VOLUME XII. OCTOBER, 1908. NUMBER 2.
THE QUARTERLY OF THE TEXAS STATE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION
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.
- THE EXPERIENCES OF AN UNRECOGNIZED SENATOR O. M. Roberts
- NOTES ON CLARK'S "THE BEGINNINGS OF TEXAS." Herbert E. Bolton
- BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTICES.
CONTENTS.
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.
Z. T. FULMORE FOR TERM ENDING 1909.
FELLOWSHERBERT E. BOLTON FOR TERM ENDING 1910.
JOHN C. TOWNES FOR TERM ENDING 1911.
BRIDE NEILL TAYLOR FOR TERM ENDING 1911.
S. P. BROOKS FOR TERM ENDING 1910.
MEMBERSS. 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.LEMMON, PROF. LEONARD
BATTS, JUDGE R. L.LOOSCAN, MRS. ADELE B.
BOLTON, PROF. HERBERT EUGENEMCCALEB, DR. W. F.
CASIS, PROF. LILIA M.MILLER, MR. E. T.
CLARK, PROF. ROBERT CARLTONPENNYBACKER, MRS. PERCY V.
COOPER, PRESIDENT O. H.RAMSDELL, MR. CHAS. W.
COX, DR. I. J.RATHER, ETHEL ZIVLEY
ESTILL, PROF. H. L.SHEPARD, JUDGE SETH
FULMORE, JUDGE Z. T.SMITH, PROF, W. ROY
GAINES, JUDGE R. R.TERRELL, JUDGE A. W.
GARRISON, PROF. GEORGE P.TOWNES, PROF. JOHN C.
GRAY, MR. A. C.WILLIAMS, JUDGE O. W.
HATCHER, MRS. MATTIE AUSTINWINKLER, MR. ERNEST WILLIAM
HOUSTON, PRESIDENT D. F.WOOTEN, HON. DUDLEY G.
KLEBERG, RUDOLPH, JR.
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:
AUTRY, JAMES L.KENEDY, JNO. G.
AYER, EDWARD EVERETTKIRBY, JNO. H.
BAKER, R. H.MCFADDEN, W. P. H.
BRACKENRIDGE, HON. GEO. W.MINOR, F. D.
BUNDY, Z. T.MOODY, W. L.
COCHRANE, SAM P.MOREHEAD, C. R.
COURCHESNE, A.NEALE, WM. J.
COX, MRS. NELLIE STEDMANRICE, HON. W. M.
CRANE, R. C.SCHMIDT, JOHN
DAVIDSON, W. S.SEVIER, MRS. CLARA DRISCOLL
DEALEY, GEORGE B.SUMPTER, JESSE
DILWORTH, THOS. G.WALKER, J. A.
DONALDSON, MRS. NANNA SMITHWICKWASHER, NAT M.
WEBB, MACK
GILBERT, JOHN N.WILLIAMS, JUDGE O. W.
HANRICK, R. A.
VOL. XII. OCTOBER, 1908. No. 2.
The publication committee and the editors disclaim responsibility for views expressed by contributors to THE QUARTERLY.
On the 24th day of August, A. D. 1866, I was elected Senator for the State of Texas in the United States Congress by the Legislature of the State then in session, by a vote of 61 in my favor to 49 in favor of Mr. Epperson, of Red River County. I was fifty-one years of age in the month of July preceding my election.
Before the meeting of the Legislature (on the first Monday of August, 1866) efforts had been made to bring forward prominently for this position several gentlemen in the east and north— Mr. Epperson, of Red River, and Mr. Stedman, of Rusk County, Judge Evans, of Marshall, was also spoken of frequently as one likely to be elected. The two former were originally Union men, but had participated in the Civil War in favor of the South; while the latter had remained out of the limits of the Southern Confederacy during the war and was in favor of the North without having actively engaged in the war on either side. He had made speeches in favor of McClellan in the last Presidential election, and after the cessation of hostilities returned to Texas and made conciliatory speeches, advocating strongly the policy of President Johnson, and objecting to the course of Governor Hamilton in delaying the organization of the State government in Texas. I heard one of his speeches in the fall of 1865 at Gilmer, in Upshur County, and expressed to him my gratification at the liberal tone and conciliatory spirit by which it was characterized.
It had also come to my knowledge from many sources that my name was spoken of in connection with the Senate. I invariably disclaimed any intention of being a candidate when spoken to upon the subject. Lest my position should be misapprehended I approached the Senator, Hon. T. B. Selman, and Representatives, Messrs. Gaston and Leuter, of Smith County, and told them that I did not wish to be considered a candidate for the senatorship; that I had always regarded that as a "position neither to be sought nor declined;" that many of the members might think it inopportune for my name to be brought forward at that time on account of my prominence in the secession movement, and participation in the war, and that I did not wish it to stand in the way of complete harmony in the action of the Legislature; that my principal concern personally was that my name should not be brought forward under unfavorable circumstances and I be defeated on account of my supposed unfitness to satisfy the public opinion of the North, after having been repeatedly elevated to the highest offices in the State. I wrote the same, in effect, to Captain D. M. Short, Representative from Shelby County, and Colonel George Shelley, Senator of Travis County.
I did nothing, and said nothing, with a view of securing a nomination or an election. Indeed, up to the very day and hour that the news of my election reached me, I really did not expect it. The newspapers were advocating the claims of other persons and not mine. The wish that I should be elected was expressed by one paper alone (published at my first home in Texas, San Augustine) and that I did not see or hear of until I had heard of my election. I do not profess to be a stoic, and do not, therefore, deny that I was highly gratified at the honor of being elected to so exalted a position at such a time and under such circumstances without my own solicitation. I was elected because I was believed to be a representative man.
Some time afterwards I received a certificate of election, of which the following is a copy, with the accompanying letter from the Governor:
"Executive Office, Austin, October 3rd, 1866. To the President of the Senate of the United States:
I, James W. Throckmorton, Governor of the State of Texas, hereby certify that O. M. Roberts was chosen by the Legislature of this State on the 24th day of August, A. D. 1866, it being on the Friday next succeeding the second Tuesday after the organization of the said Legislature at its 11th session, Senator to the Congress of the United States, in accordance with the act of Congress in such case made and provided to fill the vacancy from Texas in the term expiring on the 30th day of March, 1869.
In testimony whereof I have caused the great seal of the State to be affixed at the city of Austin, the date herein first above written. [SEAL]
By the Governor. J. W. Throckmorton." Jno. A. Green, Secretary of State.
"Executive of Texas, October 3rd, 1866. Hon. O. M. Roberts:
Dear Sir: Accompanying you will find your credentials as Senator to the Congress of the United States. With the hope that yourself and venerable colleague may be recognized by the authorities as Senators and that perfect restoration of unity and tranquility of the American States may speedily succeed the long winter of our national troubles—that the government of our fathers may be fully restored and started anew on the career of glory and usefulness intended by them, and that you may have strength and health to serve your State and the nation, I have the honor to be most respectfully,
Your Obedient Servant, J. W. Throckmorton."
Soon after hearing of my election to the United States Senate I wrote to ex-Governor Sharkey, Senator-elect from Mississippi, requesting to know whether or not the Southern members, who had already been elected to Congress by the Southern States, had agreed upon any other time than on the first Monday of December for assembling at Washington. He wrote me an answer, dated the 5th of October, at Washington, stating that he knew of no agreement on the subject, but that he had urged upon all those with whom he had corresponded to be in Washington punctually at the meeting of Congress, if not a few days previous; and requested me to notify my colleague and the representatives of Texas, suggesting that "important matters may require our presence and concert of action."
Upon getting this letter I wrote to Governor Throckmorton requesting him to aid me in giving this information, as I would probably leave by the 15th of November for Washington and would not likely then know who were elected in the west. I also wrote to Colonel Forshey, of Galveston, to let Judge David G. Burnet know of it, supposing at that time that my colleague was still in the North, where he had gone some time before to represent Texas in the Philadelphia Conservative Convention. I also showed Senator Sharkey's letter to Major George W. Chilton, who was elected to the Thirty-ninth Congress.
This letter determined me to hasten my arrangements and start to Washington on the 15th of November so as to be certain to reach there a few days before the meeting of Congress.
On Thursday morning, two hours before daylight, the 15th day of November, 1866, I left my home, where were all my children, my wife and my father-in-law, Peter Edwards. I traveled in the stage to Marshall, thence to Shreveport in a hired carriage, the cars not having come up the day before, thence to New Orleans by Steamboat Homeyer, thence on the cars by way of Jackson, Canton, Grand Junction, Decatur, Huntsville, Chattanooga, Knoxville, Lynchburg, Charlotte, Manassas, to Washington City, District of Columbia, where I arrived just before dark on Sunday evening, the 25th day of November, having made the trip in eleven days. Having stopped at Willard's Hotel, I started out next morning in search of Mr. C. C. Clay, Jr., of Alabama, a Senator formerly of both United States and Confederates States government from Alabama. I had gone to school with him at the University of Tuscaloosa, but had not seen him for thirty years. Getting out of the carriage at a Mrs. Parker's, where I had been directed, a gentleman came to the door whom I recognized at once as Mr. Clay, and so addressed him: He could not make out my name, though, as he said, my face looked familiar to him. Upon my telling him my name he shook me by the hand a long time, and was glad to see me, and invited me into the parlor, where he introduced me to his wife, who is a most accomplished and beautiful woman. (They have no children.) After conversing perhaps an hour about our old school fellows and other matters in the past, I accompanied him around to the General Land Office and other places where he had business. We met with Mr. Rose, with whom I had been acquainted in Texas, who told me that my colleague, Judge David G. Burnet, either was or would be at Mr. Buckingham's, north side of E Street, No. 388, between Ninth and Tenth Streets. At Willard's Hotel Mr. Clay introduced me to ex-Governor Parsons, now Senator-elect from Alabama, who had spent most of his time here since February last. Mr. Clay told him that I was a stranger here, and asked him to introduce me, etc., which Governor Parsons seemed willing cheerfully to undertake. The next day I was invited into his room, and he stated to me that he had heard of me so often in Alabama that he felt almost like he had been acquainted with me, and again tendered his services to give me any aid in his power. Mr. Clay left for home the next day. On Tuesday night, November 27th, Judge Burnet, with Mr. Rose, called to see me at Willard's, I having that day left a card for him at Mr. Buckingham's. I was glad to meet with him, and to see that he looked so well and stout. He is now seventy-eight years of age. I invited him to my room, and after conversing an hour or two, went to his house with him. The next day I took a room in the same house, that we might be near each other while we stayed at Washington. We on the same day visited President Johnson, merely to pay our respects, as he seemed to be very busy.
On Thursday, Mr. A. H. Evans, who once lived in San Augustine, Texas, a practicing lawyer, while I was judge of the district court there, called to see me, and taking me in his buggy showed me the various celebrities of the city in the way of buildings and statuary on the open squares.
Then for the first time I saw Mill's statue of General Washington and Jackson on horseback, the horse of the former in the attitude of refusing to go further forward, as if from affright, that of the latter rearing upon his hind feet, as if impatient to rush forward. Both riders, with drawn swords, were made to sit their steeds most naturally and gracefully. The city of Washington would be incomplete as the capital of the United States without these two statues, designed and executed exactly as they are. While on this subject I may here say that I spent most of Tuesday, 27th Novr., in examining the capitol, its surrounding grounds, its halls, its dome, its statuary and paintings. It occurred to me that I had better take a good survey of all these things before the meeting of Congress, and while I could do so as a stranger, and without exciting the curiosity of those who might choose to stare at a Texan "rebel" in the "loyal" capitol,— more particularly as it is highly probable, from the present aspect of affairs, that I shall never be admitted into the hall of the Senate, to which my State has sent me. I was delighted with all that I saw, but most of all with the portrait of Washington by Trumbull, which, unlike anything in the nature of a likeness that I had ever seen, in expression, in finish of features and form, enabled me fully to appreciate how it was that Washington was the great man of his age. It was well worth the travel to Washington from remote Texas to see these portraits, and thereby verify the correctness of my previous conceptions of the nobleness and grandeur of this exalted character, who was truly "first in peace, first in war, and first in the hearts of his countrymen"; and whom Lord Brougham justly styles "the model man of all ages." Friday morning Judge L. D. Evans called at my room to see Judge Burnet and myself, and had an agreeable conversation upon public affairs for two hours. Saturday morning Judge Evans called again and went out with me to introduce me to some of the members of Congress. At Willard's Hotel we met with, and he introduced me to, Reverdy Johnson, Senator from Maryland, who, when told that I was Senator-elect from Texas, observed in a pleasant way very quickly, "well, you haven't got your seat yet?" I requested to have an interview with him for advice and assistance, and he promptly appointed next morning at 10 o'clock at his house,—pointing out to his right and saying that any one could tell me where it was.
On our way back Judge Evans introduced me to the Hon. L. M. Morrel, Senator from Maine (Radical), observing that we were from the two extreme States. He invited me to call at the "National" to see him. While going around we called into a law office to see Mr. Waterson, an attorney, formerly member of Congress from Tennessee, and was there introduced to several persons, and amongst the rest to Mr. Emerson Ethridge, of Tennessee, who, I then heard talk generally, graphically, peculiarly, and particularly against negro suffrage and negro equality.
He had left Tennessee as a Union man, had been elected to some office by Congress, clerk of the House, I believe, and having gone back to Tennessee and become a candidate for Congress, was for some cause arrested and put in jail by Governor Brownlow, where he was kept until his opponent was elected. Indeed, he has much to talk about, and among the rest that he will be a candidate for Governor of Tennessee.
In the evening I visited Senator Parsons, and he came with me to my room to see Judge Burnet, and spent an hour with us. We three are the only members-elect from the excluded Southern States that have arrived in the city that I have heard of up to Saturday night the 1st day of December, 1866. By previous arrangement made by Judge Burnet and myself we send to many of the newspapers of Texas, commencing December 1st, eighteen copies of the Daily National Intelligencer, and nine copies of the Daily Chronicle, so that through them our constituents may be informed of passing events on both sides in Congress and at the capitol.
I do not regret having gotten here a week in advance of the meeting of Congress, for I have been busily employed in getting settled in my room and in arranging everything so as to be ready for business when it shall commence. I should not omit to mention as one of the events of Saturday that when I went to Senator Parson's room he introduced me to General Humphrey Marshall, of Kentucky, who is a large, corpulent man, who, among other things, said that it was fortunate for Jeff Davis that he had been incarcerated, that it had shielded the weakness of his administration from criticism and exposure, prefacing this by the remark that we all (meaning the three present) were Southern men. Further, he said that he had been "seduced" into the Southern struggle by John Breckenridge and Jeff Davis at Richmond in September, 1861, where he had gone (with Breckenridge) to get guns from Fletcher (Governor of Virginia) to defend Kentucky (in her position of neutrality, as I suppose). He said that it was right that Davis should stand forth as the frontispiece of the affair, being the head of it as he was, etc., etc. Upon leaving he invited us to call on him at his rooms.
On Sunday, December 2d, I wrote home and visited Judge L. D. Evans.
On Monday, December 3d, Judge David G. Burnet and I, by previous appointment, called upon Mr. Reverdy Johnson, Senator from Maryland, at 10 o'clock a. m., and gave him our certificates of election as Senators-elect from Texas. He very kindly undertook to present them to the Senate. About 12 o'clock I went up to the capitol, and while in the gallery of the Senate chamber saw Mr. Revedry Johnson present our credentials. He announced very distinctly what they were and each of our names, with the terms of service for which we had each, respectively, been elected (reading it from each paper as he separately presented it). They were carried to the secretary's desk and there delivered, and nothing further was done with them.
After some time, during which the Senate seemed to be waiting for something, the private secretary of the President (who is his son, a young man who favors his father very much), announced the President's message in writing. It was delivered to the secretary of the Senate, who read it from his desk, and it was listened to with great attention by most of the Senators.
It simply set forth and maintained the plan of restoration that he had inaugurated and carried out, and insisted that it was complete, except as to what devolved on Congress in the admission of loyal representatives. He goes one step further than he has heretofore gone and admits that Congress has a right to reject a member whom they do not deem loyal, thereby in effect sanctioning the test oath. Or most certainly he concedes that want of allegiance to the government of a member-elect is ground of rejection, and Congress can inquire into that subject, upon the presentation of his credentials, and reject him, and thereby his constituents "are admonished that none but persons loyal to the United States will be allowed a voice in the legislative councils of the nation." If by this it is meant that Congress can exclude a member for acts of aid to or sympathy for the South during the late Civil War, all of which must have transpired before his election, then the whole question at issue of State rights might as well be given up—for that power alone is sufficient to centralize the government and perpetuate power in the hands of the minority that are in office. Although the President had often used the term loyal in this connection, I had supposed that he meant by that term to designate those who had returned to their allegiance by taking and observing the amnesty oath which he had himself prescribed as the test of loyalty.
