Vol. XI. APRIL, 1908. No. 4.
The publication committee and the editors disclaim responsibility for views expressed by contributors to The Quarterly.
The Texas State Historical Association has reached a respectable age, as things go in this country of rapid movement. We may say that it is an established organization and one that has justified itself. It enters upon its twelfth year today, with a membership of over two thousand of the most intelligent and influential men and women of Texas, and I think I state a simple fact and convey no unfavorable implication when I say that this number might easily have been doubled. This is a very significant and gratifying fact, and testified both to the intellectual and patriotic interest of our people in the matter of broad and profound concern to our country and also to the efficiency of the Association.
The stability and effectiveness of the Association are especially evidenced by its sound financial condition. It has not only met all its operating expenses, but has accumulated a working reserve of over $2000; and it has done this apparently with little effort and without annoyance to subscribers or managers. This is an achievement almost without parallel in similar enterprises. The Association has supported a journal, which has afforded a medium for the publication of many valuable articles and documents furnished by members of the History staff in the University and by active investigators throughout the State and elsewhere. This journal has taken a most creditable place among historical publications, and, together with the formal works of professors in the University, has given distinction to Texas as a center of historical research, and especially as one of the two sources of contributions to Southwestern history. Through these contributions many misconceptions have been dispelled, historical truth has been revealed, and much rewriting of history has been necessitated.
The Association has served to draw together many men and women in the State whose purpose is to collect and preserve the records of a great people in a great section, to see that they are interpreted without bias and with rigid fidelity to truth, and in a more general way, everywhere and at all hazards, to protect and promote the freedom of historical study and teaching. It has discovered and brought out, so to speak, and encouraged many competent investigators in different sections of the State, and has afforded much support and assistance to professors and students of history in colleges and universities.
But we are yet only at the beginning. We have scarcely yet scratched the surface of things. There is an amazingly vast and rich store of records to be secured and examined, scattered through these Southwestern States, in the archives of Mexico, and of Spain, and of other nations. And, furthermore, there is a more amazing amount of record to be made in the present and future and to be preserved. The South has seemed to be content to make history and to have certain contempt for recording her deeds, for accumulating her materials, and for interpreting them to the world. It is a reproach to every Southern State and community that a student of its history should be compelled to go to the great libraries of the North and East for access to historical data, and a still greater reproach that facilities have not been provided anywhere in the entire Southland, with its wealth of ten or twelve billions of dollars and its population of twenty-five millions, sufficiently to make it possible adequately to prosecute research in history and economics and to make it possible to train Southern men and women to write history and economics. There is today nowhere in any institution in the South, a graduate school, nowhere libraries or laboratories sufficiently well equipped to make extended research possible, and nowhere a teaching staff with sufficient time to direct graduate investigation. In no institution in the South today are there more than two separate professorships of history, or more than one professorship of economics. There are very few institutions in the South which have one professor who gives his entire time to history, and there are not more than a half dozen who have separate professors of economics or political science. Not as many of either, in the entire South, devote their time exclusively to history and economics as can be found in one great institution in the North or East; and these are compelled to devote their time mainly to undergraduate teaching. And nowhere in the South are aids to students furnished in the way of endowed scholarships and fellowships. What chance have Southern boys and girls? What chance is there for an early full revelation of the truth about Southern life and deeds and motives? Would not provision for great libraries and a stronger teaching and research force be a more effective guarantee of historical truth than any amount of violent protest against historical misinterpretation and inaccuracy? Can Southern people, can Texas people, be brought to see this matter in the proper light and induced to provide the necessary support? I think they can, and I think this Association is the most satisfactory and efficient agency for bringing them to see it. Let us plan to have here in the near future a great library in which Southwestern history will be properly represented and also to have a strong graduate school for research and production. The University is doing what it can with limited means and is taking advantage of Dr. Bolton's presence in Mexico to collect important documents. The pity is that the amount is not ten times as great as it is. The money is needed, and needed now while expert service is available, and a great opportunity is here presented to some patriotic man of means.
Finally, there is one thing which this Association can do without means. I have mentioned it in passing. It is the most important thing which can be done at all, and if not done, it makes all else vain and worse than useless. It can protect and promote everywhere freedom of historical inquiry, historical writing, and history teaching. No nation, and no section of this or of any other nation has a monopoly either of prejudice or of intellectual liberty and openness of mind, or will ever have. But that fact can not deter real students of history from battling for the truth and the whole truth, no matter where it leads or what prejudices it encounters or traditions it upsets. It was long ago asserted by sacred authority that the truth alone makes for freedom and no man can render a greater service anywhere in this nation than to fight for a full opportunity for every individual to express himself fully and freely on every matter as his honest intelligence prompts him to do.
The history of the Spanish régime in the Southwest is very largely the history of an Indian policy in its military, political, and religious phases, and to understand it aright it is manifestly necessary to know something of the people over whom the Spaniards extended their authority and upon whom they tried to impose their faith and their civilization.
The purpose of this paper is to furnish a partial introduction to the early history of the Spaniards in eastern Texas—the scene of their first systematic activities between the Mississippi and the upper Rio Grande—by presenting some of the main features of the organization of the compact group of tribes living in the upper Neches and the Angelina River valleys, the first and the most important group with which they came into intimate contact. These tribes furnished the early field of labor especially for the Franciscans of the College of Santa Cruz de Querétaro, who worked for fifteen years in the region and founded in it five missions, while one was founded there and maintained for more than half a century by the College of Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe de Zacatecas. It is hoped that this paper will throw new light on the all too obscure history of these interesting establishments, particularly with respect to their locations. 1
The Names “Texas” and “Hasinai.”
The tribes in question commonly have been called the Texas, but more properly the Hasinai. Concerning the meaning and usage of these terms I shall only present here somewhat dogmatically part of the results of a rather extended study which I have made of these points and which I hope soon to publish. 2
The testimony of the sources warrants the conclusion that before the coming of the Spaniards the word Texas, variously spelled by the early writers, had wide currency among the tribes of eastern Texas and perhaps over a larger area; that its usual meaning was “friends,” or more technically, “allies”; and that it was used by the tribes about the early missions, at least, to whom especially it later became attached as a group name, to designate a large number of tribes who were customarily allied against the Apaches. In this sense, the Texas included tribes who spoke different languages and who were as widely separated as the Red River and the Rio Grande. It seems that the Neches-Angelina tribes designated did not apply the term restrictively to themselves as a name, but that they did use it in a very untechnical way as a form of greeting, like “hello, friend,” with which they even saluted Spaniards after their advent. I may say, in this connection, that the meanings “land of flowers,” “tiled roofs,” “paradise,” etc., sometimes given for the name Texas, I have never seen even suggested by early observers, or by anyone on the basis of trustworthy evidence.
The name Texas has been variously applied by writers, but it was most commonly used by the Spaniards, from whom the French and the English borrowed it, to designate those tribes of the upper Neches and the Angelina valleys, and this in spite of their knowing full well that among the natives the word had the wider application that has been indicated. There are many variations from this usage in Spanish writings, it is true, but this, nevertheless, is the ordinary one. As a tribal name the term was sometimes still further narrowed to apply to a single tribe. When this occurred, it was most commonly used to designate the Hainai, the head tribe of the group in question, but sometimes it was applied to the Nabedache tribe. As a geographical term, the name Texas was first extended from these Neches-Angelina tribes to their immediate country. Thus for the first quarter of a century of Spanish occupation, the phrase “the Province of Texas” referred only to the country east of the Trinity River; but with the founding of the San Antonio settlements the term was extended westward, more in harmony with its native meaning, to the Medina River, and then gradually to all of the territory included within the present State of Texas.
While the name Texas, as used by the tribes in the eastern portion of the State, was thus evidently a broad and indefinite term applied to many and unrelated tribes occupying a wide area, it is clear that the native group name for most of the tribes about the missions in the Neches and Angelina valleys was Hasinai, or Asinai. 3 Today the term Hasinai is used by the Caddoans on the reservations to include not only the survivors of these Neches-Angelina tribes, but also the survivors of the tribes of the Sabine and Red River country. It seems from the sources, however, that in the early days the term was more properly limited to the former group. In strictest usage, indeed, the earliest writers did not include all of these. A study of contemporary evidence shows that at the first contact of Europeans with these tribes and for a long time thereafter writers quite generally made a distinction between the Hasinai (Asinai, Cenis, etc.) and the Kadohadacho 4 (Caddodacho) group; these confederacies, for such they were in the Indian sense of the term, were separated by a wide stretch of uninhabited territory extending between the upper Angelina and the Red River in the neighborhood of Texarkana; their separateness of organization was positively affirmed, and the details of the inner constitution of both groups were more or less fully described; while in their relations with the Europeans they were for nearly a century dealt with as separate units. Nevertheless, because of the present native use of the term and some early testimony that can not be disregarded, I would not at present assert unreservedly that the term formerly was applied by the natives only to the Neches-Angelina group. If, as seems highly probable, this was the case, in order to preserve the native usage we should call these tribes the Hasinai; if not, then the Southern Hasinai.
The name Hasinai, like Texas, was sometimes narrowed in its application to one tribe, usually the Hainai. But occasionally the notion appears that there was an Hasinai tribe distinct from the Hainai. This, however, does not seem to have been the case. As now used by the surviving Hasinai and Caddos, Hasinai means “our own folk,” or, in another sense, “Indians.” 5
Ethnological Relations: Historical Importance.
The Hasinai belonged to the Caddoan linguistic stock. This family, which was a large one, was divided into three principal geographic groups of tribes: the northern, represented by the Arikara in North Dakota; the middle, comprising the Pawnee confederacy, formerly living on the Platte River, Nebraska, and to the west and southwest thereof; and the southern, including most of the tribes of eastern Texas, together with many of those of western Louisiana and of southern Oklahoma. 6 Of this southern group the tribes about the Querétaran missions were one of the most important subdivisions. They, together with the related Caddo tribes to the north, represented the highest form of native society between the Red and the upper Rio Grande rivers, a stretch of nearly a thousand miles. This fact gave them from the outset a relatively large political importance. While it has been clearly shown by writers that the immediate motive to planting the first Spanish establishment within this area was French encroachment, little note has been made of the fame and the relative advancement of the Hasinai Indians as factors in determining the choice of the location. LaSalle's colony, which first brought the Spaniards to Texas to settle, was established on the Gulf coast; and had the natives of this region been as well organized and as influential among the tribes as the Hasinai, and, therefore, as likely to become the theater of another French intrusion, the logical procedure for the Spaniards would have been to establish themselves on the ground where the first intrusion had occurred, and within relatively easy reach from Mexico both by water and by land. But the Karankawan tribes of the coast proved hostile to the French and Spaniards alike, and, while their savage life and inhospitable country offered little to attract the missionary, their small influence over the other groups of natives rendered them relatively useless as a basis for extending Spanish political authority. These considerations entered prominently into the Spaniards' decision to establish their first Texas missions far in the interior, at a point difficult to reach from Mexico by land and wholly inaccessible by water. Events justified their estimate of the importance of the Hasinai as a base of political operations. But, while the control of these tribes and their Caddo neighbors remained for a century or more a cardinal point in the politics of the Texas-Louisiana frontier, it was soon learned that the less advanced and weaker tribes of the San Antonio region, nearer Mexico and farther removed from the contrary influence of the French, afforded a better field for missionary labors.
Since Indian political organization was at best but loose and shifting and was strongly dominated by ideas of independence, and since writers were frequently indefinite in their use of terms, it would not be easy to determine with strict accuracy the constituent elements of this Neches-Angelina confederacy at different times. However, a few of the leading tribes—those of greatest historical interest—stand out with distinctness and can be followed for considerable periods of time.
De León learned in 1689 from the chief of the Nabedache tribe, the westernmost of the group, that his people had nine settlements. 7 Francisco de Jesus María Casañas, writing in 1691 near the Nabedache village after fifteen months' residence there, reported that the “province of Aseney” comprised nine tribes (naciones) living in the Neches-Angelina valleys within a district about thirty-five leagues long. It would seem altogether probable that these reports referred to the same nine tribes. Those named by Jesus María, giving his different spellings, were the Nabadacho or Yneci (Nabaydacho), Necha (Neita), Nechaui, Nacono, Nacachau, Nazadachotzi, Cachaé (Cataye), Nabiti, and Nasayaya (Nasayaha). 8 The location of these tribes Jesus María points out with some definiteness, and six of them at least we are able to identify in later times without question. Moreover, his description of their governmental organization is so minute that one feels that he must have had pretty accurate information. The testimony of a number of other witnesses who wrote between 1687 and 1692 in the main corroborates that of Jesus María, particularly in the important matter of not including the Nasoni tribe within the Hasinai. 9
It so happens that after 1692 we get little intimate knowledge of the Hasinai until 1715. When light again dawns there appear in common usage one or two additions to Jesus María's list. Whether they represent an oversight on his part or subsequent accretions to the group we can not certainly say. Of those in his list six, the Nabadacho, Neche, Nacogdoche, Nacachau, Nacono, and Nabiti are mentioned under the same names by other writers. Cachaé is evidently Jesus María's name for the well known Hainai, as will appear later, while the Nabiti seem to be San Denis's Nabiri and may be Joutel's Noadiche (Nahordike). For the Nechaui we can well afford to accept Jesus María's explicit statement. Besides these nine, the Spaniards after 1716 always treated as within the Hasinai group the Nasoni, Nadaco, and the Nacao. Judging from the localities occupied and some other circumstances, it is not altogether improbable that two of these may be old tribes under new names, as seems to be clearly the case with the Hainai. The Nasayaya, named by Jesus María, may answer to the Nasoni, well known after 1716, 10 and the Nabiti may possibly be the Nadaco, also well known after that date. If both of these surmises be true, we must add to Jesus María's list at least the Nacao, making ten tribes in all; if not, there were at least eleven or twelve. Putting first the best known and the most important, they were: the Hainai, Nabedache, Nacogdoche, Nasoni, Nadaco, Neche, Nacono, Nechaui, Nacao, and, perhaps, the Nabiti and the Nasayaya. This is not intended as a definitive list of the Hasinai at any one time, but it does include those known to have been within the compact area about the Querétaran missions and commonly treated as within the Hasinai group. By following the footnotes below it will be seen that “Nacoches,” “Noaches,” and “Asinay,” which have been given, with resulting confusion, as names of tribes where early missions were established, are simply corruptions of “Neche,” “Nasoni,” and “Ainai,” as the forms appear in the original manuscripts, whose whereabouts are now known.
The Ais, or Eyeish, a neighbor tribe living beyong the Arroyo Attoyac, at whose village a Zacatecan mission was founded in 1717, seem to have fallen outside the Hasinai confederacy. Only recently have they been included by ethnologists in the Caddoan stock, and, although they are now regarded as Caddoan, there are indications that their dialect was quite different from that of their western neighbors, while their manners and customs were always regarded as inferior to those of these other tribes. 11 Moreover, there is some evidence that they were generally regarded as aliens, and that they were sometimes even positively hostile to the Hasinai. Thus Jesus María includes them in his list of the enemies of the Hasinai; Espinosa, a quarter of a century after Jesus María wrote, speaks of them as friendly toward the “Assinay,” from which by implication he excludes them, but says that the Hasinai medicine men “make all the tribes believe that disease originates in the bewitchment which the neighboring Indians, the Bidais, Ays, and Yacdocas, cause them,” a belief that clearly implies hostility between the tribes concerned, 12 while Mezières wrote in 1779 that the Ais were hated alike by their Spanish and their Indian neighbors. 13
The Adaes, or Adai, in whose midst the mission of Nuestra Señora de los Dolores was founded in 1717, lived beyond the Sabine, and belonged to the Red River group of Caddoans, or the Caddo. They, therefore, do not fall within the scope of this paper.
For determining the location of these tribes our chief materials are the Journal of Joutel (1687), the Relación of Francisco de
Jesus María Casañas (1691), De León's diary of the expedition of 1690, Terán's for that of 1691-2, those of Ramón and Espinosa for the expedition of 1716, Peña's for that of Aguayo (1721), Rivera's for his visita of 1727, Solís's for that made by him in 1767-8, and Mezières's accounts of his tours among the Indians in 1772, 1778, and 1779. Two only of these are in print, while two of them have not before been used.
14 Besides these and numerous supplementing documentary sources, there are (1) the
early surveys showing the Camino Real, or Old San Antonio Road, whose windings in eastern Texas were determined mainly by the
location of the principal Indian villages where the Spaniards had settlements, (2) certain unmistakable topographical features, such as the principal rivers and the Neche Indian mounds, and (3) geographical names that have come down to us from the period of Spanish occupation.
It will be interesting, before studying the location of each one of the tribes separately, to read the general description of the group given by Jesus María in 1691. Speaking of the Great Xinesi, he said, “To him are subject all of these nine tribes: The Nabadacho, which, for another name, is called Yneci. Within this tribe are founded the mission of Nuestro Padre San Francisco and the one which I have founded in Your Excellency's name, that of El Santíssimo Nombre de María. The second tribe is that of the Necha. It is separated from the former by the Rio del Arcangel San Miguel [the Neches]. Both are between north and east. 15 At one side of these two, looking south, between south and east, is the tribe of the Nechaui, and half a league from the last, another, called the Nacono. Toward the north, where the above-mentioned Necha tribe ends, is the tribe called Nacachau. Between this tribe and another called Nazadachotzi, which is toward the east, in the direction of the house of the Great Xinesi, which is about . . . half way between these two tribes, 16 comes another, which begins at the house of the Great Xinesi, between north and east, and which is called Cachaé. At the end of this tribe, looking toward the north, is another tribe called Nabiti, and east of this a tribe called the Nasayaha. These nine tribes embrace an extent of about thirty-five leagues and are all subject to this Great Xinesi.” 17 This description will be convenient for reference as we proceed.
It may be noted here that the average league of the old Spanish diaries of expeditions into Texas was about two miles. This should be kept in mind when reading the data hereafter presented.
The Nacogdoche Tribe and the Mission of Guadalupe.
