USA > Texas > A history of central and western Texas > Part 16
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
Vol. 1-11
162
HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND WESTERN TEXAS.
French in behalf of Texas was alleged to be a violation of the Monroe doctrine. And the fear of a commercial alliance between Texas and Europe which might be a formidable rival of American trade was a powerful argument for annexation. These reasons combined with the natural sympathy of Americans for their Texas countrymen to make annexation popular among the great majority of citizens in the United States.
President Tyler was avowedly in favor of annexation. In his mes- sage of December, 1843, he declared it was to the immediate interest of the United States that hostilities cease between Texas and Mexico, and that America could not permit foreign interference in Texas or see the sacred principie of the Monroe doctrine in any manner contravened. It was also asserted, though with slight reason, that it was the intention of England to abolish slavery in Texas, thus forcing the southern free- traders into line for annexation.
In September, 1844, Anson Jones was elected president of Texas. Annexation was an issue in the campaign, and while the majority of Texans favored it they elected a president whose attitude to the subject was rather neutral if not hostile. It was supposed that the in- corporation of Texas in the Union would be deferred for some years to come. In the previous June the United States senate had rejected an annexation treaty by more than two to one. The situation was a peculiar one, and four nations were concerned in the status of Texas. Mexico threatened war against the United States if Texas was annexed. Eng- land was asserting her diplomacy to keep Texas free politically with a view to intimate commercial relations, while France had similar designs.
But in the United States annexation became an issue of the campaign of 1844. James K. Polk was nominated for president by the Democrats over Van Buren mainly because he advocated bringing Texas into the Union. Henry Clay, the popular idol and the candidate of the Whigs, took an attitude to the Texas question which was unfortunate to his success. The election of Polk was a clear evidence of the popular will regarding Texas.
So quickly did Congress respond to the opinion expressed in the recent election, that not Polk but Tyler, who had been an ardent advo- cate of annexation, gained the honor of approving the bill for admission of the new state. The previous attempts to add Texas to the United States had been by annexation treaty, which was regarded as the regular constitutional means of accomplishing that end. As such a treaty re-
163
HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND WESTERN TEXAS.
quired a two-thirds vote of the senate, and a similar one had been rejected only a short time before, a new plan was adopted. In February, 1845, a joint resolution was introduced into the two houses of Congress in favor of incorporating Texas in the nation, and received a majority in both bodies, the vote being 27 to 25 in the senate. In some quarters the act was held to be unconstitutional, but its tacit approval by people and courts gave it the character of supreme law. On March Ist, three days before resigning office to Mr. Polk, President Tyler signed this measure, and it thus remained for Texas to make the final decision either for federate statehood or national independence.
On May 5th President Jones issued a call for the election of dele- gates to a general convention to consider the proposition from the United States. The convention met at Austin on July 4th, and approved the- ordinance of annexation with only one dissenting vote-that of Richard Bache, a grandson of Benjamin Franklin. This ordinance, and a new constitution, adopted by the convention, were submitted to the people and almost unanimously ratified in October. In December following President Polk signed the bill extending the authority of the United States over Texas, and on February 19, 1846, the new system went into effect, President Jones surrendering his office to the newly elected state governor, J. Pinckney Henderson.
CHAPTER XXIV
THE STATE OF TEXAS, 1845 TO 1861
For fifteen years after annexation Texas remained under the stars and stripes of the United States of America, and these were years of plenty, progress, and broad increase for the commonwealth. Texas gained much by surrendering her sovereignty, for henceforth vexatious foreign affairs form no part of her history.
The population of Texas at the time of incorporation into the Union was about one hundred thousand Americans, with a comparatively small number of Mexicans, besides the Indian tribes. The production of cot- ton, corn and sugar cane and the raising of cattle and horses and hogs were the principal industries, and, notwithstanding that the inhabitants were, during the first few years, mainly engaged in providing for their immediate necessities, by the time Texas became a state the exports al- most equaled in value the imports, and the country had already assumed importance in the markets of the world.
