Comparison of the Texas revolt of 1835-1836 with the American Revolution reveals in many particulars a close parallelism between the two. This is especially striking in the divided state of public opinion which in both cases preceded, as well as accompanied and followed, the resort to arms, and in the method of procedure adopted for organizing resistance. But perhaps, after all, the existence of such parallelism is less remarkable than its absence would be, for in each case the defendants were Anglo-Americans, and in each the fundamental cause of revolt was the same—a sudden effort of the supreme government to enforce laws long forgotten or disregarded and to extend in local affairs an imperial administration to which the colonists were strangers. Sober historians have swept away the haze of political oratory which once obscured the causes of the American Revolution and have found them less grievous than ardent patriots formerly imagined, but even historians do not question the naturalness of the revolt. No doubt the actual grievances of the Texans were less serious than their Patrick Henries and Samuel Adamses believed them to be, but with all due allowance for their conscious and unconscious exaggeration of the evils threatened by Mexico, human nature being as it is, the Texas revolution was natural enough. That American historians of the past generation failed to recognize this may be ascribed to the persistent influence of the slavery question, with which Texas was from 1836 to 1850 so intimately connected in national politics of the United States.
In a slight degree the Texan declaration of causes for taking up arms illustrates one of the parallels suggested. On November 3, 1835, the “Consultation of the chosen delegates of all Texas” began its sessions at San Felipe de Austin. Called for the purpose of unifying public opinion, and of devising ways of preserving peace with honor or of preparing for war, this body found itself in a situation which reminds one of the Second Continental Congress when it assembled at Philadelphia in 1775. Hostilities had already begun, a volunteer band of colonists was marching against the Mexican troops at San Antonio, and the Consultation faced the task of justifying war and of discovering means for waging it vigorously. The preceding summer had seen the development of a small war party in Texas which hailed the outbreak with satisfaction, but most of the colonists were reluctant to abandon the ways of peace, and many thought the breach premature and ill-advised—premature because it was not yet certain that Santa Anna's reform of the national constitution would injure Texas; 1 and ill-timed because, whereas Santa Anna was being opposed at the time by a considerable party of liberals (the Federalists) in Mexico, the rising of the alien Texans would easily be interpreted as a movement toward secession, and that, as a matter which touched the national pride, would unite all parties against them. The declaration of November 7 was, therefore, a strategic document, designed on the one hand to justify the war in the eyes of the Texans and of an impartial world, and on the other to convince the Mexican Federalists that the Texans desired only to preserve from destruction the republican constitution of 1824. At the same time it represented a compromise between the war party, which desired an outright declaration of independence, and the conservatives, who believed that the time for that had not arrived.
Dr. Branch T. Archer was elected president of the Consultation, and his inaugural address, which conformed very closely to a list of suggestions which Stephen F. Austin had drawn up and sent from the army, declared that “The first measure that will be brought before the house, will be a declaration in which we will set forth to the world the causes which have impelled us to take up arms, and the objects for which we fight.” A hint of the tone which the President expected the declaration to take can be gathered from his concluding words, “I do not view the cause in which we are engaged, as that of freemen fighting alone against military despotism; I do not view it as Texas battling alone for her rights and her liberties; I view it in a nobler, more exalted light. I view it as the great work of laying the corner stone of liberty in the great Mexican republic.” 2 A committee of twelve, one from each district, represented in the Consultation was accordingly appointed to draft a declaration as the President proposed. 3 John A. Wharton was chairman of this committee and it numbered among its members General Sam Houston.
