Vol. XV JANUARY, 1912 No. 3
The publication committee and the editor disclaim responsibility for views expressed by contributors toThe Quarterly
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.
From our modern viewpoint we are able to see many causes for the comparative failure of the Spanish system in New Spain. Undoubtedly her exclusive commercial policy, discouraging trade between different parts of her own dominions, her strict and somewhat tyrannical methods of government, and her exploitation of her colonial dominions for the benefit of the home country were largely responsible for her ultimate lack of success in the New World. But the chief causes for this failure, perhaps, were those general conditions for which Spain can not be held accountable, and which would have hindered to an equal degree the efforts of any other colonizing nation in similar circumstances. And one of the most unfavorable of these conditions was the hostility of the natives in the various regions in which Spanish institutions were established.
The truth of this is seen by a study of the region which is now included in the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. The varying degrees of success in permanent establishments in the different areas is explained chiefly by the differences in the Indians of the respective sections. In California, for instance, the Spanish system reached a high stage of development, while in Texas, where efforts were begun more than a century earlier, there was little to show after two centuries of labor. In California, the natives were indolent and sluggish, indisposed to warfare; in most of Texas the reverse was true. The fact that the Indians in the greater portion of Texas could never be permanently subjugated and reduced to mission life explains in large measure the comparative failure of Spanish establishments there. To be sure, there were a few small tribes in southwestern Texas which were peaceably inclined, but this was due to their weakness and insignificance. The large tribes were all independent and self-assertive, and steadfastly refused to bow to the will of the Spaniards, although they often treacherously pretended to do so.
The chief difficulty with which the Spaniards of the eighteenth century had to deal in western Texas was the hostility of the Apaches. 32 From the founding of San Antonio in 1718 we may date the real beginning of this scourge. Hatred against the white man had been aroused at the first coming of the Spaniards when they had assisted the enemies of the Apaches, but it was not until San Antonio was founded that any definite and convenient point of attack had been available. The many raids upon the presidio thereafter revealed the fact that the Apaches were a dangerous factor in the life of the settlement.
Recognizing this truth, the Marqués de Aguayo, on his expedition of 1721-1722, tried to make friends with the Apaches, but conciliatory measures were of no avail. The multiplied raids in 1723 forced Captain Nicolás Flores to make a formal campaign against them, but on account of the distance at which they lived and the weak condition of the presidio, small permanent good came from this expedition, although it is true that for a few years depredations were less violent.
In 1731, however, the Apaches renewed their attacks and became so troublesome that in the following year a well organized campaign was undertaken against them by Governor Bustillo y Zevallos. The Indians suffered a severe defeat on the San Sabá River, and a treaty of peace was made with them. Their bad faith was soon evident, for almost immediately thereafter San Antonio again suffered a series of raids and massacres unparalleled in previous years.
Some feeble efforts for defense were made by the viceregal government in Mexico. Joseph de Urrutia, a noted Indian fighter, was appointed captain of Béxar, and preparations were made to teach the Apaches a lasting lesson. The usual procrastination followed, however, and, although there was no cessation of attacks by the Indians, it was not until 1739 that another formal expedition got under way. Several campaigns were made from 1740 to 1747, but as several of them were undertaken largely for the purpose of obtaining servants they served only to arouse the further enmity of the Apaches.
But what campaigns and conciliatory measures had failed to accomplish was gradually being brought about by pressure upon the Apaches of their arch enemies, the Comanches. As the latter pushed down into the territory occupied by the Lipans (Apaches), these once proud and haughty Indians were forced to turn to the hated whites for protection. In 1749 a great peace was concluded with the tribes to the northeast of San Antonio, and the Apaches assured the Spaniards that they wished to live in pueblos under the instruction of the missionaries. With the conclusion of this treaty, the prospects for the conversion and reduction of the Lipans began to seem probable, and renewed efforts were made to accomplish this end.
1. Summary of Progress up to 1749.—So far as the available records show, only three definite proposals for missionary work among the Apaches in Texas had been made previous to 1743. In 1723 and 1724, Father González, stationed at the San Antonio missions, had tried to conciliate them and bring about their conversion. In 1725 Father Hidalgo had asked for permission to go alone to their country and work for their salvation. And in 1733 Father Vergara, recognizing the importance of their reduction, had urged that missions be given them. It was ten years before another proposal was made. In March, 1743, Father Benito Fernández de Santa Ana, president of the San Antonio missions, sent a messenger to the viceroy bearing communications in which he urged that immediate steps be taken for the conversion of the Apaches. On account of the hostile attitude of the Comanches and their increased pressure upon the Apaches, the latter, he believed, would welcome the protection of the Spaniards, and a presidio in their midst would not only free San Antonio from their hostilities, but would also enable a rich mineral region to be opened up. The captain of Béxar had just sent in a petition asking for permission to make a new campaign against the Apaches, and, owing to the conflicting statements concerning the peaceful disposition of the Apaches, no decisive action was taken by the authorities. In 1745 Father Santa Ana renewed his petition, and now proposed to place presidios on the San Sabá, Pedernales, Salado, and Colorado Rivers, by which action he was convinced that not only the Apaches but also the Comanches themselves would be converted. Several requests for missions had, indeed, already been made by the Apaches, but the military authorities at San Antonio declared that this friendliness was only a ruse by which to regain their captive kinsmen taken in various campaigns. The missionaries continued to believe in the sincerity of the Indians, however, and succeeded in inducing the captain of the presidio to pursue a conciliatory policy. In March, 1749, messengers from the Apaches assured the Spaniards that they wished to be friends and would no longer trouble the settlement. True to their word, depredations did cease, and even the soldiers were forced to believe that the Indians intended to keep their promises. The continued friendly intercourse led at length to the very important step of releasing the captives, who were freed in the latter part of November. 33
2. The Guadalupe River Plan. 34—On September 24, 1749, a party of Apaches who constituted a portion of the Indians with whom the missionaries had been treating since August, visited San Antonio, and asked to be allowed to live in the missions there. Father Mariano de los Dolores, who, in the absence of Father Santa Ana, was in charge of Mission Valero, was convinced that the time for definite action had arrived. Although, on account of lack of provisions and fear of the consequences that might follow from the association of the converted with the unconverted Indians, he could not accede to this particular request, he was unwilling to postpone the matter further, and resolved to attempt an establishment, if only a temporary one, upon the Guadalupe River. The idea of founding a mission on this stream now became a pet scheme cherished by Father Dolores for many years and for which he later intrigued, it was alleged, in a manner not entirely creditable. The priest explained to the Indians that it would be impossible for them to live at San Antonio, and that until they should give undoubted proof of their sincerity, no establishment could be given them in their own country. He promised, however, that as soon as permission could be obtained from the viceroy a mission would be founded for them on the Guadalupe.