By the new state constitution the governor was elected for a term of two years and was re-eligible. J. Pinckney Henderson, the first gov- ernor, was inaugurated in February, 1846. It was during his administra- tion that the war between the United States and Mexico was fought. Mexico had never ceased to claim Texas, by all the legal and logical devices of which her astute statesmen were capable, although she had never succeeded in putting a sufficient force into the field to compel allegiance. But when the annexation resolution was passed by Congress, the time of protest and diplomacy had passed and Mexico had to take effective measures or surrender her former possession forever.
At the time, the war with Mexico was regarded with favor by the majority of American people. The judgment of posterity has justified the results, without attempting sanction of its ethical causes. Two gen- eral causes have been assigned for the aggressive war. One "was the desire on the part of the slave-holding states to add new territory to the Union out of which other slave-holding states could be constituted."
164
165
HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND WESTERN TEXAS.
This was the same motive that produced the contest for Kansas, and the rivalry between the two sides in the issue actuated most of the territorial expansion before the Civil war.
The other cause for American encroachment in the southwest was the same which had caused the original movement across the Sabine into Texas, the "westward expansion," which brought Americans into conflict with the Spanish races for the possession of territory which the former claimed both by theoretical and practical right.
This defines the generally hostile attitude of the nation toward the Spanish-American possessions. The actual impetus to war was fur- nished by more immediate cause or pretext (according to the manner in which it is interpreted). Texas, having won independence in 1836, claimed the Rio Grande as her southwestern boundary. During the Coa- huila-Texas union, the Medina and Nueces rivers were the boundaries between the two provinces. So far as Mexico had been willing to dis- cuss the boundary question at all, she insisted upon the Nueces as the southern limits of Texas. A very generous interpretation of old terri- torial claims is necessary to concede the Rio Grande border to Texas, and the claim set up by the first congress was a bold assertion that in the ordinary course of events would have required the power of battles to support it. As a matter of fact, neither Texas nor Mexico made any serious attempt to occupy and defend this desolate border country, which remained as a buffer between the two nations.
Beginning with the overthrow of the dictator Santa Anna by the revolution of 1845, the Mexican government, under the leadership of President Herrera, was disposed to treat with the republic of Texas more according to international usages. But it was too late, since the election of Polk as president of the United States had decided the matter of annexation, and, no longer a nation, Texas could make no response to the conciliatory advances of Mexico.
Accordingly, Mexico's hostility to Texas was now directed against the larger nation in which the republic had been absorbed. So aggrieved did that nation become that her minister at Washington demanded his passports as soon as the annexation resolution was passed, and returned home. The minister of the United States at Mexico likewise left his post, and all diplomatic intercourse was thus broken off. Shortly afterward President Polk appointed Alexander Slidell as minister plenipotentiary to Mexico to discuss and negotiate the subject under dispute. On his arrival Slidell, it seems, failed to use proper tact in dealing with the dis-
166 HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND WESTERN TEXAS.
quieted Mexicans, and was refused recognition by the government alto- gether.
The subject of annexation, the disputed boundary line, the rejection of the minister, and the additional failure of Mexico to settle certain claims due to American citizens, all acutely aggravated the war situa- tion. By dispatching General Zachary Taylor with three thousand sol- diers to take possession of the country between the Nueces and the Rio Grande and guard the latter as the southwestern boundary, President Polk gave the provocation to the brief war between the United States and Mexico.
Opposite Matamoros General Taylor fortified Fort Brown, his com- munication with the gulf being through Point Isabel. A Mexican army, crossing the Rio Grande, moved to the north of Fort Brown with the intention of cutting the line of communication and dislodging the Amer- icans from their position. The two armies first collided north of Browns- ville at a water hole, since famous under the name of Palo Alto. In a short conflict the Mexicans were driven back, and at nightfall retreated to Resaca de la Palma. Here the second battle of the war took place. Another decisive victory for Taylor's troops resulted in the withdrawal of the enemy to the other side of the Rio Grande. These were the only battles of the war fought on Texas soil, and at their conclusion the chief objects of the United States had been accomplished, the Rio Grande having been established, temporarily at least, as the Texas boundary.
