Vol. XVI 1 JANUARY, 1913 No. 3
The publication committee and the editors disclaim responsibility for views expressed by contributors to The Quarterly.
California apparently had no established eastern boundary under the Spanish government. 2 The explorations of Garcés through southern Nevada as shown on Padre Font's map of 1777, 3 and of Domínguez and Escalante through Utah and southeastern Nevada 4 had doubtless given the Spanish officials a vague notion of the interior basin of upper California, as it was called, and the decrees of the viceroys, according to Halleck, included that region in the judicial district of the California territory. 5
Even when Mexico became independent of Spain, the boundaries of her northern provinces, California and New Mexico, were not established with any great degree of precision. There were, for instance, two maps of Upper California published in 1837. Rosa's map, published by order of the Mexican Congress, shows the southern boundary by a line running south of west from the mouth of the Gila river to the vicinity of latitude thirty degrees and thirty minutes on the Pacific coast. The eastern boundary begins at the mouth of the Gila river and runs northeast, joining the 42d parallel at the 108th meridian. The Dufour map, of the same year, indicates no boundary between Upper and Lower California. The eastern boundary, beginning near the 33d parallel, runs northward between 112 and 113 degrees of longitude west from Greenwich, to the vicinity of the 36th parallel of latitude, then turns west of north and joins the 42d degree of north latitude on longitude 116 west. The northern boundary of Upper California, according to Rosa's map, extends from longitude 108, west from Greenwich, westward along the 42d parallel to the Pacific, while on Dufour's, the same boundary includes only the territory along the 42d parallel between 116 degrees west longitude and the Pacific ocean.
Tanner's Map of the United States of Mexico, published in 1846, and Mitchell's Map of Mexico including Yucatan and Upper California, published in the same year, give California similar eastern boundaries but boundaries which differ considerably from the maps published in 1837. The eastern line runs rather irregularly between 30 degrees and 31 degrees 30 minutes of longitude west from Washington from about the 32d to the 42d parallels of latitude. Another map drawn by Charles Preuss from the surveys of John C. Frémont and other authorities (Washington, 1848)—the one which seems to have been used more frequently than any other by the California Convention of 1849,—indicates still different boundaries. 6 The southern line, beginning on the Pacific coast, about one marine league south of San Diego 7, runs almost directly east and west to the Gila river, and along that stream to the vicinity of the present Tempe, Arizona, near the 112th degree of longitude west from Greenwich. The eastern line extends northward through Utah, just west of Bear Lake, to the 42d parallel north latitude. The map used by the United States and Mexico in establishing the boundaries in 1848 was Disturnell's Mapa de los Estados Unidos de Mejico (California, New York, 1847). The edition of this map used by the writer, which seems to have indicated the same boundaries for California as the one just cited, was published in 1850. On it the eastern line begins near latitude 32 degrees 30 minutes north, and longitude 31 degrees west from Washington, and extends northward, at one place coming near longitude 33 degrees, finally joining the 42d parallel near longitude 31 degrees west from Washington. The map accompanying the President's Message to the two Houses of Congress, December 5, 1848, is very similar to the Disturnell map, except that the former follows the Suanca branch of the Gila river instead of the middle branch, thus including in California more territory in the southeast than the latter. The Disturnell map also extends the northwestern boundary of New Mexico slightly more than does the map accompanying the President's message. These maps published at different periods all agree in making the 42d parallel the northern boundary of California,—the line established by United States and Spain in the treaty of 1819—but that is about all they have in common. As we have seen, they show the eastern boundary at the north touching the 42d parallel anywhere between longitude 116 west from Greenwich as indicated on Dufour's map, and 108 as shown by Rosa.
General Riley's proclamation calling a constitutional convention was issued on the third of June, 1849. The eastern boundary of the ten districts into which California was divided by that document was described as formed by the Colorado river and the “Coast” and Sierra Nevada ranges of mountains. Among a majority of the delegates, 8 however, there was a general feeling that the state which they were forming need not be confined to these limits. The Convention, therefore, on September 12, authorized the President to appoint a committee whose duty it should be to propose satisfactory boundaries for the new commonwealth. The members chosen were men supposed to be familiar with the geography of California as it existed under Mexico. They were Hastings and Sutter of Sacramento, Rodríguez of Monterey, La Guerra of Santa Barbara, and Reid of Los Angeles. 9
On Tuesday, September 18, Hastings submitted for the committee the following report:
Your Committee are of the opinion that the present boundary of California comprehends a tract of country entirely too extensive for one state and that there are various other forcible reasons why that boundary should not be adopted by this Convention. The area of the tract of country included within the present boundary is estimated to be four hundred and forty-eight thousand, six hundred and ninety-one (338,691) square miles, which is nearly equal to that of all the non-slaveholding states of the Union, and which, deducting the area of Iowa, is greater than that of the residue of the non-slaveholding states.
Your Committee are of the opinion that a country like this, extending along the coast nearly a thousand miles and more than twelve hundred miles into the interior, cannot be conveniently or fairly represented in a state legislature here, especially as a greater part of the interior is entirely cut off from the country on the coast by the Sierra Nevada, a continuous chain of lofty mountains, which is covered with snow, and is wholly impassable nearly nine months in the year.
Your Committee are also of the opinion that the country included within the boundaries of this territory as now established, must ultimately be divided and sub-divided into several different states, which divisions and sub-divisions (should the present boundary be adopted) would be very likely to divest the state of California of a valuable portion of her sea coast. Your Committee are therefore of the opinion that a boundary should now be fixed upon which will entirely preclude the possibility of such a result in the future. Another important reason which has aided very much in producing the conclusion to which your Committee has arrived, is predicated upon the fact that there is already a vast settlement [the Mormons in Utah] in a remote portion of this territory, the population of which is variously estimated to be from fifteen to thirty thousand human souls, who are not represented in this Convention, and who, perhaps, do not desire to be represented here.
The religious peculiarities of these people, and the very fact of their having selected that remote and isolated region as a permanent home, would seem to warrant a conclusion that they desire no direct political connection with us, and it is possible, and highly probable, in the opinion of your Committee, that measures have been or are now being taken by these people for the establishment of a Territorial Government for themselves.
For the above and foregoing reasons, your Committee are of the opinion that the following should constitute the boundary of the state of California, viz:
Commencing at the northeast corner of the state at the intersection of the parallel of latitude forty-two degrees north with the parallel of longitude one hundred and sixteen west; thence south, upon and along that parallel of longitude to the boundary line between the United States and Mexico, established by the treaty of peace ratified by the said governments at Queretaro, on the thirtieth day of May, 1848; thence west, upon and along said boundary line, to the Pacific ocean; thence in a northerly direction, following the course of the Pacific coast, to the said parallel of forty-two degrees north latitude, extending one marine league into the sea from the southern to the northern boundary, and including all the bays, harbors and islands adjacent to the said coast; and thence, east from the said coast, at latitude forty-two degrees north, upon and along that parallel of latitude to the place of beginning. 10
Immediately after hearing this report the House adjourned, and although the Convention held daily sessions during the interval, the subject of the boundary did not come up again until four days later, the twenty-second of September. 11 McDougal warned the Convention that numerous proposals would be submitted for the establishment of a satisfactory eastern boundary, and suggested that all who intended to place proposals before the House for consideration should do so at once. He did not himself agree with the Committee, but without attempting to explain the one which he considered the proper boundary he would simply offer his amendment, namely:
That the boundary of the state of California shall include all that tract of country from the 105th degree of longitude west from Greenwich to the Pacific coast, and from the 32d to the 42d degree of north latitude, known as the territory of California; also the harbors, islands and bays adjacent and along the Pacific coast; also, to extend three English miles into said Pacific ocean and along the coast thereof from the 32d to the 42d degrees of latitude north; but if Congress should not grant or adopt the boundary herein set forth, then the boundary to be as follows, viz: Commencing at the point of intersection of the 42d degree of north latitude, and of the 120th degree of longitude west from Greenwich, and running south on the line of the said 120th degree of west longitude until it intersects the 38th degree of north latitude; thence running in a straight line in a southeasterly direction to the boundary line between the United States and Mexico as established by the treaty of May 30, 1848, and at a point where the 116th degree of west longitude intersects said boundary line; thence running west and along said boundary line to the Pacific ocean, and extending therein three English miles; thence running in a northeasterly direction and following the direction of the Pacific coast to the 42d degree of north latitude, to the place of beginning; also all the islands, harbors, and bays along and adjacent to the Pacific coast. 12
Semple of Sonoma said that he considered the problem of establishing a satisfactory eastern boundary, if the line did not extend west of the Sierra Nevada mountains, a subject of secondary importance. He thought, therefore, it would be well for the Convention to fix definite boundaries north and south and leave the eastern line to be determined by Congress. Personally he felt that the only portion of the territory which should be included within the boundaries of the new state was that part west of the Sierra Nevada mountains, but that if Congress wished to include the whole of Spanish California, he thought it would be better to accept the desire of that body rather than risk having to remain out of the Union for three or four years. It was “highly desirable,” he thought, to have a regularly organized government, and this could be obtained more quickly by omitting everything from their constitution which would tend to stir up sectional prejudices in Congress. 13
Following the suggestion, made by McDougal, of getting the various proposals before the House as soon as possible, so that each member could understand the different eastern boundaries proposed before beginning the discussion, Gwin of San Francisco submitted the following amendment to the amendment:
The boundary of California shall be as follows: beginning at the point on the Pacific ocean south of San Diego, to be established by the Commissioners of the United States and Mexico, appointed under the treaty of the 2d of February, 1848, for running the boundary line between the territory of the United States and Mexico, and thence running in an easterly direction on the line fixed by said Commissioners as the boundary to the territory of New Mexico: thence northerly on the boundary line between New Mexico and California, as laid down on the Map of Oregon and Upper California from the survey of John C. Fremont, and other authorities, drawn by Charles Preuss, under the order of the Senate of the United States, Washington City, 1848, to the 42d degree of north latitude; thence due west, on the boundary line between Oregon and California, to the Pacific ocean; thence southerly along the coast of the Pacific ocean, including the islands and bays belonging to California, to the place of beginning. 14
Halleck of Monterey offered and Gwin accepted the following proviso clause as a part of the amendment which the latter had submitted:
But the Legislature shall have power by the votes of two-thirds of both Houses 15 to accede to such proposals as may be made by the Congress of the United States, upon the admission of the state of California into the national confederacy and Union (if they shall be deemed just and reasonable), to limit the eastern boundaries of the state to the Sierra Nevada, and a line drawn from some point in that range to some point of the Colorado or Gila rivers, and to organize, by Congress, a territorial government for that portion of California east of these boundaries, or to admit it into the Union as a distinct and separate state. And the Legislature shall make declaration of such assent by law. 16
Gwin said that, believing that many difficulties would arise in connection with the establishment of a satisfactory eastern boundary, he had devoted a good deal of time to a careful study of the subject. He had maps which he had submitted to citizens of California “who were well versed in the matter, and they had informed him that the boundary which he proposed” was the one recognized by the government of Mexico. It had already been recognized by the United States, he said, in official documents and maps published by order of Congress. It was quite essential to state a definite boundary in the constitution, “but as this was a fair subject of negotiation between the two high contracting parties, and as Congress had a right to determine what our boundary should be, . . . then it was fair for Congress and the Legislature, under this proviso, to change it by their joint action.” 17 It was true that his proposition included an immense territory, but the people of California could divide it later into several states if they so desired.
Shannon of Sacramento believed that none of the boundaries proposed would be satisfactory. The line which he would suggest would, he thought, offer many advantages over anything yet submitted to the Convention. It would include every point which was of any real value to the state, taking in the Colorado River, which would be of great importance as a southern “port of entry and depot for trade” between the interior provinces of Mexico and California, and would give the new state a uniform width and bring it within reasonable limits. He therefore recommended as the eastern boundary the 120th degree of west longitude from the 42d to the 38th parallel of north latitude, thence southeast to the point of intersection of the 35th parallel of north latitude with the Colorado river, thence south along the eastern bank of that stream to the boundary line established between the United States and Mexico by the treaty of 1848. 18
About two weeks later, October 8, after the discussion of the above proposals and after the Gwin-Halleck proposal had been accepted, Ellis moved that the report of the Committee of the Whole on the Boundary be taken up, and Hastings of Sacramento immediately offered the following as a substitute for the line adopted: 19
Resolved, that the boundary of the state of California be as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the 42d parallel of north latitude and the 118th meridian line; thence south upon the said meridian to the point where it intersects the 38th parallel of north latitude; thence southeasterly in a direct line, to the point where the 114th meridian line intersects the Rio Colorado; thence southerly down the said river following the main channel thereof to the boundary line between the United States and Mexico, as established by the treaty of peace, ratified by the said governments at Queretaro on the 30th day of May, A. D., 1848; thence west upon said boundary line to the Pacific ocean; thence northerly, bounded by the said ocean, to the said 42d parallel of north latitude, including all the bays, harbors and islands adjacent to, and in the vicinity of the said coast; and thence east upon the said 42d parallel of north latitude to the place of beginning. 20
An attempt was made to discuss the proposal, but Botts interrupted by saying there was an understanding that a vote was to be taken upon the question without debating it. 21 He wanted either no debate or a full discussion of the subject. This demand led to an immediate vote which resulted in the adoption of the substitute offered by Hastings.
But objections were raised immediately. McDougal moved that the article on the boundary be reconsidered, while Sherwood made a long speech favoring such action. 22 Speeches were made by others, and on the following day Hastings's proposal was rejected by a majority of ten in a total vote of forty-four. 23 Shannon then submitted the proposal which he had formerly read, and it was also rejected. The question then reverted to the Gwin-Halleck proposal, which was adopted for the second time. 24
The announcement of this vote led to the only scene of disorder that occurred during the entire session of the Convention. “A dozen members jumped up, speaking and shouting in the most confused and disorderly manner. Some rushed out of the room; others moved an adjournment; others again protested they would sign no constitution embodying such a provision.” 25 Again the subject was reconsidered and various proposals were suggested, only two of which received serious consideration. These were offered in a spirit of compromise by Jones of San Joaquin and Hill of San Diego.
Jones believed that every member of the Convention wanted to avoid raising any question in Congress which might delay the admission of California, and he thought there was also a general feeling that the Sierra Nevada would be the most natural boundary. But there were some who insisted on fixing that as the definite boundary, making no provision for any difficulty in Congress; while others wanted to add a proviso clause so that if Congress did not accept the Sierra Nevada line, they would still have an opportunity to gain admission to statehood without experiencing serious delay. Why not compromise? Why not adopt the Sierra Nevada line with a proviso? That is, why not make it quite clear to Congress that the people of California much prefer the Sierra Nevada line for their eastern boundary, but if Congress should refuse to admit the state into the Union with that line, “if it should prove an insuperable barrier to our admission,” then “we will take a larger.” 26 He then suggested practically the same eastern limit as offered by McDougal and Shannon: the 120th degree of west longitude beginning at the 42d parallel and extending to the 39th, thence in a straight line southeast to the intersection of the 35th degree of north latitude and the Colorado river, thence down the middle of the channel of the river to the boundary line between the United States and Mexico. But if Congress would not accept that line, he suggested as a substitute the eastern limit as indicated on the Preuss Map of Oregon and Upper California. 27 It was the first part of Jones's proposal that was finally adopted by the Convention.
Botts was willing to compromise, but Jones's proposal involved a principle on which he could not yield. He would strenuously oppose any boundary that included the Mormon settlements, because these people had no representatives in the Convention. 28
To meet this objection and to satisfy those who insisted that a single, definite boundary be adopted, Hill submitted as the eastern limit a line following the Colorado from the mouth of the Gila to the 35th parallel, thence north to the 42d degree of north latitude. 29 Jones's proposal was rejected by a vote of thirty-one to thirteen, and Hill's was adopted by a vote of twenty-four to twenty-two. 30 The subject was again reconsidered, however, and for the third time the Convention voted on the Gwin-Halleck proposal. It was voted down by a majority of six in a total of forty-two votes. 31 Jones then offered the first part of his proposal and it was accepted as a final settlement of the boundary question by a vote of thirty-two to seven. 32 The boundary line thus established was as follows:
Commencing at the point of intersection of the 42d degree of north latitude with the 120th degree of longitude west from Greenwich and running south on the line of said 120th degree of west longitude until it intersects the 39th degree of north latitude; thence running in a straight line in a southeasterly direction to the river Colorado at a point where it intersects the 35th degree of north latitude; thence down the middle of the channel of said river to the boundary line between the United States and Mexico, as established by the treaty of May 30, 1848; thence running west and along said boundary line to the Pacific ocean and extending therein three English miles; thence running in a northerly direction and following the direction of the Pacific coast to the 42d degree of north latitude; thence on the line of said 42d degree of north latitude to the place of beginning; also all the islands, harbors and bays along and adjacent to the Pacific coast. 33
The arguments made by the proponents of the different boundaries have already been given. It is now in order to indicate the nature of the discussions which the proposals aroused.
The first part of McDougal's proposal, suggesting the 105th degree of west longitude as the extreme eastern limit for the new state, seems to have been given little or no consideration. The party which favored the adoption of the eastern boundary of California recognized by Mexico urged the acceptance of the Gwin-Halleck proposition, thus declaring themselves in favor of the line laid down on the Preuss map of 1848. The other party wanted to prescribe narrow limits, but at first they could not agree on a satisfactory line. Some spoke in favor of the proposal submitted by the Committee,—the 116th degree of west longitude,—and others for contracting the boundary still more. 34 The principal points of the argument were very similar on both sides: immediate admission to statehood, slavery, the right of the Convention to fix any other eastern boundary than that recognized by Mexico, and the question of including or excluding the Mormon settlements around Salt Lake. The small state party also expressed the fear of division of California by an east and west line. Throughout the entire discussion, both sides were actuated more than all else by a desire to gain quick admission into the Union. The majority of those favoring the extreme eastern boundary seem to have believed that Congress would accept them immediately with that line. The opposition was just as certain that immediate admission could be secured only by bringing the territory of the state within reasonable limits. 35
McCarver of Sacramento said the important thing was to do nothing that would delay their admission into the Union. “We want our two senators in the senate chamber to maintain the interests and supply the wants of California; we want our representatives in Congress” as soon as we can get them there. To accomplish this it was absolutely necessary to fix definite and permanent boundaries north, south, east and west. They should leave no boundary open; they should leave no question open that would be the means of keeping them out of the Union. Furthermore he would like to arrange it so that the Legislature would entertain no proposal from Congress for fixing a boundary. He was afraid Congress might cut the state in two by running a line east and west if the Convention adopted the Gwin-Halleck proposal. 36
Price of San Francisco also asserted that the first object the Convention wished to accomplish was to gain immediate admission into the Union. Could they do it by adopting the extreme eastern boundary offered in the Gwin-Halleck proposition? He did not think so. The southern representatives in Congress would not accept it. He came from a northern state (New Jersey) but he was broad enough to see the injustice of such a measure in so far as it affected the South. 37
Semple wanted to do everything possible to secure the immediate admission of California into the Union 38 and Halleck believed his proviso clause would insure immediate admission to statehood. Semple seems to have felt that Gwin's proposal alone might not be accepted by Congress, but with his provision added to it, he thought there could be no question. He believed Congress would accept it unhesitatingly. 39 Sherwood of Sacramento thought California could not be admitted to statehood very soon if she refused to adopt the extreme eastern limits. To establish the Sierra Nevada or a line of longitude near those mountains as the eastern boundary of the new state would result in one of two things: they would either be left without a government from Congress, or they would have to form a government for themselves independent of Congress. 40
On the other hand Botts of Monterey could hardly keep cool when the subject was broached. He did not believe they stood any chance whatever of becoming a state with the Rocky Mountains as their eastern line. “The gentleman who has last taken his seat (Mr. Sherwood), has made his strongest appeal in behalf of this extreme eastern boundary; that it will be the only means of getting you into the Union. Sir, I can tell you this will not be the means of your admission; you will never get into the Union with this boundary. If you do, it will be only to sit among its ruins, like Marius among the ruins of Carthage.” 41
Halleck did not believe the joint proposal was understood, and wanted to explain it. The first part, that offered by Gwin, included what had always been recognized as Upper California. The object of extending the boundaries of the new state to the extreme limits, was to settle the slavery question in that vast area forever. Another reason was to extend the jurisdiction of the courts of the state to that region for the purpose of protecting the immigrants who were coming from the East in such great numbers. He did not believe it would be possible to get a government for the territory between the Sierra Nevada and Rocky mountains for the next five years if the question of slavery was left unsettled there. Probably a half dozen or a dozen murders had been committed in that section during the past year; where could justice be meted out to the guilty, and to others who would be guilty of similar crimes in the future, if the eastern boundary of California did not include that region? These were the reasons urged for fixing an extreme eastern boundary. But some members had asserted, and perhaps truly, that Congress would not admit California with this boundary. His proviso clause was to meet just that difficulty. If objections were made to admitting a state which included so much territory, the Constitution carried with it provisions for establishing a new eastern boundary anywhere between the Sierra Nevada and the Rocky mountains, the exact location to be determined by Congress and by the Legislature of California. Thus the new state would gain immediate admission with the extreme eastern limit, and if these limits were to be restricted, Congress and the State Legislature could fix a new line later. 42
Botts had been inclined to leave the settlement of the eastern boundary to Congress, but, he said, since a member of the “new firm of Gwin and Halleck” had explained the motives which actuated them in offering the proposal before the House, he had had just and sufficient reasons for changing his mind. Did the gentleman (referring to Halleck) suppose southern men were asleep? Why did he not, upon the same principle, attempt to settle the question for Congress and for the southern people over a still greater extent of territory? Why not indirectly settle it by extending the eastern boundary of California to the Mississippi river? Why not include the island of Cuba, “a future acquisition of territory which we may one day or other attain, and forever settle this question by our action here.”
