USA > Texas > A history of central and western Texas > Part 10
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49
99
HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND WESTERN TEXAS.
trict, and now for the first time taking an active part in Texas affairs. Some significance may be attached to the fact that William H. Wharton was the successful candidate for president of the convention, and from this and subsequent events it may be inferred that the "independence" party in Texas was growing stronger. To conclude its program the convention selected Stephen F. Austin and two others to carry the memorials to Mexico and present the subject to the national congress. It turned out that Austin went alone on this mission.
The points of the controversy that now ensued concerning the rights and wrongs of Texas constitute one of the most complicated problems of Texas history. For Mexico it could be claimed: I. As a sovereign nation she possessed the right to exercise jurisdiction impartially through- out her dominion, including the right to police the borders and compel respect to her officials and laws, and to enforce the collection of the national revenues. 2. The liberality of the republic and individual states in disposing of the public lands deserved in recompense a proper loyalty from the adopted citizens who had profited by this bounty, and a willing- ness on their part to assume their share of national burdens and respon- sibilities. 3. As to separate statehood for Texas, the granting of that was entirely at the discretion of the national congress, though the right of petition for statehood could not be denied the Texans. Moreover, the congress could properly allege that Texas was not yet prepared, either in population or revenues, to become a self-sustaining state.
Texas, on the other hand, had just grounds for grievance. I. The union of the two former provinces of Coahuila and Texas as one state, with the seat of government in the former, produced an inequality of administration from which Texas suffered. Texas having a small minor- ity of representation was powerless to obtain legislation specially adapted to her needs. Though the state government was generally fair and lib- eral, the entire dissimilarity of commercial and industrial interests in the two provinces rendered almost inevitable a certain neglect of the welfare of Texas. In 1834 a tardy law extended the jury system and a distinct branch of the courts with district and appellate jurisdiction to Texas, but previous to that time resort to litigation in any but the inferior tribunals involved journeys to Monclova or Saltillo, a distance that prac- tically prohibited the benefits of the courts except to the rich. 2. The enforcement of the act of April 6, 1830, was offensive because of its dis- crimination and would have proved a serious obstacle to the continued advancement of Texas, though the right of a sovereign nation to prohibit
100
HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND WESTERN TEXAS.
immigration cannot be denied. 3. The Texans protested that the tariff on many articles of necessity was so high as to prohibit importation. A modification of the duty rates was doubtless imperative, and the collec- tion of revenues at the various ports of entry should have been conducted without harsh military measures.
The above may be considered the abstract principles of the contro- versy. In the final result these were almost lost sight of in the more immediate passions and violence that impelled both sides to armed conflict.
Mexico, indeed, was no longer a constitutional republic, and was daily losing the dignity of a sovereign nation. The government under Santa Anna, while at first retaining a semblance of loyalty to the consti- tution, soon developed into a complete dictatorship, with Santa Anna supreme. From that time, he used this authority, supported by his armies, to deprive the separate states of their independent powers of government and to concentrate the sources of all legislation and adminis- tration in himself. It became a question not merely of the preservation of the individual state's rights, but of republican government itself. What- ever may have been the original intentions of the dictator towards a liberal and just administration of Texas affairs, it is evident that, when ยท Texas resisted his assumption of supreme power and annulment of the constitution, he used the most harsh and despotic measures to subjugate this rebellious people. After he had disclosed the full scope of his ambi- tions and given free hand to the barbarous and vengeful means employed to coerce his subjects, there was no course left to free and independent men but resistance.
