S^Hyyiao $ $U, Fj

Home , Big Cypress Bayou, Red River of the South

THE RISE AHD DECLINE OF JEFFERSON, TEXAS

APPROVED:

s^hyyiAo $ $u, or Professor

Minor Professor

fj DirectoLrector or theyDepartment] t of History

Dean of the Graduate School THE RISE AND DECLINE OP JEFFERSON, TEXAS

THESIS

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texas State University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Ben C. Cooner, B. A.

Denton, Texas

January, 1965 TABLE OP CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES iv LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS v Chapter I. EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF JEFFERSON AND MARION

COUNTY 1

II. RED RIVER NAVIGATION BEFORE I860 13

III. RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION BEFORE I860 37

IV. THE DEVELOPMENT OF JEFFERSON, 1860-1870 .... 52

V. PROSPERITY AND DECLINE AFTER 1870 81

VI. THE FIGHT FOR SURVIVAL 102

VII. CONCLUSION 137

BIBLIOGRAPHY 144

in LIST OP TABLES Table Page I. Cotton Exports from Jefferson Between 1865 and 1880 83 II. Selected Statistics of Manufacturing Marion County, Texas, 1870 86

IV LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. Map of Marion County 12 CHAPTER I

EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF JEFFERSON

AND MARION COUNTY

Jefferson, Texas, once the commercial and distribution

center of a large area in northeast Texas and now a small town of approximately 2,970 people, is indebted to a faulty

land title for its founding.-*- In 1832 a small group of

Anglo-Americans settled seven miles below the present site

of Jefferson on Big Cypress Bayou. This settlement became known as Smith's Landing because of a ferry operated by

Stephen P. Smith.^ In December, 1839 > Smith received a certificate for one league and one labor of land from the

Board of Land Commissioners of Harrison County. Because an error by the clerk of the board showed Smith to be entitled to only one-third of a league, the certificate was in- validated. By law Smith had no recourse but to petition the

Congress of the Republic of Texas for a new certificate to

^-Texas Almanac. 1964-65 (Dallas, 1963), p. 248$ Marion County. Inventory of the County Archives of Texas» No. 155 (San Antonio, 194077 P* 4 (hereafter referred to as Marion County Inventory).

^Texas, A Guide to the Lone Star State (New York, 1940), p. 379; Marion County Inventory, p. 4. one league and a labor.^ Rather than waiting for Smith to petition Congress and thereby risking the loss of their home- sites and permanent improvements, the settlers at Smith's Landing decided to move to a new location.4 Because of an offer of free land from Allen Urquart, a resident of Daingerfield and recipient of a 1,280 acre land grant from the Republic, the displaced settlers from Smith's Landing relocated seven miles further west on Big Cypress

Bayou near the crossing of Trammel's Trace.^ Other factors besides free land influenced their choice of locations. Small steamboats were a familiar sight on Caddo Lake by 1840, and investigations of Big Cypress Bayou indicated that navigation of the river was possible as far upstream as the proposed settlement.^ The settlers knew the advantages of being at the head of a navigable stream, and they took this opportunity to

^Harriet Smithers, editor, The Senate Journals, Sixth Congress, Yol. I of the Journals of the Sixth Congress of _37the Republir c of Texas, 1841-1842vols. (Austin, 1940J7 ^Texas, A guide to the Lone Star State, p. 379- Smith petitioned Congress on November 11, 1841, and a joint resolution in January, 1842, directed the Commissioner of the General Land Office to &iMe him a new certificate for one league and one labor. Smithers, 0£. cit., p. 37. ^Texas, A Guide to the Lone Star State, p. 379i Texas General Land Office, Records of Land Grants, Pile: Morris County, Red River-2-114, Austin ^"photostatic copy_J. ^William Kennedy, Texas: The Rise, Progress, and Prospects of the Republic of Texas, reprint (Fort Worth, 1922;, I, 27; Marshall iJews Messenger, November 10, 1963, Sec. E. locate there. Perhaps just as important in their decision to

accept Urquart's offer was the fact that Trammel's Trace

crossed Big Cypress Bayou near the proposed location of the

new settlement. Many settlers entering Texas from Arkansas

and the Indian Territory used this route, and the promise of

a steady flow of emigrants added to the inducements of the

new location.7

The exact date of the founding of Jefferson is unknown, but a number of sources claim that the settlers obtained the

Q land and moved sometime in 1836. Other evidence suggests that this date is erroneous and that the establishment of Jefferson occurred much later. The settlers at Smith's Landing had no reason for leaving before 1840, and they could not have obtained land from Urquart in 1836 as he did not arrive in Texas until April 11, 1837. Moreover, Urquart did not receive a certificate permitting him to have a headright

^Texas, A Guide to the Lone Star State, p. 379* There were actually two different routes known as Trammel's Trace. They were blazed by different men and originated at different points, but converged before reaching Big Cypress and were practically identical from there to Nacogdoches. Cf. John Arrowsmith, Map of Texas, 1841 (London, 1841), No. 438, Archives Division, Texas State Library, Austin; R. L. Jones, "The Autobiography of Andrew Davis," Southwestern Historical ;, XLIII, 161; J. W. Williams, "The National Road of e Republic of Texas," S. H. £., XLVII, 217.

8 Jefferson Daily Jimplecutet September 1, 1876; Texas, A Guide to the Lone Star State, p. 379; Mrs. Arch McKay and Mrs. H. A. Spellings, A History of Jefferson, 1836-1936, 5th edition (Jefferson, n.3\), p. t>\""Marion County Inventory, p. 4. surveyed until August 3, 1838, and even then certain conditions

load to "be met "before a clear title could be issued.9 According

to the 1837 Texas land law Urquart and his family were re-

quired to remain in Texas and perform all the duties of a

citizen for three years before an unconditional patent could

be issued.10 Urquart received a certificate from the Land

Commissioners of Paschal County showing that he had met the

conditions and was entitled to an unconditional headright

of 1,280 acres on August 23, 1841. "L1

Apparently the settlers did not begin to move until

Urquart was assured of a clear title to this land. The

Daily Jimplecute maintains that the first settler to enter

the present limits of Jefferson was Berry H. Durrum, who arrived there in 1840 to build and operate a ferry across

Big Cypress Bayou for Urquart.This would mean that other

settlers did not arrive before 1840 and possibly not before

1841. The Daily Jimplecute added that when Durrum arrived

the territory was located in Paschal County.^ As Paschal

County was not created by the legislature until January 28,

^Texas General Land Office, Records of Land Grants, File: Morris County, Red River-2-114, Austin.

10H. P. N. Gammel, editor, The Laws of Texas, 10 vols. (Austin, 1898), I, 1414. H-Texas General Land Office, Records of Land Grants, Pile: Morris County, Red River-2-114, Austin.

Jefferson Daily Jimplecute t September 1, 1876. 15Ibid. 1841, "both statements cannot "be correct.If either is accurate the year in which Durrum and the settlers from

Smith's Landing reached Jefferson still is narrowed to either 1840 or 1841. Paschal County ceased to exist in

January, 1842, when the Supreme Court of the Republic of

Texas declared judicial counties unconstitutional.If the territory was in Paschal County at the time of settlement,

Jefferson definitely was founded in 1841.

A number of sources substantiate the establishment of

Jefferson in 1841. Emigrant guides published before that date do not mention Jefferson, and maps drawn from surveys made by the General land Office in 1839 and 1841 give no evidence that a settlement or ferry existed.^ An act of the

Congress of the Republic of Texas approved November 17, 1841, to change mail routes in northeast Texas to refer to Marshall,

Smithland, Port Caddo, and Daingerfield, but no mention is made of any settlement that might have been Jefferson.1?

P. N. Gammel, editor, The Laws of Texas, 10 vols. (Austin, 1898), II, 520-521. -^"Stockton vs. Montgomery," James Wilmer Dallam, A. Digest of the Laws of Texas (Baltimore, 1845), pp. 473-T86.

