1. The Spanish Establishments.—The desire of Spain to fasten her claims on eastern Texas had resulted by 1719 in what was at best a very weak hold on that region. Its maintenance was in the immediate charge of the Francisean friars of Mexico, backed by a military force never exceeding twenty-five soldiers. Six straggling missions, scattered the Neches River within a few miles of the Red, had been erected in 1716 by a mere handful of missionaries. The missions were, San Francisco de los Téxas, on the Neches; La Purísima Concepción, on the Angelina; San Joseph, north of Nacogdoches, among the Nazonis; Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe, at Nacogdoches; Nuestra Señora de los Dolores, at modern San Augustine; and San Miguel de los Adaes, some seven or more leagues southwest of Natchitoches, Louisiana. 2 The first three were under the charge of the Franciscan College of Querétaro, with their capital at the Mission of La Purísima Concepción, the last three under that of Zacatecas, with their capital at the Mission of Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe. 3 The small garrison of soldiers that protected them was near Mission Concepción. In the center of the province were the as yet weak Mission of San Antonio de Valero and the presidio of San Antonio de Bexar, established in 1718 by Father Olivares and Governor Alarcón.
The condition of these establishments was far from flourishing. The expedition of Alarcón had been charged with the replenishment of the impoverished missions of eastern Texas and the settlement of their surrounding Indians in pueblos. 4 These things, however, it failed to do, and the missionaries continued to suffer from extreme want. In the years 1717 and 1718 the crops of beans and corn failed, and the Spanish were forced to resort to wild herbs; game was so scarce that the unpalatable crows were used for meat; while the church supplies, the wax for candles and the necessary articles for the celebration of the mass, were all but exhausted. Urgent requests for alleviation were sent to the home government both before and after Alarcón's expedition, but for various reasons no relief came. 5
Thus when our narrative opens, there were in eastern Texas a few missionary priests caring for the six missions, relying for supplies on the inadequate providence of the government authorities in the City of Mexico, and contending with the cupidity of the surrounding Indians. The latter's hostility could be kept in check only by constant gifts, as they were continually alienated by the indiscreet acts of the military, and were in natural antagonism to the chief aim of the missionaries, which was to settle them in pueblos as a first step to their christianization and civilization. 6
2. The French Establishments.—Facing the Spanish establishments in eastern Texas were the outposts of the French in western Louisiana. In 1698 they had made a settlement at Mobile, twelve leagues from the Spanish fort of Pensacola. Their occupation had rapidly extended westward, and by 1717, as an obstacle to Spanish encroachment through Texas and as a base for western Indian trade, they had erected a presidio at Natchitoches, 7 not far from los Adaes. As early as 1717 it was evident that they had designs on the interior Cadodacho lands, 8 designs which were consummated in 1719.
The committing of Louisiana to a rich trading company in 1712 had made its extension and occupation by the French much more probable, for on the success of the commercial enterprise depended the personal fortunes of the promoters of the company. The extension of French influence, which, for trading purposes, was naturally toward the west, made it a factor in Spanish activities in eastern Texas. Thus the Spanish missionaries, in addition to their other difficulties, had to contend with the inherent racial advantages possessed by the French of easy and rapid amalgamation with the aborigines, for French priest, French soldier, and especially French trader, each readily made the Indian his friend. 9
3. Change in the French Frontier Policy.—The Aguayo expedition, which is the theme of this paper, had its cause in a crisis in the affairs of this Texas-Louisiana Frontier. For some time there had been evident a tendency toward a more positive policy on the part of the two nations occupying this border territory. At first the political policy of both had been mutually forbearing, inconsistent, and self-damaging. As regards France, while she consistently claimed Texas after La Salle's attempted settlement, she made no definite effort to occupy the country. Moreover, the persistent efforts of the authorities in Louisiana, beginning with 1712, to open up a land trade with Mexico resulted in the occupation of eastern Texas by Spain in 1716 with six missions and a presidio with twenty-five soldiers. As for Spain, she maintained a jealous, but inactive attitude, until, stirred by imminent danger of a French occupation, she was aroused to spasmodic and weak efforts to secure her claim on Texas, first in 1691 and again in 1716. But the history of early Spanish missions in Texas is a history of successive failures on Spain's part to properly support establishments that were destined to guard what was clearly a danger point. This failure had led one of the early fathers 10 to seek aid among the French of Louisiana, and a later one not to disdain a clandestine encouragement of the French trader at the very time that the latter was carrying French influence into regions claimed by Spain. 11
On account of the forbearance on the part of the French and their avowed eagerness for trade, it has been said and implied that the French of Louisiana were willing, anxious, even solicitous, that Spanish establishments be made in eastern Texas, as a means to promote trade on the border. 12 There seem to be good grounds to doubt the truth of this in general, and by 1719 there are evident signs of the existence of an aggressive policy on the part of the French. Some of the indications that the French did not wish to encourage Spanish settlements in eastern Texas are the following: First, there is a manifest dissatisfaction on the part of the French authorities with the outcome of St. Denis's enterprise, which resulted in the Ramón expedition and the founding of six missions and a presidio in eastern Texas in 1716; 13 second, this feeling of dissatisfaction and disappointment was converted into a desire to resist, and resulted in an aggressive movement on the part of the French in 1719, when, at the order of Bienville, the Governor of Louisiana, Blondel, the commandant at Natchitoches, attacked the mission of los Adaes and brought about for some time the general and complete abandonment of eastern Texas. 14 This aggressive French movement was the immediate cause of the Aguayo expedition, whose object was the reoccupation of the abandoned province.
4. Spanish Fears of the French.—Even before the advent of St. Denis in Mexico, Spanish officials had apprehended danger from the French. As a barrier to those who had advanced as far as Natchitoches after the Ramón expedition of 1716, the missions of San Miguel de los Adaes and Nuestra Señora de los Dolores were established in 1717 along the route formerly used by the French through Texas to Mexico. 15 In the same year an attempt was made to anticipate the French at the Cadodachos, 16 and in 1719 La Harpe learned from the missionary at the mission of los Adaes that Alarcón had ordered an establishment among the Nassonites. 17
Fears of aggression from this quarter were frequently expressed by the missionaries who were in Texas at the time. In June, 1718, Father Olivares at Mission San Antonio de Valero, in writing to the viceroy, said that the French had won the Indians over by their gifts and their disinterestedness, and warned him of danger from this source should war break out, “for they [the French] are supplying the Indians with arquebuses in addition to their arrows.” 18 Father Espinosa, priest at Concepción, on the Angelina, commenting on French influence, relates that at the reception of Alarcón in 1718, the Indians on the frontier “fired off more guns than all the Spaniards put together,” and that in that one mission he had out of curiosity counted ninety-two guns in the Indians' possession. 19 And in the letter of July 2, 1719, by the two missionary presidents, Margil and Espinosa, to the viceroy, an important source for the period, reference is made to former letters they had written expressing similar, if not more personal, fears of the French. 20
Finally, these fears, together with other difficulties of the missionaries, were presented at the viceroy's court by a special messenger. About the middle of 1718, the fathers in eastern Texas were driven to a high degree of impatience by Alarcón's delay at San Antonio, and despaired of getting any relief from him at all. Father Margil sent for Father Espinosa, therefore, and at the former's mission of Dolores a conference was held, at which six religious were present. It was there decided to send two representatives to Mexico, one from each college of friars, to make a personal appeal to the government, in the hope of removing certain misconceived prejudices, and of awakening the authorities to the real danger of the situation in Texas. President Espinosa was the Querétaran representative chosen, and Fray Mathías Sanz de San Antonio, the Zacatecan. These two had gone as far as San Antonio when they met Alarcón 21 just starting for Espíritu Santo and eastern Texas. Father Espinosa, thinking it best to be present at the visitation of the missions under his charge, returned to eastern Texas, by way of Espíritu Santo, with Alarcón, leaving Father Mathías to bear the mission to the home government. 22
The latter sped on to Mexico, where he arrived in November, 1718, and remained till February, 1719. The burden of his complaint to the home government as summarized by Espinosa was: “The manifest risk of losing that province [Texas], on account of the proximity of the French, who were penetrating [adjacent lands] with new settlements, and had a fortification with many people and arms on the Cadodacho River; that information was had that they were settling the banks of the Palizada [the Mississippi] in force; and that it was to be feared on good grounds that they would attach the Téxas Indians to their side, because they fondled them much, giving them firearms in exchange for horses.” 23 Father Mathias's mission was successful as far as orders for relief of the situation were concerned, but ineffective as far as action went. The viceroy, to the end that the Indians might be subjugated and the French restrained, ordered that Spanish families should be sought and sent to Texas to form villas; issued a despatch authorizing the syndic to collect the alms which the king set aside for missionaries; and ordered that alms be collected from the royal treasury at Zacatecas. But nothing was done, and the Texas missionary left the capital in disgust for Zacatécas, February, 1719. 24
1. The Breach of Peace in Europe, January, 1719.—The proverbially slow working of the Spanish governmental authorities allowed time for the fulfillment of the prophecies and the justification of the fears of the missionaries. Before anything was done to strengthen the frontier, menace was offered by the French, and the Spanish missionaries were driven from eastern Texas.
This occurrence was the immediate result and the reflection of European complications. Out of the aspiration of Philip V to the French throne came the unnatural union between France and England in the Triple Alliance, and finally the political isolation of Spain in the formation of the Quadruple Alliance. Spain's retaliatory and aggressive policy carried out in her occupation of Sardinia and her invasion of Sicily was the signal for the declaration of war against her by France, January 9, 1719. 25
2. The Capture of Pensacola by the French, May, 1719.—On April 20, Bienville, the French governor at Mobile, received the declaration of war and an order from the Company of the Occident, then in charge of Louisiana, to seize Pensacola immediately. 26 On May 14 the French sea force surprised and captured the fort. This was the first news the Spanish of Louisiana had of the existence of war, and they claimed an unpardonable breach of faith by the French in not having given the customary two months' notice. 27
On June 29, the viceroy, by letter from Salinas, the governor of San José, received news of the fall of Pensacola, and immediately began elaborate preparations for its recapture. His fleet, however, did not arrive in time for the retaking of the fort. According to stipulations, the French were to transport the Spanish garrison to Havana and thence to Spain. When, however, the French frigates bearing the prisoners neared Havana, they were accidentally met by a Spanish fleet, commanded by D. Alonso Carrascosa de la Torre, and captured. Changing his original plans, Carrascosa now veered toward Pensacola, and on August 7 recaptured the place without resistance. 28
The French under Bienville and Serigny now concentrated their forces, increased by a number of Indian allies and, aided by a newly arrived fleet, again captured Pensacola, September 17, 1719. It finally returned to Spain by treaty in 1721. 29
3. Blondel's Attack on los Adaes, June, 1719.—From this minor war movement in Louisiana, a still smaller one penetrated to the forlorn province of Texas, and swept back for two years from its eastern portion to San Antonio, all vestige of Spanish occupation. Though the act in itself was insignificant, the effects were far from being so, and on the minds of the Spaniards, filled as they were with fears of an impending danger from that source, it made a deep impression. The contemporary writings of the missionaries, which are our principal sources for this event, are laden with details, and the accounts which they present, told with all the charm and naïveté of the simple-hearted padres, are not without humor to the modern reader.
Just what caused the Spaniards to leave eastern Texas in 1719 has been variously misrepresented. One extreme view is that St. Denis, with a large body of French and Indian allies, attacked their settlement at los Adaes; another, which is just as untrue, is that there was no attack at all, and that the missionaries fled without cause. The most important available document for this event is the letter of July 2, 1719, to the viceroy from the two presidents of the missions in Texas. 30 Written under the actual stress of the flight, it gives exact and somewhat graphic details of the plight, fears, and wants of the small band which was expected to hold Texas for His Spanish Majesty. The writers, Fathers Margil and Espinosa, were at the time of the writing at Mission Concepción on the Angelina, where they remained for about twenty days after the rest of the Spaniards had retired toward the Trinity. 31
The facts in the case, as gathered from this letter and other sources, seem to be that about the middle of June, 1719, 32 a month after the capture of Pensacola, the French commandant at Natchitoches went in person to the Mission of San Miguel de los Adaes and captured its occupants. This was not in itself a prodigious feat, for these at the time numbered two—a lay brother and a ragged soldier. It so happened that the missionary priest and his companions were absent on a spiritual errand to their superior, Father Margil, at the Mission Dolores, and so were providentially saved from arrest. Seemingly satisfied with his work, Blondel started home, taking in his custody the lay brother, the soldier, the sacred vessels, ornaments, and other utensils from the mission church. He did not spare even the chickens, which were to repeat in a lesser degree the exploits of the geese of Rome. Not submitting willingly to captivity by the French, they made desperate efforts to escape, and the wild flapping of their wings so frightened the horses that Blondel, the commandant, was thrown. In the consequent confusion, and with the aid of some friendly French soldiers, the lay brother made his escape. So, the Spanish chronicler continues, “Monsieur Commandant returned to his presidio, glorious in the triumph over one worthless soldier and the captured chickens, whose lives were presumably not spared, . . . since they had so treacherously threatened that of their captor.” 33
4. The Retreat of the Spanish across the Trinity, June-September 1719.—The lay brother fled back to Margil's mission, the bearer of his own startling news and of more given him by the friendly French soldiers. His was the first intimation the Texas Spaniards had that their stronghold of Pensacola had been captured. The French soldiers had told him that a hundred men were hourly expected from Natchitoches to mete out a fate like that of los Adaes to the rest of the Texas missions. Speeding the lay brother on with the news to the other missions, Father Margil buried his iron tools and implements, gathered together his ornaments, and retired to Concepción. 34 The information had spread terror to the other missions. The captain, who then was Domingo Ramón, and his few soldiers at the presidio of Nuestra Señora de los Dolores, adjacent to the mission of Concepción, were for immediate flight; the eight women at the presidio clamored to be allowed to retreat, willing to risk the Indians and the wilds alone with two soldiers. On Father Margil's arrival, the religious held council. According to the fathers, they tried to induce the captain to await further developments, since the Indians had offered to put out spies and warn them of any French advance, and the fathers urged that there could be no immediate danger, as they were then more than a hundred leagues away from the French. But persuasion was of no avail, we are told, and in spite of opposition, the families, soldiers, and some of the religious to whom the spirit of fear had been communicated, began their withdrawal, and camped half a league from the Mission of San Francisco de los Téxas, just east of the Neches River. Father Espinosa remained in his mission of Concepción, trying to quiet the Indians who rebelled at the Spaniards' leaving. In order to assure them that the Spanish intended to return, he finally left some of the fixings of the mission in their care. But when he retired to Mission San Francisco, the Indians followed, determined that the Spaniards should not withdraw. Thus it was decided that the rest might retreat, but not beyond the farthest ranches of the Téxas Indians, while the two presidents should go back to Concepción. The captain, perhaps fearful of punishment for the act, hesitated to leave them, and only on receipt of a written statement that they were remaining voluntarily, would he consent to it. Two of the soldiers volunteered to stay with them, and the same day that the rest of the company left westward, Espinosa and Margil returned to the former's mission, where they remained about twenty days. Learning, however, that the captain and the rest of the force were going beyond the specified place, they felt constrained, for evident reasons, to follow them. 35
On July 2, from Mission Concepción, on the Angelina, the letter which we are following in the narrative, signed by the two presidents of the missions, was sent to the viceroy by two messengers. Word was likewise sent to the captains of the presidios of Béxar and the Rio Grande, and to the Governor of Coahuila, telling them that the company of soldiers and the priests were retiring, but that if armed help came the former would return to their presidio and the latter to their missions. The letter relates the events as given above, and adds that there were well-grounded fears that the French would continue their advance. The missionaries attributed their inability to resist the present hostile movement to the general failure of the government to properly support them, and, in particular, to the failure of Alarcón to follow his instructions. They complained, on the one hand, that they had not been informed of the existence of war, that the French had been steadily advancing for three years, that they had distributed guns by the hundreds among the Indians; and, on the other hand, that the Spanish occupation had made no advance for three years, that their former petitions, impressing on the authorities the danger from the French, and their requests for fifty men to settle the Cadodachos had been disregarded, and that since Alarcón's departure, they had not had a single letter from Mexico. They had less than twenty-five soldiers, they continued, mere boys, poorly clad, without mount or arms, a laughing stock to the very Indians. The crops, which had failed the year before, promised to be better, but they must now be left to the ravages of the Indians; the tools and implements which had been secured at the cost of money, time, and labor, must be abandoned. In order to appease the threatened wrath of the savages, who so objected to the Spaniards' retiring that they stole the horses and cattle, they had promised that they would retire but a short distance and return as soon as they met assistance—adding that it was only on account of future danger that they retired at all. The fathers closed their letter with a passionate appeal that the viceroy, “remembering the blood of the Son of God, shed for these poor gentiles, will moisten his pen in it to write with his own hand what may be best for the good of their souls, the service of the King and Lord, and the consolation of these afflicted missionaries.”
