Vol. XI. JANUARY, 1908. No. 3.
The publication committee and the editors disclaim responsibility for views expressed by contributors to The Quarterly.
General Mason's interest in the colonization of Texas began, apparently, in 1830, upon the organization of the Galveston Bay and Texas Land Company, in the city of New York, in which he was a scripholder. The trustees of the company were Amos Dey, William H. Sumner, and George Curtis, who were the attorneys of Lorenzo de Zavala, Joseph Vehlein, and David G. Burnet, “Empresarios for colonizing Texas in the department of Nacogdoches.” In 1831, General Mason accepted the position of confidential agent of the company, to visit Mexico in its behalf and to transact all the business required in colonizing the grants of the empresarios.
Handsome in person and courtly in manners, with fine literary and classical attainments, General Mason was well equipped in more than one respect for the delicate and difficult negotiations he was about to undertake. And, as he reminded the company later, he “possessed advantages of position,” both in the United States and in Mexico, “from friendships and intimacies of a personal and political character which few could occupy.” He had inherited the friendships of his father, an early ornament of the United States Senate; he had shared the intimacies of his brother, also a Virginia Senator, and one of the most popular men of his State, and he was already, in the early thirties, a well-known figure in Washington's political and social circles. In New York, the business metropolis, as Washington was the political capital of the Union, General Mason was equally at home, his wide acquaintance at these two centres thus embracing the leading men of his time. He had been employed, with other gentlemen as his associates, in conferences with the Seneca Indians of New York, with whom that State had treaties, his office of Superintendent of Indian Affairs in Michigan giving him a large acquaintance with this subject. Later, under Tyler's administration, he was to attempt for the Indians of the South—the Cherokees—what he had essayed for those of the North, employing all his abilities to secure to the ill-used red men their treaty rights.
As an able lawyer, moreover, General Mason's services were especially valúable to the colonization company whose attorney he now became. Unfortunately, his letters to the trustees in 1831, 1832, 1833, and 1834, up to the date of the resignation of his agency, can not now be found. A list of them only is among his papers. But several of the letters of the company to General Mason are extant.
The first of these, written before his final acceptance of the trust, is endorsed “Instructions, Private,” and is dated “New York, April 6, 1831.” General Mason had, apparently, submitted his “views” on a subject probably discussed by him orally with the trustees of the company, the question of “the purchase of the Texas by the United States.” This letter is a most interesting paper and unfolds the hopes and expectations of the company, doubtless shared already by many other Americans, that Texas should become a part of the Union. The “jurisdiction,” the trustees write to General Mason, is “essentially necessary to the security of the free navigation of the Mississippi and the great interests of the Western States which depend upon it.” The writer adds: “The geographical situation of Texas is such that its long continuance under the Mexican government is not to be expected, and Great Britain is the only country, besides our own, which would have any great political object in its possession.” The company believed that the “jurisdiction” of this portion of Mexico—“the Texas”—where two-thirds of the territory was already granted to individuals and companies, many persons in the United States being interested in these grants, would be an object most desirable, and they proposed to offer to the Mexican government the following concession for this purpose: “Desirous as we are,” they say, “both from public and private considerations, that an attempt to obtain it [the jurisdiction] should be made on the part of the United States *** we have upon mature consideration determined that we will set an example of liberality in relinquishing one-half part of our grant in consideration of the security which would, in the event of a successful issue to the negotiation, be afforded to the other. If the same example should be followed by the other grantees, the Government by a treaty of cession would acquire about two-third parts of the territorial right of Texas and the jurisdiction of the whole.” The four grants of the Galveston Bay and Texas Land Company were estimated as containing over twenty millions of acres. The letter continues: “If the other grantees will be equally open, reserving to themselves only one-half of their grants, and ceding the other to Mexico with a view to its acquisition by the United States, we do not hesitate to say that, under our jurisdiction, for the land which the United States Government would acquire by the treaty of cession, the sum of ten millions of dollars would be a compensation which our company, we think, upon proper time of payment, would willingly pay for the right of soil only. If you think the Administration would be likely to entertain a negotiation on this basis, you are authorized to propose it in our behalf before your departure for Mexico. *** We beg leave to suggest for your consideration that the Mexican Government or any other might make up a determination to cede a part of its uninhabited territory without feeling that it subjected itself to the imputation of national disgrace. But as the territory in question has a considerable population to which 6000 emigrants have lately been added, mostly from the United States, we apprehend it may be desirable with the Government of Mexico, that the colony should petition it, or in some form or other express its assent to the cession.” In reference to the eleventh article of the decree of April 6, 1830, which prohibited the colonization of the border States of Mexico by immigrants from adjacent countries, and which was intended especially to prevent further entry into Texas by colonists from the United States, the “Instructions” say: “Mexico places the United States in the light of enemies, and so we find our citizens are now considered in every part of that country but Texas. Whether this is consistent with the honor of our country and ought any longer to be submitted to, it is for our Government to determine. * * * Before your return from Washington on your way to Detroit, we will endeavour to prepare suitable powers of attorney predicated on the above basis for your government, in case you shall have reason to suppose the plan will be acceptable to the National Administration and undertake the mission; for without their co-operation all our expectations would be fruitless. Nor will we engage in the business at all, as it must necessarily paralyze the objects of colonizing our grants from Europe to which our efforts are now directed, unless you shall be of opinion that the articles we propose will meet with the support of the Administration in the ratification as well as the formation of the treaty.” The articles were two in number, one as to the grants of the company and the other as to grants of Exter and Willson, for whom the company were trustees. They provided that so many acres be confirmed to the company of the “border grants by the United Mexican Government, in consideration of said trustees having relinquished the residue of their interest therein to the United Mexican States.”
It will be seen that this was a semi-political mission, and General Mason was to be not only the agent of the company, but he was to be, unofficially, the representative also of the United States Government, if the administration assented to the company's suggestions. The President, Andrew Jackson, was General Mason's personal friend and likely to listen to his representations. Among the manuscripts in the Congressional Library is a lengthy memorandum addressed to General Jackson, covering the subject of Texas lands, probably prepared at this time. The letter of the company already quoted goes on to say:
On your way through Texas we advise you to confer confidentially with Colonel Austin, whose concurrence in the course proposed we think would be important to the success of the negotiation, and to open yourself to General Teran, the chief of the Department, as far as you deem it expedient. The expression of their opinion to their Government in favour of the cession as a measure of national expediency, would have great weight with it; and no persons are better acquainted with the fact that from the vast influx of settlers the lands will soon be taken up, and that thereby the territorial value of Texas to the United States is daily diminishing. Backed by their assurances that such is the fact, the Government of Mexico will see that now she can more fully replenish her exhausted coffers of her exhausted treasury than at any future time, and thus relieve herself from the necessity of forced loans which will surely overthrow in the end any administration which resorts to them. You will also endeavour to see our friend, Colonel Mexia, who went to Saltillo, and may be there if he has not arrived at Galveston. * * * In case of undertaking the agency, you will consider the views herein expressed as your guide relating to the subject matter of them and will govern yourself accordingly. * * * We shall expect to hear from you as often as possible and your communications shall be strictly and exclusively confidential—in the breasts of your friends, who in closing their address have the honour to subscribe themselves, [etc., etc.]
General Mason wrote to the company from New York June 18, and from Washington July 2, and he was soon after en route for the City of Mexico, from which place he dated a letter to the company on the 26th of December, 1831. To two of his young daughters, then in Detroit, General Mason wrote Christmas greetings, December 25, in which he described the manners and customs of the Mexicans in very entertaining letters. He says of himself: “And now that I sit down to say something to you I am at a loss where to begin in my journey or what to describe that would be new and interesting; for I have traveled so far and seen so many strange sights that it would require a history instead of a letter to contain a just and intelligible account of them.” He tells of the opera, an Italian company then playing every night, where he had been about a half dozen times, “and then I went more to see the population, dress, manners, etc., of the fashionables than from any great pleasure I took in it. Yet it is much admired; and an admirable Italian company have been imported by the Government to amuse the people; and, as in the days of Roman tyranny, to divert them from the misrule of those in power.” He writes of the fashionable promenade of the Alameda and of the drive for horsemen and carriages, the Paseo, and describes Mexico as “a very magnificent city but the filthiest in the world.” The American Christmas drink was to be found in one house, at least, as General Mason relates: “I have just returned from taking a drink of eggnog with Mr. Offutt and Mr. Whiting, two old Kentucky acquaintances, who live here and keep a splendid Hotel, at which they are making a fortune. They keep a house in the fashion of our country; a Mexican never thinks it necessary for the comfort of a traveler to have a bed, and such a thing is not to be found in a tavern or a private house in the interior of the country. A feather bed is unknown and never seen here; a cot, a wool mattress or a plank to lie on is considered a luxury, and except on the road to Vera Cruz, which foreigners travel so much, you find not even these comforts.”
A letter to the company was written from Mexico, January 20, 1832, and one March 5 to one of the daughters at home. In the latter General Mason writes of the novelties that would amuse or instruct his young correspondent. And he touches upon the religious bigotry of the Mexicans. “All Protestant foreigners are called Jews and are denied even the rights of burial. When Gen. Wilkinson died here they would not suffer him to be buried, and after keeping his body in his house for a week, one of his friends had to bribe a good Catholic to go to a priest and swear he belonged to their church to get his body under ground.” He notes the great contrasts between the higher and lower classes; “their habits and manners are from the lowest order of our Indians to the stile and elegance of Parisian France.” The letter concludes with the following glimpse of General Mason's participation in the social life of the gay Mexican capital: “I have never seen anywhere dinners so grand as among the rich here, nor any that were more agreeable from the novelty of the stile and the easy and polished manners of the host and hostess. By the way, I am just reminded by the striking of the clock it is time to go to one for which I have an engagement today.”
Among General Mason's papers is one written while he was in the City of Mexico at this time, addressed to “Don Lucas Alaman, Secretary of State and of Dispatch,” and endorsed: “Memorial, Presented to the Secretary of State of Mexico, on the subject of the grants of Burnet, Vehlein and Zavala by J. T. M., March, 1832.” It is an able legal argument designed to prove—what had been denied by the enemies of the company—that the right to introduce settlers within the limits of their grants could lawfully be conveyed by the empresarios, Burnet, Vehlein and Zavala to their trustees, General Mason signing himself “Agent for the Empresarios and their associates.” There followed then a correspondence, which is also preserved, between General Mason, “Agent of the Galveston Bay and Texas Land Company and General Teran, the Land Commissioner of the Federal Mexican Government, for the colonization of Texas.” According to the instructions of the company, General Mason had sought an interview with General Terán 2 and these letters passed between them soon after. The first from General Mason is dated “Hacienda del Cojo, State of Taumalipas, May 28, 1832.” General Terán's reply, of which a translation is given, is dated “Headquarters, Buena Vista del Cojo, May 29, 1832.” General Mason's rejoinder, May 30, and a second letter from General Terán of the same date closed the correspondence. In General Mason's second letter he expressed his gratification at the opinion General Terán had enunciated “that the right of the Empresarios Burnet, Vehlein and Zavala to proceed in the colonization of their grants is unquestionable, and that no obstacle will be presented to the introduction of families by themselves or attornies, provided they conform in all respects to the law of the 6th of April, 1830.” Other points upon which General Mason solicited the views of the Land Commissioner were to be determined only, wrote General Terán, by the Governor of the State of Coahuila and Texas. And General Terán's last word as to the status of the company was not altogether satisfactory: “My respectable sir: I reply to your note answering mine of yesterday, the expression that Messrs. Burnet, Vehlein and Zavala reserve their rights as Empresarios to colonize under the contracts made by them with the Governor of the State, does not in any manner comprehend the company which they formed in New York; for the transactions which they entered into to form said company contravene the laws of colonization, and this is a question of right the resolution of which is still pending.” General Mason wrote to the company from “Leona Vicario,” May 11, his last letter from Mexico, and his next report to them was made in New York in July.
The company sent General Mason a letter of instructions, which is extant, dated November 9, 1832. In this paper General Mason has his attention called “to the defective powers” under which the trustees acted. As the special agent of the company, General Mason was furnished with a letter of attorney from the empresarios substituting him as “the representative of those empresarios with as full powers as this instrument” conferred on the trustees. So letters are sent to each one of these gentlemen, Burnet, Vehlein and Zavala, with powers of attorney and contracts in the Spanish language for them to sign, and General Mason is authorized to sign for the trustees. He is to see that all legal formalities, according to Spanish codes, are complied with, “and if any doubt exists as to the mode of accomplishing this, you will consult counsel learned in the law,” the letter adds.
It was thought essential to their success in colonizing the grants that an agent should reside on each grant, and General Mason was instructed to select and appoint these agents and also to fix their compensation. Also upon him devolved the duty of instructing the agents and assigning them “their duties and modes of proceeding in the reception of colonists and the issuing of titles, until instructions upon these subjects can be given by us; which they must understand will be paramount.” No one is to be admitted as a colonist unless possessed of the scrip of the company, or having the written permission of the trustees. “But this restriction in the reception of colonists does not apply to those who may have entered the country and settled within these grants previous to the appointment of these agents; with these another course must be observed.” This was an important and difficult subject and was to rest almost entirely upon General Mason's judgment “after having seen the country and the people, and informed yourself of their particular situation and claims to land.” The letter continues:
As you have already claimed for the Empresarios the premium land for these settlers and the question is yet in suspense before the Governor of the State, we advise that you prosecute that claim to a favorable decision; and in the event of the failure of a negotiation for the fee simple estate, to ask for a contract for an additional number of families and an extension of time for compliance. *** But the important charge committed to you remains to be explained. You are authorized to enter into a negotiation for the acquisition of the fee simple title in all the lands (not already appropriated) comprehended in the boundaries of the contracts of Zavala, Vehlein and Burnet, and to apply to the success of this object a fund not exceeding one hundred thousand dollars, of which you have a discretionary power to use five thousand dollars in the scrip of the company, which must be taken into account in the use of the general fund. *** You will observe that the directors contemplate two modes by which to acquire this estate; one by securing a fee under the stipulations of a treaty that may be negotiated for a cession of Texas to the United States; the other by a direct purchase of the fee from the State of Coahuila and Texas. In the event of obtaining the fee simple estate by either mode, you are authorized to use this fund according to a letter of credit herewith furnished you. *** Now we are aware that this is no easy task, and that it will require all your efforts for success, but we rely upon your perseverence in removing obstacles and surmounting difficulties. That many present themselves at this moment is obvious, and that others may arise is more than probable. So far as they are seen we will make to you some suggestions for your guidance and information.
At the threshold we are met by the objection that we are aliens and by the Mexican law cannot hold real estate in that country. To be naturalized requires domiciliation; and it is neither practicable nor desirable for us to change our allegiance. How, then, can we be clothed with authority to hold real estate in a foreign land? It is a rule of law applicable to all civilized communities that individuals collectively may acquire rights as members of corporate bodies without changing their personal relation to the society of which they are citizens. These artificial distinctions are not unknown to the Spanish law; for it was under this immunity of municipal membership that Cortes held command in the conquest of Mexico; and for ages this has been a resort for the attainment of rights and privileges which individually could not be possessed. To this day the Clergy and Army are a separate municipality and are protected under this artificial distinction. It therefore seems not beyond the reach of the limited ken of a Mexican legislature to understand the meaning of a body politic and corporate, or an association of individuals endowed by law with certain faculties and powers not belonging to them as individuals and given for beneficial purposes. If, therefore, you can obtain for us a corporate act with power to use a common seal and to hold real estate to the full extent of our wishes and a concession of that estate to us in our corporate capacity, it appears to us the difficulty will be removed. But should this not be understood by Mexican legislators and become impracticable, we are willing to take the estate as sufficient, by a simple enactment of law investing us with the faculty of holding, transferring and conveying real estate, and with the power by certificate to transfer rights which shall be perfected by the deed of the commissioner conveying an absolute fee. The first mode is preferable, but you will resort to the other if expedient. *** You will observe that we require of the Empresarios to execute to us joint and separate powers of Attorney containing covenants in the nature of a contract; and that they execute separate powers to such representative of the Empresario as may be named for each grant; and also a general letter of Attorney to you with full powers to represent them.
We think it is important, if it can be effected, that the General Government shall recognize the doings of the State Government, and you are requested to obtain it in some form or other upon the payment of the money into the Treasury of the Federal Government. Fearing the 500,000 acres of scrip may not be sufficient to enable you to effect the negotiation, we place the sum of $5000 in cash in your power, which is also to be used discretionarily as well as the scrip towards the attainment of the object; and in case of success this, as well as that, is to be considered as a part of the general fund applied to its successful accomplishment.
We request you to advise us on your arrival in Texas of the persons you appoint as Attorneys of the Empresarios and how the settlers can best go to their respective places of residence. Also to give us your views of the quality and value of the soil, the number of settlements, in the different colonies, and state of prosperity or otherwise of the settlers; and whether the way is now open for the reception of Americans, which you can ascertain by conferring with the Commissioner, as the way for them appears to Colonel Butler and ourselves to be opened by the late treaty for settlement.”
