THE SOUTHWESTERN HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
VOLUME XVI JULY, 1912, TO APRIL, 1913
PUBLICATION COMMITTEE Z. T. Fulmore Eugene C. Barker E. W. Winkler Herbert E. Bolton W. J. Battle EDITORS Eugene C. Barker Herbert E. Bolton ASSOCIATE EDITORS E. W. Winkler Charles W. Ramsdell Edgar L. Hewett MANAGING EDITOR Eugene C. Barker AUSTIN, TEXAS PUBLISHED BY THE TEXAS STATE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION 1913The Texas State Historical Association.
Organized March 2, 1897.
PRESIDENT,
Z. T. Fulmore.
VICE-PRESIDENTS:
Beauregard Bryan, Mrs. A. B. Looscan,
Miss Katie Deffan, Edward W. Heusinger.
RECORDING SECRETARY AND LIBRARIAN,
Eugene C. Barker.
CORRESPONDING SECRETARY AND TREASURER,
Charles W. Ramsdell.
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL:
Dora Fowler Arthur, David F. Houston,
Eugene C. Barker, S. H. Moore,
W. J. Battle, Charles W. Ramsdell,
Katie Daffan, Bride Neill Taylor,
Edward W. Heusinger, Z. T. Fulmore,
S. P. Brooks, John C. Townes,
Beauregard Bryan, E. W. Winkler,
Adele B. Looscan, Dudley G. Wooten.
CONTENTS
NUMBER 1; JULY, 1912
The Spanish Occupation of Texas, 1519-1690 Herbert E. Bolton 1
Kentucky and the Independence of Texas James E. Winston 27
The Approaches to California Frederick J. Teggart 63
British Correspondence Concerning Texas, III Ephraim D. Adams, Editor 75
Book Reviews and Notices 99
News Items 110
NUMBER 2; OCTOBER, 1912
Recollections of General Sam Houston A. W. Terrell 113
Retreat of the Spaniards from New Mexico in 1680, and the Beginnings of El Paso, I Charles W. Hackett 137
Repudiation of State Debt in Texas Since 1861 E. T. Miller 169
British Correspondence Concerning Texas, IV Ephraim D. Adams, Editor 184
Book Reviews and Notices 214
News Items 222
Correction 225
NUMBER 3; JANUARY, 1913
The Eastern Boundary of California in the Convention of 1849 Cardinal Goodwin 227
Retreat of the Spaniards from New Mexico in 1680 and the Beginnings of El Paso, II Charles W. Hackett 258
Virginia and the Independence of Texas James E. Winston 277
Dugald McFarlane Adele B. Looscan 284
British Correspondence Concerning Texas, V Ephraim D. Adams, Editor 291
Notes and Fragments 328
Book Reviews and Notices 332
News Items 335
Affairs of the Association 337
NUMBER 4; APRIL, 1913
Spanish Activities on the Lower Trinity River, 1746-1771 Herbert E. Boltor 339
Causes and Origin of the Decree of April 6, 1830 Alleine Howren 378
British Correspondence Concerning Texas, VI Ephraim D. Adams, Editor 423
Book Reviews and Notices 430
News Items 439
Affairs of the Association 442
Index 445
Vol. XVI 1 JULY, 1912 No. 1
The publication committee and the editors disclaim responsibility for views expressed by contributors to The Quarterly.
For a century and a half before they made definite attempts to occupy the region now called Texas the Spaniards gradually explored it, proceeding step by step from the borders toward the interior, and slowly formed ideas concerning its geography and its suitability for settlement. Viewed in this light, the final occupation of Texas at the end of the seventeenth century was by no means the sudden event, brought about by the chance settlement of the French on the Gulf coast, which it was once thought to be.
Though it is not commonly known, Texas had its share in the romance, and myth, and fable which everywhere attended the Spanish conquest in America. In Florida the Spaniards sought the Fountain of Youth; in South America the Gilded Man (El Dorado); on the west coast of Mexico the Isle of the Amazons; in Arizona and New Mexico the Seven Cities of Cíbola; on the California coast the Strait of Anian. 2 Likewise, in Texas they searched for the Kingdom of Gran Quivira, where “everyone had their ordinary dishes made of wrought plate, and the jugs and bowls were of gold”; 3 for the Seven Hills of the Aijados, or Aixaos, where gold was so plentiful that “the natives not knowing any of the other metals, make of it everything they need, such as vessels and the tips of arrows and lances”; 4 for the Sierra (or Cerro) de la Plata (Silver Mountain), somewhere north of the Rio Grande; 5 for the pearls of the Jumano country; 6 and for the “Great Kingdom of the Texas,” a people who, like the Jumanos, had been miraculously converted by the woman in blue, 7 who lived next door to the Kingdom of Gran Quivira, were ruled by a powerful lord, had well built towns, each several miles in length, and raised grain in such abundance that they even fed it to their horses. 8 All these various quests and beliefs had made the Texas country an object of interest to the Spaniards long before it became a field for political contest with France.
There were four lines of approach to Spanish Texas, through the development of which a knowledge of the region was gradually unfolded: (1) From the east and south, by way of the Gulf of Mexico; (2) from the east, by way of the vast region known in early days as La Florida; (3) from the west and southwest, by way of New Mexico and Nueva Vizcaya; and (4) from the south, through the expansion of Nuevo León and Coahuila.
1. By way of the Gulf
In the course of the exploration of the Gulf coast and the search for a strait through the newly found land mass to the East Indies, Pineda, in the employ of Garay, governor of Jamaica, in 1519 ran the coast from Florida to Pánuco (Tampico) and back, and made a map which shows with substantial accuracy the entire shore line of Texas. Two years later, on the basis of this exploration, Garay was granted a province, called Amichel, comprising the whole Gulf coast from modern Alabama to Tampico, which he attempted to colonize at its southern extremity. 9 In this he was forestalled by the master conquistador himself, Cortes, who in 1522 founded a villa at Pánuco. 10 By 1528 two expeditions from this place explored the coasts northward beyond the Rio Bravo, or Rio Grande. On a later expedition, made in 1544, it is said, Father Olmos took back and settled at Pánuco the tribe of the Olives, thought by some to have been secured on Texas soil. 11 In 1553 more than three hundred survivors of a wrecked treasure fleet were cast on the Texas shore five days' march north of the Rio Grande, and escaped toward Pánuco. In 1558 an expedition destined to colonize Florida was led from Vera Cruz by Bazares. In latitude 27° 30’ he landed on the Texas shore; coasting eastward, in latitude 28° 30’, he discovered and took possession of a bay which he called San Francisco, and which may have been the modern Matagorda Bay. 12 Thereafter occasional voyages were made along the northern shores of the Gulf; but the Texas coast, instead of being one of the first portions of the Gulf shore to be colonized, as it would have been had Garay succeeded, was destined to be nearly the last, its settlement being deferred still two centuries after Garay's day.
2. By way of Florida
Incident to the early attempts to explore and conquer La Florida from the east, the survivors of two shattered expeditions, seeking refuge in the settlements of Mexico, entered what is now Texas, crossed large stretches of its territory, and gained the first knowledge sent to Europe of the southern and northeastern interiors. As has been intimated, so far as the crossing of Texas is concerned, both of these explorations were accidental.
Reference is made, of course, to the well known journeys of Cabeza de Vaca and Moscoso. In 1528 Cabeza de Vaca and some two hundred companions, survivors of the Florida expedition led by Narváez, were cast on the southeastern shore of Texas. After spending six years on Texas soil, and enduring the hardships of enslavement by the Indians, Vaca and three others made their way westward across the whole southwestern border of the present state of Texas, entered northern Chihuahua, and finally reached Culiacán, in Sinaloa. 13 In 1542 Moscoso led the survivors of the De Soto expedition into Texas near the northeastern corner, westward or south-westward to a point thought by Mr. Lewis to have been in the upper Brazos, and back across the Red River by essentially the same route. 14 This journey gave the Spaniards some knowledge of the geography of northeastern Texas and of the Caddoan group of Indians then, as later, inhabiting the region. It is remarkable, in this connection, that a map based on Moscoso's exploration shows the Nondacau, Nisone, Ays, and Guasco tribes in the same general location as that in which they were found a century and a half later. 15
3. By way of New Mexico
The third line of approach, that from the west and southwest through New Mexico, was till the later seventeenth century the principal one, and for this reason until 1685 western Texas was much better known than the southern portion, lying nearer Mexico, or than the eastern portion, commonly regarded as “old” Texas.
The Coronado expedition.—Just before the Moscoso party entered northeastern Texas, another band, led by Coronado, entered its northwestern border. Coronado had come, by way of the Pacific Slope, to New Mexico in search of the Seven Cities of Cíbola. Disappointed at what he found, and hearing while in the Rio Grande valley of a great kingdom called Quivira to the northeast, he set out in search of it across the Llanos del Cíbolo (Buffalo Plains), going, it is believed, from the upper Pecos River southeastward to the upper Colorado, thence north across the Brazos, Red, Canadian and Arkansas rivers, eastward into central Kansas, and directly back to the Pecos. In the course of the expedition, northwestern Texas was traversed in four distinct paths, and the Spaniards learned of the Llanos del Cíbolo and of the wandering tribes of Plains Indians who followed the buffalo for subsistence. 16
Incidental crossing of southwestern Texas.—After the Coronado expedition interest in our Southwest lagged for nearly four decades, when the Spaniards again gave it their attention, this time approaching it by way of the central Mexican plateau, across what is now northern Chihuahua and up the Rio Grande or the Pecos. In the course of the renewed exploration and the colonization of New Mexico, in the last two decades of the sixteenth century, several expeditions incidentally crossed the western extremity of Texas, between the Pecos and the Rio Grande. Of these expeditions the ones best known are those made by Father Rodríguez in 1581, Espéjo in 1582, Castaño de Sosa in 1590, Bonilla and Humaña about 1595, and Juan de Oñate, the colonizer of New Mexico, in 1598. 17 All this region was then a part of New Mexico, and the exploration of it was made chiefly incident to the development and exploitation of the more interesting Pueblo region in the upper Rio Grande valley.
The search for Gran Quivira.—But the subjugation of the Pueblos did not exhaust the energies of the conquistadores, and they turned again from time to time with all their old fire to exploit and exploration. To the east there were several points of interest. Gran Quivira was still to be sought somewhere across the Llanos del Cíbolo; adjacent to it were the Aijados, in whose country were the Seven Hills supposedly rich in gold; southeast of Santa Fé, on the upper Colorado River, were the Jumano Indians, who welcomed missionaries and afforded trade in hides, and in whose streams were found pearls. Finally, in the pursuit of these objects, still another, more remote, rose above the horizon in the east, the “Great Kingdom of the Texas.” 18
Concerning the expeditions made in search of Quivira after Coronado's day, our information is exaggerated and unsatisfactory, but the general outline of events is fairly clear. As the record has it, about 1595 Juan de Humaña and a party of soldiers were destroyed by the Indians while returning from a search for Quivira, at a place some two hundred leagues northeast of Santa Fé, afterward known in tradition as La Matanza (the death place.) 19 It was said that they were returning laden with gold. In June, 1601, Juan de Oñate, governor of New Mexico, made the opening expedition of the seventeenth century. Accompanied by two friars and eighty men, and with a survivor of the Humaña expedition as guide, he went east-northeast and north two hundred leagues from Santa Fé, reached La Matanza, received ambassadors from Quivira, engaged in a terrible battle with the Escanjaques Indians, and returned home. 19 In 1629, when Father Juan de Salas, of New Mexico, was on the eastern plains among the Jumanos, messengers from the Aijados and Quiviras were sent to see him and accompanied him to Santa Fé to ask for missionaries. 20 In 1634 Alonso de Vaca went three hundred leagues east from New Mexico, possibly in response to the call of 1629, to a great river across which was Quivira. Finally, Don Diego de Peñalosa, an evicted and discredited governor of New Mexico, later claimed that in 1662 he had made an expedition several hundred leagues east and north, and succeeded in finding the city of Quivira. That Peñalosa made such a journey at all is doubted by most scholars, 21 but the news that he was telling the tale at the court of France, for the purpose of getting up an expedition against Spain's possessions on the Gulf, aroused Spain in 1678 to take a livelier interest in Texas than she had before manifested, and to renewed talk of searching for Gran Quivira. 22
Father Benavides's proposal.—In 1630, when Quivira was attracting so much attention, Father Benavides, custos of the missions of New Mexico, made a most interesting suggestion regarding the eastern country, and one which later bore fruit. Writing of the “kingdoms” of Quivira and Aixaos, he described them as rich in gold; and, as a means of subduing them, restraining the English and the Dutch, and providing a shorter route from Cuba to New Mexico, he suggested the occupation of a place on the Gulf coast known as the Bay of Espíritu Santo, shown on the maps as somewhere between Apalache and Tampico, and, as Benavides thought, less than a hundred leagues from Quivira. 23 In 1632 Benavides published another memorial urging the same plan. 24 It will be seen that nearly half a century later the Spanish government took the proposal under consideration, and had set about putting it into effect before the La Salle expedition occurred.
Expeditions to the Jumanos: News of the Texas.—Much more satisfactory is our information concerning a similar series of expeditions made in the seventeenth century to the Jumano Indians of the upper Colorado River, in the interest of missionary work, pearl hunting, trade in skins, and exploration.
The Jumanos left a most interesting and, on account of the numerous localities in which people of that name were encountered at different times, a somewhat puzzling record. They were found, for example, on the Rio Grande below El Paso, in eastern New Mexico, in central Texas on the Colorado, in southeastern Texas, on the Arkansas, and on the Red. 25 This ubiquity of the Jumanos is to be explained in part, no doubt, by the migration of the tribe to and from the buffalo plains at different seasons of the year; but it seems equally clear that there were at least two distinct divisions of people known to the Spaniards by the same name. The division of particular interest here is the one which, in the seventeenth century, frequented or lived upon the buffalo plains of west-central Texas and was often visited there by the Spaniards of New Mexico for the purposes indicated.
The first recorded journey to these eastern Jumanos was made in 1629. 26 Previous to that time Father Juan de Salas, of Isleta (old Isleta, near the present Albuquerque) had worked among the Tompiros and Salineros in eastern New Mexico and had come in contact with Jumano living east of these tribes and hostile to them. 27 In the year mentioned, the Jumano sent a delegation to Isleta to repeat a request previously made that he go with them to their homes to minister to their people. On being asked why they desired missionaries, they told the story, now a classic in the of the Southwest, of the miraculous conversion of their tribes by a beautiful woman wearing the garb of a nun, and later identified as Mother María de Ágreda, abbess of a famous convent in Spain, who declared that she had converted these tribes during a visit to America “in ecstacy.” 28
Setting out with the petitioners, accompanied by Father Diego López and three soldiers, Salas went to a point more than one hundred twelve leagues eastward from Santa Fé, where he found a multitude of Indians, wrought miraculous cures, received messengers from the Quiviras and Aixados, and returned to Santa Fé for aid in founding missions among the people he had visited. 29 There is evidence that a part of the Jumanos followed the missionaries to New Mexico and were for a time ministered to in a separate mission. 30 But the period was short, and in 1632 Father Salas went again to the Jumanos on the plains, accompanied by Father Diego de Ortega and some soldiers. When Salas returned, Father Ortega remained with the Indians six months.
From now on the location of the Jumanos comes into clearer light. The place where they were found this time was described as two hundred leagues southeast of Santa Fé, on a stream called the Nueces, because of the abundance of nuts (nueces) on its banks. This description corresponds essentially with those of all subsequent journeys made in the seventeenth century. The stream, as we shall see, was clearly one of the branches of the Colorado River, and not improbably the Concho. 31
What occurred in the interim does not appear, but eighteen years later an expedition led by Captains Hernando Martín and Diego del Castillo visited the Jumanos on the Nueces and remained with them six months. While there two things of greatest interest occurred. The first was the gathering of a large quantity of shells (conchos) from the river, which, on being burned, disclosed pearls. The other was the approach of a portion of the party, after passing fifty leagues beyond the Jumano through the country of the Cuitaos, Escanjaques, and Aijados, to the borders of a people called “Tejas.” “They did not enter their territory,” our chronicler tells us, “as they learned that it was very large and contained many people,” but a “lieutenant” of the Tejas “king” went to see Castillo. This, so far as I know, is the first information acquired by the Spaniards unquestionably concerning the people from whom Texas got its name. 32
The arrival of Martín and Castillo at Santa Fé with pearls, at a time when the pearls of California were proving to be a disappointment, now created a new interest in central Texas. The samples were sent to the viceroy in Mexico, who at once ordered another expedition to the Nueces. It was made in 1654 by Diego de Guadalajara, with thirty soldiers, among whom was Juan Domínguez de Mendoza, thirty years later the leader of a more important expedition to the same place. Guadalajara found the Jumano in the same region where they had been encountered in 1632 and 1650. Thirty leagues farther on they had a hard fight with the Cuitaos, of whom they killed many, besides taking two hundred prisoners and rich spoils in the way of buckskins, elkskins, and buffalo hides. Still another interest in the country had arisen—that of commerce in peltry. 33
No other specific expedition to the Jumano is recorded till that of Juan Domínguez de Mendoza, in 1684, the records of which settle all doubt as to the location of the tribe to whom these visits were directed. But in the interim many journeys seem to have been made to them for the purpose of trade, evidence of which has just come to light in the Mexican archives. In 1683, when a delegation of Jumanos from the eastern plains visited the Spanish refugees then at El Paso, the authorities declared in writing, as evidence of the friendship of the tribe, that before 1680, when the Pueblo revolt had occurred, trade and friendship had been maintained with the Jumanos “with such security that the Spaniards, six, eight, and ten, went to their lands and villages every year to trade with these Indians” in buckskins, teocas, and buffalo hides. 34 We shall see that the Mendoza party in 1684 brought back nearly five thousand buffalo skins. It was later asserted that some time before this event, two Franciscan missionaries, inspired by the Venerable Mother María de Ágreda, had gone to the Texas and baptized many of their number, “their very prince” being the first to receive the faith. 35 This allusion may have been to the visits of Father Salas and his companions to the borders of the Texas early in the century, for no other record of a missionary visit to these people before 1689 is known.
4. From the South, by way of Nuevo León and Coahuila
While there had thus been definite progress eastward from New Mexico during the first three-fourths of the seventeenth century, and considerable contact between that province and what is now the western half of Texas, from the south, the natural line of advance from Mexico to Texas, progress was slow.
The outposts of northeastern New Spain.—In the sixteenth century, nevertheless, northeastward expansion from the valley of Mexico had been rapid. It has already been stated that as early as 1522 Pánuco had been founded by Cortes himself, and that by 1528 two expeditions from that point had explored the coasts north of the Rio Grande. For half a century Pánuco remained the northeasternmost outpost, but meanwhile progress was more rapid along the central Mexican plateau, where, following the line of the most promising mineral deposits, by 1565 conquests were extended as far as Parras, Saltillo, and perhaps Monterrey.
Advance was now made again along the Gulf plain. In 1576 Luis de Carabajal pursued Indians into the country north of Pánuco, and in 1579 was commissioned to conquer and settle it. The province assigned to him was called Nuevo León, and was to extend two hundred leagues north from Pánuco, a jurisdiction reaching nearly or quite to the mouth of the Colorado River. For a few years Carabajal's headquarters were at Pánuco, but in (or by) 1583 he went inland with a colony, opened the mines of San Gregorio, and founded there the city of León, now Cerralvo. This place, situated about one hundred fifty miles from the coast and only some forty from the Rio Grande (near modern Mier), was for a long time the principal settlement and the capital of the province, and was for a century, with some intervals, the northernmost outpost on the Rio Grande frontier. Shortly after founding León, Carabajal established the villa of San Luis, farther south, which in 1596 became or was succeeded by the villa of Monterrey. Subsequently various intermediate points were occupied. 36
Temporarily a more northerly outpost than León was established. Hearing of rich mineral deposits toward the northwest, in the district called Coahuila, about 1590 Carabajal took from Saltillo supplies and a colony, opened mines, and founded the villa of Almadén where Monclova now stands. While there he was arrested by the Inquisition on the charge of Judaism and thrown into prison in Mexico, where he died. A few months after Carabajal's arrest, Castaño de Sosa, left in charge of the colony, abandoned the place and led the settlers off to attempt the conquest of New Mexico, crossing the Rio Grande at the Pecos and following that stream to the Pueblo region. 37 In 1603 and again in 1644 Almadén was temporarily reoccupied, but without success, and after this León (Cerralvo), where a mission was founded in 1630 and a presidio in 1653, remained the northern outpost till 1673. 38
Frontier explorations, 1590-1665.—By the middle of the seventeenth century explorations beyond the frontier had been made on a small scale in all directions. That they were not more extensive was due to Indian troubles and the feebleness of the frontier settlements. From Cerralvo an expedition was sent eastward in 1638 to verify the report that Europeans, thought to be Dutch, were trading with the Indians near the Gulf. The party was impeded by the swollen “Camalucanos” River, had a battle with the Indians, and failed to reach the coast. A direct route to the Gulf would have taken them across the Rio Bravo, but that stream was apparently not reached, unless it was the Camalucanos. By 1653 a regular line of trade had been established between Cerralvo and Pánuco, the Rio de las Palmas (solola Marina) had been re-explored, and the country twenty leagues beyond that stream traversed. 39
To the north the Spaniards were led short distances by a desire to establish connection with La Florida, by rumors of the silver deposit called El Cerro (or La Sierra) de la Plata, and in pursuit of Indians. Soon after Sosa's expedition up the Pecos, a party of eight men from Saltillo is said to have crossed the Rio Bravo into what is now Texas, but no details of the event are known. 40 Interest in Florida is shown by the fact that in 1613 two citizens of Nuevo León, Captains José Treviño and Bernabé Casas, offered the viceroy “their persons and their property to undertake the conquest of the interior provinces of the Kingdom of León, helping thereby to expel the English from La Florida.” 41 Perhaps they had heard of the settlement of Jamestown six years before. To discover the Cerro de la Plata two attempts were made in 1644 and 1648 by General Juan de Zavala, but both of them were frustrated by Indian revolts. Writing of this mineral deposit in 1648 De León said: “It is unknown to those now living . . . and must have been to those in the past.” 42 Summarizing in 1650 what he had accomplished by way of exploration since 1626, when he became governor, Martín de Zavala said of himself: “he has made a beginning of northern discovery, whereby he has explored more than fifty leagues with the purpose of continuing till communication is established with La Florida, and has almost certain knowledge of the Sierra de la Plata, which he intends to reach, a feat which has so often been attempted by the governors of Nueva Vizcaya and Nuevo León, but which has been abandoned because of Indian troubles.” 43 It is not clear whether the fifty leagues explored toward La Florida were those covered in search of the mine or not; but in either case, the Rio Bravo was in all probability passed.
Pursuit of the Indians was a constant occupation on this frontier. From the outset slave catching for the markets and for the encomiendas, which in Nuevo León were generally established, had been a favorite occupation at Cerralvo, more attractive than mining. 44 In retaliation, the savage tribes made frequent raids upon the settlements, and were as often pursued beyond the frontiers by such doughty warriors as Alonso de León, Juan de Zavala, Juan de la Garza, and Fernández de Azcué. In 1653, for example, a campaign led by Garza was made jointly by soldiers of Saltillo and Nuevo León against the Cacaxtles, who were found more than seventy leagues northward from Monterrey. 45 Two years later another joint campaign was made by the soldiers of Saltillo and Monterrey against the same tribe. The troop of one hundred three soldiers, equipped with eight hundred horses, and led by Fernández de Azcué, were supported by more than three hundred Indian allies of the Coahuila region. Going north from Monterrey, at a place twenty-four leagues beyond the Rio Bravo they encountered the enemy within a wood, surrounded them, fought all day, slew a hundred men and took seventy prisoners, themselves suffering the loss of twenty wounded. This campaign of Azcué, made against the Cacaxtles, is the first expedition to cross the lower Rio Grande of which we have definite record. 46
Thus, by 1670 the Spaniards had barely broken over the Rio Grande frontier below the Pecos. Now, however, another forward step was taken on this border, the frontier of settlement pushed northeastward, and missionary activity extended across the Rio Grande, a movement that brought other important developments in its train. As was often the case, the pioneers in this advance movement were the missionaries; their leader was Juan Larios, a native of Nueva Galicia and a friar of the Franciscan province of Santiago de Jalisco.
The founding of Coahuila: the Larios-Bosque Expedition.—In 1670 Father Larios began missionary work on the troubled Coahuila frontier, where he seems to have remained alone for some three years. Returning to Guadalajara, in 1673 he went again to Coahuila, accompanied by Father Dionysio de Peñasco and Fray Manuel de la Cruz, a lay brother. Aided by soldiers sent by the governor of Nueva Vizcaya, they founded of the roving tribes two Indian settlements, one on the Sabinas River and one to the north of that stream. On one of his missionary trips made at this time Fray Manuel de la Cruz crossed the Rio Grande to visit the interior tribes, and barely escaped capture by the Yerbipiames, a people who from that time till the day of their extinction gave untold trouble on this border. In the next year, 1674, Antonio de Valcárcel, appointed alcalde mayor of the Coahuila district, founded on the site of the thrice abandoned Almadén a “city” called Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe, and assisted Father Larios in transferring thither his temporary missions, which included numerous Indians from across the Rio Grande. Meanwhile the friars had been joined by Father Dionysio de San Buenaventura. In 1675 Valcárcel sent Alférez Fernando del Bosque, accompanied by Fathers Larios and San Buenaventura across the Rio Grande to explore the country and reconnoiter the tribes, and as a result of the report brought back four missions were soon established in the Coahuila district, one for each of the four groups or confederacies, which embraced tribes to the north as well as to the south of the Rio Grande. 47
News of the Texas.—Now the Texas arose above the Coahuila horizon, just as they had appeared above that of New Mexico a quarter of a century before. In 1676 the Bishop of Guadalajara visited Coahuila, and one of the reasons which he gave in his report for favoring the four missions recommended by Bosque was the opportunity which they would afford to reach and convert a more important people beyond, the Texas, of whom he gives a most interesting account. “Coahuila,” he says,
has as a neighbor on the north, inclining somewhat to the east, a populous nation of people, and so extensive that those who give detailed reports of them do not know where it ends. These [who give the reports] are many, through having communicated with the people of that nation, which they call Texas, and who, they maintain, live under an organized government (en policía), congregated in their pueblos, and governed by a casique who is named by the Great Lord, as they call the one who rules them all, and who, they say, resides in the interior. They have houses made of wood, cultivate the soil, plant maize and other crops, wear clothes, and punish misdemeanors, especially theft. The Coahuiles do not give more detailed reports of the Texas because, they say, they are allowed to go only to the first pueblos of the border, since the Great Lord of the Texas does not permit foreign nations to enter the interior of his country. There are many of these Coahuiles who give these reports, and who say that they got them through having aided the Texas in their wars against the Pauit, another very warlike nation. The Coahuiles once pacified, the Spaniards can reach the land of the Texas without touching the country of enemies.
