Texas: The Complete Story

Preface

The Texas history I learned in school was so glorious and so alien to me. The events and the personalities in these accounts were so much bigger than life yet so distant and surreal and this in spite of being a descendant of one of the families that settled in South Texas in 1748. Real Texans came from Tennessee and they brought with them energy, know-how and democracy while we did nothing of value. We were just here. Later, in college, history courses became more interesting with more discussions and more challenges, yet it was still alien. Some Hispanic names were mentioned, Juan Seguin who actually fought at San Jacinto, Lorenzo de Zavala, interim vice president of the Republic of Texas and a few others, but nothing really specific other than they were on the Texian side of the conflict. Some of the books even mentioned that many Tejanos joined the Anglos in their fight for independence, but it was more of an after-thought stated to show inclusion and highlight the evilness of Santa Anna without delving into the Tejano motives or visions of their future. And though over half of the names of places in the state, including the name of the state itself, were in Spanish, we remained on the periphery and were not included in its history.

Introduction

Between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande River, the area where my family settled, the situation, as far as being included in its history, was even worse than north of the Nueces. We were not just on the periphery of its history; we weren’t even seen. The Republic of Texas considered this land to be a “No Man’s Land.” From the Texas aspect this was true. This area was never considered by Spain or Mexico to be part of Texas, but of Tamaulipas. The Republic of Texas claimed it as a buffer zone and as such its inhabitants were subjected to unrelenting violence for over a century.

Almost all accounts of incidents or events of this era written in English depict the Hispanic residents as a mindless mob or, at best, exploited, ignorant peasants. This has been repeated so often for so long it has become engrained in our psychic and assumed true. Later historians, like David Montejano, have done a much better job in presenting not just a more accurate account of events but also a better analysis of the forces they came into play. Yet, I had a nagging question with no satisfying answer. In parallel settlements with settlers with very similar characteristics, why did one prosper and the other fail? Of course bias is a factor, but that is not the only reason and it may not even be the major factor in this outcome. However, this will not be a harangue on the bias of the media or even a study on the source of this bias whether it was done to justify actions of heroes or part of the baggage that comes with knowing the English language, but an effort to draw a true image of the era by filtering the known bias. Not only the account but also the tone of the account must be questioned and verified.

Neither glorious nor pathetic, this is an episode of the struggles of an all but forgotten people, remembered with a start and then with all the freshness of a recrudescent dream. No myths, no legends just the story of frontier families doing ordinary tasks under extraordinary circumstances in the forging of the Texas frontier, but it is our history and it’s worth telling.

Early Settlers

Blas María de la Garza Falcón and forty families from Nuevo Leon already lived in the area when José de Escandón founded Camargo, the first settlement of Nuevo Santander just south of the river from present day Rio Grande City, on March 5, 1749. In 1750, simultaneously, but independently of Escandón, José Vázquez Borrego moved twenty-three families from Coahuila found Nuestra Señora de los Dolores Hacienda close to the present day location of San Ygnacio in Zapata County. However, it was Escandón’s meticulous execution of his well thought-out plan that led to the success of one of the most ambitious colonization efforts in the New World.

Nuevo Santander encompassed the present day state of Tamaulipas, part of Nuevo Leon and the southern part of present day Texas to the Nueces River. Between 1748 and 1755, twenty-four settlements were established along the Rio Grande River with Laredo being one of the two municipalities on the north side of the river. While the major municipalities were south of the Rio Grande River, the region between the Rio Grande and the Nueces was not devoid of population. Intrepid stockmen pushed north for grazing land in spite of hostile Indians. In 1753, Garza Falcón established Carnestolendas, a ranchería on the north side of the river that would eventually become Rio Grande City, and an estancia (big ranch), Santa Petrolina “five leagues” south of Corpus Christi Bay.1 In the 1820’s, descendants of the founding settlers pushed north to stake their claims. By 1833 there were 356 ranches in this area.2 It should be noted that Spain and later Mexico never considered the region between the Nueces and the Rio Grande to be part of Texas, but of Tamaulipas. This area was claimed by the Republic of Texas to serve as a buffer zone between itself and Mexico and later by the United States because of the navigable Rio Grande. All censuses and statistics pertaining to Texas taken prior to the Mexican War included neither the population nor the product of this region. It should also be noted that for the most part the census did not include the people who lived in ranches.3 While not densely populated, this region was not vacant at the start of the Mexican War.

Escandón knew that the success of the colonization effort depended on providing a measure of security against the “barbarous” Indians and providing a way for settlers to take their product to market. This could only be done by founding a string of colonies from Laredo to the mouth of the navigable Rio Bravo4 with settlers that could defend themselves--every citizen a soldier and every soldier a citizen—and close enough to help

1 Handbook of Texas Online, s.v. "," http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/GG/fga66.html (accessed September 10, 2006).

2 Andrés Tijerina, Tejanos & Texas Under the Mexican Flag, 1821-1836 (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1994) p. 18

3 Tijerina. p.17

4 The Rio Grande River is known as the Rio Bravo in Mexico. each other. 5 Escandón’s settlers were frontier families, most of them were families of former Spanish soldiers from Cerralvo and typically were not wealthy, but they all knew and were part of the economic system that brought them there and they were far too independent to play the part of the landless laboring class. Spanish frontier families already had a long tradition of self-reliance, self-rule and independence from central authority dating back to the time of the “reconquista.” The settlers on the frontier were not peasants.

Nuevo Santander prospered. By the end of the 18th Century, the colony had a population of over 30,000 persons far outpacing settlements in Texas north of the Nueces River. While there was some farming, ranching was the primary basis of the economy for Nuevo Santander reporting impressive numbers of ganado mayor (cattle) and ganado menor (sheep and goats) and horses at the start of the 19th Century.6 Little did Escandón realize that the very characteristics needed in settlers to successfully colonize the frontier would be the ones that would tear the country apart in the following century. The ranching economy that developed in the labor-short frontier was in direct conflict with the seigneurial economy that developed in the interior with its high density of peasant population. The self-reliant settlers on the frontier preferred a decentralized form of government.7

The promise that was Nuevo Santander at the start of the Nineteenth Century was not to be. Some blame Spain’s lack of investment in developing ports and transportation systems on the frontier for the failure. Spain’s lack in investment in its colonies is true. In fact, at that time the Spanish government was draining its colonies of its resources to offset the huge war debt it had accumulated fighting for and against Napoleon. Spain was bankrupt. While this is undoubtedly a factor, the real reason is far more basic. By that time Nuevo Santander was large enough and mature enough to continue prospering from its own momentum. These independent and resourceful settlers would have found a way to get their product to market without outside investment if things had progressed normally, but things did not progress normally. Perhaps over a hundred years of almost continuous warfare was a factor in its impediment.

The Torturous Path to Independence

Discontent with Spanish rule had already been growing throughout the colony for years before Miguel Hidalgo made the cry for independence in 1810. Spain had been draining the resources of its colonies without reinvestment to finance the wars caused by the Napoleonic upheaval. On top of that was the disconcerting status of their king.

5 Juan José Gallegos, “Last Drop of My Blood” Col. Antonio Zapata: A Life and Times on Mexico’s Rio Grande Frontier, A Master Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of History University of Houston, December 2005 p. 10

6 Handbook of Texas Online, s.v. "," http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/NN/usnue.html (accessed September 10, 2006).

7 See Attachment A for a description of local government on the frontier.

Napoleon forced Ferdinand VII to abdicate the throne in May 1808 and installed his brother, Joseph Bonaparte as the new monarch. While the upper echelons of Spanish government accepted the abdication and the new monarch, the Spanish people did not. Disturbances erupted throughout the country that would eventually lead to the Peninsular War. Since the central government had approved both the abdication and the new king, provincial juntas were formed to establish a new central government. In August 1808, the Council of Castile reversed itself nullifying the abdication then a few days later proclaimed Ferdinand VII as king thus reclaiming its position as the legitimate central government. This did not end the chaos since the absent Ferdinand VII was a prisoner in France and would remain so until December 1813.

Besides the general disenchantment with Spanish rule experienced by the colony each region had its unique reasons for revolt. On the northern frontier, the primary source of discord was lack of local control. The frontier settlers preferred a more decentralized form of government. On top of a very centralized form of government that Spain had established for its American colonies, a very rigid cast system evolved that tended to perpetuate itself and resist all change. All positions of power were held by Spaniards born in Spain (peninsulares). While this may have made some sense at the beginning its continuance after many generations was foreordained to fail. Spaniards born in America, even if both parents were peninsulares, no matter how well prepared or educated, were “stained by the soil” and could only attain minor positions in government. This cast system included the clergy—upper echelons posts in the church were all held by peninsulares. Even later when the Napoleonic upheaval resulted in the forming of a much more liberal constitutional monarchy with an absent king, the system did not change in the colonies. Its edicts were either ignored or misinterpreted to resist change. The people in power remained entrenched.

Shortly after Hidalgo made his famous call for independence, the royalist governor of Texas, Manuel María de Salcedo, found two agents from Nuevo Santander, militia lieutenants Francisco Ignacio Escamilla and Antonio Saenz, fomenting his troops in support of the revolution. He had them arrested and imprisoned in San Antonio de Valero Mission. Gov. Salcedo knew Hidalgo had sent emissaries to the frontier seeking aid and support for the revolution. Well aware of the discontent with the economy as well as Spanish rule, Salcedo felt the need for preemptive action to crush the unrest on the Rio Grande before it came north. The Vice-regal authorities could not spare the troops for such a mission so in January the governor began to muster troops for an excursion south. This decision was met with less than enthusiastic support by the troops as well as the alcaldes (mayors or justices of the peace) of the communities. No doubt the general discontent already mentioned and the status of the absent king were factors in this lack of enthusiasm for the stated mission. Though no one could fully comprehend the Hidalgo event, they could sense the winds of change; it was the era of revolution. In the investigation after the failed rebellion, the soldiers stated the reason for the reluctance for the excursion south was that they did not want to go and leave their families unprotected.8 The alcaldes did not want to draft and supply the needed citizen soldiers to replace the absent militia.

Led by Francisco Travieso, the alcades approached retired Capt. Juan Bautista de las Casas to assume command of the San Antonio troops. Capt. Casas was a retired militia captain from San Fernando, Nuevo Santander who now lived in San Antonio de Béxar. Casas was well known by the militia as well the regular troops at the garrison. In the early morning of January 22, 1811, Capt. Casas, accompanied by some of the alcaldes and trusted militia sargeants, greeted the garrison guards with a salutation to King Ferdinand VII and entered the compound without any resistance. He had the troops assembled in the courtyard with the city officials present took command of the troops. He then led the armed battalion composed of Texas militia and garrison troops to the government mansion to arrest the governor. The governor was not there but at the garrison quarters. It was there that Casas arrested the Governor and his entire military staff. Curiously, the rebellious soldiers instinctively saluted their prisoner as he was led to detention. The prisoners; Lieutenant Colonel Manuel De Salcedo, Governor of the Province, Lieutenant Colonel Simon De Herrera, Commanding the Auxiliary Militia, Captains Geronimo De Herrera, Jus. Martin De Echevarria, Juan Ignacio Arrambide, Jose De Gascoscoechea, Miguel De Areos, Joaquin De Ugarte, Francisco Persaysa, Lieutenants, Gregorio Amador, Jose Montero, Juan Jose Elguezabel, Juan De Castaneda, Ensigns Miguel Serrano were sent under escort to Presidio De Rio Grande for detention.9

Casas declared himself to be against government by European born Spaniards, peninsulares (also derogatorily called gachupines), in accordance to Hidalgo’s proclamation. He ordered the release of Saenz and Escamilla and the arrest of all peninsulares in the province and confiscation of their property. Casas then dispatched Antonio Saenz and alcalde Gavino Delgado at the head of eighty troops to take Nacogdoches.

Saenz and Delgado did not encounter much resistance in Nacogdoches to arrest the Adjutant Inspector Cristobal Dominguez.10 They arrested all peninsulares, confiscated their property and with prisoners in tow returned in triumph to San Antonio. Based on Don Francisco Travieso report that Saenz had embezzled funds, Casas arrested Saenz and had him jailed.11 Charges were later dropped and Antonio Saenz released, however neither he nor Delgado got recognition for the mission. The revolutionaries

8 “Juan Bautista de la Casas Proceedings of Trial and Execution” Transcript courtesy of Marc Austin, SONS OF DEWITT COLONY TEXAS (http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/lascasas.htm) Note: All the soldiers testified in this trial of Casas were consistent in their reason for not wanting to go on the excursion south. Even Casas testified that his main reason for leading the rebellion was not in support of the Hidalgo revolution, to protect the colony for King Ferdinand VII. Of course, this was a trial and no doubt each witness framed their response to their reason for joining the insurgents in the best possible light. 9Juan Bautista de las Casas court proceedings http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/lascasas.htm

10 Juan Bautista de las Casas court proceedings. 2nd Witness, Ensign Jose Maria Sanchez http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/lascasas.htm 11 Juan Bautista de las Casas court proceedings. Juan Bautista Casas testimony. http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/lascasas.htm switched sides going over to the remaining royalists. They found a leader in Lt. Col. Juan Manuel Zambrano, an arrogant, bombastic sub-deacon who used his position in the church to promote self-interests. He had long fallen out of favor with local authorities especially Governor Salcedo who hated hypocritical clergy in general and Zambrano in particular for his flagrant abuse of power and licentious behavior. In fact, Governor Salcedo had banished Zambrano from San Antonio de Béxar and he was forced out-of- town in 1809. Salcedo was still working the case to make the making the banishment permanent however his communication with the documentation of Zambranos’ conduct was delayed in the mail and he was reinstated by the audencia in Guadalajara. Zambrano was back in San Antonio in 1810. It is one of the ironic twists in history that the very person that Salcedo abhorred would be one of his staunchest supporters and would rescue him from captivity.

Delgado persuaded the leading townsmen to support Zambrano while Saenz worked with the militia, both with the intent of undermining Casas. One of their most effective tools was spreading the rumor that Ignacio Aldama, Hidalgo's ambassador to the United States, who at the moment happened to be with Casas, was a Napoleonic agent. This fear of the French cemented the support of the populace for the counterrevolutionaries.

Unaware of the erosion of his support, Casas was captured by counter- revolutionary forces in a pre-dawn maneuver on March 2, 1811. Both Casas and Aldama were sent to Monclova, where, ironically, Salcedo was being held, to stand trial.

While in prison in Monclova, Salcedo, with promises of reward and promotion, had persuaded his jailor, Lt. Col. Ignacio Elizondo to switch allegiance. When news of Casas capture reached Monclova, Elizondo immediately released Salcedo and assisted him capturing Pedro de Aranda, who held documents detailing the movements of Miguel Hidalgo’s army. Hidalgo was captured a week later.

On April 26, 1811, the Commandant General appointed Salcedo president of the seven-member tribunal to try the revolutionaries captured in San Antonio. Lt. Col. Ignacio Elizondo was also a member of this tribunal. During the trial, Juan Bautista Casas denied being a revolutionary stating his motive for taking command of the troops was keep the province safe for the crown. When asked about his proclamation for Hidalgo, he stated that he did it only to satisfy true revolutionaries like Saenz, but secretly he did not support Hidalgo. In fact, he feared Saenz and that was one of the reasons he sent him to Nacogdoches. The report that Saenz had embezzled funds of the peninsulares justified in his mistrust and he had him arrested.12

The court found Juan Bautista Casas guilty of High Treason and sentenced him to death. On August 5, 1811, Casas was shot in the back and then beheaded. The body was buried in Monclova and the head sent to San Antonio to be displayed on top of a pole.

12 Juan Bautista de las Casas court proceedings. Juan Bautista Casas testimony. http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/lascasas.htm

José Bernardo Gutiérrez de Lara

When news of Hidalgo’s call for independence reached the frontier, José Bernardo Gutiérrez de Lara immediately espoused the cause and on his own initiative started distributing propaganda leaflets in Aguayo, Nuevo Santander and Béxar, Texas.

José Bernardo Gutiérrez de Lara was a creole born in 1774 in Revilla located near present day Nueva Cuidad Guerrero, Tampaulipa. Bernabé Gutierrez de Lara, José Bernardo’s grandfather, migrated from Nuevo León to Nuevo Santander in 1750 and thus was one of the founders of Revilla.13

Bernardo and his siblings, José Antonio and Enrique were born in a revolutionary age and were imbued with the French concepts of equality and the opportunities afforded by a classless society. They greatly admired the United States especially Bernardo who had had dealings with Philip Nolan who had been securing horses in Texas for his Natchez trade. He saw firsthand the advantages of free enterprise over a system that restricted trade and the trade allowed reserved for European born Spaniards. He saw the United States as the embodiment of a classless society. Royalist troops killed Philip Nolan in in Hill County, Texas, in March 1800.

In early March 1811, Bernardo Gutierrez traveled to Saltillo to offer his services personally to Mariano Jiménez, the patriot lieutenant of Hidalgo. To his surprise, he found the general in the Hacienda de Santa María with Hidalgo and Allende and thus offered his influence, his fortune and even his life, if need be, for the cause directly to Hidalgo. After cross checking references and verifying Gutierrez’s commitment to the cause, Hidalgo accepted Gutierrez’s offer and commissioned him as an officer with the task returning to Nuevo Santander, organizing an army and capture as many royalist as possible.

It was at this moment that Hidalgo received the distressing news of the capture of Casas and Aldama in Béjar. Especially troublesome was the capture of Aldama his representative to the United States and his only hope of getting the needed armament for the success of the revolution. Gutierrez immediately volunteered to become plenipotentiary to the United States. Hidalgo prepared the documentation officially appointing Gutierrez as his representative.

Gutierrez left Saltillo for Revilla March 17 to organize his army and then go to Washington. On March 20, 1811 Salcedo captured Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla and much of his army. Gutierrez learned of the capture but realizing that he could not rescue them decided instead to take a few men and travel to Washington for aid for the cause. He left his estate and family in the care of his brothers Enrique and Antonio who was returning from Monterrey.

13 Uribe, Joel C., La Espada y el Cáliz, 2002 p4

On one side of Béjar he met a friend, José Menchaca,14 who was also being pursued by the governor. They decided to join forces, now fourteen, and head for Louisiana. Near Nacogdoches they were attacked by Royal troops. They escaped but lost three men and Gutierrez’s credentials as official representative of Hidalgo. This loss of credentials was worrisome, fearing he may not be well received in Washington without them, but he decided to continue his journey. At Natchitoches he met John Sibley, the official Indian Agent of New Orleans Territory, and Captain Oberton, a most fortuitous encounter for establishing the proper contacts for his mission.

Not feeling that he needed full complement of men for the rest of the trip, he ordered Captain Menchaca to go to New Orleans with most of the men and to wait there until he returned for the invasion of Texas. Accompanied by 3 men and a boy he had hired as an interpreter, he set off in his journey to Washington. He had with him two letters, one written by John Sibley addressed to the Secretary of War, William Eustis, and the other written by Captain Oberton addressed to his father Gen Oberton in Tennessee. Somewhere between Louisiana and Tennessee, he lost his interpreter. After reading his son’s letter General Oberton extended all courtesies to Gutierrez and introduced him to the governor who offered moral support. Then he proceeded to Nashville. There he sold his 4 mules and after 4 days delay because of rain boarded a stagecoach (postal). He left Nashville in early Dec 1811 and arrived in Washington on the 11th of December and immediately made an appointment to meet with the Secretary of War, William Eustis. 15

The news from Mexico was bad: the leaders of the revolution had been captured and executed in Chihuahua. All the goods of his estate had been confiscated. His family dispersed with Father Antonio taking refuge in the mountains, Enrique hiding in the Canyon Salinas, his mother and his wife, stripped of all material goods, living with friends.

Don Bernardo met the Secretary of War the following day and directly asked for help for the revolution stressing that an independent Mexico would be beneficial to both nations. Eustis responded that unfortunately such help would make it necessary to be in a state of war with Spain, however he may send troops to Texas since there was some doubt if Texas was part of the Louisiana purchase. Gutierrez was displeased with that response and once more stressed the mutual economic benefits of with an independent Mexico. The meeting ended without reaching an agreement of any sort.

While in Washington, Gutierrez met Telesforo de Orea, deputy of Caracas who was in Washington buying armament for his country. He was a great help as an interpreter. He also met Jose Alvarez de Toledo representing Santo Domingo, who was very passionate for New Spain and fully sympathized with Gutierrez but differed in approach with Álvarez de Toledo favoring the use of U.S. troops even if this would lead

14 José Menchaca is often confused with his first cousin Miguel Menchaca who also joined the insurgents and was killed in the Battle of Medina. 15 Uribe P8 to annexation by the United States. This difference would eventually lead to rupture and the undermining of Gutierrez’s authority causing his exit as commander of the republican forces.16

The following day he had an audience with the Secretary of State, James Monroe. Monroe listened with interest and responded they could send troops (50,000) to the edge of the Rio Grande to take possession of the land sold to the U.S. by Napoleon in 1803 that would be a considerable help to the Creoles.

The basis of French control of Texas was the ill-fated colony (Fort Saint Louis) established by Robert Cavelier de La Salle in 1685 near Arenosa Creek and Matagorda Bay in Texas. La Salle intended to establish the colony on the mouth of the Mississippi, but inaccurate maps and navigational errors placed the colony 400 miles west of the intended location. The colony, which really had no official name, unable to get supplies or help survived the harsh conditions for only 3 years when it met its violent end at the hands of the hostile Karankawas in 1688.17

Gutierrez argued vehemently against such help. He stressed that he came to solicit help for the insurgents any help received had to be administered for the benefit of both countries. Monroe said he didn’t dislike the idea and the American people sympathize with the cause. Perhaps, in the time being, we can find adequate and prudent help for the cause. The meeting ended without accord however Gutierrez was treated cordially and with respect.

Between the 12th and 15th, Gutierrez had several conferences and once more met with Monroe. Once more he emphasized that it greatly urged the U.S. to take possession of the land sold by Napoleon claiming Texas was under French control and he had great interest in the revolution initiated by Hidalgo and asked Gutierrez for a written report on the revolution. Monroe was claiming a lot more than just Texas. (See map below)

Gutierrez stated that this was not in his purview. Monroe kept insisting in his demands and Gutierrez was not able dislodge him enough just to listen a counter proposal of having a neutral strip of land dividing the counties.

On the 16th, President James Madison cordially received Gutierrez. The following day he once again met with Monroe and gave him the written report on the revolution in Mexico. After reading the report, Monroe urged Gutierrez to return to his country with the good news that help was on its way. I will inform other countries to support your cause. He added that at the moment relations with England were tense, but if the war is declared finished we could immediately send up to 27,000 well armed troops the Texas with the only condition that Mexico installs a government exactly like the U.S.

16 Uribe P14 17 Robert S. Weddle, "LA SALLE'S TEXAS SETTLEMENT," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/uel07), accessed April 25, 2014. Uploaded on June 15, 2010. Modified on October 30, 2011. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. Gutierrez recognized the ruse intended by this proposal, rejected it and left.

The southern border of Texas to Spain and later Mexico was the Nueces River and the western border zigzagged north just west of San Antonio. Monroe’s claim all the way to the Rio Grande River took a considerable part of northern Mexico. This larger Texas was later claimed by the Republic of Texas and then by the United States after the Mexican War.

