Vol. XIV APRIL, 1911 No. 4
The publication committee and the editor disclaim responsibility for views expressed by contributors to The Quarterly.
The purpose of the author in preparing this paper was primarily to review the question of the boundary between Texas and Mexico as one of the antecedents of the Texas-Santa Fé expedition. This explains why the study ends abruptly with 1840. The history of the southwestern boundary of Texas during the Spanish régime has been so thoroughly treated by different writers that a detailed discussion of it is unnecessary here. However, in order that the subject may be presented in its entirety, a brief review of the salient facts seems necessary.
1. The Spanish View.—The expedition of La Salle in 1685 aroused the Spanish to explore and temporarily occupy eastern Texas. The first mission, San Francisco de los Tejas, was established southwest of Nacogdoches near the Neches river in 1690. 2 Terán, who was made governor of Coahuila and Texas in 1691, 3 explored the country to the Red river. In 1693 Texas was abandoned, 4 and after 1700 the mission of San Juan Bautista on the Rio Grande formed the extreme Spanish outpost. 5 During the period 1716-1722, Texas was reoccupied and six missions and two presidios in eastern Texas, a presidio and a mission on the San Antonio, and a post and a mission on San Bernard Bay (Espíritu Santo) were established. 6
So far as has been ascertained, the first mention of the boundary occurred in 1721 when the governor of Coahuila and Texas stated it to be the Medina river. 7 Similar statements are found in Spanish documents in 1744 and 1746. 8 In the latter year José de Escandón was commissioned to pacify the gulf coast; the province of Nuevo Santander was established; and Escandón appears to have had jurisdiction to the San Antonio. 9 The La Fora map of 1767 placed the boundary somewhat west of the Medina. 10 In 1772 Bonilla stated that the boundary line between Coahuila and Texas was the Medina. 11 All official documents for the rest of the century placed it at the Nueces. An order of 1811 and an official map of 1816 gave the Nueces as the boundary line between Texas and Nuevo Santander, and the Medina as the boundary between Texas and Coahuila. 12
2. French Claims.—The first suggestion of a French occupation of Texas came in 1682 from Peñalosa, a former governor of New Mexico, who had found refuge at the court of Louis XIV. He proposed to settle a French colony at the mouth of the Rio Bravo, and La Salle no doubt heard of his schemes. 13 In 1684 La Salle was authorized to rule the country from the Illinois river to New Biscay. 14 He landed on the shore of Matagorda Bay the following year; he was murdered two years later, and the settlement was broken up. 15
In 1712 Antoine Crozat was given by letters patent the right to trade “in all the Lands possessed by Us, and bounded by New Mexico” 16 . . . In 1714 M. Louis de Saint Denis reached the presidio of San Juan Bautista on the Rio Grande and informed the Spanish that the French claimed to that river. In 1721 La Harpe, who had concessions on Red river and who had been carrying on a clandestine trade with the Spanish, made an unsuccessful attempt to found a colony at Matagorda bay. 17 The map of Du Pratz in 1738 gave the Rio Grande as the boundary. 18 During the administration of Barrios in Texas, which ended in 1756, there were French trading posts west of the Sabine. When the Spanish established a presidio on the Trinity in 1756 the French protested, basing their claim on the settlement of La Salle. The cession of Louisiana at the end of the Seven Years War ended the difficulty until 1800. 19
The treaty of San Ildefonso reopened the question. Louisiana was ceded “with the same extent . . . that it had while in the possession of France . . .” Victor's instructions in 1802 gave the boundary as the Rio Grande. When the country was sold to the United States the boundary was left indefinite, following the wording of the treaty of San Ildefonso. This ended the French claims to Texas. 20
During the period from 1821 to 1836 no action appears to have been taken concerning the boundary line, although there are evidences that Texans were already looking toward the Rio Grande. In 1824 Texas and Coahuila were united as a single province, Texas being known as the Department of Béxar. The court records show that at this time the Mexican inhabitants of Béxar recognized the claims of Tamaulipas (Nuevo Santander) to the lands south of the Nueces. 21
During the Fredonian war certain Texans claimed the Rio Grande as the western boundary. 22 In December, 1826, Hayden Edwards and Harmon B. Mayo, on behalf of the discontented settlers, made a treaty with the Indians. The latter were to have all territory “north of a line beginning at the mouth of Sulphur fork; thence to a point not far from Nacogdoches; thence west to the Rio Grande. All the territory south of that boundary to belong to the other party.” 23
In 1828 the State of Coahuila and Texas granted a contract to John Davis Bradburn and Stephen Staples, giving them the right to navigate the Rio Grande with steam or horse-power for fifteen years. 24 This would raise the question of jurisdiction over the lower Rio Grande. Beales and Grant in 1833 obtained a concession from Coahuila and Texas to settle eight hundred families between the Nueces and Rio Grande. Kennedy's map gives the eastern boundary of this grant as the line between Coahuila and Tamaulipas, but it is significant that the only settlement which they made was at Dolores, near the Rio Grande, and that no protest appears to have been made by Tamaulipas. Considering the Fredonian treaty, the grant of 1828, and the settlement of 1833, it would appear that at least as far as Coahuila and Texas were concerned, they considered the lower Rio Grande as within their jurisdiction. 25
In 1834 Juan N. Almonte was sent to Texas to report on its condition for statehood. In his report he says that the inhabitants claimed “that the true boundary ought to commence at the mouth of the Aransas and follow it up to its source; and from there it ought to continue in a straight line, until it meets with the Medina, where it is joined to the San Antonio. following then by the eastern margin of the same Medina as far as its source, it ought to terminate in the boundaries of Chihuahua.” This is the last mention of the Medina boundary that has been found. 26
1. The Treaty of Velasco.—Actual hostilities between Texas and Mexico began in 1835. 27 On March 1, 1836, the Texan convention met, and the following day issued a declaration of independence. General Sam Houston was elected commander-in-chief of the Texas army and David G. Burnet president ad interim. 28 The battle of San Jacinto occurred April 21, 1836. Among the prisoners was Santa Anna. 29 On May 3 Houston wrote to Rusk, the secretary of war, advising him with respect to the arrangements to be made with Santa Anna. Regarding the boundary he said, “The limits of Texas should extend to the Rio Grande, from the mouth, pursuing the stream to its most northwestern source, and thence northeast to the line of the United States.” This letter no doubt had great weight in the dealings with Santa Anna, as well as in influencing the future claims of the republic of Texas. 30
At Velasco, May 14, 1836, Santa Anna and Burnet signed the so-called treaty of Velasco. This treaty was in two parts, a public and a secret agreement. 31 In the public agreement there was no positive statement of boundary lines. Article 3 said, “The Mexican troops will evacuate the territory of Texas, passing to the other side of the Rio Grande del Norte.” This to the Texan mind of the period might be construed to mean an acknowledgment of the Rio Grande as a boundary line, but this interpretation would not hold in an unprejudiced court. The secret agreement was more explicit. Article 4 stated that, “A treaty of commerce, amity, and limits, will be established between Mexico and Texas, the territory of the latter not to extend beyond the Rio Bravo del Norte.” This statement is typical of the wily Santa Anna. Although he was a prisoner, he was guaranteeing that the Mexican government would make a treaty, but at the same time leaving a loophole for repudiation in the clause concerning boundaries. Santa Anna's meaning is made clear by a letter to Houston November 5, 1836, in which, after urging that he be sent to Washington, he says:
Convinced as I am that Texas will never reunite with Mexico, I am desirous, on my part, to improve the advantages which may offer, and avoid the sacrifices which will occur should an important attempt be made to reconquer this country, which has hitherto proved more detrimental than beneficial: consequently reducing the Texan question to this single point—the regulation of the limits between the United States and Mexico, ... which, you are aware, has been pending many years, and may be fixed at the Nueces, del Norte, or any other boundary, as may be decided on at Washington. 32
If the Texans had put the most favorable interpretation upon the wording of the treaty of Velasco, they could not misunderstand this letter. The treaty of Velasco did not place the boundary at the Rio Grande; the question of the validity of that treaty, therefore, is of no consequence. 33 A garbled statement of the treaty, often used as authority, is given by Foote. 34
2. Proposals of Austin and Wharton.—Eight days after Santa Anna's letter to Houston, Stephen F. Austin, secretary of state, wrote to W. H. Wharton, Texan Minister Plenipotentiary to the United States, as follows:
As regards the boundaries of Texas, perhaps this question cannot be definitely settled at present; it may, however, be important for you to explain the views of this government on this point. You will therefore use the following as you may deem necessary. We claim and consider that we have possession to the Rio Bravo del Norte. Taking this as the basis, the boundary of Texas would be as follows. Beginning at the mouth of said River on the Gulf of Mexico, thence up the middle thereof, following its main channel, including the Islands to its most northerly Source, thence in a direct line to the United States boundary under the treaty of De Onis at the head of Arkansas river, thence down said river and following the United States line as fixed by said De Onis treaty to the Gulf of Mexico at the mouth of Sabine, thence Southwardly along the Shore of said Gulf to the place of beginning, including the adjacent islands, soundings etc ... Should it appear that very serious embarrassments or delays will be produced by insisting on the above described line, the following alterations might be made on the Western boundary—Instead of the Rio Bravo, beginning on the West of the Gulf of Mexico, half way between the mouth of the Bravo and the inlet of Corpus Christi, which is the main outlet of the Nueces river and bay into the Gulf, thence in a northwestwardly direction following the dividing ridge of high land that divides the waters of the Nueces river and bay, from those of the river Bravo to the hills or mountains in which the main branch of the said Nueces River has its Source, and thence following said ridge or chain of mountains westerly so as to strike the River Puerco or Pecos five leagues above its mouth. ... From the place where the line will strike the Puerco it is to follow the ridge or mountain that divides its waters from those of Rio Bravo, and to continue along said mountains above the head of said Puerco or Pecos to the United States line, at the head of the Arkansas River. The Bravo as a line would cut off many settlements and some villages of native Mexicans and divide the populous valley of New Mexico. It therefore may be seriously objected to. The other line along the dividing ridge includes no Mexican population except Bexar and Goliad whose inhabitants have joined the cause of Texas and are represented in Congress. ... The Salt lakes or ponds between the Nueces and Rio Bravo are of incalculable value and would supply a great amount of this article in the christalized form—the last mentioned line would divide them, the first would include them all. 35
Such in part were the instructions to Wharton, who was going on a mission to the United States to attempt to bring about two desired ends, i. e., recognition of the independence of Texas and annexation to the United States. 36 Austin could hardly have been ignorant of Santa Anna's letter to Houston, for Houston had been president since October 22. 37 He was evidently voicing the ideas of the president. The proposal of a second line is interesting in the light of happenings of the following month. The advantages of acquiring New Mexico were not entirely convincing, although at a later date the republic was willing to attempt to acquire it by force of arms. 38
In his private instructions to Wharton, Austin made it plain that the leaders who were directing affairs were not anxious for annexation. He said,
Notwithstanding the vote of the people at the September election, in favor of annexation, you are aware that very many persons of influence who voted for that measure, merely yielded to the peculiar circumstances of the time, and incline strongly to the opinion, that Texas ought to remain a separate and independent Republic. Should our affairs assume a more favorable aspect by a termination of the war, and a treaty with Mexico, and by the manifestation of a friendly disposition towards us by England and France, it will have a powerful influence on public opinion; and in all probability decide in favor of remaining independent.
