Vol. X. OCTOBER, 1906. No. 2.
The publication committee and the editors disclaim responsibility for views expressed by contributors to The Quarterly.
This sketch of the founding of Mission Nuestra Señora del Rosario for the Karankawan Indian tribes of the Texas coast country was written as a by-product, so-to-speak, of a more extended task. It aims merely to set forth the general conditions in northern New Spain that led to a renewed attempt, after one failure, to subdue these tribes, and to a plan to colonize their territory and that along the coast to the southwest; to tell the story of the struggles, delays, and difficulties that attended the foundation of the mission that was established as one of the agencies in their reduction; and to convey an idea of the kind and degree of success that attended the first few years of its existence. If the historical importance of the founding of this mission were measured by the magnitude of the establishment or its success as a spiritual undertaking, it would, indeed, be small. But such is not the case, for the project of a Karankawan mission was an index of plans affecting an entire geographical region, and the story of its foundation reveals the motives underlying these plans and the conditions attending their execution. It is but fair to state that the circumstances of the preparation of the sketch have made necessarily brief the treatment of these broader considerations, and have determined its emphasis upon the Spanish relations with the coast tribes and the inner history of the mission.
When at the close of the seventeeth century the French and the Spaniards first attempted to occupy the Gulf coast in the neighborhood of Matagorda Bay, that region was the home of a group of native tribes now called Karankawan from their best known division. The principal tribes of this group, using the most common Spanish forms of the names, were the Cujanes, Carancaguases, Guapites (or Coapites), Cocos, and Copanes. They were closely interrelated, and all apparently spoke dialects of the same language, which was different from that of their neighbors farther inland. 2 Though the Carancaguas tribe has finally given its name to the group, it was not always the one best known to the Europeans or regarded by them as the leading one, for in the middle of the 18th century four of the tribes, at least, including the Carancaguas, were frequently considered collectively under the name Cujanes. 3
As these Indians did not occupy fixed localities, and as they mingled freely with each other, it is difficult to assign definite territorial limits to the different tribes; and yet in a general way the characteristic habitat of each can be designated with some certainty. The Carancaguases dwelt most commonly on the narrow fringe of islands extending along the coast to the east and the west of Matagorda Bay; the Cocos on the mainland east of Matagorda Bay about the lower Colorado River; the Cujanes and Guapites on either side of the bay, particularly to the west of it; and the Copanes west of the mouth of the San Antonio River about Copano Bay, to which the tribe has given its name.
Numerically the group was not large. A French writer of the seventeeth century estimates the “Quélancouchis”, probably meaning the whole Karankawan group, at four hundred fighting men, and the Spaniards, upon the basis of a closer acquaintance, in 1751 put the number, excluding the Cocos, at five hundred fighting men. 4
These tribes represented perhaps the lowest grade of native society in all Texas. Their tribal organization was loose, and their habits were extremely crude. With respect to clothing, they ordinarily went about in a state of nature. Being almost or entirely without agriculture, they lived largely on fish, eggs of sea-fowls, and sylvan roots and fruits, although they hunted buffalo and other game to some extent in the interior. They led a roving life, and therefore built only temporary habitations, consisting usually of poles covered or partly covered with reeds or skins. The Carancaguases, in particular, as has been said, dwelt on the islands; but during the hunting season and the cold winter months they migrated to the mainland. For these migrations they used canoes, which they managed with skill. Physically, the men were large and powerful, and they were correspondingly warlike. They were frequently at war with the interior tribes, and from their first contact with the whites they were regarded as particularly dangerous. Although their only weapons were the bow and the spear, 5 their island asylum and their skill with canoes made them unassailable in retreat, while horses, early secured from the Spaniards, increased their offensive strength. From very early times they were regarded as cannibals, and their religious superstitions were commensurate with their barbarity. Such Indians as these could hardly be called inviting material for the missionary.
Although the Karankawan tribes were among the very earliest of the Texas natives to come to the notice of the Spaniards, and were visited by them again during the first attempts at actual occupation of the country, efforts to control them were for some time delayed. The Caoques, or Capoques, met by Cabeza de Vaca on the Texas coast (1528-1534) are thought to have been identical with the Cocos of later times. 6 After this adventurer, their next white visitors were the French. La Salle's unfortunate colony (1685-9) on the Lavaca River had some of these tribes for neighbors, and was destroyed by them. It was among the Caocosi, the Cocos, very probably, that De León in 1690 rescued some captive survivors of this French colony. 7 Again, in 1721, the hostility of apparently the same tribes caused La Harpe to abandon his project of occupying the Bay of St. Bernard for France, and thus put an end to French attempts to control this coast. 8
Up to this time the Spaniards had seen but little of the Karankawan Indians since the first entradas from Mexico more than a quarter of a century before, and had made no attempt to subdue them. But in 1722 the Marqués de Aguayo established on the very site of La Salle's fort the presidio of Nuestra Señora de Loreto, more commonly called Bahía, and founded near by for the Cujanes, Guapites, and Carancaguases the mission of Espíritu Santo de Zuñiga. The presidio was left in charge of Captain Domingo Ramón, perhaps the same Ramón who had founded the second group of East Texas missions in 1716. Father Peña, 9 a member of Aguayo's expedition, recorded at the time in his diary that “it was seen that they [these three tribes] were very docile and would enter readily upon the work of cultivating the earth and their own souls, the more because they live in greater misery than the other tribes, since they subsist altogether upon fish and go entirely without clothing.” 10 By this utterance Peña proved himself either ignorant or defiant of history, a bad sociologist, and a worse prophet.
In a short time forty or more families of Cujanes, Carancaguases, and Guapites established their ranchería near the presidio, and others may have entered the mission; but scarcely had they done so before trouble began. In the fall of 1723 a personal quarrel arose between them and the soldiers. An attempt to punish an offending Indian resulted in a fight, the death of Captain Ramón, and the flight of the natives. 11 In a few weeks the Indians returned to make reprisals upon the lives and the goods of the soldiery—a practice which they kept up more or less continuously for the next twenty-five years. 12 Whether or not the garrison was to blame for the origin of the ill feeling, as it was claimed they were, can not be stated, but at any rate they showed little skill in dealing with this warlike people. 13
Discouraged by the hostility between the Indians and the soldiery, the missionary at Espíritu Santo removed his mission some ten leagues northwestward to the Guadalupe River, and labored among the Jaranames and the Tamiques, 14 non-coast tribes, of a different language, hostile to, and having a somewhat higher civilization than the Karankawans. 15 Shortly afterward the presidio was removed to the same site by Captain Ramón's successor. 16 The new location is apparently marked by modern Mission Valley, west of the Guadalupe and near the northwestern line of Victoria county. 17
Though the presidio and the mission had retreated from their midst, the Karankawan tribes remained hostile, and after Rivera's inspection, in 1727, there was little prospect of subduing them. Rivera's reports between 1728 and 1738 show that he regarded the Cujanes, Cocos, Guapites, Carancaguases, and Copanes all incapable of being reduced to mission life, 18 and that it was for this reason, mainly, that he considered projects for removing the presidio and the mission of Bahía now to the San Marcos, now to the San Antonio, and now to the Medina. A missionary at San Antonio wrote in 1751 that “the Cujanes were for some thirty years considered irreducible, and (according to various reports to be found in the Secretaría de Govierno), because irreducible, they were the principal obstacle to the presidio of la Bahía.” A little earlier he had written, “In truth, since the year 1733, when I came to this province, I have never heard that one of these Indians has attached himself to that mission (Espíritu Santo).” 19
Thus, with the exception of a few families of Cujanes and a few of Cocos who had found their way into the San Antonio missions, by 1750 no progress had been made toward converting or even subduing these Karankawan tribes. But now conditions in the provinces and the plans of the government led to a renewed and more successful attempt.
For some time the missionary field in Texas had tended rather to contract than to expand : but toward the middle of the eighteenth century a new wave of missionary activity made itself felt not only in this province, but in the whole coast country north of Pánuco. It was in a way a response to increased Indian troubles on the north Mexican frontier and to increasingly bold intrusions of the French among the northeastern tribes; and, although we must not underrate the zeal that still burned in the breast of the Franciscan friar, it is but truth to say that the dominant force behind this new missionary movement was mainly political—the desire to subdue unoccupied territory, protect the settlements, and to keep a controlling hand upon the frontier tribes to prevent them and their country from falling to a rival power. In Texas this activity showed itself in the plans for the coast country about to be described, and in the foundation of a number of new missions elsewhere for tribes hitherto neglected but now demanding attention. Among these missions were the three founded (about 1747) on San Xavier River 20 northeast of Austin, for tribes mainly of the Tonkawan group; Nuestra Señora de la Luz, (about 1756), on the lower Trinity River, for the Vidais and Orcoquizas; the mission at San Saba (1757) for the Lipan Apaches; San Lorenzo and Candelaria 21 (1762), south of San Saba, likewise for the Apaches; and possibly others. During this period, also, plans were considered, though unrealized, for missionizing the Towakana tribes of the Brazos, and the Yscanes farther to the northeast. 22 It has been customary to suppose that these missions were all failures, compared even with the standard of success attained by the earlier ones; but until the facts of their history are better known judgment may well be suspended. Certain it is that, the more we know about the régime of the Spaniards in these northern provinces, the more we discover that they had and did here, and the more charitable we become in judging their ultimate failure.
The founding of mission Rosario, as well as those enumerated above, was also part of this revived missionary movement, but more specifically, part of a plan to colonize and missionize the whole gulf coast country from Pánuco to the San Antonio River. This region had been the longest neglected stretch of coast country round the entire Gulf of Mexico. It had become a retreat for Indians who troubled the interior provinces of Nuevo Leon and Coahuila, and the southern portion of it was suspected of having valuable mines. The government at Mexico decided, therefore, to subdue it by conquest, colonization, and missions. The person appointed to undertake this work was José de Escandón, one of the ablest men in Mexican history, who, some time before, had been made Count of Sierra Gorda for his notable pacification of that region. His appointment to the new commission dated from September 3, 1746. The territory assigned for him to subdue and colonize was called Colonia del Nuevo Santander, and extended from Pánuco to the San Antonio River. 23
Had the colonization of all New Spain been left to the care of men with Escandón's views and ability, the results of Spain's efforts would doubtless have been much greater than they actually proved to be. He was a firm believer in the superiority of civil pueblos over military garrisons or even missions as a means of subduing natives and securing new territory; and an essential feature of his plan for Nuevo Santander was to have the settlements of Mexican colonists sufficiently numerous and prosperous to make possible within a few years the withdrawal of the garrisons. 24
In 1746 and 1747 Escandón personally inspected the country to and along the Rio Grande, while under his instructions Captain Joaquín de Orobio y Basterra, commander at Bahía, in Texas, examined the region from the Guadalupe to the Rio Grande. Their reports contain the first detailed information that we have concerning the natives and the topography of many parts of this extended area. As an illustration, it may be noted that hitherto it was supposed that the Nueces River emptied into the Rio Grande. In consequence of these inspections Escandón recommended moving the mission and presidio from Bahía to a site on the lower San Antonio called Santa Dorotea (near modern Goliad), and projected the foundation of fourteen Spanish villas in the territory under his charge. One of these was to be villa de Vedoya, composed of fifty families, and situated at the mouth of the Nueces near the site of modern Corpus Christi. Adjacent to the town was to be the mission of Nuestra Señora de el Soto, to minister to the Zuncal, Pajasequeis (or Carrizos) Apatines, Napuapes, Pantapareis, and other tribes of the vicinity. Another of the fourteen towns was to be villa de Balmaceda, established with twenty-five families at Santa Dorotea. 25 The successful establishment of this villa would, he believed, make possible the suppression of the presidio of Bahía in three or four years, and thus remove the chief ground for hostility on the part of the coast Indians. 26
The plans for the southern half of the territory met with a large measure of permanent success. It was at this time that Laredo, Camargo, Reynosa, and several other settlements were founded along and south of the Rio Grande. That the outcome in the northern half was different was not the fault of Escandón. In accordance with his plan, the presidio of Bahía and the mission of Espíritu Santo were in 1749 moved some ten leagues southwest to Santa Dorotea; but the families sent to settle on the Nueces, fearing harm from the Indians, backed out, and were allowed to return and found instead the present town of Soto la Marina; while the plan to establish villa de Balmaceda failed because at the fiscal's instance Escandon was refused the requisite funds. Had the government supported Escandón in this and his subsequent efforts to plant colonies between the San Antonio and the Rio Grande, there seems no good reason why the Spanish hold might not have been made as secure in this region as it was beyond the Rio Grande. 27 But this it failed to do.
Nevertheless, the removal of Bahía to Santa Dorotea was followed by an effort to revive missionary work among the Karankawan tribes which resulted in the successful establishment of mission Rosario.
On April 14, 1750, the viceroy exhorted the missionaries at the new site to do all in their power to reduce, congregate, and convert the Cujanes, Carancaguases, and Guapites. They were to be treated with the utmost kindness, given presents, and promised, on behalf of the government, that if they would settle in a pueblo they would be given new missions, protected, and supplied with all necessaries. 28 Similar instructions were written to Captain Manuel Ramírez de la Piszina, the new commander of the presidio of Bahía.
If we may trust the reports of the missionaries and the captain, they went zealously to work among these three tribes in response to the viceroy's order. But little or nothing seems to have been accomplished until their rivals, the Querétaran friars at San Antonio, entered the same field. 29
At this time the Querétaran missions at San Antonio were short of neophytes, partly because of an epidemic that had made ravages among the mission Indians. 30 On the other hand these missions were just now under the direction of Father Fr. Juan Mariano de los Dolores, one of the leaders of the missionary revival which we have mentioned. For these reasons, and since the Karankawans had long been without mission influence, the Querétarans entertained the plan of gathering them, especially the Cujanes, 31 into their particular fold. Whether the idea originated with Father Santa Ana, former president of the San Antonio missions, but now in Mexico, or with Father Dolores, his successor now on the ground, does not appear; but it is through Santa Ana that we first learn of the project, while it was the latter who put it into execution. Early in 1750, in a private communication to Altamira, the auditor general of the viceregal government, Santa Ana made known the plan, intimating that he feared objections from the Zacatecan friars at Espíritu Santo, on the ground that the Karankawan tribes had once been assigned to that mission. 32 He doubtless knew, too, that the Zacatecans had recently been ordered to renew efforts on the coast. Altamira approved the project, saying that so long as these Indians remained in the forest they belonged only to the Devil, and that any one who wished was free to try his hand at winning them to the Lord. 33
The actual work from San Antonio was undertaken by Father Dolores with the aid of Fray Diego Martin Garcia. Before entering the field he first asked the consent of the principal missionary at Espíritu Santo, Fray Juan Joseph Gonzales. 34 Gonzales replied that such a procedure would be satisfactory to him, and that he would waive whatever right his mission possessed to these Indians. 35
The way was made easier for Dolores by the presence of the few Cujanes and Cocos previously mentioned as being at one of his missions. 36 Knowing by experience, as he said, “that presents were the most effective texts with which to open the conversion of savages,” he began the revival by sending to the Cujanes, early in 1751, a Coco mission Indian bearing gifts, 37 and a promise that a missionary would be sent to them. 38
In spite of the assurance that had been given to Dolores by Gonzales, this move of the former led very speedily to a politely worded but none the less spirited dispute between the two. In the competition that attended the dispute Espíritu Santo had decidedly the advantage of geographical position. The Cujanes were pleased with the evidence of good will—or better, perhaps, with the prospect of more gifts—and, without awaiting the arrival of the promised minister, fifty-four adults 39 set out for San Antonio to confer with Dolores. When on April 8 they reached the neighborhood of Santa Dorotea, or New Bahía, they were seen by some mission Indians. These warned Captain Piszina that hostile Cujanes were near by killing mission cattle. A squadron of soldiers and Indians was accordingly sent out, and the Cujanes, after a slight show of fight, were taken to the presidio, and here they remained, notwithstanding their previous intention to go to San Antonio. 40 Gonzales and Piszina claimed that the Cujanes were told that they might continue their journey, that no force was used to keep them at Bahía, and that it was only with misgivings and after deliberation that their request to be allowed to remain at the mission was granted. 41 But Dolores believed that if not force, then persuasion, had been used to rob him of the fruits of his efforts.
