ANALYSIS OF THE WORK OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL,
PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF TEXAS, 1835-1836
IV
(Continued from the April, 1938, Number.)
Many Texans believed that it was as necessary to strike the enemy
by sea as by land. By implication the organic law provided for
creating a navy and issuing letters of marque and reprisal. In
his first message to the Council Governor Smith urged that letters
of marque and reprisal be issued at once, in order that privateers
might embarrass the shipping of the enemy, and protect Texas
from invasion by sea. The committee on naval affairs reported
in favor of such procedure, November 18, and at the same time
proposed the creation of a navy for Texas. The Council passed
an ordinance in keeping with this report, but it met with the
disapproval of the governor, and was returned with his veto. The
governor objected to the large powers given privateers, to the fact
that the state was to receive none of the spoils, and to the creation
of a navy in the ordinance granting letters of marque and reprisal.
1
The measure was so revised as to meet with the approval of the
executive.
Letters of marque and reprisal were to be issued by the gov-
ernor, with the advice and consent of the Council, to men of
known character and skill. No such license was to be granted a
vessel of less than eighty tons burthen. The privateers were to
cruise within the Gulf of Mexico, and make war on all vessels
sailing under the authority and flag of the Central Government
of Mexico. Prizes were to be brought into port, and if condemned
were to be sold; the government receiving twenty per cent of the
proceeds. The letters were not to be granted for less than three
months, nor more than six months, and in all cases were to come
to an end with the war.
2
The ordinance was not pleasing to all concerned, and December
29, a supplementary measure was passed. The new decree reduced
the amount to be taken by the government to ten per cent. All
vessels sailing under authority of a letter of marque and reprisal
were to fly the flag of the Republic of Mexico, and were to have
the figures 1, 8, 2, 4, against the white ground of the flag. The
governor was instructed to send three blank commissions to
Thomas F. McKinney and Silas Dinsmore of Velasco, and not
more than six blank commissions to Samuel Whiting of Trinity
River. These men were to issue the commissions.
3 Within a short
time the Council had granted letters to Silas Dinsmore, Jr.,
Colonel Potter, Ira E. Lewis, Benjamin F. Smith, and several
other citizens.
4
Provision for the creation of a navy was made in an ordinance
of November 25. The navy was to consist of two schooners of
twelve guns each, and two schooners of six guns each, which were
to be manned by the necessary number of officers, seamen and
marines.
5 The agents to the United States were authorized to
purchase vessels for the navy. No further consideration was given
the navy until Johnson was authorized to make the expedition to
Matamoras. Vessels were needed to co-operate with him, and
January 3, a committee reported concerning offers made by Mc-
Kinney and Williams. Barrett stated, for the committee, that
McKinney was offering the government the schooner William
Robbins
for $3,500; and that McKinney and Williams were willing
to sell the Invincible,
a schooner of 126 tons burthen, for first cost
and charges. It was recommended that agents be appointed to
inspect the vessels and purchase them if they were satisfactory.
Two days later Edmund Andrews and William P. Harris were
made the agents of the government. In case the vessels were
bought, the governor was to inform the agents to the United
States of the fact, in order that they might limit their purchases
accordingly.
6
Smith found much fault with the measure, and returned it with
a very snobbish letter. He had considered the ordinance "with
that attention which I considered the subject merited, and have
enclosed it back," with objections. According to the governor
the agents to the United States had purchased the William
Robbins,
and had changed the name to Liberty.
He also found fault with
the wording of the ordinance, and thought the Council should
make no effort to purchase vessels after having authorized Austin,
Archer and Wharton to do so.
7 The Council immediately repassed
the ordinance and returned it to the governor for his signature.
It was never returned by Smith.
8
Barrett reported to the Council January 8, that the Montezuma,
a Mexican sloop of war, was reported to be in the harbor at Gal-
veston. According to Barrett, Texas had no vessel capable of
competing with the Montezuma,
but the sloop Invincible
was
offered to Texas at a fair price. The Council resolved that the
Invincible
be accepted as the property of Texas, and be registered
accordingly. Governor Smith was requested to issue a commis-
sion to Thomas P. McKinney as commander of the vessel. Mc-
Kinney was to provide a crew, ammunition and supplies, and
cruise against the enemy in the Gulf of Mexico until he received
further orders.
9
On at least one occasion the Council was called upon to exercise
its functions as a court of admiralty. The schooner Hannah
Elizabeth,
loaded with cannon, arms, ammunition, and a cargo
of goods belonging to Peter Kerr, sailed from New Orleans for
Texas. Before completing her voyage she was run aground by
the Mexican vessel Bravo,
and a prize crew was placed on board.
The Hannah
Elizabeth
was retaken by citizens of Matagorda, who
had obtained at least temporary possession of the William
Robbins.
The crew of the William
Robbins,
under command of Captain
Hurd, appropriated to themselves the goods and provisions, "allow-
ing Kerr to retain his part on payment of half their value!"
10
This matter was reported to the Council by J. W. Fannin, who
was, it seems, quite prejudiced against Hurd and the members of
his crew. Thomas Barnett, Robert
H. Williams and James Col-
lingsworth were appointed commissioners, with power to secure
and retain in the name of the Provisional Government the vessel
and its cargo. The commissioners were also made a court of
inquiry with ample power to investigate the case, and were to
report to the government. They were to secure the Mexican
prisoners in order that they might be made to answer for the
safety of members of the crew of the Hannah
Elizabeth
captured
by the Bravo.
11
The commissioners did not proceed at once, and Barnett seems
to have been the only one willing to serve. Isaac E. Robinson
was later appointed by the Council to join Barnett in the inves-
tigation.
12 It is probable that the investigation was never made
by the commission, although the journal does indicate that the
Council gained control of the prisoners.
13
Some time later R. R. Royall was appointed an agent to take
charge of the wreck of the schooner San
Felipe,
which was re-
ported as lying on the beach "in or near Passo Cabello." He was
to report to the government the best disposition to be made of
the wreck.
14 This was the last act of the Council concerning
admiralty matters as it was passed January 17, the last day on
which the Council pretended to have a quorum.
