Vol. XVII 1 APRIL, 1914 No. 4
The publication committee and the editors disclaim responsibility for views expressed by contributors to The Quarterly.
It is not generally known that the San Gabriel River in central Texas was once the seat of Franciscan missionary activity. Yet such is the case, and slender remains of the mission establishments are still to be seen in the valley of that stream. If one will drive nine miles northwest from Rockdale to the Kolb Settlement, and then turn westward up the river for about a mile, he will come to what has long been known in the neighborhood as “Ditch Valley Farm,” a name, the present writer has discovered and established beyond doubt, which comes from the fact that through the farm once ran an “acequia,” or irrigating ditch, constructed in the year 1750 to serve three Spanish missions which had recently been established there. In the river near by are still to be seen at low water the remains of what has long been known as the old “Rock Dam,” whose origin, it is now clear, was the same as that of the ditch.
The remains of the “acequia” as well as of the dam are still to be seen in dim outline. Crossing the main highway near the western end of the farm is a shallow ditch leading toward the river. North of the road it is quite distinct, being some eight feet wide at the top and two or three feet deep in the middle. The land on this side of the road is uncultivated, and in the bed of the ditch are growing hackberry trees nearly a foot in diameter. About one hundred feet from the road the ditch terminates in a natural arroyo or gully, which leads eastward into the river about two hundred yards away. South of the road the ditch leads into cultivated fields, where it is soon lost; but forty rods to the southeast, where it crosses an unplowed lane, it is again distinct, and eight rods farther away it can still be faintly traced across another lane.
In the bed of the river two hundred yards below the mouth of the arroyo the remains of the old “Rock Dam” are pointed out. They now consist of only a heap of large stones, stretching across the stream. A man fishing up the river at low water would certainly notice the stones, though he might not suspect that they are the remains of a dam. But the inhabitants of the neighborhood claim to remember when both ditch and dam were quite distinct—a claim fully supported by the long and commonly used names, “Rock Dam” and “Ditch Valley Farm.” In the fields the “acequia” has been filled in by the plow; while most of the stones of the dam, I am told, have been hauled away and used for building purposes. Besides the ditch and the dam, tradition tells of the remains of old buildings of pre-American origin, once standing on Kolb's Hill, below Ditch Valley Farm. Tradition ascribes the ditch, the dam, and the old buildings to the Spaniards, and neighborhood belief in the tradition is evidenced by perennial digging about the locality of the dam for pots of Spanish gold. But few or none have guessed, what is now established beyond question, that these archaeological remains are the vestiges of what were known in their day as the San Xavier missions.
1. The obscurity of the history hitherto.—The story of these missions is a little known chapter in the history of the labors of the Franciscan Fathers among the Indians northeast of the Rio Grande. Writing a few years ago on “Some Obscure Points in the Mission Period” of the history of Texas, Dr. W. F. McCaleb said, with essential truth, “Though little is known of most of the eastern [Texas] missions, still less is known of some others. Indeed, as to the three missions on the San Xavier River, no historian, so far as the writer's information goes, save Bancroft, has
even mentioned their names.”
2 And Bancroft, he might have added, devotes to them only a little more than a page. Besides Bancroft, Dr. McCaleb should have excepted Shea, who devotes a few short paragraphs to the subject.
3 Had the assertion been intended to include books printed in a foreign language it would have excepted, also, Arrivicita's Crónica Seráfica y Apostólica,
4 a very rare work, which contains a fairly good, though in many respects unsatisfactory, account of the missions, in whose founding and administration the author took part. Arricivita's worst defect is his utter disregard for chronology and geography. There is, in addition, the still rarer treatise, for it is as yet unprinted, by Father Morfi, which devotes a considerable amount of space to the San Xavier missions. This history and that of Arricivita are the chief basis of the brief and obscure paragraphs of Bancroft and Shea.
5
Since Dr. McCaleb wrote the words quoted, no advance has been made in published works, excepting a minor contribution by the present writer. 6 At the time when that was published, only Bancroft had even dared guess the identity of the San Xavier River, on which the missions were established. He conjectured that it might have been a branch of either the Colorado or the Brazos, a guess giving considerable latitude, since these streams are from fifty to seventy-five miles apart in their middle courses. 7 Other features of the history of the missions have been equally or more obscure. Indeed, even the date of their establishment has not hitherto been correctly recorded.
And yet the reason for this obscurity is not that the missions were relatively unimportant, for they were more far-reaching in design, longer in duration, and more successful in operation than the San Sabá mission, for example, of which much more is popularly known. Nor has the reason been the non-existence of data for making the episode fairly plain, for these are abundant. It has been, rather, the inaccessibility of the data, and the fact that considerable material remains of the San Sabá mission have been preserved, whereas those of the San Xavier River have been completely lost to view. Recently, however, a large quantity of documentary sources for the history of the missions on the San Gabriel has been gathered from the archives of Mexico, 8 and the site of the missions and some of their remains have been identified. It is now possible, therefore, to construct with some degree of fulness, on the basis of the newly acquired material and a study of the site, the story of the precarious career of these shortlived but not unimportant missions.
2. The genesis of missionary activity in Texas.—One fact which appears from a study of missionary activities in Texas in the light of the distribution and organization of the native tribes, is that mission development was not haphazard, but bore pretty definite relations to the tribal grouping. The opinion sometimes expressed that the Spaniards set out from the first arbitrarily to establish a “chain of missions” in Texas, is in the main unfounded. Mission distribution was conditioned, as we would expect upon reflection, by native organization, and the practicability of such a plan would depend largely upon the distribution of the native tribes.
The first group of Indians in Texas to receive serious attention from the missionaries were the Hasinai, or Asinai, of the Neches-Angelina country, among whom missionary activity was begun in 1690, and renewed and extended in 1716. About 1700, with the establishment of three missions on the lower Rio Grande, below the present Eagle Pass, work was begun among the large group of Coahuiltecan, or Pakwan tribes, who lived between the Rio Grande and the San Antonio. This enterprise led logically to the founding of missions at San Antonio, for the same group of tribes (1718-1731). Next, in 1722, a mission was established near Matagorda Bay for the Karankawan tribes of the coast, but it was moved inland in 1726 to the Xaranames and the Tamiques. At the same time that missionary work was begun among the Karankawa, attention was directed for a time to the Hierbipiame, of the Brazos country, but without avail, as will appear shortly. After 1731, when the Querétaran missions were transferred from eastern Texas to San Antonio, there was no expansion into new missionary fields for over a decade and a half, although the old field gradually widened as a result of the efforts to supply with neophytes the missions already founded. By this time fifteen missions had been established in Texas.
The next seventeen years, between 1745 and 1762, that is, down to the time when Texas lost much of its political importance because of the acquisition of Louisiana by Spain, was another period of extensive missionary expansion within the present limits of Texas. During that period three missions were established on the San Xavier River, among the Tonkawan tribes; one was founded on the lower Trinity River among the Orcoquiza, one on the lower San Antonio for the Karankawa, and three, on the San Sabá and the Nueces Rivers for the Eastern Apache. At the same time, attempts were made among the Wichita tribes of the upper Brazos and the Red Rivers.
In all this missionary work, activity was much influenced by the movements or the supposed movements of the French of Louisiana, who were constantly regarded as dangerous rivals among the Texas tribes.
3. Early knowledge of the San Xavier River.—The San Xavier River of Spanish days, it is now clear enough, was the San Gabriel of today, which joins Little River—the old San Andrés, or the first of the Brazos de Dios—some twenty-five miles before that stream disembogues into the main Brazos. The way in which the Spanish name became converted by a series of misspellings into the present form, with the resulting loss of the stream's identity in modern geography, is in itself an interesting bit of history, but cannot be indicated here. The San Xavier River early became known to the Spaniards as one of the streams of central Texas endowed with more than usually attractive surroundings. It was visited and given its name by the Ramón-Saint Denis expedition on June 1, 1716. 9 By the same party Brushy Creek, the principal tributary of the San Gabriel, was twice crossed and was given the name of Arroyo de las Benditas Animas 10 (Creek of the Blessed Souls), which it bore in somewhat shortened form almost continuously throughout Spanish days.
From 1716 forward the San Xavier River was frequently visited and mentioned. The expedition led by the Marquis of Aguayo in 1721 passed the Colorado near the mouth of Onion Creek and followed a northward course that took the party across Arroyo de las Animas, the San Xavier River, Little River near Belton, and thence to the Brazos about at Waco. 11 In 1730, when the Querétaran missions were removed from eastern Texas to San Antonio, the Zacatecan missionaries asked permission to remove their establishments to the San Xavier, 12 a fact which indicates some acquaintance with the stream. In 1732 Bustillo y Zevallos, governor of Texas, made a campaign against the Apache that took him to and beyond the San Xavier. 13 In 1744, during the perennial quarrel between the Canary Island settlers and the other inhabitants of San Antonio, it was suggested that one of the parties should move to the San Xavier, 14 but the proposal was not acted upon. Two years later it was asserted that the region of the San Xavier was well known to the inhabitants of San Antonio as a buffalo-hunting ground, 15 and anyone who has beheld the superb prairies between the Colorado and the middle San Gabriel can readily believe the assertion.
It is thus seen that in 1745, when the project of missions for the tribes of central Texas was broached, the merits of the San Xavier river and its surrounding country were not by any means unknown. Its natural advantages were many; its principal draw-back was its proximity to the Lipan country, beyond the rugged hills on the west.
4. First contact with the tribes of central Texas.—But what interested the missionary fathers in any region more than its fertility and beauty, of which they were extremely good judges, was its natives. In this connection, it may be remarked that without the writings of the Catholic missionaries our ethnological knowledge of many portions of America would be almost a blank. This would be true of central Texas in the eighteenth century. In the course of the passage of the Spaniards to and from eastern Texas and of missionary excursions from San Antonio, several tribes became known on either side of the Camino Real, in the region between the Colorado and the Trinity. Conspicuous among them were the four bands which played the chief part in the inception of the San Xavier missions, namely, the group called Ranchería Grande (Big Camp or Big Village), 16 the Mayeyes, the Deadoses, and the Yojuanes.
Ranchería Grande was a most extraordinary aggregation. At its basis the principal tribe was the Hierbipiame, or Ervipiame, 17 for whom a mission had been founded in 1698 between the Sabinas and the Rio Grande, about forty leagues northwest of Monclova. 18 It will be interesting to note in passing that the name given to this first, as well as to the second and third missions founded for the Hierbipiame, was San Xavier. To just what territory the Hierbipiame were indigenous does not appear. In the formation of Ranchería Grande there had been added to this tribe (1) the remains of numerous broken-down bands from near and even beyond the Rio Grande who had fled eastward and joined the Hierbipiame for defence against the Apache and to escape punishment for injuries done the Spaniards of the interior, and (2) many apostate Indians from the missions at San Antonio and on the Rio Grande. Because of the prominence of the Hierbipiame in that group, it was sometimes called “Ranchería Grande de los Hierbipiames.” 19
Ranchería Grande was mentioned as early as 1707, when Diego Ramón, commander at San Juan Bautista, set out to punish it for disturbances at the missions on the Rio Grande. 20 It was then said to be near the Colorado River, at that day called the San Marcos. Again, in 1714 Ramón secured from it apostates who had fled from the San Juan Bautista mission. 21 In 1716 the Ramón expedition passed through it north of Little River and two or three leagues west of the Brazos, apparently near modern Cameron. 22 According to Ramón it then contained more than two thousand souls. 23 In 1721 a chief of the Ranchería Grande, called Juan Rodríguez, was found by the Marquis de Aguayo at San Antonio, with a band of his people, asking for a mission. The Marquis took him as a guide as far as the Trinity River, where he found the major portion of his people mingling with the Bidais and Agdocas (Deadoses). Aguayo ordered the people of Ranchería Grande to retire across the Brazos, “where they were accustomed to live,” promising to establish a mission for them near San Antonio on his return thither. True to his promise, in 1722 he founded for Juan Rodríguez and his band the mission of San Xavier de Náxera, on the outskirts of San Antonio, where the mission of Concepción now stands. 24 It endured, with little success, till 1726, when it was merged with that of San Antonio de Valero. 25
Though reduced in numerical strength by the drain made by the mission, Ranchería Grande continued to give much trouble to the missionaries, since it afforded a refuge for apostates from San Antonio, who must have tended to replenish its population. The missionaries complained that it was a veritable “Rochelle,” and they earnestly requested that it should be either destroyed or Christianized. Its pernicious influence was thus described in 1729 by Fray Miguel de Paredes:
Not only do they impede new conversions, but they also destroy the reductions already established. . . . At present, Most Excellent Sir, since these Indians of the missions know that they have an open door, asylum, and protection in the Ranchería Grande, their flights have reached such an extreme that if their disorders are reprimanded or punished the least little bit, whether by the chiefs or by the missionaries, or if there should be any extraordinary labor—and many times without other cause than to seek their liberty—they flee to the said ranchería. 26
It has been seen that down to Aguayo's time this troublesome aggregation of Indians were “accustomed to live” west of the Brazos, near the Cross Timbers (Monte Grande). But pressure from the Apaches soon drove them to spend much of their time eastward of the Brazos. In testimony of this fact, Bustillo y Zavallos, who had been governor of Texas from 1732 to 1734, wrote in 1746 that “of Ranchería Grande there remained in my time only the name, for their abode being the Monte Grande, they had already, because of their diminutive forces, retired to live in the distance, between the Yojuanes and Acdozas,” 27 that is, between the Trinity and the Brazos. This seems to have been their principal haunt in 1745, when our story begins.
The habitat and movements of the Mayeyes were much the same as those of Ranchería Grande, in so far as those of either are known. In 1687 Joutel, La Salle's companion, heard of the Meghy as a tribe living north of the Colorado somewhere near the place where the Spaniards later actually came into contact with the Mayeyes, 28 and it seems not improbable from the similarity of the names and locations that the two tribes were identical. In 1727 Rivera encountered the Mayeyes at a spring called Puentezitas, fifteen leagues west of the junction of the two arms of the Brazos, that is, of the Little River with the main Brazos, and thirty-five leagues after crossing the Colorado. The place must have been somewhere near the San Gabriel River. 29 According to Bustillo y Zevallos, who was evidently speaking of them as he had known them in his day, the Mayeyes customarily came down from the Brazos de Dios to the Nabasota (Navasota), and ranged from there to the Trinity. As he had seen them several times, he probably spoke with authority. 30 A critical document now in the archive of the College of Guadalupe de Zacatecas, written anonymously about 1748 by someone who had had wide experience in Texas, evidently a Zacatecan friar, says that the country of the Mayeyes was on the east of the Brazos, eighty leagues from San Antonio and twenty from the “place of San Xavier.” 31 The two designations agree essentially with each other and harmonize with the testimony of other documents.
The Yojuane are less easily traced. They were a wandering Tonkawan band, as were the Mayeye, and their general history was much the same as the better known Tonkawa tribe. 32 They were mentioned by Casañas in 1691 as “Diu Juan,” in a list of enemies of the Hasinai. 33 In 1709 Fathers Espinosa and Olivares met a tribe called Yojuan near the Colorado River. 34 About 1714 they destroyed the main Hasinai temple near the Angelina. 35 The Joyuan tribe met by Du Rivage in 1719 near the Red River above the Caddodacho seem to have been the Yojuane. 36 Later on the Yojuane were closely associated with the Mayeye and the Hierbipiame, and for some time before 1745 they lived northward of these tribes between the Trinity and the Brazos. Mediavilla y Ascona, governor of Texas between 1727 and 1730, stated that he frequently saw them on the road to eastern Texas. Bustillo y Zevallos, his successor in office, said that they lived “to the northwest, up the Trinity River, far distant from them [the Deadoses and Mayeyes] and neighbors to a tribe of Apaches called los Melenudos.” Before the middle of the eighteenth century the hostility of the Yojuane toward the Hasinai seems to have ceased, for thereafter the two tribes frequently went together against the Apache.
The sources for the history of the San Xavier missions establish the already conjectured 37 identity of the Deadoses with the Agdocas of earlier times. The name is variously written Yacdocas, Yadosa, de Adozes, Doxsa, Deadoses, 38 etc. The same documents also make it clear that the Deadoses were a branch of the Bidai-Orcoquiza linguistic group. 39 On this point the anonymous document in the archives at Zacatecas, cited just above, says “Yadocxa ought to be called Deadoses. This is a band of Viday Indians who, being dismembered from its vast body, which has its movable abode between Trinidad and Sabinas Rivers, have lived for more than twenty years, for the sake of the trade afforded them by the transit of the Spaniards, on this (western) side of the River Trinidad, and, extending as far as Navasotoc, . . . are accustomed to join the Mayeyes, who reside in the thickets of the River Brassos de Dios.” According to the same document, the Deadoses were habitually forty leagues east of the Mayeyes. 40 These statements harmonize with various other detached items of information. In 1714, for example, the Agdocas were said to be twelve leagues south of the Assinais (Hasinai), that is, in the country near the mouth of the Angelina River, 41 where Bidai continued to live to a much later date. In 1721, as has been seen, Aguayo found the Agdocas west of the Trinity, mingled with Ranchería Grande. 42 They evidently had already begun to move westward.
Bustillo bears testimony that both the Mayeyes and the Deadoses were in his day already succumbing to the principal enemy of the native American race, disease. He says: “Both of these tribes are small. I have seen them various times, the last being in 1734, when I left that province. I do not believe that they have increased since that time, because of the epidemics which they are accustomed to suffer and which they were suffering, of measles and smallpox, which are their sole destroyers.” In 1745 the four bands, Ranchería Grande, Mayeyes, Yojuanes, and Deadoses, were said to comprise 1228 persons. 43
Other tribes intimately connected with the history of the San Xavier missions were the Bidai, of the lower Trinity River, and the Coco, a Karankawan tribe of the lower Colorado. Early Spanish contact with these tribes has been discussed by the present writer elsewhere, and will not need discussion here. 44
1. The petition of the four tribes.—The establishment of missions for these tribes was due primarily to the zeal of Fray Mariano Francisco de los Dolores y Viana, missionary at the mission of San Antonio de Valero. 45 He had come to Texas in the year 1733, 46 and had made occasional visits to central Texas, now to recover apostates, and again in search of new tribes from which to replenish the missions, ever in need of recruits because of desertions and the ravages of disease. In the course of these expeditions he had visited the Deadoses, Yojuanes, Mayeyes, and the Ranchería Grande. The precise details of these visits, unfortunately, have not appeared. We are told, however, that with some of the tribes he had contracted friendship as early as 1734. 47 Presumably the first to be dealt with were the Indians of Ranchería Grande, since, as we have seen, with these the missionaries of San Antonio had frequent and early contact. We learn, again, that in 1741, when Fray Mariano accompanied governor Wintuisen to the Trinity, he carried presents to the Deadoses and the Mayeyes and tried to induce them to enter his mission; 48 and, again, that for some time before 1745 he had been visiting all of these tribes and they him, “either every year or nearly every year.” 49 Thus, contrary to what might be inferred from some of the documents, it is clear that a project to found missions for these four tribes was no sudden thought.
But it was not till 1745 that matters came to a head. On the second of June of that year, after numerous unfulfilled promises, it would seem, four chiefs of the tribes in question, with thirteen followers, came to San Antonio and asked for a mission, requesting that it should be in their own country, at a site which Fray Mariano should select. 50
2. The appeals of Fray Mariano, June-July, 1745.—It happened that just at that time the Commissary Visitor, Fray Francisco Xavier Ortiz, was at the San Antonio missions on an official visitation. Accordingly, although he had already passed by the mission of San Antonio de Valero, on his way down the river, Fray Mariano embraced the opportunity and asked Father Ortiz to return, recommending that the desired missions should be established, with a presidio of thirty soldiers to protect the missionaries from the Indians, and the latter from their enemy, the Apache. From such a step he prophesied great results. Not only would these Indians be brought to a knowledge of the true God, but their friends, the Texas, who had so long been obdurate, would also be converted. Moreover, great advantages would result in case of war with France, for the Indians, if converted, could be relied upon to aid the Spaniards, whereas, at present, they would be sure to join the French. To avoid unnecessary expense, he recommended that half of the garrison of Adaes be put under a captain and assigned to the proposed new presidio. To make possible the two or three missions that would be necessary for the 1228 souls which the four tribes were reported to comprise, he recommended appealing to the king for the required initial sum and a suitable annuity thereafter. 51
Father Ortiz granted the request that he return to the mission of Valero, and, while the Indians were still there, had their petition formally examined by Thoribio de Urrutia, captain of the presidio, in the presence of the other officials. 52 We are told that Captain Urrutia tried to persuade the Indians to settle at San Antonio, where he would provide them a separate mission, but that they refused to go so far from their relatives, their lands, their friends, and their trade with the Texas, from whom they were accustomed to procure their weapons. Next, Captain Urrutia proceeded to test their sincerity, telling them that if they entered the mission they must be subordinate to the missionaries, labor in the fields, attend religious services, receive instruction, and fight the enemies of the Spaniards. When they consented to all this he promised, in the name of the king, to aid them against all their foes, and again they repeated their request for a padre to go with them to their country, see their people, and instruct them as to what they must do in preparation for a mission. 53
In addition to the appeal made to Father Ortiz, Fray Mariano addressed one 54 to the guardian of his College, Fray Alonso Giraldo de Terreros, a zealous soul, who, a decade later, was to suffer martyrdom in Texas. In this appeal Father Mariano stated that, in view of the great number of Indians who would be likely to join the petitioning tribes, the opportunity of the College was the rarest it had ever had in Texas.
According to the reports and the names of the unknown Kingdoms which there are in all that region, making a conservative estimate, at the lowest figure there would not fail to be more than six thousand souls who in time could be reduced. It would be a pity to lose this opportunity, which would lead to another equally holy. . . . It is a fact that on one of the occasions when I went inland, I came upon Indians of whom those which we have reduced had never heard at all. And thus the report which the Indians themselves give is made to appear credible. And even if it were not, it cannot be denied that, besides those who wish to be converted, there are large nations, none of which, we know, will ever become converted unless means be taken to establish missions for them in their own country or near to them, according as there are conveniences in the different places.
Continuing, Fray Mariano suggested that Fray Diego Ximénez, secretary of the visitor and present with him at San Antonio, be sent to assist in the new work, and that the conduct of the matter before the viceroy be entrusted preferably to Father Ortiz, and if not to him, then to Father Ximénez. 55
Father Espinosa, in his Chrónica Apostólica, which was completed in 1747 (though its title page bears the date 1746) 56 makes a statement which may furnish the real reason why the project of a mission for these tribes, which, as has been seen, had been known and dealt with for some time, came to a head just at the time when it did. He says that the mission of La Punta, or Lampazos, had just been secularized, and that the College wished to establish another in its place, and, therefore, promoted one on the San Xavier. As Father Espinosa was at the time chronicler of the College, just completing his now famous history, and as he took some part in the struggle for the San Xavier missions, there is good reason for accepting his explanation 57 as at least a part of the truth. One of the opponents of the project goes so far as to say, but evidently without foundation, that he believed that Father Ortiz's visit to San Antonio was for no other purpose than to see about establishing these San Xavier missions. 58
3. A new embassy and the selection of a site.—While waiting for help and for approval of his project, Fray Mariano did his best to keep the petitioners favorably disposed, and to prepare the way for the establishment of the hoped-for missions. Indeed, for more than a year he and his College labored without help from the central government, and still another year before that government could be induced to authorize the mission, although for much of that time an inchoate mission settlement was in actual existence on the San Xavier.
Before the visiting Indians returned to their homes, they had promised Fray Mariano that they would assemble their people at some specified place to await his coming at the beginning of the winter. When they departed they were accompanied by an escort of mission Indians, who returned in a short time reporting that the news carried by the chiefs had been joyfully received by the people of the tribes, and that a search for a site had already been begun. 59 This report was made before July 26, 1745.
Some time later, just when does not appear, the petitioners sent to San Antonio a delegation who reported that a site had been selected, and told of “many other nations” which had promised to join them in the proposed missions. 60 The names of these tribes, as given in the autos reporting this visit—as yet the autos have not been found—are apparently those given later by Father Ortiz in his memorial to the king. 61 His list was as follows: Vidais, Caocos, Lacopseles, Anchoses, Tups, Atais, Apapax, Acopseles, Cancepnes, Tancagues, Hiscas, Naudis, Casos, Tanico, Quisis, Anathagua, Atasacneus, Pastates, Geotes, Atiasnogues, Taguacanas, Taguayas, “and others who subsequently asked for baptism.” 62 Among these we recognize the Bidai, of the lower middle Trinity, who lived below the Deadoses; the Coco and the Tups, Karankawan tribes of the lower Colorado and the gulf coast; the Naguidis, a little known branch of the Hasinai, of eastern Texas; the Tonkawa, Kichai, Towakana, and Taovayas, tribes then all liying on the upper Trinity, Brazos, and Red Rivers, 63 beyond the Hierbipiames and Mayeyes; and the Tanico, a tribe near the Mississippi. The wide geographical distribution of these tribes might cause one to be suspicious of the genuineness of the report, but this doubt is lessened when we learn that later on a number of the tribes named actually became identified with the enterprise. The most that could be said in criticism of the report is that the outlook was perhaps regarded with a somewhat unwarranted optimism.
After making suitable presents to the delegation, Fray Mariano set out with them, accompanied by some mission Indians and soldiers, to visit the petitioners in their homes, and to view the site which they had selected. The place, it seems, was beyond the first or the second arm of the Brazos. The journey was impeded by high waters, and Fray Mariano was forced to turn back. But he sent forward some of the soldiers and neophytes, who succeeded in reaching a gathering of Indians, of various tribes, who were awaiting them in the Monte Grande on the Brazos. 64
Now, it seems, on account of the difficulties of passing the high waters, the place which had been chosen was given up, and the soldiers were conducted to the San Xavier River, instead, and shown a site there. There are indications also that one of the reasons for a change of site was the discovery by the Indians that in their immediate country the necessary water facilities were lacking. This could hardly have referred to a lack of water, but rather to a topography unsuited to irrigation.
On returning to San Antonio the soldiers reported that they had examined the site shown to them on the San Xavier and that they had found it satisfactory. Hereupon 65 new autos were drawn before the captain and the cabildo, giving an account of the occurrences just related, expressing a favorable opinion of the site chosen, asserting, as a warning, that the petitioners had all come armed with French guns, and giving assurance that “through this establishment of pueblos the malice of the Apache nation will be punished and the communication of the French nation will be prevented.” 66
4. The beginnings of a tentative mission, January-April, 1746.—Various items of rather fragmentary information enable us to record the circumstances and to establish the date of the actual beginnings of tentative missionary work at San Xavier, both of which matters have hitherto been undetermined.
True to his promise, at the coming of winter Fray Mariano went to meet the petitioners at the designated site, where we find him in January, 1746, accompanied by the alférez of the San Antonio garrison, a squad of soldiers, and some mission Indians (and, presumably, with oxen and agricultural implements), making preparations for the hoped-for missions. 67 Besides the original petitioners, he found at the site some of the Coco tribe, with whom he had communicated in the previous October. They assisted in the preparations, promised to enter the missions, and returned to their native haunts for their families. 68 A mission site was chosen on the south side of the San Xavier River, now the San Gabriel, a short distance above its junction with the Arroyo de las Ánimas, now Brushy Creek. 69 Sometime before April 13, evidently, Father Mariano wrote to his president at San Antonio that, since the good intentions of the Indians had proved constant, “he had founded a mission to attract them, on the banks of the San Xavier, 70 in which enterprise he had spent all he possessed; that the place was most fertile, and its fields spacious and watered with good and plentiful water, that he had planted potatoes, and that though he had lost [some], he still had enough for another planting.” 71 The mission was regarded as having been “founded,” therefore, between January and April 13, 1746. Thus far, however, the founding seems to have consisted in little more than the selection of the site and the planting of crops. It had not yet been duly solemnized.
Before the middle of April, Fray Mariano returned to San Antonio, but he left some mission Indians from the latter place in charge, to plant and care for crops with which to support the prospective neophytes. When he departed he promised the assembled Indians that he would return with Spanish settlers and missionaries. 72
The injury to the missionary cause which the fathers frequently had to suffer at the hands of the military authorities is illustrated at this point by Father Mariano's experience with the Cocos. 73 As some members of this tribe were returning from San Xavier for their families, they were attacked, apparently without provocation, by Captain Orobio Bazterra, of Bahía, who was on his return from the lower Trinity, whither he had been to reconnoiter French traders. 74 In the course of the trouble two of the Cocos were killed and others captured. On receiving the news of the occurrence on April 13, Fathers Mariano and Santa Ana complained to Captain Urrutia, saying that they feared that the mission project would be sadly interfered with and that even an outbreak might result unless something were done, and requested that Orobio should be required at once to release the captives. Captain Urrutia issued the order and also sent to San Xavier a delegation of mission Indians to make explanations and to help keep the peace. The result seems to have been satisfactory, for later on the Cocos entered one of the missions at San Xavier, as we shall see. 75
Between April and June, evidently, there were no missionaries at San Xavier, for early in the latter month a delegation of Indians went from there to San Antonio again to urge Father Mariano to return with the promised friars and supplies. Four days later the “principal chief of all the nations” went from another direction to San Antonio to complain of the delay in sending them missionaries. Ethnologists would like to know to what tribe the principal chief belonged, but the information does not appear. Fray Mariano took this occasion to send a new appeal for help, predicting that the Indians could not be expected to wait longer than till October before giving up in disgust. 76 Meanwhile, the crops had been cared for by the new tribes, who had remained in the vicinity in spite of Fray Mariano's absence. 77
Sometime during the summer the construction of mission buildings was begun. We learn this fact from an undated document of this year by Father Ortiz, who writes that “it appears from other letters that the said father [Mariano] has already begun a church, habitation, and other things necessary, in order that the religious may live there, and that they have planted maize, potatoes, and other grains, for which he took from his mission of San Antonio forty cargoes, yokes of oxen, Indian workmen, and others to escort him, besides the soldiers.” 78 Before January 16, 1747, Father Mariano had spent $2262.50 in supporting and entertaining the Indians, and by February, 1747, the sum had increased by $5083.50.
In the spring of 1747 some of the prospective neophytes, twelve in number, were at San Antonio, probably to complain again of delay. At any rate, near the end of March Fray Mariano sent back with them some Indians from the missions of Valero and Concepción, together with a Spaniard, named Eusebio Pruneda. Pruneda was provided with seed grain, and was instructed to plant crops and to “serve as a diversion for the people” until the viceroy should give the necessary orders for proceeding regularly. He found at San Xavier “Deadoses, Cocos, and Yojuanes.” They welcomed him and turned in to help plant the crops, “the said Indians working in person”—a fact that was regarded as noteworthy. When half through with the task, however, Pruneda's enterprise was broken up by the Apaches. A band of twenty-two Cocos who had been sent out to secure buffalo meat for the assemblage met the enemy near by, fought with them, and killed one. But seeing or learning of “many rancherías” of Apaches close at hand, at Parage de las Animas (evidently on Brushy Creek) they returned to San Xavier, where the whole body of Indians remained three days prepared for battle. At the end of that time, fearing an attack by a larger force of the enemy, and “fearful of the ruin which they might wreak upon them,” the Cocos withdrew to the lower Trinity, designating a place where they might be found. Before leaving they sent word by Pruneda to Father Mariano that he had deceived them by his promises to send missionaries and other Spaniards; that until these should be forthcoming they would seek their own safety by retiring; but that when they should be provided not only would they be prompt to return, but several other tribes from “muy adentro” (far in the interior) whom Father Mariano had not seen, would come also. 79
It would seem that during a part of this time Fray Mariano had with him two assisting missionaries, for later on the College of Santa Cruz asked for reimbursement for the stipend paid three missionaries for work at San Xavier during the full years of 1746 and 1747. It appears, however, that during this period missionaries were at San Xavier at most only intermittently. One of the friars who assisted Father Mariano during this time was Mariano de Anda y Altamirano, a missionary formerly of the College of Zacatecas, who had served both at the Bahía mission and at San Miguel de los Adaes. In the summer of 1747, while at San Xavier, he was ordered to hasten to Mexico to assist in securing the desired license for the missions. He passed through Saltillo on his way south in July, 80 a fact which gives us a clue to the approximate time of his departure.
We have thus been able to piece together some fragments of information concerning the circumstances of the beginnings of missionary work on the San Xavier; but practically all that we know of actual operations there between June, 1746, and February, 1748, is that the missionaries were there, from time to time at least, catechising and feeding the Indians, until the project should be definitely authorized and supported, and something permanent undertaken.
1. The approval of the college and of the fiscal obtained.—Meanwhile affairs were taking their slow and uncertain course in Mexico. If one does not care to follow the tedious details of the persistent struggle made by Father Mariano and the College of Santa Cruz for authority from the civil government to found the desired missions, for a presidio to protect them, and for funds to support them, he will do well to pass this chapter by. But as a monument to the zeal and the dogged fighting qualities of the Franciscans, and as a study in actual government in the frontier provinces of New Spain, the struggle deserves to be faithfully and somewhat fully recorded.