Austin then explained that if the United States was inclined to be indifferent or to impose “unjust and hard terms” in receiving Texas, Wharton was to induce England and France to acknowledge the independence of Texas and to interpose with Mexico to procure an acknowledgment with the boundary line at the Rio Grande. Feeling that the size of Texas might deter the United States from admitting it, Austin gave Wharton the interesting task of showing that it was much smaller than was generally supposed. “It probably will not exceed One hundred thousand Square Miles, supposing the western boundary to be on the dividing ridge between the Rivers Nueces and Puerco, and the River Bravo, which it is probable will be the line finally established.” 39
Wharton's reply stated that he believed that Austin must be greatly in error in supposing that Texas contained only one hundred thousand square miles. He proposed a third line which would follow up the Rio Grande to the Mexican “settlement” then follow the mountains, leaving all of the valley of the upper Rio Grande to Mexico. 40
3. The Boundary Defined by the Texas Congress.—Before Wharton's letter could have arrived an act of the Texas Congress, of December 19, 1836, had defined the boundary line as beginning at the mouth of the Rio Grande and following that stream to its source. Houston's idea had evidently overruled the more cautious Austin. 41
Santa Anna was sent to Washington, reaching there January 18, 1837. 42 He conveyed the impression that he would be reinstated in power and that then all difficulty would cease. Jackson informed Wharton “that he had conversed freely with Santa Anna in regard to extending the at present open southwestern line so as to include Texas and that their views and wishes were in entire accordance.” 43 Three days later Wharton wrote to Austin that “the conclusion of the war would afford a favorable opportunity of extending by treaty the at present open South Western boundary of this Government to the Rio del Norte, with the assent of Mexico and Texas.” 44 It is evident from this that Wharton had received no information at this time of the declaration regarding boundaries. Even Austin's letter to Wharton of December 19, the day of the passage of the act, failed to mention the matter. It is evident from a perusal of the correspondence between December 19 and February 5, that the question of annexation was paramount and that the idea of boundaries had been lost in the larger question. 45
4. Expansionist Views.—In February the idea was suggested to Wharton by Jackson “that Texas must claim the Californias on the Pacific in order to paralyze the opposition of the North and East to annexation. That the fishing interest of the North and East wish a harbor on the Pacific; that this claim of the Californias will give it to them and will diminish their opposition to annexation. He is very earnest and anxious on this point of claiming the Californias and says we must not consent to less. This is strict confidence. Glory to God in the highest.” 46 This was promptly reported to Rusk in the above enthusiastic manner, and no doubt voiced the view of many Texans who wished to form a great republic. Many in eastern Texas had expressed the opinion that the eastern Mexican provinces ought to be united in one state. But the idea of Jackson was still more expansive, and it evidently pleased Wharton. 47
The recognition of the independence of Texas was the last official act of Jackson. 48 This step cleared the political atmosphere. The uncertainty of the action of the United States being ended, the Texan diplomats again took up the question of the Rio Grande boundary.
Catlett, secretary of the Texas legation, on April 15, wrote to Henderson, secretary of state, that he had conversed with General Ripley, who urged the seizure of Matamoras and Brazos Santiago and the establishment of a town on the eastern side of the Rio Grande. 49 Six weeks later Hunt urged Henderson that a loan be made, the money to be used to take up a position on that river. He believed that an offensive war should then commence at once, and be pushed, even to an advance on Mexico City. 50 In view of the fact that Texas was in a weak condition at that time, without credit abroad, with resources exhausted at home, and on the verge of anarchy, it is interesting to note the aggressive views of the diplomats. 51 In July the idea of offensive war was taking definite shape; an expedition under Felix Huston against Matamoras and Tampico was planned, 52 in spite of the fact that a large part of the Texan troops had been granted furloughs the previous May. 53 General Plummer, who was then in the United States raising troops, was expected to assist. 54
5. Moderate Wishes of the Texan Government.—In August the tone of the Texan government underwent a decided change, no doubt the financial depression above noted having its effect. Irion, secretary of state, wrote to Hunt in August as follows: “With respect to the southwestern boundary this Republic claims to the Rio Grande. Should the United States however object to this extension of our Territory insist only on the former limits of Texas, which were fixed by the Government of Mexico at the River Nueces. Should insuperable objections arise to receiving this Republic as a State negotiate for admission as a Territory.” This implies a willingness to surrender all previous positions regarding the boundary and to acknowledge the legality of the Nueces line. 55 In replying to this communication, Hunt makes no mention of the boundary; he was evidently engrossed with the larger question of annexation. 56
Nothing further of importance concerning the boundary line is found in the diplomatic correspondence until January 31, 1838. At that time Hunt wrote a lengthy despatch to Irion in which he stated that on November 15 he had believed that a war between the United States and Mexico was imminent, and that the Rio Grande would be made the southwestern boundary of the United States. 57 His despatch of November 15, however, failed to convey such an import. 58 In January he was convinced that the United States would not make war, and that the question of annexation was beset with insurmountable difficulties. He was pessimistic in regard to the Preston resolutions which affirmed the right and expediency of making the Rio Grande the southwest boundary of the United States, prophesying that they would be laid upon the table. In spite of rebuffs on the subject of annexation, the expansionist Texan view was uppermost in Hunt's mind, for in a conversation with Forsyth regarding the northern boundary, when asked as to how far Texas contemplated running that boundary, he replied, “As far as the Pacific Ocean,” but he later admitted that he had not been authorized to do so by his government. 59
March 31, 1838, Irion wrote to Hunt officially stating the boundaries of Texas as defined in December, 1836, and saying that Texas did not wish to run the northern boundary west of the 100th degree of west longitude, leaving a distance of eight or nine degrees to be run at a future time when it could be done with less expense—a statement that showed that the government was more conservative than its diplomats. 60 In spite of this, Hunt was still bent on running the line to the Pacific. He believed that the United States was “very desirous ... to procure the Bay of St. Francisco.” He urged that it would be indispensable to Texas, if the final treaty of peace with Mexico left her a separate power, to possess that fine harbor. 61 Irion replied rather testily, “You seem to entertain erroneous opinions with regard to the views of this Government in relation to our western boundary line.” He again explicitly stated the boundary, and ended by saying, “With respect to the Bay of San Francisco, the South Sea and Pacific Ocean, and the territories bordering thereon, this Government, at the present time, has no concern. ... At a future time this Government may, and probably will, by conquest or negotiation, extend its boundary to the Pacific; but during existing relations the President cannot perceive in what manner speculations concerning the territory referred to have any relevancy to the question now under consideration.” 62
6. Mediation by the United States Proposed.—The question of boundary was not again brought into the diplomatic correspondence until General Richard G. Dunlap was sent to the United States as Minister Plenipotentiary. His instructions were drawn up by James Webb, acting secretary of state under Lamar. As they evidently voice the intentions of that administration they are worthy of extended examination. The question of annexation was dropped, and instead, the United States was to be asked to become a mediator to bring to an end the difficulties existing between Texas and Mexico. In the settlement of the difficulties the boundary act of December 19, 1836, was to be insisted upon, but if Dunlap failed to get a recognition of independence from Mexico with an acknowledgment of those limits, he was to endeavor to obtain the recognition of independence, leaving the question of limits to be settled by future negotiations. If both of these propositions failed, he was to attempt to obtain an armistice for two years provided it would apply to all territory claimed by Texas, the armistice to be guaranteed by the United States. 63