•^Kennedy, op. cit., I, 732, 782$ David B. Edward, The History of Texas~T"Cincinnati« 1836), pp. 28-29; Texas in 1840 or The^Emigrant Guide to the New Republic (New York,18T0), pp. 209-222; John Arrowsmith, Map of Texas, 1841; Richard S. Hunt and Jesse P. Fandel, Map of Texas, 1839 (New York, 1839)*

•^Gammel, o£. cit., II, 675. None of these exclude the possibility of a few settlers living near the Trammel Trace crossing of Big Cypress Bayou, but if settlers were at the crossing their existence was not widely known. Allen Urquart, D. N. Alley, William Humphries, and other property owners in the area surveyed and laid off the town- site of Jefferson in 1842 and named it in honor of Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States.Their eagerness to lay out the streets indicates anticipation of imminent steamboat arrivals, and the street pattern reflected their belief in Jefferson's future dependence on river navigation. The streets near the river in the Urquart section were laid out so that as many as possible would terminate at the river. This would provide easier access to the river and permit property owners to make the best possible use of the river frontage. The business district was located near the widest portion of the river since this was expected to be the turning basin for steamboats. The residential area was laid out on higher ground farther from the bayou.^ The Daily Jimplecute states that sometime in 1843 or 1844 Amos Ury was the first merchant to establish a business

18Marshall Hews Messenger, November 10, 3.863, Sec. E; Jefferson Daily Jimplecute, September 1, 1876; Marker,, lawn of the Marion County Courthouse, Jefferson, erected in 1§36 by the State of Texas. -^Marshall News Messenger, November 10, 1863, Sec. E; Jean P. Whittle, Map of Jefferson, Texas, drawn for the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (Dallas, 1950). in Jefferson. At that time the town consisted of only three log houses.20 By 1846 "only a few residences and two or three stores" comprised the settlement, but the steamboat Lama had manuevered its way up Big Cypress Bayou in the winter of 1844- 1845, and the future looked much brighter.21 Activity in Jefferson increased rapidly in the next few years, and the settlement began to acquire the characteristics of a prosperous inland port. Col. R. W. Laughery, later famous as editor of the Texas Republican of Marshall, exemplified the growth and the confidence in future prosperity of Jefferson by publishing the settlement's first newspaper, the Jefferson Democrat in 184T.22 By 1849 Jefferson contained approximately sixty houses, several stores, a warehouse for shipping, a small saw mill, and a grist mill.23 in that same year the trade at Jefferson was large enough to warrant the establishment of a regular line of steamboats between the Red River and Jefferson.24- As

20j;dward Smith, Account of a Journey Through North- Eastern Texas (London, 1849). P» 69; Jefferson Daily Jimplecute, September~T7~~1876. 2ljohn H. McLean, Reminiscences of Rev. John H. McLean (Nashville, 1918), p. 170; Jefferson Eaily Jimplecute, Septem- ber 1, 1876; William Hogan says that a boat carrying 130 passengers arrived at Jefferson in April, 1845, but gives no indication if this was the first one or not. See. William Ransom Hogan, The Republic of Texas (Norman, 1946;, p. 7« 22a. C. Gray, "History of the Texas Press," A Comprehensive History of Texas, Vol. I, edited by Dudley G. WooTen, 2 v$ls. (Dallas, 1898), p. 412.

23smith, o£. cit., p. 69. 24lbid., p. 15. 8

Jefferson entered the 1850's, the town was still in its in- fancy, but the "basis for future growth and prosperity had been firmly established. On March 20, 1848, the state legislature approved an act to incorporate the town of Jefferson "upon the headright certificates of Allen XJrquart and Stephen Smith."25 Jefferson did not obtain a charter until 1850 because of the failure to elect city officials.2^ In that year the legislature passed an amendment to the original act of 1848 which provided for another election and that corporate limits be surveyed and marked. The boundaries of the town were defined as:

Commencing at the point where the east boundary line of Allen Urquart's survey leaves the Big Cypress Bayou, and running from thence in a northwest course one mile and from thence on a southwest line to a point where said line may strike the Big Cypress Bayou thence down said bayou with the meanders to the place of beginning.2 '

Late in 1850 S. H. Ellis was elected the first mayor of Jefferson and the municipal government of the newly incorporated town began to function under its first charter.2®

2^H. P. N. Gammel, editor, The Laws of Texas, 10 vols. (Austin, 1898), III, 422-424. 26Jefferson Daily Jimplecute, September 1, 1876.

27(Jammel, op. cit., III, 791-792.

28Jefferson Daily Jimplecute, September 1, 1876. The county government of the Jefferson area changed OQ often between the time of its establishment and I860. Prior to the founding of a settlement on Big Cypress, the area was part of the Municipality of Nacogdoches (1835-1840), and Bowie County for a short period from December 17, 1840, to January 28, 1841.-^ On January 28, 1841, the Congress of the Republic of Texas created the judicial county of Paschal which included the Jefferson territory, but the Supreme Court of Texas declared this arrangement unconstitutional in the January term of 1842.In January of the next year Congress complied with the court decision by officially extending the boundaries of Bowie County to again include the site of Jefferson.^2 Bowie County retained jurisdiction over the newly established settlement of Jefferson until the creation of

29]?or a graphical explanation of early county changes see, Seymour Conner, "The Evolution of County Government in the Republic of Texas," Southwestern Historical Quarterly, LV, 189-198. ^°Gammel, op. cit., I, 281, 532; Gammel, op. cit., II, 520, 561. ^iGammel, 0£. cit., II, 520; "Stockton vs. Montgomery," Dallam, 0£. cit., pp. 473-486. Judicial counties were created for the purpose of alleviating some of the problems of over- sized jurisdiction, but were declared unconstitutional because they did not have representation as required by the Constitution of 1836. Connor, 0£. cit., p. 184. ^2Gammel, op. cit., II, 857-858; Jefferson Daily Jimplecute, September 1, 1876, says that Jefferson became part of Red River County after Paschal was declared unconstitutional, but no proof was found for this statement. 10

Cass County in April, 1846.55 The same act that created Cass

County designated Jefferson as the temporary Seat of Justice,

thus making it a county seat before it became an incorporated

town.34 Until an election could be held to determine the

location of a permanent county seat, the tavern house of

William Perry was selected as the courthouse. Because the

county was large, transportation difficult, and Jefferson

was not centrally located, provisions also were made for hold-

ing court at other places in the county.55 The election for

a permanent county seat resulted in a victory for Linden, and

in 1852 Jefferson temporarily lost the advantages of the

offices.5^

Petitions from citizens of Cass, Titus, Hopkins, and

Upshur bounties as early as 1854 resulted in an election to

determine whether a new county might be created from their

surplus territory.57 Jefferson undoubtedly supported the

creation of a new county, and their efforts did not go un-

rewarded. On February 8, I860, the legislature approved an act creating the county of Marion and making Jefferson the

55Gammel, o£. cit., II, $441. 54Ibid.

55Ibid.. pp. 1441-1442.

56Gammel, o£. cit., Ill, 1501. 5?Ibid. 11 permanent county seat.58 Uo further changes have "been made to the present (1964) with the exception of two occasions in 1863 and 1874 when the southern "boundary of the county was extended to include "both banks of Big Cypress Bayou.^9

P. N. Gammel, editor, The Laws of Texas, 10 vols. (Austin, 1898), IV, 1419-1421.

59jexas Almanac, 1964-65, p. 248; H. P. N. Gammel, editor, The Laws of Texas, 10 vols. (Austin, 1898), V. 1419; H. P. N. Gammel, ecTitor, The Laws of Texas, 10 vols. (Austin, 1898), VIII, 180. S u LP ^ s? / y £ R

OAINCCRR.CLO ! o LINDEN

c A .\: P

QLA3SA7ER

QSMITHLANO

QMAKLETON QWOOOLAWN

MARSHALL QSCOTYSVILLC

QHALL3VILLF LONGV.CW

QJONrSVILLC

RJJL£/>

* C /"\ 1^ " /T\ r\ 7 /y^i ^ rr "Tv w rr*"\ ^ r J-' :A'Xli1. w' L^:l vO w viJ; ;VL j PAST AND PRESENT 30UNDARI2S

FeS'jory 0, ICCO Gcmiflu' JZ, (>.1410

AC'.IOI OtcivLtr 9, I nc* Z,P. 713

3CA,P LAO

Pr«serf bouncorv Co Counf/ o»h«r fhon Morion Co. Pig. 1—Map ox ounty

DTO?« I-R« CHAPTER II

RED RIVER NAVIGATION BEFORE I860

Cities and towns invariably compete for trade and commerce within a given area. Prom the day it was founded the town of Jefferson proved no exception as its merchants and tradesmen attempted to attract the trade previously held "by neighboring towns. After steamboats began to navigate Big Cypress Bayou in 1844, these merchants became a threat to their rivals because they were on a navigable stream closer to the land-locked regions of northeast and north central Texas. With the realization of steamboat navigation Jefferson became one of an elite group of towns in Texas.

Only a few communities were located on navigable streams, and fewer still could claim reliable and regular steamboat traffic as far into the interior as could Jefferson.1 As an inland port, the new settlement was in a position to challenge its strongest rival, Shreveport, for the distinction of being the commercial and distribution center of northeast Texas.

After 1844 steamboats from anywhere in the country could reach Jefferson by way of the Mississippi and Red Rivers, and

^ohn S. Spratt, The Road to Spindletop (Dallas, 1955), p. 19.

