Vol. XIX January, 1916 No. 3
The publication committee and the editors disclaim responsibility for views expressed by contributors to The Quarterly
Many historians have written upon the Civil War from the military standpoint, but not until recently has attention been given to the vital economic and governmental problems of the period. In the following article upon one of these important non-military subjects the author realizes he has made only a preliminary survey of a very wide field, but the work will not be entirely valueless if someone else is led to go deeper into it.
As the sessions of the Confederate Congress were closed to the public and secrecy strictly maintained as to the most of its proceedings, while no records were kept of its debates, the account of any of its activities must necessarily be based upon fragmentary sources. From these, however, it is possible to derive a fairly accurate picture of those internal dissensions between the President and Congress against which the fortunes of the Confederacy had to contend. No attempt has been made in this article to portray the effect of such disagreements in specific instances; the aim has been rather to show in what fashion the government was conducted and over what questions the legislative and executive branches were divided.
The Confederate Government was first set into operation by the Southern constitutional convention, which met at Montgomery, Alabama, on the 4th of February, 1861. 1 After adopting a temporary constitution, 2 the assembly elected Jefferson Davis and Alexander H. Stevens President and Vice-President, respectively, of the new government. In this election there seems to have been little of intrigue or political scheming. “The qualifications of Davis, Cobb, and Toombs were quietly canvassed, but the differences were not so pressed as to cause delay of action or any ill feeling. Some deputies favored Cobb, some Toombs, but Davis received unanimous and cordial support.” 3
The choice of Davis was warranted by many considerations. A long and honorable career in the public service as representative, senator, and cabinet member had given him the necessary training for the presidency. He had, moreover, won merited fame in the war with Mexico and as secretary of war under Pierce had further increased his knowledge of military tactics and organization. It was natural, also, that the South should look to this conservative successor of Calhoun in the defense of slavery and the sovereignty of the State as their leader during the uncertain times that lay before them. 4
Yet Davis probably preferred a high military commission to the position of executive. He says that he took what he considered “adequate precautions” to prevent his selection by the Montgomery assembly; 5 while Mrs. Davis notes that the sudden news of his nomination so deeply pained him that he spoke of it “as a man might speak of a sentence of death.” 6 His acceptance of the place, however, was not long delayed and he soon appeared before Congress to take the oath of office.
His relations with this body were at first sincerely cordial. The Congress itself, probably the strongest legislative assembly in the history of the Confederacy, was characterized by Stephens as the “ablest, soberest, most intelligent and conservative body” of which he had ever been a member. 7 And Davis found that the delegates were generously inclined “to yield their preconceived opinions” to his suggestions, and particularly that the absence of factional rivalries made possible the selection of a desirable cabinet without the necessity of compromise. 8
The removal of the seat of government from Montgomery to Richmond was the cause of much adverse comment on the part of certain members from the cotton growing states, 9 but this was not aimed at Davis personally; 10 and it was not until the battle of Manassas that anything like serious criticism of the President by members of Congress can be found. 11 The failure of the confederate forces to follow up their remarkable victory after the defeat of the Union troops was soon regarded as a serious military blunder; and Davis, who had been present on the battle-field and taken an active voice in a conference of the Southern generals the night following McDowell's disaster, was directly charged, both by a certain element in Richmond, naturally given to criticism, and by members of Congress, with responsibility for the mistake. 12 The official reports of Beauregard and Johnston tended to confirm this impression, 13 and as one writer has fitly remarked, “The first great success in arms achieved by the South was to originate questions tending to excite distrust in the executive, and subsequently distrust of his treatment of those who were under his authority. 14 Davis, also, in a letter to Johnston at this time speaks of the charges brought against the President as “tending to create distrust, to excite disappointment and . . . embarrass the Administration in its further efforts to reinforce the Army of the Potomac.” 15
Other sources of criticism were not lacking. “The apparent indifference on the part of the Administration to the affairs of Missouri and the failure to appoint General Price an officer in the Confederacy” led to frequent complaint. 16 While the policy pursued by Benjamin, secretary of war, and Winder, whom Davis had placed in charge of the forces in Richmond, of issuing passports through the Confederate lines and of discharging suspected prisoners on their own responsibility, was severely censured by members of Congress as well as by the hostile press. 17 The papers most opposed to Davis were the Richmond Examiner and the Charleston Mercury. In the South at large, however, there was as yet no dissatisfaction worth recording. And even in those cities where opposition was developing, it still lacked organization and confined itself to discussion without political action. Accordingly, when the election for the permanent government was held on the 6th of November, 1861, Davis and Stephens were unanimously re-elected to the offices they had held under the provisional constitution. 18 At the same time, senators and congressmen were chosen to take the place of the delegates to the provisional congress and the regular Confederate Government began its activities. 19
The new Congress met for the first time on February 18, 1862. In the House, Thomas S. Bocock of Virginia was chosen Speaker without a dissenting vote; and by the 25th the members of the standing committees had been appointed. 20 The organization of the Senate was also effected with the loss of little time. 21 While the roll of this body bore many more names familiar to the student of national politics than did that of the House, the personnel of neither gave promise of remarkable ability; and within a few months one hostile critic was bold enough to say that in the whole Congress there were not a dozen members “with any pretensions to statesmanship.” 22
Almost from the outset, the relations of the executive and Congress were somewhat strained because of military reverses. Not more than three days after Davis's inaugural address, Smith of North Carolina and Foote of Tennessee had introduced resolutions in the House calling for the investigation of the capture of Fort Donelson with the consequent evacuation of Nashville, and of the capitulation of Roanoke Island. 23 The committee appointed to look into the disasters of western Tennessee, reported to the House without endeavoring to fix the responsibility, 24 but the committee in charge of the Roanoke inquiry, after a severe arraignment of the negligence shown in fortifying the island, closed its report by laying the blame for the Confederate loss upon “Major General B. Huger and the late Secretary of War, J. P. Benjamin.” 25 This stricture on Benjamin was not meant merely for the late “Secretary of War,” but through him was aimed at the President. For the opposition, while still in the minority, were becoming more united and encouraged by the hostile press, vigorously denounced the war policy of the administration. 26 This dissatisfaction, however, was partially dispelled by the military success of the following summer.
Beside the conduct of the war, another source of criticism that arose about this time was the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. 27 It is true that both houses of Congress by an almost unanimous vote sanctioned this action, but Davis made a great mistake in continuing Winder in command at Richmond when his power could no longer be seriously checked by civil authority. If we may believe many contemporary charges, Winder, if not openly corrupt, was woefully lacking in judgment and ability and so administered his position as to cause widespread complaint in Richmond. 28 This, combined with the opposition on constitutional grounds of some of the ablest men in the South to the suspension of the writ, 29 threw Davis more or less on the defensive, particularly as the declaration of martial law gave his opponents grounds for charging him with seeking a dictatorship. Even his baptism and confirmation in the Episcopal church were declared to be mere blinds toward a despotic end, and a comparison was drawn between his new religious professions and similar action on the part of Cromwell and Richard III. 30
The Impressment and Conscription Acts passed at this session of Congress were also looked upon as oppressive and unconstitutional, 31 and since Davis had urgently advocated their enactment, whatever popular clamor arose naturally directed itself against him, or vented itself by denouncing Congress as wholly subservient to the President's will. In this latter charge there was a decided element of truth. For while in fact a minority element of opposition existed in both houses, it had not yet developed sufficient power to hinder materially the plans of the administration, and for the most part contented itself with striking at Benjamin and other unpopular members of the cabinet. One bill was carried, however, that evidently aimed to reduce the military power of the President and make his secretary of war a mere bureau clerk. It provided for the creation of the “office of a commanding general of the armies of the Confederate States,” and assigned powers to the new official which, as Davis pointed out in his veto message, were lodged by the constitution in the hands of the President alone as commander-in-chief. 32 The bill was first passed by large majorities 33 both in the Senate and in the House, but when the attempt was made to carry it over the executive veto it failed by an overwhelming vote. Thus, when the session ended on April 21, 34 Davis had met defeat on no important point, while the emergencies of war were gradually throwing more and more power into his hands, though he was careful not to assume new authority without the consent of Congress. 35
Shortly after the adjournment of Congress, the Confederacy suffered disastrous military reverses, first in the loss of New Orleans and shortly afterwards in the surrender of Norfolk and the enforced destruction of the iron-clad, Merrimac. It was a period of great discouragement throughout the South and of fear in Richmond. Davis was openly censured; and even Robert E. Lee, who was now acting as the President's military adviser, came in for a full share of criticism. 36 With the turn of the tide, however, in the victories of Jackson and Lee over McClellan the depression gave place to a feeling of exultation and for the time being dissatisfaction ceased. Early in June, Lee was placed in command of all the Southern forces and from that time on possessed the full confidence of the Confederacy. His cooperation with Davis was hearty and sincere, and instead of charges and counter-charges there was a refreshing harmony between the President and his leading general “which was never marred by dictation on the one side or complaint on the other.” 37
In the midst of this era of better feeling, Congress reconvened on the 18th of August. Complaints of the lack of supplies and provisions for the army had become so numerous that the matter could no longer be overlooked. And on the first day of the session, even before the President's message had been received, a resolution was carried instructing the Committee on Military Affairs “to inquire into the expediency and necessity of enacting some effective law requiring and compelling the Commissary Department to furnish more and better food for the Army. . . .” 38 While the framers of the motion doubtless hoped to discredit Davis as well as the Commissary Department by their action, they were unsuccessful in arousing any effective opposition and most of the bills favored by the administration went through with clock-like regularity. 39 The veto was used but sparingly, for the most part only where bills were plainly unconstitutional or possessed of some technical defect. In no instance was there the slightest danger of its being overridden. 40
The third session of Congress, lasting from January 12 to May 1, 1863, may be dismissed in a few words. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation had kindled afresh the fire of Southern opposition to the Northern government, and for a time internal dissensions were lost in this new burst of enthusiasm. During this period, also, no great defeat could be pointed to as an evidence of the administration's incompetency, so that Congress for the most part became merely a register of the President's will. Some hostility, however, was able to manifest itself in an effort to convict the Commissary Department of gross frauds 41 and in a refusal to submit tamely to the veto. The bill which brought this opposition most prominently to the front provided for an increase of “strength and efficiency of heavy artillery for sea coast defense” and was vetoed by Davis because it seemed to him an infringement on the powers of the executive. 42 When the bill was returned to the Senate it was repassed by a vote of 18 to 5, 43 but failed to secure even so much as a majority in the House. 44
The adjournment of Congress was the subject of a sharp attack in the Richmond Examiner, 45 since it left many important matters relating principally to finance, impressment, and conscription inadequately provided for; and in the crisis to which the Confederacy was rapidly approaching, such lack of preparation made necessary a further concentration of power in the hands of the executive. The following summer was especially disheartening because of Lee's failure in Pennsylvania and the fall of Vicksburg. 46 In addition the crushing burden of the war, with its impressments, conscriptions, demoralized finance, and prohibitions on trade, caused widespread dissatisfaction among all but the most loyal. As Congress was not in session, the greater part of this was concentrated against the President. He was accused of trying to make himself supreme by “denying all participation in the affairs of government to the great men who were the authors of secession.” 47 His cabinet members, particularly Benjamin, Mallory, and Memminger, together with the commissary general, Northrop, were spoken of as incompetents if not scoundrels. 48 His military appointments were condemned as the cause of the Confederate losses and his very life was threatened by some of his enemies. 49
As the 7th of December approached, the day upon which Congress was to reassemble, the prospects of the Confederacy grew still more gloomy 50 and the hardships of the individual citizen more intense. All of this brought the administration into further discredit with the dissatisfied element and made it inevitable that an effort should be put forth to give tangible expression to this opposition in the coming Congress. The President's message set forth, in language as hopeful as possible, 51 the condition of affairs and urged the passage of stricter measures to maintain the efficiency of the Army, increase the revenue, and provide for a wider extension of martial law. 52
These recommendations were all eventually embodied in appropriate bills, but the opposition were able to include many amendments undesirable to the administration, and in some cases mustered a formidable number of votes against the measures. That the bills went through at all was due more to the necessities of the war than to the willingness of Congress to follow Davis's leadership. 53 Yet the Examiner spoke of Congress as the “subservient tool” of the President; 54 and Jones records that the executive was so completely master of the situation that in advance of congressional action, “the Secretary of the Treasury had prepared plates, etc., for the new issue of notes before the bill passed calling in the old.” 55
In spite of this general acquiescence on the part of the majority, however, there were those in Congress who attacked the administration at every opportunity. The cabinet, as constituted, had long been a thorn in the flesh to the opposition and its members were frequently called upon to defend themselves against congressional action. On December 10, Senator Johnston of Arkansas brought forward a bill to limit the term of all heads of departments to two years. 56 This was directed at Benjamin, Memminger, and, as the President rightly conceived, at himself. 57 It was referred to the Judiciary Committee, a majority of whom reported in its favor, but never came to a vote in the Senate though called up from time to time until the end of the session. 58
Another never failing source of contention was the commissary department, which was repeatedly censured for incompetency and gross dishonesty. A special committee charged with the investigation of its affairs was appointed by the House early in the session; 59 while later Henry S. Foote of Tennessee, the chief spokesman of the opposition, introduced a resolution calling for the removal of the quartermaster general. The motion was laid on the table by a vote of 46 to 20; 60 but in the Senate the matter was not so easily disposed of. Col. A. C. Myers, the former quartermaster general, had been relieved the preceding August and General Lawton appointed by Davis in his stead Lawton's name, however, had never been sent to the Senate for confirmation. A resolution was therefore reported from the Committee on Military Affairs in January declaring Myers still to be the quartermaster general. When put to a vote this motion carried by a majority of 15 to 6; 61 necessarily widening the breach between the President and the Senate. Matters of minor importance, relating chiefly to passports, exemptions from military service, appointments, etc., similarly developed friction between the two departments of government and by the time adjournment came Congress and the President were decidedly at outs and parted in “bad temper.” 62
This was the last session of the old Congress. The new body began its duties on May 2, 1864, 63 in a spirit of seeming cooperation with the President. A strong majority sided with him on every important measure, and the opposition was weaker than at any other session; while there is good reason to believe that most of the bills were “dictated by the executive and written in the departments.” 64
In spite of such apparent harmony, however, criticism of the President was not entirely hushed. In the Senate the appointment of Bragg (a few days after the adjournment of the preceding Congress) was bitterly assailed by Orr of South Carolina and Wigfall of Texas, the latter going so far as to say that there was an entire want of confidence in the executive. 65 In the House a severe attack was made upon Memminger, secretary of the treasury. Foote, as ever active in harassing the administration, introduced a resolution calling for the removal of Memminger because of his lack of financial ability. A motion to lay the matter on the table was at once made, but failed by a vote of 37 to 45. 66 The bill was eventually referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, from which it was not reported before the end of the session. 67 Shortly after the adjournment of Congress, however, Memminger resigned his position and Trenholm assumed the office in his stead.
The congressional recess lasted nearly five months. When the members finally reconvened on November 7, their attitude toward Davis was unmistakably hostile, probably more so indeed than it had ever been before. Some members doubtless resented the charges of the press that they were but a “secret power for registering the will of the President”; 68 while others, realizing the desperate condition of the Confederacy and deeply dissatisfied with the course of affairs, voted almost in sullen despair against the plans of the administration. 69 Evidence of this new spirit was soon manifest. One of the chief recommendations in the President's message was for the employment of 40,000 slaves in the Confederate armies, but as soldiers only in the last extremity. It was also recommended that such negroes as were taken into government service should be emancipated at the close of the war. 70 This proposition was not very cordially received. Not only did it involve great pecuniary loss to the owners of impressed slaves but seemed to strike at the very basis of the entire system, as well as to involve a serious question of constitutionality. “We have been denying all along,” said one opponent of the plan, “that freedom is a good thing for the negro; yet now we promise to give him that freedom in return for enlistment in our armies.” But in the existing crisis practical necessity had more weight with Davis than any argument based upon mere consistency of opinion. “Strenuously,” he says, “I argued the question with members of Congress who called to confer with me . . . and finally . . . used the expression . . . `If the Confederacy falls, there should be written over its tombstone, Died of a theory.' ” 71
Although General Lee added his influence to the efforts of the executive to secure an immediate passage of a bill embodying Davis's recommendation, it was not brought to a vote in the House until February 20 when it went through by the narrow margin of 40 to 37. 72 In the Senate the contest was even sharper. Here the opposition succeeded in delaying final action until March 8 when they came within one vote of defeating the measure. 73 While in a second trial of strength on another matter they came off victorious. On December 8 the House, by a vote of 50 to 44, 74 had made provision for a renewed suspension of the writ of habeas corpus; but when the bill was presented in the Senate, its opponents, after delaying action upon it until March 16, were able to defeat it by a vote of 6 to 9. 75 The President's veto, which was more freely used at this session of Congress than at any other, was almost uniformly overridden by the necessary two-thirds vote in the Senate, and not infrequently in the House as well. 76
Many bitter attacks, likewise, were made at this session against individual members of the cabinet, and much ill feeling resulted from the President's refusal to dismiss those who had long been out of favor with Congress. The principal assaults were made upon Benjamin and Seddon, who was now secretary of war. Resolutions censuring the former for a speech made in Richmond were brought forward in the House, 77 while his moral integrity was called into question by the Louisiana Representatives on the ground that he had taken bribes for passports. 78 A demand for his resignation submitted by Wigfall to the Senate failed only by a tie ballot, the vote standing 11 to 11. 79 As for Seddon, his position became so uncomfortable that he left the cabinet on February 9, J. C. Breckenridge being appointed in his stead. 80
Nor were these denunciations confined merely to the cabinet. Davis himself was characterized on the floor of Congress as “mediocre and malicious,” 81 while the disasters of the South encouraged the most radical of the opposition in a desperate movement to place General Lee at the head of the government as dictator, and only the refusal of the latter to act against Davis prevented a counter revolution. 82
In addition to the sources of discord which have just been mentioned there were certain others that should be touched upon in closing. The refusal of Davis to begin peace negotiations at the urgent request of the Senate; 83 his removal of Johnston and stubborn unwillingness to reappoint him even at the request of a concurrent resolution of the two houses; 84 his attitude toward the question of trade as it affected various states; 85 the tone of his last message which a select committee of the Senate regarded as tending to destroy the “legitimate and constitutional influence” of the legislative branch “by Executive admonitions” 86—all of these helped to destroy the President's influence over Congress and weaken his leadership. Yet with the people at large Davis seems to have regained some measure of his popularity toward the end. His remarkable speech in the African church at Richmond on February 6 greatly strengthened his position throughout Virginia and created a new enthusiasm for a dying cause. 87 Congress, also, to a large extent lost popular sympathy by its continued “crimination of the President and a certain contemptible frivolity.” 88 Indeed, as late as February 22, when all of its powers should have been employed in averting threatened ruin, this body was occupied in devising a new flag. 89 Even its final adjournment was marked by a pitiable exhibition of ill humor against the executive. 90
It is difficult to say how far this lack of harmony that existed between the President and Congress was responsible for the defeat of the South. Although Davis was frequently annoyed by the opposition, which became strong or weak as the tides of Southern misfortune rose or fell, and at times perhaps seriously handicapped, 91 it is nevertheless true that he was master of the situation during his entire administration. His mastery, however, was often secured at the expense of concord; and while Congress yielded to his will they did so often without enthusiasm and gave him but lukewarm support. The President himself was probably much to blame for this. Stubborn in his likes and dislikes, he allowed them to influence his appointments, whether civil or military, to the serious detriment of his own government and of the Confederate arms. In a jealous desire to maintain the prerogatives of his office, he sometimes alienated those whose cooperation was most valuable, or created needless dissatisfaction. Yet for all this, it must be confessed that the executive showed himself superior to Congress in ability and handled an impossible task in no mean fashion. Unless our judgment is at fault, no then man in the South could have maintained the Confederacy so long as did Jefferson Davis.
The post office department and the treasury department of the Confederate States bore the same relation to each other as the corresponding offices in the United States Government. That is, the first auditor of the treasury was charged with the duty of auditing the accounts of the postal service without being subject to the revision of the comptroller of the treasury. He likewise conducted all suits and legal proceedings for the collection of sums due the department, instead of referring such cases to the department of justice as other departments did. 92 This arrangement with the treasury Mr. Reagan thought entirely suitable, and when the work became too heavy for the first auditor, he asked Congress for assistants and clerks for that officer of the treasury. But the relations between the two departments were not always quite amicable, as there were occasional differences of opinion between the postmaster-general and the secretary of the treasury because of Mr. Memminger's instructions to the accounting and disbursing officers. One of these incidents led to a sensational episode, in which threats of criminal prosecution were made before matters were adjusted.
The postmaster-general on June 27, 1863, made a draft on the treasury for ten thousand pounds in the current exchange for specie, the money to be placed on deposit in England to the credit of the department. The treasurer declined to honor the draft on the ground that the department had no specie to its credit, and that the draft should have called for $145,000, which was the currency value of the $50,000 demanded in specie. Reagan in turn declared that he certainly ought to have at least $67,000 of specie in the treasury, because all postage had been paid in coin prior to October 15, 1861, the date on which the first stamps were delivered, and when treasury notes became acceptable for postage stamps. 93 To Memminger's excuse that postal funds had not been kept separate, the postmaster-general replied that they should have been; and he said that if the money were not forthcoming, he would report the treasurer to the President for removal, as having violated the law requiring him to keep the funds separate. When he finally did have to refer the matter to the President, Mr. Reagan concluded his statement of the case by saying:
The Secretary of the Treasury has on other occasions embarrassed the operations of this Department by what seems to me an improper interference in questions relating to its connections with the accounting and disbursing officers; . . . it is important for me to know whether the funds of the Post Office Department are under his or my control. 94
“Attorney-General Watts, to whom President Davis referred the papers, in returning them to the President, said in his report that the brief paragraphs at the end of the letter of the Postmaster-General so aptly stated the law that he copied them in his opinion.” 95 The attorney-general plainly said that the postmaster-general had as full power over the funds belonging to the post office department as the secretary of the treasury had over other public moneys; and that his power to make and enforce all necessary regulations for the collection, safe-keeping, and disbursement of the funds of the post office department, embracing within the scope of such regulations the treasurer and auditor for the post office department, was as full and complete as that of the secretary of the treasury in relation to other public moneys.
Proposing to renew the correspondence, Memminger wrote that he agreed with the attorney-general, but answered Reagan's claims by saying that the amounts deposited in the treasury were not kept separate, and that he could not tell what money had been paid in coin. As for paying creditors in specie, he said the holders of the twenty million dollar loan were then entitled to specie for their notes, but that coin was not to be had. To pay one creditor in coin, then, would be an injustice to others. Moreover, he could not see how the post office department could claim any specie, since, as far back as September 30, 1861, that department's account at the treasury was overdrawn $944.01, and since there had been two deficiency appropriations, for which Congress furnished only treasury notes. The only coin on hand was, he said, from the Bank of Louisiana, and must be accounted for at par. To deliver any of it to the postmaster-general would be to lose to the treasury two-thirds of its value. “Besides all this,” ended Mr. Memminger, “it is believed that there is more urgent need for all this money in other Departments than for the Post-office.” 96
The postmaster-general did not answer the letter from the secretary of the treasury. However, he did call the attention of the treasurer, Edward C. Elmore, to the legal aspects of the situation. 97 First, he said that Secretary Memminger should not have mixed up the moneys, for the law forbade exchange of specie for other funds. In the second place, all deposits of the post office department had been made in coin up to October 16, 1861, and the amounts of such ought to be ascertainable, if the books had been properly kept. He said that it was untrue that “coin and Treasury notes being at par, they were received and paid out as called for without discrimination,” for the post office department had never got specie except on special demand, and had used it only for stationery from Europe. He said the secretary of the treasury was forgetting that under the law, which he had admitted was correctly interpreted by the attorney-general, he was not at liberty to put the coin belonging to the post office department into hotch potch with the funds of the General Treasury, and pay out in its stead . . . other and less valuable funds for it.
