Vol. XVII. 1 JANUARY, 1913 No. 3
The publication committee and the editors disclaim responsibility for views expressed by contributors to The Quarterly.
It is the purpose of this article to study the diplomatic relations between Mexico and the United States concerning Texas and the boundary issue from 1822 to 1829. Internal affairs in Texas will be alluded to only when they furnish an occasion for or exercise an influence upon diplomatic communications.
The secret instructions given October 31, 1822, to Zozaya, the first Mexican minister to the United States, required him to ask the views of that government with reference to the limits of Louisiana. He was told that the imperial Mexican government considered the treaty of February 22, 1819, between the United States and Spain valid, and was disposed to carry out its provisions for establishing permanent landmarks. He was to learn whether any settlements had been effected or were being planned which would prejudice the rights of the Empire under that treaty. 2
Spain's refusal to ratify the treaty for almost two years in the vain effort to induce the United States to agree not to recognize her rebellious colonies had delayed its execution until Mexico had become de facto independent. The recognition of that independence by the United States in the early part of 1822 made it necessary to reckon henceforth with Mexico in any matter concerning the southwestern boundary. In the meantime much had been said concerning the treaty and the claim to Texas which many asserted the United States had acquired in purchasing Louisiana from France. There was a strong disposition on the part of many people, some having considerable influence with the government, to take advantage of the change of sovereignty to regain the territory which they insisted had thus been bartered away. 3 This sentiment in the United States was strengthened by a statement of Onis, the Spanish negotiator of the treaty, to the effect that “it is improperly called a treaty of cession, as it is in reality one of exchange or permutation of one small province for another of double the extent, richer and more fertile.” 4
The language of Onis also strengthened the suspicious fears of the Mexican government concerning the intentions of the United States. Elsewhere he says, “The Americans at present think themselves superior to all the nations of Europe; and believe that their dominion is destined to extend now to the Isthmus of Panama and hereafter over all the regions of the new world. Their government entertains the same ideas, and the whole course of its policy calculates upon the illusions of these flattering expectations.” 5 The ephemeral republic proclaimed by Long in 1819 and the colonization enterprises of the Austins and others in the following years confirmed the suspicions of the Mexicans. Less than a month after Minister Zozaya had landed at Baltimore, less than two weeks after his formal reception at Washington, and only two days after the banquet which President Monroe gave in his honor, he wrote his government on December 26, 1822, that he had discovered ambitious views with reference to the province of Texas. In the national Congress and in the state legislatures, he said, there was talk of enlarging the army and militia, which movement he believed had no other object than that arising out of their ambition for Texas. He declared: “In time they will be our sworn enemies, and foreseeing this we ought to treat them as such from the present day.” 6 In August of 1823 Torrens, the Mexican Chargé, wrote his government that he frequently noticed the public papers enlarging on the fine location and fertility of the territory of Texas and reminding the government that it ought not to have lost the opportunity to obtain this rich province from Spain; and one of the objections which the enemies of the secretary of state were urging against his candidacy for the presidency was that he had ceded the province to the Spaniards. In the same letter Torrens advised his government not to permit the American population to become preponderant in Texas. 7 Mexican authorities in Texas were at the same time sending alarming reports of the activities of United States military establishments near the border. As a result of these the imperial government had sent a secret emissary into Texas in the latter part of 1822 to ascertain the true intentions of the United States. 8
On October 1, 1823, Alaman, who was secretary for foreign affairs of the provisional government which had taken control after the fall of Iturbide in the spring, instructed Torrens to use all his skill and energy to have the boundary which had been established between the United States and Spain confirmed and marked out. 9 When Torrens received this instruction he asked an interview with Adams before delivering any note on the subject to learn in advance whether there would be any difficulty in carrying it out. On January 26, 1824, he wrote that he had discovered some difficulties. The time provided in the treaty for the appointment of commissioners by both governments to mark the boundary had expired. Then a proclamation of the king of Spain had declared null and void everything that had been enacted by the constitutional government which had ratified the treaty. He proposed to wait fifteen or twenty days before he handed the government a note asking its intentions. According to that explanation he would word his reply; but he would insist that the attitude of Spain had nothing now to do with the matter, and that Mexico and the United States should proceed to carry out the treaty, naming their commissioners to mark the boundary, if not by virtue of the fourth article of the Spanish treaty, then by a new convention. He was sure the government would attempt to gain some advantage by this new pretext, and would not be surprised if the troops on the frontier should be ordered to advance into Mexican territory, so unlimited was their ambition for Texas. General Jackson, to whom he had been introduced, had declared in his presence that the government ought never to have lost the opportunity to obtain it. In the same conversation Jackson had said the way to obtain a territory was to occupy it, and after having possession treat for it, as had been done in Florida. It would not be strange, Torrens said, if the coming election should result in his elevation to the presidency, in which case he would be sure to employ this method. 10
The note which Torrens presented February 15, 1824, declared that the Supreme Executive Power of Mexico wishing to remove all matters that might affect the good understanding which it desired to maintain with the United States had instructed him to ask, “that the limits between the two countries be fixed according to the third article of the treaty of Washington of the 22d of February, 1819, . . . I have therefore the honor to transmit the present communication to your Excellency in order to ascertain whether the Executive of the United States is disposed to acknowledge the said article, and will accordingly appoint the commissioners aforesaid; requesting at the same time that your Excellency may be pleased to inform me as early as convenient, of the intention of the President of the United States on the subject.” 11 A little more than a month after presenting this note Torrens wrote his government that he had received no reply. 12 Five months after its presentation he wrote that he had asked an interview with the secretary of state to learn why no reply had been sent. 13 But still no reply came. On April 15, 1824, the political chief of the Department of Texas had written the government at Mexico that he was certain “the United States was `trying to annul or at least has the idea of annulling' the treaty of 1819, and he believed the American government would then assert its claim to the banks of the Rio Grande.” Similar alarming reports from the same source followed. From various officials in Texas many letters were sent warning the government against the danger of permitting Anglo-American colonists to come in such large numbers into that territory. 14
When in the middle of 1824 Obregon was appointed minister to Washington his secret instructions, dated August 30, told him the reports of Torrens indicated that the United States had intentions on Mexican territories in the Californias, New Mexico, and Texas; and with reference to the last those intentions were general and public. Obregon was told to pay particular attention to this matter. At this time the Mexican government seems to have been uncertain whether this was or was not an opportune time to press the negotiation for a treaty of limits. In the original draft of these secret instructions in the archives of the foreign office in Mexico, there was inserted and and then erased a paragraph saying he was not to begin the negotiation for the treaty of limits till circumstances were more favorable; but if necessity should arise to say anything about the matter he was to claim the limits of the treaty of 1819. Immediately following this erased paragraph is one which completely reversed it. In that he is told that the principal object of his mission is the negotiation of a treaty of limits as early as possible and in the most advantageous terms. He was to use his best efforts to secure the acknowledgment and ratification of the pending treaty between the United States and Spain. If before such negotiation should be completed the United States or its citizens should attempt the occupation of any territory belonging to Mexico under that treaty he should formulate claims on it as a basis. He was told that great circumspection was necessary in reference to all who came from the United States since there was danger of the introduction of spies or of invaders in disguise. In carrying out his general instructions regarding the admission of colonists he was to bear in mind these secret instructions. All reports on these matters were to be in cipher. 15
Obregon's general instructions bearing the same date as his secret instructions told him that colonization was one of the most important matters then occupying the attention of the government. He was asked to call attention to the general law of August 18, 1824, on the subject, and to publish its regulations in the newspapers of the United States. All colonists from the United States, he was reminded, must bear passports and recommendations from Mexican diplomatic or consular agents in the United States. It was necessary to know the place of origin the means of support, and the character of all colonists or empresarios. Those under suspicion, vicious adventurers, or vagabonds were to be excluded. But industrious persons, especially artisans, shipbuilders, and fishermen were to be encouraged and given lands. 16
Before the time of Poinsett's appointment as minister from the United States to Mexico in March of 1825 no reply had been made to Torrens's note of more than a year earlier and no negotiation had been undertaken for the settlement of the boundary. With the new minister, Obregon, no communication had passed on the subject. In the instructions which were given to Poinsett on March 26, 1825, by Henry Clay, secretary of state under the new Adams administration, the third article of the treaty of 1819 with Spain was quoted describing the boundary line, and the fourth article providing for its demarcation was mentioned. He was told that the treaty had not yet been carried into execution, but that “having been concluded when Mexico composed a part of the dominions of Spain, it is obligatory upon both the United States and Mexico.” Torrens's note of February 15 of the preceding year is cited as indicating the willingness of Mexico to accede to that treaty. But Clay continued:
Some difficulties may possibly hereafter arise between the two countries from the line thus agreed upon, against which it would be desirable now to guard, if practicable; and as the government of Mexico may be supposed not to have any disinclination to the fixation of a new line which would prevent those difficulties, the President wishes you to sound it on that subject; and to avail yourself of a favorable disposition, if you should find it, to effect that object. The line of the Sabine approaches our great western mart nearer than could be wished. Perhaps the Mexican government may not be unwilling to establish that of the Rio Brassos de Dios, or the Rio Colorado, or the Snow Mountains, or the Rio del Norte in lieu of it. By the agreed line, portions of both the Red River and branches of the Arkansas are thrown on the Mexican side, and the navigation of both of these rivers, as well as that of the Sabine, is made common to the respective inhabitants of the two countries. When the countries adjacent to those waters shall become thickly inhabited, collisions and misunderstandings may arise from the community thus established, in the use of their navigation, which it would be well now to prevent.
As an additional motive to induce Mexico to consent to such an alteration Clay suggested that it would place the capital of Mexico nearer the center of the Mexican territories, and, further, that the troublesome Comanche Indians would be left to the United States. These arguments, if ever presented, were probably about as convincing as it would be for a large land owner to say to a neighboring small farmer, “Your house is not in the middle of your fields. Give me forty acres next to my line and you will not have to go so far to work. Besides, this field contains an ugly patch of thistles which my superior industry and intelligence will enable me to cope with more successfully than you can.” Clay showed that he was not prepared to insist on a change of the line nor to urge the matter unduly by saying, in concluding his instructions with reference to the boundary: “But if you should find that the Mexican government is unwilling to alter the agreed line in the manner proposed and that it insists upon the execution of the third and fourth articles of the treaty before mentioned, you are authorized to agree to the recognition and establishment of the line as described in the third article, and to the demarcation of it forthwith, as is stipulated in the fourth.” 17
Before Poinsett had opportunity to open negotiations respecting the boundary, in fact only two days after his formal reception by the president of Mexico, that official received an interesting sidelight on Poinsett's personal views with reference to the most desirable location of the boundary line. On June 3, 1825, a man named Azcarate who had been an official close to Iturbide wrote a letter to President Victoria saying that when Poinsett arrived at the coast of Mexico in 1822 he was received by General Santa Anna as an official envoy, and when he reached the capital he was supposed by all to have this character and was so presented to the Emperor. After the presentation Poinsett had told the writer that he desired an interview to speak of an interesting matter. At the time appointed the writer met him expecting the communication to be official. With a map before him Poinsett pointed out the line of 1819 but said he thought it was not a desirable one, and then traced a line which showed that he desired to absorb all Texas, New Mexico, and Upper California, and parts of Lower California, Sonora, Coahuila, and Nuevo Leon. Repressing his anger Azcarate replied that by virtue of the treaty of Iguala [Córdoba?] the Mexican government would always respect the Onis treaty and would never cede a handbreadth of territory. An appointment was made to continue the interview the next day.
In the meantime Azcarate saw Iturbide, explained the matter, and received authority to use his judgment in finding definitely the character of the proposals Poinsett had to make. Before entering on the discussion at the second meeting Azcarate presented his credentials and asked for Poinsett's. The latter thereupon declared that he came in no public character but merely as a traveler, and was only expressing his own personal opinion. Although it was evident that the discussion could be only an academic one, nevertheless the interview was continued and Azcarate was able, he said, to perceive five purposes which Poinsett had in mind: namely, to get possession of rich mineral lands; to gain ports on both seas for controlling the commerce between them; to get control of the fur trade with the Indians; to get control of the fisheries in the Californias; and to monopolize the coasting trade on both seas. Azcarate concluded his observations by saying that in his conception the establishment of limits was to be the apple of discord between the United States and Mexico. His desire for the happiness of the fatherland was his motive, he told Victoria, for making this communication. He said it was possible that slight errors might have crept into this account of the interview, but it was substantially true and could be verified from a report in the office of foreign relations which he delivered to Iturbide at the time without preserving a copy. 18
On July 12, 1825, about six weeks after Poinsett's reception, occurred his first conference with Alaman, the Mexican minister of foreign relations, concerning the boundary. In it he had “suggested that, although the government of the United States held itself bound to carry into effect the treaty of limits concluded with the king of Spain the 22d of February, 1819, still it would appear more becoming the independent character of this government to lay aside that treaty altogether, and to endeavor to establish a boundary which would be more easily defined, and which might be mutually more advantageous.” The secretary expressed himself much gratified by such a suggestion, and proposed that the two governments should forthwith appoint commissioners to make a reconnoissance of the country bordering on the line formerly settled with Spain, so as to obtain such information in regard to “that portion of our respective territories as would enable us to act understandingly on the subject.” Poinsett objected that such a commission would delay the negotiation at least two years since it would take nearly a year to arrange for the commission and another year to do its work and make a report. Alaman replied that his government would be very unwilling to fix the limits on the very slender information which it then possessed. 19
On the matter of the difference of opinion as to the proposed commission to examine the country near the border an exchange of formal notes occurred a few days later in which each gave at length his reasons for the position he had taken. 20 As Poinsett anticipated, the government at Washington refused to accede to the proposal for a joint commission since such was considered unnecessary and would be reversing the usual procedure, which was to decide on the principle and then send the joint commission to mark the line in accordance with the agreement. If examination were needful before deciding on the line it would be better for each government to send a separate commission. The United States had no objection to Mexico's doing so if desired; but hoped no unnecessary time would be lost in resuming the negotiation. 21
In reporting to Clay on July 27, what had passed between himself and Alaman on the subject, Poinsett said: “I find that there exists great apprehension in the minds of the people of this country that the government of the United States contemplate renewing their claim to the territory north of the Rio Bravo del Norte; and it may be of some importance to consider their great sensibility on this subject.” He added in cipher: “It appears to me that it will be important to gain time if we wish to extend our territory beyond the boundary agreed upon by the treaty of 1819. Most of the good land from the Colorado to the Sabine has been granted by the State of Texas and is rapidly peopling with either grantees or squatters from the United States, a population they will find difficult to govern, and perhaps after a short period they may not be so averse to part with that portion of their territory as they are at present.” 22 A little more than a week after sending this first report on limits Poinsett again wrote in cipher: “I feel very anxious about the boundary line between the two nations. While it will be politic not to justify their jealous fears on that subject by extravagant pretensions, I think it of the greatest importance that we should extend our territory toward the Rio del Norte either to the Colorado or at least to the Brazos. We ought to have on the frontier a hardy race of white settlers, which the climate of that region of country situated between the Mississippi and the Sabine will not admit of.” 23 Five days later another despatch to Clay, mostly in cipher, told of Alaman's declaring, in what was supposed to be a secret session of congress, that the United States ought to be regarded as enemies rather than as friends, because:
Mexico had everything to fear from our ambitions and nothing to hope from our friendship. He cited the treaty of limits with Spain as an instance of our disposition to encroach upon her territory. There are a few members of both houses disposed to view the treaty of 1819 in the same light, and it is possible if the question be left open and the discussion renewed this government may revive the absurd pretensions of Cevallos with regard to the western boundary of Louisiana. I am thus particular because I think it advisable that the President should be possessed of every circumstance that can aid him to come to a correct decision upon this subject. 24
Poinsett's suspicions that the Mexican officials were going to try to push the line further east instead of permitting the United States to push it west proved to be well founded. In an interview respecting the boundary on September 20, 1825, Alaman asked Poinsett to trace on a map the boundary between the United States and Spain as defined by the treaty of 1795. Poinsett did so and then asked why the Mexican negotiator had wished it done. The latter replied that he thought it advisable to specify the ancient boundary in the commercial treaty they were about concluding and leave it so until the new line should be agreed on in the new treaty of limits to be concluded. Poinsett then declared to Alaman that before 1819 the United States had claimed to the Rio Bravo del Norte and Spain had claimed to the Mississippi. He also asserted that the treaty of that year with Spain was binding on the Mexican States, having been concluded before their emancipation from Spain and since acknowledged by their accredited agent in the United States. It was only motives of delicacy toward Mexico that had prevented the United States from carrying that treaty into full effect. It was the same motive that had caused him to propose the conclusion of an entirely new treaty. But he would not yield one square inch of land which had been included within the limits of the United States according to that treaty. In his opinion a more advantageous line might be drawn; but such was not to be sought for east of the Sabine nor north of the Red River or the Arkansas. Finally, Poinsett asserted that he would not consent to the insertion of any such article in the commercial treaty without at the same time renewing in it the claim of the United States to all of the country north and east of the Rio Bravo del Norte. 25
In October, 1825, a radical change occurred in the Mexican ministry which displaced partisans of the centralist faction and replaced them with federalists favorable to the interests of the United States. It was thought that Poinsett had been largely instrumental in bringing about the change and it was suspected that he was using his influence to secure a treaty of limits through his friends which would extend the borders of his country at the expense of Mexico. But if he was trying to do so, as he probably was not, he was unsuccessful. One of the new ministers, writing to another on November 7, 1825, reminded him of the “memorable words of the laws of the Indies, which say, `We promise and give our honor and royal word for us and our successors, that never shall be alienated or separated in whole or in part, either its cities (of America) or inhabitants, for any cause or reason, or in favor of any person whatever. And if we or our successors should make any donation or alienation contrary to the aforesaid, it is null and such we declare it.”' According to this the whole Florida treaty was null. But in this minister's conception there was another reason why Mexico was at liberty to ignore the Florida treaty if desirous of doing so. He declared that the treaty, though approved by the Spanish cortes, did not have the “consent of the Mexican delegation, which refused to sign it.” 26
Thus within a few months after the negotiations had begun each government discovered that the other, while claiming to be willing to ratify and abide by the treaty of 1819, was really wishing to secure the extreme limits claimed by the United States on the one side and by Spain on the other before that treaty was concluded. Each had also discovered that the other was determined not to give up anything which that treaty secured to it. But each hoped something would happen to break down the determination of the other. Having thus found it impossible to come to any understanding for the time regarding the matter of limits, little of importance passed between the negotiators on the subject for more than a year.
In the meantime the influence was working which Poinsett had said would probably in time make Mexico less unwilling to part with Texas. The settlement of the territory was progressing rapidly. Obregon in Washington reported to his government that these settlements were Mexican only in name, belonging in customs and inclinations almost wholly to the United States. 27 Indians in Texas were becoming more and more troublesome as they saw their lands being so rapidly taken away from them. The minister of war notified the minister of foreign relations that officials near the border complained of the sale of arms and ammunition to the Indians by citizens of the United States. 28 On June 16, 1826, Camacho, the secretary of foreign relations, called the matter to Poinsett's attention, 29 and on June 20, Poinsett reported the complaint to Clay. 30 Steps were taken to locate a Mexican consul at Natchitoches in Louisiana to prevent the importation of arms by that route and to enforce the regulations restricting the admission of colonists. 31 In March Poinsett protested against certain grants of land which he heard had been made near the border in Texas, saying he would not consider any grant as valid which was made while negotiations were pending in case such grants should lie in territory ultimately included in the United States. 32 When in June, 1826, the negotiations for the commercial treaty were nearing conclusion the Mexican plenipotentiaries proposed an additional article declaring that the contracting parties would take into consideration as soon as possible the negotiation of a treaty of limits, and in the meantime would facilitate in any way needed the work of the commissions sent by either power to examine the country near the proposed boundary; and declaring also that unauthorized acts or settlements by the citizens of one country in territory that should fall to the other should not constitute valid claims. 33 In accepting the article Poinsett declared it was totally unnecessary because the United States considered the treaty of 1819 with Spain binding and was ready to execute it.
The undersigned was instructed, however, by his government to accede to the wishes of Mexico, if it desired to fix a new line, which might obviate some difficulties which are supposed to attend the existence of the present limits as agreed upon by the treaty aforesaid. But he was especially instructed not to insist upon changing this line contrary to the wishes of the Mexican government, but to agree to carry all the provisions of the treaty of Washington concluded between the United States of America and Spain into full effect, so far forth as relates to the boundaries of the two countries, if required to do so by the Mexican government. 34
At the end of the year 1826 an event occurred in Texas which partially fulfilled Poinsett's prophecy made a year and a half earlier. This was the well known Fredonian Revolt. It was led by Hayden Edwards, who had received from the Mexican authorities a large empresario grant in the neighborhood of Nacogdoches, which grant had subsequently been revoked because he had been unsuccessful in his indiscreet though well meant efforts to overcome difficulties that were all but insuperable. Blinded with anger and a desire for revenge and fatuously hoping the people of the other Anglo-American colonies would come to his assistance, he and a few associates formed a treaty with the Cherokee Indians, issued a declaration of independence, raised a red-and-white flag symbolizing a union between the red and white men, and drew a line dividing Texas between the two races. Austin issued a violent denunciation of the revolt; and members of his and other colonies joined the Mexican authorities to put it down. The Fredonians, unsupported and discouraged, disbanded with scarcely an attempt at resistance. 35
This independence movement, although in itself the merest fiasco, is of very great importance as marking a turning point in the relations between the two countries. It created a great sensation in both and furnished the occasion for numerous diplomatic communications. Obregon in reporting the revolt to his government said that the Americans established in Texas never ceased disturbing the tranquility of Mexico. They considered themselves a colony of their fatherland, and expected to reunite themselves to it as soon as they could. They took their slaves where the laws did not permit slavery, and in order to save their property they broke away from Mexico. In view of the character of the people on the frontier he believed that the only way to maintain peace there was to allow no more American colonizers within the limits of Mexico, to fill the territory with vigorous and respectable Mexican people, and to establish a sufficient military force there to protect them. He was satified that the United States government had nothing to do with the affair; but compared this with similar revolts that had occurred earlier at Baton Rouge and in West Florida and had been preludes to the seizure of territories there. 36
On February 16, 1827, Obregon had an interview with the secretary of state on the matter. Clay had said that the president was infinitely sorry and wished him to convey to the Mexican government the friendly sentiments of the United States. Three days later Clay addressed to Obregon a formal note declaring:
Information having reached this city of disturbances in the province of Texas, adjoining the territory of the United States, which appear to threaten the peace of the United Mexican States, I hasten by the direction of the President to express to you the very great regret which he feels on account of the existence of those disturbances. The frankness which has ever characterized the government of the United States in all its intercourse with foreign powers and the friendly feelings which it cherishes for the welfare of the Republic of the United Mexican States supersede altogether any necessity for the assurance which, nevertheless, I take pleasure in giving that the government of the United States has not given the smallest countenance or encouragement to those disturbances. The President has directed orders to be conveyed to that portion of the military force of the United States which is stationed on the Mexican frontier to give no aid or succor of any kind to those who have taken arms against or may oppose the authority of the government of the United Mexican States; and he will see the restoration of tranquillity with much satisfaction. 37
On February 21, 1827, Poinsett wrote telling the effect produced in Mexico when news reached there of the Nacogdoches revolt. In the debate in the Mexican congress members had not hesitated to express their opinion that the government of the United States “was privy to this movement, if indeed it had not encouraged it. The latter opinion is boldly avowed by the Sol, a paper extremely inimical to the interests of the United States.” The congress had appropriated five hundred thousand dollars to put down the insurrection. 38 About two weeks later Poinsett wrote that the expedition against the insurgents in Texas had started for Vera Cruz whence it would sail for Matagorda, the rendezvous. It would consist of one thousand troops and would be joined by ten thousand others from the interior provinces. “A desire was manifested to evince on this occasion great promptness and energy, so as to prevent similar attempts being made elsewhere.” In a conference which Poinsett had with President Victoria the latter had said he was satisfied the government of the United States had not encouraged the revolt; but expressed a desire that the president of the United States should give some public manifestation of his disapprobation. 39 The troops intended for Texas were assembled in Vera Cruz, and although word came of the collapse of the revolt, still they prepared to go to the Texas coast to guard against similar outbreaks. The large force of provincial troops were not to join them, however, as originally planned. But the expedition got no further than Vera Cruz. The state government endeavored to make use of them to resist the national authority; and in June the central authorities recalled them to Mexico City. 40
Although Adams and Clay in the note of February 19, quoted above, distinctly disavowed for the government any connection or sympathy with the revolt in Texas, yet they appeared ready to take advantage of the event to see if it had produced the change in sentiment at Mexico which Poinsett had predicted. Clay wrote on March 15, 1827, that the numerous and extensive grants of land by the Mexican authorities
to citizens of the United States in the province of Texas authorize the belief that but little value is placed upon the possession of that province by that government. These grants seem to have been made without any sort of equivalent, judging according to our opinions of the value of land. They have been made to, and apparently in contemplation of being settled by, citizens from the United States. These emigrants will carry with them our principles of law, liberty, and religion; and however much it might be hoped that they might be disposed to amalgamate with the ancient inhabitants of Mexico, so far as political freedom is concerned, it would be almost too much to expect that all collisions would be avoided on other subjects. Already some of these collisions have manifested themselves, and others, in the progress of time, may be anticipated with confidence. These collisions may insensibly enlist the sympathies and feelings of the two republics and lead to misunderstandings.