This account of the Texas is of special interest as being the earliest extant, so far as is known, although, as we have seen, reports of jective points of the Spaniards both of New Mexico and Coahuila was thenceforth the Kingdom of the Texas. 48
Summary.—By 1676 some advance had been made into Texas from all directions. Sixteenth century explorers coming by way of the Gulf, Florida, and New Mexico had run its coasts and traversed its southern, northern, and western borders. In the seventeenth century the continued search for Gran Quivira had led to further explorations in the west and north; frequent visits to the Jumano country had made better known the country between Santa Fé and the middle Colorado, while some beginnings had been made of missionary work and settlement in the Rio Grande valley between El Paso and the mouth of the Conchos River. 49 In addition to interest in Quivira, the Aixados, the Jumanos, the pearls of the Nueces (Colorado), and trade in peltry and captives on the plains, there had arisen a desire to reach another land reputed to be rich but as yet untrod, the Great Kingdom of the Texas. From the south, meanwhile, the frontier had slowly expanded across the lower Rio Grande through the search for the Cerro de la Plata, pursuit of hostile Indians, efforts to establish communication with Florida, and missionary work among the tribes of the Coahuila frontier. In the pursuit of this last object, interest was aroused, here as in New Mexico, in the Texas Indians.
It is clear that all these forces were leading slowly but surely to the occupation of central and eastern Texas, even in the absence of the stimulus of foreign aggression. But the old interests were now all quickened by rumors of foreign encroachment, and thenceforth the various lines of advance rapidly converged and led to the settlement of the country beyond the Trinity. At the same time the El Paso district, at the other extreme of Texas, became definitely settled as a result of a counter movement from New Mexico.
1. Peñalosa and Plans to Occupy the Bay of Espíritu Santo
In 1678 news was received at the Spanish court that Peñalosa, the discredited governor of New Mexico already mentioned, had proposed at the court of France an expedition against New Spain. Incident to the investigation of the report, the royal secretaries brought forth Benavides's memorial of 1630, and noted his recommendation that the Bay of Espíritu Santo be occupied as a base of operations in New Mexico and Quivira and as a defence against the encroachment of foreigners. Thereupon the king asked the viceroy for a report on the geography of the country east of New Mexico and the feasibility of Benavides's plan—“what advantages would come from Christianizing the kingdoms of Quivira and Tagago [Teguayo]; what means would be needed to effect it; whether it could be done better by the way of Florida than through the Bay of Espíritu Santo; and whether any danger was to be feared from the proposals of Peñalosa.” 50
Some time before August 2, 1685, Martín de Echegaray, pilot major and captain at Pensacola, reported to the king the danger that the French might occupy the Bay of Espíritu Santo and enter thence to New Mexico. He accordingly repeated the suggestion of Father Benavides, and offered to explore the bay with a view to its occupation and to prepare a map of the coast. A junta de guerra approved the proposal, and on August 2 the king ordered the governor of Florida to cooperate with Echegaray. At the same time, he repeated the request for the report from the viceroy, which had not yet been made, “in order that from all directions may be had the desired notices with respect to all the foregoing, for the greater security and certainty of the achievement of the discovery of the said Bay of Espíritu Santo and the kingdoms of Quivira and Tagago, and of their settlement and conservation, in order thereby to make the said provinces of Florida secure from the menaces in which they stand from the corsairs and pirates who commonly infest them.” 51
2. The Settlement of the El Paso District
Meanwhile, the center of the province of New Mexico had been transferred to the El Paso district, where it remained till near the end of the seventeenth century. This change of base not only resulted in the planting of considerable establishments on what is now Texas soil, but also served to increase interest in the country toward the east.
In 1659, a mission, Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe, was begun at El Paso, on the south side of the river, and a small civil settlement grew up there. Before 1680 another mission, San Francisco de los Sumas, was founded some twelve leagues down the river. In 1680 the colony received a large accretion through the revolt of the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico. As a result of this event all the Spanish inhabitants and the Indians of three pueblos retreated down the river and settled at the Pass and at different points below that place on both sides of the river for a distance of twelve or more leagues. There were now in or near the valley six missions, Guadalupe, San Francisco de los Sumas, Senecú, Socorro, Isleta, and Santa Gertrudis; four Spanish villages or pueblos, San Lorenzo, San Pedro de Alcántara, San José, and Isleta; and the presidio of El Paso.
In 1683 and 1684 missionary work was temporarily extended from El Paso to the junction of the Conchos with the Rio Grande, a point then known as La Junta, among the Julimes and their allies. Already two Franciscans, Fray García de San Francisco, founder of the mission of Guadalupe at El Paso in 1659 and guardian there till 1671, and Fray Juan de Sumesta, had separately visited the Indians at La Junta, but had not remained. Requests for missionaries at Parral proving without avail, the Indians turned in 1683 to the settlement of El Paso. In response to their appeal, Fray Nicolás López and Fathers Juan Zavaleta and Antonio Acevedo went in December, 1683, to La Junta, and before the end of 1684 seven churches had been built for nine tribes, living, apparently, on both sides of the Rio Grande, and five hundren persons had been baptized. Father López tried to secure a settlement of Spaniards for the place, but failed, and within a short time the missions were abandoned on account of an uprising. 52
3. The Mendoza-López Expedition to the Jumanos, 1684
The same appeal that led Father López to undertake missionary work at La Junta resulted in the expedition made in 1684 by Juan Domínguez de Mendoza and Father López to the Jumano Indians of the Nueces; this event, in turn, greatly increased interest in the eastern tribes, especially the Texas and Quiviras.
The principal bearer of the request for missionaries in 1683 was a Jumano Indian known to history as Juan Sabeata, who appeared before Governor Cruzate in October. 53 According to his story he and some of his people lived with the Julimes at La Junta. Part of his tribe lived six days to the eastward, on the Nueces River, which was three days beyond the place where the buffalo herds began. Among more than thirty tribes which he named as living toward the east were the “extended nation of the Humanas,” the “great kingdom of the Texas,” and the “great kingdom of Quivira.” He told particularly of the “great kingdom of the Texas.” This populous realm, which was fifteen days eastward from La Junta, was ruled by a powerful king. As for the man who had visited Castillo in 1650, he was not king, “but only the king's lieutenant.” The Texas were a settled people, raised crops in abundance, and were neighbors of La Gran Quivira, so close, indeed, that they visited back and forth almost daily. From what he had heard, they would gladly welcome settlers and missionaries, for ever since Castillo's day they had been wishing for and expecting them. Even now two messengers from the Texas were waiting at La Junta for a reply to their request sent through Sabeata. A touch of interest was added to the story by the statement, on the authority of the two Texas messengers “that in that part of the east Spaniards enter by water in Houses made of trees, and maintain trade with the said Nation of the Texas.” 54 It was easy for the authorities, after the menace offered by Peñalosa, to transform these “Spaniards” into encroaching Frenchmen.
Governor Cruzate was enthusiastic at the prospect of a new field for exploration, and forwarded Sabeata's declaration to the viceroy with a letter in which he stated that he would consider it a great triumph if “another New World” and “two Realms with two more Crowns” should be added to the kingdom. 55 In answer to Sabeata's request, Father López went to La Junta, as we have already seen. Shortly afterward he was followed by Maestre de Campo Juan Domínguez de Mendoza and a small band of soldiers, destined to “the Discovery of the Orient and the Kingdom of the Texas.” 56 On January 1, 1684, the party, accompanied by Father López, and leaving Father Acevedo to minister to the Indians at La Junta, set out for the country of the Nueces, which they found after going seventy leagues northward to the Pecos and thence forty leagues toward the east. Mendoza kept a diary of the expedition which identifies the Nueces with one of the branches of the upper Colorado, probably the Concho, and with the stream visited by the expedition of 1654, for Mendoza had himself been on that journey and recognized the place. Moreover, he had with him Hernando Martín, who had been one of the leaders of the expedition of 1650. Forty leagues from the head of the Nueces, at a stream called the San Clemente, apparently the Colorado, a temporary fort and chapel were built. During the stay of several weeks a number of Indians were baptized and nearly five thousand buffalo hides secured. The Indians asked for missionaries and settlers, and before returning Father López and Mendoza promised to return within a year prepared to grant the request. 57
Writing to the king of this expedition Father López said:
Penetrating and mapping out their lands, both to the north and the east, I was in sixty-six other nations [besides those at La Junta], all docile and friendly toward the Spaniard, and asking also for the water of baptism, and that we should settle where it should seem convenient. . . . We were in their lands six months, sustained by the said heathen solely on the fruits of the soil. . . . Their mineral hills offer much; there are many rivers, all with different kinds of fish and abounding in nacre, from which years ago many pearl were secured. . . . And besides these nations we had ambassadors from the Texas, a powerful kingdom, where Mother María de Ágreda catechized many Indians, as she relates in her writings. . . . And we came to tread the borders of the first settlements of this nation. . . . We succeeded also in treading the lands of the Aijados nation, next to the great kingdom of Quivira, of whom Fray Alonso de Benavides makes mention, but because the said Aijados were at war with the tribes which we had in our friendship, I did not communicate with them, although they were already planning to make friends with us. It [the Aijados tribe] is less than seventy leagues distant from La Gran Quivira. 58
4. Proposals for the Occupation of the Jumano Country, 1685- 1686
This expedition of 1684, coupled with news of Peñalosa's doings, now became the basis of an attempt to occupy the Jumano country with missionaries and soldiers, and of renewed talk by the New Mexico officials of Gran Quivira, Gran Teguayo, and the great Kingdom of the Texas.
On their return to El Paso, Father López and Mendoza both went to the city of Mexico. In a memorial of June 7, 1685, López urged, besides support for the settlements about El Paso and the missions at La Junta, the occupation of the recently explored country of the Jumanos. Sixty-six tribes, he said, north-eastward from La Junta, had given obedience, and twenty additional missionaries were needed to serve them. 59 He was backed in this request by his order, for the commissary general advertized the new field in the various monasteries, and forty-six friars volunteered to go. 60 López's petition being negatived by the authorities at Mexico on account of the bad situation at El Paso, in March, 1686, he urged anew “the manifest peril threatened by delay.” At present two hundred men would suffice to avert the danger, at little cost, because of the richness of the country; but later it would “be impossible to repair it with millions.” He now asked, not for twenty but for fifty-two missionaries. 61 In another memorial he requested one hundred soldiers, even from the jails, and offered, on the promise of his two wealthy brothers of El Rosario, to furnish for the undertaking five hundred fanegas of maize, three hundred beeves, and two hundred horses. 62 His proposals were pronounced by the fiscal as “fantastic, and ideas meriting no consideration”; 63 but he had already turned to the king, repeating his request, and urging especially the nearness of the country to be occupied to the Aijados, Texas, and the great kingdom of Quivira. 64
About the same time Mendoza also addressed a memorial to the viceroy, saying that Peñalosa, under whom he had served in New Mexico, really possessed detailed information regarding Teguayo, the Sierra Azul, and the kingdom of the Texas. “And if this Peñalosa should carry out his intention, great ruin of this New Spain is to be feared, since these lands are the most fertile and fruitful of this New World.” But in Mendoza lay the remedy. To avert the danger he offered, if the king would only supply him with two hundred men from the jails, to enter the eastern country again, explore as far as the North Sea, reconnoiter Gran Quivira and the Kingdom of the Texas, make maps and reports, plant two presidios in the country of the Nueces, and reduce the Indians to settled life. The only expense to the crown would be that incident to arming the men and maintaining them till they should reach the Nueces, since, once there, the country would support, not two hundred, but two million; “for, besides these advantages, we have immediate recourse to the settlement of the Texas, which nation plants maize, calabashes, and beans.” This memorial was perhaps written by Father López, for, besides bearing internal marks of that friar's authorship, it was sent by him to the king with “hearty commendation.” 65
5. The La Salle Expedition and the Occupation of Eastern Texas, 1685-1690
By this time news had been received in Mexico of the La Salle expedition to some point on the Gulf coast, and in 1686 began the series of explorations, four by sea from Vera Cruz and five by land from Monterrey and Monclova, in search, not of the French alone, but (1) of the French, (2) the Bay of Espíritu Santo, and (3) the country of the Texas, which had not yet been reached. 66
The events of this period have been so well told by Clark and Garrison that they need no more than the merest summary here. But from what has gone before, some of them will now take on a new meaning. In 1689, on the fourth of these land expeditions, De León and Father Massanet found the remains of the French settlement on Matagorda Bay, to which the name of Espíritu Santo thenceforth became attached for a reason which is now obvious. During the same expedition De León and Massanet went as far east as the Colorado River, where they were met by the chief of the Nabedache, the westernmost of the Hasinai, or Texas, tribes. After a short conference they arranged to return in the following year to found a mission for his people. 67
Again the country of the Texas had been approached but not reached, and again was recorded a description of that promised but unseen land. On the basis of this conference, preconceived notions, and the reports made by some rescued Frenchmen who had been farther east, De León wrote in May, 1689, as follows:
The Texas ... are a very well governed (política) people, and plant large quantities of maize, beans, calabashes, cantaloupes, and watermelons. They say that they have nine settlements, I mean towns (pueblos), the largest one being fifteen leagues long and eight or ten wide. It must contain eight hundred heads of families (vecinos), each one having a large wooden house plastered with clay and roofed with lime, a door attached to the house, and its crops. In this way they follow one after another. .... They are very familiar with the fact that there is only one true God, that he is in Heaven, and that he was born of the Holy Virgin. They perform many Christian rites, and the Indian governor asked me for ministers to instruct them, [saying] that many years ago a woman went inland to instruct them, but that she has not been there for a long time; and certainly it is a pity that people so rational, who plant crops and know that there is a God should have no one to teach them the Gospel, especially when the province of Texas is so large and so fertile and has so fine a climate. 68
To this argument for occupying the Texas country, De León added the report of a rumor that there was another French settlement farther inland, in the region which he had not explored.
True to their promise, and with the co-operation of the government in Mexico, in the following year, 1690, De León and Massanet returned east with a party, reached the westernmost village of the Texas (Hasinai) 69 confederacy, near the Neches River, and founded there the first establishments in Spanish Texas. 70 This event, it is now plain, was not merely the result of the La Salle expedition, but was the logical culmination of the long series of expeditions made to the eastward from New Mexico and of the expansion of the Nuevo León-Coahuila frontier, and more especially of the quest, begun as far back as the time of Castillo and Martín, for the “great kingdom of the Texas.” This is the principal explanation to be offered for the fact that the first Spanish outpost in eastern Texas was placed, not on the Bay of Espíritu Santo, where the French menace had occured, but several hundred miles to the eastward. It was put among the Indians whom the Spaniards so long had hoped to reach.
In all the wars in which their country has been engaged, Kentuckians have ever been found in the vanguard of those who have gone forth when the call to arms has sounded. They have been prodigal of their blood on many a hard-fought field since the time when Kentucky was first numbered among the states of the Union. In the wars waged with the Indians, both within and beyond the borders of their state; in the war of 1812; in the Mexican war; and, above all, in the four years' strife when Kentuckian was arrayed against Kentuckian, the men of Kentucky have never failed to respond to the call of duty and of honor. In one struggle, however, in which thousands of their fellow-countrymen were engaged, the achievements of Kentuckians and their share in the movement which led to the wresting of a fair domain from the control of the Spaniard, have not been sufficiently emphasized,—namely, the war of Texas independence which resulted in the establishment of the republic of Texas in 1836.
In this paper an attempt will be made to record some of the names and, so far as possible, the deeds of those Kentuckians who shared in the glorious exploits associated with the names of San Antonio de Béxar, Goliad, and San Jacinto. Necessarily the record is an incomplete one; and for that reason the names of many men have in all probability been omitted whose deeds and sacrifices a more detailed knowledge of the period might richly entitle to honorable mention. At any rate, what we know of Kentucky's share in the liberation of Texas from the tyranny of Mexico is worth narrating.
One of the most interesting things in connection with the Texan struggle for independence is the large number, comparatively speaking, of states and foreign countries from which volunteers flocked to Texas. 72 On the one hand the province of Texas was invaded by bands of Mexicans bent upon establishing a centralized despotism; upon the other, it was invaded from one motive or another by those of a dozen different nationalities equally determined to expel the enemies of the country. As an illustration of this fact it is interesting to note the composition of Company E, First Regiment of Texas Infantry, Permanent Volunteers. This company comprised some sixty-odd members from the following regions: fourteen from Pennsylvania; four from Kentucky; two from Maine; eight from Virginia; three from Indiana; one from Mississippi; one from Delaware; three from Tennessee; one from North Carolina; one from Missouri; two from Germany; four from England; one from Scotland; one from South Carolina; and three from Maryland. In the company of Captain Pettus, the “New Orleans Greys,” were representatives of six foreign countries, besides volunteers who came from states as widely separated as Connecticut and Louisiana. As showing the character of the men who helped to achieve the independence of Texas, it may be observed that the above companies were composed of carpenters, tailors, painters, masons, clerks, farmers, school-teachers, physicians, cotton-spinners, stone-cutters, and the like. 73 That is, the independence of Texas was wrought in part by men who came from the plough, the counting-room, the shop, by those from the humbler walks of life. The foundations of the new state were thus laid on a democratic basis which has endured to this day. The struggles of the Texans appealed to those of a wide range of sympathies, professional soldiers being conspicuous by their absence.
The chief recruiting stations for these and other volunteers were Louisville, Cincinnati, and New Orleans. Most of the company referred to above enlisted in the summer and fall of 1835, arriving in Texas in November of the same year. The mere recital of the different sections of the United States and of the different foreign countries from which Texas emigrants came, shows conclusively that the slavery question in regard to Texas had not arisen at this time. It was to be expected that the struggle going on in Texas should have appealed most strongly to that section of our country most closely allied by ties of blood and interest to those who had settled Texas; but, as we have seen, interest in the region between the Sabine and the Rio Grande was by no means confined to any single group of states or section. 74
From 1803 to the treaty of De Onis, in 1819, both Spain and the United States claimed the territory known as Texas. The above treaty settled the controversy by making the Sabine the boundary. But many of the citizens of the United States were dissatisfied with this arrangement. For instance, an editorial in the New Orleans Bee of July 3, 1835, pronounced the treaty of 1819 unconstitutional in that it alienated the acquired purchase or possession of Texas. 75 In the issue of July 20th of the same year this paper asserted that the claims of Spain as against those of France were based on perfidy.
It was perfectly natural that the rumor of war in Texas should have aroused the keenest interest in Kentucky. The enterprise was such a one as would naturally appeal to a high-spirited people, accustomed to the use of arms. In a letter of General Houston to General Dunlap, Houston concludes with these words: “The path of fame and wealth in Texas is open to the patriot and chivalrous.” 76 Just as adventurers flocked to the standard of William of Normandy, impelled by motives of adventure and the desire of gain, so the news of the struggle going on in Texas drew thither thousands actuated by various motives. 77 The eagerness to take up arms is shown by the readiness with which the call for volunteers to re-enforce General Gaines on the Sabine was responded to, and great was the chagrin of young Kentuckians when the call was countermanded by the President. As the Texan war progressed and it was learned what atrocities the Anglo-Americans were suffering at the hands of the relentless Mexicans, the war assumed something of the aspect of a crusade, and men felt it to be their Christian duty to drive the Mexican from the land desecrated by his presence. In addition to this, rich rewards in the way of land were offered to those who risked life and limb in such a worthy enterprise. At the advice of Dr. Archer, the Consultation, at the very outset, provided for rewarding volunteers with grants of land. 78 Indeed it was recognized by the leaders of the revolutionary movement that without help from the United States their cause was doomed. 79 The General Council therefore upon the outbreak of hostilities made an impassioned appeal to the people of the United States which contained the following statement: “We invite you to our country—we have land in abundance, and it shall be liberally bestowed on you. We have the finest country on the face of the globe. . . . Every volunteer in our cause shall not only justly but generously be rewarded.” 80 And the government of Texas was as good as its word, and richly rewarded those who risked life and limb in the cause of Texas independence. The amount of land offered for the different periods of service was printed in the newspapers of the time and undoubtedly this was a powerful motive in inducing citizens of the United States to cast in their lot with the revolting Texans. 81
To those who looked upon the revolt against Mexico as a “Texas Conspiracy,” who regarded the leaders in the movement as “fomenters of an insurrection,” it was a most gratuitous piece of presumption to refer to those going from the United States as “volunteer emigrants,”—rather they were “land-pirates,” “free-booters,” greedy for a “fertile paradisiacal piece of Texian lands, a mile square.” But the widespread enthusiasm on the part of the citizens of the United States in the fortunes of the revolted Texans, can not be explained on any such hypothesis; for the desire for land was only one of several motives which influenced the volunteer emigrants, and in many instances the pecuniary interest was a minor consideration. 82
Austin felt that the certainty that real danger threatened Texas would send thousands to its aid who would not go if they thought they were not needed. 83
Moreover interest in Texas affairs was stimulated by descriptive articles upon Texas which appeared in the public press, some of which were written by Wharton and others for the purpose of arousing enthusiasm for their country in the time of its need. On the other hand it should be remarked that the cause of the Texas revolutionists was prejudiced by articles hostile to Texas, which appeared in the press of different states.
In the late summer of 1835 disconcerting news from Texas reached Kentucky. An interesting account of Magee's raid contributed by Judge H. M. Brackenridge to the Philadelphian Evening Star of October 30, 1835, concludes with this statement: “I should not be surprised if the war of Texas should end in the City of Mexico,” 84—a statement which was destined to be fulfilled under different circumstances a decade later. In November of this year the people of Kentucky read in their papers that the dogs of war had been let loose in Texas. 85 Under the caption “Foreign Intelligence” occur head-lines such as this: “Important from Texas—War!!” Circulars and letters were published signed by those in authority in the revolted province. Among these is the letter of Houston to Isaac Parker, dated San Augustine, October 5, 1835, which appeared in the Lexington Observer and Kentucky Reporter of November 4, 1835. A portion of it reads as follows: “War in defence of our Rights, our Oaths, and our Constitution is inevitable in Texas. If Volunteers from the United States will join their brethren in this section, they will receive liberal bounties of land. We have millions of acres of our best lands unchosen and unappropriated. Let each man come with a good rifle and one hundred rounds of ammunition and come soon. Our war-cry is `Liberty or Death.' Our principles are to support the constitution, and down with the usurper!!” 86 As will be seen, the appeal of Houston did not fall upon deaf ears. Now and then a paper is found which expresses the opinion that tranquillity will soon be restored, or betrays an indifferent attitude upon the Texas question. 87 On the other hand the Evening Star of Philadelphia asserted that “Texas sooner or later from its position must become the property of the United States,” 88 a sentiment which no doubt found a ready response in the minds of many.
Kentuckians were not slow to respond to the appeal of Houston and of Austin. At once meetings were held by the citizens of Lexington and of Fayette county, at which measures were devised for the purpose of assisting those who desired to volunteer their services in behalf of Texas. 89 In December the first emigrants from Kentucky reached Texas: among these were thirty-six riflemen from Louisville, under the command of Captain James Tarleton, of Scott county, 90 who has left a vivid account of the battle of San Jacinto. It was probably about this time that Captain Sidney Sherman conducted a body of fifty-two volunteers, of whom some were from Newport and some from Covington, to join the Texan army. 91
Among those who took part in the storming of San Antonio was one native at least of Kentucky, who rendered gallant services on this occasion,—namely, Milam. His career is too well known to need dwelling on here. Milam was a native of Franklin county, where he was reared from infancy to manhood; he was pronounced one of the finest-looking men Kentucky ever produced. 92 Another participant in the reduction of San Antonio was Captain John Ingram, 93 who performed a gallant feat of heroism on this occasion; he also took part in the campaign of '36. According to one account Major Green B. Jamison of Kentucky was killed in the storming of San Antonio. 94 On March 6th the Alamo fell, and with its fall perished the following Kentuckians: J. P. Bailey, Wm. H. Furtleroy and D. W. Cloud,—a native of Lexington, and a warm partisan of Texas, who is said to have been “a most intrepid soldier” and to have died “fighting like a wounded tiger” 95—W. W. Frazier, Charles Frazier, 96 J. M. Thruston,—a native of Louisville, 97 — Harriss, 98 Robert B. Moore and William Ross,—both of whom were privates in the company of Captain Thomas H. Breece, 99 — Sewell, — Worlen, and — Robbins. 100
In November, 1835, Captain B. H. Duval's company known as the “Mustangs,” and destined to acquire renown as a part of Fannin's command, set out from Bardstown, Kentucky, fifty-four in number, and proceeded by way of Louisville to New Orleans. 101 From this point the men sailed to Velasco, landing at Quintana, and from thence made their way by Copano and Refugio to Goliad, where they joined the force under the command of Colonel J. W. Fannin. The whole of the auxiliary volunteers in Texas at this time is said not to have greatly exceeded 400 men, chiefly under Fannin. 102 Be that as it may, there is no question of the gallant account given of themselves by these volunteers in the disaster which wiped out their band, many of whom, it is said, were naked and barefoot. 103 The Mustangs occupied the rear, forming one side of a square when Fannin was surrounded. They repulsed Urrea, leading a cavalry charge. Never did soldiers find themselves in a more helpless predicament, whatever may have been the cause, than did the members of this devoted band. Yet they sold their lives dearly and only laid down their arms when further resistance was useless. In the fighting which took place prior to the surrender, the American loss was not heavy, most of the casualties, according to one account, being inflicted by Indian sharp-shooters. Practically the whole of Captain Duval's company was later massacred. In addition to these, twenty-six members of the Louisville Volunteers, Captain Wyatt, perished at the same time. 104 Thus the “brunt of the first onsets was borne by hundreds of brave men who had left their homes in the United States to fight for Texas, and whose blood was poured upon her soil.” Among these were some three-score or more Kentuckians whose lives were sacrificed in consequence of the quarrel between the governor and the council and the lack of co-operation among the military authorities, the result being the paralyzing of all effective and concentrated efforts against the enemy. Between twenty-five and thirty escaped out of the more than three hundred who were led out to execution. 105 Among these were the following Kentuckians: John C. Duval, who saved his life by swimming a river and taking refuge in a dense thicket upon the other side; 106 — Sharpe, John and S. Van Bibber; Captain Benjamin T. Bradford; 107 Daniel Murphy, who was slightly wounded in the knee; Charles B. Shain, 108 of Louisville, who suffered greatly in his feet by reason of having lost his shoes and being compelled to make his way through “prickly pears, briars, and grass stubble,” before he was found by spies and carried to camp. Another Kentuckian, whose life was spared, was Benjamin F. Hughes, only sixteen years old. In addition to the above, these are also said to have escaped: J. D. Rains, fourth sergeant in Captain Wyatt's company; Bennett Butler, Perry Davis, H. G. Hudson—the last two escaping, it seems, on the retreat of Ward—and John Lumpkin, whose life was spared. 109 The following letter, written by one of the survivors, gives an account of the massacre of his comrades: 110
Dear Father:—I take this opportunity of writing a few lines to let you know that I am still in existence. I suppose you will have heard before this reaches you that I was either taken prisoner or killed. I was taken prisoner on the 20th of last month, and kept a week, when all of us were ordered out to be shot, but I, with six others, out of 521, escaped. Before we were taken, Col. Fannin's party had a battle with the Mexicans in a large prairie, and killed and wounded, as the Mexicans themselves said, 300 of them; but one of the Mexicans, who was a prisoner at the time, says that it took them all the night of the 19th to bury their dead, and that we must have killed and wounded something like 800 or a thousand. Their force was 1900 strong,—ours 250.