To do so would be to subject the treasurer to removal and prosecution. Nor was it unjust, said Mr. Reagan, to pay the postmaster-general in specie when others could not be so paid, for the postmaster-general, so far from being an ordinary creditor, had the same control over post office funds as the secretary of the treasury had over other public moneys. How could he hold over $68,000 in specie belonging to the post office department, and then ask that department to pay over $145,500 for $50,000 in specie, needed to keep the post office going? As for the “deficiencies,” these had been appropriated and provided for before the post office department ever drew a dollar of warrants, because they were provided to fill up estimated deficiencies before a dollar had been spent. The actual money of the first “deficiency” appropriation was paid into the treasury five days before the first warrant was issued. The books of the auditor showed that instead of being overdrawn $944.01 on September 30, 1861, the department had in the treasury and its branches subject to warrant $314,651.89, and ever since, larger sums.
If, as suggested by the Secretary [said Mr. Reagan] the only coin now in the Treasury is that taken from the Bank of Louisiana, then there has been an unlawful use made of the specie belonging to this Department, and it is his duty to replace it out of any other specie in the Treasury.
Resting on the legal right of this Department, it is not necessary that I should raise any question with the Secretary about the propriety of his undertaking to decide on his own authority as to the relative necessities of the different Departments and their right to use the specie in the Treasury.
As to the material facts of this case, there need be no controversy. They can all be settled by the records. The law of the case has already been stated by the Attorney General. And I must say with all due respect, that this seems to me to be simply a contest as to whether the will of the Secretary of the Treasury or the law of the land and the plain rules of right shall prevail. 98
Mr. Reagan says in his Memoirs that he expressed the hope that the treasurer's action “would render it unnecessary for me to report him to the President for removal from office.” And he dismisses the matter thus: “Mr. Elmore said he knew then what to do and paid over the $50,000 in coin.” 99 Apparently nothing could better illustrate the Confederacy's financial demoralization, or the lack of harmony existing in its highest official circles.
When Mr. Reagan took charge of the post office department of the Confederate States he felt that the United States post office was extravagant, and that its extravagance was nowhere more unnecessary than in the amounts it paid to the railroads for transportation. At the rates paid by the old government, the department could never become self-sustaining and at the same time render anything like adequate services. Accordingly, he took the initiative in calling a general convention of railroads of the South to meet at Montgomery in April, 1861. The response was gratifying, and speaks well for the spirit of the day; for all the leading lines of road in the Confederate States, with one or two exceptions, and some of the roads in other States, were represented. It was said that the members of this convention represented 4376 miles of road, and $107,607,000 of capital. Inasmuch as some of the delegates came prepared to continue carrying the mails, whether paid or not, until arrangements could be made, the postmaster-general had no difficulty in getting an agreement by the roads to accept one-half their former compensation, and to submit to a division into three classes as before, with the provision, however, that the roads should no longer continue to deliver the mails from stations to post offices. 100 It was agreed, too, that the postmaster-general should classify the roads after Congress had established a proper basis for such action.
This the Provisional Congress did within a few days (on May 9, 1861). It defined the roads to be placed in Class One as “the great through lines connecting important points and conveying heavy mails.” Class Two was to consist of “completed railroads connecting less important points, but carrying heavy mails for local distribution.” Roads on which less important mails were conveyed, short branch roads, and such unfinished roads as did not carry great mails or connect important points were placed in the third class. For first class roads, Congress authorized $150 per mile to be paid; for the second class, $100; and for the third class, $50; while twenty-five per cent additional was authorized if one-half of the service should be night service. Employees of the department were given the right to free passage on the roads. 101
But the enthusiasm which made possible this arrangement was short-lived. Disillusionment followed fast, and for the rest of the Confederacy's troubled existence the department and the railroads were mutually suspicious. The railroads, even those that entered into contracts, felt that they had been drawn into a hard bargain which continued to grow more irksome with the increasing abnormality of business conditions; and the postmaster-general, believing the arrangement justified, came to regard the railroads as monopolistic corporations quite devoid of reason or patriotism, and ready to mulct the Government of huge sums without having performed proportionate services for them. Inconvenience and irregularity of railroad schedules brought down the wrath of many people on the head of the postal service, which, in turn, endeavored to shift the blame to the railroad service, where, in fact, much of it belonged. By considering specific instances, the views of the postmaster-general as expressed in letters and his official reports, and the views of various people as expressed in the newspapers, the reader will doubtless reach the conclusion that, if each party did not have reason to accuse the other of malicious acts, each at least had ample cause for feeling aggrieved.
In the first place, railroad officials objected to the classification of the roads as made by the postmaster-general. It was one thing to get a convention to agree that there should be three classes, as under the United States Government; it was another to pacify a railroad president who felt that his road had been underclassified. The department patiently and courteously explained the extravagance of the former service, and the present necessity for making expenditures come within the revenues. Yet one is apt to think Mr. Reagan might have been more tactful than when he said: “. . . The railroad companies are, as a general thing, doing a better business than they ever did on account of the war, while all other interests are suffering.” The department announced that it was forced to rely upon the patriotism of railroad officials, and expressed the hope that the roads would consent to a reduction. In case a road failed to fulfill the department's hope, it was asked to inform the postal authorities when it would cease carrying the mails, so that the road might be paid for its services up to that time at the rate originally proposed by the department. This might have been expected to bring the roads to terms, 102 for they hardly dared refuse to carry the mails at all. By November, 1861, only fifteen of the ninety-one railroads in the Confederacy had entered into contracts. The postmaster-general charged the remainder with intending to avoid responsibility and the legitimate control of the department by refusing to enter into contracts, although he admitted that they declared themselves willing to perform the service, “but under some protest . . . generally that they must have higher pay.” In order to coerce the roads, Mr. Reagan ordered no payments made after June 30 to those who refused contracts, on the ground that the law forbade payment until contracts were made. 103
That Mr. Reagan was sorely tried may be seen in this extract from his report for November 27, 1861:
It is proper . . . to say that, even at the reduced rate of compensation allowed to the railroads under the recent act of Congress, they receive a higher rate of compensation than the railroads of any other country for similar service except the railroads of the United States. And that Government has for some years past remonstrated against the extravagance of those rates, and it is reasonable to infer that nothing but the great influence of so many and such powerful monopolies has prevented this wholesome and necessary reform. Their usefulness and importance in the conveyance of the mails, as in the matter of commerce, travel, and the operations of the army, are fully recognized by this Department; and the patriotic and public spirited conduct of a number of them . . . serve to show how wrong those are who disregard all other interests than their own, and make use of their important franchises, granted by the several States for the public good, for the injury of others and the public. . . .
Failure to receive one's mail at the proper time is annoying. When the press of the South had their all-important exchanges delayed, their indignation—if we are to judge from such papers as the Charleston Courier and the Savannah Republican—knew no bounds. The Courier asked why and how the Richmond papers reached Columbia a day before they reached Charleston. The Republican did not hesitate to answer:
In the first place the mails are taking care of themselves, and just go in any direction they take a notion to. The most unmitigated incompetency pervades the whole department. The immediate reason, though, is, they are not distributed before arriving at the point where the roads diverge to Charleston and Augusta. We have no regular way of getting our Richmond mail in Savannah; Charleston is on the direct route, as everybody knows except the postmasters and mail agents, but we get it quite as often via Augusta and a day behind time.
And the Republican, “in behalf of a vast majority of the people,” ends by inviting Mr. Reagan “to give place for some man who understands the business.” A little later, “the mails seem to be in a hopeless state of derangement.” The Republican is “tired of complaining,” and its “patience is exhausted. Nowhere is the irregularity more manifest than on the main line from Richmond south,” where the mail “fails as often as it comes through. This is past endurance, and the fault is obliged to lie at the door of the government officials.” Again the Republican invites the post-master-general to withdraw from official connection with the postal service. 104
There was a lamentable amount of truth in what the Republican said, and Mr. Reagan admitted as much, though he stoutly defended the department's efforts. “The railroad service was designed to be daily, and it was hoped, with proper schedules and speed, this would answer the public wants.” But the department had “encountered innumerable difficulties in trying to get proper schedules adopted,” and had had as much trouble in getting them conformed to, after being adopted, as in getting them adopted in the first place. Moreover, the special agents sent out to investigate the distribution system, had reported “many and great abuses.” “These things, with the ordinary causes of delay and loss of connections, such as running off the track, breaking of bridges, . . .” had made the mail “so irregular, as to make it an accident, now, instead of the rule, to have regular connections between any distant and important points.” Such irregularities the department bad done everything in its power to prevent, and was not responsible for them. Finally, the railroad companies had been “pretty generally notified” that the department would do all it could “by way of fines and deductions for failures, in order to compel regularity of service.” 105 In short, Mr. Reagan absolved the highest officials of the department from blame, and placed it on the railroads.
After having read the postmaster-general's report, the Republican, although it acidly inquired the reason why the mails were just as tardy on the roads making contracts as on those refusing to do so, was somewhat mollified on reflecting that the post office department must be self-sustaining. If the service in vogue, “the worst ... in a quarter of a century,” with its heavy postage rates, was a failure, then the Republican declared “the Constitutional restriction must be abolished and a more enlightened system adopted by Congress.” 106 This really was the only correct solution of a vexing problem, but conjectures are idle as to what might have been done.
Between 1860 and 1862 the railroads in operation in the Confederacy increased.from 7,009 to 8,265 miles. At the date of the postmaster-general's first detailed report there were ninety-one railroads and branches “known to the Department,” and only fifteen of these had entered into contracts for carrying the mails. By February, 1862, Mr. Reagan cheerfully announced the existence of one hundred and nine roads and branches, embracing “nearly all the important railroads in the Confederate States,” of which fifty-five had made contracts. 107 But there is no evidence to show that the service was materially bettered.
On the contrary, the irregularities in the service southward had become so vexing that they were inquired into by Congress. Between February 14 and March 29 there were forty failures to make connections for the mails on the roads between Richmond and Charleston, due either to wrecks, accidents to engines, or heavy loads of soldiers. 108 To the Senate's request for the reason for an habitual delay of the Atlanta mail at Lynchburg of eleven hours down and seven hours up, Mr. Reagan replied that it was due to the refusal of the president of the road to run a night train, which the postmaster-general had no power to compel him to do. He said he had secured promises of better connections, but nothing else. 109
Various efforts [he reported] have been made by the Department to secure more certain connections of the mail trains on the great Southern route between this city [Richmond] and Charleston, Savannah, and Montgomery, by co-operating with the several railroad companies in the adoption of new schedules at a reduced rate of speed, but without success, and the Department is not possessed of the power to make schedules for mail trains upon railroads, without the consent of the companies, so that the evils arising out of the present irregularities in the arrivals and departures of the mails upon that line, must continue to be felt by the public, until the railroad officers can agree to a new schedule that can be run with more certainty than the one now in use.
The only remedy in the power of the department, consisting, as it did, of a rigid imposition of penalties for failure to run in conformity with existing schedules, was ineffective. 110
Incidental troubles in relation to railroads also arose from time to time. General Lee complained of delay and difficulty in communicating with Richmond from the camp near Fredericksburg, and asked for better service. 111 And then the treasurer of the Western and Atlantic Railroad of Georgia withheld postal funds, which he had collected in excess of the amount due the road, on the excuse that part of this excess was due for services rendered the department before July 1, 1861.
Mr. Reagan denied the justice of any such claim, and asked Governor Brown—for the State owned a large part of this road—to induce the treasurer to deliver the money on a second demand. He even hinted, in no uncertain terms, at criminal prosecution of the treasurer under the Georgia law for “ `Theft or Larceny after a trust has been delegated, or a confidence reposed. . . .' ” But Governor Brown, on the contrary, claiming that the Confederate Government owed the State of Georgia over $500,000, instructed the treasurer of the Western and Atlantic not to yield any surplus sums due the post office department. Reagan then wanted to prosecute both the governor and the treasurer of the road under the law named above. The attorney-general thought the governor's excuses only a pretense, but he said it would be necessary to show fraudulent intent; and it was clearly impossible to argue that either the treasurer of the Western and Atlantic or Governor Brown had at any time attempted to disguise his action. The postmaster-general had to be satisfied with having the attorney-general's opinion recorded in his letter book, where it now bears eloquent witness to the timidity of the central government in dealing with the officials of a state. 112
By the end of 1863 most of the railroad companies had made contracts, but some held out in spite of an offer of the maximum compensation for first class roads. While willing to carry the mails for the department, they still refused to come under its limited control. Without contracts the only checks in the power of the department were to withhold payment for services performed without a contract, and, in case of continued refusal, “to withdraw the mails from such roads and endeavor to obtain some other mode of conveyance.” 113 This was actually done in one instance, in which withdrawal of mails from the Virginia Central Railroad cut off a large, thickly settled district from official means of communication with the rest of the world. And though a great outcry was raised against this injustice to the people, the condition had to be endured for nearly a month before a compromise was effected. 114
The only other authority the department ever tried to exercise over mail trains was to require them to conform to schedules, usually arranged in some convention of connecting lines, and agreed to by the roads themselves. Yet such was the provincialism of railroads in those days, that if any road forming a link in a great line had been permitted to carry the mails without having been bound by a contract, the post office department would have had absolutely no power to prevent it from adopting any schedule thought to be best suited to its local business, without regard to effect upon the regularity of the mails on its own lines or those of its connections. 115 However, the checks in the hands of the postmaster-general were insufficient under the circumstances; the roads felt that their pay was quite inadequate at the best; while Mr. Reagan believed the situation due to the lack of patriotism on the part of public carriers who had already waxed fat upon Government patronage. In this, as in most cases, there was much to be said on both sides.
In these days when a great federal parcels post service is actually driving express companies into the hands of receivers, it seems almost incredible that any government monopoly so generally acquiesced in as a postal monopoly should ever have had to complain of competition in its business of carrying letters. But from the very inception of the Confederate postal service, its monopoly rights were violated continually and with impunity by the express companies of the South, the chief offender being that known as the Southern Express Company. 116
The Confederate Congress, in the first set of laws prescribed for the new post office department, endeavored to safeguard it by a clause prohibiting “express and other chartered companies” from carrying any letters unless they were prepaid by being enclosed in a stamped envelope of the Confederacy. A violation of the act was punishable with a five hundred dollar fine. 117 Being reminded that neither stamps nor stamped envelopes of the Confederacy were yet obtainable, Congress renewed and enlarged the act of February 23, giving the express companies greater privileges and at the same time imposing greater restrictions and penalties to prevent violation. It was made “lawful for the Postmaster-General to allow express and other chartered companies to carry letters, and all mail matter of every description, whether the same be enclosed in stamped envelopes or prepaid in stamps, or money.” But the mail matter, with the money collected for postage, was to be turned in to some postmaster to be stamped paid. Cancellation of stamps on letters and packages prepaid was enjoined on the company, “under the penalty of five hundred dollars for each failure.” Matter given the company to mail and not to deliver had to be prepaid at the regular postal rates from the place where the company received it to its destination, the stamps being cancelled at the point of mailing. The same act required each agent of express companies to take oath to comply faithfully with the laws relating to carrying of mail and obliterating postage stamps. 118 In case the postmaster-general should refuse to allow an express company to carry letters, it was probably intended that he should fall back on the old United States laws, which made it an offense, finable at $150 for a private express company to carry mailable material, “except newspapers, pamphlets, magazines and periodicals.” 119
Mr. Reagan quoted these laws fully in his first official complaint against the course being pursued by the Southern Express Company, the only company then known to carry mailable matter. He declared that numerous frauds were being perpetrated by the company's agents upon the revenues of the department. 120 That the frauds, in the aggregate, amounted to a very large sum, was revealed by a special investigation. The express company's renderings to such post offices as those at Savannah, Charleston, Columbia, and Wilmington, had decreased from about $200 each per month to sums ranging from $1.30 to five and ten cents. 121 The postmaster-general ordered prosecutions brought against the company, but it was found that the laws were inadequate. The Southern Express Company was not chartered in every state where it operated; therefore prosecution could not be sustained against it. The only penalty provided was a fine against failure to “obliterate postage stamps” on letters prepaid by stamps; and this was to be assessed against the company itself and not against any person connected with, or employed by it. Accordingly, the postmaster-general refused to allow the Southern Express Company to carry any mailable matter not bearing stamps, 122 and lost no time in recommending an adequate revision of the postal laws on this subject. 123 This recommendation was given by the President to Congress for its “careful attention.” 124 and it resulted in the passage of the act of April 19, 1862.
This act simply struck out of the statutes such parts of the Confederate enactments concerning the carrying of the mails by express companies as had been added to the United States laws on the same subject. That is, nothing but the old prohibitory law of the United States was left in effect. 125 The act explicitly said that the laws repealed had been no more than additions or exceptions to the old law, which had in nowise been abrogated or repealed by them. It was also expressly provided that frauds upon the revenues of the post office department and violations of the laws just repealed might be proceeded against and punished under the laws existing at the time the fraud or violation was committed. It is evident that every effort was made to close all possible loopholes through which the Southern Express Company might endeavor to escape from its legal entanglements. 126
But “neither law nor solemn oaths” could bind the Southern Express Company, which continued to violate the law with “audacious boldness.” Moreover, the postmaster-general, in the spring of 1863, declared that persistent efforts were being made “to get a public opinion in favor of the Southern Express Company . . . and that, too, by unjust comparisons of its facilities and usefulness with those of the Post Office Department.” He was amazed “that they should have the brazen effrontery to provoke such comparisons” in the face of their lawless acts. But the truth seems to be that their services were so desirable that people furnished them large numbers of letters and packages to carry over lines that were also mail routes. It began to be hinted that the Southern Express Company could deliver more quickly than the post office could,—even that the Government had no fundamental right to the postal monopoly. And the postmaster-general was incensed to find that the company had “adopted the subterfuge” of advising that all mail to be carried by them should be marked as though it contained money, the company acting on the supposition that they had the right to carry money packages. Thus the company hoped to accomplish “the double purpose of evading the law, and of extorting a larger price for the conveyance of such letters.” In spite of all this, the attorney-general was reluctant to proceed against the company or any of its employees. He held back because the company was not incorporated, and intimated, so Reagan heard, that the law was unconstitutional. Mr. Reagan found it impossible to understand such an attitude. If the law was defective, he wanted to know it, in order that he might then bring the matter before Congress and have a remedy provided. To this end he ordered a prosecution against the Southern Express Company “in a number of cases where they had been detected in violation of the law”; 127 but the results of these prosecutions do not appear.
Experience showed “that nothing short of the most stringent and thorough legislation, excluding all doubts and guarding against evasion,” would serve to correct the evil. The postmaster-general wanted a law that would provide adequate penalties and punishments for violations of the law. He wanted the law to reach all companies, whether corporate or not, and each of their employees, as well as every person who should patronize, encourage, or assist them in their violation of the law. 128
Impelled by a sense of duty, Reagan had accepted the burdens of an office the prospect of which had already proved too much for two men. Out of almost nothing and within a few weeks, he evolved and carried out a plan for taking over and revising the postal service in the Confederate States. Not only did he have to carry out his plans with a constantly diminishing supply of men and equipment, but he had to content with unsympathetic branches of the government itself. It was with extreme difficulty that he obtained even the rights accorded his department by the letter of the law. It was his disagreeable duty to attempt to discipline railroad companies either by ineffective or inadequate fines, or by temporary suspension of service along certain lines, even though he himself had to bear the brunt of popular criticism for doing so. Because of legal difficulties, he had to sit idly by and watch a greedy express company competing with and actually defrauding the post office department. The people, accumtomed to the extravagant service of the United States, resented any curtailment, no matter how great the economy effected. On the other hand, any extension or improvement, or sometimes the bare retention of existing service for facilitating the official correspondence of army officers, was considered by the Secretary of the Treasury an unjustifiable drain on the public resources. Yet, in spite of all opposition and discouragement, the postmaster general doggedly persevered at his tasks; and while he was husbanding the resources of the crippled department, he was devising ways and means for improving the service, and for making it ultimately far more effective and economical than it had ever been. Reagan had the modern idea, his proposals were sound, and, if they could have been carried out, who can doubt that the post office department would have had much greater chances to attain that degree of efficiency so much desired by its head?
OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS
Confederate States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Exemption of Mail Contractors—Habeas Corpus Proceedings (no date), a pamphlet in the “Confederate Archives,” United States War Department. (C. W. R.)
Correspondence between the President of the Virginia Central Railroad Company and the Postmaster General in relation to Postal Services. Richmond, Va., 1864 (a pamphlet now among the Reagan papers, Texas State Library, Austin, Texas).
in the Texas State Library, Austin, Texas.
Journal of the Congress of the Confederate States, Vols. I-VII. Washington, 1905.
Letter Books, Contract Bureau of the Confederate States Post Office Department, in “Confederate Archives,” United States War Department. (C. W. R.)
Letter Book, Number I, of Governor Vance of North Carolina, “Confederate Archives,” United States War Department. (C. W. R.)
Letter Book Number I of the Postmaster-General of the Confederate States, bearing title page:—“Record of Letters and other communications from the Post Office Department of the Confederate States of America,” photographic copy, incomplete, from the original in the Mss. Division of the Library of Congress, Washington, D. C., Texas State Library, Austin, Texas.
Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, War of the Rebellion, published under the direction of the War Department of the United States, Washington, 1880-1901.
Reports of the Postmaster-General of the Confederate States, Richmond, 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864, Reagan Papers, Texas State Library, Austin, Texas.
The Southern Companies (no date or imprint of publication), a pamphlet in the Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. (C. W. R.)
The Statutes at Large of the Confederate States of America, edited by James M. Mathews, Richmond, 1862, 1863, 1864.
The Statutes at Large of the Provisional Congress of the Confederate States of America, edited by James M. Mathews, Richmond, 1864.
BOOKS
Davis, Jefferson, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, 2 vols., New York, 1881.
Moore, Frank, The Rebellion Record, 7 vols., New York, 1861-1864.
Reagan, John H., Memoirs, New York and Washington, 1906.
Richardson, James D., A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, Including the Diplomatic Correspondence, 1861-1865, published by permission of Congress, 2 vols., Nashville, 1906.
Schwab, John C., The Confederate States of America, New York, 1901.
NEWSPAPERS 130 AND PERIODICALS
Atwood, Albert W., “The Great Express Monopoly,” The American Magazine, LXXI, 427-439.
The Dallas Morning News, Feb. 24, 1899.
McCaleb, Walter F., “The Organization of the Post Office Department of the Confederacy,” American Historical Review, XII, 66-74. New York, 1907.
The Richmond Examiner. The Library of the University of Texas.
The Semi-Weekly Richmond Enquirer (bound up with this are several numbers of the daily Richmond Enquirer). The Library of the University of Texas.
The State Gazette, Austin, Texas. Found in the Texas State Library, Austin, Texas.
The Texas Republican, Marshall, Texas. Found in the Texas State Library, Austin, Texas.
The Tri-Weekly Telegraph, Houston, Texas. Found in the Texas State Library, Austin, Texas.
The Weekly Delta, Jan., 1861-Jan., 1862, New Orleans. Found in the Texas State Library, Austin, Texas.
The American fur trade in the Southwest which followed the attainment of Mexican independence has received but scant attention from historians, having been subordinated by them to the merchandise trade over the Santa Fé trail. This viewpoint is mainly due to Gregg and Chittenden. For over half a century Gregg's Commerce of the Prairies has been considered the classic for Southwestern trade. It is a vivid account of an eyewitness who made eight trips over the trails. But there are two serious faults in Gregg's book. In the first place he did not engage in the trade until 1831, 132 and his knowledge of the preceding decades was based upon hearsay or upon a few books of travel. 133 As Gregg was a trader in merchandise, a business which had practically superseded the fur trade by 1831, it was but natural that he should convey the impression that the early trade was of the same nature as the later. Our other great authority is Chittenden, 134 whose admirable history of the fur trade of the far West has frequently been considered the last word on the subject. But Chittenden was strongly influenced by Gregg and the full significance of the Southwestern fur trade did not dawn upon him. He added considerable data, however, by using Fowler's Journal, 135 Pattie's Personal Narrative, 136 the file of the Missouri Intelligencer, and some other materials. But the footnotes in Bancroft's History of Arizona and New Mexico 137 disclose a mass of material which Chittenden apparently did not examine. Still another unused source, which would have thrown light on the subject, is the documentary material in the archives of Mexico. Many of the transactions of the fur traders within Mexican territory were surreptitious, and just as it is difficult to get at the truth about piracy and smuggling, so it is difficult to obtain information about South-western fur traders. They left few documents, and those few were usually but adorned tales. The views of Mexican officials are as valuable in explaining the history of the fur trade as are the reports of the English colonial customs officials, or the records of court proceedings in trials of piracy.