With a forbearance that might be called commendable, however, he held his peace, and made another attempt, which likewise resulted more to the advantage of the rival mission than of his own. Some of the Cujanes had returned from Bahía to their country and gathered ninety-five more Indians “of the Cujan, Copanes, Guapites, and Talancagues tribes.” On their way they stopped at Bahía, left their women and children, and went back to gather a larger number of their people, with the intention, Dolores understood, of going on with them to San Antonio. He thereupon sent a number of mules laden with such supplies as might be needed by the Indians on their way. 42 Shortly afterward a Coco arrived reporting that one hundred and five families were already collected near Old Bahía and that more were gathering, but that, unless horses were sent at once to transport them, they would be diverted to Bahía, just as the first band had been, there to remain. Dolores now lost no time in despatching Fray Diego Martin with horses and a Coco guide to assist in bringing in the Cujanes and their friends. 43
In a note written soon after this, Gonzales claimed that these Indians desired to remain at Bahía. 44 Thereupon Dolores entered a vigorous protest. He reminded Gonzales that he had once waived his right to the coast Indians, but was now enticing them to Espíritu Santo; that but for him (Dolores) the Cujanes and the rest would still be in the woods and at war with the Spaniards, as they had always been; that if after many years the Espíritu Santo mission had failed to subdue the Jaranames, whom they still claimed the right to monopolize, they could hardly expect to succeed with the additional task of subduing the Cujanes. Disclaiming a wish to quarrel, he requested Gonzales to find out for certain, by whatever means he chose, whether these Indians preferred to be at Bahía or at San Antonio, and promised to abide by the result, with these conditions, that in case they wished to come to San Antonio they must not be hindered, and that if they remained at Bahía he would send in a bill for the supplies he had given them. 45
Dolores was now called to the missions at San Xavier, and when he got back he found new cause for displeasure with the authorities at Bahía. In his absence Fray Diego Martin had returned with twenty-four Indians of the four tribes and the rather flimsy report that he might have brought five hundred had it not been for their fear that they would be prevented by the soldiers and missionaries at Bahía from going to San Antonio. Meanwhile none of the families who had stopped at Bahía had appeared in San Antonio; consequently, again conceding the point backed by the better argument of possession, Dolores advised the twenty-four to go to their friends at Bahía. But, by no means giving up his claim, he appealed both to the discretorio of his college and to Santa Ana for authority to bring the Cujanes to his missions. 46
Santa Ana took up the matter vigorously with the viceroy, with Andreu, the fiscal, and with Altamira, the auditor. He wrote letters, furnished documents, and sought personal interviews in defense of the rights of his college. He argued that until Dolores had pacified them the Karankawan Indians had always been hostile; that the Querétarans friars had been robbed of the fruits of their efforts by the Zacatecans, who had done nothing except to spoil a good work well begun; that by thirty years of idleness the latter had forfeited all the rights they ever had to the Karankawan field; and that nothing could be expected of them in the future. 47 In view of these considerations, he earnestly recommended that the work of converting these tribes might be entrusted to the Querétarans. 48
On the other hand, appeal was made to law 32, title 15, book I, of the Recopilacion de Indias, which provided that when one religious order had begun the conversion of a tribe it should not be disturbed by another. And thus the dispute went on until the end of 1752, when it was closed in effect by the fiscal's compromise decision that under the peculiar circumstances joint work among the tribes in question would be lawful and equitable, and by the viceroy's exhortation of all parties to coöperate in the work of saving Karankawan souls for the glory of `both majesties.' 49
Meanwhile, the possession of the Cujanes and the others had proved a very temporary advantage to the Espíritu Santo mission, and even during that short time these “first fruits and hostages of all that Gentile race” had added little to the mission's glory. While the Indians were there the missionaries succeeded in baptizing fifteen in articulo mortis; the rest deserted within a few weeks, so that at the end of 1751 none appear to have remained. To make matters worse, relations between the tribes and the Spaniards again became strained through the unexplained killing of five Cujanes by their hosts. 50
Altamira had at first favored Santa Ana's proposal to take the Cujanes to San Antonio. But when conflicting reports and news of the desertion of the Indians reached him he lost his patience and delivered himself of a generous amount of ill-natured truth about mission history, at the same time showing his hearty sympathy with Escandón's policy of settlement as a complement to the mission and as a substitute for the garrison. “All the foregoing,” he said, “but illustrates how, in this as in all like affairs of places at such long and unpeopled distances, come inopportune and irregular letters, proposals, representations, and petitions, that only leave the questions unintelligible. Thus in his report the captain [Piszina] begins by saying `In obedience to Your Excellency's superior order,' without saying what order, or without specifying what he considers necessary for the conversion of the Indians in question. This conversion he assumes as assured simply because a few of them have submitted, when he can not be ignorant of their notorious inconstancy. And Rev. Padre Santa Anna, who had experienced this inconstancy, on Dec. 20 plead the cause of these same Cujanes, only to report forty days after (on Jan. 31, of this year) that the occasion had passed because all of the Indians had deserted. This is what happens daily on those and all the other unsettled frontiers.
“The same will be true two hundred years hence unless there be established there settlements of Spaniards and civilized people to protect, restrain, and make respectable the barbarous Indians who may be newly congregated, assuring them before their eyes a living example of civilized life, application to labor, and to the faith. Without this they will always remain in the bonds of their native brutality, inherited for many centuries, as happens in the missions of the Rio Grande, of [East] Texas, and all the rest where there are no Spanish settlements, for the Indians there, after having been congregated fifty years or more, return to the woods at will.” 51
Notwithstanding the unflattering outcome of the enterprise thus far, the missionaries and the captain at Bahía, roused into activity by their rivals, continued their efforts to cultivate friendship with their traditional enemies, and, although conversions were few, they were otherwise comparatively successful. 52 During the next two years they spent considerable sums from their own pockets for presents and supplies, and Piszina made the occasion an excuse for asking the government for more soldiers, more money, and more missionaries. Writing in Dec., 1751, he said that the recent friendly attitude of the coast Indians, though favorable to missionary work, also increased the expenses and made more workers necessary, for the four tribes included under the name Coxanes would comprise five hundred warriors besides their families. Moreover, their conversion would make more soldiers necessary, since they were really more dangerous at peace than at war; for besides being treacherous themselves, the unfriendly Indians on the coast would visit their relatives at the mission and thus learn the weakness of the garrison. While, therefore, more missionaries and more supplies would be necessary before these tribes could be converted, their reduction would require an increase of soldiers to guard the Spaniards against the treachery of the neophytes and against their friends still upon the coast. Within two years Piszina made three such appeals to the viceroy. 53
By the end of this time the local authorities conceived the idea of founding a separate mission especially for the Cujanes and their friends, as a substitute for trying to reduce them at mission Espíritu Santo with Indians of another race. To effect this plan the best informed person, and probably the father of the project, Fray Juan de Dios Camberos, missionary at Espíritu Santo went to Zacatecas, and was sent thence by the college to Mexico. 54 His appointment was dated Feb. 26, 1754, and was signed by Fray Gaspár Joseph de Solís, guardian of the college, and later known in Texas by his tour of inspection among the missions. 55
In his communications to the viceroy of April 29, May 6, 7, and 30, Camberos set forth the situation and his plan. The Cujanes and their kindred, he said, were eagerly asking for a mission; so eager, indeed, that six of the chiefs of the Cujanes, Carancaguases, and Guapites were clamoring to be allowed to come to see the viceroy himself in reference to the matter. But it was inadvisable to put them into mission Espíritu Santo together with the Jaranames and Tamiques already there, for they were tribes of different languages, of different habits, and unfriendly. But to send them to San Antonio was equally impracticable, for they did not wish to leave the neighborhood of Bahía del Espíritu Santo, their native country. Even if the Indians were willing to be transplanted, experience had shown that this was bad policy, for the Pamaques and other tribes, removed to San Antonio from their native soil on the Nueces, had speedily become almost extinguished. This very consideration had caused General Escandón to order Captain Piszina not to allow the Indians of his district to be taken from their country. Moreover, if the mission were near the home of the Indians, fugitive neophytes could be easily recovered, whereas, if they were taken to San Antonio, the soldiers and missionaries would have to spend most of their time pursuing them.
Camberos advised, therefore, the establishment of a separate mission. But to save the expense of equipping a new one he recommended removing mission Nuestra Señora de los Ais from near the Sabine to the neighborhood of Bahía, and re-establishing it for the Cujanes. His arguments in favor of his plan are an interesting commentary, coming as they do from a zealous Zacatecan, upon the comparative failure of the East Texas missions. The three Zacatecan foundations in East Texas, San Miguel de los Adaes, Nuestra Señora de los Dolores de los Ais, and Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe de los Nacogdoches had been existing for more than thirty years, and yet, according to him, notwithstanding the untiring efforts of the missionaries to reduce the Indians to mission life, it was notorious that they had succeeded in little more than the baptizing of a few children and fewer adults upon the deathbed; and there was no hope that these tribes could ever be reduced to pueblos and induced to give up their tribal life. Under these circumstances four missionaries instead of five would suffice on that frontier. Since the Ais Indians consisted of only some forty families—perhaps two hundred persons—living within about fourteen leagues of mission Nacogdoches, 56 their mission could be suppressed, one missionary going to Nacogdoches to reside and from there ministering to the Ais, the other going to Bahía with the mission equipment, to work among the Karankawan tribes in question. 57
At first Andreu, the fiscal, disapproved the plan on the ground that with the padre so far away, travel so difficult, and the Ais Indians so indifferent, they would lose not only the wholesome example of the missionary in their daily life, but even the slight religious benefits which they now received. 58 But Camberos suggested that the minister might incorporate the Ais with their kindred, the Little Ais (Aixittos), 59 living two leagues from the Nacogdoches mission. He concluded by reminding the fiscal that it was after all a question of relative service. On the one hand, here were scarce forty families of Ais, who for thirty years had shown themselves irreducible; on the other hand, there were five hundred or more families of Cujanes, Guapites, and Carancaguases, “as ready to be instructed in the mysteries of our faith as the Ayx are repugnant to living in Christian society”; for two years they had been and still were firm in their anxious desire to be reduced to a pueblo and instructed. Was it not a matter of duty to save the willing many rather than to struggle hopelessly with the unwilling few? 60
These arguments convinced the fiscal and the auditor, whereupon the viceroy, on June 17 and June 21, issued to the governor and the college the necessary decrees for effecting the transfer. The order to the college provided “that the mission of Nuestra Señora de los Dolores de los Ais, situated in the province of los Texas, should be totally abandoned; that of the two ministers there, one should remain at mission Nacogdoches, it being the nearest at hand, in order that he might assist with the waters of holy baptism all the children and adults who might wish this benefit; and that the other should go to found the new mission of the Guapittes, Cujanes, and Carancaguases in the territory of la Bahía del Espíritu Santo, for which purpose all the ornaments, furniture, and other goods of the mission of los Aix should be given to this minister and transferred to the new mission.” 61
But now a protest was heard from East Texas. Upon receiving the viceroy's order to extinguish the Ais mission, Father Vallejo, president of the Zacatecan establishments on the eastern frontier, and a veteran of thirty years' service, first sought the opinion of the governor. His opinion was hostile to the change. 62 Vallejo, with this backing, wrote to the guardian of his college that the Ais mission was by no means useless, and that until he should get further instructions he would defer the execution of the order. True, he said, the Ais Indians had not yet adopted mission life, in spite of the efforts of the fathers; yet they were being baptized in articulo mortis—the records showed 158 such baptisms in 36 years—; the padre was useful as physician and nurse among them; and the friendly relations with the Indians, who assisted willingly in the domestic and agricultural duties about the mission, offered still a hope that they would settle down to pueblo life. Indeed, when Father Cyprian had been missionary he had had them congregated for a space of four years, and Father García had likewise kept them content about the mission till, because of a recent scarcity of mission supplies, one of the chiefs had persuaded them to return to their rancherías. But if the missionary were to retire to Nacogdoches, the distance and the difficulties of travel were so great that the Indians would be without aid, and would likely abandon their country, just as the Nazones had done when the missionaries had deserted them (1729). The good father could not close his argument without appealing to the fear of the French, tactics which had stood many a special pleader in good stead within the last half century. So he added that, aside from the importance of the Ais mission to the Indians, it was necessary as a half-way station between Nacogdoches and Adaes to give succor in case of hostile invasion. He maintained therefore that the mission should be continued at all hazards, even if with only one minister. 63
This letter put an end to the effort to suppress the Ais mission, and set in motion a new plan. The discretorio, whence the idea of extinguishing los Ais had come, reported to the viceroy and sustained Vallejo's objections, and suggested, instead, a new mission for the Cujanes, maintaining, perhaps with truth, but with little regard for its former argument based on economy, that to equip a new mission would be little more expensive than to transfer the old one. 64 So the matter again went to the fiscal, and he, on March 6, 1755, without other discussion than a review of the question, embraced the new plan, and recommended that the Ais mission be allowed to remain and that a new one be established for the coast tribes. 65 On March 22 the auditor approved the project, and on April 7, the viceroy issued the corresponding decree. 66
But matters at Bahía had not waited for the viceroy to change his mind. Some time before this steps had already been taken, in consequence of the previous order—that looking to the transfer of the old establishment to a new site—toward the actual foundation of the mission for the Cujanes and their friends.
The government was slower to supply means than to sanction projects, and the funds with which to begin the work were raised by private gifts to the college or advanced by Piszina and the missionaries at Bahía, while part of the mission furniture was borrowed from mission Espíritu Santo. 67 Camberos was sent to supervise the foundation, 68 which was begun in November, 1754. Piszina spared nine soldiers to act as a guard, to assist with their hands, and to direct the Indians, some of whom were induced to help in the building and in preparing the field. On Jan. 15 Piszina thus wrote of the mission site and of progress in the work: “The place assigned for the congregation of these Indians, Excellent Sir, is four leagues from this presidio. 69 It has all the advantages known to be useful and necessary for the foundation of a large settlement, and, in my estimation, the country is the best yet discovered in these parts. It has spacious plains, and very fine meadows skirted by the River San Antonio, which appears to offer facilities for a canal to irrigate the crops. In the short time of two months since the building of the material part of the mission was begun, a decent [wooden] church for divine worship has been finished. It is better made than that of this presidio and the mission of Espíritu Santo. There have been completed also the dwellings for the minister and the other necessary houses and offices, all surrounded by a field large enough to plant ten fanegas of maize.” 70 Two years later it was reported that irrigation facilities were about to be completed; that a dam of lime and stone forty varas long and four varas high had been built across an arroyo carrying enough water to fill it in four months, and that all that was lacking was the canal, which would soon be finished. 71 But this work seems not to have been completed. Within a few years—how soon does not appear—a strong wooden stockade was built around the mission. 72
The name by which Camberos called the mission in his reports was “Nuestra Señora del Rosario de los Cojanes.” 73 Contemporary government documents sometimes call it by this name, and sometimes simply “Nuestra Señora del Rosario”; while Solís, official inspector for the college, in his diary of 1768 calls it “Misiokn del Santissimo Rosario,” and “Mision del Rosario.” 74 The last is the more usual and popular form of the name. The addition of “de los Cojanes” indicates in part the prominence of the Cujan tribe in the mission, and also the prevalent usage of their name as a generic term for the Karankawan tribes. The location of Rosario was given by Piszina as four leagues from the presidio of Bahía 75—in which direction he does not say, but it was clearly up stream. As will be seen, Piszina's estimate of the distance from Bahía was too great, unless the location of Rosario was subsequently changed. We learn from Solís's diary of 1768 that mission Espíritu Santo was “in sight of the Royal Presidio [apparently almost on the site of modern Goliad], with nothing between them but the river, which is crossed by a canoe”; 76 and in 1793 Revilla Gigedo reported mission Rosario as two leagues nearer than Espíritu Santo to Béxar. 77 I am informed by Mr. J. H. Passmore, of Goliad, that the ruins today identified as those of Espíritu Santo are across the river from Goliad, and that four miles west of these, one-half a mile south of the San Antonio River, are the ruins identified, correctly, no doubt, as those of mission Rosario. 78
Lack of funds for current expenses and to properly establish agriculture and grazing greatly handicapped the missionaries and Captain Piszina, while, on the other hand, the Indians did not prove as eager to embrace the blessings of Christianity as the uninitiated might have been led to expect from the former reports of their anxiety to do so. They came to the mission from time to time, and helped more or less with the work, but when provisions gave out they were perforce allowed, or even advised, to return to the coast. 79
The number who frequented the mission and availed themselves of these periodical supplies must have been considerable, for within less than a year of the founding of the mission, Piszina reported that one thousand pesos in private funds had been spent for maize, meat, cotton cloth, tobacco, etc.; a year later he said that the number of Indians at mission Espíritu Santo—a number large enough to consume five or six bulls a week—was smaller than the number at Rosario, 80 and that in all six thousand pesos had been spent in supporting the latter.
