USA > Texas > Tarrant County > Fort Worth > History of Texas : Fort Worth and the Texas northwest edition, Volume I > Part 15
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 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56
detained in the city on one formality or another until July 13, when he departed for Vera Cruz, intending to embark for New Orleans, where he could get passage to Texas. At Vera Cruz, however, the military commandant declined to allow him to ship, and a visit to Santa Anna at his hacienda, Manga de Clavo, was necessary to get an order for the commandant to let him pass. After a few days in New Orleans he sailed for Texas and arrived at Brazoria on Septem- ber 1, 1835, two years and a half after his departure on the mission of 1833.
91
HISTORY OF TEXAS
Why was Austin so long detained? He seemed convinced that Santa Anna was kindly disposed toward him, but was powerless to hasten the slowly moving wheels of justice. Santa Anna had been absent from the capital during the most of 1833, and was absent when Austin was committed to prison in 1834. Two weeks after his return to the capital in April, 1834, the rigor of Austin's confinement was relieved, and the case began its round of the courts. Nevertheless it has been plausibly suggested that Santa Anna, planning to over- throw the federal system and establish a strongly centralized govern- ment, and foreseeing opposition to this program from the republicans of Texas, was really holding Austin as a hostage. This certainly would not be inconsistent with what we know of the president's methods, but as yet no direct evidence has appeared to establish the fact. Austin thought at times that his case was hurt by his personal enemies, both in Mexico and in Texas, and by injudicious friends.
The question of how Austin's attitude toward Mexico was affected by his imprisonment cannot receive a positive answer. As he wrote to Senator Llanos a fortnight after his arrest, he considered it his first duty to guard the interest of the settlers who had come to Texas at his solicitation, and his observance of Mexican politics at close range dur- ing the two years of his involuntary residence at the capital may have forced the reflection upon him that a large measure of independ- ence or complete separation from Mexico was the only thing that could permanently protect Texas from the incessant wrangles which there seemed every reason for believing would continue. The surest way for Texas to attain this favored position, assuming that Austin had such an idea in mind, was to so strengthen itself that the govern- ment could not safely reject its demands when next they were made. While his letters afford no clue that he had deliberately thought the matter out in this way, the advice that he gave was consistent with such a conclusion. To his brother-in-law he wrote January 16, 1834 : "My advice to Texas is what it has always been-remain quiet-popu- late the country-improve your farms-and discountenance all revo- lutionary men or principles." To Oliver Jones, representative of the department of the Brazos in the state congress, on May 30, 1834: "All you need in Texas is peace, a dead calm, and to make good crops ;" and nearly a year later, March 4, 1835, to his brother-in-law again : "Calm, a dead calm, and close attention to farming, and no excitement nor party divisions, are all that Texas needs at present." On March 10, 1835, he wrote Perry that the feeling toward Texas was much better than it had ever been, and be believed that "if the atten- tion of government and of congress was not distracted by the disjointed state of the times, something material would be done for Texas. However, it is really not so very important whether anything is done or not if a dead calm and union can be preserved in the country- immigration-good crops-no party divisions-no excitement-no personalities-should be the political creed of every one in Texas." The legislature had passed a number of laws favorable to Texas during the session of 1834, and on March 31, 1835, Williams wrote Austin that during January and February two thousand immigrants
92
HISTORY OF TEXAS
had landed at the mouth of the Brazos alone. Texas could afford to be patient.
Austin seems to have felt no enthusiasm for a union of Texas with the United States. On July 13, 1834, Colonel Anthony Butler wrote the secretary of state of the United States :
"He is unquestionably one of the bitterest foes to our Govern- ment and people that is to be found in Mexico, and has done more to embarrass our negotiations upon a certain subject than all the rest of the opposition together ; and I am very sure that he was the principal cause of my being defeated in the last effort to obtain a cession of Texas."
On the eve of his departure for home, Austin appeared not to look beyond a continuance of the connection with Mexico as a separate state, and the development of the province under the Mexican system.
Whatever may have been Austin's inmost wishes concerning the ultimate disposition of Texas it is clear enough that he regarded the rapid population of the country from the United States as of funda- mental importance, because with such a population Texas would be master of its own destiny.