A starting point or base from which to determine the location of most of the tribes is the founding of the mission of Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe at the main village of the Nacogdoches in 1716, for it can be shown that this mission remained on the same site until it was abandoned in 1773; that the modern city of Nacogdoches was built at the old mission site; and, therefore, that the location of this city represents the location of the principal Nacogdoche village. The evidence briefly stated is as follows: Ramón, whose expedition founded this mission, wrote in has Derrotero that nine leagues east-southeast of the principal Hasinai village (the Hainai), on the Angelina River, he arrived at the “village of the Nacogdoches,” and that on the next day he “set out from this mission,” implying clearly that the mission was located where he was writing, at the Nacogdoche village. 18 As is well known, all of the missions of this section were abandoned in 1719 because of fear of a French invasion. Peña reports in his diary of the Aguayo expedition of 1721 that Aguayo, who rebuilt the abandoned missions, entered “the place where stood the mission of N. S. de Guadalupe de Nacodoches,” and rebuilt the church. The inference is that the site was the old one, more especially since in one instance in the same connection where a mission site was changed Peña mentions the fact. 19 This mission was continued without any known change till 1773, when it was abandoned. But when in 1779 (not 1778, as is commonly stated) Antonio Gil Ybarbo laid the foundations of modern Nacogdoches with his band of refugees from the Trinity River settlement of Bucareli, he found the Nacogdoches mission buildings still standing, settled his colony near them, and apparently reoccupied some of them. 20 Hence it is clear that the city of Nacogdoches represents very closely, perhaps exactly, the site of the main village of the Nacogdoche tribe at the opening of the eighteenth century. If more evidence were necessary, the presence within the city of Nacogdoches till recent times of four ancient Indian mounds would strengthen the conclusion. 21 With this as a starting point, it is not difficult to indicate the approximate location of the most prominent of the remaining tribes. Starting with the Nacogdoche involves the disadvantage of reading the diaries backwards, it is true, but has the great advantage of enabling us to proceed from a well-established point.
The Hainai Tribe and the Mission of Concepción.
On the east bank of the Angelina River, a little north of a direct west line from the Nacogdoche village, was that of the Hainai. 22 This tribe, whose lands lay on both sides of the Angelina, 23 was the head of the Hasinai confederacy, and for that reason was sometimes called Hasinai. It is to this tribe, also, that the name Texas was usually applied when it was restricted to a single one. Within its territory was the chief temple of the group, presided over by the great Xinesi, or high priest. 24 At its main village the mission of La Puríssima Concepción was founded in 1716.
After the Relación of Jesus María, our first sources of specific information on the location of this village are the diaries. Ramón tells us that he entered the “Pueblo de los Ainai” just east of the Angelina River, and that nine leagues east-south-east of this village he reached the “Pueblo de los Nacogdoches.” 25 The missionary fathers who accompanied Ramón, in their Representation made at the same time reported the distance as eight leagues east-south-east. Peña (1721) says the distance was eight leagues east-north-east from the presidio founded near the mission, and nine from the mission. Rivera (1727) found the mission just east of the “Rio de los Aynays,” or the Angelina, and nine leagues west of the Nacogdoches mission. 26 These witnesses tally in the main with each other and also, be it noted, with the testimony of the San Antonio Road, as its route is now identified in the old surveys. According to the best information obtainable it ran from Nacogdoches a little north of west to the Angelina, passing it about at Linwood Crossing. 27 Espinosa tells us that he founded the mission of Concepción a mile or two east of the place where the highway crossed the Angelina, near two springs, in the middle of the Hainai village. This site could not have been far from Linwood Crossing. 28
This Hainai tribe, as has been stated, was evidently the one which Jesus María called the Cachaé or Cataye. He said that between the Nacachau and the Nacogdoche, about midway, was the lodge of the Great Xinesi, and—if we get his meaning here—that immediately northeast of this lodge was the Cachaé tribe. From other data we learn that the Xinesi's house was within or on the borders of the Hainai territory, about three leagues from the Concepción mission, and apparently west of the Angelina. 29 The Cachaé thus correspond, in location and relations, to the Hainai, while, moreover, the latter are the only tribe that appear in this locality after 1716. Considering with these facts the probability that Jesus María would hardly have left the head tribe unmentioned in so formal a description as is his, and the fact that the Hainai is clearly the head tribe, it seems reasonably certain that the Cachaé and the Hainai were identical.
The Neche Tribe and the Mission of San Francisco (Second Site).
Southwest of the Hainai village, nearly straight west of the Nacogdoche, was the Neche village, near the east bank of the Neches River, and near the crossing of the Camino Real. The diaries usually represent the distance from the Neche to the Hainai as about the same as that from the Hainai to the Nacogdoche—some eight or nine leagues. 30 The air line distance was evidently somewhat less in the former case than in the latter, but the route was less direct, since between the Neches and the Angelina rivers the road bowed quite decidedly to the north. The usual crossing of this highway at the Neches, as now identified, was at Williams's Ferry, below the mouth of San Pedro Creek. 31 Archæological remains help us to identify this crossing and give certainty to the approximate correctness of our conclusions. These remains are the Indian mounds east of the Neches River. The first mention of them that I have seen is that by Mezières, in 1779. His record is important. Passing along the Camino Real on his way to the Nabedache, he noted the large mound near the Neches River, raised, he said, by the ancestors of the natives of the locality “in order to build on its top a temple, which overlooked the pueblo near by, and in which they worshiped their gods—a monument rather to their great numbers than to the industry of their individuals.” 32 This mound and its two less conspicuous companions still stand in Cherokee County about a mile and a half from the river and five miles southwest of Alto, in a plain known to some as Mound Prairie, undoubtedly the true Mound Prairie whose whereabouts has been debated. They are on land now the property of the Morrill Orchard Company, once a part of the original grant made to the romantic Pedro Ellis Bean. The Old San Antonio Road, as identified in the oldest surveys, ran about three hundred yards north of the largest, which is also the northernmost mound. 33 This mound, standing by the old highway, is an important western landmark for the location of the early tribes and missions, just as the site of Nacogdoches is an important eastern landmark. With the evidence of these mounds, the name San Pedro attached to the creek joining the Neches just above the crossing, and the early maps of the Camino Real, there is no doubt as to the approximate location of the old crossing, and, consequently, of the sites of the Neche and the Nabedache villages, with their respective missions, on opposite sides of the river.
The mission of San Francisco de los Texas, reëstablished in 1716 at the Neche village, 34 appears from the diaries to have been some one or two leagues—from two to four miles—from the crossing. Peña's diary puts it at two leagues. The entry in his diary for August 3, 1721, is as follows: “The bridge [over the Neches] having been completed, all the people, the equipage, and the drove, crossed in good order, taking the direction of east-northeast, and camp was made near the mission of San Francisco, where the presidio was placed the second time it was moved in 1716. The march was only two leagues.” 35 Rivera gives the distance from the crossing as more than a league. 36 The other diaries are indefinite on this point, but the conclusion is plain that the mission and the Neche village were close to the mounds, the mission, at least, being apparently farther from the river.
The Nabedache Tribe and the Mission of San Francisco (First Site).
The westernmost tribe of the group was the Nabedache. The main village was a short distance—perhaps six miles—west of the Neches River, above the crossing, near a stream that early became known as San Pedro, and at a site that took the name San Pedro de los Nabedachos. It is this name San Pedro, in part, that has caused some persons to think, groundlessly, that the first mission of San Francisco was founded at San Antonio.
The exact point at which the main Nabedache village stood I can not say, not having examined the locality in person, but certain data enable us to approximate its location pretty closely.
First is the testimony of the diaries and other early documents. De León reported in his itinerary (1690) that from the camp half a league from the Nabedache chief's house to the Neches River, going northeast, it was three leagues. 37 The site examined on the river at this point was deemed unsuitable for the mission “because it was so far out of the way of the Indians”; consequently the mission was established close to the camp “in the middle” of the village. 38 In their reports to the home government Massanet and De León seem to have stated that the mission was some two leagues from the Neches; 39 while Terán in 1691 reported it to be only a league and a half from the Mission of Santíssimo Nombre de María, which was evidently close to the Neches. 40 Jesus María and Espinosa said that the village was about three leagues from this river, the former adding that it was right across the stream from the Neche tribe. 41 Joutel and Ramón called the distance from center to center of the two villages about five leagues. 42 In comparing these estimates with those that follow we must remember that it was somewhat further from the village to the crossing of the river than to the river at its nearest point, for as early as 1691 it was found that the best crossing was down stream a league or more. 43 Keeping these things in mind, it may be noted that Peña's diary makes the distance from San Pedro to the crossing four leagues. In his entry for July 27, 1721, he says, “The Father President F. Ysidro Felix de Espinosa went ahead with the chief of the texas, who wished to go to arrange beforehand the reception in the place where the first mission had been.” In his entry for the next day he says, “Following the same direction of east-northeast, the journey was continued to the place of S. Pedro . . . where the Presidio and Mission had been placed (for the Spaniards did not go beyond this point) in the year '90.” Here the reception was held, and presents were made to Aguayo by the Indians of the “ranchos which are near by,” the point being, according to Peña's diary, fifteen leagues northeast from the crossing of the Trinity, 44 and four from the crossing of the Neches, passing by the site of the presidio as it was first established in 1716. Rivera's diary makes the distance from San Pedro to the crossing something over four leagues, or six to the mission on the other side. His record is interesting. He writes, on August 5, “I camped this day near a prairie which they call San Pedro de los Nabidachos, formerly occupied by Indians of the tribe of this name, but at present by the Neches tribe, of the group of the Aynays, head tribe of the Province of Texas.” His next entry begins, “This day, the sixth, . . . continuing the march in the same direction [east-one-fourth-northeast] I traveled six leagues, crossing the Rio de los Neches. At more than a league's distance from it I found some huts where a religious of the Cross of Querétaro resides, destined . . . to minister to these Indians . . . with the name of San Francisco de Nechas,” that is, the mission having this name. 45 Solís, going northeast in 1767, tells us that San Pedro de los Nabedachos was beyond the San Pedro River. He may possibly have meant that it was on the north side, but I am inclined to think that he meant that it was east of one of the southern branches. 46
Our inference from the diaries would thus be that the first site of the mission of San Francisco, in the village of the Nabedache, was from one and a half to three leagues—from three to six miles—distant from the Neches River at its nearest point, a league or more farther from the crossing, and still another league—in all some ten miles—from the Neches village on the other side of the river.
The information of the diaries is here supplemented by geographical names and the old surveys of the Camino Real or the San Antonio Road. San Pedro Creek, which joins the Neches River in the northern part of Houston County still bears the name that was early given to the vicinity of the Nabedache village and the first mission of San Francisco. This occurred as early as 1716 from the fact that Espinosa and Ramón celebrated the feast of San Pedro there. The celebration took place at a spot which, according to both Ramón and Espinosa was thirteen leagues northeast of the crossing of the Trinity. 47 That the name was continuously applied to the place until after the middle of the eighteenth century is sufficiently established by the citations already made. To show its continued use thereafter there is an abundance of evidence. 48
Next comes the testimony of the Camino Real, or the Old San Antonio Road. There seems to be no good topographical reason why this old highway should not have run directly from Crockett to the Neches at Williams's Ferry, and the long curve to the north between these points must be explained as a detour to the Nabedache village and the missions located nearby. The surveys represent this highway as running always south of San Pedro Creek, never crossing it, but definitely directed toward it at a point some six or eight miles west of the Neches crossing. 49 The point corresponds closely to that designated in the diaries. Near here, quite certainly, were the Nabedache village and the first mission of San Francisco, while not far away, but nearer the Neches, was the second mission established in that region, that of El Santíssimo Nombre de María, founded about October, 1690. 50
The Nacachau, Nechaui, and Nacono Tribes.
Across the Neches from the Nabedache, only a few leagues away, and adjoining the Neche tribe on the north, was the relatively little known tribe called by Jesus María the Nacachau, and by Hidalgo the Nacachao. We have seen that Jesus María described the Neche tribe as being separated from the Nabedache only by the Neches River. Later he says, “Toward the north, where the above-mentioned Necha tribe ends, is that called the Nacachau.” The Neche and Nacachau villages were thus close together. Near them the second mission of San Francisco was founded in 1716. Ramón says that the mission was founded in the village of the Naiches, and the “Padres Missioneros” say that it was for the “Naicha, Nabeitdâche, Nocono, and Nacâchao.” 51
Southeast of the Neche and the Nabedache villages, according to Jesus María, were two villages half a league apart, called the Nechaui and the Nacono. Of the Nechaui we do not hear again, but from Peña (1721) we learn that the Nacono village, which he called El Macono, was five leagues below the Neches crossing. This would put the Nechaui and the Nacono villages five leagues down the Neches River, perhaps one on each side. 52
The Nasoni Tribe and the Mission of San José.
Above the Hainai, on the waters of the Angelina, were the Nasoni. Joutel, in 1687, reached their village after going from the Nabedache twelve leagues eastward, plus an unestimated distance north. Terán, in 1691, found it twelve leagues northeast of the Neche crossing below the Nabedache village. 53 The founding, in 1716, of a mission for this tribe and the Nadaco gives us more definite data for its location. The missionaries who took part in the expedition, in their joint report, called the distance from the Hainai to the Nacogdoche eight leagues east-southeast, and that from the Hainai to the Nasoni mission seven northeast. Peña, who called the former distance nine leagues east-northeast, estimated this as eight north. Espinosa put it at seven northeast. 54 Thirty years later Espinosa said that the mission was founded in the Nasoni tribe and ten leagues from mission Concepción. 55 This increase in his estimate of the distance may be due to lapse of time and his long absence from the country.
The direction of the Nasoni mission from that of Concepción was, therefore, evidently northeast, and the distance about the same, perhaps a trifle less, than that to the Nacogdoche village.
Espinosa, who in 1716 went over the route from the Hainai to the Nasoni to establish the mission of San José recorded in his diary that on the way there were many Indian houses (ranchos), and that the mission was situated “on an arroyo with plentiful water running north.” We must look, therefore, for a point some fifteen or more miles northeast of the Hainai on a stream running northward. These conditions would be satisfied only by one of the southern tributaries of Shawnee Creek, near the north line of Nacogdoches County. In this vicinity, clearly, was the Nasoni settlement in 1716. It seems not to have changed its location essentially since it had been visited by Joutel and Terán, a quarter of a century before, and it remained in the same vicinity another third of a century, for in 1752 De Soto Vermudez found the Nasoni village eleven leagues northward from the Nacogdoches mission. 56 The mission of San José remained near the Nasoni until 1729, when, like those of San Francisco, at the Neche village, and Concepción, at the Hainai village, it was removed to San Antonio.
The Nadaco.
For the rest of the tribes in this group our information is less definite. The Nadaco, though a prominent tribe, can not be located with certainty until 1787, when they, or at least a part of them, were on the Sabine River, apparently in the northern part of Panola County. 57 But in 1716 they were clearly near the Nasoni, and sometimes the two tribes seem to have been considered as one. Hidalgo, who must have known, for he was on the ground, distinctly states that the mission of San José was founded for the Nasoni and the Nadaco. 58 Although the mission was commonly known to the Spaniards as that of the Nasoni, the French writers, in particular, including San Denis, sometimes called it the Nadaco 59 mission. Frequent references made by La Harpe in 1719 to the Nadaco show that he is either speaking of the Nasoni or of a tribe in their immediate vicinity, more probably the latter, since in other instances the tribes are so clearly distinguished. For instance, he tells us that when at the Kadohadacho village on the Red River, not far from Texarkana, “they assured me that sixty leagues south was the village of the Nadacos, where the Spaniards had a mission, and that they had another among the Assinais, in the Amediche [Nabedache] tribe, which was seventy leagues south-one-fourth-southwest from the Nassonites [which were near the Kadohadacho].” 60 In 1752 the Nadaco were only a short distance northward from the Nasoni, apparently northeast, and the two tribes then had a single chief. 61
Supposing the Nadaco and the Nasoni to have lived in clearly distinct settlements at the early period, the Nadaco could hardly have been near the highway from the Nasoni to the Kadohadacho, for, as we have seen, the Nasoni always figure as the last station on the way to the Kadohadacho. It seems more probable, considering this last fact with the statements made about the mission of San José, that the two tribes lived in a settlement practically continuous, to which sometimes one and sometimes the other name was given. An upper branch of the Angelina is now called Anadarko (Nadaco) Creek, and it is possible, in spite of the above considerations, that this stream was the home of the Nadaco at the coming of the Spaniards and the French, but it seems more probable that it was applied in later times as a result of the removal of the tribe to that neighborhood.
It is clear, at any rate, that in the early eighteenth century the Nadaco village was very near that of the Nasoni.
Other Tribes.
Of the location of remaining tribes we know even less than of the last, and can only record the few statements made of them by the early writers. Three leagues west of the Nasoni Joutel entered the village of the Noadiche (Nahordike) 62 who, he said, were allies of the Cenis, and had the same customs. This location corresponds with that assigned by Jesus María to the Nabiti, and the tribes may have been identical. The site designated was apparently west of the Angelina River and near the southwestern corner of Rusk County. Similarly, the Nasayaya, put by Jesus María east of the Nabiti, may possibly have been the Nasoni. If they were a separate tribe they must have been in the same neighborhood. If separate, too, they early disappear from notice, unless possibly they may be the Nacaxe, who later are found in the same latitude, but farther east. All that we can say of the location of the Nacao is that they were northward from the Nacogdoche, and probably closer to the Nacogdoche than to the Nasoni, since they were attached to the Nacogdoche mission. A reasonable conjecture is that they were in the neighborhood of Nacaniche Creek, in Nacogdoches County. 63
Thus, with varying degrees of precision and confidence, we are able from a study of the documents to indicate the early homes of the tribes usually included in the Hasinai group. Five of the sites, at least, are reasonably well established, and these are historically the most important, for they were the sites of Spanish establishments, while the others were not. I refer, of course, to the villages of the Nabedache, Neche, Hainai, Nacogdoche, and Nasoni. A careful examination of the topography of the country and of the archaeological remains would doubtless enable one to verify some and to modify others of the conclusions here set forth.
It will be helpful, as a means of conveying an idea of the true nature of the work attempted by the early Spaniards, to present a brief sketch of the general character of these Indian settlements and of their numerical strength.
They were a people living in relatively fixed habitations, and would be classed as sedentary Indians, in contrast with roving tribes, such as the neighboring Tonkawa west of the Trinity. They subsisted to a considerable extent by agriculture, and lived, accordingly, in loosely built agricultural villages, for miles around which were detached houses, located wherever there was a spot favored by water supply and natural or easily made clearings. Their dwellings were large conical grass lodges, which accommodated several families. In all of the tribes concerning which we have relatively full data there seems to have been a main village, which the surrounding communal families regarded as their tribal headquarters. It is these central villages that I have represented on the map.
