USA > Texas > A history of central and western Texas > Part 9
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
The Fredonian war was only a local disturbance, and is chiefly im- portant because it increased the reputation of the Americans as trouble- some subjects and caused Mexico to resort to the restrictive measures which hastened the final destiny. The various seeds of discontent above noted were growing, and the events of the next few years brought about the first general reaction against the central government.
CHAPTER XIV
THE TEXAS COLONIES UNDER FEDERAL REGULATION
In 1828 the term of the first president of the Mexican republic ex- pired. Pedraza was elected his successor, but the charge of fraud was raised, and General Santa Anna led the revolution to seat the defeated candidate, Guerero. For four days the streets of the capital were the scene of riot and bloodshed, ending in the triumph of the revolutionists. In January, 1829, the congress declared Guerero president, and Busta- mente vice president, the latter having been the candidate of the Pedraza party for that office. In December, 1829, Guerero retired from office, thus leaving Bustamente as chief executive.
Bustamente, as head of the government, soon proved a despot, though he had begun as the defender of the constitution, which he claimed to have been violated in the choice of Guerero over Pedraza. For a brief term supported by the aristocracy, clergy and army, he ruled absolutely, disregarded constitutional restraints, and made congress the instrument of his arbitrary power.
From this time on until the government of Mexico ceases to exercise a vital influence on Texas history, that government was a military des- potism, though still adhering to republican forms. While Bustamente and his associates were in power they alone were the responsible federal authorities, and the constitution and representative government through a popular congress were suspended. And the same condition prevailed under the party that followed Bustamente.
In January, 1832, a counter movement began in the garrison at Vera Cruz, in a protest by the officers against the violation of the constitution by Bustamente and his ministers. This was the "plan of Vera Cruz." It was inspired, no doubt, by Santa Anna, who had been in retirement for some time, but now came forward and took the active direction of this revolution "for constitutional liberty." The troops in all parts of the republic rapidly fell into line and declared for the "plan of Vera Cruz."
89
90
HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND WESTERN TEXAS.
The revolution was accomplished with little bloodshed. In November, 1832, Bustamente, being deserted by the majority of his troops, resigned his office and fled from the country.
Santa Anna, having avowed himself as the restorer of the constitu- tion, and the success of his campaign being due to his pose in the charac- ter, shrewdly chose a course of action that would not reveal his ulterior designs. His first act was to recall Pedraza, who had been rightfully elected president in 1828, and whose term would expire early in 1833. This increased his esteem among the republicans. He then retired to his estate. Early in 1833 occurred the elections for the third president of . the republic. Santa Anna was the unanimous choice of the delegates, and entered office in the spring of that year. So far his conduct was above criticism, and he had gained the highest office of the republic with strict regard for the letter of the constitution. Leaving him thus established as president of the Republic of Mexico, we may now resume the narrative of events in Texas.
Hitherto the Texas colonies had been little concerned with the fac- tional struggles between the centralists and federalists of the republic. The colonization laws had been administered liberally. Referring par- ticularly to his own colonies, Austin said, in November, 1829: "This colony has received the most cordial and uninterrupted manifestations of liberality, confidence and kindness from every superior officer, who has governed the province of Texas or the state of Coahuila and Texas, from its first commencement to the present time." Situated on the ex- treme frontier, remote from both the federal capital and the seat of gov- ernment of the state, the management of colonial affairs had necessarily been left almost entirely in local hands. And owing to the natural genius of Anglo-Saxons for self-government, this neglect had been little abused. The freedom allowed the settlers had up to this time more than offset the benefits of a strong and wisely administered central government. .
No doubt, as a result of the liberality and loose administration of the earlier years, the collection of taxes and federal regulation would have provoked opposition among the Texans, even if the officials had exercised tact and a due regard for law. The clamor of the colonists over the pay- ment of twelve and a half cents an acre to Austin is evidence that the Texans were not readily submissive to burdens of this kind.
In the first Austin contract, the colonists were freed from all duties
91
HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND WESTERN TEXAS.
for six years, and were subject to only half the regular duties for the following six years. The state colonization law provided that the colonies should be exempt from taxation for ten years from the date of establish- ment of the colony. Consequently, no general duties were levied on the imports and exports of the colonies until after 1830.
