THE SOUTHWESTERN HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
VOLUME XVII JULY, 1913, TO APRIL, 1914
EDITORS: Eugene C. Barker, Herbert E. Bolton. ASSOCIATE EDITORS: Chas. W. Ramsdell, E. W. Winkler, Edgar L. Hewett. MANAGING EDITOR: Eugene C. Barker. The Texas State Historical Association Austin, Texas 1914The Texas State Historical Association
Organized 1897
PRESIDENT:
Z. T. Fulmore.
VICE-PRESIDENTS:
Miss Katie Daffan, Beauregard Bryan,
Mrs. Adele B. Looscan, R. C. Crane.
RECORDING SECRETARY AND LIBRARIAN:
Eugene C. Barker.
CORRESPONDING SECRETARY AND TREASURER:
Charles W. Ramsdell.
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL:
Z. T. Fulmore, John C. Townes,
Katie Daffan, W. F. McCaleb,
Beauregard Bryan, Lilia M. Casis,
Edward W. Heusinger, S. A. Moore,
Adele B. Looscan, S. P. Brooks,
Eugene C. Barker, Bride Neill Taylor,
Charles W. Ramsdell, Dora Fowler Arthur,
E. W. Winkler, W. J. Battle.
PUBLICATION COMMITTEE:
Z. T. Fulmore,
Eugene C. Barker, E. W. Winkler,
Herbert E. Bolton, W. J. Battle.
CONTENTS
Number 1; July, 1913
The Louisiana-Texas Frontier, II Isaac Joslin Cox 1
Diary of W. Y. Allen, 1838-1839 William S. Red, Editor 43
New Light on Manuel Lisa and the Spanish Fur Trade Herbert E. Bolton 61
British Correspondence Concerning Texas, VII Ephraim D. Adams, Editor 67
Book Reviews and Notices: Woodburn, The Life of Thaddeus Stephen: Early, Lieutenant-General Jubal Anderson Early; Broun, Dr. William LeRoy Broun 93
News Items 99
Number 2; October, 1913
The Movement for State Division in California, 1849-1860 William H. Ellison 101
The Louisiana-Texas Frontier, II (Continued) Isaac Joslin Cox 140
British Correspondence Concerning Texas, VIII Ephraim D. Adams, Editor 188
Book Reviews and Notices: Coman, Economic Beginnings of the Far West; Tiling, The German Element in Texas, 1820-1850 207
News Items 215
Number 3; January, 1914
Texas and the Boundary Issue, 1822-1829 William R. Manning 217
Pennsylvania and the Independence of Texas James E. Winston 262
Allen's Reminiscences of Texas, 1838-1842 William S. Red, Editor 283
British Correspondence Concerning Texas, IX Ephraim D. Adams, Editor 306
Book Reviews and Notices: Smith, The Viceroy of New Spain; Wilson, John Brown, Soldier of Fortune: A Critique; L'Amerique Latine. Republique Argentine 315
News Items 321
Number 4; April, 1914
The Founding of the Missions on the San Gabriel River, 1745-1749 Herbert E. Bolten 323
The Apache Mission on the San Saba River William Edward Dunn 379
British Correspondence Concerning Texas, X Ephraim D. Adams, Editor 415
Book Reviews and Notices: Phillips, Life of Robert Toombs 428
News Items 430
Affairs of the Association 432
FELLOWS AND LIFE MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION
The constitution of the Association provides that “Members who show, by published work, special aptitude for historical investigation may become Fellows. Thirteen Fellows shall be elected by the Association when first organized, and the body thus created may thereafter elect additional Fellows on the nomination of the Executive Council. The number of Fellows shall never exceed fifty.”
The present list of Fellows is as follows:
Barker, Prof. Eugene C. Kleberg, Judge Rudolph, Jr.
Batts, Judge R. L. Looscan, Mrs. Adele B.
Bolton, Prof. Herbert Eugene McCaleb, Dr. W. F.
Casis, Prof. Lilia M. Miller, Dr. E. T.
Clark, Prof. Robert Carlton Neu, Mr. C. T.
Cooper, President O. H. Pennybacker, Mrs. Percy V.
Cox, Prof. I. J. Ramsdell, Dr. Chas. W.
Dunn, Mr. William Edward Rather, Dr. Ethel Zivley
Estill, Prof. H. F. Shepard, Judge Seth
Fulmore, Judge Z. T. Smith, Prof. W. Roy
Gaines, Judge R. R. Townes, Prof. John C.
Hackett, Mr. Chas. W. West, Miss Elizabeth H.
Hatcher, Mrs. Mattie Austin Williams, Judge O. W.
Houston, Hon, D. F. Winkler, Mr. Ernest Wm.
Worley, Mr. J. L.
The constitution provides also that “Such benefactors of the Association as shall pay into its treasury at any one time the sum of thirty dollars, or shall present to the Association an equivalent in books, MSS., or other acceptable matter, shall be classed as Life Members.”
The Life Members at present are:
Allen, Mr. Wilbur P. Littlefield, Major George W.
Autry, Mr. James L. McFadden, Mr. W. P. H.
Ayer, Mr. Edward Everett Minor, Mr. F. D.
Baker, Mr. R. H. Moody, Mr. W. L.
Brackenridge, Hon. Geo. W. Morehead, Mr. C. R.
Bundy, Mr. Z. T. Neale, Mr. Wm. J.
Cochrane, Mr. Sam P. Parker, Mrs. Edward W.
Courchesne, Mr. A. Pearce, Mr. J. E.
Crane, Mr. R. C. Rice, Mr. J. S.
Davidson, Mr. W. S. Rice, Hon. W. M.
Dealey, Mr. George B. Rotan, Mrs. Edward
Dilworth, Mr. Thos. G. Rugeley, Mr. Henry
Donaldson, Mrs. Nana Schmidt, Mr. John
Smithwick Schreiner, Mr. Charles
Gilbert, Mr. John N. Sevier, Mrs. Clara D.
Gunnell, Mr. W. N. Stark, Mr. H. J. L.
Hanrick, Mr. R. A. Terry, Mr. Wharton
Hefley, Mr. W. T. Todd, Mr. Charles S.
Hogg, Mr. Will C. Van Zandt, Maj. K. M.
House, Mr. E. M. Walker, Mr. J. A.
Hyde, Mr. James H. Washer, Mr. Nat M.
Jones, Mr. Roland Webb, Mr. Mack
Kenedy, Mr. Jno. G. Willacy, Hon. John G.
Kirby, Mr. Jno. H. Williams, Judge O. W.
Vol. XVII. 2 JULY, 1913 No. 1
The publication committee and the editors disclaim responsibility for views expressed by contributors to The Quarterly.
INTRODUCTION
The present article is a continuation of that appearing in The Quarterly for July, 1906. In the former article the writer discussed conditions during the period before 1803, when such events as affected the Louisiana-Texas Frontier prior to 1762 concerned the local colonial policy of French officials in Louisiana or Spanish officials in Texas; and after that date, Spanish officials in both jurisdictions. Aside from strictly local affairs, the most significant question that appealed to all these officials arose from the fear inspired by Anglo-American expansion to the westward. This fear exhibited before 1803 may now be interpreted as a premonition of what actually happened after that date. The significant problem before the Spanish officials of the Interior Provinces and the Mexican Viceroyalty was how best to meet the threatened tide of American invasion. This problem concerned not merely the districts above mentioned, but the Floridas, Cuba, California, and other regions intimately or remotely connected with the Gulf of Mexico and the Northwest coast of America.
From the standpoint of the American government the problem was a two-fold one: First, to secure New Orleans and the western bank of the Mississippi, thus gaining an unquestioned right to navigate that stream in its entirety; and second, to round out their dominions to the south and to the west so as to secure easily defensible frontiers limited by well-defined natural barriers. From the standpoint of the Louisiana-Texas Frontier, the region under consideration, this problem involved the definite occupation of the lower courses of the Red, the Arkansas, and the Missouri, as a basis for a later possible expansion to the Rocky Mountains and the Rio Grande. Thus for the years immediately following 1803 our treatment of the subject falls naturally into two divisions which we may term “The American Occupation of the Louisiana-Texas Frontier” and “The First Attempt to Expand the Louisiana-Texas Frontier.” The following chapters will fall under the first division.
At this point it may be well to refer to a brief article that I have already published under the title, “The Significance of the Louisiana-Texas Frontier,” in the Third Annual Report of the Mississippi Valley Historical Association. In accordance with the method there suggested for treating this frontier, the present study, dealing with the American occupation, is included within “The Period of Delimitation,” which extends from about 1760 to 1821. This somewhat arbitrary division begins at the time when the first definite suggestion appeared to make the Sabine the boundary between French Louisiana and Spanish Texas and ends at the date when that river was finally accepted as part of our southwestern territorial limit. Naturally the most important phases of this question occur after 1803. A sufficient indication of this is the fact that as much space is occupied in describing conditions for the two years following the transfer of Louisiana to the United States, as in the whole of the preceding period. Most of the remaining years to 1821 call for a similar detailed treatment and the same is true for the quarter century to 1846, when the line that finally delimited the Louisiana-Texas Frontier, after more than a century of controversy, was gradually overrun and demolished by the tide of westward migration that it had not been able to arrest. Thus ended the history of this important frontier, which substantially includes the history of the region between the Missouri, the lower Mississippi, the Rio Grande, and the Rockies, and which in intensity and variety of interest surpasses all other frontier areas in America.
As an introduction to the present article I desire to indicate briefly the various chapter divisions with some suggestion of their bearing upon the subject as a whole. Naturally American officials were first interested in the question of Louisiana boundaries, and although the western, like the northern boundary of Louisiana, was originally regarded as of less importance than that bordering West Florida, it acquired significance with the increase in geographical knowledge of the West as a whole, and especially with the opening of relations with the Mexican revolutionists. All early American attempts to define the limits of Louisiana were little better than surmises, generally assumed for the purpose of diplomatic trading. The Spaniard possessed greater opportunities for acquiring information in regard to this important subject, but in the beginning his knowledge was hardly more accurate than his opponent's.
With the occupation of such frontier posts as the Spaniards yielded in 1804, the Americans undertook the task of establishing upon a new basis their border relations with their neighbors. This included such minor tasks as regulating general intercourse between the white settlers, watching changes in the frontier garrisons, and considering the status of escaping slaves. Only the last named aroused a serious controversy and thus foreshadowed a more bitter domestic struggle growing out of the presence of slavery in this region. In addition to these minor affairs two series of problems stand out with greater prominence. The question of exploring expeditions along the disputed frontier caused considerable diplomatic activity as well as serious local concern, while both government official and private individual on either side strained every point to gain the allegiance of the Indians. In the early stages of this latter effort the ultimate outcome seemed extremely problematical. Later developments turned the scale in favor of the Americans, but their hardly-won victory made necessary the crushing of desired allies as well as the circumventing of Spanish efforts. This result, however, was not achieved until long after the Spaniard and his Mexican successor had lost control of the area involved.
While conditions on the distant frontier stirred up local problems that speedily acquired national importance, these same problems, because of our peculiar relations with France, England, and Spain, after 1803 likewise acquired an international significance.. They emphasize in a minor way our diplomatic subserviency to France, and in a more limited degree, to England, at a time when our government attempted to bully Spain out of territory that it rightfully controlled. To us it seems inevitable that the United States had to possess the greater part of the Floridas and Texas —the areas in controversy—but it is regrettable that this acquisition was accompanied by a policy of truckling to Napoleon and hectoring Spain, while employing numerous methods of legislative and popular chicane to conceal its true purpose. In the present instalment we do not touch the lowest depths of this transaction. Monroe at Aranjuez and Madison in Washington represented a nerveless attempt at independent negotiations rather than the shameless but secret subservience that characterizes the later policy of their responsible superior, Jefferson. But even while fruitlessly striving for an uncertain freedom in action, they suggested the unconditional surrender of Napoleon's behest that marks the next stage of their Louisiana diplomacy. At this period Texas is subordinate to West Florida, but one may note the general features of the controversy that is later to rage over its possession. By midsummer of 1805, then, the stage was fully set in Europe and in America for the combined diplomatic and frontier drama that marks the next four decades of our territorial history.
Some description of the sources employed in this study may not be inappropriate. In the first place I have made a careful examination of the various repositories in Washington that are open to the historical student. The most important single documentary source there consists of the six manuscript volumes of the Claiborne Correspondence, deposited in the Bureau of Rolls and Library at the State Department. The separate documents of these volumes have been catalogued by Mr. David W. Parker in the Calendar of Papers in Washington Archives relating to the Territories of the United States. In my footnotes I have used the numbers of Mr. Parker's Calendar, both to save space and to afford those interested a ready opportunity to trace the sources. In addition to the Claiborne Correspondence I have made use of various other sources in Washington, which are indicated definitely in the footnotes and may be studied more in detail in Van Tyne and Leland's Guide to the Archives of the Government of the United States in Washington.
Outside of Washington the “Letters to and from Monroe” in the Lenox Branch of the New York Public Library, the “Wilkinson Papers” in the Chicago Historical Society, and the “Sibley Letters” in the Missouri Historical Society afford valuable supplementary material in English. The Spanish transcripts in the last mentioned repository, among Adams Transcripts in the State Department at Washington, and especially those in the Mississippi State Department of Archives and History have been still more valuable than the sources available in English. As in the case of Mr. Parker's Calendar I have used in my footnotes the numbers given by Mr. James Alexander Robertson in his List of Documents in Spanish Archives . . of which Transcripts are preserved in American Libraries.
In addition to these transcripts I have recently had the opportunity to examine the originals and to obtain additional data from the Mexican and Spanish repositories, from the French and English diplomatic archives, and from the Bexar Archives and the archives of the State Library, in Austin, Texas. While most of the material thus collected refers to another period than the two years comprised in the present study, the opportunity to verify data obtained from the transcripts by personally examining the originals or copies from which the transcripts were made, has not been valueless for this work. A specific instance is shown in the Wilkinson affair mentioned in Chapter II.
At the same time, as one encounters in the different repositories in Mexico City, in Seville, and in Madrid, not to mention those of minor cities, an almost endless number of copies of the same communication directed by different conveyances to the same officials or to other officials interested in the same subject, he realizes as never before the necessity for some sort of calendar of documents contained in these various storehouses. Under the circumstances the task of determining the original of a given document or the attempt to note all the variant readings in order to obtain all possible facts, is well nigh hopeless. Still it is possible to obtain much that is new and significant from the Spanish and Mexican archives, even under present conditions, and the uniform courtesy and intelligence of the officials in charge greatly lighten the stupendous task of searching through them. The description of these repositories as given by Professor Shepherd in his Guide to the Materials ... in Spanish Archives and by Professor Bolton in his forthcoming Guide to ... the Mexican Archives will supplement the brief mention here. My thanks are due to the above pioneer scholars, to the officials in charge of the various collections, and to those connected with the Bureau of Historical Research of the Carnegie Institution for numberless courtesies shown and assistance rendered in obtaining material for this and allied phases of a study of our territorial relations with Spain during the first quarter of the last century.
I. THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF LOUISIANA
Early in July, 1803, President Jefferson learned definitely of the purchase of Louisiana and immediately took measures to gain information concerning his unforeseen acquisition. His utter ignorance, shared equally by his collegues, is disclosed in Madison's warning to Monroe not to attempt at that time any arrangement with Spain regarding the western limits of Louisiana. 3 Meanwhile Jefferson took the first steps towards enlightening this ignorance by submitting to certain residents of the lower Mississippi Valley a list of questions relating to the boundaries and general cartography of Louisiana. The resulting correspondence summarizes in a fairly definite manner such knowledge on this subject as was then current in the Southwest. 4
Jefferson soon learned from these gentlemen that the cartography of Louisiana was an almost unknown subject, nor could he gain from them any accurate knowledge of its western boundary. None of them, however, favored a claim beyond the Sabine. Claiborne wrote him that he understood that previous to 1763 the French and Spaniards planned to run a boundary line in that region and had fixed as its starting point the mouth of that river, which, he naively adds, “disembogues itself into the bay of St. Bernard.” Those engaged in running this line had proceeded up the Sabine to a small fort, where they buried some leaden plates in the ground. From this point they carried the line in an uncertain direction until it intersected “a small stream called Bayou Pierre,” about five leagues northwest of Natchitoches, where they ceased work. 5
Clark approached the boundary question from the other side of the continent, taking as his starting point the limit fixed on the Northwest Coast by the Nootka Sound Convention between Spain and Great Britain. From the uncertain point where Spanish California and New Albion met, there was nothing to define the western boundary of Louisiana, until one reached the “Bayou des Lauriers” [Arroyo Hondo]. At the spot where the road from Natchitoches to Nacogdoches crossed the creek, “about two leagues to the S. W. by S. of Natchitoches on the River Rouge,” and five leagues from “Adais,” the respective jurisdictions of France and of Spain had been marked by leaden plates bearing the royal arms of each, affixed to convenient trees on each side of the road. From this point there was no indication of the direction which the line took, but similar plates were reported to have been fixed at the Yatasse settlement among the Nandaco Indians, about fifty leagues northwest of Natchitoches. Below the “Bayou des Lauriers” the boundary line was never established, because the French were not willing to allow the Spanish claim that it should run due south and strike the sea near the mouth of the “Carcasou” [Calcasieu]. But for this, he adds, “they [the Spaniards] have no authority and would, I believe, willingly compound to make the Sabinas the frontier. 6
Dunbar supports Clark's statement regarding the “Bayou des Lauriers” by quoting a letter from a friend, evidently Don José Martínez, who was engaged upon the Spanish Boundary Commission. He also states that he has a sketch, based upon a Spanish chart, which represents a boundary line as running in an east-north-east direction from the Sabine to a point about two leagues from the Red River, whence making a right angle to include the post of Adaes, it runs in a west-northwest direction for an indefinite extent, but with obvious intention to parallel the Red River. From this sketch he concluded that the United States could claim a line parallel to that stream and prolonged to the “Northern Andes, from which chain of mountains the Red River and the Missouri derive their sources.” From that point this watershed should constitute the western boundary of Louisiana, possibly as far as the latitude of the Lake of the Woods. Sibley vaguely mentioned a similar line and likewise reported an agreement between local Spanish officials in Texas and Louisiana, by which the general commandant of the Interior Provinces exercised jurisdiction over the Bayou Pierre Settlement, east of the Sabine. This local agreement, however, in no way affected the territorial rights of the United States.
Aside from certain minor differences it will be seen that these four men in their reports substantially agree that the western boundary of Louisiana is of most indefinite character. Dunbar is the only one to suggest a fairly clear limit—the Continental Divide—which Jefferson also adopted; and this was later commonly accepted. The apparent suggestion by Clark that the western boundary of Louisiana began on the Pacific, is neutralized by his later statement that France had claimed only as far west on the tributaries of the Mississippi as her explorers had penetrated. All of them acknowledged that Spain rightfully exercised jurisdiction east of the Sabine, and Clark expressly scouted any French claim west of that river based on La Salle's Texas settlement. Dunbar quotes, apparently with approval, the opinion of his Spanish correspondent at New Orleans that the United States should cede to Spain the country west of the Mississippi in exchange for the Floridas. Clark hints at the same idea by stating that the boundary question does not depend on exact information, but must be settled by negotiation and compromise.
While awaiting answers from the lower Mississippi Jefferson began to formulate an opinion of his own regarding the limits of Louisiana. In the midst of correspondence regarding the exploration of that province and the constitutionality of its acquisition, he took occasion to express his ideas on its “unquestioned limits.” He believed its “exterior boundary” to be formed by the “highlands enclosing the waters of the Mississippi and Missouri,” with such terminal points as the “Mexicana [Sabine] or the highlands to the east of it,” at one extreme, and at the other, a line drawn “from the Lake of the Woods to the nearest source of the Mississippi.” 7 Passing beyond limits “not admitting of question,” Jefferson stated that we had “some pretensions” or “some claims” to the “Rio Norte or Bravo.” By the end of August, 1803, he became satisfied that our right as far westward as the “Bay of St. Bernard” might be “strongly maintained,” but weakened the force of this statement by suggesting the possibility of compromising “on the western limit,” rather than on the Florida border. In the autumn he sent to certain of his correspondents his conclusions on this subject, in the form of a pamphlet, entitled, “The Limits and Bounds of Louisiana.” 8
The importance of this pamphlet lies in the fact that it summarizes the views of Jefferson, which in turn were held by most American officials until 1819. The author mistakenly assumed that by the end of the seventeenth century France had actual possession of the Gulf coast from Mobile to Matagorda Bay, and that this possession entitled them to claim from the Perdido to the Rio Grande. He was ignorant of the effect exerted by the later Spanish occupation of Texas, or else wilfully disregarded it, for he represented New Mexico, and not Texas, as exercising jurisdiction to the Sabine, after 1762. He states that neither the treaty of that year, nor any other, abridged the extensive French claim to the “Bravo.” Moreover, this claim was likewise protected by any legitimate interpretation of the word “retrocede” in the third article of the Treaty of San Ildefonso, and by the positive statement of Laussat to Claiborne and Wilkinson at New Orleans, in December, 1803. 9
In view of the obscurity in regard to the limits of Louisiana it would seem only the natural thing for Jefferson to ask the French or the Spanish government to define them. But the latter was then protesting against the validity of our title to any part of Louisiana. On the other hand the autocrat of France, who had dictated the terms of the Treaty of San Ildefonso, seems purposely to have made these limits obscure. Otherwise it is difficult to account for the language of its third article: “His Catholic Majesty promises and engages on his part, to retrocede to the French Republic . . . the colony or province of Louisiana, with the same extent that it now has in the hands of Spain, and that it had when France possessed it; and such as it should be after the treaties subsequently entered into between Spain and other states.”
When one possesses the power to dictate the terms of a treaty and permits such an indefinite statement to represent the limits of a territory ceded to himself, it must be for some sinister purpose later to be revealed. Spanish authorities believed that Napoleon designed the enigmatical character of this article to afford a later pretext for reviving the pretensions of La Salle and Crozat and overrunning Mexico. 10 St. Cyr, the French minister at Madrid, confirmed their belief by stating that Spain had conveyed to France the whole of the Gulf coast to the mouth of the Rio Grande. 11
Napoleon first definitely showed his hand in the instructions issued by Decrés to Victor, November 26, 1802. The latter never had the opportunity to carry them out as captain-general of Louisiana, but Laussat, the prefect, as we have already seen, informed the American commissioners of their contents and thus aroused the protests of Salcedo and Casa Calvo. One should not assign too much emphasis to this French declaration, and certainly should not regard it as giving us a claim to the Pacific. It was a mere order to take military possession of the territory, and seems to have emanated originally from the Department of Foreign Affairs, under the direct inspiration of Napoleon. 12 The great despoiler who was reconstructing the map of Europe would not hesitate to extend his projected colonial sway over Texas to the Rio Grande, especially if this brought him nearer the famed mines of Mexico. He might use even such a poor source as Du Pratz's Histoire to bolster his pretensions.
Before the cession of Louisiana to the United States our representatives had on more than one occasion expressed themselves in favor of guaranteeing the Spanish possessions west of the Mississippi in return for the cession of the Floridas and in this they seem to parallel the suggestions of contemporary Spanish officials. Our representative public men had long desired these two Spanish provinces, or at least enough of West Florida to command the entire eastern bank of the Mississippi, but did not consider the possibility of acquiring territory beyond it. Yet both Livingston and Monroe had the sagacity to accept Napoleon's proffer of Louisiana, even if they had to exceed their instructions to do so. They did not lose sight of these instructions, however, but used them in the light of the indefinite Third Article of the Treaty, to extend the limits of their acquisition as far as possible. This meant to claim West Florida to the Perdido, on the east, and to make sure of this region and ultimately of all the Floridas by a supplemental western claim to the Rio Grande. The latter could be relinquished in proportion as Spain showed herself willing to accede to our wishes in regard to the Floridas. This was evidently the chief motive that led Livingston to devise our untenable but fascinatingly puzzling claim to West Florida; that induced the possibly jealous Monroe and the home officials to support him; and that made the Florida problem, for the succeeding decade, the significant frontier question in our territorial history. During this period the western boundary of Louisiana played a distinctly inferior part to the eastern.
