In the summer of 1835 James H. C. Miller and Edward Gritten strove earnestly, each in his own way, to check the increasing misunderstanding and friction between Texas and Mexico which culminated in the Texas Revolution. For this history has ill requited them, characterizing the former as a traitor and the latter as a spy. 120 Of Miller this judgment is too harsh, and of Gritten it is entirely unfounded.
Little, in fact, is known of Miller. John Henry Brown with unnecessary fervor congratulates himself for his inability “to name the State of the Union that gave him birth,” because “the commonwealth is not responsible for such involuntary stains upon its escutcheon.” 121 He settled at Gonzales, in De Witt's colony, between 1831 and 1835. 122 He was a physician; and, from the fact that on at least one occasion he commanded a party of old settlers in an expedition against the Indians, 123 one might conclude that he was a man of recognized ability and consequence.
In considering the charge against Miller two things should, in justice to him, be borne in mind: (1) that upon settlement in Texas colonists, constructively at least, swore allegiance to the government and became Mexican citizens; and (2) that in the spring of 1835 the Texans were sharply divided on the question of their future relations with Mexico. A small, but very active, party wanted to establish the independence of Texas; while the great majority of the people desired to continue the existing relations, but had not yet made up their minds what to do in case of a radical alteration of the republican constitution of the country, which Santa Anna showed some signs of tampering with. A few had reached the conviction that until it became clearly evident that the proposed changes would work a real hardship upon them it was their duty to submit. Miller and his fellow-townsmen of Gonzales were of this opinion, and so, it might be remarked in passing, was the staunch patriot, David G. Burnet. 124 In March and April some of the men who favored secession from Mexico became involved in what their contemporaries regarded as a questionable land deal with the legislature of Coahuila and Texas; and when the general Congress quashed the sale, and Santa Anna dispersed the legislature, they sought to alarm the colonists by declaring that those acts were only the beginning of a comprehensive policy of oppression. It is possible that they sincerely believed this; for, having been recently in the interior, they were better informed of the threatening political outlook than those who remained at home. Many colonists, however, believed that private motives prompted their warnings and gave them little attention. Toward the end of June some military correspondence was intercepted at San Felipe which seemed to disclose a plan on the part of the government to throw an overwhelming army into Texas, and this, seeming to confirm the dire prophecies of the war party, produced a momentary flurry of general excitement during which William B. Travis, with a small company, attacked and captured a Mexican garrison at Anahuac, commanded by Captain Tenorio. But shortly afterwards the government explained that the object of sending troops to Texas was to establish the custom houses and protect the country from the Indians, and this assurance enabled the conservatives to regain the ascendancy, so that by the middle of July they were making vigorous efforts to prove the loyalty of Texas to the government. Public meetings passed pacific resolutions, and a representative committee of delegates from San Felipe, Columbia, and Mina drew up an address and appointed two commissioners to lay it before General Cos at Matamoras with assurances of fidelity to their adopted country.
This was the situation when, on July 25, Miller wrote to J. W. Smith, of Bexar, suggesting that if Colonel Ugartechea would now demand the arrest of the foremost agitators, the colonists would probably give them up. The letter was in part as follows:
. . . All here is in a train for peace, the war and speculating parties are entirely put down, and are preparing to leave the country. They should now be demanded of their respective chiefs —a few at a time—at first, Johnson, Williamson, Travis, and Williams,—and perhaps that is enough. Capt. Martin once revolutionary, is now, thank God, where he should be, in favor of peace and his duty, and by his influence in a good degree has peace been restored. But now they should be demanded—the moment is auspicious. The people are up. Say so, and oblige one who will never forget his true allegiance to the supreme authorities of the Nation and who knows that until they are dealt with, Texas will never be at quiet. Travis is in a peck of trouble. Dr. James B. Miller disclaims his act in taking Anahuac and he feels the breach.
Don Lorenzo de Zavala is now in Columbia trying to arouse [the people] etc have him called for and he also will be delivered up. Williamson, Johnson, and Baker are now on a visit to him, and no doubt conspiring against the Government.
