Vol. XVIII 1 OCTOBER, 1914 No. 2
The publication committee and the editors disclaim responsibility for views expressed by contributors to The Quarterly.
Having traced the course of the Tyler administration with regard to California, we must now turn to the internal affairs of the province and the growth of popular interest throughout the country in its concerns. During 1842 no emigration of any importance took place from the United States. 2 But the friends of the movement were busy; 3 and toward the close of the year, General Almonte, the Mexican minister at Washington, found it necessary to counteract their representations by an article denying the report that California officials extended a ready welcome to foreigners. 4 In this, however, he was giving the views of the Mexican government, and not those of the authorities of the province. 5
Immigration and Commerce.—In 1843 two considerable parties reached California under the direction of leaders who, having already made the journey, had returned to the western states to encourage others of their countrymen to follow their example. One of these companies, numbering perhaps forty individuals, was led by Lansford W. Hastings and came by way of Oregon. 6 The other, slightly larger, left Missouri in May under Joseph B. Chiles, a member of the Bartleson company of 1841. Dividing at Fort Hall, part of the emigrants completed their journey with Chiles, while the remainder followed Walker over a more difficult southern route. 7
The year 1844 saw still further reinforcement of the American population in California, 8 accompanied by increased interest throughout the United States. Notice of the repeal of the law against foreigners by the Mexican government was published in the newspapers; 9 the state department was assured that Americans were looked upon with favor in California; 10 and numerous books and communications setting forth the advantages of the province were placed in the hands of American leaders. 11 Commercial relations with the United States showed little change during this period. 12 The year 1843 was one of hard times, and the trading vessels had difficulty in securing even a fraction of their accustomed cargo of hides. 13 Whaling ships in larger numbers 14 continued to use the California ports, especially San Francisco, as depots, for reprovisioning and refitting. But until the middle of 1844 nothing of importance occurred to break the ordinary routine of trade conditions along the coast.
In that year, however, certain changes were made in the California tariff laws that benefited one class of American commerce and injured another. The practice had become common for vessels flying the Mexican flag to pay duties at Mazatlan; and thus, through the ruling of the Mexican law, to secure free access for their cargoes into California. This custom, however, was playing sad havoc with the profits of the Boston ships and with the revenues of the province, all of which were derived from customs receipts, as well. So, in order to protect the threatened provincial treasury and keep the New England trade, the assembly and governor calmly set the Mexican law aside and required all goods, whether paying duties at a port of the home government or not, to abide by the regulation of the custom house at Monterey; 15 while a further disregard for the national authority was shown, as indeed it long had been, by permitting the introduction of various commodities prohibited by Mexican law, upon the payment of local duties. 16
The second alteration in the regulations governing trade along the coast, while of advantage to the Boston merchants, worked no slight temporary hardship upon the whaling vessels touching at California ports. This was a prohibition upon the long established practice of trading a limited amount of goods for needed supplies; 17 and was doubtless justified, as the privilege had been greatly abused, both to the detriment of the regular trade and the loss of revenue receipts. 18 At least one instance, however, is recorded where, if the captain's complaint be true, the new edict caused much inconvenience if not actual suffering. 19 The subject was reported by Larkin to the state department and was considered of sufficient importance to receive the notice of the President. 20 But, as a matter of fact, the new law seems to have had only a short existence; and whalers found little difficulty, after the first few months, in securing their share of the California trade. 21
Various other occurrences during their period that had some bearing upon the American interests were the arrival of John C. Frémont at Sutter's Fort early in the spring of 1844 on his second exploring expedition; 22 the return of Lansford W. Hastings to the United States to encourage further emigration to California, in order to bring about its separation from Mexico; and the revolt of the native Californians against the Mexican governor, Micheltorena. As all of these incidents receive subsequent mention they need not detain us here, and we shall pass on to a consideration of Polk's diplomatic attempts to secure the province.
Announcement of Polk's Policy.—When Polk came into office on the 4th of March, 1845, the attention of the American people, as has been shown, had already turned toward California. 23 Two presidents, Jackson and Tyler, had made earnest efforts to purchase it from Mexico, in the name of the United States. It is not surprising, then, to find the annexation of this province figuring as one of the four important measures which the new President, even before his inauguration, had set his heart upon carrying into effect. 24 Polk's intentions, moreover, were not long kept to himself. Official announcement of his desire to acquire California was made to the cabinet on September 16; 25 and the day following, the Washington correspondent of the New Orleans Picayune wrote: “It is predicted that Mr. Polk's administration will be signalized by the settlement of the Oregon question satisfactory to the American people; by the peaceful acquisition of the Californias, and by the adjustment of all our claims upon Mexico.” 26
For the accomplishment of this plan of annexation, four possible methods presented themselves—(1) By direct purchase from Mexico; (2) by revolt of the Californians, aided by resident Americans, against Mexico, and a request for admission into the United States; (3) by quiet delay, until a stimulated emigration from this country should overrun the province and declare its independence, even against the wishes of the Californians; (4) by forcible seizure of the territory in case of an outbreak of war, for whatever cause, with Mexico.
Polk did not lose much time after his accession to office in putting the first of these methods to a practical test. On March 6, General Almonte, the Mexican minister, demanded his passports because of the passage of the joint resolution for the admission of Texas; while Wilson Shannon, much to the regret of his own government, assumed the responsibility of breaking off diplomatic relations with Mexico because of his treatment at the hands of the minister of foreign affairs. 27
Appointment of Parrott.—Almonte left New York on April 3, and on the same ship went Polk's confidential agent, William S. Parrott, for the purpose of securing Mexico's consent to the reception of a minister from the United States. 28 The choice of Parrott for this mission was ill-advised. 29 He had been a resident of Mexico for some years but apparently had little else to recommend him. On the contrary his record there had been anything but favorable. As one of the creditors against the Mexican government in 1842, he had put in a claim that Thompson, his own countryman, had characterized as “exaggerated to a disgusting degree.” 30 His business dealings had also brought him into some disrepute even with men of his own nationality. 31 Furthermore, though this cannot be held wholly to his account, he was suspected of bringing with him authority to spend a million dollars in bribing Mexican officials. 32 And altogether he was a person very much disliked in the southern Republic. 33
In spite of this handicap, however, and the more serious one that the purpose of his coming was openly proclaimed in Mexico, 34 Parrott managed after a fashion to fulfill his mission. On August 26, he wrote Buchanan that an envoy of the United States with proper abilities might “with comparative ease settle over a breakfast the most important national question,” and that such a commissioner was almost daily expected. 35 As this opinion was confirmed by later dispatches from Dimond and Black, 36 the American consuls, the President and his cabinet resolved to send John Slidell of Louisiana secretly to Mexico, as the official representative of this Government.
Failure of Slidell's Mission.—The real purpose of Slidell's appointment, as announced at this time by Polk, was the purchase of Upper California and New Mexico. These, the President thought, might be obtained for fifteen or twenty millions of dollars; but he was willing to give twice the latter amount, if necessary. Indeed, Polk considered the worth of the territory involved, to the United States, as almost beyond reckoning in mere financial terms. With this appraisement the cabinet unanimously agreed. 37
The day following the decision to attempt the reopening of diplomatic intercourse with Mexico, however, less reassuring reports from that country caused a temporary stay in the proceedings. And it was deemed best to delay Slidell's departure until the receipt of official assurance from the Mexican government, or at least of very definite information from the administration's agents, regarding his reception. 38 Black, accordingly, was instructed to secure a definite pledge from those in authority that an American minister, if sent, should not be rejected, while Slidell was told of his selection for the mission and instructed to hold himself ready for secret departure at a moment's notice. 39
On November 6 despatches were received through Commodore Connor, commanding the United States Squadron in the Gulf of Mexico, that Mexico was ready to renew friendly relations and “receive a Minister from the U. States.” 40 The President and secretary of state, therefore, decided to send Slidell at once, and agreed upon the general character of his instructions, which the latter drafted in rough form for cabinet discussion. 41 Two days later, Parrott arrived from Mexico with the original note of the secretary of foreign affairs, agreeing to the reception of a diplomatic agent from the United States; and also with assurances that the question of boundaries could be adjusted with Mexico in a satisfactory manner. 42 That same night a commission as “Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to Mexico,” and official instructions were forwarded by special bearer to Slidell at Pensacola. 43
These instructions, which had been agreed to unanimously by the cabinet, were of considerable length and, except as they relate to California, need not detain us here. 44 In regard to that territory, however, Buchanan wrote: “There is another subject of vast importance to the United States, which will demand your particular attention.” 45 . . .
The government of California is now but nominally dependent on Mexico; and it is more than doubtful whether her authority will ever be reinstated. Under these circumstances, it is the desire of the President that you shall use your best efforts to obtain a cession of that Province from Mexico to the United States. . . . Money would be no object when compared with the value of this acquisition. . . . The President would not hesitate to give, in addition to the assumption of the just claims of our citizens on Mexico, twenty-five millions of dollars for the cession. 46
This offer of twenty-five millions, continued the instructions, was to be made for a line extending west from the southern boundary of New Mexico; or for any line that should include Monterey within the territory ceded to the United States. If this could not be obtained twenty millions were to be offered for a boundary “commencing at any point on the western line of New Mexico, and running due West to the Pacific, so as to include the bay and harbor of San Francisco.” Elsewhere the importance attached to the acquisition of San Francisco by the administration was similarly shown. “The possession of the Bay and harbor of San Francisco,” Slidell had been told, “is all important to the United States. The advantages to us of its acquisition are so striking that it would be a waste of time to enumerate them here.” It is well to remember this in connection with the question of the influence of slavery upon Polk's determination to possess California.
The difficulties Slidell met with in Mexico and his final rejection by the Paredes government are too well known to require mention at this time. 47 His despatches to the state department relating to California, also, for the most part belong to a subsequent discussion. It should be noted, however, that a certain phase of the administration's policy received considerable emphasis at this time. On December 17, Buchanan sent a communication to Slidell again urging upon him the importance of securing the cession of the California territory specified in his instructions, as it “would secure incalculable advantages” to the United States. At the same time he was authorized to make the payment of six millions of dollars, cash, upon the exchange of treaty ratifications. 48
In February, after Slidell had left Mexico City, there seemed to be some prospect of making good use of this cash payment plan because of the pressing financial needs of the new government. “Aware that financial embarrassments alone can induce those in power to enter upon negotiations with the United States,” wrote Slidell on the 6th, “I took care before leaving the Capital to convey through a person having confidential relations with the President a hint that those embarrassments might be relieved if satisfactory arrangements for boundary should be made.” 49
To this Buchanan replied that the United States would readily come to the assistance of Paredes, if he should bring about a satisfactory settlement of the boundary question; and that funds would be available immediately for the Mexican President upon the ratification of the treaty by his government. 50 A few days later Polk took preliminary steps to have such funds as might be necessary for the carrying out of this purpose placed at his disposal by confidentially arranging with C. J. Ingersoll, chairman of the house committee on foreign affairs, and with Representative Cullom of Tennessee to introduce a bill authorizing a million dollars for this object, if at any time such method of procedure should be deemed advisable. 51 Here, then, we have the beginning of a policy the administration was to follow pretty consistently throughout the whole course of the Mexican War. It was embodied, it is scarcely necessary to remark, in the “two million” and “three million” bills of Wilmot Proviso fame; and, indirectly, in the return of Santa Anna.
But before this despatch reached Slidell, he was on his way home, thoroughly disgusted and disgruntled with the tortuous course of Mexican diplomacy. Polk had failed in his attempt to purchase California as Jackson and Tyler had failed before him, and for precisely the same reason, namely, the fear of the ruling faction in Mexico that any alienation of territory would be followed by a revolution before which they would go down in ruin. 52
Demoralized situation in California.—Though nothing had come of Slidell's attempt to secure California by negotiation, Polk's line of effort, as has been said, was by no means limited to this one method. Even while his minister was seeking to obtain recognition from the Mexican government, the President was setting another agency at work to bring about the desired acquisition. But before considering what may be called Polk's internal policy regarding California, we must devote some space to the conditions existing there, especially with respect to the feeling of the inhabitants toward Mexico, and the significance of American immigration.
At the time Polk came into office, affairs were in such a state in California that it was generally recognized that the native leaders would soon throw off allegiance to Mexico and attempt an independent government or seek the protection of some more powerful nation, either the United States, England, or France. The hold of Mexico was miserably weak and ineffective. Internal discords and national debility rendered the task of preserving her own autonomy sufficiently difficult, and made the just government or adequate protection of so distant a province impossible. Upon this point there is universal agreement among writers. Sir George Simpson, describing California as it was in 1842, has given an un-exaggerated picture of the lack of intercourse between the parent government and her political offspring.
“From what has been said,” he writes near the close of his book,
It will not appear strange that the intercourse between California and Mexico has never been active. . . . Mexico has more intercourse with China than with California. . . . Advices are not received in Mexico from Monterey above once or twice in a year. The last deputy elected by California to the Mexican Congress informed me that during the two years he served, he only received two letters from California while in Mexico. 53
Wilkes, too, on his voyage of exploration, though “prepared for anarchy and confusion” was surprised to find “a total absence of all government in California and even its form and ceremonies thrown aside.” 54
Nor was the military oversight exercised by Mexico any more efficient than the political. The fort at Monterey, the capital, and port of entry for the whole province, had not sufficient powder to salute the vessel upon which Simpson was a passenger, but had to borrow from the ship itself for the purpose. 55 Guarding the long inland reaches of San Francisco Bay, “where all the navies of the world might ride in safety,” and through whose gates men thought the commerce of the east would shortly pass, Wilkes found a garrison of a single officer, in charge of a single barefooted private, and the former was absent when Wilkes arrived. 56 The naval force consisted of but one vessel. That mounted no gun of any kind, and was so poorly manned that it could not make progress beating against the wind. 57
Further citations might be made, almost ad libitum, to show the complete neglect of the civil and military needs of California by the home government. But these would be useless. The local officials, continually appealing for aid, were met with nothing more substantial than promises, exhortations to defend the country themselves from threatened dangers; or, as we shall see presently, with that which was worse than even this utter lack of assistance. 58
Revolution against Micheltorena.—Under such circumstances it is not surprising to find the Californians setting aside Mexican laws whenever it suited their fancy, and almost as frequently deposing the governor sent out by the supreme government. 59 The revolution of 1836, resulting in the overthrow of Gutierrez, has already been mentioned. But this was only one of a numerous series. One writer has remarked that between 1831 and 1841, the government of California changed hands on an average of once a year; while the province not infrequently was “blessed with two governors at a time and once with triplets.” 60
The period between 1841 and the occupation of Monterey by Commodore Sloat, was scarcely less free than the decade just mentioned from civil disturbances. In 1842, General Micheltorena was sent from Mexico as governor, with an “army” for the defense of the province. The army consisted of some two or three hundred choice spirits picked, for the most part, from the national jails, and was a cause of constant bitterness and annoyance, even of actual fear, to the Californians. 61
“Not one individual among them,” said Robinson, who was present in California when the battalion arrived, “possessed a jacket or pantaloons; but naked and like savage Indians, they concealed their nudity with dirty, miserable blankets.” 62 And what was even worse, he adds, a drill by daylight was usually followed by thieving expeditions at night. So that the general feeling in California over this latest acquisition from Mexico was similar to that of a former Governor of the province, who wrote respecting the colonists sent by Spain to aid in the settlement of the country, that, to take a charitable view of the subject, their absence “for a couple of centuries, at a distance of a million of leagues would prove beneficial to the province and redound to the service of God and the glory of the king.” 63
The presence of Micheltorena's thieving soldiers and the general character of his rule soon furnished the California leaders, Castro and Alvarado, an excuse for revolt. The first outbreak occurred in November, 1844; and on December 1st, Micheltorena signed a treaty binding himself to ship his undesirable followers out of the country within three months. The agreement, however, was not kept, and the Californians again took up arms. With the details of this revolution we have no concern, except to note the rather curious fact that of the foreigner residents who took any part at all in it, some joined with Micheltorena, and some with Castro and Alvarado. In the single battle of the campaign, however, they did no actual fighting on either side, as the list of casualties for the whole day's encounter—two horses killed by the one force and a mule wounded by the other—fully testifies. 64
After this slaughter, Micheltorena was ready to capitulate, and in March, 1845, left California with the most of his ragged soldiery. 65 Although there were rumors at the time that this revolt was aimed to bring about separation from Mexico, these probably contained little truth. The Californians desired freedom in local affairs; and many of them cherished no great love for Mexico; but they hesitated to abrogate her authority entirely, not feeling strong enough to stand alone and fearing lest the protection afforded by a stronger power might prove more of a calamity than the neglect of Mexico. 66 In the northern part of the province, nevertheless, men of influence were driven by the desperate condition of affairs into recognizing the necessity of some radical change, either along the lines of complete imdependence or of coming under the protection of a more stable government than that of Mexico.
This feeling was greatly increased by the internal discord that prevailed even after the departure of the Mexican governor. Pio Pico, one of the southern leaders against Micheltorena, was chosen by vote of the assembly to take his place; while José Castro held the office of comandante general. Between these two, the latter representing the party of the north, the former the party of the south, peace was destined to be short lived. The removal of the capital from Monterey to Los Angeles, and the resultant separation of the civil offices by a distance of more than four hundred miles from the military headquarters, custom house, and treasury, made harmony among the native authorities still more unlikely.
During the summer of 1845 various dissensions arose. Civil war seemed imminent, and especially to foreign residents and Californians with property at stake the outlook was most discouraging. 67 “The country never was in a more disorderly, miserable condition than at the present moment,” wrote a friend to Alfred Robinson, who was then in New York, “we have no government. Pio Pico who was nominally governor has been arrested and imprisoned. The people at the north, as usual, are opposed to those of the south, and will be satisfied by none other than Alvarado for chief magistrate.” 68
Such disorganization and political uncertainty, together with the lax control exercised by Mexico, and the actual hostility to her interference in local affairs, had a three-fold result. Many of the Californians became reconciled to exchanging their allegiance to Mexico for any form of government that furnished protection and peace; it became generally recognized by those outside of California that the time was near for some such change to take place; and, finally, Polk was led to take active measures to bring the separation, when it came, to good account for the United States.
As the political conditions in California were favorable to the American interests during the opening months of Polk's administration, so also was the influx of immigration from across the mountains. From the chance and temporary bands of hunters who followed Jedediah Smith and the Patties, this movement had grown in 1844 to the organized companies of Bartleson and Kelsey. A year later the tide had come to a full head and the annual arrivals were numbered by the hundreds.
Frémont's report.—Then, as now, California had her publicity agents whose duty it was to attract settlers. By order of the government, Frémont, whose second exploring expedition 69 had led him across the Sierras, 70 published a report of his wanderings during the first part of 1845. His book was immediately seized upon by a public hungering for news of the regions west of the Rocky Mountains. 71 Written in a terse and interesting style, it at once brought its author into prominence and drew the attention of hundreds of readers to the country of which he wrote.
Though only a portion of the complete report dealt with California, 72 no other part was equal to this in graphic description. After a month of constant battle with the snows and starvation of the mountains, 73 Frémont and his party had reached the valley of the Sacramento at a time of the year when it was to be seen at its best. The contrast between the life and death struggle in the Sierras and this land of grass and flowers, well watered and timbered, full of game, and with the same “deep-blue sky and sunny climate of Smyrna and Palermo,” was most dramatic in its appeal to the imagination. 74 One does not wonder that visitors, eager to hear more of this new land, so crowded upon the American explorer that he was compelled to secure a separate building for his workshop; 75 while Webster, still the friend of annexation, invited him to dine and “talk about California.” 76
Magazine and newspaper activities.—But Frémont was only one of a numerous band of writers who sang the praises of California, and preached, either directly or indirectly, its acquisition during this period. Alfred Robinson (whose book has already been quoted in these pages) published his Life in California, during the early part of 1846. The author had been for many years a resident of the country of which he wrote, as agent for the large Boston firm of Bryant and Sturgis, and his work at once found wide popularity. Its influence upon the public—and the same may be said of most of the contemporaneous writings of a similar nature—is shown by the following extract from a review of that day in Hunt's Merchants' Magazine, which also gives us pretty accurately the spirit of the time regarding California.
“When we reflect,” said the writer, after speaking of the importance of California to the United States,
that this superb region is adequate to the sustaining of twenty millions of people; has for several hundred years been in the possession of an indolent and limited population, incapable from their character of appreciating its resources—that no improvement can be expected under its present control, we cannot but hope that thousands of our fellow countrymen will pour in and accelerate the happy period (which the work before us assures us cannot be distant) when Alta California will become part and parcel of our great confederation; and the cry of Oregon is only a precursor to the actual settlement of this more southern, more beautiful and far more valuable region. 77
But California was not compelled to rely altogether upon such formal publications, as we have mentioned, for publicity. Americans residing there wrote constantly to friends at home or to the newspapers of “the States” in such a vein as was best calculated to attract the attention of future emigrants. 78 Emphasis in these communications, as usual, was laid upon the advantages of California from commercial and agricultural standpoints, San Francisco, especially, being held up as a necessary possession for the welfare of the United States. And, in addition, assurances were given that nothing stood in the way of those desiring to settle in the new region, either in the nature of passports, or of difficulties in securing land.
“A foreigner,” said an authoritative article in the New York Sun, “can become a citizen of California by obtaining two signatures to his petition. He then possesses the right to take up vacant land, and may secure as much as eleven square leagues upon the payment of $26 in fees. Many grants held by such owners are 33 miles long and 3 miles wide.” 79 “The fertile plains of Oregon and California,” said another communication to the same paper, “are resounding with the busy hum of industry; all around us are the germs of empire, prosperity and wealth. Those who would reap a harvest should come out young, secure their lands, and in ten years they will have their fortunes.” 80
These articles descriptive of California and urging its annexation to the United States, were not confined to the papers of any one locality or party. The New York Journal of Commerce of March 5, contained an article entitled, “California Coming,” which declared the advantages to be gained from an acquisition of that territory would prove as great as those derived from the annexation of Texas and asserted that throughout the country there was general agreement as to the advisability of securing it. 81 “Information in regard to this favored portion of the globe,” said the New Orleans Courier, in referring to California, “is eagerly sought after by our citizens as it is destined ere long to be annexed to the United States. 82 And even the American Review, the stanch organ of the Whigs, in a long and carefully written article urged the importance of securing California for the commercial and agricultural advantages that would thereby result to this government; and because of the inability of Mexico to make use of its resources. 83
The New York papers, especially the Sun, Herald, and Journal of Commerce, were among the most active of the publications in keeping California before the public eye. They took pains to print any article coming within their notice regarding it; and, in addition, had a regular correspondent living in Monterey in the person of Thomas O. Larkin. 84 Indeed, it may be said without fear of exaggeration, that most of the communications published in these three papers on the subject of California originated with Larkin. And, owing to the custom of “exchange” prevalent at the time, most of these found space in other journals throughout the country. 85
Proposed railroad to California.—The interest of the Sun in this subject was rather strikingly shown by a letter from one of its editors, A. E. Beach, to his correspondent mentioned above. After thanking Larkin for the valuable information already furnished, Beach continued:
News from your quarter is looked for with deep interest here. Just now there are strong opinions that California will be joined to the United States. . . . We flatter ourselves that the New York Sun, will, if such a thing be possible, cause the measure to be carried into execution. Texas, owing almost entirely to the influence of this paper, has been annexed, and now, our editors say, “Why not California?” A letter which you wrote us some time since describing Monterey and harbor . . . seemed to have acted strongly on the public mind, and owing to what we have since said, they now look with a longing eye toward California. We have urged the purchase of it and that the contemplated railroad to Oregon should be turned to Monterey.
We wish, if convenient, you would give us your opinion of having a R. R. to Monterey and tell us where would be the best point to have it terminate.
You may judge what influence we have, from the fact that since we have spoken of Monterey as the terminus several persons are on the eve of starting for that place to purchase lands. 86
This railroad project mentioned by Beach was at that time a subject of considerable speculation throughout the country, and the idea of securing the rich trade of China and the Sandwich Islands, without the long journey around the Horn, appealed to all those interested in commercial ventures. Asa Whitney's plan for a transcontinental line to Oregon received much attention and was laid before Congress near the close of October, 1845. 87 Many, however, who believed in the ultimate success of the undertaking, as in the case of the editor of the New York paper, advocated Monterey or San Francisco as the terminus, 88 thereby making the acquisition of these communities by the United States still more desirable.
Increased Immigration.—The western papers, in addition to such descriptions as were contained in those of the eastern states, were concerned with the actual organization and departure of emigrant companies. 89 Any report of the discovery of a shorter route to the new land at once received public notice; 90 while not infrequently such an advertisement as the following made its appearance in a local paper, to be copied by many another western editor:
“Emigration” (read the headline of this sample notice) For California—A large party of settlers propose leaving Arkansas for California, next May. 91 The chairman of the Committee of Arrangements gives notice in the Little Rock Gazette that the Californians will rendezvous at Fort Smith, Arkansas, on the first Monday in April next, preparatory to taking up the line of march for the Pacific Coast. Every person starting is expected to be well armed with a rifle or heavy shot-gun, 16 pounds of shot or lead, 4 pounds of powder, etc. 92
As a result of all this publicity, emigration to California received a decided impetus. In May, 1845, it was commonly reported that 7000 persons had assembled at Independence, Missouri, ready to take the road to Oregon and California. 93 In November, Larkin informed the state department that some three hundred or four hundred of this company had arrived at the headwaters of San Francisco Bay. 94 From this time on, arrivals continued in a steady stream; while exaggerated rumors of future immigration were flying thickly through the province.
