Vol. XVI. 1 APRIL, 1913 No. 4
The publication committee and the editors disclaim responsibility for views expressed by contributors to The Quarterly.
The activities of the Spanish government in Texas were from first to last inspired largely by fears of foreign aggression. When these fears slept, Texas was left pretty much to itself, so far as the government was concerned, but when serious rumors of encroaching strangers reached the official cars, there was likely to be vigorous proceedings for a time. The occupation of the lower Trinity River in the middle of the eighteenth century was no exception to this rule. Although settlements had been founded in eastern Texas as early as 1690, the authorities in Mexico, and even in the province of Texas itself, seem to have been almost entirely ignorant of the geography of the lower Trinity and the adjacent country until 1745, when they were called into it by tales of a French establishment somewhere on the coast. One previous official expedition to the locality had been made in 1727, 3 it is true, but it had led to no further steps toward occupation, and given no permanent knowledge of the topography or of the natives of the region.
What stirred the authorities to action in 1745 was a letter reporting the rumors alluded to above, written in July 4 to the viceroy by Don Joaquín de Orobio Bazterra, captain of the presidio of Bahía del Espíritu Santo, but for the time being in Coahuila. In reply to this communication the viceroy ordered Captain Orobio to proceed in all haste to learn the truth about the French settlement, where and when it had been established, if at all, and what and how many Indians there were in the vicinity. If he should find Frenchmen established or intending to settle, he was to order them to leave forthwith. 5
The prevailing ignorance of and lack of communication with the coast country between the Guadalupe and the Trinity rivers at this time is amply illustrated by Orobio's difficulties and uncertainty in getting from La Bahía to his destination. His first efforts were directed toward ascertaining whether the investigation could be made on terra firma by way of Matagorda Bay and the coast. To determine this point he went in October with a squad of men down the banks of the Guadalupe; but, because of high water and the roughness of the country, he decided to build a fleet of canoes and take thirty men on a two months' expedition by water, down the river and along the coast. New discouragements and difficulties led him finally to decide to take the Adaes road to the crossing of the Trinity, a hundred miles or more above its mouth, and descend to the coast from that point. 6 Such an expedition made it necessary to send to San Antonio and Presidio del Rio Grande for more soldiers, in order that La Bahía might not be left unprotected. As a consequence of this and other delays, it was late in December before Orobio was ready to start. 7
From Orobio's diary, which has not hitherto been used, we are able to follow his movements in detail. Setting out on December 20 with twenty-one soldiers, he marched over the camino real to the Trinity, where he arrived on January 9. Failing to learn from the Indians of this locality what he wished to know regarding the country below, he again changed his plan and continued northeast to San Pedro, the Nabedache village near the Neches. Here he saw in the firearms, clothing, and trinkets possessed by the natives—the sight was no new one at San Pedro—abundant signs of French influence. But these things, he was told, had all come from the French of Natchitoches (“Los Canos”), by way of the Cadodacho, and not from the coast. The rumors of the French settlement on the Gulf, however, were confirmed and repeated with exaggeration. But Orobio was informed that the place could be reached only from Nacogdoches, by way of the Bidai trail, “a path which the Vidias have made in going to Nacogdoches.”
Acting on this information, Orobio went on to Nacogdoches. Here a report by the veteran missionary, Father Joseph Calahorra y Saenz, to the effect that fifteen shipwrecked Frenchmen had recently passed that way from the coast, caused him to go on to Los Adaes to consult with the governor, García Larios, before plunging into the unknown south country. The conference over, Orobio returned to Nacogdoches, where he arrived on February 4, and where he secured an Indian guide to conduct him over the Bidai trail to the coast. 8
Since his diary gives us our first intimate account of a large stretch of country and of the earliest Spanish contact with a distinct group of natives in their own home, its contents have unique historical interest, and will, therefore, be still further drawn upon. Leaving Nacogdoches on February 7 and going southwest, on March 6 Orobio was near the Trinity at a place which he called Santa Rosa de Viterbo. Here he found a settlement of Bidai Indians living in seven rancherías 9 of bearskin tents, their regular winter habitations. The presence of Spaniards here, which, we are informed, “had never occurred before,” aroused much interest and comment among the natives, as can be well understood. With the chief Orobio held a long conference, but that over, his stay was brief.
Taking a Bidai guide, he set out across the Trinity, and on March 15 was at Puesto de San Rafael, so-named by himself, thirty leagues west-southwest from Santa Rosa de Viterbo. It will appear later on that San Rafael was in all probability on Spring Creek, west of the San Jacinto River. Here were two Orcoquiza villages, near which Orobio camped. The surprise of these Indians at seeing “Yegsa,” as they called the Spaniards, whom, we are told, they had heard of but never seen, was even greater than that of the Bidai.
Among both the Bidai and the Orcoquiza the rumors of Frenchmen on the coast were confirmed with circumstantial detail. Orobio was informed that men who lived among the Pachina near the Mississippi had for six years been coming by land to the Orcoquiza, while others came annually by water, entering the Neches, Trinity, and Brazos rivers, the implication being that they regularly visited the Bidai as well as the Orcoquiza. As yet there was no regular settlement of Frenchmen, but one had been promised. In the past summer those coming by sea had even chosen a site, and had sent the Orcoquiza to notify the Bidai, Doxsas (Deadoses), and Texas to come next season to this place with their buckskins (gamuzas) and buffalo hides, which the French were accustomed to buy. 10 The site designated for the settlement was described as some distance from the mouth of a river between the Trinity and the Brazos, but a tributary of neither. The stream was obviously the San Jacinto, an inference which is supported by positive evidence which will appear later on. 11 Among the Orcoquiza Orobio learned that some Frenchmen had been lost among the Cujanes, to the southwest, and that the shipwrecked crew who had passed through Nacogdoches were apparently a party who had been to rescue them.
Going toward the coast a distance of fifteen leagues, Orobio reached the place on the San Jacinto designated by the Orcoquiza as the site chosen by the French. The stream Orobio named Nuestra Señora de Aranzazu. Finding no signs of a habitation, and recording the opinion that there was little likelihood that one would be established, 12 since the site was ill fitted for settlement, he struck northwestward to the camino real leading from Nacogdoches, and returned to La Bahía, where he arrived on April 6. On June 25 he sent a report of his reconnaisance to Governor Larios.
This visit of Orobio to the Orcoquiza Indians was the beginning of a quarter of a century of Spanish activity in their country. While among them Orobio talked to them of missions. In a short while, apparently in the same year, he made them another visit and went again to the San Jacinto to look for Frenchmen, though we have not the details of this second expedition. To counteract French influence, one of the Orcoquiza chiefs was ored by being made a “captain,” and during the next few years Spanish agents, in the guise of traders, were regularly sent among both the Orcoquiza and the Bidai. Finally, further encroachments of the French, as we shall see, led to the occupation of the Orcoquiza country by a presidio and a mission. In the course of this contact, a large fund of knowledge regarding the tribe, whose early history has been strangely unknown, was acquired. It was not till 1755-1757 that this information, precious to the ethnologist and the historian, was extensively recorded in the documents at our command, but it will facilitate the remainder of the narrative if these later documents are drawn upon somewhat in advance for a general sketch of the Orcoquiza tribe, who, with their territory, form the chief center of interest in the story.
It was learned by these traders, explorers, soldiers, and missionaries that the Orcoquiza lived in four (or five) rancherías, or scattered villages, near the lower Trinity and the San Jacinto rivers. The center of their population was a western branch of the San Jacinto, usually called in the eighteenth century the Arroyo de Santa Rosa de Alcázar (the San Rafael of Orobio), which, after a careful study of the evidence, appears to be the Spring Creek of today. 14 Near the junction of the San Jacinto and the Santa Rosa, and within a gunshot of the latter, was the village which became known as that of chief Canos, so-called because of his leaning toward the French. Farther up the Santa Rosa some twenty miles, perhaps, at the junction of two small branches, was the village of El Gordo (the Fat), while “above” this point, perhaps northwest, was that of Mateo. East of the Trinity and some ten or fifteen miles from its mouth was another village, known for a long time as that of Calzones Colorados (Red Breeches). There is some indication that there was another village under the authority of this chief, but just where it was located is not clear. These statements, which rest on unquestioned sources, make it appear that the Orcoquiza lived rather more to the westward than has been supposed, as is true also of the Attacapa. On the east the Orcoquiza divided the country between the Trinity and the Neches with the latter tribe, who had two villages on opposite sides of the Neches near modern Beaumont; on the north the neighbors of the Orcoquiza were the Bidai, and, apparently, the Deadoses (Agdocas, Doxses); on the west, the Cocos; on the west and the southwest, the Carancaguases and the Cujanes. 15 With all of these tribes, except the Carancaguases, the Orcoquiza were generally on good terms, but racially they seem to have been quite distinct from all but the Attacapa, with whom they were considerably mixed. 16
Although they went periodically back and forth, with the changes of seasons, between the coast and the interior, the Orcoquiza lived in relatively fixed villages. If they were like the Bidai, they remained inland during the winter. They practiced agriculture to some extent, raising what was called by Bernardo de Miranda “superfine maize.” But this article seems to have been a minor feature of their subsistence, for they lived to a large extent on a fish diet, supplemented by sylvan fruits and game, among which deer and bear were prominent. It was trade in the skins and the fat of these animals that chiefly attracted the French intruders.
An indication that the tribal organization of the Orcoquiza was loose is the fact that during the clash between the French and the Spaniards in the region, the tribe was divided in its allegiance, Canos, particularly, leaning toward the French. Another indication is the conflicting contemporary statements by different witnesses as to which of the chiefs was “capitan grande,” or head chief of the group. Had there been a conspicuous tribal headship, such a conflict of opinion would not have been likely to occur. At first Canos appears in this light, and is the one to whom Governor Barrios gave the title of captain some time before October, 1754. Indeed, there are some reasons for thinking that he had the best claim to this distinction, but it was assigned also to Mateo and to Calzones Colorados. 17 The last named chief became the one best known to the Spaniards.
Although our data on this point are conflicting, the tribe was evidently small in numbers, even at this early date. Orobio, after his second visit, reported that it was composed of five villages, containing three hundred families, or perhaps twelve hundred souls. It was later claimed that Captain Pacheco “reduced” two villages of four hundred persons each. But compared with other estimates, these numbers appear to be too large. Bernardo de Miranda, for example, on being asked in 1756 what was their number, could not say definitely, but declared that he had seen at the village of Canos more than twenty warriors and their families. If this was the entire village, and if it was representative, the total of the tribe would not have exceeded one hundred men, or five or six hundred persons. An official estimate made in 1778, after a period of great general decrease in the native population of Texas, it is true, put the Orcoquiza fighting strength at only fifty men. 18 It was not, therefor,e in any case, a very large Indian population for which the French and the Spaniards were contending. To either party, the territory involved was far more important.
Soon after the visit of Orobio, it has already been noted, Spanish traders from Los Adaes began to operate in the Indian villages of the lower Trinity. The exact circumstances under which this trade was established are not clear, but it is evident that it fluorished after 1751, and that its chief beneficiary was Governor Jacinto de Barrios y Jáuregui, who went to Texas in that year.
The evidence regarding this trade, which was regarded as contraband, came out in a special investigation made in 1760, after Barrios had departed, and it may well be that it is not altogether trustworthy; but the main allegations seem well established. From the testimony given during the inquiry we learn that between 1751 and 1759 Governor Barrios engaged pretty regularly in commerce with the Bidai, Orcoquiza, and other tribes. The trade was kept a strict monopoly in his hands and carried on by his personal agents, among whom were Marcos Ruíz, Domingo del Rio, Juan Antonio Maldonado, and Jacinto de León. Goods were carried to the tribes in pack-trains, convoyed by small guards of soldiers. The merchandise was procured by the governor at Natchitoches, in open defiance of the law. Among the articles taken to the Indians were French knives, scissors, tobacco, combs, and even firearms, though it was a serious offense to furnish weapons or ammunition to the natives. In exchange the Indians gave horses (stolen usually from the Spanish settlements and missions), corn, and hides of deer and buffalo. The corn and horses were used by the governor at the presidio of Los Adaes; the skins were either sold at Natchitoches, likewise an unlawful proceeding, or were sent to Saltillo. This trade, conducted at first from Los Adaes, was later continued from the presidio of San Agustín, at the mouth of the Trinity. 19
The interest in the lower Trinity aroused by Orobio's visit was crystallized by the arrest in October, 1754, of some Frenchman, caught by Marcos Ruíz among the Orcoquiza Indians. The leader of the French party was Joseph Blancpain, whose name sometimes appears as Lanpen. With him were captured two other Frenchmen, Elías George, and Antonio de la Fars, besides two negroes. Their goods were confiscated and divided among the captors, their huts given to chief Calzones Colorados, their boat left stranded on the river bank, and they, after being questioned as to their purpose, sent to the City of Mexico and imprisoned.
According to Blancpain's own statement he had long been an Indian interpreter in the employ of the government of Louisiana, and had a trading establishment at Natchitoches, but lived on his plantation near the Mississippi, twenty-two leagues from New Orleans. He claimed that, at the time of his arrest, which occurred east of the Trinity at the village of Calzones Colorados, he had been trading for two months with the Attacapa, with whom he had dealt for more than a quarter of a century. The list of goods confiscated by his captors shows that, among other things, he was furnishing the Indians of the locality with a goodly supply of firearms, a proceeding which the Spanish government had always strenuously opposed. He had in his possession a license from the governor of Louisiana authorizing him to go among the Attacapa to trade for horses, as well as instructions to keep a diary, and, if he encountered any strange Indian village, to make friends of the inhabitants and take the chiefs to see the governor at New Orleans. Until shortly before his arrest he had been accompanied by a considerable party.
These instructions the Spaniards regarded as evidence that Blancpain was acting as a government agent to extend French authority over the Indians living in Spanish territory. It was charged against him that he had taken away the Spanish commission of chief Canos and given him a French one. More than this, Barrios reported to the viceroy, on the testimony of the soldiers who made the arrest and who claimed to have their information from the Indians and from Blancpain himself, that the Orcoquiza were expecting from New Orleans fifty families of settlers and a minister, to plant a colony and a mission at El Orcoquizac. But later, when his examination occurred at Mexico in February, 1755, Blancpain with great hardihood it would seem, considering the circumstances, denied having had anything to do with the Orcoquiza or Bidai, and, with greater truthfulness, perhaps, claimed not to know of any plans for a mission or a settlement.
Blancpain died in prison at Mexico, and, after a year's incarceration, his companions, according to the then customary dealing with intruders in Mexico, were deported in La América to Spain, to be disposed of by the Casa de Contratación. Their case brought forth a royal order requiring that if any more Frenchmen should be caught on Spanish territory without license they should be sent to Acapulco and thence to South America, there to be kept on the Isle of San Fernández or at the Presidio of Valdivia 20
As soon as Ruíz, the captor of Blancpain, returned to Los Adaes, Governor Barrios held a council, in which testimony was given to show that the French were clearly intending to establish a colony on the Trinity. In consequence, Barrios reported the danger to the viceroy, and at the same time took measures to provide temporary defense. In his account of the Blancpain affair sent to the viceroy on November 30, 1754, Barrios proposed guarding El Orcoquisac against further intrusion by establishing a presidio and a mission and also a civil settlement strong enough to exist after a few years without the protection of a garrison, suggesting that the families be recruited from Adaes and that they be given the government subsidy usually granted to new colonies. 21 This initiation by Barrios of a plan to colonize the lower Trinity country should be kept in mind for consideration in connection with the governor's later conduct.
With respect to the temporary defense of El Orcoquisac, the junta recommended sending to the Trinity ten soldiers and ten armed settlers. Failing to find this number of men available at Los Adaes, Barrios at once corresponded with the captains at San Antonio, Bahía, and San Xavier, asking for eighteen men to add to the ten which he proposed to detach from his post; but he did not at first meet with success. 22 Meanwhile Domingo del Rio was sent among the Bidai and Orcoquiza to learn, as Barrios put it, how they reacted toward the arrest of Blancpain. He returned in April bearing a new rumor that the French had settled and fortified El Orcoquisac. Thereupon the governor dispatched him with a squad of soldiers to make another investigation and to bring back a careful report. To strengthen the Spanish hold upon the Indians, Del Rio's party were supplied with abundant merchandise for gifts and for “cambalache,” or barter. In view of the defection of chief Canos to the French, they took for Mateo a commission as captain, a cane, symbol of authority, a jacket, a sombrero, and a shirt, while for Tomás, chief of the Bidai, who already had a commission as captain, they carried a like outfit. When they returned from this journey, which included a visit to the Nabedache, to the Bidai villages of Antonio and Tomás, and to the Orcoquiza village of El Gordo, they were accompanied by Mateo, Tomás and a band of braves, who were duly entertained by the governor, and who repeated former requests for missions. 23
Del Rio had found no French settlement, but he had heard from the Indians, who, as was to be expected, told a good story, that subsequently to the arrest of Blancpain some Frenchmen had been among them, that Mateo and his people (loyal to the Spaniards, of course!) had withdrawn from the coast, but that Canos, Blancpain's proselyte, had been to New Orleans, and, on his return, all decked out in French garb and laden with presents, had tried to win the rest of his tribe to the French cause.
This report evidently caused Barrios to act. Del Rio's return was early in June. Sometime between this date and August 27—probably at least a month before this—the governor sent twenty-eight soldiers recruited from San Xavier, San Antonio, La Bahía, and Adaes, to garrison El Orcoquisac until permanent arrangements should be made by the superior government. 24 The posting of this garrison marks the beginning of the Spanish occupation of El Orcoquisac.
The examination of Blancpain in the royal hall of confessions had occurred in February, 1755. For a year after this nothing was done by the superior government in Mexico but to discuss and refer, a process all too well known to the special student of Spanish-American history. To follow the details of this correspondence would be profitless except as a study in Spanish provincial administration. Viewed from this standpoint, however, it is interesting, as it furnishes a typical example of procedure in the matter of frontier defense, and a suggestion of the baneful effect of long distance legislation upon the missions and colonies, as well as insight into Spanish governmental methods.
A question within this field once brought to the attention of the viceroy ordinarily went from him to the fiscal of the royal Hacienda. If necessary, it went also the auditor of the war department and to a junta de guerra y hacienda, composed of officials from these two branches of the service. On the basis of these opinions of the fiscal and auditor, and the resolution of the junta, the viceroy issued his decrees. To one who studies intimately the viceroy's administration of the provinces it is noticeable how completely he followed the advice of these officials, particularly of the fiscal.
According to this customary routine, Barrios's proposal concerning the defense of the Trinity went, during the spring and summer of 1755, to the auditor, the fiscal, and a junta de guerra y hacienda. But there was so little agreement of opinion that the viceroy could reach no decision. Nominally, the difference was upon the size of the garrison and the question as to whether the proposed settlement should be subsidized or not. One gets the impression, however, that the real reason for delay was lack of interest. The fiscal recommended retaining at El Orcoquisac twenty of the soldiers already placed there by Barrios, and favored establishing one or more missions for the Orcoquiza. But he opposed Barrios's proposal of a subsidized colony, recommending, instead, dependence upon settlers who shold be attracted to the vicinity by lands alone. The six officials of the junta which was called could agree neither with the fiscal nor with each other. While all were of the opinion that El Orcoquisac should be garrisoned, two voted for twenty soldiers aided by the Indians of the locality, two for a larger number of soldiers, and two for ten soldiers and ten citizens.
After receiving Barrios's letter of September 6, 1755, which reported not only that Frenchmen had again been seen on the Trinity, but also that the governor of Louisiana had set up a claim to the territory which he garrisoned, the viceroy asked for a new opinion of the auditor.
Valcarcel, adopting the views that had been expressed by Altamira in his famous dictamen in 1744, and of Escandón, frequently voiced during his long struggle to people the country between the San Antonio River and Tampico, had in his mind the germs of a colonizing policy which might have been successful if really carried out. Reporting on October 11, he opposed the fiscal's plan for an unsubsidized settlement, on the ground that it would be more expensive to maintain a garrison for the long time that would be necessary under that plan, since there was little chance of a pueblo formed without special inducements to settlers, than to equip at once fifty families, withdrawing the garrison within a definite time. Citing Altamira's opinion, he argued with some logic that, in time of peace, on the one hand, good citizens would be more useful than soldiers as agents in winning the Indians, since presidial soldiers were proverbially low characters, and always making trouble; while, in time of war, on the other hand, twenty soldiers would be virtually useless. He advised, therefore, selecting fifty families of good character, attracting them not only by the lands, but also by the usual subsidy given to new colonists, putting them under a governor of their own number, and suppressing the presidio as soon as the civil settlement should be established.
He also made recommendations concerning the choice of a site. First a good location should be selected. He doubted the fitness of El Orcoquisac for the settlement, for lack of wood, and because of the marshiness of the country. Agreeing with the fiscal in this, he recommended ordering the governor to take the president of the eastern Texas missions, go to the Trinity country, and select a site for a town and missions. The town site must be so chosen that it would serve to protect the missions, control the Indians, and keep the French from among them. He advised, also, requiring Barrios to report the necessary supplies to be furnished the families at government expense.
But still the matter dragged on. Further delay was caused by a change of viceroys, and when the new one, the Marqués de las Amarillas, arrived in Mexico, he found the defense of the Trinity one of the questions first demanding attention. Accordingly, on February 4, 1756, he called a junta, whose resolutions, supplemented by the viceroy's decree of February 12, brought the matter to a head. The provisions thus jointly made for the lower Trinity were as follows: (1) For the present a garrison of thirty soldiers and a mission were to be established precisely on the site of Blancpain's arrest. (2) As soon as a suitable permanent site could be selected—it being conceded that El Orcoquisac was unhealthful—a villa of fifty families was to be founded, and to this site the mission and presidio were to be removed. Of these families twenty-five were to be Spaniards and twenty-five Tlascaltecan Indians, both classes to be recruited mainly from Saltillo, and to be aided by a single government subsidy sufficient to transport them and provide them with an outfit for agriculture, the sum to be determined by Barrios. (3) At the end of six years the presidio was to be suppressed, the soldiers becoming citizen colonists. For this reason, as well as for the immediate benefit of the Indians, married men of good character were to be preferred in the selection of the garrison. (4) The mission was to be conducted by two friars from the college of Guadalupe de Zacatecas, on a stipend of four hundred pesos each. (5) Barrios was ordered to report the funds necessary for the subsidy, to proceed at once to establish the presidio and mission on the temporary site, and, assisted by two frairs and by men acquainted with the country, to choose the site for the villa. 25
Bonilla and Bancroft have made it appear that the colony of fifty families provided for was to be identical with the presidio, but from the above it is clear that such was not the case. Morfi states that a presidio of thirty men was at first provided for; that because Barrios reported the original site unsuitable, the garrison was moved to the Springs of Santa Rosa de Alcázar, and that on February 4, 1757, a junta in Mexico decided to establish a new presidio and a colony of fifty Spanish and fifty Tlascaltecan families. The date of the junta was February 4, 1756; it provided for a colony of only fifty families, as has been stated above. It will be seen from what follows that the first garrison was not moved to the Springs of Santa Rosa. 26
This provision regarding the sending of Tlascaltecan families to the Texas frontier is an illustration of the interesting part played by the Tlascaltecan tribe during the whole period of Spanish expansion in New Spain. After their spirited fight with Cortés, resulting in an alliance, they became the most trusted supporters of the Spaniards. After playing an important part in the conquest of the valley of Mexico, they became a regular factor in the extension of Spanish rule over the north country. Thus, when San Luis Potosí and Saltillo had been conquered, colonies of Tlascaltecans were sent to teach the more barbarous Indians of these places both loyalty to the Spaniards and the elements of civilization. In Saltillo a large colony of Tlascaltecans was established by Urdiñola at the end of the sixteenth century, and became the nursery from which numerous offshoots were planted at the new missions and villages further north. At one time one hundred families of Tlascaltecans were ordered sent to Pensacola; we see them figure now in the plans for a colony on the Trinity River; and a few years later it was suggested that a settlement, with these people as a nucleus, be established far to the north, on the upper Red River, among the Taovayas Indians.
San Agustín de Ahumada
Barrios promptly set about establishing the presidio, which was evidently founded late in May or June, 1756. 27 It was certainly established by July 14. In compliment to the viceroy, the name given it, San Agustín de Ahumada, like that of the presidio of San Luís de las Amarillas, established a year later at San Sabá, was borrowed from that official's generous title. 28 The site was fixed according to the instructions, at El Orcoquisac, the place where Blancpain had been arrested. This was near a lagoon a short distance east of the left bank of the Trinity some two leagues from the head of the Bay, or near the north line of present Chambers county. 29 It is easy to explain Bancroft's mistake of supposing that El Orcoquisac and Los Horconsitos, which will appear later in the narrative, were identical, but it is difficult to understand how he came to place San Agustín de Ahumada on his map more than one hundred miles up the river instead of near its mouth. 30 Marcos Ruíz was made recruiting officer for the garrison; Domingo del Rio's skill as an Indian agent was recognized by his appointment as lieutenant ad interim in command, while Cristobal de Córdoba was made sergeant. On June 12, 1757, it was reported that the presidio, church, granary and corrals were all completed, and that fields and gardens had been prepared. We learn little about the structure of the presidio except that it was good. It was undoubtedly an unpretentious affair, and perhaps not very different from that soon ordered substituted for it when a change of site was being planned. The latter was to be a wooden stockade, triangular in shape, with three bulwarks, six curtains, one gate near the barracks, and a plaza de armas in the center. As a temporary part of the equipment of the presidio, two swivel guns were sent from Los Adaes, to remain until other provisions could be made. 31
The new establishment on the Trinity served to keep Barrios in Texas nearly three additional years. On August 21, 1756, by royal order, he was appointed governor of Coahuila and Don Angel Martos y Navarrete named in his place. But in view of the Orcoquisac enterprise just begun, the viceroy requested that Martos be sent temporarily to Coahuila in Barrios's place. The request was granted, and Barrios continued in office until 1759. 32
Nuestra Señora de la Luz
The mission established in the neighborhood of San Agustín was called Nuestra Señora de la Luz (Our Lady of Light), with the addition, sometimes of “del Orcoquisac.” Before the arrival of the regular missionaries, Father Romero, of the Ais mission, went among the Orcoquiza and secured promises that they would receive instruction, with the result that, in July, 1756, Barrios was able to report that even Canos, the French partisan, had become “reduced” to mission life, whatever this may have meant, in the absence of a mission. He had probably consented to enter one. At this time Barrios talked hopefully of even three missions instead of one. 33
The first missionaries sent were Fr. Bruno Chavira and Fr. Marcos Satereyn. Just when they arrived is not clear, but it was evidently after August, 1756, and certainly before the end of January, 1757. 34 Barrios soon complained that these missionaries were unsuited for their task, one because he was very young, and the other, Fr. Chavira, because he was old and violent in his manner. Moreover, he said, though the Indians were docile and anxious to live at the mission, the padres had brought nothing to support them. He carried his complaint to President Vallejo, who promised to have the College recall these two missionaries and send others. 35
Chavira's removal, however, was by a more powerful hand, for on June 27, he succumbed to the unhealthfulness of the country and died. Fr. Chavira's companion remained for some time and was approved by the governor. 36
In January, 1757, as we shall see, the viceroy ordered the missionaries to transfer their mission to Santa Rosa, and to “reduce” there at El Gordo's village, all four of the Orcoquiza bands and the Bidai tribe as well. This plan does not exactly harmonize with the decision of the junta of March 3 that efforts should be made to keep the different bands hostile toward each other. The Indians, however, opposed the transfer, and, to meet this difficulty, Barrios suggested dividing the missionary forces, leaving one friar at El Orcoquisac, with a small guard of soldiers, the other going to Santa Rosa. 37
As was usually the case in the initial stages of founding a mission, the Orcoquiza (especially the band of Calzones Colorados) were at first very tractable and friendly. They professed anxiety to enter upon mission life, built a house for the missionaries, and the first spring planted for them six almudes of corn, something “never before seen in these natives.” 38
The church, reported by Barrios as already complete in June, was evidently a very temporary structure, which was supplanted afterwards by a somewhat better one, itself miserable enough. A complaint made two years later by Fr. Abad de Jesus María, who was then head minister at the place, to the effect that he could not get help from the soldiers to complete the mission, reveals to us the site and the nature of the newer building. He writes: “Fearful of what might result, I had to set about the mentioned material establishment. . . . The two ministers, having explored and examined the territory with all care and exactitude, we did not find any place more suitable or nearer the presidio than a hill, something less than a fourth of a league's distance to the east from the latter and on the same bank of the lagoon. This place, Excellent Sir, because of its elevation, commands a view of the whole site of the presidio and of a circumference to the west and south, where this River Trinity turns, as far as the eye can reach. Towards the east the land is a little less elevated. At a distance of a league enough corn might be planted to supply a large population. . . . All these advantages being seen, the mission was erected on this site. It is made of wood, all hewn (labrada), and beaten clay mixed with moss, and has four arched portals (portales en círculo). This building, because of its strength and arrangement, is the most pleasing in all those lands of the Spanish and the French—or it would be if your Excellency should be pleased to have completed its construction, which for the present has been suspended.” 39
Such are some of the glimpses which we are able to get of the new mission and presidio.
To select a site for the colony, Barrios commissioned Lieutenant Del Rio and Don Bernardo de Miranda, the latter known for his recent explorations of the Los Almagres mineral vein, each to make an independent survey, which they did in the mid-summer of 1756. When, on August 26, 1756, they and their assistants gave their reports before Governor Barrios and Father Romero, all agreed as to the most desirable location. Above the presidio, within a space of six leagues, they reported three arroyos, on the middle one of which was the village of Calzones Colorados. These arroyos, they thought, would afford moderate facilities for a town site. But much better was the country along the arroyo of Santa Rosa del Alcázar, mentioned before as in the center of the Orcoquiza tribe. 40
Pleased with the glowing description of Santa Rosa, as it came to be called commonly, Barrios next had it surveyed by two surveyors named Morales 41 and Hernández. In October these men reported favorably upon three sites, but most favorably on that near El Gordo's village at the junction of two small branches joining the Santa Rosa, about ten leagues or perhaps twenty miles west of the San Jacinto—apparently Mill Creek and Spring Creek. 42 Barrios required the surveyors to prepare estimates of the cost of building the necessary dams and acequias, and in November reported to the viceroy in favor of Santa Rosa (as Miranda had already done in October), recommending three missions instead of one. On January 7 this site was approved by a junta de guerra y hacienda, and shortly afterward the viceroy ordered the presidio moved thither, with the condition that each week a squad of soldiers must be sent to reconnoiter El Orcoquisac to look for Frenchmen.
The missionaries were required, likewise, to transfer the mission with the people of Calzones Colorados and Canos (assumed by the authorities, from previous reports, to be in the mission), to El Gordo's village, and to strive to attract thither the people of Mateo and also those of the Bidai tribe. Thus was it planned to gather all of the Orcoquiza and Bidai into one settlement. 43
In March and April the central government proceeded in good faith to provide 30,000 pesos, the sum asked for by Barrios, for equipping and transporting the settlers, and ordered three swivel guns to San Agustín, to take the place of the cannon brought from Los Adaes. The details of recruiting the families were left to Barrios, but he was ordered to take from Saltillo fifty saddle horses, fifty brood mares, twenty-five cows, nine thousand one hundred and twenty-five sheep, and six yoke of oxen. Other necessary stock was to be purchased in Los Adaes. Each family was to be supplied with a limited outfit for engaging in agriculture, and a gun and a sabre for defence, while, during the journey, each member of the Spanish families was to be allowed three reals a day, and each member of the Tlascaltecan families two reals. The actual work of recruiting, equipping and transporting the families was entrusted by Barrios, some time later, to a Frenchman named Diego Giraud. 44
To this point prospects seemed good for the beginning in Texas of a new civil settlement, the element most lacking, and want of which meant ultimate failure. But now ensued a period of disheartening inactivity, flimsy excuse-making, and pernicious quarreling, that shatters the reader's patience, and that resulted in killing the projected settlement.
The plan for a colony had originated with Barrios, and hitherto he had acted with reasonable promptitude in carrying it out. As late as June, 1757, his attitude was favorable, for then, when reporting that the Indians at El Orcoquisac might oppose moving to Santa Rosa, he had suggested that this difficulty might be overcome by leaving one missionary at El Orcoquisac, protected by a small garrison, and establishing the other at Santa Rosa. 45 But from now on he seems to have entirely changed his mind. It may have been sincere conviction that there was no suitable site—he could not foresee the building in the vicinity of a great city like Houston—or it may have been some unexplained influence that caused him to positively oppose the town. A suggestion of jealousy of Miranda appears in the documents, but one is not warranted in accepting this suggestion as conclusive.