Thus instructed and equipped, General Mason made the journey to the State of Coahuila and Texas in the spring of 1833. Letters from him to the company were dated from Natchitoches in Louisiana, March 6, and from Nacogdoches, March 24 and 26. On this last date General Mason wrote also to Mrs. Emma Willard, at whose famous school in Troy, New York, he had placed his eldest daughter. The letter gives the careful father's wishes as to the plan of studies to be pursued. He apologizes for not having sooner attended to this matter; for, though a day had not passed since he left home on which he had not given thought to the subject, yet, he says, “there are so many circumstances, important and trivial, that control us in the preparation for and in the prosecution of a long journey, that I have found myself constantly drawn to immediate demands on my time in exclusion of matters of greater interest, not directly in view.” In concluding his letter, General Mason adds: “My journey so far has been most tedious and uncomfortable. Torrents of rain have fallen for three weeks, and detained me that time at this place. I progress tomorrow over a country literally inundated.” A letter from his son was addressed to General Mason at “Leonavicario, Mattamoras,” dated April 16. At this time, as is seen by a letter to General Mason from Stephen F. Austin, the company's agent was following out his instructions by interviews with Austin and efforts to gain his co-operation and sympathy.
San Felipe de Austin, April 17, 1833. Genl. Mason Dear Sir
I went to the village to see you, but you had started. I wished to have had a long conversation on the subject you mentioned the evening before and to have stated some alterations which I expected would be made in the colonization law. In the Bexar remonstrance they requested that the law might be changed so as to admit of sales by the settlers before the land was actually cultivated by the grantee in its totality, as the old law required. By the last mail I received a letter from Madero stating that they were then at work on a new colonization law that would supply all the defects and vacancies of the old law. Your ideas as I understand them in relation to myself are incorrect, that is if you think I have any unfriendly feelings as to the company. I am peculiarly situated. Your opinion of the want of moral principle in our community is wrong in the general, but it is unfortunately correct to a considerable extent. The multitude are easily misled, and there are many who wish to ruin me and will not stop at any means to do it. You have seen and heard enough to be convinced of this. If we can get a State Government, the company can make those colonizing contracts profitable, that is if the law of 6 April is repealed and Madero writes that it certainly will be by or before June. But without a State Government I do not believe that anything will be valuable in Texas. I think the country will be lost in anarchy and it will be a great and fatal error in the Mexican Government not to grant us a State.
Your idea that the contracts of the Empresarios will be annulled is all incorrect; they can not be and nothing of the kind will be attempted, unless it is done under a wild excitement imprudently created by those who are interested in these contracts. But even that would be void, for the law guarantees those contracts and they can not be interfered with. You see that at this time there is no government in Texas that deserves the name of a government—this can only be remedied by getting a State.
I hope you will not leave Mexico before I reach there. I start tomorrow and shall hurry on as fast as I can. Please remember me to Genl. Mexia and Zavala and rest assured that no man has more of my personal esteem and respect than you have. I am weary of colonizing and of our present politics in Texas—a State and nothing else can remedy our evils.
Yours respectfully, S. F. Austin. N. B.—My respects to Messrs. Hotchkiss and Duplissis. Should the latter wish to remain in this part of the country until you return from Mexico, I think he could make an arrangement with Williams that would perhaps suit all parties. I wish to return from Mexico by water and I hope that we may so arrange as to leave there together for New Orleans. This is the last time I ever expect or intend to have anything to do with public matters. If we get a State all will go well almost of itself. If we do not get one, I can be of no use here any longer either to Mexico or to Texas, and I shall view what property I have here as lost, for anarchy will be the inevitable result. All those who have any interest in the welfare of Texas or of Mexico ought to exert themselves to procure a State with as little delay as possible, and I have no doubt of success with the cordial co-operation of our friends in Mexico. Yours respectfully, S. F. Austin.
General Mason wrote four letters to the company from New Orleans in May, doubtless explaining the impossibility of accomplishing anything with the government of Coahuila and Texas in the then distracted state of Mexican affairs; and informing the company of his proposed journey to the City of Mexico, where he and Austin were both to meet and use their influence at the Federal capital to secure a more stable government in Texas and a colonization law more favorable for Americans. General Mason's letters to the company dated from Mexico begin June 30 and extend to February 14, 1834, but all of them, eighteen in number, are lost, and the first letter of General Mason to his family that has been preserved is dated September 10, 1833. In it he speaks of having taken refuge, during the prevalence of cholera in the City of Mexico, in an adjacent village on the side of the mountain, where he remained three weeks. He writes: “It was my expectation to have returned home in the October packet, but the cholera has thrown back all my business at least a month, and I now fix my departure for the 1st November, in the Congress packet, which will sail on that day from Vera Cruz for New York.” Both the cholera and yellow fever, he says, rage in the former place to a fearful extent and the yellow fever seldom departs before the last of October. “The cholera has been dreadful in this city,” the letter continues; “in three weeks it destroyed more than twenty thousand of the inhabitants, and the mortality was as great as seventeen hundred per day, and this in a population less by one-fifth than New York, where the highest number of deaths in one day was about three hundred. You may judge what an awful scene of suffering this city exhibited! In the streets leading to the burying-places a continued line of dead bodies in open coffins and on hand barrows might be seen a mile long. It is rare here to bury in coffins, and one coffin serves to carry thousands to the grave.” General Mason describes the manner of burial in all its shocking details, and goes on to tell of the story that had been circulated, it was said, by the priests, that the foreigners in the city had caused the cholera by poisoning the water, and this had inflamed the ignorant and superstitious populace and had led to many murders of strangers. “How I long to see,” he adds, “the intelligent and happy faces of my own country. I feel as if I was in a world of another creation, where demons have been at their handy work.”
Mexico was suffering from “war” as well as “pestilence,” and General Mason, in a letter to one of his daughters, dated September 25, speaks of the derangement of his plans, because of “the unexpected civil commotions and wars that distract this ill-fated country.” And he adds: “My expectation of seeing you in October is defeated by the untoward events which I mentioned in my last letter; the civil war and the cholera, which have retarded my business.” On the 22nd of December, General Mason wrote of his disappointment in not being able to leave on the Congress as he had expected. He says: “We have had a constant succession in the officers of government, owing to the disturbed condition of the country. A few days since we had a new administration, but of the party in power. The President has retired for six months to his farm and the Vice President and new ministers are installed. I think things will be now permanent, and that I shall soon get through with my business.”
Santa Anna had succeeded Bustamante, 3 the Liberals being “the party in power,” so General Mason had every reason to hope for success in his mission, through the intervention of his friends, General Mejía and Zavala, the latter being also one of the empresarios of the company. General Mason's intimacy with General Mejía and his brave and clever wife, Madam Mejía, and the latter's services to the patriot party, are alluded to in the following passage from one of Mrs. Mason's letters to her son, written in New York, September 14, 1834: “Your father has found here an old acquaintance, the wife of General Mexia, who is now commanding the Mexican army. She is the lady from whom he used to get all his political information while in Mexico, and is quite a heroine; it was she who was employed to carry money to the army, and did so at the hazard of her life, was taken prisoner, escaped the guard and delivered the money safe to her husband and saved the whole army. Do you not recollect your father's giving us an account of her? I was surprised yesterday to hear her converse with him upon the state of Mexican politics, with all the ability of a statesman.”
Among General Mason's papers is a short letter from the Trustees of the Company, dated January 10, 1834, a reply to General Mason's letter of November 27, 1833, sent by the Congress. They also acknowledge the copy of the decree of the 21st of November 4 enclosed in the letter. They “regret to learn that the rebels continue to disturb the peace of Mexico, and that in consequence thereof the dispatch of public business is interrupted”; and they add: “We have not written to you for some time past because by every packet for these four or five months past we hoped to see you return, having accomplished the great object of your mission. As it is we entertain hopes of your success and that you will not leave the country until every reasonable prospect of success has failed. We feel satisfied with your efforts and can not give you one word of advice or instruction, save we hope you will persevere to the end. One thing, however, seems to be necessary to be done. To get an extension of as long a time as possible for the performance of the contracts, if you shall fail on the main question.”
General Mason wrote to his wife on the 26th of October, from which letter Mrs. Mason quotes in one to her eldest daughter: “Peace, however, is at last restored and the government considered settled, so that Congress had commenced business, and had passed a law authorizing our citizens to settle and hold lands in Texas—which your father has been endeavoring to get passed for two years, so that with the exception of some other trifling matters he had nearly accomplished the object of his wishes, but he could fix on no time to leave Mexico being obliged to avail himself of a military escort to Vera Cruz which was to take their minister to France that far. The roads at this time are so infested with robbers that it would be dangerous to attempt to travel without an armed escort, and as Mr. Zavala passes through the United States it will give your father a safe conveyance.” General Mason wrote to his daughters, January 29, 1834, from the City of Mexico, the following interesting account of public events:
You will be surprised to find I am still in this city; yet such is my condition, and that of all who have anything to do with this uncertain and peculiar people,—that of meeting with constant disappointments and endless delays. Indeed there has been some apology for the tardy movement of the government while a civil war has been going on, which was calculated to distract them, although the theater of action has been long since removed to a distance. But it is proverbial that a Mexican postpones to the last moment everything he is called upon to do, and his universal declaration is, tomorrow it shall be done,—tomorrow, which never comes. There is always, however, a courtesy in their excuses which leads you to hope from day to day better results, until time is insensibly wasted away. *** My patience has been long since exhausted, and but for the important concerns under my charge I should long since have been at home. But too much depends on my mission to leave unfinished what I hope to complete, and my consolation, I trust, I shall find in beneficial results.
There has been one subject of late most unpleasant and serious to us all (which I am not certain that I mentioned) and has been productive of mischievous consequences;—the treacherous conduct of Col. Austin, who was the agent of the people of Texas here; and wrote from this city advising them to rebel against the government. His letters were intercepted, and one published by the authorities of the City of Bexar in Texas, and sent on here. It arrived a few days after his departure, and expresses were immediately sent to have him arrested. He was apprehended at Monterey 5 about six hundred miles north of this, and is now a prisoner on his return and expected to arrive here in a few days. This, of course, has thrown all Texas matters into confusion, and I wait the end. I fear Austin's fate will be severe—by the laws here, death or imprisonment for life is the penalty of his offense. You know he is the founder of the colony in Texas, and has acquired some fame on that account. Long since I discovered that he was a bad man, and fortunately have kept aloof from him, and unconnected with any of his projects. In fact, we have been for more than twelve months in opposition to each other in all matters relating to Texas, and the development which has been made is a prediction and a warning I gave him six month ago—that his double dealing would soon destroy him.
Evidently Austin was in bad repute with General Mason.
The Texas Convention of April, 1833, had petitioned for the repeal of the objectionable decree of 1830, and not only urged the separation from Coahuila, but drafted a State constitution, Sam Houston being chairman of the committee. Austin was one of the three commissioners elected to carry these resolves to the Mexican Congress, and he alone went to Mexico for this purpose. He was not successful in getting the so much desired State organization, and impatient of the delay, wrote to the municipality of Béxar, recommending that all the Texas districts should unite and organize a separate State government without waiting for the consent of the Federal Congress. This caused his arrest and imprisonment. Texas historians say that Austin obtained the abrogation of the eleventh article of the law of April 6, 1830, prohibiting immigration from the United States. Was this actually the case? General Mason writes in 1835 of his agency for the colonization company justifying himself against complaints made by Amos Dey:
During this period I made two trips to Mexico and Monclova and one journey through Texas, traveling by land and water, more than 15,000 miles, including all my journies. In all which I encountered disease and danger, that none can understand but myself, but which my correspondence makes mention of; and which put to hazard my health and life at almost every step I took. At this period the cholera pervaded the whole continent of North America, and I encountered it in its most violent form wherever I went. At New Orleans and Vera Cruz I was in the midst of yellow fever, and at every moment in danger of violence from robbers while traveling in Mexico. Now amidst all these difficulties, and amidst revolutions breaking out every day with a change of men in power as one party or the other had the ascendant, and holding sentiments at war with each other, I completed a negotiation for establishing the rights of the stockholders, which it is not arrogance in me to say that few men in the United States could have done: because I possessed advantages of position here and in Mexico from friendships and intimacies of a personal and political character which few could occupy, and I say it was mainly by the force of these circumstances that I was enabled to do what I did. When I took up the affairs of the company the whole was in fact lost. Their rights had been declared forfeited by the Land Commissioner General Teran, and his decision approved by the Federal government, and the settlers sent by the trustees ordered out of the country. I obtained a recognition of these rights by both the Federal and State authorities, and got an act of the Legislature giving three years more time for the grants of Burnet and Vehlein, and received a promise from the Governor of the State to send on a commissioner for the colonies to Nacogdoches and agreed with him on the person to be appointed. But the law of the 6th of April, 1830, prohibiting the colonization of our countrymen, being the first act of the administration of Bustamente, he would not consent to have it repealed; but Mr. Alaman, the Secretary of State, was willing that titles should be given to all the persons then on the grants notwithstanding this prohibitory law. But to proceed with advantage in colonization it was necessary to have this law repealed, and in my second trip to Mexico I contributed mainly to this end; and had it not been for my agency the law of repeal would never have passed or the law of the 6th of April would have been restored; in evidence of which see my letters of 1833 and 1834. The Trustees even were without legal power to act or to hold the estate for the stockholders until procured by me. I traveled through Texas to protect their rights and did so effectually both there and in Mexico against attacks that would otherwise have been fatal;—and had charge besides of an important negotiation to acquire the fee estate. To understand the labor of this negotiation and what I did, I must refer to my correspondence, and it will be seen that I had every right to expect success both in Mexico and Monclova, and it was only after the arrest and imprisonment of Austin that I abandoned the hope in the City of Mexico, and my project was postponed at Monclova for reasons set forth in my letters.
Austin had been released from prison but was still detained in Mexico, when on the 5th of October, 1834, Santa Anna called a council consisting of the four secretaries of State, the representatives of Coahuila and Texas, Lorenzo de Zavala, then governor of the province of Mexico, and Austin the Texas commissioner, to take into consideration the petition of Texas for a separate organization. Santa Anna decided adversely to the petition of a separation from Coahuila, but held out hopes that Texas might be organized as a territory. Among General Mason's papers is an undated draft of a “Plan For the Organization of Texas,” endorsed in pencil on the outside: “Prepared by John T. Mason at the request of the members of the Mexican Congress and presented to them and deliberated upon by the different conferees of the President and the President and the Ministers, and approved and acted upon.” In this paper is sketched a form of government for a Federal Territory; and the whole subject of State and Federal powers is ably discussed, with the resemblances and dissimilarities indicated between the two federal republics of the United States of America and the United States of Mexico. It must have been while he was in Mexico at the meeting of Congress in October, 1833, that General Mason prepared and presented this paper, afterwards, doubtless, the basis of the plan endorsed by Santa Anna in the following year.
After nearly four months, March, April, May and part of June, spent at Monclova working for the company's interest, General Mason returned to the United States, having accomplished for his employers and for Texas the excellent results above detailed, under difficulties and discouragements but faintly sketched here, as so much of his correspondence is missing. He resigned his agency for the Galveston Bay and Texas Land Company in October, 1834.
The Texas Revolution caused by the despotism of Santa Anna found in General Mason a hearty advocate. He attended a meeting in New York in November, 1835, which had been called to solicit aid for Texas, and the committee having the matter in charge had fitted out a brig, which sailed with two hundred emigrants in December. The assistance had not been forthcoming to the amount expected, and to raise a debt incurred of $3618, “Gen. John T. Mason, an ardent champion of Texas” assigned “ninetenths of a certificate of eleven leagues of land” in Texas for the payment of this debt. This was a certificate issued by the Governor of Coahuila and Texas, June 21, 1834. The Texas Convention of March, 1836, assailed this contract, and later Texas annulled the act of the legislature of Coahuila and Texas which had confirmed the grant. So General Mason's first effort to aid Texas met with a rude rebuff.
General Mason was in Texas at the opening of the Revolution, and doing all he could for the cause. He was made “Commandant of the District of Nacogdoches,” April 11, 1836, his commission being signed by the “Committee of Vigilance and Safety.” He was elected by the citizens, and the committee was to sustain him and give him all the aid in their power. But before he had received this commission, General Mason was at work as the following letter 6 shows:
Nacogdoches, March 20, 1836.
Dear Sir: This moment news of the most disastrous character has been received from Bexar: Travis and all his men captured and murdered. An apprehension of a serious character exists here that the Indians are assembling to fall upon the frontier, particularly those from the United States. I have taken pains to inform myself of the facts, and I have no doubt they have been prepared to move in the event of Santa Anna's success. He is determined to wage a war of extermination against Texas, and has engaged the Indians to aid him. The committee of vigilance here will address you on the subject of the threatened danger from the Indians. Is it not in your power to send a messenger to them, particularly the Caddoes, to make them keep quiet? To the extent of your authority, every principle of humanity and safety to the inhabitants of both borders requires an exertion of your powers to avert the disaster of an Indian war; and I have no doubt you will exert all your energies to that end. In great haste I must ask you to excuse this liberty, and beg leave to assure you of my respect and friendship.
John T. Mason. To Major Nelson, Commanding at Fort Jesup, U. S.
General Mason was corresponding a little later with Samuel P. Carson, Secretary of State of the Republic of Texas, and sending expresses to General Gaines and General Houston. He was at Fort Jesup on the 14th of April, having gone there to consult with General Gaines, leaving Dr. R. A. Irion acting commandant of Nacogdoches. Dr. Irion wrote to General Mason of his preparations to resist an expected attack from the Indians and Mexicans, and on the same date, General Mason made the following report of the military situation:
Gaines' Ferry, Texas—April 16, 1836.
