkansas, at a point where Tonty had in 1686 established a small post, the Western Company maintained a storehouse which served as a way station for voyageurs passing up and down the river. 40 During the winter and spring of 1722, La Harpe pushed his explorations, by water and by land, some hundred leagues up this river, till the mutinous temper of his party warned him to avoid the fate of LaSalle. 41 In 1719, M. Du Tissenet passed from the country of the Illinois up the Missouri and Osage, to visit the Indians bearing the latter name and the Pawnees and the Padoucas (Comanches). Among these, on September 27, he took possession of the country and erected a column with the royal arms. 42 Somewhat later De Bourgemont established Fort Orleans on the Missouri, near the mouth of the Grand River, to serve as a center for the Indian fur trade and as an entrepot for trade with New Mexico, or as defense to Illinois against possible Spanish hostilities. From this point, in 1724, he made an important journey to the country of the Padoucas and neighboring nations. 43
The Spaniards in New Mexico were not unmindful of the fact that their province was the ultimate goal of these explorations. Influenced by their vigorous representations, the viceroy ordered Don Antonio Valverde Cossio, then governor of that province, to send an expedition to the Pawnees, where he had heard that there were French establishments, and also to examine the “Quartelejo” with a view to locate a military post there. This latter place was probably somewhere in northwestern Kansas, and had been visited by Valverde on an expedition of the preceding year against some predatory savages. It was while on this expedition that the governor had heard of the nearby presence of the French. 44
The ill-fated expedition of fifty New Mexican troops with Indian auxiliaries left Santa Fé June 14, 1720, under the command of Lieutenant-Governor Don Pedro de Villazur. The task before the latter was to make a reconnaissance of the country and to attempt by diplomatic means to win the Pawnees from the French. On August 15th the expedition arrived near the Platte, in the vicinity of their villages, and early the following morning all of the Spaniards except six or seven were massacred by a party of Pawnees, probably under French direction. Among the slain was Captain Juan de Archibeque, doubtless one of the survivors of LaSalle's expedition. After a comparatively successful career in New Mexico he was to expiate his share in the murder of LaSalle by falling at the hands of savages instigated by his former fellow-countrymen.
The destruction of this force so seriously crippled Spanish strength in New Mexico that the attempt to fortify so distant a post as the “Quartelejo” was abandoned, as were all similar expeditions. On the other hand, the defeat of Villazur proved for the French the first step in opening the trail to Santa Fé. In 1739 came the visit to New Mexico of a group of French Canadian merchants under the Mallet Brothers, 45 who entered from the direction of the Platte and returned by way of the Arkansas. As a result of their report Bienville proposed to open up commerce with New Mexico by way of the Arkansas and its tributaries, and, in 1741, commissioned Fabry de la Bruyère, in company with four of the previous party, to undertake the task. In this, however, they were unsuccessful. If we may judge from other sources, there was a continuous infiltration of French adventurers during the succeeding years of the century. 46
II. THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF SPANISH TEXAS.
The imposing entrada of Aguayo determined that the occupation of Texas by the Spaniards should include the site of LaSalle's unfortunate settlement and likewise Adaes, the farthermost point occupied by the Ramón-Saint Denis expedition. To this situation, which involved not merely overthrowing the former French pretensions to the country as far as the Rio Grande and New Mexico, but even presenting a Spanish outpost under the very eyes of the garrison at Natchitoches, the French court tacitly consented by issuing orders to maintain the status quo. This in a measure may be regarded as a negative acceptance of the territorial claims of each, so far as supported by actual settlement. 47 The Spanish officers from the force of Aguayo who had visited the French garrison at Natchitoches had been received with greatest courtesy. 48 Although then without definite instructions, the French local commander had promised to observe the peace, while the Spaniards claimed that the reoccupation of Adaes would not involve a breach of national faith. Thus the frontier situation rested for a decade and a half.