Whatever the cause, his subsequent conduct is most exasperating. In October he reported that he had been deceived by Miranda's report and that a personal examination made in October by himself and President Vallejo proved that Santa Rosa was unfit for a settlement, 46 but that a place called “El Atascosito” or “El Atascoso y Los Tranquillos” on the Trinity, some nineteen leagues above the presidio, was a suitable location. 47
While the viceroy was putting Barrios's suggestion through the usual deliberate legislative routine, 48 the governor was forced into temporary activity by the missionary then at Nuestra Señora de la Luz, Fray Joseph Francisco Caro. This friar wrote in February, 1758, to his superior at Adaes, Father Vallejo, a mournful tale about the physical miseries of life at his swampy, malarial, mosquito-infested post. Father Chavira had died, he said, from the unhealthfulness of the place; his companion, Fray Marcos Satereyn, and all the soldiers, were sick from dysentery, due to bad water, excessive humidity, and putrid lagoons nearby. He requested, therefore, that the presidio and mission be moved at once to another site, preferably El Atascosito. If this could not be done, he begged leave either to move the mission with a small guard of soldiers to the place designated or to abandon his post. Vallejo reported the complaint to Barrios and requested that one of the alternatives be granted, preferably that looking to the transfer of the presidio as well as the mission to El Atascosito; he closed with a threat that unless something were done, he would order Father Caro to retire and, acting in the name of his College, would renounce the mission. 49
In response to this threat Barrios went in April to San Agustín, selected a site within two gunshots of El Atascosito, ordered crops sown, and instructed Lieut. Del Rio, as soon as the sowing should be completed, to build there a new triangular stockade, and to transfer the garrison and the mission. 50 To offset this apparent compliance, however, Barrios gave the idea of a colony a serious blow by declaring that neither El Atascosito, the place he had himself proposed as a substitute for Santa Rosa, nor any of the several others that had been considered, would support a settlement of fifty families, and recommended accordingly that Giraud, his agent sent to Saltillo to recruit families, should be repaid for his trouble and expense, and, it is inferred, relieved of his commission. 51
On March 4, 1758, and again on March 13, Barrios was ordered to make another search for a town site, or at least a site to which the mission might be removed. But after all the delays and failures recounted above, one will hardly be surprised that these renewed orders were not obeyed. The reason, if the reader were to require a specific one, does not appear, for it happens that in our sources there is a gap, so far as events in Texas go, between April, 1758, and October, 1759. Before that time Governor Barrios had gone to his new post in Coahuila, leaving half done the task to accomplish which, because of his supposed special fitness for it, his transfer had been indefinitely suspended. His successor proved to be no more efficient than he, so far as our present interest is concerned.
When the curtain again rises after the year and a half of darkness the tables are turned. The mission and presidio are still at El Orcoquisac, but the new missionary, Fray Joseph Abad de Jesus María, is in dispute with the new governor, Don Angel Martos y Navarrete, over the question of removal to a new site, Los Horconsitos, three or four leagues up the river. But this time it is the missionary who opposes the transfer.
Don Angel began his administration on February 6, 1759, 52 and after attending to matters of most pressing moment he took up the question of locating the proposed villa and transferring the mission and presidio from El Orcoquisac. In October he visited Santa Rosa and decided against it. 53 On November 4, in company with Del Rio and Father Abad, he visited El Atascosito, and decided against it also. But farther south he found a place called Los Horconsitos (Little Forks) three and one-half leagues above El Orcoquisac, and a league north of this, a juniper covered arroyo called Los Piélagos, either of which he regarded suitable for a town, as well as for the presidio and mission. 54
But Father Abad opposed the governor's suggestion. He argued, and with reason, that the trouble with the presidio and the mission was one of laziness rather than one of faults of the site; that DeI Rio, being a common soldier, was unfit to be a commander; that the Indians objected to leaving their native soil; that the buildings and crops, secured at the cost of great labor, should not be abandoned; and that new rumors of the French made removal unwise. In spite of Father Abad's opinion, on December 12 Martos reported favorably on Los Horconsitos, and on March 15 the viceroy ordered the removal made to that point. But instead of complying with the order, in May Martos took more testimony, which added a “Place on the Trinity” to the list of sites suitable for a town and for the transfer in question, but declared against El Atascosito and El Orcoquisac. 55 After recommending to the viceroy, on May 30, the three places named, Martos inquired of Father Vallejo if the removal was imperative. First referring the matter to Father Romero, the missionary from Los Adaes who had been at San Agustín, the president replied in the affirmative, and with emphasis. 56 Thus Father Abad was now opposed by Fathers Vallejo and Romero, while the governor stood between them.
Meanwhile Martos had added his opposition to the project of a villa. On December 16, ten days after recommending El Atascosito and Los Piélagos as suitable for such a purpose, he asked the viceroy to relieve him of responsibility for founding the town. What his reason was is not clear, but it may have been his unwillingness to oppose Father Abad. 57 At any rate, on March 6, 1760, his request was granted provisionally, until the site should be determined. As this never occurred, the plan for the villa was never again taken up in Mexico, and it never was founded. 58
If it were not for the fact that Bonilla, and those who have followed him, had made the fundamental error of saying that the presidio and mission were moved one or more times, finally to Los Horconsitos (which Bancroft confuses with Orcoquisac), the reader might be spared the pain of following further such frivolous excuse-making and disgusting inactivity. Since, however, such errors have been made, it is necessary to show that, excepting, perhaps, a removal to a site a quarter of a league away, the transfer had not been effected down to 1767, when steps for final abandonment of the place were begun, and after which, of course, no further effort was likely to be made. 59
A year and a half passed after the events related above had occurred, when a junta de guerra held in Mexico December 9, 1762, again approved Los Horconsitos, and, on December 22, Martos was again ordered to move the presidio and mission thither and to do it at once. It is clear from what follows, however, that the order was not carried out.
In November, 1763, the presidio was put under the command of a captain, Den Rafael Martinez Pacheco, whereupon Martos, resenting the change, became anxious to do what for five years he had neglected. In June, 1764, therefore, he went to the presidio in company with Father Calahorra to effect the transfer, but the Indians, bribed by Pacheco, as it later appeared, opposed the change, and, though the governor remained on the ground a month, the object was not accomplished. 60 Martos reported his failure to the viceroy, and on August 12, 1764, the command to remove the establishment to Los Horconsitos was repeated. 61 In the course of the ensuing trouble with Pacheco the presidio was partially burned. Subsequently, in the administration of Afan de Rivera, temporary repairs were made on the partly destroyed establishment, which indicates that no removal had been made. In 1766 a storm damaged the presidio and mission, and a new clamor was made for a transfer, there being some evidence that the presidio was moved in consequence to higher ground a quarter of a league away. 62 Finally, in October, 1767, when the Marqués de Rubí inspected the place, he found the presidio at or near the original site, for in his diary describing the journey to the coast La Fora records passing El Atascosita and Los Horconsitos, and proceeding south from this point to the presidio. His entry makes it clear that the presidio and mission were still at El Orcoquisac. He says: “We traveled . . . four leagues to a small ranch at the place called El Atascoso, where we camped.” On the next day “we traveled ten leagues, generally south, although the road forms a semicircle, to escape the lagoon formed by the Rio de la Trinidad, which during the whole day we kept at our right and two leagues away. After going four leagues over level country . . . we crossed the Arroyo de Calzones, which runs west and empties into the Trinity, and leaving behind the Paraje de los Horconsitos we forded that of El Piélago, . . . which flows in the same direction and, like that of Calzones, empties into said river, both overflowing in rainy seasons and flooding the six leagues between this place [evidently Los Horconsitos] and the Presidio of San Luis de Ahumada, commonly called El Orcoquisac.” 63
It is clear, then, that down to October, 1767, no material change of site had been made. Rubí recommended that the establishment, like the rest of those in eastern Texas, be abandoned. This suggestion was soon acted upon, and if any transfer was ever effected (of which there is no evidence), it was between 1767 and 1771, a period when the affairs of the place were going from bad to worse.
The arrest of Blancpain brought forth a protest from Kerlérec, the new governor of Louisiana, who claimed that the trader had been arrested on French territory. 64 He added that only with difficulty had he been able to restrain the Attacapa Indians from destroying the Spanish establishment, on account of their anger at the expulsion of the French. On September 11, 1756, he proposed to Barrios that a joint commission be appointed to examine the site of San Agustín to determine the question of ownership, and named Athanase de Mézières to serve as the French representative. Barrios refused the proffered aid and expressed to his government the fear that Kerlérec intended to found a presidio near that of San Agustín.
In spite of the arrest and the harsh treatment of Blanepain and his party, fear of the Spaniards was not so great as to keep away all Frenchmen. Domingo del Rio reported in the summer of 1755, after his visit to El Orcoquisac, that since the arrest of Blancpain four Frenchmen had been there on horseback. Scarcely had the new presidio been established when a Frenchman presented a petition to the viceroy through Barrios asking permission to settle at El Orcoquisac. The petitioner, M. Massé, a stock raiser who lived in the Attacapa region, was evidently well known to Governor Barrios, for when the latter went to establish the presidio he asked permission to go by way of M. Massé's hacienda among the Attacapa, but his request was refused. In his petition Massé enlarged upon his distinguished birth and his attainments, and explained that he was led to make the request by his desire to emancipate his slaves, which was not possible in Louisiana. As arguments in his favor, he referred to his large herds of stock, which would be at the disposal of the new establishment; to the increase of population which would result from the settlement of his numerous slaves; and to the important service he would be able to perform among the Indians. In this connection, he promised to secure the allegiance of the Attacapa, as well as the friendship of the northern nations, the Taovayases, the “Letas” (Comanche) “Patoca” (Comanche) the “Icara” and the “Pares” (Panis). He did not speak for himself alone, but also for his partner, the Abbé Disdier, whose loyalty he was ready to guarantee. On July 22, Governor Barrios forwarded the petition, and added the information that Massé was a chancellor of Grenoble, of good standing among the French, absolute master of the Attacapa and the northern Indians, owner of twenty negroes, seven hundred head of cattle, and one hundred horses, all of which he was willing to contribute to the support of the town. When we learn that for many years after this date Monsieur Massé was a contraband trader on the Gulf Coast, and that Barrios also was engaged in this enterprise, we are inclined to suspect something besides generosity in Massé's request.
The viceroy in Mexico regarded the petition as a part of a plan to establish a French settlement on soil claimed by Spain, and the answer was the only one which could be expected. Barrios was instructed to inform Massé and Disdier that it would be contrary to law for them to even enter the Spanish province, and that if they did so their goods would be confiscated and they sent prisoners to Spain. He was further instructed to ascertain why the Frenchmen had wished to settle in Texas; and to find out if the Abbé, during his stay at Los Adaes, had caused any desertions.
In the course of the correspondence which ensued it was stated that Disdier had come to New Orleans as chaplain of a vessel; had been made chaplain of a seminary in New Orleans; had been ejected by Kerlérec because of trouble with the boys; had gone to the establishment of M. Massé, thence to Natchitoches, and thence to Los Adaes, where he had served for two months as tutor for the governor's sons. Regarding Massé it was stated that he was a military officer who had been engaged in secret trade among the Attacapa. In June, 1757, Barrios reported that Disdier had left Texas on the pretext of going to Mexico to visit the shrine of the Virgin of Guadalupe, but instead had gone to El Orcoquisac to persuade the missionaries there to desert to Lousiana and Europe. Barrios professed to refuse to believe that he was a priest, but regarded him as a fraud, and mentioned a correspondence that he had carried on with De Mézières. 65
Kerlérec did not confine his protests to those made to Barrios, but wrote to his home government on the matter, addressing his complaint to the Minister of Marine. This correspondence was reported to the viceroy of Mexico on March 9, 1757, by the governor of Havana. Writing of the matter to the king on April 18, the viceroy suggested the erection of a presidio on the bank of the Mississippi River opposite New Orleans “to protect the boundaries” and so that this establishment, the new presidio of San Agustín, and that of La Bahía, might defend the coast “and in future prevent any introduction whatever.” With the dispatch he sent a map made by Bernardo de Miranda, the surveyor of Santa Rosa, who happened to be in Mexico, and a report on the French border by the same individual. The map which, as the viceroy remarked, is not “subject to the rules of geography,” shows Texas as extending to the Mississippi. 66
Frenchmen continued to operate among the Indians in the neighborhood of San Agustín, and to cause trouble for the small garrison. Sometime in 1759, for example, two Frenchmen entered the Orcoquiza country with a band of one hundred Indians and were expelled by Del Rio and ten soldiers, after some show of resistance. It later was charged that they were connected with a plot to destroy the Spanish settlement. In November of the same year eight Spanish soldiers were sent to the Brazos to reconnoiter a place where Frenchmen had encamped among the Karankawa, promising to return to build a town. 67
Allusion has just been made to a French plot to destroy the settlement at San Agustín. In January, 1760, Del Rio wrote to Governor Martos that Luis de St. Denis (son of the famour Luis Juchereau de St. Denis so long commander of Natchitoches) had sent an Adaes Indian among the Orcoquiza and Bidai tribes to bribe them to destroy the presidio of San Agustín. Barrios at once protested to Governor Kerlérec, and added that he believed that the destruction of San Sabá in the preceding year had been accomplished by French weapons. Kerlérec replied on March 13 in great indignation, demanding that Martos produce evidence to support the charge against St. Denis, and threatening to complain to the Spanish king. 68 Martos sent his correspondence with Del Rio and Kerlérec to Mexico, whereupon a secret investigation of the charges was ordered, and special care enjoined to discover, whenever an Indian outbreak should occur, whether it was due to French intrigue. 69
The testimony presented in the investigation which followed was not altogether conclusive, but was nevertheless significant. Calzones Colorados testified that early in 1760 two Bidai Indians had brought a message from St. Denis, inviting his tribe to go to Natchitoches to secure ammunition with which to return and kill all the Spaniards at El Orcoquisac; that he had refused to listen (of course); that the emissaries had gone to make the same proposal to Canos and Tomás; and that later one of them had returned saying that the offer had been made by St. Denis merely to test their loyalty to the Spaniards.
Canos, well known to be a partisan of the French, as his name implied, could not be secured as a witness, for he had escaped to the Attacapa; El Gordo denied having been offered bribes, but declared that during a visit to Calzones Colorados he had heard of the proposal. Tamages, another chief, corroborated the story as told by Calzones Colorados; Boca Floja, another, testified that the two Frenchmen who had been expelled by Del Rio had come with one hundred Attacapa to induce them to aid in killing all the Spaniards and running off the stock. The conference had been broken up by the opportune arrival of Del Rio and ten soldiers. The Bidai chiefs, on the other hand, claimed that, so far as they were concerned, no bribes had been offered them. 70
This testimony, considering the circumstances under which it was given, is not conclusive, but taken in connection with Kerlérec's avowed design of enroaching upon western Texas, his protests against the settlement at San Agustín, his recent proposal of a joint commission, and the contemporary Indian attack on San Sabá, in which French influence was clearly seen, the evidence is not to be rejected altogether.
Again in November, 1763, after the Louisiana cession, but before it was generally known in Texas and Louisiana, a lively dispute over boundaries arose between Governor Martos and Cavalier Macarty, commander at Natchitoches. The precise point at issue was not the ownership of the lower Trinity, but in the course of the correspondence Macarty laid claim, on the basis of La Salle's colony, to the Bay of Espíritu Santo, saying: “This being granted you cannot fail to be convinced both of our rights to the Bay of San Luis (Espíritu Santo), and that if from there we draw a line running straight north, the lands lying to the east thereof belong to the Most Christian dominions.” 71
After the occupation of Louisana by Spain the question of the boundary ceased to have political significance, and troubles arising over the French contraband traders on the border were matters of internal concern only.
Regarding progress and events at the mission of Nuestra Señora de la Luz, which had the misfortune to be placed amidst a multitude of discordant and hostile elements, natural, moral, and political, we have only incomplete data. Nevertheless, here and there we get glimpses of occurrences and personalities.
Father Chavira's place was filled by Fray Francisco Caro, formerly of the mission of Nuestra Señora de los Dolores de los Ais, who was at the Trinity mission in February, 1758. The most notable event recorded of his administration was his denunciation of the climate, swamps, and insect pests at the site, and his strenuous fight to have the mission removed to El Atascosito. In 1759 and 1760, as we have already seen, the superior of the mission was Father Abad de Jesus María. He opposed the removal of the mission as strenuously as Father Caro had favored it. It is from him that we get the description already given of the second church, which was being built in 1759.
The Indians of the place were not always docile, and there is little evidence that they actually entered the mission and submitted to its discipline. In 1759, during some trouble, the Attacapa joined the Orcoquiza in an outbreak, and in order to pacify them it was necessary to shoot a soldier. The trouble was evidently caused by one of the ever recurring instances of misconduct on the part of the presidial guards. 72
Slight as is our information before 1760, we have even less for the period between that time and the coming of Captain Pacheco, in 1764. But the occurrences at the time of his advent indicate that few Indians were living in the mission before that date, and that the mission building was in a state of decay when he arrived.
The coming of Captain Pacheco was followed by a temporary revival at the mission under Fathers Salvino and Aristorena, aided by the new captain. Pacheco arrived on May 13, 1764, and on the next day he began his reforms. Calling an assembly of the one hundred and fifty Orcoquiza living about the place, he passed them in review, and addressed them in the presence of the missionaries, urging them to settle in the mission at once. A peace pipe was passed, dances were performed, and the Indians declared themselves eager to enter a mission for which they had waited three years. Del Rio, the interpreter, informed them of the duties of neophytes, telling them that they must obey the king, his officers, and the missionaries, throw away their idols, attend prayers, work in the field for the fathers, remain always in the mission enclosure, and defend the place against the French or hostile tribes. In return, Del Rio assured them of four rations of food a week and clothing when necessary. 73 The Orcoquiza agreed. Gifts and feasting followed, and the next day the heathen idols and ornaments were solemnly turned over to the missionaries.
The new zeal extended to other villages besides that of Calzones. On May 31, Chief Canos and his band, now mainly of Attacapa, it seems, came, flying a French flag, to consider entering the mission. The same ceremony was performed, and after a day's deliberation Canos declared himself willing to part with the French emblem and the native idols, and to enter a mission, providing it were separate from that of Calzones. On June 6 the Bidai chief, Tomás, came with forty-eight of his tribe, participated in the same ceremonies, and promised to enter a mission if it were established in his own country—his people had already tried one in foreign lands, at San Xavier—and also to persuade the northern tribes to do likewise.
On June 14, Captain Pacheco sent to Mexico an account of all that had been done, and requested funds to rebuild the mission and the presidio, both of which were in a state of decay; to furnish supplies for the Indians; and to found missions for the villages of Tomás and Canos. He asked, besides, for permission to go with Chief Tomás on a missionary and diplomatic trip among the northern tribes. Pacheco assisted further in the missionary work by furnishing supplies, and within a short time he was reported to have furnished the Indians with clothing to the value of 1079 pesos, and with tools and implements for agriculture. Calzones' village was supplied with two beeves and five fanegas of corn a week, and that of Canos with half as much. 74
This, however, was but a temporary wave of enthusiasm, lasting but a few months. The scandalous quarrel which ensued before the year was over, between Pacheco and Governor Barrios, resulting in the flight of the former and his absence during the next five years, removed the best support of the missionaries, and there was a recurrence of former conditions at Nuestra Señora de la Luz, which the Marqués de Rubí, after a visit in 1767, referred to as “an imaginary mission.” 75
Nevertheless, the missionaries continued their work, and in the course of the next six years effected the “perfect conversion” of thirty Indians, mainly adults. Pacheco was welcomed back in the fall of 1769 by both missionaries and Indians, and his return was followed by another revival. The missionaries whose names appear are Fathers Luis Salvino and Bernardino Aristorena, in 1764-1766; Fray Bernardo de Silva (?), 1766; Fray Joseph Marenti, 1767; Fray Ignacio María Laba, 1768-1771; Fray Anselmo Garcia, 1770; and Fray Joseph del Rosario Soto, 1770. Presidents Vallejo and Calahorra each visited the place once in the course of its existence, but Father Solís, who in 1766 came all the way from Zacatecas to visit the missions, slighted this one, and caused complaint thereby. Missionary supplies were continued with some regularity during the administration of Afan de Rivera at San Agustín, between 1765 and 1769, who spent for the Indians 2724 pesos; and Pacheco, during his stay of a year after he returned in the fall of 1769, spent 2496 pesos for the Orcoquiza, Attacapa, Bidai, and “Asinaio,” tribes “resident on this frontier.” The Asinai had by this time acquired the custom of coming to the post for regalos. At least one missionary expedition was made by a padre among the Bidai, and in all probability more than one. And after the garrison of the presidio was removed in 1771, the missionaries, Fray Ignacio Laba and his companion, were the last to leave the place. 76
Up to 1764 the presidio of San Agustín was commanded by Domingo del Rio, who was responsible to Governor Martos. But in 1763 Del Rio wrote to the viceroy complaining of the lack of flour and clothing, and even of ammunition, charging Governor Martos with neglect, and recommending that the post be taken out of the governor's hands and put under the command of a captain directly responsible to the viceroy. On November 23, the viceroy acted upon this recommendation (though it seems that the change was already under contemplation) and appointed to the new office Rafael Martínez Pacheco. 77 The first result of the change was the promising wave of missionary activity and general prosperity which we have already recounted. But this was soon followed by one of the disgraceful quarrels which so often marred the success of frontier Spanish administration.
Pacheco was charged by his troops with arrogance, ill temper, harshness, and avarice. By June 24 his soldiers had planned a general mutiny, which was temporarily checked by a visit of Governor Martos and President Calahorra, who came to attend to moving the presidio and mission. The governor's stay of a month did not help matters—perhaps the contrary—and in a short time the plan to desert was carried out. One by one the garrison slipped away to Natchitoches, and before August, eighteen had sought French protection, while two took refuge at the Mission of San Miguel, only five, among whom was Domingo del Rio, remaining at the presidio.
Hearing of the event, Governor Martos sent a squad of soldiers to the provincial boundary to overtake the deserters, if possible. In this he failed, and a few days later Périère, commander at Natchitoches, forwarded to Martos a petition of the deserters, who told of their wrongs, but professed a willingness to return if they were put under another commander. 78
Martos proceeded, in the usual way, to take depositions, and in consequence, on September 12, he formally suspended Pacheco and promised the deserters pardon. He then sent Marcos Ruíz at the head of the band of twenty deserters to arrest Pacheco and to restore peace and order, two entirely incompatible aims, it proved. Arriving there on October 7, Ruíz proceeded to arrest Pacheco. But this doughty warrior barricaded himself and a handful of servants and adherents in his presidio, trained two cannon on the arresting party, and opened fire.
Withdrawing to a safe distance, Ruíz laid siege to the stronghold. For three days the combined effort of Del Rio, Fray Salvino, chief Calzones, and a maiden named Rosa Guerra to communicate with Pacheco proved without avail. At the end of these three days the chief with his braves, who had been neutral or wavering, gave allegiance to Ruíz, and on the 11th the presidio was set on fire, to drive the captain out. In the attendant fight blood was shed and Pacheco, with one faithful adherent, Brioso, escaped through a secret door. Hiding till night in a nearby tule patch, the fugitives crossed the river and fled toward San Antonio. Two days later they were met by teamsters from San Antonio twelve leagues down the road, at Caramanchel. Reaching La Bahía, the captain hid for a day and two nights in the house of Capt. Ramírez de la Pizcina. Going thence to the mission of San José on a horse loaned him by Ramírez and aided by Father Cámbaros, he took refuge at the mission, but was arrested by Captain Manchaca in virtue of a proclamation issued by Ruíz. But in December he was freed, after an attack on one of his guards, and thereafter lived at liberty for several months at the mission of San José, going to San Antonio with entire freedom. 79 Later on he went to Mexico, where he was imprisoned and tried.
After the escape of Pacheco, Ruíz, aided by Fray Salvino, managed affairs at San Agustín for a time in peace, writing reports of the damage done to the presidio and of Pacheco's misdeeds, and making new attempts to reduce the Indians to mission life. It now came out that Calzones had been bribed by Pacheco to oppose the attempts made by Martos in the preceding summer to remove the presidio and mission to Los Horconsitos. This disclosure involved Del Rio, and hastened the appointment of Afan de Rivera as commander. In May, 1765, Rivera arrested Del Rio for his partisanship with Pacheco. In November of the same year Ruíz was arrested by Hugo O'Connor to answer to the charge of burning the presidio. Another man of some prominence to become entangled was Manuel de Soto, who to escape arrest fled to Natchitoches, and lived there for some years a refugee. Finally, in 1767 Martos himself fell, under the charge of burning the presidio, and subsequently underwent a trial that lasted fourteen years and ended with the imposition of a heavy fine upon him. 80 Truly an unfortunate establishment was that of San Agustín.
The remaining five years of the outpost's existence were less eventful. Afan de Rivera, successor to Marcos Ruíz, commanded the garrison till the fall of 1769. At that time Captain Pacheco, who had been tried, exonerated, and reinstated by the government in Mexico, returned to his post, welcomed by both missionaries and Indians, with whom he was a favorite.
The monotony of mere existence at the forlorn place was broken on September 4, 1766, by one of those terrible storms which since the dawn of history there in 1528 have periodically swept the Texas coast. It damaged the buildings, led to more talk of “movings,” and, it appears, actually caused the transfer of the presidio to higher ground a quarter of a league away. In 1767 Marshal Rubí, the distinguished officer from Spain, honored the place with an inspection, but not with his good opinion. In 1769 the monotony was again relieved by the passage that way of a band of shipwrecked Acadians who had been rescued at La Bahía and sent, after being harshly treated, to their compatriots in Louisiana. Another event of these latter years was a three day's campaign against Indian horse thieves.
Rubí had recommended in 1767, since Louisiana no longer belonged to France and the eastern Texas missions were failures, that both the presidios and the missions of that frontier should be suppressed, a measure which was ordered carried in 1772.
But before the order came El Orcoquisac was already abandoned. In June, 1770, the governor of Texas, the Baron de Ripperda, made a call for help against the Apaches. In consequence Captain Pacheco responded in July with a part of his garrison. In February, 1771, the rest of the soldiers, except three, went to San Antonio in answer to another call. The three had remained behind with Father Laba and his companion, whose departure was opposed by their charges. But within a few weeks the missionaries, also, left, and the presidio and mission passed out of existence. 81
1. Mexico, 1823-1833.—To appreciate the significance of any measure of the Mexican federal government, with regard to Texas, during the years 1820-1836 it is necessary to have a knowledge of conditions in Mexico during that time, as well as some understanding of the feeling of the Mexican people toward their neighbors of the north, the people of the United States. This is possibly more true of the decree of April 6, 1830, than of any other political measure passed by the Mexican government, with reference to Texas, during the whole period of Anglo-American colonization. Therefore, before taking up a study of the decree, it will be well to review rapidly the salient facts in Mexico's history during the decade 1823-1833.
After a struggle of eleven years, Mexico succeeded, in 1821, in freeing herself from the yoke of Spain. During the next three years she went through a restless period of governmental experiments, the boldest of which was the adoption in 1824 of a constitution and a republican form of government. It seemed for a while as if this radical step was to prove successful. The first president, Guadalupe Victoria, was a fairly able executive, and piloted the war-worn nation safely through the first three and a half years of his administration. But the presidential campaign of 1828 was a sharp contest between two strong candidates, Gomez Pedraza and Vicente Guerrero. Pedraza was declared elected, but Guerrero charged unfairness in the election and took up arms in support of his claim. He was a popular military leader and succeeded in establishing himself in the presidential chair at the beginning of the new term, April 1, 1829. In the summer of 1829, the nation was thrown into excitement over an attempt of Spain to invade her former possession with a view to reconquest. The Spanish troops were easily repelled by Generals Terán and Santa Anna, but during the crisis President Guerrero had been invested with dictatorial powers, and his exercise of the extraordinary authority afforded political agitators an opportunity to raise the cry of tyranny. Anastasio Bustamante, who had been elected vice-president on the ticket with Pedraza, easily “assumed the role, which is always open to the demagogue, of preserver of the constitution and liberator of the people,” 83 and incited a revolt against Guerrero, who fled from the capital, leaving his rival in possession. Bustamante assumed the chair and held it until he in turn was driven out by the ambitious Santa Anna in November, 1832. Pedraza was now installed to fill out his unexpired term, and on April 1, 1833, Santa Anna himself became president. The turbulent history of the next few years does not directly concern the subject of the decree of April 6, 1830.
2. The Anglo-American Colonization of Texas.—During the years while Mexico was effecting the outward metamorphosis into a full-fledged republic, she took a step which seemed at the time not only justifiable but commendably progressive, but one which shortly proved to have been a serious political blunder. This was nothing less than the opening of her doors to foreign immigration. It is true that the first concession in this direction was made under Spanish authority to Moses Austin of Missouri, in 1821, but the grant was reaffirmed by the various succeeding governments, and in August, 1824, the new republic promulgated a general colonization law 84 most generous in its provisions. The intent of the law seems to have been a deliberate bid for colonization from the English-speaking states of the north. The reason back of this was doubtless in some degree an impulsive feeling of fellowship on the part of the newly born Mexican republic for the strong and successful sister republic whose boundaries touched her own. She was grateful for the sympathy extended by the people of the United States during her struggle with Spain, and for the prompt official recognition of her independent government in 1822. It can be regarded as but natural if she saw in the future a welding of interests and population at the inland borders of the two nations. Mexican statesmen were fully cognizant of the impulse of westward expansion in the United States, and they gladly threw open before it the fertile lands of Texas. As before stated, the step seemed both justifiable and progressive. The mistake lay in the fact that Mexico was ignorant of the nature of the people whom she was inviting within her borders. Without imputing blame or making comparisons disparaging to either people, it may be categorically stated that amalgamation, or even understanding, was essentially impossible between the representatives of the two races who came in contact with each other in Texas. By race, tradition, and education the two peoples were separated by an impassable gulf. But the business of colonizing Texas was undoubtedly taken up in good faith on both sides; the friction, easily as it developed, was neither sought nor welcomed by either; it was simply inevitable.
One of the first notes of alarm to sound in Mexico's ears was the amazing success of her proposition. In three hundred years, Spain had managed to people Texas with some four thousand souls, 85 while in one decade, 1820-1830, under the new colonization scheme, the civilized population increased to five times that number, 86 of whom the English-speaking inhabitants were in a large majority. 87 This rapid immigration would possibly have resulted under any conditions by which Texas might have been opened to Anglo-American settlement, but it was peculiarly facilitated by the colonization scheme adopted by the state legislature of Coahuila-Texas in 1825. 88 Under this law, certain persons designated as empresarios could contract with the state government to settle a number of families on vacant lands in the state, the head of each family receiving from the government one league of grazing land or one labor of agricultural land, or both, 89 and the empresario receiving five leagues and five labors for each one hundred families introduced through his efforts, provided he did not receive the premium on more than eight hundred families 90 The price paid for this land by immigrants was $30 for a league and $2.50 to $3.50 for a labor. 91 It is at once evident that such offers to a people imbued with the spirit of land-getting would not lack takers, if the land were of any value at all, and these lands were for the most part extraordinarily rich.
Stephen F. Austin was the most successful empresario. He introduced over twelve hundred families. “His colony was the predominant element of Anglo-American Texas, and he the foremost figure among the colonists.” 92 The new population was located along the lower courses of the rivers between the Sabine and the Nueces, and for the most part south and east of the old San Antonio Road, which connected Béjar with Nacogdoches.
A most significant fact in the colonization of Texas was the political status of the colonies. Aside from a general oath of allegiance to the Mexican federal and state governments, required of every male colonist, each of the colonies was practically independent in the management of its local affairs. It is obvious that this fact offered opportunity for serious trouble in case any race antagonism should develop. Such antagonism did develop, and, combined with other circumstances, engendered in the minds of the Mexican people angry suspicions as to the designs of the United States upon the province. It needs to be noted that the Mexican statesmen who framed the colonization policy, if not aware of the inevitableness of such suspicions, were yet by no means blind to their possibility, as is evidenced in a clause of the federal law of August 18, 1824, which reads as follows: “Prior to the year 1840, the general congress shall not prohibit the introduction of foreigners for the purpose of colonization, unless imperious circumstances make it neecssary to do so with respect to the individuals of some particular nation.” 93
1. The Fredonian Rebellion.—It was hardly to have been expected that all the empresarios who attempted to settle families in Texas would be men of tact and far-sighted judgment, and it was to be expected that the empresarios lacking these qualities would not find trouble avoiding him, since there were earlier settlers scattered throughout the sections chosen for colonization. Hayden Edwards was the man who first became involved in a serious difficulty arising from this cause. The story of his misfortune and political disagreements, ending in armed rebellion against the Mexican government and his final expulsion from the province, is too well known to need reciting here. The point that concerns us is the attitude of Edwards's fellow-colonists and that of the federal authorities toward his movement. Dr. Garrison says. 94
The rising . . . met with little encouragement. It was only in Edwards's colony that there appeared just then to be any occasion for it, and the general mass of Anglo-Americans had little interest in the quarrels of the local factions at Nacogdoches. In Austin's colony there had been up to this time no serious friction with the Mexican authorities, and the sentiment of gratitude and loyalty towards Mexico in that quarter was strong. Had Austin been moved by this feeling less than he was, it would have been easy for him, looking at the matter from a business standpoint, to see that the Fredonian outbreak threatened ruin to the work of the empresarios. Farther than this, the Fredonians were in alliance with the Indians, whom he and his colonists had good reason to dread. His mind, therefore, was quickly made up. He took strong ground against the insurrection, using his influence to suppress it, and sending a considerable detachment of militia from his colony with the Mexican troops who marched to put it down.
This was accomplished with comparatively little difficulty in January of 1827, and the Fredonian Rebellion became a thing of memory only. But the seed of suspicion had been sown.