The circumstances under which we were taken were these. We were completely surrounded, without any provisions or water, and in such a situation that we could not use our cannon; in consequence of which we thought it best to surrender on the terms offered to us—which were, to treat us [as] prisoners of war, and according to the rules of Christian warfare. But how sadly we were deceived, the sequel will show: after starving us for a week, they ordered us out, saying we were going after beef, but when we had marched about half a mile from the fort we were ordered to halt. The Mexicans marched all on one side of us, and took deliberate aim at us, but I, as you have seen, was fortunate enough to escape. I have however had monstrous hard times, having nothing to eat for five successive days and nights, but at length arrived safely here this morning, after a travel of two weeks through prairies and dangers during which time I had some narrow escapes, especially the night before last on the line of the picket guards of the Mexican force, I was nearly killed or taken.
San Felip is taken. The Mexicans are in Texas, but I think I shall live to see her free notwithstanding. We have near 1500 men in camp, and expect to attack the enemy in a few days.
I am well with the exception of very sore feet occasioned by walking through the prairies barefooted. Tomorrow I shall go over the river to a farm to stay until I get entirely well, when I will try to avenge the death of some of my brave friends. All of my company were killed.
Your affectionate son, Chas. B. Shain Apr 11th, Groce's Crossing on Brazos.
Detailed accounts of the murder of Fannin and his men appeared in the newspapers of the United States and naturally excited the deepest indigation. 111 They served the further purpose of arousing renewed interest in the affairs of Texas and of the raising of men and funds on a widespread scale for the purpose of avenging those who had been so cruelly done to death at Goliad. 112 Governor William P. Duval, thinking both his sons had perished, wrote a vigorous letter to General George Chambers, asking his co-operation in raising sixteen hundred mounted volunteers with which to drive the Mexicans beyond the Rio Grande. 113 The citizens of Bardstown resolved to erect a monument to the memory of those Kentuckians who had perished at the command of Santa Anna. It was now felt that the great law of humanity justified aid to the struggling Texans. Among other influences which were instrumental in securing help for their cause in Kentucky and elsewhere, must be included the services of Austin, Wharton, and Archer, the three commissioners sent to the United States in the beginning of 1836. One of the duties of the commissioners was to “agitate” the United States, but as we have seen, the people of the south and west were already agitated. In February the commissioners wrote of the “universal and enthusiastic interest which pervades all ranks and classes of society in every part of this country in favor of the emancipation of Texas.” 114 One most important service rendered by the commissioners was in the matter of securing a loan for their government. 115 They were also authorized by the provisional government to receive donations for the cause of Texas.
On March 7th, General Austin delivered a masterly address upon Texas in the Second Presbyterian Church in Louisville. 116 A few days later he was in Lexington seeking to create interest in his adopted country. General T. J. Chambers entered into an arrangement with the Texan government for sending volunteers from the United States. 117 Other commissioners who were active in Kentucky were Colonel Lewis and Colonel Hayden Edwards, the latter of whom was requested by the committee of vigilance and safety to solicit donations for the purpose of raising a battalion to be known as the “Ladies Battalion” or “Regiment.” 118
During the spring and summer meetings of Texan sympathizers were held at the principal towns of Kentucky. Upon these occasions volunteers enrolled themselves as emigrants, money was freely subscribed, resolutions were adopted expressing sympathy with the Texans, correspondence committees were appointed to further the cause of Texas, and invariably the government of the United States was memorialized to recognize the Texan republic as free, sovereign, and independent. The most prominent city in this respect was Lexington, which gave generously of its citizens and means for the cause of Texas. Between the end of March and the middle of June, 1836, more than a dozen meetings of this nature were held in Lexington. 119 On these occasions the sum of $3500 was subscribed and something like one hundred and eighty citizens of Lexington and Fayette county volunteered to emigrate to Texas. A committee of the Lexington Fayette Volunteers issued a stirring appeal to the patriotic young men of Kentucky calling upon them to enlist in the sacred cause of Texas independence and to be ready to start by May 20th. 120
It was likewise resolved at the same meeting to appoint a committee of ladies to arrange to equip a crops to be raised in the city and county to be called the “Ladies Legion of the City of Lexington.” 121
The Lexington Typographical Society appropriated the sum of twenty dollars to enable persons to emigrate to Texas. 122
Among those who were foremost in their devotion to the cause of Texas was Mrs. M. A. Holley, the accomplished widow of Dr. Holley of Lexington, whose history of Texas was published in the summer of 1836. The following appeal signed by Mrs. Holley appeared in the Lexington Intelligencer of April 26, 1836: “Those ladies who are disposed to devote a portion of their time, and their needles, to the holy cause of Texas, will please to call at the house of the subscriber, where may be found materials for this sacred charity.” Accordingly a sewing party of ladies met at the house of Mrs. Holley twice-a-week for some time until a quantity of clothes were made. Her two nieces, the Misses Austin, were prominent in the work, the material being contributed by Lexington gentlemen. The result of their labors were: “18 shirts, 24 pocket handkerchiefs, 6 collars, 8 black shirts, 12 shirt bosoms, 3 roundabouts, 9 hunting shirts, 1 mosquito bar.” 123
But Lexington, though the foremost, was only one of a number of places in Kentucky, whose citizens made sacrifices for the cause of Texas independence. At Winchester a meeting of citizens was held at which $188.75 in cash was collected and almost $200 worth of fire-arms and clothing contributed; some ten or a dozen young men expressed a desire to volunteer as emigrants. 124 At a meeting of the ladies and gentlemen of Woodford county at Versailles on May 4, Congress was urged to recognize the independence of Texas; the gathering listened to a stirring address by Charlton Hunt, Esq., of Lexington; the sum of $336.50 was subscribed by fifty-three of those present; and to crown the whole, Colonel William P. Hart generously donated one three-year-old mule for one volunteer to ride. 125 A group of citizens of Anderson county assembled at Lawrenceburg, drew up a set of resolutions expressing sympathy with Texas, and raised $59. 126 Between fifty and sixty emigrants from Georgetown expressed a willingness to go to Texas. The same place contributed the sum of $600. 127 At Russell's Cave on May 10, $212.25 was subscribed by a number of gentlemen, fifteen volunteering their services. 128 A meeting of the citizens of Bourbon county was held at Paris on Saturday, May 14, at which a collection was taken up, and fifteen volunteers, headed by Mayor Pease, enrolled their names. The meeting recommended a central committee at Lexington to appoint a day for meetings in every county in Kentucky for the purpose of enrolling names and receiving subscriptions. 129 At a Texas meeting in Mt. Sterling on the evening of May 3, stirring resolutions, prefaced by a preamble in the style of French and American revolutionary declarations, were adopted, and the sum of $154.25 subscribed. 130 The ladies of Bardstown held a fair for the benefit of Texas, and raised, with other subscriptions, the sum of $516; at the same place twenty young men volunteered their services. 131 The citizens of Nicholasville and of Harrodsburg likewise showed their zeal for the cause of Texas by raising funds and enrolling volunteers. 132 The citizens of Harrison county subscribed $260 in aid of the Texan cause and furnished several volunteers. 133 At Louisville steps were taken for the purpose of raising and equipping a corps to be styled the “Ladies Cavalry.” 134 A committee in Lexington acknowledged donations from various points in Kentucky to the amount of $776. This sum was secured through the instrumentality of Major R. A. Ferguson. 135 The counties of Scott, Clark, Mercer and Montgomery are said to have contributed freely of their men and means. 136 On the eve of his departure, Colonel Wilson was presented by Mr. Isaac Cunningham, of Clark, with a horse for which he paid $200. Another horse of about the same value was presented Colonel Wilson by a citizen of Lexington. 137 Judge Bledsoe, of Kentucky, addressed large meetings in Natchez and New Orleans, in advocacy of the Texan cause. 138 It is thus seen that hundreds of volunteers and several thousand dollars were raised in Kentucky in furtherance of the cause of Texas liberty.
Of these emigrants about forty under Captain Wigginton left Louisville for Texas April 19th. 139 Between sixty and seventy under the command of Captain Shannon, of Mt. Sterling, left the morning of June 2d “in the steam car” for the same destination. 140 The most considerable number of them, however,—between three and four hundred, started under the command of Colonel Edw. J. Wilson and Captain G. Lewis Postlethwaite this same month. Of these about two hundred left Lexington the first week in June, reaching Louisville on Monday, June 6. At Shelbyville, on Sunday, each of the officers of the “Ladies Legion” was presented with epaulettes by a young lady—Miss Buckner—of Louisville. 141 On Saturday, June 11, the Texas Volunteers to the number of some three hundred under the command of Colonel Wilson left Louisville in the steamer Fort Adams. 142 One of the Lexington papers prints a letter from Colonel Wilson in which he says, “the people of Louisville, with a few exceptions, have been as cold as icicles, and but for the magnanimous Thomas Smith of New Castle, our trip would have stopped here. Mr. Smith furnished all the meat and tendered six months' provisions and takes the Texas Government for it [that is, accepts drafts on the government].” 143 The volunteers proceeded on their way down the Ohio some fifty miles when the boat sprung a leak. It was accordingly run ashore and the emigrants landed. Messrs. Postlethwaite and Woolley returned to Louisville, procured another boat, 144 and once more the volunteers embarked. Some whose hearts had grown faint abandoned the enterprise. 145
Another body of Texas emigrants, under the command of Colonel Charles L. Harrison, of Louisville, left that city on the evening of July 1 in the Heroine. 146 On June 14 the Kentucky volunteers under Colonel Wilson reached New Orleans, from which point it was said they would depart immediately for Texas—“to plant corn or fight”; as the sequel will show, not a few were destined to engage in the former more prosaic, though not less profitable enterprise. 147 It may be interesting at this point to quote an extract from a letter written by Major P. H. Harris, of the “Ladies Legion of Texian Volunteers,” dated New Orleans, June 27, 1836: 148
Dear Sir:
. . . You have no doubt heard of our embarkation at Louisville and being landed on the bank of the Ohio river, where we were detained five days. We finally succeeded in effecting a reembarkation on board the Franklin, a very splendid boat: but lamentable to relate, while in camp lost by desertion about 30 men. . . . Such men would only tarnish the fame which Kentucky has acquired in deeds of noble daring. . . . In five days we shall be on Texian soil. We are to land and equip at Galveston, and march by way of Copano and from thence 20 miles to Houston's camp. . . . We will have to contend against 8000 motley and degraded hirelings, and I pledge my life that the Ladies Legion of Lexington will give a good account of itself and old Kentuck' will be faithfully and honorably represented.
We remain under the same organization as when we left Lexington with but few exceptions. Our men are entirely healthy and in high spirits—some 20 or 30 will join us from this city.
Colonel Wilson, with a portion of the volunteers, was detained at New Orleans certainly until July 7 and probably later, Captain Postlethwaite with one hundred and fifty men having departed for Texas a few days before. 149 About the middle of July, Colonel Wilson with his command reached Velasco. A letter from this point, dated August 5, announced that he was about to start to join the Texan army. 150 But unfortunately for the fame of the “Ladies Legion” which had set forth under such bright prospects, the start was never made. And great was the surprise of those at home to learn, at the end of August, that Wilson and Postlethwaite with about one-half of their command had returned to Kentucky. The first intimation which the people of Lexington had of this extraordinary procedure was when they read in the Kentucky Gazette of August 29 that the two above-named gentlemen and a part of the emigrants had returned to New Orleans and would be on home in a few days. The reason assigned was that they had not arrived in Texas by the time prescribed by the government, namely, July 1, and had been assured of only $8.00 a month. Moreover, according to the correspondent, matters in Texas were in a very unsettled state. According to another report, no immediate danger was to be apprehended from Mexico. Furthermore, the lands promised emigrants by the government of Texas had been refused, the law allowing bounty lands having expired by the above-named date. 151
Feeling that public opinion demanded an explanation of their course of action, Wilson and Postlethwaite published a lengthy article in the newspapers in which they set forth their reasons for abandoning the cause of Texas. In the exposé of the motives which impelled their return, they declare the unhappy civil and political condition of Texas render her totally unworthy of aid or sympathy. Professing agents secured volunteers by means of false promises. The cause for the long delay at New Orleans was due to the President and Cabinet wanting no more volunteers, believing the war at an end. In consequence of a rumor of a Mexican invasion, Captain Postlethwaite advanced with one hundred troops about July 2. Colonel Wilson got off on July 10, arriving at Galveston seven days later. The former went to Velasco, the seat of government, where he was treated with great rudeness by President Burnet, who was also guilty of incivility to Colonel Wilson. In conclusion they declared that the present population of Texas was incapable of a just idea of civil or political liberty; the mass of people were animated by a desire of plunder; no stable government of any kind existed; the army was defiant; the Cabinet corrupt and imbecile; the only stimulus of the soldiers was a hope of plunder—in a word, the condition of affairs in Texas was miserable. 152
Such were the reasons assigned by these men for returning home, and it requires only a casual knowledge of Texas affairs at this time to see that the report constituted a slander upon Texas and its people.
General T. Jefferson Chambers, who was the object of the attack in the report of Wilson and Postlethwaite, replied to his opponents through the Louisville Journal, his rejoinder taking up six columns of that paper. According to his side of the story, the battalion from Lexington was to have been attached to the army of reserve under his command. Colonel Wilson refused to accept the commissions tendered him on the ground that Colonel Harrison would take rank over him. His chagrin at the court of Velasco was due to the fact that he had not been asked to take a seat by President Burnet. He was denied the rank and land he coveted. General Chambers included in his reply letters from Lieutenants Combs and Brashear of Captain Price's company confirmatory of the facts he sought to establish. Only thirty or forty of three hundred emigrants returned, according to General Chambers; a letter of Dr. Read of the Texas army, which he printed as further confirming his statements, asserts that eighty men returned out of some two hundred.
Having thus paid their respects to each other in the columns of the press, Colonel Wilson, after the fashion of the time, challenged General Chambers. The difficulty, however, was referred to a board of honor which finally proposed a compromise that was accepted by both parties. 153
While the state of affairs in Texas no doubt justified the determination of Wilson and Postlethwaite to return with their men, yet their presence in the country only a few days and at a single point rendered it impossible for them to form a just judgment of the situation. No immediate danger, it is true, was to be apprehended from Mexico at this time. The ordinance of March 16 diminished the quantity of bounty lands to soldiers who entered between that time and July 1, and left the quantity for those enlisting after that period undefined and to be determined by Congress. In addition to this, differences existed between those in authority in the government, and it would have been a miracle had no land speculators found their way to Texas. 154 In view of these things the determination of the volunteers to return may be excused, but no excuse can be offered for the groundless accusations which their leaders were instrumental in spreading to the injury of Texas. But the presence or the absence of the Kentucky volunteers at this time did not affect the important question of the independence of Texas, for that had been settled by the decisive victory of San Jacinto.
The news of the battle of San Jacinto had been received with the greatest enthusiasm in Kentucky. In a number of places the victory of Houston and his men was celebrated with peals of artillery and bonfires, while the city of Louisville was brilliantly illuminated in honor of the capture of Santa Anna and his men. 155 While more than three-fourths of the victors of San Jacinto were citizens proper of Texas, yet side by side with these were to be found volunteers from Kentucky and from other states who, on that memorable day, rendered valiant service in the cause of Texas independence. 156
The following account of the battle of San Jacinto was written by Captain James Tarleton, captain of the company of Texas volunteers that first went from Louisville: 157
. . . At last, at 3 1/2 p.m. we were ordered to prepare for battle, which was soon done; and then commenced a conflict, the parallel of which, I presume, cannot be found on record. To see a mere handful of raw undisciplined volunteers, just taken from their ploughs and thrown together with rifles without bayonets, no two perhaps of the same calibre, and circled by only two pieces of artillery, 6 pounders, and a few musketeers, some with and some without bayonets, and some 40 or 50 men on horseback to meet the trained bands of the heroes of so many victories—to see them, with trailed arms, marching to within 60 or 70 yards of such an army at least double in number and entrenched too behind a breastwork impregnable to small arms and protected by a long brass 9 pounder—to see them, I say, do all this, fearless, and determined to save their country and their country's liberty or to die in the effort was no ordinary occurrence. Yet such was their conduct, and so irresistible was the Spartan phalanx, that it was not more than from 15 to 20 minutes from our first fire until a complete rout of the enemy was effected, and such slaughter on the one side and such almost miraculous preservation on the other have never been heard of since the invention of gunpowder. The commencement of the attack was accompanied by the watch words, “Remember the Alamo, Labade [La Bahia], and Tampico,” at the very top of our voices, and in some 10 minutes, we were in the full possession of the enemy's encampment, cannon, and all things else, whilst his veterans were in the greatest possible disorder attempting to save their lives by flight. I happened to be so placed in the regiment to which I was attached, that I was enabled to be the third man, who entered the entrenchment, which I soon left in company with the balance of the regiment in pursuit of the defeated enemies of Texian liberty. I feel confident that I do not exaggerate, when I state their loss in killed as nearly if not quite equal to the whole of our number engaged; whilst we had only 6 killed on the spot and some 12 or 15 wounded, two of whom have since died, one of them Dr. Motley, 158 of Kentucky, a relative of Mr. Shapley Owen, and who died to-night since I commenced writing this letter. The number of their prisoners has not yet been officially announced, but I should suppose it is nearly if not quite 600, many of whom are wounded. . . .
Though the battle of San Jacinto practically secured the independence of Texas, yet for months rumors of renewed attempts on the part of Mexico to subjugate Texas continued to be printed in the Kentucky newspapers with the result, as we have seen, of the enlistment of volunteers in the summer of 1836. These rumors were of a most contradictory nature, so that it was impossible for those remote from the scene of action to determine the true state of affairs. For instance, it was announced in August that it would be impossible for the Mexican army to begin a campaign against Texas for two or three months; in October people read that General Bravo was threatening Texas with an army of eighteen thousand men; a few days later and this army had vanished into thin air. 159 Some of these newspaper reports were absurd in the extreme and remind one of the inflammatory despatches which emanate from the imagination of war-correspondents in these days; for instance, it was asserted on one occasion that the Mexicans were pouring into Texas, their intention being to make war upon the United States, to sack and burn New Orleans. This rumor, it was averred, was confirmed by official reports of the presence of Mexicans in Texas in large numbers. 160 There can be little doubt that General Gaines and the troops under his command would have eagerly welcomed the advent of the Mexicans upon American soil. 161
It may be observed that apprehension of a Mexican invasion continued to be shared by the Texan authorities. In June, 1836, Thomas J. Green, brigadier general of the Texan army, wrote urging soldiers to come to Texas immediately. 162 A few weeks later it was given out at New Orleans that the Texas Agency at that point did not desire, on account of a lack of provisions, any further emigration save those who would become permanent cultivators of the soil. 163 In November we find Wharton writing to Austin from New Orleans: “No one here anticipates another invasion of Texas. We should, however, act as if we thought differently.” 164 When Wharton reached Washington, he seems to have given more credence to the rumors of a renewed invasion. 165 Finally, an order was issued from New Orleans on March 10, 1837, signed by A. S. Thruston, commissary general of Texas, to the effect that recruiting service for the present was suspended; those who had already entered for two years or during the war and were ready to leave for Texas equipped, would be enrolled and furnished transportation from New Orleans. 166 It is not surprising, in view of the conflicting rumors of a renewed invasion of Texas which obtained currency in the United States, that volunteers should have continued to present themselves for enrollment in the armies of Texas.
A word may be said about the organization of those who went as volunteers from Kentucky and from other states. 167 Most of these belonged to the Auxiliary Volunteer Corps, those from Kentucky enlisting for the more part for a period of six months, fewer enlisting for three months, and still fewer for the duration of the war. 168 Provision was made for this body in accordance with an ordinance passed by the Council December 5, 1835. By the terms of this act each platoon should not contain less than twenty-eight men, rank and file; each company was to consist of two platoons of fifty-six men, rank and file; each battalion, five companies, or two hundred and eighty men, rank and file; each regiment two battalions, or five hundred and sixty men, rank and file: each platoon might be officered by one first lieutenant, each company by one captain, one first lieutenant and one second lieutenant; each battalion, one major; each regiment one colonel, and one major. 169 Shortly after the passage of this act, another ordinance was adopted empowering the commander-in-chief to accept the services of five thousand auxiliary volunteers. 170
Those who enlisted for the duration of the war received the same pay, clothing, and wages as was allowed by the United States in the war of 1812, besides bounties in money and valuable tracts of rich land. The auxiliaries from the United States, it may be noted, were also permitted to choose their own company officers. By the decree of December 5 a bounty of six hundred and forty acres was promised those who served throughout the war; those enlisting for three months received a bounty of three hundred and twenty acres; those enlisting for a shorter period received no bounty, otherwise their status was similar to that of the permanent volunteers. 171 Later an ordinance of March 10 increased the bounty of those serving twelve months or during the war to twelve hundred and eighty acres; those serving nine months received nine hundred and sixty acres; while six hundred and forty acres were received for six months' service, and three hundred and twenty acres for three months' military service. 172 Those entering the service of Texas after July 1 were to receive a quantity of land in proportion to their services. 173
At the suggestion of Fannin provision was made by the Council for a battalion of cavalry to consist of three hundred and eighty-four men, rank and file, divided into six companies: arms and uniforms were also prescribed. The members of this force were to receive the same pay as cavalry in the service of the United States and a bounty of six hundred and forty acres of land. 174
Attention has already been called to the services of General Chambers in recruiting volunteers for his “Army of Reserve”; these received the same pay and bounty as the other auxiliaries. 175 Of course when volunteers from the United States enlisted in branches of the service other than those mentioned above, they became entitled to the rewards pertaining to the particular service in which they engaged. For instance, members of the Regular Army received the same pay and emoluments, rations, and clothing as those belonging to the corresponding branch of service of the United States. In addition, they received a bounty of eight hundred acres of land and $24. 176 To each of the volunteers in the Army of the People of Texas was given a bounty of six hundred and forty acres of land. 177 Soldiers who came to Texas after March 2 and prior to August 1, 1836, received one league (4428 acres) and one labor (177 acres), if the head of a family; and one-third of a league (1476 acres) if a single man. 178 Lawful heirs of all such volunteers were to be entitled to the quantity of land due the deceased; said heirs to receive an addition in the way of a bounty—640 acres as decreed by the Council, December 11, 1835. 179 A donation of six hundred and forty acres was given to those engaged in the battle of San Jacinto, to those entering Béxar between the morning of the 5 and the 10 of December, 1835, and taking part in the reduction of the same; to those in the action of March 19, 1836, under Fannin and Ward and to their heirs; and to the heirs of those who fell in the Alamo. The heirs or legal representatives of those who fell with Fannin, Ward, Travis, Grant, and Johnson received a league and a labor or one-third of a league, according as the soldier was the head of a family or a single man, and to each one was given an additional bounty of six hundred and forty acres. 180 The pay of volunteers from the United States, according to a resolution passed by the Texan Congress November 23 and 24, 1836, was to commence from the time of their embodying and leaving home, provided said time did not exceed sixty days prior to their being mustered into the service of the republic of Texas. At the same time it was determined that all volunteers who had entered the service of the republic since July 1 last should be entitled to the same pay and bounties of land as those entering prior to that time. 181 According to a law of December 18, 1837, all those permanently disabled while in the service of Texas by loss of eye, arm or limb, or other bodily injury so as to be incapacitated for bodily labor, received one league of land. 182
This matter of the land bounties has been dwelt upon somewhat at length for two reasons: first of all, the inducement thus held out to volunteers a compelling motive in causing hundreds from the United States to enlist in the service of the Texan government; and, secondly, many of those who rendered such service would naturally, at the close of hostilities, settle down permanently in the region between the Sabine and the Rio Grande. It may be observed that Austin while acting as commissioner to the United States wrote back to the government of Texas in regard to offers of land to volunteers at variance with those of the government, which offers, he said, did much harm. The offer referred to was one made by Major William P. Miller, of Nashville, promising eight hundred acres and $24 bounty. The decree increasing the bounty of soldiers in the regular army by one hundred and sixty acres and $24 was passed December 14, and had not come to the notice of Austin. 183
Touching the question of neutrality, Kentuckians like the volunteers from other states, did not feel themselves called upon to pay any more heed to the laws upon the subject than did antislavery sympathizers of a later time feel called upon to give their support to laws compelling the rendition of fugitive slaves. In the one case as in the other, the law of the land fell practically flat because the existing state of public opinion rendered federal statutes incapable of enforcement. Add to this the fact, to which attention has already been called, that no adequate means were provided for securing the enforcement of the Act of 1818, which authorized the President to employ the military and naval forces of the United States for the purpose of preventing violations of our neutrality. 184
At the very outbreak of hostilities between Texas and Mexico, the President, whatever may have been his views in regard to the cession of Texas in 1819, 185 proclaimed the neutrality of the United States in no equivocal terms, and from time to time as occasion arose, reiterated his intention not only faithfully to maintain our neutrality, but to discountenance anything that might be calculated to expose our conduct to misconstruction in the eyes of the world. 186 And this attitude Jackson maintained till the close of his administration. When Wharton and Hunt besought him to recognize the independence of Texas, the President declined to interfere. 187 To Austin's earnest appeal for the recognition of Texas, Jackson replied intimating that the Texans should have taken into consideration the consequences of their act in beginning the revolution, concluding with the statement repeatedly expressed: “Our neutrality must be faithfully maintained.” 188
That Jackson was sincere in thus proclaiming his intention to enforce the neutrality laws of the United States will hardly admit of question; for he was a man of conscience and of honor, steadfastly devoted to the performance of his duty as he saw it. When complaints therefore of the violations of neutrality were from time to time addressed to the department of state by Gorostiza, Castillo, and Monasterio, 189 the reply was that “all measures enjoined and warranted by law have been and will continue to be taken to enforce respect by citizens of the United States within their jurisdiction to the neutrality of their Government.” 190 Accordingly the district attorneys in the leading cities of the Union were authorized to prosecute without discrimination all violations of laws of the United States which had been enacted for the purpose of preserving peace or which fulfilled treaty obligations with foreign powers. 191
But convictions were not forthcoming for several reasons. First of all, it was no easy matter to determine just what constituted a violation of the act in question, for it must be remembered that it was
not a crime or offence against the United States under the neutrality laws of this country for individuals to leave the country with intent to enlist in foreign military service, nor an offence to transport such persons out of this country and to land them in foreign countries when such persons had an intent to list; nor an offence to transport arms, ammunition, and munitions of war from this country; nor an offence to transport persons with intent to enlist and munitions on the same trip. 192
To constitute an offence within the meaning of the act in question, there must be combination and organization on the soil of the United States, with the intention of going abroad to enlist. 193 To avoid violating the neutrality laws therefore, Austin counselled that volunteers should not be recognized until they had presented themselves to the governor of Texas or commander-in-chief of the Texan army. 194
That open violations of the act occurred it will not be denied; and in one instance at least the district attorney seems to have treated the law as a joke as the following extract from a letter of Carson to Burnet will show:
Seventy men are now ready to leave under Captain Grundy who is the prosecuting Atty. for the United States for this District, and has formal orders to arrest and prosecute every man who may take up arms in the cause of Texas or in any way Violate the Neutrality of the U. S. He says he will prosecute any man under his command who will take up arms here and he will accompany them to the boundary line of the U. S. to see that they shall not violate her Neutrality and when there, if the boys think proper to step over the line as peaceable emigrants his authority in Gov't will cease and he thinks it highly probably that he will take a peepe at Texas himself. 195
On the whole, it would seem that Jackson, so far as lay within his power, complied fully with the formal requirements of the law. With the sentiment of the South and West what it was, to have removed delinquent officials and put others in their place would have accomplished nothing.
