Vol. XXI October, 1917 No. 2
The publication committee and the editors disclaim responsibility for views expressed by contributors to The Quarterly
Though their eastern course lay off its coast for so long, the Manila Galleon contributed less to a knowledge of the Californias than might have been expected. The apparent paucity of these geographical results can be attributed to several causes. In the first place, it was only during the earlier period of the navigation that the customary route of the galleons lay near enough to the upper California coast to make any discoveries possible. For, by the eighteenth century they generally made their landfall well down the coast, somewhere between Point Concepcion and Cape San Lucas. Even when they did follow the upper coast, they kept no nearer to it than was necessary to guide their course,—that is, to make out the more prominent landmarks. Moreover, after the long and perilous crossing from the Philippines pilots and captains were averse to taking the further risks involved in a close investigation of a rather rugged and forbidding coast. Commenting on this anxiety to keep clear of the coast, Diego de Bobadilla wrote in 1640: “The captain changed his course to the south, to avoid getting caught in the land, or in some gulf, whence he would have a hard time to get out.” 1 Anson also said: “As there are many islands and some shoals adjacent to California, the extreme caution of the Spanish navigators makes them very apprehensive of being engaged with the land.” 2 A further deterrent was the dense pall of fog that so often hung over the land, concealing reefs and headlands, and which has accounted for so many lost ships in our own time. The wrecking of the San Agustín near Point Reyes, and the narrow escape of the Espíritu Santo and the Jesus María from destruction near Cape Mendocino were effective reminders of the perils of the upper coast. 3
The most serious lacuna in the exploration of the coast between Mendocino and San Lucas,—the failure to discover San Francisco Bay,—was doubtless due in part to the fog curtain which so often obscures the mouth of the bay. However, a more potent reason must have been the fact that the entrance is flanked to the north by Point Reyes, and guarded in front by the Farallones. Fear of complication with these and with the reefs that might lie behind the Farallones drove the Spanish pilots farther to seaward and outside the latter islets. And, in view of the southeasterly trend of the coast below Point Reyes, the more direct course for the galleons was actually the one pursued to the right of the Farallones.
Furthermore, the instructions carried by the galleons discouraged any departure from the routine track; and a too inquisitive pilot or captain, who would deviate from the beaten path to explore the land to his left, was prevented by the fear that his curiosity would be invoked against him in the residencia which was taken at the conclusion of the voyage. 4 After all, these were preeminently merchant ships, and the business of exploration lay outside their field, though chance discoveries were welcomed. 5
There were two courses open to the galleon on the discovery of the señas. 6 The one was to continue ahead until land was sighted before changing direction; the alternative was to veer to the southeast at once, and make land in the region of Lower California. 7 The former was the usual procedure in the early history of the line, as the other route was generally followed in the later part, though there was no uniformity as to the exact course during either period. In the first case the landfall was made high up on the California coast, depending, naturally, on the latitude at which the crossing had been made. A convenient and customary point for demarcation was the great headland of Cape Mendocino, as Espíritu Santo on Samar and San Lucas on Lower California were similar landmarks at other points on the route.
However, the landfall might be made at any part of the coast to the south. Humboldt says that the first land sighted was the Santa Lucia Mountains, back of the Channel of Santa Barbara. 8 Morga, after describing the upper California coast as a “very high and clear land,” says of the course southward from Mendocino: “Without losing sight of land, the ship coasts along it with the NW, NNW, and N winds, which gradually prevail on the coast, blowing by day toward the land, and by night toward the sea again.” 9
For the ships that chose this route Cabrera Bueno gives the points of demarcation, which are practically in the reverse order of Vizcaino's derrotero of 1602. 10 Turning SE by E from off Cape Mendocino, the next prominent landmark was Point Reyes, outside the sheltered harbor of Drake's Bay. 11 The galleons were directed not to follow the bend of the coast at this point, but to stand out a little to sea, in order to keep clear of the Farallones, which lie somewhat to the east of south. 12 Some thirty leagues south from Point Reyes the galleons sailed well out from the broad sweep of Monterey Bay, sighting the familiar Point Pinos. Thence the course lay down the barren coast by Point Concepcion, and through the Santa Barbara Channel, to the Lower California coast. 13
When the galleon turned to the southeast on the discovery of the señas, she made her landfall at some point along the lower coast. She sighted first either the island of Guadalupe, of Cenizas, or of Cedros. 14 From the point of the peninsula she struck across to the neighborhood of Cape Corrientes, and coasted along thence to Acapulco.
The first motive for the settlement of California was the need for a way-station for these Manila Galleons. 15 Cortez himself had visited the coast of the peninsula, and in 1542 the expedition of Cabrillo and Ferrelo ascended to the region of Cape Mendocino. The opening of the Philippine trade in 1566 not only increased the familiarity of the Spaniards with the coast to the southward of that promontory, but that very coast offered excellent places of refuge for the sea-worn galleons at this stage of their long voyage. Beaten by the winter storms of the north Pacific, and stricken with scurvy and famine, these vessels were in a distressful condition when they reached the shores of America. And a port between thirty and forty-two degrees—the higher the better—would have furnished a place for refitting and reprovisioning. Such ports actually existed in San Francisco and Monterey Bays.
One of the first to propose the exploration and occupation of California for this purpose was the Archbishop-Viceroy Moya de Contreras. It was he who commissioned Francisco Gali to explore the California coast with this end in view. Gali, who had already made the eastern passage from Macao, 16 crossed to Manila in the San Juan, and provided from the viceregal treasury with 10,000 pesos for the purchase of a new ship at Manila in case the San Juan should be considered unseaworthy for the further prosecution of the undertaking. On the return voyage to New Spain Gali was to chart the coast of Japan, the Island of the Armenian, and California. However, Gali died in Manila, and Pedro de Unamuno was selected to carry out the commission of Gali. Contrary to instructions Unamuno put into Macao, where he intended to make some investments for disposal at Acapulco. 17 In his voyage across the Pacific he could find neither the Island of the Armenian, nor the other fabulous isles, Rica de Oro and Rica de Plata, whose existence was then believed in. On October 16, 1587, two small islands were discovered lying close to the mainland of America, and two days later he found a large bay which he named San Lucas, but which was very probably that of Monterey. Passing Lower California shortly after Cavendish had taken the Santa Ana in that vicinity, Unamuno reached Acapulco on November 22. No attempt was made to follow up the results of the voyage, which he had so unsatisfactorily recorded. 18
In January, 1593, Philip II ordered the work to be taken up again, “for the security of the ships that come and go.” 19 In the capitana of the next year Viceroy Velasco sent out Sebastian Rodríguez de Cermenho, or Cermeñon, a Portuguese,— “because there are no Castillians suited for the work.” 20 Dasmariñas, the governor of the Philippines, was ordered to do all possible to aid the expedition. On July 5, 1595, Cermenho cleared from Cavite in the San Agustín, a vessel of 130 tons, and with about seventy men on board. 21 Latitude 42 degrees was reached on October 22, and on November 11 land was sighted a short distance above Cape Mendocino. Cermenho described the coast thereabouts as very rough, and very dangerous on account of the strong wind that blew landward and the many islets and reefs near the shore. Thence the San Agustín coasted southward, and finally put into Drake's Bay, which on December 6 Cermenho named “Bay of San Francisco.” Entradas were made inland a few leagues in search for provisions, and though reported to be a pleasant country and fit for the cultivation of any crop, little food was found save acorns. On returning from one of these excursions Cermenho found to his dismay that the San Agustín had been thrown on the rocks. After this disaster the work of exploration had to be abandoned for the elemental need of self-preservation. 22 From what could be salvaged of the ship a launch was constructed, and in this craft the survivors made their way after many hardships to the inhabited coasts of New Spain. They left the region of Point Reyes on December 8, and keeping about a league off shore they covered some ten leagues the first day. The next day they passed Half Moon Bay, but so far they had discovered “nothing of moment,” though they must have steered close to the mouth of the greater San Francisco Bay. 23 On the tenth they saw an ensenada muy grande, which they named San Pedro, but which was clearly Monterey Bay. Their voyage thence southward was attended with increasing privations, and they were driven to desperate expedients for food. They subsisted at first on “bitter acorns,” and ate a dog which they had on board,—“even to his hide.” They bartered for food with the Indians pieces of silk which they had saved from the San Agustín, and at one of the channel islands they took thirty fish, which they devoured “forthwith.” Later they fed for eight days on a huge fish, which they found on the shore, where it “had been killed.” At last they reached the Spanish settlements, Cermenho and most of the survivors going ashore at Navidad, while a few others,—Juan de Morgana, a pilot, and several seamen, entered Acapulco harbor on the last of January, 1596. 24 The geographical results of the expedition were inconsequential, for the loss of the San Agustín occurred at the very moment when her task had begun, and she had reached the neighborhood of San Francisco Bay. 25
The prosecution of the California project depended largely on the attitude of the reigning viceroy. Whereas Contreras and the Velascos enthusiastically promoted it, 26 Villamanrique was lukewarm or positively hostile, as Montesclaros was later. Gaspar de Zuñiga y Azevedo, Conde de Monterey, who succeeded the elder Velasco in the viceregal office in 1595, was even more energetic than his predecessor in the promotion of northern ploration and settlement. He declared to the King that, in spite of the loss of the San Agustín, the work of exploring the upper coast should be resumed at once. 27 He recommended, however, that future operations should be conducted from Acapulco by the direct route taken by Cabrillo and Drake, rather than by the roundabout voyage via the Philippines. It was due to his initiative that the expeditions of Sebastian Vizcaino were undertaken in 1596 and 1602. The first of these voyages did not reach the region of upper California, and was of no consequence for the galleon navigation. The expedition of 1602 was, however, better organized and carried out on a larger scale. In a long voyage that was accompanied with many hardships the coast was explored to above Mendocino. 28 Besides the port of San Diego, which Cabrillo had entered, Vizcaino also visited and carefully reconnoitered the fine bay which, after the far-seeing viceroy, he named Monterey. 29 He declared this harbor “all that could be desired as a way-station for the galleons.” Not only was there a safe anchorage, but there was an ample supply of good timber thereabouts for the repairing of the ships. Vizcaino praised, too, the excellence of the climate and the evident fertility of the soil in the neighborhood, while he received reports from the Indians of rich deposits of gold in the mountains in the interior. It appeared altogether a most promising situation for such a settlement as the viceroy contemplated, 30 with possibilities, moreover, independent of its advantages as a galleon station. A little higher up the coast Vizcaino passed well out from the entrance of San Francisco Bay, and of course he failed to find that will-of-wisp of the North,—the strait of Anian. But an excellent series of charts of such of the coast as had been made known were drawn, 31 and the acquaintance gained with the region formed a sufficient basis for the preliminary occupation of a port, whether San Diego or Monterey.
The viceroy determined to push the project to execution as early as possible, and accordingly planned to send out Vizcaino again as a commander of the galleons for 1604, with the further intention that the latter should examine the vicinity of the proposed settlement even more minutely on his return from the Philippines. He takes this occasion to laud the work of Vizcaino, whom he calls a skilled and trustworthy navigator. “He will give,” said Monterey, “very good account of anything he undertakes at sea.” 32 However, even then Vizcaino's removal had already been decreed, and Monterey, although acquiescing in the royal resolution, inspired by some sinister influence or other, strongly advised the reinstatement of the veteran discoverer. Monterey himself had already been promoted to the other viceroyalty, and was at Acapulco, awaiting a ship to carry him south to Peru.
The prospects for the continuation of the California plans were not bright. Not only were those two men who were responsible for their ultimate execution, and who moreover enthusiastically desired their consummation, now officially powerless to further them, but the new viceroy, Mendoza y Luna, Marqués de Montesclaros, was avowedly hostile to the whole project, and no friend to the galleon trade. He formally deprived Vizcaino of his commission for the further exploration of the California coast, and substituted for him one Diego de Mendoza. 33 He considered Vizcaino sufficiently recompensed by his appointment as alcalde mayor of Tehuantepec. The grandee was personally aggrieved at the Basque sailor, whom he charged with writing a letter to some high personage to the effect that the easiest way for Montesclaros to fulfill his duty to him (Vizcaino) and to make himself rich was to appoint him commander of the Philippine ships for the following year.
However, in 1606 the king—Philip III,—on the recommendation of the Council of the Indies and of the chief Cosmographer, ordered measures to be taken to establish a post on the California coast that could serve as a way-station for the Manila Galleons. 34 The viceroy was commanded to entrust the expedition to the indispensable Vizcaino, who was to proceed by way of the Philippines, where he should receive whatever aid he might need from the governor before returning eastward to the California coast. 35 Montesclaros was meanwhile to raise the necessary soldiers and colonists for the peopling of the new post, of which Vizcaino would lay the preliminary foundations. The royal decree reached Mexico April 11, 1607,—long delayed by shipwreck. It was impossible to put it into execution that year, as the Acapulco galleons had cleared a month before, and Vizcaino had gone to Spain in the previous flota. 36
It was on this occasion that Montesclaros made the counter-proposal which postponed the occupation of California for more than a century and a half. 37 While acknowledging the importance of a way-station for the galleons, 38 he declared against the establishment of such a post on the California coast, although he conceded that Monterey might be used in lieu of anything better. The sailors, he contended, considered their voyage virtually ended when they sighted the coasts of California, and usually passed Monterey Bay with all sail set for Acapulco. The real danger lay near the beginning of the route,—in the seas off Japan and thereabouts. And here, the viceroy believed, were two islands providentially situated for the purpose in question,—Rica de Oro and Rica de Plata. The existence of these islands was generally believed in at this time, except by the experienced pilots of the galleon line. Imagination endowed them with the usual fabulous riches of lands that never existed, and they were destined to take their place in the geography of Spanish fantasy, along with El Dorado and Quivira. “Everything,” says the Jesuit Murillo Velarde, “was thrown into confusion by the fantastic and pernicious idea of the islands of Rica de Oro and Rica de Plata,—a sort of Barataria of Sancho Panza.” 39 Montesclaros followed his recommendation of May 24 with a stronger representation in August, in which he invokes new and doubtful arguments against the occupation of California. 40 A post there, he charges, would only entice foreigners to that region, and so endanger the Spanish possession of that area, as well as imperil the galleon navigation. Monterey was too far from the ports of New Spain to be easily defended or reinforced, and such a port, if populated, would be the common property of friend and foe alike. Such a state of affairs would cause “perpetual disquietude” on the coasts of Peru and New Spain. Finally Montesclaros would substitute for the reality of California two islands whose very existence was problematical.
The junta de guerra y Indias, which was called to consider the viceroy's proposal, endorsed the recommended change, and decreed that, “before he does anything else,” the new viceroy, the younger Velasco, should take measures for the discovery of Rica de Oro and Rica de Plata. 41 The 20,000 pesos which were to pay the initial costs of the establishment at Monterey were diverted to financing the wild-goose-chase in the western Pacific. Only in case the isles of fancy should actually be demonstrated to be inferior to the California coast as a site for a way-station should Monterey be occupied. In September of the following year (1608) the junta's endorsement was incorporated into law in an order to the viceroy, to the effect that Vizcaino should be despatched around by the Philippines to search for Rica de Oro and Rica de Plata. 42 The vacillating government, at the mercy of the most insistent petitioner of the moment, formally reversed its earlier decision, and California was left to lie fallow through the long decadence of Spain until the revival in the eighteenth century. It was 1611 before Vizcaino went to the westward in quest of the two islands, and though they were of course never found, the alternative project of Monterey was not resumed.
In the interval between the suspension of the California design and its resumption 160 years later the interest shifted to Lower California, in which may be included the harbour of San Diego. 43 This region had been better known from early times than was the northwest coast. Attention was again drawn to it by Fray Antonio de la Ascension, who had accompanied Vizcaino on his northern expedition. In June, 1609, he recommended to the king the establishment of a settlement on the Bay of San Bernabé by Cape San Lucas, where the galleons could put in,—“leaving Monterey, which is to be populated.” The proposal was reviewed by the Council of the Indies, and then submitted to the examination of Viceroy Velasco. 44 However, this project bore no immediate fruit, though it probably furnished the initial impulse for the numerous expeditions which were despatched to the region of Lower California during the seventeeth century. Other motives were at work in these movements, too, than the need for a way-station for the galleons. There were lucrative pearl fishing grounds in those waters. The gathering of the picilingues, or foreign privateers and pirates, in that vicinity from Cavendish and Spilbergen to the later irruptions of the buccaneers exposed a very vulnerable outwork of New Spain to occupation and the Philippine commerce to attacks. In 1712 Woodes Rogers said of the Spanish policy towards Lower California: “They are jealous to keep what they have; and though they make no Use of their Land, might be afraid of Rivals.” 45 Also there was a geographical interest in the question as to whether California was island or peninsula, and in the associated problems of Anian and Quivira. And finally the northward missionary advance in New Spain was about to reach the field of Lower California,—especially the Jesuit phase of this movement. These objects, singly or conjointly, formed the impulse for the expeditions of those from Cardona to Otondo who undertook voyages to the region of the Gulf of California. But little came of all this for the galleons. It was long after 1700 before they could find a refuge on the southern coast.
With the Bourbons there came a new interest in California. In 1703, and again in 1708, Philip V ordered the establishment of a post on the coast, preferably near the Cape, but the colonial officials did not execute the royal decree. 46 Then, in 1719 the king proposed the founding of a settlement on San Diego Bay, on the advice of Julio de Olibán, an oidor of Guadalajara. 47 The port is described as “capacious, pleasant, and well-situated,” and, says the king, it should be settled “before the enemies of my crown occupy it.” For the immediate impetus of the proposal came from the fear of the intentions of the English, who had been so prevalent on that coast for the past several years. The settlement of either San Diego or Monterey would, declared the king, preserve the coast from the temporary depredations or more serious dangers from foreigners. It was suggested to Viceroy Valero that the new presidio could be garrisoned with gente ociosa from Mexico,—a possible inexhaustible source of colonists. But this project, too, became a dead letter when it reached New Spain,—and San Diego was not settled till 1769, after another half-century of delay.
Except for the urgings of the indefatigable Jesuit, Padre Kino, who was pushing the frontier of New Spain landwards up the east coast of the Gulf and towards Upper California, 48 the impulse for the occupation of Lower California during the next few years came from the Philippines, where the lack of such an establishment was keenest felt. 49 The galleons of 1732 carried orders to unite in the Bay of San Diego, and though they approached its entrance they were prevented by rough weather from going in. The next year Governor Valdés ordered the galleons to put in at Magdalena Bay, in case their commanders considered it advisable, and in 1734 he directed Joseph Bermúdez and Geronimo Montero, generals of the outgoing galleons, to reconnoiter the coast of Lower California for a site for a way-station. Montero put in at the Bay of San Bernabé, where the Jesuits had founded the Mission of San Joseph del Cabo four year before. He had but one day's water supply left and scarcely any provisions, while several were sick with the beri-beri, “whose only remedy is to go ashore.” 50 There were taken into the galleon 100 head of sheep and hogs, 40 head of cattle, numerous game-birds, fruits, and vegetables, “and other gifts.” Those on board were so revived that at Navidad, down the coast on the other side of the Gulf, people remarked: “It is not possible that these men are China sailors, because we are accustomed to see in those of so difficult a navigation the aspect of dead men, or of mortified penitents.” 51 The following year the Encarnacion stopped at the Cape Mission in nearly as great distress as the galleon of 1734. However, the Jesuit station had meanwhile been blotted out in an Indian rising, in which the missionaries in charge were murdered. The party sent ashore from the galleon, ignorant of the fate of the Jesuits, were set upon by the revolted Indians and thirteen of the Spaniards killed. 52
The mission was soon re-established and the galleons called there with considerable regularity until the suppression of the Society in 1767. How far the liberality of the padres was dictated by charitable motives has been a matter of controversy which cannot be discussed here. The chaplain of Anson's Centurion, Richard Walter, raised the issue, and Murillo Velarde answered the aspersion that those of his order were moved by the profits of their trading with the galleon rather than by “Christian charity.” 53 Bancroft insists that it was only due to the Jesuit influence that the galleon put in at the Cape, which he declares was not to the ship's advantage, but only that the Jesuits might drive “quite a lively trade.” 54
In 1774 Josef de Gálvez charged that the Jesuits never did anything more than collect the government subsidy, while doing nothing for the royal interest in return. 55 “That famous cape,” with its excellent, well-sheltered bay of San Bernabé, he declares, they had left in total abandon.
The successful and definitive effort for the occupation of Upper California which was made in 1769 was the result of a composite of forces, the first of which was the two-century-old need for a galleon station, and the newest of which was the fear of Russian aggressions on the northern coasts. Not only had the Russians crossed to the American mainland from Siberia, but an ominous advance southward from Alaska did not portend well for Spain's possessions in that direction. 56 And between 1764-69 the expeditions of Byron, Wallis-Carteret, and Bougainville appeared in the Pacific, while in the latter year Cook rounded Cape Horn and crossed the South Sea to New Zealand and Australia. 57 The Spaniards saw in these more than astronomical or geographical curiosity, and dreaded above all the colonial ambitions of England, whose hold on the Philippines in 1762 had for a moment brought her to the edge of the Pacific. 58 In the face of all this it became increasingly clear to the Spaniards that actual possession alone would insure to her what she would keep. No papal bulls or sweeping claims would longer avail. Further, the final occupation of California would be rendered easier by the progress of the mission field toward the northwest through the work of such men as Kino. There was no longer the wide gap between the inhabited parts of New Spain and the Upper California coast, and thus entire reliance did not have to be placed upon the sea route as an avenue to the north. The policy of Spain was also now under different guidance than it had had under the fainéant Hapsburgs. It was directed by the modern and enlightened Charles III, and by a body of ministers and colonial officials as advanced as the monarch. Among these was the energetic and masterly Josef de Gálvez, who, as visitador-general of New Spain, not only saw the pressing necessity of consummating the long-delayed occupation of Upper California, but his was the driving will that drove it to execution. 59 A combined missionary and military entrada into California in 1769 laid the foundations of presidios and missions. And not only were Spaniards in actual possession of Monterey at last, but the far superior harbor of San Francisco was discovered. By 1776 San Diego, Monterey and San Francisco, with a connecting line of missions, had been founded. Either of the ports in question would make a suitable port-of-call for the Manila galleons.
On June 22, 1773, the Council of the Indies decreed that the galleons should put in at Monterey, both for their own good and for the welfare of the colony, and on December 14 a royal order was issued to the same effect. 60 But though a fine of 4000 pesos was imposed on the commander of the galleon for failure to stop, the most of them preferred to continue on their way and risk the possibility of paying the fine rather than endure the delay.
The governors of the Philippines, save in the case of Basco y Vargas, 61 were furthermore lenient in holding the galleon officers to account, while Berenguer de Marquina actually took it upon himself to suspend the royal order of October, 1777. 62 However, in 1795 the king himself suspended his previous order. At that time the Marqués de Bexamar declared that it was not to the advantage of colony or vessel that the nao should call at a California port. 63 Against Monterey he alleged that the harbor was too shallow for the galleon to tie up there. The ordinary route of the galleons was at this period far out from the Upper California coast, and they must accordingly leave their course to reach San Francisco and Monterey. Sometimes too they passed by the entrances of these bays under full sail for Acapulco a month to the southward. The ban placed by Viceroy Bucarely in 1773 on trading between the galleon and the colonists—whether laymen or priests—moreover removed one of the main incentives for stopping. 64 Felipe de Neve, governor of the new province, even prohibited the missionaries from going aboard the galleons, while Gonzáles, commandant at Monterey, was arrested for trading with the galleon. 65 In view of the potentialities of the region, such an illiberal prohibition greatly restricted the economic growth of the colony, not only by depriving it of an outlet for its productions, but of its best source of supplies,—the Philippines. 66
As it was, but few galleons put in at the California ports. The first was the San José, which called at Monterey in 1779. 67 In 1784 Basco y Vargas gave the San Felipe (Bruno de Heceta, General, and Antonio Maurelle, Pilot) specific orders to stop at San Francisco or Monterey. 68 The San Felipe reached Monterey October 10, and remained there till November 7 before proceeding for Acapulco, which she reached on December 11. 69 The San José stopped again the next year, storm-wracked and pest-ridden; but in 1786 the San Andrés passed by, although she lost thirty-six with the scurvy, and left forty-five more at San Blas to convalesce. 70 In 1795 two galleons put in at Monterey, while two years later one put in at Monterey and another at Santa Barbara.