The predominant motive for acquiescence in this Spanish occupation was a commercial one. This motive was frankly avowed in a memoir upon Louisiana prepared by La Harpe, probably about 1723. 49 The greatest value of the provinces, in his estimation, was the opportunity they offered for clandestine trade with the neighboring Spanish provinces of “Lastekas,” New Mexico, and Nuevo Leon. It is worthy of note that this frontier officer, who four years previously had made so vigorous a defense of the uncertain claim of his nation to the Rio Grande and to New Mexico, now recognized the new province of Spanish Texas as reaching to the vicinity of the Red River, near the point established by himself.
Unfortunately, we have no Spanish documents that afford with equal clearness contemporary reasons for the acquiescence in French occupation of Louisiana. From writers of a later period 50 we may summarize the following statements. After the War of the Spanish Succession Spain abandoned its previous hostile attitude toward France. This was especially apparent in the policy of Philip V, who adopted a course little in keeping with national honor. It was this spirit which was responsible for French pretensions, such as those displayed in the grant to Crozat, and for encroachments in which France was always the aggressor. But even during this period there was a limit to Spanish tolerance, and it is claimed that the Grand Monarch himself assured the Spanish king that if France continued to hold any points on the Gulf of Mexico, it would not be as possessor of the soil, but for the purpose of aiding the Spaniards to retard the advance of the English. 51 The presence of the French in Louisiana, then, was due simply to Spanish toleration, consequent upon the peculiar dynastic conditions of France and Spain, although there was some recognition of the influence of Spain's decadent position upon this result.
This spirit of toleration likewise characterized Spanish policy after 1721. The fact of French occupation was recognized, but not the right. This recognition, however, extended only to existing settlements, and prohibited any extension beyond a certain definite area. It was this permissive occupation, however, which affected the Spanish colonial dominions so unfavorably that Spain later gladly accepted the gift of Louisiana when the exigencies of the Family Pact rendered it advisable for France to offer it. 52 Such, according to Spanish interpretation, was the official position of the French and Spanish governments before the transfer of Louisiana to the latter. It was a policy of negation rather than of express official sanction, although every governor of Texas had explicit orders to prevent further French encroachment.
With the question neglected by the home governments, all succeeding attempts at more accurate delimitation of the uncertain Louisiana-Texas frontier were the result of local initiative, and, as such, interesting from the standpoint of personal opinion rather than important in a national view. They are of some value, however, as indicating a trend towards greater definiteness in designating national areas.
In 1727 Don Pedro de Rivera made an inspection of the presidios and missions of Texas. As a result of his visit, and despite the protests of the friars, the presidial garrisons were considerably reduced. This move indicated lessened fear of French invasion, but led those friars belonging to the Convent of San Francisco at Querétaro to withdraw to the San Antonio River. 53
Some years later occurred the event which emphasized the tentative frontier line for the remaining years of French occupancy. In 1735 the French moved their fort at Natchitoches about a gun-shot farther to the westward and away from the river, in order to escape occasional floods. As the French exercised jurisdiction over some ranches extending to the Arroyo Hondo, a small stream flowing into the Red River, and to an elevation known as Gran Montaña, Saint Denis, who cammanded the fort, unquestioningly obeyed when Bienville instructed him to make this move. Don José Gonzales, then guarding the Spanish frontier in the absence of Governor Sandoval, promptly entered his protest and informed his superior of the occurrence. 54 The governor ordered his subordinate to give notice three times of the formal protest against this infringement upon Spanish territory, and if this action should be in vain, to compel the French to return to their former position. The action of Gonzales, however, simply resulted in a desultory correspondence continued until August, 1736.