This was the first tangible incident calculated to stimulate racial distrust. In spite of the fact that the rebellion had been easily suppressed and the offenders expelled, Mexico might easily have made the inquiry, “What of the North Americans who did not join this time?” It is not likely that intelligent Mexicans saw in Austin's loyal attitude more than a shrewd business foresight. Whether or not at that time they regarded the uprising as inspired from abroad, it is hard to say; but it was not long until they began to see in it a conspiracy on the part of the United States to acquired Texas by insidious means. Lieutenant Tarnava, in a report regarding the Texas question, made at the instance of General Terán to the Minister of War, in January, 1830, uses the following language: 95 “General Terán does not doubt that the United States will carry out their project of possessing Texas at the first opportunity, which opportunity will be as soon as they think we are torn by civil strife—a consideration which should not be lost sight of for one moment; either they would incite the American population to revolt, as they tried to do in 1826 at Nacogdoches, 96 or else they would openly use force to support their pretended claims.”
2. Attempts of the United States to Purchase Texas.—This suspicion of a conspiracy, however slight it may have been in 1826, was confirmed and increased by the evident desire of the United States to possess Texas, a desire repeatedly emphasized in the instructions issued to her diplomatic agents in Mexico during the administrations of John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, for the desire had not ceased to exist with the legal adjustment of the boundary at the Sabine by the Treaty of Onis in 1819. The relinquishment of Texas at that time was acquiesced in most reluctantly by Adams, the Secretary of State, and shortly after he became president in 1825 he began negotiations for the purchase of all or a part of the territory between the Sabine and the Rio Grande. Poinsett, the agent of the United States in Mexico, after feeling the ground, counselled delay. But in 1827 he was instructed by the state department at Washington to offer Mexico one million dollars for the territory between the Sabine and the Rio Grande, extending westward to the Pecos and north to the Arakansas; if this much could not be secured, he was to offer five hundred thousand for a boundary at the Colorado. Mexico not only had no intention of accepting these offers, but became alarmed and demanded the recognition of the line of 1819 as the condition of any commercial treaty between herself and the United States. The United States acceded to this condition, but the offers to purchase were not permanently discontinued, Poinsett's successor reopening them in 1829-30.
Clay, in his instruction to Poinsett in 1827, had suggested as a possible argument to be used in the negotiations that the continued settlement in Mexican territory of Anglo-Americans, who bore with them the political principles of their own nation, must inevitably lead to friction. Poinsett was wise enough not to advance this idea, but it certainly occurred to the Mexican leaders, and they magnified its significance. The possible transfer of Texas to the United States was being written and spoken about freely in the North, and Mexico was by no means uninformed of what was discussed in the papers of the United States.
The following extracts will serve to indicate the interest the subject had aroused in the United States. A friend of Austin wrote from Lexington, Kentucky, in the fall of 1829: 97
I am sorry to perceive that Mexico is again exposed to foreign war as well as intestine divisions. We are all anxious to purchase Texas from Mexico and the subject is beginning to excite a great deal of warm discussion in our public prints. If Mexico will dispose of it on reasonable terms, I believe our government will no doubt be glad to obtain it, and I am sure it will meet the almost universal desire of our citizens. The consequences to the holders of property in Texas would be very important and it would promote the happiness and prosperity of all the citizens of the province. A great many citizens of Kentucky would move to your settlement instantly if it were under our government.
About the same time a Texas colonist, then on a visit “back home,” wrote from Nashville: 98
The prosperity of your colony . . . has now become a leading topic in conversation and one of the most interesting subjects of discussion in the political papers. A strong and simultaneous effort is at this moment making from the one end of the country to the other to induce this government to purchase it. I incline to the belief that if the Mexican government will sell this government will buy. But in December of this same year David G. Burnet wrote from Cincinnati 99 that newspaper discussion of the purchase of Texas had abated, since Poinsett's conduct had made him too unpopular to negotiate a treaty. This was quite true as to Poinsett's position in Mexico; in fact, he had already been recalled, to be succeeded by Colonel Anthony Butler, who, however, as events proved, was a less fit representative of the United States government than Poinsett had been. In January, 1830, John Austin, a citizen of Texas, but at that time in the United States, wrote from New York 100 that he was assured by “credible authorities” that purchase was hopeful, that the subject was being discussed by the English papers, and that Mexico was seemingly disposed to friendliness with the United States.
All of this interest and discussion were doubtless well known in Mexico, and when it is remembered that in addition to this the chargé of the United States was broaching the subject at every opportunity, it is no wonder that Mexico began to see evidence of a sinister design in the persistent desire of her neighbor to possess Texas. She feared that what the United States could not obtain by negotiation she might try to take by force. This fear is repeatedly expressed in the letters of General Terán, who was at this time comandante general of the Eastern States, with headquarters in Tamaulipas. He was in close touch with Texas affairs from 1827 until his death in 1832, and his observations and reports are the most reliable source of information on the Texas question, as seen by Mexican eyes, during this period.
But if we are to take Austin at his word, the Texans of intelligence had no desire to see Texas transferred to the United States. The first expression that I have seen from Austin on this subject is in a letter to his sister, Mrs. Perry, and her husband, written in March, 1830. He is urging them to emigrate to Texas at once: 101
Pay no attention to rumors and silly reports, but push on as fast as possible. We have nothing to fear from this govt. nor from any other quarter except from the United States of the North. If that Govt. should get hold of us and introduce its land system, etc., thousands who are now on the move, and have not yet secured their titles, would be totally ruined. The greatest misfortune that could befall Texas at this moment would be a sudden change by which any of the emigrants would be thrown upon the liberality of the Congress of the United States of the North. Theirs would be a most forlorn hope. I have no idea of any change unless it be effected by arbitrary force, and I have too much confidence in the magnanimity of my native country to suppose that its Govt. would resort to that mode of extending its already unwieldy frame over the territory of its friend and neighbor and sister republic.
On the following day, apparently alarmed by “rumors and silly reports” of the approach of troops from the Rio Grande—rumors evidently too well founded of Terán's expedition, then on the way—Austin was moved to write a lengthy letter to the political chief at Béjar, 102 in which he repeated and amplified the views expressed in the letter to his relatives. He takes up at some length the unconstitutionality of the sale of Texas by the federal government of Mexico, declaring that under the law of August 18, 1824—
The national government cannot give title to one single individual for even one vara of public land in the state; how then can it sell all the lands to a foreign power? . . . One of the objects of the Government of the North in seeking to acquire Texas is to derive revenue from the sale of our public lands, and if we should be transferred to that government without the previous necessary guarantees, many individuals who have received concessions under the old government and under this would lose their lands under the pretext of not having complied with each trivial detail of the grant. . . . It is my duty to inform you as my political chief of the public opinion here concerning a particular of such grave importance to all the inhabitants of Texas and of so much interest to the government, for it is possible that in Mexico they might believe that the new colonists desire to be transferred to the Government of the North, and influenced by this mistaken belief, they might perhaps take some step very injurious to Texas and the true interests of the State of Coahuila and Texas and all the nation. The new colonists desire no such thing, nor would they in any manner consent to a transfer to the Government of the North without the greatest number of previous guarantees.
This letter is particularly interesting as coming at this date, since the “injurious step” was, as we shall see, already framed and was actually passed by the Mexican congress and published less than ten days after Austin wrote Musquiz. One is led to suspect that the “rumors and silly reports” had disquieted Austin more than he felt disposed to admit, and that he wrote to Musquiz, whom he knew to be politically his friend, in the hope of forestalling the injurious measure.
3. The Question of Slavery.—Many of the English-speaking settlers in Texas were slaveholders. Some had been so when they emigrated to the new country and others found it to their advantage to acquire slaves after arriving in Texas. There were two reasons for this. Frontier conditions do not furnish a numerous or cheap wage-earning class, yet cheap labor is essential at such a time. Slaves were practically a necessity for the profitable cultivation of the land in Texas. In the second place, it is not likely that Mexican and Indian labor, even had it been available and cheap, would have been readily adopted by the Anglo-American settlers. The indolence and sensitive pride of the Mexican constituted a combination that made him undesirable as a laborer.
However, the Mexican nation early set its stamp of disapproval on negro slavery, though the existing laws on this subject at the time when colonization began from the United States were somewhat ambiguous. The state constitution of Coahuila-Texas, adopted in March, 1827, 103 declared that from that date no person could be born a slave in the state, and that after six months no introduction of slaves should take place under any pretext whatever. Had this decree been enforced literally, it would have seriously retarded the development of Texas. The colonists evaded it by taking advantage of a law passed May 5, 1828, 104 which recognized the legality of contracts made between master and servant prior to arrival in Texas. The emigrant settler thus merely took the trouble to make a practically non-terminable contract with his slaves before he crossed the Sabine. 105 Under this arrangement, colonization went on uninterruptedly, so far as slavery was concerned, for two more years. In view of Mexico's system of peonage, in some ways undoubtedly worse than avowed slavery, it is evident that it was the name rather than the institution to which she objected. But whether her attitude was consistent, or merely a gross oversight of the beam in her own eye while looking for the mote in her neighbor's eye, was a question that did not affect her feelings toward the actual fact of slavery in Texas. It was a constant source of irritation to her that, in spite of repeated laws on the subject, the English-speaking colonists of the northern province continued to hold their black slaves, and the semblance of legality afforded by the state law cited served only to deepen the irritation.
General Terán, in a letter to President Guadalupe Victoria, written from Nacogdoches in 1828, 106 says: “If these laws [abolishing slavery] should be repealed—which God forbid—in a few years Texas would be a powerful state which could compete in wealth and productions with Louisiana.” General Terán's observations on the situation in Texas in 1828 are not only keen and intelligent, but doubly interesting from the fact that he is inclined to respect, if not even to admire, the Anglo-American colonists as a whole. In the words just quoted he implies his personal disapproval of slavery as an institution—a disapproval expressed in no uncertain terms elsewhere in the letter—but he is at the same time able to grasp the economic importance of the institution. In another passage of the same letter he points out two sources of danger from these slaveholding citizens. He says that they are impatient of the restraint placed upon the development of Texas by antislavery laws, and that they are also annoyed at the effect of such legislation on the attitude of the slaves themselves. Just how far the last observation may be true—and Terán was but newly arrived in the province—and how much weight to attach to it if true, are matters open to question; but that the Mexican leaders saw in the rigid prohibition of slavery a weapon with which to strike at Anglo-American immigration and influence is evidenced in the renewed attack on the institution in 1829.
When Guerrero was invested with dictatorial powers in that year, those of the Mexican leaders who were especially desirous of seeing Anglo-American colonization cut short induced him to issue a decree unequivocally abolishing slavery throughout the republic, the measure to take effect on the date of publication, September 15, 1829. 107 Such radical action naturally stirred up the Texans the more, since it was evident that it was aimed directly at the Anglo-American colonists, who alone held slaves in any considerable number. The decree was never officially published in Texas, and was withdrawn, so far as that state was concerned, in less than two months after its passage. Mr. Bugbee, in his article on slavery in Texas cited above, says that a simultaneous impulse seems to have moved a number of Texas authorities to protest against the application of the decree to Texas, and that their efforts through the governor of Coahuila were sufficient to secure this end in December, 1829. But while Austin's first knowledge of the decree seems to have come from the political chief at Béjar in a letter dated October 29, 108 wherein the political chief states that the copy of the decree has but just arrived, on November 20 Terán wrote Austin, 109 from Tampico, saying that he had been authorized by the president to exempt Texas from the decree of September 15, 1829, in all except the importation of slaves, and suggesting that it would be unnecessary to publish the decree in Texas. Whether or not this action of the president was in response to remonstrances already received from the state authorities of Coahuila and Texas cannot be stated, but if so it was unusually prompt action for political authorities in Mexico.
There is some ground for believing that Terán himself may have been instrumental in holding up the measure. Austin in his answer to Terán's letter thanks him for his offices in securing the favor from the president. Also, Alaman, in his Iniciativa of February 8, 110 1830, says: “Such is the independence enjoyed by the North American colonists, and to such a point have the privileges awarded them borne fruit, that when the decree of September 15 of last year abolishing slavery was issued, in accordance with dictatorial powers, the commander of the frontier of that state declared that he could not hope to see such a decree obeyed unless it should be enforced by a larger military force than he then had.” 111
4. The General Character of the Two Races.—There are fundamental differences between the Mexican and American races which even today make amicable joint occupation of a territory difficult. This is true even where cultured and intelligent members of both nations come in contact. Mutual understanding seems, generally speaking, to be confined to individual instances, of which the number is not surprisingly large. On the contrary, prejudice on each side is deeply rooted. In the case of Texas this race antagonism developed very shortly after Anglo-American settlement began, and frontier conditions were calculated to nourish it. Mexico has never had an emigrant class in the sense in which that term is applied to the European and Anglo-American. The impulse behind the emigration of those races is the desire to better conditions of living and to acquire homes at a cheaper price. Mexican emigration has been of a more casual and purposeless nature. There were a few Mexicans of the better class in Texas, but they were for the most part living in or near San Antonio de Béjar and Goliad. While relatively few of the Anglo-Americans who came to the new colonies were cultured, at least they were generally honest and industrious and came with the intention of making homes in the new country. One of the requirements of empresario contracts was that each colonist should furnish a certificate of good moral character, and this requirement was fairly well observed.
The attitude of the two races toward law and political institutions was essentially different through centuries of different political training. The one race, in all its history, had known only primitive chief-rule and Spanish military despotism, while the other was the heir of not only the traditions but the actual results of political freedom centuries old. The outward form and terminology of the local colonial governments was Mexican, and they were subject in the higher courts to the legal procedure of the adopted country, but the spirit of the local administration was the spirit of the country which had given these colonists birth. Dr. Garrison says: 112
The crossing of the Sabine had wrought no change in the character of the Anglo-Americans. They were, like any band of men gathered by their own choice to participate in such an enterprise, the hardiest and most adventurous among the law-abiding element of their kind, being especially difficult to govern by any method which they did not themselves approve. They kept their own institutions, slavery included; and this they did with the greater freedom because the centers of superior governmental authority and power were far away, and the forces emanating therefrom were too weak at such a distance either to lead or drive the Texas settlers along the Mexican way. Free speech, popular elections, and practical self-government became the rule in Austin's colony from the beginning. The merest tyro in history or political science should have been able to see in the situation the essential elements of revolution.
1. The Boundary Commission, 1827-1828.—Mexican leaders very shortly realized that they had, as Bancroft expressed it, “overshot the mark in their liberal policy” of colonization. The Fredonian Rebellion opened their eyes to the dangers of the situation, and by the fall of 1827 it was decided to send to Texas a commissioner to inspect conditions, though this part of his mission was apparently secret, his ostensible purpose being the location of the boundary between the United States and Mexico, made necessary by a new boundary treaty at that time under negotiation. The man chosen for this mission was General Manuel Mier y Terán, 113 then one of the ablest men in Mexico. He was eminently qualified for the task, and from this time until his death in 1832, every important act of the government in relation to Texas is directly traceable to him, except the emancipation decree of September 15, 1829, and, as was shown above, there are grounds for believing that the immediate withdrawal of that was due to his influence. Consequently, it is necessary to follow in detail the history of Terán's connection with Texas, beginning with his appointment as chief of the boundary commission.
Unfortunately, it has not been possible to find a copy of Terán's instructions, and hence the statement that the inspection of the colonies was a prime object of his mission is inferential. First, a word as to the need of such an inspection. It was only a few months since the Fredonian rebellion. In June of 1827 Colonel Piedras had been stationed at Nacogdoches with three hundred troops, a measure which Filisola regards as excellent but inadequate, since it served only to alarm the colonists without intimidating them. 114 The probability is that Piedras's reports were disquieting, for he seems to have been personally obnoxious to the colonists from the beginning of his administration, 115 and friction at that point was frequent. In addition to this, the federal authorities had little confidence in the state authorities of Coahuila-Texas. 116 Alaman, in his Iniciativa of February, 1830, says that the congress of Coahuila-Texas had been so negligent that “if General Terán had not visited the department in the discharge of the commission to survey the boundary—and to whom is due practically all the information that has been obtained—we would have seen Texas unexpectedly wrested from the Mexican Federation without our even knowing by what means we had lost it.”
Terán received his appointment in September, 1827, evidently receiving his instructions prior to the tenth, for on that date he wrote the minister of relations that he should like more specific instructions on various points, and that in regard to the investigation of colonization contracts held by land companies in the United States he naturally could not hope to get very accurate information. 117 Two days later the minister, in a very brief letter, furnished a part of the new instructions, and added this paragraph. 118 “Further, the government desires that your excellency in passing beyond the frontiers which we actually hold, will report whether or not there is any necessity for fortifying any points along the same for the necessity of the interior, once the exact boundary is established.” It is not likely that this refers to the Sabine boundary, since the paragraph preceding the one quoted deals with proposed fortifications along “the new division line.” It seem rather to be a hint to Terán to investigate the need of new military posts in Texas itself.
The commission left Mexico City on November 14, 1827, and reached Béjar on March 10, 1828, having passed through Saltillo, Monterey and Laredo. At the last named place they were met by General Bustamante, at that time comandante general of the Eastern States, and he accompanied them to Béjar. 119 This is worth noting for the reason that it was immediately after Bustamante's installation as president of the republic that Téran's plans for the “saving of Texas” reached fruition in the Decree of April 6. From this time until Téran's death in Bustamante's cause the political and personal friendship of these two men was of the closest.
From Béjar Terán proceeded with comparative leisure to Nacogdoches, spending some time in Austin's colony, and from that visit also dates a fairly intimate friendship with Austin that was apparently sincere on both sides, if allowance is made for the difference in opinion as to the political needs of Texas. 120 It is true that Terán was far from frank with Austin concerning his recommendations to the government but it must be admitted that as Terán saw the situation, such frankness would have defeated what he deemed, so far as Mexico was concerned, an urgent political necessity.
From Nacogdoches Terán wrote a long personal letter to President Guadalupe Victoria, 121 which is here given somewhat fully, because of the information that it gives concerning social conditions, and because its suggestions influenced the attitude of the federal government during the next four years and had much to do with the policy which culminated in the decree of April 6, 1830:
... As one covers the distance from Béjar to this town, he will note that Mexican influence is proportionately diminished until on arriving in this place he will see that it is almost nothing. And indeed, whence could such influence come? Hardly from superior numbers in population, since the ratio of Mexicans to foreigners is one to ten; certainly not from the superior character of the Mexican population, for exactly the opposite is true, the Mexicans of this town comprising what in all countries is called the lowest class—the very poor and very ignorant. The naturalized North Americans in the twon maintain an English school, and send their children north for further education; the poor Mexicans not only do not have sufficient means to establish schools, but they are not of the type that take any thought for the improvement of its public institutions or the betterment of its degraded condition. Neither are there civil authorities or magistrates; one insignificant little man—not to say more—who is called an alcalde, and an ayuntamiento that does not convene once is a lifetime is the most that we have here at this important point on our frontier; yet, wherever I have looked, in the short time that I have been here, I have witnessed grave occurrences, both political and judicial. It would cause you the same chagrin that it has caused me to see the opinion that is held of our nation by these foreign colonists, since, with the exception of some few who have journeyed to our capital, they know no other Mexicans than the inhabitants about here, and excepting the authorities necessary to any form of society, the said inhabitants are the most ignorant of negroes and Indians, among whom I pass for a man of culture. Thus, I tell myself that it could not be otherwise than that from such a state of affairs should arise an antagonism between the Mexicans and foreigners, which is not the least of the smoldering fires which I have discovered. Therefore, I am warning you to take timely measures. Texas could throw the whole nation into revolution.
The colonists murmur against the political disorganization of the frontier, and the Mexicans complain of the superiority and better education of the colonists; the colonists find it unendurable that they must go three hundred leagues to lodge a complaint against the petty pickpocketing that they suffer from a venal and ignorant alcalde, and the Mexicans with no knowledge of the laws of their own country, nor those regulating colonization, set themselves against the foreigners, deliberately setting nets to deprive them of the right of franchise and to exclude them from the ayuntamiento. Meanwhile, the incoming stream of new settlers is unceasing; the first news of these comes by discovering them on land already under cultivation, where they have been located for many months; the old inhabitants set up a claim to the property, basing their titles of doubtful priority, and for which there are no records, on a law of the Spanish government; and thus arises a lawsuit in which the alcalde has a chance to come out with some money. In this state of affairs, the town where there are no magistrates is the one in which lawsuits abound, and it is at once evident that in Nacogdoches and its vicinity, being most distant from the seat of the general government, the primitive order of things should take its course, which is to say that this section is being settled up without the consent of anybody.
The majority of the North Americans established here under the Spanish government—and these are few—are of two classes. First, those who are fugitives from our neighbor republic and bear the unmistakable earmarks of thieves and criminals; these are located between Nacogdoches and the Sabine, ready to cross and recross this river as they see the necessity of separating themselves from the country in which they have just committed some crime; however, some of these have reformed and settled down to an industrious life in the new country. The other class of early settlers are poor laborers who lack the four or five thousand dollars necessary to buy a sitio of land in the north, but having the ambition to become landholders—one of the strong virtues of our neighbors—have come to Texas. Of such as this latter class is Austin's colony composed. They are for the most part industrious and honest, and appreciate this country. Most of them own at least one or two slaves. Unfortunately the emigration of such is made under difficulties, because they lack the means of transportation, and to accomplish this emigration it has become necessary to do what was not necessary until lately: there are empresarios of wealth who advance them the means for their transportation and establishment.
The wealthy Americans of Louisiana and other western states are anxious to secure land in Texas for speculation, but they are restrained by the laws prohibiting slavery. If these laws should be repealed—which God forbid—in a few years Téxas would be a powerful state which could compete in productions and wealth with Louisiana. The repeal of these laws is a point toward which the colonists are directing their efforts. They have already succeeded in getting from the Congress of Coahuila a law very favorable to their prosperity: the state government has declared that it will recognize contracts made with servants before coming to this country, and the colonists are thus assured of the employment of ample labor, which can be secured at a very low price in the United States. This law, according to the explanation made to me by several, is going to be interpreted as equivalent to permission to introduce slaves.
In spite of the enmity that usually exists between the Mexicans and the foreigners, there is a most evident uniformity of opinion on one point, namely the separation of Texas from Coahuila and its organization into a territory of the federal government. This idea, which was conceived by some of the colonists who are above the average, has become general among the people and does not fail to cause considerable discussion. In explaining the reasons assigned by them for this demand, I shall do no more than relate what I have heard with no addition of my own conclusions, and I frankly state that I have been commissioned by some of the colonists to explain to you their motives, notwithstanding the fact that I should have done so anyway in the fulfillment of my duty.
They claim that Texas in its present condition of a colony is an expense, since it is not a sufficiently prosperous section to contribute to the revenues of the state administration; and since it is such a charge it ought not to be imposed upon a state as poor as Coahuila, which has not the means of defraying the expenses of the corps of political and judicial officers necessary for the maintenance of peace and order. Furthermore, it is impracticable that recourse in all matters should be had to a state capital so distant and separated from this section by deserts infected by hostile savages. Again, their interests are very different from those of the other sections, and because of this they should be governed by a separate territorial government, having learned by experience that the mixing of their affairs with those of Coahuila brings about friction. The native inhabitants of Texas add to the above other reasons which indicate an aversion for the inhabitants of Coahuila; also the authority of the comandante and the collection of taxes is disputed.
That which most impressed me in view of all these conditions is the necessity of effective government in Nacogdoches at least, since it is the frontier with which the Republic is most in contact. Every officer of the federal government has immense districts under his jurisdiction, and to distribute these effectively it is necessary to give attention to economy as well as to government and security. The whole population here is a mixture of strange and incoherent parts without parallel in our federation: numerous tribes of Indians, now at peace, but armed and at any moment ready for war, whose steps toward civilization should be taken under the close supervision of a strong and intelligent government; colonists of another people, more progressive and better informed than the Mexican inhabitants, but also more shrewd and unruly; among these foreigners are fugitives from justice, honest laborers, vagabonds and criminals, but honorable and dishonorable alike travel with their political constitution in their pockets, demanding the privileges, authority and officers which such a constitution guarantees. The most of them have slaves, and these slaves are beginning to learn the favorable intent of the Mexican law toward their unfortunate condition and are becoming restless under their yoke, and the masters, in the effort to retain them, are making that yoke even heavier; they extract their teeth, set on the dogs to tear them in pieces, the most lenient being he who but flogs his slaves until they are flayed.
In short, the growing population, its unusual class, the prosperity and safety of the nation, all seem to me to demand the placing at this point of a jefe politico subordinate to the one at Béjar, and also a court of appeals. This done, I do not believe so radical a step as the separation of Texas from Coahuila, now desired by the inhabitants, would be necessary.
I must ask your forbearance for this long letter, but I desire to forward to you at once my observations of this country and not withhold them until the day when I make full report to the government, for fear the time for remedy will be past.
The preliminary report on the boundary had been made on April 8, 1828. 122 On August 2 Terán sent to the governor of Coahuila a copy of the Natchitoches Courier containing a refrence to a recent colonization contract, which, if authentic, he said, was a violation of the colonization laws. 123 On October 14 he was still at Nacogdoches and wrote the war department a most urgent request for supplies for the frontier garrisons, whose miserable condition he declared the minister could not even imagine; he also declared that this condition was due to the neglect of the federal government, which had repeatedly been advised of the state of affairs. He reminded the minister that if the matter were not attended to before December the roads would be impassible. 124 From these citations it will be seen that Terán was acting as a general inspector of the colonies.
2. Preparations for a Military Occupation of Texas, 1829-1830.—What may have been Terán's activities during the winter of 1828-1829 is not shown by the available correspondence. Filisola says that the entire boundary commission left Texas early in 1829, going to Matamoras; 125 and from there Terán wrote Austin on March 12, 1829, 126 concerning an exploration of the coast. Shortly after this he evidently visited Texas again, for on May 29 he wrote Austin from Nacogdoches, saying that he would soon leave that place for Béjar. 127
Just what Terán's plans were in regard to Texas it is hard to gather from the meager correspondence available; but it seems clear that the initial step was to be the strengthening of the garrisons already in the province. Whatever general plans he may have formulated were facilitated by events in Mexico during the fall of 1829. In April Bustamante had become vice-president, and his place as comandante general of the Eastern States had been taken by Felipe de la Garza. In September the Spanish invaders landed at Tampico, and General Santa Anna, in command of the Mexican forces which gathered to oppose them, sent De la Garza on a special mission to the capital, and promoted Terán to the latter's place as second in command. 128 After the victory over the Spanish, Terán became officially comandante general of the Eastern States. This appointment meant much to his plans for Texas, and he forthwith set to work to handle the Texas question. He wrote the war department, recommending the division of the Eastern States into two military districts, the one to consist of Tamaulipas and Nuevo León, the other of Coahuila-Texas. 129 He believed that a center of military control nearer the settled portion of Texas would enable the comandante to handle that province much more effectively than was possible under the existing organization. He renewed this recommendation in February, 1830, but was then told that the government preferred to leave the district as it was, with him in charge of all. 130 About a month later, however, the division was apparently made by Congress. 131
The next letter that I find from Terán concerning Texas was written to the Minister of War on November 14, 1829. His acquaintance with Texas since writing to President Victoria in June, 1828, had made him more suspicious of the aims of the United States and less confident of the loyalty of the colonists to Mexico. After setting forth the importance of Texas to the federal government and the danger to which it was exposed, lying as it did in the direct path of the westward march of the United States, he entered into a vehement philippic against the expansion policy of that country:
Instead of armies, battles, or invasions, which make a great noise and for the most part are unsuccessful, these men lay hands on means, which, if considered one by one, would be rejected as slow, ineffective, and at times palpably absurd. They begin by assuming rights, as in Texas, which it is impossible to sustain in a serious discussion, making ridiculous pretensions based on historical incidents which no one admits—such as the voyage of La Salle, which was an absurd fiasco, but serves as a basis for their claim to Texas. Such extravagant claims as these are now being presented for the first time to the public by dissembling writers; the efforts that others make to submit proofs and reasons are by these men employed in reiterations and in enlarging upon matters of administration in order to attract the attention of their fellow-countrymen, not to the justice of the claim, but to the profit to be gained from admitting it. At this stage, it is alleged that there is a national demand for the step which the government mediates. In the meantime, the territory against which these machinations are directed, and which has usually remained unsettled, begins to be visited by adventurers and empresarios; some of these take up their residence in the country, pretending that their location has no bearing upon the question of their government's claim or the boundary disputes; shortly, some of these forerunners develop an interest which complicates the political administration of the coveted territory; complaints, even threats, begin to be heard, working on the loyalty of the legitimate settlers, discrediting the efficiency of the existing authority and administration; and the matter having arrived at this stage—which is precisely that of Texas at this moment—diplomatic manoeuvres begin. . . . He who consents to or does not oppose the loss of Texas is an execrable traitor who ought to be punished with death. . . .
If war should break out, it would be expedient to suppress it in a single campaign—a less expensive method than to be always on the defensive. But even this would be useless until a colony of one thousand native Mexican families is planted there, an economical measure when it is remembered that the funds spent once in establishing a colony would be spent many times in maintaining garrisons.
This suggestion for counter-colonization of Texas with Mexican families will be considered later. Just now we are more concerned with the plans for the military expedition. In this same letter Terán acknowledged receipt of a “supreme order” of October 28, concerning “an expedition for the defense of the territory of Texas”—no doubt against the designs of the United States. 132 He accompanied his letter, therefore, by a report of the same date, marked “very private,” showing the military condition of his comandancia, and indicating what must be done in carrying out the expedition:
The Twelfth Batallion of infantry contains 150 men. It is on duty at Nacogdoches, and should be increased to 500 men; to do this, it will be necessary to make use of the contingents of deserters from the states of San Luis, Guanaxuato, and Zacatecas, or else make a levy on the regular troops. It would not be wise to relieve the Twelfth, for the reason that if another batallion were sent, even though it should set out with more than the full enrollment, it would arrive in the same condition as the Twelfth and have to be re-enforced.
The Ninth Regiment of cavalry has 250 men fit for duty; its full complement is urgently needed. The duty of this regiment is a continuous activity in Tamaulipas and Texas. There are on hand arms and equipment for the full number. The members who have survived are acclimated and familiar with the country, and can be depended upon; wherefore, it would be more practicable to fill out this body than to send another.
The Eleventh Batallion of infantry, with 100 men, more or less, remains on guard in the Port of Tampico de Tamaulipas; if it is not raised to its full number, its effectiveness as a guard will be of small account, a danger to the safety of one of our most important seaports. To lessen the utter uselessness of this body, I have detained here the Tenth Infantry; but it should be at the rear, becoming acclimated in Victoria; for to station it at once in Tampico will be to lose those still surviving. It has 150 men reported as fit for duty, but the truth is, all are sick.
The town of Matamoras is a most important maritime point; yet it lacks the most ordinary defence; wherefore, it seems necessary to form a company of coast guards numbering 150 men, who shall constitute a part of the infantry militia, and in addition to this a body of 40 artillerymen of the same class [i. e., militia]. These bodies can easily be raised in the department of the north [Texas]. This matter is so urgent that extraordinary powers should be conferred upon the president for the purpose of its execution. It is wholly in accordance with his plans.
At the same time that the garrison of Nacogdoches and the regular troops of Béxar and La Bahía are being put in good condition, there should be placed at Béxar a batallion—which I suggest should be the Ninth or some other of not less than 500,—and also a squadron with two field pieces. This unusual reënforcement, most urgent at this moment, would yet be sufficient to cut short all those intrigues by which the Department of Texas is undeniably agitated. To avoid desertion, the above mentioned batallion [the Ninth] should embark at Vera Cruz and land at Matamoras, where I will await it to conduct it to Béxar. It might be well to make some stir over this movement, letting it appear that it is an expedition of 500 or 600 men, or more, if the truth be known, from San Luis and Guanaxuato to Texas; perhaps by such means the conclusion of the treaty [with the United States] may be hastened. 133
The chief purpose of placing more troops in Texas was, as Terán expressed it, “to cut short those intrigues by which the department of Texas is undeniably agitated.”
Preparations for the expedition were temporarily interrupted in December by the revolution that placed Bustamante in the presidential chair; but the ultimate result of this change—after the new government was settled—was decidedly favorable to the Texas project. Bustamante, besides being the personal and political friend of Terán, had but recently himself been comandante general of the Eastern States, and he gave Terán his support, as did the young minister of relations, Lucas Alamán. It was not, however, until the middle of January, 1830 that the Bustamante government was fully established in Tamaulipas. 134 Additional delay was occasioned by the opposition of General Felipe de la Garza, whom Terán had succeeded a few months before. Terán complained that he threw every possible stumbling block in the way of the expedition, even to the extent of trying to incite the troops to mutiny. 135 The minister of war responded on February 15 with an order to De la Garza, whose official position at this time is not clear, “to do all in his power to encourage the disaffected troops to be ready to start upon the expedition to Texas”; and “to notify the Supreme Government of any difficulty in executing federal orders, a difficulty that might result in great danger to the welfare of the Republic.” 136 But before this was received by De la Garza Terán had begun his march northward. 137 At San Fernando he was again forced to wait, but before discussing this delay, it will be necessary to go back a little in the course of events.
During the winter months of 1829, Terán had been preparing an exhaustive report on the Texas question, setting forth the existing conditions and his ideas of the remedy necessary. This report 138 was presented to the government on January 6, 1830, by Constantino Tarnava, an aide of Terán's. It embraces military and political recommendations, and it is with the former that we are now concerned.