But the news of these initial engagements brought from President Polk his famous assertion-"War exists, and, notwithstanding all our efforts to avoid it, exists by the act of Mexico herself." Congress accepted the declaration that "war exists" and voted money and volun- teers to carry the war to a satisfactory conclusion. Fifty thousand volun- teers were called for. An Army of the West was directed to be formed under the command of Colonel Stephen W. Kearney, which was to take possession of New Mexico and proceed thence to California. An Army of the center, under General John B. Wool, was ordered to assemble at San Antonio and march into Coahuila and Chihuahua. General Taylor was directed to proceed against the northern and eastern states of Mexico. The naval forces under Commodores Stockton and Sloat on the Pacific, and Commodore Conner on the Gulf of Mexico, were ordered to co- operate with the land forces and to do all in their power to aid in the subjugation and capture of Mexican property and territory.
The Americans were victorious on all occasions, and in a short time
.
HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND WESTERN TEXAS. 167
General Taylor was conqueror of all northern Mexico; Kearney was in possession of New Mexico; Fremont occupied California; and General Scott completed the campaign by fighting his way from Vera Cruz to the city of Mexico, which was captured in September, 1847.
In this war Governor Henderson took command of the Texas volun- teers, about eight thousand having responded for service from the state. The Texans displayed unexampled bravery wherever there was a difficult position to be stormed or the brunt of an assault to be sustained, and the Texas Rangers especially won lasting renown and respect for their dashing courage. "The efficiency of these mounted troopers was marked wherever the army advanced. Serving equally as well on foot as on horseback, they would storm a height or charge the enemy's cavalry with the same indifference, intrepidity and success. On the road they were the terror of the guerilla bands, and in the towns objects of dread to antagonists, and of awe to non-combatants. Their uncouth, wild and fierce appearance, their strange garb, and their reputation for contempt of every form of danger, gained for them in Mexico the belief that they were more than human-that they were beings intermediate between man and devil."
The second governor of Texas, who took office in December, 1847, was George T. Wood, with lieutenant governor John A. Greer. In 1849 P. Hansborough Bell was elected governor, and re-elected in 1851. The office was filled in 1853 by the election of Elisha M. Pease, with David C. Dickson lieutenant governor, and by re-election Pease served to 1857. The most noteworthy events of state history during these administra- tions were those relating to the settlement of the western boundaries, to the state debt, and to the Indians.
The boundary affair and the adjustment of the state debt went to- gether in their eventual settlement. The boundary trouble was a result of the claim of Texas to the territory east of the upper courses of the Rio Grande, including a large part of what is now New Mexico. It would be difficult to show the adequacy of Texas's claims to all this region, but the pretensions were vigorously contested. By the treaty of Guada- lupe Hidalgo in 1848, New Mexico was a part of the vast territory sur- rendered by Mexico. In the same year the Texas legislature passed an act extending its jurisdiction as far as the Rio Grande in this territory. But when a Texas judge endeavored to hold court in the territory he came into direct conflict with the federal authorities, and for a time
168
HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND WESTERN TEXAS.
it looked as if the two sides might resort to arms. The rivalry of authori- ties continued into the administration of Governor Bell.
When Texas surrendered her nationality she likewise turned over to the federal revenue department the customs and other general revenues. But all the loans of the republic had been based on these revenue receipts as security, and the bondholders at once applied to the United States to guarantee the bonds. The question whether the federal government should be responsible for these obligations was discussed in both houses of Congress. The boundary matter became involved in the same dis- cussion.