The committee soon found that its task involved a preliminary settlement of the fundamental question of whether Texas was fighting for independence or in defense of the constitution, and the members, unable to agree among themselves, forced the dedecision upon the house by asking for instructions. 4 The subject occupied the attention of the Consultation almost exclusively for three days, but the journal gives little indication of the content of the debates. On the morning of the 4th Wharton and Williamson, of the committee, made “lengthy and able” speeches in favor of independence. 5 In reply Daniel Parker of Nacogdoches “on motion was permitted to offer a plan of such a declaration as he thought the house should make which on motion of Saml Houston was laid on the table to be referred to the committee on the subject.” 6 The manuscript minutes indicate that Parker favored a declaration in favor of the constitution, but no copy of his plan is preserved. R. R. Royall followed Parker and read a communication from General Austin giving the latter's views upon the course which the Consultation should pursue in providing a provisional government for Texas. This also was referred to the committee. 7 After a speech by Martin Parmer 8 of Tenaha in favor of independence, and one by J. D. Clements of Gonzales in support of the constitution, 9 Dr. Everett of Bevil offered a resolution which he said “had for its object the bringing the discussion to a point and to avoid a protracted debate.” 10 What the resolution was or what parliamentary action it evoked we are not told. The secretary stopped in the middle of the sentence to record the interesting item that the assembly “adjourned till two o'clock p. m.,” and the words already written were marked out with a cross. Perhaps Everett felt sufficiently heartened by his luncheon to endure the debate with resignation and withdrew the resolution. Concerning the discussion during the afternoon, the manuscript source says only that “Mr. John A. Wharton took the floor and in a lengthy speech urged the necessity to declare Texas independent of Mexico,” and the printed journal tells us nothing.
An important addition to the journal of this day's proceedings is afforded by a letter from Gail Borden, Jr., to Stephen F. Austin. 11 Writing on the 5th, Borden said
.... Yesterday, however, the day was principally occupied in discussion on the resolution offered by Mr. Wharton appointing a Committee “to make a declaration to the world setting forth the reasons for which we take up arms etc.” Though the discussion was lengthy and animated yet coolness and moderation pervaded throughout the debate.
Your opinion as to what you believed should be the course to pursue was introduced as well as several plans all of which were referred to the Committee on the subject. Whatever may be the decision it will be unanimous. My opinion, however, is that a large majority will declare for the principles of the Constitution of 1824—Unanimity and good feeling I believe is the order of the day—and I trust all will go well. ...
Had a conversation with Genl Houstion today. I believe he has the interest of our country at heart; he made the best speech yesterday I have ever heard; the whole tenour of it went to harmonize the feelings of the people and to produce unanimity of sentiment.
The discussion was resumed on the 5th and consumed the entire day. Mr. Barrett of Mina replied to Wharton in favor of a declaration for the constitution, and was given leave to submit in writing further views, which were referred to the committee. J. W. Robinson of Nacogdoches spoke “at length” in favor of independence, and J. B. Wood of Liberty for the constitution. General Houston on this day was seized with a desire to close the debate, as Dr. Everett had been on the 4th, and offered a resolution that the committee be instructed “to draw a declaration in favor of the constitution of 1824,” but this he withdrew in deference to the opposition of Mr. Wharton. The day closed with a speech from the President, who was called from the chair to give his opinion of “the character of the declaration which should be adopted as a foundation for a provisional government.” What his opinion was is not stated, but it is safe to infer from his inaugural address that it was conservative. 12
By the 6th the majority were evidently becoming impatient. Williamson was refused permission to read his “plan on which to found a provisional government,” but it was referred to the committee. Wharton next gained leave only by the casting vote of the President “to offer some further remarks on his report”; and after Mr. Royall had read from Vattel in reply to him, Mr. Mitchell of Washington stopped the discussion by moving the previous question. The vote was suspended, however, until the President could explain the question to members who had recently arrived, and at the close of his remarks Williamson again begged and obtained leave to read his plan. The voting followed on the question as phrased by General Houston, “All in favor of a provisional government, upon the principles of the constitution of 1824, will say aye.” The result was thirty-three ayes and fourteen noes. The question was then put in another form, “All in favor of a declaration of independence will say aye,” and upon this the vote was fifteen ayes and thirty-three noes. Wharton opposed entering the ayes and noes on the journal, and they were omitted. 13
Having received its instructions, the committee retired to frame its report. It had before it, as we know, at least four plans, those of Parker, Austin, Barrett, and Williamson—three peace party men, and one in favor of the constitution. Of Parker's plan we have no copy. Austin's advised that a declaration be made in favor of the constitution of 1824; that a provisional local government be organized, with the statement that Texas was now separate from Coahuila but that the existing laws of Coahuila and Texas would as far as possible be provisionally retained until more deliberate action could be taken; that the faith of the state be pledged to obtain means for pushing the war “in defence of the constitution and Federal System”; that land claims of the Indians be guaranteed in order to keep them quiet; that fraudulent land grants made by the legislature since 1833 be annulled; that a courier service be established; and that the militia be organized and steps taken to raise a regular army. 14 Austin thought this “the Full Extent which . . . the Consultation ought to go.” It, in fact, almost exactly covered the work which the Consultation did do, and it no doubt had great influence in determining the majority to declare for the constitution, but in shaping the content and phraseology of the final declaration it had apparently little further effect.