The advisory committee, February 1, advised that officers for
the navy should be appointed and crews obtained. The navy was
then to protect the coasts of Texas and co-operate in every way
with the Matamoras expedition.
15 On the whole the Provisional
Government met with little success in carrying out its plans for
a navy.
Due to the extreme vagueness of the organic law, misunder-
standings and disputes between governor and Council were probably
inevitable. To make matters worse the Council, under the lead-
ership of D. C. Barrett, consistently favored the pronouncements
of the Consultation, as expressed in the Declaration of November
7, while the governor was one of the most radical members of the
Independence party, and hated everything Mexican. Barrett and
Smith were political enemies and probably personal enemies. Cer-
tainly they were not friends, and there is some reason to believe
the quarrel between the governor and Council to have had its
inception in a personal quarrel in which Smith was the aggressor.
The outstanding events in this quarrel between the branches of
the Provisional Government consist of their differences of opinion
concerning General Mexía, the manner of drawing drafts on the
treasury, the calling of a Convention, the Barrett and
appointments, and the Matamoras expedition.
1 The activities of
land speculators also led to differences of opinion. These disputes,
however, were not of sufficient importance to have disrupted the
government had it not been for the peculiar character of Governor
Smith. He was inclined to question the honesty of his opponents,
and to think of himself as an incorruptible man. He fought
with a crusader's zeal any who saw fit to oppose him.
The wisdom of the Consultation in choosing Henry Smith for
governor is subject to question, since he was known to be strongly
in favor of independence, while that body decreed that the gov-
ernment was to co-operate in every way possible with Mexican
liberals.
2 Even had there been no personal quarrel the governor
and Council would have been out of harmony. Lieutenant Gov-
ernor Robinson was also a member of the independence party.
The personal quarrel between Smith and Barrett may have had
its beginning in the Consultation, for in that body the plan for
a provisional government presented by Smith was rejected on
motion of Barrett, and a plan prepared by a committee of which
Barrett was chairman was adopted.
3
In his first message to the Council the governor spoke of himself
as "the supreme Executive of the free and sovereign state of
Texas," and from that day tended to overemphasize his authority.
No clause in the organic law gave to the governor the veto power.
The Council, however, saw fit to extend to him that power, with
the provision that a veto could be overridden by a two-thirds
majority vote of the Council. Due to a very minor objection, the
governor vetoed the bill which gave him this power.
4 His objec-
tion was reasonable and the Council sustained him. The second
measure passed by the Council was also vetoed. This ordinance
created several offices, and the governor thought that the salaries
specified were unduly high.
5 His objections were again sustained
by the Council, and it was not until November 24, that an act
was passed over the veto.
In his message of November 24, the governor gave his reasons
for the veto of two measures passed by the Council. One of these
measures provided for the issuance of letters of marque and re-
prisal, and the creation of a navy. The Council, in this instance
accepted the recommendations of Smith. The second measure
authorized Thomas F. McKinney to negotiate a loan of $100,000
for the use of the government. This loan had been approved
by the Consultation, and the Council for the first time asserted
its right to negative an executive veto.
6 This was thenceforth to
be the policy of the Council, for never again was a veto sustained.
During December Governor Smith vetoed four measures passed
by the Council, and one ordinance was vetoed in January. In
every case the measures were repassed by the Council, usually
by unanimous vote. Of the nine measures vetoed by the gov-
ernor, seven were introduced by Barrett, one by Perry and one
by Hanks. By the beginning of the new year the governor had
come to realize that his vetoes were of little use, and he then
saw fit to embark upon the disgraceful policy of receiving bills
from the Council and keeping them, refusing either to sign or
to veto them. It is certain that five ordinances were kept in this
way, and there may have been others.
7
The first open dispute between governor and Council came as
a result of the creation by the Council, December 11, of the office
of judge advocate general, and the appointment to that position
of D. C. Barrett.
8 To this nomination, as well as to the nomina-
tion of Edward Gritten as collector for the port of Cópano, the
governor was to register serious objections. It is doubtful whether
the governor had authority to question nominations made by the
Council, and if he did have his objections should have been made
known within the period of three days given him for the use of
his veto. Smith took no action on either of these appointments
until December 17, when he sent to the Council a number of
charges against these men, and objected to their appointment.
Admitting that it was unwise for the Council to appoint its own
members to office, the message of the governor is still interesting
and amusing.
Smith said, in this message, that he had no acquaintance with
most of the men appointed to office by the Council,
but feel bound to presume that inasmuch as you are the
guardians of the people, you feel the responsibility of the
trust reposed, and would not confer an appointment of either
honor, trust or profit on any man either unworthy or incapable
of performing the functions of his office.
9
Despite this expression of confidence in the Council, the governor
felt that Barrett and Gritten should not be entrusted with the
designated offices. He objected to Gritten because he had "ever
considered him a spy among us."
10 The objections to Barrett
were more numerous. In the first place he objected to the
office of judge advocate general since it was "new and unheard
of in the country."
11 This charge might have been offered with
equal impunity to any of the numerous offices created by the
Council and approved by the governor. Smith then proceeded to
make six charges against Barrett. Yoakum lists four of the
charges as follows: he had forged an attorney's license in
North Carolina; he had taken fees on both sides of a case as
an attorney; he had passed counterfeit money knowingly; and
he had embezzled funds furnished to him and Gritten when they
were sent as embassies to Cos.
12 The two other charges are not
known, for the message was not placed on the journals of the
Council, and no copy is now available. These were rather serious
charges, but Barrett seems to have taken no notice of them what-
ever. The Council considered the message in secret session, but
took no action until December 25. On that date they adopted
unanimously a series of resolutions distinctly hostile to the gov-
ernor. The Council refused to recognize any power on the part
of Smith to veto appointments. The second resolution declared
that the Council could investigate charges against its members
only in case they indicated malfeasance and misconduct in office.
They therefore refused to consider the four charges listed above,
and rejected the others as untrue--which indicates that the
remaining charges had to do with the activity of Barrett as a
member of the Council. Finally, the governor was requested to
issue commissions to Barrett and Gritten.