On leaving San Antonio in the summer of 1745, Father Ortiz carried with him written evidence of all that had occurred there relative to the request of the tribes for missions. 81 He evidently did not reach his college at Querétaro until late in the fall, for the report of his visitation was certified by his secretary at La Punta, or Lampazos, on October 11. 82 The College heartily approved the plan of Father Mariano, and, as he had suggested, entrusted the conduct of it before the viceroy to Father Ortiz, who, through his representative, Francisco Xavier Marqués, presented the two letters of Fray Mariano, and besought the viceroy's patronage for the enterprise. This was on or before January 18, and on that day the matter was referred, in the regular routine of such affairs, to the royal fiscal, Don Pedro Vedoya. 83 Just a month later this official advised the viceroy to secure, before deciding so important a matter, from the governor of Texas, the officials of San Antonio, and the commissary general of missions, who was then at the College at San Fernando, “detailed information regarding the advantages and the need of increasing missions and missionaries in those places, the nations named in the two letters, the distances from the presidios of San Antonio de Valero and los Adaes, and the direction to each.” On the same day the viceroy ordered that Vedoya's advice should be acted upon. 84
Before these orders could be complied with, the College presented a new memorial based on later news from Texas and urging haste. It told of the additional tribes that had offered to enter the missions, reported that the site selected was satisfactory, and asked for the establishment, in addition to missions, of a presidio of at least fifty soldiers to withstand the warlike Apaches and to cut off their trade with the French. 85
The matter was again sent to the fiscal, and on March 28 he, satisfied with the evidence produced and the importance of haste while the Indians were in the right frame of mind, gave his approval to the project. He proposed that for the present, until a larger number of Indians should congregate, two or three missions should be established and supplied; and that, in order to avoid additional expense for their maintenance, the garrison of Boca de Leones and the presidio of Cerralvo, in Nuevo León, should be extinguished. To provide defence for the missions and for the settlement of Spaniards who it was hoped might locate near them, instead of approving Fray Mariano's plan of dividing the garrison of Los Adaes he recommended transferring to San Xavier the presidio of Santa Rosa del Sacramento, of Coahuila. 86
This proposal of Vedoya to rob Peter to pay Paul, like that of Father Mariano, was altogether characteristic. They are but single examples of a policy widely practiced by the Spanish government on the northern frontier of New Spain. The government was always “hard up,” and yet was desirous of distributing funds and forces where they were most needed. Demands for protection against the Indians and for money to aid the missionaries and colonists were multitudinous. Consequently, the officials were ever under the necessity of cutting off here in order to piece out or patch on there. The truth is, therefore, that many of the new enterprises of the eighteenth century represent rather transfers of effort from one scene to another than real expansion. Actual increase in annual expenditure was in reality slight, or even tended to decrease. 87
2. Opposition by Bustillo y Zevallos, May, 1746.—Vedoya's dictamen was referred to the auditor de guerra, the Marqués de Altamira. He, in turn, on April 13, recommended that an opinion on all the matters involved should be obtained from Juan Antonio Bustillo y Zevallos, at the time alcalde ordinario of the City of Mexico. 88 Bustillo had been twelve years in Texas, seven of them as captain of the presidio of Loreto, or Bahía del Espiritu Santo, and three as governor of the province. As captain at Bahía he had assisted in the transfer of the Querétaran missions from eastern Texas to San Antonio. His administration as governor had been notable for the settlement of the Canary Islanders at San Antonio and for a campaign to the San Xavier and the San Sabá Rivers led by himself in 1732 against the Apaches. 89 Altamira's advice was followed by the viceroy, who in a decree of April 18 requested Bustillo to make the desired report. 90
The opposition to the San Xavier mission project offered by Bustillo in his memorial of May 28 was the focal point of much of the tedious discussion of the matter which followed. 91 He began by paying a generous tribute to the zeal of the missionaries of Querétaro in the northeastern provinces and reviewing the history of the San Xavier matter to date. Then he proceeded to present objections to nearly every point which had been raised. According to him, the country along the highway between San Antonio and the Trinity was occupid by only the two small tribes of the Mayeyes and the Deadoses. The Yojuanes lived far up the Trinity to the northwest, and the Ranchería Grande, now little more than a name, between the Deadoses and Yojuanes. All of these tribes were now beyond the Brazos, and by no means close to the San Xavier, while they were applying for missions merely in order to get the material benefits, “since they will never accept the principal without the accessories.” 92 The Vidais might some day be reduced, but, because of their barbarity and their plentiful supply of food, he doubted very much whether their reduction could be speedily effected. The Karankawan tribes of the coast 93 could never be subjected to mission influence, a fact which had been proved by the failure of his own efforts and those of the missionaries covering many years. He doubted the feasibility of irrigating the lands of the San Xavier, because he had camped on it three days during his campaign of 1732 without noticing any facilities for irrigating ditches. Indeed, he had reported this opinion in December, 1744, when settlement on the San Xavier was being contemplated. As an example of the ease with which one could be mistaken on such matters without adequate information, he said, with truth, one had only to remember the disappointment of the missionaries in 1730 when they had attempted to establish on the San Marcos the missions removed from the east.
Moreover, said Bustillo, the San Xavier River was in a dangerous location, being on the highway by which the Apaches sallied forth from their hills in the west. As to the possession of French guns by the petitioning tribes, they had not gotten them directly from the French, but from the Texas, who were the middlemen in this trade. The French themselves had never entered so far into the interior. The presidio of Los Adaes could not be reduced without great danger to the eastern frontier, and if any of the soldiers were to be taken away they might much better be stationed at Cadodachos, where the French had so long had an establishment. Adaes was the capital of the province, and should be the residence of the governors. The only reason why governors had lived at San Antonio was to avoid the hard life at the frontier post. On the other hand, the garrisons at Cerralvo, Boca de Leones, and Sacramento were all needed in their respective places, as a defence against the Tobosos and Jumanes, and besides, there was more hope of establishing a settlement of Spaniards at the last named place than there ever could be at San Xavier.
After all these objections to the San Xavier plan, however, Bustillo was ready with a substitute. The four tribes in question and the others which had been named, were, he said, nearer to “Texas” 94 than to San Antonio. Why not establish a mission for some of the petitioners at the village of San Pedro de los Nabedaches, as an example to the Nabedache tribe; and another at the Aynais village called El Loco, between the Angelina and Nacogdoches? “In this way,” he concluded, “three desirable ends, in my opinion, will be secured. First, that the moving of the Presidio del Sacramento may be dispensed with; second, that the Reverend Fathers may realize the fruit of their desire, and the Indians the wish which it is said they have manifested; third, and more important, that there may be restored to the poor Texas the consolation which has been taken away from them. Indeed, I am most certain that they will receive it with notable rejoicing, for many times I have seen them lament with tears the fact that they were deserted—not that I should say for this reason that they were weeping for the lack of access to our Holy Faith, for none of the Indians with whom I have communicated give this reason, but rather those of intercourse and of trade in their products.” 95
Withal, it would seem that Bustillo was a man of more than ordinarily sound sense and of candor. His experience with the barbarian Indians had taught him their most usual motives to a first profession of love for Christianity.
3. Rebuttal by Mediavilla and the College.—Again the matter went to the auditor. With the memorial of Bustillo was sent the news from San Antonio that the Indians had proved constant in their desires; that Fray Mariano had actually founded for them a mission and planted crops on the banks of the San Xavier; that the place was extremely fertile and well watered, and that Father Mariano had spent his all on the work. 96 Hereupon, at the auditor's instance, Father Ortiz was called upon for a reply to Bustillo's objections. 97
To prepare an answer, the College called into requisition a gun of like calibre, another ex-governor of Texas, indeed, Don Melchor Mediavilla y Ascona, who was then at Hacienda de Galera y Apaseo. 98 Mediavilla had preceded Bustillo as governor of the province. He had been in office at the time of Rivera's inspection in 1727, had sided with the missionaries in their opposition to that official's recommendation to reduce the Texas garrisons, and had supported their appeal in 1729 to be allowed to retire from eastern Texas. It was for these actions, according to Bonilla, that he had been removed from office in 1731. 99 Evidently the College expected hearty support from him, and it was not disappointed.
Fray Alonzo Giraldo de Terreros, at the time guardian of the College, wrote to Mediavilla relative to the matter on June 23. 100 In his reply, made at his hacienda on June 28, Mediavilla was as emphatic in his advocacy of the San Xavier project as Bustillo had been in his opposition to it. He said that he knew from personal acquaintance with them that the four tribes in question were docile, and that he believed them to be “domesticable.” As they lived near the San Xavier, they could easily be taken there and settled. For such a purpose this river was the best place in the province, having good water facilities and fertile lands. Bustillo, he said, could hardly be taken as an authority on this point, as he had crossed the River near the Brazos, and not near the proposed site; besides, he was rather frightened while in its vicinity on his campaign, and could not have been expected to make careful observations. As to taking the Yojuanes and other tribes in question to San Pedro and the El Loco settlement, this was impracticable, for to say nothing of other difficulties, they would be unwelcome, since they had different rites and customs from those of the Texas. On the other hand,—and the delightful inconsistency did not disturb him—it would be most easy to settle on the San Xavier not only the petitioners, but also the Texas and the Nabedache, who, as Bustillo had said with truth, greatly lamented the departure of the missionaries from their midst. But Bustillo was wrong, he said, in supposing that the Yojuanes and others did not trade directly with the French, for, as a matter of fact, they were visited regularly by traders who came by way of Cadodachos and the Texas. Indeed, entry was so easy that in 1725 five hundred French soldiers (genizaros) had penetrated the country for a distance of ninety leagues, looking for a rumored mine on the Trinity, and had returned by the same route without even being molested. 101 It was clear, therefore, if for these reasons aione, that the province needed the protection of another presidio, whereas those of Sacramento and Cerralvo were not needed where they were, and were at best serving only a temporal purpose. Well might they be taken to the San Xavier to serve so important a spiritual end.
Supported by Mediavilla's opinion and a paper of similar tenor written by Fray Isidro Felix de Espinosa, who had been for several years president of the Querétaran missions of eastern Texas, 102 Father Ortiz prepared his answer. It was dated at the College of San Fernando on July 30. His reliance was mainly on the opinion of Mediavilla, which he submitted with his reply. Father Ortiz himself added to the discussion little that was new. 103
Upon receipt of these opinions, the autos were remanded by the viceroy to the fiscal. This official was of the opinion that Bustillo was completely worsted in the argument, and, considering that he had no reason to change his original views, but, rather, strong additional ones for maintaining them, he reiterated his opinion of March 28. 104
4. Delay due to the undertakings of Escandón.—Now arose a new cause or excuse for delay. The king had a short time previously charged the viceroy with the pacification and colonization of the coast country between Tampico and Bahía del Espiritu Santo, the last portion of the Gulf coast to receive attention by the Spaniards. To effect this important task, José de Escandón, Count of Sierra Gorda, was appointed by the viceroy on September 6, 1746. To enable him to explore, preliminary to colonizing, the large stretch of country assigned to him, Escandón asked the aid of detachments from the garrisons at Adaes, Bahía, Sacramento, Monclova, Cerralvo, and Boca de Leones. 105 In view of these facts, the auditor de guerra gave the opinion 106 that with the garrisons thus occupied, none of them could be spared for the proposed San Xavier missions. He recurred, therefore, to his former opinion that neither could the presidio of Sacramento be moved nor a new one be erected, and recommended that Father Ortiz be asked to propose some other means of securing the end so much desired. 107
5. New plans proposed by Father Ortiz.—On September 28 the auditor's opinion was sent to Father Ortiz, and on October 10 he was ready with his reply. With the courage of convictions that usually marked these frontier missionaries, he dared to question the judgment of the auditor on matters of state, insisting that the garrisons of Sacramento, Coahuila, Boca de Leones, and Cerralvo were unnecessary, and slyly affirming that they could be diverted either to take part in the Escandón enterprise or to protect the proposed missions at San Xavier. Since a suggestion had been asked for, he submitted two alternative plans. One was for a volunteer civil colony, the other for a presidio which should become a civil settlement after a term of years. The first plan was to use the funds now being spent in supporting the Sacramento garrison, for the maintenance of one hundred volunteer settlers at San Xavier, assigning them lands, providing them with an initial outfit, and maintaining them for a term of eight years, after which they might be expected to support themselves. This would make a garrison unnecessary. The second alternative plan was that the company at Sacramento, or another of equal strength, should be maintained at San Xavier for a term of years, with the obligation to remain thereafter as colonists, having been supplied during their period of service with the means of pursuing agriculture. In either way, he said, a substantial village or city of Spaniards would be established at the end of ten years, while the missions would meanwhile have the necessary protection. It will be seen that both of these suggestions involved the use, for the defence of San Xavier, of the funds then being spent in Sacramento, and could hardly be regarded as entirely new plans, or greatly different from that of the fiscal.
Finally, in order that the Indians now gathered at San Xavier might be kept friendly and retained at the spot, Father Ortiz requested that, while the fate of the project was being decided, a sum of money should be assigned from the royal treasury for the purchase of presents and food, for “the eagerness (moción) of the Indians is such that the like was never before witnessed, and ... if this enterprise should fail ... we do not know what would happen.” 108
Notwithstanding the suggestion of Father Ortiz, the advice of the auditor prevailed, and, in view of the operations of Escandón, 109 the viceroy ordered all discussion of the matter suspended. The date of the order was apparently February 1, 1747. That Escandón's projects were the cause of the viceroy's withholding his decision is clearly stated in his dispatches of February 14 and July 27.
6. Tentative approval by the viceroy: funds and a temporary garrison authorized.—Nevertheless, the viceroy and the auditor were sufficiently convinced of its desirability to give the San Xavier project tentative support. On February 1, 1747, 110 as a result of another escrito from Father Ortiz, and in conformity 111 with a recommendation of the auditor made on January 28, the viceroy ordered that the 2262½ pesos which had already been spent by Fray Mariano in attracting and maintaining the Indians at San Xavier should be repaid, and on February 14, in order to prevent the neophytes from deserting whilst the Seno Mexicano was being inspected, to protect them from the Apache, and to aid the missionaries in founding the settlement, he ordered the governor to send at once to San Xavier ten soldiers from Adaes and twelve from Béxar. 112
Students should be guarded against an error at this point. An original despatch of the viceroy contained in the Lamar Papers, here designated as “Erecion,” says that on December 26, 1746, the viceroy ordered the establishment of three missions on the San Xavier. From what has been stated above it will be seen that this is a mistake of the document, although it is an original. 113
7. Father Ortiz appeals to the king, 1747.—Perhaps in despair of success at the viceroy's court, or perhaps at the viceroy's suggestion, and to aid any effort which the latter might make, Father Ortiz now turned to the king himself. In a memorial written some time after the viceroy's decree of February 14, 114 he reviewed the circumstances under which the tribes had asked for a mission, gave a list of those which had subsequently joined the first four tribes in their petition, recounted the efforts that had been made in Mexico by the College, and cited the fiscal's unqualified approval and the viceroy's tentative aid recently given. With great shrewdness he made much of the political advantages of the desired missions, “even more notable because these Indians and their broad, fertile, and bounteous country are coveted by foreign nations, who anxiously try to add them to their crowns, and with this aim maintain commerce with them and supply them with guns, ammunition, and other things which they know they like.” “It follows, therefore,” he continued, “that if they are not heeded, and if—God forbid—France, on whose colonies they border, should become hostile, and, with the desire to gain their affections, should maintain closer friendship with said Indians, and they should become her partisans, she might without any difficulty get possession of not only this province but of many others of New Spain.” But, by making the necessary provision for these Indian petitioners, New Spain would be sufficiently protected and very much increased. Not only would these tribes enter missions, he added, but the Apache, who so infested the province, and yet so many times had asked for missions, would be forced to accept the faith and attach themselves to the crown of Spain. “And in this way the Province of Texas will become a most extensive and flourishing kingdom, which may freely trade and communicate with New Mexico and other provinces of New Spain and even with others of your royal crown if this communication is sought by sea.” With not a little wisdom he argued, further, that by pacifying the Indians and peopling the country, many presidios would become unnecessary, and the crown thereby saved great expense.
On the basis of this argument on political grounds, to which he did not fail to add the obligation to extend the faith, Father Ortiz proceeded to request not only permission to permanently found the missions already being provisionally established, and all the means necessary for the purpose, but also asked permission and funds to establish a hospital in Texas, either at San Xavier or other convenient place, to facilitate the broad missionary project under contemplation. It should serve as an infirmary and a place of rest for sick and wornout missionaries, and be the headquarters of the prelate of the San Xavier missions, who otherwise would be three hundred or four hundred leagues from headquarters with no means of succor or medical aid. In addition to the prelate, there would be necessary two missionary priests, to act as substitutes for the missionaries, care for the military, and serve civilian Spaniards, and two lay brothers, one to serve as nurse for the sick, and the other to act as financial agent, with the title of conductor of alms, to secure funds in Mexico to help on the project.
Father Ortiz closed by repeating his request for reimbursement of the sums that had been spent by the College in maintaining three missionaries at San Xavier in the work of catechizing and otherwise preparing the Indians for mission life. 115
8. Opposition to the plans for a temporary garrison.—It was not enough for the viceroy merely to order a garrison sent to San Xavier, for excuses, or even good reasons for respectful argument, were easily found and hard to resist. And thus it was with the order of February 14. It reached San Antonio on May 7, by a courier who had been delayed on the Rio Grande two months by Apache hostilities. This circumstance, coupled with recent occurrences at San Antonio and the situation at San Xavier revealed by the declaration of Pruneda, made three days before, augured ill for the fulfillment of the despatch.
On the 9th Fray Mariano presented the document to Urrutia, 116 and asked for its fulfillment. Urrutia gave formal obedience, but wrote on Mariano's escrito several reasons why the detachment of the twelve soldiers should be suspended until further orders should be received from the viceroy. Apache hostilities were especially bad just then; in the preceding month the tribe had run off the horse herds of three of the missions, and were now camped near the San Xavier in large numbers; at that very moment he had in his possession a memorial of the cabildo on the subject, dated April 29, waiting till a courier could take it to Mexico; and a petition from the citizens asking him to request the aid of fifteen or twenty of the soldiers of Adaes to strengthen the defense. 117 To support this petition, on the next day he presented the matter to a joint meeting of the military officers, the cabildo, the justicia, and the regimiento of the villa of San Fernando, and this body issued a statement similar in tenor to that of Urrutia, adding to his reasons for suspending the order the shortage of supplies at San Xavier. 118 On May 19 the subsbtance of these deliberations was embodied by Urrutia in a consulta, or opinion, and sent to the viceroy. 119
While the immediate purpose of Fray Mariano was thus frustrated, the College of Santa Cruz seized the occasion to ask not for less but for more. Fray Francisco de la Santissima Trinidad, joint agent with Marqués at Mexico for the College in promoting the San Xavier plan, put in the appeal. In a memorial to the viceroy he referred with evident approval to the reasons for not fulfilling the order of February 14. He then argued at length on the importance of controlling the group of Indians for whom the new missions were desired. They lived on the French border, secured their firearms from the French, and were in pernicious communication with the French. They were dexterous in the use of firearms, and in case of a breach with France it would be important to have them on the side of Spain. The only way to secure this allegiance was to “reduce” them to mission life; this done, they would defend the frontier against both the French and the Apache, and perhaps bring that dangerous nation to Christianity. And to do this properly would require a presidio, not of twenty-two soldiers, but of sixty or more, for which number he now asked. 120
The matter now went again through the regular routine of the viceroy's secretariat. It was first referred to the fiscal, who replied on June 28; and then to the auditor de guerra, Altamira, who gave his dictamen on July 4. Complying with Altamira's advice, on July 27 the viceroy issued new despatches. By these despatches the nine soldiers belonging to the presidio of Bahía but serving at the missions near San Antonio were to return to their post; from the presidio of Bahía thirteen soldiers were to be sent to San Xavier, and from that of Los Adaes seventeen. Each soldier sent was to be of good character and suitable for the purpose. Though the captain of Béxar was exempt from complying in form with the order of February 14, that place was to suffer a loss of the nine soldiers borrowed from Bahía. And the new order must be fulfilled without excuse or interpretation, on pain of dismissal from office and a fine of $6000 for any failure or violation. The viceroy was now showing his teeth. 121
The missionaries were no better pleased with the new order for a temporary guard than had been the commanders in Texas with the former order. The removal of the nine soldiers from San Antonio would be a hardship to the missions; and, besides, what the missionaries demanded was a regular presidio. This feeling was made known in August by Father Mariano de Anda y Altamirano, in a memorial to the viceroy. 122 As has already been stated, he had been assigned to the new missions on the San Xavier River; had been to the site; had been sent to Mexico to aid in securing the necessary license; and had heard of the order of July 27. His argument now was much like Father Trinidad's had been. In his memorial he prophesied that the governor of Texas and the captain at Bahía would give only formal obedience and then proceed to raise objections, with resulting delays. As for himself, he saw two difficulties. If the nine soldiers of Bahía doing duty at San Antonio were to be removed, either they must be replaced by soldiers from that presidio or the missions near San Antonio would be without protection. To take soldiers from the presidio would leave San Antonio exposed to attack. The presidio of Los Adaes, being on the French frontier and surrounded by Indians, could ill spare any of its sixty soldiers, most of whom were constantly needed to escort the governor, the missionaries, and convoys of goods from Saltillo, to cultivate the fields, or to guard the storehouse. 123 The presidio of Bahía was almost as much in danger from Apaches as was San Antonio; and the Cujanes were bad.
Moreover, the garrison of thirty soldiers assigned to San Xavier was altogether too small. Twelve men would be needed to guard the three missions being planned; ten to guard the horse herd; this would leave only six to escort the supply train and the missionaries, making no allowance for desertions and deaths. Finally, any guard less than fifty soldiers would be too small in case of trouble with the barbarian tribes at the new missions or of attacks by their enemies.
The provision of one hundred settlers would not serve at present, since it would take a long time to secure them, especially if the task were left entirely to the missionaries, already overburdened; besides, the allowance of two hundred pesos per family was too small, since, in spite of the greatest economy, the expense for one missionary going to Saltillo or Coahuila, with only one servant, was at least one hundred pesos.
A presidio at San Xavier, on the other hand, would be on the very frontier against the Apaches, and would help to restrain the French, who were now entering by way of the Trinity River. Indeed, it was now well known that they had a large settlement on that stream, with a garrison and fifty or sixty cannon, and were supplying the very Indians of San Xavier.
In view of all the foregoing, Father Anda closed by urging, first, that the presidio of Sacramento be moved to the San Xavier River, and, second, that thirty or forty men be added to it. If this could not be done, he urged that eighty or ninety men be detached from other presidios—not including those of Texas—and formed into a new presidio at San Xavier.
As Father Anda predicted, the disposition of the Texas commanders to comply was no better than before, though in saying this we would not wish to convey the impression that the military authorities did not have good grounds for resisting the reduction of their petty garrisons. But the resistance of the captain at Bahía, Orobio Bazterra, seems to have been in part inspired by ill feeling toward Father Mariano. The Apache situation, at least, was really serious. The captain set forth his objections in communications of November 1 and 21, and the governor, Francisco García Larios, gave his in one of December 12. 124 From a review of these documents given by the viceroy in a despatch of January 29, 1748, it appears that the objectors maintained that all of the soldiers were needed in their respective presidios; that the San Xavier, though called a river, was only an arroyo, and that their soldiers had refused to go there to live. The governor added that he feared that if he should try to carry out the order, the men would desert to Natchitoches. This argument might appear frivolous if we did not know that twenty years afterward nearly the whole garrison of San Agustín did that very thing. The captain concluded by saying, maliciously, it would seem, or at least without foundation, that the favorable reports given of San Xavier were false, and had probably been secured by subornation or collusion of witnesses.
Captain Orobio had a substitute plan to urge as an excuse for non-compliance, and he may have been sincere in his support of it. In 1746, as we have seen, he had gone to the lower Trinity and the San Jacinto rivers to investigate a rumor of a French settlement in that region. While there he had become acquainted with the Orcoquiza tribe and learned of the activities of French traders among them and the Attacapa. 125 He now represented to the viceroy that the “Horquisa” nation was composed of five rancherías and three hundred families; that they had asked for missions, promising to settle between the Trinidad and the Sabinas Rivers, “which is their fatherland”; and that they had repeated their offer, promising to return [to Bahía, it seems], in the following March. “He concluded by proposing various reasons for embracing and not depreciating this opportunity to reduce Indians dextrous with guns, because of their nearness to the Misippi and their communication with the French.” 126
Fear that the viceroy might accept this plan, and that it would interfere with their own, sank deep into the minds of the missionaries, and they did not lose an opportunity to use their influence to defeat it, offering as their best substitute a mission for the Orcoquiza at San Xavier.
9. Three missions authorized by the viceroy (Dec. 23, 1747).—But these arguments of Governor Larios and Captain Orobio came too late, for on December 23, 1747, before they had been received, the viceroy, conforming with two opinions of the auditor, dated December 10 and 19, ordered three missions founded on the San Xavier River within the next eight months. 127 In consequence of this determination, appropriations were at once made of a year's salary in advance for six missionaries, and for the purchase by the royal factor of the necessary ornaments and supplies for the three missions. 128 Thus, after two and one-half years of petitioning and of heroic efforts at San Xavier, Fray Mariano and his college had the satisfaction of obtaining the permission and the help they had so zealously sought.
When the letters of Orobio and García Larios were received by the viceroy they were sent, in the regular way, to the fiscal, who gave them little weight, arguing especially that it would be foolish to give up a project of proved merit, like that of the San Xavier missions, for one which had not yet been investigated, like that suggested by Orobio. In consequence, the viceroy issued a dispatch on January 29, requiring the governor to carry out his former orders at once, and not to neglect that part which provided for the encouragement of as many families as possible to go to San Xavier to settle, in order that in time the garrison might be unnecessary. This despatch was enclosed in a letter of February 24. 129
By virtue of this new order the thirty soldiers were sent under the command of Lieutenant Galván, of the Béxar company. He arrived at San Xavier on or about March 13, 1748. The married soldiers were followed by their families, who remained a short time, as we shall see. 130
10. By the king, April 16, 1748.—Soon after the consent of the viceroy was obtained, the petition of Father Ortiz to the royal court separately bore fruit. The petition was considered in the Council of the Indies, and the resulting action shows that it struck the right chord in the royal breast. On the 16th of April, 1748, more than four months after the viceroy had ordered the missions established, more than two years after a tentative mission had actually been begun, and two months after one of the authorized missions had been formally founded, the king issued a cédula to the viceroy, setting forth that, although he had not sufficient information to form a wholly satisfactory opinion, and though the viceroy had not sent the reports which he might have done, yet, “considering that the gravity of the matter does not admit of delay, and that there are in the province of Texas the nations of gentile Indians mentioned, soliciting religious in order that they may receive holy baptism and attach themselves to the body of the Church (which is the principal object which I have ordered attended to and promoted), and considering that the country, because of its great extent, unpopulated condition, and nearness to the region where the French have intruded, merits greater care and vigilance; in order to prevent them from stirring up and attaching to their side the idolatrous Indians, it has seemed proper to order and command you” to ascertain for certain that the Indians have made such a petition and that the establishment of the missions would be wise. Such being the case, the viceroy was to proceed at once to plant the requisite number of missions, furnishing the means for ornaments and other necessities usually supplied. And if the hospital asked for should prove absolutely necessary, that, too, was to be founded. Finally, the three missionaries must be paid for the time they had been serving at San Xavier. 131
This situation is certainly an interesting example of the actual workings of Spanish government in the distant frontier provinces. Since the summer of 1745 the missionaries of the College of Santa Cruz had been asking for permission to establish missions at San Xavier. Meanwhile they had proceeded without this permission to found a mission—a provisional one, it is true, as early as the summer of 1746. In February, 1747, the viceroy had furnished temporary financial aid for the establishment of missions there, but for their formal erection he had withheld his consent. In December, 1747, he had given that consent, without consulting the king, it seems. In February, 1748, as will appear, one of the missions had been founded with due formality in the king's name, and now, in April, two months afterwards, comes the king's solemn order to the viceroy to found the missions if, after due investigation, they should be considered desirable.
It was apparently but another instance in which the local authorities, and especially the missionaries, took the initiative, and forced the central authorities, reluctantly, to sanction what was already done. In the Spanish as well as in the English colonies a certain measure of independence in actual governments was wrested from the central authorities by virtue of the very necessities of local initiative due to distance. 132
11. Opposition at Zacatecas.—The opinion written at the College of Zacatecas regarding the royal cédula of April 16, 1748, shows that the Zacatecas friars were not altogether pleased with the license permitting the sister college to enter the missionary field in central Texas. It stated that the College of Santa Cruz had four missions at San Antonio, the only ones in Texas at the time of the visit of Father Ortiz; that in the belief of the writer, Ortiz's visit had no other purpose than the founding of missions for the central Texas tribes; the country of the Mayeyes, where the mission was to be founded, was rough and bad; the Tauacana, Quichay, Tancague, and Yojuan tribes were too far to the north to be reduced at the proposed site; the Yadoxa, from whom the padres had got their information, had included them “not to secure Holy Baptism, as is supposed, but for the material benefit of clothing, tobacco, maize, and more than all this, in order that the Spaniards in a presidio may restrain the boldness of the Apache”; it would be better for the sick friars of Rio Grande and San Antonio to come to their college than to go to an hospice at San Xavier. Finally, if the Bidais wished missions they could enter that of Nacogdoches, where they went every year at harvest time and near which they lived, or to Los Ais; in either of which missions they would be near their own country. The Tawakoni, Kichai, Tonkawa, and Yojuan tribes might congregate there also and thus save the expense of new missions.
1. San Francisco Xavier, Feb., 1748.—After the viceroy's consent and promise of aid for founding permanent missions were received, things for a time went favorably with Fray Mariano's cherished plan. To look after preparations in Mexico, the College of Santa Cruz appointed Fray Juan Joseph Ganzábal, who was destined four years later to suffer martyrdom at one of the missions he was helping to establish. 133 He went from San Antonio to Querétaro, arriving there at the end of March.
In February, probably as soon as he received the good news from Mexico, Fray Mariano proceeded to the formal founding of the first mission—presumably that already tentatively established—taking for the purpose from San Antonio, on his own credit, while the royal funds were forthcoming, goods of the value of $5083.50. 134 The date of the formal founding is fixed by a letter written by Fray Mariano himself to Captain Urrutia on May 7, 1748, and is thus put beyond dispute. 135 In the same communication Fray Mariano called the mission “Nuestra Señora de los Dolores del Rio de San Xavier.” This is the earliest name I have seen applied to it, but otherwise it is always called San Francisco Xavier. Perhaps the former name is the one by which the temporary mission had gone.
The progress made at the mission is shown by the report dated March 18, by Lieutenant Juan Galván, who was sent, as has been stated, in command of the thirty soldiers who had been ordered there. 136 Galván stated that when he arrived at San Xavier the missionaries were without a single soldier. He found already provided a strong wooden stockade, huts to live in, and supplies of seed, stock, working oxen, and clothing for the Indians. At the mission there were many Indians, of Ranchería Grande (Hierbipiame), Yojuane, Tonkawa, Mayeye, Deadoses, Bidai, and Orcoquiza, and others daily coming. It will be seen that most of the tribes named here were among the original petitioners. At the very moment when he was writing his report there arrived a band of Bidais, who reported that six leagues away there were more than four hundred others on the way. 137 An Orcoquiza chief offered to bring numerous Indians of the neighboring tribes. Indeed there were more Indians than could be supported, in spite of the supplies which Fray Mariano had brought; and before the end of March he was constrained to tell the neophytes not to solicit any more tribes, to refuse food to all of those already there except such as were actually helping in the fields and at the missions, and to send word to the tribes on the way to remain at a convenient distance. 138
In reconstructing the picture of life at the new establishment the imagination is assisted by the statement that of the twentyeight soldiers there,—two of the thirty assigned were lacking,—one was usually employed in supervising the Indians with the stock, one assisting in the labor of the fields, six guarding the horse herd, ten guarding the missions and the families, and ten escorting the supply trains that brought maize from San Antonio for soldiers and neophytes. 139
Galván filed with his diligencias a certificate that he did not regard the thirty soldiers provided sufficient for the protection of the three missions planned, but that a presidio of fifty men would be adequate. The College made Galván's report the basis of new requests, and before the end of the year Father Ganzábal, in Mexico, presented a memorial reviewing progress at San Xavier, requesting the repayment of the 5083 pesos 4 reales, and the erection of a regular presidio of fifty men. 140
2. Apache attacks and new appeals for help.—Shortage of provisions was not by any means the only trouble that beset the struggling mission early in its career. In April, 1748, in the midst of his pious task, Fray Mariano suffered an accident which compelled him to retire to San Antonio for several months, delayed the completion of his work, and caused it to devolve largely upon Father Santa Ana. 141 When he withdrew he left in charge Fray Francisco Cayetano Aponte, apparently the first minister of the permanent mission (since Mariano was minister of the mission of San Antonio de Valero) and one of those who had been there temporarily, since the six provided by the viceroy did not arrive till much later, as will be seen. Scarcely had Fray Mariano reached San Antonio when bad news from San Xavier overtook him. 142 On May 4 Father Aponte wrote him that two days before, more than sixty Apaches had attacked the place, ransacking the houses, and attempting to stampede the horses. The soldiers and mission Indians, of whom there were more than two hundred present, made resistance, and succeeded in driving the horses into the corral, whereupon the Apaches, seeing themselves outnumbered, withdrew, but not without threatening to come again, with a larger force, to destroy the place. This threat was understood by a Yojuan who had been a captive among the Apaches. In retiring the Apaches killed two mission Indians who were encountered returning with buffalo meat. The mission Indians, seeing their danger, now began to contemplate withdrawing to the woods for safety. 143
Before the end of the year three other Apache raids were made on the mission. In each the raiders ran off horses belonging to Spaniards and Indians. Incident to the four attacks three soldiers and four new converts were killed—not a great number, indeed, but manifestly large enough to cause the missionaries to fear for their personal safety and to lessen the enthusiasm of the tribes for residence at the site. The main facts of the first attack are told by Fray Mariano in a memorial of May 7. Subsequent events are described in a paper written by him about a year later. 144 A second report to Fray Mariano from Fray Cayetano told that on May 5 the Indians made good their threat, returned in a great multitude, and ran off the horse herd, “the settlement retaining its existence solely through divine providence.”
On receiving the second notice Fray Mariano, who was still sick at San Antonio, repaired by petition 145 to Captain Urrutia for help. Urrutia replied that he could not give it because sixteen of his men—all indeed except those actually occupied in guard duty—had gone to Bahía to escort the new governor, Pedro del Barrio, to Los Adaes. 146 Urrutia forwarded the petition with his proveido to Governor Barrio, at Bahía, while Father Mariano waited for the expected aid. Instead of giving it, however, Barrio wrote a sharp reply to Captain Urrutia for having received and forwarded the petition, saying that the king was more in need of Urrutia's sword than of his pen. 147 This attitude on the part of Governor Barrio, at the opening of his term, was quite in keeping with all of his subsequent dealings with Fray Mariano. Indeed, the hostility between these two prominent men was one of the leading threads of the history of the San Xavier mission for more than a year.
Fray Mariano was forced, under the circumstances, to make the trip to relieve Fray Cayetano with only one soldier and some mission Indians. Arriving at San Xavier he found that most of the mission Indians had fled to the woods, frightened, 148 and threatening not to return till there should be adequate protection. Fray Mariano sent for them, and they were found so near by that they returned on the second day, bringing more than had run away. After that, says Fray Mariano, they remained steadfast up to the time of his writing. We thus infer that the mission continued in operation.
Notwithstanding his sharp reply to Urrutia, Fray Mariano Barrio wrote that he would hasten to San Xavier. He did so, arriving on May 26 and remaining two days. During this time he conducted an investigation, about which we shall hear in another connection. Before leaving he ordered the soldiers to send their wives and children away, the inference being that he did so on account of danger from the Apaches. He also suggested, as a means of increasing the temporary defences, that Father Mariano bring from San Antonio fifteen or twenty mission Indians. 149
Fray Mariano continued ill 150 for a year or more after April, 1748, and could not carry on the work at San Xavier, but Father Santa Ana supervised it, and it seems that one or more missionaries spent a part of the time with Father Aponte. 151
By March, 1749, Father Santa Ana was able to report a good beginning for the first mission. He wrote on the 10th of that month: “The mission of San Javier, having some established form, has been situated on this River since February of last year. Not counting those who have died Christians, there are listed in it of the nation of the Mayeye thirty-two men, among them being only two old men, one of sixty and the other of eighty years of age. The women number only forty-one, because this nation has been attacked by the Apaches. The youths, maidens, and children, likewise number only thirteen, for the same reason. Of the nation of the Hierbipiamos there are thirty-one men, there being no old men among them; women, twenty-one, boys and girls, eleven. This nation suffered the same assaults as the former. Of the nation of the Yojuanes twenty-six men, none of them old; women, twenty-three; boys and girls, seven; youths, twenty-eight. With these three nations there are some Tanchagues, who struggle with the Apaches, whom they attacked last year before the governor of Coahuila did so.” 152
3. Assignment of regular missionaries.—At the end of March, 1748, the first regular assignment of missionaries was made by the College. On the 31st of that month the newly elected guardian, Fray Francisco Xavier Castellanos, himself a former worker in Texas, 153 wrote to the president, Father Santa Ana, in regard to his plans. The new missions had been erected into a presidency, and Fray Mariano, of course, made the president. 154 Six new missionaries were to be provided for Texas, but three of them were to change places with three of the “antiguos” (old missionaries) at the San Antonio missions, two from mission Valero and one other. With these three men already in Texas, three of the new ones were to go to San Xavier, the rest to be distributed elsewhere, as President Santa Ana should see fit.