After forming an opinion of the situation at Washington, Dunlap wrote to Lamar. He said that Secretary Forsyth had hinted that money would settle the difficulty with Mexico, and reminded Lamar that the matter had come up in a cabinet meeting in which it was believed that Texas might purchase the lands between the Nueces and Rio Grande “without loosing character.” He then took up the proposal formerly made by Hunt. “How would you like to have the boundary of the Republic to run to the Pacific so as to include California? This may seem too grasping, but if we can get it ought we not to take it and pay for it? Texas is the rising sun of the day. ...” 64 June 28, Dunlap again urged that money be paid to Mexico, stating, “When we commence a purchase, it may be easy to extend our limits.” 65 By August 29 Dunlap had not heard from his government regarding their views on the subject, and again inquired concerning them. 66 In October he again took up the subject although he had received no instructions. He had broached the matter to Martínez, the Mexican minister, but naturally received an unfavorable reply, 67 in spite of the fact that he made a proposal that Texas give a money equivalent. 68 On January 12, 1840, Dunlap informed Burnet that he had received notice that the Senate had refused to ratify his nomination as Minister to the United States. This did not deter him from again urging the acquisition of California, expressing the fear that the United States had designs upon that country. 69 Dunlap remained at Washington until relieved by Bee, who arrived April 20, 1840. 70
7. Refusal of Mexico to Treat with Texas.—It is necessary to turn back to the spring of 1839 to ascertain the attempts that Texas made to open direct communication with Mexico. About the time that Dunlap was sent to Washington Barnard E. Bee was sent to Mexico. Santa Anna was again in power, and it was believed that the mission would meet with success. 71 Bee was armed with a proposition to offer five million dollars for the recognition of Texan independence, but upon the condition that the boundary be placed at the Rio Grande instead of the Nueces. 72 The proposition, however, was never presented, as the Mexican government refused to receive the minister. 73
8. Attempts to Secure British Mediation.—A large amount of the Mexican debt at this time was in the hands of English bondholders. Gordon, a representative of the house of Lizardi and Company, a British firm representing Mexican interests in London, wrote to Pakenham, the British minister at Mexico, informing him of Bee's proposal. Gordon proposed that Mexico satisfy the English bondholders to the amount of $5,000,000 by locating lands for them between the Nueces and Rio Grande, receiving that amount from Texas and agreeing to the Rio Grande boundary. This plan came to naught because of the rejection of Bee. Gorostiza, the Mexican foreign minister, stated that Mexico would never consent to such a limit, and suggested that if a boundary were eventually fixed it would be desirable to have an European government guarantee it. 74 A similar proposal that England guarantee a treaty which would settle the boundary line was made by Texas. 75 England, however, refused to guarantee the line at this time. 76
Early in 1840 James Treat, who was sent to Mexico by Texas, arrived at his station. 77 He was to present a proposition that peace be made, or failing in that, that an armistice be affected, both of which propositions hinged upon the acceptance of the Rio Grande boundary. By October it was known that Treat's mission had failed, the Mexican government stating that if an armistice were feasible, the line of separation must be the San Antonio river. 78
In December, 1839, General James Hamilton was sent abroad to attempt to secure a loan of five million dollars. 79 Before going he had had considerable correspondence with Pakenham concerning the English bondholders. He urged a proposal ostensibly the same as Bee's. 80 He visited England and then France in 1840 and by February 4, 1841, he wrote that he believed the French loan would be successful. Unforeseen circumstances, however, arose and the loan was denied. 81 He afterward visited Brussels and London, but before anything definite was concluded the Lamar administration had ended. The new administration of Houston was extremely economical and immediately repealed all laws authorizing the five million loan. 82
The failure of Hamilton's overtures crippled the military program of the Lamar administration. Yoakum says, “It is believed that, had General Hamilton negotiated the loan, the army of at least ten thousand men would have marched into Mexico in 1841.” “Texas proper,” said Burnet, “is bounded by the Rio Grande: Texas, as defined by the sword, may comprehend the Sierra del Madre. Let the sword do its proper work.” 83
November 14, 1840, a treaty between England and Texas was signed, which was to be ratified in six months. It stated in part, that Texas had accepted the English offer of mediation, and were England successful in mediating with Mexico, Texas would assume one million pounds sterling of the Mexican debt, which was practically the Bee proposal which Mexico had already rejected. 84 The third part of the treaty which dealt with the suppression of the slave trade was not forwarded with the other treaties and hence the Texan congress had not had an opportunity of fair examination of the whole situation. In consequence Palmerston refused to ratify the treaties at this time. 85
Thus we find that the financial and the two chief features of the diplomatic program of Lamar's administration, namely, recognition by England and Mexico, had failed. It remained for him to put his military plans into operation in the expedition against Santa Fé in the endeavor to make good the claim to the Rio Grande. 86
9. Summary.—To sum up the situation: Between 1821 and the battle of San Jacinto, the boundary line was legally the Nueces, although Coahuila and Texas appear to have encroached upon Tamaulipas during this period. The first mention by the Texans of the Rio Grande as a boundary was made during the Fredonian war. The suggestion of that river as a boundary came from Houston before the treaty of Velasco, which treaty, however, did not definitely state the boundary line. Before the declaration of boundary by the Texan government, Austin was in doubt concerning the line, but thought that it ought to be the Rio Grande. He instructed the Texan minister to the United States to that effect, but stated that smaller limits would be accepted if the Rio Grande boundary stood in the way of annexation. The Texan congress declared the boundary at the Rio Grande soon after. The suggestion was made in 1837 by Jackson that Texas should claim California. Texan independence was recognized the same year, and in July Texas planned an offensive war against Mexico. In August a change in the views of Texan statesmen took place; Texas appeared anxious for annexation and was willing to sacrifice the land as far as the Nueces to accomplish it. In 1838 and 1839 the Texan diplomats at Washington were in favor of an expansion of territory to the Pacific, but the home government entertained no such view. In 1839, the question of annexation having been dropped for the time being, the Texan government bent its efforts upon securing the assistance of the United States to act as mediator in securing the recognition of Texan independence by Mexico, with the boundary at the Rio Grande. In the same year and in 1840 Texas made unsuccessful attempts to negotiate with the Mexican government directly. Difficulties beset the Lamar administration, Hamilton's negotiations for a loan having failed, and the treaty with England not being ratified at this time. Such was the situation when the Texan Santa Fé expedition was sent out.
The Texas State Historical Association was organized March 2, 1897. During the session of the legislature in 1899 a bill was introduced having for its object the creation of a Texas Historical Commission. The Commission was to consist of the Commissioner of Agriculture, Insurance, Statistics and History, who was ex officio State Librarian at that time, and of two other persons, members of the Texas State Historical Association, to be appointed by the Governor. The name, personnel and functions of this proposed Commission indicate clearly where it originated. The bill passed the senate, but died on the calendar in the house because it was not looked after by those who had it in hand.
The State Federation of Women's Literary Clubs was organized May 13, 1897. This new organization inaugurated an enthusiastic campaign for libraries. A glance at the date of opening in a list of Texas public libraries illustrates this fact. The president of the Federation in her annual address in April, 1899, in reviewing the year's work, said, “The leading interest of our federation year has been the work for libraries.” The special library committee gave an excellent account of its work, and concluded its report with the statement that it hoped that the movement so auspiciously begun would “grow and spread until our grand state shall be so permeated as to compel favorable legislation, and Texas shall lead the other states in the liberality of her library laws.”
The increase in the number of libraries in this State led to the organization of the Texas Library Association on June 9, 1902. The number of library workers was still too small to maintain an organization, so it drew generously for its support and membership upon the women's clubs. In turn it provided the library movement begun and carried on by the clubs with a number of trained leaders and indefatigable workers.
