“I Go for Independence”: Stephen Austin and Two Wars for Texan Independence

Home , Coahuila y Tejas, First Mexican Empire, Fredonian Rebellion, George Fisher (settler), Haden Edwards

“I go for Independence”: Stephen Austin and Two Wars for Texan Independence

A thesis submitted To Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts

James Robert Griffin

Approved by Kim M. Gruenwald , Advisor Kevin Adams , Chair, Department of History Mandy Munro-Stasiuk , Interim Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………………...……iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………………v

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………..1

CHAPTERS

I. Building a Colony: Austin leads the Texans Through the Difficulty of Settling Texas….9

Early Colony……………………………………………………………………………..11

The Fredonian Rebellion…………………………………………………………………19

The Law of April 6, 1830………………………………………………………………..25

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….32

II. Time of Struggle: Austin Negotiates with the Conventions of 1832 and 1833………….35

Civil War of 1832………………………………………………………………………..37

The Convention of 1833…………………………………………………………………47

Austin’s Arrest…………………………………………………………………………...52

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….59

III. Two Wars: Austin Guides the Texans from Rebellion to Independence………………..61

Imprisonment During a Rebellion……………………………………………………….63

War is our Only Resource……………………………………………………………….70

The Second War…………………………………………………………………………78

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….85

iii

CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………..87

BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………..94

Acknowledgments

I could not have written this thesis without the support of my professors, family, and friends. When I started my thesis at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, I was advised by

Dr. Hudson, who retired in the Summer of 2020, and Dr. Gruenwald, who was on my committee, became my advisor. Without her support, this thesis would not have been possible, taking over on such short notice and quickly helping me prepare my prospectus and focus my topic into what it became. Her assistance in helping me improve my writing abilities and conveying my work in the best way possible while only being able to communicate through email was invaluable. I could not have done this without her.

I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Adams and Dr. Hayashi. They both provided helpful advice and suggestions throughout my work on my paper. They pushed me to relate my topic to a broader scholarship and to help me to consider ideas that I would not have thought of on my own. I would also like to thank Dr. Bindas as my third chapter was envisioned and written during his writing seminar class, and his advice and comments were beneficial.

Lastly, I would like to thank my family and friends. My dad especially for all his work on proofreading and giving suggestions as I wrote each chapter. My fiancé Elisa also for putting up with me as I talked about my thesis day after day and for helping translate works from Spanish into English for me. My friends: Nick, Michael, and Matt, for always showing interest in what I had worked on and checking how the thesis was going. Without everyone’s help that they gave me, whether just listening to me talk about my topic or reading through and giving suggestions, I could not have written this paper the way I did.

Introduction As he lay dying in his home Stephen Austin the father of Texas, uttered his last words,

“The Independence of Texas is recognized! Don’t you see it in the papers? Doctor Archer told me so!”1 From the day he arrived in 1821 until he died in 1836, Austin dedicated himself to

Texas and its prosperity. To Austin, his colony was his responsibility, as he brought hundreds of families with him, therefore he felt personally responsible for their prosperity. At the time of

Austin’s death, Texas was a free republic, barely existing six months before. They had won a war for their independence from Mexico, but it was uncertain this was the path Texas would take even one year prior to Austin’s death. Before the Convention of 1836, a majority of Texans were loyal to the Mexican Constitution of 1824. It was not until 1836 that their loyalty shifted towards breaking away from Mexico. As the first empresario, Austin had resided there longer than most

Texans, thereby they considered him the father of Texas. Austin stood as a unique figure in

Texas history, he was not an elected leader or even beloved by all Texans, however, both Texans and the Mexican officials often consulted Austin regarding issues that arose within the region.

Austin’s position allows us to study and understand how the free nation of Texas was not inevitable, and Texas could have remained a state of Mexico.

The historiography of Texas has gone through two major phases. Older works created a more general view of events, while more current scholarship focuses on the events and actors previously ignored by historians. The best-known work on general history has long been Lone

Star by T.R. Fehrenbach, whose history covers the span of Texas prior to the arrival of

1 The New Handbook of Texas, Vol. 6, (Austin: Texas State Historical Association, 1996), Guy Bryan, “Personal Recollections,” 2: 171-172. 1

Europeans into the twentieth century. His work also differs from later works as he defends the actions the Texans take while stating that some of the burden of causing the revolution should be on the Mexicans. Here his work is unique, as later works shifted increasingly more of the blame on Texans for the events of the Revolution. He exhibits how each side takes the blame, and the declaration of independence in 1836 constitutes no more than a single sentence wrapped in what would define the war, the battle of the Alamo. The more current historical works on Texas, such as Andrew Torget’s Seeds of Empire, and Gary Anderson’s The Conquest of Texas, assign blame primarily on the Texans and they see the independence as inevitable. One historian who does challenge the idea of Texas independence being inevitable was Sarah Rodriguez, who argued that the oath of loyalty the Texans took was serious to them. Her article focused on the political nature of Mexico as they insured autonomy of the states at a time where the United States was beginning to centralize. The history of Texas is not the only historical topic to shift over time, but Stephen Austin role in Texas independence has changed as well.2

Stephen Austin is a complex figure, and the historiography on him is surprisingly sparse, considering his importance to the region. The Life of Stephen F. Austin, Founder of Texas 1793-

1836, by Eugene Barker, portrays a one-dimensional view of Austin. In his work, Barker presents Austin as a figure who came to take Texas away from Mexico, and a man dedicated to the idea of Manifest Destiny. Barker’s work dominated the field for almost seventy years until

Gregg Cantrell wrote his interpretation of Austin, Stephen F. Austin: Empresario of Texas.

2 T.R. Fehrenbach, Lone Star A History of Texas and the Texans, (Toronto: The Macmillan Company, 1968); Andrew J. Torget, Seeds of Empire: Cotton, Slavery, and the Transformation of the Texas Borderlands, 1800-1850, (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2015); Gary Clayton Anderson, The Conquest of Texas: Ethnic Cleansing of the Promise Land, 1820-1875, (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2005); Sarah K.M. Rodriguez, “‘The Greatest Nation on Earth:’ The Politics and Patriotism of the First Anglo American Immigrants to Mexican Texas, 1820–1824,” Pacific Historical Review 86, no. 1 (2017): 50-83, Accessed October 16, 2021, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26419727. 2

Cantrell shows the complexity of Austin and, importantly, his single-minded devotion to the well-being of his new home. Austin learned the local language, gained citizenship, and created a good life for other Anglos within an adopted nation. Cantrell displays an Austin who tries to balance his self-interests with the desires of the Texan colonists. This interpretation of Austin demonstrates him as a man who did not emigrate to Texas to remove it from Mexico but as a figure who struggled to do what he saw as fitting for his people and his adopted nation. Austin as a complex figure is crucial to understanding the complexity of Texas its relationship with

Mexico. 3

When Austin became the first empresario of Texas, it was not the job he originally had sought. His father, Moses Austin, initially approached the Spanish government that ruled Mexico and was granted the first contract to bring Anglo-American settlers into Texas. Before Moses could begin bringing settlers into the region, he fell ill and died; however, he begged his son from his death bed to take up the task. Austin went to Mexico to discuss with the newly independent Mexican government whether he would still emigrate families to Mexico. He was granted the contract his father had and was tasked with bringing three hundred families to

Mexico, who would become the Old Three Hundred. The Old Three Hundred would set the pattern for the type of settlers that would travel to Texas. The defining feature of the families was the location they traveled from in the United States. They were predominantly from the trans-

Appalachian South, with the most significant numbers from Alabama, Missouri, Tennessee,

Arkansas, and Louisiana. They were also predominantly farmers who had moved across the

Appalachians as land became available. While some of the colonists would later be lower-class

3 Eugene C. Barker, The Life of Stephen F. Austin, Founder of Texas 1793-1836: A Chapter in the Westward Movement of the Anglo-American People, (Nashville: Cokesbury Press, 1926); Gregg Cantrell, Stephen F. Austin: Empresario of Texas, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999). 3

farmers, the early men were of substance. Austin wanted a colony that avoided many problems, and those of the first three hundred were generally of a higher class with some form of education.

This led to a conflict between settlers and Mexico throughout Texas’s history, slavery. The Old

Three Hundred included sixty-nine slave-owning families, and by 1825 the slave population accounted for a quarter of the colony’s total population. While there was some diversity to the later settlers, the original three hundred set the standard for ideologies and people that would migrate to Texas.4

While the Texans were more united in their ideologies, the Mexican government would be plagued from its independence with instability and the clash of how to run their new nation.

Following the removal of Spain and the fall of the First Mexican Empire, two main political groups created a constitutional government. The liberal party strove to create a nation that empowered the states over the central government. They wanted to move beyond the traditions and constraints that had been part of rule under Spain and propagate a government that placed more power into the individual states of Mexico. The opposing party, the centralists, worried that the new nation would be too weak to stand to any challenges if more power was not centralized.

In addition, they supported recreating some of the institutions that had been a part of colonial rule and sought the stability and order that a central state brought. The inability of the two sides to work together resulted in a nation that was unable to have stability and order. The first president, Guadalupe Victoria, was the only President to see his term to completion. The leaders who followed would be plagued by civil wars and internal clashes between conservative and

4 Lester G. Bugbee, "The Old Three Hundred: A List of Settlers in Austin's First Colony," The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association 1, no. 2 (1897), 108-17, Accessed June 15, 2021, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30242636; Gregg Cantrell, Stephen F. Austin, 151; T.R. Fehrenbach, Lone Star, 142; Andrew J. Torget, Seeds of Empire, 65. 4

liberal ideologies. The instability of the political situation in Mexico directly played into the history of Texas as settlers attempt to navigate the changing landscape of Mexican politics.5

Understanding Austin and his views are important to using his accounts about the significant events of Texas. The primary sources I draw from are Austin’s letters, speeches, and public documents. These sources provide immense insight into the interactions of Austin in

Texas affairs. They demonstrate the complexity of Austin as he occasionally expresses a different belief in private letters from those he would send to officials or individuals in Texas.

While this can lead to historians taking a biased view of Austin if they choose letters that fit their viewpoint, it does not express his true beliefs on the subject. I will confirm Cantrell’s view and show the complexity of Austin and the situation in Texas. The complexity and different opinions are essential to the story of Texas and understanding how the Republic of Texas’s existence in

1836 was not a guarantee. This thesis will focus empirically on Austin to show how he understood Texas’s evolution from colony to independence. Austin expressed in his letters views of significant concepts that surround the story of Texas.

It is essential to understand how Austin understood different concepts related to Texas.

Loyalty is one of Austin’s vital topics in letters to the Mexican Government and friends across

Texas and the United States and will be discussed throughout the thesis. While Austin cannot directly speak for each person in Texas, it is crucial to understanding how he saw loyalty within

Texas towards Mexico. Austin viewed Texans as loyal even in private records where he praises

5 T.R. Fehrenbach, Lone Star, 155-156; Andrew J. Torget, Seeds of Empire, 76-77; Watson Smith, "Influences from the United States on the Mexican Constitution of 1824," Arizona and the West 4, no. 2 (1962), 113-26, Accessed June 15, 2021, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40167747; Tim Merrill, Ramón Miró, and Library Of Congress, Federal Research Division, Mexico: A Country Study, Washington, D.C.: Federal Research Division, Library of Congress: For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O, 1997, Pdf. https://www.loc.gov/item/97013481/.

the loyalty of the Texans. This is important as he tended to be more open in private letters expressing fears and thoughts he would not express to the Mexican government. The fact that he viewed Texans as loyal citizens even in his letters is crucial to the idea that the Republic of

Texas was not inevitable. Loyalty discussed throughout this paper is how Austin sees it, not an accurate representation of the loyalty of all Texans. Austin’s vision for the future of Texas is also crucial. Austin wholeheartedly embraces building a colony in Texas and its role as necessary to the Mexican nation. This is expressed throughout Austin’s letters as he discusses his role, laments what could happen to it if war or hard times would befall it, and how dedicated he is to see the colony prosper. Austin holds a singular vision he grasps at but does not reach, a prosperous and peaceful state. Each Civil War and disaster are more complex and harder on

Austin. After so many crises, he laments that he never settled down, had a family, or a peaceful place to live; this is because of his unwavering devotion to his image in Texas. When the people called for him, he always responded. Not until it became clear that Texas must be independent does Austin’s vision of Texas change from a state of Mexico to an independent nation. Loyalty and a vision of Texas’s future were concepts that Austin directly discussed and grappled with.

However, a significant concept that was part of his time in Texas that would not be created till well after his time is the idea of settler colonialism.

Settler colonialism is the idea that settlers sought to replace the original population of a colonized region. While the term may not have existed at the time, Austin and the Texans were living it. Many Anglo settlers who went to Texas did not view the Mexicans or Native

Americans as their equals and sought to push them out as the Anglo population expanded. While

Austin may have felt that way about some Native Americans in the region, he treated certain

Native groups and the Tejano people as equals. Austin was one of the few who worked hard to

court relationships with the Tejanos and work with the more prominent Tejano settlements of

Bexar and San Antonio. To Austin, the Tejanos were just as much Texans as the Anglo’s who emigrated. Austin and a few of the settlers treating the Tejanos as equal make for an interesting twist to understanding settler colonialism in the region. While many settlers would treat the non-

Anglo people of Texas as inferior and held racist views of them, some, such as Austin, worked with the people of Texas and treated all who resided there as equal to the Anglos. Austin and others’ view of the Tejanos and some Native Americans as equal is critical to dispelling the idea that Austin and the settlers came with the goal of domination and conquest of the region.6

As a leading figure of Texas, Stephen Austin is pivotal to understanding how Texas becomes a free Republic. I will follow the notion that Fehrenbach supported, the Texans were not entirely to blame for the revolution and war for independence and that actions taken by

Mexico, primarily out of fear, lead to the Republic of Texas. I will also portray Austin similar to

Cantrell’s point of view, as a complex figure who put aside his personal feelings when the time came for him to act in a manner which was best for the whole of Texas. The argument that

Rodriguez has presented that the oath of loyalty was taken seriously by the settlers is also a crucial part of my thesis, allowing for the argument that the revolution should be seen as two separate wars to be examined. Stephen Austin was the first empresario, the first to bring

Americans into Texas and create a colony, and through this time of early colonization, Austin remained a crucial and leading figure. He directed Texans through the struggles of setting up a colony under a foreign government, preventing any rebellions, and working to shape and create

6 Lorenzo Veracini, Settler Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview, (UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010); Walter L. Hixson, American Settler Colonialism: A History, (UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013); Lorenzo Veracini, The Settler Colonial Present, (UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015); Gerald Horne, The Apocalypse of Settler Colonialism: The Roots of Slavery, White Supremacy, and Capitalism in 17th Century North America and the Caribbean, (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2018); Adam Dahl, Empire of People: Settler Colonialism and the Foundations of Modern Democratic Thought, (Lawrence: University of Kansas, 2018). 7

laws that affected Texas. The passage of the Law of April 6, 1830, shifted the relationship of the

Texans and Mexican Government, by banning further immigration from the United States, thereby upsetting the Anglo-Texans. During this time, Austin was one of several leaders in Texas who worked diligently to see the law revoked or changed and played a crucial role in the conventions of 1832 and 1833. Though Austin was arrested following the convention of 1833 and was imprisoned in Mexico City until 1835, he still remained involved in Texan affairs. He used his time in Mexico City to gather news and inform the Texan people on developments that another civil war was brewing in Mexico and the Constitution seemed in danger. Upon his return, Austin provided a crucial voice calling for another convention to decide what course should be taken, as civil war once again ravaged Mexico, and it became clear that Santa Anna was going to dismantle the Constitution of 1824. Austin further served Texas by traveling to the

United States where he rallied support through recruits and supplies, while arguing for Texas to declare independence. It was the only way to secure aid from the United States citizens who demanded an independent Texas. Austin played a critical role in the significant events of Texas, an examination of his letters, notes, and addresses helps to understand how he saw them unfold.

Austin is critical to understanding how Texan independence was not inevitable; events and actions shaped the conditions that led towards war and the Republic of Texas. Examining Austin through the early colony to the passage of the Law of April 6, the Conventions of 1832 and 1833 and his arrest, and his time in Mexico and his participation in the civil war and the war for Texan independence indicates that a free Texas was not inevitable.

Building a Colony: Austin leads the Texans Through the Difficulty of

Settling Texas

Austin’s colony and Texas’s future truly began in 1824 with the passage of the constitution and, importantly, the swearing of the oath to acta constitutiva, which bound the people to the Mexican Government. Austin himself called this an act of such importance that the people welcomed it as an expression of devotion to the Mexican Government. While most people who travelled to Texas choose willingly to be part of Mexico, others came with plans of rebellion and independence. Austin worked diligently to prevent disloyal people from coming into Texas and aided Mexico during the Fredonian Rebellion. Austin and his colony demonstrated loyalty to Mexico even as they were slandered in the United States for their actions. The aftermath led to the passage of the Law of April 6, which, while angering the

Texans, did not lead to any rebellions or calls for independence. Events from the beginning of

Austin’s colony through the passage of the Law of April 6 demonstrated the loyalty that the

Texans of Austin’s first colony showed. Other historians take no notice of this early loyalty.

Historians each have different interpretations of events of the early Anglo-Texan settlements, T.R Fehrenbach and H. Yoakum present general histories about the early events of

Texas. While Fehrenbach argued that Austin and his colony did stay loyal to Mexico, when it comes to the Law of April 6, he stated that the reason for this was the Mexican Government’s failure to understand that the Texans were loyal as long as they were left alone. While they did not want the Mexican Government’s interference, they were not angered by the interference; instead, they were angered by the restrictions imposed by the government. Like Fehrenbach,

Yoakum mentioned that the Fredonian Rebellion did not gain the Anglo-Texans’ support, but

when it came to the Law of April 6th, Yoakum argued that it was passed due to jealousy of the freedoms the Texans enjoyed. While the Texans did enjoy more freedoms than the other providences of Mexico, the Law of April 6th was not from jealousy but brought on by fear of the

Anglo population’s advantage over the native Texans. Early historians remained more general in their approach, while recent historical works discuss the events differently as they look at their own specific research.7

Current historical works by Andrew Torget and Gary Anderson look at the events in a more detailed way. Torget, through the lens of slavery, argued that the Fredonian Rebellion was a revolt to preserve the institution of slavery. While Torget focused heavily on the influence of slavery in Texas, he overlooked the show of loyalty to Mexico that most Anglo-Texans held despite the risk of slavery being outlawed. Anderson also ignores the demonstration of loyalty that the Fredonian Rebellion offered colonists like Austin. Anderson focused on the lasting impact of the Fredonian Rebellion, stating that it demonstrated the “fickle nature of the loyalty of both Anglos and some Indians in East Texas.” While these events led leaders in Mexico to worry about the loyalty of those in Texas, this event showed the opposite of what Anderson stated, in that the colonists showed immense loyalty to Mexico with their actions. The current historians take a different approach to investigating the events of the early colony but overlook how Austin and the Texan’s demonstrated their loyalty. 8

The early events of Austin’s colony tested the loyalty of the Texans through the hardships of settling in a new nation. Austin led his colony to swear their allegiance to the Mexican

7 T.R. Fehrenbach, Lone Star, 168; Henderson K. Yoakum, History of Texas 1685-1846, (New York: Bedfield, 1856), 271. 8 Andrew J. Torget, Seeds of Empire, 115; Gary Clayton Anderson, The Conquest of Texas: Ethnic Cleansing of the Promise Land, 1820-1875, 63. 10

Government and the constitution’s passage in 1824. The Fredonian Rebellion was the first challenge to peace in Texas but was also a crucial test of the colonists’ oaths. The rebellion failed because they did not gather the Anglo-Texans’ support; instead, the Texans sided with Mexico to crush the rebellion. While this should have been a demonstration of their loyalty, the Mexican

Governments suspicion of the Texans led to the passage of the Law of April 6. The law punished the Anglo-Texans despite their loyalty, Austin urged Texans to remain calm even as tensions intensified with its passage. Austin had adverted a crisis or a spark that could have led to an uprising. The early events of Austin’s colony, the Fredonian Rebellion, and the passage of the

Law of April 6 show the earliest signs of loyalty from Austin and the Anglo-Texans to the

Mexican Government.