As early as July 15, Sutter had predicted the arrival of “more as 1000 Souls” within six or eight weeks. 95 Marsh was confident that two thousand immigrants would shortly be in the territory. 96 Stephen Smith, writing to Calhoun from Bodega, placed the number actually on the border at one thousand. 97 And a little later a report reached Larkin that the number would soon be increased by ten or twenty thousand, though the writer added that he himself did not believe more than two or three thousand would really come. 98
Mention has been made of the emigration from Oregon to California in the years previous to 1845. The same movement continued to supply the latter territory with much of its American population. Many of these came directly from the northern country; others starting originally for the Columbia, decided èn route to change their destination to California. 99 The usual division point for such parties was at Fort Hall, which still remained in the hands of the Hudson's Bay Company; and it was reported that British officers at the Fort were taking a hand in this proceeding, persuading Oregon bound settlers to turn off for California in order to preserve the Columbia to England. 100 On the other hand, it should be remarked that English papers condemned the so-called emigration to Oregon, which was creating so much excitement throughout the United States, as simply a ruse for the occupation of California. 101
Between the Americans most interested in the respective settlement of the two territories, a good deal of rivalry prevailed. Among the Oregon enthusiasts a committee was organized to counteract the representations of the California agents; 102 while the latter pursued an even more aggressive campaign in winning recruits for the colonization of the southern country. 103
“The Texas Game.”—This emigration to California, during 1845 and the first months in 1846, of which we have just been speaking, was prompted by more than a desire for mere settlement. “Once let the tide . . . flow toward California,” wrote one of Larkin's New York friends, “and the American population will be sufficiently numerous to play the Texas game.” 104 “Are there not enough wild Yankees in California to take the management of affairs in their own hands?” asked another, adding that the United States must eventually spread south of the 42d parallel, “as our territory on the Pacific is too narrow altogether, the outlet is not sufficient for the back country.” 105 A third believed two or three hundred Yankee riflemen, in conjunction with the Californians, could bring about a separation from Mexico, and suggested that as the thirty Americans taken by the British Government in the Canadian revolt and sent to New South Wales, were even then at Honolulu on their way home, they might find more congenial occupation in California than in the States. 106
“We only want the Flag of the U. S. and a good lot of Yankees and you would soon see the immense natural riches of the country developed, and her commerce in a flourishing condition. To see that Flag planted here would be most acceptable to the Sons of Uncle Sam, and by no means repugnant to the native population,” 107 wrote Stephen Smith, who had recently been released, for lack of evidence, from a charge of conspiring to declare California independent. 108 It was probably, therefore, with some idea of fulfilling these expectations that many of the immigrants reached the province.
Proposed union with Texas.—Aside from the plan of uniting California with the United States after its separation from Mexico, the idea also prevailed of making it an independent nation, dominating the commerce of the Pacific and enriching itself from the Asiatic trade. In the early years, as we have seen, the plan had been broached of annexing it to Texas. 109 And as late as 1844, 110 Houston wrote to Murphy that a nation embracing Texas, California, Oregon and the two provinces of Chihuahua and Sonora would “not be less than a rival power to any of the nations now in existence. . . . It is impossible to look upon the map of North America and not perceive the rationale of the project.” 111 A few months later Donelson found him awaiting the action of the United States Congress on annexation, but still revolving a plan for the increase of Texan domain, dwelling with some fondness “upon the capacity of Texas to extend her territory to the Pacific and even detach Oregon from us, because there are no Alleghanies to separate them; 112 while in April, 1845, the London Times was urging the adoption of a similar measure, so that the territory in question might possess “an original character and an independent existence.” 113
California and Oregon as an independent nation.—All of these schemes, however, came to an end with the annexation of Texas by the United States. But the conception of an autonomous nation, composed of Oregon and California, still proved very attractive to many minds. It was an old idea, tracing its origin back at least to 1812, when the father of American expansionists expressed his conviction that men of his own nationality would one day “spread themselves through the whole length of that coast [the Pacific], covering it with free and independent Americans, unconnected with us but by the ties of blood and interest, and employing like us the rights of self-government.” 114
The attention drawn to the whole Pacific coast by the Oregon controversy and the rapidly growing necessity for a change in the control of California, made Jefferson's prophecy appear to many the best solution for both problems. For it had long been felt that the vast distance separating Oregon and the United States, and the appalling difficulties of the route, would prevent its adequate government by the authorities at Washington. Nor did it seem possible to some minds that the western boundary of the Republic should extend beyond the Rocky Mountains. 115 To those who held such views it appeared both natural and expedient that California and Oregon should be united into a strong, independent country, settled by American emigrants, and standing on the Pacific as a sort of complementary nation to the United States.
“The situation of California,” said Wilkes in his official report, “will cause its separation from Mexico before many years. It is very probable that the country will become united with Oregon with which it will perhaps form a state that is designed to control the destiny of the Pacific. 116 A year or two later, Waddy Thompson assures us, he was told of a definite plot to separate California from Mexico and asked if the United States would be willing to surrender her title to Oregon so that that territory and California might be made into a Republic. 117 Benjamin E. Green sent much the same report to Calhoun, adding, however, that the Oregon settlers were not anxious for the plan, provided they could receive aid and encouragement from the United States in maintaining their hold upon Oregon. 118 In England, also, the idea of an independent state on the Pacific seems to have obtained some favor. Lord Ashburton wrote Webster that the power possessing Oregon and California should be independent of Great Britain and the United States, but of the English race; 119 while Louis McLane, when ambassador to England, in one of his despatches to Buchanan, spoke of the plan as having been “suggested simultaneously by certain classes on both sides of the Atlantic,” adding, it may be remarked, that such an arrangement would work untold disadvantage to this government. 120
References to this plan, likewise, were frequently met with in the debates in Congress. As late as March, 1846, in a discussion of the Oregon question, Senator Evans of Maine declared the union of that territory and California, separated as they were from the United States by an almost impassable barrier of mountains, would promote the interests of this country much more as an independent nation than as a territorial possession. 121 On the other hand, an opponent of Evans assured the senate that unless some action was speedily taken to settle the status of the region around the Columbia, the settlers there would place themselves under French or English protection, be joined by the Californians, and eventually control the coast from the Isthmus of Darien to the southern boundaries of Alaska. 122
As a local affair, the proposed union with Oregon aroused considerable speculation in California. Lansford W. Hastings had come to the province in 1842 with the express purpose, as we have seen, of bringing about its separation from Mexico and uniting it either with Texas or with Oregon, in the latter event making himself president of the new Republic. 123
In the intervening years his time had been occupied in efforts to encourage emigration throughout the United States, and with the conducting of parties, thus organized, into California. 124 By 1845 the idea of independence and union with Oregon was frequently mentioned in the correspondence of American residents, some of whom favored it above annexation to the United States. 125 Dr. John Marsh, one of the older settlers, communicated his views at some length to Larkin, but took the ground that California must first become part of the American Union and not attempt a separate existence with Oregon until immigration should render such a step advisable. 126 Continuing, Marsh said that the settlers on the Willamette were anxious to unite with the Californians, while some expressed a desire to join with Oregon. Under such circumstances he thought it would be wise if Larkin were to feel the pulse of Alvarado on the subject; and prophesied that, if the union could be accomplished, a new empire would arise on the Pacific, whose capital located on San Francisco Bay, “possibly on the site occupied by the miserable village of Yerba Buena,” would “in the next century become one of the great emporii 127 of the world.”
Rumors of Mormon Hegira.—In addition to this plan of uniting Oregon and California, another movement was reported to be on foot in the United States that would result in the separation of the latter from Mexico. “California now offers a field for the prettiest enterprise that has been undertaken in modern times,” Governor Ford is said to have written to Brigham Young, leader of the Mormons, early in 1845. “Why should it not be a pretty operation for your people to go out there, take possession of and capture a portion of that vacant country and establish an independent government of your own, subject only to the laws of nations?” 128
Whether, as appears very doubtful, such a letter were ever written is immaterial. 129 The fact remains that the conception of a Mormon empire on the Pacific proved so attractive to the leaders of this sect 130 that preparation was made to emigrate as a body to the region around San Francisco. Lansford W. Hastings, who had returned again to the United States to obtain more settlers, was easily prevailed upon to make himself a sort of advance agent for the host and made his way back to California to prepare the ground for their coming. 131
Reports of the design spread throughout the United States and aroused no little opposition, 132 the president, even, being petitioned to prevent the movement, but refusing because “the right of emigration or expatriation was one which any citizen possessed.” 133 Plans were made for an overland journey, to include the larger part of the Prophet's followers; while a smaller number were to be sent around by sea. This latter party, numbering nearly two hundred and forty, left New York in the Brooklyn on February 4, 1846, under the command of Samuel Brannan; while the main body, under Young, began its slow and toilsome way across the continent.
With neither of these companies has the present account much further concern. The one reached San Francisco on July 31, three weeks after Commodore Sloat's arrival, and tradition says that Brannan's first remark upon entering the harbor was, “There is that damned flag again.” 134 The other, so it is said, stopped at Salt Lake because messengers from California met them there with word of the American occupation.
New activities of Lansford W. Hastings.—Hastings, meanwhile, in California was prophesying its speedy independence and claiming the connivance of the United States government in his project. As early as November, a friend in Boston had written Larkin to conduct his business as he would have done had he been in Texas ten years before, with a knowledge of the changes that were to occur there. Capital, he went on, was to be spent colonizing California; and a revolution, backed by American men and money, would soon result. The settlement of Oregon was only a blind for the occupation of the Mexican province. “The egg is already laid not a thousand miles from Yerba Buena and in New York the chicken will be picked. Our men of war are not ordered to California for nothing.” 135 . . .
Hastings, as has been said, was advancing much the same idea of a strong backing in the United States, and even the sanction of the government. Thousands of people, he wrote Larkin, had their eyes turned to Oregon and California, determined to make a final move and establish a permanent home. The firm of Benson and Company was about to establish a large commercial house somewhere in the territory, and send two ships a year to the coast for the free transportation of colonists. Under pledge of secrecy he concluded, “The arrangement is a confidential government arrangement. The expense thus incurred is not borne by that house, but by our government, for the promotion of what object you will readily perceive.” 136
How much ground Hastings had for this statement cannot be known. His project plainly embraced a much wider scope than the single element of the Mormon settlement; and it is probable that the commercial firm mentioned in his letter was actually concerned in a scheme for colonizing certain portions of the country. It is scarcely possible, however, that the government had any hand in it, as he insisted and doubtless believed. 137
Native attitude toward the Americans.—Having spoken at length of the conditions existing in California, the feeling of the United States regarding its acquisition, the flow of immigration across the mountains that formed its eastern boundary, and the various rumors of independence current during the period, we come again to a discussion of the president's policy as it was affected by these circumstances. A further word, however, will be necessary to understand the attitude of the native Californians toward the Americans.
Naturally, the influx of strangers during the year 1845, and the known wish of the United States to possess California, caused some apprehension among those of its inhabitants who desired to see the province remain under Mexican control. But on the whole there was little in the treatment accorded the immigrants by the Californians of which they had a right to complain. Frequent orders requiring their expulsion came from Mexico, but they were uniformly set aside by the California officials. 138 Though sub-Prefect Guerrero, perhaps with much justification, wrote to Castro: “Friend, the idea these gentlemen have formed for themselves is, that God made the world and them also, therefore what there is in the world belongs to them as sons of God, 139 he seems to have taken no measures to expel the foreigners from his own district. And while Castro, with some heat, declared before a junta at Monterey, “these Americans are so contriving that some day they will build ladders to touch the sky, and once in the heavens they will change the whole face of the universe and even the color of the stars,” 140 he perhaps thought it useless to endeavor to keep them from changing the destiny of California.
Indeed, the only measures that looked toward putting a stop to immigration, aside from juntas and meetings of the assembly (which came to nothing), were a recommendation made by Castro and Vallejo to the central government to purchase the fort at New Helvetia from Sutter; 141 and an abortive expedition from Mexico that was intended to cope with the incoming Americans. The control of New Helvetia, had it been in California hands, could have been made a serious obstacle to the arrival of parties across the Sierras; but though Sutter encouraged the suggested purchase, the proposition got no further than the Mexican archives. The second expedient met with no better success, ending in charges of extravagance, corruption, and the final revolt of such soldiers as had been assembled, even before they left Mexico, most of them turning from the expedition to aid Paredes in his contest with Herrera. 142
Larkin as Polk's informant.—Of the progress of all these events in California, Polk was well informed. Not merely did he have the usual channels of news, which, as we have seen, kept the public aware of much that transpired in the province; but in Thomas O. Larkin he had an additional source of reliable and frequent information. 143 The American consul's despatches, from the time of his appointment, dealt with the four or five broad topics that were of vital interest to the authorities at Washington in forming their California policy. These were, first, the condition of California from a political and military point of view and the strength of its loyalty to Mexico; second, the sentiment among the inhabitants toward the United States; third, the progress of American immigration and the reception of American settlers; fourth, the influence of European nations in the affairs of the province.
Omitting his references to the last subject, for the present, we find that on the remaining questions Larkin's communications to the state department gave full and important information. Especially did he emphasize the friendly feeling existing toward the American residents and the lack of attachment to Mexico. The military strength of the province he placed at two hundred and eighty Mexican troops and a smaller number of Californians, with a militia theoretically numbering one thousand, but practically not amounting to one-tenth of that force. The effectiveness of even this small army was decreased by half, he added, as part of it was stationed at San Francisco, in the northern part of the state, and part at San Diego, in the southern. Monterey had no cannon; and, to complete the demoralization, the Californians feared the Mexican troops more than those of a foreign nation, and would gladly welcome the return of an American squadron such as Jones had brought. 144
The revolt against Micheltorena was made the subject of considerable comment, Larkin mentioning as an aside that within twelve years four revolutions had occurred, all of which had been won by the Californians; and that five of the six Mexican generals, arriving during that time, had been sent back, while the remaining one had died. In conclusion he left the impression that the movement had resulted in the independence of the country, de facto, if not de jure. 145
The effect of this early information is seen in the despatches sent to Commodore Sloat by the secretary of the navy, when, in the summer of 1845, war between this country and Mexico seemed imminent. “The Mexican ports on the Pacific,” wrote George Bancroft in these confidential instructions, are said to be open and defenceless. If you ascertain with certainty that Mexico has declared war against the United States, you will at once possess yourself of the harbor of San Francisco and blockade or occupy such other ports as your force may permit. . . . You will be careful to preserve, if possible, the most friendly relations with the inhabitants, and, where you can do so, you will encourage them to adopt a course of neutrality. 146
Two later despatches from Larkin, received in the fall of that year, 147 simply reiterated the opinions he had expressed in his former communication, laying emphasis in addition upon the designs of France and England on the province, a matter, as we shall see, that caused the administration no small anxiety.
Larkin's instructions.—At this time Polk was making arrangements to send Slidell upon the mission already mentioned. On October 17, while the question of the American minister's reception was so much in doubt as to delay his departure, Buchanan addressed a long, confidential letter to the consul, who, from Monterey, had furnished the government with so much of its valuable information. In this letter to Larkin, the internal policy the administration was determined to pursue regarding California was clearly outlined; and, by the appointment of Larkin as confidential agent to carry out the terms, definitely set in motion.
So much has been written regarding this despatch, since Bancroft first brought it to light, and it has been printed, either wholly or in part, so frequently that, important as it is, a mere summary of its contents will be sufficient here. 148 Aside from the notification it carried to Larkin of his appointment as confidential agent, it instructed him to guard against the encroachments and influence of foreign nations in California; to cultivate friendly relations with the inhabitants in every way possible on behalf of this government, and assure them that, if they declared their independence, the United States stood ready to receive them under her protection, whenever this could be done “without affording Mexico just cause of complaint”; and finally, to forward frequent communications to the department regarding the internal conditions of the province (with a list of its leading citizens and officials), its trade and commercial affairs, and the amount and character of the American immigration.
Three copies of this despatch left Washington. One went to Slidell to aid him in his negotiations with Mexico; 149 one was sent by way of Cape Horn and Honolulu on the U. S. S. Congress; and the third was entrusted to Lieutenant Archibald H. Gillespie of the marine corps. Going overland through Mexico, Gillespie was forced to destroy the written document in his possession, but before doing so memorized its contents.
Gillespie, however, was much more than a bearer of despatches. To him, as to Larkin, Polk had entrusted the carrying out of his policy in California, and an effort was made to keep his identity a secret. So, travelling as an invalid merchant seeking health, he reached Monterey on April 17, 1846, 150 delivering to Larkin the news of his appointment and writing out from memory the instructions Buchanan had drawn up six months before. 151
Bear Flag Revolt.—For the most part, the actual proceedings of Larkin and Gillespie in California after this time lie beyond the scope of the present narrative. In connection with the Bear Flag Revolt, and Frémont's participation therein, however, it will be necessary to go into some detail to determine whether or not it was a part of the president's policy to put such a movement into operation. To understand clearly the situation, we must note again that California's separation from Mexico could be achieved in two ways—by a revolt of the native Californians, aided by American residents; or by an uprising of the American residents against the native Californians. This condition was distinctly different, as will be readily seen, from that which had existed in Texas when Houston led the settlers there in the struggle for independence.
We have mentioned that Gillespie and Larkin were to serve as Polk's agents in California. The same mission was also entrusted to John C. Frémont, whose first arrival in California has been spoken of, and who had returned on his third exploring tour at the head of sixty-five men, reaching the province early in December, 1845. 152 It is not our purpose to follow the story of his difficulties with the California authorities (after they had given him permission to winter in the territory under their jurisdiction) and the affair at Hawk's Peak. 153
It is worth while, however, to add a suggestion to account for the sudden change of front on the part of Prefect Manuel Castro and his peremptory order of March 5 that the American commander quit the country. The reasons for this have been variously given as the receipt of orders from Mexico (none of which Castro would have obeyed unless he pleased); 154 the violation of a tacit agreement by Frémont to remain at some distance from the California settlements; 155 and the mere desire of the prefect to send a report of his zeal to Mexico, without having any hostile intentions whatever toward the strangers. 156 There seems to be sufficient ground, however, for adding as a fourth explanation, the influence of the British vice-consul, Alexander Forbes, who protested formally in the name of his government against the presence of Frémont and his followers in the department. 157 Castro, not only willing to make a show of pleasing Forbes, but fearing the displeasure of the Mexican government if he paid no heed to this remonstrance, had nothing else to do than bid the intruder be gone.
It was not long after this that Gillespie reached Monterey. In addition to the instructions for Larkin, he carried a note of introduction from Buchanan to Frémont and a package of letters to the same individual from Senator Benton, Frémont's father-in-law. 158 Without lingering long at Monterey, Gillespie hastened on to Yerba Buena in pursuit of Frémont, who, by this time, was well on his way to Oregon. At Yerba Buena, Gillespie spent some days with the American vice-consul, W. A. Leidesdorff, and then continued his journey, finally overtaking the explorer in the heart of the Oregon woods.
What passed between Gillespie and Frémont it would be interesting to know. No written instructions were sent to the latter by Buchanan, and even those given to Gillespie are not on file. Yet, both from the testimony of Frémont and Gillespie, and the nature of the case, these could not have differed in substance from those received by Larkin. 159 Gillespie, however, believed in active measures and was well aware of the probable outbreak of a war with Mexico. 160 In addition Frémont had the letters of Benton, which, under guise of family matters, “contained certain passages enigmatical and obscure,” 161 bearing upon the subject of California's destiny. How largely responsible these were for the subsequent course of Frémont, will probably never be known.
He and Gillespie, returning at once to California, found the settlers on the Sacramento in a fit mood to revolt against the Californians. By encouraging these, if not actually becoming the leaders of the movement, they gave to it the aspect of having been begun with the sanction of the United States government; when, in reality, it was exactly contrary to the policy Polk had endeavored to carry into execution; and, furthermore, distinctly at variance with the course pursued by Larkin, the third of the administration's agents.
The consul, it is true, expected Frémont's arrival to result in important changes in the destiny of California. 162 And Gillespie had written him from San Francisco, on his way to find Frémont, that the Americans of that region had voluntarily expressed themselves in favor of a change, while one of them was already circulating the constitution of Texas. 163 But he had added that the Californians themselves were dissatisfied, and inferred that they were ready also to join the movement.
It needs scarcely be said that this latter idea constituted the sum and substance of Larkin's plan. 164 Moreover, he was in a fair way of bringing about a unification of the Californians with the American cause when the settlers' revolt completely upset his calculations, caused the California leaders to forget their mutual jealousies, 165 and joined them in common cause against the United States.
Larkin's activities, between his appointment as confidential agent and the outbreak of the Bear Flag revolution, had taken various forms. To several of the leading Americans, who had become Mexican citizens, he wrote a circular letter, embodying much of the news contained in the despatch from Buchanan, and urging them to aid in winning over the Californians. 166 One of these, Abel Stearns, he appointed his confidential assistant in the south. 167 By personal interviews with the most influential men of the north, with all of whom he was well acquainted, and by promises of future reward to those who advanced the interests of the United States, he sought to bring his plan into favor with the native leaders. 168 And, finally, he endeavored to influence the action of various juntas by persuading those known to be friendly to the American interests to attend as delegates. 169
As has been said, these efforts gave promise of succeeding. Several of the principal Californians had come over definitely to Larkin's side. 170 And General Castro, in the presence of other influential men of the department, had drawn up “a short history of his plans for declaring California independent in 1847-8, as soon as a sufficient number of foreigners should arrive.” 171 From the southern portion of the province equally encouraging reports were received; 172 and it is no wonder that the word of the taking of Sonora and the imprisonment of several of the California leaders, among whom was M. G. Vallejo, the most powerful man of the province, and a chief supporter of American annexation, caused Larkin unwelcome perplexity and surprise. 173
“Why this affair has happened—how or by who[m] I cannot imagine—I am not sure it is true,” 174 he wrote when the report first reached him. Frémont he considered “culpable for moving in the affair of the Bear Party, and perhaps putting the party in motion.” “The Bear Party have broke all friendship and good feeling in Cala. towards our government,” 175 was his final judgment on the matter. And with this judgment, it would seem, history must agree.
Why Gillespie and Frémont pursued the course they did will never be known with certainty. Nor is it our purpose to examine into the possible causes they later claimed in justification of their act. 176 Whether, as some insist, it was through a desire to assume the rôle in California that Houston filled in Texas, 177 cannot be stated with positiveness; yet this seems the most reasonable explanation. The influence of Benton in the proceedings may also have played an important part. Three years after the event, a former member of Polk's cabinet wrote, “The utter prostration of Van Buren and of course his [Benton's] own hopes has made him frantic—rumor speaks of his emigration to California and it may be to carry out some such scheme as many attributed to him when Frémont was sent out with his proclamation.” 178
But whatever the motive—and it may have been entirely patriotic—Frémont and Gillespie certainly had no official sanction for what they did. Bancroft, Royce, and others, have shown how utterly inconsistent it would have been had Polk instructed Larkin to do all in his power to conciliate the native inhabitants and assure them of the friendship of the United States; and at the same time advised the two remaining agents to stir up a revolution against those very inhabitants. The whole policy of Polk with regard to California, on the contrary, was one of pacification. Even after war had been declared against Mexico, those who had the conquest of that province in charge were ordered to follow out this idea, and “to endeavor to establish the supremacy of the American flag without any strife with the people of California.” 179
Polk's own statement, moreover, clears up any remaining doubt. “A false statement is being attempted by the opposition,” reads his diary for March 21, 1848, “to be made to the effect that this letter to Mr. Larkin contained instructions to produce a revolution in California before Mexico commenced the War against the U. S., and that Col. Frémont had the authority to make the revolution. The publication of the letter will prove the falsehood of such an inference.” 180
In summing up Polk's policy with regard to California, we may therefore say that it involved no scheme of rebellion on the part of the American settlers against the provincial authorities. It did, however, include a most earnest attempt at purchase; and, in addition, a systematic effort to win over the Californians to a desire for the protection of the United States, and tacit encouragement to separate from Mexico. Whether or not Polk actually brought on the Mexican War as a more certain method of securing the coveted territory (or as Winthrop expressed it, “had there been no California there would have been no Mexican War”) we are not now prepared to say. Two remaining topics, however, must receive some attention before we bring this discussion to a close. The one concerns the effect of the rumored attempts of European nations to secure a foothold in California, and the other the part played by the slave holding south in its acquisition.
That the tenor of events in Texas was rapidly becoming threatening to the continued peace of the state is shown by the contents of the Galveston platform. Let us stop for a moment and consider its condition, apart from politics, on the eve of the great struggle between unionism and disunionism within its borders.
