A twentieth century history and biographical record of north and west Texas, Volume I, Part 9

Author: Paddock, B. B. (Buckley B.), 1844-1922; Lewis Publishing Co., Chicago, pub
Publication date: 1906
Publisher: Chicago, New York, The Lewis publishing co.
Number of Pages: 968

USA > Texas > A twentieth century history and biographical record of north and west Texas, Volume I > 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).

HISTORY OF TEXAS.

acters. The war was really a contest between rival land claimants, and was due to land frauds. Forged head-right certificates had been issued by the authorities, and the desper- ate character of the men on both sides rendered adjudication of their troubles a matter of guns more often than by due process of law. Fin- ' ally a defeated candidate for the Texas con- gress gave vent to his disappointment by ex- posing the land frauds, and gathered a large party around him under the name of Regulat- ors. Their regulation of the land troubles naturally was in many instances irregular, and an opposition society soon sprang up with the name of the Moderators. This brought on a kind of vendetta warfare, which lasted for several years, until a serious civil war was threatened and the two parties drew up in battle array. Before that juncture, however, President Houston had interfered and sent General Smith with five hundred men to put an end to the affair, and by his mediation the factions composed their immediate differences far enough to disperse, and the thunder of actual war at length died away in echoes of feudism and scattered murders.

Besides the annexation movement to be treated in the following chapter, the most se- rious foreign complications of this period were with Mexico. That country was employing every device known to Mexican diplomacy and political craft in order to legalize and retain her hold on Texas, hoping vainly that the time would come when she could send in an armed force sufficient to overpower and per- manently fetter her erstwhile child. Although nearly six years passed after the battle of San Jacinto without armed aggression on the part of Mexico, that government continually refused any sign of recognition of Texan in- dependence, and this policy hindered and de- layed formal recognition on the part of other foreign countries.

The first formal renewal of hostilities on the part of Mexico was in 1842. In March Gen- eral Vasquez suddenly appeared at San An- tonio with five hundred men, and, with no opposition from the small Texan force sta-

tioned there, took possession of the city, de- clared the authority of Mexico, and two days later departed. Goliad and Refugio were served in the same manner by other Mexican troops, but the entire invasion was only a far- cical demonstration on the part of Mexico, re- sulting merely in rousing the Texans to ap- preciation of danger and causing Houston to issue a proclamation to the people to hold themselves ready to repel invasion. Congress passed a bill for carrying on an offensive war in Mexico, but Houston vetoed this in the face of much public clamor. But in July there was a severe engagement on the Nueces in which a large force of Mexicans were repulsed by two hundred volunteers, and in September General Woll led a second expedition to San Antonio, and after considerable resistance, in which a number of his men were killed or wounded, he captured the town and the Tex- an garrison. A force from Gonzales, of about two hundred men, hastened toward San An- tonio and by a ruse succeeded in drawing out the Mexicans, and in the battle that followed the latter lost a hundred men. But at the same time a reinforcement of Texans coming up were surrounded by the enemy and after two-thirds of them were slain the rest were forced to surrender, only two succeeding in making their escape. A day or so later, Woll, who had lost heavily in this invasion, with- drew across the Rio Grande, sending his pris- oners on foot to the City of Mexico.

This second invasion, following so closely upon the first, threw Texas into a furor of mili- tary preparation. Volunteers were ordered to rendezvous at San Antonio for an invasion of Mexico and General Somervell was to take command. But warfare beyond the borders of the state was not destined to successful culmination, the government itself failed to espouse the cause with sufficient warmth, the army was badly equipped and generaled, and the whole affair degenerated into little better than a raid. The volunteers were clamor- ous to have General Burleson take command. and this contention helped in the ruin of the expedition. Somervell, on arriving at Colum-

HISTORY OF TEXAS.