Declaring that “it is as necessary to counteract the influence of the majority of the population [in Texas] as it is to curb the claims of our neighbors,” and emphasizing the helpless condition of the province, defended only by the weak and widely separated garrisons at Nacogdoches, Béjar, and La Bahía, the report presents a number of recommendations which may be briefly tabulated as follows:
(1) The removal to the Nueces of several companies of troops now on the Rio Grande; (2) the establishment of a strong and permanent garrison at the main crossing of the Brazos river, that there may be an intermediate force in the unsettled region separating Nacogdoches and Béxar; (3) the re-enforcement of the existing garrisons by troops of infantry properly belonging to them; (4) the occupation and fortification of some point above Galveston Bay, and another at the mouth of the Brazos, for the purpose of controlling the colonists; (5) the organization of a mobile force, equipped for sudden and rapid marches to a threatened point; (6) and finally, the establishment of communications by sea, such being more prompt and less expensive than by land.
The presentation of this report was opportunely timed. The Bustamante government, just inaugurated, seized the chance to popularize itself by vigorous measures against the supposed designs of the United States. Lucas Alaman, the young and zealous minister of relations, became at once the champion of Terán's program, and during the next three months pushed it with such effect that by the end of the first week in April, Congress had approved every recommendation that it contained.
On January 30 the minister of war notified Terán that the supplies and recruits that he had requested for the Tenth Infantry and Ninth Cavalry in the private report of November 14 would be sent at once to Matamoras. 139 A week later he was notified that the governors of Guadalajara, Guanajuato, Zacatecas, and Durango were ordered to send re-enforcements for him immediately to Monterey. 140 When they arrived he was to distribute them as he saw fit among the Eleventh and Twelfth Infantry and the Ninth Cavalry. At the end of another week, the minister wrote that the demand on the governors for troops was being repeated, and “his excellency the vice-president hopes that your known ability and patriotism will move you to the immediate execution of your plan to simultaneously occupy the points of Béjar and La Bahía del Espiritu Santo before the disloyal colonists rise in revolt and possess themselves of the said points; but at the same time do not lose sight of the safety of Matamoras, a highly important point in case the enemy should attempt an invasion by way of the tributary Santiago.” 141
On February 16 Alaman asked the minister of war for a statement of the troops destined for Texas, and the minister's reply of the next day showed a total of 2965 intended for the expedition. 142 As a matter of fact, however, this number was never at Terán's disposal. Most of the States were slow in complying with the orders, and the governor of Zacatecas refused outright, declaring that the federal government could not constitutionally order militia of one state to do service in another. 143
At the same time that the governor of Zacatecas was thus protesting, Terán wrote from San Fernando 144 that though he had learned through private letters of the favorable action of the government upon every recommendation contained in his report of January 6, he had received no official instructions that would enable him to order out the reënforcements being gathered at Monterey, or to provide the necessary funds for the expedition. He begged that this delinquency be called to the attention of the vice-president, for, in his own opinion, “not one moment should now be lost.”
Some time about the middle of March Terán advanced to Matamoras, where he intended to complete his preparations and get the troops in condition to be thrown quickly across the Nueces into Texas. On April 5 he was still at Matamoras, writing urgent, almost stormy, demands for funds and men with which to continue his important undertaking. He complained that even the inadequate sums of money already sent had been intercepted and partially used by the governor of San Luis Potosi. 145
The passage of the decree of April 6 placed the expedition in a somewhat different light, by providing for the permanent military occupation of Texas. Terán anticipated a storm of protest from Texas, and he apparently spent the months of April and May at Matamoras corresponding with Austin and talking with Texas colonists whom he encountered there in the hope of partially reconciling them to the decree, 146 which it is now necessary to examine.
1. Terán's Letter of November 14, 1829.—Historians have generally credited Alaman with the origination of the Decree of April 6, 1830, 147 but study of Terán's correspondence from November, 1829, to April, 1830, shows that he suggested practically every provision of the decree except the radical eleventh article. The first suggestion embodied in the decree occurs in the letter of November 14, 1829, already quoted:
If war should break out, it would be expedient to suppress it in a single campaign—a less expensive method than to be always on the defensive. But even this would be useless until a colony of one thousand native Mexican families is planted there, an economical measure when it is remembered that the funds spent once in establishing a colony would be spent many times in maintaining garrisons.
However, neither this suggeston, nor any other part of the letter of November 14, received immediate attention, probably for the reason that the Bustamante revolution was brewing, and the government had no time to devote to Texas. Bustamante was installed in December, and Terán at once dispatched his lieutenant, Constantino Tarnava, to the capital to submit to the new government, from which he hoped much, the report already referred to, setting forth in detail his entire scheme for the preservation of Texas.
2. Tarnava's Report of January 6, 1830. 148—This report. although it is of considerable length, is here given in full, because it is so evidently the document on which the Decree of April 6th is based, and also because it is so careful an outline of Terán's observations and policy.
Mexico, January 6, 1830. Constantino de Tarnava to His Excellency the Minister of War and Marine.
Esteemed Sir: General Terán, as comandante general of the Eastern States, and as such entrusted with the oversight and protection of that part of the Republic, and also as chief of the commission for the boundary with the United States of the North, has several times called the attention of the Supreme Government to the urgency of taking prompt steps to prevent the shameful loss of the department of Texas—a loss whose consequences would vitally affect the safety of the entire nation, because of the condition which would then exist on the frontier, Chihuahua, New Mexico, and part of Sonora being exposed to and half surrounded by our dangerous neighbors, who would thus be at the doors of our richest states.
Having been placed in command of the troops to be sent to Texas to re-enforce threatened points, and desiring to contribute all he can to the preservation of this Republic, General Terán considers this an opportune time to propose certain steps which are suggested by his knowledge of that country; and to avoid the delay likely to occur in official correspondence, and to answer questions which might arise over information received from such a distance, he has commissioned the undersigned to submit to your excellency the necessary information regarding this department of Texas and the urgency of the proposed measures.
However important the other matters which now occupy the government, General Terán asks that it at once give attention to the department of Texas, scarcely as yet a part of the Republic. He declares that it is as necessary to counteract the influence of the majority of the population there as to curb the claims of our neighbors. Many of the newspapers of the United States—and particularly those of New Orleans, which have been sent the government from time to time—have discussed with much heat this question of the boundary at a time when such discussion was very suspicious, namely, when Spanish troops had invaded our country and it was supposed that we were launched upon a struggle which would exclusively absorb all our resources and attention. All these discussions, which based their pretensions on “just claims” and “agreements,” declared the Rio Bravo del Norte 149 to be the natural boundary between the two countries. General Terán does not doubt that the United States will carry out its project of possessing Texas at the first opportunity, which to them will be as soon as they think we are torn by civil strife—a consideration which should not be lost sight of for one moment; either they would incite the American population of Texas to revolt, as they tried to do in 1826 at Nacogdoches, or else force would be openly used to support these pretended claims, which the North American government certainly has not renounced, since under specious pretexts it has until this day refused to ratify the treaty negotiated in Mexico for the outlining of the boundary in accordance with the stipulations of the Treaty of Onis. That these pretensions to the ultimate possession of Texas by the United States may not be lightly regarded, it is sufficient to consider for a moment the actual conditions existing in that province: First, the comparative disadvantage in the distribution of population, the Mexican population being confined to only three points, while the North Americans are masters of the frontier posts, of the coast, and of the mouths of the rivers; second, the number of Mexican inhabitants is insignificant as compared with the constantly increasing number of settlers from the north, who everywhere are locating on the fertile lands of Texas, many of which they have occupied without any legal right. No one can fail to see the extremely dangerous influence which these North American colonists are bound to exercise in the affairs of the state, since a decree of the state legislature declares citizens all settlers of five years' residence. As has been stated, the Mexican population is at a standstill, while the American population is increasing daily, and the preponderating influence of the latter will be inevitable unless some extraordinary impulse is given to the colonization of that territory—a colonization that must be for the most part Mexican, and which will call for expenditures that the state of Coahuila, because of its poverty, cannot possibly undertake. 150
The only means of control which the government at this time has at its command are three weak and isolated garrisons for the whole of this immense territory. These are stationed at Béjar, La Bahia del Espiritu Santo, and Nacogdoches, points one hundred and twenty leagues from each other and without any intervening support.
In view of these conditions, General Terán thinks it indispensable that any political measures adopted by either the Supreme Government or the state government should agree with the military measures which he proposes to take. 151 . . .
He suggests that the political measures might be as follows: (1).
The removal of the presidiarios 152 to Tampico or Soto la Marina, thence to be transported by sea to the points above mentioned, where they may apply themselves to agriculture under the protection of the enlisted troops;
(2).The encouragement by all legitimate means of the emigration of Mexican families to Texas;
(3).The colonization of Texas with Swiss and German colonists, whose language and customs, being different from those of our neighbors, will make less dangerous the nearness of the latter;
(4).The encouragement of coast-wise trade, which is the only means by which close relations can be established between Texas and the other parts of the Republic, and by which this department, now so North American in spirit, may be nationalized.
To carry out the first, or military, measures the following steps are necessary:
In order to advance the frontier, with the double object of pushing back the savages and placing the troops nearer Texas, companies of troops must be stationed above the Nueces River, as before stated. In this vicinity there is not a tree—a dearth of vegetation which is characteristic of an immense portion of the country—and consequently it will be necessary to permit the free importation of frame houses.
In order to re-enforce the garrisons by means of permanen troops, the Tenth and Eleventh Battalions should be completed,—the enlistment of both not now exceeding three hundred and fifty—as should also the Twelfth, which is stationed at Nacogdoches. The Ninth has some one hundred and forty on its roll and must be completed, because the presidio detachments cannot be drawn off entirely from their original office, namely, the war with the Indians. Therefore, re-enforcements are requested for the above mentioned companies.
To hold the points above indicated, 153 at this time wholly unoccupied, it must be certain that the soldiers are to be there, and that the provisions necessary for their maintenance be collected beforehand. The precarious dependence on casual remittances, which a thousand circumstances may delay or intercept, is insufficient. It is necessary that the portion of the customs receipts retained by the maritime states, and which is thirty-two per cent of the receipts, be assigned exclusively to the troops, and that the free importation of either hardtack or flour be permitted from Matamoras to Galveston for the support of the above mentioned troops and for new settlements.
For equipping the force which must move rapidly to any point of danger, the suggestions just offered in the foregoing article should apply. Also this force should be provided with effective artillery, of which there is none in Texas, and which could not be brought in time over three hundred leagues of desert after the need for it arose. It is therefore necessary to place at Béjar beforehand a detachment of this class, or else to create a mobile artillery guard of militia, officered by veterans.
As soon as the Government can arrange the matter with financial ease, it should give its attention to the establishment of a strong fortress on the frontier for the purpose of collecting materials of war. It could then carry on war from this as a base of supplies, something which that distant and unprotected country lacks entirely.
To establish communication by sea it is necessary to have a boat set aside for this purpose alone and always available. The presidio companies are practically decimated on the continual trips to Nacogdoches; they are invariably left without mounts, or incapacitated for any service by these long and frequent marches through regions unhealthy at all seasons of the year; the freight cannot always be transported; and the losses in mules is enormous, while the delays from water are intolerable. To do away with these hardships as much as possible, General Terán has proposed that a schooner in constant service be placed in war trim and devoted exclusively to business affecting Texas. It would be well for this boat to confine its operations to the coast, which is frequented only by North American ships—usually smuggling vessels. The headquarters of this boat should be Matamoras, and supposing a detachment to be in Galveston—an indispensable item, in Terán's judgment—this boat should be employed to transport money, munitions of war, and passengers to the abovementioned port and to Nacogdoches.
Nevertheless, these military measures can afford but temporary security, for the holding of Texas does not depend upon the raising of one army nor upon the efforts put forth at one particular time, but upon continuous exertions. It therefore seems indispensable that in addition to these military measures the political measures already referred to should be taken, the utility of which it is not difficult to demonstrate:
First: Large numbers of the presidiarios who are sent to Vera Cruz die, principally because of the climate. These same men, if transported to a more healthy country, where they would have no desire to desert into unknown wastes, but being compelled to work for a living and seeing in this work their only chance of bettering their condition and becoming proprietors of the land which should be allotted to them, would undoubtedly take kindly to farming and to the new life generally, and changing their old habits, they could become of real value to that society which now casts them out.
The lands adjacent to the coast have for the most part been ceded to the North American colonists, but it is a grave mistake to give these land up entirely, and to repair this mistake, garrisons of Mexican troops and colonies of Mexican families should be established at the coast points already mentioned, namely Galveston and the mouth of the Brazos. If this and the foregoing steps are taken, the colonists can be controlled.
For the establishing of a settlement at the mouth of the Brazos, it will be necessary to alter the contract of the empresario Austin, to whom the coast leagues which the law reserves to the federal government were most imprudently ceded, insuring the loss of Texas when the North Americans should complete their scheme for possessing themselves of the coast of this department. 154 In planning this settlement and that above Galveston—which regions are actual wastes in the whole sense of the word—it will be necessary to provide for the expense of barracks and houses, some farming implements, carpenter's and blacksmith's tools, as well as for provisions for the first few months. These different settlements will occasion other extraordinary expenditures, and arrangements to meet such must be made by setting aside one hundred thousand dollars (pesos).
Second: The second measure, the encouragement of the emigration of familes to Texas, should receive the attention of the Government constantly. It is a fact that Mexicans are little disposed to enterprises of this nature, but it is also a fact that the state governments have made no attempts in this direction. Whatever obstacle may be encountered must be overcome, for these measures involve the safety of the nation and the integrity of our territory. Indeed, there is no choice of measures in this matter. Either the government occupies Texas now, or it is lost forever, for there can be no possibility of a reconquest when our base of operations would be three hundred leagues distant while our enemies would be carrying on their struggle close to their base and in possession of the sea.
To stimulate this settlement of Mexican families, the Government should create a loan fund for the assistance of poor laborers, for the purpose of supplying them with agricultural implements, etc. It might perhaps be possible for Government to promote among Mexican capitalists some kind of an association for the development of these lands in Texas.
As the Mexican settlers will be without slaves—an advantage enjoyed by the North Americans—the progress which they make in the cultivation of the soil will necessarily be slower—as much for this reason as because of their smaller inclination for the art of agriculture. Therefore, the Government ought to encourage them by every means possible. The offer of rewards or bounties to those Mexicans who distinguish themselves in this line would in part accomplish this result.
Third: Concerning the colonization of Texas by Swiss or Germans, General Terán is aware that he has submitted a proposition already offered by Don Carlos Hubde. 155 a merchant of Mexico, but it will perhaps be considered at this time. Here, as in most of these measures, the Government will encounter obstacles difficult to overcome, such as it must always encounter in occupying Texas, if the rights of the state to which it belongs are to be reconciled with the safety of the nation. It is essential that the federal government strongly support any measures which have to be passed by the state for the rapid population of Texas, the encouragement of which would be far more easy if Texas were a territory depending solely upon the federal government.
Fourth: Coastwise trade is of the greatest importance in establishing relations with Texas, since through lack of such it is today trading only with New Orleans. Cotton, one of the principal products of Texas, could be transported to Tampico or Vera Cruz in boats of Campeachy—almost the only boats engaged in the coast trade—and thence it can be carried to foreign countries. The cotton shipped out of Texas is already seeded, owing to the gins common among the North American colonists; but since there is no trade with the rest of our ports, it is taken to New Orleans, where it must pay an import duty as foreign goods. The seaports north of Matamoras are not frequented by our coasting vessels. General Terán knows that the shipowners of Campeachy are embarking in no risky speculations on these matters, but are attracted by the temporary use of money which has no circulation in their market and can be sold at a discount in New Orleans.
General Terán thinks it not impossible that the government of the United States of the North, on perceiving a firm determination on our part to hold our own and to support and improve Texas, will begin to carry on its work openly; therefore, it may be expedient to act quickly and place ourselves on the defensive as soon as possible. The ratification of the treaty concluded in Mexico, and designating the boundary between the two nations, should afford the time required for the adoption of the above measures, which have become necessary in order to equalize advantages. It would be possible to conduct this ratification under the cloak of the projected expedition, the preparations for which could be extended at will.
General Terán has given to the undersigned the necessary instructions to make to your excellency any explanations you may desire, either verbally or in writing, concerning these points or any others relative to the same matter.
Contantino Tarnava.
The principal recommendations of this report may be recapitulated as follows: (1).
Settlement of convict soldiers in Texas;
(2).Encouragement of emigration of Mexican families to Texas;
(3).Encouragement of emigration of Swiss and Germans to Texas;
(4).Encouragement of coastwise trade;
(5).Free importation of frame houses into Texas;
(6).Appropriation of the portion of the customs receipts shared by the maritime states to the support of the troops destined for Texas;
(7).Free importation into Texas of food supplies for the troops;
(8).Alteration of Austin's contract to give the government control of the coast leagues;
(9).Establishment of new Mexican settlements, and support of the same for a certain time at federal expense;
(10).Creation of a loan fund for voluntary colonization of Mexican families ;
(11).Special rewards or bounties to successful agriculturists among the Mexican colonists.
3. Alaman's Report of January 14, 1830.—On January 14 Alaman sent to the president a preliminary report on the above document. 156 In this report he offers nothing new except a suggestion that England be invited to make a declaration against any design of the United States on Texas, such as the United States themselves had made against the conquest of Cuba by Mexico and Colombia. He says that Terán is of the opinion that a Mexican consul should be placed at New Orleans, “to keep an eye on the preparations of our neighbors, now almost our enemies.” Then in a postscript to the report, he suggests that the newspapers of Mexico should intimate that in case of war any means would be justifiable against “so perfidious an enemy,” even to the stirring up of an insurection of slaves in Louisiana, thus retaliating with the same measures employed by the North Americans, who are inciting the colonists and the Cherokee Indians to revolt in Texas: “Louisiana is an open country, and its extension along our frontier makes it an easy matter to penetrate it with a force even smaller than that of the enemy, and by burning their own homes perhaps diminish the number of those advocating the conquest of Texas.”
4. Alaman's Iniciativa.—On February 8 Alaman presented to the cabinet his famous iniciativa or project of the Decree of April 6. In this document he incorporated the recommendations of Tarnava's report, and added some important provisions of his own. On March 2 Alaman inclosed to Terán a copy of the report which the cabinet had laid before Congress—evidently the iniciativa itself—and called his attention to the fact that it is nothing more than the selection and co-ordination of various paragraphs from Terán's own letters and reports. 157 Concerning the status of the matter in Congress Alaman said:
The joint committee of the two houses which has this important business in charge . . . has presented the draft of a law covering the case—a copy of which is also inclosed—which law does not differ in substance from what the Government suggested and your excellency recommended. The specific decree will be one of the matters which the house will take under consideration between the dates which I indicated to you in my abovementioned communication of February 17th; the ratification which should follow—for there is ample ground to expect such ratification—will put you in position to take the necessary steps to remedy the abuses which that department [Texas] suffers.
This letter is the only document that I have been able to find relative to the passage of the decree through Congress. It would be interesting to follow the debates on the subject, but they are not available. As passed on April 6 the decree conformed very closely to Alaman's project:
Cotton goods excluded in the Law of May 22, 1829, may be introduced through the ports of the Republic until January 1, 1831, and through the ports of the South Sea until June 30, 1831. 159
Article 2.The duties received on the above mentioned goods shall be used to maintain the integrity of Mexican territory, to form a reserve fund against the event of Spanish invasion, and to promote the development of national industries in the branch of cotton manufacturers. 160
Article 3.The government is authorized to name one or more commissioners who shall visit the colonies of the frontier states and contract with the legislatures of said states for the purchase, in behalf of the federal government, of lands deemed suitable for the establishment of colonies of Mexicans and other nationalities; and the said commissioners shall make with the existing colonies whatever arrangements seem expedient for the security of the Republic. The said commissioners shall supervise the introduction of new colonists and the fulfilling of their contracts for settlement, and shall ascertain to what extent the existing contracts have been completed. 161
Article 4.The chief executive is authorized to take such lands as are deemed suitable for fortifications or arsenals and for the new colonies, indemnifying the states for same, in proportion to their assessments due the federal government. 162
Article 5.The government is authorized to transport the convict-soldiers destined for Vera Cruz and other points to the colonies, there to establish them as is deemed fit; the government will furnish free transportation to the families of the soldiers, should they desire to go. 163
Article 6.The convict-soldiers shall be employed in constructing the fortifications, public works and roads which the commissioners may deem necessary, and when the time of their imprisonment is terminated, if they should desire to remain as colonists, they shall be given lands and agricultural implements, and their provisions shall be continued through the first year of their colonization. 164
Article 7.Mexican families who voluntarily express a desire to become colonists will be furnished transportation, maintained for one year, and assigned the best of agricultural lands. 165
Article 8.All the individuals above mentioned shall be subject to both the federal and state colonization laws.
Article 9.The introduction of foreigners across the northern frontier is prohibited under any pretext whatever, unless the said foreigners are provided with a passport issued by the agents of this Republic at the point whence the said foreigners set out. 166
Article 10.No change shall be made with respect to the slaves now in the states, but the federal government and the government of each state shall most strictly enforce the colonization laws and prevent the further introduction of slaves.
Article 11.In accordance with the right reserved by the general congress in the seventh article of the Law of August 18, 1824, it is prohibited that emigrants from nations bordering on this Republic shall settle in the states or territory adjacent to their own nation. Consequently, all contracts not already completed and not in harmony with this law are suspended. 167
Article 12.Coastwise trade shall be free to all foreigners for the term of four years, with the object of turning colonial trade to the ports of Matamoras, Tampico, and Vera Cruz. 168
Article 13.Frame houses and all classes of foreign food products may be introduced through the ports of Galveston and Matagorda, free of duty, for a period of two years. 169
Article 14.The government is authorized to expend five hundred thousand dollars (pesos) in the construction of fortifications and settlements on the frontier, in the transportation of the convict-soldiers and Mexican families to same and their maintenance for one year, on agricultural implements, on expenses of the commissioners, on the transportation of troops, on premiums to such farmers among the colonists as may distinguish themselves in agriculture, and on all the other expedients conducive to progress and security as set forth in the foregoing articles. 170
Article 15.To obtain at once one-half of the above sum, the government is authorized to negotiate a loan on the customs proceeds which will be derived from the ordinary classes of cotton goods, said loan to pay a premium of three per cent monthly, payable at the expiration of the periods fixed in the tariff schedule. 171
Article 16.One-twentieth of the said customs receipts shall be used in the promotion of cotton manufactures, such as in the purchase of machines and looms, small sums being set aside for the installing of the machinery, and any other purpose that the government shall deem necessary; the government shall apportion these funds to the states having this form of industry. The said funds shall be under the control of the Minister of Relations for the purpose of promoting industries of such importance. 172
Article 17.Also three hundred thousand dollars (pesos) of the above mentioned customs receipts shall be set aside as a reserve fund on deposit in the treasury, under the strict responsibility of the government, which shall have power to use the same only in case of Spanish invasion.
Article 18.The government shall regulate the establishment of the new colonies, and shall present to Congress within a year a record of the emigrants and immigrants established under the law, with an estimate of the increase of population on the frontier.
1. Alaman's Additions to the Tarnava Report.—Comparison of the decree with the summary of the Terán-Tarnava Report reveals the following additions to Terán's proposals: (1) In article 3, the creation of a special inspection for the colonists; (2) in article 10, the enforcement of existing slave laws; (3) in articles 9 and 11, prohibition of immigration from the United States to Texas. Examination of the iniciativa shows these three additions to have been the work of Alaman, 173 and from the point of view of the Texans they were among the most objectionable features of the decree. They saw in the first two provisions a determination to ensure the observance of some laws which they had habitually evaded; while the third called a halt to the rapid development of the province and separated the colonists from friends and relatives in the United States.
2. Teran's probable attitude toward these additions.—The first two of Alaman's additions were probably quite in harmony with Terán's ideas. In his letter of June 30, 1828, to President Guadalupe Victoria he had spoken of the evils of slavery and of the undesirability of repealing any of the laws restricting the importation of slaves. But I find no mention of the slave question in any of his succeeding correspondence. As to a special inspector of all colonies, he doubtless saw the need of such an officer, but also saw danger to his own plans should the inspector decline to co-operate with him. Of the policy of restricting Anglo-American immigration, however, there is not a hint in any of Terán's correspondence. Terán must have known before April that the measure was contemplated, for it appears in the iniciativa, and it is not likely that it was omitted from either the report submitted to Congress during the latter part of February or from the draft of the law submitted by the joint committee a little later, copies of which Alaman forwarded to Terán on March 2. But these copies could hardly have reached Terán for another week; and had he wished to protest, he might have felt that it was too late, or that the decree involved too much else of vital importance to his plans for him to jeopardize the whole by protest against this provision. However, we are not certain that he objected to the measure. We know only that he had not advocated it in any of his available correspondence or in the Tarnava report; and that since the beginning of his connection with Texas, his policy appeared to be to strengthen the loyalty of the Anglo-American colonists, and not to antagonize them.
3. The secrecy attending Terán's work.—Terán's plans for “saving Texas” seem to have been simple enough: first, secretly to prepare adequate reënforcements, then occupy the province suddenly on the plausible grounds of danger from the United States and from the Indians; 174 second, by measures for such an improvement of political conditions in Texas as would increase the respect of the colonists for their adopted country. The part of this scheme that was surprisingly well carried out was its secrecy.
From the date of Terán's first visit to Texas, he maintained a more or less frequent, and even affectionate, correspondence with Austin; yet he was able to keep Austin entirely in the dark with regard to his intentions.
There is a touch of irony in the fact that some of the data used by Austin for his map of Texas—complimentary copies of which, executed by his own hand, he sent to Terán and other Mexican officials in the fall of 1829—were furnished by explorations recently ordered by Terán in preparation for this very occupation of the province. In his letter acknowledging the receipt of the map, Terán informed Austin that he would probably see him ere long, as it was his intention to return to Texas for his health as soon as he could be relieved from his duties in Tamaulipas. 175 As a matter of fact, his health was quite bad, as Austin was aware, so the reason seemed plausible enough. During the busy months that followed, Austin appears to have known nothing of Terán's plans for Texas.
The first definite information that Austin appears to have had of the projected expedition, division of the territory, and the Law of April 6 came in a letter written from New Orleans, April 5-7, by an American named Pettit, who was apparently in the Mexican naval service. 176 On March 20, after Alaman had submitted his Iniciativa, and the passage of the law had become an assured fact, Bustamante himself had deemed it well to write Austin a personal letter, expressing his friendship and entire confidence in him, and asking him to inform the colonists of his great interest in their prosperity. But this letter was slow in reaching Austin, because it was sent first to Terán, who held it until April 24, when he forwarded it with a letter of his own, insinuating that his own knowledge of the decree was as recent as that of Austin. Bustamante wrote:
Mexico, March 20, 1830. Lieutenant-Colonel Stephen F. Austin.
Esteemed Friend: Notwithstanding the fact that I have not received an answer to the late letters which I have sent you, and in spite of the press of my own affairs, I take this opportunity of writing you this letter, which I shall send to you through Señor Terán, to whom you will kindly send your answer in order that it may not go astray.
My object on this occasion is to assure you that during my administration you and your estimable colonists shall continue to receive the same proofs of favor and consideration which, since the year 1822, my wishes for your happiness and prosperity have made clear to you, since I have used in your favor the influence derived from the public positions I have held since that date. Be so kind, then, as to inform the colonists of my goodwill, and for yourself accept at the same time my assurances of true friendship and appreciation, wherewith I sign myself, as formerly, your friend and affectionate fellow-citizen. . . .
Anastasio Bustamante. 177
Terán wrote: Matamoras, April 24, 1830. My esteemed friend and Sir:
I have the pleasure of sending you the inclosed letter of my friend and companion-in-arms, Vice-president Don Anastasio Bustamante. I suppose that you have received information of the draft of the law for the development of this country, which is now under consideration in the federal congress, 178 and concerning which certain of my friends in Mexico have asked my opinion; as I have time to communicate this opinion after hearing from you, I beg you to write me your opinion with that frankness we have been accustomed to employ. My friends have particularly asked me about the matter of declaring Texas a territory, and on this point I am maintaining great circumspection, for indeed I have no settled conviction on the subject, having heard a diversity of opinions in Texas. If you will feel no hesitancy in honoring me with your reflections, I shall greatly appreciate the same.
I think that we shall have the pleasure of seeing each other within two months. In the meantime you know that your letters will be most welcome, and you may write at your leisure.
Present my regards to Señor Don Samuel, 179 and do you command at pleasure your most affectionate friend and obedient servant. . . .
Manuel de Mier y Terán. 180
It is hardly necessary to call attention to the craftiness with which Terán attempts in this letter to deny all responsibility for the decree whose provisions it had now become his duty to enforce. But while his attitude is wholly disingenuous, we must remember that the most radical measures of the decree, those which he knew the colonists would most resent, were not his work.
The Decree of April 6, 1830, was an attempt of Mexico to save Texas to the Mexican nation by strengthening the ties of that state with Mexico and severing those which bound it to the United States. In 1824 the Mexican government passed a generous colonization law, throwing open the rich lands of Texas to foreign immigration. The vast majority of foreign colonists who came in were from the United States, and the numbers and character of these colonists so endangered Mexican authority in Texas that the federal government felt it necessary to save the province by passing this Decree of April 6, the most important provision of which was the prohibition of all further immigration of colonists from the United States. The causes of suspicion and distrust which led to the promulgation of this decree begin as far back as the Fredonian Rebellion at Nacogdoches in 1826, and were continued and augmented by the insistent efforts of the United States to purchase Texas, by the determination of the colonists to hold slaves, notwithstanding their adopted country's reiterated policy of abolition, and by the friction which was the inevitable result of racial difference and prejudice. In 1828 General Terán, as chief of the boundary commission which was sent to survey the eastern and northern boundary between Mexico and the United States, reported a serious condition of affairs for the political and military authority of Mexico in Texas. But the central government was either too indifferent or too occupied with internal troubles to take cognizance of the situation at that time. In 1829 Terán was made comandante general of the Eastern States and at once began preparations to occupy Texas with a sufficient number of troops to lend prestige to Mexican authority in the state. About the same time he began urging upon the central government the necessity of action from that source, if Texas were to be saved to the federation. This the Guerrero government failed to do, but after the accession of Bustamante, in December of 1829, Terán sent his lieutenant, Constantino Tarnava, to lay before the central authorities a full report of conditions in Texas, his own plans to remedy them, and various recommendations for political measures which would make his military plans more effective. One month later Lucas Alaman, the new minister of relations, laid these recommendations, with certain additions of his own, before Congress, and two months later still that body complied with the requests by passing the Decree of April 6, 1830, which was to go into effect on the day of its passage. The responsibility for that section of the law which prohibits further immigration from the United States seems to rest upon Alaman, though practically all of the other provisions are directly traceable to suggestions made by Terán.
It is not the purpose of this paper to follow the attempts to enforce the decree. The radical measures comprised in Article 11 were bitterly resented by the Texans, and were probably the most potent factors in the later friction that resulted, as Terán had so clearly foreseen, in the loss of Texas to the Mexican nation. Had Terán lived and been retained in his position as special commissioner and military governor of the colonies, the story might be different, but, as Filisola says, the whole fruit of his labors was destroyed by Santa Anna's overthrow of the Bustamante government in 1832.
KENNEDY TO ABERDEEN 181
No. 4. British Consulate Galveston. June 9th 1843 My Lord,
I have the honor to transmit enclosed the following documents relating to the trade and commerce and Maritime regulations of the Republic of Texas, and the Consulate of Galveston; namely:—
The present Tariff of the Republic of Texas. 182
Historical Abstract in reference to the Tariff.
Return of the British and Foreign Trade at Galveston for the year ending 31st December 1842. 182
Return of British Trade at Galveston for the year ending 31st December 1842. 182
Charges on Shipping in the ports of Texas—Pilotage Regulations at Galveston, 183 description of the National Flag of Texas. 184
Regulations for the Coasting Trade and Protection of Texian Shipping 185
Warehousing of Goods and Drawbacks 186
I beg to observe that I have drawn up the “Historical Abstract” for the purpose of rendering the series of official documents more complete, and have furnished trade Returns for 1842—the year previous to my arrival at my post—in order to note, by comparison with the Returns for the Current year, the Commercial progress, or retrogression, of the Republic.
William Kennedy. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
On the 17th of January 1821, Moses Austin, a Native of New England, obtained permission from the Supreme Government of the Eastern Internal Provinces of Mexico, to introduce three hundred families as Colonists from Louisiana into Texas.
In consequence of Moses Austin's death, his project of Colonization was taken up and prosecuted by his Son, Stephen, who was obliged, in 1822, to apply to the Authorities of revolutionized Mexico, for Confirmation of the privilege which had been conceded to his father by the Authorities of old Spain. On the 4th of January 1823, a Colonization law, approved by the Mexican Emperor Iturbide, was promulgated, and, on the 18th of February of the same year, an Imperial Decree was issued, empowering Austin to found a Colony under the provisions of the general law.
A revolutionary Movement having displaced Iturbide, and the Government which succeeded him, having decreed the Nullity of all Imperial titles, Austin was Constrained to Solicit the Confirmation of his Concession from the Congress of Mexico. This he obtained on the 14th of April 1823, which may, therefore, be recorded as the legal date of the Commencement of Anglo American Colonization in Texas.
To encourage the settlement of her waste frontier lands, and thereby interpose a barrier against Indian aggression, and strengthen herself against Spanish attempts at reconquest, Mexico held out various inducements to the earlier Colonists of Texas, and, among them, a temporary exemption from tithes and taxes. By Article 24, of the Mexican Colonization Law of the 4th of January 1823, it was enacted that, during Six Years from the date of the Concession, the Colonists should not pay tithes, or duties, on their produce, nor any Contribution whatever, of a public kind.