Figure 1 Map: Texas 1835 – 1845 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Wpdms_republic_of_texas-2008-19-11.svg/300px- Wpdms_republic_of_texas-2008-19-11.svg.png)

Agent Telésforo de Orea, who acted as interpreter in the meetings, communicated the last conversation between Gutierrez and Monroe to Luis de Onis, the Spanish minister in Washington who in turn reported the account in a letter to Viceroy Venegas in Mexico:

“In this conversation the aggressive intentions of the U.S. toward Mexico were made clear. Mr. Monroe stated that the U.S. would supply not only arms and munitions but up to 27,000 well armed troops to the cause provided that Col Gutierrez would establish a government just like the U.S. so it could be easily incorporated into the U.S. Gutierrez rejected the idea and furiously left the room.”18

On the last day of year, Gutiérrez was paid $200 for the report on the revolution in Mexico. Besides the compensation, Gutierrez was given letters of recommendation, one of them addressed to the Governor of Louisiana, William Claiborne.

Delayed by bad weather Gutierrez did not embark for Cuba until the 19th of February, arrived in Havana on the 5th of March and, in turn, embarked for New Orleans the following day. Upon arrival, he immediately called on governor of the Louisiana province, William Claiborne who introduced him to Guillermo (William) Shaler, a consular officer seeking to enter New Spain as an “observer” for Secretary of State James Monroe, accompanied Gutierrez to Natchitoces, Louisiana. Shaler, the principal adviser of the expedition, enlisted Lt. Augustus W. Magee and helped recruit men for the invading army. It was not hard to enlist Magee for this expedition. He had already expressed interest in revolutionizing Texas sometime earlier so when Shaler asked to be

18 Uribe P14 military leader for this mission he saw it as a fulfillment of an ambition. Magee had a somewhat ill reputation for his use of torture. In an earlier mission he had been sent out to aid civil authorities in capturing robbers who had established headquarter east of the Sabine in the neutral zone. Magee successfully captured the lot but he had a few viciously whipped to illicit information. The whipping was so extreme that it shocked even his men. Oddly enough, most of these men including some he had arrested joined him to be part of the invading army. No doubt driven more by the prospect of conquest and adventure than any trust or loyalty to their leader.19 Thus the nucleus of the army was filled with men with the hope of acquiring Texas for the United States others by a combination of adventure, booty and personal gain. Probably the only one in this group without ulterior motives and strictly driven by the stated mission was the idealistic José Bernardo Gutiérrez de Lara.

Officially, the United States did not approve or condone the building an invading army in its territory, but unofficially the project was not kept secret from President James Madison and was particularly blessed by Secretary of State James Monroe. The building of this army proceeded unimpeded.

Don Bernardo, knowing the value of propaganda, started printing proclamations of his intentions in the coming invasion along with a pamphlet written by Bernardo Martin Despallier and a booklet entitled The Friend of Man written by Álvarez de Toledo. To propagate this propaganda, he assigned Bagenas, a deserter from the Spanish army in Nacogdoches, to leave a supply of the inflammatory literature for the members of his old troop in Nacogdoches. Upon finding the printed material, loyal troops immediately handed it over to their commanding officer, who, in turn, sent the material to Gov. Salcedo along with the rumor that Gen. Wilkinson would join Gutierrez in Natchitoches with a six thousand man army.

In June, Don Bernardo sent Bagenas with two agents to Revilla to distribute propaganda and spread the word of the coming invasion. Unfortunately, Bagenas was captured and executed. However the other two agents were able evade capture and made it to Revilla. They were able to contact Don Bernardo’s brother, José Antonio Gutiérrez de Lara, the priest. The news spread quickly generating a lot of enthusiasm and hope for the liberation from the hated gauchupines. Of course, royalists also got the word and the war of nerves heightened.

The First Independent State of Texas

On August 8, 1812 the filibustering band of about 150 men crossed the Sabine into Texas. Shortly after crossing the Sabine, Republican army scouts espied a Spanish mule train leisurely making its way to Natchitoches. Juan Zambrano led this expedition of the heavily laden mules. He was accompanied with a detachment of well-armed

19 Revolution of Texas in 1812 (From notes furnished by Col. W. D. C. Hall and published in Yanaguana Society Publications, vol. VI, 1941). http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/hall1812.htm muleteers. The escort was not strong enough to thwart the surprise attack of the invading army and they fled to Nacogdoches leaving behind their cargo. This was a rich cargo besides the six hundred horses and mules, the booty included large amounts of flour and ammunition, a quantity of silver specie, and 80,000 pounds of fine wool. All this was taken back to Natchitoches and proceeds used to supply Don Bernardo’s army. After pursuing Zambrano for a short distance, Magee slowed down and led the Republican army to Nacogdoches at a more leisurely pace.

The Spaniards founded Nacogdoches in 1716 as the Misíon de Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe de Nacogdoches with the intent of establishing a presence and converting Indians. It eventually became a favorable spot to conduct a lucrative, but illegal trade with Louisiana.

Juan Zambrano alerted the royalist commander of Nacogdoches, Capt. Montero, that the long anticipated invasion had begun. Montero started immediately to prepare for the defense of the post. The propaganda distributed by Bagenas, which inflamed the resentment of gauchupines, worked well. Montero was unable to recruit a single civilian militiaman to defend against the invading army, all but ten of his soldiers deserted. With such a small force, ten soldiers and the muleteers, the royalist commander had no choice but to retreat to Béxar allowing the Republican army to take Nacogdoches with minor resistance on August 1220.

Upon hearing that Nacogdoches had been captured, Don Bernardo, who had remained in Natchitoches to attend to the final details of the campaign, immediately left Louisiana to join his forces in Nacogdoches. His army had now grown to over three hundred men so he found it necessary to promote more officers, appointing Kemper major and Perry, Ross, Lockett and Hall captains. James Gaines was given command of the Mexican forces in East Texas and Miguel Menchaca his second in command. Magee retained command of army.21

On September 1st Don Bernardo issued four proclamations. The first, addressed to “Beloved Compatriots, Neighbors and Inhabitants of the Mexican Kingdom,” he stated his intentions to free the kingdom from European rule and enable all the people the free vote and to use that right that nature had given them. He was committed to free enterprise for all and to rehabilitate agriculture and art and safeguard “Our Sacred Religion“ and work for the “happiness of families.” In another proclamation addressed to “Chiefs, Soldiers and Citizens of Béxar” he urged them to rise against the tyrants and avenge the death of the countrymen who fell unjustly at the hands of the Spaniards whose “blood asked for just vengeance from the grave.” In a third proclamation addressed to “Honored and Beloved Compatriots in Texas” he reminded them how much they had suffered and told them he had travelled a great distance to secure powerful aid to help them overthrow the Spaniards. In a fourth proclamation he offered the American volunteers all the rights of citizens of the Republic of Mexico, once it was established.

20 Jarrat, Rie, Gutierrez de Lara: Mexican-Texan, The Story of a Creole Hero Chapter VII. P 28 21 Jarratt p 29 They would have lands and access to gold and silver mines. They would have the right to catch and sell the wild horses of the Texas prairies and would be given their share of confiscated properties once expenses were paid.

After Nacogdoches had been secured, Magee sent a force to take a Spanish post on the Trinity River, Santísma Trinidad de Salcedo, also known as Salcedo or Trinidad. The post was relatively new having been founded in January, 1806 to establish a presence and stall U.S. encroachment that had been stimulated by the Louisiana purchase. It was established as joint civilian/military settlement.22 Again the propaganda worked well and the Republican forces met no resistance and found the soldiers and citizens ready to declare allegiance to the cause of freedom.23

After securing Salcedo, the main Republican force, united and well armed, marched toward the Colorado River with Béxar in mind. At this time Gutierrez received intelligence that Gov. Salcedo and his lieutenant, Gov. Herrera, had amassed their troops to defend Béxar so he switched objective turning south and took the Spanish garrison at La Bahia (Goliad) by surprise. The soldiers at the garrison did not switch allegiance but they did flee and, once again, the Republicans took a post without a struggle. That would soon change. Don Bernardo liked the fort, good facilities, easy to defend and strategic location for advancing on Béxar. He decided to make it the winter quarters for his army. The men spent the first few days inspecting and arranging cannons and generally getting the fort in good order.

On November 10th the Royalist launched an attack on the garrison that was repelled however they did not desist. They instead formed three camps around the fort settling for a long siege with the intent of starving the enemy rather than risk a direct attack. The stalemate dragged on for weeks punctuated with just occasional small raids. It was during this period that profound differences began to emerge between Gutierrez as Commander-in Chief and Magee as Army Commander. Gutierrez favored an aggressive approach to break the stalemate to Magee’s conservative stalling. It seemed Magee had lost his nerve. Other officers also began to distrust Magee’s leadership. With dissent among the leadership, morale of the troops fell and a sense of futility emerged. Soon there was talk of surrendering to the Spaniards and they called for a three-day ceasefire to negotiate the terms of surrender.24 Gov. Salcedo met with Col. Magee in a gentlemanly meeting with dinner and all the trimmings. At the end of the meeting, Magee agreed to give up the fort for safe passage with provisions to the Sabine, however the Mexican insurgents would be turned over to Gov. Salcedo. These terms were immediately turned down by the rank and file both American and Hispanic.

22 Bradley Folsom, "SANTISIMA TRINIDAD DE SALCEDO," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hvs43), accessed May 26, 2014. Uploaded on June 15, 2010. Modified on May 26, 2011. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. 23 Jarratt p 30 24 Jarratt p 32 Soon after the negotiations had failed the Royalist launched their second major offensive that was again repelled. So the stalemate continued with the Republicans becoming more desperate by the hour. Don Bernardo sent Samuel Davenport to Natchitoches with letters for “the promoters of the revolution” to send help. Later he sent Major Ross to Louisiana to recruit more volunteers. Magee, who grew gravely ill, favored surrender but the men would not even consider it as an option; it meant death for the Mexicans. Because of this attitude, Magee almost lost his position as commander he managed to keep his position until he died on February 6, 1813. There were some rumors among the men that Magee’s death was a suicide however Don Bernardo attributed to “Divine Providence.”25 There was no love lost between Gutierrez and Magee, in fact, he denounced him, firmly believing that Magee wanted to sell him to Salcedo for fifteen thousand pesos and the rank of Colonel in the Royalist army.26

Don Bernardo immediately named Samuel Kemper the new Commander. The new assignment seemed to have reenergized the rank and file instilling purpose and hope. The siege dragged on with occasional raids some of which were quite intense, but there was no talk of quitting or surrender. Tired of the stalemate and giving up hope in getting reinforcements from Natchitoches, Don Bernardo ordered that the Republican forces take the offensive. Charging out of the garrison before daybreak on March 2nd, the Patriot forces met the main Royalist army in a furious pitched battle that lasted until 4 in the afternoon when the Royalists were forced to retreat. After this defeat, the Royalists launched two perfunctory offensives to take the garrison, more for show than function, perhaps to save face before retreating to Béxar.

The retreat of the Royalist not only boosted the morale of the Patriots but also their numbers with scores of volunteers from the surrounding communities and former soldiers switching allegiance. At this time, Major Ross arrived with about a hundred Indian and Anglo-Saxon volunteers swelling the Patriot army to about eight hundred soldiers.27

Battle of Rosillo

On March 19, the Republican Army of the North, now numbering about 800 men, marched out of La Bahía toward San Antonio. A few leagues out of Béxar, the Republican surprised Herrera, the Spanish commander as he was preparing an ambush along the ridge of the Rosillo Creek and the Salado Creek about 9 miles southeast of San Antonio. Though the Royalists had the advantage of both numbers and armament about one thousand two hundred men and six cannons, they were not able to stop the Republican advance. After fighting a short defensive battle in which the Royalist lost about four hundred soldiers, Herrera retreated to Béxar. The Republican forces pursued him as far as the Misión de Concepcion, where they stopped to reorganize. The following day, April 1st, Anglo-American officers visited the enemy and dined with Gov. Salcedo. This was the first outward sign of the schism that was developing between

25 Jarratt p 32 26 Jarratt p 33 27 Jarratt p 34 Anglo-Americans and the Mexican-Americans. To the Creole this dining with the gauchupines was an outrage. The Creole was not fighting just for land or the abstract idea of setting Mexico free of European rule, but for redress of injustices committed against them in generations of Spanish rule. Theses abuses were limited to some distant past, but continued to the present conflict. The Spaniards followed a “scorched earth” policy, confiscating not only all property of the immediate family of rebel leaders but of anyone suspected of helping them and adult males of those families would be executed and often beheaded. Don Bernado’s property had been confiscated, his family left homeless and his brothers survived by hiding. José Menchaca, brother of Miguel Menchaca surrendered to Spanish authorities with assurance of safe passage to Béxar for trial was promptly executed upon custody. The ferocity with which Menchaca fought at La Bahía was driven by the passion for rectification. Probably every Mexican soldier in the Republican forces had grievances to varying degrees against the establishment. They fought with a rancor that was close and personal.

Taking Béxar

The following day, Don Bernardo marched into Béxar with all his troops. The Royalists surrendered in a rather formal ceremony in the plaza with Gov. Salcedo, in full uniform, marching forward and presenting his sword to Col. Semper who directed Salcedo to present the sword to the Commander-in-Chief Gutierrez de Lara. Gov. Salcedo refused to recognize the Creole commander and in disdain plunged his sword into the ground.28 This discourtesy did not dampen the festivities of the occasion with the residents of Béxar swarming the streets celebrating. None happier then the seventeen American volunteers war prisoners who were now free.

In escorting the Royalist commanders to the Alamo, Captain Antonio Delgado saw his father head impaled on a pike on the bridge. Enraged the Creole had to be restrained from killing Salcedo who had ordered the execution and beheading of the elder Delgado. In the time being, Gutierrez was busily organizing the new state, establishing a temporary governing body, preparing a declaration of independence document and writing a constitution. He accepted James Gaines suggestion that in any trials of justice, Americans would be tried by Americans and Mexicans would be tried by Mexicans, thus he and established a tribunal of Crole officers to try Salcedo, Herrera and the other twelve Royalist commanders. The tribunal found Herrera and Salcedo, the captor and executioner of Hidalgo, guilty of treason to the Hidalgo movement and condemned to death. The American officers objected urging Gutierrez to commute the sentence to life in prison in Mexico or in exile in Louisiana. While Gutierrez and the protesting American officers were discussing the court sentence, Antonio Delgado, Pedro Prado and other soldiers including Anglo-Americans escorted the prisoners to the site of the battle of Rosillo. There, Salcedo, Herrera and twelve other Spanish commanders were disrobed, bound and had their throats slit. They left them lying on the ground unburied.

28 http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/Spain2.htm

They returned to Béxar and publicly boasted of execution.

Shaler agents had already planted seeds of discontent among the troops in his effort to oust Gutierrez. This incident burst this discontent into the open especially among the American officers who viewed this butchery with disgust except for Gaines. He may not have liked this execution but he seemed to understand the Creoles’ passion for retribution. Perhaps his close association with Menchaca, his second in command, triggered this understanding. He reminded his fellow officers of the atrocities and injustices committed by the Spaniards against Delgado, Menchaca and Gutierrez. The discontent abated.

Shaler, who had failed in a similar mission in Vera Cruz, was now vehemently opposed to Gutierrez, played upon the incident to convince his boss, James Monroe that Gutierrez had to be ousted as head of the Mexican republic. Just at this time José Álvarez de Toledo arrived on the scene. In him, Shaler saw the replacement for Gutierrez, and Álvarez de Toledo liked the proposal. Don Bernardos’ two former friends were now plotting to oust him.29

The First Provisional Government of Texas

José Bernardo Gutiérrez de Lara rolled out the first provisional government of the Mexican State of Texas on April 6, 1813 with the title of “President Protector of the Provisional Government of the State of Texas.” 30 The form of government adopted followed the Spanish pattern with a junta composed of assertive members.

On the same day, Don Bernardo and the junta issued a Declaration of Independence. The document showed the influence of Rousseau and Jefferson, but clearly proclaimed its Hispanic heritage and the ideas of Hidalgo. They gave the oppressive restrictions on trade, agriculture and commerce and the exclusion of people in having any say in their government as the primary reasons for separation from Spain. Like the United States and France, the framers of the Texas Declaration of Independence declared that authority resided in the people.

The constitution was another source for dissatisfaction for the Anglo-American soldiers who expected for the government to be modeled after the United States. The first article proclaimed Texas to be a part of Republic of Mexico and established the Catholic Church as the state religion. Though the Anglo-American influence in the constitution was small, it was generous with the volunteers guaranteeing that each would receive a league of land (about 4,428 acres) for every six months of service. Henry Perry, Alexander Baillio and Francis Mennessier were appointed to settle any claims of the American volunteers against the Mexican Republic. This did not placate Kemper and several other Anglo-American officers so they returned to Louisiana complaining to Shaler, who was more than willing to listen, about the situation in Béxar. All the

29 Jarratt p 37 30 Jarratt p 39 stratagems that had been employed had failed in getting Gutiérrez to accept direct military aid on United States terms. Convinced that there was no other recourse, Shaler was building the case to convince Monroe that Gutiérrez had to be removed as head of the Republic of Mexico. Shaler, without Monroe’s consent was already helping Toledo in every way he could.

Don Bernardo was worried about his family in Revilla and, obviously, could not make the trip to bring them to Béjar. He had to find someone trustworthy willing to take the risk and accomplish that mission. He found such a person in his neighbor, José de Jesús Villarreal who was well aware of the risk he was taking. He with a few friends undertook the risky task of bringing Don Bernardo’s wife and children to Béxar. They had to use back roads and traveled mostly under the cover of darkness arriving at Béxar on June 13, 1813 just before the battle of Alazán.

Villarreal did not fare so well. The Royalists learned of his role in this mission and persued him relentlessly until he was apprehended. He was executed on January 16, 1814.31

Álvarez de Toledo returns to Texas

Álvarez de Toledo came to Béxar and offered Gutiérrez to be his second in command of the Republican army. Gutiérrez, already distrusting Toledo, rejected his offer adding that he couldn’t even be a soldier and ordered him out of Texas. He got as far as Nacogdoches where he and Shaler founded the first newspaper in Texas. The printing presses arrived in May, but were quickly moved to Natchitoches, Louisiana where the newspaper was actually printed. Toledo already had the typeset so the paper read Nacogdoches.32

The paper was written in Spanish and was dedicated to criticize and undermine Gutiérrez. Some of the criticisms ran the full gambit from incompetence to treachery like allowing the butchering of the Spanish commanders referring to, of course, to the Salcedo execution. Another criticism was that only Gutiérrez prevented direct aid from the United States. “You could have a bloodless victory if Gutiérrez were removed.” The most ridiculous accusation was that Gutiérrez did not execute the captured soldiers because he intended to switch sides and take high rank commission in the Royalist army.33

These criticisms had already been floated as rumors so it is hard to determine how effective the newspaper in spreading these stories that divided the Patriots into factions.

31 Uribe pp 32-33 32 "GACETA DE TEJAS," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/eeg01), accessed June 05, 2014. Uploaded on June 15, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. 33 Uribe pp 38-39 Provisional Texas Under the First President

Bernardo Gutiérrez de Lara continued to perform his duties as President of a Republic of Texas pretty much ignoring Shaler and the United States. He knew for the survival of the new state, it needed a bigger population for the long term and military aid very quickly. One of Shaler agents instructions was to sabotage any communications between Gutiérrez and any outside nation other than the United States. However, Gutiérrez was able to communicate with the French and only a shipwreck prevented Girard from landing six hundred troops at Matagorda Bay.34 On April 18, he issued a proclamation addressed to “Freemen of all Nations” urging them to settle in Texas.

He also made an attempt coax Col. Ignacio Elizondo, who was in command of royalist troops on the upper Rio Grande, to rejoin the patriot cause. Elizondo rejected the offer with the “greatest contempt” and would never defend the “cause of the Devil.”35 No doubt this solicitation was part of Gutiérrez de Lara’s effort to wrest control from the Spaniards of the three eastern provinces, which he felt were essential for the viability and security of the new nation. This was also a major source of his frustration with the junta; the Anglo-American vote blocked every initiative for this endeavor and day-by-day the enemy grew stronger. Realizing that he may the source for the gridlock and with the very survivability of the republic threatened by inaction; he offered his resignation as President of the Republic of Texas. The Hispanic-American vote in the council blocked acceptance of the resignation.

By June, Col. Elizondo, who had done an admirable job of re-organizing, recruiting and training the division, was ready to do battle. Though Gen. Arredondo, the Spanish commander, ordered him to meet him at the Río Frío, Col. Elizondo left the Rio Grande and marched toward Béxar with two thousand well-armed troops.

Battle at Alazán

When news of Elizondo’s approach caused panic in Béxar with some of patriot troops abandoning their cause and joining Elizondo’s army. This panic was not limited to the rank and file, Reuben Ross, the ranking Anglo-American officer since the departure of Kemper, fled. Don Bernardo did not panic. He rallied his loyal troops and on the night June 19th Don Bernardo confidently marched his smaller, well-disciplined force to meet Elizondo south of Béxar in a location known as Alazán. It was on this evening that his family arrived from Revilla. Not having time to secure his family in a safe place, they would bear witness to this struggle. Early the next morning, the Republican and the Royalist forces engaged in a furious battle that lasted about two hours with the Republicans completely routing the Royalists capturing enormous supplies of gunpowder, arms, biscuits, flour, clothing, salt, liquor, cigars, coffee, beans and sugar. It

34 Jarratt p40 35 Lamar Papers labeled "1835, [M. B. LAMAR, SABINE RIVER]. INFORMATION FROM CAPT. GAINES." In the document by James Gaines, a participant in the Gutiérrez-Magee Expedition, he describes the Nolan expedition, The Battle of Medina, about Lafitte, about Trespalacious and The Origin of the "Revon." [Revolution] in Texas 1812. was at this moment, at the height of his triumph that Don Bernardo was forced to step down from his position of power.

Gutiérrez de Lara Ousted

Shaler and Toledo finally accomplished what they had plotted for so long. On August 4th, the president of the junta notified Gutiérrez de Lara that he was no longer in command and that his former friend, Álvarez de Toledo was now the commander-in- chief. For the sake of unity, Don Bernardo accepted the notification, but pleaded that it not be effective until after the fight with approaching armies of Commandant Joaquin de Arredondo who was already in Laredo with three thousand troops.36 The junta refused and Don Bernardo with his family and a small escort left Béxar for Natchitoches on August 6, 1814. They took back roads and trails fearing that Álvarez de Toledo or Shaler might send assassins. Don Bernardo and his family had taken quarters in Natchitoches in the home of Monsieur Tulin when he confirmed that, indeed, Toledo had sent assassins. He foiled the plot by camping out in the woods for several days. They eventually made it safely and setup residence in New Orleans where Don Bernardo remained in exile until after Mexico gained its independence from Spain.

