USA > Texas > History of Texas : from 1685 to 1892, volume 1 > Part 18
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
" All of which I respectfully report for your lordship's information. God and Liberty.
JOSE IGNACIO YBARBO."
" Nacogdoches, March 12, 1833."
224
HISTORY OF TEXAS.
" The Political Chief of Bexar to the Vice-Governor of Coahuila and Texas.
" In compliance with my duty and in order to give your excellency an exact and complete idea of the present political situation of the colonies and other settlements on the coast and frontier of this department, I have thought proper to forward to you the accompanying papers, which, together with the other documents already in your hands, will place in their true light the movements in the town of San Felipe de Austin, towards which the attention of the supreme power in the State has been so seriously turned. This matter, in my estimation, is of such weighty importance as to justify and call for some suggestions on my part as to the origin of the difficulties and their real tendencies. These suggestions I make, both under a sense of official duty and as a Mexican, justly proud of his birth and nationality.
" Among the North Americans who have introduced them- selves into the country there are not a few men who under- stand the nature of a democratic government and have right conceptions of the manner in which that system was made the basis of the constitution both in the United States and Mexico. According to neither of these systems of funda- mental law, as these adopted citizens know right well, has the time come to constitute Texas into a separate State; and they must be aware that if they attempt such measures it will but awaken the stern displeasure of the other sections of the country and cause them to take up arms, forcibly to compel these innovators to forego their mad undertaking. In view of such knowledge of prematureness of action on their part, and its consequences, it must be concluded that the revolu- tionary attempts, for some time observed among the people, have not for their object the erection of Texas into a separate State. Moreover they cannot be so ignorant as not to know that Texas has not within its limits a sufficient number of men suitably competent to take in hands the reins of government ;
225
HISTORY OF TEXAS.
and what is not less important, they must be conscious of the fact that the sources of revenue within their province are too limited to support a State organization. The supposition, too, is unassumable that they wish to transform their section of the country into a territory, for the disadvantages resulting from such political condition are too obvious to the least discerning among them ; besides, their repugnance to everything having the least leaning toward a military government, is well known. Nor can it be supposed that they wish to revolutionize their province, in order that they may set up for themselves a gov- ernment wholly unconnected from Mexico and every other country; for they must be aware that such enterprise, to be successful beyond all others, demands men, arms and money far transcending their resources.
" The above reflections being regarded as just and well founded, in order to form a rational judgment of the tendency of colonial agitation now going on, it will be necessary to look through the disguises in which its authors veil it, to the facts that give it a different aspect.
" The desire of the United States of the north to extend its territory by the acquisition of Texas has displayed itself on several occasions ; and the power of its policy and manage- ment to expand its borders by the purchase of Florida and Louisiana has become a matter of general history to the civi- lized world. It is also known that the southern States of our neighboring republic have a tendency to secede from their northern sisters and organize themselves into a separate nation ; in which direction one effort has already been made this very year by South Carolina. To such new national organization the acquisition of Texas would be a boon of transcendent value, adding as it would, so extensively to its territorial area and multiplying so largely its sources of wealth. (The writer refers to nullification, confounding it with secession. )
"When Mr. Butler, Charge d' Affaires from Washington City
15
226
HISTORY OF TEXAS.
to our government, passed through this city in the year 1829, he avowed to some here, but confidentially, that the object of his mission to Mexico was the purchase of Texas. This same foreign minister, in June of last year, made a journey over- land from the city of Mexico to this department and Austin's colony, ostensibly for the purpose of acquainting himself with the country. But immediately after that visit the revolution- ary movements of the colonists began; and anterior to that event they had been unexceptionably orderly, having even solemnly pledged themselves to take no part in the convulsion caused by the pronunciamento in favor of the plan of General Santa Anna.
" In the presence of these facts would it be rash to conclude that the cabinet at Washington, actively but secretly, insti- gated those movements, having in view the secession from the North American Union of the States of the south, the con- struction of these into a new confederacy, and the strength- ening thereof by the addition thereto of Texas? I believe not, and so believing, deem it to be my solemn duty to lay before you the views I entertain on the subject discussed, so that your excellency may make such use of them as in your opinion will best promote the true interests of our beloved country.
" God and liberty.
RAMON MUSQUIZ."
" Bexar, March 11, 1833."