A bill to create a State Library Commission was introduced in the legislature in 1903. The proposed commission was to consist of five members appointed by the Governor. The Commission had charge of library extension only; there was to be no connection between it and the State Library. The bill failed to pass. Two years later the same bill was again introduced. However, it had been changed so as to extend the Commission's control over the State Library. This bill also failed to pass. In 1907, a bill much more carefully drawn but along the lines of that of 1905, was introduced. To the provisions of this bill was added the legislative reference section, and to the five appointive members were added two ex officio members—the superintendent of public instruction and the president of the University of Texas. Owing to peculiar conditions in the legislature, this bill failed to pass. The bill introduced in 1909 resembled that of 1907 in all its provisions, but changed the title to Texas Library and Historical Commission, reduced the appointive members to three, and substituted the professor of history in the University of Texas for the president of that institution. This readjustment in the name and membership of the commission was in thorough accord with the provisions already embodied in the bill, and in the opinion of some helped the passage of the measure in no small degree. The law went into effect March 19, 1909.
The duties of the Texas Library and Historical Commission may be briefly summarized as follows: 1.
To control and administer the State Library and to maintain therein a legislative reference section “for the use and information of the members of the legislature, the heads of the several state departments, and such other citizens as may desire to consult the same.”
2.To conduct library extension work. “The commission shall give advice to such persons as contemplate the establishment of public libraries in regard to such matters as the maintenance of public libraries, selection of books, cataloguing and library management. The commission shall have conducted library institutes, and encourage library associations.”
3.To perform the functions of a department of archives and history. The commission is directed by law “to collect materials relating to the history of Texas and the adjoining states, to preserve, classify and publish the manuscript archives and such other matters as it may deem proper, to diffuse knowledge in regard to the history of Texas, to encourage historical work and research, [and] to mark historic sites and houses and secure their preservation.”
As it is with the duties of the commission enumerated under the last sub-division that this paper concerns itself, it may not be out of place to go somewhat into the details of the provisions of the law relating thereto. The various materials which the commission is authorized to collect may be acquired by purchase, gift, exchange, transfer, or on deposit. Acting under the direction of the commission the state librarian shall collect [1] all manuscript records relating to the history of Texas now in the hands of private individuals . . . [He] shall endeavor to procure from Mexico the original archives which have been removed from Texas and relate to the history and settlement thereof, and in case he can not procure the originals, he shall endeavor to procure authentic copies thereof. In like manner he shall procure the originals or authentic copies of manuscripts preserved in other archives beyond the limits of the State, in so far as said manuscripts relate to the history of Texas. [2] He shall seek diligently to procure a copy of every book, pamphlet, map or other printed matter giving valuable information concerning this State. [3] He shall endeavor to complete the files of the early Texas newspapers now in the State Library, and he shall cause to be bound the current files of not less than ten of the leading newspapers of the State, and the current files of not less than four leading newspapers of other States, and as many of the county papers, professional journals, denominational papers, agricultural papers, trade journals and other publications of this State as seem necessary to preserve in the State Library an accurate record of the history of Texas. [4] He shall collect portraits or photographs of as many prominent men of Texas as possible. [5] He shall constantly endeavor to build up an historical museum worthy of the interesting and important history of this State. [Last but not least, 6] He shall demand and receive from the officers of State departments having them in charge, all books, maps, papers, manuscripts, documents, memoranda and data not connected with or necessary to the current duties of said officers, relating to the history of Texas, and carefully classify, catalogue and preserve the same.
The broad and liberal terms of the law as set forth above have perhaps excited the curiosity and raised high the expectations of the reader in regard to what has been accomplished. It is better, therefore, to remind him at the outset that it is one thing to have prepared drawings and specifications for a beautiful structure, and quite another matter to obtain the money with which to erect the same. The law outlines the work to be done by the commission. The biennial appropriation indicates the resources available for doing this work. Reference to the last appropriation bill will show that of necessity only a small portion of the commission's task could be performed during the past two years.
1. Books.—While it might prove interesting to this audience to mention some of the books and pamphlets relating to the history of Texas that have been acquired since March 19, 1909, time and space forbid. A few of the larger works, bearing more or less directly on the field of Southwestern history, can be touched upon.
a. Publications of the Hakluyt Society, 1848-1906, First Series, 100 volumes, Second Series, volumes 1-18. These series embrace the voyages and travels of the great age of discovery which inaugurated the period of modern history. Columbus, Cortes, De Soto, and Cabeza de Vaca are some of those whose writings are included.
b. Biblioteca Hispano-Americana, 1493-1810. Por José Toribio Medina. Santiago de Chile, 1898-1907. 7 vols. In this comprehensive bibliography of Spanish America the works are listed in the chronological order of their publication, and in alphabetical order when there are several publications for the same year. Each publication is described; the location of some of them in public libraries is indicated; reference is made to other bibliographies in which they are included; and an account of the authors is supplied in some instances. Each volume has an index to the names of authors, but there is no general index to the set. The titles listed are distributed as follows:
It will be observed that volumes six and seven are supplementary to the first five volumes.
c. The South in the Building of the Nation. Richmond, 1909-1910. 10 volumes. The subtitle of this work is “A history of the Southern States designed to record the South's part in the making of the American nation; to portray the character and genius, to chronicle the achievements and progress and to illustrate the life and traditions of the Southern people.” The brevity and large number of subjects treated give the work very much the character of a cyclopedia. The longer articles on Texas are the following: 87
Texas as a part of Mexico. By C. W. Hutson.
Texas as a Republic. By E. C. Barker.
Texas in the Federal Union. By S. P. Brooks.
Texas in the Confederacy. By C. W. Ramsdell.
Texas in the New Nation. By C. W. Ramsdell.
The State Finances of Texas. By E. T. Miller.
d. Library of Southern Literature. Atlanta, 1909. 15 vols. This work sets itself the task “to represent comprehensively and in adequate amount the literary life of the Southern people of the United States.” The following Texans have been given space in this work: 88
Amelia E. Barr. By Mrs. Clara Driscoll Sevier.
William A. Chittenden. By John A. Lomax.
David Crockett. By James M. Grainger.
Robert Louis Dabney. By J. Gray McAllister.
Mary Evelyn Moore Davis. By William B. Smith. 89
Lafayette Rupert Hamberlin. By P. H. Eager.
Sam Houston. By George P. Garrison.
Mirabeau B. Lamar. By A. W. Terrell.
Clarence Ousley. By Rev. William M. Harris.
J. P. Sjolander. By Hilton R. Greer.
Stark Young. By R. A. Law.
2. Newspapers.—The commission has had the pleasure of adding a number of files, or portions of files, of early Texas newspapers to those already in the State Library.
a. Telegraph and Texas Register. A bound file of this paper from June 12, 1837, to August 4, 1838, was presented by Mrs. Wells Thompson. The volume is not in as perfect condition as could be wished; as Mrs. Thompson expressed it, “the book has gone through all the storms, hurricanes and cyclones of the Matagorda coast.”
b. Texas State Gazette. A partial file of this paper for the period from September 17, 1855, to March 22, 1862, was among the articles included in Mrs. Thompson's valuable gift. This paper was published at Austin.
c. New Orleans Weekly Delta. Included in Mrs. Thompson's gift there was an almost complete file of this important New Orleans paper for the period from October 18, 1847, to February 1, 1862.
d. De Bow's Review. There was among the materials presented by Mrs. Thompson a fairly complete, unbound file of this important journal, beginning with January, 1846, and extending to 1870. “This review was to commerce, manufactures, agriculture, internal improvements, and industrial activity in any line, what the Southern Literary Messenger was to literature, while in history they met on common ground. Its field was the south, west and southwest; it undertook to defend their rights, develop their resources, collect and preserve their statistics, and during much of its existence, made these subjects superior to the questions of national politics.” 90 No effort will be made to refer to all the articles on Texas in this review, but it may be well to direct attention to some of the more important, which have been noted in this incomplete file:
- St. Denis's expedition to Mexico. II, 215-224.
- Early times in Texas. X, 166-175, 413-423.
- Life and times of Lafitte. XI, 372-387; XII, 111-113, 222; XIII, 101-2, 204-5, 422.
- Bowic family. XIII, 378-383.
- Memucan Hunt. XIII, 416-419, with portrait.
- Captain John McHenry. By John Henry Brown. XIV, 46-48.
- Captain Henry S. Brown. By John Henry Brown. XV, 572-583.
- Thomas J. Rusk. XXIII, 432-437.
- Stephen F. Austin. By James H. Bell. XXIV, 114-136.
- William S. Oldham. By E. Fontain. XXXVIII, 873-880.
e. Neu Braunfelser Zeitung. A file of this paper, covering the period from November 25, 1853, to September 20, 1872, was one of the important additions to the early Texas newspapers published in German. This paper was edited by Ferdinand J. Lindheimer, a scholar who enjoyed international fame as a botanist. “For twenty years he was editor and publisher of this paper, and only the infirmities of age compelled him to lay aside his duties. The Neu Braunfelser Zeitung was nominally Democratic, but was really intended and actually conducted impartially in the interests of the whole people and the editor was ever fearless in guarding them against private interest and political graft.” 91
f. San Antonio Herald. The State Library has had for some years an incomplete file of the San Antonio Daily Herald. It covered the following dates: August 4, 1857, to March 31, 1860. November 27, 1865, to June 30, 1867. January 1, 1868, to June 30, 1876. January 1 to June 30, 1878. January 1 to December 31, 1879.