After hearing the President's message Judge Evans and I, being together, walked down to the passage near the Senate chamber, where he introduced me to Senator Doolittle, of Wisconsin. Thence we went down to the east front of the capitol to witness the "welcome" given by the loyal citizens to the reconvening of Congress. Such a sight!! The two houses of Congress on the steps, reaching half way down, with the President of the Senate and Speaker of the Representatives at their head, confronted by a Judge Carter, delivering his address of "welcome," backed by thousands upon thousands of negroes, men, women and children, with white people intermixed at the ratio of about one to nine, covering the steps and front yard and every place near the capitol, from which anything transpiring could be seen,—numerous flags waving, borne aloft by blacks and whites, ensigns of the various societies and companies enlisted in radical republicanism, with a brass band playing "Yankee Doodle" and other airs suited to Northern tastes.
Judge Carter's address was but indistinctly heard, except that Congress had been sustained by the votes of the people in the recent elections.
Mr. Colfax, Speaker of the House, read in a plainly audible voice the reply on the part of the House of Representatives, and amongst other things said that the voice of the people in the recent Northern elections have settled four things definitely.
First. The work of reconstruction must be in the hands of those who have been the friends and not the enemies of the nation.
Second. The freedom of the negro maintained and secured against the possibility of abuse.
Third. No representation shall be allowed for those of any color who are not allowed to vote.
Fourth. The national debt shall be held sacred, and Confederate debt void.
He closed his speech with the quotation:
"No black laws in our borders, No pirates on our strand; No traitors in our Congress, No slave upon our land." 2
Very frequently during the delivery or rather reading of the speech those on the steps, at proper pauses for the purpose, manifested great applause by cheers and waving of hats, which was caught up and re-echoed lustily by the negroes in the yard, which at the close was quite a long time protracted. Upon which a negro woman near me in her innocence declared that "that would do to get happy over."
Mr. Wilson, Senator from Massachusetts, was called for, but did not respond.
Mr. Yates, Senator from Illinois, made an animated speech, which largely increased the wild enthusiasm that moved the vast multitude.
Mr. Kelly, of Pennsylvania, then said a few words to the effect that an enabling act should be passed by Congress for reorganizing the rebellious States, in which all the people should be allowed to vote, etc.
While all this was transpiring, my mind contemplating the scene before me,—the motley mass heaving with fanatical excitement, my eyes rested upon a statue at the head of the steps on the right side (coming out). It represented a powerful man in an exultant attitude, with his right arm elevated and extended, holding in his right hand a globe representing the earth, and a female figure near by was looking up at him in the posture of shrinking from affright.
I said to Judge Evans, "I do not know what that statue is designed to represent, but I will interpret it under the inspiration of passing events—that is—when America holds the world in its grasp, liberty will shrink in alarm from the sight." Which embraces the idea that where the United States, confident of its great power, and arrogant and domineering in spreading its principles and influence, assumes to grasp and control the great moral and political world, the liberty of the people will shrink in dismay from neglect, disregard and abuse.
On Tuesday, the 4th day of December, Judge Burnet and I went to the ante-chamber of the Senate, sent in our card to Mr. Reverdy Johnson, who came and invited us to a seat in the lobby of the Senate chamber, where we remained for about half an hour, when the Senate adjourned.
I spoke to Senator Doolittle, of Wisconsin, and introduced Judge Burnet to him, and made an appointment to see him the next day.
On Wednesday I went to the capitol and saw Senator Doolittle.
On Thursday I met with and was introduced to ex-Governor Sharkey, Senator-elect from Mississippi, and Judge Burnet and I visited the President and laid before him papers received from Governor Throckmorton relating to outrages committed by the officers and soldiers of the United States Army, and by his directions submitted them also to Mr. Stanton, Secretary of War. By the President's permission we retained them, and I prepared a letter signed by Judge Burnet and myself addressed to the President, containing a synopsis of the cases, and requesting a decision of the question, whether or not the military authorities should be allowed any longer to assert and exercise their supremacy over the civil authorities of Texas.
On the next day, Friday, December 7, 1866, it being Cabinet day, I sent in the papers with our letter to the President by his permission given the day before. He had then told us that the subject of preventing a conflict between the military and civil authorities was under consideration by the Cabinet.
On the evening of Friday at 7 o'clock Judge Burnet, Mr. B. H. Epperson (he having arrived here the day before) and myself. called upon Mr. Wm. H. Seward, Secretary of State, at his own residence, opposite Lafayette Square, that course having a few days before been suggested to me by his son as the best mode of having some conversation with him, when he would not be pressed with business.
Mr. Epperson and I both intimated that we would like to hear his views. He talked for an hour with a great deal of apparent freedom.
He said that he had never allowed himself to get in a passion or to be without hope for the country, either before the war or during the war, or since the end of the war. That we had got mad and fought, and others had got mad and fought with us, and after the fighting was over others had got mad and wanted to punish us. And now they must go on until they got in a good humor. What they would be able to do or would do he could not say. They now refuse to let you into Congress because they believe you are disloyal. No explanation you can make will satisfy them. I told the people at St. Louis that the South was now more loyal to the government than those of the North. If they will not believe me, who have always been with them, how can they believe you, that have been against them. They don't want to believe it, and won't believe it, while their temper lasts. But that can't last always; and if you do not irritate it, it will subside the sooner. You will have to bear whatever comes and be patient. If they won't let you come into Congress, stay out. Come here; I will recognize you, and sooner or later they will recognize you on some terms or other. You will get your pay whether you stay in or out. Send in your credentials and let them see that you are here. Talk with them, but exhibit no great anxiety about it. I want you to be anxious, he said, for that is evidence of loyalty, but they would not so construe it now.
This, in substance, and much more in the same strain, is what he said. When we left he invited us very cordially to call at the office and see him.
We had called the day before on the Attorney General, Stanbery, who conversed freely and courteously with us on business. His manner is a happy admixture of familiarity and dignity, making him the most approachable and winning man I have met with among the public functionaries at the capitol.
Thursday night, December 21, 1866.
Up to this time I have visited the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Br. Boge, Mr. Taylor, Comptroller of the Treasury, the Attorney General, and the President, all on business for the State.
The President, Judge Burnet and I visited today, to present the memorial of the Legislature of Texas at its late session at Austin, asking for the release of President Davis.
I took occasion at the same time to urge upon him to have something done to protect our frontier against the depredations of the Indians.
Tonight I went to Willard's Hotel and called on Judge Sharkey, where I met with Governor Parsons, of Alabama. I developed to them what I had been finding out as to the doings of the "Southern Loyalists" here, their resolves and memorials, urging on Congress negro suffrage and the exclusion of the "rebels" in the South,—and submitted to them whether or not we should make any answer. It was concluded that there were not enough of us here to do anything of the kind. Governor Parsons was inclined to make same effort to get a full attendance at Washington of the Southern members about the 20th of January, 1867. This was at a consultation of Southern members, Judge Sharkey, Governor Marvin, Governor Parsons, Judge Burnet, Mr. B. H. Epperson, Mr. Fowler (from Alabama) and myself being present. Judge Sharkey thought they would not come if called upon, that the effort had been made last year and had failed.
Judge Burnet and I having previously discussed the matter, he mentioned to them the propriety of those present presenting an address on behalf of our States and the South generally, but his suggestion met with little favor, and was not pressed. Governor Parsons was evidently desirous that we should get up some sort of measure that the Southern States would adopt in addition to the President's plan of reconstruction that would satisfy and draw off enough of the Radicals to make the President's plan succeed in the main at least. Judge Sharkey thought that it was too late and that nothing could be effected by the effort, to use his own emphatic expression, "the government has gone to hell." He had in October previously written a letter to the Governor of Mississippi advocating the position that Congress was an unconstitutional body and should be repudiated as such while the Southern representatives were excluded. Reverdy Johnson had made a speech to the same effect. It was strongly anticipated that these views of his (the President's) known friends promulgated at and near Washington City indicated in advance the course to be adopted by the President at the opening of the second session of the Thirty-ninth Congress in December, 1866. But the Radicals had anticipated this, and immediately after the first intimation of this doctrine (in his speech to the committee of the Conservative Philadelphia Convention that waited on him with the address and resolutions, headed by Reverdy Johnson, Senator from Maryland), they commenced organizing "The Grand Army of the Republic" pledged to the support of Congress, and by the time of the meeting of Congress in December, 1866, it had, as I learned from both parties at Washington, been fully organized with officers numbering, rank and file, 1,200,000, as alleged by the Radicals, and half a million as admitted by the Conservatives. This organization extended all over the North, into the regular army, into Washington City and even into the department employes of the capitol. This Grand Army of the Republic simply by its known existence settled the question of the repudiation of Congress by the President. They were in condition to turn him out of doors, instead of being turned out of doors by him, as the British Parliament was turned out by Cromwell.
A week or two after getting to Washington I met with Governor A. J. Hamilton and we had a two hours' conversation in the anteroom of the Senate at the capitol, much of which was not very agreeable, though nothing disrespectful occurred on either side. He, at my request, was telling me his designs and those of his Southern coadjutors in reference to the south, the substance of which was that the Southern States in some shape or other should and would be placed in the hands and under the control of loyal Southern men, without respect to color. In this conversation I derived the impression that this Grand Army was relied on to neutralize the President and his friends at the capitol, or at least to render them powerless. I will only say in reference to this interview further that he seemed to entertain a most bitter personal and political hostility towards President Johnson; so much so that I remarked that he seemed to dislike President Johnson more than President Davis, whereupon he said with great emphasis: "I do,—I think he is the worse man of the two,—you can rely on what Davis says," and much more of the like. A Mr. Lorenzo Sherwood, now of New York, formerly of Texas, and yet claiming to be a Texan, often came to my room to develop and talk with me about his "Creap freight, anti-monopoly, doubletrack railroad scheme." In his conversations on this subject he often ran into politics, which, indeed, was connected with and part of his railroad schemes. From him I learned that this "Grand Army of the Republic" was fully organized and (as he estimated it) numbered 1,200,000.
Governor Parsons, with whom I conversed on the subject, and who had spent most of his time in Washington since the preceding February, thought Sherwood's estimate excessive, but had no doubt himself that there was a complete organization of one-half a million of men, ready to take arms in support of the behests of Congress.
I sought to find out, but could not ascertain, that the President and his party had any counter-organization to support him in his efforts to sustain his view of the Constitution. From all that I could see and hear I was pretty well satisfied that there was none, but that the President relied solely upon a reaction of sentiment amongst the people of the North for his support.
For two or three weeks after my arrival in Washington I was engaged almost continually in visiting the different departments of the government on business sent to us by the Governor for the State or for individual citizens of Texas, so that I had little other opportunity than this afforded to make acquaintances in the city. In this I was generally accompanied by Judge Burnet or Mr. B. H. Epperson,—and sometimes by L. D. Evans, who exhibited the greatest kindness to us personally and a constant solicitude for the interests of our State and its people.
Knowing the people at home were anxious to hear something direct from us, I wrote a letter, of which the following is a copy, to be published in the Tyler Reporter and Galveston News:
"Washington, D. C., December 14th, 1866. Captain Jas. Douglas.
Dear Sir: I am now for the first time since my arrival here satisfied to write to you something definite. Our Senators and Representatives from Texas will not be admitted to seats during this session of Congress. A strong effort will be made to reorganize our State government upon a basis, having in view two main objects, to wit, negro suffrage, qualified or general, and the disfranchisement, temporarily or permanently, of those who participated in the late Civil War on the side of the South. The exact shape of this measure I can not yet give, but it will appear in a few days, and will be strongly pressed by the radical Republicans and strongly opposed by all those sustaining the administration. There is some hope, as the difficulties in the way are so great, and the dangers of the experiment so appalling that it may not be carried through over the veto of the President.
From the debates in Congress and from all that I can learn otherwise I am satisfied that there is now no intention to adopt or attempt to carry out and confiscation scheme, unsettling the property of the country.
Under these trying circumstances our people are called upon to exercise their highest virtues,—to sustain law and order, and by constant perseverance in maintaining the right, to show themselves worthy of a better destiny than that which is sought to be prepared for them,—to be hopeful, and to go right on with their industrial pursuits in all the departments of life. The farming interest, being now reasonably secure, should be vigorously prosecuted, not only in the production of the staple articles for market, but also in making provisions, in anticipation of a large immigration to Texas next fall. Respectfully,
Your Obedient Servant, O. M. Roberts."
This letter was written, sent and published in the Texas papers for the purpose of encouraging the people to increase their efforts, in the ensuing year in developing the crippled resources of the country, and in amending their own fortunes while still they could, as well as to give them the most certain conclusions to which I could at that time arrive as to the true condition of political affairs.
I met several times with ex-Governor Pease of Texas, who had been in the North ever since his defeat for Governor in August, 1866. He conversed with me very agreeably. It was soon discoverable that he had enlarged his views very much by his visit to the North, at least in the expressions of them. For I found him fully as radical in sentiment as Hamilton. Judge James H. Bell was also in the city, but I did not meet him.
The "Southern Loyalists" from all the Southern States were in full organization, with Mr. Durant, of Louisiana, as chairman or president of the association, having their regular meetings upon reconstruction and keeping constant communication with, and furnishing facts (and pretended facts) and views to their friends in both houses of Congress. They were representing that the President's plan had reinstated secessionists in all the Southern States and that a rebellious spirit was still rife in the whole country, and demanding that the Southern States should be put under the control of loyal citizens without respect to color, and for that purpose as a necessity as well as in gratification of their ill-feelings, they demanded that the rebels should be disfranchised and disqualified from holding office. This outside machinery, under the management of the extreme radicals of Congress, was having a powerful influence in both houses, as well as in preparing the country for any extreme measures that might be adopted.
Appreciating this, I called alone on Mr. Doolittle, Senator from Wisconsin, at his room and had an interview of about an hour's length. I called on him because he had been the president of the Conservative Convention at Philadelphia in August, 1866. I told him that I had called upon him for the special purpose of submitting to him as a representative man a proposition, which was, should my reasons for it be satisfactory to his judgment, that he should get together in his room or at such place as he might designate, any number, say ten or twelve of the conservative friends, in order to furnish the members from the South, a few of whom were in the city, an opportunity of consulting with them, and of enabling us to communicate facts of importance to them and to the country.
I said to him that we wanted to shape our course so as to aid those who are seeking to preserve constitutional government, that it might be also true that we could inform them of a number of facts and present to them general views particularly as to the condition of things in our respective States that would much better enable them to defend the Southern people from the aspersions and misrepresentations to which we had been subject from the radicals in Congress; that I thought I could readily get the co-operation of the Southern members present in the city in this matter, and that if this proposition should meet his approbation so that [he] might choose to act upon it he could let me know, otherwise I should drop the subject. He talked at length upon the designs, plans, and acts of the radicals, freely and familiarly enough, and particularly advised that we should directly contradict, over [our] own signatures every false report circulated by Congressmen in their speeches, and when I, before leaving, brought my proposition to his attention again, he said that he would consult some of the friends about it. I left wellnigh satisfied that I should never hear from my proposition again, in which I was not disappointed. I met him several times afterwards and he stopped merely long enough to speak to me.
About the third time I called on the President with business, I remarked to him that I would be pleased for us to have an interview with him when he was more at leisure than in the regular business hours, that we might have a more full conversation in relation to the state of affairs, and especially relating to matters to Texas. He said in a very reserved businesslike style, as I thought, that he had no more leisure at one time than another, that we could call here at any time and see him. That ended that conversation, and as I supposed, would end my visits to the White House except when made strictly on business of an urgent character. What prevented it from being the last visit will afterwards appear.
Under all these discouraging circumstances as the Christmas holidays approached (Mr. Epperson having gone to New York and Governor Parsons to Alabama) Judge Burnet and I concluded that we could do no good by staying longer at Washington. He went to Newark, in New Jersey, to spend some time with his relations there and I commenced packing up, buying some books and generally making my arrangements to leave for home. The nearer I got ready the less I felt like going unless something more was done. I could not but feel that my mission was incomplete; that the great State of Texas—a far-off country—would expect of me and her other representatives to make her, her people, and their sentiments to be publicly known to Congress and to the whole country. This idea possessed me until, though then there alone, I determined to write and publish an address. I mentioned it to Judge Evans and to Mr. Waskom, of Texas (president of the Southern Pacific Railroad), and they both encouraged the idea. The members-elect from the other Southern States had published no address, either individually or collectively.
In less than three days and nights I had it ready, and read it to Judge Sharkey. He was delighted with it, and said that Texas having been a republic before her admission such an address came appropriately from her excluded members of Congress, and asked me not to write it over lest I should weaken its force. That very night I started to New York, getting there next morning,—found Mr. Epperson and read it to him, who approved it.
I stopped at the National Hotel and remained there five or six days, Mr. Epperson having left the next day after I arrived there to go back to Washington for some papers which he had left relating to his Memphis & El Paso Railroad, of which he was president, and the sale of which he was then completing to Fremont and others in the North. While there I rearranged and rewrote the address, and as I will not stop here to note what interested me in New York (which I may as well do hereafter) I went to Newark and soon found Judge Burnet at his grandnephew's, a Mr.———, editor of a newspaper. The old man was housedup snugly in that land of snow and ice, and had been out of the house but two or three times since he had gotten there. He was very glad, though a little surprised, to see me come there. I read him the address, and he cheerfully joined with me in signing it, and was evidently pleased that I had written it, and especially that I had called on him to sign it with Mr. Epperson and me. Having spent a most agreeable evening with the Judge and his relatives I went to the hotel, and next morning took the cars for Washington and arrived there the same evening, which was the last day of December, A. D. 1866. The next day Mr. Epperson and I called on George W. Chilton and A. M. Branch, Representatives-elect from Texas, who had arrived and were stopping at Willard's Hotel. During the night of my arrival I had read the address as rewritten to Mr. Epperson, and he suggested that "writing was my forte," and was pleased with it, but preferred to leave out the concluding part, which spoke pointedly upon the government being centralized, etc. I told him to write a conclusion to the address, which he did, and I adopted it.
