VOLUME XII. JANUARY, 1909. NUMBER 3.
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 NAVY OF THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS - Alex. Dienst
- PRESIDENTIAL RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS - Chas. W. Ramsdell
- PLAN FOR AN INSTITUTE AT SAN FELIPE - Mattie Austin Hatcher
- BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTICES.
- NOTES AND FRAGMENTS.
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,
CORRESPONDING SECRETARY AND TREASURER CHARLES W. RAMSDELL,
STATE LIBRARIAN E. W. WINKLER.
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.LOOSCAN, MRS. ADELE B.
BATTS, JUDGE R. L.MCCALEB, DR. W. F.
BOLTON, PROF. HERBERT EUGENEMILLER, MR. E. T.
CASIS, PROF. LILIA M.PENNYBACKER, MRS. PERCY V.
CLARK, PROF. ROBERT CARLTONRAMSDELL, MR. CHAS. W.
COOPER, PRESIDENT O. H.RATHER, ETHEL ZIVLEY
COX, DR. I. J.SHEPARD, JUDGE SETH
ESTILL, PROF. H. L.SMITH, PROF. W. ROY
FULMORE, JUDGE Z. T.TERRELL, JUDGE A. W.
GAINES, JUDGE R. R.TOWNES, PROF. JOHN C.
GARRISON, PROF. GEORGE P.WILLIAMS, JUDGE O. W.
GRAY, MR. A. C.WINKLER, MR. ERNEST WILLIAM
HATCHER. MRS. MATTIE AUSTINWOOTEN, HON. DUDLEY G.
HOUSTON, PRESIDENT D. F.WORLEY, MR. J. L.
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.KIRBY, JNO. H.
AVER, EDWARD EVERETTMCFADDEN, W. P. H.
BAKER, R. H.MINOR, F. D.
BRACKENRIDGE, HON. GEO. W.MOODY, W. L.
BUNDY, Z. T.MOREHEAD, C. R.
COCHRANE, SAM P.NEALE, WM. J.
COURCHESNE, A.RICE, 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.WILLACY, JOHN G.
HANRICK, R. A.WILLIAMS, JUDGE O. W.
KENEDY, JNO. G.
Vol. XII. JANUARY, 1909. No. 3.
The publication committee and the editors disclaim responsibility for views expressed by contributors to THE QUARTERLY.
I. The Correo Mexicano and the San Felipe.
Throughout the first half of 1835 serious misunderstandings and difficulties had occurred between the merchants and the collector of the maritime customhouse of Galveston, Texas, in relation to the collection of duties. 1 In the hope of averting trouble and of bringing about a peaceable adjustment, the ayuntamiento of Liberty, in the deparment of Nacogdoches, issued a manifesto 2 to the effect "that the revenue laws, like all other political laws, are to be respected by all those who come within the legitimate sphere of their actions; and although these laws may be unwise, to resist them by force is more unwise and ill timed than the laws themselves." The manifesto goes on to say that the duties are oppressive, disproportionate, and in need of modification; but that this change must be a legal one, and not brought about by force. And the dissatisfied citizens are urged to abstain from any violent measures towards the collector of the maritime customs of Galveston. Notwithstanding this conservative counsel, Captain Tenorio and his small garrison stationed at Anahuac to guard the port against smuggling and afford protection to the collector of customs, were attacked by William B. Travis and fifty armed. Texans and forced to leave. This act of the Texans and Americans at Anahuac was condemned by the municipality of Liberty and the Central Committee. 3 A sensational account of the attack on the revenue officer was carried to General Cos, who, being not yet aware that it did not carry with it the endorsement of the majority of the Texans, in July ordered the sloop of war Correo Mexicano, commanded by Captain T. M. Thompson, to the scene of action to protect Mexican commerce. 4 In violation of orders, 5 Thompson bullied the citizens and traders at Anahuac, threatened to burn the town, 6 and proved himself utterly unfit for the delicate task of upholding Mexican authority and calming the excitement of the people.
Thompson's most serious mistake was the capture of the American brig Tremont. This vessel was in the Texan trade, 7 and though I have searched diligently I can find nowhere any reason given for his attack. 8 No historian gives even a hint as to his reason. The nearest explanation I can find in his favor is derived from an article in the New Orleans newspapers, signed "Seventy-six." It is a reply to a defence of Thompson which I am unfortunately unable to locate, but from the communication of "Seventy-six" it can be gathered that Thompson's defender asserted that he was sent to the Texas coast to interrupt the importation of negroes from Cuba. I will give the comment in part, as it will also furnish some details of the capture which I can find nowhere else:
Mr. Editor: My attention was last evening called to an article in an evening journal, headed "Texas and the United States District Attorney at New Orleans, vs. Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas," which contains a most violent and abusive attack against the individuals in this country whose feelings have been aroused in favor of an oppressed and deceived people, strugling to maintain their rights of civil liberty: an attempt to assert the innocence of Captain Thompson now waiting a trial for piracy. They are also charged with bringing negroes into Texas, in violation of the constitution of 1824, while in fact there is no provision in the constitution prohibiting the introduction of negroes from Cuba or elsewhere. The writer adds that Captain Thompson was sent out to prevent this traffic, and we venture to assert that not one syllable is said on the subject in his instructions, and if he had those instructions, we would ask if he acted in pursuance of them when he took the American brig Tremont as a prize, loaded with lumber, and how much of the treaty between the United States and Mexico he fulfilled, when he required the Captain of the Tremont to come on board the Correo with his papers, while that treaty expressly provided that a Mexican armed vessel shall board an American Merchantman by sending one of her officers on board, with not more than three men, and shall in no case require the Captain of the Merchantman to leave the vessel with his papers.
That negroes were imported into Texas from Cuba, and even from Africa direct, at this time, is generally conceded; Fannin, the Texas martyr, was himself accused of importation of African slaves by no less a man than S. Rhoads Fisher, later Secretary of the Texan Navy. 9 This version of the matter might also account for the great anger of the Americans at Anahuac, who may have been awaiting the arrival of a slaver, in order to purchase their wares and cross over the Sabine with cheaper negroes than could be purchased in the United States. In favor of this theory is the note which Bancroft 10 inserts without comment that "Washington Stiles, one of the crew of the Tremont, in the trial of Thompson at New Orleans for piracy, swore that Thompson said that if he could capture two American vessels, the Tremont and the San Felipe, his fortune would be made and he would stop." Just how his fortune would be made by capturing a vessel loaded with lumber, as the Tremont was, is not clear, but if it was loaded with two or three hundred negroes selling at one dollar a pound, his statement looks reasonable, as there was an active demand for negroes at this price. The Tremont was captured September 1, but Thompson's previous acts had so exasperated the Texans that they had already determined to seize the Correo and accomplish his downfall.
It was in pursuance of this design that the Texan trading schooner San Felipe arrived off the mouth of the Brazos, September 1, just as a prize crew from the Correo was weighing anchor on the Tremont. The San Felipe was purchased in New Orleans for Texas by Thomas F. McKinney, a prosperous merchant of Quintana, and associated at that time in business with Samuel M. Williams. The price paid for the vessel was $8,965 "including freight on board when taken," 11 which would lead one to believe that the purchasers were in a great hurry indeed, not to have time to unload the freight,—unless said freight consisted of holloware (cannon) as Edward states, and was such goods as they wanted. Captain William A. Hurd was put in command. 12 Captain Thompson of the Correo was aware of the intentions of the San Felipe and was keeping a sharp lookout for her, and seemed in no way disposed to evade her attack. 13 At 8 o'clock in the evening the Correo came up, and without warning fired into the San Felipe. 14 Bancroft says the fight lasted only three quarters of an hour. The Texas Republican, 15 which gives the best of the meager accounts, says:
On the arrival of the Schr. San Felipe, Capt. Hurd, at the bar of the Brazos, she was attacked by the piratical schooner Correo, Capt. Thompson, and after an engagement of two hours the Correo made off, but was pursued, overtaken and captured by the San Felipe and brought back. The officers and crew consisted of Captain T., 1st and 2d Lieutenants and 14 seamen. During the engagement one of the crew of the Correo, a native of Baltimore named Blackburn, received a mortal wound, of which he died two days after. Capt. Hurd took command of the Correo and departed for New Orleans, with the pirates in chains, leaving Capt. Grayson in command of the San Felipe to follow. 16
The San Felipe had a very short career after this engagement. I can find no further mention of her in any history; but Edward Hall says in a letter to Stephen F. Austin that the San Felipe went in pursuit of a Mexican armed vessel and was lost in Matagorda Bay, that the heavy cannon had been saved and was on Bird Island, and that he had heard from Matagorda that the schooner William Robbins sailed from there on the 13th with the intention of picking up the gun and taking it to the Brazos. 17 It seems, however, that the San Felipe was only aground, and not wrecked. In a letter addressed to the General Council by Thomas F. McKinney, dated November 11, he stated that they succeeded in getting the schooner off, and that, in company with the William Robbins she would go at once to New Orleans. He said that on last Thursday, while the San Felipe lay on the beach, she exchanged several shots with a Mexican vessel, and he thought that some shot hit the Mexican, which put to sea. 18 Nothing further can be found relative to her, except a resolution of the General Council of January 17, 1836, by which R. R. Royall was appointed agent to take charge of and secure the wreck of the schooner and whatever belonged to her, then lying on the beach in or near Paso Cavallo and report to the Government. 19
Meanwhile, Captain Thompson and his Lieutenant O'Campo were carried to New Orleans and in January, 1836, they were tried on a charge of piracy in the Federal District Court, the suit being termed, "The United States vs. Thompson." 20 New Orleans sympathy was largely with Texas, and the excitement seems to have reached the attorneys on both sides. P. Soulé, one of Thompson's attorneys, and H. Carleton, United States District Attorney, passed the lie between them, and threw at each other inkstands, books, etc., for which Judge Harper of the United States District Court sentenced them each to six hours imprisonment. The jury sat on the case one whole night, and brought in a verdict to acquit O'Campo. It was not able to agree in Thompson's case, and the court ordered a new trial. Mr. Carleton thereupon, with leave of the court, entered a nolle prosequi, and the prisoners were discharged. 21
The New Orleans Courier 22 said concerning the trial. "The issue of the suit . . . is indeed a very remarkable one—such, it may be said, as never happened before—the pirates set at liberty and the Attorneys committed to jail." The Commercial Bulletin 23 gave the following account of it:
On Saturday last, the Judge of the United States District Court of this city, having ordered the commitment of the District Attorney and of Mr. Soule, in consequence of an altercation which took place between those gentlemen during the trial of Thomson, a large number of the friends of the District Attorney visited him during his short confinement.