Amid the turmoil and anarchy caused by Santa Anna, the Texans were prey to many opinions and influences. Public opinion was many sided. One group of men sincerely believed that the welfare of Texas lay in close union with the Mexican federation; an opposite group agi- tated entire independence. These were the two chief parties. In addi- tion there were, unquestionably, a group of "jingoes" among the Texans, few in number but noisy and active in their demonstrations. They were principally speculators and adventurers, who had nothing to lose and were willing to plunge the country into war for the chance of rich suc- cess. The old filibuster spirit still survived to some degree, and any scheme promising excitement and spoils would attract recruits from the various settlements. The proof of this is found in several enterprises of later date. The population of Texas at this period was assorted. The
IOI
HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND WESTERN TEXAS.
majority were the industrious class of pioneers, men "between the plow handles," as Austin described them, and naturally conservative and law- abiding. In the ranks of the minority were a more fickle and unruly ele- ment, containing some who sought in Texas a safer field for their opera- tions than had been allowed them in the United States.
A recognition of the existence of these different elements in the population of that period is essential to a proper understanding of his- tory. Many of the apparent inconsistencies in the events of these years need no explanation when it is realized that the Texans were not a unit in opinion, endeavor or character; that an act of rashness in one section is not a basis of judgment against the whole people. In the shifting uncertainties of the time, even the wisest were at loss, and many acts and many opinions can with difficulty be harmonized with the stricter code of right and patriotism. Later, when the revolution became inevitable, all classes became united in the one purpose of independence and war against despotism, and the principles of duty and patriotism became clearly defined.
CHAPTER XVI
EVENTS LEADING TO THE REVOLUTION
In April, 1833, Austin proceeded to Mexico alone as public agent of the people for the purpose of securing the admission of Texas as a sepa- rate state. He found the capital still in turmoil. Months passed and his petition slept in a committee of congress. In despair of obtaining anything, he wrote to the people of Bexar recommending the organization of a local state government, in the hope that the general congress would eventually recognize and approve this de facto organization. Finally, after six months of well-nigh fruitless labors, he started home, in Decem- ber. The letter he had written to Bexar having been sent to the federal authorities, he was arrested, brought back to the capital and imprisoned in the dungeon of the old Inquisition, charged with having promoted treason against the nation. After three months of solitary confinement he was transferred to another prison and the rigors of imprisonment abated, but he was detained, practically a prisoner, in Mexico until the summer of 1835. His trial was referred from one tribunal to another. and in fact he was never tried. His detention appears to have been more as a hostage for the good behavior of his fellow citizens, and when it was thought that his conservative influence would be worth more to Santa Anna if he were at home, he was released.
During his stay in Mexico, Austin evidently became convinced that the best interests of Texas would be promoted by close political and com- mercial union with the Mexican states, and as a result of the gracious treatment he received from Santa Anna he was led to believe, for a time at least, that Texas had a real friend in the dictator. The arguments by which he reached the former conclusion are interesting. He states them most succinctly in his "Prison Diary," under date of February 20, 1834, where he answers his question, "What is the real interest of Texas?" by declaring that it is not in separation from Mexico. Nor is it to the advantage of the United States to extend its territory over Texas.
102
103
HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND WESTERN TEXAS.
"All the rivers of Texas take their rise in Texas . and do not enter the territories of the North, so as to form bonds of union, as does the river Mississippi with Louisiana and other states adjacent. There is no market in the north for the produce of Texas, and there is in Mexico. . As regards the commerce with Europe, the Mexican flag is equal to that of the north. What, then, is the true interest of Texas? It is to have a local government to cement and strengthen its union with Mexico instead of weakening or breaking it. What Texas wants is an organization of a local government, and it is of little conse- quence whether it be a part of Coahuila or as a separate state or terri- tory, provided the organization be a suitable one."
In October, 1834, a council was held by Santa Anna, at which Aus- tin was present, to determine a policy concerning Texas. The result was the suspension of the law of April 6, 1830, prohibiting immigration from the United States. Aside from this, the council gave only assur- ances of the benevolent intentions of the general government respecting Texas. It was decided that the time was not yet mature for the separa- tion of Texas from Coahuila. But of greatest importance to the destiny of Texas was the decision that four thousand soldiers should be intro- duced into Texas for the ostensible purpose of guarding the frontiers against Indians and assisting in the collection of revenues.