Between hostile Apaches who drew him away from the frontier to Western Texas, and smuggling French whose encroachments demanded his presence at the border post of Adaes, Sandoval was in a hard place. Moreover, he had nothing beyond vague tradition of the early entradas to guide him in a diplomatic dispute, while his opponent was the crafty Saint Denis. He believed that his country could rightfully claim prior occupation of all the territory as far as the Red River, but his mere belief furnished an uncertain basis upon which to meet the arguments of the double-dealing Frenchman who had personally conducted the Spaniards into Texas. Sandoval had no positive orders to meet the particular situation. In a general way he was to harass and annoy the French as much as possible, and to drive them out of the limits of Texas; but he did not know what those limits were. When Saint Denis, from his personal experience, assured him that neither nation could rightfully claim all of the land intervening between Natchitoches and Adaes, and that even Aguayo had not objected to the presence of French ranches within that area, he hesitated to assume the responsibility for beginning hostilities, and referred the whole matter to the viceroy.
One result of this correspondence was a proclamation by Sandoval flatly prohibiting any commerce with the French, thus shutting Natchitoches off from what seems to have been its granary. A more important result was the subsequent observance by both sets of local officers of the Arroyo Hondo, mentioned above, as the limit of their respective colonial jurisdictions. 55 As the French and Spanish touched each other nowhere else in the west, a more extended delimitation was regarded as unnecessary. Sandoval, however, fared badly because of his share in the controversy. His successor brought suit against him on the charge of betraying the royal interests, and the resulting protracted litigation almost ruined the innocent and powerless governor. 56
In 1738 there was published in Paris a history of Louisiana by Du Pratz. 57 This French officer, who had resided in the province from 1718 to 1734 naturally favored the pretensions of his government and repeated the earlier statement that Louisiana extended to New Mexico. Upon his map he represented the Rio Grande as the western boundary of Louisiana, as far as 29° 25‐ north latitude. Thence the boundary left the river and ran parallel with the Pecos about forty miles distant. There following a mountain chain, it finally ended in latitude 42° north. His claim, however, may be matched by that of Mota-Padilla, 58 who, 1742, spoke of the province of Texas as extending to the Red River; or by the Franciscan Espinosa 59 who stated that the province reached to the Missouri; or by the auditor Altamira 60 and the cosmographer of New Spain, Villa-Señor y Sanchez, 61 who claimed Adaes as its outpost. In general it is possible to disregard the testimony both of contemporary historians and of geographers, for they commonly follow national interpretation, and their statements balance each other. If, occasionally, one seems to favor the opposing nation, his apparent generosity is matched by like conduct from the other side, as is shown by the maps of the Spaniard Lopez, and the Frenchman Vaugondy. 62
While Prudencio de Orobio y Basterra held the office of governor ad interim (from 1737 to 1740), he recommended the establishment of a new presidio upon the Trinity River, in order to break up the commerce of the Indians in that vicinity with the French. 63 This representation, however, seems to have attracted little or no attention from the viceroy, and the inattention may have encouraged later governors to permit this illegal traffic. There are, however, some indications that in 1744 Governor Vaudreuil of Louisiana attempted to break up the trade of his subjects with the Spaniards. 64
This trade with the French, openly countenanced and even participated in by succeeding Texas governors, became especially pronounced during the rule of Lieut.-Col. Don Jacinto de Barrios y Jauregui. Unfortunately, as one of the historians of the period writes, “it is hard to relate the events that occurred in his term in such a way as not to fall into the error of telling them too early or too late”; 65 yet certain of these events were important, for they led directly to the only attempt by a Spanish official to define the boundary between the French and Spanish colonies west of the Mississippi.