13 14 the series of lakes and bayous connecting Jefferson with the Red River. In order to reach Jefferson from the Red River, boats entered Twelve Idle Bayou a few miles above Shreveport and followed the deep part of the channel through Soda and Caddo Lakes to the mouth of Big Cypress Bayou where they cautiously took that stream to the turning basin at Jefferson.2 Boats reached Jefferson via this route only during the period of high water which usually commenced in September or October and ended in May.^ The boats reaching Jefferson were smaller than those used between Shreveport and New Orleans, and were always stern-wheelers since the narrow channel of Big Cypress Bayou was too dangerous for side-wheelers.^ Navigational

^House Executive Documents, 42nd Congress, 3rd Session, No. 1, Pt. 2 (Washington, 1872), p. 572; J. Pair Hardin, "An Outline of Shreveport and Caddo Parish History," Louisiana Historical Quarterly, XVIII (1935), 849- Some confusion arises from the use of different names for the series of lakes between Jefferson and Red River. Soda Lake had been spelled a number of different ways, and Caddo Lake has been called Pairy, Perry, and Caddo. John Edward Guardia, "Successive Human Ad- justments to Raft Conditions in Lower Red River Valley," unpublished master's thesis, Department of Geology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 1927, p. 21. ^Clarksville Northern Standard, May 28, 1859; Texas Almanac, 1867 (Galveston, 1866), p. 140; Texas Almanac, 1868 (Galveston, 1867), p. 137. Microfilm copies of the fexas Almanac from E. De Golyer Library, Dallas, Texas. 4philip N. Norman, "The Red River of the South," Louisiana Historical Quarterly, XXV (1942), 402; Texas Almanac, 1871 (Galveston, 1870), p. 134; Texas Almanac, 1868, p. 137; Houston Chronicle, August 18, 1935, in Marion County Scrapbook and Obituary, A-Z, The Eugene C. Barker Texas History Center, University of Texas Library, Austin (hereafter referred to as Marion County Scrapbook). 15 conditions between Shreveport and Jefferson always presented difficulties, but under the circumstances were as good as could be expected.

Jefferson enjoyed the advantages of water transportation because of the existence in the Red River of a "phenomenal accumulation of snags" known as the Great Raft.-* This raft, an accumulation of materials that had been washed into the main channel by heavy flooding, was a natural log jam that successfully backed up water in the river for hundreds of years.6 It impeded the navigation of boats on Red River above its head, slackened the rate of flow of the water, but most important to Jefferson, the raft forced increasing amounts of water from the main channel into the lakes and bayous near its banks, raising the water level sufficiently to make them navigable.?

The great raft developed as a "natural consequence of the characteristics of the river itself."8 The alluvial soil found along the banks of upper Red River was conducive to caving, thus permitting the channel to change frequently.9

^louis C. Hunter, Steamboats on the Western Rivers (Cambridge, 1949), P» 1§51 ^Senate Executive Documents, 27th Congress, 1st Session^ No. 64 (Washington, 1842), p. 3. ^Hardin, op. cit., p. 771. 8Ibid., p. 769. ^Senate Executive Documents, 45th Congress, 3rd Session, No. 42 (Washington, 1879), V- b. 16

As the banks caved off during a heavy freshet, trees were uprooted and carried downstream along with any other debris lying near the bank. As the flooding subsided the trees became lodged at sharp curves in the river, at narrow parts of the channel, or against a snag deposed there by an earlier freshet.-*-® Many times the roots of the trees would hang in the banks or bottom of the river and become an additional impediment.1-1- The next heavy freshet on the river might have one of two results. The accumulation of snags lodged earlier might be dislodged and carried farther downstream, perhaps to a much larger and older raft, or it might remain stationary and collect additional debris and become the head of a new raft. As the flood continued the raft not only grew in size and number, but changed in structure. The logs at the head of the raft gradually became water-soaked and sunk to the bottom forming a "sunken raft," while the foot of the raft remained a "floating raft."-'--' During the summer months all but the most recent accumulations at the raft became covered

-^Senate Executive Documents, 27th Congress, 1st Session, No. 64 (Washington, 1842), p. 3. H-House Executive Documents, 43rd Congress, 1st Session, No. 1, FiTT (Washington, 1674), p. 641. 12Ibid. •^Senate Executive Documents, 27th Congress, 1st Session, No. 64 (Washington, 1842), pp. 13-14. 17

by a dense growth of weeds, vines, and young willows. Prom a distance the raft gave the impression of a solid mass, but it could be walked upon only with great caution. Willows and cottonwood trees took root in decaying logs occasionally, but slower growing trees were not to be found on the raft.14 The raft was not a static obstruction in the Red River. It constantly was breaking up and reforming, and as this occurred, the head of the raft gradually ascended the river.^ After debris had accumulated for a year or two part of the older portion decayed and sunk to the bottom thereby arrest- ing the velocity of the water in the main channel. The remaining portion, not as susceptible to decay, was loosened enough to be floated down the river to become the foot of another raft or to be swept into a bayou or swamp near the

river.jn this manner the head of the raft continually moved upstream, growing at an average annual rate of "a little more than four-fifths of a mile." 1-7 According to

l^House Executive Documents, 43rd Congress, 1st Session, No. 1, Pt. 2 (Washington, 1874), p. 642. -^letter from Dr. Joseph Paxton to Hon. A. H. Savier, August 1, 1828, Senate Documents, 20th Congress, 2nd Session, No. 78 (Washington, 1829J, p. 4.

l%ouse Executive Documents, 43rd Congress. 1st Session. No. 1, F5TT (Washington, 1674), p. 641.

^Guardia, o£. cit. t p. 12, citing A. C. Veatch, "The Shreveport Area," A Preliminary Report on the Geology of Louisiana, n. d. ~ 18 one authority if the raft had been given time to move far enough upstream, it would have destroyed itself. At one time Big Cypress Bayou was a well defined tributary of the Red River, joining that stream just above the present site of Shreveport. As the raft ascended the river, water backed up into Big Cypress Bayou, and a bar formed across its mouth. This restriction in the flow of local run- off in Big Cypress caused the water to diffuse over the river valley and form the embryo of a series of lakes. When the raft, in its steady ascension of the Red River, reached a point above the mouth of Big Cypress, water from the river was forced into the lowlands adjacent to the main channel, and the water emptied into the newly formed lakes greatly enlarging the supply of water there. As the supply of water increased, the lakes became longer and deeper until they reached a level suitable for navigation.-^-9 When the raft was first formed in the Red River is unknown, but it was in existence long before the first Spanish explorers entered the area.^O The United States received

18Ibid., p. 14. ^Guardia, o£. cit., pp. 21-22, 83-84. For official reports that confirm this, see House Executive Documents, 45th Congress, 3rd Session, No. 39 (Washington, 1879;, pp. 1-2; Senate Executive Documents, 27th Congress, 1st Session, No. 64 (Washington, 1842), p. 7; House Executive Documents, 43rd Con- gress, 1st Session, No. 1, Pt. 2 (Washington, 1874), pp. 649- 650.

^Hardin, op. cit.t p. 769. 19 its first official report on the raft in 1805 as part of the explorations made during the administration of Thomas Jefferson. At that time the head of the raft, located about twenty-five miles above Natchitoches, Louisiana, was described as being a series of smaller rafts extending approximately 100 miles upstream.21 The federal government undertook the first improvement of the river in 1828, when an attempt was made to cut channels around the raft, estimated to occupy a portion of the river for ninety-two miles upstream.22 This operation failed, and in 1833 Captain Henry Shreve made the first of three attempts by the federal government to remove the obstruction.2^

When Shreve reached the head of the raft it was located approximately 100 miles above Nachitoches, Louisiana. Its estimated length of 130 miles reached a point approximately

27 miles above the present site of Shreveport.2^ By 1836

21Letter from Dr. John Sibley to Gen. Henry Dearborn, April 10, 1805, American State Papers, Vol. VII, 38 vols., Indian Affairs, Vol. I, 2 vols. (Washington, 1832), p. 728. 22Senate Reports, 62nd Congress, 2nd Session, Ho. 679 (Washington, 1912), p. 326. 2%orman W. Caldwell, "The Red River Raft," Chronicles of Oklahoma, XIX (1941), 257; House Executive Documents, 23rd Congress, 1st Session, No. 98 (Washington, 1834), p. 10; Guardia, 0£. cit., p. 27. 24~Senate Documents, 29th Congress, 1st Session, No. 26 (Washington, 1846), p. 6; Caldwell, 0£. cit.t p. 254. 20

Shreve had removed all "but about nine miles of the raft.^5 The location of the head of the raft above Shreveport opened Twelve Mile Bayou to adveaturesome steamboat captains. In 1838 Shreve announced that the channel had been cleared through the entire length of the raft, but warned that continued improvement would be necessary to maintain freedom of passage to the upper Red River.^ No money was appropriated in 1840 for the improvement of the Red River, but Shreve continued his efforts to keep the channel free of obstructions with money raised by citizens

in Arkansas.federal government resumed efforts to solve the problem in 1841 by appropriating $75,000 for the removal of three miles of raft and continued improvement for four years. According to the contract awarded to Thomas B. Williamson, he could either remove the raft or cut channels around it. The people in the area objected bit- terly to the latter procedure for fear that it would cause flooding.Williamson had difficulty in his attempts to

25senate Executive Documentst 24th Congress, 2nd Session, No. 2 (Washington, 1837), pp. 272-277. 2%ouse Executive Documents, 25th Congress, 3rd Session, No. 2 (Washington, 1839), P* 310. 27caldwell, 0£. cit., p. 260. The federal government repaid $6,148.7© ^Eo Daniel T. Witlee and others who had borrowed money through a branch of the Real Estate Bank of Washington, Arkansas for the purpose of aiding Capt. Shreve. House Executive Documents, 48th Congress, 1st Session, No. 64 (Washington, 1884), p. 2(58. ^House Executive Documents, 43rd Congress, 1st Session, No. 1, Pt. 2 (Washington, 1874), p. 644. 21

keep the raft from reforming. Heavy freshets in 1842 re-

newed the raft and regardless of increased expenditures,

Williamson was unable to check its growth.29 Additional

funds were not appropriated for the removal of the raft

until 1852 when the Secretary of War received authority to

contract the job to the lowest "bidder at a cost not to exceed

$100,000.^0 In 1857 Charles A. Fuller, the agent in charge

of the project, reported that the route to the upper Red

River was open but recommended an outlay of $50,000 per year 31 for completion and maintenance of the project.