The Valero missionaries at this time were Fray Mariano and Fray Diego Martín García. The latter had been in Texas since 1741, at least. 155 It is to him that we owe the preservation of the earliest records of the Texas missions. Later he saw service in the missions of northern Sonora. The missionaries named in the guardian's letter were Friars Alonso Giraldo de Terreros, Juan de los Angeles, and Saluad de Amaya, all of whom had formerly served in Texas; 156 and Juan Hernández, Mariano Anda, and Fray Domingo, referring by the last name, no doubt, to Fray Juan Domingo Arricivita, later known as the historian. The document does not state in terms that all of these men are among the missionaries to be sent, but such is the implication. It will be seen later on that some of them did and some did not operate at San Xavier. In addition to these six new missionaries, sent in the name of the three new missions, Father Castellanos promised to send others to supply deficiencies.
Of the new workers the guardian specifically assigned to stations only two. They were Fathers Terreros and Hernández, who were to take the places of the Valero ministers. Two of the appointees seem to have been considered hard to get along with. President Santa Ana was instructed to see to it that all did their full duty, and to send them back to the College for discipline if necessary. “Hoc dico sub sigilo with reference to the Fathers Preachers Anda and Amaya, for the others, I have no doubt, will conduct themselves well.”
“With respect to Father Preacher Anda, your Reverence will see whether it is proper for him to remain in those missions or those of San Xavier, and with your accustomed prudence will decide the matter; for I desire to relieve your Reverence as much as possible of the cares which the reverend fathers presidents are caused by the lack of congeniality and agreement of the missionaries.” 157
To aid in their work, the missionaries were to take from the missions of San Antonio, or from the Rio Grande if necessary, as many families of converted Indians as might be needed. Cattle and other supplies were also to be secured from these places, at a fair price it was hoped, and the new missions were to pay them back “when, how, and in what” was possible. Matters not specifically provided for in the instruction were to be decided by the two presidents in conference. 158
The missionaries were all supplied and ready to go when the above communication was written, and presumably they soon set out. 159
4. The supplies delayed.—On June 13, the new missionaries reached San Antonio, but through slowness in the despatch of the supplies, and Fray Mariano's illness, there was another half year's delay. The situation on June 24 is stated in Father Santa Ana's letter of that date to the viceroy: “I am obliged to make known to your Excellency that on the 13th of June I found myself with the religious who ought to be in the missions of San Xavier, and the simple notice that within eight months the reduction of the Indians in three missions should be effected.
“This appears to be a decree of December of the past year, but it is morally impossible to put it into effect until the supplies come (which will be in the month of October or November), for it is certain that among these Indians there is not a thing with which they can sustain and maintain themselves unalterably in that place, since their sustenance depends on the chase.
“And thus the entry of the religious and the supplies must be provided for, certainly with six hundred fanegas of maize for each one of the conversions, and also some cattle, sheep, and goats. All of this up to the present it has been impossible to provide, now for lack of pack mules, and the inseparable cost of freightage; now because the enemies, as I suppose the ministers of your Excellency have reported, make it impossible to travel the road without difficulty. And thus, with great humility, I will do what your Excellency orders, but only in the most opportune time and by the best means. 160
“In case of founding in fact the missions of San Xavier, there will be necessary an order from your Excellency to the effect that the governor of this province or another minister assist at this act with the accustomed formality, giving in your Excellency's name possession of that country to the Indians which, all being recorded by juridical diligencias, may be sent to the Secretaria de Govierno, as a means by which your Excellency may be informed of the number of souls which enter each one of the conversions.” 161
Although the documents are not explicit on this point, it seems that some of the new missionaries went to San Xavier during the course of the summer of 1748, in spite of the delay of the supplies. At any rate, we know that “padres and soldiers” lived there during the “rigor of the drought” of that summer. We have seen that Father Aponte was alone in May, when Father Mariano went to aid him, and that Father Mariano was sick at San Antonio on June 24. Therefore it is evident that someone went to San Xavier to aid Father Aponte after that date, 162 otherwise the plural, “padres,” could not be used. So much, at times, are we forced to depend upon inference.
5. The founding of Mission San Ildefonso, February, 1749.—Because of the illness of Father Mariano, the founding of the two remaining missions fell to Father Santa Ana. As he had predicted, it was December before the supplies arrived at San Antonio. With them he proceeded to the San Xavier, reaching the place on December 27. 163 There were now nine missionaries on the ground, 164 and prospects looked bright.
The time between December 27 and February 25 Santa Ana and the missionaries spent in founding the second mission, 165 which they placed down the river, near the mouth of Brushy Creek, and which was given the name of San Ildefonso. Since adverse reports had been made with respect to the suitability of the site, Fray Santa Ana, immediately on arriving, took testimony of the soldiers and missionaries who had lived on the San Xavier during the dry season, as to the volume of water during the drought, and then proceeded to explore the river himself, up to Apache Pass. Though the soldiers and missionaries agreed that the water supply was plentiful, when Father Santa Ana came to request them to swear to the statement they refused to do so, from which he suspected that they had sworn to the contrary for their officials. 166
Santa Ana's statements as to what he did in respect to the distribution of the tribes among the different missions is of highest value for the ethnology of some of the tribes and for specific information regarding mission beginnings. Following the prescribed practice, not always observed, he separated the various bands on the basis of racial and linguistic affiliation. At the mission of San Francisco Xavier he left the Mayeyes, Hierbipiames, and Yojuanes, all related to and allied with the Tancahues (Tonkawa), a few of whom were there also. Noting that the Bidai, Deadoses, and Orcoquizas were camping together, that they spoke the same language, and were closely intermingled by marriage, he took them to a site about three-quarters of a league (he says about a league, but a later survey called it three-quarters) down the river from the San Francisco Xavier mission and founded for them that of San Ildefonso, which was nearly completed on February 25. 167
When he reported the result of his work on March 10, there were at the mission of San Francisco Xavier fifty-nine Mayeyes, seventy Hierbipiames, and eighty Yojuanes, a total of two hundred and thirteen persons; and at San Ildefonso there were sixty-five families, or two hundred and two persons, comprising fifty-nine Orcoquizas, eighty-eight Bidai, and fifty-five Deadoses. 168
The president reported that of the Tonkawa alone he might proceed to the founding of the third mission, but concluded that since they were related to and allied with the Indians of the San Xavier mission, they might be reduced there, leaving the third establishment—to be located above the first—for the Cocos and their allies from the coast.
In regard to the outlook Santa Ana was hopeful. If what Orobio had said was true, the Orcoquizas alone would supply three missions; since the Cocos had mustered the former tribes, they must have been at least as numerous; while the mission of San Francisco Xavier would yield nothing to the others in point of numbers. “And thus there can be no doubt of the copious fruit which is hoped for in the three missions of the River of San Xavier, and on this score everything that the Father Preacher Fr. Mariano de los Dolores has written too the Superior tribunal is confirmed.” Of the water supply there was no doubt; irrigation would be easier even than at San Antonio; and as to the fertility of the soil, it would support not only three missions but all the Indians of the whole province of Texas and as many Spaniards besides. The climate was good and the natural fruits of the country bountiful and useful. One drawback, however, was the fact that the soldiers did not have with them their families, for there were only two women at the post, which fact would have a very bad effect on the Indians. Finally, a regular presidio was needed. 169
6. Desertion of the Cocos and the founding of Mission Candelaria, 1749.—In the midst of their labors the missionaries were dismayed by the desertion of the Coco Indians to their native haunts. The reason given was the bad conduct of the garrison. They were in ill humor through bad fare and hardship, “and knowing that anything they could do to contribute to the ruin of these missions gave pleasure to their captains, they treated the Indians with excessive insolence, inflicting upon them serious and continued extortions, the supplications of the religious not being sufficient to restrain them.” Under these circumstances the Cocos, who were being maintained at San Ildefonso until their mission of Candelaria should be completed, deserted early in 1749 and fled to their own country.
This was a heavy blow to the missionaries, who feared that the fact of the desertion would be used by their opponents as a weapon against them, and that the example of the Cocos would be followed by the other tribes. But Father Santa Ana did not give up in defeat; on the contrary, he set out alone in pursuit of the Indians, in spite of the danger presaged by soldiers and neophytes.
After extreme fatigues Father Santa Ana managed to find the Cocos in their haunts between the Colorado and the Brazos. At the time the tribe was suffering from measles and smallpox. The friar succeeded in his mission, and it was agreed that those not yet infected should accompany him, the others following when they had recovered. He took back with him eighty-two persons, and with them as a nucleus founded the mission of Nuestra Señora de la Candelaria. The Coco chief sent three of his sons to Mission Valero to learn the Spanish language, and later they became interpreters for the missionaries. 170
On April 14, Fray Mariano reported from San Antonio to Father Ganzábal that he had news that the third mission had been founded of Cocos, Tusos (Tups) and other Indians. Even the Jaranames wished to enter it, he said. 171 On August 11 the guardian, Castellaños, wrote a long memorial to the viceroy reporting the evidence that the third mission had been established, and asking for the payment of $5083.50 spent by Fray Mariano in 1748 before the arrival of the funds; for $2700 for the maintenance of three missionaries at San Xavier during the whole of 1746-1747; and for the erection of the hospice. This, he said, should be established at San Antonio, and would cost about $14,000 besides running expenses. He closed by reiterating the need of a presidio. 172
7. Results.—We get some very intimate details of conditions at San Xavier just after the establishment of the second and third missions through the reports of an inspection made of them in May, 1749, by General Barrio. The governor counted in mission San Ildefonso forty-six adult men, forty-eight women and thirty-one children; in mission San Francisco Xavier there were fifty men, thirty-three women, and thirty-seven children; in Candelaria, twenty-four men, twenty-five women, and twenty-two children, a total of three hundred and twenty-two persons. Besides these, some were absent with permission hunting buffalo and eating wild fruit in the woods. 173 The missionaries were still complaining that the lack of supplies was such that they had to turn away numerous Indians who would be glad to enter the missions, “for neither God, the King, nor reason permits the Indians to be congregated to be killed by hunger and made to work. Therefore we have in the missions only those whom we can support well.”
At this time Fray Mariano wrote, in the course of a dispute with the governor, that “In all the missions the Indians say prayers morning and afternoon. They live congregated in pueblos, and labor in so far as their wildness permits, making their fences and clearing their corn patches. In Texas [i. e., eastern Texas] they are not congregated, much less do they say prayers. At the same time, they are in the missions without your lordship having ordered them called or the soldiers bringing them. Therefore, it is because they desire it. It is thus manifest that these missions are a fact, and that the Indians do not live like the Texas up to the present.” 174
Some time before this the lands and the river had been inspected with a view to opening irrigating ditches. The inspection had been made by Fathers Mariano and Pedro Yzazmendi, for, as Fray Mariano wrote, “Of all those in the provinces, we alone understand [surveying] both theoretically and practically.” 175
The garrison which had been taken there in May, 1748, was now under a cavo named Phelipe de Sierra, from whom Governor Barrio withheld even the right of jurisdicción ordinario. It was not up to its full quota of thirty men, for during much of the past year from two to four of the seventeen assigned from Los Adaes had been lacking.
In the previous May, Barrio, during his first visit, had ordered the families of the soldiers sent away, perhaps on account of the Apache hostilities. The order had been carried out, and during the whole year the soldiers had been without the comforts of family life, at which they complained, especially since it increased their labor, for, “having no one to prepare a mouthful for them, they were obliged to do it themselves, their ordinary food being maize, boiled and toasted.” 176 The Indians, too, Fray Mariano complained, were displeased, since they concluded that with the families there, the Spaniards would better defend the place against the Apaches, which was one of the cardinal points to be considered. Documents of a later date show that, according to the usual custom in founding new missions, Christianized Indians from San Antonio were taken to San Xavier to serve as teachers and interpreters. Among them were Sayopines, Cocos, Pajalaches, and Orejones.
The foregoing study has set forth the story of the inception of the missions in the San Gabriel valley, of the struggle for legal authority to establish and for means to support them, and of their actual beginnings, down to the middle of the year 1749. A subsequent paper will trace in like detail the struggle of the missionaries to secure Spanish settlers and a regular presidio for San Xavier; their difficulties with the soldiers and with governors Barrio and Barrios y Jáuregui; the survey of the site by Eca y Músquiz; the opening of the “acequia” and the building of the dam; the troubles due to Indian desertion and the terrible scourge of smallpox; the violent contest of the missionaries with Rábago, the commander of the new presidio, and his excommunication by Father Pinilla; the murder of Father Ganzábal and the abandonment of the San Xavier site; the removal of the garrison to the San Marcos River, the founding of a mission on the site of New Braunfels for some of the surviving neophytes, and the absorption of the San Xavier forces by the new mission enterprise on the San Sabá River. 177
Attention has often been called to the varying degrees of success which attended the efforts of Spain to convert and civilize the Indian tribes of her northern frontier in New Spain, and it is well known that the causes for the comparative failure of the mission system in Texas may be traced in large part to the obstinate nature of the savages of that province. The share of the Apache Indians in this failure, however, has not until recently been adequately recognized, and only the barest outlines of the relations between the Apaches and the Spaniards in Texas have been known. The history of such relations falls roughly into three divisions: first, a period of mutual hostility, characterized by innumerable raids on the part of the Indians and retaliation by the Spaniards, from 1689 to 1750; second, a period of ostensible friendship and alliance, culminating in the establishment of missions for the Apaches, from 1750 to 1770; third, a return to open hostility, from about 1770 to the end of the Spanish régime. In a previous paper, 179 the writer has attempted to throw some light upon the events of the first period. The present paper deals with the second period, and traces the history of the Apache mission on the San Sabá River from its founding to its destruction. 180
II. APACHE RELATIONS BEFORE 1750
The hatred of the Apaches for the Spaniards dated from the beginning of the occupation of Texas in 1689. The first center of settlement was in eastern Texas, the region inhabited by the Tejas Indians, whom the Franciscan missionaries in Coahuila had so long hoped to reach, and the approximate scene of the luckless attempt at colonization by the French. 181 With the conversion of the Tejas uppermost in their minds, the Spaniards paid very little attention to the advisability of cultivating friendly relations with the tribes to the west. Indeed, they were so shortsighted as to aid the Tejas and their allies, the Comanches, Tonkawas, and other northern tribes, against their hereditary foes, the Apaches. It was an affront that the Apaches did not soon forget, and they lost no opportunity of revenging themselves upon the new enemy. Until San Antonio was founded in 1718, no convenient point for attack had been afforded them, but no sooner had that frontier post been established than they began the long series of outrages which was to make them a terror to the pioneer settlers and a troublesome thorn in the side of the viceregal government of New Spain. 182
During this early period the policy of the Spanish government toward the Apaches was the simple one of retaliation and punishment. When it was seen that this policy only increased the fury of the Indians, conciliatory measures came to be employed through the efforts of the priests, and only when peaceful methods failed was the strong arm of military force resorted to. This new policy was inaugurated at a time when the pressure of the Comanches and their allies upon the Apaches was beginning to be most severe, and there is little doubt that it was fear of their savage enemies rather than appreciation of unaccustomed kindness that induced the Apaches to turn to the Spaniards and accept the friendship which they had so steadfastly spurned. From the conclusion of a formal treaty of peace between a number of Apache tribes and the presidial authorities at San Antonio in 1749, there can be traced the beginning of the second period, during which the wily savages endeavored to gain the protection of the Spaniards against the advancing foe by feigning a desire to enter upon mission life and become dutiful subjects of the Most Catholic King. A few Apaches began to live in the missions at San Antonio at irregular intervals, attracted no doubt by the good food supplied and the numerous presents that were distributed by the fathers. 183 But on the whole, it was a huge “bluff” on the part of the Indians, and one that the viceregal authorities in Mexico did not fail to suspect. The frontier settlers and military officials likewise, as a rule, refused to believe in the sincerity of the Apaches. But the missionaries had full confidence in the promises of their savage wards, and it was their persistent efforts that finally overcame the misgivings of the secular authorities and led ultimately to the founding of the mission on the San Sabá.
The San Sabá Country.—The mountainous region north of San Antonio traversed by the Pedernales, Llano, and San Sabá Rivers had long been considered a suitable locality in which to found missions for the Apaches. It was the favorite dwelling place of these Indians, since its ruggedness afforded numerous strongholds against the hostile Northern tribes, and to its refuge the Apaches usually fled after one of their extended raids. Nowhere did they feel so secure as in their familiar haunts along the San Sabá.
The first specific proposal for the establishment of missions in this region, as far as the available sources show, was that made by Father Santa Ana, president of the San Antonio missions for many years, in 1743, when he urged that a presidio should be built in the Apache country in order to effect the conversion of that nation. Two years later he recommended the establishment of presidios on the San Sabá, Pedernales, Salado, and Colorado Rivers, by means of which he believed that not only the Apaches but the Comanches as well would be reduced to mission life. In 1749 Father Santa Ana introduced a radical innovation in his plan by proposing that the presidio at San Antonio should be removed to the Pedernales River, or if necessary to a site further north. This proposition naturally caused a storm of protest from the citizens of San Antonio, and the idea was declared impracticable. Similar schemes were proposed by Father Mariano de los Dolores, who succeeded Santa Ana as president, a notable compromise plan being his suggestion that the Guadalupe River be utilized as a site for the proposed missions.
Further attention was directed to the San Sabá region by the establishment in 1754 of a short-lived mission for some Apache tribes a few miles south of the Rio Grande. The founder of this mission was Father Alonso Giraldo de Terreros, a man destined to become the leading figure in the San Sabá project. After a residence of less than a year, the neophytes burned the buildings and fled to their accustomed haunts. The failure of the enterprise was attributed by the priests to the reluctance of the Apaches to live so far from their own country, and it was pointed out that no permanent success could be hoped for unless missions were founded further north in the region of the San Sabá. 184
Attention had been directed to the San Sabá country, however, for other than spiritual reasons. The campaigns against the Apaches had usually led the soldiers in that direction, and they had not failed to perceive evidences of the existence of valuable mines in the hills. From an early date there was a widespread belief that gold and silver could be found there in abundant quantity. The danger from the Apaches, however, had deterred prospectors from entering the country, and little definite knowledge had been obtained.
Exploration of the Apache Country.—With both religious and material interests at stake, it is not surprising that more and more attention was directed to the Apache country, and that efforts were
made to learn something definite concerning this much-heralded Eldorado. Between 1753 and 1755 three extensive exploring expeditions were made to the San Sabá country. The first one was a direct result of the ceaseless labors of Fathers Dolores and Santa Ana. The many documents and arguments with which they flooded the viceroy began to impress the mind of even that conservative official, and in 1753, it seems,
185 an order was given for the exploration of the country of the Apaches in order to ascertain whether or not there were good sites for missions as asserted by the missionaries. This first expedition was led by Lieutenant Juan Galban of the presidial company at San Antonio, and was accompanied by Father Miguel Aranda, who went in place of Father Dolores, the latter being occupied at the mission on the San Xavier.
186 The Pedernales and Llano Rivers were first examined, but no suitable sites for missions were discovered, and the party continued to the San Sabá. In the vicinity of this river they found good land, water, and pasturage, and two excellent sites were located.
187
In 1755 another expedition was undertaken by Don Bernardo de Miranda, Lieutenant-General of the province of Texas, with the primary purpose of investigating the section known as Los Almagres, where evidences of valuable ores had been most apparent. Much additional geographical knowledge was obtained from this exploration.
In the same year a third expedition was made, which was by far the most important of the three, since it was a powerful factor in the development of the San Sabá plan. It was made by Don Pedro de Rábago y Therán, commandant of the presidio on the San Xavier River. The close connection of the San Xavier mission establishment with that on the San Sabá necessitates some explanation of its condition at this time. In 1748-49, through the efforts of Fathers Santa Ana and Dolores, three missions had been founded on the San Xavier (now San Gabriel) River, near the modern town of Rockdale, for Indians of the Tonkawan family. No presidio had been erected until 1751, and instead of proving a benefit to the missions, it had led to their ruin. The vicious conduct of the soldiers and the captain, Phelipe de Rábago y Therán, culminated in the murder of one of the priests and a native. The captain was accused of complicity in the crime, and was suspended from his command, being assigned to another presidio pending the trial of the case. His brother, Pedro de Rábago, was appointed to succeed him in the same year, 1752. The neophytes became terrified, however, and deserted the missions. From this time on, the usefulness of the missions were at an end, and the garrison was a needless expense upon the royal treasury. 188 Wishing to retain his command, Pedro de Rábago probably saw in the Apache mission project a chance to prevent his company from being mustered out. He was therefore very friendly to the priests at San Antonio and in full sympathy with their efforts to convince the authorities of the sincerity of the Apaches. In the exploration which he made in 1755 he marked out possible sites for missions on the San Sabá, and in his report to the viceroy concerning his activities corroborated the statements of the missionaries in regard to the peaceful state of the Apaches, making the definite recommendation that missions should be established for them at the sites he had chosen. 189
The junta general de guerra y hacienda.—Captain Rábago's report reached Mexico just when the colonial officials were most perplexed over the question of missions for the Apaches. Father Santa Ana, although ill at Querétaro, had used every influence at his command to bring about definite action, and was making his final effort. 190 From Texas, Father Dolores continued his petitions concerning both the Apache missions and the disposition of the presidio on the San Xavier. 191. The Governor of Texas, Don Jacinto de Barrios, on the other hand, refused to recommend the establishment of missions for the Apaches. He could not forget their past treachery and did not believe they were sincere. 192 In view of these conflicting opinions, the whole Apache expediente was referred to various prominent men for advice, but their reports afforded the viceroy little help in arriving at a decision. Captain Rábago's hearty support of the enterprise, however, together with the necessity of making some disposition of the useless garrison on the San Xavier, appears to have been a decisive factor, and an order was issued by the viceroy for a general council (junta general de guerra y hacienda) to meet in Mexico City and settle definitely the long-agitated question. 193 The date set was February 27, 1756. 194 With matters at such a stage, a change took place in the viceregal administration, the Count of Revillagigedo being succeeded by the Marqués de las Amarillas. The new viceroy did not interfere with the plan of his predecessor, however, and ordered that the council should be held as originally provided for, on February 27. 195
The two problems to be settled, as has been indicated, were the establishment of missions for the Apaches in the San Sabá country and the disposition of the presidio of San Xavier. In discussing these questions, it was natural that the idea should arise of combining the two. Indeed it is probable that Captain Rábago had advised that such action be taken. There were really no substantial arguments against the founding of the missions, according to the documents that were submitted. It was admitted that a change had taken place in the conduct of the Apaches, and although such men as Governor Barrios refused to believe the change was permanent, they could not bring to bear any forcible arguments against the missions. The priests, on the other hand, were well supplied with arguments. Unless haste was made in founding the missions, and cementing the alliance with the Apaches, they said, there was danger that the French would attempt to advance their boundaries at the expense of Spain. Already French influence was paramount among the tribes of eastern Texas, and they were reported to have designs upon New Mexico. A presidio placed in the midst of the Apaches would serve as a safeguard against French encroachment, and would extend Spanish dominion far to the north. 196 Until that region should be settled, it was pointed out, no development of the rich mines there would be possible. The recent explorations of the San Sabá country had proved the existence of suitable sites for missions, and there was no doubt that that location would meet the approval of the Apaches. 197
With such arguments in favor of the missions, it is not surprising that the council decided to put an end to long procrastination. Its recommendations were as follows: The garrison of the presidio of San Xavier should be increased from fifty to one hundred men, and transferred to the San Sabá River at the site recommended by Captain Rábago; the few neophytes of the San Xavier missions who had not deserted should be distributed among the missions at San Antonio; and the missionaries who had been laboring at San Xavier should go to the San Sabá and establish three missions there under the shelter of the presidio for the conversion of the Apache tribes. 198 The recommendations amounted practically to the removal of the San Xavier missions to the San Sabá, and their diversion from the original purpose of converting the Tonkawan tribes to that of the reduction of the Apaches. Under this arrangement, the new missions would be under the control of the president of the San Antonio missions, Father Dolores, and such a determination was eminently satisfactory to that ambitious priest.
A Philanthropic Offer.—A new and remarkable proposition, however, was to divert the government from the original plan—a proposition which marks the return to the active field of Apache mission labor of Father Alonso Giraldo de Terreros, the founder of the Apache mission of San Lorenzo in Coahuila in 1754. 199 That Father Terreros had not been unmindful of the welfare of his wards after his return to Querétaro is evidenced by the fact that he had interested his cousin, Don Pedro Romero de Terreros, in his mission work and had induced him to contribute to the expenses of Apache reduction. Don Pedro de Terreros was one of the richest men in Mexico. He owned valuable mines at Pachuca and Real del Monte, was the founder of the National Pawnshop of Mexico, and a great patron of charitable enterprises in general. At a time when philanthropy was quite the fashion in Mexico, it was natural that Father Terreros should bethink himself of his wealthy kinsman in his efforts to accomplish the great work that was so dear to his heart. Don Pedro de Terreros agreed to bear for a period of three years all expenses that might be incurred in founding missions for the Apaches, and at the end of that time to turn them over to the government free of cost. 200 The expenses of military protection were not included. Certain conditions were imposed: The missions must be located in the country north of the Rio Grande missions in which the Apaches lived; his cousin, Fray Giraldo, must be placed in charge of them; the missionaries must be taken both from the College of Santa Cruz in Querétaro and that of San Fernando in Mexico City, the two colleges alternating in the founding of the missions. 201
There is little wonder that this generous offer was accepted and the original plan abandoned. The new plan would enable the work to be carried out upon an unprecedented scale, and the missions instead of being a heavy burden on the strained finances of the crown would entail comparatively slight additional expense. The viceroy did not long delay in accepting the terms of the offer. On August 24, 1756, a decree was issued substituting its provisions for those that had been recommended by the council. As a reward for his “pious labors” Terreros was given the title of Count of Regla and allowed a special dispensation in a law suit in which he was concerned. 202
The viceroy no doubt congratulated himself upon the prospect for the solution of a problem that had long troubled his predecessors. The extension of the royal domain and the conversion of a powerful gentile nation were certainly achievements that would win for him the approval of his royal master. But in far-away Texas the news of the offer must have been received with mingled feelings of joy and disappointment. The change of plans meant that the conversion of the Apaches was to be entrusted to other hands, and Father Dolores probably saw with chagrin the fruits of his long labor appropriated by a rival in the field. 203
Preliminary Provisions.—The preparations for the founding were begun with admirable promptitude. On May 18, 1756, the formal decree of the viceroy ordering the removal of the presidio of San Xavier to the San Sabá was promulgated, and eleven days later it was communicated to the officials in Texas. 204 A change in location had already taken place. In the latter part of 1755 Captain Pedro de Rábago, alleging the lack of water and pestilential conditions at the old site, had upon his own responsibility removed the garrison from the San Xavier to the San Marcos River. 205 Governor Barrios was much displeased at this insubordination, and in a complaint to the viceroy asked to be informed whether Rábago was still subject to his (Barrios') orders or had been given discretionary powers of his own. 206 The governor was assured that the presidio was still subject to his jurisdiction, and Rábago was severely reprimanded for his action. The move had been made, however, and the garrison was allowed to remain at the San Marcos. 207
Captain Rábago died not long after the removal, and in his place was appointed Don Diego Ortiz de Parrilla. The new commander was a colonel of dragoons and a man of ability. He had seen service both in Europe and New Spain. For five years he had been governor of the provinces of Sonora and Sinaloa, and had had much experience in Indian warfare through his campaigns against the Apaches of the Gila country. He was thoroughly familiar with frontier conditions, and well fitted for the command of the new establishment from which so much was expected. 208 On account of uncertainty as to whether the San Sabá country should be placed under the jurisdiction of the governor of Texas, of New Mexico, or of Coahuila, the viceroy resolved to maintain the new presidio directly under his own captaincy-general until further light should be obtained. As a result Parrilla was made practically independent of Governor Barrios, and was responsible only to the viceroy for the administration of the presidio. 209
Parrilla's instructions, dated September 1, 1756, contained the directions to be followed in the transfer of the presidio, the building of the missions, and the assembling of the Indians. 210 In conformity with the recommendations of the junta general, the garrison of the old presidio of San Xavier was to be increased to one hundred men, including officers. Twenty-two of the additional troops were to be taken from San Antonio, and the remaining twenty-seven secured by fresh recruiting. 211 The new company was well supplied with officers, a captain, two lieutenants, two alférezes (standard-bearers), four sergeants and a number of corporals being provided for. 212 The few neophytes of the San Xavier missions who had remained under the protection of the garrison were ordered to be distributed among the missions at San Antonio, and the missionaries who had been laboring there were to retire to their college. 213 The ornaments, sacred vessels, and other paraphernalia of the old missions were to be removed to the San Sabá as had been intended before the Terreros proposal had been made. 214 Upon his arrival at San Sabá, Captain Parrilla was to make a thorough examination of the country, so that in case a better site should be found than that recommended by Captain Rábago, the missions might be located there. He was admonished to bear in mind the possibility of the extension and growth of the missions in case it should be decided to establish a pueblo there. The buildings should be constructed of native timber, with the usual economy, and when the plans had been decided upon they should be submitted to the viceroy for his approval. 215 The captain was cautioned to see that the missionaries were given the best of treatment and protected from any persecution on the part of the soldiers. The use of the Spanish language among the neophytes was to be encouraged. Not only were the Indians to cultivate the soil, but the soldiers as well, when their military duties did not keep them otherwise occupied. Trade with other provinces was to be encouraged, and the viceroy expressed his hope that ultimately a flourishing town would be built up and the whole region developed. 216
The Arrival of the Leaders in San Antonio.—On September 4, 1756, Father Terreros received his formal appointment as president of the new missions on the San Sabá. 217 In the latter part of the year the leaders in the enterprise met in consultation at Mexico City, where plans were discussed and arrangements perfected. Father Terreros was given a free hand in the buying of supplies for the missions. In Mexico City and Querétaro large stocks of provisions, including luxuries for the priests and trinkets for the Indians, were purchased. The priests chosen were four in number: Fathers Joachin de Baños and Diego Ximenes from the College of Santa Cruz, and Fathers Joseph Santiesteban and Juan Andrés from the College of San Fernando. 218 Others were to join them in Texas. Captain Parrilla secured the new recruits required, and collected his train of military supplies. With such arrangements completed as could be attended to in Mexico, the journey to Texas was begun. At Saltillo nine families of Tlascaltecan Indians were obtained to be used as instructors for the neophytes. 219 In the province of Coahuila a number of Apaches were seen. They were probably on one of their customary raids to the south. Presents were given to them, and when they were shown the rich store of provisions for the new missions they promised to assemble without fail on the San Sabá. 220 The missionaries arrived at San Antonio in the early part of December, 1756, and Captain Parrilla with his train came in a few days later, on the 22d. 221
The Work Under Way.—Two days after his arrival Parrilla began his work. His first step was the removal of the garrison from the San Marcos River to San Antonio, in order that the troops might be fitted out with the necessary equipment. They were practically destitute of everything. 222 Messengers were then despatched to some Apache rancherías not far from San Antonio to urge the Indians to visit the settlement and meet the founders of the new missions. After about ten days a number of Indians, principally of the Lipan tribe, led by two chiefs of much distinction, presented themselves at Mission Valero. They apologized for the absence of their kinsmen, the Natajés, Mescaleros, Pelones, Come Nopales, and Come Cavallos, explaining that they were too far away to come. They gave repeated assurances of their anxiety to enter missions, and expressed a desire to become subjects of the king of the Spaniards. Captain Parrilla accepted their allegiance in the name of the king of Spain, and presented the two chiefs with canes as insignia of their office of alcalde under the Spanish government. At the conclusion of the ceremonies, presents were distributed by Fathers Dolores and Terreros. The Indians were so well pleased with the treatment accorded them that they remained in the missions for three days. Upon their departure all reiterated their willingness to become Christians and promised to assemble without fail on the San Sabá when the priests were ready to begin their ministrations. 223
Father Dolores was very much pleased that the conduct of the Apaches bore out the statement that he had made regarding their friendliness. In order to further establish his assertion, he drew up a formal declaration concerning the matter, and asked Parrilla and Father Terreros to add their testimony in substantiation. Father Terreros expressed satisfaction at the apparent sincerity of the Indians, with a reservation, however, to the effect that he feared that they were a bit too much interested from a selfish standpoint, since all who had come to San Antonio had asked for maize, sugar-cane, tobacco, and other articles. Parrilla accommodatingly added his testimony, certifying to the peaceful and friendly attitude of the Apaches, and diplomatically praising Father Dolores for his success in their pacification. 224
Captain Parrilla was far from stating his real opinion, or he soon changed his mind most radically concerning the outlook. The more he learned of the situation, it seems, the greater became his misgivings. In a letter to the viceroy of February 18, only a short while later, he said that the Apaches were still unpacified and as barbarous and treacherous as ever. It would require much time and labor, he believed, to effect their reduction. With the experienced eye of a soldier, he realized that all would not be smooth sailing in the San Sabá mission project, and from this time on he exhibited a lack of enthusiasm and much doubt as to the successful outcome of the undertaking. 225
A Winter of Discord.—While everything was being put in readiness for the move to the San Sabá, all was not harmony and brotherly love at San Antonio. There was constant bickering between the rival factions that arose among the priests, and life must have been anything but agreeable to those concerned. On one side were Father Dolores and his sympathizers, among whom Captain Parilla must be included. On the other were Father Terreros and Father Francisco de la Santísima Trinidad, the righthand man of the new president, with their supporters. The origin of the ill-feeling was doubtless the jealousy and pique of Father Dolores because he himself had not been entrusted with the direction of the enterprise for which he had labored so long. 226 But the immediate cause of trouble was the opposition of Father Terreros to a long-cherished plan proposed by Father Dolores.