The best evidence we have that the missionaries were truthful in their claim that they wished to remain, and that they did not abandon their missions precipitately to the plunder of the Indians—doubted as it is by some 36—is that the presidents actually did remain alone about twenty days at the mission of Concepción. Seeing, however, that the rest of the force continued to retreat beyond the specified distance, they followed. Their first camping place was within the limits of the Téxas Indians, but moving later on, they stopped on the boundary of the Téxas country. Here they remained through July, August, and September. 37
5. Evidence that a Real and not an Imaginary Advance of the French Caused the Retreat of the Spanish.—Leaving the refugees camped near the edge of the Téxas country, let us turn to consider some points that have arisen in regard to the events just narrated. First, it has been seriously doubted whether the French made any demonstration against the Spanish, and whether the missionaries had any real or tangible danger from which to flee, it being maintained that their flight was due to imaginary fears. 38
But the weight of contemporary Spanish sources on this subject seem incontrovertible. The letter of Fathers Espinosa and Margil was written only ten days after the news of the happening at los Adaes had been received, and was sent to the viceroy at the time. Had such an account come later, in self-defense, the charge of fabrication might be considered; but it was written under the stress of events. Furthermore, it is hardly conceivable that such a tale could have been composed without any foundation whatever, even under compulsion. The letter was in fact but a logical sequel to those of 1717 and 1718 in which the government had been warned of facts which would make such an occurrence possible. Another source of undoubted excellence is Espinosa's Chronica Apostolica y Seraphica, and the essential facts and details which it contains harmonize completely with the letter of July 2. 39 A later piece of evidence that the French did make a hostile demonstration is found in the Peña Derrotero. We are told that on the arrival of Aguayo at los Adaes, the cazique of that tribe expressed his joy at the Spaniards' return, saying that “at the time of the French invasion,” 40 his Indians had been forced by the French to remove from their lands, because they had shown regret at the Spanish retreat, and that the French had persecuted them, taking their wives and children for slaves when they left the country. 41
Such is the evidence afforded by the contemporary Spanish sources, and with it contemporary French sources are in complete agreement. First, Bienville, two years after the event, says that he ordered such an attack on the Spanish mission. He was at the time of his statement, December 10, 1721, protesting against a Spanish establishment at los Adaes, and after expressing surprise at such a step, he adds, “Besides there is no one who does not know of the order which I gave on the occasion of the declaration of war to sieur Blondel, Commandant of said Natchitoches, to go with a detachment to the place where the Reverend Father lived to compel him to retire with his domestics.” 42 Second, Blondel admitted that he had gone in person to los Adaes and had taken possession of the ornaments and sacred vessels. 43 Third, he was taken to task for this act by La Harpe upon the latter's return to New Orleans, where he said “he learnt some of the circumstances regarding the expedition of M. Blondel to the Mission of los Adaes.” 44 Fourth, all the reports that reached La Harpe at the Nassonites were to the effect that the French had driven (avaient chassé) the Spaniards out of los Adaes. In the course of his explorations of Red River, La Harpe arrived at the Nassonites, April 5, 1719. 45 His first intimation of hostilities came June 16 through some Nadaco savages. They brought “very confused news about the Spanish, who, they said, were angry with us that we had driven them out from los Adaes, 46 and that the governor of the Assinais and his warriors were retiring from their presidio.” 47 The next information that the French trader received came from the Oulchionis, 48 June 24. They added the information that the French were at war with the Spanish, and that they had been sent by the chief of the nation to ask the Nassonites to declare in favor of the French. La Harpe's third and fullest information was brought by Saint François, a corporal whom he had sent immediately after the first news of June 16, to learn further of the matter. Saint François had left June 20, 49 and had gone as far as the Amediche, 50 where he remained till after the retreat of the Spaniards beyond the Trinity, and returned August 1. 51 He bore the intelligence that Monsieur Blondel, the commandant at Natchitoches, had driven the Recollect Fathers out of the Mission of los Adaes. 52
Blondel's testimony, given at the time, November, 1719, casts light on the subject because of its interesting contradictory nature. When taken to task by La Harpe for having driven the Spaniards out of los Adaes, he assured the latter “that he had gone there only with the intention of protecting that mission from the aggressions of the Indians, who when they knew the breach between us [the French and Spanish] would not have failed to destroy it”; but that the fathers, not knowing his intentions, had fled, abandoning the sacred vessels and other effects “of which the Indians had taken possession.” 53 Thereupon La Harpe dictated a letter which Blondel should write to the fathers. In it he expressed the fears that he had entertained for them on account of the Indians, and stated that he had gone there to protect their reverences. He did not find the reverend father there, however, and Brother Manuel, not trusting in his (the Frenchman's) promises, had fled, abandoning the effects, of which he (Blondel) had taken possession “to prevent their profanation by idolaters.” He assured the priests that should they be sent for, the ornaments would be gladly delivered. 54 It is true that Blondel does not mention the soldier which the Spanish claim he captured, but it is curious to note that when scolded by La Harpe, he declared that the Indians had taken the ornaments, but when writing to the fathers he was forced to admit that he had taken them and had them in his possession. This little incident in itself betrays a lack of candor in Blondel's position, and leaves something to be explained by those who say that there was no attack on los Adaes.
The other extreme view taken of the matter is that St. Denis, at the head of a French and Indian force, attacked the Mission of los Adaes and drove the Spaniards back; and the impression is left that such is the view given by Spanish writers and sources. Bancroft says that, “a party of French and Indians from Natchitoches took possession of the Mission of San Miguel de los Adaes,” and cites indefinitely some of the best secondary Spanish authorities. 55 Now, as a matter of fact, no such allegation is made by contemporary Spanish sources available for this paper, and they include all those cited by Bancroft, and more. First, as to the commander of the forces, various assertions are made by English writers: Dr. Garrison is the only recent writer that correctly states that “Blondel must be the commander of the attacking force, if there was any attack at all”; Bancroft suggests the probability of Blondel's connection with the affair; while in other works such as Thrall, Yoakum, and Brown, La Harpe and St. Denis are given credit for the attack. The last mentioned writer gives all the credit to La Harpe. 56 The fact is that no mention is made of St. Denis or La Harpe in this capacity by either French or Spanish contemporary sources, while Blondel is unequivocally named as the leader of the French. It is also noteworthy that secondary writers such as Villa-Señor (Theatro) and Cavo (Tres Siglos) do not mention the first two. It is true that other early Spanish writers, as Bonilla and Altamira do erroneously name St. Denis as the leader of the invading force. They are, however, not contemporary. 57
As to the composition of the force, Bancroft states that “a party of French and Indians” took possession of los Adaes. He also claims, without specifying citations, to have had access to “Spanish authorities which imply that St. Denis was in command of a party composed mainly of Natchitoches and Cadodachos Indians.” 58 It is improbable that these Spanish sources were contemporary. Indeed, of those he cites only one could be called such, and him Bancroft misrepresents. No primary source available for this paper gives any indication of this being the fact. 59 The only mention of Indians by Spanish contemporary sources is that the French were trying to ally themselves with the Indians, 60 and feared that the latter would be perverted by them. 61 Later writers like Bonilla have distorted the facts.
It is doubtless true, however, that the contemporary sources left exaggerated impressions of the French invasion. Having had real grounds for alarm, the Spaniards allowed their fears to assume magnified proportions. Still, though this is true, irrefutable facts should correct the impression made by writers who represent the withdrawal of the missionaries as an unworthy flight on groundless fears and without real cause.
6. The Character of the Retreat.—Writers also represent the withdrawal as a precipitate retreat to Bexar. Though the company finally retired there, they did not do so immediately, but camped for three months west of the Trinity, waiting for reinforcements. They stayed at their camp through July, August, and September, 62 suffering from want, being irregularly supplied with meat, having poor flour, and being totally without salt. Finally, despairing of succor, all except Father Espinosa, who had gone ahead to Mexico, retired in September or October to San Antonio de Valero, where the religious of the two colleges erected straw huts, and lived until Aguayo came in April, 1721. It was while waiting here that Father Margil, under Aguayo's patronage, founded the Mission of San Joseph y San Miguel de Aguayo. 63
1. The Marquis of Aguayo.—The answer of Spain to the French act of aggression and the consequent abandonment of eastern Texas was the appointment of a capable governor for the provinces of Texas and Coahuila, and the adoption of vigorous measures to reoccupy the abandoned country. The appointment fell to the Marquis of San Miguel de Aguayo, and to him also was committed the work of reoccupation. The marquisate of San Miguel de Aguayo embraced a large portion of the present State of Coahuila, and the Marquises had long been distinguished men in Coahuila and Neuvo León. One of the principal haciendas of the family was San Francisco de los Patos, between Saltillo and Parras, a place still in existence and with the same name. Comparatively little is known to us of the early, or indeed of the later, career of this particular Marquis. His name and title as given in the official print of the Peña Derrotero is “D. Joseph de Azlor, 64 Knight Commandant of the Kingdom of Aragon, Governor and Captain General 65 of the said Province of Texas, New Philipines, and of this of Coahuila, New Kingdom of Estremadura.” He had served the King in Spain before going to Mexico, and when our story opens he was evidently stationed in some military capacity on the northern frontier, with headquarters either at Los Patos or Parras. In 1716, writing from Santa Maria de las Parras, he says that he has been there four years. 66
He first comes to notice in relation to Texas in connection with the quest of the Gran Quivira, which, since the time of Coronado, had gradually receded from far off Kansas toward the Téxas country. In a correspondence with the viceroy in 1715 and 1716, Aguayo asked that Joseph Urrutia 67 be sent to discover the Gran Quivira, of whose wonders and riches he had heard from an Indian from the interior during his sojourn among the Texas tribes. 68
The crisis in the Texas affairs seemed to offer Aguayo a chance to gratify his ambition, and as soon as he heard of the French attack, he offered “his life, sword, and property” in the service of the king. The answer to this offer was his appointment to the governorship of Texas and Coahuila and the further commission to head the expedition that was to reoccupy Texas. 69 He apparently took possession of his office December 19, 1719. 70 He is lost sight of, almost completely, after the expedition, but was evidently on the northern frontier, where, “for ten years, he has defended the country from the attacks of the Indians, giving continuous help to the presidios and neighboring places, and contributing at the same time, with his kindness and gifts, to the pacification of the revolting tribes.” 71 The last we hear of him is that he was appointed Mariscal de campo in 1743.
2. Instructions for the Expedition.—A year before the French attack, June 11, 1718, the king had sent the viceroy a royal cédula, whose specific instructions met exactly the demands of such an emergency. This cédula had been written at the instance of a letter from the viceroy, in which he reported the conditions in Texas which had brought about the Alarcón expedition, and of letters from Gregorio de Salinas, of Pensacola, telling of the danger that the French would occupy Espíritu Santo Bay. The king's cédula ordered that no French ships be allowed in any Spanish port; and charged the viceroy to exert himself to supply and maintain the Texas missions, and to place the greatest number of missionaries at San Antonio, on account of its being the nearest settlement to Espíritu Santo. He ordered that at the latter place there should be erected a fort, on the spot where La Salle's had been; that to facilitate this work two ships should be sent from Vera Cruz; and that for military and religious reinforcements, soldiers and missionaries should be sent from the various presidios and missions in Mexico where their service was not especially required. Particular care was to be exercised in selecting the leader of the enterprise, and he was to be instructed that “if Frenchmen, by land or sea, should attempt another entrada [he] should place the commander in the Castle of Acapulco, and the rest in the mines of Mexico.” 72 On November 1, 1719, the king issued another order. 73 It can not be said with certainty that this was based on a knowledge of the occurrences in Texas, but it repeated in effect the foregoing one of June 11, 1718, and added that “since la Movila, Massacra, and the rest of the territory belonging to my royal crown is now occupied by the French with no right whatever, you [the viceroy] shall make the necessary provisions to cause them to abandon it, dislodging them from it.” 74 And it does seem that it was on the basis of these two royal orders that the viceroy issued his instructions to Aguayo. In these, the viceroy specified, in addition to what the king had ordered, the erection of a fort on the Cadodacho River. A copy of the instructions was sent to the king, August 8, 1720. 75
In the midst of his preparations, October 5, 1720, Aguayo received word from the viceroy which modified his original instructions. The latter had been sent news of the truce between the two nations, and accordingly modified his orders, so that Aguayo was to maintain only a defensive war with the French. 76 The viceroy at the same time made known to Aguayo the instructions contained in a despatch from the king regarding intercourse with the French. One of the provisions of the instructions was to admit those Frenchmen who might wish to join the Spanish force or to live among the Spaniards. 77
By March 16, 1721, the king seems to have returned in some degree to his original intent, as expressed in the cédula of November 1, 1719. In 1720 (August 16), the viceroy had written to the king, telling him that notwithstanding the fact that the premises of the king's previous orders had been changed by the suspension of arms, he had, nevertheless, sent Aguayo to establish a presidio among the Cadodachos, and to increase the forces occupying Texas. In the cédula of March 16, 1721, the king approved these measures of the viceroy, and ordered that “if the French make any movement in continuance of their designs, you will have them thrust by force from the province of Texas and from the rest of what they have occupied in the last war.” 78
On May 26, 1721, due doubtless to the treaty made between the two countries, the king ordered the viceroy to suspend immediately the execution of what he had ordered in his cédulas of November 19, 1719, and March 16, 1720, though still approving the plan for the erection of a presidio at the Cadodachos and the occupation of Espíritu Santo Bay. 79
3. Espinosa's Work of Preparation.—As we have seen, Father Espinosa had left the retreating party of Spaniards at the Trinity, and had gone to hurry up matters. He had gone first to the Rio Grande and finally to Mexico, where he was influential in bringing about the expedition that was to reoccupy eastern Texas. On his way he had met the new governor, Aguayo, at Monclova, and, arrived at the City, he used his personal influence with the viceroy and the judges. What he urged most persistently was the sending of married soldiers and settlers, included in which should be mechanics and craftsmen—all to go voluntarily and be paid by the government for two years in advance. The head of a family was to receive what was equal to a soldier's salary for a year, while the wife and the boys over fifteen were to receive half as much. The settlers, on their arrival in Texas, were to be given land, which could be transmitted from father to son. Espinosa reasoned that this arrangement would insure the parents' interest in Texas for their children's welfare, and the latter's interest, as in their fatherland.
Before he left the City, Espinosa succeeded in securing a viceregal decree embodying what he desired relative to the families, and he had also gotten seven, who were in distress, to volunteer to go to Texas. He was, however, disappointed in the final outcome and arrangements, for the rest of the expedition was not so selected, but was recruited from different cities, and in general from the jails. 80 At any rate, the families must have played a minor part in the expedition, for they are mentioned but once in the Derrotero, 81 and Espinosa says no more about them.
4. Supplies and Recruits.—Preparations for the expedition went on apace. On receipt of the news of the trouble in Texas the viceroy had ordered Aguayo to raise as large a company as possible in Saltillo and Parras. By September 5, the latter had recruited and fitted out at Saltillo, partly from his private funds, eighty-four men. When Aguayo received his commission as governor and as the head of the force that was to reoccupy Texas, he repaired to Monclova, October 21, 1719. He found the forces on that frontier scarce, and, at his instance, the viceroy decided to recruit five hundred in the districts of Zelaya, Zacatecas, San Luis Potosi, and Aguas Calientes. As for funds, the viceroy appropriated thirty-seven thousand pesos, and advanced a year's salary of four hundred and fifty pesos to each soldier. Aguayo had used nine thousand of his own in recruiting and fitting out the eighty-four men at Saltillo. After much trouble and delay, caused by the extreme drought, some three thousand nine hundred and fifty horses were secured. By the middle of October, 1720, the trains of six hundred mules 82 with the clothing, arms, powder, and six cannon reached Monclova from the City of Mexico.
Interesting light is thrown on the make-up of this expedition through abuses which occurred in gathering recruits in the jurisdiction of Zelaya. 83 If we may judge that the preparation and make-up of this expedition was typical of all the early ones sent to Texas, as perhaps we may with safety, we must draw sad conclusions concerning their disorganization, disregard of viceregal orders, and the tatterdemalion character of the crowd sent to Texas. Zelaya was one of the districts chosen by the viceroy to supply the men for the expedition. Its quota was to be one hundred and twenty men and five hundred horses. Pedro de Guinda and Antonio Cobian Busto, Aguayo's representative sent to oversee the work, reported gross abuses on the part of the alcalde mayor of Zelaya in the work of recruiting. Guinda's letter stated that the alcalde had expressed himself as well pleased with the levy, since he could benefit his jurisdiction by thus getting rid of its vagabonds, and was willing to supply two hundred men instead of the one hundred and twenty; that he had appointed an excessive number of commissioners to carry out his plans; and that these, availing themselves of their position, had pressed into service two hundred and fifty men, forcibly relieving them of their private possessions, such as spurs, harness, saddles, horses, etc.; but that though they had impressed two hundred and fifty men, they had finally reported but one hundred and seventeen, having used the surplus to their own advantage by releasing such as were able to buy their freedom; and finally that of the one hundred and ten accepted out of the one hundred and seventeen, only twenty-seven were married, whereas the viceroy's order had required the recruiting of married men accompanied by their families.