General Gaines marched from Fort Jesup yesterday with 600 U. S. troops and encamped last night ten miles on this side the Fort. Tonight he will be on the Sabine, where he will immediately commence the construction of rafts and make an encampment. He will afford protection to all the women and children on either border of the river. He will not enter Texas till circumstances justify it. Any evidence of Indians embodying, or committing outrages should be immediately communicated to him by express. At this time all information upon that subject is conjecture and rumor. If possible the tribes committing hostilities should be designated. There being now a sure protection for their families every man should rally, concentrate at San Augustine and march on to Nacodgoches, or proceed in small detachments to that place. No enemy has yet approached and the few brave men who are making a stand there should be immediately reinforced.
John T. Mason.
General Mason sent in his resignation to the committee on the 23d of April, as there was no longer need of his services.
Early in this year, 1836, General Mason advanced a thousand dollars to purchase and fit out a vessel of war for the service of Texas, for which he was reimbursed later by the Texas government. This was the ship Liberty. He also advanced $500, “the bill of Capt. Brown to pay the expenses of the Texas vessel of war he commanded,” which was the schooner Brutus. Capt. Brown, it would seem, afterwards commanded the Invincible, on which Santa Anna was placed after the victory of San Jacinto in April, 1836.
On March 2, 1836, Texas had declared her independence and organized a government. The following year General Mason attended the session of Congress at Houston, the new capital. He wrote to his family from Opelousas, Louisiana, May 21, 1837:
I am so far on my way to Houston the seat of government of Texas. From this to Houston which is on Buffalo Bayou at the head of Galveston Bay is about 250 miles, altogether a land journey, making a ride of eight or nine days through a prairie region where the sun beams with an intense heat and the flies and mosquitoes are most annoying enemies to man and horse. I have a good servant sent me by Mr. Wilkinson and five travelling companions, all clever men who accompany me the whole route. Houston is a town made since May last; and for my residence there I have sent round by sea a tent, and provisions for my own table. I shall keep house in my tent and live in the true style of Texas Independence. My business will keep me at the seat of government about three weeks. I shall then return home by the way of Nacogdoches and Orleans and expect to see you all again in August. Farewell, my horses are saddled and I am called to mount.
The Hon. R. A. Irion, then secretary of state for the Republic of Texas, wrote from Houston, June 25, 1837, to General Mason, requesting his co-operation with the resident Texas minister at Washington. He was instructed by the President, General Houston, to address him this communication “on the subject of the annexation of this Republic to that of the United States.” The writer goes on to speak of General Mason's “long acquaintance in that country with prominent and influential politicians, and the interest you must feel for the success and prosperity of both” [republics]. He was therefore “earnestly requested and hereby authorized and empowered to act privately in conjunction with our resident minister at that Court, and consult him on all matters touching our relations with that Government; and especially to urge and employ every means in your power to effect a speedy annexation.” General Mason replied from Nacogdoches, July 15th, acknowledging the president's request as contained in the letter of the secretary of state, and adds:
You justly estimate the deep interest I take in the prosperity of Texas; and as a sure guarantee of that prosperity, I have always desired this annexation. It will therefore be highly gratifying to me to aid in accomplishing this object, and I shall repair to Washington as early as practicable, consistent with engagements already made, and give the resident minister my hearty co-operation. But as this service will be voluntary, embracing no official station, I must be left to judge when my efforts shall cease to be useful and when to retire from it.
General Thomas J. Rusk, secretary of war, commander of the Texas army, chief justice, and United States senator from Texas in 1846, had removed from South Carolina to Texas in 1835, and was then, in 1837, practicing his profession of the law at Nacogdoches. He and General Mason seem to have formed a close friendship. When the latter was about to return to the United States from Nacogdoches in August, 1837, General Rusk, who was in need of some law books, requested him to purchase a list in New York. Eighteen titles are given, closing with “Those volumes of Reports of Supreme Court, U. S., containing the decisions on the Louisiana and Florida Land Claims.” General Rusk became from this time on, apparently, General Mason's attorney for the management of his Texas land affairs.
In September, General Mason was back again in New York, from which place he addressed a letter to General Memucan Hunt, the Texas minister at Washington, telling him of his proposed cooperation with him in procuring annexation, and of his intention to be at the capital for the meeting of Congress in December, unless his presence should be required earlier. In November he wrote to the secretary of state of the Republic of Texas that he had heard from General Hunt “that his correspondence with Mr. Forsyth had commenced and terminated in a manner to preclude any further negotiation at the present moment on the subject of principal interest, and the one in which I was more especially charged to give my aid.” This “aid” was doubtless given at a more propitious season. It was at the close of Tyler's administration that Texas was admitted to the Union, and the president must often have taken counsel with his old college friend, General Mason, then constantly in Washington, on a subject relative to which the latter was so well informed, and so competent to advise him.
Among General Mason's papers is preserved a cipher evidently used by him and his correspondents during the Texas Revolution. Some of the words and phrases for which the cipher equivalent is given are “S. F. Austin,” “Treaty between U. S. and Mexico for acquisition of Texas,” “Gov. of Coahuila,” “Declaration of Independence by Texas,” “Separation of Texas from Coahuila,” “Zavala,” “U. S. of Mexico,” “U. S. of America,” “Gomez Farrias,” “The $20,000 fund,” and “Instructions to U. S. Charge.” There is an equivalent also for “Letters to Treat on business of contract.” Among the Jackson Papers in the Congressional Library is a letter of introduction for General Mason to President Jackson, for John Treat, 7 Esq. It is dated New York, February 14, 1835. General Mason was to leave the city that morning for Monclova, but before going wished to introduce to the president his “particular and confidential friend,” Mr. Treat of New York City. The letter goes on to say:
Mr. Treat has resided in Mexico many years, has been in various parts of South America, and for some length of time was the Mexican consul for this port [New York]. From all which he is familiarly and accurately acquainted with Mexican affairs and has a personal knowledge of most of their leading men. He is my correspondent when abroad, upon these matters, and as the present is a crisis of great importance in the relations of that country and ours, I am persuaded you will be pleased to receive information from a source to be relied on. I therefore say to you that any communication from Mr. Treat will have that character; and I have asked him to address you when anything of interest occurs.
It will be remembered that among General Mason's duties in accordance with his instructions from the Galveston Bay and Texas Land Company was the responsible one of appointing agents to reside on the company's grants. The “Hotchkiss,” mentioned in Austin's letter of 1833, was one of these agents. George A. Nixon was the commissioner, and Arthur Henrie was the surveyor in charge. It was in October, 1834, that General Mason resigned his agency, but as he says, in a letter before quoted, he “continued without intermission acting for the company till November, 1834, or I might say till January, 1835, for although I resigned my agency in the fall I continued daily to give the Trustees voluntary assistance.” Letters among General Mason's papers, of Hotchkiss, Nixon and Henrie from September, 1834, to May, 1835, show that the “voluntary assistance” lasted much longer. And letters from the trustees to General Mason of March, 1835, prove that he was still acting as their attorney. All these letters unfold a tale of woe, of vexations and difficulties that must have been most annoying. And General Mason's position was no easy one. The company was distrusted by the Texans; the agents accused each other of cheating; and General Mason was expected to keep the peace and bring order out of chaos. Finally an attempt was made by one of his subordinates to bring him in disrepute with the trustees. Major Henrie seems to have been the one reliable man of those General Mason had selected, though poor Laplichier was probably honest and in many ways capable. Archibald Hotchkiss wrote from Nacogdoches, September 13, 1834, of his arrival there the previous month, and of the attitude of the “settlers,” or squatters towards him:
A man who left Nachitoches the same day that I arrived reported that the people east of this were determined to stop me at the Sabine and force me to go back, but fortunately I did not arrive as soon as they had anticipated, and having got tired of waiting they returned to their homes. However, on my reaching the new town of San Augustine they had a meeting for the purpose of ascertaining my views on the subject of giving lands to them, at the same time threatening to do several acts of violence if I should refuse to accede to their terms, at the same time demanding of me all the scrip that I might have in my possession issued by the New York Company, stating that they were determined to send every man out of the country who should presume to come into it with scrip. I, of course, explained to them that my intentions were none other than to give them their lands in accordance with the laws on the subject, and that no imposition was intended whatever, that I only required time to convince them that I had come into the country for their benefit as well as that of the Empresarios. They were very much disposed not to be satisfied, and I found that with all the command of my feelings which I thought I possessed my patience was nearly exhausted, when a Mr. Hotchkiss who lives in San Augustine came forward and addressed the people in my behalf, and on hearing him they agreed to wait the result of my operations. I thought it advisable to visit the settlers at their houses at the several settlements east of Nacogdoches, which I think has had a good effect, as I flatter myself I have succeeded in convincing them, at least a large majority, that my intentions are to do them justice.
On arriving at this place I found Laplicher in a most deplorable situation. He had shut himself up in his house for several months as the sentiment against the New York Company had extended to him, the populace having made several attempts to take his life and he very narrowly escaped after having received a wound in the breast by a knife. The attack was headed by the man we thought friendly to our interests, to wit John Durst who has entered very deeply into the eleven league speculations and has them mostly located in our colonies. Thorn has also gone deep into the same scheme. There are also several others of this class from the U. S. who have all located large quantities of lands in the colonies and have taken their titles under Aldrete. Their great object has been and is still to produce an excitement among the settlers to the prejudice of the company. Another source of discontent has been the arrival of several men from New York with large quantities of scrip and who have been so imprudent as to attempt the location of lands over the settlers under and by authority of their scrip—and in many instances threatening to dispossess the settlers altogether. This as you will readily suppose has irritated the people to a very great degree. There is a Col. Langworthy who has been very busy in this business and who has represented himself as the special agent of the company. He is expected here daily when I hope to convince him of the folly of the course he is pursuing.
The conflicting titles, the lawlessness of this frontier community, the envy and greed of unscrupulous men among them, and the imposition of a bogus “agent” were some of the difficulties the company had to contend with. Among General Mason's papers there is a letter from John Durst, dated March 26, 1836, on the subject of the proceedings of the Texas Convention towards the “Land Claims,” in which he asks General Mason's advice as to what course they shall pursue. Arthur Henrie, “surveyor and examiner of surveys in these colonies”—as Hotchkiss describes him, had arrived also at Nacogdoches and wrote September 14, 1834, to General Mason that he had the pleasure to inform him “that the agent and commissioner are pursuing that honorable course making justice their criterion, which is calculated to give satisfaction generally, and particularly to all good men, and I have no doubt but in a short time they will be very popular here, and the feelings of the people will become entirely changed towards the New York Company, which were unfavorable before these gentlemen arrived.”
But very soon Nixon, the commissioner, was asking to be removed from his office, if Hotchkiss the agent was to be retained. This was on October 12. He wrote again to General Mason, November 2, 1834, expressing himself as much pleased with “Major Henrey” but giving copious details as to the causes of dissatisfaction with Hotchkiss, who was apparently neglecting the company's interests for his own. He reports as to his own work:
“I have admitted those who had a certificate from the United States, to have lands, and all others that could bring a good recommendation from the authority of this Government which they bring from the alcaldes, certifying them to be honest, industrious and friends to the laws and religion of the country, and they have produced something [over] 300 of them which I have granted orders to.” He goes on to speak of the service he had rendered in overcoming the opposition to the company: “For when I came I found every person in the country much opposed to the company, and many persons opposed to Hotchkiss, yourself and even Mr. Laplicher. But, sir, I had my share of influence, and at this time I think all is well.” The letter continues: “I wish to God some other man was here instead of Hotchkiss, or I were away. The other day I received a letter from a friend of mine saying that Don Ramon Muskes 8 was trying to have me removed. Chambers has returned to San Fellippe as the Judge, but no congress has confirmed his commission as I am informed. Chambers has wrote a long letter on here to the chief of this place and the people of San Antonio has recommended a convention and wish it held in Bexar. But the people of San Fellippe are opposed to it, and this town wont have time to call the people together and elect the members. Col. Austin as letters say by the last mail is still in Mexico and his case is not decided.” In December, 1834, Nixon wrote again to General Mason, about the affairs he had in charge, saying of Hotchkiss: “I have lost all confidence in the man, and I think you will say the same when you see how he is acting. . . . I have not spoke to him for some time [but] the other day I was over persuaded to go to his house with a farmer to see about his claims, and Mr. Hotchkiss spoke to us as if we had been his servants, in fact, sir, he is an overbearing man, and a rough kind of a man. And I have always supported him to all persons when I have heard him spoken of, and in all things taken his part. But now, sir, I find him the enemy of us both.”
In the spring of 1835 the trustees of the Galveston Bay and Texas Land Company were horrified at the discovery that their scrip was of no value in Texas. And they turned to General Mason as their attorney, commissioning him to renew their contracts with the government at Monclova. A long letter of instructions was written to General Mason, March 9, 1835:
Dear Sir
Upon the receipt of a letter by Mr. Treat from Mr. Morgan informing him that both our scrip and orders for preparatory surveys were refused both by Mr. Hotchkiss and Mr. Nixon, the perfectly appalling and ruinous intelligence was communicated to Mr. Sumner. His prompt arrival here discloses that the impression made on his mind was in perfect coincidence with that of Mr. Treat and his company whose object in sending an agent into Texas was thus in a great degree defeated . . . We hasten Major Allen's departure by the shortest route that he may meet you and Mr. Hotchkiss and get these matters set right before the arrival of the persons to whom we have sold scrip with the assurance of its being an essential prerequisite to the obtainment of a title and whose just complaints against us if they find it otherwise will resound through the U. States, not only to the loss of our reputation, but producing the impression which must be ruinous to Texas that such is the confusion and difficulty in obtaining titles they will have nothing to do with it. . . . The emigrants from this country whom we wish most to engage are men of property who from the embarrassments of commerce and other sources of emolument in our large towns are disposed to go where they can see a better prospect for extending their income and of settling their children with better hopes than they now enjoy, and but for this unaccountable proceeding at Nacogdoches, we should have taken great pleasure in informing you that already were many such in several of the small commercial towns in New England engaged with great solicitude in inquiring into the title and circumstances of the colony with the intention of emigrating. . . . It is not only a matter of true policy but of just pecuniary calculation for all those who are engaged in the same general object, to come in for their share of the general prosperity than for anyone to monopolize the whole benefit of any particular branch. It has always, therefore, seemed strange to us that Austin and Williams instead of running down our company should not have seen that through our successful operations they would derive an immediate and direct accession to the value of their own domains which it will take them many years to gain without. . . . To apply these principles to a single case will be sufficient to show the advantage of the plan we took from your suggestion of making preparatory selections of proper sites for those with whom we are contracting with a certainty of securing to them a clear and indefeasible title, an intimation has been given to Mr. Sumner from a class of operatives from Lowell headed by a man worth $40,000, that when his locations are made and a proper site for their business selected, they will remove and put up a cotton factory. But what inducement will Mr. S. have further to prosecute this undertaking unless he is to have some more benefit than the little modicum of his proportion of advantage derived from the premium lands? The same argument applies equally well to the exertions of all the rest which will be immediately discontinued unless the plan we have adopted of securing the locations which individuals shall make preparatory to settlement is strictly adhered to. . . . We were well aware that there was a prejudice against our scrip in consequence of the disregard paid to it, under the introduction of the law of 6 April, 1830. It was indeed then of no validity. There was no agent admitted to act for us, nor any commissioner for him to act through and consequently no title could be obtained by it. That law is now repealed; the agent is there, instructed to act according to it, and by his certificate of consent to the admission of a colonist, the commissioner receives him. As you properly expressed it in your letter of instructions to Capt. Hotchkiss, the scrip was to be received by him as the evidence of our consent to the possessors settling within our contract and not as the formal assent of the Empresarios to the commissioner. The qualifications and circumstances of the person presenting the scrip to the agent of the contractors was to be made known to him and this was to be communicated to the commissioner by a proper written certificate upon the colonist's petition for title. . . . It has been issued and is spread all over the country and valuable considerations paid for it.
Hotchkiss was to be told that he could not remain the company's agent if he did not honor their scrip. It was complained of him by the trustees that he had neglected the instructions given him by General Mason on the 24th of June, 1834; that he neglected to make monthly reports and give the information required of him by the aforementioned letter; and that he admitted settlers for a price fixed by himself without instructions from the company, or even informing them of his action.
Among General Mason's papers is the certificate, or “Scrip No. 870” of the Galveston Bay and Texas Land Company, with the attestation of both Arthur Henrie and Thomas J. Rusk, that it “was never of any value in Texas, and never recognized by any authority in the country. It represents no title, was refused by the commissioner for making titles within the colonies named, and no land was ever acquired by anyone under it. It was a falsity arising doubtless from a misconception of the law, and many intelligent men in ignorance of the law were deceived by it.” Henrie signs himself “Attorney for some time acting for the Empresarios and Inspector of Surveys made under them.” This paper is dated Nacogdoches, July 25, 1837, Rusk adding his legal opinion a few days later.