We may next glance at Jackson's attitude toward the asserted violation of our neutrality by General Gaines's crossing the frontier. While there existed no doubt whatever in the mind of the President and of his Secretary of State Forsyth as to the right of General Gaines to cross any supposed or imaginary boundary, they impressed upon him “the duty of the United States to remain entirely neutral”; yet considering the existing tension between Mexico and this country, and the eagerness of Gaines to take a hand in the struggle across the border, Jackson may perhaps incur the reproach of having failed to take all reasonable precautions to prevent General Gaines from exercising with undue haste the discretion which was necessarily entrusted to him. 196
At the same time it should be borne in mind that though to Jackson's mind a sufficiency of causes assigned for the advance of our troops by General Gaines was seriously doubted by him, there existed no doubt whatever in the minds of the Texan authorities of the urgent need of United States troops at or near Nacogdoches for the purpose of protecting the inhabitants on the west side of the Sabine, nor did there exist the slightest doubt in their minds of their being entitled to such protection in accordance with the treaty of 1831. The evidence upon this point is decisive. 197 We find Austin writing to Wharton that he had been assured that the Cherokees, Caddos, Comanches, and other tribes had entered into a combination to join the Mexicans and were prepared to do so when they heard of the defeat at San Jacinto. Austin was convinced that it was of vital importance to the tranquillity of the United States that American troops should continue at Nacogdoches, and that the number should be increased rather than diminished. 198 In January, 1837, Wharton wrote Forsyth that the Caddos within the United States were meditating an invasion of the Republic of Texas and asked that the United States troops should continue at Nacogdoches or at some other point near the frontier. 199 Ten days later Henderson was urging upon Wharton and Hunt to point out to the Government of the United States the necessity of stationing troops immediately at or near Nacogdoches for the purpose of keeping the tribes in subjection. He too was certain the Cherokees had formed a treaty during the summer with the Mexicans at Matamoros with the intent to attack the people of Texas. 200
When rumors of Indian attacks and alliances were thus flying back and forth across the border, is it to be wondered at that General Gaines felt it incumbent upon him to take up an advanced position across the Sabine? 201
On the whole it is difficult to see how a President could have been animated by a more scrupulous regard for the proper observance of our neutral relations on the part both of the government and of the people than characterized Jackson's attitude during the last two years of his administration. And equally scrupulous it may be said was the government as to its obligations as a neutral touching the question of annexation. 202
To the cause of Texas independence, Kentucky gave of her sons and means unstintedly. General Felix Huston writing from Natchez in the spring of 1836 has this to say: “I wish to get some men from Kentucky. There is no difficulty in getting as many as I want there, but more difficulty in rejecting those I do not want.” 203 With one exception no trace has been found of any opposition being offered by Kentuckians to the annexation of Texas. In the Lexington Intelligencer of July 12, 1836, appeared an interesting article in which the writer urges the people of Texas to avoid any connection with the Southern States; to forbid the immigration of slaves or slaveholders, and pictures all the benefits which would flow from a population of free men. 204 But as events were destined to show, his was a voice crying in the wilderness, and his arguments fell upon deaf ears. In this connection it is to be remarked that in all the resolutions which were drawn up in Kentucky calling upon the United States government to recognize the independence of Texas, there is no suggestion whatever of the benefits that would accrue to the South by the possible acquisition of new territory being opened up to slavery. According to one of the leading Kentucky journals, six newspapers in the State were opposed to the annexation of Texas, but the names of these are not given. 205 The attitude of the press of the State as a whole is no doubt more faithfully reflected in a quotation found in the Kentucky Gazette of July 7, 1836, which is copied from the New Orleans Bee: “But for Presidents Monroe and Adams, Texas would long have been what she should be a State of the American Union.”
While urging the propriety of a recognition of the independence of Texas by the United States in the Senate of Kentucky, one of the members used these words: “Kentucky has been to Texas what France was to the British Colonies—she has furnished her with soldiers and money and advocated her cause in the face of the world.” 206 A correspondent of the Louisville Public Advertiser of June 2 writes: “Kentucky may claim a large portion of the glory acquired in the late decisive victory over Santa Anna on the San Jacinto. We have felt and bled for the safety of our brethren in Texas.” 207
Both of these statements, though exaggerated, nevertheless, contain an element of truth. Kentucky afforded the struggling Texans moral and material assistance at a time when such aid was urgently needed. With justice she might lay claim to no small share of the “generous sympathy so abundantly manifested by the people of the United States.” 208
The paramount interest of California history lies, not in the vicissitudes of settlers in the country, but in the search for a road thither. There neither was nor is any short or easy way of reaching El Dorado; and, from the days of the conqueror of Mexico to the present, the wrecks of lives and reputations have been strewn along the many paths by which men have essayed to reach this land.
In contrast with the coast of California—by which was once designated the whole stretch from Cape San Lucas to Unalaska—the Atlantic seaboard of North America lies open to Europe. To it there was but one line of approach for an expanding western civilization, and the problem of this approach was solved once and for all by Columbus and Cabot. Henceforward the nations—Spanish, Portuguese, English, French, or Dutch—might come, for the way lay open and direct.
To the Pacific Coast, on the other hand, no direct approach was possible. Between western Europe and California there lie, not the oceans merely, but the great land masses of the globe. These obstacles are the primary consideration in her history, which assumes ever new aspects with the opening of new routes. The history of the Spanish period is the record of land expeditions from the south and of hazardous voyages on difficult and uncharted coasts. The short period of Mexican domination witnessed the coming of the Americans from the eastward overland through the wilderness, and of new ventures on the coast by American ships. The conquest in 1846 was but the prelude to the coming of the Argonauts by sea and land, over routes new and old. The conditions created by this mad influx had scarcely been reduced to order when a new chapter was opened with the completion of the first transcontinental railroad. Such, moreover, is the recognition of the importance of these approaches that, in spreading out the unwritten page for a newer chapter, the people of California are preparing to mark its importance with the frontispiece of a great international pageant.
The history of the one hundred and forty years since the first Europeans settled in California turns thus upon the approaches by which men have reached her shores. Back of this period there lie two and a quarter centuries of similar endeavor so that the entire scope of European activity on the coast is unified by one special interest.
To appreciate the significance of these endeavors it is necessary to disabuse one's mind of the idea, expressed in its accepted form by Bishop Berkeley, that the expansion of the nations follows the path of the setting sun. This is an idea evidently born of the movement across the Atlantic; and is one that could not possibly have originated on the western side of the continent. From the standpoint of the Pacific Ocean the question is not merely of Spaniards and Englishmen crossing the Atlantic Ocean and the American continent, but of Russians making their way eastward across Asia and leaving us a memorial of their ambitions in the name of the Russian River; and, further, of the hitherward overflowing of oriental nations that has created in perpetuity the problem of Asiatic exclusion. When the time comes for a new interpretation of the movements of expansion the old conception of a western line of advance may give place to the idea that civilization, spreading out from an original focus in eastern Asia, after traversing equal distances to the east and to the west, is drawing to a new focus on this spot which is opposite the first but on the other side of the world.
It is unnecessary to dwell upon the fact that the earlier explorations of great land masses were, of necessity, made in ships. The world of ancient history was confined to the shores of the Mediterranean Sea; and even today, with all the modern facilities for overland travel, the seaboards of the world are infinitely better known than the inland parts of the continents. Theoretically, in order to reach California from Europe, it was necessary, at the beginning, to pass round either one or other of the two great land masses of the globe. There were thus four possible approaches: the explorer might sail eastward to the north of Europe or to the south of Africa; or he might sail westward to the north or to the south of the American continent. One only of these four has been used as a route to the Pacific Coast, though each of them has in turn been tried. The northern routes are ice-bound, while that by “The Cape” presents no advantages over the South American route to compensate for the greater length of the voyage it entails. The route by Cape Horn was itself so long and hazardous that the search for an available alternative was eagerly pursued. After centuries of effort the only possible alternative—one first proposed in 1523—is now being made ready by the government of the United States.
The first explorations of the California coast were not dependent, however, on the use of the long sea routes. They were the inevitable sequel to the conquest of Mexico. The efforts of Cortés disclosed no such wonders, however, as had been described by Ordoñez de Montalvo, and can scarcely be called successful from any point of view. The two ships he sent out in 1532 never returned. In 1533 the Concepción and San Lázaro discovered the extremity of the peninsula, but were otherwise unfortunate. The expedition of 1535, led by Cortés himself, landed at the bay of Santa Cruz, possibly La Paz, but failed in the purpose of establishing a colony. Finally, the expedition under Francisco de Ulloa, in 1539, which was the supreme effort of Cortés, succeeded in exploring the Gulf of California to its head and the outer coast to about the latitude of 28°.
The viceroy, Antonio de Mendoza, next took up the burden of northward exploration. To co-operate with Coronado in the search for the famous Seven Cities of Cibola he sent Hernando d'Alarcón, in 1540, by sea to the head of the gulf. Mendoza had no better fortune than Cortés in discovering fabulous lands and cities, but by his next venture, the expedition under Cabrillo and Ferrelo, in 1542, the California coast was explored to 40° 26’. The return of Ferrelo marks the conclusion of the first period of California exploration—when next the scene opens interests of quite another character are disclosed.
In 1566 Urdaneta crossed the Pacific Ocean from the Philippine Islands to Mexico and demonstrated the practicability of this voyage. The route thus marked out brought the returning galleons to the American coast in the vicinity of Cape Mendocino, and further examination of the coast thus became a matter of necessity. It required, however, the stimulus of Francis Drake to bring the Spanish government to the point of ordering this exploration to be made.
Considering the great extent and complexity of Spanish interests in the old world and the new, it is scarcely just to attribute delay in any one particular undertaking to mere negligence. The difference between the Spanish and English methods of colonizing lay primarily in the fact that while England availed herself of the initiative of her subjects and stepped in to take advantages of their enterprise, Spain insisted that active initiative might come only from the government. Thus it happened on this coast that, time after time, the Spanish crown neglected to take important steps that had been urgently recommended by officials in America, until forced to do so by the energy of the subjects of other powers. Whatever the policy of Spain may have been at any time in regard to the north Pacific Coast, her activities may be traced in practically every instance to the movements of foreigners. Even the explorations of Cortés, inevitable as they would appear, were influenced by his discovery in 1524 that a ship—presumably Portuguese from India—had been wrecked upon the Jalisco coast.
In was the voyage of Drake in 1579, followed by that of Cavendish in 1588, that impelled the Spanish government to act upon the recommendations that had been made for a fuller exploration of the California coast. The position of Spain in regard to the coast might be described by saying that the possession of Mexico gave her the advantage of interior lines of communication. Drake, on the other hand, may be said to have turned the flank of the Spanish position by demonstrating the feasibility of the long detour round South America. The Pacific Ocean was henceforth open to all Europeans, notwithstanding the strategic position occupied by the Spanish power. The attack made by Drake, particularly as it was followed up by Cavendish, was disconcerting, and the more so as it was believed that he had actually found a Northwest passage back to England. Drake was in fact the precursor of Cook in the search for such a passage from the Pacific side, but he returned from his great venture by way of the Cape of Good Hope. Of greatest interest, perhaps, is the fact that his was the first voyage to California made directly from Europe, and, in that sense, he opened the only approach generally available to Europeans for nearly three centuries.
The voyages of Sebastián Vizcaino in 1596 and 1602 were the Spanish reply to these English incursions into the Pacific Ocean. Vizcaino was directed to search for such a harbor as would be suitable for Philippine ships to visit on the returning voyage from Manila; and to discover, if possible, the strait to the Atlantic. The highest point reached by the second expedition was in the vicinity of Cape Blanco—42° or 43°. The ports of San Diego and Monterey were visited and described, but nearly one hundred and seventy years were to elapse before another Drake could induce the Spanish government to act upon Vizcaino's recommendations.
It was not until the year 1768 that the Spanish authorities took up the subject of colonizing Alta California where it had been dropped in 1603. During this interval some progress had been made towards establishing land routes northward through the peninsula and by way of Pimería Alta. These results were due almost exclusively to the devotion of the Jesuit missionaries—particularly Father Kino. Exploration of the exterior coast there had been none, though the sailing-directions of González Cabrera Bueno, published in Manila in 1734, show a very considerable advance in knowledge. English seamen had touched the coast of Lower California, especially in the earlier years of the eighteenth century—William Dampier (1686, 1704, 1709), Woodes Rogers (1709), George Shelvocke (1721)—but they had been more sincerely interested in the movements of the Manila ships than in making contributions to geographical knowledge.
When the Spanish government awakened ultimately to the need of occupying Upper California the preparations were conducted with so much vigor and determination as to indicate reasons of the utmost urgency for the step. The reasons were, in brief, that other nations were actively engaged in opening up approaches to California. In 1768 the council that determined upon the immediate occupation of San Diego and Monterey founded its opinion in regard to the necessity of this undertaking upon the advances that other nations were making towards this unoccupied territory. The pressure thus exerted came from the four quarters of the globe and California appears as the objective point towards which not only Spain, but England, Russia, France, and Holland were moving. The council referred specifically to the discoveries that had been made eastward by Russia; to the efforts that France had made westward from Canada, and which, since 1763, were being continued by England; to the search for the Northwest passage conducted by England not only from the Atlantic but from the Pacific Ocean; to the intimate knowledge of the Pacific Coast that had been acquired, on the one hand by Lord Anson, and on the other by the Dutch coming from the East Indies.
The decision having been made, the visitador-general, Don Joseph Gálvez, took charge of despatching the California expedition of which Don Gaspár de Portolá was appointed commander. The force at Portolá's disposal was divided into four parts—two going by land and two by sea. The divisions assembled at San Diego, and, on the 14th of June, set out from that place in search of the port of Monterey. The expedition reached San Francisco Bay in the first days of November, having been unable to identify Monterey from the descriptions of Vizcaino and Gonzalez Cabrera Bueno. It was not, therefore, until the month of June, 1770, that a post was established at the latter port.
The founding of presidios and missions at San Diego and Monterey did not wholly relieve the anxiety of the authorities in Mexico, and, even before the additional explorations of the coast during which Juan Manuel de Ayala sailed the San Carlos into San Francisco Bay in 1775, it was considered necessary to send out a ship to investigate the Russian settlements to the north. Accordingly Juan Pérez, in 1774, made a voyage in the Santiago to 54° 40’, the southern extremity of Alaska. This was the first of a very notable series of exploring expeditions made with the purpose of validating the Spanish claims to the entire coast. In 1775, Heceta and Bodega; in 1779, Arteaga and Bodega; in 1788, Martínez and Haro; in 1790, Elisa, Fidalgo, and Quimper, commanded ships that reached the Alaska coast. The years 1789 and 1790 were full of activity on account of the Nootka Sound controversy; but before the actual conclusion of the incident, which terminated Spain's interests north of California, Alejandro Malaspina, with the Descubierta and Atrevida, had visited Nootka in 1791 during his voyage round the world, while Galiano and Valdés, in the Sutil and Mexicana, made the last, and the best known, of these expeditions in 1792.
As a result of these voyages Spain is entitled to the honor of having made the first explorations of the Pacific Coast as far north, at least, as Queen Charlotte Island. Owing, unfortunately, to the secrecy of the Spanish government the records of the voyages were not published—in fact have not yet been published—and the names given by the earliest explorers have not been retained. From the point of view of Spanish territorial interests these activities on the Northwest coast can only be regarded as aggressive measures designed to protect the settlements in California from the approach of other powers. In this they were entirely successful—it was not until 1812, when the Spanish power in America was nearing its end, that the Russians founded the colony in California that had been a subject of apprehension to Gálvez in 1768.
Of the four possible approaches to California, two, as I have said, would naturally be sought eastward by the north of Europe and westward by the north of America. The best energies of the seafaring nations have been expended in the search for the Northeast and Northwest passages, and it has only been after demonstration beyond question of their impracticability that the necessity of accepting overland substitutes has been admitted.
As early as 1553, and again in 1580, English ships were sent out to search for a Northeast route to the Pacific Ocean. These were followed by Dutch expeditions in 1594, 1595, and 1596; but, though many attempts were made, the accomplishment of the voyage was reserved for Nordenskjöld in 1879.
The opening of the corresponding land route across Asia was the step preliminary to Russian activities in Northwestern America. The transcontinental advance beyond the Ural Mountains is dated as beginning in 1578, and Okhotsk was reached in 1639, “thus completing the march across the continent of Asia, in its broadest part, in about sixty years.” By 1706 the Russians had penetrated to the southern extremity of the peninsula of Kamchatka, and ten years later the Okhotsk Sea was crossed for the first time.
The navigations in which we are more directly interested date from 1728 when, by order of Peter the Great, Vitus Bering explored the eastern extremity of Asia. The second Russian expedition was sent out by the empress Elizabeth. Six years were required to convey the men and materials across Siberia, so that it was June 1741 before Bering and Chirikof sailed from Avatcha Bay. The two vessels composing the expedition soon lost sight of each other with the result that the continent of America was discovered independently by each ship. Chirikof made land at Bucareli Bay on July 15, while Bering reached the vicinity of Copper River on July 20. The misfortunes and sufferings of the crews were extreme, but while Chirikof succeeded in returning to Kamchatka, Bering died, December 8, 1741, on the island which now bears his name.
The fur trade had led the Russians across Asia, and adventurous spirits were at once attracted by it to the shores of Alaska, so it came about that fur hunters played the same part of explorers and pioneers on these northern coasts as in the western parts of the United States. While it is unnecessary for my present purpose to follow the exploration of the Alaska coast in detail, the secret expedition of Krenitzen and Levashef, in 1768-69, may be mentioned for the reason that it was contemporary with the Spanish expedition that resulted in the settlement of California. As the undertaking had been set on foot by the empress Catherine in 1764 there is no improbability in supposing that information in regard to it had been communicaed to his own government by the Spanish ambassador in St. Petersburg.
There can, it seems to me, be no reasonable doubt that Russia, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, cherished designs of a far-reaching character in regard to the North Pacific Ocean. Her interest was by no means confined to Alaska. Explorations were systematically made on the Asiatic coast as far south as Japan, and on the American coast as far south as Lower California. Under Baranof, one of the most striking figures in American history, two positions were occupied in the Hawaiian Islands, a fortified post was established in California—first at Bodega Head, and later at Fort Ross—and hunting stations were maintained on the Faralones outside San Francisco Bay, and on the islands off Santa Barbara. Whatever projects there were, and Russian commanders of the time in the Pacific speak with confidence, the foothold in California was abandoned in 1841; by 1854 proposals had been made to the United States for the cession of Alaska, and the Russian empire in America came to an end in 1867. Thus the eastward yielded to the westward advance.
The search for the Northwest passage continued from 1497, when John Cabot discovered the entrance to Hudson Strait, until 1907, when Amundsen completed his four years' voyage by sailing into San Francisco Bay. It is an interesting illustration of the view here set forth that the ship in which the navigation of the Northwest passage was finally accomplished now floats upon a pond in Golden Gate Park.
Up to the beginning of the eighteenth century so little had been done towards elucidating the geography of the north and northwest of America that it would be unsuitable, in the present instance, to go into details respecting the earlier explorations. The activity shown by Peter the Great in sending out Bering was not confined to Russia, the commercial ambitions of other European nations, particularly England and France, led, at the same period, to world-wide explorations looking to the development of foreign trade. As one of the great unexplored areas of the globe was the Pacific Ocean, it was inevitable that the search for a Northwest passage would be taken up again with renewed vigor. The new advocate of the quest was Arthur Dobbs, and owing to his persistence three expeditions were sent out before the middle of the century. The Hudson's Bay Company equipped two ships which sailed in 1737 but never returned. The English government detailed two ships in 1741 which did not get beyond the confines of Hudson's Bay. Finally, Dobbs succeeded in raising sufficient money by public subscription to send out two ships more in 1746. One of these Dobbs named the California, thus indicating the further object of the undertaking; and it is of interest to know that the scheme for which Dobbs could obtain such generous support contemplated that “if a discovery should be made of this passage, ... a considerable settlement should be made in California; ... that settlement should be made the rendezvous for all ships going from or returning to Europe, ... and should be the head settlement, as Batavia is to the Dutch in India, and from hence the trade might spread to Asia, India, Mexico, and Peru; and from this place the islands in the great South Sea might be discovered, and a commerce be begun with them.”
The exploration of the South Sea did not wait upon the charting of a Northwest passage. After Anson's voyage (1740), Byron (1764), Wallis and Carteret (1766), and Captain Cook (1768, 1772, 1776) continued the work he had commenced of exploring the Pacific Ocean—and of alarming the Spanish authorities in regard to the safety of their possessions. Cook's third voyage was made for the purpose of examining the northwest coast for a passage or strait to the Atlantic; this was not found, but the indirect result of the voyage was the beginning of the fur trade on the northwest coast by English and American ships. The opposition of the Spanish authorities in Mexico to this trade led to the Nootka Sound controversy which gave world-wide prominence to the northwest coast and terminated Spain's claims to sovereignty north of California. Before the Nootka affair had been finally settled between England and Spain the United States had acquired a first footing on the Pacific through the discovery of the Columbia River by Captain Gray on May 11, 1792. The next year, moreover, the continent was crossed for the first time.
The progress of the French across the continent that gave concern to Gálvez and the junta of 1768 in the city of Mexico, reached its farthest point west in La Vérendrye's discovery of the Rocky Mountains in January, 1743. Years elapsed, however, before this discovery was followed up, and then it was by English fur traders. In 1769 Samuel Hearne was sent out by the Hudson's Bay Company and before his return in 1772 had reached the Arctic Ocean at the mouth of the Coppermine River. In 1789 Alexander Mackenzie, a member of the Northwest Company, explored to its mouth the river that bears his name; four years later he crossed the Canadian Rockies and reached the Pacific Ocean opposite Queen Charlotte Island on the 22d of July, 1793.
It was not Mackenzie's route, however, but that of Lewis and Clark that proved to be the long-sought substitute for the northwesterly route to California. The line of approach in the latter case was by the Missouri River, which had previously been explored as far as the Mandan nation in North Dakota by the subjects of Spain in Upper Louisiana. Lewis and Clark made the overland journey from St. Louis to the mouth of the Columbia River and return between 1804 and 1806. In reality the American approach to California involves the entire history of the “westward movement” from ocean to ocean. By this expedition, joined with the purchase of Louisiana in 1803, it was advanced to the Pacific Ocean. With the acquisition of Louisiana fur traders and trappers overran the new territory and penetrated again beyond the contiguous Spanish frontier. So by the end of the third decade of the nineteenth century the first beginnings of the overland stream of American immigration appear in California in the persons of Jedediah Smith (1826) and the two Patties (1828).
The contrast between the Spanish and English methods of colonization are nowhere more apparent than in the respective approaches of the Spaniard and American to California. Not so much as an adventurer had penetrated to Alta California from the southward when in 1769, an expedition under the direct auspices of a minister of the crown, led by an officer in the Spanish army, accompanied by friars duly appointed as missionaries, set out for the purpose of establishing a government at Monterey and San Diego. Not until the machinery was installed did the authorities in Mexico turn their attention to promoting settlement.
On the American side a period of conflict with Spanish neighbors across the Mississippi was ended suddenly by the Louisiana purchase. American frontiersmen and traders instantly crossed the river to exploit the new land, and within a quarter of a century had opened paths into every part of it. Where these adventurers led the American government followed—tardily. So in Oregon there arose the curious anomaly of a joint occupancy, while the American settlers in Texas had erected and maintained an independent government before their own extended its protection over them. The American approach to California was begun by individuals making their way there by sea round the Horn and overland across the continent; it was made effective by the establishment of American government in Oregon and Texas. When this had been accomplished it was obvious that a continued hold by Mexico on this territory was strategically impossible.
Nevertheless a great barrier of mountains, chasms, and deserts lay between California and the country east of the Rocky Mountains and it is not at all certain that a Pacific Republic would not have arisen if the railroad had not provided a new approach.
In the long run, however, it has been realized that something more than a railroad is necessary—a country can not be colonized effectively on the basis of the expenditure incidental to transcontinental travel. Hence it is that the discovery of a route by water has lost none of its importance with time. We go back now in the twentieth century to create the route dreamed of in the sixteenth century, and utilized in anticipation, one might say, by the buccaneers of the seventeenth. The canal at Panama has many justifications but principally is it important, in the eyes of a Californian, because it brings Europe as near as is physically possible to his own shores.
I have now indicated the lines of approach that have been followed by Europeans in reaching the remote coast of California. With the other half of the subject, the lines of approach by which the peoples of Asia have reached the same place, it is not a present intention to speak further than to say that the expansion of oriental nations has more than once brought European civilization to the test, and that the brunt of a great oriental expansion confronts this western outpost of European civilization. It can not be supposed that laws of our own promulgation will of themselves afford us protection when the dense masses of China, for example, discover that the barrier of the ocean is no longer impassable.
III ABERDEEN TO ELLIOT 209
No 17. Foreign Office November 3d. 1842. Sir,
With reference to my Despatch No 15 of the 3d. ultimo upon the subject of the Relations between Mexico and Texas, I inclose to you, for your information Copies of a communication which I have received from Mr Ashbel Smith, and of a correspondence which I have held with Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, having reference to that subject. 210
Aberdeen. Captain Elliot. R. N.
ELLIOT TO ADDINGTON 211
Private. Galveston. November 15th. 1842 My Dear Sir,
I have to acknowledge and thank you for Your Note of the 3d Ultimo. 212 The President is General Houston of your acquaintance, and I am sure that your friendly recollection of him will afford him great pleasure. His career during too large an interval between that time and this, has been strange and wild. Defiance of, and expulsion from a branch of the Legislature of which he was a Member, a domestic tempest of desperate violence, and calamitous consequences, habitual drunkeness, a residence of several years amongst the Cherokee Indians, ruling amongst them as a Chieftain, and begetting sons and daughters, a sudden reappearance on this Stage with better hopes and purposes, and commensurate success, but still with unreclaimed habits.
Finally however, a new Connexion with a young and gentle woman brought up in the fear of God; conquered no doubt as women have been from the beginning and will be to the end by a glosing tongue, but in good revenge making conquest of his habits of tremendous cursing, and passionate love of drink. Whatever General Houston has been, it is plain that He is the fittest man in this Country for his present station. His education has been imperfect, but he possesses great sagacity and penetration, surprising tact in his management of men trained as men are in these parts, is perfectly pure handed and moved in the main by the inspiring motive of desiring to connect his name with a Nation's rise. Adverting to his general safe and reasonable policy with respect to Mexico, it must certainly be admitted that He sometimes says and writes what appears to be capricious and contradictory.