Barrett's draft falls into the three familiar divisions of the American declaration of independence from Great Britain in 1776, and suggests that in form, consciously or unconsciously, its author fashioned it after that document. The first section states a theory of government, and declares that a military dictator has evinced a determination to overthrow this form of government, which the constitution of 1824 recognizes; the second submits facts to prove the evil intention of the dictator; and the third declares the objects for which the Texans fight. Concerning the nature of government, Barrett says that the Americans, who are “a free and thinking people,” “consider all government as originating from, and made for the people.” The dictator's determination to subvert this form of government is exemplified
1st.
By attempting forcibly to adopt a central form of government, contrary to the principles of the constitution of 1824.
2nd.By attempting to subject the civil to the military powers.
3rd.By establishing fortifications and sending military forces to compel obedience to a form of government and laws made without the consent of the people.
4th.By demanding our citizens, charged with civil offences, to be surrendered to military commandants.
5th.By annoying, and endeavoring to destroy our trade.
6th.By arresting and confining the civil Governor and Legislature of our independent State.
9th.And by many acts indicating a determined hostility to all the colonists and to destroy all confidence in constitutional protection, and all natural rights of our citizens. 15
Therefore the colonists were fighting to preserve their constitutional rights, “to put down the usurped power which has trampled them under foot,” and to restore to full operation the constitution and laws. In this they were not the aggressors, for “it is our duty to defend our inalienable rights against all who attempt to subvert our Liberties, although citizens of the same country.” This portion of Barrett's paper is rambling, and contains some repetitions, but the declaration for the constitution is unequivocal. “We declare and resolve to support the constitution of 1824,” and for this purpose the people wanted to “unite with the friends of Liberty among Mexican fellow citizens in the same glorious object.” Barrett advised the calling of a second Consultation at a later date, and in the meantime urged the formation of a provisional government “with certain and defined powers.” If he suspected that a more radical policy might become necessary, it is only revealed in an invitation to the inhabitants of the Department of Bexar to participate in the support of a provisional government “until circumstances require further action.” 16
Barrett's plan was entirely in harmony with Austin's ideas of what ought to be done, and it seems to have had considerable influence in shaping the declaration.
Williamson's draft is interesting as the blunt statement of a man who favored a declaration of independence, but tried to tone down the expression of his real feelings to meet the wishes of a squeamish majority. Starting with the premise that the Texans are “Anglo Americans,” “a free born and reflecting people,” who “believe that all government originates with, and resides in the people,” and that they entered the territory of Mexico under a constitution which guaranteed such government, the writer declares that “without their privity or Consent That Only form of Government known and acknowledged by them has been changed”; therefore “eight thousand” men are in arms “in support of the principles embraced in the Constitution of the Republic of Mexico of 1824.” They were fighting for “Constitutional Liberty” against “the consolidated forces [of the] Mexican Empire.” And they declared themselves, therefore, “separate from, and Independent of That form of Government that at present exists in Mexico.” 17 Notice that Williamson would fight only for the principles of the constitution of 1824, and that while declaring Texas independent of the existing government he refrains from committing it to any other Mexican government.