On the receipt of this report, the viceroy, May 13, 1720, ordered the alcalde of Querétaro, Bentura Jaque Lorio y Quiñones, to make a secret investigation of the conduct of the alcalde of Zelaya. As a result of the “process,” the accused alcalde was almost completely exonerated. The testimony, in general, was to the effect: (1) that the reason only one hundred and seventeen were furnished was that, on various excuses, Guinda refused to accept many of those presented; and further that the alcalde had not promised two hundred men, as was charged, but had simply remarked that it would be easier to supply that number of men than five hundred horses; (2) that though some of the commissioners had been guilty of confiscating private property, all of it had been returned by the alcalde; (3) that the appointment of commissioners had been necessary, because as soon as the news of the levy had been received all the vagabonds had scattered, some to the mountains, and some to monasteries; (4) that the alcalde was not guilty of releasing men for pay, but that some had been given their freedom because they were respectable men (“hombres de bien”), an interesting commentary on those who were not released but were accepted for the expedition, and (5) that it was not that officer's fault that the wives and families did not accompany their husbands, for Guinda had rejected one hundred horses that might have served to transport the women, and moreover, had said that the families might wait till the following year and go in wagons. 84
Returning to the recruiting at Zelaya, on April 20, 1720, before a noatry public, the list of the one hundred and seventeen recruits was formally presented for inspection to the two attorneys, Guinda and Busto. Names were rejected, added, and again rejected, till the number that finally went was one hundred and ten. Most of the rejections were on the ground of physical infirmities. One was thrown out for debt, and one for being married to a mulatto. This is strange, since so many of the men accepted were mulattoes themselves. Some extracts from the list will show how detailed was the manner of registering recruits and reveal the low types of the men in Aguayo's command. Some of the entries read: “Antonio de Flores, coyote, single, inhabitant of this city [Zelaya], twenty-five years of age, tall, black hair—he has been in prison twenty-five days; Antonio Rodrigues, Spaniard, forty years of age, inhabitant of the town of San Juán del Rio, married to Juana de Dios, two children who are in that town—it is thirty days since he has been imprisoned; Juan Manuel Barrera, single, Spaniard, inhabitant of Esmiquilpa, eighteen years of age, dark complexioned, beardless,—he has been in prison twenty days; Bentura de Tobar, a free mulatto, single, inhabitant of this city [Zelaya], thirty-five years of age, good physique,—he has been in prison thirty days; Bernardo del Carpio, a free mulatto, inhabitant of Guadalajara, twenty-five years of age, small in body, blond, married in the city of Guadalajara to María Flores, Spanish, and has three children,”—and so on for the one hundred and seventeen. Of that number, seventeen were mestizos, twenty-one coyotes, forty-four Spaniards, thirty-one mulattoes, two castizos, one free negro, one Indian of Sapotlan, and one lobo; 85 one hundred and seven were taken from the jail, leaving ten of the expedition who were not jail birds; one of these went voluntarily, and one “was sent by his father.” Though Guinda said that three men were accompanied by their wives, the certified list mentions but two, Gertrudes Sicilia, wife of Juan Cristóbal, and Ana María de Aleman, wife of Juan Carranca, the latter accompanied by their two children.
Another inspection was made on the 28th, when those unable to go by reason of infirmities were rejected. The next day the surgeon was called before the proper authorities to certify as to the physical infirmities of the sick, and on the same day the authorities proceeded to the public jail where the men were called out to start on the expedition to Texas.
5. The Founding of the Mission San Joseph y San Miguel de Aguayo.—While waiting for his supplies to reach Monclova, Aguayo, at the petition of Father Margil, who was waiting at San Antonio to join the expedition when it went to eastern Texas, gave permission for the founding of another mission at San Antonio. It was situated one league from the presidio of San Antonio de Béxar, was called San Joseph y San Miguel de Aguayo, and was until 1722 the only one in San Antonio under charge of the College of Zacatecas. The viceroy approved its foundation, and provided that the customary aid be given it. 86
A good deal of opposition to the establishment of the new mission seems to have been made on the part of the friars of the College of Querétaro. On February 23, 1720, a petition signed by Father Olivares of Mission San Antonio de Valero, the alcalde, and all the cabildo, was presented to Juan Váldez, lieutenant-general and alcalde mayor of the presidio and villa of Bexar. Its object was to ask him not to give possession of the necessary lands to the missionaries of the College of Zacatecas. The reasons assigned for their opposition were, first, that the viceroy Valero had given San Antonio and its vicinity to the College of Querétaro, and second, that the Indian nations for whom the mission was being erected, the Pampopas, Suliejames, and Pastias, were “ab initio” enemies of those at the Mission of Valero, and trouble would be the inevitable result. 87
Váldez, however, in obedience to orders, was constrained to refuse the request, and required that the missionaries of both colleges, Captain Alonzo de Cárdenas and his company of eighty men, his sergeant, Nicolás Flores y Valdez, and Captain Lorenzo García, the last two having seen such a ceremony performed before, to accompany him to witness the formal giving of possession. 88 The founding was probably early in March, 1720.
1. From Monclova to the Rio Grande.—Our story of the expedition is obtained in the main from the diary of Peña, the chaplain, who accompanied it. 89 Aguayo divided the five hundred men 90 into eight companies and organized a battalion of mounted infantry, which he called San Miguel de Aragón. The following officers were selected: lieutenant-governor and captain general, Fernando Pérez de Almazán; captains, Tomás de Zubiría, Miguel Colón, Manuel de Herrera, Francisco Becerra Luque, Gabriel costales, Joseph de Arroyo, Pedro Oribe, and Juan Cantú. Of these Pérez de Almazán later became prominent as governor of Texas. Great ceremony marked the initial steps of the expedition. Three standards were blessed, one bearing a picture of Our Lady of Pilar, San Miguel, and San Rafael, with the motto inscribed, “Pugnate pro Fide et Rege”; the second having a picture of our Lady of Guadalupe, San Miguel, and San Francisco Xavier; while on the third was their patron saint, James. Mass was duly celebrated, and the day was made a feast in general. 91
Aguayo, detained by duties of his new office, in order to insure the proper forwarding of provisions for the expedition from Mexico after his departure, on November 16, 1720, sent forward his train under his lieutenant Almazán. Its composition was as follows: a picket of veteran soldiers who were familiar with the road, the equipage, the companies in the order of their seniority, the baggage, provisions, munitions of war, and, finally, the droves of animals. 92
Delayed three weeks in crossing the Sabinas, the one considerable stream between Monclova and the Rio Grande, the expedition did not reach the latter river 93 until December 20. On account of its swollen condition, the passage was not begun until after Christmas. Canoes had to be constructed, because those which the Indians made, of wood covered with skin, proved useless for lack of resin. Finally a raft of ten beams floated on barrels was successfully used. Such was the excess of cold, sleet, and snow, Father Peña tells us, that in effecting the crossing the force had to take advantage of rainy days, when the temperature moderated. The passage was finally accomplished by fifty swimmers pulling the raft after them and bearing but six “cargoes” at a time. The expedition was thus delayed till March 23, 1721. Aguayo and Father Espinosa joined the expedition before its crossing, evidently immediately after Christmas, and a few days later, Doctor Joseph Codallos y Rabal, who was coming to Texas as vicar-general of the Bishop of Guadalajara. 94 The expedition was further increased by the companies of Juan Cortinas and Alonso de Cardenas, and a Texas missionary, Benito Sánchez, 95 who was then at the Mission of San Juan Bautista on the Rio Grande.
2. Rumors of St. Denis.—While on the Rio Grande, Aguayo February 2, 1720, received disquieting tidings from Captain Mathías García, of the presidio of San Antonio de Béxar. García had been informed by some Sanas 96 Indians that St. Denis and other Frenchmen, with unknown designs, were in convocation with many Indian nations thirty miles from García's presidio. A council of war, held by Aguayo, immediately despatched one hundred and sixteen men with Captains Tomás de Zubiría and Miguel Colón under Lieutenant-Governor Almazán to investigate the report. In the meantime García had sent out for the same purpose Juan Rodríguez, a chief of the Ranchería Grande Indians, who was then in San Antonio petitioning that a mission be founded for fifty families of his nation. Juan Rodríguez returned February 25, stating that he had gone to the neighborhood of the Brazos, but had not dared to go farther; that he had not seen any of the Indians of the Ranchería Grande, whose settlement he would have passed in the distance he had covered, and who, he supposed, were at the convocation; that this supposition had, in fact, been confirmed by a Sanas Indian, who said that the Ranchería Grande Indians were at St. Denis's convocation, with many other nations, all of whom were well equipped with horses and guns, and that the gathering was between the two branches of the Brazos, above the Téxas road. 97
On account of these disquieting rumors, Aguayo hastened his passage of the Rio Grande, and set out for San Antonio March 24. In the main, his route lay on the camino real, the royal highway, then apparently well established, though now and then the expedition had to make short detours in order to avoid the brush on the road. On April 4 they reached the presidio of San Antonio, and went immediately to the mission of San Antonio de Valero, where their arrival was joyously celebrated. 98
3. Aguayo's Activities at San Antonio.—The expedition was here joined by Father Margil, of the Zacatecan missions, and by Fathers Gabriel Vergara, 99 Joseph Guerra, 100 Joseph Rodríguez, and Brothers Joseph Albadadejo and Joseph Pita. 101 Since it was near the advent of Holy Week, and the troops were in need of rest, Aguayo was prevailed upon to delay his march for a short time. To keep the men busy, however, he sent out an expedition to hunt for the salt deposits said to be near San Antonio, and made several minor raids to check the Indians who infested the nearby districts. He was further anxious to establish amicable relations with the much dreaded Apaches. 102
While still at the Rio Grande, Aguayo had sent forward a company of forty soldiers, as a vanguard, under Captain Domingo Ramón to occupy Espíritu Santo Bay. This company probably came as far as San Antonio with the detachment under Almazán. 103 At any rate, it left that place for Espíritu Santo March 10. Not having heard from it since its departure, on April 4, the day of his arrival at San Antonio, Aguayo despatched four trusty Indians to find out something about it. On the 18th, a lieutenant and four soldiers brought the news that Ramón had taken possession of La Bahía or Espíritu Santo, in the name of His Majesty, and had raised the cross and royal standard on April 4. 104 Ramón reported also that for lack of timber for building a canoe he had as yet not been able to sound the harbor. However, he described the place as a beautiful one, whose harbor could accommodate many ships. The news was duly celebrated at San Antonio. On the 26th the Marquis sent a messenger to the viceroy, informing him that possession had been taken of Espíritu Santo. Further, he assured him that he was ready to resume his march for eastern Texas, but made patent to his excellency the difficulty of keeping the army properly sustained at the distance of four hundred leagues from the base of supplies, and asked permission to start a ship plying between Vera Cruz and La Bahía, offering to bear all the expenses. Presuming that this request would be granted, he wrote at the same time to his attorney in Mexico to buy or rent such a vessel and fit it out with the requisite provisions. 105
4. The Route from San Antonio to the Neches.—On the 10th of May, Aguayo ordered that the expedition be in readiness to start again on the 13th. It had been decided in a council of war to abandon the old Texas road now, where great and many obstacles would be found in the form of brush, lagoons, large overflowing rivers, and in an unbroken course of from fifty to sixty miles through the monte grande, or Cross Timbers. Under the guidance of the Indian chief, Juan Rodríguez, they were to seek another route higher up, where the country was said to be plain and free from brush, where the rivers were divided into many smaller branches, and by which route the Cross Timbers would be avoided. The country through which their chosen route lay was infested with Indian enemies and great care was taken to insure the proper disposition of the military guards on the march.
A study of Aguayo's route may be more profitable if it is compared with the earlier and some of the later courses followed by the expeditions into eastern Texas. 106 So varied and distinct were the early routes broken by the pathfinders, and so profusely and promiscuously were names scattered on the rivers, that it is hard to make any safe generalizations. One of the most patent facts, however, is that the routes moved back from the coast, west, as far as San Antonio, and thence north and east to eastern Texas, a fairly well established road being finally laid out. However, of all the diaries studied no two seem to follow exactly the same course. De León, the leader of the first expedition to eastern Texas (1690), crossed the country far to the south and east, passing the Guadalupe, roughly speaking, in the vicinity of Victoria, turning east to La Bahía, and then northeast to the Téxas country. The expedition under Terán (1691), was the first to break the road from the Hondo to San Antonio, and to cross the San Marcos and Guadalupe as two rivers. He apparently crossed the Colorado near La Grange, the Brazos near Bryan, and the Trinity, just north of Falba in Walker County, about at the point where De León had struck it in 1690. In 1709, Fathers Espinosa and Olivares took the road still farther north, crossing the Colorado not far below Austin; while in 1716, Ramón, after crossing the Colorado near the same point, sought a new route, going as far north as the San Gabriel before turning east to the Téxas country. It will be seen that Aguayo, determined to avoid the monte grande, which started just east of the San Gabriel, led his expedition still farther north, not turning east till he struck the Brazos near Waco, and then going south and east to reach the old highway. 107
Aguayo's route, somewhat in detail, was as follows: On the 13th the long and tedious journey began. Starting northeast, it lay by the irrigating ditch of the mission of San Antonio de Valero, then veered to the east, northeast, when the expedition halted two days on both the Salado and Cíbola creeks. 108
From the Cíbola the expedition traveled over plains, which were described as literally covered with flowers, till on the 17th they crossed three rivers. The first they call San Pascual Baylon, the second they identified as the Guadalupe, and the third they named the San Ybon. 109 The one which they identified as the Guadalupe was undoubtedly the present Comal River, and their crossing was very nearly at the spot where New Braunfels now stands; the one they named the San Ybon was the present Guadalupe. For Peña describes their crossing of the former as being one-fourth of a league from the well known springs that are the source of the Comal, while the latter river he describes as having a deep bed, subject to overflows, with its sources, lying far to the north, as not having then been discovered. The crystalline water of the former, the luxuriant growth, and the surrounding plains, attracted attention to the locality as a suitable place for settlement.
With the route still lying to the northeast, with veerings to the east-north-east, by May 20, they had crossed the San Marcos, 110 not recognizing it by that name, however. Its lower branches they named las Penuelas, the river proper, los Ynocentes, and modern Plum Creek, the San Raphael. 111 At this last river a squad of Sanas Indians fitted out with horses, pikes, and arrows, and whom Aguayo himself had provided with clothes while at San Antonio, were waiting to renew their allegiance to the Spanish King.
Continuing in a direction more north than east, on May 22, the expedition reached the vicinity of the Colorado, 112 and camped on what is now Onion Creek, 113 crossing it later, apparently at the site of the present McKinney Falls. The crossing is described as being over “a strip of rocks which spans the river and makes a beautiful waterfall,” distant some six or seven miles from the Colorado. The expedition was delayed in crossing the droves over the latter river, which is described as being twice the size of the former ones and as lined with trees and vines. From the time it crossed the Colorado, May 23 to May 31, the route took them over numberless little streams, crossing as many as twenty arroyos in one day. 114 The two considerable ones which they crossed, the Spaniards called Las Animas and San Xavier, doubtless the present Brushy Creek and San Gabriel River respectively. 115
Taking a more northerly route than they had been hitherto following, on May 31st the Spaniards reached what is now Little River, 116 at a point about three-fourths the distance from Cameron to Belton. They were delayed three days before crossing because of the swollen condition of the river and because of steps that had been taken by a council of war. This council had sent out a detachment to reconnoiter the country, to look for the Ranchería Grande, a group of Indians who were usually to the eastward near the Brazos, and to ascertain what they could of the French and their Indian convocation in the same neighborhood. The Spaniards were at a total loss to know what was transpiring, for they had met no Indian on their route thus far. The reconnoitering party did not return until the 12th of June, after the main body had effected the crossing of Little River and had waited several days. The detachment had gone thirty leagues, but had seen nothing but the long deserted huts of the Indians. It confirmed the opinion that the Little River was one of the branches of the Brazos de Dios (Arms of God). 117
For some days Aguayo's route now lay almost directly north. Trying to avoid the rivers and lagoons, he followed thus the watershed of the tributaries of Little River and the main Brazos. Veering then to the northeast, he entered the brushy region of mesquite, and camped, June 18, a short distance from the main Brazos. The Spaniards named it the Jesus Nazareno. Judging from the direction followed from their crossing of Little River and the distance traveled, they must have struck the Brazos near the present site of the city of Waco. Further evidence to the same effect is the fact that a branch of the river, evidently the present Bosque, joined it half a league from their crossing. 118
After crossing on the 19th, they continued east-northeast two days, when they turned and began their southward journey. From the 21st to the 26th inclusive, their direction was in the main southeast, and took them on a line parallel with and very close to the Brazos River. Their journey covered, first, flowery plains, then broken and plain ground, and finally woodland and vine-covered country. 119 For the next three days the route lay east and northeast—the purpose of this detour most probably being to seek higher ground. Approximately speaking, the course here took Aguayo and his party to about the center of Robertson county. The last part of the march lay in boggy, wooded land, with the ground covered with flint stones which wounded and poisoned the cattle. 120
After again turning south, the march became more and more laborious, over swampy, marshy land, where the horses and droves slipped and bogged. Finally on July 2, after the main body had traveled six leagues southeast, word was brought back by scouts that three more leagues would bring the expedition to the “old Téxas road.” By great effort the mounted battalion managed to make the distance, but the rest of the expedition, infantry and cattle, were left scattered about to be brought up later. They reached what is now probably Big Cedar Creek, not far from where it joins the Navasota, and the next few days were spent in bridging a river which they called the San Buenaventura, the present Navasota. 121
From the crossing of this river, the route, given as northeast, lay on the old Royal Highway (Camino Real), or the Téxas road. On the 8th of July, some ten or fifteen miles from the Trinity, the Spaniards for the first time in this expedition, came upon Indians. That morning a party of soldiers, accompanied by Father Espinosa and two other religious, was sent out to inquire into rumors of nearby Téxas Indians. Following a path south, off the main road, across a small stream, they came upon a settlement where were all the nation of the Ranchería Grande, whose chief Juan Rodríguez was guiding the Spanish force, and some of the Bidays and Agdocos (Deodosos) nations. When Aguayo approached, the bugles sounded and the royal standards were unfurled, the Indians marched out in order, bearing a white taffeta flag with blue ribbons, which had been given them by the French, and fired their guns, with which they were well supplied, in salute to the Spaniards. Aguayo ordered them to place their flag beneath that of Spain, thus symbolizing their submission to the Spanish King and their reception under his royal care. He then laid his hand on about two hundred in token of their submission and obedience. 122
The next day many of the chiefs and Indians of the Ranchería Grande came to see Aguayo. He advised them to remain in peace, and to withdraw beyond the Brazos, “where they were accustomed to live,” promising on his return from eastern Texas to found a mission near San Antonio for them. He told them, however, to meet him on the Trinity, foreseeing that their assistance would be needed to effect a crossing of the river, and that he would there give them clothing and presents. When he reached that river, he loaded two mules which he sent back to their people with a Spanish interpreter named Nicolás Santos. 123
On the same day, July 9, the march was resumed and the Trinity 124 reached. Sixteen days were spent before the crossing was effected. This was finally done by means of a canoe which the missionaries had built on their retreat from eastern Texas in 1719. On the 25th Aguayo was met by the cazique of the Aynay 125 tribe, recognized as head of the Assinais nations, and at whose “village the mission of La Purísima Concepción was founded in 1716.” 126 He was accompanied by eight of the chief Indians and four women, among whom was one Angelina, 127 who had been raised on the Rio Grande and spoke both the Spanish and the Téxas languages. The Aynay cazique received the Spaniards with tears of joy, saying that he had heard of their being at the Trinity fifteen days before, and, impatient at their delay, had come to meet them. He said that when the Spaniards had retired in 1719 they had promised the Indians to return soon, and that if they had delayed much longer in reoccuping Texas, it had been his intention to go to San Antonio after them. Aguayo delivered his customary harangue on the goodness of the Spanish king in sending soldiers to protect the Indians from their enemies and missionaries to instruct them in the Christian faith. He then gave the cazique the silver-headed cane, appointing him captain and governor of the Téxas Indians. 128
By the 28th the expedition reached the San Pedro, just west of the Neches, the site of the first mission of San Francisco de los Téxas, 1690. 129 The Indians from the surrounding settlements brought the Spaniards flowers, corn, beans, and watermelons, receiving in return presents and clothing. The chief of the Neches with seventy of his tribe came to meet the Spaniards and smoke the pipe of peace. 130 Among his tribe had been located the second Mission of San Francisco, 1716. The next day the remaining four leagues to the Neches were accomplished, 131 and the six days following were spent in bridging the river. While camped here, a hundred Indians—men, women, and children—of the Nacono 132 tribe met the Spaniards. They were led by their high priest and chief, 133 who, as spokesman, delivered himself of the sentiment “that that which they most esteemed was God, the Sun, the Moon, the Stars, and the Spaniards; that air, water, land, and fire, were nothing in comparison thereto.” The following day the exchange of presents took place, the Indians receiving glass beads, pocket knives, butcher knives, earrings, rings, mirrors, combs, scissors, awls, blankets, baise and sackcloth.