The arrangement of the settlements may be most safely learned from the accounts of some of the early eye-witnesses. Joutel tells us, in 1687, that from the edge of the Nabedache village, west of the Neches River, to the chief's house in the middle of the settlement, it was a “large league,” and that on the way there were “hamlets” of from seven to fifteen houses each, surrounded by patches of corn. From this village to that of the Neche tribe on the other side of the river it was some five leagues, but in fertile spots between them there were similar “hamlets,” sometimes a league apart. So it was with the country to the northeast. When he left the Neches River at a point above the Neche village he wrote, “We pursued our route toward the east, and made about five leagues, finding from time to time cabins in `hamlets' and `cantons,' for we sometimes made a league and a half without finding one.” 64 Between the Trinity River and the main Nabedache village De León, in 1690, encountered only one settlement. It consisted of “four farms (haciendas) of Indians who had planted crops of maize and beans, and very substantially built houses, with high beds to sleep on.” 65 On the edge of the Nabedache village he “arrived at a valley occupied by many houses of Texas Indians, around which were large fields of maize, beans, calabashes, and watermelons. . . . Turning to the north by a hill of oaks, about a quarter of a league further on we came to another valley of Texas Indians, with their houses, their governor telling us that his was very near. We pitched our camp on the bank of an arroyo, and named this settlement San Francisco de los Texas.” 66 The “governor's” house was about half a league from the camp.
Of the country beyond the Neches Terán wrote in 1691, “We continue our march [from the Neches]. . . . The country is very rough with frequent open groves, but no openings larger than a short musket shot across. In these openings, some in the lowlands, and some in the sand, their houses are located.” 67 Joutel, in describing his passage from the lodge of one Nasoni chief to that of another, says, “Those who had escorted us went ahead and conducted us to his house, about a quarter of a league away, where his cabin was located. Before reaching it we passed several others, and on the way found women and children cultivating their fields.” In 1716 Ramón referred to the Hainai settlement on the Angelina River as the “pueblo of the Ainai, where there is an infinite number of houses (ranchos) with their fields of corn, watermelons, melons, beans, tobacco,” etc. As we have already seen, in his passage from the Hainai to the Nasoni in 1716 Espinosa noted many houses on the way. 68
After several years' residence among these tribes, Espinosa, having in mind the dismal failure to reduce them to civilized life, described the Hasinai settlements in general thus: “These natives do not live in congregations reduced to pueblos, but each of the four principal groups where the missions are located are in ranchos [separate houses], as it were, apart from each other. The chief cause of this is that each household seeks a place suitable for its crops and having a supply of water.” 69 In another place he tells us that in their ministerial work among the Indians the padres had to travel six or seven leagues in all directions from each of the four missions. 70
It is thus evident that the Hasinai settlements by no means corresponded to the Spanish notion of a pueblo, built in close order. To induce the natives to congregate in such pueblos, as a means of civilizing them, was a chief aim of the government and the missionaries, and failure to accomplish this was a primary cause of the abandonment, after fifteen years of effort, of all but one of the missions of the group.
It is easy to gain an exaggerated notion of the numerical strength of the native tribes. Popular imagination, stimulated by the hyperbole of writers for popular consumption, has peopled the primitive woods and prairies with myriads of savages. Students, however, have shown that this is an error, and that the Indian population has always been, in historical times, relatively sparse. In their efforts to counteract these exaggerated notions, they, indeed, have leaned too far in the opposite direction.
The Hasinai, apparently one of the most compact native populations within an equal area between the Red River and the Rio Grande, numbered only a few thousands at the coming of the Europeans. What I have already said about the nature of their villages has, perhaps, prepared the reader to believe this assertion. While our statistical information on this point does not constitute entirely conclusive evidence, it does, nevertheless, give us a basis for plausible conjecture.
The earliest estimate that might be called general is that contained in a mémoire of 1699, printed by Margry, and based apparently upon the report of one of the survivors of the La Salle expedition. The mémoire states that from “Bay Saint-Louis [Matagorda Bay] going inland to the north-northwest and the northeast there are a number of different tribes. The most numerous is the Cenys and Asenys, which, according to the opinion of a Canadian who has lived several years among them, form but one village and the same nation. He estimates that they do not exceed six hundred or seven hundred men. The Quélancouchis [Karankawa], who live on the shores of the sea about Bay Saint-Louis, are four hundred men.” 71
It would seem that in this passage the term “Cenys et Asenys” corresponds closely with the term Hasinai as I have used it, unless, as is probable, the Nasoni are excluded; but, since this is not certain, the estimate, though based on long experience, would not be conclusive without corroborating testimony. This we get in 1716. Ramón tells us that the four missions founded by his expeditions, which were within easy reach of all the tribes described, “would comprise from four thousand to five thousand persons of all ages and both sexes.” 72 In the same year Espinosa recorded in his diary his opinion that the Indians grouped around the three Querétaran missions, not including the mission among the Nacogdoche and the Nacao, would number three thousand; and after a residence there of some years he estimated the number of persons within range of each mission at about one thousand. 73 This estimate must have had a good foundation, for we are told that the padres kept lists of all the houses and of the persons in each. 74
Assuming that the mémoire, Ramón, and Espinosa include the same tribes in their estimates, it will be seen that the first is somewhat the more conservative. This fact strengthens the probability that, like other early reports, the mémoire did not include the Nasoni in the Hasinai.
So much for general estimates for the whole group. Detailed information concerning some of the individual tribes appears in 1721. When Aguayo in that year re-established the missions that had been abandoned some two years before, he made a general distribution of presents and clothing among the Indians at the different villages. At the mission of San Francisco de los Neches he gave the Neche chief the Spanish baston, token of authority, and “clothed entirely one hundred and eighty-eight men, women, and children.” Never before had they received “such a general distribution.” West of the Neches Aguayo had been visited by a hundred Nacono from down the river. At the mission of Concepción he requested the Hainai chief, Cheocas by name, to collect all his people. This took some time, as they were widely scattered, but several days later they were assembled, and Aguayo gave clothing and other presents to four hundred, including, possibly, eighty Kadohadachos, who happened to be there on a visit. Similarly, at the Nacogdoche mission he provided clothing “for the chief and all the rest,” a total of three hundred and ninety; and at the Nasoni mission for three hundred. 75 This gives us a total of less than fourteen hundred Indians who came to the missions during Aguayo's entrada to take advantage of the ever welcome presents. This number apparently included the majority of the five most important tribes, and probably included some from the neighboring smaller tribes attached to the missions.
The conclusion is that the estimates of Ramón and Espinosa, which put the total number of inhabitants included in 1716 in the ten or more tribes about the four missions at four or five thousand are sufficiently liberal. If this conclusion is true, the tribes could not have averaged more than three or four hundred persons each. The territory then occupied by perhaps four thousand Indians now supports one hundred thousand people. 76 Kept down by epidemics, crude means of getting food, and to some extent by war, the number of these natives was small. But few then, they are incomparably fewer today, for the descendants of all these tribes, now living on the reservations, do not exceed two hundred or three hundred souls. 77
1. The Inauguration of Provisional Government.
On June 17, 1865, soon after it became known that armed resistance had ceased in the Trans-Mississippi Department and that troops had been despatched to occupy Galveston, President Johnson, in pursuance of the policy already adopted in other Southern States, appointed A. J. Hamilton provisional governor of Texas. Hamilton was a native of Alabama who had come to Texas in 1847 and had become prominent in politics before the war. He had been Attorney-General of the State and in 1858 had been elected to Congress. Along with Houston and others he had vigorously opposed secession and refused adhesion to the Confederacy, but had remained in Texas until 1862, when, threatened with military arrest, he escaped into Mexico and thence to New Orleans. Here he entered the Federal army as a brigadier-general of volunteers, and in 1863, when the Brownsville-Red River expedition into Texas was projected, he was given a commission as military Governor of the State by President Lincoln. He was, therefore, regarded by President Johnson as logically the man for Provisional Governor after the surrender of the Confederate authorities. Hamilton was a man of energy and ability, of sturdy honesty, aggressive and uncompromising, and though prone, when excited, to violence and harshness of speech, restrained and governed in action by an unfailing generosity and abundant common sense. He was an orator of extraordinary power and had enjoyed the reputation of being one of the ablest lawyers in the South. The news of his appointment was received with general satisfaction by the Unionists and with some misgivings on the part of those who feared he was returning for purposes of vengeance.
The proclamation which contained his appointment declared it to be the duty of the United States to guarantee to each State a republican form of government, and that, in-as-much as the rebellion had deprived the people if Texas of all civil government, it was now the solemn duty of the President, imposed by the constitution, to enable the loyal people there to organize a State government. The Provisional Governor was directed to prescribe at the earliest practicable period such rules and regulations as might be necessary and proper for holding a convention composed of delegates to be chosen by that portion of the people of the State who were loyal to the United States, and no others, for the purpose of altering or amending the constitution of the State; and he was given authority to exercise all necessary and proper powers to restore the State to its constitutional relations to the United States; provided that in the election for delegates to the convention no person should be eligible either as an elector or as a member of the convention unless he had previously taken the oath of amnesty, as prescribed in the President's proclamation of May 29, 1865, and was a voter as prescribed by the constitution and laws of the State in force immediately before secession. The military commander of the department and all other military officers in the service of the United States were directed to aid and assist the provisional governor in carrying the proclamation into effect, and were enjoined to abstain from hindering or discouraging in any way the loyal people from organizing a State government. The Secretary of State was directed to put in force all the laws of the United States, the administration of which belonged to his department and which were applicable to the State of Texas; the Sectary of the Treasury was to proceed to nominate the officers necessary to put into operation the revenue laws, giving preference in each case to loyal persons residing within the district; the Postmaster-General was directed to re-establish the postal service; the United States District Judge for the district of Texas was authorized to hold courts according to the acts of Congress; the Attorney-General was directed to instruct the proper officers to libel, bring to judgment, confiscation, and sale such property as had become subject to confiscation; and the Secretaries of the Navy and the Interior were directed to put in force such laws as related to their respective departments. 78
Governor Hamilton arrived in Galveston on July 21, where he was welcomed by a delegation of Unionists. From here he sent a cheerful letter to the President, expressing the conviction that all classes, except certain of the ex-slaveholders, were friends of the Government and were rapidly availing themselves of the President's amnesty proclamation. He deprecated a tendency on the part of the planters to keep the negro in some sort of bondage and to talk of “gradual emancipation” even after having subscribed to emancipation in their oath of amnesty. 79 On the 25th he issued from Galveston a proclamation “to the people of the State of Texas,” reciting the manner and purpose of his appointment and indicating in a general way the course he expected to take with respect to the election of a convention and the appointment of civil officers. Suitable persons were to be appointed in each county to administer the oath of amnesty 80 and register the loyal voters. Civil officers for the State, districts, and counties were to be appointed provisionally. The general laws and statutes in force in the State immediately prior to the ordinance of secession, except in so far as they had been modified by the emancipation of the slaves and by acts of Congress for the suppression of the rebellion, were declared in force for the direction of courts and civil officers; all pretended State laws passed since secession were inoperative, null, and void. There was to be “amnesty for the past, security for the future,” but the people must accept the fact that slavery was wholly dead and that the negroes would be protected in their freedom by the United States. Finally, loyal men from every part were invited to visit the capital and confer with the Governor upon the conditions of the State.
When the Provisional Governor arrived in Austin a few days later, he was received with enthusiastic ceremony by the Unionists, of whom there were a large number in the city. He found all affairs of state in confusion. There were no officials of a civil character, the treasury had been looted, the various departments were untenanted, the records were precariously exposed, there was even no roof on the capitol building. Immediately a commission was appointed to look into the condition of the treasury and the Comptroller's department and to audit their accounts; State agents were appointed to look after and take charge of State property of whatever description in the various districts; and other agents were empowered to locate and recover if possible bonds alleged to have been illegally disposed of during the war. Judge James H. Bell, formerly Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the State, and prominent as a Union man, was appointed Secretary of State; Wm. Alexander, another Union man, who, it appears, had secretly opposed Hamilton's appointment, was made Attorney-General. Taxes were assessed by proclamation and ordered collected. In response to the invitation above mentioned, within a short time deputations of loyalists from over eighty counties made their way to Austin to aid in reorganizing the government. These men furnished the Governor names of loyal citizens from their counties for appointments to office, and were generally relied upon by him for information concerning conditions in the various parts of the State.
As rapidly as possible, officers of district, county, and justice courts, sheriffs, tax assessors and collectors, and county commissioners were appointed, and the machinery of the law set in motion. The courts were directed to proceed with the trial of all civil and criminal cases in conformity with existing laws of the State, that is, laws passed prior to 1861, and of the United States. 81 The time of holding district courts and the form of the districts were to conform to acts passed since secession “out of considerations of public policy and convenience.” Negroes were to be tried and punished in the same manner as whites, but the Governor left the question of their admission as witnesses to be determined by the courts themselves on the ground that it was a judicial and not a political question, and that an executive decision might be overruled by some subsequent Supreme Court, or that the principle might fail to be embodied in the Constitution by the future convention. 82 Attorneys-at-law not in the classes excepted from the general amnesty were, upon taking the amnesty oath in open court, to be allowed to practice. 83 In all appointments, subscription to the amnesty oath was required, but preference was given to men of undoubted loyalty in so far as such matters could be determined. In many counties fit “union” applicants were so scarce that it was necessary to appoint secessionists. A notable case of this sort was the selection of Richard Coke, later Governor and United States Senator, as judge of the Nineteenth Judicial District. Though there were frequent complaints from disgruntled “loyalist” office-seekers, the appointments seem to have given general satisfaction.
The chief duty of the Provisional Governor, as set forth in the proclamation containing his appointment, was to provide for the assembling of a constitutional convention elected by the loyal people of the State. The test of loyalty was simply the taking of the oath of amnesty, a policy sufficiently generous, and based, no doubt, upon the idea that the majority of the people had entered the war reluctantly and were at heart well-disposed toward the Federal government. In accordance with instructions, Governor Hamilton, on August 19, issued a proclamation providing for the registration of voters. In each county the chief justice, the district clerk, and the county clerk were to act as a board of registration and sit at least one day in each week at the county seat. The oath of amnesty was to be administered to all who applied. both to those who sought registration as voters, and to those who, being within the exceptions to the general amnesty, took it as a preliminary step toward special pardon. Separate rolls were to be kept of these two classes. Meanwhile, the order for an election of delegates was withheld until the results of the registration should become known. This work, however, proceeded very slowly. Since there were no mails, it was many weeks before the proclamation reached some of the counties, and for those who lived far from the county seat where the board held its meetings, registration was usually a process involving considerable inconvenience. But even when this was not the case the people responded to the invitation without enthusiasm. The newspapers throughout the State united in urging them to register in order to hurry along the restoration to normal conditions. At the same time they urged the Governor to order an election and to assemble the convention as early as possible, for in all the other Southern States the conventions had completed their labors by the end of October.
2. General Conditions of Loyalty and Disloyalty in the State.
But the Governor and his friends were of the opinion that Texas was not yet in the proper condition for the calling of the convention. It seemed to them that the people were not yet free from their ante-bellum delusions and had not yet clearly understood the problems they faced and the proper way in which to solve them. They discovered, for instance, a lingering belief that compensation might yet be secured for the loss of slaves, and hence a reluctance to take the amnesty oath lest they in some way estop themselves from claiming the compensation. There was still talk, here and there, of gradual emancipation; there was a disposition in some of the remote districts to keep the negroes in bondage and to treat with cruelty those who endeavored to exercise their freedom. A large part of the press and most of the secessionist politicians were prejudiced against the Governor and secretly or openly hostile to the plans of the government. Therefore, it seemed to them necessary, first, to establish order and civil authority through the power of the provisional government and to enable the United States courts to repress treasonable action, and then allow time for the public mind to become tranquillized and to be directed fairly toward the changes that would be necessary in the Constitution. Because of the vast extent of the State and the impracticability of distributing sufficient troops everywhere to secure a speedy restoration of order, and owing to the utter absence of mail facilities for informing the people of the intentions of the government, it seemed best to make haste slowly. 84 Accordingly, with the view of making clear the work that must be done in the convention, if the State was to enjoy a speedy restoration to its normal place in the Union, the Governor issued on September 11, a lengthy address to the people of the State. After reviewing historically the whole question of slavery and secession, which he regarded as a long-continued and elaborate conspiracy against the Union, originally aiming at secession and an aristocratic government in the South, and warning them against the press and the politicians “who were still trying to mislead them by the same deadly doctrines,” he explained the necessity for his actions as Governor, and then proceeded to state his views on that problem which he thought the people were least ready to solve in a manner satisfactory to the Federal government. Slavery, he again assured them, was already wholly dead and could not be revived in any form. Compulsory labor laws would be regarded by the people of the North as a mere subterfuge and would not be tolerated, for the people of that section were united upon this one thing as they had never before been untied upon anything—“that slavery must cease forever.” Now that the negro was to remain free, he must be given equal civil rights with the white man, and should have his testimony admitted in the courts in all cases, subject only to the rules which applied to the testimony of whites. He warned them that unless some such action was taken, it would be useless to expect that senators and representatives from Texas would be allowed to take their seats in Congress. 85 In conclusion, he promised that the convention would be called as soon as the people had qualified by taking the oath of amnesty and had an opportunity to discuss and consider well the momentous questions upon which their delegates would be required to take action, for it was essential to the speedy restoration of the State that no mistake be made.