In support of his plan Father Dolores explained to Captain Urrutia the advantages of the proposed site. No garrison would be necessary, since those of San Antonio and San Xavier could quickly suppress any revolt at the first signs of inquietude. Indeed, a revolt would not be a serious matter, for it could be easily quelled by a compaign, which would serve the double purpose of punishing the Apaches and of obtaining workers for the new missions. He did not expect such an occurrence, however, in view of the peaceful state of the natives. But the bright prospects might be spoiled if haste were not made; for it was even then rumored that the Apaches had formed an alliance with the Kadodacho Indians, through whom, if precautions were not taken, they might become friends of the French. In view of these conditions, and since the Apaches were anxious to congregate, the good father believed that Captain Urrutia would be warranted in asking the viceroy for authority to carry out the proposed plan, and he requested the Captain to ask only that provisions should be made for founding one or two missions until it could be seen how many Indians should present themselves. 35
Captain Urrutia was loath to act solely upon the strength of Father Dolores's assertions, and when, on November 11, the priest returned from a visit to the San Xavier missions, he learned that nothing had been done in the matter. He now presented another petition, repeating many of his former arguments and citing recent developments which he thought warranted immediate action. He said that he had promised to advise the Apaches within five moons of the viceroy's determination, and that he had assured them that by that time the missions would be established. The Apaches, he said, would not brook any such delay as had occurred at San Xavier. 36
When Dolores made his second appeal, the captives had just been released, and Captain Urrutia, as well as Father Dolores, was convinced that the time was propitious for founding the mission. In consequence, on December 1 the officer addressed a formal request to the viceroy for the establishment of a mission for the Apaches and urged that no time should be lost in carrying out the pact that had been made with them. 37
The enthusiasm of the zealous ones at San Antonio as shown in the documents sent to the viceroy did not produce corresponding emotions in the officials at Mexico City. The representations of Dolores and Urrutia were sent to the auditor, Altamira, for his consideration, but he gave an opinion anything but favorable to the project. After a long discourse upon Indian affairs in America in general, he stated that, according to the documents that he had received, permission was asked to found a mission and presidio for a handful of Indians concerning whom nothing definite seemed to be known. A presidio costing more than $20,000 a year, he curtly observed, could not be established for every petty band of Indians who manifested, perhaps only temporarily, a desire to enter missions. Until a detailed statement should be given concerning the supplies needed, the number of Indians available, the priests who would be necessary, and the site selected, no action could be taken in the matter, and he advised that Urrutia be instructed to that effect. 38 The viceroy ordered these suggestions transmitted to Urrutia, which was done on February 2. 39
Thus, owing to the Spanish system of red tape, Father Dolores's plan came to an end for the time being. The viceroy was later given to understand that the Guadalupe plan had been abandoned on account of “certain inconveniences.” 40 Why the matter was not further pressed we do not know. Perhaps it was because of another scheme proposed by Father Santa Ana—that of establishing a mission on the Pedernales River.
3. The Pedernales River Plan.—Father Santa Ana, president of the San Antonio missions, had resolved to undertake the long journey to Mexico City in order to make a personal plea for Apache missions. He arrived there in the latter part of 1749, or in January of the following year, and about the middle of February made a proposition differing materially from that which had been made by Father Dolores. Father Santa Ana's proposal was a radical one. Without making the usual lengthy introductory remarks in his communication to the viceroy, he asked that orders should be given for the removal of the presidio of San Antonio de Béxar, with its entire garrison, to the Pedernales River (or to a more distant location if necessary), in order that a Spanish pueblo might be formed under its protection, and that a mission might be founded for the Apaches. The site should be chosen, with the co-operation of the chiefs who wished to “congregate,” at a distance of two or three leagues from the presidio, and there the Apaches should encamp until the actual establishment of the mission. Upon the completion of these arrangements, a detailed account should be sent to the viceroy in order that the necessary permission might be secured. 41
The region in which Father Santa Ana proposed to found the mission was the mountainous section along the Pedernales River, which was then frequented by the Apaches, especially during the buffalo season. The Pedernales has been reduced in modern geographical nomenclature to the rank of a creek, but it is a stream of fairly good size, flowing into the Colorado about twenty miles northwest of Austin. The fact that this region was selected is significant, for it indicates that the missionaries were beginning to see that it was advisable for the Apaches to be given missions in their own country.