Two other letters of instructions were addressed to General Mason by the trustees in March, 1835, the latter being sent to him at Matamoras. Major Henrie wrote to him from Nacogdoches, April 1st, telling of the continued difficulties between Hotchkiss and Nixon, and of an accusation made by Hotchkiss against Laplichier of embezzling the funds, an unjust charge as Henrie thought. One of the irregular proceedings of Major Hotchkiss detailed in these letters was his neglect in classing the land surveyed into arable and pasture lands, as the law required. Hotchkiss wrote to General Mason at Monclova, April 15, from New Orleans, calling Laplichier a “consummate villain,” and declaring that during a long illness from which he had recently recovered, both Nixon and Laplichier had acted in a most unwarrantable manner keeping back all the fees of the office on the plea from Nixon that General Mason was holding a large part of his property, and from Laplichier that his salary was in arrears. He had left Major Henrie as the company's agent in his absence. Hotchkiss reported for the company: “We have received up to the first of the present month 642 families—about 300 in Zavales, 185 in Vehlein and 155 in Burnet's.” Nixon wrote to General Mason from Nacogdoches, April 21st, defending himself against the charges made by Hotchkiss: “As relates to the fees I have received I always left one half of them in the office with Mr. Laplichier for Mr. Hotchkiss as your agent, but on the 5th of March he made an attempt to lock out Mr. L. and take forceable possession of my office, which caused me to take the papers to my house, and ever since I have kept my office at my house, and have a proper account made of all the fees, and as soon as I can understand whether I am entitled to them, or what are my fees, then I am willing to divide them according to contract.” Of Laplichier Nixon wrote: “He is the only man in the country calculated to do the business in the office, and no other man can translate the Notes better. He is an honest man, though Hotchkiss has charged him with embezzling the money, and that on oath, though Mr. L. is ready and willing to settle and account for every dollar he has received.” An interesting letter from Major Henrie, giving an account of affairs at Nacogdoches was dispatched to General Mason May 4th, 1835, in which he says:
I am aware of the difficult situation you are placed in, and nothing but your application and good sense can surmount the difficulties which you have to encounter in giving satisfaction. Major Nixon is popular with the people, and I do not know of anything he has done to be objectionable to the New York Company. He has made many thousand dollars for the government by having the true number of Labors of arable land returned which each League contained as near as practicable. Mr. La Plechier was turned out of office by Mr. Hotchkiss as I stated to you. His business habits and talents can not be supplied, and I hope (for the good of all concerned) that you can procure his services again.
A Mr. Pinckney of New York has obtained a permit to select and survey four hundred sitios for families which Mr. John Davis of New York is to introduce. But he has too much good sense to do any more than to take all advantages he can from his permit to get clear of a bad bargain. General Russell is here surveying 52 sitios for families which General Sumner is to introduce. A Mr. Cushing is here surveying between 40 and 50 Leagues for families which Mr. A. Dey of New York is to introduce, and he has also a permit to survey 130 sitios for the Pilgrim Company of New York. We have issued about 800 orders of survey to settlers. And I have personally examined, calculated, made the necessary Plats, and arranged the field Notes, in a proper manner to include the quantity of Land as surveyed, for three hundred titles. We have about 14 surveyors in the field.
Nixon wrote to General Mason on the 5th of May: “The Trustees seem much disappointed in their expectations about their scrip as it has not been respected and they find much fault with their agent, and also they have written me a long letter hoping I will reconsider my opinion and give it in favour of their Scrip. But from the understanding I have of the law I have nothing to do with Scrip, and I can only receive the settler when he appears and gets the consent of the agent and presents his recommendation and takes the oath. But I cant grant order of survey for people that are in the United States.” Nixon tells General Mason: “Major Henrie is your friend, and is an honest man if I ever saw one and you may depend on him, and if he had of had the power [sic] long before this you would have had titles for all your lands, and he has often spoken with surprise to me, and would say you would be much disappointed when you came to know that you had nothing done for you. There is something strange in the conduct of Hotchkiss that I cant understand.”
There was something “strange” also, apparently in the conduct of Nixon, for among General Mason's papers is the copy and translation of the bond given by Nixon to Mason, June 23, 1834, which states that Mason had “petitioned the Government of the State of Coahuila and Texas for the appointment of George Anthony Nixon of Monclova to the office of commissioner for the purpose of issuing titles to land in the colonies of Lorenzo de Zavala, David P. Burnet and Joseph Vehlein.” And it is further declared “that the fees of said office shall be equally divided between both [Nixon and Mason] . . . and Mason shall bear the expenses of the office such as salaries of clerks, rent of the office, fuel—and stationery, etc.” At the foot of the paper is this note in General Mason's handwriting: “The fees collected by Nixon on the above obligation amount to about $20,000—not a dollar of which has been paid over, while the expenses of the office have been defrayed by me. J. T. Mason.”
There is an alphabetical list preserved, made by Arthur Henrie, of the “names of colonists received under the contracts of Burnet, Vehlein and Zavala, with the number of labors of arable land in each league.” There are 937 names in the list.
The State of Coahuila and Texas, passed among other colonization laws of 1834-'35, one dated April 19, 1834, authorizing the governor, in order to pay the militiamen employed against the Indians, to “take of the vacant lands to the amount of four hundred sitios, distributing them agreeably to the rules and conditions he shall establish.” General Mason was in Monclova at this time and, at the request of the Governor, he made a contract with him for the purchase of three hundred leagues of this land. These were the eleven league grants before mentioned. And it was one of the grievances that Mr. Amos Dey, the trustee opposed to General Mason, had against him, that he had purchased the eleven league grants for himself and other gentlemen and not for the company. General Mason replied to this charge showing its groundlessness, and that his resignation as agent was not made for this purpose, as was insinuated. Among other things, he said:
Six or eight months before my return to the United States I apprised the Trustees I could not continue the agency for reasons set forth in my letters—the principal of which was my long continued absence from my family, their ill health, my loss of time without adequate reward, etc., etc., and all this was said long before I had any eleven league grants or expected to purchase any, for I had no funds to do so with, and had no expectation of acquiring any. On my return home after 18 months absence and without having heard from my family for nine months, I found my wife in very bad health and that two of my children had died during my absence; and if any previous intention of quitting this agency wanted strengthening it was found in these circumstances.
General Mason's purchase of the 300 leagues was made on joint account with George A. Nixon, who was to advance two thousand dollars in cash towards effecting the contract, and thirteen thousand, five hundred and twenty dollars in merchandize, this being required before the execution of the papers by the governor. A translation of this “contract” is among General Mason's papers. His letter to the governor is dated, “Monclova, 6th June, 1834,” and in it he says that “being advised of the law of April 19th of the present year authorizing your Excellency to dispose of four hundred leagues of the vacant lands of the State, he has indulged the hope of obtaining a contract with a view of increasing the population and wealth of this State, and of procuring for some virtuous and industrious families the means of acquiring an honorable livelihood.” In a long “memorandum” explanatory of this contract, General Mason writes:
In June, 1834, I made a contract with the Government of the State of Coahuila and Texas for 300 leagues of land—the purport of which contract was that I should be authorized to sell the lands as governmental agent (see the certificates which are an exposition of the contract) and pay for them a stipulated price, all over was to be my commission and profit. The law authorizing the sale of 400 leagues is one of general character and for objects set forth. The existence of such a law was unknown to me till the contract was proposed to me by the Governor,—and was only taken at his pressing solicitude—after he rejected the various offers made for the lands. The remaining 100 leagues were purchased by different persons. Of the benefits of this contract I agreed to let George A. Nixon have one-half.
General Mason goes on to tell of his arrangement with Nixon and of his plans to effect a sale of his certificates, and adds:
Great difficulties existed in making a sale, owing particularly to a statement of Thomas J. Chambers and brought to New York by Morehouse, that the Governor had no authority to sell the lands but should distribute them among the troops to be employed in defence of the Indians. The best and only contract I could make therefore was a consignment with an advance of money on it and a conditional sale, one of which conditions was that the Legislature should confirm the authority of the Governor to sell,—but leaving it optional with the purchasers to take the certificates or return them upon their advances being refunded. This contract was made in February [1835]. Upon this contract I proceeded to Monclova and paid for the lands.
Of this journey to Monclova in 1835, General Mason wrote, in his letter to the Texas Land Company already quoted, telling of receiving a letter from them just as he was embarking from New Orleans to Monclova. He had been delayed in New York, and in going for his wife, as he was taking her on the sea voyage for the benefit of her health:
I had given the information frequently to the Trustees that the Legislature met on the 1st January and adjourned on the 1st May, and that I wished to be there by the 1st of April, when the new Governor would go into office. But from a long and difficult voyage by sea and delays by land, I did not at last reach Monclova till the 3d May, having sent on an express to the Legislature (which arrived on the 30th April in the morning) to ask them to continue in session till I arrived; which they could do, as the Constitution authorized them to prolong the session one month by a special decree. They did continue in session till the 20th of May. Now if I had had any agency [for the company] the events proved, as I anticipated, that I could not have attended to it, and therefore I urged the appointment of another agent. The pressure for time was such that I was in Monclova only two nights, had to go 300 miles to Monterey and back, was one night again in Monclova and found the Governor and Legislature had all run away before my return and I had to follow them on their route to do my business.
In a paper endorsed “Expenses on the contract for 300 leagues,” General Mason says:
The expenses that were to be incurred in consummating the contract for the 300 leagues of land, were to be borne equally by Mason and Nixon; and Mason forebore to charge commissions, or for his personal services. Mason was almost exclusively engaged in effecting this object for eighteen months—from June, 1834, to February, 1836. He left Monclova in June, 1834, proceeded to New York, remained there till February, 1835, before he effected any arrangement. In May following he arrived at Monclova, by the way of Orleans and Matamoras, went to Monterey for the specie, paid the Government, and returned to New York, as per contract with the gentlemen who advanced the money on the certificates.
An additional contract, dated Monclova, 23d May, 1835, confirmed the contract of the 19th June, 1834, and in consideration of the “privilege” granted, the contractor agreed to pay in addition to the price of the land the sum of five thousand dollars. The price of the land as originally contracted for, was one hundred dollars a league of arable land and fifty-five dollars a league of grazing land; the 300 leagues to be in eleven league grants, one hundred arable land and two hundred grazing land.
The grave charges made against General Mason by Judge T. J. Chambers, and repeated by his nephew William N. Chambers, 9 must have appeared preposterous to those who knew General Mason personally, his Christian probity of character and high sense of honor. To General Thomas J. Rusk, chief justice of Texas, one of General Mason's intimate friends, and his trusted agent and legal adviser, General Mason gave the original contract above described, which is thus receipted, and signed in the handwriting of General Rusk:
Received of Genl. John T. Mason the original contract made by him with the Government of the State of Coahuila and Texas on the 19th day of June, 1834, for the sale of three hundred leagues of land, together with the additional contract in relation to the same and confirmatory thereof, and also the receipts and vouchers showing a full payment and compliance on his part with said contracts.
Signed in duplicate, Nacogdoches, 8th August, 1837. Thos. J. Rusk. General Mason has also left with me the commission of James Bowie from the Government. Thomas J. Rusk.
The Revolutionary government of Texas repudiated the sales of land made in 1834 by the Government of Coahuila and Texas, going so far as to name General Mason's contract as annulled by them, in the first Texas Constitution. Of this action General Rusk gives his “opinion” in an undated paper containing his autograph signature. It is as follows:
To Genl. John T. Mason Sir
At your request I have examined your contract with the Government of Coahuila and Texas for the purchase (sale) of 300 leagues of land; and am of opinion that the contract when made was strictly legal, and that when a decision is pronounced it will be in favor of the contract. The article in the Constitution cannot have any influence on it: but it must be determined by the judiciary upon its merits. The article in the Constitution does not by any means identify the contract, and many of the members of the Convention who voted for its insertion are ashamed that it is there.
(Signed) Thos. J. Rusk.
General Mason made his last journey to Texas in 1849, dying of cholera at Galveston, on his way home, in the spring of 1850. The following letter, written to him while at Galveston, from the seat of government at Austin, refers to those “Mexican claims” which were still unsettled though sixteen years had elapsed, and the Republic of Texas had come into the American Union.
Austin, Texas, January 15th, 1850 Gen. John T. Mason My dear Sir
I have requested Mr. Fields the Representative from Liberty and Polk Counties to send you a copy of the reply he has made to Gen. Chambers. I think he will probably write to you upon the subject of the interest and bribe, that Chambers alluded to, as growing out of your grant from Coahuila and Texas. I have known Mr. Fields for several years, and he is a gentleman of character and integrity. Gen. Chambers is preparing, it is said, an answer to the reply of Fs. I also send you Hunt's “Letter to Houston.” This is a very able letter, and stamps the author as a man of erudition and genius.
We may possibly adjourn by the 1st of February, but I hardly expect it will be before the 10th or 15th, tho' many of the members are anxious to get home. Resolutions have passed the Senate unanimously, and will doubtless pass the House so too, in relation to the powers of the General Government. These resolutions are verbatim the great Resolutions that John C. Calhoun introduced into the Senate upon the Oregon question—and are the same that Benton asserts were intended as a firebrand to bring about disunion, and all other horrors not contemplated by the Constitution! They are the same that Houston would not touch with a ten foot pole! “Well we shall see what we shall see.”
I delivered your compliments to General Brooke. He assured me that he had mourned you as dead, and enquired very particularly about your health.
I found Jos. Denison, Esq., Att-at-Law of Matagorda on board the Packet when I left Galveston. He is the gentleman you wished to see, and I told him I had been on the lookout for him to introduce him to you, as you had some matters that might probably come before the courts, and his name had been favorably mentioned to you. He told me he had occasion to look into your grant thoroughly in connection with a claim somewhat similar. He regretted that he did not see you. He doubtless will be glad if you write to him in relation to business. I mention this that you may know his address, etc., if you should require his services.
I hope your health has improved from the quiet retiracy of your Gulf retreat. My compliments to all friends.
I remain with great esteem your ob. friend Jno. G. Tod of Texas.
When General Lee surrendered, in early April, 1865, that part of the Confederacy east of the Mississippi was already overwhelmed and exhausted. In the Trans-Mississippi Department, however, a large area comprising western Louisiana, parts of Arkansas, and the whole of Texas was still almost untouched by invasion. The Federal forces having been kept at bay here through the war, it seemed probable that a severe struggle would be necessary for the reduction of the Confederates in this region; yet, within six weeks from the surrender at Appomattox the Trans-Mississippi Department presented a scene of universal disorder and confusion nothing short of anarchy—and that, too, without the advance of a single Federal soldier. In reality the defences of this department, and particularly of Texas, with which we are here concerned, formed simply a thin shell incapable of sustaining any heavy or prolonged attack.
In spite of peculiar advantages Texas had already shown unmistakable signs of exhaustion. Throughout the war she had suffered less than her sister States, and during the first two or three years had been fairly prosperous. She lay outside the circle of conflict, no hostile armies laid waste her towns and fields, nor withdrew her slaves from the plantations. Good crops were raised every year. During most of the time her ports were open and steamers and blockade runners made their way to and from Vera Cruz, Havana and the ports of Europe. Moreover, the Mexican border offered peculiar advantages for a safe overland trade; and through this channel the staples of Texas—cotton, wool, and hides—were exported and exchanged for necessary supplies or specie. Through the deflection of trade from its regular channels this traffic had for the most part fallen into the hands of speculators,— doubly hated as a class that reaped large profits from the danger and distress of the country while enjoying at the same time exemption from military service. The opportunities for profits in this trade were not neglected by the State and Confederate governments, and during the last two years of the war a State military board and a cotton bureau had charge of the exportation and sale of cotton and other products belonging to the State and to the Confederacy respectively, and imported in return munitions, medicines, and other military supplies. That there was much fraud and mismanagement in the whole cotton business, official and private, seems certain; there was no doubt of it at all in the minds of the people of that day.
But other causes than the fraudulent operations of private and official speculators hastened the exhaustion of the State. Repeated issues of Confederate paper money had driven out all other currency and the paper itself steadily depreciated. By March, 1865, even this was cut off, as there was no ready or safe communication with the Confederate seat of government. Taxes were extremely heavy; the tithe of the cotton taken by the Confederacy was increased to a fifth, then to a half; everything was levied upon. Military authorities impressed beef, corn, and other supplies for the army, and having no money wherewith to pay, gave worthless certificates of indebtedness which the government would not even receive in payment of taxes. 10 Driven on by its dire necessities the government had adopted desperate and oppressive regulations that destroyed its own credit and threatened the extinction of what little trade had survived in the State. During the spring of 1865 other troubles had come. A threatened attack by the Federals on Brownsville, the chief cotton depot, had diverted the export trade to the less exposed but less profitable and less satisfactory points on the upper Rio Grande. At the same time there was a serious drop in the price of cotton, a foreshadowing doubtless of the fall of the Confederacy. All trade was coming to a standstill. Although the crops had been good in 1864, they could not be marketed. There was plenty to eat, but there was very little else to be had.
The military outlook reflected the gloom of material conditions. There were probably about fifty thousand men in the Trans-Mississippi Department when Lee surrendered. A large part of these were in Louisiana near the department headquarters at Shreveport. Several thousand were in Arkansas. Possibly fifteen thousand men were under arms in Texas. Of these last some three thousand were at Galveston with others near by at Houston. Small forces were stationed at Brownsville, San Antonio, Hempstead, Sabine Pass, Marshall, and other points. All of these soldiers had for months been serving practically without pay, for they were paid in paper. They were poorly clad, and often had to furnish their own clothing and equipment. There was much discontent in the army because of alleged mismanagement and peculation in the commissary and supply departments. Swarms of deserters made their way into Mexico to Matamoras or took refuge with a body of Federals on the island of Santiago de Brazos. The conscript laws had become more and more severe, and young boys and old men were forced into the ranks. The discontent increased. Certain regiments were wholly unmanageable. 11
The people were plainly growing weary of the burdens of a hopeless war. Sherman's march through Georgia, despite the ingenious explanations of the press, had shown the utter impossibility of ultimate success. Even General E. Kirby Smith, commander of the department, sought timely provision for the future as early as February 1st, when he offered his military services to Maximilian in case of the overthrow of the Confederacy. 12 Nevertheless, when the news of Lee's surrender reached Texas in the latter part of April, it produced consternation. While it was discredited and denied at first as a “Yankee rumor,” then too fully confirmed, hope was held out still that most of the army had escaped and were with Johnston. Anxiously tidings were awaited from this general. There was a widespread belief that he was about to cross the Mississippi and join with Kirby Smith. Then came the crushing news of his surrender to Sherman. The next attack of the Federals would be upon Texas. All was gloom and anxiety.