In May, 1834. Santa Anna had dissolved the general congress, and in January of next year convened a congress the majority of whose mem- bers were favorable to his designs. The aristocratic and church parties were largely represented, and politically the members were pronounced' centralists. The congress ceased to be a popular branch of republican government, and was merely a council to pass the decrees of the president- dictator.
Among the first acts of this congress was a decree reducing the militia of the different states to one for every five hundred population and disarming the remainder. Compliance with this demand would have left the citizens defenseless against the tyranny of military oppres- sion. This measure alone was enough to provoke resistance from all who were still loyal to republican principles.
The revolution in favor of centralism did not take place without opposition. The federal party resisted Santa Anna's encroachments, and the sharp division between centralists and federalists had important results for Texas. In the State of Coahuila-Texas, in 1834, the regular government, with capital at Monclova, was' federalist in sympathies and
104
HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND WESTERN TEXAS.
protested vigorously against the dissolution of the general congress and the arbitrary administration of Santa Anna. The centralists in the state, rallying at the former capital of Saltillo, then set up an opposition gov- ernment, supporting Santa Anna and centralism. The result was civil war, with rival legislatures and executives assuming to govern the state, and each contending for recognition from the general government. Towards the close of 1834 this quarrel was adjusted through the media- tion of Santa Anna, who decided for the legitimacy of the Monclova government. But in the meantime, while the state was under the dis- puted authority of two governors, the period designated by law for hold- ing the elections for governor and other state officials had expired, and the state was thus disorganized. How this condition of affairs affected Texas will be mentioned later, and attention will now be directed to the progress of centralism in the republic and state.
To remedy the situation brought about by the civil war in the state, Santa Anna ordered a special election for governor and legislature. These officials were not installed and the regular administration in oper- ation until March, 1835. It is important to consider the work of this legislature, the last legislature of the united state of Coahuila-Texas. Notwithstanding Santa Anna's precautions, the governor, Augustin Viesca, and a majority of the other officials were of strong republican tendencies and showed no willingness to accept the unconstitutional decrees of the central government. While thus opposed to Santa Anna on the one hand, on the other they proved venal and extravagant in han- dling the business of the state, particularly in their acts affecting Texas. It is necessary to state briefly the results of these two attitudes taken by the state government.
April 22, 1835, the governor and legislature addressed a petition to the general congress "requesting that the federal constitution may not be reformed except in the manner therein provided." It declared a firm determination to sustain the constitution and an intention to recognize no acts of the general government not consistent with that fundamental law. It also demanded the repeal of the decree diminishing the civic militia, the only available defense against Indians and the only force for preserving law and order. In this latter request, the government of Coa- huila-Texas was supporting the state of Zacatecas, which had forwarded a similar protest.
The second point-the acts of the legislature of 1835 respecting Texas-brings up the subject of land speculations as one of the con-
105
HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND WESTERN TEXAS.
tributing causes of the Texas revolution. An act of the legislature, March 26, 1834, had superseded all previous colonization laws and pro- vided for the sale of the vacant lands of the state "at public auction." In response to this act, a large quantity of eleven-league tracts were sold to both Mexicans and foreigners, at $250 a league. This method of dis- posing of lands, unhampered by the requirements of the former coloniza- tion contracts, had attracted a number of speculators, and when the new legislature assembled in 1835 a committee from a company in the United States were present to urge an even more liberal sale. The result was the decree of March 14, 1835, permitting the governor to dispose of four hundred leagues of vacant lands, "for attending to the present public exigencies of the state." The "exigencies" were afterwards defined to mean an empty treasury and the necessity of providing for the defense of the frontier against Indians. The deal was at once closed between the governor and the committee, the purchase price being $30,000 for the four hundred leagues-hardly two cents an acre. A loud outcry was at once raised against this wanton squandering of the public domain of Texas, and this act more than any other disgusted the great body of Texans with the state government. The effects of this transaction were peculiar. While it rendered the Texans extremely hostile to the state and revived the old agitation for separate statehood, the measure was also opposed by the general congress, which passed a decree (April 25) annulling the state law. And when Santa Anna sent his armies against the rebel government of Coahuila-Texas, one of the reasons assigned for this step was a purpose to punish the land speculators. The latter, being thus disappointed in their plans, retired to Texas, where they joined the war faction and at once became the most active agitators for Texas independence. The presence of these men in Texas during the revolutionary period should be remembered in connection with subse- quent events.