During the fifteen years that it had been in the Union, Texas had developed by leaps and bounds. The first census, taken after annexation, in 1847, showed a population, including slaves, of one hundred thirty-five thousand, in round numbers. Three years later, there were two hundred twelve thousand five hundred ninety-two; and in 1860, six hundred four thousand two hundred and fifteen. With this great increase in population had come economic prosperity; the people were prosperous and contented, and, with the exception of occasional Indian raids and troubles with Mexicans, lived in comparative peace. Frontier conditions prevailed, it is true, with all their restlessness and freedom; and the status of national politics increased this restlessness. Turbulence and violence were greater in 1860 than at any time during the last few preceding years. During this eventful year the newspapers were full of stories of crimes committed within its bordes. The True Issue deplored the fact that crime was on the increase and that the criminal laws were not enforced. One editorial stated that “high-handed criminality stalks abroad through the land, and bloody deeds of violence and of vengeance are transpiring constantly to mar the peace and harmony of society. . . . Human life hangs on the merest thread. No man's life is safe.” 182 William North, residing in Galveston at this time, says: “Such are the issues of life and death in Texas that a man is a little nearer death there all the while than in any other country we know of.” 183 The atmosphere was filled with excitement and alarm. Reports were circulated, often unfounded, of negro uprisings and wholesale poisonings. Incendiary fires occurred in many parts of the state. A three hundred thousand dollar fire of incendiary origin occurred at Dallas, followed by many others in the surrounding country. The arrest of suspects led to the detection of a plot to perpetrate such acts on a still larger scale. According to a correspondent whose own printing press had been destroyed by the Dallas fire the plot was conceived by certain abolition preachers who had been expelled from that part of the country the year before. It was charged that the plan was to demoralize by fire and assassination the whole of northern Texas, and then, when the country should have been reduced to a helpless condition, a general revolt of the slaves, aided by white men from the North, was to take place on election day in August. Dallas, it seems, was fired for the purpose of destroying the arms and supplies stored there for a certain artillery company. Disastrous fires occurred almost simultaneously with the Dallas fire at Denton, Pilot Point, Belknap, Gainesville, Black Jack Grove, Waxahachie, Kaufman, and Navarro. 184 Arms and quantities of poison were discovered in the possession of negroes, and some negroes were hanged on Red Oak Creek, near Waxahachie. Henderson had a two hundred and eleven thousand dollar fire, considered incendiary, which caused great excitement in the community and led to the hanging of several negroes. A plot was discovered at Lancaster in which the purpose of the abolitionists seemed to be to burn the town and poison the inhabitants. 185
How much truth and how much mere groundless rumor caused by the excited state of the public mind there may have been in these reports and accusations will of course never be known. Governor Houston and his friends accused the Democratic press of circulating such rumors for political purposes, and in reply the State Gazette admitted that rumor had probably coined some statements and exaggerated some facts, but that this was merely strong evidence that much had happened to excite the apprehensions and call for the vigilance of the people. 186 Whether founded on fact or not, these rumors were quite generally believed, and caused unrest and intense excitement throughout the state; they also engendered a burning hatred of Northern abolitionists, and gave rise to the formation of vigilance committees for protection. Nearly every paper warned the people against the abolition enemy, advised the organization of vigilance committees, and urged the speedy execution of all incendiaries who might be detected. The Centerville Times, a Sam Houston paper, says: “To show how promptly the people of Texas act in defense of their rights, we may state that since the abolition plot has been discovered, there have been ten white men hung, several whipped, and many requested to make themselves invisible in short order.” 187 The Houston Telegraph thought it inconceivable that the emissaries of fanaticism could come among the Texans and carry out such plots. It was high time for all true men to come together and in the name of the people put to death or drive out every man who was not a friend of the institution of slavery. 188
The vigilance committees formed in many parts of the state exercised extraordinary powers. The committee at Dallas, immediately after the great fire, hanged three negroes in the presence of a large assemblage of people. The committee of Grimes county was formed for the purpose of keeping the negroes in subordination and effectively ridding the country of all white persons attempting to influence the negroes. The one formed in Austin County had full authority to arrest any suspicious character “and hang him if necessary.” Three men were hanged at one time by the Fort Worth committee for tampering with slaves. Several ministers of the gospel were hanged, either for their abolition sentiments or for tampering with slaves. One paper presents to its readers the interesting caption “Another preacher hung,” and describes the execution by the Fort Worth committee of a preacher who had been returned to Texas from Arkansas at the request of the committee. His offense seemed to be that he had “prowled about the country” during the summer. His two sons had lost their lives a little earlier for being abolitionists. 189 There can be no doubt but that these committees perpetrated many wicked deeds. A strong Sam Houston paper, in deploring that such was the fact, concluded, “Let us be understood at once. We are for the Constitution, the Union, and the enforcement of the laws; and we are against all Higher-lawism, mobbery, and vigilance committee usurpations.” 190 Military companies were organized, in some cases for the express purpose of co-operating with the vigilance committees, but in most cases for general protection against the negroes and the abolition enemies both in the state and outside of it. The state militia was greatly encouraged and all classes of citizens joined.
In the meantime the Democratic press seemed to have ever in view one thing, the forming of public opinion in favor of secession. Although it stoutly declared before the presidential election that it did not advocate secession, it prepared the way for a decision on that subject by its editorial discussions and by the publication of timely articles and extracts from speeches of prominent men in Congress either admitting the right of secession or favoring it. 191 The resources of Texas were shown to be such as to make Texas economically and industrially independent of the Northern states. An attempt was made to show that the South could make herself independent of northern manufactures by establishing factories of her own. It was argued that the American-born, tractable negroes could be used as factory operatives, while the agricultural labor could be performed by “emigrants from the continent of Africa.” 192
The Union press put forth its efforts to counteract this influence and to warn the people against the designs of the ultraradicals. Many articles against nullification, secession, and disunion were contributed. One correspondent of The Southern Intelligencer who signs himself “a backwoodsman” likens the Constitution to a kettle, at all times filled with nutritious food, around which Uncle Sam's children, North and South, have been sitting and feasting until they have become fat, pampered and spoiled. Then in an evil and mischievous hour the children of the North attempt to break the slavery leg of this valuable kettle. The result is contention, bloodshed, and ruin to all. 193 An editorial in the True Issue entitled “The Public Pulse,” published a few weeks earlier, seems to be an accurate description of the uncertain state of mind of the majority of the people: At breakfast a man says, “I am for secession emphatically; I am a disunionist per se”; at noon, “I would willingly go for secession, unless the Black Republicans recede from their position, which I have some hopes of their doing”; at supper, “The condition of the country is truly alarming, and I candidly confess my inability to fathom events that are to come”; at night, “Speak of that matter no more, for d—n me if I know where we are going, what is going to be done, what ought to be done, or what I am in favor of doing.” This editorial declares that thousands of men are of the same sentiment; that the people are justly indignant at the intolerance of the North and are willing, if necessary, to imperil their lives for their beloved Texas. “But when they come to weigh the value of this Union, consecrated by the blood of a hundred battles, and made holy by ten thousand glorious recollections, the true patriot pauses in bewilderment at the vastness of the crisis he is called upon to meet, and daring though his heart may be, and firm his nerve, he is overpowered at the contemplation of the bloody crest of Revolution.” 194
The political factions were not idle. Houston took a positive stand in opposition to secession. Secession to him meant the suicide of Texas, the course by which it would lose all its rights. He dinned into the ears of the people his belief that secession would prove a stupendous failure, and that they would lose by it that very state sovereignty they were trying to save. He and his friends headed the Unionist party and supported the Bell-Everett ticket. Arrayed against them were the well organized Democratic party and the majority of the newspapers in the state, supporting the Breckenridge and Lane ticket. The city of Austin became the headquarters for both parties. Houston and his friends did their utmost to check the efforts for secession made by the states' rights men, many of whom were officers in the state government. They repudiated the Galveston platform as a gross misrepresentation of the wishes of the people, which might lead other states to believe that Texas was for secession. 195 In reply the Democratic leaders maintaintd that none of their candidates had any disunion proclivities, and that the Galveston platform only upheld those political tenets which were conducive to the perpetuity of the Union, to the maintenance of states' rights and to the protection of every kind of property under the Constitution. They accused the Unionists of being in favor of unconditional submission to the principles of the Black Republican party, in the hope that if Lincoln should be elected some of the Federal offices would fall to their share. 196 Houston especially was widely accused of sacrificing the interest of the state to further his own political ambition. 197
In the meantime the National Democratic Convention had met at Charleston April 24, 1860, and had disagreed upon the national platform. The Southern delegates had withdrawn, but had met again June 23, 1860, at Baltimore and nominated John C. Breckenridge, of Kentucky, for president and Joseph Lane, of Oregon, for vice-president. These men represented the radical element of the Democratic party and were not satisfactory to a large portion of the country, even in the South. A constitutional Union party was organized. This party met at Baltimore May 9, 1860, and all the states except Oregon and South Carolina were represented. John Bell, of Tennessee, was nominated for president, and Edward Everett, of Massachusetts, for vice-president. The aim of this party was to preserve the Union at all hazards. Another faction of the Democratic party nominated Douglas for the presidency, while the regular Republican party nominated Lincoln.
During the summer, barbecues and mass meetings were held in all parts of the state by both parties. Many resolutions relating to the situation were adopted. Some of these threatened secession in the event of Lincoln's election. In Calhoun County a resolution was adopted to the effect that it was the duty of the Southern states to resist, even at the point of the bayonet, the inauguration of a sectional, Black Republican president. 198 A non-partisan mass meeting in De Witt County declared that, although sincerely attached to the present Union, the people would never submit to the domination of Black Republicanism,—that if Lincoln were elected, the only thing for the South to do would be to dissolve all political connection with the people of the North. 199 Resolutions adopted at the Union meetings denounced secession and accused the Democrats of favoring it. 200
The leaders of the Unionist party were placed on the defensive in this campaign. As the time for the election drew near, Lincoln's victory appeared more and more probable. The question that was being asked throughout the state of the presidential electors was: “Do you consider the election of Lincoln sufficient cause for the dissolution of the Union?” 201 Both the Bell and the Breckenridge electors answered the question in the negative, but there was a general impression, nevertheless, that the election of Lincoln would be considered a sufficient cause for secession. The task of the Union campaign speakers was therefore to defend the policy of the Union and to show the necessity of all Union-loving citizens uniting to defeat the Breckenridge ticket. Judge E. P. Townes of Travis County, at an enthusiastic Union meeting at La Grange, told the people in an able speech that this was the only way to preserve the Union. 202 At a great Union demonstration at Austin, Houston extolled the glories of the common country, counseled submission, and showed how inexpedient it would be for any state to withdraw from the Union, and declared that Lincoln's election would not be sufficient cause for such action. He recommended acquiescence in whatever might be the result of the election, saying that in his opinion the salvation of the state lay in the Union. He then exhorted the lovers of the Union not to desert their posts and leave the government in the hands of secessionists. “If Mr. Lincoln,” he concluded, “administers the government in accordance with the Constitution, our rights must be respected. If he does not, the Constitution provides a remedy.” 203
In the presidential election Breckenridge received 47,548 votes, and Bell, 15,463. The comparatively few votes cast for Bell in Texas must not be construed to mean that a complete revolution in public sentiment had taken place since the election of Houston the preceding year. Many good Unionists voted for Breckenridge because they felt he had a better chance to win than Bell; and the vast majority of Texans feared the election of Lincoln. The slave owners feared the consequence to their slaves, and most of the people believed the Central government had no right to interfere with what they considered their local affairs. This belief that the North was trying to dictate to the South greatly intensified the existing antagonism toward the Republicans.
In Texas the result of Lincoln's election was a radical change of sentiment. All felt that the North was the transgressor. The South demanded liberty and equality. Only when these were granted could she bury her animosities and, as one newspaper says, “move on to the music of the Union.” 204
While the Unionists still counseled submission to the Union, but resistance to fanaticism and tyranny, the Democrats came out openly for secession. The Gazette said it was folly to temporize with imminent danger or to appeal to the magnanimity of a sordid and vindictive foe; nothing could be gained in that way; all association with the Northern enemy should be discontinued and his emissaries hanged; no avowed anti-slavery man should be allowed to remain in Texas. 205 That the power of the Democrats was again in the ascendency, and that they would control the situation, was shown as early as in the primary election in August. At that time the regular Democrats elected by large majorities their nominees to the State offices over the Unionist nominees. 206 Some of the Sam Houston papers, as well as some of the independent newspapers in the state, supported the democratic ticket before Lincoln's election. 207 Radical resolutions in favor of secession were adopted in many parts of the state, and the Governor was urged to convene the legislature. All were anxious for action of some kind in regard to the situation. Karnes County advocated the maintenance of Southern rights within the Union, if possible, or secession if this should prove impossible; declared that the election of Lincoln was a sufficient cause for secession, and recommended the call of a Southern Congress to take into consideration the present state of the Union and of the South. A meeting at Belton also advised concerted action by the Southern states and requested the Governor to convene the legislature, or provide for a convention of the people. Some counties, as for instance, Austin and Caldwell, were ready to co-operate with the rest of the state in any measures necessary for their safety. Other resolutions of a more radical character were adopted at mass meetings in Tarrant, Brazoria, and Lavaca counties. The Tarrant County resolutions earnestly requested the Governor to convene the legislature, but added that, if he should fail or refuse to do so, a state convention should at all events be held. The mass meeting of Brazoria, held November 17, declared for secession; recommended the holding of a convention at Galveston on January 8, for the purpose of determining what course Texas should pursue; and requested the chief justice of Brazoria County to order the election of five delegates to a state convention, the election to take place the first Monday in December, provided the Governor by that time had not issued a call for a special session of the legislature as he was requested to do. Two committees of safety, composed of sixteen members each, were provided to guard the interests of the county; and an organization of minute men was also provided to execute the committee's order. 208 These committees of safety for general protection and the organization of minute men to co-operate with them were authorized in a large number of the counties. The Lavaca County convention on November 21 favored secession, and requested the Governor to convene the legislature or provide for a state convention; it also urged that, if he should fail to do so, the people of the counties should appoint delegates to a state convention. 209 Marion County advised that the legislature convene itself in a non-official capacity, if the Governor declined to call it.
Perhaps the trend of public opinion is even better shown in the True Issue, an independent paper. This paper deplored the fact that slavery had always been a source of strife between the two sections and declared that no important question had ever come before the people but that “slavery, like a haunting demon, looms up in the background.” The North, in its hostility toward the slave law, in its descent upon Virginia, and in sending its emissaries to Texas to incite the slaves to arson and insurrection, was to blame for the present situation, and what hatred existed in Texas toward the North was due to the action of the abolitionists there. The people of Texas wished only to live in peaceful enjoyment of their constitutional rights. 210
A few days after the election of Lincoln, Houston received a letter signed by sixty-five citizens of Huntsville asking his advice as to what course ought to be pursued. They deprecated hasty action, but feared that delay in expressing opinions of the situation might prove harmful. Houston's answer was calm and dignified but firm. He counseled patience, admitted his distrust of Lincoln and the North, but affirmed his abiding faith in the Constitution and the Union. He closed with these words: “So long as the Constitution is maintained by Federal authority and Texas is not made the victim of Federal wrong, I am for the Union as it is.” 211
Houston and the Unionists, realizing that the tide of disunion sentiment was rising, busied themselves trying to stem the tide by recommending caution, prudence, and calm deliberation in dealing with the question. Until the last moment David G. Burnet counseled submission to the election of Lincoln and continuance in the Union. Union meetings were held throughout the state and were well attended. It was the sentiment of these meetings that the state should maintain its rights in the Union. 212 Colonel Henderson, in addressing a mass meeting at Round Rock, called on all Texans to stand by the American flag, and to claim boldly their rights in the Union under the Constitution. 213 At a great demonstration at Austin on December 23, a pole ninety feet high was erected, and the national flag hoisted while the people sang patriotic songs. 214 Judge J. H. Reagan, then in Congress, writing from Washington, recommended a convention of the Southern states to present to the free states such propositions as would renew the original guarantees of the Constitution in favor of Southern rights in order that the question as to the extent and character of the slave states and the ownership of slave property might be settled forever. On the other hand, Louis T. Wigfall, also in Congress and writing from Washington, advocated immediate withdrawal from the Union, maintaining that Texas could not remain in it with either honor or safety. 215
In spite of the heavy pressure brought to bear upon Houston to call a special session of the legislature, he refused to issue the call until forced by circumstances. He gave as his reasons for not doing so that the situation did not demand the convening of the legislature, and that the finances of the state were in such a condition that it was necessary to keep all expenses down to a minimum. It also appears that Houston entertained serious doubts as to whether, on account of the recent redistricting act, the same legislature that met in 1860 could again be convened. He believed furthermore, that a legislature elected under the new act would probably come nearer to representing the wishes of the people. 216
In the meantime, Houston had acted upon the suggestions of some county conventions to make use of the joint resolution of 1858 authorizing the Governor to order an election of seven delegates to a convention of the Southern states, if, in his opinion, the situation should demand it. He sent the resolution, accompanied by a letter to the governors of the other Southern states suggesting the calling of a Southern convention for the purpose of discussing plans for common action. He said that in his opinion the time had come for a calm deliberation of statesmen in a manner permitted under the Constitution. He hoped that such a convention might adopt measures for restoring harmony between the two sections of the country. 217 Houston then issued a proclamation for the election of the Texan delegates on the first Monday in February. For this effort at conciliation Houston was widely denounced as a traitor to the South. Senator Wigfall said that Governor Houston ought to be tarred and feathered and driven from the state. Senator Iverson from Georgia, his old antagonist in the Senate, said, “Some Texas Brutus may arise to rid his country of this old, hoary-headed traitor.” 218
In order to understand all phases of the secession movement in Texas, the existence of a secret order known as the Knights of the Golden Circle must be noticed. It met a hearty welcome in Texas in the summer of 1860, and much has been said about the influence that it exerted over the events that rapidly followed in the state during the winter and spring of 1860 and 1861. It appears that the order was primarily formed for filibustering purposes in order to perpetuate the institution of slavery. John C. Calhoun is variously credited or blamed as the originator of the order. 219 It has also been maintained that the Democratic leaders after their defeat in 1859, at the hands of Houston and his adherents, regained their power and prestige in the state through the activity and influence of the order. 220 G. W. Bickley, a member of the order, spent the summer and fall of 1860 in Texas establishing lodges throughout the state. Although the headquarters of the order were at San Antonio, it was strongest in the eastern part of the state, where the disunion spirit also had its greatest strength. 221 But whether this strength of the disunion movement was because of the influence exercised by the order is doubtful. The fact, no doubt, that a larger proportion in that section had emigrated from the slave-holding states, and the fact that they had been troubled more by incoming abolitionists may sufficiently account for this conditon. San Antonio and the surrounding country were about evenly divided for and against secession in 1861, which at least shows that the influence of the order was not controlling in that part of the country. According to the True Issue, the friends of Breckenridge, Bell, and Douglas associated together in the order in perfect harmony, and declared that this was conclusive proof that the order was not organized for the mere purpose of promoting disunion, for, says the editor, “certainly members of the Union party would not be caught in a disunion organization.” 222 Yet in a pamphlet circulated by Bickley before the Austin meeting in October, it is said that “The K. G. C. constitutes a powerful military organization, as a nucleus around which to hang such political considerations as will, if well managed, lead to the disenthrallment of the cotton states from the oppressive majority of manufacturing and commercial interests of the North.” 223
After hearing Bickley's speech at Austin on the character and aim of the order, Judge Paschal came to the conclusion that the order was a secret police; that it was accustomed to denounce individuals; that it worked by secret means, as dangerous to the innocent as to the guilty; that it marked baggage; that it undertook to pass upon the soundness of Southern citizens, having a common interest in the subject of slavery; and concluded, “It arrays itself with the misguided partisans who threaten to overthrow the government, should they not elect their candidate, and it proposes by secret means to proscribe all who will not fall into their revolutionary purposes. It is, then, a secret political agency and one which established a police above the laws, which are sufficient for every emergeney.” 224 According to R. H. Williams, who was a member of the order, the organization was ostensibly formed to protect Southern rights, but its real object was to bring about secession and it did all in its power to further that movement. 225 Newcomb, the Union editor of the Alamo Express, was most severe in his denunciation of the order. He said that it was a powerful instrument in the hands of the leaders of the secession movement; that the first secession convention was affected through this organization; that the first armed rebels under Ben McCullough were members of the order; that it furnished the vigilance hanging committees, and that to it belonged the responsibility for the murders and arsons committed during the summer of 1860. 226
To what extent, however, the order influenced the secession convention, directly or indirectly, must remain a matter of surmise. The most that one can safely say is that probably the order encouraged secession and the extension of slavery, and that it was a factor of some importance in forming and uniting public opinion at this time.
The people of Texas had always distinguished between abolitionists and Unionists. During the whole period of the controversy over slavery there had been men who strongly upheld the Constitution and the Union. As the agitation developed and disunion became a probability, the newspapers representing the Union element became known as anti-secession and anti-democratic papers. But no real abolitionists, men or newspapers, had ever met with much favor in Texas. The San Antonio Zeitung seems to have been the only such newspaper that ever attempted to exist and publish abolition views in the state. It was published only one year, partly in 1855 and partly in 1856.
In regard to the Zeitung, the Goliad True American said that it was very sorry a free-soil paper could find a resting place in Texas; that Southern men might be forced to discuss their rights to property in England, but not in Texas. This paper concludes as follows: “If the editor of the Zeitung is a free-soiler or abolitionist, we would give him the choice of two alternatives—either to desist from building up a doctrine which is to rob us of our property or to take up his march, and that quickly, out of the State of Texas.” 227 The Galveston News in June of the same year said, “The San Antonio Zeitung has made itself notorious of late by attacking slavery. Several of the Texas papers have rapped it pretty hard fr its temerity in attacking the institutions of the state, and some of them went so far as to suggest that a coat of tar and feathers would be a fit reward for the editor.” 228
In 1856 there were about thirty thousand Germans in Texas. The majority of these were settled in and near San Antonio, New Braunfels, and Fredericksburg. Being foreigners, and very few of them owning any slaves, they fell under the suspicion of the slave owners. The newspapers of the state became unfriendly toward them, and many false stories were circulated about them.
The situation of the Germans, due to their zealous editor, became so trying that they were forced to repudiate him. The German population around New Braunfels met in a mass meeting in June, 1855, and passed resolutions, the purport of which was that, as they had been attacked by the newspapers of the state, they wished to say that they acknowledged their allegiance to the Constitution and laws of the state; that they were not responsible for the sentiments expressed in the San Antonio Zeitung, and that it was both unjust and untrue that they had feelings inimical to Americans. 229 In December of the same year, a German, Mr. Waelder, the representative in the legislature from several western counties, made a statement in the House to the effect that the charges made against the Germans were false. He further asserted that, if the Germans had not been sound on the question of slavery, he would not be occupying a seat in the House, for his own sentiments on the question were fully understood by his constituents when they elected him, and he most assuredly had never harbored any thoughts “akin to abolitionism, free-soilism, or any other `ism”'; that the Germans, as a body, were as loyal to the South as the citizens of any other section of the state. 230 After the departure of the editor of the Zeitung the excitement abated, and nothing more happened to mar the good will between the Germans and their American neighbors before the outbreak of the Civil War.
Another instance of the intolerance of everything that pertained to abolitionism in Texas was shown in 1859 at Bonham. The annual conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church was held near Bonham in the spring of that year. It appears that some opinions, unfavorable to the institution of slavery, were expressed at the meeting. As soon as this became known to the people in that community, about three hundred men gathered at Bonham. At an indignation meeting which was presided over by Judge Samuel A. Roberts, severe resolutions were adopted to the effect that, as the Northern Methodist Church entertained sentiments antagonistic to slavery, and that, as such sentiments had been expressed by its ministers upon the streets of Bonham, and that, as it appeared to be the purpose of the church to abolish slavery in the United States, therefore the further growth of this church in Texas would be adverse to the best interests of the state; that this church was used merely as a screen behind which to hide abolition emissaries who were dangerous to Texan interests and not to be tolerated; that the public denunciation of slavery heard on the streets that day was a gross insult to the people and should be promptly resented; that the views of the church on that subject did not coincide with the views of the people of Fannin County and that therefore the dissemination of such views must be stopped; that a committee be appointed authorized to pass rules to punish those uttering seditious sentiments; that a suitable committee be sent to the bishop and ministers assembled on Fannin Creek to order them to close the conference, as the same endangered the peace of the community. These resolutions closed with the suggestive phrase, “peaceably if we can—forcibly if we must.” Before the meeting closed another resolution was unanimously adopted to the effect that the people of Bonham bind themselves to co-operate in the future to suppress abolitionism in their midst, and that henceforth they would permit no expression of abolition sentiments to go unpunished in the county. Fifty men were appointed to wait on the bishop and read the resolutions to him. 231 The conference was thus broken up. Bishop Janes, the presiding bishop on that occasion, later said that the reason for the attack was that his church differed on the slavery question with the Methodist Church in the South, and that the inhabitants of Fannin County believed that the people present at the conference were spies and forerunners of the invading army of abolitionism. 232
In 1860 it became necessary for J. B. Robertson of Independence, Texas, a friend of Baylor University, to publish an open letter repudiating charges of abolitionism against some of the teachers in that institution. After stating that the rumor was untrue that one had been driven off on account of his views on slavery, he added that he was personally acquainted with every teacher in the University and knew that all of them were not only sound, but above suspicion, on the slavery question. 233
As the result of Governor Houston's refusal to take any steps toward calling a convention it became necessary for the disunion leaders to call the secession convention in an extra-legal manner. The Governor had been besieged by committees and petitions to convene the legislature, or to issue a call for a convention. He hesitated to do either, probably hoping that the excitement would soon subside, and that it would be in his power to save Texas to the Union. But his hopes were not to be realized, for the radical element was in control of the state. All the Southern states were taking action, and Texas was eager to do likewise. The leaders of the secession movement took the matter into their own hands. According to Judge Roberts, chairman of the secession convention, the reasons for so doing were that they were anxious to unite with the other Southern states, and as there were both Union and secession elements in the state, they feared internecine strife, when the North should attempt to force the Southern states back into the Union; and that the only way to unite the people in a common defense of the state, in spite of the will of the Governor, was to determine the status of Texas by a vote of the people. 234
It would thus appear that the leaders of the movement fully realized that the outcome of secession might be war. But it is equally certain that the common people did not believe such would be the case, and that they were purposely encouraged in this belief. The great task of Governor Houston during the interval between the passing of the secession ordinance and its ratification was an heroic attempt to convince the people that secession meant war.