The absurdity of Musquiz's speculations, the offspring of what must be considered innate Mexican distrust of all for- eigners at that period, is made manifest by the fact that President Jackson was at that very time regarded as the savior of the Union. His famous declaration that " The Union must and shall be preserved," is familiar to all. The move- ments of Mr. Butler had no significance, beyond the fact that when he ceased to be minister to Mexico, he settled in Texas ; but he exerted no political influence.
SAM HOUSTON President 1836 and 1841 Governor 1859
CHAPTER XXIII.
The Convention of April, 1833 - Its Acts and Consequences.
This brings us to the second convention of the people of Texas, before referred to, which assembled at San Felipe de Austin, on the first day of April, 1833. It seems that the records of its proceedings were never printed and were supposed to have been burned with the destruction of San Felipe in March, 1836, by the troops of Texas. Only about fifteen of the names of its members have been published by former writers. Through the memoranda of one of its members, Major James Kerr, however, I am enabled to give what is believed to be a full list of the delegates, alphabetically arranged.
THE MEMBERS.
Austin, Stephen F.
Butler, George.
Archer, Branch T.
Bowie, James.
Borden, Gail, Jr.
Bradley, John M.
Brown, Henry S.
Burnham, Jesse.
Burnet, David G. Clay, Nestor.1
Bingham, Francis A.
Duke, Thomas M.
1 NOTE. At independence, in April, 1855, the eloquent, eccentric and talented Robert M. Williamson, a member of this body, in giving an inter- esting and lucid account of its proceedings to me, said: "Nestor Clay, more than any other man, was the master spirit of the convention. His speeches were incisive and clear, showing perfect familiarity with the con- dition of affairs and displaying the comprehensive views of a statesman. His death was a great loss to Texas."
Such a compliment from such a source is alone sufficient to preserve his name among the patriots of the country. In this connection, to prevent a confusion left by some writers, it is well to say that Judge Williamson was very commonly called " Three-legged Willie." This soubriquet sprang from the fact that he had one stiff knee from which the lower part of the leg re- . mained immovable, pointing horizontally to the rear. From the knee down
(227)
228
HISTORY OF TEXAS.
Dinsmore, Silas.
Lewis, Ira R.
Dodson, Archibald B.
Lesassier, Luke. Moore, John H.
English, William.
Groce, Jared E.
Mercer, Eli.
Grimes, Jesse.
Menefee, William.
Garrett, Jacob.
Miller, Dr. James B.
Houston, Sam.
McDonald, Donald.
Hastings, Thomas.
Mills, Robert.
Hanks, Wyatt.
Morgan, James.
Hardin, A. Blackburn.
McFarland, William.
Harrison, Jonas.
McClure, Bartlett D.
Holt, Benjamin.
Newell, John D.
Hier, Absolem.
Royall, Richard R.
Ingram, Ira.
Richardson, George F.
Jones, Oliver.
Robertson, Sterling C.
Kerr, James.
Robinson, William.
he wore a wooden substitute for the disabled member, thereby in fact having three legs. He was a remarkable man in wit, repartee, eloquence and legal ability. As a jurist and lawyer and as an amateur vocalist he had perhaps no equal, either in Texas or the United States.
Mr. Clay was born in Daviess County, Kentucky, in 1799, the son of Cap- tain Thomas Clay, a Virginia soldier of the revolution, who was one of the framers of the first constitution of Kentucky. Nestor received a collegiate education, represented his county in the legislature, visited Texas in 1822 and settled in what is now Washington County, in 1824, where he died in 1835. His only son to reach maturity was Thomas Tacitus Clay, who died young leaving an only son, Nestor Clay, Jr., now of Washington County.
The venerable old patriot, Willett Holmes, still surviving in Washington County, wrote me under date of August 27, 1888, that he first knew Nestor Clay on his return from college and thence knew him till his death; that he was a man of remarkable intellectual powers, nobility of soul and capability as a statesman; that he married Miss Nancy Johnson, " one of the grandest and best women ever born in Kentucky, or that ever emigrated to Texas." In my youth in Texas so much was said in praise of his lofty character by those who had known him well, that I became enamored of his memory. Cut down in the prime of life, at the dawn of the revolution, his death was indeed a great loss to the country. His brother Tacitus Clay, a valuable cit- izen, lived to a venerable age and left a large and honorable family in Wash ington County.