There is a fourth document, endorsed in the hand of the secretary of the Consultation, “Declaration of General Consultation.” It is not the declaration, however, that was finally adopted, and the journal gives no hint that it was ever presented to the Consultation. It was written by the same hand as Williamson's draft, and, with a word changed here and there, is the same as Williamson's except for three additional paragraphs. These paragraphs are prefixed to the Williamson document. The first one declares that the form of government acknowledged by the Texans has been overthrown, the “social compact creating the confederacy of Mexican States virtually dissolved,” 18 and that the Texans resort to their “natural right” upon the principle of self-preservation. The second declares that the people of Texas “are no longer bound to adhere to a people that have changed that form of government created by the compact of 1824 of which Tejas formed an integral part.” And the third expresses the reliance of the Texans upon the generosity of civilized nations to sustain them against military despotism. 19 Perhaps this was an alternative draft submitted by Williamson to the committee. The prefatory paragraphs contributed to the phraseology of the final declaration.
At the close of the afternoon's session of November 6 Wharton reported progress from his committee. At the opening of the session next morning he “obtained leave to retire for a few minutes, with the committee of which he was chairman,” and upon his return presented the committee's report. According to the journal, it was taken up by sections, and, with a single amendment, each section was adopted unanimously. The amendment inserted the word “republican” before “principles of the federal constitution of Mexico” in the first section. 20 As completed, the declaration was as follows:
Whereas, General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, and other military chieftains, have, by force of arms, overthrown the federal institutions of Mexico, and dissolved the social compact which existed between Texas and the other members of the Mexican confederacy; now the good people of Texas, availing themselves of their natural rights. 21
1st.
That they have taken up arms in defence of their rights and liberties, which were threatened by the encroachments of military despots, and in defence of the republican 22 principles of the federal constitution of Mexico, of eighteen and twenty-four. 23
2d.That Texas is no longer morally or civilly bound by the compact of union; yet, stimulated by the generosity and sympathy common to a free people, they offer their support and assistance to such of the members of the Mexican confederacy as will take up arms against military despotism. 24
3d.That they do not acknowledge that the present authorities of the nominal Mexican republic have the right to govern within the limits of Texas. 25
4th.That they will not cease to carry on war against the said authorities whilst their troops are within the limits of Texas. 26
5th.That they hold it to be their right during the disorganization of the federal system, and the reign of despotism, to withdraw from the union, to establish an independent government, or to adopt such measures as they may deem best calculated to protect their rights and liberties, but that they will continue faithful to the Mexican government so long as that nation is governed by the constitution and laws that were formed for the government of the political association.
6th.That Texas is responsible for the expenses of her armies now in the field.
7th.That the public faith of Texas is pledged for the payment of any debts contracted by her agents.
8th.That she will reward, by donations in lands, all who volunteer their services in her present struggle, and receive them as citizens. 27
These declarations we solemnly avow to the world, and call God to witness their truth and sincerity, and invoke defeat and disgrace upon our heads, should we prove guilty of duplicity. 28
One of the eight articles of the declaration was drawn from Williamson's draft; two were taken from Number 4, which was probably another form of Williamson's draft; two were from Barrett, a peace party man; and the three final paragraphs were suggested by the president's inaugural address.
A thousand copies of the declaration were ordered printed, and upon the motion of General Houston it was ordered on the 8th that all members who were present at its passage should sign it immediately, while those who were not then present should sign it later at their convenience. 29 We have no original, and the names are omitted from the printed copy. From the manuscript source we learn that after the adoption of the declaration nearly the whole of the 7th was spent in discussing it. This suggests that the unanimity with which it was passed may have been less hearty than the laconic record of the printed journal indicates. Perhaps it was this discussion which prompted Houston's motion that every member should sign the declaration.