In the preceding June Dolores had asked permission of the Father Visitor, Francisco Xavier Ortiz, then on his regular tour of inspection, to transfer the Indians who had been removed from the San Xavier missions to a site on the Guadalupe in order to form the nucleus of another mission for the Tonkawan tribe that had deserted. No presidio was to be requested, since it was thought that the absence of soldiers would prevent a recurrence of the troubles at San Xavier. The necessary authorization had been given by the Father Visitor, priests were assigned, and the Indians were being held until the viceroy should signify his pleasure in the matter. 227 This was the state of affairs when Parrilla arrived at San Antonio. Father Dolores had at once asked his co-operation in the plan. On January 25 Parrilla accompanied Father Dolores to the site on the Guadalupe, inspected the “mission,” 228 and certified to the advantages of the location. 229 Dolores now thought that the best way to obtain the necessary supplies for the new mission was to have it included under the terms of the Terreros gift, and he petitioned Father Terreros to this effect. Father Terreros immediately refused his consent. His cousin's intention, he said, was that missions should be founded for gentiles and not for apostate converts. Besides, the site on the Guadalupe was not situated in the territory prescribed by the conditions of the gift, and could not be included within his jurisdiction. He thus put an end to Father Dolores's hope in this direction, and thereby earned the latter's further enmity. 230
Father Dolores now declared open war, and showed his resentment, it is said, in many spiteful ways. Two incidents are especially amusing. First, he took from Father Terreros a servant (mozo) who had been assigned to wait upon the priest. When reminded that such action was not brotherly, he replied that he had rather lose life and honor than permit Terreros to keep the boy. He also refused to allow the supplies for the Apache missions to remain in the storerooms of Mission Valero, and forced Terreros to find a place for them at Mission Concepción. These occurrences are related by Father Santísima Trinidad, who is very bitter in his condemnation of Dolores's actions. Captain Parrilla also came in for his share of vituperation, and was accused of conspiring with Dolores to bring about the failure of the San Sabá project. It is very difficult to arrive at the truth of the controversy, but it is likely that there was some justification for Santísima Trinidad's attack. 231
Another cause of discord lay in Captain Parrilla's reluctance to proceed at once to the San Sabá River. The priests chafed under the inactivity forced upon them, and accused the captain of disobedience to the viceroy's orders. There seem to have been good reasons for the delay, however. Winter was on, and it was a very unsuitable time to begin operations in the cold, cheerless mountainous region. There was still much to do in the way of securing supplies. The cattle had to be bought and transported from the mission of Espiritu Santo near the Gulf. Parrilla saw no reason for haste, and much preferred to pass the cold season in comfort and perfect all arrangements for the founding. 232 The priests could not view the matter in this light, and their continual urging for the start to be made added to the disagreeable atmosphere in the little village.
Yet progress was being made in spite of the quarrels. By March 1400 head of cattle, and 700 head of sheep had been collected at San Antonio. 233 On account of lack of pasturage at San Antonio, Parrilla decided to remove them to the San Marcos, so for the second time the company went into camp on that river. Just why the whole mission establishment, including troops, priests, the nine families of Tlascaltecans, and most of the supplies, were also removed is hard to understand, unless it was planned to proceed in that direction to the San Sabá. Father Terreros and his fellow-priests thought it was solely for the purpose of squandering Don Pedro de Terreros's money. This statement should be accepted with reserve, however, for our only authority is the violent Santísima Trinidad. 234
The Removal to the San Sabá and the Founding of the Mission.—With the arrival of spring and warm weather there was no longer any reason for delay, and Captain Parrilla decided to begin the march to the San Sabá. Because he feared that the whole project was a hopeless one, he was unwilling to take the decisive step of transferring all of the supplies to the San Sabá before he had investigated the situation more thoroughly. He probably wished also to be as free as possible for rapid marching. Consequently most of the supplies were left on the San Marcos, with thirty-nine men to guard them. 235 The start was made on April 9th. Instead of going north to the Colorado River, and following that stream to the San Sabá, which would have been the shortest route, the expedition returned to San Antonio, and took up the march from there. This roundabout course was taken, according to Santísima Trinidad, because of Parrilla's ever-present desire to cause as much expense as possible, 236 but it seems more reasonable to conclude that the San Antonio route was chosen because it was better known to the Spaniards than the one up the Colorado. No details of the journey are at hand. The party probably followed the path taken by previous expeditions, striking into the hill country directly north of San Antonio, past the Pedernales and Llano Rivers, in a general northwesterly direction. Nine days were consumed in the trip, and the San Sabá River was reached on April 18th, 237 near the present town of Menard.
Following his instructions, Parrilla first made a thorough exploration of the river valley to its source. The sites recommended by Galban and Rábago 238 were examined, and on the 23rd a council was held to discuss the situation. Parrilla strongly opposed the establishment of the missions. He believed the undertaking was a chimerical one, and wished to postpone the founding. Not an Indian had been seen. In spite of this the priests believed that the Indians would soon assemble, and were firm in their determination to begin operations at once. If Parrilla did not consent, they threatened to return to Mexico and wash their hands of the whole affair. The captain was thus forced to yield against his better judgment, and preparations were made for the erection of the necessary buildings. 239
Plans were made for two missions, one to be in charge of the Querétaran priests and the other in charge of those from the College of San Fernando. The missions were to be located south of the river, some distance from the ford, while the presidio was to be placed on the north bank. A distance of two or three miles intervened, because it was thought advisable to separate the two establishments in order to avoid any evil consequences that might arise from the close association of the soldiers with the mission converts. Work at once began on the Querétaran mission, but it was decided to postpone the erection of the other one until need for it arose. It was never built. The usual plan of mission settlement was followed. Quarters for the priests, storerooms for the supplies, a rude church, and stables were erected. Around them a strong stockade was built, entered through a large gate secured by bars. Toward the river, plots of land were laid out, and crops planted. While Father Terreros was busy directing the work on the missions, Captain Parrilla was superintending the construction of the fort on the north side of the river. In honor of the viceroy the presidio was named San Luis de las Amarillas, but it was usually known as the presidio of San Sabá. 240 In accordance with the viceroy's instructions, the soldiers were assigned land to cultivate, and the soil was prepared for the sowing of grain. By May 4 most of these activities were well under way, and Captain Parrilla now ordered the removal of the rest of the supplies from the camp on the San Marcos. They arrived in the latter part of June. 241
The Fickleness of the Apaches.—The mission establishment was ready to begin operations, except for the fact that there were no Apaches present. Since they did not appear of their own accord, it was resolved to seek them out. Father Varela, who had long been stationed at San Antonio and was familiar with the language of the Apaches, was assigned the task of inducing them to “congregate.” He set out early in May in the direction of the San Marcos, where the camp was still located. It was the season for buffalo hunting, and he probably hoped to encounter the Indians while they were assembled for the hunt. But he failed to find any trace of Apaches, and after a fruitless search, arrived at the San Marcos. Here he got his first news of the missing Indians. A few days before, a squaw had reached the camp, reporting that her tribe had been attacked on the Colorado River by the Tejas Indians, among whom were four apostates from the San Antonio missions. 242
In the meantime, the Lipan chief, El chico or Chiquito, had visited Mission Valero. Father Dolores upbraided him for his failure to keep his promise, and ordered him to go to the San Sabá at once. The chief solemnly promised to obey. 243 Messengers were sent to search the neighboring country, and notify the different chiefs of a great assembly to be held on the San Sabá. The Lipans were beginning to arrive from the south, and by the middle of June about 3000 savages were encamped in the vicinity of the missions. They carried a large number of horses and mules with them, stolen no doubt from the settlements in Coahuila and along the Rio Grande. The Indians were very haughty and indifferent in their demeanor, and had it not been for the diplomacy of the fathers and the gifts that were distributed there might well have ensued a bloody conflict instead of a love feast between friends and allies. 244 The missionaries were very hopeful, however, and believed that the time for the formal reduction had finally arrived. But they were again to be disappointed. Upon making definite proposals to the Indians to enter the missions at once, the real nature of the gathering was revealed. The Indians had not assembled in order to enter the missions, but were merely on their annual buffalo hunt and ready for a campaign against their perpetual enemies, the northern tribes. Chief El Chico pretended to be willing to enter the missions, and a few other chiefs sided with him, but the majority supported Chief Casablanca, who was bent upon making a campaign against the Comanches and Tejas and avenging the recent attack upon the ranchería on the Colorado. 245 It was the same old story again. Although, the Indians declared, they wished to become Christians, they could not do so just yet. They wished to be the friends of Spaniards, however, and asked that some of the soldiers be allowed to accompany them on the buffalo hunt. As soon as they returned, they promised to accept the religion of the Spaniards and settle down at the missions. 246 No further satisfaction could be secured from them, and they departed on the hunt, leaving a very disconsolate group of missionaries to mourn their fickleness and a presidial commander to congratulate himself upon the accuracy of his predictions. 247
A New Scheme Proposed.—Captain Parrilla sent in a report to the viceroy a few days later, on June 30, in which he told of recent developments and repeated his disbelief in the sincerity of the Apaches. He said: “From the autos (official documents) which I transmit upon this occasion and from the consulta which accompanies them, Your Excellency will understand what a difficult undertaking is the formation of missions for the heathen Apache nation, and will see that the favorable reports that were sent in to that Captaincy General concerning the matter were direct results of the unreliability (lijereza) that has always characterized the missionaries and inhabitants of the province of Texas in every occurrence that has concerned them. this is proven by the history of the presidio and missions of San Xavier de Gigedo and of many others.” 248
Parrilla did not for a moment believe that the Indians would keep their last promise, and thought that the mission plans should be abandoned. He now proposed a counter plan to the central authorities. He asked to be permitted to remove the presidio to the Chanas (Llano) River with its full garrison of one hundred men, in order to afford protection for the mines at Los Almagres. There would still be an opportunity for the missionaries to continue their work among the Apaches, if they so desired, but the development of such remote mines in a country inhabited by barbarous savages would be in itself, he believed, a great credit to the viceroy and of much benefit to the royal treasury. 249 The Marqués de las Amarillas, however, was not ready to abandon the San Sabá enterprise, and he refused his consent to Parrilla's scheme, admonishing him to devote all of his energies to the original plan. 250 There was nothing to do, then, but to make the best of the situation and wait patiently for the return of the Indians.
The Departure of Three Priests.—Father Terreros was the only one of the priests who had any confidence in the ultimate success of the mission. Several of his companions wished to return at once to Mexico, but were persuaded to remain a little longer. Early in July it seemed as if Father Terreros's faith was to be rewarded. Chief El Chico appeared one day at the mission, his people loaded down with buffalo meat. The usual presents were given, and again prospects seem promising. The fathers were soon undeceived. The Indians refused to listen to arguments, but after a short stay speedily continued their journey toward the south as if impelled by some unseen danger. This was practically the death knell to the hopes of the missionaries, and several of the priests prepared for their departure. 251
The first to leave was Father Varela. He had long since lost faith in the Apaches, and had repeatedly asked permission to return to Querétaro. He was now given the desired license, entrusted with despatches to the authorities, and thus the first deserter shook the dust of San Sabá from his feet and returned to civilization. 252 Had Fathers Baños and Ximenes followed the promptings of their own desires, Father Varela would not have gone alone. But since they had been appointed by the Discretorio of the College of Santa Cruz, they must secure permission to leave from the guardian at Querétaro himself. In a letter of July 5 they asked for such permission, promising to await its arrival unless events should force them to leave before it came. Their attitude toward the mission is shown by the following extract from their letter:
The only motive that could detain us here is the administration of the presidio, for there is no hope whatever of the Indians. Neither is there any obligation on our part to serve the presidio, since we were deceived in coming, Father Terreros assuring us that the viceroy has asked the College to assign us to that administration. The falsity of this statement we clearly proved in San Antonio, for nowhere does there appear nor is mention made of such a thing. And since the said Father is indispensable to the undertaking in which he has embarked, as administrator of the property of Don Pedro transported by him for the foundation of the missions; and since at present there is no priest or son of that Holy College (Querétaro) to administer, and, in addition, since it seems fitting that some priest of the Apostolic College of San Fernando shall assist him lest there be presumed some intended plot against it on our part, it seems to us a wise thing that the said Father and priest of San Fernando shall remain alone to administer, awaiting as well the determination of the superior government.
The Apaches, they said, wanted a “workless” mission, if any at all. Even if “Don Pedro” should supply everything for three years, who could answer for the consequences at the end of that time? “Therefore,” they continued, “we find no reason why we should remain with this enterprise, which we consider ill-conceived and without foundation from the beginning. ... Having fully learned the wishes of the Indians, we find no other motive (for friendship) than the hope of receiving gifts.” 253 This letter throws a great deal of light upon the situation. It is to be observed, too, that the factions that had been formed at San Antonio had continued to exist after the removal to the San Sabá Some time during the autumn the desired permission was secured, and Baños and Ximenes left behind the scene of their fruitless labors. There were now left in the mission Fathers Terreros, Santiesteban, and Santísima Trinidad.
Disquieting Rumors.—Father Terreros seems to have accepted the situation in a philosophic way, and had no thought but to remain on the San Sabá until he should be ordered to retire. He reported the disappointing conduct of the Apaches to Don Pedro de Terreros, in order that the philanthropist might be better able to discuss the situation with the viceroy, and decide whether the undertaking should be continued. To the guardian at Querétaro the Father President, with true apostolic fortitude, said: “Be consoled, for however ill it may go with us, there will come to light a matter of much importance, and the cause of public welfare at least will be promoted.” Although Captain Parrilla in the past had not always been in accord with his plans, Terreros had only praise for him. “I doubt,” he said, “that America has two heads like his for matters of this nature. He is a gentleman and in all harmony with us.” 254
In spite of the gloomy reports, Don Pedro de Terreros was not discouraged, and after several conferences with the viceroy, expressed his desire that the work among the Apaches should go on. In a letter of September 30th, Father Terreros was informed of this decision. 255
It took no little courage to remain at the post in the wilderness. There was an ominous feeling of unrest in the air. From time to time small bands of Apaches stopped by for a few days to partake of the hospitality of the padres, but they always refused to linger in the vicinity. Their reluctance was due to the fact that the Comanches and their allies were reported to be on the war path. The Apache spies brought in tales of a great host of Norteños (Northern Indians) who were headed in the direction of the San Sabá, bent upon settling old scores. These reports explain the refusal of the Apaches to remain in the neighborhood of the missions. So tremendous was the invading host reported to be that they were unwilling even to trust to the protection of the Spanish soldiery, and hurriedly fled to the country south of the Rio Grande, to the fear and consternation of the isolated settlers of that region. 256
There seems, however, to have been no immediate cause for alarm. As the winter months passed by in monotonous succession, no sign of the Comanches was seen. Reports still came that they were preparing for a descent upon the Apache country, but these rumors soon ceased to cause excitement. Life at the frontier post went on in the usual channel. The three priests continued to live in their isolated quarters on the south side of the river, attended by their Indian servants and a guard of five soldiers. An occasional visit from straggling Apache bands was the only thing to break the dull monotony. In the early part of January Fray Miguel Molina arrived from the College of San Fernando, but the missionaries were again reduced to three on January 12, when Santísima Trinidad was sent to Mexico bearing letters and dispatches. 257
On the other side of the river the current of life ran equally smooth, but social life must have been more active. There were probably some three or four hundred persons at the presidio, two hundred and thirty-seven of these being women and children. The guarding of the cattle and horses, the securing of firewood, the changing of the watch, the occasional arrival of a supply train from San Antonio—such was life at this frontier post. But there was soon to be excitement enough to stir the blood of the most indolent mestizo trooper.
The Arrival of the Comanches.—The rumors concerning the gathering of the Comanche hosts had not been unfounded. It was not until March, 1758, however, that the dreaded visitation took place. On the second day of this month the savages announced their presence by a raid upon the horses of the presidio, which were pastured between the mission and the presidio. Sixty-two horses were stolen. A gingerly pursuit was made by fifteen soldiers, but they did not go far on account of their fear of an ambush. They returned to the presidio with wild tales with which to alarm the none too brave inhabitants. The whole country was said to be literally alive with hidden foes. On March 9th four prospectors on the Pedernales River were attacked by the Indians. The men succeeded in escaping, though not unhurt, and hurriedly made their way to the presidio for refuge. 258
In view of these occurrences, Captain Parrilla tried to induce Father Terreros and his companions to seek the shelter of the presidio. He made this request several times, but the missionaries did not fear the Indians and resolved to stay at their exposed location. Since they persisted in remaining, Parrilla was compelled to leave them, as he did not feel justified in forcing them to retire. 259 He refused to increase the guard of five soldiers at the mission, realizing that he needed every available man to defend the presidio. The mission was entirely at the mercy of a hostile force. The total number of persons there reached only seventeen, including four or five Indian servants. 260 There were two cannon, with a supply of ammunition, and the stockade, of course, was an additional means of defense. But attack by a large force of Indians could result only in the ultimate overpowering of the small garrison. The presidio itself was handicapped by a lack of men. Four of the soldiers were on the Guadalupe, seven were guarding the cattle at the rancho five leagues away, five were at the mission. The large number of women and children made Parrilla's task more difficult, for they were a great encumbrance in time of peril. Every precaution was taken against the attack which was expected at any moment. On the afternoon of the 15th, Captain Parrilla made a final appeal to the priests to retire to the presidio, making a personal trip for the purpose. Father Terreros was firm in his refusal, however, and the little company was reluctantly left to the uncertain mercy of a savage foe. 261
The Massacre.—A little after sunrise on the morning of March 16, after Father Terreros had said mass and just as Father Santiesteban was beginning the second service, a great commotion was heard in the direction of the river, and presently there could be distinguished in the mission shouts of “Indians! Indians!” The invaders had already begun their acts of violence. Coming upon some of the inhabitants who were astir in the early dawn, they stripped them of their clothing, beat them severely and held them for further torture. The main body of the Indians proceeded toward the mission, discharging their firearms as they went. In this volley Andres de Villareal was wounded, but escaped and started for the protection of the mission. 262
As soon as Father Molina discovered the cause of the excitement and saw the large number of Indians approaching, he ran to the church to warn Father Santiesteban to discontinue the services. The priest at once removed his vestments, but remained in the church, while Molina passed on to notify Father Terreros. A number of the occupants of the mission had already gathered in the room of Father Terreros, the soldiers took their posts, the gate of the stockade was closed, and every precaution taken to guard against injury in case the Indians meant mischief. When the Indians drew near, they saw that the Spaniards were on their guard, and realizing that they would not be able to storm the place without much loss to themselves, they resolved to resort to treachery. By dint of many signs and much bad Spanish they announced that they came as friends to offer their allegiance to the Spaniards. Hearing expressions of amity, the corporal of the guard, Asencio Cadena, mustered up courage enough to venture out into the patio or open space in front of the mission. Through the cracks in the stockade he could see Indians peering through, and he at once recognized representatives of the Tejas, Vidaes, Tancagues, and other northern tribes with whom he had often been associated. Seeing these old friends, he assured Father Terreros that the Indians meant no harm. Upon the strength of this assertion, Father Terreros and other bold ones went out into the patio. An impressive spectacle, according to the testimony of an eyewitness met their gaze. On all sides, as far as the eye could reach, there was a moving, swaying multitude of savages, arrayed in strange garbs and mounted on gaudily equipped horses. Their faces were painted black and crimson, decorated with the most horrifying and repulsive figures, and many wore the skins of wild beasts with the tails hanging down from their heads. The mere sight of them, we are told, was enough to strike terror to the heart of the bravest soldier. All appeared to be armed with guns, sabres, or spears. A number of small boys were present for the purpose of receiving practical instruction in the art of warfare. 263 From the ground that they occupied, it was estimated that the number of the Indians reached 2000, which, according to Father Molina, was a conservative estimate. He believed that at least 1000 bore firearms. 264 Upon closer inspection it was seen that Cadena had been right in his classification. The majority of the Indians were probably Comanches, but there were also present many Tejas, Tancagues, Vidaes, Yujuanes, and other tribes who professed friendship for the Spaniards in eastern Texas. 265
As soon as the savages saw the priests appear and noted the confidence that was placed in their promises, many dismounted and without awaiting permission removed the crossbars from the gate and flung it open. The space between the stockade and the buildings was soon crowded with Indians, who shook hands with the Spaniards and made other friendly demonstrations. The priests immediately brought out a supply of tobacco and other articles which they began to distribute among the throng. The leader seemed to be a big stolid Comanche, dressed in a French uniform, who had not deigned to get off his horse. When Father Molina presented him with four handfuls of tobacco, he accepted it in a very condescending manner, without the slightest show of appreciation, while all the time, in the language of the priest, a false smile played upon his horrible features. 266 The attitude of this chief aroused the suspicions of the Spaniards, and they began to doubt the good faith of the Indians. Especially was this true when it was seen that they were stealing food from the kitchen, appropriating the cloaks of the soldiers, and securing the horses in the corral. They had the boldness to ask for more horses, and when told that the mission had only a few, they inquired whether the presidio had any. The presidio, they were informed, had a great many horses, and was supplied with everything in abundance. This was said to leave the impression that the fort lacked nothing for defense. The Indians were then asked if they had come to visit the captain of the presidio. They replied that they wished to do so, but that they were afraid unless the priests should give them a letter for security. Hoping that this might be a means of getting rid of the undesirable guests, who were now searching openly for plunder in the storerooms, Father Terreros consented to give them a letter. While he was writing it, Villareal, who had succeeded in reaching the mission, told about the wound he had received near the river and of the undoubtedly evil purposes of the visitors. Terreros realized that he spoke the truth, but there was now no help for it. 267 He gave the Indians the letter, which was taken in charge by a chief of the Tejas tribe. This chief went to the corral and, taking out one of the Father President's horses which had been left undisturbed, signified his intention of riding to the presidio. Terreros objected to this, whereupon the Indian quickly seized his gun and placed the muzzle against the horse's head. At this action, the priest ceased his objections, and the Teja set out toward the presidio, accompanied by a large number of Indians.
Although the Indians were prowling around the premises stealing everything that took their fancy, the priests pretended not to notice it, and did everything possible to conciliate them. Terreros entered into a conversation with some Tejas Indians about their country, in which he had lived for a while. They assured the priest that they had no desire to harm the Spaniards, and wished only to fight the Apaches, who had killed some of their people. After a short time, the Tejas chief returned, announcing that not only had he been refused admission to the presidio, but that three of his warriors had been killed and one wounded. The short time that he had been gone convinced the Spaniards that he was lying, but, nevertheless, Father Terreros agreed to accompany him to see that he was given a kind reception. True to his word, the brave father prepared to start, accompanied by a soldier named Joseph García. When they were ready, the chief could not be seen, and Father Terreros, thinking to find him in the throng outside of the stockade, rode toward the gate. As the two men drew near a shot rang out, and with a cry Father Terreros fell from his horse, mortally wounded. At the same time, a murderous volley from the savages instantly killed Garcia. The thin veil of friendship was now torn aside, and a fierce combat began. The unfortunate Spaniards made a desperate effort to reach safety, but all did not succeed in escaping, and when the survivors had gained the President's room it was found that Father Santiesteban, Lázaro de Ayala and Enrique Gutiérrez, had also fallen victims to the sudden onslaught of the savages. There were now left Father Molina and eight other men. The Indian servants had escaped at the first news of the enemy. The priest had a broken arm, and several others were wounded, but with desperate energy they barricaded the doors and made ready to defend their lives to the last. 268
The Indians set fire to the stockade, to the buildings already sacked, and to the one occupied by the besieged, and busied themselves in plundering the storerooms of the rich provisions laid up there. The dead priests were despoiled of their habits and their bodies mutilated, that of Father Santiesteban being decapitated The images of the saints were profaned or destroyed, the cattle in the corral were killed, and all possible damage inflicted. This could be seen by the Spaniards through the loopholes of their quarters, and they did not doubt but that the flames would soon reach them and force them to expose themselves to the greater fury of the savages. The latter, however, seemed confident that the fire would do its work, and gave little concern to the prisoners, devoting their attention to the agreeable work of pillage and destruction. 269
Captain Parrilla Sends Aid.—At the first commotion caused by the assailants in the early morning, the Indian servants of the mission had made their escape, and one had reached the presidio, giving Captain Parrilla his first information concerning the approach of the Norteños. Parrilla had at once sent out a squad of nine men to reinforce the mission guard and report the state of affairs. Before this force reached the mission, they were fallen upon by a large number of Indians. Two were killed outright, Joseph Vasquez was wounded and fell from his horse, being left for dead by the Indians, who continued the pursuit of the remaining six. All were wounded, but succeeded in reaching the shelter of the presidio. The Indians did not dare assault the fort, and contented themselves with burning the isolated buildings and destroying the newly planted crops. They prevented, however, any immediate relief being sent to the missionaries, for Parrilla thought that he had all he could do to defend his post. 270
At about eight o'clock in the morning the imprisoned men in the mission were startled to hear a knocking at the door and a voice asking admittance and confession. The door was hastily opened, and Joseph Vasquez, one of the relief party, staggered into the room, naked, and bleeding from a bad wound in the chest. He told a wonderful story of his escape. When he fell from his horse, he said, the Indians had stripped him of his clothing and left him for dead. He had then dragged himself to the mission, where he was discovered by two Indians, who seized him and pitched him into the burning stockade, thinking that the fire would extinguish the little life left in him. From this new peril he had also miraculously escaped, and had then made his way to the room, unobserved by the feasting savages. 271
All day long and far into the night the Indians continued their orgies and the little company of Spaniards still lived. They remained in the room of the Father President until shortly after noon, when the flames reached them and forced them to flee. Thanks to the carelessness of the enemy, they succeeded in making their way into another room in the church building. Their escape being discovered, however, fire was again set to the new place of refuge, and a further retreat was made before the advancing flames. They went into the small chapel, which, although in flames, was less dilapidated than the other ruins. From this time, the Indians, believing them dead, paid no further attention to them. 272
But rescue was at hand. As soon as darkness fell, Parrilla sent out a sergeant with fourteen men to reconnoiter and to learn whether an attack upon the Indians would be feasible. No hope was entertained that the occupants of the mission were still alive, for the flames had been seen, and the presidio itself had experienced the hostility of the Indians. The soldiers were perceived as soon as they approached, and with shouts of warning the Indians prepared for defense. Had they known the small force they had to contend with, they could easily have overpowered the Spaniards. But they feared attack from a large force, and cautiously withdrew to a more advantageous position. 273
The withdrawl of the Indians afforded the imprisoned Spaniards the long hoped for chance of escape. Only four were still alive, and one of these, Juan Antonio Gutiérrez, was too badly wounded to leave the church. 274 Father Molina, a mule-driver named Nicolas, and a soldier (probably Joseph Vasquez), although wounded themselves, were able to abandon the ill-fated place. Nicolas was the first to go. 275 Then, according to the uncorroborated statement of the soldier, he had heroically ventured forth, bearing Father Molina upon his back. They were detected, he said, and fired at, whereupon he fell to the ground unconscious. When he recovered his senses, the priest was not to be seen. He himself did not rest until he reached San Antonio. He was wounded in the shoulder, and from the position of the wound it was judged that the bullet had passed entirely through the body of the priest. To the fact that its force had thus been spent, the soldier pointed out, he owed his life. 276
But Father Molina was not dead, and since he says nothing of the incident narrated by the soldier, we should accept that hero's statement with caution. According to Father Molina's own version, he struck out from the mission toward the south, seeking the most hidden paths, and on the morning of the 18th, having made a great detour to the north again, he arrived at the presidio. It had taken him a day and two nights to reach a point only three miles away. 277 He found the occupants of the presidio in a state of panic. Another attack was expected at any moment, and no one dared stir outside of the fort. 278
The Burial of the Dead.—Four days passed without further incident, and by the 20th Captain Parrilla judged it safe to investigate the damage that had been done at the mission. A scene of desolation met the eyes of the party. Practically everything had been destroyed. The first care was given to the burial of the dead. The following had been killed: Fathers Terreros and Santiesteban, Joseph García, Enrique Gutiérrez, Lázaro de Ayala, Asencio Cadena, Andrés de Villareal, and Juan Antonio Gutiérrez, who had succumbed to his wounds. 279 The bodies of Father Terreros and two soldiers were buried in the church cemetery. The others were interred at the places where their remains were found. Joaquin García and Luis Chirinos, of the first squad sent out by Parrilla, were buried where they fell. At first the searchers could not find the body of Father Santiesteban, and it was supposed that it had been entirely consumed by the flames. A few days later, however, it was discovered, the head having been completely severed from the body. He was also interred in the cemetery beside the grave of Father Terreros. The total number of victims of the treacherous attack was ten. 280
The Spread of the News.—On the night of the massacre, the 16th, Captain Parrilla sent two messengers to San Antonio to report the treachery of the Indians and to ask for aid. They were preceded by the fugitive soldier, who had arrived on the 19th, and the news was already known. In answer to the appeal for help, a lieutenant and eighteen men were immediately despatched to the San Saba. 281
There was great opposition to the sending of aid, for as much alarm was felt at San Antonio as at the presidio of San Luis de las Amarillas. Many rumors were rife that the Indians were en route to the capital, and it was feared that it would meet the same fate as the mission. The people at the little settlement on the Guadalupe River hurriedly retired to Béxar, horses and cattle were driven in for shelter, and every precaution taken against the coming of the savages. The news reached Governor Barrios on April 3 at Nacogdoches, where he was busy with the removal of the presidio of Orcoquisac. He at once started for San Antonio to take charge of the defense of the capital, but high water prevented the continuance of his journey. 282
On March 23d Captain Parrilla despatched two Indians to San Antonio with further details of the attack, and requested Father Dolores to send him a force of mission Indians. Four days later the Indians returned to the presidio, reporting that they had lost their horses on the Chanas (Llano) River, and had been compelled to return. Parrilla believed their return was due to fear of the enemy, and he did not censure them. But in order to ensure the transmission of the dispatches, he sent out Lieutenant Juan Galban with four soldiers. In Parrilla's letter to Father Dolores additional light is thrown upon the state of affairs at the presidio. All of the cattle, about 2000 head in all, had been abandoned because of the great danger of guarding them. There were only provisions enough to last a week, and haste was imperative. Unless help should be sent from San Antonio, he said, the destruction of the whole settlement was inevitable. 283
No more succor was sent from San Antonio. Father Dolores did not think it wise to send any mission Indians. While five hundred were available and might be of great service behind the mission walls, they would be of little value, he said, in an open battle such as they might have to fight if they went to San Sabá. Captain Urrutia of the presidio of Bexar had only five soldiers left, three being assigned to each of the five missions, and he was of course unable to send further aid. He despatched couriers to all of the neighboring settlements, however, notifying Adaes, La Bahía, Rio Grande, Monclova, Santa Rosa, and Nuevo León that unless reinforcements and ammunition were sent the entire province of Texas would be destroyed. 284
The news had reached the viceroy twenty-three days after the attack, and he immediately took steps to avert the threatened danger to the frontier province. On April 7th and 13th he issued decrees ordering the governors of Coahuila, Nuevo León, and Texas to send to San Sabá whatever aid might be demanded of them. On account of the general alarm, however, it was very hard to secure obedience. As late as August 23 he was forced to issue a third order to the same effect. 285 The whole country was frightened by the dastardly treachery of the hitherto friendly northern tribes.
The Causes for the Attack.—According to the best contemporary evidence at hand, the causes for the assault upon the mission were three in number: First and foremost, no doubt, was the jealousy felt by the northern tribes of the intimate relations between the Spaniards and the Apaches—a jealousy inspired not by affection but by fear. The establishment of the presidio upon the San Sabá River had from the first been regarded by the Comanches and their allies as a virtual declaration of war against themselves, and they believed that eventually the Apaches would induce the soldiers to aid them in a great campaign. 286 The Apaches had done much to increase this distrust for the Spaniards. When making raids into the territory of their enemies, they would often leave shoes and other articles of clothing worn by the soldiers in order to throw suspicion upon them. Then, too, the spies of the northern tribes, seeing the Apaches return to the neighborhood of the presidio. and observing the joint buffalo hunts that were made, naturally reported that the Spaniards were in active league with the Apaches against their own people. 287 That this belief was general and of long standing is shown by the statement of a Taguayas chief in eastern Texas in 1765, seven years later. He declared that he was unwilling to remain at peace with the Spaniards at San Sabá because they had aided his mortal enemies, the Apaches, who were great thieves and murderers. If the Spaniards would withdraw their protection from the Apaches, he said, the Taguayas would become friends. 288
Another reason for the attack was believed to be the instigation of the French. There was no doubt that the French were supplying the northern tribes with firearms through the trade that they carried on with them. But in Texas it was firmly believed that in addition to this indirect aid the French had encouraged the Indians by their presence at the massacre. This suspicion was increased by the reports that were brought back from Louisiana. Many of the horses and mules stolen from San Sabá were said to be in the French fort at Natchitoches, and many of the mission ornaments were said to have found their way into the hands of the French. No less a personage than Governor Barrios accused the French of complicity in the attack. The French indignantly denied the accusations, and there is little reason for believing that they were in any way directly responsible for the outrage. A third cause for the attack was the natural desire of the Indians to plunder the rich stores of the mission. The presence of eatables alone was a strong incentive. The primary cause, however, was undoubtedly jealousy of the Apaches. 289
Although the subsequent history of the Apache mission project must be reserved for a future paper, it may be added here that two years later a great campaign was made against the northern tribes, in which the Spaniards were so badly defeated that it was declared that never had such a disgraceful rout been experienced since the landing of Cortés in New Spain. The attempt to convert the Apaches was continued, however, two other missions being established for them a few years later—but not on the San Sabá River. For some ten years more the Apaches successfully hoodwinked the Spaniards, and the presidio remained at the San Sabá. Finally, however, the evident insincerity of the Indians could no longer be doubted, and a complete change in policy was made. An alliance was entered into with the northern tribes and a bitter war of extermination begun against the Apaches.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 290
Secret. Galveston October 31st. 1843. My Lord,
In a conversation with the President yesterday, he placed in my hand an original despatch from Mr. Van Zandt, Chargé d'Affaires from this Republic in the United States, to the Secretary of State of Texas, dated at Washington on the 18th Ultimo. The President did not offer to furnish me with a Copy of the despatch, neither did I consider it suitable to ask for one, and I can therefore only furnish Your Lordship with a general statement of its contents from memory. But I read it with attention, and I do not think that any material point has escaped my notice.
Mr. Van Zandt begins by stating, that he had called a day or two before at the Office of the Secretary of State upon a subject of trifling importance but Mr. Upshur interrupted his representations by remarking that He was glad to see him, for he had been on the point of writing to request him to converse on a matter of moment. He then entered eagerly into the subject of the annexation of Texas to the United States, expressing much hope that the Government of Texas had not changed it's policy upon that point. The President informed me, at this place of Mr. Van Zandt's despatch, that upon announcing the late Armistice to that Gentleman, He had been desired to take an occasion of verbally acquainting the Government of the United States, that the general Instructions to the Agents of this Government near that of the United States upon the subject of Annexation must be considered to be no longer of force, I use General Houston's language; “that, that door was closed.”