The complex nature of the problem, involving, as it did before final settlement, many considerations apparently remote from the real issues, is well stated in a review published at the time. After referring to the failure of Texas to determine her western boundary, the writer says: "A portion of the disputed ground, the tract lying between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, as it is of little value to either claimant, and can never support a population large enough to support a state by itself, will probably be abandoned to Texas without controversy. Not so with the Santa Fe district and the other portions of New Mexico lying on the east bank of the upper Rio Grande. The native inhabitants of this region cherish sentiments of bitter hostility towards the Texans, who now threaten to extend their disputed dominion over them by force. A border warfare must ensue if Congress does not intervene. Slavery cannot be introduced into this region, which is too elevated, too barren, and situated too far north to recompense any other than free labor ; but if the laws of Texas are extended over it, it becomes a portion of a slave state, and whatever political power it may subsequently obtain will be lost to the cause of freedom. Both humanity and policy require, therefore, that the north should submit to any reasonable sacrifice for the purpose of sever- ing this region from Texas and adding it to the free territory of New Mexico. Now, by the terms of the proposed compromise the sacrifice required is a very trifling one. Texas is willing to sell her claim to the disputed region for what she calls a fair price-a few millions of dollars ; and the United States are bound in equity to cause the creditors of Texas to be paid a sum at least equal to this price, because the revenue from the customs of Texas, which is now paid into our national treasury, was formally and solemnly pledged to these creditors as a security for their debt. Having taken away the security, our government is bound to see that the debt is paid, and it can be paid with the price of the claim to the
169
HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND WESTERN TEXAS.
disputed region. The south makes no objection to this arrangement; Texas, as we have said, consents to it, and the north ought to be satis- fied with it, because, first, it will preserve the national faith, and, sec- ondly, it will rescue a large tract of country from the dominion of a slave state and by joining it to New Mexico add it to the 'area of freedom.'"
The compromise outlined above was part of the great compromise measures, under the authorship of the venerable Henry Clay, which af- forded the last breathing spell for the two sections of the nation hurrying on to inevitable conflict. The great battle of politics had reached its height at Washington early in 1850, and by the influence of Mr. Clay the opposing factions were brought together in the compromises which were enacted into law the following September.
The essential points of the compromise were as follows: The admis- sion of California as a free state. The organization of two new terri- tories-Utah, including Nevada, and New Mexico, including Arizona- without the Wilmot proviso, that is, with no conditions prohibiting slav- ery. The slave trade was abolished in the District of Columbia, and, in return, a stringent law was passed for the arrest of fugitive slaves in northern states. Involved in these acts was the provision that Texas should be paid $10,000,000 for surrendering her claim to the territory east of the upper Rio Grande.
The measure, known as the Boundary Act, after passing the two houses and being signed by the president, was submitted to the Texas government. Great opposition was presented to the act, but towards the end of November its propositions were accepted. The provisions of this act settled-with the recent exception of Greer county-the permanent boundaries of Texas as we know them today. The east and northeastern boundaries were fixed by the treaty with Spain in 1819. By the act of 1850 the present northernmost limit of the state-the top of the Panhandle-was to run along the parallel of 36 degrees and 30 min- utes north, from the 100th to the 103d meridian west. This is an exten- sion of the old Missouri Compromise line. From the latter point of intersection the boundary was made to run due south to the 32d degree of north latitude, and thence run west to the course of the Rio Grande, which, thence to its mouth, formed the southern and southwestern line of the state.
Outside of these limits Texas was to surrender all claims to terri- torial possessions, and also to relinquish her claims upon the United States for settlement of the outstanding debts of the old republic. The
170
HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND WESTERN TEXAS.
United States, on the other hand and in return for this relinquishment, agreed to pay Texas ten million dollars in five-percent bonds. Not more than five million dollars of this amount was to be issued until the creditors of the state had filed at the United States treasury releases for all claims on account of the bonds of the Texas republic-a provision for insuring proper use of the money which caused much dissatisfaction in Texas. The first payment of five million dollars was accordingly made to Texas in February, 1852.