bus on the Colorado and finding some two or three hundred men collected and awaiting Burleson, disbanded them and himself re- turned to Matagorda. In October he was ordered to take command of the volunteers at San Antonio, and on arriving there he found some twelve hundred men, ill disciplined and poorly provided, but most of them eager to cross the Rio Grande and carry on war in Mexico. Somervell showed absolute indiffer- ence to the enterprise, and, perhaps acting under orders from Houston, made little prog- ress toward actual invasion. Consequently many of the volunteers deserted, and what re- mained of the force, about seven hundred and fifty men, set out on the march and reached Laredo on the Rio Grande early in December. Here instead of crossing the river, a delay was made and two hundred more abandoned the army and returned home. Somervell then marched down the Texas side of the river, and crossed over and occupied the town of Guer- rero, but on the following day returned to the Texas side and ordered a retreat to Gonzales, where the army was to be disbanded.

The venturesome spirits of the enterprise were not to be balked in this fashion, how- ever, and when Somervell with two hundred men started back the remaining three hun- dred flatly refused to follow, and proceeded to elect Colonel William S. Fisher to lead them on their career of glorious conquest. Hence- forth, then, the course of this expedition is without official countenance and the partici- pants are in the role of adventurers. The band descended the river to Mier, and after making a requisition on the alcalde for pro- visions and waiting in the vicinity for several days, a large Mexican force came up and en- tered the town, and on the 25th of December the Americans crossed the river and engaged them, although several times inferior in point of number. The following morning the Tex- ans forced their way into the town and more than held their own for some hours. But treachery overmatched their prowess. They were deceived into believing an overwhelming force of the enemy to be in the town, and their

own dangerous position and limited supply of ammunition induced the majority, after much opposition from the wiser ones, to surrender. This unfortunate band of two hundred and fifty men were started out on the long march to Mexico, undergoing the usual lot of pris- oners taken by Mexicans. When they ar- rived at the hacienda del Salado, where they were placed in a large corral, by a sudden rush they overpowered the guards, seized the arms stacked in the courtyard, and by a fierce charge scattered the Mexicans in front of them and were soon free and on their way back home. Some days later, fearing capture, they left the regular roads and took to the moun- tains, and after wandering about for some time and becoming weakened by hunger and hardship they surrendered to a cavalry force of the enemy and were brought back to Sa- lado. Here one of the infamous orders of Santa Anna was carried out. The prisoners were one hundred and eighty-two in number, and an equal number of beans, seventeen of which were black and the rest white, were placed in a vessel, and the unfortunates each required to draw one. The black bean was the lot of death, and at sunset of the same day the wretched seventeen were seated upon a log and shot to death. The survivors were sent to Mexico, where they endured untold sufferings in the fortress of Perote, several of them effecting their escape by tunneling out, and those who had not in the meantime died were released in September, 1844. The dis- astrous ending of this invasion was on a par with that of the previous Santa Fe expedi- tion.

In 1843 there was another ill-starred expedi- tion aimed at Mexico, but in a different di- rection. Information came that a train of Mexicans with a large amount of rich stores was to pass from Missouri to Santa Fe, cross- ing Texas south of the Arkansas river. Col- onel Jacob Snively obtained the permission of the government to organize a force to inter- cept this caravan, and he accordingly took up his position with about one hundred and eighty men south of the Arkansas, and awaited

HISTORY OF TEXAS.

the coming of the Mexicans. In the mean- time they had a brush with a force of Mexi- cans who were to escort the train, and fol- lowing that a dissension arose among the Texans, resulting in their division into two parties. One party was discovered by Cap- tain Cooke, who, with some two hundred United States troopers, had guarded the Mexi- can caravan thus far, and who informed the Texans that they were trespassing on United States soil and compelled them to give up their arms. Cooke then dismissed them and gave them ten guns for protection against the Indians. Fortunately Snively's party found the other division of their force, and thus united they found their way back home, after several encounters with the Indians. Fifty of Snively's men accompanied Cooke back to Missouri. The United States officer was clear- ly in the wrong in disarming the Texans and in his claim that they were on United States

soil, and some reparation was afterwards made by the government at Washington.