But conversions were slow, and the total harvest after four years' work was twenty-one souls baptized in articulo mortis—twelve adults and nine children. In May, 1758, only one of the Indians living at the mission was baptized. Camberos claimed that this small showing of baptisms was partly due to his conservatism. “If I had been over-ready in baptizing Indians,” he said, “at the end of these four years you would have found this coast nearly covered with the holy baptism; but experience has taught me that baptisms performed hastily make of Indians Christians who are so only in name, and who live in the woods undistinguishable from the infidel.” 81
The Indians were hard to manage, gave the soldiers much difficulty, 82 and sustained their old reputation for being inconstant, unfaithful, and dissatisfied. The example of San Xavier, where a padre had recently been murdered, was fresh in the minds of the missionaries, and even when the Indians at Rosario were best disposed it was feared that they might revolt and harm their benefactors. The Cujanes in particular were feared, for, besides being the most numerous, they were regarded as especially bold and unmanageable. 83 This fear, together with danger from the Apaches, was ground for some of the numerous appeals made for an increase of soldiers at the presidio, and for the building of the stockade.
As soon as Piszina had finished the mission buildings he had renewed his former request for ten additional soldiers, 84 and had asked the government to assist the new mission with the usual one year's supplies, in addition to the ornaments and furniture. Thereafter his appeal was frequently repeated, 85 and was seconded by the college by Camberos, and by Governor Barrios y Jauregui. 86 But for three years the government only discussed, procrastinated, and called for reports, until finally in a junta de guerra y hacienda held Apr. 17, 1758, the various items asked for were granted. 87
With this belated aid the mission became more prosperous—as prosperous, indeed, as could be expected under the circumstances. In 1768 it was able to report a total of two hundred baptisms, which, so far as mere numbers go, was relatively as good a showing as had been made by its neighbor among tribes somewhat more docile, and nearly as good as that made by San José, the finest mission in all New Spain. At this time there must have been from one hundred to two hundred Indians, at least, living intermittently in the mission. But residence or baptism did not of necessity signify any great change in the savage nature of the Indians. They were hard to control, and were with difficulty kept at the mission, made to work, and induced to give up their crude ways. If corporal punishment was used, which was sometimes the case, 88 the neophytes ran away; and if they complained of harsh treatment by the padres, they were likely to find willing listeners among the soldiers.
It is not the purpose of this paper to follow out the history of the mission after its foundation. But it may vivify the reader's impression, and help him to secure a more correct idea of a frontier mission of the less substantial sort and of the conditions surrounding it to reproduce here some parts of the diary account of Rosario made in 1768 by Father Solís, the official inspector of the Texas missions for his college. I therefore quote the following:
“[Feb.] 26. I passed through an opening called the Guardian, then through others, and arrived at Mission del Santissimo Rosario, where I was received by the minister with much attention. The Indians who had remained at the mission—for many were fugitive in the woods and on the shore—came out in gala array as an embassy to meet me on the way. . . . The captain of la Bahía remained and posted a picket of soldiers to keep guard by day and by night. This mission is extremely well kept in all respects. It secures good water from Rio San Antonio de Vejar. The country is pleasant and luxurious. . . . The climate is very bad and unhealthful, hot, and humid, with southerly winds. Everything, including one's clothing, becomes damp, even within the houses, as if it were put in water. Even the inner walls wreak with water as if it were raining.
“28. I went to dine at the royal presidio of La Bahía del Espíritu Santo, at the invitation of the captain. I was accompanied by Fathers Ganuza 89 and Lopez, and Brothers Francisco Sedano and Antonio Casas. . . . The captain received us with great respect and ceremony, welcoming us with a volley by the company and four cannon shots, . . . serving us a very free, rich, and abundant table, and comporting himself in everything with the magnificence and opulence of a prince. . .
“29. I said the mass of the inspection (visita) and inspected the church, sacristy, and the entire mission. . . .
“[March] 3. . . . At night there returned thirty-three families of the Indians of this mission who had wandered, fugitives. I received them with suavity and affection. . . .
“4. . . . The opinion which I have formed of this mission of Nuestra Señora del Rosario is as follows: As to material wealth it is in good condition. It has two droves of burros, about forty gentle horses, thirty gentle mules, twelve of them with harness, five thousand cattle, two hundred milch cows, and seven hundred sheep and goats. The buildings and the dwellings, both for the ministers and for the soldiers and the Indians, are good and sufficient. The stockade of thick and stron stakes which protects the mission from its enemies is very well made. The church is very decent. It is substantially built of wood, plastered inside with mud, and whitewashed with lime; and its roof of good beams and shingles (taxamanil) looks like a dome (parece arteson). Its decoration is very bright and clean. It has sacred vessels, a bench for ornaments and utensils, a pulpit with confessional, altars, and all the things pertaining to the divine cult. Everything is properly arranged and kept in its place. There is a baptismal font, with a silver concha and silver cruets for the holy oils. The mission has fields of crops, which depend upon the rainfall, for water can not be got from the river, since it has very high and steep banks, nor from any where else since there is no other place to get it.
“This mission was founded in 1754. Its minister, who, as I have already said, is Fr. Joseph Escovar, labors hard for its welfare, growth, and improvement. He treats the Indians with much love, charity, and gentleness, employing methods soft, bland, and alluring. He makes them work, teaches them to pray, tries to teach them the catechism and to instruct them in the rudiments of our Holy Faith and in good manners. He aids and succors them as best he may in all their needs, corporal and spiritual, giving them food to eat and clothing to wear. In the afternoon before evening prayers, with a stroke of the bell, he assembles them, big and little, in the cemetery, has them say the prayers and the Christian doctrine, explains and tries to teach them the mysteries of our Holy Faith, exhorting them to keep the commandments of God and of Our Holy Mother Church, and setting forth what is necessary for salvation. On Saturdays he collects them and has them repeat the rosary with its mysteries, and the alavado cantado. On Sundays and holidays before mass, he has them repeat the prayers and the doctrine and afterward preaches to them, explaining the doctrine and whatever else they ought to understand. If he orders punishment given to those who need it, it is with due moderation, and not exceeding the limits of charity and paternal correction; looking only to the punishment of wrong and excess, it does not lean toward cruelty or tyranny. 90
“The Indians with which this mission was founded are the Coxanes, Guapites, Carancaguases, and Coopanes, but of this last nation there are at present only a few, for most of them are in the woods or on the banks of some of the many rivers in these parts; or with another (otra) nation, their friends and confederates, on the shore of the sea, which is some thirteen or fourteen leagues distant to the east of the mission. They are all barbarous, idle, and lazy; and although they were so greedy and gluttonous that they eat meat almost raw, parboiled, or half roasted and dripping with blood, yet, rather than stay in the mission where the padre provides them everything needed to eat and wear, they prefer to suffer hunger, nakedness, and other necessities, in order to be at liberty and idle in the woods or on the beach, giving themselves up to all kinds of vice, especially lust, theft, and dancing.” 91
Such were the difficulties usually attending the labors of the frontier missionaries, exaggerated somewhat in this instance, no doubt, by the exceptional crudeness of the tribes they were trying to subdue. And such were the meager first fruits of Escandón's well considered plan to occupy the coast country this side of the Rio Grande. In after years the wooden church of the mission was replaced by one of stone, and the mission experienced varying degrees of prosperity. Escandón's project of establishing a Spanish pueblo near by was also realized, and other weak settlements were founded toward the Rio Grande. But these are matters outside the scope of this paper.
1. SAN FELIPE.
(1) Seat of Austin's Colony.
On his way home from the City of Mexico, after having secured a final confirmation of the colonization grant made to his father, Stephen F. Austin called on Governor Don Luciano García at Bexar and informed him of his success. The governor thereupon gave the name of San Felipe de Austin to the town which was to be laid off for the capital of the new colony (July 26, 1823). 92 Baron de Bastrop, commissioner on the part of the government, accompanied Austin from Bexar to survey lands and in union with Austin to issue titles to the settlers. The settlement was found in such disorganized condition, owing to the long absence of Austin, that Bastrop thought it advisable to postpone his work until the next year, when he revisited the colony. San Felipe was founded in 1824, and thenceforth figured as the capital of Austin's colony. 93
Located most charmingly on a high prairie bluff on the west bank of the Brazos river, at the head of navigation, it was nevertheless in the very heart of the wilderness and could lay claim to none of the advantages, comforts, or other amenities of civilization associated today with the name of even the smallest village. For many years there was no post office, no school, no church, and the stores, shops and taverns were small and their supplies scanty. What gave importance to the place was the fact that here the public business of the colony was transacted—the laws promulgated, justice administered, land titles issued, and the public safety maintained.
(2) Seat of the Convention of 1832.
The disturbances that occurred in Texas during the summer of 1832 made it desirable that a convention of the delegates of all Texas be called. The alcaldes of the municipality of Austin, on August 22, 1832, “therefore recommended, that the people of each Town, Precinct, and Civil District in Texas, elect Five Delegates, to meet at the Town of San Felipe de Austin, on the 1st Monday in October next.” The suggestion was adopted and the delegates to the first convention of all Texas assembled in San Felipe, and not at Bexar, which was San Felipe's senior by almost a century, or at Goliad or Nacogdoches, both very much older.
(3) Seat of the Central Committee, and the Convention of 1833.
The convention of 1832 before adjourning had made provision for a central and sub-committees. The location of the central committee is not fixed, but from the personnel of that body it is clear that no other place than San Felipe was intended. The central committee was empowered “to call a Convention of Delegates from all Texas, at such time and place as they think proper.” In January, 1833, this committee called a new convention to meet at San Felipe on April 1. This convention met at the time and place indicated, and one of its acts was to continue the central committee. A state constitution, too, was drafted, but it did not fix the location of the seat of government.
(4) Seat of the Department of Brazos.
It is shown above how San Felipe received its name, how the place was laid out, and how this site received the popular approval by making it the place of assembly for the conventions of October, 1832, and April, 1833. Decree No. 270, of the congress of Coahuila and Texas, dated Monclova, March 18, 1834, finally set the seal of official approval upon the location by designating San Felipe as the capital of the department of Brazos, created by this decree. The chief of the new department was appointed July 8, but, perhaps, a month or two elapsed before he qualified.
(5) Seat of the General Council.
From April, 1833, until the appointment of the political chief of the department of Brazos, about the middle of 1834, the central committee at San Felipe appears to have had little to do. This appointment promised to make its services entirely superfluous. However, with the growing importance of the events that were paving the way for a rupture with Mexico, and in view of the inability of the political chief of the department of Brazos to inaugurate any satisfactory policy, the need of a unifying directory of the affairs of all Texas became so great that the old central committee finally shouldered the responsibility of this office and, after a hasty reorganization, under the title of general council, it controlled affairs from the middle of September, 1835, until the meeting of its successor the consultation. The strength of the general council rested on the high character of its membership; its efficiency, on the fact that it represented all Texas. Its headquarters were at San Felipe.
(6) Seat of the Consultation.
The need for a general consultation of all Texas had been felt since the middle of June, 1835; various efforts were made to bring it about; but for want of unanimity nothing was accomplished until the middle of August. By the end of July the plans of Santa Anna with regard to Texas were sufficiently well known to unite the people of Texas at least to the extent of being willing to hold a general consultation. A call for the election of delegates was issued from Velasco, August 20th. This plan received the hearty approval of S. F. Austin, when he arrived home from Mexico; and, while he was chairman of the central committee at San Felipe, this committee united in the call referred to above. There was a diversity of opinion, however, touching the place where the consultation should assemble. The people of Columbia, without assigning any reasons, appointed Washington; the people of San Felipe designated San Felipe, and submitted, in a circular addressed to the committee of safety of the various municipalities, the following reasons in support of their selection:
Some diversity of opinion has existed as to the place where the proposed consultation should meet. This place and Washington have been proposed. The meeting of yesterday have preferred this place for the reason that there is a printing press here. The most important public records are here, and the principal political authority of the department resides here. This question will of course be decided by the wishes of the majority, for which reason it is important that you [the committees of safety] will communicate to this Committee what are the wishes of the people of that section on this point. 94
The question of the place of meeting of the consultation was thus referred for determination to the local committees of safety, a step that bears the evidence of fairness and of a willingness to make all concessions, consistent with the general good, for the sake of harmony. This circular was issued from San Felipe on September 13th; the consultation was to assemble on October 15th. Want of promptness on the part of the local committees, however, made it impossible for the central committee to fix beforehand the place of meeting of the consultation. So the question of place virtually resolved itself to this—At what place would a majority of the delegates to the consultation assemble?
The battle of Gonzales, October 2, 1835, interfered with both the election and the assembling of the delegates to the consultation. Many who had been, or who subsequently were chosen delegates had hastened to the defence of their country; and when the time for the meeting of this body approached, they were loath to quit the army for the council chamber. They, therefore, on October 10th, held a meeting in camp at Gonzales and adopted the following resolutions:
Resolved, That the chairman of this meeting [S. F. Austin] be instructed to address the members of the Consultation, requesting all who can, to repair to the camp of the volunteers, armed and equipped for battle, and when so assembled, if a war is necessary, to aid in fighting the battles of the country; but, if their services can be spared from the field, to determine on holding the Consultation at such time and place as a majority of the members may agree upon.
Resolved, That, if any portion of the members of the Convention meet at the time and place appointed, and find it impracticable to repair to the camp, as invited in the foregoing resolution, that they be requested, if they amount to a quorum, to adjourn from day to day, and suspend all action until the 1st of November. 95
Austin's letter of next day, transmitting the above resolutions, is addressed “To the members of the General Consultation who may meet on the 15th Instant,” but no place is indicated where they are expected to meet. 96 It was unquestionably sent to San Felipe. 97 Was it also sent to Washington?
A small number of delegates gathered at Washington about the time fixed for the meeting of the consultation, and the following letter was written by those from Mina on their way thither:
At Coke's Octr 17th 1835 To the members of The “Genl consultation” &c. At San Felipe—
The delegates from the Municipality of Mina have positive instructions from their constituents to meet in “consultation,” at Washington on Brazos—we expect to be at that place this evening, where we shall remain until we hear further from San Felipe and from Mina— They are persuaded that the citizens of Mina will never approve of holding the “consultation” at San Felipe for many reasons—but more especially as Washington was first named &recommended as the place of meeting— The people of Columbia took the lead &I presume will expect to meet there— The citizens of Washington, we are informed, have made very ample preparations, at a large expense, for accommodating the delegates— The confidence, which has produced such results—in our minds, should be respected—
We shall expect to hear soon from you—that we may determine whether to remain, or to return to our homes—
Very respectfully &c. D. C. Barrett B. Manlove P. S. The other delegates from Mina now in the colonial army have been notified of their election &place of Meeting 98
The following document, which unfortunately bears no date, will exhibit what was done by the delegates that assembled at Washington:
We the undersigned delegates elected to the General Consultation of all Texas to be holden in the Town of Washington on the 15th day of October 1835. met according to appointment.
Having received the resolutions adopted by the members elect of the General Consultation, the officers of the Army, and People of Gonzales at their meeting held at Gonzales on the 11th Inst. recommending an adjournment of the said Consultation to some future and convenient time. We concur therein; and recommend that the said Consultation be adjourned until the first day of November next.
We further recommend that the said General Consultation be holden in the Town of Washington as first proposed by the meeting of the Citizens of Columbia and generally approved by the several meetings of the Citizens of Texas.
Jesse Grimes E. M. Millican Asa Mitchell E. Collard
We the Undersigned members of the Genl consultation were not present at the above meeting but concur with those who were there in agreeing to hold the same at Washington on the first of Nov next
A. G. Perry A. E. C. Johnson J. L. Hood J. G. W. Pierson 99
A larger number of delegates, but not a sufficient number to form a quorum, assembled at San Felipe on October 16th. On the following day they adopted the resolutions below and adjourned:
Resolved, That the members present adjourn until the first day of next month, or as soon as a quorum can meet at this place, so as to afford an opportunity to those who may desire it to join the army in the defense of their country.
Resolved, That those who cannot join the army may remain here, with the permission to unite with the Council of Texas, 100 . . .
From October 17th till the first of November the question of place of meeting remained in statu quo. 'Tis true that a number of the delegates availed themselves of the permission contained in the second resolution above, and joined the general council. 101 On October 19th the general council thus strengthened took the following action:
On Motion of Mr. Perry for the determined place of the meeting of the Genl Consultation on the first of November 1835 of all Texas as follows
Resolved by the Genl Council of Texas that the Genl Consultation be held at Washington on the first of Nov, 1835—first proposed by the Committee of Columbia.