The fact is that the independence party succeeded in giving the declaration a brusquer tone than their numerical strength in the Consultation warranted. Though there was probably no intention to make it so, the second article had a patronizing ring which a sensitive Mexican could hardly fail to resent; and the fifth article was in effect a conditional declaration of independence. Stephen F. Austin was disappointed by the ambiguous character of the document. He thought that it tended “fully as much to independence as to adhesion to the constitution of 1824,” and he foresaw that Santa Anna would take advantage of it to give the war a national, racial character. And in this Austin did not give full expression to his opinion of the shortcomings of the declaration. 30
A question naturally arises concerning the sincerity of the thirty-three members who voted against a declaration of independence. No direct evidence can be adduced on this point, but it seems fairly certain that they did not perceive any material conflict between their position and the sentiments expressed in the declaration of November 7. The peace party men, no less than the independence men, were firmly resolved not to submit to certain measures that Santa Anna seemed bent upon carrying out. And, in a sense, the declaration said no more than just that. The truth is that the logic of the situation was against the adherents of the constitution of 1824. That had already been superseded on October 3, by decree of the Mexican Congress, and little could be said to soften the indisputable fact that the Texans were in arms against the recognized government of Mexico. With all his sincere desire for peace, John Dickinson in 1775 did not succeed in materially modifying Jefferson's trenchant “Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms” against great Britain, 31 and few believed after the battle of Lexington that there was for the American colonist any other alternative than submission or resistance. In November, 1835, the Texan colonists had reached the same impasse with Mexico.
2. Journals of the Consultation, 7, 9. Austin's memorandum (a copy), with a letter accompanying it, is in the archives of the State Department of Texas, Records, Vol. 3, pp. 24-25. It is summarized below, pages 178-179. The importance of the document lies in the fact that it shaped Archer's inaugural speech, to which the Consultation in all its work adhered very closely. The italies in the above sentence are the writer's.
3. Journals of the Consultation, 12. The committee consisted of John A. Wharton of the jurisdiction of Columbia, William Menefee of San Felipe, R. R. Royall of Matagorda, Lorenzo de Zavala of Harrisburg, Asa Mitchell of Washington, W. S. Fisher of Gonzales, R. M. Williamson of Mina, Sam Houston of Nacogdoches, A. Houston of San Augustine, Wyatt Hanks of Bevil, Henry Millard of Liberty, and S. T. Allen of Viesca.
4. A fragment of the minutes of the Consultation (MS. in the State Library of Texas) says that the committee reported on the 4th “that they had had said subject under consideration and that the committee were divided and therefore referred the subject to the consideration of the whole house.” ... The printed journal merely says (p. 16) that the committee made a report.
5. MS. fragment. That they spoke in favor of independence is indicated by the letter “i” after their names. Speakers for the constitution were indicated by a “c.” The printed journal makes no mention of these speeches.
6. MS. fragment. The printed journal, under date of the 5th, says only (p. 17) that “Mr. Parker obtained the floor and addressed the house on the subject before it.” The 4th, as given in the manuscript, seems to be the correct date.
7. MS. fragment. The printed journal does not mention this.
8. The manuscript calls him Palmer.
9. MS. fragment.
10. Ibid.
11. Austin Papers.
12. For this day's proceedings see Journals of the Consultation, 16-17.
13. For this day's proceedings see Ibid., 18-19.
14. Copy. Archives of the State Department of Texas, Records, Vol. 3, pp. 24-25.
15. It is interesting to compare with this enumeration of abuses the “Facts” “submitted to a candid world” by the American Declaration of Independence.
16. Copy. Archives of the State Department of Texas, Records, Vol. 3, pp. 16-17.
17. Consultation MS. Texas State Library. This document is signed “Williamson,” and is endorsed. “Referred to Comt of 12.”