The period of the Civil War is entirely blank in this file. The State Library has had many inquiries concerning the Herald during the war, and many efforts were made to ascertain what became of the missing file. A. C. Gray in his History of the Texas Press conveys the impression that the Herald was published during the war. 92 An addition to the file of this paper recently made by the State Library shows that Mr. Gray is in error. It comprises the San Antonio Tri-Weekly Herald for the period from August 29 to November 11, 1865, and the Daily Herald from November 14, 1865, to December 30, 1866. In Volume I, Number 1, of the Tri-Weekly Herald, issued August 29, 1865, appears the following editorial paragraph:
In putting forth our Tri-Weekly we are entering upon no untried experiment, we having published in this city a Daily issue for several years previous to the war, and in point of fact the first Daily paper 93 ever published in this State. The demand for news in this city has never been so great as at present. This demand it will be our earnest endeavor to supply. At an early date the electric telegraph will be completed to this city, and from that date a complete revolution will have been effected on the whole subject of news and newspapers. Truly, a new era that will be, when, through the instrumentality of electricity (now that the Atlantic has been spanned by the `cable') the news from two continents shall be published simultaneously in San Antonio!
The same paper, in its issue of October 28, 1865, noted the completion of the telegraph to San Antonio in the following paragraphs:
It is with no ordinary satisfaction that we announce the completion of telegraphic communication to this city—an event which took place day before yesterday ... The office of the line is located in the Menger Hotel, and is under the management of our young friend, Mr. Charles Spellman ... He represents that the line is in full working order to Austin, Houston and Galveston, and through those places to all parts of the United States.
We have made arrangements for the reception and publication of all news as it reaches Houston, having a special agent there to forward it over the wires. Should we find our Tri-Weekly too slow for the new order of things, we shall resort to a Daily, being determined to give the News full and fresh.
Within a fortnight the daily made its appearance; the first issue, dated November 14, 1865, had the following announcement:
Over seven years ago, the proprietors of the San Antonio Herald commenced the publication of a Daily paper, which was continued regularly until near the breaking out of the late war. We now resume that paper ...
g. Texas New Yorker. The commission has also added to the newspaper files of the State Library the Texas New Yorker for the period from September, 1870, to August, 1872, and September, 1873, to August, 1874. This is a monthly publication, issued in New York city, by George H. Sweet, and was “devoted to making known to the capitalist, merchant, mechanic, and emigrant the agricultural, horticultural, stock-raising and other latent wealth of Texas.”
3. Manuscripts.—The additions of manuscript materials during the past two years have been important, and have added much to the State Library's resources in this direction. It will not be possible to enumerate every manuscript or document. The following are the more important:
a. “Notes of Travel made by Geo. H. Sweet, of San Antonio, Texas, on his trip through Mexico,” July 6 to September 16, 1866, is an interesting manuscript volume, 4×7 inches in size and numbering 168 pages. It was secured from a bookseller in Brooklyn, New York.
b. Hutchinson's Diary. The valuable manuscript diary of Judge Anderson Hutchinson was obtained from a bookseller in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The diary has been printed in The Quarterly, XIII, 294-313.
c. Burnley Papers. The State Library has had for many years a collection of manuscripts called the Burnley Papers. During the past year an important addition to the collection was made from an altogether unexpected quarter. A. T. Burnley was loan commissioner of the Republic of Texas. 94 A number of important original letters, relating to his financial mission were bid in by the State Library at an auction sale in New York City.
d. Lost manuscripts recovered. The report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, Insurance, Statistics and History for the year 1891 contains the following statement:
The Spanish documents in the Archives of Bexar, relating to the early settlement of Texas, were, by act of the legislature, August 25, 1856, translated and transferred, originals and translations, to the office of the Secretary of State. These papers, consisting of two thousand pages legal cap, appear by Commissioner Spaight's report in 1882, to have been lost for a while, then found and recovered by himself from the legal representative of the Alexander estate in Austin and restored to their proper place of deposit in this department as fixed by law. Some time between 1882 and 1886 these renowned documents, which had engrossed so large a share of the public attention, to say nothing of their cost to the treasury, again disappeared from their place of custody without notice.
The translations referred to above were discovered by the State Librarian among the Spanish Archives of the General Land Office, and after satisfactory proof was made they were turned over to the State Library by Commissioner Robison. A hasty and incomplete examination of the Nacogdoches Archives in the State Library shows that a large per cent of the originals from which the translations were made are preserved in that collection. This discovery furnishes an explanation to what has been a puzzling question, namely, why so many documents that one would expect to find in the Bexar Archives are actually among the Nacogdoches Archives.
e. Reagan Papers. On February 18th last, the John H. Reagan Papers were added to the State Library. An appropriation for their purchase was made by the thirty-first legislature. While there has not been made any extensive examination of these Papers, one is led to expect much material of value relating to the history and public men of Texas since 1847, the approximate date of Judge Reagan's entry into public life.
f. The Lamar Papers. The most important addition to the historical archives of the State Library, however, was the collection of manuscripts made by President Mirabeau B. Lamar. Their purchase also was provided for by an act of the thirty-first legislature. Lamar had planned to write a history of Texas, and also a history of the Austin family; the collection was made with these ends in view. Notices of the Lamar Papers have appeared in The Quarterly, IV, 58 and XIII, 81.
4. Phonographic Record.—Governor Colquitt presented to the State Library the phonographic record of Governor Hogg's address to the Democratic Legislative Banquet at Dallas, November 6, 1905. This is popularly known as Governor Hogg's last speech. He was ill when he composed it, and not being allowed to attend the banquet made use of the phonograph to convey his message.
The collecting of the materials upon which must be based the written history of this State is, of course, preliminary to all other efforts. But sufficient progress has been made in this preliminary work, as regards certain portions of our history, to warrant making a beginning in the publication of the historical records of Texas.
Together with its First Biennial Report, the Texas Library and Historical Commission submitted a copy of the Secret Journals of the Senate of the first eight congresses of the Republic of Texas, and this is now in press. Plans are under way to follow up this initial volume with others as rapidly as the materials can be prepared and the funds that may be available will permit.
It is believed that such publication will give increased impetus to the study of Texas and Southwestern history as it will augment the opportunities of students. Certainly it will put the sources of our history in more enduring form and place them beyond the chance of total loss that is always present so long as they are preserved in manuscripts of which there is but one copy.
I was born in the state of North Carolina the 18th day of April, 1810. My father's name was Julius Horton, my mother's name was Susannah Purnell. My father moved to the state of Louisiana in 1818. He died in the month of May, 1818, leaving my mother with nine helpless children. The names of the children were, Nancy, Elisabeth, Sarah, Samuel, Sandy or Alexander, Martha, Wade, Henry, Susan. My mother moved to Texas the first of January, 1824, and settled in San Augustine, then called Ayish Bayou. There were but a few people then living in the county. I found James Gaines keeping a ferry on the Sabine River. The next house was Maximilian's. At the Pato Gaucho Bayou Macon G. Call [lived]. The next settler was Brian Doughtery [Dougherty?], living at the place where Elisha Roberts formerly lived. The next place was Nathan Davis's. He lived at the crossing of the Ayish Bayou, at the place where William Blount now resides, but the houses were east of the houses where Mr. Blount now resides. At that place lived John A. Williams. From there there was no one living until you came to the place where Milton Garrett lived; then a man named Fulcher lived [there?]. And at or near the Atoyac lived Thomas Spencer. That was about the number of inhabitants living in this county the first of January, 1824.
But the county from this date began to fill up rapidly. People began to make rapid improvements, and all things seemed prosperous. Among the early settlers of this county were some of the noblest men to be found in any county. They were generous, kind, honest and brave. I will here give the names of many of them. I will begin with David and Isaac Renfroe, Elisha Roberts, Donald McDonald, John Cartwright, Willis Murphy, Philip A. Sublett, John Chumley, Nathan Davis, Obadiah Hendricks, John Bodine, John Lout 96 (?), Bailey Anderson, Benjamin Thomas, Wily Thomas, Shedreck Thomas, Thomas Cartwright, Isaac Lindsey, John G. Love, Martha Lewes and family, George Jones, Acalas [Achilles] Johnston, Elias K. Davis, Theodore Dorset, John Dorset, Benjamin Lindsey, Stephen Prater, Wyatt Hanks, James and Horatio Hanks, Solomon Miller, Hyram Brown, William Loid [Loyd?] 97 George Teel, Edward Teel, John Sprowl, James Bridges, Ross Bridges, Peter Galoway, John McGinnis. These were the most [of the] earliest settlers of East Texas.