Messrs. Chilton and Branch, coming to my room, read and approved the address (preferring my conclusion to that of Mr. Epperson's), whereupon it was signed by all of us and carried to the National Intelligencer to be published. [The address appeared in the issue of that paper for January 10, 1867.]
ADDRESS OF THE TEXAS DELEGATION.
To the Congress and People of the United States:We, having been chosen to represent the State of Texas in the Congress of the United States, and not having been admitted to seats, take this mode of presenting the following facts and views relating to her history, present condition, and Federal relations:
Anterior to the revolution of thirty-five and six, Texas was a part of the State of Coahuila and Texas, in the Republic of Mexico. By the intelligence and valor of its citizens, prompted by an ardent love of freedom, it established a separate nationality, which was recognized by the United States and by the leading nations of Europe, and which it maintained against the power of Mexico and the ravages of savage tribes for ten years, exercising the powers, externally and internally of a perfect sovereignty, being a nation among nations. Resting on the Gulf of Mexico for its outlet to the commerce and intercourse of the world, spreading out over vast and fertile territory, yielding rich harvests of all the varied and valuable productions of the temperate zone, she was an empire within herself, self-sustaining, and capable of the highest material and intellectual development, with all her interests and institutions combined and harmonized under a representative republic.
By annexation, in 1845-6, she surrendered her separate nationality to become a State in the United States of America. It was done by the almost unanimous voice of her people, without compulsion from any quarter, without any necessity, impending or prospective, the alternative being then presented to her of "annexation to the United States" or "independence, acknowledged by Mexico and guaranteed by Great Britain and France." In that act was presented an unselfishness, a devotion to American unity, which challenges comparison with the memorable example of Virginia and other Southern colonies in the Revolution of '76.
Her entrance into the Federal Union, while it caused a great influx of population, and hastened prosperous development, entailed upon her the political agitations common to her sister States. Her remoteness from the center of political power subjected her to many disadvantages, among the most prominent of which was the want of adequate protection against the continuous depredations of savage tribes of Indians on her frontier, by whom thousands of her people—men, women and children—have been murdered and taken into captivity, and vast amounts of their property stolen from time to ime. These shocking barbarities are now being perpetrated, and within the last eighteen months have caused the frontier to recede from thirty to fifty miles along the whole border.
This has often made it necessary for the State to place a military force of its own on its frontier at great expense, for which it has never yet been entirely reimbursed.
In 1861 Texas, in convention, passed the ordinance of secession, and participated with other sister States in the foundation of the Southern Confederacy. It was regarded as certain that six or seven of the Southern States would secede. Texas had either to follow or stand still. To stand still was to be rent in twain by civil war at home. The State was sectionally divided upon the question, and nothing but a vote of the people, promptly taken, and the acquiescence of the minority, could then save her from the horrors of a civil war, and make her people a unit on one side or the other. Having thus made her decision, the mass of the people sustained the cause of the South during the whole time of the war. Whatever wrongs and outrages may have occurred, as among themselves, the unity, thus produced, saved the State from a hundredfold more that would have occurred without it. Probably, too, it saved the country from the desolation of fire and sword, that swept over other States. It also left it possible, at the close, to harmonize society, and adapt it to the changed condition of public affairs, without the distraction of irreconciliable feuds engendered between neighbors and families during the struggle.
The causes which led to this great Civil War between the two sections had taken deep root long before Texas entered the Union. One class of thinkers believe that they saw in the language and spirit of the Constitution of the United States a plain indication of intention on the part of its framers that the government should be shaped to the discouragement rather than encouragement and extension of the institution of slavery, while another class believed it was intended to protect and permit the spread of that institution. One class of thinkers believed that in the adoption of the Constitution of the United States the people of each State, previously distinct, became merged and amassed into one people, for certain purposes embraced within the scope and objects of that Constitution, and to that extent lost a portion of their State sovereignty; whereas, another class thought that the people of each State retained their exclusive identity as a sovereign State, and could, therefore, withdraw the powers delegated to the general government by the State. For it was hardly ever questioned but that a sovereign power, the people, could "reform, alter, or abolish" their form of government; but the question was, who, for that purpose, in reference to the general government, constituted the people? The Constitution, as it was thought, did not, in express terms, settle either of these questions of slavery and secession. Construction, analogy, and facts of history were resorted to for their solution. The greatest intellects of the country, for more than fifty years, had exhausted the arguments on both sides, and had continually diverged the more the longer they debated them. These different constructions necessarily led to radically different results in the scope and action of the government, and in the modelling of society under it. One was adapted to the progressive ideas of the North; the other to the stationary views of the South. The weaker party sought to escape the consequences of the construction of the stronger by withdrawing from the Union—not to prevent the Northern States from retaining the government over themselves with their own construction, but to insure its preservation as to the Southern States as they understood it.
This statement of these questions that have been settled is here made for the purpose, and for the purpose only, of disrobing them of numerous irritating adjuncts and incidents of passion and prejudice; of inviting a liberal and charitable consideration for the motives of the mass of those in Texas who participated in secession, and to facilitate a more ready comprehension of the reasons why the minority, who did not want to secede, so promptly acquiesced in the decision of the majority, by which the unity of the people was secured and preserved.
The war was brought on by these questions and their surroundings. The South was overwhelmed by superior force. Measures of conciliation, pacification, and readjustment were set on foot by the President, which were responded to and acted upon by the people of Texas by taking the amnesty oath, by amending their Constitution which was in force previous to 1861, acknowledging the supremacy of the Constitution and laws of the United States, declaring the ordinance of secession to be null and void, and renouncing the claim of the right of a State to secede, declaring the slaves to have been freed, and preventing involuntary servitude, except for crime, within the limits of the State, ordaining the full protection of the equal civil rights and immunities of all persons, irrespective of color, and forbidding the Legislature forever thereafter from making any provision for the payment of any debts of the State or of the Confederate States, contracted during the war. Under this amended Constitution the officers of the State have been elected, supplanting those of the provisional government, and are in the performance of their duties, the organization of the State government being as complete as it ever was before the war, in full harmony with the Constitution and laws of the United States, and commanding the respect, confidence, and obedience of the great body of the people. The laws of the United States are being executed within its limits without hindrance or resistance from the people or State authorities. The Federal army is on our frontier for protection; the Federal judiciary are performing their functions; the United States mails are being carried all over the State; the navy is protecting our commerce; the officers of customs and internal revenue are doing their duty; and the people are paying duties and taxes as in other States. What more could be said of the States of New York and Ohio, except that they have their Senators and Representatives in Congress to speak for and represent the rights, interests, and necessities of their States, and to defend their people from unjust aspersions and misrepresentations, when necessary?
Texas was annexed or admitted into the Union by an act of Congress which has never been repealed, and she is now performing the duties and resting under the obligations of a state in the Union, except that one of the departments of the government—the Congress—has not admited its Senators and Representative select to seats within their respective bodies. They are left to learn the reasons of their non-admission from the debates and measures proposed in Congress, and from public discussions upon the subject, rather than from any specific, legislative action.
The adoption by a State of the amendment to the Constitution proposed at the last session was not expressly declared to be sufficient to entitle it to representation, and that it was ever so intended is now denied by leading members of great ability and influence. Texas is charged with disloyalty in not adopting it, while it is claimed that she is not in a situation to have done so, being out of the Union. Texas did not adopt it, because she believed its provisions prejudicial to her best interests and dangerous to the public good. But then she had no reliable and sufficient inducement to aid in engrafting principles upon the government which she did not approve, and to make a sweeping disqualification of so many of her useful citizens as to make it almost amount to self-imposed degradation. She may yield to such a fate if imposed by others, or possibly under some species of duress, and it is to be hoped that her people will do it, if they must, with that uncomplaining fortitude and unshrinking manhood that have characterized them in every emergency. But is it not, indeed, asking too much of such a people to do it themselves?
It is alleged to the prejudice of Texas that she has elected Senators and Representatives who can not take the test oath. It is taken as an evidence that her people are seeking to reward those who were formerly prominent in opposing the government. That, it is believed, is a misconception of the subject, for with the very slight prospect of getting seats, it could not have been regarded a very valuabel reward. In time of great trial, dread and gloom in the political horizon, the people are not likely to select men as mere objects of reward, but far more likely because they are for the time representatives in fact. The test oath, at most, was regarded as a war measure, and was supposed to be founded on the feeling (rather than the principle) that "the preservation of the life of the nation is a public duty, rising above the Constitution and laws of the United States." Such a proposition is not to be reasoned upon, not being susceptible of argumentation. The feeling which prompted it has been kept alive far beyond any conceivable occasion for its exercise. If, however, it is assumed to be founded on any part of the written Constitution, it is presumed to be on that clause which makes each house the judge of the "qualifications" of its own members. If the term here quoted can be construed to mean anything other than those prescribed for members in the Constitution, then the judgment, as to general fitness, of the majority of each house of Congress becomes the standard of qualification, which could be used to perpetuate their principles after a majority of their electors should become opposed to them, and thereby make the agent superior to the principal, which is destructive of representative republican government. It is thought, however, that it was commonly believed that if the State was allowed to be represented at all, the two houses would not retain this rule of exclusion.
It is said that the people of Texas are disloyal and rebellious in disposition still. If that were all it would hardly in other times be held a good ground for excluding its representatives; for that would establish the precedent that a majority in Congress could exclude the delegation from a State whose people, in their judgment, were manifesting a rebellious and disloyal spirit—which might often be the case in times of high party rancor and strife. But, admitting that under the present pressure of disfavor we have to be judged by that rule, we beg it to be considered, that Texas has no voice of her own in Congress to explain or contradict statements made about the conduct and temper of her people. Further, it must occur to any reflective mind how readily the general tone of sentiment in the States of Massachusetts and Illinois, as well as in Texas, might be wholly misunderstood, by considering only the representations of bad actions and idle expressions here and there, scattered over a large country, and perhaps reported ex parte, with the exaggerations and coloring of prejudiced informers. Where do members of Congress get their information? Not from the messages of the President; not from the reports of the general of the army; not from any published reports of the officers of the judiciary or revenue in Texas; not from our patriotic and vigilant Governor, or other State officers. It is but fair dealing to recollect that there may be disappointed men and violent partisans, and even good men, as well as those not falling under that class, who are continually seeing things around them in a distorted light. Besides, it is not to be disguised that there is a class of men in and out of Texas, small though they may be, who seem to be endeavoring to bring her people in as bad odor as possible before the public mind. In grave questions, involving the future welfare and destiny of a great State, ordinary prudence would dictate a careful examination into the facts upon which national action is to be based. We respectfully solicit the most searching and extensive inquiry as to the real facts on this subject.
As part of the representatives chosen by the State, we assert, is as our sincere belief that the great body of the people of Texas are loyal to the government of the United States, and have now the most intense desire to obliterate all cause of animosity between the sections, and to enter upon a social and material development that shall redound to the power and stability of the whole Union. What motive have they otherwise? During the late struggle they looked to foreign powers for help. It came not. Disgust and bitter estrangement followed disappointed hopes.
An asylum was searched for by many in Mexico, Brazil, and other countries. There they found and reported the evils in reality they were seeking to escape from in anticipation at home. They are looking to no other land as their abode and that of their children. They are entirely satisfied with the experiment of division, and are resigned to their losses and sacrifices. They aspire to arise from the new standpoint, and to be part and parcel in the great progress of their race on this continent. Texas will stand by the flag of the United States against any nation on earth, and the descendants of the heroes of San Jacinto will contest the palm on any field where the country's foe may be met with the descendants of the heroes of Bunker Hill.
It is said that Northern men, "Southern Loyalists," and negroes are badly treated in Texas, and that the laws are so administered as to furnish them no adequate protection. This, ordinarily, would hardly be considered good ground for the non-admission of members of Congress, being purely a matter of local State jurisdiction. But so far from this assertion being true, we are prepared, from personal experience and recent observation, to assert that there are thousands of Northern men and "Southern Loyalists" now in Texas, who are no more the objects of insult and injury than any one else; and for any offenses committed against them they would, as it is believed, find in the courts an impartial redress of them. The juidciary, from the Supreme Bench down, so far as known to us, are men of high character for intelligence, integrity, independence, and impartiality, and would scorn to shrink from the discharge of a duty from considerations of party or political opinion as readily as they would in any other State or country.
As to the negroes, it is not to be expected that the prejudices against an inferior class should be banished in a day or a year. Still, in the main, they are treated humanely and justly by the whites; and when such has not been the case, they have appealed, and are now constantly appealing, to our own courts for redress, and not in vain. If society is allowed to adjust itself, as it certainly is doing, and will do, a public opinion will be formed for the full protection of the negro in every respect. When reports of personal injuries, either to whites or blacks, are heard, it should be borne in mind that in the Southwest the people are more prone to personal rencounters than in the North; that the country is sparsely settled over a vast extent, and that from these and other such causes the laws punishing offenses of personal violence have never been as rigidly and certainly executed as in the older States. This is not peculiar to Texas. Nor is there any reason to believe that the laws are not as well executed there as they were before the war, or that there are any more crimes of that character now being committed than were usual before the war. The people of Texas, pursuing their ordinary peaceful avocations, would doubtless be amazed at the exaggerated impressions produced in the North of their alleged enormities against the weaker portions of their own community. It is the part of cowardice, and not of bravery, to concert or encourage a systematic oppression of the weak. How can such a thing be believed of such a people—a people whose courage has added lustre to the name of Texas in every field where its flag has floated, from the time of its birth as a nation to the present?
Isolated instances of wrong from impulse and passion will occur, and bad men will here and there continue to do wrong, no doubt. These are the exceptions, not the rule.
During several months after the close of the war a few negroes were killed in different parts of the State, and other wrongs were committed by bad men. But to those who understand the facts it is a matter of surprise that there were not ten times as many crimes committed as there were. Upon the surrender of the forces east of the Mississippi River, those west of it regarding a further effort to maintain a separate independence futile, with one accord broke up their camps and departed for their homes, traversing the country in all directions with arms in hand, and without the restraint of commanders. Several months afterwards a nearly similar scene occurred by the soldiers going to places appointed to be paroled. In the meantime the negroes were declared to be free by military order, many of whom left their homes and wandered about over the country. There were only a few military posts established, hundreds of miles apart. For three months there was no civil officer who knew that his interference to preserve order would be tolerated by the Federal authorities. During this whole period of confusion and disorganization there was a moral restraint pervading the masses which so reduced the amount of crime below what might have been expected as to present the civilization of our people in a light of elevated grandeur never before contemplated of it. The truth is now that all classes of persons have gone to work in some avocation, with a spirit and energy redoubled by their losses, to improve their fortunes, and develop the resources of the country, directing their attention more than ever before to factories, railroads, and whatever else will tend to advance their industrial and social interests. In the race of competition in these pursuits, previous differences will be forgotten, passions and prejudices will subside, all classes will find their proper level, and general protection of each and all will be commensurate with the common interest.
It is now proposed, as the means of protecting "Southern Loyalists," Northern men, and negroes, and of reforming State governments generally in the South, to set aside the State governments now existing, and, either directly or through Territorial governments, to erect new State governments, based upon the suffrage of the Southern Loyalists and negroes, and upon the disfranchisement and disqualification from office of all those who adhered to and aided in the rebellion, excepting those only who may be relieved from such disability by Congress. This plan is understood to be proposed by some of the Southern Loyalists themselves, and advocated by prominent members of Congress.
It presents an entirely new feature of our affairs, that rises above the mere exclusion of our representatives from Congress. It takes for granted that the whole question of war and peace is still open. That depends upon stubborn facts in the past, and no construction can now alter them or warp the legitimate deductions from them. What are they? The government of the United States took measures to prevent the withdrawal of the Southern States, and by the proclamations of the President, and by the resolutions of both houses of Congress, and by diplomatic correspondence with other powers, defined and announced its object in carrying on the war to be for the preservation of the Union, "with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the States unimpaired," and not in "any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation." Such an object, so declared, raised up hosts to fight the battles of the Union, and stayed the hand of foreign powers. To carry it out Congress afterwards authorized the President to extend an amnesty and pardon.
All of the authoritative acts of the general government during the whole war, it is believed, spoke the same language; and under and by that policy the war was brought to a successful close. It was on that ground, and that only, that the right was claimed to prosecute the war at all.
It was on that ground that the Confederate government would never be recognized, and, therefore, no treaty was made with it at the surrender.
The manifest intention with which an act is done, in law and reason, forms a part of the act itself, and gives character to it.
Considering the objects of the war as here shown, and as made known to the world, and acted upon throughout, the surrender of the Southern armies, and the subsequent acts of the people and States of the South in response to the proclamations and orders of the President constitute in effect a pacification upon terms as binding upon the good faith of the government of the United States, and upon the Southern people, as though they had been stipulated in a treaty.
This proposition rests upon the basis that the President had the power to use the means which he did, and that the people of the Southern States have, in good faith, complied with what was required or expected of them.