13 This attitude on the
part of Governor Smith becomes doubly significant in view of
the fact that December 7, four days before the appointment of
Barrett as judge advocate general, Henry Millard, a member of
the Council, had been appointed a lieutenant colonel of infantry
in the regular army
14 and Smith had made no objection. The
governor replied to the above resolutions in a message of December
29, which was read and placed on file.
15 No copy of this message
is now available.
On December 12, the governor sent the Council a somewhat
mysterious message. He declared that two appointments had
been made by the commander of the volunteer army at Béxar, and
that the Council knew its duty in regard to this procedure. The
message seems to be a suggestion for abolition of the volunteer
army and organization of the regular army. In view of later
developments, Smith may have been thinking of land specula-
tors when he declared that
restless, disorganizing spirits are, and ever have been, busy
both in the camp and at home, with their vile intrigues and
machinations to sap the very foundation of all our hopes.
Your honorable body cannot be so blind as not to discover
their base purposes. I now warn you to place on them the
mark of Cain, as an assurance, that their merited fate awaits
them.
16
This message was referred to the committee on military affairs
which reported, December 22, as being in hearty accord with the
governor in the belief that system and organization should take
the place of confusion and anarchy.
17 However, they suggested
no changes in the military organization.
Governor Smith had an element of conceit in his character
which may have had an effect in bringing about the dispute with
the Council. This has been pointed out in connection with sev-
eral of his messages, and is particularly apparent in the message
of December 26, concerning the activities of Nacogdoches land
speculators. According to Smith, the speculators
have their unprincipled hirelings and satelites to operate, and
endeavor to keep themselves behind the screen; they may not
be generally known to your body, and as such, will no doubt,
often attempt to practice fraud upon you, by their insinuating
approaches. Me, they seldom approach: they may overpower,
but never can deceive.
18
The frequent repetition of the theory that the Council could be
easily fooled while the governor could never be misled, probably
did not greatly increase the respect of the Council for the governor.
Governor Smith addressed the Council, January 7, with respect
to his veto of the ordinance providing for the purchase of the
William
Robbins
and the Invincible
from McKinney and Williams.
He had considered the measure "with that attention which I con-
sidered the subject merited," and was returning it with his veto.
In the same message he expressed his opinion that the "Council
should not breed confusion by infringing on the authority which
they had already vested in their agents." This address was signed:
"I am respectfully HENRY SMITH, Governor"; in place of
the usual: "I am gentlemen, respectfully Your obedient servant,
HENEY SMITH, Governor."
19 The passage of this measure over
the veto was one factor in bringing from Smith his ill-advised
message of January 10. This message was also encouraged by
the determination of the Council to sponsor the expedition to
Matamoras, despite the opposition of the governor and commander-
in-chief. The immediate excuse was a letter written by Colonel
Neill, commandant at Béxar, to the governor and Council. Neill
explained that "the clothing sent here by the aid and patriotic
exertions of the honorable council was taken from us by the
arbitrary measures of Johnson and Grant. . . ."
20 Governor
Smith saw fit to place the blame for these conditions on the
Council, and use this as an excuse to dissolve the body.
The chief error in this logic is the premise. The Council was
in no sense responsible for beginning the Johnson-Grant expedi-
tion to Matamoras. These two gentlemen were appointees of Gen-
eral Burleson, who had been commissioned by Smith without the
knowledge of the Council. The expedition was ordered and was
actually under way before Johnson asked the Council's approval.
Johnson was not commissioned by the Council until January 14,
having refused an earlier offer on the theory that he held a com-
mission from Governor Smith. Seemingly, the only connection
between the Council and this expedition was that some of its
members had advised General Burleson to undertake it.
21 The
Council can hardly be blamed for the taking of these supplies by
Johnson and Grant -- neither can the governor -- and Johnson
declared that no supplies were taken. The letter of Neill shows
that some supplies had been delivered to Béxar through the efforts
of the Provisional Government.
Smith had determined upon the policy he was to pursue, and
January 10, requested Robinson to call a secret meeting of the
Council. Robinson was informed that the message would be severe,
but was assured that "nothing therein contained is aimed at, or
intended for you."
22 The Council met in secret session and the
intemperate message was read.
This message is an amusing document which denounced the
Council at length and praised the governor at even greater length.
It began with a reference to conditions at Béxar, and then placed
upon the Council all blame for the unsatisfactory state of affairs.
As proof of the guilt of the Council, Smith pointed to their actions
in passing over his veto several measures having to do with the
Matamoras expedition.
Instead of acting as becomes the counsellors and guardians
of a free people; you resolve yourselves into low, intriguing,
caucussing parties, pass resolutions without a quorum, predi-
cated on false premises, and endeavor to ruin the country,
by countenancing, aiding and abetting marauding parties,
and if you could only deceive me enough, you would join
with it a piratical co-operation.
All of which means that the Council had not agreed with the
governor as regards the expedition to Matamoras, which he had
favored, and then opposed. The governor asserted that there
were men of integrity in the Council, "but you have Judas in
the camp--corruption, base corruption has crept into your councils,
men, who if possible would deceive their God." These corrupt
men were to meet with little success, however, for
notwithstanding their deep laid plans and intrigues, I have
not been asleep; they have long been anticipated, forestalled
and counteracted. ... I am now tired of watching scoundrels
abroad and scoundrels at home, and as such I am now pre-
pared to drop the curtain.
In the opinion of Smith the activities of the Council showed
"a want of respect to my department," and, of course, to the
oaths of the members. These opponents of Smith were
parricides piercing their devoted country, already bleeding
at every pore. But thanks be to my God, there is balm in Texas
and a physician near. Our agents have gone abroad; our
army has been organized. Our general is in the field. A con-
vention has been called
and the Council could choose between apologizing and becoming
docile, or adjourning until the first day of March.
23
The governor tended to exaggerate the amount of "balm in
Texas." It was perfectly true that agents had gone abroad; but
to say that the army, consisting of not more than sixty privates,
was organized was to be somewhat lenient with the truth. The
general was in the field, but was doing everything possible to
discourage the Matamoras expedition, and was soon to return and
receive a furlough to treat with the Indians. It is also true that
a convention was soon to meet, but the Convention had been called
by the Council over the veto of the governor.