Adopted with one Dissenting voice— 102
This gratuitous piece of assumption on the part of the general council, however, appears to have been entirely ignored by all. Those delegates who had assembled at Washington about the middle of October again assembled there on the first of November; those who had met at San Felipe again assembled at San Felipe; the decision of place lay with the delegates in the army. These, at the suggestion of the commander-in-chief and with the approbation of the troops, returned in time to be present at the opening on the first, at San Felipe “the place appointed for the Consultation.” 103
In spite of this practical decision of the matter, the question was placed before the consultation on November 3d by one of the delegates from Mina, as is shown by the following extract from the minutes for that day:
The House met persuant to adjournment—and on Motion of R. N. Williamson that the convention adjourn fourthwith from this place to meet at the Town of Washington The Motion being put to the House
Votes in favor of the adjournment 1
” against ” 40
Resolved unanimously that an express be sent fourth with to Washington requesting the members at that place to repair immediately to this. 104
The arrival of the members, who had met at Washington, at San Felipe on November 5th marks the termination of dissent upon the question of the place of meeting of the consultation; and no further action was taken during the deliberations of this body. However, when it adjourned, it was to meet at Washington on March 1, 1836. 105
(7) Seat of the Provisional Government.
The consultation was succeeded by the governor and general council in the management of the affairs of Texas. This body was left free to “hold their sessions at such times and places as in their opinion will give the most energy and effect to the objects of the people, and to the performance of the duties assigned them.” 106 Those who were dissatisfied with the location of the seat of government at San Felipe early made preparations to select some other place. R. R. Royall, in a letter to J. W. Fannin, dated November 15, 1835, writes from San Felipe that, “Where the council will hold its sessions is yet undetermined. I believe it will be in Washington or Matagorda, probably at the latter.” 107 And Governor Henry Smith took occasion to call the attention of the council to this subject in his first official communication to that body as follows:
It will also become your duty to select some place as the seat of government, at which to hold your regular sittings during the continuance of the present form of government. In doing this you will throw aside all local partialities and prejudices, and fix on that point possessing most advantages, and the best calculated to forward our views by giving promptness and energy to our united actions. I therefore deem it unnecessary to make further suggestions on that subject, and will only add, that a Council Hall, together with other offices for the different departments of government, is indispensable. 108
The committee on the affairs of state and judiciary, to whom this paragraph of the governor's message was referred, reported on November 17:
Your committee is concerned to see the want of unanimity in this body, upon the proper location of a place where to establish the sittings and offices of the “Provisional Government.” Several places have been mentioned as suited to this object, and your committee being unprepared to determine the matter, will briefly submit the representations made to them by different persons.
By some it is contended that the location should be in Washington on the Brazos; this place is said to be situated in a thickly populated country, and most central to the inhabited parts of Texas. It is known that the town is of very recent origin, 109 having few if any suitable buildings or rooms for public business, and no printing establishment. Convenience and retirement are necessary for public officers, in the dispatch of business of the character in which we are now engaged. These objects cannot be expected at present in Washington, hereafter this place will no doubt be fixed upon as the seat of Government.
The inconveniencies and discomforts of our present location are too sensibly felt by every member of the Provisional Government to require any remarks; an excellent and well conducted Press is the only present inducement for continuing in San Felipe:—Matagorda and Velasco, destitute of the latter advantage, possess no superiority of convenience for business over San Felipe, and although strongly recommended by some, will scarcely produce any difference of opinion in this body.
Brazoria, with the advantages of a good and well conducted Press, is represented as having a suitable Council-Hall, well adapted rooms, and other conveniences for the dispatch of public business. Its location upon the navigable waters of the Brazos, affords almost hourly communication with the coast, and the distance from the army will make but about a day's difference in travel more than to San Felipe, and about the same to Washington; but the badness of the roads at this season of the year, is said to be a serious disadvantage, if not an insuperable objection.
With these statements your committee submits to the wisdom of the Council to determine the place of its sittings, and the location of the Provisional Government.
Concluding with urging the necessity of prompt decision. 110
The Council gave its immediate attention to this subject:
Mr. Houston moved that the Council adjourn, when it leaves this place, to the town of Washington.
The question being taken on the above, and the Ayes and Noes were demanded, the vote stood thus:
Ayes—Messrs. Wharton, Grimes, Barrett, Perry, Parker, Houston, Parmer and Padilla—8.
Noes—Messrs. Clements, Millard, Hanks, Harris, Wilson and West—6: so the question was decided in the affirmative.
Mr. Houston moved that the Council adjourn to meet at Washington on the 23rd inst., but withdrew his motion, at the suggestion of Mr. Barrett, who offered the following, which was adopted:
Resolved, that an express be immediately sent to Washington to inform the citizens of the removal of the Provisional Government to that place, and requesting them to be in readiness to receive its officers; and also that the fact of its removal be communicated to the army, and to all parts of Texas. 111
Governor Smith stopped the move to Washington with his executive veto, for the reasons that
There is no printing press at Washington, which I deem essential to our business; the public printing has not been yet completed as contracted for, which should be superintended by your body, nor has there been any Legislative action known to me, prescribing or defining the duties of our agents to be sent abroad; their commissions with authority to hypothecate the public lands and pledge the faith of the country, to answer our present emergencies, have not been made out. Commissions granting letters of Marque and Reprisal, have been earnestly solicited, both by our own citizens and foreigners, and as yet, have not been acted on. These are things I deem of the most urgent and vital importance, and should receive prompt attention.
Furthermore, I am not apprized that your body has made the necessary arrangements for our comfortable location at Washington. It appears to me probable that more might be lost than gained by the move; be that as it may, the move as contemplated and incorporated in the 6th decree I deem premature, and calculated to produce delay and great injury, as such, I feel bound to object to it. I would beg leave to suggest to your honorable body that, notwithstanding our situations here may be uncomfortable, and none can be more so than my own, still a sense of public duty urges me to earnestly solicit your body to submit themselves to all inconveniences for the present, until the grand and important business of necessity can be accomplished, and they will find me willing to co-operate with them in the selection of any point which they may deem best calculated to promote our own convenience, and advance the public good. 112
An effort was made to pass this measure over the governor's veto, but it failed by a vote of 4 to 8. 113 In consequence the seat of government remained at San Felipe until about the 22nd of February, 1836.
San Felipe had been the seat of all the important councils of Anglo-American Texas since the founding of Austin's colony. However, with the passing of the provisional government and the advance of the Mexican hordes, its material glory passed away, and it was sacrificed in the defense of the country. No town in Texas counted among its citizenship abler champions of civil liberty, no town had done more to promote the cause of independence; yet independence was proclaimed at Washington. San Felipe was the home of Austin, the Father of Texas, and Travis, the defender of Texan liberty, but neither of them is buried there.
2. WASHINGTON.
(1) Seat of the Convention of March, 1836.
Washington is located near the Brazos where this river is crossed by the San Antonio road. It was laid out as a town in the spring of 1835; it was erected into a municipality in July of the same year; and by the spring of 1836 it contained, perhaps, fifty houses. 114 Washington was proposed in August, 1835, as the place of meeting for the consultation; a portion of the delegates assembled there about the middle of October and again on the first of November; the general council voted that the consultation should meet there, and the consultation adjourned to reassemble at that point; however, as the consultation never reassembled, this act passed for naught, as did all the preceding acts enumerated above. The provisional government, after failing to agree upon a removal of its sessions to that place, fixed Washington as the place of meeting for the convention which it called to meet in March, 1836. 115 But the course pursued by Henry Smith, after he was deposed by the general council, made it desirable for the provisional government to transfer its offices to some other point. The near approach of the time for the meeting of the convention, induced the general council to choose Washingtin. The following resolution was adopted to this end on February 16, 1836;
Resolved, That the Council adjourn to meet at the town of Washington on the twenty-second day of this month, and that the acting Governor and other officers connected with the Provisional Government be notified of the fact and requested to remove their offices to that place. 116
The general council accordingly assembled at Washington on February 22, but failed to obtain a quorum; the other officers of the provisional government, with perhaps one or two exceptions, had also removed by March 1, 1836.
The convention assembled at Washington and organized on March 1, 1836. For various reasons the convention considered it expedient to terminate the provisional government at once. Before it could organize a government under the constitution, the extreme emergency of the case and the critical situation of Texas made the establishment of a government ad interim necessary.
(2) Temporary Seat of the Government ad interim.
The constitution adopted by the convention did not designate any place as the seat of government; the only reference to the subject in that document being Section 3 of the General Provisions:
The presidents and heads of departments shall keep their offices at the seat of government, unless removed by the permission of congress, or unless in case of emergency in time of war, the public interest may require their removal.
The inauguration of the new government is best described in the words of President Burnet:
On the evening of the 16th March, a messenger arrived from the west, bearing the melancholy intelligence that the Alamo had fallen, and all within it been massacred. The Convention assembled forthwith, and with some few symptoms of undue excitement, proceeded to the institution of an executive government for the embryo republic. David G. Burnet was elected President; Lorenzo de Zavala, a distinguished Mexican, was elected Vice-President; Col. Samuel P. Carson, formerly of North-Carolina, Secretary of State; Bailey Hardiman, Secretary of the Treasury; Col. Thomas J. Rusk, Secretary of War; Robert Potter, Secretary of the Navy; and David Thomas, Attorney-General.
The inauguration of the new government was completed about two o'clock in the morning of 17th March, the Convention having been in session all night. Mr. Burnet delivered a pertinent address of some length, and on the ensuing day issued a proclamation from which we extract the following: “The government will remove to Harrisburg; but that removal is not the result of any apprehension that the enemy is near us. It was resolved upon as a measure conducive to the common good, before any such report was in circulation, and it has not been expedited by such report. . . . Let us acquit ourselves like men; gird up the loins of our minds, and by one united, prompt, and energetic exertion, turn back this impotent invader; and planting our standard on the bank of the Rio Grande, dictate to him the terms of mutual recognition.” Both these documents were published at San Felipe, in fugitive handbills, a very few of which are now extant.
The same express that gave intelligence of the fall of the Alamo, told, also, that Gen. Houston and his little army were in rapid retreat from Gonzales. This was calculated and did contribute to the general excitement. As soon as the ceremonies of the installation were finished, the Convention adjourned sine die; to meet no more. The next day the little town of Washington was evacuated, not only by the members, whose services were no longer required, but by every family, excepting one, Mr. Lott's, who kept the hotel. The entire population west of the Brazos was also broken up and fugitive, and panic seemed to rule the day. The President and the Secretaries of War and Navy, remained at Washington three days longer, occupied in such matters as required immediate attention, when they also, in the afternoon, repaired calmly to the residence of the late Col. Groce, on the route to Harrisburg. 117
3. HARRISBURG.
The considerations that led to the selection of Harrisburg as the seat of government are stated by President Burnet, in his first message to congress, in these terms:
The administration which had been organized at the town of Washington deemed it expedient to change its location to Harrisburg, from which point it could possess an easier access to foreign countries, from whence our supplies of munitions were to be obtained, and a more direct supervision of its naval and other maritime concerns. Such removal was accordingly effected within a few days after the government was created. 118
In an address to the people of Texas, published a few months after these events occurred, President Burnet says:
Soon after the retreat of the Army from the Colorado, and its encampment in the dense forests of the Brazos, . . . the Government, then located at Harrisburg, directed the Secretary of War, . . . Thomas J. Rusk, to repair to the Army, for the purpose of conferring with the Commander-in-Chief. 119 . . . That officer remained with the army until after the battle of 21st April. 120 . . .
4. GALVESTON ISLAND.
The narrative of President Burnet continues thus:
The rapid approaches of the enemy had compelled the government to abandon Harrisburg, 121 but after a transient dispersion 122 they reassembled at Galveston Island, which was then considered the last hope of the defense to Texas. The arrival of the army on Buffalo bayou was made known to us about the 19th of April, two days after the enemy were known to have captured New Washington. On the 17th I had made a very narrow escape, with my family and some others, from the advance guard of the Mexican forces at that point. 123 As soon as we heard at the Island, of the arrival of Gen. Houston and his forces on Buffalo bayou, the steamboat Cayuga was despatched, with a number of volunteers and some provisions for the relief and succor of our brave troops. The Secretary of the Navy was on board this boat. On the 22d or 23d, the steamboat Laura was also despatched with further supplies, and an additional number of volunteers. Mr. Hardiman the Secretary of the Treasury was one of those volunteers. This boat sustained some injury to her boiler and was detained some 24 or 30 hours at Red fish bar, after which she proceeded to the Texian camp. The news of the great battle did not reach me at the Island until the 26th, owing to the inclemency of the weather and the miserable quality of the boat in which the messengers made the trip. A special request was made to me by the Secretary of War, that I would repair to the Camp and as soon as the steamer Yellow Stone could procure a supply of wood, which required four or five days, I set out in that boat, with more provisions, and arrived at the Camp on Buffalo Bayou about the 1st of May. 124
5. CAMP SAN JACINTO.
President Burnet continues:
On my arrival at Camp, which had been recently removed further up the bayou to escape the offensive odors of the battle ground, I found the President Santa Anna and his suite occupying the only building in the vicinity. . . .
After the usual ceremonies were passed, I was informed that an Armistice had been entered into between General Houston and General Santa Anna. 125 . . .
Such was the condition of things when I arrived at the camp on Buffalo Bayou. The members of the Cabinet were principally there. The worthy Vice President, Lorenzo de Zavala had preceded me some days. The Secretary of State elect, the Hon. Samuel P. Carson, had been compelled by the infirmities of a delicate constitution, to relinquish the duties and fatigues of office, and he obtained permission to visit the United States. The vacancy was not filled until after the battle of the 21st April, when James Collinsworth who had raised his chivalry conspicuous amidst a crowd of heroes, was inducted to that office. Mr. Hardiman, the Secretary of the Treasury, reached the camp before me. The Secretary of the Navy was also there. The Secretary of War, Mr. Rusk, had been in camp for some weeks. Peter W. Grayson, Esq., was invited to and accepted the office of Attorney General, which had become vacant by the premature and accidental death of the Honorable David Thomas, after I arrived at camp. 126 . . .
Several days had been employed in this negotiation [the treaty with Santa Anna] and it became necessary for the army to move its quarters. A multitude of other concerns required the attention of the Civil Government, and a general dispersion from Buffalo bayou ensued. The members of the administration, with General Santa Anna and most of the Mexican Officers taken in the battle, embarked in the steamboat Yellow Stone, for Galveston Island. The army on the same day took up its march for Harrisburg. 127 The Mexican Commissioner, General Wall, was furnished with a safe-conduct from my hand, and with an escort by General Rusk, and set out for the Mexican camp. The steamboat came to anchor at Galveston about sun down of the same day, and Santa Anna with his suite, was placed on board of the armed schooner Independence, under the command of Commodore Hawkins then lying at anchor in the harbor. 128
6. VELASCO.
President Burnet says further:
The entire want of accommodation at the Island rendered it necessary for the government to seek some place where the ordinary office business could be transacted, and Velasco was selected for that purpose. Accordingly, in a few days we repaired 129 to Velasco, with the President Santa Anna and his retinue in company. The Vice President had been compelled to leave us at Buffalo bayou, to attend to his domestic affairs, which had been seriously interrupted by the appropriation of his homestead, to the purposes of a hospital for the wounded in the late battle. The Secretary of the Navy had obtained leave of absence—consequently there were present at Velasco, the Secretary of State, James Collinsworth; the Secretary of the Treasury, Baily Hardiman; the Sec of War, M. B. Lamar; the Attorney General, P. W. Grayson, and myself. 130
Velasco enjoyed the distinction of being the summer resort “of great numbers of visitors from the north of the colony [Austin's], who came to enjoy the delightful sea-breezes, sea-bathing, and the comforts with which they are everywhere surrounded. Excellent accommodations . . . [could] always be obtained at boarding houses.” 131 Here the seat of government of the new Republic, too, was fixed long enough to attain a degree of permanency it had not hitherto known: it remained there till the end of September, 1836. Yet it may be readily shown that even this place was ill provided with the necessary requisites for the seat of government; President Burnet stated in his first message to congress that “never have they [the government] been in circumstances of comfort and convenience suitable to the orderly conducting of the grave and momentous business committed to their charge.” 132
7. COLUMBIA.
After looking over the various places that might best serve the needs of a seat of government, President Burnet selected the town of Columbia. By proclamation, dated July 23, he called the first congress to meet at this place on the first Monday in October, 1836. Columbia, because of its more central location, had for a time been the seat of justice of the municipality of Columbia, but at this time Brazoria enjoyed that distinction. It contained a large hotel building, “besides a building or two constructed while it was the seat of the courts, for a court house, and offices, &c. and a few dwelling houses.” 133 More important still was the fact that Columbia had been selected as their place of business by the publishers of the Telegraph and Texas Register. We have already had occasion to observe how potent was the influence of this paper in retaining the seat of the provisional government at San Felipe. When San Felipe was about to fall into the hands of the enemy, the Telegraph at the invitation of the government followed the latter to Harrisburg. At this place, however, it was overtaken and destroyed by the Mexican troops. No doubt there was some understanding between President Burnet and the publishers when it was determined to re-establish this paper. No one knew better and felt more the great need of a press for conducting the government than President Burnet. 134 The first number of the Telegraph to be issued at Columbia appeared on August 2, 1836.