Texas Republican, 1819.—The earliest newspaper published in Texas of which there is any record was the Texas Republican, established at Nacogdoches by General James Long, the last of the so-called “filibusters.” All that is known of it has been told by Mr. E. W. Winkler. 71 The first number was issued August 14, 1819, and appears to have been edited by Horatio Bigelow, 72 a member of Long's “Supreme Council,” though there is some warrant for according the distinction to Eli Harris, “a native of North Carolina.” 73 No copy of the paper is extant, and these facts are gleaned from contemporary papers of St. Louis and New Orleans. There is no clue to the number of issues that appeared, but publication can hardly have continued longer than two months. The extracts reprinted by contemporaries are principally military reports, but one records that an election of trustees for a “seminary of learning” had been called at Nacogdoches, and another that a grist and saw mill was building—promises of progress which were speedily blasted by the success of the royal forces and the flight of the inhabitants of East Texas across the Sabine.
Texas Courier, 1823.—Some four years later a venturesome American who signed himself Ashbridge established a press at San Antonio, and on April 9, 1823, announced his intention of publishing the Texas Courier “every Wednesday morning in Spanish and English.” His prospectus, addressed in flamboyant style “To the Advocates of Light and Reason,” deplored `the vicious policy of Spain, which for three hundred years had concealed from the world the rich and beneficent province of Texas, neglected education, stifled the arts, and discouraged industry.' But, “evils of such magnitude could not be everlasting.” “The epoch of reason and light [had broken] forever the degrading chains which oppressed the new hemisphere”; and Bexar, which formerly “was not thought deserving of a primary school, is now in possession of a printing press.” The Courier wanted to “instruct the public in everything that may have a connection with its prosperity,” and to that end would collect information from as many foreign papers as could be obtained. The subscription price in Bexar was six dollars and a half a year, payable half in advance; in other provinces and cities of the Empire, 74 ten dollars. 75 The total civilized population of Texas at that time, adults and children, probably did not exceed 3,000, 76 and few of them were readers. How the editor expected to sustain himself does not appear. He enjoyed a measure of executive patronage, for during June and July, 1823, he rendered bills for printing three circulars, for the governor, twenty copies each, $45. 77 Whether he printed a single issue of the Courier, we do not know. Stephen F. Austin, who had been absent in Mexico for more than a year, wrote his brother from Monterey on May 20, 1823, “I am told you have a newspaper in Bexar, which I am rejoiced to hear. It will be of incaculable advantage to Bexar and the whole province.” But on June 13 he wrote again that the government had bought the press and would remove it at once to Monterey, which it did. 78
Unknown Paper in Austin's Colony, 1824.—That a paper was being published in Austin's colony as early as July, 1824, seems apparent from a letter written by Austin to J. H. Bell. 79 Austin says in this that the mistaken notions which had prevailed in Mexico concerning Texas had disappeared, “as you will see by reading next Saturday's paper”; but of the paper itself there is as yet no further clue. What was its title, who its editor, its place and duration of publication are unknown. Its span of life was no doubt very brief, or its fame circumscribed, for on June 25, 1825, one year later, R. C. Langdon of Natchez, Mississippi, wrote to Francis Keller, then on his way to Texas, asking him to get information concerning the practicability of establishing a paper at San Felipe. 80 The cost of transporting the press, type, and materials, with paper for a year, would amount to $1,000, and the paper would be of immense value to Austin's Colony, he said, in correcting false reports concerning it prevalent in the United States. That Keller reached Texas and made the inquiries that Langdon desired are indicated by the presence of Langdon's letter in the Austin Papers, but of the contents of his report to his friend we have no record.
The Mexican Advocate, 1829.—In the fall of 1829 two papers started almost simultaneously, at Nacogdoches and San Felipe—The Mexican Advocate and The Texas Gazette. The first was established at Nacogdoches by Milton Slocum, and was published in English and Spanish. This information comes to us through a notice in The Arkansas Gazette (Little Rock) of September 23, 1829. The issue of this paper for October 20 quotes from The Mexican Advocate a letter dated at Nacogdoches on September 4. From this, and other evidence not necessary to review here, Mr. Winkler is led to fix the date of the first number of the Advocate as “on or about September 4, 1829.” 81 Concerning the editor, Mr. Winkler finds, from the census lists in the Nacogdoches Archives (Texas State Library), that Milton Slocum, “a native of Massachusetts, but late of Louisiana, and a printer by profession,” arrived at Nacogdoches on June 27, 1829. He was then twenty-six years old. The annual reports continue to list him as a printer until June, 1832, when he has become a farmer, working for José Doste (Joseph Durst). Three letters in the Bexar Archives of the University of Texas give a little additional information. José Ignacio Ibarvo, Alcalde of Nacogdoches, wrote to Ramon Músquiz, the political chief, on June 2 that three young Americans arrived that day, bringing a printing press. August 4 he wrote that Slocum had been received as a citizen and had taken the oath required of printers not to disturb the peace with seditious papers. With this letter he forwarded to the political chief a “printed copy” (impreso), perhaps a prospectus of the Advocate. On August 17 Musquiz forwarded this information, with the paper, to the governor, saying that he had no copy of the law concerning printing and knew not what to say to Ibarvo. On November 25, 1829, Musquiz sent a communication to Ibarvo with instructions “to print it at once in the periodical, Mexican Advocate, which is established in that town.” 82 And on December 4, 1829, David G. Burnet wrote Austin from Cincinnati, Ohio, that he had recently seen a Nacogdoches paper containing a notice of Brown Austin's death. 83 This was probably one of the earliest issues, for Brown Austin died in New Orleans on August 17. 84 There is no record of Slocum after 1833. 85 So far as is known, no copy of his paper exists. Does the fact that Slocum appears in the census as a printer until 1832 indicate that the paper continued publication until that time? Very probably not.
Texas Gazette, 1829-1832.—The first number of The Texas Gazette is dated at San Felipe de Austin, Friday, September 25, 1829. 86 Plans had been under way for some time, and issue at “a much earlier date” had been prevented by illness of the editor and his assistant. 87 On September 9 Thomas F. McKinney, referring to a prospectus, had written Austin of his gratification at the “establishment of printing presses amongst us.” Through them he hoped that “many existing evils may be eradicated and virtue planted and the good intentions of this Govt become universally realized by her citizens which under the present circumstances of imbecility and corruption must necessarily be imposed upon.” 88 The paper was “printed and published” weekly by Godwin Brown Cotten. The editor's name and the fame of Texas' most valuable agricultural product no doubt gave rise, in time, to the tradition, accepted in sober earnest by Bancroft, that the paper was called The Cotton Plant. 89 The prospectus, which appears in the first issue, gives no indication of an earlier intention to publish under a different title, and the last issue of which I have any trace, February 18, 1832, retained the title of Texas Gazette. Lacking only five numbers—11, 21, 39, 40, and 51,—Mrs. Mila T. Morris of Houston has volume one complete. 90 The University of Texas has fourteen numbers, all duplicated in Mrs. Morris's run, and Mr. H. R. Wagner has in his valuable collection of Texana at Berkeley, California, volume two, numbers 3 and 6, January 10 and February 18, 1832. The last number of volume one (No. 52) is dated January 15, 1831; the first of volume two, if it appeared two weeks before number three, which is by no means certain, would have been dated December 26, 1831. At any rate, it must have issued some time in December. There was, therefore, an interval of about eleven months between the two volumes. This was apparenty bridged, in part, at least, by the Mexican Citizen, which will be noted later.
The ideals and policies, hardships and difficulties of this pioneer example of Texas journalism are revealed by the editorial announcements and comments scattered through the volume. The prospectus announced that the Gazette would be “dedicated to political and miscellaneous intelligence,” chronicling “events as they transpire, within our own country, or may come to us from foreign parts”; it would be “the advocate of the national and state constitutions, and of harmony and Union”; it would indulge in no personalities or abuse—a policy carried out with remarkable fidelity; it would try to obtain and publish good translations of laws and other important government documents, “which the want of a press has heretofore rendered it difficult to procure”; and from time to time would publish information useful to immigrants. News from the interior of Mexico—particularly important then because of the renewed Spanish invasion—the editor would try to obtain by regular correspondence with New Orleans. Subscriptions, “payable at any time after the first number has been issued,” would be acceptable “in cash or Produce.” Advertisements of not more than ten lines would be published for one dollar for the first and fifty cents for each subsequent insertion.
In the issue of August 21, 1830, Cotten announced that he had been troubled with applications to print statements concerning the character of private citizens, but “our press shall never be made the vehicle of accusations against the private character of any individual whatever.” Public men, for public acts, he says, are responsible and may be investigated in the press, but not so with private cases. In the issue of September 6 he prints the bare news item that Seth Ingram, H. H. League, and J. G. Holtham had a “rencontre” on September 2, that Holtham was killed by “a pistol ball passing through his body,” and that Ingram and League were in confinement and the case under investigation by the proper authority—“we forbear making any comments; but so soon as the trial is over we intend publishing the evidence etc. in pamphlet form.” The preceding issue had carried the news of the escape of Hiram Friley, recently tried at Gonzales for the murder of Fielding Porter; the Gazette had said nothing about the trial of Friley “through what we conceive to be editorial propriety.” But this has a modern tone: “It is to be hoped, that the civil authority will immediately adopt such energetic measures, as will, in future, prohibit the practice of carrying arms, which has, we regret to say, been too common in this community, against the peace, quietness, prosperity, and even the reputation of this flourishing colony. Such a practice is unnecessary, except for the bloody and savage purpose of gratifying the private revenge of the most malignant heart.” 91
Though nominally a weekly, the paper appeared very irregularly. The issue of November 7 announced that the next number would be delayed until the first Saturday in December. This was due to the request of many subscribers for a translation of the colonization laws in pamphlet form, and, to print that, it would be necessary to suspend the paper. This would entail no financial loss upon subscribers, it was explained, because they would receive the full fifty-two numbers for their year's subscriptions. The assurance was opportune, for the next issue did not appear until January 30, 1830. Number 34 (August 9) was delayed by repairs on the press. Number 46 (October 30) by pied type, and several other issues by causes unexplained. Number 50 (November 27) announced a temporary suspension for want of paper. Stock ordered in both New Orleans and New York, though expected all last month, had failed to arrive. The editor had made every effort to obtain paper, and had succeeded in finding in the colony enough for the last four numbers, but the end had been reached; “We are now entirely out.” Number 51 is missing, so that we do not know exactly when the famine was relieved, but Number 52, the last of the volume, is dated January 15, 1831.
The editor's financial worries have a familiar sound. On March 27 the `$6 in cash or produce, payable any time, after the first issue,' was changed to $6 in advance, $7 if paid in six months, $8 if not paid until the end of the year. “Good, merchantable produce” would still be accepted, but “if not punctually paid, cash will be demanded.” The issue of June 5 (Number 25) celebrated the end of the editor's first half-year. He thanked those who had assisted him by paying their subscriptions promptly, but bemoaned the fact that they were so few; “we hope they will now see the necessity of calling and paying, as printers, like all other animals both eat and drink, and have their wants, which must be satisfied some way or other.” In his last issue he makes a final plea for payment, and announces that accounts will shortly be turned over to his attorney's for collection.
Various agencies were established for the circulation of the Gazette—McKinstry and Austin at Brazoria, Dr. Wm. D. Dunlap at Harrisburg, George Orr at Trinity, Colonel Green De Witt at Gonzales, Adolphus Sterne at Nacogdoches, James W. Breed-love at New Orleans, James D. McCoy at Alexandria, Louisiana, T. Devalcourt at Atakapas, and Grissum and Griffith at Natchez. 92 In the issue of May 15 Cotten offers a reward of $10 for information leading to the conviction of persons who make a practice of taking the papers of subscribers.
The Gazette was a four-page paper with a type-page nine and a half by twelve inches, three columns to the page. The issues from January 30 to May 1 carried, under the title, the motto “Dios y Libertad.” During this period it was edited by R. M. Williamson. Cotten then resumed the editorial office and changed the motto to, “Where Light Is, There is Liberty . . . Where Liberty Is, There Is My Country.” In appearance and content the Gazette compares favorably with many of its contemporaries in the United States. In a typical issue, the first page is devoted to an article or essay, usually quoted from an exchange, but sometimes a special; the second to editorial comment, news, and official correspondence with Mexico or concerning Mexican affairs; the third to municipal ordinances of the ayuntamiento of San Felipe and to advertisements; the fourth to verse, usually clipped from exchanges but occasionally original, and advertisements. Some of the ponderous first-page articles in the earlier issues are: “Education,” original by Philom, “Summary of President Jackson's Message,” “The Man in the Bell” by Mr. Brougham, “Texas” from the Hartford Times, “Journey to the Volcano of Popocatapetl” translated from El Sol, “Political State of France” from London Morning Chronicle of November 30, 1829 (this in the issue of March 27, 1830), etc., etc. Many of the editorials and some articles were written by Austin. They are unsigned but one familiar with his style and method of thought has little difficulty in determining their authorship with reasonable certainty. Of news, in the modern sense, there is very little, but the advertisements are excellent sources for phases of economic history, and the official documents which occupy a considerable part of nearly every issue are invaluable to the historian. For example, several of the laws translated in the Gazette—they seem to have been translated by Austin—are omitted from the official collection of the Laws of Coahuila and Texas, and are available nowhere else; while there is a mass of material on the actual operation of the local government and its relation to the state administration.
Of Cotten little is known beyond what the pages of his paper reveal. He arrived in Austin's Colony August 10, 1829, from Louisiana, being then thirty-eight years old. 93 He sold his paper in January, 1831, and a traveler entering the Brazos River in March of that year records that he was then “proprietor of a log house at the mouth of the Brazos for the entertainment of passengers.” 94 In December, as we have seen, he resumed the publication of the Gazette. In July, 1832, the Gazette press was transferred to D. W. Anthony, 95 and it is perhaps a reasonable inference that the Gazette continued publication, and by Cotten, to that time. 96 In January, 1833, he was working on Anthony's paper at Brazoria; 97 March 27, 1834, a card in the Advocate of the People's Rights announced his readiness to “practice law in the different courts of Austin's Colony.” He felt himself as capable, he said, “as many others who are now exercising the profession.” Thereafter he is lost to view.
The Mexican Citizen, 1831.—Cotten announced in Number 52 (January 15, 1831) that he had “disposed of the proprietorship of the Texas Gazette . . . to Robert M. Williamson Esqr.” Williamson had previously edited the Gazette, as we have seen, from January to May, 1830, and was therefore not quite a novice. 98 There are four numbers of the Mexican Citizen in Mr. Wagner's collection—Numbers 5, 6, 10, and 15, March 17, 24, April 21, and May 26, 1831. 99 These show that Williamson had an associate, Aitken. The only contemporary reference to the paper which the writer has found is contained in a letter from S. M. Williams to Austin, dated March 22, 1831. 100 Austin, who was at Saltillo attending the legislature, of which he was a member, had complained of not receiving his paper since leaving home. Williams sends him several numbers and says, “you will perceive ... that a change has been made, and I assure you is is an important one, and must prove beneficial to the country. Williamson's partner, Mr. Aiken, is an excellent workman, and quite a gentleman, and they must succeed.”
John Aitken is shown by the records in the General Land Office to have come from Pensacola. He made application, in February, 1831, for land in Austin's Colony, but the application was subsequently canceled, probably indicating that he had left the country. Williamson had been a resident of Texas since 1827. He later played a prominent part in the agitations leading to the Texas revolution, and after independence represented Washington county for many years in the congress of the Republic and the legislature of the state. 101 Of their journalistic careers, no other information is available.
Texas Gazette and Brazoria Commercial Advertiser and The Constitutional Advocate and Brazoria Advertiser, 1832.—In the Austin Papers of the University of Texas there is a half sheet, two pages, of an extra with this title. It contains an announcement from D. W. Anthony that, “The Press of the `Gazette,' having been transferred to the subscriber, will hereafter be conducted under the style of The Constitutional Advocate and Brazoria Advertiser.” He promised that he would immediately issue a prospectus, “with such remarks from the editor as will serve to give the public a correct idea of his political principles and economy, and the course he intends pursuing in the discharge of the interesting duty he has undertaken.” 102 There are a number of puzzling questions concerning this paper which cannot be positively settled by the material at hand. Gray says, 103 “In 1830 the publication of the Texas Gazette and Brazoria Commercial Advertiser was begun in the town of Brazoria by D. W. Anthony.” This is probably a reflection of a loose reading of Bancroft, 104 who says that the Texas Gazette and Brazoria Advertiser was published in Brazoria in 1830, and that in September, 1832, “it was merged in the Constitutional Advocate and Texas Public Advertiser, D. W. Anthony being editor and proprietor.” Gray and Bancroft agree that there was a paper in Brazoria in 1830; they agree on the title, except that Bancroft omits the word “Commercial”; but they do not agree that Anthony edited it. Was there such a paper, and did Anthony edit it in 1830? Bancroft and Gray cite no authority for their statements that it existed, and in a thorough canvass of a large mass of contemporary material, the writer has found no reference to it, but that is far from conclusive. If the paper did exist, it seems strange that it should have taken Texas Gazette for the first half of its title, when Cotten was publishing another Texas Gazette at San Felipe, less than fifty miles away. As to Anthony, it seems possible to say with a fair degree of positiveness that, if the paper existed, he did not edit it. In the first place, his announcement of July 23, 1832, quoted above, does not read like that of a man previously known to Texas readers; in the second place, his first application for land in Texas was dated October 10, 1832, 105 and while he may have been in the Colony long before that, it is very unlikely. Usually one of the first things a man did after arriving in Texas was to make application for land. Let us now examine the questions from another angle. Anthony certainly acquired “the Press of the `Gazette' ” in July, 1832. Was it the press of the Texas Gazette and Brazoria Commercial Advertiser (Bancroft and Gray) or of Cotten's Texas Gazette at San Felipe? Gray says, “In July, 1832, the San Felipe paper was purchased by Anthony, and the two papers were consolidated under the name of The Constitutional Advocate and Brazoria Advertiser”; and Cotten, as we have already seen, was working for Anthony in January, 1833. 106 It seems fairly certain, therefore, that Anthony did take over Cotten's paper. Did he already own a paper at Brazoria, or did he now buy one and “consolidate” it with the Gazette? The natural answer is no to both alternatives. The day of combinations had not then arrived in Texas. If Anthony owned one press, whether recently imported from San Felipe or of long service in Brazoria, it seems highly improbable that he would have bought another. But the Extra in which he announced his acquisition of the paper and the change of name was printed at Brazoria. The solution tentatively offered by the writer is that some time between February 18, the date of the latest number of the Gazette in Mr. Wagner's collection, and July 23, 1832, Cotten himself moved his paper down to Brazoria and retained his old title but added to it “Brazoria Commercial Advertiser.” If this should happen to be the truth, it would follow that, whatever may have been the case in 1830, there was certainly no other paper in Brazoria at the time of his removal there. Of the Texas Gazette and Brazoria Commercial Advertiser, we have only half of this single Extra; of Anthony's Constitutional Advocate and Brazoria Advertiser no copy is known. Austin complained in January, 1833, that the tone of the paper was anti-Mexican; 107 and the Arkansas Advocate (Little Rock) of May 29, 1833, quotes from it notices concerning the Convention of April, 1833, and the beginning of cholera in Texas. Anthony died of cholera during the summer. 108
The Advocate of the People's Rights, 1833.—Following Anthony's death there was much litigation for his press. John A. Wharton said, in February, 1834, that there had been five claimants. This statement appeared in The Advocate of the People's Rights, of February 22, Number 8 of Volume 1. The editorial announcement in this issue declares that it is edited and published by Oliver H. Allen, but his connection with the paper appears to have been a nominal one. Wharton says of himself that he began the publication of the paper when he thought the only press in Texas `muzzled, devoted to the interest of a few and not accessible to all'; it is now “unbiased, unawed, open to you all”; his sacrifices are no longer necessary and he intends to retire. An Extra of March 27 declares that it “closes the career of the `Advocate' until the return of Oliver H. Allen, the Editor, who is now absent in the United States of the North, and expected to return in the next vessel.” Wharton say that he has sacrificed personal interest and convenience to make the paper useful to the people, but that they have withheld the support necessary to its existence. For that reason he viewed its discontinuance “with frigid indifference.” 109 These two copies of the paper are in the Austin Papers; no others are known to exist. Advertisements in the regular issue of February 22 indicate that they have been running since November, 1833—the earliest one since November 23. The paper was published at Brazoria, 110 whether from Anthony's press is not known.
The Emigrant, and the Texas Republican, 1834.—The Extra of The Advocate of the People's Rights, just described, carried the prospectus of The Emigrant, to be issued by Benjamin Franklin Cage and Franklin C. Gray. They intended that the paper should be “chiefly devoted to agriculture, and to giving such information in regard to the country as will be interesting to those disposed to emigrate.” Country subscribers to previous papers had rarely received their papers, they were informed, and to meet this difficulty they would have the papers delivered by express to all the principal points. The price of subscription would be $5, and payment would not be required until the end of six months; if not paid then, the price would be $7 at the end of the year. John A. Wharton, in calling attention to this announcement, said that Cage was a young man of firmness, “in whose hands the press is not likely to become muzzled.” Gray, he said, was a printer, formerly foreman of the New Orleans Commercial Bulletin. It seems probable that The Emigrant never appeared, for on July 5, 1834, 111 was issued the first number of The Texas Republican, at Brazoria, by Gray and Harris. 112 The University of Texas has twenty-nine scattering numbers of this paper, the last one dated March 9, 1836. With Number 17, December 13, 1834, Harris has retired, 113 and thereafter Gray continues the paper alone. Some of the vicissitudes of the press at Brazoria are hinted at in the editorial salutation in the first number of the paper: “Taking into consideration the liberal patronage that has always been extended to the press that issues this paper, by the citizens of Texas; and the uninterested patriotism displayed by them, in the ample support of it heretofore, the many baulks and disappointments to which they have been subjected, owing to the variable, uncertain and unfaithful manner in which it has been conducted, we almost dispair of again raising its reputation. . . . We are aware of the many disadvantages under which we labour in an effort to resuscitate and bring into notice and make useful an establishment so effectually dead as this press must be, at present, in the public estimation.” Being the only paper in Texas from July, 1834, to October 10, 1835, it is of the greatest value for the light which it throws on the inauguration of the Texas revolution. Proceedings and resolutions of a great many local mass meetings and committees of safety published in its columns are not elsewhere obtainable. The quotations just given in note 42 declare that the paper continued publication until August, 1836. However, the Telegraph and Texas Register of January 18, 1837, in a review of its own career, says that before March 24, 1836, “the presses at Brazoria and Nacogdoches had ceased their publications.” Did the Brazoria press later resume? Possibly, but not likely.