On the 28th, while Aguayo was still west of the Neches, there had come a message from St. Denis, sent “from the capital of the Téxas,” that is, the Aynay tribe. It was to tell the Spanish commander that if the Frenchman were assured safety, he would go to make known the orders, which, as commandant of the French arms on that frontier, he had received from Mobile. Having received a satisfactory answer to his request, on the 31st he swam his horse across the Neches and reached the Spanish camp. He asked to spend the night with the missionaries, 134 and the next morning had a conference with Aguayo. He had come to say that he was commandant of the French arms on the frontier, and that he proposed to keep the truce then existing between the Spanish and French nations if Aguayo would do likewise. The latter answered that he would, provided that St. Denis and all the French would immediately retire from the province of Texas, and not interfere, directly or indirectly, with the reoccupation by the Spaniards of all the latter had hitherto occupied, including los Adaes. St. Denis agreed to this. He was unable, however, says the account, to conceal his unwillingness to lose the latter place, and emphasized the unhealthfulness and unproductiveness of the locality,—as if, the Spanish writer continues, they who had had a mission there should not know whether the land was good or not. At any rate, St. Denis left, promising to retreat at once to Natchitoches. 135 When Aguayo reached Concepción, across the Angelina, August 6th, he was informed by Juan Rodríguez, his Indian guide, who in turn had received the facts from the surrounding Indians, that St. Denis, after his return from his interview with the Spaniards on the Neches, had tarried three days seven leagues from Concepción; and that he had had with him the Indians of the Cadodachos and other nations “whom since winter he had gathered to go to take possession of La Bahia del Espiritu Santo, and from there to San Antonio, but that this cloud had disappeared with the coming of the Spaniards.” 136
5. The Reoccupation of Eastern Texas.—On the second of August, while still west of the Neches, Aguayo sent ahead two detachments, one with Father Joseph Guerra to the site of the second mission of San Francisco, the other under Fathers Gabriel Vergara and Benito Sánchez to the mission of Concepción, to rebuild the churches and houses.
(a) The Refounding of the Mission of San Francisco de los Téxas.—On the 3rd the expedition crossed the river, and on the 5th witnessed the formal re-establishment of the Mission of San Francisco de los Neches, “commonly called de los Téxas.” 137 Due solemnity and appropriate exercises marked the refounding, the order of ceremony being what, in general, was observed at the founding and refounding of all missions. Solemn high mass was celebrated, salutes fired, bells rung, bugles blown, and drums beaten; next Aguayo formally invested with a cane the one whom he had chosen captain of the tribe; then followed the distribution of clothing and gifts,—which in this case, we are told, was more lavish than had ever before been witnessed by the Indians. Father Espinosa, spokesman for the Spaniards, since he knew the Assinais language, explained that their coming was primarily through His Majesty's zeal for the salvation of the souls of the Indians, and that he was receiving them under his royal care to protect them from their enemies. This evidently referred to the French. Espinosa skillfully called their attention to the fact that while the French (their enemies) made them gifts with the view of receiving in return skins, buffaloes, horses, and especially their wives and children as slaves, the Spaniards, on the other hand, distributed most generously, yet asked for nothing. He was safe in making this assertion, for Peña says Aguayo had been careful not to accept a single skin from the Indians. Finally came the formal acts of possession, by which Aguayo, in the name of the king, gave the Indians the lands and waters nearby, and left in charge of the mission Father Joseph Guerra of the College of Querétaro. 138
In the course of Espinosa's discourse, he had striven to impress on the natives the necessity of gathering into pueblos, around the mission, something that the Spaniards had always considered essential in their work among the Indians and something which these Indians always failed to do. They promised this time, however, that they would do so. Thus, in addition to the mission, Aguayo founded, prospectively, so to speak, the town which he expected they would form, naming it San Francisco de Valero. 139
(b) The Refounding of the Mission of La Purísima Concepción.—Before crossing the Neches, Aguayo had sent forward Fathers Benito Sánchez and Gabriel Vergara with a party to make ready the church and habitations at Concepción, beyond the Angelina. As soon as the ceremony of refounding San Francisco was over, Aguayo and his expedition set out, the same day, for the next mission. Traveling in a direction between northeast and east-northeast, they crossed the Angelina 140 on the 6th. This mission, which was the only one that had not been entirely destroyed, was less than half a league beyond the river. One league still farther on was the site of the presidio which had been erected in 1716 and abandoned in 1719, and it was here that the expedition camped. 141 The location of this mission has been described as follows: “Espinosa tells us that he founded the Mission of Concepción a mile or two east of the place where the highway crossed the Angelina, near two springs, in the middle of the Hanai village. This site could not have been far from Linwood crossing.” 142
The church was completed on the 7th, and Aguayo arranged that on the next day, the battalion, the companies of Alonso Cardenas and Juan Cortinas, and the eight companies that had made up the expedition from Monclova, making ten in all, should be present at the refounding. Father Margil celebrated mass, Father Espinosa preached “an eloquent and touching” sermon, while the Indians, “among them some eighty Cadodachos,” were awed by the simultaneous discharge of the artillery and at the presence of so many Spaniards. Aguayo assured the natives that their occupation would this time be permanent. And to gain the good will of Cheocas, the Aynay chief, seeing that he had a large following, he requested the Indian to assemble his people, that gifts might be distributed among them. When the day came the eighty Cadodachos were present among the four hundred to be regaled. The Spanish commander took special pains to please these, sending clothes and trinkets to their people at home,— hoping thereby to gain their good will in advance of his arrival. The day's work was closed by the formal act of placing the College of Querétaro in possession through its representatives, Espinosa and Vergara, 143 and by the formal investiture of Cheocas as governor. 144
(c) The Refounding of Mission San Joseph de los Nazonis.— On the 9th Aguayo sent a lieutenant with an escort and Father Benito Sánchez, to rebuild the church and priest's house at the Mission of San Joseph de los Nazonis, eight leagues northeastward from Concepción. 145 On the 13th, leaving the main part of the force to rest at Concepción, Aguayo passed to the Nazonis, and solemnly re-established the mission, leaving as missionary Benito Sánchez 146 of the College of Queretaro. This mission has been located “some fifteen or more miles northeast of the Hanai (i. e. Purisima Concepción) . . . by one of the southern tributaries of Shawnee Creek, near the north line of Nacogdoches County.” 147
(d) The Refounding of the Presidio of Nuestra Señora de los Dolores.—Aguayo returned to Concepción on the 15th, and installed Juan Cortinas and his company of twenty-five soldiers in the old presidio founded by Ramón, in 1716. The presidio was one league from the mission, which in turn was half a league from the Angelina. It occupied an advantageous position on a hill, overlooking the country, with the arroyo of Nuestra Señora de la Assumpción (evidently the first eastern branch of the Angelina) running at its base. 148 The fortifications were not outlined until Aguayo's return from los Adaes. The fort was to be square, with two bastions on diagonal corners, each to cover two wings, which were to be sixty varas in length. 149 The diary gives the impression that the company installed had formerly occupied the presidio. The company may have been the same, but Cortinas was evidently the captain at this time.
(e) The Refounding of the Mission of Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe de Nacogdoches.—On the same day, the 15th, the expedition, took up the march for the next mission, at Nacogdoches. 150 On the 18th the new church was dedicated. Father Margil, 151 on behalf of the College of Zacatecas, received possession, and Father Joseph Rodríguez remained as missionary. Aguayo repeated the presentation of the silver-headed cane to the chosen captain, enjoined upon the Indians the formation of pueblos, distributed gifts lavishly, and clothed one hundred and ninety Indians. 152
(f) The Refounding of the Mission of Nuestra Señora de los Ais. 153—On the 21st of August, after traveling three days through lands of walnuts, pines, oaks, and glades, having had to bridge several streams, 154 the expedition camped one-fourth of a league beyond where the mission of Dolores had stood. The mission was rebuilt here, beside a stream, and near a spring of water, where the high and clear grounds and the surrounding plains offered inducements for planting. 155
The distance and direction from Nacogdoches, the topographical evidence given by this and other diaries, tradition and present ruins, all unite in locating this mission at modern San Augustine. The stream at whose side it stood corresponds to Ayish Bayou, while springs are abundant about the city. In 1767, the soil around the mission was described as reddish and indicating a mineral composition, and the statement is made that gold had been found near by. 156 In the La Fora diary for 1767, the location of the mission is described as on a hill with a stream running at its base toward the west. 157 The Telegraph and Texas Register for September, 1837, states that “gold has been found near the Old Mission south of the City [of San Augustine].” Conclusive evidence, taken with the preceding, is furnished by a letter from Reverend G. L. Crockett, Rector of Christ's Church, San Augustine. He says that the site of the old mission lies half a mile south of the town on the old King's Highway, which strikes its southeast corner, as originally laid out, but now runs right through the town, and that the mission was located on a little conical rise at the edge of the bottom of Ayish Bayou. Its site is marked by a flat surface on the top of the little hill, in a somewhat quadrangular shape, which was evidently the location of the house. He supposes that the house was of logs, but it has entirely disappeared and no trace of it is left in the memory of any one in the town. He adds that outside this quadrangular space, graves have been opened, and that while trying to dig a well on the top of the hill, a grave was opened and a quantity of beads and other relics were dug up. 158
(g) The Refounding of the Mission San Miguel de los Adaes. —On the 24th, Aguayo left Dolores for San Miguel. The route lay for the six days of his travel east-northeast, through brushy lands of walnuts, pines, and oaks, over glens and plains, and across many streams. The most important of these were the modern Palo Guacho, 159 the Patroon 160 and the Sabine.
On the 29th he reached the site of the mission, and camped half a league beyond it. No Indians were found at los Adaes and parties were sent out to hunt for them. On September 1, the cazique of the Adaes nation with many of his following visited the Spanish camp. All expressed themselves as joyful at the return of the Spaniards, and explained that at the time of the French invasion they had been driven out of their land because they had shown regret at the Spanish departure. The French had, moreover, they said, taken some of the Adaes women and children as slaves, and had shown such hostility that the Indians were compelled to leave that locality and retire to a less fertile one higher up, hence their absence when the Spanish arrived. Learning now of Aguayo's intention to erect a presidio and a mission, they decided to return to their old home. 161
The same day, September 1, Aguayo received a letter from Rerenor, the French commandant at Natchitoches. After the usual courtesies, it stated that St. Denis on his return from Texas in August, had immediately proceeded to Mobile, to inform the governor of the coming of the Spaniards. Therefore, Rerenor, not having orders to let the Spanish settle, asked the commander to abstain from definite action till St. Denis could return. In answer Aguayo wrote that, as “the matters of war could not be well settled by pen,” he was sending his lieutenant Almazán and Captain Gabriel Costales to have a personal conference with the commandant at Natchitoches. The former were instructed to observe the situation and condition of the French post. Almazán explained to Rerenor that the Spaniards had come determined to occupy los Adaes, as they had already done at los Téxas, to rebuild the mission of San Miguel, and to erect a presidio on that frontier where might seem most fit. Rerenor replied that he had no definite orders either to agree to or to prohibit such an act, and that he would therefore be content with a mutual observation of the truce between Spain and France. Thus, the Spanish writer says, “was concluded the conquest and recovery of the province.” December 10, 1721, Bienville, having evidently just heard of the Spanish reoccupation, entered a vigorous protest against it. Aguayo had already rebuilt the mission and added the presidio at los Adaes, and had been a month on his return march when this letter was written, 162 so that, aside from its expressing Bienville's sentiments, the letter was of no significance.
Aguayo delayed unusually long at this place, the cause doubtless being to see that nothing was left undone which would insure permanency to the new hold on that critical and important point. It was not till October 12 that the dedication of the new church and the presidio of Nuestra Señora del Pilar was celebrated. The latter was not completed until November 1. It was located one-half league beyond where the mission had formerly stood, by a spring or brook of water, on the side of a hill, where it could command the surrounding country. It was a hexagon, with three bastions, each covering two curtains, fifty varas in length. A hundred soldiers, thirty of whom were to be always on guard, were stationed at this presidio, and the only six pieces of cannon which had been brought from Mexico were left there. 163
Opposite, one-fourth of a league from the presidio with a creek intervening, and also on a hill, was built the new mission of San Miguel de los Adaes. Father Margil, president of the Zacatecan missions, remained here in charge. 164 This relative position of mission and presidio is shown by Le Page du Pratz; 165 the intervening arroyo was probably the arroyo Hondo. The location of the presidio and mission is described by the Derrotero to be on “the camino real de Natchitoos,” seven 166 leagues from the latter place, and about a league from the lagoon of los Adaes (Spanish Lake). As near as can be ascertained from distance and direction from the other missions and from other evidence, the establishment was near the present town of Robeline, Louisiana. A mission was founded for a colony of Mexicans in the early part of last century, about two miles west of Robeline, and went by the name of Adayes in the records and directories down to the seventies. This continuity of name, and, as far as can be ascertained, the approximate location, give reason to believe that the Mexican colony was settled at the site of the Spanish mission of 1721. 167
While on his way from Mission Dolores to Mission San Miguel, Aguayo was overtaken by the messenger he had sent back to Mexico from San Antonio with instructions to his attorney to fit out a ship to ply between Vera Cruz and La Bahía with provisions for his expedition. The viceroy had approved the plan, and the ship had been bought. About the middle of October, while at los Adaes, Aguayo received word that the ship had safely reached La Bahía on September 8, bringing three hundred and fifty “cargoes” of flour, one hundred and fifty of corn, and other necessaries for the soldiers. The news was a relief, for the corn in Texas had been failing, and great anxiety had been felt. On the 20th of October, forty of the “cargoes” arrived, on the mules which Aguayo had left in San Antonio for that purpose, and November 1, four hundred sheep and three hundred cattle reached los Adaes from the New Kingdom of León, some eight hundred miles distant. 168
6. The Return to San Antonio.—With the Mission of San Miguel de los Adaes rebuilt, the presidio of Nuestra Señora del Pilar erected and garrisoned with one hundred men and six cannon, and with the good will of the Indians won, Aguayo was ready to take up his return march. He had intended to leave on November 12, but a violent sleet and snow storm delayed him. According to the Derrotero, the trees were so laden with ice that more than two thousand fell in the neighborhood, killing many horses and mules. The weather moderated, the cattle were herded, and the march began on the 17th. The return was without incident. At Mission Guadalupe, Aguayo received word of the royal cédula of May 26, 169 1721. In this the king approved the entrada, renewed the order that no war be made on the French, ordered that the province be fortified with presidios wherever needed, and that La Bahía, especially, be defended. In accordance with this order, the viceroy instructed Aguayo to add fifty picked men to those already at La Bahía. On November 29, the expedition reached the presidio of Nuestra Señora de los Dolores, near Mission Concepción, and the commander outlined the fortifications. 170 December 9, near the Trinity, he met the second train of provisions from La Bahía, and sent some back to los Adaes. Seeing that the waters of the Trinity were down, and learning from his scouts that the Brazos was fordable, he determined to cut across, seventeen leagues through the cross timbers, to the old camino real. The withdrawal was slow and irregular, due to rain storms, cold spells, and lack of pasture, which greatly increased the mortality among the cattle. Most of the expedition was now on foot, even the Marquis now and then traveling thus. Eighty “cargoes” of provisions had to be left behind, with twenty soldiers to guard them, other soldiers were sent ahead to San Antonio to bring back provisions, while others were despatched to Saltillo to hasten the forwarding of supplies, which would be needed if those from the ship failed.