In attempting to determine just what they had purchased, Monroe and Livingston found little to guide them aside from Napoleon's cynical declaration that if no obscurity already existed in the treaty, it would perhaps be good policy to put one in; or Talleyrand's more tempting suggestion that the Americans had a good bargain and would doubtless make the best of it. Barbe-Marbois seems to have been more complaisant, for he evasively hinted at the West Florida claim and suggested the possibility of extension to the Pacific, even without the color of a claim. At any rate, Livingston started the fantastic interpretation of the treaty under which we laid claim to West Florida, while Monroe emphasized the possibility of exchanging Texas (although he did not know the country in dispute under that name) for the rest of the Floridas. Neither Madison nor Jefferson was willing to agree to so extensive a concession to Spain, even though Claiborne and other frontier authorities favored the relinquishment of all territory west of the Sabine. 13 The first duty of our government, however, was to make sure of our new acquisition and to defend ourselves from the charge of complicity in Napoleon's faithlessness, and to this end all the efforts of our officials at Washington, New Orleans, London, Paris, and Madrid, were for some months directed.
While Jefferson and his subordinates were thus giving the widest latitude to claims to Louisiana, it is hardly likely that he received with favor the meagre information that his frontier correspondents were able to furnish. This was opposed to his interpretation of these claims, and to that of Livingston and Monroe, which the administration had by this time completely adopted. It is not surprising, therefore, that in the printed report upon Louisiana, dated November 14, 1803, he said almost nothing about boundaries or allied topics. 14 Whatever may have been his intention, he probably realized the force of Clark's suggestion that this boundary question was diplomatic rather than geographical in character, and a fair matter for compromise, as he himself afterwards suggested to Dunbar. 15 In this negotiation the United States would be at a disadvantage in comparison with the documentary store houses possessed by Spain, and this fact determined Jefferson to explore thoroughly his new acquisition. At the same time he attempted other sources of information, including the eminent scientist Humboldt, then visiting the United States. In his letter to the latter Jefferson states that Spain claims to the Mexicana with a line running from its source to the Red, while the United States claims to the Bravo, and he asks the scientist to state the population between these rivers. The English minister, Merry, writes that the Spaniards regard Louisiana as including only a “confined tract” west of the Mississippi and extending only as far north as the Missouri, while the Americans claimed westward to Santa Fé and northward to the source of the Mississippi. The adjustment, as in the case of the Florida disputes, would cause some difficulty. 16
There were then few public men in the United States who were prepared to discuss Louisiana boundaries with the president. Among those outside of Congress the most important was Rufus King, who had just returned from the mission to England, and he seemed to favor the “Bravo” as the western limit. In 1801, he had so expressed himself to Lord Hawkesbury, and in August following the purchase, he gave Gallatin to understand that his position was still unchanged. If we may judge from the attitude of his close friend, Timothy Pickering, he later held the opposite view, but possibly the rejection of the article, in his Convention of May 12, 1803, which related to the Northwestern limit of the United States, may account for the attitude of both men. 17
The House debate over the Louisiana Treaty gave the opportunity for a congressional interpretation of the metes and bounds of our new acquisition. Because of the great uncertainty upon these points some hesitated to approve appropriations to carry out the convention. Mitchell of Georgia, however, voiced the general sentiment that they should accept the province with such boundaries as it was generally understood to possess, and then, after necessary exploration, appoint diplomatic commissioners to settle these limits John Randolph claimed to have “some light”—probably a reflection from Jefferson's Monticello library—upon the western limit of Louisiana. La Salle's colony, he believed, afforded the United States a claim to the “grand river of the North,” which limit embraced some very valuable Spanish territory, including the “rich mines of St. Barbe” and Santa Fé. On the other hand, he believed that the settlement at Adaes gave Spain a right to the Sabine and the highlands dividing the waters of the “North River” from those of the Mississippi, but not the “shadow of a claim” beyond. The extensive territory in dispute he expected to be profitably employed in exchange for the Floridas and in securing all the country watered by the Mississippi. 18
None of the senators ventured to make a definite statement regarding the limits of Louisiana. Breckenridge forgot the Kentucky Resolutions sufficiently to favor the expansion of our republic beyond the Mississippi, for he asserted that the Goddess of Liberty was not to be restrained by water courses. Pickering believed that the French government had purposely obscured the question of limits as well as other features of the treaty. Dayton, of New Jersey, who, thanks to Wilkinson, had spent a very pleasant summer among the New Orleans creoles, emphasized the fact that the French and Spanish officials each had a different interpretation of the western boundary of Louisiana. On the whole these utterances show that the members of neither house possessed any definite knowledge regarding the extent of Louisiana. In lieu of anything better the majority were willing to accept the president's view and trust the future to decide the question in a way most favorable to the United States. 19
A few months later Congress attempted to hasten this decision. The Spanish government had formally withdrawn its protest against the alienation of Louisiana, and the formal transfer of the province had occurred at New Orleans. Feeling secure in their new acquisition, Congress, by the so-called “Mobile Act” of February, 1804, attempted the first distinct assertion of the West Florida claim. 20 Before the fiasco of this act became clearly manifest, the same body approached, but in a different manner, the western boundary of Louisiana. The Act of March 26, 1804, divided the acquisition into two portions, the southern of which, called Orleans Territory, was to be bounded on the north by the thirty-third parallel, and to “extend west to the western boundary of said cession.” 21 Thus Congress made no attempt to define the western extent of Louisiana.
By this time the President and Cabinet seem to have reached the sentiment that Jefferson expressed in a letter to William Dunbar: “However much we may compromise on our western limits, we never shall on our eastern.” 22 On the 15th of the following month Madison, in his instructions to Monroe concerning the anticipated Spanish negotiation, expressed, among other subjects, the “united opinion” of the Cabinet regarding the western limit of Louisiana. Between the possessions of the United States and Spain a neutral zone was to be established, doubtless in deference to the antipathy that Spain had always manifested against near neighbors of vigorous type. This zone was to be bounded on the east by the Sabine from its mouth to its source, a limit that may have been due to the suggestions of Claiborne, Clark, and Dunbar. From the source of the Sabine the line should be drawn directly to the junction of the Osage with the Missouri, and there should continue parallel with the Mississippi to its source. Such a line would very closely approximate the western extent of French settlement in this region, and should be compared with a later suggestion by Talleyrand. 23 The western limit of this zone was the Colorado (or some other river emptying into St. Bernard's Bay), with a line from its source to the most southwesterly source of the Red River, making such deflections as were necessary to include all of its branches. Thence the limit should follow along the highlands, forming the watershed between the Mississippi and Missouri on one side and the Rio Grande on the other, to the latitude of the most northern source of the last named river, and thence by a meridian to the northern boundary of Louisiana. 24
It will be noted that this neutral zone was to include a large part of the “undoubted limits” of Louisiana. This need cause no surprise in view of the attitude of many public men at this time in favor of closing the territory west of the Mississippi to settlement. Then, too, the United States was not to relinquish its rights in this region. That power was to remove all those who had settled within it since 1800. Each nation was to be permitted to trade with the Indians settled therein and to remove Indians from its own territory within the zone, the police powers of which were to be vested in the United States. Madison stated that he and his colleagues believed that the American claim to the “Bravo” was valid, so their proposal represented a very liberal concession which called for an equally liberal one on the part of Spain, in regard to the territory east of the Perdido. The United States, the Secretary warned Monroe, was to yield no more western territory than was absolutely necessary and by no means to deprive itself of the waters running into the Missouri or the Mississippi, or any of the waters emptying into the Gulf between the Mississippi and the Colorado.
In these instructions Madison stated the claims and concessions of the United States as definitely as current knowledge permitted. Further information regarding Louisiana, perhaps derived from Humboldt or Wilkinson, or from Lewis's early letters, or more probably the prospect that Spain would be forced into a war with England, led the administration to modify them. Jefferson preferred that the neutral zone should include the territory between the Rio Grande and the Colorado, or if necessary between the former and the Sabine, but if possible he wished our commissioners to avoid the perpetual relinquishment of any territory east of the “Bravo”—even in exchange for the Floridas east of the Perdido. He evidently was determined to make the most of Spain's necessity. Gallatin, however, dissented from his views, so Jefferson wrote Madison, July 6, 1804, that the previous views of the cabinet remained unchanged. 25
Madison's instructions of July 8, 1804, therefore, did not differ materially from the previous ones, except that the neutral zone was to be extended westward to include the territory between the Colorado and the Rio Grande, while all lines drawn from its eastern limit, whether the Sabine or the Colorado, should have a northwest trend rather than one due north. This latter provision was due to the prospective rapid expansion of American settlement west of the Mississippi. 26 Madison sent these instructions to Monroe and Charles Pinckney, but did not absolutely preclude them from ceding to the Sabine as the ultimate limit of the neutral strip. A few months later he even sanctioned the abandonment of any pretentions of the United States to a claim beyond the Colorado, the Red, and the watershed of the Mississippi basin, in order to facilitate our claims to the Perdido and the purchase of the territory beyond. 27 Thus Texas was to be sacrificed to West Florida, and this sacrifice might ultimately include all territory west of the Sabine.
The American interest in the boundaries of Louisiana seemed largely of an academic kind—a scientific desire to establish logical boundaries rather than an overwhelming passion to raise a barrier against an unwelcome neighbor. Spain's interest in the question surpassed that of the United States; her records relating to that province and its neighbors were more voluminous. But her officials, especially her minister at Philadelphia, the Marques de Casa Yrujo, frankly confessed their ignorance of the disputed border region and emphasized the necessity of obtaining more definite information concerning it. Casa Yrujo even applied to General James Wilkinson to assist him in this matter. 28 In this connection his despatch of November 5, 1803, enclosing the translation of a pamphlet published under the nom de plume “Silvestris” (which he perhaps ill-advisedly attributes to Madison) is of some interest in the boundary dispute. 29 The pamphlet definitely claims the Rio Grande as the western limit of Louisiana and also the chain of mountains in which that river and the Missouri rise. Casa Yrujo does not specifically dispute the claim. His silence is curious but not conclusive, for it may indicate his uncertainty rather than his willingness to permit the statement to remain unchallenged. The Spanish minister also regarded the vast extent of Louisiana as a weakness to the United States, provided Spain retained possession of both the Floridas.
Fortunately for Spain her frontier officers possessed greater knowledge of her rights in the disputed territory and a greater determination to secure them, although they did not always work harmoniously to that end. When, in October, 1802, Governor Manuel de Salcedo received from his home government the order to transfer the province of Louisiana to the French representative, he immediately discovered many dubious points in his instructions, upon which he sought more explicit information. Among these was the indefiniteness of the article in the Treaty of San Ildefonso regarding limits which led him to emphasize the necessity for fixing the boundary between Louisiana and the Interior Provinces, so as to avoid any further trouble. There should be no difficulty in doing this, if they took advantage of the rivers which abounded in that region. In his view it was especially important to fix the limits in Upper Louisiana, where the English were attempting to approach the Interior Provinces by way of the Missouri. The home authorities agreed with him in the necessity for promptness in this measure and appointed him and the Marqués de Casa Calvo, who possessed considerable knowledge of the country based on personal observation, as commissioners to carry on a joint survey with the French. José Martinez was associated with them as chief engineer. Shortly afterwards the joint commissioners requested Nimecio Salcedo to give them all the information he possessed in regard to the limits of Texas with the neighboring provinces. 30
A few days before the transfer of Louisiana to the United States, Governor Manuel Salcedo submitted some “observations” in which he emphasized the rights of Spain, based upon the establishment at Adaes, and claimed that the French had remained at Natchitoches only because of Spanish sufferance. He stated that the French fort, situated upon the right bank of the Red (“Colorado”) was taken as the starting point in running the line between the two claimants and that this line was to be drawn due south to the sea and north to the Red, which was to continue as the limit to its source. Later the French were permitted to remove their fort still further to the westward, and the “Bayou del laurel” from its confluence with the Red to its source was made the boundary; thence the line returned to the Red. Still later, when the Spaniards abandoned Adaes and ultimately established themselves at Nacogdoches, the French subjects of Spain were permitted to trade freely to the Sabine, and even in the region beyond Nacogdoches, provided the commandant of the latter post gave them the necessary permission. 31
Some three weeks after the transfer of Louisiana to the Americans, Casa Calvo wrote to his superior that the Americans were preparing to assert an “absurd claim” to the mouth of the “Bravo” and that the French commissioner supported them in this contention. From his own personal knowledge of the region and from information derived from others, Casa Calvo stated that he was prepared to overthrow this claim. He also cited the report from St. Louis concerning Captain “Merrywhether” Lewis's expedition as evidence of the danger threatening Spain's interests in Mexico if the United States continued to hold any territory whatever west of the Mississippi. 32 A few days later his colleague joined him in a communication to Laussat, the French commissioner, in which they asserted that the western boundary of Louisiana began at the mouth of the Sabine and extended to within a few miles of Natchitoches, in such a way as to include Adaes. The two Spaniards then asked him to give them his opinion before he left the province. 33
In his reply of January 20, 1804, Laussat states that he was “vaguely charged to take possession of the country according to the terms of the treaty and without other demarcation of limits.” The interests of his government had not required him to attempt any such demarcation and he was not authorized to do so, but to them as representatives of a friendly and intimately allied power, he quoted his instructions concerning the limits of the retroceded province: “On the south, the Gulf of Mexico; on the west, the Rio Bravo from its mouth up to thirty degrees of North Latitude, from which point the line of demarcation is undetermined towards the Northwest and likewise towards the Northern line, which is lost in the vast solitudes in which there are no European establishments and in which it appears that they have never yet felt the necessity for limits.” 34
In private conversation Laussat likewise communicated his instructions to the American commissioners Wilkinson and Claiborne. He may have experienced a certain malicious pleasure in doing this and thus causing a bitter controversy between the Americans and the Spaniards, for he felt that the latter had treated him with undeserved neglect and even with hostility. The Spaniards believed that the purpose of the French government concerning the western boundary, in contrast with the eastern, arose from a desire to embroil the two nations in a conflict from which they themselves would later obtain signal advantages. 35
Nimecio de Salcedo, the general commandant of the Interior Provinces, did not regard the appointment of this boundary commission with favor and showed himself ready to handicap its work, especially after Casa Calvo, by the retirement of his brother, became sole commissioner. He had himself expressed an opinion of the western limit of Louisiana in a communication to the home government, bearing the date of October 4, 1803. In this he stated that the line should begin on the Gulf between the “Caricut and Mermentou” and extend northwards to the Red River in the vicinity of Natchitoches. The northern limit of Louisiana was unknown, but he claimed that the jurisdiction of Texas and New Mexico extended to the Missouri River.
Upon royal order a special junta assembled at Madrid to consider the matter. In spite of the fact that its members lacked all definite geographical knowledge of the subject, they resolved to assert a definite claim to the waters of the Calcasieu (“Caricut”) and the post of Adaes, as points always within their possession. Moreover the Spanish commissioners should claim the western banks of the Red and of the Mississippi below its mouth, with the exception of the post of Natchitoches, unless the opposing commissioners could show that other French settlements tributary to New Orleans had once existed within that area. Even if this were true the junta did not grant that such settlements could now be claimed as part of Louisiana any more than East Florida formed part of Cuba because subject to that island. At all events, the Americans must not be permitted to navigate the Red and other tributaries of the Mississippi above the point where the final boundary should touch those rivers. 36 In transmitting their report Cevallos expressed a preference for a simple boundary rather than an intervening neutral strip. 37
Despite the statement that the French Prefect gave the Americans the Spanish representatives protested against the interpretation that the Rio Grande was the western boundary of Louisiana. In a later communication to Cevallos, Casa Calvo stated that until he received orders to the contrary he should begin the demarcation at no other place than the mouth of the Sabine, and that he should follow this to the “Bayou des Lauriers,” two leagues from Natchitoches, which report indicated as the spot where the boundary between Texas and Louisiana was marked. Meanwhile he should attempt to gain all additional information regarding the Sabine and the Bravo and the intervening coast from the observations of Captain Don Ciriaco Ceballos, who was in charge of the revenue vessels on the coast, and he hoped his course would merit official approbation. 38 In this he was not disappointed.
The French traveler, C. C. Robin, who chanced to be in Louisiana at the time of the transfer, rendered much more assistance to Casa Calvo than did Laussat. He seems to have formed a very unfavorable opinion of the American officials and settlers, and this led him to suggest to Casa Calvo what methods Spain should employ to retain the territory lying between Louisiana and Mexico. Casa Calvo employed Robin to visit M. de Blanc, a descendant of the famous St. Denis, then living in Natchitoches. From him the French traveler obtained some valuable information concerning the early French claims west of the Mississippi from which he prepared a memoir for Casa Calvo. He represented Louisiana as comprising very little territory west of the Mississippi, and in other ways favored the Spanish position in regard to the western limits. 39
Robin stated that the Arroyo Hondo (he calls it “le Grand Ruisseau”) is the stream that the Spaniards have always scrupulously regarded as the western limit of Louisiana. Between this stream and the Red lay the only territory that France ever occupied on the latter river. Elsewhere the banks of the Red, and of the Mississippi below its mouth, belong to Spain. He also declared that France once possessed a right to that portion of the Arkansas controlled by Tonty's former post, and to the mouth of the Missouri; but the United States could claim nothing beyond these restricted areas. In this way he more than emphasized the Spanish claim east of the Sabine. He followed contemporary Spanish frontier officials in favoring the Mississippi as the ultimate boundary. Casa Calvo and his engineer, Martinez, evidently used Robin's suggestions in their later reports to Cevallos, and in addition incorporated certain observations drawn from the previous experience of Athanacio de Mezieres. They asserted the right of Spain to the watershed between the Calcasieu and Mermentou and to the “Bayou des Lauriers.” If the Americans were ready to begin the survey in a short time, they should insist upon going no further west than the Sabine. The American claim to the Bravo, they stated, included not only a large part of the Interior Provinces, but also a possible extension to the Pacific. Against such pretensions they must make a resolute stand. 40
II. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF BORDER RELATIONS WITH THE SPANIARDS
The leisurely discussion at diplomatic centers of the boundaries of Louisiana with a view to their final determination promised to continue for an indefinite period. Meanwhile the actual solution was being worked out on the very frontiers in dispute. The area of occupation was a more important factor than diplomatic skill, even when aided by unlimited archival stores. For more than two decades before 1803 scattered settlements and army posts on the eastern bank of the Mississippi had afforded to a few adventurous American settlers and traders a base from which to press forward into Louisiana and Texas. Now others were ready to carry these settlements and posts into Louisiana itself and from this new base to extend their operations still further within the Interior Provinces and even to threaten the Mexican Viceroyalty. While the Americans were initiating this important work of expansion, the Spaniards were exerting every effort to restrict this movement within the smallest possible limits. Thus they desired to render Louisiana, in the language of Jefferson, “only a string of land west of the Mississippi”—provided it were necessary to allow them any holding whatever in that region—while the Americans strove to push its boundaries to the Bravo and the Rockies. But the Spaniards were not more united in their policy of restriction than were the Americans in pushing their claims to the uttermost.
The Marqués de Casa Yrujo, the Spanish minister to the United States, did not regard the cession of Louisiana to the United States as an unmixed evil. The consequent spread of population from the east of the Mississippi to the west of that river would weaken the American Union. Spain had only to fear greater facilities for contraband trading, but such practices by the new possessors of Louisiana might be checked or absolutely prohibited if his nation had the power to make reprisals from the Floridas. Thus East and West Florida, and particularly the latter, might serve as outposts for New Spain. 41 On the other hand, Governor Manuel Salcedo, at New Orleans, believed that great disadvantages to Spain would follow, if the Americans continued to hold the right (he calls it “left”) bank of the Mississippi; and the only way to prevent this would be for Spain to relinquish both the Floridas in return for the cession of the other region. 42 The Marqués de Casa Calvo, with whom he was temporarily associated, agreed with him in his belief that “the dyke . . . to restrain the sweep” of American immigration must be erected on the banks of the Mississippi.
He also cited the presence of Merriwether Lewis on the Missouri as a specific instance of an American design to possess the entire course of that river and also portions of Sonora and Sinaloa. This could not be prevented as long as the Americans controlled the lower courses of the Mississippi's western tributaries. In closing his dispatch he apologetically reminded Cevallos that he who preserved Mexico for Spain would gain greater renown than Cortes who conquered it. 43 The Governor of West Florida, Vizente Folch, despite the advice of Wilkinson, wished Spain to retain both the Floridas and the right bank of the Mississippi, for he considered the former the “antemural” of Cuba, and the latter of New Spain. If the Americans were permitted to pass such an important natural barrier as the Mississippi, which no one would have imagined possible five years before, they would soon realize their ambition to possess a port on the Pacific. What, then, would become of Spain's American possessions? 44 The next ten years were to answer his question.
While Spanish officials were predicting the fearful consequences to follow the French or American possession of Louisiana, the Americans themselves were giving serious attention to its boundary problems. On May 1, 1803, Madison wrote Monroe that Citizen Laussat had arrived at New Orleans and that Casa Calvo was shortly expected. The main purpose of this dispatch was to assure Monroe that in the formal transfer, in which these two men were concerned, our rights under the Treaty of 1795 were to be preserved. 45 Possibly Madison wished to conceal his own anxiety upon this point. In July, however, this anxiety assumed a new phase and one of unexpected personal interest. The Americans were to possess Louisiana, provided Casa Yrujo's protests against the transfer to them and his refusal to sign certain documents connected with that act, did not prevent its consummation. However, in due time, Governor Claiborne reported the passage through Natchez, on November 26, of the French officer bearing the necessary credentials for Laussat. 46 On the 30th that official formally received the province from Salcedo and Casa Calvo, preparatory to handing it over to the Americans.
The tidings of this transfer to France, though welcome, caused Madison's anxiety to assume a new turn. In that act nothing was said of the boundaries in general, and, of course, nothing about West Florida, the chief concern of the administration. On December 20 occurred the formal transfer of the province to the American commissioners, Claiborne and Wilkinson. Some days before the tidings of this event reached Washington the administration learned through Charles Pinckney, our minister at Madrid, that the Spanish government had withdrawn all opposition to this transfer. So no untoward event occurred to mar the ceremony. Claiborne, uncomfortable in his new surroundings, did, indeed, report a warning given by Laussat, that the Spaniards were reinforcing the Mexican border—a policy which his colleague Wilkinson advised them to follow. 47 Another chance remark, attributed to Laussat, that “the harvest of Louisiana were (sic) not yet secured to the United States,” caused Claiborne to fear that the province might still revert to France, if hostilities in Europe should cease, and to express the wish that Laussat would not delay his departure. 48 In view of the service that Laussat was then rendering in regard to the western boundary, such insistence savors of ingratitude. Claiborne soon found that there were others tarrying at New Orleans, whose departure he would regret even less than that of Laussat.