While they were assembled in the room where the District Attorney was confined, Dr. Archer, one of the Commissioners from Texas, addressed Randell Hunt, Esq., the assistant Counsel of the District Attorney in the trial of Thomson, in a very eloquent manner, expressing his own satisfaction and that of his fellow-citizens of Texas, for the able and powerful address of Mr. Hunt delivered to the Jury in that cause, and for his bold and righteous vindication of the cause of Texas in her present struggle for Civil Liberty, and concluded by saying that his fellow-citizens could give no adequate compensation to his efforts, and his expression of those sentiments, but they desired his acceptance of some testimonials of their approbation and esteem. He then presented Mr. Hunt in the name of the Citizens of Texas, with a very splendid Gold Lever, the most valuable that could be found in this city, engraved inside the case, with the following inscription: "Presented by the Citizens of Texas to Randell Hunt, Esq., in testimony of their esteem of his exalted talents, and eloquent vindication of the cause of Truth, Justice and Civil Liberty." This, with a very superb cane and some other valuable jewels, were received by Mr. Hunt, and on receiving them with a letter, which we have inserted below, he made a very appropriate and eloquent reply.
New Orleans, Jan. 16, 1836.
Randell Hunt, Esq.
Dear Sir—The undersigned respectfully request your acceptance of the enclosed, as a slight testimonial of their personal esteem, and an expression of their admiration of the able and eloquent address delivered to the Jury by yourself last evening—of your powerful effort in the cause of truth and Justice, and last, not least, the warm and heartfelt expression of your sympathies for their oppressed and struggling country and your righteous vindication of their conduct in the present crisis. That the most brilliant success may attend your career, and the talents and learning which you possess ever be engaged in as just and holy a cause as the one you have so eloquently sustained, whether it be to shield the innocent, or punish the guilty—and that you may reap a rich reward in your awn heart, and the approbation of your fellow citizens, is the sincere prayer of
Your obedient servants,
Adolphus Storm [Sterne], B. T. Archer,
W. H. Bynum, S. F. Austin,
John A. Wharton, W. H. Wharton,
A. Hotchkiss, W. G. Logan,
Wm. Bryan, J. Scott,
A. C. Allen, A. J. Yates.
New Orleans, Jan. 17, 1836.
Gentlemen—I acknowledge with the deepest sensibility, and the most unfeigned thanks, the receipt of your letter, and of the testimonials which accompany it.
When I consented to act with the District Attorney in the prosecution of Thompson, I did so with a single regard to the principles of truth, and justice, and liberty, and in the expectation of receiving no other reward than the consciousness of an honorable effort to serve my country on that occasion, to the best of my abilities. Judge then of my surprise, pleasure and pride I have experienced at the thanks, commendation and kindness heaped upon me by you all of whom are gentlemen of the highest respectability for private worth, and many of whom are destined to fill some of the brightest pages of the history of these times; it is an honor of which the most distinguished man of this age might well feel proud.
If the defence of the principles of liberty be, as I feel assured, one of the highest duties of the profession to which I belong, I shall never cease to rejoice that that defence, in connection with the cause of Texas, became a part of my duty on the occasion to which you have adverted. A native American, I cannot but feel the deepest interest in the success of a people, connected with us by the ties of a common origin, and a common regard for equal rights, and bravely struggling for constitutional liberty. God speed the noble work!
Accept, gentlemen, once more my acknowledgements for the testimonials of esteem with which you have honored me, and receive in return my best wishes for your individual happiness, and the welfare of your country.
I am, gentlemen, very respectfully,
Your obedient servant, RANDALL HUNT.
To Messrs. B. T. Archer, etc.
Thus happily and amidst rejoicing, was closed the incident of the Correo and the San Felipe. 24
II. ORGANIZATION OF THE NAVY.
At a mass meeting held at Columbia, August 15, 1835, a committee of fifteen persons was appointed to prepare an address to the municipalities of Texas, asking them for co-operation in a call for a consultation of all Texas. The address requested that each municipality should elect five delegates to meet at Washington, on the 15th of October. On this date only thirty-two members were present; these not being sufficient for a quorum, the meeting was adjourned to November 1. By the 3rd of November fifty-five members had assembled at San Felipe instead of Washington. This consultation was authorized to organize a government, and to provide ways and means for carrying on the war. A provisional government was formed, in which Henry Smith was appointed governor and James W. Robinson lieutenant governor. 25
One of the very first matters receiving the attention of the Consultation was the proper protection of the sea coast. As it was impossible to create a navy in a day, it was determined to issue letters of marque and reprisal; and it was hoped that by having numerous privateers cruising upon the Texas coast, not only would Texas be protected, but the Mexicans would be seriously harassed. It will be sufficient for the purposes of this narrative merely to outline the plans proposed and those finally adopted. On the 31st of October, 1835, the General Council, which was looking after the interests of Texas until the opening of the Consultation, issued letters of marque to several "gentlemen of the lower country." 26 I am of the opinion that these commissions were not used, or were surrendered later, and those authorized by the Consultation accepted in exchange. The first application for "letters" to the Consultation was made on November 8th, 1835, by A. C. Allen, 27 Mr. Allen proposed to "arm, man and fit out a vessel mounting nine guns, and fifty stand of small arms, with fifty volunteers on board and four months provisions, to cruise off our coast as a privateer." The committee to whom this proposal was referred reported: "That they view the protection and defence of our seaboard of the greatest importance in the present crisis;" and recommended that Allen's proposal be accepted; that all authority vested in the Consultation be granted to him to cruise with such vessel as he might think proper to arm and man as a privateer; that a suitable commission be issued to him for that purpose by the executive; and that "the thanks of the convention be tendered to Mr. Allen, for his patriotism and devotion in our struggle for constitutional liberty." Further on it will appear that Mr. Allen made good use of the commission. Some one about this time must have raised the question as to the right of the Consultation to issue letters of marque; for on November 13th we find the following report on the subject from a select committee, of which D. C. Barrett was chairman: 28 "This convention, in adopting the declaration of the seventh of November, have organized this power, and by the provisions of the resolution constituting a provisional government, have vested this authority in the governor and general council; consequently these 29 requires no further action upon the subject by this house during its present session." Article four of the plan of the Provisional Government as finally adopted, authorized the governor "by himself, by and with the consent of the council," to employ the army and navy in "all proper ways" for the defense of the country. 30
The Council which was to assist the governor in the management of the navy was elected by the Consultation from its own membership, one from each municipality. 31 The Consultation adjourned on November 14, and the Governor and Council were now in power. On November 15, D. C. Barrett and A. Houston reported to the Council among other things that, "The Mexican Schooner Montezuma, with another vessel, is cruising in the Gulf. The Vera Cruzana is off Matagorda—more commissions for vessels in the Texas service are requested." 32 This information was derived from a letter from McKinney and Williams to the Consultation, dated the 9th. It has been affirmed that the letter was written to hurry the Council into issuing letters of marque, and that no Mexican vessels were then endangering the Texan coast. If this was the object, it served the purpose. The Vera Cruzana was the vessel that was said to have exchanged shots with the San Felipe as she lay on the beach in Matagorda Bay, as was mentioned in the last chapter.