The soldiers of the Southern army surrendered under the obligation to repair to their homes and obey the laws of the country. Under a law of Congress, giving the President the power, under such terms and conditions as might meet his approbation, he issued his proclamation tendering to the mass of the people amnesty and pardon, upon their taking an oath in effect surrendering the issues of the war—secession and slavery. Afterwards, through his proclamations, the President instituted provisional governments, for the purpose of enabling the people of the States who had taken the oath to reform their State governments and resume their Federal relations as States of the Union.
Through this instrumentality, and for such purpose, that being the consideration in part inducing them, the people of Texas responded to the call for a convention, and did in convention by delegates assembled make a political surrender of the questions at issue in the war, and their incidents, as previously stated herein, thereby binding not only those who had been bound by the amnesty oath, but every one in the State, with their posterity after them. Is it to be held as nothing that a people who had espoused cherished principles of government, and had attested their sincerity during a struggle in camp and field for four years, should, by affirmative action, surrender them under the solemnity of oaths and constitutions, and thereby deprive themselves of the privilege, in conscience and right, to revive them should an opportunity in future present itself? They did it in good faith, and did it not for the mere love of the thing itself, but upon an obvious consideration—to be enabled thereby to readjust their State government and to restore their Federal relations in the Union.
The President had a right, we believe, to effect a complete pacification upon such terms. Had it been regarded doubtful, we were in no situation to call it in question without great disadvantage to us. It would have been denounced as evidence of an incorrigibly rebellious spirit if we had refused to take the amnesty oath or assemble in convention. But the President had the power, we think, not that he is the government, any more than that Congress or the Federal judiciary is the government. For, while all these departments constitute the government, each one of them represents and binds the government when acting within the scope of its authority—the Congress to prescribe the rules of action, the President to execute them, and the judiciary to construe and enforce them when brought within the scope of its jurisdiction.
It is not to be denied that the war was prosecuted on the theory of the government, that a State had no right to secede, and that the ordinances of secession were utterly void and of no effect. Under no other view could force have been rightfully used of prevent secession. Under this view the President needed no new rule in view of the declared objects of the war. He simply held the Southern States in subjection to his military authority until they voluntarily embraced the amnesty and pardon which Congress had authorized him to tender them, and conformed their State governments to the results of the war, and orderly acquiesced in the extension over the country of Federal authority in every department, military, financial, postal, and judicial. Had the people of the Southern States been obstinate and refused to reorganize their State governments and resume their Federal relations, some legislation might have been necessary. Or had the Congress been in session, it might or might not have prescribed some additional or different rule for consummating the pacification and restoring the Federal relations of the State. But the fact that the President accomplished it without the necessity of any additional law to aid or guide him, makes it equally binding upon all the departments of the government, as though each had participated in it. Texas having in good faith performed everything required of her in the pacification and resumption of Federal relations, awaits the result with patient solicitude. If the war was really not waged in the 'spirit of oppression and for the purpose of conquest and subjugation,' she may well hope that she has done enough to entitle her to the 'dignity, equality, and rights' of a State within the Union.
This new project ignores or disregards all these considerations, and seeks to make the government now, nearly two years after the cessation of hostilities, and after the pacification has been long completed, and the Federal relations all resumed, except representation in Congress, adopt a new policy by treating us as a subjugated people. without laws, without government, without State boundaries, without public property of any kind, without social organization, with our lives and property at the will of the conqueror. It is believed and respectfully submitted that such a thing is impossible, without a perversion of facts as notorious as the war itself; without a breach of faith to the brave soldiers who conquered us to preserve the Union of the States; without a breach of faith to the nations of Europe, who were assured that the object of the war was only to preserve the Union, and who, under such assurances saw us overwhelmed; and should it be regarded as a matter of any importance, without a breach of faith to the Southern people, who surrendered their arms, and the principles at issue in the war, and complied with what was necessary to secure peace and restore their political relations, with a full knowledge of, and in reference to, the avowed and notorious object of the war on the part of the United States. Should the government of the United States change its whole policy on that subject, regarding the war as still progressing, as it must do, and demand, either in express terms or in effect, of the people of Texas, such a surrender—the most abject known to war—'a capitulation at will,' Texas may, and doubtless will have to, submit to it. But it should be known and declared to the world to be a new surrender that will cancel, in conscience, all of the obligations assumed in the one she has hitherto made.
Before breaking asunder such ties, and plunging the whole country into such confusion, distrust, and disaffection as, we fear, must ensue, let us most respectfully beg a patient and dispassionate examination of the whole subject in all its bearings and consequences. The Constitution should be again unrolled, and clear and definite ideas fully grasped upon the momentous questions now pending. The proposition presupposes that Texas is dead, politically defunct! Texas was carved out of the domain of Mexico by the swords of the patriots of 1836, who gave it shape and form, and breathed into it the breath of life, and it became an organized body, an independent political society. Annexation did not destroy its corporate existence. It only modified its powers and relations. The late war did not destroy its corporate existence an hour or a day. A temporary suspension of her officers and a substitution of others by the provisional government, with the same powers and duties as those displaced, and whose acts were afterwards recognized by the convention, could not destroy its corporate existence. Under the strongest theory of the Federal government as expounded by such jurists and statesmen as Story and Webster, it has always been admitted that a State on entering the Union retained a portion of its sovereignty for the regulation of its own local and domestic concerns, upon which its State government is founded. Those powers of the State of Texas, thus reserved, were not in any wise affected by loss or gain during or at the end of the war, because the controversy was not about them, but about the powers that had been delegated to the United States on annexation, and as to whether they could or should be withdrawn and vested into another confederacy for their exercise. So equally on the doctrine that a State could secede, rightfully or wrongfully, the State government still existed at the close of the war, though a different mode of readjustment of Federal relations might have been necessary. Again, the use of the State government in hostility to the general government does not of itself destroy the State government any more when it fails than when it succeeds. The existence of a government is a matter of fact, and not of legal fiction. Nothing but the conquest and subjugation, evidenced in some way as being intended and declared, by the United States, and submitted to by Texas, could annihilate the State. That can hardly be assumed to have been the case. If Texas may now be demolished as a State, the precedent is set, and the principle established, that the general government may, for such acts as a majority in Congress may deem sufficitnt to have forfeited its political existence, set aside a State government and reduce it to a Territory.
The danger of such a principle to republican freedom is above description; and words will fail to express the dismay, horror, and reckless despair of the people of Texas, if they should have the misfortune to live to see the power of the United States used in pulling down the venerated pillars and in digging up the deeply settled foundations of their State government, endeared to them by its own beauty and merits and enshrined in their hearts by a history and a name of which her sons, whether in freedom or in bondage, will ever be proud.
As to the disfranchisement and disqualification of 'rebels' in Texas in this scheme, it is only necessary to bring to mind the universal truth, that love begets love, kindness begets kindness, generosity begets gratitude; and it can not be pretended as yet that the people of Texas have advanced high enough in the sliding scale of Christian civilization as to be above the murky atmosphere of hate. Too many of us will fail to love those who may despitefully use us. It is the part of wisdom to recognize and act upon the fact that this was no mere insurrection, or petty rebellion of a district, that was contemplated in the Constitution to be punished by prosecutions as therein prescribed. That is found impracticable, because it was a great civil war of sections, embracing whole States, and the stamina, intellectual and physical, of the great body of the people in each of these States.
Why is it that the Irish will not adopt English civilization and pride of country? Because they hate England for its traditional oppression of Ireland. Surely that lesson ought to be known, without learning it by bitter experience in America. The way is still open to keep us one people, rising out of the life and death struggle with common motives and aspirations for the prosperity and glory of the common country, and not bound together by the galling fetters of cold iron. Christian charity and liberal statesmanship point the way.
We most earnestly desire their exercise towards our people. They are in a tone of mind now to appreciate the necessity of progress, so as to keep pace with the safe advances of the age, in intellectual, social, material, and political development. Their faces are already turned in that direction, with the hope that a powerful and magnanimous government will neither thrust them back with its frowns and blows, nor drive them along with a blinding rapidity.
Texas has now done what she has deemed necessary for the full restoration of the government. She feels that she has vast interests which ought to be represented in the Congress of the United States; and she is still willing to do whatever may appear to her to be her duty. But situated as we are—denied any voice in matters which most vitally affect our constituents—to indicate upon what other terms (if these are deemed insufficient), upon which, in our opinion, the government might be permanently restored, would render us obnoxious to the charge of presumption or dictation, when it is said we ought to exhibit only the spirit of submission. Texas may submit to whatever measures may be adopted, but it does not follow that with this submission there will be good feeling and harmony. If this be desirable, it can not be attained whilst a sense of injustice and oppression rankles in the hearts of her people. If it be that it is required that the right of suffrage shall be conferred upon the emancipated colored population of the State, this can be more safely and effectually accomplished by kind treatment and magnanimity towards her white population than in any other way. To force it now, by Congressional action, against the almost universal sentiment of the whole State, under the penalty of exclusion or the destruction of the existing State government, will cause the hearts of men to rankle with the sense of injustice, and a feeling of bitterness which will pass from generation to generation. And the negro, from being the subject of kindness, as he is now, may be loathed and hated as the cause—the unconscious victim—of a feeling he has had nothing to do with producing.
The restoration of the government upon an enduring basis—and this is what we most heartily desire—ought, as we think, to be upon such terms as the good people of each section can heartily support. Malice and revenge should not find any place in them, otherwise strife and bitterness will be perpetual, sectional hate will be crystallized and become chronic. Can any man of either section wish to see this?
If the restoration were now complete, the test oath repealed, or stored away with the relics of the war, universal amnesty proclaimed, what joy would there be in this land! It would be like the sun bursting suddenly from the clouds after many days of gloom and darkness. Then, indeed, a day of national thanksgiving might well be proclaimed. Then would the whole people, in every part of this broad land, and those now in exile and in foreign climes, who are Americans in heart, go into the temple of the living God, and offer up heartfelt thanks for the restoration of kindly feeling and brotherly love to a united nation of freemen—united not merely in name, but in fact—who have been divided and at war with each other, but are so no longer. Then would a people, united truly and in fact, pour out upon bended knees the overflowing gratitude of pure hearts, unsullied by the remembrance of past bitterness, to the God of their fathers, for the blessed happiness afforded by mutual forgiveness, good feeling, and esteem.
O. M. ROBERTS, D. G. BURNET, Senators-elect from Texas. B. H. EPPERSON, Representative of the Second Congressional District. A. M. BRANCH, Representative Third Congressional District. GEO. W. CHILTON, Representative First Congressional District. Washington, January 1, 1867."
The conclusion written by Mr. Epperson commences with the sentence, "Texas has now done what she has deemed necessary for the full restoration of the government."
The conclusion as I had written it was as follows, after the expression "nor drive them along with a blinding rapidity," towit:
As to negro suffrage, it may, we think, be safely said, that nine-tenths of the white people in Texas are opposed to it,—and that nine-tenths of those who would vote for it have a purpose in it,—either to get power themselves, or favor with those who have power, or to thwart those who could otherwise retain or get power. The people of Texas have some right to claim to know the capacities, disposition, and habits of the negro race; and with that knowledge they do not now believe that they are fit to be made voters, and to be entrusted with the government of the State. Should their future improvement show them to be capable, which is very improbable, or should their relative strength make it expedient, it will be time enough then to allow them suffrage in such way as may be deemed best.
The storm has passed over, but the waves of public opinion are still dashing high, and giving taken of settling in a deep, overwhelming current of dreadful portent. A new principle is being evolved, which is pressing negro suffrage in its broad, sweeping train. Under the clause of the Constitution which says that, 'the United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government,' an effort is being made to emperialize the whole country under one head,—one department,—the Congress of the United States,—who shall dictate the basis, now for the Southern States, and ultimately for all of the States, upon which citizenship, suffrage, and qualification for office, State and Federal, shall rest, and who, when other questions of State policy may in future arise prominently, will draw them into the arena of national politics, and by the decree of the central power, at discretion, assimilate all the leading interests and institutions of all the States; and who, to insure this grand ultimate result, will, at any time, when necessary, reform, reorganize, or 'reconstruct' the other departments of the government, the executive and judiciary of the Federal government, as well as the States. It is appalling to contemplate the machinery and process for its accomplishment. It is now simply to fasten the charge of being allied to the treason of the South on all who stand in the way, fight the battles of the country over again on paper, and the ostracism of the doomed from the public confidence and favor is expected to follow.
Should Congress suffer itself to be foisted on this magnificent car of state, it will be necessary to go into perpetual session, or at least to devise agencies in the interim of the same power and effect. The annals of the past are not wanting in examples to illustrate the dangers of the experiment. This, it is submitted, will not be the Union of the Constitution; that establishes a general government with three coordinate departments, acting in harmony, and leaving each State forming it to preserve its own individuality, its own favorite organism and peculiar policy, so long as it is in 'republican form.' And what was meant by the expression, 'a republican form of government' is easily arrived at by examining the general structure of the Constitutions of those States that formed the Union.
This centralization of power based upon a reckless extension of suffrage to the negro, were it adopted for its own sake, earnestly, as the best government for the country, must be predicated on the theory that republicanism is the normal condition of mankind, adapted to all races and countries. In that point of view it is an invitation of all the inferior races of the world to this country. It may be very much doubted whether all history, reason and philosophy do not teach that constitutional republicanism can only exist under the most favorable circumstances,—of independent habits, intelligence and integrity of a people, as well as of relative space and population.
Texas, as a State, has large and diversified interests, both local and general, that should be represented in the Congress of the United States. She would be pleased to have representatives of her own choice to speak for her there. Texas having done what she deems to have been her duty, and still being willing to do it, leaves the responsibility of the future upon those who have the power to shape the destinies of the country."
The following remarks appeared in the National Intelligencer of Washington for January 17, 1867:
It is now evident, from the measures presented to the present Congress, and the debates thereon, together with the response of the press in the various parts of the country, that consolidation is receiving a new impetus that threatens a total change of the government as it has heretofore existed under the Constitution of the United States. The storm of war has passed over, but the waves of public opinion are still dashing high, and are even now giving token of continuing in a deep, overwhelming current of dreadful portent. A new principle is being evolved and acted upon, which, though it may not be formally announced, is really that which is exciting to the destruction of State governments, the introduction of universal suffrage of all races in all the States, and finally, the complete identity and similarity of institutions and interests in all of them. Under the clause of the Constitution which says that 'the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government,' an effort is being made to imperialize the whole country under one head, one department the Congress of the United States—who shall dictate the basis for the Southern States, and ultimately for all of the States, upon which citizenship, suffrage, and qualification for office—State and Federal—shall rest; and who, when other questions of State policy may arise, shall draw them into the arena of national politics, and by the decree of this central power, seek to assimilate all interests and institutions throughout all the States; and who, to insure this grand ultimate object, may reform, reorganize, or reconstruct the other departments of the government—the executive and the judiciary—as well as that of the States.
Should Congress perch itself on this magnificent car of state, it will be necessary to go into perpetual session, or at least devise agencies to effect the same object. The history of the past in other countries is not wanting in examples to illustrate the dangers of this experiment. The process for its accomplishment is already stereotyped. It is simply to fasten the charge of being allied to the treason of the South on all who stand in the way, fight the battles of the country over again on paper, and the ostracism of the doomed from public confidence and favor is expected to follow. This scheme has a long lease in efficiency in prospect, and when frequent repetition shall have destroyed its effect, other means will be resorted to.
This process is objectionable, because it decoys the public mind from the real questions at issue, and keeps alive an infuriated sentiment against a prostrate people. It deters the Christian, the philanthropist, and the statesman from extending to them a helping hand. Who, now, in all this broad land, dares to say that all imaginable degradation and punishment may not be inflicted on the Southern people? He is branded as a traitor by the new army of politicians, enlisted since the war, though he had been one of the heroes who conquered the South—though he had been one of the patriots whose intellects had directed public events, resulting in Union victory, in the great struggle.
The scheme, if consummated, will establish a new Union, and not the Union of the Constitution, which creates a general government, with three co-ordinate departments acting in harmony, leaving each State forming it to preserve its own individuality, its own local policy and peculiar organism, so long as it is in form republican. What was meant by a 'republican form of government' is easily arrived at by examining the general structure of the Constitutions of the States when they formed the general government. It can hardly be argued that they expected the general government to require more perfect models of republicanism than their own; or to compel them, or others, to adopt a more perfect form of republican government than that contained in their own Constitutions.
It will be found that such a government would absorb in its administration and under its care and protection an infinity of local matters, extended over a vast space of country, embracing a great variety of climate and production, and consequently different modes and habits of life, and different phases of thought; all which are incapable of uniformity without the imposition by force of flagrant injustice and oppression. This system of centralization has been often tried, and has always failed in the end.
It was that lesson in history That admonished our forefathers to preserve State lines and State governments, so that the peculiar wants, necessities, and interests of each different section might be best promoted.
The civil rights bill and freedman's bureau bill are parts of this scheme, which have already been inaugurated. The army of officers employed, the expense incurred, the complexity involved, and the conflicts of authority, as well as the little good accomplished under them, all show the intrinsic difficulty, if not utter impracticability, of carrying it out.