By Article 25, of the same law, it was enacted that, during the Six years, immediately succeeding the termination of the first specified period the Colonists should pay half the tithes and half the Contributions, direct and indirect, that were paid by Native Citizens.
These enactments emanated from the General Government of Mexico.
The State of Coahuila and Texas, as a Member of the Mexican Federation, by Article 32, of a Colonization Law passed by its Legislature on the 24th March 1825, ordained that, during the first ten years,—reckoning from the Commencement of the Settlement,—Colonists within the limits of the State should be free from every kind of public Contribution, except such as were generally demanded to prevent, or repel, foreign invasion.—After ten years, new Settlers were to bear an equal proportion of the public burthens with Native Citizens.
The law containing these provisions was repealed by an Act dated April 28th 1832, which exempted all “New towns,” for ten years, from the time of their foundation, from every description of tax, except Contributions for defence against foreign invasion. For the Site of each of these “New towns,” the State appropriated four Square leagues of land.
The establishment of Custom-houses in Texas, and of garrisoned posts to enforce the Collection of the National Revenue, which followed the periods of exemption from taxation granted to the infant Settlements, formed with the Colonists prominent Causes of dissatisfaction, while, on the other hand, the infraction of fiscal enactments was regarded by the Government of Mexico as indicative of an ungrateful and rebellious Spirit on the part of Men invited by its liberality to occupy its fertile lands. In June 1832, a party of Colonists attacked and Captured the Mexican garrison at the port of Velasco.—in April 1833, petitions complaining of the Tariff, and praying for the privilege of free importation, for a term of three Years, of the most important Articles of Consumption, were transmitted by the Colonists to the General Government.—in the Autumn of 1834, a number of persons seized the Collector of Customs at Anahuac, and expelled the Military stationed at his post,—and, in the Autumn of 1835, Texas and Mexico were in a State of open Warfare.
In November 1835, a Convention was called in Texas, and a Provisional Government proclaimed, which Conferred on a Governor and Council the power “to impose and regulate Impost and Tonnage Duties, and to provide for their Collection under such Regulations as might be deemed expedient”
An Ordinance of the Provisional Government, imposing certain duties of Customs, passed on the 12th of December 1835, was repealed by another Ordinance on the 27th of the same Month, which placed a duty of twenty five per Cent, ad Valorem, on such goods, wares, and Merchandize as were “entitled to a debenture” in the port of Shipment, and a duty of fifteen per Cent, ad Valorem, on such as were not entitled to debenture.—Articles imported bona fide for the use of emigrants, including farming implements, household furniture, provisions, stores and Machinery of all kinds, were to be admitted free.
The declaration and establishment of the independence of Texas, and the adoption of a Constitution of its inhabitants, were followed by the Convocation of a Congress, which, on the 20th of December 1836, passed an Act “to raise a Revenue by Impost Duties,” under which the following charges were exigible:—
On Invoice price of Wines, Spirituous and Malt liquors 45 per Cent ad Valorem.
Silk goods, and all Manufactures of Silk 50 per Cent ad Valorem.
Sugar and Coffee 2½ ad Valorem.
Teas 25 ad Valorem.
Bread Stuffs 1 ad Valorem.
Iron and Castings—10 per Cent ad val.
Coarse Clothing, Shirtings, Shoes, blankets Kerseys, Sattinets, and Stuffs formed of a Mixture of Cotton and Wool. 10 per Cent ad Valorem.
All the non-ennumerated goods an ad Valorem duty of twenty five per Cent on invoice price.
Another, and more Comprehensive, Customs law was passed on the 12th of June 1837 “for the purpose of raising a revenue to aid in defraying the public expences, sustaining the public Credit, and securing to the public Creditors a fair Annual, or semi-Annual interest on the Shares of Stock in the funded debt.”
The Tariff underwent a farther revision by an Act passed on the 5th of February 1840, to which the law at present in operation is termed “Supplementary”
It is to be observed that the receipt of duties in National paper, profusely issued, on an unsound basis,—and, of course, rapidly depreciated,—has from time to time, caused the Tariff to appear much higher than it really was, and the successive endeavours to realize, Amidst the Confusion occasioned by a spurious Currency, an adequate, tangible revenue, has imparted a capricious character to the fiscal legislation of the Republic, discouraging and injurious to the Merchant and the emigrant. The duties, at present, are receivable only in gold and silver, or in “Exchequer Bills,” at their Market value.
There is a general and increasing feeling in favor of diminished duties, with a view to the ultimate adoption of a System of Free Trade, but no material alteration in this direction can well be anticipated until the Country is tranquillized in regard to its external relations
More than two thirds of the revenue derived from Customs is received at the port of Galveston. The Eastern Counties of Texas, which possess a comparatively dense population, Contribute but a small proportion to the public funds, owing to their geographical position, which secures impunity to the Smuggler. The gross amount received at the port of Galveston for the year ending the 31st of December. 1842, may be set down, in round numbers, at 110,000 (one hundred and ten thousand) dollars; the receipts for the same period at Brazos, Matagorda, Red River, San Augustine, and Sabine at 30,000 (thirty thousand) dollars. The average expense of Collection was a fraction above fourteen per Cent.
The attempts hitherto made to raise a revenue by direct taxation have been unsuccessful
[Endorsed.] No. 2. In Mr Consul Kennedy's despatch of 9th June. 1843.
Tonnage Duty. All Sailing Vessels entering any port of the Republic, from any foreign port or place, are chargeable with a tonnage duty of Sixty Cents per ton, and Steam boats with thirty Cents, according to registered tonnage.
Entrance. Any Ship, or Vessel, of less than one hundred tons burthen, pays one dollar and a half, of one hundred and upward, two dollars and a half,—
Clearance. For every clearance of Vessels of the above-mentioned burthen, the same fees respectively.
Port Entry. Two dollars.
Permit to land goods. Twenty Cents.
Bond taken Officially. Forty Cents.
Permit to land goods for exportation that may be entitled to debenture, or official Certificate. Forty Cents.
Bill of Health. Twenty Cents
For every document (registers excepted) required by any Merchant, Owner, or Master of any Ship, or Vessel, not before enumerated. Twenty Cents.
[Endorsed.] No. 5. In Mr. Consul Kennedy's despatch of 9th June. 1843.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 189
No. 12. 190 Galveston, June 10th. 1843. My Lord,
Mer Majesty's Sloop “Scylla” arrived last night from Vera Cruz bringing me a Despatch from Mr. Percy Doyle Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Mexico of which I have the honor to transmit a Copy, as well as a Copy of the Communication I have thereupon addressed to the Secretary of State of this Republic. 191
The departure of the Steam boat for New Orleans, prevents me from adding more upon this occasion. I should mention however, that in the state of understanding between the Government of Her Majesty, and that of the King of the French concerning the close of the Contest between this Republic and Mexico, I have felt it right to communicate the subject of Mr Doyle's despatch in confidence to my Colleague Monsieur de Cramayel; And He concurs with me that every suitable effort should be made to dispose the Government of this Republic to meet these advances of the President of Mexico.
Charles Elliot To The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T. Downing Street
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTICES
Journal of the Secession Convention of Texas, 1861, edited from the original in the Department of State by Ernest William Winkler, State Librarian (Austin: The Texas Library and Historical Commission. 1912. Pp. 469).
This volume is the second collection of documentary material to be issued by the Texas Library and Historical Commission since its creation four years ago; and it should be taken as an earnest of what the commission could do in the way of aiding research in the field of Texas history were it supplied by the state with adequate funds. Very little of our rich archives has been published except the diplomatic correspondence of the Republic, the laws and the legislative journals—which last are not complete. The commission is authorized by law to publish the archives, but the scantiness of the funds supplied has made it impossible to undertake the publication of anything but small and scattered units. Thus, the former volume consisted of the secret journals of the Congresses of the Republic.
The choice of the secession journal for the second volume is justified not only by the importance of the subject but by the inherent value of the journal itself and of the accompanying papers of the convention. The journal is remarkably full. It begins with an account of the manner in which the convention was called, and contains the full text of practically every resolution and report, as well as the addresses of the commissioners from the other cotton states. The debates are lacking, but it is not difficult to follow the mind of the convention in the record that is left. Inserted in the printed journal is a folded page photograph of the signatures to the Ordinance of Secession.
There are four appendices, only one of which is found with the original journal. The first is an address to the people, prepared after final adjournment, setting forth the various acts of the convention and the reasons for them. This was originally issued as a pamphlet. The second is the report of the Committee of Public Safety, a valuable document, which was appended to the journal and was also published in pamphlet form. The scarcity of these pamphlets justifies their inclusion here. A statistical list of delegates follows. The fourth appendix contains the election certificates of delegates as found in the convention papers.
A number of interesting points are brought to light, not all of which can be enumerated here. The election certificates disclose the fact that in certain counties the strength of the secession sentiment had brought about the election of delegates before the general call went out from Austin. The movement was truly spontaneous. And in the general election of delegates the regular officials were in charge and made the returns. This seems to dispose of the charge that unauthorized persons conducted the election. It is shown that eight votes were cast against the ordinance of secession instead of the traditional seven; and the figures given by Roberts and others for the popular vote on that ordinance are proven erroneous, though the ratio is not materially altered. A number of other inaccuracies in Roberts's account also become evident.
The accuracy of the editorial work could be tested only by a painstaking comparison of the printed copy with the originals; but the editor's reputation for care and thoroughness is a sufficient guarantee on this point. All students will commend his decision to include the appendices. The index is well done.
The publication of this volume emphasizes the need of a comprehensive plan for the publication of all the official archives of the state and the provision of funds sufficient for carrying out that plan. The other great requisite, efficient and scholarly editorial supervision, is already provided for. The commission should not be held to the necessity of publishing our historical records in isolated fragments, however well done that sort of work may be.
Chas. W. Ramsdell.
The Pathfinders from River to Ocean: the Story of the Great West from the Time of Coronado to the Present, by Grace Raymond Hebard, Ph. D. (Chicago. Lakeside Press, 1911. Pp. viii, 263).
This little book is a praiseworthy attempt to provide a help for the elementary teaching of the history of the New Northwest. It contains nine chapters, on: the early explorers, the fur traders, the great trails, the missions, Frémont's explorations, the gold discoveries, the soldier and the settler, cows and cowboys, and the railroads. On the whole, the chapters are well and interestingly written for the purpose, and with a fair degree of accuracy of statement.
The principal shortcomings of the book are on the side of omission rather than of commission. It is written from the standpoint of the Northwest, and by no means covers the ground indicated by its title, which embraces the whole of the Trans-Mississippi West. The point of view is nicely illustrated by the fact that the chapter on missions is placed after that on the Oregon and California trails, and is devoted almost entirely to nineteenth century missionary work. This narrow view of the West is shown by the fact that the list of western explorers omits the names of De León, St. Denis, La Harpe, Kino, Anza, Font, Garcés, Escalante, De Mézières, and Vial. Similarly, in the history of the fur trade, no mention is made of Natchitoches, second only in importance to St. Louis, nor of the century long work of the French and Spanish fur traders west of the Mississippi. In the account of Catholic missions in the Southwest no mention is made of the French missionaries in Louisiana and Arkansas; of the Spanish Franciscans in Texas, where they labored for a century and a quarter; or of the Spanish Jesuits in Arizona. In the list of great western trails, the San Antonio trail, reaching from Natchez to Durango, and in use for more than a century, finds no mention. The history of “soldier and settler” fails to touch the settlement of Texas or of the western half of the Mississippi valley, except on its outer edge.
Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that it covers only about one-third of the field which it defines, the book is distinctly worth while as an aid to elementary teaching; and the partial view of Western History presented by this author may serve as a helpful suggestion to others whose standpoints are different but equally local. In view of the growing interest in the history of the West, many similar books are bound to be written; and the outcome will be, at no distant day, a revision of the text-books and a very considerable shifting of emphasis in the teaching of United States history in the schools.
Herbert E. Bolton.
Social Life in Old New Orleans: Being Recollections of my Girlhood, by Eliza Ripley. (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1912. Pp. 332.)
In a brief biographical sketch, appended to these memoirs, we are informed that the author died shortly after making the last arrangements for their publication. Thus this account of old New Orleans, of seventy years ago, becomes the more impressive, now that another is gone of the few who could supply it.
Novelists in search of local color will find a rich store here. The setting and the activities of every-day life are described with rare accuracy and minuteness. Receptions, balls, and weddings; the fashion in dress for both sexes, young and old; the topography of New Orleans, and its architecture; furniture, tapestries, and pictures, the preparing and serving of meals; the opera, old music, old songs; schools and old-fashioned ideas of bringing up children; the plantation-life of masters and slaves; these and many other topics are discussed at length. There are also frequent references to her contemporaries. Of the celebrities of her day she was acquainted with many; some famed in the annals of New Orleans, some of wider reputation. Their names are often linked with interesting biographical details and descriptions of their persons and characters.
A praiser of her times, though she has only kind words for the present, one fancies that with her strong memory she must have preferred to dwell in the past even more than is the wont of old age. And none will refuse to tarry with her in the glorified past who feels the charms of invariable good humor and of a youthful heart.
Not the least interesting of the hors-d'oeuvres which lend variety to the narrative is the account of how Lexington won the great race in 1854, and of the swarming of the Kentucky belles and their escorts into New Orleans to be present at his triumph: “The race, the only one I had ever witnessed, was tremendously exciting, and as the gallant horses swept round the last lap, Lexington, ever so little, in the lead, the uproar became quite deafening. One of the Johnson women, beautiful and enthusiastic, sprang upon the bench and said to her equally excited escort, `Hold me while I holler.' He threw his strong arms about her and steadied her feet. `Now, holler.' And never did I hear the full compass of the female voice before, nor since.”
New Orleans is interesting, directly or indirectly, for its Creole population. There can be no complaint that this subject does not receive at the hands of the author the attention it deserves. But it may be urged, perhaps, that whatever information she imparts is of an external character. It is true that the quaintness of Creole objects and ways, as the term is usually understood, does not imply analysis of character. At any rate the average tourist, who seems to feel repaid for his pains, probably makes no great progress in this direction. It would be no reproach to say that, even from the picturesque point of view, she supplies materials for the picture rather than the picture itself. The reviewer remembers Loti's magical homesick visions of French colonial life, evoked by the master with a few simple words. But Loti's intense visions doubtless exist in his mind only; they are reproduced in the reader's by insistence on merely a few details, and they could not have the informational value of these memories. From the moral and intellectual standpoint, the book which shall describe the Creoles of Louisiana is still to be written, at any rate, the book which shall satisfy the subject. The author of such a book can surely only be one who has been steeped in that strange experience of living in two atmospheres at once, a French and an English, as far apart as may be, who is conscious of so equally balanced claims upon his sympathy that he hardly knows in which direction to incline, who speaks and thinks and laughs now in obedience to the one, now to the other.
E. J. Villavaso
Incomplete Rolls First Regiment Texas Infantry, C. S. A., Fourth Regiment Texas Infantry, C. S. A., Fifth Regiment Texas Infantry, C. S. A., Hood's Texas Brigade, Army of Northern Virginia, 1861-1865. Compiled by William R. Hamby, Company B, Fourth Texas.
The above is the title of a volume of one hundred and thirtyfive typewritten pages and the result of several years of tireless effort. General Hamby has presented the State Library with a copy of the book. Its character and contents are well described by the following excerpts from the introduction:
“The following rolls have been compiled from incomplete records and with the assistance of surviving comrades. It was earnestly desired the name of each comrade, especially those killed or wounded in action or who died in the service, should be correctly reported, and it is a matter of lamentable regret that so many of the rolls are still incomplete, not only in names but in casualties, but incomplete as they are it is believed that they show a record for Hood's Texas Brigade, from 1861 to 1865, that is unequaled in modern warfare.
“These incomplete rolls show for the First Texas 1302 names, for the Fourth Texas 1251 names, for the Fifth Texas 1331 names—total 3884 names.
“The First Texas lost 332 killed in battle, 476 wounded once, 119 wounded twice, 25 wounded three or more times, 159 died of disease; total casualties 1111, a loss of over 85 per cent.
“The Fourth Texas lost 316 killed in battle, 451 wounded once, 98 wounded twice, 19 wounded three or more times, 123 died of disease; total casualties 1007, a loss of over 80 per cent.
“The Fifth Texas lost 303 killed in battle, 506 wounded once, 138 wounded twice, 28 wounded three or more times, 140 died of disease; total casualties 1115, a loss of over 83 per cent.
“The aggregate losses of the three regiments in killed, wounded and died of disease was 3233 out of 3884, making the total loss over 83 per cent.”
E. W. Winkler
Texas Almanac for 1861.—It may be of interest to collectors to note that there were two editions of Richardson's Texas Almanac for 1861, each containing 336 pages, including advertisements. The principal differences between the two editions are in the preface and in the contents on page 242 and pages 246-52, inclusive. The preface of the edition which seems to be the earlier is undated and unsigned; the preface of the later is signed Richardson and Company, Galveston, November 1, 1860. Paragraph two of the earlier preface contains two sentences which are omitted in paragraph two of the later regarding statistics not available for the first issue. Paragraph four of the later edition also omits the two final sentences of the earlier regarding the failure to receive census reports and county statistics. Paragraph five of the earlier edition promises a second edition; paragraph five of the later treats of the county statistics included in this issue and promises a supplementary sheet as soon as the census reports are received.
Page 242 of the first edition contains a report of the Washington County Railroad Company; page 242 of the second, a list of the District Judges and Attorneys and an article regarding the commerce of Indianola. The United States statistics on pages 246-52, inclusive, of the earlier edition are omitted entirely in the second. The corresponding pages in the later edition contain a list of the county officers, an abstract of the treasurer's report for the year ending August 31, 1860, an article upon river and harbor improvements, a report of the Washington Railroad Company (found on page 242 of the earlier), a list of newspapers in Texas, brief directories of the Supreme Court of Texas and the United States District Courts in Texas, and the penitentiary report for the year ending September 1, 1860.
Elizabeth H. West.
The Mississippi Valley Historical Association will hold its sixth annual meeting at Omaha, Nebraska, May 8-10. Plans will be discussed for inaugurating a quarterly publication in addition to the annual Proceedings, which has heretofore been the sole organ of the Association. The Proceedings for 1911-1912, which is just from the press, is a beautifully printed volume of 268 pages. Besides a number of papers which are of interest primarily to teachers of history, it contains the following articles: “The Settlement of the John Randolph Slaves in Ohio,” “The Quakers in the Old Northwest,” “The Western Reserve in the Anti-Slavery Movement, 1840-1860,” “The Mississippi Valley in the Movement for Fifty-Four Forty or Fight,” “De Soto's Line of March from the View Point of an Ethnologist,” “The Disintegration and Organization of Political Parties in Iowa, 1852-1860,” “Attitude of the Western Whigs toward the Convention System,” “Factors Influencing the Development of American Education before the Revolution,” “The Battle of Lake Erie.”
Membership dues in the Association are only one dollar a year, and members are entitled to the publications of the Association without additional cost. Applications for membership and for back volumes of the Proceedings should be sent to Clarence S. Paine, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Lectures on the American Civil War, by James Ford Rhodes, LL. D., D. Litt. (Pp. xi, 206) has just been issued by the Macmillan Company. The lectures, of which there are three, were delivered at the University of Oxford during the Easter and Trinity Terms of 1912. The first lecture is devoted to “Antecedents of the American Civil War 1850-1860,” the second covers the period between the election of Lincoln and the emancipation proclamation, and the third brings the story to the surrender of General Lee at Appomattox. The book is a fresh, thoughtful, skillful, and interesting epitome of the war. It can be read in three hours.
The Texas Star, by Joseph A. Altsheler (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1912. Pp. 372), is a story for boys, detailing the adventures of Edward Fulton, a fictitious youth who voluntarily went to Mexico to share the imprisonment of Stephen F. Austin in 1834, and who, divining Santa Anna's purpose of subjugating Texas, escaped to warn the Texans. A number of historical characters, both Texan and Mexican, appear in the book, which on the whole pictures the conditions of the period with a good deal of accuracy. Austin appears only in the early chapters of the book.
Mr. W. T. Hefley, of Cameron, has collected and printed in convenient booklet form the newspaper correspondence recently evoked by his suggestion of a commission to locate the ashes of those who died at the Alamo and give them suitable burial. It is entitled, “ In Memory of the Heroes of the Alamo and to Give the Facts of History as to the Resting Place of their Ashes.”
The Quarterly has received Border Wars, by James T. De Shields, edited by Matt Bradley (The Herald Company. Tioga, Texas. 1912. Pp. 400). A more extended notice will appear in the July number.
Mr. Edward W. Heusinger, of San Antonio, has ready for press a volume, entitled “ Mission Ruins in Texas.”
In the William and Mary College Quarterly for October, 1912, is printed a letter from James Hamilton to Thomas W. Gilmer, dated Columbia, June 3, 1838, in regard to a foreign loan for the Republic of Texas.
In The American Historical Review for January, 1913, George L. Rives has an article entitled “Mexican Diplomacy on the Eve of the War with the United States.”
The Texas Magazine (Houston) for January, 1913, contains an article by Julia Beazley on “Ashbel Smith, physician, orator, soldier, scholar, philosopher and statesman”; the number for February contains a brief article by H. M. McDougall on “Rare Confederate Stamps,” which refers to certain issues by Texas post-offices; the March number contains a brief sketch of James Kemp Holland, a Mexican War veteran, by Annie J. Holland.
Two letters of Elisabet Ney are printed in the Austin Statesman of January 20, 1913.
NEWS ITEMS
The International Congress of Historical Studies is to be held this year at London, April 3-9. The last meeting of the Congress was at Berlin in 1908.
A Confederate monument was unveiled at Beaumont on November 27, 1912. A full account of the dedicatory ceremonies and a picture of the monument are contained in the Beaumont Enterprise of November 27.
A Confederate monument, erected under the auspices of the local chapter, U. D. C., was unveiled at Matagorda, January 17, 1913. The Galveston News of January 18 contains an account of the ceremonies, a list of the twenty soldiers lost in the shipwreck on Matagorda Bay on December 31, 1863, portraits of Captain E. S. Rugeley and Judge A. C. Burkhart, two of the rescued, and a picture of the monument.
A combined monument to Thomas Jefferson and memorial of the purchase of Louisiana Territory will be dedicated in St. Louis some time this spring, probably in April. It is in the form of a large building of concrete, stone, and marble, costing about $450,000. A heroic statue of Jefferson occupies the center of the rotunda. The architect is George F. Kessler, and the sculptor is Karl T. F. Bitter. The cost of the building is defrayed from the residue fund of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition of 1904. In the building will be housed the archeological collections and the archives of the Missouri Historical Society, which contain much valuable material on the history of the Mississippi Valley.
The Illinois Chapter of the Daughters of the Confederacy has established a prize of $100 to be awarded annually by the History Department of the University of Chicago to the author of the best study in Southern History. Competitors for this prize must be graduates of some Southern College or university and candidates for a higher degree at the University of Chicago, and they shall, on recommendation of the History faculty, receive annual scholarships free of other conditions. It is understood that the prize money shall be used to pay the expense of publishing the successful essay or thesis, and further that in the event that no Southern student enters the competition for one year the Department of History may award the said prize to the author of a suitable study in the field of Southern History without regard to place of residence.
Judge Edwin LeRoy Antony, of Cameron, member of Congress, 1892-1893, died in Dallas on January 16, 1913. A sketch of his life appeared in the Dallas News of the 17th.
George C. Pendleton, Lieutenant Governor under Governor Hogg, and formerly Congressman from the old Ninth District, died at his home in Temple, January 18. He was sixty-eight years old.
Thomas Volney Munson, an international authority on viticulture and author of Foundations of American Grape Culture (1909), died at Denison, Texas, on January 21, 1913. A sketch of his life appeared in the Dallas News of January 23, and in Who's Who in America, 1912-1913.
On January 25 J. W. Curd died at El Paso. He was one of the ablest teachers of history to be found in the public schools of Texas. For several years he had been employing all of his spare time on a study of the early history of El Paso, and it is to be hoped that his work had progressed sufficiently to be useful.
Col. T. B. Wheeler, of Aransas Pass, former Lieutenant Governor, and mayor of Austin in the early 70's, died at San Antonio on February 2, 1913. A sketch of his life is printed in the San Antonio Express of the same date. He contributed to The Quarterly (XI, 56-65) his “Reminiscences of Reconstruction in Texas.”
On February 3, 1913, Mrs. Jeanette Ennis Belo, widow of the late Col. A. H. Belo and head of the Galveston-Dallas News Corporation, died at Cambridge, Massachusetts.
On Monday, February 10, 1913, Mr. W. W. Mills died at his home in Austin. He was born in Indiana in 1836, came to Texas in 1857 with his brother, now Brigadier-General Anson Mills of the United States Army, and settled at El Paso, then a small village. He served in the United States Army in New Mexico during the Civil War. In 1868-'69 he was a member of the Texas Reconstruction Convention. Most of his later life was spent in the Federal service as customs collector at El Paso and as consul in Chihuahua. Brief biographical sketches may be found in the El Paso Herald of February 11 and 17, and the Austin Tribune of February 24, 1913.
The transfer of the remains of Joanna Troutman, the Georgia girl who presented Ward's battalion with a lone star flag, from her native State to the State Cemetery at Austin is chronicled in a proclamation issued by the Governor, January 21, and in a message to the Legislature, February 25, 1913.
Dr. W. L. Bringhurst, Superintendent of the Orphans' Home, died at Corsicana on February 18, 1913. His widow is a daughter of General Sam Houston. A sketch of his life appeared in the Dallas News of February 19.
Judge Marcellus E. Kleberg, son of Robert Justus Kleberg, a San Jacinto veteran, died at Galveston on March 1, 1913. He represented De Witt county in the Thirteenth Legislature, and was city attorney of Galveston from 1904 until 1911.
AFFAIRS OF THE ASSOCIATION
THE ANNUAL MEETING
The annual meeting of the Association was held at the University of Texas on March 3. The Treasurer read the report, which appears below. Thirteen life members and forty-seven members were elected to the Association. The following officers were chosen for the ensuing year: Judge Z. T. Fulmore, President; Miss Katie Daffan, Mrs. A. B. Looscan, Mr. Beauregard Bryan, and Mr. Edward W. Heusinger, Vice-Presidents; Professor Charles W. Ramsdell, Corresponding Secretary and Treasurer, and Dr. W. F. McCaleb, Miss Lilia M. Casis, and Dr. W. J. Battle, Members of the Executive Council. At a meeting of the Fellows, Mr. Charles W. Hackett was elected a Fellow, and Professor Herbert E. Bolton was added to the Publication Committee. Other members of the Publication Committee were re-elected.
THE SOUTHWESTERN HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
Vol. XVI APRIL, 1913 No. 4
Editors Eugene C. Barker Herbert E. Bolton Associate Editors Chas. W. Ramsdell E. W. Winkler Edgar L. Hewett Managing Editor Eugene C. Barker PUBLISHED QUARTERLY BY THE TEXAS STATE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION Austin, Texas Entered at the post-office, Austin, Texas, as second-class mail matter
CONTENTS
Spanish Activities on the Lower Trinity River, 1746-1771 Herbert E. Bolton 339
Causes and Origin of the Decree of April 6, 1830 Alleine Howren 378
British Correspondence Concerning Texas, VI, Ephraim D. Adams, Editor 423
Book Reviews and Notices: Winkler, Journal of the Secession Convention of Texas, 1861; Hebard, The Pathfinders from River to Ocean; Ripley, Social Life in Old New Orleans; Hamby, Incomplete Rolls ... Hood's Texas Brigade; Texas Almanac for 1861 430
News Items 439
Affairs of the Association 442
Index 445
The Texas State Historical Association
PRESIDENT:
Z. T. Fulmore
VICE-PRESIDENTS:
Miss Katie Daffan, Edward W. Heusinger,
Beauregard Bryan, Mrs. Adele B. Looscan.
RECORDING SECRETARY AND LIBRARIAN:
Eugene C. Barker.
CORRESPONDING SECRETARY AND TREASURER:
Charles W. Ramsdell.
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL:
President Z. T. Fulmore
Ex-President Dudley G. Wooten,
Ex-President David F. Houston,
First Vice-President Katie Daffan,
Second Vice-President Beauregard Bryan,
Third Vice-President Edward W. Heusinger,
Fourth Vice-President Adele B. Looscan,
Recording Secretary and Librarian Eugene C. Barker,
Corresponding Secretary and Treasurer Charles W. Ramsdell,
State Librarian E. W. Winkler.
Fellows John C. Townes FOR TERM ENDING 1914.
W. F. McCaleb FOR TERM ENDING 1915.
Lilia M. Casis FOR TERM ENDING 1916.
Members S. H. Moore FOR TERM ENDING 1914.
S. P. Brooks FOR TERM ENDING 1915.
Bride Neill Taylor FOR TERM ENDING 1916.
Dora Fowler Arthur FOR TERM ENDING 1917.
W. J. Battle FOR TERM ENDING 1918.
PUBLICATION COMMITTEE:
Z. T. Fulmore,
Eugene C. Barker, E. W. Winkler,
Herbert E. Bolton, W. J. Battle.
The Association was organized March 2, 1897. The annual dues are two dollars. The Quarterly is sent free to all members.
Contributions to The Quarterly and correspondence relative to historical material should be addressed to Eugene C. Barker, Austin, Texas, or to Herbert E. Bolton, Berkeley, California.
Other correspondence may be addressed to The Texas State Historical Association, Austin, Texas.
THE QUARTERLY OF THE TEXAS STATE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION
The management wishes to announce that the back volumes of The Quarterly can be purchased and that a complete set is now available. The first four volumes have been reprinted, and will be sold at the following prices, on the installment plan, or for cash on delivery:
$4.25 per volume unbound;
$5.00 per volume bound in cloth;
$5.50 per volume bound in half leather.
Volumes V and VI are still to be had in the original copies for the following prices:
$3.00 per volume unbound;
$3.75 per volume bound in cloth;
$4.25 per volume bound in half leather.
All the remaining volumes can be had for:
$2.00 each unbound;
$2.75 for a cloth binding; and
$3.25 for the half leather binding.
Persons desiring to exchange loose numbers for bound volumes may do so by paying 75 cents for the cloth binding and $1.25 for the half leather per volume.
ADDRESS
THE TEXAS STATE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION,
Austin, Texas.
Read the Royal Guarantee New Model 5 ROYAL STANDARD
With Two-Color Ribbon Tabulator Back-Spacer Hinged Paper Fingers Tilting Paper Table
All the final touches of typewriter improvement are found at their best in the new Model 5 Royal, including several features found on no other machine.
Not the least of the many Royal features are its SIMPLICITY and DURABILITY. We have yet to learn of a Royal that has worn out in reasonable service.
The Royal is the machine of ECONOMY—not in the first cost alone, but also in the money it saves through years of perfect operation and practically repairless service. Read the Royal Guarantee; that's the basis upon which we want you to consider the Royal.
Get “The Royal Book”- also Free Demonstration
We want to show Royal features and Royal superiority in your own office—and its unique fitness for any typewriter requirements however exacting.
$75 same as for Model 1 with Tabulator. No extras.
Typewriter Sales Company
W. S. HART, Mgr.
107 W. Sixth St. Austin, Texas
INDEX TO VOLUME XVI
Abad de Jesús María, Josef, see Jesús María, Josef Abad de, 358, 363-4, 371.
Aberdeen, George Gordon, Fourth Earl of, 87, 91, 97-8, 198-9; letters, 75, 85, 307-8, 312-16; letters to, 81-5, 91-2, 184-9, 197, 200, 204-6, 291-6, 300-1, 308-12, 423-9; refuses joint mediation, 93 note 1.
Abolition of slavery in Texas, 78-80, 93-4, 202-3, 324-5.
Acevedo, Antonio (Fray), 19, 21.
Los Adaes, mission, 374; presidio, 348, 360; settlement, 347, 350, 368.
Adam, Charles (Sir), 297.
Adams, Ephraim Douglass, 110; Correspondence from the British Archives concerning Texas, 75-98, 184-213, 291-327, 423-9.
Adams, John Quincy, efforts to buy Texas, 383.
Addington, Henry Unwin, letters to, 76-81, 85-98, 200-4, 206-7.
Addison, —, 56 note 5.
Adriatic (steamboat), 43 note 3.
Agdocas, see Deadoses, 343, 345-6.
Agency, Texan, in New Orleans, 50, 110-11.
Agramontes, Francisco de, 271-2.
Agreda, María de Jesús de, 2, 8, 11, 22.
Aijados Indians, 6, 9-10, 17, 22-3, 216.
Ais Indians, 4; mission, 357.
Ajusco (pueblo, New Mexico), 148.
Alamán, Lucas, support of Terán, 402, 404; connection with the decree of Apr. 6, 1830, 406, 417-18, 421-2; report (comment, extracts), 413; Iniciativa ... Feb., 1830 (extracts), 389-90, 393; comment, 414-15, 417-18; letter (extract), 414.
Alamillo (pueblo, New Mexico), 162-3, 165-6; Indians, 268.
Alamo, victims, 34, 53, 279, 437.
Alarcón, Hernando de, 65.
Allen, Eliza, see Houston, Eliza Allen, 116-18.
Allen's Military Academy (Bastrop), 123, 132.