Fail not to move in this matter, and that quickly, as now is the time. 125
These names demand a word of explanation. Colonel Ugartechea, for whom the letter was ultimately intended, was the superior military officer in Texas; F. W. Johnson and S. M. Williams had figured prominently in the recent land speculations; Travis had led the assault on Anahuac; R. M. Williamson had just delivered a war-like fourth of July oration; Mosely Baker was an outspoken member of the war party; and de Zavala was a political refugee from Mexico. The order had already been given for the arrest of de Zavala, and on August 1, before he heard of Miller's letter, General Cos sent from Matamoras a demand for the surrender of Travis. 126 It thus appears that Miller was advising little that the authorities were not already determined to do. He did, however, encourage Ugartechea to act more promptly than he might otherwise have done, for on July 31 the latter issued an order for the arrests. 127
Miller's own statement of his motives as avowed in the letter may, I believe, be frankly accepted. He took his oath of allegiance seriously, he was a Mexican citizen; he, with the majority of the colonists, desired nothing more ardently than peace; he was convinced that the country could never be tranquil until the agitators were suppressed; and therefore, in his own mind, both as a loyal Mexican and as a well-wisher of his fellow-Texans, he was justified in urging the measures which he thought would most effectually accomplish that end. That he misjudged the means for doing this is beside the mark.
The colonists refused to make the arrests, public opinion changed during August and September, and on October 2 hostilities began with the battle of Gonzales. Miller's letter had been no secret, and the change in popular feeling brought condemnation upon him. This he so keenly felt that, in October, he published a long article, explaining his motives and pleading for justice. 128 After briefly reviewing recent political conditions, he declared that in the beginning the war party was composed largely of the men who had been interested in the land speculations, and hence the inference was natural “that their zeal and patriotism had to excite them something of a private nature.”
... And indeed the whole country from one end to the other with the exception of a very limited number of individuals, seemed resolved on peace on any honorable terms, and expressed full confidence in the good faith of the Government in its relations with us. ... With the people, I thought it [the war party] was trying to wheedle us with fancied dangers. ... When I say, with the people, I say what I mean, for I heard hundreds of persons and in all parts of the country, say, that if they took their rifle into hand, at all, it would be to go and take the agitators of the public peace (some confined themselves to the speculators) and deliver them to the Government,—and I may safely appeal to the generous minded people of Texas, whether at that time nine-tenths of them did not at least feel if they did not speak this.
Miller went on to say that several persons, both private citizens and public officials, knew and approved the contents of his letter; that they expected Ugartechea's order for the arrests by a particular mail, and had made preparations to execute it. Some of the colonists interpreted his advice to Ugartechea to call for a few at a time as implying that in the end he wished many to be arrested. This, Miller explained, was entirely wrong. He hoped, on the contrary, by naming a few men, whom Ugartechea was already determined to demand, to divert his attention from all others. He acknowledged that his personal relations with some of the men named were not cordial, but denied that he had been actuated by any motive of private revenge. He believed that the government now had ruinous designs upon Texas, and declared that in the present circumstances he would be the last man to advocate the surrender of any one to the authorities.
This is the whole of Miller's case. He opposed the war party, and placed himself squarely on the side of the government. A less honest or a more politic man might have avoided such an unequivocal declaration of principles; but want of diplomacy can scarcely be regarded as treason, or candor as the mark of a spy. It is natural enought that in the heat of conflict his attitude should have been misunderstood; but it is cause for regret that writers of our history have not been more judicial than his contemporaries.
Miller's end is as vague as his beginning. Brown declares 129 that he left the country in 1835, never to return. The records of the Land Office do not show that he ever acquired any land in Texas, and it is probable that his sojourn here was brief.
From July, 1835, to October, 1836, the record of Gritten is fairly complete, and it is one of useful and even honorable service to Texas. He is said to have been an Englishman, long a resident in Mexico, and to have first visited Texas in 1834 as secretary to Colonel Almonte, who was in that year commissioned by the government to make a statistical report on Texas. 130 Yoakum adds the information that he was the brother-in-law of J. M. Carbajal, a respected citizen of De León's colony, in the present county of Victoria.