After the formal ceremony at New Orleans, the French commissioner, in conjunction with the Spanish officials, proceeded to issue the necessary orders for the delivery of the outlying posts to the Americans. Those for the posts at Attakapas, Opelousas, and Concord were promptly forthcoming; those for Natchitoches, Washita, and the posts of upper Louisiana, only after a month's delay. This was due to the tardiness of the Spanish officials, and their action was not surprising in view of their desire to retain the western bank of the Mississippi. Claiborne later explained that his own subsequent delay in taking possession of the posts on the Washita and at Natchitoches arose from the continued presence of so many Spanish troops at New Orleans. While they remained he was unwilling to weaken the meagre American force there by sending detachments to the outlying posts in lower Louisiana. 49
On April 15, Lieutenant William Bowmar reported that he had taken possession of the post on the “Ouachita” (Fort Miró on the “Washita,” to adopt the later spelling). This post was the center of a string of settlements twenty-eight miles long on that river. The neighboring population composed of some 450 settlers—Irish, French-Canadians, Santo Domingans, and Americans—seemed to be pleased with the transfer, but Robin, who was then present, criticized the policy of the American government in appointing so young a man for this responsible post. But when Hunter and Dunbar visited the region, nine months later, they spoke very favorably of the rule maintained by this young officer. 50
The frontier post of Natchitoches was the gateway to Texas and the Interior Provinces beyond, and for this reason possessed an importance second only to New Orleans and St. Louis. A report of October 31, 1803, states that thirty-two Spanish troops formed its guard. 51 This insignificant force readily yielded the post to an American contingent (barely twice their own) under the command of Captain Edwin Turner. At 11 o'clock, April 20, 1804, the French tri-color replaced the Spanish flag, and an hour later the Stars and Stripes followed. 52 The former garrison then retired to Nacogdoches, the only remaining monument in Eastern Texas of the Spaniard's missionary and contraband effort. Later they were joined by the dragoons that had formerly been stationed at New Orleans. These troops, combined with the garrison already existing at that point, formed for the Spaniards a modest force wholly inadequate to the demands aroused by their jealous fears of the Americans. On the other hand the equally unfounded apprehensions of the latter unduly magnified the modest resources of their opponents.
Most of those who witnessed the simple ceremony marking the double transfer seemed satisfied with the change. But among the few malcontents Turner noted the Spanish commandant of Nacogdoches, who was afterwards reproved by Nimecio de Salcedo for being present on this occasion. 53 In alluding to the intercourse between Louisiana and Texas that official was reported as saying: “It is now finished and the door is shut forever.” 54 The future speedily demonstrated that Ugarte was no prophet, while the existence of a trade contrary to Spanish regulations and already largely in the hands of the Americans, was a sufficient comment upon his own rule and that of his fellow officers.
According to later American interpretation the peaceable delivery of the post at Natchitoches carried with it the control of the territory as far west as the Sabine, but the Spaniards refused to recognize this. As we have already seen, they hoped to keep the Americans entirely east of the Mississippi by the bribe of the Floridas, but failing in that they were determined to insist upon the whole of Texas, which, as they claimed, extended to the Arroyo Hondo, a few leagues west of Natchitoches. Their policy was to hold this as a sine qua non and by negotiation to secure as much additional territory as possible between that point and the Mississippi River.
A minor event that illustrates this policy is shown in their retention of the small frontier settlement of Bayou Pierre, on the Red River, about fifty leagues northwest of Natchitoches. It was formerly a French outpost, but by agreement had been placed under the jurisdiction of the commandant at Nacogdoches. Design on the part of the Spaniards and ignorance on the part of the Americans were alike responsible for the failure to include this in the formal transfer at Natchitoches. It gave color to the Spanish claim of jurisdiction east of the Sabine, yet Jefferson was willing to acquiesce in their temporary control as an act of international courtesy and out of respect for the principle of maintaining the status quo until all the frontier questions could be settled by treaty. The incident was regarded of sufficient importance, however, to be mentioned in subsequent diplomatic correspondence and in the President's message. While the Spaniards actually had no guard there in 1803 they certainly maintained a small one two years later, and its commander caused the Indian agent, John Sibley, considerable uneasiness. 55
As we have already seen, there was a general fear among Spanish officials, both in the Old World and the New, that the occupation of Louisiana by the Americans would facilitate their entrance into the Internal Provinces. Casa Calvo, Folch, Salcedo, and their fellow officials felt apprenhensive that the vast unguarded area extending without natural barriers from Hudson's Bay to the Gulf of Mexico would, through its numerous water-courses, afford a series of open highways to Mexico. Even with such a well defined limit as the Mississippi, it had been impossible to keep the restless British and American adventurers upon their own territory. When, therefore, this limit was likely to be placed anywhere between that river and the Rio Grande, and when it was likely to be a mere conventional line unmarked by strong natural features, this task seemed well nigh hopeless. Yet the authorities of the Internal Provinces, the region most exposed to these unwelcome inroads, assumed with determination the task of protecting their sovereign's dominions from the foreigner. If they seem to exhibit the customary Spanish thoroughness in formulating decree and laxity in enforcing it, these conditions were due to the miserable resources at their disposal.
Shortly after the transfer was consummated the Spanish officials gained an important recruit—in advice, if not in deeds, General Wilkinson, who had taken part in that act as the colleague of Governor Claiborne, called upon Vizente Folch when the latter chanced to be in New Orleans. In the course of a long conversation he made many “reflections” upon the consequences which might be expected to follow the cession of Louisiana, and promised to commit them to writing for perusal by Captain-General Someruelos at Havana. 56 At the end of the interview Wilkinson brought up what Folch terms an “embarassing point.” It speedily developed that the embarrassment was of the financial kind that Wilkinson generally experienced. Years before the Spanish government had promised him an annual pension of two thousand dollars. A chain of circumstances that concern other phases of Southwestern history had prevented the payment of this pension for the past ten years. Wilkinson was now on the point of departing for the seat of government and needed the money. Hence his visit with its accompanying “reflections.” Hence his promise to sound “the heart of the President” and make due report thereon to the Spanish authorities.
Governor Folch was in a quandary. His own salary was never paid fully and promptly, so he did not have twenty thousand dollars for Wilkinson, although he seems persuaded that the latter's services were worth that sum. The relations between himself and the intendant, Morales, who handled the finances, were not cordial, so the latter might reveal the secret out of jealousy toward himself as well as unfriendliness toward Wilkinson. The only recourse would be an application to Casa Calvo, who, as boundary commissioner, had lately received a remittance of 100,000 pesos from Mexico. Possibly the payment of so large a sum as this to Casa Calvo, despite the uncertainty that surrounded his work, may indicate the importance that the Spanish government placed upon the settlement of its boundaries. Or possibly it may represent a sum to be expended in just such emergencies as now presented itself. At any rate, Casa Calvo had money while the regular frontier officials had little or none.
Wilkinson demurred at presenting his case to Casa Calvo. The latter's secretary, Armesto, must perforce act as interpreter, for Casa Calvo did not “possess the English idiom.” Armesto was a friend of Morales, an intimate of Daniel Clark's, who in turn corresponded with Jefferson. Thus Wilkinson feared that the President would be warned from the very source that was to profit by his betrayal. Yet the financial necessity was apparently overpowering, for Wilkinson finally agreed that Casa Calvo should enter into the secret and that he should carry on the affair directly with himself and not through Folch as intermediary. This point Folch submitted to the captain-general for determination. Wilkinson asked that in addition to those already mentioned, Cevallos in Spain, and Gilbert Leonard, the royal contador of West Florida, be the only ones admitted into the plot. This seems to have been the case, for he whom Folch later terms “the Prophet Daniel,” never learned what would have been a most welcome addition to his “Proofs of the Corruption of General James Wilkinson.”
The sum of money that Casa Calvo paid Wilkinson at this time was twelve thousand rather than the twenty thousand demanded. This met with royal approval. Wilkinson had asked that his pension be raised to four thousand pesos, his salary as commander of the American army. Someruelos held this up pending royal approval, which was not forthcoming. As an earnest of the seriousness of his intentions Wilkinson presented his “Reflections” shortly after his interview with Folch, and for the next few years carried on in cipher with him and with Casa Calvo a fragmentary correspondence that seems more despicable in purpose than dangerous in execution.
The text of the “Reflections” emphasizes the use of the Floridas as a bribe with which to obtain the right bank of the Mississippi or at least so much of it as would suit Spain's policy of excluding the Americans from Mexico. Wilkinson begins by mentioning the prodigious growth of the States west of the mountains during the preceding thirty years. In this development he had occupied a prominent, if not wholly honorable, part. He mentioned that the retrocession of Louisiana to France (“that Gothic power”) aroused the “sensibilities of every Spanish patriot” (doubtless including himself); while its transfer to the United States “for a sordid consideration” (How distasteful to him!) “opens great dangers to the American dominions of Spain.” He believed that France, “always intriguing, unquiet and impatient,” was trying to stir up trouble between Spain and the United States over the western boundary in order to derive some profit from the controversy. He thought that Spain possessed a great advantage in the Floridas, from which it might dominate the Indians in the vicinity and prevent an invasion of the Interior Provinces. If Monroe's projected mission to Spain for the purchase of the Floridas should be successful, he trembled for the mournful consequences to Spain. The United States would immediately attempt to gain its western claims by force—a course of action they would not dare undertake if the Floridas were not in their possession. The only remedy was to make an even trade of the Floridas for the region west of the Mississippi. Any yielding to American pretensions would mean the giving up the key of the kingdoms of Mexico and Peru to what he terms an “army of adventurers similar to the ancient Goths and Vandals.” In this fashion does he speak of those rugged western pioneers whom he had been able to deceive rather than corrupt.
Wilkinson also gave suggestions in regard to the fortification of West Florida and the Texas frontier. Nacogdoches should be strongly garrisoned, with a port and supplemental post of observation on the Sabine or at Matagorda Bay. The Spanish government should firmly establish its hold on the Southern Indians and at the same time should secretly promote the plans of the Americans to remove the most powerful tribes across the Mississippi. In case this policy were carried out the Indians would take with them a mortal hatred of the Americans which the Spaniards might turn to their own advantage, even employing them to destroy all the American settlements west of the Mississippi. He mentioned that Jefferson had sent an astronomer to learn of the Rio Grande and the Missouri, 57 and had instructed his secretary, “Captain M. Lewis,” to visit the latter and to extend his enterprise to the Pacific. The frontier authorities should be warned to stop this expedition. All communication between Spanish and American citizens should be prohibited. He referred to “an individual named Boone,” then on the Missouri, as one who should be driven east of the Mississippi. If he and his adherents were permitted to continue their progress westward they would soon be on the high road to Santa Fé. The frontier officials should be empowered to use money in secret service (a characteristic Wilkinson touch!), for in default of this they had just lost a valuable man (perhaps meaning himself!).
Before closing Wilkinson emphasized once more the necessity of getting possession of the right bank of the Mississippi. If necessary, Spain should add to the offer of the Floridas a “sum of money which may be convenient to attract the attention of the people and tempt the government of the United States.” Spain should even offer to extinguish the existing national debt of some sixty millions. If the Americans were still obdurate the Spaniards should offer a line of demarcation as near as possible to the western bank of the great river, running so as “to cut off the mouth of the Missouri.” If necessary the United States might be permitted to control the Fourche mouth of the Mississippi, to prevent contraband trade, while Spain should establish a port at the Teche. In carrying on this most important negotiation the Spanish minister should secure the aid of Americans who were influential with their own government so as to direct its course “as most convenient to the interests of the crown of His Majesty.”
It is difficult to find language properly to characterize this proposal. Its blackness may be heightened by suggesting that Wilkinson was probably as ready to betray the Spaniards as the Americans. For the present, however, Folch listened to a part of his proposals, but objected to the cession of the Floridas. He felt that Spain should preserve them and secure as well the right bank of the Mississippi. One would protect Cuba and the other Mexico, but both were necessary for complete defense of the royal dominions. The limits between the two countries must be marked by a natural barrier like the Mississippi (although we should hardly term the river such), consequently the Americans should retain no territory on its western bank. He considered the proposal to extinguish the national debt of the United States in return for this territory as “political heresy.” At the utmost Spain should give only the eleven millions the Americans had paid for Louisiana, with the use or possession of New Orleans, adding, if necessary, that part of West Florida between the Pearl and the Mississippi. This would appeal to the parsimony of those Americans who dreaded a war costing far more than this sum, and would likewise show the interest of Spain in preserving peace. With these comments he transmitted Wilkinson's proposal to his superior and recommended the author to royal consideration.
The rumor that the Americans would revive the French claim to the Rio Grande was a strong reason for Spanish jealousy of their presence. The Indian trader, Davenport, warned Ugarte that the Americans would insist upon this claim. Casa Calvo urged Elguezabal to meet their advances on the Sabine. The general effect of these admonitions was shown in Nimecio Salcedo's orders to keep all foreigners from the Texas frontier and to organize scouting parties to search for possible American intruders. On the other hand, Claiborne emphasized these fears and resulting movements as affording an opportunity to obtain the Floridas by relinquishing all claims beyond the Sabine. This suggestion, in addition to those of similar nature already given by Clark and Dunbar, may have influenced the instructions given to Monroe and Pinckney. 58
The Spaniards of the Internal Provinces had not awaited the formal transfer of Louisiana before taking measures to prevent the inroad of foreigners. Nimecio de Salcedo instructed the Governor of Texas to allow Spanish subjects to remove from Louisiana to Texas, provided they settled far enough from the border to prevent contraband practices. In December, 1803, the viceroy closed his dominions to those who continued to reside in Louisiana. Salcedo forbade any American to approach the disputed frontier. In these orders we note the general dread inspired by the Americans in view of unmarked boundaries and the uncertain allegiance of the Indians. 59
The Americans soon learned the existence of this feeling and uniformly misinterpreted it. In February, 1804, Claiborne reported to Madison that a large Spanish force was marching from Mexico to the province of “Tacus.” This movement, the disorder prevalent in certain communities of western Louisiana, and the refusal to hold office under his administration he associated with Spanish fear and jealousy. He insisted still more strongly on this when he heard that the Spanish were strengthening their fortifications at Nacogdoches. 60 Just at this time Salcedo informed the viceroy that the American commandant, Turner, was constructing a new fort near Natchitoches, so placed as to command the road to Texas. 61 Thus neither set of frontier officials failed to exhibit an unreasonable jealousy and fear of their opponents.
About the time of the transfer Charles Pinckney, our minister at Madrid, had reported that possibly the Spanish government would send some forces to Pensacola and the Rio Grande. Cevallos denied this rumor and the French and English ministers at the Spanish court expressed a hope that nothing of the sort would take place. But Pinckney persisted in his opinion, for information from other sources apparently confirmed his view. Laussat told Claiborne and Wilkinson that the Spaniards were strengthening their forces on the Texas frontier and would probably encroach upon the disputed territory. The tardy course of the Spaniards in withdrawing from New Orleans gave point to the charge, while other rumors tended to strengthen it. 62
Shortly after, Ugarte, the commandant at Nacogdoches, accompanied by the Natchitoches priest, called upon Captain Turner and endeavored to persuade him to a mutual agreement that no persons should pass their respective frontiers without written permission. Ugarte stated that their interest had been recently aroused by the rumor that a party of Americans had entered the country with evil design and that the Spaniards had been obliged to keep one hundred and fifty soldiers under arms for some time in search of them. The basis for this may have been the report of Ashley's expedition. Turner told Ugarte that well disposed Americans were always free to go where they pleased and that foreigners were allowed free ingress and egress, as far as our territory was concerned. Ugarte, however, urged the matter so strongly that Turner believed his purpose in seeking the interview was simply to learn the ideas of the Americans in order to forestall them. The Spaniard also stated that he had received orders from the captain-general to stop all horse trading. In response to Turner's inquiry about the passports, Claiborne advised Turner to show the friendly disposition of the United States by restraining the horse trade, and, in view of the uncertainty about limits, to continue the former custom of issuing passports, at least for the present. Ugarte later informed Turner that he ought to limit the passports to actual residents of his jurisdiction or to such as had absolutely to visit Nacogdoches to collect debts due them from its citizens. Otherwise he had no authority to recognize Louisiana passports. 63
The unfriendly attitude of the Spaniards soon began to manifest itself more distinctly when Ugarte tried to force some settlers in the disputed territory to move away from the frontier into the region west of Nacogdoches. As an instance in point, Turner cited the case of M. Roquier, resident of Natchitoches. The Spanish commandant threatened to confiscate a house and lot that he possessed in Nacogdoches unless he removed thither. Nor could he collect the debts due him unless he fulfilled the same condition. The second threat, it was later explained, was due to the failure of the corn crop for that year. It was subsequently discovered that Roquier was not favorable to the American rule, so he may have originated this rumor to cover up his disaffection. By the end of July, however, all Americans not professing the Catholic faith were ordered out of Texas, and even those permitted to remain must reside west of Nacogdoches. It was reported that this would cause some to remove who had resided twenty-five years in the province, but it hardly seems possible that any American had been there for so long a time. 64
Captain Turner also had occasion to report that at one time some Spanish dragoons visited Natchitoches for two days ostensibly to obtain medical treatment from Dr. John Sibley, and that later a Spanish lieutenant came there to purchase supplies; but in both cases they departed without accomplishing their purpose. It was believed that their true intention was to reconnoitre the American fort, with a view to find if any neighboring height commanded it, and to report upon the feasibility of occupying this position. The Spaniards, so it was reported, would first occupy Adaes and then push on towards Natchitoches. From Bayou Pierre came the rumor that a Spanish reinforcement of two hundred at Nacogdoches was designed to accomplish this movement, and Turner was afterward personally informed that detachments to the number of five hundred were to be sent to Adaes and to some point nearer Natchitoches, and that all was in readiness for these troops to march. Alarmed by this he asked to be reinforced by a detachment of artillery and considered the feasibility of ordering Lieutenant Bowmar to join him from the post on the Washita. Claiborne, however, was more fearful of the Spaniards in West Florida than in Texas, and was unwilling to spare any troops from New Orleans. He hardly believed that hostilities would break out, or that in case they did such reinforcements as he could send would be effective. As a matter of fact at this period the viceroy could not spare a hundred militia from Nuevo Leon and Nuevo Santander, and Salcedo had to request aid from Calleja at San Luis Potosi. 65
In addition to the fairly specific rumors about fortifying Adaes Turner reported less definite but even more irritating evidences of Spanish unfriendliness. The Spaniards were continually telling the discontented elements in his jurisdiction that the Americans were “mere hogs” who “did not live like Christians,” and who would keep the planters poor by heavy taxes. By distorting every trifling circumstance, by searching the papers of all American travelers, and in general observing a course of conduct resembling war, all the Spanish officials, from the general commandant down, were, in his opinion, using “the most despicable means” to show an unfriendly disposition toward the United States and to alienate the affections of the people. 66
The Americans had at hand means extremely inadequate to meet the anticipated perils, but fortunately they had also greatly exaggerated the strength of the enemy. In August, 1804, Dr. John Sibley reported that there were sixty men in the American garrison, although more were expected. 67 This was at a time when Turner reported the Spanish garrison as five hundred. As to the character of the American soldiers of this garrison we may regard them as equal to the ordinary regulars of that period, and if so, they would compare favorably with their Spanish rivals. Sibley, whose position as an office seeker may render him a prejudiced observer, states that all of the officers at Natchitoches were non-Jeffersonians, which is not surprising in view of the President's policy in cutting down the army; and that one “deranged officer at the post,” a favorite of the commandant, who monopolized the furnishing of supplies to the garrison, was especially marked by his abuse of the President. In time this practice was bound to have its effect upon the inhabitants, who were beginning to think that the way to political preferment lay through criticism of the government. 68
With regard to these inhabitants Turner wrote that in a crisis he believed little dependence could be placed in them, except where their property interests were involved. They were “ignorant almost to stupidity.” Accustomed to no system of government but the Spanish, they looked upon another as a “hocus-pocus,” destined to make their condition worse. He held out some hope for the future, however, for he added: “When they come to understand the New Government, which, God help them, will be an age I fear, they will be better pleased than they have formerly been.” Claiborne also distrusted these same people, although he advised Turner to train them in the militia. 69 The events of two years later showed that they possessed an unexpected degree of dependableness.
The situation that involved the property interests of the district had already been created. On July 12, John B. T. Palliet, a former French officer in the Spanish service, now a Natchitoches planter, appeared before Turner and declared under oath that he had seen in the commandant's office at Nacogdoches a royal decree bidding frontier officials use every means in their power to reduce and weaken American control in the neighboring territory. In order to accelerate this process they were to encourage the desertion of slaves and bestow upon the fugitives their freedom, a grant of land, and the services of a priest to instruct them in the Catholic religion. 70 This report, which perturbed both Turner and the surrounding population, was supplemented by later rumors that the decree in question had been thrice publicly read, and that the commandant told Samuel Davenport, the Indian trader, that he proposed to enforce it. The people of the Natchitoches district, for forty miles around, then petitioned Turner to police the negroes more vigorously and to forward their petition to Claiborne. 71 This “ingenuous” action of the Spanish authorities thus promised to act as a two-edged sword, for it disturbed both Spanish sympathizers and loyal Americans.
On receiving Palliet's deposition from Turner, Claiborne was inclined to doubt the report, although he cautioned his subordinate to be watchful. When the petition followed he wrote more definitely. The sequestration of property—for such the decree virtually was—he termed an act of hostility more worthy of a Santo Domingo leader than the King of Spain. He advised the establishment of military patrols in such a way as to cause the least possible alarm. He then reported the matter to Casa Calvo.
The latter believed that the commandant was unauthorized to commit any act of the character alleged, as all his own and Claiborne's advices from Washington pointed to an early definite settlement of the questions at issue between Spain and the United States. When, however, Claiborne quoted from the language of the decree, an offer of “a free and friendly asylum . . . in the dominions of His Catholic Majesty, to such slave or slaves as shall escape from the territories of any foreign power,” the latter stated that there must be some awkward mistake and that he had written to Nacogdoches for a copy of the order. He attempted to explain it by saying that it might have been issued during the late war between France and Spain when escaping slaves were to be sold for the benefit of the royal treasury, but that it did not then apply, for it was to the interest of Spain to protect property at Natchitoches. 72 This suggestion has a sinister significance, in view of Spanish efforts to regain the territory west of the Mississippi, but Claiborne seems to ignore it, possibly because of his partial sympathy with the idea. Later Casa Calvo reported to Claiborne that Ugarte had written to him, asking for the abrogation of the decree in question. He had not promulgated it, but it was known to some of the French inhabitants of Louisiana, and in some way these had caused the circulation of false reports of its character. Such slaves as were in the Natchitoches district had been introduced there during Spanish rule, so his government had the moral responsibility of preserving that form of property, under whatever government the region should have. 73
By this time, however, the question had become something more than a mere theory. On October 14 it was discovered that the negroes on one of the plantations near Natchitoches planned to escape into Spanish territory. Nine of them did, indeed, break into a house, take powder, lead and horses, and make off beyond the Sabine, despite all efforts to recapture them. Another negro, who was wounded by a patrol, turned informer, and implicated some thirty others. Some of these had attempted to escape, but had returned to learn why the others did not follow. The informer implicated two white men, one of whom was a Spaniard named Martinez, as the agents who had stirred up the negroes to attempt this flight. 74 The successful escape of nine, due apparently to Spanish influence, enraged the population of Natchitoches, and the wilder spirits asked Turner's permission to attack Nacogdoches, if the fugitives were not immediately delivered to them. Turner assured them that he had already requested Ugarte to do this, and succeeded in temporarily pacifying them; but he realized the significance of this readiness to attack the Spaniards. The spirit of the Mississippi was already transferred to the Sabine.