The following account of Ceran St. Vrain's expedition to the Gila in 1826 is based upon this class of materials, three expedientes being used. One is to be found in the archives of the State of Sonora at Hermosillo, book 42, number 7; the others are in the Archivo de Gobernación at Mexico City; one being in the division Comercio, number 44; the other in the same archive, in the division of Jefes Políticos, 1831-1833, being expediente number 1, legajo 59, folio 28. These expedientes comprise thirty pages. Many of the documents are extremely difficult, being in colloquial Spanish, frequently spelled phonetically, and innocent of accents.
Up to the present time our knowledge of St. Vrain's expedition has been based upon Inman's Old Santa Fé Trail 138 and upon Chittenden. Inman says that late in the spring of 1826 Kit Carson joined an expedition gotten up by Ceran St. Vrain, which was destined for the Rocky Mountains. It left Fort Osage one morning in May and “in a few hours turned abruptly to the west on the broad Trail to the mountains.” As to the exact destination the author fails to enlighten us, due no doubt to the fact that his object in introducing this bit of information was to tell the story of a fight with the Pawnees.
Chittenden says regarding the expedition, “It appears that in September of this year a party under Ceran St. Vrain (if we may trust Inman) set out for Santa Fe, arriving there in November; in this party was a runaway boy, Kit Carson, then 17 years old.” 139 But it is evident that in spite of his citation of Inman, Chittenden did not follow that author faithfully. Inman says that St. Vrain started in May, Chittenden says in September. Chittenden's method of arriving at his conclusion that the date should be changed is found when we examine the sources of information regarding Kit Carson. In the Missouri Intelligencer of October 12, 1826, appeared an advertisement inserted by David Workman, to whom Carson was apprenticed, which stated that on or about September 1, Kit ran away. 140 Peters in his biography of Carson says that he arrived in Santa Fé in November, 141 a statement which is followed by Sabin in his recent work. 142 Chittenden appears to have changed the date as given by Inman to fit the information which he obtained from the Missouri Intelligencer and Peters. The statements of both authors are incorrect at least in part. Inman was probably right, as will be shown later, in placing the departure of St. Vrain's expedition in May, 1826, but he was wrong in supposing that Carson accompanied the expedition, for Workman's advertisement, which appears to be good evidence, shows that Kit was in Missouri until about September 1. Chittenden unfortunately changed the only correct part of Inman's statement.
Let us now abandon the historians and examine the documents. On August 29, 1826, Antonio Narbona, governor of New Mexico, issued at Santa Fé the following passport: “For the present freely grant and secure passport to the foreigners, S. W. Williams and Seran Sambrano [Ceran St. Vrain], who with thirty-five men of the same nation, their servants, pass to the state of Sonora for private trade; by all authority to my subordinates, none are to offer any embarrassment on this march.” 143 We cannot be certain of the exact date of the arrival of St. Vrain at Santa Fé, but if we accept Inman's statement that the expedition left Missouri early in May, it is probable that the arrival in the Mexican settlements occurred in the latter part of June. This would give them two months to dispose of their merchandise and unravel the red tape connected with the procuring of a passport.
As to the number on the expedition, the passport which states that there were thirty-five besides the leaders, would seem to be good evidence, but in a letter from Narbona to the governor of Sonora, written two days after the issuance of the passport, the number is given as about a hundred. A complaint made on October 26, 1826, by James Baird to Alexander Ramírez, the president of the El Paso district, stated that there were over a hundred on the expedition. Ramírez in a letter to José Antonio Arce, the vice-governor of Chihuahua, on December 20, 1826, wrote that the reports which he had gathered showed a discrepancy in numbers, but that most of them agreed that there were not less than sixty. Owing to the detailed information given by Narbona to the governor of Sonora and to the fact that the statements of Narbona and Baird practically agree, it seems safe to conclude that there were about a hundred in the expedition. 144
As to the personnel the documents disclose eleven names: Williams, whose initials are variously given as S. W. and J., Ceran and Julian St. Vrain, E. Bure, Alexander Branch, Louis Dolton, Stone, John Rueland or Roles, 145 Miguel Robideau, Pratt, and Joaquin Joon. 146
It is impossible to determine the exact route of the expedition to New Mexico. It probably crossed the plains from Fort Osage to the neighborhood of Pawnee Rock, a well-known point on the Santa Fé Trail, 147 then by an uncertain route to Taos, the point of entry of most of the early expeditions. 148 As to whether the whole party went to Santa Fé, it is also uncertain. In the Glenn expedition the trappers remained at Taos while the leader went to Santa Fé. 149 The same thing may have occurred in this instance.
At Santa Fé or Taos, and probably the latter, the expedition was divided into four parts, no doubt for convenience in trapping on the various streams. Williams and Ceran St. Vrain led one party of twenty-odd, Robideau and Pratt one of thirty-odd, John Roles a third of eighteen, and Joaquin Joon one of similar size. 150 Having organized, the four parties made for the uninhabited regions of the west to trap on the Gila, San Francisco, and Colorado rivers. 151 In the documents we hear of them at various points, now at the Santa Rita Copper Mines, 152 now twelve men appear at Zuñi, now near Tucson. 153 On October 28, 1826, information arrived at the presidio of Tucson that sixteen men were in that region. A troop of soldiers was sent out to find them. Near the Gila the party met seven Indians who had been hunting in the neighborhood, who reported that the foreigners had gone by the Apache trail three days before, and that because of their start, it was useless to follow them. 154 It is evident from this that at least part of them had gone into the Apache country, which lay north of the Gila.
The documents from which we have gleaned these facts also throw much light on the methods, not only of these traders, but of other expeditions of the period. Of these documents, the most illuminating is the complaint of a Missourian named James Baird, made at El Paso on October 21, 1826. The full bearing as well as the humor of this document cannot be appreciated until the past history of Baird is known. In 1812 Robert McKnight, Samuel Chambers and James Baird went from Missouri to Santa Fé. They were arrested by the Spanish authorities and sent to Chihuahua, where they were imprisoned for nine years. In 1821, when Mexico attained her independence, John McKnight, a brother of Robert, obtained their release. 155 In 1822 Baird and Chambers led an expedition of fifty men from Franklin, Missouri, to Santa Fé. 156 At this point Baird drops out of sight as far as the historians are concerned. But the following complaint made at El Paso shows that he remained in New Mexico and became a Mexican citizen, that he engaged in the fur trade and in 1826 was trying to keep Americans out of the field. The statement that for fourteen years he had been a citizen of Mexico and the frequent reiterations of his fidelity are highly humorous in view of the fact that nine out of the fourteen years were spent in a Mexican jail.
Baird's statement is as follows:
For fourteen years I have resided in the provinces, wherein, according to the plan of Yguala, I entered upon the enjoyment of the rights of Mexican citizenship, devoting myself for some time to beaver-hunting, in which occupation I invested my small means with the purpose of forming a methodical expedition which might bring profit to me and to those fellow citizens, who would necessarily accompany me in the said expedition. I was moved to this project by the protection afforded by the laws to Mexican citizens in the employment of their faculties to their own advantage and which excluded by special decrees all foreigners from trapping and hunting, which they might undertake in the rivers and woods of the federation, especially that of beaver, since it is the most precious product which this territory produces. And although it is known to me that for a year and a half past they have clandestinely extracted a large quantity of peltry exceeding a $100,000 in value, I have kept still, knowing that this exploration had been made by small parties; but now, being ready to set out upon the expedition of which I have spoken, I have learned that with scandal and contempt for the Mexican nation a hundred-odd Anglo-Americans have introduced themselves in a body to hunt beaver in the possessions of this state and that of Sonora to which the Rio Gila belongs, and with such arrogance and haughtiness that they have openly said that in spite of the Mexicans, they will hunt beaver wherever they please; to protect their expedition, they are carrying powder and balls, in consequence of which no one is able to restrain them. In view of these circumstances, I believe that it is a bounden duty of every citizen, who has the honor to belong to the great Mexican nation, to make known to his superior government the extraordinary conduct which the foreigners observe in our possessions, which transgressions may be harmful, both on account of the insult which they cast upon the nation by despising our laws and decrees as well as through the damage which they do the said nation by the extinction which inevitably will follow of a product so useful and so valuable. I ought to protest, as I do, that in making this report, I am not moved so much by personal interest as by the honor and general welfare of the nation to which I have heartily joined. In view of the foregoing, I beg that Your Excellency may make such provisions as you may deem proper, to the end that the national laws may be respected and that foreigners may be confined to the limits which the same laws permit them, and that we Mexicans may peacefully profit by the goods with which the merciful God has been pleased to enrich our soil. . . . 157
The complaint of Baird brought prompt action on the part of the Mexican officials. Alexander Ramírez, the president of the district of El Paso, informed the governor of Chihuahua, who sent back orders that Ramírez was to report concerning the expedition as to numbers, passports, places visited, and destination. 158 Similar orders were sent to the alcalde of Tucson, 159 and to the comandante general and jefe político of New Mexico. 160
On December 20, 1826, Ramírez wrote to the government at Chihuahua that he was not certain of the numbers and that he had heard that they were hunting near the Real de San Francisco in the state of Sonora. “Up to the present time,” he said, “they have not been at other points in this state in the present year, but in the previous years they have hunted all along the river of this jurisdiction [the Rio Grande], securing a quantity of beaver peltry, without having been disturbed by the former judges, or even made to pay a tax for their extraction.” He confirmed the statement of Baird that they had talked in an insolent manner. 161
Even before the complaint of Baird was lodged, the actions of the traders had disturbed Governor Narbona. Two days after the granting of the passport to Williams and St. Vrain he had warned the governor of Sonora that the Americans were going on a secret hunting trip to the rivers of Sonora “to the known injury of our public treasury, in infraction of our laws.” He stated that his suspicions were aroused by the large number and by the questions which they asked when they demanded passports. He further observed that they were “all without trade or other visible object.” 162 On September 30 Narbona wrote to the Minister of Interior and Foreign Relations, “I am suspicious that the Anglo-Americans, who are returning to their country, are lingering a long time, as they are retiring from the inhabited places along the banks of the rivers in the pursuit of beaver trapping and they do the same in the center of the states of Sonora and Chihuahua.” He complained of a lack of cavalry to patrol the frontier, saying that with the greatest difficulty he had maintained ten men in the neighborhood of Taos. He also said that unless something were done at once the beaver would soon become extinct in that region. In the letter Narbona betrays his anxiety. He had granted the Americans a right to trade, but now was trying to make the authorities at Mexico City believe that he had granted the traders a passport to leave the country and that they had violated their privileges by trapping instead of leaving. 163 In a letter to the governor of Chihuahua on February 14, 1827, Narbona again pointed out the inadequacy of his forces to patrol the frontier. He said that there were many foreigners in the country without permits, a condition which had existed since 1822, the year, according to the governor, that Americans began to penetrate into the country. 164
Still further light is thrown on the operations of the traders and on the Santa Fé officials in a report from Chihuahua made to the central government in 1831, but which was based largely upon observations made in 1827. The report in part says, “The taking of peltries of beaver is a branch of trade profitable only for the Anglo-Americans, who make up hunting parties and also establishments for them which last several months; as a result the specie will soon be destroyed.” In the report was embodied a statement from Don Rafael Sarracino, who had been in New Mexico in 1827. Sarracino's statement ran as follows:
The Anglo-Americans, well provided with arms and instruments for hunting, particularly for beaver, are purchasing of the inhabitants of Santa Fé the license which they in their name obtain from the judge of that capital, for making a hunt for a certain length of time and in certain places, which the same judge designates for many leagues distance in the mountains and deserts which the Rio Bravo [Rio Grande] washes; with the subterfuge of the license, the Anglo-Americans are attacking the species without limit or consideration and are getting alarming quantities of peltries, frequently without paying even an eighth of the customs to the treasury. Formerly they refused [to pay] so much that in 1827 (I being in Santa Fé), I was acquainted with an arrangement which they made with a wretch named Don Luis Cabeza de Vaca, the miserable fellow, that he should receive smuggled goods in his house which he has in the desert; and a man of like ilk, for resisting the attack on that [house], was unfortunately killed by a bullet wound which was directed by the soldiers who assisted the alcalde in capturing [it]. The alcalde succeeded in getting twenty-nine tercios [tierces] of very valuable beaver skins, which were forfeited in the season of that summer in the storehouses of the deputy commissioner of the territory. 165
The letters of Narbona, the complaint of Baird, and the resulting inquiry aroused the Mexican government. In March, 1827, the vice-governor of Chihuahua sent the documents, which had been collected from the officials of New Mexico and Sonora, to the Secretary of State and Foreign Relations, and on April 5 a protest was made to Poinsett, the United States Minister, in which he was asked to have his government restrain the traders. On the 9th Poinsett replied, expressing his regret at the infraction of the laws by citizens of the United States, and assuring the Mexican government that he would submit the request to his government, “with full confidence that it will adopt measures, as the laws permit, to stop the repetition of similar acts on the part of citizens of the United States.” 166 I have found no evidence to show, however, that the United States took any action to restrain the traders.
In the light of the evidence, it seems fair to assume that the history of the Santa Fé trade must be revised, giving the fur trader his place beside or ahead of the merchant. St. Vrain's expedition was only one of many similar enterprises. It was chosen as the central theme of this paper because the documents, which have thus far been gathered, are more complete on this expedition than on others. But the archives of Mexico have only begun to give up their stores. The writer has seen enough in these and other documents to convince him that the history of the Santa Fé Trail has not yet been written.
In a recent article the writer endeavored to show how important the supply ships from San Blas were in maintaining the early Spanish settlements of Alta California, and how ably the viceroy of New Spain performed the difficult task of getting supplies and ships to the northern establishments in time to prevent abandonment of the province. 167 The difficulties of Viceroy Bucarely and the precarious existence of the new colonies will be even better understood when it appears that maintenance of the Department of San Blas was in itself no small problem. The period covered by this article has been selected because it was long enough after the founding of the department to avoid the effect of abnormal conditions, and also because it was before permanence of the Alta California settlements had become assured by development from within. First, however, a review of the department's history to 1775 will be attempted. 168
The founding of the Department of San Blas grew out of the need for a port as a base of supplies in conducting wars against the Seris of Sonora, but it would seem to have been associated from the outset in the mind of Visitador Gálvez with conquests in the Californias as well. As early as December, 1767, we learn that Gálvez was ardently at work on plans for formation of the department, having charged one Rivero with the duty of establishing a port there. 169 The official objects of the department are stated in Viceroy Croix's instruction of January 11, 1768, for settlement of San Blas. After the measures necessary for pacification of Sonora and other frontier provinces should be taken, he said, it had been deemed indispensable to found a port for the advantage of boats employed on such expeditions and available for commerce with Sonora, and for the preservation and advancement of the Californias. 170 Gálvez proceeded to San Blas in May, 1768, and established the department. Whatever place the Sonora wars may have had in the original plans, the Department of San Blas was to serve primarily as a base of supplies for maintaining the two Californias. The selection of San Blas for this purpose was open to objection, for the port was not a good one, and the site was unhealthful and not suited to either agriculture or stock-raising.
Some idea of the nature and operations of the department may be gained by consulting the reglamento, or instrument of government, for the Californias and San Blas of the year 1773. The intimate relation of San Blas to Alta and Baja California is to be noted, for they were regarded as essentially an unit. The prinpical document in the file which was eventually to become the reglamento (for no single document was drawn up embodying the results of deliberations to this end) was a recommendation of May 19, 1773, by Juan José de Echeveste, at that time purchasing agent for the Californias in Mexico City, giving detailed suggestions as to what the reglamento should be. The document begins with an estimate of the number of men and cost per year of each of the Californias and San Blas. San Blas was considered under three heads: the department proper; the arsenal or shipyard; and the fleet. The following men were needed: in the department proper, a commissary, an accountant (contador), a paymaster and storekeeper, three scribes, an amanuensis, a chaplain, and a sacristan; at the shipyard, a master-workman (maestro mayor), a cooper, a rope maker (corchador), and a boatswain; in the fleet: for the frigate, a captain and pilot, a second pilot, a boatswain, a boatswain's mate, a steward, a carpenter, a calker, two cabin boys, six steersmen, twenty-seven ship's boys (gurumetes), and thirty sailors; for each of two packet boats, a captain and pilot, a second pilot, a boatswain, a boatswain's mate, a steward, a carpenter, a calker, two cabin boys, six steersmen, ten ship's boys, and sixteen sailors. The annual cost of the department proper was calculated at 8,691 pesos, 4 tomines (or reales), 6 granos, including rations for 127 men in the Californias; 171 of the shipyard, at 12,355 pesos, 2 tomines, 6 granos, mostly for repairs to ships; and of the fleet, at 34,037 pesos, 5 tomines. Thus the total cost for San Blas would be over 55,000 pesos a year, with only three boats in service. As an offset, the salt mines of San Blas produced about 25,000 pesos a year. Besides the three ships provided for, which were to serve as supply ships, there were two other packet boats, one sloop, and a schooner in the department for which no funds were assigned. Echeveste recommended that very careful, detailed accounts should be kept at San Blas of goods shipped to the Californias. 172 A junta de guerra y real hacienda of July 8, 1773, sustained the recommendations of Echeveste that have been quoted here, but recommended sale of the extra four ships. Special notice was also taken of complaints received from Campo, an official at San Blas, that there were not enough funds on hand even to pay wages to the men, 173 and the necessity was recognized for early despatch of money to San Blas to cover expenses for the rest of the year 1773. 174 Bucarely's decree of July 23 amounted to an agreement with the junta until the king should decide upon a new reglamento.
Additional duties were placed upon the department in connection with Spanish voyages of exploration to the northwest to see whether the Russians had formed establishments upon American soil. This called for more ships and men and officers. In a letter of July 27, 1773, Bucarely asked Arriaga to send some naval officers from Spain for use in the projected explorations. 175 Arriaga's reply of August 24 informed him that six were being sent. 176 One voyage was made, however, before their arrival, that of Pérez in the frigate Santiago in 1774. The burden placed upon San Blas was a heavy one. Bucarely expressed an opinion in his July 27 letter that voyages of exploration would cost less if conducted from Manila. Gálvez suggested to Arriaga, December 18, 1773, that the Manila galleon should be ordered to stop at Monterey on its voyage to Acapulco and leave goods for Alta California, a cheaper method, he believed, than by reliance upon San Blas. 177 So great were the financial burdens of San Blas that one body, the Tribunal de Cuentas (Tribunal of Accounts) of Mexico recommended that the department be done away with. This extreme view called forth several protests, among others from Gálvez, who characterized the suggestion as nonsensical, saying that the department was indispensable. 178 One of the problems in the use of San Blas was the great cost and labor involved in getting goods across New Spain to that port, owing to the width of the viceroyalty at that point and the difficulty of the route. It was virtually impossible to get artillery across New Spain to San Blas, necessitating recourse to Manila. This caused Bucarely to send one Agustín Crame to the Isthmus of Tehuantepec to see if a route might be found for transportation of artillery. Crame's expedition was a complete success. Writing of it to Arriaga, March 27, 1774, Bucarely remarked that the Tehuantepec route might be used for transportation not only of artillery but also of goods for Alta California and the ships employed in exploring voyages. It would cost less to send goods that way than it did by way of San Blas, and would take less time than it would if recourse were had to Manila. 179 Despite manifold objections to it, however, San Blas was to remain for many years the seat of the marine department for the northern shores of the Pacific coast of New Spain. We may now proceed a little more in detail to consider its difficulties in the years 1775-1777.
The Pérez voyage of 1774 to the far northwest was followed by voyages of Heceta and Bodega in 1775, while supply ships continued as before to visit Alta and Baja California. It had been intended to follow up the 1775 voyages to the northwest with others, but even before the return of Heceta and Bodega it was clear that there were going to be difficulties. The Department of San Blas had exhausted its funds and had been obliged to borrow 7,976 pesos because of the expense involved in fitting out the 1775 voyages. Bucarely more than made up the deficiency by remitting 20,000 pesos chargeable to explorations. 180 A more serious difficulty arose when the port of San Blas began to fill in. Bucarely referred to this in a letter to Arriaga of June 26, 1775. The department might have to be moved to another port, he said. 181 On August 27, he wrote two letters to Arriaga on this subject. In one, he said that he had directed Miguel de Corral, a lieutenant colonel of engineers, to make soundings of San Blas and other ports in the vicinity. 182 In the other, he said that he was suspending decision about removal of the department from San Blas, until he should hear whether any Russian establishments had been found upon the northwest coasts, in which case he implied that a better port than San Blas would be necessary. If no more should be required than to send supplies to Alta California, San Blas would answer the purpose. 183 The scant depth of the port of San Blas continued to give trouble, however. On July 27, 1776, we find Bucarely writing to Gálvez, who had become ministro general de Indias upon the death of Arriaga, of measures that had been taken in view of the filling in of San Blas. The nearby ports of Chacala and Matanchel had been explored, and there was something to be said in favor of moving the department to one or the other. Barring urgent necessity, however, no such course should be taken, for if discoveries in the northwest were to be continued, either San Francisco, Alta California, or Trinidad, Guatemala, would be a better site for a marine department. 184 Gálvez's reply of January 9, 1777, gave orders to continue the department at San Blas until its port should become wholly useless, and then to move it temporarily to Acapulco. Ultimately, it might be established in some good port of Alta California. 185 None of these plans for a change of site matured.
One of the greatest difficulties that the department had to encounter arose from lack of boats enough with which to carry on its duties, despite the fact that there were five boats in the department in 1776. Several factors arose in that year to complicate this problem. Orders had been received for fresh voyages of discovery to the northwest to be made in the year 1777; Alta California had developed to such a point that more supplies were needed than formerly; and finally, Bucarely's fiscal, Areche, had been named visitador to Peru, and must needs have a ship for the journey to Peru. As the writer has already indicated in a former article much that was done to solve this question, 186 little need be added here. Bucarely recommended that two new frigates be built in Peru. 187 Gálvez informed Bucarely, December 24, 1776, that he approved of the suggestion, 188 and on the same day gave orders to the viceroy of Peru to construct promptly two good frigates for use in explorations. 189 The chance arrival of a merchant ship at Acapulco permitted of Areche's going to Peru in that. Bucarely wrote to Gálvez, December 27, 1776, that he was also sending Bodega, a naval officer of San Blas, to Peru to see if he might purchase a frigate there. 190 Gálvez approved, 191 and gave orders to the viceroy of Peru that only one frigate needed to be built for Bucarely, if Bodega should succeed in purchasing a frigate. 192 This matter need not be pursued. The voyages of exploration were officially postponed to December, 1778. One boat was procured in Peru, and another built at San Blas, and they left San Blas for the northwest coast in February, 1779.