The beginning of Mexican interference in Texas may be said to date from the report made by Alaman to the federal government in 1829. This federal commissioner charged the empresarios with numerous vio- lations of their contracts, that settlers had located on lands in the border reserves, and that the colonists paid little or no respect to the decrees of republic and state. Aside from these irregularities, Alaman warned his superiors that the settlement of Texas from the United States was the first step in a design to wrest Texas from Mexico. The plot contem- plated, first, a peaceful invasion and occupation of the desired country, and, then, after Texas was filled with American settlers, diplomacy would effect the transfer and annexation to the northern republic.
While Alaman's representations of the American policy were doubt- less exaggerated, his report had the effect of renewing old fears, and impelled the federal government to begin an active course of regulation and restriction. With Bustamente as author and executor of this policy, it is not surprising that its provisions were oppressive and peremptory and exceedingly offensive to the Texans.
The federal decree of April 6, 1830, was the instrument with which Bustamente sought to check the American influence and compel the obedience of Texans to his despotic authority. The eleventh article of this law was as follows: "In exercise of the right reserved to the gen- eral congress by the seventh article of the law of August 18, 1824 [the national colonization law], the citizens of foreign countries lying adjacent to Mexico are prohibited from settling as colonists in the states or terri- tories adjoining such countries. Those contracts of colonization, the terms of which are opposed to the present article, and which are not yet complied with, shall subsequently be suspended." . The law also pro- hibited the importation of slaves, forbade intercourse across the border without a Mexican passport, and provided for the collection of import duties on Texas commerce.
This law in order to be effective had to provide for military occu- pation of the affected territory. Up to this time few soldiers had been quartered in Texas, and their presence had no suggestion of martial law. For defense against the Indians the colonies had been compelled to rely
92
HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND WESTERN TEXAS.
chiefly on their own militia. Consequently the introduction of soldiers at this time was regarded by the colonists as an insult to their loyalty, and seemed to be the first step in subjecting them to the restraints of a military despotism. Besides the three points, San Antonio, San Felipe and Nacogdoches, at which small garrisons had been maintained, four new posts were established in Texas and occupied by garrisons early in 1831. Anahuac, on Galveston bay, was founded to guard this port of entry, a fort was erected at the mouth of the Brazos, called Fort Velasco, another garrison was placed at Tenoxtitlan, where the San Antonio road crossed the Brazos, and Fort Teran was established about midway between Nacogdoches and Anahuac. Custom houses were also opened at Galves- ton, Velasco and Matagorda.
The garrisons and custom houses were of themselves sufficiently obnoxious to the colonists, but the sudden prohibition against immigra- tion from the United States and the suspension of the empresario con- tracts threatened ruin to the continued prosperity of Texas. This por- tion of the law was specially offensive because it discriminated against the citizens of the United States alone, the inhabitants of all other for- eign nations being still permitted to enter as colonists; and, furthermore, the enactment implied a suspicion of the Texans' fidelity to the Mexican government. The strict enforcement of the law would in fact have "paralyzed the advancement and prosperity of Texas," since the history of the previous century had proved that Mexico was unable to colonize Texas, and America alone could supply the pioneers for the permanent occupation of this country. It is not to be supposed that a strict enforce- ment of the law was possible. Immigrants came in by roundabout roads, avoiding the military posts, and once settled could not be evicted. At the same time the revenue laws were being evaded, and smuggling flourished along the coast and across the border.
For two years after the passage of the odious law, no serious collision occurred between the federal military and the colonists. The conserva- tive Texans, like Austin, who forebore violent measures until all peaceful resources were exhausted, were still in the majority, and were able to restrain the more impetuous colonists, or at least prevent serious conse- quences following their acts.