The remaining troubles with Mexico were much complicated by the causes leading up to annexation with the United States. In 1843 England used her influence with Santa Anna so successfully that a cessation of hostilities was agreed upon and commissioners appoint- ed from each nation were to meet and ar- range terms of peace. After much delay the commissioners were appointed and met at the Rio Grande, and in February, 1844, an armis- tice was signed by which hostilities were to cease until negotiations for peace could be made, but Houston would not sign this ar- mistice because it referred to Texas as a de- partment of Mexico. Therefore on June 16 Santa Anna declared hostilities to be re- sumed on the part of Mexico, which nation, however, during the remainder of the history of the republic, made only threats and prep- arations for war.

CHAPTER XII.

HISTORY OF THE ANNEXATION MOVEMENT.

It is a most interesting phase of Texas history to follow out the network of causes which finally effected the juncture of the smaller republic with the larger. Indeed, this subject presents a field of investigation which might be pursued on such broad lines that its solution would be not only a valuable ad- dition to the historical literature of Texas, but also a revelation concerning American history in general. The annexation of Texas came about after a conflict of many antagoniz- ing forces-of civic development, racial affin- ity, public opinion, national self-interest and international jealousy, and numerous "pros" and "antis" such as a movement of the kind is likely to generate, but "manifest destiny" seems to have been the guiding hand through- out and eventually to have aligned Texas prop- erly among her sister states,-freely delegating the crown of her sovereign rights to a liberal and enlightened central government.

As has been indicated in the course of this narrative, the interests and natural sympa- thies of Texas, after American colonization had become the predominant factor in her growth, were closely akin to if not identical with those of the United States, and even if the Republic of Texas had existed to the present day, the two countries would have been so united in spirit if not in fact that the bonds between them would be hardly less binding than those of today. Therefore, from the present-day point of view, it seems that an- nexation was not only the probable and natural course of events but also the inevitable out- come. For, in fact, Texas was an outgrowth

of the United States, a mere extension of its people upon foreign territory, a coloniza- tion just as much as the settlement of New England was two centuries previous,-then was it not natural that the colony, independ- ence once established, should desire to re- main under and a part of the government and system of society and institutions from which it was an offspring? When emigra- tion from the original Thirteen Colonies spread across the Alleghanies and occupied the eastern valley of the Mississippi, there was hardly a question but that these new communities should integrate with the old. Hence, although existing as a separate nation- ality, Texas too seemed properly to belong with the rest of the American brood, and it would have been almost a historical miracle if consolidation had not, sooner or later, been effected.

Such facts as above indicated seem con- clusive as a general cause for the annexation of Texas, and the eventual operation of this cause toward the final consummation could only be delayed, not entirely thwarted. But the more specific and immediate grounds are more numerous and not so easy to under- stand in their working out.

It will be recalled that American sympathy with the cause of the revolutionists was a notable moral as well as material help to the Texans during the days of '35 and '36. Large numbers of volunteers came across the border to fight for freedom in behalf of their former fellow citizens. The Texan commissioners aroused interest wherever they went, and the

HISTORY OF TEXAS.

revolution became a topic of more than ephemeral consideration among the people of the United States. One of the first acts of the Texas government after the battle of San Jacinto was to send commissioners to Wash- ington to obtain recognition of Texas inde- pendence. Nothing in this direction was im- mediately accomplished, although President Jackson and other officials expressed them- selves in favor of such recognition as soon as possible. Although no official countenance was given as yet to Texas, the popular feel- ing for the infant republic was so strong and manifest as to give grounds for Mexican pro- tests, and in October, 1836, diplomatic rela- tions were entirely broken off between the United States and Mexico. It seems unques- tionable that the United States violated the strict rules of neutrality during this period, es- pecially by the introduction of United States troops into Texas during the progress of hos- tilities. The facts as to this point were that General Gaines, of the United States army, had been stationed at the Sabine with instruc- tions to preserve neutrality and to guard against incursions of the Indians or Mexicans into Louisiana. In May, 1836, an attack by Indians on a small place at the headwaters of the Navasota river in Texas, and also news of a renewed invasion from Mexico induced Gaines to send a detachment to occupy Nacog- doches. This invasion was afterwards justi- fied as an exercise of police powers in re- straining the Indians and guarding the Ameri- can borders, but it was strictly an act of hos- tility toward Mexico and a violation of neu- trality, and as such was regarded by the latter country. But, also, the outcry raised by Mexico was much ado about nothing, and is evidence that that country was grasping, while in the whirlpool of political ruin, at every straw which seemed to offer an expedient for retaining her loosened hold on the Texas territory and people.