Telegraph and Texas Register, 1835.—In The Texas Republican of March 14, 1835, Joseph Baker, Gail Borden, Jr., and John P. Borden announced their intention of beginning at San Felipe a paper “printed every week on a sheet larger than any hitherto published in Texas.” It would be `a tool to no party, but would fearlessly expose crime and critical error wherever met with.' The price was to be five dollars in advance, six dollars at the expiration of six months, and seven dollars at the end of the year. It was to be called the Telegraph and Texas Planter. Delays occurred, and the first number of the paper did not issue until October 10, when its title had been changed to Telegraph and Texas Register. 114 By that time the revolution had begun and forces were gathering at Gonzales for the March on Bexar. Gail Borden saw clearly the importance of the press as an instrument of popular education and information, and a letter to Austin on October 10 shows some of the difficulties which he overcame in maintaining the paper. . . . “Mr. Baker says he ought to be in the camp, brother Tom says he also should be with you but indeed if they leave we never can get along with the paper, which is of more importance than their services can be in the camp. They say it will be said we do not turn out. But we work night and day—Mr. Toy has scarcely slept for two nights. You can represent the matter if you hear anything said. I shall endeavor to prevent their going, for my maxim is, Do the best for my country, praise or no praise.” Again, on November 1, he wrote Austin, sending $75 which he had collected on Austin's accounts: “I would send you some on my own account,” he said, “but for the printing establishment which at this time is a heavy burden upon us. Have not receive 75 dollars yet on our subscription, and our expenses for workmen, making improvements etc has been 250 dollars per month. So long as the war lasts it will be a dead and heavy weight upon us—Thomas writes pressingly for me to come to camp—If I should go, the business could not go on.” 115
The Telegraph began, and continued through March, 1836, as an eight page paper. It is an invaluable repository of public documents during this critical period of the state's history. It published twenty-one issues at San Felipe, the last one March 24, then, with the advance of Santa Anna, crossed the Brazos, and, upon the request of President Burnet, set up at Harrisburg. Number 22, April 14, was on the press when Santa Anna's advance guard entered the town and destroyed machinery and type by throwing them into Buffalo Bayou. 116 In May Borden applied to President Burnet for assistance in equipping another paper. The government was indebted to him for public printing and Burnet gave him an order on the Texas Purchasing Agent in New Orleans, presumably Thomas Toby and Brother. The agent, however, could not pay the draft and Borden mortgaged land for a letter of credit on Cincinnati, with which he bought a press and new materials. He established an office at Columbia, and issued Number 23 on August 2, 1836. 117 The paper was published at Columbia until April 11, 1837, and then moved to Houston, its final home. The first number issued at Houston is dated May 2. Baker had long since dropped out of the management, and in June, 1837, the Borden connection was broken, the paper being taken over by Jacob W. Cruger and Dr. Francis Moore, Jr. Lacking only six numbers of Volume 1, 118 the University of Texas has a practically complete file of the Telegraph to the end of December, 1845.
Texian and Emigrant's Guide, 1835.—Probably toward the middle of November, 1835, D. E. Lawhon established this paper at Nacogdoches. The Smythe Papers in the State Library contain Numbers 4 and 5, December 19 and 26, and the University has Number 6, January 2, 1836. We have already noted the Telegraph's statement that before March 24 the Nacogdoches paper had suspended.
The Texas Reporter.—The copy of The Texas Republican for March 2, 1836, in the University collection contains the prospectus of William W. Gant and Andrew J. Greer “for publishing in the town of Washington a miscellaneous newspaper to be entitled The Texas Reporter.” It had apparently appeared first in the issue of January 14. Publication was then intended to begin early in March, the immediate object being to publish the reports of the convention which was to assemble there on March 1. The publishers believed that the union with Mexico was dissolved, and thought that Texas should establish an independent government. Their motto was to be “Measures first, men next.” The rapid movement of military events during February and March, 1836, no doubt prevented them from carrying their plans into execution.
Paper at Matagorda, 1835?—Gray says 119 that one Simon Mussina published a paper at Matagorda from 1835 to 1838, but he had never seen a copy, and knew nothing about it. Borden's statement in the Telegraph of January 18, 1837, that the presses at Brazoria and Nacogdoches had ceased publication before March 24, 1836, and the further statement that he answered the president's call to Harrisburg because “we were the last and only medium of publication they could obtain,” indicate that there was no such paper. This, however, is not entirely conclusive.
Perhaps an apology is due for the publication of these notes. They were taken incidentally during the course of an exhaustive study, for a larger subject, of the contemporary material on Texas from 1819 to 1836. It seems improbable that another will soon tread that path again; and, since there is so much of error in what has been written about the Texas press of that period, it seemed desirable to publish them. It may well happen, too, that readers of the article may know of additional copies of the papers here listed, and of others, not listed, in which case the writer would greatly appreciate having them brought to his attention. For, whatever may be thought of the notes, the papers themselves are invaluable.
In the words of a Spanish writer, “The history of [Spanish] America, so far as the documents are concerned, is preserved almost completely in Spain. The successive amputations of her American dominions which the mother country suffered have gone on increasing the wealth in documents, for, as her rule has come to an end, she has transported a great part of their archives. . . . The most essential parts of these documents are contained in the Archivo [General] de Indias of Seville.” 120
While some may take exception to the above statement, on the ground that it is too sweeping, it is beyond question that the great Sevillian archive is practically inexhaustible in its wealth of materials on almost every conceivable subject in Spanish colonial administration and is the most valuable single archive on that field in existence. This is so in increasing measure, for laws have been passed and are gradually being executed for the transfer of materials relating to Spain's former colonies from their present repositories in Simancas and Madrid to the archive at Seville. It is true that vast quantities of rich materials have been found in the archives of Spanish American countries, 121 and that they often contain local details of which no account was sent to Spain, but a single great repository, dealing with all of the former colonies, has a decided advantage as against the numerous, scattered archives of the Americas. Many colonial archives have indeed but scant remains of the wealth they once possessed, as a result of the removal of papers to Spain, 122 or due to the yet greater disintegrating forces of foreign war, revolution, and lack of care. 123 Even in the case of those American countries whose archives retain an unusual degree of completeness, 124 the small local materials will usually be present in Spain, as well as in the land of origination, owing to the incessant and systematic accumulation of minute detail, for action by the authorities in Spain. 125
The value of the materials in Seville, as compared with those of other archives, may be illustrated by tracing the documentation of a given case. It may be supposed that Lacy, the Spanish minister to Russia, reports to Grimaldi, the Spanish minister of state, that the Russians are preparing to make conquests in the Californias. Grimaldi, in turn, informs Arriaga, the ministro general de Indias, and the latter asks the viceroy, Bucarely, to strengthen the defences of Alta California. Bucarely orders Governor Rivera of Alta California to report on the state of the presidios in his province. In due time, Rivera writes to the various presidial commanders, and receives their replies, after which he communicates the result to Bucarely. Bucarely writes to Arriaga, who asks Gálvez, as one familiar with Alta California affairs, his opinion about the Rivera report. Gálvez replies, and Arriaga then sends the whole file to the Council of the Indies, with a request for its action. Finally, the Council informs Arriaga of what it has done. In such a case, a great many other documents would in fact be included in the expediente, but the above are sufficient for purposes of illustration. The following would be the usual documentary result in the archives of Salinas (the county-seat of Monterey County, California), Mexico City, and Seville. 126
Salinas Mexico Seville
1. Lacy to Grimaldi .... C. C. of Or.
2. Grimaldi to Arriaga .... C. of Or. Or.
3. Arriaga to Bucarely .... Or. Dft.
4. Bucarely to Rivera Or. Dft. Cer..
5. Rivera to the presidial commanders Dft. Cer. Cer. of Cer.
6. The presidial commanders to Rivera Or. Cer. Cer. of Cer.
7. Rivera to Bucarely Dft. Or. Cer.
8. Bucarely to Arriaga .... Dft. Or.
9. Arriaga to Gálvez .... ...... Dft.
10. Gálvez to Arriaga .... ...... Or.
11. Arriaga to the Council of the Indies .... ...... Dft.
12. The Council of the Indies to Arriaga .... ...... Or.
In some of the above cases the document might be an uncertified copy of an original or certified copy, thus operating more particularly against the technical value of the file at Seville, but such instances are rare. 127 In matters of purely local character or of minor importance, documents like those from 4 to 7 may never have been sent to Spain, although they may appear at Salinas and Mexico, while there is undoubtedly a great body of material like items 5 and 6 that would exist only in a provincial archive. Attention should also be called to the fact that, for such documents as exist in all three archives, the best technical file is that of the province, the next best that of the viceroyalty, and next after that the file in Spain. 128 On the other hand, the documents at Seville have a number of advantages. Documents like those of item 1 are often at Seville in the original, as well as in copies therefrom, and eventually that should be the general rule, when all Spanish colonial materials shall be stored at Seville, as contemplated by law. Furthermore, documents like those of items 9 to 12, always of the highest technical rank, are to be found only in Spain. They may be described generally as intra-departmental (within the Indies department itself), interdepartmental (among the various governmental agencies of Spain in Europe), and private (whether as the result of official requests for an opinion or arising from petitions of individuals) correspondence in Europe (usually in Spain) of which official cognizance was taken by the department of the Indies. Finally, the whole expediente in Spain is the file upon which the highest official action was based.
Whatever argument there may be as to the ccmparative value of the documents in Seville and elsewhere as to kind, there can be none as respects their number, in which particular the Archivo General de Indias is far superior to any other in the same field. In 1913 there were nearly 40,000 legajos in the archive. 129 When the transfers from other Spanish archives have been completed, there should be a total of 80,000 legajos. 130 While a number of legajos contain only several hundred pages of manuscript material, and still others have as many as six thousand, the usual size of a legajo is about two thousand pages. The number of documents will vary greatly, from a single huge testimonio or several bound volumes to as many as two thousand documents. Counting testimonios as one item, it is probable that there may be an average of four hundred documents to a legajo. 131 If the separate documents of testimonios are included, the number may easily reach double that figure. On this basis, the ultimate wealth of the Archivo General de Indias is from 32,000,000 to 64,000,000 documents, aggregating 160,000,000 pages of manuscript. The vastness of these numbers and the possibilities that await the American investigator can best be appreciated, when one considers that an estimate made in 1907 by a competent scholar, with the financial backing of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, revealed only 5332 copies in the United States of documents from the archives of Spain, 132 although many from the Archivo General de Indias have since been added to American libraries. 133
The history of the Casa Lonja, as the archive building is called, has been told by most of the writers who have dealt with the material it contains. 134 In brief, it may be stated that a law was passed, on October 30, 1572, calling for the erection of the building for the use of the Casa de Contratación. The work was in charge of the elder Herrera (Juan de Herrera), most famous Spanish architect of all time, the builder of the Escorial and other notable edifices in Spain, and the building is one of the most pleasing examples of his style. On August 14, 1598, the work was completed. For over a hundred years, the Lonja was the seat of the busy Casa de Contratación, but in the eighteenth century, with the removal of that institution to Cádiz, it became untenanted. In 1778, the idea of an archive of the Indies was suggested to the king by Juan Bautista Muñoz, celebrated historian and even more celebrated archivist. The project was received with favor, and the Casa Lonja was proposed by José de Gálvez, at that time ministro general de Indias, as the archive building. In 1785, with the arrival of a number of legajos from Simancas, the Lonja was fairly embarked on its new career. From that time forth, other consignments of papers were made to the archive, 135 until at length the upper floor of the building, the only space thus far allotted, could not conveniently house more of the legajos. Laws were passed for the delivery of the lower floor for archive purposes as well, and in 1913 the laws were executed. With this addition, it is believed that there will be enough space, though with little to spare, for the 80,000 legajos which will one day be the completed store of the Archivo General de Indias.
There are practically no formalities attending admission to the archive for purpose of investigation, 136 and, once there, the investigator is allowed wide latitude for the pursuit of his studies. While waiting for a legajo, he has an opportunity to consult the valuable library of over a thousand volumes, which the Archivo General de Indias has accumulated concerning Spanish America. While the archive has no funds for the purchase of books, the library is constantly growing through gifts; incidentally, it is a rule of courtesy that students who use the materials of the archive shall donate copies of their printed works based thereon. The investigator who is unable to go to Seville for his documents is free to arrange for copying through the N. S. G. W. Fellows, when they are present, or he may apply directly to the chiefs of the archive.
In the formation of the legajos, of whatever set, the year 1760 is a kind of twilight zone between the disorder of the older papers and the excellent arrangement of those of later date; the disorder continues through that year in some legajos, while in others that is the date where good order begins. Before 1760, expediente groupings are rarely maintained, and are often completely lost, through the disappearance of documents, or through their having been filed in separate legajos. The excellent arrangement of the post-1760 legajos is admirable. The general rule is for a sub-grouping by individual years, within which the particular year's expedientes appear. The expedientes are conveniently arranged, so that the relationships of the documents are manifest from the very make-up of the file. Occasionally, in legajos that have been used by investigators, but especially in those from which copies have been made, an ante-1760 chaos has made its appearance. Whether the fault be that of an investigator or that of an archive clerk, it cannot be too greatly regretted, and it is to be hoped that the evil practice may be checked or done away with.
The papers are divided into twelve (or, if those styled Indiferente General are considered separately from the Audiencia group, thirteen) larger sets, ranging in numbers from the 204 legajos of the Estado group, to the 18,860 of the Simancas papers (including both the Audiencia and Indiferente General sections, of which the former contains over 15,000). Some attempts at cataloguing the materials have been made, but while the inventarios and índices of certain sets, for example the Patronato Real 137 and Estado groups, have been commendably well done, those of others present very meagre guides to the materials referred to. This is particularly true of what is perhaps the richest set of all for general purposes, as well as the greatest in number of legajos, the above mentioned Simancas papers, to which three small inventarios are devoted. In the case of this set, a one or two line description, with inclusive dates, is given for the various groups of legajos, a single item embracing from one to as many as twenty-five legajos,—obviously not a very detailed clue to the contents.
The names of the larger sections will occasionally convey some idea as to the nature of the materials, but the basis of appellation is, not subject-matter, but the office whence the papers came to the archive. Thus, the Simancas papers came from the archive at Simancas. The principal sub-group is called the Audiencia papers, not because it deals with the activities of audiencias, but because the various audiencia jurisdictions were taken as convenient geographical divisions. Similarly, the other sub-group of the Simancas papers is called Indiferente General, because the documents were not easily referable to any single audiencia jurisdiction. 138 The legajos are located by estante (stack), cajón (compartment, or shelf), and legajo (bundle) numbers, and the three together (e. g., 104-3-2) are habitually termed the legajo number. The title of an individual legajo and its inclusive dates will usually give a general indication of subject-matter and the range, in time, of the documents, but neither is a safe clue in all cases. 139
A bibliography of works treating of the Archivo General de Indias is provided in Hill, Descriptive catalogue, 140 p. VII. The following items may be added to Mr. Hill's list:
El Archivo de Indias y la Sociedad de Publicaciones Históricas. [Madrid, 1912.] This is an illustrated thirty-one page pamphlet in two parts. The first part, in fifteen pages, is the work of Dr. Pío Zabala y Lera, referring to the publications, past and prosspective of the Sociedad de Publicaciones Históricas. The second part, written anonymously by Señor Don Pedro Torres Lanzas, chief of the archive, concerns the Archivo General de Indias. It ranks with Shepherd's Guide 141 as the most useful description yet published of the general contents of the archive.
Larrabure y Unanue, Eugenio, Les Archives des Indes et la Bibliothèque Colombine de Séville. [Paris, 1914.] This is a profusely illustrated eighty-eight page pamphlet, of which fifty pages are devoted to the Archivo General de Indias. Practically the entire space deals with the exposition of documents at that archive in 1913, in celebration of the four hundredth anniversary of Balboa's discovery of the Pacific Ocean.
There is an article in Archives des Missions Scientifiques et Littèraires, second series, v. II, p. 367, not available to the present writer, cited in Shepherd, Guide, pp. 59, 96.
More popular in character, but often containing material of value, are the various reports of the Native Sons of the Golden West Fellows, published, from time to time, in the Grizzly Bear Magazine of Los Angeles, and articles of like character by Dr. William E. Dunn of the University of Texas in newspapers and magazines of Texas, e. g., Hunting old documents in Spain, in The Alcalde (Austin, Texas), III, 345-354, February, 1915. The most complete and most available description of the archive, for American scholars, especially as regards the inventarios and índices of the different sets of papers, is Shepherd's Guide, supplemented as regards arrangement and archive rules since the publication of Shepherd's work by Hill's Descriptive catalogue. Both of these works, as well as those of Bolton, Pérez, and Robertson, cited in notes 2 and 13, are among the publications of the Department of Historical Research of the Carnegie Institution of Washington.
The poems presented in this article have been carefully sought for by me in the past twenty years. With the exception of three of them, I have no knowledge of any of them having been reprinted after their original appearance in print. While I have found about one hundred poems printed during the days of the Republic of Texas, in this section I have only included those that appeared in print during 1836, the “heroic period of Texas history,” and the year of the declaration of Texan independence. It is barely possible that two or three of these poems have never been in print. I possess the original manuscripts, and from marginal notes thereon, I should judge that they had appeared in some contemporaneous publication in 1836, but, if so, I have not located them.
While not claiming to be a judge of poetical literature, I am quite sure that any patriot, especially in these days of universal patriotism, will agree with me that these poems are not only meritorious, but are far above the average in thought, rhythm, vivacity, energy of expression, and poetical expression.
It is a trite saying that the poet has a prophetic insight. A careful perusal of the verses here presented will show that not a prophecy here foretold, or a hope for the future grandeur and perpetuity and liberty and prosperity of the then struggling infant Republic of Texas, but that Time has fulfilled, “pressed down, good measure, running over.”
Not a poem bearing on the subject of the war has been excluded. The collection is as complete for the year 1836 as I could make it. It would have been an easy matter, and a pleasure, for me to annotate each poem, and possibly enlighten some readers whose study of Texas history may not have been so extensive as to understand fully every reference to Texas history herein cited, but I believed that it would mar the beauty of the poems to distract the reader's attention by a too promiscuous use of notes. I, therefore, present them to the reader with only such necessary notes and annotations as regards author, time of publication, and, where known, the newspaper, periodical, or book, wherein first published.
It is hoped that the heart throbs here so faithfully depicted for love of home, freedom, independence, patriotism, and humanity, will find an echo in the hearts and minds of our own generation, who are the descendants of these sturdy pioneers, who planted fields in the wilderness, and upon the beautiful, flower-decked prairies, built their log cabins with axe in one hand and rifle in the other, and finally left, as a blessed heritage, this beautiful Texas, “the Lone Star State,” for us to cherish and guard, by emulating the virtues of hospitality, courage and simplicity, so forcefully exemplified in their struggle for liberty and freedom.
As a prelude to the Texas poems, I wish to insert the following beautiful lines of fugitive poetry:
A dirge for the brave old pioneer! The patriarch of his tribe! He sleeps—no pompous pile marks where, No lines his deeds describe.
They raised no stone above him here, Nor carved his deathless name; An empire is his sepulchre, His epitaph is fame.
Theodore O'Hara.
Boys, rub your steels and pick your flints, Methinks I hear some friendly hints That we from Texas shall be driven— Our lands to Spanish soldiers given. To arms, to arms, to arms!
Then Santa Anna soon shall know Where all his martial law shall go. It shall not in the Sabine flow. Nor line the banks of the Colorado. To arms, to arms, to arms!
Instead of that he shall take his stand Beyond the banks of the Rio Grande; His martial law we will put down We'll live at home and live in town. Huzza, huzza, huzza!
N. T. Byars.
St. Ana did a notion take that he must rule the land, sir; The church and he forthwith agree to publish the command, sir. In Mexico none shall be free. The people are too blind to see. They cannot share the Liberty Of Yankee Doodle Dandy.
Ye Mexicans, henceforth beware, my central plan attend to; My shoulders will the burden bear, no Yankee shall offend you. In Mexico, etc.,
Of soldiers now he stands in need, but soldiers must be paid, sir; He then dictates a law with speed to seize the Yankee trade, sir. In Mexico, etc.,
Obedient to their tyrant's will, his myrmidions comply, sir; The Texians see along their coast some vessels captured nigh, sir. In Mexico, etc.,
To Vera Cruz they send each prize, each unresisting man, sir; Remonstrance, too, is found unwise, it makes the foe less bland, sir. In Mexico, etc.,
The Pirate Thompson's next essay, brave Hurd to capture, too, sir, Resulted quite another way; such robbing will not do, sir. In Mexico, etc.,
The Texians say they won't receive the central plan at all, sir, But nobly go to meet the foe, with powder and with ball, sir. In Mexico, etc.,
Huzza! for Texas volunteers, we are the boys so handy, We'll teach the Mexicans to fear our Yankee Doodle Dandy. Yankee Doodle, let us hear, Yankee Doodle Dandy, We'll teach the Mexicans to fear, Our Yankee Doodle Dandy.
K.
A brief suspense since last the muse Of Texas sung, and chivalry; Again the grateful task ensues To note her glorious destiny.
The foes of freedom still may doubt Her onward march to liberty, Her faithful soldiers, brave and stout, Assurance give she must be free.
A pleasing scene in Texas now Dispels a momentary gloom, When first was heard the despot's vow, “To make its soil her freemen's tomb.”
Such boasting ends, as well it may, When men determine to be free, Their rights defend, and dauntless say, “Freedom or Death our motto be.”
Gonzales, Goliad, Patricius Record the actions of the brave, In conflict with the vile and vicious, The boasting minions of a slave.
At San Antonio Señor Cos His safety seeks behind its walls; At length impelled with signal loss He yields to Texas rifle balls.
A gallant band of heroes go, Assault him in his strong retreat; From house to house they drive the foe, Who see no chance to shun defeat.
Three days and nights in battle strife Brave Milam led till he was slain. In freedom's cause he ends his life; Surviving friends the fight maintain.
Till San Antonio fairly won, Abandoned by the conquer'd foe, Who Texas rifle-men to shun Retreat within the Alamo.
Last refuge of this vile crusade, Whence they despatch a flag of truce, And humbly crave the victors aid, To feed them on their homeward course.
The Texans generous as brave, No longer foes, that boon supplies, Their feuds now rest within the grave And human kindness mark the wise.
Ye nations old a lesson take, From Young defenders of their rights, No sanguinary laws they make, No lawless force their honor blights.
Justice and right they will extend But when assailed by tyrant foes, A peaceful home they will defend; All who invade they must oppose.
Should lawless bands attempt again To force submission to their yoke, The gallant Texans, though humane, May then decree—this truce is broke.
But if they will henceforth agree In friendly intercourse to dwell, Then Texas will as friendly be, In kindness none will her excel.
One last resource for her remains, Full Independence to decree; Then in her sacrifice she gains That, which if lost, 'tis slavery.
And who that loves sweet liberty Can cease to aid its progress there? All respond, “No, she must be free.” “Texas and Liberty,” they cheer.
H. K. New Orleans, February 1, 1836.
Our rifles are ready, And ready are we; Neither fear, care, nor sorrow In this company. Our rifles are ready To welcome the foe, So away o'er the Sabine For Texas we go.
For Texas: the land Where the bright rising star Leads to beauty in peace And to glory in war. With aim never erring We strike down the deer; We chill the false heart Of the Red Man with fear.
The blood of the Saxon Rolls full in the veins Of the lads that must lord Over Mexico's plains— O'er the plains where the breeze Of the south woos the flowers, As we press those we love In their sweet summer bowers.
One pledge to our loves: When the battle is done, They shall share the broad lands Which the rifle has won. No tear on their cheeks. Should we sleep with the dead, There are Rovers to follow Who will still “go a head,” Who will still “go a head,” Where the bright, rising star Leads to beauty in peace And to glory in war.
K.
They come, they come, the ruthless band, To enforce the tyrant's foul decree To desolate this smiling land, The dwelling of the fair and free. Sons of the West, the hour has come Of victory or martyrdom.
These fields our brows have oft bedewed, As bloomed the desert with our toil, Shall be in blood more deep embrued Ere thraldom stains the Texian soil. When bleach our bones on every plain, Then wolves may greet Santa Anna's reign.
When shall the aspiring traitor learn The cost of such a dreary sway? Behold yon warriors, few but stern, Who front the invader's broad array— True as the rifle to its aim Each heart is to the cause they claim.
On gallant souls, where glory calls, And God and freedom be the cry; Where one devoted patriot falls An hundred ruffian slaves shall die. And should they win one conquered rood, 'Tis with a slaughtered legion strewed.