No further appropriations for removal of the raft were

made until 1872, by which time much of the results of former

work had been lost. Between 1828 and 1857 the government

spent $529,831.90 surveying, removing the raft, and improve-

ing the channel of the Red River but failed to achieve its

goal.

When Jefferson was founded Shreve had removed enough of

the raft from the Red River to permit steamboats to reach

29lbid.

^House Executive Documents, 48th Congress, 1st Session No. 64 (Washington, 1884), p. 258.

^Senate Reports, 62nd Congress, 2nd Session, No. 679 (Washington, 1912), p. 326.

52Ibid. 22

the upper Red River.^ The conditions which caused the raft formations had not "been corrected, however, and Williamson was in the process of removing the raft for a second time when Jefferson was established.54 The founders of Jefferson must have realized the importance of the raft to their settlement, and they were aware of the efforts being made by the federal government to remove it.55 Nevertheless, they took a chance on the "mysterious act of nature" and looked forward to a future as an inland port.56 The raft set Jefferson apart from other settlements in East Texas and made it more attractive to emigrants and farmers than its neighboring rivals. To the north and west of Jefferson the country was being settled rapidly with a corresponding growth of trade and commerce. The lack of railroads or navigable rivers in that part of the state forced farmers to use expensive overland routes in order to

^House Executive Documents« 25th Congress, 3rd Session, No. 2 (Washington, 1839), p. 310. The raft was circumnavi- gated for the first time in 1831. Grant Forman, "River Navigation in the Early Southwest," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XV (1928), 50. . ^House Executive Documents, 43rd Congress, 1st Session, No. 1, Pt. 2 (Washington, 1874), p. 644. 55a report by Lt. Colonel S. H. Long in 1841 clearly showed that water was being displaced from the main channel of the Red River and made to flow through the series of lakes and bayous connecting Cypress Bayou with the Red River. Senate Executive Documents, 27th Congress, 1st Session, No. 64 (Washington, 1842), p. 7.

^Houston Chronicle t August 18, 1935, in Marion County Scrapbook. 23 market their produce and obtain needed supplies.^7 In- adequate at best, the wagon roads were impassible during

several months of the rainy season. As a result, freight rates were extremely high and in some instances prohibitive.^8

The farmers restricted their production of cotton and grew considerable amounts of corn and wheat, some of which they sold to incoming immigrants and army posts.^9 in order to ship part of their crop to markets the farmers sought the nearest navigable stream.

The Red River, forming 440 miles of the northern boundary between Texas and the Indian Territory, was the nearest navigable stream for much of northeast and north central Texas.40

57S. S. McKay, "Texas and the Southern Pacific Railroad 1848-1860," Southwestern Historical Quarterly, XXXV" (1932), 1. The Trinity River was located in this area, but could not be considered navigable. As explained by T. C. Richardson, "Dallas never quite gave up the dream of water transportation, but neither did she ever realize it except temporarily, and on such rare occasions as to call for the noisy celebration," T. C. Richardson, East Texas, Its History and Its Makers,.

4' vols' " . (New York, 1940),> I-»,» 395- . Cf. Charles S. Potts, Rail- road Transportation in Texas, in the Bulletin of the UnivUniversite y of Texas, No. 119,Humanities Series No. 7 (Austin, 1909)» p. 10. ^®S. S. McKay, 0£. cit., pp. 1-2. The average cost for freighting goods overland was one dollar per 100 miles, or twenty cents per ton-mile. Potts, op. cit., p. 17. George Jackson reported that freighters charged from three to three and a half dollars per hundred weight for hauling from Titus County to Jefferson. George Jackson, Sixty Years in Texas (Dallas, 1908), p. 26.

5^s. S. McKay, op. cit., p. 2.

^Texas Almanac, 1964-65, p. 307; Potts, 0£. cit., p. 10. 24

Because of the raft, river traffic between Shreveport and the settlements of the upper Red River was limited and expensive. Large steamboats could not navigate above Pulton, Arkansas, and even small boats were limited to high-water periods.Rather than pay the excessive cost of shipping their crops to market from ports along the upper Red River, farmers as far west as Dallas and Denton turned to Jefferson as the next closest inland port.^2 Despite its advantageous position at the head of navigation on Big Cypress Bayou, Jefferson did not acquire pre- eminence immediately. Jefferson had not been incorporated when the 1850 census was taken, and its population for that year is unknown.43 However, contemporary accounts of the town and surrounding areas indicate that in proportion to other towns, its size vas not great. Melinda Rankin, travel- ing through Texas in 1850, was not impressed by anything in Jefferson. While commenting on the size, beauty, and activity

4-^Shreveport Caddo Gazette, January 26, 1859» cited in Clarksville Northern Standard, January 29, 1859; Smith, op. crt., p. 16. 42Texas Almanac, 1870 (Galveston, 1869), p. 171; Prank W. Johnson, A History of Texas and Texans, 5 vols. (Chicago, 1914), II, 893~ Cf. George Jaokson, Sixty Years in Texas, p. 26; Clarksville Northern Standard, April 14, l5F0; Norman C. Russell, "The History of Titus County Since 1860, unpublished master's thesis, East Texas State Teachers College, Department of History, Commerce, Texas, 1937, p. 95. 43|pexas Almanac, 1964-65, pp. 122, 124. 25

of Marshall and Shreveport, she failed to mention Jefferson.4-4 As late as 1849 immigrants were urged to purchase their supplies before leaving New Orleans as Jefferson was too small to "be depended upon for needed essentials.45 A low volume of business and navigational hazards on the lakes combined to make transit costs at Jefferson unproportionally higher than those from Shreveport.46 During droughts, when navigation to Jefferson was impossible, goods became expensive and scarce.47 gi0 avoid the additional costs many- settlers continued their business transactions at Shreveport.48

In comparison with other incorporated towns of Texas Jefferson's population growth between 1850 and I860 remained slow. Texas contained twenty-one incorporated towns in I860. Of the fourteen towns larger than Jefferson, at least seven of them had population increases of 2,000 or more during the decade. Two towns increased by 1,000 or more, and the remaining four were not incorporated in 1850. In 1860 Jefferson

4%elinda Eankin, Texas in 1850 (Boston, 1852), pp. 110- 111. 45jjdward Smith, Account of a Journey Through North- Eastern Texas (London, 1849), PP« 97-98. 4^Ibid., pp. 16, 181; Texas Almanac, 1870> p. 172. 47j^tter from Dr. William S. Logan to Dr. A. L. Logan, January 20, 1856; Linden Sun, August 26, 1936, in Marion County Scrapbook.

48Smith, op. cit., p. 16 26 had a population of 988 including 266 Negroes.49 Its rate of growth was less than that of at least nine leading towns in Texas. Among those whose population increased faster than Jefferson's were Marshall, Sulphur Springs, and Dallas.50 Business houses in Jefferson increased faster relative to the town's population, an indication of an expanding trade area. The Jefferson Herald in 1853 featured advertisements for such diverse businesses as clothiers, blacksmithsj eleven advertisements by lawyers and law firms were included.51 In 1847 J. S. Nash established the first iron furnace in Texas about eighteen miles west of Jefferson.52 Sometime during the 1850's J. S. Nash and Company built a foundry and produced "everything from a stove to a wagon box . . . ."53 of Lockett and Stewart established a small repair shop about four miles west of Jefferson in 1848 to make crude plows and 49?rexas Almanac, 1964-65, pp. 122-126; U. S. Department of the Interior, Population of the United States in I860, Vol. I of Eighth Census of tHe United States, 4 vols. (Washing- ton, 1864), p. 486 (hereafter referred to as Eighth Census of Population. 50Texas Almanac. 1964-65« pp. 122-126. 51jefferson Herald, August 13, 1852. In 1866, W. E. Penn was advised by a law firm in Jefferson that the town had enough lawyers, and he would be better off to go elsewhere. Mrs. C. ]?. Penn, The Life and Labors of Major W. E. Penn (St. Louis, 1896), p. 69 52e. T. Dumble, Geological Survey of Texas, A Report of the State Geologist for 1890 (Austin. 1890), n. p., cited in OlTie Singletary, "A History of the Iron Industry of Northern Texas," unpublished master's thesis, Department of History, East Texas State Teachers College, Commerce, Texas, 1951, p. 25. 55ciarksville. Northern Standard, February 4, I860, citing Jefferson Herald, n. d. 27 general repairs. After 1852 George A. Kelly brought an interest in the firm, and they diversified their production to include cast iron stoves, cooking utensils and cowbells. A furnace and foundry was readied just in time to be used by the Confederate government.