One of the questions submitted to the peo- ple at the first general election after the win- ning of independence and the institution of the republican government, was whether an-

nexation to the United States was desirable. This proposition was carried almost unani- mously, and Houston referred to its early exe- cution in his inaugural address. November 16, 1836, William H. Wharton was appointed by the president, under congressional author- ity, as commissioner to negotiate with the government at Washington for the recognition of the independence of Texas, and also for an- nexation. In the following December President Jackson sent a message to Congress concern- ing recognition, in which are the following words: "Prudence, therefore, seems to dictate that we should stand aloof and maintain our present attitude, if not until Mexico itself or one of the great foreign powers shall recog- nize the independence of the new government, at least until the lapse of time or the course of events shall have proved, beyond cavil or dispute, the ability of the people of that coun- try to maintain their separate sovereignty and to uphold the government constituted by them." In the following March the independ- ence of Texas was formally recognized by the senate, but the negotiations for annexation were not listened to by the government, and Texas, after being thus rejected, did not ar- dently press her suit again, and awaited for the next offer to come from the United States.

After the independence of Texas was recog- nized, it was evident that the next step would be annexation, which would follow sooner or later. There were two principles or motives which stand out prominently in the discus- sions and agitation which preceded the final act of union between Texas and her larger sister republic. One of these involved the fundamental doctrines of protection and free trade, and also the American fear and jeal- ousy of foreign aggression which some years before had been formulated in the famous Monroe doctrine. The other struck the is- sue between the antagonists and protagonists of slavery in the United States. But it should be kept in mind that these questions were vital among the American people only, and only in their ultimate solutions concerned Texans. For, the latter were during these

HISTORY OF TEXAS.

years busied with their own industrial and political problems; the officials were endeav- oring to erect a stable structure of govern- ment and provide a self-sustaining and self- protecting state; while the citizens, the peo- ple themselves, were bending every effort to repairing the wastes caused by war, to make themselves homes in the wilderness, to form a social, industrial and educational commu- nity which would afford all the necessities of civilization and offer a field for the working out of the best powers and capabilities of the individual. Nearly all desired the security and opportunity and prestige that would come from closer relations with the United States, but beyond this the thought and designs of Texans did not reach. The people as a whole gave no thought to any political or commer- cial advantage that would result to one or an- other party in the United States from their annexation. Texas was working out its own destiny as best it could, and when, through a combination of circumstances, the opportunity came for admission to the Union that lot was gladly accepted, with an eye single to its own advantage, not to the part it would play in the other nation's political destiny.

When the annexation question was brought before the people of the United States the lines of difference on the slavery problem were already tightly drawn, and the struggle which culminated in civil war was already being waged in the houses of Congress and by the press and public opinion. The policy was already established of balancing free state against slave state, and thus keeping both sides equally represented in the national government. To do this, each faction kept reaching out for new territory, and of course the appearance of the new republic of Texas knocking for admission to the Union was considered most opportune to the southern party. But the opposition from the slavery an- tagonists was decided and bitter, and, while on other grounds Texas might well have been admitted soon after the recognition of inde- pendence, the movement was checked until arguments from another point of view pushed

the slavery question to the background and allowed the annexationists in the United States to have their own will.

The other principle which afforded grounds for and against the admission of Texas was in the end the main deciding factor in the matter. The Republic of Texas was com- mitted to the policy of free trade, and in case it remained independent a large market would there be afforded to foreign, and es- pecially English, manufactures, which were kept out of the United States by the protec- tive wall. This of course would be detrimen- tal to the latter country, and formed an argu- ment for annexation; but, on the contrary, if Texas were admitted, the anti-tariff party would thereby be augmented so that the pro- tective policy would be in danger. Thus the admission of Texas became one of the broad political questions of the United States, and for some years the alignment of forces on each side was so nearly equal that the issue was drawn.