A committee of the business men of Columbia promised President Burnet the following accommodations for the use of the government:
Store house formerly occupied by Mr W C White with five rooms 5□
House formerly occupied by J C Cole—Rooms 2
Old Alcaldes office with fire place 1□
Mrs. Sledges 1 Room &Stove 1
Saml. Peebles —2 Rooms with Stoves 2
House of Mr. Beards 20 feet square with stove 1
Mr. Sampson with 2 Rooms and 1 fire place 2
Hendricks Rooms with 2 fire places 2
Mrs. Carson room with stove 1
Col. Eberlys 2 Rooms 2□
All the Chairs and Tables necessary for Both Houses of Congress.
Sepr. 16, 1836. W. C. White & Co. Fitchell & Gill Jacob Eberly Geo Brown G. & T. H. Borden. 135
The Telegraph of September 28, 1836, reports:
Yesterday the citizens of this place appointed a committee to prepare the necessary buildings for the accommodation of Congress; and we believe that suitable and convenient rooms will be furnished.
We understand that the citizens of Brazoria are also making arrangements; and all we have to say on the subject is, that we would recommend congress to do its business where the best accommodation is afforded.
The first congress assembled Monday, October 3, 1836. Soon it became manifest that the committee of arrangements referred to above had either failed to procure a sufficient number of houses or else they had not contemplated the increase of offices accompanying the organization of the constitutional government. 136 On October 22, the constitutional president and vice-president were inaugurated; November 7th President Houston sent the following message to congress on the subject of the proper accommodations for the government:
Gentlemen:
The important trusts committed to our charge as the representatives of a Nation and the guardians of her free institutions, demand at our hands, the arduous and incessant toils which responsibility and moral consciousness always impose, when they flow in their natural and appropriate channels.
Industry and application, put in requisition by mature judgment, must still be conducted by system, organization and method; for these are necessary, and cannot be attained or exercised without the convenience of houses.
The present position of our Government is one of great inconvenience and absolute embarrassment. We have accommodations for no branch of the public trusts. Congress is itself scarcely provided as a body, with sufficient buildings. 137 No rooms are set apart for the Committees of your body. 138 No Offices for the Chief Departments of the Executive branch of Government, 139 and the personal accommodations of all are very deficient.
The Head of no Department can now transact with convenience the functions devolving upon him. The Secretary of the Treasury, and all his Subordinate Officers, are without rooms and without any place to perform his highly important business. 140 The discharged soldiers of our Army, are now waiting on great expense for their honest dues at the hands of that Officer. The financial concerns of Government, will be deranged and our credit at home and abroad will be depreciated.
I would call your particular and immediate attention to this subject; and am compelled by my station to suggest that business cannot profitably proceed, unless Congress will adjourn to some point, where better accommodations and greater conveniences can be speedily obtained or buildings furnished at this place.
To induce the meeting of Congress at this point, nineteen rooms for offices had been promised but the pledges remain unredeemed. The pledge given is herewith enclosed. 141
Sam Houston. 142
It is not surprising that, under circumstances such as are described above, the location of the seat of government at some convenient point early engaged the attention of the first congress. As early as November 2d, the senate adopted a joint resolution providing,
That each house of congress appoint a committee of three, whose duty it shall be to report the most eligible point at which to locate the seat of government of this republic, from and after the adjournment of the present congress, up to the year of our Lord, eighteen hundred and—. 143
No record is made of the adoption of this resolution by the house of representatives, but on November 8th, it selected its committee in accordance with the terms of said resolution, and referred to it the president's message quoted above. 144 Both committees reported November 11th that they had failed to agree; the senate committee favored Groce's Retreat, now called San Jacinto; the house committee recommended Nacogdoches. Both suggested that a joint committee be sent to Brazoria “there to enquire into, and learn what description of houses for the accommodation of congress, for offices, committee rooms, and other accommodations, can be obtained, and upon what terms.” 145 Instead of adopting the course suggested, which was in all probability merely another temporary makeshift, the house referred the report “to the standing committee on the state of the Republic, with instructions to report a bill locating the seat of government, by joint vote of both houses.” 146 In pursuance of these instructions the committee reported, on November 14th, “an act locating temporarily the seat of government,” which was passed. 147
This act of congress made the selection of a temporary site for the seat of government a subject of competition among the various aspirants to that honor. Unfortunately the promises or bids of some of the more important places have not been preserved; the following, however, will serve to indicate their general trend:
(1) From Columbia.
To the Hon. the Senate and House of Representatives of the Republic of Texas in Congress assembled:—
The Undersigned most respectfully represents to Your Honle. Body that, in their opinion, no place, for the Seat of Government of this Republic, until the year 1840, is more eligibly situated to subserve the people generally than theirs at Hidalgo— they, therefore, make to your Honourable Body the following Proposal, Viz— The Undersigned will set off 640 English acres of land from their sitio, such as commissioners appointed by Your Hon. Body shall select, as nearly in the form of a square as may be done; that the said 640 acres shall be well surveyed and platted, by the Undersigned, at their own expense; that the sd. Commissioners may then select one or two square Blocks on which to erect the Government Buildings—that the whole of the rest shall be laid off into town lots of the most convenient size, as directed by your Commissioners—and that, when so done, the Undersigned agree to convey to the Government a Title for the said two Blocks above-mentioned—and that the proceeds of the sales of all the lots laid off in sd. Town shall be equally divided between the Undersigned and the Government.
Monday, Nov. 28, 1836 Town of Columbia Very respectfully the Undersigned Martin Clow & others 148
(2) From Washington on the Brazos.
To The Honorable Congress of the Republic of Texas, the undersigned citizen of the County of Washington respectfully represents That he is one of the Proprietors of the Town of Washington, and learning that various places are proposed for the temporary location of the Seat of Government for this Republic until the year (1840) begs leave to represent to your Honorable body that he will give and Grant and Hereby does give and Grant to the Government of the Republic of Texas in fee simple a sufficiency of the freehold within the limits of said Town to be selected (by a commissioner appointed by your Honorable body for that purpose) in the most eligible part thereof, for the erection of such public buildings as may be necessary and deemed expedient on condition that said Town shall at any time within one year from this date become the Seat of Government for this Republic. Your orator would further say, That he is aware that propositions seemingly more liberal have been made by other individuals similarly circumstanced in other Towns; but your orator believing that public convenience rather than individual interest to be, the Great end of your deliberations; thus submits, this his proposition to the consideration of your Honorable body. The Town of Washington is situated on the west bank of the Brazos river and is rapidly improving, surrounded by an extensive agricultural population, well watered with springs of healthy and pure water, and in point of locality, more central than any other inhabited Town now proposed to your Honorable body as the temporary Seat of Government for this Republic. Your orator with respect begs audience &c &c &c
Thos Gay November 21st 1836 149
(3) From Fort Bend.
The memorial of Thomas H. Borden and others, to the honorable the House of Representatives, respectfully presents proposals for the selection of FORT BEND as the future Seat of Government.
Fort Bend is situated on a high, healthy prairie, bluffing to the Brazos river; bounded on the north, east and west by the Brazos, and lying open to the refreshing breezes of the south.
Your memorialist begs to call attention to the fact that a steam navigation is regularly established from the mouth of the river, and not obstructed at any season of the year by any ordinary event. This advantage of navigation is not prospective, 150 but in actual operation; nor is there any bar (such as Red Fish Bar,) with occasionally not more than three feet of water, or a reef, (such as that from New Washington to Shaw's at the mouth of the Jacinto river to impede the import of New Orleans produce.
The influx of commerce already established at Velasco from the United States, not equalled in any inlet or harbor of Texas, must always secure, independent of regular freight for Fort Bend, a constant supply of provisions, an advantage not possessed by any proposed location before your honorable house; and in the absence of all supplies from the States, there is no part of Texas, where a town has not been already located, possessing greater internal supplies than Fort Bend, a resident neighborhood of farmers, whose supplies of provisions, butter, poultry, eggs, &c. &c., cannot fail to render the advantages of Fort Bend unrivalled.
Your memorialist further refers to the testimony of of the last fourteen years, for the salubrity and healthiness of the location; no fatal malady having ever prevailed there, and the water is proverbial for its superiority. Your memorialist offers to build suitable houses for the congress and officers of government, and not to be let at a rental nor assessed at a price, but to be DONATED to the government, as long as they are pleased to use them: and your memorialist will grant lots to persons competent to superintend houses of public entertainment, to be erected under the direction of your memorialist and others. In all of which, he binds himself in dollars; if required, to comply with his proposals by the first of April, 1837. Your memorialist has adopted the mode of comparison as that best calculated to narrow the subject of inquiry and facilitate the conclusions of your honorable body on the respective advantages of a suitable location.
I am, gentlemen, Your obedient servant, Thos. H. Borden, For self and others. 151
A correspondent of the Telegraph (November 23, 1836) makes the following interesting comments on the situation. He makes the earliest suggestion of the plan that was adopted in 1839 for defraying the cost of erecting the government buildings. He might also well be credited with planting the idea that matured when in 1875 three million acres of public land were set aside for the erection of the present granite capitol.
Messrs. Editors:—The question is agitated to a considerable extent, what particular point in the Republic is to be fixed upon for the seat of government, and as a natural concomitant, much sectional jealousy has arisen on the subject.
Petitions have been presented to Congress I believe from some half dozen cities, viz. Houston, Matagorda, Fort Bend, Columbia, Washington, Groces Retreat, &c. and, some of those very important cities whose peculiar advantages are so handsomely portrayed upon paper, like paddy's house which wanted nothing but building to make it complete, require nothing but houses to make them what they are represented to be. In these petitions very liberal proposals are made to the government as it regards the erection of public buildings. Indeed the different contending parties interested in the matter all seem determined not to be outdone in their liberal offers. Now believing myself that we could not be better accommodated at present at any of the places spoken of than at Columbia, I would enquire whether it would not be as well to remain where we are during the present session of congress, and for that body to select and set apart a certain portion of the public domain, in an eligible situation for the capital, lay off the ground in town lots and sell them at auction, reserving such as may be necessary for all the public departments. And whether we would not by this means raise a sufficient fund to erect all the houses required and by so doing put a stop to all petitions on the subject and let the attention of congress be directed to matters of more importance to the country.
The contest closed on November 30th, when the two houses of congress met in joint session for the purpose of fixing the location of the seat of government until the year 1840.
The speaker informed the house that it would be expected the members of both houses of Congress would make such nominations as they might think proper.—Whereupon Mr. Branch nominated the town of Houston, on Buffalo Bayou; Mr. Archer nominated the town of Matagorda; Mr. Hill nominated the town of Washington; Mr. Green nominated the towns of Velasco and Quintana; Mr. Rowe nominated the town of Nacogdoches; Mr. Senator Robertson nominated the town of Hidalgo; Mr. senator Moorhouse nominated the town of Refugio; Mr. Billingsly nominated the place called Fort Bend; Mr. Chenoweth nominated the town of Goliad; Mr. Archer nominated Groce's Retreat, or San Jacinto; 152 Mr. Senator Ruis nominated the town of Bexar; Mr. Geraghty nominated the town of San Patricio; Mr. senator Everette nominated the town of Brazoria; Mr. Senator Grimes nominated the town of Orozimbo. 153
The vote, which was taken viva voce, may be tabulated as follows. 154
Twenty-one votes being a majority of the vote cast, the speaker proclaimed the town of Houston as duly selected. This decision was embodied in an act, approved by President Houston on December 15, 1836, which declared that “from and after the first day of April next, the seat of government for the republic of Texas shall be established at the town of Houston, on Buffalo Bayou, until the end of the session of congress which shall assemble in the year one thousand eight hundred and forty”; and the president was authorized “to cause to be erected a building for the temporary accommodation of the congress of the republic, and such other buildings as may be necessary for the accommodation of the different departments of the government, at the said seat of government: provided, the sum or sums so expended shall not exceed fifteen thousand dollars.”
The location having been made by a bare majority, much dissatisfaction existed with regard to the choice of Houston. President Houston, although he approved the bill, claimed to have disapproved of the location; Anson Jones characterized this act as one of the three that “constituted a perfect `selling out' of Texas to a few individuals, or, at least, of everything that was available in 1836.” 155
Congress adjourned on December 22, 1836, and one would be inclined to suppose that this subject would have been permitted to rest for the time. However, the Telegraph of January 3, 1837, finds occasion to make the following editorial remarks:
We have just understood that it is proposed the heads of the departments of our government should remove to Groce's Retreat, upwards of ninety miles above this place. To this remove many objections might be urged. Want of houses and accommodations for the different departments, as well as for persons having business with them. The great distance it would be from the army, the inconvenience which would necessarily attend the navy, auditor's and pay-master's departments, whose several duties are more connected with persons in the lower part of the country.
Intelligence, as well as supplies of provisions, munitions of war, &c. are much easier of attainment near the coast, than at so great a distance from water communication. The objections which have formerly been urged against this place, viz. Want of houses, health and accommodation in a great measure now cease to exist. The breaking up of congress has given us more room. Most of the departments are now accommodated with suitable offices. The health of Columbia during the winter is good, and we can see no possible motive for the contemplated remove, and especially when another to Houston must necessarily take place before the government could get settled at Groce's retreat.
8. HOUSTON.
The first notice in print of the town of Houston—perhaps, the first notice of any sort—appeared in the Telegraph of August 30, 1836, in the form of an advertisement:
The Town of Houston,
Situated at the head of navigation, on the West bank of Buffalo Bayou, is now for the first time brought to public notice because, until now, the proprietors were not ready to offer it to the public, with the advantages of capital and improvements.
The town of Houston is located at a point on the river which must ever command the trade of the largest and richest portion of Texas. By reference to the map, it will be seen that the trade of San Jacinto, Spring Creek, New Kentucky and the Brazos, above and below Fort Bend, must necessarily come to this place, and will at this time warrant the employment of at least One Million Dollars of capital, and when the rich lands of this country shall be settled, a trade will flow to it, making it, beyond all doubt, the great interior commercial emporium of Texas.
The town of Houston is distant 15 miles from the Brazos river, 30 miles, a little North of East, from San Felipe, 60 miles from Washington, 40 miles from Lake Creek, 30 miles South West from New Kentucky, and 15 miles by water from and 8 or 10 by land above Harrisburg. Tide water runs to this place and the lowest depth of water is about six feet. Vessels from New Orleans or New York can sail without obstacles to this place, and steamboats of the largest class can run down to Galveston Island in 8 or 10 hours, in all seasons of the year. . . . Galveston harbor being the only one in which vessels drawing a large draft of water can navigate, must necessarily render the Island the great naval and commercial depot of the country.
The town of Houston must be the place where arms, ammunition and provisions for the government will be stored, because, situated in the very heart of the country, it combines security and the means of easy distribution, and a national armory will no doubt very soon be established at this point.
There is no place in Texas more healthy, having an abundance of excellent spring water, and enjoying the sea breeze in all its freshness. No place in Texas possesses so many advantages for building, having Pine, Ash, Cedar, and Oak in inexhaustible quantities; also the tall and beautiful Magnolia grows in abundance. In the vicinity are fine quarries of stone.
Nature appears to have designated this place for the future seat of Government. It is handsome and beautifully elevated, salubrious and well watered, and now in the very heart or centre of population, and will be so for a length of time to come. It combines two important advantages: a communication with the coast and foreign countries, and with the different portions of the republic. As the country shall improve, rail roads will become in use, and will be extended from this point to the Brazos, and up the same, also from this up to the headwaters of San Jacinto, embracing that rich country, and in a few years the whole trade of the upper Brazos will make its way into Galveston Bay through this channel.