Finally, January 23, 1722, the expedition reached San Antonio. No lives had been lost, but out of five thousand horses only fifty returned, and of eight hundred mules only one hundred survived. Word was immediately sent the viceroy, informing him of the retirement of the expedition, and while here Aguayo received word from the viceroy, thanking him for what he had done for the advancement of Spain's interests in Texas.
7. Further Activities at San Antonio.—It will be remembered that Juan Rodríguez, the chief of the Ranchería Grande Indians, and the guide of this expedition, with fifty of his tribe, had been in San Antonio in February, 1720, petitioning the Spanish for a mission for his people, that Aguayo had promised that on his return from eastern Texas, he would comply with their wishes, and that he renewed this promise when he met the rest of the tribe just west of the Trinity on his way to the Texas.
(a) The Founding of the Mission San Francisco Xavier de Nájera.—Accordingly, after his return, March 10, 1722, he founded for the fifty families still in San Antonio, the mission of San Francisco Xavier de Nájera, on the San Antonio River, between the missions of San Antonio de Valero and San Joseph y San Miguel de Aguayo. Possession was given to the College of Querétaro, the padre being Father Joseph Gonzales.
Further light has been thrown on the scanty history of this mission by a study of the mission records at San Antonio, by Dr. H. E. Bolton, who states that the site of this mission was identical with that of the present mission Concepción. 171 The same authority says, in addition, “that the Hyerbipiamos [the people for whom the mission was destined] were kept separate for some time seems evident, for Juan Rodríguez was hereafter known as `governor of the district (barrio) of the Hyerbipiamos,' and the baptisms while they were waiting for the actual foundation of the new mission, though performed at Valero, were recorded in a separate book. . . . This situation apparently continued till 1726, when the project of a separate mission was given up, for thereafter the baptisms of the Indians of this tribe are entered in the Valero book.” 172
(b) The Erection of a New Presidio at San Antonio.—Realizing that the existing presidio was exposed to fire, as the soldiers lived in jacales of grass, Aguayo began the erection of a new one, on another site. It was of adobe, with the church, magazine house, and barracks, of wood, in shape a square, with two bastions, each protecting two curtains sixty-five varas long. It was located between the San Pedro and San Antonio Rivers, two hundred varas from the latter and thirty from the former. No mention is made in the Derretoro of the number of troops or of the commander left at the presidio of San Antonio de Béxar, but other authorities say that the number of men left was fifty-three. 173
8. Aguayo at Espíritu Santo.—The idea of occupying Espíritu Santo seems to have been a predominant one in the Spanish plans regarding Texas. One of the most stressed and insistent instructions given Aguayo was for the erection of a presidio at Espíritu Santo. 174 While on the Rio Grande, January 16, 1720, upon his march to Texas, Aguayo had sent out a detachment of forty men under Domingo Ramón to take possession of La Bahía. When he reached San Antonio, April 4, without having heard from the party, he sent Indians to inquire about it, but received meanwhile the information from the party itself that it had taken possession, April 4. While in San Antonio he made arrangements for a ship to ply between Vera Cruz and Espíritu Santo, and during his sojourn in eastern Texas he received supplies from this source. On his return march, at Mission Guadalupe (Nacogdoches) he received word of the royal cédula of May 26, 1721, which approved the erection of a presidio at Espíritu Santo, with additional instructions from the viceroy to add fifty men to the quota then at that place.
(a) Fear of the French as a Motive in the Erection of the Presidio at Espíritu Santo.—It will be recalled that the immediate cause of Aguayo's sending out the detachment from the Rio Grande, was the rumor of a French and Indian convocation, of which the Spaniards could get no definite information till they reached the mission of La Purísima Concepción, on the Angelina, Here Aguayo was informed by Juan Rodríguez, who learned it from the Téxas Indians, that St. Denis, after his return from the conference with Aguayo on the Neches, had delayed for some days near the mission of Concepción, and that for a time he had gathered there a convocation 175 of Indians with the avowed object of taking possession of San Antonio and Espíritu Santo. The fact that Aguayo found eighty Cadodachos at Mission Concepción lends some appearance of truth to the statement of the Indians. 176 Added to these suspicious signs in eastern Texas, La Harpe's contemporaneous operations on the coast of Texas, having for their object the occupation of Espíritu Santo, at least leave something to be explained, and might be interpreted, not without reason, as a cooperative scheme to secure French hold in Texas. August 26, 1718, orders had been sent to the commandant of Louisiana to take possession of Espíritu Santo Bay, the land being claimed in the name of the king on the ground of La Salle's priority of settlement, and the advance of the Spaniards was to be resisted, if need be by force. 177 On August 10, 1721, in pursuance of these orders Bienville instructed La Harpe, with Belle-Isle and twenty soldiers, to take possession of that place. 178 These landed on the Bay of San Bernardo, they claimed, but on account of inhospitable Indians, they abandoned the project. 179 October 16, of that same year, La Harpe wrote, insisting that German and Swiss families be sent to hold that Bay, on account of its importance. He added that the Spanish, hearing of the expedition he had just made, would likely take action. 180
This maneuvering on the coast, the plausible tales of the Indians, the presence of the Cadodachos at the Assinais, and St. Denis's meeting Aguayo so far in the interior, all suggest the probability of an intention of co-operation between La Harpe and St. Denis.
(b) The Establishment of Mission and Presidio.—Shortly before the 16th of March, 1722, Aguayo sent fifty of the best soldiers, selected from the battalion, under Gabriel Costales to Espíritu Santo. Because of the scarcity of horses, he himself could not go until the 16th, when with forty men, accompanied by Doctor Codallos y Rabal, Captains Thomas Zuburía, Miguel Zilón y Portugal, Manuel de Herrera, and Pedro Oribe, he began his march for that place. 181 Their route lay across the Cibola, the Cleto (modern Ecleto) and the Guadalupe. After the crossing of the latter, the march lay mostly east with a few veerings to the southeast. In the latter part of the journey it came to two good-sized streams, evidently the Garcitas and Arenosa. Crossing these, the expedition turned southeast three leagues, and arrived at the “presidio of Nuestra Señora de Loreto,” March 24, 1722. Apparently it was considered already founded by the garrison.
Illness of the Marquis prevented active measures until the 6th of April, when the lines were begun for the fortification “on the spot where the French had one constructed from 84 to 90.” The excavations for the presidio enclosed the spot in which the surviving Frenchmen had buried their artillery, and nails, pieces of gun locks, and other remnants of French goods were dug up. The presidio was in the shape of an octagon, with a moat, four bastions and a tower. Domingo Ramón 182 with ninety men was left in charge.
After drawing the lines of the presidio, Aguayo made the formal grant of the mission of Espíritu Santo de Zuñiga, to the padre Augustine Patrón, of the College of Zacatecas. The mission was founded for three tribes of Indians, but from the beginning was ill-fated. “Father Peña, a member of Aguayo's expedition, recorded at the time in his diary that `it was seen that they [these three tribes] were very docile and would enter readily upon the work of cultivating the earth and their own souls, the more because they live in greater misery than the other tribes, since they subsist altogether upon fish and go entirely without clothing.' By this utterance Peña proved himself either ignorant or defiant of history, a bad sociologist, and a worse prophet.” 183
(c) The Location of the Presidio.—Attention has been called to the fact that it is customary, erroneously, to place Fort St. Louis, and consequently the Spanish presidio, on the east side of the Lavaca River. 184 In support of the conclusion that the fort lay, not on the east, but on the west side of the river, Joutel's Carte Nouvelle and Siguenza's map have been cited, and the statement made that Joutel's Journal agrees with the map. 185 The matter may be considered definitely settled by Peña's map, which shows the site of the presidio on the exact spot of La Salle's fort, on the west side of the River. 186 As to the distance inland, Joutel and De León, the leader of the first Spanish expedition to Espíritu Santo, are substantially agreed that the fort was from one and a half to two leagues inland.
The commonly accepted view is that the fort was on the Lavaca River. This, however, is not unquestioned. Winsor cites a Captain Clark, noted as a student of the cartography of New France, as being of the opinion that the fort was situated on the Garcitas, and not on the Lavaca. This opinion has been arrived at independently by Mr. C. C. Small, a student in the University of Texas. The two strongest indications that the Garcitas was the site, are (1) the French statement that it was on the smallest stream in that vicinity, and (2) the statement of the De León diary that, after leaving the French fort, a party went north six leagues and struck a large river which they called the San Marcos. This river has been identified with the Colorado. But as this can not be true, the distance given being too short, those in favor of the Garcitas claim that the Lavaca would fulfil the conditions, if the fort had been on the Garcitas. Still, there are many points in favor of locating the site on the Lavaca River. Continuity of name can not be unconditionally proposed, for the French always called the river on which their fort was erected the Revière aux Boeufs, the Spaniards in general call it the Rio De los Franceses, while Peña names it on the map the San Gabriel. Arguments in favor of the location on the Lavaca are the following: (1) By following Aguayo's diary as closely as possible, league by league, from San Antonio, we arrive at the Lavaca about four or five miles from its mouth. (2) The diary states that in the five leagues before reaching a point three leagues northwest of the fort, the route lay across two arroyos of considerable size, evidently the Garcitas and Arenosa. If the fort were on the Garcitas, there would be no two rivers to cross. (3) The questions of distance and direction to the Lavaca are fulfilled by other diaries. (4) When De León was there in 1689, in order to explore the bay he went five leagues southwest, crossing two streams (the Garcitas and Arenosa would meet this requirement) and then turned south-east, and reached the coast after three leagues. (5) The river which this expedition called the San Marcos can easily be identified with the Navidad, if the fort is located on the Lavaca. 187
9. Aguayo's Return.—Finishing his work at Espíritu Santo, Aguayo returned to San Antonio to join the rest of the soldiery. He left for Mexico May 5, 1722, and, without anything of importance happening on the route, reached Monclova on May 25. On the-31st he formally dissolved the expedition. 188
1. Strengthening of the Military Defenses.—The Aguayo expedition, the last of its kind into Texas, exceeded all others in size and results. It was perhaps the most ably executed of all the expeditions that entered Texas, and in results it was doubtless the most important. It secured to Spain her hold on Texas for about one hundred and fifteen years. This was done (1) by increasing the military strength of the province, and (2) by carrying out Aguayo's wise suggestion of securing the Spanish hold by the settlement of families in Texas.
When Aguayo retired from Texas he left ten 189 missions where before the retreat there had been seven, four presidios where there had been two, two hundred and sixty-eight soldiers instead of some sixty or seventy as before, and two presidios were for the first time erected at the points where danger from foreign aggression was most feared,—los Adaes and Espíritu Santo.
2. The Settlement of Families in Texas.—Aguayo saw that if the Spanish hold were to be made permanent, settlers must be sent to Texas. He and the corporal at Espíritu Santo made recommendations to the authorities to the effect that the greater security of the province, the reduction of the number of presidios and soldiers, and consequently the reduction of the expense to the royal treasury, would all follow if families were sent to settle in Texas. They recommended that two hundred such be sent from Galicia, the Canaries, or Havana, and two hundred more from Tlaxcala. They were to be distributed among all the missions in Texas, and a new mission was to be founded with Spanish and Tlaxcalan settlers between San Antonio and eastern Texas. These recommendations were submitted to the king, and May 10, 1723, he ruled that, since it was easier to transport families from the Canaries than from Galicia, two hundred families from the former place should be embarked for Campeche, thence to Vera Cruz, and finally to La Bahía. The authorities of Yucatán and Mexico were strictly instructed to see to the welfare of these families and to support them for a year after their settlement in Texas, until they could begin to provide for themselves. Nothing immediate came of this resolution. But February 14, 1729, the king ordered that four hundred families, including the two hundred already specified, should be sent from the Canaries to Havana and thence to Texas. They were to be embarked from the Canaries ten or twelve at a time, and were to be given the same support ordered for the first two hundred. The result of this cédula, and hence of Aguayo's suggestion, was the well known settlement of Canary Islands at San Antonio in 1731.
3. Disappointment of the Missionaries.—From the point of view of the missionaries, Aguayo's work was not as complete as they could have wished. Espinosa expresses their feeling as follows: “Considering the great stir with which the latest entry was made into Texas, the saying of the prophet Isaiah was verified, that `the people increased but the joy did not,' for these poor missionaries who had [but lately] seen so many soldiers on the fields of Texas did not have the increased pleasure of having one or more at their missions.” They were needed at the missions to help settle the Indians in pueblos. The padres also complained that they were not supplied with provisions and tools as had been intended by the viceroy, and that the soldiers, before they left, did not gather the Indians into pueblos.
The fact remains, however, that the work done by Aguayo was permanent, and that it fastened Spain's hold on Texas for more than a century. The establishments at the most important points were lasting. That at La Bahía, with two short changes in location, has remained to the present; that of los Adaes was the official capital of Texas till 1772, when San Antonio superseded it; and San Antonio, the other stronghold, in the center of Texas, remained the capital till 1836, when the Spanish dominion was brought to a close by the Texas Revolution.
1. Secondary Works
The general works in English consulted for this paper are (1) the older histories of Texas: Thrall, A Pictorial History of Texas, I; Kennedy, Texas, I; Brown, History of Texas, I; Yoakum, A History of Texas, in A Comprehensive History of Texas, I (Wooten, Ed.), and (2) the standard works, Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas, I, and Garrison, Texas. Of the first group it can be said, that the chief advantage to be gained from them is an added appreciation of the truth furnished by authentic sources, for upon this period they are replete with error.
The principal monographs in English consulted are: Bolton: (1) The Native Tribes About the East Texas Missions; (2) Mission Records at San Antonio; (3) The Founding of Mission Rosario; (4) Notes on Clark's “The Beginnings of Texas”; (5) Articles in Handbook of American Indians. Clark: The Beginnings of Texas. Cox: The Louisiana-Texas Frontier.
The secondary Spanish authorities, such as Altamira, Puntos, 1746, Bonilla, Breve Compendio (1772), and Talamantes, Historia del Descubrimiento (1805), are all brief sketches. Bonilla and Talamantes are not altogether reliable.
The older Spanish authorities used are: Espinosa, Chronica Apostolica y Seraphica (1746), which might well be classed among the primary sources on account of the author's having been present at most of the events of this expedition; Arricivita, Crónica Seráfica y Apostólica (1792); Villa-Señor, Theatro (1748); and Cavo, Tres Siglos (1835).
The secondary French authorities are: Le Page du Pratz, Histoire de la Louisiane, which, like Espinosa, might be considered a primary source, on account of the author's being in Louisiana at the time of the events; and Heinrich, La Louisiane sous la Compagnie des Indes (1905).
2. Primary Sources
The greater part of the primary sources used for this paper are found in the University of Texas Transcripts and in Dr. H. E. Bolton's manuscripts, a collection of documents and transcripts made in the various archives and depositories of Mexico. The latter are referred to as B. MS.
The most important document for the Aguayo expedition is the Peña Derrotero, written by Father Juan Antonio Peña, chaplain of the expedition. The copy of the Derrotero used for this paper was printed in Mexico, 1722, and, so far as I know, has never before been used. It is now in Dr. Bolton's collection. The title as given in the official print is “Derrotero de la Expedicion en la Provincia de los Texas, Nuevo Reyno de Philipinos, que del orden del Exmo. Señor Marques de Valero Vi-Rey de esta Nueva España ha hecho D. Joseph Azlor, Caballero Mesnadero del Reino de Aragon, Governador y Capitan General de dicha Provincia de Texas, Nuevas Philipinos, y de esta de Coahuila, Nuevo Reino de Estramadura, etc. The copy used by Bancroft and all other writers that I know of has been the Memorias copy. By comparison with the printed copy, this is found to have numerous mistakes; sentences or phrases that change the entire meaning of a statement are inserted or omitted by the copyist, while in one place a whole day's entry is left out. Proper nouns are commonly misspelled in it.
An important manuscript is the Razon de la Fundacion de las Missiones al Sor. Virrey por aquellos missioneros. The title is misleading, for it is not an account of the founding of the missions, but a detailed account of the retreat and abandonment of eastern Texas in 1719. Other manuscripts which can not well be classified are as follows: Oposicion a la fundacion de la Mission de San Joseph del rio de San Antonio año de 1720, Santa Cruz de Querétaro; Relacion de la Sorpresa hecha por los Franceses de la Movila en el Castillo de San Carlos y Punto de Siguenza; Autos Fechos en la Bahia de el espiritu santo sobre dos muertes que executaron los Indios, 1724, Provincias Internas, Vol. 181; Autos sobre diferentes noticias que se han participado a Su Exa de las entradas que en estas Dominios hacen los Franceses por la parte de Coahuila y providencias dadas para evitarselas y fundacion de la Micion en la Provincia de los Texas, Provincias Internas, 181; Diferentes Autos y otras providencias dictadas por el Govor. Marques de S. Migl. de Aguayo, Archivo de la Secretaría de Governacíon, Saltillo, año de 1720, in B. MS. The following are found in Colección de Memorias, XXVII: Carta por el Marques de Sn. Miguel de Aguayo, 1715; Dictamen Fiscal; Representacion por el `Marques de San Miguel de Aguayo, 1715; Dictamen Fiscal, 1716; Ynforme del M. R. y Ve. P. Fr. Antonio Margil de Jesus, 1716; Carta del M. R. y Ve. P. Fr. Antonio Margil de Jesus, 1716; Carta del Capitan Domingo Ramon á S. Exa., 1716; Representacion á S. Exa. por los PP. Misioneros, 1716; Carta del P. Fr. Antonio Olivares á S. Exa.; Otra del P. Fr. Antonio Olivares; Representacion del M. R. y Ve. P. Fr. Antonio Margil a S. Exa., 1718; Carta del M. R. Fr. Ysidro Felix de Espinosa a S. Exa., 1718; Otra del Padre Espinosa a S. Exa., 1718; Carta del Pe. Hidalgo a Su Exa., 1718; Directoria pa. su viage a la Prova. de texas, 1718; Relacion de los empleos meritos, y servicios del Sargento mayor D. Martin de Alarcon, 1721.