CHAPTER X STATE OF COAHUILA-TEXAS, 1833-35
The year 1833 was a hard one for Texas. Disastrous floods and a sweeping epidemic of Asiatic cholera laid heavy toll of suffering and sorrow upon the land. James F. Perry warned Austin that he would find on his return many vacancies in the ranks of his friends; eighty died in Brazoria alone, he thought, and the dead sometimes lay un- buried became of the terror of the survivors. In some cases whole families were wiped out. John Austin, one of the alcaldes of San Felipe, and leader of the attack on Velasco in 1832, D. W. Anthony, editor of the Brazoria paper, and the empresario Martin de León, were among the conspicuous losses to Texas during this memorable year.
But after the passage of the cholera the chief interest of the Texans shifted to state politics, the trend of which offered many additional reasons for desiring separation from Coahuila. The trouble here was due partly to a local quarrel between Saltillo, in the southeastern corner of Coahuila, and Monclova in the northwest, and partly to the disturbed condition of national affairs. On March 9, 1833, the legis- lature of Coahuila and Texas passed a decree removing "for the present" the capital of the state from Saltillo to Monclova, and requiring the governor and other members of the executive department to take up their residence there by April 1.
The legislature that met at Monclova on January 1, 1834, was un- usually liberal in its treatment of Texas. Four new municipalities were created, Matagorda, San Augustine, San Patricio, and Mina ; the department of the Brazos was established between the former de- partments of Bexar and Nacogdoches; Texas was allowed an addi- tional representative in the legislature ; the use of English in official docu- ments was legalized ; and the judiciary system was revised so as to allow Texas an orderly series of courts with trial by jury in criminal cases. All these measures tended in the direction of a greater degree of local self-government for the Anglo-American portion of Texas, and may have been influenced in part by the recommendations of Santa Anna and the general government, growing out of the conference with Austin on October 5, 1833. Henry Smith was appointed political chief of the new department.
Toward the end of April the legislature adjourned, leaving the government in the hands of the acting governor, Villaseñor, and the permanent deputation. On May 23 some of Santa Anna's adherents in the state of Morelos proclaimed the plan of Cuernavaca, which declared null liberal reforms recently adopted by Congress, protested against changes in the state religion, and called on Santa Anna to dissolve Congress and defend the constitution. On June 24, the permanent deputation of Coahuila and Texas called the legislature to meet at Monclova on August 9 to take measures for the "safety of the federation" and "for the permanent restoration of the public
93
94
HISTORY OF TEXAS
tranquillity, at present interrupted by the collision of the supreme national authorities, and by pronunciamentos which as a pretext in- voke religion, which is really free from danger ; and for the avoidance of any internal disturbance which such events might occasion." At the same time, declaring that the state would not permit "the exalted name of religion to be wantonly invoked within its territory," it authorized the governor to banish from the state anyone who showed a disposition to disturb the public peace in such manner. A month later, however, the opposition to the plan of Cuernavaca was with- drawn, because, as it was said, the nation seemed to concur in accept- ing it, and Coahuila and Texas would never stand in way of the will of the majority of the states. The legislature was prevented from organizing by the failure of some members to attend and by the withdrawal of the two members from Saltillo.
In the meantime, Saltillo, hoping to regain its old position as capital of the state by supporting Santa Anna, had forestalled Mon- clova by pronouncing in favor of Santa Anna and the plan of Cuer- navaca on July 19. It then proceeded to set up a rival government and declared all acts of the legislature since January 1, 1834, null and void. Civil war threatened between Saltillo and Monclova, and Acting Governor Villaseñor was deposed at Monclova to make way for a military executive in the person of Juan Elguezabal. Hostile preparations went on a-pace and on September 2, 1834. Oliver Jones. the representative of the department of the Brazos at Monclova, wrote pessimistically to Political Chief Henry Smith that the Saltillo government was gaining strength daily.
After some skirmishes had occurred between the forces of the rival towns civil war was averted by an agreement on November 6 to refer the quarrel to the arbitration of Santa Anna. The president's deci- sion was rendered December 2, and declared that Monclova should remain the capital; that Elguezabal should continue to hold the executive office until a new election could be held ; and that an elec- tion should immediately be called to choose a full corps of state officials. This election should have taken place in the fall, but it had been prevented by the confusion in Coahuila. The election was now held on February 9, 1835, and the legislature convened on March 1. 1835.