Within a fortnight Claiborne learned of this event and lost no time in communicating the facts to Casa Calvo, and in suggesting to Colonel Butler that he should move the American troops from Attakapas and Opelousas to Natchitoches. To Turner he expressed his regret and advised a careful maintenance of the patrol. Then ensued a vigorous controversy between Claiborne and Casa Calvo. The latter censured the French inhabitants of the disturbed district for their indiscretion in making the proclamation known and thus indirectly inciting their slaves, but Claiborne threw the blame on the commandant at Nacogdoches. Casa Calvo favored the return of the slaves on condition that they be well treated, but Claiborne insisted upon their unconditional surrender. The upshot of the matter was that Casa Calvo assumed the responsibility of bidding Ugarte return the slaves and suspend the decree until he could hear from Spain. This was finally done.
Later, Casa Calvo reported that his course met with the approval of his government, but Turner stated that Salcedo suspended Ugarte for carrying out this suggestion and instructed his successor to execute the decree. Claiborne, however, managed to secure from Casa Calvo a reiteration of his position in this matter. In reporting the affair to his government, Casa Calvo stated that he had tried to quiet Claiborne by suggesting that the cedula did not refer to the Americans, but to the French, with whom the Spaniards were at war when it was issued. 75 The incident is significent of the influence which the latter wielded, despite the fact that the American government refused to acknowledge his position as boundary commissioner, and that his fellow officials in Florida and the Internal Provinces were jealous of his power and did their best to hamper him in his efforts to carry out his task. The incident aroused also other portions of Orleans Territory, particularly Point Coupeé. The slaves of this region had formerly revolted under Spanish rule and were now reported as restive, owing to the tidings from Natchitoches.
On November 10, 1804, Casa Calvo addressed a communication to Nimecio Salcedo, in which he expressed his belief that the royal order of 1789 must be modified by the retrocession of Louisiana. He mentioned Claiborne's complaint in August, the recent escape of slaves in Natchitoches, and the report of disturbances at Point Coupeé as evidencing the necessity of suspending the order until they could learn His Majesty's latest determination. Accordingly he had requested Ugarte to do so and he hoped this would meet with Salcedo's approval. 76,
A few days before this Ugarte had received a testimonial from certain officials and citizens of Natchitoches stating that his course had foiled the negro insurrection and thanking him warmly as the benefactor of their country. On two separate occasions Ugarte had likewise employed his troops to secure and return parties of escaping negroes. 77 When Ugarte received Casa Calvo's complaint and request he felt hurt at the implied reflection upon his conduct. He defended himself vigorously against the charge of inciting a slave insurrection across the border and protested that all reports of this character were malicious falsehoods. He sent the testimonial describing his real services and requested some means of defending himself from “the assertions of frontier vagabonds and peddlers of news.” 78 He was very likely right in thus characterizing those who had defamed him. It was the policy of such traders as Davenport, who enjoyed special privileges under the Spaniards, to prevent cordial relations between the latter and the Americans, and others like Palliet may have assisted them for personal reasons.
Salcedo, however, was greatly incensed against the Americans because of their activity in exploring their new acquisition and in establishing relations with the Indians, and was not inclined to favor his inquiet neighbors. He thought that Ugarte's defense ought to allay Governor Claiborne's fears, but regarded himself as without authority to suspend the decree. He advised the Governor or Texas to detain all fugitive slaves until he could learn the King's will, or at least the opinion of Don Pedro Grimarest, the recently appointed chief of the Eastern Interior Provinces. 79 Under the Treaty of 1795 the United States could ask nothing more and he requested the viceroy to express his own opinion and to aid him in every way possible, until Grimarest should arrive. 80
Notwithstanding his uncertainty in regard to international relations Salcedo maintained very strict ideas of discipline. Ugarte may have prevented a border war, but in doing so he had violated the leter of his instructions. Salcedo therefore suspended the unfortunate official and ordered him to Bexar, where the Governor of Texas was to examine his conduct carefully. Ugarte must explain why he had permitted a militia captain to visit Natchitoches and to be present at the transfer of that post to the Americans; why he had on two occasions employed his troops to capture and return fugitive slaves to Louisiana; and how he reconciled such deeds with a strict compliance with his duties. 81 Evidently Ugarte was not able to clear himself of fault, for another commandant took charge of Nacogdoches.
Salcedo suggested to Casa Calvo that the course of the American government since taking possession of Louisiana had been sufficiently unfriendly to neutralize all of their complaints in regard to escaping slaves. The Lewis and Clark expedition and similar undertakings since projected by Jefferson, and the various attempts to tamper with the allegiance of the Indians would abundantly justify precautionary or retaliatory measures on the part of the Spaniards. Despite his lack of resources to meet these dangers he had succeeded in sending fifty men from Coahuila into Texas and he advised the governor of that province to strengthen secretly the garrison at Nacogdoches by sending forward a few men with each convoy of mail and bidding them remain there. 82 At the same time Casa Yrujo was explaining to Jefferson at his Monticello home that any frontier movements could only be intended for defense in view of the European situation. The President agreed with him that it was necessary to receive such reports and others relating to escaping slaves with great circumspection and forbear to increase forces or in other ways change the existing situation. 83
Wednesday, March 28th, 1838. Arrived at Galveston in the Schooner Johannes, about noon, after a smooth voyage from New Orleans. No horrors of seasickness. Find a good harbor and a beautiful bay. Galveston is a very small town, but likely to grow owing to its location. Met with Judge Underwood and Colonol [P. W.] Grayson, both from Kentucky, the latter from Bardstown, from whom I received marked attention, and to whom I owe lasting gratitude.
Friday, March 30th. Left Galveston on the S. B. Friend, with a number of passengers from Houston. Passed San Jacinto Battle Ground, of which we had a good view from the deck of the steamer. Met on board Prof. Yates of Union College, New York, a very pleasant gentleman.
Saturday, March 31st. Arrived at Houston at 8 a. m. Delivered letters, took lodgings at Madam Milon's. Had a sofa for a bed. Made several agreeable acquaintances.
Sabbath, April 1st. Preached three times this day in the Capitol to large and respectful audiences. There had been no preaching for a long time.
Monday, April 2nd. Met the Misses Humphries, old Kentucky acquaintances. Removed my quarters to Woodruff's near the old graveyard. Mr. W. is a Baptist brother, and I boarded with him for some time, he charging me only half price. Several members of Congress were fellow boarders: General Burleson of the number and W. Fairfax Gray, Clerk of the Senate.
Sabbath, April 8th. Preached twice in the Capitol to good congregations. About 1 p. m., much noise, firing of cannon and parade, on the occasion of the arrival of General Houston, President of the Republic.
Monday, April 9th. Solemnized a marriage of Col. E. A. Rhoades of New Orleans, and Mrs. Mary W. Driggs, of this City. Only two gentlemen present as witnesses. My first marriage ceremony in Texas. Members of Congress arriving, introduced to several of them.
Tuesday, April 10th. Introduced to President Houston; found him very courteous. A princely looking man. The Presidential Mansion a very unpretentious cottage. Took tea with Mr. Sanderson and family.
Wednesday, April 11th. Invited to officiate temporarily as Chaplain of the Senate, Lamar presiding. Offered prayer at the opening of the session. (This was the adjourned session of the first [second] Congress.) Witnessed the conclusion of a treaty, at the President's house, between the Republic and several chiefs of the Tonkaway Indians. The President in full military uniform, several officers of state, about ten chiefs, and a number of spectators, present. The articles of the treaty were read to the chiefs in the Mexican language, Welshmeyer interpreting, to which three chiefs attached their marks, several officers and spectators present also signed it as witnesses. After the formalities, General Houston made a speech to the Indians, a good deal, I suppose, like most talks to Indians on similar occasions. Then, one of the chiefs made a talk; some of the chiefs had but little clothing; all had painted faces. They seemed awkward with pen.
Saturday, April 14th. An address to both Houses of Congress by General Houston, at the close of which a fight in front of the Capitol and a murder in the afternoon, in a saloon. The murderer and murdered both heroes of San Jacinto,—rum's doings.
Sabbath, April 15th. Three services today. Rev. Littleton Fowler, Chaplain of the House, preached twice: preached at 7:30 p. m.; text, Deut. 7:9-10, God faithful and covenant keeping, etc More freedom than usual in speaking.
Monday, April 16th. Met Lieut. Tod, late of the United States Navy, afterwards superintended the building of the five war schooners of the Texas Navy. He is a Presbyterian. I knew his father's family in Kentucky: good people.
One of the rioters of Saturday, Mr. L., brought to the bar of the Senate, charged, heard and acquitted. The other, Col. W., arraigned in the afternoon, and reprimanded by Vice-President Lamar. The Col. seemed quite indignant at the proceedings of the Senate. O tempora! etc.
Wednesday, April 18th. Attended the funeral of Mr. Doby, late of Virginia, a merchant of this city. Funeral at Harrisburg: Chaplain Fowler preached. I followed with a few remarks. Mr. D. was a young man much respected.
Friday, April 20th. Was elected Chaplain of the House of Representatives; competitors, an Episcopal clergyman, and a Catholic priest of infamous character.
Sabbath, April 22nd. Three services today: first, by Brother Alexander of Mississippi, of the M. E. Church; second, by myself; and third, by Chaplain Fowler. Good congregations.
Tuesday, April 24th. Commenced a sermon on Is. 12:21 “Produce your cause.”
Wednesday, April 25th. Finished the sermon. Met with Bro. Ralls, a Cumberland Presbyterian, from Louisiana. The brothers, James and Clark Owen, and self took tea with the Humphries, all of us Kentuckians and old acquaintances.
Sabbath, April 29th. A shower, thunder and lightening. Preached from Mal. 3:16-17: considerable liberty in speaking on the duty and encouragements of Christian conversation. Preached in the evening from Is. 41:21.
Tuesday, May 3rd, 1838. After service in the House of Representatives, called on Mrs. Bee, a lady from Charleston, S. C., late of Pendleton. Found her an interesting, intelligent, and pious lady, a subject of recent severe domestic affliction. What a charm does unaustentatious piety throw around the character of an accomplished woman. Then, we behold religion in its loveliness and woman in her loveliness, when the hand of God is recognized as the hand of a father, sanctifying bereavement.
At 8 p. m., went to the Hall to hear a Bro. Campbell, of the M. E. Church, but had to preach myself. Preached from Acts 9:6.
Last night sat up late writing a communication to the Western Presbyterian Herald on the prospects and condition of Texas.
Friday, May 4th. Saw many members of Congress, President Houston and Bowles, a famous Cherokee chief, embark on the steamer Friend for Galveston. Fear they will not do much honor to the country by such a visit under such circumstances.
Sabbath, May 6th. Met the friends and children of a proposed Sabbath School, at 9 a. m. Took the names of the children and addressed them and their friends on the importance of such an institution. Encouraged by the prospect of success.
At 10 a. m., a sermon by Bro. Campbell of the M. E. Church, a newly arrived missionary for this new field. May he have come in the fullness of the blessing of the Gospel of Christ, and be abundantly blessed in his efforts to honor the Master and benefit souls.
At 8 p. m. preached to a large and very attentive audience from 2 Cor. 11:15, a solemn subject. How little do I feel its importance! Lord what is man? Pardon my unworthiness, and bless thy truth!
May 7th, 1838. My 33rd birthday, and what, though I am in a strange land and among strangers, yet am I not led by the same hand that has always led me! Am I not still among the children of my father, many of them wayward, but may I not hope that even here among these scattered ones the Lord has much people, whom in due time He will bring into the fold of the good Shepherd, and may I be the means of recalling some of them to the care of the Shepherd and Bishop of Souls! In looking over the last as well as former years, may I well say “Bless the Lord, O my soul!”
Thursday, May 10th. Preached in the Hall, at 8 p. m., from Ps. 84:11. Remained awhile to practice sacred music.
Friday, May 11th. A company met to spend an hour in singing, apparently interested. Hope it will do good if kept up.
Saturday, May 12th. Called at an early hour, by Mr. B. to go and see a dying woman. Found her revived, but to all appearance she had been and was still near to death and judgment. She seemed utterly unprepared; no sense of sin or of danger from the justice and holiness of God. Of course, no perception of the character of the Savior. Oh! It is a sad thought that the first impressions of these great truths might have been and probably will be flashed into her soul by the light of eternity. Oh! Immortal spirit! Whither goest thou without the light of the glorious Gospel: to happiness or misery, or annihilation? Who can tell without the Bible? And she does not profess to believe the Bible. Conversed a short time with her about the danger of being deceived, and the importance of religion in affliction, especially in a dying hour, with but little apparent effect. Said she had never done any harm, had never been very wild, showing that she knew nothing of “the plague of her heart.” Prayed with her, I fear with little faith. She seemed thankful for my call. May the spirit of life quicken and enlighten her dark mind!
9 p. m. The above prayer I find to have been for the dead. The woman died about the time the above was written.
Thursday, May 17th. Preached at 8 p. m. to a large audience in the Hall from 2 Sam'l, 17:14, not much liberty.
May 18th. p. m. Met with a few persons to sing, many spectators At the close, a young man, a Mr. M., from Boston, living twenty miles in the country introduced himself; had not heard a sermon until last evening, since he came to the country last summer, an Episcopalian.
Sabbath, May 20th. Attended Sabbath School, which had been organized the previous Sabbath, the 13th of May, 1838,—probably the first Sabbath School ever organized in Texas. It was “a day of small things.” The school was commenced with twenty-six pupils, with few books, very miscellaneous, and a few teachers extemporized. (Nineteen years afterward there were six schools some of them large.)
On this second Sabbath a few new scholars, few teachers. At 10 a. m., preaching by Chaplain Fowler on the resurrection of Christ; a glorious theme and well managed. If Christ be not raised our faith is vain, we are yet in our sins, for then there is no satisfaction for our sins on which we can rely. But one service today, more rain today and tonight than I have seen in Texas.
S. S. Barnett accosted me, a tergo, in the street yesterday; an old friend and fellow student in Centre College. Spent but little time with him, as he was hurrying home to Kentucky. Was informed, later in the evening, of the sickness of a Mr. Brent, of Virginia; promised to call upon him in the morning.
Monday, May 21st. Called to see Mr. B., about 12 m.; found only the lifeless body. He had died during the night. Seemed much emaciated. Don't know what were his principles or habits. I went to see a sick man, hoping to do something for his soul. his spirit had fled, the clay only was left. He died in a poor dirty hospital in Texas. He was of the Lees of Virginia. “God is no respecter of persons.”
Thursday, May 24th. The first [second] Congress of the Republic adjourned today, at 1 p. m., after an address by President Houston. Hall crowded. A good address; spoke severely of the treatment of the Indians, the severity of truth. Received for services as Chaplain $180.00 promissory notes.
Friday, May 25th. Members of Congress scattering, among them my fellow boarders, General Burleson, Anson Jones and Wharton.
Performed funeral service at the interment of one Rogers, a Cherokee half-breed, who died in the city after a short illness, a large man, said to have been quite intelligent.
Saturday, May 26th. This day about thirty Comanche Indians came into town, a delegation from their tribe to make a treaty with Texas. There were men and squaws and young children; all rode astride; generally very dirty and ill-looking. They paraded in some state before the President's mansion.
Sabbath, May 27th. Preached three times in the Capitol.
May 28th. Visited the camp of the Comanches near the city; saw the pipe of peace smoked by a Comanche and Cushatta Chief; the pipe was smoked, the ashes deposited with due ceremony, and ribs of roast beef brought on and passed around, the members of the Council each cutting off a bite. In the mean time two fat squaws were occupied looking at each other's heads and—bah!
Wednesday, May 30th. Took passage on the S. B. Friend for Galveston, where I had landed more than two months previous. A pleasant company; tremendous rains soon after leaving Houston; no special incident on the way down.
Thursday, May 31st. Arrived at Galveston about 9 a. m.; received with much courtesy by the Commandants of the Navy and the Navy Yard; entertained by them and invited to preach in a room connected with the Navy Yard; sea breeze delightful also the bathing in the Gulf.
Friday, June 1st, 1838. Read part of the life of John Newton.
Sabbath, June 3rd. Preached at the Navy Yard, 10:30 a. m.; said to have been the second Protestant sermon ever preached on the Island. At 5 p. m. preached on the old war brig Potomac, and at 8 p. m. at the Navy Yard—a good congregation in the morning. Considerable interest manifested by some to have regular preaching. Nearly devoured by mosquitoes at night.
Tuesday, June 5th. Returned to Houston at 7 a. m. in the Friend. A letter from my brother; a welcome message from dear ones at home.
Sabbath, June 10th. Preached twice this day; much liberty at evening service, spoke from Job 21:15; a falling off in the size of the congregation as the weather gets warmer.
Prospects of the Sabbath School encouraging this morning. At 8 p. m. performed a marriage ceremony for John T. Randall and Sarah Davenport, at the house of Mr. Sanderson, only two witnesses present besides the family—my second marriage service in Texas.
Monday, June 11th. Prepared to set off for Galveston, where I arrived Tuesday, 12th, at 11 a. m. Made some visits; heard a lecture on “Light” by Dr. L.; slept at the Navy Yard; ate no breakfast.
Wednesday, June 13th. Missed my dinner. Kindly invited to stay with Mr. G. Borden (who proved a true friend during all my stay in Texas 85); a good drink of ice water on the Cuba.
Friday, June 15th. Spent the afternoon in opening and distributing a box of Bibles and Testaments, one hundred of each in the box; a donation from the A. B. Society. May the Holy Spirit, whose sword the word is, guide in its distribution. May He incline many to inquire at the Word of the Lord and prepare many hearts to receive and understand it, and “make it indeed the power of God unto their salvation.” And may the people of Texas find the Word of God a shield and a defense, and in His name may they set up their banners. For “blessed is the people,” and only they “whose God is the Lord.”
Sabbath, June 17th. Preached in the Navy Yard; a rather different sermon from so good a text—“Now is Christ risen”; small congregation; weather getting warm. Afternoon services interrupted by the arrival of Genel M. Hunt, Sec. of the Navy, and the firing of a salute. How prone are men to pay honors to one another! How reluctant to honor the Son of Man!
Monday, June 18th. Had a long conversation today with a professed Deist; said he believed in one God, that he loved and worshiped him, that he admired the Bible for its morality, etc. He admitted that he did not wish his children brought up in the principles of Deism. I fear he is trying to believe a lie.
Tuesday, June 19th. Had a long talk with an eccentric man, who thinks he has made some singular discoveries in relation to the plan of salvation, faith, etc. I rather suspect him of egotism, inclined to Campbellism. He seems to like to hear himself talk. A Deist one day, a Campbellite the next: what various experiences!
Wednesday, June 20th. Wrote letter to Rev. W. L. Breckenridge, to Baily of New Orleans, McMullen of Ala. Received letters from McMullen and Holman of Alabama. (Postage was then .25 from any place in the United States to New Orleans and .12½ from New Orleans to Texas. 86)
While I lived in Alabama, I met with Brother Holman, who gave me this piece of History bearing on the Baptist idea of close communion. He said he was traveling in a new part of the country and fell in at a Baptist meeting on a Saturday. The Brethren having no preacher had met in Church meeting. They requested him to preach for them. He did so to the delight of the brethren. After preaching, they held a consultation and concluded to ask him to preach for them on the Sabbath and administer the communion to them, as they had not had a communion for a long time. That they would receive it from him on the condition that he would not partake of it himself, and that he complied with their request. “Alas! poor human nature!” as Bro. Daniel Baker used to say.
Friday, June 22nd, 1838. Have heard some circumstances today in relation to the Texan struggle for independence, which illustrates the Scripture declaration that “the proud shall be brought low,” as also the doctrine of a special providence.
Lorenzo De Zavala was one of the first men to detect and denounce the intrigues of Santa Anna against the liberties of the Mexican people. Zavala was Foreign Minister, for Mexico, at the court of France. Perceiving, at a very early period, the designs of Santa Anna, to overthrow the Mexican Constitution, Zavala offered his resignation, which was refused by President Santa Anna. Zavala soon after resigned and came to New York and thence to Texas, and told the people that they must set up for themselves, for which he incurred the displeasure of many of the people of Texas, for but few of them had begun to suspect Santa Anna. Zavala continued to urge the necessity of breaking off from the confederacy. A price was soon set upon his head by the Mexican Government, at whose head was Santa Anna, or rather he was the Government. The party of Zavala continued to increase until it finally triumphed at the battle of San Jacinto, and President Santa Anna was captured—in cog—by some of the common soldiers and brought into the camp of General Houston, to whom he made himself known by name, claiming his protection as a prisoner of war, and this in sight of De Zavala's house which stood on the opposite shore of the bay, to that on which the battle was fought. Thus was the proud humbled.
General Cos, about the time of the siege of San Antonio de Bexar, offered a reward for the capture of one, Smith, called Deaf Smith, a famous spy, a very adventurous, daring man, and who had been of great service to the Texans. After the battle of San Jacinto, Cos was overtaken in his flight, near the Brazos, by the same Smith, who rode up and told him that he had brought Smith's head, for which he (Cos) had offered a reward, and that he (Smith) now claimed the reward. But, instead of handing over the money, he dismounted and fell upon his knees, begging for his life. He probably thought, at the moment, that his own head was not worth a picayune. He, too, was brought back a prisoner to the camp of General Houston, to join the equally unfortunate and humbled Santa Anna.
A singular infatuation seems to have possessed Santa Anna, at the time of the commencement of the battle of San Jacinto, on the 21st of March [April] 1836. It was soon after dinner. He had lain down to take his Siesta. An officer observed that Houston's 700 were in motion, urged the necessity of watching their motions. Santa Anna told him there was no danger and not to disturb him. The officer insisted that there was danger, for he saw the Texans advancing. Santa Anna ridiculed the idea, telling him that he had not forgotten the affair of San Antonio. But before they knew what they were about, the Texans came rushing upon them with the battle cry, “Remember the Alamo!” The The Mexicans had no time to form. A panic siezed them and ten thousand [?] were vanquished by the 700. Santa Anna had only time to mount his horse and take to flight, leaving his poor soldiers to fall into the hands of the infuriated Texans, on the beautiful plain, while many rushed into the bay and sank into the mire. Verily there is a God that ruleth among the nations! O that men would acknowledge and fear him. ...
Sabbath, July 1st, 1838. Preached three times in the Capitol today: First, from Mark 2:27, on the Sabbath; second, at 5 p. m., on Ps. 23rd; at 8 p. m., on Hebrews 2:3, miracles prove the Bible true. During the sermon, was interrupted by a drunken man coming into the hall. He was soon taken out but continued to interrupt us by making a noise in the passage. How much like a brute is a drunken man!
Monday, July 2nd. Held monthly concert in the Capitol. A goodly number present. Meeting interesting. Contributions $18.00, Col. W. giving $10.00.
Wednesday, July 4th. Saw a delegation of Tonkawa Indians, about twenty-five. Many nearly naked. They stopped at the President's house, where they were received by the Secretaries of State and War. They were treated to whisky punch, noise, drinking and fighting towards evening. And this is the fourth of July. “Necate virtute Puer,” and what will our Government come to!
Thursday, July 5th. Lectured this evening on Judges 18th, Micah's idolatry. Small audience. Saw a man this morning, a victim of intemperance, brought to his death by yesterday's excesses. A copious rain this afternoon; much needed as there had been none for a month. How good is the Lord, who “sendeth his rain on the just and on the unjust.” He “filleth the hearts of His creatures with food and gladness.”
The Tonkawa Indians are, many of them, finely formed. Most of the men of the present delegation to Houston are almost entirely naked. All the costume of some of them is a long narrow strip of cloth passed between the legs, and help up before and behind by a string or a band around the lower part of the body. Some have an old blanket, some an old skirt, others a pair of leggings, mockasins, etc. Some of the women have a piece of leather or dressed buffalo skin fastened around the waist. Some, an additional piece around the shoulders. Some of the younger females have tinkling ornaments fastened to the lower part of their leather costumes. The men paint their faces hideously, wear their hair long, dressed with shining trinkets, some with large plaits of adscitious hair or cloth hanging down to the knees. Their language a grunting jargon. They seem cheerful, sing considerably. Such singing as it is. They seem fond of whiskey, some of them terribly drunk. They are a much better looking people than the Comanches. They are much demoralized by intercourse with the whites, learning their worst vices readily.