The manufacturing report of the census bureau for I860 listed seven establishments for Marion County, two manufacturers of agricultural implements, two bell manufacturers, a leather tannery, and two saw mills.55 a total annual salary of $19,092 was paid to sixty-one employees by these industries.

The capital investment was $38,100 while the annual value of products was $47,100.^6 Agriculturally, Marion County had approximately 19 per cent of its farm land improved in I860.

In 1862 land in the county averaged $3.82 per acre, and the price of town lots had risen to $486.53.^7 Town lots in 1849

54-Mrs. Arch McKay and Mrs. H. A. Spellings, A History of Jefferson, 1836-1936, 5th edition (Jefferson, n.

cost "between $50 and $175 for a 50x175 foot lot or $435 to $1,742 per acre.^8 Although inflation in 1862 caused the prices to rise somewhat, the large increase over 1849 indicates a continuing confidence in the future of Jefferson as higher prices resulted from increased demands for real estate. Most of Jefferson's growth "before the Civil War occurred after 1855. The Northern Standard predicted a large commercial business for Jefferson in 1854, "but a drought in 1854 and 1855 made navigation on Big Cypress and Caddo Lake impossible.59 When the drought ended Jefferson began to receive some of the trade once reserved for Shreveport and settlements on the upper Red River. The Red River raft played an important part in Jefferson's growth after 1855- Fuller, the engineer placed in charge of operations by the United States Corps of Engineers, attempted to destroy the raft in 1854, but within a short period the obstruction had re-formed and navigation above Shreveport became dangerous and expensive.Trade that normally went

58smith, op. cit., p. 179* 59Letter from Dr. William S. Logan to Dr. A. L. Logan, January 20, 1856, Linden, Sun, August 26, 1936, in Marion County Scrapbook; House Executive Documents, 43rd Congress, 1st Session, No. 1, Pt. 2 (Washington,1874), p. 650; Clarksville Northern Standard, January 16, 1854. ^Senate Reports, 62nd Congress, 2nd Session, No. 679 (Washington, 1912), p. 326; Clarksville Northern Standard, April 14, I860. 29

"by steamboat from the upper Red River to Shreveport was now being carried overland to Jefferson where it was transported directly to New Orleans.^1 As Jefferson's trade increased her prices became more competitive, and the inland port began to feel the resentment of rival communities. The conditions under which Jefferson prospered pleased no one but Jefferson. Clarksville, on the upper Red River, and Shreveport, who were hurt most by the situation, complained loudest. In the two years before the Civil War a feud raged between the three towns concerning removal of the raft. The outbreak of fighting postponed the question, and Jefferson entered the war years temporarily the winner. A report by Puller to the Chief of Engineers provided the spark for the controversy between the contending towns. He advised that removal of the raft was impractical because of the tremendous expense involved. In his opinion the raft should be left intact and navigation to the upper Red River provided by the use of the lakes and bayous. This would be more practical and less expensive since much of the route through the lakes was clear and would require very little work in cutting new channels.^ Jefferson agreed with Puller's

6-4?otts, o£. cit., p. 10. 62House Executive Documents, 43rd Congress, 1st Session, No. 1, Pt. 2 (Washington, 1874), p. 646. 30 report with regard to the raft, but Clarksville maintained that it had been removed once and could be again.^3

As the raft increased in size and steamboat traffic became more difficult, the settlements on the Red River had a reason to be alarmed. When the river was open farmers shipped cotton to New Orleans for $2.00 and $2.50 per bale, but with the river obstructed, the transit costs soared to five and six dollars per bale.After Puller's efforts failed to provide permanent relief, several influential citizens, led by the editors of the Caddo Gazette and the Northern Standard, suggested the formation of a raft company for the purpose of keeping the channel free of obstructions. The firm was to be a private, state-chartered organization, whose expenses would be paid by tolls collected from boats using the river. According to Charles DeMorse, editor and publisher of the Clarksville Northern Standard, the tolls easily could be paid with the money saved on insurance rates.^

In 1859 the Louisiana General Assembly approved an act incorporating the Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas Navigation Company, but to complete the organization of the company, Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas had to pass similar bills

^Clarksville Northern Standard, April 14, I860 and June 30, I860. 64Ibid. ^^Shreveport Caddo Gazette, January 26, 1859» cited in Clarksville Northern Standard, January 29, 1859* 31

and have them approved by Congress.^ Charles DeMorse immediately launched a campaign to pass the measure through the Texas legislature, while Jefferson prepared to oppose it. 67 The efforts of the citizens of Jefferson to oppose the removal of the raft "brought forth a blistering attack from DeMorse. He denounced those people who thought they should have slackwater navigation at the expense of the people 68 located on the banks of the Red River. According to De- Morse Jefferson was enjoying prosperity at the expense of upper Red River settlements because of an "accidental and unnatural diversion . . ."of water from the Red River. The natural law over the civilized world said that a river could not be diverted from its natural channel Mto benefit persons locally remote from that natural channel," and it would be an "outrage of legislation for our Legislature to refuse the charter asked for . . . ." To DeMorse,"refusal to adopt the bill because it would distucb the convenience of a comparatively unimportant section . . . would be to presume that the majority of the Legislators were dead to proper motives for action, and under the control of a few log rollers. ^Clarksville Northern Standard, March 5, 1859» ibid., January 14, I860. 67Ibid. 68Ibid.

69lbid. 32

The legislature of Texas refused to adopt the "bill to incorporate the Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas Navigation Company. The proposal, after having been favorably reported by the Committee on State Affairs and the Committee on Internal Improvements, received only eighteen votes in the House. Because the committees were composed of thirty-nine members, the vast majority of whom voted favorably in committee, DeMorse attributed the defeat of the bill to "underground management in the matter."71 If DeMorse needed a basis for this claim, he could have pointed out that M. D. K. Taylor of Jefferson was Speaker of the House.72 DeMorse denounced the legislature's action as a "ham - handed outrage" whose "preposterous refusal of Justice . . . forbade the people to remove the obstructions from the river at their own expense."73 Although he did not mention it, DeMorse perhaps was thinking about the $21,298 appropriation made by the Texas Legislature in 1856 for the improvement of

Big Cypress Bayou.74 His threats became more personal as he

"^Letter from S . H. P. ^/""Salmon H. Pirkey 7, Austin, Texas, to Charles DeMorseMorse, January 17,. I860; ibid., JanuaJanuar: y 28, I860. 73-Ibid.; Clarksville Northern Standard, January 28, I860. 72|j[embers of the Legislature of the State of Texas from 1846 to 1939 (Austin, 1939), P- 33. "^Clarksville Northern Standard, January 28, 1860.

74jexas Almanac, 1858 (Galveston, 1857), p. 191« 33 warned that if lie ever found out who the "special managers of the iniquity ..." were, he would take every opportunity to strike an effective blow against them.75 DeMorse informed Jefferson that the raft would be destroyed despite all their efforts and once obstructions had been removed, the channel would be kept free by private companies at a small annual expense.76 With Clarksville, DeMorse explained, it was not "a matter of competition with Jefferson, but a matter of self- preservation ." 77 Shreveport, led by the Caddo Gazette, joined Clarksville in their condemnation of Jefferson. In January, 1859» the Caddo Gazette expressed concern that the raft had resisted inefficient efforts by the federal government and the; products of the upper Red River were being "taken to market at an ex- orbitant price and with great difficulty and danger."78 in May, I860, after Texas had failed to approve the removal of the raft, the Caddo Gazette maintained that "opponents of internal improvements have resorted to ingenuity and 'sophisms' to mis- lead the public mind."79 While they did not blame Jefferson

75ciarksville Northern Standard, January 28, I860; ibid., June 9» I860. 76Ibid., April 14, I860. 77ibid., June 9, 18$0.

7QShreveport Caddo Gazette, January 26, 1859» cited in Clarksville Northern Standard, January 29, 1859*

79shreveport Caddo Gazettet n. d., cited in Clarksville Northern Standard, May 12, 1860. 34 for "being concerned, the editors did not think that a "petty- local interest" should he permitted to override the general interest of the entire area. They rejected the accusation that Shreveport capitalists were levying war on Jefferson and explained that all they wanted was direct communications with the upper Red River.8® Even Marshall seemed anxious to cast a blow at the upstart on Cypress Bayou. In 1857 a railroad was "built between Swanson's Landing on the south side of Caddo Lake to Marshall. According to one authority this was an effort to regain some of the river traffic that had belonged to Marshall before Jefferson attracted the trade further up the bayou.

Despite an attack from three sides Jefferson continued to prosper and seemed to be winning the battle of the raft. The settlements along the Red River did not give up their attempt to remove the raft, but they admitted temporary defeat by advocating that a route be found around the raft. In June, I860, a public meeting of the farmers from the upper Red River area met at Boston, Bowie County, and discussed ways of getting around the raft. The next crop had to be marketed soon, and they needed immediate relief.8^ Costs of channeling around

8QIbid. 8-*-Sallie M. Lentz, "Highlights of Early Harrison County," S. H. Q., IXI (1958), 250.