Under the Constitution, neither the Governor nor the legislature had direct authority to call a convention. But the Governor had authority to convene the legislature in special session, and once convened, even in special session, the general powers of the legislature would be quite extensive. Had Houston convened the legislature, it would probably have called a state convention, but as he refused to do this, it appeared necessary that the convention be called without the co-operation of either the Governor or the legislature. This was done. The plan to issue an address calling upon the people to elect delegates to a state convention originated in the attorney general's office. The first address was drawn up in Justice O. M. Roberts's office by W. P. Rogers, George M. Flournoy, John S. Ford, and O. M. Roberts. This address appears in Judge Roberts's Political, Legislative and Judicial History of Texas. 235 In the Journal of the Secession Convention another address is printed which differs somewhat from the copy that Roberts gives. Thus, the Roberts's call has sixty-one signatures, while the call printed in the Journal has seventy-two. 236 The reasons given in the Journal address for calling a convention are the election of a sectional president; the imminent danger to Southern rights; the Governor's refusal to convene the legislature; the fact that the sovereign will of the people could be best expressed by a convention; that neither governor nor legislature was authorized under the Constitution to call a convention, though the people had the right to do so; 237 that there was not enough time before the president's inauguration for the legislature to act; and finally that the legislature would probably ratify the work of the convention. The address suggested that the election be held January 8, 1861, and that the convention meet at Austin January 28. Elections were to be ordertd unofficially by the chief justice of each representative districts, or, in case of his failure, by one or more county commissioners or by a committee of five citizens. The election was to be conducted according to the usual regulations; two delegates were to be elected from each representative district, and the action of the convention was to be submitted to the people for ratification or rejection. 238
As soon as the address was published secession became the issue. Houston in a last vain effort to thwart the action of the secessionists, issued a call, December 17, for an extra session of the legislature to meet January 21, just one week before the day appointed for the meeting of the convention. During the interval between the time of the publication of the address and the assembling of the convention great excitement prevailed. Mass meetings and barbecues were again held. Able Union and disunion speakers expounded their views on the situation. The lovers of the Union tried to persuade the people to act with calmness, to believe that in the Union was the best place for the state so long as the Constitution could be preserved, and that the proper thing to do was to preserve both the Constitution and the Union, for the disruption of the Union would bring only universal distress to Texas. They accused the secessionists of not wishing to see the Union preserved on any terms and of closing their eyes to the true remedies for the evil. 239 They also accused the politicians of deliberately hoodwinking the people in pretending that they would submit the action of the convention to the people. But the Union element had, with the exception of Houston, scarcely any strong and aggressive leader, and even Houston was not equal to the occasion. The Union sympathisers appeared to be silent spectators of the great drama played, and the majority of them did not even vote. The aggressive leaders of secession, on the other hand, carried everything before them. The whole movement seems to have been much more spontaneous than has generally been believed. At many mass meetings immediately after Lincoln's election such a convention as the address provided for had been advocated. In some instances action was taken for the election of delegates to a convention of the people even before the address was issued. At a mass meeting in Brazoria County, November 17, 1860, the chief justice was requested to order an election on December 3 for delegates to a state convention. On that date John A. Wharton was elected and represented the county in the secession convention. On November 24, the chief justice of Harrison County was directed by the citizens in mass meeting to order an election the fourth Monday in December for delegates to a general state convention. The delegates then elected became members of the convention. Some other counties held their elections for delegates before the appointed time, as Robertson, December 15; Tyler, December 22; Austin, December 22; Cameron, January 7. 240 So far as the certificates of elections show, only four counties, Jefferson, Orange, Anderson, and Trinity gave no returns.
The Eighth Legislature, at the call of Governor Houston, convened in extra session on January 21. The Governor's message, after reviewing at some length the Indian troubles and the embarrassed condition of the treasury, was devoted to the relations of Texas with the federal government. He deplored the fact that an aggressive sectional party, hostile to Southern institutions, had gained control of the general government, and he said that two alternatives now faced the people—either to abandon the federal government, which would be tantamount to acknowledging the Constitution a failure, or to maintain while in the Union every constitutional right. He advised the latter, for, so far, the grievances had originated with the states and not with the federal government. He advised against hasty and unconcerted action and against immediate separation before having stated grievances and demanded redress; and he could see in the election of Lincoln no cause for immediate and separate secession. He also declared that he believed the time had come when the Southern states should co-operate and counsel together to devise means for the maintenance of their constitutional rights, and to demand redress for the grievances they had suffered at the hands of the Northern states. He had ordered an election for the purpose of choosing delegates to a Southern convention, as recommended by the joint resolutions of 1858. He recommended, further, that the legislature provide legal means by which the people might express their will through the ballot box; and if the legislature deemed it necessary to call a convention for the purpose he would not oppose it. He would only suggest that no action should be considered final until it had been submitted to the people. He looked to them for wise and sagacious counsels, “Representing the creative power of law,” he said, “the high responsibilities upon you demand that you indignantly frown upon any and every attempt to subvert the laws and substitute in their stead the will of revolutionary leaders.” Only the people could determine upon the status of Texas, and therefore he recommended that the question be submitted to them, and concluded: “Be their voice as it may, we shall be united and whether our future be prosperous or gloomy, a common faith and hope will actuate us; but if on the contrary, moved by rash and unwise counsels, you yield the powers of government into the hands of those who do not represent the people and would rise superior to them, the confidence of the masses in the reign of law and order will be shaken, and gloomy forebodings will fill the hearts of the friends of regulated Government, lest the reign of anarehy and confusion come upon us.” 241
The legislature, however, disregarded the Governor's recommendations and proceeded to do the very things he had urged it not to do. One of the first resolutions adopted, repealed the joint resolution of 1858 under which the Governor had acted the preceding November. The friendly feeling toward the extra-legal convention was also shown almost immediately. As the delegates to the convention arrived at Austin, they were invited to seats within the bar of the Senate and the House. Although the Governor's friends made an attempt to carry out his wishes, they could accomplish nothing. Throckmorton's resolution providing for the election of delegates to a general convention of the people of Texas 242 was referred to the committee on State Affairs, from which it never emerged. But a joint resolution offered by Mr. Herbert to validate the acts of the convention to be held at Austin, January 28, 1861, which further provided for the mileage and per diem of the members of the convention, referred to the same committee appeared again in a short time transformed into the following resolution, which was adopted January 26:
Whereas the people of Texas, being much concerned for the preservation of the rights, liberties, and powers of the State and its inhabitants, endangered by the political action of a majority of the states, and the people of the same have, in the exercise of powers reserved to themselves in the bill of rights, called a convention, composed of two members for each representative in the legislature from the various districts established by the apportionment law of 1860, to assemble on the 28th day of January, 1861, at the city of Austin, which convention, by the terms of the call, made by the numerous assemblages of citizens in various parts of the state, was, when elected and assembled, to have power to consider the conditions of public affairs, to determine what shall be the future relations of this state to the Union, and such other matters as are necessarily and properly incident thereto; and in case it should be determined by said convention, that it is necessary for the preservation of the rights and liberties aforesaid, that the sovereignty of Texas should resume the powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States, and by the articles of annexation, then the ordinance of said convention resuming said delegated powers and repealing the ratification by the people of Texas of said articles of annexation should be submitted to a vote of the qualified electors of this state for their ratification or rejection; therefore,
1.Be it resolved by the legislature of the state of Texas, That the government of the state of Texas hereby give its assent to and approves of the convention aforesaid.
2.That this resolution take effect and be in force from and after its passage. 243
It was, however, not approved by the Governor until February 4, 1861, and then it was approved with a protest against the assumption of any power on the part of the convention, beyond that of referring the question of secession to the people.
A joint resolution was also passed relative to coercion in which the legislature maintained in substance that the sovereign states had denied to the federal government the power to compel by arms obedience by the states to federal authority; that the attempt of the federal government to coerce a state was a violation of the Constitution, destructive to the right of free government, and fatal to the existence of the Union; that should the federal government attempt to coerce a sister state into subjection to federal rule Texas would make common cause with her in resisting, by all means and to the last extremity, such violence and usurpation of power.
All action taken by the legislature in the early part of its session was in accord and sympathy with the convention. The House tendered the use of its hall to the convention each day after two o'clock, and fuel and stationery were placed at its disposal.
After the secession ordinance had been passed the legislature co-operated with the convention in placing the ordinance before the people for ratification or rejection. Two acts were passed for this purpose. The first, passed over the Governor's veto, merely required the officers of the state to order elections for the ratification or rejection of the ordinance of secession according to the directions of the state convention. Two days later it became necessary to pass a supplemental act requiring the Governor to issue a proclamation for the election, and to direct the vote to be taken and returns to be made in the manner prescribed in the first act and in the ordinance of the convention on the subject. This act was approved by the Governor February 9, with a protest against the short time allowed for notice. 244
The first secession convention convened at Austin, January 28, 1861. The personnel of the convention, according to the correspondent of The True Issue, consisted of a respectable body of men, both in personal appearance and in point of intelligence; but there were many conjectures as to what it would do. According to the same correspondent, some thought that the action of the convention would be declared binding without any reference to the people. Some believed the convention intended to usurp sovereign power, subvert the state government, and erect a provincial one in its stead; and that, if this should be attempted, neither Houston nor his friends would resort to arms to suppress and prevent it. 245
The organization of the convention was effected the first day O. M. Roberts was elected president, R. T. Brownrigg, secretary, W. D. Schofield, first assistant secretary, and R. H. Lundy, second assistant secretary. There had been some irregularities in the election of certain members, but the report of the committee on credentials favored seating them all and contests were thus avoided. In a number of the counties, namely Tyler, Harden, Titus, Harrison, Karnes and Bee, more delegates had been elected than such counties were entitled to under the call. The committee recommended that all such delegates be allowed seats, but that they should have only as many votes as the number assigned to the county they represented. In Travis, Williamson, and Milam counties the six delegates had not been elected in the manner indicated by the call, but they also were seated. 246
The president was authorized to appoint the following committees: a committee composed of one member from each judicial district represented in the convention, on Federal Relations; a like committee to present business to the convention; and committees on Finance, on Resolutions, and on Public Safety. Later, as they became necessary, committees on Foreign Relations, on Commerce, Revenue and Navigation, on Business, and on Postal Affairs, were added. Each member of the convention took an oath faithfully and impartially to discharge his duties and bear true allegiance to the state. 247
The direct issue before the convention came up on the second day, when Mr. Wharton offered a resolution “that without determining now the manner in which this result should be effected, it is the deliberate sense of this convention that the state of Texas should separately secede from the Federal Union. 248 This was adopted by a majority of one hundred and fifty-two to six. At this juncture it was learned that John McQueen, commissioner from South Carolina to Texas, had reached Austin. A resolution was immediately passed inviting him to a seat upon the president's stand during the session, and a committee of three was appointed to inform him of the action of the convention. Mr. McQueen visited the convention on February 1, and delivered a speech, during the course of which he complimented the intelligence and spirit displayed by the convention in dealing with the situation. He said that he felt confident that Texas would soon be ready to join the other seceding states in forming a Southern Confederacy for the purpose of perpetuating the “institutions of our ancestry, who transmitted them to us, that we should have in them but an usufruct, and transmit them untarnished, to our posterity.” 249 General John W. A. Sanford, commissioner from Georgia, addressed the convention on February 4. After briefly reviewing Georgia's course in the present crisis, he congratulated the convention on the “auspicious result of its labors” and was pleased to note that it had referred its decision to the judgment of the people. He hoped that when the work of the convention should have received the sanction of the people, Texas would unite with the other Southern states, as such a policy was necessary to the prosperity, happiness and safety of all. 250
On January 30, the convention received from the legislature a copy of some Tennessee resolutions, accompanied by a letter of Governor Houston addressed to the legislature. The Tennessee resolutions were in the nature of a reply to certain resolutions recently passed by the legislature of New York. The legislature of New York had offered men and money to the president of the United States for the purpose, according to the language of the Tennessee resolution, “of coercing certain sovereign states of the South into obedience to the Federal Government.” Governor Houston in his letter advised the legislature to meet every assault upon the liberties of the people. He again reminded them of the fact that he had called them together to provide for an expression of the will of the people at the ballot box, and that while the people were deliberating upon the question no impending threat of coercion from the people of another state should be permitted without at least meeting with the condemnation of their legislature. 251
Several resolutions had been offered in regard to the convention's getting into official communication with the Governor, and all had finally, on January 30, been referred to a special committee of three. This committee on the same day reported a mode of procedure, which was immediately adopted. The report provided for a committee of five to be appointed by the president, whose duty it should be to wait upon the Governor and to confer with him on subjects connected with federal relations; it provided also for a like committee to inform the legislature that the convention was organized and ready to proceed with the work before it, and that the convention desired to act in harmony with the various departments of the state government. John H. Reagan, P. W. Gray, John D. Stell, Thos. J. Devine, and W. P. Rogers were appointed to wait upon the Governor. Houston received the committee kindly, expressed his thanks to the convention for its courtesy, and promised to communicate with the convention the next day. 252 In this communication to the committee, Houston said that whatever appeared conducive to the welfare of the people had his most fervent good wishes, and that no one would be more ready than he to yield obedience to the will of the people, when it had been expressed through the ballot box; he was ready to act in harmony with the convention in securing an expression of the popular will in regard to federal relations, and he would cheerfully confer with any committee appointed for that purpose. But he did not commit himself any further. 253
At the afternoon session on January 30, the ordinance of secession was placed before the convention by the Committee on Federal Relations, accompanied by a minority report, which minority report concurred with the majority in recommending the ordinance reported by the committee, but dissented from the resolution accompanying the ordinance which proposed to refer the ordinance to a vote of the people, taking the position that the interests of the state could be best served by the ordinance's taking effect immediately. 254 The ordinance was read the first time, and the convention adjourned to meet again in secret session in the evening. The ordinance, which was finally adopted in its original form, is as follows:
Sec. 1. Whereas, the Federal Government has failed to accomplish the purposes of the compact of union between these states in giving protection either to the persons of our people upon an exposed frontier or to the property of our citizens; and whereas the action of the Northern states of the Union, and the recent development in federal affairs, make it evident that the power of the federal government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and prosperity of the Southern people, instead of permitting it to be as it was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression:
Therefore, We the people of the state of Texas in convention do declare and ordain, that the ordinance adopted by our convention of delegates on the 4th day of July, A. D. 1845, and afterwards ratified by us, under which the republic of Texas was admitted into the Union with other states and became a party to the compact styled `The Constitution of the United States of America' be and is hereby repealed and annulled; that all the powers that by said compact were delegated by Texas to the federal government are revoked and resumed; that Texas is of right absolved from all restraints and obligations incurred by said compact and is a separate sovereign state.
Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be submitted to the people of Texas for ratification or rejection by the qualified voters on the 23rd day of February, A. D. 1861, and unless rejected by a majority of the votes cast shall take effect and be in force on and after the 2nd day of March, A. D. 1861. 255
At this secret evening session the discussion upon the ordinance began, and it was continued until the next evening, when it was decided to vote the next day at twelve o'clock, and to do so without discussion. There appears to have been much disagreement in regard to the contents of the ordinance. At the first evening session a radical substitute was offered by A. P. Wiley. It provided that after the withdrawal of Texas from the Union, all parts of the existing state constitution and laws not repugnant to the provisions of the ordinance of secession should remain in force until a new constitution could be adopted; that all officers of the government be required to take an oath to support the ordinance of secession and the constitution of government to be adopted by the convention, and that in case the Governor for a week, or any other officer for a month, should fail to take the oath after the ordinance and constitution should take effect, such office should be declared vacant; that immediately after the adjournment of the convention the Governor, or if he refused, the lieutenant governor, should issue a proclamation directing the chief justice to order and hold elections for the ratification or rejection of the ordinance of secession and at the same time and in like manner to vote for the ratification of a general government for the Southern United States that may be adopted at Montgomery. 256 John Gregg then moved to strike out the second section of the ordinance submitted by the committee. No action was taken at the time, and when it came before the convention the next afternoon, several substitutes for his resolution were offered. T. J. Chambers's substitute provided for an election of governor and members of the legislature on February 23, in accordance with the last apportionment act, and provided that the officers elected at that time should assume their duties on March 2; that seven delegates should be elected to represent Texas at Montgomery by a joint vote of the legislature and the convention on February 1; that the legislature should be authorized by the convention to watch over and provide for the safety of the state until another legislature could be installed, and that for this purpose the legislature should be authorized to adjourn and assemble at will, to pass all laws necessary to carry into full effect the powers formerly delegated to but now withdrawn from the federal government, and in the name of the state to contract such debts and to bind the state therefor, not to exceed five millions of dollars, as should be necessary for the defense. 257 But no agreement could be reached. Finally, on motion of J. C. Robertson the vote on the Gregg resolution was ordered. The resolution was lost by a vote of twenty-nine to one hundred fifty-seven. The people had won. 258
On the following day, February 1, the Governor, lieutenant governor, and judges of the supreme and district courts, were invited to seats within the bar of the convention when the vote on the ordinance was to be taken. Five men were appointed as a committee to wait on Houston and Clark. Houston was given a seat on the right of the president. At the appointed time the ordinance was taken up, read a third time and passed by a vote of one hundred sixty-six to eight. Although it had been decided the evening before that no discussion should take place when the vote was taken, many of the members of the convention could not refrain from giving the reasons for their votes. The most exciting incident of the vote was caused by J. W. Throckmorton's remarks. He rose from his seat and said: “Mr. President, in view of the responsibility, in the presence of God and my country—and unawed by the wild spirit of revolution around me, I vote no.” 259 Much confusion followed. Hisses as well as applause came from the galleries. Throckmorton rose from his seat and exclaimed: “Mr. President, when the rabble hiss, well may patriots tremble.” Prolonged cheering from the galleries followed, and a strong appeal from the president was necessary to restore order. 260
With the passage of the ordinance the first act in the drama of secession was at an end.
At the afternoon session a resolution had been passed providing for sending copies of the ordinance to the Governor and the legislature, and requesting their co-operation in submitting it to the people. At this time the committee on Federal Relations reported an ordinance prescribing the mode of election to be held for the ratification or rejection of the ordinance, the substance of which was that the election be held February 23; that each county should be an electoral district and that the votes be returned by the proper officer to the president or secretary of the convention; that the election should be held by the proper officer in each county, with or without an order from the chief justice of such county; that the returns from the precincts should be made on or before February 26; that the manner of making returns to the chief justice, county clerk, or commissioners, should be the same as in ordinary elections; that the duty of the officer to whom the returns were made should be to count the votes, certify the results and transmit the same to the president of the convention in duplicate, at different times, by mail, or by some discreet person; that the aggregate vote should be counted by the president and the secretary of the convention on or after March 2; that the manner of voting should be by ballot “for secession” or “against secession,” each qualified voter being permitted to cast his vote in any part of the state; and that finally the people of El Paso should be permitted to hold their election February 18. This ordinance was adopted by sections and then passed as a whole. 261
The next afternoon, February 2, the special committee appointed for the purpose, presented an address setting forth the causes that impelled Texas to withdraw from the Union. The causes as thus set forth were: that Texas had not been permitted to enjoy the blessings guaranteed to it when it became a member of the Union; that for the purpose of acquiring power in the Federal Government in order to destroy the institutions of Texas and of the other slave-holding states, the controlling majority of the federal government had under various disguises administered the government in such a way as to exclude the citizens of the Southern states from the enjoyment of the common territories; that because of the disloyalty of the North and the “imbecility of the Federal Government,” combinations of outlaws had been permitted to trample upon the federal laws in Kansas, upon the lives and property of Southern citizens there, and to usurp the possession of the territory for the benefit of the Northern states; that the federal government had failed to protect the borders of Texas from the Indians or the Mexicans; that when the state had expended money for that purpose, the federal government had refused to reimburse the state; that the individual non-slaveholding states had deliberately violated the Constitution; that the people in these states had formed themselves into a great sectional party for the purpose of abolishing slavery and forcing political equality between the two races; that the abolitionists had been sowing seeds of discord between the two sections, and had consolidated their strength and placed the slave-holding states in a hopeless minority in Congress; that the South could no longer protect its rights there against encroachments; that these adversaries proclaimed a law higher than the Constitution, and had encouraged lawless organizations to steal slaves and prevent their recapture; that they had invaded Southern soil, murdered unoffending citizens, sent seditious pamphlets to stir up insurrection, and emissaries to burn towns and to distribute arms and poison to the slaves; and that they had elected a sectional president. 262 In view of these facts the convention proclaimed its belief that the government was established exclusively for the white race; that the African race was rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race and that only in that condition could their existence in the country be rendered beneficial and tolerable; that all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that slavery was authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, by the revealed will of the Creator, and recognized by all Christian nations; that the destruction of existing relations between the two races would bring inevitable calamities upon both; that as six states had seceded there was no course open for Texas except to unite her destiny with those states. 263
The next step in the secession procedure was to secure control of the situation during the recess of the convention. This was necessary in order to carry out the secession program in case of possible opposition by the unionists, until the wishes of the people could be expressed in the election ordered. The effective instrument adopted for this purpose was the Committee on Public Safety, a body originally invested with extensive authority and gradually strengthened until it had complete power during the recess of the convention. In matters pertaining to the defense of the state and to secure the public safety, it had almost absolute power. 264
The next move in the extra-legal proceedings of the convention was to elect seven delegates to the Montgomery convention. There was a difference of opinion as to the advisability of such action before the will of the people should have been expressed at the ballot box. As early as January 30, a recommendation to send such delegates had been offered. 265 This was followed by many other resolutions and substitutes, and all were finally referred to a select committee of three. 266 This committee reported a resolution which was adopted, after striking out the number four and inserting in its place the number seven, by a vote of one hundred thirty-two to thirty-eight. 267 John H. Reagan, Louis T. Wigfall, John Hemphill, T. N. Waul, John Gregg, W. S. Oldham, and Wm. B. Ochiltree were elected to represent Texas at the Montgomery convention. No more business of importance was transacted by the convention during its first session. Resolutions covering every conceivable phase of the situation were offered, but the majority of these were either tabled or lost in the committees. F. Locke went so far in his zeal as to offer a resolution to the effect that it was the sense of the convention that there should be an article incorporated into the constitution of the Southern Confederacy to be formed at Montgomery, that would prohibit any state therein from abolishing slavery. 268
The first session of the convention adjourned February 5, to convene again March 2; and Judge Roberts, after congratulating the convention on its courteous and conciliatory deliberations, adjourned the convention in the following words:
“Let us go home and appeal to them [the people] to sustain our action by their votes; and when we reassemble on the 2nd of March let us bring back with us the voice of a united people, in favor of an immediate action to sustain the rights of the people of Texas and of the South at all hazards, and to the last extremity.” 269
It is difficult to trace the first white settlers in a country inhabited only by Indians of nomadic habits, such as frequented the shores of Texas. In most cases the first settlers are of habits similar to those of wandering tribes, and after a brief stay, move on to more inviting localities. It is only after they have begun to arrive in considerable numbers, and land titles are issued to them, that accurate data are obtainable as to their names, number and location.
In the case of Harris County we know only that, when the first colonists from the United States came to its shores at the invitation of the empresario, Stephen F. Austin, they found a few settlements already established on the shores of Galveston Bay and the streams emptying into it. The names of some of these settlers have been handed down by unofficial writers in newspapers, a few from the recollections of their contemporaries.
The year 1822 seems to have been the earliest period claimed for any settlements, and it is more than probable that the rumor of Austin's colonization scheme caused them to be made. A few settlers may have come overland from Louisiana, but those of whom record is here made, arrived on shipboard, and were in some instances tossed ashore when their frail boats were wrecked by storms on the reefs and bars of the bay. Numbered among these were Moses L. Choate and Colonel Pettus, on board the Revenge, which was wrecked on Red Fish Bar, in April, 1822. Their schooner, commanded by Captain Shires, ran aground, and the passengers left the vessel and went up the San Jacinto River, where they made homes, probably the first settlements on this river, or in Harris County. Only the names of the two mentioned here have been preserved. There was also a Mr. Ryder, who in 1822 lived alone at the extreme end of Morgan's Point. He was a surveyor. Beyond this nothing has been handed down regarding him.
John Iiams is the next of whom we have record. Embarking at Berwick's Bay, Louisiana, with his family, consisting of a wife and two boys, he landed at Galveston Island on June 3, 1822. He settled on the mainland of Galveston Bay, at what was known as Cedar Point, where a league of land was afterwards granted him by S. F. Austin.
In about two weeks after Iiams and his family arrived, Dr. Johnson Hunter came, with his family. Their advent was attended by dangers and hardships such as were experienced by few. Their vessel was wrecked on Galveston Island; there were five children, one, William, an infant in arms. After repairing the boat, they succeeded in reaching the mainland, afterwards called Morgan's Point, where they first made their home, and where Johnson Hunter located one of the original land grants from the Mexican Government.
Nathaniel Lynch came and settled at the point where Buffalo Bayou flows into the San Jacinto River. This was also in the year 1822. The settlement which grew up around him was called Lynchburg, and the ferry there established was of great service to early settlers, and was long known as Lynch's Ferry. At about the same time John D. Taylor settled on the north side of the San Jacinto River, at a point afterwards known as Midway.
Other settlements on the same river at about this time were made by John Jones, who came out in the same vessel with Iiams.
Humphrey Jackson, John and Frederick H. Rankin also settled about twelve miles above Lynch's. The only settlers on Buffalo Bayou previous to 1824, so far as known, were the Vinces—William, Allen, Robert, Richard and John,—all young men, Ezekiel Thomas, and Moses A. Callahan.