In 1825 the people began to make rapid improvement, opening large farms and building cotton gins. This year Elisha Roberts, John A. Williams, and John Sprowl each erected cotton gins on the main road, for at that time there was no one living either north or south of the old king's highway. In the year 1824 William Quirk built a mill on the Ayish Bayou just above where Hawke's mill now stands. All things now went on harmoniously for several years, the county filling up rapidly.
The first trouble we had came in 1827. This was what was called the Fredonian war. This grew out of a quarrel between the Mexican citizens of Nacogdoches and Colonel Hayden Edwards. Colonel Edwards had obtained from the Mexican Government the right to colonize the county south of the road leading from Nacogdoches to the Sabine River, and had settled in the town of Nacogdoches with his family; but a dispute arose soon between him and the Mexican citizens in regard to their land matters. These things were referred to the Mexican authorities, who at once decided in favor of the Mexican citizens, and at once took from Edwards his colonial grant and gave the colony to Antonio 98 de Zavala. This act aroused Edwards to desperation, and he at once proceeded to the United States and raised a large force of volunteers, marched upon Nacogdoches, and after a short engagement took the town, killing one Mexican and wounding several. They then raised what they called the Fredonian flag and established the Fredonian government. He (Edwards) then called upon the citizens of Ayish, Sabine, and Teneha or Shelby to join. This they refused to do, not seeing any cause for a war with Mexico. This again aroused Edwards to desperation, and he at once issued a proclamation, giving the citizens a given time to join him, stating that all who did not do so were to be driven out of the county, and their property confiscated. In furtherance of this he sent down to this county about one hundred men and stationed them on the road about two miles east of the Ayish Bayou. This threat, backed by such a force, entirely broke up the county. Every citizen of this county with the bare exception of Edward Teel and myself fled across the Sabine, and it did seem as if all was lost. But at last the comforter came. The evening before the Fredonians were to carry out their threat, to my great joy and surprise, who should ride up to my mother's but my old and well-tried friend Stephen Prater? A braver or more honest man never lived in any county. He had with him about seventyfive or one hundred Indian warriors, all painted and ready to execute any order given by Prater. When he rode up to my mother's house he called me out and said, “not run away yet?” I told him I had not left, and did not intend to leave. He then said, “are you willing to join us and fight for your country?” I told him I was. “Then,” said he, “saddle your horse and follow me, for I intend to take that Fredonian garrison in the morning or die in the attempt.” I at once saddled my horse, shouldered my rifle, and fell into line. Stephen Prater had only eight white men with him. The rest of the citizens had gone over Sabine for protection from the government of the United States. I well remember all of those he had with him: James Bridges, Sr., James Bridges, Jr., Ross Bridges, Peter Galoway, and John McGinnis, his two sons, Stephen and Freeman, and A. Horton. He marched that evening up to within about four hundred yards of the Fredonian force, dismounted his men, and at daylight in the morning marched them up near the fortification. After telling them that the place was to be taken by storm but that they were not to fire or kill any one unless fired on first he gave the order for a charge. When the order was given to charge, the Indians raised the war whoop, and it was so terrible that the Fredonians threw down their arms and begged for quarter, which was at once granted. They were all disarmed and put under guard. Next day was the day that the troops were to come down to carry out their threat of confiscation. As fast as they arrived they were arrested and put under guard, so that in the course of a few hours we had them all under guard. When this news reached Nacogdoches Colonel Edwards and the rest of the party fled to the United States, across the Sabine River at Richard Haley's crossing, and this was the last of the Fredonian war. This is a true and correct statement. Though many things may have been left out or forgotten, what is stated is true and correct.
All things after this went on smoothly. The Mexican government was highly pleased with the part taken by the Americans, and at once appointed officers to extend land titles to the colonists. The county rapidly filled up with settlers.
In 1832 a civil war broke out in Mexico. President Bustamante declared in favor of a monarchical form of government, and General Santa Anna in favor of the constitution of 1824. The Americans everywhere in Texas took up arms in favor of Santa Anna. At that time there was a regiment of Mexican soldiers stationed at Nacogdoches, under the command of Colonel Piedras, who declared in favor of the central government. The people of East Texas declared in favor of the constitution of 1824, at once flew to arms, and elected James W. Bullock commander-in-chief. James W. Bullock was a well-tried soldier. He had served under the immortal Jackson in Indian wars, and was with him at the battle of New Orleans. The Texians marched for the town of Nacogdoches the last of July, 1832, and on the second of August formed themselves in regular order of battle and demanded the surrender of the place, or the raising of the Santa Anna flag. Both of these Colonel Piedras refused to do, sending us word that he was well prepared and ready to receive us. About 10 o'clock on the 2d day of August the battle began. The Mexicans meeting us at the entrance of the town, a furious fight commenced which lasted all day, the Americans driving them from house to house until they reached the “Sone Hous” [Stone House?]. There they made a desperate stand, but they were again driven from there into their main fortification which was called the “quartell.” This ended the fighting on the 2d of August. August 3 the Americans were well prepared to commence the fight, but to their surprise they found that the Mexicans had that night abandoned the town and had retreated to the west. A call was made for volunteers to follow them. Seventeen men at once volunteered to go after them, attacked them at the crossing of the Angelina, and after a considerable fight, in which the Mexicans lost their great cavalry officer “Muscus” [Musquiz?] the Mexican took possession of John Durst's houses. The Americans then drew off and took a strong position on the road west of the river, intending to ambush the Mexicans and fight them to the Rio Grande, but after waiting until late in the day we returned to see what the Mexicans were doing. To our surprise, on arriving near the house, we saw a white flag floating from Durst's chimney. We approached the place with caution, for we had only seventeen men, and Piedras had an entire regiment, but we approached as near as we thought prudent, and Piedras and his officers came out and surrendered themselves as prisoners of war. We then were at a loss to know what to do with so many prisoners, so we hit upon the following plan: it was agreed that Colonel Piedras and the officers should be taken back to Nacogdoches, and that the soldiers should remain where they were until further orders. On arriving at Nacogdoches with our prisoners a treaty was made by which Piedras and his officers were paroled and sent home by the way of New Orleans, pledging themselves not to take up arms any more during the war unless fairly exchanged. This was an end to the war of 1832 [in East Texas].
I have forgotten the names of the seventeen men, but I remember some of them: I will begin with James Carter, Hiram Brown, John Noilin, William Loyd, Jack Thompson, George Davis, Horatio Hanks, A. Horton, James Bradshaw, George Jones. The other names I have forgotten.
When I arrived in Texas in 1824 it was so sparsely settled that there were no regulations in any legal form. As we had no knowledge of the Mexican laws, we were a law unto ourselves. But as the country became more thickly settled it became manifest that there must be some rule to collect debts and punish crime. The people agreed to elect a man whom they called an alcalde, and a sheriff to execute his orders. The alcalde's power extended to all civil and criminal cases without regard to the importance of the cause. Murder, theft, and all other cases, except divorces, came under his jurisdiction, and as the old Texas men and women were always true and loyal to each other, divorce cases were never heard of. The alcalde had the power in all cases to call to his assistance twelve good and lawful citizens when he deemed it necessary or the parties requested it; and the decision of the alcalde and twelve men was final. From this no appeal could be taken, and there was as much justice done then as there is now, and not half so much grumbling. The first alcalde was Bailey Anderson, the next was John Sprowl, in 1830 Jacob Garrett was alcalde, in 1831 Elisha Roberts, in 1832 Benjamin Lindsey, in 1833 William McFarland, in 1834 Charles Taylor. I served as sheriff under Roberts, Lindsey, McFarland, and Taylor, but the year of thirty-five called me to the tented field in defence of my country.
The year 1835 brought about a new order of things. After the people had fought for Santa Anna in 1832, looking upon him as the Washington of the day, in 1835 he turned traitor to the Republican party and declared himself dictator or emperor. He soon overran all the Mexican states except Texas, which, true to the principles of 1776, refused to submit to his tyrannical government, and thus brought on the war with Mexico. The people held political meetings everywhere in Texas, and resolved to resist the tyrant at all hasard. A consultation was called to meet at San Felipe de Austin to determine what was best. In the meantime, the people had flown to arms, had taken Goliad and San Antonio, and driven the Mexicans out of Texas. When the consultation met they at once closed the land offices, suspended the civil laws in all cases, and elected Sam Houston commander-in-chief of the armies of Texas. Houston repaired to the army, but Travis and Fannin refused to give up the command to Houston, and he returned home much mortified. This disobedience of orders led to all the destruction of our armies. Had Fannin and Travis turned over the command to Houston, those fine armies would have been saved. 99 Houston had to return and wait until the meeting of the convention in March, 1836, before he could get the command, and then it was too late. 100 On the assembling of the convention, among its earliest acts was the election of Houston to be commander-in-chief, for at the time Travis's letters were coming every day calling for troops, saying that the Mexican army was advancing rapidly on him in great force, but that he would hold the post to the last and would never surrender.