The fixation of a line of boundary of the United States on the side of Mexico, should be such as to secure, not merely certainty and apparent safety in the respective limits of the two countries, but the consciousness of freedom from all danger of attack on either side, and the removal of all motives for such attack. That of the Sabine brings Mexico nearer our great commercial capital than is desirable; and although we now are, and for a long time may remain, perfectly satisfied with the justice and moderation of our neighbor, still it would be better for both parties that neither should feel that he is in any condition of exposure on the remote contingency of an alteration in existing friendly sentiments.
Impressed with these views, the President has thought the present might be an auspicious period for urging a negotiation, at Mexico, to settle the boundary between the territories of the two republics. The success of the negotiation will probably be promoted by throwing into it other motives than those which strictly belong to the subject itself. If we could obtain such a boundary as we desire, the Government of the United States might be disposed to pay a reasonable pecuniary consideration. The boundary which we prefer is that which, beginning at the mouth of the Rio del Norte in the sea, shall ascend that river to the mouth of the Rio Puerco, thence ascending this river to its source, and from its source, by a line due north, to strike the Arkansas, thence following the course of the southern bank of the Arkansas to its source, in latitude 42° north, 41 and thence by that parallel of latitude to the South sea. The boundary thus described would, according to the United States Tanner's map, published in the United States, leave Santa Fé within the limits of Mexico and the whole of Red River or Rio Roxo and the Arkansas, as far up as it is probably navigable, within the limits assigned to the United States. If that boundary be unattainable, we would, as the next most desirable, agree to that of the Colorado, beginning at its mouth, in the bay of Bernardo, and ascending the river to its source, and thence by a line due north to the Arkansas, and thence, as above traced, to the South sea. This latter boundary would probably also give us the whole of the Red River, would throw us somewhat farther from Santa Fé, but it would strike the Arkansas possibly at a navigable point. To obtain the first-described boundary, the President authorizes you to offer to the Government of Mexico a sum not exceeding one million of dollars. If you find it impracticable to procure that line, you are then authorized to offer, for the above line of the Colorado, the sum of five hundred thousand dollars. If either of the above offers should be accepted, you may stipulate for the payment of the sum of money, as you may happen to agree, within any period not less than three months after the exchange at the city of Washington of the ratifications of the treaty
Then follow instructions for stipulating, in case of success, that there should be common navigation of and common jurisdiction over the boundary river; that bona fide land grants should be confirmed; that the inhabitants should be given full rights as United States citizens; and that the delivery of the territory should be simultaneous with the payment of the consideration. A copy was enclosed of Clay's note to Obregon of February 19, “in order to put you in possession of what has occurred here, and to enable you to efface any impression, should such exist at Mexico, that the United States have given countenance to the insurrection.” 42
That Adams and Clay were in hearty accord in this attempt to purchase Texas cannot be doubted. On the day preceding that on which the instruction was sent, the former entered in his diary that the latter “spoke of a draft he had some time since submitted of an instruction to Poinsett to to the Mexican Government the purchase of the province of Texas to the Rio del Norte or the Colorado. I asked him to let me see the draft again.” The next day he entered the statement that Clay “read his instruction to Poinsett to propose the purchase of Texas. I advised him to leave out the offer of ships of war, and offer only money.” 43 In his long speech, or rather series of speeches, several years later on the Texas question and the right of petition, Adams cited this instruction, but did not dwell on the motive. 44 He declared that previous to this time he had uniformly favored acquiring Texas, saying: “I had myself, in the negotiation of our treaty with Spain, labored to get the Rio del Norte as our boundary, and I adhered to the demand till Mr. Monroe and all his cabinet directed me to forego it.” 45
When Poinsett received Clay's proposal to buy Texas he wrote: “I fear the sum offered for the territory is too small. The expenses of the government are so great that they don't regard so insignificant a sum as a million as of much use to them.” 46 However he cautiously approached the Mexican government on the subject a few days later. On May 19, 1827, he wrote the secretary of foreign relations saying that the fortunate settlement of the difficulties in Texas suggested the importance of settling as early as possible and in a permanent manner the boundaries between the two countries. He added that he had been instructed by his government to call attention to this fact and say that he was fully empowered to treat on the subject. 47 Some time later he again cautiously approached the Mexican authorities on the subject, this time definitely suggesting the idea of purchase, though not in an official manner. Early in the next year he wrote Clay:
I have taken great pains to ascertain what prospect of success there would be of the Congress ratifying the treaty if I could have prevailed upon the plenipotentiaries to alter the limits in the manner suggested by you, and am convinced that the attempt would fail and only excite an unfriendly feeling. I have therefore abandoned it altogether. In a private conversation with one of the plenipotentiaries, I hinted at a remuneration in money to the Mexican government as an inducement to extend our boundary to the Rio del Norte; but he assured me it would be impossible to obtain either the consent of the government or of the Congress to such a measure, because it would be considered a dismemberment of the Mexican territory, which is prohibited by the constitution. If both governments should fix upon the Rio del Norte or any other point as the limits of the republics, the state of Texas would have no right to complain; but the general government could not sell any part of that state to us without violating the constitution and the legitimate rights of Texas. 48
Apart from these two very cautious attempts of Poinsett to open negotiations for carrying out Clay's instructions of March 15, 1827, for the purchase of Texas, nothing of importance on the subject of limits passed between the two governments from that time until the beginning of the following year. In the meantime the Mexican commission to examine the country near the proposed boundary had completed its slow preparations and started to the scene of its labors. The two years which Poinsett had said would be necessary to complete the work, if a joint commission were sent as Alaman proposed, had more than passed before the Mexican commission started from the City of Mexico. In July, 1826, Poinsett wrote that a commission had been appointed and that General Mier y Teran had been placed at its head. That gentleman had told Poinsett that he expected to start in September of the same year; but the latter supposed his departure would not take place before October. 49 It did not. Neither did it occur for more than a year later than that. On September 6, 1827, the Mexican congress appropriated fifteen thousand dollars to defray the expenses of the commission. 50 A month later Poinsett wrote Clay that the commission had still not departed because the money was not in the treasury, and he was still trying to convince the government of the uselessness of the mission till the treaty had settled the boundary. 51 But still they persisted; and the money was soon forthcoming. On November 10, 1827, the commission started from the City of Mexico. Almost four months later it arrived at Bexar, March 1, 1828, and was ready to begin its work. 52 At about this time there came into the Mexican foreign office two extensive reports tracing the history of the Louisiana-Texas boundary from a very early period in an effort to get at a historical basis for fixing the boundary. 53 These seem to have strengthened the already existing determination of the government not to yield Texas or any portion of its territory.
Although the Mexican negotiators had repeatedly insisted that it would be necessary to have the information which the Teran commission was to gather before the treaty of limits could be concluded, yet it had hardly departed before preparations were made to renew the negotiations immediately, 54 and had hardly gotten half way to the scene of its labors when a treaty was signed. When the commercial treaty which had been concluded July 10, 1826, was considered by the Mexican Chamber of Deputies early in the next year, that chamber passed a resolution declaring it would not consider that treaty further until an article should be inserted recognizing the validity of the treaty of 1819 between the United States and Spain so far as it had to do with the boundary. 55 On January 8, 1828, after Poinsett had been trying in vain to induce the Mexican government to renew the negotiation for a commercial treaty (to take the place of that mentioned above, which the legislative bodies of both governments had refused to ratify), he wrote Clay that the Mexican negotiators had insisted that Mexico was
invested with all the rights of Spain and bound by all the obligations of the mother country ... and in short declared that if I did not consent to comply with the resolution of the Chamber of Deputies it would be useless to discuss the other articles of the treaty, as it was certain that Congress would not ratify any treaty which did not contain such a provision. I withdrew my opposition; but observed that, as the treaty of navigation and commerce was for a limited period and that of limits perpetual, it would be better to make them distinct conventions, to which proposition the Mexican plenipotentiaries consented.
It was in this connection that Poinsett explained in cipher, as quoted above, his cautious hint to one of the negotiators that the United States was willing to purchase Texas. He concluded that cipher: “Believing, therefore, that any attempt to alter the former treaty of limits would prove ineffective and only excite unfriendly feelings, I shall accept the proposal of the Mexican plenipotentiaries and renew the treaty of Washington of 1819.” 56
The first conference in the negotiation of the boundary treaty had occurred on the day on which Poinsett wrote the above explanation of his reasons for abandoning Texas. After the Mexican negotiators had explained their position Poinsett replied that,
although the limits as settled by the treaty of Washington were liable to some objections and might be altered advantageously for both parties as he had before frequently explained, still if the Government of Mexico insisted upon the execution of articles three and four of that treaty he could not object to it. ... Any alteration of the treaty of Washington must depend upon the mutual consent of the present contracting parties. 57
In the second conference, which occurred on January 10, the negotiators agreed upon the preamble declaring the purpose of the treaty and the first article saying, “the two high contracting parties will proceed forthwith to carry into full effect the third and fourth articles of said treaty.” 58 The second article of this treaty is in the exact words of the third article of the treaty of 1819; and the third article of this is the same as the fourth of that. The fourth and last article of this treaty says “the ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington within the term of four months, or sooner, if possible.” On January 12, it was signed. 59
Thus after a deadlock of more than two years over the question of limits the treaty was negotiated and signed all within four days. But they who marry in haste repent at leisure. The four months designated within which ratifications should be exchanged afforded ample time in case action should be prompt; but it did not allow for much unnecessary delay, since it required approximately two months for a messenger to pass from Mexico to Washington. The conclusion of the boundary treaty had removed the obstacle to the negotiation of the treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation, which was signed almost exactly a month later. Since the two were complementary the former was held till the latter was ready. That the government at Washington might have time to consider the treaty of limits and be ready to ratify it within the time allowed Poinsett forwarded a copy of it on February 7, when he foresaw that the commercial treaty would soon be concluded. 60 On February 22 his messenger set out from the City of Mexico bearing the official signed copies of both treaties, that of limits of January 12, and that of amity and commerce of February 14, 1828. 61
In Poinsett's letter of February 7, cited above, he gave some reasons for his abandoning Texas in addition to those explained in his letter of a month earlier. He said:
This government and people have been kept purposely in a continual state of excitement upon this very delicate question. We have been represented by the agents of certain European powers as the natural enemies of Mexico; and our desire to make alterations in the treaty of limits concluded with Spain and to deprive them of a portion of their territory was constantly urged in proof of our bad faith and insatiable ambition. It became necessary, therefore, for me to use very cautious language upon this subject, and in all my conversations and notes in relation to the question of limits to endeavor, if any change were made, that it should be at the suggestion of this government, so that the honorable dealing of the United States in this respect might at all times be manifest. 62
The Adams administration was apparently fully convinced by these two letters of Poinsett that it was useless to attempt longer to obtain Texas. Neither was there any considerable opposition in the Senate. Action was as prompt as could be desired. On April 21 Clay wrote Poinsett that the latter's messenger had arrived with the treaties and that they would be immediately laid before the Senate for their advice and consent. 63 On the same day the treaty of limits was transmitted to the Senate by President Adams, 64 and referred by that body to its committee on foreign relations. 65 One week later that committee reported it back without amendment; the committee of the whole considered it at once, also without amending, and reported it to the Senate; and that body immediately proceeded by unanimous consent to consider the resolution to advise and consent to its ratification, and approved the resolution, thirty-eight yeas to three nays. 66 Two days later, April 30, 1828, Clay wrote Obregon, the Mexican minister in Washington, “I am ready to proceed in the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty at any time that may suit your convenience within the period prescribed,” reminding him that only a few days remained. 67 On May 1 Obregon acknowledged Clay's note of the day before, but expressed his regret that he did not have it in his power to effect the exchange immediately, and explained that he had not yet received the ratification by his own government. 68 There remained eleven days before the time set for exchanging the ratifications would expire.
In Mexico, on the other hand, action on the treaty was very different. Poinsett reported on April 24 that its progress had been delayed by the extreme indolence of the man who had been secretary of state. He had kept the treaty for more than two months without presenting it to congress, although Poinsett had warned him repeatedly of the prejudice to Mexican interests caused by the delay. 69 It had to be acted on by both houses of the Mexican congress. The lower house had ratified it before Poinsett wrote this letter of April 24, 70 and two days later he wrote that the Senate had ratified it. The action of congress, he said, was prompt enough but it was impossible to get it to Washington in time to exchange the ratifications before the four months' time limit should expire. 71 In spite of this the Mexican ratifications were transmitted to Obregon with instructions to effect the exchange, and that minister notified Clay on August 2, 1828, that he had just received them and was ready to effect the exchange when convenient to the United States government; but was informed that since the time limit had expired it would have to be laid before the Senate again at the next session to get its approval before the exchange could be effected. 72
Although Poinsett's advances had been very guarded and he had not really made any offer to purchase Texas, yet the fact that the United States wished and was endeavoring to do so became known, since, as Poinsett said, there were no secrets in Mexico. Greatly exaggerated reports concerning the matter reached European courts. In the middle of the year 1828, Rocafuerte, the Mexican representative in London, wrote his government that a rumor was current in diplomatic circles there to the effect that Mexico had already ceded Texas to the United States for the sum of thirty-five million pesos; and that this was the result of the scandalous intrigues of the minister of the United States at the Mexican capital. He said he could not believe it, but neither could he deny it. 73 As soon as Rocafuerte's letter reached Mexico his government instructed him to deny the rumor at once, since it was utterly without foundation. 74
In the latter part of this year 1828, a curious request for the cession of Texas reached the Mexican government from a very different source and for a very different purpose. It came from London but not from the British government. It is of small importance but of considerable interest. Robert Owen, the well known socialistic philanthropist, presented through Rocafuerte a request that the government of Mexico should cede to him the state of Coahuila and Texas as a place where he might work out his philanthropic plans for the benefit of all mankind. He proposed that it should be an entirely independent state, and that its independence should be guaranteed by Mexico, the United States and Great Britain. As the chief consideration other than the philanthropic ones which should induce Mexico to grant his request, he argued,
That it is a frontier province between the Mexican and North American republics which is now setting under such circumstances as are likely to create jealousies and irritations between citizens of these states and which most probably at some future period will terminate in a war between the two republics. This consideration alone, in the opinion of many experienced statesmen, would render it a wise measure in the Mexican republic to place this province under the new arrangements about to be proposed.
The elaboration of his plans fills eight typewritten pages. In Rocafuerte's letter transmitting the memorial he said he had told Owen there was not the slightest prospect of the government's granting the request, for, “although it is very beautiful, very plausible, and very philanthropic on paper it is unrealizable in practice.” 75
Numerous notes passed between Poinsett and the Mexican government concerning difficulties arising out of the operation of a law which had been passed in September, 1823, allowing goods intended for consumption in Texas to come in duty free for seven years. Poinsett presented complaints that officials were not allowing this privilege. Cañedo declared an erroneous interpretation had been placed on the law, that there were many frauds practiced, and that to prevent these it had been ordered that all goods should pay the duty, but that afterwards reimbursements should be made for goods proved to have been used in Texas. The privilege was still abused and merchants of Monclova complained because they no longer had the benefit of it. Poinsett argued with the Mexican officials that the lax enforcement of the law by the Mexican authorities on the coast had encouraged merchants of the United States to engage in this trade and they should not be made to suffer by the sudden withdrawal of the privilege. He attempted to have time allowed to notify shippers. But an order was issued in April, 1828, to treat as contrabandists all who attempted to land goods under the law. Poinsett informed Clay, April 23, 1828, that the Mexican government had decided to put a stop immediately to the free entry of goods for consumption by the inhabitants of Texas. 76
In the absence of treaty stipulations for the purpose there was no regular means for the recovery by the United States of absconding debtors, runaway slaves, and escaped criminals who had taken refuge in Mexican territory. Clay wrote Poinsett in January, 1828, that information had come to Washington to the effect that impediments were placed in the way of recovering such, especially in Texas. A resolution of the House of Representatives had assumed the existence of such impediments and called on the President for information regarding the matter. Obregon had declared that he knew of no such obstacles. Poinsett was instructed to make inquiries and in case he found that such existed he was to protest against them. 77 In April, 1828, Clay instructed Poinsett to ask the surrender of several persons named Hardin who were charged with having committed an atrocious murder in Tennessee and had fled to Texas. The treaties concluded and just received, he said, provided for such extradition, but since ratifications had not been exchanged it could not be demanded. On June 3 Poinsett presented the request. Expecting that there would be a long delay before the government decided what to do, he applied through a friend directly to the governor of the state of Coahuila and Texas, asking that the men be secured until the government should decide. But only three days after the request was presented Cañedo replied to Poinsett that the president had directed the governor of Coahuila and Texas to arrest and surrender the murderers. Later that governor wrote Poinsett directly that he would do so. 78
The Fredonian revolt that had collapsed so speedily early in 1827 was only the beginning of a series of disturbances in Texas during the following two years, which called for the exchange of numerous diplomatic notes. In August of 1827 Obregon wrote his government of another attack which it was reported would soon be made on Nacogdoches by a band who had set out from New Orleans under the guise of a surveying party going to mark out a grant of land that had been made in Texas, but upon reaching the border had assumed a warlike aspect and were planning the descent on Nacogdoches with the assistance of the Cherokee Indians. 79 In October of the same year he wrote that there was talk of the United States taking control of the disorderly Mexican territory south of the Red River, to prevent the Indians residing there from making attacks on citizens of the United States north of that river. Obregon advised his government to take steps to prevent this. 80 In April of 1828 Cañedo complained to Poinsett that a party of fifteen men from the United States had made an irruption into Texas and at Nacogdoches had declared themselves the advance guard of a republican army consisting of several hundred which was going to march on Bexar or Guadalupe. Poinsett replied promptly that he would submit the matter to his government and ask that measures be taken to prevent such movements. 81 Indians were causing trouble by attacking each other across the border. In July, 1828, Cañedo called Poinsett's attention to the fact that the Comanche Indians living in Mexican territory had asked permission to pursue and recover property that had been taken from them by Indians from the United States who had returned thither. The request was denied through respect for the territory of a friendly state. 82
About the middle of the year 1828 reports reached the government in Mexico that Spanish refugees in New Orleans were planning to co-operate with the Spanish authorities in Cuba in an expedition to the Texas coast. Orders were at once despatched to the governor of Coahuila and Texas to remove all Spaniards from the coast as soon as the expedition should approach; and a secret agent was sent to New Orleans to keep the government informed. That agent reported in September that there certainly had been talk of such a movement early in the year; but the schemers had neither sufficient men nor money. Their chief, José Lara, had gone to Cuba, expecting a reward for his zeal. In November the same secret agent reported a still more visionary movement. This was led by a Spanish officer who had been expelled from Mexico. He was trying to incite the poorest of his countrymen and some Mexicans of the same class to join him in a disorderly plundering raid. He assured them they could collect a hundred and fifty or two hundred men, go to Texas and proclaim the devil, if they wanted to, surprise some settlements, and get away with what they could carry. 83 These movements amounted to nothing and would not deserve serious notice in themselves; but the Mexican authorities were unduly alarmed at them and they had no little influence on the rising tide of hostility in Mexico for the United States which so deeply affected the diplomatic relations. Similar reports continued through 1828 and 1829, from agents both in New Orleans and in Texas, especially from General Teran, who was near the border as head of the boundary commission. On July 29, 1829, Bocanegra, who was then secretary of state for foreign affairs, wrote Poinsett that he was instructed by President Guerrero to communicate intelligence just received from New Orleans. It was to the effect that José Lara was enlisting men in New Orleans under a commission from the government of Havana, and that he had already sent to that government more than four hundred recruits. It was also reported that at several places along the border United States troops were being collected and drilled and supplies collected. He asked that these acts in violation of neutrality and in aid of the Spanish expedition against Mexico be prevented. 84 Two days after receiving this Poinsett made a spirited reply, declaring that the vigilant execution of the laws in the United States against foreign enlistment made incredible such things as Bocanegra said were going on in New Orleans. He ventured to suggest that Lara was doing no more than transport to Cuba Spaniards expelled from Mexico who were unable to support themselves and were willing to take advantage of the offer made by the Captain General of Cuba of refuge and support in that island. He declared also that he had no knowledge of such military preparations on the border as Bocanegra had mentioned, except from statements published in libelous papers in Mexico by enemies of the liberties of America who were striving to disturb the friendly relations between the two republics. They had no foundation in fact. He said if Spain attacked Mexico the United States would remain neutral; but would be friendly and sympathetic with Mexico. 85 In reporting to Van Buren, the secretary of state in the new Jackson administration, this correspondence with Bocanegra, Poinsett said the conduct of the Mexican government with reference to all foreign nations was ridiculous and ought only to excite our compassion. They regarded Mexico as the most favored nation on earth and thought all others were jealous of her, especially the United States. He said General Teran had never ceased to arouse the fears of the government regarding the attitude of the United States toward Texas; and frequent insinuations by Europeans of American designs on Texas confirmed these fears. He had seen a letter of June 3 from Teran, “who has always been attached to the English interests. This person assures the government in his last despatches that we are making vast preparations to attack that country and have already fifteen thousand men on the frontier.” Teran enlarged on the great size, fertility and natural resources of Texas, and the consequent reasons why Mexico should never yield possession. 86 Another note from Bocanegra on August 20 telling of more positive announcements of military preparations in the United States against Mexico elicited the next day pointed denials from Poinsett and renewed declarations of the friendly disposition of the United States for Mexico. He said he thought the agents of the government gave too easy credence to false statements. In reporting this correspondence to Van Buren Poinsett said he had declared in a conference with Bocanegra on the subject that until the treaty of amity and commerce should be ratified military movements on the frontiers must be expected. The treaty contained a provision for restraining the Indians on the border. He had said that if Mexico did not restrain her Indians from attacks on the United States side, the United States would pursue such tribes for punishment even to the gates of Mexico. In the beginning of this letter to Van Buren Poinsett explained that the Mexican Senate had addressed to Bocanegra an insolent demand for information regarding the reported activities of the United States, and Poinsett believed that body wanted to plunge the country into war with the United States hoping that would overthrow the existing state of things in Mexico. He declared, “I will not therefore suffer myself to be provoked; nor will I personally yield to their attacks, although my residence in this country has become almost insupportable.” 87
It will be recalled that it was the second of August, 1828, when Obregon was told that the ratifications of the boundary treaty of January 12, 1828, could not be exchanged till that treaty should again be acted on by the Senate of the United States at the next session, because the four months' time limit had expired. 88 This necessarily delayed the matter till the following winter. But action was not taken even then. In the middle of April of the following year Montoya, the Mexican chargé at Washington, brought the matter to the attention of the new Jackson administration by saying in a letter to Van Buren that he presumed the treaty had been presented to the Senate as had been said would be necessary, and asking whether the secretary of state was now ready to proceed with the exchange of the ratifications, explaining that the Mexican government, desirous of effecting the exchange, had invested him with full powers for the purpose. Van Buren replied that he was not fully informed as to the reasons why the preceding administration had not again submitted the treaty of limits to the Senate; but supposed it was because Mexican action on the commercial treaty was expected and it was desired to have the Senate act on the two together, and this expectation had been disappointed. It would be necessary still to submit the treaty to the Senate to be acted on again, and he promised that it should be submitted at the next session In the meantime he hoped the Mexican ratifications of the commercial treaty would arrive so the two could be submitted to the Senate together. 89 Again the exchange was delayed, this time for the most of a year. But before this time was gone the new administration had determined to try its hand at negotiating a new treaty of limits which should supersede the other and give Texas to the United States.