When President Lamar delivered his in- augural address in 1838, he declared himself averse to annexation, which he believed would bring ruin to all of the republic's hopes and greatness. But in the course of his admin- istration many additional reasons for annexa- tion came up,-mainly in the heavy expenses entailed upon the people by the maintenance of a separate government, with all its depart- ments, its army and navy, and foreign min- isters, etc. The subject, however, did not as- sume much importance during this term, for the people were too busy with matters that touched them more nearly. And on the other hand, the United States government held that as long as Mexico refused recognition to the new republic and kept up a show of war for its recovery, any interference such as annexa- tion would be a serious breach of international behavior, and dishonorable.

During much of Houston's second term ac- tive hostilities were in progress between Mex- ico and Texas, so that the cause of annexa- tion had little ground to stand on. But in the mediation between Santa Anna and the

HISTORY OF TEXAS.

Texas government which was brought about largely by British influence in 1843, as related in the preceding chapter, the various annexa- tion question came to a focus, and the move- ment entered upon its final stage. England saw in Texas a great field for the exploitation of her own manufactured products, for which she would gain an almost unlimited supply of raw material, especially cotton, and there- fore that country hoped for the continued independence of Texas and extended her as- sistance in gaining recognition from Mexico. This fear lest trans-Atlantic powers should interfere in the affairs of the North American continent, and especially lest a commerce should spring up that would work detriment to the American trade, proved a powerful slo- gan in the hands of the annexationists, and it was not long before the American people in the majority became convinced that their high- est interests would be conserved by the ad- mission of Texas, slavery extension notwith- standing.

President Tyler was avowedly in favor of annexation, and in his message of December, 1843, he declared that it was to the immediate interest of the United States that hostilities should cease between Texas and Mexico, and that the United States could not permit foreign interference in Texas or see the sacred prin- ciple of the Monroe doctrine in any manner contravened. An additional bugaboo hov- ered before the visions of the American peo- ple ; namely, that it was the intention of En- gland to abolish slavery in Texas (a motive that was not present to the British govern- ment at all),-an intention that would be re- sented by both southerners and northerners,- and thus the annexation sentiment gathered force with every day.

In September, 1844, Anson Jones was elect- ed president of Texas, and Kenneth L. An- derson vice president. One of the issues of this election was annexation, and it was in- ferred that Jones was opposed to incorporation with the United States. It was supposed that the movement to make Texas a part of the Union was at least deferred for some years

to come. In the previous June the senate of the United States had rejected an annexation treaty by more than two to one, and Houston, in his farewell address, showed himself op- posed to the movement.

But in the United States annexation became an issue of the national campaign. James K. Polk was nominated by the Democratic party over Van Buren mainly because the former favored bringing Texas into the Union, and in the campaign which followed the fear of for- eign influence in Texas was enlarged upon before the people, and by their ballots the people practically decided that Texas should become a part of the Union.

President Tyler was destined, before he left the presidential chair, to sign the docu- ment which provided for annexation, and thus one of the most ardent wishes was gratified.

In February, 1845, a joint resolution was in- troduced into the two houses of Congress in favor of the incorporation of Texas and was passed. On March 1st, three days before giving way to Mr. Polk, President Tyler signed this measure, and it thus remained for Texas to decide whether she would bow her sovereign head to enter the door of the Union.

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.

A twentieth century history and biographical record of north and west Texas, Volume I, Part 9

Author: Paddock, B. B. (Buckley B.), 1844-1922; Lewis Publishing Co., Chicago, pub Publication date: 1906 Publisher: Chicago, New York, The Lewis publishing co. Number of Pages: 968

Author: Paddock, B. B. (Buckley B.), 1844-1922; Lewis Publishing Co., Chicago, pub
Publication date: 1906
Publisher: Chicago, New York, The Lewis publishing co.
Number of Pages: 968