It is said that the earliest settlement in the immediate neighborhood of what afterwards became the City of Houston was made in 1822, by a Mrs. Wilkin, her two daughters, and a son-in-law, Dr. Phelps. They lived for a short time on a tract of land that was afterward known to the early citizens of Houston as Frosttown.
These settlements were made independently of any colonial grant, as Austin had not at that time perfected his arrangements with the Government for colonizing. So soon as this was done, most of these early settlers received, at the hands of his representative, grants for the land occupied by them, and their names were officially entered on the records of Austin's colony.
In 1824, Stephen F. Austin accompanied by his secretary, Sam M. Williams, and the commissioner, Baron de Bastrop, came by appointment to the house of William Scott, who a short time before had bought out the improvements of John D. Taylor on the San Jacinto River. The settlers assembled from far and near to receive their titles to lands. The work of issuing titles, which was begun in July, 1824, by Baron de Bastrop, had not been completed when he was called away. By August 24 he had issued two hundred and seventy-two titles. The work remained unfinished until 1827, when Gaspar Flores was appointed commissioner, and gave deeds to the remaining families of “The Old Three Hundred.” “There was no provision in the law for granting land to men without families. These were joined in groups of two or three and each group constituted a legal family.”
Those in Harris County who received titles at this time (1824) and located their land in this county were:
John Austin, William Bloodgood, Enoch Brinson, John Brown, Moses A. Callihan, David Carpenter, John Cooke, John Dickinson, Thos. Earle, David Harris, John R. Harris, William Harris, William J. Harris, Johnson Hunter, Humphrey Jackson, Nathaniel Lynch, Arthur McCormick, Luke Moore, Frederick H. Rankin, William Scott, Christian Smith, James Strange, John D. Taylor, Ezekiel Thomas, Richard Vince, Robert Vince, William Vince, Amy White, Reuben White and William Whitlock. 271 Patrick Brias received his in 1827.
There seem to have been only about thirty original grants made in Harris County at this time, but there were several settlers in the county who located their lands in other counties embraced within Austin's first colonial grant, and the lands of a few located in two counties, which adjoined each other. Besides the settlers who received land titles there were others, members of the same families, who should be mentioned. For instance, Page Bellew, the father-in-law of William Bloodgood; Charles C. Givens and Presley Gill, who immigrated with William Scott, and Dr. Knuckles, who afterwards married one of Scott's daughters. Another of his daughters was married about 1826 to Sam M. Williams. Thomas Bell, who with his wife and two children had settled just above the mouth of Cedar Bayou, sold out his improvements to Scott, and the land was granted to Scott.
Arthur McCormick immigrated in 1824, and settled on the south bank of the San Jacinto River below Lynchburg, adjoining the settlement of Enoch Brinson. His headright league became noted as the ground on which the battle of San Jacinto was fought, twelve years after he had located his home there. He, together with his wife and two sons, John and Michael, occupied this land as long as they lived.
Reuben White and his four brothers, Jesse, George, Henry and William, all came in 1824 and settled on the San Jacinto about six miles above Lynch's. James Dunman landed at Lynchburg in the same year and settled on the west side of Cedar Bayou, and as late as 1876 was still living a few miles above this point. 272
The bay shore offered most pleasing locations, and were among the earliest to be improved as homes. Among these was the Edwards place at Edwards Point, and that of Ritson Morris near the mouth of Clear Creek on Galveston Bay, which were settled as early as 1825. 273 “In 1828 or 29 Philip Singleton settled on the north bank of Buffalo Bayou between the mouth of Old River and Carpenter's Bayou, on a hill nearly opposite where the Texian army camped the night before the battle of San Jacinto, and built a small log house afterward covered with plank, which is mentioned here because it is the first house in the county of which we have any account which was covered with shingles and had glass window sashes. . . . Singleton afterward sold it to, and it became the home of Lorenzo de Zavala, the distinguished Mexican refugee and Texian patriot.”
“Concerning the settlement of the Spring Creek country not so much is known. Sam McCurley was living there on the league of land granted to him, a few miles from where Hockley now stands, as early as 1829. The Texian army camped there on the retreat to San Jacinto, April 17, 1836. Abraham Roberts lived further down the creek on his headright league.” 274
About 1839 or 40 David Huffman started the Huffman settlement, and in 1876 he was still living there in the midst of his children and grandchildren. 275 The place is now designated on the county map as the town of Huffman.
John Richardson Harris, the first of the name to emigrate to Texas, had made the acquaintance of Moses Austin while living with his family at Saint Genevieve, Missouri, in 1819-21. He agreed to join the colony, should Austin's plan for obtaining the necessary concessions from the Mexican government be perfected. He came to Texas in 1822 or 1823 and selected his land location at the junction of Buffalo Bayou and Bray's Bayou, which he considered the head of navigation. In 1824 he received his title to 4428 acres at this point. A letter from John R. Harris, among the papers of Stephen F. Austin, dated September 15, 1825, shows that he was at that time well established and in a position to supply Austin with a sloop or schooner of light draft. After mentioning other boats which were unavailable on account of being in bad condition, he offers to hire the sloop Mexican, recently purchased by him, to furnish a good master and crew, provisions, etc., and keep everything in repair for a monthly payment of one hundred and thirty-five dollars. In 1826 he laid off the town of Harrisburg, which became an important depot for supplies. The arrivals of his schooners running between this point and New Orleans were events eagerly awaited by the colonists. In 1827 he was joined by his brother David, who was captain of one of the vessels, and his services are recorded in the history of that time. At a later date two other brothers, William Plunket and Samuel, came out. By the year 1829 John Richardson Harris was not only the founder of a town and the owner of a large stock of merchandise, with ships on the sea, but he had also built a steam sawmill, at the junction of Buffalo and Bray's Bayous. In the summer of this year he sailed for New Orleans on the schooner Rights of Man, owned by himself and brother, to procure a piece of machinery for completing the mill, when he was taken sick with yellow fever and died there, August 21. 276 In after years, when Texas had become an independent republic, one of its first counties was named in his honor, and retains this name at the present day. 277
The death of John Harris was followed by an administration upon his estate, and subsequently by a lawsuit on the part of his heirs against the administrator and against Harris and Wilson, which kept his estate in the courts until 1838, when it was finally settled by compromise. This litigation more than anything else prevented the location of the seat of the new Texas government at Harrisburg in 1836, at the time when this honor was bestowed upon Houston. The situation of Harrisburg at the head of navigation on Buffalo Bayou made it by far the better site for a city, especially at a period when water transportation was without a rival. 278
In the list of merchandise comprising a part of the inventory of goods in the store at Harrisburg, there is an assortment such as is usually to be found in a general country store. Along with medicines, hardware, saddlery, candles, candlesticks, candle snuffers, cottoncards, and crockery were listed Murray's Grammars, Walker's Dictionaries, slate pencils and lead pencils, gilt buttons, lace, silk vests, flour, sugar, salt, and ordinary groceries. 279
About the year 1831, David G. Burnet, one of the most important figures in Texas history, after a short absence returned, bringing with him a boiler and steam engine, which he located at Lynchburg. In this enterprise were associated with him Norman Hurd and Gilbert Brooks, who came out with the machinery and assisted in building the mill. The mill stood until 1845, when it was destroyed by fire. Judge Burnet's home was only a few miles from Lynchburg, and an arm of the bay in that vicinity is called Burnet's Bay.
The colonists of Harrisburg municipality increased in numbers and prosperity; farms were opened along the streams, supplies were brought by boats from New Orleans, and peace and contentment reigned. Its citizens played an important part in all the affairs of the colony.
From the reminiscences of Mrs. Dilue Harris I have culled the following brief statements regarding citizens at Harrisburg. 280
“May 1, 1833, Harrisburg had been settled several years. It was settled by four brothers, John Harris, the oldest, had died some years before. His family were living in New York. The other brothers were David Harris, who had a wife and two children, a daughter named Sarah, 281 and William, and Sam Harris. Other people living there were Robert Wilson, wife and two sons; Albert Gallatin and son; Mr. Hiram, wife and two daughters, Sophronia and Susan; Mr. Lytle, wife and daughter; Mr. Brewster and son; Mr. Evans and wife; Dr. Wright and wife; Dr. Gallagher; Mr. Peoples and wife; Mr. Farmer and family; Mr. Mansfield and five negroes; one negro man, Joe, servant of W. B. Travis; John W. Moore; the Mexican Alcalde. The young men were Messrs. Richardson, Dodson, Wilcox, Hoffman, and Lucian Hopson. The boys were James Brewster, and John, George, and Isaac Iiams, stepsons of Dave Harris. There was also a Mr. Ray. There was a steam sawmill at the mouth of Bray's Bayou; it belonged to Robert Wilson and W. P. Harris. Mr. Hoffman was engineer.” Mr. Mr. Choate is mentioned as living “below the town on Vince's Bayou. He had five daughters. He was the most popular man in Texas.” Thomas Earl lived below the town on Buffalo Bayou. He had a wife, two sons and four daughters, all grown. “The Vince brothers, Allen, William, Robert, and Richard, lived at the bridge on Vince's Bayou. Allen Vince was a widower. He had two sons. Their sister, Miss Susan, kept house for them. Mr. Bronson and wife lived at the mouth of Buffalo Bayou.” A Mr. Doby is also mentioned as living in this neighborhood.
May, 1834—After mentioning the engagement at Harrisburg of Mr. David Henson, as a school teacher for the settlement, near Oyster Creek, (Stafford's Point), the names of some immigrants who arrived by schooner from New Orleans are given as follows from memory: Clinton Harris, son of John R. Harris, deceased; Mr. Mann, wife, and two stepsons, Flournoy Hunt; and Sam Allen; Mr. Pruitt and two daughters; and Mr. Kokernut and wife, young married people, were among them. “Mr. Kokernut was German, his wife French.”
After leaving the Cartwright farm near Harrisburg. Dr. Rose moved his family to Stafford's Point, where under date of January 1, 1834, their “four near neighbors, Messrs. West, Bell, William Neal, and C. C. Dyer,” are mentioned, and the statement made that “Neal and Dyer married sisters, the daughters of Mr. Stafford, and there were two brothers, Harvey and Adam Stafford, both grown.” There is also mention of the family of Mrs. Roark, widow of Elijah Roark, who was murdered by Indians near San Antonio in 1829, as neighbors at Stafford's Point. The children of these families, besides four young men, Leo and Jackson Roark, Mr. Calders and Harvey Stafford, made up the school. Stafford's Point was about fifteen miles from Harrisburg, where there were stores, a sawmill, a blacksmith's shop, a shoemaker's shop, with other accessories of a town, and thither the settlers usually went to celebrate July 4th, with a barbecue and ball. These occasions drew all together for a big public frolic—Mr. Choate played the violin, and his services were much in demand at Harrisburg. DeWitt Clinton, son of John R. Harris, deceased, had come out with his mother, Mrs. Jane Harris in 1833, and opened a store, and the Indians came here to sell their buffalo, bear, and deer skins, blankets and beadwork. In the winter of 1835, two or three hundred of them, men, women and children from the Falls of the Brazos (Waco), camped in the neighborhood, and remained until they had sold their wares. At this time, the Kleberg family (Germans) were at Harrisburg, and Mrs. Rosa Kleberg, but recently arrived from Germany, had an experience, which she related to me a few years before her death. The family had rented a house and were moving into it, each carrying a portion of the baggage. Mrs. Kleberg was alone and had just thrown down a big bundle, when a tall half-naked Indian, the first she had ever seen, approached. Seeing a loaf of bread on a table in the middle of the room, he advanced, deposited on the table two big venison hams, which had been slung over his shoulders, picked up the bread, called out “swap!” “swap!” and stalked away. Mrs. Kleberg having retreated behind the table, stood in speechless astonishment, overjoyed that his one-sided bargain had been followed by so speedy a departure.
In April, 1835, the Harris Reminiscences note the arrival of several English families of immigrants, among them the Pages and Adkinses; Mrs. Brown, a Scotchwoman, with a son and daughter, was at Allen Vince's place at the time of the “Runaway Scrape.” This event, as its title indicates, created a wide dispersion of former residents in this section; the homes of most of them were destroyed, and not a few of them returned to the United States, or sought homes in other sections of Texas.
The first account of a school in this municipality, although it is highly probably that there had been schools taught before at Harrisburg, is contained in Mrs. Harris's reminiscences. The diary, dated May, 1834, makes mention of the engagement at Harrisburg of David Henson, as a teacher for the settlement near Oyster Creek (Stafford's Point). The school house, built of logs, was located about halfway between the homes of Dr. Rose and Mr. Dyer. It had been previously used as a blacksmith shop, was without windows, had an open doorway, and the floor was of puncheons. The teacher, an Irishman, was capable, but school books were scarce, and the multiplication table inscribed on a pasteboard bandbox belonging to Mrs. Rose, furnished an arithmetic lesson. The school did well until the arrest of D. W. C. Harris of Harrisburg, and Andrew Briscoe at Anahuac in June, 1835, threw the neighborhood into such a state of excitement that it was impossible to continue its session.
It was not until July of the following year that the settlers having returned to their homes (after the battle of San Jacinto), engaged a teacher named Bennet, also an Irishman, to reopen this school, with an attendance of eight pupils, children of the same families; but the four young men were no longer numbered among the pupils. This school lasted only about six months, when the teacher returned to the United States. The country was too much disturbed by rumors of invasion for the establishment of any school at this time.
The first teachers in Houston, according to Mrs. Dilue Harris, who was a pupil, were Mrs. Sawyer, who married a Mr. Lockhart, and Mr. Hambleton, whose school she attended in 1838. A Mrs. Robertson was also a teacher at Houston in the early forties.
ELLIOT TO JONES 282
[Enclosure] Copy. Charles Elliot. Galveston March 22d. 1844
The Undersigned etc. etc. etc, has lately had the honor to acquaint Mr Jones that Her Majesty's Government was engaged in continued efforts to induce the Government of Mexico to acknowledge the Independence of Texas, and he has now the gratification to add that renewed communications have taken place between the Government of Her Majesty and that of The King of the French, and that His Majesty has expressed His concurrence in the purposes of The Queen, and has signified His Pleasure to command the French Minister at Mexico, to join his continued friendly assistance to that of Her Majesty's Representative
But adverting to the proposals of the Government of the United States respecting annexation, to the recent Mission of distinguished Citizens of Texas to Washington on the Potomac, and to the impression so general in Texas that Negotiations having that object in view are either in progress, or in contemplation, the Undersigned finds it his duty to express the hope that the Government of Texas will furnish him with explanations on the subject for transmission to Her Majesty's Government. He is sure that they will be made in that spirit of frank and friendly unreserve which has always characterized the intercourse of the two Governments
It must be unnecessary to say that the Undersigned is perfectly aware of the President's personal opinions upon this subject, and he has not failed, agreeably to the President's wish, to communicate to Her Majesty's Government His Majesty's determination to sustain the Independence of this Republic, and His Excellency's confident hope that the people would uphold him in that course—Indeed referring to the Conferences which the Undersigned had the honor to have with the President and Mr Jones at Galveston during last Autumn, he can suppose that the Mission to Washington of the Gentlemen in question, has been dictated by a wise desire to avoid any cause of offence or irritation to the Government of the United States, and to explain with frankness that the Government of Texas could not entertain the subject at all, even if all other obstacles were removed, after the former rejection of such an arrangement by the Government of the United States, and wholly without reason to know that the Senate of the United States would ratify it now, or in future.
The Congress of Texas, however, has met and separated since the date of the Communications to which the Undersigned has referred, and the President will feel with force that it is is just and necessary in the present appearance of circumstances that there should be no room for the least uncertainty on the part of the Governments engaged on the behalf of Texas at Mexico; for it is not to be supposed that they could continue to press the Government of Mexico to settle upon one basis, whilst there was any reason to surmize that Negotiations were either in actual existence, or in contemplation, proposing a combination of a totally different nature. It is manifest on the other hand, that a distinct disavowal on the part of the Government of Texas of any intention to consent to such a Scheme either now, or prospectively, could not fail to strengthen the hands of the Ministers of Their Majesties The Queen, and The King of the French at Mexico.
Confiding in the steadfastness of the people of Texas to the pledges in the fundamental acts of their National existence, Several of the Great Powers have acknowledged the Independence of this Republic, and entered into treaties with it. Whilst that confidence subsists, it may be depended upon that the Government of Her Majesty will never relax in their friendly efforts to induce the Government of Mexico to adjust on the policy so forcibly pressed upon the attention of Her Majesty's Government by the Government of Texas, not adopted without mature deliberation by Her Majesty's Government, and in their judgment equally necessary for the security of Mexico, and the strength and prosperity of Texas.
Charles Elliot The Honorable Anson Jones [Endorsed.] Inclosure No 1 in Captain Elliot's Secret Despatch to the Earl of Aberdeen. Galveston April 7 1844.
JONES TO ELLIOT 283
[Enclosure] Copy. Charles Elliot Department of State Washington March. 25th. 1844.
The Undersigned Secretary of State of The Republic of Texas has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the Note addressed him on the 22d Instant by Captain Elliot II. B. Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires, informing this Government that Her Majesty was engaged in continued efforts to induce the Government of Mexico to acknowledge the Independence of Texas, that renewed communications have taken place between the Governments of Her Majesty and that of the King of the French, who had expressed His concurrence in the purposes of The Queen, and also requesting explanations on the subject of the recent Mission of Citizens of Texas to Washington on the Potomac, and the Negotiations supposed to be in progress between Texas and the United States in reference to annexation.
The friendly interest which Her Majesty's Government have on this as well as many previous occasions expressed for the Welfare, prosperity, and Independence of Texas has been received by the President with the liveliest satisfaction, and it is due to that friendly interest that the request made by Her Majesty's Representative should be answered with frankness and unreserve.
Early in the present summer and just before the propositions for an armistice were received from General Santa Anna instructions were given to our Ministers abroad to inform the friendly Powers whose good offices had been invoked in settling the difficulties between this Country and Mexico, that unless a satisfactory prospect of such a Settlement soon appeared, Texas would assume a new and entirely different attitude, and abandoning the hope of an adjustment of the existing War by their friendly aid, resort to other means for the accomplishment of this object. For a while the hope of the establishment of a satisfactory Armistice was entertained, during which time and while this hope appeared reasonable, this Government omitted any change in it's national policy. In this situation matters remained until the recent meeting of the Congress of the Nation, soon after which time it became very apparent the Government of Mexico were indisposed to any amicable settlement upon reasonable and admissible terms. The Texian Prisoners were detained in captivity, contrary to the pledges given by Santa Anna for their release, the friendly relations between Great Britain and Mexico were suddenly interrupted, by which our hopes from that quarter appeared to be disappointed, intelligence from our Commissioners beyond the Rio Grande engaged in conducting the terms of the Armistice was of a very unfavorable character, and the people of this Country tired of uncertainty and delay naturally turned their attention to annexation, the door to which had just been unexpectedly opened, as the most certain remedy for existing evils. Under these circumstances, the Congress of the Nation met and adjourned.
Their acts in relation to the subject have been committed to to the care of the President under the seal of secrecy. Whatever has been done, therefore, in relation to this subject has been in obedience to the requirements of their acts.
The Mission of General Henderson to the City of Washington is immediately concerned with this subject, and should the Government of the United States yield it's assent to the assurances which the Representatives of this are required to ask of it, the Government of Texas will view the policy of annexation as the most proper one left it, under all existing circumstances, at the present time, to pursue.
In the earnest hope that this statement and explanation may be entirely satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government, . . .
Anson Jones. To Captain Charles Elliot, H. B. M. Chargé d'Affaires. [Endorsed.] Inclosure No 2 in Captain Elliot's Secret Despatch to the Earl of Aberdeen. Galveston April 7th 1844.
ELLIOT TO JONES 284
[Enclosure] Copy. Charles Elliot. Galveston April 3d. 1844.
The Undersigned etc. etc. etc. has had the honor to receive Mr Jones's note of the 25th Ultimo in reply to his own of the 22d idem, and he offers his acknowledgments for this statement of the situation of circumstances which shall be transmitted to Her Majesty's Government without delay.
In the mean time, however, he considers it right to remark that he does not believe Her Majesty's Government have formed the same opinion as this Government upon the indisposition of Mexico to any amicable settlement with Texas upon reasonable and admissible terms. Indeed he is disposed to think that Her Majesty's Government had become more sanguine that a different state of feeling was growing up in that quarter, and he considers any recent appearances to the contrary to [be due to] the indisposition of Mexico to the annexation of Texas to the United States. Thus impressed he believes that Mexico would have consented to terms of armistice more acceptable to this Government, if it had not been thought prudent to avoid a truce of convenient duration for the conduct of Negotiations at another point, having in view a combination naturally so ill liked at Mexico, as the Annexation of Texas to the United States.
He will merely further remakr of the truce agreed upon between the Commissioners of Texas and Mexico, that if it had conformed with the policy of this Government to avail themselves of that opening, he entertains the opinion that it might have been improved into a convenient duration and form.
Of the detention of the Texian prisoners in Mexico which has been noticed by Mr Jones as another proof of the indisposition of the Government of Mexico to amicable settlement, the Undersigned will freely admit, (speaking for himself) that he thinks the Government of Mexico ought to have released those prisoners. But he is bound to confess, with equal frankness that he has reason to think the Mexican Government will be able to adduce motives for their conduct in this particular, which may account for it, without resorting to a general indisposition to adjust with Texas upon peaceful and honorable terms, as the ground of the continued detention of these unhappy men.
The temporary interruption of the Official intercourse between Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Mexico and that Government is noticed by Mr Jones as another event of a discouraging character. The Undersigned can only say upon that point that He is sure Her Majesty's Government would not have delayed to Communicate their apprehensions to the same effect to the Government of Texas if they had participated in them for a moment.
Weighing all the circumstances of the case as carefully as he can, the Undersigned will take the liberty here to express the belief, that at no period of the interposition of Her Majesty's Government for the settlement of the dispute between Texas and Mexico, could it ever have appeared to them that there were better founded hopes of an early and honorable adjustment than at the moment, when, as Mr Jones observes, the door to Annexation was unexpectedly opened to the people of this Country. The approach in that sense was most probably unexpected in Mexico too, for it came when there was a state of known truce between the parties, when Texian Commissioners respectfully received, were actually in the Mexican territory, and whilst Negotiations, first for an armistice, and then for a peace, were known to be in contemplation, and in point of fact in progress.
The intimation of such a proposal to the Government of Texas by the Government of the United States would of course become known in Mexico about the same time, and made under the state of circumstances then existing it can hardly be a source of surprize that it produced the disturbing effect which has followed.
The Undersigned thinks he should not discharge his duty if he omitted to express the earnest hope that the Government and people of Texas will not make the incalculably heavy sacrifice of their separate National existence under the impression that the prospect of amicable settlement with Mexico has passed away. He believes there is no good ground for such an impression, and he is also of opinion that it is still in the power of the Government of Texas to renew the Negotiations with Mexico upon a hopeful basis by reassuring that Government upon a point on which it is entitled to expect complete reassurance before friendly Negotiations with Texas are firmly set on foot.
The Undersigned cannot refrain from observing that there is no want of evidence in the press of the United States that very eminent and practised Statesmen in that Country are firmly opposed to the annexation of Texas to that Union, either at all, or at least under any other condition than the consent of Mexico, peacefully obtained. Neither does it seem to be doubtful, judging from the same sources that these opinions are shared by a large part of the people of that Confederacy. The Undersigned trusts that his own sincere desire for the Independence and prosperity of Texas will be the excuse for alluding to these considerations, on which, however, he has no intention to dwell
He will close this note with the renewed declaration of the desire of Her Majesty's Government to be helpful in the adjustment of this dispute upon terms of honor, justice, and advantage both to Texas, and to Mexico, and with the expression of the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, that the preservation of their Independence is the best security of the people of Texas for their ultimate prosperity, both political and commercial.
The health of the Undersigned is still in a very broken condition (so much so that he writes with difficulty) but he will wait at New Orleans or in it's immediate neighbourhood as long as he safely can, and will be happy to receive any Communication which the Government of Texas may do him the honor to forward to him through the channel he has already indicated to Mr Jones.
Charles Elliot. The Honorable Anson Jones. [Endorsed.] Inclosure No 3 in Captain Elliot's Secret Despatch to the Earl of Aberdeen.Galveston April 7th 1844.
The subjoined letter, hitherto unpublished, requires little comment. It is now in the possession of Mrs. Henry M. Manigault of Summerville, S. C., to whose father-in-law it is addressed. Written in a fine and remarkably clear hand, it is still easily legible, except for two or three words where the fold occurs. In copying it I have taken care not to change spelling or punctuation.
Its author, Arthur Middleton Manigault, born in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1824, became in 1846 first lieutenant of the Charleston company in the Palmetto Regiment, South Carolina Volunteer Infantry. In this capacity he served throughout the Mexican War. In the Confederate Army he was first an inspector general on General Beauregard's staff, then colonel of the Tenth Regiment, South Carolina Infantry, and in 1863 became a brigadier general. He was elected in 1880 adjutant general of his native state, and held that office six years till his death, which was hastened by a wound in the head that he had received in the battle of Franklin. A fuller sketch of his life is to be found in Appleton's Cyclopaedia of American Biography.
Camp near Vera Cruz, April 9th 1847. Dear Brother Henry
I was very glad to receive your letter which arrived here about 10 days ago, I would have answered it before, but the next morning we marched off for Alvarado from which place we only returned two days since.