But whatever of wartime prejudice they may have harbored against the Provisional Governor and whatever they may have thought of his attitude upon the negro question, the people gave abundant evidence of good will toward the provisional government itself. So weary had they become of disorder and lawlessness and so fearful of a purely military government, that any civil authority, even though one not of their own choosing, was welcome. As soon as the new State government had been set up, public meetings, usually without regard to political affiliation, were called in many counties, and resolutions were passed tendering the Provisional Governor the support of the citizens in the maintenance of law and order and in the restoration of the civil government on the basis of the President's policy. In addition, just and liberal treatment of the freedmen was usually advocated, sometimes the people were urged to qualify as voters, and it was recommended that similar meetings be held in other counties. In some instances where the secession element was preponderant, the resolutions simply “accepted the situation” and pledged support to the authorities. 86
Party lines had by no means vanished though at times ignored. The secessionist leaders were, of course, generally quiet, but the approach of Federal troops and the return of numbers of refugees had emboldened the Unionists in many localities to form Union associations that did not hesitate to take up a partisan attitude. “The Loyal Union Association” of Galveston, for example, organized the same day that Hamilton arrived from New Orleans, pledged itself “to vote for no man for office who had ever by free acts of his own tried to overthrow the government, but to support Union men always.” 87 The “Union Association of Bexar County” in November declared that it was necessary for Union men to be on their guard lest the element which had endeavored to destroy the Union get into power again, for the struggle, “not of arms but of principles,” was to be fought over again. 88
A cardinal doctrine of these Union associations was that a large portion of the people of the State did not deserve to be re-invested with political power because of continued disloyalty to the Federal government. Assertions to this effect were constantly reiterated and found prominent place in Northern journals almost to the exclusion of reports of any other kind from Texas. As to the real strength of the loyal or disloyal sentiment in Texas at that time no accurate statement is possible. Beyond doubt, most people were not enthusiastic in their loyalty, and it was but natural that after four years of war such should have been the case. On the other hand, there was less bitterness than was manifested under the harsh congressional policy a few years later. Few had enjoyed the arbitrary regulations and exactions which the Confederacy had been obliged to impose, and they had few regrets for the passing of that government. Perhaps the chief resentment against the conqueror grew out of the loss of their property in slaves; and it seems certain that their tardiness in taking the oath of amnesty, set down by some as a proof of disloyalty, was largely due to a fear that such action might debar them from any future compensation. The charge that they and their late leaders hoped to get control of the State government again was beyond question true, but as they had not been disfranchised, there was no sensible reason why they should not have expected that. That they would have used the power thus recovered “to renew the rebellion” is in every way inconceivable, but that they would have turned it against the northern radicals is certain, and to condemn that as treason seems a curious perversion of the term.
Most of the charges of disloyalty in Texas were based upon alleged persecution and maltreatment of Union men and freedmen. It must be admitted that violence of this sort constantly occurred, but it appears to have been due far less to actual hostility to the Federal government than to the wide-spread disorder and lawlessness attending the break-up and the interregnum following it. The absence during that time of the ordinary peace officers had given free sway to turbulent characters of all sorts, encouraged pillage and robbery, permitted neighborhood feuds, jayhawking and guerilla marauding; and it is notable that violence was not directed against Unionists and freedmen alone. The fact that Union men had not always fully recovered their popularity was not evidence in itself of actual disloyalty, and that advantage was taken of such unpopularity by the rowdies who bullied, threatened, and sometimes robbed or murdered them, is proof of the weakness of the arm of the law rather than of anything else. The violence toward freedmen was due partly to that tendency of rowdyism to attack the weak and unprotected, and partly to resentment at the new insolence and the irrepressible bumptiousness of the freedman himself.
In many counties the outlaws were so numerous and so well organized that they could defy arrest, and in others so few of the citizens had taken the amnesty oath that the courts were hampered and delayed by the difficulty of procuring jurors. 89 The number and character of the general petitions to the Governor from variout parts of the State asking for troops or the organization of county police is sufficient proof of the nature of the disorders. For example, one from Bell County, October 9, recites that “the civil authorities are helpless because the county is full of ruffians and lawless men,” and demands troops. Another from Grayson County, November 10, declares that “laws can not be enforced without the aid of the military.” 90 In a letter to General Wright, September 27, the Givernor said that crime was everywhere rampant, that the civil authorities alone could not be depended upon for some time, and that in many counties the civil process could not be executed. He requested that military forces pass through the counties where none were stationed. 91 But there were large districts comprising several counties that contained not a single soldier, and the troops were not sufficient to police thoroughly the vast territory over which they exercised authority. Therefore, in response to petitions 92 from various quarters where outrages were occurring, and from others where fears of a negro uprising were felt, the Governor issued a proclamation, November 18, authorizing the organization of a police force in each county to be subject to the civil authorities and to act with the military. This police force was actually organized in several counties and seems to have been very effective in checking the disorders.
Under conditions of such universal violence and confusion, it would have been strange indeed if Union men had not been subject to insult and outrage. Undoubtedly there were cases of unprovoked violence against them, there were cases in which mobs were guilty of intensely disloyal conduct, as when a crowd tore to pieces a United States flag on the court house at Weatherford, 93 or when another mob at Bonham beat and shot at a number of negroes and destroyed a flag. 94 But such occurrences were few and the preponderance of evidence goes to show that most of these outrages were committed in the northern part of the State and were the work of outlaws who had their headquarters in the Indian Territory and plundered and murdered without distinction of party. 95
Whether intended for that purpose or not, the reports that went from Texas of the mistreatment of Unionists made excellent political capital for the radical extremists in Congress who had already begun their attack on the President's policy of restoration. Many of these stories were of the most extraordinary sort,—such, for example, as those in the anonymous letters which Mr. Summer was so fond of reading in the Senate, 96—and are unworthy of serious attention. Perhaps the statements that gained most credence at the North were those of Federal officers who had been stationed in Texas. One of these, General Wm. E. Strong, Inspector General on the staff of General O. O. Howard, is quoted in the New York Herald, in January, 1866, as saying that Texas was in the worst condition of any State that he had visited, that almost the whole population was hostile in feeling and action to the United States; that there was a mere semblance of government, and that the whites and negroes were everywhere ignorant, lawless, and starving. 97 When before the Reconstruction Committee in March he reiterated the statements, adding that “one campaign of the United States army through eastern Texas, such as Sherman's through South Carolina, would greatly improve the temper and generosity of the people.” General David S. Stanley, who had been stationed at San Antonio after the “break-up,” stated before the same committee that “Texas was worse than any other State because she had never been whipped,” that the women were universally rebels, and that in case of a foreign war almost the entire population, with the exception of the Germans, who were very loyal, would go over to the enemy. 98 It was also commonly asserted that many rebels who had been quiet and submissive at the close of the war, were now, at the prospect of recovering control of the State, growing insolent and defiant.
3. The Freedmen and the Freedmen's Bureau.
There was no subject connected with the restoration of the State government to the control of its people that the general public in the North watched with greater solicitude than the adjustment of the new relations with the freedmen. It had been announced that the treatment accorded these wards of the nation could be taken as a sure index of the loyalty of the Southern people. It was unfortunate that this mistaken idea should have been so generally accepted, and unfortunate, again, that the people of the South could not at once appreciate its power and the necessity of conciliating it. To the Northern mind, as the rebellion had been in behalf of slavery, the complete destruction of that institution was the surest guarantee of the preservation of the Union, and any attempt to evade it was regarded as an expression of rebellious sentiments. To the Southerner, emancipation had presented itself chiefly as a confiscation of his property, as an unwise and arbitrary upsetting of the industrial system to which the negro belonged, and as an injustice to the negro himself. The most immediate and pressing problem, as it seemed to him, was to preserve the normal balance of society, and to provide for the freedman an industrial position in that society such that agricultural interests would suffer the least possible additional shock, for it was generally believed that free negro labor would be a failure and that a labor famine was imminent. 99
In fact, the experiences of the summer of 1865 had been such as to warrant no other opinion. In the south central and southeastern counties in particular, where the actual presence of the military made it difficult for the whites to apply coercion, the blacks had, with some exceptions, either preferred not to enter into contracts to labor or had not kept them when made. How could they be free, they reasoned, so long as they still had to work in the fields? Throughout the summer months they had slipped away from the plantations as opportunity offered or whim suggested, and despite the military regulations to the contrary, large numbers collected around the towns where, luxuriating in idleness and heedless of the next winter, they eked out a meagre subsistence by petty thieving, begging, or doing occasional odd jobs. Crowded together indiscriminately in small huts they rapidly fell victims to disease and vices of all sorts. 100
Meanwhile the harvest time approached and despite the fact that the acreage was not large, there were not enough laborers to gather the crops. The freedmen had become possessed of the singular delusion that on the following Christmas the government would divide among them the lands of their former masters. The government had given them their freedom without their asking for it, they had heard rumors from various quarters that they would be given property,—why should it not be true? There was no use in working if they were to be made rich in a little while, so they met all propositions to work with the response, “We'll wait 'til Christmas.” 101 It is small wonder that the planter who saw his old field hands idling their time away in town, improvident as children, making no preparations for the rigors of winter, sinking into demoralization and crime, while his crop went to waste for the lack of their labor, should have looked forward to some remedy, some law that would bring back these victims of a mistaken philanthropy to the work which their own welfare as well as that of the general public seemed to demand. None but a system of coercion, he thought, offered any promise of the necessary relief.
The Freedmen's Bureau, created by Act of Congress, March 3, 1865, to take control of all subjects relating to freedmen, refugees, and abandoned lands in the conquered States, like other forms of Federal authority, had not been extended to Texas until much later than elsewhere. The Assistant Commissioner appointed for Texas, General E. M. Gregory, arrived at Galveston late in September, and, although he seems to have been actively at work, it was not until December that he so far perfected an organization as to appoint a dozen local agents, of whom five were civilians, at the most important points in the interior. 102 In the meantime, the local work had been carried on by the various post commanders. From the beginning General Gregory addressed himself assiduously to ameliorating the condition of the labor situation. In his first circular order, October 12, after emphasizing their freedom and making clear that it was the office of the Bureau not only to act for them and to adjudicate all cases in which they were concerned if the civil courts failed them, but also to give them substantial protection, he urged upon the freedmen the necessity for their going to work under contracts carefully drawn up and approved and registered by the Bureau. All officers and good citizens were enjoined to disabuse the minds of the freedmen of any idea of a Christmas division of property. In November, General Gregory, in company with Inspector-General Strong, made a tour through the eastern counties for the purpose of acquainting himself with conditions there. During the trip he endeavored to give the blacks a knowledge of their true condition, especially with reference to the necessity for and the manner of making contracts for the next year. He returned exceedingly optimistic with regard to the character and promise of the sable populace. 103
In the meantime, so many petitions had poured in upon the Governor to forestall a threatened uprising of the blacks at Christmas that he authorized the organization of county police. 104 Furthermore, on November 17, he issued an address to the negroes which he caused the chief justice of each county to read to them. He told them in the plainest terms that they must go to work, that they could not remain idle without becoming criminal, that they would get nothing more from the government either at Christmas or at any other time, and that if they disturbed the property of others they would be severely punished. Reinforced by the efforts of General Gregory and the army officials the address seems to have had a very good effect, but many of the negroes still cherished a lingering hope until it was dispelled at Christmas.
General Gregory exerted himself during December and January to put labor upon a firm basis for the next year; and, though his lack of intimate understanding of the negro character and his failure to appreciate and to take into account the common notions of social precedence often gave offense to the whites and retarded somewhat the success of his plans, his energy and perseverance did much to bring about a more hopeful situation. Planters were urged to settle with the laborers for the past season and to make contracts with them at once for the ensuing year on fair and liberal terms. 105 In order to promote the contract system he made a trip through the lower river-bottom counties where the black population was densest. General conditions came to his aid. Cotton planting was immensely profitable because of the high prices then being paid for the staple and planters who were sceptical of free negro labor grew willing to give it a trial. With the calling of the constitutional convention, political affairs began to assume a more stable aspect, so that people were no longer apprehensive of confiscation. Many of the blacks who had been brought into Texas during the war were now making their way back into the other States. 106 The demand for labor grew keener. On the other hand, the negroes, having been disappointed in their Christmas expectations, were more ready to work. In many instances, too, where they were out of reach of the Bureau's commissary stores, their previous improvidence now forced them to work to secure food. A report from Washington County in the black belt, January 24, stated that in that county two-thirds of the freed population were then at work at good wages, that seven thousand contracts had been filed already, and that unemployed freedmen were becoming scarce. 107 Similar reports came from other communities and the situation gradually grew more promising throughout the State.
It may not be inappropriate at this point to indicate briefly the general character of the work the Bureau had to do in Texas. There were no abandoned lands in the State and the Union refugees usually depended upon the military for such protection as they needed; consequently the activities of the Bureau were confined to looking after the interests of the negro. These activities may be classified roughly as relief work, educational work, labor supervision, and judicial protection. Its supervision of labor interests, that is, oversight of contracts and wages, has already been considered, and for the others brief statements will suffice. The actual relief work done was comparatively slight. Rations had been issued somewhat extensively by the military authorities in the early summer, but since there was plenty of food to be had for work, this practice was gradually checked. During the winter the number fed had increased, but by the end of January only sixty-seven were receiving government support. 108 One hospital had been established, but ceased to be used after the close of winter. 109 The educational work was under the charge of Lieutenant E. M. Wheelock, who, by the end of January had in operation twenty-six day and night schools with an enrollment of about sixteen hundred pupils. 110 These schools were supported partly by voluntary contributions, partly by a small tuition fee. But that function of the Bureau which, from the manner in which it was exercised, caused more irritation to the whites than any other, was the extension of protection over the negro in the State courts. In localities where such courts, by reason of the old code, refused to allow the negro to give testimony or otherwise denied him justice, it was made the duty of all Bureau officials to withdraw from the courts and themselves adjudicate cases in which a freedman was concerned. 111 Unfortunately, the wide powers here implied were not always used with honesty or discretion; and too often, by arbitrary or needless interference with the regular courts, the Bureau forfeited public confidence and weakened its efforts along other lines. However, the worst abuses developed only after the suffrage had given political power into the hands of the negro and had made it profitable for the ambitious Bureau agent to court his favor. For the time the zealous activity of the Assistant Commissioner in clearing the towns of idle negroes won the good will of the press and the public. 112
4. Relations of the Civil and Military Authorities.
The proclamation appointing Governor Hamilton had neither clearly defined the powers of the Provisional Governor nor explained his proper relations with the military authorities further than to order that they should aid him in the performance of his duties and not interfere with him. It was evident, however, that while each within a certain sphere enjoyed exclusive authority, there was a region over which they exercised concurrent or rival jurisdiction; and it early became clear that conflicts were likely to arise in matters pertaining to the maintenance of public order, especially in criminal cases. Prior to the establishment of the provisional civil courts, all criminal cases had been disposed of through military courts; and, while it was generally expected that the latter would now abandon a large class of cases to the civil authorities, their own jurisdiction over such matters had not been expressly abrogated or curtailed. The establishment of the Freedmen's Bureau courts increased the opportunities for conflicts. There were, therefore, three classes of courts in the State, all claiming criminal jurisdiction. The military claimed control of all matters in which soldiers or employes of the government were involved, and were responsible for the maintenance of order where the civil courts were not organized; the Freedmen's Bureau exercised jurisdiction over matters relating to freedmen, especially where it was believed that the civil authorities would not do them justice; the civil courts claimed jurisdiction in all criminal cases, though in the face of the military power, these claims were not always strenuously asserted.
Governor Hamilton and General Wright, the department commander, 113 preserved amicable relations throughout, and endeavored in every way to prevent a conflict. On August 17 the former wrote to General C. C. Andrews, one of the district commanders, requesting that a white man, whom the military had arrested for the murder of a freedman, be turned over to the civil court for trial. 114 The Governor was evidently not sure of his ground, for he asked what course the military authorities proposed to take in criminal cases. He expressed the opinion that it would be entirely safe to remit all offenders to the civil courts for trial and that it would be good policy to do so, since the people felt much anxiety in the matter. Soon afterwards he changed his mind. On September 27 he wrote to General Wright, asking that the military branch of the government execute vigorous punishment upon criminals, and confessing that the civil authorities could not be depended upon for some time. With respect to the relations between the two, he did not regard the provisional government of the State as having superseded the military authority. His view of the political condition of Texas was this: “There is no constitutional State government. The provisional government of Texas is created by and exists at the will of the President. My authority as Provisional Governor is limited to such measures as may be necessary to prepare the people of the State and provide means for a convention to organize a new constitutional State government, which, when adopted and recognized by the general government, will supersede, within the limits of its jurisdiction, the military power in all things not properly pertaining to the military authority of the United States in time of peace. For the Present, the action of the civil authorities created by me is allowed only as a means,—to the extent that they can be made available,—of aiding the authorities of the general government in preserving public peace and order, and in protecting individual rights and property. I have felt sure the general government would not object to such quasi-civil government as I have temporarily effected, but it would be in conflict with the views of the government to claim for the provisional government any power except such as emanates directly from the President. In this view I not only see no objection to the trial of offenders before military tribunals, but believe it a necessity unavoidable without great detriment to the highest interests of the people.” 115
In reply to this, General Wright disclaimed any wish to interfere with civil processes when it could be avoided. He said: “It was understood when I assumed command that, 1st, all matters between white citizens of the State were to be acted on by the civil authorities constituted by you, as far as practicable. 2nd. That matters in which freedmen were concerned were to be left to the action of the Freedmen's Bureau, which was to act through specially appointed agents, of which your officers might form a part. 3rd. That the military authority should confine itself to matters pertaining to the military, and should give necessary aid either to the civil authority or to the Freedmen's Bureau.” Since it seemed that this program, though highly desirable, could not be carried out, he agreed “to issue an order directing military commanders to turn over to civil tribunals all criminal cases, wherein soldiers are not concerned, where the civil authority is in condition to act, and where justice to all concerned can be looked for,—the colored man being put upon perfect equality with the white before the courts,—and where such justice can not be expected, to bring the cases for trial before a military commission or a Freedman's Bureau court.” 116
An understanding was thus effected defining more clearly the limitations within which each class of officials was to exercise jurisdiction; but it necessarily left unsettled the question as to when the civil authority was strong enough to deal with public disorders without the interference of the military, and whether the civil court was granting the freedman the privileges to which he was entitled. The effectiveness of such an agreement would depend chiefly upon the mutual forbearance of those entrusted with carrying it out in detail, and it was too much to expect a great measure of that quality from the average post commander, ignorant of the civil law and impatient of a less direct method than that to which the camp had accustomed him, or from the judge who sought to uphold the dignity of the civil authority and felt constrained to base his acts upon what remained of the old code.
The first serious trouble was at Victoria, where Colonel I. T. Rose, of the 77th Pennsylvania, was stationed. Eight distinct charges of outrageous conduct on the part of Rose were laid before the Governor. 117 Finally, a white man, M. M. Gwinn, who had killed a negro and had been acquitted in a preliminary trial in open court, in which the testimony of negroes was freely admitted, was, after being released, rearrested by Rose and confined in jail. A certified copy of the proceedings of the court was put in the hands of the Governor, who sent a peppery letter to the Colonel, demanded the release of Gwinn, and laid the matter before General Wright. Wright ordered the release of Gwinn and soon afterwards Rose was transferred to duty elsewhere.