This imperialism, seeking to master all conflicting internal elements, and moving on with a consciousness of concentrated power, will in the end become intolerably aggressive and domineering. Canada and Mexico will be absorbed, with all their mixed populations and varied institutions and interests. The nations of Europe will be dictated to by this gigantic power of the west. Continued war will be our occupation, and military glory will lead to its usual end—military despotism.
It is an experiment resting on the proposition that republicanism is the normal condition of mankind, adapted to all races and to all countries. Whereas, it never has, and, it is believed, never can exist, except under the most favorable circumstances of race, of population not overcrowded, habits of personal independence, intelligence and integrity of the people. It requires the incorporation into the body politic, as a portion of the governing class, of negroes, and necessarily contemplates that of the Indians, Chinese, and all other inferior races of men who may be found in the country. It offers them, out of the country, the extra premium of political privileges as an inducement to immigration. These races have never shown themselves capable of self-government, and it is only when they shall show themselves capable, by their elevation in this country, that it will be time to enfranchise them. Their incorporation into the body politic, instead of being kept in a present tribal condition, will inevitably, sooner or later, lead either to a continual strife, and perhaps war of races, or to the production of a mongrel race, by which the standard of the white race will be dragged down in the scale of civilization; or perhaps even both of these calamities may ensue, as has been the case in Mexico and South America. If that can be deferred until the surplus population of Europe can flow into and fill up this country, the inferior races will be almost lost sight of amidst the millions of our own people, and, ceasing to be an object of special attention, will find their proper level in society.
There are those who believe that negro suffrage is necessary as a matter of policy, for the reason that they constitute a strength too potent not to he allowed some share in the government. Others believe it necessary to enable them to protect themselves as a class in the community. Others believe it is necessary because it is right and just in and of itself, they being free inhabitants born in the country. A due consideration of what has already been said will suffice as to these propositions. But others believe it to be necessary now to place the 'Southern Loyalists' in power in the South, and give them a constituency to represent. This is the real ground, whether avowed or not, of which all classes of negro suffrage advocates are at present availing themselves to fasten upon the country a measure which, if it stood upon its own abstract merits, would hardly command a respectful attention. Before that can be done it also becomes necessary to destroy the State governments themselves and re-erect them in more perfect purity, with this deluge of negro suffrage, and 'rebels' disfranchised. All this is necessary under this grand scheme of consolidation to enable the general government to protect and forward the interests of favored classes of individuals within the States.
What right have the States to expect anything better when the President is almost daily being shorn of his powers, and is even menaced with impeachment, because he stands in the way? And the Supreme Court is also arraigned before the bar of public opinion, its decisions subjected to a fiery ordeal in the heated political crucible, and its body menaced with 'reconstruction.'
Are the people of this country, of any party, prepared to desire this radical change in government? If they do not, it is high time that they were at work—manfully at work—to stop its bounding and accelerating progress in that direction. It may soon be too late.
The foregoing piece was taken from the views of my conclusion of the address,—written out by me, and published in the National Intelligencer as an editorial, a few days after the address was published.
At the time the address was published some of the editors [in an editorial of January 10, 1867] presented a synopsis of it as follows:
We trust that our readers will give the appeal to the Congress and people of the United States, by the representatives-elect of Texas a careful and thoughtful perusal. The fact that it comes from gentlemen whom the people of that Empire State think worthy to represent them in the Senate and House of Representatives at this important juncture, should entitle it to consideration. But when, added to this, it is found to be a dispassionate, calmly statement of the late sad controversy, a strong, and, as we think, conclusive argument against the constitutionality and the policy of continued exclusion, and a manly, frank avowal of the abandonment of the teachings of secession, and of devotion to the Union under the Constitution, it should arrest the attention of every thoughtful patriot.
The address briefly sketches the formation of the Republic of Texas and its incorporation into this Union. The subsequent secession was due, in the main, to conflicting interpretations of the Constitution, one class affirming that the general government was the creation of the States, any one of which could withdraw its assent from a government no longer acceptable; the other declaring it was the act of the United States, from which no section or community could withdraw. It is claimed that the weaker party sought to withdraw from the Union, 'not to prevent the Northern States from retaining their government over themselves with their own construction, but to insure its preservation as to the Southern States as they understood it.' In the warlike struggle which ensued, the South was overcome, and the address gives the history of the President's efforts at reconstruction, and forcibly says, 'the laws of the United States are being executed within its limits without hindrance or resistance from the people or the State authorities; the Federal army is on our frontier for protection; the Federal judiciary are performing their functions; the United States mails are being carried all over the State; the navy is protecting our commerce; the officers of customs and internal revenue are doing their duty, and the people are paying duties and taxes as in other States. What more could be said of the people of New York and Ohio—except that they have their Senators and Representatives in Congress to speak for and represent the rights, interests, and necessities of their States," etc. The reasons for this exclusion are to be gathered from the debates and measures proposed in Congress, and the public discussions elsewhere, rather than specific legislative action. The injustice of this is apparent, for it leaves the people of Texas in the dark as to what is really asked of them. The adoption of the proposed constitutional amendment is pronounced by some as sufficient to insure readmission, though this is controverted by many in leading positions. And we are told that though Texas may submit to the constitutional amendment, she will never become party to her own humiliation. If exclusion is to be justified on the ground that it is authorized by the clause respecting each house judging of the qualifications of its members, a Congressional majority might override the will of the people of a State. To the intimation that Texas is disloyal, it is replied that that assumption establishes the precedent that a Congressional majority might charge a rebellious temper on the people of a State as a reason for perpetuating an injustice. As it is, the voice of Texas is not heard in her own defense, and again, no greater wrong can be done a community than to judge of its character by isolated expressions or acts. Such statements come, not from the President, the general-in-chief, or the authorized agents of the government, but from a small and discontented faction, and a searching inquiry as to the true state of affairs is solicited. The people are claimed to be loyal to the government, and intensely anxious that sectional strife should cease. Surely this part of the address can not fail to make an impression. Exclusion can not be justified on the ground of ill-treatment of any class of the population. This is a matter of State legislation, and ordinarily would not be considered. But the imputation is fully denied. Allowance must be made for the greater readiness of the Southern people to engage in personal rencontres, and for the sparser settlements. The people of Texas, engaged as they are, in peaceful vocations, would be amazed at the stories told of them and their violent deeds, and a graphic picture is given of the self-control of a great commonwealth which, for months after the surrender and the breaking up of its camps, first quietly absorbed its soldiers, and then governed itself without laws, without judges and sheriffs, and the appliances of the civil power. Such a people, who have uniformly gone to work, are not likely to be given up to lawlessness and disorder now that the civil authority has resumed its sway.
Of the proposition to ignore the present State government and construct a new one that shall enfranchise the blacks and disfranchise the late secessionists, the address truly says it assumes that the question of peace or war is still open. The object of the war was announced, by the procalmation of the President, the resolutions of Congress, and the diplomatic correspondence with foreign powers, to be the preservation of the Union. To carry this out Congress authorized the President to make proclomation of amnesty. It was only on this ground that the right to prosecute the war was placed—on this that the recognition of the Confederate government was steadily refused. The manifest intention with which an act is done forms part of the act itself, and gives it character. And it is claimed 'that the surrender of the Southern armies, and the subsequent acts of the people and States of the South in response to the proclamations and orders of the President, constitute, in effect, a pacification upon terms as binding upon the government of the United States and upon the Southern people as though they had been stipulated in a treaty.' The parole of the Southern armies, the amnesty proclamation, the proclamations and orders respecting the provisional governments and the holding of State conventions, the acceptance by those conventions of the offered conditions, are binding alike upon all parties. The President did not overstep his authority—at least the South was in no condition to question that authority, for though he is not the government, yet he can bind the government. His duty is to preserve, to protect, and defend the Constitution; and he was doing that most effectually when solemnly binding to its observance those who had been resisting the authority of the government. He simply held the South by military authority till they restored the civil, and gave every assurance of respecting the laws. And, in the absence of Congressional legislation, Congress is bound by his acts. And if the war was not waged 'for the purpose of conquest and subjugation' Texas may well expect to enjoy, unmolested, all 'the rights, the dignity, and equality' of a State.
After two years' cessation of hostilities, this new project substitutes for the surrender of the Southern people, on terms constantly put forth by the United States government, a mere surrender at will. But this is a new and enforced capitulation, which will absolve Texas from the obligations heretofore assumed. And this project assumes that Texas is dead, despite the fact that its reserved powers were never involved in the contest of war, and were not affected by its result; and that other fact, that the hostility of a State government to the Federal no more destroys it in case of failure than of success. Such an assumption concedes the right of a Congressional majority to declare that any State, for causes it may deem sufficient, has forfeited its political rights, and shall be reduced to a Territory.
The impolicy of imposing disabilities on the late 'rebels' is very forcibly argued, and the standing warning of Ireland quoted. The temper of the Texan people is claimed as extremely favorable to this government, and the development of the most intense patriotism. But denied any voice in legislation, it is bootless to propose terms. She may submit to any imposition, but not willingly. Negro suffrage, if indispensable, is more likely to be commended by kindness to the white population than its opposite; and the overthrow of the existing State government will only engender bitterness and animosity, while the policy of forgiveness and of reconciliation would only strengthen the bonds of fraternal affection and of patriotism with which the people would be bound to the nation and its institutions.
The address was republished in many of the Southern papers, and met with general approbation on the part of the friends of the Constitution, both in the North and South. I here subjoin a few other notices of it.
[From The Texas Observer, Rusk, Texas, January 26, 1867.]
We offer no apology to our readers for the amount of space occupied in The Observer this week, by the address of the Texas congressional delegation, but enjoin upon all to give it a careful perusal.
There are special reasons why this address should have been prepared,—the people of Texas had been foully slandered, all sorts of aspersions heaped upon the authorities of the State, and at last her civil government sought to be subverted, and we remanded back to territorial inferiority—that, too, chiefly by her own sons, whom she had once delighted to honor. To refute such misrepresentations, and avoid, if possible, the destruction of our State government, to maintain the great principle, that the people should choose their own ruler, and regulate their own municipal affairs, free from the dictation or interference of Federal power, or Federal patronage, this truthful history of the sentiments entertained by our citizens, this able argument in vindication of our rights, has been given to the public; and from its calm and dispassionate tone, from its marked ability, justifies Texas and her people against all the falsehoods which have been told against them; and, although madness and fanaticism now rule the hour at Washington, they must soon give way before the truth and justice which this appeal contains.
The thanks of the whole State are due to our representatives now at the national capital, for their exertions in this behalf,—although excluded from seats in Congress, yet by their talent as statesmen and bearing as gentlemen, they are exerting a moral influence, with the thinking portions of Northern men, more potent than speeches delivered under the sanction of official position.
[From the Daily Picayune, New Orleans, January 15, 1867.]
Address of the Texas Delegation.—We this morning make room for the masterly address of the Texas delegation, awaiting admission to Congress, to the members of the Senate and House of Representatives at Washington, and to the people of the United States generally. It is long, and we thought of cutting it down, but on reading it over we had not the heart to erase a line. We should almost as soon think of condensing the 13th chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, where St. Paul is speaking of charity, or the Declaration of Independence. The document is calm, stragihtforward, well worded, dignified in tone, tolerant in spirit, charitable in intention, and tells the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, in as plain and as forcible English as we have lately read. We heartily commend a perusal of it to our readers in city and country. During the madness of the present hour it may have little or no effect at Washington, yet the most ultra among the enemies of the South can not get up and answer its calm, courteous, forcible and truthful arguments.
[From the Weekly State Gazette, Austin, Texas, January 26, 1867.]
Address of the Texas Delegation.—This address, which we lay before our readers today is a masterly production, whoever wrote it. From some notice, by a contemporary, we were led to suppose that it was an ordinary affair, until we read it with surprise and gratification. It is calm and moderate in tone, but clear and strong and unanswerable in statement and argument. We think it calculated to do much good, if it could only be read by the Northern people. We are glad that our delegation went to Washington, and we do not believe that the time and money were thrown away. All have now left, unless, perhaps, Mr. Epperson, whose zeal, industry and patriotism are to be much commended. Mr. Epperson has some railroad interests to attend to, but that will not prevent his keeping a sharp lookout for the State.
One remarkable circumstance attended this address, which was that though it circulated and was commended in the highest terms all over the United States, no answer to it was attempted and not even a criticism against it was published anywhere.
It was generally suspected or known that I had written it, and I received the congratulations of many friends and acquaintances upon having produced it. Ex-Governor Marvin, Senator-elect from Florida, immediately called upon me at my room to express his gratification upon reading it. I was told that Mr. Seward commended its tone, style, and matter very highly.
But what was equally, if not far more gratifying to me, was that I was pleased with it myself, and felt that I had thereby endeavored to do my duty to Texas, that had so long and often done me honor by conferring on me its highest offices.
Immediately after making arrangements for the publication of the address, Col. B. H. Epperson and I called on the President and introduced Cols. George W. Chilton and Antony M. Branch, Representatives from Texas. We were received cordially and the President was more communicative, and less reserved than I had before seen him. His conversation upon public affairs was more hopeful of the future, though still of a very general character, without pointing out any details or points of future operations by which any amelioration of our condition or of that of the country would or could be accomplished. Mr. Johnson has habitually a countenance and manner indicating reserve, secretiveness, and shrewdness. He occasionally changes his manner, according to the advice of Chesterfield, and while he appears to be open and frank, bold and strong in his expressions and manner, he thereby the more effectually accomplishes his purpose of concealment of what he does not wish to disclose. In which art, I must say, Mr. Seward is certainly the greatest adept that I have ever met. We told him that we had prepared an address for publication, which course he very strongly approved, and, indeed, seemed much gratified that we had done it. He advised us to remain at Washington without pointing any particular object for it. The increased cordiality of this reception, with the incipient hope aroused by it of finding something more behind the curtain, if any good was, indeed, there concealed for us, induced me to postpone indefinitely my previously intended departure so soon as the address was published and distributed to our friends in Texas.
I should not omit to mention that in company with some of the other members I called on Mr. Wells, Secretary of the Navy, and was kindly received by him at his residence. He is a large, portly, good-looking old man, of good sense, who, I think, has let the present age outrun him about twenty years, and he will never overtake it, but will soon be lost with the other relics of the past.
We also called once upon Mr. Stanton in the war office. He received us standing at his desk, received the papers which we presented to him in reference to depredations of Indians upon our frontier, said not a word outside of business, and but few in that, while his countenance and deportment were simply not offensive, while they gave no encouragement to the desire for another visit, either on business or otherwise.
The Legislature of Arkansas sent a delegation of about ten of their own members to Washington to represent the condition of their State. They arrived about the first days of the new year, 1867 (I do not recollect the exact date). Col. Epperson and I called to see them, and got acquainted with several of them. Their mission, however, as that of other Southern delegations of all sorts, except "the loyal," did not accomplish anything. From the time of my arrival at Washington I had every day or two met with Judge Evans, on the street, at my room or at his room, and he had taken great pains to be useful to my colleague and me in every way he could. I had also spoken to him fully and freely in relation to public affairs. I found him a devoted friend of Mr. Johnson and his plan of reconstruction, but with some regretful distrust of his ability to be equal to the present emergency in his position. I had sought to find out from him what were Mr. Johnson's future plans of resisting the encroachments of the radical Congress,—what was the point in his program, if there was any, at which the Congress was to be stopped and how it was to be done. I am quite sure that Judge Evans knew nothing of his plans if he had any. And I am fully convinced that the Judge's feelings of opposition to the radical measures and designs were so strong that he would have sanctioned any plan for its accomplishment, however extreme that gave promise of being practicable. He was evidently mortified, distressed and exasperated at the radical Congress. Like Mr. Johnson, he was a great friend to the Union,—a union of the States under the Constitution, and not a union of the whole people without a Constitution, and he looked with evident dread and horror upon the manifest design of Congress to revolutionize the government so as to create the latter species of union.
I called upon Gen. Humphrey Marshall, of Kentucky, who was living in Washington City, for the practice of law, etc. I found him to be a man of very bold, strong views, as one would suppose from his herculean person and active, vigorous mind. He was strongly impressed with the belief that nothing but violent measures of some sort could stop the radicals in their desperate revolutionary career. Though he had been about Washington some time he did not seem to know of any plan on foot for its accomplishment. Nor did any one that I met with.
I conversed frequently with one of the editors of the National Intelligencer, whose name, I think, was Allen. He thought with Judge Sharkey that Mr. Johnson had let the proper opportunity pass, without assuming firmly and fixedly the position that he would not recognize the Congress, with the Southern members excluded, as a constitutional body. He thought that he should have announced plainly and openly his intention to repudiate it immediately after the action of the Conservative Convention in Philadelphia in the summer of 1866. Having failed to do so then and rally the people upon that issue, the radicals, availing themselves of the intimation then made by the President that Congress was an unconstitutional body, had prepared themselves fully for the issue in advance of any efforts on his part, and that he was now powerless in their hands.
About this time I wrote a private letter to James W. Throckmorton, Governor of Texas, in which I stated that I had been able to find but one body of men about Washington who had any positive affirmative ideas, and that they were the vanguard of the radical party. They knew exactly what they wanted to do, and were determined to do it,—the body of their own party were drifting along in their rear, and the President and everybody else were simply holding back.