Early Colony

Austin’s colony established their loyalty to Mexico and the Constitution of 1824 in the early days of the colony. The Constitution cemented the powers of the states, the judiciary branch, and the legislative branch. Its first Title would declare the state religion to be Roman

Catholic, banning all others. The sixth Title of the Constitution concerned the states’ power and was the most important to Texas. The most important article within the sixth Title allowed each state to organize its government as long as it abided by the constitution and constitutive acts.

This allowed Texas to remain different from the rest of Mexico as they choose to include slavery and hold an exemption from later laws that banned slavery. The freedoms enshrined in the

Constitution of 1824 were a crucial part of why Americans were willing to swear an oath to

Mexico to order to settle in Texas. Two major occurrences dominated the early colony; first was

the swearing of oaths to the Mexican Government; the second was bringing in new colonists and the debate of slavery.9

A central tenant of the swearing of oaths was a requirement to convert to Roman

Catholicism. Here, Texas’s new citizens would renounce their allegiance to their former nation and swear to follow both the laws and, notably, Mexico’s religion. Religion was especially tricky as the majority of those coming to Mexico were not Catholic. As Austin constructed his colony, he made sure to stress that Catholicism was the law of the land and those who choose to settle in

Texas must respect it. He went to great lengths to ensure that the transition would be easy on the

Texans by having Father Miness, who he was familiar with, installed as the colony’s Curate10 because he had experience with Americans. Austin himself stated in another letter that no public preaching of other religions would be permitted in the colony. He felt it was his duty to silence any who attempted to worship other religions publicly within his jurisdiction. With this stated, though, he decided that private worship would not be investigated, permitting colonists to practice their faith in private. While the question of how strictly the settlers would follow their new Nation’s religion dogged them, they willingly took the oath to the Mexican Constitution.11

Austin was in charge of ensuring that the oaths and new laws were followed by the colony and keeping the Mexican officials informed. When Austin received the instructions on how to administer the oath, he sent a letter to his friend Josiah Bell to inform the citizens on how the oath would be performed. He also informed them that after a vote among the citizens that the

9 Texas Law, “Federal Constitution of the United Mexican States (1824),” Tarlton Law Library, Jamail Center for Legal Research, https://tarltonapps.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/mexican1824/t1s1. This meant that the protestant American settlers would have to, at least formally, declare themselves Catholic. 10 The priest assigned to the region. 11 Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to Colonists,” August 6, 1823, Digital Austin Papers, University of Northern Texas, accessed March 1, 2020, http://digitalaustinpapers.org/index, Hereafter referred to as DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to Unknown,” October 20, 1823, DAP. 12

Baron of Bastrop12 had been elected to represent them in the states Congress. The oath was to be administered to the entire colony at once and did not require individual oaths. Austin passed on the wording and how to celebrate such an occasion, “ which is in these words—” you swear to observe and obey the Constitutional Act of federation of the Mexican Nation ” to which they will all answer “yes we swear” and then let them give three cheers, fire a salute of small arms, or any other demonstration of joy and rejoicing that may be deemed proper by the people.” With the people informed, Austin set May 1, 1830, to perform the oath and informed the Political Chief of

Texas, José Antonio Saucedo, of these developments. Austin stated that he quickly collected all the votes from the colonists on who would represent them in the legislature and that by over half the votes, the Baron de Bastrop had won. The Baron had received the oath separately and was ready to serve, and the rest of the colony would take the oath on May first. Austin kept the

Mexican officials informed of each step he took, listing the day for the oath and notifying them of the Baron of Bastrop’s swift election. Austin saw the oath’s swearing as a critical step for the colonists to show their dedication to the principles of the Constitution of 1824.13

The colonists’ swearing-in was an important occasion for Austin, who saw this moment as proof that the future of Mexico lay with republican values. Following the swearing-in, Austin addressed a letter to the colonists congratulating them and speaking on the moment’s importance.

He stated that he was optimistic because not one among them was not overjoyed at the prospects that the Republican system offers them, freedom, happiness, and prosperity. Austin argued that

12 The self-styled Baron was born Philip Hendrik Nering Bögel in the Dutch Guiana before traveling to Holland and settling as the Tax collector in a region. He fled to Texas after being caught embezzling and had a 1,000 gold ducat reward out for him leading to his chosen title as the Baton de Bastrop. Richard W. Moore, “Baron de Bastrop,” Handbook of Texas Online, accessed March 02, 2021, https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/bastrop-baron-de. 13 Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to Josiah H. Bell,” March 20, 1824, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to Jose Antonio Saucedo,” March 20, 1824, DAP. 13

the republican system is free and rational liberty compared to the despotism that almost enveloped the Nation. He connects the moment to the overthrow of the oppressive control of the

British over the American Colonists and that, “a degree of prosperity and happiness unequaled in the history of the world—Now Spreads its fostering arms over the vast dominions of Mexico—

The hitherto enslaved Spanish Provinces are now free and independent States.” Following his expression of joy for the colonists, he wrote, a few days later, to the Provincial Deputation to inform them that the oaths have been taken. He stated that the people saw this as an important moment and showed the greatest devotion to the Government. Austin argued for the importance of this moment connecting its actions to the creation of the United States. The oath to the

Mexican Constitution was taken seriously by the citizens being held until Texas’s breaking from

Mexico.14

While the swearing of the oaths was one major milestone for the colonists, the debate around the issue of slavery was a more challenging road for Austin to navigate. Slavery, while not illegal in Mexico, was moving towards it not long after it declared independence. The anti- slavery sentiment is present in the early colonization bills, each bill included clauses for the eventual removal of slavery. Anti-slavery thinking was a significant mindset following the declaration of independence, with some developing their conviction during the war against

Spain. Unlike America, Mexico’s labor was not dependent on the use of slavery, so the removal of slaves would not drastically affect Mexico’s economy. A ban on the importation of slaves from Africa was also another decisive reasoning behind the move towards a slave-free society.

By the time of their independence, both the United States and Great Britain had outlawed the

14 Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to Unknown,” May 1, 1824, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to Provincial Deputation,” May 25, 1824, DAP. 14

importation of slaves. The British navy had begun intercepting any ships bringing slaves from

Africa. Confrontation with Great Britain was not a route that Mexico wished to take as they relied on the British for foreign investments in their economy, and Great Britain was the dominant global superpower at the time. Mexico’s anti-slavery sentiment clashed with their desire for American settlers to settle the border region of Texas, who demanded the right to bring slaves.15

The American southern economy and mindset regarding agricultural work was based around the use of slavery, and this mindset was brought with settlers to Texas. Unlike Mexico, which had only around 8,000 slaves, the American South by 1820 held over 1.5 million.16 The boom of the cotton industry had given rise to the growth of the slave population. The condition for cotton growth in Texas prompted American settlers’ demand the right to bring their slaves.

The spread of slavery was also crucial to the American South if Texas were blocked from the slaveowners, the expansion of slavery would be blocked in by non-slave regions and die out.

They rationalized the spread with the philosophy of “spread theory.” The spread theory was the idea that it was necessary to extend the institution of slavery as it lightened the burden on the original slave communities. The idea was that slavery was not evil if the number of slaves was balanced, not too many in one spot. To accomplish this, owners had to have new areas to move slaves into, in order to not overpopulate a region. The expansion of slavery was also tied to the southern dream of a slave empire that stretched towards the west. Mexico’s attempts to outlaw slavery and the British anti-slave stance meant to the southerners that if slavery were cut off in

Texas it would be trapped in the south and the dream of a western empire would die. Fear of

15 Andrew J. Torget, Seeds of Empire, 70-71. 16 Jenny Bourne, “Slavery in the United States”. EH.Net Encyclopedia, edited by Robert Whaples. March 26, 2008. URL http://eh.net/encyclopedia/slavery-in-the-united-states/. 15

being hemmed in would lead to multiple attempts to purchase not only Texas from Mexico but land on the Pacific coast in what would become California. This drive west cropped up in Texas as the majority of settlers to Texas were southerners. The difference in economy and belief regarding slavery would lead to an early debate about handling slavery. Austin would work diligently to see slavery accepted even as he was not supportive of the institution.17

Despite Austin’s feelings towards slavery, he understood its role in gaining the support of

American settlers and stimulating the growth of Texas. The Americans made it clear early to the

Mexican Government that no significant influx of American settlers into Texas would occur without the institution of slavery. With this in mind, Austin lobbied hard for the rights of the

American settlers, arguing to the legislatures that colonization depended on slavery remaining legal in Texas. Austin personally hated slavery, embodying a Jeffersonian approach, seeing it as an evil in abstract. Like Jefferson, though, he failed to act on his moral convictions and caved to social, economic, and political pressures. He feared that America would suffer the same fate as

Santa Domingo and see a large slave uprising seize the country. Even as he personally opposed slavery, he kept this to himself, sharing his views only a few times in letters. Austin’s personal feelings towards slavery did not affect his ability to lobby the Mexican Government in favor of the American settler’s right to have slaves.18

Austin continued his role as the bridge between the settlers and the Mexican Government throughout the negotiations on slavery. He informed settlers of developments and lobbied the

17 William Sumner Jenkins, Pro-Slavery Thought in the Old South, (Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press, 1935), 70; Matthew Karp, This Vast Southern Empire: Slaveholders at the Helm of American Foreign Policy, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2016), 85; Kevin Waite, West of Slavery: The Southern Dream of a Transcontinental Empire, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2021), 16; Randolph B. Campbell, An Empire of Slavery: The peculiar Institution in Texas, 1821-1865, (Banton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1989), 2. 18 Andrew J. Torget, Seeds of Empire, 72; Gregg Cantrell, Stephen F. Austin 189; Randolph B. Campbell, An Empire of Slavery, 27-28. 16

Government to impose fewer restrictions. He first lobbied against restrictions to slavery before

Mexico became a Republic when the Emperor of Mexico aimed to restrict slavery to ten years.

In a letter to Edward Lovelace, Austin recounted his work to petition an amendment for Texas that would allow Texans to keep slaves for the duration of their lives and their children until the age of 21. Austin was not confident in his ability to get the law overturned and that any slave brought would be freed ten years later. Even though the emperor would be deposed, and the

Republic established, anti-slavery sentiment would continue into the Republic.19

The Republic era brought a new wave of settlers and forced Austin to petition the

Government ardently for slaves in Texas. On June 10th, Austin wrote two letters concerning slavery, the first to the Provincial Deputation, the second to the Federal Congress. To the

Provincial Deputation, he sent a petition from a general meeting that had convened. They were petitioning the legislature to take up their drafted memorials on slavery and the cultivation of tobacco. While they petitioned their local legislature, Austin’s letter to the Federal Congress aimed to argue for the right to own slaves in the face of a possible emancipation bill. With the possibility of emancipation on slaves brought by emigrants, Austin argued for his colonists’ rights under the law that his colony was established. A large part of his argument rests on the idea that they were a necessary part of the colony that allowed for the establishment of farms and ranches that would lead to the colonists’ ruin if the slaves were freed. While the colonists would agree that their slaves could not be traded or trafficked, they beseeched the Federal Congress to exempt the three hundred families of Austin’s contract from the emancipation bill, and if no agreement could be reached that they were allowed time to return their slaves to the United

19 Randolph B. Campbell, An Empire of Slavery, 16; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to Edward Lovelace,” November 22, 1822, DAP. 17

States. Emancipation would not be passed, and the colonists would keep their slaves, but with the completion of Austin’s original contract, he aimed to bring more families and secure their right to bring slaves as well. Austin petitioned the Governor of Texas in April of 1825 to allow a new contract of five hundred families to be allowed and proceeded to petition for its passage. His argument rested on four points; first, the original three hundred were too weak to defend against natives, two that vacant land needed to be filled to prevent conflicting claims, three that when the port in Galveston opened, they did not have the population to utilize it to its full advantage, and finally that the country could be enriched through foreign trade and that required more population. With the colony’s growth, Austin argued that it is essential that they were allowed to bring slaves and servants and that their right to own them and their descendants be protected by law. He felt without such protections that no colonists of large means would come to Texas to cultivate sugar and cotton and that fertile land would be wasted by poor people who would barely raise enough to sustain themselves. The fight to keep slavery for his colonists led Austin to petition to all parts of the Government as he saw it as the only opportunity for Texas’s growth.20

Austin’s early colony faced two significant events, one that people readily agreed with and another that caused friction with the Mexican Government. The swearing of loyalty was one of the easier tasks for Austin, who had no issues getting the people to swear the oath to the

Mexican Constitution and renounce their former American citizenship. The Texans would hold this oath of loyalty even under significant stress during future events. One area that was a significant test of loyalty was slavery. Here Austin stood as a bridge between the colonists and

20 Another set of memorials that contained slavery was sent in a letter on December 22, 1824. Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to Legislature,” December 22, 1824, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin et al to Provincial Deputation,” June 10, 1824, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to Federal Congress,” June 10, 1824, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to Governor Rafael Gonzales,” April 4, 1825, DAP. 18

the Mexican Government, lobbying hard for the Americans’ rights to bring slaves into the territory without the fear losing them. Austin saw this agreement as the only feasible way to achieve what Mexico wanted, a growing and prosperous Texas. Despite his views on the issue,

Austin fought for the necessity of the slave economy. Austin aimed to control who would come into Texas as he fulfilled his contract. He sought out people who would remain loyal to Mexico and not cause trouble. The Fredonian Rebellion showed what happened when men seeking trouble would enter Texas but was also the first showcase of Texan loyalty.

The Fredonian Rebellion

The Fredonian Rebellion was a critical moment for Texas as something small and unimportant was given so much attention that it would permanently affect relations between the

Texans and the Mexican Government. Allowing foreign citizens, especially from a neighboring nation, was a risk that Mexico had to take in order to keep control of Texas. Before Mexico formed its own independent Nation, Americans had arrived and attempted to make Texas a part of the United States. The matter was settled between Spain and the United States with the signing of the Adam-Oni treaty in 1819, which gave Florida to the United States and drew the border at Texas. Some Americans reacted angrily to the treaty and still declared Texas belonged to the United States. Austin was aware of the issue of bringing Americans into Texas and having them renounce their citizenship, understanding some who came would harbor resentment that

Texas was not part of the United States. Austin worked diligently to bring only families he felt would be loyal and came with a purpose and good intentions.21

21 New Spain-Index, “Adams-Onï’s Treaty of 1819,” Sons of Dewitt Colony Texas, http://www.sonsofdewittcolony.org//adamonis.htm. 19

Austin had his contract to bring three hundred families to Texas and settle a colony. In doing so, he was very selective of his families and aimed to bring only the most suitable for the colonization. Keeping those of bad character out of Texas did cause him difficulty as the criminals passed along stories to discredit Austin and the colony. Their attempt was to sabotage his reputation, this was captured in a letter sent to Austin by Anthony R. Clarke. He recounts reports that were being spread around the United States that Austin was forcing a massive down payment for the purchase of land he was not supposed to be able to sell and that many of the colonists were preparing to leave. Austin was also rumored to be about to abandon the settlement. For all his work to keep his colony in good order, Austin would never escape the rumors of how horrendous the condition of his settlement was. In 1829 he sent a letter to reassure

Thomas White of his colony’s security after reports had filtered back from individuals that

Austin had referred to as bad men he had driven out of Texas, expelling them back to the border and into Louisiana. Austin stated that those men aimed to blacken the name of the colony and were not to be trusted. He assured Thomas White that his fears of being robbed were unfounded.

He boasted that his colony was the safest around, that doors were secured by no more than a pin or latch, and even stores were guarded this way. Animals were not penned or locked up; they roamed freely. Austin had to battle propaganda by disreputable men to keep the flow of families and men of quality into Texas. While he fought back against the slander to potential citizens, he also informed the Mexican Government of his success in keeping disreputable people out of

Texas, knowing their fears of such men.22

22 Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Thomas White,” March 31, 1829, DAP; Anthony R. Clark, “Anthony R. Clarke to Stephen F. Austin,” February 3, 1824, DAP. 20

The Mexican Government was fearful of any unrest in Texas, and Austin helped alleviate this by keeping them informed on the movement of any undesirable settlers who came to Texas.

Upon completing his first contract for three hundred families, Austin requested permission to bring additional families into the territory. He warned that others had entered Texas and formed their own colonies without any governance, allowing crimes to flourish. Austin cautioned that they suffered from turbulent persons who occupied lands with no regulations because no authority existed to punish them. He also worried that their effect was spreading, imperiling his own colony. He urged that some action be taken as the colonies applied for organization, and colonists were needed in Texas. Two months later, Austin again petitioned for permission to bring more colonists to Texas as hundreds requested to come, and he felt more people were needed for Texas to succeed. While he stated that a great number were applying and eager to come to Texas within their numbers were a few disreputable men. Here Austin informed them that he ordered such men to leave his jurisdiction’s borders, which he argued was required for tranquility among the colony. He stated that he understood this had caused people to be irritated and send false reports about his conduct and authority to the Government. Austin knew that the introduction of such men would cause great injury to the colony and that the Government would approve of his actions taken towards those individuals. Disreputable men attempting to enter

Texas was one area that Austin fought hard to prevent, knowing that the Government supported a peaceful Texas.23

Austin’s work to keep the colony peaceful worked, making small disturbances and the

Fredonian Rebellion anomalies. He wrote to any who had concerns aiming to dispute the claims

23 Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to Governor Rafael Gonzales,” April 4, 1825, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to Governor of Coahuila and Texas,” February 4, 1825, DAP. 21

of men he had expelled from the colony, assuring them of the safety and peace they would find.

He also wrote to assure the Government of his efforts to remove any who would bring problems for them and warned them of regions where trouble may occur. While Austin did an excellent job of keeping men out of his colony who could not be trusted, this did not mean that they did not enter Texas and choose to join other colonies or stay illegally once he expelled them.

Austin kept good order within his settlement, but he was not without any issues, in 1825 a small disturbance threatened to become a more significant issue within the colony. A settler named Buckler, who had been a part of Texas’s independence movement and predated Austin, attempted to purchase land owned by another settler. When Austin denied him that right, he illegally posted notices to gather the public to protest Austin’s authority. At this time public gatherings not called with the Government’s permission were illegal, and Austin moved quickly to have him arrested and to restore order. Austin moved to quell any unrest in the colony by addressing them, notifying them why Buckler had to be arrested, and urging loyalty. He informed them that such a gathering would be illegal, and importantly the wording of the call for a meeting was alarming, “This invitation proposes ‘to shake off the yoke.’ What yoke? the words have but one meaning—they are plain, and the inference direct, which is the Yoke of the Government.” Austin further chastises the citizens by asking if they would really join

Buckler in open rebellion after willingly joining the Government to settle in Texas. Austin then targeted the heart of Buckler’s call, stating that if any wanted Austin’s actions investigated, he would support any petition and request the Government open an investigation on him. Support for Buckler evaporated following the address and his arrest, no major issues resulted from

Buckler’s actions. Austin was able to control dissent within the colony by strictly following the law and preventing dissidents from spreading through the colony. While Austin was able to

control his own colony’s actions, the actions of another empresario would bring an attempt at independence.24

While short-lived, the Fredonian Rebellion showed how Austin and his colony displayed loyalty to the Mexican Government. The rebellion was caused by two brothers Haden Edwards, an empresario, and his brother Benjamin. The problem began with the land given to Haden, this particular land had various older settlers and Indian land claims to navigate. Haden’s attempt to remove the old colonists was thwarted because he and his colonists were unable to win court cases against them. Following Austin’s advice, Benjamin wrote to the Governor of Coahuila-

Texas for clarification and a full explanation of what was going on. The Governor wrote back, informing first that his lack of respect was shown in the letter and dissolved the contract expelling both Edwards. This brought them to open rebellion as the Edwards refused to leave and captured officers and the commander of the small garrison in Nacogdoches, holding a court and finding them all guilty of corruption. The brothers then sent an emissary to the Cherokee Indians, who allied them, and another emissary to Austin. Austin responded to the request with anger calling his actions delusional and stating that his colony would never unite with such a mad idea.