Early in March of 1829 in reviewing at length, for the information of the new administration, the whole of his diplomatic activities and difficulties in Mexico, Poinsett discussed very briefly the boundary negotiotions; 90 again in July he reviewed his negotiations for the treaties, tracing those for the treaty of limits to the conclusion of the pending treaty a year and a half earlier, and concluded by declaring: “I am still convinced that we never can expect to extend our boundary south of the river Sabine, without quarreling with these people, and driving them to court a more strict alliance with some European power.” 91 This renewed assertion of Poinsett's belief that it would never be possible to secure Texas peaceably did not reach the Department of State until nearly a month after the new administration had matured its project for the acquisition of Texas and despatched instructions for the purpose. It is doubtful whether it would have affected the situation, even had it arrived before the instructions were sent. The plan seems to have developed slowly. Nearly six months of Jackson's term was gone before it took shape. The earliest documentary evidence of the growth of the plan which is preserved in the correspondence of Van Buren is a report of Anthony Butler. It is not dated but seems to have been presented about August 11, 1829, since a letter from Jackson of the following day says, “I am pleased with the document you sent me respecting Texas, and will be happy to see you and Col. Butler whenever it may suit your convenience.” That this was not the origin of the project is evident from Butler's opening his report with the statement, “In negotiating for Texas a variety of considerations present themselves,” and his reference later to the “anticipated negotiation.” He discusses at considerable length the soil, climate, resources, and water ways of Texas and the value of the province to the United States. “The considerations which present themselves” he discusses under seven heads. In Van Buren's instructions he embodied nearly every suggestion which Butler here makes. In addition to his arguments Butler adds a gentle appeal to personal ambition by suggesting that the people of the south and west are so vitally interested in the matter “as to secure for that man who may accomplish the recovery of Texas their thanks, their confidence, and their gratitude,” which, he adds, is likely hereafter to amount to something more than complimentary toasts or newspaper eulogisms. Jackson's letter referred to above shows that they had been studying with some care Poinsett's explanations of the reasons why the offer to purchase Texas in 1827 had failed, for he says that the constitutional question can be solved; two million added to the one million offered will amend the Mexican constitution. Another document which seems to have had a marked influence in shaping the final instructions is an unsigned and undated “Project for the acquisition of [the] province of Texas” which sets forth the motive for the negotiation by saying, “To counteract the evils growing out of the surrender of that part of Louisiana west of the Sabine and east of the Rio del Norte or Grand River, it is proposed to open a negotiation for the retrocession of the same to the United States.” It gives several suggestions as to how Poinsett might approach the Mexican government and says the present threatened invasion of Mexico by Spain and the deranged condition of the finances “makes the time a very propitious one for the ascertainment of her views in regard to this territory as Mr. P. can give his enquiries the character of individual solicitude for her welfare and a desire to relieve her embarrassments rather than turn them to the advantage of his own country.” On August 13 Jackson made a rough outline draft of the instructions to be given to Poinsett. With these various documents as a basis Van Buren prepared first a rough outline draft and then the complete instructions which were dated August 25, 1829. 92
These instructions begin by saying: “It is the wish of the President that you should, without delay, open a negotiation with the Mexican government for the purchase of so much of the province of Texas as is hereinafter described, or for such a part thereof as they can be induced to cede to us.” The President was convinced of the necessity of the proposed acquisition in order to guard the western frontier, protect New Orleans, and secure the undisturbed possession of the valley of the Mississippi River with all its tributaries. “The boundary at present assumed by Mexico is deemed objectionable” for various reasons which he sets forth. There was some uncertainty as to which of two streams emptying into Sabine Bay was the true Sabine River. Whichever it should be, that river was navigable only by small vessels and never would sustain sufficient commerce to warrant the maintenance there of custom houses, without which it would be “impossible to prevent that frontier from becoming the seat of an extensive system of smuggling.” The lands east of the Sabine were poor and occupied by persons of an objectionable character who would continue to create incessant difficulties and broils which would foster and influence the “spirit of jealousy to which our neighbors are already too much inclined.” His enumeration of the reasons which ought to induce Mexico to be willing to make the cession he begins by saying: “Nothing would be more adverse to the feelings of the President than to give that government reason to believe that he is capable of taking advantage of their necessities to obtain from them any portion of the Mexican territory, the cession of which would impair the true interests or commit the honor of that country.” He then argues:
The comparatively small value of the territory in question to Mexico; its remote and disconnected situation; the unsettled condition of her affairs; the depressed and languishing state of her finances; and the still, and at this moment particularly, threatening attitude of Spain all combine to point out and recommend to Mexico the policy of parting with a portion of her territory of very limited and contingent benefit to supply herself with the means of defending the residue with the better prospect of success and with less onerous burdens to her citizens. It is for the federal government of Mexico, if they approve of the policy of doing so, to judge of their constitutional power to make the cession. It is believed that no doubt could exist on that account if the consent of the state of Coahuila were obtained; and if the view we take of the true interests of the republic of Mexico are not founded in error, it is supposed that such consent would not be withheld.
An argument which Poinsett was to use his judgment in suggesting was that the internal disturbances and revolutions of Mexico rendered a dissolution of the republic possible; and it was generally conceded that in such event Texas would be the first to strike a blow for independence, the example of which would endanger the unity of the rest. The aggressive character of the settlers on the United States side of the border; the settlement of adventurous persons in the prohibited zone on the Mexican side; and the lack of harmony between the non-Spanish settlers in Texas and the government were all causes of discord and heartburnings between the two governments that should be removed if possible. The Comanche Indians in Texas were very troublesome to the settlements and occasioned great expense to the Mexican government to maintain garrisons there. Other tribes were moving into the region and increasing the trouble.
The territory of which the cession was desired by the United States was described as all lying east of a line drawn through the center of the desert or Grand Prairie between the Nueces and the Rio Grande “north to the mountains dividing the waters of the Rio Grande del Norte from those that run eastward to the Gulf, and until it strikes our present boundary at the forty-second degree of north latitude.” If he found that the Mexican government objected to this line because it contained the large Mexican settlements of San Antonio de Bexar and La Bahia, but still found that government disposed to part with any portion of the territory in question then he was authorized to accept any of three other lines, regarding those farthest west as most desirable. The second should begin at the mouth of the La Vaca, ascend the left bank of that stream to its head, then due north to the Colorado, up the west bank of that river to its head, and “thence by the most direct course that will intersect our line at the forty-second degree of north latitude and include the head waters of the Arkansas and Red Rivers.” The third line was to commence at the mouth of the Colorado and follow its west bank all the way and thence as described in the second. The fourth was to follow the west bank of the Brazos from its mouth to its source and thence to the fortysecond degree as the two previous. Poinsett was authorized to make such alterations in these lines as should appear to him clearly beneficial.
The line proposed as the one most desirable to us would constitute a natural separation of the resources of the two nations. It is the center of a country uninhabitable on the Gulf; and on the mountains so difficult of access and so poor as to furnish no inducement for a land intercourse; and of course no theater for those differences that are almost inseparable from a neighborhood of commercial interests. It corresponds with the habitual feelings of the people of Mexico and with the avowed policy of the Mexican government by causing a wide separation and difficulties of intercourse between the inhabitants of the two countries, and by preventing those excitements and bickerings invariably produced by the contiguous operation of conflicting laws, habits, and interests.
The price to be offered for Texas Van Buren introduces by saying,
The President does not desire the proposed cession without rendering a just and fair equivalent for it. He therefore authorizes you to offer to the Mexican government for a cession according to the first-mentioned boundary a sum not exceeding four millions of dollars; and so strong are his convictions of its great value to the United States that he will not object if you should find it indispensably necessary to go as high as five millions.
For each of the other lines Poinsett was authorized to decide upon and offer what he considered a proportionate amount of the purchase price. It would be preferable to make the payments in three or four equal annual installments; but if necessary the whole sum could be paid within four months after the exchange of ratifications and delivery of the possession of the ceded territory. In case of success other details were provided for, such as rights of navigation and jurisdiction, validity of land grants, and the extension of personal and political rights to the inhabitants of the ceded territory. 93
Anthony Butler, the author of the report mentioned above as one of the principal bases of the instructions to purchase Texas, was selected by the administration to bear the letter to Poinsett. When in the middle of October of this year 1829 Poinsett was recalled at the request of the Mexican government, Butler, already on the ground, was appointed to represent the United States at Mexico, with the rank of chargé. On October 17 Jackson signed the letter investing Butler with full power to conduct the negotiation for Texas. The instructions of August 25, which he had borne to Poinsett, were to be his guide. 94
Poinsett, convinced of the uselessness of attempting to acquire Texas, and felling that his influence with the government was gone, appears to have refrained from even suggesting the new project. But the fact that the United States was ready to make a proposition for the purchase of Texas became public shortly after Poinsett's departure. On January 9, 1830, a paragraph appeared in the newspaper called El Sol declaring that,
A few days before the departure of Mr. Poinsett from this capital, the American Colonel Butler arrived here, commissioned, as it is said, by the government of Washington, to negotiate with ours for the cession of the province of Texas for the sum of five millions of dollars. As we are not informed that, so far, the colonel has made any overtures on the subject, we presume that he does the new administration the justice to suppose it incapable of lending itself to a transaction as prejudicial and degrading to the republic as it would be disgraceful to the minister who would subscribe to it.
Butler was mystified at being so quickly found out. He wrote Van Buren the next day that the paragraph was “a very remarkable one. You perceive that they undertake not only to assert that the object of my mission is the purchase of Texas, but they also state a price to be paid for the cession! I have not time to say much on this matter at present, but I will endeavor to unravel the mystery hereafter.” 95 In the weeks preceding and following this a multitude of violently anti-American newspaper articles and pamphlets issued from the Mexican press, voicing the suspicion generally felt that the United States was attempting to dismember the Mexican republic. As evidence of the desire of the government and people of the United States for Mexican territory they unfortunately were able to cite the numerous articles which had been appearing in the administration newspapers in the United States dwelling on the value of Texas, and the desirability of its acquisition. 96
Finally the administration at Washington came to the conclusion that it was unwise, for the time being at least, to endeavor to make the purchase; and Van Buren wrote Butler April 1, 1830:
The unsettled state of affairs in Mexico, and the excitement growing out of it, to which reference has already been several times made in the course of this communication, have induced an apprehension on the part of the President that the present is not an auspicious moment for the successful opening of the negotiations which form the object of the instructions from this department of the 25th August, 1829. To watch the state of the public mind, the opinions of the principal members of the government, and hear what is said on all sides, is all that is, for the present, expected from your agency in the matter. In doing this the greatest caution and circumspection is enjoined upon you; and the exercise of the most guarded discretion will be necessary on your part not to commit yourself or your government upon any point connected with the subject. You will, also, in informing this department of the result of your observations and reflections, adopt every measure which prudence will suggest to insure the safety of your communications. If, however, an opportunity should present itself to carry into effect the wishes of your government, in this respect, you will not fail to embrace it upon the principles and according to the instructions already given to you. 97
As stated in the opening lines it is the purpose of this article to trace the relations between Mexico and the United States respecting Texas and the boundary only through the year 1829. The instruction of April 1 of the following year is introduced to show that the Jackson administration virtually withdrew the offer of the preceding August. In the hands of most diplomatic agents this instruction, taken together with the state of public opinion in Mexico, would have ended completely all effort to obtain the cession of Texas. But it was not so with Butler. He interpreted the last sentence quoted as leaving the matter entirely to his discretion. On receiving the letter he replied: I am glad that you adopt the opinion that the present time is inauspicious for the commencement of the negotiation for Texas, and have placed under my discretion the period and the manner of opening that subject. That discretion shall be exercised with all proper caution, and my judgment taxed to the extent of its powers for securing success. 98
During the six years of his residence he never abandoned the project, showing in his correspondence with the officials of the government in Washington an unblushing readiness to resort to bribery and trickery when he found that legitimate diplomatic effort would not accomplish his purpose. 99 To show the ultimate failure of all negotiations respecting the boundary up to this date, the subsequent fate of the treaty of limits pending at this time should be briefly traced. It will be recalled that it was concluded January 12, 1828, and that owing to delay on the part of Mexico the exchange of ratifications was not effected within the stipulated time limit of four months. On April 5, 1831, an additional article was concluded renewing the treaty and extending the time for exchanging the ratifications one year from that date. 100 On April 5. 1832, the last day allowed, the ratifications were exchanged. This time the Mexican government acted nearly three months before the expiration of the time; but the United States delayed until the last day, the Mexican representative having declared two days earlier that his government had instructed him not to exchange the ratifications of the commercial treaty unless those of the treaty of limits could be exchanged at the same time, and the United States Senate having advised and consented to its ratification on the day preceding the exchange. 101 The one year provided in article three within which commissioners should meet to begin marking the line expired without Mexico's acting, though the United States had been prompt enough this time, 102 and on April 3, 1835, a second additional article was agreed to, which provided that the commissioners should be appointed within one year from the exchange of the ratifications of this second additional article. But the ratifications of this article were not exchanged till April 20, 1836, 103 when Texas had wrested her independence from Mexico by force of arms. The commissioners never met.
With the attempts of the Mexican government in September, 1829, and April, 1830, to stop immigration into Texas from the United States the relations between Texas and Mexico and the relations between Mexico and the United States respecting Texas enter a new phase. This has been and is being treated sufficiently fully by students of the Texas Revolution, the Texas national period, and the annexation of Texas to the United States.
On September 28, 1785, in Christ Church, Philadelphia, Moses Austin of Durham, Connecticut, was married to Miss Maria Brown of Morris county, New Jersey, a descendant of Robert Turner, one of the distinguished founders of Pennsylvania. Moses Austin became a prosperous merchant, being at one time a member of the importing firm of Stephen Austin and Company of Philadelphia. Later a branch concern was established at Richmond, Virginia. From Richmond the father emigrated to Wythe county, in south-western Virginia. Here on November 3, 1793, was born Stephen F. Austin, the greatest of Texas empresarios. The son of the Connecticut Yankee and of the descendant of Pennsylvania Quakers was, in later years, to lead a colony of Anglo-Americans into one of the provinces of Mexico which, in the course of time, was to throw off the control of the Spaniard and, as an independent republic, seek admission into the family of states of the American Union. But the Austin family did not long remain in their new home. The father was a man of keen business instincts and of bold enterprise. Bitten with the spirit of the pioneer, his eyes turned to the West and his thoughts traveled across the great Appalachian mountain system to the plains beyond the Father of Waters, where rumor said great lead mines lay buried, ready to yield their treasures to him who would risk the dangers of a western wilderness in their exploitation. So turning his back upon his Virginia home, the father, accompanied by wife and son, made the perilous and tiresome trip to what is now Missouri. Moses Austin's Journal remains, a vivid narrative of this journey. 104 This was in 1798 when the young Stephen was but five years of age. Here in what is now Washington county, the father began to develop “Mine-a-Burton.” Business reverses came and Moses Austin soon found himself a ruined man financially. A man of less courage and perseverance would have given up the struggle, and either settled down as a colonist in what was then a portion of “Upper Louisiana,” or else in all probability have returned to the scene of his former enterprises. “Mine-a-Burton” would have been remembered only for the same reason as are remembered the stories of those hidden treasures which in more fantastic guise, had centuries before lured the Spaniard across the trackless wastes of arid plains, only to melt away at his approach. But disappointment and disaster only served to bring out in fuller measure the zeal and fortitude of the man. Nothing daunted by the difficulties which beset him, and sustained ever by the devotion of his faithful wife, Austin now conceived the idea of planting a colony in Texas. Far to the southwest lay the land of the Tejas,—a land of historic memories.
The region watered by the Brazos, the Colorado, and the Guadalupe, had been traversed by some of the greatest explorers that ever set foot upon the western continent. Across the plains that stretched between the Sabine and the Rio Grande del Norte wandered Cabeza de Vaca and his companions on one of the most marvelous expeditions that history has ever recorded. In his quest of the Seven Cities of Cibola, Coronado penetrated the northern portion of the province, braving the dangers of famine, of wild beasts, and of hostile Indians on his fruitless errand. The group of ruins of the missions established in and near San Antonio and at San Saba are a silent though none the less impressive tribute to the courage and devotion of the missionaries of the cross. Among the wild Indian tribes of the east and the west labored the gray friars, teaching, preaching, and catechising, striving to win from the powers of darkness the rude denizens of the wilderness. The hearts of these devoted monks must often have sunk within them as they realized the scant success which attended their efforts to instil the holy mysteries of the Catholic faith into the minds of the fierce Apaches and Comanches. Yet they would have been recreant to their trust and unworthy of the best traditions of their order had their spirits quailed at the dark prospects which confronted them. Had not disciples of the true faith planted the cross among the savage tribes which roamed over the frozen regions of the north? Members of their own great order had celebrated mass and chanted the Te Deum on the shores of Lake Huron in the presence of the astonished savages and of the greatest of French explorers. The dearest ambition of his heart had been to erect a spiritual kingdom within the bounds of New France and to rescue from perdition a people living, as he tells us, “like brute beasts, without faith, without law, without religion, without God.” 105 To snatch from perdition the souls of those benighted creatures who inhabited the southwestern fringe of the North American continent would only be adding one more achievement to the splendid role of victories which had marked the progress of their order's growth. Already Franciscan convents by the hundred had been planted in Spanish America. Providence had bestowed its choicest gifts upon the region which invited them to come and undertake the conversion of its heathen dwellers. In the same spirit in which the Recollets had labored among the Hurons and the Montagnais of New France, would the Querétarans and Zacatecans strive to reclaim from paganism and savagery the roving tribes that dwelt to the east of the Rio Grande. The country which made up the provincias internas of Spain's possessions beyond the Rio Grande stood out in striking contrast to the land of ice and snow, of lakes and forests, amid which toiled the missionaries who had followed the routes of Champlain. This land of mesquite and cactus had been traversed by Hernando de Soto, who in all probability, penetrated the region south of the Red River. Not far from the coast on the banks of the Lavaca, La Salle had built Fort St. Louis, while in the neighborhood of the Trinity, the great explorer met his tragic end. These intrepid explorers were the embodiment of the romantic spirit of adventure. But the Spanish priests were as eager for the conversion of the natives as were the explorers for the discovery of gold or the South Sea. The land had witnessed the intrigues of Louis Juchereau de Saint-Denis. It had been the objective of the filibustering expeditions of Nolan, Magee, and Long, and had no doubt figured in the dark schemes of Wilkinson and the conspiracy of Aaron Burr.
This was the region in which Moses Austin determined to plant a colony of Anglo-Americans. The time seemed ripe for such an enterprise. But the hardships incurred in the inception of the undertaking cost him his life. Upon his son Stephen fell the responsibility of carrying out the wishes of the father. How well the son accomplished the task is a matter of history. The first steps were taken in 1821. Years passed by. In 1835 the settlers of the province found themselves driven to take up arms against the despotic measures of Santa Anna. The news of the rebellion then going on in Texas traveled far and wide, and from every section of the United States volunteers rushed to Texas, eager to have a hand in the defense of the province. 106
It is hardly a matter of surprise that the citizens of the great state whose beginnings were undertaken so largely on account of a belief in the principles of religious liberty should have had their hearts stirred at the news of the dangers threatening their fellow-countrymen at the hands of those aliens in race and religion.
In April, 1836, letters appeared in the leading papers of Philadelphia calling upon the citizens of that city to send the Texans such aid as they might be inclined and to bear the expenses of a company of fifty men which, it was said, was then forming for the purpose of going to Texas. 107 The call did not fall upon deaf ears. Public meetings were held, resolutions offering sympathy and aid were drawn up, money was subscribed, and volunteers were enrolled. All this it little short of remarkable when one recalls how great the distances were which, at this time, separated the people of Pennsylvania from the settlers in Texas. The only hypothesis upon which their interest can be explained is that in the eyes of the citizens of the northern state, the colonists who had emigrated beyond the Sabine were justified in taking up arms to redress the wrongs with which they saw themselves threatened.
Among those who took part in the ill-fated Tampico expedition and who were shot at Tampico on Monday, December 14, 1835, were three Pennsylvanians: Arthur H. Clement, aged forty; Thomas Whitaker, aged thirty; Charles Gross, aged twenty-three. A young man of twenty-five from Pittsburgh by the name of Fleming died in the hospital. 108 The Philadelphia papers of April 11, 1836, contained the news of the fall of the Alamo. Several Pennsylvanians perished at that time. The roll of honor is as follows: Capt. F. J. Desauque of Philadelphia, who had been the bearer of an express from General Houston and who, with Capt. Benj. H. Holland and an ensign, bore a flag of truce to General Urrea; John Thurston, who is said to have been a clerk in Desauque's store; William Cummings; William Johnson, of Philadelphia; Williamson, a serjeant major from the same city; and Browne, Holloway, Smith and Voluntine. 109
One of the most noted companies that saw service in the Texan cause was the New Orleans Greys, which embarked from that city in October of 1835 on the schooner Columbus. The members reported for duty November 22, having landed at Velasco and Quintana, and marched some two hundred and fifty miles to San Antonio. Many of those comprising this company were murdered with Colonel Fannin four months later. Among the Pennsylvanians who, as members of the above company, comprised a part of Colonel Fannin's command occur the names of George W. Gilland, Joseph P. Riddle, and James West. 110 On that fatal Palm Sunday, March 19, 1836, when so many of the volunteers from the United States fell victims to Mexican treachery, more than one native of Pennsylvania were among the slain.