Almadén (villa, now Monclova), founding, 12.
Los Almagres, mineral vein, 359.
Almonte, Juan Nepomuceno, 87, 121.
Altamira, Marqués de, 353.
El Alto, 138, 140.
Altsheler, Joseph, 437.
Alvarez Barreyto, Francisco, see Barreyto, Francisco Alvarez, 340.
Alviçu, Antonio de (Capt.), 142 note 2.
Amazons, Isle of, 1.
Amichel, 3.
Amundsen, Roald, voyage, 71.
Anahuac, disturbances, 1835, 425.
Anaya, Cristóbal de, 161 note 4; pass, 157-8; estancia, 162 note 4.
Anaya, Francisco de (Capt.), 265.
Anderson, Washington, 280.
Andrews, Stephen Pearl, 202-3.
Annexation of Texas, 191, 198-9, 206-7; attitude of slave and free states, 93; House resolution, Dec. 20, 1842, comment, 98; growing sentiment for, 206; Houston's attitude toward, 322-4.
Anson, George (Lord), 68; voyage, 71.
Antonio (Bidai chief), 351.
Antonio (Tewa Indian), 156-7.
Antony, Edwin Leroy, death, 439.
Anza, Juan Bautista de, 432.
Apache Indians, 139, 142, 147-8; ravages upon Piro pueblos, 268; call for help against, 377.
Apoth-la-a-hoo-lah (Cherokee), 124.
The Approaches to California (Teggart), 63-74.
Archer, Branch Tanner, 130, 278, 281; services as commissioner, 38-9.
Archive War, 130.
Aristorena, Bernadino (Father), 372.
Arkokisa, see Orcoquisac.
Arlegui, —, 148 note 3.
Arnold, — (Maj.), 120.
Arteaga, —, voyage, 68.
Asinai, Assinais, see Hasinai, 24-5, 375.
Asp of Baltimore, see San Jacinto.
El Atascosito, proposed as mission site, 361-4, 366, 371.
Atrevida (Spanish ship), 68.
Attacapa Indians, 345, 349, 366-8, 370, 371-3.
Auditorial Board, Report, 1867 (synopsis), 173-5; 1871 (extract), 178.
Austin, Henrietta, 41 note 1.
Austin, John, 385.
Austin, Moses, empresario grant, 379, 423.
Austin, Stephen Fuller, 32, 281, 398-9, 406; services as commissioner, 38-9; Louisville address, comment, 39; flag design, 41 note 1; letters (extracts), 385-6; letters to (extracts), 50, 384, 419-20; land bounties, 54; appeal for the recognition of Texas, 56; advises evasion of neutrality laws, 57; wish for United States troops on the frontier, 60; empresario contract, 381, 411, 413, 424; loyalty to Mexico in the Fredonian War, 383; attitude toward the purchase of Texas by the United States, 386-7; colony, 130, 396; relations with Teran, 394, 418-19; map, 1829, comment, 419.
Austin (Texas brig), 84-5, 289, 291, 303, 311-12.
Autos de la conquista de la Provincia hecha...por...Balcárcel...note upon, 16 note 1.
Ayala, Juan Manuel de, 68.
Ayala, Pedro de (Fray), 148.
Ayeta, Antonio de (Fray), 138, 144-5, 165, 167-8, 272-3; connection with the revolt of 1680, 145-53, 166, 261-3, 269-70, 274-5; letter (extract), 260-1.
Azcué, Fernandez de, 14-15.
Babbitt, Almon, 249.
Baca, Ignacio (Capt.), 142 note 2.
Bailey, J. P., 34.
Baker, Andrew Jackson, obituary, 112.
Balfour, David, 280.
Bancroft, Hubert Howe,...Arizona and New Mexico...corrections, 146-51, 161, 164; History of California, comment and correction, 229 note 1, 252; History of the North Mexican States...comment and correction, 354, 356, 364.
Bankhead, Charles, 294.
Baranof,—,70.
Barker, Eugene Campbell, 337; book review, 218.
Barreyto, Francisco Alvarez, 340 note 1.
Barrios y Jaúregui, Jacinto de (Governor), 346, 349, 354; administration, 347-8, 350, 355-63, 366-9, 373.
Bassett, John Spencer, 102-4.
Battle, William James, 442.
Batts, James, 279.
Baugh, John J., 279.
Bazares, Guido de las, 3.
Bazterra (Basterra), Joaquín Orobio, see Orobio Bazterra, Joaquín de.
Beales, John Charles, 192-6.
Beard, John, 40 note 3.
Beaufort, — (Capt.), 309.
Beazley, Julia, 438.
Bell, Peter Hansborough, 278.
Bell, W., 40 note 3.
Benjamin, Judah P., 134 note 1.
Belo, Jeanette Ellis (Mrs. A. H.), death, 439.
Benavides, Alonso de (Fray), 7, 18, 22.
Benedict, Harry Yandell, 443.
Benton, Jesse, letter (extract), 280.
Benton, Thomas Hart, 58-9 note 2.
Bering, Vitus, 69-70.
Besser, — (General), 133.
Bettina, colony, 112.
Béxar, siege, land bounties for participants, 53.
Bidai Indians, 338-77 passim.
Bidai trail, 341-2.
Bidwell, John, letters to, 81, 184.
Blair, — (Capt.), 279.
Blancpain, Joseph, arrest, 348-50, 354, 356, 366-7.
Bledsoe, — (Judge), 42.
Blockade of eastern Mexican ports by Texas, 77, 82-3.
Boca Floja (Orcoquiza chief), 370.
Bocanegra, José María de, 293, 297.
Bodega, — voyages, 68.
Bodega Head, 70.
Bolton, Herbert Eugene, 442; book reviews, 99-102, 431-2; The Spanish occupation of Texas, 1519-1690, 1-26; Spanish activities on the lower Trinity River, 1746-1771, 339-77.
Bonilla, —, expedition, 5.
Bonilla, Antonio, Breve Compendio...critical note, 339 note 1; comment and correction, 354-5, 364.
Book reviews and notices: Leading facts....(Twichell), Life of Andrew Jackson (Bassett), Texas...by Milam (Thompson), etc., 99-109; American colonial government...(Dickerson), Relations of Pennsylvania with the British government...(Root), Artillery officer in the Mexican War (Anderson), Story of my life...(Rankin), Thumbnail history of ... Houston (Young), etc., 214-21; Statesmen of the Old South (Dodd), Winning the Southwest (Bradley), Guide to the study and teaching of American history (Channing, Hart, and Turner), 331-4; Journal of the Secession Convention ... (Winkler), Pathfinders ... (Hebard), Social life in Old New Orleans (Ripley), ... Rolls ... (Hamby), Texas Almanac ... 1861, etc., 430-8.
Bosque, Fernando del (Alférez), 15, 16.
Botts, Charles T. (?), 235-6, 240-1, 246-7, 254.
Boundary of California, eastern, 227-58.
Boundary of Texas, eastern, dispute, 366-71; Mexican commission, 391-8, 407, 421.
Bowie, E., 41 note 6.
Brackenridge, H. M. (Judge), 32.
Bradford, Benjamin T. (Capt.), 35 note 1, 36.
Bradley, Glenn D., 333.
Bradley, Matt, 437.
Brandenberger, William S., 110.
Brashear, — (Lieut.), 46.
Brazoria, Urrea's occupation, 286-7; customs receipts, 1842, 427.
Brazos River, early explorations, 4-5; settlements on, proposed, 409 note 2, 411.
Breece, Thomas H. (Capt.), 34; company, 279.
Brent, John H. P., 280.
Bringhurst, Nettie Houston (Mrs. W. L.), 439.
Bringhurst, W. L. (Dr.), death, 439.
Brioso, —, 375.
Briscoe, Andrew, 223.
Brister, Nathaniel R., 279.
Brodhead, John C. (?), 127.
Brooks, John Sowers, 278.
Brooks, Z. S., 279 note 6.
Brown, Charles, 40 note 3.
Brown, Elise, 339-40 note 1, 351 notes 1 and 2, 357 note 1.
Brown, John Henry, 288.
Browne, J. Ross, Report of debates in Convention of California, comment, 229 note 1.
Brownlow, W. G. (Governor), 219.
Brunner, John H., 219.
Bryan, Beauregard, 442.
Bryan, William, 111, 300, 306; orders to, 302-4.
Buckner, —, 43.
Bugbee, Lester Gladstone, “Slavery in early Texas,” comment, 389.
Burch, John, 40 note 3.
Burke, William, 40 note 3.
Burkett, M. H. B., 219.
Burkett, Mrs. M. H. B., 219.
Burkhart, A. C., 440.
Buleson, Rufus (Rev.), 122.
Burnet, David G. (President), 45-6, 385; challenge to Houston, 129; letter to (extract), 58.
Burnett, Peter Hardeman, letter to (extract), 249.
Bustamante, Anastasio, 391-2 note 2, 394, 399; revolt, 1829, 379; relations with Terán, 391-2 note 2, 402; installation, 394, 402, 406, 421; letter (extract), 419-20; overthrow, 422.
Butler, Anthony, 385.
Butler, Bennett, 36.
Butler, Pierce, 38-9 note 2.
Byron, —, voyage, 71.
Cabrera Bueno, Gonzales, 67.
Cabrillo, Juan Rodríguez, expedition, 65.
Cabeza de Vaca, Alvar Nuñez de, expedition, 4.
Cacaxtles Indians, 14-15.
Caddo Indians, 4; reputed alliance with Mexico, 59.
Calahorro y Saenz, Joseph (Father), 341, 365, 373.
Calhoun, John Caldwell, 211.
California, approaches to, 63-74; eastern boundary, in Convention of 1849, 227-58.
California (ship), 71.
Callaghan, Bryan, obituary, 222.
Calzones Colorados (Orcoquiza chief), 345-6, 348, 360, 366, 369-70, 372-3, 375-6; village, 358-9.
Camulacanos River, 13.
Cámbaros, — (Father), 375.
Canadian River, 5.
Canning, Charles John (Lord Canning), 91, 98.
Cannon, Newton (Governor of Tennessee), 60 note 4; letter to (extract), 55 note 3.
Canos (Orcoquiza chief), 345-6, 349-51, 357, 370, 372-3.
Caro, Francisco (Fray), 371.
Carabajal, Luis de, 12.
Carbajal, Agustin de, 158.
Caro, Joseph Francisco (Fray), 362.
Carretas (Nueva Vizcaya), 267.
Carson, Sam P., letter (extract), 58.
Carteret, —, 71.
Casas, Bernabé (Capt.), 13.
Casas Grandes, 263, 267, 273-4.
Casís, Lilia Mary, 442.
Cass, Lewis, 96.
Castaño de la Sosa, Gaspar, 13; explorations, 5, 12.
Castillo, Diego del, 20; expedition, 9-10.
Castillo, Pedro Fernández de, 56.
Catlett, Fairfax, 50 note 6, 51 note 1.
Catron, John, 281-2 note 7.
Causes and origin of the decree of April 6, 1830 (Howren), 378-422.
Cave, E. W., 122-3.
Cavendish, Thomas (Sir), 66.
Central Mexican Plateau, exploration and conquest, 11-12.
Cerralvo, founding, importance, 12.
Cerro de la Plata, 2; search for, 13-14, 17.
Chambers, George (Governor), 38, 52.
Chambers, Thomas J. (General), services, 39, 281; account of the Wilson-Postlethwaite expedition, 46.
Channing, Edward, 334.
Chávez, Fernando de (Sarjento mayor), 138-9, 142 note 2, 152, 269.
Chavira, Bruno (Fray), 357, 362, 371.
Cherokee Indians, reputed Mexican alliance, 59 notes 1 and 2, 60; lands, 88; Houston's life among, 114, 117-18; Houston's efforts to protect, 123.
Chihuahua, 4.
Chiles, Rosa Pendleton, 335.
Chirikoff, —, 70.
Chriesman, Horatio, 281.
Claiborne, John, 280.
Clark, Robert Carlton, 24.
Clay, Henry, 127, 198; attitude toward recognition of Texas, 62 note 1; instructions to Poinsett, 384.
Cloud, D. W., 34.
Coahuil Indians, 16.
Coahuila, founding, missions, 15-16.
Coahuila and Texas, legislature: colonization scheme, 380-1, negligence, 393; state authorities, 389. (See also Statehood question).
Coast Range, 229.
Cocke, — (Maj.), 304-5; letter to, 305-6.
Cockerell, Theodore Dru Alison, 111.
Cocos Indians (“Cokes”, Cacaos), racial affinity, range, 345.
Coleto, 106.
Collinsworth, George M. (Capt.), 286.
Colonization, methods of England and Spain contrasted, 66, 73.
Colonization of Texas, Anglo-American, 379-82, 391, 398, 416, 418, 421-2, 424-5; Mexican, 409-13, 415-16; European, 409, 412-13.
Colorado of Baltimore, see Wharton.
Colorado River, 5-9, 17, 21, 24, 229.
Columbia River, discovery, 72; Lewis and Clarke's exploration, 72.
Comanche Indians, 367; reputed Mexican alliance, 59.
Coman, Katherine, Economic beginnings of the Far West, comment and correction, 229 note 1, 364 note 4.
Combs, — (Lieut.), 46.
Concepción (Spanish vessel), 65.
Concho River, 9, 21.
Conchos River, 17, 19.
Condron, Stuart Harkins, 110.
Confederate monuments: Waxahachie, 336; Beaumont, 439; Matagorda, 440.
Congress of Texas, 1842-3, 77, 98.
Connally, John, 41 note 6.
Constitutional Convention of California, 1849, 229-58.
Constitutional Conventions of Texas, action upon the State debt, 1866, 172-3; 1869, 176-7.
Consultation, 1835, action regarding volunteers, 30; regarding customs, 426.
Convention, Salt Lake City, 1849, 248-9.
Cook, James (Capt.), 66, 71-2.
Cooke, William G., 278, 279 note 1.
Cooper, Washington, 115 note 2.
Córdoba, Cristóbal de, 356.
Coronado, Francisco Vásquez de, 5, 65.
Corn, trade, memorandum on, 310-11.
Correspondence from the British Archives concerning Texas, 75-98, 184-213, 291-327, 423-9.
Cos, Martín Perfecto de, 280.
Cosgrove, J. H., 336.
Cotton, export from Texas, 412; goods, import, 415, manufacture, 416.
Council, General, Provisional, appeal to the people of the United States, 31.
County names, 335.
Courcey, George D., 40 note 3.
Courier and Advertiser, 58-9 note 2.
Cowley, Henry Wellesley, Baron, 75, 98.
Cramayel, Jules de (Vicomte), 97, 428.
Crane, R. C., 109.
Crittenden, —, 280.
Crockett, David, 279, 336.
Crockett, Elizabeth (Mrs. David), monument, 336.
Cruz, Manuel de la (Fray), 15.
Cruzate, Domingo Jironza de (Governor), 2 note 6, 21.
Cuellar, Pedro de, 158, 265.
Cuitoa Indians, 10.
Cujanes Indians, 343; racial affinity, 346.
Culberson, Charles A. (Senator), 135 note 1.
Culberson, David B., 135.
Culiacán, 4.
Cunningham, Isaac, 42.
Curd, John William, 20 note 1, 110; obituary, 440.
Currency of Texas, 109.
Custom-houses, establishment, 425.
Customs receipts at Texas ports, 1842, 427; appropriations, 413, 415-16.
Daffan, Katie, 442.
Dampier, William, 67.
Davenport, Eliza M., see McFarlane, Eliza Davenport, 284-90.
Davis, H. W., 40 note 3.
Davis, John, 40 note 3.
Davis, John A., 279.
Davis, M. B., obituary, 112.
Davis, Perry, 36.
Davis, W. W. H., Spanish Conquest of New Mexico, correction, 145 note 2, 165-6.
Dawson, William &Company, 85.
Deadoses Indians (Agdocas, Doxses), 343; country, racial and liguistic affinity, 345-6.
Decree of April 6, 1830, origin and causes, 378-422; text (translation), 415-17.
Demecieres, De Mézières, Antanacio, see Mézières, Athanase de, 367, 442.
Descubierta (Spanish vessel), 68.
Deseret, proposed state, 248-50.
De Shields, James T., 437.
Dickens, —, 56 note 5.
Dickson, J., 307 note 3.
Dimmit, Philip (Capt.), company, 286.
Disdier, — (Abbé), 367.
Disturnell, John, Mapa de los Estados Unidos de Méjico, comment, 228-9.
Dobbs, Arthur, expeditions secured by, 1737-46, 71.
Dodd, William E., 332.
Dolores (mission), 371.
Dominguez, Atanasio (Fray), 227.
Dominguez, Bartolomé, 162.
Dominguez de Mendoza, Juan (Maestre de campo), opinions, 259-60, 270-1; expedition, 1684, 10-11, 20; on exploration, 1686, 23.
Dominguez de Mendoza, Thome, connection with the revolt of 1680, 141-2, 162, 167, 259-60, 270-1.
Douglas, — (Dr.), 117.
Downing, Benjamin F., 40 note 3.
Downing, John, 40 note 3.
Doxsas, Doxses, see Deadoses, 343, 345-6.
Doyle, Percy W., 294, 428; letters, 296-7.
Drake, Francis, voyage, 1579, effect, 65-6.
Downman, Henry W., 279.
Dufour map, comment, 228-9.
Dugald, McFarlane (Looscan), 284-90.
Dunlap, Richard G., 30, 38 note 1.
Dunlap, Archibald, 40 note 3.
Dunn, James, 280.
Dunning, William Archibald, 108.
Durán y Chávez, Fernando (Capt.), 142.
Durán y Chávez, Pedro (Sargento mayor), 142 note 2, 271.
Duties, tonnage, customs, 89-90.
Duval, Burr H. (Capt.), company at Goliad, 35.
Duval, John Crittenden, escape from Goliad, 36; company, 279.
Duval, William P. (Governor), 38.
Earl, — (Capt.), 43 note 7.
Echegaray, Martin de, 18.
Edwards, Hayden (Col.), 39; difficulties, 382-3.
Egerton, —, land claims, 188, 192.
Electra (sloop), 191.
Elisa, —, voyage, 1790, 68.
Eliza Russell (British merchantman), case, 87-8, 91-2, 185.
Ellen Brooks (British ship), 184.
Elliott, Charles (Capt.), 93 note 1, 200, 306; letters, 76-98, 184-97, 199-213, 291-9, 311-12, 318-21, 428-9; letters to, 75, 82-3, 85, 198-9, 296-7, 304-5, 314-18, 321-7.
Elliot, Mrs. Charles, 299, 306.
Elliot, George (Capt.), 296-7.
Ellis, A. J., 234.
Encomiendas in Nuevo León, 14.
Enríquez, Cristóbal (Sarjento major), 142 note 2.
Epperson, Ben, 135.
Escalante, Silvestre Velez, 432; explorations, 227; letter, translation, correction of, 144 note 1.
Escanjaques Indians, 6, 10.
Escorsa, Juan de (Sarjento mayor), 273.
Espejo, Antonio, expedition, 1582-3, 5.
Espíritu Santo (presidio), 368; garrison, 408.
Espíritu Santo Bay, occupation, 7, 18; French claims to, 371.
Estrada, Bartolomé, 273; orders, 267.
Eve, Joseph, 82, 177.
Everett, Edward, 317.
Exchequer bills of Texas, 88-9.
Fannin, James W., Jr., 35, 52-3; surrender, 1836, 106; massacre, 279.
Fannin Hotel (Austin), 122.
Farfan, Francisco (Fray), 144, 162.
Fars, Antonio de la, 348-9.
Ferguson, Robert A. (Maj.), 40 note 2; funds collected by, 42.
Ferrelo, Bartolomé, 65.
Fidalgo, —, 68.
Filisola, Vicente, 422; Memorias ... quoted, 391-2 note 2, 393 note 3.
Fincher, F. E. (Rev.), 222.
Fisher, John, 279.
Fisher, Newton, 40 note 3.
Fisher, Samuel Rhodes, 285.
Fitzhugh, John P. T., 280.
Florida, importance, 1613, 13; efforts to bring into communication with Northern Mexico, 1613-50, 13-14; exploration, 4, 17.
Flourney, George (Attorney-general), 134.
Font, Pedro (Fray), 432; map, comment, 227.
Foote, Henry Stuart, 238-9 note 2.
Forsyth, John, 60; attitude toward recognition of Texas, 55 note 3; orders for enforcing neutrality laws, 56 note 5.
Fort Adams (steamer), 43.
Fort Gibson, 118.
Fort Jesup, 57 note 1.
Fort Ross, 70.
Franciscans, college at Zacatecas, missions, 354, 357-9.
Franklin (steamboat), 44.
Fray Cristóbal, Parage de, 143-4, 155, 161-2, 165, 167, 269; rendezvous at, 259.
Frazier, Charles, 34.
Frazier, W. W., 34.
Fredonian War, 382-3, 391-2, 421.
Free labor, 78-80, 91, 190.
Freminia, Maria El Garma, 331.
Frémont, John C., 228.
French-Spanish relations, see Frontier.
Frontier, Texan, 17, 424; French relations on, 366-71.
Fry, Francis, 40 note 3.
Fulmore, Zachary T., 48, 335, 337, 442.
Furtleroy, William H., 34.
Fur-trade, 432.
Gaines, Edmund Pendleton (Gen.), 30, 57 note 1; sympathy with Texas, 50; advance into Texas, 1836, 58-60.
Gaines, James, 278 note 4.
Galiano,—, voyage, 1792, 68.
Galveston, trade, 423; customs receipts, 1842, 427.
Galveston (Texas brig), 84-5.
Galveston Bay, colony near proposed, 409 note 2, 411.
Gálvez, Joseph (Visitador-general), expedition, 1769, 68; fear of encroachment by Russia, 69; by France, 72.
Garay, Francisco de, grant, 3.
Garcés, Francisco, 432; explorations, 227.
Garcia, Anselmo (Fray), 373.
Garcia, Alonso de (Maestre de campo), connection with the revolt of 1680, 137-46, 153-6, 162-6, 259-61, 264 note 1, 265-6, 268, 271; hacienda, 160.
Garcia, Pedro (Christian Tanos Indian), 158-9.
Garcia de San Francisco, — (Fray), 19.
Garcia Larios, Francisco (Governor), 341.
Garrison, George Pierce, 24; Texas ... quoted, 382, 391.
Garza, Felipe de la, 399, 402-3.
Garza, Juan de la, Indian campaign, 1653, 14.
Gause, Benjamin F., 40 note 2.
George, Elias, 348-9.
George, Franklin, 40 note 3.
Gil de Avila, Alonso (Fray), 148.
Gilmer, Thomas W., 438.
Giraud, Diego, 360, 362.
Godoy, Juan Lucero de (Sarjento mayor), 265, 274.
Goliad, massacre, 38 note 1, 106, 279; victims, 35-6, 38, 53; escapes, 36-7.
“Goliad declaration of Independence,” 286.
Los Gómez, hacienda, 260.
Gómez de la Cadena, Francisco (Fray), 157, 159.
Gomez Dobledo, Francisco (Maestre de campo), connection with the revolt of 1680, 259-61, 264 note 1, 271.
Goodlow, R. R., 280.
Goodwin, Cardinal, The Question of the Eastern boundary of California in the Convention of 1849, 227-58.
El Gordo (Orcoquiza chief), 345, 351, 370; village, 358-9.
Gordon, Silas A., 280.
Goree, — (Maj.), 133.
Gorham, J. G., 41 note 6.
Gorostiza, Manuel E. de, 56.
Grain, trade, memorandum on, 310.
Grand River, 118.
Granillo, Luis de (Sarjento mayor), 142-3, 163, 273-4.
Grant, James (Dr.), 25.
Gray, Robert (Capt.), 72.
Gray, William F., 281 note 1.
Grayson, Peter W., 50 note 3.
Green, John A., 118.
Green, Nathan, 118.
Green, Thomas Jefferson, 50.
Gregg, Josiah, Commerce of the Prairies, correction, 145 note 2.
Gregg, Simon, 41 note 6.
Grooms, Horatio, 40 note 3.
Grundy, — (Capt.), 58.
Grundy, Felix, 124, 126.
Guadalajara, Diego de, expedition, 1654, 10.
Guadalupe (Mexican steamship), 86 note 1, 307 note 3, 312.
Guadalupe del Paso (Monastery), 146, 152-3, 262-3, 266-7, 274.
Guasco Indians, 4.
Guerra, Pablo de la, 230.
Guerra, Rosa, 375.
Guerrero, Vicente, disputed election, 378-9; deposed, 379; administration, 421.
Guild, Joseph, 114.
Guizot, François Pierre Guillaume, 93 note 1.
Gulf of Mexico, explorations of, 3, 17.
Givin, William M., in California Constitutional Convention, 233-5, 237-41, 247, 250-7.
Hackett, Charles Wilson, 110, 422; The retreat of the Spanish from New Mexico in 1680, and the beginnings of El Paso, 137-68, 259-76.
Hall, Edward, 111.
Halleck, Henry W., 227; in California Constitutional Convention, 233-5, 237-40, 246, 250-1, 253-7.
Hamby, William Robert, 434.
Hamilton, Andrew Jackson, 131-2, 169.
Hamilton, Jack, 123-4.
Hamilton, James, 85, 211, 438; mediation proposal, 87.
Hamilton, Morgan Calvin, letter, 301-2.
Hamilton, Samuel (i. e., James), 85.
Hancock, John, 118, 123.
Handy, Robert Eden, 107.
Haro, —, 68.
Harris, Henry, 40 note 3.
Harris, P. H. (Maj.), 40 note 2; letter, 44.
Harris County Bar Association, 223.
Harriss, —, 34.
Harrison, Charles L. (Col.), command, 43.
Hart, Albert Bushnell, 334.
Hart, William P. (Col.), 41.
Hasinai Indians, 24-5, 375.
Hastings, Lansford, 230-1, 249, 255, 257.
Hays, John C. (Maj.), 294 note 2.
Hearne, Samuel, 72.
Hebard, Grace Raymond, 431.
Heceta, —, 68.
Hefley, W. T., 437.
Henderson, J. W., 223.
Henderson, James Pinckney, 50 note 6, 51 note 1.
Henry, O. (Sidney Porter), 221.
Herff, Ferdinand (Dr.), obituary, 111-12.
Hernández, — (Surveyor), 359.
Heroine (steamboat), 43.
Herrera, Sebastian de, 138-9, 142, 152, 269, 271.
Herron, Nicholas, 280.
Heusinger, Edward W., 437, 442.
Highway, royal, 341.
Hill, Henry, 235-6, 256-7.
Hill, J. A., book review, 105-6.
Hittell, Theodore Henry, History of California, comment, 251 note 4.
Hobson, —, 257.
Hockley, George W. (Col.), 48 note 2.
Hodge, Frederick Webb, note, 114 note 1.
Hodges, LeRoy, 221, 336.
Hogg, James Stephen, 136.
Holden, William Woods, 173.
Holland, Annie J., 438.
Holland, Benjamin H. (Capt.), 38 note 1.
Holland, James Kemp, 438.
Holley, Mary Austin, 40-1.
Holst, Hermann Eduard von, 58-9 note 2.
Holston River, 114.
Hooper, John M., 280.
Hoppe, J. D., 255.
Los Horconsitas, 356, 363-6.
Houston, Eliza Allen (Mrs. Sam), separation from Houston, 116-18.
Houston, Margaret Lea (Mrs. Sam), 83; influence over Houston, 76, 121-2.
Houston, Nettie, see Bringhurst, Nettie Houston.
Houston, Sam, 49 note 1, 93 note 1, 96, 107, 172, 287, 318-20; quoted, 30; letters, 32 (extract), 82-3, 198-9, 321-7; characterized, 76-7, 188; attitude toward England, 77, 86; policy, 86-91, 207-13; message to Congress, Dec. 1, 1842, comment, 88; opposition to Texan advance, 1842, 94; Terrell's recollections of, 113-36; portrait, facing 113; portraits, note upon, 115-16; attitude toward annexation, 197-9, 206-13; drama regarding, noted, 222; orders, 302-4; whereabouts, 1834, 328-9.
Houston, Sam, Jr., 123, 132.
Houston, Temple, 136.
Howren, Alleine, Causes and origin of the decree of April 6, 1830, 378-422.
Hubde, Carlos, 412.
Hudson, H. G., 36.
Hughes, Anne, 20 note 1, 110, 276.
Hughes, Benjamin F., 36.
Hughy, W., 41 note 6.
Humaña, Juan de, 5-6.
Hunt, Charlton, 41.
Hunt, Memucan, 55.
Hunt, Rockwell D. (Dr.), The genesis of California's first constitution, quotation, comment, 253-6.
Hunter, William L., 279.
Huston, Felix (Gen.), letter (extract), 61.
Icara Indians, 367.
Iman, Santiago (Gen.), 297.
Independence of Texas, British interest in maintaining, 93-4; prospects, 1843, 91.
Innes, Robert, 41 note 6.
Ingram, John (Capt.), 34.
Isleta, (pueblo and Mission, El Paso district), 19.
Isleta (pueblo, New Mexico), 8, 163, 165, 168, 269; rendezvous at, retreat from, 1680, 137-45, 160-1.
Jack, William H., 50 note 3.
Jackson, Andrew, 99-102, 124-6, 128; letter (extract), 55 note 3.
Jackson, Pearl (Mrs. John A.), 335-6.
James, John H., obituary, 223.
Jamison, Green B. (Maj.), death, 34.
Janos Indians, 272; mission, 275.
Jefferson, Thomas, memorial building, St. Louis, 441.
Jemez (pueblo, New Mexico), 143, 160, 163.
Jesus María, Josef Abad de (Fray), 363-4, 371; letter (extract), 358.
Johnson, — (Col.), 53.
Johnson, Andrew (President), 169; repudiation policy, 173.
Johnson, Cave, 127.
Johnson, Francis W., 278 note 4.
Johnson, Reverdy, 124-5.
Johnston, Albert Sidney (Gen.), 129.
Jolly, John (Cherokee chief), 114.
Jones, Anson, 93 note 1, 184, 186, 192-6, 306, 326.
Jones, James M., 235-7, 251, 256-8.
Juan Luis, Sr. (Capt.), 142 note 2.
Juan Luis, Jr. (Capt.), 142 note 2.
Julimes Indians, 19-20.
Julius Caesar (schooner), 44 note 4.
Jumano Indians, 6; expeditions to, 7-11, 17, 20-2; country, proposals to occupy, 1685-6, 22-4.
Juntas: 1680, 259-61, 269-71; 1685, 18; 1754, 350; 1755, 352; 1756, 353-4; 1757, 360; 1762, 365; 1768, 72.
La Junta, 22; missions, 19.
Karankawa Indians, 284; racial affinity, range, 345-6; French among, 369.
Kemp, James, 279.
Kennedy, William, 311; letters, 81, 184, 200, 205-6, 300-1, 304-6, 316-18, 423-8; letter to, 312-13.
Kentucky and the Independence of Texas (Winston), 27-62.
Kentucky Gazette, 61-2.
Kerlérec, Louis Billouart de (Gov.), protests, 366-70; designs, 370.
Kimball, Heber C., 249; letter, 243-5 note 3.
King, Thomas Butler, 243-4, 254 note 1.
Kino, Eusebio Francisco (Father), 432; missionary activity, 67.
Kleberg, Marcellus E., death, 439.
Knox, John O., 280.
Krenitzen, —, expedition, 1768-9, 70.
Laba, Ignacio María (Fray), 373-4, 377.
“Ladies' Battalion,” 39.
“Ladies' Cavalry,” 42.
“Ladies' Legion of the City of Lexington,” 40, 41 note 1, 43-7.
La Fora, Nicolás (?) diary (extract), 366.
La Harpe, Bénard de, 432.
Lamar, Mirabeau Buonaparte, 107, 120; challenge to Houston, 129.
Land claims, Texas, 186; laws, criticism, 186-8.
Lands, bounty, 45-7, 52-4.
Lanpen, see Blancpain, Joseph.
Larios, Juan (Father), 15.
La Salle, René Robert Cavelier de, expedition, results, 4-6.
Lauck, W. Jett, 221.
La Vérendrye, —, discovery of Rocky Mountains, 72.
Lawrence, Asa, 41 note 6.
Lawton, Eba Anderson, 217.
Legaré, Hugh Swinton, 317.
Leiva, Pedro de (Maestre de campo), connection with the revolt of 1680, 138, 140, 144, 146, 152-4; 161 note 5, 163-6, 166, 168, 261, 265, 272.
Leland, Waldo G., 335.
León, —, 13.
León, Alonso de, 14, 432; expedition, 1689, 24; 1690, 25-6.
León, Jacinto de, 347.
León (Cerralvo), founding and early importance, 12.
Lester, James S., 111.
Letas, see Comanche, 367.
Levashef, —, expedition, 1768-9, 70.
Levy, A. M. (Dr.), 280.
Lewis, —, 4.
Lewis, — (Col.), 39.
Lewis and Clarke, expedition, 1804-6, 72.
Lexington Fayette Volunteers, 40.
Lexington Intelligencer, 61.
Lincoln, Abraham, proposal to Houston, 1861, 135.
Lippitt, Francis J., in California Constitutional Convention, 247, 254; The California boundary question of 1849, quotation, comment, 252-6.
Little Penn (British merchantman), case, 87-8, 91-2.
Llanos del Cíbolo, 5-6.
Lizardi and Company, 92.
Loan of Texas, first, 281 note 1.