Austin argued that his colony was “unanimous in disapproving all such violent proceedings, and they will all be faithful to the Govt. of their adoption and if necessary, take up arms in its defense.” He ended the letter by imploring them to disband and submit or leave the country to save themselves. Austin then addressed his colonists, informing them that the mad men of

Nacogdoches had declared independence. As Austin had predicted, they overwhelmingly choose to call for a volunteer force to assist the Mexican soldiers in putting down the rebellion. The

24 Gregg Cantrell, Stephen F. Austin, 157; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Inhabitants of Colony,” June 7, 1825, DAP. 23

show of force and the refusal to join by Austin and his colony forced the Edwards and the rebellious men to disband, and the leaders fled to the United States. The Fredonian Rebellion fell apart with little to no violence but left Austin to assist those who had not fled the territory.25

Austin worked to get those individuals who supported the Edwards more lenient punishment and fair treatment. One such man who appealed to Austin for help was the man who had first approached Austin about joining the rebellion, Burril J. Thompson. Thompson had written several letters both to Austin and others for support in receiving a pardon. Thompson offered advice that certain steps towards peace can resolve the whole issue, the Fredonian party would make peace, and the Indians would fall back in line. He knew Austin would be leaving for his home and hoped that he would bring peace before leaving. Even though Austin was not the empresario for the region, the people saw him as the natural choice to be the bridge with the

Mexican Government. Austin would advocate for a mild course towards the rebels, which would be adopted to his relief. Austin noted the ease that the whole incident ended in a letter to Samuel

Williams, the administrador de Correos.26 He stated that some are angry about his position on the matter, but he felt he made the right decision for the situation. The Cherokee executed two of the leaders, Field and Hunter, and the rest fled to the United States. The Military Leader Mateo

Ahumada, who was in charge of deciding the colonist’s fate, adopted Austins advice for a mild course. While some blamed them for not being harsher, he felt that the whole country was gratified and that the Mexican character stood higher than before. Austin negotiated a peaceful solution that left only those who wished for a harsher treatment upset and left the colonists

25 T.R. Fehrenbach, Lone Star, 163; Stephen F. Austin, “Austin to B.J. Thomason,” December 24, 1826, in Eugene C. Barker, ed., The Austin Papers, (Washington, 1924), I, Part. I, 1539-1541, quoted in William C. Davis, Lone Star Rising: The Revolutionary Birth of the Texas Republic, (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2004), 71; Stephen F. Austin, “Austin to Citizens of Victoria,” January 1, 1827, Ibid, 1558, Ibid, 72. 26 The mail administrator. 24

grateful to the Mexican officials for being lenient and Austin for working hard to make it possible.27

The Fredonian Rebellion was a tense moment for the Texan colonists and a test of

Austin’s leadership. Austin worked meticulously to only allow men into Texas who came to improve the colony and with the best of intents. While some would come with malice, he worked to have them removed from the colony, and if they raised too many issues, saw to their arrest and reported them to the Mexican Government. He accomplished his goal of a peaceful colony loyal to their adopted country, but other empresarios did not come with such intentions. The Edwards brothers attempt to create a free country with the idea that all would flock to join them quickly fell apart. While the Cherokee pledged to support them, none of the other colonies moved to assist the rebellion; instead, Austin raised a massive volunteer force to disband them. Even the

Cherokee abandoned them, executing two leaders to show their loyalty to the Mexican

Government. Austin managed to get those that remained a more lenient punishment to the gratitude of the colonists. While Austin felt that this showed the colonies’ loyalty as they had rejected an attempt at independence, the Mexican Government was worried by the events and set out a commission that would lead to new laws imposed on Texas.

The Law of April 6, 1830

The Mexican Congress passed the Law of April 6 because of the Fredonian Rebellion’s failure and the fear that such an event could happen again with a more disastrous result for

Mexico. Fear of events in Texas prompted an official investigation followed by the law’s

27 Burril J. Thompson, “Burril J. Thompson to Stephen F. Austin,” February 3, 1827, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to Samuel Williams,” March 4, 1827, DAP. 25

passage to remedy the situation. The law angered a significant portion of Texans and was vilified in the American press as it appeared to halt emigration from the United States and outlawed slavery. Austin moved quickly to settle the tensions as he worked with the Mexican Government to find a way to get his colony exempted from the law. While Austin would find ways to work around the law, some Americans ignored the law’s passage and rules. The choice of Americans to ignore Mexico’s rules was what had prompted the law in the first place. The report taken of

Texas highlighted many areas that laws were ignored and how quickly Texas was becoming predominantly American.

The report of Texas was accomplished by General Don Manuel Mier y Terán following uneasiness with the conditions in Texas. His investigation was taken over two years as he traveled across the northern frontier, noting all that he saw and recording his suggestions and concerns for Texas. One major area of concern he found was that Americans were in possession of almost all ports on the eastern coast without any permission to do so. Traveling further into the interior, Terán met with Austin at his colony and noted that out of the two hundred people that resided in the colony the majority were from the United States with only ten Mexican, and the occasional European. He feared that this theme played across all of Texas as the families that

Austin had brought scattered all over and at the time now numbered almost two thousand people.

Education was also an area that Mexicans were beginning to become the minority in as with an almost ten to one population, the Americans were able to open their own schools, while the

Mexicans had none, in addition they were able to send their children to the United States for further education. Terán feared this would result in the takeover of the country by American

foreigners. Terán’s report concluded various solutions that the Government would not only adopt but would add to.28

The Law of April 6, 1830, drew on the fourteen recommendations of Terán and the suggestion of the chief minister of President Anastasio Bustamante Lucas Alamán. To address

Americans’ substantial population difference to Mexicans, he recommended that the region be settled by an increasing number of Mexican, Swiss, and German settlers. To crack down on the number of Americans ignoring Mexico’s laws, he urged that more of a military presence be established. The stronger military presence would prevent illegal immigration not connected to empresario contracts and enforce other changes the law would establish. Terán took the opportunity to move against the institution of slavery as Texas had avoided the restrictions that the rest of the country faced. He recommended that no new slaves be allowed into Mexico, and attempts were made to prevent the transfer of slaves into indentured servants for life as a workaround. While he had two years previously recommend the stoppage of all emigration from the United States at the end of his report, he decided against such a recommendation out of fear that it would result in massive unrest among the American settlers. While he feared it, Alamán advised the President to go forward with the ban regardless of what unrest it might cause. Most of his recommendations were passed in the law, as well as Alamán’s suggestion on the ban of

Americans into Texas. Austin himself, upon receiving the law, looked immediately for a way to prevent his colony from being affected and, finding a solution that Terán supported.29

28 Coahuila y Tejas index, “Manuel de Mier y Terán 1789-1832,” Sons of Dewitt Colony Texas, http://www.sonsofdewittcolony.org/teranmanuel.htm; T.R. Fehrenbach, Lone Star, 165. 29 Gregg Cantrell, Stephen F. Austin, 219; Curtis Bishop, “Law of April 6, 1830,” Handbook of Texas Online, accessed March 02, 2021, https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/law-of-april-6-1830. 27

Austin seized on the wording of the law to prevent his colony from being affected, and upon Government approval of his interpretation, he worked to spread the news and diffuse any tensions that the law created. In a letter that was not sent but did appear to be addressed for the

President of Mexico, Austin discusses his fear that the law would sour relations of the Texans with Mexico. Austin stated that the American Texans have become faithful Mexicans and have been loyal and questioned if having a policy that alienated them was the right solution. He then laid out his case for why his colony should be exempted as he had fulfilled his contract. He had several immigrants on the road already bound for his colony, “I have informed them, that the emigrants to my colony are not included in the prohibition contained in the 11 article for my colony is ‘established,’ and consequently no variation is to be made in it— This is consistent with the law, and it was due to justice.” His seizure of the eleventh article’s wording allowed him to argue that since he had an established colony, it was exempt. Austin found support in Terán, who approved this interpretation even as only one of the four contracts Austin had been completed earning Austin’s thanks and his confidence that Terán was not an enemy of Texas.

With Terán’s approval, Austin moved to his favorite means of communication to the colonists which allowed him to control their emotions and passions, the press. Austin wrote a letter to the

Texas Gazette to calm the citizens from the passage of the law of April 6th and inform them of the exemption. He started by stating the positives that the law would bring, including the trade of lumber duty-free and the encouragement of manufacturing to make use of the abundance of high- quality raw materials Texas produced. Austin then defends the tenth article and how it secured the rights of settled colonies and would not stop his contracts that he had started meaning that emigration would not be stopped. He thanked Terán for allowing this interpretation and praised

him. While Austin moved quickly to secure his colonies from the law’s articles, there was one law he did attempt to implement, the ban on new slaves.30

Austin personally opposed the institute of slavery and saw the inclusion of a ban as a way to end slavery in Texas. Slavery had multiple times over the history of Mexico been legislated towards total emancipation. In 1829 President Guerrero enacted full emancipation of slavery in

Mexico. Texas immediately resisted refusing to implement the law and was exempted by

Mexican officials. Here though, Austin did attempt to use the ban on the importation of slavery as a way to end the institution in Texas. Austin’s fear of slavery came from the Haitian Slave

Revolt that resulted in the slaughter of almost the entire white population on the island. He references the event as a reason he was not opposed to the law in multiple letters. In one letter to

Thomas Leaming that discusses the Law of April 6th in greater detail, he references the slavery issue. He noted the North Americans’ opinion towards slavery and wept at the thought of such a country being overrun by slaves as he in vain has warned them in fifty or eighty years. At the beginning of the settlement, he was compelled to argue for the tolerance of slavery and succeeded, but now that it was prohibited by the constitution and by the new law, he hoped it would remain that way. In another letter to Richared Ellis, he again references his fear of a

Haitian-style revolution in Texas. In his letter, Austin references the math of population numbers in the United States. He stated that if you put down the number of slaves and calculate their increase over eighty years along with the increase of the white population, remembering to reduce the emigration of them to other countries, “you would fear your family’s fate.” Austin believed it wise for Texas to be saved from the ruin that the slave states would face and that the

30 Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Document not sent,” May 18, 1830, DAP; Gregg Cantrell, Stephen F. Austin: Empresario of Texas, 223; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Texas Gazette,” July 3, 1830, DAP. 29

white population would find safe refuge in Mexico instead of going to the North. He knew that the arguments of humanity and justice would fall on deaf ears of the slaveholders, but he argued his calculations should make them shudder at the thought. Austin supported the limiting of slaves in Texas out of fear for the white population’s safety and not out of any concern for the slave’s wellbeing. His concern remained centered on his colonists and arguing that they were Mexican, and the law punished them even though they were loyal.31

The unrest of the colonists that rippled through Texas and was apparent to Austin, who talked of the error in punishing the colonists loyal to Mexico. In a memorandum to himself,

Austin recounted how the law suspended immigration even with the contracts and the tireless work he had accomplished to receive an exemption for his colony on such an unjust law. He stated his feelings on how a commotion among the people could bring ruin and destroy the country and all that had been built, and he felt it was his duty to avert such a catastrophe. He genuinely believed that the Government did not want to oppress or treat them unjustly. If it were indeed their intention, then it would place the Texans “on higher ground to do our duty faithfully as Mexican citizens.” Austin saw the people’s duty to demonstrate how they were loyal to

Mexico even if the law was drafted with the intent to harm them. In a letter to his cousin Henry,

Austin discussed further the depth of the Texan loyalty to Mexico. Austin indicated that the law was a major error for the Mexican Government and that the settlers were against any changes to the Government or any idea of joining the United States. They were attached to their adopted

Government, and they had the respect of Texas and Texas’s faithfulness. The oaths the colonists

31 Edward E. Dunbar, “The Mexican papers ... [1st series, no. 1-5],” (New York: J. A. H. Hasbrouck & Co., printers, 1860), The library of Congress, 220, https://archive.org/details/mexicanpapers1st01dunb/page/220/mode/2up; Andrew Torget in his work on slavery in Texas disregards Austin’s statements that he was always against the principles of slavery as he had endorsed it previously. Andrew J. Torget, Seeds of Empire, 153; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Thomas F Leaming,” June 14, 1830, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Richared Ellis et al,” June 16, 1830, DAP. 30

had taken to support the constitution held firmer than the use of military force would ever produce. Austin feared the path the Mexican Government was taking would result in the fall of the constitution, and he feared for Texas’s fate should this happen.32 Austin takes his feelings on the law to the Secretary of relations, informing him that while the public opinion was unsettled, there was no unrest or disturbances of order within the colony. He argued that the idea that the colonists wanted to separate from Mexico was unfounded, and no idea ever was part of any of the sensible colonists. The colony had shown no discontent until the law’s passage, and various rumors began to spread. Austin reiterated his loyalty to the Government and is concerned for his colonists. He ends by questioning, “surely the inhabitants of Texas deserve to be effectively protected and not to be sacrificed to rumor or to suspicions fed by party feeling or by the intrigues of a foreigner [Poinsett?]” Austin contended that his colonists had shown their loyalty to Mexico and were being punished out of fear and unfounded rumors. The law of April 6 did more to upset the Texans than it did to alleviate the Mexican Government’s worries that Texas was rebellious and aimed to see itself free. Austin’s work was expanded as he rushed to ease the tension of the Texans and lessen their worries about being targeted while also arguing to the

Government against the actions taken by the law. Austin demonstrated how the law had a greater chance of causing the rebellion that Mexico feared rather than prevent it.33

The Mexican Congresses decision to pass the law of April 6 came from the fears following the Fredonian Rebellion and the report by Terán on the condition of Texas. Terán’s report highlighted the areas that the Mexican Government worried about, the control of the ports

32 Austin’s prediction is remarkably on point as in under five years Mexico would be in the hands of a dictator and the Constitution would be removed and replaced. 33 Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Stephen F Austin,” May 18, 1830, DAP; Stephen F Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to Henry Austin,” June 1, 1830, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Secretary of Relations,” July 13, 1830, DAP. 31

by Americans without supervision by Mexican authorities, the completely unbalanced population numbers of Americans to Mexicans, and Mexican education being next to none. The fear of how many Americans were in Texas brought the fear that they aimed to remove Texas from Mexico and join the United States. A measure to limit the Americans by blocking slaves supported by

Austin for a time, who had his own fear of slavery, but was eventually protested by Austin and ignored by the Americans. Austin maintained the law hurt Texans who had all taken the oath to the Government and harbored no feelings that Texas should not be part of Mexico, therefore this law created tensions between the Texans and Mexico.

Conclusion

Austin and his colony displayed the earliest signs of loyalty to the Mexican Government by the actions of the first colonists, the Fredonian Rebellion, and the passage of the Law of April

6th, 1830. Losing sight of the loyalty of the Texans puts a greater emphasis on the events of the

Fredonian Rebellion and promotes the idea that independence was an inevitable event. The early colony saw the colonists swear an oath to the Mexican Government and the Constitution of 1824, but debates on slavery resulted in American settlers transporting slaves into the region for the cultivation of cotton and some sugar. The Fredonian Rebellion showed how Austin and the colonists passed their first test with flying colors. The colonists not only denounced the actions but raised a militia larger than the military force sent to put down the rebellion and marched with them to crush the rebellion. While they showed incredible dedication to their oaths, the Mexican

Government feared what was happening in Texas, and after a report by General Terán, they passed the Law of April 6. This specific law tested the loyalty of the Texans again as they were punished for the actions of a few individuals and rumors of rebellion. Austin argued for exemptions and entirely against the law since the Texans were loyal citizens of Mexico. He 32

showed that no rebellion broke out even after the passage and those rumors had caused discontent but no disturbances to public order. The event of the early colony demonstrates that even with challenging events, the Texans remained loyal to their oaths.

The colony contended with early rebellion issues as unsavory characters came from

America intending to damage the relations between Texas and Mexico or see Texas removed from Mexico. Austin displayed how effective he was at preventing such elements from entering

Texas from the United States. A significant issue that connects the three events were rumors and the news from the United States bringing fear to Mexican officials of what America’s intent towards Texas was. Austin referenced it when referring to reports on the conditions of his colony being deplorable. He had not only to assure new arrivals and the Mexican Government that everything was satisfactory, and that bad press was caused by those whom he had removed and barred from entering Texas. The Fredonian Rebellion was also overblown back in the United

States, with the press posting headlines such as “200 Men Against a Nation” and giving it more attention than such an unimportant event deserved. The sympathy of the American press and some Americans to this event worried the Mexican officials as fears were exaggerated. Austin’s colony’s support of the Mexican Government also earned it the disapproval of people within the

United States. The response to the passage of the Law of April 6th was also inflated by lousy press coming from the United States. Austin had to contend with thousands of rumors being spread and the fear of a complete cut-off of emigration from the United States. He further had to argue against the Government’s reaction, showing his colony was loyal and the idea of separation came from rumors and foreigners. The Mexican fear of the colonists wanting independence following the passage of the Law of April 6th would only accelerate as events

moved forward and Texas fought bitterly to see it repealed, and Texas made an independent territory even as Mexicos paranoia of Texas’s intents grew.34

34 T.R. Fehrenbach, Lone Star, 164. 34

Time of Struggle: Austin Negotiates with the Conventions of 1832 and

1833

The passage of the Law of April 6, 1830, strained relations between the Anglo-Texans and the Mexican Government, therefore placing Texan leaders like Stephen Austin in a tricky situation. The Mexican Government aimed to prevent a crisis which they saw coming due to the massive Anglo-American population that inhabited Texas. The law meant to prevent these issues instead accelerated the region towards a crisis they sought to avoid as tensions between the two groups progressed. Austin worked diligently to calm the settlers while he worked with Mexican officials; he argued that they were punishing people who were loyal to Mexico. While this was a difficult period for the Texans and their relationship with Mexico, they did not erupt into outright rebellion or attempt to sever ties from Mexico immediately. Instead, they organized committees in 1832 and 1833 to convey their grievances before the Mexican Government, and even the arrest of Stephen Austin did not shift them towards violence. These committees were established to take their grievances directly to the Mexican Government and are crucial to understanding that

Texas was not on an inevitable path towards independence. Both conventions and Austin’s arrest demonstrate how loyal the Texans remained to the Mexican Government, but in turn expressed disapproval with the Law of April 6; therefore, they were not on a direct path towards rebellion and independence as other historians have argued.

Historians have viewed these events as either moving Texas towards independence or unimportant in the Texas Revolution’s broader story. The older works of T.R Fehrenbach and

Yoakum view the conventions as the first part of a rebellion. Fehrenbach stated that the Mexican historians almost all agree that the convention was nothing more than a plot to separate Texas

from Mexico. He argued that this is not entirely incorrect due to certain leaders’ willingness to push for an independent Texas. Yoakum, as well sees the conventions as a plot by the Texans and calls a meeting in 1834 the “first strictly revolutionary meeting in Texas.” While both

Fehrenbach and Yoakum focused on the conventions as steps towards revolution, both Anderson and Torget choose to ignore these events entirely. Anderson focuses on different events occurring in the early 1830s, thereby concentrating on the American army and the Indian tribes of northern Texas, only briefly discussing the effect of Austin’s arrest on the Anglo-Texans.

Torget also ignores the conventions by arguing that the Anglo-Texans were fixated on only one part of the Law of April 6, slavery. Torget narrows his focus on Austin’s efforts to solve the issues with slavery that the law caused instead of all parts of the law. While other historians have focused on the conventions as steps towards revolution or completely ignored them, I argue that the events show how Texas is not on a path towards revolution and independence yet.35

The aftermath of the Law of April 6 was not rebellion or a declaration for independence; instead, the Texans choose to bring their grievances together and present them to the Mexican

Government. Even the arrest of Austin, while angering the Texan people, did not lead to open fighting with Mexico. The Convention of 1832 was called following a successful Civil War by

Santa Anna, hoping that his more liberal government would be receptive to the Texans’ requests.