The Álvarez de Toledo Tenure

Álvarez de Toledo reorganized the Republican army along ethnic lines; Mexican, Indian and Anglo probably done to show a change in management rather than any tactical advantages the change would afford which were none. In fact, segregating the army along ethnic lines was a huge mistake. Teams that had been working together since the revolution began were torn asunder just before they would meet their greatest challenge. Miguel Menchaca led the Mexican contingent, which was the largest partition of the Republican army. 37

There is no doubt about Menchaca’s bravery, ferocity or commitment to the republican cause, however Gutiérrez, his good friend, put him second in command under Gaines. There may have been a reason. Another factor to consider that may have affected the cohesiveness of the reorganized army was the relationship of Menchaca and Toledo. Miguel Menchaca and Bernardo Gutiérrez de Lara had been friends long before even Hidalgo made the call to arms. He may not have thought too kindly in having his close friend replaced as commander-in-chief by an unproven leader like Álvarez de Toledo, whom he considered to be a gauchupin.

Battle of Medina

36 Uribe p 38 37 Lamar Papers labeled "1835, [M. B. LAMAR, SABINE RIVER]. INFORMATION FROM CAPT. GAINES." In the document by James Gaines, a participant in the Gutiérrez-Magee Expedition, he describes the Nolan expedition, The Battle of Medina, about Lafitte, about Trespalacious and The Origin of the "Revon." [Revolution] in Texas 1812 http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/Spain2.htm#medina

On August 17 Toledo took the Republican Army of North Mexico to a sandy oak forest region known as el encinal de Medina about twenty miles south of Béxar to meet General Arredondo. The following morning Toledo or Menchaca led the Republican Army chased after a cavalry unit headed by Col. Elizondo thinking it was the main body of Royalist army.38 The Republican Army had been lured into an ambush. After trudging through deep sand for several hours they were hot, tired and thirsty when Arredondo sprung the trap with cannon and musket fire from prepared breastworks at forty paces. Menchaca rallied the troops but the initial onslaught was too great to overcome. After four hours of fierce fighting that included artillery, cavalry charges and hand-to-hand combat the republican line broke and fell back. Seeking vengeance for the humiliation at Alazán, Col. Elizondo pursued the retreating soldiers with a cavalry unit into Béxar summarily executed captured soldiers. In a panic, Álvarez de Toledo, Henry Perry and other officers and civilians raced to the safety of the neutral ground east of the Sabine. Miguel Menchaca died on the battlefield. Less than a hundred escaped. Álvarez de Toledo eventually made his way to Spain where he became a court favorite.

The royalists lost fifty-five men whose bodies were taken to Béxar and buried with honor the following day. The republican dead were left to rot on that field. Families were not allowed to pick up their dead for burial. For nine years the bodies the republican soldiers lay on the battlefield until 1822 when José Félix Trespalacios, the first governor of the state of Texas under the new Republic of Mexico ordered a army detachment to gather the bones and then they were buried with honor under an oak tree that had grown on the field.39 And thus ended the bloodiest battle ever fought on Texas soil.

First Reign of Terror

The killing did not end on the battlefield, Gen. Arredondo established martial law over the province and with the eager assistance of his main henchmen, Col. Elizondo started a systematic operation of reprisals against all families suspected of having had any republican sympathies. The reprisals took the form of confiscation all their goods, execution of all adult males and jailing of the women and children. Upon entrance to Béxar, Ellizondo executed one hundred twelve Republicans soldiers and jailed two hundred and fifteen of their families. Another detachment under Capt. Luciano Garza took over three hundred prisoners from La Bahia. In ever increasing circles Arredondo sent forces to kill, capture and plunder through out the province with the objective of

38 The James Gaines account has Toledo leading the chase after the cavalry unit. The Toledo account of the battle claims that Menchaca led the army against his orders. In Spain Toledo claimed that his objective in leading this revolution was to secure the northern provinces for the United States and then have them returned to Spain through diplomatic means. This makes no sense. Fight Spaniards for territory to later return said territories to Spain is devious indeed and hard to believe. However Ferdinand VII was quite taken by José Álvarez de Toledo y Dubois and became a court favorite. I consider the Gaines report of the battle to be more reliable. 39 Robert H. Thonhoff, "MEDINA, BATTLE OF," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qfm01), accessed June 20, 2014. Uploaded on September 19, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. eliminating all vestiges of republican sympathies culminating in a reign of terror that depopulated Texas leaving Béxar as the only viable settlement. Arredondo killed over half of the population of the province.

Col. Elizondo captured a group of families along the Trinity and killed a hundred males on the spot. The residents of Salcedo were saved by the swollen Trinity. By the time the river receded, most of the residents had made their way to Louisiana.

Col. Elizondo’s efficiency in cleansing the province of apostates earned so much praise from royalists that King Ferdinand VII promoted him to a higher rank in the Royalist army an honor rarely bestowed on a Creole. Elizondo did not get to enjoy his new status for very long. On September 12, 1813 while resting by the Brazos River, he was attacked and mortally wounded by one of his officers, Lt. Miguel Serano. He died a few days later and was buried by the San Marcos River.40

In Béxar, Arredondo imprisoned hundreds of residents many of whom died of suffocation in makeshift jails. Hundred women and children whose male relatives were suspected of rebel sympathies were imprisoned and enslaved. Executions and beheadings were held daily in the plaza with so many heads of patriots displayed in cages or spikes it would put Vlad the Impaler to shame. The stench of death permeated the plaza. José Antonio Navarro, one of the few Creoles who survived Arredondo’s tenure best described life in Béxar in this period:

“...there a was a tyrant named Corporal Ribal of the Vera Cruz regiment who by force of the lash terrorized the whole city...

“.... could be found in the days of Marat & Robispiere, he governed with absolutism over the prisoners, and when the suns rays were hidden and the dark night closed round, many officers & Soldiers met with their friend the guardian, to be treated each one of them, to the victim (woman) that he might think proper to assign them for that night upon which, each one of those monsters would satiate his lasciviousness, and then turn her over to the Guardian Acosta, to continue the day following in the work of making tortillas for the soldiers. It is due to justice however to say that there were among these prisoners many Heroines who struggled arm to arm against addressing & resisted the delivery of their persons to the commands of that infamous Jailor; this class of Heroines never would consent to stain their honor, but they had to suffer the torment of cruel & daily lashes, there are yet surviving in Bexar some of these matrons Idolaters of their own chastity; I know two of them, one of whom for having opposed herself to the iniquitous treatment of the Said Acosta, he bound and hung up a public spectacle in the same Quinta, more than of

40 En los albores de la independencia: Las Provincias Internas de Oriente durante la insurrección de don Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, 1810-1811. by Isidro Vizcaya Canales

one hour stripping her even of her under clothes and leaving her nakedness an object of public gaze, Arredondo knew all that passed, and when in his court of officers any of these cruel anecdotes would be cited, a pleasant smile would close the scene. “41

Arredondo accomplished where Shaler had failed by depopulating Texas and destroying all sympathies for the Spanish crown among the survivors, he placed the welcome mat for United States expansion. When the call for Texas Independence was made; it was answered by survivors of Arredondo’s tenure like José Antonio Navarro who actually signed the document only to be subjected to a second reign of terror this time by the Anglo invaders. Navarro was forced for the safety of his family to cross the border into Mexico where he was seen as a traitor.

Immigration by Contract

The insurgency in Mexico did not end with the defeat of the republicans at Medina. After the execution of Hidalgo and Allende, the mantel of leadership fell on the capable shoulders of a mestizo parish priest, José María Morelos y Pavón. He was able to organize a number of the independent chieftains across Mexico; form a Congress; make a declaration of independence from Spain and promulgate a constitution that included the abolition of slavery and the equality of classes. When Morelos was captured and executed in December 1815, Gen. Manuel Mier y Terán inherited the leader role, however he was never able to unite the movement and the insurgency lost its focus degenerating into independent skirmishes throughout the country.

Viceroy Félix María Calleja, continued the harsh policies in dealing with insurgents that Arredondo had followed in Texas. Now more in bloody reprisals than confiscation of property. Juan Ruiz de Apodaca replaced Calleja as viceroy in September 1816. Besides instituting some reforms, putting the colony in better financial order he reversed the harsh policies of his predecessor and offered amnesty to the insurgents to return civilian life. Many of the insurgents took the offer but not all, like Vicente Guerrero and a few others. Apodaca’s conciliatory stance proved to be more successful in attaining pacification in the Mexico than Calleja’s harsh policies.

Spain was still in turmoil with an absent King Ferdinand VII. One of the factions was able to write a constitution that was acceptable by the juntas establishing a constitutional monarchy with the liberal Constitution of 1812. Ferdinand VII returned to Spain in December 1813. He would not accept this constitution and abolished it in March 1814. This did not pacify the country and a liberal faction forced him to reinstate it March 1820.

Motivated by personal financial problems, the difficulties with land acquisitions in the United States and encouraged by the reinstatement of the liberal Constitution of 1812 by Ferdinand VII in March 1820, Moses Austin and his son Stephen considered

41 From the Papers of Mirabeau Buonaparte Lamar No. 2026. 1841 May 18, Jose Antonio Navarro, Bexar immigrating to Texas. In late December 1820 Moses appeared in Béxar with a Spanish passport; made his case before the governor and submitted his application for establishing a colony in Texas. He immediately returned to the United States and worked to put his affairs in order. In May he received word that Commander Arredondo, the same person who had depopulated the province, had approved his application on Jan 17, 1821. Moses Austin died June 10, 1821. His dying request was for his son, Stephan Austin to fulfill the contract and his dream. It fell to Stephen Austin to establish the colony in Texas.

Mexican Independence

Mexican independence was not the culmination of the long, difficult struggle initiated by Hidalgo in 1810, but by conservative factions in Mexico, former staunch royalists, an about-face triggered by events in Spain. With the forced abdication of Charles IV and Ferdinand VII by Napoleon, a spirit of liberalism rose in Spain and was embodied in the Spanish Constitution of 1812. This document was rescinded in 1814 and re-instated in 1820. It was the reinstatement of this document that allowed the two opposing forces, with cross purposes, to effect the independence of Mexico in a swift and bloodless coup. The duality of purposes can be best illustrated by the Plan of Iguala, which Lorenzo de Zavala called a "political masterpieces.”42 One of the provisions of the plan declared:

All the inhabitants of New Spain, without any distinction whatsoever between Europeans, Africans or Indians, are citizens of this monarchy, with the option of choosing any employment which accords with their merits and virtues.43

To the conservative, this meant the status of Europeans would be guaranteed; to the liberal it meant the abolition of slavery. However, the Mexican oligarchy did not split neatly into the two opposing camps that led to independence. There were republicans, monarchist and Bourbon factions with liberal and conservative elements within in each of these factions. The oligarchy was further split with groups friendly and hostile to Agustín Iturbide.44 The fall of Iturbide introduced another split, the centralist and the federalist factions. This group was composed of the rich landowners, both Spanish and Creole; the top clergy; and the bureaucrats. In general, this group distrusted the United States and was strongly Catholic.45 The minority faction, known as the reform party consisted of the petty bourgeoisie, young lawyers and others of the professional class, and the lower clergy. This group was, in general, liberal, distrustful of Europe and very much against slavery in any form. The goals of this group were social and economic reforms; to root out all colonial vestiges and to eliminate privileges of both army and Church.46

42 Charles A. Hale, Mexican Liberalism in the Age of Mora, 1821-1853 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1968), 26 43 Victor Alba, The Mexicans (New York, Washington and London: Frederich A. Praeger, Publisher, 1967), 42. 44 Justo Sierra, The Political Evolution of the Mexican People, Charles Ramsdell, trans. (Austin and London: University of Texas Press, 1969), 66. 45Ibid., 99-100 46 Alba, The Mexicans, 30.

Augustín Iturbide, a Royalist commander, led the effort to obtain immediate independence of Mexico. Miguel Hidalgo had offered Augustín Iturbide, a mestizo and at the time a Royalist officer, command of an insurgent army. Iturbide rejected the offer and pledged himself to the Spanish cause. His defeat of José María Morelos at Valladolid dealt a crushing blow to the insurgents. By 1820 Hidalgo’s insurgency was almost entirely extinguished with only guerilla bands led by Vicente Guerrero preventing a complete Royalist victory.

Iturbide arranged a meeting with Vicente Guerrero, the most consistent combatant of a fractured insurgency, to hammer out an agreement for Mexican independence. On February 24, 1821 they announced the Plan de Iguala named after the village where the meeting took place. The plan called for an independent Mexico with a limited monarchy with the Bourbons having first rights to the throne. If the Bourbons should decline, an emperor would be elected. The plan was also known as the government of “The Three Guarantees” (Las Tres Garantías), which were (1) immediate independence from Spain, (2) equality of peninsulares and Creoles, and (3) the protection of the Roman Catholic faith and a ban of all other religions.

The Army of the Three Guarantees under Iturbide quickly subjugated the country and on August 24, 1821, Juan O’Donojú, the last viceroy of New Spain, signed the Treaty of Córdoba, recognizing the independence of Mexico. Ferdinand VII refused to recognize the Treaty of Córdoba and thus did not acknowledge the independence of Mexico.

The coalition quickly fell apart as Iturbide removed Guerrero from influence. On May 19, 1822, Iturbide crowned himself Augustín I, Emperor of Mexico. An arbitrary and extravagant ruler he was unable to bring stability and order to his country and all factions turned against him. Opposition solidified behind Antonio López de Santa Anna who called for his overthrow and exile. On March 19, 1823, Iturbide abdicated went to Italy then England.

At the urgings of some of his friends and unaware of the decree for his death, Iturbide returned to Mexico in 1824 expecting to be received as a savior and protector of the new nation. He was captured on July 15, 1824 and executed four days later.

Colonization of Texas 1821—1836

It was a time of exciting change. The promise of prosperity and freedom with independence from the old world was jeopardized with an empty treasury and a government infrastructure still in the making. While the federal form of government had outstanding success for the United States it would be for Mexico. The federal concept unified thirteen independent colonies to form the United States. Mexico was one colony divided into fourteen departments. For the federal system to work in Mexico the fourteen areas (departments) had to be separated and made into independent states then united under a central government that was also being formed. This was a monumental task.

In the midst of forming the infrastructure for a state, Gov. Martinez had the added complication of rapid Anglo-American immigration. It was not illegal immigration, he, himself had recognized Stephen Austin as heir of Moses Austin contract, however there was a question if the federal congress would recognize grants issued by Spain and the question of slavery. The original contract with Spain did not mention slavery since slavery was recognized by Spain as a legal institution, but the Plan of Iguala had abolished slavery. Now settlers, mostly from the south, were arriving with contracts signed by Austin or his agents demanding their promised land, many of them with slaves. Adding to the complication was the proviso to add an additional eighty acres for each bondsman brought in,47 an enticement to establish something that had been abolished.

Stephen Austin tried to resolve these issues with Gov. Martinez and quickly understood that both issues, recognition of his grant and slave labor had to be resolved at the federal level. Personally he did not like the institution of slavery but he also knew that slavery, at least for a while, was absolutely necessary for the economic development of his colony. The rich bottomlands along the Brazos, Colorado and San Bernard rivers,48 which he had chosen for his colony, could not be worked without slave labor. Another factor that worried Austin was the hesitancy of some of the settlers to enter Texas because of the uncertainty in the status of their slaves.

Austin felt the need to go to Mexico City, where congress was forming the new government and lobby for a favorable colonization law that would allow his colony to prosper. Austin arrived in Mexico City in April 1822 and remained there for over a year. He learned the language; got acquainted with the customs and met a lot of the leaders. Most of the Mexican leaders admired the United States with its phenomenal success and hoped to duplicate the same success for Mexico. Austin made a quintessential representative, likeable, knowledgeable and confident and thus highly respected.

On May 19, 1822 just a month after Austin had arrived at the capital, Iturbide crowned himself Augustín I, Emperor of Mexico. Stephen Austin continued lobbying congress for a favorable colonization law that would recognize the Spanish grant and allow slavery. The former was not a problem but the question of slavery was very problematic. All the settlers that had shown interest in his colony were from slaveholding states and could not imagine working a plantation without slave labor. He had to convince congress that without a favorable colonization law that would tolerate slavery, the colony would fail and thus retard the economic development of Texas. He found some sympathetic ears on the question of slavery however most of the congressmen were too imbued with the French concepts on the rights of man to even consider the re-introduction of slavery in

47 http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/slaverybugbee.htm

48 Christopher Long, "OLD THREE HUNDRED," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/umo01), accessed July 16, 2014. Uploaded on June 15, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. the country.49 Austin quickly realized that the best he would be able to do is get temporary extension until the colony could be well established and another source of labor could be developed.

Congress bogged down passing the colonization law and then it was distracted with the approaching struggle with the Emperor culminating in its dissolution at the point of a bayonet on October 30, 1822. To Austin this was a bit of good news. Later he admitted that he had given up all hope that this congress would pass any favorable law on the question of slavery whether treated as part of colonization law or separately. Perhaps Iturbide or any new group he assembles to govern would be more practical and see the absolute necessity of tolerating slavery, at least, for a while, for the economic development of the colony and thereby benefit the nation. As far as his personal feelings on slavery, Austin was inconsistent though he seemed sincere in each case. Austin was anti-slavery in the abstract, but succumbed to economic and social pressure and would not act on his convictions. At times he saw it as a necessary evil that had to be tolerated for at least a generation but after 1833 he fully supported the institution for Coahuila- Texas 50

Upon dispersion of Congress, Iturbide assembled a junta of thirty-five members to replace the disbanded body. The tireless Austin accosted each member making sure that each member was aware of the need for slave labor for the economic development of the colony.

The article on slavery came into consideration by the junta on November 26. Most members were for the absolute abolition of slavery as soon as possible however Austin’s rationale was effective and, at least, some were willing to consider protecting the rights of owners of bondsman acquired by existing law. After much discussion, the article was passed in the following form:

There shall not be permitted, after the promulgation of this law, either purchase or sale of slaves that may be introduced into the empire. The children of such slaves, who are born within the empire, shall be free at fourteen years of age.

This was not all Austin wanted, he preferred that the children be freed at age 21, but it was a lot better than what had earlier been considered that all slaves be free in ten years. Austin’s lobbying was indeed effective however for a moment it looked he might have to repeat his efforts on a new legislative body.

The scattered opposition to Iturbide’s arbitrary rule coalesced under Antonio López de Santa Anna and the Emperor abdicated going into exile first to Italy then to

49 While slavery was permitted in Mexico as a Spanish colony, it never became a big source of labor for their economy. 50 The Encyclopedia of the Mexican-American War: A Political, Social, and Military History, Volume One A-L, ABC-CLIO, LLC, Santa Barbra, CA., 2013, Spencer Tucker p40

England. With Iturbide’s overthrow the real Congress annulled all laws passed by the Emperor’s junta. However, by special decree of the new government, confirmed Austin’s grant and he was allowed to continue settling his colony under the terms of the annulled colonization law. Congressmen were confident that the new law protected both owner investment end the horrid institution with its prohibition of slave trade and limits on hereditary slavery within a generation. And that was how the new nation, molded on the concepts of rights of man and equality of persons, introduced slavery in its most vicious form to its fairest state. It would take America’s bloodiest war to rid North America of the “Peculiar Institution.”

The Old Three Hundred

The terms, 12½ cents an acre empresario’s (businessman) fee for services rendered plus a stipend of thirty dollars per title to be paid over a six-year period, were fantastic. This was one-tenth price of cheapest land in the United States and this was for rich river bottomlands. Austin’s problem wasn’t finding three hundred colonists but picking them from all the applications. Stephen Austin was careful in his selection of settlers. He did not want adventurers or troublemakers but stable persons of good character with enough wherewithal to pay the fee and establish a homestead in Texas and as a result selected people of higher economic level and thus higher educational level— only four of the original grantees were illiterate. Seven families were of substantial means. Of course, people in this economic class were more likely to own slaves. Of the original colonists, sixty-nine families owned slaves, one of them, Jared E. Groce had ninety slaves. Of the total population of 1790 in Austin’s colony, 443 were slaves.51

Most of his settlers were planters from Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee and Missouri however most added stock raiser to their vocation for the land advantage. Each farming family was entitled to one labor (about 177 acres) each ranching family was entitled to one sitio (about 4,428 acres). Interest was so high that asked that the limit on the number of families be removed from his grant. That was not done, but he did get four six-year contracts between 1823 and 1828 for a potential 1200 families. As careful as Austin in his selection of settlers, it is surprising that he could find so many of the economic class that usually doesn’t emigrate, especially out of the country. There are two factors that contributed to this phenomenon. The first was that the United States would buy east Texas since it had “given it away” to Spain in exchange for Florida in 1819 with the Adams-Onis Treaty. The second and probably preponderant factor was that many of these successful farmers were in default on their loans when agricultural prices dropped at the end of the War of 1812 and banks were demanding immediate payment. Faced with property seizure or even debtors’ prison, land west of the Sabine looked like a great opportunity to “start over.”52

51 Christopher Long, "OLD THREE HUNDRED," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/umo01), accessed July 16, 2014. Uploaded on June 15, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association 52 Margaret Swett Henson, "ANGLO-AMERICAN COLONIZATION," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/uma01), accessed August 18, 2014. Uploaded on June 9, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association.

Contracts 1 Familie 825 s Haden Edwards 1 800 5 Apr Robert Leftwich 1 800 Sterling Robertson: 5 Apr Texas Association/Nashville Co. Green DeWitt 1 400 5 Apr Frost Thorn 1 400 5 Apr Martin De León 6 41 Oct John G. Purnell & Benjamin Drake Lovell 2 200 2 Oct Contracts 1 Familie 826 s Benjamin R. Milam 1 300 2 Jan Arthur G. Wavell 9 400 Mar Stephen J. Wilson 2 200 7 May John L. Woodbury & Joseph Vehlein Co. 1 200 4 Nov Joseph Vehlein & Co. 2 300 Galveston Bay & Texas Land Co. 1 Dec David G. Burnet 2 300 2 Dec Contracts 1 Familie 827 s John Cameron 2 100 1 May Contracts 1 Familie 828 s John Cameron 1 200 9 Feb Richard Exeter & Stephen J. Wilson 2 3 Feb James Hewetson & James Power 1 200 1 Jun John McMullen & James McGloin 1 200 7 Aug Joseph Vehlein & Co. 1 100 7 Nov Contracts 1 Familie 829 s Lorenzo de Zavala 1 500 2 Mar Martin De León 3 150 0 Apr Juan Dominguez 6 200 Feb Contracts 1 Familie 830 s Juan Antonio Padilla & Thomas J. Chambers 1 800 2 Feb Contracts 1 Familie 831 s Vicente Filisola 1 600 5 Oct Contracts 1 Familie 832 s J. C. Beales & José Manuel Royuela 1 200 4 Mar

Table 1 Empresario Contracts in Colonization of Texas 1825-183253

53 http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/empresarios.htm Other Empresarios

After the fall of Iturbide, Mexico adopted a federal form of government and though the National Colonization Law was promulgated on August 18, 1824 no new contracts were granted until after the Coahuila-Texas Colonization Law was published on Mar 25, 1825. The state law generally followed the national law with subtle differences. The state law required that the settlers be Christian families rather than Catholic. Most officials interpreted that as meaning Catholic, however the law was never really enforced. The federal law forbad the importation of slaves into the country. The state law allowed the settlers to bring their family slaves, forbad slave trade within the state. The state also reserved the right to limit or stop immigration from any specific nation. Other empresarios had gotten grants to settle families in Texas (see Table 1); not all were successful. All the grants were given after the Colonial Law was published. The Haden Edwards grant was particularly troublesome which gave rise to a rebellion known as the “Fredonian Rebellion.”