Sabbath, July 8th. Preached twice, good congregations.
Wednesday, July 11th. Set off on the steamer Correo for Galveston. Intensely hot, felt badly from loss of sleep, having sat up all night with Dr. G.'s dying child. While some were watching the flickering life of the young immortal, many were enjoying the stage, and indulging in the loud unseemly roar of vulgar applause. How ungratifyingly did these sounds come upon the souls of the anguished parents! Surely the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.
Thursday, July 12th. Found some sickness on the Island.
Friday, July 13th. Half sick all day.
Sabbath, July 15th. Preached in Galveston.
Monday, July 16th. Took the little steamer Laura, after night, for Velasco, but few passengers, a family from Virginia, named Stubblefield.
Tuesday, July 17th. A squall this morning, pretty rough for the little steamer, several cases of seasickness, a little qualm myself, but escaped. Arrived in Velasco, 2 p. m. Called on Mr. Sharpe, found a pleasant family, was introduced to Daddy Spraggins, a Hardshell Baptist preacher. Took lodgings at his son-in-law's Brown, who kept the Velasco hotel. Spent the remainder of the week there rather pleasantly. Had a fierce encounter with Dr. A. an openly avowed Deist and materialist.
Arise, O Lord! for men condemn thy character and make void thy law. Had divers discussions with the Old Hard Shell about Missionaries, whom he cordially detested, as well as benevolent societies, baptism. He seemed to consider himself infallible on all these subjects.
Sabbath, July 22nd. Preached in the school house in Velasco, a small but attentive audience. Text, Mat. 5:13, Let your light shine. Dined with the Sharpes. The steamer Columbia arrived from New Orleans, via Galveston, on which Dr. Anson Jones took passage, on his way to Washington City, appointed by President Houston to represent Texas in a public capacity, vice General M. Hunt. During this visit made acquaintances in Velasco and Quintana on the opposite side of the Brazos both near the mouth of the river.
Monday, July 23rd. Set off for Houston on Dr. Jones' horse, which he left at Velasco, as this would give me a chance to see some of the country, in company with Brewster, who took me and introduced me to the family of Col. Wm. H. Wharton, who lives eight miles from Velasco. Very kindly entertained by Mrs. W. and Miss C. Plenty of figs, the first that I had ever seen fresh, and melons. A most delightful situation, a fine garden on the margin of a beautiful little lake.
Tuesday, July 24th. Rode twenty-five miles to Col. W. D. Hall's, most of the way over a hot prairie; passed lake Jackson, four or five miles long, but narrow, after crossing Oyster creek; saw a tree loaded with fine looking grapes, villainously sour and acrid, well called cut-throats. Stopped a while at Hon. Mr. Russell's, Senator from Brazoria, whose wife was a Heady, a family I had known in Kentucky. Plenty of good grapes and figs here. Received very kindly by Col. Hall and family, figs and peaches, good shade and water. Met Col. W. H. Wharton and Col. Wm. Austin and lady, pleasant acquaintances.
Wednesday, July 25th. Spent the day at Col. H.'s much talk of politics, education, etc.
Thursday, July 26th. Set off at 8.30 for Houston, twenty-five or thirty miles distant, prairie nearly all the way and hot. A bowl of buttermilk after riding six miles, at Clear lake, then got lost, fifteen miles without water, found it good at Dr. Rose's. Dined at Bingham's, met Thornton today. Arrived in Houston before sunset. Surely I may say “Mercy and goodness have followed me all my days,” and now I have seen some of the country of Texas and it is beautiful.
Saturday, July 28th, 1838. Newspapers today. A welcome arrival: W. P. Herald from Louisville, New Orleans Observer, Alabama Journal. Observed the notices of the debates of several acquaintances. What shadows we are.
Sabbath, July 29th. Attended Sabbath School, a good many children, but few teachers, preached at 10:30 from Acts 9:4, at 8 p. m., on prophecy.
Monday, July 30th. Called to see General Sheldon, just before he expired. He was unable to converse. Had been very reluctant to admit the idea of dying, thought he was getting better until near the last.
Tuesday, July 31st. Attended the funeral of General Sheldon, funeral services at the grave. Wrote an article for the “Civilian,” on the neglected state of the Houston Cemetery.
Sabbath, Aug. 5th. Preached twice in the Capitol, from Ro. I:28 and Deut. 32:31.
Monday, Aug. 6th. Letters from R. W. W. Wright, R. B. McMullen, Thos. S. Withersoop, and E. O. Eastman and New Orleans Observer. Met Dr. Axon, an old friend.
Friday, Aug. 24th. Galveston. Have been sick now for two weeks, part of the time as sick as I ever was in my life; four or five chills, the first I ever had, all followed by severe fevers; have had the kindest attention from Gail Borden and family, for which may the Lord reward them abundantly, and may I never forget their kindness, nor the Lord's mercy in raising me up from a sick bed. This was my first sickness in the South.
Sabbath, Aug. 26th. Rode down to the bay early. Preached in the Temporary Court Room to a small audience, from Acts 11:26. Much exhausted and still weak, dined in the hotel, met Mrs. Newell and her sister, Miss Haff, felt much better in the evening.
Monday, Aug. 27th. Quite well this morning.
Thursday, Aug. 30th. Off for Houston on the San Jacinto. Regret to hear of the death of Mrs. Davenport, a short illness.
Sabbath, Sept. 2nd. Preached at 10:30 from Mat. 8:32; at 7:30 from Heb. 11:34. Good congregations.
Monday, Sept. 3rd, 1838. Day of general election. Much sin of profaneness and intemperance. General Lamar elected President. Attended the funeral of Mr. Kennicott, a young lawyer, late of New Orleans. Read part of the Episcopal burial service and offered prayer at the house where he died. Four burials this day. “So teach us to number our days.”
Tuesday and Wednesday. Read sketches of Persia. (Now in 1880, I have a daughter a missionary in Persia.)
Soon after a severe sickness, which kept me at Galveston some two weeks—chills and severe fevers. I left Houston for Alabama, to attend the South Alabama Presbytery, under whose care I had been as a licentiate, since the fall of 1837. I left Houston in the Correo, on the 7th of September. A large company of passengers called at Col. Morgan's.
Saturday, Sept. 8th. I arrived at Galveston after dark. The water of the Bay was considerably up in the city, all around the old Customhouse, where I was landed in a small boat. From there I had to wade some 150 to 200 yards to dry land. Found my way to Gail Borden's where I had received so much kindness while I was sick.
Monday, 10th Sept. On the steamer Columbia. Came near being left on account of the fog. There was no wharf then at Galveston. Arrived at New Orleans, on Wednesday 12th, without any adventure.
Saturday, Sept. 15th. Took passage in the steamer Pawnee, for Natchez, at 11 p. m.
Monday night, Sept. 17th. Toiled up the long dark muddy hill, to the City Hotel, with my Texas companion, Mr. Ayres.
Tuesday, Sept. 18th. Met a kind welcome to the house of Mr. Thomas Henderson. Met this day with the Presbytery of Mississippi. Here were brethren Winchester, pastor of Natchez Church, and Chamberlain, President of Oakland College, who had been the first President of Centre College, Ky., and Z. Butler of Port Gibson, and Chase, and I. J. Henderson, whom I had left in Prinecton in 1836. Preached for Bro. Winchester, Wednesday night, and on Sabbath for Bro. I. J. Henderson at Kingston, near the grave of Dr. T. Dwight's father. After a pleasant week at Natchez, returned to New Orleans, and thence to Montgomery Alabama, where I spent a Sabbath, then the next Sabbath at a campmeeting in Coosa, above Witumpka, where I met with Bros. Holman and Caldwell, Kentuckians and Centre College students, and McCormick, a North Carolinian. It was a good campmeeting.
Wednesday, Oct. 17th, 1838. Wound up my affairs in Montgomery, packed my books and traps and shipped them for Mobile, and set off with Gulick, for Presbytery, at Valley Creek Church, near Selma; arrived on Friday at 12 m. Found Bro. Nall preaching, an old Centre College fellow student. It was a campmeeting Presbytery. On Sabbath, on Oct. 21st, 1838, Junius B. King and I were ordained to the work of the ministry. King was then installed as pastor of the Valley Creek Church. I was ordained, as an Evangelist, to go to the “regions beyond,” viz., to the Republic of Texas. Brother Mater preached the ordination sermon. Bro. Nall propounded the question and led in the ordination prayer. The occasion was to me especially solemn. . . .
October 22nd, 1838. What shadows we are! I returned to Texas by way of New Orleans, thence, in company with John McCullough we arrived in Houston, on Saturday, Nov. 4th, at 4 a. m. the day before the meeting of the Third Congress of the Lone Star Republic. Up to this time I was but a licentiate. Now I am a minister of the gospel.
Sabbath, Nov. 25th, 1838. Attended a meeting for the organization of a Texas Bible Society. The meeting was opened by Rev. Dr. Hoes, agent of the American Bible Society. Col. W. H. Wharton, Mr. Cullen, a member of Congress, and myself mac addresses on resolutions. Col. Wharton's address was a very scholarly address on the Bible and its circulation, although he was a decided sceptic as to its inspiration. He left his scepticism out of this speech. The Society was organized in the evening of that day.
Brethren Chase and Blair spent the night with me. They were on their way from Natchez to Washington. Brother Blair spent the remainder of his life in Texas.
Sabbath, Dec. 2nd. Called on Rev. Mr. Frazer [Frazier], who was Chaplain of the Senate; thought him dangerously ill; preached in the Senate Hall, Sabbath night. Rev. Frazier died at 6 a. m.; preached his funeral at 3 p. m. He was a Cumberland Presbyterian from Tennessee. At 4 o'clock called on Col. Wharton; found him near the gate of death, more emaciated than any living man I had ever seen; conversed with him about Christianity, and prayed with him. He was in a critical state of mind. His deistical foundations giving way, and he was looking round for a stronger safer support. He asked me to pray for light to his soul. He had been a ring leader of scoffers. 87 His right arm had been shattered in a duel. I learned afterwards that he had had a pious mother. Perhaps her piety had been remembered in the hour of his crisis, when he asked me to pray for light. Some of his deistical friends, I learned afterwards, were scandalized at his change of views, and said the preachers got about him in his last hours and terrified him in his weakness. My visiting him was at his own request, before I had any acquaintance with him. He had been one of the heroes of the war for Texas Independence.
Tuesday, Oct. 1st, 1839. Got off at 1:30 for Austin, the new Capital, on a small Mexican mare, for which I had given $100.00, Texas money. I soon began to regret my trade for such a beast. Rode to Dr. H's., twenty-four miles, rather poor fare, dirty beds, but paid enough, $3.75.
Wednesday, Oct. 2nd. Rode to San Felipe de Austin, twenty-seven miles. Stopped at Kingsburry's, wretched fare, great noise in a billiard room adjoining, slept but little, but no charge.
Thursday, Oct. 3rd. Went to Dottery's, twenty-five miles. But little timber, rolling prairie. Some very agreeable prospects. Some Dutch settlers. Good fare for $3.00. Met with Backus, from Montgomery, Alabama.
Friday, Oct. 4th. Rode to Rutersville with Backus. Stopped at Reid's. Walked to campmeeting. Heard Bro. Sullivan preach.
Saturday, Oct. 5th. Rained while Dr. Hanie was preaching. An uncomfortable day. I preached at 3 p. m. from Is. 53:5. Snead preached at night.
Sabbath, Oct. 6th. Communion at 3 p. m. at campmeeting. I went to La Grange, and preached at night at the house of Mr. Fitzgerald, from Is. 41:21. A good congregation. Loughridge and Dr. Barnet with me.
Monday, Oct. 7th. Returned to campmeeting. Bro. Hill holding forth at 11 a. m. At 3 p. m. made a missionary address, Clark also, a good result. I preached at night from Phil. 1:27. Great excitement afterwards but little seriousness.
Tuesday, Oct. 8th. Campmeeting closed. Curious tactics of Dr. Hanie, for effect, at parting. Set off for Bastrop. Rain. Stopped at Hill's, twenty miles. Met with Judge Webb's family.
Wednesday, Oct. 9th. Got to Bastrop, twenty miles. River very high. Preached at Henderson's. Stayed at Brown's.
Thursday, Oct. 10th. Spent the day at Bastrop. Found several Presbyterians. Saw a coat with a small hole in the front, made by a poisoned Indian arrow, from which the wearer had died in great agony very soon.
Friday, Oct. 11th. Set of at 12 m. Got to Glascock's. Waters had been high but had abated. A lonesome road, had been recently infected by the Indians. Whithurst and I alone, neither of us armed. Slender fare for $4.00. Passed a house where Mrs. Coleman and her son had been recently murdered by Indians.
Saturday, Oct. 12th, 1839. Arrived at Austin, 15 miles, at 12 m., safe and sound, but tired. A few men just setting off to bury the bones of thirteen men recently murdered by Indians, on Brushy Creek, twenty miles from Austin. They soon returned, reporting that Indians had been within ten miles of the city, and had shot two men the day before. There was great encitement, but more talk than action. Guards were posted around the town. Slept very well at Bullock's the principal hotel, a large number of boarders, met a number of acquaintances.
Sabbath, Oct. 13th. Attended Sabbath School, at 10 a. m., twenty-two scholars. Preaching at 11. After preaching, organized the Presbyterian Church of Austin, consisting of six members. Brethren Bullock and Burke were chosen Elders. At 4 p. m. administered the communion of the Lord's Supper to eight persons; the first time that ordinance had ever been celebrated so far southwest, by Protestants, in North America. But few spectators present; could not have preaching at night, owing to the excitement about the Indians. General Burleson arrived about dark, with seventy men, to go after the Indians. May the Head of the Church make this small germ then and there planted a great tree, whose branches shall overshadow the nation. O Lord, behold and see and visit this vine and make it to flourish. Slept on the floor in Bullock's large room with General Burleson's army.
Austin had been located in June. Now there were some seven hundred people there, in cabins and shanties and tents. The government offices were in log cabins, on the main Ave., fronting the river. “Beautiful for situation” is Austin, with its seven hills.
Monday, Oct. 14th. Spent the day visiting friends and making acquaintances. Supped on Buffalo meat, and hot coffee in a tin cup, with Bro. Woodruff, in his camp. The Bullock Hotel was a curious structure. A substantial frame first story, on this two log rooms on either end, with a commodious room between, all enclosed. (After nineteen years I was there again. It was then Smith's Hotel, the same frame and log rooms.)
Below is printed what is believed to be a hitherto unpublished letter by Manuel Lisa, the best known of the early nineteenth century fur traders of St. Louis. It was written at Fuerte Manuel (Fort Manuel), on the Missouri, on September 8, 1812, evidently during the expedition begun by Lisa at St. Louis in May of that year. 88 It made its way to Chihuahua, where it was filed in the archives with a group of papers “concerning the introduction into the Province of New Mexico of four Frenchmen proceeding from Upper Louisiana,” 1812-1813. 89 Just how it reached Chihuahua and by whose hands, the present writer has not ascertained, though it is possible that this could be learned from the documents with which it is preserved. Besides its merely curious interest as an additional autograph letter of the unique individual who wrote it, it is of importance on several counts.
In the first place, it throws new light on Lisa's fur trading operations during the years 1811 and 1812. It shows on the one hand that at this time his activities extended on a considerable scale to the Arapaho tribe, for we are told that he had sent to these people twenty-three men. It shows, also, that in 1812 he took steps to found a training post at the mouth of the Little Big Horn, sending Sanguinet with ten men for this purpose. It establishes, finally, an attempt by Lisa in 1812 to open commerce with the Spaniards of New Mexico, an enterprise he is believed to have once essayed 90 at an earlier date.
Of more striking interest and importance is the light which the document throws upon Spanish activities on the northern frontier at this time. It is well known that the Spaniards of New Mexico and Texas had not, before the taking possession of Louisiana by Spain, engaged extensively in the fur trade, though expeditions of which we have no notice may have been made, and a fair was more or less regularly held at Taos, to which the Indians of the plains took peltry to exchange for goods. But with the Louisiana cession, the fur trading system of the French was taken over by the Spanish government, and developed as the chief interest of the colony, the principal centers for its direction being St. Louis, Natchitoches, New Orleans, and the Arkansas Post. How much fur trading was done during this period from New Mexico as a base has not appeared, but we know that after 1780 considerable energy was spent in the establishment of communication between the new province of Louisiana and the older possession of New Mexico. We know, also, that after the purchase of Louisiana by the United States in 1803 the Spanish government made strenuous efforts to retain dominion over the Indians between New Mexico and the Missouri River by sending to them military and diplomatic expeditions in an endeavor to induce them to keep out the American traders and to turn their fur trade toward Santa Fé. In the interest of this policy were sent out the expeditions of Vial, Lucero, and Melgares, in the years 1804-1806. 91 Now, from the present document, we learn that in 1812 the Spaniards had been going “every year to trade with the Arapahos,” as far to the northeast as northern Colorado, and perhaps into Wyoming. Whether this enterprise was a new development, and part of the policy of resistance to American advance just adverted to, or the continuation of an established practice, we cannot at present say for certain, though the former seems to have been the case, judging from the evidence available.
The question arises naturally as to just where the Arapaho referred to were at this time. In general it is held by scholars that the Arapaho were divided into two branches, one inhabiting the North Platte in Wyoming, and the other the South Platte, in northern Colorado. 92 Chittenden, in his work on the western fur trade, maintains that “no such distinction was known to the traders and trappers, and no Indians of this name are ever spoken of as dwelling in the northern mountains. When the Arapahos are mentioned the tribe in the valley of the South Platte is always meant.” 93 Thwaites, on the other hand, referring to precisely the same period, states that “the Arapaho occupied the central mountainous region, roaming through Wyoming and southern Idaho.” 94
It has already been remarked 95 that Lisa never acquired a ready use of either English or French. The present letter enables us to add Spanish to the list of tongues of which he was not complete master.
(TRANSLATION.)
Fort Manuel, Sept. 8, 1812. To the Spaniards of New Mexico.
My Dear Sirs: Ever since my first journey among the forks 96 of the Missouri, nine hundred leagues from my domicile, I have desired to find an opportunity to communicate with my [com]patriots, the Spaniards. I have had hunters to the number of twenty-three who have gone to the Arapaho nation. Last year they came to my Fort Mandanne, where I equipped them anew to return to the place whence they had come. They are the ones who informed me that the Spaniards of Mexico were coming every year to trade with the Arapahos. Therefore I gave to a certain Juan Bautista Champlin, 97 an honorable young man, 98 and Juan Bautista Lafargue, some goods for the purpose of trading with you, admonishing them that it must not be to the prejudice of the government, nor contrary to its laws.
Since some of my hunters should come this year to meet me at this establishment on the Missouri, and since up to the present I have not had any news [of them], I have decided to send one of my trusted servants, Don Carlos Sanguinet, 99 with two engages 100 to let them know where they should come out with their peltry; and for the same purpose, with the same Sanguinet, I sent ten men to the Petite Corne, 101 which empties into the Rio Amarillo, 102 and this into the Missouri, the entry of the Petite Corne being two hundred and twenty-five leagues from this establishment, with orders to establish [a post at] that place, as nearer for my hunters.
I have especially instructed Don Carlos Sanguinet to arrange that this letter of mine should fall into the hands of some Spaniard who may be worthy 103 to communicate with me on those honorable principles, and in no other manner, my desire being to engage in business and open up a new commerce, which might easily be done. With this in view, and as director of the Missouri Fur Company, I propose to you gentlemen that if you wish to trade and deal with me, for whatever quantity of goods it may be, I will obligate myself to fill each year any bill of goods which shall be given me, and all shall be delivered [as stipulated] both as to quality and as to quantity, at the place nearest and most convenient for both parties, to your satisfaction, after we shall have agreed on the chosen place.
In case any of you should wish to come with Don Carlos Sanguinet to this my establishment to communicate and trade with me, you will be received and treated with great pleasure and satisfaction, and assured of a sufficient escort, agreeable to you, up to the time you return to your country. I commend Don Carlos Sanguinet to you as a trustworthy and honorable man, and, if you are agreed, you may confide in him without any fear whatever; and in case you do not come in person, I shall be obliged to you if you will write to me. Meanwhile, awaiting you, I beg God to spare you many years.
Your most attentive and faithful servant, Manuel Lisa (Rubric). Triplicate.
(SPANISH TEXT OF THE LETTER.)
Fuerte Manuel 8 de 7bre. de 1812. A los Españoles del Nuevo Mexico,
Muy Seńores mios. Desde mi primer viage en los balzos del Missoury, nuevecientas leguas de mi Domicilio, deseaba el hallar oportunidad, para Comunicar con mis [com] Patriotes los Españoles, he tenido Caza[d]ores en Nombre de veinte y tres que fueron á la Nacion Arapaos. El Año pasado vinieron á mi Fuerte Mandanne, de donde los Reequipe de nuevo, para volverse de donde havian Salido; ellos fueron que me han Ynstruido que los Mexicanos Españoles benian todos los Años Tratar con los Arapaos. Entonces di á un Tal Juan Bte. Champlin, mozo Honrado, y á Juan Bte. Lafargue, álgunos Efectos en Mercancías, para Tratar con vms, con la Recomendacion, que no fuera en perjuicio del Govierno, y contrario á sus Leyes.
Como álgunos de mis Cazaores devian de venir este Año, el hallarse con migo sobre el Missoury, á este Establecimto., y ásta Esta Epoca no teniendo novedad, me determiné el expedir uno de mis Mozos de Confianza Dn. Carlos Sanguinet, con dos Enganchados, á fin de hazerles Saber donde, y en que parage deven de Salir con sus peleterias, y á este mismo Efecto, con el mismo Sanguinet Exdy diez hombres â la (petite Corne) que caé en el Rio Amarillo, y este en el Missoury á 225 Leguas la Entrada de la (Petite Corne) á este Establecimto. con orden de Establecer ésse Lugar como mas proximo para mis Cazaores.
He Recomendado con particular á Dn. Carlos Sanguinet de hazer modo que esta mi carta llegue en manos de álgun Español que sea digno de comunicar con migo, en áquellos principios de honradez, y no de ótra manera, mis deseos siendo el de hazer negocios, y havrir un nuevo comercio, que con facilidad se puede hazer, á este Efecto propongo á vmds. como Director de la Compañia de los Pieles del Missoury, si quieren Tratar, y contractar con migo, per qualquiera cantidad que sea en Mercancias, yo me obligaré cada Año, el llenar el Estado que se me dará, y el todo será librado, Tanto por la calidad, como por la cantidad ál Lugar mas proximo, y mas aventajoso, por las dos partes, á su Satisfaccion, despues que havremos Caïdo de ácuerdo del Lugar Escogido.
En caso que álguno de vmds. quisiera el venir con Dn. Carlos Sanguinet á Este mi Establecimto., el comunicar y Tratar con migo sera con mho Gusto, y satisfaccion que será recevido y Tratado, Asegurandole Escorta suficiente, y á su satisfaccion hasta que buelva á su Patria. Recomiendo á vmds Dn. Carlos Sanguinet, como hombre de confianza y Honrado, y si se encuentran juntos, pueden el havrirse con el sin Temor álguno, estimaré a vmds el Escribirme, en caso que no vengan en persona, ynterin esperando por vms, quedo Rogando á Dios le Gue su vida mhos años.
Su mas Atento y Seguro Servidor Manuel Lisa (Rubric) Triplicada.