Long, James, 329; order, 330; proclamations, 330.
Long John (Cherokee), 130-1.
Looscan, Adele Briscoe (Mrs. Michael), 442; Dugald McFarlane, 284-90.
López, Diego (Father), 9.
López, Diego (Sarjento mayor), 274.
López, Nicholás (Fray), 19, 24, 261.
López de Gracia, Andrés, 266-7.
López de Gracia, Joseph, 266-7.
Louisiana Purchase, memorial building, 441.
Lubbock, Francis Richard, 115, 129.
Lucero de Godoy, Juan, 166.
Lummis, Charles Fletcher, translation of Escalante, correction, 144 note 1.
Lumpkin, John, 36.
Lyman, Amasa, letter (extract), 249; letter to, 243-5 note 3.
Macarty (Chevalier), letter (extract), 370.
McCaleb, Walter Flavius, 442.
McCalla, —, letter (extract), 384.
McCarver, M. M., 238, 246, 254.
McCormac, Eugene I., 110.
McCulloch, James, 281 note 1.
McCulloch, James E., 221.
McDougal, John, 231-2, 235-7, 250-2, 254-5.
McDougall, H. M., 438.
McFarlane, Dugald, biography, 284-90.
McFarlane, Eliza Davenport (Mrs. Dugald), 284-90, passim.
McFarlane, Eureka, see Theall, Eureka McFarlane, 284, 289-90.
McFarlane, William Wallace, 289.
McFarlane's Castle, 285.
McGauhey, W. L., obituary, 222.
McGregor, — (Col.), 128.
McIntyre, — (Capt.), company, 280.
Mackay, William H., 281.
MacKenzie, Alexander, 72.
McLean, John, 41 note 6.
McMaster, William (Capt.), 289.
McMeans, Robert, 41 note 6.
Maddox, James, 41 note 6.
Madrid, Roque de (Capt.), musterrecord, 266.
Magee, Augustus, raid, 32.
Mail, overland, Texas, 221.
Malaspina, Alejandro, 68.
Maldonado, Juan Antonio, 347.
Manchaca, — (Capt.), 375.
Manning, William Ray, 111.
Mansos Indians, 143, 260, 271; mission, 275.
Manzanet, Damian, see Manssanet, Damian.
Maps and charts, comment: Font's, 1777, 227; Rosa's, 1837, 227-9; Dufour's, 1837, 228-9; Tanner's, 1846, 228-9; Preuss's, 228-9, 236-7; Disturnell's, 228-9; Miranda's, 1757, 344-5 note 1, 356 note 1, 368-9; Austin's, 1829, 419; transmitted to England, 1843, 309.
Marenti, Joseph (Fray), 373.
Marmolejo, Francisco Fernández, 148.
Marquéz, Bernabé (Sarjento mayor), 156.
Marquéz, Pedro (Capt.), 142 note 2, 271.
Marshall, John, 120.
Marshal, Thomas Maitland, note upon Houston, 328-9.
Martín, Hernando, 21; expedition, 9-10.
Martínez, —, 68.
Martínez Pacheco, Rafael, see Pacheco, Rafael Martínez, 365, 371-7.
Martos y Navarrete, Angel (Governor), appointment, 356; administration, 363-6, 370, 374-6; letter to (extract), 371.
Mason, John Young, 186-7, 194, 281.
Masonic lodges in Texas, 285-7.
Massanet, Damian (Fray), expedition, 1689, 24, 1690, 25-6.
Massé, —, 367-8.
Massey, J. W., 280.
Matagorda, early history, 284; customs receipts, 1842, 427.
Matagorda Bay, 3; shipwreck, 1863, 440.
La Matanza, 6.
Mateo (Orcoquiza chief), 345-6, 250-1, 360.
Maverick, S. A., 220.
Mediation between, Texas and Mexico; joint, 75, 93, 97; by England, 82, 87.
Mendoza, Antonio de (Viceroy), explorations, 65.
Mendoza, Diego de (Fray), 138, 152-3.
Mendoza, Diego Dominguez de (Capt.), 142 note 2.
Mendoza, Juan Dominguez de, see Dominguez de Mendoza, Juan, 10.23, 259-71 passim.
Mendoza, Thome Dominguez de, see Dominguez de Mendoza, Thome, 141-271 passim.
Mexicana (Spanish vessel), 68.
Mexico, history, 1823-33, 378-81; growth of friction with Texas, 382-91. (See also Blockade of eastern Mexican ports; Colonization of Texas; Customs receipts; Decree of April 6, 1830; Fredonian War; Invasion of Texas; Maps; Mediation between Texas and Mexico; Montezuma; Peace between Texas and Mexico; Recognition of Texan independence; Revolution of Mexico; Revolution of Texas; Slavery; Texas; Trade; Treaties; etc.)
Mézières, Athanase de (Mécières, Demecieres, etc.), 367, 432.
Mier, early settlement near, 12; expedition, 1842, 189; prisoners, 199, 295, 315-16, 319-20, 324-7.
Milam, Benjamin, sketch of, 34.
Mill Creek, 359.
Miller, Edmund Thornton, Repudiation of State debt in Texas since 1861, 169-83.
Miller, James Weston (Rev.), 221.
Miller, Robert F., 221.
Miller, T. S., obituary, 223.
Miller, William P. (Maj.), 54.
Mills, Roger Quarles, 109.
Mills, W. W., obituary, 440.
Miranda, Bernardo de, 346-7, 359-61, 368-9; map, Apr. 18, 1757, comment, 344-5 note 1, 356 note 1, 368-9.
Missions of Texas, progress, 1759-71, 371-4. (See also Adaes; Ais; Dolores; Franciscans; Nuestra Señora de la Luz; Orcoquisac; El Paso; San José de los Nasonis, etc.)
Missions, southwestern, 432.
Mississippi River, alleged Spanish expedition to, 15 note 1.
Mississippi Valley Historical Association, 436-7.
Missouri Compromise, attempt to apply to the Pacific coast, 238-9 note 2, 242 note 1.
Mississippi Republican, 329.
Mitchell, Mrs. E. H., 116.
Mitchell, Samuel Augustus, Map of Mexico including Yucatan and Upper California, comment, 228.
Mitcherson, — (Dr.), 279.
Monasterio, —, 56.
Monterey (California), 67; occupation, 67-8, 73.
Monterrey (villa of San Luis, Mexico), establishment, 12.
Montezuma (Mexican vessel), 307 note 3; release, 77, 86.
Montgomery, James, 280.
Montgomery County, volunteers from, 43 note 2.
Montoya, Felipe, 266.
Moore, Edwin Ward (Commodore), 289, 305-6; challenge to Houston, 129; letter, 307; letter to, 301-2; conduct, 1843, 291, 300, 303-4, 312.
Moore, Robert B., 34.
Morales, — (surveyor), 359.
Morehead, John T., 280.
Morfi, Agustín (Fray), Memorias ... correction, 354.
Morgan, James, 300, 306-7; orders to, 302-4.
Mormons, settlements, 236, 238; in relation to the California boundary, 247-50.
Morton, Jeremiah, 281 note 1.
Moscoso, Luis de, expedition, 4.
Motley, William (Dr.), 49.
Mulkey, Abe, 219.
Munson, Thomas Volney, death, 439.
Murphy, Daniel, 36.
Murphy, William C., 40 note 3.
Murphy, William S., 316-18; statement, 316-17.
Músquiz, Ramón, 387; letter to (extract), 386-7.
“Mustangs” (Duval's company), 35.
Nabedache Indians, 24; village, 341, 351.
Nacogdoches, 59; United States troops at, 58-9; conditions, 1828, 395-8; garrison, 408.
Nanboa, Pedro (Indian), 162.
Nárvaez, Pánfilo de, 4.
Natchitoches, trade, 347-8; fur trade, 432.
Natchitoches Courier, 398.
National archives building project, 335.
National Intelligencer, comment upon Gaines's advance, 1836, 60 note 4.
Native Sons of the Golden West, 110.
Navy of Texas, 83-5, 289, 307.
Neill, Andrew, escape from Mexico, 191.
Neutrality, Jackson's attitude toward, 54-61.
New Mexico, explorations of, 4-8, 17; missions, 89; base of operations in, 18. (See also Retreat of the Spanish from New Mexico in 1680 ... (Hackett); School of American Archaeology; etc.)
New Orleans Bee, 30, 58-9 note 2, 61-2, 282.
New Orleans Greys, 279, 280 note 3.
Newspapers of Texas: at Brazoria and Matagorda, 288, 290. (See also Texas Republican.)
New York Courier, quoted, 278.
Ney, Elisabet, 438.
Nicholas, —, letter (extract), 384.
Nicholson, Jimmy, 123, 130.
Nisone Indians, 4.
Nondacan Indians, 4.
Nootka Sound Controversy, 68, 72.
Nordenskjöid, —, voyage, 1879, 69.
Northwest Company, 72.
Northwest passage, search for, 68-9, 70-3.
Norton, Myron, 245-6, 253.
Norvell, Mrs. Lipscomb, 221, 335.
Nueces River (Colorado), 10, 17, 19-21, 24.
Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe (Almadén site), founding, missions, 15.
Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe (El Paso), see Guadalupe del Paso.
Nuestra Señora de la Luz (mission), establishment and early history, 357-9, 371-4.
Nuevo León, exploration and founding, 11-15; encomiendas, 14.
Nueva Vizcaya, 149; danger, 1680, 272.
Oath of enlistment, 51 note 3.
O'Gorman, —, land claim, 188, 192.
O'Kinney, Allen, 279.
Oldham, William S. (Judge), 118-20.
Olives (Indian tribe), 3.
Olmos, — (Father), 3.
Oñate, Juan de, expedition, 1598, 5; expedition, 1601, 6.
Oo-loo-tee-kah (John Jolly, Cherokee chief), 114.
El Orcoquisac, site, 344-5 note 1; plan for villa and mission at, 349-50; garrisoned, 350-1; presidio, mission, and villa authorized, 351-5; presidio and mission established, 355-9; plans for a villa at Santa Rosa, 359-61; efforts to move the presidio and the mission, failure of the project for a villa, 361-6; abandonment, 377.
Orcoquiza Indians, 338-77 passim.
Ordoñez de Montalvo, —, 165.
Oregon Territory, 96.
Orobio Bazterra, Joaquín de, expedition, 1745-6, 339-43; diary, comment, 341-2.
Orr, —, 307 note 3.
Ortega, Diego de (Father), 9.
Osbur, J. C. (Dr.), 280.
Otermín, Antonio de (Governor), connection with the revolt of 1680, 138-9, 144-5, 152, 154-68, 259-61, 263-4, 271-5; letter, 167-8; letter to (extract), 260-1.
Overland Monthly, 252-3.
Owen, Shapley, 49.
Pacheco, Rafael Martinez (Capt.), 365; career at El Orcoquisac, 371-7.
Pachina Indians, 342.
Page, Albert, 40 note 3.
Paine, Clarence S., 437.
Pakenham, Richard (Sir), 199, 206, 294 note 1, 314, 319; course respecting Mier prisoners, 320, 325; letters to, 207-13.
Palm, Swante (Sir), report, 1865, 169-171.
Palmas, Rio de las, 13.
Panis Indians, 367.
Pánuco, 12-13; founding, early importance, 3, 11.
Pares, see Panis.
Parker, C. A., 33 note 5.
Parker, Edwin B., 115.
Parker, Isaac, letter to (extract), 32.
Parraga, Diego de (Fray), 259; letter to, 167-8.
Parral, 19, 27, 275.
Parras, 12.
Paschal, George W., 131.
El Paso, 7, 11, 144, 154, 164, 166, 272-3; settlement, early history, 17, 19-20, 23, 269-76; presidio, 271, 276; history, note upon, 440. (See also Guadalupe del Paso; San Lorenzo, etc.)
Pataca, see Comanche, 59, 367.
Patties, —, 73.
Pauit Indians, 16.
La Paz, 65.
Peace between Texas and Mexico: importance to England, 191; Mexican overtures, 204-5, 428.
Pease, —, 41.
Pease, Elisha Marshall, report, 1865, 169-71.
Pecos River, 5, 13, 15.
Pedraza, Manuel Gómez, disputed election, 378; installation, 379.
Pendleton, George C., death, 439.
Peñalosa, Diego de, 23; expedition, 6-7, 17-18.
Peñasco, Dionysio de (Father), missionary work, 15.
Pérez, Juan, voyage, 1774, 68.
Périère, — (French commander, Natchitoches), 374-5.
Perry, Emily Austin, letter to (extract), 385-6.
Perry, James, 279.
Perry, James Franklin, letter to (extract), 385-6.
Pettus, Samuel O. (Capt.) company, 279.
Peyton, Balie, 124, 126-7.
Phillips, Drury McN., 335.
Phillips, William Battle (Dr.), 335.
Picurís (pueblo) Indians from, in sack of Santa Fé, 156.
Piedras, José de las (Col.), at Nacogdoches, 390 note 1, 393.
Los Piélagos (El Piélago), 363-4, 366.
Pilotage, 423.
Pimería Atla, 67.
Pineda, Alonzo Alvarez de, exploration, 1519, 3.
Piro Indians, 138; pueblos, 268.
Poinsett, Joel Roberts, in Mexico, 383-5.
Polk, James Knox, 124, 126-7; settlement of the Oregon question, 107-8; message, December 5, 1848, comment, 238-9 note 2.
Population of Texas, character, 1828-30, 395-8, 408.
Port Gibson Correspondent, extract, 331.
Portolá, Gaspar de, expedition, 1769, 68.
Postlethwaite, G. Lewis, volunteer expedition, 1836, 43.
Preston, Isaac T., 282.
Preuss, Charles, Map of Oregon and upper California, comment, 228, 236-7.
Price, — (Capt.), 46.
Price, Rodman M., 239, 254.
Primer, Sylvester (Dr.), obituary 223.
Prince, —, Historical sketches ... correction, 165.
Pryor (Prior), land claim, 188, 192.
Public debt of Texas, 169-193.
Pueblo Indian revolt, 1680, 19, 137-68, 258-76.
Queen Charlotte Island, 68.
The question of the eastern boundary of California in the Convention of 1849 (Goodwin), 227-58.
Quimper, —, voyage, 1790, 68.
Quintana, Luis de (Sarjento mayor), 166, 266.
Quivira, 20, 22; search for, 1-2, 17-18; Indians, 6, 9.
Ragan, William, 40 note 3.
Ragsdale, Peter C., 280.
Rains, J. D., 36.
Ramírez de la Piscina,—(Capt.), 375.
Ramos, Juan, 157.
Ramsdell, Charles William, 442-3; book reviews, 217, 332-4, 430-1.
Randolph (Tenn.) Recorder, quoted, 277 note 1.
Read, Ezra (Dr.), 46.
Reagan, John Henninger (Judge), 115; anecdote of Houston, 122.
Recognition of Texas independence, 314-15, 324; Jackson's attitude toward, 55-6; by Mexico, 200-1.
Recollections of General Sam Houston (Terrell), 113-36.
Red, William S. (Rev.), 222.
Red River, 4, 8; alleged Spanish expedition to, 15 note 1; district customs receipts, 1842, 427.
Red Rovers, 279 note 6.
Reid, Hugh, 230.
Repudiation of State debt in Texas since 1861 (Miller), 169-83.
Retes, Joseph de (Capt.), 152.
The retreat of the Spaniards from New Mexico in 1680, and the beginnings of El Paso (Hackett), 137-68, 259-76.
Revolution of Mexico, 1910, 108.
Revolution of Texas, causes, 105-6.
Rhodes, James Ford, 437.
Richards, Willard, 249; letter, 243-5 note 3.
Richmond (Va.) Enquirer, quoted, 278, 282-3; attitude toward Texas, 282.
Richmond (Va.) Whig, 280; attitude toward Texas, 282.
Riley, Bennett (Gen.), proclamation, comment, 229, 246.
Rio, Domingo del, 339-77 passim.
Rio Abajo (district, New Mexico), inhabitants, 137, 162; revolt, 1680, 143; refugees from, 156, 259, 272.
Rio Grande (Rio Bravo, Rio Bravo del Norte, Rio Grande del Norte, Rio del Norte), 13, 15; Jumano on, 7; missions on, 19; frontier, 12-13, 17; Texan advance to, 1842, 94, 98; Ayeta's crossing, 1690, 262-3.
Ripley, Eliza, 433.
Ripperdá, Barón de (Governor), 377.
Ritchie, William F., 281 note 1.
Ritter, T. E., 41 note 6.
Rivera, — Afan de, 365, 373, 376.
Rivera, Payo Enriquez de (Viceroy), 147.
Rivera, Pedro de, inspection, 1727, 340 note 1.
Rives, George L., 438.
Robbins, —, 34.
Robbins, Fred S., 222.
Roberts, Oran Milo, 134.
Robinson, James W., 288; peace negotiations, 1843, 204 note 2, 207-11, 307-8, 314-15.
Rocky Mountains, discovery, 72.
Rodgers, Tiana, 118.
Rodríguez, Agustín (Father), expedition, 1581, 5.
Rodríguez, Jacinto, 230.
Rogers, William P. (Col.), 135; monument, 224.
Rogers, Woods, 67.
Roman, Richard (Capt.), 48 note 1.
Romero, — (Father), 357, 359, 364.
Romero, Felipe (Capt.), 142 note 2.
Roque (Tesuque Indian), 156.
Rosa, Luis de la, map, comment, 228-9.
El Rosario, 23.
Ross, John M., 38 note 1.
Ross, William, 34.
Rowe, Leo S., 108.
Roy, John, 41 note 6.
Royce, Josiah, History of California, comment and correction, 229 note 1, 252.
Rubi (Ruby), Marqués de, inspection, 1767, 365-6, 376-7.
Rugeley, E. S., 440.
Runnels, Hiram R., 118.
Ruíz, Marcos, 344 note 1, 347-8, 350, 356; connection with San Agustín Presidio, 375-6; arrest, 376.
Rusk, Thomas J., 50 note 4; elected major general, 190; letter to (extract), 282 note 4.
Russell, Joseph, 185.
Russia, activities in northwestern America, 67, 69-72.
Sabeata, Juan, 2 note 6, 20-1.
Sabinas River, Indian settlements on, 15.
Sabine, customs receipts, 427.
St. Denis, Louis de (son of Louis Jucherean de St. Denis), accusations against, 369-70.
St. Denis, Louis Jucherean de, 369, 432.
Salas, Antonio de (Sarjento mayor), 142 note 2.
Salas, Juan de (Father), visits to the Jumano, 6, 8-9, 11.
Salinero Indians, 8.
La Salineta (Texas), retreat to, 1680, 166, 259-64; temporary camp at, 264-75.
Salvino, Luis (Father), 372, 375-6.
Sam Houston Normal College, 222.
San Andrés (Red) River, 15 note 1.
San Agustín de Ahumada (presidio), 357, 360, 362, 366, 373; trade, 348; establishment, 355-6; site, conflicting claims, 366; French plot against alleged, 369; administration, scandals, 374-6.
San Antonio de Béxar (presidio), garrison, 408, 410.
San Antonio (Texas schooner), 84-5.
San Antonio Road, 432.
San Augustine, customs receipts, 1842, 427.
San Bartolomé, valley (New Mexico), 273.
San Bernard (Texas schooner), 84-5.
San Buenaventura, Dionysio de (Father), 15.
San Carlos (Spanish vessel), 68.
San Clemente (stream), 21.
Sanders, Lewis, 56 note 5.
Sandía, 59-61.
San Diego (Cal.), 67; occupation, 67-8, 73.
San Felipe de Austin, capture, 37.
San Francisco Bay, 68, 70.
San Francisco Bay (Matagorda), 3.
San Francisco (mission, El Paso), 275.
San Francisco de los Sumas, mission, founding, 19.
San Gregorio, mines, 12.
San Lázaro (Spanish vessel), 65.
San Lorenzo (pueblo), 9.
San Lorenzo, Real de, 275.
San Luis (villa, Monterey), founding, 12.
San Luis de Ahumada, see San Agustín de Ahumada.
San Luis de los Amarillas, see San Sabá (presidio).
San José de los Nasonis (mission), 375.
San Jacinto, battle, 33, 47-8; 116-17, 280; effect, 49, 60.
San Jacinto (Texas schooner), notes upon, 84-5.
San Jacinto River, 343-4.
San Juan Bautista, 274.
San Marcos (pueblo, New Mexico), 156-7.
San Miguel (mission), see Adaes (mission).
San Pedro (Nabedache village), 341.
San Pedro de Alcántara (pueblo), 19.
San Pedro de Alcántara, Real de, 275.
San Rafael, Arroyo de, 344.
San Rafael, Puesto de, 342.
San Sabá (presidio), name, 355; destruction, 369-70.
Santa Anna, Antonio López de, 106, 206, 280, 285, 294-5, 324-5, 399; cruelty, 38 note 2; capture, 47; attitude toward recognition, 198-9; peace negotiations, 1843, 204-5, 207-12, 307-8, 314-15, 325; influence, 201; revolution, 1832, 379, 422.
Santa Barbara, 70.
Santa Cruz, bay, 65.
Santa Fé (New Mexico), 6, 9, 17; cabildo, 147, 260, 269, 274-6; in the revolt of 1680, 137, 156-8, 269-72.
Santa Gertrudis, mission, 19.
Santander, Rio de, 13.
Santa Rosa de Alcázar, 357-61.
Santa Rosa de Alcázar, Arroyo de, 344, 359-61.
Santa Rosa de Alcázar, Springs of, 344-5 note 1, 354-5.
Santa Rosa de Viterbo (Bidai ranchería), 342.
Santiago (Spanish vessel), 68.
Santísimo Sacramento, Real de, 275-6.
Santo Domingo, 157.
Satereyn, Márcos (Fray), 357, 362.
Sayers, Joseph D., 123.
School of American Archaeology, 111.
Schuyler, R. L. (Dr.), 107-8.
Scorpion of Baltimore, see San Bernard, 84.
Scott, —, 83.
Scott, Winfield, 217.
Scurry, William R., 118, 131-2.
Scylla (British sloop), 428.
Secession, Houston's opposing speech, comment, 133-4.
Sedillo, Pedro (Capt.), 142 note 2.
Semple, Robert, 232, 239, 243, 254.
Senecú (New Mexico mission), 19.
Senecú (New Mexico pueblo), Indians of, 144, 148, 268.
Seven Cities of Cíbola, see Cíbola, Seven Cities of.
Seven Hills of the Aijados, see Aijados, Seven Hills of.
Sevilleta (pueblo, New Mexico), 138, 140; Indians of, 268.
Sewell, —, 34.
Sharpe, —, 36.
Shain, —, letter to, 37.
Shain, Charles B., escape from Goliad, 36; letter, 37.
Shannon, — (Capt.), company, 42-3.
Shannon, William E., in California Constitutional Convention, 234, 236, 244-5, 247, 254-6.
Sharpe, —, 36.
Sheffy, —, 114.
Shelvocke, George, 67.
Sheppard, Morris, 335.
Sherman, Sidney (Col.), 33; regiment, 48 note 1.
Sherwood, Winfield S., 239-44.
Shipping charges, 427-8.
Shivers, O. L., 40 note 2.
Shumard, Benjamin F. (State Geologist), 131-2.
Sía (Queres pueblo, New Mexico), 160; revolt, 1680, 143.
Sierra, Antonio de (Fray), 144-5, 155.
Sierra Azul, 23.
Sikes, Henry, 279.
Silva, Bernardo de (Fray), 373.
Simonds, Frederic William, 220.
Simpey, John, 41 note 6.
Slave-hunting, 14.
Slavery, Indian, 14.
Slavery, Negro, question in relation to Texas, 29, 61, 93; in Texas, 312-13, 318-19, 324, 396-8, 416, 418; in the California Constitutional Convention, 238, 240-5, 250-8.
Slave-trade, efforts to suppress, 96 note 1.
Smith, Ashbel, 75, 86, 93 note 1 ` 131-2, 304.
Smith, Benjamin, 280.
Smith, Jedediah, 73.
Smith, John T., 128-9.
Smith, John W., 40 note 3.
Smith, Justin Harvey, 58-9 note 1.
Smith, Lemuel, 280.
Smith, Thomas, 43.
Snelling, John, 279.
Snyder, Jacob, 254.
Socorro (pueblo, New Mexico), 138, 144-5, 156, 162, 166, 269; mission, 19; fortification, 140; Indians, 140-1, 268; junta, 141-3.
La Soledad (mission, El Paso), 275.
Solís, — (Father), 373.
Solís de Miranda, Martín, 148.
Sonora, Indians, revolt feared, 271-2.
Soto, Joseph del Rosario (Fray), 373.
Spanish activities on the lower Trinity River, 1746-1771 (Bolton), 339-77.
Spanish-French relations, see Frontier.
The Spanish occupation of Texas, 1519-1690 (Bolton), 1-26.
Spartan (British ship), 296-7, 299, 309.
Sphon, Joseph H., 279 note 6.
Spring Creek, 344, 359.
Stanberry, William, encounter with Houston, 123-8.
Statehood question in Texas, 1828, 396-8.
Steger, Harry Peyton, 221.
Steiner, J. M., 120.
Stevenson, Andrew, 126.
Stewart, Charles, 223.
Stockton, R. L., 279.
Striff, T. R., 280.
Stroble, Lewis (Capt.), 289.
Sturgis, Paul B., 336.
Sublett, Henry, 117.
Sublett, Phil, 117.
Sumas Indians, 271; mission, 275.
Sumesta, Juan de (Fray), 19.
Sutil (Spanish vessel), 68.
Sutter, John A., 230, 255.
Sweeny, Arie Davenport (Mrs. B. F.), 284, 290.
Swisher, James M. (Capt.), 130.
Tamages (Orcoquiza chief), 370.
Tampico, 3.
Tandey, A. M., 280.
Tanner, Henry Schenck, Map of the United States of Mexico, comment, 228.
Taos (New Mexico pueblo), jurisdiction, 139; Indians from, in sack of Santa Fé, 156.
Taovayas Indians, 355.
Taraumares Indians, 263.
Tariff, Texan, enforcement, 293; history, 424-7.
Tarleton, James (Capt.), 33; account of San Jacinto, 48-9.
Tarnava, Constantino (Lieut.), 403, 406; letter (extract), 383; report, 406-13; report, comment, 417-18, 421-2.
Taylor, — (Capt.), 289.
Taylor, — Eldorado, comment, 251 note 4.
Taylor, Zachary, 243.
Teggart, Frederick J., The approaches to California, 63-74.
Teguayo, Kingdom of, 18, 22-3.
Tejas Indians, 10, 17, 343; kingdom, 2, 6, 10, 16-17, 20-4.
Tellez Xiron, Joseph (Capt.), 142 note 2.
Tenorio, Antonio, ejection, 425.
Terán, Manuel de Mier y, 379, 390 note 1; suspicions, 383, 385, 407-8, 411-12; connection with the affairs of Texas, 386, 391-406, 418-21; biographical sketch, 391-2 note 2; relations with Bustamante, 391-2 note 1, 402; with Austin, 394, 418-19; report (extract), 401-2; connection with the decree of April 6, 1830, 406-14, 417-18, 421-2; letters (extracts), 395-8, 400-1, 406, 420; letters to (extracts), 404, 414.
Terrell, Alexander Watkins, Recollections of General Sam Houston, 113-36; death, 223; memorial resolutions, 337.
Terrell, George W., 91-2.
Terry, Stephen P., 40 note 3.
Texas, Spanish occupation, 1519-1690, 1-26; Growth of friction with Mexico, 382-91; attempts of the United States to purchase, 383; colonizing races, general character, 390-1; military occupation, preparations for, 1829-31, 398-407, 421. (See also Agency; Annexation; Boundary of Texas; Constitutional Conventions; Customhouses; Currency; Customs; Independence; Mexico; Missions; Navy; Population; Public debt; Volunteer Army; etc.)
Texas Republican, note upon, 329-31.
Texas State Historical Association, affairs, 1912-13, 337-8, 442-3.
Theall, Arie Davenport, see Sweeney, Arie Theall, 284, 290.
Theall, Eureka McFarlane, (Mrs. Joseph), 284, 289-90.
Theall, Joseph, 288-9.
Thoma, Francisco de, Historia ... de Nuevo México, correction, 153-4 note 4, 161 note 5.
Thompson, Henry, 106-7.
Thompson, Waddy, 220, 291; conduct respecting the Mier prisoners, 320, 324-5.
Thornton, Howard F., 281 note 1.
Throckmorton, James, 135.
Thruston, A. S., order, 51.
Thruston, J. M., 34.
Tlascaltecan Indians, 360; Spanish relations, 354.
La Toma, 270.
Tomás (Bidai chief), 344-5 note 1, 370, 372-3.
Tompiro Indians, 8.
Toncray, L. C., 280.
Tonnage, duties, 427-8.
Trade, with the Jumano, 10-11, 17; between Cerralvo and Pánuco, 13; with the Bidai and Orcoquiza, 347-8; illicit, 367-8; coastwise, 412-13, 416, 423; English and foreign in Texas, 1842, 423, 427.
Travis, William Barret, 53.
Treaties: of the United States with Spain, 1819, dissatisfaction with, 29-30; United States-Mexico, 1831, right of Texas to protection under, 59; Texas-United States, commercial, non-ratification, 201-2, 293, 322-3.
Treviño, José (Capt.), 13.
Trinity River, 17; Spanish activities on, 1745-6, 339-77.
Trist, James, 217.
Troutman, Joanna, 439.
Trujillo, Diego de (Maestre de campo), 259-60.
Trujillo, Luisa (Doña), 160.
Turner, Frederick Jackson, 334.
Tuskina (steamboat), 43 note 5.
Tuthill, Franklin, History of California, comment, 251 note 4.
Twichell, Ralph Emerson, Leading facts ... review, 99-102; correction, 161 note 5, 164 note 4.
Twiggs, David E. (Gen.), 135.
Tyler, John, 95-6, 198, 211, 324.
Udden, J. A., 335.
Ulloa, Francisco de, 65.
Unalaska, 63.
United Confederate Veterans, reunion, 1912, 223.
United Daughters of the Confederacy, State Convention, 1912, 336; Illinois chapter, prize, 441. (See also Confederate monuments.)
Urbantke, Carl, death, 222.
Urdaneta, Andrés de, 65.
Urrea, José (Gen.), 35, 287.
Utah, effort to gain admission to the Union, 248-50.
Vaca, Alonso de, 6.
Valcárcel, Antonio de, 15.
Valcárcel, Domingo (Auditor), 353.
Valdés, —, voyage, 68.
Valencia, Francisco de, 161.
Valentín, Joseph, 344-5 note 1.
Vallejo, — (Mission president), 357, 361-2, 364, 373.
Van Bibber, John, 36.
Van Bibber, S., 36.
Van Buren, Martin (President), 103-4, 198, 243 note 1.
Vanderpoel, James, 40 note 3.
Van Tyne, Claude Halstead, 110.
Van Zandt, Isaac, 293, 304.
Varela Xaramillo, Pedro (Capt.), 142 note 2.
Vassault, F. I., Beginnings of California, quotation and comment, 252-6.
Vaughn, John S., 40 note 3.
Velasco, 46; disturbances, 1832, 425.
Velez Escalante, Silvestre, see Escalante, Silvestre Velez.
Vial, Pierre (Pedro), 432.
Victoria, Guadalupe (President), 378, 418; letter to (extract), 395-8.
Villagutierre y Soto Mayor, Juan, Historia de la conquista ... de los Itzaex ... note upon, 153-4 note 4.
Villavaso, Ernest Joseph, book review, 433-4.
Viper of Baltimore, see San Jacinto, 84-5.
Virginia and the independence of Texas (Winston), 277-83.
Virginia Herald, quoted, 277 note 1; notes upon, 279 note 4, 280 note 2, 281.
Vizcaino, Sebastian, 68; voyages, 66-7.
Volunteer Army, Company E, first regiment of infantry, 279-80; foreign volunteers, Texas revolution, 27-62.
Waite, — (Col.), letter to (extract), 135.
Walker, Robert John, 50 note 6.
Wallace, C., 41 note 6.
Wallace, J. R., 41 note 6.
Waller, Edwin, 278.
Wallis, —, 71.
Walton, W. M. (Maj.), 115.
Ward, William (Maj.), 53; battalion, flag, 439.
Warner, George P., 221.
Washington on the Brazos, description, 1842, 78.
Waxahachie, confederate monument, 336.
Webster, Daniel, 198, 317; letter (extract), 58-9 note 2.
Weigert, D. H., 40 note 3.
Welles, Gideon, Diary, note upon, 108.
Wellesley, Henry, see Cowley, Henry Wellesley, Baron, 75, 98.
West, Elizabeth Howard, 224; book reviews, 106-7, 435-6.
Wharton, William H., 32, 55; defied by Houston, 129; services as commissioner, 38-9; letters (extracts), 50, 282 note 5; request for United States troops on the Texas border, 60.
Wharton (Texas brig), 84-5, 291, 303, 311.
Wheeler, T. B. (Col.), death, 440.
White, Ham, 130.
White, James, 40 note 3.
White, William, duel with Houston, 128.
White Oak Bayou, 129.
Wigfall, Louis T., 118-19.
Wigginton, — (Capt.), company, 42.
Willey, Samuel H., The transition period of California, comment, 253-6.
Williams, Samuel M., 420.
Wilmot Proviso, 243-4.
Wilson, Edward J., 40 note 3, 42; volunteer expedition, 1836, 43-7.