Slavery, he continued, was a great evil, and for that reason he wanted it excluded from the state in which he lived, but the territory of that state should be confined within “proper” limits. He believed the people of a territory had a perfect right to form a state government and exclude the institution of slavery from their midst; and he was willing to vote for the Rocky mountains as the eastern limit of California if gentlemen could show him that that was the proper boundary for the new state. “But when gentlemen urge upon me as an argument, to adopt that boundary because it excludes slavery from an immense extent of territory; not because it is the proper boundary of California, not because it is desirable to the state of California, but because it will settle the slavery question for the whole of the southern people and that against the will of the inhabitants of that portion of the Union who are not represented here,—the millions of people there who desire to have the institution of slavery amongst them,—when we are told that this may be, and that we here now may adopt that boundary and prevent the people of the South who may come here from exercising their rights and determining the question for themselves—when I am urged to do this, sir, I cannot give my consent.” 43
Sherwood thought the crest of the Sierra Nevada or some line of longitude near it should be the future boundary of the state; and if that were the only question before the House, he would not hesitate to vote for the proposition which established such a boundary. But there were other things which should influence the action of members of the Convention. The most important of these was the slavery question. The fact that Congress had failed to provide a territorial government for California during its last session was due entirely to the controversy over the subject of slavery. That subject, so far as it affected the territory to be included within the new state, had been settled by a unanimous vote of the Convention. Why not complete the good work by extending their eastern boundary to include the whole of California? If this were not done, the discussion of the same question would be open in regard to that portion of California excluded from the limits of the new state. 44 As friends of the Union he appealed to members of the Convention to settle the question for the whole territory and thus relieve Congress of the responsibility. If they did not several years might elapse before a government could be organized in California.
Sherwood then spoke at length upon the excitement which the subject of slavery had created in the eastern states during the preceding year, especially in his native state, New York. In that state opinion had been divided as to whether Congress should pass a proviso prohibiting slavery in all the territory acquired from Mexico. A large party there believed that Congress had no right to pass such a measure. It was a subject, they said, which the people of each territory should determine for themselves. The other party declared that Congress had a right to settle the slavery question for territories. A candidate had been nominated for the Presidency there with the distinct understanding that he would favor the Wilmot proviso. 45 The great excitement which had begun during the presidential election of the preceding year would continue unless members of that Convention settled the slavery question for the whole of the territory of California by extending their eastern boundary to the Rocky mountains. 46
The attitude of the administration and of Congress on the subject, Semple thought, might be of interest to members of the Convention. He was in a position to give this in so far as he could get it from a conversation which he had had with Thomas Butler King, a member of Congress and President Taylor's confidential agent to California. He had asked King what Congress would have them do, and had told him that the people of California did not want to extend their eastern boundary beyond the Sierra Nevada, that they would prefer to exclude from their limits all that desert waste east of the mountains. “For God's sake,” King had replied, “leave us no territory to legislate upon in Congress.” King “went on to state then that the great object in our formation of a state government was to avoid further legislation. There could be no question as to our admission by adopting this course; and that all subjects of minor importance could afterward be settled.” 47
Shannon claimed that the dignity of the new state would not permit it to receive dictation of this character from Thomas Butler King or from any one else. What right had King to tell the members of that Convention that if they adopted such and such boundaries they would be admitted into the Union; if they did not, they would fail to become a sovereign state? He considered it not only an insult but a threat, and he called upon the Convention to have enough regard for their own dignity and for the dignity of the state of California to reject such an offer immediately. He did not believe for a single moment that King expressed the sentiments of the Congress of the United States. No single individual could do that. The truth of the matter was, he thought, that the cabinet was in difficulty over the Wilmot proviso, and that King—perhaps others—was sent there to influence the people of California, first to establish a state government, and second to include the entire territory within their limits. There was a political quarrel at home into which the President and his cabinet wished to bring the new state of California. For his own part he wished to keep as far from such “rocks and breakers” as possible. 48 The letter given above will show that probably Shannon was not far from the truth.
There were others besides Shannon who seemed to think that the question before the House should not be connected with national affairs. Regardless of slavery and regardless of the opinion held by President Taylor's confidential agent, did the Convention have a right to fix boundaries for the new state of California other than those recognized by Mexico as the limits of the territory while it was a part of that government? Norton of San Francisco believed not. He held as a first principle that the Convention was not at liberty “either to take one acre of land more than now belongs to California or to yield one acre that now belongs to it.” No authority had been delegated to them and they had no right to assume power to give up any territory which had been included within the established limits of California. If they were there to form a constitution for California, they were there to form a constitution for the whole of it, not a part. “I insist, sir, that we have no right to say that California is not the California we took her to be when she became part and parcel of the United States.” He thought it might be possible later, if Halleck's proviso were accepted, to divide the territory; but this would have to be done by a joint action of Congress and the State Legislature,—the Convention could not do it. 49
Such arguments were absurd, McCarver exclaimed. Suppose the convention which formed the constitution for Louisiana had, for similar reasons, attempted to include the whole of the Louisiana territory within the limits of the state. The two countries, Louisiana and California, stood upon the same footing. Both had been obtained by treaty, one from France and the other from Mexico. Both contained territory enough for several states. Would it not have been a “monstrous doctrine” for Louisiana to insist that the whole of that vast territory belonged to them, therefore they would include it all within the boundaries of their state? “We occupy a similar position here. We have a tract of country purchased either by the blood or treasure of the United States, known as California.” To imagine that Congress would permit them to include all of it within the boundaries of their state was the most absurd of absurdities. 50
Furthermore, the eastern boundary had already been designated, Botts urged. “General Riley proclaimed the eastern boundary of California in his proclamation, and the people said amen. I say that he, in his proclamation, called upon the people of California in pursuance of instructions, if you please,—California as laid down in certain described lines—to form this Convention, and they, through their representatives, have excluded slavery for themselves; and is it for you, sir, now to reverse that decision?” He did not believe the Convention could do it. Most assuredly the people living within certain limits had no right to make rules for people beyond those limits. Such an act would violate every republican principle of justice; “Why, sir, is it necessary at this day, in this enlightened country, to stand here and argue and prove that people can make laws only for themselves? I am ashamed of the position that I am compelled to occupy.” 51
Lippitt of San Francisco also felt strongly on the subject. The Convention, he said, had no right to extend their government over the inhabitants of the Salt Lake region, comprising some thirty or forty thousand Mormons who had never been consulted in making the constitution. 52
It was a new doctrine, said Gwin, that every man must be represented within the borders of a new state, a doctrine which he believed had never been preached before. Great stress had been laid upon the fact that the Mormons were not represented. There was no proposition to force the Mormons to become a part of the government of California. He did not propose to extend the laws of the state nor of any district in the state to the Mormons. He did not propose to send tax collectors or government officers there. He favored awaiting their own action in the matter. If they wanted the benefit of the government which was being established, they should send a petition to have representatives allotted to them. “If they desire the protection of our laws, let them send to us, and it will then be a matter of inquiry on the part of our state government.” But he thought the Mormons would have no right to complain. The people whose representatives composed the Convention, were the majority, and the majority of the inhabitants of any state had a right to make rules for the minority. As a matter of fact, thousands of immigrants had reached California since delegates were elected to the Convention. They, too, had no representation in that body, but as a minority they were bound to submit to the will of the majority. Would not these people have as much right to complain as the Mormons? 53
Shannon thought not. He did not see how the fact that the Mormons were in the minority would prevent them from offering legitimate objections to being included within the new state. They could justly claim that they had no part in making the constitution which that Convention was framing. But even if they should accept the work of the Convention, he did not think they should be included because of their peculiar religious beliefs. 54 And there was another objection even more serious, said Hastings. The Mormons had already applied to Congress for a territorial government. Suppose both applications should be brought before Congress at the same time—“we apply for a state government and they for a territorial government”—both petitions coming from the same territory. Would it be possible for California to be admitted into the Union claiming the same territory at the same time the Mormons were asking for a territorial government over it? Most assuredly not. 55
In the meantime the Mormons had not been idle. A convention was summoned in Utah early in 1849, and the inhabitants of that part of Upper California lying east of the Sierra Nevada were urged to send representatives. 56 On the fourth of March the delegates assembled at Salt Lake City. A committee was appointed to draw up a constitution under which the people might govern themselves until Congress should provide a government for them 57 “by admitting them into the union.” 58 The name of the new state was to be Deseret, 59 and its boundaries were to be as follows:
Commencing at the 33rd degree of north latitude, where it crosses the 108th degree of longitude, west from Greenwich; thence running south and west to the northern boundary of Mexico; thence west to and down the main channel of the Gila river (on the northern line of Mexico), and on the northern boundary of Lower California to the Pacific Ocean; thence along the coast northwesterly to 118 degrees, 30 minutes of west longitude; thence north to where said line intersects the dividing ridge of the Sierra Nevada mountains; thence north along the summit of the Sierra Nevada mountains, to the dividing range of mountains that separate the waters flowing into the Columbia river from the waters running into the Great Basin; thence easterly along the dividing range of mountains that separate said waters flowing into the Columbia river on the north from the waters flowing into the Great Basin on the south, to the summit of the Wind river chain of mountains; thence southeast and south by the dividing range of mountains that separate the waters flowing into the Gulf of Mexico from the waters flowing into the Gulf of California, to the place of beginning, as set forth in the map drawn by Charles Preuss, and published by the order of the United States in 1848. 60
On the 5th of July, Almon Babbitt was elected delegate to Congress and three days later a memorial asking for admission into the Union as a state was adopted by both houses of the legislature. 61 On the 6th of September, by order of President Taylor, General John Wilson, United States Indian agent, held a consultation with Brigham Young, Heber Kimball, Willard Richards and other Mormons to see if some arrangements could be made for temporarily uniting the whole of the California territory under one government for the purpose of keeping the slavery question out of Congress. 62 At the beginning of 1851 the union was to be dissolved and Deseret and California were to become separate states. 63 As a result of the conference 64 John Wilson and Amasa Lyman were sent as delegates to California. On the 8th of January, 1850, they addressed a communication from San Francisco to Governor Burnett in which they informed him that they had been appointed by the people of the Great Salt Lake Valley and Basin, as representatives to any convention which might assemble in California, west of the Sierra Nevada, to form a constitution. 65 “Our constituents will regret to learn that before their delegates did or could arrive here, the Convention had met, concluded their labors, and adjourned, thereby closing all opportunity, for the time, for their delegates to enter upon the discharge of their duty.” They were communicating with the governor, they said, and through him with the legislature, to see if arrangements could be made for calling another convention in which the delegates of Eastern California might be admitted. The purpose of the second convention would be to form, for the present, a single state out of the territory of California, at the same time to agree on the boundary lines which should ultimately separate California and Deseret, when the latter had sufficient population to form a separate state. 66
The people of Deseret, they continued, would insist on the “summit of the Sierra Nevada as a proper and natural boundary” as far as it went. Some complaint had been made because, by extending their boundary to the Pacific, a large area of country had been included within the limits of Deseret without the consent of the people living in that territory. Deseret was willing to leave this to a vote of the people inhabiting the territory in question. If they should object to coming into the state of Deseret, then a compromise line, excluding those settlements, could be drawn. Deseret especially desired that the boundaries agreed upon should be clearly indicated in the constitution. Upon these terms, and with a most earnest desire to settle all excitement in the Union, and to harmonize the interests of the people on both sides of the Sierra Nevada, Deseret's representatives proposed to the Legislature of California to ask the people to assemble in their election districts and vote for delegates to a new convention. They also added that in case the Convention was called they would cast their vote against slavery. 67
The governor transmitted this communication to the Senate and Assembly the following February, accompanied by a message to both Houses strongly recommending the rejection of the proposal. 68 As a result, the Legislature took no action in the matter. This ended the attempt to establish common boundaries for the two states.
During the discussion of the boundary question the following accusation was made by McDougal against the framers and supporters of the Gwin-Halleck proposal:
If, therefore, we adopt this line I am very sure it will be sent back to us. We will have to call another convention and adopt other lines to suit the views of Congress. In the meantime we have no law. . . . And that is the very thing, Mr. Chairman, if the secret was known, which I apprehend they want to do. They want a constitution presented to Congress so objectionable that it will be thrown back for another Convention. Gentlemen have risen on this floor and stated that they had received letters from the South; and that they knew of many others who want to bring their slaves here, and work them a short period in the mines and then emancipate them. If this Constitution is thrown back upon us for reconsideration, it leaves them the opportunity of bringing their slaves here. It is what they desire to do; to create some strongly objectionable feature in the Constitution in order that they may bring their slaves here and work them three months. 69
More than two weeks later Jones made the following reply to McDougal,—the only notice that seems to have been taken of his charge.
It has been said by a gentleman—I don't know to what wing he belongs 70—that we are favoring the admission of slavery here. How are we doint it? By creating difficulties, says this gentleman, which will prevent our admission by Congress as a state into the Union, for some two or three years to come, and thereby give to the South a chance, while we are a territory, to bring their slaves. How is it then that this proposition [of the extreme eastern boundary] is supported by the North as well as by the South? The argument is not worthy of consideration. 71
Was Jones right or was McDougal's charge true? The latter has been the generally accepted view. 72
Royce, in his California (1886), says the men from southern states formed a separate party under the leadership of Gwin. “Their undoubted object was not so much to give over any part of California at once to slavery, since this hurrying life of the goldseekers wholly forbade any present consideration of such a plan, but to prepare the way for a future overthrow of the now paramount Northern influence in the territory, and so to make possible an ultimate division of the State, in case the southern part should prove to be adapted to slave labor.” 73
A similar opinion is expressed by Bancroft. Giving what he considers to be the views of southern men in the Convention he says, “Let Northern California be a free state; out of the remainder of the territory acquired from Mexico half a dozen slave states might be made.” 74 A little further on he quotes from McDougal's speech, 75 the part given above,—and says what it “lacked in grammar and rhetoric it supplied in facts.” 76
In 1890, the Century Magazine requested Francis Lippitt, who had been a member of the Convention, to contribute any new information he could on the organization of the state government in California. He wrote an article for the September number on The California Boundary Question of 1849. He was informed after the Convention, he said, that the extreme eastern boundary had been supported by men “from the southern states with the view to a subsequent division of California by an east and west line into two large states, each having its share of the Pacific coast; and further, to the future organization of the southern of these two states as a slave state—an event that would be quite certain, in as much as most of the settlers in that part of California had come and would continue to come from the South and Southwest. Thus the new free state would be offset by a new slave state.”
An article in the Overland Monthly for the same month and year, on the Beginnings of California, by F. I. Vassault, contains the following: “The fact behind this animated dispute about the location of the eastern boundary was that the pro-slavery members of the Convention hoped that by making the state so large as to include the whole of the Mexican cession it would be necessary later to divide the state, and a line running east and west might give one state to the South and the other to the North. Extreme bitterness was shown during the discussion, for the slavery element was fighting in the last ditch.”
Dr. Rockwell D. Hunt, in “The Genesis of California's First Constitution,” 77 says, “The design was to make a state so large that division would be necessary,” and the southern part would come in later as a slave state. “It is not surprising . . . that friends of slavery fought with utmost vigor for such vast territory as would necessitate division.”
There was published at San Francisco in 1901, however, a little volume entitled The Transition Period of California written by Dr. Samuel H. Willey, which gives a different view. Dr. Willey lived at Monterey during the eventful year of 1849, was personally interested in the formation of a state government and was Chaplain of the Convention during its entire session. On page 104 of his work occurs the following: “Just here may be as good a place as any to say that nothing whatever was said in the debate indicating that there was a purpose or expectation on the part of the Southern members that the adoption of the larger boundary would result in the introduction of slavery into any part of the territory. Nor was there any appearance, in or out of the Convention, of any secret understanding on the part of any upon the subject. Most of the men who advocated the larger boundary were thorough and pronounced Northern men.”
An examination of the positions of northern and southern men in the Convention as indicated by the leading speakers and especially by the actual votes cast will show that the last writer quoted was correct.
It has been stated already that the extreme eastern limit over which the discussion took place was that indicated in the Gwin-Halleck proposition, proposing practically the 112th degree of west longitude as the boundary. The leading speakers for and against that boundary have been given, together with their arguments. We have seen that Gwin, Sherwood, Halleck and Norton were the principal supporters of the proposal on the floor of the House. Among these Gwin was the only southern man; the other three were from the North. Norton was born in Vermont and emigrated to California from New York. Halleck and Sherwood,—the former the author of the proviso clause in the Gwin-Halleck proposal and a strenuous supporter of the extreme eastern boundary—were both born and raised in New York. Of the seven supporters of the small state who have been quoted above, Price, Shannon, McDougal and Lippitt were from the northern states, while Semple, 78 McCarver and Botts were from the South. No man in the Convention more earnestly urged the narrow boundary than Botts.
The usual supposition has been that the extreme eastern boundary was supported by pro-slavery men for the purpose of making California so large that a subsequent division, by an east-and-west line, would result in the establishment of two large states on the Pacific, one to be dedicated to freedom and the other to slavery. 79 This view, however, is not substantiated by facts. On six different occasions members of the Convention expressed fear that such a division might occur. The first was by the Committee on the Boundary, which was made up of one northern man, two foreigners and two natives. 80 The second expression of fear of such a division was by McCarver, a native of Kentucky; 81 the third by Semple, also a native of that state; 82 the fourth by Snyder of Pennsylvania, 83 the fifth by Sherwood of New York, 84 and the last by Gwin. 85 The last named has usually been considered the arch-villain in the southern plot. Thus three southerners, three northerners, two foreigners and two native delegates clearly expressed a fear of such an event.
But the votes taken on the different proposals show even more clearly that there was no attempt on the part of delegates from Southern states to unite against members from the North for the purpose of forcing the extreme eastern boundary on the House. There were nine votes taken on proposed boundaries in which the names of the voters are recorded. In the case of the first, the Gwin-Halleck proposal, we know that it was adopted by nineteen to four, but we have no way to determine the influence of North and South in that particular case. 86 The substitute offered for that proposal when the subject came up for reconsideration two weeks later, was presented by Hastings. This suggested the 118th degree of west longitude as the eastern limit. Of the twenty-three votes cast in favor of the proposal, fourteen were from northern, eight from southern states and one from Switzerland. 87 Twenty-one votes were registered against the measure, of which nine were northern, seven were native and five from southern states. 88 On the following day a motion was made to reconsider the boundary question and Hastings's proposal was again before the House. Of the seventeen votes cast in its favor on this occasion, eight were by southern men (the same who had supported it on the preceding day), eight by northern and one was by a foreigner. Twenty-seven votes were registered against it, of which fourteen were cast by men from northern states, eight by native delegates and five by men from the South. 89
Shannon's proposal recommending a boundary very much like the one finally adopted was the next to come before the Convention. Nineteen votes were registered in its favor. Eleven of these were cast by men from northern states, seven by men from the South, and one from a foreign country (Sutter). Of the eight southern delegates who voted for the narrow boundary formerly, all but one, Hoppe, voted for Shannon's proposition, and Hoppe evidently was not present, as his vote is not recorded. Of the twenty-five registered against it, thirteen were cast by men from northern states, eight by native delegates and four by men from the South. 90
McDougal withdrew the first clause of his proposal, thus leaving it very similar to Shannon's,—the 120th degree of west longitude.” 91 Thirteen of the twenty-two votes cast in favor of the proposal were by men from northern states, eight by men from southern, and one from a foreign country. Eleven men from northern states, eight native delegates and five men from the South,—twenty-four in all —voted against it. 92
Another vote was then taken on the boundary drawn up by Gwin and Halleck, and it was adopted for the second time. Twenty-four votes were cast in favor of it. Eleven northerners, eight natives and five southerners voted for the measure; thirteen northerners, eight southerners and one foreigner voted against it. 93 A vote was then taken on Jones's proposal, which it will be remembered contained two parts—the first recommending the 120th degree of west longitude, and the second, if Congress would not accept that, offering the 112th degree as the eastern boundary. There were thirteen votes for the proposition and thirty-one against it. Among the former, eight were cast by northern and five by southern men; among the latter, sixteen were cast by northerners, seven by natives, seven by southerners and one by a foreigner. 94 Hill's proposal, making the 115th degree of west longitude the eastern limit, received twenty-four votes in its favor and twenty-two against it. Of the former, ten were cast by northerners, nine by southerners, four by natives and one by a foreigner. Against it were fifteen northerners, four southerners and three natives. 95
One more attempt was made to have the Gwin-Halleck, or extreme eastern boundary adopted, but it was rejected. Of the eighteen votes in favor of it, eight were cast by northern men, six by natives and four by southerners. Fourteen northerners, eight southerners, one native and one foreigner opposed the measure.