Among these were Gilland, Riddle, and West, already mentioned. George Dedrick was a private in the cavalry corps of which Mirabeau B. Lamar was commander. He had emigrated from Philadelphia in 1835, taking part in the Tampico expedition. His object in going to Texas, he writes his wife, was “to Volenteer in ade of the Caus of Libertey” and again, “My object of Goin on this Exposishen was for you my Self and Son and all my famaley hearafter.” After giving an account of what he expected to receive in the way of land, he concludes,
My Love one word to you and my Son. You must do the best you posable Can. wen I Receve my half yearley pay from the Goverment I will Send You Som Money. Should eney thing befal me you can Sell your Clame to Reckoley but, I shall Live I trust to injoy the frutes of my Labor with my beloved famaley bring up Charles in obedance to your Comands. I Shall be home in time to See him go to chool [school] and Lurn [learn] him to Repeate what his father has done for him. My Respects to all— To you and my Son Receve my Lasting affection. Right wen you receve this letter. Right to me Direct Goliad Texes in the care of Leftenant Thornton. 111
Three weeks had barely passed when husband and father met a fate similar to that of many another brave man who had left home and loved ones and gone to Texas in the hope of bettering his worldly fortunes. Other Pennsylvanians who fell at the time of Fannin's massacre were Lieutenant Evan M. Thomas, of Philadelphia, a member of the Texas Rifle Brigade; Captain T. K. Pearson of the artillery, from the same city; and Stephen D. Hurst, likewise from Philadelphia, who was aid to Colonel Fannin, and held a colonel's command. He was formerly a clerk in the postoffice of his native city and is described as a young man of amiable disposition, courteous deportment, and warm attachments, and withal a gallant soldier. 112
On April 14, 1836, R. Jenks Markham of Philadelphia, and George Copeland, aged sixteen, of the same place, were shot at Matamoras. Of these the latter had served with Grant and Johnson in the campaign of 1836. Lewis H. Kerr, aged thirty-three, and P. S. Mahan, aged twenty-two, are said to have been confined at this same place. 113 The following Pennsylvanians are said to have rendered service in behalf of the Texan cause: Lyman W. Alexander and William Langerheirmer, in connection with the storming of San Antonio; George H. Bringhurst, who was captured at Cópano; George Ewing, who took part in the Grass Fight; J. Barnhart, who served in Captain Burrow's company; P. H. McBride, who was a member of Captain Stephenson's company; John Duncan, William P. Kerr, John Leman, and Thomas Martin, all of whom took part in the campaign of 1836. Giles A. Gidding is said to have been mortally wounded at San Jacinto. 114
From the Muster Rolls we learn that these Pennsylvanians were enrolled for service in Texas: Robert Musselman, John Scott, Robert Crasson, Samuel Sprague, W. J. Lewis, John B. Westbrook, John T. Smith, and one McNally. 115 In Captain Laurence's company were enrolled at Louisville David Sample, Francis A. Whiaker (Whitaker?), George W. Hensal; at New Orleans, Jacob Elliott and Robert Hutchisson; at Portland, Solomon Barrows and Charles N. Cranes: all for the duration of the war. In Captain Allen's company for a similar perior there were enrolled at Louisville, John Moyer, Robert Neil, and J. D. Schooll; at Cincinnati, Foster Servers, William Peters, and Michael Myres; at New Orleans, W. D. Brown; at Portland, R. D. Ramsay. The Zanesville Volunteer Rifle Company contained three Pennsylvanians. 116
On Monday afternoon, May 30, a meeting of Texan sympathizers was held at Military Hall, on Library Street. At the meeting it was resolved to form a company to emigrate to Texas under Colonel Britton Evans and join the army of Houston. 117 In the United States Gazette for June 3 appeared a notice signed by J. D. Wood and Adolphus A. Rutter for the Texas Emigration Company of Philadelphia inviting prospective emigrants to assemble at the Jefferson House Dock between Front and Second Streets. On Saturday the 16th of July, a vessel left New Castle with between fifty and sixty volunteers bound for Texas. 118 Some of these were no doubt Pennsylvanians. A dispatch from Bermuda, dated August 2, 1836, stated that the American schooner, General De Kalb, one Matthews, master, had put into port for food and water. The vessel had been out ten days from Philadelphia and was bound for New Orleans. She carried between forty and fifty volunteers comprising privates and officers under the command of Captain Ramsay for the Texan army. These were described as being somewhat “pugnacious in disposition.” 119 A company of volunteers from Washington, Pennsylvania, is said to have arrived at New Orleans under Colonel A. Thruston about the middle of November. 120 It was not only upon the field of battle that Pennsylvanians rendered the republic of Texas service. S. Rhoads Fisher, first secretary of the Texan navy, was a Pennsylvanian and one of the first two members of Congress from Texas. 121
The numerous meetings which were held in Philadelphia by Texan sympathizers during the spring and summer of 1836 are an indication of the deep interest felt by the citizens of that city in the stirring events that were happening in the region beyond the Sabine. Two days before the battle of San Jacinto a meeting in favor of Texas was advertised in the city papers. This meeting was held at the Tontine and was attended by such a crowd that many could not gain admittance. A committee of arrangements was announced, the committee being composed of thirty-nine citizens. 122 On Monday afteronon, May 2, a large and enthusiastic meeting of Texan sympathizers was held at the District Court House. Major Peter Fritz presided, the meeting being addressed by the three Texan commissioners to the United States, Austin, Archer, and Wharton. Addresses were also made by D. P. Brown, Robert Conrad, C. Naylor, and Willis Hall, a member of the Texas committee in New York City. Resolutions were drawn up and adopted. These resolutions declared that the usurpations of Santa Anna were full justification for resistance; abhorrence was expressed for the manner in which the Mexicans had conducted the war; admiration was evinced for the patriots of Texas; it was the duty of every lover of liberty to contribute as much as he could to sustain Texas; Congress should be memorialized as to the affairs of Texas; the meeting called upon the President to intervene, if possible, and finally a committee was appointed to solicit funds. 123 The papers which published accounts of this meeting contained the following notice: “Texas Committee—The Committee will meet at the Bolivar House this evening at 7½ o'clock, on special business. Punctual attendance is respectfully requested.” Daily meetings of this committee continued to be held at the Independence Hotel on Chestnut Street, opposite the State House. Stuart Newell, the secretary, further manifested his concern in the Texan cause by advertising for sale eight hundred acres of land in Luzerne county, one-half of the proceeds of the sale of the said land to be appropriated to the aid of the Texans. 124 He found it necessary to warn Philadelphians against paying money to unauthorized persons, who had collected some thirty or forty dollars from Texas sympathizers. 125 This executive committee continued to meet frequently until the close of the summer. Its membership was increased in numbers to forty-five. At a meeting held on Thursday, May 19, Major Peter Fritz was elected treasurer. Persons were appointed by the committee as legal collectors in the city districts. It was resolved that the funds so raised should not go toward the expenses of any self-appointed command of volunteers that was being formed at the time. 126 The United States Gazette of June 9 contains reference to an “Original Texas Committee” which was scheduled to meet at David Paul Brown's office at the southwest corner of Chestnut and Seventeenth Streets on that evening. 127 Later in the month we find the Texas executive committee meeting on Tuesday and Friday evenings. The name of William White, Jr., occurs as secretary. 128 A meeting held on Thursday evening, August 18, appointed collectors to solicit contributions and recommended that the residents of towns and villages hold meetings for the purpose of arousing interest in the cause of Texas. 129
A public meeting of citizens of Philadelphia was scheduled for the evening of May 17 at the house of D. Newman, who lived on Eighth Street above Willow. 130 No account of this meeting was published. Shortly afterward a large meeting of Texan sympathizers was held at the same place. The meeting is said to have been eloquently addressed by Charles Naylor and others. Resolutions were adopted declaring the intention of those present to unite with their fellow citizens in aid of Texas; abhorrence was expressed for the practices of Santa Anna; the citizens of the city and county were earnestly recommended to adopt speedy measures relative to the oppressed Texans; the independence of Texas should be recognized at once by the United States; the claims of Mexico for neutrality had been forfeited by the outrages of Santa Anna. 131 For the purpose of securing emigrants for Texas a general meeting was held at Military Hall on the evening of May 30. The assemblage is said to have been feelingly addressed by Colonel Britton Evans. A committee of five was designated for the purpose of conferring with the general executive committee of the city. As usual, a series of resolutions were adopted. These expressed the determination of those present to embark under Colonel Evans and offer their services to Houston; to wear the badge of mourning on their left arm for the Texan martyrs of liberty; to appeal for help for the general Texas committee; and finally as friends of religious and civil liberty the members declared their readiness to sacrifice all for the Texan cause. 132 In the following July a call was issued for another public meeting to be held on the evening of the 18th for the purpose of devising means for helping the suffering women and children of Texas. The funds collected were not to be used for furthering the action of the Texan government nor to aid in establishing the political independence of the colonists. The meeting was well attended. The mayor acted as president, assisted by David Paul Brown and N. C. Foster as vice-presidents. The meeting was eloquently addressed by Samuel Brashears and Mr. Brown. A set of resolutions for carrying into effect the object of the meeting was unanimously adopted. 133 A few days later a call was issued for another Texas meeting. The call was signed by John Swift, president, George M. Dallas, Joseph R. Chandler, David Paul Brown, and N. C. Foster, vice-presidents, and Francis H. Stout, Stewart Newell, secretaries. Suitable accommodations, it was said, would be provided for ladies. In consequence “a very numerous and highly respectable meeting” was held at Masonic Hall on Tuesday evening, July 26. A series of resolutions introduced by D. P. Brown expressed deep sympathy for those engaged in a glorious struggle for Texan liberty; the members exulted in the triumphs, and suffered in the sufferings of their brethren in Texas; an urgent call was mode for money for the aid of the suffering women and children of that community. A committee of twenty-five was designated to secure contributions from citizens generally for this cause. 134 Another meeting of the friends of Texas was held in the County Court room on the evening of August 8. Colonel Charles K. Servoss was chosen president, Captain Theodore Gillies, John Jordan, Miles N. Carpenter, vice-presidents, and Stewart Newell and James Henry Carr, secretaries. The preamble and resolutions adopted by the meeting dealt with the Texan struggle in no equivocal fashion. Sympathy was expressed for the Texans, who were declared to be struggling for that freedom for which the fathers of '76 had died. The members pledged themselves to use every possible means to assist the Texans to obtain religious and political liberty. This was declared to be no violation of the law of nations nor of the treaty with Mexico. “We highly approve of the votes given in Congress in favor of the recognition of the independence of Texas, and, in our opinion, [it] should be a cause of great satisfaction [to Congressmen] in their good old age, that they had shown their approbation of the cause of Texas.” “That we highly approve of the recognition of Texas, and the President would gild his latter days' declining sun with additional lustre by using speedily the authority vested in him by the Congress of 1835-6.” The exertions making in various parts of the country to raise men and money for Texas were endorsed. Finally, it was resolved to appoint a committee of two persons from each block and a suitable number in the county to solicit subscriptions to aid “our brethren in Texas. 135
A “numerous and highly respectable adjourned meeting” of the friends of Texas followed on Thursday evening, August 11. As was the case in former meetings a preamble and resolutions drawn up by Newell, one of the secretaries, were adopted. One of these resolutions declared the occupation of a part of Texas by the troops of General Gaines a wise and just policy, savoring much more of humanity than of war. The President and Secretary of War would receive the approbation of all friends of liberty and good order by ordering such a possession of Texas. A brief and eloquent address was made by Mr. Moffatt. He was followed by Dr. A. C. Draper, who, “in a bold and glowing manner depicted the sufferings of the Texans in a strain of sublime and touching pathos.” Then Mr. William Maurese of New York craved the indulgence of the meeting; his first attempt at public speaking called forth repeated bursts of applause. An executive committee was empowered to appoint ward committees to solicit funds. 136 From the number and enthusiasm of the meetings held by citizens of Philadelphia, it is seen that interest in the Texan cause was much greater than that manifested in some other states, such as Virginia, for instance,— a fact which shows how completely non-sectional was the Texan question at this time. The people of New York and of Philadelphia were just as eager for the independence of Texas as were those of Louisville or of New Orleans. A memorial from sundry individuals of Philadelphia praying the interposition of the United States in the cause of Texas was read in the Senate May 9. 137 Mr. Buchanan, on May 16, presented thirteen memorials from citizens of Philadelphia, praying for the acknowledgment of the independence of Texas. 138 On May 30, James Harper, of Pennsylvania, moved to suspend the rules of the House in order that he might present a petition from the citizens of Philadelphia for the recognition of the independence of Texas. 139 It is a significant fact that from the legislature of Connecticut, and from the citizens of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia came memorials urging Congress to recognize the independence of Texas; while citizens of Mississippi, Louisiana, and South Carolina protested against such a course. But formal meetings, resolutions of sympathy, and the soliciting of funds were not the only means resorted to by the friends of Texas for aiding that community.
On May 17, 1836, the following notice appeared in the National Gazette: “Managers of the Texian Ball will hold an adjourned Meeting at the Marshall House, on Wednesday evening, 18th inst. at 8 o'clock. Punctual attendance is particularly requested.” At the instance of the Texas Committee, which has been alluded to above, Mr. Francis C. Wemyss tendered the use of his theatre on Walnut Street for a Texas benefit on the evening of May 25. On this occasion Othello was presented by local talent. Mr. William Watson followed with a comic song entitled the “Comforts of Man.” The performance was concluded with a farce entitled “Perfection, or the Maid of Munster.” 140 An evening or two later at the Arch Street theatre “The Fall of the Alamo, or Texas and Her Oppressors,” was produced with considerable effect. 141 On June 8 Othello was again presented by an attractive cast at the Arch Street theatre for the benefit of Texas. Mr. Burton sung for the first time a new comic song entitled “All for Texas, or Volunteers for Glory.” The entertainment was concluded with a farce, “The Chimney Piece, or Natural Magic.” 142
Of the two leading newspapers of Philadelphia which have been cited above, the United States Gazette was consistently friendly to Texas. This journal referred early in the year to the untiring efforts of Colonel Austin for the past fifteen years to populate Texas; to his exertions in the present crisis to resist oppression, and to his ambition to promote the cause of constitutional freedom and the prosperity of his adopted country. 143 An editorial in the issue of April 9 expressed the opinion, which was by no means generally held at that date, that Mexico could not hope for much success against Texas. The United States should offer to mediate between Texas and Mexico. The former country might even lend Texas the money that was needed to satisfy Mexico in return for acknowledging the independence of Texas. This last suggestion was purely chimerical of course. Numerous articles upon the Texas question were contributed to the press of the United States during the revolution in Texas. Some of these took the form of elaborate essays in which the entire history of the Texan struggle was reviewed. The question of slavery and the bearing of the possible independence of Texas upon the further extension of slavery came in for a considerable amount of treatment. One writer contended that the question of Texas being slave or free should be determined by a majority of her citizens after freedom had been obtained. 144 A series of articles was contributed to the Gazette by a writer signing himself “Washington.” The second article of the series pronounced the slave population of the United States vastly better situated than the black population of Africa. The proper solution of the slavery question was to indemnify their masters, educate the negro and return him to Africa. The chief injury resulting from slavery was the harm it did the white population, a statement which few would be prone to deny. The independence of Texas would result in a fine country being opened up to emigrants and an added desideratum would be the paving of the way for the abolition of slavery in the border slave states of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri. 145
Far different was the attitude of the Philadelphia National Gazette to the events then happening in Texas. While the editor avowed his intention to manifest perfect impartiality and not to withhold his sympathy from any who were battling for their rights, yet it was only at intervals that the story of the exciting events happening beyond the Sabine stirred the enthusiasm of the editor of the Gazette and caused him to forget his pose of lofty impartiality. It was some consolation to the friends of Texas to know that this journal subscribed to the sentiments of the National Intelligencer to the effect that it was a very laudable thing to apply the money raised by popular subscription to the sufferers in Texas,—that is, to the widows and orphans of those who had fallen while resisting the Mexicans. The Intelligencer even proposed that Congress should appropriate funds for the personal relief of the sufferers. 146 Column after column in the Gazette was taken up with a series of essays entitled “Texas Insurrection,” signed by one styling himself “Columbus.” 147 To the writer the struggle going on in Texas was nothing but a grand scheme of iniquity concocted for the purpose of re-establishing slavery in the Texas country. In a succeeding article the writer essayed to “Trace the subject of the Texian revolt through the whole concatenation of its primary causes and objects,” and to set forth the “motives of personal aggrandizement, avaricious adventure, and unlimited, enduring oppression” actuating the vast combination of interests that was behind the Texas revolt. 148 But such articles did not reflect the sentiment of a majority of the citizens of Philadelphia, and in consequence the editor of the Gazette found himself denounced as a “bloody papist” on account of the attitude of his paper and his conduct severely criticised for publishing such articles in reply in which the Gazette defended its position on the Texas question. Though disavowing any friendly feeling for the Abolitionists, the editor was convinced the chief cause for commencing the struggle was in order to carry on the slave trade; no justification existed for rebellion on the part of the Texans; their cause was destitute of all claim upon the friends of genuine liberty and right. 149 From afar the editor of the Boston Atlas scented the true cause of the rebellion in Texas,—it had been set on by Austin who wanted to introduce slavery. The New York American of April 29 was bitter in its condemnation of American raisers of slave stock. 150 A writer signing himself “M” addressed several open letters to Colonel Austin in Poulson's Advertiser. One of these contained the query: “Is, or is it not the intention of the leaders of the Texians to make Texas a slave country?” The apprehension of this, it was asserted, was causing a deep feeling against Colonel Austin and his friends to pervade the minds of the community. 151 To the editor of the Gazette Burnet's proclamation prohibiting slavery was proof positive that the Texans were fighting “Freedom's battle” for the purpose of riveting slavery's chain. 152 It is more surprising to find a voice from Mississippi protesting in a similar vein against the independence of Texas. In speculating upon the effect on the South of the independence of Texas this writer is of the opinion that the only thing that can render the independence of Texas desirable or its annexation to the United States worth while is the hope that she would become the slave market of the whole South. The acknowledgment of Texas independence will prove a dark day for the South,—our territory being already of sufficient extent and our frontier enlarged enough. 153 This reminds one of a similar fear expressed by Webster: “We want no extension of territory. We want no accession of new states. The country is already large enough.” 154 “Shall the free states yield to southern threats and annex Texas?” asks Poulson's Advertiser. According to this journal the Union if further extended to Mexico would fall in ruins. 155
Having thus demonstrated the Texas question to be a “monstrous scheme of iniquity,” and shown how doubtful even to the South was the economic gain of acquiring the region between the Sabine and the Rio Grande, those who took an impartial view of the situation proceeded further to point out the danger of a clash between United States troops and those of Mexico, and the hazards of hostilities with that country. 156 Not only was a war waged for absolute independence impolitic and quite premature, but what was more to the point, the contest was a hopeless one for the “Texians,” their only salvation being in the interference of our government. 157 As confirmatory of this view, the Philadelphia Gazette printed the week following the battle of San Jacinto a letter from a faint-hearted member of the Washington Convention stating that everything was lost unless speedy assistance was received from the United States.
Another reason why there was not a greater general sympathy in favor of the colonists, according to this journal, was that enthusiasm was subdued by statements respecting the dubious character of the leaders, such as Houston, for instance. The character of the emigrants was in keeping with that of such unscrupulous men as Austin, Archer, Wharton, Burnett, and the rest; for “all the murderers, swindlers, horse-thieves who have fled the Southern states for the last ten years” have gone to Texas. Those who did not find it safe to live at home had found an asylum in Texas. 158 Moreover it was a notorious fact that the standard of independence in that country had been raised for the benefit of land speculators; these were the ones who were eager for the immediate recognition of Texas and who sent back home the stories about the Mexicans running away from Texas. 159
The story of the massacre of Fannin and his men was received with incredulity by the papers unfriendly to Texas nearly two months after that event. The Philadelphia Gazette expressed pity for the “unsophisticated philanthropy and tender-hearted compassion” of those who mourned the fate of the victims of Mexican atrocity; it endorsed the opinion of the National Intelligencer that “the citizens of the United States who have entered the Mexican territory in hostile array, with arms in their hands, have done so at their own peril, and have only themselves to blame for the consequences.” 160 On the other hand when rumors of the victory at San Jacinto began to be circulated in the east, the editor of the Gazette admitted his desire to see the minions of Santa Anna thoroughly scourged for their cruel barbarities. How completely the true nature of the situation was misunderstood by those at a distance, is shown by his expressing the hope that friendly relations between Texas and Mexico might be restored. 161 At the parade of the National Greys and the German Washington Guards for target firing, the mark adopted was an effigy of Santa Anna. This incident was made the occasion of a facetious editorial in the Gazette of May 10.
The report of Houston's victory at San Jacinto drew forth three hearty cheers from the members of the Philadelphia Exchange. 162 Major Theodore Gillies, of the artillery corps, took charge of a salute of 100 guns fired in celebration of Santa Anna's defeat on the afternoon of May 31. The firing took place on Broad Street after which the company marched to the Broad Street hotel, where they refreshed themselves. 163 The editor of the Philadelphia National Gazette had made merry over the contradictory reports which came back from Texas. “And nothing is, but what is not,” had been his paper's comment on the subject of Texas news. Now he was puzzled no little at the first intimation of the victory of Houston and his men. In his issue of May 17 the very idea of victory was ridiculed. 164 The editor was greatly afraid the brilliant news was premature, and admonished his readers to take it “cum grano salis.” At the same time he ventured the prediction that if the war continued, emigrants would pour into Texas determined to avenge their countrymen. Two days later his paper announced the “glorious news” was all a myth,—it was merely one of those stories hatched in the South for the purpose of producing an effect. 165 But the good news persisted in coming, backed up by official proofs; so in his paper of May 28, the truth of the “glorious news” was at last acknowledged. But the old settlers were robbed of the glory of the victory by a fiction copied from the Mobile papers: “It is said there were not fifty Texians in the battle; that the Texian army was composed almost entirely of volunteers.” The editor now went far towards atoning for his unsympathetic attitude on the Texas question in the following manner: “In contemplating the brilliant results of such a conflict, the blood flows quicker; we almost lose sight of the original grounds of controversy, and scarcely stop to enquire which party was right or wrong. Human hearts, properly tuned, will revolt at cruelty and barbarity; and a feeling of sympathy will always be experienced in free bosoms at the success of a leader like Houston.” The Gazette of June 11 contained Houston's official account “of his extraordinary victory.” 166
It only remains to glance at the attitude of the Philadelphia papers on the question of the neutrality of the United States government during the months following Houston's victory. The National Gazette of May 18, in commenting upon certain official communications which passed between our government and the Mexican, used the following language: “The above correspondence shows on the part of the Executive a sense of our neutral duties and obligations, and a disposition to act up to them, honorable to the national character, and greater than from incidental disclosures we were disposed to give the Administration credit for.” The United States Gazette agreed with the National Intelligencer that President Jackson's letter to Governor Cannon of Tennessee was as important as the proclamation of neutrality made by President Washington in 1793. 167 The National Gazette found the conduct of General Gaines upon the border decidedly reprehensible, 168 though it is difficult to see just wherein this reprehensibility lay, inasmuch as Gaines did not occupy Nacogdoches till the following July. This advance on the part of Gaines was due to his fear of the Comanches and other Indian tribes making common cause with the Mexicans against the exposed settlements on the southwestern frontier. Hence his resolve to punish whoever employed Indians against the people of either side of the imaginary line which confined the disputed territory. 169 The Gazette prophesied disaster and bloody consequences as the result of General Gaines's action, and in a lengthy editorial set forth the consequences of a war with Mexico. 170 It is now admitted that while Gaines's advance was technically not in accordance with international law, the step he took was “dictated by humanity and justified by the emergency.” 171
The sober verdict of history has recorded that the Texas revolution was “a legitimate measure of self-defense” against the despotism of Santa Anna. 172 That the revolution succeeded was due in part to the moral and material assistance rendered the struggling Texans by the citizens of Pennsylvania.
Rockville, Indiana, Dec. 4th, 1876. 174
A friend has sent me the Texas Presbyterian of November 17th, containing Dr. [James Weston] Miller's Historical Discourse before the Synod at Dallas. 175 I was glad to read it. It reminded me of old times. I would like to correct some dates, and supplement some other things. Hugh Wilson and I went [to Texas] about the same time, in the spring of 1838—Wilson to St. Augustine, I to Houston, in March. [John] McCullough arrived in November, six months after I did. I served as Chaplain to Congress, which met soon after my arrival. I had the place of W. W. Hall, who had returned to Kentucky. McCullough and I served as Chaplains to Congress which met in November, 1838. In the spring of 1839, I organized the Church in Houston, with ten members. In Oct., 1839, I organized a Presbyterian church in Austin, with six members, and administered the communion, six months before Dr. [Daniel] Baker arrived in Texas, and reported it to Presbytery at its first meeting. The Indian troubles drove the Government from Austin to Washington. Of course, the little Church was scattered, and Dr. Baker reorganized it after the troubles passed away. After Presbytery adjourned, Dr. Baker and I spent two weeks in the neighborhood, preaching at Independence, Washington, Chriesman's, and as far west as Fuller's. 176 We had a glorious time. Twenty-five or thirty conversions. Then, Baker and I went down to Columbia and Brazoria. The following autumn, I organized the Columbia Church with fifteen members. McCullough organized the Church at Galveston, shortly before the meeting of Presbytery, in April, 1840. The original minutes of the Presbytery, I sent, several years since, to the Presbyterian Historical Society of Philadelphia.
The most of the year 1841, I spent in Kentucky, begging money to pay the debt on the Houston church building, which was occupied by my worthy successor, Dr. Miller, not long after I had dedicated it.
I had been in Texas six months before Fullenwider went there with his family. In Sept., 1838, I met him in the streets of Natchez, on his way to Texas on horseback.
In 1842, I left Texas, a victim of chills and fever. The only thing like salary I received while in Texas, was while as Chaplain to Congress. I went there with about six hundred dollars, and left with just enough money to pay my way to Louisville. But I have never regretted what I did and suffered for Texas.
Your types have S. F. Cooke as one of the early ministers. It should be Stephen F. Cocke, an old fellow student of mine in Centre College, forty-six years ago.
Miller speaks of crossing a river on a hog trough and two puncheons, getting to a meeting of Presbytery. McCullough and I crossed the Brazos once, going to Independence to a meeting, on a little raft made of scantlings, that hardly kept us and our saddles and saddlebags above water. We hired a boy to swim our horses over.
Rockville, Ind., Feb. 13th, 1878. 177
Messrs. Editors: Some one has recently sent me several numbers of this paper [The Texas Presbyterian]. In these, I notice with much interest the “Minutes of the Brazos Presbytery.” It seems that I am the only survivor of that little company that met in “Chriesman's School House”—Wilson, McCullough, Allen and McCorkle, 178, “we four and no more.” The sermon, the prayers, the basis, the resolutions—how well I remember them! The sainted Baker joined us, as a corresponding member, on Monday. Our business was not tedious. This gave us more time for preaching. Brother McCullough left us soon after adjournment. Brother Baker and I remained for three weeks, preaching every day, extending our labors from Fuller's to Washington; sometimes together, and then apart; a blessed time, and some thirty professed conversions during the meetings. Then, Brother Baker and I went from Independence to Columbia, spending a week in Brazoria County. Then, the Bells, the McCormicks, the Hills, the Pattons, and others were gathered into a Church, during that year. There, I baptised a grandmother, her daughter and her grandchild, on the same occasion. During that meeting, a man came, bringing his daughter fifteen miles. The daughter had never heard a sermon before.
My visit to Austin, in Oct., 1839, where I found a town very much in the woods, with five or six hundred people, in cabins and shanties and camps, I well remember. We gathered a little company in the largest room in the place, in Bullock's hotel, where I preached in the morning; and, in the afternoon, I organized that little Church of six members—two or them elders; and administered the communion to twelve or fifteen persons of different churches. We could not have an evening service because Gen. Burleson, with about seventy soldiers, came in about dark and occupied our room. Then, the yellow fever was raging in Houston and Galveston. It broke out in Houston just after I had left for Austin. We had organized the Church in Houston the previous March, with ten members, one elder. The Sabbath School, we had started in May, 1838, soon after my arrival,, with twenty-six pupils.
On no part of my past ministry, do I look back with more pleasure, than “my four years work for Texas.” Three Churches organized, and the house of worship in Houston built and dedicated, constituted my last work there.
I preached the second sermon ever heard on Galveston Island, now nearly forty years ago.
The Whartons. 179—In July, 1838, I took a horseback ride from Velasco to Houston. In company with a young man, an acquaintance of the Whartons, I spent a night at the beautiful residence of Col. Wm. H. Wharton, making a very pleasant acquaintance with Mrs. W. The Col. was not at home. Their son, John, was then a little boy. That visit has been a pleasant remembrance ever since. The following Oct., the whole family removed to Houston to spend the winter, Col. Wm. H. Wharton being a member of the Senate, and his brother John, a member of the Lower House. I was a frequent visitor at their house. Very soon after the meeting of Congress, Col. John A. Wharton was attacked with his last sickness. I was Chaplain of the Lower House. The attack of fever was severe. I was sent for to visit the sick brother. He requested me to write a report for him on Education, he being Chairman of that committee, and not able to do it himself. I had a few words with him on the subject of religion. I was requested to repeat my visit, which I did, when he requested me to pray for him, and to instruct him as to the way of life, saying he had been brought to think of the great subject as he had never done before. I was not allowed by his physicians to see him again. He soon afterwards died. He had been intensely sceptical. After his death, I learned that his mother had been a devotedly pious woman.