The Council gave evidence of no unusual excitement on receipt
of this message. McMullen, Clements, Thompson, and West were
appointed members of a committee to examine the message and
report to the Council.
24 On motion of Barrett, at whom many
of the charges were doubtless aimed, the president was requested
"to wait upon the Governor this evening, and confer with him
upon the subject of the message and papers just received, and
endeavor to avert from the country, if possible, the disorder and
confusion likely to result from the course he is pursuing."
25
The committee to examine the message made its report January
11, and was unable
to express any other views to this House, than indignation
at language so repulsive to every moral feeling of an hon-
orable man, and astonishment that this community could
have been so miserably deceived in selecting for the high
office of Governor, a man whose language and conduct prove
his early habits of association to have been vulgar and de-
praved, and his present disposition that of a tyrant. They
repel the infamous charges preferred against this Council
and its members, as false and unfounded in every part; and
contemn the style and language as low, blackguardly and
vindictive, and every way unworthy of, and disgraceful to
the office whence it emanated, and as an outrageous libel
on the body to whom it is addressed, and therefore advise
the return of the paper. . . .
26
The committee also presented a series of resolutions which were
adopted and sent to Governor Smith. The resolutions declared
the Council to be the immediate representatives of the people,
and therefore amenable only to the people. The governor was
ordered to cease the functions of his office, and answer charges
of impeachment to be prepared by the Council. All officers of
the government were to be informed of the removal of the gov-
ernor, and a committee was appointed to draft an address to
the people explaining the conditions which made necessary the
removal of Smith.
27 All of these steps were taken by unani-
mous vote.
The committee to address the people was composed of Jones,
Royall, Burnham, Tucker, and Collard, and this committee was
also to prepare the articles of impeachment. The Council elected
John McMullen president pro
tempore,
and on motion of Barrett,
Robinson was sworn as the acting governor of Texas.
28
Smith was completely surprised at this attitude on the part
of the Council, and January 12, he apologized for the "keenness
and asperity of language beyond the rules of decorum;" and
explained that the message had been written because he felt the
appointment of Fannin was intended as a gross insult to the
executive. He was convinced that the appointment of Fannin
was an error of greater magnitude than his unfortunate message:
"If therefore your body should think proper to acknowledge their
error by an immediate correction of it, which I consider would
only be their reasonable duty, all differences between the two
Departments should cease; and as far as I am concerned be for-
ever buried in oblivion."
29 This message contrasts sharply with
that of two days earlier, and in place of the charges of bribery
and corruption, he indicates the appointment of Fannin as the
only difference between the two departments. The two messages
taken together indicate that the governor knew of no graft and
bribery, or that he knew of graft and was willing to compromise
with it. Certainly one of the messages was insincere.
This message was handed over to a special committee com-
posed of Clements and Royall. The committee advised the Council
that the message came too late to be given serious consideration
as the matter was known to the public, and the Council had
prepared a complete statement for the public eye. The message
was to be returned to Smith in company with a copy of the
articles of impeachment.
30
The address to the people is slightly long, reasonably fair, and,
in comparison with similar addresses, well written. As might
have been expected, the address defended the Council, and pointed
out the attempted usurpations of the governor. The Council was
largely correct in contending that the chief dissatisfaction of
Governor Smith lay in their ability to pass measures over his
veto. According to the Council:
All these acts of stubbornness and perverseness, were not
sufficient to gratify his thirst for the sole dominion and
arbitrary sway of the land. His dignity was insulted at the
idea of the existence of the coordinate branch of the Gov-
ernment, to curb his acts and check his usurpation. He be-
came more and more restless, until enraged at the presump-
tion of the Council, in the exercise of a constitutional right,
and in conformity with the true interests of the country, to
pass an ordinance and decree by a constitutional majority,
after it had been vetoed by 'his Excellency,' he ignites; his
fury in a blaze, consumes his prudence, (what he had) he
orders the Council to disperse, shuts the doors of communi-
cation between the two departments, and proclaims himself
the Government.
31
The address was adopted unanimously, and was signed by the
eleven members of the Council who were present. In view of
Governor Smith's contention that only three members of the
Council were corrupt, it is of particular interest to note that all
steps toward his removal were taken by unanimous vote.
The articles of impeachment were to be published with the
address to the people. There were four of these articles, and
Smith was given the privilege of answering them either before
the Council or before the Convention when it met. It was but
natural for him to choose to plead his case before the Convention.
Briefly, the articles charged the governor with violation of the
principles of the Mexican Constitution of 1824, and the organic
law of the provisional government; with failure to support the
Declaration of November 7; with "official perjury"; and with
slandering and libelling members of the General Council. The
four articles of impeachment listed seventeen specific acts of the
governor, all of which were said to be contrary to the organic
law, and any one of which was, according to the Council, suffi-
cient cause for impeachment.
32
In the rush of events the Council neglected to appoint managers
to prosecute Smith before the Convention. This matter was later
taken care of by the advisory committee, which suggested to
Robinson that he appoint J. D. Clements and Alexander Thom-
son to manage the case for the Council, and this was done. The
managers were to have authority to employ one or more legal
advisors, who were to receive not more than $900 for their serv-
ices.
33 Clements and Thomson promptly prepared three addi-
tional articles of impeachment, which had to do with the activities
of the governor after he was suspended. The first of these articles
charged the governor with libelling the volunteer army and the
General Council, a charge which grew out of letters written by
Smith to Colonel William Ward and Colonel W. G. Hill. By
the second article he was charged with the embezzlement of public
funds, as he had received a draft for $5,000 from H. K. W. Hill
of Nashville, Tennessee, for use by the Provisional Government,
and had not deposited it with the treasurer. Finally, he was
charged with treasonable practices against the government and
people of Texas.
34 A copy of these charges was delivered to Smith
by John H. Money, marshal of Texas. The Convention paid no
attention to this squabble, and Smith was never called upon to
plead to any of the charges.
The Council, having announced to the public that Smith was
no longer governor, took steps to see that he no longer performed
the executive functions. All officers of the government were
notified of the removal of Smith and the inauguration of Rob-
inson, and January 13, the public printers were instructed to
accept no more official printing from Smith.