While it would result in some minor changes, the central issue of a separate state was not addressed, and a Convention in 1833 was convened. The convention’s requests were delivered by Austin, who would be imprisoned due to the letter sent while he was in Mexico. Even in prison, Austin urged peace in Texas and argued that Texas would be okay. Examining the events

35 T.R. Fehrenbach, Lone Star, 182; Henderson K. Yoakum, History of Texas, 329; Gary Clayton Anderson, The Conquest of Texas, 88; Andrew J. Torget, Seeds of Empire, 153. 36

of the Convention of 1832, the Convention of 1833, and Austin’s arrest shows that the Texan’s were not on the path towards rebellion or declaring independence but instead wished to see the law revoked and more administrative power for their own state.

Civil War of 1832

After the passage of the Law of April 6, 1830, the first two years were relatively peaceful despite two major incidents. The Law of April 6 banned immigration from the United States, as well as preventing the entrance of slaves into Texas. The law also imposed an increase in tariffs on any goods imported from the United States. Furthermore, a property tax was implemented in

Texas, prior to this point Texas had been exempted from property taxation. The first major incident which Texas faced in the first years of the law was in December of 1831, in a brazen attempt by three Texan captains who tried to sail their ships out the Brazos River without paying their customs duty. This attempt resulted in a fight between the Mexican garrison and the men of the ships, resulting in a soldier being wounded. When radical settlers suggested open attacks on

Mexican garrisons within Texas, significant tensions rose within the region. Austin wrote to

General Terán suggesting that he revoke the custom official’s order to get their papers cleared in a region a hundred miles out of the way and open a custom building closer to make the payment more manageable. The promotion of Colonel Juan Bradburn to command of the garrison at

Galveston Bay (present-day Anahuac), ignited the second crisis. His style of command resulted in tensions as he clashed openly with settlers and his harsh enforcement of the slave ban only further polarized the region as some citizens began to support removing him by force. Austin and his colony urged a peaceful solution to the Colonel, but the situation escalated to minor engagements between some settlers and the garrison. The arrest of William Barret Travis brought the region closer to rebellion alarming the Mexican Commander in Nacogdoches, who moved 37

swiftly to Galveston to defuse the situation. To prevent a rebellion, the commander agreed to the demands of the settlers and convinced Bradburn to release Travis and step down as commander of the garrison. These two major incidents while shattering the peace of Texas did not result in open war as they were quickly diffused.36

As Texans continued to grapple with the Law of April 6, the state remained relatively peaceful, and Austin urged them to focus on Texas’s growth and attempts to repeal the law.

Texas’s relative peace was shattered when Santa Anna, the self-proclaimed Napoleon of the

West, rose against Bustamante’s government. Anastasio Bustamante was not a popular president at the time. His rise to power began when, as the vice President, he led a coup against then

President Vicente Guerrero. After removing Guerrero from power, he instituted secret police that moved to control the press and remove opposition to his regime. When 1832 began there was some hope that the law of April 6 would be dismantled even though civil war was erupting in

Mexico. With the civil war consuming the country, Texans called for the Convention of 1832 to address the government by petitioning their grievances. Austin had worked diligently since the passage of the Law of April 6 to repeal parts or amend the document; by 1832, he saw his work succeed as changes were being considered. With the outbreak of civil war, Austin after originally arguing for neutrality would shift to supporting Santa Anna as the best choice for Texas, and with the call for a convention, Austin would preside as president of the convention and argued for its petitions and the idea of a Texan state.

The beginning of 1832 saw Austin grappling with the law of April 6 and his view of how

Mexico’s government was hindering Texas’s progress. Austin walked a fine line with Mexican

36 Gregg Cantrell, Stephen F. Austin, 247; H.W. Brands, Lone Star Nation: The Epic Story of the Battle for Texas Independence, (New York: Anchor Books, 2004), 167. 38

politics, proudly supporting the federalists who argued for the more liberal reforms that Texas wanted while having to work with the Centralist Government in power. Austin expressed difficulty in working with the Centralist Government to his sister in a letter recounting Texas’s progress and the negative side that had emerged. For Austin, Texas was a major success as he took an uninhabited country,37 by clearing the land, establishing settlements, and laid the foundations for wealth, morality, and happiness. He worked diligently to keep the colony economically prosperous and discourage class warfare between the groups. While seeing all this as an optimistic view, Texas’s dark, gloomy side was the government’s restrictions. Austin stated the blight of these restrictions spreads over Texas preventing progress and darkening the hope of its future. For the first time Austin suggested that Texas’s future should be its own state as it could bring back good times for Texas and tie it to the interests of the Mexican Government.

Austin viewed Texas’s future hopefully, believing that the restrictions of the Law of April 6 would be repealed, and that the future of Texas was tied to the idea of statehood. While Austin felt the weight of his failure to enact changes in the Law of April 6, the beginning of a civil war in Mexico would lead to the opportunity for the change he had hoped for.38

The breakout of a civil war in Mexico led Texas from neutrality towards supporting the liberal Santa Anna. In January of 1832, a group of congressmen, prominent men, and opposing party figures formed a group to oppose Bustamante’s regime. Bustamante’s government was a conservative-led party that cracked down on dissent and opposing views. The group convinced the garrison in Veracruz to rebel against the government and be led by Mexico’s savior, Santa

Anna. Austin, as always, urged Texas not to take a side and spectate the national developments,

37 Void of people of European descent. 38 Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Mary Austin Holley,” January 14, 1832, DAP. 39

“No matter which party gains, it would ruin the people of the colony to take any part in any way.” With the country gripped in civil war, Austin attended the legislature sessions for Texas.

He noted a favorable attitude towards the prospect of the law of April 6 being modified and urged Texas to remain calm and be obedient if they wished to see the law repealed, there could be no more incidents like the Brazos incident in December of 1831. Austin recognized that the legislature of the state and the governor were willing to restructure the law towards colonization, therefore he did not want anything to risk damaging this chance. Upon returning from the legislature meeting, Austin wrote a letter to his cousin informing him of letters which he had received from Mexican statesmen Lucas Alaman, General Teran, and the Vice President of

Mexico. The letters expressed a friendliness towards Texas and Austin, who saw this as a sign of

Texas’s more optimistic view in Congress. He also informed his cousin of news that the townhall in San Felipe de Austin had sent its petition to Congress, and it had the President’s recommendation. Austin recognizes this as a good sign that change would be coming, the eleventh article of the Law of April 6 might be repealed, and modifications would be made to the duties. Austin saw a chance for Texas’s future to be free of restrictions that chocked off progress and damaged Texas and Mexico’s relations. While Austin hoped that the government would make changes, the civil war was brought closer to Texas and Austin decided to abandon his balancing act between the Federalists and Centralists and declared for Santa Anna, joined by the large majority of Texans.39

Austin supported Santa Anna because he believed it was the best choice for Texas to have the Law of April 6 repealed and statehood for Texas recognized. Originally Austin wanted

39 Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Samuel M Williams,” April 28, 1832, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Henry Austin,” May 8, 1832, DAP. 40

Texas to remain removed from the conflict; upon receiving the news that Santa Anna was leading a rebellion against the Mexican Government, he urged that he hoped for Texas to be able to remain peaceful and not engaged in the civil war. The first few months of the civil war remained outside of Texas, but while Austin was in Matamoros, the revolution came to the town as he records to his brother-in-law, the Government troops marched out one side of the town as

Colonel Mexia, and his troops entered the other. Colonel Mexia was one of Santa Anna’s leaders, and Austin stated that they represented the proper Democratic Federal Republican party who would succeed and rule over the nation. Austin’s letters expressed confidence in Santa

Anna’s chance of success, however in private records he noted that the nation was in a dreadful situation. While Colonel Mexia had taken the region peacefully, General Terán was supposedly nearby, and Mexia’s success seemed in doubt. With Colonel Mexia’s occupation at Matamoros,

Austin sent three letters over the following two weeks to his friend Samuel Williams with orders to pass the news to the rest of Austin’s colony. The first two letters were sent right after each other, they focused on keeping the colony calm and neutral from the fighting. Austin urged

Texans to take no part in the conflict and do their duty as loyal Mexican citizens. He insisted they must adhere to the Constitution and resist any unjust attacks by either party involved in the civil war. He concludes the first letter by returning to peace, “Keep peace in Texas, and if there is anything done, mind the main basis, Union to Mexico, and obedience and adherence to the

Constitution, repeat this basis in all that is done, and all that is said—never loose sight of it one moment.” The second letter included basic guidelines which Austin requested his colonists follow. The first was that the Constitution and authority of Texas and Coahuila be upheld. The second was to adhere to Mexico and maintain the territory of Mexico. While the first two he stated were the most important, the final command was to approve the principles of Santa Anna’s

Democratic Constitutional Federal party and utilized only if the situation demanded it. These letters arrived early to Williams, who worked to calm agitation in Austin’s colony. As Williams worked to keep peace in Texas, Austin was rapidly shifting his own opinion on neutrality and began to favor supporting Santa Anna.40

Austin’s opinion on neutrality began to shift following Colonel Mexia’s entrance into

Texas. While Austin’s opinion shifted, Williams had continued to follow Austin’s wish of neutrality even as the colony moved towards supporting the rebellion and turned against

Williams. Williams was unaware, due to the slow postal service, that a letter from Austin had been sent declaring for Santa Anna and the rebellion. Unaware of Austin’s change in position,

William was vilified by the public who resented his attempts to keep the peace. In Austin’s third letter he informed Williams there was only one course left for Texas, to unite with Santa Anna.

Austin believed now that all of Texas could unite under the same side especially with the suicide of Terán, who had overseen the Mexican Government forces in Texas. The irreplaceable loss of

Terán was detrimental for the relations between Texas and Mexico, Terán had done a great deal to balance the Mexican Government and the Texans.41

Without Terán, Austin decided to no longer play both sides and committed to Santa

Anna. Austin was able to return to Texas’s interior at the side of Colonel Mexia to the excitement of the people who had overwhelmingly decided to support the rebellion and saw

Austin as bringing Colonel Mexia to liberate them from the tyranny of the Centralists. In a letter

40 Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to James F Perry,” February 10, 1832, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to James F Perry,” June 29, 1832, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Samuel M Williams,” July 1, 1832, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Samuel M Williams,” July 2, 1832, DAP. 41 Gregg Cantrell, Stephen F. Austin, 257; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Samuel M Williams,” July 18, 1832, DAP. 42

to Ramón Músquiz42, Governor of Coahuila and Texas, Austin discussed why the Texans have declared their support for Santa Anna. One reason Austin stated was that the plan Santa Anna had put forward had captured the people’s enthusiasm. Austin and his colony supported Santa

Anna’s plan of Veracruz as it called for an end to the civil war and a way to secure the constitutional liberties of the nation. Santa Anna provided Austin and the Texans the chance to not only achieve statehood but repeal the Law of April 6th. With Texas fully supporting Santa

Anna, the decision was made to push for a more liberal policy in Texas. The committee in San

Felipe de Austin called for a convention to present their grievances and suggestions to the

Mexican Government. Austin knew that the Mexican Government would consider the gathering of a convention illegal, therefore he initially opposed it. In the end Austin would accept its formation and would end up presiding over the convention arguing strongly for Texas to push for statehood.43

The issue of Texan statehood was a point of friction between Texas and the rest of

Mexico, particularly with Coahuila. Being connected to Coahuila as a state created tensions as decisions for Texas were made in Coahuila. Austin and the settlers felt that independent statehood would benefit Texas and allow it to prosper and govern itself better. Mexican officials feared that Texas by itself would be more likely to declare independence or join the United

States. This fear was amplified by the Texan’s desire and push for the repeal of the eleventh article of the Law of April 6, the law that banned emigration from the United States. Mexican official’s fears of rebellion in Texas were captured in Austin’s letter to Ramón Músquiz when he was discussing why Texas supported Santa Anna. In that same letter, Austin defended Texas

42 Ramón as a governor supported the Texans lobbying in their favor on issues such as slavery. 43 Gregg Cantrell, Stephen F. Austin, 258; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Ramon Musquiz,” July 28, 1832, DAP. 43

against rumors about them wishing to declare independence. Austin spoke out and stated they only wished to form their own state within the Mexican Federation and that without it, they expect that there would be no progress or peace in Texas. Austin’s viewpoints on Texas were further advanced by Texan citizens as the Ayuntamiento of San Felipe de Austin published a call for a convention.44

The convention of 1832 was called for the purpose of addressing the Texan grievances to the Mexican Government. The call for a convention came out of San Felipe de Austin on August

22, 1832, calling together five delegates from each town, precinct, and Civil District of Texas.

The convention focused on Texas’s two main grievances against Mexico, the Law of April 6 and the question of statehood. Austin was elected as president of the convention instead of the more aggressive William Wharton, displaying that while Texas did want its grievances addressed, they were willing to take a calmer approach. The first grievance addressed by the convention was written by William Wharton addressing the federal Congress of Mexico. Wharton began by addressing the damage to relations the Law of April 6 had caused and argued that a reexamination of the Texans’ relation through the first colonization law to the present would show how Texans were being mistreated. Wharton lamented the law and how mortifying it was for the settlers to have a law passed on suspicion that they were rebels. It was also disheartening for them to have traveled from the United States and no longer be able to have friends or family join them in Texas. Wharton closed his address by pointing out that the law had also affected the prospects of Texas’s future and resulted in a loss of revenue for the National Revenue of Mexico.

Wharton focused heavily on repealing the Law of April 6 and how it would benefit Texas and

44 Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Wily Martin,” May 30, 1831, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Ramon Musquiz,” July 28, 1832, DAP. 44

Mexico as a whole. William McFarland was selected to head the committee that focused on the second grievance, Texan statehood. He started by stating that separation would be for the region’s happiness and prosperity and would produce good results for the Mexican Republic. He centered his argument around the issues that came from the connection of Texas and Coahuila.

The distance between the two states’ population centers resulted in the Texan rights and desires not being adequately protected, and administration was made difficult due to the vast natural barrier between them. McFarland ended by stating, that for these reasons, the people of Texas present assurance of their devotion to the Constitution and to the Mexican Republic and petition that Texas be made an equal state within the Mexican Union. Before the petition from the convention reached the Mexican Government, the Governor of Texas and Coahuila Ramón

Músquiz declared the convention illegal and withdrew the petition. The Texans immediately filed a new petition along the proper legal channels, and it was brought before the Mexican

Congress. The petition allowed Austin to argue further on the idea of Texan statehood as well as defended Texas from accusations that they wished to declare independence.45

Austin had spent a significant amount of time defending Texas from the accusations that they planned to declare independence from Mexico. Before the convention, Austin defended

Texas’s interests in a letter to Ramón Músquiz regarding the abuses Texas had faced and their desire to remain in the Republic. In the letter, he informs the Governor of his delay in appearing at the legislature meeting, he explained a colonel in the Nacogdoches municipality threatened to raise an army of Indians to attack and exterminate the settlers. Thankfully, the inhabitants from the municipalities banded together and drove the Colonel out of the town, where his troops

45 Gregg Cantrell, Stephen F. Austin, 262; Horatio Chriesman and John Austin, “To the People of Texas,” August 22, 1832, in The Laws of Texas, 1822-1897 Volume 1, Hans Peter Mareus Neilsen Gammel, (Austin, Texas: Gammel Book Company, 1898), 478, https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth5872/. 45

turned against him and arrested him. Despite the attempt of an army colonel to exterminate the settlers, Austin stated that the Texans were loyal to Mexico. Instead of actions being taken out of suspicion, they should instead focus on making Texas an equal state in the Mexican Union, thereby strengthening the nation as a whole. Following the convention, Austin wrote a letter to

General William Ashley in the United States, informing him of recent events in Texas, and indicating that Texans were united in their support for statehood, having grown from twenty families to thousands in the middle of a hostile region. He then stated that the only way Texas would ever be a part of the United States would be if every party in Mexico wished it. With the convention’s petition revoked, Austin responded to Ramón Músquiz, who was writing to the

Ayuntamiento that had put forward the petition legally. Austin stated that the convention for better or worse did accomplish some good things for Texas and the public was happy to know their grievances were being considered. Austin then expressed his fears that Texas would obtain nothing from the Mexican Congress and that the chances of a peaceful and stable government seemed unlikely. He ended by expressing his disdain that people cannot peacefully assemble to express their grievances to the government and feared conditions in Texas would get worse.

Austin worked diligently for Texas, combating the fear that Texan’s wanted independence and argued for the benefit of statehood while he feared it would all be for nothing.46

Austin worked tirelessly to repeal the law of April 6 while simultaneously working towards Texan statehood even as the Mexican Republic collapsed into civil war. At the start of

1832 Austin was confident that the Mexican Congress was going to make changes to the law of

April 6. As those hopes vanished and Santa Anna’s rebel army arrived in Texas, Texans were

46 Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Ramon Musquiz,” August 15, 1832, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to General William H Ashley,” October 10, 1832, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Ramon Musquiz,” November 15, 1832, DAP. 46

invigorated to join Santa Anna. Austin saw Santa Anna’s plan as the only route for the Mexican

Republic and liberalism. As the Texans supported Anna, they put forward their grievances in the form of the 1832 convention that would be delivered to the Mexican Congress. Austin argued that this was not rebellious, and Texas had no plans to leave the Republic and only desired stronger ties through statehood. As Austin had feared, nothing was done following the petition, and Texas remained locked under the law of April 6 and without statehood. This would lead to the Convention of 1833, where Austin and the Texans pushed harder for statehood, and Austin would be arrested for treason.

The Convention of 1833

In 1833, Mexico was a war-torn nation struggling to pull itself back together following its third civil war in five years that still divided the nation. Austin noted in his outline for addressing what would be the Convention of 1833 that the state of Mexico was disorganized, and the

Texans wondered if any legitimate government existed. Santa Anna’s rebellion had succeeded in removing President Bustamante and his cabinet by December of 1832, and elections would be held in January of 1833 to elect a new president. Santa Anna would win decisively and took office in April, with an interim president holding office in between December and April. As

Mexico formed a new government, the petition of 1832, after being properly proposed by the

Ayuntamiento of San Antonio, would end up before the Mexican Congress. To the dismay of the

Texans, it would not be acted on. However, Santa Anna’s election gave new hope to the Texans as Santa Anna had expressed a friendly and supportive attitude towards the Texans and his success emboldened them not to wait for the government to change its mind and called for a

second convention. The Convention of 1833 would consume the year for Austin as he attended the convention speaking before it and then was asked to take the petition to Mexico.47

The Convention of 1833 was similar and yet showed a dramatic shift from the

Convention of 1832. The convention called together fifty-six representatives, with one-third of them serving in the first convention. The new representatives were more disgruntled and did not share Austin’s more restrained opinions on actions that should be taken. One such member was a new arrival to Mexico, having arrived December of 1832, Sam Houston. After beating a fellow colleague in the United States House of Representatives with a cane, he was placed on trial in the

House and assessed a fine for his actions. Following the incident, he was persuaded by William

Wharton to emigrate to Texas. With the arrival of more discontent members, the convention decided not to elect Austin to lead again, instead choosing Wharton and showing this convention was in favor of an immediate change. One advantage the Convention of 1833 had was the inclusion of the predominantly Tejano region of San Antonio, which agreed to send a delegation.