Wm. H. Wharton, who died the following summer, though professedly sceptical, was a scholarly gentleman, and made a beautiful speech in favor of the circulation of the Bible, at the organization of the Houston Bible Society. And now they are all gone. The last time I saw Mrs. W. and John, was at the house of her brother, Leonard Gross [Groce]. I have pleasant remembrance of the hospitality of the Whartons and the Groces.
Mar. 29th, 1878.
Dr. Levi Jones. 180—Just forty years ago this week, I landed in Galveston. Soon after casting anchor, Dr. Jones came aboard the schooner in which I had sailed from New Orleans. He was the first man that I met in Texas, that I had ever seen [before]. I knew him as a medical student in my boyhood. After entering his profession, he married a young widow, Mrs. Wardlaw, a member of the Church in Shelbyville, Ky., the Church in which I was brought up. They soon went to Anderson, Ky., where they resided many years. After I had been in Texas some time, the Dr. brought his family, his wife, and two daughters to Galveston. I was a frequent visitor at their house in Galveston, and have pleasant and grateful remembrances of their kind hospitality. I met a grand-daughter of the Doctor's, a Miss Delano, of Henderson, lately while she was on a visit to Terre Haute. And now the Doctor has left his place among the living, following his wife and one of their daughters.
I notice that Temperance is receiving much attention among your people. I think I made the first temperance speech ever made on Galveston Island. It was made in a room in the old Clermont Hotel. The work bench was pushed to one side, the shavings pushed back, and seats extemporized, and the subject discussed for the first time in the young city. That was in 1839.
More than one thousand have put on the blue ribbon in Rockville, within a few weeks, seven thousand or eight thousand have done the same thing in Terre Haute. Many, in both places, among the very hardest cases. So much for Murphy! My first sermon in Galveston was preached in a cabin belonging to the old Texas Navy Yard. A second service, that day, was prevented by the arrival and salute of General Memucan Hunt, Secretary of the Navy, from the States. The salute called away everybody's attention. Davis was keeper of the Navy Yard; and Commodore Moore was Commandant. The Old Potomac was the only war vessel of the Texas Navy, at that time. I preached once on her deck.
Rockville, Ind., April 9th, 1878.
The Bells of West Columbia. 181—My first acquaintance with this pioneer family was on the occasion of the marriage of Mrs. Bell's daughter to Dr. J. Wilson Copes, about forty years ago. Mrs. Bell had been brought up a Presbyterian, in North Carolina, married at the age of fifteen, and had not made a profession of religion at that time. She and her husband soon removed to Hopkinsville, Ky., thence to Red River, La., and thence, about 1820, they crossed over into Texas, with 6 and ¼ cents in money and two servants, a man and wife. They gradually worked their way down to the lower Brazos, and finally settled near Columbia, where I first met the family. The husband had died shortly before my first visit. They had become comparatively wealthy, and were widely known, and greatly respected for their hospitality to strangers and especially to any that were sick or suffering.
Mrs. B. had no doubt of her religious experience, years before I met with her, but had no access to a Presbyterian Church, and she would unite with no other, until I organized the Columbia Church in 1840. On my second visit to the neighborhood and before the Church was organized, I received her on profession of her faith, into the Church Militant, and baptised her youngest child and a little girl whom she had adopted. They were the first baptisms I ever performed. Her own child, a little daughter, died soon after. I had the privilege afterward of baptising her oldest daughter and her elder son, Thaddeus, on their own profession of faith in Christ, at the time of the organization of the Church, and, also, the brother-in-law of Mrs. B., Mr. McCormick, and all of his five or six children. Mrs. McCormick had united with the Church in North Carolina, before she came to Texas. I look back on no part of my forty-two years ministry with more pleasure, than that among the Bells and Pattons and McCormicks of West Columbia. It was interesting to hear Mrs. Bell tell of her early trials, self-denials during her early years in Texas—how, for weeks, they were without bread, living upon deer meat, and upon tea, sweetened with honey, and nursing a child at the same time.
I have heard nothing of the Bells, except the Judge, for a long time, but I do remember them and their kindness still.
The First Temperance Meeting in Houston. 182—I have spoken of my first Temperance effort in Galveston. In Houston, my first effort was brought about in this wise. In the spring of 1839, Dr. John Breckinridge was on a visit to Houston. He had preached on a Sabbath with great acceptance, to a crowded audience, in the Senate Chamber of the Capitol. The next day, as I was passing along the street near the Capitol, I heard my name called. Looking across the street, I saw General Houston and Dr. Levi Jones sitting together on a piece of building timber. The General called to me to come over. When I came to them the General said “Allen, I want you to have a Temperance meeting called for tomorrow (Tuesday) evening, that Dr. Breckinridge may make us a Temperance speech; and I want to make one myself.” This surprised me, for at that time the General was anything but a temperance man. However, I bestirred myself, and, with the effort of others, we had a large crowd. It was arranged for the General to speak first, and he made a grand speech in which he enlarged upon his own experience—told the people “to do as he advised, not as he had done.” But when he got agoing it was hard for him to quit. He held on so long that Dr. Breckinridge had to postpone his address until the next evening. After General Houston's speech, a constitution and papers for the signers of the pledge, having been previously prepared, while some preliminary matters were going on, the General left the Hall so that he escaped the embarrassment of refusing to sign the pledge, in accordance with his own advice. Nevertheless there were a goodly number of signers that evening, and the next, after the very able address of Dr. Breckinridge. So much for the beginning of the Temperance work in Houston if not in all Texas.
The First Bible Society.—The First Bible Society of Houston was organized during the winter previous, in Jan., 1839, while Congress was in session. An agent of the A. B. S. had come. His name was Hoes. Had brought a number of Bibles with him. I worked for him for several days and we had a large crowd. There were several good speeches, one especially notable by Col. Wm. Wharton, then a Senator. I am glad to see the cause still lives and grows in that wide field. And though I may not say “magna pars fui,” yet I am glad I had any part in the first movements of the Bible and Temperance work in Texas.
Rockville, Ind., May 7th, 1878.
Alone All Night on the Prairie. 183—Major Whiting had invited me to come over to his place on the Trinity, to marry his step daughter, supposed to be the richest young woman in the Republic of Texas. It was in April, 1839. I landed from steamer at Lynchburg and hired a man to take me in a skiff to Judge Burnett's, who was then living at the head of Galveston bay. The Judge loaned me a horse, after spending the night with him, to ride over to the Major's. The marriage took place at 12 m. From the reputation of the wealth of the bride, I thought it likely the house would be full of company, and that room might be scarce, so I halted in a grove, made my toilet, and rode up to the mansion, on the border of a beautiful lake, when lo! there was no company there. But they proposed, if I would stay until noon, next day, they would send around and have something of a wedding. I consented, but concluded to cross the Trinity and spend a part of the afternoon in Liberty. A considerable crowd was gathered the next day. The couple were married, and I returned to Judge Burnett's for the night. The Judge sent me round to Lynchburg in his boat. The steamers were all up the bayou, and the chances were that I would have to stay at Lynchburg for three or four days for a boat. The prospect was not flattering, for at that early day, heat and dust and fleas were said to abound there. So I concluded to try it afoot, at least as far as Harrisburg. I was set over the San Jacinto bay near the famous battle ground which had often been pointed out and the battle described, from the decks of steamers as they passed, by those who had been in the battle. I met Frank Lubbock on the bank of Buffalo bayou, got a lunch and was off again. Before reaching Harrisburg, I took a cattle path instead of keeping the road, bore off southwest, changed my course about sunset, crossed Green's bayou on a fallen tree, and soon struck out of the timber into the prairie which seemed to stretch on indefinitely. After dark, I lay down on the wet grass, but soon found that I was getting cold and stiff. I got up and walkd on until 2 o'clock a. m., then struck timber, sat down by the root of a tree, went to sleep, and, after daylight, soon found myself in a road, discovered where I was, about four miles west of Houston, and walked on to town. It was Sabbath morning. I rested awhile, went and got some strong coffee, then went to the old Senate chamber and preached, and also at night, and in a week was shaking with chills and fever. But I had got an idea of solitude on that prairie such as I had never had before.
Two Nights and a Day with a Pirate. 184—Recent notices of LaFitte, the pirate, have brought to mind one of my Texas adventures. In the fall of 1840, I left Galveston City, on horseback, for a visit and preaching tour on the Brazos. The forenoon was pleasant, but soon after noon it began to rain, and then to blow from the north. Riding down the island on the gulf shore, the last house then was twelve miles from the lower end of the island, except a shanty at the end of the island next to the pass, which I had expected to cross, and spend the night at San Louis, on which some Galveston men were starting a town. But the norther had raised such a commotion in the pass that there was no crossing that night. The shanty was occupied by an old man whose name I cannot recall, and who was said to have been one of LaFitte's pirates. I rode up to his shanty, cold, wet, and hungry. Asked him for shelter. He said he had nothing to eat but beans—no bread, no meat, no flour, no coffee, no oysters to be had on account of the storm. The prospect was not flattering for a night of comfort, but it was decidedly unpromising outside. The old man said I might stay; so, tying my horse (or rather Col. Love's horse) on the grass, I sought the shelter of the shanty. In that shanty there was smoke and dirt, a dog and cat, a little fire, a great pile of ashes on the hearth, and the old pirate. A pot of beans had been simmering over the fire all day. After warming and drying awhile, the old man handed me an old plate and spoon, and asked me if I would have some beans. I said yes, thank you. He furnished a little salt, and this was the whole meal, and it was not bad to take after my twenty-five miles ride and the fierce norther of the afternoon. Then, the dirty bunk! the only alternative to the dirty floor! Fortunately, I had a Mackinaw blanket, in which, like Sancho's sleep, I wrapped myself all over and avoided contact with the filthy bunk. Next morning, it was beans for breakfast and beans in the afternoon, with some fishy birds he had shot and skinned and stewed; and, then, another night ,and beans again for breakfast, and then a silver dollar to pay for my entertainment, and, then, I got away.
Rockville, Ind., July 2nd, 1878.
The Church in Houston. 185—I commenced my ministry in Houston, in March, 1838. There was then no church organization in the place, although they counted the population at two thousand. Congress met in April, in adjourned session. Rev. W. W. Hall, the Chaplain of the Senate, had left the Republic and returned to Kentucky. I was chosen in his place. Rev. Littleton Fowler, Chaplain of the Lower House, was in attendance, but was sick most of the time, so that I had to do most of the praying for both Houses, and nearly all of the preaching. After Congress adjourned in May, Mr. Fowler returned to the Red Lands, and I was the only minister within a hundred miles of the coast, until November following. Then, I was Chaplain again to the Lower House, and Rev. John McCullough, in the Senate, of the Second [Third] Congress. After Congress adjourned, in the spring of 1839, Mr. McCullough went to Galveston, and I remained in Houston. After laboring about a year in Houston, I organized the Presbyterian church of Houston, consisting of ten members. James Burke was chosen ruling elder and installed. He had been an elder in Mississippi. We had a communion, in which about fifteen persons participated—one or two Baptists, one or two Methodists and at least one Episcopalian, Mrs. Fairfax Gray, an excellent Christian woman. To me, it was a most interesting occasion. It was the first communion I ever conducted. It was a “day of small things” for the Church in Houston. It was the third Presbyterian church organized in the Republic. The little band soon set about the building of a house of worship. The work went on until January, 1841, when, to secure aid to finish the building, I went to Kentucky, and during the following spring and summer I raised about six hundred dollars, which enabled the brethren to complete the house, which I dedicated the following winter, the last of my four years work in Texas. During which time, I had spent about $500.00 which I had taken with me. I had no salary except as Chaplain to Congress. When I left to beg money for the church, I had just enough money to take me to Kentucky. Now I understand that the First Church in Houston has two hundred and twenty members, and that a Second church has been organized.
The Presbyterian Church in Austin. 186—In October, 1839, just as the yellow fever was breaking out in Houston, I set off on a visit to Austin, a town about four months old. I had sent on an appointment some time before. I bought an Indian pony and took in a campmeeting, at Rutersville, on the way. The campmeeting was in brother Alexander's field. He was a good preacher and an excellent man. He was aided by an old brother Haynie, a Doctor of Medicine, as well as preacher. He reminded me of Dr. Gideon Blackburn in his personal appearance. Also, a brother Clark, from Tennessee, was present. I spent Saturday and Sabbath and part of Monday with the brethren, preaching once at the camp, and at LaGrange on Sabbath evening. Spent a night at Bastrop, preaching there, thence, in company with James Burke, to Austin, arriving there Saturday about 10 o'clock a. m. A company was just gathering to go out to Brushy creek to bury the bodies of the men killed a few days before by the Indians. They were of the Webster party, whom the Indians had killed. I saw Mrs. Webster and her little girl a year after she had made her escape from the savages. Truly her's was a tale of hardship.
On Sabbath, I preached in a large room of Bullock's hotel. In the afternoon, we had another meeting, when we organized the First Church in Austin. There were six members. Mr. Bullock and James Burke, who had come to stay, were chosen ruling elders. They had both been elders before. We then had the communion, in which perhaps a dozen took part. It was truly a small beginning, and fell into a syncope afterwards, when the government and many citizens abandoned the Capital, alarmed by the Indians, and ran off to Washington. Dr. Daniel Baker gave the cause a new start. In his Biography, he speaks, or his son does for him, as if there had been no organization previously. But I have given the true history of the planting of the Presbyterian church in Austin.
The communion, that afternoon, in that large unfurnished room of the Bullock house, was something that had never been witnessed so far southwest by Protestants, on the American continent. This was reaching out to the “regions beyond.” That was the second communion at which I presided. And that was the fourth Presbyterian church in the Republic. Rev. Hugh Wilson had organized one near San Augustine, the first in the Republic, and one at Independence, the second; the Church of Houston, the third; and the one at Austin, the fourth. Galveston church was organized soon after. The Presbyterians were the first to set up their banners in those three principal centers. After the communion at Austin, Brother Clark, who had come on from Rutersville, and I walked up on Capitol Hill, and looked over the young city of perhaps six hundred inhabitants—after viewing and talking awhile, Bro. Clark said “Let us kneel down right here and pray for Texas.” We kneeled, and I led in that prayer. We were in a little clump of bushes. Eighteen years after that prayer, i. e., in 1857, I was in Austin again, and the Capitol was standing on the very spot where Brother Clark and I had prayed in October, 1839. We could not have a third service on that Sabbath day, because General Burleson came in about dark, with some seventy soldiers, going after Indians, and they occupied the large room in the hotel. I slept that night with the soldiers on the floor of that room. The yellow fever had made dreadful work in Houston and Galveston, while I was on that visit to Austin.
Rockville, Ind., Aug. 7th, 1878.
The Houston Presbyterian Sabbath School. 187—Some friend recently sent me a pamphlet, containing an account of the present condition of the Presbyterian Sabbath School of some thirty teachers and six hundred pupils on the roll. I had the honor of organizing that school in May, 1838, more than forty years ago. At that time, there was no other Sabbath School in the Republic. There was a tradition that Judge David G. Burnet had started a Sabbath School some years previous, but it had died out, probably during the revolution, and while the Judge was provisional President. The school in Houston was begun with twenty-six pupils and three or four teachers—James Baily and a Bro. Robinson were two of them. The names of the others I have forgotten. We were poorly supplied with books; testaments and readers and primers were the only books. It was a day of small things for the Sabbath school work in Houston. But it lived and grew; and, nineteen years afterwards, in 1857, on my last visit to Texas, I found six Sabbath schools, some of them large schools, in operation in Houston. It was my privilege to look in upon our school, after the nineteenth anniversary, and speak to them of their small beginning, and bear witness to the success of the enterprise. Brother Baily had worked with it and for it during all those years; and of all the original teachers he was the only one left, and was working in it still. On that visit, I had the pleasure of meeting with the Methodist Sabbath School at a May-day picnic, in the country.
Soon after my arrival in Houston, in March, 1838, A. C. Allen made me a present of a town lot, near where the jail was standing twenty years ago. I had a small room built upon it, where I studied, and slept on a sack of prairie hay. Several months, in 1839, I shared my room and bed with Mr. Chapman, the Episcopal Deacon, who was the first Episcopal preacher of Houston. He had the Grays and the Bees and the Rileys as his followers, while I had the Burkes and Bailys and Coans and Robinsons. Having no salary, I boarded around considerably, as the ancient schoolmasters used to do. Five months at half price with Woodruff; a good deal of my time gratis, at A. C. Allen's, at Baily's, at Millett's, etc. Frequently off on excursions to Galveston, to Velasco, to Quintana, to Brazoria, to Columbia, to Richmond, to Independence, etc., spreading my work, but making Houston my headquarters. How I would like to see all these places again, and note the difference between now and then! If some Texas railroad king would send me a free pass I would be tempted to take a run to the Lone Star State, and do some preaching there again. I was at the first railroad meeting ever held in Texas, and opened the meeting with prayer. Moseley Baker made the speech and dug a hole, and the Masons planted a post, as a beginning of a railroad; that was in 1840. 188
My First Marriage Ceremony in Texas. 189—Col. Hockley introduced me to Col. R., who said he wished to see me at Col. W.'s, in the course of an hour, to perform a nuptial ceremony. Of course, I was prompt at the hour, 12 m. The bride was Mrs. D., a young widow. The groom, a large portly looking and rather venerable man. The witnesses were Col. W., his wife, Col. Hockley, and one or two others. It was a very quiet affair, though the City of Houston was full of people, it being the first day of the adjourned session of the First [Second] Congress, in April, 1838. The married couple took their departure for Galveston by steamer within an hour. Nothing was said of wedding fee, and I had concluded that the service was altogether gratuitous. After the adjournment of Congress, during which I had acted as Chaplain to the Senate, I visited Galveston for a few days, stopping with the family of Dr. Lewis [sic] Jones. Coming in one afternoon, Mrs. J. handed me a package, which had been left for me by Col. R. and his wife. The package contained six linen shirts! And though nothing had been said by way of explanation either to the family or myself, I accepted the gift as the wedding fee—my first in “The Lone Star Republic.”
Another Matrimonial Reminiscence.—Mr. H., a young lawyer of Richmond, a Kentuckian, engaged me to meet him at the house of Mrs. C., near Velasco, eighty miles from Houston. The time was August. I made Capt. Bingham's, twenty-five miles the first day, on Clark Owen's mustang. At Bingham's, I met some of the wedding guests from Richmond. We started at 2 a. m., next morning,and made twenty-five miles for breakfast. The ride was pleasant enough until sunrise, when the musquitoes rose upon us from the wet prairie in immense swarms, and made it lively for us until nine o'clock. The heat then settled them for the rest of the day until sundown. When we arrived at Mrs. C.'s, they were smoking chips and green weeds all around the house, to keep off the tormentors, the only drawback to a pleasant marriage scene. Such were some of my experiences of forty years ago, now pleasant to recall.
Allen's Ordination. 190—A Presbytery and campmeeting were held at Valley Creek church, a few miles from Selma, Ala., in Nov., 1838, just forty years ago. Junius B. King and I had passed our final examinations for ordination; King to be pastor of the Valley Creek church, and I to go to the “regions beyond” as an evangelist to Texas, where I had spent the previous six months. Jetur had preached the sermon under a large shed used for meetings when too large for the church. King and I had knelt, while the “hands of the Presbytery” were laid upon us and the ordaining prayer was offered, Nall and Witherspoon and Martin and Hamilton and Frazer and Holman taking part.
Then, we stood up, while Nall gave us solemn charge, King as pastor of the flock among whom we were meeting, and me as evangelist to Texas. To me he used these words, standing tall and erect and pointing his long forefinger, giving emphasis to his words: “Now, brother Allen, we have ordained you as an evangelist, to go and preach the gospel in the Republic of Texas. Now, Bro. Allen, never let the word come back to us that Bro. Allen has turned speculator.”
I have thought of those words many a time since that solemn occasion and, though often tempted, I never turned speculator. I was reminded of the charge, by seeing Bro. Nall's name in a recent Texas Presbyterian. He and I had been fellow students for a year in Centre College. During that year, he had formed the acquaintance of the young woman who afterwards became his wife. She was then in school in Danville. Apropos of North Carolina, where Nall was at last mention, Mrs. Bell of West Columbia, who was brought up under the ministry of an eminent preacher, Dr. Hall of N. C., told me that Dr. Hall was troubled with fits of melancholy. Sometimes, he thought he had no religion, would neither preach nor pray, but would attend all the prayer meetings in the church kept up by the Session; and, one Sabbath day, an earnest old Scotch Irish elder was praying and said with great earnestness: “O Lord, cast out the dumb devil from our dear pastor, that he may open his mouth as heretofore and preach the gospel to us,” and immediately the Doctor sprang to his feet and began to exhort. The dumb devil was cast out. Are there not many who are possessed with dumb devils, who ought to pray and preach?
Rockville, Ind., Dec. 4th, 1878.
First Written History of the Republic of Texas. 191—In 1839, while the Second [Third] Congress of Texas was in session in Houston, the Rev. A. Lawrence, editor of the New Orleans Presbyterian, and a gentleman named Stille, a publisher of Philadelphia, came to Houston. They wished to get up a history of the Republic. They asked for the use of my room, a shanty on the edge of the town, for three or four days. Lawrence put into writing what meagre information each of them had picked up by inquiries among the people, as they happened to meet them. And, lo! a history of Texas! the result of four days writing, and the authors were off, Lawrence to his tripod in New Orleans, and Stille to publish the little work in Philadelphia. I do not think I ever saw it after it left my room in manuscript. 192 Of course, it was too soon to write a history of Texas, while Houston and Lamar and the Whartons and Rusk and Kauffman and most of the actors in the revolution that made Texas free were still active in the affairs of the new Republic.
The College.—About the time the above mentioned history was written, Col. Wm. H. Wharton, then a Senator in Congress, spoke to me about the establishment of a University in Texas, and paid me the compliment of proposing that I should be put at the head of it. This was as near as I ever came to being a President of a University! In 1840, the Rev. W. L. McCalla set Galveston all astir on the subject of starting a great University in the Island City. It was at the time of Dr. Baker's first visit to Texas, and to him, in after years, Austin College owed more than to any other man. May the College take and hold root in its new location, and send out a healthful influence all over the State.
Rockville, Ind., Dec. 17th, 1878.
Dr. Daniel Baker. 193—I met this eminent minister and friend of Texas, while I was connected with Centre College, before he settled as pastor of the Frankfort church. He came to Danville during the session of the Synod of Kentucky and preached several times during the Synod. His grand sermon, on “The Mediatorial Glory of the Lord Jesus Christ,” made an impression not readily forgotten. It was one of a few sermons preached by him a great many times. He preached it many times after it was printed. Several of his sermons, which were published under the title of “Revival Sermons,” I heard half a dozen times in different places, as in Danville and Shelbyville, Ky., in Mobile, also in New Orleans, and in Houston, Independence, and Columbia, Texas. I remember having heard him say he had five hundred sermons prepared with as much care as those which he preached so often. These, he must have prepared during his various pastorates. He was too hard a worker to have made new sermons while doing evangelistic work. His short talks at prayer meetings and his anecdotes were all written and memorized with great care. I have never met with any man who could deliver a sermon for the hundredth time, with all the freshness and unction of a first delivery. The last time I met him was as a delegate to the General Assembly at St. Louis, in 1851.
Rockville, Ind., Jan. 27th, 1879.
Frazier. 194—His name was Frazer, [Frazier] a Cumberland Presbyterian minister. He was from the “Red Lands,” had just been elected Chaplain to the Lower House [Senate] of the Second [Third] Congress of the Republic, when he was stricken with a mortal disease. He lingered but a short time. I had been with him most of the time of his sickness. Had performed his duties as a Chaplain. And now had come the last hours of his sufferings, and they were terrible sufferings. It was now midnight, and he was not to see the day dawn again on earth. I had talked and prayed with him, and was now standing, silently looking for the last struggle. Beside me stood a Houston merchant, one of the profanest and and most ungodly men of the city. We were alone, watching with the dying man. The heart of the wicked man all at once seemed to be touched with a gleam of natural benevolence, and, leaning over the dying man, he exhorted him to “trust in Jesus.” He had heard that Jesus was a friend that could help, when all human helpers had failed. Physicians could do nothing more. We who stood by could do nothing but sympathize, and the wicked man said “Trust in Jesus,” though he had never trusted in Him himself. “Let him that heareth say come.”
While at breakfast at Woodruff's one morning, a messenger came in haste, saying that a woman, not far from the old Capitol, wanted to see me, supposing that she was dying. When I got to her bedside, she thought that she was better, and her alarm was gone. She seemed to take but little interest either in my conversation or prayers. I left her and before the day closed she was dead.
Another sad case: After a hard ride on horseback, through rain and mud from Velasco, tired and travel soiled and hungry, I alighted at the hotel in Brazoria. I was recognized by some one passing by. Presently, a messenger came, saying a woman near by was dying, and wished to see me as soon as possible. I went immediately, and found her in intense agony from internal cancer, which had already siezed upon the vitals. She was a wife and a mother. Her first words were: “Oh, I am dying, and I am not prepared, and my agony is such that I cannot think. My parents were professed Christians, but they never warned me to prepare for death, and now, I can't prepare.” I prayed with her then, and next morning left for Columbia. Came back after a week. She was dead, having no ground for hope for the future.