Barrios took possession of his government late in 1751. Morfí and those who follow him report that afterward he permitted the settlement, upon the Trinity, of a Frenchman named Blancpain (or Lampen), with two compatriots and two negro slaves. These new settlers, so the report goes, assumed the character of Spanish subjects for the purpose of carrying on trade with the Indians; and because of their influence over the latter, rendered the province an important service. According to the authorities already mentioned, they supplemented this service by acting as the direct agents of the Spanish governor, who shared the profits of their trade. Even if this latter statement were true, and there certainly is reason to doubt it, their reported complicity with the governor availed them but little. After remaining upon the Trinity two months and ten days, Blancpain and his companions were arrested in October, 1754, and sent to Mexico City, where they were examined on the 19th of the following February. Their succeeding fate is uncertain. One writer reports that he met Blancpain in Spain, whither he was transported, and another that he died in prison in Mexico City. 66
Barrios's term of office was to close in 1756. As the time drew near he may have feared some unpleasant complications from the above affair in his inevitable residencia, or official inquiry into his administration. Accordingly, he represented to the viceroy the danger that menaced the province from French clandestine trade on the Trinity. Moved by the actual instance as well as by his vigorous representations, a junta of war held in 1755 decided to erect a new presidio upon that river and to settle some fifty Tlascalan families in its vicinity. Barrios then effected an arrangement with his destined successor, Lieutenant Don Angel de Martos y Navarrete, by which Barrios remained in Texas a year longer to assist in the erection of this new post, known as San Agustin de Ahumada. 67
Notwithstanding his vigorous action in the case of Blancpain, Barrios found that he had not frightened away all French intruders. Below Adaes, on the little river Flores, a certain M. Massé established himself with his slaves; while a short distance away lived a M. Cortablan, likewise “without any other authority than his own effrontery.” 68 The establishment of the new presidio on the Trinity promised to relieve the situation very little; and even the viceroy, Amarillas, anxious as he was to keep out the French, recommended forbearance towards these intruders, in order to avoid hostilities. If we may credit later testimony there were also at this time extensive French trading settlements along the course of the Red River at the ancient Caddo village and Bayou Pierre; at Dout and among the Nandaco Indians in the valley of the Sabine; and even some distance west of that river. 69
One result of this unauthorized intrusion appeared during the unfortunate campaign of 1758 against the Apaches. 70 It was found that these savages were supplied with firearms, evidently from French traders, and what was worse, that they were flying a French flag. Its presence did not necessarily imply that Frenchmen formed part of the allied host, but flag and firearms were the signs of unscrupulous measures employed in stirring up the border Indians against the Spaniards. In this campaign the dismayed Spaniards ingloriously retreated, leaving a large portion of their camp equipage and all of their artillery in possession of the exultant savages. Four years later the Spanish missionaries complained of this illegal French trade, which not only prevented their own attempts at converting the Indians, but also threatened the introduction of French and even of English commerce far within the province.
Meanwhile the report that the Spaniards were about to establish a new presidio on the Trinity stirred up the French governor of Louisiana to revive well nigh forgotten claims to the whole of Texas. In 1756 a certain M. Livendais braved Spanish exclusiveness by presenting himself on board of a vessel in the harbor of Vera Cruz. 71 His mission was to purchase certain provisions and munitions of war—in which he was only partially successful—and to protest against the erection of the new fortification. Livendais had desired to present his communication in person to the viceroy, but was denied the privilege, so he contented himself with sending from Vera Cruz the French governor's protest, which was based upon alleged “fantastic claims” to the whole province of Texas.