Mr. Van Zandt in reply to Mr. Upshur's first observation adverted to an expression in a despatch of the Secretary of State of Texas, (quoted in his own despatch of the 18 September) to the effect that it dit not seem to the Government of Texas that the acknowledgment of the Independence of Texas by Mexico would interpose an insurmountable obstacle to annexation with the United States, if that combination should therefore be considered convenient. It seemed on the contrary, that it might smooth the way to that result, by means of subsequent treaty between the two Countries
Both the President and the Secretary of State, with whom I have conversed this morning, told me that this observation had been thrown out to induce the more hearty efforts of the Government of the United States with that of Mexico to secure the acknowledgment of their Independence by Mexico; but having that Independence recognized, it was not the wish of the present Government, nor they firmly believed would it be found to be that of the majority of this people, that any treaty or other scheme of Annexation should be entertained.
Returning to Mr Upshur's conversation, as reported by Mr Van Zandt in the despatch of the 18th. September, I should inform Your Lordship that it conveyed generally the determination of the Government of the United States to endeavour to effect the annexation of Texas during the next Session, if the Government of Texas consented to the promotion of such an arrangement.
To Mr. Van Zandt's remarks (speaking in that particular, as an unauthorized person) that though it certainly seemed to him that such a proposal might find favor in Texas, still he could not but remind Mr. Upshur of the former failure of the scheme of annexation in the United States, Mr. Upshur replied that circumstances had materially changed since, that it was the great measure of the present administration; that they had already sounded leading persons in the Senate, and that though it was probable they would be stormily opposed, still they believed they should be able to carry the project.
He wished Mr Van Zandt to report the subject of the present conversation to Texas by express, and to ask for immediate instructions in order that affairs might be sufficiently advanced by the next meeting of Congress in the United States. But Mr. Van Zandt did not consider there was any need for an express, probably because he had nothing to transmit, but the statement of a personal conference, for I remarked that nothing was delivered to Mr Van Zandt in a written form, and that Mr Upshur declined to furnish him with a Copy of the Instructions to General Thompson at Mexico, though he suffered me [him] to peruse them.
Mr Van Zandt closes his despatch with a request for early Instructions, and a decided expression of his own opinion that the present administration at Washington is perfectly sincere in these professions and purposes, but leaving it to his own Government to form it's own judgment of their political strength to carry out such a scheme
I said I hoped I was not asking too much in requesting to know in what sense this Government proposed to reply to these overtures.
General Houston answered that Mr Van Zandt would be instructed to communicate verbally that it did not seem to the Government of Texas to be convenient or necessary to entertain such proposals at all, till the Senate of the United States had manifested its readiness by resolution to treat with Texas, upon the subject of Annexation
I did not pursue the conversation for the moment, desiring to reflect upon the course that it might be convenient to take in the present state of my information. But I have now to report the subject of a conference which I sought with the President and the Secretary of State this morning.
Attentively considering the Communication from Washington which the President had been so good as to shew me, and generally the indications of public feeling, and violent attack to which he had been exposed on account of some supposed undue and dangerous influence on the part of Her Majesty's Government in the Affairs of Texas, I thought that it was incumbent upon me to declare (after renewed examination of my communications from Your Lordship) the scope and sum of Her Majesty's purposes concerning the settlement of the dispute between Mexico and Texas.
The President might assure himself that the Queen continued to take a lively interest, in the prosperity and Independence of Texas; and moved by a sincere desire to hasten the close of a fruitless and painful Warfare, Her Majesty's Government would willingly use every friendly effort in a strictly impartial sense, to consolidate a peace upon terms conducive to the honor, advantage, and stability of both the parties engaged in this contest.
This was the plain purport of all my communications from Her Majesty's Government.
But observing from what had passed at Washington that another phase of these affairs had now presented itself, I hoped the President would give me leave to offer some reflections arising out of that condition of things. I spoke of course without authority. If however His Excellency felt himself in a situation to assure Her Majesty's Government that he had entire confidence in the good will and ability of the Government of the United States to secure the recognition of the bonâ fide, and durable Independence of Texas by Mexico, by friendly means, and further that the associations between the people of this Country and of the United States, made it an object of moment to this Government that their affairs at Mexico, should be left to the countenance of the United States, it certainly was my opinion that Her Majesty's Government would readily desist from pressing the subject in that quarter, neither could I suppose that Her Majesty's Government would take umbrage at the expression of a such a wish upon the part of this Government. How far it might be conducive to a speedy settlement of these difficulties, and to the well understood interests of the people of Texas that the Government of Mexico should find itself negotiating with the Government of the United States for the acknowledgment of the Independence of Texas, to be followed by a treaty of Annexation with that Union, were points upon which it did not belong to me to offer any opinions.
I hope, however, that His Excellency would authorize me to make a communication of his own views and intentions upon these proposals of the Government of the United States to Your Lordship
The President requested me to convey the expressions of the gratitude of the Government of Texas for the kind and powerful support they had received from that of Her Majesty; earnestly to request that there should be no relaxation in these friendly efforts to hasten the acknowledgment of the Independence of Texas by Mexico, to state with perfect plainess that the Government of Texas had no ground to consider the professions of the Government of the United States to be directed by other motives than those of internal convenience; and that no reliance was placed upon their hearty interposition for the settlement of this dispute upon the basis of the Independence of Texas. But that even if the case were otherwise, the Government of Texas could never so far forget what was due to the Government of Her Majesty from which it had received earnests of helpfulness, or to its own interests, as to postpone the[ir] support to any other.
Her Majesty's Government might rest assured that with the Independence of Texas recognized by Mexico, He would never consent to any treaty or other project of annexation to the United States, and He had a conviction that the people would sustain him in that determination. He had formerly been favorable to such a Combination. But the United States had rejected the proposals of this Country in its time of difficulty; neither was the subsequent conduct of that Government calculated to induce the Government and people of Texas in this mended state of things, to sacrifice their true and lasting advantage to the policy of party in that Country.
The Government of the United States had been appealed to for interference in these affairs simultaneously with the Government of Her Majesty and that of the King of the French, and if those Government's had taken a more active and decided part in securing the recognition of their Independence, the President could see and feel that they had entitled themselves to the gratitude and confidence of Texas, but He could not observe that the existence of such feelings furnished just ground of complaint or uneasiness to the Government of the United States. He learnt that the Government of the United States was now taking a very lively interest in their efforts, as he anticipated would be the case as soon as they heard of the Armistice, and the withdrawal of the Instructions respecting annexation; But up to this moment the Government of Texas had not been favored with one word in a written form in explanation of their purposes and proceedings. They were no doubt kind, but what they were he could not positively say.
I remarked to the President that this might be a convenient occasion to advert to one point which appeared to be the foundation of the existing misconception respecting the purposes of Her Majesty's Government. The subject to which I alluded was the desire of Her Majesty's Government for the Abolition of Slavery in Texas, collected from what had appeared in the public prints, and particularly from a late Conversation in the House of Lords. There was nothing here to occasion surprize or uneasiness. The Government of Texas in common with the whole world must have been perfectly aware of the settled feeling of the British Government and Nation upon the subject of Slavery, and though I had not yet received Instructions to press that topic, I naturally concluded that such instructions would soon reach me.
Her Majesty's Government would probably dwell upon the wrongfulness of Slavery; on the deplorable error of setting out in the life and fortunes of a Nation, with all its prospects based upon an Institution, condemned and decaying every where, acknowledgedly a cancer where it did exist, and the subject of increasing want of confidence, and aversion in States, from which it had passed away
These and other grounds of reasoning would possibly be strongly pressed upon the attention of this Government, but the President was too well acquainted with the character of the British Government to suppose that it would be unmindful of the just right of this Government and people to decide for themselves.
General Houston had not the least uneasiness upon such a point; And without entering at all into this particular Subject, He could at least say generally that the views of Her Majesty's Government would always receive the most attentive consideration of the Government and people of Texas.
Implicit reliance may be place in the sincerity and steadiness of the opinions General Houston expressed in this Conversation; but I certainly perceive no such ground to depend upon the course of the people of Texas, if the project of annexation should be presented to them.
The President would no doubt use strenuous efforts in the sense he has declared, but his administration closes in the Month of December 1844, and if He is not succeeded by a person influenced by the same policy, the uncertainty upon the subject would be much encreased.
Your Lordship will perhaps be already informed as to these intentions of the Government of the United States, and no doubt of their ability in respect to them; But I have nevertheless felt it my duty to report this information in detail, and I will take the liberty to add an opinion which I offered to the President in a private way, that is, that their project seems to be shaped with the alternative intention of settling the matter in the way that pleases them, or of disordering any other settlement, and of the two, it seemed to me, that the last was the more hopeful result, for I did not believe that the Government of the United States, had any confidence in their own power to carry out a project of annexation. But the agitation of it could hardly fail to alarm the Government of Mexico.
I should mention that the American Schooner of War “Flirt” arrived here on the 17th. Instant with Despatches for General Murphy, and referring to the date of her departure from Norfolk (the 30th. Ultimo) I conclude that the intelligence she brings is to the effect related in Mr Van Zandt's despatch. But General Murphy does not appear to have been authorized to commit himself in writing upon the subject.
General Houston and Mr Jones told me, that incredible as it seems, they were disposed to believe that the Government of the United States had listened to hastily to some extravagant reports from here, as to the sinister purposes of Her Majesty's Government in connexion with the Governments of Mexico, and of Texas for the assumption of this Country in Her Majesty's name, and assured me that a small squadron of American Ships of War would shortly follow the Schooner. I remarked that these rumours were no doubt calculated to excite the people of this Country, and by throwing discredit upon General Houston to facilitate the frustration of his negotiations with Mexico; but I would undertake to say that the Government of the United States never attached the least credit to such folly and falsehood.
Charles Elliot. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 291
No. 30. 292 Galveston, November 13th. 1843. My Lord,
I have the honor to acknowledge Mr Addington's despatch No 12, 293 and I avail myself of this occasion to report that intelligence has reached this place from Matamoras to the 29th. Ultimo, announcing that the Commissioners from this Government had proceeded to Sabinas (about 90 leagues to the Northward of Matamoras) to meet General Woll and arrange the terms of the truce. It is probable that a reference will be necessary both to Mexico and to this Government before the conditions are finally adjusted.
Having heard through the public press of some misunderstanding at Mexico upon the subject of an English Ensign, displayed amongst some flags said to have been taken by the forces of that Republic. 294 I think it may be convenient to forward to Your Lordship a newspaper containing an account of the manner in which that Ensign fell into the hands of the Mexican Government. 295 I also take the opportunity of this despatch to mention that the trade between Mexico and the Western parts of this Country has once more revived with considerable vigour, under the influence of a state of truce, and particularly of the prohibitory regulations of the Mexican Government, so favourable to the promotion of extensive illicit traffic.
Charles Elliot. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
KENNEDY TO ABERDEEN 296
No. 8. British Consulate. Galveston, November 13th 1843. My Lord,
I have the honor to enclose a return in duplicate, relating to the following Subjects:—
Custom Laws of Texas,
Wreck Masters and their Duties.
Maritime Jurisdiction.
Collectoral Districts. 297
William Kennedy. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 298
No. 32. 299 Galveston, November. 29th. 1843. My Lord,
I have the honor to transmit herewith the copy of a dispatch which I have this day addressed to Mr. Doyle at Mexico, in reply to a despatch from him, announcing the interruption of his official intercourse with the Government of Mexico, and I also take the liberty to forward an extract from a private letter which I have sent to him with my public Communication.
Begging to refer Your Lordship to the appeal made by General McLeod 300 in his letter to me of the 26th. Instant (Inclosure No 2 in my despatch to Mr. Doyle) in behalf of Mr Antonio Navarro, I venture to hope that Your Lordship will compassionate his situation, and instruct Her Majesty's Minister at Mexico to intercede in his favor on the renewal of the public intercourse between the two Governments.
His fate has always been the subject of great solicitude to the Government and people of Texas, and I am sure they would be grateful for the kind Offices of Her Majesty's Government. it has also occurred to me that acts of public clemency at the suggestion of Her Majesty's Government may be amongst the most pleasing proofs of respect and atonement which the Government of Mexico can afford for its late unsuitable conduct.
Charles Elliot The Earl of Aberdeen. K. T.
ELLIOT TO DOYLE 301
[Enclosure]. Galveston, November 29th 1843. Sir,
By the last arrival from New Orleans, I have had the honor to receive Your Despatch of the 5th. Ultimo, acquainting me that you had been compelled to suspend all diplomatic intercourse with the Government of Mexico 'till you had received further Instructions from Her Majesty's Government.
Accounts of the circumstance which induced that event had already reached this place through the press of the United States, and in a dispatch to Lord Aberdeen, dated on the [13th.] Inst which will go to England by the Mail of the 1st Proximo from Boston, I had thought it might be convenient to forward His Lordship the copy of a Newspaper [of which another copy is herewith transmitted] containing a statement of the manner in which the English flag in question fell into the hands of the Mexican Government. 302
Since the receipt of your despatch of the 5th Ultimo, I have communicated with the Editor of this paper, and I learn from him that He received his information direct from General Green, who was present in the affair at Meir.
I have also ascertained from other respectable persons who had conversed with General Green upon this subject whilst He was here, that no English flag was displayed in that conflict, or upon any other occasion in the course of the operations which closed at that place.
The flag was used by the man into whose possession it had fallen, as a sleeping covering, and was found by the Mexicans, either, in his Knapsack, or it may be as a wrapper to his kit.
Thinking it possible that there may be some pretension that a British flag was captured, when the persons composing the “Santa Fé” expedition surrendered, I have taken an opportunity of ascertaining directly from General H. Mc.Leod who commanded that force, that no English flag was ever used in that service, or to the best of his knowledge was in the possession of any person in that expedition.
Charles Elliot. Percy W. Doyle, Esqr Copy. Charles Elliot. [Endorsed.]. Inclosure. 1. In Captn Elliot's No. 32. November 29. 1843.
M'LEOD TO ELLIOT 303
[Enclosure.] Galveston. November. 26th. 1843. Sir,
Inage Morris informed me on yesterday that you had desired to learn from me, whether any British flag accompanied me in the Expedition to Santa Fé, in 1841, under my command.—No such flag could have been officially used, and if any individual carried one it was without my knowledge—Indeed I am quite sure it was not done.
While addressing you upon this subject, would it be improper, to solicit your kind offices, unofficially, for my unfortunate Companion, Mr Antonio Navarro.—His release would be but an act of justice to himself, and would confer happiness on a large family and numerous friends.
This, if it can be accorded, I respectfully solicit in the name of General Lamar, under whose authority, as President of this Republic, that Expedition was sent as well as in that of.
H. McLeod. True Copy. Charles Elliot To. Honl. Chas. Elliot. H. B. M. Chargé d' Affaires [Endorsed.] Inclosure No. 2. In Captn. Elliot's No 32. November. 29. 1843.
ELLIOT TO DOYLE 304
Private Note. Galveston November 29. 1843.
Brought up in a Military profession I take the liberty of remarking, that the triumphant display of flags as National trophies, always requires unequivocal proof that they were actually fought under, and captured in conflict.
Ships of War, for example, usually carry the flags of all Maritime Powers, amongst their stores, but when a Ship of War of one nation is taken by a Ship of another, it would be absurd and insulting to display any other Ensign in triumph than that of the Country to which the captured vessel belonged.
If the British flag had been displayed and fought under at Meir, which it certainly was not, the right course would have been to forward a detailed and authentic statement of the facts to H. M. Government, with a request to know if any authority had been given for the use of the British National Colours to the persons from whom they were taken, within the limits of the Mexican territory or elsewhere.
It was not time for the Mexican Government to take any further proceedings with respect to that flag 'till they had been formally answered in that particular.
Persons who were captured in Mexico, fighting under National Colours which they had no authority to use, would no doubt be liable to be treated as mere marauders.
But the triumphal display of the flag of a friendly Power, taken from such persons, is really much less an act of disrespect to that Country, [foolishly disrespectful as it is] than of total want of regard to the character of the Nation, exhibiting such spoils amongst the trophies of honorable and regular War.
Whatever degree of dissatisfaction this impertinence may occasion Her Majesty's Government, it is manifest that the offence is much more serious against the honor and dignity of Mexico. For if it had been true that the people at Meir had fought under a British flag it would be equally [true] that, that very fact had rendered them within the description of marauders, or banditts, and Nations do not make triumphal display of the proofs of their prowess, over persons in that category, at the disregard too, of the obligations of public comity to friendly Powers. The statement, however, that a British flag was taken in action at all, is void of foundation, and the unavoidable conclusion is, that the Mexican Government, has fabricated an explanation of it's conduct, which would have been discreditable in the last degree if it had been faithful.
If there is any military person amongst your colleagues, I am sure he will testify to the correctness of this exposition of military usage, and probably satisfy the Mexican Government of the unfortunate attitude in which it has placed itself by this unsemmly adoption of the false report of this Commanding officer at Meir. His immediate and examplary punishment, and the most signal, and public proof of their own respect for the flag of a friendly Power, are steps far more necessary for their own relief, from a very discreditable scrape, than for the sake of any other consideration. It will no doubt be very easy for H. M. Government to set this nonsense to rights, so far as the dignity of Great Britain is concerned, but the Mexican Government should be told by some friendly adviser, that what they do spontaneously is what alone can set them to rightś in the estimation of other Powers.
Charles Elliot [Endorsed.] Inclosure 3. In Captn. Elliot's No 32. November 29. 1843.
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTICES.
The Life of Robert Toombs, by Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Ph. D., Professor of American History in the University of Michigan. (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1913. Pp. xi., 281. $2.00.)
A good life of Robert Toombs has long been needed, partly because too little has been known of the man who, from the death of Calhoun to 1860, was the foremost representative of southern interests in Congress, and partly because a study of his career reveals so much of interest to the student of the ante-bellum conditions and problems of the South. It is, therefore, gratifying that the task of revealing Toombs has been undertaken by one so competent as Professor Phillips. Disclaiming any leaning toward heroworship, Professor Phillips has endeavored “to use the career of Toombs as a central theme in describing the successive problems which the people of Georgia and the South confronted and the policies which they followed in their efforts at solving them.”
Beginning with a brief but interesting account of conditions in “Middle Georgia” in the early nineteenth century, the author traces Toombs's early career through college, the beginnings of his law practice, and his entry into politics as a Whig member of the state legislature, where he became conspicuous as a leader who was more concerned with sound policy than with party advantage. The chapter entitled “A Southern Whig in Congress” contains a most excellent account of the difficult position of the party which stood as the champion of the planting interest when Toombs became a member of Congress in 1844. The next four chapters—“The Proviso Crisis and the Compromise of 1850,” “The Georgia Platform,” “A Senator in the Fifties,” and “Toombs on the Slave-holding Regime”—carry us to 1860. These chapters set forth clearly the very conspicuous part taken by Toombs in Congress and in the affairs of his state during this momentous period, and they also reveal the true quality of the man. The popular estimate of Toombs at that time and afterwards would hardly include conservatism as one of his marked characteristics, yet Professor Phillips has shown that, fundamentally, the great Georgia tribune was conservative. It was the natural result of his habit of looking carefully into the facts of the case and of his clear-sighted appreciation of what were the facts. His excessive natural ardor often led him into intemperate expressions that gave a superficial appearance of radicalism.
The election crisis of 1860 and the stroke for Southern independence were the beginning of the undoing of Toombs. The election of Jefferson Davis, instead of Toombs, as President of the new Confederacy, Professor Phillips thinks was due to “bungling.” As Secretary of State to Davis, Toombs was in an impossible situation; as a brigadier general in the field, he was impatient, captious, a failure. After his resignation from the army and his failure of election to the Confederate Senate, he lapsed more and more into the caustic but helpless critic of the administration, particularly of its financial policies.
Threatened with arrest and imprisonment after the break up of the Confederacy, he fled to Paris, but returned in 1867 and was unmolested. He regained his leadership of the Georgia bar, and took a prominent part in rescuing the state from radical misrule, but never again held office.
In some respects this little volume is a model of what a biography should be. Professor Phillips has adhered faithfully to his idea of making the career of Toombs the central theme of a much broader study, the problems of the cotton-producing, ante-bellum South. Though his Southern sympathies are very much in evidence throughout the book, they are based upon a close study of Southern conditions; and the point of view which he sets forth is so generally unappreciated, that the reviewer feels no desire to criticise.
Much of the material is drawn from the correspondence of Toombs, Stephens and Howell Cobb, edited by Professor Phillips, and appearing since the publication of the biography as Volume II of the 1911 Report of the American Historical Association. The book seems typographically perfect and the index is good.
Chas. W. Ramsdell.
NEWS ITEMS
The Dallas Democrat (page 7) of November 29, 1913, contains an article by Virginia Quitman McNealus, entitled “A Little Footnote to an Old Chapter,” in which are pointed out erroneous statements made in Bancroft's North Mexican States and Texas, II, 468. A letter from J. N. Cortina to J. S. Ford, dated October 17, 1891, is printed in proof of the corrections.
San Antonio Road.—At the November conference of the Daughters of the American Revolution at El Paso, Texas, the sum of $1200 was pledged to begin the erecting of boulders of Texas granite, five feet high, three and one-half by two and one-half feet wide, one side smoothed and inscribed “King's Highway—San Antonio Road, erected by the Daughters of the American Revolution,” donor's name and date. It was decided to place these markers five miles apart across the State from the Sabine river to the Rio Grande.
Colonel Henry Exall, president of the Texas Industrial Congress, died at his home in Dallas, on December 29, 1913. Numerous tributes were paid Colonel Exall through the press following his death; a brief biography is printed in Who's Who in America, 1912-1913.
Dr. Edward B. Wright, for thirty-five years pastor and for six years pastor emeritus of the First Presbyterian Church of Austin, died at his home January 4, 1914. It was said of him that “he was the best known and the best loved minister that Austin ever had.”
Judge James H. McLeary died at Washington, D. C., January 5, 1914. He served in the house of representatives and the senate of Texas, was attorney general from 1880 to 1882, was appointed one of the territorial judges of Montana by President Cleveland, and at the time of death was associate justice of the supreme court of Porto Rico. Biographical sketches of him are printed in Who's Who in America, 1912-1913, and in the San Antonio Express, January 6, 1914.
Wells Thompson, judge of the twenty-third judicial district, died at his home in Bay City, on January 17, 1914. The Galveston News of the day following gives a brief sketch of his life. He graduated from the University of North Carolina in 1859, and two years later from the law department of the University of Georgia. After the close of the war he took up the practice of law at Matagorda, was a member of the constitutional convention of 1866, was elected president of the senate in 1876, and served as a member of the board of codifiers of the laws of Texas in 1895.
James G. Dudley, of Paris, Texas, who was appointed by Governor Campbell one of the commissioners to codify the laws of Texas, died on January 17, 1914. The Dallas News of the day following and Who's Who in America, 1906-1907, contain brief biographies.
J. M. Oram, an inventor of distinction in electrical and telephone fields, died at his late home in Dallas on January 17, 1914. Mr. Oram wrote the chapter on “The Coming of the Telephone to Dallas” in A History of Greater Dallas and Vicinity. The Dallas News of January 18 contains a sketch of his life.
The Houston Chronicle of January 25, 1914, printed a column, entitled “Stories of Ashbel Smith.”
Dr. Frank Rainey died at Austin, February 2, 1914. He became a surgeon during the Civil War, graduated from Tulane University in 1869, and from 1874 until 1895 was superintendent of the Texas school for the blind. A tribute to Dr. Rainey by Judge Fulmore was printed in the Austin Tribune of February 8.
The Galveston News of March 19 and 20, 1914, contained a brief sketch of the life of Robert G. Murray, who participated in the naval engagements off the coast of Texas and engaged in blockade running during the Civil War.
AFFAIRS OF THE ASSOCIATION
The annual business meeting of the Association was held at the State Library Monday afternoon, March 2, at 2:45. The Executive Council nominated twenty-two members and five life members, who were duly elected by the Association. The Council adopted the following resolution concerning the nomination of Fellows:
“Resolved, That the President shall appoint from among the Fellows of the Executive Council two members to act with himself as a committee on the nomination of Fellows. This committee shall examine the published work of the members whose election is proposed, and shall report thereon to the Council at the annual meeting.”
The following officers were elected: President, Judge Z. T. Fulmore; Vice-Presidents, Miss Katie Daffan, Mrs. A. B. Looscan, and Messrs. Beauregard Bryan and R. C. Crane; Corresponding Secretary and Treasurer, Charles W. Ramsdell; Members of the Executive Council, Judge John C. Townes and Professor S. H. Moore. Mr. E. C. Barker is ex-officio Recording Secretary and Librarian. The Publication Committee was re-elected without change. The Treasurer presented, duly audited, the report which appears below. It was the sense of the meeting that ex-presidents who withdraw from the Association thereby remove themselves from the Executive Council, and that Fellows similarly remove themselves from the list of Fellows.
For the information of members the Constitution is printed as it now stands, including, without designation, all amendments:
Article I.—Name.—This Society shall be called the Texas State Historical Association.
Art. II.—Objects.—The objects of the Association shall be, in general, the promotion of historical studies; and, in particular, the discovery, collection, preservation, and publication of historical material, especially such as relates to Texas.
Art. III.—Membership.—The Association shall consist of Members, Fellows, Life Members, and Honorary Life Members.
(a).Members.—Persons recommended by the Executive Council and elected by the Association may become Members.
(b).Fellows.—Members who show, by published work, special aptitude for historical investigation may become Fellows. Thirteen Fellows shall be elected by the Association when first organized, and the body thus created may thereafter elect additional Fellows on the nomination of the Executive Council. The number of Fellows shall never exceed fifty.
(c).Life Members.—Such benefactors of the Association as shall pay into its treasury at one time the sum of thirty dollars ($30), or shall present to the Association an equivalent in books, manuscripts, or other acceptable matter, shall be classed as Life Members.
(d).Honorary Life Members.—Persons who rendered eminent service to Texas previous to annexation may become Honorary Life Members upon being recommended by the Executive Council and elected by the Association.
Art IV.—Officers.—The affairs of the Association shall be administered by a President, four Vice-Presidents, a Recording Secretary and Librarian, a Corresponding Secretary and Treasurer, and an Executive Council.
The President, Vice-President, and Corresponding Secretary and Treasurer shall be elected annually by the Association from among the Fellows.
The Professor of History in the University of Texas shall be ex-officio Recording Secretary and Librarian of the Association.
The Executive Council, five of which shall constitute a quorum, shall consist of the following: The ex-Presidents, the President, the four Vice-Presidents, the Recording Secretary and Librarian the Corresponding Secretary and Treasurer, the State Librarian, three Fellows, five Members.
The Association, immediately after organizing, shall elect three Fellows to serve on the Executive Council one, two, and three years, respectively, the term of each to be decided by lot. Thereafter, one Fellow shall be elected annually by the Association for the term of three years.
The Association, immediately after organizing, shall likewise elect five members to serve on the Executive Council one, two, three, four, and five years, respectively, the term of each to be decided by lot. Thereafter, one Member shall be elected annually by the Association for the term of five years.
Art. V.—Dues.—Each Member shall pay annually into the treasury of the Association the sum of two dollars.
Each Fellow, on being elected, shall pay into the treasury of the Association the sum of five dollars as an initiation fee. The annual dues of Fellows shall be the same as those of Members.
Life Members and Honorary Life Members shall be exempt from all dues.
Members or Fellows may be dropped from the rolls of the Association at the discretion of the Council for non-payment of dues.
Art. VI.—Publication Committee.—A Publication Committee, consisting of five persons, shall have the sole charge of the selection and editing of matter for publication. The President and the Recording Secretary and Librarian of the Association shall be ex-officio members of this committee; the remaining three members shall be chosen annually by the Fellows from the Executive Council.
Art. VII.—Amendments.—Amendments to this Constitution shall become operative after being recommended by the Executive `Council and approved by two-thirds of the members present and voting at any regular meeting; provided, that notice of the proposed amendment shall be given in the announcement of the meeting.
THE SOUTHWESTERN HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
Vol. XVII APRIL, 1914 No. 4
Editors Eugene C. Barker Herbert E. Bolton Associate Editors Chas. W. Ramsdell E. W. Winkler Edgar L. Hewett Managing Editor Eugene C. Barker PUBLISHED QUARTERLY BY THE TEXAS STATE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION Austin, Texas Entered at the post-office, Austin, Texas, as second-class mail matterCONTENTS
The Founding of the Missions on the San Gabriel River, 1745-1749 Herbert E. Bolton 323
The Apache Mission on the San Saba River William Edward Dunn 379
British Correspondence Concerning Texas, X Ephraim D. Adams, Editor 415
Book Reviews and Notices: Phillips, Life of Robert Toombs 428
News Items 430
Affairs of the Association 432
The Texas State Historical Association
PRESIDENT:
Z. T. Fulmore
VICE-PRESIDENTS:
Miss Katie Daffan, Beauregard Bryan,
Mrs. Adele B. Looscan, R. C. Crane.
RECORDING SECRETARY AND LIBRARIAN:
Eugene C. Barker.
CORRESPONDING SECRETARY AND TREASURER:
Charles W. Ramsdell
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL:
President Z. T. Fulmore
First Vice-President Katie Daffan,
Second Vice-President Beauregard Bryan,
Third Vice-President Edward W. Heusinger,
Fourth Vice-President Adele B. Looscan,
Recording Secretary and Librarian Eugene C. Barker,
Corresponding Secretary and Treasurer Charles W. Ramsdell,
State Librarian E. W. Winkler.
Fellows John C. Townes for term ending 1917.
W. F. McCaleb for term ending 1915.
Lilia M. Casis for term ending 1916.
Members S. H. Moore for term ending 1919.
S. P. Brooks for term ending 1915.
Bride Neill Taylor for term ending 1916.
Dora Fowler Arthur for term ending 1917.
W. J. Battle for term ending 1918.
PUBLICATION COMMITTEE:
Z. T. Fulmore,
Eugene C. Barker, E. W. Winkler,
Herbert E. Bolton, W. J. Battle
The Association was organized March 2, 1897. The annual dues are two dollars. The Quarterly is sent free to all members.
Contributions to The Quarterly and correspondence relative to historical material should be addressed to Eugene C. Barker, Austin, Texas, or to Herbert E. Bolton, Berkeley, California.
Other correspondence may be addressed to The Texas State Historical Association, Austin, Texas.
THE QUARTERLY OF THE TEXAS STATE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION
The management wishes to announce that the back volumes of The Quarterly can be purchased and that a complete set is now available. The first four volumes have been reprinted, and will be sold at the following prices, on the installment plan, or for cash on delivery: $4.25 per volume unbound; $5.00 per volume bound in cloth; $5.50 per volume bound in half leather.
Volumes V and VI are still to be had in the original copies for the following prices: $3.00 per volume unbound; $3.75 per volume bound in cloth; $4.25 per volume bound in half leather.
All the remaining volumes can be had for: $2.00 each unbound; $2.75 for a cloth binding; and $3.25 for the half leather binding.
Persons desiring to exchange loose numbers for bound volumes may do so by paying 75 cents for the cloth binding and $1.25 for the half leather per volume.
ADDRESS
THE TEXAS STATE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION,
Austin, Texas.
JOURNAL OF THE SECESSION CONVENTION OF TEXAS, 1861
PRINCIPAL CONTENTS
Journal of the Secession Convention: Pages
Preface 9-14
Journal of the First Session, Jan. 28 to Feb. 4 15-85
Journal of the Adjourned Session, March 2-25 86-251
Appendices:
I. Address to the people of Texas 252-261
II. Reports of the Committee on Public Safety: Nos. 1 and 8. On the acts of the commissioners to San Antonio 262-308, 396-398
No. 2. On the mission to Louisiana to procure arms 308-315
Nos. 3 and 4. On the acts of the commissioner to procure funds, and on the Rio Grande expedition 316-364, 400-403
Nos. 5 and 7. On the acts of the committee during its visit to Galveston 364-365, 389-396
No. 6. On the acts of the commissioner to the northwest frontier 366-389
No. 9. Of the committee appointed to confer with Governor Houston 398-400
III. List of the delegates 405-408
IV. Certificates of election 409-452
Index 453-469
For a review of the book, see The Quarterly, XVI, 430-31.
The book can be supplied in paper or cloth covers for $.90 or $1.25 post paid.
Address order to The State Librarian, Austin, Texas.
INDEX TO VOLUME XVII
Aberdeen, George Gordon, fourth Earl of, 68, 84; letters to, 68-9, 71, 74-6, 82-4, 89, 188-98, 204-6, 306-11, 313-14, 415-24; letters, 193, 306.
Abolition, discussed, 75 note 24, 76-81, 193, 203-5, 312, 420.
Acdozas, Agdocas, see Deadoses.
Acopseles Indians, 338.
Adaes, establishment, 14, 18-20, 159, 173, 180, 183; presidio, 35-6, 336, 346-7, 349, 352, 354, 357-9, 412; mission, 344.
Adams, Ephraim Douglass, Correspondence from the British Archives concerning Texas, 1837-1846, 67-92, 188-206, 306-14, 415-27.
Adams, John Quincy, diary, extract, 237.
Addington, Henry Unwin, 422.
Agdocas, see Deadoses.
Aguayo, Marqués de San Miguel de, expedition, 1719-22, 328, 330, 333.
Aiken, Joseph, 270 note 19.
Los Ais (mission), 364.
Ais, Ayish Indians, see Eyeish.
Alabama Indians, see Alibamu.
Alaman, Lúcas, 219, 239; negotiations with Poinsett, 226-9.
Alamo, victims from Pennsylvania, 266.
Alexander, — (Rev.), 46, 293.
Alexander, —, 301.
Alexander, Lyman W., 268.
Alexander, W. G., 270 note 19.
Alibamu Indians (Alabama), 157.
Allen, — (Capt.), 268.
Allen, A. C., 295.
Allen, William Young (Rev.), diary, 1838-9, extracts, 43-60; biography, 43 note 1; Reminiscences of Texas, 1838-42, 283-305.
Los Almagres, 383, 399.
Altamira, Marqués de (auditor), opinion, 358.
Alvord, Clarence W., 321.
Amarillas, Marqués de las (Viceroy), 385, 400.
Amaya, Saluad de (Fray), 370-1.
American Bible Society, first organization in Texas, 50, 289.
Anathagua Indians, 338.
Anchoses Indians, mission, 323-78.
Anda y Altamirano, Mariano de (Fray), connection with the San Xavier missions, 344-5, 359-60, 370-2.
Andrés, Juan (Fray), connection with San Sabá missions, 391.
Andrews, S. P. (of League, Andrews &Co.), emancipation scheme, 77-8, 204-5.
Angeles, Juan de los (Fray), 370.
Annexation of Texas, discussion, 205, 278-9, 415-21.
Anonymous commentary, Zacatecas, extract, 333.
Apache Indians, 263, 330; campaign against, 1732, 328; tribal relations, 333, 344, 354, 358, 362, 413; range, 349, 381; hope for reduction of, 355-6, 358; hostilities, 356-7, 359; attacks upon San Xavier mission, 367-9; mission, San Sabá River, 379-414.