Houston arrived at Gonzales about March 11 with only four men, Colonel Hockley, Richardson Scurry, A. Horton, and one other man. When he reached Gonzales he found the glorious Edward Burleson there with about four hundred men who had started to reinforce Travis, but who on reaching there had learned that Santa Anna had reached San Antonio before them and surrounded the Alamo with a force estimated at from 8,000 to 10,000 men. On Houston's arrival Edward Burleson at once turned over the command to him, and was himself elected colonel of the first regiment.
Great anxiety was felt for the Alamo. Spies came in that evening and said that San Antonio was surrounded by a powerful force, so that they could not approach near enough to see what was its fate, but that they greatly feared that the town had fallen, as all firing had ceased. Soon after this Mrs. Dickinson arrived with her infant daughter and Travis's negro man, and said that every one had been killed, except herself and child and the negro man. She further said that Santa Anna with his whole army was not five miles off, for she had left them at dinner and had come with a proclamation from Santa Anna offering pardon to all who would lay down their arms and submit to the government but certain death to all that were found under arms. This proclamation General Houston read to the men, and then stamped it under his feet, and shouted, “death to Santa Anna! down with despotism!” All the men joined in the shout. But there was no time to be lost, as the enemy was at the door. After a council of war it was decided that the troops must fall back. At once orders were given for the women and children to retreat as fast as possible, and they were assured that the troops would cover their retreat and defend them as long as a man was left alive.
The retreat was begun about midnight, the troops following the citizens. Houston retreated to the Colorado, and sent word to Fannin to blow up Goliad and join him there, but Fannin refused to do so and paid no attention to the order. 101 Houston remained there many days, expecting Fannin to come to his assistance. While waiting there, Houston's army was stronger than it ever was afterwards. While Houston was expecting Fannin every hour a man well skilled in the Mexican affairs came into camp and brought the dreadful news that Fannin's army had been captured, and all killed after the surrender. This caused great confusion in the army, and the army was again obliged to fall back, and a large number of our men had to be furloughed to take care of their families, which greatly reduced our forces. Houston retreated to the Brazos, to San Felipe. There he turned up the river on the west side, and encamped opposite Groce's Retreat between the river and a large lake. Here he remained many days, sending out his spies in every direction, watching the enemy's motions. At last the glorious spy Henry Carnes brought the news that Santa Anna had forced the crossing of the Brazos at Fort Bend, and was marching on to Harrisburg. Houston at once, by the assistance of the steamboat Yellow Stone, which was lying at Groce's, threw his army across the river, and took up the line of march to Harrisburg which ended in the defeat of the Mexican army and secured the independence of Texas.
In those dark days all seemed to be lost, as that little army was all the hope of Texas. If that little army had been defeated, all would have been lost, for the Indians were on the point of joining the Mexicans. On my way home after the battle of San Jacinto I passed many Indians about the Trinity, painted and armed, awaiting the result of the battle. If it had gone against us, they would have commenced butchering our helpless women and children.
When all seemed lost the noble Sidney Sherman came to our assistance with a Kentucky regiment, and rendered great and timely aid, gloriously leading our left wing in the battle of San Jacinto. That battle secured the independence of Texas, and laid the foundation for extending the jurisdiction of the United States to the Pacific Ocean.
I was a member of the consultation of 1835, and voted for the declaration of independence at that time. If it had carried, Texas would have been in much better condition to meet the enemy than she was in 1836. It would have given us more time to organize armies, and we would have been better prepared.
I have been with Texas since 1824, served in all her wars, beginning with the Fredonian war of 1827, in the war between Santa Anna and Bustamante in 1832, in the war of 1835-36 between Santa Anna and the Republic of Texas, and in 1839 against the Cherokee Indians under their great war chief Bowls. I have served Texas in various ways. I was first sheriff four years, I was president of the board of land commissioners in 1838, custom house collector in 1839, and was mayor of San Augustine; I served you one term in the legislature, and there has never been a call for help in the hour of danger that I was not there. I have seen San Augustine twice broken up and abandoned, first in the Fredonian war in 1827 and again in 1836. But I did not witness the latter scene, for I was in the army, acting as aid de camp to General Houston. I have never abandoned my country, though I have had to encounter many dangers, having come to Texas when only fourteen years old without father, money, or friends. I received but a limited education, in fact only what I in a great measure acquired by my own exertions with a little assistance from my friends. I am proud to be able to say that I have been always an honest man. At the age of twenty-seven I was married to Elizabeth Latten, formerly Elizabeth Cooper, by whom I had three children, one son and two daughters. My oldest child I named Sam Houston Horton, after my glorious old chief who led me to battle and remained my best friend through life. Houston Horton is still living; my two daughters, Elisa and Mary are both dead. I lived with my wife ten years. In the meantime, I had by honest exertions accumulated a small fortune. But the civil war of my country left me in my old age penniless, poor; for I had given away a fortune in land for negro property which was taken away from me by the self-righteous people of the North.
[In 1847 Colonel Horton married a second wife, Mary Harrell. To them were born seven children, Wade W. Horton, Elizabeth Susan, Lavinia, Emma, Alexander, and Mary. This information is furnished in an addendum to his own sketch, written by one of his daughters.]
Near the entrance to the Capitol at Austin, there stands a monument erected by the state of Texas to the memory of the men who fell in the Alamo. The names thereon engraved are read with reverential feeling, suggesting as they do a picture of sublime self-sacrifice, of lives offered up willingly, that “Texas might have breathing time.” These names are arranged in alphabetical order, and that of Micajah Autry, a native of North Carolina, stands among the first.
From his only daughter, Mrs. Mary Autry Greer, of Beaumont, Texas, I have learned some incidents of the life and some traits of the character of this man whose name is ineffaceably traced on the graven tablet and indelibly written on the pages of Texas history. Through the courtesy of Judge James L. Autry, his grandson, I have had the privilege of reading copies of letters written by him to his wife Martha, while on his journey from Tennessee to Texas. I have used such extracts from these as seem best to describe the men whom he met and the trials and the hardships which encompassed him, as well as the ardent hope and fervor of purpose which enabled him without faltering to persevere throughout this fateful last journey. The muster roll, dated Nacogdoches, January 14, 1836, and containing for the most part the names of Tennesseeans, forms a kind of sequel to the last letter written by Autry to his wife from the same place. The newspaper obituary published after his death may not be perfectly accurate in all its details, yet it agrees in its main features with family tradition. The hastily written note of Nat G. Smith, without date, portrays vividly the anxiety which filled the hearts of devoted relatives, awaiting with mingled hope and dread the news to be gathered from passengers on the stage coaches. Such documents need little comment from the compiler; they reflect the character of the times, and, more forcibly still, the character of the gentleman, the affectionate husband and father, the patriot, soldier, and hero who is the subject of this sketch.
Micajah Autry was born near the close of the eighteenth century, about 1794 or 1795. Some interesting data are contained in the following obituary notice, published soon after his death, in a North Carolina newspaper: 102
Major Micajah Autry—We have received a letter from Tennessee informing us that this gentleman was one of the gallant volunteers who fell at the storming of the Alamo, in San Antonio, Texas. He was a native of Sampson County, in this State, but from the age of six years until the year 1823, when he was about 28 years of age, he resided in this County with his father, Mr. Theophilus Autry. Between the ages of 17 and 18, he volunteered in Captain Lord's Company, and marched to Wilmington, when the place was threatened by the British. He afterwards joined the army at Charleston, and remained in the service until the peace in the Spring of 1815. 103
On his return in consequence of bad health, which prevented his labouring on the farm, he directed his attention to literary pursuits, and soon qualified himself for teaching. In 1823 he moved to Hayesboro, Tenn. Here he studied law and was admitted to the bar at Nashville in 1828 or '9. In 1831 he removed to Jackson, in the Western District of Tennessee where he practised law until November last, when he volunteered in the cause of Texas. He met death in the glorious battle of San Antonio, the particulars of which are too well known to need repetition. He has left a wife and two children in Tennessee, and his aged father and other relatives in this County.
Mrs. Greer says that after moving to Tennessee her father taught school, while studying law, and that about the year 1824 he was united in marriage to Mrs. Martha Wyche Wilkinson, whose maiden name was Putney. This lady was the widow of Dr. Wilkinson, to whom she had borne one child, a daughter named Amelia. For several years the home of Mr. Autry lay within a few miles of Nashville, near which city was also the home of Andrew Jackson, “The Hermitage.” Here several children were born, of whom only two, Mary and James L. Autry, grew to maturity. The account of the removal of the family from Nashville to Jackson is here given in the words of his daughter, who was old enough to remember distinctly the incidents of their overland journey.