On, while heroic shades look down And view our kindred ranks with pride, Your sires who fought with Washington, Your brethren who with Mina died, “Shame not your race,” they cry, “ye brave, Preserve a home or find a grave.”
Blessed are the bowers no storms invade, Where plenty reigns and hearts are warm; Blessed are the free whose swords have made Their dwellings safe from foe and harm; But far more blessed the valiant dead. Who die in honor's gory bed.
J. R. W.
Oh, my heart is sick and weary With its ling'ring hope deferred. Oh, these sunny days are dreary To the soul by chains deterred. Towards my country fancy stealing Seems to elude my galling bands, Till recalled by shameful feeling, Urged to toil with fettered hands.
Days of durance! when victorious Shall my country bid ye cease? When midst brother warriors glorious Shall I meet the smiles of peace? Haply yet some rage shall doom me In my chains uncheered to die; And if so, 'tis welcome to me, Ere my country's cause I'll fly.
J. F[reon(?)].
Texians, to your banner fly, Texians, now your valor try, Listen to your country's cry; Onward to the field.
Armed in perfect panoply, Marshalled well our ranks must be; Strike the blow for liberty, Make the tyrant yield.
Who is he that fears his power? Who is he that dreads the hour? Who is he would basely cower? Let him flee for life.
Who is he that ready stands To fight for Texas and her lands? Him his country now commands, Onward, to the strife.
Small in number is our host; But our cause is nobly just; God of battles is our trust In the dread affray.
And when the war is o'er, we'll see Texas safe and Texas free; Glorious will our triumph be On each bloody day.
J. Freon.
Ye heirs of freedom! hear the war cry Now swelling from ten thousand tongues In shouts betokening victory Blown o'er the world by trumpet lungs. Awake! awake! the drum is pealing On Bexar's woody hills around; The tread of battle shakes the ground, And rifles keen death shots are dealing.
Hurrah, hurrah, for war; The battle flag waves high; The rising of the Texian star Shall light to victory!
Shall sons of Washington not rally When war dogs howl on yonder plain And rapine stalks over hill and valley To bind us in oppression's chains? Shall bigot violence and plunder On Brazos' banks infuriate roam, And fill with fear each peaceful home? No! answer with the cannon's thunder!
And by that blood-stained altar kneeling, The scathed and war torn Alamo We pledge our all of patriot feeling To hurl red vengeance on the foe. But now the tyrant's foot is crushing Each gray haired sire and blooming son Who lifts in freedom's cause the gun, And shall not patriots dare his rushing?
Then, heirs of freedom! hear the war cry Now swelling from ten thousand tongues In shouts betokening victory, Borne o'er the world by trumpet lungs, Awake! awake! the drum is pealing On Bexar's woody hills around! The tread of battle shakes the ground, And rifles keen death shots are dealing.
Bright was their fortune, and sublime their doom, Who perished at the Alamo—their tomb, An altar for their sons—their dirge renown!
Their epitaph nor rust shall e'er efface, Nor time, that changes all things else debase, Nor later ages in their pride disown!
Their tomb contains, enshrined besides the dead, A mighty inmate: Her for whom they bled— Their country's unforgotten fame.
Witness the heroic Travis, who in death Did win high valors more than Pythian wreath, A crown unfading—an immortal name!
Though sad was his fate, and mournful the story, The deeds of the hero shall never decay; He fell in a cause dear to freedom and glory, And fought to the last like a lion at bay.
When rang the loud call from a nation oppressed, And her valleys with slaughter of brave men were red, 'Twas the pride of poor Crockett to help the distressed, And the watchword of Texas was heard—Go ahead.
His death-dealing rifle no longer shall shower Its unerring balls on the proud haughty foe; Cut down in the spring time of life's budding flower, His tombstone, alas, are thy walls, Alamo.
Then may we not hope, since valor has crowned him, And o'er him bright fame her mantle has spread, In the soul's parting hour good angels were round him, Bid his spirit arise to the skies, “Go ahead.”
He fell as doth a lion bold, Beneath a tyrant's hand; The warm heart now in death lies cold Within a foreign land; And cursed be he who aimed the blow That laid this noble warrior low.
He fell amidst a sturdy band, The bravest of the brave; Death struck the sabre from his hand, And laid him in the grave; But memory for him will shed A tear to bless the noble dead.
And round the graves of those who died, And fell like him in battle's fray, 'Twill be Columbia's poet's pride To write their glories in their lay; 'Neath the proud Eagle's wide spread wings, Fearless of despots or kings.
Santa Anna, o'er thy head may wave The bloody flag to affright the free; But to the good and to the brave 'Tis not the flag of liberty; And whilst remembrance has a claim To know mankind, 'twill curse thy name.
'Twill curse thy name because thy deeds Are written on the page of time; But like the valorous heart that bleeds, But like a wretch besmeared with crime; A wretch who wields a tyrant's rod, Unmindful of his soul and God.
But sleep on Crockett—though thy bed Is far from thy dear native home; Yet, he who venerates the dead, Will bid some stranger there to roam, That he may shed a tear for thee, And plant the flag of Liberty.
“Rise, man the wall, our clarion's blast Now sounds its final reveille; This dawning morn must be the last Our fated band shall ever see. To life, but not to hope, farewell ! Yon trumpet's clang, and cannon's peal, And storming shout, and clash of steel, Is ours, but not our country's knell ! Welcome the Spartan's death— 'Tis no despairing strife— We fall !—we die !—but our expiring breath Is Freedom's breath of life !”
“Here, on this new Thermopylae, Our monument shall tower on high, And `Alamo' hereafter be In bloodier fields, the battle cry.” Thus Travis from the rampart cried; And when his warriors saw the foe, Like whelming billows move below, At once each dauntless heart replied, “Welcome the Spartan's death— 'Tis no despairing strife— We fall !—we die—but our expiring breath Is Freedom's breath of life !
“They come—like autumn's leaves they fall, Yet, hordes on hordes, they onward rush; With gory tramp, they mount the wall, Till numbers the defenders crush— Till falls their flag when none remain ! Well may the ruffians quake to tell How Travis and his hundred fell Amid a thousand foeman slain ! They died the Spartan's death, But not in hopeless strife— Like brothers died and their expiring breath Was Freedom's breath of life !
R. M. Potter.
Vengeance on Santa Anna and his minions; Vile scum, up boiled from the infernal regions; Dragons of fire, on black sulphurous pinions, The offscouring baseness of Hell's blackest legions; Too filthy far, with crawling worms to dwell, And far too horrid, and too base for hell.
These dragons, rushing from black shades infernal, Across the lovely, fair, and beauteous Texas, Of spite implicate, and of hate eternal, With bloody fangs devour all ages, sexes; More cruel far than death, than demons even, Making a graveyard what were almost heaven.
No prayers for mercy, poured from deep affliction, In tears, in lone despair, and bitter anguish, Can save the poor, betrayed, and hapless Texian From chains and dungeons dark, where he must languish; From death most horrid, with its utmost woes, The joy, and sole invention of his foes.
Oh Heaven, if Heaven there be; God of salvation, Dost thou not hear thy suppliant children crying For mercy? See their woes and desolation; Chains, prisons, groans, tears, agony, and dying. Thy powerful arm in their dear cause extend, And save thy children, and their homes defend.
O, Santa Anna, infamous aspirant; Thy aspirations shall soon end in sorrow, Columbia's soil cannot support a tyrant: Thy course is finished; boast not of tomorrow; And o'er thy grave shall Freedom's standard soar, And her bright stars there shine to fall no more.
Hark! from the land where blooms the rose Throughout a year of fruits and flowers, The clarion's call! for Freedom's foes Would dare invade her sacred bowers.
There has the settler reared his home By hardy toil and bold emprise, And from religion's peaceful dome His grateful prayers to Heaven arise.
His children round the cottage hearth, The infant on his mother's knee, Were taught the holiest law on earth, Which God approves, is to be free!
And now the hour has come at last,— Rebellion's smothered cry has broke; Too long in galling bondage cast, They swear to crush a tyrant's yoke.
Hark! from the land where patriots dwell, The clarion's call, a wail of grief! Shall Texas fall as Poland fell? No arm be raised for her relief?
No! By the arm which led them on To settle in that fairy clime, They'll laugh blest freedom's foes to scorn, Or perish in the cause sublime!
Oh, righteous cause! when man, opprest, Girds on the sword to do or die, His name in glory's page shall rest, And angels waft his soul on high!
Though dark oppression o'er her lower, From bondage Texas shall arise, And crush a haughty despot's power— Her flag triumphant sweeps the skies!
P. L. Waddel.
When the locusts of tyranny darkened our land And our friends were reduced to a small Spartan band, When the Alamo reeked with the blood of the brave And Mexican faith slept in Goliad's grave, When our star, that had risen so beauteously bright, Seemed destined to set in thick darkness and night, 'Twas then our proud leader addressed his brave men And the prairies of Texas reechoed—Amen.
“On, on, to the conflict, ye Texians brave, March forward to victory or down to the grave! Let your swords be unsheathed in liberty's cause, And your bosoms be bared in defense of your laws! Let your watchword be Fannin, in treachery slain, And Alamo's sons, whose bones whiten the plain!
“For your friends and your homes let your rifle be aimed, For your country that's bleeding, exhausted, and maimed; Go, show to the world that our handful of braves, Can never be conquered by myriads of slaves!” 'Twas said, and the single starred banner waved high O'er the heads of our hero, whose deep slogan cry Made the cravens of Mexico tremble and cower, While our bugles rang forth, “Will you come to the bower?”
William Barton.
Hark, the clarion sounds “To Arms,” The welkin rings with war's alarms, The youth awake to glory's charms, And high souled chivalry.
A host is on the battle plain, And murderers lead the motly train; The Texan chiefs are with the slain, Martyrs to Liberty.
Brave Houston leads a gallant band, Felix 155—the happy—takes command, Rush, freemen, to the promised land, And Texas shall be free.
Wilson, 156 who never knew a fear, With young Fayettes will soon be there, Name to honor ever dear, They'll fight most valiantly.
Sisters and mothers stay your tears; Maidens and wives allay your fears; See, Liberty our flag uprears. And leads to victory.
Santana, savage fiend, no more Our lovely fields shall drench with gore; The monster never met before So brave an enemy.
He dared, all used to coward men, To beard the lion in his den; Oh, never let him out again, Agents of destiny.
That Pharaoh host had crossed the tide, The arms of God, 157 then outspread wide, And to the perjured foe denied Fresh feats of perfidy.
Religion, can thy holy name Associate with pollution—shame? The blood-red flag thy sanction claim? And such ferocity?
The gentle Jesus ne'er was trained To deeds of blood, but peace proclaimed; Not priest-craft, but good will ordained And sacred charity.
Sound, clarion, sound; on, freemen on, To Brazos' banks, where deeds are done Worthy immortal Washington, And all eternity.
Lexington, May 15, 1836.
Back, back to thy covert, thou blood hound of death, There is woe in thy footstep, and guilt in thy breath; Thou warrest with women, thou curse of the brave, Thy pity is blood, and thy mercy the grave.
But soon the dread hour of avenging shall come When thy cheek shall be blanched, and thy utterance dumb, 160When thy arm shall be palsied, crimsoned with gore, And the cold sweat of terror escape from each pore.
Did you fight for the wolf or the tiger so wild? Was your cruelty strange to the forest's red child? Did the blood of the whites ever quicken your veins? Are you human in form, thou monster in brains?
Back, back, to thy lair where the red wolf shall yell, Where thy name shall be spoken in forest or dell; Sink down in your grave, or bid mortals adieu, Thou scorn of the wise and the brave and the true.
Long ages shall roll, but thy shame shall remain, The pirate shall shun thee again and again; The mountain cat flee from thy presence away, And the truant boy over thy lowly mound play.
The aged shall curse thee, thou thirster for gore, The worm shall be sickened with gnawing thy core, The tombstone shall blush that points to thy grave, Thou scorn of the true and the wise and the brave.
On San Jacinto's bloody field Our drums and trumpets loudly pealed, And bade a haughty tyrant yield To Texian chivalry.
Our chieftain boldly led the van, His sword grasp'd firmly in his hand, And bade us tell the Mexican To think of Labordia.
'Twas evening, and the orient sun Into his bed was moving on When our young heroes rush'd upon The might of Mexico.
Santa Anna traveled far to see What men could do who dare to be free, In spite of Spanish musketry Or Mexican artillery.
The boldest sons of Mexico Have learned to fear a freeman's blow, And dread the shout of “Alamo” From Sons of Liberty.
'Twas cheering to a Texian eye To see Santa Anna's legions fly From Texas' dreadful battle cry Of death or victory.
The carnage ceased, in triumph then Proudly shown the Texian Star, And vengeance on her conquering car Reposed most quietly.
Long shall the dark browed maids of Spain Remember San Jacinto's plain, And weep for those they ne'er again Shall meet in revelry.
Of San Jacinto let us sing, And of the Texian heroes, That captured Mexico's proud king, And all his bloody heroes. Oh, San Jacinto was the fight The Texians delight in For there they used with all their might The power they trust they're right in. Oh, Jacinto! San Jacinto! The heroes of Jacinto.
'Tis said that Houston, wily chief, Did bait with aggravation Their rage, in fighting to be brief With battle's desolation. He said, “Be cautious, daring boys, The foe are twice our numbers; Remember Fannin's fate, and Bowie's, Perhaps, an ambush slumbers.”
But when they thought of Travis' fate, Of Fannin, King, and Crockett's, They broke all checks with scorn and hate And rushed to fight like rockets. Then Sherman raised the eagle's wings, Millard and Burleson swooped on, And “Alamo” made Heaven ring Above the prey they stooped on.
In eighteen minutes, or less time, The foemen's works were taken, And all his dark machines of crime, By flying crowds forsaken. The gallant Hockley threw the hoards Of certain aiming thunder, And brave Lamar and Karnes' swords The flying cut asunder.
And daring Rusk, too, laurels won, Amidst the foremost danger, And showed the worth of Jefferson Was to his name no stranger. The Texians all, with single soul, Resistless rushed in battle, And crushed the foe, in blood to roll, Or fly like frightened cattle.
Eight precious lives the Texians lost, And seventeen but wounded; But of the foe, six hundred crossed, And by the Styx are bounded. More than two hundred wounded groaned, With seven hundred nabbed on, And all their arms and money loaned By bigot priests were grabbed on.
Oh, such a fight ne'er any time Nor nation has afforded, When guilt victorious for their crimes Directly were rewarded. Sure, heaven was in the fiery fight, And God's indignant mercy, For human nature's wounded rights Led on the controversy.
Now, listen, all of every land, Of each degree and station; Though tyranny's o'erpowering hand A while may crush a nation And triumph with a horrid din, Secure in servile numbers, 'Twill meet at last the might that in The arms of freemen slumbers.
J. F.[REON (?)], a Volunteer. Velasco, December 7, 1836.
I hear them still; lo, where the footsteps thronging, Of armed thousands break upon the ear, And the tired sense is now for silence longing, Yet strains again the distant sounds to hear:
Lo, where unnumbered plumes are proudly waving, And helmets flittering in the sun's broad beam, And the fierce war horse his proud hoofs is laving In the red blood that flows in many a stream.
'Tis there the battle now is madly raging, And foe with foe maintains a fearful strife, And the doomed hero, still the contest waging, Falls while he deems his own a charmed life.
Brave men and true, in freedom's cause unshaken, Yours was the task to make the cowards quail, Yours the blest songs of liberty to waken, Till the loud echoes rung through wood and vale.
Sing, for the conquerer's arm is now victorious, And war's shrill clarion hath not called in vain, And freedom's banners now are floating glorious Above the field where sleep the early slain.
S. A. M.
Lift, lift, the star gemmed banner high, And bid it flutter in the gale, Bid time's remotest hour reply, While children's children tell the tale— How Texas from the tyrant's yoke Her chain of damning bondage broke, How glory gave her brightest wreath, When Crockett closed his eyes in death.
Star of the brave, whose sisters glow In fair Columbia's flag of light, Which freedom, in her virgin throe, Gave forth to cheer a world of night; We bid thee gleam untarnished high, Beneath whose light the brave can die, We bid thee shine, while time shall last, On ensign staff or giddy mast.
Fling wide the banner o'er the wave, To gleam where mortal foot has trod; Shine out, thou glory of the brave, Thou last, though dearest, gift of God; Shine out, as when on Eden's height The mandate pealed, “Let there be light”; Shine out, while wondering millions gaze To catch young freedom's dazzling blaze.
Thou star that gleams 'mid morning's light, We welcome thee in youthful prime; We bid thee gleam in splendour bright, A new born planet of our time. Alamo fell beneath thy fold, While history traced thy fame in gold, (Broad as the light which glory flings) With pinons pluck'd from angel's wings.
Shine on; thou mad'st Sant' Anna cower, When Mexic's slaves in panic fled, When Cos in nature's fairest bower In terror bent his bleeding head, We bid thee live, thou dazzling gem, A scion of a noble stem, Till heaven shall lose her starry host, And shall become a nation's boast.
Float on, thou bright young banner, Adopted by the free, When at the cannon's mouth they swore, For death or liberty. Thou child of peril, the stripes that date Thy yet unwritten story May gather stars and wave o'er fields Where freemen fight for glory.
The breeze of heaven shall bear thee Upon its sunny wing, Until the triumph of thy star The dove of peace shall bring. Thy birthplace was the field of blood, And war's terrific thunder Did cradle thee, till thou hast broke Oppressor's bonds asunder.
Among the flags of nations, There is a place for thee, Flaunt up, thou bright young banner, Flaunt proudly o'er the free. The stripes and stars shall lead thee on, That o'er Columbia wave; Float on in sweet companionship, Proud banner of the brave.
Like torrents to the plains below Rushed on the fierce ensanguined foe, And dark and turbid was the flow Of Brassos rolling rapidly.
But Texian heroes armed for fight Rolled onward in their stormy might, Where fires of death had marked the site Of havoc's gory scenery.
In phalanx firm and fast arrayed, Each soldier drew his trusty blade, And at one charge in death was laid Half of their savage enemy.
Then from the fated field were driven Bexar's inhuman legions—riven, And proof to all the world was given, How men can fight for liberty.
Nor is the fearful conflict o'er, While yet the distant cannons roar, Like far-off thunder on the shore, Illumed by deeds of bravery.
Then arouse, ye sons of freedom, go Avenge the fall of Alamo And teach you more than savage foe, How hard to fight for slavery.
Drive far into the desert gloom The wretches who would seal your doom, Denying life, or e'en a tomb, To freedom's fallen chivalry.
The combat's o'er; now rest, ye brave, Who fought for vict'ry or the grave, And let that star-bright banner wave— Its motto—God and liberty.
March! march! each brave American, The `blood-red flag' is near our borders Rush! rush! rush like the hurricane. Quick! volunteer, wait not for orders!
The `starry banner' spread, Shall then float o'er your head, And sabres shall clash sweeping and gory; Come to the rescue then, Ye brave Kentucky men. Riflemen! tell them the New Orleans story. March! march! brave Carolinians! Remember your fathers and your own Marion— March! march! ye noble Virginians, Come to the sound of drum and of clarion.
Let them come on, let them once cross the Sabine; They shall meet then the Romans of modern times; There let them once show their banner of rapine, The `massacre' flag deeply stained with their crimes! Ochmulgee and Flint rivers pour forth your sons; Montgomery! Mobile! be first in the field; Louisiana! Missouri, come on at once, And be to your country banner and shield.
The Indians are coming, they'll ne'er come again, Nor the breath of their nostrils be breathed among men; But darkly and lonely they all shall be laid In the graves which our sabres and lances have made. With the rifle and lance and Bible in hand We'll lawfully enter the long `promised land,' And sweep from this planet these new `Moabites,' And drive from the prairies these `Canaanites.'
Come to the rescue! oh, come to the frontier; Why in soft dalliance longer stay here? The blood of our kindred will be purpling the river! And should we forgive ourselves? never! no never! The Comanche, the Pawnee, those Indian tribes, Bought over by Mexican munitions and bribes, Are once more preparing, roused from their lair, To lay our frontier desolate, bare!
We'll meet all those savages, headed by `Neroes,' Only be ready men, be soldiers! be heroes! For war shall be waged alas! too horrific, And peace be granted only on the Pacific, Trumpets are sounding, war steeds are bounding. Stand to your arms, and march in good order; Mexico shall many a day tell of the bloody fray, When first the `blood-red flag' came over the border!
Oft in the stilly night On the far prairie, With the stars for our light, The hymn of liberty. Shall be sounded yet.
Great Heaven! guide us right; Renew our souls aright, Guide us by day and night— Our surest and best light!
Oft in the stilly night On the far prairie With the stars for our light, The hymn of liberty Shall be sounded yet.
And when we have perished, dead to this world, In current of the heady fight, Freedom's own glorious banner still unfurled Shall beam, in one unclouded light, A beacon to all future ages When heroes and the best of sages Shall point out where the fight was done, Exclaiming, “another Marathon!”
And all that perish on that day, Their souls ascending with swiftest pinions, Shall yet look down while on their way, To brighter far, and more vast dominions. While yet the smoke of the battle field From other eyes the scene may shield, The rifle, sabre, and the lance Shall yet be seen by our keen glance.
Till wafted to the great `elsewhere,' We cleave etherial fields of air, To render to the great Supreme, The one eternal, glorious hymn.
James Dickson. Baltimore, April 25, 1836.
O say, does the martyr-blest banner still show Victorious the star of the Texian nation, That shone so triumphantly out on the foe, Like the sweet star of hope amidst extermination, Where Jacinto's dread air was a breath and a snare From the ghosts of Alamo and Goliad's pyre, Its signal for freedom displaying abroad, With vengeance and glory for man and for God?
O say, shall that banner e'er sink in the fight, Beneath the dark mandate of annihilation, While tyranny, trampling on all human right, Shouts, “havoc and ruin are my exaltation”? Oh, no, thou just God! with victory's rod The hands of brave freemen thou lov'st to applaud, Thou still will defend us and give us success Till safety and peace our dear banner shall bless.
Come on then, ye freemen, to battle come on, The free are returning and swear desolation; They are mustering their bands, and in numbers alone They trust, with a cruel and fierce expectation: Let the free volunteer with his armor appear, And force the oppressor to yield and to fear, Then the sweet star of hope, like a heavenly isle, On the banner of Texas with triumph shall smile.
J. Freon, a Volunteer.
Texians brave! whom Houston led, Again the foe our blood would shed; Again they court a gory bed, As on Jacinto's plain.
There are things to be remembered yet; The orphan's eyelid still is wet, And Fannin's fate do we forget? No, nor the Alamo!
Though they can solemn treaties break, Our constancy they cannot shake; The swords we reaping hooks would make, We still as swords can wield.
Then sound to arms, to arms! ye brave! One single Star shall blind the slaves, While bugles give, as once they gave, Their “Welcome to the Bower.”
J. R. W.
ELLIOT TO KENNEDY 167
[Enclosure.] Copy. Charles Elliot. Confidential Galveston, Feby. 15th 1846 Sir,.
If the Master of any British Vessel (arriving at this Port after the Custom House Authorities appointed by the Government of the Republic have retired from the performance of their duties) should apply to you for advice, you will guide yourself by these instructions.
You will counsel him to proceed to the Custom House accompanied by the Mate of the vessel admonished to be heedful of any conversation that may pass at that place between the Chief person engaged in the Collection of Customs duties and himself. If he should find that he is permitted to enter under any other authority than that of some existing revenue or Navigation law of the Republic of Texas, you will advise him to state that he had arrived here to trade under the treaty of Commerce and Navigation between Her Majesty The Queen of Great Britain and Ireland and the Republic of Texas, signed at London November 13th 1840, and whereof ratifications were exchanged at London June 28th 1842, that he claims the rights privileges, liberties, favours, immunities and exemptions secured to Her Majesty's Subjects trading in Texas under that Treaty, and enters protest against all proceedings taken, or to be taken contrary thereto, as respects the Ship of which he is Master, and the goods of her lading.