I am glad to hear that you are all well at home &that things are going on smoothly, we occasionally receive a paper here &a Charleston Courier creates a terrible excitement in camp, the possessor must quickly sneak off behind some hill, &there peruse it, or he is very apt to be embroiled in more than one squable for the possession of it, I am much amused at times with some of the speculations of the editors relative to occurrences among us, which often shoot wide of the mark &in future I will know just how much of the contents of a newspaper can be relied on. Edward I see has obtained a captaincy in one of the new 10 Regts. which I was very glad to hear of. I think that he will be pleased with the life; I am, &he has every advantage not only in rank, but in serving as a regular instead of Volunteer, which service of all others is least agreeable to the officer, the general impression here is that the war will not last much longer &that it will not be necessary to advance further into the country than Jalappa, at that place we will remain some time in all probability, it is said to be the most agreeable climate in all Mexico, it is usually spoken of by the natives as the Heaven of Mexico Vera Cruz, the hell, Genl Scott if he succeeds in taking that place will there remain until he receives supplies for his army &additional forces, as the time of several of the Volunteers Regts. expires in the course of two months &their place I suppose will be filled up by these new regiments. As I mentioned before, we are at the present moment encamped on the plain to the South of Vera Cruz, within a quarter of a mile of the city, resting after a most severe march to &from Alvarado, which place to our great chagrin, on hearing of our approach yealded, without fireing a gun, to a midshipman &four men, who happened to enter the river in the boat, of a small war steamer; he was much surprised as he approached the town to see a boat &white flag, making for him with the Alcaldi, who surrendered to him everything, Genl Quitman was there within 15 miles of the town with 2,000 men, &when the news reached him, the very day he arrived there, he was not a little mortifyed, it was more than Comodore Perry &himself could bear with, who had entered into an agreement with each other, that they both should make their appearance at the same time &have all the credit to themselves, but they were forestalled by one of inferior rank, &the unfortunate subaltern has been arrested to stand a court martial, some go as far as to say that the despatches had actually been written, but of that I know nothing, we made up for our disappointment as we best could unfurled our banner &marched like heroes through the deserted town, took up our quarters in the different houses, in nearly all of which we found a number of Game Cocks, which in the hurry of their departure they were obliged to leave behind them. I am satisfied they found them not on their return, for the ravenous Volunteers dispatched most of them, We were glad to leave the place two days after, carrying with us a most astonishing number of fleas, with which, this place like most other small Mexican towns are infested, We were marched back in a deuce of a hurry (why we know not), over a most abominable road, the sun as hot as with us in July, &no shade or water, two days &a half was the time, &the consequence was that many of our men were knocked up by it, several of them are now very ill &no possibility of their recovering (I speak of the regiment generally &do not allude alone to our company). Our medical staff is a most inferior one, not fit for the service, they are unaccustomed to hard work, do not like to soil their hands, but perfer being either in Vera Cruz, or at some other business more agreeable, it makes me vexed when I think of them, for I really think that some have died thro neglect, they are literally not worth a d m. poor Dickson, son of Dr. Dickson, was buried this morning, he was afflicted with the disease so prevalent among soldiers, we left him with other sick when we left for Alvarado in charge of one of the surgeons, in a convalescent state, the morning after our return, we heard of his death &on questioning the surgeon he did not even know of his sickness until 12 hours before he died. Since our Landing in Mexico, we have been leading a sort of savage life, being without tents &little to eat, I had one of those large blankets given me by Mama, &I have found it most comfortable, place yourself on the edge of it; spread out on the ground, hold on to it &take three good rolls over &over &you are fixed off for the night, covered from head to foot &neither dew or rain can wet you, you may however wake up in the morning &find yourself covered over with sand, should a norther happen to spring up, which happens frequently.
Vera Cruz looks very differently now from what it did when we first entered it, the streets there were strewed with rubish, fragments of shell, cannon balls, &filth in some parts of the city there was a most intolerable stench from the dead bodies which had remained for days exposed, there being no place to bury them or not having time, now however everything has a more cleanly &busy appearance and inhabitants that left before the bombardment have mostly all returned &have opened their shops, there are one or two very fair hotels, on the Plaza, where you see crowds of officers all day long, lounging about, most of the Generals have their quarters in the City, &may be easily distinguished, by the crowd about the door, Aid de Camps, gathering in every direction, squadrons of dragons pattrolling the street, it has a fine appearance, &I have sat for hours in the piazza of the hotel, observing what was going on, General Worth is now Governor of the city, &has all the idle Mexicans employed in cleaning the streets etc. the city has been in our hands only 20 days &there is an American Theater open, a newspaper daguerreotype taker, &several coffee houses kept by Americans, I was at the Theatre last night &upon the whole the performance was very tolerable, their Theater surprised me on entering it, it is one much larger than, the one in Charleston, in the interior but little inferior, &the front upon the street is one of the handsomest that I have ever seen, The old &antique appearance of the city makes it very interesting, the houses all of stone or brick, little or no wood about them, their floors are all paved, &roofs covered with tiles, there are some very handsome &chaste buildings &in good repair, but in general they have an old appearance &much worn by time. Our shell &shot made great havoc amongst the houses, scarce one that does not show some bullet hole or other damage, some parts of the city can never be built up again, &fortunately it is in rather an inferior part of the town, principally in and about the fortifycations, which deserved most to suffer.
I have been twice to the castle &been each time much pleased, I saw Quebec once, &tho of a very different character from this fortifycation, it cannot compare in immenseness with this place, it is so intricate &so large that altho I have twice been there &observed it narrowly with a view of putting it down on paper, I found it impossible to do so &could not retain it with any degree of correctness in my mind, when next I go there I will carry a pencil and paper in my pocket.
We are now leading a very lazy life &our time is at our own disposal to which you are indebted for this long letter, which you will no doubt be tired of reading before arriving at the end, I wrote Mama a long letter some days ago, informing her that I was safe, as she must have been uneasy about me, I am much obliged to you for wishing me all honour &glory but as for the flesh wounds in the legs I would much rather be without them, whatever the consequences may be, I hope you will answer this &let me know what is going on. Give my love to Mama, to Sister Susan, Brother [Pe]ter &the whole family.
Your afft Brother, A. M. Manigault.
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTICES
Athanase de Mézières and the Louisiana-Texas Frontier, 1768-1780. Documents Published for the First Time, from the Original Spanish and French Manuscripts, chiefly in the Archives of Mexico and Spain; Translated into English; Edited and Annotated. By Herbert Eugene Bolton, Ph. D., Professor of American History in the University of California. Two volumes. (Cleveland: The Arthur H. Clark Company. 1914. Pp. 351, 392. $10 net.) 285
These volumes may be regarded as part of the first fruits of the Carnegie Guides to foreign archives. Except for a few documents in the Bancroft Library of the University of California, the Bexar archives of the University of Texas, and the Archives du Ministère des Colonies at Paris, the material was all unearthed by Professor Bolton's work in the Mexican archives and the similar labor of Mr. Hill in Spain. Covering less than a dozen years immediately following the transfer of Louisiana to Spain, they present in minute detail a picture of actual government on that interesting frontier where French and Spanish influence had struggled for supremacy since the beginning of the eighteenth century, and where the French were now eliminated only to be succeeded by the still more aggressive English. The activity and the comprehensiveness of the administration will be a surprise to those who are accustomed to the common estimate of Spain's `stupid and slothful' colonial system.
The purpose of the work is thus stated by the compiler: “The history of the French and Spanish régimes in Texas and Louisiana is to a large extent the history of an Indian policy, in its various aspects; and for light on the Indian affairs of what are now Texas, western Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma during the period between 1768 and 1780, and on the problems of Indian control in that period, as well as on the establishment of Spanish rule in western Louisiana, there is perhaps no other single group of documents in existence so important as the correspondence and reports of De Mézières here published.”
Athanase de Mézières was an educated Parisian, of noble connections, who spent the most of his life at Natchitoches, as soldier, trader, and planter. At the close of the French régime he was lieutenant-commander of the post, and with its transfer to Spain he seems to have risen at once to the position of commander, which he held, with short leaves of absence, until his death in 1779. There are two hundred and fifty-two documents in the collection, written by, to, or concerning De Mézières. A very few are personal; the others reveal in great detail the various phases of Spain's frontier government. The documents are grouped around ten topics, which take their titles in general from De Mézières's plans and activities, but since these developed chronologically, the arrangement of the whole series is, with a few exceptions, chronological. The title of the sixth group, “Frontier Problems,” would apply equally well to the whole book—the problems being to win and hold the allegiance of the frontier tribes to Spain; to expel unlicensed traders and vagabonds from among them; to prevent the encroachment of the Anglo-American traders; to check the perennial ravages of the Apache and the intermittent hostility of the Comanche; and to maintain and develop the germ of civilization in the crude wilderness settlements.
As an historical source Professor Bolton has skimmed the cream of the collection for his introduction. A map, based on these and other documents, shows the location of the principal Texan tribes at the close of the eighteenth century, and a concise discussion explains inter-tribal relations and administrative difficulties.
In the vexing task of opposing French advance from the east the Spanish officials in Texas were only partially successful; for French influence was firmly established over the Caddo, Wichita, and Tonkawan tribes of the Red River and upper Brazos and Colorado valleys, and Professor Bolton says that a line extended westward through Natchitoches and Adaes would define pretty accurately the actual boundary of French and Spanish control—which inclines one to judge with greater leniency the sincerity of those stubborn Americans who later contended that the Louisiana Purchase included Texas. Another interesting fact disclosed by the documents, and brought out by the introduction, is the early advance of the Anglo-American trading frontier into upper Louisiana and Texas. As early as 1772 British guns were reaching the Apache through the Osage of the Arkansas and the Bidai and Orkokisa of the lower Trinity; and the exclusion of the English (Americans) became an increasingly difficult problem as time went on. De Mézières vents his exasperation at the expansion of the English colonies, “most of them the product of their notorious usurpations,” in terms that sound strangely familiar in the mouths of Mier y Teran, Tornel, and Alaman two generations later.
Professor Bolton's profound knowledge of the manuscript bibliography of the Spanish Southwest is manifest in the many annotations which illuminate the documents. For a time the reader may be inclined to be querulous, in the belief that he is left without assistance in identifying the numerous Indian tribes which appear in various disguises of French and Spanish orthography, but eventually he discovers that all are listed with their synonyms in the index. Since, however, one needs must discover some points in which the editorial work could be improved, the reviewer submits two: (1) Doesn't the use of “op. cit.” interpose an unnecessary obstacle to the pursuit of bibliographical knowledge when it entails à search through twelve pages to see which of an author's various articles is being cited? (See, for example, II, 124, note 153; there are a number of such instances.) And (2), since there are frequent references to documents by number, rather than by page, would it not be a convenience to find at the top of each page the number and year-date of the document running thereon, instead of the relatively useless “Vol. one” and “Vol. two” that one does find?
De Mézières's letters are well written, and aside from their historical and ethnological interest, unfold an attractive and forceful personality which would repay the study of an ambitious historical novelist.
Eugene C. Barker.
The Beginnings of Spanish Settlement in the El Paso District. By Anne E. Hughes (University of California Publications in History, Volume I, No. 3. Pp. 295-392. Berkeley, 1914.)
The author of this monograph begins her study by summarizing, principally from secondary sources, the northward expansion of the Spaniards into New Mexico and Nueva Vizcaya. This summary is the clearest and best statement of the movement which has been made. The body of the work consists of seven chapters. In Chapter II is told the story of the founding, before 1680, of the early missions and the civil settlement at El Paso. Chapter III treats of the impetus given these settlements by the coming of the refugees from New Mexico after the Pueblo revolt of 1680, and of the distribution of these refugees along the Rio Grande. Chapter IV tells of the permanency given the new settlements at El Paso, after the first attempt at reconquest, by the establishment of the presidio there, and of the reorganization of the settlements in 1683. Chapter V relates the story of the extensive revolt of the Mansos Indians and their neighbors, whose unrest dated from 1680 and whose revolt was not quelled until 1685. Chapter VI treats of the removal of the presidio and settlements, and of their consolidation in the vicinity of El Paso in 1684; Chapter VII, of the dissatisfaction among the settlers caused by the change, of the efforts made to abandon El Paso, and of aid from the superior government which insured the permanency of the settlement; Chapter VIII, of the quarrel between New Mexico and Nueva Vizcaya over the jurisdiction of the El Paso district, and of the final decision in favor of New Mexico. Chapter IX gives a short but comprehensive summary of the entire paper.
As a background for later seventeenth and for eighteenth century history of New Mexico and Texas in particular, and in general for the history of the whole southwest during that period, this monograph is a notable contribution. Different readers will receive from the story widely divergent impressions. The layman will doubtless be surprised at the apparent minuteness of detail and the large amount of new material brought together within its pages. On the other hand, the scholar, familiar in a general sense with the history of the period covered by Miss Hughes, will be impressed by the excellent way in which she has summarized and generalized from so large a mass of original sources. All will be impressed with the clearness of style and breadth of view displayed in the work.
From the standpoint of the specialist Miss Hughes's monograph, covering as it does a period of some twenty-five years, must be considered as a general and not as a specialized contribution. This does not detract from its worth, but, on the contrary, adds to its value by establishing its place in a larger field. This will be apparent to all when it is realized that in the preparation of the paper the author critically examined the equivalent of several thousand typewritten pages of original manuscript sources, the larger part of which had never before been used by historians. That the writer should have carried the thread of her narrative through this mass of material, and not been swerved from her main course by any one of a dozen or more important incidents of striking and historically dramatic interest, attests her ability as an historian.
In a study of this kind, covering so broad a field in so few pages and filling such a gap in the history of the period, it is not surprising that there are some errors in detail. In the introductory chapter the author is wrong in stating that “the natives organized a widespread revolt which included the Indians of the entire province.” The Piros Indians were not invited to take part in the revolt, and they and the natives of the Tigua pueblo of Isleta did not participate in the atrocities of August, 1680. The author rightly states (page 316) that by October 9, 1680, a plaza de armas had been established at La Toma, and that by December 20 of that year three camps, including that of San Lorenzo, had been established at a distance of two leagues from each other. It seems quite essential, however, to state that La Toma was about twelve leagues below Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe del Paso and that soon after reaching La Toma, in October, 1680, the name of Guadalupe was at first given to the camp there, which was later renamed San Lorenzo. This oversight doubtless accounts for the writer's falling into error further along on page 320, by stating that Estero Largo was forty leagues above El Paso. Estero Largo is mentioned in the sources as being forty leagues above San Lorenzo, and therefore only about twenty-eight leagues above El Paso. On page 322 Miss Hughes gives an account of a reconnaissance of the Rio Grande valley near El Paso which she says Governor Otermín made in 1682 for the purpose of locating the Spaniards and Indian allies, and that he found no place as suitable for settlement as San Lorenzo, which was located about twelve leagues below El Paso. It is quite clear from the sources cited by Miss Hughes, however, that the reconnaissance made by Governor Otermín mentioned in the above passage was made prior to the establishment of the plaza de armas at La Toma on October 9, 1680, and not in 1682. Logically the account mentioned fits into the text on page 316. Note 22 on page 323 should read “Auto of Cruzate” and not “Auto of Otermín.” The author attributes to Otermín (page 334) the statement that “it was rumored in the conversion of Guadalupe that the Sonora Indians were restless, and that the Mansos and Sumas were not secure from their influence.” This statement, however, was not made by Otermín neither did he write this to the viceroy at this time. It was made by the maestre de campo Francisco Gomez Robledo in expressing his views in the junta de guerra of October 2, 1680. As such it was incorporated in the official report of the proceedings, the whole of which was attested by Governor Otermín.
It will be evident to all competent scholars in this field of history that Miss Hughes has brought together from original sources a vast amount of new information concerning an epoch of vital importance to the history of the southwest. In spite of a few minor errors of detail Miss Hughes's monograph will maintain its place as an original and valuable contribution.
Charles W. Hackett.
In an interesting article which he published in the Austin American of July 19 Professor Herbert E. Bolton sets forever at rest the uncertainty which has existed concerning the site of La Salle's settlement in Texas. The settlement was on the Garcitas River, about five miles from its mouth, on land which is now a part of the ranch of Mr. Claude Keeran. In locating the site Professor Bolton was guided by a map drawn in 1690 by Manuel Joseph de Cardenas who accompanied one of the expeditions sent by sea to search for the French. Historians have formerly been inclined to locate the settlement further east, on the Lavaca River. Incidentally Dr. Bolton shows the place of La Salle's murder to have been near the present town of Navasota, instead of on the Trinity or Neches River.
A report of the Conference of American Teachers of International Law held at Washington, D. C., April 23-25, 1914, has just been published by the American Society of International Law (Byron S. Adams, printer, pp. ix, 83). The purpose of the conference was to improve and extend the teaching of international law in colleges, universities and law schools. It was held in connection with the annual meeting of the American Society of International Law upon the invitation of Senator Root as president of the Society. Forty-two of the leading colleges and universities sent delegates, most of them being teachers of international law. The University of Texas was represented by Professor William R. Manning, who read a paper at the annual meeting of the Society.
The Houston Post of July 26, 1914, publishes an illustrated article by Miss Katie Daffan describing and giving a brief historical sketch of the various Confederate monuments which have been erected in Texas.
NEWS ITEMS
Dr. Chas. W. Ramsdell, Adjunct Professor of American History in the University of Texas, has been granted leave of absence for the fall term. He will investigate certain phases of the history of the Confederacy, using chiefly the collections of material at Washington.
Mr. E. I. McCormac, Assistant Professor of American History in the University of California, has a leave of absence for the first semester, which he will spend in Washington, gathering material for a life of President Polk.
Mrs. Novaline A. Lockhart died at Corsicana on May 31, 1914. Her father, Judge Shelby Corzine [Crozine], settled near San Augustine in 1835, when she was five years of age; and his family was one of the numerous participants in the “Runaway Scrape” of the next year. She was educated at the old “San Augustine University,” was married in 1846, and had lived in Navarro county since 1854.
Mrs. M. Bowie Burns, a niece of James Bowie, died June 22, 1914, at Fort Smith, Arkansas, and was buried at Dallas, where she had lived for many years. Mrs. Burns was 78 years of age.
A. M. Kennedy, for many years a member of the Legislature and one of the best known public men in Texas, died at his home at Kerrville July 19, 1914.
The State Library has recently acquired files of The Harrison Flag, published at Marshall, Texas, covering the period from July 10, 1858, to January 12, 1861, when the paper suspended, and from November 15, 1865, to October 14, 1869; also a file of the Southern Mercury, Dallas, from January 3, 1895, to April 17, 1902.
A monument to the memory of those Confederate soldiers who served under Captain Giesecke, of the Fourth Texas Cavalry, was unveiled at Shelby, Texas, August 30, 1914.
The Texas Division of United Daughters of the Confederacy has adopted the following resolutions of appreciation for Major George W. Littlefield's gift of $25,000 to the University of Texas for the collection of material on Southern history:
“Having learned that Major George W. Littlefield, of Austin, has given $25,000 to the University of Texas to be used in producing a correct history of the United States, in which may be learned the South's part in the building of our Nation, and from which posterity shall be taught the indisputable truth regarding the secession of the southern states from the Union and subsequent facts relating thereto with refutation of false allegations and prejudicial misstatements; be it
“Resolved, That the Texas Division, United Daughters of the Confederacy, appreciates highly the wisdom, generosity, and patriotism of Major Littlefield, reveres the cause to which his benefaction shall be devoted, and does most earnestly commend Major Littlefield's action for the emulation of others who would do the Southland invaluable service which will rectify misapprehensions detrimental to the honor of the South and to the accuracy of historical record; be it
“Resolved, That the Texas Division, U. D. C., will use its utmost endeavors to the end that Major Littlefield's gift may elicit satisfactory information and secure results commensurate with the lofty standards, traditions and principles for which our fathers fought and for which our mothers endured the horrors of a war whose survivors bore the consequences with a courage and recuperative energy unequaled in the annals of protests and readjustments; be it
“Resolved, That each member of this organization who realizes the value of Major Littlefield's initiative, and who comprehends the imperative need of setting aright and keeping straight the story of our heroic defenders, shall consider it her personal duty and privilege to collect for reference and preservation statements and descriptions of facts, conditions, experiences, episodes, incidents, and all such authentic data as may throw light upon any phase of Southern history from the beginning of the Republic to the present day, especially that which relates to happenings within the past sixty years in which we have been weighed in the balance and have proven ourselves worthy of our ancestry; be it further
“Resolved, That these resolutions shall be read in the Annual Convention of this Division and recorded in the minutes; that copies be sent to the State University, The Confederate Veteran, the daily press of Texas, and to Major Littlefield with a personal letter of grateful appreciation.
Louella Styles Vincent, Dallas
Mrs. Corinne Nunn Corry, Crockett
Mrs. A. C. Johnson, Corsicana
Mrs. G. I. Goodwin, Brownwood
Committee on Resolutions, Texas Division, U. D. C.
Mrs. Lipscomb-Norvell, Chairman of the Texas Old Trails Committee, Daughters of the American Revolution, asks the assistance of all members of the Texas State Historical Association in marking the course of the Camino Real or Old San Antonio Road across Texas. Service can be rendered in two ways, — by financial contributions, and by historical research to determine the exact route of the trail. In a letter to the President of the Association, Mrs. Lipscomb-Norvell says:
It is the desire to erect a chain of monuments across the state, which the early argonauts and trappers and explorers traveled toward the setting sun, and which will not only point the way, but give you the history in detail for which the trail was noted: the places of battle, the well known stage stations, the scenes of massacres by savages, the forts and noted crossings o fthe rivers, and known graves of the dead that lie along the way, and the boundary of the Empresaio grants when the land was first opened up to colonization. These and many others to be chronicled in stone, commemorating the brave deeds of those bold pioneers who pushed out from the beaten paths of civilization into the untrodden paths of the wilderness and braved the unknown in all of its impending danger.
We are calling upon those who have any tie of blood, or association with Texas history or its people to assist by any contribution that their judgment may deem best. We are giving every true Texan an opportunity to show his patriotism, by lending a hand.
We have a fund of $1500 and hope to have as much again by the November conference of the Daughters of the American Revolution. Mr. Robison of the land office has kindly sent us maps showing the old San Antonio road, and from these maps and the resources I have for studying the Camino Real, I find it is one and the same from the Sabine river to the Brazos river. But I have never found a record of the Camino Real from the Brazos river to New Braunfels. It is like the quest of Sir Galahad, the bridges all seem to have taken fire and vanished.
Doctor Bolton has in the past published a map of the Camino Real in eastern Texas show its windings from the Sabine river to the Trinity river. The late Judge Terrell, of Austin, I find makes mention of the old road having changed its course through the Colorado valley in the last century.
To make permanent our work for all time, and that it may be under the jurisdiction of the State, the Daughters of the American Revolution will again ask the State of Texas to make the survey and appropriation to finish the work. A commission should be appointed, comprising the State Surveyor, President and Secretary of the Texas State Historical Association, with Regenet and Vice Regent and Chairman of the Texas Trails Road Committee, D. A. R., to carry out the project. Prices submitted for regulation markers of granite, 5 ft. high by 2½ ft. wide, enscribed, is $28.00.
2. Bancroft, XXI, 341.
3. Niles' Register, LXIII, 242; Larkin to James G. Bennett of the New York Herald, Feb. 2, 1842. Larkin MSS., II, No. 6.
4. Baltimore American, Dec. 24, 1842, reprinted in Niles' Register, LXIII, 277.
5. For the order against foreigners issued by the Mexican government, see above, The Quarterly, XVIII, 35-36. The Californians opposed no objection or obstacle to the coming of the Americans. Bancroft, XXI, 380.
6. Bancroft, XXI, 389-392; Hinckley to Larkin, July 20, 1843, notes the arrival of forty immigrants of respectable character under Hastings. He thought the country would soon be overstocked if the influx continued. Larkin MSS., II, No. 24.
7. Bancroft, XXI, 393-395.
8. Ibid., 444 et seq., notes two considerable parties—one under Andrew Kelsey of thirty-six persons, and the other under Elisha Stevens of nearly one hundred. The latter brought the first wagon ever used in a complete overland trip. See also Sutter to Larkin, July 7 and Aug. 8; Bidwell to Larkin, Dec. 13, 1844; Larkin MSS., II, Nos. 140, 157, 286.
From this on no attempt is made to follow in detail the arrival of emigrant parties, though note is usually made of the more important.
9. Niles' Register, LXV, 353.
10. Larkin to Secretary of State, Aug. 16, 1844. Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 4; same to same, Aug. 18, Ibid., No. 9; same to R. J. Walker, Aug. 4, Ibid., No. 11.
11. Among these may be mentioned Thomas Jefferson Farnham's Travels in California and Scenes in the Pacific Ocean (New York. 1844); Charles Wilkes' Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition (Philadelphia.Lea and Blanchard. 1844, 1845); L. W. Hastings, Emigrant's Guide to Oregon to Oregon and California (Cincinnati. 1845), etc. Most of these gave the usual descriptions of the political conditions of California, and of its commercial and agricultural advantages. All devote considerable space to San Francisco. For the influence exerted in this way, especially by Farnham, see Thwaites, Early Western Travels, XXVIII, 14; and McMaster, History of the United States, VII, 297. Hastings's efforts in connection with immigration will be considered later. Wilkes's narrative, only a small part of which dealt with California, ran through several editions. A somewhat scathing review of the contributions made by Wilkes is to be found in the North American Review, XVI, 54-107.
Larkin also was busy at this time encouraging immigration. Besides his despatches to the State Department, already noted, he collected information regarding all arrivals and sent communications to the American papers tending to arouse an interest in California. See, for example, Larkin to Sutter, April 29, 1844; Larkin, Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 7; Robinson to Larkin, Sept. 24, 1844; Larkin MSS., II, No. 210.