8 ^Shreveport Caddo Gazettet n. d., cited in Clarksville Northern Standard, June 16, I860. 35

the raft were discussed, and at least two groups began making preparations.8^

The citizens of Jefferson approved the proposals to cut channels around the raft. The Jefferson Herald pontifi- cated:

It is a Texas movement; and we hope, hereafter, to hear no more from Texans, anything favoring the puerile project advocated "by "swamp-land" dreamers and jealous town-lot proprietors, of opening the "raft." The raft project is so silly that we are surprised that Texans ever favored it. We regret that they could be caught in such a trap.84

In the Herald's estimation, navigation to the upper Red River was needed, but the cost of opening the raft would be nearly a half million dollars and only a tenth of this amount would be required to cut a canal around the obstruction.

The settlements of the upper Red River were just as convinced of the feasibility of removing the raft. While work progressed on a canal for immediate relief, efforts were made in Congress to pass an act enabling the establishment of a navigation company with the consent of any two of the three states involved.on September 10, I860, a temporary route

S^ciarksville Northern Standard, June 16, 1860; ibid., June 23, I860.

84Jefferson Herald, n. d., cited in Clarksville Northern Standard, June 30, 18b0.

85lbid.

8^Clarksville Northern Standard, June 30, I860. 36 around the raft was pronounced complete.8^ Not until February 21, 1861, did Congress "by Joint Resolution give its approval for any two of the three states involved to charter a private company for the purpose of removing obstructions from the Red River.®8 By the time Congress acted on the bill, Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas had seceded from the Union. Louisiana and Arkansas passed laws incorporating a raft company, but the Civil War prevented any work being done.89 The outbreak of hostilities between the North and the South temporarily ended all attempts to destroy the raft and improve navigation on the upper Red River. This preserved water navigation to Jefferson and practically eliminated the city's competition for the trade of northeast Texas. Because railroad construction before the war suffered a fate similar to that of the attempts to remove the raft, Jefferson entered the Civil War as the undisputed terminus for the best means of transportation in northeast Texas.

87Letter from Capt. Thomas Moore to S. H. Morgan, Esq.., September 14, I860; ibid., September 22, i860. 88House Documents, 58th Congress, 3rd Session, No. 425 (Washington, 1909), p. 142.

89ciarksville Northern Standard, April 20, 1861; House Executive Documents, 43rd Congress, 1st Session, No. 1, Pt. 2 (.Washington, 1874), p. 664. CHAPTER III

RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION BEFORE I860

At the first Congress of the Republic of Texas citizens

"began expressing interest in the construction of railroads.

Throughout the Republic period and the first years of state- hood attempts were made periodically to construct railroads within the state. The efforts proved fruitless, however, and not until 1852 did the first railroad "begin operating in Texas. Despite the interest in railroads and the large number of charters granted, only sixteen railroads were constructed before the Civil War and on April 1, 1861, there were only ten railroads, with approximately 460 miles of track, in operation.1 Jefferson was among those towns in Texas that actively sought to construct railroads before the Civil War. As early as 1848 the Jefferson Democrat parodied King Richard to express the town's need for a railroad: "Large loads of cotton arrive in Jefferson every day. We need a railroad to the prairies. A railroad! A railroad!! A kingdom for a railroad!!"2 The Jefferson Herald in April, I860, indicated

Is. G. Reed, A History of the Texas Railroads (Houston, 1941), pp. 49-50, T25. 2T. C. Richardson, East Texas, Its History and Its Makers, 4 vols. (New York, 1940), I, 365. 37 38 the awareness of the citizens of Jefferson of the advantages of railroad transportation and considered it a complement to their inland port rather than a competitor.^

Jefferson wanted and needed railroads. Although not located on any of the three major immigrant routes as designated by William Curry Holden, the town did attract a large number of immigrants and was well supplied with wagon-load connections to all parts of northeast Texas.4 Immigrants, freight and stage companies^ and farmers from great distances used these roads, but continued growth demanded that they be improved. Only by acquiring the cheaper, faster, and more dependable railroad could Jefferson expect to expand her market area and increase the number of immigrants passing through its limits.5

Because of her dependence on trade Jefferson was concerned with and affected by all attempts to build railroad into northeast Texas before the Civil War, but concentrated her attention on the five railroads most closely related to

3jefferson Herald, n. d., cited in Clarksville Northern Standard, April 14, I860.

^William Curry Holden, Alkali Trails, or Social and Economic Movements of the Texas Frontier (Dallas, 1930), pp. 71-72" Of. Map of part of the State of Texas, prepared by J. H. Cotton and Co. (New York, n. d.), between pp. 42-43 of Frederick L. Olmsted, A Journey Through Texas (New York, 1857). 5Jefferson Herald, n. d., cited in Clarksville Northern Standard, April 14, I860. The business men of Jefferson were aware that the trade would go to the easiest and cheapest route. 39 her situation. The Vicksburg and El Paso, the Memphis, El Paso and Pacific, and the Mississippi and Pacific were transcontinental roads chartered to span the state from the eastern boundary to El Paso.^ The Jefferson Bailroad and the Metropolitan Railroad were local roads whose purpose was to connect Jefferson with the transcontinental roads.7 Of the five roads, only two built any lines before 1861, and only the Metropolitan, a division of the Memphis, El Paso and Pacific, constructed any tracks in Jefferson.®

The first of the five railroads, the Vicksburg and El Paso, or Texas Western as it was sometimes called, received a charter from the Texas Legislature on February 16, 1852, which authorized the company to construct a road from a

6h. P. N. Gammel, editor, The Laws of Texas, 10 vols. (Austin, 1898), III, 1245-1250, 1433-1438} H. P. N. Gammel, editor, The Laws of Texas, 10 vols. (Austin, 1898), IV, 7-13. The Vicksburg and~T?l Paso was also known as the Texas Western. In the original act of incorporation the caption called it the Vicksburg and El Paso Railroad Company, but in the text, the title Texas Western Railroad was used. Gammel, op. cit., III, 1245. On August 16, 1856, the name was officially changed to Texas Western Railroad Company. Gammel, o£. cit., IV, 622-624.

"^Gammel, op. cit., IV, 59-63; H. P. N. Gammel, editor, The Laws of Texas, 10 vols. (Austin, 1898), V, 304-311.

8Charles S. Potts, Railroad Transportation in Texas in the Bulletin of the University of Texas, No. 119, Humanities Series Ho. 7 (Austin, 1909), p. 34$ Texas Almanac, 1868 (Galveston, 1867), p. 137. There are some references to a road having been built from Swanson's Landing on Caddo Lake to Jefferson some time between 1852 and 1856. None of these sources produced documentary evidence of their statements. See, Marshall News Messenger, November 10, 1863, Sec. E; Marion County Inventory, p. 8. 40

suitable point on the eastern "boundary of Texas to El Paso along a route agreeable to the company. The company would be

entitled to eight sections of land for each mile of track actually completed and made ready for use if construction were commenced within five years, and twenty miles were completed within six years.9 The route selected by the company ran along the thirty-second parallel as recommended in 1855 by Secretary of War Jefferson Davis. The selected route,

like those of later intersectional railroads, ran parallel

to a well-known route used by immigrants to Texas.-1-®

Work on the Vicksburg and El Paso Railroad began in

November, 1855, but not until August 16, 1856, after a

legislative act had changed the name of the road to the

Southern Pacific Railroad,did construction start on the

section between Swanson's Landing on Caddo Lake and Marshall.

Swanson's Landing became the temporary eastern terminus of

the railroad in order to transport construction materials

from Caddo Lake to the main line running between Marshall

and Shreveport .H

^Gammel, o£. cit., III, 1245, 1248-1250. ^House Executive Documents, 33rd Congress, 2nd Session, No. 91 (Washington, 1855,), pp. 8-30; J. Pair Harden, "An Out- line of Shreveport and Caddo Parish History," Louisiana Historical Quarterly, XVIII (1935), 841; Holden, op. cit., pp. 71-72. llGammel, 0£. cit., IV, 622-624; Potts, 0£. cit., p. 33; A. B. Armstrong, "Origins of the Texas and Pacific Railroad," Southwestern Historical Quarterly, LVI (1953), 492. 41

Despite the financial difficulties which hindered it from the very beginning, the Southern Pacific reached Marshall in 1857.12 Because the company did not have any locomotives available, three yoke of oxen were used to convey the rail cars between Swanson's Landing and Marshall. The rail cars were pulled to the top of an inclined plane by the oxen. At this point the oxen were loaded into a car and all were carried by the pull of gravity to the next rise. The process was repeated for the entire length of the route.U The Southern Pacific continued construction during the Civil War. At the insistence of Lt. General E. Kirby Smith, the line from Swanson's landing to Jonesville, located between Marshall and Shreveport, was torn up and used to extend the line from Marshall to Waskom.-'-^ Work on this line resumed soon after the war and a connection completed between Marshall and Shreveport in 1866.15 This marked the beginning of the present Texas and Pacific Railroad and the projection of its route threatened to by-pass Jefferson entirely.