The Apache mission on the San Saba River: its founding and failure (Dunn), 379-414.
Apapax Indians, 338.
Aponte, Francisco Cayetano (Fray), connection with San Xavier missions, 367-9, 373.
Aquodoces, see Deadoses.
Aranda, Miguel (Fray), expedition. 1754, 383.
Arapaho Indians, trade with Spanish, 61-6.
Archer, Branch Tanner (Dr.), in Philadelphia, 1836, 270; character, 279.
Ardisson, Estevan, 115.
Armesto, —, 29.
Armistice between Texas and Mexico, 1843, Texan commissioners, 90, 194, 310-11, 422; discussion, 67-72, 82, 85, 91, 193-4, 197, 311-12, 415, 419-20.
Armstrong, John, 159-187 passim.
Arricivita, Juan Domingo de (Fray), 325, 370-1.
Arroyo de las Benditas Animas, identity, 328, 341; Aguayo's crossing, 328.
Ashley, Robert, 155.
Atais Indians, 338.
Atascaneus Indians, 338.
Atiasnogues Indians, 338.
Attacapa Indians, 368.
Attakapas post, 25.
Austin, Moses, 263-4.
Austin, Maria Brown (Mrs. Moses Austin), 262.
Austin, Stephen Fuller, 262-78 passim; opposes Fredonian revolt, 232.
Austin, William, 55.
Austin, Mrs. William, 55.
Austin College, 298, 303.
Austin (City), 58; Indians near, 59-60; population, Oct., 1839, 60. (See also Presbyterian Church.)
Austin (Texas ship of war), 82.
Austin City Gazette, 215.
Austin Tribune, 429.
Ayala, Lázaro de, 408, 411.
Aynai Indians, see Hainai, 439.
Ayres, —, 57.
Azcárate, —, 224.
Backus, —, 59.
Badaraque, Thomas (Dr.), 274 note 32.
Bahía, mission, 344; presidio, 352, 358-61, 412.
Baily, — (of New Orleans), 50.
Baily, James, 294-5.
Baily family (of Houston), 295.
Baker, Daniel (Rev.), 51; in Texas, 283-5, 293; connection with Austin College, 298; sketch of, 298-9.
Baker, Moseley, 295, 302.
Baños, Joachin de (Fray), connection with San Sabá mission, 391, 400-1; joint letter, extract, 401.
Barclay, John, 274 note 32.
Barnet, —, 59.
Barnett, S. S., 48.
Barney, Samuel, 115.
Barnhart, J., 268.
Barr, Murphy &Devenport, trading privileges, 158.
Barrio, Pedro del (Governor), 268-9, 377; inspection, May, 1749, 376-7.
Barrios y Jaúregui, Jacinto de (Governor), 385, 389, 412, 414; investigation, 1756, 389 note 6.
Barrows, Solomon, 268.
Bastrop, Baron de, land grant, 150.
Bastrop (town), Indians near, 59.
Baylor University, 303.
Bayou Pierre, 7; settlement, 27-8, 159, 164, 168.
Bee, — (Mrs.), 46.
Bee family (of Houston), 295.
Bell, — (Mrs. of West Columbia), 287-8, 297.
Bell, Charles Keith, obituary, 100.
Bell, Thaddeus, 288.
Bell family (of West Columbia), 285; sketch, 287-8.
Benedict, Harry Yandell, book review, 96-7.
Beurnonville, —, 183.
Bibliography: Citation and comment: Jefferson, The Limits and bounds of Louisiana, 9; Le Page du Pratz, Histoire de la Louisiane, 11, 173, 182; Folch, “Informe,” 28-9 note 16; Wilkinson, “Reflections ...”, 28-32; Western Presbyterian Herald, 46, 55; Alabama Journal, 55; New Orleans Observer, 55-6; Chittenden, American fur trade of the far west, 61-3 passim; Thwaites, Early western travels, 63; Garrison, Diplomatic correspondence ..., 67 note 2; National Vindicator, 71; Boston Post, 77; New Orleans Republican, 77, 205; Gwin, Memoirs ..., 103-5; Willey, Transition period of California, 108; Star (Los Angeles), 111-30 passim; Alta California (daily), 112, 119, 123, 128; Courier and Enquirer (New York), 117; Journal (Stockton, Cal.), 123; Union (Sacramento), 124, 126, 132, 134; Bancroft, History of California ..., 124 note 54, 131-2; Guinn, History of California, 137-8; Royce, California, 137; Tuthill, History of California, 138; Carr, Pioneer days in California, 138; La Harpe, Journal, 1699-1734, 168; Monroe, Journal, 1805, 176, 179; Maps of Lopez and Delisle, 182; Arrowsmith's map of Mexico, 189; New Orleans Commercial Bulletin, 193; Yoakum, History of Texas ..., Brown, History of Texas, 232 note 34; Foote, Texas and the Texans ..., Bancroft ..., North Mexican States ... Garrison, Texas ..., Barker, “Stephen F. Austin and the independence of Texas,” Rather, “DeWitt's Colony”, Howren, “Decree of April 6, 1830,” 232 note 34; Evening Post (New York), Albany Argus, 265 note 3; Philadelphia National Gazette, 265-82 passim; United States Gazette, National Intelligencer, 277, 280; Poulson's Amercan Daily Advertiser, 266-80 passim; Boston Atlas, 278; New York American, 278; Miller, “Historical Discourse,” 283-4; map of Mugeres I., 306; McCaleb, Obscure points ..., 324-5; Arricivita, Crónica Seráfica ..., 325, 354-5; note 32; Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas ..., 325, 428; Shea, Catholic church in colonial days ..., 325; Anda y Altamirano, Memorial, August, 1749, 359; Notes: Jefferson, Limits and bounds of Louisiana, 9-10; Hayes collection, 106 note 14; King's map, 151; pamphlet by “Silvestris,” 171; The Origin and true causes of the Texas insurrection, commenced in the year 1835, 277 note 44; A family of Millers and Stewarts, 283 note 3; Minutes of Brazos Presbytery, 284; Allen's report on education (written for Wharton), 286, 302-3; Morfi, “Memorias,” 324; Pichardo's map, 1811, 328; Espinosa, Diario derrotero ..., 1716, 328 note 8; Anonymous commentary, Archives of Zacatecan College, 332; Espinosa, Chrónica Apostólica, 337; Revilla Gigedo, decree, Feb. 14, 1747, 354-5 note 41; Revilla Gigedo, Despatch, July 17 or 27, 1747, 358-9 note 41; Poulson's .American Daily Advertiser, 266-80 passim.
Bidai Indians (Vidais), mission, 323-78; range, 333-4; attack upon San Sabá, 405.
Bingham, —, 55.
Bingham, — (Capt.), 296.
Blackburn, Gideon (Dr.), 293.
Blair, W. C. (Rev.), 58, 301.
Blanc, —, 21.
Blans, — (Comandant, Natchitoches), protest, 286 note 13.
Boca de Leones, garrison, 346, 349, 352-3.
Bocanegra, José María de, 249-51.
Bolton, Herbert Eugene (Dr.), 321; New light on Manuel Lisa and the Spanish fur trade, 61-6; book review, 207-12; note, 216; The founding of the missions on the San Gabriel River, 1745-1749, 323-78.
Book Reviews and notices: Life of Thaddeus Stevens (Woodburn), Lieutenant General ... Early (Early), Dr. William Le Roy Broun (Brouns and Ordway), General Laws of Texas, 93-8; Economic beginnings of the Far West (Coman), History of the German element in Texas ... (Tiling), 207-214; The Viceroy of New Spain (Smith), John Brown . . . (Wilson), L'Amérique Latine (Garzon), 315-20; Life of Robert Toombs (Phillips), 430-1.
Boone, Daniel, 31.
Borden, Gail, 50, 56-7, 302.
Boundary of Louisiana, western, 6-22, 169-87, 217-61.
Boundary of Texas, eastern, 6-22, 169-87, 217-61; western, 75.
Bowl (“Col. Bowles,” Cherokee chief), 46.
Bowman, William (Lieut.), 26.
Boyle, William, 267 note 7.
Brashears, Samuel, 272-3.
Brazos Presbytery, early history, 283-5, 300-1.
Brazos River, missions, 327; Aguayo's crossing, 328.
Breckenridge, John, 14.
Breckenridge, John (Rev. Dr.), in Houston, 1839, 288-9.
Breckenridge, W. L. (Rev.), 50.
Brenham, Richard F. (Dr.), 215.
Brent, —, 48.
Brent, J. L., 115.
Brewster, —, 54.
Brick, Samuel, 274 note 32.
Briest, L. S., 272 note 29.
Briggs, Isaac, 31 note 17, 140.
Bringhurst, George H., 268.
Broderick, David C., 126, 134.
Brown, —, 54, 59.
Brown, David Paul, 270-4.
Brown, Joseph, 283 note 1.
Brown, W. D., 268.
Browne, —, 266.
Brushy Creek, 60; identity, Aguayo's crossing, 328; Indians on, 344.
Brutus (Texan naval vessel) occupation of Cozumel Island, 190.
Buckley, Eleanor, 215, 328 note 10.
Buchanan, James, 275.
Bullock, —, 293.
Bullock's Hotel, 60, 285.
Bunting, Thomas C. (Dr.), 271 note 23, 274 note 32.
Burke, —, 127.
Burke, James, 60, 283 note 1; 292-3. 302.
Burke family (of Houston), 295.
Burks, — (Dr.), 272 note 29.
Burleson, Edward (Gen.), 44, 48, 60, 285, 294.
Burnet, David G., 278-9, 290, 294.
Burr, Aaron, 168, 264.
Burrow, — (Capt.), 268.
Bustillo y Zevallos, Juan (Governor), 334 note 2; campaign, 1732, 328; memorial, extracts, synopsis, 331-4, 347-50, rebuttal, 350-2; services, 347.
Butler, Anthony, letters, extracts, 253, 260; mission to Mexico, 257-60.
Butler, Z. (Rev.), 57.
Caddo, Caddodacho, see Kadohadacho, 155, 157-8, 161, 163-4, 332.
Caddo trace, 150.
Cadodachos, establishment, 349, 351.
Cadena, Asencio (Corporal), 405-6, 411.
Caldwell, — (Rev.), 57.
California, division, movement for, 101-39.
Calleja, Felix (Mariscal de campo), 163.
Camacho, —, diplomatic negotiations, 230.
Camarillo, Juan, 115.
Camino Real (San Antonio Road), 329.
Campbell, — (Rev.), 46.
Campmeeting, Rutersville, 1839, 59, 293, 304.
Canary Islands, colonists from, 328.
Concepnes Indians, 338.
Cances Indians, 161.
Candelaria (mission), founding, 1749, 375-6.
Cannon, Newton (Gov.), 282.
Cañedo, —, 246, 248.
Caoco, see Coco, 334.
Capitol, Austin, 294.
Carancaguases, see Karankawa, 348 note 13.
Carnes, Henry, 115.
Carothers, W., 265.
Carpenter, Miles N., 273, 274 notes 32-3.
Carr, —, 274 note 33.
Carr, J. H. (Dr.), 272 note 29.
Carr, James Henry, 273, 274 note 33.
Carrillo, —, 103-4.
Carrillo, Anastasio, 115.
Carrillo, Joaquin, 115.
Carrillo, José Antonio, 115.
Carrillo, P. C., 115.
Casablanca (Lipan chief), 399.
Casa Calvo, Marqués de, connection with the Louisiana-Texas frontier question, 1-44, 144-68 passim.
Casados Indians, 157.
Casañas, —, 332.
Casa Yrujo, Marqués de, connection with the Louisiana-Texas frontier question, 17-24, 144-80 passim.
Casos Indians, 338.
Castellanos, Francisco Xavier (Fray), 370, 376; letters, extracts, 371-2.
Ceballos, Ciriaco (Capt.), 21.
Cerralvo (presidio), 346, 348, 351-3.
Cevallos y Guerra, Pedro de, 21-4, 145-85 passim.
Chamberlain, — (Rev.), 57.
Champlain, Juan Bautista (Jean Baptiste Champlin), 63, 65.
Chandler, Joseph R., 273.
Chapman, — (Rev.), 295.
Chapman, R. E., 28-9 note 16.
Charleston Library Society, 99.
Chase, — (Rev.), 57-8.
Cherokee Indians, 232.
El Chico (Lipan chief), 398-9, 400.
Chirinos, Luis, 411.
Choctaw Indians, 165-7.
Chouteau, Pierre, 148.
Chriesman's, 284; schoolhouse, 285, 301.
Civilian and Galveston City Gazette, 55, 71, 301.
Claiborne, William Charles Cole (Governor), relation to Louisiana-Texas frontier question, 1-42, 140-87 passim.
Clark, — (Rev.), 59, 294.
Clark, Daniel, relation to Texas-Louisiana frontier question, 1-42 passim.
Clark, Thomas C., 271 note 23.
Clay, Henry, diplomatic negotiations, 223-47 passim; letters, extracts, 223-4, 233-6, 243.
Clement, Arthur H., 266.
Clermont Hotel, temperance meeting, 287.
Coahuila, presidio, 353; governor, 413.
Coahuiltecan Indians, 326.
Coan family (of Houston), 295.
Cocke, Stephen F. (Rev.), 284.
Coco Indians, mission on San Xavier River, 323-78; habitat, tribal affinity, 334.
Coigly, —, 200.
Coleman family, massacre of, 59.
Columbia (steamer), 54, 57.
Comanche Indians, 53, 155, 161, 224, 248, 263, 282; treaty, 1838, 49; tribal and Spanish relations, 380, 399; reduction hoped for, 382; attack upon San Sabá, 402-14.
Come Cavallos Indians, 392.
Come Nopales Indians, 392.
Concepción, (mission), 330, 343, 394; founding, 347 note 7.
Concord, post, 25.
Connell, John, 267 note 7.
Conner, Charles W., 267 note 7.
Conrad, John, 270 note 19, 271 note 23.
Conrad, Robert, 270.
Conrad, Robert C., 271, note 23.
Conrad, Robert T., 270 note 19.
Constitutional Convention, California, 1849, 103-5.
Consulate, British, Corpus Christi Bay, 306.
Convention, Southern California, 1851, 114-16, 120; resolution, extract, 116.
Converse, S., 75, 77-8, 80-1, 83.
Cooke, S. F., error for Cocke, Stephen F., q. v.
Copeland, George, 268.
Copes, J. Wilson (Dr.), 287.
Copes, Mrs. J. Wilson, 287-8.
Cordero, Antonio de (Governor), 159.
Coronel, A. F., 115.
Correo (schooner), 53, 56, 304.
Correspondence from the British Archives concerning Texas, 1837-1846 (Adams), 67-92, 188-206, 306-14, 415-27.
Cortina, J. N., 428.
Cos, Martin Perfecto de (Gen.), capture, 1836, 52.
Cosby, —, 129.
Cotton, production, capacity of Texas, 309.
Cousate, see Koasati, 158.
Couts, Cave C., 115.
Cox, Isaac Joslin, The Louisiana-Texas frontier, 1-42, 140-87.
Coyle, Hugo, 146.
Cozumel Island, sketch map, 188; history and description, 188-92; grants, 194.
Crabb, —, 119.
Cramayel, — de, 76.
Cranes, Charles N., 268.
Creigh, Alfred, 265 note 3.
Cross Timbers, Indians near, 331.
Crozat, Antoine, grant to, 10, 180.
Crozier, R. H. (Rev. Dr.), obituary, 215.
Cruger &Moore, 301.
Cujanes Indians, 348 note 13; Spanish relations, 359.
Cullen, Ezekiel W., 58, 286, 303.
Cummings, William, 266.
Curd, John W., obituary, 216.
Dallas, George M., 273.
Dallas Democrat, 428.
Dallas News, 429.
Dart, Christopher, slave trade, 199-200.
Davenport, — (Mrs.), 56.
Davenport, Samuel, 33, 37, 41, 165; trading privileges, 155-6.
Deadoses Indians (Agdocas, Aquodoces, Yacdocos, Yadosa, de Adozes, Doxsa), mission, 323-78; racial affinity, habitat, decrease, 329, 333-4, 348.
Davenport, Sarah, see Randall, Sarah Davenport, 49.
Davis, —, 287.
Davis, — (Dr.), 304.
Davis, William, 270 note 19; 274 note 32.
Dayton, Jonathan, 14.
Dearborn, Henry A., 160, 165, 167; letter, extract, 162, 165.
Decrés, —, 10-11.
Dedrick, George, letter, extract, 267.
Delano, — (Miss), 287.
Derringer, Henry, 271 notes 23 and 26.
Desauque, F. J. (Capt.), 267.
DeSoto, Hernando, expedition, 1539-41, 264.
Doby, —, 45.
Dolores y Viana, Maria Ano Francisco de los (Fray), missionary service, 1733-41, 334-5; connection with San Xavier missions, 335-78; letters, extracts, 337, 341, 342-3 note 32, 377; connection with San Sabá mission, 382-98.
Dottery's (settlement), 59.
Douglas, —, 127-8.
Douglas, Stephen Arnold, 107, 109.
Doxsa, see Deadoses.
Doyle, Percy W., 71, 83, 193, 196, 307-8, 310, 422 note 5, 423; letters, 67-8; letters to, 69-74, 84-5, 88-92, 196-7, 311-3, 424-7.
Draper, A. C. (Dr.), 274.
Driggs, Mary W. (Mrs.), see Rhoades, Mary W., 44.
Dudley, James G., obituary, 429.
Duforet, —, 159.
Duke, B., 270 note 19.
Dukes, Thomas W., 272 note 28.
Dunbar, William (Sir), connection with Louisiana frontier matters, 1-42 passim; expedition, 1804, 141-54.
Duncalf, Frederic (Dr.), 215.
Duncan, Benjamin, 273 note 31.
Duncan, John, 268.
Dunn, William Edward, 215; book reviews, 315-18, 320; The Apache mission on the San Sabá River: its founding and failure, 379-414.
Du Rivage, —, 332.
Dwight, Timothy (Dr.), 57.
Eastman, E. O., 56.
Ecores de Fabri, 150.
Education in the Republic of Texas, 286, 298, 302-3.
Edwards, Hayden, Fredonian revolt, 232-4.
Edwards, Munroe, slave trade, 199-200.
Elguezabal, Juan Bautista (Gov.), 145-6.
Eliza Russell, claims, 307 note 4.
Ellicott, Andrew, explorations, 142.
Elliott, Charles, letters to, 67-8, 77-82, 193, 306, 310, 425; letters, 68-76, 80-5, 88-92, 194-7, 307-13, 415-27.
Elliott, Jacob, 268.
Ellison, William Henry, The Movement for state division in California, 1849-1860, 101-39.
Enroachment, French, 341-2, 351, 359-61, 386.
English, William, 270 note 19.
Eppelsheimer, William, 274 note 32.
Erving, —, 154.
Escandón, José de, Conde de la Sierragorda, expedition, 1746-ff., 352-4, 361-2 note 47.
Espinosa, Isidro Félis (Fray), 332, 337, 352; letter, 361-2 note 47.
Espíritu Santo (mission), 395; transfer, 347 note 7.
Evans, Britton (Col.), 269, 272.
Evans, Napoleon B., 271 note 23.
Ewing, George, 268.
Exall, Henry (Col.), death, 428.
Eyeish Indians (Ais, Ayish), 157.
Fannin, James W., Jr. (Col.), 266-7.
Felter, Daniel, 270 note 19.
Ferrell, W. C., 115, 127.
Fisher, Samuel Rhoads, 269.
Fitler, Daniel, 273 note 31, 274 note 32.
Fitzgerald, —, 59.
Flag, British, alleged Mexican insult to, 423-7.
Fleming, —, 266.
Flirt (American war schooner), 421.
Florence, Thomas B., 271 note 23.
Floridas, American negotiation for 1-42, 170-87 passim; importance, 3, 4, 23-4, 30-2; American occupation, 220.
Folch, Vizente, 24, 167; intrigue with Wilkinson, 28-32.
Foote, Henry Stuart, 108-9, 283 note 1.
Ford, John S., 428.
“The Forest” (Dunbar's plantation), 149.
Fort Miro (Washita post), 26, 150.
Foster, N. C., 270 note 19, 272-3.
The founding of the mission on the San Gabriel River (Bolton), 323-78.
Fowler, Littleton (Rev.), 45-6, 48, 292.
Franciscans: College at Querétaro: missions on San Xavier River, 323-78; on San Sabá River, 279-414: College at Zacatecas: missions, 328, jealousy of Querétarans, 364; College of San Fernando, missions, 346, 379-414.
Frazier, — (Rev.), 58, 297, 299.
Fredonian War, 232-4, 247.
Freedmen, laws of Texas regarding, 203-4.
Freeman, — (Lt. Col.), 151.
French, trade, 349, 351; alleged complicity in attack upon San Sabá, 414.
Frick, John H., 271 note 26.
Friend (steamboat), 43, 49.
Friendship (steamer), 304.
Fritz, Peter (Maj.), 270-1.
Frontier, Texas-Louisiana, 1-42, 140-87.
Fugitive slaves, 39-42.
Fullenwider, — (Rev.), 284.
Fuller's, 284-5.
Fur trade, Spanish, 61-6.
Gaines, Edmund Pendleton (Gen.), conduct in Eastern Texas, 1836, 274, 282.
Gallatin, Albert, 13, 16.
Galban, Juan (Galván, Lieut.), 362, 365-6, 412; expedition, 1745, 383.
Galveston, 43, 56-7; real estate values, 1838, 302.
Galveston Island, 298, 386-7.
Galveston News, 429.
Gano, R. M. (Gen.), obituary, 99.
Ganzábal, Juan Joseph (Fray), connection with San Xavier missions, 365-6, 376.
Garcia, Diego Martin (Fray), service, 370.
Garcia, Joaquin, 411.
Garcia, Joseph, 407-8, 411.
Garcia, Larios, Francisco (Governor), opinion, 360-2.
General de Kalb (American schooner), 269.
Geotes Indians, 338.
German, J. L., obituary, 99-100.
Gidding, Giles A., 268.
Gifford, P. L., 194.
Gilland, George W., 266-7.
Gillespie, —, 142-3.
Gillies, Theodore (Capt.), 271 notes 23 and 26, 273, 274 notes 32-3, 280.
Glascock, —, 59.
Glathery, Erastus M., 271 note 23.
Godney, L. A., 270 note 19, 271 note 20.
Godoy, Manuel de (“Prince of Peace”), 174-85 passim.
Goliad, massacre, Pennsylvania victims, 267.
Goodwin, John D. (Gen.), 270 note 19, 274 note 32.
Graham, —, 119.
Graham, David R., 272 note 28.
Grant, B., 272 note 29.
Grant, James (Col.), 268.
Grappe, —, 161.
Grappe, François, 152, 161, 164-5.
Grass Fight, 268.
Gravina, —, 170, 173.
Gray, A. C., obituary, 700.
Gray, Mrs. Fairfax, 292.
Gray, W. Fairfax, 44.
Gray family (of Houston), 295.
Grayson, Peter W., 43.
Green, Daniel, 274 note 32.
Green, Thomas J., 424.
Grimarest, Pedro, 41, 166-7.
Groce, —, 304.
Groce, Leonard, 286.
Gross, Charles, 266.
Grover, Thomas D., 270 note 19, 273 note 31.
Guadalupe River, settlement, 411.
Guapites Indians, 348 note 13.
Guerra, A. M. de la, 115.
Guinn, J. M., 137.
Gulick, —, 57.
Gutierrez, Enrique, 408, 411.
Gutierrez, Juan Antonio, 410-11.
Gutierrez, Octaviano, 115.
Gutierrez de Lara, José Bernardo, revolutionary movements, 248-50.
Gwin, William M., 126, 137; party, 138.
Haff, — (Miss), 56.
Haighler, L. S., 272 note 29.
Hainai Indians (Aynai), village, 349.
Hall, W. W. (Rev.), 283, 292, 297.
Hall, Warren, D. C., 55.
Hall, Willis, 270.
Hamilton, — (Rev.), 297.
Hanie, — (Dr.), 59.
Hanna, James, 273 note 31.
Harazthy, Agostín, 111, 115.
Hardin family, 247.
Harriet (schooner), 200.
Harrisburg &Brazos Railroad, 295 note 16.
Hasinai Indians (Asinai), missions, 326; intertribal relations, 332-3; tribes, 339.
Hawkesbury, Charles Jenkinson, first Earl of, 13.
Hay, Peter, 271 note 26, 273 note 31.
Hayes, Benjamin (Judge), 106 note 14.
Haynie, — (Dr.), 293.
Hearn, V. W., 115.
Hemphill, John, 273 note 31.
Henderson, —, 59.
Henderson, I. J. (Rev.), 57.
Henderson, Thomas, 57.
Hensal, George W., 268.
Hernandez, Juan (Fray), 370-1.
Herrera, Simon de (Gen.), 174.
Hierbipiame Indians (Ervipiame), mission, 323-78; at Ranchería Grande, 329-30.
Hill, — (Rev.), 59.
Hill, G. W., letter, 86-8.
Hill, Roscoe R., 28-9 note 16.
Hill family, 285.
Hinkle, Charles, 271 note 23.
Hiscas Indians, 338.
Hockley, George W. (Col.), 90-1, 295-6, 310.
Hodges, John L., 273 note 31.
Hoes, — (Rev. Dr.), 58.
Holland, Benjamin H. (Capt.), 266.
Holloway, —, 266.
Holman, — (Rev.), 50-1, 57, 297.
Hoover, Leonce, 115.
Hot Springs of the Washita, exploration, 149-51.
House, Edward M., 98.
House, John, 155.
Houston, Sam, 44-6, 54, 67, 71, 86, 91, 196, 266-81, passim, 298, 304; Indian policy, addresses, comment, 45, 48; arrangement respecting armistice, 69-70, 72, 82, 419-20; Mexican policy, 73-4, 84-5, 415-20; letter, extract, 74-5; temperance speech, 1839, comment, 289; attitude toward annexation, 415-20.
Houston (city), cemetery, 55.
Hubbs, —, 124.
Hughes, William F., 270 note 19.
Humboldt, Frederick Heinrich Alexander, Baron von, 16.
Humphries, — (Misses), 44, 46.
Hunt, Jefferson, 115, 126-8.
Hunt, Memucan (Gen.), 50, 54, 287.
Hunter, —, 26, 147, 149, 151.
Hunter, George (Dr.), expedition with Dunbar, 142-54.
Hurst, Stephen D. (Col.), 267.
Hutchins, —, explorations, 142.
Hutchison, — (Rev.), 300.
Hutchisson, Robert, 268.
Igodosa, see Deadoses.
Indians, policy regarding, Spanish 41-2, American 41-2, 162-7, Houston's, 45-48; Texas-Louisiana frontier: border relations, numbers, 1804-5, 154-169; presents for, 156-8, 381 note 3, 391-2, 400; in missions, life, 377; Northern: tribal relations, 399, 413, attack upon San Sabá establishment, 402-14; council on Upper Trinity, 1843, 196; of Southern United States, 31.
Internal Provinces, defensive policy, 28.
Invincible (Texan naval vessel) seizure of Cozumel I., 190.
Iturbide, Agustín de, 224-6; fall, 219.
Iturrigaray, José de (Viceroy), 144, 168.
Jackson, Andrew, 282; views upon Texas, 220, 253; letter, extracts, 253.
Jarden, —, 274 note 32.
Jarden, Jacob, 274 note 32.
Jarden, John, 274 note 32.
Jefferson, Thomas, relation to Louisiana frontier question, 1-42, 142-87 passim; letters, extracts, 15, 140-2.
Jetur, — (Rev.), 297.
Johannes (schooner), 43, 303.
Johnson, Francis W., 268.
Johnson, William, 266.
Johnson, William C., 270 note 19.
Joliet, Louis, exploration, 182.
Jones, Anson, 48, 54, 69, 74-5, 84, 304, 421.
Jones, George W., 270 note 19.
Jones, Levi (Dr.), 296, 302; sketch of, 286-7.
Jones, Mrs. Levi, 287, 296.
Jones, Lewis, error for Jones, Levi, 296.
Jordan, John, 270 note 19, 273.
Joutel, Henri, 331.
Jumano Indians (Jumanes), 349.
Juntas, 1803, 20-21; Mexico, Feb. 27, 1756, 385-7, 390.
Kadohadacho Indians, 155, 157-8, 161, 163-4, 332.
Karankawa Indians, 334, 348 note 3; mission, 327; tribes, 338-9, 348.
Kaufman, David S., 298.
Kennedy, John M., 273 note 31.
Kennedy, William, letters, 188-95, 197-8, 204-6, 306-7, 313-14, 423.
Kennicott, —, 56.
Kerr, Gabriel, 273 note 31.
Kerr, William P., 268.
Kichai Indians (Keechi, etc.), mission, 323-78.
King, Junius B. (Rev.), 57; ordination, 296-7.
King, Rufus, 9 note 5, 13.
King, Nicholas, 151.
Koasati Indians, 158.
Koehler, Thomas, 271 note 23.
Kolb settlement, 323-4.
Lacopseles Indians, mission, 323-78.
Lafargue, Juan Bautista (Jean Baptiste), 63, 65.
Laffite, Jean, survivor, 291.
Lake Jackson, 55.
Lamar, Mirabeau Buonaparte, 44-5, 298, 425; election, Sept. 3, 1838, 56; cavalry corps, 267.
Langerheirmer, William, 268.
LaSalle, René Robert Cavelier, Sieur de, 8, 10, 14, 182, 264.
Latham, Milton S., elected U. S. Senator, 134; message, comment, extract, 135-6.
Laura (steamer), 54.
Laurence, — (Capt.), 268.
Laussat, Pierre Antoine, relation to Louisiana boundary, 1-24 passim, 169-70.
Lawrence, A. (Rev.), 298.
Leadbetter, John, Jr., 271 note 23.
League, —, (of League, Andrews &Co.), emancipation scheme, 204-5.
Lee, C. V. R., 115.
Legislature of California, 1852-60, state division question before, 117-37.
Leman, John, 268.
Leonard, Gilbert, statement, 157 note 8.
Linkey, William, 271 note 23.
Lewis, John A., 115.
Lewis, Meriwether, expedition with Clark, 16, 19, 24, 31, 42, 140-2, 144, 154.
Lewis, W. J., 268.
Linkey, William, 271 note 23.
Lipan Apaches, 392, 398; country, 329.
Lisa, Manuel (fur trader), letter, 65-6; translation, 63-4; comment, 61-3.
Little Penn, claims, 422 note 3.
Little River, Aguayo's crossing, 328.
Livingston, Edward, 170-2; claim to West Florida, 11-12.
Lockwood, —, 272 note 29.
El Loco, settlement, 349, 351.
Long, James, 264.
Looscan, Adele Briscoe (Mrs. Michael Looscan), 98.
Los Angeles (Cal.), meeting, Feb. 10, 1850, 105; meeting, Sept. 12, 1851, resolutions, extract, 114.
Lott, —, 121.
Loughridge, —, 59.
The Louisiana-Texas frontier (Cox), 1-42, 140-87.
Love, James (Col.), 291, 302.
Lubbock, Francis Richard (“Mr. L.”), 45, 290.
Lybrand, C. D., 270 note 20.
Lybrand, Charles D., 271 note 23.
McBride, P. H., 268.
McCaleb, Walter Flavius (Dr.), 324-5.
McCalla, W. L. (Rev.), 298.
McCorkle, — (Rev.), 285.
McCormick, — (Rev.), 57.
McCormick family, 285.
McCrea, William H., 274 note 32.
McCullough, John, 57-8.
McCullough, John (Rev.), 304; in Texas, 283-5, 292, 300.
McDougall, — (Gov. Cal.), message, 1852, extract, comment, 117-19.
McFarland, John, 285, 300.
McKinney &Williams, 302.
McLeary, James H. (Judge), 428.
McLeod, Hugh (Gen.), 423-5; letter, 425.
McMichael, Martin, 270 note 19.
McMullen, R. B. (Rev.), 50, 56.
McNally, —, 268.
McNealus, Virginia Quitman, 428.
Madison, James, 157-60, 167; relation to Louisiana frontier matters, 1-25 passim, 172-4; controversy, 154.
Magee, Augustus, 264.
Mahan, P. Jenks, 268 note 10.
Maison Rouge, Marquis de, land grant, 150.
Mallet, Island of, 150.
Manderson, John, 270 note 19.
Manning, William Ray, Texas and the boundary issue, 1822-1829, 217-61.
Marbois, —, 170.
Markham, R. Jenks, 268.
Marqués, Francisco Xavier (Fray), connection with San Xavier mission plans, 346, 357.
Marquette, Jacques, 182.
Martin, — (Rev.), 297.
Martin, Robert C., 271 note 23.
Martin, Thomas, 268.
Martinez, José, 7-8, 18, 22.
Matagorda, garrison, 159, 165-8.
Matagorda Bulletin, 301 note 26.
Matamoros, prisoners, Pennsylvanians, 268.
Mater, — (Rev.), 57.
Matthews, — (snipmaster), 269.
Maurese, William, 274.
Mayeye Indians, mission for (San Xavier River), 323-78; habitat, 329, 331-2, 348; decrease, 334.
Mediation, British, between Texas and Mexico, 78, 417-21.
Mediavilla y Ascona, Joaquin de (Gov.), 333; services, opinion, 350-2.
Meghy Indians, identity, 331.
Merry, Anthony, 13, 174 note 17, 178.
Mescalero Apaches, 392.
Mexican prisoners, 197.
Mezières, Athanase de, 22.
Mier, expedition, 424, 427; prisoners, 71, 85.
Mifflin, Benjamin, 273 note 31.
Miller, James Weston (Dr.), 283-4.
Millett, — (of Houston), 295.
Milon, — (Madam), 43.
Mines, San Sabá country, 382-3.
Minor, Juan, reconnoissance, 145-6.
Minor, Stephen, connection with Texas-Louisiana frontier question, 144-8.
Miranda, Bernardo de (Fray), expedition, 1755, 383.
Missions, San Xavier River, 323-78; Rio Grande, 326; San Antonio, 263, 326, 330-1, 334-5, 343-4, 347 note 7, 358-9, 369, 371, 376, 381, 390, 392, 394, 398, 412; Matagorda Bay, Trinity River, 327; San Sabá River, 263, 379-414.
Mississippi Valley Historical Association, 99.
Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 99, 321.
Missouri Compromise line, 109-10.
Missouri Fur Company, 64-5.
Mitchell, —, 13.
“Mobile Act,” 14, 166, 177.
Moffatt, —, 274.
Moffatt, T. R., 271 note 26.
Molina, Miguel (Fray), connection with San Sabá mission, 403, 405-6, 410.
Monclova, presidio, 352, 412.
Monroe, James, relation to Louisiana frontier matters, 11-33 passim; special mission to Spain, 169-87.
Monte Grande, see Cross Timbers.
Monterey (Cal.), capture, 1846, 102.
Montgomery, John C., 273 note 31.
Montoya, —, 251.