Rockville, Ind., Feb. 14th, 1879. 195
Rev. Mr. Hutchison [Rev. Francis Rutherford]. 196—The first member received into the Brazos Presbytery, after its organization, in May, 1840, was the Rev. Mr. Hutchison. It was our fall meeting, in Nov. 1840. Brothers Wilson and McCullough, Elder McFarland and myself, the four original members, had met according to adjournment, in the neighborhood of Independence, where Brothers Wilson and McFarland lived. Soon after my arrival at Brother Wilson's, word came from Hoxie's, in the neighborhood, that Brother Hutchison was there, and had just been attacked with lockjaw.
I had met him at Quintana, the previous summer, had heard him preach once at a school house in Quintana, his wife died during the fall. They were recently from Mississippi. Shortly before the Presbytery was to meet, he had taken an excursion out to the region of Goliad. At the house of a man named Alexander, he had trodden on a rusty shingle nail, which pierced the thin sole of the shoe and also pierced his foot not far from the toes. Neglecting the wound, he had ridden fifty miles to his home on the lower Brazos, and then started immediately on the ride of a hundred miles to meet us in Presbytery, with the design of becoming a member. He stopped at Hoxie's, and died at Tetanus, in three or four days. I attended the meetings of the Presbytery, during the day, at Chriesman's school-house, and watched with Hutchison at night. At his earnest request we enrolled his name as a member, though he never met with us. The night after Presbytery adjourned, he died. Only his physician and myself were present when he died. We buried him in the Independence cemetery, while his wife slept on the banks of the Brazos. That was the last meeting of the Brazos Presbytery that I attended.
I think Rev. W. C. Blair's name was enrolled as a member at that second meeting, though he was not present. I alone am left of the original members of the mother Presbytery. Now, they have become five bands.
Texas Newspapers. 197—When I arrived in Houston, in March, 1838, there was but one newspaper in the Republic. 198 That one was the Houston Telegraph, managed by Cruger and Moore; the latter, principal editor. It was a very respectable paper both as to size and matter and altogether creditable to the owners and managers as well as to the young Republic.
During the summer of 1838, [Hamilton] Stewart, from Scott County, Kentucky, who came to Texas shortly after I did, and was a fellow boarder at Woodruff's for a time, went to Galveston, after the close of the first [second] Congress, and started the Galveston Civilian. It was quite a small paper at first, as was Galveston itself at that time. But forty years have made a difference in the appearance of the Island.
There were McKinney and Williams and Levi Jones and Gail Borden and Col [James] Love and Moseley Baker, who were not likely to let things lie still. McKinney and Williams were re-building their warehouse, which had been smashed by a vagrant schooner the previous autumn. Gail Borden was running the Custom House, while Jones and Love were speculators. Fifty dollars would then have bought many a desirable lot in the Island City.
The San Louis Advocate.—Some Galveston speculators determined to have a town on the little island in the pass between the lower end of Galveston Island and the main land. They called the new town San Louis, and, early in 1840, Tod Robison started the San Louis Advocate. It was intended to help make the town. Tod engaged me as correspondent, at the rate of five dollars per column, small wages in Texas money at that time. I wrote for the paper until I had earned fifty dollars, and then called on Tod for my pay, but got not a red, not even a promissory note. 199 If San Louis still lives and flourishes, it ought to pay that fifty dollars.
During the first session of the Second Congress, James Burke issued a very small daily. It was about a duodecimo, and was printed by Whiting, who was then public printer. These were the pioneer newspapers of the Republic.
Rockville, Ind., Feb. 28th 1879.
Education in the Republic. 200—I notice some stirring writing, in the Texas Presbyterian of this week, on the subject of Education. I am sorry to hear the charge of indifference to the subject by so large a portion of the population. Let me give a reminiscence on the subject.
In Nov., 1838, the Second [Third] Congress of the Republic met in Houston. In the appointment of the House Committees, Col. John Wharton was first on the Committee of Education. A few days after Congress met, he was laid upon a sick bed. His disease proved fatal in a few days. I was then Chaplain of the House, and, at his request, visited him several times during the earlier stage of his sickness. During one of those visits, he requested me to write a Report for the Committee on Education, of which he was the Chairman. In compliance with his request, I wrote an extended Report, urging the importance of the early attention of Congress to make timely and ample provision for education, as the only safe ground of hope for the permanent prosperity of the Republic, and to foster such measures as would raise the vocation of the teacher to respectability and honor. After Col. Wharton's death, I handed the Report to the next member of the Committee, supposing that, of course, he would be the chairman. But the member who was appointed in Col. Wharton's place claimed the Chairmanship, took the paper that I had prepared, wrote a page or two by way of introduction, and had it and my paper read as being all his own, without a word of explanation. He was from the Red Lands, I have forgotten his name. 201 I suppose the Report is still in the archives of the Republic, in my hand writing. 202 If the Wharton brothers had lived, I think the cause of education would not have slumbered so long.
P. S. In a former reminiscence, I made mention of Wm. H. Wharton's proposal, during that Second [Third] Congress, to take measures for the founding of a University for the Republic. And now, after forty years, the fifty or sixty students of Austin College is rather a poor showing for a population of two million. Austin College has changed its place. Rutersville, the senior, changed its character, and of Baylor, I am not advised.
Rockville, Ind., Mar. 4th, 1879.
How I Traveled in Texas Forty Years Ago. 203—From New Orleans, I went over the Gulf in an old schooner, the “Johannes,” started at 9 p. m. A dense fog stopped us opposite the “Battle ground.” Next morning, took a “tug” and went to the mouth of the river. Next morning, Sabbath, went out into the great Gulf. Arrived at Galveston Wednesday noon. Paid thirty dollars. Thursday took passage on steamer, “Friendship”, for Houston; paid fare. Paid no more fares by steamer, all the time I was in Texas, except once from Galveston to New Orleans. Four trips on steamer gratis. Once, went down the coast from Galveston to Velasco, on the little “Correo,” broke a shaft, and had to anchor off the mouth of the Brazos. In the morning, began to drag anchor. Signal of distress brought a little schooner to take us off. One time, I went from Velasco to Galveston in a small schooner with a cargo of two hundred bushels of sweet potatoes.
My first horse back ride in Texas was from Velasco to Houston, in July, 1838, on a pony that Anson Jones had ridden from Houston when he was sent by Sam Houston to Washington. On that trip I got my first and only taste of the “cut throat grape”—did'nt try it any more. That ride in July cost me a spell of fever. To make my journey to Austin, in Oct., 1839, I bought an Indian pony for $100.00, “promissory notes”, about fifty dollars par. Got the pony badly hurt at Gross's [Groce's] as I came home, and sold it for $40.00 promissory notes. On that trip I preached at Rutersville campmeeting, at LaGrange, at Bastrop, and at Austin, organizing the church in Austin, and at Gross's [Groce's] and at Dr. Davis's across the river on my way back. It was then, the yellow fever was raging at Galveston and Houston. My next horse speculation was in the fall of 1840. I started on a foundered horse, belonging to Independence, and, after going several miles, instead of getting better he got worse. So I left Bro. McCullough to go on by himself, and I went back to Houston, bought a mustang pony for $12.00 par, got dinner and started again for Independence, and overtook Bro. McCullough at midnight. After making my journey to Presbytery and back, I sold my mustang for $10.00 par, a better speculation than the other. In those times, it was but little trouble to borrow a horse for a few days. Welshmeyer offered me a very fine horse to make my trip to Presbytery, in May, 1840, and asked me to keep him for a month. I paid a ten dollar gold piece, a wedding fee, for a stage ride from Velasco to Galveston, nearly twenty cents a mile, the highest fare I ever paid. That stage line did not last long.
W. Y. Allen. P. S. I send the above that you junior brethren may see something thing of the variety and difficulties of travel of the seniors. The most imminent perils I encountered were from high waters, twice on the Brazos, once on Green's bayou, once on Oyster Creek, and once getting around a top in the Gulf. But the “hand unseen” preserved me, and I continue unto this day.
ABERDEEN TO ELLIOT 204
Draft. Captain Elliot. No. 11. F. O. Sepr. 18th 1843. Sir,
Your Despatches to No. 22 inclusive have been received and laid before the Queen.
With reference to your Despatch No 11 in which you convey the desire expressed by the Texian Govt that a British Consul Agent should be appointed at Corpus Christi Bay, I have to inform you that H. M. Govt. do not consider that such an appointment is necessary as yet.
KENNEDY TO ABERDEEN 205
British Consulate. Galveston. Septr 23d. 1843. Strictly Private. My Lord,
I had the honor to transmit to Your Lordship on the 29th of last Month, by Her Majesty's Sloop of War “Scylla,” proceeding from Galveston to Vera Cruz, the copy of a Map of the Island of Mugeres, with the Survey of the Coast and Harbour, made by order of the Texan Commodore for the use of his Government.
Referring to my despatch marked “Private” and dated August 6th, I beg to state that I have seen the Signature of M. de Saligny, Minister from France to Texas, attached to a document to be used by the party holding it in the event of M. de Saligny's death. This document is in acknowledgment of certain claims of the holder to be recognized by France in case she shall obtain possession of the island in question.
Referring to my despatch marked “Private” and dated September 6th, I have to inform Your Lordship that recent accounts from the United States tend fully to establish the accuracy of the information conveyed to me by my Correspondent at New Orleans, and, in all important particulars, communicated to Your Lordship in that despatch.
It may be proper to mention that M. de Saligny has been absent in Europe more than a year, that the duties of French Chargé d' Affaires are discharged by a locum tenens, and that the friends of M. de S. in this place profess to anticipate his early return to his post.
William Kennedy. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
ELLIOTT TO ABERDEEN 206
No. 28. 207 My Lord,
I have had the honor to receive Your Lordship's despatch No. 10 inclosing the copy of a despatch to Mr. Percy Doyle dated on the 1st July. 208 It has always appeared to me that the Course of the people of this Country concerning the final adjustment of their difficulties with Mexico will be entirely controlled, or at least mainly influenced by the purposes and proceedings of the Government and people of the United States.
Her Majesty's Government will have better means of judging of those purposes and proceedings than I can furnish from this quarter. But I can certainly perceive no grounds for modifying the opinions I have already had the honor to submit that the acknowledgment of the Independence of Texas by Mexico has always been ill liked by the present Government, and a large part of the people of the United States; that such a Solution has become much more unpopular throughout the whole Union since it has been supposed to be favored by the Government of Her Majesty, and that of the King of the French; and lastly that if General Santa Aña be brought to act upon a material suggestion of Your Lordship's despatch 1st July to Mr. Doyle, this question will at once become one of great importance in the Affairs of this Continent.
Your Lordship is no doubt aware that there is considerable and growing uneasiness upon this subject throughout the South Western part of the Union, and the reports which reach us here through the press of the United States and other sources are noticeable because of the evidence they afford of that state of disquietude. We hear of the rights of Louisiana to all the territory as far West as the “Nuecas,” of the determination of the people of that State to assert those rights for themselves if the General Government does not otherwise effectually interpose for the breaking up of any arrangement menacing, in their view, the stability of their Slave Institutions, of the renewal of General Jackson's negotiations for the purchase of Texas, and a variety of other rumours of the like nature.
It is commonly said here too, that the Conversation of the new Chargé d'Affaires from the United States, near this Government, (General Murphy), is unreservedly hostile to a settlement of the difficulties under any other auspices than those of his own Government, and I learn that at a late festive meeting he addressed a large assembly as his “Fellow Citizens.” I take the liberty of mentioning this incident to Your Lordship, and [not?] that I attach much importance to it, for if His Government had any immediate purposes in view, this Gentleman would probably have been more circumspect than he seems to have been; but it causes a state of general feeling which I have thought it right to place under Your Lordship's attention. Indeed I would wish to mention that whilst it is my conviction that nothing can be more settled than the disinclination of a large part of the people of the United States to any adjustment of the affairs of Texas and directly carried out by their own Government and [not?] in what they understand to be their interests, it is equally my habit to receive the details of any reported project with the utmost reserve, and I certainly have had no means of forming any safe opinion as to the manner of interference in these concerns.
I am of course sensible that much that is said and written in the United States on the subject deserves no attention, but I believe that I have made no mistake as to the real state of feeling in respect to it, and I have considered it proper at this conjuncture to repeat the impression.
It is to be supposed that this uneasy treatment of the acknowledgment of the Independence of Texas by Mexico upon liberal arrangements with respect to the Slave population, must help to satisfy Genl Santa Aña of the soundness of that course for the strength and safety of his own Country. And if he bases his policy upon that condition, granting an amply sufficient period to this Government for deliberation, and liberal limiting proposals, (for it will need both time, and favorable concomitant terms to prepare the people to adopt such a combination) I believe he will succeed in accomplishing a signal political triumph, lastingly honorable to his fame both as a Statesman, and a benefactor of Mankind.
One great practical advantage of the proposal of Mexico to acknowledge the Independence of Texas upon the condition to which Your Lordship has adverted, would be the indisposition of the Slave holders of the United States to bring any more of their people into this Country with the prospect of that conclusion before them, or with the prospect of a renewal of hostilities upon such a ground, if Texas refused such a condition. It is a very material consideration in this subject, that the Cotton growing capabilities of Texas are superior to those of the United States; and if the principle of free labor can be established here, what with the opportunity of procuring labor from Mexico, and by immigration from other quarters, and the increasing supply and improvement of the Staple from India, there would be very soon an end of the remunerative production of Cotton by Slave labor in the United States.
The supply from Texas this year will amount to nearly 100,000 Bales (a considerable portion of it the produce of free labor) and if peace can be secured upon the terms Your Lordship has suggested, I entertain no doubt whatever that the Supply from Texas will exceed a Million of bales within 10 years from the date of such an arrangement. That supply must be exchanged chiefly against British Manufactures; And unless the tariffs of the United States, and the recent one of Mexico are very soon abated, it is easy to foresee that this Country will rapidly come to be the Seat of a considerable trade.
Charles Elliot. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T. P. S. I shall take the liberty of providing a Copy of this despatch to Mr. Doyle. C. E.
ADDINGTON TO ELLIOT 209
Draft. Captain Elliot. F. O. October 3, 1843. Sir,
In reply to your despatch marked “Separate” of the 4th of Augt. in which you request to be transferred to some other post, on the ground of ill health, I am directed by the Earl of Aberdeen to acquaint you that His Lordship regrets that he can not hold out any hopes of being enabled to comply with your request; but His Lordship directs me to add that if you are desirous of obtaining temporary leave of absence for the restoration of your health, His Lordship will very willingly grant it.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 210
Private. Galveston. October 10th 1843. My Lord.
I have the honor to acquaint Your Lordship that the Commissioners from this Government for the Settlement of the difficulties with Mexico, Mr. Samuel M. Williams and Colonel George Hockley will sail for Matamoros tomorrow or next day.
Their immediate object will be the arrangement of the terms of the Armistice, but I collect from them that they will not be able to go on to Mexico till Congress here shall have meet and sanctioned the necessary appropriation.
I beg leave to forward herewith the Copy of a letter of introduction 211 which I have taken the liberty to give the Commissioners to Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires at Mexico, as also the copy of another private letter addressed to that Gentleman by this occasion.
Charles Elliot. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
ELLIOT TO DOYLE 212
Private. Galveston October 10th 1843 My dear Sir.
The departure of the Commissioners for Matamoros affords me an opportunity to write to you a few lines. You will observe by the extracts from the American papers in the accompanying Newspapers that they are rather excited upon the subject of British interference in the Southern Sections of that part of the World.
I trust that Mexico will be true to the great cause of humanity, and to itself, on this momentous occasion. The mere announcement of their just and honorable determination that a land which was free under their rule should not be turned into a Pen of Slaves for the convenience of persons possessing such property in the exhausted Slave States of the North American Union would of itself be a very important step towards the establishment and security of the due and needful weight of Mexico in the affairs of this Continent. They have but to signify that the sine quâ non conditions of their acknowledgment of Texas by Mexico are decided and approved measures for the early and final disappearance of Slavery here, and formal adherence to the declaration of Mexico that the Independence is recognised and understood to be complete, whilst Texas remains a Separate Nation, but if [of] non effect in the case that it should annex itself to any other Country, without the consent of Mexico. Such a policy on the part of Mexico in the present emergency will have the effect of turning evil into good to it's lasting honor, and disaster into safety and advantage, interposing more effectual barriers against encroaching purposes from the other side of the “Sabine,” than the best lines of military defence, maintained in strong force, and the most effectual manner.
I said in my note to you a few days since that I am satisfied General Santa Aña may consent to a truce of very liberal duration (it matters not how long) if He causes it to be publicly understood at the same time that no combination of circumstances would ever induce Mexico to conclude a definitive arrangement with Texas till perfectly satisfactory arrangements were made for the Abolition of Slavery within some reasonable space of time, and on the contrary that Mexico is prepared to adjust finally on the most liberal footing as soon as that difficulty is removed.
No more Slaves will be brought into Texas after such a declaration of the Mexican Government, and the tide of immigration from the Slave States will be at once arrested; but there will be, instead, a very large immigration from the free States of the Union (orderly people that come to work for their bread in peace, not to idle away their time in the hope of profitable adventure into Mexico), and from quarters in Europe well affected to Mexico, chiefly directed to the frontier conterminous with Mexico, which is the region of Texas best suited to European Constitutions. If hostilities are resumed again (a very unlikely event after such a declaration of the Mexican Government), that Government would find itself in an attitude of great importance and force in this part of the World. The people of the United States are given to keen speculative calculation, and that prospect would present to them the possibility of Mexican Arms marching forward into Texas with proclamation that Slavery had no legal existence as far West as the “Sabine,” that the disabilities of people of Colour whether of the mixed Indian or African races were in like manner non existent within those limits, that the lands in Texas held by Settlers not possessed of Slaves, or willing to manumit them, should be confirmed to them provided they hold themselves neuter to the contest, and finally that sympathy from the S. W. States of America would be answered with sympathizing invitations to the Black and Coloured people of all races in those regions to pass over to the right bank of the “Sabine” where they would find less talk about the rights of Man, and a little rational enjoyment of them. Such reflections as these would assuredly present [a barrier?] to the blustering part of the population here and in the United States, immediately upon the public signification of the policy of the Mexican Government to have fast peace with Texas as soon as Texas saw fit to place Itself in a really independent attitude, as respected the S. W. States of America, instead of one of advanced post of aggression against Mexico, which it will continue to be till Mexico has the sound wisdom to sever the tie that connects Texas with those States.
Added to the high honor and other force that Mexico would derive from this policy, there should be joined the reflection of that certain distraction and violence as in the Councils of the United States sure to follow any attempt of the S. W. States to force on a War with Mexico, arising out of any just measures for it's honor and safety, as to the Abolition of Slavery in Texas, which was a violation of the Constitution of Mexico from it's very commencement. The best and wisest Statesmen of the United States fully comprehend that it is for the well understood interest and safety of their own Country that Slavery should not be suffered to extend in a S. W. direction. They are opposed to it both on lofty moral principle, and upon grounds of policy; and if Mexico acts upon the suggestion which has been made from London, I believe there need be no serious apprehension of anything worse than a great deal of talk. If there be any unreasonable faltering in that particular, I believe on the contrary that the intrigues which I am persuaded are ripening, will occasion some very serious inconvenience.
I make you no excuse for troubling you with these thoughts because I am sure you will feel that I do so in some hope they may help the public Service, and I need not say that it will give me great pleasure to attend to any suggestions which you think may serve the like purpose in this quarter
Charles Elliot. Copy Charles Elliot [Endorsed] Inclosure No. 2. in Captain Elliot's private despatch to the Earl of Aberdeen Octr. 10th 1843.
KENNEDY TO ABERDEEN 213
No. 7. British Consulate. Galveston October 11th. 1843. My Lord,
I have the honor to enclose a Return in duplicate of the prices of Indian Corn, Cotton and hides at the Port of Galveston, for the Quarter ending 30th. Ultimo.
I shall take an early opportunity of transmitting a General Report respecting the Trade of this Country, which I have held over, for the purpose of rendering it as correct as possible. To arrive at statistical accuracy in an extensive and thinly peopled Country, where intelligence is not always enlisted on the side of truth, and where the Machinery of internal administration is of necessity very imperfect, is an extremely difficult task.
William Kennedy. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTICES
The Viceroy of New Spain. By Donald E. Smith (University of California Publications in History, Volume I, No. 2, Pp. 99-293. Berkeley: 1913.)
To one who is looking for an exhaustive treatment of the office of viceroy in New Spain, this book will prove to be somewhat disappointing. Although the title would lead the reader to expect a general study, the author does not claim to have attempted to treat the viceroy throughout the entire period of that official's existence in New Spain. On the contrary, he states, in his conclusion, that his work deals only with the functions of the viceroy “as they were in the closing years of the Spanish reign.” With such an avowal as this, it would be manifestly unjust to criticize Dr. Smith's book in the light of the broad and more comprehensive title which he uses. It would doubtless have been better, however, had he indicated the narrow limits of his work in the title itself.
As a matter of fact, the study made by Dr. Smith is confined almost entirely to the period from 1789 to 1803, comprehending the administrations of Revillagigedo, Branciforte, Azanza, and Marquina. A glance at the footnotes reveals the paucity of primary sources to which Dr. Smith has had access. Indeed, the constant references to the Instrucción Reservada of Revillagigedo might cause the superficial reader to think that the book is little more than a digest or analysis of that important document. It is to be regretted that the author could not make use of the vast store of rich materials to be found in the Spanish and Mexican archives in the nature of unprinted sources, for until such documents have been utilized, the final word cannot be said even upon the brief period of which Dr. Smith's book treats.
The author begins his study by presenting a summary of the history of the office of the viceroy in Mexico from its establishment to the time of Charles III, which includes a very helpful brief exposition of the changes wrought in the office of viceroy by the introduction of the intendancy system in 1786. The body of the work consists of five chapters, whose contents may be indicated as follows: Chapter II treats of the relations of the viceroy with the home government; Chapter III, of the functions of the viceroy as governor; Chapter IV, of his functions as captain-general; Chapter V, of his functions as vice-patron of the church; and Chapter VI takes up more in detail the reforms of Charles III that are mentioned in the introductory chapter, especially the so-called free trade decree of 1778 and the decree of intendants of 1786.
In considering the relations of the viceroy with the home government, Dr. Smith departs from the limits he has set himself, showing the connection of the viceroy with the various institutions of the Spanish colonial system. He has added nothing to the accounts given by Bancroft, Moses, and Desdevises du Dézert, although he has done a service in presenting the facts in a more accessible form. He takes exception to the view held by Desdevises du Dézert that the viceroy was an oriental satrap, and shows that, on the contrary, he had practically no independence, being subject to the constant interference, even in the most trivial matters, of the home government. Here again the author depends almost entirely upon the Instrucción Reservada, and does not attempt to characterize the viceroy of an earlier period. In discussing the duties of the viceroy in connection with the negro slave trade, Dr. Smith says that it was by means of this traffic that the Spaniards were able to avoid the enslavement of the Indians in New Spain, since they could import sufficient laborers to produce an ample supply of food. Negro slavery, however, played a very small part in the economic system of New Spain, comparatively speaking, and it certainly did not prevent the Indians from being reduced to a state of practical slavery or serfdom.
In his chapter on the viceroy as governor Dr. Smith says: “There was little real danger to Spain of losing her American empire as the French lost Canada, as long as her rule was acceptable to the great mass of the colonial population, and thus the real problems before the viceroy were civil ones” (p. 160). He seems, however, to take an entirely different view when he comes to discuss the viceroy as captain-general, and points out, what seems to be more in accordance with the true facts, that the military functions of the viceroy completely overshadowed his civil duties. “On the eve of Spanish-American independence,” he says, ... “the viceroy was becoming more and more exclusively a military ruler” (p. 194). Again, he quotes Revillagigedo as saying that “by the last decade of the eighteenth century the powers which belonged to him as captain-general were not only more distinctive, but more important than those which he possessed as governor, as vice-patron, or as superintendent-general of the real hacienda” (p. 196). Dr. Smith goes on to make in this same chapter what appears to be a more correct statement of the international situation than the one referred to above. He says: “After the experiences of the Seven Years' War, Spain realized the possibilities of serious trouble from the English, who had taken Manila and Havana in 1762, and had generally terrorized the Spanish-American coasts.” Again: “The expedition of the English against Buenos Ayres in 1806 showed that the Court of St. James was in earnest in its designs upon certain parts of the Spanish colonial dominions.” These statements, together with many others of a similar nature, seem to indicate that the real opinion of the author is that, on account of the danger of foreign aggression, the viceroy in the period of which he treats was primarily a military and not a civil official. Indeed, Dr. Smith could not more emphatically state his belief that such was the case than when he says that the military functions “were the very heart of the viceregal office and were historically and actually the most important things which the viceroy was called upon to do” (p. 228). The excellent account given of the organization of the militia system of New Spain in the last years of the eighteenth century (and how difficult such a task is only one familiar with the field can realize) is a welcome contribution, and clears up many obscure points concerning the methods of controlling the disorganized forces of the viceroyalty during this period. In this connection, we might wish that Dr. Smith had been more specific in describing the functions of the various officials and councils that co-operated with the viceroy in matters of defence. Such important features as the auditor de guerra and the junta general de guerra y hacienda are passed over without explanation of their peculiar duties. We should have liked to see also some discussion of the viceroy's duties in regard to the frontier provinces, to which only indirect reference is made.