35 A resolution of
January 17, required Smith to deliver all papers, records and
public correspondence in his possession belonging to the executive
office. In case he refused to deliver the papers Robinson was to
see that they were taken from him. On January 20, the advisory
committee gave Robinson similar instructions.
36 Smith refused
to deliver his papers, so Robinson ordered Marshal Money to
obtain such assistance as necessary and take the papers. Money
approached twelve men in regard to the matter, and only three
were willing to assist him,
37 so Smith retained his papers.
C. B. Stewart, secretary to the executive, refused to abide by
the ruling of the Council, and continued to serve Henry Smith.
The Council found him guilty of contempt, and levied a fine of
$2,500 which was never collected. Stewart found conditions some-
what unpleasant, and finally resigned.
38
The Council instructed Robinson to open all executive mail,
including letters addressed to Henry Smith with the exception of
those marked personal. In a short time this policy brought to
Robinson a letter from Smith. Smith informed Robinson that
he liked him, and should continue to do so "if your own acts
did not forbid it." The chief purpose of the letter was to con-
vince Robinson that he should not open mail addressed to Henry
Smith, governor, but it also contained statements concerning
other matters. One of these statements tends to bear out the
contention of the Council that Smith wished to be the "Supreme
Executive." Smith said, "I well knew I could not adjourn
your body regularly, without their consent, but I knew I could
take the responsibility, and cut off their correspondence. For
this I am amenable to my peers and not to your body,--they did
not make, nor can they break me."
39 Robinson seemed willing
to live without the friendship of the late governor, for he con-
tinued to open executive mail, even though addressed to Smith.
The Council no longer had a quorum, but the advisory commit-
tee encouraged the policy.
40
Smith continued to pose as the executive, and February 2, sent to
the Council a demand for certain papers. The Council was warned
that if the papers were not forthcoming, all its members would
be arrested and carried to Béxar for trial by a military court.
41
The Council had no quorum, but the members present heard the
message read, and adjourned as usual.
Some days later the advisory committee of the Council issued
a statement to the public concerning the threat to have them tried
by a court martial. The address contains an implication that
Smith and Houston were agreed on the policy being followed, as
is shown by the statement: "What auxiliaries are combined with
him in this intention against the government, it is impossible to
say, nor does it matter; for the fierce indignation of a free people
will hurl to destruction all plotters of treason, whether headed by
governor, commanding general, or other individuals of the com-
munity."
42 The quarrel between the Council's committee and
Smith continued, but neither seems to have done serious damage
to the other.
The quarrel was most unseemly, and it came at a most inoppor-
tune time for Texas. It would be distinctly unfair to place all
of the blame on either the Council or the governor, since each
was at fault, but Smith seems to have been the aggressor due to
his uncalled for attack on Barrett and to his foolish message of
January 10. The people of Texas were divided in their allegiance;
some favored the governor, some supported the Council, while a
great number took little interest in the affair.
It will be of interest to record the opinions of contemporaries
concerning the causes of this dispute. Some years after the
organization of the Republic, Smith wrote his reminiscences for
M. B. Lamar. He places the entire blame on the corruptness of
the Council and the activities of land speculators. According to
this paper, Smith was the only member of the government who
was both honest and practical. He was influenced by "the most
pure and patriotic motives," while in the Council "there were
but three members that I at that time, suspected for down right
corruption, but the others not being practical men, were easily
led astray." Then, most important of all, the business of the
Council was being conducted by the "lobby members" and the
office of governor had lost much of its importance. "I was also
well satisfied, that by intrigue and management . . . the gov-
ernor would be rendered as powerless as he would be useless," and
consequently the governor attempted to dissolve the Council.
43
Smith expressed himself somewhat freely in a letter to W. G.
Hill, January 17, 1836, in which he went so far as to admit that
all of the "strong men of the country combined against me."
He said:
The mob have shifted their ground, and joined my council;
and instead of threats used means more persuasive, I mean
their money. My council became corrupt, and determined
on mischief. They have given me much trouble, with all
the strong men of the country combined against me. I found
they were determined to ruin the interest of the country.
And "Necessity compelled me to do what I have done, or give
up all. ... A veto from me was useless, and instead of a veto
I sent them the Devil in the shape of an address," and then the
"damned corrupt Council" impeached him.
44
Perhaps ten days before Smith wrote to Hill, he wrote a similar
letter to Major Ward. This letter was read by Fannin, who
reported to the Council:
I have seen
a letter from His Excellency, Henry Smith,
Govr. of Texas to an officer commanding the Volunteers,
urging him and his men to attend
particularly
to
the
Elec
-
tion
--and to suspect and distrust all who were in any wise
opposed to their voting, and an immediate
Declaration of
Independence. -- All such were denounced in the bitterest
terms as traitors to the country--and your own honorable
body was declared a corrupt, unprincipled set of men, who
had sold themselves to the opposition, or Anti-Administration
men--The following is nearly,
if not the precise
language
used.
"There is a deep laid plan to confuse me
and
my
Govt.
--
but I am aware of all their movements--and have anticipated
them--and will counteract them--The opposition are strong
and have money
&
means,
and My
Council
are
needy and cor-
rupt--They are engaged in it."
Smith, according to Fannin, continued
A
mob,
nicknamed an Army, has just been disbanded
amongst us--and I am threatened with assassination. . . .
He had no lack of confidence, however, and continued:
I am fully apprised of their designs--and will entangle
them in their own works, and ere long, throw them a fall,
which will break their own damed
necks,
and they shall
welter
in their own
blood.
45
Colonel W. F. Gray talked with Smith, February 16, 1836,
and recorded that during the conversation Smith
abused Austin;
said he is Mexican
in his principles and policy,
and that he ought
to
be
hung!
Thinks Austin was opposed
to the meeting of the consultative convention, and that the
expedition versus
Béxar was got up in order to defeat it, and
attributes the foolish or wicked terms of the Capitulation
to his policy. Blames Austin for the dissentions which have
arisen between him (Smith) and the Provisional Council.