229
HISTORY OF TEXAS.
Smith, Henry ( first Gover- nor of Texas).
Taylor, Charles S.
Thompson, Alexander.
Sutherland, George.
Wharton, William H.
Stinnett, Claiborne.
Williamson, Robert M.
Sublett, Philip A.
Wilson, Robert.
Sims, Bartlett.
West, Claiborne.
Thorn, Frost.
This is a total of fifty-six delegates, the same number as composed the convention of 1832, and a majority of them being the same persons. Most conspicuous among the new members stands the name of Sam Houston, who had only be- come a citizen of Texas between the sessions of the two bodies. There is some doubt about three or four of those named being members.
In the organization of the convention William H. Wharton was elected president over Stephen F. Austin, as the latter had been over the former in the previous body. Thomas Hastings was elected secretary. A committee, of which Sam Houston was chairman and Nestor Clay, R. M. William- son, James Kerr, Oliver Jones, Luke Lesassier and Henry Smith were members, was appointed to draft a constitution for the proposed State of Texas, to be forwarded to the Mexican Congress for approval. It was drawn, reported, dis- cussed, amended and adopted almost unanimously.
Another committee, of which David G. Burnet was chairman and Branch T. Archer and others were members, reported the draft of a long and methodical memorial to the Mexican Congress praying-
First, for the adoption of the proposed constitution and the erection of Texas into a State of the Union, elaborately por- traying the evils and injustice to Texas growing out of her association with Coahuila, the controlling population of the latter in the joint government, the great distance between the two populations, the difference in soil, climate and pursuits,
230
HISTORY OF TEXAS.
and the practical deprivation of Texas of a voice in the government.
Secondly, for the repeal of the eleventh article of the decree of April 6th, 1830, forbidding the further immigration of North Americans into Texas, ably setting forth its injustice and that its inevitable effect, if enforced, would be to perpetuate the wild and savage condition of the country.
Thirdly, for modification of the tariff laws so as to encourage immigration, agriculture and commerce.
Other incidental favors were asked ; but the two first were the overshadowing appeals.
Had these reasonable requests - dictated by common sense, the law of self-preservation and experience gleaned from the lessons of time - been granted, joy would have dwelt at every hearth-stone in Texas, the hearts of the people would have pulsated in sincerest loyalty to the Mexican Union, and pros- perity would have blessed the land. Had they been granted there would have been no patriot uprising of the Texian col- onists in 1835 ; no storming of San Antonio; no immolation at the Alamo ; no declaration of independence ; no soul-revolting butcheries at Goliad; and no avenging justice meted out at San Jacinto.
After selecting Stephen F. Austin, Dr. James B. Miller, of San Felipe and Don Erasmo Seguin, of San Antonio, as mes- sengers to visit the city of Mexico and lay these documents before the national Congress, the convention adjourned, after a session of about two weeks.1
1 In a note written by Captain Archibald Hotchkiss, giving his recollec- tion of James Bowie (the original being in my possession), he said: "I first met Bowie in Washington City in 1832. * *
* Again I saw him at the convention of April, 1833, in San Felipe, and, after its adjournment, traveled with him and a party of gentlemen to Brazoria. Among them were General Sam Houston, General John T. Mason, General William Arnold, Samuel A. Sawyer, Captain Henry S. Brown, Thomas J. Chambers, and Sterret, a brother-in-law of Bowie."
General William Arnold died at Velasco, June 9th, 1833. He was an able
231
HISTORY OF TEXAS.