The absence of any table of contents, index, or sub-headings in the text makes the reading of the book rather difficult. Various repetitions are to be noted, and some carelessness is apparent in the use of “ibid.” in the footnotes.
On the whole, Dr. Smith has written a book which will prove of value to those interested in Spanish colonial institutions. Since it is a pioneer work in its particular field it is not surprising to find some shortcomings, which however will not prevent its being of use to the student who wishes to work along the same lines and make a more general study of the office of viceroy than Dr. Smith has professed to attempt.
W. E. Dunn.
John Brown, Soldier of Fortune: A Critique. By Hill Publes Wilson. (Lawrence, Kansas: Hill P. Wilson. 1913. Pp. 450.)
This volume was evidently written as a protest against the conclusions of Mr. Villard in his recent work, “John Brown, A Biography Fifty Years After,” but it is based upon studies begun many years ago. Mr. Wilson holds that Villard's book, though scholarly, is fundamentally unsound because the author has constantly endeavored to explain Brown's career and to justify his acts in accordance with the traditional view, and that, in doing this, he has suppressed or neglected evidence which would have led to very different conclusions. Mr. Wilson's own conclusions are that Brown was a horse-thief in Kansas, and a military adventurer at Harper's Ferry, hoping by the aid of a slave insurrection to establish a military empire in the South. This view was reached as the result of investigations begun with the purpose of writing a eulogistic sketch of John Brown's career in Kansas.
The book will repay careful reading. Following the lead of Villard, the author reviews Brown's varied business career in 1852, and reveals a number of shady transactions with the idea of portraying the character of the man. He also makes it clear that Brown showed no discernible interest in the slavery question prior to 1850 and then only incidentally. Having failed in business in 1854, the next year Brown followed five of his sons to Kansas as a settler, bringing along by request some arms for the free-state men furnished by the abolitionists. After examination of the evidence, the author declares that Brown took no conspicuous part as a free-state leader; but that, discouraged by the gloomy outlook for farming, he plotted to steal horses, organized a small band for that purpose, committed the murders on the Pottawatomie to cloak the theft, and exchanged the horses thus acquired for “fast running horses from Kentucky.” As proof of Brown's sense of guilt in this, he always denied participation in the crime. So far from taking a prominent part in the warfare with the pro-slavery men, Brown was present at only two engagements, Black Jack and Osawatomie, in both of which he was overtaken while endeavoring to get away with stolen horses and cattle. He even left Lawrence on the eve of an expected attack by the pro-slavery forces (September 14, 1856).
Brown's campaign in the East, October, 1856, to November, 1857, for funds with which to equip a company of men for warfare in Kansas, Mr. Wilson stigmatizes as a “colossal graft upon free-state sentiment,” the more palpable because conditions in Kansas were becoming peaceful. Though he raised the funds, Brown did nothing in Kansas except to make a raid into Missouri for more plunder.
About this time Brown conceived the plan that carried him to Harper's Ferry two years later. Believing that a slave insurrection would be easy to start, he began training a band of his former confederates, men of desperate character, for the conquest of the South. He plotted to seduce United States soldiers from their allegiance, and drew up a provisional constitution for his proposed conquests, which was adopted by a convention of his followers in Canada.
The fiasco at Harper's Ferry was due to the failure of the slaves to rise. Here Villard is taken severely to task for total misapprehension of Brown's plans, which Mr. Wilson thinks were not ill-advised except for the reliance upon the negroes. Brown's courage after capture, his concealment of his real plans, and his assumption of the attitude of a martyr, together with the state of the public mind resulting from the Civil War, have beclouded the memory of his crimes and selfish aims, and built up the tradition which envelopes his name. In this a series of eulogistic biographers have played their part.
Mr. Wilson has without question made out a strong case for the prosecution. At times he weakens it by making too much of uncertain evidence and by sundry harsh criticisms of Mr. Villard for the omission of material that must have seemed to the latter unimportant or irrelevant. But, on the whole, it is a very salutary corrective for much of the customary laudatory twaddle about John Brown, and it will have to be reckoned with by the students of the subject.
Chas. W. Ramsdell.
L'Améríque Latine. République Argentine. Par Eugenio Garzón. (Paris: Bernard Grasset, 1913. Pp. xvi, 386.)
The appearance of the third edition of this work is sufficient proof of the favor with which it has been received. The author is one of the most prominent of the large colony of South Americans who have taken up their residence in Paris, and he has won much distinction in his adopted country. The present edition of his work consists of two parts, as indicated by the title. The first one hundred and fifty-two pages are devoted to a study of the period of the Spanish-American wars of independence. The causes of the break with Spain are clearly set forth, and the progress of the struggle traced down to the triumph of the colonial armies. There is practically no change in this portion of the book from the previous editions. The second part of the book, however, which deals exclusively with the Argentine Republic, has been thoroughly revised and brought up to date. It will appeal to the economist and business man rather than to the historian. A list of some of the topics discussed will show the scope of the book: Geography and climatic conditions, agriculture, cattle-raising, mining, immigration, foreign commerce, refrigerated meats, manufactures and industries in general, mining, government finances, banking and currency system, immigration, public instruction, and the army and navy. Statistical tables and a number of unusually fine maps and diagrams show in graphic form the recent development and present resources of the great South American republic, and make the book a valuable reference work for those who are interested in the more practical questions of business conditions there today.
W. E. Dunn.
NEWS ITEMS
Professor H. E. Bolton of the University of California will offer courses in Southwestern History in the University of Texas during the summer session of 1914.
The first number of the Mississippi Valley Historical Review will appear in June, 1914. Professor Clarence W. Alvord of the University of Illinois is managing editor. It will be devoted primarily to the publication of articles and the reviewing of books on the Mississippi valley, but contributions will also be accepted “which may be interpreted as explaining the westward expansion [of the United States] in its broadest aspects.” Correspondence concerning membership in the Mississippi Valley Association should be addressed to the Secretary, Clarence S. Paine, Lincoln, Nebraska.
2. Instructions Reservadas para Zozaya, 31 de Octubre de 1822, La Diplomacia Mexicana, I, 85. This treaty later known as the Florida Treaty is spoken of in the correspondence of the time as the Treaty of Washington.
3. The discussion of the basis for, the character of, and the justice of this claim is not in place here. See Rives, United States and Mexico, I, 1-26; Smith, Annexation of Texas, 5-8; Babcock, Rise of American Nationality, 285-289; Cox, “Louisiana-Texas Frontier,” The Quarterly, X, 1-75; Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas, II, 46-53; and footnotes in each.
4. Onis, Memoir, 146. Onis's Memoria was printed in Madrid in 1820; and this translation was printed in Baltimore the following year.
5. Ibid., 23.
6. Nota del Ministro Zozaya, 26 de Diciembre de 1822, La Dipl. Mex., I, 103. He virtually repeats the language of Onis when he says: “La soberbia de estos republicanos no les permite vernos como iguales, sino como inferiores; su evanecimiento se extiende en mi juicio á creer que su capital lo será de todos las Americas.”
7. Nota del . . . Torrens, 21 de Agosto de 1823, La Dipl. Mex., II, 22. Ibid., 50-53, Torrens writes at length on proposed Anglo-American colonies in Texas, saying among other things, “mi opinion es, que intentando algunos agentes de Nuevo Orleans hacer establecimientos de anglo-americanos en Texas, con el mismo objeto que lo habían hecho en Baton Rouge, de adquirir una influencia y maioría en la población y hacerlos declarar que querían unirse á los Estados Unidos, etc. . . . Por tanto, me parece peligroso permitirles establecerse en gran número y formando pueblos separados, porque esto vendría á ser el origen de disensiones con los Estados Unidos.” He asks for instructions concerning the course he should pursue regarding limits. He had not received any on that subject since the change in government following Iturbide's deposition.
8. Bugbee, “Texas Frontier, 1820-1825,” 114 (Reprint from Publications Southern Historical Association, March, 1900). As evidence he cites letters in the Bexar Archives.
9. Alaman to Torrens, l de Octubre de 1823, La Dipl. Mex., II, 33. Alaman's Memorial to Congress, Nov. l, 1823, in British and Foreign State Papers, X, 1072; and Poinsett, Notes, 311. He says the chargé has been instructed to secure the confirmation of this line.
10. Nota del . . . Torrens, 26 de Enero de 1824, La Dipl. Mex., II, 73.
11. Torrens to Adams, Feb. 15, 1824, House Executive Documents, 25th congress, 1st session, No. 42, p. 6; British and Foreign State Papers, XXVI, 828.
12. Torrens to Secretario, 23 de Marzo de 1824, MS. Relaciones Exteriores.
13. Same to same, 14 de Julio de 1824, MS. Relaciones Exteriores.
14. Bugbee, “Texas Frontier, 1820-1825,” 115, citing Bexar Archives. A letter of Sept. 19, 1824, from the political chief said, “The Anglo-American government counts this province as its own and includes it on its maps, tracing its boundaries from the sources of the Rio Grande to its mouth on the coast of Tamaulipas.”
15. Instrucciones mui Reservadas, 30 de Agosto de 1824, MS. Rel. Ext. It is interesting to note here that Mexicans thought of asserting claim to the Oregon country. Torrens wrote that the settlement of that country was being considered in the United States Congress, where it was being urged that to leave this territory occupied by Indians, with England on one side and Mexico on the other to intrigue with the Indians, was dangerous to the United States and could do more harm than all Europe. Torrens added that he thought it would be dangerous to Mexico to permit the United States to occupy it. Torrens to Secretario, 5 de Mayo de 1824, MS. Rel. Ext.
16. Instrucciones, 30 de Agosto de 1824, MS. Rel. Ext. For text of the colonization law see Mexico, Leyes, Decretos, y Ordenes que forman el Derecho Internacional, 125. This is a government publication in three parts, of which this is part three. Parts one and two are Tratados y Convenciones. See note 32. For a discussion of the law, see any Texas history.
On March 23, 1824, Torrens had reported to his government that the Swiss consul at Washington had asked him if there would be any objection to receiving colonists from Switzerland; and he had replied that he thought they would be received since they were an industrious people and could not be enemies to liberal institutions. Torrens to Secretario, 23 de Marzo de 1824, MS. Rel. Ext. On July 10 the government at Mexico approved this act of Torrens and authorized him to assure the Swiss consul that Catholics from his country would find a favorable reception. Secretario to Torrens, 10 de Julio de 1824, MS. Rel. Ext.
17. Clay to Poinsett, March 26, 1825, MS. Department of State, Instructions, X, 225; extracts are printed in H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 1s., No. 42, p. 5; and B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 829. For brief discussions of Poinsett's instructions concerning Texas, see Reeves, Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk, 61; Garrison, Texas, 170; Bancroft, N. Mex. Sts. and Tex., II, 88; McMaster, U. S., V, 460; Von Holst, United States (1828-1846), 553; Falconer, Discovery of the Mississippi, 48; Kennedy, Texas, I 370; Adams, “Texas Speech” in H. of R., 1838, p. 106.
18. Azcarate to Victoria, 3 de Junio de 1825, MS. Rel. Ext. Azcarate was appointed as minister to England in 1822 by the imperial government, but did not go. See Bocanegra, Memorias, I, 76. Poinsett tells of his presentation to Iturbide on Nov. 3, 1822, but of course says nothing of this conversation with Azcarate. In his description of the emperor Poinsett shows his antipathy to monarchy in general and to the imperial system of Iturbide in particular. Poinsett, Notes on Mexico, 67, 69.
19. Poinsett to Clay, July 18, 1825, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Despatches, I; extracts in H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 1s., No. 42, p. 19; and B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 831.
20. Alaman to Poinsett, July 20, 1825, and Poinsett to Alaman, July 27, 1825, MS. Dept. of St., Mex. Desp. I; H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 1s., No. 42, p. 20; B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 831.
21. Clay to Poinsett, Sept. 24, 1825, MS. Dept. of St., Instr., X, 835; extracts in American State Papers, Foreign, VI, 581; H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 1s., No. 42, p. 7; and B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 836.
22. Poinsett to Clay, July 27, 1825, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., I; extract not including the cipher portion is in H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 1s., No. 42, p. 20; and B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 833. Reeves, Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk, 62.
23. Poinsett to Clay, Aug. 5, 1825, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., I. Reeves, Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk, 63.
24. Poinsett to Clay, Aug. 10, 1825, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., I.
25. Poinsett to Clay, Sept. 20, 1825, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., I; H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 1s., No. 42, p. 23; B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 835.
26. Esteva to Llave, Nov. 7, 1825, enclosure with Poinsett to Clay, Jan. 4, 1826, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., I.
27. Obregon to Secretario, 12 de Noviembre de 1825, MS. Rel. Ext.
28. Pedraza to Secretario, 10 de Febrero, 24 de Febrero, and 9 de Junio de 1826; and Blanco to Secretario, 7 de Agosto de 1826; all in MS. Rel. Ext.
29. Camacho to Poinsett, 20 de Junio de 1826, MS. Rel. Ext.; and MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., II.
30. Poinsett to Camacho, June 20, 1826, MS. Rel. Ext.; Poinsett to Clay, June 20, 1826, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., II. The last declares that hostile tribes in Mexico were in the habit of capturing defenceless Mexicans and carrying them across the border where United States citizens ransomed them and held them till their friends in Mexico redeemed them. This encouraged Indian warfare.
31. Erasmo Seguin of Bexar was appointed to the post in January, 1826; but in May asked to be relieved from serving because of his ill-health, because of the unhealthfulness of the climate of Natchitoches, and because he could not take his numerous family with him. His credentials and detailed instructions accompany his letter of appointment. Secretario to Seguin, 21 de Enero de 1826; Seguin to Secretario, 28 de Marzo de 1826; MS. Rel. Ext.
Bernardo Gutierrez, commandant of Tamaulipas, wrote in March urging the appointment of a consul at Natchitoches and recommending a resident of the place named Juan Cortes whom he had met there in 1812. Pedraza to Secretario, 7 de Marzo de 1826, MS. Rel. Ext.
32. Poinsett to Clay, March 18, 1826. MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., I; H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 1s., No. 42, p. 24; Poinsett told of the effort of John D. Hunter to obtain a grant of land for Indians who were anxious to move over the frontier from the United States into Texas. The “government refused to give them a large tract of land where they might remain in a body; but offered to settle them in different parts of the country.” Poinsett thought it would not be politic for the United States to permit Indians thus to move in bodies across the border. Poinsett to Clay, April 30, 1826, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., I.
33. Camacho and Esteva to Poinsett, June 19, 1826, Am. St. P., For., VI, 599; Mexico, Tratados y Convenciones, II, 125.
34. Poinsett to Plenipotentiaries, June 26, 1826, Am. St. P., For., VI, 599; Mexico Trat. y Conv., II, 126. For the additional articles see Ibid., 144.
35. Most writers on Texas history have discussed the questions whether Edwards was justified in starting the revolt and whether Austin was justified in opposing it. G. M. Bryan in Comprehensive History of Texas, I, 506-534, gives a full and careful account quoting a large number of documents from the Austin papers. He explains without unduly condemning Edwards's actions, and fully justifies Austin's. Yoakum, in the same volume, 114-121, justifies Edwards and mildly excuses Austin. Brown, Texas, I, 131-140, is more sympathetic with the Fredonians than Bryan but not so enthusiastic as Yoakum. He says “Austin was justified in his course but not in his denunciations.” Foote, Texas and the Texans, I, 218-292, gives a long sympathetic account of the revolt, quoting many letters and enthusiastically praising B. W. Edwards, who was his personal friend. He explains without condemning Austin's attitude. Bancroft, N. Mex. Sts. and Tex., II, 98-110, gives an impartial account, explaining without severely condemning either. Garrison, Texas, 165, says Edwards would have found it difficult to avoid trouble “even if he had shown the utmost prudence; but his want of caution, not to say his improprieties, lay on him heavy responsibility for the result. . . . The whole affair was so confused that one grows weary of seeking to locate the blame.” Barker in The Quarterly, XIII, 259, says, “Austin's part was an important one. He gave Edwards sage advice which, if he had followed it, would have enabled him to avoid most of his trouble; and in the end took the only possible course to preserve the confidence of the government and the interests of the colonists.” Miss Rather in The Quarterly, VIII, 112, explains the DeWitt colony's opposition to the Fredonians. For a brief account of the Fredonian Rebellion, see Howren, The Quarterly, XVI, 382.
36. Obregon to Secretario, 8 de Febrero and 10 de Febrero de 1827, MS. Rel. Ext. With these letters and others of earlier and later dates Obregon enclosed newspaper clippings giving reports of the revolt.
37. Obregon to Secretario, 17 de Febrero, and 21 de Febrero de 1827, the latter enclosing a copy of Clay to Obregon, Feb. 19, 1827, quoted above, also Obregon to Clay, 20 de Febrero de 1827, politely acknowledging Clay's of the preceding day; all in MS. Rel. Ext.
38. Poinsett to Clay, Feb. 21, 1827, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., II. Early in February the Mexican foreign office had told Poinsett of a raid by Anglo-Americans on Nacogdoches Nov. 22, 1826. After some depredations they had left, declaring they would return on December 15. Poinsett replied that he would transmit this complaint to his government and felt sure that the aggressors would be punished. On receiving it Clay returned a copy of orders to the military authorities on the border which he said he believed would put a stop to the offense and secure the punishment of the guilty. Espinosa to Poinsett, Feb. 2, 1827; Poinsett to Espinosa, Feb. 4, 1827; Poinsett to Clay, Feb. 7, 1827; MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., II; and Clay to Poinsett, March 24, 1827, MS. Dept. of St., Instr., XI, 283.
39. Poinsett to Clay, March 8, 1827, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., II.
40. Poinsett to Clay, March 24, June 5, June 16, and June 20, 1827. MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., II.
41. This error which was commonly made was due to looseness of statement rather than to ignorance. The treaty of 1819 used this language but added “if the source of the Arkansas river shall be found to fall north or south of latitude forty-two, then the line shall be run from the said source due south or north, as the case may be, till it meets the said parallel, etc.”
42. Clay to Poinsett, March 15, 1827, MS. Dept. of St., Instr., XI, 270; extract in H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 1s., No. 42. p. 8, and B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 837. See Rives, U. S. and Mex., I, 169.
43. Adams, Memoirs, March 14 and 15, 1827, VII, 239, 240.
44. Adams, “Texas Speech” in H. of R., 1838, 107. He said this offer was found to be highly disagreeable to Mexico, so was not pressed.
45. Adams's speech of April 15, 1842, Niles, Register, LXII, 138. In this speech he argued that because he wished Texas in 1825 and 1827 when slavery had been abolished there and could not have been restored had it been acquired, was no reason why he should be criticised for opposing the acquisition of Texas later.
For brief studies of the attempt to purchase Texas in 1827, see Barker, “Jackson and the Texas Revolution,” American Historical Review, XII, 788; Reeves, Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk, 63; Garrison, Westward Extension, 87; Bancroft, History of Mexico, V, 155; Von Holst, U. S. (1828-1846), 554; McMaster, United States, V, 460; Yoakum in Comp. Hist. of Tex., I, 135; Kennedy, Texas, I, 370; Jay, Review of Mexican War, 13; Robinson, Mexico and her Military Chieftains, 144. Most of these say Poinsett did not present the proposal to the Mexican government, citing Clay's “Raleigh Letter” of 1844, Niles, Reg., LXVI, 152, which says Poinsett “forebore even to make an overture for that purpose.” No serious regular negotiation was undertaken but Poinsett did sound the authorities on the subject. Adams, Memoirs, XI, 365, says the offer was rejected.
46. Poinsett to Clay, May 10, 1827, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., III. See Reeves, Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk, 64.
47. Poinsett to Sec. of St. of Mex., May 19, 1827, MS. Rel. Ext.
48. Poinsett to Clay, Jan. 8, 1828, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., III. The above portion of this letter is omitted in the extract printed in H. Ex. H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 1s., No. 42, p. 24; B and F. St. P., XXVI, 841.
It is interesting to notice that the Mexican negotiator based his argument for the unconstitutionality of the sale of Texas on the doctrine ofstate rights. If the matter could have been submitted to a vote of the people of the state the difficulty would probably have disappeared. In 1829 Van Buren suggested that this be done.
49. Poinsett to Clay, July 12, 1826, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., III; H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 1s., No. 42, p. 24; B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 837.
50. Mexico, Leyes, Decretos, y Ordenes que forman el Derecho Int., 139.
51. Poinsett to Clay, Oct. 6, 1827, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., III; H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 1s., No. 42, p. 25; B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 840.
52. Berlandier y Chovel, Diario de Viage de la Comision de Limites . . . bajo . . . Mier y Teran, 7, 115. This seems to be a very much condensed and slightly changed translation of a manuscript in French by Berlandier filling seven octavo volumes on travels in Mexico and Texas between 1826 and 1834. This and a few other Berlandier manuscripts of interest in the history of Texas and the Mexican War have recently been purchased by the Library of Congress. Berlandier was the naturalist of the expedition, and his notes are of value chiefly from the scientific, especially the geographical standpoint.
The passport for General Teran which the Mexican government requested was delivered by Clay to Obregon on March 24, 1828. H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 1s., No. 42, p. 42; B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 844.
53. One of these is the “Informe de Padre P. M. J. Puellas acerca de los limites de Texas,” dated Zacatecas, Noviembre 28 de 1827, a report on documents in archives in that city on the subject, covering thirty-four pages. The other is “Extractos de la memoria del Padre Pichardo, y de los informes del Ministro y Consul de España en los Estados Unidos acerca de limites de Texas é invasiones en su territorio.” The transcripts of these extracts cover fifty typewritten pages and review several hundred pages of manuscripts. MS. Rel. Ext.
54. Translation of Speech of Victoria to Congress, Dec. 24, 1827, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., III.
55. Resolution of April 2, 1827, Mexico, Trat. y Conv., I, 113; Poinsett to Clay, Jan. 8, 1828, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., III; Extracts in H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 1s., No. 42, p. 26; B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 841.
56. Poinsett to Clay, Jan. 8, 1828, cited in note 54.
The Mexican negotiators in explaining to the foreign office, said they believed the United States would not have attempted to change the boundary unless they had expected to gain an advantage at the expense of Mexico. Camacho and Esteva to Espinosa, 12 de Enero de 1828, Mexico, Trat. y Conv., I, 114.
57. Protocol of first conference, Jan. 8, 1828, H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 1s., No. 42, p. 27; B. and F., St. P., XXVI, 841; Mexico, Trat. y Conv., I, 109. Enclosed with Poinsett to Clay, Feb. 7, 1828, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., III.
58. Protocal of second conference, Jan. 10, 1828, H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 1s., No. 42, p. 28; B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 843; Mexico, Trat. y Conv., I, 110, 112.
59. For treaty see Am. St. P., For., VI, 946; Mexico, Trat. y Conv., I, 115, 117.
60. Poinsett to Clay, Feb. 7, 1828, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., III; extracts in H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 1s., No. 42, p. 26; Ibid., 2s., No. 351, p. 189; B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 843.
61. Poinsett to Clay, Feb. 22, 1828, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., III; Am. St. P., For., VI, 948; H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 2s., No. 351, p. 190.
62. Poinsett to Clay, Feb. 7, 1828, as cited in note 59. This very interesting portion of this letter is not printed in any of the three extracts from it cited in the same note.
63. Clay to Poinsett, April 21, 1828, MS. Dept. of St., Instr., XII, 98; H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 2s., No. 351, p. 17.
64. Am. St. P., For., VI, 946.
65. Senate Ex. Jour., III, 604.
66. Ibid., 605. Those opposing were Benton, Ellis, and Smith of South Carolina.
67. Clay to Obregon, April 30, 1828, H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 1s., No. 42, p. 46; B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 846.
68. Obregon to Clay, May 1, 1828, H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 1s., No. 42, p. 46; B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 846.
69. Espinosa who had been secretary of state for foreign relations nearly two years was succeeded by Cañedo on March 8, 1828. See Bocanegra, Memorias, I, 557. This was not quite two months after signing the treaty. Had the new secretary and both houses of congress acted as promptly as the authorities at Washington there still would have been time.
70. Poinsett to Clay, April 24, 1828, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., IV; H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 1s., No. 42, p. 28; B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 845.
71. Poinsett to Clay, April 26, 1828, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., IV; H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 1s., No. 42, p. 29; B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 845.
72. Obregon to Clay, Aug. 2, 1828, and Brent to Obregon, same date, H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 1s., No. 42, p. 47, 48; B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 846, 847. On May 10 Cañedo had informed Poinsett of the ratification by his government. H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 2s., No. 351, p. 202. For brief discussion of this treaty and its failure, see Rives, U. S. and Mex., I, 170.