You will further advise him, as soon as any duties shall be charged against the Ship or Cargo under the authority of any other than some existing law of the Republic of Texas to pay the same, and extend his protest, causing it to be served upon the Chief person engaged in the Collection of such duties. For your more complete guidance herein I forward a Memorandum of the particulars which it may be needful to specify in the protest, together with any others which may occur on the occasion.
You will govern yourself in all matters of Commerce and Navigation affecting British Subjects at your Consulate who may apply to you for advice, upon the understanding that the stipulations of the treaties in existence between Her Majesty and this Republic remain in the same position as if Texas had continued an independent Power, but you will carefully observe that this view is confined to the subject matter of those treaties, and offer no objection or remark upon any other change of authority or jurisdiction.
In case of any refusal upon the part of the persons in authority at your Consulate to extend to you all the rights, privileges, and immunities accorded to Officers in your station by the law of Nations, and stipulated in the 7th Article of the treaty of Commerce and Navigation of the 13th November 1840, you will report the particulars to Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; but you are particularly cautioned to conduct yourself with the utmost circumspection, and to avoid as far as may be possible consistently with a due discharge of your duty, any discussion or correspondence with the persons in Authority at Your Consulate.
Till you are further instructed you will be pleased to forward all letters or despatches which may reach you to my address to the care of H. M. Consul, New Orleans.
Charles Elliot. P.S. You will be so good as to hand the accompanying letter to the Commander of any of Her Majesty's Ships who may arrive at Galveston during my absence. C. E. To Wm Kennedy, Esqr. H. M. Consul. Galveston.
MEMORANDUM BY ELLIOT 168
Memorandum respecting particulars of protest adverted to in Captain Elliot's despatch to Consul Kennedy, dated Galveston Feby. 15th 1846.
The Ship's name, tonnage, owners, British port of registry, last British port cleared from, general description of Cargo, to what place or places bound, the names of any ports She has touched at during her voyage, date of arrival in the Port of Galveston, statement of communication with the persons declaring themselves to be engaged in the collection of revenue their proceedings, amounts of money charged by, and paid to them on account of the Ship or Cargo, and finally Master and Mate to protest as well as any Consignees of Cargo if they see fit on their own behalf and on the part and behalf of the Owners and all others interested or in any respect concerned in the Ship or her Cargo against.
(Specify here, the name and declared offices of the chief person and any other person or persons engaged in the Collection of the required duties or charges, or put on board the ship by the authority of the Collector.)
And against all others whom it doth or shall concern for all losses, damages, costs, expences and prejudices actually suffered or which may hereafter ensue by reason of charging upon and requiring from the said ship, or the goods of her lading in the Port of Galveston in Texas any duty of Customs or imports under any authority other than that of some existing law of the Republic of Texas, and for all and every violation, as respects the said ship and her Cargo, of the stipulations of the treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland and the Republic of Texas signed at London November 13th 1840, and whereof Ratifications were exchanged at London Juen 28th 1842.
(Signed) Charles Elliot. [Endorsed.] In Captn Elliot's of Feb. 15/46.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 169
No 14. Galveston, Feby. 16th 1846. My Lord,
By information from Corpus Christi of the 14th Inst. we learn from what I think may be taken to be an authentic source that the American force there has been ordered to advance upon the Rio Grande as soon as possible. It seems probable that the main body will be directed in the first place upon Point Isabel, and that the Brassos Santiago will also be occupied. These are the avowed objects of the movement, but if any pretext should present itself, I think there can be no doubt that Matamoros will be immediately seized.
In my former despatches I have had the honour to remark to Your Lordship that it seemed to me it would have been proper, on military principles, to keep this small force assembled at some convenient points on the American side of the Sabine, and I feel assured that if that were the case at the present moment, they could be taken to the Mouth of the Rio Grande, and landed there in a much stronger and more effective condition than they are now, much sooner than they can arrive from their present position.
I do not believe that their moveable Column will exceed 3,000 Men, and the health and spirit of the troops must have necessarily suffered considerably from a long and unnecessary exposure in a very ineligible position, on extremely bad water. They could not move before the 1st Proximo, and unless the beach is practicable the whole way, which remains to be ascertained, not before a considerably later period, owing to the condition of the praries. Some uneasiness seemed to be felt respecting a small detachment of dragoons.
Charles Elliot. To the Right Honourable. The Earl of Aberdeen., K. T.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 170
No. 15. Galveston. Feby. 16th. 1846. My Lord,
The Government of this Republic will be dissolved this day, and suffering from a recent attack of indisposition I shall take the liberty to proceed to New Orleans for change of air, and wait there for my next instructions from Her Majesty's Government unless any thing should transpire in the mean time requiring my return to this place.
Charles Elliot. To The Right Honourable The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 171
No. 16. Galveston. February. 16th 1846. My Lord,
Before the dissolution of this Government I think it may be convenient to submit some remarks to Your Lordship on an error which has been prevalent in this Country and in the United States respecting the late negotiations between Mexico and Texas.
In the United States especially it has been generally supposed that it was Mexico which proposed to Texas to acknowledge her independence on the condition that Texas should not Annex herself to that Country in particular, and it was urged that Texas could not have accepted that condition without discredit. Her Majesty's Government are aware that this is a complete mistake in point of fact and form. It was the Government of Texas which proposed, not Mexico, and the proposed condition did not mention the United States. The language was general, and the French Minister at Mexico particularly remarked that that circumstance was important, for a stipulation so shaped could give no just offence in any quarter.
Texas had a right to maintain her separate existence, and it will be admitted that such a course would have been in accordance with her formal declarations to the world, and her pledges, direct and implied, to those Powers, which had only acknowledged it upon the assurance, that she would With that right, and that obligation of self respect, it is not easy to see why she should not offer to make the stipulation in question for peace sake, in the final treaty with Mexico. It would have been justifiable and honourable, and that cannot be said of this repudiation of independence and Nationality. If the people of Texas had been left to their deliberate choice there is ground to believe that they would have ratified the worthier policy; but intrigue, and factitious excitement, and haste prevailed, compassing an act of folly and discredit; which, however, it is only just to repeat that two thirds of the voters of the Country have failed to support at the polls.
The President of the United States in his opening Message to Congress, has fallen into an aggravated degree of misconception on the subject of this condition, deciding that Mexico had no right or authority to prescribe restrictions on the form of Government which Texas might afterwards choose to assume. Without dwelling on this exposition of the right and authority of Mexico to look to her safety with what care she can, it is impossible to miss the observation of her great need to do so; and it is also requisite to come back to the facts of the case in this particular, not distinguishable from President Polk's account of them.
It was Texas that was proposing, not Mexico that was prescribing, and there was no question of form of Government at all, before or after, but of the much more vital consideration to Mexico of who was to be conterminous with her. It is a very inacurate and arbitrary expression of the circumstances of the case, and the motives which influenced Mexico to say that she was prescribing restrictions on the form of Government that Texas might choose to assume. Mexico did no more than accept the exact conditions proposed by the Government of Texas, and execute an additional Act, reserving her rights if those conditions should not be ratified by the people of Texas.
That Act was perhaps superfluous, for the rejection of the Conditions by the Legislature of Texas restored the statu quo, but it is plain that Mexico had a perfect right and some need to provide beyond the possibility of fair question, that her assent to particular conditions offered by Texas was not to be construed into a surrender of a totally different nature and extent, to a third party. If the Act did nothing else, it proved that Mexico had a clear foresight of the pretension and augumentation that might be looked for in the quarter to which the transaction had reference.
Your Lordship will remember that one of the preliminary conditions provided that limits and other conditions should be matter of arrangement in the final treaty. It appears, however, from another part of the Message that the limits of the United States are peacefully extended to the Del Norte already, which expression it is to be apprehended may complicate the difficulty of settlement with Mexico, for in their construction it will be taken to be no more than a formal mode of announcing that the Countries are appropriated, and the treaties violated, though indeed, there is to be no violence for the mere sake of violence. Mexico will hardly consider this to be any thing else than a plain declaration that the dismemberment of their Country has been commenced by the United States, peacefully if possible, violently, if necessary. “Care “will be taken Mr. Donelson writes to Mr. Buchanan on the 11th “June 1845” to throw “the responsibility of aggressive measures on “the Government of Mexico”.
I cannot but remark, My Lord, that the purposes respecting this out lying territory, and the kind of care which has been taken to cast the responsibility of aggressive measures upon Mexico are copiously developed in the Official correspondence lately laid before Congress by President Polk. With that, and the other evidence before the world respecting these affairs it is certainly sanguine to hope that mankind will join in general sentence of condemnation against Mexico for aggressive and wrongful conduct towards the United States if the Mexican Government and people should see fit to defend their Country against what is not less than invasion, because it is called peaceful extension.
Mr. Polk's judgment of the conclusiveness against Mexico of an agreement to acknowledge the independence of Texas, with or without conditions, at once sweeps over broad spaces of latitude and longitude. It involves the conclusion, not only that Mexico has by her own Act (in a directly contrary spirit and letter) surrendered all right to object to the assignment to the United States by the Texians, of the territory in their actual occupation, but that she has forfeited all claim to immense Mexican regions beyond these limits in which the Texians have never yet had a settler, which have always formed a part of other Mexican States, and which are occupied by a Mexican population scarcely less numerous than the population represented in the Texian Legislature. If such decisions prove conclusive against Mexico, their force will not be the force of justice and reason.
In closing this despatch I venture to say that I was prepared for the disclosures, in the correspondence between Messr. Donelson and Buchanan respecting the preliminary treaty acceded to by Mexico. Speaking of it in a letter to Mr. Buchanan (August 16th 1845) Mr Donelson complains that “But for that treaty and the “proclamation which grew out of it, our position on the question “of boundary would have been less embarrassed”.—. And in another letter to the same quarter (July 16th 1845) he was still more explicit upon the obstructions thrown in the way of particular purposes respecting this important point, by the preliminary treaty and the suspension of hostilities proclaimed by the President of Texas. I had for some time been sensible that the disposal of this coveted Mexican territory was the single consideration left of real moment in these affairs, and that it was highly desirable that colourable Texian occupation should not be suddenly obtruded within it, before this Republic formally signified it's willingness to join the North American Confederacy. The Country in the actual occupation of the Texians is of little value in their condition of a State of the Union, possessing Millions of unoccupied acres of better land, or at least of equal fitness for the same products, and incomparably more conveniently situated for Markets.
Neither can the possession of this territory add to the political strength of the United States, for it is almost bereft of the resources which would help that object, having neither eligible harbours, nor easily navigable rivers, nor any other natural elements of Military power. At all events it had been lost to Mexico long since. Your Lordship however is aware that I was informed of the plots in preparation at that very moment for the seizure of the territory which was not lost to her, nominally to the Texian Militia; really by other Agency, and arms and funds. In view of that circumstance, a suspension of hostilities on the part of the Government of Texas was no doubt an object of importance at that conjuncture. Fully alive to the necessity of speed I travelled without resting from Galveston to Washington after my arrival in the “La Peronne”, for I was aware that Mr Donelson would immediately proceed to the same destination, and it was urgent that the acceptation of the preliminaries by Mexico should be communicated to this Government before his arrival there. We met at Houston on my return from seeing the President, and Mr. Donelson must have probably received the proclamation on his way up the Country. This correspondence confirms the impression I entertained and communicated to Mr Bankhead at the time, namely, that the suspension of hostilities by proclamation of this Government had disturbed the fulfilment of dangerous purposes against Mexico.
My share in these transactions has been at once exaggerated, and the source of considerable irritation and complaint in the correspondence here noticed. I shall merely say that I was acting in a sense of duty to Her Majesty's Government, willing to be helpful in effecting a peaceful settlement between Mexico and Texas upon terms of security, honour and advantage to both. But so far as I was entrusted with the execution of these wishes of Her Majesty's Government, it was incumbent upon me to take every proper precaution in my power, that their efforts in the behalf of one of the ostensible principals of this dispute should not facilitate the intentions of a third party to despoil Mexico of vast regions secured to her by treaty, to which Texas had not a shadow of just claim for Herself, and still less, if less were possible, to assign them to the United States. Contiguity between Mexico and the United States on that frontier will be attended with imminent danger to the stability of the first, and the desert nature of the country between the Rio Grande and Nueces make it almost vital to Mexico that those regions should continue to belong to her.
The safest separation between the Countries that circumstances now admit of, may probably be the course of the Nueces from Mouth to source, a right line from that point to the present South West limit of the United States, and thence continued along the present dividing Meridian.
I avail myself of this occasion to forward to Your Lordship the Copy of a Veto Message by General Houston on a Bill which passed both Houses of the Texian Congress at the beginning of his last Administration, extending the frontier of Texas to the Pacific in the parallel of the Mouth of the Rio Grande; which it may probably be one purpose of Mr Slidell's Mission to Mexico to attempt now for the United States. I have alluded to this subject in my former despatches, but have only recently succeeded in procuring a Copy of this Message.
Charles Elliot. To The Right Honourable. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
[Enclosure]. 172 Copy. Charles Elliot. Executive Department. City of Austin. Feby. 1st 1842. To the Honourable the House of Representatives
Impressed as I am with a sense of duty and the true situation of the Country I cannot yield my assent to the Bill “to amend an “Act to define the Boundaries of the Republic of Texas”. I trust your Honourable body will bear with me while I assign my reasons for the course which I feel compelled to adopt.
Texas has heretofore declared by the law of 1836 that her limits should [be] bounded on the West by the principal stream of the Rio Grande to it's source, thence due North to the 42d degree of latitude and the boundary line of the United States. This formed our limits with Mexico, and agreeably to this we have been recognized as independent by the United States, and also by those European Governments with which we have established relations. From these facts it seems to me that until Texas has it in her power to exercise jurisdiction it can be of no possible advantage to her, that she should assert any claim which would subject her to derision, or evince her wish to extend her claim to territory by mere assumption of a right which she might not be able to enforce. The recognized limits of Texas are greater than either her population or resources will enable her at the time to occupy.
To extend our limits according to the provisions of the Bill would embrace a region of Country larger than the United States of the North, and include two thirds of the Republic of Mexico. It would take in portions of the States of Tamaulipas, Coahuila, Durango, Sinaloa, and all of Chihuahua, New Mexico,—Sonora and upper and lower California. It is also but reasonable to calculate that the inhabitants of those vast regions would not number less than ten Millions. It would then appear curious to Nations in amity with us that a people destitute of means to meet their most pressing wants, and numbering less than one hundred thousand, should assume by a declaratory law that they have a right to govern a Country possessing a population of more than thirty to one. Thus far I am inclined to believe other nations would regard the Measure as visionary, or as a legislative jest, inasmuch as it would assume a right which it is utterly impossible to exercise.
But other considerations of a most grave and solemn character impress themselves on my mind.
The mediation of England has been invoked between the Governments of Texas and Mexico, the exercise of which has only been delayed in consequence of the want of the ratification and exchange of Treaties.
This difficulty will however soon cease to exist. So soon as the exchange of ratifications can take place at London there can be no doubt but that the British Minister at Mexico will be authorized to interpose on behalf of Texas; and unless some obstacle should intervene, we may at no distant period anticipate the most favourable result from the Mediation of that Power in our favour. Should the present Measure, however, be adopted and a proposition be submitted to the Mexican Government we cannot expect that this extraordinary assumption of right by Texas will be overlooked in the negotiation, but would present an insuperable barrier not only to our recognition by Mexico, but would annihilate every hope of an amicable adjustment of our differences. The British Minister would not be authorized to enter into any arrangement, but such as would present Texas with the limits avowed at the time of her recognition and declared by her law, Approved 19 December. 1836.
The promulgation of this Bill if it were to become a law, would suspend all action on the part of Great Britain. To assume a right which we cannot exercise would only work evil, and could produce no salutary result. It would be useless in itself. Indeed a proposition of this character is calculated to irritate and arouse the indignation of every man within the limits of Mexico. And whilst we would thus pursue phantoms as profitless as the present is dangerous, our character for policy, sagacity, and forecast would suffer serious detriment.
I need not assure Your Honorable Body of the ardent desire which I entertain for peace and friendly intercouse with all Nations. So long as we are not on amicable terms with Mexico, so long we will suffer hindrance to our prosperity. The constant cry of invasion will be sounded, not only throughout Texas, but throughout all Nations to whom we are known; and while this is the case we may feel confident that emigration will be impeded, if not entirely prevented. From this source we are to draw both population and wealth, and no matter how desirable our soil and climate might be to foreigners, nor how great their anxiety to make our Country their home, it could certainly be no additional inducement to families that Texas should remain in hostile relations with Mexico; which might and would at all times render their situation one of unpleasant excitement, if not of danger.
We may regard Mexicans as we may think proper, but still they are men, and entertain ideas of Nationality and some sense of shame and injury. If then they do, the present project must have a powerful influence upon them. Indignity always inspires feelings of revenge. The very thought of suffering a partition of their Country will give them adhesion, and union may render them more formidable than we have found them in times past. It will at all events arouse their energies, incite them to the last effort, inflict great annoyance upon us, and withdraw the attention of our Citizens from the pursuits and profits of husbandry.
Texas only requires peace to make her truly prosperous and respectable. Peace will bring with it every advantage. All that is needful to secure individual wealth is well directed industry, and the policy that will permit the farmer and the mechanic to employ their labour in peace is the only policy that can establish our Country. Without peace, labour and industry, we must with all the boundless natural advantages of Texas, remain comparatively poor and embarrassed.
The present moment is to my apprehension the most unfortunate of all others for the awakening of this subject.
Our fellow Citizen's taken at Santa Fe, if they still survive, are prisoners in the City of Mexico at the mercy of Mexicans. Every possible means at my command have been employed to obtain their release and restoration to their friends and Country. Should the proposed project reach the Mexican Capital in the character of a legislative act, no earthly interposition can secure their liberation, and I should deem it the most probable of all other events that they would be executed by order of the Authorities of the Country, and should they escape even this, I would apprehend their destruction by the populace. In a Country like Mexico, demagogues are never wanting to excite the fury and stimulate the bad passions of those to whose favour they seek to commend themselves.
I am therefore satisfied that if any measure could produce injury to Texas, and endanger the lives of our noble, generous and brave fellow Citizens, whose cruel captivity we now deplore, it would be the passage of this bill. Surely their circumstances invoke of the honourable Congress calm and careful deliberation.
(Signed) Sam Houston. [Endorsed.] Inclosure in Captain Elliots Despatch No 16 to the Earl of Aberdeen. Galveston Feb. 16th. 1846.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 173
No 17. New Orleans. March 4th. 1846. My Lord,
I have the honour to transmit the “Texas Democrat” newspaper of the 20th Ultimo 174 containing the particulars of the dissolution of the Government of the Republic of Texas.
General Houston and Mr Rusk have been elected to the Senate of the United States.
Charles Elliot. To The Right Honourable. The Earl of Aberdeen., K. T.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 175
No. 18. New Orleans. March 10th 1846. My Lord,
I learn that the Government of the United States is taking up some light vessels at this port for the service of the force at Corpus Christi, and also that a small steamer hitherto employed as a passage vessel between that point and Galveston has been chartered by [the United States] for the same object. These indications dispose me to think that the Material at all events, will be re-embarked at Corpus Christi, and transported by sea to the Brassos and Norte. Detachments have been thrown forward in the direction of the Rio Grande, but we have not yet heard that the Head Quarters and Main body have moved.
Unless the American Government has some understanding with leading persons in Tamaulipas and the contiguous Mexican States, the advance of this small and enfeebled force still further from their resources and communications, and within the perfectly unquestionable limits of Mexico, may prove to be a dangerous movement. If they advance to any distance from their depôts on the Sea shore, they may be cut off without difficulty, and if they remain there during the ensuing hot weather the climate and exposure will be disastrous to them.
I avail myself of this opportunity to transmit a Texian Newspaper of the 3d Instant, 176 containing some extracts from a paper published at Corpus Christi which merit Your Lordship's notice. It is no doubt probably that his tone is attributable to the dislike of the parties interested at Corpus Christi to lose the profits of the continuance of the force at that point; But be the motive what it may, nothing can be better founded than this exposure of the worthlessness of these pretensions to the Country beyond the “Nueces”
Charles Elliot. The Right Honourable. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 177
No 19. New Orleans. March 14th 1846. My Lord,
I have the honour to transmit the Corpus Christi Gazette Extraordinary of the 8th Instant, containing the General orders issued by Brigadier General Z. Taylor respecting the immediate advance of the American force from that point, to the Rio Grande.
Charles Elliot To The Right Honourable. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
KENNEDY TO ABERDEEN 178
No 4. Her Majesty's Consulate. Galveston. March. 16th 1846. My Lord,
I have the honour to enclose herewith printed Copies of the last Public Address of President Jones, the Inagural Address of the Governor of Texas, the first Message of the Governor,—and certain Newspaper Articles communicating political rumours, and intelligence of the Movements of the United States troops, heretofore stationed at Corpus Christi. 179
Generals Houston and Rusk—(as was pronounced likely in my Despatch No 34 of the 8th of December, last) have been elected to the Senate of the United States, by the Legislature of Texas. There were 70 Votes for Rusk, and 69 for Houston. Ex-President Jones was a candidate, and not an unwilling one, as I am told, but his nomination was set aside in preliminary “Caucus.”
Officers high in the Engineer Service of the United States have been employed in examining the Coast of Texas, with a view to its defence.—They have, it is said, reported favourably of connecting, by Canals, the lagoons, that fringe the Coast,—for the purpose of opening thereby a line of interior Navigation from the Sabine to the Rio Grande.
In reference to the Movement of the United States Troops to the Rio Grande, mentioned in Enclosure No 4, the “Galveston Civilian,” of the 4th Instant, observes:—
“We have no idea that they,” (the U. S. troops) “will be opposed in their present movement by the Mexican forces; nor do we think expectation of such an event is entertained by well-informed persons upon the frontier.
One result desired, and pretty confidently anticipated, from this Military movement, by the United States, is a declaration of independence by the North Eastern Provinces of Mexico, seconded by the influence of the Mexican General Arista.—After a brief term of probation, these most valuable Provinces are to be admitted to a participation of the advantages arising from an incorporation with the Federation of the North.—Such is the language of American politicians, and I cannot doubt its earnestness.
Whatever may be the issue of the Negotiations respecting Oregon, the United States seem resolved to possess themselves of Upper California. Large parties of armed settlers are proceeding thither from the Western and South Western States, and it is within my knowledge that a number of the most daring and intelligent Americans in Texas are making arrangements for journeying, with like purposes, to the same quarter.
In the meantime, it is hoped that Great Britain's devotion to— “peace, at any price,”—and the satisfaction with Mr Walker's quasi-liberal Tariff, 180 will restrain her action until the United States, are prepared, at all points, to contest her supremacy by land and sea.
William Kennedy. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 181
Private. New Orleans. March 27th 1846. My Lord,
The subjoined letters from Galveston reached me this morning and I think it right to communicate them to Your Lordship. I should mention that Mr. W. D. Miller was General Houston's private Secretary and was with him at this place, when the Speech in question was delivered.
Charles Elliot. The Right Honourable. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
JOHNSON TO ELLIOTT
To. Captain Elliott. Galveston March 24th 1846. My Dear Sir,
At the request of General Houston I forward to you the Copy of a letter 182 written by W. D. Miller, which was intended to be published in the “Galveston Civilian”
Signed. R. D. Johnson A.
ABERDEEN TO ELLIOT 183
No 1. Foreign Office. April. 3d. 1846. Sir,
I have received your Despatch No 13, of the 15th of February enclosing Copy of a Note addressed to you on the 4th of that Month by the Texian Secretary of State in reply to your Note of the 4th of January to him on the subject of the continued Treaty engagements betwen Great Britian and Texas when the latter should have ceased to be an independent State, and also conveying a Copy of a Confidential instruction which you had addressed to Her Majesty's Consul at Galveston directing him to recommend to all British Subjects trading to Galveston to pay under protest whatever duties might be required of them subsequently to the Annexation of Texas to the United States.