To this communication the viceroy attempted no direct answer, but the possibilities suggested by continued French incursions backed by extensive territorial claims led him or his subordinate, Lieutenant Don Angel de Martos y Navarrete, who about this time succeeded Barrios in Texas, to make the most definite suggestion yet offered upon the subject of a boundary between the Spanish and French colonial possessions. This proposal, apparently the work of Governor Martos, may have been prepared by him some time between 1757 and 1759, and sent to the viceroy, Amarillas. Before the death of the latter, early in 1760, he incorporated the proposal of his subordinate in a communication which was forwarded to Spain for royal consideration. The exigencies of the closing years of the Seven Years' War prevented any definite action by the Council of the Indies. When peace was finally restored, New Orleans and all of French Louisiana west of the Mississippi was ceded to Spain, so there was no necessity for prompt action in the matter. When the subject of Louisiana limits again acquired an international importance, the memoir was discovered in the archives of the Convent of San Francisco, in the City of Mexico, by Friar Melchor de Talamantes, while searching for material upon the subject of the limits of Louisiana and Texas. Although the document was anonymous and undated, it was identified by an associate, probably Friar José Pichardo, as the work of Governor Martos, at the time above mentioned. 72
The Representation 73 begins by reviewing the mission of M. Livendais to Vera Cruz and the cases of Blancpain and the other intruding Frenchmen, and utters a warning against permitting similar encroachments beyond the River of the Adaes or Mexicano. 74 The author mentions the “strict union of the two crowns” and the desire of the Spanish sovereign to preserve peace throughout his dominions, although unforeseen accidents might prevent this. The possibility that France might emerge successfully from its present conflict with England 75 suggested the danger that when freed from menace in the north and east, France might not content itself with Louisiana alone, but might look with longing upon a province (Texas) whose natural wealth more than equalled the French Canadian possessions. This possibility led the author to suggest a plan for definitely fixing the limits while the relations between the two governments were still those of close friendship.
The writer believed that on the Mexican frontier the Mississippi, at least as far as the Red River, would constitute the best boundary between the colonial possessions of the two nations. From the mouth of the Red, that river, as far as its main fork in the country of the Caddoes, 76 should continue the boundary, separating the French Indians from the Spanish Apaches, and also leaving under Spanish influence the Chitimachas, Opelousas, and Attakapas. From the forks of the Red River, following the most northern branch, the line should run in a northerly direction to the Arkansas, and thence to the Missouri. Although the French had penetrated about a thousand leagues up this river, they afterward had abandoned their settlement and ceased further exploration. The various divisions of the proposed line could be run so as to separate the Indians that were natural enemies, thus emphasizing its definiteness.
Possibly the French would be loath to abandon their long established post at Natchitoches, and the various scattered ranches extending equally far to the westward. In that event it would be advisable to move the first portion of the proposed line over to the Adaes River (Sabine) and to extend it in a northerly direction to the Red. This would be preferable to leaving the question open any longer, especially if the Spaniards strengthened themselves by new establishments on the Texas coast.
The proposed line, following the Sabine, Red, Arkansas, and Missouri rivers, was definitely to mark out the sphere of influence of each nation among the Indians, and likewise its area for exploration and development. The great mineral wealth of the interior of New Spain, separated by vast distances from the French frontier, would no longer present the temptation to encroachment which had previously threatened the peace of the two nations. Freed from this danger, and with adequate instructions, the colonial government would be able to enforce all laws of the home government and to insist upon the most inviolable observance of its treaty privileges and obligations. These were the reasons that led the writer to recommend the abandonment of the untenable policy of regarding the French as intruders upon the Gulf coast and the acknowledgment of their right to a certain well-defined area in order to preserve intact the vast regions still claimed by the Spanish crown.
With the customary disregard that characterized the Spanish home government during this period, the document was unheeded for more than four decades. Its main features were then revived to meet the menace of a more dreaded encroachment, but unfortunately for Spain, too late to achieve the desired result.
III. THE NEW NEIGHBORS OF SPANISH TEXAS.
Although suggestions from the viceregal court concerning a boundary with the French remained unheeded, the same indifference did not display itself when an opportunity arose to obtain the whole of Louisiana. The exigencies of the Family Compact made it desirable to reward Spain for her unfortunate share in the Seven Years' War. Although the government of Louis XV may also have desired to get rid of an unprofitable colony, yet the Spanish government apparently considered no alternative but to accept the proffered possession. In fact the manner in which the colonial officials of Louisiana, from a Spanish point of view, had disregarded their obligations of good neighborhood, rendered no other course possible. 77
From November 3, 1762, the date of the secret transfer of Louisiana to Spain, until May 2, 1803, when Napoleon and the American commissioners signed the formal deed of cession to the United States, the final disposition of Louisiana was a matter of doubt; while the various questions arising from its possession remained to perplex American diplomacy and policies until 1853. Thus it may be truly said that the forty years preceding 1803 were, so far as Louisiana was concerned, years of preliminary preparation for the great transfer which exerted so important an influence on American political events during the next half century.