Though Table 1 lists the De Leon grant as being approved on October 6, 1825, settlement of the colony was initiated a year earlier. Martín De Leon had petitioned the provincial delegation of San Fernando de Béxar to settle forty-one Mexican families of “good moral character” to found a settlement along the lower Guadalupe River. De Leon, being a prominent Mexican citizen, no doubt, was a factor in its speedy approval on April 13, before the passage of the more restrictive state colonization law and did not specify a time limitation, number of families nor well-defined boundaries. The first twelve families along with De Leon settled on the Guadalupe River al El Sabinal. Not all the settlers of the De Leon colony were Mexican there were a few Anglo settlers already in the area and in De Leon’s contract like in all the contracts issued specified that all the settlers already in the area had to be accepted into the colony. Later a group of Irish immigrants arrived bringing a total of sixteen non-Mexican families in the colony.54

54 Craig H. Roell, "DE LEON'S COLONY," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/ued01), accessed August 18, 2014. Uploaded on June 12, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association

Figure 2 Texas Land Grants 1821-183655 Green DeWitt petitioned the Mexican government to become an empresario in 1822, but was not approved until after the passage of the colonization law and the help of Stephen Austin with whom he kept a friendly relationship, did he get the grant to settle four hundred “industrious Catholic families.” The colony to be located southwest of Austin’s colony was vaguely bounded based on inaccurate maps which resulted in a considerable overlap with the De Leon colony which was also vaguely bounded. This, of course, led to extensive disputes that the state had to settle though boundaries were never well defined.56

Other than the occasional disputes over boundaries with the De Leon colony, the DeWitt settlement grew smoothly and prospered making Green DeWitt the second, next to Austin, most successful empresario on the Texas frontier.

55 http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/austingrantmap.htm 56 Craig H. Roell, "DEWITT'S COLONY," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/ued02), accessed August 25, 2014. Uploaded on June 12, 2010. Modified on July 24, 2014. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. Religion in the Colonies

The earliest colonization contracts, both Spanish and later Mexican, specifically stated that the immigrant families had to be Catholic. However, in the 1824 colonization law, the religious requirement wording was changed from “Catholic” to “Christian,” but most officials still interpreted that to mean Catholic. In either case, the requirement was never enforced. Stephen Austin urged the settlers to follow the law since the Catholic faith was the established religion however private devotion of any kind was not forbidden. Bringing in preachers was illegal and sometime preachers were arrested, for the most part, Col. José de las Pierdas’ attitude on this issue was more typical. When informed of a protestant camp meeting in 1832, the commandant responded unless the worshippers are stealing horses or killing people, leave them alone.57

The more bothersome part of the religious requirement was the need of a priest blessing of marriages, baptisms, funerals, etc. before the event was recognized by the government, but even this was not enforced. At the time there was a severe shortage of priests in Mexico and no priest was sent to colonies until 1831 when a Father Michael Muldoon arrived for a short span. Anglo-Texans unable or unwilling to seek a priest to formalize their marriage were given permission by authorities to sign a marriage bond promising to formalize the marriage when a priest arrived.58

Stephen F. Austin, a Jeffersonian Deist, was never a member of any religious body, but was able to convince officials of his Catholicism. In his entreaties to get settlers he made sure to all were well aware of religious requirement to immigrate to Texas. Cheap land and a great economic opportunity were the primary motives for the settlers moving to Texas, not religion. Col. John Hawkins told Austin, “I can be a good Christian here as I can over there—it’s a name only.” For some who took oaths more seriously, an affirmation of their Christianity was sufficient. For most settlers, this was a simply a business decision and as a whole, Mexican officials recognized it as such. The settlers were not really hypocritical, most identified themselves as Christian, but were not affiliated with any specific denomination, a trend that continued well after Texas broke away from Mexico. By the end of 1845 less than 12% of the White population attended church.59 This wasn’t because preachers hadn’t come to Texas. Aggressive evangelical preachers had been coming to Texas since 1812 and occasionally visited the colonies. Austin did not like preachers coming to his colony and not just because he wanted to obey Mexican law; he found them absolutely annoying describing them as “fanatic,” “imprudent,” “violent,“ “noisy.” One aggressive preacher, Henry Stephenson, prompted

57 John W. Storey, "RELIGION," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/izrdf), accessed August 31, 2014. Uploaded onJune15, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. 58 Margaret Swett Henson, "ANGLO-AMERICAN COLONIZATION," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/uma01), accessed August 18, 2014. Uploaded on June 9, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. 59 http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/adp/history/hispanic_period/tenoxtitlan/austins_colony.html

Ausin’s outburst that “one Methodist preacher” could cause more harm to his colony “than a dozen horse thieves.”60

The Fredonian Rebellion

Hayden Edwards studied law, but like his father was more interested in land speculation than practicing law. He was quite successful and truly increased his fortune. After he married he moved from Kentucky to Jackson, Mississippi where he and his brother Benjamin acquired a plantation. They heard of Moses Austin plan to colonize Texas and were immediately interested. In 1823 he joined Stephen Austin in Mexico City and was instrumental in getting a colonization law that allowed settlers to bring slaves. Because of his wealth, he was often called upon to finance Austin however he did not have a good relationship with Austin. He felt that Austin kept taking the best lands.61

On April 14, 1825 Hayden Edwards got the grant to settle eight hundred families in east Texas around the Nacogdoches area bounded on the east by the neutral ground on the south by Austin’s colony and hostile Indians on the north and west. Though the Spaniards had virtually depopulated Nacogdoches during their reign of terror, a few survived and others returned. There were a few squatters that had settled in the area for several generations without benefit of title.62 Nacogdoches now had a population of about a hundred persons. Edwards contract, like all other empresario contracts, specified that he must uphold existing land grants issued by Spain or Mexico. Also he, like all other empresarios, had to provide an organization to protect all colonists in the area. He did not have Austin’s enlarged authority, he had full discretionary powers over judicial, legislative and military, but Article 6 of his contract authorized him to “raise a militia according to law, of which he shall be chief until other disposition shall be made.”63

On September 25, 1825 Hayden Edwards arrived in Nacogdoches and immediately posted notices on street corners to all existing landowners that they had to present evidence of their claims or forfeit their claim to new settlers. Though there were very few titles in question, the hostile tone of the notices immediately polarized the community into factions of old and new settlers. The governor kept receiving an increasing number of complains against the empresario. Benjamin Edwards’ response to the governor with a blunt statement of facts about the complaints was offensive to the governor. The complaints continued to mount.

60 John W. Storey, "RELIGION," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/izrdf), accessed August 31, 2014. Uploaded on June 15, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. 61 Archie P. McDonald, "EDWARDS, HADEN," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fed04), accessed August 25, 2014. Uploaded on June 12, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. 62 Curtis Bishop, "EDWARDS COLONY," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/uee01), accessed August 26, 2014. Uploaded on June 12, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. 63 Guy M. Bryan, “The Fredonian War in Edwards Colony, 1826-1827” (http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/fredonianframes.htm) This polarization became very evident in December when they had their first election for alcalde. Samuel Norris representing the old settlers ran against Chichester Chaplin, Edwards’ son-in-law, representing the new. After the voting was over, Hayden Edwards certified Chaplin’s election to Governor José Antonio Saucedo in San Antonio. The opposition challenged the election claiming that a lot of votes for Chaplin came from unqualified voters. In March, Saucedo reversed the election and ordered that the archives and the duties of alcalde be surrendered to Norris. Edwards seemed unwilling to abide with the terms of his grant by midyear the federal government declared his grant forfeit. Edwards was infuriated by this development and realized the only way he could recover his expenses in this venture (about 50,000 dollars) was to break away from Mexico and become independent. He sent emissaries and letters to all American settlements in Texas urging them to resist Mexican authority. He also made a treaty with the Cherokees giving them all the land north of a line drawn just above Nacogdoches from the Sabine to the Rio Grande for their support in this struggle.

As soon as Austin became aware of Edwards’ activities, he worked to dissuade American settlers from participating in such a foolish venture. He even sent a commission to meet with Edwards to persuade him to seek another solution. The commission failed. Captain William S. Hall, one of the commissioner reported that Edwards had a small force and unlikely to grow in size significantly.

On October 15, Samuel Norriss, Alcalde of Nacogdoches, issued a warrant for the arrest of Martin Parmer for the murder of Moten Askins. The basis for the warrant was the sworn affidavit of Otto Askin stating that Martin Parmer had shot and killed his bother, Moten.

On November 22, 1826, Martin Parmer, John S. Roberts and Burrell J. Thompson led a group of about thirty-six men from the Ayish Bayou force to Nacogdoches, arrested Samuel Norris, Juan Sepulveda, Hayden Edwards and other Mexican officials to try them for “oppression and corruption.” Hayden Edwards was soon released. His abduction was planned to cover his participation in the attack. The trial was quick. They were found guilty and sentenced to death, but would be allowed to live if they resigned their posts. Parmer then proclaimed Joseph Durst alcalde.

As soon as Mexican authorities in San Antonio learned of the incident, they sent Lt. Col. Mateo Ahumda, the principal military commander in Texas, to the Area. On December 11, 1826, Ahumda left San Antonio with a force of twenty dragoons and a hundred and ten infantrymen.

Edwards and Parmer decided to defend the new, independent republic they dubbed Fredonia from the Mexican invaders. Since the new nation included the Cherokee, they designed their flag to reflect this alliance. The flag consisted of two parallel bars in white and red representing the two communities, the white stripe on top, of course. On the white stripe was inscribed, “INDEPENDCE LIBERTY AND JUSTICE,” and the signatures of the rebels and flew the flag over the “Old Stone Fort,” (Casa de Pierda). They signed their Declaration of Independence on December 21, 1826. Hayden Edwards appointed his brother, Benjamin Edwards, commander in chief.

Though the treaty with Cherokee had the signatures of two Indian leaders, Richard Fields and John Dunn Hunter, the support never materialized. Without that support or aid from the United States they had no choice. Sometime between the end of December and January 31, 1827 when the Mexican force and Austin’s militia, they crossed the Sabine to the safety of the neutral ground.64

The reason the Indian support never materialized for the rebels was because Peter Ellis Bean, an agent for the Mexican government, influenced the Cherokee council to repudiate the treaty. The tribal council probed into the Richard Fields and John Dunn Hunter affair, trying to find the motives and thought processes for involving the tribe in such a dubious venture. Both Fields and Hunter fled during their trial by tribal council. They were captured and executed in February 1827.65

Slavery in the Texas

Though Spain allowed slavery in the colonies, it never became a major source of labor. When Mexico won its independence from Spain in 1821 there were less nine thousand slaves in all of Mexico. Hidalgo had abolished slavery at the start of the revolution in 1810 and this was the one issue almost everyone in the divided congress agreed on after independence. It was only through Iturbides’ “rump” congress that Austin was able to get any concessions on slavery that later the real congress begrudgingly approved, certain they had put in enough safeguards to end slavery within a generation. Of course, that was not to be. No statute can be written and enforced without those governed agreeing with the law, at least, in spirit. The slave owning settlers saw nothing morally wrong this “Peculiar Institution,” as Southerners called it or imagine working a plantation without slave labor.66

The decree of July 13, 1824 prohibited all slave trade foreign and domestic, citing severe penalties for infractions. Any vessel bringing slaves to Mexico was subject to confiscation, both vessel and cargo and the owner, purchaser, captain, master and pilot were condemned to one year in prison. The law was easier to enforce for the foreign market but almost impossible to enforce for domestic trade as long as immigrants could bring their slaves. Even for foreign slave trade, the door wasn’t completely shut. Congress allowed immigrants to bring their slaves by ship through the province of Itsmo.

64 Archie P. McDonald, "FREDONIAN REBELLION," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/jcf01), accessed August 15, 2014. Uploaded on June 12, 2010. Modified on September 23, 2013. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. 65 Robert Bruce Blake, "HUNTER, JOHN DUNN," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fhu33), accessed August 28, 2014. Uploaded on June 15, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. 66 Randolph B. Campbell, "SLAVERY," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/yps01), accessed July 26, 2014. Uploaded on June 15, 2010. Modified on September 4, 2013. Published by the Texas State Historical Association The decree was directed against the slave trade; it did not expressly forbid the bringing more slaves into Mexico for purposes other than trade. However the Congress of Coahuila and Texas, which was hostile to slavery, allowed the settlers to bring slaves to Mexico for six month after the publication of the state constitution of 1827. 67

Mexican officials soon realized that the edict to end slavery in a generation was not working--the number of slaves was increasing instead of decreasing. The Anglo American settlers we now bringing in indentured servants who happened to be black. When some of the settlers felt that President Guadalupe might banish slavery in Texas, they had their illiterate slaves sign a document that converted them from slave to indentured servant for ninety-nine years.

In the first fifteen years of Anglo-American settlements in Texas, from 1821 to 1836. Slavery grew rather slowly. The 1825 census of Austin Colony that out of a total population of 1800, 443 were slaves on the eve of the Texas Revolution there were about 5000 slaves in the Anglo-American colonies. With independence from Mexico, Anglo- Americans reinstituted slavery in there constitution making it an integral part of the Republic and later the state economic development and the number of slaves in Texas grew rapidly from 5,000 slaves in 1836 to 169,000 slaves in 1860—30 percent of the total population of a much larger Texas. Most of the slaves were concentrated in east Texas where the slave to total population ratio was around 60 percent.68

The Mier y Terán Report

The Fredonian Rebellion was minor event but it garnered a lot of attention especially in the United States where it grabbed headlines in most of the major newspapers. This interest in the Texas colonies worried Mexican officials who suspected that the rebellion was part of a ploy by the United States to annex Texas. This suspicion was not entirely without merit, the United States had already made numerous attempts to claim Texas all the way to the Rio Grande either by treaty, threat of invasion or purchase.

No doubt it was with this in mind that President Guadalupe Victoria, the first president of the republic of Mexico, appointed General José Manuel de Mier y Terán to lead an expedition into Texas to observe the natural resources, the Indians, the number and attitude of the Americans living there and determine the boundary between the United States and Mexico.

The appointment of General Terán for this mission was entirely appropriate. Gen. Terán had a special aptitude for mathematics and engineering having graduated from the College of Mines in Mexico City in 1811. He had joined José María Morelos in the

67 Lester G. Bugbee, “Slavery in early Texas,” The Political Science Quarterly, vol. III, no. 3, 1898 (http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/slaverybugbee.htm) 68 W. Marvin Dulaney, "AFRICAN AMERICANS," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/pkaan), accessed July 26, 2014. Uploaded on June 9, 2010. Modified on June 20, 2013. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. movement for Mexican independence and fought under Ignacio Rayón. What made this a particularly good appointment was his service in the first constituent congress in 1822 as a member of the committee on colonization of unoccupied lands making him well versed with the problems and issues of the colonies.69

Terán recruited Rafael Chovell, a mineralogist; Jean Louis Berlandier, a botanist, a zoologist and an artist; and José María Sánchez y Tapía, cartographer and artist, for this expedition. All kept diaries that provided valuable scientific information and personal insights on the status of the colonies. The expedition left Mexico City for Texas with a military escort on November 10, 1827 just as the two main rival ideologies, the centralists represented by Scottish Rite Masonic lodges and the republican represented by the York Rite Masonic lodges, were headed for a major confrontation threatening the very presidency of Guadalupe Victoria.

The expedition was delayed by weather and illness, but finally arrived at Bexar on January 3, 1828. The general remained in Texas for over a year not leaving for Mexico City until January 16, 1829. During this time he travelled extensively throughout Texas concentrating his observations of the colonies in east Texas. Of course, Terán had met Stephen F. Austin in Mexico City while he was lobbying for a favorable colonization law, but it wasn’t until this encounter that a true and trusting friendship developed as reflected in the many letters between them that lasted until Terán’s suicide in 1832. The letters were mostly about ways of improving the economic development of Texas.70 Many of these suggestions were included in the Law of April 6, 1830.

Austin assured him of the continued loyalty of the settlers to Mexico. While he did not doubt Austin’s sincerity, he was concerned with the lack of diversity of the immigrants. The further north and east you travelled the higher concentration of Anglo- American settlers from the south with only an occasional European or Mexican settler in the mix. Further the Mexican settlers in east Texas were of poor and uneducated more to be pitied than reproached. The net result was a population wasn’t being Mexicanized in any form. The number of slaves continued to rise. East Texas looked more like an extension of Louisiana than a colony in Mexico.

In Nacogdoches Terán met Col. Peter Ellis Bean who arranged numerous conferences and visits with local Indian tribes. The Tejas, Nadoes, Yguanes, Savans, Cherokees and other Indian tribes frequently entered the city to carry on their trade with skins, corn, pumpkin and beans. The relationship with the Indian tribes was good, but the needs and services to the Indian tribes were not adequately addressed.

In summary, in a series of reports to President Victoria, Gen. Terán suggested that boundary be defined in the Treaty of 1819, which was really a moot point since

69 Margaret Swett Henson, "MIER Y TERAN, MANUEL DE," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fmi02), accessed September 13, 2014. Uploaded on June 15, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. 70 Correspondence Between General Manuel Mier y Terán and Texas 1828-1832, http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/teranmanuel.htm that had already been agreed. On Texas, Terán suggested limiting immigration from the United States and encouraging European and Mexican settlers, increasing trade between the colonies and Mexican ports, separating the governments of Coahuila and Texas, establishing a political chief in Nacogdoches and bolster the garrison in Nacogdoches. He also called for the national government to provide support for the Indian tribes rather than the state of Coahuila y Texas. Most of these suggestions were incorporated in the Law of April 6, 1830. However, the law prohibited immigration from the United States rather than limiting it and called for the complete abolition of slavery.

Upheaval in Mexico

While Terán was in Texas, the Yorkist branch of the Masons had gained dominance, but now that Victoria’s term was coming to an end, the Yorkists split into two main rival camps. The High Liberals supported Vicente Guerrero while the moderates and conservatives along with the Centralists supported Victoria’s Minister of War, Manuel Goméz Pedraza. The legislature elected Pedraza over Guerrero in a very close election along with Anastacio Bustamante as Vice- President. The election was disputed, reversed by the house of deputies, but the Senate upheld the original outcome. Santa Anna, a supporter of Guerrero, staged a revolt in Vera Cruz that quickly spread to Mexico City. Government troops were defeated throwing the country into a state of anarchy. Pedraza resigned and went into exile in England. Guerrero was elected President however Bustamante remained Vice-President.71 In the midst of this political upheaval, Spain launched an invasion of Mexico, its second attempt to regain its former colony since 1821. Spain did not recognize the Treaty of Córdoba and hence the independence of Mexico, arguing that Viceroy Juan O’Donoju did not have the authority to sign any treaty that granted independence to any overseas province.

Exiles, who wanted to return to Mexico, convinced Ferdinand VII that the Mexican people were anxious to return to Spanish sovereignty prompting the king to appoint Gen. Isidro Barradas to lead an expedition of re-conquest. On July 5, 1829, Gen. Barradas left Cuba with an invading force of over three thousand soldiers arriving in Cabo Rojo, near Tampico, Tamaulipas on July 26. With the boats moored at the Pánuco River, the expedition started its march to Tampico.72

President Guerrero appointed Santa Anna in charge of repulsing the invasion. With Mier y Terán, in failing health, second in command, Santa Anna started a siege of the Spanish forces culminating in the Battle of Pueblo Viejo over a two-day period of September 10/11 when Barradas, not getting the support he expected from

71 The following is synthesized from diverse sources with Terán and Texas by Ohland Morton, 1948, serving as a guide and base. http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/teranmanuel.htm 72 Battle of Tampico, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_attempts_to_reconquer_Mexico

Mexico, surrendered. The Spaniards were allowed to return home. Even with the defeat of the invasion, Spain did not acknowledge the sovereignty of Mexico until July 1836. This victory over the Spaniards combined with driving off the emperor made Santa Anna extremely popular.

The most damaging factor of this invasion was to the fledging economy of the country. The treasury was completely depleted. Mexico was bankrupt. President Guerrero ruled by emergency decree from August to December when he was ousted. He called up the reserves even after the Spaniards had been repelled. The reserves in Jalapa called for a reduction of emergency powers and asked Vice President Bustamante and Gen. Santa Anna to lead them. Both agreed with Bustamante a bit more enthusiastically wanting to portray himself as a defender of the constitution. Guerrero set off with a force to attack them but the capital was taken over by rebel supporters after he left and rather than fight for the capital, he retired to his farm.

The senate ruled that Guerrero ‘morally incapable’ to rule and the minister of war ordered that all officers to agree to the Plan of Jalapa of the conservative faction. The factions were polarized, each passionate in their ideology with no sense of trust or compromise. Bustamante proceeded to systematically remove Guerrero’s supporters from office that did not stop at federal level but continued to some key state offices and replace them with his supporters. This was precisely what the federal system was supposed to prevent. Some of the states raised troops to fight the coup and Guerrero returned to fight. However, Bustamante, with army support was able to defeat Guerrero’s forces marking the return to power of the conservatives.73

Bustamante renegotiated foreign loans, reduced the size of the army but was unable to revive the economy. He also under took some very repressive acts against liberals, but the act that roused the general public against his presidency was the execution of Guerrero. Santa Anna took advantage of this discontent and once more became the ‘savior’ of Mexico. Bustamante, Santa Anna and Gomez Pedraza sign an agreement by which Predraza would assume the presidency and hold elections and Bustamante would go into exile.

Anahuac Disturbance of 1832

On October 26, 1830, the Mexican federal government established a garrison and a town at the mouth of the Trinity (Perry’s Point) to prevent smuggling, collect customs and stop illegal immigration. Col Juan Davis Bradburn, who led garrison consisting of forty officers and men, was familiar with the area having been in Juan Pablo Anaya and Henry Perry filibustering expedition in 1816. Bradburn, an American, probably first

73 The Early Republic 1823 - 1833 The Early Mexican Republic, http://mexicanhistory.org/earlyrepublic.htm#inv

entered Mexico as part of the Gutierrez-Magee expedition. After the defeat of that operation, he returned to Louisiana but kept joining various filibustering campaigns and finally joining the Mexican army.74

Bradburn’s difficult task of enforcing the unpopular (among American settlers/squatters) Law of April 6, 1830, was further complicated with his rather abrasive personality. His first troubled encounter was with the state-appointed land commissioner, José Francisco Madero, who arrived in January 1831 to issue land titles to people, including squatters, who settled in the area before 1828. While both the state and the federal government had previously authorized the issuances of such titles, Bradburn felt that the Law of April 6, 1830 had nullified that authority. They could not come to any sort of agreement and out of frustration Bradburn arrested Madero and jailed him, but he was soon released when state authorities appealed to Bradburn’s superiors. Madero quickly issued fifty titles to local settlers, organized an ayuntamiento at the Atascosito Crossing of the Trinity naming it Villa de la Santisma Trinidad de la Libertad before returning home. This was another irritant for Bradburn who saw the establishment of the ayuntamiento as an attempt to undermine federal authority in the Area. The Anglo settlers shortened the name to Liberty.