By many the omission of the elections in the fall of 1834 was re- garded as putting both governments outside the law, and as leaving Coahuila and Texas entirely without government. Some of the Coa- huilans gathered at Bexar and induced the political chief of that department to issue on October 13 a call for a convention to meet at Bexar on November 15 to organize a provisional government, pend- ing the settlement of the quarrel. A portion of the address, which is translated in Edward's History of Texas, presents a graphic picture of the political situation: "The disastrous events which have lately taken place in the great Mexican nation, of which you are a part, and the deplorable and perilous situation in which the state is now placed, demand imperiously your exclusive and most serious attention. The baleful and portentous spirit of revolution has torn the republic into
95
HISTORY OF TEXAS
pieces, and threatens in the most alarming manner the liberal and republican institutions which you have sworn to maintain. * * *
"The congress of the state has ceased to exist; the elections have not been made; the state is dissolved. Two governors, equally illegitimate, contend with each other for the exercise of executive power of the state; and its inhabitants are under no legal and constitutional obligation to obey either the one or the other ; as you have been made fully sensible of, by your returned representatives. This monstrous phenomenon which has appeared in the political horizon of the state, has caused a universal and frightful disorder and confusion; convincing us that we have no time to lose. Therefore, we the undersigned entreat the people of Texas to unite with their fellow-citizens of Bexar, in deliber- ating upon the means which it may be expedient to adopt, in order to save the country from such unparalleled anarchy and con- fusion !"
This address, with characteristic Mexican sluggishness, reached the political chief of the Brazos on October 28, after he had already been moved to action on his own account. On October 20 he issued a broadside of four columns entitled "Security for Texas," which was reprinted in the Texas Republican of the 25th. Quoting Oliver Jones's letter of September 2, he said that the necessity of organizing a gov- ernment in Texas must be admitted by all. Since both state and national governments had yielded to anarchy, some would be in favor of organizing as a separate state, independent of the Mexican con- federation. But it would be more prudent merely to consider the union with Coahuila dissolved and organize as a Mexican state. He suggested that each ayuntamiento should issue the usual writ for an election, and fill all vacancies in the municipal offices. At the same time let the Central Committee, exercising the power vested in it by the conven- tions of 1832 and 1833, "immediately convoke the people of all Texas through their representatives to meet in public council and formally protest against the further interference of Coahuila within her do- main," declare the two provinces separated, and nullify all laws passed by Coahuila since "her innovation" which were calculated in any way to interfere with the local political affairs of Texas. Texas could thus put herself in the attitude of maintaining the legitimate government of the state, while Coahuila, torn by revolution, would be left without organization.
This proclamation was effectively answered in another broadside issued from San Felipe on October 28 by the Central Committee. This committee was now composed of James B. Miller, Wily Martin, Rob- ert Peebles, William Pettus, William B. Travis, William H. Jack, and F. W. Johnson. They argued that it was absurd to contend that because revolution had temporarily overtaken Coahuila the constitu- tion was overthrown and the union with Texas dissolved. "Because one part of a state or community has lawlessly violated the constitu- tion, is that a justification, or even an excuse, for another for doing the same? If this political doctrine be true as to a state, it is equally true as to individuals ; and when applied to men it becomes [so] pre-
96
HISTORY OF TEXAS
posterous and absurd that the weakest minds will easily detect its folly." There was every assurance that the conflict between Saltillo and Monclova was in a fair way of settlement; the State Legislature had recently removed many of the evils that had annoyed Texas, making it possible for the people to enjoy most of the advantages of separate state government without the expense of maintaining a state administration; and the good will of the general government was proved by the repeal of the 11th article of the law of April 6, 1830, and the continued exemption of Texas from import duties. Finally, the situation of Colonel Austin, who had gone to Mexico as the agent of the people and suffered imprisonment for them, demanded tran- quillity in Texas, and the people were in honor bound to do nothing that might aggravate his difficulties. The committee desired nothing more earnestly than a state government, but it was "equally anxious that none but constitutional measures should be adopted for the pur- pose of obtaining it."