The tender of Louisiana to the Spanish sovereign was made on November 3, 1762, and his acceptance was received ten days later. 78 But it was not until 1769 that Don Alexander O'Reilly took possession of the colony, after suppressing in New Orleans an incipient rebellion of Spain's new subjects. The acceptance of the province did not in any way mark its full reception into the number of Spanish colonies. By the terms of the cession Louisiana was to enjoy certain trading privileges that were denied to the other dependencies of Spain. Rather than break down the system of commercial monopoly that had characterized Spain's colonial policy up to this point, Louisiana was to be administered as a possession quite distinct from its neighboring provinces. The barrier that separated Louisiana from Texas—largely an uncertain paper one—must be emphasized, in order that the former colony might not prove a breach in Spain's wall of commercial exclusion.
A change that marked a step in advance along the Louisiana border occurred almost contemporaneously with the official transfer. During the early months of 1764 some 650 Acadians arrived at New Orleans. 79 A portion of these were settled on the banks of the Mississippi, but the greater number at Attakapas and Opelousas. As Natchitoches was previously the only formal French settlement west of the Red River, this migration emphasizes a movement of French speaking people towards the Sabine. The event, however, occurred after the official transfer of the province to Spain, and although that power had not yet taken possession, the movement can not be regarded as strengthening the claims of France to the region between the Mississippi and the Sabine. 80
The transfer of the colony did not promise an immediate conversion of illegal French traders into law-abiding Spanish subjects. The presidio upon the Trinity, designed to break up this trade, became the scene of a quarrel between Governor Martos and Captain Rafael Martin Pacheco, during which the Captain was arrested and the presidio burned. Later the governor was removed from office. 81 This quarrel may have arisen on account of contraband trade. The frontier missionaries of the period emphasize the lamentable effect of such irresponsible trading upon their neophites. 82 These complaints continued even after the Spaniard, O'Reilly, assumed command at New Orleans. The Indians were supplied with firearms and munitions by which they became more dreaded on the frontier. The Spaniards blamed the French and the latter the English; but it was a matter of common knowledge along the border that many French fortunes owed their origin to this trade. This, of course, could not be prevented while Louisiana belonged to France, and after the transfer only the lawless persisted in the traffic. One unfortunate result was the opportunity for expansion which this illegal practice opened to the English after they became established at Natchez. With the Missouri affording a highway into the interior they could not be wholly excluded, and O'Reilly in self-defense was forced to use Natchitoches as a center from which to supply munitions to certain of the tribes. 83
An attempted retrograde movement on the part of the Spanish home government followed the visita of the Marqués de Rubí in 1767, and threatened still further to complicate the border situation. Some five years after the report of Rubí the Spanish king issued, September 10, 1772, an order known as the “New Regulation of Presidios,” 84 which practically embodied Rubí's proposals. In effect his “New Regulation” marked an attempt at temporary relinquishment of Spain's uncertain hold on a large part of the territory between the Rio Grande and the Mississippi, in favor of a greater concentration near the valley of the former. With Spain in control of both Texas and Louisiana, the latter colony became the rampart against English aggression, thus removing the necessity for missionary and presidial outposts in eastern Texas. At the same time the peril from the Apaches and other hostile Indians far within the interior provinces measurably increased. Consequently prudence demanded the abandonment of useless stations on the Texas-Louisiana frontier with a concentration of forces upon the San Antonio and Rio Grande rivers, whence an exterminating war might be waged against hostile natives.