The somewhat indefinite and altogether radical nature of Father Santa Ana's proposal did not favorably impress the auditor, to whom the communication had been sent on February 13. That official immediately raised a number of objections, beginning his observations by saying that it seemed to be expected that solely on the strength of a request unsupported by details the work of years in Texas should be undone at a single stroke. His chief criticism of the plan was the lack of protection for the citizens of San Antonio in case the presidio were removed; and he doubted whether there was a single family available for the proposed pueblo. No exact information was given about the Apaches, although sufficient time had elapsed since the beginning of the negotiations with them to obtain full particulars concerning those who wished to enter missions. Nevertheless, he deemed the matter of sufficient importance to warrant the calling of a council at San Antonio to discuss the advisability of the removal to the Pedernales, and he reported to the viceroy to this effect. 42
Two days later Father Santa Ana was shown the auditor's report, which had been, as usual, accepted by the viceroy, and in reply submitted a long report, as he had promised, in justification of his plan. In this document he summarized past relations with the Apaches, and endeavored to explain fully all points to which the auditor had objected. He had suggested the use of the presidio of Béxar because he believed it was most suitable for the purpose, since its captain was both loved and feared by the Indians and its soldiers were competent and well paid. 43 He had chosen the Pedernales region because it was the gateway to the Apache country and a pueblo and presidio located there would serve the double purpose of defense and conversion. As there seemed to be much doubt in the minds of the authorities concerning the peaceful disposition of the Apaches, in spite of the many assurances that had been given to this effect by the captain of Béxar and the priests, Father Santa Ana suggested that the captain of La Bahía or the lieutenant of Santa Rosa should be sent to explore the Pedernales country and make a report upon the whole matter for the instruction of the viceroy. The College of Santa Cruz, he said, was ready to undertake the conversion of the Apaches, and he felt assured that the same success would attend their efforts as had been gained in the region between the Rio Grande and the San Xavier. The conversion of the Apaches, without doubt, would enable San Antonio to develop her many resources and would cause a wave of prosperity to spread over the whole region. Since this was generally recognized to be true, it seemed superfluous, he said, to waste time in asking the citizens to vote upon the matter, and he again begged the viceroy to give without further delay the orders necessary for the execution of his petition. 44
But this letter did not convince the auditor of the wisdom of the plan; indeed, it raised new difficulties in his mind. Accordingly, he refused to take any immediate steps, and advised that the whole question should be thoroughly investigated in the junta to be held at San Antonio. He recommended further that the deliberations should be participated in by the lieutenant of the presidio of Santa Rosa and by the missionaries at San Antonio, promising that when the report of the junta should be received the corresponding provisions would be made. 45
The order for the junta, together with the accompanying documents, were dispatched to Captain Urrutia on March 11, 46 and on June 16 that official notified Father Dolores that he and his fellow missionaries would be expected to appear in the council, which he set for the 20th of that month. 47
Just at this time, unfortunately for the success of his plan, Father Santa Ana fell ill, and was compelled to retire from the presidency of the missions. He was succeeded by Father Dolores, 48 who at once showed his opposition to the Pedernales plan. In reply to Captain Urrutia's order summoning the priests to the junta, he took occasion to express his strong disapproval of the removal of the presidio. Although he did not doubt that beneficent results would follow the establishment of a mission in the Pedernales country, Santa Ana's scheme, he said, was impracticable for two reasons. In the first place, the inhabitants of San Antonio were extremely poor and depended upon the pay of the soldiers for their support. To remove the presidio would be to destroy the only source of revenue possessed by the settlement. Secondly, although the Apaches in the Pedernales region might be held in check by the removal of the presidio, San Antonio would be left exposed to the ravages of the Julimes, Natagés, and other hostile Indians from the Rio Grande country. 49 Having thus given his reasons for opposing Santa Ana's plan, Father Dolores now requested that the missionaries should be excused from attending the junta. His ostensible objection was the loss of prestige and dignity which he believed would result to the priests from association with the citizens on a plane of equality; but he probably feared also an adverse report upon the whole question of Apache missions, and did not wish to lend the weight of the missionaries' presence to a hostile popular assembly. Even if the priests should attend the meeting, he said, their judgment would undoubtedly be overruled by the prejudiced votes of the vulgar majority, and if evil results ensued the priests would receive just as much condemnation as those really responsible for the unwise action. Important matters, he believed, should be deliberated upon by wise and experienced men, and not by the common rabble. In his judgment, the council was entirely unnecessary. Since the principal issue to be decided was the advisability of removing the presidio, it would only be necessary to make a general muster of the forces and weapons available for the defense of the town in order to convince the viceroy that such a step would be the greatest folly. 50
In spite of Father Dolores's efforts to have the order for the junta revoked, the meeting was held upon the day set, and his suggestion for a muster of the defenses was disregarded. 51 Not only was the general opinion of the council strongly opposed to the removal of the presidio, but, just as Father Dolores had foreseen, it protested against any plan to found a mission for the Apaches in their own country. Instead, it was asserted that it would be more advisable to locate a mission nearer San Antonio, although, as the priest said, those who urged this step knew that it was impossible to induce the Apaches to leave their own land. The majority of the citizens were, from selfish motives, it was charged, really opposed to the establishment of missions for the Apaches in any form, and much evidence was introduced to show that the Indians were not yet in a condition to warrant such a step. Every possible accusation against their good faith was brought up in the junta, and although a formal investigation made at the request of Father Dolores disproved these charges, the conflicting reports and opinions produced the effect desired by the citizens, and caused only greater indecision on the part of the officials in Mexico, delaying still longer any definite action. 52 Thus the second plan for an Apache mission came to naught.
1. A New Apostle to the Apaches.—Although the efforts of the missionaries at San Antonio to secure the permission of the authorities for an Apache mission within that jurisdiction had failed, for the time being, in the jurisdiction of San Juan Bautista, on the Rio Grande, the necessary sanction was obtained, and an Apache mission plan was actually developed and put into operation. This mission was a logical step in the evolution of the San Sabá plan, and had much influence upon the subsequent inauguration of that enterprise.
To Father Alonzo Giraldo de Terreros is due the credit of establishing this first formal mission for the Texas Apaches. 53 He was a friar of much experience in the missionary field, having formerly been among the Indians of eastern Texas for several years. He had been guardian of the College of Santa Cruz at Querétaro, and was known to be one of the most zealous and devout of the Franciscans in New Spain. In February, 1752, he was appointed president of the Texas missions, to succeed Father Mariano de los Dolores, who was to be transferred to the Rio Grande district. 54 It seems that this order was changed, however, for Father Terreros went to the Rio Grande country, while Father Dolores remained at San Antonio. Just what the facts in the case were, we do not know, but, at any rate, we find that in 1754 Terreros was minister at the mission of San Juan Bautista, working zealously for the conversion of the Apaches and confident that the labors of years were at last about to be crowned with success.