But the truth is that He knows his own people thoroughly, and when He seems to be running with them, He is probably satisfied that opposition would only provoke their precipitate purposes. With hard fare at the point of assembly, skilful delays on the part of the President, and an abundant measure of mutual laudation, the fit passes away innocently enough.—
You desire me to remark that the release of the “Montezuma,” and the disallowance of the Blockade are not to be taken as evidences of ill will to Texas or partiality to Mexico There will be no difficulty in making the President understand this because his conceptions are founded upon larger notions of direct motives, and straight proceedings than those of most men in this Republic. In regard to the public, the case is different. The suspiciousness of the United States races, and absurd imputation of the policy and conduct of our Government to recondite Motives, and perfidious purposes, afford unhappily the most convincing and distressing proof of their own twistiness and unfriendly feeling. They cannot believe in open or fair dealing, because, speaking generally, they are without the ideas or impulses which makes such conduct intelligible. The consequence of this moral and blundering blindness is manifesting itself just now amongst the good folks of Texas in a pretty general belief that Her Majesty's Government are sitting early and late in London, debating to and fro, how to compass the strangulation of this young Hercules, and it is probable that we shall have some songs to that tune during the approaching Session of Congress.
Driven away by some of those springs of local politics, feuds and jealousies, which run into such long streams of talk and knavis[h]ness, on this side of the Atlantic, and are so insignificent and unintelligible every where else, the President has convened Congress to assemble at Washington on the Brazos, where there are 12 or 13 Wooden shanties, and to which place there are no means of getting except in an ox train, or on a Bât horse. My worthy American Colleague Mr. Eve, who is suffering from indisposition, has requested me to wait till He is well enough to accompany me, for the sake of Company, and better protection against Indians, or Mexicans, or wild beasts, and we are then to set forth to this Legislature in the Provinces with such appointments to do Honor to our respective Countries, as may find place in two pair of Saddle Bags.—The President writes to me in a private Note a few days since, that He finds things at Washington rather raw and as He has been accustomed to the elaborate comforts and luxuries of an Indian Wigwam, I presume he must be living in a commodious excavation.
Meditating on the situation and prospect of this Country, and other interests connected with it, I cannot help lamenting more and more that free labor has not been its foundation Stone. The advantages to the Country itself would have been vast indeed, not merely on the results springing from Men's sense that they were laboring for their own and their Childrens' advantage, not merely in beginning upon sound, instead of rotten principles, not merely in drawing to the land much larger proportions of the orderly and enterprizing settlers from the free States of the American Union rather than the reckless people of the South, but because immediately considered it would have left Texas clear of a very dangerous state of circumstances, if the Mexicans do invade the Country, and indeed I cannot but think that to have made Texas a fine State, would have been at once to disarm the hostility of Mexico against it's consolidation, and advancement.
Texas, with a free population would of course have been an object of great dislike and suspicion to the South Western States of America, and therefore an effectual barrier between them and Mexico. And it is manifestly the permanent interest of this Country to cultivate more intimate and friendly relations with the people and things Westward of the Rio Grande, than with those East of the Sabine. If wise Councils could be heard here, I think they point to a course which it may not yet be too late to pursue, and which I do fairly believe would be attended with vast advantages to this Country, to our own substantial concernment, and to the great interests of humanity. My scheme supposes another Convention in this Country. Slavery to be abolished, the entire abolition of political disabilities upon people of Colour, perfectly free trade to be declared to be a fundamental principle; the right of voting to depend upon a knowledge of reading and writing, and a pretty high money contribution to the State, with the payment charge to be made in advance, Congress to have power to lower the rate from time to time according to the state of the public necessities; stringent legislation against squatting, in the form of a land tax and otherwise, improvements upon the well established failure and folly of a yearly elected Legislature and other liberality of the rhodomontade school.
It seems to be scarcely doubtful that the Northern and North Eastern part of Mexico, from Tampico on the East Coast, to San Blas on the West, (involving the most important parts of the Country) would soon find it their interest to join a State founded upon such principles, or at all events constrain their own Government with the adoption of an equally liberal scheme of Commercial policy.
Foreign Merchants, foreign Capital, and foreign enterprize and principles would soon find their way into those great and rich regions by peaceful means, and the power of the United States on this Continent would be gradually balanced, and yet without motive for collision; Indeed it seems possible enough that the North Eastern States would not be disturbed to see the power of the South and West effectually limited, and a bound marked, beyond which Slavery could not advance. In all such speculation the question immediately presents itself how it is reasonable to expect that a Legislature of Slave Holders will ever consent to make a present sacrifice for a prospective and remote advantage. I have had much experience of such bodies and I know that they talk violently of holding on to their property to the last gasp, of the lawfulness of the System, of the sanction of it in the Bible, Abraham's Slaves. J. L. 213 and then there are always many hard words about Irish Slaves and press gangs and the like. But in the main, their circumstances make them a timid and needy people, and ready enough to compound reasonably for a monied consideration
Neither do I doubt that a sufficient loan could be readily raised in England to enable this Government to compensate the present Slave Holders, upon the frank and full adoption of such a system as I have spoken of. I attach great importance to the entire abolition of disability upon people of Colour. Such a Stipulation would at once bring into this Republic tens of thousands of most abused and intelligent people from the United States, and would be exceedingly agreeable to a very influential and wealthy party in our own Country. The present conjuncture is particularly favorable for the Commercial part of the scheme, by reason of the late foolish tariff in the United States. 214 Your kind note has enabled me to trouble you with new thoughts, inadequately expressed, and clumsily thrown together, but I beg you to believe not hastily adopted. In a former part of my Official career I had much reason to think upon the subject of Slavery, and to watch it's effects, and I have long since formed the opinion that bad as it is to the enslaved, it is ten times worse to the enslaver, and to the Country in which it obtains. It is a rot at the heart of society, debasing the Master Classes more and more, robbing prosperity of all sense of security, and frightfully aggravating the calamities and the risks of adversity.
I am perfectly sensible that it does not consist with the principles or policy of Her Majesty's Government to interfere with the Institutions of other Countries, and I feel I need scarcely say to you that situated as I am I should guardedly abstain from offering any opinion here upon this Subject. If I were approached upon it, and you are perfectly aware that it is just one of those topics upon which the motives and purposes of H. M. Governt. are so absurdly misconceived about, I should say, that Her Majesty's Government would of course expect a faithful fulfilment of the Slave treaty with this or any other Country, that the abhorrence of the British Nation to the system of Slavery in The Queen's Dominions, had been manifested before the whole world by a costly sacrifice, but that nothing could be further from the intentions of Her Majesty's Government than to interfere with the Institutions of other Countries. It has occurred to me that it might be useful if Lord Aberdeen would be pleased to give me authority to pay a visit to Mexico on leave of absence, if I saw reason to think that my representations on that question might smooth away some of the difficulty in the adjustment of this mischevious contest, but in making this remark I take the liberty to say that I have no personal wishes upon the subject, and have merely mentioned it because I consider it my duty to declare whatever I think may be of advantage to the public Service. I feel assured that you will accept this declaration literally.
It is the bare truth that personally speaking I am weary of going and coming, and would think it my greatest blessing if I had when [been] invitted to sit down (upon the most modest footing) for the rest of my days very far off from public life or politics of any kind. I hope you will not consider this tedious letter to be an intrusion, that the conjuncture with respect to this Country is so important that I conclude you will be content to hear [more] advice upon the subject, than might be the case, if it had passed through it's troubles.
Charles Elliot. To H. U. Addington, Esqr. etc. P. S. If any North American Mails should come to you after the arrival of this one conveying these letters without communications from me, perhaps you will be so good as to ascribe the omission to my absence at Washington. Communications between that place and the Coast are quite uncertain.—May I beg you to offer my best respects to Lord Aberdeen and Lord Canning Charles Elliot
KENNEDY TO BIDWELL 215
Liverpool, November 16th, 1842. Sir.
I beg to inform you that I shall embark today at Liverpool for New Orleans, on my way to my post at Galveston.
William Kennedy. John Bidwell, Esq. etc.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 216
Secret. Galveston November 16th. 1842. My Lord,
A private letter from the President of which the inclosed is a copy has this moment reached me, and as the Steam Boat is upon the point of sailing to New Orleans, I have no time to offer any observations upon the Subject; but it must be unnecessary to say to Your Lordship that I am prepared for any Service which may be committed to me.
The indisposition of my Colleague Mr. Eve has detained me here at his request till He should be well enough to accompany me to Washington, where however we shall proceed in the course of a day or two.
Affairs remain in the Situation reported in my last despatches.
Charles Elliot. To the Right Honorable. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T. etc.
HOUSTON TO ELLIOT 217
[Enclosure.] Private. Washington 5th. November 1842 My Dear Sir.
I am about to present a suggestion to You, and I hope it will claim your indulgent consideration. It is quite novel in it's character and would to one, not perfectly acquainted with my direct way of business, require some apology.
You are aware of my intense anxiety for peace with Mexico. To obtain it I do not care to pursue formal means. I know of no Gentleman, whose agency in my estimation would go farther in the attainment of the object than your own were it possible to obtain your personal Services. Should it be agreeable for you to be so employed I am well aware that the permission of Your Government (of Her Majesty The Queen) will be necessary. This you could do, if you may deem it proper, and the sacrifice is not too great upon your part. I can claim nothing on behalf of My Country or myself individually of Captain Elliot, but I desire to hope everything for Texas.
I had the pleasure to peruse your despatch to the State Department, and regret the bearing which attached to a portion of the protest. It will be rectified forthwith. It was owing as I presume to a misapprehension of the revocation of the Blockade on the part of the Acting Secretary of State, as I feel pretty well assured, that as the Archives had not arrived, that He could not refer to the Proclamation, and I am not certain, as He had been absent that He had ever seen it; as we had no Mails to the Eastward, where He was at the time it was promulgated.
Nothing conclusive has been heard of the treaty with the Indians, but as usual I hope for the best.
As Congress is called to convene on the 14th Inst. it will afford me great pleasure to see Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires. It will be of much importance to Texas if you could be here one or two days previous to the 14th.
Mrs. H. as well as myself have been quite indisposed for some ten or fifteen days, but are now pretty well with a hope of better health.
It will afford me much pleasure to hear from you by Mr. Scott on his return. I have many thanks to render you for past favors.
And beseech you to regard me as faithfully Thine.
Sam. Houston. The Honble. Charles Elliot. etc.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 218
No. 15. 219 Houston. November 24th. 1842. My Lord.
In reply to Your Lordship's despatch No. 16 of the 18th Ultimo, I have now the honor to transmit the requested information, and I remain.
Charles Elliot. To the Right Honorable The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T. etc.
The whole force came out under American Colours, as Merchant Vessels, bringing freight and Passengers; But with their Armament in their respective holds, completely fitted, and ready to go into their places; Powder, shot, stores, and provisions, for six Months.
With the exception of the Steamer “Zavala” the whole Squadron was supplied by the firm of “Wm. Dawson &Co. of Baltimore”; British Subjects by birth, but I am unable to say whether they have not assumed the privileges of Citizens of the United States.
The Steam Vessel Zavala was supplied by Samuel Hamilton of Charleston
Charles Elliot. Houston Novr. 24th. 1842.
ABERDEEN TO ELLIOT 220
Draft. Captn. Elliot. No. 19. F. O. Decr. 3. 1842. Sir,
I have to acquaint You in reply to Your Despatch No. 5 of the 1st of September, addressed to Mr. Addington, that under the circumstances therein stated, H. M's Govt. approve of Your residing usually at Galveston, instead of Austin; And in the present unsettled state of the Country, I leave it to your discretion to reside, according to circumstances, wherever You may consider Your presence most conducive to the Interests intrusted to Your Charge.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 221
Private. Galveston. December 11th, 1842. My Dear Sir.
Since I had the pleasure of writing to you on the 15th Ultimo, I have been to Washington, but my stay there was shortened by the necessity of returning for advice and care on account of a bad accident which befell me on the way up—The Steam boat in which we were going to Houston struck the ground at night, and the tarpaulin leaven within me moved me to go out, and watch the people heaving her off. A hatch had been carelessly left open, and I stepped down into the hold; a friendly bale of cotton bringing me up with just jerk enough to dislocate a rib.
For the first day or two I did not feel the pain very acutely, and being anxious to see the President, I thought that with fast bracing, and lacing, and gentle riding I might bear the stress of the journey, but I find now that it would have been more prudent to take the Doctor's urgent advice, and abide at Houston. At least 50 Miles of the way was through a quick sandy bog, and rough riding, and a Blanket on the plank (which last retirement I preferred to half Judge his bed!!) have not helped me. However I am one of the best practised men of my time to strange accidents, and hard rubs of all kinds, and I hope to come straight enough again, for all that is come and gone.
I found as I anticipated that the President needed no explanation respecting the release of the “Montezuna” and the disallowance of the blockade. He said he would detail to me what he understood to be the Motives of Her Majesty's Government, and He had certainly perfectly apprehended them. Being upon the topic, He requested me to present his Compliments to Lord Aberdeen, and say that the tone of Mr. Ashbell Smith's correspondence relating to the release of the “Montezuna” had been a Subject of much concern to him. That Gentleman's natural and laudable anxiety for the interest of his Country had rather hurried and misled him, but He owed it to him to state that his subsequent communications to Texas had frankly and fully admitted his own error. 222 The President for his own part knew the British Government never meant any thing else than it said, and never performed less than it promised. He had the most abiding confidence in the Neutral professions, and very friendly dispositions of Her Majestys Government.
He then took occasion to place in my hand a letter marked “Private and Confidential” from General Hamilton dated at Washington in the United States sometime in the Month of October. 223 That Gentleman stated that He had recently had some Conversation with General Almonte, the Mexican Minister in the United States, upon the subject of the difficulties between Mexico and Texas, and thought He was reasonably disposed, rather than otherwise. General Hamilton concludes with the offer to be useful through that Channel, in any way that the President might suggest. The President wished it to be said to Lord Aberdeen that He entirely disclaimed this interference upon the part of General Hamilton. He [Houston] had direct official relations with this Government, [Great Britain] disposed to be helpful to Texas, and He considered it particularly due to Lord Aberdeen and to himself, to disavow all proceedings of the kind. He would employ no other channels of Communication than Official and responsible, and General Hamilton's proposal was the contrary of suitable or agreeable to him. As nearly as I can remember that was General Houston's express language, and He particularly requested that it should be conveyed to Lord Aberdeen as soon as convenient. I mentioned to him (with reference to his private letter to me forwarded in my Second Despatch to Lord Aberdeen of the 16th Ultimo) that I had sent it to England, and was of course ready for any course Her Majesty's Government might sanction.
He expressed himself very obligingly to me, and said that He had a belief that my visit to Mexico would be productive of advantage to this Country, and further the purposes of Her Majesty's Government. Whilst I was at Washington I spoke both to the President and the Attorney General upon the absolute necessity of adjusting the long delayed claims for the “Eliza Russell” and “Little Pen.” They both assured me that the first should be settled as soon as the Governt. could lay its hand upon a few dollars, which I must know they had not done since my arrival in the Country. With respect to the second, Mr. Terrell shewed me an opinion He had given just before my arrival upon a claim preferred by the Agents of Mesr. F. Lizardi, and Co., and excused himself and the Secy. of State for not acknowledging my note upon the subject, upon the plea of absence from the Seat of Government, and the removal of the papers from Houston. He did not say so, but I have otherwise reason to believe that they hoped to have been able to settle the claim for the “Eliza Russell” before this, and I presumed that they were averse to write till they could promise payment upon that account.
The case of the “Little Pen” is not free of difficulty, but it will be my duty to communicate upon this Subject Officially by the next opportunity, and therefore I say no more at present. These despatches carry you the President's Message to Congress. 224 He did me the favor to read it to me before it was submitted, and asked me what I thought of his finance scheme. I told him I was a very inadequate judge of such matters, but I must frankly admit that I could not think it would be efficacious. It appeared to me that the Cherokee land was no sufficient basis for the support of the Exchequer Bills in the Market. In the present state of this Country there was no raising funds upon the best improved land in the Republic; with the best titles, and in the least disturbed parts of it and therefore, casting no disparagement upon the Cherokee lands, it certainly seemed to me that their value was of rather too prospective a nature to serve as a solid foundation for an actual paper issue. So far as I could judge from all I had seen, or read, the single course for a Governt. and Country in the Situation of Texas was to be as economical as possible, to adhere with unfailing honesty to the declaration, and determination to pay their debts whenever they could, and to promote trade and industry by every means of encouragement.
In this view I had much hoped that the President would advise Congress to repeal the dishonest Bill of the July Session, 225 which would have the effect of making the Exchequer Notes receivable for Customs Imposts at their full value, then I thought that with resolutions of Congress forbidding the issue of another Dollar until the whole amount in circulation fell within such an amount as would be absorbed by the duties within a period of three Months, and future monthly publicity of the amount issued, and the amount absorbed, He might expect to keep up the value within some reasonable distance of a specie value. I had also hoped to see a recommendation to sweep away the ton-nage duty, which was no more than a device to prevent ships from coming to Texas, and to enhance the value of imports to a people that could ill enough afford to pay for them at the minimum price, at which they could be supplied. The tariff too at it's present rate (an average of at least 25 per Cent over the general mass of imports) might be lowered more than 50 per Cent, with great advantage to the revenue, and to the Consumer—And I could not [help] thinking it, would be worthy of his general wise course of policy to advise Congress to declare that it was expedient to lower the tariff to such a point as would serve to pay the expence of noting exports and imports for Statistical purposes and no more, as soon as the people had the common sense to pay their land and direct taxes, so that the Government might be supported in the way best suited to them on well understood interests.
The President required that the Custom duties at their present high rate should be paid in Gold and Silver, but I could not perceive how the Merchants were to get their Gold and Silver. They could only purchase it by bringing in less goods, and He must excuse me for saying (seeing that I was weak of stomach, and could not easily digest the modification of Sawdust, which they call “Corn bread”, that is bread made of Indian Corn) that flour, and coffee, and sugar, and clothes, were to the full as useful as Gold and Silver. The Merchants were already obliged to wait nearly two years for the produce returns for the goods they supplied to the Planters, and if those goods was to be charged with 25 per Cent more in the price, which would be at least necessary to cover the cost of the Gold and Silver duty payment, it seemed to me that they would all find a remedy for the mischief, by keeping the whole trade of the Country the wrong side of the Custom Houses.
The President answered this with a form of expression which He often uses—“My dear Commodore as soon as I have hung a dozen of these Smugglers, we will have no more of it; only let me execute them, Sir, and we shall get our revenues quite steadily.” I said that I did not pretend to dispute that hanging might be a very good thing in it's way, but I remarked that a very venerable Sovereign in whose Dominions I had passed several years of my life, and where the Laws were generally respected to the full as energetically as they are disregarded in other places, had tried the experiment of hanging, drawing and quartering for this peccadillo, wholly without effect. I believe He would be disposed to admit on reflection that the history of the whole world had found that Smuggling had always beat various fiscal systems, after immense loss, and great mischief of other kinds to the Governments and people where they had obtained. He shook his head at this, and was not prepared to agree with me—the truth is that General Houston has two sides to his understanding, one very clear indeed, and the other impenetrably dark. Let him speak of men, on public affairs, or the tone and temper of other Governments, and no one can see farther, or more clearly. The moment He turns to finance or fiscal arrangements, you find that he has been groping on the dark side of his mind.
I feel that I should offer you an excuse for troubling you so long upon this topic, but I cannot but think that it is an object of very considerable importance that this Country (situated as it is), should be launched upon sound principles in this respect. With Mexico upon one side, and the United States upon the other, it is much to be wished they should establish their own Commercial footing upon a sound basis.—A subject upon which General Houston's policy and personal feeling is particularly honorable and wise is the treatment of the Indians. He has adverted to it with his usual liberality on this occasion, and I cannot help thinking that it would fortify him in such purpose, and be attended with good general consequences, if Lord Aberdeen would notice that point in any manner that might seem suitable to His Lordship.—The most tremendous crime of these modern times is the treatment of the Indians on this Continent. Robbers and Murderers pronounce that the civilized man cannot live in peace with the Indian, and the whole Christian world accepts the precious falsehood, as one of the undeniable and inscrutable truths of God's way upon Earth. In at least eight cases out of ten, the first perfidy as well as the first rapine is on the side of the Civilized savage, and then of course, there is nothing for it but to kill these poor wretches, or to be killed by them.
I am cordially for the President's favorite remedy in the case of outrage to Indians. You will judge by the general tone of His Message that we are in a sorry, and very inflamed condition, but they do not appear to be in a much sounder state in Mexico, and sure I am that Texian means of defence are more to be depended upon, than Mexican means of offence.—But it would be a wise and a great policy to put peace between them, starting this Country upon principles that would gradually detach her from the United States connexion, and bind her to the Countries South West of Her, enduringly—Reflection strengthens me in the persuasion that such a combination is practicable,—and I hope I am not stepping beyond my place in expressing the opinion, that it is a policy recommended by very high considerations.
Free labor, and a steady Government at this point, would make it a station of great interest, on a theatre of great and growing importance. I am almost ashamed to forward you this letter, but with a hard hand at the best, I would add, that it is painful to me . . . 226 much just now, and I write with more difficulty than usual. Requesting your excuse—
And begging you to present my respects to Lord Aberdeen, and Lord Canning.
Charles Elliot. H. U. Addington, Esqre. etc.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 227
No. 18. Galveston December. 14th. 1842 My Lord,
During my recent visit to Washington I took an opportunity to call Mr. Terrell's attention to the note which I had addressed to this Government on the 26th September upon the subject of the claims for the “Eliza Russell” and “Little Pen.” 228 He requested that the removal of the Government from Houston, and Mr. Jones's and his own absence on other service might excuse the want of reply to that communication, but I was assured both by the President and himself that there was great anxiety to adjust the claim for the “Eliza Russell” and that the destitute condition of the Treasury was the sole obstacle in that respect. Mr. Terrell then shewed me an opinion which he had given as Attorney General upon the claim of the “Little Pen” submitted by Messrs. Lizardi and Cos. Agents, some short time before I arrived in the Country, and the Inclosed is a copy of a note which I have subsequently addressed to him. 229
In the shape that the case had assumed I felt it incumbent upon myself to enter into it at length, and to endeavour to explain the grounds upon which it must now be considered and adjusted
I shall continue to press the arrangement of both these claims with the urgency prescribed in Your Lordship's Instructions; but there can be no doubt of the disposition of this Government to settle the first as soon as it is in a situation to do so, and I hope that the exposition I have now submitted may have the effect of removing all difficulty respecting the other.
Charles Elliot. The Right Honorable. The Earl of Aberdeen K. T. etc.
ELLIOT TO ADDINGTON 230
Private. Galveston December 16th. 1842 My Dear Sir.
In the situation of affairs here I conjecture that you will always be glad to hear at the latest date that there is no change for the worse—if none for the better. And I will only say upon my own part, that it is no love of long letter writing which has disposed me to trouble you at what I am afraid you may consider an unconscionable length upon the topics of my present correspondence, but on very serious impression that the subject is of much moment, and that the crisis for it's conclusive and advantageous treatment is at hand, and may soon pass away.
Thus impressed I use the freedom to say that it was pleasant to me to find that Lord Aberdeen had declined the proposal of a triple Mediation. 231 In my poor judgment there is no advantage to be derived from any association with the Government of the United States in that matter.
They are ill liked by the Mexicans, and there seems reason to doubt their own earnestness, or sincerity upon the subject of a recognition of Texian independence by Mexico. The N. E. and free States probably believe that the Independence and progress of Texas upon the present footing with respect to Slavery, would be the next most inconvenient thing (so far as their weight in the Union is considered) to it's formal annexation. The S. W. States have always frankly desired it's annexation.
The people of Texas are gasping for peace, and the best bidder. I believe that the only safe solution would be a formal offer upon the part of Her Majesty's Government to Texas, to secure the close of this contest upon the basis of It's consenting to place Itself in a position of real Independence, by an immediate and thorough organization of It's social, political and Commercial Institutions and policy upon sound, and independent principles; an[d] further offering every reasonable facility to England to negociate such a loan as would be necessary to accomplish the proposed objects.
So far as I can see there is no choice between this, and the virtual, early, and permanent lapse of Texas within the sphere of United States influence, and policy; and I cannot help adding here, that I do not believe that the Government and people of the United States have just or Moderate purposes with respect to Mexico. To put Texas between them with a steadily constituted Governt. upon a non Slavery principle, with a considerable Coloured population, perfectly free of political disabilities, and a Commercial policy of the most liberal description is the best barrier that I believe the nature of circumstances offers against consequences and encroachments in my mind deliberately intended, and which may be much nearer than they appear to be.
The chance of the permanent re-establishment of Mexican Authority in Texas is gone, but another effort in that sense upon the part of Mexico, in the utterly depressed condition of this Country will possibly throw it back upon the United States, and that is the end which would probably best please the present Cabinet at Washington, and most assuredly the whole of the S. W. part of the Union.
But Texas, differently established would put an end to all combination of that kind, and be a very helpful weight in the preservation of peace, and a just balance of power on this Continent. I cannot help thinking that money lent to put an end to Slavery in a South West direction in America; and to give a place and a voice to the Coloured races, would render as profitable returns as money spent for fortresses and Military works on the Northern frontier of the United States. We should have those Mens hearts with us beyond the third and fourth generation.
Texas would be effectually separated from the United States of the Union, and a liberal Commercial policy would as effectually detach it from the N. E. States infected by a spirit of Commercial hostility to Great Britain, and this last principle efficaciously worked out would soon relax the self injurious fiscal system of Mexico.
Charles Elliot. To H. U. Addington, Esqr. etc. P. S. I have this moment heard from Houston that a small party of our Texian levies have advanced to the Rio Grande, and I can have no doubt that they will do no manner of good there. The President has done what He could to prevent this folly, but it needs other checks there than that, and I think it is safe to prophecy that it will find them. This report has reached us with more solidity than most we have had from that quarter, upon the same subject, and eventually, it may be entirely false. There is not much truth running about our natural roads in Texas.
ELLIOT TO ADDINGTON 232
Private. Galveston Decr. 28th. 1842 My Dear Sir,
Since I had the pleasure of writing to you last, we have received President Tyler's Message to the Congress of the United States. I collect from that document that their difficulties with Mexico are in course of adjustment, and by the bye either my solitary life is cheating my imagination, or that Message is a very noticeable instrument, both in point of significancy, and the time of the appearance of such matter. The President closes his paragraph concerning the general relations with European Powers with an observation, which I cannot help thinking might have more frankly found it's place at the head of the succeeding Section of the Message.