The hostility of the settlers found its first vent against the com- mander of the troops at Anahuac. Davis Bradburn, a Kentuckian in the service of the Mexican government, had been commissioned to establish the post at that point. In his conduct he was insolent, and, in a position
93
HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND WESTERN TEXAS.
requiring the utmost tact to overcome the natural animosity of the set- tlers, he displayed a domineering temper quite inconsistent with his proper authority. He first gave offense by his arrest of the state com- missioner, Madero, who in 1831 had gone to issue titles to the lands of the settlers between the San Jacinto and Sabine rivers. This region had been occupied by a number of colonists, beginning in 1821, but various circumstances had prevented the settlement of their titles. The governor had appointed Madero commissioner in 1830, and he began his work in January of the following year. He had selected the capital of the colony and named it Liberty, and established the ayuntamiento or local govern- ment there.
Bradburn, being apprised of this, proceeded to arrest the commis- sioner for violating the law of April 6, 1830, and dissolved the ayun- tamiento at Liberty. He then organized a local government at Anahuac and attempted to extend its authority over the settlements of that vicin- ity. In May, 1832, an outrage committed by a soldier of the garrison caused a number of citizens of the neighborhood to assemble, and the perpetrator was severely punished. Bradburn then arrested and impris- oned several of the party, William B. Travis being among the number. This act aroused the entire surrounding country, and the garrison was quickly besieged by a body of armed settlers, demanding the release of the prisoners. Bradburn agreed to surrender them in return for a few cavalrymen captured by the Texans. The latter, in good faith, restored the Mexicans, when Bradburn treacherously opened fire on the besiegers and kept the prisoners.
The siege was renewed with vengeance. A reinforcement started from Brazoria with some cannon, coming around by water. But when they had brought their schooner to Fort Velasco at the mouth of the Brazos, the commander of that post refused to allow them to pass. But the colonists had already defied the federal authority and had gone too far to stop at this obstacle. By a combined land and water attack, against a desperate and brave resistance on the part of the garrison under Colonel Ugartechea, after a number were killed on both sides, the fort was taken on June 27th. In the meantime the commandant at Nacogdoches had marched to relieve Anahuac, but on reaching there had found the Texans too strong, and he accordingly agreed to remove Bradburn from command and surrender the prisoners, which was done.
This attack on Velasco and Anahuac was clearly an act of rebellion against the general government. It was, it is true, in the nature of a
94
HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND WESTERN TEXAS.
local insurrection, and the local councils at San Felipe and Matagorda. passed resolutions reprehending the conduct of their neighbors. While the conservatives were striving to avert from the colonies a general retaliation for this impetuous uprising, there was suddenly presented an opportunity, not to disavow the attacks as the work of a small minority of the colonists, but to explain the entire proceedings on the ground of highest patriotism.
This quick shift was made possible by the events then transpiring in Mexico. Santa Anna's campaign against Bustamente had begun early in the year. Many of the garrisons had enrolled under his standard, and those that still held out were marked as enemies of the republic. While the colonists engaged in besieging Anahuac were encamped await- ing reinforcements at Turtle Bayou, six miles above Anahuac, they adopted (June 13th) what were known as the "Turtle Bayou Resolu- tions," in which they declared "as freemen devoted to a correct interpreta- tion and enforcement of the constitution and laws according to their true spirit, we pledge our lives and fortunes in support of the same."
Accordingly when, soon after the capitulation of Velasco and the departure of Bradburn, Colonel Mexia, of the Santa Anna party, appeared in Texas with a considerable force, he was met with flattering receptions at Brazoria and other towns, the councils passed resolutions of loyalty to Santa Anna as the champion of the constitution, and the attacks on the forts were accounted for as part of the campaign against the Busta- mente administration. Mexia, pleased with these proofs of allegiance, after a brief stay, withdrew to Mexico. The colonists then proceeded to expel the commandant at Nacogdoches, who still remained loyal to Bustamente, and by August, 1832, Texas was entirely freed of the mili- tary garrisons.
CHAPTER XV
THE CONVENTIONS OF 1832 AND 1833
By a fortunate turn of affairs the calamity of invasion and war was averted from Texas for three years. During this period the Texas colo- nies were knit together in practical experience and sentiment, and thus prepared for united resistance when the crisis came. Without this period of preparation, during which the colonies became accustomed to assem- bling in convention and acting in combination on matters affecting their general welfare, it is doubtful if Texas could have presented an organ- ized resistance to Santa Anna's armies, and the settlements would have fallen one by one before an overwhelming force.