Preparations are now making to erect a water Saw Mill, and a large Public House for accommodation, will soon be opened. Steamboats now run in this river, and will in a short time commence running regularly to the Island.
The proprietors offer the lots for sale on moderate terms to those who desire to improve them, and invite the public to examine for themselves.
A. C. Allen, for A. C. & J. K. Allen. 156 August 30, 1836.
The town of Houston had not been selected by either half of the joint committee appointed to select a site for the seat of government. Houston appeared, however, among the competitors, when it was determined to locate the seat of government by joint vote of the two houses of congress. The proposals of A. C. &J. K. Allen are represented to have been “replete with most cogent reasons for the selection of the town of Houston.” 157 John K. Allen was a member of the house of representatives from Nacogdoches. The selection of the site, the naming of the place, the presentation of the advantages of Houston, and the success in securing the temporary location of the seat of government constitute a high testimonial to the shrewdness, sagacity and enterprise of the promoters of the city of Houston. It marks the beginning of one of the few successful speculations of this kind, so numerous in that day. The meagreness of information in regard to the new city appears from the care with which the proprietors define its location. 158 Not a building marked the town site when the seat of government was located there. 159 The first lot was sold on January 19, 1837. 160 These facts may have proved an advantage rather than a disadvantage. The town certainly had no old enemies; no tangible objections in the form of insufficient accommodations were present; and the possibilities of the future were no doubt duly magnified.
The government was to have removed to Houston by April 1, 1837; but for want of the necessary buildings the executive departments were not transferred from Columbia until April 16th. 161 No mention of the removal is made in the Telegraph, for the reason, perhaps, that the Telegraph and the government made the trip to Houston in the same vessel. If so, they did not arrive at their destination until April 27th—only a few days before the meeting of the adjourned session of the first congress, May 1st. In consequence of the late removal the reports of the several departments were not ready for presentation to congress until May 19th. 162
Prior to its removal, the Telegraph stated: “We are highly gratified in stating that the process of building is rapidly advancing at Houston; the offices intended for the reception of the several departments of government, will soon be completed; the building also intended for our press is nearly finished.” 163 However, on reaching Houston a month after, it had this to say of its new office and of the government building: “like others who have confided in speculative things, we have been deceived: no building had ever been nearly finished at Houston intended for the press; fortunately, however, we have succeeded in renting a shanty, which, although like the capitol in this place, `Without a roof, and without a floor, Without windows and without a door,' is the only convenient building obtainable,” 164 . . .
It will be remembered that $15,000 had nominally been placed at the command of the president with which “to cause to be erected a building suitable for the temporary accommodations of the congress of the republic, and such other buildings as may be necessary for the accommodation of the different departments of the government.” This sum, even had it been available, which it was not, 165 was entirely inadequate to meet the purposes apparently contemplated, in view of the high prices of labor as well as building materials. 166 However, it is probable that it was never the intention that the president should have the buildings referred to erected. The Messrs. Allen certainly offered to construct them; 167 and Mr. Borden, in his proposal of Fort Bend, suggests that the buildings so erected were to be rented or else “assessed at a price” at which they should be purchased by the government. 168 So, too, Mr. Lubbock in his Memoirs states that
The Allens had undertaken to provide a capitol building at Houston, but fearing they might not have it ready for the meeting of Congress on the 1st of May, erected on Main Street a one-story building covering the front of an entire block. At one corner of the block a large room was constructed for the Senate, and at the other corner a larger one for the House of Representatives, and the space between partitioned off into rooms for the department offices. Col. Thos. W. Ward was the capitol contractor under the Allens. The work was not begun till the 16th of April, but it was pushed with such energy that the capitol, though not finished, was far enough advanced to accommodate Congress and the heads of departments. Accordingly, on May 1st, the adjourned session of the First Congress met in the respective chambers, 169 “fitted up and furnished for business.”
The last statement—“fitted up and furnished for business”—must be considerably qualified, else the reader will be misled. For instance, J. J. Audubon notes in his diary on May 4, 1837:
Meanwhile, we amused ourselves by walking in the capitol, which was yet without a roof, and the floors, benches, and tables of both houses of congress were as well saturated with water as our clothes had been in the morning. 170
Again, the official record of the proceedings of the house of representatives for May 10, 1837, says: “The members assembled according to adjournment, but owing to the storm of the preceding night, and the insufficiency of the building, the floor being flooded with water, and the hall unfit for the transaction of business, on motion, adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.” 171 May 15, an effort was made in the senate to have a special committee appointed “to obtain a room for the senate to meet in the present session.” 172 And on May 20, a motion was made in the house to have Major Ward, the contractor, discontinue “such labor on this house as disturbs the deliberations of congress during the hours of its session.” 173
Nor was congress worse situated than the various departments of the executive. Neither was the want of accommodation experienced alone in the transaction of official business. The new city did not possess the conveniences required by the members of congress and the visitors who had business with the government. The discomforts that resulted from this situation, together with the dissatisfaction over the original choice of Houston that still lurked in many minds, presented a source of discontent and a fruitful soil for all sorts of plans in regard to the future location of the seat of government. The consideration of these plans will form the subject of a subsequent paper.
The following facts regarding the birthplace and kindred of Captain Oliver Jones were obtained from his grand-nephew, David N. Harris, a respected citizen of Wallis, Texas. The other statements are matters of historical record together with treasured recollections of friends of Oliver Jones.
Captain Oliver Jones was born in the city of New York. He had one brother, Benjamin, and two sisters, Mary and Phoebe. The brother, Benjamin, married and had a large family, of which one son, John, continued to live in New York City, and the others all moved to the West and settled in Illinois. Some years before the war between the States, Benjamin Jones made a visit to his brother Oliver at his home in Texas, and upon his return trip to New York, which was to have been made by water from Galveston, he reached the latter place while cholera was prevailing in the city, and is supposed to have died there of that disease, since he was never heard of afterward.
Oliver Jones's sister Mary married David Smith, and their descendants all eventually came to Texas. They had one son and three daughters. Their son, David, moved to New Orleans, married, and had four children; during the war between the States he was lost at sea between New Orleans and New York. One of the daughters, Sarah Smith, married and died without issue; another, Kate, married Dorsey Mason and bore him three sons, all of them dying unmarried except Thomas, who is still living at Galveston. After the death of Mr. Mason, she married Frank Fabj, by whom she had four sons; of these, but two are living, Robert, in Wyoming, and Lee, in Galveston, Texas. The third daughter, Mary, married David Harris, and they had six children, three daughters and three sons, viz.: Phoebe, Mary, and Emma, Joseph, David N., and Oliver Jones. Joseph was among the first to enlist as a Confederate soldier at the beginning of the war; he was stationed at Dickinson's Bayou near Galveston, and died six months after his enlistment. There are now but two of this family living, David N. Harris, a merchant at Wallis, Texas, and Oliver Jones Harris, who lives on part of the old Oliver Jones homestead tract in Waller County, Texas.
Phoebe, the other sister of Oliver Jones, was married to Joseph Watts, and their descendants settled in Mississippi and Louisiana, but eventually they all came to Texas to live. One of their daughters, Phoebe, died unmarried, the other, Maggie, made her home for a number of years with her uncle, Oliver, and married Captain T. S. Hammitt; after his death she was married to Jesse O'Brian, of Bellville. She died without issue. After the death of Joseph Watts, his widow contracted a second marriage with a Mr. Froyard. They had two children, sons, William and Hiram. William went to California, and has been lost trace of; Hiram moved to Mississippi and married a Mrs. Newell. Their only son, Oliver Jones Froyard, served with Lee in Virginia during the war between the States, and is now living at Wallis, Texas, with his son Oliver Jones Froyard, Jr.
By this it will be seen that the name Oliver Jones, is treasured by the family, it having been transmitted through three generations as a token of regard for one who might well serve as an exemplar of all that goes to make true manhood.
No record has been preserved by the family of the early life of Oliver Jones, but it is probable that he was in the service of the United States during the war with Great Britain, 1812-14; for in his youth he was made prisoner, and was so disgusted at the indifference of his government in not taking active measures to bring about the release of himself and others that finally, when he was once more at liberty, he vowed never again to live under such a government. He made his way to Mexico, and there met with Stephen F. Austin while the latter was in the City of Mexico working to secure the grant needed to authorize the establishment of his colony in Texas. Jones immediately determined to become one of his colonists; and the records show that on August 10th, 1824, he received title to a sitio and labor of land, in what are now Brazoria and Austin Counties, receiving his title from Commissioner Baron de Bastrop. From 1829 to 1830 he was Alguacil, or sheriff, of the Colony. In 1829, as chosen captain of fifty men, he led them from San Felipe de Austin in pursuit of hostile Indians. Captain Bartlett Simms was in command of another company organized for the same purpose, and the two companies under the command of Captain Abner Kuykendall scoured the country from the Brazos to the mouth of the San Saba river.
In 1833 he was a member of the second convention of the people of Texas, which assembled at San Felipe de Austin, on April 1st of that year. Through the memoranda of one of its members, Major James Kerr, a full list of the delegates has been obtained, and among them Oliver Jones is recorded as having been appointed one of a committee to draft a Constitution for the State of Texas, to be forwarded to the Mexican Congress for approval. The futility of this effort to obtain separate statehood for Texas is well known.
The following year, Austin, Oliver Jones, and J. A. Vasquez were elected from Texas to serve in the Legislature of Coahuila and Texas, Texas being allowed three representatives. But, as Austin was then in prison in Mexico, Jones and Vasquez were the only representatives. They were powerless to stem the tide of spoilation and corruption; the revolution in other portions of Mexico spread to Coahuila, and before the end of the session the first steps towards the participation of Texas in the struggle against the arbitrary power of Santa Anna had been taken.
As to the part taken by Oliver Jones, it is well known that he was a warm supporter of the measures advocated by Henry Smith, William B. Travis and others, for creating a local government in Texas, and was a prominent participator in the revolution. In 1837 we find his name among the representatives in the Congress of the Independent Republic of Texas, he having succeeded Mosely Baker, who had removed from Austin County to Harris County. In 1838 when Congress assembled at Houston, his name was registered as Senator from Austin County, succeeding Alexander Somervell. As member of the Senate in this Congress, he had the honor of being appointed chairman of a committee to recommend the design of a flag for the Republic of Texas, and on January 4th, 1839, he presented the design adopted by the committee accompanying the presentation with the following words:
“The committee beg leave to make some remarks on the ground upon which their conclusion is formed. The President ad interim devised the National flag and seal, as it were, in the case of emergency, adopting the flag of the United States of America with little variation, which act was subsequently ratified by the law of December 10th, 1836. The then adopted flag was expedient for the time being, and has been specially beneficial to the navy and merchantmen, on account of being so much blended with the flag of the United States. But the emergency has passed, and the future prospects of Texas are of such a flattering nature that her independence requires that her arms, seal and standard should assume an independent character, by a form which will not blend them with those of any other nation. Besides these considerations, the committee would beg to state that, inasmuch as the proposition made by this republic in her incipient stage of national existence to the United States of America for an annexation to the American Confederacy has been withdrawn by the minister plenipotentiary of the government at the court of Washington, and as the wish of the majority of the people of Texas, so far as is publicly known, is in favor of sustaining an independent station among the nations of the earth, we regard the transaction of the single star into the American constellation and the merging of the single Texan stripes with the thirteen stripes of the United States of America inexpedient.
“The Committee are convinced of the necessity of adopting a separate and distinct standard and arms for the Republic. ... Therefore, your Committee beg leave to offer a substitute amending the original bill referred to them, accompanying the same with a specimen of the arms, the seal, and the standard.”
The National Standard, Seal and Arms, then recommended, which were adopted and finally approved on January 25th, 1839, were used by the Republic of Texas until its annexation to the United States, when slight changes in the lettering were made in the seal and coat of arms, the word “State” being substituted for “Republic.” “The State flag is the same as that of the Republic recommended by the Senate committee of which Oliver Jones was chairman. On February 19th, 1846, it protected the commerce and floated over the capitol of the Republic; on that day it was lowered to give place to the Stars and Stripes.
The presentation of the design for this flag by Oliver Jones was the consummation of the dearest wish of his life, viz.: to see Texas represented among nations by her own symbols of independence. He continued to take a lively interest in the service of the Republic, and in 1845 was enrolled as a member of the Annexation Convention which made Texas a State of the Union. Long after his term of active service had expired, his counsel was valued and sought by those who shaped the policy of the new State.
In person Oliver Jones was pleasing, being tall and erect in figure, of fair complexion, and with regular features. His broad, high forehead betokened intellectuality, while the kindly expression of his eyes tempered the firmness of his lines about the lower part of his face. His character was that of a very kind nature, but of inflexible integrity; all the records or recollections of his life prove his stern determination in the discharge of duty. When running for office he was independent and outspoken as to his opinions; and upon one occasion, when told that his attitude concerning certain questions would not be acceptable to some voters of his district, he sent them word that he would rather not be elected than to go into office by the votes of men who held views so opposed to his own. Mrs. Anson Jones, an old friend of his, tells some touching incidents in illustration of his kindness of heart and generosity of nature. His friendship was of the kind that is not content with spoken proofs, but, wherever possible, resolved itself into action which bore speedy results. On one occasion, at a period of great sorrow and distress in Mrs. Jones's family, when he could not reach them directly on account of swollen streams, he rode on horseback fifty miles around, in order to tender his sympathy and financial help, should she stand in need of such assistance.
Oliver Jones first met his wife at Austin, then the seat of government, in 1840. Her maiden name was Rebecca Greenleaf. She was born at Dorchester, Massachusetts, December, 1798, of a family of seafaring people. She came to Texas in 1834 in company with her first husband, Ira Westover, and their adopted son. Starting from Jeffersonville, Kentucky, they journeyed down the river to New Orleans on a flat bottomed boat, at that time the only means of river transportation in common use; and from New Orleans they took passage on board a schooner bound for Texas, and settled in the San Patricio Colony. Among the many warm friends of Rebecca Westover, afterwards Mrs. Jones, were David Ayers and his family, who were fellow passengers on the schooner. By reason of storms and adverse winds they were delayed many days beyond the time usually required, and for five days were without the regular supply of provisions and water. The Ayers children received a liberal portion due to Mrs. Westover's family, she, with characteristic kindness, depriving herself that the children might not suffer the pangs of hunger and thirst. The devoted friendship formed during this dangerous voyage lasted through life.
When the Texas Revolution began Captain Ira Westover cast his fortunes with the Texas forces, and he and his adopted son were among Fannin's men at Goliad on that ever memorable bloody Palm Sunday, 1836. Alone, unprotected, terrified at the news of the merciless slaughter, the widow of Captain Westover fled towards the eastern part of the State. Mounted on a faithful horse, with a small bundle of clothing attached to the horn of her saddle, and attended by a single Mexican man-servant, she made her hurried ride across the trackless prairies, from her desolate home at San Patrico to Harrisburg, almost without halting. When she arrived and stopped at the doorway of Mrs. Jane Harris, she was lifted from her horse in a deathlike swoon. It was many hours before she was restored to consciousness, and her first words expressed the joy she felt of being able once more to look upon the face of a white woman. She remained with Mrs. Harris until after the Runaway Scrape, going with her and Mrs. Isaac Batterson's family to Anahuac and afterwards to Galveston.
While her life was beset with many trials, the most trying period was passed in the companionship of Mrs. Harris. When the information reached them at Galveston that the captured Santa Anna, whom she regarded as the murderer of her husband, would not be required to give up his life as the penalty of his crimes, a desire for revenge, for a time, overmastered every other feeling. Even many years afterward when these times were recalled, her strong efforts to speak calmly of them was betrayed by trembling voice and clenched fingers, as she would exclaim: “If the women whose husbands and sons he murdered could have reached him, he would not have lived long!”
High courage, born of hardships, sustained her; kind friends assisted her; and, returning to San Patricio, she set about gathering together what was left of her former possessions. In time she became the wife of Judge McIntyre, but a tragic fate soon deprived her of his companionship, and she was again left to fight life's battles alone. While engaged in getting out timbers to make improvements on their place, he attempted to cross a swollen stream. The weather was extremely cold, the heavy cloak he wore combined with the force of the current to sweep him off his horse, and he was drowned within a short distance of their home.