The final vote was then taken on the first clause of Jones's proposal, recommending the boundary as it was finally established. It was adopted by thirty-two to seven. Eighteen northerners, ten southerners, three natives and one foreigner voted for it. Three northerners, two southerners and two natives voted against it. 96
It will thus be seen that in every vote cast the majority of the southern delegates favored the smaller boundary. In the first case,—the Hastings proposal, offering the 118th degree of west longitude,—eight voted for, and five against it. The same proposal when it came up the next day received the vote of the eight southern delegates who had formerly supported it, and was opposed by the same southerners, five, who had formerly voted against it. Shannon's proposal was supported by seven southerners and was opposed by four from that section. Practically the same eastern boundary,—the 120th degree of west longitude,—offered by McDougal was supported by eight southerners while five from the South rejected it. The second vote on the Gwin-Halleck proposal had resulted in five for and eight against it. Five were cast for and seven against the double proposal offered by Jones. Up to this point the five southern delegates who had stood out for the extreme eastern boundary were Gwin, Hobson, Hollingsworth, Jones and Moore. Moore did not vote on Shannon's proposition. Jones's proposal, however, was rejected by Gwin. Hoppe, a southern delegate who had voted for the more contracted boundary, supported the proposition. Hill's proposal,—the 115th degree of west longitude,—was supported by nine southern delegates and rejected by four. Gwin voted against it and Jones for it. In the third vote on the Gwin-Halleck proposition four southerners were for it and eight against it. The first clause of Jones's proposal was supported by ten southern votes. The two southerners who voted against it were Hill and Hobson. Hill had formerly voted for the contracted boundary; Hobson, however, had consistently opposed it.
This evidence seems to show conclusively that the debate and the votes had no sectional character. The majority of the delegates who had immigrated to California from southern states were not only not fighting to have the Convention adopt boundaries so extensive that the constitution would be rejected by Congress, but they were actually contending against that very thing. Every time they had a chance to express themselves by their votes—with the possible but not probable exception of the first vote taken on the Gwin-Halleck proposal, where the names of the voters were not given—the majority of them opposed the extreme eastern boundary. Even when Jones submitted his double proposition making the 112th degree of west longitude a proviso clause to be considered by Congress only in case that body should absolutely refuse to accept the new state with contracted limits, the majority of the delegates from southern states voted against it. And the motive which seems to have actuated them, as the rest, was a desire to obtain immediate admission to statehood.
Having despatched the above letter to Parraga with orders for the Rio Abajo people to wait for him, no other autos were drawn up by Otermín and no further communication passed between the two divisions until the northern refugees joined those at Fray Cristóbal on September 13. With all the survivors of the province united in one body, Otermín determined to call a council of all the officers and men of experience and prestige in his camp, that they might help to decide what ought to be done in the light of present conditions. 97 Accordingly, on the same day this decision of the governor was made public in the camp by voice of the public crier. 98 After the meeting was assembled, the first to avail themselves of the opportunity which Otermín gave for all to express their opinions, were eight of the missionaries. They stated briefly, though characteristically, that as “liege vassals of his majesty, and as his ministers in those parts for the administration of the Holy Sacrament, and for instructing in the Holy Faith both Spaniards and natives” they were willing “without any repugnance to follow the person of his Excellency and the royal standard in whatever resolution or determination he and the other persons might agree upon.” 99
Following the religious a joint statement was made and signed by the maestres dc campo, Francisco Gómez Robledo, Thome Domínguez de Mendoza, Juan Domínguez de Mendoza, Diego de Trujillo, and the lieutenant-general, Alonso García. After summarizing the events of the retreat, they agreed that because of the miserable condition of all, and especially of so many women and children, and since there was little prospect of any alleviation of their hunger, or any way to avenge or restrain the taunts of the enemy in that desert place, the retreat should be continued; and that after the defenseless ones had been established in a place of safety, a reconquest should be attempted, though they feared this would be difficult, since the enemy was in possession of a great many firearms and other weapons. 100 This opinion having been read, it was agreed to by sixteen sarjentos mayores, captains and soldiers. 101 Lastly, in much the same tone, the Cabildo of Santa Fé went on record as conforming with the decision expressed by the maestres de campo. 102 The main reasons stated by this body had all been stressed by others who had preceded them. But the Cabildo in addition emphasized the fact that for the 2500 persons in the camp, of whom only one hundred were soldiers, there were less than twenty fanegas of corn; and it was pointed out that it would be necessary to send to the jurisdictions of the Mansos Indians to secure provisions, because the enemy was possessed of all the sources of supply within a radius of forty leagues from the camp where it then was. For these and other manifest reasons they were in favor of proceeding to a place of safety. After reaching such a place, they thought, the viceroy should be asked for reënforcements so that the reconquest of the province could be attempted.
Having heard the opinions thus expressed by the principal men in the army, being in great need of supplies, “in a place where the earth was so parched and notched” that no pasture could be found for the cattle, and for many other reasons, Otermín would doubtless have ordered the army to proceed at once but for a letter which he received from Father Ayeta. This letter was written from the “Passo” on September 8. 103 From it Otermín learned that Ayeta, who had not had time to receive his message of September 7 from Sorocco, was in doubt regarding the needs of the refugees, notwithstanding the request for aid which had been sent him through García's letter of September 4. The following is an extract from the letter addressed by Ayeta to the governor:
And I say Sir, that I find myself confused on account of having had no notice of your Excellency's intentions. In order to learn what I should do, and in order to relieve myself of that doubt, I send the bearers in all haste, advising that there be no more delay than what your Excellency may cause. I now have everything ready, and the wagons prepared to move. If your Excellency should decide to remain there, fortifying yourself in some spot, I beg that, protecting your person, you come here in order that we may consult on certain matters pertaining to the service of both majesties, and in order to basten by some time the joy of seeing you, because I am determined, according as it may be proper, to go in person to give notice of what has happened to the viceroy, since all can not be said by writing.
After stating further that he had sent news of the burning of Santa Fé and of the governor's wound to Mexico by Father Nicholás López, Ayeta concluded with the injunction and hope that Otermín would join him at El Paso at once. 104
Immediately upon the receipt of the letter, in order that the least possible delay might follow this already unfortunate doubt, Otermín decided to postpone his decision in regard to the opinions just expressed in the junta, and instead ordered that twelve soldiers should be equipped to go with him on the journey to see Father Ayeta. In company with these, Ayeta's secretary, who had come with Leiva and his men, 105 and another religious, Otermín set out soon afterward, leaving in command in his place the maestres de campo, Francisco Gómez and Alonzo García. 106
Otermín proceeded with all haste down the river, and on September 18 107 met Father Ayeta at the place called La Salineta, four leagues above the monastery of Guadalupe del Paso. Ayeta, it seems, in the interval since he had written to Otermín on September 8 asking him to come to the pass of the Rio del Norte, had received the latter's communication sent from Socorro on September 7, asking that the supply wagons be started to meet the refugees at once. Accordingly Father Ayeta upon the receipt of this request had started from the pass with twenty-four wagons 108 of provisions, raiment, and munitions. He had apparently been unable to cross the river at El Paso, the usual fording place, and so had continued up the west side of the river. The progress of the wagons had been slow, however, for the heavy rains and the melting snow on the mountains had caused the stream to overflow, so that it covered the roads and all the adjacent meadows and lateral valleys (ancones). After proceeding about four leagues from Guadalupe under such difficulties, Ayeta had decided on the morning of September 18, at about 8 o'clock, to brave the dangers involved in an attempt to cross the swollen river. Accordingly six 109 spans of mules were hitched to the first wagon, and Ayeta himself accompanied by a number of skilled Indian swimmers, drove into the river. The water was higher and more dangerous, however, than had been supposed. It rose more than a vara above the bed of the wagon, not only damaging the contents, but endangering Father Ayeta's life. Finally the mules after much difficulty were able to reach a higher place where they secured footing, but the wagon remained fast in the middle of the stream. Seeing the impossibility of proceeding, Ayeta cut loose the half-drowned mules from the wagon. At this juncture Otermín and his escort from Fray Cristóbal arrived opposite the wagon on the east bank of the river. Otermín's men, taking in the situation, and realizing Father Ayeta's danger, hastened to his assistance, and bore him on their shoulders to a place of safety on the east bank. After much difficulty the wagon was extricated at about six o'clock in the evening, some four hours after Otermín's arrival. As soon as convenient Otermín and Ayeta entered into a consultation as to what should be done, and it was decided, since it was impossible to proceed further with the wagons, to have men swim their horses and transport supplies across the river, so that they might be sent to the needy ones that night. This was done, and the next day still another pack-train of supplies was started, both of which in due time reached their destination. These supplies, consisting of corn, hardtack, flour, chocolate, and sugar, the officers were instructed to distribute freely to all the people in both divisions, after which they were to continue the retreat south. 110
Otermín did not accompany the soldiers who went along to guard the supply trains, but at Ayeta's request stayed behind and crossed the river to make an inventory of the provisions in the wagons, as well as of the supplies that had been left at the monastery of Guadalupe, so that in case these should be found to be insufficient, others might be secured before the people arrived. Four days later, after having registered the amount of provisions in the wagons, and having returned from the monastery of Guadalupe where he had gone for the same purpose, Otermín drew up a report to the effect that in those two places there were 400 bushels of shelled corn and 400 head of cattle and sheep, all of which Father Ayeta said might be distributed to the people when they should arrive. But that the supply might not run short, Otermín sent out foraging parties to Casas Grandes, to Taraumares, eighty leagues distant, and to other places, to buy all the corn and meat possible and bring them to El Paso. 111
This was on September 22; nothing more is recorded of the movements either of those at La Salineta or of the main body of refugees until September 29. On that day, however, all the people had reached La Salineta, as is evidenced by an auto drawn up by Otermín 112 on that day ordering a general review of the camp. By this time, practically speaking, New Mexico had been abandoned by the Spaniards. We now come to the story of their settlement in the vicinity of modern El Paso.
(1) The General Muster.—Having assembled at La Salineta, a place within the present limits of Texas, all the survivors of the revolt, with the exception of those who had fled across the Rio Grande, and with their actual needs provided for through the generosity of Father Ayeta, it was now necessary for Otermín to form some permanent plan for the future. Hitherto the condition of the refugees had been such that only the most pressing needs could be considered and only tentative plans formulated. In fact, the situation had been such that time had not been taken to determine accurately their actual numbers and strength. Accordingly, in order that he might be guided in his decision by definite information regarding the number, quality, and equipment of the men capable of military service, and at the same time that a report might be made both of the survivors and those lost in the revolt, Otermín first of all ordered a review of all the people at La Salineta. 113 The order was proclaimed on the 29th of September, and on the same day the review began. As each man passed before the governor, he was accompanied by all the members of his family, and carried with him his personal property, including arms, ammunition, and provisions, a complete inventory being taken down and attested to by the man himself. These muster rolls fill some twelve folios of written matter (making twenty-six typewritten pages), hence it would be impracticable to record them all here. In order that their general character and the pitiful condition of the refugees may be seen, however, a few of the individual records have been selected at random and translated below: 114
At once, after the promulgation of the proclamation, the maestre de campo Francisco Xavier, alcalde ordinario of the first vote, passed muster as follows: with six very lean horses, useless for service; a sword; a dagger; a skin jacket; an arquebus; and a shield. He had been robbed by the enemy of all his goods. In witness whereof he signed it and declared that he had with him a family of four daughters, two sons, and a female servant.
Francisco Xavier. Alcalde Ordinario. (rubric.)
The maestre de campo Pedro de Leiva, now serving in that capacity for the kingdom passed muster, as well as three sons, all of whom serve his majesty, all with their personal arms, and amongst them twenty-five horses, some of them in good condition and some lean. The enemy killed Leiva's wife, two young lady daughters, and two sons, soldiers in the pueblo of Galisteo, three grandsons, and a daughter-in-law. And of thirty servants which he had the enemy left him three, and robbed him and his sons of all their property. And he signed it.
Pedro de Leiva. (rubric.)
Pedro de Cuellar passed muster with four lean horses, a royal arquebuse and its equipment, and a boy who served him. The enemy killed his wife and daughter in the revolt, and robbed him, poor as he was. And he signed it.
Pedro de Cuellar. (rubric.)
Captain Francisco de Anaya passed muster on foot; personal arms; robbed by the enemy. They killed his wife and three [other] persons, children, relatives, and servants. Nothing was left him but that which he has on his back. And he signed it.
Francisco de Anaya. (rubric.)
The sarjento mayor Juan Lucero de Godoy, alcalde ordinario of the second vote, showed a sword, a dagger and an arquebuse; a lean horse; four sons, young men capable of bearing arms, all naked and without weapons; four daughters, young women; and five servants; state, married. And he signed it.
Juan Lucero de Godoy. (rubric.)
The maestre de campo Alonso García, lieutenant of government and war, and captain general of the jurisdictions of Rio Abajo,— state, married—, passed muster with eighty horses and five mules, all of the latter lean, suffering from lock-jaw, and worn out by service. He has three sons, two sons-in-law, all with their personal arms. They are supplied by the lieutenant-general. Two sons and his two sons-in-law are married and have twelve persons in their families, twenty-two servants, and another young man capable of bearing arms. He carries a royal arquebuse and has been robbed by the enemy. And he signed it.
Alonso García. (rubric.)
The sarjento mayor Luis de Quintana passed muster with four very lean horses; all his personal arms; an infant daughter; four servants; robbed of house and goods by the enemy. And he signed it.
Luis de Quintana. (rubric.)
Felipe Montoya, married, passed muster on foot, naked, very poor, with one tired horse and four sons. And he signed it.
Felipe Montoya. (rubric.)
Captain Roque de Madrid passed muster with three lean horses, two lean and tired mules, all his personal arms, his wife, and four small children. His house was robbed by the enemy, and [he is] extremely poor. And he signed it.
Roque de Madrid. (rubric.)
This muster was continued without interruption for three days when on October 1 a temporary halt was occasioned by a number of the people having gone without permission to the monastery of Guadalupe, whence they were scattering into Nueva Vizcaya. As soon as he learned of this, in order that the muster rolls might be completed, and that further delay might not be occasioned in completing the reports that were to be sent to the viceroy, Otermín, on October 1, sent Francisco Xavier to El Paso with a message to Joseph López de Gracia 115 (the lieutenant of Andrés López de Gracia, alcalde mayor of the valley of San Antonio de Casas Grandes), 116 who was at that time at Guadalupe, ordering him or any other officer of Nueva Vizcaya, to arrest and send back to La Salineta any person, no matter what his rank, character, or condition, who might attempt to cross the river into that province. Gracia promptly promised to put the order into effect, and requested Otermín to make this fact publicly known. 117
In thus complying with Otermín's demand, Gracia was acting in harmony with his own governor, Bartolomé de Estrada. Before the main body of refugees reached La Salineta, Otermín had written to Estrada, at Parral, that he feared that when the refugees should reach La Salineta they would be inclined to scatter to Casas Grande, Carretas, and other parts of Nueva Vizcaya, as well as into Sonora, whereas they should all be required to settle together in some designated place until assistance could be secured from the viceroy. Upon the receipt of this letter Estrada at once (September 24, 1680) ordered Captain Andrés López de Gracia, or in case of his absence or incapacity, Captain Alonso Pérez Granillo, alcalde mayor of Carretas y Janos, to go at once to El Paso to prevent any person from crossing into Nueva Viscaya without Otermín's permission, under threat of the death penalty. If any person had already so crossed, and arranged to settle, his arrangements were to be annulled, on the authority of Estrada. Gracia was to leave his lieutenant at El Paso to carry out the order, and any laxity or lack of vigilance on the part of the officers was punishable by a fine of $10,000. 118
It is not recorded when Joseph López de Gracia received Estrada's order, or whether Andrés López de Gracia went to El Paso at all. On October 5, however, Joseph López de Gracia published it “en el Pueblo de nra Señora de Guadalupe de passo Jurisdicion de la nueva Bizcaya,” in the presence of “many people of the pueblo as well as of the provinces of New Mexico.” 119 As we have seen, Gracia had already agreed four days previously to carry out like instructions at Otermín's demand, for on that day Francisco Xavier returned to the Spanish camp at La Salineta with this information. 120 Whether López de Garcia had at that time received Estrada's order I am unable to say, though I presume that he had. Otermín had already threatened with severe punishment any who should be guilty of desertion in the future. 121 Thereby, together with the co-operation of López de Gracia at the pass, the dispersion of the people at La Salineta was checked and the review was continued without further recorded interruption.
The total number of persons who passed this muster, including soldiers, servants, women, children, and Indian allies, was, according to the sworn statement of Otermín, 1946. During the retreat to La Salineta, Otermín, García, and others frequently stated that there were 2500 refugees in the two divisions. Of these it was estimated that there were 1500 in García's division and 1000 in Otermín's. 122 Taking these estimates as being approximately correct, it is seen that at least several hundred of the refugees crossed into Nueva Vizcaya without having been listed at La Salineta. Of the total number of the 1946, only 155 were men capable of bearing arms. The number of horses was 471, though, as the muster rolls showed, these were for the most part so poor and weak that they were unfit for military service. There was only one horse for every fourth person, even if we assume that none of the horses were used to transport the few provisions and other things which the refugees brought with them. The supplies are not listed, but the statement is made that the people were provided with meat, corn, and munitions. For this reason, notwithstanding the fact that a number of the guns were broken and practically useless, and although a great many of the men were entirely destitute of both weapons and horses, Otermín recorded his belief that his force was sufficiently strong to settle at that place, or some more convenient one near by, with a fair degree of safety. 123
The Indian allies who passed in review before the governor were inhabitants of the four Piros pueblos of Senecú, Socorro, Alamillo, and Sevilleta, and numbered 317 persons in all. 124 These Indians, many of whom had already abandoned their pueblos before the revolt because of the ravages of their Apache neighbors, 125 had followed the Spaniards, to whom they had at least outwardly remained friendly, as far as La Salineta.
(2) The Decision to Settle at El Paso.—With the women and children in a place of safety, and with the people and equipment listed, Otermín was brought at last face to face with the question as to whether or not an attempt should be made to reconquer New Mexico. This was no new question. At Isleta it had arisen for García and his advisers to decide in the negative, for such an attempt in their condition, believing as they did that the governor and inhabitants of Santa Fé were all dead, could not be thought of. When Socorro was reached and the testimony of Herrera and Chávez tended to indicate that the inhabitants of Santa Fé were still alive, the question had again come up, but it was almost unanimously agreed that in their weak condition the first thing to consider was the protection of the many women and children with them, hence it was decided to go on to meet the supply-train before even attempting to ascertain the fate of the northern inhabitants. When Otermín himself left Santa Fé, he did so as quickly as possible in order that he might unite his forces with those whom he thought to be at Isleta, there to decide on a plan for subduing the rebellion. However, the two divisions were not joined till Fray Cristóbal was reached, and there the question of a return was again discussed but was tabled until the women and children should be put in a place of safety. Now this had been accomplished, and the fighting strength of the survivors determined. It behooved all, therefore, “as loyal vassals of his majesty” to consider seriously the question of a return to Santa Fé. For this purpose Otermín called a council, composed of the members of the Cabildo of Santa Fé, the military officers, the friars, and all others who might wish to attend, in order that they might help him decide the grave matter, touching as it did both the spiritual and the temporal welfare of the province. 126
This order was published on October 2, and shortly afterward, all the men having assembled in the plaza de armas, the discussion was opened by Father Ayeta. He did not express his opinion as to whether or not an attempt at reconquest should be made, stating that since he had no experience in military matters such a question would have to be decided by the soldiers. If, however, they should decide that their strength was sufficient, then in his opinion the reduction of the apostates should be attempted. In this matter he spoke for the whole body of religious, who were willing to abide by the decision of the council and to assist in whatever was agreed upon. If it was decided to reconquer the province, he would aid the troops with the necessary provisions and munitions, though he could not furnish them with horses. For the use of the soldiers he offered twenty breastplates, four dozen stirrups, fifty bridles, and other necessities, as hats, shoes, and two hundred varas of linen for shirts; he would see that the women and children and the guard left behind were also provided with necessities; in case the council should decide that their means were not sufficient to attempt this reconquest, he would supply the camp in whatever place they might decide to locate it, with ten head of cattle and eight fanegas of corn daily; he called attention to the fact that provisions had to be secured eighty leagues away, and that the wagons should be started as soon as possible after more, so that the supply might not fail; he concluded by stating that he agreed to furnish the refugees with supplies only until the viceroy might be informed of their condition and aid them. 127 After Ayeta had spoken, several of the other religious expressed themselves as agreeing with him, some offering to lose their lives should the attempt to reconquer the province be made. 128
Following the religious, a large number of officers and soldiers went on record as either favoring or opposing an attempt at immediate reconquest. Those who favored it were Thome Domínguez de Mendoza and Juan Domínguez de Mendoza, the former a man of long experience and great influence. Both advised accepting the aid proffered by Father Ayeta, and removing the camp to La Toma del Rio del Norte, whence they might inform the viceroy of events in New Mexico and ask him for provisions, equipment, and a presidio; while awaiting the reply of the viceroy they favored sending a body of troops to New Mexico to capture as many rebels as possible, in order to use them as peace emissaries to the revolted tribes. Juan Domínguez, however, made the proposed entrada conditional on the volition of the men and better equipment for both men and horses. 129 Eight sarjentos mayores, captains, and soldiers supported the arguments of the Mendozas, some on the condition that the people at El Paso were left with sufficient protection and provisions; others on condition that the choicest horses available in the surrounding region be given the soldiers.