It may be wondered why the ships were not built at San Blas in the first place. One reason why they were not was the inability of the department to procure ordinary manufactured articles of which it stood in need, such as iron, tools, artillery, canvas, and tackle. In a letter of August 27, 1775, Bucarely asked of Arriaga that a supply of iron and tools be shipped from Spain to Vera Cruz for use at San Blas. He had already asked for a supply of the other effects from Havana, he said. 193 In a letter of September 26 he asked for 2,500 binding plates (planchuelas) for use in making water-barrels for the San Blas ships. 194 Grimaldi, acting for Arriaga, who was sick, gave orders that the iron and other effects from Spain be assembled at Cádiz for shipment to Vera Cruz, 195 and that the materials sought from Havana be shipped from there as soon as possible. 196 On the same day, December 22, 1775, he wrote to Bucarely reciting what he had done. 197 There was a comparatively prompt response to the orders as regards effects sought in Spain. On April 9, 1776, Ruiz informed Gálvez that they had been sent to Vera Cruz. 198 Articles sought in Havana, however, were not forthcoming. On October 21, 1776, Bonet, the naval commander at Havana, wrote to Castejón, of the ministry of marine in Spain, that it was in the interests of the service that the effects desired for San Blas be procured in Peru rather than at Havana. 199 Castejón addressed Gálvez about the matter on December 31, 200 and the latter wrote to Bucarely 201 and to the viceroy of Peru 202 on January 4, 1777, to see if they might arrange as Bonet had suggested. Bucarely replied, April 26, 1777, that he had written to the viceroy of Peru, remarking also that it would be less expensive if the goods could be procured in that viceroyalty. 203 Nearly two years had passed since he first asked for them, and they seemed to be no nearer arrival than ever.
Added to these other lacks at San Blas that have been mentioned, there was also a lack of the men required for operation of the department. A letter from two officers of San Blas, Diego Choquet de la Isla and Juan de la Bodega y Cuadra, to Antonio Reggio of Isla de León, Spain, dated February 13, 1775, recited some of the needs of San Blas in this respect, telling also of the unhealthfulness of the site and disorderliness of ships' crews. 204 The letter was forwarded to Arriaga, 205 who wrote to Bucarely on November 3, 1775, requiring him to provide San Blas with a surgeon and a chaplain, both of which were lacking at the time, and to send soldiers enough to compel crews to observe a proper respect for authority. 206 In a letter of February 25, 1776, Bucarely spoke of a need for carpenters, pilots, and a calker at San Blas. 207 Gálvez seems to have taken up the matter with Castejón, for the latter wrote to him on June 14 that two pilots, two carpenters, and one calker would be supplied for use at San Blas. 208 Francisco Manxón of the Casa de Contratación wrote to Gálvez from Cádiz on July 5 that he was awaiting orders to send the calker and carpenters, but that the two pilots had not yet put in an appearance. 209 Gálvez replied, July 12, that these men and the pilots should be sent at government expense on the first boat from Cádiz, 210 and on the same day he wrote to Bucarely of the orders that he had given. 211
It had been contemplated that boats for the department should be built in the shipyard of San Blas itself. If there were to be boats, however, there had to be men who knew how to build them. Bucarely wrote to Gálvez on November 26, 1776, stating that a shipbuilder, boatswain, and other shipyard employees were needed at San Blas. He was seeking a builder in Havana, but wanted one from Spain if he could not get one in Cuba. 212 On December 27, he wrote that Goya of San Blas had asked for eighty sailors, two boatswains, twelve shipyard employees, four phlebotomists, two light-tenders (faroleros), and two armorers. Bucarely had ordered fifty sailors, a boatswain, and twelve shipyard employees sent there, and had told Goya to try in future to recruit men from the neighborhood. 213 By February 24 he was able to inform Gálvez that he had procured twelve shipyard employees in Vera Cruz. 214 Bonet was unable to find a ship-builder in Havana, 215 but Gálvez wrote to Bucarely on February 15 that a ship-builder would be supplied. 216 He took the matter up with Castejón, who replied on April 20 that José Chenard had been designated to go, 217 and Gálvez sent a letter next day to Bucarely to that effect. 218 Bucarely wrote at length, May 27, 1777, reiterating the need for a ship-builder, 219 for it was not until July that he learned of the destination of Chenard. 220 Chenard did not go to Mexico, however. On October 22 Castejón informed Gálvez that Chenard was unable to go, and asked if there was still need for a ship-builder at San Blas. 221 Gálvez replied on October 27 that the king desired that such a man be sent, 222 whereupon Castejón notified Gálvez on November 22 that Francisco Segurola had been appointed to go. 223 Gálvez sent word to Bucarely to that effect the following day, 224 giving orders at the same time to one Francisco Rábago of Coruña to send Segurola by the next boat. 225 This arrangement did not please Segurola, who wrote to Gálvez on the 30th that his precipitate departure would compel him to abandon his family. 226 Segurola's wishes seem not to have been considered, however, for we find a petition of Antonio de la Cuesta, dated December 13, 1777, asking that Segurola's son Ramón be allowed to take the next boat to Havana, so as to join his father there, 227 a request which was granted through Gálvez's letter of the 23d to Rábago. 228
The above review is enough to give an idea of the difficulties experienced by the Department of San Blas. Bucarely did all that he could to repair the deficiencies, but delays were unavoidable, for the things wanted were not always at hand or readily assembled. Yet with this lame equipment he had been able to sustain and develop the Californias and to carry on the exploring voyages to the northwest coasts.
Major General John A. Wharton was born four miles from Nashville, Tennessee, at the home of his father's sister, Mrs. Betsy Wharton Washington, July 3, 1828. He was the only son of his parents, William H. and Sarah Ann (Groce) Wharton.
The history of his ancestors can be found in Macaulay's History of England, and in other books on biography, but I will begin with John Wharton, son of Sir William Wharton and brother of Lord Philip Wharton, who came from England to Culpepper County, Virginia, 1760. His wife was Jane Miller. They had one son, John A. Wharton, born in England, 1740, and he came to America with his father at the age of twenty years and settled in Coresville, Albemarle County, Virginia, near North Garden. He married Rhoda Norris of Hanover County. Virginia, of same family as Richard Norris, a member of the Virginia convention of 1830. They had seven sons, George, William H., John, Austin, Jesse, Samuel L., and Dabney. I have the complete history of all these seven sons, given me by a great granddaughter of the eldest son, George, Mrs. Minnie Wharton Robertson, of Nashville, Tennessee, but since this is a history of General John Wharton of Texas, I will begin with his grandfather, William H., the second of the seven sons, who was born 1768, married Judith Harris of Amherst County, Virginia, and died February, 1816. His wife died February 8, 1816, just one week later. They left five children, all of whom made their home with their uncle Jesse, who became their guardian. Their names were Betsy, Martha, William H.,—born 1802, emigrated to Texas in 1827, died March 14, 1839,—Thomas, Jesse, who was born in 1804, and was drowned at age of fifteen, and John Austin Wharton, born 1806, 229 emigrated to Texas in 1829, and died unmarried in 1838. Betsy, the eldest of these children, had two grandchildren, who married Dr. Goodlet of St. Louis, and Louis Strobel of Texas. Their descendants are still living here. I knew them well, for they have visited in my home. William H. Wharton, the third of these five children, was a lawyer of ability. He married Sarah Ann Groce, whom he met in Nashville, where she was attending school. She was an intimate friend of his sister Betsy. December 5, 1827, they were married at “Bernardo,” Texas, Republic of Mexico, the home of her father, Jared Ellison Groce.
Jared E. Groce emigrated to Texas from Georgia in 1822, 230 bringing with him nearly one hundred slaves. He thereby acquired from the Mexican government ten leagues of land. Having had his only daughter with him so short a while since her return from college, he was loath to part with her, and offered to her young husband one-third of his vast possessions and many slaves if he would only remain in Texas. He also argued that Texas needed just such men as Wharton at that time. They remained, and her father gave them all the lands which he possessed in Brazoria County.
Knowing that his daughter had never been accustomed to do without comforts, back in the old home, and wishing to shield her from the many hardships which so many of the early settlers in Texas (then almost a wilderness) were compelled to go through, he wrote to a firm in Mobile, Alabama, for lumber, etc., to build a large and commodious dwelling. This was sent on a schooner from Mobile to the mouth of the Brazos and up the river twelve miles to the place selected for the home. Among the slaves whom he had brought with him were two brick masons and six finished carpenters, for which he had paid several thousand dollars. The surroundings were ideal for this beautiful dwelling. The plantation lay between the Brazos River and Oyster Creek, twelve miles from the Gulf of Mexico. There were originally two leagues of land. On one side of the house the lawn ran down to a beautiful lake, and the whole place was surrounded by large live oak trees. Upon their arrival, they found that an eagle had built her nest in one of these and they called the plantation “Eagle Island.” This home had all the comforts of a city, for in those days the city did not have gas, etc. It contained eight or nine rooms, each twenty feet square. Her father furnished it with the handsomest mahogany, velvet carpets, etc. It was while this young couple were in Nashville selecting the furnishings that their son, John Austin Wharton, was born.
When this baby was old enough to take a sea voyage, they returned to Texas, and here amid the scenes of the revolution, patriotism and honor, General John A. Wharton spent his childhood. It was at Eagle Island that many a consultation took place among the noble men who lived and died for Texas. It was here that the weary travelers were always received with hospitality. Here also were the scenes of many joyous occasions when the young people gathered together for merry making. And there is not a survivor of the old Texas band who will not remember with love the woman who braved all the trials of the first “Three Hundred,” the liberal lady who for so many years dispensed to all comers true Texas hospitality at “Eagle Island,” the noble mother of Major General John A. Wharton. He was but seven years old, when his father, William H. Wharton, was sent with Stephen F. Austin and Branch T. Archer, to the United States to secure help for the colonists, and his uncle, John A. Wharton, was at the time a member of the general council at San Felipe. These were exciting and anxious times for the mother and little son. One of the relics of this stirring period still in the possession of the family is the original copy of Santa Anna's farewell to the Texan army, which John A. Wharton brought home with him after the battle of San Jacinto. When eight years old, he was sent to “Bernardo,” the home of his uncle, Leonard Groce, to be under the instruction of Mr. Deans (a very brilliant man from Boston), who had been recommended to my father as a tutor for his eldest son. Mr. Deans afterwards founded a college in Galveston, and John Wharton was under his instruction there, until the age of fifteen, when he was sent to Columbia, South Carolina, where he graduated at the age of twenty years.
His father, William H. Wharton, died at the residence of his brother-in-law, Colonel Leonard Waller Groce, on March 14, 1839 —from an accidental wound received in his left hand and breast, when drawing his pistol from the holster, to examine it, on the eve of leaving with some friends for his residence, “Eagle Island.” His remains were sent to “Engle Island” to be buried, accompanied by Colonel Leonard Groce and Dr. Branch T. Archer. The latter is also buried at “Eagle Island,” where he died September, 1856.
William H. Wharton was a member of the convention of 1833; and was one of the three commissioners appointed by the consultation to the United States. He was a member of the first senate of the Republic of Texas; and was the first minister to the United States. After his return, he was again elected senator, which position he held until his death in 1839. Wharton County of Texas is named for him. His brother, John A. Wharton, Sr., was distinguished not only as a statesman and a lawyer but as a soldier. He was adjutant general at the battle of San Jacinto, and at his grave President D. G. Burnet said of him, in an oration, “The keenest blade on the field of San Jacinto is broken.” He died a bachelor December 17, 1838, while a member of the Texan congress.
To return to the subject of the sketch, General Wharton, while at college in Columbia, read law under William C. Preston, one of the most eminent lawyers of South Carolina. It was in Mr. Preston's home that he met his future wife, Penelope Johnson, the only daughter of Governor Johnson of that state. After her mother's death, she made her home with the Prestons. She was a most beautiful and brilliant girl, and it was not surprising that the two young people, thrown together every day for years, should form an attachment for each other. They were married in 1848, a few days after his graduation; and sailed for Texas, accompanied by his mother, who had gone on to attend the wedding.
Two children were born to them, Sarah Ann, who died while yet a baby, and Kate Ross, who died at Eagle Island August 8, 1872, age eighteen years. With her perished the last descendant of the branch of Whartons that came to Texas in 1827. After his return home John Wharton read law in the office of Jack Harris (his cousin) and E. M. Pease (afterwards governor of Texas). Upon receiving his license to practice, he connected himself with Clint Terry. The firm being Wharton and Terry of Brazoria. He was still a member of this firm in 1861.
When Frank Terry raised his famous cavalry regiment, “Terry's Texas Rangers,” Wharton joined it with a company, and when Terry was killed in Kentucky, when his regiment for the first time came under fire, Wharton was elected to fill his place.
After arduous service in the retreat of General Albert Sydney Johnston's army from Kentucky to Corinth, Mississippi, Wharton distinguished himself in the battle of Shiloh, and was severely wounded there.
In Forrest's dashing raid through middle Tennessee Wharton was again wounded, when Murfreesboro was captured in July, 1862, and had not fully recovered when he rejoined his regiment for the invasion of Kentucky under Bragg and Kirby Smith. Just before the battle of Perryville, Wharton's brilliant charge at Bardstown, where with greatly inferior force he defeated by impetuous attack a movement fraught with grave peril to our forces, won him promotion to the rank of brigadier general.
His services before and during the battle of Murfreesboro, and with Wheeler's raid through Tennessee while Rosencranz was at Chattanooga, and, later, in the campaign of Chickamauga, gained him a major general's stars.
He was transferred west of the Mississippi in 1864, to command the cavalry corps in that department, and arriving just after Dick Taylor had routed Banks's army, first at Mansfield and again at Pleasant Hill Wharton handled the cavalry of the army with such skill and energy, in the pursuit of Banks down Red River, as brought him high compliments from General Taylor in general orders to his army.
In an altercation with one of his subordinate officers, Colonel Baylor, Wharton was killed at Houston, Texas, April 6, 1865.
The following is a clipping from a paper printed during the Civil War:
The Jackson Mississippian introduces Polk's order complimenting Col. Wharton for the Bardstown affair, as follows, for which as a friend of the Rangers, and especially of their gallant commander, we thank that paper. He couldn't compliment a more deserving man.
The name of Wharton is identified with the struggle of Texas for her independence. There were none more gallant in the field, nor more wise and eloquent in her councils than those who bore it. When the Southern States absolved their connection with the Northern members of the late Federal Union, Texas, imbued with the spirit of her Whartons, and her Austins and her Rusks, of other days, united with them, laying her choicest offerings upon the common altar. Among the gallant leaders whom she has given to the war, is the distinguished officer whose name heads this article—the worthy son of a noble sire—a very Chevalier Bayard without fear and without reproach.
Col. Wharton is the commander of the famous Regiment of Texas Rangers, whose exploits have become a part of the history of the Army of the West. Below we publish a copy of the general order in special compliment to this brave and skillful officer, and his heroic band, issued by General Polk. The exploit to which it refers is certainly one of the most brilliant of the war, as the order of Gen. Polk abundantly attests. We learn from a source entitled to the highest credit that the entire force of the Rangers on the occasion was only 250, while that of the enemy actually engaged was four regiments, supported in the rear by a battery of artillery and a large force of infantry. It was a hand to hand conflict, and the gallant Texans, led on by the intrepid Wharton, bore themselves in a manner (to quote the language of Gen. Polk) “worthy of the applause and emulation of their comrades of all arms in the army.”
The author of this sketch being a first cousin of General John A. Wharton, raised with him from childhood, and during the war a member of his staff, is personally qualified to corroborate the truthfulness of the following article published at the time of his death in April, 1865. It reads in part:
Maj. Gen. John A. Wharton,—though not to the manor born, he was in the true sense of the term, a native Texan. The talents of his father and uncle, elicited during the stormiest period of the Republic of Texas, made the name of Wharton a tower of strength throughout the land; and Gen. Wharton, being the only male issue of the line, has most nobly sustained the title. Soon after coming to the bar, he was elected District Attorney of the First Judicial District, and to this day the efficiency and firmness which John A. Wharton brought to the discharge of his official duties, are spoken of with admiration by all who knew him in that capacity. He was a Breckenridge elector for this State, in the Presidential campaign of 1860, and by his powerful oratory contributed largely to the success of his party in Texas. Educated in the South Carolina school of politics, he was an uncompromising States Rights man, and vindicated his political principles in a series of speeches, that have never been surpassed, and rarely ever equaled, in this State. He was the finest orator that the writer has ever heard. He had made rhetoric and elocution a particular study, and a natural vigor of delivery largely enhanced the effect of his oratory. In energy and power of persuasion, in penetration and power of reasoning, in the adaptation of the parts to the whole, in strong and melodious language, in felicity of expression, he probably surpassed any speaker of his day. This alone can explain his great influence over his contemporaries. The results of the Presidential election of '60 found him an advocate for immediate secession, and he was sent as a delegate from Brazoria (the county of his residence) by the unanimous voice of the people, to represent their views in the convention that framed the ordinance of secession. In this deliberative assembly he was a leading spirit. As early as February, 1861, he volunteered for the Brazos Santiago expedition. The objects of this expedition having been successfully accomplished, he turned his attention to raising troops for the Confederate service, and was made Captain of one of the finest companies in the regiment of the lamented Terry. His military career was a brilliant and successful one, and its details befit the future historian more than they do the circumscribed limits of a newspaper article. Suffice it to say that he illustrated the virtues, heroism and abilities of his ancestors, on more than a hundred battlefields, and rose rapidly, by merited promotion, from the rank of Captain to that of Major General. Without a military education, he bent the energies of his mind to the acquisition of military science, and achieved complete success. It is said of him, by competent judges, that our cause had produced no cavalry officer who was his superior. While he exacted from the men and officers under him the strictest compliance with the requirements of duty, to the soldier he was ever a gentle and compassionate friend.
His was one of those rare characters in which the elements so harmonized that there was a predominance in no especial line, but an excellence in all. It may be said of him, that he was successful in every thing that he undertook. As a lawyer, statesman and soldier, he was equally good. A man of strict temperance, the restraining influence of his moral character was felt wherever he went. No man ever possessed, in a greater degree, the faculty of attaching devoted and affectionate friends to himself than Gen. Wharton; and his proudest epitaph might be embraced in the simple line “that those who knew him best, loved him most.”
When General Wharton's mother died, having lost husband, son and grandchildren, she left to me and my children her home, “Eagle Island,” and all of her personal effects, with the request that I send to the State capital the oil portraits of her late husband (Wm. H. Wharton) and his brother, John A. Wharton. Although I regretted parting with them, I complied with her wish, and sent the portraits to Austin in 1878.
I have been requested to state for the benefit of the Confederate Veterans what became of the handsome saddle presented to Major General John A. Wharton by the Texas Rangers. General Wharton had sent me back to Texas in 1862 to raise more recruits, and requested me while there to move his family and slaves from “Eagle Island” up the country near my father's home, “Liendo,” for safety. We rented the Shelton Oliver place on the Brazos, near Hempstead and a few miles from father's. It was there that his family was living when General Wharton was shot in Houston, and this is the reason that his remains were carried to the Groce burial grounds to be interred. His saddle, sword, etc., were carried to the Shelton Oliver place, where a few months later the house and all its contents were burned to the ground while the family were away from home.
Although, as stated above, there are no descendants of this noble line of Whartons, who emigrated to Texas in 1827, there are many cousins in Nashville, Tennessee; also cousins in Jackson, Mississippi, descendants of Judge Jesse Wharton. Another cousin is J. Houston Wharton of Conroe, Texas, a descendant of George Wharton, the eldest of the seven sons of John A. and Rhoda Norris Wharton.
The following letter from one Francis Smith, at Tenoxtitlan, offers an interesting glimpse of busy commerce at the westernmost settlement in Texas in the spring of 1832. Tenoxtitlan was established in pursuance of an order from General Manuel de Mier y Teran, commandant of the Eastern Interior States, to Colonel Elosua, principal commandant of Coahuila and Texas, dated April 24, 1830. 231 Elosua was instructed to send Lieutenant Colonel Francisco Ruiz from Bexar with the company of the Alamo to establish a post on the Brazos River west of the Bexar-Nacogdoches road. The garrison was to form a nucleus for a civil settlement of Mexican colonists; and the whole enterprise was a part of the general scheme of Mexican counter-colonization projected against the Americans by the law of April 6, 1830. On September 20, 1830, Teran approved the location of the fort six leagues west of the point where the Bexar-Nacogdoches road crossed the Brazos. This would place it near the present intersection of the Brazos river and the International &Great Northern Railroad. In December, Teran wrote the minister of relaciones that forty Mexican families were already settled at the place, 232 but this is somewhat doubtful. The troops abandoned the fort in August, 1832, during the general rising against the Bustamante forces.
The letter here quoted is addressed to Messrs. A. G. and R. Mills, Brazoria, Texas, and the original is filed in the Nacogdoches Archives in the Texas State Library. The census reports of the Department of Nacogdoches in this same collection estimate the value of furs and peltry exported from Nacogdoches as follows: 1828, eight thousand dollars; 1830, five thousand dollars “more or less,” the decrease in the trade being accounted for by the “multitude” of Indians coming in from the north, who “`diminished the catch” and presumably sold through other channels; 1831, six thousand dollars; 1832, “six or seven thousand dollars more or less”; 1833, seven thousand dollars; 1834, ten thousand dollars in a total export estimated at twenty thousand dollars for the year. Smith's vision of a forty thousand dollar profit in a year is probably too large, but it is evident that the Texas field offered attractive possibilities to a keen trader. Furs mentioned in the Nacogdoches census reports were beaver, otter, badger, bear, buffalo, deer and cattle. Census reports from Austin's Colony are generally lacking after 1828 and do not mention the fur trade when available. Reports from Bexar and Goliad show no trade of any kind.
Tenoxtitlan March 11th 1832 Gentlemen
I have been verry sick but am now in good health again I have wrote to you several times and I know not what I have wrote for I have always been in a hurry and full of business at the time I was going to send down pack horses I had wrote to you giving a full description of my ideas of the prospects of trade here &thousands of fortunes that is not yet made as the dates are old and I wish to see you before long I decline sending those letters A French Indian trader came in to night with 80 buffaloe robes he asks me $5.25 apiece for them he is offered $5.50 but he likes my goods best in the morning I expect to buy his robes.
My cart is now loaded with beef hides deer skins buffaloe hides &robes some leopard &beaver, my oxen are tyed to the wheels and are to start for Brassoria tomorrow morning
As the mail leaves here early in the morning I send this to let you know it is a great way to hawl goods and that a bad article is not worth hawling. the keg of tobacco I can not give to the indians. I have sold wine several times it has been returned as often. Sweet wine is the sort for this place cheap tobaco in boxes also. I now need soap whiskey sugar good orleans 2 barrels coffee 2 sacks 1 box tobaco, rice, raisins, almonds, sweet wine, annisseed ¾ white domestic, black silk hankfs. more of those fine bowls &pitchers with red flower on the side, a few small deep plates, fishing lines large &small, a few gimblets, spurs a few peices of good calico &c. Some tin cups axes &tomahawks
The beaver I have bought I had to pay half cash at $3.00 per lb on account of not haveing indian goods.
I have $450 on hand. the money is about done here untill more comes on I sell some for Bolets [bullets?].
I have learned that the common strouding is not good for those beaver hunters that they will not wear but tolerable good broadcloth. I wrote before for brass kettles &beaver traps I think I could sell 100 next fall &summer 3 or 4 dozen rifles would not come amiss between now and fall.
I want a carpenter to help build a skin press and a cistern to keep peltry in to save the cost of beating I want a baker, make out my load with flower, molasses I want.
If R has gone to Orleas please write to him to send to Cincinnati for a first rate large ox waggon for the road with an English bed well turned up before tire not less than 2 inches wide but more will do
I can not do without it I am willing to pay the price but I want one that will please me I have the money laid by to pay for it
French or Mc a Knaw blankets is all the sort that will sell here I think that 40 thousand dollars worth of Indian produce can be taken in here between now and the first of next Feby perhaps much more [for] the Cherokees, Shawnees, Delawares &Kickapoos have been very successfull at beaver this winter they say that they will all go and sweep them the next.
As I have in all my letters mixed every thing up togather please hunt through them &understand if you can
I know not how to get my money to you I can not shut up and go down for I am the only one that has any thing to sell of consequence
Some American hunters will be here in a few days with about 200 beef hides let we know soon if I had better pay part money to get them and what they are worth.
Francis Smith
If you can buy a large likly pair of steers for me unbroke not less than 4 years old let white put them in the team The pair of boots that is in the box please hand to Mr Young
Those prunella shoes would never sell here they have two faults no heels &square toes. Please never send me any square toes.