A more serious affair occurred at Jefferson. R. L. Robertson, acting as Treasury agent, was indicted on three distinct charges, two of swindling and one of theft, by a grand jury. He was released by the interference of Captain Jones, the post commander. He was again arrested and his release was ordered of District Judge Gray by Major Clingman, at Marshall. After the judge had twice refused, Captain Jones with a body of soldiers forcibly took Robertson from jail. The civil authorities appealed to the Governor; the military appealed to their superiors. General Canby issued the following: “State courts have no jurisdiction over their (Treasury agents) official conduct, nor can they, without usurpation, investigate the title of property held by the United States as captured and abandoned.” Concerning this Judge Gray wrote to Hamilton: “The District Court of Marion County has never claimed jurisdiction over the official acts of agents of the government, but when an agent violates the Penal Code, the District Court has claimed and exercised judisdiction over him. As well had the agent claimed freedom from arrest for murder as for any other crime.” The judge then said that if he could not punish cotton thieves he would not punish any, and declined to hold other courts. In the meantime, his arrest was threatened if the indictments were not withdrawn. The matter dragged along in this fashion until all attempts to bring Robertson to justice had to be abandoned. 118
Aside from the disputes over the respective jurisdictions of the civil and military, in some localities the conduct of the troops was a source of irritation and complaint. In the summer of 1865 Flake's Bulletin, of Galveston, is full of references to outrages perpetrated by the Federal soldiers stationed in that city. Open robbery, insults to women, and disorderly conduct are matters of daily comment. The troubles at Victoria have already been indicated. These were white troops. By far the greatest complaint was against the colored troops that were brought into the State in the late summer and fall to replace the volunteer regiments that were being discharged. In November a petition was sent Governor Hamilton from Jackson County for relief from a body of three hundred negro troops that had been detailed there to cut ties for the Lavaca and San Antonio Railroad. These negroes were heavily armed and parties of them roamed about the country robbing plantations, insulting and sometimes outraging women, inciting the resident negroes to like conduct, and keeping the whole country in constant terror. 119 Negro troops were quartered at Galveston in the winter, and were constantly giving trouble. In the latter part of February they broke loose from all restraint and spread terror over the city. A young lady, a member of one of the most respectable families, was assaulted and horribly treated, and several persons were attacked and shot at. The Bulletin of February 28 says, “On Saturday these outrages reached their climax, stimulated, no doubt, by the terrible homicide of the day. During Saturday and Sunday a reign of terror, which has not yet wholly subsided, held sway over the city.” After recounting a number of unprovoked attacks upon the citizens, it goes on to say, “The peace of the city must be preserved. If the police force can not do it, then let the military officials take entire control; and if they can not, then the citizens must do it for themselves.” There were numbers of other collisions less conspicuous. Ben C. Truman, the able correspondent of the New York Times, in a communication published March 5, says that large numbers of deserters from the volunteer regiments in the western part of the State were committing all sorts of murders and outrages in the country, most of which were charged against the people of that section.
5. The Frontier.
One of the most troublesome problems that the State had to face at this time was the condition of its frontier. Although this region had been subject to attack throughout the war, some attempt at organized protection had been made by the State and Confederate authorities. After the withdrawal of the Confederate troops from the west, the Indians, the Comanches in particular, began raiding and murdering in the exposed settlements. The people were unable to defend themselves from the sudden attacks and the depredations became more frequent and of greater magnitude. Throughout 1865 and 1866 the whole extent of the frontier from north to south was in constant terror and became almost depopulated. The Governor was besieged with petitions for troops and made repeated requests to General Wright for cavalry. Wright disclaimed any authority over the cavalry and referred the matter to Sheridan. Sheridan refused the troops on the ground that they were needed at interior garrisons for the protection of freedmen. Hamilton, too, believed that there were not enough troops in the interior to maintain order, and thereafter contented himself with appealing to Washington for more soldiers for Texas. However, it was not until 1867 that frontier posts were finally established and adequate protection was afforded.
It was not until November 15, nearly three months from the beginning of registration, that, a majority of the voters having qualified, a proclamation was issued fixing the date of the election for January 8, 1866. The convention was to meet in Austin on February 7 and the number of delegates was to be equal to the number in the Lower House of the State Legislature and distributed among the counties in like manner. Delegates were not required to be residents of the districts selecting them, and no person within the classes excepted from the general amnesty was eligible as a delegate unless pardoned by the President. This last provision was criticised as exceeding the Governor's instructions, for the only restriction imposed by the President's proclamation was that each delegate should have taken the amnesty oath.
Now that the election and the assembling of the convention were definitely provided for, candidates appeared and a livelier interest was shown in the questions that must come up for settlement. By this time the example of the other States and the known attitude of the President had wrought practical unanimity on the points that seemed most important: that slavery was a thing of the past and that the fact should be recognized in an amendment to the Constitution; that the war debt should be annulled or repudiated; and that the act of secession should be nullified. But as to the manner in which these things should be done, and as to the settlement of certain related problems, there was wide divergence of opinion. Should the secession ordinance be repealed simply, or declared null by reason of the failure of the war, or null and void from its inception? The war debt must be nullified, but what of a certain portion of the civil debt that had been used indirectly in prosecution of the war, and another portion that had been contracted in a manner prohibited by the Constitution of 1845? It was agreed that slavery must be abolished, but what of the status of the freedman? To what extent would it be safe and expedient to invest him with those civil rights that had long been the very foundations of liberty for the dominant race?
All of these were matters of the highest importance, but perhaps the last received the greatest attention. With respect to it most of the candidates showed varying degrees of conservatism. W. C. Dalrymple, who proved the successful candidate in Williamson and Travis counties, said in a published letter: “My opponents, . . . each and all, concede something to the negroes; some more, some less, approximating to equality with the white race. I concede them nothing but the station of `hewers of wood and drawers of water.' . . . If a republican form of government is to be sustained, the white race must do it without any negro alloy. A mongrel Mexico affords no fit example for imitation. I desire the perpetuation of a white man's government. . . . The negro is and must remain free. This is one of the results of the late conflict. He must be protected in person and property; this is due to justice and humanity, but I hope and believe that legislative wisdom can devise some mode of securing fully those rights without an equality in the courts of the country. Of course I am opposed to negro suffrage in whatever form or with whatever limitations it may be proposed.” 120 This was the ultra-conservative view. Another candidate, also successful, Colonel M. T. Johnson of Tarrant county, a moderate unionist, declared in a published circular his opposition to granting the negro any political rights whatever, and insisted that he should be made to work by uniform laws regulating pauperism, labor, and apprenticeship; but at the same time asserted the necessity of treating him with justice and kindness in his helpless condition. 121 A large number favored allowing the freedman a right to testify in cases in which a negro was concerned. A few, the most advanced, would have extended this right to all cases. There seems to have been only one candidate, E. Degener, a prominent German of San Antonio, who openly advocated negro suffrage.
The most notable contribution to the public discussion was a long and earnest letter to the people of Texas from John H. Reagan, then a prisoner of war at Fort Warren, Boston Bay, where he had been confined since his capture in May. This letter was truly remarkable for the clearness with which it grasped the real facts of the situation and forecast the results that must inevitably flow from a failure to apprehend the spirit prevailing among the people of the North. It was written on August 11 and was published in the Texas papers about the first of October. The State, Reagan thought, occupied the position of a conquered nation. The State government would not be restored until a policy was adopted acceptable to the will of the conquerors. “A refusal to accede to these conditions would only result in a prolongation of the time during which you will be deprived of a civil government of your own choice, and would continue subject to military rule.” In order to avoid this danger it was necessary to recognize the supreme authority of the United States government and its right to protect itself against secession, and to recognize the abolition of slavery and the right of freedmen to the privileges and protection of the law. It seemed probable, however, that this alone would not satisfy the people of the North; it was very probable, in fact, that they would demand nothing less than suffrage for the freedmen. Reagan thought the South in no position to resist such a demand, although bitter opposition was to be expected on the part of Southern men. The demand could be satisfied by: First, admitting the testimony of negroes in the courts, subject only to the same rules as applied to whites; second, fixing an intellectual, moral, and if necessary, a property test for the admission of all persons to the elective franchise, regardless of race or color, provided that no person previously entitled to vote should be deprived of the right by any new test. The results of such a policy would be to remove the grounds of hostility between the races and put an end to sectional and interstate agitation. 122 The public, however, was far from ready for a strategic move involving so many concessions, and a perfect storm of disapproval arose. Reagan was compelled to suffer for a time the opprobrium so often the lot of those who can see further into the future than their fellows. 123
The elections passed off quietly, only a small vote being cast because of the inclemency of the weather. Until the delegates assembled at Austin, as appointed, February 7, there was considerable doubt as to what element would be in control. It was soon apparent that a strong minority were “unionists.” Of these the more prominent were I. A. Paschal and E. Degener of San Antonio, John Hancock of Austin, always a stanch opponent of secession, but now inclined to a moderate policy; J. W. Throckmorton, later “conservative” Governor; E. J. Davis, later “radical” Governor; Shields, X. B. Saunders, Latimer, R. H. Taylor, Ledbetter, and J. W. Flanagan. A number of equally aggressive “secessionists” were present, some of whom were in the classes excepted from the general amnesty and had so far failed to secure presidential pardon. The most conspicuous was O. M. Roberts, who had been president of the secession convention in 1861 and whose presence was therefore especially resented by those who regarded secession as treason. Of the same class were ex-Governor H. R. Runnels, John Ireland, C. A. Frazier, D. C. Giddings, R. A. Reeves, ex-Governor Henderson, J. W. Whitfield, and T. N. Waul. A considerable element in the convention, the group which really held the balance of power, should be classed as merely conservative. They were likely to vote against the unionists out of opposition to radicalism rather than because of hostility to the United States government.
The convention took up its work in the most leisurely manner. The greater part of the first three days was consumed in the mere preliminaries of organization. J. W. Throckmorton was elected president on the second ballot. His election was regarded with satisfaction on all sides. He was an original unionist, one of the seven who had voted against the ordinance of secession in 1861, but he had entered the Confederate service as commissioner to the Indians and rose to the rank of brigadier-general. As president of the convention he was drawn more and more to the side of the majority and became the chief defender in Texas of President Johnson's policy.
The first skirmish between the opposing factions came on the third day when Paschal introduced a resolution to appoint a committee to acquaint the Governor that the convention was organized and “ready to take the constitutional oath” and to receive any communication he thought proper to make. 124 The secessionists were up in arms immediately against taking the constitutional oath. Roberts, Reeves, and Frazier hotly insisted that the delegates had met only in “a primitive capacity” to make a Constitution and to organize a government; that they had no status as officers of the United States, and therefore it was not incumbent upon them to take an oath of such character. Paschal and Saunders defended the resolution by pointing out that as the convention had been called by the authority of the United States to frame a State government in accordance with the laws of the United States, it was just as necessary for the members to take the regular oath as it was for any other officials acting under that government to take it. At this juncture, Hancock, reputed a “soft unionist,” offered as a compromise an amendment that required only that those members who had not already done so should take the amnesty oath instead of the objectionable one. 125 This was by no means satisfactory to the unionists and in an effort to strike out the amendment they were defeated by the narrow margin of thirty-nine to forty-one. Hancock's amendment was adopted and the resolution passed. It was the first alignment of forces and it is worth noting that the president, Throckmorton, supported Paschal's resolution. Before the next day the victorious reactionaries repented of their action. It would not do for the news to go abroad that the first act of the convention had been an expression of hostility, or at least of disrespect, toward the national Constitution. After the hurried consultation they decided to retrace their steps. Immediately after convening next morning, Hancock moved a reconsideration of his resolution, and it was carried by an overwhelming majority, only eleven irreconcilables, among whom were Giddings, Ireland, and Runnels, opposing. Paschal then offered the resolution for taking the regular constitutional oath, and it passed this time without a division.
On the same day the message of Governor Hamilton was received. He recapitulated the instructions contained in his appointment, explained the necessity for his going beyond the letter of them in placing on the registration boards persons not designated by the President, and called attention to the fact that, contrary to the provisions of his proclamation governing the election, several persons who had been excepted from the amnesty and had not received the special pardon, were now occupying seats in the convention. After defending his course in not calling the convention earlier, and expressing concern at the apathy of the people in the elections, he pointed out that the other States had by too hasty action passed measures that debarred them from securing representation in Congress, and suggested that Texas might, by observing the developments elsewhere, profit by this delay. It was expected by the President, by Congress, and by the people of the United States that such changes would be made in the organic law of the State as would make it conform in spirit and principle to the actual changes wrought by the war. In the first place it would be expected that the convention express a clear and explicit denial, in such form as seemed proper, of the right to secede from the Union. In the second place it would be expected to manifest “a cheerful acquiescence” in the abolition of slavery by a proper amendment to the Constitution. Both of these questions had already been definitely settled on the field of battle and the sole function of the delegates was to recognize fittingly an accomplished fact. The next duty of the convention would be to repudiate the debt incurred by the State in support of the war, for to provide for its payment would be to justify its purposes. What portion of the total public debt incurred since the beginning of the war was of this character it would be difficult to ascertain, but it seemed that it would probably amount to three-fourths, and the report of ex-Governor Pease and Swante Palm was furnished to facilitate an investigation. Finally, and most important of all, was the determination of the civil and political status of the freedmen. Here the Governor expressed an apprehension that his views would not be acceptable to the majority of the convention, but he repeated his previous warning that if any legislation tending to re-establish slavery or to nullify any of the proper effects of emancipation were indulged in, or anything less than the full civil rights of free citizens were granted the blacks, it would delay indefinitely the return of the State to its normal place in the Union. In addition to full rights in the courts and in the holding of property, he earnestly advised the convention to make it possible in the future for the negro to attain to political suffrage. “I do not believe,” he said, “that the great mass of the freedmen in our midst are qualified by their intelligence to exercise the right of suffrage, and I do not desire to see this privilege conferred upon them,” but, “if we fail to make political privileges depend upon rules of universal application, we will inevitably be betrayed into legislating under the influence of ancient prejudices and with a view only to the present. I think that human wisdom can not discern what is to be the future of the African race in this country. ... I would not be willing to deprive any man, who is qualified under existing laws to vote, of the exercise of that privilege in the future; but I believe it would be wise to regulate the qualifications of those who are to become voters hereafter by rules of universal application.” 126
On the next day the Governor's complaint about the presence of unpardoned rebels in the convention bore fruit in a resolution by E. J. Davis to the effect that no person excepted from the amnesty should be entitled to a seat until pardoned. Ex-Governor Henderson offered a substitute referring all credentials to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and the matter was finally referred to that committee. On the next day the committee called before it the delegates whose seats were thus in question, Runnels, Waul, Whitfield, and Ireland, and after consideration reported that these had all made application for special pardon and that the applications had been endorsed by the Governor. A resolution was finally passed allowing them to retain their seats pending the action of the president. 127
The convention got down to work very slowly. It had been in session a full week before any move at all was made with respect to the secession ordinance. It was still four days later before the abolition of slavery was brought up for discussion. In fact as much time was taken up with the mere preliminaries of organization as had been required for the complete work of any of the State conventions of the previous summer. 128
On February 13 Latimer, of Red River County, introduced an ordinance on the first serious question with which the delegates were called upon to deal, the disposition of the ordinance of secession. There proved to be a great variety of opinions as to its character, and upon the subject party lines came to be closely drawn. The chief point at issue was whether the secession ordinance had been null and void from the beginning and that there had never been such a thing as “the right of secession”; or whether it was rendered null and void as a result of the war, with the clear implication that the right of secession had been at least an open legal question until the war had settled it. Latimer's ordinance simply declared null and void and of no effect from the beginning the ordinance of secession and all the other acts of the convention of 1861. Hancock proposed a substitute to the effect that the ordinance had been “in legal contemplation void, being a revolutionary measure, and subject to the general principles of revolutions.” 129 This was a clever compromise, but suited neither side. On the next day Henderson offered an ordinance declaring that, inasmuch as the government of the United States “by the exercise of its power” had determined that no State had the constitutional right to secede, the said ordinance was repealed. 130 Later, Reeves wished simply to accept the decision of the war and, in order to restore the State to its former relations to the Federal government, merely to renounce the doctrine as asserted in the aforesaid ordinance of secession 131 Judge Frazier was able to evolve another interpretation: that the inhabitants of Texas were a conquered people, governed by the laws of war and of nations, by which alone the United States government was restrained, and that these laws required no more of the people than that they should accept the will of the conqueror; and hence it was “not necessary to repeal, annul, or declare null and void that ordinance, since the surrender of the South had settled the question.” 132 X. B. Saunders introduced an ordinance to the same effect as Latimer's, declaring the act of secession and all other acts of the secession convention null and void ab initio. This was the position of the stanch unionists. When the Committee on the Condition of the State reported, its ordinance was one that simply acknowledged the supremacy of the Constitution of the United States and declared the troublesome act “annulled and of no further effect.” 133 The minority report of this committee asserted that as no warrant for the act of secession could be found in the Constitution which was the supreme law of the land, it must have been a nullity from the beginning; and even viewing it as a revolutionary measure, the result of the struggle forced the same conclusion, for “abortive attempts at revolution never impress any changes upon the fundamental laws of the government.” Moreover, the report of the majority virtually asserted that the secession ordinance still had a legal existence up to the present time and was in actual force—a theory in every way untenable. The minority reported an ab initio ordinance. 134
The real fight over this question began on March 9 and extended over three days. The ab initio men, or “radicals,” as they were beginning to be called, struggled hard to substitute some form of the minority report for that of the majority. Not quite equal in numbers to their opponents, they failed in this, and then resorted to obstructive tactics. Finally, the conservatives by sheer strength pushed through to engrossment, on the afternoon of the 12th of March, by a vote of 43 to 37, the ordinance finally adopted,—acknowledging the supremacy of the Federal Constitution, declaring the act of secession null and void without direct reference to its initial status, and distinctly renouncing the right previously claimed by Texas to secede from the Union. 135
The radicals were not at first disposed to accept their defeat gracefully. At a caucus of the minority held that night in the office of the Secretary of State, Hancock strongly urged the withdrawal of the ab initio men for the purpose of breaking a quorum and dissolving the convention in order that a new one might be called. However, Governor Hamilton would not promise to call another one at once, and there was nothing for them to do but to return to their seats. 136 Flake's Bulletin, a radical weekly paper of Galveston, declared as late as March 21, that the convention had “shown its hand by passing an emasculated ordinance known to be unsatisfactory to Union men everywhere”; that the majority had proven itself disloyal; that “the sole intent and meaning of this ordinance was to gain a rapid entrance into the national councils in order to renew the struggle and fight the rebellion over again”; and it suggested that as the majority was “still wedded, like Ephriam, to its idols,” it might yet “become the duty of the loyal minority to withdraw from the convention.”