The first convention of the colonies to discuss and take measures for their welfare met at San Felipe, October 1, 1832. This meeting was characteristically American, composed of delegates chosen by the local districts. It was not "official" in the sense that it was a recognized part of the machinery of government. The consent of the political chief at San Antonio was not asked, nor was it considered necessary. But it shows the contrast between the American and the Spanish-Mexican ideas of democratic government that such a convention was strongly con- demned by the Mexican authorities, not only on the ground of its pro- ceedings being revolutionary and dangerous, but also because the prac- tice itself was contrary to law and precedent.
This convention affords the first view of Texans consulting in dem- ocratic organization. There were fifty-six delegates, representing most of the American settlements in Texas at that time. The Mexican citi- zens took no part in the convention, San Antonio sending no delegation at all, though Goliad's delegates, chosen too late to be present, endorsed the proceedings .* Stephen F. Austin was chosen president of the con-
* The delegates and the districts they represented were as follows:
District of San Felipe de Austin: Stephen F. Austin, Wyly Martin, Francis W. Johnson, Luke Lesassier.
95
96
HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND WESTERN TEXAS.
vention, over William H. Wharton. It is noteworthy that these two men represented, respectively, the conservative and the radical elements of the colonists. One was striving with all his power to develop Texas in citizenship and resources to a point where it could demand its just rights without inviting destruction from a superior force; the other was the impetuous patriot willing to risk all in a quick, decisive encounter.
On the assembling of the delegates, four general topics were pre- sented for discussion, the first reason for the convention being stated by John Austin as follows: "The revolution which commenced at Vera Cruz, on the 2d of January last, under the command of General Santa Anna, reached this remote section of the nation, and movements of a warlike character have taken place-the consequence of which has been that the military garrisons have all been compelled to quit the country. These movements have been greatly misrepresented by the enemies of Texas, and have been attributed to objects entirely different from the true ones. It was, therefore, considered to be highly important to the interest of Texas, and of the nation, to counteract these misrepresenta- tions, by a plain statement of facts ; and that a decided declaration should be made by the people of Texas, convened in general convention, of our firm and unshaken adhesion to the Mexican confederation and constitu- tion, and our readiness to do our duty as Mexican citizens."
The work of the convention is outlined in a letter written by Francis W. Johnson, secretary of the convention, to the ayuntamiento of San
District of Victoria (really Brazoria) : George B. Mckinstry, William H. Wharton, John Austin, Charles D. Sayre.
District of Mina (or Bastrop) : Ira Ingram, Silas Dinsmore, Eli Mercer. District of Hidalgo: Nestor Clay, Alexander Thompson.
District of San Jacinto: Archibald B. Dobson, George F. Richardson, Robert Wilson.
District of Viesca: Jared E. Groce, William Robinson, Joshua Hadly.
Distriet of Alfred (parts of Fayette and Lavaca counties) : Samuel Bruff, David Wright, William D. Lacy, William R. Hensley, Jesse Burnham.
District of Lavaca: William Menifee, James Kerr, George Sutherland, Hugh McGuffin, Joseph K. Looney.
District of Gonzales: Henry S. Brown, C. Stinnett.
District of Mill Creek: John Connell, Samuel C. Douglass.
District of Nacogdoches: Charles S. Taylor, Thomas Hastings.
District of Ayish Bayou: Philip Sublett, Donald MeDonald, William McFar- land, Wyatt Hanks, Jacob Garret.
District of Snow (Neches) River: Thomas D. Beauchamp, Elijah Isaacs, Samuel Looney, James Looney.
District of Sabine: Benjamin Holt, Absalom Hier, Jesse Parker.
District of Tenaha (Shelby county) : William English, Frederick Foye, George Butler, John M. Bradly, Jonas Harrison.
District of Liberty: Patrick C. Jack, Claiborn West, James Morgan.
97
HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND WESTERN TEXAS.