In 1840 Mrs. McIntyre went to Austin, then the seat of Government of the Republic of Texas, to present some claims for property destroyed and goods and provisions furnished during the revolution. She boarded with Mrs. Eberle, at whose popular boarding-house most of the members of the Congress were entertained. She there met Captain Oliver Jones, Senator from the Austin District. He immediately became earnestly interested, not only in her claim against the government, but in her own fine personality. With his usual decision of character, he determined at the moment of introduction that he would try to win her, and soon after remarked to a friend: “There is a woman that I would marry!” Aided by his good friend, Anson Jones, and others, in advocating her claim against the government, he was soon equally successful in urging his own individual claim to her favor. They were married at Austin, and after the session of Congress was over, they went to live at his plantation, “Burleigh,” in what is now Austin County, a few miles from the town of Bellville. There they passed a long season of contented domestic life, surrounded by such luxuries as were obtainable at the time.
Oliver Jones' experience as a cotton planter dated back to early colonial days; some old accounts of John R. Harris, a merchant at Harrisburg, show the following interesting entry: “Capt. O. Jones to John R. Harris Dr. 1829, March 18. To storage on 2 bales cotton, $1.00.” He was known as a very successful planter, and the hospitality for which Texans were noted was well maintained at his home, where he and his wife gladly shared their prosperity with friends and with the stranger within their gates. While they never parted with this home, yet about 1859 they moved to Galveston and purchased a handsome residence, where they lived until the breaking out of the war between the States obliged them, together with most of the residents of Galveston, to refugee to the interior of the State, Thereafter, appreciating in their old age more and more the companionship of dear friends, they spent much of their time in Houston, and Mrs. Jones died in that city, at the residence of Colonel Cornelius Ennis on December 24th, 1865. She and her husband were greatly beloved by all this family, whose younger members, in common with a few others of old friends, showed their love by endearing titles of make-believe kinship; addressing them always as “Uncle,” and “Aunty Jones.” Their devotion to each other was of a type seldom equalled—never surpassed. Each lived for the other, and both for their friends. This excellent pair, without children, by the charm of their friendliness, were made members of a family circle limited only by the number of children of their friends.
Mrs. Jones was well educated; she was gentle and dignified in manner, tall and well formed, attractive in person, and gifted with fine conversational powers. The courage and fortitude displayed during the perilous period of her first years in Texas flashed through her black eyes and were traced in the firm lines which marked the features of an unusually pleasing face. Those who knew her well had only words of praise and love for this worthy compatriot, a woman cast in heroic mould. She was a member of the Prodestant Episcopal Church, and at her death was buried in the cemetery of that church, now known as the old Episcopal and Masonic cemetery.
Oliver Jones survived his devoted wife less than one year. On September 17th, 1866, at the residence of Mrs. Sarah Merriweather, on Congress Street, Houston, Texas, he breathed his last, and was laid by the side of his wife. A graceful, Italian monolith, tall and stately, bearing a simple inscription, the name of Oliver Jones, place of birth, date of death, and a partial record of his noble service for Texas, and the name Rebecca Jones, with the date of her death, marks the place of their sepulture. 174 Honeysuckle clusters in wild profusion round the tombstones of this old-time cemetery, which lies close to the Sam Houston Park; the merry sounds of music and laughter from the latter contrasting strangely with the peaceful quiet of this resting place of the dead.
NOTES AND FRAGMENTS.
The Storming of San Antonio, December 6-9, 1835. — The following letter gives another brief, but contemporary account of the Texan assault on San Antonio in 1835. It was written to the editor of the Southern Whig, published at Athens, Georgia, and was copied from that paper by the (Columbus) Ohio Monitor, February 18, 1836:
Near Cahawba, Ala., 15th Jan. 1836.
Dear Brother:—I have just arrived at this place, direct from San Antonio, Texas, and some few particulars in relation to the storming and capture of that place may not be altogether uninteresting to you. History does not record a circumstance of the same nature, and perhaps never will another.
The Texian troops had been encamped before San Antonio near two months without effecting any thing of importance, save daily skirmishing in which nothing was lost and little gained. (I must however make an exception of the battle of Conception in which Col. James W. Fannin commanded 92 men when surprised by 400 Mexicans, who lost as has since been ascertained 104 killed, and since died of wounds, while the Texian loss was one man killed only.)
The Mexicans had 24 pieces of mounted artillery and 6 unmounted when the attack was made, which was brought on in the following manner: After giving them two months to fortify the Texian officers decided that it was impracticable and impossible to carry the fort by storm, and had issued orders for the whole army to march at sundown, with the intention of taking up winter quarters at La Bahia 100 miles to the Southward and near the coast. It was then about four o'clock, and from the noise in the camp it was apparent that a mutiny was on hand. At the time appointed to move, 300 men marched out and declared their intention of storming the fort that night. Many of the officers made speeches against the project, friends begged and entreated others not to throw away their lives foolishly, &c &c.— All was in vain; no persuasion had any weight; a great many mounted their horses and left the Camp, expecting a total defeat.— Next morning just at daylight the three hundred firm to their purpose marched to the attack headed by Col. Benjamin R. Milan who had been the principal in bringing about this manœvre. The action was severe until about ten o'clock; the Texians succeeded in getting possession of some large stone houses in which they remained four days keeping up a steady fire day and night. On the fifth night an assault was made on the fort itself, and they succeeded in driving the enemy therefrom and from the whole town with a very considerable loss, while the Texian loss was 4 killed and 15 wounded.— Among the killed was Col. Milam whose loss is severely felt throughout Texas. The Mexicans surrendered all their arms and munitions of war, amounting to 30 pieces of artillery and a large number of small arms with a large amount of ammunition for both. The Mexicans were about 1200 strong while the conquerors were not exceeding 300. The main body of Texians were lying within three quarters of a mile, and refused to assist, as they expected defeat to the last minute. There is not now an armed Mexican in the country. The above statement is strictly correct; I have a personal knowledge of all the particulars as I have the honor of being known as one of the 300. I have been in two other engagements, in one was shot through the boot, &c. in both successful. Mexicans can't stand the rifle.
I am now in this place on business, and shall return to Texas in four days.
Your Brother, &c. A. H. Jones. To Wm. E. Jones.
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTICES.
Early Days of Fort Worth (Fort Worth, Texas Printing Company, 1906, pp. 101), by Captain J. C. Terrell, is an interesting collection of stories and character sketches, largely in the gossipy vein, which will afford the reader most pleasant entertainment for a leisure hour.
The Beginnings of the True Railway Mail Service and the Work of George B. Armstrong in Founding it (The Lakeside Press, 1906, pp. 84, printed for private circulation), compiled by Geo. B. Armstrong, Jr., seeks to establish the claims of Mr. Armstrong to the credit for the organization of the American railway mail service. For this purpose an effort is made to disprove the claims that have been set up on behalf of W. A. Davis of St. Joseph, Missouri.
Indian Fights on Texas Frontier: A History of Exciting Encounters Had with Indians in Hamilton, Comanche, Brown, Erath and Adjoining Counties. By E. L. Deaton, a Texan of Pioneer Days. (C. M. Boynton, Hamilton, Texas. 1894. 8vo., paper, p. 200.)
This is made up of very readable reminiscences of little known encounters in the district mentioned, which throw some light on the struggle with the Redskins, which was a part of the life of the pioneer settlers.
F. W. H.
Under Palmetto and Pine. By J. W. Carhart, M. D. (Cincinnati: 1899.) This is a small volume of stories purporting to depict negro life and character in Texas. The author wishes, it seems, to show that the negro is capable of taking on the highest degree of culture and refinement, and that social equality is the logical outcome. The book is of indifferent literary merit; the style is weak; the characters are generally too highly idealized to be convincing or to find patient readers among those who are familiar with the negro in the South.
Chas. W. R.
2. The relation above asserted between these four tribes has not hitherto been established by ethnologists, nor do the scope and purpose of this article justify inserting here the evidence to prove it. Such evidence is not lacking, however, and will be published, it is hoped, in another place. The only essay in print on the Karankawan Indians is that by Dr. Gatschet, The Karankawa Indians, in Archælogical and Ethnological Papers of the Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Vol. I, No. 2, 1891.) Recent work in the Mexican and the Texas archives has made accessible a great deal of material unused by him.
3. Captain Manuel Ramírez de la Piszina, of Bahía del Espíritu Santo, calls them “the four nations, who, under the name of Coxanes, have been reduced. They are the Cojanes, Guapittes, Carancaguases, and Copanes” (Letter to the viceroy, Dec. 26, 1751). This is only one of several instances of this usage of the word Cujanes that might be cited.
4. A mémoire of 1699, in Margry, Découvertes et Etablissements, IV, 316; Captain Piszina, of Bahía, letter to the viceroy, Dec. 26, 1751.
5. The “dardo,” which they also used for catching fish (Mezières to Croix, Oct 7, 1779, in Memorias de Nueva España, XXVIII, 258).
6. Bandelier, The Journey of Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca (Barnes and Co. 1905), 72; Gatschet, The Karankawa Indians, 34; Hand-book of the Indians (Bureau of American Ethnology), I, 315.
7. Velasco, Díctamen Fiscal, Nov. 30, 1716, in Memorias de Nueva España, XXVII, 182. This statement is made by Velasco on the basis of De León's own report. See Carta de Damian Manzanet (The Quarterly, II, 301), and De Leon, Derrotero, 1690.
8. Margry, Découvertes et Etablissements, VI, 354.
9. Peña's diary of the Aguayo expedition calls him José Ramón, but authentic documents written at Loreto at the time of Ramón's death call him Domingo Ramón (Autos fechos en la Bahía de el espíritu Santo sobre. . . . muertes, 1723-1724. Original MS. Archivo General.
10. Diary, in Memorias de Nueva España, XXVIIII, 57-58.
11. Autos sobre muertes, etc., 1723-1724.
12. Ibid. In 1728 Rivera reported that the Cujanes, Cocos, Guapites, and Carancaguases were hostile to Bahía (Proyecto, Tercero Estado, Par. 42). In 1730 Governor Bustillo y Zevallos wrote to the viceroy that a treaty had been made with Cujanes, Guapites, and Carancaguases, and that he hoped that the Copanes and Cocos would soon join them (Letter of Nov. 29, 1730). Testimony given at Bahía Nov. 20, 1749, states that Captain Orobio y Basterra had succeeded for some time in keeping the Cocos Cujanes, and Orcoquizas quiet (Béxar Archives, Bahía, 1743-1778).
13. Bancroft (North Mexican States and Texas, edition of 1886, I, 631), on the authority of Morfi, lays the blame upon the soldiers. So did Governor Almazán, who investigated the trouble in 1723 (Autos sobre muertes, 1723-1724).
14. Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas, edition of 1886, I, 631.
15. Father Juan de Dios Maria Camberos, missionary at Bahía, wrote to the viceroy May 30, 1754, that “these Indians already mentioned [the Cujanes, Guapites, and Carancaguases] do not wish to leave the neigh-borhood of la Bahía del Espíritu Santo, where their lands are, nor is it proper that they should be put with the Jaranames and Tamiques, who are in the mission called Espíritu Santo at said Bahía, since they are of different languages, incompatible dispositions, and do not like to be in their company.” Solís, in his Diario (1768), reports that the Jaranames and their associates are “en mas politica” than the Karankawans (Memorias de Nueva España, XXVII, 265).
16. Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas, I, 631, on the authority of Morfi, Mem. Hist. Tex., 195. The presidio was removed after Apr. 8, 1724, and apparently before the close of Governor Almazán's term in 1726, but I have been unable to determine the exact date.
17. This new site was later reported as fourteen leagues northwest from Bahía del Espíritu Santo (Report of Captain Orobio y Basterra, of Bahía, 1747) and about ten leagues northwest of the later site of Bahía, or modern Goliad (Capt. Manuel Ramírez de la Piszina to the viceroy, Feb. 18, 1750). Mr. H. J. Passmore, of Goliad, informs me that at the lower end of Mission Valley, and close to the Guadalupe River, “near some slight falls, or what some think was an old dam in the River, and near what was known as the `De Leon Crossing,' ” there were, within the memory of the old settlers, some fairly well preserved ruins of a mission, whose name none in his locality can tell him. The distances of this point from the original site of Bahía and from Goliad correspond very well with those given above.
18. Santa Ana, president of the Querétaran Missions at San Antonio, to the viceroy, about May 22, 1752.
19. Letters to the viceroy, June 17 and Dec. 20, 1751.
20. San Xavier, Candelaria, San Ildefonso.
21. Founded in January and February, 1762. Expediente, sobre establecimento de Misiones en la immediacion del Presidio de Sn. Savas (Archivo General), 94, 103, 112.
22. Testimonio de los Diligencias practicadas . . . sobre la reduccion de los Yndios Tehuacanas e Yscanis a Mision, 1761-1763 (Béxar Archives).
23. Bancroft, Mexico, III, 332- 342; Reconocimiento del Seno Mexicano hecho por el Theniente de Capn. Gral. Dn. Joseph de Escandón, 1746-1747 (MS.), in the Archivo General.
24. Escandón's report to the viceroy of Oct. 26, 1747, and of July 27, 1758. MSS. in the Archivo General.
25. Reconocimiento del Seno Mexicano, folios 40-44, 85, 88, 110, 216; also Valcarcel to the viceroy, Feb. 1, 1758. The tribal names here given are those reported by Orobio y Basterra for the vicinity of the Nueces. I have not thus far attempted to identify the tribes with those of the region going under better-known names.
26. Report of Escandón Oct. 26, 1747; Valcarcel to the viceroy, Feb. 1, 1758.
27. Cf. Escandón's report, July 27, 1758, again urging the colonization of this whole strip of country.
28. Summary by Camberos, missionary at this time in Bahía.
29. Piszina to the viceroy, Dec. 26, 1751; Camberos to the viceroy, May 30, 1754.
30. Father Dolores, missionary at San Antonio, to Father Gonzales, missionary at Espíritu Santo, June 17, 1751.
31. The plan evidently had in view the “Puxanes and others clear to the Rio Grande del Norte” (Santa Ana to the viceroy, Jan. 31, 1752).
32. Santa Ana to the viceroy, Dec. 20, 1751.
33. Ibid.
34. His request was apparently made in 1750. Santa Ana to the viceroy, undated, but about March 22, 1752.
35. Santa Ana to the viceroy, Dec. 2, 1751; Gonzales to Dolores, Apr. 13, 1751; Dolores to Santa Ana, Oct. 26, 1751.
36. Santa Ana to the viceroy, Dec. 20, 1751.
37. Dolores to Gonzales, June 17, 1751.
38. This pomise is inferred from Santa Ana's letter of Dec. 20, 1751.
39. In his letter to the viceroy Dec. 26, 1751, Captain Piszina calls them “fifty-four Indians of the Coxan nation”; but in the same letter he says that the four recently reduced tribes going under the name of Coxan are the “Cojanes, Guapittes, Carancguases, and Copanes.” Hence we may infer that these fifty-four were not exclusively Cujanes, although they were called by this name.
40. Gonzales to Dolores, Apr. 3, 1751; Dolores to Santa Ana, Oct. 26, 1751; Santa Ana to the viceroy, Dec. 20, 1756; Piszina to the viceroy, Dec. 26, 1751. Piszina said that they were taken to Bahía at the end of March, but Gonzales's letter of Apr. 13 is more reliable for the date, because nearer the event and more explicit.
41. Gonzales to Dolores, Apr. 13, 1751; Piszina to the viceroy, Dec. 26, 1751. This last assertion casts doubt upon any claim the Bahía authorities might make to have previously tried to take these Indians there.
42. Dolores to Gonzales, June 17, 1751.
43. Ibid.
44. Gonzales to Dolores, May 22, 1751, referred to in Ibid.
45. Ibid.
46. Dolores to the discretorio, undated; to Santa Ana, Oct. 26, 1751.
47. Santa Ana to the viceroy, Dec. 20, 1751; Jan. 31, 1752; March 22.
48. Ibid.
49. Dictamen fiscal, Oct. 2, 1752; Auditor's opinion, Oct. 9, 1752; Viceroy's decree, Oct. 10, 1752.
50. Dolores to Santa Ana, Oct. 26, 1751; Piszina to the viceroy, Dec. 26, 1751 (Piszina, referring to the fifty-four, said they remained two and one-half months); Santa Ana to the viceroy, Jan. 31, 1752.
51. Altamira to the viceroy, Feb. 29, 1752.
52. Andreu to the viceroy.
53. Dec. 26, 1751; Dec. 31, 1753, and another mentioned in this last.
54. Piszina to the viceroy, Dec. 30, 1753; Camberos to the viceroy, May 30, 1754. It is inferred from the context that Piszina's letter here recited was sent by Camberos to the viceroy.
55. The original commission, with sea 1 is in the Archivo General de Mexico.
56. Father Vallejo, of Adaes, maintained that the distance was nearly twenty leagues. Letter to the discretorio of his college, Dec. 1, 1754.