I send you one doz of them and keep the half doz to not be without shoes I think they may last me 17 years if I take good care of them I want some ladys shoes small size round toes and high heels.
Sperm candles that I can aford to sell for 12½ cts. awls all large size 4 or 5½ inch augers 2 doz strong negro shoes. open ended thimbles. 8 or 10 pieces of white Domestic 3/4 &4/4. 2 pieces stout Lowel. mens cotton socks white &colored 2 or 3 lb of flax thread strong large fish hooks
Small check calico yellow &other collours Jews harps iron and brass. Strait awls fire steels a small assortment of Pocket knives some good tin pans
Addressed:
Mr A G and R Mills
Brazoria
KENNEDY TO ABERDEEN 233
Private. Her Majesty's Consulate. Galveston, September 23rd. 1844. My Lord,
In a letter which I had the honor to address to Your Lordship, on the 8th day of May last, I communicated the following information.
“I have heard, and I believe truly, that General Jackson has used all the influence which he possesses with the President of this Republic, as his old political and Military leader, to induce him to aid in accomplishing the Annexation of Texas to the Union.”
That I did not err in giving credit to this Statement will be seen by the enclosed printed Copy 234 of a “Private” letter, addressed, on the 16th of February last, by President Houston to General Andrew Jackson. A small portion of this letter appeared some time ago in the Newspapers of the United States. The whole has been recently published in an Administration Journal of Eastern Texas, for the purpose, I believe, of promoting the election to the Presidency of Mr Anson Jones, by showing that the Government of which he is a Member is in favour of Annexation. Eastern Texas contains a large majority of the population, and the bent of the public mind, in regard to the predominant question of the day may be inferred from the motive assigned for this epistolary development.
A lately published letter of Mr Clay's seems to indicate that he has found it necessary to modify his declared opinions on the subject of Annexation. It is impossible that a people so shrewd, so land-loving and so anticipatory, as are the people of the United States, can fail to perceive the advantages that would accrue to them from the acquisition of Texas. The longer the settlement of Texan affairs is delayed, the more fixed and general will be their conviction of these advantages. Whatever professions may be put forth by American Statesmen of the East, or the West, the North, or the South, it ought not to be forgotten that, for forty years, the heads of each party have laboured in turn to extend the South-Western flank of the Republic towards the Rio Grande. It is a Stake worth playing for, and, in the estimation of General Jackson, even at the cost of War.
Representations of the probability of Mexican invasion have brought to this Port the United States Cutter “Woodbury” previously employed in the revenue department, but, at the present, commissioned for service here. The “Woodbury” arrived in Galveston Harbour on the morning of the 20th Instant, and will, it is said, remain until relieved by another vessel. After reporting the Cutter's arrival, a local Newspaper adds: “We also learn that there are two Schooners, a Steamer, and a Sloop of War lying in the Port of Pensacola, expecting daily to receive orders to sail for the Coast of Texas and Mexico.”
It appears by the Texan papers that combinations injurious to the public peace have, under the names of “Regulators” and “Moderators,” disturbed some districts on the North-Eastern frontier. It appears, also, that the authorities have, without difficulty, broken up these Combinations, and I only notice the matter because of the comparatively large Militia force (amounting to above Six hundred men) alleged to have been engaged in their suppression. This force was concentrated at a place called “Shelbyville,” close to the United States boundary line, and distant about two days' March from Fort Jessup.
Had the project of Annexation been favourable to the interests of the traders resident at Corpus Christi, I have good grounds for apprehending that United States' troops would, before this time, have been camped on the Texan territory If I have not been misinformed, it was suggested to the traders that, if they would manage to “get up” a pretext for their presence, they would soon be forthcoming.
I have been told that, after the failure of the Treaty of Annexation in the Senate of the United States' Congress, General Henderson, the Special Minister of this Republic at Washington, recommended President Tyler to take Military possession of Texas. This has been conveyed to me from a usually well-informed source. General Henderson is at present in Eastern Texas, where he resides.
On the 20th Instant, Commodore Moore attended a public dinner in Galveston, in full uniform, from which and the current reports, the fact of his acquittal by the Court Martial may be assumed. The sentence will not be made public until the Meeting of Congress.
The death of General Howard has left this Country without a representative of any Foreign Power. A Mr Barton of Louisiana, is mentioned as the probable successor of the late Chargé d' Affaires of the United States. The “New Orleans Republican”—(an Administration Journal) recommends the selection of Mr Barton for a Mission “the importance of which cannot be underrated by any Citizen of the United States,”—because, “it is peculiarly fit that the Minister who will be called upon to vindicate the rights of this Section of the Union, by watching and frustrating English Abolitionism, should be one identified with Southern interests.”
Although some returns are still wanting from the outlying Counties on Red River, it is admitted on all sides, that Mr Anson Jones has been elected to the Presidency, and by a considerable Majority.—Should the Country again retain its independence, persons supposed to have an early knowledge of these Matters say that General Houston will reappear as a candidate for the Presidential Office, after Mr Jones has served his time. Mr Jones owes his election to Houston's influence, and to the impression, which he has himself countenanced, that he will follow in his (Houston's) footsteps.
The sultry season, which, this year, commenced in May, and of which even the Southern born have complained, as being unusually oppressive, is at an end, and the relaxed European frame derives renewed vigour from the bracing Northern breezes. The earth has been prodigal of its returns to the farmer,—want is a stranger to the resident population, and nothing is required but peace—assured and unshaken peace—to make “the wilderness blossom like the rose.”
William Kennedy. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T. P. S. By a letter from Paris. I learn that Mr. Ashbel Smith has announced his intention to return to Texas next Spring.—A Paris paper—“La Siécle”—speculates upon Texas being placed under the “protection” of France, as an arrangement to be desired.—The point has been noticed by a New Orleans paper. September 26th. The Steam Schooner for New Orleans, with characteristic regularity still lingers in Port. About ten days ago, President Houston was on his way from Eastern Texas to the Seat of Government. At the Public Dinner given in Galveston, a few days ago, to Commodore Moore, the Second Toast from the Chair was.—The Annexation of Texas to the United States. George Bancroft, the able historian of the United States, and at present a Candidate for the office of Governor of the State Massachussetts, has published a letter in advocacy of Annexation, which has been warmly applauded by part of the Galveston Press. W. K.
KENNEDY TO ADDINGTON 235
Separate. Her Majesty's Consulate. Galveston, September 24th. 1844. Sir,
I have the honor to enclose a letter addressed to His Royal Highness, Prince Albert, 236 and sent to me for transmission by M. Bourgeau d' Orvanne, 237 who accompanied the Prince of Solms, 238 on his visit to this Country.
M. d' Orvanne, has thought proper to offer explanations with regard to certain engagements to which he is a party, which explanations he appears to consider due to Her Majesty's Government.—I, therefore, take leave to submit herewith a Copy of the Communication addressed to me by that gentleman, merely premising that of his arrangements, or affairs, I know nothing beyond the fact that, two or three years ago, he obtained a Conditional grant of land, for Colonizing from the Government of Texas—I had a similar grant—as you Sir, will doubtless remember—but my subsequent appointment as Her Majesty's Consul at Galveston, led me to doubt the expediency of acting upon it. Well acquainted with the jealous disposition of the North American Republicans, and not ignorant that the best intentions afford no sure protection from interested, or malicious misrepresentation, I decided on relinquishing my interest in the grant, which I did,—retaining no share of its advantages, direct or indirect.
Subsequent observation has satisfied me that this decision was the more convenient one for the public service. Mr Clay, in his letter on the Texan question, dated 17th of April last, has declared that he would regard it as the imperative duty of the Government of the United States to prevent, if necessary by an appeal to arms, the Colonizing of Texas by any European Nation. Without presuming to weigh the intrinsic justice, or practical efficacy of this declaration, I could not but perceive that, by a very slight exercise of perverted ingenuity and bold asseveration, an excitable people might be brought to believe that the private enterprize of a foreign Agent had originated in the “Ambitious designs” of the Country to which he belonged.
The never-ending clamour respecting “British influence” and “interferance,” which is heard in this part of the world, must be my apology for travelling into personal details
William Kennedy. Henry U. Addington, Esq. P. S. The Prince of Solms has accompanied President Houston to a place appointed for arranging a Treaty with the Comanche Indians. W. K.
ORVANNE TO KENNEDY 239
[Enclosure] Copy. San Antonio de Bexar. 30th. August 1844. Dear Sir.
It is painful to inform you of a fact as unexpected as extraordinary. The German Association forgetting the Conditions of the Contract entered into between themselves and me, which bound us together, has violated the Condition of our joint obligation.
I would not give you this notice, if, in soliciting the favour of the English Government, I had not taken on myself the responsibility of all the acts of the Association. Now, I am compelled to decline this same responsibility
“Signed” A. S. Borgeau d' Orvanne. P. S. Be pleased to forward the enclosed letter to His Royal Highness Prince Albert. [Endorsed.] In Mr Consul Kennedy's letter to Mr. Under Secretary Addington, marked “Separate” and dated Septr 24th. 1844.
KENNEDY TO ABERDEEN 240
Private. Her Majesty's Consulate. Galveston, September 30th. 1844. My Lord,
Information has been conveyed, by a private channel, from the Seat of Government, that the Attorney General (Mr Terrell) of whom I wrote to Your Lordship on the 9th Instant, is nominated to succeed Mr Ashbel Smith as Chargé d' Affaires in England; that Major Reilly, 241 who represented this Republic in the United States, about two year ago, is to resume his former functions at Washington; and that Mr Ashbel Smith is likely to be elected to fill the Office of Secretary of State, under the newly chosen President, Mr Anson Jones.
Mr Terrell's nomination is considered by those who mention it adverse to Annexation.—He came to Texas from Tennessee, of which State General Houston was at one period Governor.—His understanding is good, his education he owes mainly to himself, and as a public Man he has the reputation of being straightforward and sincere. I first met him in the beginning of the year 1842; and all that I know of his course of Conduct is creditable to his judgment and public spirit.
William Kennedy. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T. P. S. By the last accounts from the Seat of Government, it appears that President Houston has proceeded towards the Northern frontier, for the purpose of making a Treaty with the Chiefs of the Comanche Indians, long hostile to Texas. W. K.
KENNEDY TO ABERDEEN 242
Private. Her Majesty's Consulate. Galveston, October 2d. 1844. My Lord,
The continued delay of the Steam Schooner “Republic” enables me to add this to the Communications of previous dates which I have had the honor to address to Your Lordship.
General Duff Green, 243 whose name is known in England as an American advocate of free trade views, arrived at this place late in the evening of the 29th Instant. He left the United States in the War Steamer “Union,” for the purpose of proceeding, by way of Galveston to Vera Cruz, with despatches from his Government to the American Legation in Mexico The “Union” having, it is said, sustained some damage in her Machinery, and the weather being stormy, General Green was landed at Velasco, at the Mouth of the river Brazos, whence he reached Galveston. Soon after his arrival, he arranged for proceeding to Vera Cruz, in the United States Cutter “Woodbury,” which left this Port, with him on board, yesterday afternoon.
On his return from the City of Mexico, General Green is to enter upon the duties of United States Consul at Galveston, to which office he has been appointed. At the date of his leaving Washington, the United States Government were not apprized of the death of General Howard, their late Chargé d' Affaires in Texas.
Persons professing to speak from authority intimate that the Missives of which General Green is the bearer are by no means of a conciliatory character towards Mexico. The payment of the portion of the indemnity owing to the United States will, it is said, be strongly urged, nor will the affairs of Texas be forgotten.
General Duff Green has already tasked his skill as a Newspaper writer in sustaining the pretensions of General Burleson to the Presidency of Texas, and I am disposed to think that his ability as a Journalist, and political Manager have weighed as deeply in his appointment to Galveston, as with his desire, or his qualifications, for the Consular office.
William Kennedy. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
KENNEDY TO ADDINGTON 244
Separate. Her Majesty's Consulate. Galveston., October 24th 1844. Sir,
In reference to my Despatch marked “Separate,” and dated the 24th Ultimo, I have the honor to inform you that the Prince of Solms, arrived in Galveston on the 12th Instant. It appeared that the account of his having accompanied President Houston to the Indian Treaty Ground, was incorrect. It had been his intention to accompany the President, but the unexpectedly sudden departure of the latter prevented him from carrying his intention into effect. The Prince is still in Galveston, and I only regret that the circumstances of the Country do not enable me to render his stay more agreeable
As I was inclined to anticipate, I find, on conversing with the Prince of Solms, that M. Bourgeois d' Orvanne had no just ground of complaint against the German Association. The facts seem to stand thus: The German Association, desirous to aid emigrants of their Country, arranged with M. Bourgeois d' Orvanne to avail themselves, for this purpose, of his grant of land from the government of Texas. This grant, as I mentioned on the 24th Ultimo, was conditional. To avoid forfeiture, it was requisite that a specified number of families should be placed upon the lands within a specified time, or the grant itself renewed. The Contractor (M. B. de O.) having failed to fulfill either of these conditions, forfeited his grant, and was consequently unable to execute his part of the arrangements between himself and the German Association, who, as the matter presents itself to me, are more “sinned against than sinning”
The Association have arranged to avail themselves of another conditional grant, obtained by a Mr. Fisher, and the Prince of Solms is in expectation of the early arrival of a portion of the German emigrants at Galveston--To plant successfully the first body of European Settlers, in the unpeopled region of the West, will be a difficult undertaking—and I fear that the Association have been somewhat slow to perceive the character of the Measures essential to its success. They have, however, an able and active representative in the Prince of Solms, and it is by no means too late to retrieve the effects of past miscalculation. Their object is every way laudable, and it were a pity that they should not succeed.
William Kennedy Henry U. Addington, Esqr.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 245
Separate. Philadelphia October 28th 1844 My Lord,
I have the honor to report that I shall set out to my post between the 7th and 10th Proximo, after having passed a few days with Mr Pakenham at Washington, to which place I am about to proceed on the 1st Proximo.
I take this occasion to mention to Your Lordship that I have received a few private lines from Mr Anson Jones, the Secretary of State in Texas, dated on the 24th September, confirming the accounts of his success in the late Presidential election in that Country.
May I request that any despatches to my address may once more be addressed to the care of Her Majesty's Consul at New Orleans.
Charles Elliot. To The Right Honorable, The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T., Downing Street.
KENNEDY TO ABERDEEN 246
No 26. Her Majesty's Consulate Galveston, October 29th. 1844. My Lord,
I have the honor to enclose two copies of a Return of Charges on British Vessels, at the Port of Galveston, in accordance with the terms of Your Lordship's Circular Despatch, dated June 13th 1844, and received by me on the 21st Instant.
William Kennedy. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
Custom House Charges
Tonnage Duty. Sixty cents per ton, according to registered Tonnage.
Entrance. For every Ship, or Vessel, of less than One Hundred tons burthen—One dollar and a half—For each Ship or Vessel, of one hundred tons and upwards—Two dollars and a half.
Clearance. The same fees as for entrances.
Post Entries. For each post entry, two dollars.
Permits Permit to land goods—twenty Cents; to load goods for exportation, that may be entitled to debenture, or other official certificate—twenty cents.
Any Bond taken officially Forty Cents.
For every document required by any Merchant, owner, or Shipmaster, not before enumerated—Twenty cents.
Pilotage
The rates of Pilotage at Galveston are regulated by Act of Congress:
On all vessels drawing less than eight feet water, Two dollars Fifty Cents per foot—On all vessels drawing eight feet water and more Three dollars per foot.
Pilots detained waiting on vessels, bound for Sea, or vessels prevented from entering Port, by contrary winds, or otherwise, are entitled to Three dollars a day, for each day's detention, after the first four and twenty hours.
Any Pilot taking charge of a vessel in distress, from the loss of anchors, spars or rudder, will be entitled to such compensation, as the Collector of Customs, under the circumstances of the case, may think proper to award.
Any Pilot speaking a vessel inward bound outside the Bar, or a vessel outward bound inside the Bar, and offering his services, will be entitled to full pilotage, whether his services be accepted or not
Any Pilot speaking a vessel inward bound inside the Bar, is entitled, if employed to half pilotage:—if not employed he is entitled to no pilotage.
Any Pilot speaking a vessel fifteen miles from Shore, is entitled to twenty-five per Cent, more than the regular rates of off shore pilotage.
Any vessel after waiting outside the Bar for four hours, with a Signal for a Pilot flying, may enter the Port free from pilotage charges.
Charges under the Galveston incorporation Acts and City Ordi- nances
Passenger Tax. For the purpose of establishing and maintaining a public Hospital, the Mayor and Aldermen of Galveston are empowered to exact from the Master, Owner, or Consignee of any vessel, steam boat, or other craft, arriving from a Foreign Port, the Sum of One dollar for every free White passenger.
Harbour Master. The Harbour Master is entitled to receive one Cent and a half per ton, according to registered tonnage.
Port Wardens. Scale of Port Wardens' Fees: Survey of damaged goods—Five dollars per diem. Survey of hatches—Two dollars. Survey of Stowage—Two dollars. Copying Certificates—One dollar each Copy.
Ten dollars per diem for all services rendered beyond the City limits, with payment of travelling expences.
Vouchers
Vouchers are given for all charges on Shipping at the Port of Galveston.
Coasting Trade
The privilege of the Coasting Trade, with freedom from Tonnage duties, is, by a recent Act of Congress, granted exclusively to vessels bearing the Texan Flag. This is the only advantage possessed by such Vessels over British Ships.
William Kennedy. Galveston October 29th 1844.
KENNEDY TO ABERDEEN 248
Private. Her Majesty's Consulate. Galveston, October 30th 1844. My Lord,
In a Communication dated the 2d Inst I had the honor, to inform Your Lordship of the arrival of General Duff Green at Galveston, his appointment as Consul at this Port, and departure for Vera Cruz, in the United States Cutter “Woodbury.” General Green has not returned, nor has a Chargé d' Affaires from the United States yet arrived in Texas to fill the vacancy created by the death of General Howard. Mr Donaldson, a relative of General Jackson, is, according to confident rumor, to fill the Office.
The Annexation papers, in this part of the Country, are censuring the appointment of Judge Terrell as Minister to England, although the appointment has not, up to this time, been publicly announced. They complain that he will misrepresent the popular sentiment in regard to their favourite Measure
President Houston returned to the Seat of Government on the 15th Instant, from the Waco Village, where he met the heads of the Comanche and other Indian Tribes, for the purpose of forming a treaty.—Captain Boon, 249 of the United States Army, attended as a Commissioner from his Government. The Texan papers say that a satisfactory Treaty has been concluded between Texas, and the Comanches, with “ten other of the wild Indian Tribes.” The President was to leave the Seat of Government on the 21st Instant, to join his family on the river Trinity
The “Galveston Civilian”.—the Government paper, which is usually considered an authority for official intelligence, states that Lieut. Stevens, of the United States Army, arrived at Washington (Texas) on the 12th Instant, bearing despatches from Washington in the United States, “represented to be of a character favourable to Texas.”
Some of the Texan prisoners released by the Mexican Government have arrived at Galveston.
According to recent accounts from the West, all is quiet on the Rio Grande.—And a Mexican invasion is no longer to be apprehended. The people of the departments bordering upon Texas, are, it is said, much more desirous of Commercial intercourse than War
Mr Anson Jones had a Majority of about fifteen hundred votes over General Burleson, at the late election for the Presidency Until the result of the Presidential election in the United States is known here, there is likely to be a pause in political agitation.
William Kennedy. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T. P. S. The Brig “Rover” by which I transmitted a letter marked “Private” and dated the 9th Ultimo, was, I find, thirty two days in reaching New Orleans. W. K.
KENNEDY TO ABERDEEN 250
Private. Her Majesty's Consulate. Galveston, November 12th. 1844. My Lord,
Major Donaldson, whose probable appointment to the Office of Chargé d' Affaires of the United States in Texas, I mentioned in a Communication which I had the honor to address to Your Lordship on the 30th Ultimo, arrived in Galveston on the 10th instant.—In the hurry of his departure for this Country, he has found it necessary to await the transmission of the documents which usually accompany an Officer of his Class.—At this place, I have had an opportunity of conversing with him, and, so far as that opportunity presented grounds for an opinion, he seemed to be a person, well adapted to promote the main object of his Mission among the people of Texas. His solicitude for “Annexation” is, I understand, quite as lively as might be anticipated from a Nephew of General Andrew Jackson.
The only intelligence that has transpired respecting General Duff Green and his movements, since he sailed from Galveston, is in a paragraph of the “Pensacola Gazette,” which mentions that—“the United States Brig of War “Lawrence,” sailed from Pensacola on the 13th Ulto for Vera Cruz, to await the return of General Duff Green from the City of Mexico, and should he have despatches—to convey him, or them, to any port of the United States which may be designated.”
All the Texan prisoners in Mexico have been liberated with the exception of one—of Mexican origin—and the greater part of them arrived at this Port, from New Orleans, on the 10th Instant.
If my memory deceive me not, during an interview with which I was honored by Your Lordship about two years ago, I adverted to the circumstance of Don Manuel Godoy (el Principe de la Paz 251) being resident in Paris, where I understood he subsisted on a small pension, allowed him by His Majesty the King of the French.—It appears by the Spanish Journals, that the exile, in his Seventy Seventh year, has returned to Madrid, and the credit of his restoration is claimed here for M. de Saligny, French Chargé de Affaires in Texas. The matter attracts notice, as it has been alleged that the “Province of Texas,” previous to the year 1804, was ceded to Don Manuel by Charles IV.
President Houston will remain with his family on the Trinity until the last of this Month—about which time Mr. Ashbel Smith, who has been offered the appointment of Secretary of State, is expected to arrive from Europe.
It is said that Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires, and the Chargé d' Affairs of France will soon return to their posts. I trust I shall be pardoned for saying that their residence at the Seat of Government, at least during the approaching Legislative Session, will be highly desirable. I am instructed to believe that it had been better, as regards the question of Annexation, if they could have been at Washington, between the close of the Presidential Election and the Meeting of the Texan Congress. Mr Anson Jones, Secretary of State, and President elect, writing to me, on the 2d Instant, observes.—“I am truly sorry your Government have not an accredited Minister here, at this time.”
By a letter from a trust-worthy Correspondent, dated, New Orleans, October 24th, I am informed that,“—large quantities of Military Stores, Waggons, etc., were being forwarded, by the Government of the United States, to the Texan frontier on the Red River.” The writer surmises these preparations—“to be intended to counteract Mexican movements.”
It is a standing assumption of the leading advocates of Annexation that the British Government, in their [ridemtoa; anxiety for peace, will make no determined stand against the Measure.
Mr. Terrell (late Attorney General) whose name, as an opponent of Annexation, I have brought under Your Lordship's Notice, in various Communications,—commencing as early as the 31st of May last,—is at present in Galveston, waiting the departure of the Steamer for New Orleans. He is instructed to proceed as expeditiously as the state of his health will permit, to Europe, where he is to undertake the duties hitherto executed by Mr Ashbel Smith. To what I have already said of him I think it necessary only to add that possessing, as I believe he does, a becoming sense of self respect, he is a modest and unobtrusive Man, and, in harmony with that character, will, I doubt not, feel all the more acutely the gratefulness of the considerate courtesy which Your Lordship, notwithstanding the anomalies of Texan politics, is sure to extend to him.
William Kennedy. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 252
Separate. Philadelphia, November 13th 1844 My Lord,
Previously to my departure to my post I should mention to Your Lordship that I have recently visited Mr. Pakenham; and pending further Commands I shall of course guide myself in the spirit of the Instructions which he has done me the honor to impart to me. I proceed tomorrow, and I have the honor to be.
Charles Elliot. The Right Honorable, The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
KENNEDY TO ABERDEEN 253
Private. Her Majesty's Consulate. Galveston, December 5th. 1844. My Lord,
On the 28th Ultimo, the United States Schooner “Woodbury” arrived at this Port, from Vera Cruz, having on board General Duff Green, with despatches for the United States Chargé d' Affaires to this Country, and his son, Mr. Benjamin E. Green, Secretary of the American Legation at Mexico, also with despatches for his own Government. The latter left Galveston for New Orleans, by the Steam packet of the 30th ultimo,—the former proceeded, on the 3d Instant, to the Seat of Government at Washington on the Brazos, where he still remains,—having appointed a Vice-Consul to transact his official business at this place.