2. The Founding of San Lorenzo. 55—The Apache bands among whom Father Terreros was laboring, were intimate relatives of those which frequented San Antonio, and, indeed, were later said to be the same Indians. 56 There is probably much truth in this statement, but the Indians were apparently not entirely identical. According to a communication of Don Pedro de Rábago y Theran, governor of Coahuila, addressed to the viceroy under date of June 3, 1754, the tribes represented in the mission planned by Father Terreros were the Natajés, Síbolas, and Tucubantes. Governor Rábago reported that in virtue of the treaties that had been made with these tribes, there were then encamped on both sides of the Rio Grande, near the new town of San Fernando de Austria, 57 more than nine hundred Indians, led by three chiefs, all of whom were “inclined” to enter missions. While he was not overconfident of their sincerity, Rábago said, he had nevertheless deemed it justifiable to maintain the Indians as “guests” until the pleasure of the viceroy could be learned. He asked, therefore, that an order should be sent to the captain of the presidio of San Juan Bautista instructing him to investigate the matter, in co-operation with the missionaries there. 58
After having passed successively through the hands of the viceroy and the auditor, Rábago's communication was referred to Andreu, the royal fiscal. The fiscal was not very sure of the advisability of taking the matter up, for many times similar requests for missions had been made by the Indians in the neighborhood of San Juan Bautista and nothing had ever materialized. He decided, however, to recommend the granting of Rábago's request for an investigation, and advised that a full report should be made by Rábago and the missionaries concerning the number of Indians, their intentions, the kind of land and mission sites available, and, in fact, all matters pertinent to the undertaking. 59
The auditor, Valcarcel, to whom the documents were now returned, agreed in the main with Andreu's opinion, and while concurring in the recommendation to make a full investigation, added the warning that much caution should be observed, since experience had shown that the Indians concerned would desert readily and would commit hostilities under cover of peace. As Governor Rábago was about to set out for Texas, where he would command the new presidio of San Xavier, it would be impossible for him to conduct the investigation; and Valcarcel recommended, therefore, that the lieutenant-governor, Juan Antonio de Bustillo y Zevallos, should take his place, being aided by the captain of San Juan Bautista, who was familiar with the Apaches and their ways. 60 On September 20 the viceroy issued a decree in accordance with the auditor's opinion. 61 The delivery of the decree was entrusted to Father Guerra of the College of Santa Cruz, who presented it to Bustillo in Monclova on November 22. On December 2 the lieutenant-governor set out for San Juan Bautista, where he arrived on the 9th. 62 The expedition was quickly organized and arrangements were made to leave on the 13th. The leaders of the party were Lieutenant-Governor Bustillo, Lieutenant Vicente Rodríguez, in charge of the presidio, and Father Terreros, then president of the missions of the Rio Grande and minister in San Juan Bautista. 63
Although the Indians had expressed a desire to settle on the San Rodrigo River, a place known as San Ildefonso was thought to be a more suitable location, and to this point the expedition made its way. The site was eighteen leagues west of the presidio and two leagues from the Villa of San Fernando de Austria. The formal examination was made on December 18, and the testimony showed, as might be expected by one familiar with such proceedings, that it was an ideal spot for missions, with good land and plenty of water, the two essential requirements. 64
Two days later Bustillo and Terreros visited a large gathering of Apaches, said to reach the number of two thousand, and held a council with the chiefs and principal men. The Indians approved the site selected, and on December 21 they were given formal possession of the pueblo of San Lorenzo, as it was called, “under the protection of San Ildefonso.” Although the San Rodrigo site was also examined and pronounced good, no attempt, it seems, was made to establish a mission there, and all efforts were centered upon San Lorenzo. 65
3. Failure of the Mission.—Father Terreros took charge of the new mission, and his efforts were attended with a considerable degree of temporary success. By the early part of March, 1755, or within less than three months, at least fifty-two Apaches were in the mission, 66 and by the latter part of that month this number had been increased to eighty-three. The necessary buildings were constructed, and a good irrigation ditch dug. Among the neophytes were the chiefs, El Gordo, El de Godo, and Bigotes. We are told that the interpreter was an Ypande named Francisco del Norte. This would indicate a connection with the more northern Apache bands. 67
After getting things into good running order, as he thought, Father Terreros retired from the management of the mission, and returned to Querétaro, where he was soon to take up the larger project of missionary work in the San Sabá country. He was succeeded at San Lorenzo by Fray Martin García, who had formerly been stationed at San Antonio and who later went to the missions of Sonora. Concerning the operation of the mission we have almost no information, except for the report which Father García made shortly after his arrival. His statement to the effect that the mission Indians were the same as those with whom he had been acquainted at San Antonio since 1749 has already been referred to. According to the Indians themselves, he said, their reason for entering San Lorenzo was because Father Dolores had refused to give them missions in Texas. This statement strengthens the impression that a portion of the Apaches were little more than professional beggars, traveling from place to place, wherever under the pretext of a desire for missions they might hoodwink the Spaniards and secure enough food to sustain their lazy bodies. 68
That selfish desires prompted their apparent submission at San Lorenzo upon this occasion is borne out by the subsequent history of the mission. On June 18, 1755, Father Felix Gutiérrez Varona was assigned to the mission, but in spite of his efforts to curb the growing discontent of the neophytes, on the night of October 4 they revolted, burned all the buildings of the mission, and deserted permanently. Father Gutiérrez remained at the abandoned site for some time, trying to repair the damage and re-establish the mission. His efforts were fruitless, however, and finally all attempt to regain the Indians was given up. 69
The failure of San Lorenzo was attributed, and justly, no doubt, to the natural inconstancy of the Apaches and their reluctance to live in missions outside of the region which they habitually frequented—that is, north and northwest of San Antonio, in the section traversed by the Pedernales, Llano, and San Sabá Rivers.
This failure of a mission for the Apaches in the Rio Grande country constituted an argument for planting one in their own country, and led logically to the establishments on the San Sabá River. In a future paper I shall describe the various steps by which the San Sabá plan was developed, and shall give a detailed history of the operation of this mission, together with its heretofore little known successors on the Nueces River.
British interest in Texas was manifested from the time of her declaration of independence in 1836, and Texan diplomats were early in communication with the British government. It was not until 1840, however, that the Texan appeal for recognition met with active official approval in England, and the first steps were taken toward a conclusion of treaties. Thus very little correspondence from Texas is to be found in the British archives previous to that year. The present publication, which will run through several numbers of The Quarterly, consists mainly of letters and reports to the British government, hitherto unpublished, written by the two principal British officials stationed in Texas. These were Charles Elliot, chargé d'affaires, and William Kennedy, consul at Galveston. Further biographical detail is given in footnotes where these men appear in the correspondence. Elliot did not arrive in Texas until the fall of 1842, while Kennedy, though in Texas in 1839-1840, and again in 1842, did not assume his duties as consul until 1843. But as the purpose of The Quarterly is to present British evidence as to political, social, and industrial conditions in Texas, as well as of the activities of British agents, various letters from other officials are included in this first installment. On the other hand in the later years of the Republic, instructions to Elliot and Kennedy have been omitted in most cases. Their substance will be stated in footnotes whenever the connection requires it.