The work of this convention, merely a repetition of that of 1832, with the addition of the form of the State constitu- tion desired, does not seem to have aroused the antagonism of Mexican officials in wrath proportioned to the gravity of a second offense. Still there was alarm and protest. After the call for this second convention was issued by the standing committee, the military commander of Coahuila and Texas, (the name of which bright luminary is not given and must remain unknown to fame, ) wrote to the Mexican minister of war, that it was " a call to the settlements of the department to elect delegates on the first day of March, 1833, to meet at San Felipe on the first day of April, for the purpose of fram- ing a constitution for the new government to be established." " They wish, in short," wrote the military luminary, " the erection of Texas into a State independent of Coahuila, a measure under no circumstancs to be tolerated; but, as they all seem to be in deep earnest to compass their purpose, we may confidently expect the matter to culminate in political trouble and disaster." The latter utterance was as true as that virtue, intelligence and manhood will never willingly submit to the domination of ignorant, fickle and purchasable brute force. Dr. James B. Miller, a man of rare intelligence and great prudence, who was an officer in the municipality of San Felipe, a member of the convention and one of the com- missioners chosen to present the memorial to the Congress of Mexico, immediately after the adjournment of the convention in April, wrote to the Political Chief at San Antonio, among other things saying:
" The convention, after long and mature deliberation on the important subject, decided unanimously that the people of Texas are in the condition prescribed by article two of the constitutive law of May 7, 1824 (the law temporarily
lawyer from Tennessee, had been an officer in the war of 1812, and subse- quently a General in the Tennessee militia. He left a family in Velasco.
232
HISTORY OF TEXAS.
uniting Coahuila and Texas ), which sets forth how and under what circumstances their Province may have a State organization separate from and independent of Coahuila; and thereupon they addressed a petition to the General Congress praying for the admission of Texas as one of the States of the Mexican confederation, and to said petition attached the plan of a constitution for the State to be created." He also quotes from the law of 1824 the clause declaring that, " Coahuila and Texas shall also form a State; but as soon as Texas shall be in a condition to form a State by itself, it shall make a declaration to that effect to the Congress for its fur- ther action." Precisely what the convention, in a most respectful manner, had done, and no more. Dr. Miller also informs the Political Chief that the convention had appointed Stephen F. Austin, Erasmo Seguin, and James B. Miller as commissioners to proceed to the capital of Mexico, for the purpose of laying their petition before the general govern- ment, and there urging the early formal admission of Texas into the Mexican union as a separate State. This was a plain, manly communication to the Political Chief, a gratuitous mark of respect to one who had so recently aligned himself as a suspicious, narrow-minded bigot, in his com- munications in regard to the convention of 1832, to Austin and the Ayuntamiento of San Felipe. It showed conclusively that the Texians were acting in sunlight and concealing nothing. A change had taken place in the Ayuntamiento of Gonzales since Alcalde Ezekiel Williams had, in the previous December, assured his lordship, the Political Chief, that that body had taken no " official " action in regard to the con- vention of 1832. Mr. Williams had been succeeded by James B. Patrick, a man of nerve, who on the 27th of April, 1833, wrote to the Political Chief, saying :
" The Ayuntamiento of Gonzales heartily concurs in the action of the convention of April 1, at San Felipe, on the subject of separate State organization for Texas, being of the
233
HISTORY OF TEXAS.
opinion that the people of Texas are in the legally pre- scribed condition for such a step, and they approve of the appointment of Stephen F. Austin, James B. Miller and Erasmo Seguin, on the part of friends of that measure, to represent them at the capital."
James B. Patrick, courageous and honest, represented the voice of his people. Some accounts have stated that William H. Wharton was one of the three commissioners appointed to go to the city of Mexico. This is positively a mistake. The commissioners as herein stated, were Austin, Miller and Se- guin; but, as we shall presently see, Austin was the only one who entered on the mission; and there is every reason to believe that had he seen the various Mexican official communications that are now presented for the first time in a history of Texas (documents giving overwhelming evidence that there was a deep-seated and senseless prejudice among the public men of Mexico against the liberty-loving American colonists of Texas, and clearly evincing a determination on their part to keep Texas politically chained to the Mexican majority in Coahuila), he would not have entered upon the hopeless mission. Strange as it may seem, from what has been stated about the time of these complications in the spring of 1833, a remonstrance was addressed to the legislature of the State, composed of Coahuila and Texas, and signed by Jose de la Garza, Angel Navarro, Jose Casiano, Manuel Ximenes, Jose Angel Seguin, Jose M. Sambrano, and Ignacio Arocha, Mexicans of San Antonio, stating that the town of Bexar ( San Antonio) had been established a hundred and forty years, or in the year 1693 ; La Bahia del Espiritu Santo (Goliad )and Nacog- doches, a hundred and sixteen years or since 1717 ; and dur- ing all this long interval the presidios of San Saba, Juan, San Marcos, Trinidad, and other military settlements on the rivers Brazos, Colorado and Gaudalupe had been formed, and had again entirely disappeared, and in some of them every soul had perished in consequence of the utter neglect of the gov-
234
HISTORY OF TEXAS.