With regard to this latter point Her Majesty's Government consider that the general declaration recommended in the first part of your instruction is quite sufficient for every useful purpose, and that the more detailed protest enjoined in the subsequent part of your Letter might, if constantly acted upon, be productive of inconvenience. I have therefore to desire that you will further confidentially instruct Mr Kennedy not to insist on such detailed protest being recorded on the part of British Traders; but to confine his recommendations to entering a general protest, if such protest should be found necessary. Her Majesty's Government do not desire to incur the risk of an unnecessary controversy with the United States on the legal existence, or otherwise, of the Treaty engagements with Texas, after Texas shall have been merged in the Federal Union, although they considered it desirable to enter their general caveat on that point with the government of Texas, prior to the extinction of the Republick.
Aberdeen. Captain Elliot. R. N.
ABERDEEN TO ELLIOT 184
No 2. Foreign Office April 3d. 1846. Sir,
Your Despatch No 15 of the 16th of February (received at this Office on the 27th Ultimo) having announced to Her Majesty's Government that the Government of the Republick of Texas as an independent State would be dissolved on that day, I have to state to you that Her Majesty's Government consider your functions as Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires and Consul General to the Republick of Texas to have ceased by the fact of the dissolution of the independence of that State.
You will accordingly return to England as soon as you may find it convenient to do so, and you will bring with you the Archives and papers of your Mission, with the exception of such as you may deem it right to leave at Galveston for the benefit of Her Majesty's Consulate at that place.
Aberdeen. Captain Elliot. R. N.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 185
No. 20. New Orleans. April 19 1846. My Lord,
No latter tidings from the American force in Tamaulipas have reached this place than I have recently forwarded to Mr Pakenham, and requested him to transmit to Your Lordship; namely of the 1st Instant from the Brassos Santiago. Our last dates from Galveston are of the 15th Instant, but it is possible that the accounts from General Taylor's Head Quarters may in future come sooner, direct to this place or Pensacola, than by the way of Texas.
There was very tempestuous weather with heavy rains between the 2d and 6th of this month, as far to the Westward on the Coast of Texas as we have yet heard from, and if it extended to the Coast of Mexico as far as the Mouth of the Rio Grande (which is probable, being an equinoctial gale) mischance may have befallen some of the transports, ill provided with ground tackle, and insufficiently manned. At all events the difficulty of discharging and transporting the Material to General Taylor's position, about 24 Miles from Point Isabel, will have been much increased, and the advancing Mexican reinforcements will have had more time to arrive at Matamoros before the supplies from the Brassos Santiago had reached the American force. Their separation from their resources has certainly given the Mexicans, particularly if they are in the strength reported, a favourable chance of compelling the invading force to retire rapidly, if not of striking a still more decisive blow.
The U. S. Vessel of War “Porpoise” sailed from Pensacola a few days since, ostensibly to Haiti, but it has occurred to me that her destination may have been Chagres, with instructions to the American Naval force in the Pacific.
Charles Elliot. To The Right Honourable. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 186
No. 21. New Orleans. April 21, 1846. My Lord.
The accompanying intelligence 187 from the American force in Tamaulipas reached this City late last night, and I forward it without delay in the hope of catching the Mail of the 1st Proximo from Boston.
Charles Elliot. To the Right Honourable, The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 188
Secret. New Orleans. April 21. 1846. My Lord,
In my despatches from Texas in the early part of 1845 I had the honour to communicate to Your Lordship the general scope of a strange and dangerous plot against Mexico which it was hoped to set on foot through the Government and Legislature of Texas.
A main feature of that scheme, Your Lordship will perhaps remember, was to induce the removed Indians on the Western frontier of the United States (Cherokee and other tribes) by bribes of land in the outlying Mexican regions legislatively appropriated by Texas, to press on into New Mexico; and thence into California; following up that movement with other emigration as circumstances and policy might suggest.
I have grounds for thinking that this part of the scheme has been strenuously urged at Washington, that it has found favour with the present administration, and that they are disposed to do what they can to carry it out. In fact it seems a treaty has been recently concluded between the United States Agents and the Camachee and kindred tribes guaranteeing to them large tracts of these Mexican regions. The motive for such a compact at present is transparent, and I need not suggest to Your Lordship that it will not be better respected than any other of these treaties when it suits the convenience of other Settlers to replace the Indians, and press them farther on into Mexico. Indeed I may remark incidentally that a resolution has been passed by the House of Representatives at Austin (March 31st) asserting the exclusive right of the State of Texas to all the soil within the limits of the Republic of Texas, refusing to recognize any Indian title in those regions, and denying the right of the United States to make any treaty of limits with the Indian tribes ranging therein, without the consent of the Government of the State of Texas.
It is probable that this resolution was aimed directly at the treaty in question, and by that means to compel some satisfactory settlement of the Texian debt in exchange for this spoliation of Mexican territory
It is a strong impression in the quarter from which I derive this information, that the leaders of the Southern democracy will endeavour to defeat the notice by sending it back to the House in such a form as will ensure it's rejection there, and he believes that a main motive of their desire for the adjustment of the present difficulty 189 with Great Britain is to be able to turn with more safety and effect to the dismemberment of Mexico. The person who has furnished me this information has afforded me proofs of fidelity at various times during my Service in Texas, and has good means of knowing what is really intended respecting Mexico, by prominent personages at Washington.
Charles Elliot. To the Right Honourable. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 190
No. 22. New Orleans. April. 25th 1846. My Lord,
I have the honour to acquaint Your Lordship that a Bill is pending at Austin entitled “An Act to ascertain and establish the public debt, and to define how the same is to be paid.”
It had not passed at the last accounts but I think it may be convenient at once to report the principles on which it is proposed to make adjustments, and generally all that has yet transpired concerning the disposition of the public lands claimed by the Republic of Texas.
With that view I have the honour to forward a newspaper of yesterday's date 191 in which the subject is succinctly exhibited, and I would also submit to Your Lordship's notice, in the same newspaper, a letter written by General James Hamilton to General Burleson of Texas.
I have no knowledge of the nature of the communication of the Texian Commissioners to Her Majesty's Government during the Negotiations in England, preceding the treaty of 1840, or of any subsequent communications from them in Your Lordship's possession, but I conclude that the point of possible Annexation to the United States must have received attention at that time. There could hardly have been any failure of earnest assurances by the Commissioners, of the capacity and steady purpose of Texas to maintain her independence, and it is possible there may be much similarity between the argumentation to Her Majesty's Government in 1840, in support of the acknowledgment, and to the people of Texas in 1844, in recommendation of the sacrifice of that independence.
I think Your Lordship will also pause upon the paragraph respecting the difficulties which might have ensued respecting Mexican obligations to British Subjects, in part security for which, as is correctly stated by General Hamilton, many millions of acres of the domain claimed by Texas had been mortgaged to the Mexican bond holders. But the acknowledgment of the independence of Texas by Great Britain was simply and singly the admission of what was solemnly declared by Texas to be a fact, and which it was believed upon the faith of that declaration would remain a fact; namely, that Texas had, and would preserve a Sovereign, separate, and independent existence. The limits of Texas were not a matter of question, and the acknowledgment of independence had no connexion with, or bearing upon the public debt of Mexico to British Subjects, and the inherent liability of all the territory constituting Mexico at the period of the contract of those debts, to a fair share of the responsibility for them. If every State in Mexico, one after the other, had declared their independence, the public debt of Mexico would still remain to be adjusted, and with the debt, the justice and necessity that each Member should assume it's proportion of the charge.
It is altogether shadowy to hint that when Texas agreed to hold herself responsible for a certain amount of the Mexican debt, if Mexico consented to acknowledge her independence within a specified period, that Great Britain by being a party to that arrangement consented to forego all claim upon the territory claimed by Texas (four fifths of which have never been in her possession) if Mexico did not acknowledge the independence within that period. As I understand that subject, that was a specific agreement in the event of the occurrence of a given state of things, a definite settlement of the proposition for which Texas was to be responsible, in that state of things. If it did not obtain matters reverted to their former attitude.
That agreement too was necessarily made with reference to the territory in the actual occupation of the Texians, for I am of course perfectly aware that Her Majesty's Government never attached any weight to the extravagant territorial pretensions of the Republic of Texas. The legislative branches of that Government involved, as Your Lordship knows, the whole territory to the line of the Pacific, between the parallels of the Mouth of the Rio Grande and the 42 of North Latitude. It can hardly be pretended in any quarter that the approval of their President would have completed a title to those limits, yet in point of fact there is no better title to the immense regions now claimed, than one word more, and another signature. Texas might as justly have annexed the Country to the Isthmus of Darien as to the Rio Grande and upwards to 42 N.; and the pretensions of the United States founded upon the law of Texas, or upon any other pretext, to those regions, followed by force, are undisguiseable violations of treaty, and invasion of the Mexican territory
The sacrifices of the separate existence, and independence of Texas are sacrifices of those particular things by the people in the actual occupation of a particular territory, not a warrant for the invasion and further spoliation of Mexico by another power, and still less a discharge of the obligations and liens upon territory as completely free of control by Texas as the Coast of California. General Houston [Hamilton?] in his letter appears to have reasoned for the benefit of the Creditors of the Republic of Texas respecting debts contracted by that Republic, on the doctrine that the existing Sovereignty is responsible for the debts of the former.
That no doubt is a sound principle, but it may be remarked that there is a difference between the former and inherent liabilities of the territory constituting Texas, and the liabilities contracted by the Government of that Republic. Both the first and the last remain to be provided for, but the last, so far as the people of Texas are concerned, are subject to the effect of an express stipulation between the United States and the Republic of Texas, that the former shall under no pretext be liable for them. The contract between these parties is, that Texas shall keep the debts of the Republic, and that the United States shall leave Texas her domain, necessarily not defining the limits of that domain, which the United States had no more title or power to do than to define the domain of Guatemala. The United States, also, with the permission of Texas, reserved the exclusive right of making and concluding treaties of limits.
Her Majesty's Government are aware that Mexico would never have concluded a definitive treaty of peace with Texas, unless Texas had agreed in the final treaty to such money stipulations as would have partially compensated Mexico for being left with the whole burden of obligations contracted by the Confederacy of which Texas formed part of the domain.
Charles Elliot. To The Right Honourable. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 192
No. 23. New Orleans. May 1st 1846. My Lord,
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Your Lordship's despatches No 1 and 2 of this year.
The inclosure is the Copy of a letter which I have written to Mr Consul Kennedy in pursuance of the instructions in Your Lordship's despatch No 1.
I proceed to New York this evening and shall repair to England from thence with all convenient dispatch.
Charles Elliot. To the Right Honourable. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
ELLIOT TO KENNEDY 193
[Enclosure.]. Copy. Charles Elliot. Confidential. New Orleans. May 1. 1846. Sir,
Having reference to the Confidential letter which I left you on the 16th February last, I have now to acquaint you that I have had the honour to receive a despatch from The Earl of Aberdeen dated on the 3d Ultimo, directing me to instruct you, confidentially, to confine your advice to British Subjects at your Consulate who may consult you upon the subject of payment of duties, to the general declaration recommended in the first part of my instructions, and to omit any advice to make the more detailed protest recommended in the following part of those instructions.
To prevent misconception I recite below the portion of my former instructions to which you are now directed to confine yourself in any advice that may be sought of you upon this point, by British Subjects trading at your Consulate.
“If he” (the Master) “should find that he is permitted to enter under any other Authority than that of some existing revenue or navigation law of the Republic of Texas you will advise him to state that he had arrived here to trade under the treaty of Commerce and Navigation between Her Majesty The Queen of Great Britain and Ireland and the Republic of Texas, signed at London Novr. 13th. 1840, and whereof ratifications were exchanged at London June 28th 1842, that he claims the rights, privileges, liberties, favours, immunities, and exemptions secured to H. M. Subjects trading in Texas under that treaty, and enters protest against all proceedings taken, or to be taken contrary thereto, as respects the Ship, of which he is Master and the goods of her lading.”
(Signed) Charles Elliot. [Endorsed] Inclosure in Captain Elliot's despatch to the Earl of Aberdeen No. 23. New Orleans, May 1, 1846. To William Kennedy Esquire. H. B. M. Consul. Galveston
ELLIOT TO ABERDEEN 194
36 Wilton Cresent June 18th. 1846. My Lord,
I have the honour to report that I arrived here on the 16th Instant.
Deprived of my post by circumstances in Your Lordship's knowledge, I beg to express my readiness, and I hope I may add my earnest desire for early re-employment, for I have no fortune, and a large family entirely dependant upon me. So far as my Services and career may properly derive advantage from a very kind as well as just estimation by the Head of the Department under which I have had the honour to serve for the last 12 years, I certainly submit this application to Your Lordship with feelings of perfect confidence.
Charles Elliott. To the Right Honourable. The Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.
KENNEDY TO PALMERSTON 195
Private. 24. Rue de Villiers Neuilly, Paris. March 27th. 1847. My Lord,
I have the honor to submit to your Lordship the following extracts from a communication which I have recently received from a Correspondent at Galveston. The writer, is a native of North Carolina—of the Democratic party—and a professor of liberal opinions in regard to trade. He has filled situations of trust in Texas, and is, I doubt not, a faithful echo of persons well-informed, with respect to the Matters to which he adverts.—As to the war with Mexico, he observes.
... “I do not believe we shall end the War short of the occupation of the City of Mexico by our troops, or of clearly manifesting that its occupancy is, beyond all doubt, within our power. When we do this, we shall be enabled to demand and secure a peace on such terms as will be both honourable and just—And not before.—In making peace, I presume the Government will insist on, and exact, full indemnification for the expenses of the war, and that the compensation will be in territory South of Oregon and the Rio Grande.”
He thus notices the prospects of a liberal Commercial policy in Congress.
... “The factious party spirit—to call it by no more opprobrious a name—Manifested by prominent Members of the Whig party in the United States, relative to the war, is discreditable to us as a Nation.—A spirit almost as censurable, is also manifested by a portion of the Democratic party in opposing the levying of certain Moderate duties on foreign Articles, (now admitted free of duties) until the establishment of peace. You are aware of my warm advocacy, as an American politician, of the freest possible commercial intercourse of my Country with the world. One of the most essential differences, as you know, of the two great parties in this Country is in reference to the wisdom and policy of Government in this respect. The Manufacturers of the United States have been, and still are, attempting to exercise the same power and control in causing to be protected by Government their interests that the landholders in Great Britain have so long profited by, in the protection afforded them by the existence of your Corn Laws. Necessity, added to the experience of an enlightened public, has, at length, caused this principle to be abolished in England. I ardently hope its downfall is permanent, as the new System not only affords greater benefits to much the largest number of British Subjects, but to Britain herself as a nation, and to the civilized World generally,—especially the United States, by the sale of her surplus bread stuffs etc.—Indeed one of the principal causes of our success in being enabled to adopt a system of ad valorem revenue duties, was the enactment of your liberal Tariff. Those in this Country with whom I concur in political opinion have never since 1817 until the last Congress been enabled to pass a Tariff for Revenue purposes without admitting the principle of fostering, by protection, the interests of our Manufacturers.—And—I regret to say—that it is very questionable whether that Tariff, will be sustained by a Majority of the Nation at the next Presidential election. The recent Whig Majorities in the large and influential States of Pennsylvania and New York give the advocates of untrammelled intercourse cause for apprehension and alarm.—I am certain that nothing will be left undone by the Manufacturers which can be accomplished by them to fix upon the United States, as a permanent system, this unjust taxation—a taxation which affords a bounty to one part of the community and entails an impoverishing result upon the other.”
So much for my correspondent: for my own part, I have never regarded the existing Tariff of the United States as any thing more than a bait for the Calhoun Section and—above all—as a sop to quiet Great Britain during the Annexation of Texas and the dismemberment of Mexico. I have officially recorded, for the satisfaction of my conscience, my conviction that the policy which reconciled the Union to the acquisition of Texas was the extension of the home-market—or what may be termed the home-market—and an Anti-European Tariff. We might have prevented Annexation—such at least is my opinion—without a war—not having done so, we must prepare for its consequences.—Aggression against British North America it seems not too much to anticipate as among probable Contingencies, should the general state of affairs be favourable, and an American Army amounting to fifty or sixty thousand men return home flushed with the subjugation of Mexico.
At the period of the Annexation of Texas, it occurred to me that European Powers might some day take advantage of the precedent. From what I now see, it seems to me perfectly clear that the four great Continental States will act more closely than heretofore upon a similar System.—Even at present, how few of the Minor States have more than a quasi independent existence!—. Policy propels, and necessity may propel, some of these States towards the Shores of the Mediterranean, and there English interests demand vigilance as keen and action yet more direct and peremptory than even in North America. I venture to advert to these points with a full recollection of Your Lordship's Statesmanship in 1841—which had then—and has, (more intelligently) now, the cordial admiration of one whose judgment may be of little weight but is, at all events, unbiassed and independent. In opposition to prevailing opinion at the time, my regret was that more had not been done in the same direction. Why should not we attach the Arabs to our Standard—looking to the inevitable war—and by Colonizing thinly settled islands relieve our people and, ultimately, perhaps, enlarge the basis of the domestic empire?
But I crave pardon for placing these disjointed thoughts before Your Lordship—the emanation of Moments which sickness rendered solitary.
William Kennedy. Viscount Palmerston. G, C. B.
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTICES
José de Gálvez, Visitor-General of New Spain, 1765-1771, by Herbert Ingraham Priestley. University of California Publications in History, H. Morse Stephens and Herbert E. Bolton, Editors. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1916. Pp. xi, 449.
Aside from being an account of the inspection (visita) of New Spain and her northern provinces by José de Gálvez from 1765 to 1771, Mr. Priestley's book is a veritable encyclopedia of Spanish colonial administration. It is quite the most substantial and massive thing that has been done in this subject up to the present, and is made possible by the unrivaled facilities which the University of California enjoys for the utilization of the documents existing in Spain, not only in the local field but in the larger and more closely related one of Spanish colonial history. Although the activities of Gálvez as described in this volume are chiefly concerned with New Spain and its northern frontier provinces, the institutions and practices which are described so clearly and in such an interesting manner were characteristic of the entire colonial empire of Spain from Peru to California, and will be of interest to all students of Latin-American history and government in Spain, Mexico and South America, as well as in the United States. This book is of such merit, and of such consequence are the problems which it discusses, that the volume should be translated into Spanish for the more general convenience of our Spanish-speaking contemporaries.
Although the main contribution of the work is to be found from Chapters IV to IX, inclusive, for therein the visitation itself is described from documentary sources hitherto unused, the first three chapters, as well as the last, are of great value to the all-too-often confused student of Spanish colonial institutions. In his Introduction, Mr. Priestley gives his work a quality of completeness by sketching the life of Gálvez, supplying the earlier and later details of his career which are not identified with his six years of service in New Spain.
The first three chapters serve as introductory to the general subject of the visitation. The first gives a general survey of the Spanish empire at the time of the Bourbons, illustrating the need of reform, financial and administrative, resulting from the rack and ruin inflicted by the incompetence and extravagance of the Hapsburgs. This is concerned with the leading motive of the visitation: to bring about more efficiency of administration and more revenue. This chapter contains some very useful data compiled from a report of the Junta Comercial in 1765 on the weakness of the commercial system, with suggestions for reform. In his second chapter Mr. Priestley gives a summary view of the government of New Spain and its relation to and administration from Spain. This chapter is, in effect, a well-connected series of definitions, accompanied by brief historical summaries, of the political, judicial, ecclesiastical, economic and financial institutions of New Spain. The third chapter furnishes a history of the institution and practice of the visitation, showing its origin in Spain and its subsequent employment in New Spain from 1526 onward. In these first three chapters original sources are generously used whenever available, but it may be noted that the author, like other modern writers and students of Spanish colonial history, has felt justified in making frequent use of the works of H. H. Bancroft and Arthur Helps.
It is really in the five following chapters that the real contribution is made, utilizing chiefly the documents recently obtained from Spain. So well have these sources been used that in no part of this section can the criticism of overdocumentation be made (and seldom is it made except by those who are unable or indisposed to make use of original documents). The treatment of the tobacco monopoly and its administration is original. We note also as typical the struggles which arose between a viceroy, who did not wish to be disturbed in his pleasant and profitable state of isolation, and a zealous reformer, keen to bring the government to the highest point of efficiency. This is an old story in Spain's colonies. In the same manner we are instructed by the data furnished us on the administration of the customs at Vera Cruz, the amount of smuggling done not only by foreigners but by the faithful subjects of the king of Spain. Here we see in full swing the official corruption which was the ruination of the Spanish colonial empire and is still the curse of Spanish government.
Three chapters deal with phases of the frontier problem. The sixth shows that Gálvez played an important part “in planning and executing the coup” connected with the expulsion of the Jesuits. In describing the revolutions and revolts which followed and the reign of terror initiated by Gálvez, Mr. Priestley admits that his hero had many defects, and among them were over-severity and mercilessness. The seventh chapter describes Gálvez's efforts to pacify the Indians and to bring about the settlement of the northern frontier. In connection with the California expedition of 1769, it is refreshing to note the absence of the customary beatification of Fr. Junipero Serra. Mr. Priestley credits Gálvez with being the initiator of this plan to guarantee and insure the security of the northern frontier, and he summarizes this topic with the assertion that California constitutes a lasting monument to Gálvez in the western hemisphere. The next chapter discusses the Indian problem further and particularly the Sonora expedition. Gálvez is compelled to leave his work incomplete because of illness and insanity. A brief outline of the plan of intendancies as worked out by Gálvez follows, together with a description of the comandancia general. In the ninth, and the concluding chapter dealing with the visitation occurs an account of Gálvez's efforts to reform the customs at Acapulco, and the story ends with the return of the visitor to Spain. Throughout the volume we may note that Gálvez was not given a free hand in his work in New Spain; obstacles were continually placed in his way by the reactionary element in Mexico and in Spain, and among the latter may be included the highest officials of the government. The besetting evil which was continually gnawing at the vitals of the whole colonial system was graft, and in this participated officials of high and low estate: those who enjoyed the confidence of the government as well as those who were under suspicion.
The last chapter, and for the purposes of the student of spanish colonization probably the most useful, is a compendium of colonial finance, covering the period immediately preceding as well as following the visitation of Gálvez. We are shown the amount and extent of the revenue derived from precious metals down to 1789, and the author has indeed performed a service in placing this data before us in readable and accessible form, although it is to be noted that he is indebted to the admirable work of Fonseca y Urrutia for much of the matter presented. The perplexing matter of tribute is dealt with, salable offices, medias anatas, excises, tithes, and, indeed, thirty different forms of colonial revenue are described.
The book is well edited. It contains an adequate bibliography of manuscript and printed sources and an appendix, giving a translation of the most important original document used in the book: the instructions issued to Gálvez by the Spanish monarch in 1765. The book contains six maps and two illustrations. Notable among the former is a Jesuit Map of California of 1757, and a map of the proposed Intendancy of California of 1770.
Charles H. Cunningham.
The first number of the Louisiana Historical Quarterly contains translations by Mr. Gilbert Pemberton of two rare pamphlets in the library of Mr. Gaspar Cusachs, president of the Louisiana Historical Society: Informe que se dio al Exmo. Sr. Presidente de la Republica Mejicana, sobre limites de la Provincia de Tejas, con la de la Luisiana, prepared by Fr. José Maria de Jesus Puelles of the College of our Lady of Guadalupe, Zacatecas, November 30, 1827, and Diario de las operaciones de la expedicion contra la Plaza de Panzacola concluida por las Armas de S. M. Católica, baxo las ordenes del Mariscal de Campo D. Bernado de Galvez, October 16, 1780, to May 11, 1781.