12. For a general description of trading conditions along the coast, see Larkin, Description of California (Commerce). Duties of the principal vessels amounted to sums ranging from $5000 to $25,000. A storage charge of twelve and a half cents (one real) was made for each large bale, and half the amount for wharfage. Tonnage dues were $1.50 per ton. There were no health or quarantine regulations, and no further port charges or fees. There were no prohibitions or restrictions as to the class of imports, no bounty or navigation acts and no drawbacks. Smuggling was common, and the bribery of California customs officials a recognized part of the trade.
The following table of customs receipts shows pretty clearly the relative volume of trade from 1839 to 1845:
Larkin to Secretary of State, Dec. 31, 1845. Larkin, Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 32.
13. There were only 63,000 hides available for sixteen vessels. Bancroft, XXI, 339.
14. Davis, Sixty Years in California (214-215) says that as many as thirty or forty whaling vessels were in the port of San Francisco at one time during 1843, 1844, and 1845. See also Larkin to Calhoun, Aug. 24, 1844. MS., State Department; same to same, Dec. 12—Thinks there will be six hundred American vessels on northwest coast within three years. Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 13.
15. The Californians claimed they did this because the Mazatlan officials, with the hope of lining their own pockets, allowed a lower rate of duty than the law specified, and that a receipt for customs duties was frequently given when only a bribe had been paid by the ship owner or captain.
16. Larkin to Secretary of State, Sept. 16, 1844. Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 10; same to same, Oct. 16; Bancroft, XXI, 376-377.
17. Larkin to Calhoun, Aug. 24, 1844. MS., State Department; same to United States Minister in Mexico, Aug. 14, 1844. Ibid.
18. Bancroft, XXI, 376.
19. Thos. A. Norton, captain of the Chas. W. Morgan, to Consul Larkin, Aug. 12, 1844—Has just put into port after a cruise of thirty-four months. Men down with scurvy—custom of all ports in Pacific to allow whalers to sell goods and reprovision—will work a great hardship if denied him at San Francisco (Larkin Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 13). Larkin sent this letter to Governor Micheltorena.
20. Calhoun to Larkin, Dec. 28, 1844. Ibid., No. 303. It was brought by the president in turn to the attention of Congress.
21. Larkin to Calhoun, Aug. 19, 1844. MS., State Department; same to Henry Lindsey, Editor of the New Bedford Whaleman's Shipping List, Dec. 11. Larkin Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 11.
22. Sutter to Larkin, March 28, 1844. Larkin MSS., II, No. 73. Frémont reached New Helvetia March 6.
23. It was a singular coincidence, if nothing more, that caused the editor of the New York Journal of Commerce to publish in his paper of March 5, directly beneath Polk's inaugural address, an article headed, “California Coming.”
24. The remaining three were the settlement of the Oregon boundary line, a reduction of the tariff, and the establishment of a subtreasury. See Edward G. Bourne, Essays in Historical Criticism (Yale bicentennial publications, II), 229; and various other authorities.
25. The Diary of James K. Polk, edited by Milo M. Quaife. Chicago Historical Society's Collections, Vol. VI (Chicago, A. C. McClurg &Co. 1910), I, 34.
26. New Orleans Daily Picayune, Sept. 27, 1845.
27. The Works of James Buchanan (collected and edited by John Bassett Moore. Philadelphia and London. J. B. Lippincott Company. 1909), VI, 134-135.
28. Reeves, American Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk, 269. For the full text of Parrott's instructions see Buchanan, Works, VI, 132-134.
29. Reeves, 269.
30. Thompson to Webster, Nov. 30, 1842. MS., State Department.
31. Larkin-Parrott Correspondence. Larkin MSS., passim.
32. Black to Buchanan, July 3, 1845. MS., State Department.
33. Black to Slidell, Dec. 25, 1845—“The Mexican ministry positively refuse to receive Parrott as Secretary of Legation.” MS., State Department.
Polk's choice of confidential agent would have been much more suitable had he selected either Black, the American consul at Mexico City, or Dimond, who filled a like position at Vera Cruz.
34. Reeves, 270.
35. Parrott to Buchanan, Aug. 26. MS., State Department; also Reeves, 271.
36. Polk, Diary, I, 34.
37. Ibid., I, 34-35.
The line desired by Polk ran up the Rio Grande to El Paso and thence west to the Pacific. For the instructions to Slidell, however, see below, p. 129. If Jackson's offer, as Adams said, was only $500,000 for the more valuable part of this territory but ten years before, one is tempted to think the present day promoters of California real estate are not without historical example for their claims.
38. Ibid., 35-36, entry for Sept. 17.
39. Ibid.; also Buchanan to Black, Sept. 17. Buchanan, Works, VI, 260-261. Slidell was dubious as to his reception in Mexico, but prepared to leave whenever word should reach him from Washington. Slidell to Buchanan, Sept. 25, Ibid., 264-265.
40. Polk, Diary, I, 91. The quotation is important owing to the subsequent rejection of Slidell because of the wording of his commission. It is evident that Polk thought the Mexican government, as here stated, had agreed to receive him as minister. But see Tyler's, Tylers, III, 176-177.
41. Polk, Diary, I, 91-92. A partial draft of these had already been prepared. Ibid; also entry for Sept. 22.
42. Ibid., 93.
43. Ibid.
44. “His instructions were chiefly verbal.” Schouler, History of the United States, V, 525. On the contrary, they were carefully written out and very explicit, filling twelve pages in printed form, of Buchanan's Works.
45. For this omission, see Chapter V.
46. For complete instructions, see Buchanan, Works, VI, 294-306. The part relating to California is on pp. 304-306.
47. For Slidell's course in Mexico, see Reeves, 282-287; Schouler, V, 525-526; Jay, Mexican War, 211-220 (an account biased as usual); Rives, The United States and Mexico, II, 53-80 (perhaps the best account.) Slidell's desire to hasten his recognition by the Mexican government can be fairly accounted for on two grounds—his wish to be recognized by the Herrera administration before it should be turned out of office; and the urging of the president, who desired to end the uncertain condition of affairs with Mexico before the adjournment of Congress. Buchanan, Works, VI, 312.
48. Buchanan to Slidell, Ibid., 345; see also Polk, Diary, I, 125.
49. Slidell to Buchanan, Feb. 6, 1846. MS., State Department.
50. Buchanan to Slidell, March 12. Buchanan, Works, VI, 403.
51. Polk, Diary, I, 303, entry for March 25. Polk had probably already interviewed Ingersoll on the subject a week previously. Ibid.; and entry for March 18, page 282.
52. President Herrera asserted that the mere willingness to listen to Slidell's propositions had served as sufficient pretext for inciting the revolution that caused his overthrow. See a letter from Herrera, cited by Cass in the senate, on March 27, 1848. Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 1 sess., page 493.
53. Sir George Simpson, Narrative of a voyage around the world during the years 1841 and 1842. (London. 1847), I, 298-299. Simpson was governor of the Hudson's Bay Company.
54. Wilkes, Narrative, V, 163.
55. Simpson, Narrative, I, 190.
56. Wilkes, Narrative, V, 152.
57. Simpson, Narrative, I, 197.
58. For example: Commandancia General to Ministro de Guerra y Marina, April 25, 1840 (Vallejo, Documentos, IX, No. 124); Vallejo to Ministro de Guerra, May 18, 1841 (Ibid., No. 147); Alvarado to Vallejo, Nov. 30, 1841 (Ibid., No. 369); Bustamente to Vallejo, April 25, 1840—Government trusts in his ability to defend the province from invasion. Civil war in Mexico prevents aid being sent immediately (Ibid., No. 122).
59. Dana noted the wretched policy pursued by Mexico in the character of men she sent out as officials. “The administradores,” he wrote, “are strangers sent from Mexico, having no interest in the country; not identified in any way with their charge, and for the most part, men of desperate fortunes—broken down politicians and soldiers,—whose only object is to retrieve their condition as soon as possible. Two Years before the Mast, 195.
60. J. M. Guinn, Capture of Monterey in Historical Society of Southern California, Publications, III, 70.
One is reminded by this of Houston's declaration that Mexico had seen three revolutions in twelve months, and Benton's interjection, “She has had seventeen in twenty-five years.” Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 2 sess., 459.
61. Larkin to Secretary of State, Sept. 16, 1844. Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 10. Jones to Larkin, Oct. 22, 1842—Thinks Mexico is going to make California the Botany Bay of America. Larkin MSS., I, No. 354. See also Nos. 364-367, for further discussion.
62. Robinson, Life in California, 207.
63. Blackmar, Spanish Colonization in the Southwest in Johns Hopkins University Studies, VIII, 183.
64. For complete description, see Baneroft, XXI, 455-517.
65. I. C. Jones to Larkin, Feb. 26, 1845. Larkin MSS., III. No. 37.
Upon his arrival in Mexico, Micheltorena represented his expulsion as an act for which Americans were largely responsible. Baneroft, XXI, 513. This aroused considerable bitterness against the United States. Shannon to Calhoun, April 6, 1845. MS., State Department.
66. Bidwell (California, 139), speaks of the “anomalous position” of the Californians, “as enemies to the United States as Mexicans, enemies to Mexico as regarded their local government, afraid of the former, not able to rely upon the latter, and not strong enough in themselves for independence.”
67. Jones-Larkin correspondence during this period (Larkin MSS.); Juan B. Alvarado, Historia de California (MSS., Baneroft Collection), II, 130-131; Baneroft, XXI, 518-543; Ibid., XXII, 30 et seq. Prefect Manuel Castro to Andrés Castillero, Dec. 10, 1845, concerning measures to prevent civil war. Castro, Documentos, I, No. 238.
68. Robinson, Life in California, 213-214.
69. Frémont's first expedition had taken place in 1842 but had gone no farther than the South Pass and Frémont's Peak in the Rocky Mountains.
70. Report of the Exploring Expedition in the year 1842 and to Oregon and North California in the years 1843-44, by Brevet Capt. J. C. Frémont . . . printed by order of the House of Representatives (Washington, Blair, and Reeves, 1845), 228-229; Larkin to the State Department, April 12, 1844, enclosing a letter from Sutter. Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 3.
71. The report ran through four editions within two years. It is interesting to note that one of Frémont's chief objects was to discover whether or not the mythical Buenaventura River flowed from the basin east of the Rocky Mountains into the Pacific, thus opening up a waterway for the western outlet of the Mississippi Valley and a transcontinental route for the Chinese trade. Because no such river was found to exist he placed much more importance on obtaining the Columbia for the United States. Report, 255-256.
72. The description of Frémont's passage of the Sierras and his stay in California occupies pages 229-256 of the Report.
73. Two men went temporarily insane; half their mules were killed for food. Report, 229-244. Sutter wrote to Larkin, March 28, 1844, “. . . for a month . . . the company had subsisted entirely on horse or mule flesh—the starvation and fatigue they had endured rendered them truly deplorable objects.” Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 3. The passage of the mountains occupied nearly a month. The party reached Sutter's March 6th.
74. Frémont's description of California cannot be given by separate quotations. The whole of it must be read to be appreciated. One sentence, written after his departure, may be cited merely as an example. “One might travel the world over,” he wrote, “without finding a valley more fresh and verdant—more floral and sylvan—more alive with birds and animals—more bounteously watered—than we had left in the San Joaquin.” Report, 256.
75. John Charles Frémont, Memoirs of My Life (Chicago and New York. Bedford, Clarke and Company, 1887), I, 413.
76. Ibid., 420.
77. Hunt's Merchants' Magazine, April, 1846, 350-353.
78. Larkin, John Marsh, and Hastings were especially active in this respect.
79. Larkin to N. Y. Sun, May 28, 1845. Larkin MSS., III, 168.
80. N. Y. Sun, Oct. (?), 1845; quoted in the Washington Daily Union, Oct. 11.
81. New York Journal of Commerce, March 5, 1845; copied also in Charleston Mercury, March 10.
82. Quoted in Niles' Register, LXVIII, 162.
83. American Review, Jan., 1846; see also comment upon this in Richmond Enquirer, Jan. 26.
84. Larkin to Journal of Commerce, July 31, 1845 (Larkin MSS., III, No. 235). Same to James G. Bennett of the New York Herald, May 26, 1846 (Ibid., IV, No. 129); N. Y. Herald to Larkin, Oct. 14, 1845 (Ibid., No. 306); Hudson [for Bennett] to Childs [Larkin's brother-in-law in Washington], Dec. 5, 1846—“When you write to Mr. Larkin . . . please say . . . that so far as we can we will take care of California. We have always been in favor of the acquisition of that territory” (Ibid., No. 337); see also Polk's Diary, I, 126-127. Larkin's communications were likewise sent to the Boston Daily Advertiser.
85. For example, Larkin's letter of July 31 to the Journal of Commerce was reprinted from that paper in the Washington Daily Union of Oct. 21, 1845, and in the Charleston Mercury of Oct. 22. In how many other papers it appeared cannot be stated.
86. Beach to Larkin, Dec. 24, 1845. Larkin MSS., III, No. 307.
87. Letter of Whitney printed in Washington Daily Union, Feb. 6, 1846.
88. Daily Union, Oct. 16, 1845, giving an outline of transcontinental routes, as follows: 1. Canal across the Isthmus of Darien. 2. Railroad along the Rio del Norte to San Francisco. 3. Line from St. Louis through the Rocky Mts. to Oregon (“California is henceforth to be the promised land to the emigrant seeking a home on the Pacific”). The New Orleans Picayune of Nov. 22 had a statement from Albert M. Gilliam, “late U. S. consul at California”—[Gilliam was appointed for San Francisco but never assumed his duties]—that California would soon fall into Anglo-Saxon hands and a railroad would be needed to terminate at San Francisco.
89. Extracts upon this subject from the St. Louis New Era, the Burlington Hawkeye, the St. Louis Reporter, the Missouri Era, were printed in the single issue of the Daily Union for May 20, 1845.
90. Extract from the Western Expositor stating that Frémont's return from California would probably result in the discovery of a route 300 or 400 miles shorter than the one already in use, and the saving of two months' time on the trip. Daily Union, July 31, 1845: New Orleans Picayune, April 22, 1846.
91. Parties for California always left in the spring in order to cross the mountains during the summer, and arrived in California during the fall. A late passage of the Sierras was accompanied with great danger, as for example, in the case of the Donner party.
92. Daily Union, Jan. 9, 1846. This project had been conceived some time before: 1000 persons were to be enlisted, their goods shipped by sea while they themselves went overland. Ibid., Sept. 17, 1845.
93. Daily Union, May 20, 1845; Robinson [from N. Y.] to Larkin, May 29. Larkin MSS., III, No. 170.
94. Larkin to Secretary of State, Nov. 4, 1845 (Official Correspondence, Part II, No. 28); also same to same, June 16, 1846 (Ibid., 94-96); same to F. M. Dimond, United States consul at Vera Cruz, March 1, 1846 (Ibid., No. 91); same to United States minister at Mexico, April 3, 1846 (Ibid., No. 78).
95. Sutter to Larkin (Larkin MSS., III, No. 220); same to same, Oct. 8, 1845. Thousands coming within the year. Mexico cannot stem the stream; if she tried they would “fight like Lyons.” Ibid., No. 315.
96. Marsh to Larkin, Aug. 12. Ibid., No. 247.
97. Jameson, The Correspondence of John C. Calhoun (Washington. American Historical Association. 1900), 1069.
98. Sutter to Larkin, March 2, 1846 (Larkin MSS., IV, No. 53); Hastings to Larkin, March 3, 1846. Ibid., No. 55.
99. See for example statements of Ide, Swasey, and Clyman in their published works.
100. Letter from an Oregon immigrant to the Ohio Patriot, copied in the Daily Union, Dec. 30, 1845; also extract from Sangamon Journal in the Daily Union, Jan. 1, 1846.
101. The London Athenaeum, July 11, 1846, in reviewing Robinson's Life in California, said that emigrants leaving ostensibly for the Willamette Valley were really bound for California and that the whole country was determined to possess San Francisco; the London Illustrated News, Oct. 11, 1845, said the majority of emigrants to Oregon leave as soon as possible for California; letter of Sir George Simpson in Niles' Register, LXVIII, 393-1000 of 5000 Oregon emigrants have left for California; New Orleans Picayune, Aug. 7, 1845—statement to same effect.
102. Bancroft, XXIX, 552, n.
103. Marsh to Larkin, Aug. 12, 1845. Has seen the newspaper articles by Oregonians derogatory to California. Will write in defence a reply setting forth the merits and advantages of the province. Larkin MSS., III, No. 247.
104. Robinson to Larkin, May 29, 1845. Larkin MSS., III, No. 170. Robinson added that the papers were filled with such suggestions.
105. Atherton to Larkin, March 4, 1846. Ibid., IV, No. 58.
106. Hooper to Larkin (from Honolulu), April 29, 1845. Ibid., III.
107. Smith to Calhoun, Dec. 30, 1845. Calhoun Correspondence, 1069.
108. Bancroft, XXI, 601.
109. The Quarterly, XVIII, 17, n. 53.
110. See also Green's report of Hasting's scheme, The Quarterly, XVIII, 36-37.
111. William Carey Crane, Life and literary remains of Sam Houston of Texas (Philadelphia. J. B. Lippincott &Co., 1884), 366-370.
112. Donelson to Jackson, Dec. 28, 1844. Jackson MSS.
113. Niles' Register, LXVIII, 205.
114. Thomas Jefferson to John Jacob Astor, May 24, 1812 (The writings of Thomas Jefferson. Ford ed. New York. G. P. Putman's Sons. 1898), IX, 351.
115. Annals of Congress, XL, 422-423; 598-599; Thomas H. Benton. Thirty years' view (New York. D. Appleton and Company, 1854), II, 430; McMaster, History of the United States, VII, 296-297; 300-301, and authorities quoted.
116. Wilkes' Narrative, V, 182-183.
117. Thompson, Recollections, 232. His informant was Lansford W. Hastings.
118. Green to Calhoun, April 11, 1844. Calhoun Correspondence, 946.
119. George Bancroft to Polk, April 27, 1845. Polk MSS.
120. McLane to Buchanan, Dec. 1, 1845. MS., State Department.
121. Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 1 sess., p. 478.
122. Ibid., 350.
123. Bidwell, Life in California, 110-112; 116; Calhoun Correspondence, 940 et seq.; Bancroft, XXI, 578.
124. Hartnell to Wyllie, March 17, 1844. Vallejo Documentos, XXXII, No. 14.
125. Stephen Reynolds (Oahu) to Larkin, April 19, 1845—Believes if California unites with the United States the nation will be too unwieldly to last (Larkin MSS., III, No. 116); Atherton to Larkin, Feb. 11, 1845. Ibid., No. 25.
126. Marsh to Larkin. Larkin MSS., III, No. 247. Marsh included the territory north of the Columbia in his scheme, perhaps as far as the 54th parallel. From the tone of this letter Larkin had evidently expressed himself in favor of the Oregon union.
127. Marsh was a Harvard College graduate.
128. Ford to Young, April 8, 1845, in Edward W. Tullidge, History of Salt Lake City and Its Founders (Salt Lake City. Edward W. Tullidge), 8.
129. Polk, Diary, I, 205-206.
130. Tullidge claims the plan originated as early as 1842, and that in 1844 Brigham Young instructed the twelve apostles to send out a delegation to investigate Oregon and California. Ibid., 4-6.
131. He arrived at Sutter's on Dec. 25, 1845. Diary of New Helvetia Events, MS., p. 25; Leese to Larkin, Jan. 12, 1846. Larkin MSS., IV, No. 12.
132. Editorial in the New York Sun, and a letter from Bennett of the New York Herald, stating that 25 companies of 100 families were bound for San Francisco Bay, and would become troublesome to the United States, either in Oregon or California and the government should look to the matter. Reprinted in the Washington Daily Union, Nov. 20, 1845.
John H. Everett (Boston) to Larkin, Dec. 12, 1845—Mormons will be in California next spring and act as the Israelites did toward the nations among whom they came—“kill you all and take your possessions. . . . One of today's papers says . . . 10,000 are to start for California. Look out for an avalanche.” Larkin MSS., III. Beach (New York Sun) to Larkin, Dec. 24, 1845—100,000 Mormons will be in California by spring. Ibid., No. 407.
133. Diary, I, 205-206.
134. Baneroft, XXII, 550.
135. Samuel J. Hastings to Larkin, Nov. 9, 1845. Larkin MSS., III, No. 570. This Hastings had frequently been on the California coast as master of the brig Tasso. Whether he was a kinsman of the Lansford Hastings so frequently mentioned is uncertain; but evidently he had knowledge of his plans. See also Everett (Boston) to Larkin, Sept. 15—“if the plan of a colony succeeds we may soon expect a declaration of independence or a desire of annexation from your part of the world.” Ibid., No. 290.
136. L. W. Hastings to Larkin, March 3, 1846. Larkin MSS., IV, No. 55. Hastings was even then on his way to Oregon after more settlers. He had placed the number expected during the following year at 20,000.
137. Tullidge insists that Brannan learned that the government was preparing to hinder the emigration of the Mormons (because it was feared they would join with the English or Mexican interests in California against the United States) and that Amos Kendall and other prominent men in Washington undertook to prevent this, provided Young and his followers would deed to them “through A. G. Benson and Co.,” half the lands and town lots they secured in California. It was also said that Polk was a silent partner to the scheme.
Some interesting light is thrown on this assertion by Polk's Diary. Kendall seems to have taken a pretty active interest in Mormon affairs, as the Salt Lake historian says; and Polk refused, as we have shown, to prevent their emigration. But the president scarcely would have lent himself to any such scheme of petty blackmail. Diary, I, 444; 449-450; 455-456.
138. Larkin to State Department, June 5, 1845—3 or 4 orders received from Mexico. Commandante General informs him he is perfectly willing to lay these aside and allow men to proceed to any place they desire (Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 22); also, Castro, Documentos, I, Nos. 152, 214; Bancroft, XXI, 604-605.
139. Guerrero to Castro, Jan. 24, 1846. Castro, Documentos, VI, No. 309.
140. Alvarado, Historia de California, II, 133-134.
141. Lancey, Cruise of the Dale, 41; Swasey, Statement (MS., Bancroft Collection); Bancroft, XXI, 614.
142. The rumors of this expedition filled California for many months, the force being reported as numbering from 500 to 18,000. Larkin to New York Sun, Sept. 30, 1845. Larkin MSS., III, No. 305; Pini to Larkin (from Mazatlan) July 3, Ibid., No. 211; McKinley to Larkin, July 12. Ibid., No. 218; Stearns to Larkin, June 19. Ibid., No. 196. See also Bancroft, XXII, 33.
143. See also Parrott to Buchanan, Oct. 11, 1845. MS., State Department. L. W. Hastings had likewise called upon the president and acquainted him with the conditions in California, when in Washington. Hastings to Larkin, Larkin MSS., III, No. 13.
144. Larkin to Calhoun, Aug. 18, 1844. Larkin Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 9. Same to same, Sept. 16. Ibid., No. 10.
145. Larkin to Calhoun, March 22, 1845. Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 19.
146. H. Ex. Docs., 29 Cong., 2 sess., No. 19, page 75. These are also printed in whole or in part in most of the secondary works on the period.
147. Larkin to Secretary of State, June 5, 1845. MS., State Department; also Larkin Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 22. Same to same, July 10. MS. State Department; Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 25.
148. Bancroft, XXI, 596-597; Century Magazine, XIX, 928-929. For the complete despatch see Buchanan, Works, VI, 275-278; Rayner Wickersham Kelsey, The United States Consulate in California. Publications of the Academy of Pacific Coast History, Vol. I, No. 5, June, 1910, pp. 100-103.
149. Buchanan, Works, VI, 304; Kelsey, 58 n.
150. Bancroft; XXII; 26-27; Kelsey, 64.
151. Ibid., also Larkin MSS., III, No. 337.
152. Bancroft, XXI, 581-585. It is not considered necessary to go into detail regarding the division of the party. Frémont spent from Jan. 27 to Feb. 9 at Monterey. upon Larkin's invitation, buying supplies and discussing the political affairs of the country with the American consul. Kelsey, 52.
153. For the permission granted by the California authorities, see Larkin to Manuel Castro (Larkin Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 76); Gov. Pio Pico to Castro, Feb. 18, 1846. Castro, Documentos, II, No. 23, copy. For the Hawk's Peak affair see Bancroft, XXII, 5-21, and citations; Kelsey, 98-99.
154. This was the reason assigned officially but it was recognized as only a blind. Larkin to Commander of any American ship at Mazatlan, March 9, 1846. Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 38; same to Secretary of State (Ibid.) Frémont, Memoirs, I, 461.
155. Bancroft, XXI, 596-597.
156. Larkin to Secretary of State, April 18. Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 41.
157. Forbes to Oliveria, Jan. 28, 1846, in Ephraim Douglas Adams, British interests and activities in Texas, 1838-46 [Addendum, English interests in the annexation of California]. (Baltimore. The Johns Hopkins Press. 1910), p. 251. See also Guerrero to Castro (from San Francisco), Jan. 24, 1846. Castro, Documentos.
158. Bancroft, XXII, 86, citations from the subsequent testimony of Gillespie and Frémont. Gillespie had also held several private interviews with Polk before leaving Washington. Polk, Diary, I, 84-85.
159. Bancroft, XXII, 86.
160. He had been detained some months in Mexico and hence knew of Slidell's probable rejection. Reeves, American Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk, 282.
161. Bancroft, XXII, 86 n., quotation from Frémont's later testimony.
162. Larkin to Stearns, March 19, 1846. Official Correspondence, Pt. II. No. 90. Marsh to Larkin, Feb. 15—“The distant rumors of mighty events have made me leave the retirement of my farm . . . and I have come to this place on a visit to Capt. Frémont. It appears that the present year will bring great changes on the face of California.” Larkin, MSS., IV, No. 39.