In the first convention, the Tejanos refused to participate as they saw the convention as illegal even though they supported the issues. Austin would address a convention more primed for change and would present his reasoning for statehood.48

Even without being the President, Austin played a crucial role in the convention as the first speaker. He was chosen to speak by the Committee of Safety and Correspondence, which had called for the convention and chose Austin to address them on their behalf. In his outline of

47 Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Committee at Convention,” Date unknown, DAP; Gregg Cantrell, Stephen F. Austin: Empresario of Texas, 265. 48 Lewis W. Newton and Herbert P. Gambrell, A Social and Political History of Texas, (Dallas, Texas: Turner Company, 1935). William Davis, Lone Star Rising, 96; The complexity of the Tejanos to the story of Texas is explored in great detail by Andrés Reséndez, Changing National Identities at the Frontier: Texas and New Mexico, 1800-1850, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); and Raúl A. Ramos, Beyond the Alamo: Forging Mexican Ethnicity in San Antonio, 1821-1861, (Chapel Hill: North Carolina Press, 2008). 48

his address to the convention, he laid out five main points. He would address the current political state of Mexico, including the success of Santa Anna. Austin also noted he would speak on

Texas’s situations and the need for adequate government, how the government of Coahuila was unable to do so due to distance, and the necessity of state government to protect the rights of natives and the people of Texas. He would end his address by stating the need for Texan statehood under the Law of May 7, 1824, and how it should be done following the strict conformity to the Constitution. Austin would begin his address by thanking the delegates for the committee and stating his purpose was not to influence the course of the convention or limit what they would do but instead to explain why the committee felt it necessary to call the delegates together. He remarked on the Texans’ desire to do their duty faithfully as proof by the

Convention of 1832, where they made a respectful and humble petition on the issues that afflicted the country. Austin’s keynote in his address comes as he discusses the Law of May 7,

1824, that stated, “Coahuila and Texas shall also form another state, but so soon as the latter is in a situation to figure as a separate state, it shall inform congress thereof for its resolution.” With this, Austin argued the law meant that Texans were to inform Congress of the situation and apply for admission into the Union as its own state. The law would be a crucial argument for the

Texans as they planned to petition the government for statehood; the convention created the beginnings of its own state constitution to have ready for when statehood was granted. In the preamble of the Constitution, they state that following the Law of May 7th, 1824, they ordain the

Constitution and agree to form themselves into the State of Texas, a free and independent state of

Mexico. With the convention having declared for statehood and creating a constitution, Austin

prepared to take the case before the Mexican Congress, knowing Texas needed statehood whether the Mexican Congress would approve it or not.49

Having been chosen to deliver the convention results, Austin prepared for the one-month travel to Mexico City with the purpose of Texan statehood no matter what. While informing his brother-in-law of his plans, he noted that he had heard rumors of Congress’s uneasiness to the fact he would insist that the Texan Constitution not be approved by the other states. He also aimed to get the law of April 6 fully repealed and a declaration from Congress that the Texans would be allowed to convene legally and craft their own Constitution. While he felt confident he could get these concessions from Congress, if they disapproved, he would argue for Texas to create its own Constitution and declare statehood without their approval. Following the convention, he sent a letter to his cousin to express his feelings about the convention, statehood, and to warn him of rumors of troops coming to Texas. He started the letter by expressing his support for the convention results stating he saw no reason why it should be rejected but did fear that its rejection would lead to war. He also discussed why he believed that they should obtain sanction for statehood, if however, they were rejected he advised organizing under the claim of the Law of May 7 and asserting statehood. The rumors of troops coming to Texas he found to be accurate but that they came with no ill will towards the Texans and were merely a deterrent against any future revolutions in Mexico. However, Austin warned that if they attempted to govern Texas in a military occupation, the country should unite and drive them from Texas. He ended the letter hoping that war will would be avoided, but if it erupted, he would fight as a soldier of Texas and stand with his settlers till the end. He would mention the idea of Texas

49 Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Committee at Convention,” Date unknown, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Conventional Committee,” Unknown (Prior to 04-01-1833), DAP; Texas Law, “Constitution or Form of Government of the State of Texas (1833),” Tarlton Law Library, Jamail Center for Legal Research, https://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/c.php?g=819103&p=5845633 50

declaring statehood without approval once more while in Mexico City in a letter to his brother- in-law. Here he referred to another letter sent to San Felipe’s committee that he feels strongly that his mission will be a success. Even with the high hope of success, he warned that if rejected,

Texas must go forward with statehood as it would be the only way to save the state from anarchy and ruin. While arguing for Texan statehood, Austin would once again be faced with the

Mexican Governments fear of Texan independence.50

Austin dedicated himself to stating that Texan’s did not want separation from Mexico they simply wished to be their own state in the Union. Following the Convention of 1833, Austin wrote to his sister to keep her updated on Texas’s events. He discussed the convention and the role he would play delivering the results to Mexico. He professed confidence that it would be accepted, however if it failed to be accepted, it would be a significant error by Mexico. Austin stated that there is opposition in Texas to any suggestion of leaving Mexico; arguing that the people would never agree to leave. However, he feared if they did not get a state government, something must happen as something is better than the status quo. Austin aimed to achieve the

Texan desire that something had to be done, while arguing that what they wished to be was a

Mexican state, not independent. While on his mission to Mexico City, Austin worked to lobby the influential men of the Mexican Government. A letter to Carlos Garcia, the Minister of

Relations, laid out a list of reasons why Texas should be a state in the Mexican Federation. After laying down seven bases for statehood, he argued that the Texans wanted to cement their Union with the Mexican Federation and do their duty as citizens. Austin reaffirmed that no individual in

Texas thought it was a greater misfortune than for Texas to be separated from Mexico. Austin

50 Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to James F Perry,” April 22, 1833, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Henry Austin,” April 19, 1833, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to James F Perry,” July 30, 1833, DAP. 51

showed that Texans were dissatisfied with their situation but held no desire to leave the Mexican

Federation; instead, they wished to be admitted as a state to govern themselves better.51

The Convention of 1833 saw Austin take up the argument of statehood the loudest, proclaiming it before the convention and then arguing for it as he took the results to Mexico City.

The convention exhibited that Texans held no desire for separation from Mexico; they simply sought self-governance due to the difficulty of being governed by their sister state. Austin’s speech showed the argument and logic that the Texans would apply for their claim to statehood.

They chose Austin as the best representative for the Texan people and the one they saw as most capable of accomplishing their desired results and Austin dedicated himself to the idea of statehood. If rejected, Austin advocated they should establish a state without permission from the

Mexican Government, while treasonous, it showed Texan’s resolve that their situation must change. Even though Texan’s desired change, Austin argued that not a single one of them desired separation from Mexico. Such an act would not be in Texas’s interest even as rumors persisted that it was their goal. Austin’s dedication to statehood without permission would lead to his arrest and charges of treason.

Austin’s Arrest

Austin’s time in Mexico would be one of hardship as he faced isolation from those he knew, the horrors of disease, and the lack of interest by the Mexican Congress for Texan statehood. Austin had received virtually no news from Texas while in Mexico, receiving only one letter from his brother-in-law over the months until his arrest. The letter he received

51 Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Mary Austin Holley,” April 20, 1833, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Carlos Garcia, Minister of Relations,” August 1, 1833, DAP. 52

informed him that his letters from July 30, September 5 and September 11 had only just arrived.

The slow pace of the mail and the lack of letters from Texas depressed Austin, in his July 30th letter he showed his desperation for news, “Why do you not write me? I expected to hare recd, letters here— none from anyone—-! am uneasy very much so indeed—I heard a bad account about overflow and cholera but hope it is incorrect— I had a wretched trip.” The cholera epidemic had slowed the Mexican Congress from taking action on Texas’s proposals, they adjourned in early August 1833 without taking any actions. While Austin was optimistic about the support for the repeal of the Law of April 6, suspension on custom duties, and statehood.

Austin believed statehood would take longer, since it could require each state ratifying the request, but he initially felt it would be granted. Austin’s length of time in the capital with an epidemic and the lack of contact led to a fateful letter that led to his arrest. Upon his arrest,

Austin alerted those back in Texas to give orders before his imprisonment began and as he was imprisoned, those that supported him worked diligently to see him released.52

The letter that resulted in Austin’s arrest was written out frustration and encouraged the

Texan ayuntamientos to declare Texas an independent state without permission from the Federal

Government, “In this state of things, I recommend that all the Ayuntamtos of Texas be put into communication without delay in order to organize a local government for Texas in the state of the Mexican federation.” Upon receiving the letter from Austin, the Ayuntamiento of San

Antonio wrote back to Austin expressing surprise and regret at his letter’s content and that they would refuse to do so without legal and peaceful measures. In addition to sending the letter to

Austin, he forwarded Austin’s letter to the state government in Monclova, which caused great

52 James F. Perry, “James F Perry to Stephen F Austin,” October 26, 1833, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to James F Perry,” July 30, 1833, DAP; Gregg Cantrell, Stephen F. Austin, 270. 53

unrest among the state government. The acting Governor Vidaurri issued confidential orders for

Austin’s arrest, orders that the Secretary of War would repeat after the news was passed to the

Federal Government. The man who arrested Austin, General Lemus, was conflicted since his orders were to hand Austin over to the state government but also had orders from the capital to take Austin back to Mexico City. General Lemus liked Austin, he initially refused to transport him until he had further orders from Mexico City. The slow pace of mail delayed the response from the Secretary of War who stated that Austin should be held in isolation, not permitted to contact anyone, and be brought to Mexico City. General Lemus obeyed the order, and under a seven-man escort, Austin was delivered to the prison where he would be isolated for three months. During his time with General Lemus prior to his isolation, Austin was able to send multiple letters back to Texas to inform friends that he was under arrest and urged Texans to remain calm.53

Austin’s letters over the following weeks focused on informing his friends and family of his arrest, what he thought he was arrested for, defending his actions, and urging peace in Texas and harmony between the Anglo-Texans and the Native Mexican population. In the first letter he sent when arrested, Austin assumed he had been arrested for his letter on October 2. He noted there was no reason for alarm, as he felt he could not be charged with anything but his hard work for Texas, “that I have labored arduously, faithfully, and perhaps at particular moments, pationately, and with more impatience and irritation than I ought to have shewn, to have Texas made State of the Mexican Confederation separate from Coahuila.” A day later in his second letter to Don Rafael Llanos, he stated his arrest came on the minister of war’s order, and

53 Stephen F. Austin, “Austin to Ayuntamiento of Bexar,” October 2, 1833, in The Austin Papers, ed. Eugene C. Barker, Translated by Elisa Suarez, 1023, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x004916639&view=1up&seq=1023; Ayuntamiento of Bexar, “Ayuntamiento of Bexar to Stephen F Austin,” October 31, 1833, DAP. Gregg Cantrell, Stephen F. Austin, 278-279. 54

he expected to depart for Mexico City soon. Here Austin defended his letter expressing his irritation and discouragement by the news that made him lose both hope and patience which led to the moment he wrote the letter to the Ayuntamientos. Austin showed little worry about his arrest, assuming that he would be cleared and stated that the only charge he would face was his support for Texas, as noted in letters to his brother-in-law and his friend George Fisher. He told his brother-in-law and sister, to have no uneasiness as he felt the arrest would do him no more harm than to delay him and increase his expenses. He informed Fisher of the arrest and indicated that he can only be accused of his labors and pure intention to make Texas useful through population and agriculture and to be a Mexican Republic state. In his last letter to the Powell brothers before he transferred to Mexico City, he asked them not to blame the state government for accusations against him because of what was said in his letters. He understood that the

Mexican Government had no choice but to order him back to face the accusations. Over the few days Austin wrote several letters on why he was arrested and began to lay out his defense, he pointed to only thing he could be accused of doing was laboring for Texas’s good. While he prepared to be taken to Mexico City to face these charges, he laid out a course of action for

Texas to follow while he was imprisoned that he hoped they would follow.54

Austin was concerned that Texans would cause issues with the native Mexican population of Texas or take extralegal actions that would anger the Mexican Government, he aimed to prevent such actions. His advice came in two different forms, the first arguing for harmony with the Mexican population of Texas, whom Austin knew were crucial to statehood.

The second piece of advice was not to spread unrest about his arrest and cause harm. The advice

54 Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Sameul M Williams,” January 13, 1834, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Rafael Llanos,” January 14, 1834, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to James F Perry,” January 14, 1834, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to George Fisher,” January 15, 1834, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Peter and Joseph Powell,” January 22, 1834, DAP. 55

on working with the Mexican population was discussed in letters to Williams and the Powell brothers. To Williams, he stated that if his advice held any weight in Texas, he would advise harmony with native Mexican population at Bexar and Goliad and any petition for statehood would likely fail if the Anglos and Mexican populations did not work together. To the Powell brothers, he gave similar advice stating that he requested them to inform the Texans that they should work fully with the Mexican population. While advising working with the Mexican population, he also advised peace and calm among the Texans. To the Powell brothers he expressed his hope there would be no unrest about his arrest and requested people to remain calm. To his brother-in-law, he made a similar request stating that unrest would do more harm than good for Texas but did argue that if he was treated unjustly that he supported unrest. Even as he was taken to prison for sedition, he urged Texans to give no excuse for those claims to hold any ground and work with the Mexicans towards statehood.55

No court wanted the responsibility of charging Austin, so he remained in confinement, but his supporters working diligently to acquire his release. Austin’s arrest removed him from contact with leaders in Texas, he believed this would be a short delay, however that evaporate quickly as he would spend the next three months in solitary confinement. When Austin was finally freed from solitary confinement and allowed to see visitors and send letters, his first letter was to his brother-in-law, informing him of the condition of his imprisonment, recounting his experience, and even though he was kept in solitude, he had not been mistreated. Austin was unsure about his release but did understand that any reports of demonstration in Texas would affect how difficult his release would be. His brother-in-law replied quickly, expressing concern

55 Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Sameul M Williams,” January 13, 1834, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Peter and Joseph Powell,” January 22, 1834, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to James F Perry,” January 14, 1834, DAP. 56

not for him being charged but for his health and condition. His brother-in-law informed him that his instructions had been followed and recounted the condition of family and friends. At the end of his letter, he informed Austin that the Ayuntamiento of the Jurisdiction had sent a petition on his behalf to the Government asking for his release and stated that he had done nothing wrong, but only what he was instructed to do. The Ayuntamientos would be the most vigorous defenders of Austin, even though his letter to the Ayuntamientos of Texas got him arrested.56

This particular Ayuntamiento would not be the only one to take action on behalf of

Austin; a month later, a friend of Austin’s informed his brother-in-law of a meeting of several

Ayuntamientos which Austin had requested in order to plan representation to the Government.

The Ayuntamientos each began putting together memorials noted by the Ayuntamiento of

Matagorda when discussing the sending of their memorial, “the feeling which prompts our memorial we are convinced has a simultaneous existence with the memorials of the Ayuntamientos of other municipalities upon the same subject.” Ayuntamiento of Brazoria would send a memorial to Congress, which spoke strongly on Austin’s character and his devotion to the laws of Mexico. While stating they did not know what charges Austin would face, they argued that if it were on suspicions of any idea of independence for Texas, they would vehemently refute them. They continued to argue that the people of Texas have never considered the idea of independence, and Austin would be the last man whom any could argue had such plans. They concluded with a prayer for Austin’s release, his return to Texas, and their proclamation to assure the Government that any chance to display their willingness to spend blood or money to support the Mexican Constitution, they would. The Ayuntamientos were not

56 Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to James F Perry,” May 10, 1834, DAP; James F. Perry, “James F Perry to Stephen F Austin,” May 13, 1834, DAP. 57

the only ones to petition for Austin, as his friend H. Meigs, informed Austin in two letters that he had contacted his government57 and influenced the Secretary of State to send instructions to the diplomatic representative in Mexico to support Austin’s character. Austin’s friend Thomas

McKinney also informed his brother-in-law that he had sent every letter possible to anyone who could provide influence towards Austin’s release. Austin had not been forgotten in Texas as the various Ayuntamientos sent petitions for his release, in addition the United States Government spoke in favor of his character, while his friends and family wrote letters to anyone who could offer assistance to Austin.58

Austin’s arrest came from his frustration at the pace which statehood was proceeding and his lack of letters from home. Austin defended the letter as one of poor judgment and written out of frustration but venomously argued against any charge that he sought to break Texas from

Mexico. As Austin was being arrested, he sought to do what was best for Texan statehood, advising calm and for the people to work with the Mexican population. While Austin had felt he was abandoned in Mexico City with the lack of letters he had received, he was not without those who cared for him, and his arrest spurred a wave of support as petitions were sent to argue for his release. Even a man whom he had disagreements with and had offended, Wharton, signed the petition from the Ayuntamiento of Brazoria. In May, Austin’s prison sentence was far from being resolved, but he was once again connected to the Texans and communicated back advice and news on what was happening in the Mexican Congress. This was important as in the first letter to his brother-in-law Austin warned that the political situation was moving towards another

57 He resided in the United States. 58 J.H. Bell, “J H Bell to James F Perry,” July 15, 1834, DAP; Thomas M. Duke, “Ayuntamiento of Matagorda to Grayson and Jack,” July 28, 1834, DAP; Alcalde, Edwin Waller, William H. Wharton, 1st Regidor, “Ayuntamiento of Brazoria to Congress,” July 31, 1834, DAP; H. Meigs, “H. Meigs to Stephen F Austin,” May 30, 1834, DAP; H. Meigs, “H. Meigs to Stephen F Austin,” September 27, 1834, DAP; Thomas F. McKinney, “Thomas F McKinney to James F Perry,” July 17, 1834, DAP. 58

Civil War. Austin was correct, as, in under a year, Mexico would once again erupt into Civil War with Austin in the perfect place to supply information back to Texas.59

Conclusion

Examining the events of the Convention of 1832, the Convention of 1833, and Austin’s arrest shows that Texas was not on a path towards rebellion or declaring their independence but instead wished to see the law revoked and more administrative power for their own state. The actions of the Texans never aimed them towards rebellion or independence. Their declaration to support Santa Anna during the Civil War, as Austin argued, was to support a more liberal government that would take actions favored by the Texans. While the Convention of 1832 would be declared illegal, and its results would be nullified, it was not out of rebellious ideas. Texans believed a convention was the best method to put together their grievances and sent them to the

Government. The Convention of 1833 would also be considered illegal by some, but for Texans, the argument for statehood was valid, and they would choose Austin to deliver their petition to the Mexican Government. While in Mexico City, Austin worked diligently to achieve the goals he was sent to accomplish, and his letter, while declared sedition and was believed to break

Texas from the Mexican Republic, Austin argued it was only over statehood within the Republic.

Even with his arrest it did not lead to an uprising or rebellion; instead, the people of Texas petitioned through their Ayuntamientos for his release, proclaiming their allegiance to the

Republic and their affirmation that they would spend blood and money towards the Republic.

Statehood held importance to the Texans as they felt restricted by their connection to their neighbor state, who could not effectively administrate them. The Mexican Congress feared

59 Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to James F Perry,” May 10, 1834, DAP. 59

statehood was a step towards or a cover for removing Texas from Mexico, and Austin’s letter would increase this fear. While they debated Texan’s statehood, the Mexican Government would drastically shift towards what Austin had noted to his brother-in-law, Civil War. Civil War once again brought challenges to the Texan people and the Mexican fear of succession by Texas;

Austin would see Mexico face another Civil War while still in Mexico City before returning to lead Texas through the crisis of two wars, a Civil War, then a War for Independence.