Moore, Edwin Ward (Commodore), 71, 73, 287; letter, extract, 190.
Moore, Francis W., Jr., see Cruger &Moore.
Morehead, — (Gen.), expedition into Mexico, 117.
Morris, Inage, 425.
Morris, Robert, 270 notes 19-20, 271 note 26.
The movement for state division in California, 1849-1860 (Ellison), 101-39.
Moro, —, 200.
Moyer, John, 268.
Mugeres Island, 194-5, 306; description, 189-90.
Murphy, Edward, 157 note 8, 165.
Murphy, William, trading privilege, 155-8.
Murphy, William S., 308, 421.
Murray, Robert G., 429.
Musselman, Robert, 268.
Myres, —, 121.
Myres, Michael, 268.
Nabedache Indians, village, 349.
Nacogdoches, 33; status, 1803, 26; dedence, 31; arrivals, 1804, 159; Spanish force at, 1805, 164-7; mision, 364.
Naglee, John, 270 note 19, 273 note 31.
Naguides Indians (Naudis), 338-9.
Nall, — (Rev.), 57, 297.
Nall, — (Mrs.), 297.
Nandaco Indians, 7.
Nanderson, Andrew, 270 note 19.
Natajés Apaches, 392.
Natchitoches, 18-20, 34-6, 40-1, 154, 167, 180; post, 25-7; conditions, 1804, 153; fortification, 168.
Navarro, Antonio, 423, 425.
Navy Yard, Galveston, 41, 50, 287.
Naylor, Charles, 270, 272, 273 note 31.
Neal, Joseph C., 271 notes 23 and 26.
Neil, Robert, 268.
Neutral zone, proposed, 15-16, 21.
Newell, — (Mrs.), 56.
Newell, Stuart, 270, 273-4.
Newman, D., 271.
Newman, Daniel, 272 note 26.
Newman, S., 270 note 20.
New Orleans Greys, 266-7.
Newspapers of Texas, 55, 71, 215, 301-2.
Nicknames, pseudonyms, initials, given names: A. (Dr.), 54; B., 47; C. (Miss), 55; C. (Mrs.), 296; G. (Dr.), 54; H., 59, 296; L., 50; M., 48; Nicolas, 410; Silvestris, 17; W. (Col. and Mrs.), 295-6.
Noble, John H., 265 note 3.
Nolan, Philip, 155, 264.
Nootka Sound convention, 7.
Norton, George, 270 note 20.
Nueces River, missions, 327.
Nuestra Señora de los Dolores del Rio de San Xavier, see San Francisco Xavier.
Nuevo Leon, 412-13; Bishop, visit to Natchitoches, 1804, 150-4, 167.
Obregon, — (Mexican minister to the United States), mission, 221-48 passim.
O'Campo, Francisco, 115.
Ogier, I. S. K., 115.
Olivares, Antonio de (? Fray), 332.
Onis, Luis de, 218; Memorias . . . quoted, 218.
Opelousas, post, 25.
Oran, J. M., obituary, 429.
Orcoquiza Indians, 365; numbers, range, etc., 361.
Orejone Indians, 378.
Orleans Territory, 15.
Ormond, —, 158.
Orobio Bazterra, Joaquin de (Gov.), expedition, 1745, 321-2, 361-2; opinion, 360-1.
Orr, John, 68 note 6.
Ortega, Antonio María, 115.
Ortega, Joaquin, 115.
Ortiz, Francisco Xavier (Fray), 334 note 2; connection with San Xavier missions, 335-78 passim.
Osage Indians, 148.
Owen, Clark, 46, 296.
Owen, James, 46.
Owen, Robert, memorial, extract and comment, 245-6.
Packenham, Richard, 70-1.
Pajalaches Indians, 378.
Pakwan Indians, 326.
Palliet, John B. T., 37.
Panis Indians, see Pawnee, 157.
Parage de las Animas, 344.
Paredes, Miguel de (Fray), quoted, 331.
Parkinson, W. B., 265 note 3.
Parrilla, Diego Ortiz de (Capt.), service, 389; jurisdiction at San Sabá, 389; career at San Sabá, 390-412; letter, extract, 399.
Pastates Indians, 338.
Patterson, Robert (Gen.), 270 note 19.
Patton family, 285.
Pawnee Indians, 157-8.
Peace Pipe ceremony, 49.
Pearson, T. K. (Capt.), 267.
Pelones Apaches, 392.
Pennington, Mrs. R. E., 215.
Pennsylvania and the independence of Texas (Winston), 262-82.
Peraza, — (Col.), 191.
Perkins, S. H., 270 note 20.
Peters, William, 268.
Pickering, Timothy, 13-14.
Pico, Andrés, 132; resolutions, comment, 129-31.
Pinckney, Charles, mission to Madrid, 17-34, 160-85 passim; recall, 169.
Pitts, William (Capt.), obituary, 216.
Pleasanton, A. J., 271 note 23.
Poinsett, Joel Roberts, mission to Mexico, 1825-9, 223-59; letters, extracts, 227-8, 231, 234, 238, 240-3.
Population of Texas, 1832, 199: 1837, 199; 1840, 198-9; 1843, 198.
Postal charges, 1838, 50.
Potomac (war brig), 49, 287.
Presbyterian church in Texas, organization, early history: Houston, 283-5, 292, 294; Austin, 60, 283-5, 293-4, 304; Columbia, 284; Galveston, 284; San Augustine, 294; Independence, 294.
Prisoners, release discussed: Texan, 194; Mexican, 196.
Pruneda, Eusebio, 344, 357.
La Punta (Lampazos), mission, 337 344-5.
Quises Indians (Quitseis), 338.
Rábago y Therán, Pedro de (Comandante), expedition, 1755, 383-4; connection with San Sabá missions, 384-6, 388-9.
Rábago y Therán, Phelipe (Capt.), suspension, 384.
Railroad meeting, first in Texas, 295.
Rainey, Frank (Dr.), obituary, 429.
Ralls, — (Rev.), 46.
Ramón, Diego, expedition, 1707, 330; expedition, 1716, 327-8, 330.
Ramsay, — (Capt.), 269.
Ramsay, R. D., 268.
Ramsdell, Charles William, book reviews, 93-6, 318-20, 430-1.
Ramsey, Alexander, 271.
Ranchería Grande, mission for (San Xavier River), 323-78; tribes, location, history, 329-34, 348, 365-6.
Randall, John T., 49.
Randall, Sarah Davenport (Mrs. John T.), 49.
Randolph, John, of Roanoke, 14.
Real, Julius, 98.
Recognition of Texan independence, by Mexico, 307-9, 416-19.
Red, William Stuart (Rev.), editor, ... Diary of ... Allen, 43-60; Al- len's reminiscences of Texas, 1838-1842, 283-305.
Red River, American occupation, 2; navigation by Americans, 21; projected exploration, 142-51; description cited, 152-3; missions, 327.
Reed, James, 271 note 26.
Reed, Samuel F., 273 note 31.
Reeve, M. M. (Dr.), 274 note 32.
Reid, —, 59.
Reid, Hugo, 115.
Remmey, Henry, 271 note 23.
Revillagigedo, Conde de (41st Viceroy), 385.
Rhoades, E. A., 44, 296.
Rhoades, Mary W. (Mrs. E. A. Rhoades), 44, 296.
Riddle, Joseph P., 267.
Riley, J. S., 270 note 20.
Riley family (of Houston), 295.
Rio Grande (presidio), 412.
Rivera, Pedro, inspection, 1727, 332, 350.
Robertson, James Alexander, 28 note 15.
Robin, C. C., 21-2, 26.
Robinson, — (U. S. consul at Tampico), 190.
Robinson, —, 295.
Robinson, Tod, 302.
Robinson family (of Houston), 295.
Rocafuerte, —, 245.
Rockdale, missions near, 323-78, 383-4.
Rock Dam, 323-4.
Rodriguez, Juan (chief, Ranchería Grande), 330.
Rogers, —, 135.
Rogers (Cherokee half-breed), 48.
Ronaldson, James, 273 note 31.
Rose, Pleasant W. (Dr.), 55.
Roshler, George (Col.), 270 note 19.
Royce, Josiah, 137.
Rudolph, S. P., 270 note 19.
Rusk, Thomas J., 298.
Russell, Frederick, 115.
Russell, William J., 55.
Russell, Mrs. William J., 55.
Rutersville College, 303.
Rutter, Adolphus A., 269.
Sacramento (presidio), 347, 349, 351-3, 360.
Saint Bernard Bay, see San Barnardo Bay, 7, 9-10, 182.
St. Catherine's Landing, 149, 151.
St. Cyr, Laurent Gouvion, 10.
St. Denis, Louis Jucherean de, 21, 264; expedition, 1716, 327-8.
Salcedo, Juan Manuel de, relation to Texas-Louisiana boundary question, 10-25 passim, 157.
Salcedo, Nemesio de (Comandante General), relation to Texas-Louisiana frontier question, 18-42, 145-68 passim; letter, extract, 163.
Saligny, Alphonse de, 192, 306-7.
Sample, David, 268.
San Andrés River, identity, 327.
San Antonio, siege, 1835, Pennsylvanians in, 268.
San Antonio de Béxar (presidio), 346, 354, 359, 362, 390.
San Antonio de Valero (mission), 330, 335, 343-4, 346, 371, 376, 392, 394, 398; founding, 347 note 7.
San Antonio Express, 428.
San Antonio Road (Camino Real), 328 note 8, 329; plans for marking, 428.
San Bernardo Bay (Saint Bernard), 7, 9-10; La Salle's colony, 182.
Sánchez, Thomás, 115.
Sanders, —, 156.
Sanderson, —, 49.
San Diego (Cal.), meeting, Aug. 30, 1851, resolutions, extract, 113.
San Felipe de Austin, 59.
San Fernando de Béxar, factions, 328.
San Francisco de la Espada (mission), founding, 347 note 7.
San Francisco Solano (mission), transfer, 1718, 347 note 7.
San Francisco Xavier (mission), founding, Feb., 1848, 365-6.
San Gabriel River, name, 327. (See also San Xavier River.)
Sanguinet, Carlos (Charles), 61, 64-6.
San Ildefonso (mission), founding, Feb., 1749, 373-5.
San Jacinto, battle, 52, 280-1.
San Jacinto, 56.
San Juan Bautista (mission), apostates, 330.
San Juan Capistrano (mission), founding, 347.
San Luis Advocate, 302.
San Marcos River (Colorado), mission company's camp on, 395-8.
San Patricio, settlements, 75.
San Pedro de los Nabedaches (village), 349, 351.
San Sabá (mission), history, 347 note 7, 379-414.
San Sabá (presidio, San Luis de las Amarillas), 397, 401; attack upon, 402-14.
San Sabá River, mission on, history, 379-414.
Santa Ana, Benito Fernandez de (Fray), connection with San Xavier mission, 369-71, 373-6; letters, extracts, 369-72; connection with San Sabá missions, 381-3.
Santa Anna, Antonio López de (Gen.), 70, 82, 85, 89-91, 197, 265, 308, 311; revolutionary schemes, capture at San Jacinto, 51-2; agreement and arrangements respecting armistice, 67-8, 88.
Santa Fé, expedition, 86-7, 425; traders, 195.
Santa Rosa del Sacramento (presidio), 347, 349, 412.
Santiestaben, Joseph (Fray), connection with San Sabá missions, 391, 401, 404-5; death, 408-9, 411; burial, 411.
Santissima Trinidad, Francisco de la (Fray), connection with San Xavier mission plans, 357, 359; connection with San Sabá mission, 393-6, 401, 403.
San Xavier (presidio), garrison, 390.
San Xavier de Gigedo, presidia and missions, 399.
San Xavier de Náxera (mission), history, 330.
San Xavier River (San Gabriel), Spanish establishment, 323-78, 383-4; transfer to San Sabá, 384-6, 388-97; identity, 327; Aguayo's crossing, 328.
Sayopines Indians, 378.
Schooll, J. D., 268.
Schuler, John J., 265 note 3.
Scott, John, 268.
Scylla (British sloop), 68-9, 83-4, 196, 306.
Serosse, Joseph S., 271 note 26.
Servers, Foster, 268.
Servoss, Charles K., 271 note 23, 273, 274 note 32.
Shabas, —, 167.
Sharpe, —, 54.
Sheldon, — (Gen.), 55.
Sibley, John (Dr.), 6 note 2, 28, 35-6; appointments, 152, 160-4; information from, 152-3, 155-6, 161, 163, 167-8; activity, 165-6.
Sierra, Phelipe de (Cavo), 377.
Skipwith, Fulwar, 172, 177, 183, 186.
Slavery: bearing upon Louisiana-Texas frontier relations, 3; upon state division movement in California, 1849-60, 101-39 passim; upon Texas revolution, recognition, etc., 276-9, 309, 312.
Slaves: alleged Spanish attempts to alienate, 37-9, 41; numbers, Texas, 1832, 199; 1837, 199; 1840, 198, 1843, 198, 205; laws regarding, 201-4; treatment, health, 202; increase, 202-3; manumission, 203.
Slave-trade, Texas, 199-201, 312.
Sloan, James, 271 note 23.
Sloat, John Drake, 102.
Smith, —, 266.
Smith, Ashbel (Dr.), 429.
Smith, Erasmus (“Deaf”), capture of Cos, 52.
Smith, Henry (?), 265 note 3.
Smith, John T., 268.
Smith, Thomas S., 270 note 19.
Smith, W. P. (Col.), 270 notes 19-20.
Smith's Hotel (Bullock's), 60.
Snell, Martin K., 267 note 7.
Snyder, —, 121.
El Sol, 234, 258.
Someruelos, Marqués de (Capt. Gen.), 28, 30.
South, George W., 271 note 23.
Spraggins, — (“Daddy”), 54.
Sprogell, Marshall, 270 note 19.
Stanley, Norris, 273 note 31.
Steedman, S. H., 265 note 3.
Steele, —, 272 note 29.
Stephens, William, 271 note 23.
Stephenson, — (Capt.), 268.
Stewart, Hamilton, 301.
Stille, — (Capt.), 165.
Stille, — (of Philadelphia), 298.
Stout, Francis, 273.
Stout, Francis H., 273.
Stubblefield, —, 54.
Stumph, John F., 270 note 19.
Sullivan, — (Rev.), 59.
Sunday school, Houston, 1838, 48-9, 55, 285, 294-5.
Sutherland, T. W., 115.
Swift, John (Col.), 270 note 19, 273.
Taensa Indians, 157.
Taguacana, Tahuacanes, see Tawakoni.
Taguayos, Taovaya, Toboso, see Tawehash.
Talleyrand, Périgord, Charles Maurice de, Prince de Benevento, sugestion, 12; diplomatic intrigue, 169-86 passim.
Tamique Indians, mission, 327.
Tampico expedition, Pennsylvanians in, 266-7.
Tancagues, see Tonkawa.
Tanico Indians, 338-9.
Tarr, Augustus D., 270 note 19.
Tarr, E. D., 270 note 19.
Tawakoni Indians, 166; mission, 323-78.
Tawehash Indians, 164, 339, 349; chief, 413.
Taylor, Zachary, 102, 107.
Tejas Indians, 336, 349-51; intertribal and Spanish relations, 380; attack upon San Sabá, 402-14.
Telegraph and Texas Register, 301.
Temperance meetings, 1839, Galveston, 287; Houston, 288-9.
Tenzos, see Taensa, 157.
Terán, Manuel de Mier y (Gen.), boundary commissioner, 239, 249.
Terreros, Alonso Giraldo de (Fray), connection with the San Xavier missions, 336-7, 350-1, 370-1; Apache mission 1754, 382; connection with San Sabá mission, 382, 387-8, 391-411.
Terreros, Pedro Romero de, assumes expense of San Sabá missions, 387-8, 394, 401-2.
Texas, occupation, 1689, motive, 380 note 1; name, application, 349.
Texas and the boundary issue (Manning), 217-61.
Texas Emigration Company of Philadelphia, 269.
Texas Presbyterian, 43-4 note 1, 283-302 passim.
Texas Rifle Brigade, 267.
Texas State Historical Association, affairs, constitution, 432-4.
Thomas, Evan M. (Lieut.), 267.
Thompson, Jacob, 110.
Thompson, John (Col.), 270 notes 19-20, 271 note 26, 273 note 31.
Thompson, Waddy, 73, 417.
Thompson, Wells, obituary, 429.
Thornton, —, 55.
Thornton, — (Lieut.), 267.
Thruston, A. (Col.), 269.
Thurston, John, 266.
Tibbets, G. P., 115.
Tlascaltecan Indians, connection with San Sabá mission, 391.
Tod, John G. (Lieut.), 45.
Tonkawa Indians, 338-9; treaty, 1838, 45; description, visit to Houston, 1838, 53; missions, 323-78, 383-4; attack upon San Sabá, 405.
Tonty, Henri de, 22.
Torrens, —, mission to the United States, 219-20, 222-3; letters, extracts, 219-21.
Town, Thomas B., 271 note 23, 274 note 32.
Trade, contraband, 23, 27, 32, 72; Indian, 16, 157, 161, 163, 349, 351, 355, 357-8, 360-1; of Texas, foreign, 310, 313-14, Mexican, 422.
Travel, 1839, 303-4.
Treaties, conventions, etc.: citation and comment: U. S.-Spain, 1795, 41; France-Spain, 1800 (San Ildefonso), 10, 18; United States-France, 1803, 13; U. S.-Spain, 1819, 217-40 passim; U. S.-Mexico, 1828, 217-61 passim; Texan-Tonkawa, 1838, 45; Texan-Comanche, 1838, 49.
Trinity River missions, 327.
Trudeau, Felix, 165.
Tups Indians, 338.
Turner, Edwin (Capt.), 26-7, 153, 155-9, 165-6.
Turreau, Louis Marie, 169, 172-4.
Ugarte, José Joaquin (comandante), 27, 145-6, 164.
Underwood, — (Judge), 43.
University of Texas, 298.
Upshur, Abel Parker, 415-17.
Urrea, José (Gen.), 266.
Urrutia, Thoribio de (Captain), 336, 342, 368, 412; action regarding San Xavier missions, 357.
Valle, Dionisio (comandante), order, 164.
Valle, Ignacio del, 105, 115.
Van Buren, Martin, diplomatic negotiations, 250-7; instructions, extracts, 254-7, 259.
Van Zandt, Issac, despatch, synopsis, 415-17.
Varela, Benito (Fray), connection with San Sabá mission, 397, 400.
Vasquez, Joseph, 409-10.
Vedoya, Pedro (fiscal), opinion, 346-7.
Vial, Pedro (Pierre), expeditions, 62.
Victor, Claude Perrin (General); instructions to, 10-11, 170.
Victoria, Guadalupe (Gen.), 225, 234.
Victoria, mission near, founding, 347 note 7.
Vidai, see Bidai.
Vidal, Felix (Comandante), 155.
Villareal, Andrés de, 405, 407, 411.
Vogdes, William, 271 note 23.
Volunteer Army of Texas, Third Regiment, Company A, 268 note 11.
Volunteers from the United States: Pennsylvania, 262-9.
Voluntine, —, 266.
Walker, John, 142-3, 145; survey, 153.
Walker, John K., 270 note 19.
Walker, John R., 273 note 31.
Ward, Thomas William (“Col. W.”), 45.
Wardlaw, — (Mrs.), see Jones, Mrs. Levi, 287.
Washita (post), 25-6.
Washita River, explorations, 148-9; population, 149-50; land grants on, 150.
Webb, James, family, 59.
Webster, — (Mrs.), 293.
Webster party, murder, 293.
Welschmeyer, —, 304.
Welschmeyer, John G., 45.
West, James, 267.
Westbrook, John B., 268.
Wharton, John (son of W. H.), 286.
Wharton, John A., 58, 302; death, 286, 302-3.
Wharton, William H., 48, 54-5, 58, 298; character, 279, 286; in Philadelphia, 1836, 270; death, 286; speech at Bible Society, comment, 286-7.
Wharton, Mrs. William H., 54, 286.
Wharton family, 286, 298.
Wharton (Texas ship of war), 83.
Whiaker, Frances A. (Whitaker?), 268.
Whig Party in California, 1852, 124 note 54.
Whitaker, Thomas, 266.
White, William, 271.
White, William, Jr., 271 note 23.
White Hairs (Osage chief), 148.
Whitehurst, —, 59.
Whiting, — (Maj.), 290.
Whiting, — (Miss), marriage, 290.
Whiting, Samuel, 302.
Wilkinson, James, 14, 16, 17, 20, 24-5, 165, 264; Spanish intrigues, 28-32, 174; letters, extracts, 165, 168.
Williams, John A., 98.
Williams, Samuel M., 90-1, 310; (See also McKinney &Williams.)
Williamson, — (Sergeant-major), 266.
Williamson, Jesse, 272 note 28.
Wilson, B. D., 115.
Wilson, Hugh (Rev.), 285, 300.
Winchester, — (Rev.), 57.
Winkler, Ernest William (State Librarian), book review, 212.
Winston, James E., Pennsylvania and the independence of Texas, 262-82.
Wintuisen, Phelipe (Governor), expedition, 1741, 335.
Withersoop, Thomas, 56.
Witherspoon, — (Rev.), 297.
Wolf, John G., 270 note 19.
Woll, Adrian (Gen.), 91, 194, 422; letter, 85-6; letter to, 96-8.
Wood, J. D., 269.
Wood, Joseph, 271 note 26.
Wood, Mandred, 267 note 7.
Wood, William, 270 note 19.
Woodburn, James Albert, 93.
Woodman, James (Col.), 274 note 32.
Woodruff, —, 44, 60, 295, 300-1.
Wright, Edward B. (Rev. Dr.), obituary, 428.
Wright, R. W. W., 56.
Xarame Indians, mission, 327, 341-2 note 29.
Ximénes, Diego (Fray), 337; connection with San Sabá missions, 391, 400-1; letter (extract), 401.
Yacdocas Yadosa, see Deadoses.
Yatasse settlement, 7.
Yates, — (Prof.), 43.
Yates, A. J., 75-6, 83; letters, 77-82; letter to, 80-1.
Yellow fever, Galveston, Houston, 1839, 285, 294, 304.
Yojuane Indians (Yujuanes), mission, 323-78; racial affinity, range, decrease, 329, 332-4, 348; attack upon San Sabá, 402-14.
Yucatán, 195; Texan expedition to, 72-3; troubles, 1843, 82.
Yzazmendi, Pedro (Fray), survey, 377.
Yucatán, negotiation for sale of vacant lands, 191, 194.
Zanesville Volunteer Rifle Company, Pennsylvanians in, 268.
Zantzinger, —, 272 note 29.
Zavala, Lorenzo de, 51.
Zozaya, — (Mexican minister to the United States), 217-18; letter, extract, 219.
Zuber, W. P., obituary, 215.
2. The Quarterly, I, 221.
3. See Shea, The Catholic Church in Colonial Days (1886), 500-501; Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas, I, 623 (ed. of 1884).
4. Mexico, 1792. Pp. 321-338.
5. Morfi, Memorias para la Historia de Tejas, cir. 1781. A copy is in the Bancroft Library, and is now being edited for publication.
6. The reference is to the article by the present writer entitled “Spanish Missions in the San Gabriel Valley” published in the Williamson County Sun, March 21, 1907. This article correctly identifies the site of the missions and gives a general outline of their history, but it contains some errors and is indefinite at points where definite information is now at hand. The same article was published contemporaneously in the Rockdale Express. It was written for the purpose of arousing local interest in the mission remains and obtaining local information concerning them.
7. Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas, I, 623.
8. The larger part of them come from the archives of the extinguished College of Santa Cruz de Querétaro, which founded the missions and where they were discovered by the present writer. Specific references to the materials are given throughout this paper.
9. Espinosa, Diario derrotero de la nueva entrada a la Prov. de los Tejas, Año de 1716, entry for June 1. It is seen that this expedition, led by Saint Denis, did not by any means follow the “Old San Antonio Road” of later days. The original of this rare manuscript is in the Archivo General y Público, Mexico.
10. Ibid., entries for May 28 and June 2.
11. Peña, Derrotero de la Expedición en la Provincia de los Texas, Mexico, 1722. This is the original government print. The copy in the Memorias de Nueva España, vol. 28, has numerous errors, and is there given a wrong title. I am indebted to the paper by Miss Eleanor Buckley on “The Aguayo Expedition” for the results of her study of Aguayo's route. This paper was her master's thesis written at the University of Texas, 1908-1909. Father Pichardo made a map of the route in 1811, which corresponds roughly to that made by Miss Buckley.
12. Ynforme al R. Discreo. de los PPs. Pres. y Misss. de Tejas en que piden salir al Rio de S. Xavier.
13. Bustillo y Zevallos, Memorial del Govor. Bustillos en contra de la fundacion de Sn. Xavier, May 28, 1746, paragraph 7; Cabello, Informe, 1784.
14. Cabello, Ibid., par. 6.
15. Ortiz, Satisfaccion de los Missioneros á las objecciones hechas por el Govr. Bustillos contra las fundaciones de. Sn. Xavier, 1746. This is a memorandum of points by Father Ortiz and Father Espinosa in reply to certain objections raised to founding a mission on the San Xavier.
16. These tribes were sometimes collectively called at San Antonio “the Eastern Indians.”
17. See articles by Bolton on “Rancheria Grande” and “Ervipiame” in Hodge, Handbook of American Indians.
18. Portillo, Apuntes para la Historia Antigua de Coahuila y Texas (Saltillo, 1888), pp. 269-271. These pages contain the autos of the founding of the mission, copied from the archives of Coahuila. The name given to the mission and pueblo was “San Francisco Xavier y Valle de Cristobal.”
19. Communication of Father Paredes, July 12, 1729. K, leg. 19, doc. 19, Archive of the College of Santa Cruz.
20. Diary, 1707.
21. Ibid.
22. Diaries of Espinosa and Ramón, 1716 (MSS.).
23. Ramón, diary of 1716.
24. Peña, Derrotero de la Expedición.
25. See Bolton, “Spanish Mission Records at San Antonio,” in The Quarterly, X, 298-300.
26. July 12, 1729. K, leg. 19, doc. 19, Arch. Coll. Santa Cruz.
27. He says, “in the former time.” He may mean the administration preceding his own. Memorial, May 28, 1746, par. 4.
28. Journal, in Margry, Découvertes, III, 288.
29. Peña, Derrotero.
30. Memorial, May 28, 1746.
31. This document consists of a copy of the royal cédula of April 16, 1748, which authorizes the establishment of the San Xavier missions, and of critical comments on the tribes named therein. It is of great value for the tribal distribution of this region. I shall cite it as “Anonymous Commentary,” Arch. Coll. Zacatecas.
32. See Bolton, article on “Tonkawa” and “Yojuane,” in Hodge, Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico.
33. Casañas, Relación, 1691. MS.
34. Olivares, Diario, 1709. MS.
35. Espinosa, Chrónica Apostólica, I, 424.
36. La Harpe, Relation, in Margry, Découvertes, III, 616.
37. By the present writer.
38. Penicaut (1714) gives the name “Aquodoces” (Margry, Découvertes, V, 504); Peña, 1721-1722, gives it “Agdocas” (Diario, in Mem. de Nueva España,” XXVIII, 31); Espinosa, 1746, “Yacdocas” (Chrónica Apostólica); Morfi (cir. 1781), “Igodosa” (Mem. Hist. Tex., II, 26).
39. Several years ago the present writer conjectured that this might be the case. See his card notes on Texas tribes, under “Deadoses.”
40. Anonymous Commentary.
41. Margry, Découvertes, V, 504.
42. Peña, op. cit., 31.
43. Memorial, May 28, 1746.
44. See Bolton, “The Founding of Mission Rosario” in The Quarterly, X, 113-139; and “Spanish Activities on the Lower Trinity River,” Ibid., XVI, 339-377.
45. This priest signed his name Fr. María Ano Franco de los Dolores y Viana, though his associates and superiors always wrote it Fray Mariano. He has frequently been referred to in The Quarterly as Father Dolores.
46. In a memorial dated Jan. 22, 1757, he said that he entered Texas in 1733, and began to journey northeast, east, and southeast. In a communication written in April, 1746, he said that he had been in Texas 13 years (Escrito by Fray Mariano addressed to the governor of Texas, April 16, 1746). In a letter to the viceroy written March 13, 1849, he said that he had been engaged in the work seventeen years, by implication, all the time in Texas). Father Ortiz wrote that Fray Mariano had had relations with the petitioning tribes before Bustillo y Zevallos left Texas, which was in 1734. (Satisfaccion de los Missioneros á las objecciones hechas por el Gov. Bustillos contra las fundaciones de Sn. Xavier).
47. Ortiz, Satisfaccion, fol. 1.
48. Anonymous Commentary, Arch. Coll. Guadalupe.
49. Ortiz, op. cit.
50. This is the story told by Father Mariano to Ortiz, June 13, 1745 (Copia de autos seguidos. Arch Coll. Santa Cruz, K, 6, 17); Francisco Xavier Marquez to the viceroy, Jan. 18, 1746. Ibid. Note that the later documents imply that the Indians chose San Xavier at the outset.
51. Fray Mariano to Fray Ortiz, June 12, 1745. The numerical strength of the tribes was learned from the four chiefs (Copia de autos seguidos en el superior govierno.).
52. K, leg., 6, No. 5, Arch. Coll. Santa Cruz.
53. Arricivita, Crónica Seráfica, 323.
54. Dated, July 26.
55. Letter of Fray Mariano to the guardian, July 26, 1745, in Copia de autos seguidos en el superior govierno. For more detailed information relative to Fray Ximenes, see Ortiz, Visita de las Missiones hecha, de orden de N. M. R. P. Commo. Gral. Fr. Juan Fogueras, por el P. Fr. Franco. Xavier Ortiz, en el año 1745.
56. For proof of this see Espinosa, Chrónica Apostólica, 467.
57. Ibid
58. Anonymous Commentary, par. 3.
59. Fray Mariano to the Guardian, July 26, 1745.
60. Our knowledge of this second visit of the Indians comes from the Memorial of Bustillo, dated May 28, 1746.
61. Memorial of Ortiz to the king, after Feb. 14, 1747.
62. This list is copied in the royal cédula of April 16, 1748, granting the petition of, Ortiz, the spelling of which I follow, instead of that of the copy of the Ortiz memorial. (Reales Cédulas, Vol. 68, 1748. Archivo General y Público, Mexico).
63. For the identification of some of these tribes, see the Anonymous Commentary.
64. The exact circumstances of the selection of the site are not quite clear. Some later statements make it appear that the San Xavier was designated at the outset, but putting all the evidence together, this does not seem to be the case. (1) In the two petitions of Fray Mariano nothing is said of the San Xavier, and it is distinctly intimated that the site was as yet unchosen, while emphasis is put upon the fact that the Indians desired a mission in their own country. This, we have seen, was characteristically beyond the Little and the Brazos rivers. (2) The story related above of Fray Mariano's unsuccessful attempt to visit the site is given by both Bustillo and the Anonymous Commentary. While the former hints that there was some disappointment in regard to water facilities in the immediate country of the Indians, it gives the floods as the reason for the change of site. The words are as follows: “Tired of crossing so much water, since the Indians were waiting in the Monte Grande, and in order that the soldiers might return, they [the Indians] showed them the Rio de San Xavier.” (3) That the site was changed is definitely asserted by Fray Santa Ana, who, at the same time was president of the missions at San Antonio, but he gives as the reason the lack of water facilities in the immediate country of the Indians. In a letter written to the viceroy on June 24, 1748, he explains the increased demands by Fray Mariano for military protection at San Xavier by saying that at first the Indians had asked that the missions be in their own lands; that none of them “reside where they would be exposed to the invasions of the Apaches,” and that, therefore, it was at first thought that thirty soldiers would be enough; but that when it was later learned that suitable water facilities were lacking in their country, the Indians insisted on gathering on the San Xavier, which, being a site exposed to the Apaches, required more protection (Copia de autos seguidos en el superior govierno).
65. Or, possibly, after Fray Mariano's first visit.
66. Bustillo, op. cit., par. 1. For a summary of the autos, see Bustillo, and for the petition of the College based on the autos, see an expediente in the Lamar Papers entitled “Erecion de la Mision [Presidio] de Sn. Xavier,” 3, and Terreros to Mediavilla, June 23, 1746.
67. Fray Mariano tells us this in a document dated April 13, 1746. See also documents dated June 10 and 11, 1746, in Copia de Cartas del R. P. Guardn.
68. See documents cited in note 23.
69. For the location of the site, see page 323 and map.
70. Fray Mariano says that “many of them lacked even the leaves of the trees to cover their shame.” Communication of April 16, 1746.
71. Erecion, 5, is the authority for this assertion. It is quite clear that the letter referred to must have been written during Father Mariano's first stay at the San Xavier, which ended before April 13, for he was in San Antonio thenceforward till June 11. The facts stated above are referred to in a document written near Querétaro on June 28.
72. Testimony concerning the Cocos, April 13, 1746.
73. In October, 1745, he had communicated with this tribe, who lived on the lower Colorado, through the Bidais. Just at this time Capt. Orobio Bazterra, of Bahía, was about to undertake his expedition to the lower Trinity to look for a rumored settlement of the French. The Bidais, hearing that the expedition was to be directed against the Cocos, sent a delegation to San Antonio, in the middle of October, to ask Father Mariano to request Orobio not to harm the Cocos. He did so, and took occasion also to ask Orobio to take the Xaranames, who were living with the Cocos, back to their mission at Bahía. In order that the Cocos might not become entangled in the trouble likely to ensue, he sent to them a request that they should separate from the Xaranames. No doubt he also told them of the San Xavier mission project, for a number of them met him at San Xavier and agreed to enter the mission there. (Communication of April 16, 1746.)
74. See Bolton, “Spanish Activities on the Lower Trinity River,” in The Quarterly, XVI, 339-377.
75. Docs. of April 13, 15, and 16, concerning the killing of two Cocos by Orobio.
76. Fray Mariano wrote to the guardian of his college the following account of the event and of his helplessness to carry out his heart's desire: “I would gladly refrain from further molesting your attention, for I assume that you are sufficiently occupied, but, knowing that these people understand the language of hands better than that of tongues, and are more easily subdued by gifts than by words, I am compelled by my great poverty not to lose any opportunity to the end that the promptest provision may be undertaken there, and, in case delay is necessary, that assistance with the most urgent expenses may be solicited, for our lack of everything makes it impossible to send more now to the multitude of Indians which are to be reduced. This and what I noted in my former [letter] oblige me to inform you that on the fourth day of June there came to this mission of San Antonio some of the new Indians, and that on the eighth the principal chief of all the Nations came from a different direction to inform me that a multitude of people have gathered on various occasions to await me with the Fathers and Spaniards to establish missions for them, but, seeing my delay and being dissatisfied at the lack of provisions, they have again deserted. They told me that grass having grown up in the crops, the chiefs were obliged to go and assemble their tribes to clean them, aside from the fact that they are maintaining the post, not having been made cowards by fear of the Apaches, who had killed five Indians in that neighborhood, and that I should send them maize, tobacco and other dogas which they needed, for which purpose and the transportation of which I asked for mules. Since I was in San Xavier I have concluded that the greatest delay would be until October, for in more than eight months there would be sufficient time.”