Mother, Sister, Aunt, my baby brother, his nurse and myself travelled in the family coach, a handsome affair drawn by two large bays. Father rode a fine grey horse, and was an agile, graceful equestrain. The slaves were in two immense wagons, with hoops covered with cloth, not unlike in appearance the large automobiles of the present day, and drawn by horses or mules. Although so young I remember several incidents of the route. One was this: late one evening father dashed up to the coach, saying to the coachman, “Drive for your life! We must reach a house some miles distant. It is said there is a large pack of wolves but a few miles off!” And as he dashed away to warn the wagoners we heard the distant howl of the wolves. We reached the house, however, and were entertained hospitably. The negroes in the wagons always camped out and cooked their own meals. In a few days more we reached our destination, the flourishing little town of Jackson. My father had visited the country some months before, bought several acres of land in the suburbs on a high hill level at the top for many feet and built a hewn log house of four large rooms and a wide hall. Such residences were common throughout the South in pioneer days and were neat and comfortable.
At Jackson Mr. Autry formed a law partnership with Andrew L. Martin, a talented attorney of prominence. They had a large practice, but made the mistake of engaging also in mercantile business, which proved unsuccessful. In its interest Mr. Autry made two trips to Philadelphia and New York to purchase stocks of dry goods, and on one of these occasions heard much talk of Texas. He determined to visit Texas and determine for himself its advantages as a place of residence for his family, and in 1835 he set out on his long and fateful journey. Meanwhile Amelia Wilkinson, Mrs. Autry's oldest daughter, who had been married when quite young to Samuel Smith, a wealthy planter, offered to share her home with her mother and the two little children until a new home should be prepared for them in Texas. Mr. Smith kindly guarded their interests, sold their home, furniture, carriage and horses, and gave work to their slaves.
Autry's letters to his wife tell of his journey. In a letter dated Memphis, Tennessee, December 7, 1835, he says:
I have taken my passage in the steamboat Pacific and shall leave in an hour or two. . . . I have met in the same boat a number of acquaintances from Nashville and the District, bound for Texas, among whom are George C. Childress and his brother. Childress thinks the fighting will be over before we get there, and speaks cheeringly of the prospects. I feel more energy than I ever did in anything I have undertaken. I am determined to provide for you a home or perish. . . . Fare you all well till you hear from me again, perhaps from Natchez. . . .
[In a letter written from Nachitoches, December 13, 1835, he says:]
About 20 minutes ago I landed at this place safely after considerable peril. About 20 men from Tennessee formed our squad at Memphis, and all landed safely at the mouth of Red River. Major Eaton and Lady were on board the Pacific, to whom I suppose I was favourably introduced by Mr. Childress, from that however or from some other reason Gov. Eaton paid me the most friendly and assiduous attention. . . . I have not met with a more amiable and agreeable man than the Governor. By his persuasion a Major Arnold from Tennessee (a cousin of Gen'l Arnold) and myself left the rest of our Company at the mouth of Red River and went down to Orleans for the purpose of learning the true state of things in Texas as well as which would be the best probable rout. The result was that, the war is still going on favourably to the Texans, but it is thought that Santa Anna will make a descent with his whole forces in the Spring, but there will be soldiers enough of the real grit in Texas by that time to overrun all Mexico.
The only danger is in starvation, for the impulse to Texas both as to soldiers and moving families exceeds anything I have ever known. I have little doubt but that the army will receive ample supplies from Orleans both of provisions and munitions of war, as the people of Texas have formed themselves into something like a government, which will give them credit in Orleans. I have had many glowing descriptions of the country by those who have been there. . . . We have between 400 and 500 miles to foot it to the seat of government, for we cannot get horses, but we have sworn allegiance to each other and will get along somehow. . . . The smallpox has recently broken out here very bad, but I fear the Tavern bill a great deal worse. Such charges never were heard of and we have to stay here probably several days before we can procure a conveyance for our baggage. I supose we shall join and buy a waggon.
Write to me to this place all the letters you send by mail, perhaps the general intercourse from here to Texas, will enable me to get them conveniently. Write me in Texas by every private opportunity, and I will do the same. . . . I send this by Mr. Sevier who promises to put it in the postoffice at Bolivar or Middleburg. . . .
P. S. The Company of young men that left Jackson before I did passed through here about 20 days ago. [He mentions the name of Charles Haskell as having been among these, who had all gone on to “St Antone” the seat of war.]
Pursuing the course of Micajah Autry by means of these letters, it appears that he had not overestimated the difficulties that would beset his path on the way to Texas. In the last letter received by his wife he writes as follows:
Nacogdoches, Jany. 13th, 1836. My Dear Martha,
I have reached this point after many hardships and privations but thank God in most excellent health. The very great fatigue I have suffered has in a degree stifled reflection and has been an advantage to me. I walked from Nachitoches whence I wrote you last to this place 115 miles through torrents of rain, mud and water. I had remained a few days in St. Augustine when Capt. Kimble from Clarksvelle, Ten. a lawyer of whom you may recollect to have heard me speak arrived with a small company of select men, 4 of them lawyers. I joined them and find them perfect gentlemen. We are waiting for a company daily expected from Columbia, Ten. under Col. Hill with whom we expect to march to head quarters (Washington) 125 miles from here, where we shall join Houston the commander in chief and receive our destination. I may or may not receive promotion as there are many very meritorious men seeking the same. I have become one of the most thorough going men you ever heard of. I go the whole Hog in the cause of Texas. I expect to help them gain their independence and also to form their civil government, for it is worth risking many lives for. From what I have seen and learned from others there is not so fair a portion of the earth's surface warmed by the sun.
Be of good cheer Martha I will provide you a sweet home. I shall be entitled to 640 acres of land for my services in the army and 4444 acres upon condition of settling my family here. Whether I shall be able to move you here next fall or not will depend upon the termination of the present contest. Some say that Santa Ana is in the field with an immense army and near the confines of Texas, others say since the conquest of St. Antonio by the Texians and the imprisonment of Genl. Cos and 1100 men of which you have no doubt heard, that Santa Ana has become intimidated for fear that the Texians will drive the war into his dominions and is now holding himself in readiness to fly to Europe which latter report I am inclined to discredit, what is the truth of the matter no one here knows or pretends to know.
Tell Mr. Smith not to think of remaining where he is but to be ready to come to this country at the very moment the government shall be settled, as for a trifle he may procure a possession of land that will make a fortune for himself, his children and his children's children of its own increase in value and such a cotton country is not under the sun. I have just been introduced to Mr. McNiell a nephew of Mr. S. who is now in this place and appears to be much of a gentleman. Give my most kind affection to Amelia and Mr Smith and to my own Dear Mary and James give a thousand tender embraces and for you my Dearest Martha may the smile of heaven keep you as happy as possible till we meet.
M. Autry. Tell Brothers J. &S. I have not time to write to them at present as Mr. Madding and Sevier by whom I send this can not wait. Tell Brother Jack to think of nothing but coming here with us; that if he knew as much about this country as I already do he would not be kept from it. Tell him to study law as this will be the greatest country for that profession as soon as we have a government that ever was known. M. A. P. S. We stand guard of nights and night before last was mine to stand two hours during which the moon rose in all her mildness but splendor and majesty. With what pleasure did I contemplate that lovely orb chiefly because I recollected how often you and I had taken pleasure in standing in the door and contemplating her together. Indeed I imagined that you might be looking at her at the same time. Farewell Dear Martha. M. A. P. S. Col. Crockett has just joined our company. 104
The following copy of a muster roll shows some of the companions with whom Autry left Nacogdoches. 105
Know all men by these presents: That I have this day voluntarily enlisted myself in the Volunteer Auxiliary Corps, for and during the term of six months.
And I do solemnly swear that I will bear true allegiance to the provisional Government of Texas, or any future Government that may be hereafter declared, and that I will serve her honestly and faithfully against all her enemies whatsoever and observe and obey the orders of the Governor of Texas, the orders and decrees of the present and future authorities and the orders of the officers appointed over me according to the rules and regulations for the government of the Armies of Texas. “So help me God.”
Nacogdoches, January 14th 1836.
Names. Age. Remarks.
H. S. Kimble 31 Tennessee.
M. Authey [Autry] 106 43 Tennessee.
J. P. Bailey 24 Kentucky.
Daniel W. Cloud 21 Kentucky.
W. J. Lewis 28 Pennsylvania.
Wm. H. Furtleroy 22 Kentucky.
B. M. Thomas 18 Tennessee.
R. L. Stockton 18 Virginia.
Robert Bowen 24 Tennessee.
J. E. Massie 24 Tennessee.
Wm. McDowelly 40 Tennessee.
John P. Raynolds 29 Tennessee.
Joseph Bayliss 28 Tennessee.
The above sworn to and subscribed before me, this 14th January, 1836.
John Forbes 1st Judge of the Municipality of Nacogdoches.
It would be very interesting to know how this little party of patriots marched to San Antonio. But history is as yet silent upon that point. From a letter written from Bexar on February 11, 1836, by G. B. Jameson we learn that the Texans had on that date at Bexar one hundred and fifty men