ernment, after inducing the people to settle there. The me- morialists gave a mournful account of the privations and sufferings of Bexar, Goliad and Nacogdoches, owing to that neglect. During a period of more than a century since they had been founded for the purpose of extending christianity and civilization through the vast wilderness, many of the first settlers had been sacrificed in defense of their homes by the barbarous Indians, while many more bad perished by famine. Since 1821 ninety-seven of the citizens had been murdered by savages in the municipalities of Bexar and La Bahia ( Goliad ) and the then new town of Gonzales, exclusive of the military who had fallen in expeditions against the Indians. Farther to the west the settlements had suffered still more, and at that time they were all threatened, by the powerful tribe of Com- anches, with total extermination. This tribe had taken ad- vantage of the civil strife going on between Bustamente and Santa Anna, in which all the national troops were en- gaged. Even the few scattering troops then in Texas had not received the twentieth part of their pay, and nearly all had to be disbanded to seek subsistence as well as they could. Only seventy men were at that time retained under arms in all Texas, and these were supported by the voluntary contributions of the poor citizens of San Antonio, to give them some defense against the Indians. The memorialists complain that the first State law of colonization had retarded the progress of improvements in Texas. They complain of the twenty-sixth article of that law, allowing six years in which to settle the land granted; and of the twenty-seventh article, requiring the land to be cultivated in totality before it could be sold. They complain of the exorbitant prices fixed for government lands, namely, from $100.00 to $300.00 per league of 4,428 acres, while elsewhere the price was only $15.00 to $20.00 per league. They also complain of the law prohibiting the immigration of North Americans to Texas. This absurd law could not be enforced for want of
235
HISTORY OF TEXAS.
troops, and its only effect had been to prevent the immigra- tion of the wealthier and better classes of Americans, while those who had nothing to lose were not deterred by it from coming. The great value to the State of North American set- tlers is enlarged upon, and the repeal of the prohibitory law is urged. The settlers would give protection against the Indians, and would add greatly to the wealth and revenues of the State. These ruinous defects in the laws would be cor- rected at once were Texas permitted to have a State govern- ment of her own, where the wants of the people could be fully known to those who make the laws. The distance to the then seat of government ( Saltillo) was 350 leagues from Nacog- doches, or near 1,000 miles, and 200 leagues from San Antonio. The assessor or judicial councillor of the State, a most important officer, could only be consulted by going that hazardous and laborious journey ; and yet most of the people often had occasion to consult that officer. The tyrannical pro- ceedings of Col. Juan Davis Bradburn at Anahuac are com- plained of, and also the outrage upon the people of Texas by the expulsion of their deputies from the legislature, in 1830, under the fourth article of the plan of Jalapa, and that too without giving them any trial. The want of a law for establishing primary schools is considered a serious grievance. There was then but one school in Bexar, the teacher of which received $25.00 per month, and was paid by the pupils. They complain of the law prohibiting all who were not born on Mexican territory from retailing merchandise of any kind of foreign production. The memorialists say that Texas was allowed but two delegates to the legislature, while she was entitled to four, in consequence of increase of population since the last apportionment.
The Ayuntamiento of Austin's colony complain that Col. Juan Davis Bradburn, commandant at Anahuac, had arrested and imprisoned Don Jose Francisco Modero and Jose M. Carbajal, the former the commissioner appointed to survey
236
HISTORY OF TEXAS.
the concessions of land granted to the colonists in the district of Nacogdoches and put them in possession, and the latter his surveyor. This was done by order of Gen. Teran, January 2, 1831. Another military order is complained of, issued by the commandant general, by which the Ayuntamiento of Liberty was annulled, December 10, 1831, both orders being in direct violation of the laws of the State. It is also stated that the same commandant general had taken possession of private lands and appropriated them, in disregard of the laws of the State and the rights of property.
It is further alleged that when the Alcalde of Liberty, Hugh B. Johnson, in obedience to the laws of the State had ordered an election for members of a new Ayuntamiento (the old members having been deprived by Teran of authority to act), Col. Bradburn threatened Johnson with military force if he proceeded with the election, and thus the people were subjected to military rule.
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.