On receiving the communication from Bexar, Smith had written to the political chief, saying that he was entirely in accord with the move- ment for a local provisional organization, but that he feared there was not sufficient time before the meeting of the convention for the scattered and somewhat disorganized ayuntamientos of the department of the Brazos to order the election of delegates. He suggested, therefore, that the convention adjourn from day to day until the elections were held and the delegates could arrive. On November 6 he wrote again to say that the plan had met with much opposition, "principally instigated by what I can call nothing but a violent party spirit which has unfortunately been of long standing, and the party are now invigorating themselves by working on the sympathies of the people, owing to the confinement of Colonel Austin in the City of Mexico-telling them that it is on their account he has been doomed to suffer so much, and that any move on their part would only tend to accumulate his sufferings; and to remain quiet, that everything will soon be right, or, in fact, that nothing is now wrong. This party is ever vigilant, and, as it were, on the wing, en- deavoring to counteract every popular move in the people except it should be recommended by Colonel Austin, considering him as their God." The prime movers in this party dreaded organization, said Smith, because they feared investigation. He urged the authorities at Bexar to continue the movement for organization, and promised to persist in his efforts to get the department of the Brazos to co-operate.
At about the same time-the document is undated-Smith issued as a broadside, "Explanatory Remarks on the Official Document, under the Title of 'Security for Texas,' with a Fair View of Her Present Political Situation." This was really an answer to the Central Committee's pro- clamation of October 28, and was designed to convince the people of the necessity for the convention and the organization of state government. His previous communication was based, he said, on information from the representatives of Texas in the legislature certified by the superior judge of Texas, Judge T. J. Chambers. This information showed in substance "that our constitution was violated and scattered to the four winds of Heaven." While this proclamation was issued hastily, before
97
HISTORY OF TEXAS
the people were sufficiently informed of the need of action, he felt justi- fied from the fact that the Mexicans of Bexar, who were not given to radical measures, had come to the conclusion that local organization was essential to prevent the spread of anarchy to Texas. His argument was briefly this : It was the duty of the Texans to restore constitutional gov- ernment in the state; this they were physically unable to do in Coahuila ; if they remained quiescent they became equally guilty with Coahuila ; therefore it was necessary to set up a provisional government, with due regard for all the constitutional forms in Texas.
"Some there are," he continued, "who say that Texas is not capable or able to sustain herself in a separate government ; that she lacks num- bers, talent, and finally means. I can with propriety say to such that she has so far been self-governed ; and a great part of the expenditures of the whole state have been, in one way or another, drawn from her resources. Her inhabitants are rated at 40,000-and whether that be under or over a fair estimate-that no section of the civilized world comprising her own numbers can produce more intelligence and general information than will be found among her settlers."
The strongest practical argument against Smith was that Texas was prosperous and the people as yet felt no personal inconvenience from the disorganization in Coahuila. This he naïvely reveals himself: "I have now given you the true situation of the government ; but what is that of the people? They are indeed, as in the days of Noah, marrying and giving marriage, eating and sleeping, and selling their cotton forsooth at a tolerable price; and this, the committee would persuade them, is irre- fragible proof that all is well."