I sought to impress those with whom I conversed that these positive affirmative ideas gave the radical great advantage over mere negative ideas with which they were being opposed, and that if they were ever arrested it must be by some diverting countervailing idea or set of ideas of greater strength than theirs, and which could be impressed upon the people so as to move them into action of some sort or other in opposition to the radical. Almost every one agreed with me, but the question was, "who will singe the cat,"—who will or can present any such idea, and risk their all upon them.
Among the opponents of a radicalism, there seemed to be a general impression, with some vague and doubtful, with others strong and hopeful, that President Johnson had matured and laid up, away down in the deep recesses of his scheming brain, covered all over with the impenetrable veil of his unrelenting secretiveness, some grand coup d'état which he would adroitly bring to light at the proper time, to overthrow the radical Congress and defeat them in their designs; but at what point in the magnificent comico-tragedy being enacted in the national theater at the capitol no one could divine.
On the night of the 8th of January, 1867, A. M. Branch, B. H. Epperson., Geo. W. Chilton, all Representatives-elect from Texas, and I, accompanied by Judge L. D. Evans, attended a dinner at the National Hotel in Washington (given generally by those who attended it, each paying five dollars in United States currency) in honor of Genl. Andrew Jackson, and in commemoration of the battle of New Orleans of that date in 1815. It was intended, in political phraseology, as a grand rally of the notable Democrats in the city, really for political effect. The meeting around the table, about two hundred in number, was presided over by F. P. Blair, as chairman, who was a very aged gentleman. He had been one of the editors of the organ of Gen. Jackson's administration (The "Globe" I believe). His person was small and slender, which may be well understood by saying that he looked as if he were dried up. Still he seemed to have retained an active mind, and his whole soul seemed to be wrapped up in the principles and party of the democracy.
There were fifteen regular toasts read and responded to by speeches from gentlemen, selected by the committee of arrangements. They were made mostly by Senators and Representatives in Congress. The President came in after the house was pretty well filled, was received with great applause, and was conducted to a seat on the left of the chairman, near the center of the table. Perhaps no better mode could be adopted of delineating the political sentiment and spirit of this meeting than by presenting the toasts. This display derives its importance from the fact that the gentlemen then at that table represented the democracy of the North.
First Toast.—"The day we celebrate, and the great event which has made it a cherished national anniversary."
F. P. Blair, the chairman, in answer to this, read from his manuscript a short address, the purport of which was to show that in the War of 1812 Gen. Jackson had by his success in the South defeated the designs of England to dismember the Union by detaching the New England States, and the country west of them on a line to the Pacific, and that Gen. Grant had defeated the designs of Napoleon the third to detach the South in that of 1861.
Second Toast.—"The memory of Andrew Jackson. 'The Federal Union, it must and shall be preserved.'"
In order to give President Johnson an opportunity to respond to this, Montgomery Blair from Maryland, son of the chairman, arose and proposed the health of the "President of the United States." Mr. Johnson arose and responded by "proposing a sentiment," which he read as follows:
"No State of its own will has the right, under the Constitution, to renounce its place in, or to withdraw from, the Union. Nor has the Congress of the United States, under the Constitution, the power to degrade the people of any State by reducing them to the condition of a mere territorial dependency upon the Federal head. The one is a disruption and dissolution of the government; the other is consolidation and the exercise of despotic power. The advocates of either are alike the enemies of the Union and of our Federal form of government."
Third Toast.—"The Federal Union, it must be preserved."
Senator Hendricks, of Indiana, responded by showing that Gen. Jackson opposed disunion on the one hand and consolidation on the other.
Fourth Toast.—"Andrew Johnson, the President of the United States. He is receiving the full measure of vituperation which was once meted out quite as lavishly to Jefferson and Jackson."
Senator Doolittle responded, illustrating the two tendencies to consolidation and to separation by the centripetal and centrifugal forces in the solar system.
Fifth Toast.—"The Supreme Court of the United States. The great conservative power of the government, never more needed or better appreciated than now."
Judge Black, of Pennsylvania, responded to this in an energetic effort.
Sixth Toast.—"The conservative members of each branch of Congress. Knowing themselves to be in the right, let them never be weary in well doing."
Responded to by Mr. Winfield, of New York.
Seventh Toast.—"The Army and Navy. Without having contributed to the causes of the late Civil War, they have ever been ready to incur the most extreme hazards at the call of duty. They will not now hesitate to protect that Union of all the States which they have done so much to preserve."
Mr. A. J. Rogers, of New Jersey, a young man of boldness, responded with a fiery, intrepid speech, pointing to the remedy of armed resistance in the last resort to stay the progress of radical centralism. It was short and to the point, receiving great applause. Its example, however, was not followed by older heads.
Eighth Toast.—"The flag of the Union, with its thirty-six stars intact; palsied be the traitor hand that would strike one of that number from its consecrated place."
R. T. Merrick, a lawyer of the District of Columbia, responded in a sort of "rabble rousing" declamation, the stirring parts of which consisted in enthusiasm of voice and well turned sentences of speech.
Ninth Toast.—"The Federal Constitution. Amendable only in the way prescribed by itself, it can not be changed by mere Congressional majorities."
Montgomery Blair responded by a "breach of confidence," as he called it, by reading a letter of Andrew Johnson in 1863 to himself as Postmaster General,—expressing a hope that President Lincoln "will not be committed to the proposition of States relapsing into territories, and hold them as such," that Lincoln adopted this advice, and was carrying out this policy and that President Johnson is following in his wake.
Tenth Toast.—"The right of representation in both branches of Congress. One of the most valuable and most unquestionable of all those which are secured in our Federal compact."
Senator Corwin, of Pennsylvania, responded in a very pointed speech, presenting therein also very liberal general views. While he was portraying the emblems of each State associated and bound together constituting one united whole (having reference in his figure of speech to the emblematic representation of each State in the squares of the skylight over the Senate chamber), Col. Geo. W. Chilton, of Texas, arose and asked him if he found the State of Texas represented in that galaxy. To which he replied that it was, that Texas was still in the Union, and should be represented, etc.
Eleventh Toast.—"The States of the American Union. Their rights under the Constitution are indestructible."
Responded to by Mr. Niblack, of Indiana.
Twelfth Toast.—"The right of coercion. Where it exists, it involves the correlative duty of fraternity and protection. The State which can not voluntarily secede can not, against its will, be prevented from occupying its normal place in the Union, with all its guaranteed rights and privileges fully preserved." Responded to by Mr. Fink, of Ohio.
Thirteenth Toast.—"The veto power. A constitutional safeguard against unwise and improvident legislation."
Responded to by John Hogan, of Missouri.
Fourteenth Toast.—"The press. The most efficient guardian and defender of public liberty. Let it be cherished and sustained as an institution indispensable to the successful administration of a free government."
Responded to by Thos. B. Florence by a mere eulogy upon the press.
Fifteenth Toast.—"The women of America."
Mr. Strouse responded to this by a funny speech, abounding in puns and double entendres, which was doubtless much aided by the vinous exhilarations of the repast, as well in the hearers, who relished it, as in himself.
There were, as usual, some letters read from men of distinction, at a distance, who could not attend. The whole matter was a rehearsal and redevelopment of President Johnson's plan of reconstruction. It was a very body and noisy avowal and declamation upon the past, with a most cautious secretiveness as to the future,—which, indeed, was the matter then resting heavily upon the minds of all present. Senator Corwin, in his speech, approached the point very pointedly so as to rivet the expectation of all present by supposing that the radicals should do certain things and repeatedly after each supposition asking the question, "What then?" After having driven the matter to the last extremity he answered his question "What then?" by saying we must all work by day and by night and enlighten and arouse the people to the danger hanging over them. What then? I for one felt like I was let down quite briskly into a cold, dark well about three hundred feet deep. After all was lost what use then to enlighten our destroyers? But then that as well as the rest was an old political song that could be sung out boldly, and still nobody be in any way committed as to the future.
There was one marked exception to all this noisy concealment. A. J. Rogers, of New Jersey, in a few words unbosomed himself fully and declared that the radicals should be prevented from revolutionizing the government at all hazards, and that if necessary to that end they should take up arms in defense of the Constitution and the liberties of the people. He was a bold young man, however, and evidently not well trained in political management according to the popular precedents of the day. He will probably not remain a member of Congress long unless he learns more caution. There was another subject upon which there was a peculiarly careful reticence, and which, too, was necessarily connected with and part of the main matter of public concern with the party there assembled, and that was any reference to the Southern States, their condition or rights, except in the most general manner possible. This was remarkable from the fact that the main matter of pending controversy was relating to the Southern States. And it was rendered still more noticeable, at least to one from the South, from the circumstance of there being there upon the occasion a considerable number of Southern men of some distinction, as well as the whole Texas delegation (except Judge Burnet and Claiborne Herbert), not one of whom, whether members-elect or other gentlemen from the South, was referred to in the slightest, but on the contrary, their presence seemed to be ignored most studiously, notwithstanding Col. Chilton's inquiry, and notwithstanding before entering the dining room we had spent an hour in other rooms of the house where many introductions were made to such as we were previously unacquainted with. At a very late hour, after the President and more than half of the gentlemen of the meeting had retired, there was a manifestation on the part of the managers, as if they felt the neglect shown to the Southerners, and it was said that some one of them was going to be called out, or something was going to be done which would call out a reply. Some of our friends seemed inclined to favor it. Others, however, and I among them, regarded that the time had passed, and that any attention towards us at that late period would only make our neglect more conspicuous, and preferred to leave immediately to avoid its occurrence, which we did.
Upon getting out into Pennsylvania Avenue, that is, the Texas delegation and Judge L. D. Evans, we wended our way towards our respective rooms. Before parting, however, I could not well refrain from stopping them, which I did, to unburden a heart made sad by the scene which had just passed before us. I told them that "I was not satisfied thoroughly that Northern Democrats were afraid of a contact with us, and that we had better go home. I had suspected it before, but that now it was too plain not to be recognized with a certainty."
Not only from what I saw then, but it was the result of my observation during my whole trip that, in the public opinion of the North, the very name of rebel was infamous, and that all persons, that is, politicians, feared to have any sort of connection with us or to give public countenance to us in any shape whatever, unless it could be under the indirection of supporting or preserving the Constitution. Apart from that or some such motive operating upon themselves and for their own interest, rebels and rebellious States ought to be destroyed generally. Who in the North has ever been manly enough to say that the "rebels" believed they were right, or that they have suffered enough, or that they are any better than perjured traitors?
While I was in the city of New York during the Christmas holidays, at the National Hotel, where I boarded, I accidentally got into conversation, during one evening, with a young gentleman from Rhode Island, who was evidently spending a little time in the city to see what was to be seen. He conversed very freely about the prisons and other places he had been visiting, and I purposely drew him on, having for the time nothing else to do. We had been conversing some two hours when he asked me if I was from the West. I replied, "Yes, sir, I am from the Southwest,—from Texas." About that time a gentleman came to me and said he was ready to go out with me, according to a previous appointment. I got up and waited on him one or two minutes, during all of which time the Rhode Islander had been surveying me from head to foot with amazement and awe, with which he was seized from my first announcing to him that I was from Texas. We were together at the hotel for several days afterwards, but he did not regale me with any further accounts of his explorations into prisons or other places of curiosity, nor did he lose that same curious look of awe that kept him at a respectful distance whenever we happened to be near each other.
I was repeatedly asked with the most earnest concern if I thought that a Northern man could travel in Texas, on business, without being killed. And almost every Southerner that I saw there assured me that he had been repeatedly asked the same question.
One, indeed, could often witness the surprise manifested upon their being introduced to a Texan who had on decent apparel and presented a civil, quiet appearance.
The truth is that for the purpose of carrying on the war, the politicians found it necessary or convenient to make an impression upon the Northern mind that the Southern people were little better than barbarians, and that Texans [were] particularly outside barbarians; that we were the worst of mankind in almost everything that constitutes a people bad, mean, and wicked as men and as citizens; that we were ingrates for seeking to destroy a government that had done nothing but shower benefits upon us (whereas, we were simply trying to withdraw ourselves, and let them have and enjoy all the benefits and blessings of the best government in the world, all to themselves); that we were perjurers, murderers, and traitors, all of the deepest dye. Now, how can they say anything in our favor, or give any excuse for us, or even deny that we all ought to be hanged and quartered, without falsifying their previous assertions and representations?
A day or two after the repast of the 8th of January, we received information from Governor Throckmorton that the military commander in Texas had abrogated the law of Texas lately passed by the Legislature regulating the subject of labor. Col. Geo. W. Chilton and I called on President Johnson the same day in the evening after supper, to represent this fact and lay the matter before him.
It has been previously stated that Judge Burnet and I had concluded [in December] that it was useless for us to remain any longer in Washington, and, as a consequence of that, he went to New Jersey to visit his relatives, and I commenced to prepare to leave for home, and was delayed by having concluded to write the address and get it signed and published.
One of the main reasons for determining to leave was that whenever I, in company with Judge Burnet, visited the President on business, sent to me by Governor Throckmorton, the visit was very formal and his manner was coldly reserved and distant, and it was not otherwise when I ventured to solicit a free interview, so as to enable me to represent to him the condition of public affairs in Texas, and really with a view also of getting some insight, if possible, of his future policy in regard to coming events. He on that occasion intimated that we could call at any time, about as well one time as another, that he was engaged in business all the time. This description can not give the full idea of discouragement. To appreciate it approximately it must be imagined that we see a man of rather dark complexion, with rounded features and form, of medium size, sitting in his chair of state, by his desk or table, with immovable features, and eyes half closed, and talking to the person addressed in almost monosyllabic speech, monotonously uttered, directly in point upon the matter at hand. To me, who was seeking the least ray of encouragement for the future, and had not been able to get it from others, it was mortifying repulsion, though it was perhaps only the mode of business pursued by an excessively secretive man, as he certainly was both in manner and speech, when he chose to be. Hence, I thought I would not go to the White House again to see the President, and began my preparations to leave. My trunk was packed, and I had changed my residence to a hotel so as to make it convenient to be carried to the cars. 3 Still I could not leave. I was spellbound by a feeling that there was something else for me to do. The feeling was so strong that it kept me undetermined about when to start. At last it occurred to me what was the matter. I could not bear the idea of coming all the way from Texas, as her representative to Washington, Senator-elect, snubbed by the Senate, given no satisfaction by any one in authority, as to what Texas might expect in the future, with everything drifting against the South, and then of creeping back to Texas without having been heard to say a word of vindication in favor of my State. I determined, though I was there then alone from Texas, to publish an address to the Congress and people of the United States. My getting other representatives from Texas to sign it with me was thought of only after I had written it. I told my intention of writing it to Mr. Waskom, of Harrison County, Texas, who happened to be there on his way to New York about his railroad business, and also to Judge Evans, and they encouraged me to do it. After writing it I went to New York to submit it to Mr. Epperson, who approved it. There I remodelled and rewrote it, and while at that work he left, and went back to Washington. After completing it, that night I went to Neblo's theater and witnessed the performance of the play called the "Black Crook," on its 126th night in the city. It consisted mainly of magnificent scenery, The next day being Sunday, a day by accident there then of sunshine, I spent in the Grand Central Park. Going back by Newark to see Judge Burnet, as previously stated, I arrived at Washington and resumed my former lodgings in the same house with Mr. Epperson, from whom I then learned that Tony Branch and George W. Chilton, members-elect of the House of Representatives in Congress from Texas, had arrived. The next day the address was read to them, and being signed, it was published in the National Intelligencer, the leading paper in favor of the President in Washington. We all bought copies and sent to Texas. Chilton and Branch had a suite of rooms at Willard's Hotel, where we called to see them. They were enjoying themselves splendidly. Chilton was attracting a great deal of attention from his tall, fine person, manners, and conversation. So things passed on until after the banquet, heretofore described, on the 8th of January, 1867. Shortly after that something required us all four to call upon the President (I suppose it was some matter of business from Texas). It seems to me it was at night, or late in the evening, when the reception room was lighted up. After the business was presented, much to my surprise, President Johnson opened his eyes and mouth, and talked vigorously and encouragingly for some time in a running conversation between us about public affairs. Upon all getting up to leave I lagged behind to tell him good-bye, as I was going to leave Washington. Upon telling him that, he said earnestly, "Don't leave, I want you to come here any time at or after eight o'clock at night, and I will have leisure to see you. I thanked him for the invitation, and told him I would not leave then, as I had intended. I learned afterwards that Judge Evans and George White, a close Tennessee friend and favorite of his, who had formerly lived in Austin, Texas, a member of the firm of Oldham & White, had been to see the President, and had told him who we all were, who had written and published the address, with which, I was told, he was very much pleased. Of course, Judge Evans told him I wrote it, I supposed, as he knew I did. That occurrence altered the whole face of things with me, and gave me the hope that I should find out something about his policy, as to his future conduct, if he had any, to defeat the extreme members of Congress in their efforts to abolish our State governments.