It had been widely asserted by the radicals that nothing less than a distinct admission of the original illegality of the attempted secession would satisfy President Johnson and the North, and that without such an admission the new State government would not be recognized; and indeed the Houston Tri-Weekly Telegraph, the ablest of the conservative papers, had pointed out in November that the result of the fall elections in the North meant that the issues of the war had not been abandoned by the South in terms sufficiently decisive, and that to repeal the ordinance would not be enough, “for if it was ever valid it still is,” but that “the whole idea of reserved State sovereignty and of partnership in the government must be expelled from the system forever.” On the other hand it could hardly have been expected that the secession leaders would be willing to violate their records of “political consistency”; 137 while there were many others who refused to “brand as traitors their fathers, brothers, and sons who had died in battle for the South.” 138 In commenting on the action of the convention, the Telegraph of March 17 says: “They (the radicals) desired the convention should say that secession or revolution was a crime in itself, and consequently void. It was understood that this significance should attach to the words `null and void, ab initio.' The idea attached to the ordinance passed is that the war has decided that it was null and void ab initio. On this difference the issue is raised. It is whether the people in their sovereign capacity shall declare that they did wrong knowingly and willingly in 1861 in attempting secession.” Flake's Bulletin, in commenting on the foregoing, says: “The difference in position is defined with unusual clearness and great candor. . . . We do certainly desire that the ordinance of secession be declared a wrong knowingly forced upon the people of Texas by their political leaders. We contend that rebellion was wrong, that it was, in the theological language, original sin, that it was malum in se, and that the next rebellion will be just like it, wrong from the beginning.”
The most important subject that engaged the attention of the convention was the status to be given the negro. There was practical unanimity of opinion in regard to the abolition of slavery. All were now agreed that the institution had ceased to exist, for the Thirteenth Amendment had been ratified and declared in force in December; neither was there any division of opinion concerning the right of the freedmen to be secure in person and property. There was considerable debate upon the question of admitting negro testimony in the courts. The majority of the members were willing to admit such testimony in any case, civil or criminal, involving a right of, or injury to, any of them in person or property; there was a large and active minority, chiefly the political friends of Hamilton, that strongly urged the admission of negro testimony in all cases under the same rules that governed the testimony of the whites. 139 The latter proposition was repugnant to popular sensibilities because it was regarded as the first step toward social equality, and this was the chief argument against it, though it was also strongly urged that if the negro were allowed to testify only in cases affecting the negro, he was legally placed upon a better foundation than the white man, since he would be able to subpoena witnesses from both whites and blacks, while the white man, where no negro was involved, could summon only those of his own color. 140 The radicals answered that a liberal policy was expected, nay, demanded by the government at Washington and backed by Northern sentiment, and would be prerequisite to readmission to the national councils; and furthermore, it was pointed out that as long as the freedmen labored under any disabilities in the civil courts there was no prospect of a release from the annoyance of the Freedmen's Bureau. The article first reported by Hancock from the Committee on General Provisions of the Constitution, February 17, provided that slavery should not exist in the State and that freedmen should be secure in all rights of person and property, and should not be prohibited from testifying in any case affecting one of their own color. A number of amendments were offered to this section defining the rights of freedmen in the courts, but despite the efforts of a few to place closer restrictions thereon, and of a strong minority to extend them to all cases, the provision went through essentially unchanged. As finally adopted, the ordinance, which became Article VIII of the Constitution, declared that African slavery having been terminated by the United States government by force of arms and its re-establishment prohibited by an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party should have been duly convicted, should exist within the State. Negroes were to be protected in their rights of person and property; to have the right to sue and be sued, to contract and be contracted with, to acquire and transmit property; and all criminal prosecutions against them were to be conducted in the same manner and with the same penalties as in the case of whites. They were allowed to testify orally in any case, civil or criminal, involving the right of, injury to, or crime against any of their own race in person or property, under the same rules of evidence that were applicable to the white race; and the Legislature was empowered to authorize them to testify as witnesses in all other cases, under such regulations as should be prescribed “as to facts hereafter occurring.” 141 This last clause, if not distinctly a concession to the minority, at least wisely left the matter open for determination according to future developments. Whether the Texans were more liberal in this respect than the delegates to the other State conventions or whether they felt themselves driven to this position by the Civil Rights Bill then under consideration in Congress is not easily apparent. Truman thought them freely inclined to favor the negro; 142 and it was evident that few of them believed that the bill could pass over the President's veto. Moreover, the most of them, including many that had favored the most liberal policy toward the negro, were very hostile to that bill because it invaded a field which they regarded as being exclusively under the jurisdiction of the States.
The idea of negro suffrage found little favor on any side. Degener offered a long minority report from the Committee on Legislative Department in advocacy of unrestricted suffrage, but he stood practically alone. Few, even of those who did not oppose it, would openly advocate it. 143 On the whole, Texas had granted the freedmen more civil rights than had any other southern State, though she had not gone as far as it was understood that President Johnson desired. Still, it was asserted by the radicals, now becoming identified with the anti-Johnson party, that it was the President's veto of the Freedmen's Bureau Bill during this time that had encouraged the majority to refuse the negro wider privileges. 144
The question of the public debt presented a peculiar difficulty. There was no hesitation in repudiating the war debt, but the third section of the ordinance reported by the Committee on Finance repudiated the entire civil debt incurred between January 28, 1861, and August 5, 1865. 145 On this point there was a sharp debate, but the majority in its favor, comprising men of both parties, was 147 so strong that obstructive tactics availed little; and with slight modifications the ordinance was passed on March 15. The reasons advanced for repudiating the civil debt were: (1) that the treasury warrants, comprising the greater part of it, had been issued in plain violation of the Constitution of 1845, which must be regarded as still in force; 146 (2) the State authorities had recklessly issued warrants to the stupendous amount of nearly fifteen millions of dollars, and to impose upon the State the obligation to remove such a mountain of debt, even though the warrants be redeemed at face value at time of issue, would not only drive away immigration but would bankrupt the State; (3) that nearly all of these warrants had found their way into the hands of the “gang of heartless stay-at-hame speculators,” who had shirked their duty during the war, and it would be unfair to tax for their benefit the poverty-stricken soldiers in the ranks; (4) that a large amount of the debt, as much as three millions of dollars, had been issued to regulators for hunting down and executing without trial loyal citizens of the United States then resident in Texas. 148 How much support each one of these arguments contributed to the measure it would be difficult to determine; but they combined strong legal and partisan reasons; they presented an array that was overwhelming. Perhaps, however, this act was attacked with more bitterness by the press than all the other measures together. Certain of the conservative journals in particular exhibited a resentment that was most bitter. 149 The San Antonio Herald, which had shown some anxiety on this point previous to the convention, asserted that the warrants of the State had nothing on their face to show that they were in any way connected with the rebellion; that most of the debt was for purely civil services and that the rest was for the defense of the frontier against the Indians. The State Gazette declared the repudiation an act of bad faith, one that had not been required by the Federal government, and not adopted in the other States of the South that had suffered far worse during the war than had Texas.
Although these important measures concerning secession, the freedmen, and the war debt were the only ones that the convention had been specifically required to take up, there were other matters that naturally came up for consideration. An ordinance of great importance was one recognizing certain acts of the government de facto as it existed during the war. When the Federals first took control of the State all the acts of the State government subsequent to the ordinance of secession were declared illegitimate. This, however, was felt to work an unnecessary hardship in many cases, and Governor Hamilton had gradually adopted the policy of recognizing as valid such acts and laws as were not in conflict with the laws of the United States. It was generally felt to be absolutely necessary for the peace and well being of society that the private law status of citizens should not be disturbed by reason of the war. Under the authority of the State government during the war property had been transferred; estates administered; contracts entered into; business relations formed; courts held, judgments rendered, and decrees executed; marriage relations entered into and children born. To have disturbed or destroyed the legitimacy of all these acts would have been to undermine and destroy the very foundations upon which depended the stability of society. Such a course could have subserved no useful purpose in State policy, for these acts could not be construed as having been “in aid of the rebellion.” Consequently, long before the convention was called, the provisional authorities had made and recognized a distinction between those acts in aid and support of the rebellion and those which had been primarily for the purpose of regulating the private relations of the people and without any direct relation to the war. But notwithstanding this distinction was already recognized and acted upon, it was necessary for the convention to embody it in the organic law of the land in order to insure the permanence of the principle. The ordinance passed on the subject was a sort of omnibus bill, covering a wide range of related subjects. All laws and parts of laws enacted by the Legislature subsequent to the 1st of February, 1861, and not in conflict with the Constitution and laws of the United States, nor with the Constitution of Texas as it was prior to that date, nor in conflict with the proclamations of the Provisional Governor, were declared to be in full force as laws of the State; and all acts of the different officers of the State, executive, legislative, and judicial, done in compliance with the laws not in conflict as above stated, were declared in force, unless annulled by act of the convention. All acts of the secession convention were annulled. The acts of the provisional government and its officers were declared valid. Furthermore, it was provided that no suit or prosecution should be maintained or recovery had against any agent, bailee, executor, administrator, or trustee, who had been compelled to deliver up property or money held by them to Confederate States' receivers. No person was to be sued or prosecuted for any action done in compliance with superior orders under Confederate authority. 150 Persons absent from Texas during the war, against whom any judgment was rendered in a civil suit during such absence, were allowed two years from April 1, 1866, in which to reopen and set aside such judgment, with the effect to set aside any sale or disposition of any property affected. 151
A number of minor matters are worthy of passing notice. Certain amendments were added to the Constitution—that of 1845—lengthening the terms of most State officers to four years and increasing the salaries. Some changes were made in the form and jurisdiction of the courts with a view to greater efficiency. The Governor was requested to petition the President for more adequate frontier protection. An ordinance was passed on the last day providing for a possible division of the State, the vote standing 31 to 17. 152 One of the last acts of the convention was the appointment of four delegates who were to proceed to Washington and lay before the President the result of their deliberations and to “endeavor to impress upon the national authorities the loyal and pacific disposition of the people of Texas.” On several occasions the majority had attempted to get through resolutions endorsing President Johnson's policy, but action was delayed until at the last minute the measure failed for want of a quorum.
The action of the convention in passing the ordinances concerning secession, the freedmen, and the debt was to be regarded as final, but the amendments to the Constitution were to be voted upon at the first general election for State, district, and county officers, which was fixed in June. The new State government was to be inaugurated in August.
The convention adjourned on April 2, after a session of eight weeks. By this time the two parties, radical and conservative, which had been in evidence almost from the first, had become something more nearly approaching definite organizations. The acts of the convention were looked upon as being chiefly the work of the conservatives, and were in consequence bitterly attacked by the radical newspapers, especially by the Southern Intelligencer, which had become the recognized organ of the radicals. The Intelligencer declared that the convention had done things it ought not to have done and had left undone the things that it ought to have done. It had failed to declare secession null and void from the beginning; only a portion of the civil rights had been conceded to the freedmen; and it had failed to submit all its ordinances to the people for ratification. Nor were the conservative papers altogether pleased with the last days of the session, and at first they did not attempt to conceal their dissatisfaction. Each party in the convention had begun maneuvering in anticipation of the June elections, and in haste to get an early start in the canvass and unwilling to wait for a State nominating convention, each had resorted to the old expedient of a caucus nomination. The San Antonio Herald, the Austin State Gazette, and the Houston Telegraph joined in denouncing this caucus nomination, which, taken with the refusal to submit certain of the ordinances to the people, they regarded as proof that the delegates cared only to grab all the offices and considered this as more important than the welfare of the State. Some of these papers, too, were still smarting over the repudiation of the civil debt. But this did not last long; the conservatives were soon forced by the pressure of party strife to accept and defend the work of the convention and to support the caucus-made nominees of their faction.
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTICES.
A History of the Baptists of Hill County, by J. C. Daniel. (Waco, 1907, pp. 132.) This little volume gives a brief account of each of the Baptist churches established in Hill County from the earliest days to the present, with short biographical sketches of their preachers and of the laymen most prominent in the church work. The last third of the book is given over to sketches of the various church associations in the county and the State. The book contains a great many illustrations, most of which are well done; the print is clear, the paper fairly good. It should prove helpful to those for whom it is specially written.
C. W. R.
Pioneer History of Wise County (Decatur, Texas, 1907, pp. 471), by Cliff D. Cates. The author of this book is secretary of the Old Settlers' Association of Wise County, and has put together an interesting account of the pioneer and frontier days in what was, until some thirty years ago, a frontier region. The first settlements, the organization of the county, the privations of a new country, social life among the settlers, and numerous Indian raids and massacres make up the most interesting part of the book. A fairly large part is devoted to biographical sketches which, unhappily, are inserted in most haphazard fashion. The story is brought down to the coming of the railroads and a chapter is given to Wise County as it is today. The author has evidently been at some pains to collect his material. The volume is neatly bound and fully illustrated, but lacks an index. It is to be hoped that something of the sort may soon be done for other counties or districts of Texas.
C. W. R.
AFFAIRS OF THE ASSOCIATION. Treasurer's Report, March 1, 1907, to March 1, 1908.
Receipts.
Balance on hand at last report $1787 64
By membership dues 654 00
By current dues 860 90
By collected dues 603 80
By sale of Quarterly 513 60
By sale of reprints 120 75
By sale of binding 105 00
By interest on notes and deposits 35 09
By advertising 28 00
By donations 10 00
By sundries 32 20
Total $4750 98
Expenditures.
Luther E. Widen, commissions $ 899 78
Printing stationery 533 29
Clerical work 163 13
Postage 121 07
Stationery 38 65
Special work 14 77
Engraving 46 00
Printing Quarterlies 647 67
Exchange 8 80
Reviewing 5 00
Balance on hand 2272 82
Total $4750 98
This is to certify that I have examined the above, and find same correct.
E. L. Dodd, Accountant.
THE QUARTERLY OF THE TEXAS STATE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION
VOLUME XI. APRIL, 1908. NUMBER 4.
PUBLICATION COMMITTEE: David F. Houston. George P. Garrison. Bride Neill Taylor. Z. T. Fulmore. W. J. Battle. EDITOR: George P. Garrison. ASSOCIATE EDITORS: Herbert Eugene Bolton. Eugene C. Barker. AUSTIN, TEXAS. PUBLISHED QUARTERLY BY THE ASSOCIATION. Price, FIFTY CENTS per number. [Entered at the Postoffice at Austin, Texas, as second class matter.]CONTENTS.
The Texas State Historical Association and Its Work D. F. Houston
The Native Tribes About the East Texas Missions Herbert E. Bolton
Presidential Reconstruction in Texas Charles W. Ramsdell
Book Reviews and Notices.
Affairs of the Association.
The Texas State Historical Association.
PRESIDENT:
A. W. Terrell.
VICE-PRESIDENTS:
Beauregard Bryan, Milton J. Bliem,
R. L. Batts, Luther W. Clark.
RECORDING SECRETARY AND LIBRARIAN:
George P. Garrison.
CORRESPONDING SECRETARY AND TREASURER:
Charles W. Ramsdell
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL:
President A. W. Terrell,
Ex-President Dudley G. Wooten,
Ex-President David F. Houston,
First Vice-President Beauregard Bryan,
Second Vice-President R. L. Batts,
Third Vice-President Milton J. Bliem,
Fourth Vice-President Luther W. Clark,
Recording Secretary and Librarian George P. Garrison,
State Librarian Joseph Myers.
Fellows Z. T. Fulmore for term ending 1909.
Herbert E. Bolton for term ending 1910.
John C. Townes for term ending 1911.
Members Bride Neill Taylor for term ending 1911.
S. P. Brooks for term ending 1910.
S. H. Moore for term ending 1909. Dora Fowler Arthur for term ending 1912.
W. J. Battle for term ending 1913.
The Association was organized March 2, 1897. The annual dues are two dollars. The Quarterly is sent free to all members.
Contributions to The Quarterly and correspondence relative to historical material should be addressed to
GEORGE P. GARRISON, Recording Secretary and Librarian, Austin, Texas. All other correspondence concerning the Association should be addressed until further notice, to CHARLES W. RAMSDELL, Corresponding Secretary and Treasurer, Austin, Texas.
FELLOWS AND LIFE MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION
The constitution of the Association provides that “Members who show, by published work, special aptitude for historical investigation, may become Fellows. Thirteen Fellows shall be elected by the Association when first organized, and the body thus created may thereafter elect additional Fellows on the nomination of the Executive Council. The number of Fellows shall never exceed fifty.”
The present list of Fellows is as follows:
Barker, Mr. Eugene C. Kleberg, Rudolph, Jr.
Batts, Judge R. L. Lemmon, Prof. Leonard
Bolton, Prof. Herbert Eugene Looscan, Mrs. Adéle B.
Casis, Prof. Lilia M. McCaleb, Dr. W. F.
Clark, Prof. Robert Carlton Miller, Mr. E. T.
Cooper, President O. H. Pennybacker, Mrs. Percy V.
Coopwood, Judge Bethel Rather, Ethel Zivley
Cox, Dr. I. J. Shepard, Judge Seth
Estill, Prof. H. L. Smith, Prof. W. Roy
Fulmore, Judge Z. T. Townes, Prof. John C.
Gaines, Judge R. R. Williams, Judge O. W.
Garrison, Prof. George P. Winkler, Mr. Ernest William
Gray, Mr. A. C. Wooten, Hon. Dudley G.
Houston, President D. F.
The constitution provides also that “Such benefactors of the Association as shall pay into its treasury at any one time the sum of thirty dollars, or shall present to the Association an equivalent in books, MSS., or other acceptable matter, shall be classed as Life Members.”
The Life Members at present are:
Brackenridge, Hon. Geo. W. Cox, Mrs. Nellie Stedman
Hanrick, R. A. Sumpter, Jesse
MEXICO
Mother of Texas
Here is a land of gorgeous sunshine; quaint, bygone ways of life; unsurpassable climate; picturesque scenery with an historical setting more romantic than fiction.
GUANAJUATO
No trip to Mexico is complete without a trip to Guanajuato, the scene of the immortal Hidalgo's victory over the Spanish force. The old Alhondiga de Granaditas, which his ragged hosts assaulted, is still the most imposing public edifice. Once, one of three greatest cities of the continent—now a rich mining camp. Her catacombs are the wonder of all.
GUADALAJARA
The “Pearl of the Occident,” with a superb climate, picturesque environment and beautiful architecture; she is without a peer in all Mexico. Her impressive Basilica is justly famous. In the sacristy is Murillo's “Assumption,” a jewel of world-wide interest. To the west of the city a sheer drop of 2,000 feet reveals the wonders of the tropics.