In November 1831, Gen. Manuel de Mier y Terán made the problem moot by ordering that the ayuntamiento and garrison moved to Anahauc, giving further orders to Bradburn to inspect land titles and the licenses of all the practicing lawyers making sure of their certification. He ordered George Fisher, the customs collector, to collect duties from all the ships already in the Brazos River and in Galveston Bay. Predictably, ship captains objected to these duties claiming this was enforcement of retroactive laws though it was enforcement of ignored laws. Several left the river without stopping for clearance at the mouth resulting in several exchanges of shots between ships and troops.75

The primary event that triggered the disturbance in Anahuac was Bradburn’s granting asylum to two or three runaway slaves from Louisiana and incorporating them into his command and refused to surrender the runaways to the slave catcher. Bradburn was perfectly justified in this. Mexico had abolished slavery and there was no extradition treaty between the two countries and there wouldn’t be one after the American Civil War for the same reason; Mexico simply refused to consider slaves property.

William M. Logan, owner of the runaway slaves, hired a local lawyer, William B. Travis, to secure his property. Travis was relatively newcomer to Texas having arrived in

74 Henson, Margaret Swett (1982), Juan Davis Bradburn: A Reappraisal of the Mexican Commander of Anahuac, College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, ISBN 978-0-89096- 135-3 Wikipedia.org: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Davis_Bradburn. This page modified on 4 November 2014 75 Margaret Swett Henson, "ANAHUAC DISTURBANCES," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/jca01), accessed December 22, 2014. Uploaded on June 9, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association.

early 1831. Since this was after the Law of April 6, 1830, it was an illegal immigration. Avoiding arrest for indebtedness, he left a failed law practice, abandoned his pregnant wife and son in Claiborne, Alabama and showed up in Texas. He got some land from Stephen Austin and setup a law practice in Anahuac.76

Bradburn was well acquainted with Travis as an organizer of a paramilitary group to defend against the “Indians,” a euphemism for Mexican soldier.77 Upon arrival in Texas, Travis joined the “War Party,” a group dedicated to the repeal of the Law of April 6, 1830.

Unable to get his slaves, Logan left for Louisiana with the promise of returning with proof of ownership of said slaves. Trying to trick Bradburn into releasing the slaves, Travis sent a fake note through a sentry alarming him that Logan was returning with a large group of armed men to recover the slaves. Bradburn was not intimidated, instead of releasing the slaves he took a small force to meet the armed group. When he realized it was a hoax, he returned to Anahuac arrested a jailed Travis and his law partner Patrick Jack. Some hotheads immediately organized a rescue party of about two hundred armed men and set out to Anahuac reaching Turtle Bayou, six miles north of Anahuac on June 9, 1832. On the way to Turtle Bayou, they captured Bradburn’s cavalry force of nineteen men to hold as hostages for exchange for Travis and Jack and several more Anglo prisoners Bradburn had arrested. After a day of skirmishes with Bradburn’s men, an exchange of prisoners was arranged resulting in the release of the nineteen cavalrymen. When Bradburn found out that the town had not been evacuated of insurgents as promised, he refused to release the prisoners and the confrontation continued. The insurgents composed and signed the Turtle Bayou Resolutions explaining their rebellion against Bradburn as part of General Santa Anna federalist reform movement.

The situation was finally resolved Col. José de las Piedras, Bradburn’s immediate superior, came from Nacogdoches and in an act of appeasement bowed to all insurgents demands, firing Bradburn, reinstalling the ayuntamiento in Liberty and turned over all the Anglo prisoners to civil authorities who immediately released them. Travis and Jack returned to Anahuac, where they incited the garrison to rebel against the Centralist officers. Colonel. Subarán, a Federalist officer, assumed command and within a month boarded the garrison upon ships and left Anahuac.

Upon his return to Nacogdoches, Piedras, trying to avoid another “disturbance,” issued an order that precipitated one, he ordered that men in the area to surrender their guns. Even the Mexicans were hesitant to give their guns in the frontier—they needed their guns, not over principle, but for hunting and defense. The settlers did bring their guns to town, but not to turn them in. They amassed on Pine Hill and elected James W.

76 Archie P. McDonald. The Shrine of Texas Liberty http://www.thealamo.org/history/the-1836- battle/the-defenders/defenders/travis.html 77 Henson, “Anahuac Disturbances.”

Bullock commander a lay siege on Piedras in the Old Stone Fort. Under the cover of darkness, Piedras and his men attempted to escape west to San Antonio, but overtaken at the Angelina River. After a short battle, Piedras surrendered. The officers, including Piedras were taken to Nacogdoches and later escorted to Velasco and released. James Bowie, who arrived shortly after the battle, escorted the Mexican soldiers to San Antonio and also released. Thus ended Mexican military presence in east Texas.

Without customs collector at Anahuac or a military force in Nacogdoches, smuggling was unimpeded and the colony customs and duty free until 1835 when, once more, tried to get the colony back into the fold by sending a custom collector to Anahuac. This, of course, led directly the second “disturbance” in Anahuac.

Convention of 1832

After the Anahuac Disturbance, the Anglo community called for a Texas community convention. The call was prompted not just for clarification of position after the local disorders, by the political upheaval in Mexico following the repulsion of the Spanish invasion. Many of the “Texians” pledged support for the liberal Antonio López de Santa Anna

Fifty-five delegates, representing sixteen districts met in San Felipe de Austin from October 1 through October 6, 1832. San Fernando de Béxar and Victoria did not send a delegation. The delegates from La Bahía arrived after the convention had adjourned; read the resolutions and approved everything, however this does not alter the fact that no “Tejano” attended the convention.

The convention elected Stephen F. Austin as its president and Francis W. Johnson secretary. The convention adopted a series of resolutions including requesting for a three year tariff exemption, a change in the April 6, 1830 Law to allow immigration from the United States and other more mundane declarations dealing with security, safety and well being. The most controversial resolution was a request for statehood for Texas. William H. Wharton was selected to present this proposal to the Mexican Congress and the state legislature of Coahuila and Texas.

The resolutions were never presented. The non-attendance of any “Tejano” at the convention made the assemblage too regional. Ramón Músquiz, the political chief of the province, ruled that the meeting was unauthorized and hence illegal. Austin also felt the request for statehood was premature.78

Convention of 1833

78 Ralph W. Steen, "CONVENTION OF 1832," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/mjc09), accessed December 28, 2014. Uploaded on June 12, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association.

Austin was uneasy with first convention because none of the predominately Mexican districts had sent delegates to the convention, fearing such limited participation could call into question the loyalty of the Anglo immigrants. He was in San Antonio trying to convince authorities to call for a statewide convention when an unauthorized call for a convention to meet in San Felipe de Austin on April 1, 1833 was published. Again, Austin acquiesced and attended the meeting, hoping that by his presence moderate its actions.79

The convention basically rehashed the petitions from the previous meeting adding a caveat to the petition for statehood, a proposed constitution for the state following the Anglo-American pattern. In fact, it was a copy of the Massachusetts state constitution. This would require a complete restructure of the current system. This was a strategic mistake if you wanted to allay any doubts about the loyalty of the Anglo immigrants. This proposal could be interpreted as preparing the state for a seamless annexation by the United States. Austin must have been uneasy with this proposal however did not object and was elected by the convention to present the petitions to the national congress.

Austin left San Felipe de Austin in April and arrived in Mexico City in July. He was able to persuade the government to repeal the Law of April 6, 1830 and institute reforms for in Texas local government. In December he left Mexico City for his return to Texas satisfied that he had accomplished all his goals. The Santa Anna administration would not approve separate statehood for Texas and Austin was arrested in Saltillo on suspicion of trying to incite insurrection and brought back to Mexico City. He was moved from prison to prison until December when he was released on bond restricted to Mexico City. No court accepted jurisdiction of the case and he was never charged. He was freed by general amnesty in July 1835 returning to Texas by way of New Orleans.

Though Santa Anna had been elected president he quickly got bored with the tedious but necessary daily tasks associated with that office and retired to his ranch letting Vice President Valentín Gómez Farías, to run the office. It was Gómez Farías who ordered the arrest of Austin. Exactly what triggered this arrest was not recorded and thus will never be known. Farías was a liberal and actually favored the repeal of the Law of April 6, 1830. In fact, when he was in congress fully supported the Immigration Act with one exception—slavery.80 He was too imbued with the French ideas on the rights of man to allow slavery in any form. He felt the phasing out of slavery proposed by the act in its final form to have been a mistake. However, Farías did not favor separate statehood for Texas at this time.

79 Eugene C. Barker, "AUSTIN, STEPHEN FULLER," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fau14), accessed January 01, 2015. Uploaded on June 9, 2010. Modified on January 27, 2014. Published by the Texas State Historical Association

80 Miguel Soto, "GOMEZ FARIAS, VALENTIN," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fgo06), accessed January 08, 2015. Uploaded on June 15, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association.

Santa Anna’s First Presidency

Antonio López de Santa Anna won the presidency of Mexico as liberal in 1833 by the largest majority in Mexican history however he quickly got bored with the routine tasks associated the office and retired to his estate of Mango de Clavo in Vera Cruz letting the vice president, Valentín Gomez Farías, to attend to these tedious, but important duties.

Gómez Farías, born in Guadalajara in 1781, was a physician and a professor who practiced medicine until 1820 when he entered politics with a passion for the newly independent Mexico. He was immersed in French political theory and was a member of the first congress espousing liberal ideas of governance. He supported colonization by immigrants from all counties, including the United States, and was one of the members that favored removing the restrictions placed on Anglo-Americans immigrants by the Law of April 6, 1830.81 He was the ideal government official for the Anglo-American colonies except for his stand on slavery; he did not want slavery in Mexico in any shape or form.

The reform minded Gómez Farías assumed the office of the presidency with a definite vision for Mexico. He reduced the size of army not only to reduce costs and replenish an empty treasury but to conform to his ideals of a federal system of decentralized governance. He then initiated actions to eliminate both military and ecclesiastical fueros (judicial privilege).82 The reforms involving the church went beyond the fueros and this led to a coup bringing Santa Anna back to power and sent Gómez Farías into exile in New Orleans.

Congress and Gómez Farías attempted to completely reform Mexican society by passing measures limiting the great influence of the Church on the daily lives of the people. One of the measures limited the Church’s participation in education. Classes at the university had to be suspended for a while because all the professors were priests. Other laws affected Church property and this brought the greatest protests and that started a counter-reform movement.

The Disturbance in Anahuac of 1835

In 1835, Mexico sent Captain Antonio Tenorio to Anahuac to collect custom duties. This was the only source of revenue for the national government. Predictably, the local merchants objected to paying duties especially to a government they viewed as

81 Miguel Soto, "GOMEZ FARIAS, VALENTIN," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fgo06), accessed January 15, 2015. Uploaded on June 15, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. 82 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuero foreign. Andrew Briscoe was the biggest protestor, complaining that the duties were not collected evenly in all the ports, which was true, duties had not been collected in Anahuac since 1832. Briscoe went beyond just complaining, he would not cooperate with Tenorio at all, in fact he would load his boats to look like they were loaded with smuggled goods forcing Tenorio to waste time and resources inspecting ships loaded with bricks. Much aggravated by these shenanigans, Tenorio arrested Briscoe and his partner, DeWitt Clinton Harris.

Upon hearing of these arrests, William Travis raised an army of volunteers and marched to Harrisburg. Commandeering a vessel set sail to Anahuac. On June 20, 1835, Tenorio surrendered to the Anglo mutineers, who disarmed them and took them to Harrisburg. William Travis later made a public apology fearing that his rash action might endanger Stephen F. Austin who at that moment was in Mexico City.83

Austin’s Return to Texas

When Austin returned to Texas in late August 1835 after a twenty-eight month absence, he learned that a call had been made for a convention to meet in October. Normally he would have tried to squash it and call for a more inclusive meeting but he did not. In a speech at Brazoria he gave it sanction and the call proceeded with the selection of delegates.84 Since 1833, Austin had insisted that Texas had to be a slave state. He now realized that this was incompatible with Mexico in a more profound way than just the present political chaos or antics of Santa Anna, as frightening as they may be. Even in the best scenario, the ending of slavery in generation would not work for either the colony or Mexico. As much as he hated that institution, it was absolutely essential for economic growth of the colony. The only way this would work and the colony remain part of Mexico was Mexico to change its constitution and allow slave states and that was not going to happen. Their best hope was to break away from Mexico and be annexed by the United States.85

Before the “Consultation” met on November 3, 1835, war had started in Gonzales on October 1. In November the provisional government appointed Austin along with William H. Wharton and Branch T. Archer as commissioners to the United States to solicit volunteers, military aid and more important, a commitment by the government to recognize and eventually annex Texas should it declare independence. They were very successful in accomplishing their mission except in getting assurances from President Andrew Jackson and Congress. Austin was convinced that Congress would have voted for recognition in May, after the Battle of San Jacinto if acting president David G. Burnet had sent them timely official reports of the conditions in Texas.

83 Henson, "ANAHUAC DISTURBANCES." 84 Eugene C. Barker, "AUSTIN, STEPHEN FULLER," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fau14), accessed January 01, 2015. Uploaded on June 9, 2010. Modified on January 27, 2014. Published by the Texas State Historical Association

85 Baker, "AUSTIN, STEPHEN FULLER," Handbook of Texas Online

Santa Anna’s First Return

Fueled by the clergy from the pulpit, Farías and his liberal agenda became extremely unpopular among the populous. Conservative businessmen and higher echelon clergy approached Santa Anna to intervene in the execution of Farías’ reforms. Sensing the mood of the country, Santa Anna once more played the role of “savior of the nation,” shed, his liberal trappings, declared Mexico was not ready for a democracy and became a centralist.86

In April 1835, Santa Anna engineered a coup that sent Farías into exile and declared himself president, immediately taking steps to consolidate his power. On December 15, 1835, Santa Anna initiated execution of the Siete Leyes (Seven Laws), a series of constitutional instruments that would completely alter the organizational structure of the republic from its federal form to a very centralize system.

The summarized Seven Laws are:

The first law granted citizenship to persons who could read and earned an annual income of over a hundred pesos except domestic workers who did not have the right to vote.

The second law allowed the president to close Congress and suppress the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation.

The third law established a bicameral Congress of Deputies and Senators. Deputies served four-year terms and Senators, six.

The fourth law established the process for electing the President and Vice President. The Supreme Court, the Senate and the Meeting of Ministers each nominate three candidates for consideration. The lower House would select the President and the Vice President from these nine candidates.

The fifth law established for electing the eleven members of the Supreme Court.

The sixth law replaced the federal states with centralized departments whose governors and legislators were designated by the President.

The seventh law prohibited reverting to pre-reform laws for six years.87

86 http://mexicanhistory.org/santaanna.htm

87 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralist_Republic_of_Mexico

Rebellion of the States

When Santa Anna disfranchised the Constitution of 1824 and replaced it with the Constitution of 1836 (Siete Leyes) the Mexican states protested with eleven states: San Luis Potosi, Querétaro, Durango, Guanojuato, Michoacán, Yucatán, Jalisco, Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas, Zacatecas, and Coahuila y Tejas going into open rebellion. Coahuila- Tejas and Zacatecas had the biggest and better-armed militias of the rebellious states thus his primary opponents.88

On May 12, 1835 Santa Anna’s “Army of Operation” brutally defeated the Zacatecan militia taking almost three thousand prisoners many of whom he had executed. As punishment he allowed his soldiers to ransack Zacatecas for forty-eight hours.

Battle of Gonzales: The First Shot

Tensions were palpable. When Col. Domingo de Ugartechea, military commander of Coahuila and Texas learned that the American colonists of Gonzales refused to surrender a small cannon lent to the settlement in 1831 for defense against the Indians, he dispatched Francisco de Castañeda and a hundred dragoons to retrieve it. Knowing the high tensions that existed between the Texans and Santa Anna’s centralist government, Ugartechea wanted to avoid any provocation that may trigger violent hostility. He instructed Castañeda to retrieve the cannon by force, if necessary, but to avoid open conflict.89

On September 29, 1835, Castañeda found his entrance to Gonzales blocked by high water and eighteen militiamen (later called “The Old Eighteen”). He announced he had a dispatch for alcalde Andrew Ponton. He was told that Ponton was out-of-town and that he may wait for him on the west side of town. Castañeda pitched camp about three hundred yards from the ford.

While Castañeda waited for Ponton, the residents of Gonzales summoned reinforcements from surrounding settlements and the number of militiamen quickly grew to over a hundred and forty with more expected. When Castañeda learned of the increasing number of combatants, he decided to look for a crossing that wasn’t so heavily defended. On October 1st, the Mexican soldiers pitched camp about seven miles up the river from Gonzales.

88 http://mexicanhistory.org/santaanna.htm

89 Stephen L. Hardin, "GONZALES, BATTLE OF," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qeg03), accessed May 19, 2015. Uploaded on June 15, 2010. Modified on March 17, 2015. Published by the Texas State Historical Association In San Antonio de Béxar, Ugartechea asked Dr. Launcelot Smither, a Gonzales resident in town on personal business to convince the settlers their only interest is the recovery of the cannon and not fighting colonists. Dr. Smither delivered the message to militia captain Mathew Caldwell who, in turn instructed Smither to bring Castañeda to town the following morning to discuss the matter. 90

Later that day, the council voted to attack the Mexican soldiers. At about 7:00 in the evening of October 1st, the Texians, headed by John Henry Moore crossed over to the west bank of the Guadalupe and tracked the Mexican troops. It is unclear whether Moore was unaware of Caldwell’s arrangement or simply chose to ignore it. As they approached the camp around three in the morning, a dog barked alerting the Mexican sentries who fired warning shots. The sudden noise caused one of the Texian horses to panic throwing the rider who suffered a bloody nose. The Texians withdrew and hid in the woods and about six o’clock mounted a full, coordinated attack. Lt. Gregorio Pérez counterattacked with forty mounted troops. The Texians fell back into the trees firing a volley injuring a Mexican private. The recoil knocked the cannon off the wagon. Unable to maneuver among the trees, the mounted troops returned to the bluff. Castañeda ordered his troops to fall back behind a low rise behind the camp.

As the fog lifted, Castañeda sent Smither to arrange a meeting between commanders. The Texians immediately arrested Dr. Smither for coming from the Mexican camp, however Moore agreed to parley.

Castañeda asked the commander for the reason for the unprovoked attack. Moore responded they were fighting to keep their cannon and the Constitution of 1824. Castañeda informed him that as a Federalist, he did not agree with Santa Anna’s centralist government policies and he was not interested in fighting colonists. He just wanted to retrieve the cannon and leave.

Moore invited him to join the Texians in their fight against Santa Anna. He responded that as soldier his allegiance was still to Mexico in spite of its politics. At this point the negotiations broke down and the fighting resumed. The Texians hastily made a defiant banner, a white cloth with a cannon painted on it and the phrase “COME AND TAKE IT” written below the cannon. Outnumbered, outgunned and burdened by the set rules of engagement, Castañeda ordered a withdrawal to Béxar without the cannon.

The “Battle of Gonzales,” interpreted by the Texians as the first victory over the Mexican army, was really a skirmish between colonists on a war footing and an army unwilling to fight. The casualties were a bloody nose on the Texian side and two Mexican soldiers killed.

90 Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gonzales) Austin was more realistic in his assessment. This first shot marked the point of no return for the colony. Santa Anna’s ravages on the Zacatecans would convince any doubters, even antislavery colonists, that independence from Mexico was the only course.

Arrival of Gen. Martin Perfecto de Cos

Gen. Martin Perfecto de Cos with five hundred men landed at Copano Bay in early October and immediately headed toward San Antonio de Béxar arriving there on the 8th of October a day before the Battle of Gonzales. Gen. Cos announced he had come to punish those who led the disturbance at Anahuac. Austin detected a hint of expulsion of all American settlers in this proclamation and ordered the immediate formation of military units to offer resistance.91

After the first bullet was fired at Gonzales, Austin knew they had reached the point of no return and led his army to San Antonio sharing his command with James Bowie and James W. Fannin, Jr.

The Texas “army” consisted of citizen soldiers that showed up at times of crisis, but would just as quickly leave after the encounter to attend their farms and the needs of their families. The revolutionary army was more akin to a posse than an army with the advantage of quickly amassing troops for a specific purpose but just as quickly dissipating once the task is completed. Such fluctuations in enrollment did not allow time for training or team building. This huge disadvantage was offset by the recruitment of fifteen hundred “volunteers” from the United States.92

The Battle of Concepción

As Austin approached San Antonio de Béxar with his army, including Juan Seguín and his company of Tejanos, now numbered about four hundred troops, he ordered James Bowie and James W. Fannin, Jr. to lead ninety men from San Francisco de la Espada Mission to find a good defensive position closer to town. The officers of the advanced group decided to camp out along a wooded area by the river that was protected by an embankment instead of returning to the main army as Austin had directed.

Gen. Cos seized the opportunity to attack a divided army and sent Col. Ugartechea with two hundred men to attack the Texians before dawn on October 28, 1835. The Texians repulsed repeated charges by the Mexican army then mounted a counterattack of their own capturing a cannon and forcing a withdrawal by the Mexican army. Hearing the firing of guns, the main army rushed to the scene but arrived too late

91 Eugene C. Barker and James W. Pohl, "TEXAS REVOLUTION," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qdt01), accessed May 17, 2015. Uploaded on August 7, 2010. Modified on February 17, 2015. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. 92 Paul D. Lack, "REVOLUTIONARY ARMY," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qjr03), accessed June 10, 2015. Uploaded on June 15, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. to participate. The Battle of Concepción was over. The Mexican losses were fourteen killed and thirty-one wounded while the Texians had one killed and one wounded. Austin wanted to keep the momentum and attack the town, but the other officers felt that San Antonio was too well fortified.93

The Grass Fight

In early November, Gen. Cos sent Col. Ugartechea with a cavalry escort to guide reinforcements to the garrison. About the same time Stephen Austin, appointed commissioner by the provisional government, left his army to represent Texas in the United States. The Texan army elected Col. Edward Burleson as their new commander.

On November 26 a scout reported that Mexican cavalry with pack animals was approaching San Antonio. Texans speculated that the supply train might be carrying pay for the Mexican army. Burleson sent forty cavalry under Bowie to delay the column while a hundred infantry under William H. Jack would capture the train.