46
R. R. Royall, who had been a member of the Council, wrote
M. B. Lamar, December 23, 1836, giving his views concerning
the rupture between governor and Council. That part of the
letter relating to the dispute follows:
A Particular member of very Respectable capacity, and
the Governor were personally unfriendly which Kept alive
a Disposition of Jealousy and ill temper. In the mean time
the Imagination of the Governor strengthened in my opinion
by tales, of perfidious Eve droppers who wished to secure
themselves in his Favor by seeming to espouse his Interest
by Representing Falsely the Disposition and Acts of the
Council conceived that the whole or greater part were uniting
in Disrespect, and a determination to Render contemptible
his Depa[rtment] in this he was Deceaved as I am sensible
that the charges he made were entirely unfounded and only
2 members of the Council personaly disliked the Governor
and were disposed to Extend every Courtesy to his Defects
and Honour him as the head of our Provisional Government.
an assidious attemp was made for 2 days (while all was kept
a secret from the p[eople] to Reconcile the difficulty and
not to publish to the world the Defect of our Governm[ent]
already too weak to sustain the necess[ities] of the Country.
But his usual stubbornness prevailed and the Country must
suffer by the Passions of an Individual and the Council was
compelled to publish to Texas their own Justification as a
Body though I confess I believe there was a few very cor-
rupt members, in That Body.
47
A loan of one hundred thousand dollars was to be made
for the support of the war. McKinney was to negotiate it;
the council from some cause, perhaps the infamy of Williams'
character, refused to let William's name appear with Mc-
Kinnie's. McKinney told them that W—— was his partner
in trade, and as it (was) the transaction not of himself but
of the firms W's name must be inserted. The Name of
Williams with that of McKenny's was inserted in the draft
by the Secry. of the Council (Mr. Stewart) without the
Knowledge of the Council; when it came to their knowledge
they objected to the draft and said another should be drawn
in its stead; late one night at 11 or 12 oclk the Secy waked
up the Govr. and presented another draft for his signature
saying that the former one was annuled by the Council and
was in the office; the Govr. signed the second one; and after-
wards demanded the first one to be destroyed; but it was
not to be found in the office. As Williams was known to
be concerned in great speculations and perhaps not standing
very high with the Govt; Smith conceived that there was some
rascality in the affair which he could not fathom, and accord-
ingly addressed the council in tremendous epithets . . .
48
On January 23, 1836, Robinson wrote the commissioners to
the United States of the changes in the government, and gave
the Matamoras expedition as the cause for the dispute.
49
There is not a great deal of direct information on the attitude
of the public. The forces at Béxar, probably one hundred in
number, adopted resolutions in support of Smith.
50 He was over-
joyed at this action, and made constant use of it, although he
exaggerated somewhat in saying:
The faction had done and continued to do everything in
their power against me, even to personal insult and abuse,
and I at the same time using every means within my power
to restrain the people and soldiery from inflicting upon them
that punishment which their crimes justly merited.
51
Colonel Wm. F. Gray made two notations in his diary con-
cerning the matter, and both are favorable to the governor. On
one occasion Gray talked with Houston, who "spoke highly of
Governor Smith, said he was as honest a man as ever lived;
that that Council, with which the Governor disagreed, was
bribed, etc." Later he recorded the following:
They brought a hand bill issued by the Provisional Council,
announcing the approach of Santa Anna with an army, and
calling upon the Texans en
masse
to take the field. ... In
less than a fortnight their brief authority expires, and they
will have an awful reckoning to make to the people.
52
On the other hand there were observers who found the people
in sympathy with the Council. Thomas F. McKinney wrote the
Council, January 14, and assured them, "I hear but one opinion
in relation to the affair between the Govr. & Council." The
opinion was favorable to the Council and opposed to Smith.
53
A few days later R. R, Royall, a former member of the Council,
addressed the Council from Matagorda. He advised that the
Council not open the land offices as
you are already accused of being under the Influence Bribery
Corruption &c. But the People are now becoming convinced
of their Error. . . . Some diversity of opinion prevails as to
Smiths conduct But much the Larger portion are in favor
of the Council. Those who would advocate him are his old
friends and say they cannot believe him Dishonest--I am
confident it is necessary to have his Compromise Message
Printed and the reply of the Committee.
54
Wyatt Hanks, who had also been a member of the Council,
addressed the advisory committee, February 2. He had just
reached Nacogdoches from San Felipe, and informed the com-
mittee:
The people I saw & conversed with along & on the road
to this place did not attach any blame to the Council for
deposing
Smith
--those persons that did not approve of it,
seemed indifferent and careless about it.
The citizens of Nacogdoches thought it "a most ridiculos and
outrageous affair to write such a Message."
55 The letters indicate
that both the Council and Smith had their partisans, and that
the mass of the population was largely disinterested.
The Convention held the disruption of the Provisional Govern-
ment to be a matter of little importance, and paid scant heed to
the affair. Brown asserts positively that Smith was triumphantly
vindicated by the Convention,
56 since that body declared inde-
pendence and continued Sam Houston as commander-in-chief. It
is difficult, however, to see the relation between these acts of the
Convention and the vindication of Smith. To be sure, he was a
friend of Houston and was also in favor of independence, but
the policy of the Convention can scarcely be looked upon as vin-
dication of Smith in his dispute with the Council, and could have
been no more than a vindication of his personal opinion--an opinion
that was common to practically all leaders of Texas by March,
1836. For a declaration of independence to be a vindication of
Smith it would at least be necessary to show that all members of
the Council were opposed to independence, and this not even
Brown attempts.
The Convention neither condemned nor vindicated either smith
or the Council. Their time was needed for the consideration of
matters of more importance. It is true, to be sure, that the Con-
vention refused to entertain the articles of impeachment pre-
pared by the Council. It is also true that the request of Smith
that his answer be given permanent form by being printed with
the journals of the Council was not granted. This request was
contained in a wordy document of vindication and explanation
presented to the Convention by Smith, and is as follows:
To the end that the resolutions, and proceedings of the
Council, may not be hereafter drawn into precedent, with the
authority of silent acquiescence on the part of the Executive
Department; and to the end also, that my motives and views
in the Executive proceedings and conduct of the Council,
connected with the subject alluded to, may be known to my
fellow citizens, to the world, and to all posterity, I respect-
fully request that this Message and Protest
may by an order
of the convention be entered at length on the Journals of
the Council.