Two Wars: Austin Guides the Texans from Rebellion to Independence

While on a mission to the United States for the Texan government in December of 1835,

Stephen Austin made his first stop in New Orleans. After spending a few days there, he wrote a letter to Samuel Houston back in Texas with a stunning reversal of his opinion on independence, in which he declared that his opinion had changed due to the information before him. The federal rebellion within Mexico no longer stood in favor of Texas; instead, they now united against the

Texans with the rest of Mexico. Austin originally stood against Texas declaring independence from Mexico and instead advocated for Texas to join the other rebellions within Mexico and declare war against Mexico’s dictator, Santa Anna. His reversal constitutes a turning point in

Texas as what started as a Revolution became a War for Independence. The importance of breaking the Revolution into two wars is a shift from how other historians have written about the

Texan Revolution.60

Texas historians have long combined the Revolution and the War for Independence into one war, The Texas Revolution. The older works of Fehrenbach and Yoakum are more focused on the military aspect of the Revolution. Fehrenbach focused more on the battles of the

Revolution then on the political aspect. When he does discuss the Convention of 1836, which he does only briefly, he only states that Texas declared independence on March 2, 1836. Yoakum focuses extensively on the battle of the Alamo but does give the political aspects of the

Revolution more thought then Fehrenbach. He states that prior to the second of March 1836

“every officer was bound by his oath and both officers and citizens by allegiance, to the Mexican federal constitution of 1824.” While both Fehrenbach and Yoakum focus more on the military

60 Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Sam Houston,” January 7, 1836, DAP. 61

side of the Revolution current historians expand outside of the military to focus on different cultural events.61

Current historians focus on events outside of the military engagements such as slavery, racial issues, and ethnic violence. Torget focused on how the question of slavery influenced the

Revolution. In the first convention he noted on how the meeting focused on cotton as a way to raise money stating that it was tabled because they had not yet declared independence. Anderson focused on the relations of the Native Americans and the Texans during the Revolution. He stated that the Convention of 1836 would not have met and declared independence if a war with the Northern Native tribes had erupted. Torget’s work showed the idea that by the Convention of

1835 independence was inevitable, while Anderson argues that it was not possible for independence to occur if war had broken out with the Native Americans. While both focused on different areas, they fall short of recognizing the importance of splitting the Revolution from the

War for Independence.62

By making the Texas Revolution and the War for Independence two separate wars it signifies the importance of understanding that the war for independence was not an inevitable event. Austin, while imprisoned in Mexico, urged the Texans not to join the widespread revolution that had broken out among the Mexican States. The uprising was a direct result of changes made by Santa Anna to centralize the government. A further display that independence was not inevitable was seen upon his release and return to Texas, in which he called for the

Convention of 1835 to decide if Texans would attempt to argue for their rights under the constitution of 1824, either peacefully or if they would decide to take up arms and join the

61 T.R. Fehrenbach, Lone Star, 222; Henderson K. Yoakum, History of Texas, 192. 62 Andrew J. Torget, Seeds of Empire, 166; Gary Clayton Anderson, The Conquest of Texas, 103. 62

Revolution. The shift towards independence did not occur until the Convention of 1836, which unanimously declared independence, a decision that is presented through Austin’s letters from the United States leading up to the convention. By examining the events of Austin’s imprisonment, his call for the Convention of 1835 and his time in the United States demonstrates that until the decision at the Convention of 1836, Texans was not inevitably going to declare independence. The difference between the decisions at the Convention of 1835 and 1836 displays that the Texan Revolution cannot be combined with the Declaration of Independence but should be understood as two separate events that held drastically different potentials for the region of Texas.

Imprisonment During a Rebellion

Austin’s imprisonment in Mexico City allowed for him to be close to the Congress and pass back important information to keep Texas from descending into the Civil War that began brewing in Mexico. Importantly as well he was able to witness the return of Santa Anna to power and the rise of his conservative government. Austin’s release was due in part to the Mexican government’s changing nature, as then-President Santa Anna had seized power back from his

Vice President and dissolved the Congress to create a new one. The creation of a new Congress around a coalition of military and clerical representatives shifted the Mexican government’s stance away from the position of Vice President Gómez Farías, who had implemented many liberal reforms. One reform was the Anti-Clerical act that would deprive the Clergy of their privileged positions. He had passed these reforms feeling that he had the support of both the liberal government and Santa Anna. Instead, though, Santa Anna moved in to depose him, using him to gain the favor of the conservative party. Santa Anna’s return to a conservative government and the passage of laws to centralize the country that placed him in a stronger 63

position as the leader, igniting rebellion across the states. The threat of another Civil War prompted Austin to inform people back in Texas on the course of action they should take.63

Austin, witnessing the start of another Civil War in Mexico urged that the Texans should not engage with the rebellion on either side. The government was now acting favorably towards

Texas, and Santa Anna had expressed friendliness towards Texas and its people. Austin aimed to keep the people of Texas from engaging in the Rebellion, knowing that some people within

Texas would attempt to use it for their own gain and try to declare independence. By refusing to take a side, Austin urged Texans to remain loyal as he felt that Santa Anna, who professed a friendliness and openness towards the Texans, would make a strong ally and leader. While still being imprisoned in Mexico, Austin argued for peace as he sees the new government as beneficial to Texans, since the government took actions to support them. While the government supported the Texans, they took other actions that incited rebellions and Santa Anna committed a massacre to prevent an uprising in a rebellious state.

As rebellion brewed yet again for Mexico Austin stood at the center of it all urging Texas to not participate. Following a hopeful letter, which he sent to Texas, Austin informed his friends that he was released from prison on bond and hoped to be cleared of all charges and allowed to return home. At this time, Santa Anna had dissolved the Congress and suppressed rebellions throughout Mexico when he removed his Vice President. This rebellion and forced change in government had been the third one in the last six years; Austin noted that while there was a sense that political difficulties may arise with the new government, there was a hope that peace due to

63 Wilfrid Hardy Callcott, Santa Anna: The story of an Enigma Who Once Was Mexico, (Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1936), 114. Oakah L. Jones, JR., Santa Anna, (New York: Twayne Publisher Inc., 1968), 57-58,60. Oakah speculates in his book that the reason Anna never stays President and always gets a subordinate named President is so he can control the government without being personally responsible for actions they take as he is removed from them. 64

exhaustion would hold. He further would urge that Texas remain peaceful and not engage in any politics; instead, he urged a focus on the economy, arguing that it would ensure Texas’s prosperity.64 Austin also recommitted to his mission to discuss Texan statehood but not immediately stating it had been brought to the attention of the principal men of the Mexican

Congress. His first focus was to get his charges of sedition and treason against Mexico dropped.

To accomplish this, he relied heavily upon the argument that he was not advocating a free and independent Texas but one that had its own local government, free from its sister state Coahuila.

While he would continue to advocate for statehood when it was advantageous, he had succeeded in the other primary goal, to revoke the Law of April 6.65

The following months would see Austin still in Mexico City despite his hope for an expedient trial and release the bill that would clear him of charges had not been passed. While in

Mexico City, Austin relayed news on Congress’s position towards Texas back home. The new

Congress that Santa Anna had formed took a positive and friendly attitude towards the Texans, passing various bills aimed at improving Texas. Austin noted there is real progress towards the idea of Texas statehood. In a letter to his brother-in-law, he cautioned that statehood would not happen immediately, but that Texas’s needs had Congress’s attention. The Congress passed a bill to improve the mail routes and roads within Texas as well as exceptions on duties for cotton and other articles. In another letter back to his brother-in-law a few days later confirmed an even friendlier attitude, stating that the idea of Texas as a territory was dead, and the idea of statehood gains favor each day. Austin saw a positive shift towards Texas by the Mexican Congress,

64 While not stating that he is referring to Conventions such as the ones in 1833 and 1834, His focus further into the letter is on the question of statehood that had been a crucial point of the Conventions. 65 Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to Samuel M. Williams,” December 31, 1834, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to Thomas F. McKinney,” December 2, 1834, DAP. 65

something which had never taken place before and urged, as always, a silent and conciliatory course.66

Austin’s imprisonment in Mexico City, provided him access to news of what was going on promptly and placed him in contact with the newly formed Congress and Santa Anna.

Therefore, Austin urged Texas to be patient and allow this conciliatory attitude towards Texas to take its course. Austin saw Texas’s loyalty as rewarded, since his case for sedition and treason was soon withdrawn with the passage of the Amnesty Law and the Congress moved towards statehood for Texas. Austin continued to encourage for Texas to hold its position and allow the government to take its course, a position he would advocate for even harder with the breakout of rebellion, until the massacre in Zacatecas took place.

As Austin had feared rebellions erupted across Mexico following the takeover of Santa

Anna’s Conservative Government. Santa Anna’s Congress was filled with a coalition of military and clerical representatives that overwhelmingly supported Santa Anna and his goals. This support can be seen within the Constitutional Bases which made the state religion Catholic and promised to not tolerate the existence of any other. The new Congress aimed towards two actions; one, to make Santa Anna a dictator; and two, to centralize the states of Mexico under the one government. At the beginning Austin believed this would be helpful as he thought such powers would allow him to be freed sooner, but upon his return to Texas he would denounce the powers that were given to Santa Anna.67

66 Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to James F. Perry,” March 4, 1835, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to James F. Perry,” March 10, 1835, DAP. 67 Wilfrid Hardy Callcott, Santa Anna, 114; “Constitutional Bases Issued by The Constituent Congress,” Article 1, translation from original by google Translate, https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmuseodelasconstituciones.unam.mx%2F nuevaweb%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F02%2FBases-constitucionales-expedidas-por-el-congreso- constituyente-1835.pdf, original Spanish version located, http://museodelasconstituciones.unam.mx/nuevaweb/wp- 66

Austin witnessed the Conservative Government in Mexico begin to craft what would both drive the country to Civil War and empower Santa Anna to the level of dictator. While neither law would be passed until well after rebellions had broken out, the contents of the laws were known to the states of Mexico. The power given to Santa Anna came in the form of Siete Leyes

(The Seven Laws), which provided immense power to the executive office. The Congress gave the executive office the power to allow or block the passage of laws from the Congress, as well as not being able to be criminally accused while holding the position of President or for a year after. The position was also able to freely appoint the secretaries of office and remove them whenever he felt it necessary. While the Siete Leyes assigned the powers of a dictator to the

President the Constitutional Bases focused on removing the power of the states and bringing them under the Mexican Government. The 8th article was to change how territory would be divided and controlled within Mexico, in which the territories would be divided into

Departments based on population and locality, which would then become a constitutional law.

With the announcement of what would become the Constitutional Bases and the Siete Leyes, the states of Coahuila y Tejas, San Luis, Potosí, Querétaro, Durango, Guanajuato, Michoacán,

Yucatán, Jalisco, Nuevo León, Tamaulipas, and Zacatecas rose in rebellion. While the region of

Coahuila y Tejas would revolt against the centralists the Texans would not participate. The

Texans refusal to assist the governor of Coahuila played a key role in its surrender to Santa

Anna. This was to the relief to Austin who urged the people to resist taking action to support the state government, “Texas, as a matter of course, will take no part, whatever, even if it should be

content/uploads/2019/02/Bases-constitucionales-expedidas-por-el-congreso-constituyente-1835.pdf, checked and corrected from Spanish to English by Elisa Suarez. 67

called on by the State Govt to do so.” The events which occurred in Zacatecas played a key role in the surrender of Coahuila and for the reversal of Austin’s position towards Santa Anna.68

The events of Zacatecas would profoundly shape the conflict to come as Austin would state upon his return to Texas. While in Mexico however his only discussion on the topic is that he had a conversation with Santa Anna who informed him he was going to Zacatecas. Zacatecas held the finest militia of Mexico, which they held with immense pride.69 It rebelled foremost against Mexico because of the passage of a Constitutional Act on March 31, 1835, that removed all local militias in Mexico. The governor refused to disband the militia and rallied five thousand men to defend the state from an army of three thousand five hundred mustered and led by Santa

Anna. Santa Anna informed Congress, even as he was still not fully recovered in health, that he must lead the army for the sake of the nation and took command of the troops to meet the revolt.

One month after Zacatecas had rebelled, Santa Anna marched to the city and was met by

Governor Francisco Garcia and his forces just outside of Zacatecas. Garcia’s inexperience as a commander and lack of military tactics allowed for the smaller army of Santa Anna to defeat the

Zacatecas rebels within two hours. With the defeat of Garcia, the rebellion was crushed, Santa

Anna turned the city over to his troops, mass looting, destruction of property, and killing commenced. As a protest of the treatment was brought to Santa Anna, he claimed he had no jurisdiction and that another officer would have to handle the issue. With the massacre at

68 “Constitutional Laws of The Republic mexicana 1836,” Organization Of The Supreme Executive Power, Article 15 The prerogatives of the President of the Republic are I, II, III, IV, and VI, translation from original by google Translate, https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmuseodelasconstituciones.unam.mx%2F nuevaweb%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F02%2FLeyes-Constitucionales-de-la-Repu%25CC%2581blica- Mexicana-1836.pdf, original Spanish version located, http://museodelasconstituciones.unam.mx/nuevaweb/wp- content/uploads/2019/02/Leyes-Constitucionales-de-la-Repu%CC%81blica-Mexicana-1836.pdf, checked and corrected from Spanish to English by Elisa Suarez; Constitutional Bases Issued by The Constituent Congress,” Article 8; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to Samuel M. Williams,” April 1, 1835, DAP. 69 Its militia was known as the finest due to its use of British rifles. 68

Zacatecas several of the rebellion states fell back in line, due to a fear that such a fate would befall them. The massacre prompted some to call Santa Anna a hero, while other rebels and

Austin would use the massacre as a call for war.70

Austin would be appalled by the treatment of Zacatecas and would use it as a rallying point to stir the Texans to act when he returned to Texas. With his victory over the rebels complete, Santa Anna returned to Mexico City to be hailed a hero, though even as he was called the savior of the country, opposition newspapers openly attacked him, issuing calls, “Long live

Centralism, but death to Santa Anna.” In Texas, the President of the Coahuila and Texas

Congress addressed the two states future following the attack and demand for the removal of the militia. He stated that the militia was the defense of liberty and rights and that the attempt to remove them was a destruction of these rights and that Santa Anna should be dealing with the rebellions in the South not attacking Zacatecas who contributed to Mexico by curbing despotism and any abuse of power. With the rebellion suppressed and the destruction of Zacatecas, Austin was prompted, upon his return to Texas, to use the event as a reason for resisting Santa Anna throughout the war. Austin called the fact that Zacatecas was forced to submit to the law by military force, proof that reform in Mexico meant destruction. The massacre at Zacatecas showed Texas and Austin that while Santa Anna might have stated he was friendly towards

Texas and supported them, he was willing to destroy any who opposed actions taken by his

Congress.71

70 Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to Samuel M. Williams,” April 15, 1835, DAP; Wilfrid Hardy Callcott, Santa Anna, 115; Michael P. Costeloe, The Central Republic in Mexico, 1835-1846: Hombres De Bien in the Age of Santa Anna, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 51. 71 Oakah L. Jones, JR. Santa Anna, 62; J.P. Kimbell, Laws and decrees of the State of Coahuila and Texas: in Spanish and English : to which is added the constitution of said state : also the colonization law of the State of Tamaulipas, and naturalization law of the General Congress / by order of the Secretary of State, (Houston: Telegraph Power Press, 1839), 290; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F Austin to the people of Texas,” October 3, 1835, DAP. 69

Austin’s imprisonment in Mexico allowed him to be at the center of Mexican politics, thereby permitting him to hear and understand their actions towards Texas, which he promptly relayed back home. Austin preached loyalty, as the Mexican government took actions in favor of

Texas, and it seemed they would receive the statehood they desired. The change of the Congress towards centralization of power and the more dictatorial nature of Santa Anna’s power did not immediately worry Austin and with rebellions beginning to rise against the centralist state he still urged peace and to not participate as the Congress was still holding favor towards Texas. It was not till the massacre at Zacatecas did Austin and Texas seem to turn more against the government and even then, its turn was not towards independence, but towards the question of whether they should protest the government through peaceful actions or if they should join the other rebellions in armed conflict against Santa Anna.

War is our Only Resource

Austin would return to Texas after his release to do what Texas had been too divided to do, call together the Texans and put forward the best option for them. Austin returned from prison to a Texas divided between the war party, favored taking actions to prepare for war with

Mexico, and the peace party, aimed at constitutional means to remedy issues with Mexico. As both struggled to unite Texans behind one choice, the return of Austin was seen as a way to break the impasse. His return was welcomed by all as a chance to unite behind a decision, a letter from F.W. Johnson confirms how important his return to Texas was, “Your coming would always have been hailed by the people as the coming of a father, but your coming at this time is doubly dear to the people of all Texas.” The impasse that Austin was key to resolving between war and peace was how he handled the constitutional crises that had emerged from the actions of

Santa Anna. Austin focused on calling for a convention to establish the Texans position, thereby 70

establishing that they did not start this war, but the actions of Santa Anna and the Centralists caused the conflict. The Convention of 1835 reinforced these ideas establishing a rebellion for the protection of the Constitution of 1824 and not to declare any form of independence.72

The focus was kept on what should be done about Santa Anna and his actions. Austin would throw his weight behind the war party advocating that the best way to remain loyal to the

Constitution of 1824 was to fight for it. Austin advocated for the war party prior to the

Convention of 1835, focusing on rallying the people to the idea of fighting against Santa Anna.

Austin wrote addresses to the people and individuals while raising militias and forming committees of safety in the various regions. Texans were dedicated to defending their rights under the Constitution of 1824 as they readied to fight against Santa Anna and the Centralists.

The focus on the actions of Santa Anna and the inevitability that Texans must fight to preserve their rights was displayed in his letters to friends, family, to the Texans, and to the committees of safety.

Austin established his position that a convention must be convened so the people of

Texas could determine their own destiny. Austin was welcomed home from his imprisonment by his family and friends at a public dinner, here he was given his first opportunity to address

Texas’s future. He viewed it as his duty as a citizen of Texas to state his views on the matter and report what he learned in Mexico and his opinion on the discussion of war or peace. He argued that the destruction of the Federal Constitution was at hand and that soon Mexico would be

Centralist. While Austin wanted nothing more than peace and tranquility for Texas and its people, he argued that it is the right and duty of a Mexican citizen to express concern and voice

72 Lewis W. Newton and Herbert P. Gambrell, A Social and Political History of Texas, 147; F.W. Johnson, “F.W. Johnson to Stephen F. Austin,” September 5, 1835, DAP. 71

opinions when their rights are threatened. Austin stated his opinion on the actions that should be taken and called for a convention of the people to assemble as swiftly as possible, composed of men who represent the best of the people and would make a decision on the future of Texas.

Austin’s public address was the first step towards uniting the people of Texas behind the call for action regarding the crisis of the Constitution of 1824.73

Austin used his influence to convince the people of Texas that a convention of great men was the next step forward. Following his address to the people of Texas Austin returned to his settlement of San Felipe in the Jurisdiction of Austin, where he was elected chairmen of the regions committee and advocated further to cement a call for a convention. The committee promptly passed a resolution on the state of the Country, that was immediately published for the other jurisdictions of Texas. Of the five resolutions passed, four were on the agenda of the convention he called for with the only other one being a resolution declaring their support for the

Constitution of 1824. The importance of the resolutions was that the Jurisdiction of Austin supported the call for a convention setting the date of the 15th of October in San Felipe and that each jurisdiction of Texas should send five representatives. After these resolutions were published Austin wrote to his brother-in-law informing him that the Texans were in unity behind the call for a convention and that it seemed favorable that all jurisdictions would send representation. Austin saw the unity of Texas as a key step in deciding the course of the future.74

Austin saw great success in his call for a convention using his jurisdiction as a way to pass resolutions and urge other Texas jurisdictions to do the same. Calling for a convention however did not solve the issue with the two factions that split the political opinion of Texas.

73 Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to People of Texas,” September 8, 1835, DAP. 74 Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to Unknown,” September 13, 1835, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to James Perry,” September 14, 1835, DAP. 72

Austin’s next step is to declare his support for the war party and show that it is the only option.

To do this Austin dispatched letters to the people of Texas and committees of safety in other jurisdictions arguing for the inevitability of war and that the course of war was the only way to see Texas free of Santa Anna’s despotic rule.

Austin made it known that he favored the war parties’ position to fight Santa Anna in defense of the Constitution and aimed to show that his decision came from what he saw as practicality. In Austin’s eyes, war was now inevitable, and the choice for all Texans was being made whether they supported it or not. His reasoning behind that was the advance of a Mexican army lead by General Cos into Texas, who was to garrison the province against the wishes of the

Texans. After discussions with General Cos, where Cos demanded that all people who had fled his attack in Coahuila be handed over and Texas must submit fully to the Congress of Mexico.