A desperate effort was made to preserve a bold front. Governor Murrah and Generals Smith and Magruder made speeches and issued stirring addresses urging the soldiers to fight to the last. Patriotic editors demonstrated conclusively that it would be impossible for the Federals to invade Texas and maintain themselves in its vast stretches without a year's preparation; and that meanwhile help could be secured from abroad, or at least better terms would be offered than had been granted Lee and Johnston. Everywhere public meetings were held and citizens pledged themselves never to submit to Northern tyranny or to abandon the cause of the South. Meetings of a similar nature were held in the army in the effort to revive the waning devotion of the discontented and the disheartened. Most of these army meetings were meagrely attended; many of the men held aloof while others attended in order to pass resolutions expressing withering contempt for the war meetings of “exempts and details,” and bitter hatred of the cotton speculators, upon whom they placed the blame for the failure of the war. 13 But meetings and speeches and valiant “last ditch” resolutions were all in vain. The majority of the soldiers were convinced that the war was over because it was so evidently hopeless. The accumulated discontent of the past month expressed itself in desertion. Magruder declared as early as April 29 that the men at Galveston were deserting by tens and twenties every night. 14
In the meantime by order of Grant, General Pope had despatched Colonel Sprague to Shreveport to demand of Kirby Smith the surrender of the Trans-Mississippi Department upon the same terms that were granted to Lee. Smith immediately, May 9, rejected these, hoping to obtain more liberal terms. With a view to determining upon methods and means of resistance or suitable conditions of surrender, he had just before this summoned to meet him in conference at Marshall, Governors Allen of Louisiana, Murrah of Texas, Reynolds of Missouri, and Flanigan of Arkansas. All attended save Murrah, who was ill, but who sent Colonel Guy M. Bryan of his staff to represent him. It was determined to endeavor to secure more favorable terms, and meanwhile to concentrate the forces of the department at Houston to resist an expected attack upon Galveston. On May 13 the members of the conference drew up a set of terms which they ventured to demand, hoping to preserve the political integrity of their States. In substance these demands were: That officers and soldiers were to be allowed to return directly to their homes; immunity was to be guaranteed against prosecution for offences committed against the United States during the war; officers, soldiers, and citizens were to be allowed to retain their arms and to leave the country if they so desired; the existing State governments were to be recognized until conventions could be called “to settle all questions between the States;” 15 and after a certain date each State should be allowed full military authority within its own borders for the preservation of order. This conference at Marshall is notable more for what it hoped for than for what it accomplished. General Pope had already expressly disclaimed any authority to settle political questions. 16 Nevertheless, Sprague, who had been detained for this purpose, now returned to Pope bearing these demands and a letter from Smith urging reasons for their acceptance, which were chiefly the expense of prolonging the war and the possibility of “foreign complications.” 17 The Confederate authorities had already spent much vain effort in endeavoring to entangle Maximilian and the French in Mexico in an imbroglio with the United States. On May 2 Smith had made a last attempt to arouse the anxiety of the Mexican emperor at the prospect of having the distinctly hostile power of the United States re-established on the Rio Grande. 18 But such hopes were futile, if indeed Smith expected any realization of them.
Hardly was the Marshall conference concluded and the counter-demand for terms despatched to Pope when Magruder sent word from Houston that, on the night of the 14th of May, four hundred of the troops at Galveston had attempted to desert the post with arms in their hands, but had been persuaded by Colonel Ashbel Smith, aided by a couple of other regiments, to remain a while longer. The troops were all becoming unmanageable, Magruder further reported; they had lost their fighting spirit and could not be depended upon. They insisted upon dividing the public property before leaving, and he thought it best to comply with this demand and to try to send them away to their homes as quietly as possible. 19 Almost immediately came similar reports from Brownsville. The commander at that place reported that at least one-half of his troops had deserted because they thought it was of no use to fight longer, and that war meetings and speeches had no effect upon them. The troops that remained could not be depended upon. 20 Similar accounts came from other points. In many places the soldiers had taken possession of the government stores, sacked them, carried off what they could, and gone home.
The situation was fast becoming desperate, indeed. Without waiting for a response from Pope, Smith immediately despatched General Buckner as commissioner to General Canby, commanding the United States forces at New Orleans, to take up again the question of terms of surrender. He then ordered the evacuation of Galveston and, preparing to concentrate the Texas troops at Houston, he removed his headquarters thither. Before he arrived, about May 29, his army had disappeared. The long dreaded break-up had come.
The order for the evacuation of Galveston had been received on Sunday, May 21, and the movement began the next day. The troops perceived that the end had come and at once became unmanageable. Ranks were broken and almost the whole force swarmed up to Houston. Here a few men of De Bray's brigade maintained sufficient discipline to patrol the streets and preserve order. The city authorities were greatly alarmed, for wild rumors had flown about that the troops had threatened to sack and burn the town, and arrangements were hurriedly made by the mayor and citizens to feed them until they could be passed on through. Saloons were ordered closed, and the disobedient suffered confiscation and destruction of all liquors. For some reason the military patrol was suddenly withdrawn early in the morning of Tuesday, the 23rd. By 8 o'clock a crowd of some two thousand persons had collected before the doors of the Ordnance Building. It was broken into and speedily sacked. The mob then proceeded to the Clothing Bureau. Everything portable was taken. “Blankets, made-up clothing, bolts of domestic, buttons, flannels, shoes, mosquito bars, gray cloth, sides of leather, mule whips, hammers, head stalls, etc., all went into the division and were accepted as the new issue.” Soldiers, citizens, women, negroes, and children participated. Some of the soldiers held aloof. The crowd was surprisingly quiet, and by 12 o'clock it was all over. The city authorities seemed paralyzed with fear. Later in the day other troops arrived from Galveston and finding the booty gone angrily threatened to pillage the town; but some of the citizens produced part of the stores and they were redistributed among the late comers. Hastily the mayor made provision for feeding them. Again a patrol, partly of soldiers, partly of citizens, was placed over the city and within a few days quiet was thoroughly restored. 21
As the disbanded soldiery swept on homeward up through the State similar scenes, on a lesser scale, occurred in many places. There had been no personal violence at Houston, nor was there elsewhere for a time. The soldiers simply took possession of Confederate, and generally of State, property wherever they could find it, alleging that as it had originally been collected for their use and, as they had protected it, they were the nearest heirs of the defunct Confederacy and entitled to this much of the estate. Added to this was the irritating conviction that while they had suffered hardships in the army they had not been adequately supported by the mass of those who had been allowed to remain at home, and that the resources of the country had been speculated upon and wasted by the incompetent or unprincipled men into whose hands they had fallen. 22 Nor did public opinion often condemn them. It was generally felt that the soldiers had a better right to the Confederate property than any one else. 23 Private property was generally respected, but that of the State frequently suffered. At La Grange the soldiers of Fayette county held a meeting on May 27 and appointed a committee to gather up all government property in the county and distribute it, looking especially to the interest of indigent soldiers or their families. At Huntsville they levied upon penitentiary cloth, and for a time a fixed amount was given to each applicant. The towns through which they passed, usually in squads, furnished them food—“they are masters of the situation,” explains the Huntsville Item significantly. As they penetrated farther into the interior of the State they became more reckless. At La Grange and at San Antonio stores were openly pillaged. Governor Murrah, in an effort to save State property, issued a proclamation on the 25th to all sheriffs and other officers, enjoining them to gather up and preserve for future and more equitable distribution all property of the State and that of the Confederacy in which the State had an interest. It was impossible for this order to be very generally carried out. The widespread feeling of insecurity and tendency to disorder were not lessened by the presence of bodies of armed men marching towards Mexico. General Joe Shelby with a force estimated variously from three thousand to twelve thousand men was on his way to join Maximilian, 24 and levied upon the country as he passed along. Numbers of smaller groups, composed largely of late officials who had elected political exile were bound for the same destination. Governor Murrah had, on May 27, issued a call for a special session of the Legislature in July, and at the same time he proclaimed an election for a general convention. The program seems to have been “to adopt the speediest mode of harmonizing the State government with the new condition of affairs, to repeal the ordinance of secession, and to enact other legislation necessary to render Texas a faithful member of the Union.” Neither the Legislature nor the convention ever met. It was soon apparent that civil officials would not be recognized by the Federal authorities. Helpless in the midst of the general disorder, from the highest to the lowest, they gradually ceased to attempt to perform their functions. In the absence of responsible authorities lawlessness increased. Jayhawkers, guerrillas, and highwaymen appeared. An attempt was made to capture and rob the penitentiary at Huntsville. The State Treasury at Austin, left without adequate protection, was looted. Predatory bands of robbers and jayhawkers infested all the roads between San Antonio and the Rio Grande. One stage was said to have been held up on an average of once every five miles on the road from Rio Grande City to San Antonio. Affairs were not much better in other sections. Here and there the towns began to organize local police or “home guards” and to clear the country round about. The newspapers besought the people to restore order, as it was the only way by which to obviate the establishment of a military government. 25
Amid this scene of confusion Kirby Smith arrived in Houston about May 29. On the 30th he issued an address to the soldiers in which he declared that it had been his intention to concentrate the army at Houston, await negotiations and carry on the struggle until favorable terms could be secured. He was now left a commander without an army and, by destroying their organization, he declared, the men had thrown away their only chance of securing honorable terms. 26 On the same day he addressed a letter to Colonel Sprague of General Pope's staff, saying that the Trans-Mississippi Department was now open to occupation by United States troops, since the Confederate soldiers had disbanded. At the same time he declared his intention of leaving the country. 27 In the meantime his commissioner to New Orleans, General Buckner, had been discussing terms of surrender with General Canby. Buckner failed to secure the settlement of any political question, since Canby was not authorized to treat of those matters. However, a convention was finally agreed upon, May 26, providing, in substance, that the Confederate troops, officers, and men were to be paroled, and to return home, transportation being furnished them where possible. All Confederate property was to be turned over to the proper officers of the government of the United States. 28
Before General Smith had arrived at Houston, General Magruder and Governor Murrah had made an independent effort to secure favorable terms of peace for Texas. On May 24, the next day after the sack of the military stores at Houston, they appointed Colonel Ashbel Smith and W. P. Ballinger as special commissioners to proceed to New Orleans and negotiate with General Canby or other proper authority of the United States for “the cessation of hostilities between the United States and Texas.”
The commissioners arrived at New Orleans on May 29 and at once solicited a conference. They had seen in the newspapers a copy of the convention between Canby and Buckner, but hoped “to facilitate the prompt and satisfactory restoration of relations between Texas and the United States government.” Canby granted the conference, but distinctly stated that he had no authority to entertain officially any questions of civil or political character. The Texas commissioners frankly stated at the outset the actual conditions in Texas—the mutiny and the break-up in the army, the seizure and distribution of Confederate property, the helplessness of the Confederate officials. The people, they said, were heartily tired of the war and ready in good faith to return to their allegiance to the government of the United States; but they were greatly concerned with respect to the course to be pursued by the national government. The commissioners suggested that, inasmuch as the machinery of the civil government of the State was still intact and the regular election of State officers under the constitution in force in 1860 was to fall due the next August, that citizens of proven loyalty to the Union be allowed to proceed with this election. It would be a good policy to recognize the existing State government as a government de facto in preference to establishing a military government. They also pointed out the great evils to be feared from the dislocation of the labor of the State. There was more cotton in Texas than elsewhere, the crop was far along toward maturity, and its production involved the interest of all, white and black. It was of the greatest importance, therefore, that the negroes should be kept on the farms, and it was suggested that they be paid wages under proper regulations until the whole subject of labor could be properly adjusted. 29
This conference was necessarily fruitless, for not only was Canby without authority to treat upon the subjects broached by the Texans, but the United States authorities were not likely to yield on a matter of such wide importance as even the partial recognition of the “rebel” State government. As the final effort of the State authorities to save something from the wreck, it is interesting; but it seems impossible that, knowing the outcome of the Sherman-Johnston treaty, they could have hoped for very much along this line.
On June 2 General Smith went on board a United States ship of war at Galveston and formally signed the Canby-Buckner convention. The last vestige of Confederate military authority now vanished. For three weeks, however, after the surrender, the Federals were not able to send an army to take possession of Texas because of the lack of transports.
Meanwhile conditions in the State grew worse. Wild rumors were afloat of dire punishments to be inflicted upon prominent rebels by the victorious Yankees. Trials for treason before military commissions and wholesale confiscation of property were to be expected. A sort of panic seized upon many of those who had held office under the Confederacy. Others declared they could not live under the odious rule of their enemies and prepard to emigrate. A lively exodus to Mexico ensued. Among those to go were the highest officials in the State, Generals Smith and Magruder and Governors Clark and Murrah. This flight was bitterly resented by those who were left behind.
On May 29 General Sheridan was assigned to the command of the Military Division of the Southwest, headquarters at New Orleans. On June 10 he ordered General Gordon Granger to proceed with eighteen hundred men to Galveston. 30 Granger arrived at Galveston on June 19 and immediately, in conformity to instructions, assumed command of all forces in the State and issued orders declaring that by proclamation of the President all slaves were free, that all acts of the Governor and the Legislature of Texas since the ordinance of secession were illegal, that all officers and men of the late Confederate army were to be paroled, and that all persons “having in their possession public property of any description, formerly belonging to the late so-called Confederate States or the State of Texas,” should turn it over to the proper United States officer at the nearest of the previously designated stations. 31 As rapidly as possible troops were pushed into the interior of the State and posted at the most important points. The military were to serve the double purpose of carrying out the provisions of the surrender and of preserving order until a civil government could be established. Most of the troops sent to Texas were ordered to the Rio Grande as a sort of demonstration against the French in Mexico. The rest were wholly inadequate to the efficient policing of the State. The posts established were widely separated and extensive districts, comprising sometimes several counties, were without proper surveillance; and this, too, at a time when society was convulsed with sudden and momentous changes and lawlessness was everywhere. Even under these conditions General Sheridan, to provide against local resistance or guerrilla warfare, issued orders, June 30, that no home guards or bands for self-protection would be allowed anywhere in the State, on the ground that the military were sufficient for all such purposes. By the same order, neighborhoods infested by guerrillas were to be held responsible for the deeds of the latter,—an act characteristic of the harsh suspicion with which Sheridan always regarded Texas.
The military authorities now proceeded to confiscate all public property that could be found. Such as had belonged to the Confederacy or had been used in the prosecution of the war became the property of the United States, while that belonging solely to the State was held until the proper time should arrive for turning it over to the State officials. But very little of the public property had been left by the soldiers during the riotous days of the “break-up,” and the Federals charged that the Confederate officials had not observed the terms of the convention and their parole. These charges, later reiterated, were undoubtedly unjust, for the soldiers had seized most of the property before the surrender, and afterwards the officers were unable to restrain them. Many commands, in fact, had never surrendered, but simply disbanded, as has been shown, even before the convention had been agreed upon at New Orleans.
But if most forms of Confederate property had disappeared or evaded Federal confiscation, it was otherwise with cotton. When the war closed there was scattered all over the country a considerable amount of unmarketed cotton, and as soon as hostilities ceased the holders were anxious to get it to market without delay in order to obtain the enormous prices then being paid for it. General Grant had given orders to the commanders in the Southwest not to interfere with its shipment since it was to the business interests of the whole country that it be marketed, and to encourage shipment in every way. The military were forbidden to institute inquiries as to ownership, but to leave it to the treasury agents to seek out such property as belonged to the government. 32 Accordingly, General Granger, upon his arrival at Galveston issued orders to the effect that until the arrival of treasury agents all cotton would be turned into the quartermaster's department for shipment to New Orleans or New York, there to be sold to United States purchasing agents. Bills of lading were to be given and the owners were to be allowed to accompany the cotton in order to affect the sale. 33 This order was in force for little more than a month. Treasury agents soon arrived and swarmed over the State, seeking out and taking possession of everything belonging to the late Confederacy, especially cotton. Some of this cotton had actually belonged to the Confederate government; some had been set aside to pay the tax but had never been delivered; some had been purchased by the State Military Board but had never been paid for nor delivered; some had gone to pay State taxes and was now State property; but a great part had never been anything but private property. The greatest possible confusion arose in regard to the ownership of these various classes of cotton. The planter who had produced it was unwilling to give up, as Confederate property, cotton that had never been paid for, and he still claimed it as his own; nor, it must be confessed, was he always active in turning over that which had actually been paid for (in Confederate paper), or which had been raised for the government under the terms of an “exemption contract.” 34 On the other hand, the claims of the treasury agents were sweeping. By order of the general agent for Texas, H. C. Wamoth, all personal property that was “actually or constructively in the possession of the Confederate States at the time of the surrender” was to be seized. 35 In all cases persons who wished to ship cotton from any point in Texas were required to give satisfactory evidence that the cotton for shipment was not “surrendered” cotton. 36 The burden of proof, therefore, was on the owner of the cotton.