After the convention of 1833, Texas remained for two years outside the disturbances of revolution, though public opinion was in a continual ferment. A great restraint was laid upon aggressive action because of Austin's detention in Mexico, and his letters written from prison were always in counsel of patience and non-interference with the troubles of the federal government. After the repeal of the law against immigra- tion, and in consequence of the favorable laws enacted by the state legis- lature in 1834, there was comparative peace and the conservatives were inclined to hope for better things under the rule of Santa Anna. The
106
HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND WESTERN TEXAS.
extremists, however, continued the agitation for separate statehood and were by no means willing to let matters rest, though whether from motives of real patriotism or of self-interest, it is difficult to determine.
Soon after came the civil war in Coahuila, and that renewed the old question of statehood. In October, 1834, a number of citizens of Coa- huila met in council with citizens of San Antonio and issued an address declaring that the state government had ceased to exist, the inhabitants being under no obligation to obey either of the rival governors, and in consequence they recommended that the people of Texas meet in con- vention at San Antonio in November to deliberate on means to save the country from "such unparalleled anarchy and confusion." This letter was followed by an appeal from the political chief of the department of Brazos (Henry Smith) for the organization of a separate state govern- ment so that Texas might be best prepared to meet any of the dangers that threatened because of the disorganization in both the state and republic. But this plan was denounced in a circular from the grand central committee that had been appointed in the convention of 1833. The committee, while admitting the inconveniences resulting from the revolution, declared that Texas could not justify herself by adopting the unconstitutional methods which she had all along so strongly opposed. Furthermore, until Austin had exhausted all resources as representative of the Texans, and had returned safe, it was necessary for the people to exercise patience with the harassed general government and keep as free from offense as possible.
The conservative influence still prevailed, and Texas acquiesced in the reorganized state government so far as to send her representatives to the legislature. Then, early in 1835, when the centralists in Mexico gained full control and began putting their plan into effect by ordering the disarmament of the militia and full submission to the decrees of the central congress, events hastened rapidly to a crisis.
Several of the states raised feeble opposition to Santa Anna, but the most stubborn opponents of his ambition were the states of Zacatecas and Coahuila-Texas. The governor of Zacatecas, refusing to disarm the militia, instead, called out the entire citizen soldiery in resistance. Santa Anna brought a large force of his disciplined troops to the state, and meeting the untrained Zacatecans on the plain of Guadalupe, in May, 1835, in one brief struggle crushed all republican aspirations in that state. In the meantime, General Cos, commandant general with head- quarters as Matamoras, was ordered to Monclova to compel the obedi-
107
HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND WESTERN TEXAS.
ence of the resisting legislature. The legislature escaped punishment only by adjourning sine die, in April, 1835. The governor and his coun- cil attempted to escape and remove the seat of government to San Antonio, but were captured on the way and taken to Monterey. Santa Anna then deposed all the state officials, and during the remainder of the year the state was under an appointed governor and military authorities.