On the next day, November 16, Governor Smith sent a message to the Council, one paragraph of which is as follows:
I recommend the granting of Letters of Marque and Reprisal; by doing which we cannot only prevent invasion by sea, but we can blockade all the ports of Mexico, and destroy her commerce, and annoy and harrass the enemy more in a few months, than by many years' war, carried on within our own limits. My own mind is satisfied that the whole of our maritime operations can be carried on by foreign capital and foreign enterprise. Already applications for commissions have been made; they are willing to take the hazard, as such afford them every encouragement. 33
The governor here seems optimistic, but much that he anticipated from privateers came to pass. Not all who applied for commissions actually fitted out privateers; perhaps they did not like the restrictions which the commissions imposed. At this time the governor did not seem to think it necessary to form a national fleet; later, as privateers did not materialize according to his hopes, he viewed favorably the creation of a navy to be owned and controlled by Texas.
This message of the governor was referred to the committee on naval affairs, composed of Messrs. Perry, Harris, and West. On November 18 the committee reported themselves in favor of granting letters of marque under the following restrictions: (1) Applicants should be men of character and skill as naval tactictians, and no license should be granted to vessels under eighty tons burden, or carrying less than four twelve pound carronades, "or their equivalent in metal." (2) Cruising should be restricted to the Gulf of Mexico, and prizes made only of vessels sailing under the flag and commission of the central government of Mexico. (3) All prizes should be brought into ports of Texas and adjudicated by competent tribunals; and twenty-five per cent of the prize money should be paid into the public treasury, and the balance to the captors. (4) All persons cruising under license must give good security for the correct performance of the conditions mentioned in their commissions. (5) Commissions were not to be issued for more than six nor for less than three months, and were in any case to cease at the conclusion of war between Texas and Mexico. The report concludes as follows:
Your committee would further most earnestly represent that the establishment of a small Naval force for the security of our extended coast and the protection of our own commerce would seem to them highly necessary and indispensable, and under that conviction would recommend the purchase, arming, and equipping two schooners of twelve, and two schooners of six guns each, to cruise in, and about the bays and harbors of our coast. This arm of the service should be confided and entrusted only to men whose nautical skill and experience are well known and established, and whose activity and efficiency would with greater certainty secure the objects of its creation and organization. 34
Here we have the first official recommendation for a navy to be entirely controlled by the government, and to consist of government vessels.
On the next day, November 19th, the Council took up the report of this committee. The first section was adopted; the second was amended to allow privateers to cruise on the high seas as well as in the Gulf; the third was amended to give the government only five, instead of twenty-five, per cent of the money derived from prizes; the fourth was stricken out; the fifth was agreed to without change; and then the entire report as amended was adopted. 35
On the 19th, the committee on Naval affairs introduced an ordinance "for granting letters of Marque and Reprisal, and for the establishment of a Navy," which with a slight amendment was passed to its second reading. 36 The next day Governor Smith, who was not yet informed of this action, sent in a message in which he said, "Commissions granting letters of Marque and Reprisal, have been earnestly solicited, both by our own citizens and foreigners, and as yet have not been acted on." This subject, with others mentioned in the message, the governor deemed "of the most urgent and vital importance," and he thought that it should receive prompt attention. 37 Three days later, November 22, the Council met on special call of the president, and the ordinance for granting letters of marque and reprisal and for establishing a navy was taken up and read a second time. It was amended by inserting between the words "Texas" and "that" the following, "that the Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Council, shall have power to grant letters of Marque and Reprisal," which was agreed to. On motion the rule in this case was suspended and the ordinance was read the third time and passed finally. 38 It was sent to the governor for his approval, and on the 24th he returned it with the following remarks:
To this bill I am bound to object as it now stands. The privileges granted to privateers seems to me rather unbounded—that this Government takes all the responsibilities without any interest in the captures which may be made.
If prizes are brought into our ports, the Government will be at the expense of adjudication and sale, without remuneration, provided they should be found lawful prizes; if not lawful prizes they will be bound to make remuneration for the act of their commissioned agents, who have brought into our ports prizes which cannot be condemned and sold as such. Besides, I consider, agreeably to the provisions of the ordinance, that privateers would have an unbridled license to roam at large, without being particularly under the control of the Government, and kept within limits calculated to protect our own commerce, and might, in the end, be productive of more injury than good. . . . If they are not commissioned in a manner calculated to promote the public good by annoying our enemies and protecting our own commerce, they might prove injurious to the Government rather than an advantage. . . .
As it respects that part of the bill making provisions for the creation of a Navy. If it should be made out in a separate bill for that purpose, it would appear much better, and would entirely meet my views, as I deem it entirely necessary for the protection of our commerce. . . . I would therefore suggest the propriety of separating the substantive matter of the bill, and introduce one solely for the purposes of creating a Navy on. proper principles, and leaving out the provision for granting letters of marque and reprisal, unless your honorable body may think proper to introduce it in a different shape. I am well aware that no good could result from granting commissions as contemplated by that portion of the bill and as such object to it. 39
On the same day the ordinance was reconsidered. When the question was put, "shall this ordinance now pass? the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding," the vote stood three for passing and eight for rejection, so the ordinance was lost. It was recommitted, on motion, to the standing committee on naval affairs, and Mr. Westover was added to the committee. 40
The next day, November 25, the committee presented an ordinance for granting letters of marque, which was read the first time; and, on motion, the rules were suspended, and it was read a second time. Mr. Hanks moved that the words "twenty per cent" be stricken out, and the words "ten per cent" be inserted, which was agreed to. The rule was further suspended, and the ordinance read a third time and passed. At the same time an ordinance for establishing a navy was introduced and by suspension of the rules hastened through its third reading and passed. 41 On the 26th, these two ordinances were reported enrolled. 42 The governor affixed his signature to the ordinance granting letters of marque and reprisal on the 27th of November, 1835. 43
The ordinance granting letters of marque agreed in substance with the report of the committee on naval affairs as amended by the Council, 44 except that the government's share of prize money was increased in accordance with the governor's suggestion. Hanks's amendment to change that share from twenty per cent to ten per cent must have been overlooked when the ordinance was enrolled; for I have one of the original commissions, 45 and also one of the original copies of the supplementary letter issued a few days later, and the commission places the government's share of prize money at "twenty per cent." A few days afterwards, the ordinance was modified by further action of the governor and Council. Major Samuel Whiting called on the governor and stated that he was on his way to New Orleans, and wished there to fit out some privateers; and, as he did not know whom he would get to command them, or just what vessels he would secure, he wanted some blank commissions. So, on the 29th of November, Governor Smith in a message to the Council recommended the passage of an ordinance authorizing the executive to vest Whiting with authority to fill out the blanks, under special instructions from the executive in conformity therewith. A committee was appointed to draft such an ordinance and reported "an ordinance and decree supplemental to an ordinance and decree for granting letters of marque and reprisal, passed 25th November, 1835," which was laid on the table. On taking the matter up later the Council so amended the ordinance as to grant three blank commissions to Thomas F. McKinney and Silas Dinsmore to be filled for the same purpose; and, on motion of Mr. Hanks, it was further amended so as to provide that ten per cent of the prize money should be paid to the provisional government, anything to the contrary in the previous ordinance notwithstanding. The ordinance was then passed finally. 46 Waiting was allowed six blank commissions; McKinney and Dinsmore three.
Section 2 of this supplemental ordinance is interesting as making the first reference to a flag for the service:
Be it further ordained and decreed, etc., That all vessels sailing under Licenses, as Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which have been, or may hereafter be granted by the Governor and Council, or by the Governor, as provided in this supplementary Ordinance, or under any register or license of this Government, shall carry the flag of the Republic of the United States of Mexico, and shall have the figures 1, 8, 2, 4, cyphered in large Arabics on the white ground thereof. 47
Under the ordinances whose history has been given, privateering commissions were granted as follows: To S. Dinsmore, Jr., and to Robert Potter, who later became secretary of the navy, on December 1; to Ira R. Lewis and other owners of the schooner William Robbins, on December 5; and to Benjamin F. Smith, on December 6. The minutes of the Council for December 6 show that there was also issued, on that day, a blank commission to the committee of safety for Matagorda, to be filled in for the captain of the William Robbins; 48 but this seems to have been a repetition either of the action or of the record concerning the same subject on the previous day. This was the last commission of the kind granted by the Council and Governor Smith. A month later, January 7, 1836, they seem to be sorry they ever granted privateering commissions at all, as the following request would indicate: "On motion of Mr. Barrett it was ordered that the committee on Naval affairs, be requested to examine into the expediency of retracting all letters of marque and reprisal heretofore granted by this Council," and Mr. Barrett was added to the committee for this special case. 49 On January 9 the committee reported progress and asked leave to sit again, which was granted; 50 but nothing further is heard from it. Two days later, January 11, Governor Smith made his severe charges against the Council, and in the excitement caused by his impeachment the subject seems to have been neglected till the Convention met.