Antonio, subsequent to adjournment. "After full deliberation it was concluded to represent to the congress, agreeably to article 2d of the law of May 7, 1824, that Texas has the proper requisites to form singly a state separate from Coahuila. It was further agreed to claim a reform of the maritime tariff, and the abrogation of article IIth of the law of April 6, 1830, prohibiting the immigration of natives of the United States of the north. A request was also made to the government to appoint a commissioner for the settlement of land matters, and to estab- lish an ayuntamiento between the San Jacinto and Sabine rivers; also to grant certain lands to the ayuntamientos of Texas, by the sale whereof they might raise the funds needed to erect schoolhouses and support schools of the Spanish and American languages. In view of the exposed situation of the country to Indian depredations, the convention agreed upon framing a provincial regulation for the militia. They also appointed a standing, or central, committee in this town and subordinate commit- tees in every section represented in the body. It was made the duty of the central committee to correspond with the subordinate committees, inform them concerning subjects of general interest, and, in case of emergency, to call another general meeting or Texas convention."
The memorials drawn up by the convention and forwarded to Mex- ico were unnoticed in the hurly-burly of the revolution. In Texas, the convention, like American mass meetings in general, provided a vent for the pent-up excitement attending the commotions of the time, and in so far it tended to calm the people and enable them to resume their regu- lar routine of life. Austin, replying to a letter from the political chief at San Antonio, who condemned the convention and threatened punish- ment to the colonists for such proceedings, declared that as a result of the convention "already the public is better satisfied, and we have had more quiet than we had some time anterior thereto." Continuing, he said: "In times like the present, any measure is bad that tends to irri- tate and produce excitement ; every measure is good that is calculated to soothe, bind up and bring about tranquillity and good order."
As to the ultimate results, Austin's opinion, expressed in the same letter, was gloomy. "I have but little hope of obtaining anything from the government of Mexico. There is little probability that we shall soon have a stable and peaceable order of public affairs; and I give it as my deliberate judgment that Texas is lost if she take no measure of her own for her welfare. I incline to the opinion that it is your duty, as chief magistrate, to call a general convention to take into consideration
Vol. 1-7
98
HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND WESTERN TEXAS.
the condition of the country. I do not know how the state or general government can presume to say that the people of Texas have violated the constitution, when the acts of both governments have long since killed the constitution, and when the confederation itself has hardly any life left. I cannot approve the assertion that the people have not the right to assemble peaceably, and calmly and respectfully represent their wants. In short, the condition of Texas is bad, but we may fear to see it still worse."
The administration of affairs in Texas at that time required careful handling, a fact that was understood by Santa Anna himself. His policy, as revealed in a letter written to the minister of state under the reinstated President Pedraza, was conciliatory and in pleasing contrast with the harsh measures which he afterwards executed on the rebellious Texans. He wrote: "Satisfied, as I am, that the foreigners who have introduced themselves in that province have a strong tendency to declare themselves independent of the republic; and that all their remonstrances and com- plaints are but disguised to that end, I think it to be of paramount impor- tance that General Filisola should forthwith proceed to fulfil his mission, having first been well supplied with good officers and the greatest num- ber of troops possible, with instructions both to secure the integrity of our territory and do justice to the colonists. The interest of the nation requires a kind policy towards those people, for they have done us good ยท service, and, it must be confessed, they have not on all occasions been treated with justice and liberality."
The petitions of the first conventions having effected nothing owing to the revolution in Mexico, the central committee decided to call another convention of delegates to meet in April, 1833. The election for these members in the various districts and municipalities occurred in March. The Mexican officials at Nacogdoches and other points offered ineffectual opposition to these elections, the absence of troops except the citizen militia making it impossible to enforce any orders contrary to public opinion.
The convention that met at San Felipe, April 1, 1833, was composed of fifty-six delegates, a majority having been members of the previous body. The work of the convention was a practical repetition of the memorials and petitions drawn up before, except that in this case a state constitution was formulated to be presented with the demand for a sepa- rate state government. The chairman of the committee that drew up this document was Sam Houston, a delegate from the Nacogdoches dis-
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.