73. Rocafuerte to Secretario, Londres, 16 de Julio de 1828, MS, Rel. Ext.
74. [Secretario to Rocafuerte], 22 de Septiembre de 1828, MS, Rel. Ext.
75. Rocafuerte to Secretario, Londres, 15 de Julio de 1828, and Owen's memorial accompanying, MS. Rel. Ext.
76. Poinsett to Secretario, Sept. 10, 1827, MS. Rel. Ext.; Cañedo to Poinsett, April 8, 1828; Poinsett to Cañedo, April 11, 1828; Cañedo to Poinsett, April 21, 1828; all enclosures with Poinsett to Clay, July 15, 1828, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., IV; Poinsett to Clay, April 23, 1828, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., III. The last cited is printed in H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 2s., No. 351, p. 201.
Bancroft, N. Mex. Sts. and Tex., II, 114, says the exemption expired in 1830. This is the time it would have legally expired had it not been withdrawn. He probably follows Filisola, Memorias, I, 163, which says: “al acabar aquel mismo año de 1830 debian terminar las escenciones y privilegios concedidos á las distritos de Tejas, Monclova, y Rio Grande, para la introduccion libre de derechos de todo lo que necesitasen para el uso de aquellos habitantes.”
77. Clay to Poinsett, Jan. 12, 1828, MS. Dept. of St., Instr., XII, 53; Clay to Adams, Jan. 14, 1828, and Adams to H. of R., Jan. 15, 1828, Am. St. P., For., VI, 822.
78. Clay to Poinsett, April 21, 1828, MS. Dept. of St., Instr., XII, 98; H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 2s., No. 351, p. 17; ibid., pp. 18-32 are the documents containing the charges against the Hardins; Poinsett to Cañedo, June 3, 1828, Cañedo to Poinsett, June 7, 1828, Poinsett to Clay, July 12, 1828, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., IV. The last letter is printed in H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 2s., No. 351, p. 214. Poinsett to Clay, June 9, 1828, MS. U. S. Embassy Archives, Mexico. This last is missing in the files of the Dept. of State.
79. Obregon to Secretario, 10 de Agosto de 1827, MS. Rel. Ext.
80. Same to same, 13 de Octubre de 1827, ibid.
81. Cañedo to Poinsett, April 12, 1828, Poinsett to Cañedo, April 19, 1828, enclosures with Poinsett to Clay, July 14, 1828, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., IV. In Poinsett to Clay, April 23, 1828, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., III and H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 2s., No. 351, p. 201, mention is made of this raid; and also of the violation of Mexican sovereignty by a party of one hundred hunters near the northern limit of California. Poinsett explained that this was probably due to ignorance of the exact location of the line.
82. Cañedo to Poinsett, July 15, 1828, enclosed with Poinsett to Clay, July 16, 1828, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., IV; H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 2s., No. 351, p. 242.
83. Pedraza to Secretario, 22 de Julio de 1828, Secretario to Pedraza, 26 de Julio de 1828, Secretario to Gobernador de Coah. y Tex., 26 de Julio de 1828, Gobernador de Coah. y Tex. to Secretario, 11 de Agosto de 1828, Secretario de Rel. to Secretario de Guerra, 27 de Agosto de 1828, Martinez to Secretario, Nueva Orleans, 23 de Septiembre de 1828, same to same 17 de Noviembre de 1828, all in MS. Rel. Ext.
84. Bocanegra to Poinsett, July 29, 1829, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., IV.
85. Poinsett to Bocanegra, July 31, 1829, ibid.
86. Poinsett to Van Buren, Aug. 2, 1829, ibid.
87. Bocanegra to Poinsett, Aug. 20, 1829, Poinsett to Bocanegra, Aug. 21, 1829, Poinsett to Van Buren, Aug. 22, 1829, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., IV; all of these except the important beginning of the last are in H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 2s., No. 351, p. 291-294.
88. See above p. 244.
89. Montoya to Van Buren, April 16, 1829, and Van Buren to Montoya, April 22, 1829, H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 1s., No. 42, p. 49; B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 848.
90. Poinsett to Sec. of St., March 10, 1829, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., IV.
91. Poinsett to Van Buren, July 22, 1829, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., IV; H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 1s., No. 42, p. 29, prints a brief extract and the rest is in Ibid., 2s., No. 351, p. 285. This was received at the Dept. of St. Sept. 22.
92. Butler to Secretary of State, [Aug. 11, 1829]; Jackson to Van Buren, Aug. 12, 1829; “Project for [the] acquisition of the province of Texas” [Aug. 13, 1829]; Jackson's draft of instructions to Poinsett, Aug. 13, 1829; Van Buren's outline draft, 16 pp.; First draft in different hands with numerous corrections and containing practically everything in the final instructions, 32 pp.; Second draft dated Aug. 25, 1829, 37 pp.; all in Van Buren MSS., Library of Congress, IX and X. The conjectured dates have been adopted from the Library of Congress Calendar of the Van Buren papers prepared by W. C. Ford and Miss Elizabeth West and printed in 1910. Jackson's draft of Aug. 13, is printed in Reeves, Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk, 65 note, citing the Jackson papers, which seems to be an error.
Most writers on Texas history discuss these instructions of Aug. 25, 1829, and in connection with them mention the offer to purchase made by Clay on March 15, 1827, and his instructions to Poinsett on March 26, 1825, to negotiate for a westward extension of the boundary. See Howren, The Quarterly, XVI, 383-387; Barker, “Jackson and the Texas Rev.,” A. H. R., XII, 789; McMaster, U. S., V, 461 and 542-555, which dwells at great length on the efforts of the Jacksonian newspapers to facilitate the purchase; Kennedy, Texas, I, 372. The following five give very brief discussions: Bancroft, N. Mex. Sts. and Tex., II, 89; MacDonald, Jacksonian Democracy, 211; Yoakum in Comp. Hist. of Tex., I, 129; the remainder are strongly prejudiced: Von Holst, U. S. (1828-1846), 555; Jay, Review of Mex. War, 15; Adams, “Texas Speech” in H. of R., 1838, 114-121; Tornel, Tejas y los Estados Unidos, 3, 10; Filisola, Memorias, I, 158-162.
93. Van Buren to Poinsett, Aug. 25, 1829, MS. Dept. of St., Secret Record, I, 39; H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 1s., No. 42, p. 10; B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 850. This was not entered in the regular volume of Instructions in the Department of State; nor in the regular volume of the Archives of the U. S. Embassy in Mexico. Jackson's full power to Poinsett to negotiate concerning the matter bears the same date as the instructions. See Van Buren MSS. Library of Congress, X.
94. Butler's commission as bearer of the despatch is Van Buren to Butler, Aug. 24, 1829, MS. Dept. of St., Secret Record, I, 52; his full power is Jackson to Butler, Oct. 17, 1829, Ibid., 53; his instructions are Van Buren to Butler, Oct. 16, and P. S. Oct. 17, 1829, H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 2s., No. 351, pp. 40-53.
“Butler, an old comrade in arms of Jackson . . . lacked moral character and fitness for any position of trust. No worse selection for a diplomatic position could have been made. . . . [He] was charged with being a speculator in Texas lands, a gambler, a drunkard, and a liar. But this last epithet came from Jackson himself some years afterwards, when his shortness of memory afforded him an easy escape from the entanglements of fact. It is safe to say that Butler's mission, discreditable and even disgraceful, had much to do with the unsatisfactory course of our diplomatic relations with Mexico which ended in war. When Butler appears for the first time upon the stage of diplomacy, he had recently been in Texas and professed to be familiar with the proposed river boundaries. Sent to Mexico as bearer of despatches to Poinsett, he went overland, again through Texas, and secretly. . . . From 1829 to 1836, during practically all of Jackson's term, Anthony Butler represented, or rather misrepresented, the United States in Mexico.” Reeves, Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk, 68.
95. Butler to Van Buren, Jan. 10, 1830, and enclosure, H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 2s., No. 351, p. 310.
96. See McMaster, U. S., V, 543-547.
97. Van Buren to Butler, April 1, 1830, H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 2s., No. 351, p. 62.
98. Butler to Van Buren, May 21, 1830, Ibid., 326.
99. See Barker, “Jackson and the Tex. Rev.,” A. H. R., XII, 791-797.
100. U. S., Treaties and Conventions, 1776-1909, I, 1084.
101. Ibid.; and Montoya to Livingston, March 26, 1832, H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 1s., No. 42, p. 51; Same to same, March 31, 1832, Ibid., 53; Same to same, April 3, 1832, Ibid., 57.
102. Castillo to McLane, Dec. 2, 1833, H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 1s., No. 42, p. 60; Same to same, Ibid., 62; McLane to Butler, Jan. 13, 1834, Ibid., 16. Butler to Lombardo, Dec. 21, 1834, Ibid., 38.
103. Mexico, Trat. y Conv., I, 180.
104. “Memorandum of M. Austin's Journey, 1796-1797,” Amer Hist. Rev., V, 518-542.
105. Parkman, Pioncers of France in the New World, 384.
106. A company of Germans is said to have been embodied at Pittsburgh in November for the purpose of proceeding to Texas. New York Evening Post, November 25, 1835; Albany Argus, November 23, 1835. In this same month John J. Schuler, W. Carothers, Alfred Creigh, W. B. Parkinson, and John H. Noble, a committee, write to tell Austin that from fifty to seventy young men of Carlisle, Pa., are anxious to help Texas, provided they are needed, and can make their way to that country. MS. Austin Papers.
Of similar interest in this same connection is a letter from one S. H. Steedman to Smith. It was written from `Chillisquaque near Milton,' Northumberland county, and is dated Dec. 30, 1835. In this he writes “as an individual selected from among my comrades” to find out whether Texas has an agency at New York or Philadelphia to defray the expenses “of those who desire to render you relief. If you furnish the means—to bear the expenses and equipage, there can be a company of young men from thirty to fifty and probably amounting to one hundred raised—of the old Susquehanna River—whose fathers fought and bled in the country's cause.” MS. Texas State Library.
107. Philadelphia National Gazette, April 12, 1836. An enquiry was addressed on the same date to the editor of the United States Gazette for the purpose of learning whether Colonel Austin would favor a number of young men with an interview. Colonel Austin was in New York but seems to have returned to Philadelphia the next day. Austin was in the latter city on the 9th. I am indebted to the Pennsylvania Historical Society for permission to examine the file of this journal.
108. United States Gazette, January 11, 1836. For an account of the Tampico expedition, see Barker, “The Tampico Expedition,” in The Quarterly, VI, 169-186.
109. Muster Rolls, General Land Office of Texas, 238. United States Gazette, April 28, 1836; Poulson's American Daily Advertiser, May 4, 1836; Newell, History of the Revolution in Texas, App., 211.
110. Muster Rolls, 238; United States Gazette, July 16, 1836, quoting the New Orleans Bulletin, June 29, 1836. According to Brown, History of Texas, I, 404, the following names should be included: William Boyle, Charles W. Conner, John Connell, Martin K. Snell, Mandred Wood. Of these Conner was killed by the Mexicans near San Antonio, leaving a mother and sister in Philadelphia. Poulson's Advertiser, January 8, 1836.
111. The letter is printed in The Quarterly, XI, 157-161.
112. Philadelphia National Gazette, May 5, 6, 19, 1836; United States Gazette, May 11, 1836.
113. Philadelphia National Gazette, May 17, 20, 1836. This P. S. Mahan is no doubt the P. Jenks Mahan who is said to have served with Grant and Johnson in the campaign of 1835.
114. Cf. Baker's Texas Scrap Book, 585; Thrall, A Pictorial History of Texas, 541. Gidding was a member of Company A, Third Regiment, Texas Volunteers.
115. Muster Rolls, 238.
116. Ibid., 230, 238, 239.
117. United States Gazette, May 30, 31, 1836. L. S. Haighler was chosen chairman of the meeting, and L. S. Briest, secretary.
118. Ibid., July 21, 1836.
119. Ibid., August 23, 1836.
120. New York Courier and Enquirer, December 1, 1836.
121. The Quarterly, V, 33.
122. The names of those composing the committee were Gen. Robert Patterson, Col. John Swift, L. A. Godey, Major Peter Fritz, Marshall Sprogell, Geo. W. Jones. Col. W. P. Smith, Jos. Aiken, Wm. English, B. Duke, Stuart Newell, E. D. Tarr, Daniel Felter, Andrew Nanderson, Jno. K. Walker, Wm. Davis. S. P. Rudolph, Jno. Jordan, Jno. Manderson, Gen. Jno. D. Goodwin, Jno. Naglee, Chas. Naylor, Jno. Conrad, Jno. G. Wolf, Martin McMichael, Thos. D. Grover, Robt. Morris, Jno. F. Stump, Col. Jno. Thompson, Wm. F. Hughes, Col. Geo. Roshler, N. C. Foster, Wm. C. Johnson, W. G. Alexander, Wm. Wood, Augustus D. Tarr. Thos. S. Smith was chairman of the meeting, and Robert T. Conrad, secretary. United States Gazette, April 19, 1836.
123. Ibid., May 3, 1836; Philadelphia National Gazette, May 3, 1836. The vice-presidents of the meeting were Cols. Jno. Thompson, W. P. Smith, S. H. Perkins, J. S. Riley, and private S. Newman. The secretaries were Geo. Norton, Robt. Morris, and C. D. Lybrand. It may be noted that memorials from citizens of Philadelphia were presented in the Senate May 9.
124. Philadelphia National Gazette, May 5, 7, 1836. This journal of May 4 and 6 contained Austin's Louisville address.
125. United States Gazette, May 19, 1836.
126. Ibid., June 4, 1836. John Conrad was the chairman of this meeting. The new members were: Robt. C. Martin, Geo. W. South, Thos. Koehler, Wm. Stephens, Wm. Vogdes, Chas. Hinkle, Erastus M. Glathery, Thos. C. Clark, Jos. C. Neal, Thos. B. Florence, Napoleon B. Evans, Chas. K. Servoss, Capt. Theo. Gillies, D. P. Brown, Dr. Thos. C. Bunting, Jno. Leadbetter, Jr., Nathan Levering, Chas. D. Lybrand, Wm. White, Jr., Robt. C. Conrad, Thos. Boyd, Henry Derringer, A. J. Pleasanton, Henry Remmey, Wm. Linkey, Dr. Alex. Ramsey, Thos. B. Town, Jas. Sloan.
127. It is not clear just what relation existed between this committee and the executive committee.
128. United States Gazette, June 17, 1836.
129. Ibid., August 25, 1836. Theodore Gillies was appointed chairman of this meeting. The following were added to the membership of the committee: Jno. H. Frick, Robt. Morris, Jos. C. Neal, Peter Hay, Jos. Wood, Jos. S. Serosse, Jas. Reed, Henry Derringer, L. A. Godey, Jno. Thompson, T. R. Moffatt.
130. Ibid., May 7, 1836.
131. Philadelphia National Gazette, May 16, 1836. Thos. W. Dukes was chosen president of this meeting; Daniel Newman and David R. Graham, vice-presidents, and Jesse Williamson, secretary.
132. United States Gazette, May 31, 1836. L. S. Haighler was chairman of the meeting, and L. S. Briest, secretary. Dr. J. H. Carr, Briest, Haighler, Dr. Burks and B. Grant were appointed to confer with the general city committee. The committee on resolutions consisted of Carr, Briest, Lockwood, Steele, and Zantzinger.
133. United States Gazette, July 16, 18, 1836; Philadelphia National Gazette, July 19, 1836. The call for the meeting was signed by Jno. Swift, Geo. M. Dallas, Jos. R. Chandler, Samuel Brashears, David P. Brown.
134. United States Gazette, July 29, 1836. The members of the committee to collect funds were Jno. Hemphill, D. P. Brown, N. C. Foster, Samuel Brashears, Jno. C. Montgomery, Geo. M. Dallas, Jno. L. Hodges, Jas. Ronaldson, Jos. R. Chandler, Daniel Fitler, Col. Jno. Thompson, Peter Hay, Jas. Hanna, Benj.Duncan, Chas. Naylor, Thos. D. Grover, Gabriel Kerr, Samuel F. Reed, Jno. Swift, Francis H. Stout, Benj. Mifflin, Jno. R. Walker, Norris Stanley, Jno. M. Kennedy, Jno. Naglee.
135. United States Gazette, August 11, 1836. A general committee appointed by this meeting consisted of Gen. Jno. D. Goodwin, Col. Chas. K. Servoss. Capt. Theo. Gillies, D. P. Brown, Dr. Thos. C. Bunting, Jno. Jarden, Daniel Fitler, Wm. Davis, Daniel Green, Wm. Eppelsheimer, Jacob Jarden, Dr. Thos. Badaraque, Miles N. Carpenter, Wm. H. McCrea, Samuel Brick, Jno. Barclay, Stewart Nevell, Dr. M. M. Reeve, Col. Jas. Woodman, Thos. B. Town.
136. United States Gazette, August 13, 1836. Capt. Theodore Gillies presided at this meeting, Jarden and Carpenter were chosen vice-presidents, and Newell and Carr secretaries. The executive committee was made up of those appointed at the previous meeting with the addition of Jas. Henry Carr.
137. Senate Docs., 1st Session, 24th Congress, V, No. 365.
138. Cong. Globe, 1st Session, 24th Congress, III, 380.
139. Ibid., III, 410. J. M. Wolfe had visited Pennsylvania among other states, in the spring of 1836, for the purpose of getting memorials sent to Congress.
140. United States Gazette, May 25, 1836.
141. Philadelphia National Gazette, May 27, 1836.
142. United States Gazette, June 8, 1836.
143. Ibid., January 25, 1836.
144. Ibid., April 20, 1836. In the issue of this paper for May 13, 1836, appeared an article on the “Cause of the War”—a vindication of the Texans.
145. United States Gazette, May 2, 1836. Cf also Ibid., May 26, June 7, 16, 1836.
146. Philadelphia National Gazette, April 13, May 3, 1836.
147. These articles were republished in a pamphlet entitled. The Origin and True Causes of the Texas Insurrection, Commenced in the Year 1835. Cf. Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas, II, 159, note.
148. Philadelphia National Gazette, May 17, 21, 1836. The main object of the writer was to prove that the revolt was not so much the deed of the actual settlers as of the land speculators and slaveholders in the United States.
149. Ibid., April 30, May 12, 1836.
150. Quoted in Philadelphia National Gazette, April 29, 1836.
151. Poulson's Advertiser, April 12, 15, 20, 1836.
152. Philadelphia National Gazette, May 13, 1836.
153. Ibid., June 25, 1836.
154. Rhodes, History of the United States, I, 91.
155. Poulson's Advertiser, June 29, 1836.
156. Philadelphia National Gazette, May 6, 1836.
157. Philadelphia National Gazette, April 28, 1836, quoting the New Orleans True American of April 13. According to the Nashville Banner of April 27 there was small hope of checking the enemy. On the other hand the Evening Star of Philadelphia asserted that “Texas sooner or later from its position must become the property of the United States.” Quoted by the Commonwealth, Frankfort, Ky., Nov. 14, 1835.
158. Philadelphia National Gazette, April 20, 27, 29, 1836.
159. Poulson's Advertiser, April 27, 1836, quoting the Charleston Southern Patriot; Philadelphia National Gazette, June 22, 1836. The inducements held out by the Texas authorities to prospective volunteers occupy much less space in the Philadelphia papers than in those of some other communities, such as Kentucky for instance. Cf. United States Gazette, January 18, 1836; Philadelphia National Gazette, April 21, 26, 1836.
160. Philadelphia National Gazette, April 28, 1836.
161. Ibid., May 9, 1836. One writer expressed the opinion that public sympathy in the United States had been excited just in proportion as the butcheries of Santa Anna had become known. Ibid., June 28, 1836.
162. United States Gazette, May 23, 1836.
163. Philadelphia National Gazette, May 30, June 2, 1836.
164. The New Orleans Bee of May 3 contained Secretary of War Rusk's account of the battle, dated April 23.
165. Philadelphia National Gazette, May 19, 1836. The issue of May 23 still discredited the victory.
166. The day before the editor had referred to the “Massacre of the 21st of April.”
167. United States Gazette, August 19, 1836.
168. Philadelphia National Gazette, May 6, 1836. The hope is expressed that nothing will be done by an American officer to tarnish the high character of the United States for national probity and good faith.
169. Cf. United States Gazette, August 2, 1836, which contained Gen. Gaines' letter of July 28 to Gen. Bradford.
170. Philadelphia National Gazette, August 2, 1836.
171. Garrison, Westward Extension (Amer. Nation, XVII), 88.
172. Smith, The Annexation of Texas, ch. I.
173. These reminiscenses appeared in the Texas Presbyterian at intervals from December 4, 1876, to January 2, 1885, while the paper was issued from St. Louis and edited from Texas. They were printed in the form of epistolary correspondence and are arranged in this compilation in the order in which they appeared in the Presbyterian with the exception that the articles concerning Joseph Brown, Henry S. Foote, James Burke and the University are carried forward from among his notes to a place at the close of the reminiscences. The compiler has taken the liberty of omitting some letters which treat of events current at the time when the reminiscences were prepared. Mr. Allen was over seventy years of age when his reminiscences were produced and the correspondence extended over almost ten years. As might be expected repetitions have appeared, and these repetitions have been retained where their omission would leave obscure some new data presented. For W. Y. Allen's career in Texas see The Quarterly, XVII, 43-44.
174. Texas Presbyterian, I, No. 40. December 22, 1876.
175. The sermon was in commemoration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the synod of Texas. It is also printed in A Family of Millers and Stewarts, by Robert F. Miller, Pp. 16-18.
176. Longpoint, Washington county.
177. Texas Presbyterian, III, No. 2. March 1, 1878.
178. The ruling elder was John McFarland.
179. Texas Presbyterian, III, No. 3. March 15, 1878.
180. Texas Presbyterian, III, No. 7. April 12, 1878.
181. Texas Presbyterian, III, No. 9. April 26, 1878.
182. Texas Presbyterian, III, No. 11. May 10, 1878.
183. Texas Presbyterian, III, No. 13. May 24, 1878.
184. Texas Presbyterian, III, No. 16. June 14, 1878.
185. Texas Presbyterian, III, No. 21. July 19, 1878.
186. Texas Presbyterian, III, No. 22. July 26, 1878.
187. Texas Presbyterian, III, No. 26. August 23, 1878.
188. This was probably the Harrisburg and Brazos Railroad. See The Quarterly, VII, 279-281, and Potts, Railroad Transportation in Texas, 26-27.
189. Texas Presbyterian, III, No. 27. August 30, 1878.
190. Texas Presbyterian, III, No. 40. November 29, 1878.
191. Texas Presbyterian, III, No. 43. December 20, 1878.
192. The book, to whose preparation reference is here made, was published in 1840 under the title: “Texas in 1840; or The Emigrants Guide to the New Republic. By an emigrant, late of the U. S.” It did not pretend to be a history, nor was it the first book about Texas.
193. Texas Presbyterian, III, No. 45. January 3, 1879.
194. Texas Presbyterian, III, No. 52. February 14, 1879.
195. Texas Presbyterian, IV, No. 2. February 28, 1879.
196. The Minutes of the Presbytery of Brazos record the death of the Rev. Francis Rutherford under the circumstances here given. No Mr. Hutchison is mentioned. Mr. Allen evidently forgot the name.
197. Texas Presbyterian, IV, No. 3. May 7, 1879.
198. The Matagorda Bulletin was a contemporary of the Telegraph. The issue for March 28, 1838, is number 33 of volume I.—The Editors.
199. A few copies of the Advocate are among the Austin Papers. They contain some articles written in the style of Allen but signed with a nom de plume, Themis.
200. Texas Presbyterian, IV, No. 3. March 7, 1879.
201. Ezekiel W. Cullen.
202. An investigation did not locate the manuscript. The body of the report is in Allen's style.
203. Texas Presbyterian, IV, No. 6. March 28, 1879.
204. F. O., Texas, Vol. 6. The letter is unsigned.
205. F. O., Texas, Vol. 7.
206. F. O., Texas, Vol. 6.
207. Ibid. Elliot to Aberdeen, Nos. 26 and 27, September 15, 1843, have been omitted. No. 26 treated of the Eliza Russell claims. No. 27 enclosed Houston's proclamation of September 4, 1843, permitting any Mexicans in Texas to repair to headquarters of General Woll, and also on this topic a copy of Jones to Elliot, September 4, 1843. This last in Garrison, Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas, III, 1125, in Am. Hist. Assoc. Report, 1908, II.
208. See page 193, note 4, above.
209. F. O., Texas, Vol. 6. The letter is unsigned and unnumbered.
210. F. O., Texas, Vol. 6.
211. Not transcribed.
212. F. O., Texas, Vol. 6.
213. F. O., Texas, Vol. 7.
How to cite:
"Issue View", Volume 017, Number 3, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online. http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v017/n3/issue.html
[Accessed Mon Nov 23 9:49:48 CST 2009]