It is obvious that in the confusion involving the subject and incident to public affairs generally, it must have been no easy task even for the most upright and generous minded agent to keep clear of popular disfavor; but the almost unlimited powers delegated to these agents and the constant opportunities for fraud and peculation, with little danger of punishment, were in themselves demoralizing. There seems to have been a large amount of truth in the charges of fraud, robbery, and extortion that were made against so many of these officials. A petition to President Johnson, printed in the Washington Republican (Washington, D. C.), and signed by merchants, business men, and planters of Louisiana and Texas, declares that great frauds and acts of oppression were continually practiced by treasury agents in the matter of cotton; that the planters west of the Mississippi had rarely received anything in payment from the Confederate government, and had been informed by agents, military officials, and by the Secretary of the Treasury himself, that cotton not thus paid for or delivered would pass like any other cotton. Yet when the cotton had been sold to the merchant the treasury agent stepped in and took possession of it. Trade was paralyzed, capital made timid, and the planters were unable to sell their cotton or to hire the labor they needed. 37 A correspondent of the New Orleans Picayune, writing from Eastern Texas, gives an account of similar difficulties, and declares that every agent under whose inspection the cotton passed required new proof, which was always inconvenient to obtain. 38 Several cases of fraud came to light at Jefferson, Texas, where a treasury agent was later indicted on three distinct charges of fraud and swindling. He was released by the military authorities. Usually there was no recourse whatever for the parties claiming to have been wronged. A favorite device of the dishonest treasury agent was to hold back a lot of cotton from shipment under pretense of investigating the title until the owner was willing to give a bribe for its release. Sometimes he took possession of the cotton outright and shipped it on his own account. At other times he ordered it shipped to certain points at high rates and received a rebate on the transportation charges. 39
These troubles involved only the cotton left over from the crop of 1864, but so slowly was that erop marketed that they did not cease until the beginning of 1866.
The turmoil and confusion of the “break-up” and the general dread of all that a military occupation might entail had at first diverted public attention somewhat from the most serious problem that the close of the war had forced upon the people of the South. What was to be done with the negro? Was he to be set free, and if so, what measure of freedom should he have? How was his labor to be secured and so regulated that he should be an economically efficient member of society? What was to be his position in this society, in the broad domain of civil rights and privileges, and in political affairs? The magnitude of the problem was not at once appreciated; for the time being public attention was engaged solely with that part which was of most immediate concern, the measure of freedom to be accorded to the late slaves and the best method of securing his labor. The other and more intricate phases of the question were of later development, and the contingencies which gave rise to them were then but dimly apprehended.
It had been long foreseen that in the event of Federal victory a change in the status of the negro would be inevitable. Indeed, the certainty of his emancipation in case of the failure of the South had been wielded as a goad to a “last ditch” struggle. Yet the Confederacy itself, in final desperation proposed to grant freedom to the slaves as a reward for military service. The plan came to nothing, for the Confederate government was then on the point of collapse. Then, too, slavery as a system had already been shattered east of the Mississippi by the presence of the Federal armies. In Texas, however, undisturbed by invasions, the institution had remained essentially unimpaired. But with the break-up of the Confederate armies and the approach of the Federals the changed status of the negro was now sharply emphasized. Long before Granger's proclamation at Galveston, June 19, it was generally known that the slaves would be freed. In some cases the planters anticipated the emancipation by setting their negroes at liberty; sometimes the negroes themselves slipped away from their homes and began roaming about the country; but for the most part they were kept at home to await Federal action.
Even at this time, despite the attitude of the national authorities, there was considerable belief that slavery as an institution was not dead nor yet doomed to die. The Marshall Republican, the most important weekly of Eastern Texas, in its issue of June 16, reviewed the situation, describing the demoralization of the negroes, who were lapsing into vagrancy and consequent “filth, disease, and crime.” The negroes would not work when once it was definitely known that slavery was to cease, and the crops could neither be cultivated nor gathered. The Republican affected to believe that “the ruinous effects” of freeing four millions of ignorant and helpless blacks would not be confined to the South, but that the blight would be communicated to the North, and that “the time would come when the people of that section would be glad to witness a return to a system attended with more philanthropy and happiness to the black race than the one they seem determined at present to establish; for they will find that compulsory labor affords larger crops and a richer market for Yankee manufacturers.” The masters were advised, therefore, not to turn their slaves loose to become demoralized, but to maintain a kind and protecting care over them. “The amendment to the Federal Constitution abolishing slavery has not been ratified by three-fourths of the States, nor is it likely to be in the ensuing ten years. When the State governments, therefore, are reorganized it is more than probable that slavery will be perpetuated. We can tell better then than at present how long it is likely to endure and prepare for the change.” Emancipation, if adopted at all, should be gradual, but “there is but little reason to doubt that whether or not slavery is perpetuated in name, there will be a return to a character of compulsory labor which will make the negro useful to society and subordinate to the white race.” The Houston Telegraph, while conceding that emancipation was “certain to take place,” was of the opinion that paid compulsory labor would replace unpaid. Since the negro was to be freed by the Federal government solely with a view to the safety of the nation, his condition would be modified only so far as to insure this, but not so far as materially to weaken the agricultural resources of the country. Therefore, the negroes would be compelled to work under police regulations of a stringent character. Under this happy system insolence was to be provided against on the one hand and injustice on the other.
Such seem to have been the hopes of the well informed. To men accustomed to dealing with the indolence of the negro in slavery, such a thing as successful free negro labor was absolutely unthinkable. No other than negro labor seemed available on the great bottom farms of the “black belt”; without this labor the planting interests were threatened with ruin; and, moreover, to leave the negro the prey of the vice and misery certain to result from idleness and vagrancy would be criminal. Compulsory negro labor, then, seemed the natural and necessary arrangement. It was clear enough, too, that slavery as an institution, recognized by the constitution, could not be abolished by proclamation, and that three-fourths of the States would adopt an amendment abolishing slavery seemed preposterous. Thus the life long beliefs and prejudices of the Southerner conspired with the exigencies of the situation to lead him into a policy which, certain to be distorted in reports given to the North, was in its reaction to force upon him the very things he would have feared most,—his own disfranchisement and negro domination.
Serenely unconscious of negro incapacity and unembarrassed by constitutional guarantees, the Federal military authorities proceeded to complete the work cut out for them. In his emancipation proclamation, issued at Galveston on the 19th of June, General Granger declared that in accordance with the presidential proclamation all slaves were free, and that this involved an absolute equality of personal and property rights between former masters and slaves, the previous connection between them becoming that between employer and free laborer. Mindful of the propensities of the freedmen, he advised them to remain at home and work for wages, and warned them that they would not be allowed to collect at military posts, nor would they be supported in idleness there or elsewhere.
As long as the regular army officials were in control, that is, until the officials of the Freedmen's Bureau arrived, efforts were made to keep the negroes under strict supervision. In the published general orders of post commanders at various points during June and July, Granger's proclamation is reflected—the freedmen are repeatedly urged to stay at home and go to work for their former masters for wages; they are assured of their freedom and of protection from injustice, but are warned against vagrancy under penalty of being put to hard labor without compensation; and in many cases they are not permitted to travel on the public thoroughfares without passes from employers. 40 That the army officials failed to keep the negroes from vagrancy is not surprising. The army posts were too far apart to keep all communities under surveillance, and the freedmen themselves were too ignorant to understand that their new freedom did not mean immunity from work, and that they could not be fed and clothed forever by their liberators.
The military officials made no effort at first to superintend the drawing up of contracts between the freedman and his employer, nor to act for the freedmen in stipulating wages or other terms. The provost marshal general for Texas, Lieutenant-Colonel Laughlin, issued a statement that negroes would be allowed to make contracts with whomsoever they wished, and that both parties would be held to the terms of the contract; that “unless other regulations are promulgated by the Freedman's Bureau,” the amount and kind of consideration for labor should be entirely a matter of contract between the employer and the employees. 41 Perhaps it would have been better if the rate of wages had been fixed in some way, for some contracts were practically nullified later by the Bureau. It had frequently happened that a planter, not feeling able to pay wages,—for ready cash was scarce, political conditions unsettled, and the outlook uncertain,—had arranged for his freedman to work temporarily for food and clothing for himself and family. In most cases the freedman was to receive a part of the crop in the fall. To the childlike negro, concerned only with the immediate present, there was no difference between this and his old condition as a slave, and he soon wished to leave.
From a few sections the reports were favorable—the blacks were making contracts and remaining at work; 42 but as the summer wore on complaints came from all sides that vagrancy, theft, vice, and insolence were increasing, and that where negroes had made contracts they broke them without cause, often leaving their families for their employers to feed. 43 The Houston Telegraph thought it necessary to warn the people not to allow themselves to develop a feeling of hostility and bitterness toward the blacks, who, although they were doing very many foolish and vexatious things, were “not responsible for their own emancipation.” It would have been well if the whites generally could have shown this tolerant spirit; but for his former master to show indulgence to the freedman who broke his contract when it suited his whim, disobeyed orders just to see how it felt to be “free,” and spent most of his time “visiting around” when the crops were most in need of work, was more than could be confidently expected of the average employer. For the time being, fortunately, in the southern part of the State, where the demoralization was worst, the crops were already well advanced and would need but little attention until fall. In the north and northeast, where the Federal troops had not yet penetrated, the negroes had shown less inclination to wander about, or else their former masters had taken steps to keep them at home. While in a few instances these planters endeavord to keep their negroes in ignorance of their freedom, in most cases their efforts took the form of combinations among ex-slave holders to control the labor of their former slaves; and usually each planter agreed to hire no negro without the consent of his former master. Sometimes freedmen who broke contracts and went away were brought back by force, and in some cases the planters were guilty of needless cruelty. The army officials generally endeavored to hold the negroes to their contracts, but at the same time they refused to allow coercion on the part of employers.
The discontent grew steadily worse and found expression in a more and more insistent demand, chiefly on the part of planters and newspapers in the interior, for State regulation of black labor. The Telegraph alone pointed out that the “North would not likely allow the South thus to enjoy the fruit of the contest over slavery after having lost the contest,” and advocated securing the immigration of white labor.
Conditions in the black belt did not materially improve during the summer. There was much uneasiness because of persistent rumors that negro troops were to be sent to Texas for garrison duty; for it was generally felt that their presence could only aggravate the situation and might make it positively dangerous by inciting unruly negroes to lawlessness and precipitating racial disturbances. It was also known that the Freedmen's Bureau was to be established in Texas, and the anxiety and distrust that were felt as to its attitude on the labor question did not tend to alleviate the growing discontent. Public opinion had become skeptical of the ability of the army officials to provide the usual and necessary supply of black labor, and manifested a greater eagerness for the speedy restoration of the regular State government which could be expected to deal with the problem in a manner agreeable with the customs and social ideas of the people. For this reason, largely, the arrival of the newly appointed provisional Governor, A. J. Hamilton, who came to restore civil authority and set in motion again the machinery of State government, was greeted with expectant interest.
The general commandant sends a detailed report of the battle he fought on August 18, 1813, in the country near the Medina, against the Anglo-Americans under the command of the rebel José Alvarez de Toledo; and asks for rewards for his officers and men. 46
Most Excellent Sir,
The ever victorious and invincible arms of our Sovereign, aided by the powerful hand of the god of war, have gained the most complete and decisive victory over the base and perfidious rabble commanded by certain vile assassins ridiculously styled a general and commanders.
Most Excellent Sir, I sent you information from the Villa of Laredo on the day I marched out with my army for this point to punish the rabble who occupied it. I accomplished this purpose by means of the requisite order which I had previously issued to Colonel Don Ignacio Elizondo commanding him to set out with his division and join me in the place called Cañada de Caballos, where, according to a careful calculation, I thought he would be able to do so. He did it, except that I had to wait four days for him. When he had joined me, I united his infantry and cavalry with mine to form a single army with these two divisions. This made the total number of my army eighteen hundred and thirty men, consisting of a force of six hundred and thirty-five infantry and eleven hundred and ninety-five cavalry. We continued our march from this point, after having halted for a few days' rest so that, during this time, we might explain and teach the most necessary and indispensable formations and maneuvers in an action or battle. It was necessary to do so, as Elizondo's men lacked this training. Finally, in this manner, I continued my march, filled with the greatest confidence because I noticed among my troops a decided enthusiasm and bravery, a remarkable serenity of mind, and an unusual patience with which they bore the fatigue of a march so long and painful, rendered so by the unfortunate time— it being summer—in which they passed through an unsettled country so extensive as that beyond Laredo, and in a most pitiful state of nakedness. The greater part of the troops were even bare-footed and bare-legged; many had only a breech-clout. I observed also a most eager desire to engage, as soon as possible, the wicked rabble who had become famous on account of their cruel and unworthy deeds, and their pride resulting from the victories they had previously gained. By these means as well as by their strength and discipline, they had made themselves feared. My troops had not long to wait, Most Excellent Sir, for the end so anxiously desired.
On the sixteenth of last August, I camped with my army a league and a half this side of the place called Rancherías (having observed throughout the whole march the strictest precaution and vigilance which military skill teaches). From this point, I sent out a corporal and four soldiers as spies to reconnoiter the country and note the movements of the enemy with orders to advance as far as this capital, if on their journey, they heard no rumors of the mob; for I had no information whatsoever of their location. But the corporal and four soldiers found numerous traces of people on foot and on horseback, and they, therefore, returned to give me the proper information. In view of this, on the eighteenth, before starting on my march—which I directed toward the River Medina, proposing to change my course in order to cross it by a different road from the direct one as I remembered that this was a cañon which would give an advantage to the enemy if they wished to form an ambush in the wooded space covering it—I sent forward Lieutenant-Colonel Don Ignacio Elizondo with one hundred and eighty cavalrymen directing him to proceed with the greatest caution and vigilance until he saw the enemy, and then to make, as far as possible, a careful observation of their number, but not to engage them in battle unless he thought himself strong enough to inflict an exemplary punishment upon them; and, if not, to keep up a slow fire while retreating to give me prompt information that I might make my plans. I informed him of the place at which I had arranged to cross the Medina River, and of the road, which was a short-cut, so that he might follow it in his retreat until he joined me. He set out at five o'clock in the morning with the number of officers necessary for the force he had, among them being two of my aides-de-camp Lieutenants, Don Luis Gómez de Castrejón of the first Vera Cruz battalion, and Don José María Céspedes of the veteran presidial company of Bahía del Espíritu Santo, who came to me and begged to be allowed to join this expedition. At a short distance from the above mentioned Medina River, Alferes Don Francisco López was separated from the main party. He was seen by the enemy, and they instantly fired a volley at him; but, by a miracle, no damage was done him. In view of this occurrence, Elizondo instantly (and it must have been about eight o'clock) commanded that the line be extended and that answer be made with a rapid and well directed fire. The enemy charged bravely and with their whole force so that a circle was almost formed about him. Elizondo, seeing this arrangement, the large number of the enemy, and remembering my orders, commanded his troops to turn about and begin their retreat, keeping up a regular fire. As fast he he gave ground, the enemy advanced. During this maneuver, after a short space of firing on both sides and various discharges of cannon by the enemy, the firing stopped, because our troops faced the open country. This was as much to see the movements of the enemy more clearly as to take breath or rest from the fatigue that had been endured so long. Almost immediately, the rabble began to direct their fire with more vigor and force, advancing boldly. They were calmly answered by our troops who were again forced to retreat in the same manner as in the first engagement. At this juncture, Elizondo sent me the information necessary for precautionary measures and plans. I instantly responded by ordering my line extended and placed in battle array, and I sent to his relief one hundred and fifty cavalrymen and two 1½-pound cannon under the orders of Reverend Lieutenant-Colonel Don Juan Manuel Zambrano. The engagement was soon ended, the enemy having suffered some losses. On our side, two soldiers were wounded, one gravely; and some horses were injured. My aide-de-camp, Lieutenant Don José María Céspedes, had been detailed to give me private information of what had happened. He followed orders exactly; and, on his way, met with the reinforcement I had sent out under the command aof Lieutenant-Colonel Zambrano, whom I reminded of my orders to Elizondo not to undertake any action upon any pretext whatsoever, but to continue luring the enemy on as I was following him with my army. I followed after him, but abandoning my first plan, I ordered the army to form in line; and resolved to attack the rascals. This officer joined Elizondo, and his arrival was noted by the enemy. They thought it was the entire strength of the army for they believed it to be my troops. They, therefore, resolved to pursue Elizondo even more hotly. Under this misapprehension, they charged again, showing even greater bravery, and keeping up a slow fire. The valiant troops of our beloved Sovereign hesitated not a moment in answering them, accompanying their fire with a cannonade which was kept up until the enemy's force could not advance from fear of the damage they might suffer from our balls. Elizondo beat a hasty retreat. As he was absolutely unable to resist so strong a force, to have attempted such a thing, would have been to sacrifice his whole division, to fail in carrying out my orders, and consequently to place this hard fought battle in doubt. In the meantime, I continued my march with my army drawn up in column, when I saw the haste with which Elizondo was retreating to join me with his troops (at which moment was formed the line of battle). He had been forced to abandon the two small cannon to the enemy. Believing that they were already glorious victors and masters of the field, and had only to take the spoils—as they thought our troops were fleeing—they advanced bravely yet blindly; but found themselves confronted by the main body of our army formed in line for attack, with the artillery placed on the flanks of the cavalry. This surprised the rabble, and halted them for the purpose of restoring order. They did this, being aided by the great number of oaks with which the country was covered. Having formed in perfect line—and this was seen by the company of guerillas, under the command of the lieutenant of the regiment from Vera Cruz, Don Pedro Lemus, which I had detailed to reconnoiter—they advanced upon my army with great bravery until they came within pistol shot; but my courageous and intrepid soldiers, following my orders given through their brave commanders and officers, began to return a lively, sustained, and well directed fire which was answered in like manner. So there was a very hard fought battle, reaching the extreme of having their artillery placed withing forty paces of our. We kept up this fierce struggle for more than two hours and still no decisive result was recognized by either side. Seeing such strong and obstinate resistance, and the extreme damage which our fire did their troops, their excommunicate chief, José Álvarez de Toledo, tried to surprise us on the right and the left wings and in the rear. But he was not so quick in his movements as I was in commanding an advance guard sent out on both wings and a considerable picket force detailed as a rear-guard, under the command of the aide-de-camp of the major-general, Alferes Don Vicente Arreola, to take charge of the supplies and horses. I did not form a square as my force was not sufficient for this maneuver. Most Excellent Sir, much advantage was obtained by this prompt arrangement, because the mischievous designs and the fire of the enemy were met on all four sides. After three and a half hours of this determined and hard fought conflict, it was seen that victory was on our side; for the most obstinate Anglo-Americans had been completely routed. Seeing this, I ordered the music to start up and my drummer to beat the reveille. This had such an effect on my troops and reanimated them so much that it seemed as if they were going to advance. Confusion now seized upon the enemy; and they began to abandon their artillery. I, therefore, ordered a detachment to advance on the right to seize it. The commander of the infantry, Don Antonio Elosua, advanced on the left with another detachment for the same purpose. At the same time, I ordered the cavalry to set out in pursuit of those who had already fled. They did this with intrepidity and decision, putting to death as many as they found on the way, and penetrating as far as the Medina River. Consequently, after four hours of this bloody battle we were masters of the enemy's ground. I therefore ordered it to be examined, and the arms, the park of artillery, and whatever else might be found to be collected. This was done with the greatest minuteness, under the direction of the infantry and cavalry commanders, my aides-de-camp, and the other officers, who reported to me that the field was covered with dead bodies to the number of about a thousand. The greater part were Americans, among them being the son of General Wilkinson, Colonel Menchaca, and many other officers of the rabble. The field was covered with many wounded as has been verified by numerous reports. Their arms, their park of artillery, prisoners (who have been executed as a just punishment for their crimes), and whatever else was found were seized.