On his arrival at Galveston, General Duff Green communicated to the local Journals an abstract of Mexican news, including, among other Matters, an announcement that it was the purpose of Mexico—“to exterminate the present inhabitants of Texas, without regard to age, sex, or condition”—for the reason that—“Mexico sees in the conduct of the Governments of Presidents Jackson and Tyler, and the Southern people of the United States, cause to apprehend still further encroachments on its territory.” 254
I have learned, from competent sources, that it will not be owing to General Green's endeavours as a peace-maker if events do not justify the alleged apprehensions of Mexico.—He has urged more than one Member of the Texan Congress, during his sojourn at Galveston, to declare for the invasion of Mexico—with the view that further territorial aggrandizement,—(even it is said, Southward and Westward of the Rio Grande),—should accompany the Annexation of Texas to the Confederacy of the North.—Before the “espousals” are perfected, it is desired that the bride should bring a still more ample dowry. Nor does it seem likely that the affianced will be backward in supplying needful aid for the accomplishment of this provident object. A Correspondent on whom I can rely thus addresses me from a locality in the United States favourable to apposite observation.
—“Be assured that no child's play operations are at hand. The present moment demands all the devotion and energy of British Servants in this quarter. The accumulation of Military Stores on your frontier still goes on. And Arms, Ammunition, Camp equipage and Ordnance Stores for ten thousand men have already reached Fort Jessup. Mr Calhoun and his party, or section of a party, would prefer war with England to the non-acquisition of Texas, and, to precipitate that calamity upon the United States, or to commit some iniquitous overt act, from which the pride of the people would be unwilling to recede, is, in my opinion the end and aim of the present Administration.”
The same Correspondent further remarks—“Texas, it is now sufficiently apparent, is the Key to Mexico, and the fall of the latter and its subjugation by these States are talked of here in a way not to be misunderstood by any but those who are too wise in their own conceit to derive instruction from what is passing around them.”
A follower of Mr Calhoun's, General Hamilton, formerly of South Carolina and of some political note, especially as a fervid professor of Free Trade opinions—has published a letter addressed to Mr Webster, in which he sets forth reasons why the New England and Middle States should favour the Annexation of Texas to the Union.—He confines himself to the argumentum ad crumenam, which he winds up by a hint that the South might not be indisposed, in return for Northern concurrence, in its Texan views—to adopt an Anti-European Tariff. In his appeal to the Manufacturing heart of Massachussetts, General Hamilton parades with all the emphasis of typography the vulgar metaphor for unreasoning avarice.”
“After all, Mr Webster” inquires the General—“What, in the vast advent of ages is the privilege to our Government of planting its Custom House in Texas, and hoisting on its flagstaff the Close fist of our American System, and excluding Great Britain from all Competition?”—
The American imagination eagerly anticipates the day, predicted by Humboldt, when the products of European industry should be excluded from this Continent.—It takes at times even a more self-exalting range, and, by means of Settlements on the North Western Shores of the Pacific, dreams of creating a commerical dominion in India and China. I should not be surprised if American Missionaries were to prove as willing instruments of National aggrandizement as the Missionaries of France are apparently expected to be by many of their secular patrons.
A work worthy of the scientific munificence of France, lately published in Paris, seems entitled to particular notice at the present Juncture. The title of the work is “Exploration du Territoire de L' Orégon, de Californies et de la Mer Vermeille”:—it was executed during the Years 1840, 1841 and 1842, by M. Duflot de Mofras, 255 an Attaché of the Legation of France in Mexico, and has been published by order of the King, under the auspices of the President of the Council, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Were other evidences wanting, it would indicate that the French Government is not indifferent to the destinies of this Continent, although there are well-informed Americans in this quarter quick to allege that His Majesty the King of the French has declared that there will be no interference, as regards the question of Annexation, on the Part of the Power of which he is the Executive head. M. de Mofras has been so kind as to transmit to me a copy of his work, and I have observed that the Marquesas and Tahiti seem to be laid down on one of his brilliant Charts not merely as convenient touching-points for Whalers, but a “Stepping-Stones” to China.
It appears to me that the question of Annexation will be graduated in its progress by the relations of parties in the United States. It may, on the one hand, be assumed that Mr. Tyler is anxious to draw from it all the political capital it is capable of bringing to an advocate of the Measure,—and, on the other hand, that the Northern Section of the democratic voters for Mr. Polk will be not less anxious to secure that Capital than their own Man and their own party. As Matters now stand, the strength lies with the latter, and the only opening left to Mr Tyler, is apparently some audacious and unexpected Move—Such as war with Mexico—that would produce an embarrassment of affairs, and leave warm work and divided laurels for his successor.
The Polk party, or rather the Jackson party, are in the ascendent here, as well as in the United States,—the New President, Mr Anson Jones, owing his election almost entirely to the support of General Houston. The present United States', Chargé d'Affaires in Texas is General Jackson's Nephew, and the particular friend of Mr Polk.—General Duff Green may be designated the representative of Mr Tyler—while the latter exhorts the Texans to instant invasion of Mexico, the former probably contents himself with concerting Measures of united action between this and the Northern Republic, to be carried into effect after Mr Polk's induction to the Presidential Office, on the 4th of March next.
Major Donaldson (United States Chargé d' Affaires to Texas) arrived at the Seat of Government on the 21st ultimo.—On the 29th he delivered his letter of credence to the Secretary of State, and, on the same day, was presented, in his official capacity, to the (then) President—Complimentary speeches were exchanged on each of these occasions, Generals Jackson and Houston were respectively lauded, and Annexation was insinuated in the language of bland allusion. I quote a sentence from the published reply of Mr Anson Jones—which commands notice from the Speaker's position as President Elect. He refers to the assurances given by Major Donaldson of “the Sincere desire of the President of the United States to improve and render stable the good understanding now existing between the two Republics.”
“The sameness of the origin and interests of the two Countries by which you have so kindly alluded”—(said Mr Jones)—“has led the people of this, on all occasions, to desire the maintenance of the most friendly relations; and if the hope which they have sometimes indulged, that these considerations might lead to the accomplishment of a common destiny, should be disappointed, I trust they will not be lost in their influences upon either Country, in the preservation of those paramount principles which they hold in common keeping.”
The Congress of Texas, called upon by law to assemble on the 2d Instant, was duly organized on the 3d.—The retiring President (Houston) sent in a Message on the 4th, which is chiefly remarkable for the quietude with which it passes by the topic of Annexation. Of this Message I shall have the honor to enclose a copy.
On Monday the 9th Instant Mr Anson Jones is to enter upon the discharge of his duties as President.
Galveston. December 16th.
On the 6th Instant. Her Majesty's Ship “Spartan” Commanded by the Hon. Charles Elliot, appeared off this Port, and on the following day, Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires to this Republic, who was on board the “Spartan” came ashore. He remained at Galveston until the 12th, when he left for Washington on the Brazos, which he would probably reach about the 20th Instant. In consequence of the return of Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires, this Correspondence, which was commenced by me, under instruction, on the 31st of May last, will terminate with the present letter.
The United States Schooner “Woodbury,” remained in the Harbour until the 11th Instant, on which day a vessel, understood to be the United States Sloop of War “Falmouth,” appeared off the Bar, and made signal to the “Woodbury” to join her, which she did, and the two vessels put out to Sea in company. The Lieutenant in Command of the “Woodbury,” when in port, spoke of Annexation as inevitable, and said that, within two Months, the Castle of San Juan de Ulloa would be occupied by troops of the United States.—I mention this only as an additional indication that President Tyler is for War with Mexico. Mr Tyler's Annual Message has not yet reached Galveston.
On the 14th Instant, a vessel (the second this season) arrived from Bremen, conveying German Emigrants for the Colony which the Prince of Solms is engaged in settling in Western Texas. The emigrants appear to possess the proper requisites for life in the wilds.
Galveston, December 18th
Another vessel, with settlers for the Colony of the German Association, appeared in the Roads on yesterday.
I enclose a copy of the late President's Message, and a copy of the Inaugural Address delivered by President Jones. In neither of these documents is the word “Annexation” to be found. 256
There is one aspect of affairs which (if I may presume to offer an opinion) may render Texas too important a point to be lightly regarded in the progress of diplomatic arrangements.—The United States may have gone so far in respect to Annexation as to be unwilling to bear what might be deemed the humiliation of retreat. This possible obstacle to the adoption of more moderate Councils would be removed by the refusal of Texas to negotiate farther for incorporation into the Union.
William Kennedy. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T. P. S. Galveston Decr. 21st. I have the honor to enclose a copy of President Houston's Farewell Address, 257 which has just come to hand. A public Meeting in favour of “Annexation” was held in Matagorda County on the 7th Inst. The “opposition” papers urge other Counties to follow example. Major Donaldson, United States Chargé d' Affaires, arrived here on yesterday from the Seat of Government and leaves today in the Steamer for New Orleans. General Duff Green remains at Washington on the Brazos. W. K.
KENNDDY TO ABERDEEN 258
Private. Her Majesty's Consulate Galveston, December 6th. 1844. My Lord,
I have the honor to enclose to Your Lordship a copy of a communication forwarded to me on the 3rd Instant, by the Prince of Solms, at present in this Country, with a copy of my reply to that communication, bearing this day's date.
I have had opportunities of knowing that the Prince of Solms, is an acute observer of passing events, and of recognizing fitness for the arduous enterprize of planting European Settlements in the wastes of Texas.
In despatch No. 21 of this years series, dated 9th September, and addressed to Your Lordship, I bore favourable testimony to the character of German emigration to this Country. Still greater success may be anticipated for that emigration when conducted under the auspices of so respectable and enlightened a body as the German Association represented by the Prince of Solms. Their first company of Colonists, which arrived here lately, from Bremen, in the Ship “John Dethard,” is composed of persons that would be a Valuable acquisition to any Country where extensive tracts of unoccupied land solicit the labours of the husbandman. To the introduction of such Colonists, on however large a scale, no sensible friend of independent Texas would, I conceive, offer any obstacle.
The lands appropriated for the German Colonization lie towards the West, and are exposed to the troubles of that Frontier. For this reason,—and without looking to the very serious contingency alluded to by the Prince of Solms,—it is desirable that the Settlers should be well armed and equipped. In the absence of due provision against aggression, a single Indian inroad might break up the first establishments, and affect disastrously the entire plan of the Association.
The Prince of Solms is in expectation of the early arrival of three additional vessels, bringing emigrants from Germany.
William Kennedy. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
PRINCE OF SOLMS TO KENNEDY 259
Copy. On board the Texan Revenue Cutter “Alert,” Galveston Bay, Decr 3d. 1844 Dear and Honoured Sir.
I am hardly on board this vessel and under sail for Matagorda Pass, before I take the pen to express to you the regret I feel that our last conversation, before my hasty departure, could only be so short a one.
The more I think of what General Duff Green, the United States Consul, expressed to me this morning, during the long visit with which he honoured me, the more important I think it, that you, dear Sir, as the only representative of Her Britannick Majesty in this country at the moment, should have every possible knowledge of what at present is going on.
I am too well acquainted with your activity in Her Majesty's Service, to suppose that I can tell you any thing you had not heard and appreciated long before, but I think it always good (in important matters) to hear even the same thing from different people, and in all different ways; you are by that the more able to make some new discovery, or to look at a question on a side you might not have remarked before. Let me then, Dear Sir, give you a report of what General Duff Green was kind enough to communicate to me this morning.
General Green began by praising the enterprize of Colonization which brought me to this country, and even called it a laudable one. This was the first thing that made me infer that the noble General is as true a Yankee as any one living, because I am fully convinced that he wishes me and my good German Emigrants any where else than in this country. He then proceeded with some flattering remarks about my own humble person, which were shot off to make me sure of his good intentions towards me and my native country. The next thing he tried was to get out of me my opinion about “Annexation.”—My answer was that I had heard a great deal about Annexation, and that I really could not tell what might be the result; but that I remembered having heard, before I left Europe, that this could be a case of war between the European power and the United States.—On that point, he told me, I was mistaken, because the United States had received notice from France, that this Power would not interfere at all in the question.—The General now began to speak about the existing state of affairs in Mexico, expressing his belief that Santa Anna was strong enough to overpower the recent attempt at Revolution, but that, whichever party proved victorious, Mexico was pledged to invade Texas,—to make it a desert, and to exterminate the inhabitants, men, women, and children; not even sparing the child in the mother's womb!—As the noble General saw me smiling at the eccentric idea, he stopped to enquire what I believed of this matter. Forbidden, of course, by politeness, from replying—“nothing”!—I contented myself by intimating a modest doubt that such a thing could be done in our days—it being what the French call,—“hors de saison.”—The General, however, assured me that his statements were exactly true, and declared his intention to proceed himself, this day, to Washington on the Brazos, to communicate the same to the gentlemen now assembled in Congress.
General Green next urged me to open a correspondence with the Russian Consul at Matamoros, for the purpose of being always “au fait” of the movements of the Mexican army and fleet. The General must have made extraordinary discoveries, as he gave me even the details of the plan of invasion which Santa Anna will follow, for the purpose of “extrimating” the Texan women and children.—One part of the army is to enter by the Rio Grande, steam-boats, with supplies, following the same along the line of coast; a plan which would leave all the force of this country assembled on their flank. The second part of the Mexican army is to land at Galveston, and proceed, by way of Houston, to the interior. The deduction drawn by General Green from all this is that (the hostile intentions of Mexico being known) Texas ought at once, to take up the game, and carry the war—the sooner the better—into the enemies' Country.
The noble General was now so kind as to ask my opinion on all this. I answered that, under these circumstances, an invasion of Mexico would be a very natural step, but that I did not quite perceive from what source Texas would draw the means to undertake the war. He told me this,—the General said—he was not authorized, but he asked me whether the United States, so closely connected with Texas, would ever permit such a thing as extermination to be carried into effect; if they did permit it; it would throw everlasting shame upon their policy. What (he inquired)—would Germany do in a similar case—would it allow brothers and sons to be exterminated—would I suffer the Emigrants who had come out for me to be treated in this way? The conclusion drawn by General Green was that the war against Mexico ought to begin as early as possible, and that it was his duty to urge the people of this country to it—showing them the prospect that awaited them and their families.
General Green inquired when I should be at Washington on the Brazos,—because he would have further to communicate to me about the defence of Western Texas, as I was going to settle my Emigrants in that part. He was very anxious to get my opinion about the whole of his long talk, which I gave him in the few words that—, in the event of war,—I considered those sums of money which I had already expended, and those which I might expend, up to that time—as utterly lost.
“Well,”—said he—“that is just the impression I wished to take from you, and I beg and request of you to write to your friends in Germany not to be at all alarmed about it, because this war is a necessary crisis—nothing will be lost, and just exactly after the war you will go on the safer.”
—So far the conversation with the noble General, who wanted— “de me tirer les vers par le nez.”
Now, my dear Sir, take the abundant quantity of nonsense and humbug off from this conversation, and what does it amount to?—That General Duff Green who, if I am not mistaken, is on an express Mission to this Country, pushes, and urges, the people of Texas to war, promising every aid of money, or troops, from the United States, for the sake of “Annexation”; for if the United States' troops are once within this territory, they will certainly not leave it voluntarily.—And may not the United States Government deem the present moment of internal difficulties in Mexico favourable for extending the boundaries even beyond the Rio Grande, and securing in this way, the whole trade of the Gulf?— I believe, dear Sir, that with our knowledge of Yankee character and head, we may indeed have reason for apprehension.
I am,—as you, dear Mr Kennedy, know; far from presuming to advise any political measures, but as you also know the especial interest which I feel in the welfare of Her Majesty, Your Most Gracious Queen, and the British Empire, you will excuse me if I ask you to take the following suggestions and observations into particular consideration, and to state, in your next despatches home, what of these you have found worthy of being mentioned.
I believe there is no doubt of the importance of this Country for the trade on the Gulf, and the United States, once in possession of it, will decidely command the whole commerce upon those waters. The Rio Grande as the frontier between the United States and Mexico, will not long prevent the “go-a-head Yankee nation” from trying to possess the rich Mines of Chichuahua, if, as I before observed, the Government of the United States do not consider the present moment the most favourable for making the attempt. Knowing the character of the Americans, and their contempt of every European Power, one cannot be surprised at any mad, or desperate thing that may come on. Whether the design indicated happen in a few months, or in a few years, can it be indifferent to England,—nay to any European Nation?— And if not, how can it be prevented?
It appears to me that there is a very obvious step to be taken,— and that is to fill this Country, and especially the Western part of it, as soon as possible, with a large number of Europeans. And how can this be easily accomplished?—I am disposed to believe that the Association for Protecting German Emigrants in Texas could be of great use in the matter.
Should the enlightened Government of Her Majesty the Queen approve the idea, it would be easy to make some arrangement with the Direction of the said Association, and send, even by the end of next Spring, some twenty, or thirty, thousand individuals, well armed and equipped, to this Country. This number of men could be got in Germany, which suffers from a redundant population, that causes three times the amount to leave their native shore annually for the United States. English and German ships could carry them to this Country,—able and active young officers, of every arm, would accompany them. English arms—(by the testimony of every English officer, who served in the wars of the Peninsula)—were effective weapons in the hands of the German soldiers of the Legion. They would do as well to stop American encroachment towards the South. In fact, this force once established, I may pledge my word for the safety of the future, on this side.
At the present moment, the German Association has a right to introduce as many Emigrants into Texas as they are able to transport, and so large a number, promptly established, who will dare to drive them out? This is the moment for doing it, might it seem so to you—might Her Majesty's Ministers, if you think these ideas worthy of being transmitted to the other side of the Atlantic; see the real truth, and believe what I state from what we daily hear and see.
And so I send you this long letter, and suggest these thoughts to you, my dear Mr Kennedy.—My intentions, in placing all this before you, is a pure one; it is to serve my native country, as well as Great Britain—that noble Empire, always so nearly and faithfully allied with Germany, and, to show my zeal and solicitude for the service of your Most Gracious Queen, on whom may God bestow his richest blessings!
(Signed) Charles Prince of Solms. William Kennedy, Esqr. Her Britannick Majesty's Consul, Galveston. [Endorsed]. No. 1. In Mr Consul Kennedy's despatch marked “Private” of December 6th. 1844.
KENNEDY TO PRINCE OF SOLMS 260
[Enclosure.]. Copy. Her Majesty's Consulate. Galveston December 6th. 1844. Dear Prince Charles,
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your interesting communication, dated the 3rd Instant.
It will afford me great pleasure to be the medium of submitting the suggestions contained in your letter to the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.—As an officer of that Government, I beg to tender my respectful acknowledgments of the friendly sentiments you have expressed towards the British Crown—Germany and England, as you remark, have always been “nearly and faithfully allied,” and who can doubt the permanence of an alliance whose basis has been, not merely a common interest, but harmony of a national character and reciprocal good faith?
Permit me to add that I very sensibly appreciate your obliging expressions with regard to myself.
William Kennedy. To. H. S. H. Charles Prince of Solms. [Endorsed.] No. 2. In Mr Consul Kennedy's despatch Marked —“Private” of December 6th 1844.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 261
No 15. Galveston December 10th. 1844. My Lord,
I have the honour to report my arrival at this place on the 7th Instant in Her Majesty's Ship “Spartan” (sailed on the same day to Vera Cruz) and I shall proceed by the first opportunity to Washington.
The new President Mr. Anson Jones, will have been inaugurated yesterday, and I have no reason to think that there will be any material difference between the language of his communications to Congress, having any reference to annexation, and that of General Houston. The temper and turn of events in that Assembly cannot be spoken of, in the same way. Indeed it must be superfluous to repeat to Your Lordship that the representations and influence of the Government of the United States will have great weight in that quarter, and there can be little doubt that strenuous efforts will continue to be used, to indispose the people of Texas from agreeing to any settlement recommended by the Governments of Her Majesty, and the King of the French.
So far as I can judge the purpose is less to forward immediate annexation, (or at least there is less hope of effecting that result immediately,) than to break up the prospect of any other arrangement, trusting perhaps to quarrels with Mexico, or future Contingencies, for some convenient opportunity of adjusting the question in the only way that adjustment would be agreeable to that section of the Democratic party now in office in the United States.
I may state that in connexion with that view that General Duff Greene (whose name and agency in the annexation agitation have probably already attracted Your Lordship's notice) has recently arrived here from the City of Mexico, on his return to the United States, and I have it confidentially from a reliable source that he has gone up to Washington with earest recommendations to this Government at once to renew vigorous offensive hostilities against Mexico, with proposals of an extensive nature for the further acquisition of territory and schemes for the raising of men and funds, founded upon those acquisitions.
There can be little or no doubt that the Government of Texas will turn aside from any projects of that kind, neither do I believe that they will be made by the Authority of the Government of the United States. But it is possible that these hints of probable difficulties between the United States and Mexico, arising out of the late discussions 262 between Mr. Shannon 263 and Senor Rejon, and exaggerated statements of the disturbed condition of Mexico, may have a prejudicial effect on the dispositions of Congress here.
Reviewing the whole subject as attentively as I can, and with the limited means of judging comprehensively, open to me, (a circumstance for which I am sure Your Lordship will make full allowance in the case of error or misconception,) I certainly have formed the impression that a very advanced stage of this affair has now been reached. But although the power of effectual interference for the safe and honourable adjustment of this question appears to me to be rapidly passing away from Mexico, I still think that there is yet time and opportunity for decisive and advantageous action from that quarter, and I have availed Myself of the occasion of the “Spartan” to communicate my impressions to Mr Bankhead. If the people of Texas are indeed willing to be annexed to the United States, I see no better mode of meeting that emergency, and none more moderate or more just, than immediate proposals from Mexico adapted to the several contingencies of the safe and durable Independence of Texas, or suitable terms of annexation, or lastly, a secure truce, if this shall not be deemed to be a convenient Moment for permanent arrangement.
If events depended in any considerable degree upon the dispositions of this Government, I should have no serious apprehension of the result; but that is by no means the case, and I believe that Mexico must either shape it's proceedings to meet another state of facts, or resign herself to a combination of a very dangerous character, immediately considered, and probably still more so, in point of ulterior intention.
Charles Elliot. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTICES
Beginnings of the American People. [The Riverside History of the United States, I. William E. Dodd, Editor.] By Carl Lotus Becker, Professor of European History in the University of Kansas. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. [1915.] Pp. 279, xviii. $1.25 net.)
It has long been a matter for wonder that so little of the most important results of recent and contemporary research in American colonial history has found its way into the text-books, even the latest on that period. Professor Becker is practically the first text-book writer to make appreciative use of this material. He approaches his subject from the broad point of view of one who regards the young colonies as “disjected particles of ancient Europe,” and who, in following their development, never loses sight of the fact that they were but parts of a great English imperial system.
The volume is a bit of real literature, a brilliant and charming piece of historical writing. Nowhere can there be found in small compass a more vivid and telling description of the European background of the discovery of the New World than is in the first thirty pages of this little volume. Equally successful are the accounts of the social development and intellectual life of the colonies, especially in the eighteenth century. It is in these aspects of the period that Professor Becker seems most interested, but as already indicated he is careful to explain England's commercial and colonial policies, and the tendencies of American industrial and political life, all of which of course determined the political and administrative relations between the mother country and her offspring. And here one criticism may be offered. Too little attention is given to the evolution of those colonial political institutions, particularly the assemblies, by means of which the colonists were able to gain control of their own local affairs and to strike at the imperial system which bound them, and in defense of which they finally broke with the empire and sought independence.
As to the Revolution itself, our author's point of view is again illustrated by the fact that more than twice as much space is given to the preliminary quarrels than to the war itself. The volume goes no further than the treaty of peace, 1783.