The first constitution of the Republic conferred on Congress the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal. 51 A proclamation by President Houston, dated September 15, 1837, declares that all letters of marque and reprisal granted under authority of the Texan government had been recalled, but that the practice of granting them is renewed from the time when the proclamation is made public. This was because John A. Wharton, who had landed at Matamoras under a white flag in order to effect the exchange of his brother, William H. Wharton, then a prisoner in Mexico, had been arrested and detained. 52 On November 2, 1837, a joint resolution was passed by Congress endorsing the action of the president, and requesting him to grant commissions immediately to all applicants who would comply with certain stated conditions. No one availed himself of this opportunity; although the government, by the resolution, reduced its share of the value of prizes to two and one-half per cent. Congress ordered the letters of marque to be advertised in the Telegraph, which was done. 53
I have purposely followed the granting of letters of marque through 1837, in order finally to dispose of the subject. As no action followed the various pronunciamentos, they savor a little of the Mexican style of conducting war. This remark does not apply of course to the first half dozen commissions issued, and which were actually used.
I have written at length on the subject of letters of marque, because such privateers as were fitted out proved of assistance to Texas in the beginning of her struggle, in giving the government and the people a feeling of security from invasion by sea by means of transports convoyed by one of the two or three Mexican vessels then plying in the Gulf. Moreover, the captures made were very helpful at this critical time, and the privateers deserve no little credit for the help they afforded the Republic of Texas in her infancy. Just how great that help was we shall see at the proper time. Another reason for treating this subject at such length, is that it has been almost totally ignored by historians; and in my judgment, having so much to do with the beginnings of the Texas of today, it is deserving of a prominent place in the history of the State. But one writer that deals with Texas has any comment to make on the granting of letters of marque and reprisal, by the struggling colonies. This comment is so inconsistent and odd that I give it. It is characteristic of the man who penned it. His book is valuable for the facts it contains; but when he goes beyond facts his prejudices are so strong against the Texans that his judgment is warped. He says:
The second way in which the Provisional Government tried its hand at robbing was in granting letters of marque and reprisal. It passed two acts with this object, by the first of which (Nov. 27), it was provided that twenty per cent of the proceeds of the prizes should be paid into the treasury; by the second (Nov. 30), the amount was reduced to ten per cent. In thus authorizing individuals to fit out privateers, it could plead the precedents of the best-established and most righteous governments. 54
He might have added that no nation ever had a more righteous cause, or was more in need of the assistance to be had only by the issuance of letters of marque.
As will be recalled, simultaneously with the issuance of an ordinance for granting letters of marque and reprisal, there was also passed on November 25, 1835, an ordinance establishing a navy. It is as follows:
SEC. 1. Be it ordained and decreed, and it is hereby ordained and decreed, by the General Council of the Provisional Government of Texas, That there shall be, and there is hereby established a Navy, to consist of two schooners of twelve guns each, and two schooners of six guns each, with the requisite number of officers, seamen and marines for each schooner; and that the said schooners shall, as soon as practicable, be purchased, armed and equipped for warlike operations, offensive and defensive; and that they be put in commission and fitted out, and ordered into actual service; and the commander and officers of said Navy shall be under the orders and directions of the Governor and Council.
SEC. 2. And be it further ordained and decreed, etc., That the Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Council, shall nominate and appoint to the command of said vessels, officers of good character, courage and ability as naval tacticians. And the said vessels, when so fitted out, manned and equipped for naval operations, shall rendezvous in Galveston Bay, and the commanders thereof report to the Governor for further orders. 55
I shall now relate the history of the various privateers sailing under letters of marque, or authorized by the needs of the hour to act as vessels of war in the defense of Texas. In doing this strict chronological order will be sacrificed to unity, and the history of each vessel will be followed separately to the end. This should avoid confusion, and make a more interesting and readable narrative. This course will be adhered to throughout the work wherever it seems to me best so to do. After the study of the privateers, the purchasing of the national vessels of war, their armament and officers and their various cruises will be considered, each receiving such space as its services entitle it to, and as material for its history has been found. The work of collection has been difficult, but I have found much that throws a new and clearer light on the services rendered by the navy, and its officers and men; and if I can add to their fame and that of their vessels by an impartial relation of the facts, the work I have undertaken will have served its purpose.
III. THE TEXAS PRIVATEERS.
The William Robbins seems to me, after careful search, to have been the second vessel fitted out by Texas, the San Felipe being the first. As noted in chapter I, the William Robbins was expected to accompany the San Felipe to New Orleans about the 10th of November, 1835. On the 13th of November we find her rendering her first service to Texas by transporting a heavy cannon, taken from the wreck of the San Felipe, from Bird Island to the Brazos. 56 Early in November, the Mexican vessels Montezuma and Bravo were reported to be blockading the Texas coast, and the committee of safety of the jurisdiction of Matagorda considered it important that a vessel should immediately be armed and equipped to attack and drive them off. The schooner William Robbins was at that time in the Bay of Matagorda, and by a resolution of the committee Ira R. Lewis and S. Rhoads Fisher were appointed to negotiate the purchase of this vessel for the Texas service. They concluded a bargain for her at thirty-five hundred dollars, but the money was paid by Thomas F. McKinney individually, in order that the government might have the option of buying and using her as a naval vessel. 57 She was placed under the command of William A. Hurd. On Thursday, November 19, 1835, it was reported in Matagorda that a schooner, which was afterwards found to be the Hannah Elizabeth from New Orleans, had been driven ashore at Paso Cavallo, pursued by a Mexican armed vessel. Early the next morning the William Robbins, in command of Captain Hurd, and with some citizens of Matagorda aboard, went to the assistance of the stranded schooner. On the evening of the 21st they anchored at the pilot house at the pass, and thus ascertained that the Mexican vessel had been driven by a norther to sea, and that the Hannah Elizabeth was in possession of a Mexican prize crew. Twenty volunteers from the William Robbins, together with Captain Hurd and three of his crew, were landed, all under the command of Captain S. Rhoads Fisher. When they presented themselves, the commander of the prize, Lieutenant Mateo, of the Bravo, delivered his sword, and surrendered himself and his eleven men as prisoners of war. Don Mateo stated 58 that the Hannah Elizabeth had on board fifteen Americans, and five Mexicans, besides a woman; that it had carried three cannon upon deck mounted, two sixes and a four; that its cargo included eighteen kegs of powder, and muskets and rifles. He said that, when he boarded her in the breakers at 7 p. m. with one boat and eleven men, not a gun was fired, nor the least resistance made; indeed, the cannon and small arms had been thrown overboard. 59 A number of the Americans and two Mexicans who claimed an interest in the cargo, Messrs. Carbajal and Fernando de León, were put on board the Bravo; from which Captain Fisher argues that they were great cowards. For Messrs. Kerr and the two Mexicans who were owners of the cargo, it could be said that their object in throwing over the cannon and muskets was to evade confiscation of the entire cargo for carrying contraband of war. Captain Hurd proposed that the cargo landed from the vessels be taken to Matagorda and sold. Peter Kerr, a passenger on board, who claimed a large amount of the goods, objected and wished to have them sold on the spot that he might purchase. Not knowing how soon the Bravo might return, this was agreed to, and Captain Hurd ordered the sale. As the men were not then prepared with money, their notes were taken, payable when they reached town. Kerr did not want his property sold, and proposed to pay as salvage fifty per cent on invoice cost. This was agreed to, and his part set aside, notwithstanding that he had no evidence of ownership. His part amounted to $2541. The balance of the goods was sold to various members of the expedition, and brought at auction $2843.83. Captain Fisher was publicly appointed agent by Captain Hurd, bills were made out, and notes drawn. On the 6th of December Captain Fisher wrote an account, in accordance with the facts as narrated above, to R. R. Royall, a member of the Council. In this letter Captain Fisher asked the Council to adjudicate the matter; he said that the re-capture of the Hannah Elizabeth made it either a legal prize or the property of the salvors, and that he, was the agent to represent either captors or salvors. It seems, however, that before Captain Fisher's letter reached the Council the governor had received another, severely condemning the whole proceeding. It was written by Col. J. W. Fannin, Jr.
To follow the history further, it will be necessary to return to the proceedings of the General Council. As already noted, a letter of marque was granted to the owners of the William Robbins on December 5, 1835. 60 On December 11, J. W. Fannin, Jr., addressed a letter from Matagorda to his excellency, Governor Henry Smith, and the General Council, 61 which agrees with Rhoads Fisher's statement, and gives further details. He says that one of the Bravo's parties in passing from the schooner in its small boat was capsized in the breakers, and with difficulty got on board again; while their boat drifted ashore and was discovered by a man named Somers and two companions. "They immediately got possession of the boat and with their firearms kept it, and prevented the Mexicans from retaking it, and by this means prevented an escape to the Bravo of the whole party, who had been ordered to rob, and afterwards burn and desert the schooner. In the meantime, a party from this town was got up, and proceeded below with the schooner William Robbins, recently purchased and armed for the public use. S. Rhoads Fisher commanded the marines, and Captain Hurd, recently of the schooner San Felipe, the crew of the William Robbins. . . . When said party landed and marched across, they found Somers and party walking their regular rounds, having kept up a guard for about two days, the lieutenant and crew having previously agreed to surrender, when an officer should appear to receive his sword, and thus save Mexican honor." Fannin then makes insinuating charges against Captains Fisher and Hurd, and claims that the sale was a very dishonest one. After reading this letter, Governor Smith, without hearing anything from the other side, sent a scathing message to the Council, 62 asking it to look into and sift the matter. He referred to those who took part in the transaction as "bone pickers, who are eagle-eyed, ever hovering around to pounce upon their unfortunate prey," and said that he was "well aware of the intrigue, management and downright roguery, which has been universally practiced by the unprincipled speculators."