The Tennessee Historical Magazine, III, 61-69 and 134-162, prints a number of letters from A. J. Donelson, James K. Polk, Andrew Jackson, Sam Houston, and others, which deal with the question of annexation of Texas to the United States, 1844-45.
Horace B. Little describes the prison camp at Tyler, Texas, containing five or six thousand Federal prisoners, as it appeared about April, 1864, and gives an account of his escape in August of that year in Indiana Magazine of History, XIII, 42-55.
The Texas History Teachers' Bulletin, V, No. 3 (May 15, 1917), prints from the originals in the Austin Papers three letters written by Stephen F. Austin that illustrate some of the difficulties he as empresario experienced in dealing with his colonists. The letters are dated April 4 and 7, 1829, and April 16, 1830. An index to Volumes I-V of the Texas History Teachers' Bulletin is printed in this number.
A brief article on the Bohemians in Texas, by Rev. Kenneth D. Miller, appeared in the Bohemian Review, May, 1917. It was republished by the Austin Statesman, May 23, 1917.
Under the title “Looking About,” A. E. Winship tells in the Journal of Education, May 24, 1917, what he saw of schools, teachers, irrigation, business and enterprises in the Brownsville country during a visit in March of this year.
What was done in the line of historical work in Texas and the adjoining States during 1916 is set forth in an article by Donald L. McMurry, entitled “Recent historical activities in the South and Trans-Mississippi Southwest” and published in the Mississippi Valley Historical Review, III, 478-512.
The John P. Branch Historical Papers of Randolph-Macon College, IV, 373-84, contain a series of letters from Thomas Ritchie, editor of the Richmond Enquirer, to Thomas Green, dated in 1836, 1837, and 1841, which deal with the desirability of annexing Texas to the United States.
The Brenham Banner-Press, on September 12, 1917, issued an Industrial Edition of forty-eight pages. The usual write-ups of the industries and commercial, social, religious and educational activities of the town are accompanied by two reprints of considerable historical value. An account of the New Mexico Campaign of 1861, by Mr. W. T. Wroe, is copied from the La Grange Journal. The Centennial Address of Dr. Wm. Carey Crane, delivered at Brenham, July 4, 1876, is reprinted from a pamphlet that is now rare. The address contains much local history. It is to be issued in pamphlet form.
NEWS ITEMS
The California Historical Survey Commission, created as a State department in 1915, has already accomplished excellent results. The survey of the county archives has been completed and will be made ready for the press during the next few months. Besides the archives much valuable material has been discovered in private collections.
Two acts were passed at the last session of the California Legislature dealing with the work of the Commission. By one an appropriation of $12,500 was made to cover the expenses of the Commission for the next biennium. By the other act the powers and duties of the Commission were enlarged, provisions being made for the publication of the results of the survey and also extending its work to include an investigation of the history of the physical characteristics of the Franciscan missions of California. At a recent meeting in Los Angeles the Commission placed the general supervision of this work in the hands of Rev. Joseph M. Gleason of Palo Alto. For that phase of its work the Commission has tentatively set aside the sum of $2500. The members of the Commission are: Hon. John F. Davis, Chairman; Professor Herbert E. Bolton; Mr. James M. Gwinn, and Mr. Owen C. Coy, Secretary.
Dr. Charles W. Hackett, assistant editor of historical publications at the University of California, has recently been appointed to carry on the work begun by the late Dr. Ad. F. Bandelier for the Carnegie Institution of Washington. At the time of his death Dr. Bandelier had gathered in Seville and Mexico several volumes of manuscript materials relating to the history of the Southwest, and to that of New Mexico in particular, during the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. These manuscrips will be translated and edited, with introductions and annotations, and will be published by the Carnegie Institution.
Due to war conditions and the impossibility of obtaining passports to Spain this year, the two Native Sons traveling fellowships in Pacific Coast history, each of the value of $1500, have been temporarily discontinued at the University of California. This year, however, four resident Native Sons fellows have been appointed to catalogue and edit materials already collected by former traveling fellows.
Mr. Roscoe R. Hill, whose Descriptive Catalogue of the Documents relating to the History of the United States in the Papeles Procedentes de Cuba deposited in the Archivo General de Indias at Seville was published recently by the Carnegie Institution of Washington, has resigned as head of the history department at the University of New Mexico in order to go into administrative work.
Professor Chapman has arranged with the management of the Grizzly Bear Magazine to publish in that magazine such of the term papers of his class in California history as show research and fair literary style. Thus far the following items have appeared: Historical and reminiscent articles in the first twenty volumes of the Grizzly Bear Magazine, a bibliographical article by Miss Leslie Underhill (April, 1917); The hide and tallow trade in Alta California (to 1845 inclusive), by Mr. Theodore Gray (July, 1917); The early history of Sacramento, by Miss Doris Bepler (September, 1917); and the first paper in a series of four, under the general title History of mining in California, this being entitled An Accouni of the '49 movement (September, 1917). Henceforth, one or more articles will appear in every number of the periodical. All are edited and provided with an introduction by Professor Chapman.
Dr. Herbert I. Priestley assistant curator of the Bancroft Library at the University of California since 1912, has been appointed also Assistant Professor of History in the Latin-American field, in which he is conducting seminars and lectures.
Professor William R. Manning of the University of Texas is absent on leave for the year 1917-1918. He is engaged in editing the diplomatic correspondence between the United States and all the Latin-American countries from 1820 to 1830. The work will be published by the International Law Section of the Carnegie Endowment at Washington, D. C.
Dr. William Edward Dunn of the University of Texas will spend the year in Mexico City supervising the collection of historical manuscripts for the University bearing on Texas and the Southwest. The work was interrupted some years ago by the revolution.
Dr. Charles H. Cunningham, who has studied several years in the Archives of the Indies at Seville and who has traveled extensively in South America, is carrying on a part of the work of Professors Manning and Dunn at the University of Texas.
Mr. E. W. Winkler's collection of Texas Political Party Platforms will shortly be issued as a bulletin of the University of Texas.
Mrs. Mollie Macgill Rosenberg, widow of the late Henry Rosenberg, widely known philanthropist, died at her home in Galveston, May 29, 1917. The News of May 30 has a sketch of her life.
Robert Jenkins Onderdonk, an artist of National fame, who had been a resident of San Antonio for the past thirty-nine years, died at his home in that city, July 2, 1917. A sketch of his life and work, with photograph, was published in the Express of July 3d.
David Wendel Spence, dean of engineering in the A. and M. College of Texas, died at Galveston, June 27, 1917. The Austin Statesman of June 29 contains a brief sketch of his life.
2. A Voyage Round the World in the Years MDCCXL, I, II, III, IV, 335.
3. For the case of the San Agustín see below; for the other galleons see Morga, Sucesos, in B. and R., XVI, 28.
4. Las instrucciones que se dan á los Generales de los Galeones de esta carrera de la Nueva España, o á los que les subcedan en el cargo para que las guarden, cumplan y executen, hagan cumplir y guardar á todos los oficiales, pasageros, Gente de Mar y Guerra en el discurso del Viage en ida, estada y buelta, 1743, Archivo de Indias, 68-6-38; and Arandía, Ordenanzas de Marina, 1757.
5. “Si el Bagel tomare puerto en parage poco conocido por algun acaso o necesidad, procurará sacar su plano, si es posible. . . . Y recalando siempre sobre las costas de California, o si por accidente fuera otra la que se viere, notará todo lo que reconozca de particular de las corrientes,sondas, variaciones de la Abuja, y demas que conduzca á su gobierno, y noticia de otros.” Ibid., 41.
6. The first señas, or signs of land, were sometimes met with several hundred miles from the American coast. There was a fairly regular succession of them as the galleon neared the land: first, the fungous aguas malas; then, at about a hundred leagues out, the perillos, “with head and ears like a dog and a tail like that they paint the mermaids with” (Gemelli Careri, in Churchill, Voyages, IV, 493); the porras, a yellow, onion-like herb, with long roots floating on the surface; finally, at thirty leagues or nearer, the balsas, or large bunches of grass. Morga, op. cit., 204-5. Cabrera Bueno gives the color of the porras as green or red (colorado), and says that their roots were from three to four brazos long. Navegacion especulativa y práctica, 293. Cubero Sebastian, who likens them to beets, remarks as to their origin: “Vienen sobre el mar, arrojadas de aquellos caudalosos rios, que salen de aquella tierra incógnita de la Nueva España, que está en 38 á 40 grados.” Breve relacion, 334. Cubero says of the balsas: “Estas hojas y raices quanto mas nos vamos Ilegando á tierra vienen juntas en cantidad, y los Marineros les Ilaman Balsas; encima destas Balsas vienen unos pescados á manera de Monillos, que los Marineros Ilaman Lobillos, y por mis mismos ojos los ví; juegan encima de las Balsas, y leugo se zabullen dentro el agua.”
7. In the log of the San Pedro for October 22, 1778, in longitude 101 degrees, 25 minutes east of Manila, and latitude 31 degrees, 42 minutes, an entry reads: “We passed a green porra, and orders were given to steer ESE.” Diario de la fragata San Pedro, Archivo de Indias, 108-4-25.
8. Essai politique, IV, 102.
9. Op. cit. “She falls in first with the coast of California and then coasts along the shoar to the South again, and never misses a wind to bring her away from thence to Acapulco.” Dampier, Voyage, I, 245.
10. Cabrera Bueno, op cit., 303. Pedro Calderón Henriquez, a famous colonial official of the eighteenth century, said that this portion of Cabrera's book was based on Vizcaino's work. Calderón to Arriaga, February 24, 1769, Archivo de Indias, 107-1-17. For Vizcaino's voyage consult Bolton's Spanish Exploration in the Southwest, 1542-1706.
11. A document in the Depósito Hidrográfico at Madrid,—Coleccion de Navarrete, t. I, no. 15,—entitled, Derrotero del viage de Nueva España para las Islas Filipinas y vuelta de ellas á la dicha Nueva España, contains the following: “A la vuelta de lesueste hay una bahía grande, donde hay muchos Indios y agua, no hacen mal, comen vellotas en lugar de pan, y cangrejos. Estando en esta Bahía parecen unos islotes unos al sur, otros al luesudeste; si vinieres de mar en fuera apártate de ellos, que es tierra de 38½ grados.” Though undated, this document is evidently of early date.
12. La nao de Filipinas navegará con confianza desde que aviste los Farallones del Puerto de San Francisco en Californias.” Viceroy Branciforte to Diego de Gardoqui, June 26, 1796, Archivo de Indias, Estado—Mexico, legajo 6.
13. Cabrera Bueno in one of the three courses which he describes, gives the following demarcation for a route involving a landfall in 35½ degrees: thence between the cordillera of islands and the mainland, southeast by south, along about seventy-five leagues of wooded coast, where an extra spar could be cut if there were need; to make land again at the island of Guadalupe in 29 degrees; thence a day's run to Cape San Lucas. Op. cit., 295. The San Antonio de Padua in 1679 sighted land in 36 degrees, 29 minutes,—“some very high, whitish, and treeless mountains.” Cubero Sebastian, op. cit., 336. The Rosario made her landfall in 1702 at Point Concepcion, and the Covadonga in 1731 in 36 degrees, 20 minutes. Extracts from Journals of Voyages between the Philippines and New Spain, 1699-1731, British Museum, 19294.
14. Las instrucciones, etc., op. cit.: Diario del viaje que hizo desde Manila á Acapulco el Galeon Santisima Trinidad, 1756-7, Archivo de Indias, 107-1-13.
15. Bolton, Spanish Exploration in the Southwest, 1542-1706, 43. “Para proseguir el descubrimiento de aquella costa y tierra desde 41 grades á adelante es de mucha importancia, y muy necesario para la buelta de las Naos de Filipinas y de todas las partes del Poniente.” Fray Andrés de Aguirre to the Archbishop-Viceroy, Moya de Contreras, 1584, Depósito Hidrográfico, Coleccion de Navarrete, t. 18, no. 30.
16. The true and perfect description of a voyage performed and done by Francisco de Gualle . . . in the yeere of our Lord, 1584, in Hakluyt, Voyages (Hakluyt Society edition), IX, 326-37, taken from Linschoten's Voyage; Burney, A Chronological History of the Voyages and Discoveries in the South Sea or Pacific Ocean, II, 58-60. Navarrete describes Gali as “el hombre mas aventajado y de crédito que allí había, y que en materia de cosmografía podría competir con los mas escogidos de España.” Expediciones en busca del Paso del Noroeste de la America, p. xlv. Even Navarrete accepted the evidently erroneous account of Gali's reaching the American coast in 57½ degrees, where he found a “pais hermoso, muy poblado de árboles y enteramente sin nieve.” See also Greenhow, The History of Oregon and California and the other Territories on the Northwest Coast of North America from their Discovery to the Present Day, 66; and Bancroft, North Mexican States, I, 143.
17. Governor Santiago de Vera to the King, April 26, 1587, B. and R., VI, 307.
18. Relacion y derrotero del viage y descubrimiento que hizo el capitán Pedro de Unamuno, desde los puertos de Macan y Canton hasta el de Acapulco en Nueva España, 1587, Archivo de Indias, 1-1-3-25. Villamanrique to the King, November 29, 1588, Archivo de Indias, 58-3-10. See Richman, California under Spain and Mexico, 24-29, and notes. Richman translates the essential part of the Relacion y derrotero, a copy of which exists in the Bancroft Library of the University of California.
19. King to Viceroy, January 17, 1593, Archivo de Indias, 58-3-11.
20. Velasco to the King, April 6, 1594, Archivo de Indias, 58-3-11.
21. “Se despacharon tres naos, . . . y San Agustín del capn Pedro Sarmiento que so color del descubrimiento del Cavo Mendozino lo despacho de aqui el Gobernador.” Francisco de Lasmissas to the King, Manila, June 16, 1596, Archivo de Indias, 67-6-29. Derrotero y relacion del descubrimiento que hizo el Capitan y Piloto mayor Sebastian Rodriguez Cermenho por orden de su magestad, hasta la Isla de Cedros, Archivo de Indias, 58-3-16.
22. Informacion sobre la calidad de la tierra que se vido en el puerto que se tomó, Archivo de Indias, 58-3-12. Bancroft says: “Cermenon's pilot, Bolaños, visited this port with Vizcaino in 1603, and his statement is all there is extant of the voyage.” North Mexican States, I, 147. See note on p. 372 of Richman, op. cit. Richman was the first to use the Derrotero y relacion from the Archivo de Indias.
23. Me parece que se convence y colige claro que algunas vayas de las Principales y donde mas se podia esperar de hallar puerto, las atravesaron de punta á punta, y de noche, y en otras entraron poco; á todo debio dar ocasion forzosa la hambre y enfermedad con que dicen que venían que los harían apresurar el Viage.” Viceroy Monterey to the King, April 19, 1596, in Anuario de la Direccion de Hidrografía, XX, 410.
24. Oficiales Reales to Monterey, Acapulco, February 1, 1596, Archivo de Indias, 58-3-12.
25. Navarrete wrongly says of the San Agustín: “Salió á la mar, y regresó sin haber podido desempeñar su encargo.” Op. cit., p. XLI.
26. “Cuidado me de la navegacion de las Islas Filipinas porque de vuelta de ellas siempre hay desgracias, . . . y todas suceden por ser la navegacion muy larga y no tener puerto en la tierra firme, donde hacer escala y proveerse de lo necesario y por remediar este daño deseo mucho descubrir los puertos de la tierra firme y demarcarlos y saber sus alturas.” Velasco to the King, May 31, 1591, in Anuario de la Direccion de Hidrografîa, XX, 408. Adbertimientos que el Virrey Don Luis de Velasco dio al Conde de Monterey, su sucesor en el govierno de la Nueva España, Biblioteca Nacional, document J-13, f. 167, sect. 5. However, Velasco was hindered by lack of funds from prosecuting the search. Velasco to the King, October 8, 1593, Archivo de Indias, 58-3-11.
27. Summary of letter of Monterey to the King, Archivo de Indias, 58-3-12.
28. “A resultado entera luz en lo que se deseava y claridad de que ay dos otros puertos buenos.” Monterey to Montesclaros, Acapulco, March 28, 1604, Archivo de Indias, 58-3-15. See Bolton, op. cit., for the details of Vizcaino's voyage.
29. Vizcaino to the Council of the Indies, Monterey, December 28, 1602, in Anuario de la Direccion de Hidrografía, XX, 450.
30. Monterey to the King, March 26, 1603, Archivo de Indias, 58-3-14.
31. See Richman, p. 22, for reproductions of two sections of this series. The Bancroft Library contains copies of the entire series.
32. Monterey to the King, Otumba, November 12, 1603, Archivo de Indias, 58-3-14. “Sabrá dar muy buena quenta de qualquier negocio de la mar, y a mi parecer la dará assimismo en cargas de justicia.”
33. Montesclaros to the King, October 28, 1605, Archivo de Indias, 58-3-15.
34. Real cédula, 1606, Archivo de Indias, 58-3-15.
35. The King to Governor Acuña, August 19, 1606, B. and R., XIV, 185-189.
36. Burney wrongly says that preparations for the occupation of California were stopped by the death of Vizcaino. A Chronological History of Discoveries in the South Seas or Pacific Ocean (1803), II, 258. This error is repeated in Coman, The Economic Beginnings of the Far West, I, 15.
37. Montesclaros to the King, May 24, 1607, Archivo de Indias, 58-3-16.
38. “Importantísimo es hallar puerto donde hagan escala los navíos de buelta de viage de Filipinas porque en tan larga navegacion la mayor parte del peligro es no tener donde reparar los daños que se reciben.”
39. Geographia Histórica, libro IX, p. 183.
40. Montesclaros to the King, Acapulco, August 4, 1607, Archivo de Indias, 58-3-16.
41. Junta de guerra y Indias, consulta, February 18, 1607, Archivo de Indias, 58-3-16. This junta consisted of the Conde de Lemos and six others.
42. The King to Velasco, September 27, 1608, B. and R., XIV, 273.
43. See Venegas, Noticia de la California, II, passim; and Bancroft, North Mexican States, I, passim.
44. The King to Velasco, April 14, 1609, Archivo de Indias, 87-5-2. “Fray Antonio de la Ascension, descalço de la orden de Nuestra Señora del Carmen, me escrivio por carta de 18 de Junio del año pasado las conveniencias que seguirían de hazerse una poblacion en el Cavo de San Lucas . . . en el puerto ó baya de San Bernabé dexando al de Monterey que a entendido está mandado poblar pues por estar aquel puerto de San Bernabé en altura de veinte y tres grados y en sitio mejor sera mucho mas á proposito que el de Monterey para hazer escala las naos de la contratacion de las Filipinas.”
45. A Cruising Voyage Round the World, 286.
46. Haciendo en él alguna fortificacion ó Poblacion en que los Navegantes refrescasen el rancho y descansasen del travajo de tan dilatado viaje.” The King to Viceroy Albuquerque, July 26, 1708, Archivo de Indias, 103-3-3.
47. The King to Viceroy Valero, February 18, 1719, Archivo de Indias, 103-3-4.
48. “Se podrá pasar asta la contra costa de la mar de la California y a su Cavo Mendosino al puerto de Monterey y podrá aver escala para el Nao de China ó Galeon de Filipinas, y juntamente algun comercio paraestas provincias de Sonora y Nueva Vizcaya y Nueva Galicia al Norte y Noroeste se podrá ir intrando hasta la gran Quivira y hasta el Gran Teguayo, y hasta el estrecho de Anian, y quisas tambien por alla se podrá abrir camino y mas breve nabegacion para España.” Kino, Favores celestiales, 1699-1710, MS. copy in possession of Herbert E. Bolton.
49. Traslado de peticion auto y informacion, etc., Mexico, April 26, 1735, Archivo de Indias, 67-3-29. This is an interesting expediente on the need for a way-station at Cape San Lucas.
50. “A no haver allado puerto en California hubiera perecido toda su gente.” Gaspar Rodero to Miguel de Villanueva, January 21, 1738, Archivo de Indias, 67-3-29.
51. “Il Capitano del Vascello ne informa il Vice re, e questi ordino, che d'allora innanzi tutti i vascelli delle isole Filippine facessere scala nel porto di San Barnaba. Lo stesso venne ordinato del Governo di quelle isole.” Clavigero, Storia della California, II, 83.
52. Viceroy Vizarrón to the King, April 23, 1735, Archivo de Indias, 67-3-29.
53. Geographia Histórica, libro IX, p. 181. Venegas also denies the allegation. Op. cit., III, 222. “Nuestra compañia, madre de enfermos y desvalidos.” Kino, op. cit.
54. North Mexican States, I, 468.
55. Gálvez to Arriaga, March 8, 1774, Archivo de Indias, 104-6-16. “Deberán situarse y perseverar de continuo en el Cabo de San Lucas que es el sitio mas expuesto y la Ilave de la California de Sur.”
56. Pedro Calderón Enríquez to Arriaga, February 24, 1769, Archivo de Indias, 107-1-17. In the previous November Calderón had proposed from Manila the abolition of the post on Guam and the diversion of the expenses of its maintenance,—about 32,000 pesos a year,—to the foundation of a post on the California coast. Twenty-one years before Calderón, an oidor at Manila, had urgently advised the occupation of Monterey. Calderón to the King, July 12, 1748, Archivo de Indias, 68-4-32.
57. Probably the best summary of these voyages is in Heawood, A History of Geographical Discovery in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (1912).
58. Spaniards had long realized the strategic value of the Philippines as a bulwark for the defence of the American coasts against aggressions from the west. Grau y Monfalcón, Justificacion de la conservacion, y comercio de las Islas Philipinas, 1640, in Abreu, Extracto historical, f. 7. Simón de Anda warned the Spanish government in 1768 that the abandonment of the Philippines would result in the loss of Spain's American empire. Anda to Arriaga, July 7, 1768, Archivo de Indias, 108-3-17. Anda was Governor of the Philippines from 1762 to 1764, and from 1770 to 1776.
59. On Gálvez see the comprehensive work by Herbert I. Priestley,—José de Gálvez Visitor-General of New Spain (1765-1771), (Berkeley, 1916). On the whole subject of “the northwestward expansion of New Spain” consult Charles E. Chapman's The Founding of Spanish California (New York, 1916).
60. Archivo de Indias, 108-3-9. This order reviews the attempts made in the early seventeenth century to bring about the occupation of Monterey. “Por Real Cédula de 19 de Agosto de 1606 se mandó con consideracion á lo mucho que importaba á la salvacion y seguridad de las Naos que vienen de esas islas en navegacion de 2000 leguas de golfo lanzado que tengan puerto en el camino donde repararse y proveerse de leña, agua y bastimentos.”
61. Basco y Vargas to Gálvez, Ronda, August 18, 1777, Archivo de Indias, 108-4-27.
62. Berenguer to the Conde de Tépa, January 17, 1791, Archivo de Indias, 108-4-27. “Todos aseguran ser peligroso y muy dificil el puerto de Monterey, y ademas de esto, no llevando como no llevan cosa alguna que desembarcar allí, ni haciendo otro gasto que el de un refresco de carnes y hortalizas, el pretendido fomento de aquel establecimiento no se podrá conseguir jamás de este modo.” Berenguer to Antonio Valdéz, July 10, 1789, Archivo de Indias, 107-5-17.
63. Marques de Baxamar to the Governor of the Philippines and the Viceroy of New Spain, March 5, 1795, Archivo de Indias, 108-4-27. “El Virrey Conde de Revillagigedo en carta de 27 de Enero de 1790 . . . dice que los riesgos de esta escala son despreciables.” Council of the Indies, consulta, January 27, 1794, Archivo de Indias, 108-4-27. One of the strongest advocates of the California station was the Hispanicized Englishman, Philip Thompson, “frigate's ensign and first-pilot of the royal navy.” Thompson to the King, January 10, 1777, Archivo de Indias, 108-4-27.