While Professor Becker's book will be a genuine pleasure both to the general reader and the student, it is not likely to be wholly successful as a text-book because it is frequently lacking in that definite concrete information which is an essential prerequisite to the formation of generalizations of any value and which therefore must form the basis of any successful college course.
Chas. W. Ramsdell.
Union and Democracy. [The Riverside History of the United States, II. William E. Dodd, Editor.] By Allen Johnson, Professor of American History, Yale University. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. [1915.] Pp. xii, 346, xvi. $1.25 net.)
Expansion and Conflict. [The Riverside History of the United States, III. William E. Dodd, Editor.] By William E. Dodd, Professor of American History, University of Chicago. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. [1915.] Pp. xvi, 329, xxiv. $1.25 net.)>
Together these two little volumes survey the history of the United States from the close of the Revolution to the end of the Civil War, with the election of 1828 as the dividing line between them. They are designed primarily as text-books for college classes, but are likely to find their greatest field of usefulness among general readers desiring a brief, readable, interpretative discussion of the period. Professor Johnson's task has been essayed so often and from so many different angles that little opportunity for originality remained. It is a good, clear narrative, but, except for a slightly greater emphasis on the economic influences which shaped our early constitutional development,—probably a more or less unconscious response to Beard's somewhat spectacular thesis,—his book has little to distinguish it from others of approximately the same compass. Chapter XIV, analyzing the motives and influences of the Westward Movement, and Chapter XVI, describing the New Democracy that came into its own with Jackson's rise to the presidency, are the newest features of the book, and they are excellent.
Economic history, and particularly the economic history of the South, has only begun during the last decade to attract the serious attention of investigators, so that in the field which is peculiary his own Professor Dodd has been able to put into convenient form a great deal of analyzed and interpreted information not elsewhere readily available. Though both books are as non-partisan in spirit as human fairness and honesty can make them, the writer does not remember to have seen a more uncompromising characterization of the abolition movement from the Southern point of view than Professor Dodd's: “In no other country of that time could a movement like American abolitionism have gained such a hearing. In England the Government, that is the people, never dreamed of destroying without compensation the millions of property in West Indian slaves. But American abolitionists declared that there could be no property in man, just as the socialists say there can be no property in land. To destroy outright the property which underlay the Southern political power and the Southern aristocracy was the aim of Garrison, and he found able men, owners of large estates in the North, who were willing to do what he urged.” On the refusal of the House in 1836 to debate petitions concerning slavery, “John Quincy Adams declared that the rights of his constituents, as guaranteed in the Constitution, were ... abrogated. On the other hand, Calhoun declared in the Senate, with equal truth, that the constitutional rights of his constituents would be jeopardized if the petitions were received and debated.” The interplay of sectional interests is remarkably well depicted.
Numerous maps and charts are a feature of both books, but a considerable number of these will not prove as useful as they are probably expected to be because neither they nor the texts provide the data necessary for interpretation. Moreover, the scale upon which they are drawn is too small for practical use. The plan of the books does not allow footnotes, but brief bibliographical suggestions follow each chapter. In these it is gratifying to notice the steady reliance upon McMaster.
Eugene C. Barker.
The New Nation. [The Riverside History of the United States, IV. William E. Dodd, Editor.] By Frederick L. Paxson, Professor of History in the University of Wisconsin. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. [1915.] Pp. 342, xiv. $1.25 net.)
In attempting to tell the story of the United States from the Civil War to the middle of Woodrow Wilson's administration, Professor Paxson has assumed a most difficult task. So infinitely varied and complex has our social and economic life become that one who would traverse our recent history can seldom be sure of his path. Lack of perspective and the influences of prejudices, which are frequently the more dangerous because subconscious, hinder at nearly every step.
To say that Professor Paxson has succeeded in giving in the main a clear and convincing narrative is, therefore, high praise. He has rightly given chief place to that economic growth which has contributed so powerfully to the development of a truly national but complex social organism and which has brought with it the tremendous problem of readjusting to this condition an old system based upon a relatively simple and homogeneous condition of society. To his mind the Civil War was but incidental to the development of this life and reconstruction equally so. One chapter of barely twenty pages suffices for his treatment of the latter subject and nowhere does he give evidence of any appreciation of the profound change in our constitutional system which was wrought by the stress of war and reconstruction. The subjects chiefly dealt with are the intimate relation of big business and politics, already apparent in the years immediately following the war; the development of the far West; the greenback and granger movements; the tariff; populism; free silver; the trust and corporation problems; Roosevelt and the New Nationalism. But one chapter is given to the Spanish war, which again is merely incidental to the larger developments of the country's economic growth. The narrative comes down to 1914.
Chas. W. Ramsdell.
History and Geography of Texas as Told in County Names. By Z. T. Fulmore. (Previously reviewed in The Quarterly, XIX, 209-211.)
My attention has been called to certain misconstructions of my review of Judge Fulmore's The History and Geography of Texas as Told in County Names, which appeared in the October number of The Quarterly, and to certain misapprehensions of my own concerning the plan and purpose of the book. Both of these I wish to correct.
First, as to the misconstructions: In saying that “the origin of county names has been a favorite topic of local Texas history” the reviewer meant merely to state that this is generally a favorite subject of local interest and popular speculation. I mentioned the work of Thrall, Brown, and A Comprehensive History of Texas on county history to illustrate this remark. No implication was intended that Julge Fulmore's book covered the same ground as those. On the contrary, his purpose is entirely different; namely, to “outline the origin and history of county names” and to group the resultant sketches “in such a way as to indicate their places in a general perspective of the State's history.” The usual collections of county sketches give attention to the agricultural, mineral and other resources; Judge Fulmore's book does not touch upon these features, except in a brief appendix (pp. 299-306), but presents a sketch of almost every man after whom a county was named, and of the geographical terms appearing among the county names. The gathering of the data for these sketches involved considerable expense and immense labor and industry. The result is a unique volume, containing a mass of biographical and geographical information not elsewhere available, as well as many curious and interesting facts concerning the history of the State not previously known.
Now, as to my own misapprehensions: My review was written somewhat hastily and I did not grasp what the author considers the essential feature of the book's organization. I will quote the author's own words upon this subject: “It [the book] is made up, in the main, of a series of sketches which outline the origin and history of the county names of Texas, grouped and correlated in such a way as to indicate their place in a general perspective of the State's history. It is not, and does not purport to be, a history of the different counties of the State, nor does it purport to be a history of the State, except in so far as that is involved in county names” (Preface). This plan explains why Nolan is included in Chapter I; it is to that period that his connection with Texas history belongs. Similarly Stephens and Young are grouped in Chapter XV with other names that became prominent during the Civil War. Had they died before the Civil War, their sketches would have been placed in some other group. Atascosa, Bosque and other Spanish names excluded from Chapter I are included in Chapter XVII because they are geographical terms. This plan of the book also invalidates the remark about the length of the book's title, and the date of the naming of a county may safely be disregarded.
The sketches are good. The introductory paragraphs are good. The grouping of the sketches into chapters is successful in some chapters. In the application of this plan to all the sketches, however, results are produced which in the opinion of the reviewer will always make it a question whether the advantages of such an arrangement overbalance the disadvantages.
E. W. Winkler.
Davy Crockett. By >William C. Sprague. (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1915. [“True Stories of Great Americans” series.] $0.50.)
This is a truly interesting narrative of the man whose name is emblazoned upon the history pages of Texas and whose memory is perpetuated through his glorious death in the Alamo.
The book, however, in one or two places, is at variance with events recorded in Texas history. It is regrettable that the author says, on page 146, that “in 1833 the Americans in Texas decided to strike for independence,” because, according to Texas history, they didn't. During that year the Texans took steps to obtain separation from Coahuila in order to establish a separate government, but no attempt was made to secure independence from Mexico. Without mentioning dates, the author, a little farther down on the same page, says, “The revolution was now on. The Americans organized a government; Henry Smith was elected governor, and Sam Houston was made commander-in-chief.” Smith and Houston were chosen to their respective offices by the Consultation in November, 1835, and not in 1833, as the book would lead one to believe. The fact that in the same paragraph it is stated that San Antonio was taken December 10, 1835, does not remove the obscurity in dates.
Again, on page 147, the author says the Texas Declaration of Independence was issued December 20, 1835, at Goliad. Nowhere does he mention the Declaration of Independence issued at Washington on the Brazos March 2, 1836. The reader of the book must bear in mind that up until March 2, 1836, the Texans were fighting for Mexico—fighting to preserve the Constitution of 1824—against Santa Anna's usurping power. As none of the members of the Alamo garrison knew independence had been declared, they did not know they were dying that an independent republic might rise from their ashes.
James C. Oslin.
Martin Ruter. By Ernest Ashton Smith. (Cincinnati: Methodist Book Concern, 1915. Cl. 18mo. Pp. 127. Portrait. 25 cents, net.)
In the pages of this little book is sketched briefly, in broad outline, the character of this pioneer Methodist missionary. Very little is added to the information concerning Ruter's work in Texas, contained in Dr. Cody's article in the Texas Methodist Historical Quarterly, I, 7-38, but Professor Smith's chapters on “The youthful itinerant,” “The self-taught scholar,” “The educational pioneer,” “The editor and author,” and “The president of Allegheny,” give one a perspective that lends a new interest to Ruter's work. The cause of the Texans appealed so strongly to him that in May, 1836, while president of Allegheny College, he tendered to the General Conference his services as a missionary to that country. He crossed the Sabine November 23, 1837, and was claimed by death at Washington on the Brazos May 16, 1838. During the brief period of his ministry in Texas he labored incessantly for the cause of the gospel and of education.
W.
Texas Governors' Wives. By Pearl Cashell Jackson. (Austin: E. L. Steck, 1915. Pp. 156. Illustrated. $2.00 net.)
The twenty-three sketches composing this book were first published in the San Antonio Express. They are well written, represent a good deal of research, and incidentally throw interesting sidelights on the gubernatorial history of the State. Frances Cox Henderson, wife of the first Governor of Texas, forms the subject of what is in many respects the most interesting sketch in the book. She is said to have been able to translate twenty-eight languages, and to have spoken twenty-two of them. She was married in Paris while Henderson was Texan minister to England and France. After her husband's death she returned to Europe, where she remained during the Civil War. One of her daughters married an Austrian count, and two of her grandsons are now officers in the Austrian army and navy.
Texas in the Middle Eighteenth Century, by Herbert Eugene Bolton, 501 pages, illustrated, $3.50, is announced by the University of California Press. The chapter titles give an idea of the scope of the work: I. A General Survey, 1731-1788; II. The San Xavier Missions, 1745-1758; III. The Reorganization of the Lower Gulf Coast, 1746-1767; IV. Spanish Activities on the Lower Trinity River, 1746-1771; V. The Removal from and the Reoccupation of Eastern Texas, 1773-1779; VI. Bibliography. Some of these chapters are revised and enlarged treatments of topics previously covered by Professor Bolton in The Quarterly.
Explorations of the Northern Frontier of New Spain, 1535-1706, and Texas and Adjacent Regions in the Eighteenth Century are the titles of two maps compiled by Professor Herbert E. Bolton, and published by the University of California Press (Berkeley). The price is ten cents each.
Famous Living Americans, by Mary Griffin Webb and Edna Lenore Webb, published by Charles Webb &Co., Greencastle, Ind., 1915, contains (pages 375-84) an interesting biographical sketch of Mrs. Percy V. Pennybacker, President of the General Federation of Women's Clubs. The sketch is written by Grace Julian Clarke, a member of the board of directors of the General Federation. A photograph of Mrs. Pennybacker and a short list of the sources upon which the writer has drawn accompany the biography.
NEWS ITEMS
The University of Texas Library has bought for the Littlefield Collection a file of the National Intelligencer (Washington) from 1823 to 1866.
Miss Julia M. Pease has deposited in the Library as a loan four volumes of the Texas State Gazette (Austin), extending from August, 1849, to August, 1857.
Mr. S. W. Farrow, of Hico, Texas, who served through the Civil War in the Nineteenth Texas Regiment, Walker's Division, has presented to the Library a collection of eighty-five letters writter, mostly by himself to his wife, during the period of the war.
During October, 1915, many newspapers of the State gave prominence to the recovery by the State Comptroller of large quantities of canceled and uncanceled currency of the Republic of Texas which had been stolen from the basement of the Capitol and sold to dealers in curios and antiquities. It appears from a detailed article in the Sweetwater Daily Reporter of October 13, 1915, that Hon. R. C. Crane, postmaster at Sweetwater, and a vice-president of the Texas State Historical Association, discovered the theft and conducted the investigation which led to the recovery of the currency.
AFFAIRS OF THE ASSOCIATION
The annual meeting of the Texas State Historical Association will be held at Austin, March 2, 1916, at 10 o'clock in the Main Building of the University, room 158. A meeting of the Executive Council and of the Fellows will precede.
2. This constitution was for the most part a copy of the Constitution of 1787. Some important changes, however, were made, the chief of which dealt with the executive department. Provision was made for a single presidential term of six years; the right of vetoing any single item in an appropriation bill without invalidating the whole was permitted; no general appropriation of funds could be made unless asked for by the head of a department, except by a two-thirds vote of each house; the President's power of removal was somewhat curtailed; and, lastly, Congress was authorized to grant a seat on the floor of either house to members of the cabinet, who then had the privilege of discussing any measure touching their departments. According to Davis this last provision, “which would have tended to obviate much delay and misunderstanding,” was never put into operation because of the failure of Congress to enact the necessary legislation (Davis, Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, I, 260). The provisional Congress consisted of a single chamber whose members voted by States. Both the provisional and permanent constitutions are printed in Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, Vol. I.
3. Curry, Civil History of the Confederate States, 52. On the other hand, Stephens thought that Toombs would have been the choice of the Congress had a misunderstanding not arisen in the Georgia delegation. Stephens, War between the States, II, 329-331. See also Pollard, Life of Jefferson Davis and Secret History of the Confederacy, 64, who states that R. M. T. Hunter was slated for the presidency, with Jefferson Davis as secretary of war. A further discussion is given in Dodd's Jefferson Davis, 216-222, and in Phillips' Life of Robert Toombs, 22-226.
4. “He was selected because the opponents of secession and the conservative Virginians could unite upon him.” Dodd, 226.
5. Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, II, 18. The same idea was brought out in his inaugural address.
6. Mrs. Davis, Memoirs, II, 19.
7. Johnston and Browne, Alexander H. Stephens, 392.
8. Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, I, 304; II, 241. The cabinet consisted of Toombs of Georgia, secretary of state; Walker of Alabama, secretary of war; Memminger of South Carolina (whom Davis chose somewhat reluctantly, as he preferred Barnwell), secretary of the treasury; Mallory of Florida, secretary of the navy; and Reagan of Texas, postmaster general. Benjamin, the attorney general, was soon afterwards given a seat in the cabinet and became Davis's right hand man. For an estimate of these officials, see Alfriend, Life of Jefferson Davis, 246-7; Butler, Judah P. Benjamin, 229-230.
9. Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary, I, 41, 44. The Richmond Congress was not equal in ability to the Montgomery assembly. Stephens, War between the States, II, 464.
10. Davis vetoed the first bill for removing the capital upon technical grounds. Journal of the Congress of the Confederate States, I, 242-243.
11. The evacuation of Harper's Ferry seems to have resulted in some slight criticism of the executive even before this. A Rebel War Clerk's Diary, I, 52.
12. Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, I, 362, 442.
13. Ibid., 363, 367.
14. Alfriend, Life of Jefferson Davis, 314. See also Pollard, Secret History of the Confederacy, 150; Lost Cause, 152-153.
15. Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, I, 362-363.
16. Ibid., I, 427.
17. A Rebel War Clerk's Diary, I, 96; Journal, I, 682. Benjamin was transferred to the war department in September. The vetoing of two bills granting furloughs and discharges in case of sickness, etc., was another source of friction. Messages and Papers, I, 156-158; 162-164.
18. The total electoral vote was 109. Journal, II, 8. The election was without excitement and only a light vote was cast.—A Rebel War Clerk's Diary, I, 89. The inauguration took place on February 22 under a gloomy and depressing sky. The President's address was severely criticised by his enemies.—Lost Cause, 215.
19. There were five sessions of the Provisional Congress as follows: February 4 to March 16, 1861, at Montgomery; April 29 to May 21, at Montgomery (called by Davis); July 20 to August 31, at Richmond; September 3, adjourned same day, at Richmond (called by Davis); November 18 to February 17, 1862, at Richmond.
20. The following were the Committee Chairmen: Smith, North Carolina, Elections; Kenner, Louisiana, Ways and Means; Miles, South Carolina, Military Affairs; Foote, Tennessee, Foreign Affairs; Conrad, Louisiana, Naval Affairs; Gartrell, Georgia, Judiciary.—Journal, V, 7, 21.
21. The Senate Committee Chairmen were as follows: Orr, South Carolina, Foreign Affairs; Barnwell, also of South Carolina, Finance; Sparrow, Louisiana, Military Affairs; Brown, Mississippi, Naval Affairs; Hill (one of Davis's most consistent supporters), Georgia, Judiciary; Clay, Alabama, Commerce.—Journal, II, 19-20.
22. A Rebel War Clerk's Diary, I, 157. “The first Confederate Congress . . . contained all the elements of discord and disagreement it was possible to assemble under one roof in the South at this time.” Dodd, 257.
23. Journal, V, 28. Foote had previously brought in a motion calling for a vigorous prosecution of the war as against Davis's defensive plan. Confederate Military History, I, 431.
24. Nevertheless almost the entire Tennessee delegation waited upon the President and asked for the removal of Albert Sidney Johnston. Davis's reply was, “If Johnston is not a general, the Confederacy has none to give you.”—Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, II, 38.
25. Journal, V, 243. Benjamin was transferred to the state department because of such criticism. Moore of Kentucky had previously introduced a motion in the House requesting the resignation of Benjamin from the war portfolio since he did not have “the confidence of the Confederacy, nor of the Army to such an extent as to meet the exigencies of the present crisis.”—Journal, V, 57. See also A Rebel War Clerk's Diary, I, 119; editorial from the Examiner quoted by Butler, 254-255, Lost Cause, 213.
26. It was about this time that two parties arose, the one demanding the resignation of Davis, the other that he be made dictator. Du Bose, Life of Yancey, 678; Alfriend, 367.
27. James Ford Rhodes censures Davis for criticising Lincoln's suspension of the writ and then following the same policy himself a few days later. The criticism is misplaced, since Lincoln's proclamation was issued on his own responsibility, while Davis refused to act at all until Congress had given its sanction to the measure. See Rhodes, History of the United States, III, 603.
28. The following is a fair sample of the hostile criticism against Winder's administration: “The Baltimore detectives [Winder's police] are lords of the ascendency. They crook a finger, and the best carriages in the street pause, turn around and are subject to their will. They loll and roll in glory. . . . One word of remonstrance, and the poor victim is sent to Castle Gordon.” A Rebel War Clerk's Diary, I, 123. See also Rhodes, History of the United States, III, 603. The popular opposition was such that the bill was eventually modified. Journal, V, 235.
29. Stephens and Toombs were particularly opposed to the measure. War between the States, II. 270. The Georgia Legislature passed resolutions condemning the bill. Ibid., 789; Pollard, Secret History of the Confederacy, 336. See also Confederate Military History, I, 448-450, for debates in Congress over the conscription bill.
30. A Rebel War Clerk's Diary, I, 120; editorial from the Richmond Examiner quoted in Rhodes, IV, 8, note. It was probably this same writer who sarcastically commented in another issue of the Examiner on the President's religious professions that “when Hercules saw the condition of the Augean stables, he did not roll up his eyes to Jupiter but turned a river into them.” Writings of J. M. Daniel, collected by Fred S. Daniel, 152. Daniel's Writings were editorials of the Richmond Examiner.
31. Rhodes, V, 431-432; Official Records, War of the Rebellion, Series IV, Vol. I, 1133-1138; II, 2-3; Johnstone and Browne, Life of Stephens, 415; Secret History of the Confederacy, 336.
32. Journal, V, 36, 107.
33. In the House the vote stood 50 for to 16 against. In the Senate the votes were not recorded.
34. The first Congress held the following sessions: February 18 to April 21, 1862; August 18 to October 13, 1862; January 12 to May 1, 1863; December 7 to February 17, 1864.
35. General Meigs wrote Senator Wilson, “ . . . they [the Confederate forces] are directed by one mind, prompt, decisive, bold. They are not distracted by divided councils, are not restrained by rules, customs, precedents.” Quoted by Weeden, War Government, Federal and State, p. xxiii. See also Rhodes, V, 471.
36. See Rhodes, IV, 7, 8, 9, and notes.
37. Alfriend, 409.
38. Journal, V, 296.
39. The bill which developed the greatest opposition was one providing for a new suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. In the House it mustered a majority of only 9. See, in addition, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary, I, 159; Rhodes, V, 464.
40. For example, Journal, V, 500; 557-558; II, 431, 447.
41. Ibid., VI, 9, 49; index.
42. Ibid., III, 228.
43. Ibid., 237.
44. The vote stood 22 for, and 59 against, repassing the bill. Ibid., V, 303. The popular discontent in Richmond was about evenly divided at this time against Davis and the members of Congress. Largely owing to the President's physical condition, he was unable to participate in the social affairs of the Capital and this led to the charge that he was becoming inaccessible (Mrs. Davis, Memoirs, II, 161; A Rebel War Clerk's Diary, I, 184). In the Richmond Examiner of March 14 Daniels wrote, “There is a feeling of resentment, deep-seated and widely pervading the best class of the community against Government . . . ; and there are high officers in this goodly city who fancy they are popular in the land, but whose names are held in execration by the staunch classes which control public opinion.” Daniel, however, was not partial in his sarcasm. On May 4 he dealt with Congress as follows, “Never . . . was there a deliberative assembly intrusted with the high responsibilities of legislation in a momentous crisis less gifted with commanding talent, or signalized by initiative power than the Confederate Congress” (Writings of J. M. Daniel, 75, 77). Jones wrote in his never failing diary to similar effect, “Never did such little men rule such a great people. Our rulers are like children or drunken men riding docile horses that absolutely keep the rider from falling off. . . . There is no rule for anything, and no stability in any policy.” Davis, though master of Congress, by some was regarded as only a “small specimen of a statesman and no military chieftain at all.”—A Rebel War Clerk's Diary, I, 174, 178. For further details concerning the secrecy of Congress, character of its proceedings, and popular ridicule of its members, see Callahan, Diplomatic History of the Southern Confederacy, Ch. II, passim, and quotations.
45. Writings of J. M. Daniel, 111-112.
46. Alfriend, 462.
47. Editorial in the Examiner of July 30. It was written on the occasion of the death of William L. Yancey who had been estranged from Davis over a question touching the purchase of arms in Europe. A Rebel War Clerk's Diary, I, 391; Du Bose, Life of Yancey, 652-653.
48. See the attitude of the Charleston Mercury as given by Jones, Diary, II, 15; also Mrs. Davis, Memoirs, II, 412. About this time Stephens wrote, “Our President is aiming at the obtainment of power inconsistent with public safety.” Life of Stephens, 441. Scarcely an issue of the Examiner appeared without strictures on the administration. The following may be considered a fair example:
“Had the people dreamed that Davis would carry all his chronic antipathies, his bitter prejudices, his puerile partialities, and his doting favoritisms into the President's chair, they never would have allowed him to fill it. . . . Mr. Davis has alienated the hearts of the people by his stubborn follies, and the injustice he has heaped upon those whom they regarded as their ablest generals and truest friends. . . . God forbid that our fair and beloved land should be ruined by our own mal-administration, or that our people should lack the proper energy and independence to teach their executive that he is their servant, not their master—their instrument, not their dictator.”—Examiner, August 5, 1863, quoted in Writings of J. M. Daniel, 107-109. See also Ibid., 95-96.