The letter was referred to a committee, which on December 17 made a report, accompanied by an ordinance to sequester and secure the cargo of the schooner Hannah Elizabeth, and advising that commissioners be appointed with power to seize and sequester the schooner, arrest persons, and suspend the commission of the commander of the William Robbins, if the facts in the case justified such a course, and report to the Council. 63 The report was adopted, and three commissioners were appointed. On December 22, R. R. Royall presented letters on the subject from J. G. Robertson and S. Rhoads Fisher to the Council, 64 which were placed on file. On January 3, 1836, Governor Smith transmitted to the Council the report of Thomas Barnett, one of the commissioners, which was referred to the Committee on State and Judiciary. 65 The next day the committee reported a request that two new commissioners be appointed to act with Barnett in place of the two originally appointed, but their report was tabled. 66 On January 7 it was brought up again and the addition of another commissioner to the three already appointed was recommended. 67 The explanation of this is that some of the commissioners who had been appointed either were not in Texas or would not act. 68
This is the last we hear of the Hannah Elizabeth in the General Council or from the governor. The quarrel between the Council and governor occurred soon after, and the report of the Hannah Elizabeth committee was left on the table. S. Rhoads Fisher, however, did not let the matter drop. He was very angry and wrote Colonel J. W. Fannin, who made the charges against him, a fiercely vituperative letter, charging him with being "incapable of adhering to the first principles of either . . . discretion or truth," and with bringing from Africa slaves whose "native lingo yet betrays their recent importation." The letter contained an implied invitation to Fannin to reply with a challenge. He was, however, too busy with his share in the campaign that was just then opening to turn aside for a private quarrel, and a few weeks later came his death at Goliad. 69
Both Fisher and Fannin were in error; the latter in making his charges without sufficient examination or foundation, the former in taking Fannin to task too severely for the charges. At the worst, they implied nothing but a sharp business speculation, possibly not according to law. While they were disproved by Fisher, he was not justified in going to the length he did in his letter.
I have purposely dwelt at length on the Hannah Elizabeth, the William Robbins, and Captains Hurd and Fisher, because Yoakum, Thrall, the Proceedings of the General Council, 70 and other authorities or sources, mention the charges and even comment in a derogatory way, without mentioning the defense. As a further and final proof that the transaction was not a swindling affair, Captain Hurd was soon after this made an officer by the General Convention of Texas, and placed in command of the government vessel Brutus. 71 S. Rhoads Fisher was made chairman of the naval committee at the same time by the General Convention, and later on was secretary of the navy. No vindication could better testify to their character and proper conduct in the case in question than this elevation at the hands of their fellow-citizens.
Nearly twenty years later Peter Kerr was reimbursed by the "mixed commission" of the United States, for his loss in the Hannah Elizabeth. As the prisoners taken by the Bravo and William Robbins were about equal in number, on December 27, 1835, the Council requested the governor to correspond with the commanding officer at Matamoras, with a view of exchanging. 72 Nothing further is to be found regarding an exchange, but that the United States government claimed the credit of releasing all the prisoners except the captain of the Hannah Elizabeth, through the agency of their consul stationed at Matamoras. 73 The Bravo we do not hear of again until about April, 1836, when she was one of three Mexican vessels which engaged the Texan man of war Independence in a drawn battle. The New Orleans newspapers of July, 1836, mention that she was lost while on her way from Matamoras to Vera Cruz, and all on board perished with the exception of Captain Thompson and two marines.
As to the William Robbins, negotiations were at this time being carried on by the Council for her purchase, with the object of making a national war vessel of her. These negotiations were satisfactorily concluded, and she became the Texan war vessel Liberty. It seems worth while briefly to recount them here. The commissioners to the United States appear to have bought, or to have believed they had bought, the William Robbins (the name of which they changed to the Liberty) while on their way to New Orleans. 74 But there must have been some misunderstanding about the matter; for, on January 3, 1836, a communication was laid before the Council from Thomas F. McKinney, offering the William Robbins for sale to the government, 75 and the Committee on Naval Affairs recommended that an agent be appointed to examine the vessel with a view to purchasing. The report of the committee was adopted by the Council, 76 and on January 5th a decree was passed appointing Edmund Andrews and Wm. P. Harris agents to examine the William Robbins and the Invincible, and providing for their purchase if the report was favorable. 77 Governor Smith approved of the ordinance with the exception of the provision for sending agents to purchase the William Robbins. As she had already been purchased by the commissioners to the United States, acting under the governor's instructions, in pursuance of a decree of the Council, 78 he did not want to create confusion by refusing their purchase of the vessel for the government. 79 Notwithstanding the governor's protest, the ordinance passed without amendment by a constitutional majority on the 8th of January; but Governor Smith never signed or returned it, as is noted in the ordinance itself. 80 This is the last we hear of the purchase of the William Robbins in the Council; for on the 11th of January the Governor made his famous charge against the Council, and everything was sidetracked for his impeachment and trial. However, as the William Robbins became the Liberty, it is fair to presume that the purchase by the commissioners was accepted as legal and binding; and when we later take up the study of the Liberty as a national war vessel, we shall be but completing the history of the William Robbins, privateer.
The third Texan privateer was the Terrible, commanded at different times by Captain John M. Allen, later mayor of the City of Galveston, and by Lieutenant Randolph. The Terrible sailed under a letter of marque procured on the 8th of November, 1835, by A. C. Allen, as already related. 81 Little of her history is known, save that she patrolled the Gulf, and by her watchfulness, if not numerous prizes, made herself helpful to Texas. From the New Orleans papers 82 I find that while cruising she was taken in charge by the United States war vessel Boston, and carried to Pensacola; but the offense with which she was charged having been committed on waters beyond the jurisdiction of the court, she was turned over to John H. Holland, Esq., marshal of this district of Louisiana. These charges were: 1st, that the Terrible was fitted out at New Orleans to wage war against a government with whom the United States was at peace; 2d, that the commander, Lieutenant Randolph, had manifested the intention of committing an act of piracy upon a Sardinian vessel, the Pelícana Mexicana; 3d, that he had sailed from this port without the authorization of the collector. She was discharged and soon afterward proceeded to sea. No particulars are given. From the Telegraph and Texas Register 83 and the brief comment of Lieutenant Tennison, 84 it is noted that under the command of Captain John M. Allen, the Terrible cruised up and down the coast of Mexico. During the cruise the Terrible captured between Sisal and Campeachy, the Mexican sloop Matilda, loaded with dry goods and provisions, and sent it into Galveston to be adjudicated. The last mention of her that I can find is by Tennison, who reports her off the Northeast pass of the Mississippi on the 12th of August, 1836 85 It is probable that when her commission expired she went into the regular coasting trade.
The fourth vessel to sail as a privateer in the Texas service was the Thomas Toby, previously the De Kalb, in the trade service between New Orleans and Texas. Her commander was Captain Hoyt. As in the case of the Terrible, little can be found concerning this vessel. Tennison calls attention to a cruise she made in October, 1836, in the following words:
The Texan privateer Thomas Toby (late De Kalb) Hoyt commander has been cruising off the ports of Vera Cruz, Sisal, Campeachy, Matamoras, and Tampico, since the first week in October, and had captured, about the 12th inst a Mexican schooner, and sent her into Texas. She soon after run in towards the fort at the mouth of the river, and playing her "long tom" upon it for some time, without, however, doing much damage, except frightening the good people of the town nearly out of their wits, who supposing her to be the vanguard of the Texian navy turned out en masse, repaired to the fort and along the river banks determined to repel any hostile movement of the imaginary Texian fleet. The commander of the privateer soon after transmitted a chaleng to the commandant of Tampico requesting a meeting with any armed Mexican vessel which might be in port; but receiving no answer within a reasonable time, she stood off and spoke the Louisiana determined to capture all Mexican property she fell in with. 86
The same writer in another entry says:
The Thomas Toby has just sent into Galveston harbor a very valuable prize, being a large fine brig, strongly built, and capable of being fitted out as a man of war, bearing guns heavier than any now in the Mexican Navy. She was captured on the coast of Campeachy and has on board 200 tons of salt. The Tom Toby when last seen was in hot pursuit of two Mexican schooners; this pursuit will undoubtedly prove successful, as "Fortune ever favors the brave." It is gratifying to reflect that our flag flaunts over one brave band, whose dauntless spirits delight to career with the "stormy petrel," over the tossing billows where danger lights the "Path to glory and to fame." 87
In the early part of February, 1837, a mutiny was reported to have taken place on the Thomas Toby in which the doctor and purser were said to have been murdered. The mutiny was quelled, and the murderers lodged in prison in New Orleans. 88 The secretary of the navy in his report of September 30, 1837, 89 recommended the purchase of the vessel by the government; but before this recommendation could be acted upon, she was lost in the great storm off Galveston, in October, 1837. 90
Many years afterwards two cannon were found near Virginia Point, and identified as those belonging to the Thomas Toby; they were purchased by the Galveston Artillery Company. These particular cannon had been presented to Texas by the ladies of Havana, as the following letter indicates:
War Department, Columbia, Dec. 3rd, 1836. To Messrs. Thomas Toby and Bros.:
Gents. I am instructed by the house of Representatives of the Republic of Texas, to take necessary measures to procure two pieces of cannon (brass) which were presented by the ladies of Havana to the Republic. By a letter received by Messrs. Shriver and Grayson, it appears that they received from you on board the schooner Thomas Toby two brass cannons, and they are under the impression they are the pieces alluded to. You will please inform me as soon as possible if such is the case.