77. Urrutia, certificates of June 10, 1746, in Copia de Cartes del R. P. Guardn.; Fray Mariano to the guardian, June 11, 1746, Ibid.; Fray Benito de Santa Ana to Urrutia, April 15, 1746, in Dos testimonios de diligencies, sobre los Yndios Cocos; also related documents of April 13 and April 16, 1746.
78. Satisfaccion de los Missioneros á las objectiones hechas por el Govr. Bustillos. This must have been in 1746, for then was the time when the Bustillo fight was on.
79. Memorial del Pe. Anda al Exmo Sor Virrey sobre Sn. Xavier.
80. This account is based on an escrito presented by Father Mariano to Urrutia, telling of the event, May 4, 1747; the sworn declaration of Pruneda, of the same date; a diligencia, or opinion given by the cabildo, justicia, and regimiento of the villa of San Fernando, together with the officers of the presidio of San Antonio de Béxar, May 10, 1747. The story was confirmed by ten Cocos who went to San Antonio on May 7. (All in Dos peticiones del P. Fr. Mariano sobre los Yndios de Sn. Xavr. año de 1747.)
81. Arricivita, Crónica, 323.
82. Visita de las Missiones.
83. Viceroy's decree of this date, endorsed on the memorial of Marquez.
84. Dictamen fiscal, Feb. 18, 1746, and viceroy's decree of the same date. These decrees, the letters of Fray Mariano, and the memorial of Marquez, constitute “Copia de autos seguidos en el superior govierno.”
85. The memorial was evidently based on the new autos drawn at San Antonio after the second visit of the petitioning tribes and drawn with a knowledge of the decree of February 18, therefore after that date. My knowledge of the memorial comes from the summary in Erecion de la Mision de Sn. Xavier.
86. My knowledge of this dictamen is gained from the summaries contained in the memorial of Bustillo y Zevallos and Erecion de la Mision de Sn. Xavier. The former is in some respects the clearer as to the points of the dictamen.
87. Thus, the founding of the mission of San Antonio de Valero in 1718, considered in one light, was but the transfer of that of San Francisco Solano from the Rio Grande to the San Antonio. The establishment of the mission on the Guadalupe above Victoria in 1736 and that on the lower San Antonio in 1749 were but two transfers of the mission of Espíritu Santo from the Gulf coast. The establishment of the missions of San Juan Capistrano, Nuestra Señora de la Purísima Concepción, and San Francisco de la Espada at San Antonio in 1731, was in reality a transfer of three missions thither from eastern Texas. Finally, the establishment of the San Sabá mission was but the transfer to another site of the missions established at San Xavier. Numerous other examples might readily be cited.
88. Erecion de la Mision de Sn. Xavier, 5; Bustillo, Memorial, par. 3.
89. For an account of this campaign see “Apache Relations in Texas, 1718-1750,” by W. E. Dunn, The Quarterly, XIV, 225-237; Bonilla, “Breve Compendio,” Ibid., VIII. 41-42.
90. Bustillo, Memorial, par. 3.
91. Memorial del Govr. Bustillos en contra de la fundacion de Sr. Javier, presentado al exmo. Sor Virrey. May 28, 1746.
92. On this point he was certainly borne out by the facts of missionary history among the wild tribes.
93. The Carancaguases, Cocos, Cujanes, Guapites, and Cujanes.
94. At this date the term “Texas,” as a territorial designation, was still often restricted to what is now eastern Texas, then the country of the Texas, or Hasinai Indians.
95. Memorial, par. 19.
96. Erecion, 5.
97. Erecion, 6. The opinion of the auditor and the viceroy's decree carrying it out must have fallen between the date of Bustillo's memorial and June 23, when the opinion of Mediavilla was asked by the College.
98. Bonilla, “Breve Compendio,” The Quarterly, VIII, 41.
99. Copia de autos seguidos.
100. K, leg. 6, No. 15, Archive of the College of Santa Cruz de Querétaro, The Erecion gives the date of Mediavilla's letter as June 21, but this is evidently incorrect.
101. The present writer does not know to what event Mediavilla alludes.
102. Apuntes que dio el R. P. Fr. Ysidro, undated, in Satisfacion de los Missioneros á las objecciones. One paper drawn by Father Ortiz seems to have been a preliminary outline of a reply and not to have been presented. The copy which I have seen contains no date, salutation, or signature, but is labeled, Respuesta del Pe. Ortiz.
103. Memorial del R. P. Ortiz al Exmo. Sor. Virrey exponiendo las razones para fundar en Sn. Xavier, año de 1746. The memorial is signed also by Fray Alnso Giraldo de Terreros, guardian of the college, Fray Mathías Saenz de San Antonio, prefect of missions, Espinosa, and Fray Pedro Pérez de Mesquía, all of whom had served in the missions of the northern frontier.
104. Erecion, 7. The date of giving this opinion does not appear, but it was between July 30 and September 24.
105. See Bolton, “The Founding of Mission Rosario,” in The Quarterly, X, 118-122, for a sketch of the plans of Escandón. See also Erecion, p. 7.
106. The date was September 24. See Erecion, 12.
107. For a summary of this opinion, see Erecion, 7; for the date, see Ibid., 12. It is not absolutely certain that the two opinions referred to are identical, but of this there seems little doubt. For more light on the contents, see the memorial by Ortiz, October 10, 1746, in response to the new request. The autograph copy of this document has no title, but a copy of it is labeled “Instancia, y razones representadas al exmo. Sor Virrey para la fundacion de Sn. Xavier.”
108. Father Ortiz to the viceroy, Oct. 10, 1746, “Instancia, y razones.”
109. The date of this order was Feb. 1, 1747. See p. 361, note 47.
110. The date Feb. 1, 1747, is fixed by K, leg. 6, Nos. 5 y 11, Arch. Coll. Santa Cruz; K, leg. 19, No. 67 is indefinite but corroborates the opinion.
111. On January 16, 1747, Father Ortiz presented to the viceroy an escrito which he concluded by asking for the repayment to the College of the 2262 pesos 4 tomines already spent in attracting the Indians at San Xavier, and repeated his request for the assignment of a sum for a like purpose till the matter should be decided. The date of the escrito and its contents are gathered from the viceroy's orders of February 14, 1747, requiring soldiers sent to San Xavier.
112. Viceroy's decree of February 14, reciting the contents of the auditor's opinion of January 28 and the decree of Feb. 1. See the letter of Ortiz to the king, 1747 (after Feb. 14). Arricivita quotes an order of identical tenor, but gives the date as Feb., 1748. I suspect that he refers to this one of Feb. 14, 1747 (Crónica, 325).
113. See also the erroneous statement in Memorias de Nueva España, XXVIII, 179, to the effect that the mission were authorized on Feb. 14, 1747.
114. The decree is referred to in the memorial, and reference is made to “this year of forty-seven.”
115. Memorial of Father Ortiz to the king, after Feb. 14, 1747.
116. Fray Mariano to Urrutia, in Escrito sobre los 12 Soldados, qe avian de hir a Sn. Xavier.
117. This consulta is summarized, also, in Memorial del R. P. (Ibid.) and in Presidente al Capn. de Sn. Antonio, May 7, 1748.
118. Diligencias of the cabildo, May 10, 1747, in Dos peticiones del P. Fr. Mariano sobre los Yndios de Sn. Xavr. año de 1747.
119. This fact is stated in the viceroy's despatch of July 27: “Todo lo qual me participio el citado capitan en consulta de diez, y nueve de Mayo passado de este año.”
120. He continues with a statement of the duties of such a guard, which might be interesting to quote (Memorial, en qe. insiste pidiendo la licencia para fundar en Sn. Xavier). The archive copy is undated, but it evidently fell between May 19, when Urrutia's consulta was written, and June 28. The despatch of July 27 refers to a prolix memorial following the consulta of Urrutia and preceding a document of June 28. “Y Sabidor de esto la parte del referido colegio insto en su pretension alegando difusamente, quanto le parcio convenir a su derecho.”
121. Altamira gave the opinion that if the missionaries were to ask for a hundred settlers for San Xavier he would recommend a subsidy of two hundred dollars apiece and liberal grants of land, exemptions, and privileges; but in order not to venture too freely the royal funds, and since the presidio of Sacramento was destined for other purposes, he made the recommendation which the viceroy adopted (Desptach of July 27, to the governor of Texas and the captain of Bahía). There is some doubt as to whether the date of the despatch is July 17 or July 27. My copy from the original despatch of February 24 to Governor Larios refers to the order as of July 17. But my copy of the original despatch in the archive of the College of Santa Cruz is dated July 27. In both cases the words are spelled out in full, and I am of the opinion that the correct date is July 27 (See despatch, February 24, 1748, Lamar Papers, and Arch. Coll. Santa Cruz, K, Leg. 19, No. 71).
122. Memorial del Pe. Anda al Exmo. Sor Virrey sobre Sn. Xavier. I infer the date from the reference in the document to the decision of the “past month,” alluding to the order of July 27, 1747.
123. Father Anda's paper gives an interesting statement of the duties of a presidial guard. Cf. note 40.
124. These objections are reviewed in the viceroy's despatch of Jan. 29, 1748. loc. cit.
125. Bolton, “Spanish Activities on the Lower Trinity,” The Quarterly, XVI, 339-377.
126. Summary in the viceroy's despatch of Jan. 28, op. cit.
127. I get the contents from the summaries in Erecion, 8, and letter of Santa Ana to the viceroy, in K, leg. 6, No. 18.
The Erecion, page 8, says that on Dec. 26, 1746, in conformity with the auditor's opinions of Dec. 10 and 17, the viceroy Horcasitas authorized the three missions. This cannot have been the case. In the first place, it is in conflict with the decrees of Feb. 1 and July 27, 1747, in which the viceroy states that he is suspending final action until the outcome of Escandón's work is known, and of Feb. 14, 1747, granting temporary aid, while the matter of approval is under consideration. In the second place, Espinosa, writing in 1747 of the San Xavier enterprise, says that “although it lacks the confirmation of the Most Excellent Viceroy” it appears to “have accepted his Catholic Zeal” (p. 467) ; in the third place, other contemporary documents besides the summary in “Erecion,” give the date December 23, 1747. See Fray Santa Ana to the viceroy, March 10, 1749. Dictamen fiscal, July 21, 1748, in Memorias, XXVIII, 73.
128. This had been done by January 23, 1748. See dictamen quoted in the viceroy's despatch of Jan. 20, 1748, loc. cit.
129. The original despatch is in the Béxar Archives, Miscellaneous, 1742-1793, and the accompanying letter in the Lamar Papers.
130. Fray Mariano tells us in a document written about May, 1749, that the soldiers were followed by their families, who remained till May, 1749.
131. Royal cédula dated at Buen Retiro, April 16, 1748. Arch. Gen. y Púb., Reales Cédulas, Vol. 68, No. 52.
132. Anonymous Commentary in Cartas del R. P. Comiso. Fr. Manl. Sylva. College of Guadalupe de Zacatecas.
133. Communication of Ganzábal, June 14, 1748, in Memorias, XXVIII, 70.
134. Memorial of Ganzábal, Memorias, XXVIII, 72.
135. Memorial of Fray Mariano to Urrutia, May 7, 1748. The same date is also given in Músquiz's report, based on the original baptismal records of the mission.
136. Arricivita, Crónica, 325. There are some indications that Arricivita confused the orders of Feb. 1747 for soldiers with that of January, 1748. The order of 1747 provided for sending soldiers from San Antonio and Adaes; that of 1748 from Bahia and Adaes. Cf. Arricivita, 325.
137. Memorial del Pe. Ganzábal, pidiendo fuerzas para el resguardo de las missiones de Sn. Xavier; report by Galván, in Ganzábal's memorial (Arricivita, 325). Also in Memorias de Nueva España, XXVIII, 71, where I find this date. Fray Mariano states at the end of March there were at San Xavier the Ranchería Grande Indians, Yojuanes, Tancagues, and others; the Deadoses, Vidays and other nations were at the Brazos, on the way; while the other promised tribes were gathering to come.
138. Mariano to Urrutia, May 7, 1748. It was impossible to take from San Antonio more than 500 fanegas of maize, and by May 7 this had not all been transported (Ibid.).
139. Memorial del R. P. Presidte. al capn. de Sn. Antonio, May 7, 1748.
140. Memorial del Pe. Ganzábal, pidiendo fuerzas para el resguardo de las misiones de Sn. Xavier. See also Arricivita, Crónica, 325, and Mem. de Nueva España, XXVIII, 71. Galván's report is described as “7 foxas utiles.”
141. Fray Mariano to the viceroy, March 13, 1749. Santa Ana to the viceroy, March 10, 1749. The nature of the accident does not appear. After reaching San Antonio other ills beset him, almost depriving him of the use of his right arm, and extending the duration of his incapacity.
142. Fray Mariano, Memorial, May 7, 1748.
143. Ibid.
144. Communication to the governor. In it he speaks of a year having transpired since the Apache attacks. I infer that the document was written as late as May, 1749.
145. Escrito of May 7.
146. Memorial del R. P. Presidte. al Capn. de Sn. Antonio pidiendo fuerzas para la defensa del Presidio, y misiones de S. Xavier. May 7, 1748. The word “Presidio” in the title, which is an archive label, is misleading.
147. Escrito presentado al Govr. Dn. Pedro del Varrio sobre Sn. Xavier, 1749. Fray Mariano later wrote that at the time he attributed this position of Barrio “not to passion but to his recent arrival, and his not having heard of a person who, sin dablar la hoja y sin embolar los filos, does his best to perform his duty (Ibid.).
148. Cf., letter of March 13, 1749, for these events.
149. K, leg. 19, Nos. 79 and 80, Arch. Coll. Santa Cruz.
150. Santa Ana wrote to the viceroy March 10, 1749, that Fray Mariano was entirely free from blame for any shortcoming at the new missions, having been since the month of April of last year gravely ill; “for which reason I was obliged, from that time, to continue with the matters pending relative to the three new missions of said river. But as soon as he is restored from his illness he will perfect and complete what he has begun.” Dictamen del Auditor de guerra.
151. My evidence for this is given further on.
152. Dictamen del Auditor. For the attack by the governor of Coahuila, see Dunn, Apache Relations in Texas, 254.
153. He had been at the mission of Valero twenty years before. See Schmidt, Franciscan Missionaries in Texas, 7.
154. Nevertheless, the San Xavier missions continued to be administered as belonging to the presidency of San Antonio.
155. See Schmidt's list, op. cit.
156. Terreros had been at Valero in 1730 and 1731; Amaya was in Texas during the period 1728-1734. Schmidt, op. cit.; and Los Angeles in 1744. Schmidt, op. cit.
157. Castellanos and Amaya had been in Texas about the same time.
158. Father Castellanos to Fray Santa Anna, March 31, 1748.
159. “Por hallarse ya los Ministros en vn todo hauiados, y para salir a las nuebas conversiones.” Castellanos, op. cit.
160. At this point the president explained why the demand for thirty soldiers had been changed to one for fifty, the reason given being the change of site from the country of the petitioners to the San Xavier.
161. Carta Ynforme qe. hizo a Su Exa. el Rdo. Pe. Preste. Fr. Benitto, June 24, 1748. The main contents of this communication are quoted in a letter of Santa Ana to the viceroy dated March 10, 1749. He there states: “In June of the past year there came to my hands a simple copy of the decree of your Excellency issued in December, of the year 47, and at the same time entered the religious who were to assist in the three missions of the Rio San Javier, and without loss of time I made supplication from this decree in the following terms,” quoting what has been given above.
162. Letter of Santa Ana to the viceroy, March 10, 1749.
163. Santa Ana to the viceroy, March 10, 1749, in Dictamen del Auditor. “Llegando a esta pais de Sn. Javier al mismo tiempo, que los avios, y fue el dia 27 de Dizre. del año pasado.”
164. This is not mere inference; Father Santa Ana states the fact. Ibid., 12. He does not state that there were not more than nine.
165. “En confianza de dha. dilijensia, y aver entrado en Dizre. los avios, a las Misiones de Sn. Anto. y Sn. Javier, en 27 de dho mes, no se pudieron asertar las tres conversiones tan prontas como la deseava, y mas no teniendo dia asentado asta el dia 25 de fro; en que se conocio alguna serenidad, y todo efectuo.” (Report to the viceroy, March 10, 1749, in Dictamen del Auditor de guerra. In the same report he twice says that he was just finishing the founding of this mission on February 25 when a despatch reached him.
166. Ibid., p. 12.
167. “I observed that among the Indians who were at San Xavier and who wished to enter the missions there were some Horcoquisas Indians who camped among the Vidais and Deadoses; that the language of these and the Horcoquisas was the same; and finally, that many Orcoquisas women were married to the Vidais and Deadoces, and that the women of these nations [had] relations with the Horcoquisas Indians (Indios). Accordingly, as soon as I began the foundation of the mission of San Yldefonso, which is distant from the already founded San Xavier about a league, going down to the east, I decided that all of the souls of the three said Nations should go to said new foundation of San Yldefonso which they have done.” Ibid., p. 9.
168. “There are in it [San Ildefonso] 65 families; of the Orcoquisa nation, 21 families, which, with men, women and children comprise the number of 58 souls, including their captain, who is the oldest of all, being about 69 years old. Of the Vidais nation there are 26 families, which include 26 men, 32 women, and 30 boys and girls, making altagether 80 persons, in which are included eight old women. Of the nation of the Deadoses there are 18 families, composed of 18 men, 21 women, 16 boys and girls. In all 65 persons, and of the three nations the number of persons with which this mission was founded appears to be 199.” Ibid., 10.
169. Santa Ana to the viceroy, March 10, 1749.
170. I have these details from Morfi, Bk. VIII, paragraphs 30-33.
171. Memorial by the guardian, Fr. Francisco Xavier Castellanos, July, 1749. Presented Aug. 11, 1749.
172. K, leg. 6, Nos. 5 (y 11), Arch. Coll Santa Cruz.
173. Morfi, Bk. 8, par. 56. This shows that Mission Candelaria was founded by May, 1749, and that Músquiz was wrong in his report on this point, wherein he says it was founded in July.
174. Escrito presentado al Govr. Dn. Pedro del Varrio sobre Sn. Xavier, 1749.
175. Ibid.
176. Ibid.
177. A part of this story is briefly told in the following paper by Mr. Dunn.
178. This paper was read before the Fortnightly Club of the University of Texas at the meeting of October 23, 1913.
179. Apache Relations in Texas, 1718-1750,” in The Quarterly, XIV.
180. This study was made under the direction of Professor H. E. Bolton at Leland Stanford, Junior, University during the session of 1911-1912. It is based almost entirely upon the transcripts of original documents in the archives of Mexico collected by Dr. Bolton. The full titles of these documents will be given in the bibliography to be published at the conclusion of the whole study.
181. Dr. Bolton has exploded the old belief that the Spanish occupation of Texas in 1689 was due solely to fear of the French, and shows that it was a natural result of the expansion of the Coahuila mission frontier. See Bolton, “The Spanish Occupation of Texas, 1519-1690,” in The Quarterly, XVI, 24-26.
182. A detailed account of these outrages will be found in The Quarterly, XIV, 203-255.
183. I have at hand a list of supplies distributed among the Apaches by the missionaries at San Antonio for the years 1749 to 1756. A glance at some of the principal items will show the compensation received by the Indians for “being good.” More than 2670 fanegas (bushels) of maize were consumed; 133 beeves and 76 horses were eaten; 60 fanegas of beans; 91 strings of pepper; 7½ cargas and 16 tercios of salt; 22½ cargas of sugar cane; 13 cargas and 5 tercios of tobacco; 4555 varas of different kinds of cloth were donated; 239 hats; 642 blankets; 458 knives; 196 bridles; 17 kettles and boilers; 132 pesos' worth of ribbons, beads, and other trickets (Memoria de lo que se gasto en la pacificacion de los Apaches, 6 pp). This additional burden upon the slender resources of the missions made a separate establishment for the Apaches highly desirable.
184. A full account of these early plans will be found in “Missionary Activities Among the Eastern Apaches Previous to the Founding of the San Sabá Mission,” in The Quarterly, XV, 186-200.
185. The date is uncertain. It may have been in 1754.
186. Aranda to Dolores, in Arricivita, Crónica Seráfica y Apostólica, 358-359. A band of Apaches was encountered by the expedition, and when informed for what purpose the Spaniards were visiting their country, they expressed great joy. Gifts were distributed, a cross was fashioned, and a procession held, the savages kissing the hands of the priest and “worshiping God and his Holy Mother.” (Ibid.)
187. Testimony taken in support of the right of Béxar to exercise jurisdiction over San Sava, 13; Bonilla, Breve Compendio, 27.
188. The guardian to the Eminent Prefect of the Holy Congregation of Propaganda Fide, April, 1759, 2-6.
189. Arricivita, Crónica, 363; Report of the transfer of San Xavier, November 1, 1756, 2; Tanto de un decreto, September 4, 1756. Whether Captain Rábago also recommended that the presidio of San Xavier should be transferred to the San Sabá is not clear from the documents at hand, but there is no doubt that such was his idea, whether he suggested it in his report or not.
190. Tanto de lo que se presento en los Auttos de los Apaches, 4 pp. In this document Santa Ana gave a few facts concerning the San Sabá country. The site suggested for missions, he said, was about seventy leagues north-northwest of San Antonio and one hundred leagues north of the Rio Grande missions. The settlement of this region would make a straight frontier line from eastern Texas to New Mexico, and the union of the northern provinces would be a safeguard against French encroachment. The governor of Coahuila, he continued, was in favor of missions for the Apaches, and would co-operate in the enterprise. Not more than sixty Indian families, he believed, should be allowed to settle in one place, for a mission to be successful must begin with only a few neophytes, who would remain faithful and gradually attract their kinsmen (Ibid.).
191. Arricivita, Crónica, 359.
192. Ibid., 357-358; Tanto de lo que se presento, 1.
193. Arricivita, Crónica, 365-366.
194. Memorias de Nueva España, XXVIII, folio 151.
195. Report of the transfer of San Xavier, November 1, 1756, 2.
196. That the fear was not all on one side is shown by the protest made by Blans, the French commandant at Natchitoches, to Governor Barrios as early as 1753 against the establishment of a presidio for the Apaches. Barrios replied that since the Apaches were in the center of the province of Texas and far removed from French jurisdiction, the matter could not possibly concern him (Blans to Barrios, February 22, 1753; Barrios to Blans, May 15, 1753, in Investigation of French Trade, 15, 16).
197. Urrutia to the viceroy, May 25, 1756, in Memorias de Nueva España, XXVIII, folio 151; Investigation of French Trade, 15-16; Memoria de lo que se gasto en la pacificacion de los Apaches, 6 pp.
198. Report of the transfer of San Xavier, November 1, 1756, 2; Tanto de un decreto, September 4, 1756.
199. See page 382.
200. Bancroft states that no more than twenty missions were to be founded (North Mexican States and Texas, I, 626). In the documents that I have used no mention is made of such a limitation.
201. Proposal of Terreros, November 2, 1756, 5-6; Tanto de un decreto, September 4, 1756, 1; Memorial del R. P. Fr. Mariano, January 22, 1757, 9-10; Reales Cédulas, Tomo 78, No. 151, September 13, 1758; Arricivita, Crónica, 367.
202. Memorial del R. P. Fr. Mariano, 9; Reales Cédulas, Tomo, 78, No. 151, September 13, 1758; Correspondencia de los Virreyes, Second Series, April 21, 1759, 13.
203. There was always much rivalry in the Texas missionary field, even between priests of the same colleges, while that between different colleges often became bitter in its intensity. Cf. Bolton, “The Founding of Mission Rosario,” The Quarterly, X, 122-126.
204. Correspondencia de los Virreyes, Second Series, 1760, No. 79.
205. Report of the transfer of San Xavier presidio, 1-2.
206. Barrios to the viceroy, September 6, 1755, Historia, Vol. 95, 5-6.
207. The viceroy to Barrios, February 6, 1756, Ibid.
208. Testimonio de Parrilla, January 19, 1757, 7. Parrilla, like Pedro de Rábago, was appointed ad interim, since the case against the former commandant, Phelipe de Rábago, was still unsettled. Parrilla was left in undisturbed possession of his command, however, for more than fourteen years (the viceroy to Arriaga, July 4, 1760, in Correspondencia de los Virreyes, Second Series, 1760, No. 79, 2).
209. This matter was left unsettled for many years, and occasioned frequent reports and arguments from the governors of the three provinces. In November, 1756, Governor Barrios held an investigation at Adaes in order to obtain testimony proving the claim of Texas. This claim was based upon the proximity of San Sabá to San Antonio, former campaigns to that region, and general rights of priority in discovery and exploration (Testimony taken in support of the right of Béxar to exercise jurisdiction over San Sava, 19 pp.) The question was not finally decided until 1765, when it was settled in favor of Texas (Martos to the viceroy, April 26, 1765, Historia, Vol. 91, 205; same to same, April 6, 1766, Ibid., 212).
210. Ynstruccion, Historia, Vol. 95, 125-131.
211. Report of transfer, November 1, 1756, 2; Dictamen fiscal, in Autos fhos a pedimento, 92. There was naturally much opposition from the citizens of Béxar to the decrease in the presidial garrison there. Only twenty soldiers were left, ten of whom were assigned to the various missions. The pay-roll of the company, which was the most important source of revenue to the town, now amounted to only 8995 pesos. (Expediente formado sobre las variaciones, August 7, 1760, 3.)
212. Ynstruccion, 130.
213. Ibid., 125; Tanto de un decreto, 1-2.
214. Father Dolores would not agree to this. He claimed that the property belonged to the San Antonio missions, and that Terreros should pay for all of the equipment of the new missions in accordance with his agreement (Dolores to Bernad, April 14, 1757, in Papeles pertenecientes, 1).
215. Ynstruccion, 125-127.
216. Ibid., 127-129.
217. Tanto de un decreto, 1-2.
218. List given in Testimonio de Parrilla, 12.
219. Vindicta del Rio de San Saba, 6.
220. Cabello, Informe, 45.
221. Vindicta del Rio de San Saba, 1; Testimonio de Parrilla, 4-5.
222. Parrilla to the viceroy, February 18, 1757, Historia, Vol. 95, 134-135; Vindicta del Rio de San Saba, 2.
223. Testimonio de Parrilla, 5-7.
224. Testimonio de Parrilla, 11-12.
225. Parrilla to the viceroy, February 18, 1757, Historia, Vol. 95, 134-135.
226. Dolores, according to Santísima Trinidad, had the reputation of being of a domineering and contentious disposition (Vindicta del Rio de San Saba, 7). This accusation is supported by the controversies that had arisen in 1751 during the founding of Mission Rosario, when a bitter quarrel took place between Dolores and Father González of the mission of Espíritu Santo (See Bolton, “Founding of Mission Rosario,” The Quarterly, X, 122-126).
227. Memorial del R. P. Fr. Mariano, 1-4.
228. The Indians numbered forty-one persons in all, but the statement that fifteen were old men and women and the rest children throws light upon the true nature of the “congregation.” Four Spanish families were settled there, in addition to the two priests (Memorial del R. P. Fr. Mariano, 5-7).
229. Memorial del R. P. Fr. Mariano, 5-8.
230. Ibid., 12-14; Vindicta del Rio de San Saba, 5.
231. The priest embodied his accusations in a document which he called “Vindication of the San Sabá River” numbering seventeen pages. His object in writing it was stated to be to put on record the truth of the opposition to the enterprise so that it should not be concealed at some future time when there might be a desire to distort the facts.
232. Vindicta del Rio de San Saba, 2-3.
233. One hundred of the cattle belonged to Parrilla.
234. Vindicta, 6-8.
235. Arricivita, Crónica, 368.
236. Vindicta, 9.
237. Ibid.
238. See pages 383-384.
239. Vindicta, 9-10.
240. The correct Spanish form of this saint's name is San Sabás, but the “s” was very seldom added. The accent, of course, is upon the second syllable, and the pronunciation should not be “San Sába.” Cf. the faulty pronunciation of “Anáhuac” as “Anahuac.” The ruins of the presidio, as is well known, may still be seen near Menard, Texas. They are not the ruins of the original building, however, but of a later stone structure. For a description of the site in 1847, see The Quarterly, V, 137-142.
241. Vindicta, 9-10; Arricivita, Crónica, 368-369.
242. Arricivita, Crónica, 369.
243. Ibid., 370.
244. Fathers Baños and Ximenes to the guardian, June 17, 1757, 1-2.
245. Arricivita, Crónica, 370.
246. Baños and Ximenes to the guardian, June 17, 1757, 3; the guardian to the Eminent Prefect, April, 1759, 5.
247. Baños and Ximenes to the guardian, 5-6.
248. Parrilla to the viceroy, June 30, 1757, Historia, Vol. 95, 146.
249. Ibid., 147.
250. The viceroy to Parrilla, September 30, 1757, Ibid., 140.
251. Baños and Ximenes to the guardian, July 5, 1757, 1; the viceroy to Terreros, September 30, 1757, Historia, Vol. 95, 144.
252. Terreros to the guardian, July 3, 1757, 1.
253. Baños and Ximenes to the guardian, July 5, 1757, 1-3.
254. Terreros to the guardian, July 3, 1757, 1-2.
255. Historia, Vol. 95, 144.
256. Arricivita, Crónica, 376.
257. Declaracion juridica del Padre Molina, March 22, 1758, 10.
258. Dolores to the ministers of the Rio Grande, March 21, 1758, 1.
259. Parrilla to Dolores, May 22, 1758, 5; the guardian to the Eminent Prefect, April, 1759, 5; Arricivita, Crónica, 375.
260. Declaracion juridica del Padre Molina, 12.
261. Parrilla to Dolores, March 27, 1758, 6; same to same, May 22, 1758, 4-5
262. Ibid., 8-9.
263. Declaracion juridica, 1-3.
264. Ibid., 9; Parrilla to Dolores, March 27, 1758, 5. This estimate was doubtless an exaggeration. Cabello, writing in 1784, said that the invaders numbered 700 (Informe, 46). Bonilla gives the number as 2000 (Breve Compendio, 26). Some Orcoquizac Indians later declared that there had been only about 400 (Parrilla to Dolores, May 22, 1758, 9), but this is probably an underestimate.
265. Parrilla to Dolores, March 27, 1758, 4; Parrilla to the viceroy, July 4, 1758, 4-5; Parrilla to the Discretorio of San Fernando, April 8, 1758, Memorias de Nueva España, XXVIII, f. 152.
266. Declaracion juridica del Padre Molina, 3-4.
267. Parrilla to Dolores, March 27, 1758, 2.
268. Dolores to the ministers of Rio Grande, March 21, 1758, 2; Declaracion juridica, 4-6.
269. Ibid., 6; Dolores to the ministers of the Rio Grande, 2-4; Parilla to Dolores, March 27, 1758, 3.
270. Parrilla to Dolores, March 27, 1758, 3-4.
271. Declaracion juridica, 7-8.
272. Ibid., 6-7.
273. Parrilla to Dolores, May 22, 1758, 8-9.
274. Declaracion juridica, 7.
275. Dolores to the ministers of the Rio Grande, 3.
276. Ibid.
277. Declaracion juridica del Padre Molina, 9.
278. Parrilla to Dolores, March 27, 1758, 4.
279. Declaracion juridica, 7.
280. Parrilla to Dolores, March 27, 1758, 6; same to Discretorio of San Fernando, April 8, 1758, Memorias de Nueva España, XXVIII, f. 152; Parrilla to Lara, April 8, 1758, 1-2.
281. Dolores to the ministers of the Rio Grande, March 21, 1758, 4.
282. Carta del R. P. Presidente sobre todo lo acaecido en las muertes de Sn Saba, 1 p.; Dolores to the ministers of Rio Grande, 4-6; Nacogdoches Archives, Doc. No. 487 (Bolton MS. Notes: Miscellaneous, 1750-1825, p. 6); the viceroy to the cabildo and citizens of San Fernando de Austria, June 7, 1758, Historia, Vol. 95. 182.
283. Parrilla to Dolores, March 27, 1758, 1, 6.
284. Carta del R. P. Presidente sobre todo lo acaecido en las muertes de Sn Saba; Dolores to the ministers of Rio Grande, 4-6.
285. Decrees of the viceroy of April 7 and 13, 1758, in Cumanches at Espiritu Santo, 1-2; the viceroy to Martos, Barrios, and Junco y Espriella, August 23, 1758, Historia, Vol. 95, 172.
286. The guardian to the Eminent Prefect, April, 1759, 5.
287. Cabello, Informe, 45-46.
288. Testimonio de la debolucion, 8.
289. Decree of the viceroy, April 13, 1758, in Cumanches at Espiritu Santo, 1; Piszina to the viceroy, May 1, 1758, Autos fhos a pedimento, 108; Parrilla to the viceroy, July 4, 1758. 6; Reales Cédulas, Tomo 78, No. 120, August 12, 1758.
290. F. O., Texas, Vol. 6.
291. F. O., Texas, Vol. 6.
292. Elliot to Aberdeen, No. 29, September 30, 1843, has been omitted. It referred to the “Little Penn' claims, and contained copies of Jones to Elliot, September 16, and Elliot to Jones, September 28, 1843, which are in Garrison, Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas, III, 1128 and 1139, in Am. Hist. Assoc. Report, 1908, II.
293. October 3, 1843.
294. September 28, 1843, while attending a public ball, Doyle observed draped among “trophies taken in war,” an English boat flag. He demanded its removal, was refused, and later the Mexican government declined to give it up to him. As a result, he discontinued diplomatic relations with Mexico until ordered by Aberdeen to resume them. (Adams, British Interest and Activities in Texas, 153-154.)
295. Not found.
296. F. O., Texas, Vol. 7.
297. Kennedy merely summarized the laws on these subjects. They can be conveniently consulted in Gammel, Laws of Texas.
298. F. O., Texas, Vol. 6.
299. Elliot to Aberdeen, No. 31, is missing from the archives.
300. Hugh McLeod, a graduate of the United States Military Academy (1835). He resigned from the army, practiced law, and early joined Texas in resisting Mexico. He commanded the Sante Fé expedition, was a member of the Texan Congress, 1842-1843, served in the Mexican War, and later on the Confederate side in the Civil War. (Appleton, Dict. of Am. Biog.)
301. F. O., Texas, Vol. 6.
302. See Elliot to Aberdeen, No. 30, November 13, 1843.
303. F. O., Texas, Vol. 6.
304. F. O., Texas, Vol. 6. The letter was not addressed, but was probably from Elliot to Doyle.
How to cite:
"Issue View", Volume 017, Number 4, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online. http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v017/n4/issue.html
[Accessed Mon Nov 23 11:35:24 CST 2009]