But with the boundary question at rest, the settlement of the debt continued to vex the state government for several years. The bonds of the republic had been sold to investors at far below their guaranteed face value. Their redemption at less than par could not be accomplished, according to modern commercial practice, except as a result of com- promise between the two parties in interest. Nevertheless, the Texas legislature undertook to classify these liabilities and to scale down the payment to correspond proportionately with the actual amount received from the bonds at their sale. The entire liabilities of this class as calcu- lated in 1851 amounted to more than twelve million dollars, but by the scaling process this amount was reduced to about seven millions. Over the governor's veto the legislature finally determined to settle the debt on that basis at half the par value of the bonds. This law, as passed in Janu- ary, 1852, did not offer terms satisfactory to the bondholders, and few of the claims had been liquidated up to 1855. During the administration of Governor Pease the matter was finally adjusted.
In the meantime Texas had produced another claim against the federal government. It was alleged that over half of the first payment of five million dollars had been expended for protection against the in- cursions of Indians from Mexico. The expense of Indian defense, it was argued, should no longer be a burden on the state but on the general gov- ernment. While the bondholders were appealing to the United States against the repudiation measures of the Texas legislature, the latter was filing the bill of costs of Indian protection.
Under these circumstances Congress interfered, set aside the scale of reductions as adopted by the legislature, and, adding $2,750,000 to the five millions retained in the treasury, apportioned the entire sum, pro rata, among the creditors ; refunding, however, to Texas all claims previ- ously paid by the state, and providing that Texas should finally relinquish all claims upon the federal government. Against much opposition this arrangement was accepted by Texas, and the matter finally adjusted.
17[
HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND WESTERN TEXAS.
The first payment of five million dollars from the national treasury was a Godsend to the young state government, and was advantageously em- ployed not only in meeting the old obligations of the republic, but in paying the immediate running expenses of the state government, so that taxes were for several years remitted to the respective counties to be used for the erection of court houses and for other local improvements.
During this period, the Comanches had proved the most troublesome of the Indian tribes. Their depredations were usually committed during the course of an extended raid into Mexico, which was their favorite field of operations. As the settlements of northern Texas made considerable progress during the fifties, they were exposed to the raids from the tribes across Red river in the Indian Territory.
The Texas Indians were being crowded from their homes. The set- tlers were rapidly taking possession of all the region east of the high western plains of the state, and when the whites came the Indians had to depart. In the fifties the Texas government undertook, as the national government had done some years before, to colonize the tribes on reser- vations. Two reservations were set apart in Young county near Fort Belknap. At first the colonies seemed to be in a prosperous condition, agriculture flourished, and the agents reported that the residents were well behaved. But in two or three years the white settlements had sur- rounded the reservations, and the melancholy story of the Indian was re- peated. A number of white ruffians leagued themselves with the Indian renegades, and depredations among the surrounding settlements became so frequent that retaliation soon followed. The blame was placed without discrimination on the Indians of the reservation, and the innocent and guilty alike were compelled to suffer the expatriation which has been the doom of their race. In December, 1858, a number of Indians were massacred on the Brazos. Although this atrocity was denounced by the governor, race hatred had been kindled to a point where the only remedy was the removal or extermination of the red men. The settlers were col- lecting under arms, and neither the agents nor United States troops could afford security to the inhabitants of the reserves. The result was the decision to remove the Indians altogether beyond the settlements. In August, 1859, the Indians to the number of about fifteen hundred were exiled, under guard of the United States regulars, across the Red river. So sudden was their departure that they were not given time to gather their crops nor collect their cattle.
Indian troubles continued unabated after the removal of the tribes
172
HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND WESTERN TEXAS.
into Indian Territory, and the federal troops and the rangers had all they could do to protect the wide extent of frontier. The attacks were so sudden and unexpected, were made by such small parties and in such widely separated localities, that permanent relief from this danger was never secured until settlement had grown so compact that neither white nor Indian desperado could with impunity continue his crimes.
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.