The chief opponents of an immediate reconquest were Francisco Gomez Robledo, Alonso García, and Pedro Durán y Chávez. All three based their opposition on the jaded condition of the men and horses and lack of equipment; and favored appealing to the viceroy for aid. Robledo feared the unrest of the Mansos, Sumas, and Sonora Indians; García regarded the building of huts to protect the ill-clad citizens of first importance; Chávez wanted one hundred men for garrison duty and one hundred as settlers before undertaking the conquest. The cabildo of Santa Fé, which supported this faction, also regarded soldiers, arms, and supplies to establish a garrison, as prerequisites to the undertaking. Captain Pedro Marquéz, Sebastian de Herrera, and four other officers cast the weight of their opinion against immediate action. 130
(3) Fears in the Neighboring Provinces.—Just at the conclusion of the junta de guerra Otermín received two letters from friends at San Juan Bautista in Sonora, which are especially interesting in this connection, since they illustrate how fears spread as a result of the revolt in New Mexico to other provinces, since they contained much the same ideas as had already been expressed by the majority of those at La Salineta, and since they exerted considerable influence upon Otermín in helping him reach his decision, and later influenced the authorities in Mexico when they were considering the plans that should be adopted for the reconquest of New Mexico. One of the letters in question was from Don Francisco de Agramontes, former governor ad interim of Nueva Vizcaya, a person of much experience in the northern provinces, and well informed in Indian matters. 131 The writer stated that the day before (September 15) he had received news of the revolt of the Indians, of the governor's wound, and of Ayeta having sent eighty musketeers (seventy-eight is the correct number) and supplies for their aid. After consoling Otermín for the loss of his province he suggested that it would be well to form a plaza de armas at El Paso and then send Father Ayeta to Mexico to represent the whole situation to the viceroy. In his opinion at least three hundred men, fully armed and able to fortify themselves in the villa of Santa Fé, should be sent to reconquer the province. By this means the Indians could be reduced and kept in subjection. The matter as he saw it was a serious one, for the province of Nueva Vizcaya was very liable to experience a similar misfortune should the New Mexican rebels be unpunished and the province abandoned, since the Janos, Yumas, and other natives of Nueva Vizcaya, seeing the success of their neighbors, would also revolt, and in this way make the ruin in the northern provinces of New Spain complete. 132
It is thus seen that Agramontes viewed the revolt and apostasy of the New Mexican Indians with great misgivings for the security of the northern frontiers, and likewise that he recognized the necessity of maintaining the refugees in some fortified and contiguous place until the province should be reconquered. The same conclusions had been reached even earlier than this and independently by Father Ayeta, than whom there was doubtless no man better qualified to speak with judgment concerning the affairs in northern New Spain. On August 31, when Ayeta was under the impression that only the Rio Abajo refugees had escaped from New Mexico, he had notified the viceroy that he had had Pedro de Leiva elected provisional governor in Otermín's place, whom he supposed to be dead, in order that the refugees might be made to halt at El Paso when they should arrive there. For, as he stated, not to do so would mean that Parral would be lost. Moreover, he pointed out that El Paso was a suitable place for establishing a base of operations for the purpose of subduing the natives, possessing suitable sites for a large settlement, and an abundant water supply. 133 He further stated that he had written to Governor Estrada asking him for certain supplies (uno docena de leperuscos), but that he knew Estrada would not be able to send them even if he wished, because there was danger of his own province experiencing a similar revolt. He judged this because he had learned that the Indians in that vicinity had stated that they were going to devastate the valley of San Bartolomé and kill all the Spaniards there. He added that he inferred they would be able to succeed in doing so, because so far as he could judge the Indians were united as one, in view of which fact Estrada's forty soldiers would be insignificant. 134
The other letter which Otermín received was from Juan de Escorsa, sarjento mayor in Sonora. The writer expressed his sorrow for the misfortunes that had befallen the province of New Mexico, unexampled in all New Spain, and of ill omen for other provinces. He stated that on September 10 reports of the revolt were received in those parts, but were taken lightly. On September 15 the early reports were confirmed by letters from El Paso and from Casas Grandes, among them being one from Father Ayeta to a certain Andrés. After consoling Otermín for his misfortunes and reminding him of the afflictions and tribulations of Job, Escorsa assured him that after the barbarians had arranged such a plan as that which they had executed, it might be well counted miraculous that a single man escaped. 135
(4) Decision to Delay the Reconquest.—On October 5, before Otermín announced his decision as to whether or not he would attempt the reconquest of New Mexico before hearing from the viceroy, the sarjento mayor, Luis de Granillo, appeared before him and in behalf of all the people in the camp presented a petition asking that, because of the many dangers and inconveniences which beset them at La Salineta, the whole camp be allowed to move to a place on the opposite side of the river near the monastery of Guadalupe. There, it was stated, pasture could be secured for the cattle, and huts built for the protection of the people. Otermín in reply assured the petitioners that the request would be granted. 136
The next day the governor formally announced his decision concerning the question of attempting the reconquest of the province at that time. In an auto summarizing the opinions expressed in the junta de guerra of October 2, he stated that he agreed with the Cabildo of Santa Fé and the majority of the other experienced men, and that an expedition would not be sent to reconquer the revolted province until further aid could be secured from the viceroy. In giving this decision the governor emphasized the fact that winter was approaching and that there was no shelter for the people. Moreover, because of the two letters which he had received from San Juan Bautista, he felt that it was more imperative to make a stand in that place than to attempt to make an entrada with his weakened forces. Since they could be furnished with necessary supplies through the liberality of Father Ayeta until royal aid might be received, he thought it best that his soldiers should not be separated until that time. Accordingly, he ordered the autos to be arranged preparatory to sending them to the viceroy. 137
Having reached this decision Otermín instructed Alcalde Ordinario Juan Lucero de Godoy, and Sarjento Mayor Diego López, to notify Ayeta of this decision and in behalf of himself and of all the other people in the camp to thank the Reverend Father formally for what he had already done and for the proposition which he had made to continue to aid them. This was done, and in reply Father Ayeta sent Otermín notice that he was able by that time to increase the daily allowance of corn from eight to ten fanegas because he had bought since the day he began to succor the people, six hundred more fanegas, while two wagons were to be sent out on the 18th on a similar purchasing expedition. Moreover, he stated that only that day he had bought and paid for 1640 head of cattle in the jurisdiction of Casas Grandes, all of which he freely gave, asking that it be distributed among the people most needing it. In conclusion he supplicated the people to be patient, promising to send to Parral for wool to clothe them, and stating that he would reserve for himself and his order nothing more than the insignia of his patron San Francisco, and would sacrifice all for their welfare and comfort until royal aid could be secured. 138
(1) Early History of the El Paso District.—At the time the retreating settlers of New Mexico determined to make El Paso their base of operations in the reconquest of the revolted provinces, there were already established at that place a mission group administering to the Mansos, Sumas, and the outlying Janos Indians, and a small nucleus of Spanish settlers about the missions. In 1659 priests from New Mexico had founded Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe at the pass, and between 1659 and 1680 two other missions were founded in the vicinity, one called San Francisco, twelve leagues below, on the Rio del Norte, and another called La Soledad, among the Janos Indians, seventy leagues to the southwest of Guadalupe. All three appear to have been within the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of New Mexico, and directly governed from that center. Evidence points to a civil organization of the settlers in the neighborhood as early as 1659, but the details concerning this phase of the Spanish activities in the El Paso region are more fragmentary than those relating to religious matters.
(2) The Settlement at El Paso.—It has already been shown that on October 6 Otermin made public his determination to encamp at El Paso, on the right bank of the Rio del Norte. By the 9th the camp appears to have been moved to the new site. The people were placed in three camps at intervals of two leagues. The governor and the Cabildo occupied the Real de San Lorenzo, and with them were five religious; all were sheltered in rude wooden huts. The Real de San Pedro de Alcantara was the second camp; it was administered by four religious. The third camp was Real del Santísimo Sacramento, in which dwelt Father Alvaro de Zavaleta and other religious. The arrangements were probably completed by October 20, when Otermín wrote to the viceroy: “I am bivouacked and fortified on this Rio del Norte, waiting Your Excellency's order as to what ought to be done.” 139
(3) Provision of a Presidio.—As far as the documents now available indicate, the paramount interest of Otermín and the Cabildo, during the next twelve months, was the question of a presidio of El Paso. In compliance with the recommendations of the governor, the central authorities took the matter under advisement in January, 1681, and in the same month decided to grant it, empowering the governor to carry out the plans. Whether or not Otermín attempted to found the presidio is not clear from the documents, but he appears to have formed some kind of guard to protect the citizens during his absence on the entrada made in November, 1681, with the intention of reconquering New Mexico.
While it is not purposed at the present time to continue the history of the El Paso settlements further than the departure of Otermín's army from El Paso for New Mexico on November 5, 1681, a few words will not be out of place here on subsequent events there. As has already been noted the presidio and the settlement at El Paso were not meant to be permanent. However, when Otermín returned in the winter of 1681-2 from his unsuccessful attempt to reconquer the province, it was realized by the authorities that several expeditions might have to be made before the people at El Paso could re-enter New Mexico. Accordingly, the Spaniards were required to settle in several pueblos and to make preparations for planting crops to maintain themselves there indefinitely. In this way the plans for settlements were given a sort of permanence. Events of the next few years, as will be shown later, served to make them entirely permanent. 140
Virginians have ever been prone to seek distinction and fortune beyond the bounds of their native state. What the New England states have been by way of a nursery from which home-seekers have gone to settle the middle West, that Virginia has been to the states of the South and the Southwest. The best blood of the Old Dominion has gone forth to enrich the citizenship of many a sister-state. It would require several volumes to narrate the history of all those Virginians whose enterprise, bravery, and skill have contributed to the upbuilding and prosperity of their adopted homes. In every war in which the national honor has been at stake, the sons of Virginia have given their services with readiness and loyalty, and have acquitted themselves upon the field of battle with honor to themselves- and credit to their native state. It is not the purpose of this paper, however, to vaunt the deeds of Virginians in the wars in which this country has been engaged. Without attempting a task so pretentious, the writer has confined himself to the effort of recording the names and services of those Virginians who had a part in accomplishing the separation of Texas from Mexico, and who helped to erect a stable government within the bounds of the mighty state whose limits are the Sabine and the Rio Grande. The story is not a long one, for Virginia was too remote from the scene of hostilities for the struggle between the Texans and their oppressors to arouse the same degree of interest and enthusiasm that was felt by the citizens south of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi. Then, too, the ardor of the Virginians may have been dampened somewhat by the unfavorable accounts of Texas which appeared in the Virginia newspapers. 141 Be this as it may, however, what Virginians lacked in the way of numbers, they made up for by the high quality of the service rendered the young republic. No braver or more loyal spirit gave his life in behalf of Texas independence than John Sowers Brooks, 142 of Augusta county, Virginia; another Virginian who rendered the cause of Texas distinguished services as a soldier was Colonel William G. Cooke, 143 of Fredericksburg. Among the more conspicuous builders of the new state the names of Branch T. Archer and Peter Hansborough Bell 144 deservedly have a high place. Another Virginian who rendered his adopted home valuable services both as a civilian and as a soldier was Judge Edwin Waller. 145 Both Austin and Houston were natives of Virginia, while among the signers of the Texas Declaration of Independence, eleven were either natives or former residents of Virginia.
Rumblings of the storm about to break in Texas reached Virginia in the summer of 1835. In July and August the Richmond papers printed reports of the projected invasion of Texas by the Mexicans and of the determination of the colonists to resist. 146 The Richmond Enquirer of July 17, 1835, copied from the New York Courier the following extract which correctly summed up the situation at this time:
Each succeeding day is rendering Texas of more importance to the United States from the fact that it is rapidly being settled by our own people, and the very probable supposition that in a few years it will constitute a portion of our Union. In settling the boundary line between Texas and the United States, the Rio Grande should be, and in all probability, will be fixed upon as the dividing line, and thus the thousands of American citizens who are now settling what is yet a foreign country, will once more find themselves enjoying the blessings and protection of our liberal laws.
Among those who took part in the storming of San Antonio, in December, 1835, was Nathaniel R. Brister of the “New Orleans Greys,” commanded by Captain Samuel O. Pettus, himself a Virginian. Brister was promoted from the position of sergeant-major to that of adjutant in this company about the middle of February, 1836. 147 According to one account a Captain Blair of Conway county and a Dr. Mitcherson, both from Virginia, were killed in the storming of San Antonio. 148
Virginia had her representatives at the Alamo, the following Virginians being killed there: John J. Baugh, first lieutenant in Captain Thomas H. Breece's company of Texas Volunteers, and later a captain; 149 and a soldier by the name of R. L. Stockton, who arrived at San Antonio about the same time as Crockett. 150 Other Virginians who were members of Captain Pettus' company were Allen O'Kinney (or Kenney) and William L. Hunter; the former is said to have been massacred at Goliad, while the latter is one of the few who effected a thrilling escape after being left there for dead upon the field of slaughter. 151 Other Virginians killed at the time of Fannin's massacre were Henry W. Downman, James Batts, and James Kemp, all of Duval's company. 152
In the Zanesville Volunteer Rifle Company were the following Virginians: James Perry, first sergeant, from Norfolk; Henry Sikes, of the same place; John Fisher, of Shenandoah; John A. Davis, of Surrey county; and John Snelling, of Augusta county. 153 Company E, First Regiment of Texas Infantry, Permanent Volunteers, contained these soldiers from Virginia: David Balfour, of Norfolk; John H. P. Brent, of Fauquier county; James Dunn, of Wheeling; Silas A. Gordon, of Augusta county; John M. Hooper, of Hanover; John T. Morehead, of Rockbridge county; Benjamin Smith, of Frederick; and L. C. Toneray, of Washington. 154 With General Houston at San Jacinto were Oscar Farish, of Fredericksburg, a private in Captain McIntyre's company; 155 Washington Anderson, a member of Company C, First Regiment, Texas Volunteers, who was wounded; James Montgomery, and Crittenden. In addition these Virginians saw service in the Texan cause: John Claiborne, John O. Knox, J. C. Osburn, M. D., R. R. Goodloe, J. W. Massey, Hugh G. Pannell, Lemuel Smith, A. M. Tandey, Peter C. Ragsdale, Nicholas Herron, Dr. A. M. Levy, John P. T. Fitzhugh, T. R. Striff, and Jesse Benton, the last-named hailing, it is believed, from Richmond. 156
In the Richmond Whig of April 15, 1836, is found this letter from him:
Near Nacogdoches 22d Feb. 1836 Dear Sir:—
. . . Official information has just reached us that Santa Anna has crossed the Rio Grande and is marching against us with a large army for the purpose of exterminating us. I will place myself in the Infantry as a private soldier, and if he pass our bayonets, I will be deceived. Nearly all our troops are riflemen; no body of infantry to lodge on to form squares or rush on with and crush the enemy. We will die hard, for it will be truly victory or death with us. Our volunteers have consumed our provisions and a great many have left us—just what I expected. General Cos and his troops we are informed have broken their parole and are returning against us. The country on the Rio Grande is given up to a brutal soldiery. . . . If we cannot defend the country in any other way, we can do it effectually by adopting the Russian mode of defence against Napoleon in 1812.
A Virginian who rendered the new republic of Texas substantial aid was Thomas Jefferson Chambers who agreed to loan $10,000 of the funds necessary for the purpose of recruiting a force in the United States, and to recruit the force himself. This he did in a highly successful manner, sending a large force of men and quantities of war materials to Texas. 157
Horatio Chriesman, the chief surveyor of Austin's colony during its entire existence, was a native of Virginia, though going to Texas from Missouri in 1822. 158 Among those under sentence of death at Tampico December 14, 1835, was a Virginian, William H. Mackay, aged twenty. 159 According to the Virginia Herald, September 24, 1836, about thirty young men from Petersburg went to Norfolk with the intention of embarking for Texas. No doubt the companies which went from other southern states to Texas contained Virginians, though mention of this fact does not occur in the records.
Mason, of Virgnia, on July 4, 1836, reported in the House from the committee on foreign affairs in favor of recognizing the independence of Texas as soon as satisfactory information was received that Texas had in successful operation a civil government. 160
Rumors of a renewed invasion of Texas by the Mexicans appeared from time to time in the Virginia newspapers. 161
Of those who never lost faith in Texas and in her future was Branch T. Archer, already alluded to. On Tuesday evening, April 12, he addressed a crowded assemblage in Richmond, at the capitol, on the affairs of Texas. 162 Dr. Archer resembled Stephen F. Austin in his enthusiasm for the Texan cause, and upon a second visit to Richmond the following year declared Mexico was in greater danger from Texas, than Texas was from Mexico. 163
In conclusion, it may be interesting to compare, on the Texan question, the attitude of two of the leading Virginia papers which have been cited above. The Richmond Enquirer while suggesting impracticable schemes for the incorporation of Texas with the United States was opposed to the purchase of Texas by our government. 164 On the other hand, the Richmond Whig was convinced that Texas must be purchased by the United States government and carved into two or more slave-holding states. 165 To this paper a war for absolute independence was quite premature and impolitic. 166 There was little doubt in the mind of the editor of the Whig that our government would gladly catch at the slightest pretext for a quarrel with Mexico, if for no other reason than to divert the people from a scrutiny of domestic affairs. 167 One of the few articles friendly to Mexico which has been observed during this time is to be found in the columns of the Whig of July 22, 1836. The editor seeks to justify Mexico in defending the integrity of her territory and contends that the existing treaty with Mexico was binding upon citizens of the United States. In this same issue is a letter from Isaac T. Preston written to the New Orleans Courier of July 2 in which the writer deplores the fact that the treaty between the United States and Mexico had been violated.
Touching a proper boundary line, the Enquirer was an ardent expansionist. Quoting the New Orleans Bee of March 19, 1836, it says: “Let the independence of Texas be recognized by the United States. Let its bounds be extended to the Rio Grande and to California and the Pacific Ocean and we shall have easy access to Asia.” 168
The Texas question is tersely dealt with in the following statement: “It is impossible for Texas to remain long under the dominion of Mexico.” The character of the “Texonians,” it continued, “is essentially different from that of the Mexicans, they know too much of the principles of republicanism, are too much attached to the free institutions they have been taught from childhood.” 169
Animated by the spirit of a love of liberty and of hatred of oppression such as characterized their forefathers, Virginians went to Texas and wielded their swords and pens in behalf of the cause of Texas independence.
About the year 1829 or 1830 there came to Texas, from the state of Alabama, a Scotchman named Dugald McFarlane. He left his native land when a boy of eighteen years or less, and settled first in South Carolina. After a few years he removed to Alabama, where he married Miss Eliza M. Davenport, and lived at or near the town of Tuscaloosa. He was about thirty-three years old when following in the footsteps of many worthy sons of the South, he, together with his wife and children, emigrated to Texas.
The family traveled overland by private conveyance, and experienced the usual hardships attending a long journey over an unsettled country. Arriving at San Felipe, the seat of governmental authority for Austin's colony, the head of the family selected Matagorda as their future home, and located his headright on the Colorado river, eight miles above the town. He identified himself with the interests of the settlers about him, and became a most useful citizen. His only surviving child, Mrs. Eureka M. Theall, is living at Bay City, at the home of her daughter, Arie Davenport (Mrs. B. F. Sweeney, Sr.), and from her recollections the leading incidents of his life have been obtained. At the time of the immigration to Texas she was a little toddler, just old enough, as she afterward told, to slip her father's pocket knife into a water jug, which was carried along for the use of the family during a day's journey. She recalls the days of her childhood at Matagorda, when the Indians roamed about the neighborhood, and, as they were Carankawas and reputed cannibals, their visits were greatly dreaded. At that early period the Mexicans traded extensively with the Texans, and their trains of burros loaded with silver dollars to be exchanged for tobacco and other commodities were frequently seen and always welcomed at Matagorda. Mrs. Theall says that, although her parents owned slaves, they were left in Alabama in the care of an uncle, since the laws of Mexico were such that they would have been free on Texas soil. The first servants her parents had in Texas were Scotch, a man and a woman, who lived with them for two or three years. Many were the hardships for a long time endured by her mother and others who, like her, had been tenderly reared and were now reduced to the hard necessities which life in Texas at that period involved. At one time, as the Colorado river afforded almost the only water supply, the women of Matagorda made its banks their common laundry. Soiled clothing, tubs, etc., were hauled in an ox-cart to the landing; as there were no washboards, the clothes were soaked, well soaped and placed on a strong bench called a “battle-board,” designed for the purpose, and thoroughly beaten with a heavy paddle. They were dried on the bushes. In this primitive fashion were the women obliged to carry on one of the most important branches of their household economy.
The first two-story house erected on the bay shore of Matagorda, known as the Bluff, was built by Dugald McFarlane, and was for many years the home of himself and family. It was so tall that it served as a kind of a landmark for the ships at sea, and the sailors kept a lookout for “McFarlane's Castle,” as they were wont to call it. Colonel S. R. Fisher owned the only other house on the Bluff in the early Colonial days.
Dugald McFarlane was a Royal Arch Mason of the thirty-third degree. “By dispensation of the Grand Lodge” of South Carolina, he was sent to Alabama to establish Masonic lodges. His daughter has the Masonic chart issued to him by the Grand Lodge of South Carolina. It is of vellum and is inscribed with the autographs of the officers of the lodge. This chart was carried by its owner throughout the Texas revolution, and it was twice captured by the Mexicans, but each time was returned to its owner by order of Santa Anna, who was himself a Mason. This valuable Masonic chart possesses a double value to its owner from the fact that it was filled in by her mother. Her father's great interest in Masonry induced him to write a “History of Freemasonry,” which is incomplete, but has been carefully preserved by her, together with other records by his hand. His name occurs in Masonic records as occupying such honorable positions as Grand Lecturer, and District Deputy Grand Master of District No. 2, which was the district of Matagorda. One of the early lodges at San Augustine bore the name McFarlane No. 3.
Mrs. Theall is of the opinion that there was a lodge at San Antonio established by her father, but I could find no record of it in the “Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Texas,” mentioned in a succeeding note.
When, in 1835, the oppression of the Mexican government became unbearable to the Texas colonists and a revolution was their only recourse, Dugald McFarlane enlisted in the volunteer army as a private.