Austin proclaimed that war is impossible to avoid and advised raising a volunteer army to defend

Texas. He stated that the fight between the war and peace parties was at an end as there were no more options but to fight. A few days later, Austin addressed a letter to the people of Texas; it was a long address going over Mexico’s history for the past few years. It touched on the Civil

War and the rise of Santa Anna. As an army occupied Texas, Austin pointed to the guarantees for Texas that were not being held up. Austin asked the people of Texas what they will do, “If he will submit, let him go to the military power and prostrate himself. If he will not submit, let him give his answer from the mouth of his rifle!” He ended this address with a call to all citizens to rally at Gonzales, where the people’s army was forming. Austin appealed directly to the people to act but also appealed to the committees formed around Texas, whom the people trusted.75

75 Lewis W. Newton and Herbert P. Gambrell, A Social and Political History of Texas, 150; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to P.W. Grayson,” September 19, 1835, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to People of Texas,” October 3, 1835, DAP. 73

Using his influence Austin urged the committees around Texas to use their influence in their region to unite Texas together. Austin addressed two of the committees in letters; the first was to the Columbia Committee.76 Here Austin laid out a case that reconciliation was a hopeless course, he relayed information that General Cos planned to attack the colonists, thereby pitting them against each other, in order to divide them and destroy the settlements they deemed foreign.

To counter this, Austin urged the committee to organize a militia immediately if it had not already. The committee was to advise the people of Texas to prepare for war until some form of authority for all of Texas could be put together. Austin later sent a letter to the Committee of

Harrisburg.77 In this letter, Austin informed the committee that the people appeared to rise up against Santa Anna and the Texas militia was advancing against General Cos. He saw this as proof that the Texan people had declared war. Austin believed that no other military force would come to Texas as they are busy fighting the other Federalist rebellions within Mexico. Austin relied on the committees and other influential men in Texas to use their influence in their jurisdictions to help the war effort.78

Austin sent numerous letters and calls to the rest of Texas and other committees and influential men answered them, echoing their response throughout their own jurisdictions or throughout Texas. In Columbia on September 20, 1835, the chairman of the Columbian

Committee of Safety and later the chairman of the Convention of 1835, Branch Archer, wrote an address to the public. The first line repeated Austin’s call that, “War is our only resource, WAR is upon us.” Branch went on to call for the people of Columbia to back the call for war, calling

76 The Columbia Committee represents the region of Matagorda which is south of what is present day Houston and is on the coast. 77 Harrisburg is a community in what is present day Houston. 78 Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to Columbia Committee,” September 21, 1835, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to Committee of Harrisburgh, October 4, 1835, DAP. 74

any who felt there was no danger a traitor to Texas. He then went on to discuss what General Cos had been doing to Texas and that all citizens should arm themselves and take to the field against

Cos. Two days later the Committee of Columbia passed a resolution declaring it would send delegates to the convention and then called for the raising and arming of four Volunteer

Companies. On the same day the Committee of San Augustine also sent a letter to the other committees and Austin. In the letter they stated that a gathering of their citizens had led them to send a delegation for the convention with all the necessary information that was requested of them. Equally important they stated they were aware of the importance of securing their relations with the various Native American tribes in their region and they would take all measures to ensure that friendship between them was secured. The last committee to respond to Austin’s call was on September 30th the Committee of Safety for Matagorda. Here they as well had gathered and unanimously passed the course of action recommended by Austin. They would move their volunteers to rendezvous with James Kerrs and would elect officials to attend the convention.

Austin’s call to the people was heard. The committees of safety throughout Texas choose to listen to his call and put together their militias and swore to send delegations to the convention.

The various militias gathered under the experienced men of Texas with one being led by Austin to remove General Cos from Texas.79

Austin argued for the inevitability of war, as Mexico’s choice to send an army to garrison

Texas had left no room for peace talks and that the only choice left to the Texan people was war.

Austin argued that the Texans had tried to remain loyal to the Congress. He stated that they had negotiated and followed Congress’s laws, but they should not be afraid to fight for their rights

79 B.T. Archer, “Archer to Public,” in Papers of the Texas Revolution, ed. John H. Jenkins (Austin; Presidial Press, 1973), 467; Columbia Meeting, Ibid, 478; Sublett et al to Committee, Ibid, 480; Ira Ingram Secy. Ibid, 511. 75

when challenged. His words were not the only in Texas as others rally to his call for a militia to be raised and the Constitution of 1824 to be upheld. The militia was summoned by Austin and was placed under his leadership. This would remove him as a candidate for the convention that would be held a week later. While Austin was unable to attend, he had lobbied hard on the path that Texas should take and left it in the hands of the other Texans to implement it.

The convention that met was not deciding between independence and staying but was to decide how Texas should fight for its rights under the Constitution of 1824. With Austin clashing with General Cos and simultaneously stating that peace was no longer an option, the idea of a peaceful resolution was gone. This allowed a small minority of the representatives to argue that independence was the best choice for Texas’s future. The convention finally convened on

November 3, 1835, in San Felipe de Austin. Austin himself was not one of the attending members as he led the militia against General Cos, but he had spent a significant amount of time lobbying for the convention to declare with the Federalists against Santa Anna. He also made recommendations for who should preside over the convention hoping that one of the peace party would lead. However, the convention selected a member of the war party, allowing the more militant representatives and therefore the few who wanted independence to have a say. The convention was still divided between the war and peace parties, with the other groups underrepresented. Those like Austin who were more pro-Mexico, his cousin and brother-in-law, did not attend as Texan’s did not vote them in as representatives. Of the ninety-eight members that were supposed to attend, only fifty-eight of them convened; some had stayed to defend their

homes while others stayed with their armies in the field to appease them. Those who did gather were tasked with deciding the next step for all of Texas.80

The convention was tasked with multiple duties; first and foremost was the decision on what to do about Santa Anna and if Texas should fight for the Constitution of 1824. The idea of independence was held by a few more militant members of the war party led by John A.

Wharton, who urged that Texas should declare immediate independence. When the vote came, he joined those voting against declaring for the Constitution, which would pass with a vote of thirty-three to fifteen. It was clear that independence was not on the minds of many of the delegates. The declaration published by the convention declared that they were taking up arms to defend the republican principles that were part of the Constitution of 1824. However, the wording would be bemoaned by Austin as they stated they were not bound to centralist Mexico, and they would only be joined to the Federalist system that had existed. This was not a declaration of independence but left the threat of such action if the Federalists did not overthrow the centralist system. The convention upheld its loyalty to Mexico, but only the Federalist

Mexico with the Constitutional rights promised to them.81

Austin’s return to Texas allowed for the Convention of 1835 to take place as he called together the men of Texas. Austin also rallied men prior to the convention to defend Texas as he argued that peace was no longer possible. The convention when it finally gathered was not about the argument for independence but whether fighting Mexico was the best path for Texas. While independence would be pushed for by a small minority, the vote showed that Texans did not

80 Gregg Cantrell, Stephen F. Austin, 323; Paul Lack, The Texas Revolutionary Experience: Political and Social History 1835-1836, (College Station: Texas A7M University Press, 1992), 44. 81 Lewis W. Newton and Herbert P. Gambrell, A Social and Political History of Texas, 159; Texas Law, “Declaration of the People of Texas (1835),” Tarlton Law Library, Jamail Center for Legal Research, https://tarltonapps.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/dpt1835; Paul Lack, The Texas Revolutionary Experience, 49. 77

support the ideas of independence. Those who had been in Texas held their promises of loyalty to Mexico, while new arrivals from the United States supported independence. They felt that uniting with the Federalists would allow Mexico to overthrow Santa Anna and the Centralist

Government, thereby enabling Texas to remain a part of Mexico. Independence would not be decided on until a year later, when the pressures from outside forces left the Texans with no choice. These pressures arrived from both Mexico and the United States, resulting in a second war, a Declaration for Independence.

The Second War

Texans loyally declared in favor of the Constitution, a move Austin approved and had pushed for. Almost immediately, however, a second convention was called for the next year in

1836 to return to the question of independence once again, as it gathered more support within

Texas slowly. The first region to declare in favor of independence was Nacogdoches, with

Brazoria’s citizens following a month later.82 By January, prominent men within Texas had joined the call for independence, led by Sam Houston and Stephen Austin who joined with

William Wharton and Branch Archer. Austin’s reversal to a full acceptance of independence was mirrored by the actions of the Convention of 1836, which would unanimously declare independence. The meeting would take place days before the fall of the Alamo83 that bought time for the convention to declare independence and create its own Constitution. The convention

82 Lewis W. Newton and Herbert P. Gambrell, A Social and Political History of Texas, 162. 83 The story of the Alamo is the battle most connected to the Texas Revolution even more then the important battle of San Jacinto which won the war and captured Santa Anna. There has been a lot of work done on the Alamo including, Gary S. Zaboly, An Altar for Their Sons: The Alamo and the Texas Revolution in Contemporary Newspaper Accounts, (Buffalo Gap: State House Press, 2011); Stephen L. Hardin, Texian Iliad: A Military History of the Texas Revolution, (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1994); Phillip Thomas Tucker, Exodus from the Alamo: The Anatomy of the Last Stand Myth, (Havertown: Casemate Publishers, 2010); and George S. Nelson, The Alamo: An Illustrated History, (Lanham: Taylor Trade Publishing, 1999). 78

changed the nature of Texas and Mexico’s relationship by deciding to no longer would fight for the Constitution and reuniting with Mexico, instead, declaring Texas a free and independent

Nation, changing the war from one of uniting to one of independence. The passage of the

Declaration of Independence was unanimous and born through Texas’s populations changing feeling towards independence, this shift occurred because of two developments. First, the betrayal of the Federalists who had joined with Santa Anna against the Texans; and second, without aid coming from the Federalists, the United States citizens agreed to aid Texas but only if they would declare independence from Mexico. Past historians have seen the declaration of independence as the inevitable conclusion, but Austin’s letters show that two main factors forced the loyalty of the Texans to dissipate and forced the Convention of 1836 to declare independence.

Santa Anna’s uniting of Mexico caused an immediate problem for Texas. One of the primary arguments against the call for independence was that uniting with the Federalists would provide them all the aid they needed, resulting in the overturning of Santa Anna’s Centralist government and a restoration of the Federal system. Austin argued for the importance of keeping the support of the Federalists before his mission to the United States began. He wrote to the newly formed Provisional Government of Texas. In the letter, he highlights how important it is to keep the confidence and trust of the Mexican liberals, advising that they gather volunteers if the Federalist Army needed them and to offer support however they could. He also argued that their declaration for the Constitution ought to gain their respect and show their conformity to the actions taken by the Federalist Party. Austin’s original hope that the Federalists would unite with

them quickly evaporated upon his mission to the United States, where he received news from

Mexico.84

In the United States, Austin would be presented with information on the situation in both

Texas and Mexico. Austin is greeted in New Orleans with news from Mexico that the Federalist

Party would not be coming to Texas’s aid; instead, they had decided to join with Santa Anna out of fear that Texas planned to declare independence. For Austin, this was proof that Wharton had been right all along and that trying to get support from the Federalists would be fruitless.

Knowing this, Austin sent letters back to his friends and family informing them of this development and the need for independence. To the General of the Army, Sam Houston, Austin informed him that the news from the interior of Mexico had been that there is no movement in favor of Texas; instead, his information is that all parties are united against Texas due to what has already been done in favor of independence. To his friend and member of the General

Council, D.C. Barrett, he wrote to advise independence and defend this decision. Austin stated that all parties of Mexico are against Texas, leaving them one option for self-defense, independence. To another member of the Council, Gail Borden, he stated that all reasons that favored supporting the Constitution are gone with the Federal party uniting with Santa Anna against them. While these were sent almost immediately upon his arrival to the United States, he sent another letter to his cousin to pass on news of the citizens of the United States’ enthusiasm for Texas a month later. He concludes it with the reminder that there no longer exists a reason to leave any doors open for reunification with Mexico as all parties are against them. Austin’s

84 Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to Provisional Government of Texas,” December 2, 1835, DAP. 80

letters on the topic of the liberals in Mexico showed the first factor that would bring the

Convention of 1836 to the unanimous decision to declare independence.85

The Federalists’ failure to come to the Texans’ aid and instead choosing to join with

Santa Anna against the Texans was a huge blow to any idea of reconciliation between Texas and the rest of Mexico. The betrayal by the Federalist Party isolated voices within Texas who initially urged declaring for the Constitution in the hope of aid from the liberals within Mexico.

Simultaneously, pressure from the United States also accelerated the movement towards independence. While the United States Government would not provide aid or the prospect of annexation without diplomatic recognition, the American people were more than willing to assist, however first Texas must declare independence.86

The support and enthusiasm that Austin would receive in America left no doubt to him who was willing to aid Texas in its struggle. Austin’s arrival in New Orleans was met with enthusiasm from the American people. Immediately he sent two letters back, one to two of his friends in the government, R.R. Royall and S. Rhoads Fisher, and the other to his cousin. In both letters, he expressed the American people’s spirit and their support for the Texan’s cause. The next group of letters over a week later expressed the necessity of independence in exchange for aid. Austin was able to negotiate loans to the Texan Provincial Government, but they required that Texas declare independence. The first loan for 200,000 dollars would only advance twenty percent to Texas, with the rest given when they declared independence, making the declaration important for Texas’s financial state. A second loan was later acquired for 50,000 in exchange

85 Gregg Cantrell, Stephen F. Austin, 334; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to Sam Houston,” January 7, 1836, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to D.C Barrett,” January 15, 1836, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to Henry Austin,” January 7, 1836, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to Henry Austin,” February 14, 1836, DAP. 86 Gregg Cantrell, Stephen F. Austin, 338. 81

for fifty cents an acre of land in Texas. This loan, as well, was given on the prospect that Texas would be independent. A full month later, Austin informed his cousin that more than just money was to be given to Texas. The Ladies of Nashville agreed to furnish a company of volunteers for

Texas and the promise of two regiments from Kentucky. Austin attributed these developments among the Americans to the objective of independence and that the patriotism of the Ladies of

Nashville to aid Texas was an action worthy of imitating. Austin received significant aid from the American citizens who showed excitement for Texas’s cause, however this aid and excitement came at a price. Texas needed to declare independence to gain the needed support and aid. The need for aid is the second factor that Austin’s letters from the United States show.

To remain in the fight against Santa Anna, men, money, and materials were needed and with the liberals already turning against them the only nation close enough to render aid was the United

States whose people were more than willing to provide in exchange for the declaration of independence they wanted to see.87

Texans needed the American people’s support as the assistance from the Federalists did not materialize and resulted in a coalition of all parties of Mexico baring down on them. The

American people demanded the price of independence, and the influx of Americans into Texas to join the fighting helped to shift Texas’s stance from reconciliation with Mexico to independence.

Austin noted both developments, and they are mirrored by the actions taken in the Convention of

1836.

87 Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to Henry Austin,” January 7, 1836, DAP; Two letters cover the first loan to Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to Thomas F. McKinney,” January 16, 1836, DAP. and Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to James F. Perry,” January 18, 1836, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to Thomas F. McKinney,” January 21, 1836, DAP; Stephen F. Austin, “Stephen F. Austin to Mary Austin Holley,” February 16, 1836, DAP. 82

The convention88 itself reflected Texas’s changing nature as the influx of new Americans entered not only the battlefield but into politics as well. The new arrivals from America made an impression on the Texans allowing them to take delegation seats away from those who had initially served. Of the fifty-nine original members of the Convention of 1835, thirteen of them would serve again. A fourth of the delegation had arrived in Texas within a few months of the convention, and just under fifty percent had been there less than two years. This resulted in a delegation that lacked heavy experience in Texas affairs outside the two men of native Texan birth.89 Texas lacked men who had favored a more cautious approach to the question of independence, the convention on the first day declared independence unanimously. The declaration would follow the style of the American Declaration of Independence to appeal to the

American public. The influx of Americans into Texas had drastically changed its position at the convention.90

The failure of the Federalist Party to give aid to the Texans and ultimately choosing to unite with Santa Anna against them is a crucial part of the declaration signed by the delegates.

The declaration argued Mexico’s failure to keep its end of the deal that was a part of the

Constitution of 1824. The Americans’ invitation to settle and colonize Texas’s wilderness under a constitution that promised they would continue to enjoy the liberties and republican style of government that could be found in the United States. The loss of liberties and Santa Anna’s

88 The convention itself is the one area that other historians will focus on for this period. Even as they use it, they dismiss its importance by how they choose to both talk about and the sources they use. Torget uses common information and simply notes for readers to look to Paul Lack for information on the Convention. Anderson cites no sources while stating that the convention could not be held without the passage of a treaty with the northern Native American tribes. Fehrenbach barely mentions the Convention of 1836 stating that it declared independence and using no sources. Yoakum does better than the others by citing the journals of the convention when giving information. 89 The two Tejanos (native Texans) were José Antonio Navarro and José Francisco Ruiz. Ruiz was the uncle to Navarro, and both would go on to server in the Republic of Texas with Ruiz a senator and Navarro a representative. They would protect the rights of Tejanos and promote legislature that helped the community. 90 Paul Lack, The Texas Revolutionary Experience, 83; H.W. Brands, Lone Star Nation, 380. 83

overturning of the Constitution were argued as a breach of the promise that held the Texan’s loyalty. The Federalist’s failure is mentioned as to why they no longer would fight for the

Constitution, “They appealed to their Mexican brethren for assistance. Their appeal has been made in vain: though months have elapsed, no sympathetic response has yet been heard from the interior.” This statement allows them to claim that the people of Mexico have acquiesced to the fall of the Constitution and the rise of military despotism, and that self-perseverance meant that

Texans had no choice but to politically separate. In the argument of the Texans, the lack of support from the people of Mexico justifies their choice to politically separate.91

Austin’s time in America and the Convention of 1836 is crucial to understanding the two major factors that changed Texas’s future from uncertain towards independence. In the United

States, Austin relayed back both factors, which became crucial arguments for independence. The

Texans’ loyalty to Mexico evaporated under the influx of new Americans who did not share the loyalty that the older Texans possessed. They came to fight, claim land, and make Texas part of the United States. The reliance on Americans to fill the ranks resulted from the failure of aid by the Mexican Federalists. Without the aid of their fellow liberals against Santa Anna, Texas was forced to turn to where they could get support. Support had its price; the declaration of independence was demanded by those who had chosen to aid Texas, whether through military service, financial support, or other aid offered to them. Austin showed how the loyalty of the

Texans existed until the outside pressures left them no choice but independence.

91 Texas Law, “Declaration of Independence (1836),” Tarlton Law Library, Jamail Center for Legal Research, https://tarltonapps.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/doi1836. 84

Conclusion

Making the Texas Revolution and the War for Independence two separate wars signifies the shift from an independence that was not inevitable. Outside forces finally break the loyalty that the Texans had held even through the revolution. To combine these two events loses the significance of this break. Even imprisoned by the Mexican government, Austin held out hope that it would be resolved peacefully. He encouraged Texans not to join the states rebelling against Santa Anna; instead, they should focus on themselves as the Mexican government showed them favor. When Austin was finally released, Mexico’s actions against Texas start to take place and still the people of Texas did not choose to declare independence. They instead choose to join the Federalists in fighting for the Constitution, rejecting any attempts by some to get Texas to declare independence. Not until outside pressures overwhelm the loyalty of Texans do, they consider, then declare, independence. With the Declaration of Independence, the

Constitution’s war fails, and the struggle for independence began.

Understanding the outside pressures is a crucial part of understanding the erosion of

Texan loyalty to Mexico and the shift towards independence. Throughout Austin’s letters the failure of the Federalist aid to materialize showed how the Texans were placed in a tough spot.

How can they claim to be part of this rebellion to defend the Constitution when the people supposedly defending it turn against them? By refusing to aid the Texans and turning against them out of a fear that they planned to declare independence, the Federalists inevitably help bring about the declaration they feared. Without aid from Mexico anywhere to be seen,

American citizens’ support would appear as a godsend. The aid and manpower that the Texans needed were enthusiastically offered to them as Austin sends back in letters. The drawback to this generous offer of help was that the American people wanted to see Texas independent. A 85

large portion of the aid to the Texans came from the South and Southerners held their own beliefs for the future of Texas. Under Mexican control, slavery had been limited and outright banned. A free Texas would hold no restrictions; whether a part of the United States or a free nation, it would allow the expansion of slavery that the South desired. Another obstacle was the

American Government who would not render any aid to Texas, nor any consideration of statehood unless Texas was an independent Nation. Austin shows how the Federalists’ failure to aid Texas, along with the tempting offer of aid from the American public, pushed the Texans towards the decision to declare independence, breaking the loyalty the Texans had held to

Mexico through numerous events and years.