After the fall of Zacatecas and the expulsion of the Coahuila-Texas legislature, Santa Anna turned his attention to perfecting the new plan of government in Mexico and no attempt was made to invade Texas. An answer to the question why he did not immediately proceed to the subjugation of Texas is important only in a consideration of the moral aspects of the relations between Mexico and Texas. If it be asserted that there was no direct provocation for the invasion at that time, who were responsible for the developments which called for invasion later in the same year? If no reason existed for a military expedition to Texas in May, and there was such a reason in October, then it might appear that the Texans had in the meantime committed aggressions demanding punishing by the federal government. For the moment taking the Mexican point of view, it is necessary to admit that causes had arisen in the meanwhile demanding either a vigorous assumption of the federal power over Texas or a complete surrender of that territory. Yet this answer does not satisfy all the particulars of the case. Santa Anna was in no hurry to extend his conquest to Texas. He still had Austin in Mexico, and through him hoped to hold the Texans in check until he could strengthen his organization in other parts of the republic. There was no intention of allowing Texas to escape submission to the central sovereignty, but pacific means were to be employed at first, and if these failed the power of arms would be invoked.
In Texas the center of public opinion was shifting from the older and less vital questions to the one problem, whether to submit to a departmental administration imposed by Santa Anna, or to form an independent government on the basis of the constitution of 1824. The independents continued to inflame and agitate despite threats and reas- surances from the federal authorities. The majority were willing to await the coming crisis, advocated a policy of not stinging until trodden upon, hoped for a fair solution of difficulties. But the agitators-many of them refugee Mexican liberals, foes of centralism and Santa Anna- played on every string of race antipathy, pictured the threatening des- potism, the certain dispossession of the settlers from their lands-and
108
HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND WESTERN TEXAS.
thus the leaven of revolution worked until the whole body politic was ripe for war.
Two events had already gone far to precipitate war. In 1834 the collection of maritime revenues was resumed in Texas, the custom houses at Anahuac and Matagorda being opened. Captain Tenorio with a com- pany of soldiers was sent to Galveston bay to protect the collector. The collection of the revenues was very irregular. Smuggling was a busi- ness carried on with little concealment or dishonor. The position of Captain Tenorio was an unenviable one at best. The embarrassments that hampered his actions, as well as the inefficiency of his force, allowed the dishonest traders to land their goods without payment, while the honest merchants who complied with the customs regulations were thus put at a decided disadvantage with their competitors. The office was unpopular and badly managed, and the conduct of the citizens of the vicinity was no less open to criticism. In April, 1835, the ayuntamiento to Liberty issued an order, declaring it to be the duty of all citizens to obey the laws of the nation, that the imposition of revenue duties was an indisputable right of government, and calling upon all persons to desist from violence, threats or illegal acts against the collector. In spite of this advice a collision soon took place. In the latter part of June, as the climax of the quarrel, a party of Texans, choosing W. B. Travis as their leader, attacked the fort, compelled Captain Tenorio and his garri- son to surrender, and sent the prisoners off to San Antonio. This pro- ceeding was at once denounced by the majority of Texans, but it com- promised them all because of their unwillingness to arrest and surrender the perpetrators of the mischief.
When the report of this attack reached General Cos, he sent a vessel under command of Captain Thompson, a renegade Englishman in the Mexican service, to Anahuac. Thompson proved as insolent and bluster- ing in his conduct as Bradburn had three years before, and went so far as to attack and capture a vessel engaged in the Texas trade. The San Felipe, which had been fitted out with cannon at New Orleans, gave fight to the Mexican vessel while it still lingered on the coast. Thompson was forced to surrender, and was then sent to New Orleans on charge of piracy in interrupting trade between the United States and Mexico.
The Mexican government could not overlook these offenses. For the first affairs it was necessary to inflict punishment either on those actually engaged in the attack or on the whole body of Texans, pro- vided the latter assumed to protect the perpetrators. The attack by the
109
HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND WESTERN TEXAS.
San Felipe involved the United States and increased the fear of Ameri- cans which was always more or less present in the minds of the Mexicans. Orders were soon issued from Mexico for the arrest of the actors in the Anahuac affair, as well as for the apprehension of the principal men of the deposed state government who had taken refuge in Texas, and the execution of these orders was one of the purposes of the subsequent inva- sion of Texas.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.