DOYLE TO ELLIOT 104
[Enclosure.] Copy. Charles Elliot. Mexico, 27 May. 1843. Sir,
I have the honor to inform you that at an interview which took place with His Excellency the President General Santa Aña on the 24th Instant, He spoke to me a good deal about the present position of this Country with Texas, and added that He was ready to treat upon the terms proposed by him and forwarded through Mr Robinson, with which you are acquainted. I pressed him as much as possible with respect to the fallacy of the plan with respect to the Sovereignty of Mexico being acknowledged by Texas; but at present He does not seem at all inclined to give way on that point.
*I further stated to him how useless I felt it would be to send Commissioners to treat on any terms so long as the present warfare was carried on; and His Excellency has Authorized me to acquaint you for the information of General Houston, that He will agree to an Armistice, and He told me he would at once give orders for a total cessation of hostilities on his part, and requested that General Houston would send similar orders to the different Officers Commanding the Texian forces; and that in such case He was ready to receive any Commissioners which might be sent from Texas to treat on the terms proposed by him* 105
I am of the same opinion with yourself respecting the total fallacy and impolicy of that part of the plan of the President Santa Aña claiming an empty Sovereignty over Texas, but as I collected from your Correspondence how important you felt it to be that an armistice should be granted, and even intimated that a large party in Texas with a view of doing what they thought best for them at the present moment might accept General Santa Aña's proposition, I felt it my duty to accept the offer He made and acquainted him that I would write to you on this Matter without loss of time.
I have by the last packet informed Lord Aberdeen of what has taken place.
Percy Doyle. To Captain Charles Elliot, R. N. [Endorsed]. Inclosure No 1 in Capt. Elliot's despatch No. 12. to the Earl of Aberdeen. Galveston June 10th 1843.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 106
No. 13. Galveston June 21st 1843. My Lord,
Thinking it possible that Her Majesty's Sloop “Scylla” may catch the Mail of the 29th at Vera Cruz, I have the honor to forward by her the accompanying Copy of the Proclamation of Armistice issued by this Government. 107
But as it seems probable that my Communication through the United States will reach England before the Mail from Mexico I shall transmit the Correspondence connected with this Affair through the usual channel.
Charles Elliot To The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T. Downing Street
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 108
No. 15. 109 Galveston, June 22nd 1843. My Lord,
Having reference to my dispatch No. 12 of the 10th Instant I have now the honor to transmit to Your Lordship the reply of the Secretary of State of this Republic to my Note to him, 110 a Copy of which was forwarded in the despatch No. 12.
I beg also to transmit a Copy of the Proclamation of the Armistice issued by the President of Texas, and a Copy of the despatch I addressed to Mr. Doyle in reply to his of the 27th Ultimo, a Copy of which has already been forwarded to Your Lordship in my despatch No 12.
I also avail myself of this occasion to acknowledge Your Lordship's despatch No. 5 of the 10th Ultimo, 111 and to transmit a Copy of the note I have thereupon addressed to Mr. Jones. 112
Charles Elliot. To The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T. Downing Street
ELLIOT TO DOYLE 113
[Enclosure]. Galveston June 21st 1843. Sir,
I have the honor to acknowledge Your despatch of the 27th Ultimo by Her Majesty's Sloop “Scylla” (received here upon the night of the 9 Instant) and in reply I beg leave to transmit to you.
1st. Copy of a Note from myself to the Secretary of State of this Republic, dated on the 10th Instant. 114
2d. Copy of the reply of the Secretary of State to my Note of the 10th Instant, dated 15th Instant. 115
3d. An authentic Copy of a Proclamation of Armistice by the President of Texas, dated 15 Instant. 116
I trust that it will be in your power to induce the President of Mexico to accede to the arrangement made by this Government respecting the duration of the Armistice pending the Negotiations for peace, and till due notice of a determination to renew hostilities upon the part of either Government should be given to the other through Her Majesty's Representatives in Mexico and Texas. It is satisfactory to me to find that your opinions are concurrent with my own upon the fallacy and impolicy of that part of General Santa Aña's plan claiming an empty Sovereignty over Texas, and thinking it possible that your dates from England may not be so recent as my own, and that it may be convenient to you at this Conjuncture to know the impressions of Her Majesty's Government upon the propositions sent on to this Country by Mr Robinson, I have herewith the honor to transmit to you the Copy of a despatch from Lord Aberdeen, received three days since, dated upon the 18th Ultimo. 117
I would remark, here, that there has been some misconception as to any opinion upon my part that a large party in Texas with a view of doing what they thought best for them at the present moment, might accept General Santa Aña's proposition. I remarked indeed in a private communication to Mr Packenham that it would not surprise me to find the project temporarily favored, and I have heard that was the Case to a limited extent, and for a brief space of time, but it was not my belief that it would be countenanced for a moment by the Government of the Republic, or indeed steadily, by any considerable part of the people. My observations upon that part of the subject were intended generally to sustain my own impression that a cessation of hostilities was very desirable on every ground of consideration, and particularly till you could learn the views of Her Majesty's Government after these overtures should become known in that quarter.
It is to be hoped that the wise and becoming conduct of this Government in refusing to take part in the struggle in Yucatan and respecting the late unauthorised movement of the two Texian Vessels of War to that Coast from New Orleans, will facilitate an early and honorable close of this Contest.
In the state of understanding between Her Majesty's Government and that of The King of the French concerning the settlement of these differences I considered it suitable to communicate the subject of Your despatch to my Colleague Monsieur de Cramayel before I addressed this Government in relation to it, and He concurred with me that every proper effort should be made to dispose the President to agree to the Armistice.
Charles Elliot. Percy W. Doyle H. M. Chargé d'Affaires, Mexico. Copy. Charles Elliot. [Endorsed]. Inclosure No 3 in Captain Elliot's despatch No 15 to the Earl of Aberdeen. Galveston June 22d. 1843.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 118
No. 17. 119 Galveston June 24th 1843. My Lord,
I have the honor to forward Your Lordship some extracts from a private letter which I sent to Mr Doyle, with the reply to his despatch of the 27th Ultimo. The other parts of this letter need not be intruded upon Your Lordship; They referred to a request General Thompson had made to Mr. Doyle to see a private communication I had addressed to Mr. Packenham by the request of General Houston, upon the subject of the Prisoners taken at Mier, which Communication Mr Doyle had of course declined to shew to General Thompson.
I have also thought it convenient to forward with these despatches two Newspapers for Your Lordship's examination, the first (The “National Vindicator” 120 which is the Government organ) containing the President's Instructions to the Commissioners sent on to New Orleans for the purpose of enforcing the orders upon Commodore Moore to return to this Port; and the Second (the “Civilian” 121 by far the best conducted Journal and of most influence in the Country) containing some observations on the Armistice, deserving of attention.
Charles Elliot To the Earl of Aberdeen, K. T. Downing Street.
ELLIOT TO DOYLE 122
Extracts from a private letter from Captain Elliot to Percy W. Doyle, Esqr. Mexico. dated at Galveston June 21st 1843.
No. 1. “My despatch will make you acquainted with General Houston's acceptance of the Armistice, and I hope you will have no difficulty in inducing General Santa Aña to accede to the usual and reasonable arrangements General Houston has made respecting the duration of the Armistice. I do sincerely hope that these advances, on all sides, may be improved into a speedy and honorable pacification, and however great the relief to this Country will be, it seems manifest to me that it will be of higher permanent advantage to Mexico. For I firmly believe that it is in General Santa Aña's power, by speedy, wise, and liberal arrangements with Texas, upon the basis of it's independence, pretty rapidly to detach it from it's intimate connexion with the people and things East of the Sabine, to the great increase and security of the just and powerful influence of his own Country on this Continent. With a comprehensive policy on his part, steadily directed to these ends, Texas would settle to a considerable extent by emigration from England, Germany and France; And a people will be placed between the United States and Mexico, whose interest it will be not merely to maintain a Neutral attitude, in the event of dispute with that Country (which would draw a large portion of the foreign trade with Mexico into the ports of Texas) but rather to lean to the side of Mexico. For independent Texas will be in many respects a rival producing Country with the United States, and will soon come to feel that it is more likely the United States should stretch Westward over Texas, than that Mexico should stretch Eastward over Texas. I should tell you that there is no reason whatever to believe that the present Government of Texas has any undue feelings of partiality towards the United States. There is no bias that way, and the late honorable conduct of President Houston concerning the movements of the Texian Squadron to the Coast of Yucatan may also serve to help out a happy conclusion of this Contest; the continuance of which is filling this Country with desperadoes from every part of the South, eager to penetrate into Mexico and bidding fair to turn the Gulf of Mexico into a piratical cruizing ground. General Santa Aña is preventing the settlement of this Country by people disposed to be peaceful and orderly, and filling it pretty fast with a class of persons, the fellows of whom I do not believe are to be found on the face of the Globe. The sounder policy will be to make a very liberal peace with Texas, and to strengthen the hands of this Government by every kind of friendly Countenance. Such a course would roll back a tide of mischief East of the Sabine, and a contrary will as surely induce a high flood West of it.”
“Speaking of the late movement upon Yucatan by the Ships, I cannot refrain from observing, that it was much more a United States, or at all events a New Orleans expedition, than a Texian. This Government was conscientiously, and extremely averse to it, did all that it could to prevent it, and all that it could to put an end to it, regardless of shameful abuse both in the United States and here, and much worse, be it observed, in the United States, than here. The Expedition sailed from New Orleans, was mainly assisted by Citizens of this place, and has I believe been recently reinforced by Volunteers raised in that City; and all this though it was notorious that Commodore Moore was acting in total disobedience of the orders of his Government. If the Government of the United States, could have prevented these things they surely ought to have done so, and if they could not, their powerlessness is very dangerous to their Neighbours, and deplorable for themselves.”
2d. “The plain fact is that General Houston is very unpopular in the United States and here, because of his moderate policy with regard to Mexico, and particularly since his determined opposition to these purposes of interference in the Affairs of Yucatan.”
“These feelings of ill will to him are aggravated by the impression that his wise and moderate conduct is agreeable to Her Majesty's Government, and well calculated to strengthen their efforts for a speedy and peaceful Settlement of this Contest. This is the true cause of all the bitterness towards him in the United States, and I happen to know that General Thompson has very particular friends in that Country, most particularly hostile to General Houston. Putting all these things together you will not wonder that I should earnestly beg that there may be no relaxation of your just reserve respecting the exhibition of my private letters to General Thompson.”
3d. “The American Government and it's functionaries need careful handling in this Texian matter. Be assured that the adjustment of this question on the basis of the independence of Texas, is ill liked in the United States, particularly through the help of our own and other European Governments. These good folks desire to keep it an open question, as well for the chances of the future incorporation of Texas with the Union, as because it serves as a sort of raw upon Mexico, whenever there is any hesitation about American demands upon that Country. This reflection leads me to think that it will be very advantageous if you can persuade the Mexican Government to adopt the principle of General Houston's arrangement with respect to the duration of the Armistice. If the duration of the Armistice depended in any way upon the good offices of American Officers near either Government, it is to be apprehended that it might not last long enough for any permanent useful purpose”
Copy. Charles Elliot. [Endorsed] Inclosure in Captain Elliot's despatch to the Earl of Aberdeen No 17. Galveston June 24. 1843.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 123
No. 18. Galveston July 4th. 1843. My Lord,
I have the honor to transmit a note from Mr. Jones, 124 in reply to the note I addressed to him upon the 18th Ultimo communicating assurances of the continued interest felt by Her Majesty's Government in the prosperity and independence of Texas, and of the full determination to persevere in efforts for the peaceful adjustment of the difficulties between this Country and Mexico, whenever a hope of success should present itself.
With this communication I have also received private letters from General Houston, and Mr. Jones expressive of an earnest desire for the appointment of a British Consular Agent at Corpus Christi. General Houston thinks that “the effect would be very beneficial upon the dispositions of the Mexicans as well as the Texians, and even upon the Indians, who have recently depredated upon the poor families at that point. The Irish families who have claimed to be British Subjects will derive confidence, and resume their former habitations, and pursue the arts of peace with delight and Advantage. I doubt not, but what the United States will support a Consul at Corpus Christi.” Mr. Jones thinks that a flourishing trade will soon grow up in that quarter with the neighbouring Mexican Settlements, and looks to the increase and security of Commercial intercourse, as the surest means of establishing the steady pacification of the frontier.
I shall inform the President and Mr. Jones that my Instructions prevent me from making the desired appointment without Your Lordship's sanction, but that I am persuaded the President's wishes will always have great weight with Her Majesty's Government.
Aransas Inlet, and Corpus Christi Bay, are situated at the Mouth of the river “Nueces,” and formed the Western limit of Texas, proper, according to the Spanish and Mexican divisions of the Country. It's contiguity to the San Patricio Settlements, alluded to by the President, will probably recommend this suggestion to your Lordship's consideration
Charles Elliot. To The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T. Downing Street
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 125
No. 19. Galveston July 15th 1843. My Lord,
The Inclosures from a Correspondence, which I have recently had with a Gentleman of the name of Yates, a Citizen of this Republic, resident in this place. It arose from a letter He had addressed to a Mr. S. Converse in London dated on the 19th March last (of which I heard for the first time two day's since) recently published at Boston, and republished at New Orlenas. 126
The impressions that the abolition of Slavery in this Republic, would be agreeable in England, and that it would be practicable to raise a loan there on the Security of the lands in Texas, in furtherance of that object, are probably entertained by many persons in this Country. But whether such views be well founded or not, it is the fact that Mr. Yates has been conveying to Mr. Converse his own inferences and impressions in these particulars, and not what I said to him; and Your Lordship will observe that He has ascribed the different turn of his letter to Mr. Converse, to the haste of that Communication; which would no doubt have been avoided if He had supposed it would find it's way before the public.
It is the case as Mr. Yates observes that I was on board the Steam Boat on the passage from Houston with my Colleague Monsieur de Cramayel, on the occasion to which He alludes, though I did not hear the address of which He speaks. But I did not consider that the excitement prevailing here at that time was otherwise than temporary; and I do not perceive that it formed part of my duty to report every casual ebullition of popular Sentiment, on Subjects of internal interest, in my despatches to Her Majesty's Government. I have conversed with my Colleague since upon the subject, more than once, and I believe his opinions were coincident with my own, as to the temporary character of the excitement manifested on that occasion; and perhaps, it may not be amiss to add that we both of us ventured to suggest to the Gentleman who was coming to Galveston to test the state of public feeling here, that He might expose himself to some degree of danger, by the abrupt introduction of such a Subject, on the people of this Town.
That the opinions of Mr. Yates and those who think like him, are founded upon sound conceptions of what would most conduce to the strength and durable prosperity of this Republic, is certainly my belief. But I have never given any warrant for the use of my name on such subjects, and certainly never said what has been imputed to me.
Charles Elliot The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T. Downing Street
YATES TO ELLIOT 127
[Enclosure.] Copy. Charles Elliot. Galveston July 12th. 1843. To Captain Charles Elliot. Sir—
I was much surprised to receive by the Steamer which arrived this Morning a Copy of the “New Orleans Republican” of July 3d containing a letter purporting to have been written by me to S. Converse, Esqre. of London, which was preceded by a letter from a London Correspondent of the Boston Post, and some editorial remarks reflecting on yourself, and the Government you have the honor to represent in a most unwarrantable manner, and in which my letter was referred to as Authority for the correctness of those remarks.
Without reflecting on the impropriety of my Correspondent in publishing that letter, I feel it a matter of duty to place in your hands without delay, and as far as in my power a full exculpation from the charges thus made or insinuated.
In my letter to Mr. Converse under date of 19th March last, speaking on the subject of emancipating the Negroes of Texas, the following expression occurs “I had also held several conversations with the British Minister here, and from him I learned that such a Measure would secure for us the warmest support from the British Government, in our present Struggle, and also the means of paying for our Slaves, by their Citizens giving lands in exchange”
The Writer of the London letter under date of June 2d, says “I enclose the Copy of a letter received here by the last Steamer from Galveston, in which you will see that the British Minister in Texas has been endeavouring to persuade the people of that Republic, that if they will alter their constitution so as to abolish Slavery, then this government will aid them in their Struggle with Mexico, and furnish the Money to pay for their Slaves, the Texians giving lands, &c, &c”.
My letter to Mr. Converse was written in much haste after the arrival of the Houston Boat referred to, in it, which occurred at a very late hour on Saturday Night, and the Steamer sailed for New Orleans on the Morning of the following day. Mr. S. P. Andrews of Houston and some others came passengers in the Houston Boat, with the avowed intention of ascertaining the feelings of the Citizens of Galveston on the Subject, not of abolition, but of gradual emancipation of Slaves, and on the representations of himself and his Associate I was induced to write in the strong and encouraging terms used in that letter. With respect to yourself and the efforts you have made to persuade the people of Texas, to entertain such a project it is due from me to you to say that as far as my knowledge and your communication to me extends, you have stated distinctly that you were instructed by your Government to interfere in no manner with the internal institutions and regulations of this Government; and that in answer to my enquiries, you stated your private opinion as an individual, that such a measure (which I intimated as probable) would be gratifying to the British Nation, and secure for this her ardent support, and that there were parties in England who felt so deeply interested on the subject, that you believed such might be found who would advance the Capital necessary to purchase our Negroes, for the purpose of manumission, and that they would receive our lands in exchange on the assurance of a prohibition to the further importation of Slaves.
As you were a passenger on board the Houston Boat at the time I have mentioned, and witnessed the state of feeling which then existed amongst the passengers on that trip, and must have heard the address made to them by a distinguished Citizen, on their way down warmly advocating the Measure I presumed you would advise Your Government of the state of feeling which you then saw evinced, and therefore stated in my letter to Mr. S. Converse that I had reason to believe you had communicated on the Subject. You never have stated to me those communications, or any part of them; and I did not see you after your arrival from Houston, previous to the departure of the packet, for New Orleans, the suggestion on this point was therefore only conjecture on my part.
As to the intervention of Your Government in our Affairs with Mexico, emanating from a desire to promote the abolition of Slavery here, and it's being exerted as a consideration for such a Measure, the statement is too publicly destitute of foundation to need a refutation. Those who know anything of the foreign relations of this Government are aware of the fact that the intervention of the Government of Great Britain has been pledged to us by treaty stipulation, near three years since, and without the most remote reference to this Subject, and that it has since been most efficiently exerted in our behalf.
The London Correspondent and the New Orleans Editor have alluded to the true cause of the difficulty. They evidently care but little for Texas “her weal or woe” but are willing to sacrifice her prosperity and welfare to the protection of the Slave property held in the States on her frontier. This country has been in a great measure governed and controlled by this influence, and it was to avoid it that I stated in my letter that the emancipation must be incidentally laid before a Convention of the people, in order to ensure success, and not because of the opposition I feared it would meet with at home.
There is no reason for the alarm these writers have expressed because if Texas should entertain the project, She will afford the Slave holders of the Union a better protection for their Slave property, by treaty, than they now have from their Sister States.
Sir, I am no abolitionist, nor am I, nor have I ever been, nor can I be in correspondence with any, for the purpose of promoting their views, but I do believe that free labor is ten fold more productive of prosperity in this, or any enlightened country, than Slave labour, and it is for this reason I desire to see the introduction to this Country of free White industrious families of the laboring Classes, well satisfied that they will eventually supersede the Slave; and gradually but surely remove the incubus that rests upon us. This change must be a voluntary and a gradual one, and I have uniformly advocated the doctrine that a Government composed as ours is can only prohibit the further introduction of Slaves, and having provided the means for the purchase of those already introduced, must leave it optional with the proprietor to sell or retain at pleasure, and I sincerely believe that such a provision being made, Texas would become a free State, by the unanimous will of the Citizens, in ten years thereafter.
In conclusion permit me to assure you that while I sincerely regret the occasion for this letter, I cannot but feel happy in the opportunity it affords me of bearing my humble testimony to the uniform expression of your desire for the prosperity of my Country, the firm conviction that your official as well as private intercourse has contributed much to promote that object, and that in so doing I express the sentiments of a large Majority of my fellow Citizens.
A. J. Yates. [Endorsed]. Inclosure No. 1 in Captain Elliot's Despatch No 19. to the Earl of Aberdeen. July 15. 1843.
ELLIOT TO YATES 128
Private Galveston July 13th. 1843. Sir.
I beg to acknowledge your letter of Yesterday's date founded upon a letter from you to Mr. S. Converse, recently published in Boston.
Whenever the subject matter of that communication has been mentioned to me in conversation, either by you, or any other Gentleman of my acquaintance in the Republic, I have invariably made the remark to which you advert, namely, that I was instructed to interfere in no manner with the internal institutions or regulations of this Government.
But either in doing that, or in denying the unfounded charge of undue interference, I have always guarded myself from being supposed to entertain different opinions upon the general subject, from those held by the great body of my Countrymen.
Sensible, however of the inconvenience of any misconception on such a point I have also always said to others what I said to you; that is, that what fell from me must be particularly understood to be no more than the expression of my own individual opinion, for I had neither knowledge of, nor authority to speak to, opinions or feelings in any other quarter I can readily understand [in] the hurry of your Communication to Mr. S. Converse you intended to convey your own impressions founded upon your conservation with me, and not my expressions. But at all events I entertain no doubt that you will take some suitable means of preventing further misconception, so far as I am concerned.
Charles Elliot. Copy. Charles Elliot. A. J. Yates, Esqre. Galveston. [Endorsed.] Inclosure No. 2 in Captain Elliot's Despatch No. 19, to the Earl of Aberdeen, July 15th 1843.
YATES TO ELLIOT 129
[Enclosure]. Private. To Captain Charles Elliot. Galveston. Sir,
Your favor of the 13th Instant in reply to my letter of the letter [Sic] of 12th is before me.
That portion of my letter to Mr. Converse, under date 19th March last, which refers to conversations held with you on the subject therein alluded to was intended and can certainly be considered as nothing more than an expression of inferences drawn by me from your remarks, and in the excitement which then existed in this Community, I am free to acknowledge that those inferences were not warranted so much by your expressions, as by my own knowledge of the dispositions and feelings of your Countrymen on the Subject.
So far from understanding you to say that the British Government were disposed to interfere with the question of Slavery in this Country, I distinctly recollect your reiterated declaration that you had been positively instructed to avoid any interference with our Civil and domestic institutions.
I shall avail myself of the earliest opportunity to remove the misconstruction put upon my letter to Mr. Converse in relation to yourself, and the misconception of the part you have taken in the matter which seems to be entertained by some and founded on expressions contained in that letter.
Sincerely hoping that no inconvenience may result to yourself from the temporary prevalence of erroneous impressions, which may be entertained by a few individuals in regard to the course you have pursued, and which can be so readily removed, I have the honor to be with Sentiments of the highest respect and consideration
A. J. Yates. Galveston July 15. 1843. Copy. Charles Elliot [Endorsed.]. Inclosure No. 3 in Capn. Elliot's Despatch No. 19 to the Earl of Aberdeen. July 15th. 1843.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 130
No. 20. Galveston July 16th. 1843. My Lord,
I have had the honor to receive Your Lordship's despatches Nos. 6 and 7.
This Government has not yet appointed Commissioners to proceed to Mexico; pausing, till it shall be ascertained whether General Santa Aña has adopted General Houston's arrangement with respect to the duration of the Armistice. It is much to be hoped that the Mexican Government will not insist upon the immediate and unqualified acknowledgment of the Sovereignty of Mexico, as an indispensable preliminary condition to the opening of negotiations, but content itself with an expression of general readiness upon the part of this Government maturely to consider any scheme of adjustment which may be proposed, upon the part of Mexico.