It has a tang of Texas and Mexico, and is certainly worthy of attention both for coolness of purpose, and dryness of expression— “Carefully abstaining from all interference in question[s] exclusively referring themselves to the political interests of Europe, we may be permitted to hope an equal exemption from the interference of European Governments in what relates to the States of the American Continent.” 233
Bolting the bran, I presume this means that United States politicians and financiers mislike disturbance on the little Island, forming the Continent of North and South America. But it is possible that this pretension of United States policy may not be equally acceptable to all “the States of the American Continent.” There is room to suspect that some of the States of the American Continent have no particular confidence in Washington purposes, and no desire to cast off all other friendship in peace, or alliances in War. Be that as it may, it is pleasant to observe how considerately Mr. Tyler has blended the Civil with the decided in this “Bon Soir” to European influence in this quarter of the globe. His self permission to hope for “an equal exemption from the interference of European Governments in what relates to the States of the American Continent” is a fine instance of the Multum in parvo in comprehensive political discussion.
Washington on the Potomac is the place of places in President Houston's emphatic language “A God's Earth,” for great strokes of this kind—Washington on the Brazos has it's promise too, but we are giving and they get. When I read this announcement drumming us all off this Continent, from the Artic to the Antartic, I could not but pull back to what had been said some distance up the stream of small print. There we had been instructed “that the question of peace or war between the United States and Great Britain is a question of the deepest interest, not only to themselves, but to the Civilized world, since it is scarcely possible that the War could exist between them without endangering the peace of Christendom”
It seems then that there is no objection to as much of United States influence on the Continent of Europe, as may serve to draw one half of it upon our backs in that contingency of deepest interest,—war between the United States and Great Britain; but Great Britain must pretend to no influence on the Continent of America.
This is plain American, if not plain English, on the occasion of the earliest possible formal declaration after the publication of the late Treaty, 234 that the Oregon territory is an open question, and pari passu with marked approbation of General Cass for volunteering to trip up arrangements at Paris, known to be agreeable to the British Government and Nation. 235 Living I may almost say in the United States, and with my attention constantly fixed upon a subject in which United States feeling and assistance are exercising so powerful an effect, I hope to be excused for these reflections
There is no thinking or writing of Texas without adverting to United States politics, and impulses, and I must frankly say that so far as I can judge the late Treaty with Great Britain is generally considered in the United States to be no more than a truce into which it has been convenient for them to enter till our hands are full in other parts of the World, and their own credit and finances have recovered themselves. The Government no doubt has more honest purposes than the general body of the people. As the Government of the United States is the creation of a great majority. In fact, the land, through it's whole length and breadth is infected with the plague of party politics, and electioneering. It is not principles that are a question in that great republic, but the monstrously exaggerated virtues and wisdom of Henry, John, or Thomas, and the still more hideously exaggerated views and folly of Martin, James or Peter. Upon those themes, and for the sake of party success, the Country is in a perpetual ferment, and nothing steady or just can be depended upon at the hands of the Government
Weighing all the circumstances within my reach of judgment, and particularly the undoubted temper of our neighbours East of the Sabine, I certainly do think it is an object of considerable moment to Her Majesty's Government that this Texas question should be firmly and steadily settled, and I lean to the opinion that it is in the power of Her Majesty's Government (so far as Texas is concerned) to effect an eligible arrangement. Monsieur de Cremiel 236 the new French Charge d'Affaires to our Court arrived here a week since. He told me it was generally reported at New Orleans in respectable circles that the British Govnt. had refused to take part in the Mediation proposed by Mr. Ashbell Smith, 237 and asked if this were so. Finding that He had received no despatches since He left France, and that He was going up to see the President (of Texas) at Washington, probably under mistaken impressions, I begged him to peruse Lord Aberdeen's correspondence with Lord Cowley 238 upon that subject, which would not only explain to him the feelings of Her Majesty's Government, but of his own too; and enable him to judge how little credit was to be attached to New Orleans reports.
Congress is still in Session, or I should say, in confusion, for the Members from Western Texas, angry at the removal of the capital from Austin have seceded. And there is just a quorum, and that is all, without them. In the present disturbed condition of the Country, it seems to me to be wished that they should all go home, as soon as possible. We have no tidings from the force that has advanced to the Rio Grande but no good can come of such folly as that, and it will be matter of surprize if one half of them get back, that is to say, supposing they do cross the Rio Grande.
My continued concern for these tedious letters must be the coherent tediousness of the subject, and the belief that you will desire to hear more about it, in it's present posture than you could do, or should do from me, if it were better settled. Requesting you to offer my respects to Lord Aberdeen and Lord Canning.
Charles Elliot. To H. U. Addington, Esqr. etc. By the news from Washington this morning, I find amongst other notices of business before Congress. A resolution (in the H. of Representatives) “to instruct the Committee of Foreign relations to enquire into the expediency of annexing the Republic of Texas to the Ud. States.” 239 It is not proposed by one of our great men, and nothing has been done upon it yet: If there be, I shall of course make the Subject a matter of official communication to Lord Aberdeen. I suppose it is only put forward as a feeler. Charles Elliot
REVIEWS AND NOTICES
The Leading Facts of New Mexican History. 240 By Ralph Emerson Twitchell. Volume I. (Cedar Rapids, Iowa: The Torch Press. 1911. Pp. xxi, 506.)
With its elaborate footnotes, bibliographies, and facsimiles of manuscripts, this beautifully printed and bound book conveys at first sight the impression that it is the result of much original investigation, and as such it has been represented by uncritical reviewers. But closer examination shows that it is nothing of the sort. The book is, as a matter of fact, purely a compilation, and of the simpler kind, most of the text being either a close paraphrase or a direct copy of two works. If the borrowing had been duly acknowledged, the book would have been welcomed and judged on its merits as a compilation; but it is unfortunately the case that the compiler, while making much show of citation and quotation of supplementary matter in the footnotes, has, either in igorance or flagrant disregard of literary ethics, in the main concealed the sources from which he copied or paraphrased the text, and much of the footnote matter as well, thus creating an impression of independent work which he did not perform. Nor is he relieved of this charge in any important measure by his prefatory remark that “a great deal of the work . . . may best be termed editing,” or by an occasional observance of the proprieties, which only serves to further mislead.
Such a statement as this can not be made without at least an indication of the evidence on which it rests, and to this end most of my space will be devoted. Chapters II, III and IV of the book in question deal with the early Spanish exploration of New Mexico. On reading the footnotes and bibliographies one misses references to Lowery's very pertinent work, The Spanish Settlements within the Present Limits of the United States, 1513-1561. A more careful reading, however, shows that Mr. Twitchell has by no means overlooked it. Indeed, the greater portion of the text of the one hundred ninety-nine pages comprised in these chapters is taken almost bodily from Book II, Chapters III, V and VI of that book, but absolutely without credit, for neither the name of Lowery nor of his book receives mention in the work. The order of presentation is identical, with few exceptions, through paragraph after paragraph, page after page, while there are hundreds, if not thousands, of identical phrases, sentences, and even large portions of paragraphs, without a single acknowledgement. Chapter III, for example, on Fray Marcos de Niza, is a paraphrase of Lowery's Chapter V. By actual count one hundred fifty-nine identical phrases or sentences were found in identical connections, although the chapter contains only about ten full pages of text; nor does this statement give an adequate impression of the closeness of the paraphrasing. Very clearly Mr. Twitchell regards Lowery as a reliable translator as well as a safe historian, for the identity extends to numerous extracts translated from the Spanish. In these cases Mr. Twitchell generally cites the same originals as Lowery (except occasionally, as where Lowery's reference to Mota Padilla III somehow becomes “Mota Padilla, 3”), but Lowery never.
Lowery's book reaches only to 1561, and Mr. Twitchell's anchor for the remainder of his text is Bancroft's Arizona and New Mexico. In this case the compiler's shortage of quotation marks is less obvious, because due credit is given here and there for portions borrowed—in the very paragraphs, indeed, where much greater portions are taken without credit.
Less attention has been paid by the reviewer to Chapter I, dealing with ancient New Mexico, but a casual examination shows that most of pages 4-7 and 42-50 were taken almost verbatim and altogether without credit from Hodge's Handbook of American Indians (part I, pp. 171-172, 305-309, 108-109, 327).
As has already been intimated, the method above described extends in liberal measure to the footnotes, also; and this applies not merely to citations, but to comments and important conclusions as well. For example, more than seventy of the notes in the last one hundred fifty pages were traced directly to Bancroft's Arizona and New Mexico, though no credit is given to that work. An instance, which could be paralleled by others, is note 362, where eighty-seven lines, consisting of a summary based on Vetancourt, are taken verbatim from Bancroft, pages 172-173, although the citation is to the original Spanish work. The only other explanation possible would be that two independent writers could give identical summaries of a lengthy passage in a foreign language. Again, on pages 344-412 at least twenty-three notes which purport to be the result of independent work in the sources were traced directly to Bandelier's Final Report, parts I and II.
Another remarkable feature of the work is the citation of rare manuscripts. From the frequency of these citations and the extended comment on manuscript sources in the Prefatory Note, the reader would infer that Mr. Twitchell had really used a great deal of this class of material, in addition to printed works. But appearances are misleading here also. To begin with, many of the first-hand citations are to manuscripts in the private collection made by Mr. H. H. Bancroft, to which, we know, Mr. Twitchell never had access. In these cases, naturally, the citations can all be traced directly to Bancroft's Arizona and New Mexico. If space permitted, it would be easy to demonstrate by the pagination and titles of the manuscripts cited that such is the case with his references to the “Pinart Collection,” notes 346, 355, 413, 445, 446; to “N. Mex. Doc.,” notes 375, 461, 462, 465, 470, 474, 475; to Otermin's “Extractos,” notes 349, 375, 376; to Bonilla's “Apuntes,” note 465; to Morfi's “Desórdenes,” note 482; to Menchero's “Declaración,” note 465; and to “Moqui, Noticias,' note 437. Mr. Twitchell evidently did not know that many of these citations refer to Bancroft's personal note-books, and not to the pagination of the documents in any archive; or that some of the titles are designations given to documents by Bancroft, and are applicable only to his own collection.
Again, on the period of the Pueblo revolt and the reconquest by Vargas, Twitchell not only cites first-hand but gives extensive extracts from the manuscripts entitled “Ynterrogatoria de Preguntas,” “Parecer del Fiscal,” “Diario del Sitio,” “Diario de la Retirada,” “Protesta á Don Diego de Vargas,” “Carta al Padre Morfi,” “Memoria del Descubrimiento,” “Petición de los Vecinos de Albuquerque al Cabildo de Santa Fé,” “Certificación de los Huezos del Venerable Fray Juan de Jesus,” “Estado de la Misión de San Lorenzo el Real,” “Autos del Año de 1694,” “Relación Sumaria de las Operaciones Militares del Año de 1694,” Escalante, “Relación del Nuevo Mexico,” and “Autos de Guerra, 1696.” These extracts, with references directly to the manuscripts, should create the presumption that Mr. Twitchell had used a considerable body of fundamental manuscript sources for this period. But the impression is modified when we learn that in every one of the twenty-five cases in which the quotations were tested the identical extracts, with the identical references to the manuscripts, and usually with the identical notes and comments, were found in Bandelier's Final Report, parts I and II, though no reference is made to that scholar's work. Mr. Twitchell may have had access to these documents, but no evidence has been found that he made any independent use of them.
Such a method of appropriating the results of the work of others can be regarded in only one light by scholars; and it is due to scholars that a protest be made against its employment by those who know better, and that books produced by it by those who do not, be represented in their true light. Hence this review.
After the above statement of the sources and workmanship of Mr. Twitchell's book, it hardly need be said that, although it is a useful compilation, it adds little to our knowledge of the history of New Mexico.
Herbert E. Bolton.
The Life of Andrew Jackson. By John Spencer Bassett, Ph. D., Professor of History, Smith College. In two volumes. (New York: Doubleday, Page, and Company. 1911. Pp. xiii, 371; 375-766.)
This is a comprehensive study of Andrew Jackson in relation to the history of his period. Naturally, where Parton and Sumner and Brown, and Von Holst, McMaster, MacDonald, and Catterall have reaped before there must be much winnowing of old straw. But the book is abundantly justified by the contribution which it makes to our appreciation of Jackson's influence upon his age and of its influence upon him.
Sixteen chapters, covering three hundred and twenty pages, are devoted to Jackson's life prior to the presidential campaign of 1824; three additional chapters are needed to bring him to the presidency in 1829; and only fourteen remain—less than three hundred and fifty pages—for the important work of his two administrations and the interesting years from 1837 to 1845. Of these one is devoted to the inauguration and the choice of the first cabinet, one to an excellent discussion of the spoils system, one—somewhat unnecessarily, it seems,—to Jackson's championship of Mrs. Eaton, one each to his policy toward internal improvements, his quarrel with Calhoun, the reorganization of the cabinet in 1831, and to his attitude toward nullification, three to the war on the United States Bank, one to foreign policy, one to minor problems of the administration—the Cherokees in Georgia, the distribution of the surplus, and the specie circular—and one each to “Personal Characteristics” and “Closing Years.” Notwithstanding the fact that to the earlier years belong the Creek War, the battle of New Orleans, the Seminole War, and the governorship of Florida, it is questionable whether a truer proportion would not have given less space to the period before Jackson became the exponent, and to some extent the creator, of a great national party. And, considering the importance of our foreign relations under Jackson and the still too common misapprehension of his policy toward Mexico and Texas, more attention might profitably have been devoted to this phase of the subject. In regard to the charge that Jackson aided the revolutionists in Texas, Professor Bassett thinks that the evidence shows “pretty clearly that he proposed to preserve neutrality, at least outwardly, which, in view of American feeling, was about all that could be expected.” And he thinks that Jackson was really lukewarm on the subject of Texan recognition during the winter of 1836-1837, though his attitude in this particular may have been influenced in some degree by his desire to avoid embarrassing Van Buren, many of whose partisans were opposed to recognition.
Professor Bassett offers on page 249 a plausible solution for the puzzle of the Rhea letter, in which, as Jackson always contended, Monroe authorized the invasion of Florida in 1818. It saves the veracity of both Jackson and Monroe, and is perhaps as near the truth as we are likely to come. He mildly defends Jackson's execution of Arbuthnot and Ambrister (pages 254-260). And he shows (pages 369-371) that Jackson had reasonable ground for suspecting that there was an understanding between Adams and Clay in 1825 when the former through the help of the latter won the election in the house of representatives. This is not to say, however, that the understanding was a corrupt one. Van Buren fares better than one is wont to expect, appearing as a sincere and devoted friend of Jackson, who frequently advanced his policies by frankness and their own worth and not by the craft of the sycophant. Calhoun appears less favorably.
Of Jackson a few brief characterizations and summaries will show the writer's estimate: “There is no record that Jackson ever changed an opinion once formed, whatever the proof offered him.” His nature was “frank to the point of rashness.” “He was apt to speak his mind clearly, although he could on occasion . . . be as diplomatic as a delicate case demanded.” In his use of the patronage he but reflected “the forces which ruled public life at the time. Any man who could have been an exponent of the democratic movement would probably have believed as Jackson believed in regard to appointments.” He was “probably stronger through his forceful personality than any other American since Washington. He was no economist, no financier, no intelligent seeker after wise and just ideals, and his temper and judgment were bad; but his will was the coherent force of a party organization more complicated, and yet better adjusted, than existed before that time in our government. Courage, knowledge of the people, simplicity of manner, the common man's ideal of honesty and patriotism, and a willingness to discipline his subordinates when necessary were the qualities which kept the party organization effective.” “The secret of his power was his adjustment to the period in which he lived. Other men excelled him in experience, wisdom, and balanced judgment; but the American Democrats of the day admired neither of these qualities. They honored courage, strength, and directness. They could tolerate ignorance but not hesitancy. Jackson was the best embodiment of their desires from the beginning of the national government to his own day.”
The book is based chiefly on the Jackson and the Van Buren Manuscripts in the Library of Congress, and is documented with numerous extracts from Jackson's letters which have not before been printed.
Eugene C. Barker.
A School History of Texas. By Eugene C. Barker, Charles S. Potts, and Charles W. Ramsdell. (Chicago: Row, Peterson and Company. 1912. Pp. xvi, 384.)
The characteristic feature of this book is the success with which it conforms to the newer ideas in history writing. The authors have performed their best service to the State of Texas in supplying to the school children a text-book in history that recognizes throughout the true nature of historical material. The book under review exhibits on every page the inner life of the people of Texas in the process of unfolding. It keeps vividly before the mind the whole life of the people as a growing organism, and at the end leaves the reader in possession of a delightful fund of information possessing organic relation. This feature of the book impresses itself upon the reader with the first chapter, and is especially emphasized in the treatment of the periods of republic and statehood. The old method of using gubernatorial administrations as the basis of organization has been discarded, and in its place the authors have followed, as an organizing principle, the laws of growth as expressed in the social and institutional life of the people. To the reviewer, it seems that this has been done with unusual success, considering that the book is intended for children. The authors state in the preface that they have aimed “to bring it within the grasp of fifth and sixth grade pupils.” They have not missed their aim; and yet the reader is nowhere allowed to wander away from the proper viewpoint of the whole subject. So far as the reviewer knows, in all the historical literature of the grammar grades, there is no text-book that so skillfully impresses the correct philosophy of history and at the same time keeps so well within the capacity of those for whom it is written.
Another feature of the book which appeals to all lovers of truth is its spirit of fairness and accuracy. This is illustrated in the discussion of the general causes of the revolution. On page 83, it is stated that “the causes of the revolution spread through the whole ten years, between 1825 and 1835, but at the very bottom of them all was the fact that the Mexicans and the colonists never really got acquainted and learned to trust each other. . . . The colonists felt a sort of contempt for the Mexicans. . . . The Mexicans soon observed this and began to suspect that the colonists would some day try to take Texas away from them.” This same spirit of fairness is exemplified on pages 127 to 128, relative to Fannin's surrender at Coleto. “The first article of this document [the capitulation] declares that the Texans agreed to surrender unconditionally, while the third says that they surrendered as prisoners of war subject to the disposition of the supreme government of Mexico.” This in no way seeks to justify the Goliad massacre which followed the agreement, but it does Santa Anna the justice of giving him technical, legal right in the matter.
Again, the part of Texas in the Civil War is developed with unusual clearness and fairness, while the period of reconstruction is dealt with in the same broad spirit. Near the close of the book is a profitable discussion of the recent material and educational growth of the State.
It is another stated purpose of the authors “to make it a thoroughly useful tool in the hands of the teacher.” In pursuance of this aim an unusual amount of “helps” is given. For example, in Appendix II, suggestions are made to the teacher as to the presentation of each separate chapter and a well chosen bibliography for each chapter is included in the same appendix. In Appendix III is a complete outline of the book by the authors themselves. Appendix IV consists of a list of Presidents and Governors, with the dates of their administration. Finally, in this connection, each chapter is concluded with a summary, a list of wholesome questions, and a suitable bibliography for children.
It is difficult to pass fair judgment upon a text-book without having put it to actual test in the class room, but if the accepted characteristics of successful history writing are sound, then this book ought to have generous treatment at the hands of the school public.
J. A. Hill.
Texas . . . by Milam . . . From several references in the Lamar papers and from internal evidence it appears that Texas . . . by Milam . . . (Philadelphia, 1839) was written by Henry Thompson, a lawyer of Houston, who had early in Lamar's administration been the President's private secretary.
On August 18, 1839, Thompson writes Lamar from New York:
“I send no's 1 and 2 of a series of chapters on Texas, they have taken very well, and are re-printed in the Balto and N York papers, they are intended to be correct pictures of T—The 3d no' is of more inport than the rest which are rather preparatory chapters— . . . The Boston papers have the chapters with quite a compliment to the Author”; on September 19, from Philadelphia: “I am publishing a little work on Texas small—with a map, Chapters &c—it will be out in one month”; on December 28, from Houston: “2000 copies of Texas by Milam sold in the North 2d Edition in press—Good! at last.”
The author of the book is evidently a lawyer, as appears from his familiarity with legal terms and procedure and from his use of the phrase “my brethren of the bar” (p. 49). He is a partisan of the Lamar administration: he gives merely a perfunctory notice of General Houston (pp. 70-71), since “the victor of Santa Anna; and the Hero of San Jacinto, must not be omitted in these pages”; of Lamar (pp. 18-20) and Handy (pp. 87-88) he speaks with personal knowledge and enthusiasm. His style resembles Thompson's in his letters to Lamar. Moreover, in the letter of September 19, noted above, the same objection is made to the bonding system of Texas in relation to the depreciation of the currency as is urged on pp. 63 and 64.
The map referred to in the letter of September 19 does not appear in the State Library copy, one of the first edition, the only copy to which I have had access; and there is no sign of its ever having been included.
Elizabeth H. West.
In “Polk and the Oregon Compromise of 1846,” Political Science Quarterly, September, 1911, Dr. R. L. Schuyler of Columbia University acquits Polk of sharp practice in connection with the settlement of the Oregon Question. “Because Polk refused to assume the responsibility of war with Great Britain, for the disruption of his party and for the failure of his administration—and these apparently would have been the result of rejecting the British offer—we need not infer that he had been playing a double game.” The paper is based chiefly upon Polk's Diary and the Works of Buchanan, both of which have but recently been published.
In Political Science Quarterly, March, 1912, Professor William A. Dunning reviews in a thoroughly interesting way the Diary of Gideon Welles (three volumes), recently published by Houghton, Mifflin and Company. “The value of these volumes as a source for the history of the times depends chiefly,” says Professor Dunning, “upon two factors: first, the candor and sincerity of the writer, and, second, the accuracy and completeness with which his record has been reproduced in print. In both respects the value of the Diary is unimpeachable.” Seward, Stanton, Chase, Sumner and Grant are heavily scored in the Diary, but Andrew Johnson is in general staunchly defended.
In the June number of Political Science Quarterly, Professor L. S. Rowe has a discerning analysis of the causes of the recent Mexican revolution.
The Lewis Publishing Company, Chicago, has published the following works relating to Texas. These volumes have not been examined sufficiently to form a critical estimate of their worth, but are mentioned for the benefit of students who may be interested in the sections to which they relate:
A Twentieth Century History and Biographical Record of North and West Texas. Captain B. B. Paddock, Editor. 1906. Two volumes.
A Twentieth Century History of Southwest Texas. 1907. Two volumes.
A History of Greater Dallas and Vicinity. 1909. Two volumes. Volume I is by Philip Lindsley; volume II is edited by L. B. Hill, and has for its subtitle “Selected Biography and Memoirs.”
Historical Review of Southeast Texas and the Founders, Leaders and Representative Men of Its Commerce, Industry and Civic Affairs. Dermot H. Hardy and Ingham S. Roberts, Associate Editors. 1910. Two volumes.
A History of Central and Western Texas, compiled from historical data supplied by commercial clubs, individuals, and other authentic sources, under the editorial supervision of Captain B. B. Paddock. 1911. Two volumes.
The Los Angeles Examiner recently published a volume entitled “Press Reference Library, Notables of the Southwest, being the portraits and biographies of progressive men of the Southwest, who have helped in the development and history-making of this wonderful country. Los Angeles, California, 1912.” 4to. Pp. 500. The work relates almost exclusively to California, particularly Los Angeles; only eleven Texans are included. The work is an excellent piece of printing.
The Proceedings of the Navarro County Bar Association, held at the Carnegie Library, Corsicana, Sunday, September 24, 1911, in memory of Colonel Roger Q. Mills, have been published in a pamphlet of 32 pages. Not only the addresses delivered on the date named, but the tributes paid Colonel Mills by his friends far and near by the Texas press are included.
In The Numismatist (Brooklyn) for April, 1912, Mr. R. C. Crane has an illustrated article on the paper money of the Republic of Texas.
NEWS ITEMS
Mr. Charles Wilson Hackett will return to the University of California to study Southwestern History next year.
Professor E. D. Adams, of the History Department of Stanford University, is lecturing at Harvard University this summer.
Professor Eugene I. McCormac, of the History Department of the University of California, is lecturing in the Summer Session of the University of Illinois.
Professor C. H. Van Tyne, head of the Department of History in the University of Michigan, is lecturing in the Summer Session of the University of California.
Mr. John W. Curd, Principal of the High School at El Paso, will become a graduate student in Southwester History at the University of California next fall.
Miss Anne Hughes took her Master's degree in History at the University of California in May, was awarded a fellowship in History in the same University, for the following year, and hopes to return to continue her work.
Mr. William E. Dunn, B. A., the University of Texas, 1909; M. A., Stanford University, 1910, who held a fellowship in History at Columbia during the past year, will hold a similar position at the University of California next year. He is spending the summer in the Mexican archives at Saltillo and the City of Mexico.
Mr. Charles E. Chapman, teaching fellow in History in the University of California, was awarded the Traveling Fellowship founded by the Native Sons of the Golden West, and has sailed for Spain, where he will spend next year working in the historical archives.
At the June Commencement of the University of Texas, Messrs. William S. Brandenberger and Stuart H. Condron took the M. A. degree in History. Mr. Brandenberger's thesis was “The Administrative System of Texas, 1821-1835”; and Mr. Condron's was “The First Texas Agency in New Orleans in 1836”—a study of the assistance rendered by William Bryan and Edward Hall, of New Orleans, to the Texas Revolution.
Professor William R. Manning of the University of Texas expects to spend the latter part of the summer gathering material from the Mexican archives for the show lectures on diplomatic history which he will deliver next year at Johns Hopkins University.
A summer session of the School of American Archæology will be held this summer at Santa Fé and the ruins in El Rito de los Frijoles from August 1 to 30, inclusive. Lectures will be given and research conducted by the regular staff of the school on the distribution and culture of the peoples in the southwestern part of the United States and Northern Mexico in prehistoric times; on the development of design in ancient Pueblo art; on the Indian cultures of the Southwest; on the civilizations of ancient Mexico and Central America; on the native languages, and methods of recording and studying them; and upon the hieroglyphic writings of the Ancient Mayas. In connection with these courses there will be excursions to such important sites as Pecos and Puyé, and to neighboring Pueblos still occupied. Besides the regular staff of the school, lectures will be given by Dr. Harry Langford Wilson, of Johns Hopkins University, and Professor D. A. Cockerell, of the University of Colorado.
“Through the kindness of Mr. and Mrs. W. T. Wroe, the William Barrett Travis Chapter of the Daughters of the Republic was presented on April 4th with a life-size portrait of James S. Lester. . . . Judge Lester represented the counties of Fayette and Bastrop in the Congress of [the Republic of] Texas. He gave to Fayette county its name; also named the town of La Grange; was one of the heroes of San Jacinto and was the first county judge of Fayette county. . . . He died in December, 1879.”—Austin Statesman, April 7, 1912.
“Dr. Ferdinand Herff, for more than two generations the leading physician in San Antonio, and famed both in Europe and America for his skill as a daring, yet successful surgeon, died [May 18, 1912] at the Herff homestead, 308 East Houston Street, which he built in 1853, and in which he resided ever since. Had he lived until November 29, Dr. Herff would have been 92 years old.”—San Antonio Express, May 19, 1912.
The Express gives in this issue more than three columns to a sketch of Dr. Herff's remarkable career, and editorially comments on his qualities as a citizen. An incident in the early life of Dr. Herff as a member of the “Communistic colony of Bettina” is narrated in The Quarterly, III, 33-40.