To carry into effect this proposed defense of the more populated portions of the viceroyalty, a line of fifteen frontier forts, forty leagues apart, was to extend from Bahía del Espíritu Santo, near the mouth of the San Antonio River, to the head of the Gulf of California. Beyond this cordon of forts two outposts, San Antonio de Béxar, in Texas, and Santa Fé, in New Mexico, were to represent the extreme garrisons of New Spain. The forces at Béxar and at Bahía were to be increased by the abandonment of Adaes and Orcoquisac, while the military efficiency of all the presidios was to be increased by the appointment of a new general officer, the inspector comandante of the interior provinces. To this office the viceroy appointed Don Hugo Oconor, who had recently served as governor ad interim of Texas.
At first thought it would seem that the issue of this royal decree marks the definite abandonment by the Spanish government of all the province of Texas beyond the San Antonio River. It so chances that this presidial line roughly corresponds to what the French had formerly claimed as the western boundary of Louisiana, but apparently long since abandoned. But this proposed relinquishment of the greater part of Texas was to the Indians and not to the French. Louisiana, west of the Mississippi, was now a Spanish province, so there was no necessity for a garrison in east Texas to prevent the extension of its western frontier. The proposed relinquishment of the greater part of Texas was only the result of a temporary policy, which in turn would be reversed when New Spain again felt the necessity for expansion. Meanwhile the acquisition of Louisiana denoted the fact that the Spanish frontier now extended to the Mississippi, where possible encroachment must be restrained by her newly acquired citizens. As a matter of fact, east Texas was never wholly abandoned, and those settlers who removed to San Antonio shortly afterward returned, despite the express royal order to the contrary.
A prominent figure upon the Texas-Louisiana frontier in the years following 1770 was Athanase de Mezières, a Frenchman in Spanish service as commandant of the post at Natchitoches. He was well-known and influential among the various Indian tribes of the border, particularly along the Red River, and had personally visited most of them. Mezières was perfectly willing to turn his influence over the Indians to Spanish account. His plan, 85 indorsed by Ripperdá, differed from that of Rubí in that while he favored abandoning the useless missions and presidios in eastern Texas, it was for the purpose of erecting a new presidio among the northern Indians of Texas rather than removing the soldiers and settlers to the San Antonio. The command of this presidio should be given to Luis de Saint Denis, son of the famous trader and frontier commander of the preceding generation. For the successful prosecution of warfare against the hostile Indians, especially the Apaches, some three hundred French chasseurs should be recruited in Louisiana.
The purpose of Mezières, as stated by him in these various recommendations, was to present a serious obstacle to the threatened advance of the English, although his trading interests among the northern Indians may have furnished an equally strong motive. His letters and journals of the years 1778 and 1779, 86 however, as well as his earlier letters, are full of the danger threatening from the English, owing to their secure position upon the east bank of the Mississippi, the easy ingress afforded by the Missouri and the hostile Osages, and the unscrupulousness with which they introduced firearms among the Texas Indians, in order to incite them against the Spaniards. They likewise appeared to be tampering with the Pawnees, through whom they were attempting to influence the Taovayases. It is interesting to note that he mentions the internecine struggle then dividing the English, but he states that the colonies, if successful, will prove no better neighbors than England herself. His proposals embody the plan of protecting the country west of the Mississippi by a line of presidios from that river to New Mexico, garrisoned by the combined forces of the French and Spaniards in Louisiana and Texas. The two essentials to its complete success are perfect reciprocity in trade between the two colonies, by way of the Trinity River and Opelousas, and the good will of the Indians. His plans seem to promise measurable success, but the jealousy and sloth of the viceregal and home governments rendered them nugatory.
Meanwhile in March, 1773, the viceroy ordered Oconor to carry out the policy of abandoning the presidios and missions of eastern Texas. The settlers from Adaes were first transferred to San Antonio, but upon petition to the viceroy, Governor Ripperdá permitted them, in 1774, to erect a temporary establishment, known as Bucareli, upon the banks of the Trinity. 87 A secondary reason that had influenced the authorities in abandoning the eastern part of the province had been the desire to break up the illicit trade with the English, French, and Indians, carried on principally by the leading resident of Adaes, Antonio Gil Ybarbo, and a French merchant, Nicolas de la Mathe, of Point Coupeé, Louisiana. It was supposed by some of the officials that the reason Ybarbo and his fellow settlers wished to return to the Trinity was to resume this trade. Nevertheless, the removal from eastern Texas had caused so much suffering that the petition of those involved was granted; and with many instructions designed to check contraband trade, Bucareli was duly established.