With a continued state of pacification, and the lapse of time, feelings of irritation will naturally subside; and both parties addressing themselves to the task in a spirit of temperate enquiry I should hope that there are no insuperable obstacles to the settlement of this dispute upon a durable and creditable footing, and certainly upon terms of advantage to Mexico which there is no ground to believe could be secured by a protraction of the Contest.
I avail myself of this occasion to announce the return of the Texian Ships of War “Austin” and “Wharton” to this port, from the Coast of Yucatan, reporting intelligence that the difficulties in that quarter, are not yet adjusted. The Vessels arrived on the 14th. Instant.
Charles Elliot. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 131
No. 21. Galveston July 29th. 1843. My Lord.
With reference to my despatch No. 19, I have now to solicit Your Lordship's attention to a letter 132 addressed by Mr. Yates to the Editor of the same New Orleans print, in which his letter to Mr. Converse of the 19th. March last was recently Copied from a Boston paper.
Charles Elliot. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 133
No. 22. Galveston August 3rd. 1843. My Lord,
Her Majesty's Sloop. “Scylla” returned to this anchorage on the 23rd Ultimo, bringing me despatches from Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires in Mexico dated on the 8th Idem, and I have now the honor to transmit to Your Lordship my subsequent correspondence with this Government, 134 and that Gentleman.
I have also taken the liberty to forward some extracts from a private letter I have addresed to Mr. Doyle with these dispatches. I may mention that I do not forward copies of Mr. Doyle's communications to me, 135 because I learn from him that they have already been transmitted through the United States.
Trusting that the present attitude of these Affairs will be satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government, I have the honor to remain,
Charles Elliot. Her Majesty's Sloop sailed to Vera Cruz, with my reply, last evening Charles Elliot. The Earl of Aberdeen. K. T.
ELLIOT TO DOYLE 136
[Enclosure.] Copy. Charles Elliot. Galveston. August 2nd. 1843. Sir.
I have the honor to acknowledge your despatch of the 8th Ultimo. by H. M. S. “Scylla,” and in reply beg leave to transmit to you,
1.Copy of a letter from myself to the Secretary of State of this Republic. 137
2.Copy of Mr. Jones's reply. 138
3.Copy of a despatch from the Secretary of War and Marine to General Wells. 139
I have also forwarded the Copy of a despatch which I have recently had the honor to receive from Lord Aberdeen dated on the 3rd Ultimo, 140 thinking it possible that you may not yet have received any despatches of so late a date at Mexico.
These moderate dispositions of the Government of Texas cannot fail to be satisfactory to the President of Mexico. But His Excellency will naturally have collected from public sources of information that General Houston is exposed to violent opposition in this Country on account of that Moderation, and it is much to be hoped that the Government of Mexico will have constant and very considerate regard to that state of things in the negociations for the final adjustment of this painful and fruitless contest.
The release of the Texian prisoners in Mexico would have the effect of allaying angry feeling, and strengthening the influence of this Government for the attainment of its wise and moderate purposes: I believe too, that I cannot be saying too much in adding, that this step would be agreeable to Her Majesty's Government, and perhaps facilitate their dispositions to be helpful in the satisfactory settlement of this dispute.
In conclusion, I will take the liberty to express the hope and belief that General Santa Aña will fully avail himself of any becoming opportunity of reconciling his own personal and generous impulses toward these Prisoners, with the dictates of sound Policy, and a just consideration for the situation and wishes of this Government.
Charles Elliot. Percy W Doyle Esquire. Mexico [Endorsed] Inclosure No 5 in Captain Elliot's Despatch to the Earl of Aberdeen. No. 22. August 3d, 1843.
WOLL TO HOUSTON 141
[Enclosure] Cuerpo de ejercito del Norte, General en gefe. Matamoros Julio 16 de 1843 Sor Gral Dn Samuel Houston
Muy Señor mio, Conforme á las ordenes del Supremo Gobierno que me anuncia há proclamado V. un Armisticio en Tejas me apresaré á manifestar á V, que daré las convenientes para que se suspendan por las tropas de Ejercito de mi Mando, las hostilidades contra Tejas Mandando retirar en todos los puntos de la linea las avansadas, descubriertos, y partidas de observacion que tenemos sobre dicha pais, tan luego como se sirva V. anunciarme, que ha prevenido a las fuerzas que componen la espedicion de Santa Fé retrocedan immediatamente suspendiendo toda hostilidad contra la Republica Mejicana, en el caso que dicha espedicion estuviere autorisada por Tejas—ó que se sirva hacer una declaracion oficial y solemne de que aquellos invasores no pertenean á Tejas, para que en este ultimo caso puedan ser batidos perseguidos por los tropas Mejicanas en atencion á que no estan y no puedan estar comprehendidos en el armisticio que estoy facultado para celebrar con V. ni en la consiguente suspencion de hostilidades.
Por lo tanto, desio que á la mayor brevedad posible se sirva V. Contestar, y si como es de crerse la espedicion de Santa Fé no ha sido autorisada por V. y de consiguiente hace V. a nombre de Tejas la declaracion oficial y solemne ya mencionada será conveniente nombre V. los Comisionados que en Union de los que eligére por parte del Supremo Gobierno se ocupan de celebrar un armisticio entre las partes beligerentes.
La villa de Laredo pudiera ser el punto en que los Comisonados se reuniéron.
Aprovecho esta ocasion para opecer a V las se guridades de la distinguida consideracion de afecmo Servidor. I. S. M.
Adrian Woll. Copy. Charles Elliot. [Endorsed]. General Adrian Woll to General Houston. Matamoros 16th July 1843. Inclosure No 4 to Captain Elliot's Despatch to the Earl of Aberdeen. August 3d, 1843.
HILL TO WOLL 142
[Enclosure]. Copy. Charles Elliot. Department of War and Marine Washington 29th July 1843. To General Adrian Woll. Commander in Chief of the Northern Army of Mexico. Sir,
Your Communication of the 16th July addressed to General Sam Houston, President of the Republic of Texas was by him received on the 26th inst. and referred to this Department for consideration and reply.
Added to the facts set forth in your Communication, the President of the Republic of Texas having been informed through Her Britannic Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires near this Government that Authority had been given to you by President of the Republic of Mexico, to act as Military Commissioner on the part of that Government to adjust an Armistice between the two parties, I hasten to inform you in accordance with instructions from His Excellency the President, that according to the suggestions made by you, the proper measures will be adopted on the part of this Government, to Ensure the Appointment of two Military Commissioners to meet those who may be appointed by Yourself at the Village of Laredo on the 25th day of September next, or near that time, to Engage in arranging the terms of an Armistice between the parties belligerent.
Orders have been issued in accordance with the proclamation of His Excellency the President of Texas, dated 15th June 1843 (a Copy of which is herewith enclosed) to the Officers Commanding the Forces of the Republic to cease hostilities against Mexico, and Commanding them to observe the requirements of the same.
Owing to the extent of uninhabited territory to the North, and the numerous obstacles which might, by possibility, intercept and cut off communications to the Troops to which you allude as composing the Santa Fé Expedition, they may not have received the proclamation and orders of the President in relation to the suspension of hostilities, to provide against and obviate the interposition of any obstacle from this Cause, to the successful issue of pending Negotiations between the two Governments. I enclose herewith a copy of the Order to Col. Charles A. Warfield revoking authority previously granted, and also an authenticated Copy of the Proclamation declaring an Armistice, with an order to Col. Jacob Snively endorsed thereon, that should those Officers with the forces under their Command, or either of them have appeared, or should in future appear on any portion of the frontier of Mexico, previous to the reception of similar orders through another Channel, you may have it in your power, and which it is hoped you will deem proper to Communicate to them, or either of them (as circumstances may require) these Orders, that they may in obedience thereto, immediately cease hostilities against the Mexican Republic with draw their Forces, and return to the interior Settlements of Texas.
I feel Confident that you will at once perceive the necessity of appointing the time for the meeting of the Commissioners on the part of the two Governments in September next, that the return of the Troops of this Government, from the North, may be procured, and the Armies of the two Countries with drawn and ordered so as effectually to prevent Collision during the Convention, and ensure the preservation of the consequent suspension of hostilities
A reply at your earliest convenience is solicited, and the time suggested for the meeting of the Commissioners it is hoped will meet your approbation.
I avail myself of this occasion to tender you assurances of the very distinguished Consideration with which I have the honor to be.
Your most obedient Servant The Secretary of War and Marine of the Republic of Texas. G. W. Hill. A Copy. Signed, Anson Jones.
ELLIOT TO DOYLE 143
[Enclosure.]. Galveston July 30th 1843. Extracts from a private letter to Percy W. Doyle. My dear Sir,
I have to thank you for your letter of the 8th Instant; and I hope the President will accede to General Santa Aña's arrangement with respect to the Armistice
I look for the answers from Washington by the 1st or 2d Proximo. I am sorry to find from your letter that General Santa Aña still adheres to this point of the acknowledgment of the Sovereignty of Mexico by Texas, not for the sake of Texas, be it understood, for as a matter of private opinion I have long since thought that if the Texians were to consult only their interests, they could not do better than to treat upon General Santa Aña's basis. All the advantages are to them, and all the risks and disadvantages (and they are great) are to Mexico. What the people of Texas will do, I cannot undertake to say, but it is likely that they will be mainly guided by the feeling in the United States, and it seems quite probable that the arrangement will not be discouraged in that quarter. They would feel there, that it would be the firm and strengthening settlement of a United States population on the Mexican frontier with abundance of pretext to renew disturbances, and extend intrigue and pretensions Westward, as soon as it suited all their convenience to do so; and besides too, it would effectually break up the independence of Texas, which is extremely distasteful in the United States.
Lord Aberdeen's despatch to me of the 3rd Ultimo will place you in possession of the views of Her Majesty's Government at that date. It is much to be wished, (in furtherance of their disposition to be helpful in the adjustment of this Affair) that the Mexican Government may not insist upon the immediate and unqualified acknowledgement of the Sovereignty of Mexico as an indispensable preliminary condition to the opening of Negotiations, but Content itself with an expression of general readiness on the part of the Government maturely to consider any scheme of pacification proposed by Mexico.
General Santa Aña should have regard to the position and difficulties of this Government as well as his own, and if the parties can only agree upon a suitable point de depart in these negotiations I do not quite despair of a satisfactory result.
In considering the chances of such a Solution, it has sometimes occurred to me that if Mexico were to offer to admit the limits of Texas to the line of the Rio Grande, and to grant the Navigation of that river under rules to be agreed upon between the two Governments, that of itself might be a tempting inducement. With regard to the acknowledgment of the Sovereignty of Mexico I suppose the Vocabulary might furnish becoming means of tempering the bitterness of that form of speech. It might be sufficient for example if Texas would [insert] in the Articles of Convention that She was reunited to the Republic of Mexico, and that all Laws, and Decrees passed or issued by the Supreme Congress or Government not at variance with the conditions of the Convention, should be binding upon this Government and people of Texas. Another point of difficulty and delicacy is the treaty making power, and upon that Subject Her Majesty's Government will no doubt express their views at some early date.
Perhaps it would be possible to reconcile the difficulties and exigencies in that respect by an article in the Convention agreeing upon the part of Mexico to the Commercial arrangements which Texas has contracted by treaty with foreign Powers, and further agreeing that Texas should continue to enjoy the rights of a Separate State for all purposes of foreign trade and Commercial intercourse, including the right to conclude and ratify future Conventions respecting foreign trade, and Commercial intercourse. But if Texas is to be left to regulate it's trade with other Powers as it sees fit, it follows of course that Mexico should be at liberty to consider Texas a foreign State, in respect to it's trade with Mexico, and an article in the Convention, providing for the regulation of this point from time to time according to altering circumstances by Commissioners appointed by the two Governments, would do all that was formally requisite in that respect. I say, formally, for to speak plainly, as soon as there is a State of peace upon the frontier, high tariffs in Mexico, and venal Officers, and active Smugglers on both Sides of the frontier will do all the rest for themselves.
Another point is the flag: In that particular it might be arranged that Texas should retain it's own flag within it's own territory, and on board of it's Merchant Vessels, except in the ports of Mexico, and that therein the Vessels of Texas should wear the flag of Mexico, but be subject to the duties and charges agreed upon in the Convention.
All these are of course mere speculations of my own, and I should particularly say to you that I have never had one word of Conversation with any Member of this Government upon such subjects, but still I have thought it may not be entirely useless to mention them to you. The Commissioners from this Government are Mr. Samuel Williams, and Colonel George Hockley, both of them I believe known to General Santa Aña. Mr. Williams however will be the active Commissioner. He is one of the original Settlers in Texas, and I should think one of the very few men in this country with sense and moderation enough sincerely to regret the Separation from Mexico.
I am persuaded that the Instructions will be as reasonable and as moderate as they can be, due regard being had to General Houston's position, and I am equally persuaded Mr. Williams will be found cordially disposed to do all He can to accomplish some conclusion of this Affair upon a footing which ought to be satisfactory to the Mexican Government. But I cannot but repeat that General Houston's difficulties at home will be very great indeed; and General Santa Aña should have regard to them, and remember that it may be very easy to destroy his influence by unreasonable uncomplyingness at Mexico, and with it, all hope of a peaceful and moderate Settlement of this dispute.
Whilst I am upon the subject of modes of expression, may I use the freedom to suggest to you that it might be convenient if General Santa Aña and his Government would fall upon some mode of designating General Houston which may leave it in my power to place their communications before him. It cannot be expected of course that they should commit themselves to any tacit acknowledgment of the independence of this Republic by their modes of address, but General is not a term of commital, and Señor Houston is not a term of suitable respect. General Santa Aña owes General Houston becoming Military respect and courtesy, as well as deep personal gratitude, for he saved his life; and seeing that Her Majesty's Government, and the Government of The King of the French deal with General Houston as General, and President of Texas, I hope we shall hear no more of Señor Houston from Mexico. At all events I must decline to be the medium of any Communication from the Government of Mexico which speaks of him as Señor Houston, for I feel He would have a right to complain of me if I made myself a party to frivolous incivility of that kind. I observe that the Government of Mexico does speak of the Government of Texas, and therefore upon that score I have no remark to offer.
Galveston August 2d. 1843.
The despatches have just arrived from Washington, and I hope their contents will be satisfactory to the Mexican Government I learn from Mr. Williams that General Houston wishes that Colonel Hockley and himself should perform the double office of Commissioners to General Woll, for the arrangement of the truce, and then go on to Mexico. Pray strenuously endeavour to persuade General Santa Aña to release the Texian prisoners. No measure would be better calculated to allay angry feeling, and support the influence of the Govmt. for useful, and modern results.
Charles Elliot. To Percy W. Doyle, Esqr. Copy. Charles Elliot. [Endorsed.] Inclosure No 6 in Captain Elliot's Despatch to the Earl of Aberdeen. No. 22. August 3d. 1843.
BOOK REVIEWS.
The Life of Thaddeus Stevens, by James Albert Woodburn, Ph. D., Professor of American History and Politics in Indiana University. (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1913. Pp. 620.)
For the greater part of the most momentous decade of our history the figure of “old Thad Stevens” moved conspicuous in the very thickest of political strife. Gifted as few men have been with the powers that make for parliamentary leadership, he impressed his radical views and cynical personality upon nearly all the important policies and legislation of the years 1861 to 1868. There seems to be material in abundance for an adequate biography, and there has long been a need of something more comprehensive than the little volume by McCall in the “American Statesmen” series.
Professor Woodburn disclaims any intention of writing a definitive biography, but has tried to “enable Stevens to speak more fully for himself than he has been allowed to do by others who have treated in a more limited way his principles and policies.” The greater part of the volume is in fact drawn directly from the speeches of Stevens on the important subjects of slavery, war finances, and reconstruction policies. This side of the work is well done and the book will be very helpful to the student who wishes to get at Stevens's real views without the toil of exhuming them from the Congressional Globe. Beyond this, however, the work is disappointing. The author seems to have drawn his knowledge of the period from a very narrow range of reading; he has fallen completely under the spell of Stevens's brilliant speeches, and betrays not the slightest element of that sympathetic understanding of all sides of great controversies which is so essential to the historian. In this respect he shows far less of balanced and discriminative judgment than McCall whose book is itself not without defects of this sort.
Professor Woodburn seems wholly unable to understand the point of view of the southern men in Congress in the decade preceding the war, but tacitly assumes that Stevens's view of the situation was the correct one. The only other explanation is that he regards it as his sole duty to set forth the ideas of the Pennsylvania radical without furnishing us any other guide to that political labyrinth. With Stevens's radical opinions on the constitutional issues of the war, Professor Woodburn is in strong sympathy and one of the best chapters of the book deals with this subject. In endorsing Stevens's strictures on Lincoln's cautious policy, he seems unable to appreciate the necessity the president was under of not moving too fast for public opinion. He acknowledges himself a greenbacker, defends his hero's greenback policy with great vigor, and returns to the subject in another chapter at the end of the book. His correction of the mis-statements of certain writers of financial history as to the true policy of Stevens on this subject is conclusive; but McCall had already, though in briefer space, made this clear.
The attitude of the South at the close of the war, especially with reference to the various phases of the negro question he seems no better able to appreciate now than Stevens was then. He upholds the radical leader throughout on the main issues of reconstruction, except upon the last effort at wholesale confiscation of southern property (1867), and only because it was then too late. Nor does he seem able to see that this idea of the wholesale confiscation of the private property of “conquered public enemies” was contrary to the law of nations which according to Stevens was the only law by which the government was bound. While he admits that Stevens was unnecessarily bitter and vindictive toward the South, he excuses it by pointing out that the majority of the people of the North entertained the same feeling. President Johnson, he thinks, was an obstacle to the will of the people that should have been removed by impeachment. His reason for this is that our constitution too rigidly sets the executive apart from the legislative authority and that it should have been “democratized” by making the executive, like the English cabinet, directly responsible through political impeachment to the will of the representatives of the people. How the other necessary adjustments of the constitutional machinery were to be made he does not even suggest. In short, presidents should be removable for political opposition to a majority in congress, though they have violated no law!
The chief objection to the book is that it is lacking in the element of broad and scholarly criticism. It is intended solely as a vindication of a leader whose “disregard of the Constitution was a statesmanlike and noble contempt for the restrictions of a parchment that stood in the way of his country's realizing its highest moral ideals,” whose part it was “to press forward without regard to squeamish scruples about the Constitution” (P. 237.)
Chas. W. Ramsdell.
Lieutenant General Jubal Anderson Early, C. S. A. Autobiographical sketch and Narrative of the War between the States. With notes by R. H. Early. (Philadelphia and London: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1912. Pp. xxvi, 496.)
General Early began the writing of these memoirs very soon after the close of the war and, according to the editor, continued to work at the task until his death in 1894. He was born in Virginia in 1816, graduated at West Point in 1837, resigned from the army to practice law, volunteered and served in the war with Mexico, and again returned to the practice of law in Franklin County, Virginia. He was a Whig, and voted against the ordinance of secession in the Virginia convention in 1861. Immediately thereafter he received a colonel's commission from the State and shortly afterwards from the Confederacy. He participated in the battle of Bull Run and in nearly all the subsequent campaigns of the army under the command of Joseph E. Johnston and Lee.
His narrative aims to give in a general way the operations of the armies, but is mostly confined in detail to the work of his own command and of those acting immediately with him. The general background, the larger strategic problems of the campaigns, are not always made clear enough for the general reader, but the immediate operations and battle experiences of his own command are set forth in photographic clearness of detail. Sometimes, in fact, the details of position and movement are abundant to the border of confusion and leave the reader constantly longing for a map. There are no maps of any sort in the book.
Generally the tone is calm and judicial. General Early refused to be drawn into the unfortunate controversies that arose between certain of the Confederate commanders; but he undertakes to refute, with evident repression of natural asperity, some of the complaints against himself. This is especially true of his campaigns in the Valley in 1864 and 1865. It is in fact hardly necessary to show that he fought against tremendous odds both of men and resources, and that it was necessary at times for him to assume the offensive against superior forces if he was to accomplish what General Lee desired. It is interesting to note that he had no very high opinion of Sheridan, whose reputation was largely based upon this Valley campaign, and attributes his escape “from utter annihilation [at Winchester] to the incapacity of my opponent.” The rout of his army at Cedar Creek, he attributes chiefly to the demoralization of his troops by their plundering of the captured Federal camp. Even here, Sheridan showed no vigor in pursuit.
General Early avows his own responsibility for the burning of Chambersburg which was in partial retaliation for the devastations wrought by the Union armies. He shows considerable feeling in denying the charges of “rebel atrocities,” particularly concerning the treatment of prisoners, and describes vividly the hardships and suffering of the southern people both at home and in the field.
Perhaps the publication of these memoirs will add little to the knowledge of the critical student of military science, but they are interesting reading and do much to clear Early's name from some of the charges of incapacity so freely indulged in by certain writers of military history.
Chas. W. Ramsdell.
Dr. William Le Roy Broun, compiled by Thomas L. Broun, assisted by Bessie Lee Broun and Sally F. Ordway. (New York: The Neale Publishing Company, 1912. Pp. 247.)
William Le Roy Broun, was the first professor of mathematics in the University of Texas, and was one of the eight distinguished men who formed the first faculty of the University, 1883-84. Upon the resignation of Professor Mallet, the first Chairman of the Faculty (the University had no president until 1896), Professor Broun was elected Chairman, but owing to the death of his wife and because of friends and relatives in Alabama, he resigned to become, as the event proved, the highly successful president of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute (A. and M. College) from 1884 to his death in 1902. This account of him compiled by three of his children is therefore of interest to Texans, particularly to the older alumni and ex-students of the University.
This compilation contains a brief summary of Dr. Broun's life, a number of letters and memoranda of his concerning the lives of his family and of himself, some seventy pages of letters and articles by friends written before and after his death, and about one hundred and forty pages of extracts from his numerous addresses on various subjects.
The volume reveals Dr. Broun as a wise and gentle, witty and friendly man who was one of the South's great educators during the period between the War and 1900. Like nearly all Southerners of his generation he served through the war, which began when he was 34 years of age. He rose to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the ordnance department, and like Lee, retired from the army to become a teacher. He was a Master of Arts of the University of Virginia and was professor of natural philosophy in the University of Georgia, 1866-72; president of the Georgia A. and M. 1872-75; professor of Mathematics, Vanderbilt, 1875-82. Alabama Polytechnic, against great difficulties, he made into a worthy institution. Dr. Mallet and Dr. Humphreys each accord him much weight in the formative policies of the infant University of Texas. Among other things he successfully opposed the giving of “honors” upon competition, and he was largely concerned in drawing up the first requirements for the various degrees. Previously Dr. Broun had been a member of the early Vanderbilt University faculty and had performed similar services for that institution. Professor Joynes of South Carolina College, after an acquaintance of fifty years describes him as “the foremost representative ... of his generation of the Southern gentleman, scholar and teacher,” and his last pastor writes that he believed in the “Patriotism of Efficiency.”
H. Y. B.
General Laws of the State of Texas passed by the Thirty-third Legislature at its regular session ... 1913. Secretary of State, Austin, 1913. 8vo. Pp. 484. Paper 20 cents; by mail, 35 cents. The delivery of the first installment of these laws was made June 13. Some of the acts having historical interest are those creating Jim Hogg county out of portions of Brooks and Duval; Kleberg county out of a portion of Nueces; and Real county out of portions of Bandera, Edwards, and Kerr. Another act forbids the use of any device of the Texas flag for advertising purposes. An act provides for Gonzales State Park, a portion of the original four leagues granted to the municipality of Gonzales; another act looks toward the acquisition of Fannin's Battle Ground and the La Bahia Mission property.
Under the title “The President's Silent Partner” Collier's Weekly of May 3, 1913, presents a personality sketch of Edward M. House, by Peter Clark Macfarlane.