Captain M. B. Davis died at Waco on June 18. He was born in Virginia in 1844, was educated at the Virginia Military Institute, and served in a Virginia regiment in the Army of Northern Virginia during the Civil War. In 1873 he entered the newspaper business in Waco. From 1875 to 1878 he served as a Texas ranger, but at the expiration of that time re-entered newspaper work. For a number of years before his death he was Texas representative of the National Audubon Society.—(From a sketch in The Dallas News, June 19, 1912.)
On June 21 Colonel Andrew J. Baker, of San Angelo, died while on a visit to Los Angeles, California. He was born in Grenada county, Mississippi, in 1842, was educated at the University of Mississippi, and served in a Mississippi regiment in the Army of Northern Virginia during the Civil War. After the war he practiced law at Oxford, Mississippi, and was a member of the Legislature which closed the period of Reconstruction in that State. He moved to Texas in 1884, was a member of the Twenty-second Legislature, served as Commissioner of the General Land Office of Texas from 1894 to 1898.—(From a sketch in The Dallas News, June 22, 1912.)
2. Bandelier, The Gilded Man, passim.
3. Castañeda, Narrative, translated by Winship, in Fourteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, I, 493.
4. Niel, Apuntamientos, in Documentos para la Historia de Mexico, Tercera Serie, tomo iv, 92. See also Benavides, Memorial, in Land of Sunshine, xiv, 139-140.
5. “Un cerro dicen que hay, que llaman el de La Plata, incognito a los que hoy viven, tambien lo seria a los pasados; es hacia el Norte.” (León, Historia de Nuevo León [Mexico, 1909], 84. Diego Ramón explored the Cerro de la Platta, at the order of the viceroy, sometime before 1703. Hidalgo, Fray Francisco, “Relacion de la Quivira” [MS], 65.)
6. See page 10.
7. See note 4 page 8 for a statement concerning the miraculous conversion of various tribes in Texas.
8. Declaration of Juan Sabeata before Governor Cruzate, of New Mexico, at El Paso del Rio del Norte, October 20, 1683. MS.
9. Lowery, The Spanish Settlements within the Present Limits of the United States, 149-153; Navarette, Colección de Viages, iii, 147-153, where the Pineda map is reproduced.
10. Called San Estévan del Puerto. Bancroft, Mexico, II, 94-101.
11. Prieto, Alejandro, Historia, Geografía y Estadística del Estado de Tamaulipas (Mexico, 1873), 16, 60; Bancroft, Mexico, II, 267; Orozco y Berra, Manuel, Geografía de las Lenguas, 293, 296; Shea, J. G., History of the Catholic Missions (1855), 45-46; Vetancur, Crónica (1697), 92. There is a confusion of the names of Olmedo and Olmos in this connection.
12. Lowery, Spanish Settlements, 352-357. Barcía, Ensayo Cronologico, fol. 28 et seq.; Shea. op. cit., 49.50.
13. Bandelier, The Journey of Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca (Trail Makers series); Hodge, The Narrative of Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca, in Spanish Explorers in the Southern United States, 1528-1543. For various critical articles relative to the route of Cabeza de Vaca, see the early files of The Quarterly.
14. With regard to the district traversed the present writer hopes to have something to say at a later time.
15. Lewis, The Narrative of the Expedition of Hernando de Soto, by the Gentleman of Elvas, in Spanish Explorers in the Southern United States, 1528-1543.
16. Winship, George Parker, The Coronado Expedition; Castañeda, Narrative of the Expedition of Coronado, edited by Hodge, in Spanish Explorers in the Southern United States, 1528-1543. The route, as outlined above, is that marked out by Hodge, op. cit., map.
17. Bancroft, Arizona and New Mexico, 74-128; De León, Historia de Nuevo León, 92-95; Niel, Apuntamientos, 91-92.
18. Niel, Apuntamientos, 91-93. Posadas, Informe á S. M. sobre las tierras de Nuevo Mexico, Quivira, y Teguayo (1686), in Duro, Don Diego de Peñalosa, 53-67.
19. Niel, Apuntamientos, 91-92; Bancroft, Arizona and New Mexico, 149-150.
20. Posadas, Informe, 1686.
21. For the Peñalosa expedition, see Cesaro Fernández Duro, Don Diego de Peñalosa y su Descubrimiento de Quivira (Madrid, 1882); John Gilmary Shea, The Expedition of Don Diego Dionisio de Peñalosa (New York, 1882); Miller, E. T., “The Connection of Peñalosa with the La Salle Expedition,” in The Quarterly, V, 97-112.
22. See pp. 17-18.
23. Benavides, Memorial, translation in the Land of Sunshine, xiv, 139-140.
24. Duro, Don Diego de Peñalosa, 132.
25. For a summary of the history of the Jumanos, see Hodge, “The Jumano Indians,” in Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society at the Semi-Annual Meeting, April, 1910; a treatment of special phases of the subject, suggested by Hodge's paper, is contained in Bolton, “The Jumano Indians in Texas, 1650-1771,” in The Quarterly, XV, 66-84.
26. In 1582 Espejo had encountered Jumano living on the Rio Grande, and during the last years of the sixteenth century Jumano were under instruction by the missionaries in eastern New Mexico. Hodge, op. cit.
27. Benavides, Memorial, 1630; Vetancur, Chrónica de la Provincia del Santo Evangelio (1697), 96.
28. For the foundation of the story of the miraculous conversion of the Jumano, see Benavides, Memorial, in Land of Sunshine, xiv, 139, and Vetancur, Chrónica de la Provincia del Santo Evangelio (1697), 96. Secondary accounts are in Shea, The Catholic Church in America, I, 195-198, and Schmidt, “Ven. María Jesus de Agreda: a Correction,” in The Quarterly, I, 121-124. For references to the conversion of the Texas by this mysterious person, see the letter of De León, quoted on page 25; and Manzanet, Carta, translated by Lilia M. Casis, in The Quarterly, II, 311. Manzanet (Massanet) there states that while at the village of the Nabedache chief in 1690 the chief “asked me one evening for a piece of blue baize to make a shroud in which to bury his mother when she died; I told him that cloth would be more suitable, and he answered that he did not want any color other than blue. I then asked him what mysterious reason he had for preferring the blue color, and in reply he said that they were very fond of that color, particularly for burial clothes, because in times past they had been visited frequently by a very beautiful woman, who used to come down from the hills, dressed in blue garments, and that they wished to do as that woman had done. On my asking whether that had been long since, the governor said it had been before his time, but his mother, who was aged, had seen that woman, as had also the other old people. From this it is easily to be seen that they referred to the Madre María de Jesus de Agreda, who was very frequently in these regions, as she herself acknowledged to the Father Custodian of New Mexico, her last visit having been made in 1631.” Father Casañas, writing in 1691 at the Nabedache village, made the comment, evidently intended to controvert the foregoing opinion, that the Indians “greatly esteem any piece of woolen cloth, especially if it is blue. This is due solely to the circumstance that the sky is of this color.” Relación, August 15, 1691. MS.
29. See the works of Benavides, Vetancur, and Hodge, already cited.
30. Hodge, The Jumano Indians, 10-11, and works cited therein.
31. See Bolton, “The Jumano Indians in Texas, 1650-1771,” in The Quarterly, XV, 68-74; Posadas, Informe, 1686.
32. Posadas, Informe; Declaration of Juan Sabeata, October 20, 1683. There is no good reason for thinking that Yejo, the Indian referred to in Castañeda's narrative of Guzmán's exploring activities on the west coast of Mexico, or the Teyas met by Coronado on the buffalo plains, were of the Texas group found in the later seventeenth century east of the Trinity River. See Winship, The Coronado Expedition, 472-473; Wooten (editor), Comprehensive History of Texas, I, 8.
33. Posadas, Informe, 1686.
34. “Declaración de los Yndios que vinieron á esta Plassa de armas de San Lorenço de la toma del rio del Norte,” August 11, 1683. MS. Provincias Internas, vol. 35, Expediente, 2, p. 60.
35. “Memorial de Fray Nicolás López acerca de la repoblación de Nuevo Méjico,” April 24, 1686, in Duro, Peñalosa, 67.
36. This summary of the early history of Nuevo León is based mainly on León, Alonso, Historia de Nuevo León (Mexico, 1909); Portillo, Estéban L., Apuntes para la Historia Antiqua de Coahuila y Texas (Satillo, 1888); González, E. J., Lecciones Orales de Historia de Nuevo León (Monterey, 1887); González, E. J., Colección de Noticias y Documentos para la Historia del Estado de Nuevo León (Monterey, 1885); Prieto, Alejandro, Historia, Geografía y Estadística del Estado de Tamaulipas (Mexico, 1873).
37. Leon, 91-95; Bancroft, North Mexican States, I, 100-107. Bancroft could not determine the location of Almadén, but this point is now perfectly clear.
38. León, Historia de Nuevo León, 84, 87-88, 95-98, 102, 125-127; Arlegui, Crónica, 85, 126-128, 228; González, Lecciones Orales, 26.
39. León, Historia de Nuevo Leon, 153.
40. Portillo, Apuntes, 114, note. It is referred to the time of Francisco de Urdiñola the younger, who became governor of Nueva Vizcaya in 1591.
41. González, Lecciones Orales, 52, citing Cavo, Tres Siglos; León, Historia de Nuevo León, 29-30, 81, 133-134, 153, 160-163, 204, 214, 219.
42. León, Historia de Nuevo León, 84.
43. Memorial presented to the king through Alonso de León. Ibid., 214.
44. Ibid., 95.
45. Ibid., 221-222.
46. Ibid., 228-230. There is a persistent tradition, found in many eighteenth century and nineteenth century official Spanish documents, that an expedition made in 1630 explored clear to the San Andrés (Red) and Mississippi rivers, and marked out the boundaries of the province of Texas, but the story is not well substantiated, and contains so many conflicting and impossible elements that it is self-refuting.
47. The principal source for the history of the developments described above is a collection of documents entitled “Autos de la conquista de la Prova. hecha en este ano por D. Antonio Balcarcel,” etc. Some of them are printed in Portillo, Apuntes. They were used by me in the original in the archives of Mexico.
48. “Informe que hizo el Yllmo Senor Don Manuel Fernz. de Sta Cruz Abpo de Guadalaxa. a el Yllmo, y exmo Senor Maestro Don Fr. Payo de Rivera, Arzobispo de Mexico.... dando Relasion de las Tierras de Coahuila,” etc., 1676. MS. in the archive of the Bishopric of Linares.
49. On the past point see p. 19.
50. Bolton, “Notes on Clark's The Beginnings of Texas,” in The Quarterly, XII, 152; Duro, Don Diego de Peñalosa, 50-53.
51. Cédula of August 2, 1685, printed in Duro, Peñalosa, 50-53. Without knowing the date of Echegaray's proposal, it can not be stated whether it was made before or after news of the La Salle expedition reached Florida. It may have been suggested by the La Salle expedition of 1682 down the Mississippi.
52. The above summary is based mainly on two collections of original Spanish manuscripts entitled “Auttos tocantes; al Alsamiento de los Yndios de la Provincia de la Nueba Mexico,” and “Autos Pertenecientes a el alçamiento de los Yndios de la Proua del Nuevo Mexico y la entrada, Y subçesos de ella que se hiço para su recuperacion.” In addition some use has been made of the church archives of Juarez. I am indebted to Miss Anne Hughes for much aid in digesting the two expedientes, and to Mr. J. W. Curd, for notes from the Juarez documents.
53. This account of the Mendoza expedition is based on the original documents in the archives of Mexico. They consist for the most part of the two collections named in the note next above, and another entitled “Viage Que A solicitud de los Naturales de la Prova. de Texas . . . Hizo el Maestre de campo Juan Dominguez de Mendoza.”
54. Declaration of Juan Sabeata, October 20, 1683. Sabeata added that “he who came to see said Sargento Mayor Diego del castillo when he was there was not their King, but his Lieutenant, for the King never leaves home, and lives with great authority.” Ibid.
55. Cruzate to the viceroy, October 30, 1683. MS.
56. Opening paragraph of Mendoza's “Derrotero.” Mendoza's “Ynstruccion” required him to undertake “the new discovery of the Jumanas and of all the other nations who are their friends.” MS. in the Bancroft Collection.
57. Mendoza, “Derrotero,” and accompanying documents, in “Viage Que A Solicitud,” etc. For further details see Bolton, “The Jumano Indians in Texas, 1650-1771,” in The Quarterly, XV, 68-74.
58. Memorial, April 24, 1684, in Duro, Peñalosa, 67-74. In another account López stated that they were within twenty-five leagues of the Texas.
59. López, “Representación,” June 7, 1685, in Viage Que A Solicitud, 53-73.
60. Memorial to the king, April 24, 1686, in Duro, Peñalosa, 67-74.
61. “Segunda Representación,” in Viage Que A Solicitud, 73.
62. Memorial of April 24, 1686, in Duro, Peñalosa, 67-74.
63. Dictamen fiscal, May 22, 1686.
64. Memorial of April 24, 1686. Duro, Peñalosa, 67-74.
65. “Memorial del Maestre de Campo Juan Domínguez de Mendoza,” in Duro, 74-77.
66. Note the emphasis put by Father Massanet on the discovery of the Bay of Espíritu Santo as well as the search for the French. Letter to Sigùenza, in The Quarterly, II, 281-312.
67. “Derrotero de la Jornado que hizo el General Alonzo de León para el descubrimiento de la Bahía del Espíritu Santo, y Población de Franceses: Ano de 1689.” Memorias de Nueva España, XXVII, fol. 1, et seq.; Bolton, “The Native Tribes About the East Texas Missions,” in The Quarterly, XI, 263-266.
68. “Carta en que se da noticia de un viaje hecho a la bahía de Espíritu Santo, y de la población que tenian ahi los franceses.” In Buckingham Smith, Documentos para la historia de la Florida.
69. For a discussion of the meaning and usages of the words Texas and Hasinai, see Bolton, “The Native Tribes about the East Texas Missions,” in The Quarterly, XI, 249-276.
70. El Paso being in what was then New Mexico.
71. The main sources which have been relied upon in the preparation of this article are contemporary newspapers, and the Muster Rolls in the Land Office at Austin, which are not the original rolls, however. Owing to the fact that natives of other States enlisted in companies commanded by Kentuckians, while Kentucky volunteers joined companies raised in different States, it will be seen that it is impossible to make a roster of the volunteers of any one State that will be entirely accurate and complete. Inaccuracies and omissions can, in a measure, be eliminated as the history of the movement in the successive States is examined. This investigation it is the intention of the writer to make; but owing to the widely scattered nature of the material, the process will necessarily be a slow and tedious one. Corrections and additions will be thankfully received.
72. For the different states and climes represented by the early colonists of Texas, see Fulmore, “Annexation of Texas and Mexican War,” in The Quarterly, V, 32-33.
The Anglo-Americans who settled Texas were of the same stock as those who a generation before had crossed the Alleghanies and planted new settlements in what are now the states of Kentucky and Tennessee. Further south and west flowed the tide of emigrants, winning from the wilderness new areas destined to become powerful states of the American Union. Says one who should have known: “The people of Texas were generally unpretending farmers and planters from the middle walks of life.” (Wharton to Austin, December 11, 1836; Garrison, Dip. Cor. Tex., I, 152.) Says another: “The society to be found there is composed of men of intelligence and republican habits, and if men of different description are to be found there, they bear as small a proportion to the whole number as bad men do in any other part of the globe.” (The Evening Post [New York], November 6, 1835.) Cf. also Benton, Thirty Years' View, I, 674,; Smith, The Annexation of Texas, 24, and Kennedy, Texas, I, 333, as to the character of the early colonists of Texas. To dispose of them, as some writers do, by branding the settlers as “lawless adventurers” or “criminal outcasts” is entirely without warrant. Schouler, History of the United States, IV, 253, refers, not entirely with justification, to the “covert process of colonization.” See Garrison, Texas, 148. Austin considered the stipulation imposed upon the colonists of becoming Roman Catholics merely a “formal and unessential requisition.” (Austin to Wharton, November 18, 1836, Garrison, Dip. Cor. Tex., I, 134.) Kennedy (Texas, I, 339) says this requirement of the colonization law was unscrupulously evaded.
73. See Muster Rolls, pp. 238-239. Of course it is not intended to convey the impression that in every instance companies were as heterogeneous in character as this one. At the same time it is a well-known fact that those who were instrumental in shaping the destinies of the new republic came from widely separated sections of the United States.
74. Says the New Orleans Bee, January 4, 1835: “Volunteers are rushing into Texas from every section of this Union.” In June, 1836, Judge Catron wrote to Webster from Tennessee that the spirit was abroad through the whole Mississippi Valley to march to Texas. Another observer predicted that “numerous Kentuckians—young men, ambitious of fame and seeking fortune—will even go from Illinois, where they had previously emigrated” (Lundy, War in Texas, 51). Wherever the Texas commissioners to the United States stopped, they found evidence of the deepest interest among all classes in regard to the affairs of Texas.
75. Professor Ficklen has shown that the State of Texas can not be regarded as a part of the territory purchased from France in 1803. See his article, “The Louisiana Purchase vs. Texas,” in Publications of the Southern History Association for September, 1901. Cf. Smith, The Annexation of Texas, 5-7.
76. Kentucky Gazette, July 18, 1836.
77. See Smith, The Annexation of Texas, 29, as to the reason for the interest felt by the South in Texas.
78. The Quarterly, IX, 242-43.
79. The General Council was prevailed upon to postpone the appointment of officers to the regular army, since every inducement was to be held out to volunteers, and if all the offices were filled, many ambitious young men of the United States would be prevented from coming to the aid of Texas (Smith, “Quarrel Between Governor Smith and the Provisional Government of the Republic,” in The Quarterly, V, 310; cf. ibid., IX, 231). Later Houston wrote to General Dunlap of Tennessee: “for a portion of this force we must look to the United States. It can not reach us too soon.” Houston himself was advised by Carson to fall back to the Sabine in order to await the arrival of volunteers from the United States. On March 13, 1836, however, Houston wrote the chairman of the military committee: “our own people, if they would act, are enough to expel every Mexican from Texas.” William H. Jack, the Texan Secretary of State, referred to the United States as the “rock of our salvation.”
80. Barker, “Journal of the Permanent Council,” in The Quarterly, VII, 271-273.
81. See Lexington Intelligencer, April 26, 1836.
82. The reader should consult, in this connection, Barker, “Land Speculation as a Cause of the Texas Revolution,” in The Quarterly, X, 79-95. Says the Virginia Herald of June 29, 1836, quoting the New Orleans Bee, June 10, 1836: “speculation produced war, and will follow peace.” Cf. Morning Courier and New York Enquirer, October 28, 31, 1835; New York Evening Post, January 17, 1836.
83. Austin, Archer, and Wharton to Smith, February 16, 1836. Garrison, Dip. Cor. Tex., I, 69.
84. Cf. the Commonwealth, November 28, 1835. This paper was published in Frankfort, Ky. In the Richmond Enquirer, May 3, 1836, the writer explains what he meant by these words.
85. See the Frankfort Argus, November 5, 11, 25, 1835.
86. Cf. also the Commonwealth, November 7, 1835.
87. The New Orleans Bee of June 30, 1835, says resignedly: “Texas belongs to the Mexican government, not to the American—and perhaps it is better so.”
88. Quoted by the Commonwealth, November 14, 1835. Several newspapers easily disposed of the Texas question by printing statements to the effect that Texas had been ceded to the United States by Mexico by treaty. The boundary line was unsettled, but for a certain money payment by the United States it was agreed the Rio del Norte was to be the dividing line. Cf. Courier and Enquirer, March 2, 1836.
89. Kentucky Gazette, November 7, 1835; ibid., November 13, 1835.
90. Ibid., January 16, 1836. The Frankfort Argus, December 9, 1835. A correspondent of a Philadelphia paper writing at this time remarks that “as regards volunteers, there are too many from the United States in the country already. We have men enough of our own that can whip all the Spaniards that can march into the country.” Philadelphia Saturday Courier, January 9, 1836. Cf., however, the Richmond Enquirer, December 31, 1835, which prints a letter signed by C. A. Parker written from Nacogdoches; in this he says the volunteers are received with open arms by the people.
91. Virginia Herald, January 9, 1836.
92. For something of his adventurous career see Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas, II, 184, note. An account of his death is given in The Quarterly, V, 90, note 2. A correspondent of the New Orleans Bulletin put these words into the mouth of Colonel Milam at the time of the capture of Bexar: “I assisted Mexico to gain her independence; I have spent more than twenty years of my life, I have endured heat and cold, hunger and thirst, I have borne losses and suffered persecutions, I have been a tenant of every prison between this and Mexico—but the events of this night have compensated me for all my losses and all my sufferings.”
93. See The Quarterly, V, 320, 329, 330.
94. Arkansas Gazette, April 12, 1836. He really died in the Alamo the following March.
95. Kentucky Gazette, April 23, 1836. “It is probable that these arrived at San Antonio about the same time as Crockett, having travelled from Nacogdoches in twenty-five days, marching over the `old San Antonio road.”' The Quarterly, XIV, 321-322.
96. Muster Rolls, p. 10.
97. Appointed second lieutenant in the cavalry by the general council.
98. Muster Rolls, p. 5.
99. Ibid., pp. 4, 37.
100. Cf. The Commonwealth, May 4, 1836. There were no doubt other Kentuckians besides these who lost their lives at this time.
101. Kentucky Gazette, Fabruary 20, 1836. For an account of this company, see Duval, Early Times in Texas. The volunteers from Lexington, it seems, were placed in the Huntsville (Ala.) company under the command of Captain Wyatt and Lieutenant Benjamin T. Bradford, a native of Louisville.
102. Kennedy, Texas, II, 199. “Fannin's force of about 300 men was composed almost exclusively of volunteers from the United States.” Smith, “The Quarrel Between Governor Smith and the Council,” in The Quarterly, V, 343. Cf., however, as to number with Fannin, Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas, II, 219, 222. On the indifference of the Texans, see Barker, “The Texan Revolutionary Army,” in The Quarterly, IX, 238-239, and Bancroft, II, 198. Captain B. H. Duval, writing to his father, says: “Not a Texian was in the field, nor has even one yet made his appearance at this post.” The Quarterly, I, 49. A recent writer thinks that without the help of the volunteers Texas could not have defeated Mexico. The statement, however, that most of them returned to their homes after the war is probably erroneous. Bassett, Life of Andrew Jackson, II, 679.
103. A letter from an officer to the editors of the Journal of Commerce (New York) alludes to the malignant form party spirit had taken. “We have had no bread for several days. I am nearly naked, without shoes and without money; we suffer much.” Evening Post, April 19, 1836.
104. Captain Wyatt was absent upon leave at the time of Fannin's disaster. His company, which, with Duval's, formed part of the second or Lafayette battalion, is said to have been under the command of his first lieutenant, Benjamin T. Bradford, who, apparently effected his escape during Ward's retreat, and hence was not present at Goliad at the time of the massacre.
105. Cf. Foote, Texas and Texans, II, 207.
106. See Corner, “John Crittenden Duval,” in The Quarterly, I, 46-67; pp. 59-60 give his itinerary between November, 1835, and May, 1836.
107. Kentucky Gazette, May 23, 1836. Captain Bradford was one of those who were engaged in the action at Refugio Mission. A company styled the “Paducah Volunteers,” some twenty or thereabouts in number, under Captain King, was also engaged on this occasion. Yoakum, History of Texas, II, 455. Cf. Kentucky Gazette, June 2, 1836, and Lexington Intelligencer, May 20, 1836.
108. See The Quarterly, IX, 203-204. The account here cited states erroneously that only some half-dozen of Fannin's command escaped.
109. Baker's Texas Scrap Book, 572.
110. Printed in the Lexington Intelligencer, May 17, 1836.
111. One of the most complete accounts of the massacre is that by Benjamin H. Holland, captain of artillery, which appeared in the Lexington Intelligencer, June 3, 1836; cf. also ibid., May 3, 1836, for a circumstantial account sent from Natchitoches, La. The Kentucky Gazette for April 5, 1836, contains a communication from John M. Ross giving an account of the butchery of Colonel Fannin's regiment. “There can hardly be a doubt that all or nearly all of the volunteers who joined the first expedition from Kentucky fell in that fiendish massacre.” The New Orleans Bulletin of April 28, 1836, contains an anonymous account dated Harrisburg, Texas, April 7th. As might be expected, highly sensational accounts of the death of Fannin were sent back to the states by those purporting to be eye-witnesses. Of such a character is the one last mentioned.
112. “The moral effect in preventing other volunteers from coming from the United States is incalculable.” Smith, in The Quarterly, V, 344. A more accurate statement would be that some volunteers were deterred from going by news of the massacre. There were many who felt as did General Dunlap, who avers that the bloody massacre of the Alamo determined him to go. Dunlap to Carson, May 31, 1836. Garrison, Dip. Cor. Tex., I, 95. Cf. Smith, The Annexation of Texas, 31-33, 53, for an account of the indignation excited by Santa Anna's cruelties. Says the Evening Post, April 26, 1836: “His [Santa Anna's] barbarities have made the ultimate independence of Texas more certain, and will hasten the termination of the contest.”
113. See The Commonwealth, July 13, 1836.
114. Austin, Archer, and Wharton to Smith, February 16, 1836. Garrison, Dip. Cor. Tex., I, 66. Cf. Austin to Owings, February 12, 1836. Ibid., I, 70. “All was enthusiasm in our cause,” wrote Wharton to Austin, April 6, 1836. Ibid., I, 81. In April Childress wrote: “So far as I can see the South and West are kindling into a blaze upon the subject.” Childress to Burnett, April 18, 1836. Ibid., I, 55.
115. Of the first loan, three Kentuckians subscribed $25,000; of the second, two Kentuckians subscribed $7000. See Barker, “Texas Revolutionary Finances,” in Polit. Sci. Quart., XIX, 630. Cf. also Gouge, Fiscal History of Texas, 50-53. Garrison, Dip. Cor. Tex., I, 58.
116. The address was printed in the Kentucky Gazette, April 9, 1836. It was afterwards published in pamphlet form.
117. For the services of General Chambers in sending men and munitions of war to Texas see Barker, “The Texan Revolutionary Army,” in The Quarterly, IX, 235, 240. For an eulogy of Chambers's services by Wharton, see Wharton to Austin, December 11, 1836. Garrison, Dip. Cor. Tex., I, 154. For the authority of Chambers to raise an “Army of Reserve for Protection of Liberties of Texas,” see Ordinances and decrees of the consultation, provisional government of Texas, and the convention, 123-125.
118. Lexington Intelligencer, April 8, 1836.
119. The Kentucky Gazette and the Lexington Intelligencer contain full accounts of these meetings.
120. The appeal was signed by Robert A. Ferguson, Benjamin F. Gause, Sam. D. Woolley, P. H. Harris, and O. L. Shivers.
121. Kentucky Gazette, May 9, 1836. Among those who volunteered on this occasion to go to Texas were the following: William Burke, D. H. Weigert, William C. Murphy, H. W. Davis, Archibald Dunlop, W. Bell, Albert Page, John Davis, George D. Courcey, Franklin George, Benjamin F. Downing, John Downing; at an adjourned meeting the following volunteered to emigrate: Colonel Edw. J. Wilson, William Ragan, John Beard, John W. Smith, John Burch, Charles Brown, James White, Major Horatio Grooms, James Vanderpool, Francis Fry, Henry Harris, John S. Vaughn, Stephen P. Terry, and Newton Fisher.