History relates that, on November 21, 1835, as a member of Captain Philip Dimmit's company at Goliad, he was one of a committee of five elected to prepare a preamble and resolutions expressive of their confidence in their captain, and their belief in their right, “under existing regulations—or, rather, during the want of all regulations,” to elect their company officers. This was simply the assertion of their privilege and right as citizen volunteer soldiers to elect their immediate commander, and was a vigorous protest against an order from headquarters at San Antonio to Captain Dimmit to deliver the command of the fort and town to Captain George M. Collinsworth. 170 The same history relates that on December 20, 1835, Dugald McFarlane's name was enrolled among the ninety-two men, many of them members of Captain Dimmit's company of volunteers, who signed and published what is known as the “Goliad Declaration of Independence.” Brown says 171 that fully a third of these signers “maintained their pledges with their lives, largely as members of Fannin's command.”
During the revolution Dugald McFarlane rose to the rank of captain of artillery, and at one time had from four to six cannon under his orders. His daughter related that, while in command of this company, he was so closely pursued by the Mexicans that, to prevent his guns from falling into their hands, he sank two of them into the Brazos river at Brazoria. The following letter from her gives an account of this interesting episode:
He was on his way to San Jacinto, had crossed the Brazos river and was marching toward the scene of conflict; they were near enough to hear the booming of artillery and the shouts of the soldiers, but suddenly they saw approaching a large body of Mexicans, who had discovered my father's cannon, and about the same time they started in pursuit of his company. There was nothing left for him to do but order a retreat, which he did, the Mexicans in pursuit. He reached the Brazos and embarked some of the guns, carriages, and men; the ferryboat was not nearly large enough to cross all at one trip, time was too precious to waste, so they could not wait to load the other guns, as the river was on a boom at the time, and the current very strong. It would have jeopardized the lives of the soldiers too much to risk the loading of the other guns, so my father ordered them sunk in the muddy, turbid stream, where they were completely lost in the mud. The Brazos resembles the Mississippi in the turbidity of its waters during a freshet, as the mud boils up from the bottom. So it was not when General Urrea invested Brazoria that the cannon were sunk, but it may have been at this time that the Masons had to meet under a liveoak tree, as they had no lodge room. 172
Dugald McFarlane seems to have continued in the army after the battle of San Jacinto, which, by giving victory to the Texans, had caused many soldiers to feel that they were justified in returning to their homes. His name occurs as captain of artillery in the list of appointments sent by President Sam Houston to the Senate for approval on May 10, 1837, and, in the Secret Journals of the Senate of the Republic of Texas, these names are printed under the heading, “A List of Officers actually in the Service of the Army of the Republic of Texas.” 173
In 1842 McFarlane returned to civic life, and we find him representing Matagorda county in the Congress of the Republic of Texas during 1842-43. At this time he was known as Colonel McFarlane, and when the war between the United States and Mexico broke out in 1846, he again enlisted in military service. His son also entered the service of the United States at this time and was adjutant of a New York regiment during the Mexican War.
Dugald McFarlane was about five feet ten inches in height, well proportioned and strongly built, of fair complexion, light blue eyes, light brown hair tending toward auburn; his habitual expression indicated firmness of purpose, tempered by tenderness and kindness. He was perfectly erect, had a military bearing, was dignified but genial in manner, very strict as to morals, veracity and all good conduct. He was a born commander, whose men were drawn to him by the strong ties of confidence and friendship. His latter years were passed at Brazoria, where he had many friends, and there, in March, 1861, at the age of sixty-four, he breathed his last. Thirty-one years of his eventful life had been given to Texas, and this period was just completed on the eve of another eventful era in the history of his adopted land.
Dugald McFarlane was not only a colonist of Texas, a soldier and officer in her armies, and a law-giver of the Republic, but he was also a thoroughly successful teacher, a man of letters, and a pioneer journalist—a man of versatile talents, such as go to make an ideal citizen. He kept a diary, and therein were recorded details of thrilling historical events in which he had borne a part. His participation in the revolutionary war of 1836 and again in the war between the United States and Mexico caused writers of history to consult him when preparing their records. He corresponded with Brown and with Robinson on these subjects. He was intensely interested in all public matters, and contributed to newspapers and magazines, especially to papers published at Matagorda and Brazoria. Among these were The Democrat and The Planter, and the consolidated Democrat and Planter. In the Columbia Democrat, published every Tuesday by E. H. Cushing, may be found a “Chronological Index of Texas History,” the careful work of his hand, signed “Dugald.” 174
In partnership with his son-in-law, Joseph Theall, he published at Matagorda The Chronicle of the Times. His interest in Masonry induced him to contribute to The Masonic Signet and Journal. Among his contributions to The Chronicle of the Times was a series of sketches called “Rumpled Records of a Buckskin Budget,” which were copied from that paper by The Democrat. The name suggests adventure, sport, pioneer life in plenty, and would no doubt reveal pen pictures of the times and tell us much of the life of him who gave them their euphonious title and signed himself “Dugald.” Are they in existence? Probably stored away in some attic, or packed away in some chest whose original owner has long since died, these records of an interesting past may be brought to light. 175
Dugald McFarlane left two children, a boy and a girl. When the former, William Wallace, was about fourteen years old, as he was of delicate constitution, through the advice of the physicians who recommended a long sea voyage, he entered the service of the Texas navy. Captain Taylor, who was a friend of the family, selected the lad as one of his aides. In naval records of a later date his name appears as a midshipman, on board the Austin, flagship of Commodore Edwin W. Moore. When, after many trying experiences, this branch of the service of the Republic of Texas was finally disbanded, he was qualified to enter the service of the United States with the rank of captain. For a long time he served as quartermaster at Tampa Bay, Florida, and was then transferred to San Antonio, Texas, where he remained about four years. He then went north again, and was sent to sea, making trips for the government to the Guano Islands, and was in command of a ship to the Mediterranean. After engaging for a while in the oil refining business in New York, he again entered the government service and held positions in the postoffice department in New York City and Springfield, Massachusetts. During the Mexican War (1846-48) he served as adjutant in a New York regiment. He died several years ago, 176 survived by his widow and a son and daughter. Recent letters announce the death of the widow at the age of seventy.
Mrs. Theall, the surviving daughter of Dugald McFarlane, inherited much of her father's talent; she was sent to school in Kentucky, where she received a liberal education, which fitted her for the vicissitudes of a long life full of good deeds. Her husband, Joseph Theall, served in the Confederate army in Captain Lewis Stroble's cavalry, and afterward in the commissary department under Captain William McMaster at Columbia, Texas. Exposure in the service injured his health. He was for many years an invalid. After the war Mrs. Theall opened a school at Brazoria; she also taught at Columbia, and was for seven years postmistress at the latter place. Her acquaintance in Brazoria county was large, and the many pupils who profited by her instruction regard her with affection and gratitude. She is familiar with the historic localities of that section, and numbers among her former friends prominent citizens of the early days, who have passed away. While she contributed to the press from time to time, her pen was used chiefly as a recreation, and she preserved none of her writings. She was the mother of two sons and two daughters, and the care of her family and household filled her life. But one of her children survives, the daughter with whom she makes her home, and whose family are all settled in Bay City and Brazoria and Matagorda counties. While the weight of eighty-odd years has impaired her physical strength, her mental grasp is vigorous, and her fine memory summons at will varied and interesting pictures drawn from her many eventful years in Texas.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 177
No. 6. Galveston April 25. 1843. My Lord,
I have the honor to report that the two Texian Vessels of War “Austin” and “Wharton” sailed from the N. E. Pass of the Mississipi on the 19th Instant, destined as it is generally supposed, to the Coast of Yucatan. It is certain that this step has been taken by the Commander of the Vessels in spite of repeated positive orders of this Government to return direct to this Port. And I am in a situation to inform Your Lordship that the arrangements between that Officer and the persons in authority in Yucatan were made without the sanction of this Government, and have been disavowed and disapproved in the most unequivocal language by the President of Texas. 178
The embarrassments of this Government upon the subject must no doubt be much increased, if a report which has recently been circulated in this place be well founded, and I am disposed to attach credit to it. That statement is that the Government of the United States has directed it's Agent here to call upon this Government to desist from any further pursuit of the unsustainable character of Warfare which has been waged between this Republic and Mexico for some time past, and has further notified that Instructions to the same effect will be transmitted to their Minister at Mexico. I should perhaps mention that I have not heard that these last instructions direct General Thompson to press the point of the acknowledgment of the Independence of Texas on the Mexican Government but merely the cessation of the objectionable description of Warfare. Neither do I hear or observe any thing disposing me to modify the opinion that there is no earnestness upon that subject at Washington on the Potomac.
The Texian Vessels are said to be incompletely manned, with crews of a mixed character: I make no doubt, however, that they will be handled with becoming behaviour if any opportunity of collision presents itself, but I am afraid that there is no room to expect that this unauthorized proceeding can produce any other than injurious consequences. If there be success, and the Officer is sustained by the people here it will be a triumph over the Authority of the Government and the Law, and in other respects probably not very remote, of extremely unfortunate tendency.
And if there be a reverse the consequences will of course be very serious. In the mean time the state of the fact is, that these Vessels are sailing the Seas without due warrant from any constituted Authority. And I have had enough of experience of Naval Affairs to offer the opinion that the power of the Officer in Command to maintain any more control over their movements than may be agreeable to the general will of the Crews, will disappear as soon as it is generally known that He is himself acting in violation of the orders of his Government
I must not close this despatch without once more assuring Your Lordship that there is not the least doubt that the step this Officer has taken is entirely upon his own responsibility, and contrary to his knowledge of the desire of the Government that He should repair direct to this Port. I shall consider it my duty to forward extracts of as much of this despatch to the Senior Officer of Her Majesty's Ships in the Gulph of Mexico, as may place him in possession of the circumstances under which these Vessels are operating, with a suggestion that their movements should be reported to the Commander in Chief, to Her Majesty's Minister at Mexico, and in the event of any proceeding of consequence, by any direct means which may present themselves to England.
Charles Elliot. The Right Honorable The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 179
No. 7. Galveston April 29th. 1843. My Lord,
The accompanying Newspaper 180 contains a letter from Mr. Van Zandt, Chargé d' Affaires of this Republic near the Government of the United States to the Address of Mr. Archer, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations in the Senate of the United States, in support of the proposed treaty between the two Republics. It will be observed that the treaty was not ratified by the Senate of the United States; but Containing the principles of the arrangement as assented to by the two Governments, I have considered it proper to submit Mr. Van Zandt's letter for Your Lordship's information.
The refusal of the Senate of the United States to ratify the treaty with this Country has led the President to direct the enforcement of the provision of the tariff Laws of Texas, levying a duty of 5 per Cent ad valorum on Imports in Vessels of Countries, not having treaties with this Republic.
Charles Elliot. To The Right Honorable. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 181
No. 9. 182 Galveston, May 9th, 1843. My Lord,
The Inclosure No. 1 is the copy of a despatch from Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires at Mexico covering copies of a Communication addressed to him under date 19th April by Senor de Borangra, 183 and of his own reply dated on the same day, but as these last will have no doubt already reached Your Lordship direct from Mexico I do not transmit them through this Channel. I have also the honor to forward the Copy of my own reply to Mr. Doyle. 184
There seems less reason to think that these declarations of the Mexican Government are the forerunners of any serious attempt to recover it's Authority over this Country than to discourage [emigration?] to it, and prevent it's settlement. But continued hostilities of this partial nature, (particularly if they be preceded, as the last were, by fallacious proclamations that the advancing parties were the Van Guards of invading Armies, and now by a declaration of a very unsustainable description as regards the rights of Neutral Governments and their Subjects) will probably attract the serious attention of Powers having treaty relations with Texas.
It may be added too that their object of preventing the Settlement of the Country seems to be ill-considered both as respects the hope of fulfilment, and the consequences of the mode of operation. For though it is quite true that the Mexican Government has succeeded in obstructing the settlement of the Western Country by steady and respectable people disposed to cultivate the Soil in peace, and particularly by European Emigrants whom the Climate and advantages of that portion of the Republic would otherwise attract, it is no less true that that Section of Texas is becoming the resort of Men from all parts of the World ready for, and equal to desperate enterprize of any description.
If General Santa Aña cannot be promptly arrested in this bad policy I am afraid it will soon be found that He is doing no more than securing the rapid organization of advanced bands of what will accumulate into a formidable irruptionary Movement.
Your Lordship will be enabled to judge in some degree from the inclosed proclamation 185 how disquietingly the actual State of Western Texas sustains this reasoning, and it is my duty to add that with wise and honorable dispositions on the part of the Government of Texas, It is wholly without power to regulate or control the course of events in the particulars now drawn under the attention of Her Majesty's Government.
There is much reason to fear that the Mexican Government has suffered itself to be precipitated into the dismal Measure of decimating the Texian prisoner's taken at Mier, and lately recaptured after a successful rise against their guard. It is impossible to ascribe such extraordinary ignorance of the character of these people to General Santa Aña, as to suppose that He could think after a moment's reflection that such Measures were calculated to intimidate them, and hasty orders upon a subject of so much moment, and such very serious consequences can not be too deeply deplored. If these proceedings have had place they will influence these people to the highest degree, and in other respects cast increased difficulty upon the Mexican Government that there was much need for more prudent Conduct.
It will probably be declared here that some of the prisoners put to Death by these undistinguishing orders were amongst those who used their best efforts to prevent outrage, and absolutely risked their lives, in the attempt, and the Mexican Government has unhappily deprived itself of conclusive means of refuting such allegations. But beyond this I am sure it will be felt by Her Majesty's Government that the Mexican Government was bound by the conditions of the Capitulation assented to by their Commanding Officer at Mier, and the act of successful rise of a body of prisoners against their guard is no warrant for any other Measures than those of more effectual precaution, if they should be retaken.
If particular outrage was charged against them, enquiry should have been had in a regular Military Way, however summarily, and no blame could have attached to the Mexican Government for any proceedings it might have seen fit to take after investigation by responsible Officers. I anxiously hope that General Santa Aña, will upon more mature reflection have dispatched orders of a more suitable nature than those in question here, and that they will have arrived in time to prevent a shocking event.
H. M. S. Spartan sailed again for Vera Cruz this day with my reply to Mr. Doyle.
Charles Elliot. To The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
DOYLE TO ELLIOT 186
[Enclosure] Copy. Charles Elliot. Mexico, 20 April 1843. Sir,
I have the honor to inform You of my arrival in Mexico, having been accredited in the Character of Chargé d' Affaires of this Government.
I take the earliest opportunity of communicating to you a note which I have this day received from the Mexican Government, intimating that on the entry of their troops into the Territory of Texas, they will acknowledge no right, whether as respects their persons or their property, in such individuals as may be found established in that Country, and who may be taken prisoners, nor will they reply to any representations addressed to them in favour of such prisoners,—that they will treat all who may be found in Texas as actual invaders and enemies of the Republic, and will cause them to be punished according to the laws of Mexico. They also protest that they will not acknowledge any right in foreign Consuls found in that Territory to be treated otherwise than as Neutral Foreigners, intimating that such character even will not be respected in case they oppose, either directly or indirectly the right, in its full extent, whereby Mexico is endeavouring to recover possession of her Territory.
I have the honour to transmit to you a copy of the reply which I have thought it my duty to return to this Communication of the Mexican Government.
I have requested the Honble. Captain Elliot 187 of Her Majesty's Ship “Spartan” to proceed to Galveston as soon as he may consider it compatible with the interests of Her Majesty's Service, in order that you may be enabled to take such Steps as may seem expedient to you for the protection of British Subjects and their interests under the extraordinary circumstances of this crisis, but as it is necessary that the “Spartan” should return without delay to the Mexican Ports for the purpose of conveying specie to our Colonies, I trust you will not find it necessary to detain her long.
I have been informed that it is the intention of the Mexican Government, as soon as they shall have brought the Department of Yucatan back to its allegiance, to direct the Squadron, together with a considerable land force, upon Texas, and as intelligence has just reached Mexico of the submission of Merida the Capital of Yucatan, and the adherence of Genl Yuran, 188 a person of considerable influence among the aboriginals, who constitute a majority of the population, it is probable that the whole force now employed in that quarter may shortly be disposable for any operations which the present Government of this Republic may think fit to undertake.
I shall also write to Admiral Sir Charles Adam, 189 to inform him of what has occured, in order that he may take whatever steps he may think necessary on this occasion
Percy W. Doyle Captain Charles Elliot. [Endorsed] Inclosure No. 1 in Captn. Elliot's Despatch to Lord Aberdeen. No. 9. May 9th. 1843.
ELLIOT TO DOYLE 190
[Enclosure] Copy. Charles Elliot Galveston May 7th. 1843. Sir,
I have the honor to acknowledge your letter of the 20th Ultimo, with its Inclosures.
It is to be wished that your note of the same date (20th April) to Senr. de Bocanegra may have reminded the Mexican Government of the grave character of any hostile movement against this Country preceded by a plain declaration of the determination to disregard treaty engagements between other Powers and this Republic, practically denying to the Governments of great and friendly Countries, any right to clothe their servants with a public character in Texas, and further giving special warning that the Mexican Government will only consider these Officers to be neutral foreigners, and separate them from the classification of real invaders, and enemies of Mexico into which all other foreigners found in this Country are to be cast, and from punishment as such according to the laws of Mexico, upon the express condition that they neither directly or indirectly oppose themselves to the full exercise of the rights of Mexico to recover its authority over Texas, as expounded by the Mexican Government, and exercised by Mexican Military Officers
In the event of the entrance of a Mexican force into this Country Her Majesty's Officers here will regulate their proceedings, by the rules of public law, for the government of neutrals in such Cases.
And if such a circumstance should take place before I can receive instructions from Her Majesty's Government, I shall consider it incumbent upon myself formally to declare and assert the privileges and immunities of Her Majesty's Officers in this Republic as well as the rights and liabilities of all Her Majesty's other subjects resident or trading here
I shall also hold it to be my duty to protest against the consequences of any hostile movement founded upon the purposes or principals declared in Senr. de Bocanagrar's note of the 20th Ulto. or to be undertaken till those principles and purposes shall have been authentically disclaimed and disavowed, so far as they menace the rights and safety of Her Majesty's Officers and Subjects resident or trading here.
Charles Elliot. Percy Doyle, Esq. Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires Mexico. [Endorsed] Inclosure No. 2 in Captn. Elliot's Despatch to Lord Aberdeen. No. 9. 9th May. 1843.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 191
Private. New Orleans, May 12th 1843 My Lord
On my arrival here whither I have taken the liberty to come on my way to Havanna to meet Mrs. Elliot I find that accounts have reached this place which do not seem to be doubted by persons competent to Judge, though they are certainly entirely at variance with those that reached us at Galveston by H. M. S. “Spartan” coming direct from Mexico. The last tidings, however, are necessarily much later, and I should presume more trustworthy. By them it appears that a divsion of the Mexican force moving upon Merida, and said to consist of nearly 2000 Men, found themselves compelled to surrender by Capitulation, from want of secure communications with their Squadron, and failure of Supplies.
Agreeably to the reported terms of the Capitulation the surrendering force was to depart for Mexico in 8 days, with their Arms, but their Artillery and Materiel to be held by the Yucantanese till affairs are finally adjusted between the contending parties. This event is said to have taken place on the 24th Ultimo. It is also reported that Commodore Moore with his two Texian Vessels of War have been partially engaged with the Mexican Steam Ships and succeeded in checking them.
I use the freedom of this mode of communication to mention to Your Lordship that I am troubled with an Ague contracted in a long and painful Service in hot Countries, and I should consider it a favor if Your Lordship would sanction my passing the Months of July, August, and September in the Mountains of Kentucky where I have been advised as there are Springs of great virtue for Complaints of that kind. I have the less reluctance in proffering this request, as I can always be at my post within two weeks from that Situation, and be in the constant receipt of tidings from Texas of ten days or a fortnight's date. It may also be added that Congress in Texas does not meet till December, and the Officers of the Texian Government usually disperse during the hot Season.
Charles Elliot. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
KENNEDY TO ABERDEEN 192
Separate. British Consulate Galveston, May 15th. 1843. My Lord.
In the absence of Captain Elliot, Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Texas, who left Galveston last week for New Orleans, I have the honor to transmit Copies of three documents which have emanated from the Government of this Country, relative to the position of the Texian Navy now at Sea, and the steps taken by the Executive with regard to it's Commander, Commodore Moore: namely,
No. 1.Copy of a Proclamation by the President; dated March 23rd. 1843. 193
No. 2.Copy of a despatch to Commodore Moore from the department of War and Marine; dated March 21st. 1843.
No. 3.Copy of Instructions issued by the Executive to Commissioners James Morgan and William Bryan Esquires, dated March 23rd. 1843
In addition to the above, I have the honor to inclose the Copy of a despatch to Captain Elliott, and the Copy of a letter to the Collector of Customs at this port (as the intermediate agent of the President) in explanation of the Circumstances under which I have deemed it my duty to communicate to Your Lordship the papers herewith sent.
I shall forward to Captain Elliott, under Cover to the British Consul at New Orleans, by the same Conveyance that bears this, the whole of the documents addressed by President Houston to Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires
The President, writing to Captain Elliot, states that “All that has been done by Commodore Moore since the 5th Ultimo, has been in violation of orders, and under suspension and arrest.” “On the 5th April,” he adds “the order of the Department of War and Marine was placed in his (the Commodore's) hands.”
It seems to be the hope and wish of the President that Her Majesty's Government may receive the Proclamation and collateral documents as evidence of the sincere and anxious desire of his Government to prevent aggressive Action against Mexico, unless offensive operations should be rendered necessary by the Conduct of that Country towards Texas.