Smith issued his proclamation from Brazoria, and his opponents, evi- dently fearing that the counter-proclamation of the Central Committee might need additional support, prepared a strong "public declaration" against his proposal, which was to be circulated in the Brazoria district for signatures. The declaration was based, in part, on the following grounds :
"Because we deem the measure to be fraught with the most ruin- ous consequences to the people of Texas ; as directly at variance with the true interests of our adopted country, tending to confirm all the unfounded suspicions ( which have been created by evil minded per- sons), of our revolutionary and rebellious dispositions, and destruc- tive of all confidence, both at home and abroad, in the stability and security of political rights and in the rights of person and property in Texas; which we consider to be the basis of all public and private prosperity-
"Because we conceive that the General Government by the repeal of the 11 article of the obnoxious 6 April law and leaving us until this late period exempt from the payment of import duties, paid by the people of all other parts of the Republic, has shown a most paternal regard for our prosperity-
"Because we believe that the state Congress has given us all the elements of good government, order and security under the law, by enacting laws establishing a system of jurisprudence adapted to our situation with trial by jury, which is carried out according to the VOL. I -- 7
98
HISTORY OF TEXAS
provisions of the law and sustained by the people, would place jus- tice within the reach of every citizen, according to the judgment of his own peers; his own neighbors or equals:
"Because we are convinced that, however desirable a state gov- ernment may be if obtained by moral force (constitutional and legal means) that it has become less necessary to our prosperity since the establishment of a system of jurisprudence which is calculated to give us most of the benefits without the enormous expense of sus- taining a state government --
"Because we conscientiously believe, that the frequent agitations of political revolutionary measures in Texas, tends not only to bring us into collision with the state and general governments without a chance of success in a contest in arms ; but by passing to the United States of the North with exaggerations destroys all confidence there in the security of property in Texas, prevents the immigration of men of capital and force, renders property valueless, and blights for- ever the hopes we have entertained of seeing 'the wilderness blos- som as the rose?' "
In a letter of December 7 James F. Perry gave Austin an account of this affair, saying that the people "almost with one voice opposed the measure in toto." He had heard of but three elections in accordance with Smith's proposal-at Brazoria. Columbia, and Velasco. At Bra- zoria the returns showed fifty-seven against and sixteen in favor of a convention ; at Columbia twenty-four against and three favorable; at Velasco, according to Perry, "there was actually not more than from seven to ten legal votes to be given, but at the time of the election there was two or three vessels lying here with their crews and passengers, and to accommodate, I suppose, Mr. Wharton and Dr. Archer, they all went forward and voted for their candidate, and I have been told there were between fifty and sixty votes there when there was not more than ten in the precinct." Perry, of course, was a peace party man, and his state- ment of the general opposition to Smith's proposal needs to be weighed with some care. The election returns, which are preserved in the Austin Papers, seem to bear him out.
There was a lull in state politics after Santa Anna rendered his decision concerning the location of the capital, but it lasted only until the meeting of the legislature on March 1, 1835. The deputies from Saltillo contended that the election of February 9 was not legal and took advan- tage of the passage of an unpopular land law to withdraw from the legislature. Saltillo thereupon called on General Cos, commander of the Eastern Provinces, to disperse the illegal body. Cos responded, and thus increased the confusion by introducing the federal military into the squabble.
There appear to have been two main reasons for the interference of General Cos : One was the passage by the legislature of some land laws of which speculators took advantage to obtain large grants of land in Texas, contrary, as it was alleged, to be federal colonization law; the other was the passage of a vigorous protest against the changes that Santa Anna was effecting through Congress in the national constitution. Cos urged the first as his excuse, but it is likely that he was much more
99
HISTORY OF TEXAS
deeply moved by the protest than by the sale of Texas lands. For a clear understanding it is necessary to go somewhat fully into these two questions.
It will be remembered that the state colonization law reserved to the state the right to sell, to Mexicans only, land in eleven league blocks at the nominal price of $100, $150, and $200 a league, according to whether it was grazing land or unirrigable or irrigable farming land. The spec- ulation in Texas lands seems to have grown out of this right of the gov- ernment to sell to Mexicans. The first sale by the government was made to Juan Antonio Padilla, in 1828. During the next two years only a few sales were made, but in 1830 James Bowie went to Saltillo, at that time' the capital of Coahuila and Texas, and returned with fifteen or sixteen eleven-league grants, which he had induced Mexican citizens to apply for and had then purchased from them. Other Mexicans, some of them as far away as the City of Mexico-perceiving a chance of profit-also applied for eleven-league grants, and received them. Doubtless from this time dated a considerable traffic. Later testimony shows that the traffic became very extensive. In February, 1835, B. R. Milam petitioned the political chief to ask the governor to appoint special commissioners to assign lands and titles to isolated families in Texas, and gave as the rea- son for his request that many people who had come to Texas eight or ten years before under the terms of the colonization law and had settled on vacant lands and taken the oath of allegiance to Mexico had, during the last year, "been surveyed in and attempted to be dispossessed by foreigners and others under pretended eleven-league grants." His efforts' as empresario and those of the state "to colonize designated portions of the lands of Texas," were, he said, "in great danger of being defeated by the claimants of eleven-league grants." And Thomas F. Mckinney, writing in October, 1835, said that the government had been in the habit of issuing great numbers of these eleven-league grants at from $100 to $150 a league. There had never been any "hue and cry" raised against it, many of the best citizens had engaged in the business, and some of them held grants in their name for friends residing in the United States.
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.