64. Bancroft, History of California, I, 217; see also 440-43.
65. Ibid., 384, 470.
66. The trade in the furs of marine animals offered a very promising field. Ciriaco González Caravajal, Expediente sobre establecer por la Compañía de Filipinas un comercio de pieles de nutrias castores y Lobos marinos de la costa de California, February 3, 1786, Archivo de Indias, 104-5-19. There is also in the Archivo de Indias an interesting document on this subject, without date or signature. Estado, Audiencia de Filipinas, legajo, no. 4, document no. 3.
67. Palou, Noticias, II, 363.
68. Pedro Basco to Gálvez, Manila, June 22, 1784, Archivo de Indias, 105-4-6.
69. Idem to idem, Acapulco, December 22, 1784, Archivo de Indias, 105-4-6.
70. Pedro Basco to Bernardo de Gálvez, December 29, 1786, Archivo de Indias, 108-4-25. Basco frankly says: “Luego que tomé la determinacion de hacer el viaje, la hice igualmente de no arrivar al puerto de Monterey en la costa de la Nueva California, como está mandado por S. M.” Audiencia of Mexico to Gálvez, January 4, 1787, Archivo de Indias, 108-4-25.
71. “The First Newspaper in Texas,” in The Quarterly, VI, 162-165, VII, 242-243.
72. St. Louis (Missouri) Enquirer, September 25, 1819, quoted by Winkler.
73. Gazette de la Louisiane (New Orleans), September 4, 1819, and L'Ami des Lois et Journal du Commerce (New Orleans), September 4, 1819, both quoted by Winkler.
74. Though the Emperor Iturbide had abdicated on March 19, the news had probably not reached Bexar when this was published.
75. The copy of the prospectus quoted is taken from the Louisiana Advertiser (New Orleans), of May 23, 1823. Judging from its style, the English copy was a translation of the Spanish. It is noted, but not reprinted, in the Missouri Republican (St. Louis), July 9, 1823.
76. The census reports nearest this date show the following figures: La Bahia (Goliad), April 24, 1825, 522; Bexar, July 31, 1826, 1625; Austin's Colony, March 28, 1826, 1132 (most of these had come in since 1823); Nacogdoches, July, 1828, 737. These reports are in the Nacogdoches Archives in the Texas State Library.
77. The bill is dated July 10, 1823. Copies of all the circulars are in the Bexar Archives, owned by the University of Texas. Mrs. M. A. Hatcher kindly brought them to the writer's attention.
78. S. F. Austin to James B. Austin, May 20 and June 13, 1823. Austin Papers. University of Texas. Also Garcia to Garza, July 17, 1823. Bexar Archives.
79. July 5, 1824. Austin Papers.
80. Austin Papers.
81. Mr. Winkler has published two notes on The Mexican Advocate, one in The Quarterly, VII, 243, and the other, a more extended one, in Ibid., VIII, 272, note 2.
82. In Nacogdoches Archives, Texas State Library.
83. Austin Papers.
84. H. D. Thompson to Austin. New Orleans, August 19, 1829. Austin Papers.
85. Winkler, in The Quarterly, VIII, 272, note 2.
86. The late A. C. Gray in his “History of The Texas Press” (in Wooten, editor, A Comprehensive History of Texas, II, 368, ff.), gives Tuesday, September 29, for this date. He got his information from Colonel Guy M. Bryan, and Colonel Bryan's error was no doubt due to the fact that No. 3, which he had in his collection, was dated Tuesday, October 13. Though nominally a weekly, the Gazette was subject to many exigencies, and appeared somewhat irregularly. The same error appears in an article read before the Texas Press Association in May, 1886, by Judge A. B.Norton, and incorporated in F. B. Baillio, A History of the Texas Press Association (Dallas, 1916), 320.
87. Texas Gazette, September 25, 1829.
88. McKinney to Austin, September 9, 1829. Austin Papers.
89. Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas, II, 548. The error also appears in Baillio, as cited in note 17; Gray, as cited in the same note, corrects it.
90. The University of Texas has, in the Austin Papers, Nos. 3, 5-8, 10, 14-16, 27, 28, 33, 36, 47.
91. Issue of October 9, 1830.
92. Issue of March 27, 1830.
93. See Cotten's application for land in Austin's Colony. Records of General Land Office, Austin, Texas.
94. A Visit to Texas, 5 (Anonymous. New York, second edition, 1836).
95. The Texas Gazette and Brazoria Commercial Advertiser, Extra, July 23, 1832 (Austin Papers) makes this announcement.
96. Bancroft, Gray, and Norton, as cited, agree in declaring that the Gazette continued publication until July, 1832.
97. Anthony to Austin, January 25, 1833. Austin Papers.
98. Williamson's management of the Gazette began with the issue of January 30, 1830 (No. 8), without explanation. The precise date of his relinguishing the editorial burdens cannot be fixed; he edited Number 20, Number 21 is missing, and with Number 22 (May 8) Cotten is again in charge.
99. For information about the papers in Mr. Wagner's collection I am indebted to the kindness of Miss Eleanor C. Buckley, of Austin, Texas, and Miss Helen S. Burns, of Atlantic City, New Jersey. Several errors in Judge Norton's article, in Baillio, as cited, note 17, should be corrected: Having called Cotten's paper “The Cotton Plant,” he says, “In January, 1831, `The Gazette of Texas' was published on this press, and after a few numbers its name was changed to `Mexican Nation' by Father Michael Muldoon.” It seems plain from the text that the titles are inaccurate. Whether or not Father Muldoon had a hand in naming Williamson's paper The Mexican Citizen, the writer has no means of knowing.
100. Austin Papers.
101. Thrall, H. S., A Pictorial History of Texas, 631-635.
102. He goes on to say that the paper will be sent to former subscribers to the Gazette until notified to stop by those who do not want it.
103. As cited, page 369.
104. As cited, page 549.
105. Records of the General Land Office.
106. Anthony to Austin, January 25, 1833. Anstin Papers.
107. Ibid.
108. Gray, as cited, says July, 1833. I cannot fix the date more accurately. Norton, in Baillio, as cited, 323, “The Constitutional Advocate and Texas Public Advertiser was published by Anthony at Brazoria from January 1 to July 16, 1833.”
109. The Advocate of the People's Rights, February 22, 1834. Austin Papers.
110. Gray says: “A paper called The Advocate of the People's Rights was also published in Brazoria in 1834, by Oliver H. Allen. Beyond this fact little is known of it.”
111. Norton, in Baillio, as cited, 324, says: “In January, 1835, a paper was published at Brazoria styled `The Texas Republican' by F. C. Gray, who was from New York, on the old press of Cotten, and it was the only paper in Texas, and continued to be published until August, 1836.” He adds, whether truly or not is unknown, that Gray later moved to California, became wealthy, and returned to New York and committed suicide. Bancroft evidently used Norton's source. He says (549): . . . “the Texas Republican, published at Brazoria by F. C. Gray, of New York, December 17, 1834”; and the details given by Norton follow. Gray says (as cited, 369): . . . “succeeded in August, 1834, by the Texas Republican. . . . Its publication was continued, with a short intermission during the Mexican invasion, until August, 1836, when it finally died.” All the dates given for the initial issue are incorrect. The date in the text is taken from the paper itself.
112. Harris's initials are nowhere given.
113. This issue is in the Lamar Papers in the Texas State Library. The numbers in the University's collection are: 1, 13-15, 25, 28, 31, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42-44, 46, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53-59, 61, and issues for March 2 and 9, 1836. Some of the numbers are badly clipped.
114. Norton says (in Baillio, as cited, 324) that Gail and Thomas H. Borden and Joseph Baker began publishing in August, 1835, “The Texas Telegraph and Land Gazette” and that it was the forerunner of the Telegraph. The assumption in the text that the Telegraph and Texas Planter never issued is based on two reasons: (1) If begun in August, the name would hardly have been changed—without also a change of publishers—so soon as October. (2) If an office had already been established and issuing a paper before October, the difficulties of getting out the first number of the Telegraph could not have been so great as described by Gail Borden to Austin in his letter of October 10 quoted in the text.
115. Both Borden's letters are in the Austin Papers.
116. Gray says (as cited, 370) that only six copies of this issue had been printed. He says that the press was afterwards taken from the Bayou and restored, that the Houston Morning Star was printed on it, and that it was in the Telegraph office in 1877 when the Telegraph suspended.
117. Gray erroneously says October 2.
118. The numbers missing are 10, 11, 18, 20, 22, 46. Number 19, however, is represented in the University collection by only two pages, 129-30 (1 and 2 of the issue). There are many duplicates in the collection.
119. As cited, 370.
120. Torres Lanzas in El Archivo de Indias, p. XV. For a description of this work, see infra in section IV.
121. See especially Bolton, Herbert E., Guide to materials for the history of the United States in the principal archives of Mexico. Washington, 1913; also Pérez, Luis M., Guide to the materials for American history in Cuban archives. Washington, 1907. See also Chapman, Charles E., South America as a field for an historical survey, in A Californian in South America (ed. by Dr. Herbert I. Priestley. Berkeley, 1917), pp. 41-50.
122. For example, in the case of Cuba.
123. For example, in the case of Peru.
124. For example, several of the archives of Mexico.
125. See Chapman, The founding of Spanish California, p. 170, n. 63, especially the second column of page 170.
126. The abbreviations used are the following: “Or.” for an original, signed with the name and rubric of the writer; “Dft.” for the draft or file copy of the writer; “Cer.” for a certified copy; “C.” for uncertified copies. These abbreviations are also used in combination.
127. Many documents which seem to be copies are really originals, such, for example, as petitions, which it was the practice not to sign, and letters of some of the religious, who occasionally omitted the rubric. In the case of ordinary copies it is not always possible to be certain that they were made from originals or certified copies, although they are almost invariably made from one or the other.
128. Much material relating to the Spanish period of regions now within the United States is still to be found in various local archives, as may be seen from the following account of the local archives of Texas, New Mexico, and California.
One of the most valuable archives of the northern Spanish frontier is that which accumulated in the old Spanish province of Texas. In the early years of its history the district was a part of Coahuila. For half a century, from 1722 to 1772, the capital was at Los Adaes (now Robeline) in the present state of Louisiana. Thenceforward, to the end of the Spanish period, the seat of government was at San Antonio de Bexar. In the course of time, the provincial records became somewhat scattered. The bulk of them, however, found their way into the County Court House of Bexar County (at San Antonio), where they remained until, some eighteen years ago, they were transferred to the University of Texas, at which place they have formed the basis for much of the notable historical work done at that university. Fragments of the archives are at the State Historical Library, Austin, where they are known as the Nacogdoches Archives. Still other fragments were found in the Lamar Papers, which were purchased by the state of Texas, a few years ago. These, too, are now at the State Library. The provincial records at the University of Texas are well known as the Bexar Archives. They comprise about 300,000 pages of original documents, consisting mainly of the correspondence of military and civil officials.
When the United States government acquired New Mexico in 1848, fairly complete records were found in the provincial archives at Santa Fe for the period since 1692. Few documents were of prior date to the latter year, due to the fact that in the revolt of 1680 all the records, covering the period from 1598, were burned, and it was not until 1692 that the Spaniards were able to return to New Mexico. In 1903, the Secretary of the Interior, acting for the United States government, took charge of the Spanish archives of the territory of New Mexico. During the preceding fifty-five years of American occupation, however, the archives had not been properly cared for, and in 1870 an American governor was even guilty of the vandal act of selling documents to the merchants of Santa Fe for wrapping paper. After the Secretary of the Interior assumed control in 1903, the papers still remaining at Santa Fe were, with the exception of a few that were retained in the Surveyor General's office in that city, removed to the Manuscripts Division of the Library of Congress. There they have been arranged in chronological order, the sheets have been cleaned, and a catalogue in English has been made of them. For more detailed accounts, see Vaughan, J. H., A preliminary report on the archives of New Mexico, in American Historical Association, Annual report for the year 1908, 465-494; Twitchell, Spanish archives of New Mexico (Cedar Rapids, Ia. 1914. 2 v.), Prefatory Note.
Unfortunately, the Spanish provincial archives of Alta California have not been kept intact, and probably the greater part of them has been destroyed. After the conquest of California by the United States, the archives were placed in charge of the United States Surveyor General for California. Some of the papers were later taken elsewhere, but the majority were still in possession of that official at the time of the San Francisco fire of 1906. In over three hundred volumes of Spanish records, scarcely more than a score escaped the conflagration. Fortunately, however, sixteen volumes of original documents dating from 1781 to 1850, had been transferred, in 1858, to the Monterey County archive, in the recorder's office at Salinas, and there they still remain. Five of the volumes relate to criminal matters; the others are miscellaneous, containing official correspondence, private letters, public addresses, and petty court papers. They comprise, without doubt, the most valuable source material for the Spanish and Mexican periods of California history to be found in any of the archives of California. Other records of a more local nature exist in the archives of cities which were the former pueblos of Spanish California, as at Los Angeles, San Jose, and Santa Cruz (Branciforte), and still others at many of the missions, especially at Santa Barbara, where an attempt has been made to collect the files of all the missions.
For the material of the preceding paragraphs, the writer is indebted to Professor Herbert E. Bolton, Dr. Charles W. Hackett, and Mr. Owen C. Coy, secretary of the California Historical Survey Commission.
129. Hill, Roscoe R., Descriptive catalogue of the documents relating to the history of the United States in the Papeles Procedentes de Cuba deposited in the Archivo General de Indias at Seville (Washington, 1916), p. VII, says “about 35,000,” and in a list on page IX gives a more nearly exact estimate of 35,731 legajos. Shepherd, William R., Guide to the materials for the history of the United States in Spanish archives (Washington, 1907), p. 55, says “some 40,000 legajos,” and those are the figures given by Señor Torres Lanzas, head of the archive, to the writer. The two estimates may be reconciled by the fact that there are some groups of papers in which the legajos are so large as to be unwieldy, and it has long been planned to reduce them to a more convenient size. In 1913, after Mr. Hill's departure from Seville, this work began on the 1194 bundles of the Escribanía de Camara del Consejo de Indias papers, which are expected to yield about 3,000 legajos of the usual size.
130. This is the estimate of Señor Torres Lanzas.
131. Hill, Descriptive catalogue, p. XXIX, estimates that there are an average of five hundred documents in the legajos forming the basis of his work. In the legajos investigated by the present writer, most of them in the Guadalajara and Mexico sections of the Audiencias group and the Estado papers, it is doubtful if the average is over three hundred, owing to the great number of testimonios, and it may be less.
132. Robertson, James A., List of documents in Spanish archives relating to the history of the United States which have been printed or of which transcripts are preserved in American libraries. Of the 5332 items, 1075 concern printed documents, but the transcript entries often include more than a single document.
133. Through the efforts of Native Sons of the Golden West Fellows and of Dr. William E. Dunn of the University of Texas, thousands of documents have been procured for the Bancroft Library of the University of California, the Library of the University of Texas, the Newberry Library of Chicago, and the Library of Congress. Thus, students in the Spanish-American field have an opportunity to carry on extensive work in any one of four widely separated cities of this country.
134. See especially the already cited works of Shepherd and Torres Lanzas.
135. Hill, Descriptive catalogue, p. IX, gives a table showing the different larger groups of papers, their inclusive dates, the number of legajos in each, the origin of the papers, and the dates when they came to the Casa Lonja.
136. On this point, see Shepherd, Guide, p. 59, and Hill, Descriptive catalogue, pp. IX-XI.
137. The most famous of all the sets of materials at the archive is that of the Patronato Real. The title of these papers would lead one to expect them to deal with the royal patronage with regard to the church, but the name has no relation to the subject-matter; they are so called, because they are stored in a room which was formerly the office of that branch of royal administration. They represent the selections of Juan Bautista Muñoz of the materials which he considered the most valuable of the archive. As such, they have been used by investigators more than many other equally valuable sets, and they constitute the principal source for the much-cited Colección de documentos inéditos, relativos al descubrimiento, conquista y organización de las antiguas posesiones españolas de América y Oceanía (Madrid, 1864-1884. 42 v.). Cf. Chapman, The Founding of Spanish California, p. 438. The documents of the Patronato Real are particularly rich in materials for the era of the conquistadores; they contain little or nothing for the eighteenth century. There is still much of value in this set that has not been used, e. g., the six hundred page manuscript account of the Coronado expedition by Baltasar de Obregón, which was virtually unknown until found by the writer and copied for the Newberry Library of Chicago, but, as a general rule, other sets will now yield far more to the investigator in search of new materials. The inventarios and índices of the Patronato Real are the type which has been followed with more or less success in the cataloguing of other sets. The inventarios of this set (of which there are two) list the materials, sometimes by expedientes, and at others document by document. The índices (of which also there are two) provide an alphabetical index, usually by names of persons, but in some cases by names of places and institutions as well, to the inventarios. Where possible, the alphetical index is applied within geographical units.
138. This section has also served as a category for materials which came to the archive, not necessarily from Simancas, after the inventarios of other groups had been made up. It is, therefore, a growing set. Shepherd, Guide, p. 67.
139. It is a temptation to write a general account of the various larger groups of papers, for which the writer has notes available, but it is doubtful if much that is useful could be added to the concise statements appearing in Shepherd's Guide.
140. See supra, n. 10.
141. See supra, n. 10.
142. These verses were written by N. T. Byars, of Washington, Texas, in 1835, upon the occasion of the receipt of a threatening proclamation from Santa Anna, addressed to the people of Texas. The declaration of Texas independence was written and signed in the house of N. T. Byars.
143. Telegraph and Texas Register, October 31, 1835.
144. Louisiana Advertiser (New Orleans, 1836).
145. The following lines are a hasty after-dinner effusion of one of the sweetest living bards of England. They were shown us by a friend of the author, and are now, for the first time, given to the public.
146. The original manuscript of this poem is in my possession. I have never seen it in print.
147. Bolton and Barker in With the Makers of Texas, p. 159, quote this poem, but omit the last stanza, which I give here as penned in the original copy in my possession. They reprint it from the Telegraph and Texas Register, August 9, 1836, where the last stanza is also omitted. Drs. Bolton and Barker head it, “The Texas Marseillaise.” The reader will note the words will not accommodate themselves to that tune, however. My copy reads to sing to tune, “Scots wha' hae.” Drs. Bolton and Barker state “author unknown.” J. Freon was undoubtedly the author in the absence of proof to the contrary. In my original manuscript copy, he states “written for Travis; The Last Call for Assistance.”
148. This is the original copy of this poem, and was published and properly credited to G. V. H. Forbes, as here written, in the Telegraph and Texas Register, August 30, 1836.
149. A New Orleans paper, July 25, 1836.
150. From the New York Star, 1836.
151. This poem has a national reputation, and is beloved by Texans. It was first published at Columbia, Texas, in the Telegraph and Texas Register, Wednesday, October 5, 1836, and signed “P.”
In the publication in the Telegraph and Texas Register, in the second stanza, the seventh verse reads “angry billows” instead of “whelming billows,” as in this corrected copy. The eighth verse, same stanza, reads in Telegraph and Texas Register, “each dauntless heart at once replied”; here reads, “at once each dauntless heart replied.” In Telegraph and Texas Register, the third stanza, fifth verse, reads “`The last was felled the fight to gain,” and here it reads, “Till falls their flag when none remain.”
152. To the editor of the (New Orleans) Bulletin: The enclosed was written on Monday, after having read the melancholly intelligence of the “Fall of San Antonio,” and the inhuman butchery of the garrison. It was intended for Tuesday's paper. If you think it worth inserting, it is at your disposal.
153. From the New York Spirit of the Times, 1836.
154. For the Lexington Intelligencer, 1836, Mississippi or Kentucky.
155. General Felix Huston, commander of the volunteers from Mississippi.
156. Colonel Wilson, commander of the volunteers from Kentucky; most of them were from Fayette County.
157. The river Brazos de Dios.
158. From the original manuscript copy in my possession. I have not seen this poem in print. It is in the handwriting of J. R. W., and in the absence of proof to the contrary I credit it to him.
159. For the New Orleans Commercial Bulletin; written two days after the fight by a gentleman who was in the battle.
160. La Bahía—Goliad.
161. “It will be a matter of great interest, a few years hence, to possess the various contemporary poems and speeches relating to the dawning nation of Texas. We will give our mite for the benefit of future collectors, by preserving a few [four printed next below] of those which have last come to us in the mail papers. The following have no title, and bear the signature of S. A. M. They appear in the Gloucester (Massachusetts) Telegraph and seem to refer to the late Texas triumph over Santa Anna.”—New York Mirror, July 30, 1836.
162. “The `Address to the Texians,' which we next retain in order, is ascribed by the Boston Gazette to Mr. John E. Dow: it appeared first in the Washington Telegraph, and bears date Washington, May the second, 1836.”—New York Mirror, July 30, 1836.
163. “We now turn to an invocation to the `Flag of Texas,' which appears in the Baltimore Patriot, and is signed J. M. M.”—New York Mirror, July 30, 1836.
164. “And in the Mississippi Christian Herald, we read the following, evidently imitated from Campbell, and descriptive of the late glorious victory. It is headed `Texas.”'—New York Mirror, July 30, 1836.
165. From the Baltimore American, 1836.
166. Telegraph and Texas Register, February 21, 1837.
167. F. O., Texas, Vol. 16.
168. F. O., Texas, Vol. 16.
169. F. O., Texas, Vol. 16.
170. F. O., Texas, Vol. 16.
171. F. O., Texas, Vol. 16.
172. F. O., Texas, Vol. 16.
173. F. O., Texas, Vol. 16.
174. “Extra” edition.
175. F. O., Texas, Vol. 16.
176. The Galveston News, March 3, 1846.
177. F. O., Texas, Vol. 16.
178. F. O., Texas, Vol. 17. This is the last letter from Kennedy in Texas, containing anything of interest. On September 18, 1846, Kennedy left Texas on sick leave and a Mr. Lynn was appointed acting consul at Galveston. His correspondence is confined to the details of his office. Mr. Kennedy never returned to Texas, and formally gave up his consulate in 1850. Lynn's appointment to the place was confirmed May 18, 1850.
179. All enclosures are unidentified newspaper cuttings.
180. Robert John Walker, United States Senator from Mississippi, appointed secretary of the treasury by Polk, 1845. He was the author of the tariff of 1846, which was considered to have a free trade basis, Walker's principle being that no revenue should be raised by import duties, not directly needed to meet the expenses of the government.
181. F. O., Texas, Vol. 16.
182. This letter has already been inserted in its proper chronological order. See The Quarterly, XX, 167.
183. F. O., Texas, 21.
184. F. O., Texas, Vol. 21.
185. F. O., Texas, 16.
186. F. O., Texas, 16.
187. The New Orleans Daily Picayune, April 21, 1846.
188. F. O., Texas, 16.
189. The controversy over the Oregon boundary was thought at this time to threaten war between the United States and Great Britain.
190. F. O., Texas, Vol. 16.
191. The New Orleans Commercial Bulletin, April 24, 1846.
192. F. O., Texas, Vol. 16. This was the last letter to Aberdeen written by Elliot while in America, as chargé d'affaires to Texas.
193. F. O., Texas, Vol. 16.
194. F. O., Texas, Vol. 16.
195. F. O., America, Vol. 476. After the Texan Republic ceased to exist, British consular correspondence from the state was classified under F. O. America. This correspondence has been examined for further material on the Texan Republic, but the letter here printed is the only one found. It is to be noted that Kennedy is here writing to Palmerston. who has replaced Aberdeen at the foreign office, so that Kennedy's implied reflection on Aberdeen's policy is not in itself proof that Kennedy had desired Great Britain to pursue a more vigorous policy in the years 1841-1846. Nevertheless, it is probably true that Kennedy always regarded Aberdeen's policy in Texas as over cautions.
How to cite:
"Issue View", Volume 021, Number 2, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online. http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v021/n2/issue.html
[Accessed Fri Mar 19 21:18:39 CDT 2010]