William Kennedy. H. B. M. Consul at Galveston May 16th. The Steamer for New Orleans has delayed its departure until today, which gives me the opportunity of forwarding a published letter from Commodore Moore that has just appeared. 194 W. K. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
HAMILTON TO MOORE. 195
Copy. To Post Capt. E. W. Moore. T. N. New Orleans. Department of War and Marine Washington 21st March, 1843. Sir.
Your Communication of the 10th inst. has just been received; by which the Department is advised of the receipt by you, of orders dated 22nd Jany. last requiring your immediate presence at the Seat of Government, and notified at the same time, that you decline the execution of the same.—Alleging as a reason for thus disregarding the plain and positive Commands of the President, that you have been placed “in Command by the Constituted authorities of the Country, and acting under orders from the Department, from which source alone you look for orders (which have never been rescinded or countermanded”).
Notwithstanding the orders to you of 29th October, reiterated on the 5th and 16th November, to report with the vessels under your Command, at Galveston; which orders you acknowledge to have received, and which were repeated again on the 2nd Decr. with the additional injunction to report in person to the Department; and renewed on the 2nd of January 196—which last you have also received, as allusion is made to it in your Communication.
The “Sealed Orders” to which you refer were issued under the belief that you could, with the means placed in your hands by the Govt. prepare the Squadron for sea, and on that condition alone. You failed to do so, rendered the orders null; and hence your orders to proceed to Galveston and report; which, in the opinion of the Department, countermanded your previous orders to cruize upon the Gulf. That you may distinctly understand the wishes of the Department, however, the “Sealed orders” of 15th Sept 1842, together with all others, not in accordance with this, are hereby revoked.
Any negociations which may have been concluded, or may now be in progress with the Commissioners of the Government of Yucatan, have been entered into without the Authority or sanction, or even knowledge of the Government, and will not be recognized by it.
In consequence of your repeated disobedience of orders, and failure to keep the Department advised of your operations and proceedings and to settle your accounts at the Treasury within three, or at most in six months from the receipt of the Money which has been disbursed as the laws require, and as you were recently ordered to do, You are hereby suspended from all Command, and will report forthwith in Arrest, to the Department, in person.
Any interference on your part with the Command, or with those who have been directed to assume it, will be regarded by the Government as Mutiny and Sedition, and punished accordingly.
By Order of the President. M. C. Hamilton Actg.: Sec: War and Marine [Endorsed.] No 2. In Mr Consul Kennedy's despatch marked “Separate” of May 15th 1843.
HOUSTON TO MORGAN AND BRYAN 197
Copy. To James Morgan. and Wm. Bryan, Esquires. Executive Department Washington, Texas. March 23d/43. Gentlemen,
Your report of the 10th inst. with the accompanying papers, has been laid before me, by the acting head of the War and Marine Department. In full contemplation of all the subjects involved in the transaction, I must now render my orders, touching the attainment of the design of Congress, in passing the Secret act for the disposition of the Navy. 198
Col. William Bryan, Consul of Texas, and Naval Commissioner, will immediately proceed to New Orleans, and in connection with Col. James Morgan, also Naval Commissioner, employ all proper and legal means to get possession of the National vessels, the Ship Austin and Brig Wharton, likewise all the public Stores, arms, equipments, and public property, of every description, belonging to the Republic; holding the same subject to the future orders of the Government of Texas. Should any resistance be made to the orders of this Government, by any officer of the Navy, or by other persons, you will apply, in the name of this Government, to the Federal or other proper Authorities of the United States, and demand of the same, such aid, as may be compatible with the relations of the two Countries, and the Laws of Nations
Post Captain E. W. Moore has had no authority from this Government, to Ship Men, appoint officers, enlist marines, or do any other act, or thing, but to sail to the port of Galveston, and report, or turn over the Command of the Navy to the Senior officer next in rank present, and report in person to the Department. Since the 29th October 1842, he has had no Authority to enter into any arrangements with Yucatan, nor could do so, without contumacy to his superiors, or treason to his Country. The fact of his shipping men, or enlisting or receiving, volunteer marines, with an intention of going out to Sea, without the orders, or sanction of his Government, or contrary to order, on armed vessels, will clearly render it a case cognizable by the Government Authorities of the United States. His setting at “defiance the laws of his own Country” to which he owes allegiance, is clearly treason.—When the orders under which he received his “Sealed Orders” were suspended, by the order for him to repair to Galveston, the “Sealed Orders” were of no avail, and it is his duty to return them “Sealed” to the Department: as the event authorizing the Seal to be broken has not transpired, and can not now occur, under the Sanction of his Government.—His existence as an officer is derived from the organs and functionaries, under the Constitution and Laws of Texas, and he is bound to know and obey them. Not to obey, is “Unofficer-like” to “resist” them is “Mutiny,” and to “defy” them is “treason.” For him to persist would be “Piracy.”
Should Post Captain E. W. Moore not forthwith render obedience to the orders of the Department, with which you are furnished, you will have published, in one or more Newspapers, in the City of New Orleans my Proclamation, and forward one authentic Copy with which you are furnished to the Hon. Ashbel Smith, Chargé d' Affaires of Texas, to France, at Paris, and also a Copy to our Chargé d' Affaires to the United States, the Hon. Isaac Van Zandt, at Washington City.
It is deplorable for a Nation to be reduced to the dilemma of either exposing the Shameless delinquencies, and most flagrant crimes of her officers, or suffer herself to become the object of contempt, or the victim, of insubordination and anarchy.
Our national humiliation is attributable to a few disorganizing men, who seek power without Merit, and a few incendiary presses, which are supported by such men, with the avowed design, of prostrating the Constitutional Officers, by Revolution. They shall fail. —I suggest these facts, that you may meet and counteract their influence for the Nation's sake, and honor. I beseech you to intermit nothing, until you have accomplished, the objects of the law, for the prompt execution of which you were appointed
Should sickness, or any other cause, prevent the Commissioners, from acting jointly, they, or either of them, may act in all things, separately and singly, but not adversely.
Sam. Houston [Endorsed.] No 3. In Mr Consul Kennedy's despatch marked “Separate” of May 15th 1843.
KENNEDY TO ELLIOT 199
Copy. British Consulate. Galveston, May 15th 1843. Sir,
Major Cocke, Collector of Customs at this port, called upon me yesterday Morning, bearing a packet from President Houston, addressed to you, which I was given to understand the President was desirous I should open, in the event of your absence.—Packets containing similar enclosures—Major Cocke informed me—had been simultaneously transmitted to the Ministers of France and of the United States, resident at this place.
Permit me to refer you, for explanation of the course I deemed it best to pursue, to the enclosed Copy of a letter to Major Cocke, acknowledging the receipt of the packet and its enclosures
I beg to assure you, Sir, that it was with reluctance, I opened a Communication addressed to you, notwithstanding the intimation of Major Cocke, who was aware of its contents. On this occasion, however, the persuasion that I should be acting as you would wish me to act under the circumstances, and that I should thereby best consult the interests of the service, induced me to waive my scruples,—More especially as the packet bore not the slightest intimation of being other than of a purely public character.
William Kennedy Captain Chas. Elliot. R. N. [Endorsed.] No 4. In Mr Consul Kennedy's despatch marked Separate of May 15. 1843.
KENNEDY TO COCKE 200
Copy. British Consulate. Galveston, May 15th 1843. Sir.
I beg to acknowledge the receipt, through your hands, on yesterday, of a packet transmitted by the President, General Sam Houston, to Captain Elliot, R. N., Her Britannic Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Texas, and, which in consonance with your suggestion,—as being agreeable to the wishes of the President, and otherwise expedient,—I opened in your presence.—The said packet contained the following documents, viz:—
No. 1.Copy of a Proclamation by the President of the Republic, respecting Commodore Moore and the Texian Navy; dated March 23rd 1843.
No. 2.Copy of a Despatch to Commodore Moore, from the Department of War and Marine dated. March 21st 1843.
No 3.Copy of Instructions issued by the President to the Commissioners, James Morgan and William Bryan, Esquires, dated March 23rd 1843.
Nos. 4 and 5.Two letters from the President to Captain Elliot. 201
By the return of the Hon, Anson Jones Secty of State, to the Seat of Government, the President will have been apprized of the absence of Captain Elliot from Galveston, he having proceeded to New Orleans, for the purpose of meeting his lady at Havannah, on her way from England. Under the circumstances, and being in the receipt of no specific instructions, I shall feel it my duty forthwith to transmit the several documents heretofore named and ennumerated under cover to the British Consul at New Orleans, for Captain Elliot; and to forward, at the same time, copies of the President's Proclamation, the Despatch to Commodore Moore, and the Instructions to the Commissioners, Messrs. Morgan and Bryan, to Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
Do me the favour to convey to the President the assurance of my profound respect
William Kennedy. H. B. M. Consul at Galveston Major Cocke, Collector of Customs. P. S. Should Captain Elliot be in New Orleans on the arrival of the New York Steamer, (by which I shall forward the communications addressed to him by the President,) it will not, of course, be necessary for my Agent to transmit the documents I have mentioned to Her Majesty's Secretary of State. [Endorsed.]. No. 5. In Mr Consul Kennedy's despatch, marked “Separate” of May 15th. 1843.
MOORE TO THE TEXAS TIMES 202
Texas Sloop of War Austin, Outside N. E. Pass, Miss. April 19th, 1843. Mr. F. Pinckard, Editor of the Texas Times, Galveston, Texas.
In the event of my being declared by proclamation by the President as a Pirate, or outlaw; you will please state over my signature that I go down to attack the Mexican Squadron, with the consent and full concurrence of Col. James Morgan, who is on board this Ship as one of the Commissioners to carry into effect the secret act of Congress, in relation to the Navy, and who is going with me, believing as he does that it is the best thing that could be done for the country.
This Ship and the brig have excellent men on board, and the officers and men are all eager for the contest.—We go to make one desperate struggle to turn the tide of ill luck that has so long been running against Texas.
You shall hear from me again as soon as possible.
E. W. Moore.
ABERDEEN TO ELLIOT 203
Draft. Captain Elliot. No. 5. 204 Foreign Office May 18th. 1843. Sir,
I have received your Letter of the 29th of March, in which you inform me that a Texian Citizen named Robinson had arrived in Texas bearing to the President of Texas from General Santa Anna Propositions of a peculiar but pacific character for the adjustment of the Differences between the Two Countries
Those Propositions although calculated and perhaps intended to afford an opening for further Negotiations, do not appear to Her Majesty's Government to be of a very practical description, nor fitted in their present shape to create more than a faint hope of a satisfactory Settlement of those differences. But as Her Majesty's Government have received no Accounts from Mexico respecting those Propositions, and are therefore unable to judge of the Motives which gave rise to them, or of the probable course which the Mexican Government intend to pursue in furtherance of them, or even of the authenticity of the Propositions themselves, which yet appear uncertain, it is unnecessary, in the present stage of the business, to indulge in any speculations respecting this Matter.
With regard to the project for the annexation of Texas to the United States, which has formed the subject of some of your recent communications to this Office, Her Majesty's Government do not think it necessary to give you any Instructions at the present moment on that subject, further than to desire that you will assure the President of the continued interest which the British Government takes in the prosperity and independence of the State of Texas; and of their full determination to persevere in employing their endeavours, whenever they see a reasonable hope of success, to bring about an adjustment of the differences still existing between Mexico, and Texas, of which they so much lament the continuance.
KENNEDY TO ABERDEEN 205
No. 3. British Consulate Galveston, May 22nd. 1843. My Lord,
I have the honor to enclose a return in duplicate of the prices of Agricultural produce 206 within the limits of the Galveston Consulate, for the Quarter ending 31st March, 1843, together with a Memorandum, in reference thereto, also in duplicate. Although I was not empowered to enter upon the duties of My office until the 24th of February last, I have deemed it best to Commence these periodical Returns, which will be continued in regular succession, with the beginning of the year.
From the observations in the “Memorandum,” it will be seen that there is, at present, no export of Corn or Grain from this Port, and that the Return, as a register of the prices of this Class of domestic products, is almost valueless. Convenient lines of Communication must be opened and adequate means of transport provided before Galveston can possess a Corn Market worthy of the name.
In conformity with the terms of Paragraph 14 of my “Instructions,” I have given the prices for each week of the quarter; at the same time, I am inclined to think that, under the circumstances of price and Supply, a Quarterly, or Monthly, average of Corn and Grain would be clear and more practically useful.
When in London during the Autumn of last year, I had the pleasure of presenting to the Hydrographic Office, at the Admiralty, some documents illustrative of the geography of Texas. And it was suggested that I should endeavour to obtain for the Department, a Copy of the Chart of the Coast used in the Texian Navy, and drawn up from the observation of its Commodore. Since my arrival at my post, I have endeavoured, not only to meet this particular suggestion, but to collect such additional Materials as might elucidate the general aspect and character of the Coast and limitary lines of the Republic. On the 8th of this Month, I had the satisfaction to transmit to Captain Beaufort, by Her Majesty's Ship of War Spartan, then lying off Galveston, the following documents; viz:—
1.General Chart of the Coast line of Texas, Compiled from the Observations of the Texian Commodore, and from the Boundary Survey made under the direction of the Commissioners of Texas and the United States.
2.Tracings of the Boundary line between Texas and the United States.
3.Large Plan of Galveston Island and Sketch.
4.Government Survey of the entrance to Galveston, recently made.
5.Survey of the Entrance to Matagorda Bay, by the Texian Commodore.
6.Running Survey of Corpus Christi and Aransas Bays.
7.Survey of the Rio Grande, from the Mouth to the Mexican town of Mier.
I hope to render these Materials, the Collection and Arrangement of which have entailed no expense upon the Admiralty, still more complete, but I have reason to believe that the information they embrace is nearly as ample and as reliable as can well be obtained, until it shall please Her Majesty's Government to employ a Vessel in Surveying the Coast.
William Kennedy. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
Memorandum accompanying the Return of Corn and Grain from the Port of Galveston, Texas, for the Quarter ending March 31st. 1843. 207
Galveston. May 20th. 1843.
The Corn and Grain trade of Galveston is, at present, altogether unimportant in a Commercial point of View.
The only kind of grain yet produced, in noticeable quantities, throughout the lower section, or rich Cotton-growing region of Texas, indeed throughout the limits of the Republic—is Maize or Indian Corn; And, in consequence of the imperfect State of Communication with the interior, but little of that finds its way into the Galveston Market. Nearly all the Corn and grain consumed on the Island is imported from New Orleans; whence, also, are received Supplies of flour and potatoes, and even hay, oats, poultry and pork.—Thus although Texas is one of the most fertile Countries on the American Continent, the cost of living is higher at Galveston than in the United States or England.
Texas, admirably adapted to the raising of Stock, and the Cultivation of some of the more profitable products of tropical Agriculture, will, in all probability, never rank as a Corn-exporting Country; as it is likely to prove sounder economy for the farmers to exchange the great Staples of the Republic for the flour and small grains of the Western States of the neighbouring Union, than to incur the outlay of erecting an independent Supply.
There is no stock of Corn or grain in granary at Galveston. From New Orleans the importation is regular, being graduated by the wants of the population. Freight from New Orleans to Galveston is twenty Cents per bushel, for Corn, and fifteen Cents per bushel, for Oats.
The only restriction on the grain trade is an import duty Amounting to twenty Cents per bushel on Indian Corn and fifteen Cents per bushel on Oats, with fifteen per Cent ad valorem on other grains. In common with other Articles of import, subjected to taxation, grain introduced from Countries with which Texas has no Commercial Treaty, is liable to an additional duty of five per Cent ad valorem. This duty is at present levied on imports from the United States, owing to the non-renewal of the Treaty between the two Republics.
Freights to England is three fourths of a penny per pound for Cotton, by which freights generally are governed.
Exchanges at Galveston are ruled by the New Orleans rates. For the quarter ending March 31st. 1843, they ranged as follows, viz:—
On the Dollar.
January 10th. 1843 101½ to 102¼ Premium
25th 103½ to 104.
February 14th 101¾ to 102½.
25th 100½ to 100¾
March 10th 100½ to 101½.
24th 102 to 102½.
[Endorsed] No 2. In Mr Consul Kennedy's despatch of May 22d 1843.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 208
No. 10. New Orleans. May 29th. 1843. My Lord.
Mr Consul Kennedy's Despatch and its Inclosures will have placed Your Lordship in possession of the course taken by the Government of Texas with respect to Commodore Moore in command of the Texian Vessels of War “Austin” and “Wharton” off the coast of Yucatan; and I beg to add to the papers forwarded on that occasion the copy of a private letter from the President, 209 the substance of which your Lordship will observe He has desired should be communicated to Her Majesty's Government.
The inclosure No. 2 is a Newspaper 210 containing accounts of an affair between the Mexican Squadron and the Texian Vessels of War on the 16th Inst. off Campeche. These reports are said to be made by the Commodore, and his Brother acting as his Secretary, and I perceive no ground to question their genuineness
It is proper to draw Your Lordship's attention to the details reported in these notes respecting the display of the English Ensign at the main of the Mexican Steam Ship “Guadaloupe” previous to the commencement of the action, and the immediate hoisting of the English and American Ensigns at the fore of the Texian Ship “Austin.” No further particulars concerning this feature of these transactions are stated: I may add however, that I shall lose no time in forwarding a copy of this despatch to the Commander in Chief on this Station, to whom I have already communicated the movements, and situation of the Texian Vessels of War.
The recent proceedings of the Mexican Government towards the retaken Texian prisoners, joined to these accounts from the Coast of Yucatan and the measures of the President of Texas with respect to Commodore Moore, are said to be occasioning considerable excitement in this City, and probably more or less, throughout the whole Southern part of the Union.
Charles Elliot. To the Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
ABERDEEN TO KENNEDY 211
Slave Trade No. 1. Foreign Office May 30. 1843. Draft to Mr. Wm. Kennedy. Sir,
I have to desire that you will do your utmost to obtain for the Information of H. M's Govt answers to the following queries.
1.What is at present the amount of the Population of the State in which you reside, and what the number of whites, and of coloured people forming that Population, distinguishing Males from Females, and Free People from Slaves:—What was the amount of the population in the same State in the year 1832, and what was the amount in the year 1837, distinguishing the particulars as in the case of the present time?
2.Is it supposed that any Slaves have been imported into the Country within the last ten years, either direct from Africa or from other quarters; if so, how many in each year?
3.Is the Slave protected by Law equally with a free man in criminal cases?
4.What protection is there by Law to a Slave against ill-conduct on the part of his Master?
5.Is the evidence of a Slave received in a Court of Law?
6.Is the Slave well or ill-fed, well or ill-treated?
7.Is the Slave considered generally to enjoy as good health and to live as long as a free person?
8.Is the Slave population considered to be on the increase, or decrease, and from what causes?
9.Is the manumission of Slaves of common occurrence?
10.Have the Laws and Regulations in respect to Slaves become more or less favourable to them, within the last ten years?
11.Is there in the State in which you reside a party favourable to the Abolition of Slavery? and what is the extent and Influence of such party? And is such Party on the increase or otherwise?
12.Is there any difference in the eye of the Law between a free white and free coloured man?
13.Are free coloured men ever admitted to Offices of the State?
14.You will state whether you have drawn your answers from Public Documents, or from private Information; and you will state whether any Periodical Census is taken of the Population within the district of your Consulate, and what was the last period at which it was taken.
You will be careful to make your reply to each question as concise as possible.
I am, etc. Aberdeen
ABERDEEN TO ELLIOT 212
Draft. Captain Elliot. No. 6. Foreign Office June 3, 1843. Sir,
With reference to your Letter dated the 29th of March, inclosing a printed Copy of the Propositions conveyed from General Santa Anna to the President of Texas, by the medium of Mr Robinson, to which Letter I made a brief reply by my Despatch No. 5, of the 18th Ultimo, I have now to communicate to you a Copy of a Despatch from Mr. Pakenham, dated the 23d of March, 213 relative to those Propositions. They appear to have been made by Genl. Santa Anna in the full hope, and even expectation, that they would be accepted by the Government of Texas as the basis of an adjustment between Texas and Mexico.
You will perceive from that Despatch that General Santa Anna has expressed his anxiety that Her Majesty's Government would employ their good offices in order to promote an arrangement between Mexico and Texas on the footing laid down in those Propositions.
Although Her Majesty's Government do not intend to make themselves in any way a Party to this Transaction or to incur any responsibility respecting it, they are nevertheless perfectly willing to employ their good offices, in an entirely neutral and impartial sense, in order to bring about a peaceful and equitable adjustment of the differences existing between Texas and Mexico.
It appears to Her Majesty's Government that the propositions of General Santa Anna go far to establish the virtual independence of Texas, although by the first of those Propositions Texas is required to acknowledge the Sovereignty of Mexico
Her Majesty's Government might have supposed that this latter demand had been put forward pro formâ, and, to save appearances, were it not that they have learnt from Mr Pakenham, since his arrival in England, that he does not consider it at all probable that General Santa Anna will recede from this Demand, since, even were he personally disposed to do so, which he does not seem to be, public opinion would effectually oppose him in carrying out that inclination.
It may therefore be taken for granted that the demand for the recognition of the Sovereignty of Mexico will be adhered to by the Mexican Government.
Under these circumstances it will be for the Government of Texas to determine whether the virtual independence of Texas would, in their opinion, be too dearly purchased at the price of the nominal concession required of them, or whether it may not be well to admit that concession, and to look to the future for the means of removing that sole remaining badge of their dependence.
By adopting this course peace would be immediately secured, and with peace, commerce and agriculture would flourish, and the foundations of daily encreasing wealth and power would be at once laid.