I felt it to be my duty also to remain so that if I could be of any service in any way I would be at hand, and I really felt better than I had during my entire stay at Washington. We very little know what may turn up to disappoint our expected movements in the future, as I very soon found out on that occasion. To explain the cause of my suddenly leaving there I must anticipate a little. A man, whose name I have forgotten, who lived in Texas, south of Austin, and with whom I had a casual acquaintance at Austin, had called to see me at my room. His business was to get pay for saving cotton for the government at the close of the war, and he told me that Governor Hamilton had his claim prosecuting it, but as I seemed to have favorable reception in all of the departments he would like for me to help him in it, if it was not got through shortly. While in my room, after Col. Chilton's arrival, he said to me that he did not know him (Chilton) by sight, but that he did not want to be introduced to him, and that if Col. Chilton should come to my room at any time when he was in it, he wanted me to call Col. Chilton's name in speaking to him, and he would go out of the room. He explained his reason to be that he was a particular friend of Montgomery, who was brought from beyond the Rio Grande and killed by a crowd of Confederates which was said to be headed by Col. Chilton. (This was the company from which Chilton managed to get Governor Davis with a guard of three men—before Montgomery was killed—and went and reported Davis' capture to Gen. Bee at Brownsville, which saved Davis' life.) An indictment had been found against Chilton and others at the county in which Brownsville is situated, and several attempts had been made to arrest Chilton and carry him to Brownsville to be tried for his life, which had failed of carrying him there by the aid of friends of both political parties in the State (not including Governor Davis). All this must be understood, as an introduction to what follows.
After being lifted by the President's invitation and thinking the next night was too soon to visit him, I went to the theater and heard Davenport perform in tragedy. He strutted, split the air, writhed, bawled and "extravagantized" generally as all other actors do in tragedy, contrary to Shakespeare's advice. Upon getting to my room about 11 o'clock I went up above mine to Epperson's room and found him on the bed, reading a book entitled "How to Make Money." He was then engaged in negotiating the sale of the Texas Continental Railroad (I think it was) to Fremont, which is what took him to New York to see Fremont. This is the same road about the sale of which Fremont got indicted, or into some trouble in France. After a little conversation about the book, Epperson said to me, "Judge, I have something to tell you." His manner excited my curiosity. He said there was a man here tonight who came to see you, and not finding you he came up to my room, and upon finding who I was, asked me to tell you about his coming to see you to tell you something. And since he thought it important that you should know immediately, he told it to me to tell you of it, when you came to your room. He then described the man, so that I knew that he was the man who had been to see me several times about his cotton matter. It was about this: that he was a Texan, and although he belonged to the Union party in Texas, he was pleased at the good impression that the Texas members-elect of Congress had made in Washington. His association had enabled him to find out that there was a movement on foot by the Southern Loyalists in the city to have Chilton arrested and carried in irons to Brownsville on a charge of murder (referring to the Montgomery affair); that public opinion was being prepared for it, and that he could not tell at what moment it might occur; that knowing me he was willing to rely on my confidence in telling it to me without my betraying him to his injury. That as a Texas citizen he could not bear to quietly see such a discredit cast upon his State, without trying to avert it, though that I well knew he had no love for Chilton, who was indicted for killing his particular friend, Montgomery.
It can well be imagined that I was astounded, and with a moment's reflection I determined my course and said, I will leave here tomorrow and will carry Chilton with me if I can. I put on my overcoat, walked one-half a mile (the cars having stopped running), and entered Branch's and Chilton's rooms, to find them in a fine flow of spirits (in two senses), with an elegant company, amongst them the bold young Democratic member of Congress from New Jersey, Mr. Rogers. After introductions I took my seat and seriously contemplated the unwelcome transformation in the scene before me which a disagreeable disclosure of my mission that night would necessarily produce. It was painful to me to think of it. Still duty was in command, and I must obey. I asked Chilton to let me see him in his private room, and we went to it. He gave me the universal one chair in the bedroom and sat down on the bed. I disclosed the matter, and how I got it, and my confidence in the man's veracity as briefly as I could. Be became enraged, and declared that he had been hounded from post to pillar until he was tired of it, and they might arrest him if they wanted to do it. He was greatly excited, and seemed resolved on his course. I kept my composure coldly, and asked him, "What will be the result?" His answer was, "President Johnson will have me released forthwith." I replied, "President Johnson dare not do it. He is in duress, with armed men all around him, with liberty only to write respectful messages to Congress, and he knows it, and I know it from men who are opposed to him." "Well," he said, "if I am carried there, I am innocent and will be acquitted." "Where is your proof to come from?" I asked. "You can't rely on any favor from Davis, that has been ascertained on another occasion." He answered, "Dr. Perkins at Monclova (Mexico) knows that I was not in the company when Montgomery was killed, and had no hand in it, and never sanctioned it." He was still greatly excited and confident. The matter was becoming painfully serious, and I felt it so. I sat back in my chair and looked him squarely in the eyes. I said, with serious deliberation and coolness: "Col. Chilton, you must know that I am an old lawyer, and have often both prosecuted and defended men for high offenses, and I tell you that if you are carried to Brownsville now you are a doomed man. All of the Federal influence there will be brought to bear to convict you, and you will be made a victim of revenge for what was done during the war; witnesses will be produced to prove whatever is necessary to implicate you in the murder. Think you that Dr. Perkins will leave his safe refuge in Mexico to put his head in the halter to save you? Certainly he will not. Just reflect a moment and you will see that this is the practical view of the matter." My serious, firm talk had brought him to reflection, and he said, "What shall I do?" Seeing I had gained my point, I spoke with animation and said: "Leave here. We can do no more good here. I will go tomorrow, and wish you to go with me. If you will stay, I will not stay to see it because I would be powerless to help you. Nobody could help you that would dare to try in this city." He yielded and gave his consent. I asked his leave to speak to Tony Branch about it, and he sent him into the room where I was and I told him about the matter, and he agreed with me about leaving. Arrangements were made for us to meet at the depot, when the cars went south the next day, and we came home together, Branch, Chilton and I, leaving Epperson there. 4
That is why I did not stay to visit the President again to try to find out something about his plans and hopes for the future of Texas and the South.
Many of President Johnson's friends blamed him for not adhering to and acting upon the views that he had announced to the committee of the Philadelphia Conservative Convention, to the effect that Congress would not be organized as a constitutional body with the Senators and Representatives of the eleven Southern States excluded. They said he had let his opportunity pass by not taking a firm position upon it and arousing a party in his support upon it. But I suspect that Johnson understood his position better than others, who were his friends. He had doubtless sounded Grant on the subject and could not rely on him to support his views, and he must have been aware that as soon as his announcement was made the Republicans set about organizing "The Army of the Republic" to sustain Congress against any attempt of the President to denounce the Congress as an unconstitutional legislative body. In fact I was told by some of his enemies that the city was full of the soldiers and officers of that army at the opening of Congress and during its session, many of whom, though armed, were persons then living in the city and following their usual avocations, but who could be mustered into active service upon very short notice of any necessity for it that would require them to be called out. From the spirit I saw manifested at the reception of Congress by the congregated citizens, I think it likely that any effort of Johnson as President to ignore Congress would have resulted in his forcible expulsion from the White House, and his immediate expulsion from the Presidency by Congress, even if the excited partisans could have been prevented from assassinating him forthwith. The friends of Congress were confident and unconcerned, while his friends were mad, dissatisfied, and disappointed. President Johnson, during that session, was evidently under duress, and he could not help knowing it. I should not omit a historic incident that I witnessed. One day while in Washington I went up to the gallery of the House of Representatives with no object but to see and hear that body while in session. While I was sitting there a member arose, addressing the Speaker, and in coarse, sonorous voice, commenced reading a paper held before him. With the first words I discovered that it was the resolution impeaching President Johnson. In his manner and style of delivery he was evidently imitating his conception of Edmund Burke impeaching Warren Hastings in the British Parliament. I inquired who he was, and was told that he was an obscure member [Ashley] from Ohio. A number of members drew up close to him to hear it distinctly. I got the impression that it was generally in the House an unexpected event. But once such a thing was proposed, even without concert, it had to be followed up by the party. That illustrates a phenomenon that attended the Abolition, Free Soil, and Republican party from its origin, and throughout its whole history in this country; which is that its leaders were those who would keep ahead in the lines of its purposes. The rest behind had to follow, or be tramped down, or left out. It was that which made Thad Stevens a leader of the party in the military reconstruction. He was pointed out to me on that occasion while I was in the gallery. There was nothing in his appearance that indicated capacity beyond mediocrity of a low grade, except an iron-fixed face and features. Still he dared to go ahead as a forerunner of his party to the extreme, with bold hardihood, and much superior men did not dare to refuse to follow him. The constant pressure was from behind, in the propulsive power of the masses of that party. Johnson and Seward stopped, they were run over, and were no longer of any use or missed. Greeley stopped; he fared the same fate. Beecher tried it a few weeks, and found it would not do, and took the trail again. And so with every one who refused to follow the fastest.
The only intellectual leadership was by Seward, Lincoln, and others in the fusion of the Free Soil party with the defunct Federal Whig party in the North, by which the Republican party was formed. That was a coalescence of two principles which had long been deeply rooted in the minds of the mass of the Northern people, which had been sternly repressed before that time by both political parties. The conjunction of the two aided and intensified both of them, standing in harmony with each other, that made the masses of the newly named party active, vigorous, aggressive, and progressive in the rapid consummation of their objects, removed all previous scruples, and pressed forward all those who sought to lead, to follow any and every one, who was most extreme in proposing measures leading in the line of their ultimate purposes,—freedom of the negro and the centralism of the government.
The Beginnings of Texas, 1684-1718, by Robert Carlton Clark (Bulletin of the University of Texas, No. 98, Austin, 1908, pp. 94, with map), is a thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the University of Wisconsin. The greater part of it was prepared while the author was a graduate student in the University of Texas, and was printed as two separate articles in this journal several years ago. 5 To these articles there are now added a chapter on "The Founding of San Antonio." The bringing together of the separate papers and the addition of the chapter designated gives us by far the fullest account of Texas history for the period covered (1684-1718) that has yet been written, and one that, measured even by absolute standards, is highly meritorious. It deals with a field in which the paths had scarcely been broken before Dr. Clark wrote, and it was written in the light of most of the sources, Spanish and French, available at the time, which was a vastly greater quantity than had formerly been used. These sources Dr. Clark studied diligently and interpreted with penetration, presenting, as a result, with fullness of detail and careful analysis of motives the events of the period covered. And it may be added that no other single portion of equal length of the Spanish period of Texas history has ever yet been covered with the same thoroughness.
It is not the purpose of these notes, however, to comment on the excellencies of the monograph, which will be apparent to all its qualified readers, but, rather, to take this occasion to indicate some places where advance has been made since Dr. Clark wrote, by reason of the discovery of materials then unknown, and, incidentally, to point out some minor shortcomings of the monograph, due now to one cause and now to another.
To begin with the map which faces the title page, it may be said that while it conveys a general idea of the geography of Spanish Texas for the period covered, which, of course, is all that it aims to do, it can not be taken as a safe guide in all matters of detail. It is only fair to Dr. Clark to state that the map was prepared upon request after the article was already in type, and under the unfavorable circumstance of necessary haste. On what authority Dr. Clark (and others) places Fort St. Louis east of the La Vaca River does not appear, but it is to be noted that it is shown as on the west side by the "Carte Nouvelle de la Louisiane, et de la Riviere de Mississippi," etc., made by Joutel and published in the original edition of his Journal Historique. 6 Not only was Joutel in a position to know the location of the fort, since he built it, but the map and the text of his journal of the expedition are in agreement as to this point. 7 Moreover, this evidence is borne out by the testimony of contemporary Spanish sources. In 1689 De León discovered the French fort, and in the same year Sigüenza, a Mexican official of the highest scholarship, made a map of the route of the expedition, certainly in the light of De León's diary, and in all probability of his map. The Sigüenza map, now resting in the archives of Seville, shows the French settlement in the same position as that which it occupies on the Joutel map. 8
Of course it is only the result of a slip that the date of the founding of the missions of San Francisco de los Tejas (first site) and Santíssimo Nombre de María appears as 1689 instead of 1690. 9 Again, such evidence as Dr. Clark presents in his text 10 indicates that these two missions were only a league and a half apart, and that the direction from the latter to the former was southwest. Other items of information agree in a general way with this statement, indicating that the mission of Santíssimo Nombre de María was on the west side of the Neches River, in the same tribe of Indians as the San Francisco mission, and not more than three or four leagues from it; 11 and yet the map puts it at a point nearly straight north of the San Francisco mission, some thirty miles distant from it, and on the other side of the Neches River. The map locates the missions of San Francisco de los Neches (San Francisco de los Tejas, second site), Nuestra Señora de la Puríssima Concepción, and San Josef de los Nazones all somewhat too far north, relative to the first mission and that of Nacogdoches, and puts the mission of Los Adaes as far from Natchitoches as from the mission of Los Ais, whereas the distance was not more than two-fifths as great, as Dr. Clark's text correctly shows. The best evidence attainable seems to indicate that while the name "Tejas," in its broader sense, included many more tribes than those of eastern Texas, in its narrower usage it was confined to the tribes of the Angelina and upper Neches country, and did not include, as the map indicates, the Cadodachos to the north or the Bidai, Orcoquiza and other tribes of the coast region. 12 This, however, is a point on which further light would be welcome.
Turning to the text of the monograph, we are given the impression that Isleta, near El Paso, was from the beginning a purely Indian settlement, which is the usual view of the matter. It is undoubtedly true that the importance of the place in the making of Texas is no more than that assigned to it by Dr. Clark and others, but a question of fact remains, notwithstanding. It so happens that Father Nicolás López, the founder of an Isleta which was presumably identical with the one in question, tells us in terms that it was at the beginning not an Indian settlement, but one of Spaniards. In a "representation" made to the viceroy in 1685 he says that, on coming from Mexico to Paso del Norte in 1683, he saw that it would be impossible for all of the refugees gathered there to subsist in one settlement without great expense to the government, and that he therefore distributed the population in smaller settlements in the vicinity, founding, in addition to that at Paso del Norte, the "settlement (poblazon) of the Pueblo of Socorro, of Piros Indians; that of San Francisco, of Sumas Indians; that of the Pueblo of Sacramento, of Tiguas Indians; that of the Pueblo of San Antonio de Senecí, 13 of Piros and Tompiros Indians; the New Conversion of Santa Gertrudis, of Sumas Indians; the Conversion of la Soledad, of Janos Indians, and the settlement of San Lorenzo, of Spaniards; that of San Pedro de Alcantara; that of the Señor San José; and that of the Old Pueblo of la Ysleta—these [last] four of Spanish citizens (vecinos)." 14 A padron, or inventory of settlers, made on September 11, 1684, showed in the Real of San Lorenzo, that of Nuestra, Señora de Guadalupe, or El Paso, and the "Pueblo de Corpus Christi de la Ysleta," 109 families, which, from their descriptions, seem to have been all Spaniards. 15 Therefore, before declaring that the present Isleta was from the beginning an Indian settlement it would seem necessary, in the face of this evidence, to show that it is distinct from the Isleta founded by Father López, since its founding is referred to the same time, circumstances, and locality as that mentioned by Father López, and since two places by the same name are not known in that vicinity.
In the summary of the Spanish expeditions into Texas in the seventeenth century prior to the De León entradas, that of Fernando del Bosque (1674) deserves a place, not for anything that was accomplished by it, aside from the geographical and tribal information gained, but as one of the activities foreshadowing the gradual extension of missionary activities from the settlement of Coahuila and Nuevo Leon across the Rio Grande into Texas. 16
Coming to the expedition of Domingo de Mendoza, it is interesting to note that since Dr. Clark wrote, Mendoza's diary and the "representations" of Father López relative to the enterprise, all hitherto unknown to modern students, have been found, and that the episode is being rewritten in the light of these documents, which not only correct some errors and make plain much that has been hazy with regard to the expedition of Mendoza, but also throw valuable light on the geography of some of the prior expeditions into Texas. 17
Incidentally, it may be stated that, as will appear below, 18 the royal order said by Dr. Clark (p. 11) to have been issued to Father Alonzo Posadas, hitherto one of the chief authorities used for the Mendoza expedition, was not issued to him, but to the viceroy. Indeed, Father Posadas states this in his memorial, which evidently was not available to Dr. Clark.
Of more interest is the revelation of the fact that the Spanish government was paying special attention to the Bay of Espíritu Santo and was considering plans to occupy it—as a result of interest in the famed but elusive kingdoms of Quivira and Tagago and of Peñalosa's activities—on the very eve of the La Salle scare, but independently of it. The chief of the sources on this point are two royal cédulas issued to the viceroy on December 10, 1678, and August 2, 1685.