It is just possible that Gritten remained in Texas after the departure of Almonte. At any rate, a letter of his in the Bexar Archives indicates that he had been some time in the country before the beginning of July, 1835. 131 During July and August he devoted himself unsparingly to the task of restoring confidence between the colonists and the government, and apparently held for a while some sort of commission from Ugartechea to report on the state of public opinion in the settlements. An extract from the letter mentioned above and another found in a dispatch of Colonel Ugartechea to General Cos afford all the information that is obtainable on this point. Gritten wrote on July 5 to Ugartechea: “According to what Dr. Miller has told me, you want me to give you a description of public opinion in this district; and I shall also indicate the rumors that circulate here. This I do, thinking to render a service to my country. And I shall be happy if I am able to avert in this part of the republic fighting and blood-shed, which would be regretable as much for the nation in general as for Texas in particular.” On the 7th, Ugartechea writing of Gritten to General Cos said: “I have allowed to this individual, who has constantly behaved himself with loyalty and good faith, a soldier to accompany him to San Felipe” to investigate the imprisonment of a Mexican courier and the seizure of his dispatches. The half dozen long letters which within the next two weeks Gritten wrote to Ugartechea are among our most valuable sources for the history of the period, and without the support of other evidence confute the charge against him of treachery to the interests of the colonists. 132 They tell Ugartechea that the great majority of the Texans are peaceable, law-abiding Mexican citizens, and urge the adoption of conciliatory measures by the authorities, while at the same time saying plainly that the introduction of a large body of soldiers into Texas would unite all parties against the government. One extract will suffice to illustrate the burden of Gritten's advice: “With benevolent measures the passions of the people may be calmed, which could not be done by force, . . . This municipality [Gonzales] and that of Mina are working as hard as they can to banish the bad impression caused by the lack of confidence. . . . I do not doubt that all these steps will be successful; and I intend for the good of this country to second them.”
Through Gritten's influence the municipality of Gonzales on July 7 passed resolutions of loyalty to Mexico, 133 and on the 17th the joint committee from San Felipe, Columbia, and Mina, referred to above, chose him as one of the two commissioners to wait on General Cos and explain the pacific attitude of the mass of the colonists. The other commissioner was D. C. Barrett. At the very outset of their journey to Matamoras they encountered a courier from Colonel Ugartechea ordering the arrests already mentioned. Realizing the effect that this might have on the people, they detained the courier at Gonzales, while Gritten hastened on to Bexar and tried to persuade Ugartechea to revoke his order. The latter not only refused to do this, but assured Gritten that it would be useless to talk to Cos of loyalty until the colonists manifested the sincerity of their protestations by surrendering the offenders. Some days later a letter from Cos confirmed this prophecy, and the commissioners went no further. Barrett returned to his home at Mina, and Gritten remained at Bexar, where he continued to act as a mediator between Ugartechea and the colonists. 134
From this time on Gritten identified himself with the Texans. On July 28 he had technically become a colonist himself by obtaining certificates for a league and a quarter of land in Milam's colony. 135 From his position at Bexar he was able to keep the people authoritatively informed of events in Mexico, and the wonder is that he was not regarded as a spy by Ugartechea. September 8 he wrote Barrett 136 that it had become evident that the government was determined upon harsh disciplinary measures in Texas, and that the people must submit or be prepared to resist. In connection with this letter Stephen F. Austin, who had just returned from his long imprisonment in Mexico, gives his estimate of Gritten, saying: “I place more reliance on what he says because he has made so many exertions to affect an amicable reconciliation. . . . I think he has been faithful to the people here and fear that he will get into prison.” 137
On December 11, the General Council, which was the legislative branch of the provisional government established at the beginning of the revolution, showed its confidence in Gritten by electing him collector of the port of Cópano, but Governor Smith declined to sign his commission, declaring that he had always considered him a spy. 138 Nevertheless, Matthew Caldwell was at that very time writing to Smith in commendation of Gritten's general efficiency in the commissary department of the army, and calling particular attention to a recent important performance of his in carrying ammunition to the Texan army while it was besieging Bexar. 139
In March, 1836, he was working in the printing office of the Telegraph and Texas Register, at San Felipe. 140 On the 25th of that month a subscription was started soliciting land donations for the government, and Gritten pledged a quarter of a league—one-fifth of all that he had. 141 In July we find him acting as translator and interpreter in the prize case of the schooners Comanche and Fanny Butler, which had been captured by Texan naval vessels, and President Burnet at the same time said that until a few days before Gritten had been in the employ of the government since April. 142 On September 19, Gail Borden congratulates Austin on having the services of Mr. Gritten, who “can do more business in the Spanish than any person I know of.” 143 The last trace of him that has come to my notice is a receipt for forty dollars paid him by the government on October 11, 1836, for his services as translator in the case of Bartholomé Pajes, who was accused of trying to rescue Santa Anna from his imprisonment in Texas. 144
This evidence, though fragmentary, is sufficient to exonerate Gritten of the imputations against his honesty. Two additional points should be mentioned: Miss Rather assures me that in studying the sources for her history of De Witt's Colony she arrived at the same opinion of Gritten as that which I have outlined above; and Professor Bolton, who has extensively explored the Mexican archives, tells me that though he has seen there an abundance of correspondence from spies in Texas none of it is from Gritten. This is negative evidence, but it helps to strengthen the case already presented.