The bulk of the manuscript material in the Public Record Office, treating of Texas,—from which these documents are exclusively drawn—is in the form of bound manuscript volumes, some twentyfive in number, containing the instructions of the Foreign Office to British agents in Texas and the reports of these agents. A few of the volumes comprise the records of Elliot's office while in Texas, which were transferred to London when Texas ceased to be a republic. The archives of Elliot's legation, thus transferred, contain, in addition to the usual material that one would expect to find there, copies of a great deal of the correspondence between Aberdeen, the British Foreign Secretary, and British diplomats in the United States, France, and Mexico. Copies of all important instructions to these countries, treating of Texan affairs, were sent to Elliot for his information. In general, all the Texas material is in very usable shape, being arranged by volumes in chronological order.
The material here presented has been transcribed by a copyist, Mr. W. H. Powell, employed by The Quarterly, and is printed exactly as copied. Final comparison of proof with the manuscripts in the Record Office has not been feasible, but it is believed that the matter as now printed is in the main correct, though in the case of Elliot's letters there is always a chance of error because of his atrocious handwriting. Here, however, Mr. Powell's copy has been checked with that of the editor, who had previously himself made transcripts of the letters. The spelling and punctuation of the original have been followed, and usually without calling attention to errors, where the meaning is clear. The chronological order has been used, save in the case of enclosures, which are marked as such and follow the letters in which they were enclosed. It is not intended to print in The Quarterly documents that have elsewhere appeared in print, in generally accessible form, but no minute search of printed materials has seemed necessary, save in the three volumes of “Texan Diplomatic Correspondence” edited by the late Professor Garrison. The few documents of this collection there printed or calendared, are here omitted, with notations as to where they may be found.
CRAWFORD TO BIDWELL 70
No. 1. British Consulate Tampico. 9th February 1837. Sir,
I have the honour to acquaint you for the information of His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State, that having received Instructions from His Majesty's Consul General in Mexico in consequence of Lord Viscount Palmerston's letter to Mr. Pakenham, of the 27th. of August last, I shall within a few days proceed to Matamoros and the Mexican Territory to the Northward, and shall use my utmost exertions and zeal in the objects of my journey, communicating thro' His Majesty's Minister in Mexico the result of my observations from time to time as opportunities offer.
I beg leave to acquaint you that this Vice Consulate during my absence will be under the charge of Stewart L. Jolly, Esqr. a most respectable British Merchant in this City, which nomination has met the approval of Mr. Pakenham and the Consul General in a Confidential communication which I made to Mr. O'Gorman to that effect, and when Officially made, I hope will be approved by His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State.
With great respect, I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient humble Servant Jos. T. Crawford, Vice Consul. To John Bidwell, Esqr. etc. etc. etc. Foreign Office London [Endorsed as received April 17, and answered.]
CRAWFORD TO BIDWELL 71
No. 2. British Consulate Tampico, 24 March 1837. Sir,
I have the honour of acquainting you that I embark this day on Board His Majesty's Sloop Racer for Matamoros and the Northern ports of this Republick, and that Mr. Stewart L. Jolly remains acting V. Consul during my absence, to whom I this morning handed over the Archives, and had previously received the approbation of His Majesty's Minister and the Consul General to this nomination which has been notified to this Government and by me to the Local Authorities.
With great respect I have the honour to be Sir, Your most obedient humble Servant Jos. T. Crawford, Vice Consul. To John Bidwell, Esqr. etc. etc. etc. Foreign Office. London. [Endorsed as received June 14th.]
CRAWFORD TO BACKHOUSE 72
No. 1. New Orleans. 5th. June 1837. Sir,
I have the honour to enclose herewith for the information of His Majesty's Government Copies of my dispatches from Houston, Texas dated the 13th. Ultimo, addressed to the Consul General at Mexico, and of the 26th. from this place to Mr. Pakenham, relative to the present state of Texas, accompanied with a large pile of papers for reference as to the Constitution and Laws of that province which I request you will be pleased to lay before Lord Viscount Palmerston.
Having concluded my visit to the Northern ports, I am to Sail this day for Tampico where on arrival I shall resume the exercise of my Consular duties.
With Great respect I have the honour to be Sir, Your most obedient humble Servant Jos. T. Crawford To John Backhouse, Esqr. Under Secretary of State etc. etc. etc. Foreign Office London. ]Endorsed . . . Received July 18th. Answered. 2. Inclosures. . . . Copy to Bd. of Trade Sept. 16/37. Dft. to Con. Parkinson Augt. 31/37. This is an intelligent Report. 60. P.
CRAWFORD TO O'GORMAN 73
Houston, Texas. 13th May 1837. Sir,
I left Matamoros on the 5th. Ultimo embarked on board His Majesty's Sloop Racer from Braso de Santiago on the 8th. and sailed from the Anchorage same day at noon.
The wind being favourable Capt. Hope run down the Coast to the Northward as close as prudence would admit our doing. Thus we saw the entrances to Copano, Aransas and Matagorda Bays and the Rio Sñ Bernardo making our passage in sight of the land all the distance and arrived off the Brasos River on the 9th. 74 in the Evening.
The entrance to Corpus Christi or Copano Bay is in Lat. 27° 36‐ N, Latitude 97° 28‐ W: Long: and has on its Bar generally but 6 to 7 feet Water. The trade, carried on by vessels of suitable construction, is not of much consequence, and at present is less than it was formerly, because the Inhabitants have been obliged to abandon that part of the Country which lays between the Texian Army and Matamoros. This Bay is shallow and altho' surrounded by the finest lands with several streams emptying themselves into it, each stream has its separate Bar, so that excepting for small Craft or Steamers built on purpose, neither this Bay, nor indeed any of the Bays to the Northward, can ever be of consequence as harbours.
The Coast is very low all the way, and the Soundings lessen gradually till you have 9 or 10 fathoms at about three miles from the Shore, good holding ground, but without any shelter from the Violence of the Northers in Winter, altho' would be safe enough during the Six Months Summer from May till Novr.
The entrance to Aransas is in 27° 55‐ N. Lat: and 97° 9‐ W. Long: Vessels drawing 8 ft. Water may enter here. The observations as to Trade into Copano Bay, at present apply to this part of the Coast, but in peaceable times will be very considerable for the supply of all the interior to the Westward, as far as Sñ Anto. de Besar, and for the transmission of the Crops of Cotton and other produce, Besar and its neighbourhood being represented to me as the province best Cultivated, having also the best Climate and the richest lands.