163. Gillespie to Larkin, April 25, 1846. Ibid., No. 144.
164. Larkin to Secretary of State, April 2, 1846—“The undersigned believes that a flag if respectfully planted will receive the good will of much of the wealth and respectability of the country.” Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 40. See also Leidesdorf to Larkin, May 7. Larkin MSS., IV, No. 111.
165. A civil war between Castro and other northern leaders on one side, and Governor Pio Pico on the other was about to break out. Bancroft, XXII, 30-53.
166. Larkin to Abel Stearns, Los Angeles; John Warner, San Diego, and Jacob Leese, Sonoma, April 17. Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 100.
167. Kelsey, 67-68.
168. Larkin to Secretary of State, July 20, 1846, “Address to Californians.” Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 13. Larkin also advised many of the Californians to take up land before the change came. A copy of a grant of eleven square leagues along the San Joaquin is among the Larkin papers of this period. MSS., IV, No. 41.
169. Larkin to Lease, May 21, 1846. Larkin, MSS., IV, No. 102. Same to Stearns, May 21. Ibid., No. 101. Same to Secretary of State, June 1. Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 44.
170. See Larkin to Secretary of State, June 1st, Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 44.
171. Larkin to Secretary of State, July 20, 1846. Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 54.
172. Stearns to Larkin, June 12, 1846. Larkin MSS., IV, No. 151. Warner to Larkin, June 11. Ibid., 156.
173. For Vallejo's friendliness to the United States see Bancroft, XXII, 758.
174. Larkin to Mott, Talbot &Co., Mazatlan, June 18. Larkin MSS., IV, No. 165. Neither Leidesdorf nor Sutter had any knowledge of the plans or purposes of the revolt. Leidesdorf to Larkin, June 16, Ibid., No. 159; Sutter to Larkin. Ibid., No. 160.
175. Larkin to Buchanan, June 30, 1847. Official Correspondence, Pt. II, 67. See also Bancroft, XXII, 98, and citations.
176. Benton, Thirty years' view, II, 688-689; John Bigelow, Memoirs of the Life and Public Service of John Charles Frémont (New York. Derby &Jackson, 1856), 141-145.
177. This is the view taken by Bancroft. The same idea was expressed very positively to me by Dr. Willey, founder of the University of California, in an interview Nov. 29, 1911. Dr. Willey was personally acquainted both with Larkin and Frémont. See, also, the discussion in Rives, The United States and Mexico, 164-194.
178. Cave Johnston to Polk, March 20, 1849. Polk MSS. Same to same, March 22. Ibid.
179. Bancroft, XXII, 196-197 (citations from U. S. Gov. Docs., containing instructions to Sloat, Kearney, etc.).
180. Polk, Diary, III, entry for March 21.
181. For the earlier portion of this paper, see The Quarterly, XVIII, 41-73.
182. True Issue, February 3, 1860.
183. North, Five Years in Texas, 72.
184. Charles R. Prior in State Gazette, July 28, 1860; True Issue, July 26, 1860.
185. State Gazette, August 4, 1860.
186. State Gazette, August 25, 1860.
187. Quoted by State Gazette, September 15, 1860.
188. Quoted by State Gazette, August 4, 1860.
189. True Issue, October 11, 1860.
190. Southern Intelligencer, September 5, 1860.
191. Some of the men quoted were Senator Bell of Tennessee, Sam Houston, Millard Fillmore, and Herschel V. Johnson, nominee for vice-president on the Douglas ticket.
192. Wm. H. Parsons in articles published in State Gazette, April 14, 1860.
193. Southern Intelligener, January 30, 1861.
194. True Issue, December 6, 1860.
195. True Issue, June 8, 1860.
196. State Gazette, September 8, 1860.
197. State Gazette, January 12, 1861.
198. State Gazette, August 29, 1860.
199. Ibid.
200. I have found such resolutions adopted at Burnet, Round Rock, Winchester, Crockett, Bastrop, Hempstead, La Grange, Austin, and Cameron. See various numbers of the True Issue and The Southern Intelligencer published during the summer of 1860. Others would no doubt be discovered if more complete files of newspapers were available for the period.
201. Newcomb, Secession Times in Texas, 6.
202. True Issue, October 25, 1860.
203. Williams, Sam Houston and the War of Independence in Texas, 340.
204. True Issue, November 15, 1860.
205. State Gazette, December 1, 1860.
206. The Democrats elected were: George Flournoy, Attorney General, Cyrus H. Randolph, State Treasurer, Clement R. Johns, Comptroller.
207. Red Land Express, Palestine Advocate, Harrison Republican.
208. State Gazette, December 1, 1860.
209. Ibid., December 15, 1860.
Other counties in which the people advocated secession and requested Houston to convene the legislature were Polk, Dallas, Smith, Coryell, Sabine, Leon, Grimes, and Galveston. State Gazette, passim, during November and December, 1860.
210. True Issue, October 18, 1860.
211. True Issue, November 29, 1860.
212. Southern Intelligencer, January 23, 1861.
213. Ibid. The Southern Intelligencer does not give Colonel Henderson's initials.
214. Lossing, Pictorial History of Civil War, I, 186.
215. Lubbock, Six Decades in Texas, 303.
216. The old act passed in 1852 divided the representation in the legislature disproportionally. For instance, Galveston with only eight hundred and seventeen votes had one senator, while Milam and Burleson with nearly two thousand six hundred votes had only one.—State Gazette, December 10, 1859.
217. True Issue, December 6, 1860.
218. A. M. Williams, Sam Houston, 342.
219. A writer in the Continental Monthly for January, 1862, says: “This organization, which was instituted by John C. Calhoun, William C. Porcher, and others, as far back as 1835, had for its sole object the dissolution of the Union and the establishment of a Southern Empire; Empire is the word, not confederacy or Republic:—and it was solely by means of its secret, but powerful machinery, that the Southern States were plunged into revolution, in defiance of the will of a majority of their voting population.”
The evidence upon which the above statement is made in regard to Calhoun is not known. Authentic Exposition of the Knights of the Golden Circle, 1. In Lossing, Civil War in America, I, 187, a footnote reads, “It is authoritatively asserted that it [the order of the Knights of the Golden Circle] was founded by John C. Calhoun and other South Carolina conspirators, in the year 1835.” But no authority is given.
220. Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas, II, 434.
221. Roberts in A Comprehensive History of Texas, II, 86.
222. True Issue, November 1, 1860.
223. Quoted from pamphlet republished in State Gazette, November 1, 1860.
224. Quoted from the Southern Intelligencer by the True Issue, November 1, 1860.
225. R. H. Williams, With the Border Ruffians, 159.
226. Newcomb, Secession Times in Texas, 6.
227. Galveston News, May 19, 1855.
228. Ibid., June 12, 1855.
229. Ibid., July 17, 1855.
230. Ibid., December 8, 1855.
231. State Gazette, April 9, 1859.
232. State Gazette, September 10, 1859.
233. True Issue, August 24, 1860.
234. Roberts, in A Comprehensive History of Texas, II, 87.
235. In A Comprehensive History of Texas, II, 88.
236. The names of W. J. Darden, J. P. Gibson, T. N. Waul, Wm. Carleton, J. H. Lightfoot, James E. Harrison, Robert J. Townes, A. R. Crozier, J. M. Steiner, C. Kyle and M. D. Graham are found in the Journal but not in Justice Roberts's call. Other signers of the two calls were identical.
237. Art. 1 of the Bill of Rights declares “All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit; and they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform, or abolish their form of government in such a manner as they may think expedient.” Journal of the Secession Convention of Texas, 10.
238. In all essential features the Roberts address is the same, except that it omits the important provision for submitting the work of the convention to the people. The origin of this paragraph cannot be traced. Among Judge Roberts's manuscripts is a paper that reads as follows:
“1860 The First Call upon the People of Texas to assemble in Convention—Drawn up by myself and Gen. W. P. Rogers, George Flournoy, Attorney General and by Col. John S. Ford in November at the Capitol in Austin.
“This was copied by me and sent to Gen. Rogers at Houston and adopted at a Mass Meeting at that Place. It was also sent to other places and brought out about the same time.
“Afterwards and before the meeting at Houston come off there being a number of persons wishing to sign the call that was to come out from Austin, Col. Geo. Flournoy drew up one (which is the printed copy here annexed) which was signed and kept unpublished untill after the Houston meeting and made public early in Decr—I allude to this at the close of my speech of 1st Decr 1860 at the Capital.”
According to this memorandum, George Flournoy drew up the address which was distributed throughout the state. The address referred to in Judge Roberts's memorandum as “annexed” is in the form of a circular. With the exception that it omits the paragraph submitting the action of the convention to the people, it is the same as the one printed in the Journal. This paragraph, however, appears in the address when it was published in the State Gazette, December 8. The meeting at Houston that Judge Roberts speaks of took place, and it may be that the paragraph was inserted there. No detailed account of this meeting appears in the available papers. There is only one reference to the meeting in the Gazette, which simply states that at the meeting it was recommended that a state convention be held at Austin, January 28; that each representative district elect two delegates; and that the election be held on the 8th. But in speaking of the plan for the convention the Gazette said,“This is the same plan suggested in a communication recently published in this paper, signed by gentlemen living in different counties.” (State Gazette, December 15, 1860. According to the True Issue, December 6, 1860, The Galveston Telegrapher published the same plan except that the names of the men who signed it did not appear in the Galveston News.) The date of the Houston meeting is not given, but, according to Judge Roberts, the meeting took place before Flournoy's address was published. Flournoy's original address, then, does not contain the paragraph providing for submitting the action of the convention to the people, but when the address was published in the Gazette, it was there, in the same order as in the Journal. The reference to the address in Judge Roberts's speech on December 1 throws no light on the subject. He merely says there: “It has been suggested that an effort is being made to hold an election in Texas for delegates to a convention, on the 8th of January next. I hope that it will be done. That is an appropriate day for it.
“Texans may cast their vote that day, inspired by the brilliant achievements, that made it immemorable:—Southern valor driving back the enemey that dared to invade Southern soil.” Roberts Papers, University of Texas Archives.
239. Justice James H. Bell, Speech at Austin, December 1, 1860. Roberts Papers, University of Texas Archives.
240. According to the certificates of election, Journal of Secession Convention of Texas, 409-452.
241. Senate and House Journal, 1861, 20.
242. Ibid., 37.
243. Journal of the House of Representatives, 1861, 57; Journal of the Secession Convention of Texas, 13.
244. Gammel, Laws of Texas, V, General Laws of Extra Session, 1861, 18.
245. The True Issue, January 31, 1861.
246. Journal of the Secession Convention of Texas, 22-23.
247. Ibid., 25.
248. Ibid., 25.
249. Ibid., 50.
250. Ibid., 73.
251. Ibid., 31.
252. Journal of the Secession Convention of Texas, 37.
253. Ibid., 47.
254. The minority report was signed by W. B. Ochiltree, A. W. Hicks, Wm. S. Todd, P. T. Herbert. Ibid., 36.
255. Ibid., 36.
256. Journal of the Secession Convention of Texas, 38.
257. Ibid., 44.
258. Ibid., 44.
259. True Issue, February 7, 1861.
260. True Issue, February 7, 1861.
261. Journal of the Secession Convention of Texas, 58.
262. Ibid., 61.
263. Ibid., 63.
264. Ibid., 71, 82.
265. Ibid., 33.
266. Ibid., 68.
267. Ibid., 76.
268. Ibid., 53.
269. Ibid., 85.
270. I am indebted to the following sources for the material of this history: Original letters and business papers of the family of John R. Harris, of Lewis Birdsall, and of Andrew Briscoe; records of county court, probate and commissioners courts, and district court of Harris county; The Gazette, published at San Felipe de Austin, October, 1829, by Goodwin Brown Cotton; The Telegraph and Texas Register (Houston), 1838-1856 (incomplete); The Morning Star (Houston). volumes 1 to 6, April 8, 1839, to October 26, 1844; “Extracts from an Historical sketch of Harris County,” by C. Anson Jones, in Burke's Texas Almanac, 1879, taken from an address read by him at the centennial celebration held at the State Fair Grounds, in Houston, July 4, 1876; “A manuscript History of the Early settlement of Harris County,” by Mrs. Mary J. Briscoe (only daughter of John R. Harris) written by her for the Ladies' Reading Club of Houston in 1885; The Morning Star, H. D. Fitch, editor, Houston, March 4, 1840; Letters from A. B. Dodson of Alice, Texas, Texas Almanac, 1858, pp. 115-116, and 1859, pp. 36-59, From Virginia to Texas (1835), being a diary of Colonel Wm. F. Gray, published by A. C. Gray in 1909; Six Decades in Texas, by F. R. Lubbock, “Troubles of a Mexican Revenue Officer,” by Eugene C. Barker, in The Quarterly, IV, 190-202; “Reminiscences of Mrs. Dilue Harris,” Ibid., IV, 85-127, 155-189, VII, 214-222; “The first Texas Railroad,” by P. Briscoe, Ibid., 279-286; Year Book for Texas (1901), by C. W. Raines; biographical sketches, by John Henry Brown, in his Indian Wars and Texas Pioneers; biographical sketches of citizens of Houston and Galveston in History of Texas, published by Lewis Publishing Company, Chicago, 1895. “A Tale of two Texas towns” (Anahuac and Harrisburg), by Adele B. Looscan, Galveston News, September 6, 1903. “History of The Texas Press,” by A. C. Gray, in A Comprehensive History of Texas, II, 368-423, and copies of papers filed in court in the succession of John R. Harris, the final settlement of the business having been effected by Judge Andrew Briscoe. The “Extracts from an Historical Sketch of Harris County,” were, so far as statements about early settlers are concerned, chiefly obtained from John Iiams (son of the first settler), and members of other families who arrived at an early period.
271. These names are obtained from Lester G. Bugbee's “The Old Three Hundred,” in The Quarterly, I, 108-117.
272. Burke's Texas Almanac, 1879, p. 88.
273. Ibid., 78.
274. Ibid., 79-80.
275. Ibid., 88.
276. “The fatality of yellow fever this season in New Orleans has deprived this colony of one of its citizens, who for the enterprise which characterized him, was not only a very useful and important member of this young community, but one to whom it is indebted for the undertaking of a very valuable and considerable branch of mechanical industry.
“In the death of Mr. John R. Harris, the colony has lost an enterprising citizen, and his friends have been bereaved of one whose loss will not be easily replaced. He died on Friday evening, the 21st of August last, in that city after five days illness.” From the second number of the Texas Gazette (Saturday, October 3, 1829) edited and published at San Felipe de Austin by Goodwin Brown Cotton. The copy from which this is taken is owned by Mrs. Mila Morris of Houston.
277. Family tradition says that John R. Harris heard causes, or complaints, which from time to time arose among the settlers, seated under a magnificent magnolia tree, which stood on the point of land where Buffalo Bayou receives the waters of Bray's Bayou and is now occupied by Weld and Neville's Compress and warehouse. His first residence was on this point, then a most picturesque spot, and his sawmill on the opposite bank of Bray's Bayou. The store and first settlements were in this vicinity and southward down Buffalo Bayou to a point where the Bayou makes a sharp curve. This sawmill site was used for a sawmill by his brothers, Wm. P. and David Harris, and Robert Wilson, at the time of the Texas Revolution, and afterwards by his sons, DeWitt Clinton, Lewis Birdsall, and John Birdsall Harris, at different times up to 1867, and the ground is still owned by his granddaughter.
278. As original business documents of that early period are rare, the following from the papers of John R. Harris in my possession is copied in full, as probably the first cotton contract of any magnitude in Texas:
“The following contract is this day made and agreed to by the parties hereunto subscribed (to wit), Jared E. Groce of the first part, and John R. Harris and Zeno Phillips of the other part. The said Jared E. Groce, promises to deliver to the parties of the second part on application, all the cotton he has by him at the time, say from ninety to one hundred bails, at ten dollars and twenty-five cents per hundred weight, for the following consideration and payments, (to wit), the said John R. transfers to the said Jared E. nine hundred and sixty-five dollars and 30 ¼ in final payments on W. S. Hall, to pay to said Groce, one thousand dollars in Bank bills on the United States Bank, or its branches, on or before the first day of June next or sooner, should a return be made sooner from the sales of said cotton.
“The balance of the price of the cotton is to be paid on the 10th day of January, 1830, in Mexican Eagle Dollars or its equivalent in other money for the payment of which the parties of the second part will bind themselves in a promissory note so soon as the weights are ascertained.
“March 27th, 1829. At the request of Jared E. Groce, party to this instrument, I signed it.
“Samuel M. Williams
“John R. Harris
“Zeno Phillips
“In the town of Austin, this 27th March 1829, I, Joseph White, Constitutional Alcalde of this Jurisdietion, do certify that the foregoing instrument of contract was made [two words torn] parties in my presence and executed by them before me, Jared E. Groce requesting Samuel M. Williams to sign it for him on account of physical inability to write, his arm being erippled. In witness of which I sign it with two assisting witnesses day and date aforesaid.
“J. White,
“Ass't Witness—Ira Ingram
“Ass't Witness—H. H. League”
In the inventory of “debts, money, merchandise and property real and personal of John R. Harris field at San Felipe de Austin, October 2nd, 1829,” a copy of which is in my possession, were the names of a great many colonists, carried on his books, with whom he had transacted business at Harrisburg and vicinity, and also at Bell's Landing, the most important trading point on the Brazos river. They are made a part of this record merely to show the extent of the business carried on by him at this early date in Texas colonial history.Names of those who traded at Harrisburg and neighborhood were as follows: Samuel C. Hirams, James Knight, Luke Moore, P. Singleton, Moses Shipman, Stephen Nicholson, James B. Bailey, Elijah Roark, R. Hicks, H. L. Shropshire, A. J. James, Silas Jones, Michael Young, Jonathan Scott, James Standeferd, Carey D. Gary, William Stafford, Thomas Sherman, C. Nash, Dan G. Bayles, John D. Taylor, H. Chevy, Knight and White, William Progtor, Anson Taylor, C. Dyer, M. Bundwich, Jesse Thompson, William J. Harris, R. M. Cartwright, T. Newman, J. Shaw, Thomas Earle, George Brown, Elijah Allcorn, Allan Martin, John Allcorn, William Andrus, Miles Allen, Lewis Boatwright, Daniel E. Bagly, Enoch Brunson, William Brooks, Francis Biggum, John Bird, Jesse H. Cartwright, Cartwright and Laughlin, Phillip Coonse, Lemuel Crawford, Peter D. Buffield, William D. Dunlap, Clement Dyer, Archalam Dodson, William Eaton, John Frank, Isaac Foster, Graves Fulshear, Alexander Farmer, Philo Fairchild, John Gates, Andrew Greg, Gannes Jesus, William J. John Hall, George B. Hall, David Harris, John Hamlin, Humphrey Jackson, Tabitha Iiams, Frances W. Johnson, Samuel Isaacs, John Jones, John Horse Jones, Frederick Jackson, John Iiams, John Jones (workman), John Kelly, Elizabeth Kuykendall, Hugh Kilgore, Nathaniel Lynch, William Laughlin, James Lynch, Joseph Lial, Rice S. Murray, Margaret McCormack, James McLaughlin, John McNutt, John Munroe, Samuel B. Miller, James Mars, Henry W. Munson, John Montgomery, Captain Micks, Colman Nash, Stephen Nicholson, Phelin Newman, Daniel Norton, John Owen, William Pettus, J. C. Peyton, Joshua Parker, Andrew Roach, John Randon, Andrew Robinson, Benjamin Reader, Smith Robinson, Leo Roark, William J. Russell, William Scott, Charles M. Smith, Moses Shipman, Daniel Shipman, William Swail, Joseph Sular, Andrew Smith, Ione Shaw, Ezekiel Thomas, Lewis Thompson, Anson Taylor, Jacob Thomas, Henry Tisherwester, David Sally, William Troboz, Joseph Urban, Jesse Vance, William &Allen Vince, Richard Vince, Walter C. White, White and Harris, S. M. Williams, John W. Williamson, William K. Wilson, Samuel Whitting, John A. Williams, George White, Wiley B. White, Matlida Wilbourn, Charles C. P. Welsh.
Names of those who traded at Bell's Landing, on the Brazos River, near West Columbia: Henry Williams, Robert Brotherton, Thomas Slaughter, William Roe, David Hamilton, Francis F. Wells, William Barret, Saml Chann, William C. Carson, William Robertson, Geo. Robinson, I. C. Parton, R. H. Williams, P. Andrew, P. Burnett, John Jones, S. Williams, M. B. Nickols, Saml. More, Jas. Ray, N. Smithwick, Green DeWitt, Freeman George, Nicholas George, James Stringfellow, Alexander Calvert, Josiah H. Bell, James B. Bailey, Zeno Phillips, Solomon Williams, Jefferson George, Robert H. Williams, Jesse Thompson, Joseph H. Polley, William Selkirk, Noah Smithwick, Martin Varner, William Stafford, John Alley, William, John, and George Hall, Chas. Cavenia, Joseph Sampierre, Saml. Low, William Chase, James Danly, Saml May, May &Low, David McCormack, Mrs. Alsbury, Isaac House, Saml. C. Chance, Lawrence Ramey, John C. Keller, Jas. N. Phillips, Cornelius Smith, Thomas J. Pryor, G. B. Jameson, H. Chrisman, Smith Bailey, Henry Jones, Daniel Shipman, Thomas Newman, Knight &White, Silvester Bowin, L. Smither, Harrison Williams, James Pevehouse, Thomas Barnett, James Smith, John B. McNutt, Solomon Bowlin, Geo. S. Penticost, Geo. Thrasher, Edward Robertson, Alexander E. Hodge, Henry E. Brown, John McNeal, Freeman George, A. T. Knauff, Smith Robertson, John Lawrence, James Bailey, Samuel Pharr, Walter C. White, Mrs. Bradly, George Huff, O. H. Stout, John Austin, Ephraim Fuqua, John McLaren, James Moore, John Bradley, Wm. Morton, Arche Hodge, William Barnett, Allan Larison, P. Andrew, Henry Williams, James Norton, James Hinds, T. Farmer, John Gates, Hinton Cartes, Wiley Martin, Jesse Vance, Thos. B. Bell, Joseph Mims, I. C. Peyton, Robert Spears, Jesse H. Cartwright, Nichols McNutt, W. D. C. Hall, William Barrett, Peter Duffield, W. S. Hall, Eli Mitchell, George W. Brown, John W. Moore, White &Harris, Israel Waters, William K. Wilson, William Scate, Capt. Wm. Roberts, George Williams, Mrs. Powell, Francis M. Johnson, Wm. Vince, Wm. J. Russell, T. K. Murrey, Mathew Roberts, Judge Tunnell, David Carpenter, T. Alsbury, Job. Williams, Philo Fairchild, Thomas Slaughter, Saml. Highsmith, James Thompson, Andrew Robinson, Jas. Knight, Jas. W. Woodson, Saml. Kenneda, Wm. Kingston, O. Jones, Richardson &Davis, Isaac Vandoren, Border, Saml. O. Pettus, A. Kimble.
279. The following items from the Texas Gazette cast some light on the economic development of the county: “We take pleasure in announcing to the inhabitants of Austin's colony, that the entire Machinery for the Steam Saw Mill at Harrisburg has arrived in Trinity Bay from New Orleans, in the schooner `Ann Elizabeth.'
“Much credit is due Mr. David Harris, brother of, and administrator of the estate of the late John R. Harris, deceased, the original proprietor of the Mill, for his perseverance in furthering the undertaking, and we hope ere long of hearing of its being in active operation, when our citizens will be able to supply themselves with building timber at a low rate, and at the same time the present proprietors will be amply remunerated for their trouble and expense.” March 13, 1830.
“June 5, 1830, a postoffice has been established at Brazoria, and we understand that another will be established at Harrisburg in a short time.”
July 22, 1830. “The Steam Saw Mill at Harrisburg of Messrs. Wilson and Harris is in operation and works very well.”July 31, 1830: “Sloop Alabama, Captain Lovejoy, arrived at Harrisburg from New Orleans, will leave for Matamoras with cargo of plank from the saw mill.”
On July 10th, 1830, an advertisement states that “Enoch Brinson of San Jacinto Bay has opened a house of private entertainment, also a blacksmith shop.” And on October 3, the same years appears the card of:
“G. B. Jameson, Attorney and Counselor at Law—San Felipe de Austin.” G. B. Jameson afterwards became a soldier of the Revolution, and perished in the Alamo after having sent out to General Houston important communications and plans of that fortress.
280. The reminiscences of Mrs. Dilue Harris are based largely upon a journal kept by her father, Dr. P. W. Rose, and may be considered a reliable source of information as to settlers known to her family, who lived at Harrisburg or had their homes near enough to make that town their trading place and social center from April 30, 1833, to April, 1836, when the Mexicans burned the town and the settlements were broken up. See The Quarterly, 88-126, 155-172.
281. Sarah was a stepdaughter of David Harris, he having married the widow of John Iiams, who left three sons and one daughter.
282. F. O., Texas, Vol. 9. This and the two following letters are calendared in Garrison, Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas, but as not all have been printed in easily available form, they are reprinted here.
283. F. O., Texas, Vol. 9.
284. F. O., Texas, Vol. 9.
285. This review appears also in the Mississippi Valley Historical Review for September, 1914.
How to cite:
"Issue View", Volume 018, Number 2, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online. http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v018/n2/issue.html
[Accessed Mon Nov 23 20:52:37 CST 2009]