WILLIAM G. COOK, Acting Sec't'y.
The Thomas Toby was named for the government agent of Texas in New Orleans. 91 It was said in a New Orleans paper that the vessel was commanded by Captain Suares. 92 I can find his name mentioned but once, and in no other place, and presume that he must have been the first lieutenant who temporarily had command; it is possible also that this was a typographical error for (Jas.) Sever, who later was lieutenant on the Invincible.
The Flash, Captains Luke A. Falvel, and Marstella, seems to have been the next privateer fitted out for Texas—under just what circumstances, and by whom I am unable to discover. On March 12, 1836, Falvel received his commission as captain in the navy from Robert Potter, and the crew was sworn in. 93 The Flash was ordered to proceed to the south of the Brazos, take on board all the women and children in that section of the country who were fleeing before the Mexican advance, in the "Runaway Scrape," carry them to Morgan's Point, at the head of Galveston Bay, and defend that place in the event of an attack. Upon this occasion the Flash had on board the two famous pieces of artillery known as the "Twin Sisters," which did such execution in the battle of San Jacinto a short time after; and upon arriving at Morgan's Point they were sent up to Harrisburg on the sloop Opie, Lieutenant Aaron Burns, and delivered to the proper officers. A short time after the arrival of the Flash at Morgan's Point the express rider for the Texas Cabinet, Michael McCormick, came in and reported that he was unable to find the Texan army, which was supposed to be on the retreat. Upon receipt of this intelligence, Captain Falvel was ordered to take on board all the families about the bay, and proceed towards Galveston Island. Accordingly there were embarked on board the Flash all the members of the Texan Cabinet who were at the Point, together with their wives and children. Among the number were Bailey Hardeman, secretary of state, his wife and two sons; Colonel Thomas, secretary of the treasury; Colonel Robert Potter, secretary of the navy; Mrs. Burnet, wife of President Burnet, and her son William; Lorenzo de Zavala and his three children. President Burnet declined to leave; and upon Captain Falvel's asking for instructions, he was directed to proceed at once to Galveston Island with the women and children, and defend the place if an attack were made. The next morning the vessel had proceeded down the bay to a point midway between Clopper's Point and Red Fish Bars, when President Burnet came on board in a small boat. On arriving at Galveston Island, the Flash came to anchor off the old Mexican customhouse, which stood near the corner of Avenue A. and Eleventh Street. The next day, April 20, the women and children were landed and the Flash proceeded to Fort Point, in order to defend the place if attacked by sea. During the trip there were about 150 persons on the little vessel. One historian 94 says that on April 26th "Most of the families of refugees were already on the schooner Flash, Captain Falvel, ready to sail for New Orleans, and had orders to sail that morning as Santa Anna was expected every day at the Island. The captain declined to attempt to cross the bar until there was a change of wind, and while waiting, the messenger, Col. Calder, arrived with the news of the battle of San Jacinto; this victory put a quietus on the terror stricken inhabitants of Texas who were fleeing the country." In May, 1837, the Flash was reported stranded on shore. 95 Whether she got off at this time and later suffered another accident, I cannot find out; but it is possibly to the same mishap that another writer 96 refers when he says that the Flash, under Captain Marstella, was lost at the west end of the island (Galveston), her captain having mistaken San Luis pass for the entrance to Galveston harbor. Among the special laws passed at the the extra session of the Tenth Legislature, number twenty-three, there is an appropriation of "$5022.21 to Luke A. Falvel for services as sailing master in the navy of the late Republic of Texas, and authorizing the comptroller to pay the same in the new issue of Confederate Treasury notes." 97 This is the last item that I have been able to obtain relative to the Flash and her commander.
The next armed vessel which assisted Texas, was the steamboat Ocean, Captain Grayson, the same who, as lieutenant, was left in charge of the San Felipe, as related in chapter I. This vessel was paid for mainly by the aid of subscriptions of citizens of Mobile, her equipment costing some five to eight thousand dollars. 98 It was on board the Ocean that the notorious H. A. Hubbell and the volunteers from New Orleans arrived on June 3 at Velasco, 99 and had Santa Anna taken to shore, as he was about to depart for Mexico, in conformity with the treaty entered into by him and the Texas government. In July, 1836, we find her again giving help to the Texas cause. The schooner Brutus was at Matagorda, blockaded by the Mexican brig of war Vencedor del Alamo, and she was expected to be relieved "by the sch's Invincible, Union, and other vessels that had gone there in tow of the steamboat Ocean, for the purpose of capturing the brig. The steamboat was laden with volunteers, and for her protection there was raised a breastwork of cotton bales. 100 She was successful in rescuing the Brutus from her perilous position. As to what became of her later on, there are no data.
This finishes the last of those vessels that served as regularly commissioned privateers, and that can properly be termed Texan vessels, acting as a navy for Texas until her vessels of war were fully prepared to defend her coast. There were other vessels that aided Texas, notably the Julius Caesar, Captains Lightburn and Moore; the Champion; the Flora; the Yellow Stone, commanded by Captain Grayson; and other vessels that acted as transports for munitions of war and provisions, and in bringing volunteers to Texas. Since, however, their registers and papers emanated from the United States Government, and they were ostensibly in the trade between the United States and Texas, they can not be given a distinct place in a history of the Texas Navy. Nor did they win any great victory; but in the formative days of the new Republic the value of these small privateers to the government of Texas, in captures, and in protection of the coast was incalculable, and deserves honorable mention. Let not Texas in her present greatness despise the day of small things.
IV. NAVAL VESSELS BOUGHT AND EQUIPPED.
The navy of Texas became a reality in January and February, 1836, when four vessels of war were purchased. These were the Liberty, Invincible, Independence, and Brutus; and during 1836 and 1837 they comprised the total strength of the navy. The Liberty was the rechristened William Robbins, and we have already seen how the government acquired it. 101 At the same time that the purchase of the William Robbins was authorized (January 3) the naval committee of the General Council reported that "Messrs. McKinney and Williams, through Mr. Williams, have made a purchase of, and equipped a schooner of about one hundred and twenty-six tons burthen, adapted to the object of protecting our commerce against the enemy. This vessel, called the 'Invincible,' is now in the Bay of Galveston, and is generously offered to the Government of Texas, by the owners, at first cost and charges." The committee were of the opinion that the protection of our own commerce, the destruction of that of the enemy, and the transportation of our supplies by water were of the highest importance, and made the possession of an adequate naval force indispensable; they therefore advised that "a suitable agent be appointed to examine the schooner 'Invincible,' and her equipments, and if suited to the objects of cruising in the Gulf, or about our coasts that an immediate purchase be made of the vessel." The report was adopted, and an ordinance making it effective was passed on January 5, 1836. 102 The same ordinance also adopted the United States naval regulations for Texas.
As has already been stated, Governor Smith did not believe that the Council should create confusion by meddling with a power delegated to the commissioners to the United States, and on January 6, he asked for the particulars respecting the Invincible. 103 This was the beginning of the quarrel between the governor and the Council; and so far as it concerns the Invincible we must follow it. On the 8th a committee to which had been referred the governor's message asking for information, reported that the ordinance which was now in his hands would furnish all the information necessary. At a special evening session the same day Mr. Barret offered the following resolutions:
Whereas, the Mexican sloop of war, Montezuma, is now reported to be in the bay of Galveston, and Texas is not in full possession of any vessel of sufficient force to meet her in action, and whereas the schooner Invincible is offered to the government of Texas, by Messrs. McKinney and Williams, upon terms which Government accepts, therefore,
Be it resolved, that a register of said schooner Invincible be made as the property of the Government, under he directions of the Governor, who is hereby authorized to execute the same, and give a duplicate thereof into the hands of Thomas F. McKinney, as evidence of the ownership of said vessel, and to retain the other on the files of the execuive office.
Be it further resolved, that the governor is advised and authorized to issue to Thomas F. McKinney, a letter of appointment as commander of the schooner Invincible, as a national vessel of war, removable at the pleasure of the Governor and Council, and instruct said McKinney to take command of said vessel of war, and man and provide her for a criuse against the enemy, within the Gulf of Mexico or any of its waters, until further ordered. 104 . . .