Report No. 1, which I respectfully enclose to Your Excellency, shows what was taken from the enemy during the battle on the eighteenth and likewise upon entering this city; and No. 2 shows the loss which was sustained on our part.
In order to make sure of the seizure of those who fled early in the action—principally the Tonkawas, Taovayases, Tawakanas, and the Lipans who were the first—I sent out Lieutenant-Colonel Don Ignacio Elizondo with a force of two hundred cavalrymen to apprehend them, ordering him to come to this city for that purpose, and to take possession of it, of the cannon which were left, and of whatever else the rabble might have saved from the property they had stolen. He fulfilled his commission perfectly and to my entire satisfaction; for on his way he seized some prisoners, and likewise captured many in the city who had escaped during the action and other rascals who are usually included among the malefactors composing such an army. He also seized the cannon. He found only a few true and faithful vassals of our Sovereign and some supplies all of which has been of but little value in view of the fact that upon his arrival, a few of the officers who had fled, made off with their families carrying away the best of everything as they had arranged to do in case they lost the battle. Therefore, the property found was for the most part that belonging to Salcedo, Herrera, and Captain Arcos—victims sacrified by the wicked cruelty of this band of rascals—and these were turned over to their representatives and son.
Most Excellent Sir, with only sixteen hundred brave, intrepid and invincible soldiers—since the rest were employed in guarding the horses and supplies—I had the satisfaction of engaging three thousand, two hundred of the enemy. And they were well-armed throughout, full of pride, well disciplined, and versed in military tactics. This was due as much to the previous military training of the traitorous Spanish soldiers and to that learned from the Anglo-Americans as to the instruction recently given by their rebel leader, José Álvarez de Toledo, to groups of these wicked peasants. Toledo's skill and talent are known since they are proved by the place he held under the Sovereign as lieutenant of the navy, by the battles he has fought, and by the office he held as deputy to the Córtes from the Island of Santo Domingo. But the bad temper, the wicked conduct, and evil inclinations of this traitor led him to this place. Therefore Your Excellency, will consider the great state of discipline of this rabble as compared to the forces employed in the present rebellion. 47 For, however much ability as a commander the officer in charge may have, of still greater value is the discipline which enthusiasm enfuses among his subordinates who are stimulated by his example.
The cunning of the traitorous Toledo operated in such a manner that by it and by his tricks he gained the affection and high regard of the army which occupied this city. Therefore, he supplanted the rascally Bernardo Guiterrez to such an extent that the latter had to resign his generalship and go the United States. The command fell to Toledo, and, therefore, his force was augmented by the outlaws from the neutral ground.
On the day after the expedition of Lieutenant-Colonel Don Ignacio Elizondo, I marched with my army to this city which I entered without incident. Here I at once learned of the flight of some of the leaders who, with their families, their supplies, and various rascals, had fled, as did the traitor José Álvarez de Toledo (reported wounded). I therefore ordered the above mentioned lieutenant-colonel, Don Ignacio Elizondo ,to set out with five hundred men, instructing him to march to Nacogdoches, attack that place, and to see, if on his way, he could succeed in apprehending any of the fugitives. The result of this to date is shown by a report enclosed. I must remind Your Excellency that I entrusted this officer with the principal expeditions not because the others with me lacked equal skill and willingness, but because of the knowledge he has of the country. In fact, the most skillful of them all, is Lieutenant-Colonel Don Cristóbal Domínguez, but he performs the duties of quarter-master and major-general of the army.
As a result of the defeat which the enemy suffered, the first who fled carried the news to the presidio of Bahía del Espíritu Santo; and hence the small number of the rabble who were there left at once. Therefore the large number of royalists living there were able to seize only the slow ones who did not flee with the rest. Eleven of them were put to death and due information was sent me. This I received on my way to this city. For this reason, I sent out from this place eighty men for the protection and regulation of this presidio under the orders of the captain of the cavalry from Nuevo Santander, Don Luciano García.
Most Excellent Sir, in spite of my limited abilities, I have found no difficulty in making clear my narrative thus far; but I can not find words to picture to Your Excellency the bravery, intrepidity, determination, enthusiasm, patriotism, and good order of the officers and troops which I have the great honor to command. For, however much I may say, I think that still I do not succeed, considering to what extent such praiseworthy incidents as those of the eighteenth which have given renown to this most wonderful army, proved the worth of my men. I will, therefore, omit a detailed mention of them as I am persuaded that from the foregoing and in view of the fierceness of the battle, a proper and judicial judgment will be formed. Hence, to a certain extent I avoid taking Your Excellency's time which is so valuable considering the present state of affairs, the successful outcome of which demands your best and most careful consideration. Therefore in the discharge of my duties and in order not to lose sight of the justice which would be neglected should I fail to do so, I recommend, particularly, to Your Excellency, Colonel Don Cayetano Quintero captain of the cavalry of the province of Nuevo Santander, second officer of my army, and commander of the right wing of the cavalry, who, in addition to his extraordinary merits and previous services, proved his bravery and his ability in maneuvering his wing upon this occasion. He was wounded in the left arm and bruised on the breast. I recommend to you Lieutenant-Colonel Don Cristóbal Domínguez, assistant inspector of these provinces, who performs the duties of quarter-master and major-general of the army. Since holding this office, he has discharged his duties to my entire satisfaction, in the same manner as in all former positions. He proved his valor in this action for he kept watching the lines even in the thick of the fight in order that he might maintain order and transmit my commands. I recommend my aides-de-camp Lieutenant Don Luis Gómez de Castrejón of the Vera Cruz regiment of infantry, Lieutenants Nicolás del Moral; Don Juan María Martínez; and Don José María Céspedes of the presidial company of Bahía del Espíritu, who were no less worthy than the others; for, even in the heat of battle, they too went up and down the lines to communicate my orders. This they did with coolness and bravery. Castrejón participated in all the movements led by Elizondo except the last engagement at Nacogdoches, while Céspedes took part in the first. I recommend the commander of the Vera Cruz battalion of infantry, Captain Don Antonio Elosua, who has on various occasions proved his valor, intrepidity, and willingness. He did so for me on this occasion, most efficiently ordering his battalion and encouraging his soldiers. He advanced with a detachment from his battalion and seized the enemy's artillery on the left. I recommend Brevet Captain Don Antonio Zárate for his zeal in sustaining and encouraging his troops; for, in spite of having been wounded in his right thigh, he did not even discontinue his duties. I recommend Lieutenant Don José María Hernández, Don Antonio Santa Anna, and Don Pedro Lemus who conducted themselves with great bravery, the latter having placed himself at the head of his company after having served in the guerilla troop. I recommend Don Cenobio de la Chica of the same rank; second-lieutenants Don José Ybarra, Don José Nieto, and Don José Turincio. The last managed his troops with skill and was one of the first to carry out my order for forming the advance guard. I recommend the second lieutenant of the Tula volunteer company of infantry, Don Pedro Zepeda, who with his company in no point fell behind the Vera Cruz battalion; the brevet second-lieutenant, Don Francisco de la Hoz, who in spite of a wound in his left thigh led his company to within three hundred paces of the enemy on foot, not being willing to be taken up, as was offered by his superior commander. In his rank I recommend Don Francisco Arizmendi and Don José Torres. All of the rest of the commanders of the battalion conducted themselves with honor, the most noticeable being Don Juan García and Alferes Don Tomás de Oquillas. The latter was slightly wounded. I recommend the artillery officer, Don Francisco del Corral, captain of the Vera Cruz regiment, who in addition to his merits and previous services, on this occasion, proved to me his valor, calmness, and willingness in the management of the troops he had under his charge, maneuvering them with the greatest boldness and rapidity in firing. During the four hours that the action lasted nine hundred and fifty shots were fired. They were marked by way of precaution and therefore the number was known. These were fired from seven cannon; for, although at first, the number was eleven, two had been taken by the enemy and two dismounted. I recommend the sergeant of the royal artillery, Brevet-Alferes Don Francisco Castro, who likewise fought and was injured; and the lieutenant-colonel of the army, Don Ignacio Elizondo, commander of the left wing, who conducted himself with the greatest courage and bravery. In addition to the movements which this report records him as leading, he worked hard to encourage the troops under his command, and distinguished himself particularly by the success with which he led out his cavalry against the enemy, managing in every particular with the greatest skill. 48 I recomment all the other officers of the cavalry, Captains Don Ignacio Alcalá, Don Manuel Zozaya, Don Miguel Paredes (who was wounded), Don José María Torralba, Don José de Jesús Rodríguez, Don Ignacio Pérez, Don Francisco del Prado, Don Luciano García, Don Féliz Pérez, Don Nicolás Benites, Don José Antonio Flores, Don José Ignacio Treviño, Don Isidro de la Garza, Don Manuel de Oca, Don Vicente Flores; Lieutenants Don Miguel Serrano, Don Andrés Barragán, Don Rafael Doria, Don Matías and Don José María Ximenes, Don Vicente Blanco, Don Jesús García, Don Juan José Elguezabal, Don José María Guillén, Don Andrés Farías; Alfereses Don José Antonio Benavides, Don Pedro García (who was wounded), Don José María Nabagra, Don Francisco de la Garza, Don Francisco López, Don Gabriel de Arcos, Don Valentín Rubio, Don Manuel de la Garza, Don Matías Guillén, Don Juan José Sánchez, Don Enrique Villareal, Don Fernando Rodríguez, Don Ramón Espinosa, Don Narciso Rodríguez, Don Manuel Barragán, Don Ignacio Treviño; the brevet-alferess Don José María Zamora, Don Manuel Nogara, Don Vicente Arreola, Don Domingo García, Don Jose Cavazos; the cadets Don Manuel Ruiz (who was wounded), Don Domingo Ugartechea, and Don Cayetano Garza. All these conducted themselves with courage, ardor, and enthusiasm when ordering their troops and otherwise fulfilling their duties. I, therefore, do not mention any of these individually. I recommend Reverend Lieutenant-Colonel Don Juan Manuel Zambrano, who conducted himself in the same manner, and who was wounded; the surgeon-major of the army, Don Miguel Pagés, who more than succeeded in proving his valor. He carried off the wounded from the ranks when, on account of the gravity of their injuries they were down; and, having carried them in his arms a short distance, he put them down together; and then calmly proceeded with his ministrations, acting as an officer by re-forming and encouraging the troops, and even as a common soldier by carrying cartridges for the men. I recommend Chaplains, Bachelor Don Miguel Campos; the curate of this city, Don José Dario Zambrano; Don Manuel Camacho; Don Andrés Malano; Don Francisco Treviño; Don Florentino Ramos; and Don José Antonio Valdés who vied with each other in performing the duties of their office. I recommend the sergeant of the first orderly company, Tiburcio Garza, and the corporal of the Nuevo Santander militia, Mateo Sotello who saved my life; for, when my corporals were behind me the former saw one of the enemy aiming at me. They advised me instantly, and I moved. In short, Most Excellent Sir, everyone has proved his love, loyalty, patriotism, and valor in defending the sacred rights of our beloved Sovereign, and of our dear country on this occasion which was really a most interesting one. They, consequently, deserve the recompense the country and the government representing it knows so well how to bestow generously upon its loyal and faithful servitors. The valor, calmness, and intrepidity with which the troop fought is inexpressible, reaching its highest point in the infantry. Some of them, even when wounded by bullets, did not wish to leave the ranks; and, in fact, did not do so, until so weak from the loss of blood that they fell. Others, having as many as two bullet wounds, continued until they received another. By this they completely eclipsed their former glory. The cavalry also conducted itself with no less bravery. Its heroes deserves the most marked attention, and are worthy of the highest eulogy and commendation. I can not but recommend to Your Excellency ,the families of the brave men who sacrificed their lives on the field of honor, in order that you may grant them such rewards as are due them.
God guard Your Excellency many years, Head-quarters, San Antonio de Béxar, September 13, 1813, I am, Sir, Joaquin Arredondo. (Rubric) The Most Excellent Señor Viceroy, Don Félix María Calleja. 49
Note—In addition to the above there was taken one medicine cart, two banners, two standards, twenty-six arrobas of iron, six arrobas and twenty-three pounds of steel. During the battle 112 prisoners were taken. On this, and the following day, they were shot. On the way to this city and in it 215 were captured. Those deserving death, on account of their crimes, were shot. The less culpable were sent to prison as soon as the prisoners were collected at the Trinity. The total number was therefore 327, not including the wretches at Bahía and Trinity. Seven of the cannon taken in the action were three pounders. Headquarters, Bexar, September 13, 1813. Joaquin de Arredondo (Rubric). 51
Note.—Colonel Don Cayetano Quintero, Lieutenant-Colonel Don Manuel Zambrano, Captain Don Luciano García, Don Miguel Paredes, Don Antonio Zárate, Lieutenant Don Pedro García, Alferes Don Tomás de Oquillas, Brevet Second Lieutenant Don Franco. de la Hoz, Don Francisco Castro and Cadet Don Manuel Ruiz are not included in this report, nor one hundred and sixty-five sergeants, drummers, corporals, and soldiers having bruises. In addition to these casualties, one hundred and seventy-three horses were wounded, and one hundred and nineteen were rendered useless.
Head-quarters, San Antonio de Béxar, September 13, 1813. Joaquin de Arredondo. 53 (Rubric) 54
NOTES AND FRAGMENTS.
Cataloging the University Collections.—A short time since, the Regents appropriated money for cataloging the archives of the University in a more systematic and thorough manner than has been possible heretofore. Mrs. Mattie Austin Hatcher, M. A., 1903, and Fellow in History, 1902-1904, has been appointed cataloger. During her incumbency as Fellow, Mrs. Hatcher was engaged mainly in classifying the Béxar Archives; but since her appointment as cataloger, her work has been confined entirely to arranging the most valuable collection belonging to the archives, the documents known as the Austin Papers; and much has been done towards making them more available for historical reference.
This collection contains something like ten thousand separate documents of varied character—compositions expressing Austin's views on various subjects, letters, decrees of the Mexican government, agreements, promissory notes, newspapers, etc. This mass of documents has been separated into two divisions—letters and miscellaneous matter; and these two classes, after having been placed in durable covers, have been arranged according to date. The earliest document of the whole collection is a memorandum of balance due William Z. Hubbard &Co. by Charles Lynch, dated Lynchburg, February, 1790, signed by Byars 55 and attested by H. Ward. The earliest letter was written June 1, 1794, by Thos. Ruston of Philadelphia to Moses Austin for the purpose of introducing Jos. Burr who was to act as the writer's agent in taking up lands at Austinville, Va., and of discussing terms upon which Austin would dispose of said lands. Stephen Austin died in December, 1836, and the collection proper ends at this point although there are a great many papers of later date connected with the settlement of the estate, and also quite a number collected still later by Colonel Guy M. Bryan. Thus it will be seen the collection contains papers collected by Moses Austin during his residence in Virginia and Missouri, by Stephen Austin during his residence in Texas, by the latter's executor, James F. Perry, and by his nephew, Guy M. Bryan.
In the actual work of cataloging, all letters through 1829 have been finished. This includes about half of the letters and, by rough estimate, about one-fourth of the entire collection.
Publications of the Southern Historical Association Suspended.—A recent announcement which affords matters for sincere regret is that of the suspension of the Publications of the Southern Historical Association. The series has passed through eleven volumes, and the prospect of its discontinuance—since it constitutes the most fruitful and useful activity of the Southern Historical Association—is most unfortunate. It is understood that efforts are under way to effect an arrangement for the continuance of the Publications; and it is earnestly hoped that some such arrangement, of a kind that will be satisfactory to all concerned, can be made.
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTICES.