CUERNAVACA
The playground of the Montezumas, the favorite home of Cortez, the resort of every Viceroy, Emperor or President, and the pleasure ground of elite society today. The prehistoric ruins of Xochicalco and El Parque bear testimony to its early importance. Within sight of the hoary Cortez Palace and Cathedral is a modern Country Club, with up-to-date appointments, a golf course and spacious tennis courts, and baths that would adorn any city.
THE MEXICAN CENTRAL RAILWAY
traverses 20 of the 27 states of the republic, and up this line alone is found the places and peoples that truly represent Mexican traditions, hopes and aspirations.
For general information and Free Illustrated Booklets address:
J. N. STRASSER, - - San Antonio, Texas.
J. C. McDONALD, - La Mutua, Mexico, D. F.
SUMMER IS COOL IN MEXICO CITY
Special Low Round-Trip Rates VIA “National Lines”
Full Information and Literature
Gladly Furnished on Application.
GEO. W. HIBBARD, E. MUENZENBERGER, G. P. A., General Agent, Mexico City. San Antonio, Texas.
WANTED--A RIDER AGENT IN EACH TOWN and district to ride and exhibit a sample Latest Model “Ranger” bicycle furnished by us. Our agents everywhere are making money fast. Write for full particulars and special offer at once.
NO MONEY REQUIRED until you receive and approve of your bicycle. We ship to anyone, anywhere in the U. S. without a cent deposit in advance, prepay freight, and allow TEN DAYS' FREE TRIAL during which time you may ride the bicycle and put it to any test you wish. If you are then not perfectly satisfied or do not wish to keep the bicycle ship it back to us at our expense and you will not be out one cent.
FACTORY PRICES We furnish the highest grade bicycles it is possible to make at one small profit above actual factory cost. You save $10 to $25 middlemen's profits by buying direct of us and have the manufacturer's guarantee behind your bicycle. DO NOT BUY a bicycle or a pair of tires from anyone at any price until you receive our catalogues and learn our unheard of factory prices and remarkable special offers to rider agents.
YOU WILL BE ASTONISHED when you receive our beautiful catalogue and study our superb models at the wonderfully low prices we can make you this year. We sell the highest grade bicycles for less money than any other factory. We are satisfied with $1.00 profit above factory cost. BICYCLE DEALERS, you can sell our bicycles under your own name plate at double our prices. Orders filled the day received.
SECOND HAND BICYCLES. We do not regularly handle second hand bicycles, but usually have a number on hand taken in trade by our Chicago retail stores. These we clear out promptly at prices ranging from $3 to $8 or $10. Descriptive bargain lists mailed free.
COASTER-BRAKES, single wheels, imported roller chains and pedals, parts, repairs and equipment of all kinds at half the usual retail prices.
$850 HEDGETHORN PUNCTURE-PROOF SELF-HEALING TIRES A SAMPLE PAIR TO INTRODUCE, ONLY $480 The regular retail price of these tires is $8.50 per pair, but to introduce we will sell you a sample pair for $4.80 (cash with order $4.55).
NO MORE TROUBLE FROM PUNCTURES
NAILS, Tacks or Glass will not let the air out. Sixty thousand pairs sold last year. Over two hundred thousand pairs now in use.
DESCRIPTION: Made in all sizes. It is lively and easy riding, very durable and lined inside with a special quality of rubber, which never becomes porous and which closes up small punctures without allowing the air to escape. We have hundreds of letters from satisfied customers stating that their tires have only been pumped up once or twice in a whole season. They weigh no more than an ordinary tire, the puncture resisting qualities being given by several layers of thin, specially prepared fabric on the tread. The regular price of these tires is $8.50 per pair, but for advertising purposes we are making a special factory price to the rider of only $4.80 per pair. All orders shipped same day letter is received. We ship C. O. D. on approval. You do not pay a cent until you have examined and found them strictly as represented.
Notice the thick rubber tread “A” and puncture strips “B” and “D,” also rim strip “H” to prevent rim cutting. This tire will outlast any other make—SOFT, ELASTIC and EASY RIDING.
We will allow a cash discount of 5 per cent (thereby making the price $4.55 per pair) if you send FULL CASH WITH ORDER and enclose this advertisement. We will also send one nickel plated brass hand pump. Tires to be returned at OUR expense if for any reason they are not satisfactory on examination. We are perfectly reliable and money sent to us is as safe as in a bank. If you order a pair of these tires, you will find that they will ride easier, run faster, wear better, last longer and look finer than any tire you have ever used or seen at any price. We know that you will be so well pleased that when you want a bicycle you will give us your order. We want you to send us a trial order at once, hence this remarkable tire offer.
IF YOU NEED TIRES don't buy any kind at any price until you send for a pair of Hedgethorn Puncture-Proof tires on approval and trial at the special introductory price quoted above; or write for our big Tire and Sundry Catalogue which describes and quotes all makes and kinds of tires at about half the usual prices.
DO NOT WAIT but write us a postal today. DO NOT THINK OF BUYING a bicycle or a pair of tires from anyone until you know the new and wonderful offers we are making. It only costs a postal to learn everything. Write it NOW.
J. L. MEAD CYCLE COMPANY, CHICAGO, ILL.
Mexico--St. Louis Special (Semi-Weekly) BETWEEN Mexico City and St. Louis
The Finest Trains Between the Two Republics via National Lines of Mexico, I. &G. N. R. R. and the Iron Mountain Route
Daily Through Pullman Service via same Route on the “Mexico- St. Louis Limited.” : : : : :
Geo. W. Hibbard, E. Muenzenberger, G. P. A., General Agent, Mexico City. San Antonio, Texas.
E. P. Wilmot, Pres't Walter Tips, Vice-Pres't Henry Hirshfeld, Vice-Pres't
Wm. H. Folts, Vice-Pres't. J. W. Hoopes, Vice-Pres't M. Hirshfeld, Cashier
C. M. Bartholomew, Ass't Cashier
PLEASE NOTE THE LAST OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF THE CONDITION OF THE AUSTIN NATIONAL BANK AUSTIN, TEXAS
AT THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS, FEBRUARY 14TH, 1908.
UNITED STATES DEPOSITARY
RECAPITULATION
RESOURCES
Loans and interest-bearing securities $1,526,385.82
Real estate, furniture and fixtures 8,899.00
U. S. bonds, premium and redemption fund $476,400.00
Available cash $863,481.12 1,339,881.12
Total $2,875,165.94
LIABILITIES
Capital $ 300,000.00
Surplus and Profits 216,463.26
Circulation 300,000.00
Individual Deposits $1,516,953.45
U. S. Government Deposits 150,366.19
Bank Deposits 391,383.05
Total Deposits 2,058,702.68
Total $2,875,165.94
THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS CORRECT
M. Hirshfeld, Cashier
Calling attention to the foregoing statement of the condition of this bank, we respectfully solicit your business. Our patrons, irrespective of the size of their accounts, will receive careful and considerate attention, and as liberal accommodations will be extended them as are warranted by the account and prudent banking.
THE QUARTERLY OF THE TEXAS STATE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION
The management wishes to announce that the back volumes of the Quarterly can be purchased and that a complete set will be available as soon as the reprints are made. The first four volumes will be reprinted some time this year and will be sold at the following prices, on the installment plan, or for cash on delivery:
$4.25 per volume unbound;
$5.00 per volume bound in vellum cloth;
$5.50 per volume bound in leather.
Volumes V and VI are still to be had in the original copies for the following prices:
$3.00 per volume unbound;
$3.75 per volume bound in vellum cloth;
$4.25 per volume bound in leather.
All the remaining volumes can be had for:
$2.00 each unbound;
$2.75 for a vellum cloth binding; and
$3.25 for the leather binding.
Any member desiring to exchange loose numbers for bound volumes may do so by paying 75 cents for the cloth binding and $1.25 for the leather per volume.
ADDRESS
THE TEXAS STATE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION,
Austin, Texas, Book Department.
For facts concerning the individual tribes mentioned in the course of this article, see the Handbook of American Indians, edited by F. W. Hodge (Bulletin of the Bureau of American Ethnology, No. 30, Part I, 1907; Part II in press).
2. The present paper embodies some of the results of an investigation of the history of the Texas tribes which the writer is making for the Bureau of American Ethnology.
3. The Spaniards ordinarily spelled this name Asinai or Asinay, and the French writers Cenis. Mooney, the ethnologist, who knows intimately the survivors of these people living on the reservations, writes the name by which they now call themselves Hasinai, or Hasini, preferably the former. His spelling has been adopted as the standard one by the Bureau of American Ethnology. See the Fourteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1092 (1896).
4. I use here also the spelling adopted by the Bureau of American Ethnology.
5. See Mooney, op. cit.
6. Powell, “Indian Linguistic Families,” in the Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, with map; Handbook of American Indians (Bureau of American Ethnology, Bul. No. 30), 182.
7. “Poblaciones.” Letter of May 18, 1689, printed in Buckingham Smith's Documentos para la Historia de la Florida; evidently that cited by Velasco, in Memorias de Nueva España, XXVII, 179. Concerning the Memorias, see note 3, p. 256.
8. Relación, August 15, 1691, MS., 107, 108, 112.
9. See Joutel, in Margry, Découvertes, III, 341, 344, et seq. (French's version of Joutel's Journal, printed in the Historical Collections of Louisiana, is very corrupt, and must be used with the greatest care); Terán, Descripción, in Mem. de Nueva España, XXVII, 48, et seq.
10. The Nasayaya are placed by Jesus María in a location corresponding very closely to that later occupied by the Nasoni. Yet, the facts that though Jesus María named the Nasoni he did not include them in the Hasinai group while he did include the Nasayaya, and that Terán explicitly excludes the Nasoni from the Hasinai, make it seem probable that the Nasoni and the Nasayaya were distinct. The strongest ground for rejecting this conclusion is the fact that the latter tribe never appears again under a recognizable name, unless they are the Nacaxe, who later appear on the Sabine. The Nabiti might possibly be the Nadaco, but this does not seem likely, for the locations do not correspond very closely, while as late as 1715 San Denis gave the nabiri and Nadoco as two separate tribes.
11. On the subjects of their languages see the Handbook of the American Indians, under “Eyeish.”
12. Crónica Apostólica, 428.
13. Expedición, in Mem. de Nueva España, XXVIII, 240.
14. Of the diaries of De León and Espinosa I cite only the manuscripts in the Archivo General y Público, Mexico. These, I believe, are not otherwise available, and have not before been used except by Mr. R. C. Clark, who has recently had access to my transcripts. Of Jesus María's Relación I follow an autograph manuscript, which, however, appears to be a copy instead of the original. Of the diaries of Terán and Ramón I have had access to the originals, and of the Mezières manuscripts either to the originals or to certified official copies. My copy of the Rivera diary is from the edition printed in 1736. For the Peña and Solís diaries I have had to depend upon the copies in the Memorias. On comparing Memorias transcripts, in general, with the originals I have found that they are very corrupt and that numerous mistakes have resulted from their use. But in cases where there are no essential differences, I cite the Memorias copies, because they are more generally accessible; otherwise I cite the originals.
15. Meaning north and east of the point where he was writing, near San Pedro Creek, Houston County, as will appear below.
16. My text (see note 3, p. 256) may be correct here. It reads “q esta, Como almediodia y enel Medio de las dos N'aciones.” It is possible that the copyist first wrote almediodia by mistake for enel Medio de and then wrote the latter correctly, but neglected to erase the words written by mistake. Other data seem to bear out this supposition.
17. Relación, 107-108.
18. Derrotero, original in the Archivo General y Público, Mexico. The copy in Mem. de Nueva España, Vol. XXVII, is very corrupt. At this point a generous addition is made by the copist. See folio 158.
19. Peña, Diario, op. cit., XXVIII, 40, 43, 44.
20. Antonio Gil Ybarbo to Croix, May 13, 1779, MS. See Bolton in The Quarterly, IX, No. 2, for the story of the beginning of modern Nacogdoches.
21. Information furnished in 1907 by Dr. J. E. Mayfield, of Nacogdoches. He writes: “Four similar mounds once existed at Nacogdoches, located upon a beautiful site about three hundred yards northeast of the old stone fort or stone house that has recently been removed from the main city plaza. . . . These have been razed and almost obliterated. To the east of them is a hole or excavation from which the earth may have been taken for the construction of these mounds.”
22. I follow the spelling of Mooney, which has been adopted by the Bureau of American Ethnology. The more common Spanish forms were Aynay and Ainai. English writers frequently spell it Ioni.
23. Espinosa, Crónica Apostólica, 425; Diario, 1716; MS. entry for July 12; Mezières, Carta, Mem. de Nueva España, XXVIII, 241.
24. Jesus María, Relación; Espinosa, Crónica Apostólica, 423.
25. Derrotero, entries for July 7 and 8. Original in the Archivo General y Público, Mexico. The copy in Memorias de Nueva España (XXVII, 157-8) changes “Ainai” to “Asinay” and “Nacogdoches” to “Nacodoches.” It is such errors as the former, evidently, that gave rise to the idea that there was an Asinay tribe. Similarly, the Memorias copy of the Representación of the “Padres Misioneros” dated July 22, 1716 (Vol. XXVII, 163) states that the mission of Concepción was founded for the “Asinays,” whereas the original of that document, as of Espinosa's diary, reads “Ainai.” This error has been copied and popularized.
26. Ramón, Derrotero, in Memorias de Nueva España, XXVII, 158; the “Padres Misioneros,” Representación, Ibid., 163; Peña, Diario, Ibid., XXVIII, 43-44; Rivera, Diario, leg. 2142.
27. Maps of Cherokee and Nacogdoches counties (1879), by I. C. Walsh, Commissioner of the General Land Office of Texas, compiled from official data.
28. Espinosa, Diario, entries for July 6 and 7; Ramón, Derrotero, op. cit.
29. Espinosa, Crónica Apostólica, 424; Morfí, Mem. Hist. Texas, Bk. II, MS.
30. Espinosa tells us that the mission was near a spring and also near an arroyo that flowed from the northeast. He gave the distance from the mission from the camp near the Neches River as one league, and that to the mission of Concepción, east of the Angelina, eight leagues, going northeast by east, then east (Diario, entries for July 2 and 6). Ramón gave the distance to the mission of Concepción, from the camp near the Neches apparently, but possibly from the mission, as nine leagues east-northeast (Derrotero, in Mem. de Nueva España, XXVII, 157-158).
31. See maps cited above, and also the Map of Houston County, copied from a map by Geo. Aldrich, by H. S. Upshur, Draughtsman in the General Land Office, 1841.
32. Letter to Croix, August 16, 1779, MS., in the Archivo General y Público, Mexico. This letter was written at the “Village of Sn. Pedro de los Navedachos,” just after Mezières passed the mounds. The Memorias copy of the letter gives the name of the place, erroneously, San Pedro Nevadachos” (Vol. XXVIII, 241).
33. Information furnished by Dr. J. E. Mayfield, of Nacogdoches. The original Austin map (1829) in the Secretaría de Fomento, Mexico, shows the mound on the north side of the road.
34. On the authority of the corrupt copy of Ramón's itinerary in the Memorias (XXVII, 157) it has been stated that this mission was founded at the “Nacoches” village, a tribal name nowhere else encountered. The original of the itinerary, however, gives the name “Naiches,” thus agreeing with the other original reports and clearing up a troublesome uncertainty. The official name of the mission was San Francisco de los Texas, but, because of its location at the Neche village, it came to be called, popularly, San Francisco de los Neches.
35. Diary, in Mem. de Nueva España, XXVIII, 38. The presidio had been temporarily placed in 1716 on the west side of the Neches, near a small lake, and then moved across the river.
36. Rivera, Diario, 1727, leg. 2140.
37. Entry for May 26. He recorded the distance going and coming as six leagues.
38. De León, Derrotero, entry for May 27; Massanet, Letter, in The Quarterly, II, 305.
39. This is an inference from the instructions given in 1691 to Terán and Salinas, which required them to examine the large stream two leagues, more or less, from the village where the mission of San Francisco had been established the year before. (Ynstrucciones dadas, etc., January 23, 1691, in Mem. de Nueva España, XXVII, 19; Ynstrucción que han de observar el Capp. D. Gregorio Salinas, etc., April 13, 1691. Archivo General, Provincias Internas, Vol. 182. This document has not before been used.)
40. See note 2, page 266.
41. Relación, 2, 6.
42. Relation, in Margry, Découvertes, III, 341-344; Ramón, Derrotero, op. cit.
43. Terán, Descripción y Diaria Demarcación. Mem. de Nueva España, XXVII, 47, 61.
44. Diario, in Mem. de Nueva España, XXVIII, 34-35. The Italics are mine. It may be noted that Peña and Rivera give quite commonly shorter leagues than the others.
45. Rivera, Diario, leg. 2140. Ramón's Derrotero makes the distance four leagues from San Pedro to his camp near the Neches or to the mission site across the river, but it is not clear which, although the former is probably his meaning. (Mem. de Nueva España, XXVII, 155-157.) Ramón's Representación makes the distance between the first mission of San Francisco, and the second of this name, at the Neche village, five leagues. Ibid., 159.
46. Diario, in Mem. de Nueva España, XXVIII, 279.
47. Ramón, Representación, in Mem. de Nueva España, XXVII, 159. Ramón and Espinosa, Diaries, entries for June 29-30.
48. See Ramon, Derrotero, and Espinosa, Diario (1716), entries for June 29-30; Peña, Diario (1721), in Mem. de. Nueva España, XXVIII, 34; Rivera, Diario (1727), leg. 2140; Ereción de San Xavier, 5 (1746); De Soto Vermudez, Investigation (1752); Solís, Diario, in Mem. de Nueva España, XXVII, 279; Mezières, Cartas (1778-1779), in Mem. de Nueva España, XXVIII, 270; Cordoba to Muñoz, December 8, 1793. Béxar Archives, Nacogdoches, 1758-1793. It may be noted that while the postoffice village of San Pedro preserves the name of the general locality, it is too far west to answer to the site of the mission of San Francisco and the Nabedache village.
49. See Upshur's map, cited above.
50. This mission was close to or on the bank of the Neches River. According to Terán's itinerary (1691) it was a league up stream from the crossing and a league and a half northeast of the mission of San Francisco (Descripción, in Mem. de Nueva España, 45, 47, 61; Jesus María said that it was on the bank of the river (Relación, 104).