The Entrance to Matagorda Bay called Pasa de Cavallo lays in Lat. 28° 18‐ Long: 96° 33‐ West,—here Vessels drawing 10 feet may enter at Spring tides. The Bay is large and the places where Vessels discharge are at various distances from the entrance, according to the point in the Interior where the Goods are destined, as several Rivers empty into this Bay and the trade is very considerable, prosperous and increasing, the Bernard and Caney Rivers are very inconsiderable, offering no facilities for Commerce.
At the Mouth of the Brasos in Lat. 29° N. Long. 95° 37‐ W. there is good anchorage in 5 fathoms Water, with the entrance bearing West and about three miles off. The Town of Velasco is begun to be built at the north side and Quintana is rising on the south at the Bar of this River—which I ascended on board a Steamer thirty Miles to Brasoria, a small Town on the South or Right Bank, where there is a good deal of business going on and several large and well assorted Stores.—Fifteen miles further up by the River, on the same side is the Village, or as it is here called “Landing” of Marion, distant from which inland and in a Southern direction is Columbia, the late Seat of Government, an inconsiderable place, and almost abandoned, but situated in a fine country with some good plantations in its neighbourhood.
I crossed the Brasos River at Bolivar Ferry about thirty miles above Marion, and the last of Steam boat Navigation in the dry Season. When the Rivers are high large Steamers go up 200 miles from the Mouth of the River, which is skirted with the finest timber of Live Oak and other valuable qualities and dotted with Cotton plantations for the like distance. On the Bernard there is also a good deal of Cultivation and more land is being brought into Cultivation.
The destruction of the Crops all over the country from the Rio del Norte to the Trinity, which empties itself into the N. E. of Galveston Bay, owing to the whole of that part of Texas having been overun by the Mexican Army previous to the Battle of Sñ Jacinto, and especially the loss of the Grain last year has occasioned the planters to sow much Corn this Season and less Cotton will be produced than would otherways have been the case. I have been variously informed as to the number of Bales, which has been stated as high as 60,000, but I conceive the present Crop equal to the exportation of 30,000 Bales averaging 450@500 lbs each.
The City of Houston is situated upon Buffalo Bayou, which runs into the Bay of San Jacinto and the latter into Galveston Bay, distant from Galveston Island about 80 miles. Galveston is the best and indeed the only harbour in Texas, for Vessels of any Burden, but has not at its entrance sufficient water for Ships of War of much force unless purposly constructed. There are three Channels between the Shoals leading into the anchorage at the East end of the Island. The depth of Water marked on the accompanying map in English feet may be depended upon, and at Spring tides a foot more. It will be seen by the Map that large Vessels must discharge and load in the Harbour of Galveston, whilst smaller Craft can go up about 15 miles to Red fish Bar from whence their Cargoes are carried away by Steamers and lighters to Houston or other points as may be required.
During my stay of some weeks in this part of Texas there were about 20 arrivals all Americans, mostly from New Orleans and loaded with provisions, merchandise of all sorts, bringing also their full allowance of passengers.
I endeavoured to obtain returns of the Trade corresponding to each port, but as they have had no Duties to collect till this time, so they have had no Collectors nor port Officers to collect information, and I am only enabled to form an estimate of what the trade is at present, by what I have seen and conjecture that it will increase proportionately with the population crowding in. At present about 40 Vessels averaging 100 Tons ea[ch] carry on the whole Commerce monthly which would give an aggregate of 48000 Tons in the year, and they are all under the flag of the United States, with the exception of two or three sailing under the single Star of Texas.
The pilotage at the several ports is on the average about 10/= Sterling for the foot of water which the Vessel draws. The charge by the Steamers and other lighters for unloading and transporting of the Cargoes to the several points of destination beyond the place of discharge, is borne by the Merchandise and is generally done by agreement according to the distance and the nature of the Cargo.
According to the Act passed 20th. Decr. last, Authorising the raising of a Revenue by Import duties, from and after the 1st. June next, the following duties are to be exacted, viz:—Upon all Wines, Spirituous and Malt liqours an ad valorem duty upon Invoice Cost of 45 per Centum, Upon all Silk Goods and all Manufactures of Silk 50 per Cent: Upon Sugar and Coffee 2½ per Cent: Upon Teas 25 per Cent, upon Bread Stuffs, one per Cent: upon Iron and Castings 10 per Cent: upon all coarse Clothing, coarse Shirting, Shoes, Blankets Kersies, Sattinetts and Clothes of a mixture of Cotton and Wool 10 per Ct.: upon all other goods not enumerated 20 per Ct. ad valorem upon the Invoice Cost. And upon all Vessels of 10 Tons and upwards 25 Cents per Ton—each time they enter from a foreign port.
The Appointment of the necessary Revenue Officers will no doubt be made forthwith, but I have some reason to think that a modification of the Tariff will be carried by the present Congress, to the effect of authorizing the President to exempt from duty for one year all articles for Agricultural use, provisions of all kinds, seeds and plants, Saddlery and Harness, Artificers Tools, Lumber and framed houses with the Glass and fastenings they require, etc. The depot of Goods so as to create a transit of Merchandise is also one of the alterations intended to be recommended to the Legislature by the Finance Committee during the present Session of Congress. 75
Should Texas maintain its Independence of Mexico an advantageous Barter trade can be established with other Countries who will supply manufactures and take Cotton and other produce in return. Almost any quantity of the finest and most durable timber for the purposes of Naval architecture can be furnished from the forests for little more than the expence of felling and taking away.
With respect I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient humble Servant Jos. T. Crawford To Charles Th: O'Gorman, Esqr. H. M. Consul General, etc. etc. etc. Mexico. [Endorsed] . . . Copy to Bd. of Trade Sept. 16/37. Copy to Adm'y. . . .
CRAWFORD TO PAKENHAM 76
No. 3. New Orleans. 26th May, 1837. Sir,
I have the honour to acquaint you, that I arrived here last Evening on my return to Tampico, last from Galveston Bay, I sailed from Matamoros on the 8th. Ultimo and landed at the Mouth of the Brasos River on the 12th., proceeded to Brasoria and Marion and reached Columbia, the seat of the Texas Government 77 on the 13th., where I was well received by the President General Sam Houston, from whom I experienced very great attention during my residence of one Month in that Country.