My notes on Gritten have been taken incidentally as I gathered material on the general subject of the Texas revolution, and that I cannot follow him beyond the end of 1836 may merely be due to the fact that my minute acquaintance with the archives extends no further. It does not necessarily signify that his career in Texas then closed.
Of Gritten Yoakum says (I, 341, note): “There remains now but little doubt of his treachery”; and Brown says (I, 310): “Gritten developed into an enemy of Texas.” Gritten has recently suffered the additional misfortune of being made the “villain” of an historical novel (The Lone Star, by E. P. Lyle).
121. Brown, History of Texas, I, 352.
122. See map 4 in Rather, De Witt's Colony, The Quarterly, VIII, following p. 192.
123. See Brown, History of Texas, I, 284-285.
124. See the Texas Republican, September 19, 1835.
125. A copy of this letter, certified by Andrew Ponton, Alcalde of Gonzales, is to be found in the Texas State Library; it is partially and inaccurately printed in Brown, History of Texas, I, 303.
126. Cos to Ayuntamiento of Columbia, August 1, 1835. Austin Papers.
127. Ugartechea to Tenorio, July 31, 1835. Bexar Archives.
128. See the Texas Republican, October 3, 1835.
129. History of Texas, I, 285.
130. Yoakum, History of Texas, I, 341, note; II, 44-45; Brown, History of Texas, I, 310, 448-450.
131. Gritten to Ugartechea, July 5, 1835. Bexar Archives. The letter is printed in Publications of the Southern History Association, VIII, 345-348.
132. These letters, dated July 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 17, 1835, are all in the Bexar Archives; and all except the last are printed in Publications of the Southern History Association, VIII, 345-456, passim.
133. MS. in Texas State Library.
134. For the basis of this paragraph see: Brown, History of Texas, I, 300; Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas, II, 162; Wooten (Editor), A Comprehensive History of Texas, I, 168-171; Barrett and Gritten to Cos, August 9, 1835, Bexar Archives; Texas Republican, September 19, 1835.
135. Land Office Records, Vol. 16, pp. 329, 393.
136. A copy of the letter, certified by Stephen F. Austin, is in the Lamar Papers in the Texas State Library.
137. Austin to Grayson, September 19, 1835 (copy). Austin Papers.
138. Brown, History of Texas, I, 449. See also The Quarterly, V, 308, note 2.
139. Caldwell to Smith, December 19, 1835. Miscellaneous documents relating to the Treasury, 1835-1836, in Comptroller's Department.
140. Borden to Burnet, March 24, 1836. MS. in Texas State Library. Financial Affairs.
141. A printed broadside, in the Texas State Library. Formerly file No. 351.
142. Comptroller's Department. Military Service, 2d Series, No. 602.
143. Austin Papers.
144. Comptroller's Department. Military Service, 2d series, No. 618.
How to cite:
Barker, Eugene C., "JAMES H. C. MILLER AND EDWARD GRITTEN ", Volume 013, Number 2, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online, Page 145 - 153. http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v013/n2/article_3.html
[Accessed Sun Mar 21 0:33:34 CDT 2010]