Before taking up the contents of the cédulas it will be well to call to mind the fact that half a century earlier Father Benavides, in his famous memoria of 1630, had reported that the rich and much-talked-of kingdoms of the Quiviras and Aixaos, among whom, be it noted, the Flemings and the English were said to be trading for gold dust, lay somewhere about one hundred and fifty leagues east of Santa Fé, and even less than one hundred leagues inland from the Bay of Espiritu Santo, a landmark which, since the expedition of Pineda in 1519, had been prominent on the maps of the Gulf coast. He went on to suggest that by occupying the Bay of Espíritu Santo as the base of a land route from Havana to New Mexico, more than eight hundred leagues could be saved from the usual route by way of Vera Cruz and the City of Mexico, while the Kingdom of Quivira would be within easy reach of the coast, being, by implication, on the highway that would be opened up to New Mexico. 19
Now, in the first of the royal cédulas cited, the king informs the viceroy that it has been learned in his Royal Council of the Indies that Peñalosa, the disgruntled ex-governor of New Mexico, is attempting and likely to secure from the French government a patent for the exploration, on the account of that government, of the provinces of Quivira and Tagago, and that in the efforts made at the Spanish court to learn about these provinces, or kingdoms, the report and the suggestions of Father Benavides (which the king reviews) have been called to mind. He thereupon orders the viceroy to give his opinion as to whether it would be well to open up communication to the interior by way of the Bay of Espíritu Santo, according to Father Benavides's suggestion; what advantages would come from Christianizing the kingdoms of Quivira and Tagago; what means would be needed to effect it; whether it could be done better by way of the way of Florida than through the Bay of Espiritu Santo; and whether any danger was to be feared from the proposal of Peñalosa. 20
But as late as the 2d of August, 1685, the required report had not yet been made, when the king issued another cédula in which he quoted the former one verbatim and repeated the request for a report on the advisability of converting the kingdoms of Quivira and Tagoga and of opening communication by way of the Bay of Espíritu Santo. From this cédula we learn, further, that Captain Martin de Echagaray, "pilot major and captain of the sea and war of the ships and frigates of the Presidio of Florida" had reported that since, as he had heard through Indians, the coast from Apalache to the Bay of Espíritu Santo was uninhabited, the French might settle there without the Spaniards' learning of it; that if they should settle there they could readily enter the province of New Spain, by way of a large river that flowed from New Mexico into the bay; that the bay would be a good place for the Spaniards to fortify, as the location was excellent for a settlement, while a port there would furnish a safer route from Havana than that of Vera Cruz; and that upon certain conditions he would undertake to explore the whole coast from Tampico to Apalache and to prepare a map of the Bay of Espíritu Santo and the rest of the coast. A junta de guerra accepted the proposal, and on the 2d of August the king ordered the governor of Florida to coöperate with Echagaray. At the same time he repeated the request for a report from the viceroy, "in order that from all directions may be had the desired notices with respect to all the foregoing, for the greater security and certainty of the achievement of the discovery of the said Bay of Espíritu Santo and the kingdoms of Quivira and Tagago, and of their settlement and conservation, in order by this means to make the said provinces of Florida secure from the menaces in which they stand from the corsairs and pirates who commonly infest those coasts." 21
The interesting thing about this document is the fact that the only specific motives given for desiring the report by the viceroy are those set forth in the former cédula. Whatever connection there may have been, if any, between the proposal of Echagaray and news of the La Salle expedition does not appear. So far as we learn, Echagaray was not ordered to look for any party of Frenchmen, but to map out the coast, and, particularly, the Bay of Espíritu Santo, while the viceroy was, as before, ordered to report upon the advisability of occupying that bay and converting the Quiviras and Tagagos. No mention is made of the La Salle expedition, of which the authorities in Mexico had known for some time. Indeed, the repetition of the cedula of 1678 would seem to indicate that it was the activities of Peñalosa and not a later expedition that the king still had especially in mind as the cause for anxiety. How this may be, other documents not yet discovered may make clear. At any rate, in the light of these cédulas, the Spanish activities in Texas following the La Salle expedition appear as a less sudden development than they have hitherto seemed. In their light, moreover, some statements about the preliminary search by land for the Bay of Espíritu Santo, which has been interpreted to mean specifically or even solely a search for the La Salle party, take on a new meaning. 22
It may be noted now that it was the 1685 cédula that set Father Posadas at writing his memorial, as he tells us himself, 23 and which encouraged Father López to ask for fifty-one missionaries to work among the tribes of the Rio Grande region and central Texas. 24
For the story of the search by land for the La Salle party, Dr. Clark missed one interesting original source that was already printed, though rare, when he wrote. His chief authority was the Massanet letter to Sigüenza, 25 from which we get the impression that Massanet was the prime mover in the De León expedition of 1688 across the Rio Grande to secure the Frenchman, "Juan Enrique." But from the autos, or sworn statements of all the official acts attending the expedition, which include the diary of the journey, we get an entirely different idea as to the source of De León's information that the Frenchman was across the Rio Grande, no mention being made in them of Massanet. While the two accounts may not be incompatible, they convey very different impressions. Besides, the autos give much additional information about the doings of Juan Enrique among the Indians where he was found. 26
Our notion of the personality of Father Massanet has hitherto been gathered chiefly from his own writings and those of Terán, who was unfriendly to Massanet. A document has recently come to light in the Mexican archives that tells us something additional of his career before he became connected with the Texas enterprises. This, too, is written by someone evidently not an admirer of Massanet, and pictures him as a vain and headstrong character, who had been sent to the northern frontier under discipline. 27
Regarding La Salle's career in Texas it may be of interest to note—though the point did not fall within the scope of Dr. Clark's paper—that the fixing by recent study of the location of the Cenis and other villages visited by La Salle's party enables us to correct all previous views as to the place where La Salle died, pushing it westward to a point only a short distance from the Brazos, 28
Dr. Clark states that the letter of Massanet is the only contemporaneous account of the De León expedition of 1690. This is incorrect. De León's diary, lacking the part covering the journey from Monclova to the Rio Grande, the first folio, perhaps, is extant, and is the first document cited by Dr. Clark in note 2, p. 17, for the expedition of 1689, of which he mistook it to be the diary. This rare source gives us many new details of the expedition which founded the first Franciscan mission in Texas, and corrects some of the general statements of the Massanet letter.
A comparison of the monograph with the first version of the expedition of 1690, as it appeared in THE QUARTERLY, will show that the revision gives a more exact idea than the first version of the location of the mission of San Francisco, and also exhibits more knowledge as to the identity of "the Governor of the Tejas," who was in reality, as it now appears, the chief of the Nabedache tribe. Likewise, for the revised version of the Terán expedition Dr. Clark availed himself of the considerable accesion to the manuscript materials that has been made since he first wrote. 29
Not a few items of additional information for the relatively blank period between 1693 and 1713 have come to light in the archives of Mexico since Dr. Clark wrote. We now know something more definite about the career of Urrutia among the Indians; we learn of frequent rumors at the Rio Grande settlements of French intrusion among the Hasinai and the Cadodachos, and of investigations as to their foundation; considerable is our information now about the mission activity during this period between the Rio Grande and the San Antonio rivers, a movement logically connected with the founding of San Antonio; the rich diary of an expedition of Fathers Espinosa and Olivares to central Texas in 1709 to meet the Texas Indians, an event that no one has hitherto mentioned, so far as I know, is now at our command; and there is hope that the hazy affair of Hidalgo, whose doings in Texas are thus far altogether too much a matter of speculation and inference, will some day be made clear, for a clue has recently been found to two documents that should straighten the matter out. 30
For the expedition of 1716 the most considerable additional sources made available since Dr. Clark wrote are the diary of Espinosa and a letter by Father Hidalgo to Father Mesquia, dated at the Neche mission on October 6, 1716, both of which have been found in the original in the Mexican archives. With these are filed several new documents of lesser importance for the story of the founding of San Antonio, which is the subject of Dr. Clark's last chapter.
For the whole period covered by the monograph an important advance has been made by the finding of the originals of many of the document's that have been known hitherto only in the form of copies, the latter being contained chiefly in the Memorias de Nueva España. A comparison of these copies with the originals has revealed the fact that the Memorias are in general, rather untrustworthy, some of the transcripts which are therein represented as faithful copies of the originals proving to be only paraphrases, or at best very careless copies. One result of their use, for example, has been confusion with regard to the tribes where the missions were founded in 1716. On the basis of the Memorias copies of the documents, the Neche tribe became the "Nacoches," the Ainai became the "Asinai," and the Nasones became the "Noaches," tribes that can not be accounted for in the Hasinai Indian organization, but which, upon reference to the original documents, disappear and cease to trouble the puzzled student. 31
Is is thus seen from this cursory review that in spite of the thoroughness of Dr. Clark's most excellent monograph, subsequent addition to the manuscript literature of the period which he covers has brought to light a number of interesting minor facts regarding the beginnings of Texas and has to a greater or less extent changed the meaning of a number of others.
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTICES.
The article "Lone Star Pine" in the American Lumberman for September 26, 1908, pp. 67-150, is a most interesting narrative of the personal history of the Texas house of Thompson and its share in the development of the lumber industry of the State. The family record shows an extraordinary proportion of men of high character and unusual business endowments, and well explains the growth of the Thompson milling interests to their present enormous magnitude.
In whatever aspect the history of Texas is considered, political, social, ecclesiastical, or economic, there is none more fascinating and instructive. Of these various aspects, that which has been least adequately treated is undoubtedly the economic. When it is properly written, a large part of it will be given to describing the growth of the production of lumber in the State, and in this the Thompsons will be found to have had a highly important share. And when the investigator who is to write it shall begin his work he will find valuable material in this article.
Plantæ Lindheimerianæ. Part III. By J. W. Blankinship. (From the Eighteenth Annual Report of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 1907. Pp. 100.)
One of the earliest and most widely known botanical collectors in Texas was Ferdinand Jacob Lindheimer. He settled at Houston, Texas, in 1840, and engaged in truck farming. As a farmer, he was not successful and on the advice of his friend, Dr. George Engelmann, of St. Louis, he gave up farming and turned his entire attention to collecting the unknown flora of Texas and selling his specimens as a means of livelihood. In 1844, Lindheimer moved to New Braunfels, where he lived until his death. By the aid of Dr. Engelmann and Dr. Asa Gray, who identified his specimens, Lindheimer was able to devote his entire time to collecting. As a result of his work, four sets or fascicles of plants, bearing numbers from 1 to 754, were collected and Parts I and II, Plantæ Lindheimerianæ, describing a part of these plants, were published by Drs. Engelmann and Gray. The first fascicle, collected in 1844, contained 214 numbers; the second comprised 215 to 318 and was collected in 1844; the third contained numbers 319 to 574 and was the 1845 and 1846 collection; the fourth consisted of numbers 575 to 754 and was made in 1847. A collection made in 1849-1851 was probably intended for a fifth fascicle. It contained about 650 numbers and was about as large as the other fascicles combined. This collection is quite valuable in that it contains a number of cotypes of species, described from the other exsiccateæ. There were about fifty sets of plants, thirty of which were fairly complete, prepared from this collection for distribution. About a year ago one of these sets was presented by the Missouri Botanical Garden to the University of Texas.
The herbarium of Dr. George Engelmann, after his death, was presented to the Missouri Botanical Garden by his son, Dr. George J. Engelmann. It contained a large number of duplicates, a great many of which were Lindheimer's Texas plants and were at first supposed to be the undistributed portion of the exsiccateæ described in Plantæ Lindheimerianæ, Parts I and II. Later it was found that they were the undistribute collection which was made in 1849-1851. This collection was carefully studied by Mr. J. W. Blankinship. In the eighteenth annual report of the Missouri Botanical Garden, issued November 25, 1907, he gives a report of his work which is here under review.
The publication, Plantæ Lindheimerianæ, as begun by Engelmann and Gray, was left incomplete at the end of the Compositæ (Bentham and Hooker sequence), so that no data for numbers 449-574, Fascicle III, and 652-754, Fascicle IV, have been given. This, with a list of the species in the last Lindheimer collection and the missing numbers of Parts I and II of Plantæ Lindheimerianæ are supplied in Blankinship's report. The author also gives a brief but interesting account of the life of Lindheimer and a general bibliography of Texas Botany.
Plantæ Lindheimerianæ is not only valuable from an historical standpoint, but will be of great importance to botanists interested in the flora of Texas.
HARLAN H. YORK.
American Diplomacy Under Tyler and Polk. By Jesse S. Reeves, Ph. D. [The Albert Shaw Lectures on Diplomatic History, 1906.] (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press. 1907. Pp. ii, 335.)Besides the lectures indicated by the title of this volume, it has two chapters which contain matter not included in the lectures. One of the two deals mainly with Commander Mackenzie's report on his visit to Santa Anna at Havana in July, 1846; and the other is a reprint of an article by the author of the book on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo from the American Historical Review for January, 1905.
Dr. Reeves has given a clear and rational survey of his subject in pleasing contrast with the mass of controversial literature passing for history which has been written in relation to it. It is plain that he has striven to maintain the judicial attitude throughout; but there is some question as to whether he has not been too confident of his conclusions as to Polk's motives, and whether he has not in fact occasionally misinterpreted the evidence or forced his inferences. He does not accept the partisan contemporary view—too common still—that Polk made himself the wicked agent of the slave-holding interest to extend the area of slavery. To him, Polk is simply the intriguing and unscrupulous expansionist, who deliberately planned and accomplished the seizure of California at the cost of an unnecessary and bloody war against a power that was too weak to make effectual resistance.
In the preparation of the book, the larger part of the sources available in the United State has been used, including the manuscript materials in the archives of the Department of State at Washington, the Library of Congress, the Lenox Library, and that of the Chicago Historical Society, and especially the nidispensable diary of Polk, but only that small fraction of the correspondence of the Republic of Texas with its own chargés at Washington which has already found its way into print. Nothing has been drawn from the documents in the English and French archives.
More than half the book is taken up with the annexation of Texas and the Mexican war. The author describes it as dealing "principally with the questions of boundary," and remarks that the southwestern boundary question was settled "by conquest." This is misleading. It puts forward the boundary question as the most important subject of the diplomatic correspondence of the period concerning the southwestern relations of the United States, and as the cause of the Mexican war. Dr. Reeves must know himself how relatively little this question figures in the correspondence. He admits (pp. 287, 288, 297, 298) that it was not the Mexican attack on Thornton's dragoons after Taylor had advanced to the Rio Grande that brought Polk to his determination in favor of war; for the message recommending the declaration was written and ready to send to Congress before the report of the attack reached Washington, and the news simply permitted the revision of the argument of the message. Of course the question remains as to whether Congress would have made the declaration if the attack had not occurred, but there seems good reason to believe that it would have done so. Dr. Reeves, however, thinks that Polk entered upon the presidency with the determination so to use the unsettled question of the boundary of Texas as to talc California; and that, although this was not mentioned in the message, it was the real reason for recommending a declaration of war. With this the revivewer can not agree. Polk's declaration to Bancroft made public by Schouler is by no means to be construed as a statement of intention to acquire California without regard to Mexican rights. How groundless is the assumption of such a purpose on Polk's part is clearly to be seen from the letters of Slidell to Buchanan, November 30, 1845, and Buchanan to Slidell of December 17, 1845. These contain suffidence that Polk was willing to accept an adjustment which should leave California out altogether.
Neither will all readers be convinced that the condemnation of Polk for his negotiations with Santa Anna immediately before the outbreak of the war and during its earlier stages is just. Considering the state of the relations of the United States with Mexico—the withdrawal of the Mexican minister from Washington; the warlike declarations of the Mexican government; the failure of the Slidell mission; and the fact that the claims against Mexico, of which a considerable part had been sanctioned by arbitration, must be enforced by war if at all—Polk can scarcely be blamed for meeting the unreasonable bluster of the Mexicans with a plan to settle all differences peaceably by restoring Santa Anna. The question, however, is one that concerns the ethical standard rather than the historical facts, and it can not be further discussed here.
The treatment of the northeastern and northwestern boundary questions, which are the essential questions of the diplomacy relative to those quarters, is careful and scholarly; but something might have been gained by extending the resume of the northeastern boundary controversy back to the Proclamation of 1763 and bringing out the historical continuity of the description.
One or two errors of fact are to be noted: the names of the Magaguadavic and Schoodiac are exchanged in the statement of the respective claims of Great Britain and the United States (p. 4, note 4), and A. J. Donelson was not the son-in-law but the nephew of Andrew Jackson (p. 178). The style of the narrative is nervous and rather impressive; but there are occasional evidences of too cursory proof reading and hasty composition, such as the superfluous "to" in the last line but one on p. 220, putting "1848" for 1846 (p. 188), and the incomplete description of the division line for Oregon proposed by Pakenham in 1844 (p. 247). "Elliott" (p. 147 and elsewhere) should be Elliot.
In spite of Dr. Reeves's assumption on altogether insufficient evidence that the key of Polk's southwestern diplomacy lies in his determination to take California from Mexico by foul means if fair should prove inadequate, this work marks a distinct step in advance in its abandonment of the effort to explain the negotiations of Polk with Mexico—and indeed the whole southwestward expansion movement—as inspired by the interests of the slaveholders. Its author having gone thur far will surely, if he continues at his subject, go still further by and by and will accord Polk the justice that most of the historians have heretofore denied him.
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 kind at half the usual retail prices.
$8.50 HEDGETHORN PUNCTURE-PROOF SELF-HEALING TIRES A sample pair to introduce, only $4.80 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 pair 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.
2. 3.
4. 5.
6. 7.
8. 9.
10. 11.
12. 13.
14. 15.
16. 17.
18. 19.
20. 21.
22. 23.
24. 25.
26. 27.
28. See THE QUARTERLY, Vol. X, pp. 261-266, ,which discusses the location of the Nabedache and Neche villages, unmistakably the Cenis villages described 29.
30. 31.
How to cite:
"Issue View", Volume 012, Number 2, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online. http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v012/n2/issue.html
[Accessed Tue Nov 24 3:24:55 CST 2009]