I was careful to explain to General Houston that my visit was wholly one of a Consular nature to collect satisfactory information respecting the Commerce of the ports to the Northward of the District of Tampico, 78 and I found every disposition on his part to assist me in the object of my journey. Under date 13th. Instant from Houston, I addressed a report to His Majesty's Consul General. in Mexico upon the subject of the Trade at the ports from Matamoros to the Sabine, to which as it has doubtless been laid before you I beg leave respectfully to refer, and I shall in the present dispatch convey to you for the information of His Majesty's Government such details of the state of Texas as it has been in my power to collect in so short a time.—
I need not recur to the circumstances which have produced the Revolution in that Province, nor the events of the Campaigns, which have failed on the part of Mexico to reduce the Colonists to subjection, nor to repeat the facts already manifest to the World, that they have, set up for themselves, as a Separate, free and independent Nation, based upon an Elective Representation, with an Executive Government, Senate and House of Representatives, unrecognized by Mexico and that the War of Subjugation by the present State is still continued.
Having made these preliminary observations, I shall state the Nature of the Government existing in Texas, composed of a President, Vice President, Principal Secretary of State, Ministers of War and Marine, Minister of Finance and Attorney General.
The Legislature consists of the Senate and House of Representatives.
All Elections are popular, and the powers conferred upon the Government and Congress are those described in the Constitution, of which a Copy will be found in the “Telegraph” of the 2nd. August 1836, as adopted by the Convention on the 17th. March of the same year, which paper I have the honour to transmit herewith.—
The Government consists at présent of, General Sam Houston, President, Mirabeau B. Lamar, V. President, Henry Smith, Secretary of the Treasury, Genl. Henderson, Sec. of State, W. S. Fisher, Sec. at War, S. Rhodes Fisher, Sec. of the Navy, P. W. Grayson, Attorney General.
During the first Session of Congress many salutary laws were enacted, which are in operation, rigidly administered by the Judges and other Authorities in the several districts and Counties apertaining to their Jurisdiction.
I have not been able to obtain the Laws which have been passed in a pamphlet form, as they are not yet so arranged, but I have the honour of transmitting a file of the “Telegraph” Newspaper which contains them all and to which I must beg reference. Much order prevails in the Villages and Towns, if they may be so designated, as well as throughout the Country and the detection of Crime is surely followed by the infliction of the corresponding punishment established by Law upon conviction of the offender by an impartial Jury.—Such is the State of Texas at present as regards its Government and the execution of the Laws and it is internally tranquil, the roads safe for travellers, unless on the Indian Frontier at a distance from Settlements.
The Campaign of 1836, unsettled the whole Country, between the Rio Bravo del Norte and the San Jacinto which falls into the N. West Corner of Galveston Bay. Most of the crops were lost, the Corn all destroyed and the Towns as well as many of the Houses on the plantations were burnt, generally by the Colonists themselves, to leave the Mexican Army without shelter and by the Mexicans also in many instances, but the inhabitants are again upon their lands and the Cultivation goes on, as far as the River La Baca or the Navidad, where the Texian Head quarters has been for some time past.
The Army is composed of about 2000 Men enlisted for 2 Years Service, the effective strength on the 1st May was 1830 Bayonets in Camp.—They are said to be well disciplined and they certainly have borne considerable privations without murmuring, having had to subsist of late wholly upon Beef, their Supplies of Bread, and flour having been captured by the Mexn. Fleet.—Besides this, the regular Army, Texas has several Companies of Rangers on the various Frontiers to check the Indian Tribes.—These last however have but little occupation, as the Policy of General Houston has been conciliatory and he has very lately entered into Treaties with the most influential Chiefs, who were at the Seat of Government on a “Big Talk” and retired well satisfied.
All Volunteers have been disbanded from the Texan Service, and the Militia which could be in the Field on a very short Notice would be very effective, in a Country where there are so many Brakes and so much Timber, where every man is a Marksman and carries his Rifle
Between the present Camp of the Army and Matamoros few of the Settlers have as yet resumed the occupation of their lands, situated between the Armies of the contending parties those poor people dread a repetition of the Scenes of Goliad and the difficulties of their distressed situation is still fresh in the sad recollection of our poor countrymen Colonists at San Patricio, whose case I particularly stated in my letter from Matamoros of the 4th. Ultimo. Many of those are here and in no very comfortable circumstances, but it would be highly imprudent in them to return to their Colonies at present.
Should the Mexicans undertake another Campaign into Texas, they will probably never reach beyond the Colorado. They would be met by the full quota of the Militia and their Army can count upon no resources, but what their Fleet may supply from Seaward, or they can bring with them, as the Cattle will be driven back the Prairies fired and the whole Country left more devastated if possible than it is in that direction at present, whilst every stream, every tree and Cane Brake will be studded with Riflemen, so that, the rapid advance practiced last Campaign could not be repeated and if they hesitate and remain inactive they are lost for want of sustenance and destroyed by the Guerillas of the Colonists.—
The subjugation of Texas by Mexico, can only in my opinion be effected by a systematic operation and the establishment of posts and Depots, giving time for the occupation of such posts and Depots by fresh troops and by slow progress with a strong Army putting down the spirit of Rebellion by degrees, which is only to be done at last by an effectively continued Military occupation of the whole Country.
Such a plan of operation it is impossible for Mexico to undertake or execute, things have gone so far, the population of Texas is too great now, their confidence from past experience so established in themselves and the superiority of the men contending for the Independence they have assumed and for the possession of the Soil they have determined to adopt, is so great, both as to intelligence and energy, compared with the harrassed and ill paid Mexican Soldiery, that I may be warranted in concluding that Texas has conquered or will ultimately conquer her Independence of Mexico.
Having arrived at this Conclusion I shall now state what the opinion is in that Country as to its Annexation to the United State of North America
At the time of the Election of the President last year the opinion was decidedly in favour of Annexation, and the Minister or Commissioner sent to Washington was instructed to endeavour to bring about that desideratum upon the recognition of their political Independence
Since that time reflection has taught them that their interests are at varience with some portion of the North American Union, and that annexation, would be disadvantageous with a Territory extending 560,000 Square Miles under a benign climate, and a soil capable of producing, as much if not more Cotton than is grown in America and of a rich quality, what could be gained to Texas by exchanging her produce against manufactures, which She requires, if that produce was to pass thro' America and the Manufactures be received thro' the same medium. She would lose the advantage of Competition, and could reap no solid benefit by the adding her Cottons into the growth of the United States.