Conclusion

Examining Austin through the early colony to the passage of the Law of April 6, the

Conventions of 1832 and 1833, his arrest, his time in Mexico, and his participation in the civil war and the war for Texan independence indicates that a free Texas was not inevitable, therefore the Texan Revolution should be examined as two separate events. In the early colony, slavery did produce some tension between the Anglo-Texans and the Mexican Government, but the people still took the oath of loyalty to the Mexican Constitution. The Fredonian Rebellion was a significant test of the Texan’s newly proclaimed loyalty to the Mexican Government as a small rebellion of settlers took place. Austin and his colony overwhelmingly stood with the Mexicans as they raised a militia larger than the Mexican army sent to quell the rebellion and demonstrating their support for Mexico. The aftermath of the rebellion resulted in the passage of the Law of April 6, 1830, which banned new settlers from the United States, new slaves, and increased taxes and duties on the Texans. The early colony showed the struggle of establishing themselves and demonstrated in Austin’s eyes the loyalty of the Texans as they weathered the

Fredonian Rebellion and the passage of the law of April 6. The Conventions of 1832 and 1833 allowed the Texans to prepare their grievances for the government and push for statehood within the Mexican Government. While pushing for Texan statehood, Austin pushed too hard and was arrested outside Texas and held in the capital. Events during the conventions demonstrated to

Austin that the Texans were loyal and desired to improve their situation and be treated as an equal state in the Republic. Following Austin’s eventual release from prison, Austin conveyed information back to Texas as another Mexican Civil War seemed inevitable. Upon his return,

Austin urged another convention in 1835 to decide the course of action for Texas. The debate was between using force or constitutional remedies to support the Constitution of 1824; it was

not a debate on independence. The decision to join the liberals and fight against Santa Anna joining the Mexican Civil War and beginning the first war of the Texas Revolution. Austin traveled to the United States with a goal of gathering money and support and found the people of the United States more than willing to aid the Texans, but only if they declared independence; simultaneously, the liberals in Mexico stopped fighting Santa Anna and united against Texas.

With the failure of support to materialize from the liberals and the only offer of aid coming from the people of the United States, the Texans declared independence and started the second war of the Texas Revolution, the war for independence.

Separating the two wars is crucial as it demonstrates that Texan independence was not an inevitable conclusion. Austin’s view of Texas is one of loyalty, not to a specific person or government; he argued throughout that Texans were loyal to the Constitution they had sworn an oath to uphold and defend. While Austin can not speak for every single person of Texas, his general assessment of the people appears accurate as each significant event that caused an outbreak of violence was, for the most part, solved peacefully. Not seeing the independence of

Texas as inventible allows for a comprehensive examination of blame for the war for independence. Historians have focused on the Texans as part of viewing independence as an inevitable event; by separating war for independence from the civil war, this viewpoint shifts focus on to the Mexican liberals and the events that helped cause independence. When Texans finally declared for the liberals in the civil war, Austin’s hope was to receive aid from the liberals and force the fighting outside of Texas borders. Instead, the liberals feared that Texans would use the war to declare independence and sided with Santa Anna. By not aiding the Texans, the people turned to the only group willing to aid them, the United States. The willingness of

American aid and the enthusiasm that Austin noted gave little choice for the Texans as Santa

Anna declared any who fought or aided the Texans would be killed. The choice of death at Santa

Anna’s hands or fight for independence and gain aid was a choice that was relatively easy for the

Texans to take.

Texas represented a borderland between the growing United States and the newly independent Mexico. The nature of loyalty and how the people of Texas understood loyalty is a region for further exploration. Austin saw his settlers as loyal to Texas and the Mexican

Constitution that all settlers agreed to when they immigrated. This sets up an intriguing tie of loyalty not to the state, not to a leader, but to an idea and a promise. While Austin may have seen the Texans as loyal, the nature of their loyalty was tied to the idea of the constitution of 1824 and the Constitution of Texas. Looking further into the loyalty of the settlers would allow for exploration more profoundly into the question of if they came intending to remove Texas from

Mexico. While the Fredonian Rebellion showed the loyalty of Austin’s colony, it was a demonstration that Fehrenbach points out was overlooked in Mexico as their fears that independence was the goal of the Anglo settlers consumed them. Looking into the question of how other settlers saw loyalty would also reinforce or disprove what Rodriguez and I argue, in that it was outside pressures that brought along the Declaration of Independence and that the settlers who had been in Texas for years were loyal to Mexico. The loyalty of the Tejano people is also an area that deserves further investigation. While many joined in the first war against the centralists when the Texans declared independence, some Tejanos would turn their back on the declaration. However, many would serve the newly declared Republic challenging any idea that the war was between Anglos and Mexicans. The question of loyalty is vital to understanding the

history of Texas, another area that further research would aid is the question of if the declaration of independence was really about independence or annexation.92

The question of if Texas cared about being an independent nation or if its plans were immediate annexation is an essential question for understanding Texas and its Republic. While some historians, such as Fehrenbach, argue that the Texas Republic existed merely to allow

America to annex the region, other historians point to compelling arguments made by Texans and their actions that argue for an independent nation. Rodriguez argued in her article that the very reason the Americans had emigrated to Texas was to escape how the United States was governed. The United States was moving towards more power at the Federal level while Mexico had proclaimed critical powers such as the decision on slavery to the states. If that is so, it would be unlikely that the Texans would want to return to the restrictions of the United States instead of creating their own nation. Torget agrees with this idea arguing how the creation of the Texan constitution created the most substantial slave regime in North America as questions of if Texas would participate in the international slave trade and if they would strip the Congress of any ability to emancipate slaves or prevent importation of slaves from the United States. Torget also points to the resistance of the idea on the American side as President Andrew Jackson rejected the annexation bid as news of the mess the Texan government was in, and the state of its financial troubles reached Washington. Jackson also pointed to the high chance of Mexican invasion to reclaim the land. Elizabeth West also argued for the resistance in the United States as she explored the idea of Southern opposition to annexation. Her work showed that some southerners did not want Texas annexed because of how Northerners opposed it as a slave state and would aim to levy tariffs against it and the possibility of emancipation of slaves. It avoided

92 T.R. Fehrenbach, Lone Star,164; Sarah K.M. Rodriguez, “‘The Greatest Nation on Earth.’” 90

the clashes and different opinions that consumed the twenty-six states of the United States by remaining its own nation. The question of annexation against an independent nation is crucial to understanding the Texas Republic and what the Declaration of Independence truly meant for

Texas.93

If Texas fits into the idea of settler colonialism is interesting as Texas grapples with two different groups, the Tejanos and the Native Americans. Many Texans did view themselves as superior to the Mexicans and Tejanos; the war for independence would only increase this feeling for some as battles between the settlers and Mexicans were overwhelming victories for the

Texans. However, not everyone would embrace this attitude; Austin himself worked closely with

Tejanos and Mexicans and thus regarding them as equal to the settlers. Tejanos would play a crucial role in fighting for Texan independence and remained in the new nation, holding office and positions in the new government. Under the lens of settler colonialism, Texas is unique as a portion of its population did seek to cast themselves above the region’s original inhabitants.

However, others such as Austin aimed to help protect the rights of the original Texans and worked to pass laws protecting the rights of the Tejano. This created a class of people that some viewed as a minority while others respected as equal Texans. While the Tejanos were treated as second-class by some and equal by others, the Native American tribes were not seen as equal.

During the war for independence, a treaty was signed between the Texans and the leading Native

American tribes. The Texans realized they could not fight Mexico and Native Americans simultaneously. Following Samuel Houston’s presidency in 1838, the new president quickly declared war, and a three-year blood bath commenced as Texans and the prominent Native tribe,

93 T.R. Fehrenbach, Lone Star, 247; Sarah K.M. Rodriguez, “‘The Greatest Nation on Earth,’” 66-69; Andrew Torget, Seeds of Empire,169-170, 184-185; Elizabeth Howard West, "Southern Opposition to the Annexation of Texas," The Southwestern Historical Quarterly 18, no. 1 (1914), 74-82, Accessed July 22, 2021, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30234622. 91

the Comanche, fought. Native Americans, along with Africans, were not able to gain citizenship in the Republic. By looking at how Texas fits into settler colonialism shows that Texas was not a case of those from the United States as socially above the other groups. The social standing of the Tejanos, while not equal to those from the United States, was protected as laws supported them, and a few would serve the Republic. The Native Americans were treated the worst; they could not be citizens, and the Texans fought brutal wars to remove them entirely from the region.94

Both Austin and the Texan histories are complex, with areas that historians still need to explore. One area that was only lightly addressed here is the role of the Tejano people, who played a crucial role in helping the Texans, this group comprised a large portion of the Texan army during the civil war. When the time came for the declaration of independence, two Tejanos would sign the document and help craft the Constitution to guide Texas. Even our understanding of critical events of the war must change, during the siege of The Alamo, eight Tejanos would fall among the Anglos who made the last stand, and seven others would have joined them if not ordered to seek reinforcements. One of those seven was Juan Seguín, who helped lead a Tejano unit in the final battle for Texan independence that captured Santa Anna. Understanding

Tejano’s role in the history of Texas would remove the idea that the Texan’s war for independence was a clash of white settlers against the Mexican nation.

While Austin may not be able to speak directly for all those who participated in the significant events of Texas, Austin’s account provides insight into the mindset of the Texan

94Jesús "Frank" de la Teja, “Tejanos and the Siege and Battle of the Alamo,” Handbook of Texas Online, Accessed June 15, 2021, https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/tejanos-and-the-siege-and-battle-of-the-alamo; Texas Law. “Declaration of Independence (1836);” Gary Anderson, The Conquest of Texas, 172-194; T.R. Fehrenbach, Lone Star, 257-258. 92

people and demonstrates that Texas was not inevitably going to be a free nation. Separating the war for independence from the decision to aid the liberals exhibited that they are not the same event; each had different goals and would have different consequences for Texas’s future. The

Texan people willingly choose to aid the Mexican liberals in the struggle against centralization, with few people desiring separation from Mexico. However, the failure of trust by the Mexican liberals left the Texans with little choice but to declare independence. Examining Austin demonstrates that war was not inevitable, and that the idea of a single Texan Revolution should be replaced by a dual war, civil and independence.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Archer, B.T. “Archer to Public.” in Papers of the Texas Revolution. ed. John H. Jenkins. (Austin;

Presidial Press. 1973).

Austin, Stephen F. “Austin to Ayuntamiento of Bexar.” October 2, 1833. in The Austin Paper.

ed. Eugene C. Barker. Translated by Elisa Suarez.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x004916639&view=1up&seq=1023.

Austin, Stephen F. Collection. Digital Austin Papers, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas,

http://digitalaustinpapers.org/index.

Coahuila y Tejas index. “Manuel de Mier y Terán 1789-1832.” Sons of Dewitt Colony Texas.

http://www.sonsofdewittcolony.org/teranmanuel.htm.

Columbia Meeting. in Papers of the Texas Revolution. ed. John H. Jenkins. (Austin; Presidial

Press. 1973).

“Constitutional Bases Issued by The Constituent Congress.” Article 1. translation from original

by google Translate.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmuseodelasco

nstituciones.unam.mx%2Fnuevaweb%2Fwp-

content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F02%2FBases-constitucionales-expedidas-por-el-

congreso-constituyente-1835.pdf, original Spanish version located,

http://museodelasconstituciones.unam.mx/nuevaweb/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Bases-

constitucionales-expedidas-por-el-congreso-constituyente-1835.pdf. checked and

corrected from Spanish to English by Elisa Suarez.

Chriesman, Horatio and John Austin. “To the People of Texas.” August 22, 1832. in The Laws

of Texas. 1822-1897 Volume 1. Hans Peter Mareus Neilsen Gammel. (Austin, Texas:

Gammel Book Company. 1898). https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth5872/.

“Constitutional Laws of The Republic mexicana 1836.” Organization Of The Supreme Executive

Power. Article 15 The prerogatives of the President of the Republic are I, II, III, IV, and

VI. translation from original by google Translate.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmuseodelasco

nstituciones.unam.mx%2Fnuevaweb%2Fwp-

content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F02%2FLeyes-Constitucionales-de-la-

Repu%25CC%2581blica-Mexicana-1836.pdf, original Spanish version located,

http://museodelasconstituciones.unam.mx/nuevaweb/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Leyes-

Constitucionales-de-la-Repu%CC%81blica-Mexicana-1836.pdf. checked and corrected

from Spanish to English by Elisa Suarez.

Dunbar, Edward E. “The Mexican papers ... [1st series, no. 1-5].” (New York: J. A. H.

Hasbrouck & Co., printers, 1860). The library of Congress.

https://archive.org/details/mexicanpapers1st01dunb/page/220/mode/2up.

Ira Ingram Secy. in Papers of the Texas Revolution, ed. John H. Jenkins. (Austin; Presidial Press,

1973).

Sublett et al to Committee. in Papers of the Texas Revolution. ed. John H. Jenkins. (Austin;

Presidial Press. 1973).

Texas Law. “Constitution or Form of Government of the State of Texas (1833).” Tarlton Law

Library. Jamail Center for Legal Research.

https://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/c.php?g=819103&p=5845633.

Texas Law. “Declaration of Independence (1836).” Tarlton Law Library. Jamail Center for Legal

Research. https://tarltonapps.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/doi1836.

Texas Law. “Declaration of the People of Texas (1835).” Tarlton Law Library. Jamail Center for

Legal Research. https://tarltonapps.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/dpt1835.

Texas Law. “Federal Constitution of the United Mexican States (1824).” Tarlton Law Library.

Jamail Center for Legal Research.

https://tarltonapps.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/mexican1824/t1s1.

Secondary Sources

Articles and Book Chapters

Bishop, Curtis. “Law of April 6, 1830.” Handbook of Texas Online. accessed March 02, 2021.

https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/law-of-april-6-1830.

Bourne, Jenny. “Slavery in the United States.” EH.Net Encyclopedia. edited by Robert Whaples.

March 26, 2008. URL http://eh.net/encyclopedia/slavery-in-the-united-states/.

Bugbee, Lester G. "The Old Three Hundred: A List of Settlers in Austin's First Colony." The

Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association 1, no. 2 (1897): 108-17. Accessed

June 15, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30242636.

de la Teja, Jesús "Frank". “Tejanos and the Siege and Battle of the Alamo.” Handbook of Texas

Online. Accessed June 15, 2021. https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/tejanos-

and-the-siege-and-battle-of-the-alamo.

Merrill, Tim, Ramón Miró, and Library Of Congress. Federal Research Division. Mexico: A

Country Study. Washington, D.C.: Federal Research Division, Library of Congress: For

sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O, 1997. Pdf. https://www.loc.gov/item/97013481/.

Moore Richard W. “Baron de Bastrop.” Handbook of Texas Online. accessed July 22, 2021.

https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/bastrop-baron-de.

New Spain-Index. “Adams-Onï’s Treaty of 1819.” Sons of Dewitt Colony Texas.

http://www.sonsofdewittcolony.org//adamonis.htm.

Rodriguez, Sarah K.M. "“The Greatest Nation on Earth”: The Politics and Patriotism of the First

Anglo American Immigrants to Mexican Texas, 1820–1824." Pacific Historical

Review 86, no. 1 (2017): 50-83. Accessed October 16, 2020.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26419727.

Smith, Watson. "Influences from the United States on the Mexican Constitution of

1824." Arizona and the West 4, no. 2 (1962): 113-26. Accessed July 22, 2021.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40167747.

West, Elizabeth Howard. "Southern Opposition to the Annexation of Texas." The

Southwestern Historical Quarterly 18, no. 1 (1914): 74-82. Accessed July 22, 2021.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/30234622.

Monographs

Anderson, Gary Clayton. The Conquest of Texas: Ethnic Cleansing of the Promise Land, 1820-

1875. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 2005).

Barker, Eugene C. The Life of Stephen F. Austin, Founder of Texas 1793-1836: A Chapter in the

Westward Movement of the Anglo-American People. (Nashville: Cokesbury Press. 1926).

Brands, H.W. Lone Star Nation: The Epic Story of the Battle for Texas Independence. (New

York: Anchor Books. 2004).

Callcott, Wilfrid Hardy. Santa Anna: The story of an Enigma Who Once Was Mexico. (Norman,

University of Oklahoma Press. 1936).

Cantrell, Gregg. Stephen F. Austin: Empresario of Texas. (New Haven: Yale University Press.

1999).

Campbell, Randolph B. An Empire of Slavery: The peculiar Institution in Texas, 1821-1865.

(Banton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. 1989).

Costeloe, Michael P. The Central Republic in Mexico, 1835-1846: Hombres De Bien in the Age

of Santa Anna. (New York: Cambridge University Press. 1993).

Dahl, Adam. Empire of People: Settler Colonialism and the Foundations of Modern Democratic

Thought. (Lawrence: University of Kansas. 2018).

Davis, William. Lone Star Rising: The Revolutionary Birth of the Texas Republic. (College

Station: Texas A&M University Press. 2004).

Fehrenbach, T.R. Lone Star A History of Texas and the Texans. (Toronto: The Macmillan

Company. 1968).

Hardin, Stephen L. Texian Iliad: A Military History of the Texas Revolution. (Austin: University

of Texas Press. 1994).

Hixson, Walter L. American Settler Colonialism: A History. (UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 2013).

Horne, Gerald. The Apocalypse of Settler Colonialism: The Roots of Slavery, White Supremacy,

and Capitalism in 17th Century North America and the Caribbean. (New York: Monthly

Review Press. 2018).

Jenkins, William Sumner. Pro-Slavery Thought in the Old South. (Chapel Hill, The University of

North Carolina Press. 1935).

Jones, JR., Oakah L. Santa Anna. (New York: Twayne Publisher Inc. 1968).

Karp, Matthew. This Vast Southern Empire: Slaveholders at the Helm of American Foreign

Policy. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 2016).

Kimbell, J.P. Laws and decrees of the State of Coahuila and Texas: in Spanish and English : to

which is added the constitution of said state : also the colonization law of the State of

Tamaulipas, and naturalization law of the General Congress / by order of the Secretary

of State. (Houston: Telegraph Power Press. 1839).

Lack, Paul. The Texas Revolutionary Experience: Political and Social History 1835-1836.

(College Station: Texas A&M University Press. 1992).

Nelson, George S. The Alamo: An Illustrated History. (Lanham: Taylor Trade Publishing. 1999).

Newton, Lewis W. and Herbert P. Gambrell. A Social and Political History of Texas. (Dallas,

Texas: Turner Company. 1935).

Ramos, Raúl A. Beyond the Alamo: Forging Mexican Ethnicity in San Antonio, 1821-1861.

(Chapel Hill: North Carolina Press. 2008).

Reséndez, Andrés. Changing National Identities at the Frontier: Texas and New Mexico, 1800-

1850. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2005).

The New Handbook of Texas. Vol. 6. (Austin: Texas State Historical Association. 1996). Guy

Bryan. “Personal Recollections.”. Vol. 2.

Torget, Andrew J. Seeds of Empire: Cotton, Slavery, and the Transformation of the Texas

Borderlands, 1800-1850. (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. 2015).

Tucker, Phillip Thomas. Exodus from the Alamo: The Anatomy of the Last Stand Myth.

(Havertown: Casemate Publishers. 2010).

Veracini, Lorenzo. Settler Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview. (UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

2010).

Veracini, Lorenzo. The Settler Colonial Present. (UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 2015).

Waite, Kevin. West of Slavery: The Southern Dream of a Transcontinental Empire. (Chapel Hill:

University of North Carolina Press. 2021).

Yoakum, Henderson K. History of Texas 1685-1846. (New York: Bedfield, 1856). 271.

Zaboly, Gary S. An Altar for Their Sons: The Alamo and the Texas Revolution in Contemporary

Newspaper Accounts. (Buffalo Gap: State House Press. 2011).

100