57
It is impossible to say, even now, exactly why Governor Smith
and the Council quarreled. Certainly the Matamoras expedition,
the ability of the Council to nullify the veto, the determination
of Smith to ignore the Declaration of November 7, and the domi-
neering character of Governor Smith were major factors in the
dispute. Perhaps the activities of land speculators and the enmity
existing between Smith and Barrett also deserve mention as mat-
ters of considerable importance. In addition there were countless
minor incidents which helped build a tissue of jealousy and dis-
trust. It is on the whole a disgraceful, and hence a regrettable,
episode. Neither Smith nor the Council won, but Texas cer-
tainly lost.
The Convention which assembled at Washington, March 1, 1836,
was a constituent assembly, and it was but natural for it to take
to itself the powers and functions of the Provisional Government.
As has been seen, the Convention saw fit to nullify several ordi-
nances of the Provisional Government, including that which levied
an import duty. Some ordinances of the Council were allowed to
stand, others were added by the Convention, and in due time
there arose a new government to replace the much abused Council
and governor. The Convention did not extend to the Provisional
Government the customary vote of thanks; this can mean either
the existence of an opinion that the Provisional Government had
failed completely in the task assigned it, or that the Convention
was so pressed for time as to make the consideration of such a
resolution impossible. More likely, it was feared that the con-
sideration of such a matter would make it necessary for the Con-
vention to sustain either the governor or the Council, and there
was no time for a long investigation.
The Council was officially informed March 4, that the Con-
vention was in session. The president of the Council thanked the
Convention's committee for this courtesy, and assured them of
the willingness of the Council to deliver all records and archives
to any person whom the Convention might authorize to receive
them.
1
The Council understood by March 8, that the Convention in-
tended the announcement of its organization to be sufficient notice
that the duties of the Provisional Government had ceased. The
Council was of the opinion that the Convention did not supersede
the Provisional Government until it made some declaration to
that effect, but was willing to deliver its archives to the desig-
nated authority, "and return with pleasure to our homes and
the field."
2
Three days later the secretary of the Convention appeared
before the Council and by authority of the Convention requested
the archives of the Provisional Government. The papers were
delivered, and with the adoption of a final resolution the remnant
of the Council adjourned sine
die.
3
The Provisional Government functioned well for the first few
weeks of its tenure, and to all appearances governed as best it
could. The quarrel was most unfortunate, and largely ended the
usefulness of both governor and Council. According to Yoakum,
it was first intended that Austin should be governor, but his
services being more needed as a commissioner to the United
States, he was spared the misfortune of being the first
governor of Texas.
4
It is easy to dream, however, that had a man of Austin's
patience and ability been the first governor of Texas a far dif-
ferent story might have been written.
Barrett Papers, University of Texas Library.
Consultation Papers, Texas State Library.
Governor and Council Papers, Texas State Library.
Barker, Eugene C. (ed.), The
Austin
Papers,
III, Austin (The University
of Texas), 1926.
Gammel, H. P. N. (ed.), Laws
of
Texas,
I, Austin (The Gammel Book
Co.), 1898.
Gulick, Charles Adams, Jr. (ed.), The
Papers
of
Miraleau
Buonaparte
Lamar,
I, Austin (A. C. Baldwin and Sons), 1920.
Smither, Harriet (ed.), The
Papers
of
Mirabeau
Buonaparte
Lamar,
VI,
Austin (Von Boeckmann-Jones Co.), n. d.
Telegraph
and
Texas
Register
(San Felipe), October, 1835-March, 1836.
Texas
Almanac
(Galveston), 1857, 1858, 1859, 1860.
Baker, D. W. C. (ed.), A
Texas
Scrap
Book,
New York (A. S. Barnes
and Co.), 1875.
Bancroft, Hubert Howe, History
of
the
North
Mexican
States
and
Texas,
II, San Francisco (The History Company), 1889.
Barker, Eugene C., "Don Carlos Barrett," in Southwestern
Historical
Quarterly,
XX, 139-145.
Barker, Eugene C., "The Finances of the Texas Revolution," in Political
Science
Quarterly,
XIX, 612-636.
Barker, Eugene C., The
Life
of
Stephen
F.
Austin,
Dallas (The Cokesbury
Press), 1925.
Barker, Eugene C., "The Tampico Expedition," in The
Quarterly
of
the
Texas
State
Historical
Association,
VI, 169-186.
Barker, Eugene C., "The Texan Revolutionary Army," in The
Quarterly
of
the
Texas
State
Historical
Association,
IX, 227-261.
Barker, Eugene C. (ed.), Readings
in
Texas
History,
Dallas (The South-
west Press), 1929.
Brown, John Henry, Life
and
Times
of
Henry
Smith,
Dallas (A. D. Ald-
ridge and Co.), 1887.
Crane, William Carey, Life
and
Select
Literary
Remains
of
Sam
Houston,
Philadelphia (J. B. Lippincott and Co.), 1884.
Foote, Henry Stuart, Texas
and
the
Texans,
Philadelphia (Thomas Cow-
perthwait and Co.), 1841.
Garrison, George P., Texas
--A
Contest
of
Civilizations,
New York (Hough-
ton, Mifflin Company), 1903.
Gouge, William M., The
Fiscal
History
of
Texas,
Philadelphia (Lippincott,
Brambo and Co.), 1852.
Gray, William F., From
Virginia
to
Texas,
1835,
Houston (Gray, Dillaye
and Co.), 1909.
Holley, Mary Austin, Texas,
Lexington (J. Clarke and Co.), 1836.
Johnson, Frank W., A
History
of
Texas
and
Texans,
Chicago (American
Historical Society), 1914.
Linn, John J., Reminiscences
of
Fifty
Years
in
Texas,
New York (D. & J.
Sadlier & Co.), 1883.
Maillard, N. Doran, The
History
of
the
Republic
of
Texas,
London (Smith,
Elder and Co.), 1842.