Difficulties will undoubtedly stand in the way of giving practical effect to the propositions submitted to Texas by Mexico; and it is very obvious that various Modifications will be required in those Propositions before they can be carried into execution. But if both Parties enter upon the task of endeavouring to bring about an adjustment with good faith, and prosecute that task with temper and a full determination to bring it to a satisfactory issue, Her Majesty's Government do not perceive in the terms of accommodation proposed by Mexico any insurmountable obstacle to the conclusion of an agreement on equitable grounds between the Parties.
Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to offer any advice to the Government of Texas in this matter; but I repeat that they will very readily lend their good offices, whenever called upon, in order to facilitate the termination of the existing Dispute.
ABERDEEN TO ELLIOT 214
Draft. Captain Elliot. No. 7. F. O. June 3d. 1843. Sir.
I transmit to you herewith for your information, a Copy of a despatch from H. M. Minister in Mexico 215 respecting the recapture of a Body of Texians who had been made prisoners in an unsuccessful attempt to penetrate into Mexico and had overpowered the escort in charge of them, and also respecting the measures adopted by Genl Santa Anna with regard to those prisoners.
KENNEDY TO ELLIOT 216
[Enclosure] Copy. British Consulate Galveston, June 5th 1843. Sir.
The following information which I have received, when taken in connexion with the general character of the relations subsisting between the United States and Texas, and the Critical Situation of the latter, appears to be of a sufficient importance to warrant the formality of a despatch. My informant, whose name I am not at liberty to mention is, I believe, quite worthy of trust, besides being a person of intelligence, and experience in the affairs of this Country.—I give his statement from a Minute which I took at the time.
“General Murphy” 217—(says my informant)—“the new Minister from the United States to this Republic, has but lately returned from a diplomatic Mission to the Republic of Colombia. He is now entrusted with a Special Mission to Texas * * *
“The object of his present Mission is to submit Certain propositions, with a view to some agreement between the United States and Texas. The Nature of these propositions, or agreement, is not specified. The only known ground of surmise is included in the following observations, which dropped from him in conversation with the Mayor and a deputation of Citizens, this Morning, between eleven and twelve o'clock.
“Texas”—General Murphy remarked—“was virtually independent, and the bombast of Mexico, like that of Spain, anticipated Matters that could never be accomplished. The border Warfare between Mexico and Texas was an evil which the United States would stop; and, in so doing, they would act in accordance with the sentiments of every other Civilized Nation. Texas should be, and, indeed, was independent, and all that could now be desired was a Security to emigrants to people the Country. The inhabitants of Texas wanted emigrants like themselves—and no others—Men speaking their own language, and subject to their own Customs and laws—Security would be given to such emigrants.—Our friends on the other side of the Water might be “much irritated and disappointed” (these latter, says my informant, are not the exact words, but, in meaning, they are substantially the same)—“at the Matter, but what do we care for that? As a Virginian Member of Congress observed, in one of his Speeches at a former day—“For what reason should we ask for independence, when we are actually independent—what care we for that puny little Isle?”
I examined my informant as to the exact impression made upon him by the Minister's tone and style of expression, when alluding to Great Britain:—his decided feeling, (he replied) was that they were unfriendly.
When, with this information is coupled the recent introduction of a South Carolina politician (Mr. Legare) 218 into the Cabinet of the United States, in the room of Mr Webster, and the attempt to displace Mr. Everett as American Minister to England, 219 I am led to infer, Sir, that the observations of General Murphy, as reported to me, may not be wholly unworthy of your consideration.
General M. has, I understand, announced his intention to proceed to Washington on the Brazos, by way of Virginia Point, tomorrow.
William Kennedy. Captain Elliot. R. N. Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires (at Galveston)
Copy. British Consulate Galveston June 7th. 1843. Sir,
In reference to my Communication (No 3) of the 5th Inst., I beg to state that, according to information, more recently received, General Murphy was accredited to Guatemala, instead of Colombia
I have been further informed that he is an able engineer, much trusted by his Government, and that, during his Southern Mission, he made a Survey of the Country bordering on the river San Juan and the lake of Nicaragua, with a view to connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans by Means of a Canal Communication.
William Kennedy Captain Elliot. R. N. [Endorsed]. Enclosure No. 2. In Mr Consul Kennedy's despatch No. 7, dated May 8th, 1844.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 220
Secret. Galveston June 8th. 1843. My Lord.
The Inclosure No 1 is the Copy of a private letter addressed to me by General Houston, which it is proper that I should transmit for the information of Her Majesty's Government. In his position, he necessarily could not request nor directly authorize me to forward this communication of his private views to Your Lordship.
But the subject of the letter is entirely political, and whilst I am sensible that these opinions have been communicated to me in the confidence of friendship, I am also persuaded that General Houston must have felt that they would be made known to Your Lordship, and I am equally satisfied that it would be unnecessary and unsuitable on my part to do more than mention my own earnest request that they should only be used for the private information of Her Majesty's Government. Your Lordship will readily conceive that in the state of feeling in this and the neighbouring Country, on such topics, they could not be publicly adverted to, without consequences of the highest inconvenience.
It will be noticed that General Houston has alluded to some Newspaper attacks to which He has been exposed both in this Country and the United States with respect to secret engagements with the British Government. And I should mention that the last time I conversed with him He touched upon these observations and strictures, at least as to the feelings of, Her Majesty's Government upon the existence of Slavery in Texas, for it had been alleged amongst other things that Her Majesty's Government had required the abolition of Slavery in one of the South American Republics as the price of it's Mediatorial Offices with another; And it was thence argued that the same Concession was required from Texas.
I told General Houston that the sincere desire of Her Majesty's Government to put an end to the Contest between Mexico and this Country had been frequently declared; that I was sure He would understand that no conditions were intended, which were not expressed; and that the subject of Slavery in Texas had never been mentioned to me in any despatch from Her Majesty's Government, or by word of mouth. As to the feelings of the British Government and Nation upon the Subject of Slavery, abstractly considered, which seemed to be the foundation of these speculations of the press, they were well known to the whole World, and it was quite unnecessary to enter upon that topic; But as He had alluded to this Institution in Texas, I could not help expressing my own opinion that it's existence was a Subject of deep regret.
General Houston did not conceal his own opinions to the same effect, and added, that unless the propitious Moment of a Settlement of the difficulties with Mexico should be taken for devising some mode of getting rid of the Mischief, He foresaw that Texas would sooner or later become the “impound” of the Black and Coloured population of the United States, to the incalculable injury of it's well understood interests and happiness.
Another point which will require a few words of comment is the allusion to the case of the Prisoners taken at Mier in whose behalf I wrote to Mr Packenham at General Houston's request. I forwarded Mr Packenham an extract from General Houston's letter to me upon the Subject, in which I understood him to reason that the Prisoners were entitled to the benefit of the Capitulation with the Mexican Commanding Officer, though He did not deny that the movement beyond the Rio Grande had been made upon their own responsibility.
It seemed to me that his purpose in saying that was to free himself from the imputation of using language of aversion to irregular incursionary Warfare in his Communications with foreign Governments, whilst He sanctioned it in his orders to his own officers: But I certainly never supposed that General Houston intended or wished that any representations of that kind should be made to General Santa Aña.
The accompanying extract from General Houston's letter upon the Subject will probably convince Your Lordship that his reasoning was addressed to me for representation to Her Majesty's Minister at Mexico, and I am sure that it will be a source of great surprise and concern to Mr Packenham, and entirely contrary to the [his?] wishes, that any other use has been made of it. General Houston's present remarks are founded upon declarations made by Prisoners recently released through the good offices of the American Minister at Mexico which have found their way into the public press, to the effect that General Thompson shewed them the Copy of General Houston's letter to me communicated to him in confidence by Mr. Packenham. It appears very probable that Mr. Packenham conferred with General Thompson upon the cause of these unfortunate people, but it is quite unnecessary to say that I am certain He never authorized the exhibition of General Houston's letter to these Texian Prisoners, or much less, gave the least room for the extremely unjust and injurious insinuation that General Houston wished to prejudice these prisoners in the sight of the Mexican Government.
Mr. Packenham's whole course in Mexico, with respect to the Government of Texas, and any Citizens of the Republic who fell into the hands of the Mexicans was marked by unvarying Consideration, and kindness, often too, as it is well known at considerable pecuniary Sacrifice, and it may be depended upon that any communication. He might have had with General Thompson upon this subject, was made in a spirit of perfect appreciation of General Houston's Motives, and of a cordial disposition to meet his wishes.
I shall take occasion to say this to the President, and to add that I find it easier to believe that these released prisoner's misconceived General Thompson, than that He afforded them any ground to misrepresent General Houston's plain and kind purposes on their behalf. It remains to be hoped that there has been some mistake as to the representation that General Thompson shewed any of these released prisoners a Communication He had received from Mr Packenham in a confidential way.
I have taken the liberty of forwarding the original of General Houston's private letter to me, because it does not appear to me to be desirable to retain it in this Country, in case of accident to my papers.
Charles Elliot. P. S. I abstain from offering any opinion upon the probable turn of affairs as respects this Country, in the present crisis, because with all things in a deplorable and helpless condition here, it is plain that results must depend chiefly on events, or Negociations beyond my sphere of observation Charles Elliot The Right Honorable The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
HOUSTON TO ELLIOT 221
[Enclosure.] (Private.) Washington May 13th 1843. My Dear Captain
We are much excluded here from important intelligence, among which may be reckoned the thrilling events passing in your Community of Galveston. We occasionally receive papers from the United States, and from them learn that they are taking a very deep interest in the Welfare of Texas—so far at least as the patriotic effusions of editors go. I may be mistaken, but I think the course pursued there is not difficult of comprehension.
For Texas not to be completely subservient to the United States, is regarded by them as rebellious and ungrateful. Their political parties have not yet determined what capital is to be made out of us; and the Southern section at least, with a hope of ultimate annexation, is unwilling that any change from our present attitude should take place. They perceive that, if a pacification is brought about between Texas and Mexico, by England, we must know that it will result more from generous feeling than from a hope of pecuniary gain, and will necessarily inspire, on the part of Texas, feelings of kindness arising from a sense of obligation. The quid pro quo of five Millions cannot be the desideratum with England now, for the time for that has passed by 222
If England produces a pacification between this Country and Mexico, she will thereby secure a friend on the gulf whose contiguity to the United States, in the event of a War, would not be desirable to that country. All movements on the part of the U. States would seem to indicate that they have an eye to a rupture at some period not remote. But I need not suggest this to a gentleman of your observation. The genius as well as the excitability of that people, united to a bold and generous daring, impel them to war. Their love of Dominion, and the extension of their territorial limits, also, is equal to that of Rome in the last ages of the Commonwealth and the first of the Caesars.
The Continent of North America is regarded by the people of the U. States as their birth-right—to be secured by policy, if they can, by force if they must. Heretofore Texas has been looked upon as an appendage to the U. States. They cannot realise that we now form two Nations. Therefore every act done in reference to us by any power of which they are jealous, or for which they do not cherish kind national feelings, is regarded as an unauthorized interference and necessarily provokes their denunciation.
This is the case at present in relation to England, British influence and every ridiculous humbug which their crazed imaginations can start, are conjured up and marshalled in fearful array for the purpose of alarming Texas, exciting disorder, producing disrespect towards England, and compelling us to look to the U. States as our only hope of political salvation. They are willing to see Texas tantalized by every annoyance until, in a fit of despair, she is compelled to identify herself with them, and by some act of good fortune become incorporated with them—though they cannot precisely point out the means.
In support of this opinion, the rejection of the late treaty with us, by the U. States Senate, to my mind, was not at all an equivocal expression of the notions of that Country in relation to Texas. It was assigned as a reason, though not in debate, that the Condition of Texas was such as to render them reluctant to form closer connexions with us than those already established by their recognition of our independence, and such provisions as they could make in our favor By Law. Such reasons, I presume, have never been uttered concerning any other nation, since the establishment of Hayti. The humility of our condition, however, compels us to pocket this; as the U. States regard us, from their expressions, nothing more than a pocket attached to their outer robe.
I shall look with amusing interest to the journals of the U. States for a formal denunciation of the Executive for having enforced the law requiring a discriminating duty upon articles imported from countries not in treaty with us. It will not be the law or people of Texas, I apprehend, that will be blamed, but the Executive for having the audacity to enforce the law against THEM. But so long as Texas does exist, I am determined, that if I should not be so fortunate as to conciliate good opinion, I will at least evince to the world that, so far as any merit may attach to the execution of her laws, so far as I have the power, I shall be entitled to it.
Texas has once evinced a willingness, amounting to unexampled unanimity, to become annexed to the United States, We sought the boon with humble supplications. In this posture we remained in the outer porch of their Capital for many months. Our solicitations were heard with apathy. Our urgency was responded to with politic indifference. Apprised of this, I directed our Minister to withdraw the proposition. This I did from a sense of national dignity. Since that time Texas has not renewed the proposition; and the United States now, in order to get it into an attitude before them that would be creditable to them, desire no doubt that Texas should again come forward soliciting the boon. They have not as yet received such indications as they desire. If it were the case, it would place the subject before the poli[ti]cal parties of the U. States, in a position different from that in which it now rests. In that event there would be but one question to ask: Shall the Annexation of Texas to the U. States take place? As it is, there are two: First, Is Texas willing to be annexed? Second, in that case, shall it be annexed? This renders the matter more complicated and produces feelings of excitement and irritibility that induce the leading journals of certain sections in that Country to traduce and vilify the authorities of Texas in a very unbecoming manner. This I presume is done by [way?] of whipping prominent Men into the list of petitioners.
Again, if war between the U. States and England should take place, and the independence of Texas not be recognized by Mexico, or not annexed to the U. States, under the excitement and commotion which would exist in a state of war, the contiguity of a situation united with kindred inhabitants, would, without form of law, amalgamate us with the U. States. If however the independence of Texas should be recognized through the medium of English influence, such a result could never take place. If the U. States upon the Gulf can maintain a parallel influence to that which they may establish on the Pacific, Texas will become a cantonment for the pioneers in the van of that mighty advance whose political power will not halt short of the isthmus of Darien. If Texas is sustained as an independent Nation, it will necessarily retard the consummation of schemes which, though now but in embryo, will at some future period be developed by much human suffering.
It is not selfishness in me to say that I desire to see Texas occupy an independent position among the Nation's of the earth, to which she is justly entitled by her enterprise, daring, sufferings and privations. The blood of her martyrs has been sufficient to give cement to the foundation of a great nation, and if her independence be steadily [speedily?] recognized by Mexico, heaven will direct and carry out her destiny to a glorious consummation. Every day that it is delayed affords to demagogues a theatre for mischief, and when repose should refresh her, factious political incendiaries are marching about with their torches of discord. I am weary of this state of things. All that Texas requires, to make her healthy and vigorous is a respite from execution.
I cannot believe that all this fustian about British influence and abolition in Texas, has its origin with the Government of the U. States. But in a Country where the Chief of it is elective in ninety nine cases out of one hundred, I presume the Administration derives complexion from the Clamours, or what is supposed to be the feelings, of the people. If so, as far as Southern influence can be exercised upon the Administration of that Govt. it is highly probable that the Agency of England, exercised in behalf of this Country would not receive a hearty cooperation from all the agents which that Government may have employed. Of Mr Tyler my opinion is too exalted to think that he would sanction a course so much at war with the avowed wishes of that Government—its natural Character and the rights of humanity.
If the prisoners who have been released by Santa Anna have reported truly the conduct of Genl. Thompson in Mexico, he could have had but one object in view, and that was, by the return of those gentlemen to create a strong prejudice against the representative of Her Britannic Majesty in Texas, as well as the Executive, who was understood to be on terms of personal friendship with him and entertaining at the same time for his character and capacity the highest respect. If Gen. Thompson really has stated, as represented, confidentially, to every prisoner with whom he conversed, that Mr Pakenham, enjoining secrecy, had shown him a letter from yourself, stating that I had written to you desiring your interference—representing that the Mier prisoners had gone into the enemy's territory in violation of My orders, and that I hoped that Santa Anna would show them mercy etc. and if Gen. Thompson gave these things such a coloring as represented, the object is too plain. If Mr. Pakenham showed to Gen. Thompson any letter, it must certainly have been shown under, as he himself declared, injunctions of secrecy, and by violating these injunctions he acted in bad faith. Again—If its facts had been as represented by Gen. Thompson, they could not have prevented Mr Pakenham, as a gentleman, from exercising any influence in behalf of humanity; which, as an individual, he might possess. I regret that Gen. Thompson has placed himself in the attitude he occupies. By his own showing he was unauthorised, and I much fear that neither the act nor the motives will find a justification in truth. Mr. Pakenham will certainly regard it as an act of discourtesy on the part of Gen Thompson, if not one of faithlessness; Being fortified as I am, and being assured, from your intelligence, and feelings, that you would pursue no course, but one induced by the highest principles of honor and generosity, I am very much at ease.
I regret that our friends in the U. States should have any uneasiness on the Subject of Santa Anna's propositions. If we were to judge from the Newspapers, as well as from the private Correspondence which I receive, we might conclude that there was danger of my being favorable to retrocession to Mexico; and as for the subject of Texas becoming a British Colony and abolition in Texas, and all that, they have been exclusively confined, so far as I can learn, to Galveston, and Houston. I have never understood that they have been discussed in any other sections of the Republic. So I can neither sympathize with the distresses of our friends, nor can I entertain commiseration for their ridiculous credulity.
From our Chargé d' Affaires in Europe, we have had no recent advices. I am exceedingly anxious to hear what course Her Majesty's Government has taken on the subject of the Protest, as well as the course of the French Governmt.
I would be very happy to hear from you by every safe opportunity; and, if any thing important, by express
I hope you have had a very satisfactory interview with Doctor Jones, Secretary of State, relative to the consistent policy of this Government.
Sam. Houston Captain Charles Elliot. [Endorsed.] Inclosure No 1 in Captain Elliot's despatch “Secret” to the Earl of Aberdeen. Galveston June 8. 1843.
HOUSTON TO ELLIOT 223
[Enclosure]. Extract of a letter from General Houston to Captain Elliot marked “Private” and dated at. Washington Jany. 24th. 1843. 224
“In relation to this Subject I am constrained to solicit the kindness of you should it not be out of the line of your official Action, that you would address Her Majesty's Minister at Mexico, and bad as matters are, make this representation.
“It is true that the Men went without orders; And so far as that was concerned the Government of Texas was not responsible, and the Men thereby placed themselves out of the protection of the rules of War. This much is granted. But the Mexican Officers by proposing terms of Capitulation to the Men relieved them from the responsibility which they had incurred, and the moment that the Men surrendered in accordance with the proposals of Capitulation they became prisoners of War, and were entitled to all immunities as such. Upon this view of the Subject I base my hopes of their Salvation, if it should be speedily presented, thro' the agency of Her Majesty's Minister to the Mexican Government. Should it be proper to do so I feel assured that your kind offices will not be wanting in an early application upon the Subject.
This view of the Subject seems to me the only feasible one which has presented itself to my mind”
Copy. Charles Elliot. [Endorsed.] Inclosure No 2 in Captain Elliot's despatch “Secret” to the Earl of Aberdeen. Galveston. June 8th. 1843.
NOTES AND FRAGMENTS
The Whereabouts of Sam Houston in 1834.—Historians and biographers have been puzzled as to the whereabouts of Houston in 1834. Lester in The Life of Sam Houston, which appeared anonymously in 1855, gives no events in his life between the convention at San Felipe de Austin in 1833 and the military affairs of 1835; pp. 65-70 cover the period. Yoakum, History of Texas (1856), I, 311, discusses the part he played in the San Felipe meeting; nothing farther is given until events in 1835; see I, 328, 350. Crane, Life and Select Literary Remains of Sam Houston of Texas (1885), I, 49-54, shows the same deficiency, as does Bruce, Life of General Houston (1901), 85-93. Williams, Sam Houston and the War of Independence in Texas (1895), 92-93, does worse than the rest for he garbles the story by placing events of 1835 in 1834. Garrison, Texas (1903), 195-196, makes this guarded statement, “Sam Houston, who seems to have left Texas soon after the convention of 1833, and to have returned just previous to the consultation [1835], and who was a delegate from Nacogdoches, offered a resolution instructing the committee to declare in favor of the constitution of 1824.” Barker, Jackson and the Texas Revolution in The American Historical Review, XII, 802-803, says: “He did attend the Convention of April, 1833, and the Constitution there adopted for the proposed state of Texas . . . was largely his work. But his life is a blank to history for the next two years, and it is not till past the middle of 1835, when the revolution was well under way, that we find him at Nacogdoches, speaking at a public meeting. . . . The writer has examined hundreds of letters and public documents, both Texan and Mexican, on the development of the revolution, has collected with few exceptions the proceedings of all the public meetings and revolutionary committees, and has found nowhere a single reference to General Houston.”
The last writer who has added his testimony is Justin H. Smith, The Annexation of Texas, which work appeared in 1911. On page 28 he says, “Let us look now at Houston. He first became prominent in Texan Affairs at the head of a committee appointed to draw a State Constitution, the acceptance of which by Mexico would have prevented the rebellion that soon occurred. In October, 1835, he wrote, `Our principles are to support the Constitution (of 1824) and down with the usurper!!' Not he, but Anson Jones, appears to have set the ball of independence rolling. In fact no trace of him is to be discovered for more than two years during the critical stage of the budding revolution, and when he reappears, it is not at the principal seat of the movement. Hundreds of Texan and Mexican documents bearing on the genesis of the rebellion have been searched for his name without success.” In this the author has but followed Barker's article.