For the comparative notes on the routes of the different expeditions, the following have been used: Derrotero de la Jornado del General Alonso de Leon, 1689, in Colección de Memorias, XXVII; De León, Derrotero, 1690, Provincias Internas, 182, in B. MS.; Demarcacion por el General D. Domingo Terán, 1692, in Colección de Memorias, XXVII; Diario de los RR. PP. Misioneros, 1691, Colección de Memorias, XXVII; Derrotero para los Misiones de los Presidios internos, 1716, in Colección de Memorias, XXVII; Espinosa; Diario derrotero de la nueva entrado, 1716, in Autos hechos, in B. MS.; Diario de Espinosa y Olivares, 1709, Santa Cruz de Querétaro, in B. MS.; Rivera, Diario, in B. MS.; La Fora, Diario, in B. MS.; Diario del P. Gaspr de Solis, 1767, in Colección de Memorias, XXVII.
The French sources are found in Margry, Découvertes et Etablissements, IV, V, and VI. The principal ones used for this paper are: La Harpe, Journal; Joutel, Journal; Pénicaut, Relation; and miscellaneous correspondence bearing immediately on the subject.
2. For the location of the first four of these missions, see Bolton, “The Native Tribes about the East Texas Missions,” in The Quarterly, XI, 249-276. The location of the last two is more definitely discussed below, pp. 49-53.
3. Representación hecha a su Exa. por los R. R. Padres Misioneros, in Colección de Memorias, XXVII, 163. Clark, The Beginnings of Texas, 67, Bulletin of the University of Texas No. 98, says that Concepción was made the capital of the missions founded and to be founded by the Zacatecan friars. This is evidently only a slip, for he cites the above mentioned document for his authority.
4. Directorio o Ynstrucciones para el Viage a la Provincia de Texas, in Colección de Memorias, XXVII, 228-235.
5. Espinosa, Chrónica, 443-445. Also, Carta Escrita por el Padre Misionero Espinosa [al] P. N. Guardian F. Joseph Diez, in Colección de Memorias, XXVII, 224. La Harpe, writing from the Cadodachos, May 1, 1720, says that he has heard that Alarcón was removed from office for not having gathered the Indians into pueblos and for not anticipating La Harpe at the Nassonites. Margry, Découvertes et Etablissements, VI, 242.
6. Espinosa, Chronica, 450.
7. Representación hecha por el M. R. y Venera. P. Fr. Margil de Jesus a Su Exa, in Colección de Memorias, XXVII, 223. A sergeant and six soldiers were sent out by Cadillac in January, 1717, to forestall the Spanish at Natchitoches. Margry, VI, 199. Journal Historique, 140, gives the date, January 29. (See Clark, The Beginnings of Texas, 67, note 1.) The same month the Spanish founded the mission at los Adaes.
8. Espinosa, Chronica, 443, and Arricivita, Crónica, 224, say that Father Hidalgo tried to prevent the French from establishing a fort among the Cadodachos in 1717, but failed on account of desertion of the Indian guides. The French fort was, however, not established till 1719 (Margry, VI, 261-264). The fears of the Spanish missionaries were probably aroused by the settlement of the Yatase Indians, through the instrumentality of the French, among the Cadodachos and the Natchitoches tribes in 1717. La Harpe speaks of this nation as the best friend the French had (Margry, VI, 264).
9. The French on the Texas border seem to have depended mostly on the trader for the spreading of their influence. Early in 1717, when two of the padres from the newly arrived Ramón expedition of 1716 went to Natchitoches, to their surprise they found the French there with a post. The latter, however, had no priest, and Tissenet, the sergeant in command, asked the padres to return on Sundays and feast days to celebrate mass (Pénicaut, Relation, in Margry, V, 535). They performed this and other spiritual offices for the French at Natchitoches for several years (Margry, VI, 305).
10. This was Father Hidalgo, whose letter to the Governor of Louisiana has undoubtedly been made too much of. See Clark, The Beginnings of Texas, Bulletin of the University of Texas, No. 98, pp. 50-51.
11. This reference is to a correspondence between Father Margil and La Harpe in 1719, when the latter was at the Nassonites. La Harpe opened the correspondence with an offer of trade, which would help the missionary in his material needs. The priest's reply evinced a ready willingness to carry on a trade which, however, must be secret, as he and the other missionaries did not stand well with Alarcón, who was then Governor. (Margry, VI, 274-275). A missionary's zeal in promoting his cause and a trader's cupidity, however, should not be identified with political policies.
12. Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas, I, 609; Garrison, Texas, 41; Clark, The Beginnings of Texas, 51. It is true that there were individuals who were seemingly blind to political danger, and encouraged border trade. St. Denis and La Harpe, the first as an adventurer, the second as a trader, may be considered as the individuals more personally concerned with the opening up of trade with Mexico and of subordinating political aims to selfishness. But even they were not blind to ultimate results, and seem to have had in view only the toleration of a weak and temporary Spanish occupation. St. Denis, on his way to Mexico to initiate trading relations, stopped at the Assinais, the capital of the Téxas country, “where he renewed the taking of possession made by the troops of M. de La Salle in 1684” (Margry, VI, 193). When returning from Mexico, accompanied by the Spanish expedition, St. Denis says, “it will be necessary to ask of his Majesty that the boundaries be to the River of the North [the Rio Grande], where the mission of San Juan Bautista is established” (Margry, VI, 198). And when La Harpe, exploring the Red River country, heard that Alarcón had ordered that a post be established among the Nassonites, he hurried forward to anticipate it (Margry, VI, 255).
13. Heinrich, writing from a decidedly French point of view, and from excellent sources, reflects the disappointment when he says: “He [St. Denis] had to submit to conduct to the Assinais missionaries and troops which were being sent to establish a post. . . . Thus not only were all hopes founded on St. Denis's expedition destroyed, but the Spaniards, disturbed by that first attempt, put themselves in a position to forbid us access to their territory. [And] not hoping to profit by trade with our neighbors, Crozat had to find something else.” . . . Thus he indicates that even Crozat, the merchant, did not consider his interests advanced, if it had to be at the price of suffering Spanish settlements on the French border. (Heinrich, La Louisiane sous la Compagnie des Indes, 1717-1731, lxv.)
As for the government's attitude at that time, Cadillac, governor of Louisiana during its cession to Crozat, and the one who commissioned the St. Denis expedition, when the latter had given him an account of his trip, “knew well that there was no ground to hope to open up trade with the Spanish. That is why he resolved to have a fort erected on the Red River among the Natchitoches to prevent the descent which the Spanish could make by that river to the Mississipy” (Margry, V, 535). Showing, further, that he did not give up the idea of the French occupying Texas at some time, and his dissatisfaction with the results of the St. Denis expedition, he thinks, “The Spaniards are going to occupy it [Espirítu Santo Bay] in order to exclude us [the French], and sieur Saint-Denis's letter makes known their alarms, to which sieur Saint-Denis has contributed much by not having followed his instructions.” And finally his opinion is that “if the Spaniards settle the Natchitoches on the Red River, . . . that establishment will be very disconcerting and will ruin hopes which one might have”; but he is persuaded that “they will maintain it only as long as is wished, for it will be easy to destroy or appropriate it,” . . . and, “he will give orders to sieur Saint-Denis to engage all the savages on Red River to oppose the establishments of the Spaniards.” (Margry, VI, 198-199.)
14. Bienville, not only in letters to his home government, where he might feel it to his advantage to show an anti-Spanish feeling, but in the one to the Spanish commandant at los Adaes is clearly aggressive in tone. In both cases he says that in 1719 he ordered that the Spanish be forced to retire from los Adaes. In the former he declared that it had been the intention of the company to oppose the return of the Spanish to the Assinais as well as to los Adaes, and that he had ordered St. Denis to secretly instigate the savages to refuse help in the way of maintenance to the Spanish, and to intercept aid coming to the Assinais (Margry, VI, 224-225).
15. Representación hecha por el M. R. y Venere P. Antonio Margil de Jesus, in Colección de Memorias, XXVII, 223-224.
16. Arricivita, Crónica, 224; Espinosa, Chronica, 443.
17. Margry, VI, 255.
18. Autos sobre diferentes noticias que se han participado, etc., in Provincias Internes, 181, University of Texas Transcripts.
19. Espinosa, Chronica, 451.
20. Razon de la fundacion de las missiones, B. MS.
21. A recently acquired diary of Alarcón's expedition into Texas, by Fray Pedro Pérez de Mezquía, shows that between April and the latter part of June Alarcón several times attempted to send aid to the missionaries of eastern Texas, but was prevented by the swollen rivers.—H. E. B.
22. Espinosa, Chronica, 450.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
25. Hassall, The Balance of Power, 1715-1789, Ch. II.
26. Heinrich, La Louisiane sous la Compagnie des Indes, 1719-1731, 55.
27. De la sorpresa hecha por los Franceses de la Movila en el Castillo de San Carlos, y punta de Singuenza y su restauracion por las Armas de Su Magestad (que Dios Guarde) el dia 7 de Agosto de este. Historia, 396, Archivo General. University of Texas Transcripts.
28. De la Sorpresa hecha por los Franceses de la Movila, etc., University of Texas Transcripts. See also Heinrich, La Louisiane sous la Compagnie des Indes, 1719-1731, 57-59. The latter claims that fifty French soldiers deserted, the former says that forty was the number that came over to the Spaniards. As to the rest of the facts the accounts agree substantially.
29. Heinrich, La Louisiane sous la Compagnie des Indes, 1719-1731, 62.
30. Razon de la fundacion de las Missiones de los Texas al Sor Virrey pr aquellas Missioneros, B. MS. As explained in the bibliographical notes the title of this document is misleading.
31. Ibid.
32. The letter of July 2 does not give the date of the attack, but says that word was received of it on the 22d at Concepción. Peña (Derrotero, 1) gives the date of the attack as June 16. Bonilla (Breve Compendio, in Colección de Memorias, XXVII, 19) says it was June 19. La Harpe, at the Nassonites, says that on the 16th he received news that “the Spanish were angry with the French, and that the governor of the Assinais and his warriors were retiring from their presidio,” thus making it appear that the Spanish abandonment was before the 16th (Margry, VI, 276). There is the possibility of this being a slip on the part of La Harpe, for his entries at this time were not daily, but skipped from the 13th to the 16th and then to the 24th. Moreover, the fact that the retreating party was referred to as “the Governor of the Assinais” makes it more than probable that the reference was to Alarcón, who, with his expedition, was retreating from the Assinais about that time, and who, judging from the spirited correspondence with La Harpe, was evidently angry with the French. But for this correspondence (Margry, VI, 274), as noticed by Bancroft (North Mexican States and Texas, I, 615) it might be supposed that Alarcón had left the country long since. In the Margry text, Alarcón's letter is dated May 28, 1719, at the Assinais. The same text furnishes a note from Beaurain (Journal Historique), giving the date from the Trinity as May 20, 1719.
33. Arricivita, Crónica, 100.
34. A document recently acquired shows that when Aguayo departed from Texas, at Father Espinosa's request he commissioned Lieutenant Juan Antonio de Lara to make judicial inquiry into the circumstances of the abandonment of eastern Texas in 1719; and the testimony given shows that a soldier named Xavier Maldonado accompanied the lay brother from Los Ais to the Presidio of Dolores, and that Capt. Ramón sent Alférez Marcial Saucedo with six men to escort Father Margil to the presidio. (Informe sobre el Despueble De las Miss's de Texas.)—H. E. B.
35. The account as given above is mainly from Razon de la Fundacion de las Missiones, etc., B. MS. Substantially the same account with a few minor additional details is found in Espinosa, Chronica, 453-455, and Arricivita, Crónica, 100.
36. Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas, I, 615; Garrison, Texas, 76; Cox, The Louisiana-Texas Frontier, in The Quarterly, X, 12.
37. Espinosa, Chronica, 454. This source says they made their first halt in June. This is evidently a misprint for July, for just after this the statement is made that they remained in camp three months, including August and September.
38. Garrison, Texas, 76; Cox, The Louisiana-Texas Frontier in The Quarterly, X, 12.
39. The Chronica at this point was to a certain degree written in self-defense, vindicating the missionaries of charges preferred by the secular authorities. Yet the only difference between it and the letter, and it has no bearing here, is that the former,-page 451, says Alarcón left Texas in December; the latter, that he left in November.
40. The italics are mine.
41. Peña, Derrotero, 22.
42. Margry, VI, 225. In the same sentence, Bienville says that the Reverend Father had already retired when Blondel arrived there. The missionary, as we have seen, was absent when the French appeared. He had not retired, however, but was on a visit to his superior. See above, p. 11.
43. Margry, VI, 306.
44. Ibid., 305.
45. Ibid., 260-261.
46. The italics are mine.
47. Margry, VI, 276.
48. The Oulchionis tribe lived on the Island of Natchitoches, and was an ally of the Natchitoches tribe, which in turn was the closest French ally. These Indians were thus in a position to know of events, and it is not unlikely that they had been dispatched immediately to seek aid.
49. Margry, VI, 277.
50. Margry, VI, 280. The corporal's sojourn among the Amediche, which are identified with the Nabedache (Bolton, in Handbook of American Indians, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 30, Part 2, p. 1), where Mission San Francisco de los Téxas was first situated, about four leagues west of the Neches crossing, would bear witness that the Spanish retreat was not so precipitate as it is generally represented; for he stayed there till after the retreat of the Spaniards, “who, fearing our garrison and our savages, had retired on the other side of the Trinity.” Margry, VI, 280.
51. Margry, VI, 280.
52. Ibid.
53. Ibid., 305.
54. Ibid., 306.
55. Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas, I, 615. Some of the authorities he cites are: Espinosa, Chronica, Arricivita, Crónica, Villa Señor, Theatro, Morfi, Memorias, Cavo, Tres Siglos, Bonilla, Breve Compendio, etc.
56. Yoakum, History of Texas, in A Comprehensive History of Texas (Wooten, Ed.), I, 31; Brown, History of Texas, I, 19.
These secondary authorities can be best appreciated after the real truth of the subject is known, by means of contrast, for, to say the least, they are replete with errors. This can be best shown by some examples. According to Brown, La Harpe, the leader of the invading force, is met at San Antonio by a Spanish force and driven back. He stopped among the Nassonite Indians on the Neches, the result of this being the spirited correspondence between him and the Spanish Governor,—doubtless referring to the Alarcón letter, which would bring the latter to Texas after 1719. According to Yoakum, La Harpe and St. Denis drove the Spaniards from los Adaes, Orquisaco, Aes, and the Nacogdoches, and pursued them to Bexar. The result was the Aguayo expedition, which re-established the missions at Adaes, Aes, and Orquisaco, when its leader, Aguayo, was replaced by Alarcón, just inverting the order of succession. It need hardly be said that the Spaniards had no establishment at Orcoquisac before 1756.
57. There is a bare possibility of justifying some of the early Spanish writers for assuming that St. Denis would be the leader of such a company, for while in Mexico, awaiting the time to leave for home, in a moment of disgust he boasted of his influence among the Indians in Texas and threatened with their aid to destroy the Spanish settlements there (Margry, V, 202). On hearing it the viceroy gave orders that St. Denis be rearrested, but the latter escaped.
58. Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas, I, 615.
59. St. Denis was in command of three hundred natives at the retaking of Pensacola. Le Page du Pratz, Histoire de la Louisiane, I, 101.
60. Espinosa, Chronica, 455.
61. Razon de la Fundacion de las Misiones, etc., B. MS.
62. French sources furnish evidence that the Spanish retreat was not precipitate. The corporal, Saint François, did not return to La Harpe from the Amediche until August, and he left the Spanish force encamped on the Trinity (Margry, VI, 280).
63. Arricivita, Crónica, 100, 101.
64. Other documents call him “Dn. Joseph de Azlor Verto de vera, Caballero Mesnadero,” etc. Diferentes Autos y otras providencias dictadas por el Govor. Marques de S. Migl. de Aguayo, Archivo de la Secretaría de Governación, Saltillo, Año de 1720, in B. MS.
65. As noticed by Miss West, Bonilla, Breve Compendio, in The Quarterly, VIII, 32, the title of captain general is omitted from the Memorias copy of the Derrotero, and also from the Testimonio of Altamira. The king, however, speaks of him as such in a royal cédula of 1729. See Reales Cédulas, tomo 48, 1729, Archivo Géneral, B. MS.