The resolution was adopted, and a committee of two instructed to wait on the governor with the purpose of immediately carrying it into effect. Just what took place between this committee and the governor has never transpired, but the governor was greatly angered against the Council, as his message will prove. He evidently gained the impression that the Council was trying by foul means to drive him to do its will regardless of his own opinions. It will be recalled that he was hurried into granting letters of marque by the report that the Montezuma was endangering the Texan coast. 105 It was either a strange coincidence, thought the governor, that just as another law relative to the navy was being passed the Montezuma should re-appear, or that the men who wished to pass the bill recalled their former success in shouting "the wolf! the wolf!" and again raised the cry with the expectation of "railroading" the measure through. This must have been Governor Smith's belief when he wrote the message quoted in part below:
. . . You urge me by resolutions to make appointments, fit out vessels, as government vessels, registering them as such, appointing landsmen to command a naval expedition by making representations urgent in their nature, and for what. I see no reason but to carry into effect by the hurried and improvident acts of my department, the views of your favorite object by getting my sanction to an act disorganizing in its nature, and ruinous in its effects. Instead of acting as becomes the counsellors and guardians of a free people; you resolve yourselves into low, intriguing, caucussing parties, pass resolutions without a quorum, predicated on false premises, and endeavor to ruin the country by countenancing, aiding and abetting marauding parties, 106 and if you could only deceive me enough, you would join with it a piratical cooperation. You have acted in bad faith, and seem determined by your acts to destroy the very institutions which you are pledged and sworn to support. . . . Mexican like, you are ready to sacrifice your country at the shrine of plunder. . . . Base corruption has crept into your councils, men who, if possible, would deceive their God. . . . The appointment and instructions founded on the resolutions predicated on false premises, shall now be tested. I will immediately countermand the order made out in such haste, and as you say, and as her register says, the armed vessel Invincible is a Government vessel, I will immediately order a suitable officer of the Government to go and take charge of her in the name of the Government, and hold her subject to my order. And if that be refused, I will immediately recall her register by proclamation to the world. I would further suggest to you that our foreign agents have been commissioned and specially instructed to fill out our navy, and procure the proper officers and crews; and unless they can be certainly informed of the absolute purchase in time, to prevent their purchase of a similar one, the purchase so made by you, shall never be ratified or become binding on this Government; because you would do the Government serious injury by meddling with matters which you have put out of your power by special appointment. 107
The governor closed his message by declaring the Council adjourned until March 1, and said that until then he would contrive to discharge his duties as commander-in-chief of the army and navy.
This message, naturally, created a sensation. The Council referred it to a committee which on the 11th reported resolutions deposing the governor and appointing Lieutenant-Governor James W. Robinson to take his place. The resolutions were adopted and an address to the people was issued by the Council presenting its side of the quarrel, but we will leave the matter here and resume the history of the Invincible. 108
Lieutenant-Governor Robinson, in his message to the Council, January 14, 1836, said, "As a necessary and important measure that stands intimately connected with the defense of the country, and one to which I invite your attention, is the creation and due organization of a corps of marines, and as you have purchased two vessels for the public service, and shortly expect two more, to be purchased by your agents abroad, it would be very desirable to have that corps organized, and ready for service, with as little delay as possible." 109 On February 3, Governor Smith, who never acknowledged being deposed, issued to Thomas R. Jackson a warrant to demand certain papers from the Council, among them one showing "the terms on which the armed vessel Invincible has been tendered and accepted by the Government." 110 This is the last utterance of Governor Smith or the General Council relative to the Invincible and the navy.
On March 1 the General Convention superseded the General Council and brought order out of chaos. After the declaration of Texan independence, on March 2, 1836, the Convention turned to the formation of a constitution, and on the 9th a draft was reported which touched the subject of the navy as follows: Congress was empowered to "grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water," to "provide and maintain a navy, to raise and support armies, and to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;" the president was declared to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy; and judges of the supreme and inferior courts were given exclusive admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. 111
Thursday, March 10, Mr. Carson stated "that he had received information of the arrival of the Brutus and Invincible, at the mouth of the river Brazos, destined for the service of the Republic of Texas; and that it was important to commission those vessels; he would, therefore, move that a select committee on naval affairs be raised, to inquire into and report in relation thereto. This was decided in the affirmative, and the president appointed Messrs. Potter, Everett, and Fisher of Matagorda." 112 On Sunday the 13th, the chairman appointed Messrs. Carson and Fisher, of Matagorda, a committee "to forward commissions, etc., to our naval commanders;" and the same day Mr. Carson introduced a resolution "That a standing committee of five on naval affairs be appointed to draw up and forward all necessary instructions and orders for the government of the officers of our navy." This was adopted; and the president appointed Messrs. S. Rhoads Fisher, Hamilton, Zavala, Gazley, and Carson. The next day Mr. Carson resigned from the committee and was replaced by Mr. Waller. At the same time the chairman, Fisher, reported that they had appointed and commissioned the following persons officers in the naval service of Texas, to-wit: "George Wheelright, Captain to schooner Liberty; Charles Hawkins, Captain to schooner Independence[;] Jerimiah Brown, captain to schooner Invincible; William A. Hurd, Captain to schooner Brutus; Arthur Robertson, Captain of marines." The report stated also that the committee had forwarded letters of instructions to said officers. 113 As this is our introduction to the two vessels Brutus and Independence, and as nothing further is to be found in the government proceedings concerning their purchase, we must seek elsewhere for the information, as well as for additional matter relative to the Invincible.
Besides the Liberty, Independence, and Brutus, the records of the period mention two other vessels in the government service. One of these, the Cayuga, was a small steamboat, commanded by Captain William P. Harris, and carrying two light guns. Apparently it did not belong to the government, but was impressed by President Burnet and ordered to the defence of Galveston Island, April 28, 1836. 114 After this emergency no more is heard of it. The other was the Correo. This was a Mexican vessel captured by the Brutus, August 12, 1837. She was apparently attached to the navy during 1837-1838, and in the State Library there is a list of her officers, but I have been unable to find that she performed any definite service for the country.
The Invincible was purchased in Baltimore by McKinney and Williams for $12,613.02, and they charged the government of Texas twelve and one-half per cent commission. 115 Besides this, General Thomas J. Green paid out of his private funds a considerable sum to fit her out, and William Bryan and Edward Hall, respectively general agent and purchasing agent for Texas in New Orleans, paid out $5,626.68 for the same purpose; making the total cost of the Invincible nearly $20,000. 116 At this time Thomas F. McKinney held a commission as her commander; but it was merely a nominal command, for he made no cruise. As already stated, the Invincible was of one hundred and twenty-five tons burthen, built in Baltimore, and originally intended for the African slave trade. She was a very fast sailer, slight in her construction, "clipper built," drawing about twelve feet of water, and originally calculated to sustain a battery. She carried two medium eighteens on pivots amidship, with two nines and four six-pounders in the waist, and was intended to have a crew of seventy. The Liberty, though smaller, being of some sixty tons burthen, was of stouter construction, carried four guns of small caliber, and was an ordinary sailer. The Brutus, of one hundred and twenty-five tons burthen, was a slow sailer, and carried eight guns. The Independence was of about the same description as the Brutus. It was fitted out by General Green in New Orleans, largely from his private funds, at the same time that he helped to equip the Invincible. The Brutus had been intended for the Texan service as early as December, but her departure was delayed by the petition of twenty-eight underwriters of New Orleans to United States District Attorney Carleton, claiming that she was being "armed with six cannon, and one large one on a pivot for the purpose of capturing Mexican vessels, which, with their cargoes are principally insured by the underwriters of this city." Carleton replied deploring the fact that they did not furnish him with affidavits and the names of witnesses in order that he might have something more substantial than rumors upon which to base legal proceedings, and promising to enforce the law when provided with the necessary evidence that a breach of it was contemplated. 117 After the Brutus had been offered to the Texan Government she was detained in New Orleans a while; but some time between January 23 and February 15, 1836, she arrived at Matagorda. This appears from a report made by the advisory committee of the Council to Acting Governor J. W. Robinson, on February 15, 1836. 118 The Independence was fitted out by the New Orleans agents at the same time as the Invincible, Brutus, and Liberty. Her cost was $5000 for the vessel, and some $5000 for outfitting. 119
Having given as complete a history of the purchase and equipment of these vessels as our material permits, we will now follow each vessel in her various cruises, and note such events as are worthy of a place in a history of the navy of Texas. To the Liberty, which was the first vessel bought for the government, and whose career was the shortest and in its inglorious ending the saddest of all the fleet, will be devoted the following chapter.