51. Jesus María, Relación, 1691, 107-108; Ramón, Derrotero (1716), in Mem. de Nueva España, XXVII, 158; Padres Missioneros, Representación (1716), Ibid., 163; Peña, Diario (1721), Ibid., XXVIII, 38-41; Rivera, Diario (1727), leg., 2140; Bonilla, Breve Compendio, 1772, in The Quarterly, VIII, 35, 38. As I have indicated above, the Memorias copy of Ramón's itinerary states that the mission was founded in the village of the “Nacoches,” a miscopy for “Naiches.” The map on page 256 was made before I discovered this error in the copy, which I had first used. My opinion now is that, with this correction, the sources would not be violated by placing the Nacachau tribe somewhat farther north than I have there represented it.
52. Jesus María, Relación, 108; Peña, Diario, op. cit., 36.
As the Nacono visited Aguayo on the west side of the Neches, I have represented the village on that side in my map. Of course, the reason is a very slight one.
Espinosa in his diary says that the Nasoni mission was founded for the Naconô, but this seems to be a form of Nasoni, for by others it is uniformly called the mission of the Nasoni or of the Nadaco, or of both. See, Hidalgo, letter to Mesquia, October 6, 1716, in the Archivo General.
53. Joutel, Relation, in Margry, Découvertes III, 337-340; Terán, Descripción, in Mem. de Nueva España, XXVII, 47-48.
54. Padres Missioneros, Representación, 1716, in Mem. de Nueva España, XXVII, 163; Peña, Diario, 1721, Ibid., XXVIII, 44; Espinosa, Diario, 1716, entry for July 10.
55. Crónica Apostólica, 418.
56. Investigation, 1752, MS.
57. Francisco Xavier Fragoso, Diary, in the General Land Office, Austin, Texas, Records, Vol. 68, p. 174.
58. Letter to Mesquia, October 6, 1716, in the Archivo General de Mexico, MS. The Memorias copy of Ramón's itinerary (XXVII, 158) calls this mission that of the “Noachis,” but the original reads plainly “Nasonis.”
59. Thus, La Harpe noted in his journal that San Denis, who conducted the expedition of 1716 that founded the missions “proposed, sometime after his arrival, that he should be the conductor of nine missionaries to the tribes of the Adayes, Ayches, Nacocodochy, Inay and Nadaco” (Extrait du Journal manuscrit du voyage de la Louisiane par le sieur de La Harpe et de ses découvertes dans la partie de l'Ouest de cette colonie, in Margry, Découvertes, VI, 194). San Denis himself regarded the mission as having been founded in the Nadaco tribe. This is the inference from a correspondence carried on in 1735-1736 between him and Sandoval, governor of Texas. Sandoval wrote to San Denis on March 10, 1736, acknowledging a letter of December 2, 1735, in which San Denis outlined the basis of French claims to country west of the Red River. Judging from Sandoval's summary of the letter (I have not seen the letter) he alleged that, with Bienville, he had explored the country as far back as 1702; that in 1715 he had journeyed from the “Asinais” to Mexico, seeing on the way only vestiges of the old Spanish settlements; that he conducted Ramón into the country, “the result of which was the foundation [of missions], which it was requested of your lordship should be established among the Nacogdoches, Nadaco, Ainais, and Naicha, and the subsequent ones among the Ays and Adais, maintaining the ministers of the Gospel at your expense.” (Triplicate of Sandoval's letter, in the Archivo General, Sección de Historia, Vol. 524, formerly in Indiferente de Guerra. With this letter there are several original letters of San Denis.
60. La Harpe, Relation du Voyage, in Margry, op. cit., VI 262. See also Ibid., 266.
61. This is on the well-founded assumption that the Nadote discussed by De Soto Vermudez were the same as the Nadaco (De Soto Vermudez, Investigation, MS.).
62. Relation, in Margry, op. cit., III 388.
63. Jesus María puts the Nacogdoche tribe east and the Nacau tribe northeast of his mission. He says in another passage that the Nacao constituted a province distinct from the Aseney and thirty leagues from the Nabedache.
64. Relation, in Margry, op. cit., 341, 344, 387.
65. Derrotero, MS., entry for May 20.
66. Ibid., entry for May 22.
67. Descripción y Diaria Demarcación, op. cit., 48.
68. Joutel, in Margry, op. cit., III 392; Ramón, Derrotero, in the Archivo General y Público, Mexico, entry for July 7; Espinsoa, Diario, entry for July 10.
69. Crónica Apostólica, 440 (1746).
70. Ibid.
71. Mémoire de la Coste de la Floride et d'une partie du Mexique, in Margry, op. cit., IV 316.
72. Derrotero, in Mem. de Nueva España, XXVII, 160.
73. Crónica Apostólica, 439.
74. Crónica Apostólica, 439.
75. Peña, Diario, in Mem. de Nueva España, XXVIII, 36, 39, 41, 43, 44.
76. The surviving Caddo and Hasinai together numbered 551 persons in 1906 (Data given by Dr. Mooney in a communication of April 23, 1908).
77. Estimate based on the United States Census for 1900.
78. Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. VI, p. 321.
79. MS. in Johnson Papers.
80. General pardon and amnesty had been proclaimed by President Johnson for all who had taken arms against the United States, except certain specified classes, provided they would first subscribe to the following oath: “I....., do solemnly swear (or affirm), in the presence of Almighty God, that I will henceforth faithfully support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the union of the States thereunder, and that I will in like manner abide by and faithfully support all laws and proclamations which have been made during the existing rebellion with reference to the emancipation of slaves. So help me God.” The classes, fourteen in number, excepted from the privileges of the general amnesty were, chiefly, high officials under the Confederacy, or those who had left the service of the United States to take service with the Confederacy, or those who owned property to the value of over $20,000. It was necessary for these to secure a special pardon from the President.—Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. VI, pp. 310-312.
81. In one important particular a limitation was placed upon the jurisdiction of the courts. Suits for the collection of debts and for the determination of rights of every kind could be instituted, and in those involving titles to land, damages, etc., the courts could proceed to final judgment and execution; but in suits for the collection of debts where the plaintiff was entitled to a writ of injunction, sequestration, or attachment, the court could not proceed to final judgment and execution.—See proclamation of Sepember 8, Executive Records, Register Book, 281.—The reason for this was that, in the prevalent condition of disorder and financial depression, property disposed of by forced sale would bring little or nothing and an injustice would be worked upon the debtor. Later, by proclamation of December 5, the courts were empowered to proceed in such cases to final judgment, but execution was stayed.
82. A. J. Hamilton to I. R. Burns, Executive Records, Register Book, 281. The courts, thus left to themselves, varied greatly in their rulings, Judge C. C. Caldwell, in his charge to the grand jury of Harris county, instructed it that the abolition of slavery “has swept away those distinctions both as to protection and liability to punishment which have hitherto existed between whites and blacks.” These distinctions and the exclusion of negroes as witnesses had been necessary to the secure tenure of the slaves; but “when the reason of the law fails, the law likewise fails,” therefore “the late slaves, now freedmen, stand upon terms of perfect equality with all other persons in the penal code.” Hence all persons were alike subject to the penal law, and it necessarily followed “that persons of African descent” were “competent witnesses where any of their race were parties.” Tri-Weekly Telegraph, November 29, 1865. This was the view that Hamilton himself held. In most cases, however, the courts considered themselves bound by the State laws of 1860 which prohibited negro testimony in any form.
83. This rule was later so far modified as to allow attorneys and other persons in the excepted classes, when they had been recommended by the Governor to the President for special pardon, to follow their professions pending the decision of the President.
84. Letter of James H. Bell, E. M. Pease and others; also of A. J. Hamilton in MS., Johnson Papers.
85. The Tri-Weekly Telegraph had long before, July 18, expressed identical views. In commenting on the Governor's address it emphatically endorsed his recommendations and urged the people to “support them promptly and in good faith.”
86. For these meetings see the Tri-Weekly Telegraph, Texas Republican, State Gazette, San Antonio Herald, and other papers throughout July and August, 1865.
87. See Flake's Bulletin, July 22, 1865.
88. See The Tri-Weekly Telegraph, November 29, 1865.
89. Jno. A Buckholts to Governor Hamilton, MS. in Official Correspondence.
90. MSS. in Official Correspondence.
91. Executive Records, Register Book, 281.
92. Various MSS. in Official Correspondence.
93. B. F. Barkley to Governor Hamilton, MS. in Official Correspondence.
94. R. B. Sanders to Anthony Bryant, endorsed by Col. M. M. Brown, U. S. A., MS. in Official Correspondence.
95. Judge Robert Wilson to Governor Throckmorton, MS. in Official Correspondence; testimony of Ben C. Truman before Reconstruction Committee, House Com. Reports, 1st Sess., 39th Cong., Vol. 2, Part IV, p. 137; Kendall to Schuyler Colfax in San Antonio Herald, April 20, 1866.
96. See Congressional Globe, 1st Sess., 39th Cong., pp. 91-95.
97. Flake's Bulletin, though a staunch Unionist paper, declared this interview “a mere reporter's yarn” because it contained so many false statements.
98. See House Com. Reports, 1st Sess., 39th Cong., Vol. 2, Part IV, pp. 37 and 39-40.
99. It was because of this that throughout 1865 and 1866 a constant agitation was going on for promoting the immigration of white labor. One meets it everywhere, in the press, in public speeches, in resolutions of public meetings, in the deliberations of the constitutional convention and of the Legislature.
100. See The Southern Intelligencer (Austin), September 29. All newspapers of the late summer bear evidence to this effect.
101. Weekly State Gazette (Austin), November 25, 1865.—It is impossible to fix the whole responsibility for this belief. The Federal officers said that it should fall upon those citizens and public speakers who during the war declared that if the “Yankees” won, the negroes would be freed, property confiscated and given to them, and the whites enslaved. The negroes believed and remembered. Strong, H. Exec. Docs., 1st Sess., 39th Cong., No. 70, p. 308. The citizens, on the other hand, asserted that the Northern radicals who talked of “forty acres and a mule” had started it; and that many of the Federal soldiers, in order to wheedle money from the negroes, fraternized with them, told them there would be a division of land at Christmas, and that the soldiers who had won them their freedom would help them and stand by them.—C. B. Stuart to Governor Hamilton, MS. in Official Correspondence.—Probably both accusations were true.
102. See his Circular Order No. 2, House Exec. Docs., 1st Sess., 39th Cong., No. 70, p. 147.
103. In the light of over forty years subsequent history, the following statement made soon afterwards, is highly diverting: “The freedmen are, as a general thing, strongly impressed with religious sentiments, and their morals are equal if not superior to those of a majority of the better informed and educated. We find them not only willing but anxious to improve every opportunity offered for their moral and intellectual advancement,” etc. It is also an example of the pathetic ignorance which some of these high officials had of their wards. Report to General O. O. Howard, House Exec. Docs., 1st Sess., 39th Cong., No. 70, p. 375.
104. See above, p. 287.
105. There was considerable complaint on the part of the blacks that they were not promptly paid for the season past. The delay was sometimes due to the scarcity of specie, sometimes there were disputes over alleged violations of contracts by negroes, sometimes the employer dishonestly endeavored to take advantage of the freedman's ignorance. Frequently the contracts made in the early summer had provided that the negroes work for board, clothing, and medical attendance, and these also were prolific sources of trouble. See page 217 above.
106. Report of General Strong, House Exec. Docs., 1st Sess., 39th Cong., No. 70, p. 312.
107. Flake's Bulletin, January 24, 1866.
108. Gregory to Howard, House Exec. Docs., 1st Sess., 39th Cong., No. 70, p. 305.—Sick and aged negroes were required to be supported by their former masters.
109. Peirce, The Freedmen's Bureau, p. 90.
110. Gregory to Howard, House Exec. Docs., 1st Sess., 39th Cong., No. 70, p. 307.
111. O. O. Howard, Circular Order, House Exec. Docs., 1st Sess., 39th Cong., No. 70, p. 146.
112. Flake's Bulletin, January 24; San Antonio Herald, March 5; Galveston News, March 6, 1866.
113. General H. G. Wright relieved General Granger of command of the Department of Texas on August 6, 1865.
114. Executive Records, Register Book, 281.
115. MS. in Official Correspondence.
116. Ibid.
117. Among these charges were the following: (1) Robert Tippett was confined in jail for nine days on no charge whatever. He employed counsel, who was threatened with imprisonment if he pressed matters. (2) A negro, arrested and jailed for horse-stealing, was released by Rose. (3) Another negro, committed on two distinct charges, was likewise released by soldiers. (4) Judge L. A. White, who had gone to Rose to complain of depredations of soldiers, was cursed, abused, shot at, and jailed by the drunken colonel. He was released only when he agreed to drop the matter.—C. Carsner and others to Governor Hamilton, MSS. in Official Correspondence.
118. See various letters, MSS., in Official Correspondence. Also The Southern Intelligencer, December 21, 1865.
119. Petition and letters to Governor Hamilton, MSS. in Official Correspondence.
120. See the State Gazette, January 6, 1866.
121. See the San Antonio Daily Herald, January 3, 1866.
122. This letter is reprinted in Reagan's Memoirs, pp. 286-295. The original MS. is in the Official Correspondence, Executive Archives.
123. His course, however, won him a measure of executive clemency. Hamilton warmly approved the letter, and both he and ex-Governor Pease wrote to President Johnson to secure a parole for Reagan in order that he might return to Texas where it was hoped his great influence and integrity of character would be useful in securing the best interests of the State. (See MS. in Johnson Papers.) He was immediately released, but found his opinions in such disfavor that he retired to the privacy of his farm without taking any further part in the discussion of public matters.
124. See Convention Journal, p. 11.
125. Convention Journal, p. 12. For report of debate, see Flake's Daily Bulletin, February 15, 1866, or Ben C. Truman in New York Times, March 5, 1866.
126. See Convention Journal, pp. 16-27.
127. Ibid., pp. 29, 32, 42, 48.
128. Mr. Ben C. Truman, who as correspondent of the New York Times and confidential agent of the president, had toured the South, attended all the conventions, and was certainly one of the keenest and sanest observers of conditions everywhere, seems for a time to have lost all patience with the dilatory progress of the Texans. In the Times of March 11 he says: “The Convention spends all its time electioneering for the United States Senate. It is a weak set.” And he appends this sarcastic summary of its work up to that time:
“1st day. Convention met and adjourned without doing a thing.
2nd day. Met and elected president and clerk. Adjourned.
3rd day. Met and elected more officers. Adjourned.
4th day. Met and refused to take the oath. Adjourned.
5th day. Met and reconsidered their refusal to take the oath and took it. Adjourned.
7th day. Met and argued whether the convention should do something or nothing. Adjourned.
8th day. Ditto.
9th day. Ditto.
10th day. Ditto.
11th day. Agreed to do something. Adjourned.
12th day. Did nothing. Adjourned.”
129. See Convention Journal, p. 35.
130. Ibid., p. 38.
131. Ibid., p. 44.
132. See Convention Journal, pp. 47-48.
133. Ibid., p. 62.
134. Ibid., pp. 79-81.
135. Ibid., pp. 146-165; Gammel, Laws of Texas, V, p. 887.
136. See letter of H. Ledbetter in Flake's Weekly Bulletin, May 23, 1866. The names of those at the caucus and absent from the convention are given in the Convention Journal, p. 165.
137. Governor Hamilton is quoted as saying about this time: “After all, our people are doing about as well as a reasonable man ought to expect. Politicians must have their `explanations' and their `records'; they must be allowed to retreat gracefully and to fall gently; but the vast majority of them are all right at heart. They must have time.” Truman to Johnson, MS. in Johnson Papers; see also in Senate Exec. Docs., 1st. Sess., 39th Cong., Vol. II, No. 43.
138. See speech of John Ireland in Tri-Weekly State Gazette, March 20, 1866.
139. Strangely enough, Frazier, “the bitter rebel,” as Truman calls him, was among the advocates of this measure. See the Journal, p. 97.
140. Truman to Johnson, MS. in Johnson Papers; also in Sen. Exec. Docs., 1st Sess., 39th Cong., Vol. II, No. 43.
141. See Gammel, Laws of Texas, Vol. V, p. 881.
142. Truman to Johnson in Sen. Exec. Docs., 1st Sess., 39th Cong., Vol. II, No. 43; also his testimony before the Reconstruction Committee in House Com. Reports, 1st Sess., 39th Cong., Vol. II, Part IV, p. 137.
143. Ben C. Truman testified before the Reconstruction Committee that there were seven men in the convention who favored negro suffrage and that four voted for it. See House Com. Reports, 1st Sess., 39th Cong., Vol. II, Part IV, pp. 136, 137.
144. Wm. Alexander to Alonzo Sherwood, MS. in Johnson Papers.
145. See Convention Journal, p. 117.
146. Article VII, Section 8, of that Constitution provided that “In no case shall the Legislature have the power to issue Treasury Warrants, Treasury Notes, or paper of any description intended to circulate as money.”
147. J. K. Bumpass in State Gazette, quoted in San Antonio Daily Herald, April 3, 1866.
148. For the arguments here presented in favor of this ordinance I am indebted to the Hon. X. B. Saunders of Belton, Texas, who was a member of the Convention.
149. It was asserted at the time that several held in their possession large amounts of the now worthless State warrants.
150. This part of the ordinance was bitterly attacked by Governor Hamilton in a violent and angry speech before the convention on March 31. He said: “The Convention have passed a measure legislating wholesale robbery and murder throughout the land. A measure of peace! Does it bring peace to the bereaved hearts made desolate by such deeds? . . . I imagine the friends of this resolution had in their minds certain gentlemen here and there who were receivers under the Confederate States' laws. . . . The loyal citizens were robbed, and now because these receivers acted under authority, they must be protected and you imagine this Convention is powerful enough to protect them. They will and shall be called to account. There is but one cure. They must leave this country or account for it just as sure as the sun is shining in Heaven above us. . . . You (the members) have an account to settle before the people yet. You have not done with this. You shall confront them, and shall answer to them, and if God spares my life, I pledge myself to go before the people of the State and draw these men up and make them answer.” See Southern Intelligencer, May 24, 1866.
151. See Gammel, Laws of Texas, pp. 895-898.
152. The demand for separation was especially strong in the western part of the State where the union sentiment had been very strong and where there were a great many Germans.
How to cite:
"Issue View", Volume 011, Number 4, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online. http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v011/n4/issue.html
[Accessed Mon Mar 22 1:30:24 CDT 2010]