57. Camberos to the viceroy Apr. 29, May 6, May 7, and May 31.
58. Andreu to the viceroy, May 2, 1754.
59. This name was sometimes written Aijitos, but it was intended for the diminutive of Ais, and when spelled with an x was pronounced, no doubt, “Aisitos.”
60. Camberos to the viceroy, May 30, 1754.
61. Summary contained in the communication of the discretorio to the viceroy, Jan. 6, 1755.
62. Vallejo to Governor Barrios y Jauregui, Nov. 20, 1754; the governor to Vallejo, Nov. 30, 1754. The president's name was sometimes spelled with a B and sometimes with a V.
63. Fray Francisco Vallejo to the guardian and the discretorio of the college, Dec. 1, 1754.
64. The discretorio of the college to the viceroy, January 6, 1755.
65. Andreu to the viceroy, March 6, 1755.
66. Valcarcel to the viceroy, March 22; viceroy decree, Apr. 7.
67. Letter of Camberos, May 26 1958.
68. It is not clear when the missionary from Los Ais went to Rosario to assist Camberos. But that he did go before May 27, 1757, appears from a letter of that date. Strangely, however, the correspondence in several instances speaks of the missionary in the singular, and while Camberos commends Captain Piszia for his co-operatin, he mentions no ecclesiastical associate. (The discretorio to the viceroy, May 27, 1757; opinion of Valcarcel, Feb. 1, 1758; report to the junta de guerra, Apr. 17, 1758; Juan Martín de Astíz to the viceroy, on or before June 21, 1758.)
69. See page 134.
70. Piszina to the viceroy, Jan. 15.
71. The discretorio of the college to the viceroy, May 27, 1757.
72. Solís, Diario, 1767-1768. Memorias, XXVII, 258. See page 137.
73. Camberos to the viceroy, May 26, 1758.
74. Memorias, XXVII, 256, 266; Aranda to the viceroy, July 19, 1758.
75. See ante, page 133.
76. Memorias de Nueva España, XXVII, 264.
77. Carta dirigida á la carte de España, Dec. 27, 1793.
78. From what I can learn, it seems probable that the buildings at Goliad whose remains are now called “Mission Aranama” were connected with the presidio of Bahia rather than with a mission.
79. Piszina to the viceroy, Dec. 22, 1756; Camberos, May 26, 1758.
80. Piszina to the viceroy, Nov. 10, 1755, and Dec. 22, 1756.
81. Letter dated May 23, 1758.
82. Piszina to the viceroy, Dec. 22, 1756.
83. The discretorio to the viceroy, May 27, 1757.
84. See page 128.
85. Letters to the viceroy, Jan. 15, 1755, Nov. 10, 1755; Dec. 22, 1756.
86. The discretorio to the viceroy, May 27, 1757 (At the end of 1755 the college sent an agent to the viceroy in person to urge haste in the matter); Barrios y Jauregui to the viceroy, Aug. 26, 1757; Letter to Camberos, May 26, 1756.
87. Report of the junta, in the Archivo General, original MS. The discussion of the question by the government may be found in communications of Aranda to the viceroy, Jan. 24, 1758; Aranda to the viceroy, March 10, 1757; Valcarcel to the viceroy, Apr. 5, 1757; Valcarcel to the viceroy, Feb. 1, 1758; report of the junta de guerra, Apr. 17, 1758.
88. In 1768 an investigation was made at this mission as a result of the flight of some of the Carancaguases, with the result that charges of harsh dealing with the neophytes were reported to the government at Mexico.
89. In the MS. this man's name is spelled Ganuza, Lamuza and Lanuza. His name is not given in Schmidt's Catalogue of Franciscan Missions.
90. See note ante, p. 136.
91. Solís, Diario, in Memorias de Nueva Espana, XXVII, 256-259.
92. Gammel, Laws of Texas, I 13, 34.
93. Holley, Texas, 109.
94. Publications of the Southern History Association, VIII 20, 21.
95. Telegraph, October 17, 1835.
96. Consultations Papers MS. All MSS. to which reference are made are on file in the Texas State Library, unless otherwise stated.
97. Address of General Council to People of Texas, October 18, 1835, in Telegraph, October 26, 1835.
98. Consultation Papers MS.
99. Consultation Papers MS.
100. Journals of the Consultation, 5.
101. Journal of the General Council, in the Quarterly, VII 260.
102. Ibid., VII 265.
103. Comprehensive History of Texas, I 546, 549.
104. MS Journal of the Consultation.
105. Article XVII of Plan of the Provisional Government, in Journal of the Consultation, 47.
106. Art. XIII of the Plan of the Provisional Government, in Journal of the Consultation, 46.
107. Baker, Texas Scrap-Book, 656.
108. Journal of the Proceedings of the General Council, 14, 15.
109. The Quarterly, X 96.
110. Journal of the Proceedings of the General Council, 20, 21.
111. Journal of the Proceedings of the General Council, 21.
An interesting sidelight is thrown upon this subject of removal in the following extract from a communication to the Telegraph of November 21, 1835: “Again there are others who say, `Let the seat of government be established at any other place than San Felipe. But what has poor San Felipe done to merit the displeasure of these members? Why, in good sooth, there happens to be no corn, at present, to feed the horses of the members, and other accommodations not good, the want of offices, etc. As to the first objection, it is easily answered, as you, Messrs. Editors, can testify. A want of corn and other necessaries, at this time, is occasioned entirely by the absence of men and teams from the vicinity of San Felipe. Perhaps the people, in no section of the country, have furnished more men and teams, in proportion to the inhabitants, than has the settlement nearest to San Felipe. It is well known that within a day's ride of the place, there is an abundance of corn, and potatoes, and everything requisite to furnish a good table; but they are not available, because the owners have gone where duty called them. In short, no help is to be had. The same argument might be offered for the scarcity of servants at the taverns at San Felipe. And would not the same difficulties be felt at other places? Flour and other luxuries brought from abroad might be more readily procured at Velasco or Matagorda, but they would be proportionally more difficult to obtain at Washington. As to offices, I presume they might be obtained at San Felipe, as readily as at any other place. It is true, the Convention hall is not sufficiently large for the number of delegates elect; but the citizens, it is thought, will accommodate the different departments with suitable rooms for our different officers.”
112. Journal of the Proceedings of the General Council, 37, 38.
113. Ibid., 43.
114. Holley, History of Texas, 118.
115. Ordinances and Decrees of the Consultation, Provisional Government of Texas and the Convention which assembled at Washington March 1, 1836, p. 76; Journal of the Proceedings of the General Council, 106.
116. Journal of the Proceedings of the General Council, 356, 357.
117. Texas Almanac for 1860, p. 51.
118. House Jouranl, 1 Tex. Cong., 1 Sess., 13.
119. Rusk joined the army April 6.—Brown, History of Texas, II 8.
120. Telegraph, September 6, 1836.
121. April 14 or 15. See: Delgado, Battle of San Jacinto, 32.
122. “Sometimes, when Texas was a moving mass of fugitives, they [the government] have been without a “local habitation” and scattered to the cardinal points: again they have been on Galveston Island, without shelter, and almost without subsistence,” . . . (Burnet's first message to congress, House Journal, 1 Tex. Cong., 1 Sess., 18.)
It was, perhaps, about this time that President Burnet received the letter from the Nacogdoches Committee of Vigilance, dated April 6, 1836, stating “that under the present exigencies of the Country the most eligible place for the Seat of Government is Nacogdoches, and [that the committee has been appointed] to invite You and all the Officers of the Government to make this Your temporary residence.” They set forth the healthfulness of the place, the good accommodations, the ample supplies, and above all the certain, safe and speedy communication with the United States. “Besides it appears to us that in the progress of the war You may be cut off from communication with the army. That they must rally in the woodlands is obvious, and in so doing they approach us and become more remote from your present position” [Harrisburg]. (Seat of Government Papers MS.)
“There was then but one small house on the island.” (See: Brown, History of Texas, II 55).
123. For the details of this episode, see Geo. M. Patrick to D. G. Burnet, in Telegraph, April 7, 1838.
124. David G. Burnet to the People of Texas, in Telegraph, September 6, 1836.
125. David G. Burnet to the People of Texas, in Telegraph, September 6, 1836.
126. Before the President and Cabinet left Camp San Jacinto, when it became apparent that General Houston would have to visit New Orleans to receive proper medical attention, Rusk was appointed to Houston's place and M. B. Lamar appointed to Rusk's place. . . .
127. “On the 4th or 5th of May, our army took up a line of march to the west.”—Telegraph, January 27, 1837; “May 5th, 1836, the President and cabinet, General Houston and Santa Anna and Suite, proceeded on the steamboat Yellowstone to Galveston.”—Brown, History of Texas, II 55.
128. David G. Burnet to the People of Texas, in Telegraph, September 6 and 13, 1836.
129. May 8, 1836.—Brown, History of Texas, II 55.
130. David G. Burnet to the People of Texas, in Telegraph, September 6 and 13, 1836.
131. Holley, History of Texas, 121, 122.
132. House Journal, 1 Tex. Cong., 1 Sess., 18.
133. Holley, History of Texas, 113.
134. The experience of Texas during the first year of its existence as an independent power bears abundant testimony to the fact that popular government can not be carried on without the aid of the press. A means of regular communication between the government and the governed is essential to the comfort and welfare of both. “The fact,” says President Burnet, “that we have heretofore been deprived of the benefits of a Press, the great vehicle of truth and error, is a prominent feature among the many difficulties and embarrassments that have compassed our path from the beginning, and I am persuaded it has contributed much to the censures that have been so liberally bestowed on the present Executive Government.” (Telegraph, September 6, 1836.) “The situation of our country from the 15th of May till the 1st of August, for the want of a medium for disseminating information is well known, and was by many seriously felt. The operations of government not known by the army and people—reports magnified—want of confidence in the government, which perhaps was in a great measure, attributable to the want of information.” (Editorial in Telegraph, January 27, 1837.)
135. MSS. 1 Tex. Cong., 1 Sess. State Department.
136. Senate Journal, 1 Tex. Cong., 1 Sess., October 11, p. 15; Telegraph, November 9, 1836.
137. “The accommodations were meager in every respect, but there was available a commodious house (for that day), with large rooms on the ground floor, separated by a wide hallway, with other rooms for committee and clerical purposes. Each house occupied one of the large rooms. This house at first accommodated the government only in part, other houses being also utilized.”—Brown, History of Texas, II 99, 100.
“The different governmental bodies of Texas, as the Consultation, the Provisional Government, and the Government ad interim, had met at various points in small frame buildings or shanties, and when the first congress of the Constitutional Government assembled at Columbia, each house had to occupy a small frame building.”—Lubbock, Memoirs, 48.
138. On October 11th, the senate appointed a committee to confer with the committee of arrangements for the purpose of procuring the rooms contiguous to the senate chamber for the use of the different senate committees. When cold weather set in, the senate despatched their door-keeper to Brazoria for a stove. The house of representatives, on November 4th, ordered the “two rooms occupied by the auditor and comptroller, which had been appropriated by the committee of arrangements for the use of this house to be cleared for the special use of the officers and members of this house.” They also suffered from cold.—Senate Journal, 1 Tex. Cong., 1 Sess., 15, 65; House Journal, 1 Tex. Cong., 121, 180.
139. October 27th, Mr. Wharton moved to allow the president and his private secretaries to retain possession of their rooms during the secret sessions of the senate; . . . which motion was lost.—Senate Journal, 1 Tex. Cong., 1 Sess., 33.
The State Department occupied a small clapboard shedroom, without fire, which in addition served as Austin's bedroom and office. It was the exposure to which he was subjected while working here that brought on the illness that terminated his life.—Comprehensive History of Texas, I 590.
140. “Agreeably to a resolution adopted this morning by the house of representatives,” writes a correspondent of the Telegraph for November 9, 1836, “a notification has been given to the secretary of the navy, auditor, and controller of public accounts, to vacate the rooms occupied by them, for the accommodation of the clerks of the house; consequently these officers are compelled to suspend business until other rooms can be procured. The rapidly increasing number of certificates of discharged soldiers, and the constant presentation of claims to be audited, imperiously require that the business of the officers of auditor and controller should not be suspended. The number of persons in the service of the government, and the representatives of both houses, besides the influx of strangers visiting the place, is considerable, and affords a handsome revenue to the citizens of this place. I would then, Mr. Editor, suggest to the citizens of Columbia, the propriety of endeavoring to procure houses or rooms for the public business, with as little delay as possible; otherwise, the government will be necessarily compelled to remove to Brazoria, or elsewhere, to meet accommodations to suit their exigencies.”
141. See page 158 above for a list of the rooms promised. Perhaps only those marked (V) had been placed at the service of the government at this time. The whole expense of providing accommodations appears to have fallen upon the citizens, as congress made no offer to rent buildings. See Telegraph, November 9, 1836, and December 13, 1836.
142. MS. Messages of 1 Tex. Cong., 1 Sess. State Department.
143. Senate Journal, 1 Tex. Cong., 1 Sess., 39.
144. House Journal, 1 Tex. Cong., 1 Sess., 131.
145. Senate Journal, 1 Tex. Cong., 1 Sess., 49; House Journal, 1 Tex. Cong., 1 Sess., 146.
146. House Journal, 1 Tex. Cong., 1 Sess., 147; Flavel, Report of the Proceedings of the House of Representatives, 134.
147. House Journal, 1 Tex. Cong., 1 Sess., 150, 168; Senate Journal, 1 Tex. Cong., 1 Sess., 58, 62.
148. MS. 1 Tex. Cong., 1 Sess. State Department.
149. MS. 1 Tex. Cong., 1 Sess. State Department.
150. No boat had as yet ascended Buffalo Bayou to the prospective site of the city of Houston.
151. Seat of Government Papers. Broadside.
152. San Jacinto was the name proposed for the seat of government should it be located at Groce's Retreat.
153. House Journal, 1 Tex. Cong., 1 Sess., 211.
154. The House Journal, 211-213, gives the names of the persons voting for each place at each ballot.
155. Jones, Republic of Texas, 18, 19; cf. statement of Thomas J. Rusk, in Weeks, Debates of the Texas Convention [1845], 206, and Thos. J. Green, Reply to the Speech of Sam Houston, delivered in U. S. Senate, Aug. 1, 1854, p. 60.
156. For a brief sketch of A. C. &J. K. Allen, see Lubbock, Memoirs, 45.
157. Falvel, Report of the Proceedings of the House of Representatives, 1 Tex. Cong., 1 Sess., 157.
158. See paragraph three of the advertisement above.
159. Lubbock, Memoirs, 46.
160. Statement of James S. Holman, agent for the proprietors of the town site, in Telegraph, August 12, 1837.
161. Telegraph, March 17, 1838.
162. President's Message, in House Journal, 1 Tex. Cong., 1 Sess., 44, 47.
163. Telegraph, March 21, 1837.
164. Telegraph, May 2, 1837.
165. “The demands on our Treasury, since the adjournment of Congress, have been great, without the means of meeting them,” . . .—President's Message, May 5, 1837.
166. Lubbock, Memoirs, 47, 54; Telegraph, May 2, 1837.
167. “Mr. Branch read further proposals from Mr. Allen binding himself in the sum of ten thousand dollars, or such bond as Government may require, that all necessary buildings for congress, and the clerks shall be erected by the first of April, 1837.”—Falvel, Report of the Proceedings of the House of Representatives, Nov. 21, 1836, p. 161.
168. Page 163 above.
169. House Journal, 1 Tex. Cong., 2 Sess., 1; Senate Journal, 1 Tex. Cong., 2 Sess., 1.
170. Quoted by Lubbock, in his Memoirs, 53.
171. House Journal, 1 Tex. Cong., 2 Sess., 20.
172. Senate Journal, 1 Tex. Cong., 2 Sess., 10.
173. House Journal, 1 Tex. Cong., 2 Sess., 51.
174. When, a few years ago, the Historian of the Daughters of the Republic of Texas informed Mr. David N. Harris of Wallis, that the memorial erected to his grand-uncle in the old Episcopal and Masonic Cemetery was falling to decay, he immediately authorized its restoration at his expense. At that time, at the instance of the Historian of the Society mentioned above, a brief record of Oliver Jones' service to Texas was added to the inscription already existing. An error in the inscription gives the place of his birth as Connecticut, when, according to the most reliable information, it should have been New York City.
How to cite:
"Issue View", Volume 010, Number 2, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online. http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v010/n2/issue.html
[Accessed Mon Nov 23 9:37:02 CST 2009]