The mystery of Houston's whereabouts in 1834 is dispelled by Mrs. Jefferson Davis in the life of her husband. The exact title is Jefferson Davis, ex-President of the Confederate States of America, A Memoir by his Wife. It was copyrighted in 1890. In I, 156-157, this passage occurs, “Horace and Hannibal Bonney, twin brothers, who enlisted in the First Dragoons in 1833, marched to Jefferson Barracks, which was then an outpost on the extreme frontier. After a winter spent there the troops were ordered to Fort Gibson, Ark., and on their arrival were welcomed by a body of five hundred or more Indian Warriors in the full glory of their native costumes. At their head rode a man, over six feet in height, dressed all in buckskin, and when Horace Bonney inquired who this white warrior was, with all these red men, he was informed that it was the redoubtable Captain Sam Houston.”
Thomas Maitland Marshall.
The Texas Republican.—Two notes on the Texas Republican have previously appeared in The Quarterly. 225 The interest that attaches to this pioneer among newspapers in Texas and the information contained in the extracts below will, perhaps, excuse this additional note. These extracts add to our information concerning the issues for August 14, 21 and 28, 1819, and throw some light on the condition of Texas at that time, the motives that animated Dr. Long and the kind of appeal he made for help.
The Mississippi Republican (Natchez) of August 31, 1819, says “We have just received the first number of the Texas Republican, from which a few extracts are given in this day's paper.”
Army of Texas.
Camp Freeman, June 22, 1819.
On taking the command of the army of the Republic, which has been vested in him by the voice of the representatives of the people, the Commander-in-Chief cannot refrain from expressing his sensibility to so distinguished a token of public confidence. Aware of the responsibility which this important station imposes, it is with diffidence of his own abilities, but with no distrust of the goodness of the cause in which these troops are levied, nor with any doubt of its ultimate success, that he enters upon its duties: he pledges himself to fulfill them to the utmost of his power.
From his comrades in arms he expects a ready co-operation in those measures which he may deem it expedient to adopt to bring the approaching contest to a happy issue. It is not necessary for him to appeal to a patriotism which has already evinced itself in rallying round the standard of Independence, or to add stimulants to a zeal which shrinks from no sacrifice, and which no danger can appal. He trusts that no individual under his command will tarnish the character of a soldier by the commission of any act which may call for his animadversion; but he owes it to himself, to his country, and to the reputation of the army, to declare his determination rigidly to punish every violation of the rules and articles of war. The very existence of an army, not less than the well-being of the country whose banner it upholds, and whose rights it professes to vindicate, imperiously requires the strictest preservation of discipline. Under this conviction, the Commander-in-Chief will feel himself compelled to inflict the full measure of justice on every offender. The rewards which await those who faithfully persevere to the end, conjoined with that sense of honor which should be cherished in every soldier's bosom, will operate as a sufficient incentive to all who are capable of appreciating their own interests, or who have at heart their country's welfare, to pursue with undeviating step the path of duty.
James Long, Commander-in-Chief.
General Order.
Head-Quarters, Nacogdoches, June 25, 1819.
All officers of the army of the Republic of Texas who are not otherwise ordered, will, without delay, repair to Head-quarters. Those failing to comply will be stricken from the rolls of the army.
James Long, Commonder-in-Chief. 226
The Port Gibson Correspondent of September 25, 1819, contained the following “from the Texas Republican, Aug. 21”:
On the 19th inst. the detachment under the command of Gen. Long met a Spanish woman 40 miles west of Nacogdoches, by the name of Maria El Garma Freminia. She was found in a state of starvation, and comparatively naked. She states that she left Labadie a few weeks ago in company with two men, both soldiers in the service of the king of Spain, and not knowing the road, they wandered about in the woods for many days in search of provision, but without finding any. One of the men turned off by himself to look for water, but he never returned to them, and they supposed that he must have died. The other man and this woman journeyed on but a short distance when he died for want of provision, and she began to expect the same fate; however, she finally fell into the main road leading from Labadie to this place, and subsisted on a pole cat in the woods until she met with general Long's detachment, from whence she has been sent to this place. She also adds, that when she left Labadie, that place was in a very unpleasant situation—that garrison being in a state of total defection, having in it not more than twenty soldiers at the time of her leaving the place, the most of whom watched only for an opportunity to run away; that they are not well supplied with provisions; that the Comanche Indians, their eternal enemies, harrass them and keep them continually annoyed on every side, so that they cannot go more than one mile in safety from the place. The commandant of St. Antonio cannot assist them.
In the issue of September 18th, the Port Gibson Correspondent published the extract from the Texas Republican, printed in The Quarterly, VII, 242-3, and credited it, and the notice “To Settlers” below, to the Texas Republican of August 28th:
To Settlers.
The army being now on a march to the Brassos, and a fort contemplated to be erected at that place, it will give the utmost security to families wishing to settle in this country. From the great facility of getting lands, the quality of which cannot be excelled, as well as the mildness of the climate, it holds forth the greatest inducements at this time to persons to settle; and as the army will always be one hundred miles at least in advance of the settlements, it will give them the fullest protection.
Now is the time, as the first settlers will certainly have the most choice lands, in greater abundance, and on much better terms, than those who wait to see our troubles over without shewing a disposition to effect the settlement of the country or contributing in any manner to advance the cause.
E. W. Winkler.
BOOK REVIEWS
Statesmen of the Old South, or From Radicalism to Conservative Revolt. By William E. Dodd, Ph. D., Professor of American History in the University of Chicago. (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1911. Pp., 235.)
The substance of these studies of Jefferson, Calhoun, and Davis was originally presented, the author tells us, in the form of popular lectures. The sub-title indicates the general trend of the book. Jefferson, the idealist, the organizer of a political party which refused to adopt his political philosophy, except in part, was succeeded by Calhoun, the nationalist, who was forced by circumstances into a particularist attitude; and Calhoun, in turn, was succeeded by Jefferson Davis, who was identified by earliest environment with the cotton planting and slavery interests of the lower South. These interests were now on the defensive, and therefore gathered about them all the forces of social and constitutional conservatism, just as the great corporate interests of our own day have done.
The author constantly keeps in view the influence of the West, of the frontier, of which in a sense all three men were products, and his comments on this influence are always illuminating. We cannot always agree with his conclusions, as, for instance, those on the nature of the development of pro-slavery sentiment during the twenty years following Jefferson's retirement from the presidency. It would seem, in this case, that Professor Dodd does not sufficiently appreciate the powerful economic forces that impelled the South to the extension of cotton planting and its accompaniment, negro slavery. The author points out that the breakdown of the early alliance between the South and West, due partly to Clay's “American system,” partly to Jackson's dickering for eastern support after his break with Calhoun, was what first forced the South into a particularist attitude. Calhoun's rupture with Jackson he regards as a fatal thing both for the great South Carolinian and for the South; for it drove Calhoun, who in the nullification episode had been striving to hold his state in check, back upon the necessity of consolidating the South upon the proslavery basis. Professor Dodd believes that “the injustice and bad faith of a personal and despotic party leader” (Jackson) was responsible for Calhoun's particularistic attitude, and that had the latter's ambition to become president been gratified, secession and civil war might not have come. A similar fatality overtook Jefferson Davis, who, though a secessionist in 1850, had changed his views and remained a nationalist until Mississippi seceded; for his imperialistic scheme of a southern railroad to the Pacific and the acquisition of Cuba, Panama, and a route to the Orient was blocked by Douglas in the interest of the northwestern railways; the Kansas bill followed, reopening the slavery question, divorcing the two wings of the Democratic party and hastening the revolt of the South in 1860-61.
Though not entirely immune from criticism, these brief and sympathetic studies sum up in a clear and attractive fashion the principal forces which carried the South and the Democratic party along its course from radical leadership in 1800 to conservative reaction in 1860.
Chas. W. Ramsdell.
Winning the Southwest: A Story of Conquest. By Glenn D. Bradley. (McClurg. Chicago, 1912. 12mo; Pp. 225; ill.)
Under the above title the author groups sketches of Kit Carson, Robert F. Stockton, “Uncle Dick” Wootton, Sam Houston, Stephen W. Kearny, George A. Custer and John C. Fremont with a view of weaving “about their lives in a somewhat coherent manner some of the conspicuous facts of the struggle in which the Southwest was won for the Union” (preface). The fragmentary character of the treatment of the subject is further emphasized by the absence of any grouping of the sketches. The treatment is popular in style, and the principal service the book can render will be to introduce the heroes to readers who have not yet made their acquaintance from larger works.
In the sketch of Sam Houston the author has committed a number of regrettable errors. Passing by misspellings and minor inaccuracies in the statement of historical facts, one cannot overlook the wholesale condemnation of Mexican government in Texas (113, 116); nor the statement that the convention which assembled at San Felipe on April 1, 1833, was “the first deliberative body of Anglo-Saxons that ever assembled within the limits of the ancient Spanish-American empire” (114); nor that Stephen F. Austin suffered “several months of loathsome imprisonment” only (116); nor that Houston had anything to do with restraining the anger of the colonists because of Austin's imprisonment (116); nor that “Houston alone appears to have been able to foresee [December, 1835] that the fight for independence had only begun” (120); nor that Houston's statesmanship saved the honor of his government (141). Travis's famous letter is emasculated by omitting, without any indication of the fact, the sentence which Travis underscored, namely, “I shall never surrender or retreat” (123). And the following inscription from the Alamo monument, “Thermopylæ had her messenger of defeat, but the Alamo had none,” is marred by the omission of the words “of defeat” (124). The account of the battle of San Jacinto is embellished with a number of ominous sayings attributed to General Houston (133, 134, 135); and the apochryphal story of the destruction of Vince's bridge is made the key to the strategy of the fight (135, 136). Finally, the author's imagination supplied the Texan soldiers with revolvers (137).
E. W. Winkler.
Guide to the Study and Reading of American History. By Edward Channing, Albert Bushnell Hart, and Frederick J. Turner, professors in Harvard University. (Boston and London: Ginn &Co., 1912. Pp., xvi, 650. The present volume is a great improvement over the first edition, which was published in 1896. It has been brought down to date; it gives references to more available books; and it enlarges the sections on social, economic, and industrial history, making them especially valuable. Professor Turner, who was not connected with the earlier edition, has contributed many valuable references to writings on Western history. The whole work, however, has been done over, and will be found very helpful to students and teachers in every field of American history.
Chas. W. Ramsdell.
NEWS ITEMS
For several years historical scholars and patriotic societies have been trying to induce Congress to erect a fireproof building for housing the national archives. At present the archives are scattered in the different government buildings in Washington and elsewhere. They are frequently difficult of access, and are in some cases far from safely housed. It seems probable that the present session of Congress can be persuaded to act. Readers of The Quarterly can aid in this measure by writing to their local representatives and endorsing the plan. Hon. Morris Sheppard is chairman of the Committee on Buildings and Grounds. Dr. Waldo G. Leland published in the October (1912) number of the American Historical Review an article discussing the importance of the proper care of our national archives. There is an article on the same subject by Rosa Pendleton Chiles in the February (1912) American Review of Reviews.
“The History and Geography of Texas as Told in County Names,” by Judge Z. T. Fulmore, is running in the Saturday issue of the Dallas-Galveston News and in the Tuesday issue of the Semi-Weekly Farm News. The first chapter appeared on December 7. Since many counties of the state are named for individuals, this work will be particularly valuable for its additions to Texas biography.
The University of Texas has issued, as Bulletin No. 246, “A. Reconnaissance Report on the Geology of the Oil and Gas Fields of Wichita and Clay Counties,” by J. A. Udden, assisted by Drury McN. Phillips, xiv and 308 pages, with numerous plates and charts. Copies can be had of Dr. William B. Phillips, Director of the Bureau of Economic Geology and Technology of the University of Texas.
“Our Governors' Wives,” by Mrs. J. A. Jackson, began in the San Antonio Express of November 3 and is appearing serially in the Sunday edition of that paper.
The following articles recently appeared in The Texas Magazine (Houston): “The King's Highway,” by Mrs. Lipscomb Norvell (November); “Old Fort Concho,” by Paul B. Sturgis (November); “Along the San Antonio Trail,” by J. H. Cosgrove (November); “The Poles of Texas,” by LeRoy Hodges (December).
The Texas Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy was in session at Fort Worth from December 3 to 7.
A monument to the memory of those who wore the gray, erected by the local chapter, United Daughters of the Confederacy, was unveiled at Waxahachie November 2, 1912. The monument stands on the courthouse lawn. The State Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds reports the completion of the monument to Governor George T. Wood at Point Black, San Jacinto county, and of that over the grave of Elizabeth Crockett, wife of David Crockett, at Acton, Hood county. The Thirty-second Legislature authorized the erection of the last two monuments and made the necessary appropriations for the purpose.
Mrs. J. A. Jackson of Austin reports the acquisition of an interesting contemporary picture of Austin in 1839. It is described in the Austin Statesman for October 23, 1912.
AFFAIRS OF THE ASSOCIATION
To all the news of the sudden death of Judge Alexander W. Terrell came as a great shock. Notwithstanding his venerable age and his great usefulness in the past, one felt that there was much that he could yet do. No one feels this more keenly than the members of the Texas State Historical Association, whose presiding officer he was. His varied public career, his extensive acquaintance with the public men of three generations, his remarkable memory, his keen analysis of personal motive and character, and his unusual gifts as a conversationalist had given him an extraordinary fund of knowledge and personal reminiscence. For a long time addresses on patriotic or memorial occasions alone served to make drafts on these riches, but during late years, in response to the insistent demands of his friends, he agreed to write his memoirs. It is hoped that he had made much progress in this undertaking, but the fact that the task was far from complete is quite certain. His election to the presidency of the State Historical Association on March 2, 1908, and his re-election and the exercises that marked the annual meetings since had helped to draw his attention to this kind of work. To the October Quarterly, 1910, he contributed an article on “The City of Austin from 1839 to 1865”; to the January Quarterly, 1911, he contributed a revision of his memorial address on “Stephen F. Austin,” and among the last things to engage his attention was an article now in press and to appear in the October Quarterly, entitled “Reminiscences of General Sam Houston.” These were, however, only the beginning of many similar articles that he had planned, some of which he had almost completed.
In the death of Judge Terrell the Texas State Historical Association has lost a distinguished member and a faithful and efficient officer, and the state has lost a citizen whose richly endowed mind could have contributed much to recovering the unwritten history of its stirring past.
E. W. Winkler, Z. T. Fulmore, E. C. Barker, Committee. September 15, 1912.
The annual meeting of the Texas State Historical Association will be held at the University of Texas on March 2, 1913. Members will receive further announcements and copies of the program during February.
2. 3. Bancroft, History of Nevada, Colorado and Wyoming, 28 et seq.
4. 5.
6. 7.
8. 9.
10. 11.
12. 13. Ibid.
14. 15.
16. 17.
18. 19.
20. 21.
22. 23.
24. 25.
26. 27.
28. 29.
30. 31.
32. 33.
34. 35.
36. Browne, Debates, 170, 177. Other members expressed similar fears regarding the division of the State east and west.
Polk, in his message of December 5, 1848, had recommended the extension of the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific as a means of settling the slavery controversy, and the Senate attempted to get such a measure through Congress, but the House would not accept it. (Rhodes, History of the United States, 1, 96 and 97.) Later Southern men in Congress attempted to save a portion of the newly acquired territory for slavery in another way. On August 1, 1850, when the bill for the admission of California was under discussion in the Senate, Foote of Mississippi offered an amendment to an amendment which had been proposed by Douglass, the latter being in relation to the disposal of public lands in California. Foote's amendment was as follows: “And that the said state of California shall never hereafter claim as within her boundaries, nor attempt to exercise jurisdiction over, any portion of the territory at present claimed by her, except that which is embodied within the following boundaries, towit: Commencing in the Pacific Ocean, three English miles from the shore, at the 42d degree of north latitude; thence with the southern boundary line of the territory of Oregon to the summit of the Sierra Nevada; thence along the crest of that mountain to the point where it intersects the parallel of latitude of 35 degrees 30 minutes; thence with the said parallel of latitude to a point in the Pacific ocean three English miles from the shore, and thence to the beginning, including all the bays, harbors and islands adjacent to or included within the limits hereby assigned to said state. And a new territory is hereby established, to be called Colorado, to consist of the residue of the territory embraced within the limits of the said state of California, specified in the constitution heretofore adopted by the people of California; for the government of which territory, so established, all the provisions of this act relating to the territory of Utah, except the name and boundaries therein specified, are hereby declared to be in force in said territory of Colorado, from and after the day when the consent of the state of California shall have been expressed in some formal manner to the modification of her boundaries.” Congressional Globe, 31st Congress, 1st session, Appendix II, page 1485.
37. 38.
39. 40.
41. 42.
43. 44.
45. 46.
47. Ibid., 184. In his message to the House of Representatives, January 24, 1850, President Taylor said that while he had recommended the formation of state constitutions and application for admission into the Union in the case of both California and New Mexico, he had not in any way attempted to influence them in the formation of their domestic institutions. “On the contrary, the instructions given by my orders were that all measures of domestic policy adopted by the people of California must originate solely with themselves.” Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, Vol. V. In spite of this message, however, there is some reason to believe that President Taylor's wishes and those of his cabinet were expressed by King in his conversation with Semple, even more than were the wishes of Congress. In Whitney's History of Utah (I, page 408) is a letter written at Great Salt Lake City and dated September 6, 1849. It is addressed to Brother Amasa Lyman and signed by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Willard Richards. It is in part as follows:
“On the 20th of August, General Wilson arrived here, on his way to California, as general Indian agent, etc. We had an interview with him and gathered from him the following particulars: That the President and Council of the United States are friendly disposed to us, and that he (General Wilson) is commissioned by General Taylor to inform us that he fully appreciates our situation,” etc.
“The main point of the matter, however, is this: The President has his ends to subserve, and as he knows we have been favorable to his election, he wishes further to appeal to our patriotism (so says General Wilson) to help him to carry out another measure, which will deliver him, the cabinet and the nation from a difficulty in which he thinks they are likely to be involved.
“The subject of slavery has become more embarrassing than it ever has been before. The addition of the extensive territories of New Mexico and Upper California increases that difficulty. . . . The subject will be first, probably, broached in Congress, and if some active measures are not adopted, they (the President and Cabinet) fear it will be the last and only question. If it should be made into territories, it will be under the direction of the United States, and the question of slavery will annoy and distract all parties, and General Wilson says they fear will have a tendency to break up the Union.
“To prevent this they have proposed a plan of making the whole territory into one state, leaving it to the power of the people to say whether it shall be a free or a slave state, and thus taking the bone from the Congress of the United States, and leaving them to pursue their course, `peaceably if they can,' undisturbed by this exciting question. They think it ought to be made into two states, but that the sparseness of the population at the present time would preclude the possibility of an act of that kind passing.
“The cabinet think that all parties would agree to a measure of this kind if it should become a free state, and even General Wilson, the President, and other slave holders are anxious that it should take this turn and are willing to make a sacrifice for the public good. He supposes that even southern members would go in for it, but without our help, they think it could not be accomplished. They think that there would be a strong southern influence used on the coast, calculated to place the matter in an embarrassing situation to them and the eastern population on the coast combined, but that by our influence we should be able to counterbalance that of the slave holders, and thus settle the troublesome question. It is therefore their policy to seek our influence, and we need not add it is our policy to use theirs.
“In our communications with General Wilson, we at first rejected altogether the idea of any amalgamation whatever with the government on the coast, but on the subject being presented in another form, we have agreed to the following:
“We are to have a general constitution for two states. The boundaries of the one mentioned by us, before referred to, is our state, the other boundaries to be defined by the people on the coast, to be agreed upon in a general convention; the two states to be consolidated into one and named as the convention shall think proper, but to be dissolved at the commencement of the year 1851, each one having its own constitution, and each becoming a free, sovereign, independent state, without any further action of Congress.
“You will act as our delegate, in conjunction with General Wilson. Brother Pickett is also a delegate.”
48. 49.
50. 51.
52. 53.
54. 55.
56. 57.
58. 59.
60. 61.
62. 63.
64. 65.
66. 67.
68. 69.
70. 71.
72. 73.
74. 75.
76. 77.
78. 79.
80. 81.
82. 83.
84. 85.
86. 87.
88. Ibid. 89.
90. 91.
92. 93.
94. 95.
96. 97.
98. 99.
100. 101.
102. 103.
104. 105.
106. 107.
108. 109.
110. 111.
112. 113.
114. 115.
116. 117.
118. 119.
120. 121.
122. 123.
124. 125.
126. 127.
128. 129.
130. 131.
132. 133.
134. 135.
136. 137.
138. 139.
140. 141.
142. 143.
144. 145.
146. 147.
148. 149.
150. 151.
152. 153.
154. 155.
156. 157.
158. 159.
160. 161.
162. 163.
164. 165.
166. 167.
168. 169.
170. 171.
172. In a reminiscence of Masonry in Texas written by a distinguished member of the order the following words were used: “In March (1836) Brazoria was abandoned. Urrea soon took possession of the place at the head of a detachment of the Mexican army, and the records, books, jewels and everything else belonging to the lodge were utterly destroyed by them and our members scattered in every direction. See Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Texas, 5837-5853, Vol. I, page 7.
173. 174.
175. 176.
177. 178.
179. 180.
181. 182.
183. 184.
185. 186.
187. 188.
189. 190.
191. 192.
193. 194.
195. 196.
197. 198.
199. 200.
201. 202.
203. 204.
205. 206.
207. 208.
209. 210.
211. 212.
213. 214.
215. 216.
217. 218.
219. 220.
221. 222.
223. 224.
225. 226.
How to cite:
"Issue View", Volume 016, Number 3, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online. http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v016/n3/issue.html
[Accessed Mon Nov 23 9:49:52 CST 2009]