The American Historical Review for January is an unusually interesting number. The opening article is from the pen of Professor George B. Adams and is entitled The Origin of the English Constitution. Professor Adams seeks to answer the question, Why England came out of the Middle Ages a limited monarchy. By this phrase he means the notion of a body of law above the king which he may be conmpelled to obey. In his opinion the body of Magna Carta and clause 61 is the first inclination of the Constitution towards a limited monarchy. In the fourteenth century Parliament,—whose development had been going on apart from the experiment in methods of coercing the king—become the embodiment of this fundamental principle of the Constitution.
Louise R. Loomis writes upon The Greek Renaissance in Italy, and attempts to show that “the part played by Greek literature in fifteenth century Italy was less triumphant than it is ordinarily supposed to have been.” Facts are mentioned to show that the enthusiasm, in so far as it was influential and genuine, was for Roman antiquity rather than for Hellenic. Even in philosophy the influence, from antiquity which helped to shape the thought of the fifteenth century were derived more directly from the Empire than from Hellas.
Professor A. B. Hart contributes an article on John Knox as a Man of the World in his usual direct style. He discusses John Knox from several standpoints, emphasizing his pride as a man, his vehemence as a writer, his violence as a preacher, his intemperate zeal as a reformer, and his practical failure as a constructive statesman,—all in all, a vivid glimpse of Scotland's great reformer.
In The First Hayburn Case, the writer, Professor Max Farrand, adduces evidence to show that on April 11, 1792, James Wilson, John Blair, and Richard Peter declared the Invalid Pension Act of 1792 unconstitutional, though there is no official record of the case. This is therefore the first instance of the Supreme Court asserting its right to declare an act of Congres invalid because contrary to the Federal Constitution.
The American Acta Sanctorum is the annual address of the president of the American Historical Association, Professor J. Franklin Jameson, delivered at Madison, December 27, 1907. The writer makes a plea for the recognition of the claim of American religious history by those who would completely understand the American character and spirit.
The Review prints two documents: one, Joseph Gales on the War Manifesto of 1812; and the other, Robert Barnwell Rhett on the Biography of Calhoun, 1854, contributed by Gaillard Hunt.
Eighty pages of this number of the Review are devoted to review of books. It also contains a communication from George W. Graham: The Mecklenburg Declaration: What Did the Governor See? and Notes and News.
J. E. Winston.
Texans Who Wore the Gray. By Sid S. Johnson, Captain 3d Texas Cavalry, Ross Brigade, C. S. A., and Brigadier General, Texas Brigade, Forrest's Cavalry, U. C. V. 8vo., pp. 407.
This is a collection of short biographies of more than four hundred Texas soldiers, officers for the greater part, in the Civil War, interspersed here and there with anecdotes of the camp and field. While it leaves something to be desired in selection and proportion, the material is to the point and will prove of value to the student of that period of Texas history. The book would be more serviceable if the matter were arranged in some regular order, either by suitable grouping or alphabetically, but this defect is remedied somewhat by a good index.
C. W. R.
The Quarterly welcomes the appearance of a new historical magazine, particularly as it is published in Mexico, where there has hitherto been no journal devoted exclusively to history. Reference is made to the Revista Histórica Mexicana, the first number of which was issued last October. It is to be a monthly publication, and is edited by Mr. C. D. López, for some time librarian in the Museo Nacional at the Mexican Capital. Dr. José M. Vigil, notable among the older Mexican scholars, is honorary editor. A good omen for the success of the publication is the fact that in the first two numbers there have appeared articles by several of the leading Mexican students of history and antiquities, the list including Carlos Pereyra, Professor of History in the Escuela Preparatoria, at the Capital, and author of several publications relating to Mexican history; Dr. Edward Seler, a prominent authority on Mexican archæology; Luis González Obregón, author of “México Viejo,” and numerous historical papers; and Dr. Antonio Peñafiel, Director of the Federal Census and one of the most prolific writers on Mexican antiquities. Professor Pereyra writes of “The Text-Book in History Classes”; Dr. Seler of “The Identity of Omacatl and Tezcatlipoca”; Señor González Obregón of “Castes in New Spain in the Eighteenth Century,” and Dr. Peñafiel of “The Precortesian Mixtec Code Javier Córdova and an Ancient Plan of San Andrés, Cholula.”
In addition to original articles, the Revista publishes translations of noteworthy articles on Mexican history formerly printed in other languages. This department could be made highly valuable to Mexican readers, by acquainting them with foreign writers and methods.
The publication in Mexico of a well edited historical journal is highly desirable, as a means of stimulating the writing of critical monograph studies of Mexican history, for, with few exceptions, Mexican history has not yet passed through this necessary monograph stage. It is greatly to be hoped, therefore, that the Revista will succeed.
AFFAIRS OF THE ASSOCIATION.
The twelfth annual meeting of the Association will be held on March 2, 1908, at the University of Texas, in room 44, at 3:30 p. m. President Houston will have something to say concerning the work of the Association. A paper will be read by Mr. C. W. Ramsdell on the Convention of 1866, and one by Mrs. Mattie Austin Hatcher on an educational scheme of Stephen F. Austin's. The latter will include some interesting documents which have been found in the Austin collection. The reading of the papers will be followed by the usual business session for the election of officers, etc. There will be no further announcement than is contained in this notice or will appear in the daily papers as the meeting approaches. All who are interested in the work of the Association, and especially the members, are cordially invited to attend.
Mrs. Mary Jones,
Widow of Anson Jones, Fourth President of the Republic of Texas.
First President Daughters of the Republic of Texas, 1891-1907.
Member Texas Veteran Association.
Honorary Life Member Texas State Historical Association, 1897-1907.
Born July 24, 1819.
Died December 31, 1907.
2. See Filisola, Memorias para la Historia de la Guerra de Tejas, 1 235.
3. When Bustamante was overthrown, his immediate successor in the presidential office was Gomez Pedraza, and later the duties of the office were discharged for some time by Vice President Gomez Farías, while Santa Anna, who was then president, was in retirement; but the fall of Bustamante left Santa Anna at once the dominant figure in Mexican politics. See Bancroft, Mexico, V 123-127.
4. Repealing the eleventh article of the decree of April 6, 1830. See Dublán and Lozano, Legislacion Mexicana, II 637.
5. At Saltillo, in fact; see The Quarterly, II 194.
6. House Exec. Docs., 25 Cong., 2 Sess., No. 351, p. 773.
7. Or James Treat (?).—Ed. Quarterly.
8. Musquiz.
9. See Eugene C. Barker, “Land Speculation as a Cause of the Texas Revolution,” The Quarterly, II 76-95.
10. Gen. E. Kirby Smith to Gray, Seddon, and Wigfall, Official Records, War of Rebellion, Series I, Vol. XLVIII, Part I, 1381-84.
11. Magruder to Boggs, Official Records, War of Rebellion, Series I, Vol. XLVIII, Part II, 1271.
12. Official Records, War of the Rebellion, Series I, Vol. XLVIII, Part I, 1359.
13. The Tri-Weekly Telegraph (Houston), April 26, and throughout May, 1865; The Patriot (La Grange), May 6 and 20, 1865.
14. Magruder to Boggs, Official Records, War of Rebellion, Series I, Vol. XLVIII, Part II, 1291.
15. An expression which betrays the strong “States' rights” feeling of the conferees. Any suggestion of the authority of the national government over the States was carefully avoided. The chief “question” involved was, of course, the continuance of slavery.
16. The members of the conference sought to send Governor Allen to Washington to urge the acceptance of the proposed terms, but he was not permitted to go.
17. For the Marshall conference, see Official Records, War of Rebellion, Series I, Vol. XLVIII, Part I, 186-194.
18. Smith to Rose, Official Records, War of Rebellion, Series I, Vol, XLVIII, Part II, 1292.
19. Official Records, War of Rebellion, Series I, Vol. XLVIII, Part II, 1308.
20. Ibid., 1313.
21. The Tri-Weekly Telegraph (Houston), May 24 and 31, 1865.
22. The Tri-Weekly Telegraph (Houston), June 16, 1865.
23. The Patriot (La Grange), June 3, 1865.
24. San Antonio News, May 30, 1865.
25. Texas Republican (Marshall, June —, 1865; Tri-Weekly Telegraph (Houston), June 16, 1865.
26. Tri-Weekly Telegraph (Houston), June 2, 1865.
27. Official Records, War of Rebellion, Series I, Vol. XLVIII, Part I, 193.
28. Official Records, War of Rebellion, Series I, Vol. XLVIII, Part II, 600.
29. Official Records, War of Rebellion, Series I, Vol. XLVIII, Part II, 648 675.
30. Sheridan says in the dispatch: “There is not a very wholesome state of affairs in Texas. The Governor and all the soldiers and the people generally are disposed to be ugly, and the sooner Galveston can be occupied the better” (Official Records, War of Rebellion, Series I, Vol. XLVIII, Part II, 841). If by this it was meant that further resistance to Federal authority was contemplated, there seems to be absolutely nothing to support his statement. On the other hand, there was widespread disorder and lawlessness, but the reference could hardly have been to that.
31. These were Houston, Galveston, Bonham, San Antonio, Marshall, and Brownsville.
32. Instructions from Grant to Sheridan, Official Records, War of Rebellion, Series I, Vol. XLVIII, Part II, 639; Sheridan, General Orders. No. 3, ibid., 713; Canby, General Orders, No. 65, ibid., 694.
33. Granger, General Orders, No. 5, Flake's Bulletin (Galveston), July 18, 1865.
34. An arrangement whereby a planter had been granted exemption from military service upon condition of raising a certain amount of cotton, corn, or beef for the Confederate government.
35. Flake's Bulletin, August 30, 1865.
36. F. H. Coupland in Flake's Bulletin, July 31, 1865.
37. See Flake's Bulletin, September 6, 1865.
38. Ibid., August 30, 1865.
39. H. Ware to L. D. Evans, correspondence of Gov. Hamilton, Archives of State Department.
40. General Orders published in Texas Republican, June 23, 1865; Tri-Weekly Telegraph, June 30 and July 5; Flake's Bulletin, July 18.
41. The Tri-Weekly Telegraph, June 28, 1865.
42. Communication to Tri-Weekly Telegraph, June 28, 1865.
43. Tri-Weekly Telegraph, July 7, 1865; San Antonio Herald, July 9; Jefferson Bulletin, August —; Caddo Gazette, August —; Texas Republican, August 18; Southern Intelligencer, September 29.
44. Arredondo was commander of the Mexican forces.
45. This line and those that follow were written on the title page of the report, and were intended to serve as a title. The italics are those of the editor.
46. In the preparation of this translation a copy of the original report made by Joaquin de Arredondo to the viceroy, Félix María Calleja, on September 13, 1813, has been followed; but comparison has been made with a copy of the original made on April 6, 1817, to be sent to Calleja's successor, Juan Ruiz de Apodaca, as no action had been taken by the former. The original is found in Historia: Operaciones de Guerra, Arredondo, 4, 1813-1820; the copy sent to Apodaca, in Provincias Internas, Vol. 104. Only essential differences have been noted. Prefixed to the second report is the following letter of transmittal:
No. 574.
The general commandant of the Eastern Internal Provinces encloses a copy of the information given by him to your superior government on September 13, 1813, relative to the battle on the Medina; and petitions Your Excellency kindly to promote th officers of the enclosed list to the next higher rank, or to send a report to our Sovereign for his just decision.
Most Excellent Sir,
I send Your Excellency a complete copy of the detailed report which I made your superior government on September 13, 1813, relative to the battle which the army under my command fought, on August 18th of the same year, on the Medina, against the enemy composed of Anglo-Americans and rebel Spaniards under the command of the petty officer José Álvarez de Toleda, a deputy from the Island of Santo Domingo to the Córtes, and of a son of General Wilkinson.
Since the honor and fame achieved by my officers and men in this hard-fought battle came exactly at a time your predecessor could not reward them because the military ranks were discontinued by the córtes, the whole army has remained without the recompense due it for bravery and hardships, in spite of the fact that the said predecessor volunteered to send a report to the supreme government. He thought, however, that it would be disregarded on account of the revolutions of that time. Your Excellency being a soldier and possessing preëminent abilities knows full well what a stimulus promotion is in the profession of arms. [This is] especially [needed now] since the provinces under my charge are again menaced by the guerilla chief Mina and the mob which he has collected of which I have given information to your government.
Considering all this, I hope Your Excellency, exercising the vice-regal functions given you, will be kind enough to favor by an advance of one grade in rank, the officers mentioned in the appended list with a statement of their present rank; and send me the dispatches necessary for having them confirmed. In case Your Excellency feels any hesitancy in conferring the ranks asked for, you will please send a report, with your favorable recommendation, to our Sovereign, Don Fernando the Seventh, for his royal disposition.
God guard Your Excellency many years.
I am, most Excellent Sir,
Joaquin de Arredondo.
(Rubric.)
Monterey, April 6, 1817.
The Most Excellent Señor Viceroy of New Spain.
[A memorandum reading, “An account was given his majesty in letter No. 327 of April 30, 1817,” is appended to show what action was taken by Apodaca.—M. A. H.]
47. That of Mina.
48. The name of the lieutenant of the company of patriots from Laredo, Don Andrés Farías, who volunteered to join the expedition and was allowed to do so by Arredondo, is included at this point in the copy sent to the viceroy in 1817; but, since the name occurs earlier in the list, this repetition must have been by oversight.
49. The copy, signed by Vicente Arreola because of the illness of the secretary, is dated Monterey, April 6, 1817. The promised report to the king was not made until after the receipt of the second report; in fact, on April 30, 1817.
50. Many of the technical terms in this list were very difficult to translate, and I do not feel sure of their exact meaning. On two of the words, arquivrices and albellanas, I could get no satisfactory light at all. Especial thanks are due to Mr. W. E. Dunn for help on the difficult words. Mr. F. C. Ostrander also rendered valuable assistance on the technical words of this list, while both he and Miss Alice Hubbard gave useful suggestions for the general translations.
51. The copies of this and of Number 2 following made April 6, 1817, were signed by Vicente Arreola on account of the illness of the secretary.
52. These initials stand for sergeants, drummers, corporals, and privates.
53. See note 2, p. 233.
54. In addition to lists No. 1 and 2 which were sent with the report of September 13, 1813, a third list appended to the report of April 6, 1817, is as follows:
List of the officers and other members of the eastern army which the general commandant of the provinces of the same name, Brigadier Don Joaquin de Arrendondo recommends to his Excellency, the viceroy of this New Spain, Don Joan Ruiz de Apodaca, for the rank next above that in which they are listed as a reward for meritorious conduct in the battle of August 18, 1813, fought on the Medina in the province of Texas.
Rank.Names.
Veteran Infantry.
Brevet Lieutenant-ColonelDon Antonio Elosua.
CaptainDon Francisco del Corral.
LieutenantDon José María Hernández.
Second LieutenantsDon José Nieto.
Don José Ybarra.
Don José Turincio.
Don Francisco Arizmendi.
Infantry Militia.
AlferesDon Pedro Cepeda.
Veteran Cavalry.
Brevet Lieutenant-Colonel of the ArmyReverent Don Juan Manuel Zambrano.
CaptainsDon Juan José Elguezabal.
Don Matías Ximenes.
Don José María Céspedes.
Brevet CaptainsDon Antonio María Zárate.
Don Juan María Martínez.
LieutenantsDon Diego Cenovio de la Chica.
Don Nicolás del Moral.
Don Pedro Lemus.
Don Ramón Espinosa.
Don Francisco de la Hoz.
Don Tomás Oquillas.
Don Vicente Arreola.
Don Manuel Nogaro.
AlferesesDon Domingo García.
Don Manuel Barragán.
Don Severo Ruiz.
Don Domingo Ugartechea.
>Brevet AlferesesDon Francisco Vásquez.
Don José Torres.
SergeantTiburicio Garza.
Cavalry Militia.
ColonelDon Cayetano Quintero.
CaptainsDon Manuel Sosaya.
Don Miguel Paredes.
Don Ignacio Pérez.
Don Luciano García.
Don Nicolás Benites.
Don José Antonio Flores.
Rank.Names.
LieutenantsDon Rafael Doria.
Don Manuel de la Garza.
Don Jesús Garcia.
Don Francisco de la Garza.
Don Juan José Sánchez.
Don Matías Guillén.
AlferesesDon Valentín Rubio.
Don José María Zamora.
SergeantMateo Sotello.
Alferes of the ArtilleryDon Francisco Castro.
ChaplainsBachelor Don Miguel del Campo.
Bachelor Don Francisco Treviño.
Bachelor Don Andrés Molano.
Bachelor Don Florentino Ramos.
Bachelor Don José Antonio Valdés.
Note.—The officers of the troops from Nueva Vizcaya who were among the auxiliaries in the action are not included because of ignorance of the ranks they now hold; but they will be sent separately as soon as reports are received from the commandant of the Western Internal Provinces.
Monterey, April 6, 1817.
(On account of the illness of the secretary.)
Vincente Arreola
(Rubric.)
[Reply by Viceroy.]
By your letter No. 574 of the 6th of the present month, I received the copy of the detailed report which you sent my predecessor concerning the action which the troops under your charge fought against the rebels on the Medina; and I will merely make known to His Majesty, the King, the claims to reward established by you and your officers as you state them, since it was not during my administration, and it was proper for my predecessor to pass on the subject. Thus I advise you in reply.
April 28, 1817.
(Rubric.)
Commandant of the Eastern Internal Provinces,
Brigadier Joaquin de Arredondo.
55. No initials are given.
How to cite:
"Issue View", Volume 011, Number 3, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online. http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v011/n3/issue.html
[Accessed Mon Nov 23 22:14:54 CST 2009]