49. A Rebel War Clerk's Diary, II, 15.
50. On the 31st Daniels wrote, “Today closes the gloomiest year of our struggle. No sanguine hope of foreign intervention buoys up the spirit of the Confederate public as at the end of 1861. No brilliant victory like that of Fredericksburg encourages us to look forward to a speedy and successful termination of the war, as in the last weeks of 1862.”—Writings, 155. Stephens and Governor Joseph E. Brown were particularly active in creating dissatisfaction throughout Georgia. Rhett and Vance, aided by the Mercury, carried out a like program in the Carolinas. Dodd, 300-301. I thing Dodd is wrong in classing H. V. Johnson as an opponent of the administration, at any rate before the latter part of 1864. See Official Records, Series IV, Vol. III, pp. 278-281, 552, 544-9, 662-3.
51. The Examiner, while elaborately praising the literary merits of the document, concluded by saying that Davis might prove “a worthy rival to another ruler who never said the foolish thing, and never did the wise one.” Ibid., 154.
52. This was again urged in a special message. Journal, VI, 744-746.
53. A Rebel War Clerk's Diary, II, 161.
54. Writings of J. M. Daniel, 215.
55. Diary, II, 153.
56. Journal, III, 454.
57. A Rebel War Clerk's Diary, II, 132.
58. Journal, III, 566.
59. Ibid., VI, 525.
60. Ibid., 681. Jones states that twenty votes upon which Foote counted failed him. Diary, II, 136.
61. Journal, III, 621; Diary, II, 134; Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, I. 392-394.
62. Ibid., 161. In February Benjamin voiced the administration's disapproval of Congress. “There has been less promptness and energy in the legislation by Congress than we had hoped for, and less than the magnitude of the interest at stake warranted us in expecting.” Benjamin to Mann, in Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, II, 623. For the deplorable condition of the country at large, see the special message of Davis, February 1, 1864. Ibid., I, 395-400.
63. Forty members of the old Congress were not re-elected. Ibid., p. 153. Owing to his opposition to Davis—an opposition which I have touched upon only incidentally—Stephens absented himself from the seat of government. R. M. T. Hunter was elected President of the Senate pro tem. Bocock was chosen again as Speaker in the House.
64. A Rebel War Clerk's Diary, II, 215. Rhodes, V, 479. Davis, however, vetoed five bills during this session.
65. A Rebel War Clerk's Diary, II, 220. The Examiner spoke of Bragg's appointment as “an illustration of that strong common sense which forms the basis of the President's character,” and continued, “this happy announcement should enliven the fires of confidence and enthusiasm, reviving among the people, like a bucket of water on a newly kindled grate.” See also Alfriend, 489.
66. Journal, VII, 110; A Rebel War Clerk's Diary, II, 222.
67. Ibid., 119. The second Congress held the following sessions: May 2 to June 14, 1864; November 7, 1864, to March 18, 1865.
68. The Examiner and the Mercury were particularly loud in their denunciations of weak kneed Congressmen who made no efforts to check the executive. See Pollard, Secret History of the Confederacy, 418, and Daniel's editorials in the Examiner. In Georgia the Legislature, at the bidding of Brown, Johnson, and Stephens, had passed resolutions criticising Davis and condemning his conduct of the war. Dodd, 336; Pendleton, Alexander H. Stephens, Ch. XV.
69. On January 8 Howell Cobb wrote Seddon, “I regret to say that gloom and despondency rule the hour, and bitter opposition to the Administration, mingled with dissatisfaction and disloyalty is manifesting itself.” As a remedy Cobb urged the reinstatement of Johnston and Beauregard and the institution of a popularly demanded system of recruiting. Official Records, Series IV, Vol. III, p. 1010.
70. Journal, VII, 254-255.
71. Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, I, 158. Benjamin, the practical, had probably influenced Davis to take this step.
72. Journal, VII, 612. The bill had been greatly enlarged in its scope by the time the vote was taken. For an excellent discussion of the various bills relating to the use of negroes as soldiers introduced both in Senate and House, and the delays and defeats experienced, see Stephenson, “The Question of Arming the Slaves,” American Historical Review, XVIII, 295-308.
73. The Journal (IV, 670) records nine affirmative and eight negative votes in the Senate. The Senate bill introduced on February 7 was indefinitely postponed on the 21st by a vote of 11 to 10. Stephenson gives as the reason the constitutional difficulty of State authority. American Historical Review, XVIII, 300-301. In the bill finally passed this was avoided.
74. Ibid., VII, 350.
75. Ibid., 721; A Rebel War Clerk's Diary, II, 451. One reason for this, according to Jones, was the retention of Benjamin in the cabinet.
76. Journal, IV, 490, 502, 687; VII, 502, 523, 645, 790.
77. Journal, VII, 582.
78. A Rebel War Clerk's Diary, II, 416.
79. Journal, IV, 552, 553.
80. A Rebel War Clerk's Diary, II, 415; Rhodes, V, 65. See also Bocock's letter to Davis, January 21, 1865, in which he advises Davis to reconstruct his cabinet in order to forestall a vote of lack of confidence in its members by Congress, three-fourths of whom will approve such a resolution if presented. Official Records, Series I, Vol. XLVI, pt. 2, p. 1118.
81. By Haynes of Tennessee and Wigfall of Texas.
82. Its backers were Stephens, Atkins of Tennessee, and Rives of Virginia. Dodd, 346. Writings of J. M. Daniel, 217. The proposition was put forward in at least two numbers of the Examiner, that of December 29, 1864, and that of January 17, 1865. See also A Rebel War Clerk's Diary, II, 372, 389, 390.
83. Rhodes, V, 79, and authorities quoted; Dodd, 347, shows even more clearly how strongly the current was running against Davis in both houses.
84. Journal, IV, 454; VII, 463; Rhodes, V, 110.
85. Messages and Papers, I, 505-513.
86. Journal, IV, 731; A Rebel War Clerk's Diary, II, 454; Lost Cause, 653-654.
87. Stephens, War between the States, II, 623-624; Alfriend, 611; Rhodes, V, 72.
88. Alfriend, 599. The requests for “information” upon trivial matters, and the heckling “resolutions” directed against the President bear out this opinion. See Messages and Papers, I, 499-570, passim.
89. Ibid.; A Rebel War Clerk's Diary, II, 409. Pollard styles the legislation of Congress during this session as “puerile, absurd, and contemptible” to the last degree. Lost Cause, 660.
90. Congress, owing to an urgent request from Davis, who hoped for foreign assistance, prolonged its sitting from March 10 to 18, when it adjourned sine die. For the diplomatic phase of these last days, see Callahan, 239-276.
91. Alfriend's censure of Congress does not fall far wide of the mark. “Mr. Davis,” he says, “never could consolidate the resources of the South as he desired, being constantly hampered by demagogism in Congress, which could at all times be coerced by the press hostile to the Administration, or influenced by the slightest display of popular displeasure. Pretending to place the whole means of the country at the disposal of the President, Congress yet invariably rendered its measures inoperative by emasculating clauses providing exemptions and immunities of every description.” Alfriend, 576. A later biographer asserts that the opposition outside of Congress, created by Stephens, Rhett, Brown [Yancey and Vance] was “a most important, if not the greatest, cause of the final collapse of the Confederacy.” Dodd, 268. Of the two, the opposition mentioned by Dodd was unquestionably the more injurious to the Southern cause, but Congress also played its responsible part. The truth of the saying was confirmed—“A house divided against itself can not stand.”
92. Report, Dec. 7, 1863, p. 20.
93. Report, Feb. 28, 1862, p. 10.
94. Letter Book, I, 719-720, 721-722.
95. Quoted from Reagan's Memoirs, 158. The full opinion is quoted in Letter Book, I, 739-743.
96. Letter Book, I, 748-750.
97. Reagan's Memoirs, 159.
98. Letter Book, I, 750-756.
99. Reagan's Memoirs, 159.
100. Report, April 29, 1861, p. 13; Semi-Weekly Richmond Enquirer, April 30, 1861, quoting from the Charleston Courier.
101. Statutes at Large, C. S. A., Acts Prov. Congress, 2d Sess., 105.
102. Reagan to T. C. Perrin, Pres. Greenville and Columbia Railroad, of S. C., Nov. 6, 1861, and Jan. 11, 1862, Letter Book, I, 226, 242; H. St. Geo. Offutt, Chief of Contract Bureau, to Thos. H. Walker, Pres. Ala. and Tenn. Railroad, Selma, Ala., Nov. 16, 1861. Letter Book of C. S. P. O., Contract Bureau (Confederate Archives, U. S. War Dept.), 62-63.
103. Report, Nov. 27, 1861, pp. 13-14.
104. Savannah Republican, Oct. 5, 1861, and Dec. 30, 1861.
105. Report, Nov. 27, 1861, pp. 15-16.
106. Savannah Republican, Jan. 22, 1862.
107. Report, Feb. 28, 1862, pp. 3-4.
108. Reagan to President Davis, April 3, 1862, Letter Book, I, 416, 417.
109. Reagan to A. H. Stephens, Sept. 11, 1862, Ibid., I, 479-480.
110. Report, Jan. 12, 1863, p. 11.
111. Lee to Reagan, Nov. 27, 1862, Off. Rec., Series I, vol. XXI, 1035.
112. Reagan to Gov. Brown, Nov. 7, 1862, Letter Book, I, 511-512; Attorney-General Watts to Reagan, Dec. 12, 1862, Ibid., 712-714.
113. Report, Dec. 7, 1863, p. 11. Cf. Reagan to L. E. Harris, president Richmond and Danville Railroad, Dec. 18, 1862, and March 3, 1863, Letter Book, I, 552-554, 635-638; Reagan to R. R. Cuyler, president Georgia Central, July 7, 1863, Ibid., 722-724.
114. Correspondence between the President of the Virginia Central Railroad Company and the Postmaster General in relation to Postal Services. Richmond, Va., 1864 (a pamphlet now among the Reagan papers, Texas State Library, Austin, Texas); Richmond Examiner, Aug. 19, 1864, Aug. 22, 1864, Daily Richmond Enquirer, Aug. 22, 1864, Sept. 7, 1864.
115. Report, Dec. 7, 1863. Cf. also, Reagan to R. R. Cuyler, president Southern and Western Railroad, Jan. 20, 1862, Letter Book, I, 317-318.
116. “At the outbreak of the Civil War the Adams Express Company turned its routes in the Southern States, in which it had enjoyed a complete monopoly, over to the Adams-Southern Express Company, created by the Georgia courts for the purpose of assuming this business. The property of the association was to be represented by 5,000 shares, of which 558 were then issued. The Adams Express Company has held to the present day a dominant interest in this association, which it created to facilitate busines during the war. After hostilities ceased it resumed some of its Southern routes by agreement with the Adams-Southern Express Company, whose name had meanwhile been changed to the Southern Express Company. The two companies still work in common and use the same wagons and offices in many places.”—Albert W. Atwood in the American Magazine, Feb., 1911, LXXI, 432.
117. Report, Feb. 28, 1862, p. 15; Act of Feb. 23, 1861.
118. Ibid., Act of March 3, 1861.
119. Ibid., U. S. Act of March 3, 1845.
120. Report, Feb. 28, 1862, p. 16.
121. Reagan to President Davis, April 10, 1862, Letter Book, I, 420-422.
122. Report, Feb. 28, 1862, p. 16.
123. Reagan to President Davis, April 10, 1862, Letter Book, I, 420-422.
124. Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, I, 211.
125. See above, page 244.
126. Statutes at Large, Acts Prov. Congress, 1st Sess., p. 35.
127. Reagan to Attorney-General Watts, March 28, 1863, Letter Book, I, 666-667; Reagan to I. Henley Smith, March 5, 1863, Ibid., 649-659; Reagan to L. I. Whitefield, Manager Pioneer Express Company, May 14, 1863, Ibid., 704; Report, Nov. 7, 1864, p. 9.
128. Report, Nov. 7, 1864.
129. The initials “C. W. R.” accompanying a citation indicate that the necessary notes on the work cited were made available to the writer through the generosity of Professor Charles W. Ramsdell of the University of Texas, who made them.
130. All the files of the newspapers to which I have had access for the period 1861-1865 are incomplete.
131. A paper read before the New Mexican session of the American Historical Association meeting, Berkeley, Cal., 1915.
132. Gregg, Commerce of the Prairies (New York, 1845), I, pp. V-VI. The most accessible edition is in Thwaites, Early Western Travels, XIX-XX.
133. The books used by Gregg were Irving, Tour of the Prairies (Philadelphia, 1835), Murray, Travels in the United States (London, 1839), and Hoffman, A Winter in the West (New York and London, 1835). See Early Western Travels, XIX, 161.
134. Chittenden, The American Fur Trade of the Far West (New York, 1902), 3 vols.
135. The Journal of Jacob Fowler, Elliott Coues, ed. (New York, 1898).
136. The Personal Narrative of James O. Pattie of Kentucky (Cincinnati, 1831.) Reprinted in Early Western Travels, XVIII.
137. H. H. Bancroft, History of Arizona and New Mexico (San Francisco, 1889), 297-299, 332-338.
138. Henry Inman, The Old Santa Fé Trail (Topeka, 1914), 406-410. This work also appeared in earlier editions.
139. Chittenden, The American Fur Trade of the Far West, II, 508-509.
140. Ibid., II, 538-9.
141. Dewitt C. Peters, Pioneer Life and Frontier Adventures (Boston, 1873), 30.
142. Edwin L. Sabin, Kit Carson Days (Chicago, 1914), 27.
143. Archivo del Gobierno del Estado de Sonora (Hermosillo), Tomo 42, No. 7, 1826.
144. Archivo de Gobernación (Mexico), Comercio, Expediente 44. The importance of this is realized when we find that according to Gregg (Commerce of the Prairies, II, 160) in 1826 the total number engaged in the Santa Fé trade was a hundred men.
145. Archivo del Gobierno del Estado de Sonora (Hermosillo), Tomo 42, No. 7, 1826.
146. Archivo de Gobernación (Mexico), Comercio, Expediente 44. As to the identity of these men we have some data. The St. Vrains were later partners of the well-known firm of Bent and St. Vrain. Robideau or Robidoux was a famous fur-trader. Pratt was known as a caravan proprietor. Of Williams we cannot be so certain. An Ezekiel Williams was a fur trader who was the hero of Coyner's Lost Trappers, a fanciful tale of the early traders. A Lewis Dawson, perhaps the Louis Dolton of the documents, accompanied Glenn and Fowler in 1821, but according to Fowler's Journal he was killed by a bear in November of that year. This may be a convenient way of accounting to the people at home for the disappearance of one of the party.
147. Inman, The Old Santa Fé Trail, 406.
148. Fowler, Journal, 104-106; Narbona to the Minister of Interior and Foreign Relations, September 30, 1826, in Archivo de Gobernación (Mexico), Comercio, Expediente 44.
149. Fowler, Journal, 95, 137.
150. Narbona to the governor of Sonora, August 31, 1826, in Archivo de Gobernación (Mexico), Comercio, Expediente 44.
151. Narbona to the Minister of Interior and Foreign Relations, September 30, 1826, in Ibid.
152. Ramírez to the governor of Chihuahua, December 20, 1826, in ibid.
153. Archivo del Gobierno del Estado de Sonora (Hermosillo), Tomo 42, No. 7, 1826.
154. The alcalde of Tucson to the governor of Sonora, November 4, 1826, in Ibid.
155. Chittenden, The Fur Trade of the Far West, II, 496-497.
156. Ibid., II, 504.
157. Archivo de Gobernación (Mexico), Comercio, Expediente 44.
158. Ibid.
159. Archivo del Gobierno del Estado de Sonora (Hermosillo), Tomo 42, No. 7, 1826.
160. Archivo de Gobernación (Mexico), Comercio, Expediente 44.
161. Archivo de Gobernación (Mexico), Comercio, Expediente 44.
162. Narbona to the governor of Sonora, August 31, 1826, in Ibid.
163. In Ibid.
164. In Ibid.
165. Ygnacio Madrid to the Secretary of State and Foreign Relations, April 14, 1831, Archivo de la Secretaría de Gobernación (Mexico), Jefes Politicos, 1831-1833, Expediente 1, Leg. 59, ff. 28.
166. Archivo de Gobernación (Mexico), Comercio, Expediente 44.
167. Chapman, “The Alta California Supply Ships, 1773-76,” in The Quarterly, XIX, 184-94. “Alta California” is used, as also in the present article, for what is now California of the United States to distinguish the more clearly from Baja California of Mexico, or from “California” or “Californias,” which formerly included both. Names of individuals appearing in this account have been identified for the most part, where they were important enough to require it, in the above article.
168. I have relied wholly on materials of the Archivo General de Indias (A. G. I.) of Seville, Spain. Copies of some of the documents used are now in the Academy of Pacific Coast. History, Berkeley.
169. Rada to Arriaga, Dec. 27, 1767. A. G. I., Estado Aud. Mex. 1, Doc. 99.
170. A. G. I., 104-6-15.
171. Except for four muleteers and the missionaries this number accounted for the entire Spanish establishments of the Californias.
172. In Testimonio del Reglamento Provisional, 1773, A. G. I., 104-6-16, Cuad. 2.
173. Campo's letters, dated January 27 and February 14, 1773, are in Testimonio de las representaciones del Comisionado de S. Blas, A. G. I., 104-6-16, Cuad. 5.
174. In Ibid.
175. A. G. I., Estado, Aud. Mex. 1, Doc. 1.
176. Cited in Bucarely to Arriaga, Nov. 26, 1773. A. G. I., Estado, Aud. Mex. 1, Doc. 4.
177. A. G. I., 104-3-4.
178. Gálvez to Arriaga, March 8, 1774, A. G. I., 104-6-16.
179. A. G. I., Estado, Aud. Mex. 1, Doc. 9.
180. Bucarely to Arriaga, May 27, 1775. A. G. I., 104-6-16.
181. A. G. I., 104-6-16.
182. A. G. I., 104-6-17.
183. Ibid.
184. A. G. I., 104-5-24. Trinidad was suggested, it would seem, because more accessible by land from the Atlantic coast than was San Blas.
185. A. G. I., 104-5-24.
186. Article cited in note 1, at pp. 191-94.
187. Bucarely to Gálvez., Sept. 26, 1776. A. G. I., 104-6-17.
188. A. G. I., 104-6-17.
189. Ibid.
190. A. G. I., 104-6-18.
191. Gálvez to Bucarely, March 19, 1777. A. G. I., 104-6-18.
192. Gálvez to the viceroy of Peru, March 19, 1977. A. G. I., 104-6-18.
193. A. G. I., 104-6-17. He enclosed a detailed list of the effects needed.
194. A. G. I., 104-6-17.
195. Grimaldi to Felipe Ruiz, Dec. 22, 1775. A. G. I., 104-6-17.
196. Grimaldi to Macuriges, Dec. 22, 1775. A. G. I., 104-6-17.
197. A. G. I., 104-6-17.
198. Ibid.
199. A. G. I., 104-6-18.
200. Ibid.
201. Ibid.
202. Ibid.
203. Ibid.
204. Ibid.
205. Reggio to Arriaga, Sept. 26, 1775. A. G. I., 104-6-18.
206. A. G. I., 104-6-18.
207. A. G. I., 104-6-17.
208. Ibid.
209. Ibid.
210. Ibid.
211. Ibid.
212. A. G. I., 104-6-18.
213. Ibid.
214. Ibid.
215. Bonet to Gálvez, Jan. 31, 1777. A. G. I., 104-6-18.
216. A. G. I., 104-6-18.
217. Ibid.
218. Ibid.
219. Ibid.
220. Bucarely to Gálvez, July 27, 1777. A. G. I., 104-6-18.
221. A. G. I., 104-6-18.
222. Ibid.
223. Ibid.
224. Ibid.
225. Ibid.
226. Ibid.
227. Ibid.
228. Ibid.
229. These dates are taken from the family Bible of the Whartons in Tennessee.
230. Groce's application for land in Austin's colony was dated July 26, 1824. How long he had been in Texas at that time is not stated. He had ninety slaves.—Spanish Titles, General Land Office, Volume 1, page 258. —Editors.
231. Spanish Records, Vol. 53, page 126, General Land Office (Texas).
232. University of Texas transcripts from archives of the Department of Fomento (Mexico), Legajo 5, expediente 34.
233. F. O., Texas, Vol. 10.
234. A cutting from The Galveston Civilian, September 11, 1844. Houston's letter is calendared by Garrision as printed in U. S. Pub. Docs., 444, Doc. 271, p. 110.
235. F. O., Texas, Vol. 10.
236. Not found.
237. Bourgeois d' Orvanne, a French migration agent, who was largely instrumental in forwarding German emigration to Texas. He appears frequently in Texan correspondence with France, and with the Hanse Towns. Garrison, Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas, III, in Am. Hist. Assoc. Report, 1908, II.
238. An active promoter of German emigration to Texas. He also held the title of Lord of Braunfels, and founded the town of New Braunfels, Texas. He was a stepson of the English Duke of Cumberland who was an uncle of Queen Victoria and in 1844 King of Hanover. Garrison, Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas, III, 1549, in Am. Hist. Assoc. Report, 1908, II.
239. F. O., Texas, Vol. 10.
240. F. O., Texas, Vol. 10.
241. James Reily, Texan chargé d' affaires at Washington, D. C., from March to August, 1842.
242. F. O., Texas, Vol. 10.
243. Duff Green, b. 1780 [approx.] d. 1875. Though educated for the law, he early became a newspaper writer and proprietor, conducting the administration organ (The United States Telegram) at Washington during Jackson's first term. He later became a follower and partisan of Calhoun and was a vigorous advocate of the annexation of Texas. (Appleton, Cyclopedia of American Biography.)
244. F. O., Texas, Vol. 10.
245. F. O., Texas, Vol. 9.
246. F. O., Texas, Vol. 10.
247. F. O., Texas, Vol. 10.
248. F. O., Texas, Vol. 10.
249. Captain Boone, United States commissioner to the Indians in 1844. Garrison, Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas, II, 310, in Am. Hist. Assoc. Report, 1908, II.
250. F. O., Texas, Vol. 10.
251. Godoy, b. at Badajoz, 1764, d. at Paris, 1851. He was a Spanish nobleman of inferior rank, who under Charles IV of Spain, held almost supreme power from 1792 to 1807. A fictitious genealogy fabricated for Godoy when at the height of his power, made him a descendant of Montezuma. After Napoleon I seized Spain, Godoy's part in Spanish affairs ended. He lived in Paris from 1835 until his death. Michaud, Biographie Universelle.
252. F. O., Texas, Vol. 9.
253. F. O., Texas, Vol. 10.
254. In fact, however, Santa Anna in November, 1844, had announced to Great Britain the conditions upon which he would recognize Texan independence, had asked British aid, and promised that all preparations for attacking Texas should be suspended. F. O., Mexico, 177. Bankhead to Aberdeen, No. 102, November 29, 1844. For text of Santa Anna's proposal, as translated by Bankhead, see Adams, British Interests and Activities in Texas, 188.
255. Duflot de Morfras. His book is that of a traveller and observer, and such ideas of French action as are presented are wholly directed to the expansion of French interests in the Pacific.
256. Printed copies of Houston's message, December 4, 1844, and Jones' inaugural address, December 9, 1844.
257. Printed copy of Houston's farewell address, December 9, 1844.
258. F. O., Texas, Vol. 10.
259. F. O., Texas, Vol. 10.
260. F. O., Texas, Vol. 10.
261. F. O., Texas, Vol. 9.
262. Refers to the Shannon-Rejon correspondence, of 1844, in which both the American minister to Mexico and the Mexican minister of foreign affairs, had used imprudent and irritating language likely to stir enmity between the two nations.
263. Wilson Shannon, b. 1802 in Ohio, d. 1877 in Kansas. Educated as a lawyer, he became Governor of Ohio, 1838-1840, and again 1842-1844. He was sent to Mexico as Minister in 1844. After two years as Representative in Congress, 1853-1855, he was appointed Territorial Governor of Kansas, 1855-1856. Appleton, Cyclop. of Am. Biog.
How to cite:
"Issue View", Volume 019, Number 3, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online. http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v019/n3/issue.html
[Accessed Sun Nov 8 11:03:41 CST 2009]