The two cavalry units, about equal in size, skirmished west of town then on foot near Alazan Creek. Seeing the attack, Cos sent fifty infantry troops with a canon to push off the attack. The Texas infantry broke out of the crossfire of the two Mexican units and managed push back the Mexican forces. The Mexican forces counterattacked repeatedly until Texas reinforcements forced them to withdraw into town. The Mexican losses included three dead, fourteen wounded and forty pack animals while the Texans suffered four wounded. The prized booty: grass. The supply train carried only grass to feed the army animals.94

Siege of Béxar

The Texan siege of Béxar began with the Battle of Concepción resulting in Gen. Cos taking defensive positions in San Antonio and the Alamo and the Texans established camps on the river above and below the town. The Texan army grew to about six hundred with the arrival of Thomas J. Rusk with reinforcements from east Texas. There were occasional skirmishes between the forces with the Grass Fight being one of them. Both sides refrained from frequent forays because of limited supplies. In early December Burleson considered withdrawing to Goliad because of this shortage when a Mexican officer who surrendered told them of declining morale because of the limited supplies and the bitter cold brought on by onset of what would become one of the severest winter in memory. Benjamin R. Milam and William Gordon Cooke took this opportunity to attack San Antonio with three hundred volunteers while Burleson with four hundred men

93 Alwyn Barr, "CONCEPCION, BATTLE OF," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qec02), accessed June 11, 2015. Uploaded on June 12, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. 94 Alwyn Barr, "GRASS FIGHT," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qfg01), accessed June 19, 2015. Uploaded on June 15, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. scouted, protected the camp forcing Cos to keep his less than six hundred men divided between the town and the Álamo.95

Fray Antonio de Olivares established the mission currently known as the Álamo in 1718 and named it San Antonio de Valero in honor of Saint Anthony de Padua and the Duke of Valero, the Spanish viceroy who had approved it. After moving the mission several times, Olivares set the permanent location of building complex in 1724; the cornerstone was laid on May 8, 1744. It was abandoned as a mission in 1793 and in 1803 a company of Spanish soldiers from Álamo de Parras, occupied the complex that sprawled about three acres, using it as barracks. This is probably the source of the name by which it is known referring to the company soldiers and not to the tree. 96

At dawn on December 5, the Texans launched a surprise attack taking a few houses north of the plaza. The Texans advanced slowly forcing Cos to withdraw to concentrate his force in the Álamo. Four hundred and fifty of the six hundred reinforcements troops were untrained conscripts with little supplies. On December 9, having no other alternative, Cos asked for terms of surrender. Burleson accepted the surrender taking most of the equipment and weapons but allowed Cos and his men to march southward. Neither army had the supplies to hold a large number of prisoners.

Difficulty in Designing a Strategy

The leaders of the Texians took the respite between the defeat of Gen. Cos at the Álamo and the arrival of Santana to rebuild their army and develop a strategy to defeat Santana. Austin and then Burleson departed for the United States as commissioners to recruit and obtain supplies for revolutionary army. Francis W. Johnson was elected to command the revolutionary army that now consisted of mostly of volunteers from the United States since the colonist-soldiers had gone home. The colonists’ difficulty in developing a cohesive strategy to defeat Santana lay in their fractured vision of the final objective of their struggle. The main divisions were between colonists who wanted to reinstate the Constitution of 1824 and remain a part of Mexico and those wanted independence with eventual annexation by the United States with multiple variations in final goal within each group. This disjuncture in final goals was reflected in the leaders of the Texas revolution with the primary disagreement being at the very top between the General Council and Governor Henry Smith. The General Council pledged its support to the Mexican federal Constitution of 1824 while Governor Smith wanted independence with eventual annexation by the United States as a slave

95 Alwyn Barr, "BEXAR, SIEGE OF," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qeb01), accessed June 22, 2015. Uploaded on June 12, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. 96 Amelia W. Williams, "ALAMO," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/uqa01), accessed June 23, 2015. Uploaded on June 9, 2010. Modified on January 24, 2012. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. state.97 Both Austin and Houston were for a complete break from Mexico with Austin reluctantly realizing that slavery, so vital for the economic development of his colony, was not be in such a liberal congress. Houston didn’t place such high value in slavery, but demonstrated a loyalty to the United States that did not waver and opposed, as governor, breaking away from the Union and joining the Confederacy. Another factor complicating the plan of action was that the bulk of the revolutionary army was now composed of “volunteers” from the United States mostly from the south. These were aggressive, adventurous men who did not recognize the defined boundary of Texas, but felt that all the land to the Rio Grande River should be part of the United States by virtue of the Louisiana Purchase, a view that was not discouraged by Austin, Houston or Smith. To these men Mexico was the enemy and they were getting restless. Something—an expedition, an invasion, or an action—had to be done soon or the volunteers would start disappearing. The federalists on the Mexican side were also having difficulty in forming a unified plan to defeat Santana and his centralist government because of the varying visions of their final objective. This division fell into two main camps; those who wanted to break away from Mexico and form an independent republic and those who wanted unified Mexico under a re-instituted Constitution of 1824. Within the former group there were Mexicans like Zavala and Seguin who fully trusted the American colonists and fought with them to breakaway from Mexico, a misplaced trust he would later regret. The majority of Mexican liberal, in both camps distrusted the Americans viewing them as land-hungry claiming huge tracts of land. Mexican farms and ranches were generally smaller, limited by what could be worked without slave labor. This distrust, while not expressed was best demonstrated by Lt. Francisco de Castañeda in the Battle of Gonzales. Though he was a federalist and disagreed with Santana’s policies he was not quite able to join the Texas revolutionary army. There was open admiration of the liberal institutions of the United States by most Mexican liberals, but none from either camp wanted to be annexed by the United States.

Matamoros “Fever”

The Texians expected that the Centralists would mount an offensive in the spring. There were two possible routes Centralist forces could take from the interior of Mexico. The first was the Atascosito Road crossing the Rio Grande at Matamoros going northward through San Patricio, Goliad, Victoria and finally to the Austin colony. The other route was the Old San Antonio Road crossing the Rio Grande at Paso de Francia and then stretched northeastward through Béjar, Bastrop, Nacogdoches, San Augustine and on to Louisiana. Two forts blocked the two approaches to Texas: Presido La Bahía at Goliad and the Alamo at San Antonio de Béjar. The provisional government decided

97 Craig H. Roell, "MATAMOROS EXPEDITION OF 1835-36," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qdm01), accessed June 29, 2015. Uploaded on June 15, 2010. Modified on April 9, 2011. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. to man both posts with mostly American landless volunteers, the colonists had returned to hearth and home.98

Both Houston and Smith saw the need for some kind of offensive operation to improve their position and retain the services of the now restless American volunteers who were clamoring to strike the Mexican army in their homeland.99 Houston, being more practical, preferred to take El Cópano and control the port for the importation of men, arms, munitions and equipment from the United States. Smith, being more aggressive preferred striking deeper, Matamoros. On December 17 Houston wrote to James Bowie, then at Goliad, ordering him, as directed by Smith, to get sufficient volunteers to attack Matamoros, reduce the place and retain possession if possible until further orders. This was the initiation of the ill-fated Matamoros Expedition of 1835- 1836. More significant than its failure was that this act was the first visible demonstration of the total break in intentions between Smith and the provisional government changing the nature of the insurgency. It was no longer a colonists’ rebellion.

Col. Francis W. Johnson, who replaced Burleson as commander of the revolutionary army, and Dr. James Grant organized an independent Matamoros expedition, under private control, adding a complicating facet to an already flawed concept. The “Matamoros Fever” as Sam Houston labeled the idea of taking Matamoros was triggered an earlier offensive operation attacking Tampico that was partially financed by illegal land speculation. Federalists in New Orleans including exiled President Farías established an organization to collect funds and get volunteers to strike Central forces in Tampico. The objective of the operation was to rally support from the Federalists in northern Mexico dealing a crippling blow to Santa Ana. The Texas leaders approved of the plan though several, Austin among them suggested that Matamoros would be a better target.100 In November, three companies composed of mostly American volunteers lead by Gen. José Antonio Mexía headed for Tampico. Though the operation failed, Grant and Johnson, who both had invested in these questionable grants, believed taking Matamoros would not only capture a great port ensuring steady corridor of men and supplies and simultaneously denying to Santa Ana; it would rally the federalist in Tamaulipas ultimately protecting their investment.101

98 Stephen L. Hardin, "ALAMO, BATTLE OF THE," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qea02), accessed May 07, 2015. Uploaded on June 9, 2010. Modified on July 24, 2014. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. 99 Keith Guthrie, "SAN PATRICIO, BATTLE OF," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qfs03), accessed June 29, 2015. Uploaded on June 15, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. 100 "TAMPICO EXPEDITION," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qyt01), accessed July 15, 2015. Uploaded on June 15, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. 101 Craig H. Roell, "MATAMOROS EXPEDITION OF 1835-36," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qdm01), accessed July 13, 2015. Uploaded on June 15, 2010. Modified on April 9, 2011. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. Bowie had already left for San Antonio and thus did not receive Houston’s letter directing him to attack Matamoros. Grant and Johnson did, however, activate their plan to attack Matamoros.

The Disaster at San Patricio

In preparation for the usurpation of Matamoros, Grant raided warehouses in San Antonio; picked up horses and more supplies in Goliad and assembled the volunteers in Refugio. Henry Smith opposed this expedition and asked Houston who was commander of the Texas Revolutionary, but had no authority over the volunteers, to dissuade it. In a rousing speech Houston convinced the bulk of the volunteers that such a mission was sheer folly. Many left the army; others joined the troops stationed in Goliad. On the last day of January, 1836, Johnson and Grant, still confident in their mission, took the remaining volunteers, from sixty to hundred men to San Patricio south of the Nueces River out of Texas and in Tamaulipas to plunder for horses and supplies needed to take Matamoros. The invasion of Mexico had begun.

Grant knew that Capt. Nicolás Rodríguez was in the area with a few men. He surprised and captured the small party, took the prisoners and the horses to San Patricio. A few days later, the Mexican prisoners escaped.102 Grant and Johnson ventured further south in search of horses. Around February 21, Johnson led part of the group to herd about a hundred horses, north to Texas while Grant stayed behind with the rest of the group to find more horses and perhaps make contact with Federalist in Matamoros. Johnson left twelve men to guard the herd of stolen horses at Julian de la Garza ranch about four miles south of San Patricio then took the rest to garrison in San Patricio. Confident that Grant would warn him if the rumored Mexican army should approach, he didn’t assign any pickets and ordered all his men to seek shelter from the brutal cold.103 This was the severest winter in memory.

The rumored Mexican army was real. Scouts easily followed the trail left by Johnson’s herd to San Patricio. Upon learning of the location of the Texians, Gen. José de Urrea placed a hundred dragoons and a hundred infantrymen on a forced march in a wet, frigid night to corner the Texians.

José de Urrea was a norteño, a man from the north, having been born in Tucson, Arizona and as such was a federalist.104 As a multi-generational career officer, his first allegiance was to Mexico but was torn between fighting for Santa Ana whose policies he abhorred or for the federalist for re-instatement of the Constitution of 1824 of which his

102 Keith Guthrie, "SAN PATRICIO, BATTLE OF," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qfs03), accessed June 29, 2015. Uploaded on June 15, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. 103 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_San_Patricio This page was last modified on 13 June 2015, at 21:32. Accessed on July 19, 2015 104 “Mexican military hero Urrea actually a ‘local boy’” by Paul L. Allen on Oct 10, 2005, under City/State, PAUL L. ALLEN Citizen Staff Writer father was a signatory. The various offensive operations launched against Santa Ana looked more like a foreign invasion very few of the invaders were actually colonists and most had not even visited Mexico. The Texians’ goal of secession rather than re- instatement of the federal constitution drove Urrea to decide for Mexico and, reluctantly, Santa Ana. Urrea arrived at Matamoros on January 31 and convinced the local federalist that the Americans were committed to secession.

After the forced march, Urrea with his men arrived at the San Patricio area around 3:00 A.M. on February 27. He sent Capt. Rafael Pretala with thirty men to Julián de la Garza ranch to recover the horses and capture the men guarding them while he took care of the Texians garrisoned in San Patricio. Pretala reported four Texians kill and eight captured and all the horses recovered. Urrea reported sixteen killed and twenty-four taken prisoner and no damage to the town or its inhabitants. Johnson and the four men Garrisoned with him escaped and made their way to Goliad.105

Grant and his men evaded detection until March 2 when they were attacked near a creek crossing at Agua Dulce; all but six were killed or captured. Grant was killed bringing an end to the planned plunder of Matamoros.

The Grueling March to Texas

After the defeat of the Federalists in Zacatecas in May, Santa Anna set his hastily assembled “Army of Operation,” many of them raw recruits, on a grueling four hundred league (about 1200 miles) march through inhospitable terrain to Béxar, modeling the maneuver after Napoleon’s trek through Russia, rationalizing that inhabitants along the way would welcome and supply them with provisions. He was wrong. Scarcity of supplies, Apache attacks, oppressive heat followed by the blizzard of 1836 decimated his army arriving with only one thousand eight hundred exhausted troops at Béxar in February 1836.106

This was not his first trip to Texas. He served as a young officer in General Juaquin de Arredondo army that crushed the rebels at Medina in 1813. He thrived in Arredondo’s brutal, punitive environment that did not limit the defeat of adversary to the destruction of military resources but extended it to include anyone who may have held the slightest empathy for the rebels or their cause. Arredondo’s concept of total warfare called for the complete destruction of the society that fostered the rebellion so it can never rise again. It was with this rational that he justified his extended “reign of terror.” This suited Santa Anna psychic perfectly and fit the vision of himself as the “Napoleon of the Americas.”

105 Keith Guthrie, "SAN PATRICIO, BATTLE OF," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qfs03), accessed June 29, 2015. Uploaded on June 15, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association.

106 Remember the Alamo, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/alamo/peopleevents/p_santaanna.html accessed July 22, 2015

The Battle of the Álamo

With twenty-one artillery pieces at Béxar, James Clinton Neill was given command of the garrison because of his military experience in general and artillery in particular. James Walker Fannin, Jr. was given command at Goliad. While both commanders intended to be more than just a picket and actually hold the centralist forces at the gate, they knew that without quick reinforcement from the colonists either fort would fall.

Through January, Neill worked extensively to fortify the Álamo. Maj. Green Jameson, the chief engineer, installed most of the cannons on the wall and boasted to Gen. Sam Houston if the Centralists stormed the Álamo, we would “whip them ten to one with the artillery.” Houston, always the realist, thought otherwise, and questioned the wisdom of dividing forces and equipment knowing that the Álamo couldn’t be held with volunteers. On January 14, Neill wrote Houston that his people were in a “torpid, defenseless condition.”107 Houston wrote to Gov. Henry Smith telling him that it was impossible to keep up the station with volunteers and advised him that he had ordered that the fort be leveled and abandoned and, if he “thought well of it,” the cannons and munitions be removed and placed in Gonzales and Cópano.108 Smith did not consent and continued to man the station.

On January 19 James Bowie arrived at the Álamo compound and was impressed with Neill’s preparations. Neill complained that he had no horses and without outriders he couldn’t function as a true picket.

Now fully committed to bolster the garrison, Smith ordered Lt. Col. William B. Travis to take is “Legion of Cavalry” to the Álamo. Only thirty horsemen responded this call for volunteers. Travis threatened to resign over not having more, better-equipped men for such duty, however he dutifully complied reporting on the third of February followed by David Crockett and a group of volunteers around the eighth.

On February 14 Neill went on furlough because illness had struck his family and he was desperately needed in Bastrop. Neill appointed Travis acting post commander in his absence over the older more experienced Bowie because Travis had a regular army commission while Bowie was a volunteer colonel. He promised to return an assume command within twenty days well before the expected Santa Anna’s spring offensive.

The volunteers usually elected their commander and resented having a commander foisted on them especially one that had not yet earned their trust. The volunteers insisted on an election and Travis complied. The volunteers voted for Bowie and the regulars for Travis resulting in a dual commander compromise. Bowie was the commander for the volunteers and Travis for the regulars—not an ideal solution with two

107 Hardin 108 Hardin headstrong commanders especially at the beginning. Travis in a letter to Smith stated that the dual commander compromise had placed him in “an awkward situation,” when local residents complained of Bowies’ besotted carousal and drunken behavior. He had torn into town, confiscated private property and released convicted felons from jail. They learned to respect each other and agreed to co-sign all orders until Neill returned.

Travis was surprised when the Mexican army appeared at the gate of the Álamo on February 23. He had gotten reports that Santa Anna had crossed the river, but he didn’t expect arrive at Béxar until the middle of March. He immediately sent a missive to Smith, Fannin and other commanders to send reinforcements and supplies, knowing that with 160 men they couldn’t hold the fort for long.

Upon arrival, Santa Anna sent a courier demanding that the Álamo surrender. Travis replied with a cannonball to which Santa Anna responded with a barrage that Travis described in his letter pleading for help as a “sustained continual Bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours.” The siege had begun. Once the walls were reduced, Travis/Bowie would have to surrender.

Bowie became ill with some mysterious, incapacitating malady compelling Travis to assume full command on the twenty fourth of February. On this day Travis wrote another letter addressed to the “people of Texas & all Americans in the world,” describing the continual bombardment pledging to “never surrender or retreat.” The main thrust of the letter was an entreaty for reinforcement. On March 1, thirty-two troops from Gonzales ranging company made their way into the Álamo. This was not enough. On March 3, Travis sent a report to the convention again desperately pleading for help and adding that he had lost faith in Colonel Fannin.

On March 5, Santa Anna stunned his staff by announcing an assault on the Álamo for the following day. It made no sense. The walls were crumbling, no relief column was on its way and supplies were short. Soon surrender would be the only option for the rebels. Attacking now would be costly. This made no military sense, however the staff was unable to dissuade Santa Anna from this attack.

The journalist reported as hearsay that Travis had sent, a little before dark that evening, a woman messenger to Santa Anna offering to surrender his arms and the fort with all its supplies on the sole condition that his own life and that of his men be spared.109 Santa Anna insisted on unconditional surrender and, hence all men under arms would be treated as pirates and summarily executed. This set the stage for a costly, ferocious battle, a pyrrhic victory at best.

109 " 'Remember the Alamo, 1836' " EyeWitness to History, www.eyewitnesstohistory.com (2009).

At pre-dawn on March 6, the Mexicans stationed themselves for a simultaneous attack on all four fronts, an “injudicious” tactic that forced the Mexican artillery to be silent for fear of bombarding your own troops.110

On the sound of the bugle and with shouts for Santa Anna, the columns, in close formation surged forward. As soon the troops were in sight, the defenders responded with relentless cannon and musket fire. The three columns that attacked the north, the west and the east fronts were repulsed at the first enemy discharge but quickly regrouped and returned to the attack. The columns on the eastern and western front met difficulties reaching the top of small houses that formed part of the wall of the fort so they swung around to the northern front forming one dense mass were able to the parapet on that side.

In the meantime the column on the southern front led by Colonels José Vicente Minón and José Morales penetrated the embrasures into the square formed by the barracks. There they captured the cannon and turned them to knock down the doors of the interior rooms where the enemy sought refuge. Lieutenant Colonel José Enrique de la Peña described the frightful scene, “…Our soldiers, stimulated by courage and others by fury, burst into the quarters the enemy had entrenched themselves, from which issued an infernal fire. Behind these came others who nearing the doors and blind with fury and smoke fired their shots against friends and enemies alike and in this way our losses were most grievous. On the other hand, they turned the enemy’s own cannon to bring down the doors of the rooms or the rooms themselves; a horrible carnage took place, and some were trampled to death. The tumult was great, the disorder frightful; it seemed as if the furies had descended upon us.”111

Seven defenders survived the onslaught with Davy Crockett among them. They were brought before Santa Anna who ordered that they be executed over the objections of one of his officers. “Though tortured before the were killed, these unfortunates died without complaining or humiliating themselves before their torturers.”112

José Sánchez Navarro who recorded a detailed account of this battle wrote:

“Travis, the commandant of the Alamo died like a hero; Buy [Bowie], the braggart son-in-law of Beramendi [died] like a coward. The troops were permitted to pillage. The enemy have suffered a heavy loss: twenty-one field pieces of different caliber, many arms and munitions. Two hundred fifty-seven of their men were killed: I have seen and counted their bodies. But I cannot be glad because we lost eleven officers with nineteen wounded, including the valiant Duque and González; and two hundred forty-seven of our troops were wounded

110 " 'Remember the Alamo, 1836' " EyeWitness to History, www.eyewitnesstohistory.com (2009). 111 http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/alamex.htm Aug 6, 2015 112 http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/alamex.htm Aug 6, 2015

and one hundred ten killed. It can truly be said that with another such victory as this we'll go to the devil.”113

We get an observation of Colonel William B. Travis by a Mexican officer as he witnessed Travis' actions during the battle. In his book With Santa Anna in Texas, Jose Enrique de la Pena, a Lieutenant Colonel in the Mexican army, described Travis as follows: "He would take a few steps and stop, turning his proud face toward us to discharge his shots; he fought like a true soldier. Finally he died, but he died after having traded his life very dearly. …”114

While the terror factor may have been greater with a simultaneous attack from all sides, it violated all tactical military principles; it silenced supporting cannon fire and exposed the attacking troops to both enemy and friendly fire. Only a quarter of the casualties were caused by enemy fire. General Juan de Andrade official list of casualties recorded: officers 8 killed and 18 wounded; enlisted men 52 killed, 233 wounded. A great many of the wounded died for want of medical attention, beds and shelter.

Santa Anna treated enemy women and children with a rare display of gallantry he had never shown before. Perhaps some plaintive face or cry had touched his heart or simply calculated to spread his message of terror. He pledged safe passage through his lines and provided each with a blanket and two dollars.

With his pyrrhic victory at the Álamo, Santa Anna lost the war losing not only Texas but, the northern part of Mexico. It wasn’t because of the heavy losses his forces suffered in the imprudent attack or even the thirteen-day delay in proceeding to eastern colonies, but by his commitment to total warfare and terror to gain submission.

While all of Coahuila-Texas rebelled against the centralist government of Santa Anna when he abolished the Constitution of 1824, each group within the state had different goals and objectives for the rebellion. At the two extremes you had the Mexican liberal who didn’t want to break away from Mexico, but simply wanted the re- instatement of Constitution of 1824 versus the members of the War Party who simply wanted to break away from Mexico and become part of the United States. And, of course, there were many nuances in objectives within each group. Some wanted to part of Mexico but were frustrated by the unwillingness of the liberal congress to allow slavery. Some wanted to break away from Mexico and form an independent nation. Then there were groups within the European colonies, especially the German community that abhorred slavery and simply wanted the re-instatement of the federal form of government.

113 http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/adp/archives/maps/sanchezdoc.html The Library Chronicle 114 A MEXICAN VIEW OF THE WAR IN TEXAS, Memoirs of a Veteran of the Two Battles of the Alamo, Transcribed for the Second Flying Company of Alamo de Parras by Robert Durham http://www.texasescapes.com/DEPARTMENTS/Guest_Columnists/Times_past/AlamoMexicanEyewitness .htm

Santa Anna’s dependence on terror to achieve victory changed all of this. Total submission for civilians and death for men under arms left no space for accommodation, leaving only the massive depopulation of Texas as the only measure of success. The primary goal of the colonists was now survival. He justified grievances, united the opposition and severely damaged the Mexican character. Mexican colonists would suffer for many generations for his excesses.

Washington-on-the-Brazos Convention 1836

The General Council of the provisional government issued call, over the veto of Governor Henry Smith, for a convention to meet at Washington-on-the-Brazos for the purpose of organizing an ad interim government for an independent Texas.115 The Governor did not veto the call for the convention in the spirit of protest of an independent Texas, but to spite the General Council in a struggle that had gone beyond a conflict in policy and had become quite personal. In this conflict Smith dissolved the council who, in turn, impeached him. Smith refused to relinquish the governorship and the council ignored his veto. The power struggle became moot with the convention, thus never resolved.

Smith’s veto did not really reflect his sentiments on independence for Texas. In fact, he was very much for breaking away from Mexico. He joined the War Party in 1835 and had become one of its most ardent leaders. He was unequivocally for and independent Texas.116

On December 12, 1835, the Council of the Provisional Government of Texas called for an election for February 1 for the selection of delegates for the convention to be held at Washington-on-the-Brazos on March 1, 1836.117 Forty-four delegates assembled on the first day of the convention with rest trickling in over the next ten days to make a final total of fifty-nine delegates by March 11. Most of the delegates were from the United State with the majority from the southern states. Three were born in Mexico with two of those born in Texas. Only ten of the delegates had been in Texas prior to 1830 with two actually coming to Texas in 1836.