Wilson, Harry Langford, 111.
Wilson, John (Gen.), 243-5 note 3, 249; letter (extract), 249.
Winkler, Ernest William (State Librarian), 337, 430; note upon a Béxar prisoner's letter, 220-1; upon the Texas Republican, 329-31; book reviews, 218-19, 333-4, 434-5.
Winston, James E., Kentucky and the independence of Texas, 27-62; Virginia and the independence of Texas, 277-83.
Wood, George T., monument, 336.
Woolley, Sam D., 40 note 2.
Woolley, Sam D. (?), 43.
Worlen, —, 34.
Wroe, W. T., 111.
Wroe, Mrs. W. T., 111.
Wyatt, — (Capt.), 35 note 1, 36.
Wynne, Richard M., obituary, 222.
Xavier, Francisco, 166, 265-7.
Young, Brigham, 249; letter, 243-5 note 3.
Yucatán, 190, 212; revolution, 1843, 201, 291, 297, 299, 312.
Yumas Indians, 272.
Zacatecas, governor, refusal to supply troops to Terán, 405.
Zanesville Volunteer Rifle Company, 279.
Zavala, Juan de (Gen.), 13-14.
Zavala, Martín de (Governor), explorations, 14.
Zavala (Texas ship), 84-5.
Zavaleta, Alvaro de (Fray), 275-6.
Zavaleta, Juan (Fray), 19.
2. This paper is based entirely upon manuscript original sources. The older works in English which mention the subject are entirely valueless; the treatments given by modern writers in English are so brief as to be very unsatisfactory. The only printed account by an early Spanish historian is that of Bonilla, in his Breve Compendio (translated by West in The Quarterly, VIII, 1-78), which, although written by a contemporary who was in a position to know, contains numerous fundamental errors. At best Bonilla's account is very brief and incomplete, as he devotes only about a page to the matter. The manuscript materials on which this study is based are records in the Béxar Archives, the Lamar Papers, and the Nacogdoches Archives, and transcripts in my personal collection from the archives of Mexico and Spain. What is presented here was practically completed several years ago. Subsequently my manuscripts were put at the disposal of Miss Elise Brown, a graduate student in the University of Texas, as material for a master's thesis. This was written under my direction with the title, “The History of the Spanish Settlements at Orcoquisac, 1746-1772.” Though the two accounts are quite different in general, and at variance at some points, I have made some use of Miss Brown's valuable work, and hereby make acknowledgment. In the citations which follow, B. A. stands for Béxar Archives, L. P. for Lamar Papers, N. A. for Nacogdoches Archives, and B. MSS. for Bolton Manuscripts, the title by which my collection is designated.
3. In 1727, when Rivera inspected the northern establishments of New Spain, he sent Engineer Francisco Alvarez Barreyto from La Bahía eastward with a detachment of twenty soldiers to examine the coast country as far as the Neches. Barreyto spent thirty-five days on the expedition and traveled 363 leagues, but what he recorded in his reports I cannot say, as I have not seen them, though I do know of their whereabouts, and have taken steps toward securing them. See Rivera, Diario, 1727, leg. 2466.)
4. July 2.
5. The viceroy's order was dated July 18 (Diligencias Practicadas por Dn. Joaquin de Orobia Capn. de la Bahía Sobre establecimiento de Franceses. B. A.). Orobio signed his name as above, but, other Spanish officials frequently wrote it “Orobio y Basterra.” The brief form of his name is usually given as Orobio.
6. Lieut. Miguel de Olivares investigated the possibilities of the proposed expedition by water, and reported that the river was obstructed, and, besides, that suitable boats could not be built. Report by Olivares to Orobio, ibid., 2.)
7. Order of Orobio, Oct. 22, 1745; Orobio to Urrutia, Dec. 7, ibid., 2, 4.
8. Diligencias Practicadas, 4-9.
9. It is sometimes difficult to determine whether a rancheria was a small village or a single dwelling. This is one of those cases.
10. Diligencias Practicadas, 11-12.
11. See pages 344-345, post.
12. “I found no habitation whatever, but such a scarcity of lands that in case of wishing to establish a presidio, there are facilities for supporting only five or six families for a short time, because of the small amount of timber and the entire lack of stone on the margin of the river.” Ibid., 12.
13. The form of this word adopted by the Bureau of American Ethnology is “Arkokisa,” but it seems better, historically considered, to use in this article the spelling common in the contemporary sources. If this were not to be done, ethnologists would not get from the article the historical aid which it ought to afford. The usual form of the place where the Orcoquiza tribe lived is “El Orcoquisac” or “Orcoquisac.”
14. This conclusion was reached, after careful study of the documents, before the whereabouts of Miranda's map of April 18, 1757, was learned. The map bears it out. The following are some of the data on which the conclusion was reached independently. Miranda tells us that going ten leagues nearly eastward from the Springs of Santa Rosa, one comes to the San Jacinto; and that from the San Jacinto to the site of El Orcoquisac, just across the Trinity, it was not more than six leagues, by implication in the same general direction. Now, a direct line west from El Orcoquisac would fall between Buffalo Bayou and Spring Creek, while both of these streams run for a stretch of ten leagues almost east into the San Jacinto, leaving little to choose between them, as the claimant to being the Santa Rosa. (Miranda, report of survey, April 26, 1757.) According to the same authority the three western Orcoquiza villages were ranged along the Santa Rosa. But the southernmost village visited by Orobio in 1746 became a landmark in the later descriptions. Orobio tells us that after leaving the two Orcoquiza villages at San Rafael, which, we have positive evidence, was Santa Rosa (N. A., doc. 488, fol. 22), he went fifteen leagues southward to the place designated as that where the French were expected to settle, which was some distance from the mouth of a river called Aranzazu, the stream subsequently called San Jacinto (Diligencias Practicadas, 13-14). The two villages at San Rafael must, therefore, have been at least fifteen leagues or more northward from the mouth of the San Jacinto. In August, 1756, Joseph Valentín testified that he had gone “down the bank of the San Jacinto River to the place reached by Dn. Joaquín de Orobio Basterra,” and that “from this place he returned up the said river to its crossing, near which it joins the spring (or arroyo) of Santa Rosa.” (N. A., doc. 488, ff. 7-8.) Marcos Ruíz gave almost the same testimony. Domingo del Rio, who a year before had passed from the Bidai on Bidai Creek to the western Orcoquiza village, now testified that this arroyo of Santa Rosa appeared to be the same as that which rose near the village of the Bidai chief, Tomás. (Ibid., fol. 3.) This testimony, combined with that of Orobio, seems to make it clear that Santa Rosa could not be Buffalo Bayou. One statement made by Miranda was puzzling until I saw his map. He states that he went west from El Orcoquisac for some twelve leagues, till he reached the San Jacinto, thence south about fifteen leagues to the point reached by Orobio, thence between south and west along the bed of the San Jacinto to its junction with the Santa Rosa. This testimony taken alone would point to Buffalo Bayou as the Santa Rosa, but it directly contradicts the statement of Valentín and Orobio. By changing Miranda's south to north, his statement would agree with the others. The difficulty is partly cleared up by the fact that on his map his south is west and his west north. (Ibid., 10.) The country about the Santa Rosa was described as being marked by beautiful prairies, forest, oak, walnut, pine, cedar, and many lakes. In this season, which was dry, the creek had two inches of water. There was lack of stone for a dam, and the bed of the stream was deep, but irrigation was hardly necessary, for the Indians had fine corn, although the season had been dry. (Ibid., 12.) Miranda's map does not completely clear up the difficulty of deciding between Buffalo Bayou and Spring Creek, but it points in the same direction as the rest of the data. The map is reproduced in Hamilton's Colonization of the South, opposite p. 241.
15. The Bidai told Orobio that the Orcoquiza occupied the country from the Neches to a point half way between the Trinity and the Brazos. See Miranda's report, N. A., doc. 488.
16. The present writer has shown, in another study, that the Bidai, Orcoquiza, and Deadoses all belonged to the same linguistic group (Handbook of American Indians, II, under “San Francisco Xavier de Horcasitas.”)
17. Dilijens. Practicadas, 1755, 3, 4, 7 (L. P. No. 25) ; N. A., doc. 488, fol. 3.
18. Orobio to the viceroy, Jan. 29, 1748, B. A., Miscellaneous, 1742-1793; N. A., doc. 488, f. 11; estimate by the junta de guerra, Dec. 5, 1778, in Cabello, Informe, 1784.
19. The facts recorded above are drawn mainly from the records of the investigation entitled Testimonio practicado sobre si D. Jacinto de Barrios tuvo comercio con muniziones de Guerra con los Indios Barbaros de Esta Prova. y fuera de ella, etc. In the residencia of the governor held a few weeks before the investigation, the same witnesses testified solemnly that Barrios had not engaged in illegal trade, but later explained the discrepancy on the ground of a technicality in the meaning of contraband trade. Autos de la Residencia. . . . de Barrios y Jauregui.
20. The account of the arrest of Blancpain is gathered mainly from an expediente called Dilixensias sobre Lanpen, dated Feb. 19, 1755 (B. A., Provincias Internas, 1755-1793). See also a communication of the viceroy to the King, March 14, 1756; royal cédula directed to the viceroy, July 19, 1757; statement by Valcarcel, in Testimonio del Dictamen dada por el Senor Don Domingo de Valcarcel del Consejo de Su Magd su oydor en la Rl Auda de esta Nueba Espana en los autos fechos a consulta de Don Jazinto de Barrios y Jauregui Governador de la Provincia de Texas de que dá quenta el comandante frances de el Presidio del Nachitos se prebino que los yndios de aquella Dominacion intentaban saltar el Presidio. Dated Oct. 11, 1755. The title is incorrect. The document is a recommendation of the auditor concerning the proposed garrisoning of the mouth of the Trinity. B. MSS.; report of the junta de guerra held at Los Adaes, Oct. 23, 1754. B. A., San Augustin de Ahumada.
21. The viceroy to Barrios, Feb. 12, 1756; Test. del Dictamen, Oct. 11, 1755, fol. 7.
22. Dilijens Practicadas, p. 19. L. P., doc. 25.
23. Dilijens Practicadas, 1755. L. P. no. 25. The details of this expedition are given in the declarations of the soldiers who accompanied Del Rio. (Ibid.) Miss Brown makes no mention of Del Rio's journey between October and April.
24. Test. del Dictamen, Oct. 11, 1755. The date, Aug. 25, is fixed by Valcarcel's statement that on this day the fiscal had suggested that part of the temporary garrison sent by Barrios should remain. Ibid. Miss Brown concluded that this garrison was not sent. My inference is drawn from Valcarcel's Dictamen.
25. The proceedings in Mexico are recorded in a report of the junta de guerra of Feb. 4, 1756 (B. A. San Agustín de Ahumada); Testimonio del dictamen de Valcarcel, Oct. 11, 1755. B. MSS.; the viceroy to Barrios, Feb. 12, 1756. B. MSS.; the viceroy to the king, March 14, 1756. B. MSS.; royal cédula, Aug. 20, 1756. B. MSS. The auditor, Valcarcel, gave his opinion on Feb. 11, 1755, the fiscal on Aug. 27. The date of the first junta has not been ascertained. Note Bancroft's error in saying that all the families were to be Tlascaltecans.
26. Bonilla, Breve Compendio, 57; Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas, I, 625; Bonilla, Memorias para la historia de Texas (MS.), 345.
27. On March 14 Barrios ordered Ruíz to enlist recruits. On May 16 Cristóbal de Córdoba issued supplies to those who went to establish the presidio. This, probably, may be taken as the day when they set out for the new establishment. (Declaration of Córdoba, Oct. 10, 1757; Barrios to the viceroy, July 14.)
28. This was Don Agustín de Ahumada Villabon Mendoza y Narváez, Marqués de las Amarillas.
29. This conclusion, based upon an independent study of the sources, is borne out by Miranda's map, which I did not see till long after the above had been written.
30. North Mexican States and Texas, I, 615, 643.
31. Order to survey the Trinity, N. A., doc. 488, f. 2; Barrios to the viceroy, July 14, 1756; Barrios to the viceroy, June 12, 1757; Appeal of the Father, N. A., doc. 487; the viceroy to Barrios, May 26, 1757. Miss Brown implies that Ruíz led the garrison to El Orcoquisac.
32. Brown, “The History of the Spanish Settlements at Orcoquisac, 1746-1772,” MS.; the viceroy to the king, April 19, 1757; autos of the residencia of Barrios. B. A., Adaes, 1756-1766. Martos began his administration on Feb. 6, 1759.
33. The viceroy to Arriaga, citing Barrios's opinion, April 18, 1757. At this point Miss Brown's thesis follows my findings and my language.
34. They are not mentioned in the Diligencias of August, 1756, but Barrios wrote of their being there in January, 1757 (Letter to the viceroy, June 12, 1757). From his statement it is inferred that January was the month of their arrival, although this is not certain. See the statement that the viceroy was sending letters by the missionaries, Jan. 19, 1757. These might be new missionaries. (Historia 91, expediente 2.)
35. The viceroy to Arriaga, April 18, 1757.
36. Ibid, postscript.
37. Viceroy's decree, January 19, 1757; Barrios to the viceroy, June 12, 1757.
38. The viceroy to Arriaga, April 18, 1757.
39. Father Abad to the viceroy, November 27, 1759.
40. Order for the survey of the banks of the Trinity. N. A., doc. 488, 2, 8, 9.
41. Miss Brown gives his name as Morelos.
42. Orders for the survey. N. A., doc. 488, 14-22. The survey was begun early in September, 1756, Barrios going with the party. He returned to Los Adaes on September 6, leaving Miranda in charge, and with orders to go up the Santa Rosa to three arroyos that had been mentioned before. On the 13th the survey was resumed, the first ojo examined being one about three leagues west of the San Jacinto; within three leagues of this two others were examined. Going up stream to the village of El Gordo they found a larger stream, carrying two hands of water (bueyes), and dividing at a short distance into two smaller streams, one coming from the northwest and one from the south. This was regarded as the best place for the site, and is the place marked on Miranda's map as Santa Rosa. It was apparently about where Hufsmith now is; if not, then at Houston.
43. Barrios to the viceroy, November 8, 1756; the viceroy to the governor, January 7, 1757; decree of the viceroy, January 19, 1757; the viceroy to the missionaries, March 23, 1757.
44. Action of the junta of March 3, and a supplementary decree of April 3; viceroy's decrees of March 3 and March 8; viceroy to Arriaga, April 18, 1757; Appeal of the Father, 9 (N. A. doc. 487).
45. Barrios to the viceroy, June 12, 1757.
46. This report is missing, but it seems from references to it that his objection was the difficulty of making an acequia. (See Appeal of the Father; viceroy to Barrios, March 3, 1758.)
47. Dictamen fiscal, February 5, 1760. With this report he seems to have sent autos of his examination of El Atascosito.
48. On March 13, 1758, he ordered Barrios to make another report so that the government could decide whether or not to accept El Atascosito as a substitute for Santa Rosa. Barrios either ignored or failed to get this order. (The viceroy to Barrios, March 13, 1758.)
49. Appeal of the Father at the Mission of Nuestra Señora de la Luz de Orcoquiza for permission to abandon that mission on account of the insufferable plague of mosquitoes and ants and of the unhealthfulness of the locality (MS., N. A. doc. 487), 4.
50. Barrios replied on March 13 that as soon as the weather would permit he would attend to removing the presidio to El Atascosito. While at Nacogdoches, early in April, on his way to San Agustín, he received news of the destruction of the San Saba Mission. Only high rivers prevented him from going to San Antonio and leaving the affairs of San Agustín to his lieutenants. Appeal of the Father.
51. Appeal of the Father, 9. Barrios had denounced El Orcoquisac and the San Jacinto site in August, 1756; Santa Rosa in October, 1757, and now he declared against El Atascosito and, by implication, against the whole plan.
52. Autos de Residencia de Barrios, B. A., Adaes, 1756-1766.
53. Martos to the viceroy, December 6, 1759. B. A., San Agustín de Ahumada.
54. Martos to the viceroy, December 6, 1759. B. A., San Agustín de Ahumada; Informe by Father Abad, November 27, 1759.
55. Abad to the viceroy, November 27, 1759; dictamen fiscal, February 5, 1760; Interrogatorio, May 20, 1760. B. A., San Agustín de Ahumada.
56. Martos to the viceroy, May 30, 1760, in Abad's Informe; Martos to Vallejo, June 10, ibid.; Romero to Vallejo, June 12, ibid.; Vallejo to Martos, June 13, ibid.
57. Abad, Informe, B. A., San Agustín de Ahumada, ff. 9-10.
58. A recent writer makes the error of stating that the colony was actually founded, and this in 1755 (Coman, Economic Beginnings of the Far West, I, 99). In view of the fact that the colony was never established, her comments on the laziness of the colonists seem gratuitous.
59. Bonilla, Breve Compendio, The Quarterly, VIII, 57.
60. The viceroy to Martos, December 22, 1762; Martos to the viceroy, December 14, 1763; the viceroy to Martos, August 12, 1734; Martos to the viceroy, December 14, 1763. Testimony was given on January 2, 1765, to the effect that Pacheco had bribed the Indians. What his motives were does not appear. Declaration of Calzones Colorados before Marcos Ruíz, January 2, 1765. L. P., no. 25.
61. The viceroy to Martos, August 12, 1764.
62. The viceroy to Rivera, November 17, 1766; dictamen fisca1, November 17, 1766.
63. Relacion del Viaje que de orden del Excelentisimo Senor Virrey Marques de Cruillas Hizo el Capitan de Ingenieros Dn. Nicolas de la Fora, entries for October 8 and 9.
64. Kerlérec protested on January 12, 1755, and again on April 7. (Report of the junta de guerra of February 6, 1756.)
65. Miranda to the viceroy, April 26, 1757; petition of Massé, July 19, 1756; Barrios to the viceroy, July 22, 1756; the viceroy to the king, September 14, 1756; royal cédula, June 10, 1757; Barrios to the viceroy, June 16, 1757; the viceroy to Barrios, 1757, draft.
66. The viceroy to Arriaga, April 18, 1757.
67. Declaration of Miguel Ramos and others, April 17-20, 1761.
68. Kerlérec to Martos, March 13, 1760, in Testimonio practicado sobre si Dn. Jasinto de Barrios tuvo comersio, etc. B. A., 1756-1766.
69. Dictamen fiscal, August 26, 1760; viceroy's decree, August 27, 1760; dictamen del auditor, September 1, 1760; decree of the viceroy, September 3, 1760; the viceroy to Martos, September 8, 1760.
70. The whole investigation is recorded in the documents called Testimonio sobre si Dn. Jasinto de Barrios tuvo comersio con Muniziones de Guerra con los Yndios Barbaros de Esta Prova y fuera de ella, etc. B. A., Adaes, 1756-1766, Martos sent the correspondence on March 16; on August 26 the fiscal gave his opinion; the auditor his on September 1; the viceroy approved their opinions on September 3, and on September 5 issued his instructions to Barrios. Martos received the instructions on January 17, 1761, and on the 22d began the investigation. The investigation at San Agustín was conducted by Del Rio and Juan Prieto.
71. Macarty to Martos, November 17, 1763.
72. Vallejo to Barrios, February 27, 1758; Father Abad to the governor, November 27, 1759.
73. Pacheco to Solis, May 26, 1764. Papeles pertenecientes al Ocroquisa.
74. Papeles pertenecientes al Orcoquisa. B. MSS. (This collection gives an account of Pacheco's assistance to the missionaries.); Pacheco to Cruillas, July 22 and July 29, 1764, ibid.
75. Rubí, Dictamen, paragraphs 24-25.
76. Testimonio del expediente, formado á instancia de la parte del Capitan Don Rafael Marttinz. Pacheco, 138.
77. Order of the viceroy, Papeles pertenecientes al Orcoquiza, November 23, 1763.
78. Testimonio de los Autos fhos por el Govor de Provincia de Texas contra Rafael martinez Pacheco, Ano de 1764. B. A., Adaes, 1756-1766. This expediente contains the evidence regarding the trouble at San Agustín.
79. Testimonio de los Autos; Testimonio de Dilixencias comenzadas en San Augustin de Aumada y continuadas en este Preso. de los Adaes por el Govor de esta Prova de Texas contra el Capitan Don Rafael Martinez Pacheco. Ano de 1765. B. A., Béxar, 1751-1769.
80. Testimonio de Autos fhos . . . contra . . . Pacheco. B. A., San Agustín de Ahumada; Testimonio de la Declaracion que hicieron los principales Indios de la Nacion Orcoquisa ante Don Marcos Ruiz . . . 1765, L. P. no. 25; Testimonio de la Dilixencia practicada por el Sargento Maior Dn Hugo Oconor sobre la remision del theniente don Marcos Ruiz al Precidio de los Adaes . . . 1765 B. MSS.
81. References to the events of the last days of the establishment are made in Test. del Expediente, 132-134; Thobar to Pacheco, June 12, 1770; certificate by Ripperda, July 3, 1770, to the effect that Pacheco had aided in an Indian campaign.
82. The manuscript materials used in the preparation of this paper are found in the Austin Papers at the University of Texas, and in the transcripts which the University has made from the Mexican archives. The transcripts here used are from the Archivo de Guerra y Marina, Operaciones Militares, Fracción 1. Each document will be referred to by Legajo and date.
83. Garrison, Texas, 104.
84. Dublan y Lozano, Legislación Mexicana, I, 712.
85. Garrison, Texas, 124.
86. Ibid., 156.
87. Terán to Guadalupe Victoria, June 30, 1828. Transcript. Legago 7, 1836.
88. Gammel, Laws of Texas, I, 99-106.
89. Ibid., Art. 14.
90. Gammel, Laws of Texas, I, 102, Art. 12.
91. Ibid., Art. 22.
92. Garrison, Texas, 157.
93. Dublan y Lozano, Legislación Mexicana, I, 712, Art. 7.
94. Garrison, Texas, 166-7.
95. Tarnava to Ministro de Guerra, January 6, 1830. Transcript. Legajo 14, 1830.
96. The italics are the present writers.
97. McCalla to Austin, October 6, 1829. Austin Papers.
98. Nicholas to Austin, October 11, 1829. Austin Papers.
99. Burnet to Austin, December 4, 1829. Austin Papers.
100. John Austin to S. F. Austin, January 1-22, 1830. Austin Papers.
101. Austin to J. F. and E. M. Perry, March 28, 1830. Austin Papers.
102. Austin to Musquiz, March 29, 1830. Austin Papers.
103. Gammel, Laws of Texas, I, 47-56.
104. Bugbee, “Slavery in Early Texas,” in Political Science Quarterly, XIII, 409.
105. Niles' Register, XXXIV, 334.
106. Terán to Guadalupe Victoria, June 28, 1830. Transcript. Legajo 7. 1836.
107. Dublan y Lozano, Legislación Mexicana, II, 163.
108. Musquiz to Austin, October 29, 1829. Austin Papers.
109. Terán to Austin, November 20, 1829. Ibid.
110. Austin to Terán, December 28, 1829. Ibid. Filisola, Memorias para la Historia de la Guerra de Téjas, I, Appendix.
111. It is not certain whether the “commander of the frontier of that state” means Colonel Piedras, who was in command of the local garrison at Nacogdoches, or General Terán, who was comandante general of the Eastern States; these states are often referred to as the states on the frontier.
112. Garrison, Texas, 151-152.
113. Don Manuel Mier y Terán was one of the most cultured and intelligent men in Mexico during the years 1820-1832, according to Filisola, Tornel, and Dr. Mora, the latter Terán's biographer. (See Filisola's Guerra de Tejas, I, Chapter XXIII and Appendix, and Tornel's Breve Reseña, 171-173.) According to Dr. Mora, Terán was connected with the struggle for independence from the year 1810, and from that date until his death he was unswervingly loyal to the cause of Mexico. At the time of his appointment as chief of the boundary commission, he was head of the School of Artillery in Mexico City. In 1829 he was made comandante general of the Eastern States, and Dr. Mora says that had he lived, he instead of Santa Anna, would have been elected to the presidency in 1832. Tornel says: “The efforts of General Terán to save the district of Texas to the nation were tremendous, and when the military command fell to him, through the removal of General Bustamante, he disciplined the colonies with effective vigor. One of our revolutions destroyed the fruit of his valiant labors and sent him to his death, to the sorrow of all patriotic citizens.” The revolution referred to was that by which Santa Anna deposed Bustamante, and Tornel is wholly correct in his assertion that it was this revolution that destroyed Terán's work in Texas.
As to Terán's ability and personality, Filisola quotes Dr. Mora as follows: “Terán was a scholar who was worthy of a distinguished place in the Paris Academy of Sciences, and furthermore he was a man of the highest distinction with regard to integrity of conduct, social qualifications, polish of manner, and even personal appearance; he fought always in the cause of independence, and this with honor, purity of purpose, intelligence and ability, during a period when examples of these virtues were rare enough, and examples of their opposing vices woefully frequent. In his political faith he was a progressive. . . . Terán had ambition, but being honorable enough to realize that such should not be satisfied at the price of civil war, he abandoned such a field to the vulgarly ambitious. But when his country's cause was endangered by Spanish invasion, he hastened to the field of battle, where he won the laurels of a victory due almost entirely to his efforts and genius. Neither the rebellion of Acordada, nor that of Jalapa, nor any which followed, gained his approval; to all he refused his services, remaining at all times loyal to the recognized government, firm in the conviction that civil wars, only by exception, are a means of political progress.” I have found nothing in Terán's public or private correspondence to contradict this estimate of him. The “recognized government” did not of necessity mean to him constitutional government, apparently, but there is ample evidence that he believed in honest, strong government, whether by a strict adherence to the Constitution of 1824, or by the right of individual capacity. No other view can be taken of his unswerving support of Bustamante. It has generally been reported that, in despair over the defeat of his command by the Santa Anna forces, he died at Padilla by his own hand in July, 1832. Filisola refuses to accept this version, declaring that Terán was assassinated by an emissary of Santa Anna.
114. Filisola, Guerra de Téjas, I, Chapter XI.
115. T. F. McKinney to Austin, September 9, 1829. Austin Papers.
116. Filisola says (Guerra de Téjas, I, Chapter XI) that the congress of Coahuila-Texas wasted the lands of Texas in an outrageous manner, and that grants were made to any applicant who appeared, regardless of the requirements of the law. This doubtless reflects the opinion of federal officials of the time. Alaman, in the fifth paragraph of the Iniciativa (in Filisola, Guerra de Téjas, II, 590), says: “The government of Coahuila-Texas, which should have seen to the carrying out of its laws and prevented the immigration of fraudulent colonists, has not only failed to do this, but neither has it given notice of certain grave disturbances [in Texas].” He then gives a list of federal laws which he says were repeatedly violated, calling particular attention to those requiring all colonists to be Catholics and those prohibiting slavery.
117. Terán to Minister of Relations, September 10, 1827. Transcript. Legajo 7. 1836.
118. Pedraza to Terán, September 12, 1827. Ibid.
119. Filisola, Guerra de Téjas, I, Chapter XII.
120. See the Austin Papers of 1829-1832, passim.
121. Legajo 7. 1836. The transcript of this letter bears no signature, but as a report to the minister of war signed by Terán under date of July 7 (Ibid.) contains substantially the same information and recommendations, frequently couched in the same language, it seems certain that the author could have been no other than Terán. The letter is dated June 30, 1828.
122. Sanchez to Terán, June 28, 1828. Transcript. Legajo 7. 1836.
123. Terán to governor of Coahuila, August 2, 1828. Transcript. Legajo 7. 1836. Terán does not indicate the nature of the violation, and I have not had access to a file of the Courier.
124. Terán to Minister of War, October 14, 1828. Transcript. Legajo 7. 1836.
125. Filisola, Guerra de Téjas, I, Chapter XIII.
126. MS. Austin Papers.
127. Ibid.
128. Filisola, Guerra de Téjas, II, Chapter XIII.
129. Terán to Minister of War, October 20, 1829. Transcript. Legajo 14. 1830.
130. Terán to Minister of War, February 27, 1830, and Minister of War to Terán, March 20, 1830. Transcripts. Legajo 14. 1830.
131. Pettit to S. F. Austin, April 5-7, 1830. Austin Papers.
132. I have not had access to the “Supreme Order.”
133. Terán to Minister of War, November 14, 1829. Transcript. Legajo 14. 1830.
134. Suarez to Terán, January 1 and 12, 1830, and Terán to Suarez, January 10 and 13, 1830. Transcripts. Legajo 14. 1830. Filisola says (Guerra de Téjas, I, 101) that the establishment of the new government in Tamaulipas was effected by Terán at the risk of his life.
135. Terán to Minister of War, January 22 and 26, 1830. Transcripts. Legajo 14, 1830.
136. Transcript. Legajo 14, 1830.
137. Terán to Minister of War, February 14, 1830. Transcript. Legajo 14. 1830.
138. See pages 407-413, post.
139. Department of War to Terán, January 30, 1830. Transcript. Legajo 14. 1830.
140. Minister of War to Terán, February 6, 1830. Transcript. Legajo 14, 1830.
141. Minister of War to Terán, February 13, 1830. Transcript. Legajo 14. 1830.
142. Transcripts. Legajo 14. 1830. These forces were classified as follows: Federal Infantry:
The Twelfth Battalion250
State Troops (Infantry):
From San Luis Potosi600
From Zacatecas400
From Nuevo León300
From Tamaulipas300
From Coahuila-Texas200
Federal Cavalry:
The Ninth Regiment315
The Ninth Company of Presidiales of the Eastern Interior States300
State Troops (Cavalry):
From San Luis Potosi300
Total2,965
143. Governor of Zacatecas to Alaman, February 16, 1830. Transcript. Legajo 14. 1830.144. Terán to Minister of War, February 14, 1830. Transcript. Legajo 14. 1830.
145. Terán to Minister of War, March 15 and April 5, 1830. Transcript. Legajo 14. 1830.
146. Terán to Austin, April 24, 1830. Austin Papers.
147. See, for example, Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas, II, 113; and Garrison, Texas, 159-160.
148. Tarnava to Minster of War, January 6, 1830. Transcript. Legajo 14. 1830.
149. The Rio Grande.
150. Note that Terán suggests counter-colonization of Mexican families, not prohibition of colonization from the United States.
151. Here follow the military recommendations already quoted, page 403.
152. Convict soldiers.
153. Some point above Galveston Bay, one at the mouth of the Brazos, and one at the point where the San Antonio road crossed the Brazos.
154. It might be inferred from this statement that Terán did suspect the Texans of treacherous disloyalty, but from his letter of the 14th of November it would appear that he placed the credit for this “scheme” upon members of the state department and newspaper writers in the United States rather than upon the settlers themselves.
155. This name is given as in the transcript, but is possibly a misprint.
156. Alaman to the President, January 14, 1830. Transcript. Legajo 7. 1836.
157. Alaman to Terán, March 2, 1830. Transcript. Legajo 7. 1836. In this letter Alaman refers to a letter of February 17 on the same subject, but this has not been found.
158. Translated from Dublan y Lozano's Legislación Mexicana, II, 238-240.
159. See summary of Tarnava's report (4).
160. Ibid. (6).
161. Ibid. (2) and (3).
162. Ibid. (8).
163. Ibid. (1).
164. See summary of Tarnava's report (9).
165. Ibid. (2) and (9).
166. This article is obviously a necessary complement of Article 11.
167. This measure is not found in any of Terán's recommendations.
168. See summary of Tarnava's report (4).
169. Ibid. (5) and (7).
170. Ibid. (9), (10), and (11).
171. See summary of Tarnava's report (10).
172. Ibid. (4).
173. See the iniciativa. Filisola, Guerra de Téjas, II, 590.
174. There seems to have been considerable uneasiness on the part of Piedras over the arrival in Texas of numerous bands of Cherokees and Chichasaws during the winter of 1829-30. Piedras to Terán, December 12, 1829, and Terán to Minister of War, January 24, 1830. Transcript. Legajo 14. 1830.
175. Terán to Austin, September 28, 1829. Austin Papers.
176. E. L. Pettit to Austin, April 5, 1830. Ibid.
177. Austin Papers.
178. The italics in this translation are mine.
179. Samuel Williams.
180. Austin Papers.
181. F. O., Texas, Vol. 7.
182. Omitted.
183. Omitted, since the matter submitted by Kennedy is a synopsis of “an act regulating the appointment and duties of pilots at the Port of Galveston,” approved February 4, 1842 (Gammel, Laws of Texas, II, 773, 774).
184. The description of the Texas flag is copied from the act approved January 25, 1839 (Ibid., II, 88).
185. Under this title Kennedy submitted a synopsis of “an act for the regulation of the coasting trade and the protection of Texian shipping,” approved January 4, 1841 (Ibid., II, 479-482).
186. Under this title Kennedy submitted a synopsis of “an act to provide and establish the warehousing system in the ports of this Republic,” approved February 5, 1840 (Ibid., II, 225-229).
187. F. O., Texas, Vol. 7.
188. F. O., Texas, Vol. 7.
189. F. O., Texas, Vol. 6.
190. No. 11, Elliot to Aberdeen, on the Eliza Russell claims, has been omitted.
191. Elliot to Jones, June 10, 1843. In Garrison, Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas, III, 1090; in Am. Hist. Assoc. Report, 1908, II.
How to cite:
"Issue View", Volume 016, Number 4, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online. http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v016/n4/issue.html
[Accessed Tue Nov 24 4:11:26 CST 2009]