The petition of the settlers to return to eastern Texas had appealed to the Governor, who desired to guard that section against English intrusion and to keep the Indians attached to the Spaniards. The situation upon the Trinity was, however, very unfavorable, as alternate experiences of flood and drought, added to attacks by the Commanches, soon taught its inhabitants. Under the leadership of Gil Ybarbo they made another removal in 1779, to Nacogdoches, which henceforth received a sort of official endorsement and became the center of Spanish influence in eastern Texas. This community, together with the establishment on the San Antonio River, constituted the only formal settlements in the province.
While the new settlement had been located upon the Trinity charges were freely made against its inhabitants for engaging in clandestine trade, not merely with the French, but also with the English, although they had been especially ordered to break up this intercourse. Ybarbo, their commandant, the French merchant Nicholas de la Mathe, and even Governor Ripperdá, were charged with participating in this traffic, and thus indirectly terrorizing the settlements upon the San Antonio River and farther within Mexico through Indian raids stirred up by foreign traders introduced along the Trinity. 88 Trade with the Louisiana French or with the English was alike illegal, but this practice characterized the new settlers at Nacogdoches, and resulted in a moderate degree of prosperity. In 1779 the community was officially recognized, and nine years later had a population of between two hundred and two hundred and fifty French and Spaniards, housed in some eighty or ninety wooden buildings. In 1801 two travelers report the fighting strength of its population at four hundred and speak of an extensive commerce with Louisiana. 89 From other sources we know that by this time the original French and Spanish elements had been joined by an American contingent that speedily monopolized the fur trade. 90 The jurisdiction of Nacogdoches, about 1785, was extended to the little settlement of Bayou Pierre, on the Red River, thus including what had been a former French establishment, 91 and in a measure counteracting the spread of that people in Attakapas and Opelousas. Contraband trade seems still to have been the main interest of the population, including officials. 92
Beyond the attempted abandonment of the settlements of eastern Texas, none of the measures proposed by the local authorities for the development of Texas were considered by the viceregal officials or by the home government. In addition to the above unfruitful suggestion of Mezières, it was proposed to open free trade between Louisiana and Texas, establish one or more ports upon the Gulf coast of the latter, and adopt the Sabine as the boundary between the two provinces. Governor Ripperdá of Texas, Cabellero De Croix, the chief executive officer of the newly-created eastern Internal Provinces, and Mezières, the local commandant at Natchitoches, all 93 united in recommending this policy either wholly or in part, but in vain. The jealousy of a possible rival port led the Sala de Consulado of Vera Cruz, some eight years after the proposal, to suggest a solution of the question that would “unite the interests of the State with the well-being of the two provinces, and without prejudice to that of New Spain.” Such a course simply meant no action upon the proposal. At this same time (1785-86) an expedition under Castro and Evía explored the coast of New Santander and Texas and recommended the mouth of the Rio Grande as the proper place for a port. Their recommendation seemed to favor a location which would turn Texas trade towards Mexico rather than towards Louisiana. In 1788 or 1789 the viceroy, after a representation from a certain De Blanc, commander at Natchitoches, reinforced by a letter from Governor Miró of Louisiana, reported the whole affair to Spain; and on March 1st, 1790, orders were received to suspend all action. Thus an opportunity was lost to develop the internal resources of the colony and to fix the limits definitely at the Sabine.
Aside from this ineffectual attempt to fix the limits of Texas, the boundary notices of this period among Spanish records are few and very vague. Friar Augustin de Morfí visited the province in 1778, and one portion 94 of his Memorias me