122. Lexington Intelligencer, May 3, 1836.
123. Lexington Intelligencer, June 10, 1836. Mrs. Holley also expended $30 for work and materials for a silk flag designed by General Austin which was presented to the Ladies Legion by Mrs. Holley's niece, Miss Henrietta Austin, on June 3.
124. Kentucky Gazette, May 12, 1836.
125. Lexington Intelligencer, May 6, 1836.
126. The Commonwealth, May 18, 1836.
127. Lexington Intelligencer, May 10, 1836.
128. Kentucky Gazette, May 16, 1836. These were Simon Gregg, W. Hughy, John Connaly, J. R. Wallace, E. Bowie, C. Wallace, John Simpey, J. G. Gorham, Robert McMeans, Robert Innes, T. E. Ritter, John McLean, John Roy, Asa Lawrence, James Maddox.
129. Kentucky Gazette, May 19, 1836.
130. Lexington Intelligencer, May 24, 1836.
131. Ibid., June 17, 1836.
132. Ibid., May 10, 1836; Kentucky Gazette, May 19, 1836.
133. Lexington Intelligencer, May 24, 1836.
134. Ibid.
135. Kentucky Gazette, May 23, 1836. A committee of seven citizens of Shelbyville and Shelby county exonerated Major Ferguson from reports prejudicial to him in reference to money collected by him for the Texan cause. Lexington Intelligencer, June 14, 1836.
136. Ibid., May 20, 1836.
137. Lexington Intelligencer, June 10, 1836.
138. Richmond Enquirer, April 22, June 26, 1836.
139. Lexington Intelligencer, April 26, 1836.
140. Lexington Intelligencer, June 3, 1836.
141. Ibid., June 10, 1836; Kentucky Gazette, June 6, 1836. In addition to Fayette, the counties of Clarke and Montgomery were represented among these emigrants. Frankfort Argus, June 8, 1836.
142. Kentucky Gazette, June 16, 1836. Another account says they left Sunday in the Adriatic.
143. This Mr. Smith was a “colonel,” and is furthermore styled “a gentleman of fortune.”
144. The new boat was probably the Tuskina. See Senate Docs., 24 Cong., 2 Sess., I, No. 1, p. 40.
145. Kentucky Gazette, June 20, 1836.
146. Lexington Intelligencer, June 1, 1836. According to the Richmond Whig, July 22, 1836, ninety-four volunteers left this month commanded by Captain Earl, of Louisville.
147. Kentucky Gazette, July 7, 1836. The same paper a few days later asserted that it was doubtful if their service would be wanted.
148. This letter is copied from the Kentucky Gazette, July 11, 1836.
149. Kentucky Gazette, July 28, 1836. On July 1 a meeting was held in New Orleans for the purpose of raising means to transport the Kentucky volunteers to Texas. Virginia Herald, July 23, 1836.
150. Kentucky Gazette, August 18, 1836. Colonel Wilson arrived in Texas by July 24. Ibid., August 25, 1836. Some of the command of Wilson probably remained in New Orleans until August, for one account mentions the departure of Kentucky volunteers during this month for Texas in the schooner Julius Caesar. Virginia Herald, August 27, 1836, quoting the New Orleans True American, August 9, 1836.
151. The Commonwealth, August 31, 1836.
152. See the Kentucky Gazette, September 13, 1836, for a detailed statement of their grievances. Their article was also published in the Frankfort Argus, September 21, 1836.
Reports of a similar nature found their way into the newspapers, and naturally had the effect of deterring volunteers from going to Texas. Cf. the Virginia Herald, March 23, 1836. The Evening Post, March 23, 1836, copies from the Randolph (Tenn.) Recorder a dismal account of the situation in Texas.
153. Kentucky Gazette, October 31, 1836. It is gratifying to note that General Chambers was completely exonerated by the government of Texas for his share in sending volunteers to Texas. On June 12, 1837, the Texas Congress passed a resolution tendering Chambers their thanks for the zeal and ability displayed by him in defending the cause of Texas, and for the efficient manner in which he had discharged the duties of his commission in sending men and arms to Texas. Gammel, Laws of Texas, I, 1328.
154. Cf. Barker, “Land Speculation as a Cause of the Texas Revolution,” in The Quarterly, X, 79-95. The Richmond Enquirer of March 26, 1836, quotes the Charleston Patriot of March 14th to this effect: “The gallant corps of Volunteer Greys from New Orleans has generally returned disgusted with the service, saying that they would no longer fight to enrich a few land speculators.” Cf. Courier and Enquirer, October 31, 1835.
155. Lexington Intelligencer, May 14, 20, 1836; Kentucky Gazette, May 16, 23, 26, 1836. The Intelligencer of May 17 published official confirmation of the defeat of Santa Anna copied from the New Orleans paper of some two weeks earlier.
156. Richard Roman, of Kentucky, commanded a company in the fight. Muster Rolls, p. 208. The Second Regiment of Texas Volunteers was commanded by Colonel Sidney Sherman, another Kentuckian, who, with a Kentucky regiment gallantly led the left wing at the battle of San Jacinto. The Quarterly, XIV, 213. Cf., also, Barker, “The San Jacinto Campaign,” in Ibid., IV, 262-336 passim, for allusions to Colonel Sherman's activity in the San Jacinto campaign. For services rendered the government by him and for money expended for the same, Colonel Sherman was allowed by the Texan Congress the sum of $3973.17. Gammel, Laws of Texas, I, 1491.
“It is susceptible of almost positive proof,” says one writer, “that ninety-eight per cent of those who fought at San Jacinto were already settled in Texas or remained in the Republic after the Revolution.” Fulmore, “The Annexation of Texas and the Mexican War,” in The Quarterly, V, 29, note 2. At the same time it is asserted by others that Texas “could never have recovered from the severe blows received in the Alamo and Goliad had it not been for the active help of friends in the United States.” Smith, “The Quarrel Between Governor Smith and the Council,” in The Quarterly, V, 345. Cf., also, Ibid., IX, 260.
157. This letter, which is of considerable length, is taken from the Louisiana Journal, and is printed in the Commonwealth of June 8, 1836, and in the Frankfort Argus of June 15, 1836. Only those portions relating to the battle of San Jacinto are reproduced. An extended account of the battle agreeing in the main with Captain Tarleton's description, was contributed by Colonel George W. Hockley to the Louisiana Advertiser of May 23, 1836, and is copied in the Virginia Herald, May 25, 1836.
158. Dr. William Motley was a member of Houston's staff and a brave soldier. Foote, Texas and Texans, II, 311, relates this incident: “When Motley was asked if he was hurt, he replied, `Yes, I believe I am mortally wounded.' `Doctor, I will get some one to take care of you,' replied his questioner. `No,' answered Motley, `if you whip them, send back a man to assist me, but if you do not, I shall need no assistance.' ”
159. Cf. Lexington Intelligencer, November 18, 1836; December 6, 23, 1836. Such contradictory rumors continued to be printed throughout the spring of 1837. See Kentucky Gazette, January 12, 1837; February 7, 1837; April 13, 1837; May 11, 18, 1837.
160. Lexington Intelligencer, July 19, 1836.
161. Cf. Barker, “The San Jacinto Campaign,” in The Quarterly, IV, 255: “That he [i. e. Gen. Gaines] was in eager sympathy with the Texans and was possessed of an almost feverish desire to help them is certain.”
162. Cf. Kentucky Gazette, August 8, 1836. In this same month, however, Grayson wrote Jack that it was likely the invasion of Texas would for a time be suspended. Grayson to Jack, August 11, 1836. Garrison, Dip. Cor. Tex., I, 121.
163. Kentucky Gazette, July 11, 1836. In November Thomas J. Rusk, the Secretary of War, was summoning the able-bodied men of Texas to arms. In December there was rumor of an invasion by land and sea. Austin to Wharton, December 10, 1836. Garrison, Dip. Cor. Tex., I, 150. On December 22, 1836, a joint resolution was passed by the Texas Congress authorizing the president to receive into service 40,000 volunteers. Gammel, Laws of Texas, I, 1285. Perhaps this is a misprint for 4000.
164. Wharton to Austin, November 30, 1836. Garrison, Dip. Cor. Tex., I, 148.
165. Wharton to Austin, December 22, 28, 31, 1836. Ibid., I, 167. On January 11, 1837, Senator Walker, of Mississippi, stated in the Senate that he had information to the effect that the projected invasion of Texas had been abandoned. Cf., however, Catlett to Henderson, April 14, 1837. Garrison, Dip. Cor. Tex., I, 207.
166. Kentucky Gazette, April 13, 1837. Cf., however, Catlett to Henderson, May 7, 1837. Garrison, Dip. Cor. Tex., I, 217. According to Yoakum, History of Texas, II, 209, only those volunteers would be passed by Colonel Thruston who should furnish themselves with good arms, six months' clothing, and two months' rations.
167. Upon this subject, see Barker, “The Texan Revolutionary Army,” in The Quarterly, IX, 227-261.
168. See Muster Rolls for period of enlistment. The following oath was taken by the volunteers: “Know all men by these presents that I have this day enrolled myself in the Volunteer Auxiliary Corps for and during the term of six months. And I do solemnly swear that I will bear true allegiance to the Provisional Government of Texas or any future Government that may be hereafter declared and that I will serve her honestly and faithfully against all her enemies whatsoever and observe and obey the Governor of Texas, the orders and decrees of the President and future authorities, and the orders of the officers over me, according to rules and articles for the Government of the Army of Texas. So Help Me God.” Muster Rolls, p. 115. As a rule, the volunteers hesitated to enlist for any definite period. Cf. Yoakum, History of Texas, II, 456.
169. Ordinances and Decrees, 48.
170. Ibid., 85.
171. Cf. The Quarterly, IX, 233, note 3. President Burnet, in his first message to the Texan Congress, October 4, 1836, recommended the propriety of withholding all inducements to enlistments for short periods of time. The message is printed in Niles' Register, LI, 189-191. The correspondent of the Courier and Enquirer, November 21, 1836, wrote from New Orleans that treasury bills of volunteers could be cashed in that city only in small quantities and at an enormous discount.
172. Ordinances and Decrees, 92.
173. Proceedings of Convention, 74-75.
174. The Quarterly, IX, 234.
175. The Quarterly, IX, 235, and above, p. 46, note 2.
176. Ordinances and Decrees, 22, 87.
177. Ibid., 79.
178. Gammel, Laws of Texas, I, 1414.
179. Ibid., I, 894-895.
180. Cf., Ibid., I, 1450-1451.
181. Gammel, Laws of Texas, I, 1094.
182. Ibid., I, 1436.
183. Austin, Archer and Wharton to Smith, February 16, 1836; Austin to Owings, February 12, 1836; Austin and Archer to the Governor of Texas, March 3, 1836. Garrison, Dip. Cor. Tex., I, 68-69, 70, 73. Cf., however, The Quarterly, IX, 233, note 3. The Kentucky Gazette, December 12, 1836, prints an offer signed by Miller promising twelve hundred acres of land and $24 bounty; promises are held out of a law raising the bounty to two thousand acres. According to a joint resolution passed by the Texas Congress November 30, 1836, those introducing by January 10 for the duration of the war as many as twenty men were to receive a second lieutenant's commission; thirty, a first lieutenant's; fifty-six, a captain's; two hundred and eighty, a major's; four hundred, a lieutenant-colonel's; five hundred and sixty, a colonel's, and eleven hundred and twenty, a brigadier-general's. Gammel, Laws of Texas, I, 1112. Cf., also, Lexington Intelligencer, April 26, 1836, and Kentucky Gazette, July 20, 1837.
184. See Barker, “President Jackson and the Texas Revolution,” in American Historical Review for July, 1907. Cf., also, Miss Ethel Z. Rather, “Recognition of the Republic of Texas by the United States,” in The Quarterly, XIII, No. 3.
185. Benton, Thirty Years' View, I, 15, 16.
186. Richardson, Messages and Papers, I, 151, III, 237-238. On August 5, 1836, President Jackson wrote Governor Cannon, of Tennessee, as follows: “The obligations of our treaty with Mexico ... require us to maintain a strict neutrality in the contest which now agitates a part of that republic ... any act on the part of the government of the United States that would tend to foster a spirit of resistance to her Government and laws ... would be unauthorized and highly improper. A scrupulous sense of these obligations has prevented me thus far from doing anything which can authorize the suspicion that our Government is unmindful of them, and I hope to be equally cautious and circumspect in all my future conduct.” Sen. Docs., 24 Cong., 2 Sess., I, No. 31. Practically the same sentiments were expressed somewhat over a year later by Forsyth in a letter to General Memucan Hunt. Cf., also, Sen. Docs., 24 Cong., 2 Sess., I, No. 31. One of the Kentucky papers noted that the Governor of Louisiana had issued a proclamation calling attention to the Act of 1818. Lexington Observer and Kentucky Reporter, December 16, 1835. The editor of the Philadelphia Saturday Courier expressed surprise that the President had not issued a proclamation announcing neutrality, inasmuch as such a step was certainly sanctioned by custom.
187. Wharton and Hunt to Rusk, February 20, 1837. Dip. Cor. Tex., I, 196, 197. Cf. Rather, “Recognition of the Republic of Texas by the United States,” in The Quarterly, XIII, 246-247. The writer, after a careful study of the question, reaches the conclusion that so far as Jackson's personal attitude toward Texas was concerned, he was consistent throughout.
188. Bassett, Life of Andrew Jackson, II, 680. “The writer does not reflect that we have a treaty with Mexico, and our national faith is pledged to support it. . . . [The rebellion] was a rash and a premature act, our neutrality must be faithfully maintained.” This is precisely the attitude taken in his message of December 22, 1836. Richardson, Messages and Papers, III, 266.
189. House Exec. Docs., 24 Cong., 2 Sess., VI, No. 256; 25 Cong., 2 Sess., VII, No. 190; 25 Cong., 2 Sess., XII, No. 351; Sen. Docs., 24 Cong., 2 Sess., I, No. 1.
190. House Exec. Docs., 24 Cong., 1 Sess., VI, No. 256.
191. These orders were addressed by Secretary Forsyth to the district attorneys at Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Mobile, Richmond, Nashville, Frankfort, Natchez, and St. Martinsville, La. Lewis Sanders, the district attorney at Frankfort, in his reply to Forsyth, declared his intention of enforcing the laws against all offenders. In his letter to Dickens he disclaims knowledge of any movement calculated to disturb our neutral relations with Mexico. In similar manner Addison who was acting as district attorney at Natchez assured Forsyth that vigilance would be used to prevent any infraction of neutrality within his district.
The United States district attorney at New York assured the Mexican consul of his earnest wish to render every aid in his power to preserve an entire neutrality as regards the Texas revolution. See Senate Docs., 24 Cong., 2 Sess., VI, Nos. 25, 37, 42. Cf., also, House Exec. Docs., 24 Cong., 1 Sess., VI, No. 256; 25 Cong., 2 Sess., III, No. 74.
192. Moore, Inter. Law Digest, VII, 912. It was held that acceptance of a commission might be regarded as contrary at least to the spirit of the Act of Congress of April 20, 1818. Ibid., VII, 872. By some papers it was charged that high officers of the United States government were taking part with the Texans; this was denied, however. The author of the War of Texas, p. 43, gives credence to the rumor that some two hundred of Gaines's force had joined the Texan army. On the other hand an officer writing from Fort Jesup under date of October 24 refers to the “high and dignified course in the cause of neutrality and national faith which is responded to by almost every officer in this army—much is due to Mexico; and the United States owe it to themselves to be strictly neutral.” Virginia Herald, December 7, 1836. It may be observed that a contract between citizens of the United States and an inhabitant of Texas to enable him to raise men and procure arms to carry on the war with Mexico could not be specifically enforced by a court of the United States. Moore, Inter. Law Digest, VII, 909.
193. Cf. Wheaton's Inter. Law (Boyd), Third Edition, p. 584.
194. Austin, Archer and Wharton to Smith, January 10, 1836. Garrison, Dip. Cor. Tex., I, 56. “To undertake to receive them [i. e. troops] here, and pay their way to Texas, is now impossible. We have not the means, and it is an open violation of the laws of this country, than which nothing could more effectually injure our cause.”
195. Carson to Burnet, June 1, 1836. Garrison, Dip. Cor. Tex., I, 93.
196. Jackson complained of “those who, indifferent to principle themselves and prone to suspect the want of it in others, charge us with ambitious designs and perfidious policy.” Richardson, Messages and Papers, III, 237-238. Those who saw in the Texas question only evidences of a dark plot to wrest a large domain from Mexico for the purpose of adding five or six more slave States to the Union, charged the “combination” with sending “volunteers” to the frontier, through the agency and at the expense of the government. Lundy, War in Texas, p. 42. In May, 1836, Webster wrote: “I have no faith in Gaines's prudence, or, indeed, in his purposes.” Writings and Speeches, XVIII, 19 (Boston, 1903). We find the New Orleans Bee, April 23, 1836, protesting that “if Gaines enters Texas with his forces, he exceeds his authority, no matter on what pretext.” Von Holst (History of the United States, II, 573-583) concludes a ten-page fulmination against the administration with the statement, “a more shameless comedy of neutrality was never played.” It is more surprising to find MacDonald (Jacksonian Democracy, The American Nation, XV, 215) asserting that “Jackson's defence of his course was utterly specious.” On the other hand, see Barker, “President Jackson and the Texas Revolution,” in American Historical Review for July, 1907, and cf. Garrison, Westward Extension (American Nation, XVII), 87-89. A friend of the administration has this to say: “Duty and interest prescribed to the United States a rigorous neutrality; and this condition she has faithfully fulfilled. Our young men have gone to Texas to fight; but they have gone without the sanction of the laws, and against the orders of the government ... Prosecutions have been ordered against violators of law ... if parties and individuals still go to Texas to fight, the act is particular, not national. ... The conduct of the administration has been strictly neutral.” Benton, Thirty Years' View, I, 671. Cf., also, Bassett, Life of Andrew Jackson, II, 673-681, and especially Smith, The Annexation of Texas, 23-25, et seq. This writer can find on the whole nothing to censure in the conduct of Jackson or of the administration touching the question of our neutrality.
According to the Courier and Advertiser, October 24, 1836, the United States government in advancing its troops to Nacogdoches was only performing a duty due the inhabitants who it might appear were American citizens and whom the government claiming jurisdiction over them with us could no longer protect in their persons and property.
The Evening Post, May 12, 1836, in an editorial defending Gaines and the administration, held that the former's instructions were as guarded as they could well be. This journal protested vigorously against a premature recognition of the independence of Texas by the United States government.
197. On the danger from the Indians, see Carson to Burnet, April 14, 1836. Garrison, Dip. Cor. Tex., I, 83; for report of an alliance between the Cherokees and General Urrea and on the right of Texas to be protected in accordance with the treaty, see Burnet to Collinsworth and Grayson. August 10, 1836, Ibid., I, 119. The New Orleans correspondent of the Courier and Enquirer, March 19, 1836, traces the rumor of such an alliance to the Donaldson (La.) Eagle of February 13.
198. Austin to Wharton, December 10, 1836. Garrison, Dip. Cor. Tex., I, 156. The Virginia Herald of August 20, 1836, prints a letter dated New Orleans, July 29, in which the writer seeks to show that the story of the visit of the Cherokee chiefs to Matamoros for the purpose of making a treaty with the Mexicans was “entirely a fabrication.”
199. Wharton to Forsyth, January 11, 1837. Garrison, Dip. Cor. Tex., I, 175. Cf. Ibid., I, 187, 195, 203 et seq.
200. Henderson to Wharton and Hunt, January 21, 1837. Ibid., I, 177-178.
201. General Gaines, as is evident from his letter to Governor Cannon, of Tennessee, attached slight importance to crossing a “little muddy branch of the Sabine bay,” inasmuch as he was “impressed with the belief that the whole of the frontier would be involved in an Indian war as soon as threatened hostilities between our neighbors on the West are renewed.”
For an extended and unfavorable comment upon the proposed action of General Gaines in advancing to “old Fort Nacogdoches,” see the National Intelligencer, March 10, 1836. Cf. Ibid., September 9, 1836.
202. See Smith, The Annexation of Texas, Chapter 3.
203. Richmond Enquirer, May 3, 1836. A “Citizen of the West” writing on Texas in this paper September 2, 1836, remarks that there are “enough volunteers from Kentucky to go to Mexico if Texas had funds to pay the expenses of transportation, and to support them until they reached camp.”
204. Cf. Wharton to Austin, December 11, 1836. Garrison, Dip. Cor. Tex., I, 152. The writer refers to the annexation of Texas being opposed by some in Kentucky and in other States on the ground that a brighter destiny awaited Texas as an independent State.
205. On the other hand, the more influential portion of the press of Kentucky sided heartily with Texas. When news of the fall of Bexar reached the State, editorials appeared calling upon the citizens of Kentucky to aid the struggling Texans not only with sympathy but with men and money. See Frankfort Argus, April 20, 1836.
206. The Commonwealth, February 1, 1837. As for instance when the lower house of the Kentucky Legislature passed a resolution instructing her representatives in Congress to vote in favor of recognition. It may be noted that Clay was chairman of the Senate committee which on June 18 reported in favor of the conditional acknowledgment of the independence of Texas. Cf. Rather, “Recognition of the Republic of Texas by the United States,” in The Quarterly, XIII, 218.
207. Kentucky Gazette, June 6, 1836.
208. Burnet to Collinsworth and Grayson. August 10, 1836. Garrison, Dip. Cor. Tex., I. 210.
209. F. O., Texas, Vol. 18.
210. This correspondence treats of the project of joint mediation between Mexico and Texas, by England, France, and the United States. Aberdeen declined to join in this, stating England's preference to act alone. The enclosures were:
1.
Smith to Aberdeen, August 19, 1842. (In Garrison, Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas, III, 1011, in Am. Hist. Assoc. Report, 1908, II,—but the date there given is “August 15 (?).” In this was enclosed copy of Smith to Guizot, August 15, 1842. (In Idem., III, 1387.)
2.Aberdeen to Cowley, No. 147, October 15, 1842. Aberdeen here stated that England, carrying out the plan of her treaties with Texas, had already offered mediation, but had met with no encouragement, and that since Mexico was at the moment angry at an alleged violation of neutrality by the United States, more might probably be accomplished by similar individual action, than by joint action. He enclosed to Cowley correspondence to show that there was little present prospect of Mexican acquiescence in the proposed mediation. These letters were: Aberdeen to Pakenham, No. 21, July 1, 1842; and No. 24, July 15, 1842; Pakenham to Aberdeen, No. 80 (September?), 1842.
3.Cowley to Aberdeen, No. 349, October 24, 1842. For comment on the proposed tripartite mediation, see Adams, British Interests and Activities in Texas, 117-119.
211. F. O., Texas, Vol. 4.212. Not found. Presumably a private letter, but apparently in response Elliot began the series of unofficial letters to Addington, which convey his personal impressions and opinions in regard to Texan matters. He no doubt understood that these letters were to reach the foreign office, and in fact they were filed with the formal, official despatches addressed to Aberdeen.
213. Meaning uncertain. Possibly should be read V. L., meaning vide locum; or I. L., meaning in loco.
214. The tariff of August, 1842, which raised duties above twenty per cent.
215. F. O., Texas, Vol. 3.
216. F. O., Texas, Vol. 4.
217. F. O., Texas, Vol. 4.
218. F. O., Texas, Vol. 4.
219. No. 14, Elliot to Aberdeen, acknowledging receipt of dispatches, is omitted.
220. F. O., Texas, Vol. 4. The letter is unsigned.
221. F. O., Texas, Vol. 4.
222. No evidence has been found that Smith made such an admission, but Houston did mildly state his disapproval of Smith's vigor in the affair of the Montezuma and Guadalupe (Terrell to Smith, December 7, 1842. Garrison, Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas, III, 1057; in Am. Hist. Assoc. Report, 1908, II.)
223. See two letters from Hamilton to Houston, November 6 and 25, 1842, in Garrison, Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas, I, 638-640; in Am. Hist. Assoc. Report, 1907, II.
224. President Houston's message is dated December 1, 1842. (Journals of the House of Representatives of the Seventh Congress of the Republic of Texas, 10-28.)—Editors of The Quarterly.
225. The bill referred to by Elliot is “An act to regulate the collection of impost duties,” approved July 23, 1842. (Gammel, Laws of Texas, II, 812.)—Editors of The Quarterly.
226. Illegible.
227. F. O., Texas, Vol. 4. No. 16, Elliot to Aberdeen, enclosing Houston's Message of December 1, 1842; and No. 17, enclosing copy of letter Terrell to Elliot, October 16, 1842, are omitted.
228. See Garrison, Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas, III, 1022-1023; in Am. Hist. Assoc. Report, 1908, II.
229. Ibid., III, 1058-1062, Elliot to Terrell, December 13, 1842.
230. F. O., Texas, Vol. 4.
231. Ashbel Smith, on instructions from Anson Jones, had proposed to France in July, 1842, that she join with Great Britain and the United States in urging Mexico to make peace with Texas. Guizot approved the plan and suggested it to Aberdeen, but the latter preferred to have Great Britain act separately, and declined the overture in October, 1842. (Adams, British Interests and Activities in Texas, 117-119.) On December 7, 1842, Elliot, in a private letter to Houston, stated Aberdeen's refusal, and transmitted the substance of the correspondence between England and France. (Garrison, Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas, I, 637, in Am. Hist. Assoc. Report, 1907, II.)
232. F. O., Texas, Vol. 4.
233. President Tyler's message to Congress, December 7, 1842. (Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, IV, 197.) Elliot's quotation is slightly inaccurate.
234. Treaty of Washington, signed at Washington, August 9, 1842.
235. On December 20, 1841, the Quintuple treaty for the suppression of the African slave trade had been signed at London by England, France, Prussia, Austria, and Russia. The treaty gave to each nation a right to search vessels of the other nations signing the treaty. Lewis Cass, American representative at Paris, protested against this, wrote a pamphlet upon the matter of right of search, and appealed to France with such effect that the French government refused to ratify the treaty. For the treaty, see British and Foreign State Papers, XXX, 269.
236. Vicomte Jules de Cramayel, French chargé d'affaires in Texas, 1842-1844.
237. See note, page 93.
238. Henry Wellesley, Baron Cowley (1773-1847), British ambassador at Paris, 1841-1846. (Stephen, Dictionary of National Biography.)
239. On December 20th, R. Scurry introduced the resolution referred to by Elliot. (Journals of the House of Representatives of the Seventh Congress of the Republic of Texas, 89.)—Editors of The Quarterly.
240. Reprinted from The American Historical Review, April, 1912.
How to cite:
"Issue View", Volume 016, Number 1, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online. http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v016/n1/issue.html
[Accessed Mon Nov 23 21:59:34 CST 2009]