The opinion then has changed and they are very anxious to have a Separate, free and recognised Independent Government, to trade directly with other Nations, giving the Raw produce for the Manufactures they require, for it must be long ere there are Manufactories in Texas. I am not aware whether other Instructions are sent to the Minister in Washington but I know that annexation to that Government is not wished by the people or the Government of Texas, nor will it now be sought for. By the Constitution Slaves are permitted to be introduced over the frontier of the United States only.—No free Negro is permitted to reside in the Territory, and the introduction of Slaves, Africans or Negroes is forever prohibited and declared to be piracy, except those from the United States.
The number of Slaves as yet is by no means great and in general they are exceedingly well treated.
That notwithstanding the declaration of piracy, Slaves have been imported directly into Texas I lament to say is but too true, and whilst I make this statement it is due to the Government and especially to the President, that I should declare my conviction of their having tried every means in their power to detect the perpetrators and bring them to Justice.—I have good reason to believe that there is still one or more American Vessels employed in this most detestable traffick, landing the Slaves on the East Side of the Sabine and so evading the Laws of Texas.
It is also true that some Slaves were brought from Cuba and landed in Texas by the Am: Schooners Waterwich and Emperor a some few Months ago a Cargo was run at the Brasos River by a Vessel under Texas Colours
I have had several conversations with Genl. Houston upon this important subject, and I am satisfied of his sincere anxiety to put a stop to the traffick in future. I have been shewn his confidential communications on the subject with the Government of the United States and I am happy to say that Mr. Poinsetts 79 promises to him have been carried into effect, there being at this moment 300 United States troops here destined to the Sabine upon that and other Service.
I would also beg leave to call your attention to the Message delivered at which I had the honour of being present in the House of Representatives on the 4th Instant, 80 in which General Houston laments the inability of their Navy to put an end to the traffick in Slaves, and calls upon the Government of His Majesty and of America to put it down. The burst of approbation upon the delivery of that part of the Message was irrestrainable and I am confident that in the present sense of the people of Texas, before the introduction of Slaves from the United States becomes much greater, it would not be a matter of very great difficulty to induce the alteration and have that blot expunged from their Constitutional Charter. During the present year, emigration from all the Western Country of the United States owing to the Commercial distress which has of late affected this Country, is expected to be very extensive and all the planters from thence will carry in their Slaves along with them. So that in twelve months from this time, the Slave population of Texas will probably be doubled unless some remedy be applied to prevent it.
Consequent of the change of the opinion of the People and Government as to their annexation to the United States, has been the authorization of the President to send a Commissioner to England in order to open if possible a Communication with His Majesty's Government, and General Houston's wish was to appoint and dispatch the Commissioner forthwith, in all probability Colonel Grayson the present Attorney General will be selected for this appointment 81
The Government Vessels of this incipient Republick, are too small Schooners, they had issued numerous letters of marque at one time, but these have prudently been recalled excepting one, whose Cruize will not be out for two Months, after which it will not be renewed. Their Vessels have not committed any excesses upon the Commerce of any Nation excepting in the Instance of the Am: Brigantine Pocket, 82 and the Cargo being contraband of War destined for the supply of the Mexican Army, the United States have been satisfied that the Texas Government should make good the Value of the Vessel to the Owners, which has been done and the Vessel is moored at a depot in Galveston Bay.
I beg leave to acquaint you, that I made all and every enquiry during my stay in Texas as to the assistance which that Country has received from the United States, and I am quite satisfied that none whatever has been furnished by that Government or connived at in any way. Means have been found to evade the laws and assistance has been furnished by Individuals to a great extent but wherever there was a suspicion attached to such expeditions, there has been a prosecution of the parties by the United States, but generally such prosecutions have failed, because of the difficulty of obtaining sufficient evidence owing to the Sympathies of this people of America being roused by the atrocities of the Campaign of 1836, and their Interests also been deeply engaged in the success of the Struggle of their Sons and other relatives the Colonists of Texas.
Great inducements are held out to Settlers the price of land being 50 Cts. or 2/= Sterling pr. Acre, if purchased from the Government, but large Grants are given to Emigrants, under the Conditions of the 24th Sec. of the Land Office Act passed on the 22d December 1836, to which I beg leave to refer, in the Telegraph No. 49.
Upon the whole, Texas at present offers perfect Security of persons and property, a large field is opening there for the Consumpt[ion] of our Manufactures of every kind. Their Laws and Language are like our own and unless Mexico receives assistance, at this time unforseen, that Territory will never be subject to her Controul.
Their Bane is the having sanctioned Slavery, a mistake which they would not again fall into, and which even now, were it made a Condition, might be remedied by Treaty with some influential Nation, before the evil has grown greater.
America is deriving all the benefit of their Trade and a transit duty of 3 Cts. per lb. on the Cotton taken in return. It is true that this is draw back upon its exportation to Europe but the advantages of a direct trade are wanting to Texas, of which they are well aware and would make a sacrifice to obtain commercial Intercourse with the rest of the World.
The finances of Texas are in the very worst possible state, a Species of Scrip called Land Scrip, is issued and some of this paper has been negociated here and elsewhere in America, the amounts of these Bonds are redeemable in Lands.
Bonds under similar Security to the extent of five Millions of Dollars have lately been issued and two Millions have been confided to some Commissioners who are gone to attempt their negociation in the Middle and Northern Cities of this Republick.—In the meantime all the publick Authorities and Officers support themselves out of their private means, and as their pay tickets are issued dispose of them as they best can. A considerable and immediate Revenue will however arise out of the Import duties which take effect on the 1st. proximo, and will give means for the more pressing wants of the Government
With great respect. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient humble Servant. Jos. T. Crawford. To Richard Pakenham, Esqr. His Majesty's Minister Plenipotio. etc. etc. etc. Mexico. [Endorsed] ... Ext. to Bd. of Trade. ...
HAMILTON TO MACGREGOR 83
Copy. No. 1. Barbados. 23d June 1840. Sir,
During my Stay in Texas, I was afforded frequent opportunities of conversing with a Number of Merchants, among them, some English, and