Miller, Edmund Thornton, A
Financial
History
of
Texas,
Austin (The
University of Texas), 1916.
Morphis, J. M., History
of
Texas,
New York (United States Publishing:
Co.), 1875.
Smith, Henry, "Reminiscences of Henry Smith," in The
Quarterly
of
the
Texas
State
Historical
Association,
XIV, 24-74.
Smith, W. Roy, "The Quarrel Between Governor Smith and the Council
of the Provisional Government of the Republic," in The
Quarterly
of
the
Texas
State
Historical
Association,
V, 269-347.
Wharton, Clarence R., The
Republic
of
Texas,
Houston (C. C. Young
Printing Co.), 1922.
Wooten, Dudley G. (ed.), A Comprehensive
History
of
Texas,
Dallas
(William G. Scarff), 1898.
Texas Agricultural and Mechanical College.
FOOTNOTES:
For a detailed study of the Texas navy see Alex. Dienst, "The Navy of the
Republic of Texas," in The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Associa -
tion, XII, 165-203, 249-275.
Papers, Vol. I, Texas State Library.
"... The committee further advise, That the vessels Invincible and
Liberty be instructed first to cruise on and off the coasts of Texas, when
there is any prospect of the Enemy's vessels, second to cooperate with the
expedition against Matamoras, third, when the safety of our commerce and
the necessity of cooperating with the Matamoras expedition renders it
prudent they will cruise through out the Gulf of Mexico, from Cape Florida
to Vera Cruz, in all their acts strictly adhering to the Law of Nations,
under the rules and practices prescribed by the Provisional Government of
Texas--and that the Acting Governor give correspondent instructions to
accompany the Commissions to each Commander."
of the Provisional Government of the Republic," in The Quarterly of the
Texas State Historical Association, V, 296.
In view of the wide publicity given these charges against Barrett, it is
only fair to say something in his behalf. As regards the attorney's license
said to have been forged in North Carolina, it is not possible with available
material either to sustain or deny the charge. However, he did possess a
legitimate license to practice law in Pennsylvania, and so it is difficult to
see why he would need to forge one in North Carolina. There is little
information available regarding the other charges.
During the entire period of the Provisional Government, Barrett seems
to have enjoyed the complete confidence of Austin. A letter from Houston
to Barrett, December 30, 1835 (Barrett Papers, University of Texas
Library), contains the following statement: "I rely on you to aid me in
serving the country --God speed you! Salute my friends --You know
them— ..." Houston signs himself as "Truly yr. friend." In a letter
of January 2, 1836 (Barrett Papers, University of Texas Library), Houston
says: "I would like to know what is going on, but I know you will guard
my rights!
In May, 1837, Barrett was in New Orleans on his way back to Texas
after having been more than a year in the United States for his health.
M. B. Lamar wrote to Richard Ellis, May 8, 1837 (Barrett Papers, Uni-
versity of Texas Library), in his behalf. He recommended Barrett very
highly. There are numerous other indications that he was held in high
regard by associates and friends.
On January 24, 1836, the following statement was made by members of
the General Council:
"Colonel D. C. Barrett a member of the General Council of Texas has
been with us in the convention that formed the Provisional Government
from third November, until the Government went into operation and since
that time in the General Council. His whole conduct and policy has been
favorable in conciliatory and pacific measures, uniformly opposed to a
declaration of independence by Texas alone until the people should be gen-
erally well advised upon that all important and interesting subject-- He has
been one of the leading members of the Consultation and General Council
and has been industrious and useful to the country. We do most sincerely
recommend him as a Gentleman of high order of talents and learning a
patriot and an honest politician and unhesitatingly declare our opinion
that the country would be greatly benefitted by his services in the next
convention, or any other public capacity to which his habits and talents
are adapted."
This statement was signed by Robinson and the six members of the
council who were present. The statement will be found in Consultation
Papers, Vol. I, Texas State Library.
Texas State Library.
Smith later declared ("Reminiscences of Henry Smith," The Quarterly of
the Texas State Historical Association, XIV, 51-52): "I am proud how-
ever to say, that there were but three members that I at that time, sus-
pected for downright corruption, but the others not being practical men,
were easily led astray."
Papers, Vol. I, Texas State Library.
"The advisory Committee to the Executive appointed by the General
Council to act in that capacity in the absence of a quorum of the Council,
are informed that the General Council while having a quorum neglected
to appoint a committee for conducting the prosecution against Henry Smith
late Governor of the Provisional Government on his trial before the next
General Convention upon charges prefered against him by the said Gen-
eral Council, an act which ought to have been done and which now can only
be done by the acting Executive. The committee therefore advises the
acting Governor to appoint two persons for conducting the prosecution
against Henry Smith upon the charges aforesaid, who shall have power
to employ one or more legal advisers to assist them in preparing and
managing said prosecution to its close, always giving preference to a
member or members of the General Council where talents and qualifications
are equal. The committee also advises that the acting Executive and Com-
mittee of finance make an appropriation and draw for nine hundred Dollars
for defraying the expense of such assistance as may be employed--and the
committee advises that Alexander Thompson and J. D. Clements be ap-
pointed to conduct the prosecution in the foregoing case."
Vol. I, Texas State Library.
1836, Consultation Papers, Vol. I, Texas State Library.
1836, Consultation Papers, Vol. I, Texas State Library. Among those who
refused, to aid Money were W. B. Travis and Moseley Baker.
Papers, Vol. I, Texas State Library.
Texas State Historical Association, XIV, 24-74. See particularly pp. 50,
51, 53, 60, 66.
Texas State Library.
tion Papers, Vol. I, Texas State Library.
Vol. I, Texas State Library.
State Historical Association, XIV, 53, 55.
sultation Papers, I, Texas State Library.
1836, Consultation Papers, Vol. I, Texas State Library.
sultation Papers, Vol. I, Texas State Library.
State Historical Association, XIV, 73.
Ralph W. Steen.
How to cite:
Ralph W. Steen, "Analysis of the Work of the General Council, Provisional Government of Texas, 1835-1836", Volume 42, Number 1, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online, http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v042/n1/contrib_DIVL596.html
[Accessed Thu Dec 4 12:25:19 CST 2008]