18. Although the constitution of 1824 did deliberately establish a federal system, the historically fallacious character of the social contract as a theory of government has probably never been more obvious than in the government of Mexico from Cortes to the present.
19. Consultation MS. Texas State Library.
20. Journals of the Consultation, 20-21.
21. With this preamble compare the first paragraph of the fourth document mentioned above: “Whereas, That form of government known and acknowledged by and subscribed to by the people of Texas has been overthrown by the military; and Whereas the social compact creating the confederacy of Mexican States is virtually dissolved the people of Tejas declare that they assume the exercise of their natural right and upon the great principle of self-preservation they assert to the world that they will sustain acquired rights in Mexico.”
22. This word was inserted by amendment.
23. With this compare the third paragraph of Barrett's draft: “The violation of this constitution and laws, and the attempt to subvert them by a military dictator, and the consequent determination to subject our citizens against their will or consent to another form of government, are the reasons for our resistance and for resorting to arms.”
24. Compare the second paragraph of number four: “The people of Tejas declare that they are no longer bound to adhere to a people that have changed that form of Government created by the compact of 1824 of which Tejas formed an integral part.”
25. Compare the ninth section of Williamson's plan: “They declare that they are separate from, and Independent of That form of Government that at present exists in Mexico.”
26. Compare Barrett's: “We declare and resolve that we will never while a free American can raise a weapon in Texas, suffer its soil to be polluted by the usurper or his myrmidons, and that we will trust to our arms, a just cause—the sympathy and justice of Nations, and our omnipotent God, for certain success in all we claim.”
27. The last three resolutions seem to have been suggested by the President's inaugural address. See Journals of the Consultation, 7-8.
28. Journals of the Consultation, 21-22.
29. Journals of the Consultation, 22-23.
30. Original draft of a letter from Austin to the Provisional Government in the Austin Papers. This is not dated, but there is a copy in the archives of the State Department of Texas, Records, Vol. 3, pp. 157-159, dated December 3. The original so well illustrates the characteristic cautiousness of Austin, and at the same time suggests the sensitive nature of the subject, that two paragraphs are quoted with their erasures and interlineations inserted in brackets:
. . . “Should the Govt. succeed in giving to this war a national character, as they are attempting, Texas will have to contend against the whole nation united against her. That such a character will be given to it is probable—in fact it is almost certain, for the reason that the declaration made by the Genl Consultation [admits of] tends [more] fully as much to independence [than to] as to adhesion to the constitution of 1824—[and whether fortunately or some most]—some of the subsequent measures [especially the imp] have the same tendency. The manner [that] in which Govr Viesca and Col Gonzales [etc were recd. at have been were] have been recd. [at Goliad etc] will also have its effect [in short the debates and opinions expressed in favor of independence and the general impression that has gone abroad that independence was the object] the organization of a local Govt. without a clear and positive declaration that it was done as a member of the Mexican confederation under the constitution of 1824 and law of 7 May of that year will be perverted by our enemies [to mean that] to mean a different thing from what was intended. In short the impression has gone abroad that independence is the object, and the only object of Texas—This being the case [the] there is at least every probability [is great] that the Texas war will assume [a natio] the character which the Govt of Mexico are endeavoring to give to it, and that all parties will unite against us.
It is perhaps [out of place] too late now to inquire whether a different course and a more rigid adherence to the constitution of 1824, [and to the] and organization as a member of the Mexican confederation without any ambiguity, would or would not have [been more promoted comported much] been the true and [only] proper course for Texas—I believe it would, but the time [Here Austin stopped abruptly, and deleted the whole of this paragraph.]
31. See Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 (Ford Ed.), II, 128-157.
How to cite:
Barker, Eugene C., "THE TEXAN DECLARATION OF CAUSES FOR TAKING UP ARMS AGAINST MEXICO ", Volume 015, Number 3, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online, Page 173 - 185. http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v015/n3/article_1.html
[Accessed Sun Nov 23 14:00:57 CST 2008]