A biographical sketch of State Senator Julius Real, in whose honor Real county was named, was printed in the Austin Statesman, April 20, 1913.
Mrs. A. B. Looscan, of Houston, has presented to the State Library a broadside “In Memoriam” of Colonel John A. Williams, issued by the officers of the Buffalo Bayou, Brazos and Colorado Railroad, of which corporation he was chief engineer and superintendent. He was born at Brookline, Connecticut, in 1825, removed to Texas in 1851, and died of yellow fever September 15, 1867. During the Civil War he attained the rank of Colonel of Engineers, C. S. A.
NEWS ITEMS.
At the meeting of the Mississippi Valley Historical Association at Omaha, May 8-10, it was decided to inaugurate The Mississippi Valley Historical Review. The first number will appear in October. Professor Clarence W. Alvord of the University of Illinois is to be managing editor. Other members of the editorial board are Benjamin F. Shambaugh of the University of Iowa, Reuben Gold Thwaites of the Wisconsin State Library, Archer B. Hulbert of Marietta College, James A. James of Northwestern University, Walter L. Fleming of Louisiana State University, Orrin G. Libby of the University of North Dakota, Claude H. Van Tyne of the University of Michigan, and Eugene C. Barker of the University of Texas.
The Charleston (S. C.) Library Society is appealing for aid in the erection of a fireproof building to house its very valuable historical collections. The Library was founded in 1748 and contains 42,000 volumes and 10,050 pamphlets, including files of important South Carolina papers from 1732 to the present. The Society has already collected in the city of Charleston $33,000; “about one-half of the sum needed.” The safekeeping of this collection is important to every citizen of the United States who is interested in the history of the country. Contributions may be sent to J. Arthur Johnston, Treasurer of the Building Fund, Charleston, S. C.
General R. M. Gano died at Dallas, March 27, 1913. He was born in Bourbon county, Kentucky, June 18, 1830; graduated from Bethany College, 1849, and later from the Medical University of Louisville; located at Baton Rouge, but in 1857 removed to Tarrant county, Texas. In 1861 he resigned his seat in the legislature and raised a company to serve the Confederacy. He rose from the position of captain to that of major-general.
J. L. German, a member of the Texas constitutional convention of 1875, died at Whitewright, Texas, April 19, 1913. He was born May 8, 1835, in Morgan county, Missouri; was educated in the Missouri State University, and served under General Sterling Price during the Civil War. A brief sketch of his life is printed in the Dallas News of April 26, 1913.
Charles Keith Bell died at his home in Fort Worth, April 22, 1913. He was born in Chattanooga, Tennessee, April 18, 1853; removed to Texas in 1871, and served in turn as district attorney, state senator, district judge, member of congress and attorney general of Texas. A sketch of his life appears in the Dallas News of April 23.
A. C. Gray died at Houston, June 11, 1913. He was born at Fredericksburg, Virginia, October 4, 1830, and came to Texas in 1838. In 1873 he became the owner and editor of the Houston Telegraph, and until January of this year was the senior member of the printing house of Gray-Dillaye and Company of Houston. He was a Fellow of the Texas State Historical Association. A sketch of his life appears in the Houston Post, JUne 12, 1913.
2. Volume I-XV published as The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association.
3. American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 627.
4. A general summary of this correspondence with Governor W. C. C. Claiborne of Mississippi Territory, Daniel Clark, Jr., of New Orleans, William Dunbar, of Natchez, and Dr. John Sibley, of Natchitoches, will be found in Cox, I. J., The Early Exploration of Louisiana, 36-39, where definite references are given. Cf. also Parker, D. W., Calendar of Papers Relating to the Territories of the United States, Nos. 6871-6880.
5. Claiborne may have been speaking of a garbled version of the Representacion, summarized in The Quarterly, X, 24-26.
6. This interpretation should be compared with the document enclosed in Salcedo's letter to Godoy, December 13, 1803. This is to be found among the Spanish Transcripts of the Mississippi State Department of Archives and History and is listed by J. A. Robertson in his List of Documents in Spanish Archives, as No. 4934. See also MSS. Provincias Internas, Vol. 201, Archivo General, Mexico, Translacion de una Noticia sobre los Limites entre Nacogdoches y la Louisiana, Bexar, April 24, 1809.
7. This line was mentioned in the Convention which Rufus King had just negotiated with the British government. The Senate struck out the clause containing this article. For the other references to the subject of Louisiana limits cf. Ford, Paul L., Writings of Jefferson, VIII, 242, 261, and Jefferson Papers (MSS.), Library of Congress, Series I, Vol. 9, No. 121.
8. Published in 1904 by Houghton, Mifflin &Co., in Documents Relating to the Purchase and Exploration of Louisiana. This brief pamphlet was based on such printed authorities as were then available. As these were mostly French, with vague or misleading statements regarding the limits of Louisiana, the work now has slight value, although its author seemed perfectly satisfied with it.
9. Claiborne and Wilkinson to Madison, December 27, 1803, in Documents Relating to the Louisiana Cession, MSS., Bureau of Rolls and Library, Dept. of State. See also Wilkinson Papers, II, Wilkinson to Jared Ingersoll, undated. Cf. Parker, D. W., Calendar of Papers, etc., No. 6907.
10. Cf. Memoir dated December 23, 1814, in Papers Relating to Burr's Conspiracy, Bureau of Rolls and Library, State Department, and also Ogg, F. A., The Opening of the Mississippi, 484.
11. Cf. Sloane, W. M., in Am. Hist. Rev., IV, 447.
12. Cf. Ficklin, J. R., in Pubns. of So. Hist. Assn., V, 383. Robertson, Louisiana under the Rule of Spain, France, and the United States, 1785-1807, II, 141, N. 62.
13. Cf. Hamilton, Writings of Monroe, IV, 24-26; Am. State Paps. For. Rel., II, 627; and Claiborne Correspondence, MSS., Bureau of Rolls and Library. (See Parker, Nos. 6919, 6998, and 7006.)
14. Annals 8th Cong., 2d Sess., 1498 ff. He may have intended at first to assert the Bravo claim, for a side note to this effect is crossed out in the manuscript summary of the letters of Clark, Dunbar et al. in the Claiborne Correspondence, Vol. I, MSS., Bureau of Rolls and Library. Casa Yrujo's vigorous protests against the validity of the Purchase, or the fear of complications with the French minister may have deterred him.
15. Washington, H. A., Works of Jefferson, IV, 530.
16. Memorial Edition of Jefferson's Works, XI, 27; Merry to Hawkesbury, January 16, 1804. Foreign Office, America, II, 5-41, Public Record Office.
17. Cf. King, Correspondence and Papers of Refus King, IV, 329-332, 363, 554, 555. Pickering was especially bitter in criticizing Jefferson for emphasizing Crozat's Grant—a mere commercial concession. See Jefferson Papers, Ser. 2, Vol. 66, No. 36.
18. Cf. Annals 8th Cong., 1st Sess., 401, 486.
19. Annals 8th Cong., 1st Sess., 47, 48, 60.
20. Cf. H. Adams, History of the United States, II, 257, 258.
21. Annals 8th Cong., 1st Sess., 1293.
22. Washington, H. A., Works of Jefferson, IV, 539.
23. See H. Adams, Hist. of the U. S., II, 299, 300.
24. Am. State Papers, For. Rel., II, 628 et seq.
25. Jefferson Papers, 1st Ser., Vol. X, No. 113.
26. Am. State Papers, For. Rel., II, 630. Ford, Writings of Jefferson, VIII, 309.
27. Am. State Papers, For. Rel., II, 632.
28. Casa Yrujo to Cevallos, February 7, 1805. Adams Transcripts, Bureau of Rolls and Library, State Department. Robertson, No. 5021.
29. This is Casa Yrujo's Dispatch No. 380 and is No. 4927 in Robertson's list. The pamphlet itself is No. 4887. The fact that its author makes no claim to West Florida favors the conclusion that he was not Madison.
30. Robertson, Nos. 4874 and 4896. Mississippi Archives. Casa Calvo and Manuel de Salcedo to Nimecio de Salcedo, July 8, 1803. Archivo General de Indias, Papeles procedentes de la Isla de Cuba, Legajo 185.
31. Robertson, Louisiana under Spain, France and the United States, 1785-1807, II, 150 et seq. It is needless to point out the fact that Salcedo's information is not very accurate.
32. Ibid., 162-167.
33. Ibid., 168-171.
34. Ibid., 172. The translation is my own from the copy in the Mississippi Archives. This statement follows closely that quoted by Henry Adams, Hist. of U. S., II, 6, and by Robertson, loc. cit., 141, n. 62. The Bravo to 29° is mentioned as a possible limit between Louisiana and New Mexico in the project for a treaty with Spain, dated November 18, 1802. Cf. Affaires Etrangéres, Supplement, Vol. VII, p. 245. Ministére des Affaires Etrangéres, Paris.
35. See page 10.
36. MSS. Archivo General, Mexico, Provincias Internas, Vol. 200. Dictamen of Junta, Madrid, March 17, 1804.
37. Francisco Gil to Cevallos, April 6, 1804. Ibid.
38. Robertson, Nos. 4956, 4965, 4968. Miss Archives.
39. Cox, Early Exploration of Louisiana, 62, 63. Robin, C. C., Voyages dans L'Interieur de Louisiana, etc., III, 141 et seq.
40. Robertson, Nos. 4985 and 4993. These references are to transcripts in the collections of the Missouri Historical Society, for the use of which I am indebted to the courtesy of Judge Walter B. Douglas.
41. Casa Yrujo to Cevallos, August 3, 1803. Robertson, Louisiana, II, 69-77.
42. Salcedo to Caballero, December 13, 1803. Ibid., 148.
43. Casa Calvo to Cevallos, January 13, 1804, Ibid., 166; Casa Calvo to Prince of Peace, September 30, 1804. Robertson, No. 5001.
44. Folch to Someruelos, April 10, 1804 (Cf. n. 16, page 38, below.)
45. Letters and Other Writings of Madison, II, 182.
46. Louisiana Purchase, 1803-1804, MSS., Bureau of Rolls and Library, Parker, No. 6893.
47. Claiborne to Madison, February 26, 1804, Claiborne Correspondence, MSS., Vol. II, Parker, 6950. Cf. also Robertson, No. 4885.
48. Claiborne to Madison, May 14, 1804. Parker, No. 6933.
49. Claiborne to Madison, May 14, 1804, Ibid., No. 6988.
50. Cox, Early Exploration of Louisiana, 48; Robin, Voyages dans l'Interieur de la Louisiana, II, 384; Bowmar to Claiborne, April 15, 1804, Parker, No. 6989. In Hamersley, Complete Army Register, p. 51, a “James Bomer” is given as first lieutenant in the Second Regiment.
51. Report of José Joaquin Ugarte, MSS., Bexar Archives.
52. Turner to Claiborne, May 1, 1804, Claiborne Correspondence, II.
53. Salcedo to Governor of Texas, January 23, 1805, MSS., Provincias Internas, Vol. 200, Archivo General, Mexico.
54. Cf. Note 12.
55. Madison to Armstrong, November 10, 1806, MSS., Instructions. Vol. 6, Bureau of Indexes and Archives, State Department; Annals 9th Cong., 2d Sess., 1077 et seq. Jefferson's Works (Memorial Edition), VIII, 193.
56. The Mississippi State Department of Archives and History contains a copy of the “Reflections,” which Robertson lists as No. 4885. He likewise published this in Louisiana under Spain, France and the United States, 1785-1807, II, 325-347. This copy, as I am informed by Mr. Roscoe R. Hill, is made from a triplicate, one accompanying Folch's Reservada No. 3. to Someruelos, dated April 10, 1804. At present this is found in Legajo No. 2355 of the Cuban Papers. As it is signed by Folch to attest its genuineness, and is unaccompanied by any other explanatory documents, Dr. Robertson naturally assigns its authorship to the Spanish governor and thus misses its real significance. During the last summer I discovered in Legajo No. 1574 of the Cuban Papers, Folch's Reservada No. 3, an Informe, in which he expresses dissent from many of Wilkinson's views, and other documents that clearly establish the General's authorship and afford additional evidence of his venality. Mr. C. E. Chapman has recently copied these for me and I hope soon to publish them.
57. This refers to Isaac Briggs, who was the surveyor for the district of Mississippi Territory east of the Pearl River. Cf. Jefferson to Briggs, August 11, 1803, Jefferson Papers, 1st Ser., Vol. IX, No. 121, Library of Congress; Wilkinson, Memoirs, II, App. LIX.
58. Elguezabal to Salcedo, May 9, August 1, October 10, December 19, 1804; Casa Calvo to Elguezabal, March 5, 1804; Ugarte to Elguezabal, October 8, 1804; MSS., Bexar Archives. Also Claiborne to Madison, January 24, 1804. Claiborne Correspondence. Parker, No, 6919.
59. Salcedo to Viceroy, October 18, 1803, MSS., Archivo General, Californias, Vol. 22; Salcedo to Elguezabal, January 18, 19, and May 2, 1804. MSS., Bexar Archives.
60. Claiborne to Madison, March-June, 1804. Parker, Nos. 6950, 6953, 6995, 6996, 7002.
61. Salcedo to Iturrigaray, June 30, 1804. Archivo General, Provincias Internas, Vol. 200.
62. Pinckney to Madison, January 23, 1804. MSS., Spanish Despatches, VI, Bureau of Indexes and Archives; Claiborne Correspondence, II, Parker, No. 6907.
63. Turner to Claiborne, May 13, 1804. Parker, No. 6986.
64. Ibid. Parker, Nos. 7016, 7022.
65. Ibid. Parker, No. 7026; N. Salcedo to Iturrigaray, February 2, 1804, Archivo General, Californias, Vol. 22.
66. Am. State Papers, For. Rel., II, 690. Also Turner to Claiborne, July 30, 1804, Claiborne Correspondence, II.
67. J. Sibley to S. H. Sibley, August 28, 1804. MSS., Mo. Historical Society.
68. Jefferson Papers, 2d Ser., Vol. 76, No. 7.
69. Turner to Claiborne, July 12 and 30, 1804. Clàiborne Correspondence, II.
70. Ibid. Parker, No. 7014. Such a decree was issued in 1789 with special reference to the Florida border, and had not been repealed.
71. Turner to Claiborne, July 29, 30, and August 3, 1804. Claiborne Correspondence, II.
72. Claiborne to Casa Calvo, September 1, 1804; Casa Calvo to Claiborne, September 5, 1804, Ibid. Parker, Nos. 7049, 7051.
73. Casa Calvo to Claiborne, November 6, 1805, Ibid. Parker, No. 7102.
74. Turner to Claiborne, October 16, 17, 1804, Ibid. Parker, Nos. 7080, 7082.
75. Ibid. Parker, Nos. 7097-7103, 7107, 7186, 7190, 7260.
76. Casa Calvo to (Salcedo) and to Ugarte, November 10, 1804. MSS., Archivo General, Provincias Internas, Vol. 200.
77. Sindicos and Major of Militia to Ugarte, November 14, 1804; Salcedo to Governor of Texas, January 23, 1805, Ibid.
78. Ugarte to Salcedo, December 26, 1804. Ibid.
79. This was the recently created jurisdiction that had been formed from a part of his own dominions with the addition of Nuevo Leon and Nuevo Santander. Grimarest, however, never assumed the command.
80. Salcedo to Iturrigaray, January 23, 1805. Ibid.
81. Ibid.
82. Ibid; also Salcedo to Casa Calvo, January 22, 1805.
83. Casa Yrujo to Cevallos, October 26, 1804. Adams Transcripts, Spanish State Papers, Bureau of Rolls and Library. Robertson, No. 5007.
84. Rev. William Y. Allen was born near Shelbyville, Kentucky, May 7, 1805. He was of Scotch-Irish ancestry. His early education was obtained in the “old field schools” of his early youth. At the age of twenty-one he commenced the study of law with Singleton Wilson of Kentucky. At the age of twenty-four he made a profession of faith and commenced to study for the ministry. He was graduated from Centre College, in 1832, and taught in that institution for two and one-half years, studying theology under Dr. Young. He spent one year at Princeton Seminary. He labored for a short time in Pennsylvania and then in Alabama, from whence he came to Texas. After laboring four years in Texas, at his own expense, he returned to Kentucky, and from thence went to Rockville, Indiana, where he was pastor for fourteen years. Thereafter, he labored as a missionary until the time of his death, which occurred at Rockville, Indiana, February 13, 1885. Mr. Allen came to Texas March 28, 1838, and finally left the Republic February 17, 1842. Thus his experiences cover four years of the early history of the Republic, when most men were too busy making history to have time for preserving a record of the events. During that time he made four trips to the United States: for the purpose of being ordained (September 10 to October 22, 1838); to recuperate (January, 1840); to get married (July, 1840), and to collect funds for a church building (February, 1841). But he was actually in the Republic about three years, and his position of chaplain to the congress of the Republic, Senate and House in succession, brought him into such relation to men and events as to make his experiences and observations interesting to every student of the history of Texas whether of the State or of the Church.
Extracts from his Diary, which are here reprinted, appeared in various issues of the Texas Presbyterian from March, 1880, to December, 1883. The extracts cover two brief periods—March 28 to December 2, 1838, and October 1 to October 14, 1839. It seems that Mr. Allen furnished the editor extracts from his Diary, now and then making comments at the time they were furnished for publication. Search has been made in vain to locate the original manuscript, and it is, therefore, not known whether the following pages contain all of his Diary. Before the publication of the Diary, Mr. Allen had been contributing reminiscences to the Texas Presbyterian, and these reminiscences, continuing from December 4, 1876, until January 2, 1885, will appear in future issues of The Quarterly. At the time that these contributions were running, the Texas Presbyterian was edited in Texas, but issued from St. Louis. Only two files of the paper are known to be in existence, both in the library of Austin College at Sherman.
The entries of the Diary from March 28 to December 2, 1838, are printed in the Presbyterian of March 19, April 16 and 30, May 7, August 6 and 20, September 3, October 8 and 29, and December 31, 1880; March 4 and December 23, 1881; and March 31, 1882. The entries from October 1 to 14, 1839, are in the issues for January 26, June 29, and December 14, 1883.
85. This is obviously a later addition to the diary.
86. A later addition to the diary.
87. The remainder of this paragraph seems to have been added later.
88. Chittenden, H. M. The American Fur Trade of the Far West, I, 126-127.
89. The four Frenchmen were clearly not the ones mentioned in the letter, for the declaration of the four was taken in Santa Fé on July 30, 1812, before the letter here published was written. The four Frenchmen stated that they had left Louisiana because of dislike for American rule. They were sent to Chihuahua, and thence to Arispe, as prisoners, where they were still remaining in 1815.
90. Coues, Pike, II, 574.
91. Cox, I. J., The Exploration of Louisiana, 65-74.
92. Mooney, in Hodge, Handbook of American Indians, I, 72.
93. History of the American Fur Trade, II, 878.
94. Early Western Travels, V, 225, note 120.
95. Chittenden, I, 135.
96. Balzo is a nautical term meaning “bend.” Lisa seems to use the word balzos for balsos, which is a term applied to a bifurcated rope, used for raising weights. “Forks” is given as Lisa's probable meaning.
97. Houck (History of Missouri, II, 96) lists Baptiste Champlain as one of the early settlers of the Cuivre settlement, on Buffalo River, which drains the western part of Lincoln County, Missouri.
98. Mozo, in the old sense, meant “strong young man,” but the more usual modern meaning is “servant.” As used here the former meaning seems to be intended.
99. For notes on Sanguinet, see Houck, The Spanish Régime in Missouri, and The History of Missouri, indexes.
100. It is one of the shortcomings of our language that it is often necessary to translate a term from one foreign tongue in terms of another foreign tongue. This is an instance.
101. Obviously the Little Big Horn.
102. The Yellowstone River.
103. Possibly he means “who may deign” to communicate with him.
104. F. O., Texas, Vol. 6.
105. This paragraph only is printed in Garrison, Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas, III, 1091; in Am. Hist. Assoc. Report, 1908, II. “The portion of this Despatch contained within the crosses [asterisks], is the portion which has been communicated to the Government of Texas.—Charles Elliot.”
106. F. O., Texas, Vol. 6.
107. A proclamation suspending hostilities with Mexico, June 15, 1843. Printed in Niles' Register, LXIV, 307.
108. F. O., Texas, Vol. 6.
109. No. 14, Elliot to Aberdeen, on the whereabouts of Mr. John Orr, has been omitted.
110. Jones to Elliott, June 15, 1843. In Garrison, Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas, III, 1092-1093; in Am. Hist. Assoc. Report, 1908, II.
111. The correct date for Aberdeen's No. 5 is May 18, 1843.
112. Elliot to Jones, June 18, 1843. In Garrison, Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas, III, 1096-1097; in Am. Hist. Assoc. Report, 1908, II.
113. F. O., Texas, Vol. 6.
114. Elliot to Jones, June 10, 1893. In Garrison, Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas, III, 1090; in Am. Hist. Assoc. Report, 1908, II.
115. See Note 7 above.
116. See Note 4, page 68.
117. See Aberdeen to Elliot, No. 5, May 18, 1843. The Quarterly, XVI, 307.
118. F. O., Texas, Vol. 6.
119. No. 16, Elliot to Aberdeen, reporting that he has received from Texas £3 15s 9d for supplies furnished the schooner San Bernard, has been omitted.
120. Issue of June 3, 1843.
121. The Civilian and Galveston City Gazette, June 24, 1843.
122. F. O., Texas, Vol. 6.
123. F. O., Texas, Vol. 6.
124. Jones to Elliot, June 28, 1843. In Garrison, Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas, III, 1097, in Am. Hist. Assoc. Report, 1908, II.
125. F. O., Texas, Vol. 6.
126. Yates' letter to Converse, widely printed in American newspapers, created the impression that he was writing with Elliot's authority, and that Great Britain was actively interested in procuring abolition in Texas. Smith, Annexation of Texas, 113.
127. F. O., Texas, Vol. 6.
128. F. O., Texas, Vol. 6.
129. F. O., Texas, Vol. 6.
130. F. O., Texas, Vol. 6.
131. F. O., Texas, Vol. 6.
132. Yates to the New Orleans Republican, July 17, 1843.
133. F. O. Texas, Vol. 6.
134. Elliot to Jones, July 24, 1843. In Garrison, Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas, III, 1112-1113, in Am. Hist. Assoc. Report, 1908, II.
135. F. O., Mexico, 163. Doyle to Aberdeen, No. 51, July 30, 1843, enclosing copy of letter to Elliot of July 8, outlining Santa Anna's ideas as to an armistice.
136. F. O., Texas, Vol. 6.
137. See note 32 above.
138. Jones to Elliot, July 30, 1843. In Garrison, Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas, III, 1114-1115, in Am. Hist. Assoc. Report, 1908, II.
139. Woll to Houston, July 16, 1843, and Hill to Woll, July 29, 1843 (copies of which were enclosed in this letter and are here printed), are noted by Garison as “not found.” (Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas, III, 1115, in Am. Hist. Assoc. Report, 1908, II.)
140. F. O., Texas, 19, Aberdeen to Elliot, No. 9. This was really a dispatch to Doyle (of which a copy was sent to Elliot) on Mexican threats with regard to foreigners in Texas. Elliot, therefore, sends a copy to Doyle, because mails to Texas were more regular than to Mexico.
141. F. O., Texas, Vol. 6.
142. F. O., Texas, Vol. 6.
143. F. O., Texas, Vol 6.
How to cite:
"Issue View", Volume 017, Number 1, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online. http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v017/n1/issue.html
[Accessed Mon Nov 23 16:20:32 CST 2009]