^Interstate Commerce Commission, Valuation Reports, No. 491 (Washington, 1930), XXIX, 580 (hereafter referred to as I. C. C., Valuation Reports). ^Sallie M. Lentz, "Highlights of Early Harrison County," Southwestern Historical Society, IXI (1958), 251. 14-1. c. C., Valuation Reports, p. 580; Seth Walton, "The Railroad During the Civil War Period," Marshall News Messenger, November 10, 1963, Sec. H. ^Marshall Texas Republican, August 4, 1866, cited in Armstrong, 0£. cit., p. 496. 42

The Mississippi and Pacific Railroad also gave Jefferson an opportunity to acquire a railroad. In approving the charter for this company in December, 1853, the legislature hoped to make the provisions liberal enough to insure the construction of a railroad across the state.^ The charter called for the road to commence at a point on the eastern boundary of the state below Fulton, Arkansas, and to run to the Rio Grande at or near El Paso. The governor was instructed to advertise for contractors to build the road, the contract to be awarded to the lowest bidder. The company would be entitled to twenty sections of land for each mile constructed, provided that it post a bond of $300,000 to begin construction within six months and complete fifty miles of road within eighteen months.^

Governor Pease rejected the onl^r "bid received for constructing the Mississippi and Pacific Railroad. The bidder was unable to raise the necessary money, and because the Texas Western had designated the 32nd parallel as its route across the state, no other bids were made. On August 26, 1856, the land set aside by the legislature to be used for constructing the road was opened to settlement.18

l^Gammel, o£. cit., IY, 7-13; Reed, 0£. cit.« p. 99» ^Gammel, 0£. cit., IV, 7-8, 12. 18Ibid., pp. 474-475; Reed, o£. cit., p. 100. 43

The Jefferson Railroad Company, headed by citizens of Jefferson, was incorporated on February 2, 1854, for the purpose of making railroad connections with either the Mississippi and Pacific or the Vicksburg and El Paso.^9 The charter provided that the road had to commence within three years and have twenty miles or the entire length of the road, if less than twenty miles, completed within five years. No land would be granted for any railroad built by the Jefferson Railroad Company after ten years.2® An amendment to the charter on November 26, 1855, allowed the Jefferson Railroad to connect with either the Mississippi and Pacific, the Vicks- burg and El Paso, or the Vicksburg, Shreveport and Texas Rail- road at the eastern boundary of Texas. The Vicksburg, Shreve- port and Texas Railroad was a Louisiana chartered road, and a connection with it would have provided direct connections with Shreveport.21 The charter for the Jefferson Railroad Company was renewed February 9» I860, but no road was built, and the charter elapsed leaving Jefferson without a connecting 22 railroad to any projected transcontinental railroad. Because the state charters for the "Vicksburg and El Paso and the Mississippi and Pacific railroads did not delineate 19{ffammel, op. cit., IV, 59* ^Ibid., pp. 63-64. 23-Ibid., p. 303* Armstrong, o£. cit., p. 495.

22(jammel, 0£. cit., V, 204; Reed, op. cit. t p. 123. 44 their initial points on the eastern "boundary of Texas, there was reason to believe that one of these roads might pass through Jefferson. S. G. Reed states that the purpose of the Jefferson Railroad was to connect Jefferson with the transcontinental roads if neither of them passed directly through the town.23 The charter of the Memphis and El Paso and Pacific, incorporated February 7, 1853, designated a route which left mo doubt that Jefferson would be excluded. The proposed railroad began on the Red River at a suitable point opposite the western terminus of the projected Memphis and Arkansas, or near the white oak shoals.The line was to be constructed in a westwardly direction up the Red River valley to a point at or near Port Belknap on the Trinity River. Prom there the road would proceed to the Rio Grande at or near El Paso.2^* The route of the Memphis and El Paso and Pacific, parallel to that taken by immigrants from Kentucky and Tennessee, bisected the area that was becoming more dependent upon Jefferson as a market and a source of supplies.2^ Jefferson citizens under- standably opposed a railroad of this nature.

23Reed, op. cit., p. 109• 24lbid., p. 93; Gammel, op. cit., III, 1433-1434.

2^Gammel, 0£. cit., III, 1434. Digest of the Laws of the City of Jefferson (Jefferson, 1870), p. 3. A map on this page shows that Jefferson enjoyed the trade of twenty counties in northeast Texas, a portion of Arkansas and the Indian Nation. 45

The original act of incorporation for the Memphis and

El Paso and Pacific was amended February 6, 1854, liberalizing the point on the Red River at which the road might commence because it was located so far from river navigation, other railroads, and populated settlements.^ Because the old charter was defective, a new act of incorporation passed by the legislature on February 4, 1856, granted a new charter

to the Memphis, El Paso, and Pacific Railroad.28 The provisions required construction to begin at a point above the

Sulphur Fork of Red River opposite the western terminus of either the Mississippi, Quachita, and Red River Railroad, or

the Cairo and Fulton Road. From this point on the Red River,

the route would be the same as provided for in the original

charter.^9

Construction on the Memphis, El Paso and Pacific began

in Bowie County near the present site of Texarkana in 1857 with supporters of the transcontinental road optimistic that

the first fifty miles would be completed in ninety days.50

This was good news to the farmers along the upper Red River valley who periodically found it impossible or too expensive

2?Texas Almanac, 1871 (Galveston, 1870), p. 173; Gammel, op. cit., IV, 73-74.

^8Texas Almanac, 1868 (Galveston, 1867), p. 136; Gammel, op. cit., IV, 378-385. 29(jammel, ££. cit., IV, 378; Gammel, o£. cit., III, 1433. 30g}exas Almanac, 1868, p. 136; Potts, 0£. cit., p. 33. 46 to use water transportation on the Red River. Progress on the road, was not as rapid as the optimists predicted, and not until March 3, I860 did the Northern Standard announce that railroad cars had arrived at Moore's landing on the Sulphur Pork of Red River.On April 14, I860, the paper reported that one locomotive, three construction cars, and supplies for six miles of railroad were at Moore's landing.

Plans for a rapid completion of the first fifty miles of the Memphis, El Paso and Pacific were upset by heavy freshets in the Red River. In April and May of I860 the raft made navigation to Moore's Landing impossible for all except the smallest vessels at irregular intervals. Because supplies could not be shipped by water to Moore's Landing, the contractor for the Memphis, El Paso and Pacific agreed to ship supplies to Jefferson and take the contract for the construction of the Metropolitan, a railroad between Jefferson and Moore's Landing.^ Jefferson thus became the initial point of construction for the Memphis, El Paso and Pacific.

^Clarksville Northern Standard, March 3, I860; ibid., June 30, I860.

52|pexas Almanac, 1868, pp. 136-137; Clarksville Northern Standard, April 14, I860.

^^clarksville Northern Standard, June 23, I860, citing Shreveport Caddo Gazette, n. d. 47

The Metropolitan Railroad Company received a charter from the state on February 14, I860, to construct a line from Texarkana in Bowie County, through Jefferson, Marshall, Hender- son, Palestine, Fairfield, and Springfield to Austin. The capital stock of $5,000,000 was divided into $100 shares. The Company was extended all the rights, privileges, and benefits provided by the general laws regulating railroads within the state, and the restrictions against the investment of special school funds in the bonds of railroads were not applied to the Metropolitan. In order to comply with the charter the company had to complete twenty-five miles of road before January 1, 1863, and twenty-five miles additional every two years after that until the road was completed.^4 Jefferson quickly realized the importance of the Metro- politan and strongly supported its construction. City Alderman C. N. Stanley represented Jefferson on the Board of Commissioners for the organization of the company, and the Jefferson Herald

34(jammel, op. cit., V, 304-311. The Metropolitan was not originally chartered as a branch line of the Memphis, El Paso, and Pacific. In June, I860, after water navigation to Moore's landing became impossible, the Metropolitan between Jefferson and Moore1s Landing became associated with the Memphis, El Paso and Pacific. Not until March 20, 1861, did the Texas Legislature refer to the route between Moore's Landing and Jefferson as a portion of the Memphis, El Paso and Pacific. Cf. Grammel, oj>. cit., V, 304; Clarksville Northern Standard, June 23, I8607 citing Shreveport Caddo Gazette, n. d.; Clarks- ville Northern Standard, April 14, 1860; ibidT, August 4, 1860; ibid., March ?, 1860; ibid., June 30, 1865T For an opposite view, see Texas Almanac. 1868, pp. 136-137. 48

claimed that 100 men would buy $1,000 worth of stock in the

railroad if necessary for its completion.^5 According to the

newspaper, Jefferson husinessmen were convinced that the road

would monopolize the trade of the upper Red River and make

the stock more valuable than that of any other road in Texas.

Similar views were expressed in a railroad meeting at Linden

in May, I860, as ex-mayor and future senator W. P. Saufley

and two other citizens of Jefferson explained in detail the

need for a railroad from Jefferson to Texarkana.^7

The chartering of the Metropolitan Railroad did not im-

prove the relations between the settlements of the upper Red

River and Jefferson as the verbal battle between the two

areas intensified. The controversy over the railroad was

touched off by the Jefferson Herald in April, I860, when it announced that in twelve months the Metropolitan would be

completed to Texarkana and would monopolize the trade of the

upper Red River. The Northern Standard countered that

35jefferson Herald, n. d., cited in Clarksville Northern Standard* April 14, 1860; ffammel, 0£. cit., IV, 1419; Jefferson, Texas, "Minutes of the Meetings of the Board of Aldermen," October 10. 1859» P» 64 (hereafter referred to as "Minutes of the Board").