66. Archivo de Secretaría de Gobierno, Saltillo, año de 1699 [1716] Numero 17. January 12, 1715, he writes from San Francisco de los Patos; December 5, 1716, he writes from Santa María de las Parras. See, Autos sre el Descubrimiento de la Gran Quibira segun lo consultado por el Marques de San Miguel de Aguayo. Superior Gobierno, Año de 1715, Texas, No. 2, in B. MS.
67. Urrutia had accompanied the Terán Expedition in 1691, and had lived among the Téxas Indians several years after the Spanish missions were abandoned in 1693. See, Autos sre el Descubrimiento de la Gran Quivira segun lo consultado por el Marques de San Miguel de Aguayo, Superior Gobierno, Año de 1715, Texas, No. 2, in B. MS.
68. The fiscal's first answer was an unconditional refusal to consider the proposition at all. It was taken up later, however, with apparently more promise. On July 3, 1715, a junta de guerra was held to consider the question. It was here decided to ask both Aguayo and Urrutia for detailed reports regarding the solicited expedition—among other things, about the soil, climate, and inhabitants of Quivira, and their plans for the projected enterprise. Aguayo complied with the request November 2, 1715. He described the land, according to his information from the Indians, to be forty leagues from the Téxas country, and bathed by a great lake. He suggested that he be allowed to provide Urrutia with ten or twelve men, and that the latter go incognito, depending for aid on his following among the friendly Indians. Urrutia did not report, as requested, and the correspondence closes January 11, 1716, with the fiscal's recommendation. It was, that since Urrutia's report, which was the more important, as he was to be the leader of the expedition, was not forthcoming, the viceroy must renew his request for Urrutia's report. (Autos sre el Descubrimiento de la Gran Quivira, etc. A copy of this correspondence is to be had in Colección de Memorias, XXVII, 116-130.)
69. Peña, Derrotero, 1.
70. It was on this day that Alarcón, his predecessor, went out of office. Relación de los Empleos, Meritos, y Servicios del Sargento Mayor Don Martin de Alarcón, in Colección de Memorias, XXVII, 245-246.
71. Reales Cédulas, Febrero 14, 1729, Tomo 48, Archico Géneral y Público, Mexico, B. MS.
72. Reales Cédulas, June 11, 1718, Tomo 39, Archivo Géneral, Mexico, B. MS.
73. This cédula has not been seen, but it is summarized in one of May 26, 1729. In this same cédula it is mentioned as that of November 19. Reales Cédulas, May 26, 1729, Tomo 48, B. MS.
74. Reales Cédulas, May 26, 1729.
75. Reales Cédulas, May 26, 1729.
76. Peña, Derrotero, 2.
77. With the instruction regarding the maintenance of a defensive war only, Aguayo was disappointed (Derrotero, 2), and in 1723, when writing to the viceroy, he says that at the time of the expedition he had urged the importance of acquiring “Natchitos and the Caddodachos” (Autos fechos en la Bahía de el espíritu santo sobre dos muertes que executaron los Indios, 1724, Provincias Internas, 181, in B. MS.). And with the idea of receiving French deserters into the Spanish service, he was much disgusted. He said that His Majesty evidently did not know the difference between deserters in America and those in Europe (Ibid).
78. Royal Cédula, March 21, 1721, in Reales Cédulas, 1721, Tomo 42, B. MS.
79. Royal Cédula, May 26, 1721, in Reales Cédulas, 1721, Tomo 42, B. MS.
80. Espinosa, Chronica, 455. Miss Austin, “Municipal Government of San Fernando de Bexar,” in The Quarterly, VIII, 289, says, “some time after Aguayo entered Texas, Espinosa went to Mexico and laid before the viceroy his plans” (for the sending of families). In the same paragraph the statement is made that “with these recruits he joined Aguayo in his expedition into Texas.” The first phrase is evidently just a slip, meant for “some time before Aguayo entered Texas,” etc.
81. Thirty-one of the soldiers left at los Adaes were accompanied by their families. Derrotero, 23.
82. Two hundred of the mules were sent ahead with provisions to San Antonio, leaving four hundred for the expedition. Aguayo arranged to forward five hundred more. Peña, Derrotero, 1-2.
83. Celaya, northwest of Mexico City, in the state of Guanajuato, was one of the military outposts founded before 1570 to guard the highway to the rich districts which were being opened up in the northwest. Bancroft, History of Mexico, II, 655.
84. The alcalde demanded satisfaction for the calumny he had suffered, and the case was still in dispute in December, 1720, before the royal audiencia, to whom the alcalde had appealed from the viceroy's decision.
85. The distinction between mestizo and coyote is not clear. The two terms are now sometimes used synomymously to denote the offspring of a Spanish father and an Indian mother. A castizo is the offspring of a mestizo father and a Spanish mother; a lobo the offspring of a father of mixed Chinese or Malaysian and negroid blood and a mulatto mother.—Luis Pérez Verdía, Compendio de la Historia de México (Paris and Mexico, 1906.)
86. Peña, Derrotero, 1; Espinosa, Chronica, 455.
87. Opposicion a la fundacion de la Mission de San Joseph del rio de San Antonio año de 1720. Santa Cruz de Queretaro, K N 5, Leg. 4, in B. MS.
88. Ibid.
89. As seen in the bibliographical notes, this is the official copy of the itinerary of the expedition, printed in Mexico, 1722. Another copy of the itinerary of this expedition exists in Colección de Memorias, XXVIII. The latter copy has many errors. The most important of those which have an essential bearing on the narration will be noticed as the narrative proceeds.
90. It is difficult to say just what number of men Aguayo took to Texas. Bonilla (Breve Compendio, in The Quarterly, VIII, 32), says it was five hundred dragoons and two companies of cavalry. As Miss West pointed out (Ibid.), the Testimonio (Sec. 31), says five hundred mounted troops; the Derrotero, as has already been seen mentions five hundred and eighty-four in all, the eighty-four being those raised earlier in Saltillo (folio 10). On folio 3 of the same Derrotero the statement is made that Aguayo made a battalion of mounted infantry, “forming the five hundred men into eight companies.” The fact probably is that all told there were five hundred men when the expedition left Monclova. The two companies of cavalry mentioned by Bonilla were probably an addition made at the Rio Grande, for the Derrotero (3), says, “Captain D. Alonzo de Cardenas and Captain D. Juan Cortinas, with the soldiers which they had in their companies, also set out” from the Rio Grande to Texas. Aguayo had much trouble with deserters. To such an extent did the practice of deserting grow that the commander was compelled to inflict the death sentence upon several for the admonition of the rest (Diferentes Autos y otras providencias dictadas por el Govor. Marques de S. Miguel de Aguayo, Archivo de la Secretaría de Govierno, Saltillo, año de 1720, in B. MS.).
91. Peña, Derrotero, 2.
92. Ibid.
93. The Derrotero does not mention the place at which they crossed the river, but it was probably at the Mission San Juan Bautista, for that mission was on the road usually followed, and the account mentions that the expedition was joined by Benito Sanchez, a missionary “who was at the mission of San Juan Bautista of the Presidio of Rio Grande del Norte (Derrotero, 2).
94. Peña, Derrotero, 2 and 3.
95. Peña, Derrotero, 3. Benito Sánchez had accompanied the Ramón expedition in 1716. Representacion hecha a su Exa por los R. R. Padres Misioneros, in Colección de Memorias, XXVII, 165. He had had charge of the Mission of San Joseph de los Nazonis, and had probably come as far as the Rio Grande with Espinosa, when the latter was on his way to Mexico in 1719.
96. The Memorias copy spells this Samas. Colección de Memorias, XXVIII, 6.
97. Peña, Derrotero, 3.
98. Peña, Derrotero, 5.
99. Gabriel Vergara was one of the Querétaran missionaries accompanying the Ramón expeditio 1716. Representacion hecha a su Exa por los R. R. Padres Misioneros, in Colección de Memorias, XXVII, 165.
100. The Memorias copy omits the names of Vergara and Guerra. Colección de Memorias, XXVIII, 11-12.
101. Brother Pita was killed while on this expedition by a party of Apaches while he was attached to a company bearing a supply of provisions. See Aguayo to Auditor de la Guerra, in Autos sobre diferentes puntos consultados por el Governador de la Provincia de los Téxas, etc., Año de 1724, in B. MS.
102. Peña, Derrotero, 5.
103. Peña, Derrotero, 6, says that being uneasy about the company under Ramón which he had sent from the Rio Grande “with the detachment, Aguayo” ..., referring evidently to the detachment under Almazán, which had come to investigate rumors of the French and Indian convocation.
104. The lieutenant said that thirty-two days had been consumed on the whole trip. The expedition had left San Antonio March 10, and arrived at La Bahía April 4. The lieutenant returned to San Antonio April 18, and it had taken him six days to make the return trip. He must, therefore, have left Bahía on the 12th, after having been there since the 4th.
105. Peña, Derrotero, 6.
106. The statements which follow lay no claim to strict accuracy. They purport to describe in merely a general way the various routes studied. A greater degree of certainty is felt when speaking of the routes of the later expeditions. The earlier writers, being the pathfinders, were under the difficulty of having no known land marks by which to describe their march.
107. The time has arrived for giving attention to the myth that St. Denis “laid out the old San Antonio road.” Starting with Yoakum, it seems, it has taken deep hold upon the credence and the imagination of readers of Texas history, and is glibly and trustfully repeated on all occasions, and even incorporated in maps and serious works. Yoakum's words are: “He [St. Denis] did them [the Spaniards] one good service; he laid out the great thoroughfare through Texas, known as the old San Antonio road, which, first traveled in 1714, has been, for a hundred and forty years, the great highway of travel for pleasure and business, for plunder and war” (Chapter VI).
This “laying out” of the road has been understood in its full literalness. Indeed, an intelligent man high in office recently told me of two rows of shrubs, still growing, which St. Denis planted by this famous road! Another man of my acquaintance was seriously taught in school that St. Denis “grubbed” the trees from the road clear across the State! The absurdity of such notions is apparent when one reflects that St. Denis merely passed on horseback at the rate of many miles a day, with a few companions, from Natchitoches to the Rio Grande in 1714-1715, when he is alleged to have “laid out” the road, and back again under similar circumstances in 1716, serving as guide part of the way for the Ramón party. (Of another trip which he subsequently made very little is known). At best he could have done no more than designate, by following it, the route which later became the old San Antonio road. If he had done even this much there might be no occasion for finding fault with the tradition as stated by Yoakum. But there is no evidence that he did.
As a matter of fact, no one knows with any definiteness what route St. Denis followed across Texas in 1714-1715, for his report of the journey is given in only the most general terms (Declaración, in Memorias de Nueva España, Vol. XXVII, 121-131; the same in Margry, Découvertes, VI, 202. 211). As Miss Buckley has shown, the Ramón expedition, of which St. Denis acted as guide for a part of the way, could not have “laid out” the old San Antonio road, as it has been known to Americans, since from San Antonio to the Brazos, at least, its route was far to the north of the later famous highway, striking the Brazos above the mouth of Little River.
As is seen from the text below, the Aguayo expedition went nearly straight north from San Marcos to Waco, while Rivera's route in 1727 was in general that of Ramón, at least as far as the Little River. As to the eastern part of the route, there are indications that from the Trinity to the Neches it, too, lay somewhat north of the old San Antonio road, striking it again west of the Neches and following it pretty continuously thence to San Augustine.
Thus we may say that while the seventeenth century routes lay far south of the old San Antonio road, that of Terán coming nearest following it, the notable expeditions of the early eighteenth century went by routes far to the north of it, especially from San Antonio to the Brazos. For the period from 1727 to 1767 we have no diaries across Texas, but it is interesting to note that there is evidence that by the middle of the century the direct route from San Antonio to the Trinity was abandoned for the Bahía road, through fear of Apaches.
Just when the old San Antonio road as known to Americans was “laid out,” and when it became the established trail—for it could have been little more than a trail—does not appear, but the large element of error in Yoakum's statement and the absurdity of some of the popular impressions about it are evident. H. E. B.
108. Mention is first made of an arroyo “salogre” (salty, which is also the meaning of the word salado) in the vicinity northeast of San Antonio, in the 1709 diary of Fathers Espinosa and Olivares (entry for April 13), though the name is not definitely applied. The first definite application of Salado, in the available Spanish diaries, to the river that still bears the name, is in the Espinosa Diario (entry for May 16, 1716), and in the Ramón Derrotero of the same expedition. Entry for the same day). They both speak of it as though they knew of it by that name. Ramón evidently had the statement of the 1709 diary in mind when he said, “We reached the Salado River, though not [called that] because it is [salty]” (no porque lo sea). The same river kept that name through all later Spanish diaries. See Peña, Derrotero, entry for May 13, 1720; Rivera, Diario, in B. MS., entry for August 18, 1727; De la Fora, Diario, in B. MS., entry for August 25, 1767.
Cibola Creek is first found with that name in Spanish documents in the Peña Derrotero (entry for May 15, 1720). As near as can be ascertained. what corresponds to the present Cíbola was called by Terán in 1691 the San Ygnacio de Loyola (Diario, entry for June 15, Colección de Memorias, XXVII, 23-74), and by Father Massanet, on the same expedition, Santa Crecencia (Diario, entry for June 15, in Colección de Memorias, XXVII, 87-111). It is not named at all in the Espinosa Diario of 1716, but the father describes a river in that locality as stagnant, and the Cíbola was always so described. Ramón called it the San Xavier (Derrotero, entry for May 17, in Colección de Memorias, XXVII, 135-162). From Aguayo's time on it is called the Cíbola. Its name probably came from the abundance of buffalo in that neighborhood. See Terán, Demarcación, entry for June 15, in Colección de Memorias, XXVIII. For references in the later diaries, see Rivera, Diario, entry for August 18, 1727, and De la Fora, entry for August 26, 1767, in B. MS.
109. The name Guadalupe was given this river, though lower in its course, as far back as 1689 (De León, Diario, entry for April 14, 1689), and was applied and kept more consistently thereafter than the names given other rivers. Massanet and Terán recognized it when they crossed it some ten or twelve miles above where it joins with the San Marcos (Massanet, Diario, entry for June 19). Terán, given to changing names, renamed it the San Agustine (Demarcación, entry for June 19, 1791). In 1709 Fathers Espinosa and Olivares called it the Guadalupe, when they crossed it perhaps a little north of where Terán had done so (Diario, entry for April 14, 1709). It is interesting to note that the Espinosa Diario and the Ramón Derrotero (entries for May 17), like Peña, called the present Comal the Guadalupe and the present Guadalupe, the San Ybon. Espinosa described what they called the Guadalupe, but is the Comal, as having its sources in three springs. This statement is supplemented by Ramón, who says that the source was but a gunshot from their crossing. Both, like Peña, state that the sources of the San Ybon were far to the north. Espinosa says that, though it joins the Guadalupe, it is not a branch of it, for its sources are very distant, meaning, doubtless, that it was by far the larger of the two. Though Peña says his expedition named the San Ybon, it in reality but renamed it. The name Guadalupe still clung to the Comal in 1727, when Rivera crossed it. He, however, applied the name to the present Guadalupe. He says that he crossed a “spring of water [which is equal to a considerable river] which they call the Guadalupe, and at a short distance from this I crossed the River of Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe” (Diario, entry for August 19, 1727).
110. The name San Marcos was given a river in Texas on the first expedition into eastern Texas (De León, Derrotero, entry for April 26, 1689). The river to which it was given, however, while thought by some to be the modern Colorado, was probably not such, as this is too far north for the distance mentioned in the Derrotero. As far as distance and direction are concerned, the Navidad would meet the specifications of the Derrotero. As the first considerable river after the Guadalupe had been called the San Marcos, when the route through Texas was pushed west and north, the name San Marcos was carried with it and applied to the present river of that name. Terán did not confuse it with the old San Marcos when he crossed it in 1691, but named it San Agustine (Demarcación, entry for June 19). It was given the correct name by Espinosa and Olivares in 1709 (Diario, entry of April 15), and by Ramón (Derrotero) and Espinosa (Diario), entries for May 20, 1716. Rivera (1727), like Aguayo, called it los Ynocentes (Diario, entry for August 20).
111. The name San Raphael was applied to modern Plum Creek for the first time in Spanish diaries in 1709 (Espinosa and Olivares, Diario, entry for April 16), and so named for the patron saint of the expedition. Considering its comparative smallness, it enjoyed a rather unusual continuity of name. Ramón (Derrotero, entry for May 20) says he named it the San Raphael. Espinosa at the same time mentions it by this name, as does Rivera in 1727 (Diario, entry for August, 1727).
It is interesting to note that Espinosa and Olivares (Diario, entry for April 16, 1709), Ramón (Derrotero, entry for May 20, 1716), Espinosa (Diario, entry for May 20) and Peña (Derrotero, entry for May 20, 1719), all, shortly after leaving San Raphael, mention the passing of springs, evidently modern Lytton Springs. Ramón called the two springs San Ysidro y San Pedro del Nogal, Espinosa called one San Ysidro. Peña recognized the same springs as the San Ysidro. This is interesting as showing that the three routes lay at this point along the same course.
112. Though Terán realized that the Colorado “on previous expeditions and on different routes had been named the San Marcos and the Colorado,” he named it the San Pedro y San Pablo Apostoles (Demarcación, entry for June 28, 1691). In reality the name Colorado or Espíritu Santo had been applied in the previous expedition to the Brazos (De León, Diario, entry for May 14, 1690). With the adoption of a higher route, the name Colorado, as was the case with the San Marcos, was carried back and given to the present river of that name. In 1709 it was again called the Espíritu Santo or Colorado by Espinosa and Olivares (Diario, entry for April 17). This is due, doubtless, to the fact that they were following De León's diary, which gave that name to the present Brazos. Espinosa and Olivares, ignorant of the geography of the country, presumed, as did De León, that the river they would reach after the San Marcos would be the Espíritu Santo, or Colorado. In 1716 to Espinosa it was still the same; to Ramón it was simply the Colorado (Diario and Derrotero, entries for May 23). As Aguayo had not recognized the present San Marcos as such when he crossed it, he carried the name over to the next large river, and applied it to the Colorado. To Rivera this last named river was likewise the San Marcos (Diario, entry for August 23, 1727). To La Fora, 1767, it was again the Colorado (Diario, entry for August 29).