1. The State Elections of 1866.
The last day of the Constitutional Convention had been given over largely to preparations for the approaching elections. About two weeks before adjournment a caucus of the radicals had tendered to Hamilton the nomination for the governorship, which he declined. Thereupon a new ticket, headed by Ex-governor E. M. Pease and B. H. Epperson, was made out and published with a declaration of the principles for which this party had contended in the Convention. Their opponents, after some hesitation on the part of the ultra-secessionists, centered upon Throckmorton, president of the Convention, and Geo. W. Jones, delegate from Bastrop in the same body. In a public letter, April 2, announcing their candidates, the conservatives endorsed the president's policy for the restoration of the State governments, asserted their opposition to the negro-political-equality policy of the radicals in Congress, and declared that the Texas radicals were preparing "to aid and abet Stevens, Sumner, and Phillips . . . . . . in the establishment of a consolidated, despotic government." 121 The tickets thus put out did not, however, remain intact. Epperson, although always a strong Union man, refused to align himself with the radicals and was finally replaced by Lindsay; while several of the conservative nominees either withdrew or declined to run. Changes continued to be made in both tickets up to the eve of the election.
From the outset the canvass was bitter. The radicals, their defeats in the Convention still rankling, charged that their opponents were unwilling to abide by the true results of the war; that they refused even to accept the president's policy which they professed to endorse and support—in proof of which it was pointed out that the Convention had fallen short of the president's recommendations; in fact, that they were as rebellious as in 1861; and that their real object was to get possession of the State offices and once more work into control of the national government in order to establish there the principles overthrown in the "rebellion," or failing in that, to reopen the "rebellion" at a convenient opportunity, and meanwhile to drive all Union men out of the State and nullify the emancipation of the negroes. 122 On the other hand, it was charged upon the radicals that, being disappointed—first, in the hope of prolonging the provisional government indefinitely; next, in securing control of the Convention—and having little chance of securing a new lease of power at the coming election, they were preparing to desert President Johnson whom they still professed to admire and endorse, and to align themselves with the ultra-radical element in Congress in its evident intention of re-establishing military rule over the South and enforcing political equality between whites and negroes. While the conservatives were stigmatized as "disloyal" and "rebellious" because of their hostility to the Civil Rights and Freedmen's Bureau Acts, they accused their antagonists of being the real disunionists because they supported the "destructive, unconstitutional legislation" of Congress and favored delay in the restoration of the State to its normal place in the Union.
Probably there was as much truth in these charges as in those of the average heated political campaign. It is certainly true that the conservatives were unwilling to concede more changes in the characters and relations of the State and Federal governments than they would be obliged to, and it seems true that their admiration of the president at this time was closely related to and in direct proportion to their fear of the congressional radicals; but to confuse their hatred of the latter with their attitude toward the government, or to assert that desire for political power and influence was tantamount to rebellion, or that they were preparing a crusade against Union men and a renewal of rebellion was the sheerest nonsense, and beyond the threats of a few braggarts and ruffians there seems to be no foundation for the charge. Surely nothing disloyal could be found in the utterances of their candidate, Throckmorton. In the course of one of his speeches, while discussing the relations of the people to the government, he said, "The president may be defeated in his policy; other laws equally as objectionable as the civil rights statute may be enacted; the Northern people may refuse to believe in our sincerity and loyalty; we may be kept out of the halls of legislation and yet be required to meet our portion of the public burdens, . . . we may continue to be misrepresented and traduced; troops may be quartered among us where there is profound peace and the frontier remain unprotected. . . . But if these things happen it is our duty to bear them patiently. Whatever law is passed, however odious it may be, it should be obeyed by us as long as it is the law of the land. Let us by our our conduct and example sustain the majesty and supremacy of the law." 123 Nor is it entirely true that the radicals had as yet embraced all of the doctrines of Thaddeus Stevens or of Wendell Phillips. Pease declared that he was opposed to complete negro suffrage because the blacks were not intelligent enough to vote; but, if the United States Government should require it, he would be willing to concede the suffrage to such negroes as could read and write understandingly rather than have Texas remain under provisional government, and he claimed that this was the view of the majority of his party. 124 Nevertheless, it soon became apparent that that party was really in alliance with the enemies of the president. As the conservatives had found a natural ally in Mr. Johnson, their opponents had been brought more and more into dependence upon the Congressional radicals; and, as every day it became more evident that the conservatives would carry the State, while in the North the ultimate decision in the great problem before the nation was to be with Congress rather than the president, an alliance with the former offered advantages and promises of an exceedingly seductive character. Long before the date of the election the alliance was made known. Governor Hamilton's attorney general, Alexander, had written to the leaders in Washington beseeching them to delay restoration as long as possible, and the correspondence found its way into the papers. 125 Hamilton, himself, after a brief but stormy campaign tour, turned over the duties of his office to Bell, the secretary of state, and hurried north to enlist in the campaign against the president, where his violent denunciations both of Johnson and the people of Texas won him fame in the North and increased hatred in his own State. Pease himself had been personally popular and conducted his campaign with characteristic moderation; but the anti-radical feeling was too strong, and the conservatives were overwhelmingly victorious in the elections. The Throckmorton ticket was elected by an immense majority, 49,277 to 12,168 votes. At the same time the amendments to the constitution were ratified by 28,119 to 23,400 votes. This comparatively small majority may have been due to the fact that the salaries of the State officials generally had been raised.
2. Inauguration of the New Government.
As soon as it was positively known that the conservative ticket was elected, the secretary of state, Judge Bell, telegraphed President Johnson for instructions, expressing the opinion that the provisional officers should retain control until the president should consent to the installation of those newly elected. His course received the approval of Mr. Johnson, who, however, gave no immediate indication of the action he expected to take. In the meantime it was rumored that the conservatives would not be allowed to take possession of the State offices, and that the provisional government would be continued. A number of the radicals had gone North and it was feared that their representations as to the disloyalty of the victorious party might have a disquieting effect upon the government at Washington. Pease denied that there was any truth in the rumor, but a number of anxious dispatches were sent by Throckmorton and his friends to assure Mr. Johnson that the newly-elected officials were "alike the friends of the president's policy and lovers of the Union of the States."1
The Eleventh Legislature assembled at Austin on August 6. The votes for governor were counted and Throckmorton was declared duly elected; and, although no word had come from Washington, arrangements were made for the inauguration. On the morning of August 9, the governor and lieutenant governor-elect were inaugurated in the presence of the two houses of the Legislature, the officers of the provisional government, several officers of the United States army, and a large concourse of citizens. Four days later a telegram was received from the president by the provisional secretary of state, ordering that the care and conduct of affairs in Texas be turned over to the constituted authorities chosen by the people. Governor Throckmorton and his subordinates were at once yielded possession and entered upon the discharge of their duties. The military authorities in the State received orders to render the same support to the newly-organized authorities as had been afforded to the provisional government. On August 20 President Johnson issued a proclamation declaring that the insurrection in Texas was at an end, and that peace, order, tranquility, and civil authority existed throughout the whole of the United States. 126
Nevertheless, the outlook for the new state government was not auspicious. In his inaugural address the Governor had described the situation in graphic language:
"At a time like the present when we have just emerged from the most terrible conflict known to modern times, with homes made dreary and desolate by the heavy hand of war; the people impoverished, and groaning under public and private debts; the great industrial energies of our country sadly depressed; occupying in some respects the position of a State of the Federal Union, and in others, the condition of a conquered province exercising only such privileges as the conqueror in his wisdom and mercy may allow; the loyalty of the people to the general government doubted; their integrity questioned; their holiest aspirations for peace and restoration disbelieved, maligned and traduced, with a constant misapprehension of their most innocent actions and intentions; with a frontier many hundreds of miles in extent being desolated by a murderous and powerful enemy, our devoted frontiersmen filling bloody graves, their property given to the flames or carried off as booty, their little ones murdered, their wives and daughters carried into a captivity more terrible than death, and reserved for tortures such as savage cruelty and lust alone can inflict; unprotected by the government we support, with troops quartered in the interior where there is peace and quiet; unwilling to send armed citizens to defend the suffering border, for fear of arousing unjust suspicions as to the motive; with a heavy debt created before the late war, and an empty treasury; with an absolute necessity for a change in the laws to adapt ourselves to the new order of things, and embarrassments in every part of our internal affairs, . . . the surroundings are uninviting, the future appears inauspicious." 127
3. The Eleventh Legislature.
Comparatively few members of the Convention returned to the Legislature. Many of the conservatives from the earlier body had been elected to various State offices, while the radicals had been retired to private life. Only a few of the latter, chiefly from the German counties in the southwest were successful in the elections, and the membership of the Legislature, therefore, was overwhelmingly conservative. But now that the power of the radicals was removed, the discord in the conservative ranks at once became apparent. The recent alliance between the "conservative Unionists," headed by the governor, and the secessionists had never been more than a mariage de convenance, and neither party was willing to yield to the other the control of the State. In the organization of the House the secessionists were defeated in the selection of the Speaker, Nat M. Burford of Dallas county being elected over Ashbel Smith of Harris county by 39 to 30 votes.
Of the many tasks which confronted the Legislature, the one which demanded the most careful handling was the selection of two United States senators, and it was precisely in this that the conservative party laid itself open to the attack of its enemies. Of the eight or ten candidates whose names were submitted, four were clearly in the lead. These were O. M. Roberts, David G. Burnet, B. H. Epperson, and John Hancock. According to agreement one was to be chosen from Eastern Texas, the other from the western part of the State. Hancock and Epperson had both been union men throughout the war, 128 but sin