With the report of the approach of the Mexican army, the convention attendees quickly organized an ad interim government, hastily wrote the Texas Declaration of Independence with a lengthy list of grievances that were fully justified by Santa Anna’s terror-based mode of operation, and the first Anglo-American based constitution to

115 Ralph W. Steen, "CONVENTION OF 1836," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/mjc12), accessed August 20, 2015. Uploaded on June 12, 2010. Modified on February 3, 2015. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. 116 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Smith_(Texas_Governor), august 30, 2015 117 SONS OF DEWITT COLONY TEXAS © 1997-2013, Wallace L. McKeehan, All Rights Reserved Independence Resolutions & Consultations-Index http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/consultations6.htm govern Texas. The delegates elected Sam Houston as Commander-in-Chief of the regular and volunteer Texas land army, passed resolutions for adopting conscription of all male inhabitants of Texas between the ages of seventeen and fifty into military service and elected a set of officer for the interim government to serve until the first election set for October. Officers elected for the ad interim government included: • David G. Burnet, President • Lorenzo de Zavala, Vice-President • Samuel P. Carson, Secretary of State • Thomas J. Rusk, Secretary of War • Baily Hardeman, Secretary of Treasury • David Thomas. Attorney General

The constitution was basically a copy of the United States constitution establishing a republic with the three branches of government with the major deviation of making the republic a slave nation.

Section 9 of the General Provisions reinstated the “peculiar” institution stating: “All persons of color who were slaves for life previous to their emigration to Texas, and who are now held in bondage, shall remain in the like state of servitude, provide the said slave shall be the bona fide property of the person so holding said slave as aforesaid…”118 Reflecting the concern caused by the constant threat of a liberal congress bent on restricting entry of slaves with the final goal of emancipation, the founders made a great effort to make this institution permanent throughout the new republic. The Section forbids Congress from passing any law restricting immigrants from the United States from bringing their slaves; denies Congress the power to emancipate them and further prohibits owners from freeing their slave without the express approval of Congress and then only if the slaves are released outside the boundary of the republic. No free person of African descent in whole or in part was permitted to reside permanently within the country.

Another provision that would later raised concerns among the inhabitants of the occupied territories of the republic was the following section in the General Provisions.

Sec. 8. All persons who shall leave the country for the purpose of evading a participation in the present struggle, or shall refuse to participate in it, or shall give aid or assistance to the present enemy, shall forfeit all rights of citizenship, and such lands as they may hold in the republic.

The section would be unambiguous if the boundary of the Republic coincided the established boundary of the state. It did not. The republic claimed all the territory to the Rio Grande River more than tripling the size of the state. While the Texians may have claimed that territory as a buffer between them and Santa Ana, it was not empty. In fact, it was well populated and this was the question. Did this section apply to the inhabitants in these territories? Were they citizens or were they just inhabitants in an occupied territory?

118 http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/texas1836/general_provisions. September 14, 2015

Another peculiarity of the Constitution of the Republic of Texas was the disqualification of ministers or priests of any denomination from holding office in the republic.

The Battle of Coleto

The steady advance of the Gen. Urrea’s army after the defeat of the Texans at San Patricio forced the Texans to abandon the port of Copano. This made Goliad, which Fannin had fortified, less important strategically. Even after he learned of the fall of the Alamo, he continued to fortify Fort Defiance as he had christened the La Bahía presidio.

Around March 13 or 14, Fannin received Houston’s order to fall back to Victoria with all the weapons and munitions possible. Fannin delayed in abandoning Goliad for several reasons, but primarily because he didn’t have any wagons. Earlier he had foolishly sent Amon B. King with his men and then William Ward and the Georgia Battalion to Refugio not only placing these men in harms way but also depleting his force at Goliad by a hundred and fifty men, no wagons and no cavalry. Without patrols he was blind in his fort. He had to wait for Albert C. Horton to bring the needed carts and twenty yokes of oxen from Victoria.

Horton arrived around March 16, but Fannin still delayed departure refusing to leave without learning the fate of Ward and King which prompted another mistake every courier sent to Ward and King had been captured. Urrea now knew the exact location, strength, condition and plans of Fannin’s forces.

Fannin learned of Ward’s defeat at Refugio on March 17, but he still delayed the order to retreat until the following day. No doubt, Fannin’s total disdain for the capabilities of the Mexican army was a factor in his dallying. On March 18, Horton’s patrols had several skirmishes with Urrea’s advance patrols. Feeling he was about to be besieged, Fannin placed the fort on alert and did not start his retreat with about three hundred men until the midmorning on the following day. The carts were heavily loaded with nine artillery pieces and about a thousand muskets pulled by tired and unfed oxen.

Urrea did not learn of Fannin’s departure until about 11:00 a.m. Urrea, leaving his artillery in Goliad, immediately set out giving Fannin a two-hour lead. Leaving his artillery behind in Goliad, Urrea quickly chased after Fannin’s army with eighty cavalrymen and three hundred sixty infantrymen.119 Urrea learned from advanced scouts that Fannin’s column was considerably smaller than supposed. He immediately returned a hundred infantrymen to secure Goliad and part of that force to escort the artillery to join them.

119 Handbook of Texas Online, Craig H. Roell, "Coleto, Battle Of," accessed September 26, 2016, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qec01. Fannin’s cumbersome retreat was further delayed in crossing the San Antonio River—one of the carts broke down dumping their largest cannon into the river. They lost about an hour retrieving cannon and reloading the cart. They lost another hour when Fannin ordered that the oxen be unhitched and allowed to graze. They had hardly resumed their march when another car broke down and its contents transferred to another cart when the Mexican cavalry appeared. Fannin sent Horton to scout the protective wooded area by the Coleto Creek about two miles distant to form a defensive position for battle. The Mexican cavalry stopped that advance. Fannin formed a defensive moving square and headed toward the higher ground and wooded area by the Perdido Creek less than a mile away. The Mexican army blocked their progress and Fannin was caught without cavalry in a valley in a field of high grasses. Without patrols and on low ground surrounded by tall grasses, his view was limited to a few feet. He quickly had his men formed a square three man deep on each side and placed a cannon at each corner. Each man was given three or four muskets, bayonets, rifles and abundant munitions and prepared for the imminent attack.

The first charge began at mid afternoon with the battle lasting until sunset. After three charges, Urrea retired because of depletion of ammunition. He respected the Texian’s effective use of their cannons and the withering fire in repulsing the three charges. He placed snipers in the tall grasses and continued inflicting casualties until dark. Urrea’s forces suffered heavy casualties. They camped, nursed the wounded and waited for reinforcements, munitions and the artillery that would soon join them.

The Texians were not unscathed, seven were killed and sixty wounded (forty severely). Fannin was one of the wounded. Without a campfire or water they were unable to attend to the wounded. The night was made even more miserable by the cold rainy night. Their only hope was that Horton would return with reinforcements from Victoria. Horton was unable to break through the Mexican line. William Ward and the Georgia Battalion on retreat from their defeat at Refugio were close enough to hear the gunfire at Coleto but Urrea, aware of their presence had the Carlos de la Garza men keep the tired and hungry battalion at bay at the Guadalupe River.

Urrea posted troops at several points around Fannin’s square to prevent escape and kept the Texians on edge with false bugle calls. By morning Urrea’s force doubled in size and now had a full complement of artillery posted on higher ground. Fannin seeing the hopelessness of their situation held council with his advisors and they all agreed to seek terms of surrender.

By Santa Anna’s decree, Urrea could only accept unconditional surrender, but he pledged to Fannin to intercede for them. Urrea treated Fannin and his men the highest respect: they had fought well and bravely. They took the prisoners to Goliad.

The Goliad Massacre

At Goliad, Urrea dispatched a report to Santa Anna with a letter pleading that the captured be treated as prisoners of war and not as pirates. The prisoners captured by Urrea, the survivors of the Battle of Refugio, Amon King’s group and the Georgia Battalion along with Fannin’s army were now being housed at Fort Defiant, the fort they previously occupied.120 Santa Anna was unmoved by the plea for clemency; he was so committed to nihilism as a way to rule, a scorched earth policy that made it unnecessarily bloody for friend and foe; he could not bend even an iota. He immediately dispatched an order to Portilla to comply with the national decree and execute "all foreigners taken with arms in their hands, making war upon the nation." With the order he included specific instructions on how the executions were to be carried out.121

Gen. Urrea found executions repulsive. At San Patricio, he reported sending the prisoners to Matamoros. Santa Anna immediately countermanded that order with the order to execute all men under arms immediately as required by the Decree of December 30. Urrea had no appetite for cold-blooded killing and, reluctantly issued the order to someone under his command to carry out the executions. Father Thomas Malloy, priest of the Irish colonists, intervened pleading that such executions were against the laws of God and men. Urrea quickly relented and sent the prisoners to Matamoros and asked Santa Anna for forgiveness.

Urrea left Lt. Col. José Nicolás de la Portilla in charge of the prisoners at Goliad as he continued his march to Victoria. On March 26, Portilla received the Santa Anna’s order to execute the prisoners. Two hours later he received an order from Gen. Urrea entreating him to treat the prisoners with consideration, especially their leader, Fannin and further urged him to use able-bodied prisoners to rebuild the town. This was, according to Portilla’s diary, a cruel contrast in contradictory orders. After a fitful night, Portilla, who had kept the orders secret from all except Col. Francisco Garay, decided that Santa Anna’s orders were superior.

At dawn. Portilla isolated and spared doctors and other individuals with needed skills (about 20) and, through the intercession of a “lady,” William Parsons Miller and his men (about 80) who had been captured without arms at Copano. The rest of the prisoners, over four hundred, were organized into three groups and marched under escort in three directions. Adding to the cruelty, the prisoners were not told of their fate. The men were generally in good spirits believing in several rumors from going out to gather wood or drive cattle to the most optimistic that they were being staged for deportation. At selected spots along the roads, less than a mile from Goliad, the column halted, the escort guard shifted to one side and became executioners. Most were killed at first shot. Those who survived the initial shot were given the coup de grâce with bayonets or knives. Only twenty-eight men escaped the carnage.

120 Handbook of Texas Online, Harbert Davenport and Craig H. Roell, "Goliad Massacre," accessed October 16, 2016, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qeg02.

121 Handbook of Texas Online, Craig H. Roell, "Portilla, Jose Nicolas De La," accessed October 21, 2016, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fpo22. After the execution, the officers and men stood in stunned silence.122 No earnest effort was made to re-capture the escaped prisoners no doubt that many wished they had all escape. This was not just the killing of enemies in the heat of battle or just afterwards while the adrenalin was still high. This was the killing of unarmed men that you had a relationship with for at least a few days even if it wasn’t under the best of circumstances, they were no longer a faceless enemy. You had heard them singing about returning home the night before. This was unnatural killing in cold blood.

The men gathered the bodies in solemn silence and built a great fire more in atonement than respect, but no pyre was large enough to remove the enduring stain of this horrific crime committed on Palm Sunday March 27, 1836. Decades later Santa Anna blamed Portilla for this atrocity.

“Remember Goliad!” became a rallying cry for the Texians at San Jacinto. Goliad should be remembered not as rallying cry for vengeance but as a reminder of how easy it is to slip into savagery and the great moral cost it exacts.

“Angel of Goliad”

When the lady, “evidently of distinction,”123 saw Maj. William P. Miller’s men had been tightly bound for several hours, she ordered the prisoners be untied and fed. Strangely the soldiers guarding Gen. Urrea’s prisoners at Copano complied. Perhaps they already felt that such shackling for so long was inhumane and needed just the smallest encouragement to do the right thing.

This was not the first time she acted on behalf of prisoners. At San Patrico, she and Father Malloy talked convinced Gen. Urrea not to obey Santa Anna’s direct order to execute all prisoners. Years later he credited the priest and Mrs. Álvarez for sparing him from the repulsive of executing people.124

Capt. Alavez went to Victoria with Gen. Urrea leaving his supposed wife in Goliad and hence was there at the time of the massacre. Col. Garay appalled by Santa Anna’s order that Portilla had received to executed all the prisoners. In his anguish, he shared this information with Mrs. Álvarez who immediately pleaded for their lives. This was the impetus Garay needed to implement a plan to save some lives. He was able to persuade Portilla to spare William Miller’s men because they were captured without arms, about eighty men, and a list of about twenty more people consisting of doctors, medical personnel, craftsmen and other people with needed skills. Besides the people

122 Handbook of Texas Online, Craig H. Roell, "Portilla, Jose Nicolas De La," accessed October 21, 2016, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fpo22.

123 Harbert Davenport, “The Angel of Goliad,” Bits of Texas History, Edited by J.T. Canales, (San Antonio: Artes Graficas, 1950) p 51 124 “. p 53 Col. Garay was able, Mrs. Álvarez, at great risk, entered furtively into the compound and was able to hide a few more prisoners keeping them out of harms way.125

The Texans she saved knew her as the wife of Captain Telesforo Alavez because she accompanied him from Matamoros to Copano Bay in March 1836. She was really his mistress. Her given name was Francisca or Francita; Panchita and Pancheta are simply diminutive forms of the two mentioned given names. Her real surname is not known but has been stated as Alavez, Álvarez and Alavesco. Of the three, Álvarez is the most likely—that is the name Gen. Urrea used in referring to her.

Some of the people she saved have suggested that this Mexican lady, whoever she was, be named as a Heroine of the Texas Revolution. While an honor, it is too limited in scope. There are no indications these acts of kindness were motivated by anything other than that the victims were human. She is truly a champion of the human race. This mysterious lady who had the courage to be kind to the perceived enemy is the “Angel of Goliad.”

The End Game

After the fall of the Alamo, Santa Anna felt that the war was over. It took coaxing by several of his generals to convince him that the war was not over until Houston’s army was captured or destroyed. Once convinced that indeed he did have to capture Houston and the remaining Texas forces, Santa Anna planned a three-prong attack sweeping through east Texas. He ordered Gen. Antonio Gaona to proceed from Bastrop to San Felipe, Gen. Joaquín Ramirez y Sesma was also ordered to San Felipe and from their to head in an easterly course toward Anahuac and Gen. José de Urrea was to secure the right flank and head in a northerly direction to eventually join the main force. The Ramirez y Sesma force was to act as a spearhead of the attack.

Gen. Ramirez y Sesma caught sight of the Texian army along the Colorado River and started in hot pursuit of his quarry. Though the Texian army outnumbered the Mexican force, Houston refused to engage the smaller force and to the consternation of many in his army ordered a withdrawal to Jared Groce’s plantation. Houston worked on the dictum of never initiating a battle you are not sure you can win. While he had no doubt in zeal of his army it was a poorly trained militia and would be no match for a well-disciplined army.

When Houston learned of Fannin’s fate, the withdrawal became a retreat. He went by San Felipe de Austin, which he torched to impede the Mexican force hot in pursuit. His army had now shrunk to less than eight hundred men. Two of his captains, Wyly Martin and Moseley Baker, objected to this retreat stating they would rather fight on their own than run with the army. Houston assigned these captains with their followers to establish a rear guard to impede the Mexican army.

125 Handbook of Texas Online, George O. Coalson, "Alavez, Francita," accessed October 18, 2016, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fal53.

The interim government, that is President Burnet and his cabinet, moved from the more vulnerable New Washington for the safer Harrisburg. Upon hearing of the flight of government officials Santa Anna lead part of his force to Harrisburg to capture the fleeing officials losing sight of his main objective, the Texian army. When he reached Harrisburg, the officials had, once again, fled. Santa Anna led his force to Lynch’s Ferry on the San Jacinto River. 126

From captured couriers, Houston learned the size, location and destination of Santa Anna’s force and placed his army in a forced march to Lynch’s Ferry arriving there, on April 20 before Santa Anna’s force. Scouting details had a brief encounter but they quickly disengaged with no casualties on either. Santa Anna was surprised by the Texian presence. Assuming that the Texians were preparing for defensive struggle, the over-confident Santa Anna decided to bivouac on high ground about three quarters of mile from the Texian camp to wait for Gen. Cos’ troops, who were close, perhaps a day away, to mount a final assault with a larger army. The following morning April 21, Sam Houston held a staff meeting on strategy. Two favored to attack the enemy at his position, even it was on high ground, but the majority favored waiting for Santa Anna’s attack, Sam Houston held his opinion. Houston, ever so patient, waited until mid-afternoon when things had quieted down and sprung the surprise attack.127

The over-confident Santa Anna had not posted any lookouts. The surprise was total. The Battle of San Jacinto lasted eighteen minutes. Houston reported six hundred and thirty (630) Mexicans killed, seven hundred and thirty (730) captured. Nine Texians killed and another thirty wounded. Houston was one of the wounded with a shattered ankle.

Santa Anna vanished during the battle and was not found until the following day hiding in the tall grass dressed like a common soldier. He was not recognized until he was brought to the compound and the other prisoner called him “El presidente.”

The Velasco Treaties

After Santa Anna was identified as one of captives of the battle of San Jacinto, several of the Texians wanted to execute him immediately for crimes committed at the Alamo and Goliad. Sam Houston quickly nixed the idea, not because of his forgiving nature, but because he knew that a live Santa Anna was far more valuable than a dead one.

126 Eugene C. Barker and James W. Pohl, "TEXAS REVOLUTION," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qdt01), accessed May 17, 2015. Uploaded on August 7, 2010. Modified on February 17, 2015. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. 127 Handbook of Texas Online, L. W. Kemp, "San Jacinto, Battle Of," accessed September 26, 2016, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qes04.

On May 14, 1836 Interim president David G. Burnet and Gen. Santa Anna signed a public and a secret treaty at Velasco, Texas. The public treaty was published immediately, but the secret agreement was not to be executed until the public one was fulfilled. The public treaty provided for cessation of all hostilities, a promise by Santa Anna not to take up arms against Texas, withdrawal of Mexican forces beyond the Rio Grande River, restoration of property rights, prisoner exchange on an equal basis, liberation of Santa Anna to Mexico as soon as possible. The secret agreement basically called for the immediate release of Santa Anna on the condition that he use his influence to convince the Mexican government to acknowledge the independence of Texas; the promise he would never take arms against the republic of Texas; that the Mexican cabinet receive a Texas favorably to work a treaty of commerce and establish the boundaries of the new republic. 128

Santa Anna was to be sent to Mexico at once via Vera Cruz to prepare the Mexican cabinet to receive the Texas commission to negotiate all differences between them be settled. There was high sentiment in the colony for the execution of Santa Anna for crimes against humanity so President Burnet was relieved to see Santa Anna on board the schooner at the mouth of the Brazos on June 3, 1836.

A few hours before the Invincible embarked for Vera Cruz, a vessel with a company of new recruits from the United States bent on extracting justice for the Alamo and Goliad demanded that Santa Anna be detained, tried and executed. They defied the interim government by forcibly boarding the schooner and taking Santa Anna prisoner. They took him up the Brazos to the Phelps plantation, Orozimbo, where he was held prisoner for the summer and autumn.129

Without Santa Anna’s intervention, the Texas commission was not received, Mexico never recognized the independence of Texas and its borders were not defined until after the Mexican War in 1848

Santa Anna’s Detention

The Texas army, defying the interim government in general and Interim President Burnet in particular, seized Santa Anna from the schooner hours before it set sail for Vera Cruz to comply with the term of the secret agreement and held him prisoner at James Phelps’ plantation, Orozimbo, about thirty miles up the Brazos from Velasco. to await trial and execution.

128 Handbook of Texas Online, "Treaties of Velasco," accessed November 09, 2016, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/mgt05.

129 “Santa Anna's Captivity”, From the Life of Santa Anna by Clarence Wharton, 1926, accessed November 12, 2016, http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/santaanna4.htm#wharton

As hosts, Dr. James Phelps and his wife Rosetta Abeline Yerby treated their prisoner with dignity but the guards did not. On a rumor of a rescue attempt that never materialized, the guards shackled Santa Anna and chained him to live oak tree. Santa Anna became despondent and attempted suicide by ingesting a poison. Dr. Phelps was able to counteract the poison and saved his life. In a later incident Rosetta, at considerable risk, was able to protect Santa Anna from a lynch mob.

Santa Anna stayed at the plantation until November 15 when Sam Houston shipped him under escort to Washington, D.C. In the months he stayed at the plantation, he developed a very nurturing relationship with the Phelps family. After he had returned to Mexico, he continued to show his gratitude for their treatment by sending Christmas gifts usually a beautifully woven bedspread. In 1842, after he had returned to power, he rescued Orlando Phelps from execution as a member of the Mier Expedition and sent him home with five hundred dollars in gold.130

The first congress of the Republic of Texas convened at Columbia on October 3, 1836. After the thirty representatives and fourteen senators had established the rules and the assignment of roles, they fell into an endless debate on the fate of Santa Anna.131 Most favored that he tried and executed and if his fate had been left to this congress Santa Anna would never have returned to Mexico alive. However Sam Houston, who had been elected president of the republic in September remained resolute in keeping Santa Anna alive. Sam Houston, sensing the vindictive mood of congress, preemptively sent Santa Anna under escort to Washington D.C.

President Andrew Jackson had written Sam Houston a letter pleading not only that Santa Anna not be executed and instead sent to Washington. Jackson’s term of office was drawing to a close and he would be succeeded the conservative Martin Van Buren who would never recognize the independence of Texas and much less annex it because it could be considered an hostile act and risk a war with Mexico. Jackson wanted Santa Anna to reassure congress and the in coming Van Buren administration that Mexico would not go to war over the recognition of Texas as an independent state. With this reassurance, though Santa Anna was in disgrace and no longer in power in Mexico, Jackson was able to secure the recognition of Texas in the waning hours of his 132 administration.

Santa Anna arrived at Vera Cruz on the United States frigate Pioneer in February 1837 after ten months in captivity. Disgraced and out of power, Santa Anna retired to his estates at Manga de Clavo to what should have been an ignominious end for the

130 “Santa Anna's Captivity”, From the Life of Santa Anna by Clarence Wharton, 1926, accessed November 12, 2016, http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/santaanna4.htm#wharton

131 Handbook of Texas Online, Ralph W. Steen, "Congress of the Republic of Texas," accessed November 15, 2016, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/mkc01.

132 “Santa Anna's Captivity”, From the Life of Santa Anna by Clarence Wharton, 1926, accessed November 12, 2016, http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/santaanna4.htm#wharton “Napoleon of the West,” but for a ridiculous happenstance of a conflict between France and Mexico aptly known by the equally ridiculous name, the “Pastry War.”133

The Pastry War

In turbulent years following the independence from Spain in 1821, Street fighting between government and rebel forces, looting, vandalism and ransacking inflicted serious damages on a lot of businesses in Mexico City. Among these damaged businesses was a bakery owned by Remontel, a French pastry chef. After years of the Mexican government rejecting his claim for compensation for damages caused by soldiers, Remontel appealed his case directly to the French king, Louis-Philippe.

King Louis-Philippe knew of the debt the struggling Mexican government with an empty treasury had accumulated during the Texas revolt in 1836. The Remontel case triggered an ultimatum to pay 600,000 pesos a sum that included 60,000 pesos for the bakery that was valued at less than 1000 pesos even though it was aware of Mexico’s inability to pay.