113. They called this the Garrapatas. This name was first applied to a tributary of the Colorado in 1709 by Espinosa and Olivares (Diario, entry for April 16), on account of their unpleasant experience with the ticks (garrapatas). In 1716, Espinosa met his “old friends again,” who were “this time somewhat more merciful,” and again gave the stream the same name (Diario, entry for May 22). In 1727 it still had the unenviable name (Rivera, Diario, entry for August 27). As there are several small tributaries to the Colorado, all about the same size and bearing the same relative locations, different ones might have been given the same name on the different expeditions, without varying their descriptions or the route sensibly. But in the Peña diary, at least, the location is definitely identified by the description of the well known falls on Onion Creek.
114. Derrotero, 9.
115. The name Animas was given to Brushy Creek in 1716 by Espinosa, who called it “de las benditas animas (blessed souls), because we had commended our route to them” (Diario, entry for May 28). Ramón (Derrotero, entry for May 28) and Rivera (Diario, entry for August 24) gave it the same name.
San Gabriel River was seen and named by Espinosa and Ramón in 1716 (Diario and Derrotero, entries for May 28). They called it the San Francisco Xavier. After Aguayo's the expeditions did not go that high up.
116. The reasons for thus identifying the place are: (1) they struck the river thirteen leagues north of the San Xavier or San Gabriel; (2) they afterward learned that the river was the first of the two branches which were known as the Brazos de Dios, on the old Téxas road, and that it was joined before the old road struck it by Las Animas and the San Xavier; (3) in order to effect a crossing, they had to go two leagues northwest, to where the river divided into three branches. These three branches would correspond to the modern Salado, the Lampasas, and the Little River proper. The distance between the crossings of the second and third branches was two and a half leagues, with a deep creek intervening, probably the present Stone Sound. They called the River Espíritu Santo (Holy Ghost), having reached it on the eve of Pentecost. As will be remembered, the Brazos had, in 1690, been given the name Espíritu Santo or Colorado by De León, who, however, had struck it before its branching (Diario, entry for May 14). In the next expedition, 1691, Massanet, though he knew that it had been called the Espíritu Santo, named it the San Francisco Solano (Diario, entry for July 24); while Terán, “though the natives called it the Colorado,” named it the San Geronimo (Demarcación, entry for July 25). Espinosa and Ramón, in 1716, crossed Little River just above its junction with the Brazos. The former did not give it any name; the latter called it la Trinidad. Both of them called the Brazos proper la Trinidad, thinking, doubtless, that it was the river that De León had named thus in 1690 (Diario and Derrotero, entries for June 14). Rivera called it the “Colorado o de los Brazos de Dios” (Diario, entry for August 30). [It may be noted that the name los Brazos de Dios was applied to the Little River and to the main Brazos, and not to the main Brazos and the Little Brazos. H. E. B.]
117. Peña, Derrotero, 10.
118. Ibid., 11. The surrounding country is described as exceedingly woody. This is probably the origin of the name of Bosque River, bosque meaning woods.
119. Ibid., 11.
120. Ibid., 11-12.
121. Massanet speaks of a river in this locality which the Indians call the Nabatsoto (Diario, entry for July 28). Terán calls it the San Cypriano (Demarcación, entry for July 28). Espinosa, in 1716, names it the San Buenaventura, which name Aguayo kept (Diario, entry for June 19). In 1727, Rivera calls it the Navasoto (Diario, entry for September 1), and in 1767 Solis also calls it the Navasoto (Diario, entry for April 27).
122. Peña, Derrotero, 13.
123. Peña, Derrotero, 14.
124. The name Trinity dates back to 1690, when it was applied to this same river by De León (Diario, entry for May 19). In 1691, Massanet kept the name (Diario, entry for July 31), but Terán, though he said he knew it was called the Trinity, renamed it the Encarnación del Verbo (Demarcación, entry for August 1). In 1716, Espinosa named it the San Juan Bautista (Diario, entry for June 23). Ramón says that they now came to another river which the Indians told him was the Trinity; so he supposed that this one and the one that he had called the Trinity just before (the Brazos) joined far to the south and that De León had crossed them after their junction (Derrotero, entry for June 23). The later diaries retain the name Trinity consistently. See Rivera, Diario, entry for September 3, 1727; La Fora, Diario, entry for September; and Solis, Diario, entry for April 28, 1767. There are reasons for believing that not only the Aguayo route, but earlier and later ones, as well, crossed the Trinity, not at Randolph's Ferry, as has been supposed, because the old San Antonio road crossed it there, but above, at the next bend in the river, directly east of Centerville. Not only the distance and direction from the crossing of the Navasota to that of the Trinity indicate this, but especially the distance and the direction followed after crossing the latter river to reach the site of the first mission of San Francisco, which is now well established (Bolton, “The Native Tribes about the East Texas Missions,” in The Quarterly, XI, 263).
125. The Memorias copy of the Derrotero, 23, says he was met by the cazique of the Adayes tribe. As will be seen later, he did not meet the latter until he sent for him, after the expedition reached los Adaes (Derrotero, 20).
126. Bolton, “The Native Tribes about the East Texas Missions,” in The Quarterly, XI, 259.
127. This Indian woman, Angelina, seems to have been a fairly well known character in early east Texas history, and it is to her that the Angelina River most probably owes its name. She lived among the Assinais tribe on the banks of that river, and mention is made of her in Spanish and French sources. In 1712, St. Denis's companions found among that tribe a woman named “Angelique,” who had been baptized by Spanish priests “that had had a mission in their [the Assinai] village,” and who spoke both Spanish and Téxas (Margry, V, 500). In 1720, Belle-Isle deserted off the coast of Texas, and in trying to find his way to Louisiana was befriended by Angelique, who received him from his Indian captors, kept him two months, and finally sent her two sons to guide him to the French in Louisiana (Margry, 344-345). The association of the name of this Indian woman with the Angelina River was first suggested by Dr. H. E. Bolton.
128. Derrotero, 14.
129. The location of this mission has been described as “from one and a half to three leagues—from three to six miles distant from the Neches at its nearest point, a league or more farther from the crossing, and still another league—in all some ten miles—from the Neches village on the other side of the river” (Bolton, “The Native Tribes about the East Texas Missions,” in The Quarterly, XI. 265). Dr. Bolton has subsequently confirmed this statement by a personal examination of the ground. He finds the distance was about four and a half miles from the mouth of the San Pedro and seven or eight from the crossing.
130. When the Téxas Indian smoked the pipe of peace, in order to indicate entire and complete peace, “he blew the smoke first toward heaven, then to the north, the east, the south and west, and finally toward the ground” (Ramón, Derrotero, 155).
131. The Derrotero, 15, says that within these four leagues they passed by the place where the presidio was first located in 1716. This evidently refers to Ramón's leaving his soldiers just this side of the Neches while he and the missionaries went ahead to look for a site for the second San Francisco mission he was about to establish (Ramón, Derrotero, entry for June 30, 1716). As will be seen later, the presidio was located just east of the Concepción mission.
132. This tribe has been located five leagues below the Neches crossing (Bolton, “The Native Tribes about the East Texas Missions,” in The Quarterly, XI, 267). The same authority noticed that the Memorias copy of the Derrotero erroneously calls this tribe the Macono (Colección de Memorias, XXVIII, 36). In the printed copy of the Derrotero, 15, it is correctly called the Nacono.
133. Their leader was blind. The Derrotero “presumes” that after he had been their captain a long time that his people had blinded him, “as was the custom of the Indians,” so that he could be their high priest.
134. Derrotero, 15. This seems to suggest that St. Denis did not feel exactly safe among the Spaniards.
135. Peña, Derrotero, 16.
136. Ibid., 17. Cox, “The Louisiana-Texas Frontier,” in The Quarterly, X, 13, without any direct reference to his authority, says that St. Denis came to report the withdrawal of the French to Natchitoches, and that “he, by means of his influence among the Indians, smoothed the way for the re-establishment of the Spanish at los Adaes.” None of the sources used for this paper gives the impression that he helped the Spaniards in any way.
137. This mission has been located “at the Neches village close to the mounds and from two to four miles from the crossing” (Bolton, “Native Tribes about the East Texas Missions,” in The Quarterly, XI, 262-263). Dr. Bolton has subsequently confirmed this opinion by a personal examination of the site, reaching the conclusion that the mission was doubtless on Bowles Creek, not far from the present crossing of that stream by the old San Antonio road.
138. Peña, Derrotero, 16-17.
139. Ibid., 16.
140. This expedition named it the Santa Barbara.
141. Peña, Derrotero, 17.
142. Bolton, “The Native Tribes about the East Texas Missions,” in The Quarterly, XI, 269. After a personal examination of the ground, Dr. Bolton has concluded that the site of the presidio was just west of the present town of Douglas, on Thomas Creek.
143. Vergara had come with Ramón in 1716, and had been missionary at the same mission when it was first founded. He had joined the present expedition at San Antonio.
144. Peña, Derrotero, 17.
145. The Derrotero says it was eight miles to the north. Espinosa, who founded it in 1716, says it was seven leagues northeast (Espinosa, Diario, entry for July 9).
146. Benito Sanchez was the missionary left at San Joseph in 1716, when it was first founded (Espinosa, Diario, entry for July 9). He was of the party that retired in 1719, and was one of those who joined the Aguayo expedition at the Rio Grande in 1720 (Derrotero, 3).
147. Bolton, “Native Tribes about the East Texas Missions,” in The Quarterly, XI, 263. Dr. Bolton, on personal investigation, confirmed this opinion, and concluded further that the site of the mission was on Bill's Creek.
148. Peña, Derrotero, 17.
149. Ibid., 23.
150. The Peña Derrotero gives the direction for the two days of travel as east-northeast and the distance from the presidio just left as eight leagues. The statement as to the direction is evidently a slip, due to faulty printing or carelessness on the part of the writer. Former diaries and later ones agree with each other and with the fact that the direction was east-southeast, and agree with the Derrotero that the distance was between eight and nine leagues (See Ramón, entry for July 8, 1716). Rivera says it was east (Diario, entry for September 9, 1727).
151. Father Margil had been the original founder of this mission in 1716. It was the capital of the missions in Texas belonging to the College of Zacatecas.
152. Peña, Derrotero, 18. This mission has been located at the modern town of Nacogdoches (Bolton, “Native Tribes about the East Texas Missions,” in The Quarterly, XI, 258).
153. The Derrotero mentions this as Nuestra Señora de los Adaes. This is a slip or a misprint.
154. The Derrotero says the expedition traveled east-northeast from Nacogdoches to reach the mission of Dolores. This is again a mistake; the sites of the two missions are well established. Later diaries give the correct direction (See Rivera, Diario, entry for September 10, 1727; La Fora, Diario, entry for September 7, 1767). The two main streams crossed by the expedition were the Amoladero and the Attoyac. In the Derrotero the former is called Todos Santos, but the latter is given no name at all. The first time we hear of the Attoyac by that name is in 1727 (Rivera, Diario, entry for September 11). From that time on the name must have been continuous, for La Fora (entry for September 14) and Solís (entry for May 4, 1767) call it the Attoyac.
155. Father Joseph de Albadadejo was left in charge.
156. Solís, Diario, entry for June 1, 1767.
157. La Fora, Diario, entry for June 1, 1767.
158. The letter adds that the ground on which the mission stood was leased to a lumber planer company for five years, and that they have established their office on the mission hill, while the planer is on the level below; and further, that there is a vague tradition that the missionaries were attacked by the Indians and threw their treasure into the Ayish Bayou. Futile attempts have been made to discover it. I wish here to acknowledge my deep appreciation of the above information so kindly given by the Rev. Mr. Crockett.
159. The Palo Guacho is first called by that name in 1767 by La Fora (Diario, entry for September 8).
160. The Patroon was mentioned by that name in 1727 by Rivera (Diario, entry of September 11), and in 1767 by La Fora (Diario, entry for September 9).
161. Peña, Derrotero, 20.
162. Margry, VI, 225.
163. The name of the captain left in charge is not given. Thirty-one of the soldiers left were accompanied by their families.
164. Viliplana, Vida del V. P. Fr. Antonio Margil de Jesus, 158.
165. Le Page du Pratz, Histoire de la Louisiane, I, 1.
166. The Derrotero says seventy leagues. Evidently a misprint for seven.
167. I am indebted for the information regarding the Mexican colony at Robeline to the Very Reverend Bishop Van de Ven of Natchitoches.
168. Peña, Derrotero, 22.
169. Derrotero, 23, gives the date as May 6, evidently just a slip.
170. Peña, Derrotero, 23.
171. Bolton, “The Mission Records at San Antonio,” in The Quarterly, X, 301.
172. Ibid.
173. Bonilla, Breve Compendio, in The Quarterly, VIII, 34; Testimonia, Secs. 32-33.
174. Royal Cédula, June 18, 1718, Royal Cédula, November 19, 1719, Royal Cédula, March 16, 1721, etc., in Reales Cédulas, tomo 42, Texas Transcripts.
175. Peña, Derrotero, 17.
176. Cox says, skeptically, that the “Spanish diario of the journey, however, is filled with suspicious references to the supposed desire of the French to penetrate to New Mexico or to the interior of Texas,” etc., referring, doubtless, to the statements of the Derrotero regarding the convocation.
177. Margry, VI, 319.
178. Ibid., 347.
179. Ibid., 354.
180. La Harpe and Belle-Isle evidently did not reach the interior of Espíritu Santo Bay, for they make no mention of the Spaniards who were there. It has been thought that they probably landed at Galveston Bay.
181. The Derrotero, entries for March 16 and 17, 1722, gives the direction for the first two days of travel as southwest, four leagues to the Salado. This is evidently a mistake, for the Salado lies entirely to the southeast of San Antonio. The Memorias copy leaves out entirely the entry for the 17th, and confuses that for the 19th with that of the 20th, failing in this way to account for seven leagues traveled on the 19th.
182. “Peña's diary of the Aguayo expedition calls him José Ramón, but authentic documents written at Loreto at the time of Ramón's death call him Domingo Ramón (Autos Fechos en la Bahía de el espíritu Santo sobre muertes, 1723-1724).” Bolton, “The Founding of Mission Rosario,” in The Quarterly, X, 116. He has consequently been called Domingo Ramón in this paper.
183. Bolton, “The Founding of Mission Rosario,” in The Quarterly, X, 116-117.
184. Bolton, “Notes on Clark's The Beginnings of Texas,” in The Quarterly, XII, 148.
185. Bolton, “Notes on Clark's The Beginnings of Texas,” in The Quarterly, XII, 148. For the location according to the Journal, see Margry, III, 209 and 213.
186. It so happens that the map showing this presidio is the only one in Peña's collection which does not indicate direction. Judging from the position of the natural features, represented on the map, and the fact that the boat anchored in the stream is floating down the stream, we are justified in placing the presidio on the west side.
187. I am indebted to Mr. J. D. Mitchell of Victoria for further information and confirmation of the above statements. He enclosed a sketch, showing the site of the fort, now known as Dimmitt's Point, on the west side of the Lavaca River. He says that it now belongs to Messrs. Bennett and West of San Antonio, and that no one has lived near the site for the past fifty years. “In 1833 my mother, with my grandfather, Major James Kerr, first surveyor general for De León's colony, . . . visited the old fort site. The ditches around the fort were then visible. In 1866 I visited the site, . . . I could find no signs of the ditches. . . . The site is about four miles, air line, below the junction of the Lavaca and the Navidad rivers.”
188. Peña, Derrotero, 28.
189. When Aguayo entered Texas there were but two missions and one presidio,—Mission San Francisco de Valero, Mission San Joseph y San Miguel de Aguayo, named after its patron, Aguayo, who from Coahuila had commissioned its founding, and Presidio San Antonio de Béxar, all at San Antonio. He refounded in eastern Texas six: San Francisco, Concepción, Guadalupe, Nuestra Señora de los Dolores, San Miguel de los Adaes, and San Joseph de los Nazonis. He founded a seventh, Espíritu Santo de Zuñiga, at La Bahía, and an eighth, San Francisco Xavier de Nájera at San Antonio,—which taken with San Joseph y San Miguel de Aguayo, founded by his permission, made nine that he had founded in all. Miss West, “Bonilla's Brief Compendium,” in The Quarterly, VIII, 35, says, “Besides these [missions] whose founding is distinctly described, there are two other names mentioned further on in the narrative, whose reference is not made quite clear. These are the missions of Nuestra Señora del Pilar and Nuestra Señora de la Assumpción.” Both these difficulties are cleared by the printed copy of the Derrotero. The first place is clearly referred to as the Presidio de Nuestra Señora del Pilar. The last named was meant for La Concepción de Nuestra Señora. See Derrotero, 23.
How to cite:
Buckley, Eleanor Claire, "THE AGUAYO EXPEDITION INTO TEXAS AND LOUISIANA, 1719-1722 ", Volume 015, Number 1, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online, Page 1 - 65. http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v015/n1/article_2.html
[Accessed Mon Nov 23 0:50:58 CST 2009]