The Mexican Congress rejected the ultimatum and in the spring of 1838 the France with assistance from the United States, who also had designs for Mexico, began a blockade of key seaports from Yucatan to the Rio Grande. On November 27, 1838 the French navy bombarded the island fortress of San Juan de Ulua that guarded the port of Veracruz. Mexico considered the bombardment an hostile act and immediately declared war on France.

Shortly after the bombardment, French marines invaded Veracruz capturing almost the entire Mexican navy. Santa Anna heeded President Bustamantes’ call to arms, organized a makeshift army and repelled the French back to sea. In the battle, Santa Anna took a grapeshot fired from a cannon that killed his horse and mutilated one of his legs so severely it had to be amputated. Santa Anna kept his severed leg and buried it at his hacienda.

Once more the disgraced leader rose from the ashes a hero and protector of the republic. When he again was elected president in 1842, he exhumed his shriveled leg from his hacienda and with great fanfare buried the wizened limb in Mexico City.134

133 Handbook of Texas Online, Wilfred H. Callcott, "Santa Anna, Antonio Lopez De," accessed November 09, 2016, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fsa29.

134 History in the headlines, Christopher Klein. “The Pastry War, 175 Years Ago” November 27, 2013, accesses November 17, 2016, http://www.history.com/news/the-pastry-war-175-years-ago

The Republic of Texas: First Election

In July David Burnet called for an election for the first Monday in September to ratify the proposed constitution and establish a constitutional government. Besides approving the constitution and authorizing congress to make amendments, voters were asked to elect a president, vice president and members of congress and express their views on annexation by the United States.

Henry Smith, governor of the provincial government, was the first to throw his hat in the ring followed by Stephen F. Austin. Sam Houston did not announce his candidacy until eleven days before election and won handily. In the final count Sam Houston received 5,119 votes, Henry Smith 743 and Stephen F. Austin 587. Many of the voters were new comers who knew little of either Austin or Smith but they knew Houston. Mirabeau B. Lamar was elected vice president. The constitution and the immediate annexation by the United States were overwhelmingly approved however denied Congress the power to amend the Constitution.135

The first Texas Congress consisting of fourteen senators and twenty-nine representatives assembled in Columbia on October 3, 1836. On October 22, Sam Houston took the oath of office as president of the Republic of Texas. In his inaugural address, he stressed the need negotiate peace treaties with the various Indian tribes and keep a constant vigilance of “our national enemies—the Mexicans.” He hoped for a quick annexation by the United States and urged the Senate to approve his appointment of Stephen F. Austin as Secretary of State for the purpose of seeking such an annexation.

Sam Houston, who kept the more aggressive, expansionist of a lot of the other leaders, like Mirabeau Lamar, in check provided the conservative, steading leadership needed for the survival of a fragile new republic that was heavily in debt. However his comment on being ever vigilant of “our national enemies—the Mexican” had the unintended consequence of not differentiating between Mexicans and Tejanos.

Though Houston had soundly defeated Austin in the election, he appreciated his value and appointed him Secretary of State best trusting him to obtain the desired annexation by the United States. Unfortunately, Austin tenure was short-lived catching pneumonia in December and dying at age 43.

While Andrew Jackson favored annexation of Texas, his administration was ending and Martin Van Buren, the seceding president would not even entertain the idea of annexing Texas; he didn’t want to risk war with Mexico and his anti-slavery sentiments made it increasing difficult for him to justify the existence of slavery and the Constitution.136

135 Handbook of Texas Online, Joseph Milton Nance, "Republic of Texas," accessed November 24, 2016, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/mzr02. 136 Handbook of Texas Online, C. T. Neu, "Annexation," accessed December 11, 2016, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/mga02.

Disfranchisement of Tejanos

The duality of purpose was never more evident than when Santa Anna was defeated at San Jacinto and thus Texas won its independence. Both the Tejanos and the Anglos who fought Santa Anna sought to establish a federal form of government, but their vision for its implementation was quite distinct. It was soon clear that Anglos, especially those who had answered the call from out of state and had volunteered to fight for freedom, had no intention of sharing the benefits of citizenship with Tejanos. Initially the wrath against Tejanos was motivated by revenge for the Alamo and Goliad with many Mexicans forced out of their homes and whole settlements, like Goliad itself were completely razed, but later, well past the heat of the moment, the purge of Tejanos became systematic and fed more by bias and avarice than passion.137 This violence was not solely directed to the poorer Mexicans who were the easier target, but to wealthier landowners who had more to lose. Juan Seguin, mayor of San Antonio, Captain in the Texan Army and a hero at San Jacinto, was forced to flee into Mexico in 1842 because of threats to him and his family.

The first few years after Texas independence can be defined as the period of the great land grab. Intimidation and threat of violence was openly recommended as a bargaining tool to get cheap prices for land. From 1837 to 1842, 13 American buyers had bought 1,368,574 acres from 358 Mexicans.138 More significant than the number of acres bought, was the concentration of wealth into fewer hands. In these transactions 358 farms or ranches were reduced to 13 larger farms or ranches. American enterprise was creating landless peasants setting the stage for a signeural economy.

The wealthier Mexicans returned to their ranches and businesses in Mexico, the poorer ones, especially those who had been here more than a generation, lost everything and had nothing to return to in Mexico. In the 1850’s Mexicans were expelled by law, from the cities of Austin and Seguin and the counties of Matagorda, Colorado and Uvalde.139 A similar measure to expel Mexicans from San Antonio failed even though the Mexican population was now in the minority there, only because the German immigrants rejected the notion as undemocratic and unfair. In spite of a dramatic drop of the Mexican population in Texas, it was during this period that Mexican laborers suddenly appeared. Almost overnight there were Mexicans with their carts everywhere carrying cargo.140 This is the first instance of signs of labor surplus in Texas in the form of landless Mexicans with carts for hire.

137 David Montejano, Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas, 1836-1986, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1987. pp. 26-27

138 Montejano, p. 28

139 Montejano. p. 28

140 Montejano p. 29

The Tejano cart haulers successfully built a business transporting cargo from Indianola to San Antonio and other cities in the interior doing so far more efficiently than their Anglo competitors. Anglo teamsters, resenting what they viewed as unfair competition, started a campaign of violence against their Tejano counterparts starting with sabotage of carts and slowly building up to the stealing of cargo and eventually murders. Local officials, reflecting the attitudes of their constituency toward Mexicans, especially those in east Texas, did not investigate these crimes very vigorously, if at all, and never apprehended anyone for any these crimes. The intensity and the frequency of violence against the carters escalated to the point that the San Antonio Herald and the Austin Southern Intelligencer warned that if the “Cart War” didn’t stop, prices on goods would climb. The Intelligencer further warned that if the law did not protect the “weak” race, the German immigrant would be next victim followed by another group and finally culminating in the chaos of a class war. The Nueces Valley Weekly of Corpus Christi expressed a more humanitarian concern for the Mexicans in spite of “the fact of their being low in the scale of intelligence.” It was not until the Mexican minister in Washington complained to Secretary of State Lewis Cass that enough pressure was put on Governor Elisha M. Pease to protect the carters with an armed escort. This was not a popular move by Governor Pease, especially in Karnes County. Most of the Anglos in East Texas viewed the Mexican as a pest and a bad moral influence on their slaves and hated seeing Mexican carters escorted by Anglo guards. The war subsided by December of 1857.141

South of the Nueces, there was a similar displacement of the Mexican population after the Mexican War, but it was not quite as universal and far more prolonged. Anglo dominance took a different form. The first Anglo settlers to this region were not really settlers, but adventurers and entrepreneurs. Most came with the United States Army during the Mexican War and remained to make their fortune. These individuals married locally and in the process became “Mexicanized,” fully adopting the culture of their new environment. The children, for most part, had Spanish given names to go along with their Anglo surnames. The more successful entrepreneurs, like Mifflin Kenedy and Henry Clay Davis, married into prominent, land owning Mexican families. Mifflin Kenedy married Petra Vela de Vidal; widow of Col. Luis Vidal and Henry Clay Davis married María Hilaria de la Garza, granddaughter of Francisco de la Garza Martinez. While both accumulated considerable land holdings they saw an opportunity not just in ranching or farming, but in the commerce afforded by the navigable Rio Grande that was now an international border.142 This completely changed economic dynamics of the region. Kenedy and Richard King established a successful steamship line for trade along the Rio Grande that grew to a fleet of twenty-six ships and operated through the Civil

141 Handbook of Texas Online, s.v. "," http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/CC/jcc1.html (accessed March 26, 2007).

142 The Rio Grande was navigable by steam driven paddleboat for about 100 miles, from Brownsville to Roma, Texas.

War until 1874.143 In 1847, Davis founded Davis Landing across from Camargo about a hundred miles up the river from Brownsville on the site of Rancho Carnestolendas that had been established in 1762.144 Davis Landing was renamed Rio Grande City and became the county seat for Starr County in 1848.

A small, but influential set of Anglo settlers came to South Texas immediately after the Mexican War. These were lawyers who set up practice to disentangle land claims guaranteed by the Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty. Though fluent in Spanish, these settlers, for the most part, did not fully adopt the culture of their new environment. Though James B. Wells did not move to Brownsville until 1878, he still can be considered as part of this group since he joined, as a law partner, the established Stephen Powers firm. With Wells marriage to Pauline Kleiber, Stephen Powers niece, in 1880, he joined the inner circle of leading Democratic families. Wells emerged as the regional Democratic leader with Stephen Power’s death in 1882.145

This is also period when the mega land holdings like the King and Kenedy ranches begin to appear. Like in Texas north of the Nueces a decade earlier, there is a shift in wealth and power into fewer hands south of this river. The 356 ranches that existed in this region in 1833 dwindled in number drastically. The people who lived in the ranches absorbed by the super ranches were either killed, returned to Mexico or started working for the new owners. The economic environment changed and the conditions needed for “Boss Rule” for most of South Texas set. However, the Tejanos in Starr County were able to keep their lands.

Houston’s First Term

While Houston had great concerns for national defense and frontier protection in the initial years of the republic, he had a greater fear of a large standing army. Not only was it costly, he feared commanders, prone to act rashly, would embroil the republic in a war it could not win. In particular, he mistrusted Felix Huston, the current commander. In February 1837, Houston sent Albert Sidney Johnston to replace Huston. Huston eventually surrendered command to Johnston but only after he had severely wounded Johnston in a duel. In May, Houston furloughed three of the four regiments with the remaining troops gradually disbanded.

Congress had authorized a military force of 3587 men and a battalion of 280 riflemen and, in case of an invasion by Mexico, 40,000 volunteers from the United States however Houston preferred to depend on the militia, rangers and troops called out for special

143 Handbook of Texas Online, s.v. "KENEDY, MIFFLIN," http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/KK/fke23.html (accessed December 7, 2004).

144Handbook of Texas Online, s.v. "RIO GRANDE CITY, TX," http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/RR/hfr5.html (accessed December 7, 2004).

145 Handbook of Texas Online, s.v. "WELLS, JAMES BABBAGE, JR," http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/WW/fwe22.html (accessed December 7, 2004). duties. To insure having a strong militia sought rapid population growth through immigration from the United States, which was accomplished by providing several levels of generous land grants for settlers. Houston was not as discriminating as Austin in selecting his immigrants. His settlers were more likely to be adventurers or soldiers than farmers.

Treaties Houston had made with various Indian tribes to remain quiet during the Texas revolution was the main key for its success. Knowing that Houston had lived among the Cherokee for extended periods of time, many of his compatriots like Mirabeau Lamar felt that he was too soft with the Indians. The most problematic of these treaties was the one Houston made with the Cherokee. This tribe had settled along the rich land along the Sabine. After the difficult times, this land was too valuable for congress to cede to the Indians and in December 1837 declared the Cherokee Treaty null and void.146 The annulment of this treaty contributed to one of his greatest crises in his first term of office; the Córdova Rebellion.

The Córdova Rebellion

Vicente Córdova was a well-educated, civic minded, prominent, active resident of Nacogdoches who had served as a public official in several local offices at various times. As captain of the militia company he fought on the side of the locals in the battle of Nacogdoches in 1832. Thus he supported the Texas Revolution as long as it espoused a return to the Constitution of 1824.147

The Constitution of 1824 was closely patterned after the United States Constitution calling for a federal form of government with a couple of caveats. The first caution was that the constitution established the Catholic Church as the state religion and the second concern was that it prohibited slavery.148 The first, while it might have irritating was not really an issue since it had never been rigorously enforced and it was unlikely to be enforced now. The second, the prohibition of slavery, was a lot more troublesome for the Texians and was one of the main reasons for breaking away from Mexico.

While Córdova was very much against Santa Anna and glad he had been defeated, he was wary of the Texians in general and Sam Houston in particular. He had no desire to be annexed by the United States. His apprehension was not allayed as he saw the new government form with all Anglo institutions and further dismayed with Sam Houston inaugural speech that warned that the preeminent natural enemy of the republic was the Mexican. It was obvious to him that Tejanos would not reap any benefits from citizenship. This fear was confirmed in the rapid influx of new immigrants from the

146 Handbook of Texas Online, Joseph Milton Nance, "Republic of Texas," accessed December 06, 2016, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/mzr02.

147 Handbook of Texas Online, Robert Bruce Blake, "Cordova, Vicente," accessed February 28, 2017, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fco71. 148 Handbook of Texas Online, S. S. McKay, "Constitution of Coahuila and Texas," accessed March 01, 2017, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/ngc01. United States of America who were not farmers and the subsequent frequent raids on Mexican settlements on various pretexts, the most common being the recovery of stolen horses. As to who originally owned the horses is hard to determine.

Seeing this injustice, Vicente Córdova, Nat Norris, Carlos Morales, Juan Santos Coy, Joshua Robertson and other like-minded liberals began to form a resistance to the new republic. Toward the end of 1837 and the for first eight months of 1838, Gen. Vicente Filisola was commander of the military forces in northern Mexico and desired to reclaim all the territory taken by Texas now that Santa Anna was out-of-power and the peace treaty never ratified by Mexico. Córdova contacted Gen. Filisola and devised a plan for re-conquest of the lost territory. The cornerstone of the plan was to befriend the various Indian tribes especially the discontented Cherokee who felt betrayed by the new republic for voiding the treaty that recognized their rights to their land after they had kept their side of the bargain.149

The first outbreak of the rebellion occurred on August 4, 1838. After a raid on a Mexican settlement the American raiding party met resistance. Someone fired a shot and killed one of them. Outraged, they immediately trailed the assailant and in the process encountered a large party of armed Mexicans. They did not engage, instead opted to retreat and report their find to higher authority.

Gen. Thomas Rusk learned on August 7, that Córdova and Norris were encamped with about a hundred armed men on an island on the Angelina River. He immediately sent sixty volunteers to guard the lower ford of the river and immediately sent a call for reinforcements from the surrounding communities to meet the crisis. The following day, President Houston issued a proclamation from Nacogdoches prohibiting unlawful assembly and carrying arms and urged everyone to go home. 150

Two days later, the rebels responded with a proclamation of their own stating that they could no longer bear injuries and usurpations of their rights. They had, therefore, taken up arms, were ready to die in defense of those rights, and only begged that their families not be harmed. Córdova and eighteen others signed the proclamation.151

On the 10th of August, the rebels, augmented with an additional three hundred Indians, broke camp and moved toward the Cherokee Nation. Gen. Rusk split his forces sending Maj. H.W. Augustin with a hundred and fifty troops to pursue the main rebel army while he, ignoring President Houston’s directive, took the remainder of the forces directly to Chief Bowles village. Gen Rusk’s perceptions were more aligned with Vice President Mirabeau Lamar than President Sam Houston and would often send report directly to

149 “Vicente Córdova and the Córdova Rebellion” From History of Texas by John Henry Brown, accessed February 28, 2017, http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/cordovavicente.htm

150 Handbook of Texas Online, Rebecca J. Herring, "Cordova Rebellion," accessed December 17, 2016, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/jcc03. 151 Handbook of Texas Online, Rebecca J. Herring, "Cordova Rebellion," accessed March 03, 2017, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/jcc03. Lamar and bypass Houston. Rusk felt a show of force was needed to keep the Cherokee in line and he was certain he would find Córdova there. He was wrong. Córdova had gone to the Upper Trinity and the Brazos River.

The larger body of rebels that Maj. Augustin pursued quickly dispersed, but the hardcore group with Córdova became an effective guerrilla force negotiating with Indian tribes between devastating raids. He kept in continuous contact with the army command in Matamoros. He promised the Indians protection under the Mexican government and fee simple title to their lands. If the French had not invaded Vera Cruz because of the Pastry War, the story of Texas may have had a very different outcome. The heroic actions of Santa Anna in repulsing the French resurrected his career and, once more returned to power. As ruthless as Santa Anna had been, it is almost contradictory for him not invade Texas simply because he had given his word.152

Córdova and his small band of Mexicans, Blacks and Indians were surprised in the open on March 29, 1839. The rebel band fled at first fire, but quickly formed in a wooded area and but up a stiff resistance. They escaped under the cover of darkness. The small force was, once more attacked by another group the following day. Though wounded, Córdova managed to escape to Tamaulipas. He returned to Texas with Gen. Adrián in September 1842. He was killed on September 18, 1842 in the battle of Salado Creek.

Vicente Córdova is hardly more than a footnote in the history and then simply described as a lawless Mexican, a conspirator and a traitor who headed the Córdova Rebellion. He was made a traitor of a republic that never gave him the benefits of citizenship. He served his community honorably with no hint of scandal or abuse of power. He was consistent in his ideals showing no favoritism or bias. He rebelled, not for power or fortune, but to right an injustice. He sacrificed a lot, fought bravely and ultimately gave his life for his ideals--a just, slave-free state. Vicente Córdova deserves more than being a mere footnote.

152 “Vicente Córdova and the Córdova Rebellion” From History of Texas by John Henry Brown, accessed February 28, 2017, http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/cordovavicente.htm

The Cherokee War

Martin Van Buren decided not to pursue the annexation of Texas mainly because he did not want to risk a war with Mexico, though the growing anti-slavery sentiment may have weighed heavily in that decision.153 In 1838, a disappointed Sam Houston withdrew the proposal with, no doubt, the hope of once more making the offer at a better time.

The re-submittal of the offer for annexation would not be made by Sam Houston’s successor, Mirabeau B. Lamar. Though Lamar was from Georgia, he had no aspirations to be annexed by the United States; his vision was far more ambitious. Not only did he want Texas to remain an independent country but to expand its borders all the way to the Pacific. This was not the only difference between Houston and Lamar. Lamar felt that Houston was cuddling the Indians, especially the Cherokee and showed weakness in not executing Santa Anna for war crimes.

The friction between the Indians, specifically the Cherokee, Kickapoo and Shawnee, naturally increased with growing influx of white settlers in east Texas. This further aggravated by the nullification of the treaty Sam Houston had forged giving title to the lands between the Angelina and Sabine rivers and northwest of the San Antonio Road to the Cherokee and associated tribes on condition that they maintain neutrality in Texas Revolution. The Indians kept their side of the bargain, but to the Texians did not. This land was far too rich and valuable to cede to the Indians. Lamar was also aware that Mexico was offering the Indian tribes a fee simple title to their land for their cooperation in defeating the Republic of Texas and thus suspected that this had led to the increase of Indian raids. Lamar wanted to expel all the Indians, especially the Cherokee, out of Texas. These raids was already turning public opinion against any accommodation with the Indians and Lamar knew that if he could find proof of collusion between the Indians and Mexico, not only would he be justified, but fully supported for this action.154

The Cherokee were a settled, agricultural people with an elaborate political and social structure. They had brief contact with European culture in the middle of the sixteenth century, but did not experience sustained intermingling of the two cultures until the latter part of the seventeenth century. The Cherokee were quick to adapt material elements of European culture into their own thus earning the designation as one of the “Five Civilized Tribes,” however this did not save them from the same fate of all the Indians.

Their ancestral lands encompassed parts of Virginia, Tennessee, the Carolinas, Georgia and Alabama. The disadvantages of increased contact far out weighed any benefits the Cherokee may have ripped from European culture. Wars and epidemics greatly reduced

153 Handbook of Texas Online, C. T. Neu, "Annexation," accessed March 15, 2017, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/mga02. Uploaded on June 9, 2010. Modified on December 2, 2015. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. 154 Handbook of Texas Online, "Cherokee War," accessed January 22, 2017, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qdc01. Uploaded on June 12, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association Cherokee population during the seventeenth century. The pressure of the land hungry settlers and there significantly reduced population forced the Cherokee to migrate west and settle in the future Missouri, Arkansas and Texas.155

President Lamar got the proof he needed to justify expulsion of the Cherokee nation from Texas. In May, 1839, Texas Rangers hunted down and killed a small party of Mexicans. Among the dead was Manuel Flores, a known Mexican agent. In his baggage, the Texas Rangers found several documents that linked the Cherokee with a Mexican plot to retake Texas. President Lamar decided that the Cherokee had to be driven out of Texas.156

Lamar placed approximately five hundred troops under Edward Burleson. William Landrum and Thomas Rusk to drive the Cherokee out of Texas. On July 12, 1839 the army camped a few miles from the Cherokee village of Chief Bowl and dispatched a commission to negotiate their removal. With the announced threat that the army could run them down at a moments notice, the Cherokee agreed to leave Texas with the guarantee of the profit of their crops and the cost of removal, but objected to the clause that they should escorted under an armed guard. For two days, the Cherokee would not sign the treaty because of that clause. No doubt the reneging of the last signed treaty weighed heavily on their minds and they looked small sign of good faith and found none. On July 15, the commissioners told the Indians the army would march on their village immediately. Those willing to accept removal should display a white flag.157

The army found the village empty when they arrived. They burned the village and their cornfields and pursued Chief Bowl who was leading an evacuation of his people north out of harms way but caught at dusk and attacked. This skirmish was indecisive and the Indians escaped under the cover of darkness. The following day the Texas troops fought a decisive battle at the headwaters of the Neches River, totally defeating the Cherokee and their allies, The Kickapoos, Delawares and Shawnees. The Texan losses were five dead and twenty-eight wounded the Indians suffered about a hundred dead including Chief Bowl.

Chief Bowl entered the battle on horseback. When he was wounded in the thigh with the bullet that wounded his mount he dismounted and continued fighting. After he was wounded again he sat in the battle field and a Texas soldier shot his brains out.158

155 Handbook of Texas Online, Carol A. Lipscomb, "Cherokee Indians," accessed April 11, 2017, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/bmc51. Uploaded on June 12, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association.

156 Handbook of Texas Online, Roderick B. Patten, "Flores, Manuel [?-1839]," accessed April 12, 2017, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/ffl16. Uploaded on June 12, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association.

157 Handbook of Texas Online, "Cherokee War," accessed April 11, 2017, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qdc01. Uploaded on June 12, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association.

158 Handbook of Texas Online, Hampson Gary and Randolph B. Campbell, "Neches, Battle of The," accessed April 15,2017, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qen02.

The army continued it sweep of Cherokee areas burning all the towns and cornfields they found. This ended the presence of the Cherokee, Kickapoos, Delawares and Shawnees in Texas.

Uploaded on June 15, 2010. Modified on May 10, 2016. Published by the Texas State Historical Association