^Jefferson Herald, n. d., cited in Clarksville Northern Standard, April 14, I860.

^Clarksville Northern Standard, June 9t I860.

^Jefferson Herald, n. d., cited in Clarksville Northern Standard, April 14, 1860. 49

Jefferson should not depend, upon Clarksville to help build the Metropolitan. It warned that if the road were not "built,

Jefferson could expect to see some of her "receipts going to

Moore's Landing on one side and Houston on the other."^9 On

June 30, I860, the Northern Standard doubted the eventual construction of the Metropolitan. According to the paper only the "wind" work had been done. In another article of the same paper DeMorse criticized Jefferson's efforts to prevent the removal of the raft and promised that he would get revenge for the outrage in the last legislature. He also warned Jefferson to build the Metropolitan quickly, because if the road were not completed to Moore's Landing by next spring, Jefferson would lose trade. If the Metropolitan were built, DeMorse conceded "run up and sound your whistle, and we'll all take a ride to the head of slackwater."^

If the Caddo Gazette reflected the views of Shreveport, the citizens of that town were not in agreement with DeMorse on the Metropolitan issue. The Caddo Gazette was optimistic that a connection would be made with the Southern Pacific and that every attempt should be made by Shreveport to aid the project.41 The paper was so enthused with the project and

39Clarksville Northern Standard, April 14, I860.

40Ibid.

41Shreveport Caddo Gazette t n. d., cited in Northern Standard, June 23, I860. 50 so convinced that it meant progress for Jefferson, that it suggested the Metropolitan branch of the Memphis, El Paso and Pacific join the Vicksburg, Shreveport and Texas Railroad at the western boundary of Louisiana. Explaining that "this is the most magnificent scheme ever devised to build up Jeffer- son and Shreveport . . the editor went into a long dis- cussion of the advantages of laying the track from Jefferson to the Yicksburg, Shreveport and Texas rather than continuing to Marshall. The paper made no pretenses whatever as to its intentions, which were to control the trade of the upper Red River through Jefferson and to by-pass Marshall and the

AO Southern Pacific completely. Despite the politics, work on the Metropolitan from Jefferson to Texarkana got underway sometime after August 4, 1860.^ Major J. H. Pratt of Jefferson received the contract to grade and lay the superstructure on the forty-five mile route from Jefferson to Moore's Landing and completed five miles of the road before the Civil Mar stopped construction.44 Because the contractor had agreed to ship the iron for the trunk line of the Memphis and El Paso by water to Jefferson and then by rail to Moore's Landing, the trunk line had 42Shreveport Caddo Gazette, n. d., cited in Clarksville Northern Standard, July 14, I860. ^Clarksville Northern Standard, August 4, 1860. 44"Texas Almanac, 1868, p. 137. 51 fifty-seven miles of road-bed graded but no track laid when the war began.45 On June 16, 1861, the Northern Standard expressed the tragedy of the situation for all interests when it announced that iron for their road had arrived, but the bonds had been given to the Confederate government rather than the Mr. Savage Iron Company from whom the iron had been ordered. The Northern Standard's only justification was to say that "patriotism is frequently expensive."46

When the war started Jefferson had five miles of track that went nowhere. Because attempts to build railroads in northeast Texas had failed, railroads neither handicapped nor aided Jefferson during the war. The Metropolitan and the Memphis, El Paso and Pacific might have brought Jefferson more trade, but their failure did not prevent the town from increasing its river trade and enhancing its position as the commercial and distribution center of northeast Texas.

45shreveport Caddo Gazette, n. d., cited in Clarksville Northern Standard, June 23, I860. ^Clarksville Northern Standard, June 16, 1861. CHAPTER IV

THE DEVELOPMENT OP JEFFERSON, 1860-1870

War contracts, post-wai? conditions, and already existing natural advantages combined to make the era of the Civil War and Reconstruction a prosperous one for Jefferson. In I860 Jefferson's 988 inhabitants ranked it fourteenth in population among Texas towns.1 By 1870 her population had increased to 4,190 persons, and Jefferson ranked sixth in the state behind Galveston (13,818), San Antonio (12,256), Houston (9,382), Brownsville (4,905), and Austin (4,428).2 In commerce and industry Jefferson had assumed second position, outranked only by Galveston.^

Jefferson's most spectacular rate of growth occurred

after the war. Post-war conditions, including high cotton

prices and increased immigration into Texas, caused amports,

imports, property values, and population to soar.4 Jefferson

did not suffer from an invasion during the war, however, and

J-Texas Almanac, 1964-65 (Dallas, 1963), pp. 122-126. 2Ibid., pp. 122-123, 125.

^U. S. Department of Interior, The Statistics of the Wealth and Industry of the United States in 1870, Vol. III~of~NIn:EE Census of thelfnited States, 3 vols. (Washington, 1872), pp. 572- 573 (hereafter referred to as Ninth Census of Wealth and Industry); Vera Lea Dugas, "Texas Industry, 1860-1880," Southwestern Histor- ical Quarterly, LIX (1956), 166. 4Jefferson Daily Jimplecute, September 1, 1876. 52 53 war contracts awarded to the citizens helped to maintain and promote the commercial activity and industrial potential of the city "between I860 and 1865.

The iron industry at Jefferson received a subsidy from the Confederate government. The foundaries of George A.

Kelly and W. S. and William Nash acquired contracts to supply the army with cannon balls. No record exists of the Nash

Iron Works after 1867, "but the Kelly Foundry continued to expand after the war despite fires which destroyed its foundry.^

In 1880 the census listed Kelly as the only producer of iron in the state.^ Meat .packing, a small but successful enterprise in Jefferson before I860, became a major business after

1863. In September of that year Major W. H. Thomas, representing the Confederate government, signed a contract with the meat-packing firm of J. B. Dunn to establish a cannery at

Jefferson. The contract provided for the slaughtering and packing of 150 beeves per day. The government furnished the beef cattle and salt, and Dunn performed the slaughtering and packing. The first beef packed at Jefferson received favorable

^Dugas, op. cit., pp. 175-176; Mrs. Arch McKay and Mrs. H. A. Spellings,~X History of Jefferson, 1836-1936, 5th edition (Jefferson, n.cT.J, PP. 25^27; Texas Almanac, 1867 (Galveston, 1866), p. 139-

^U. S. Department of Interior, Manufactures of the United States in 1880, Vol. II of Tenth Censug of the United States, 22 vols. (Washington, 1883), pp. 371, 767~~(hereafter referred to as Tenth Census of Manufacturing); Dugas, 0£. cit., pp. 175-176. 54

reports from army inspectors, "but the quality declined toward the end of 1864, and there is no evidence that the contract was renewed.7

A shoe factory was "built in Jefferson during the war and it continued to expand after the war due to the abundance of hides from the packeries.^ By 1870 Jefferson led all other Texas cities in the manufacture of shoes and at one time proc- essed more beef than all other ports combined.9 During the war Jefferson served as an important quarter- master depot and was primarily responsible for the disperse- ment of hats, shoes, and boots.-*-® After the first year of fighting, towns along the Red River became an even more important source of supplies for the Confederate armies, and

^Clarksville Northern Standard, February 5, 1859, citing Jefferson Herald, n. d.; Frank E. Vandiver, "Texas and the Confederate Army's Meat Problem," Southwestern Historical Quarterly« XLVII (1944), 232, citing Papers of Capt. N. A. Birge, A. Q. M., Jefferson, Texas, University of Texas Archives, Austin, Texas; Contract between Major W. H. Thomas representing the Confederate States, and J. B. Dunn, September 19, 1863, Manuscript in the Confederate Army Papers, Department of Archives, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Letter from Major W. H. Thomas to Major John Reid, January 11, 1865, Manuscript, in Reid Collection of the Confederate Army Papers, Department of Archives, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

^Walter Prescott Webb and H. Bailey Carroll, The Texas Handbook, 2 vols. (Austin, 1952), I, 909* ^Dugas, op. cit., p. 160; Ninth Census of Wealth and In- dustry, III, 756; Texas Almanac, 1870 (Galveston, 1869), p. 168.

l^Vandiver, op. cit., p. 232; Marshall News Messenger, November 10, 1963, Sec. E. 55

the wharves at Jefferson and Shreveport were kept busy- transferring soldiers and supplies to the battlefront. Federal gunboats captured Alexandria in 1863 and restricted Confederate traffic on the Red River above that point.^ Because of a scarcity of boats and sailors and the temporary interruption of traffic caused by General Nathaniel Banks* attempted invasion of Texas in 1864, water transportation on the Red River diminished in importance, but portions of the river continued to be used as a supply route until the end of the war. -1-2

Stimulated by the activity of the war, industry and business in Jefferson remained prosperous in comparison to that of other Texas cities. The Confederate state tax assessment for the fiscal year beginning April 24, 1863, showed that Marion County employers paid a total of $84,206.42 in salaries compared to $22,587.53 in Harrison County, and $25,235.01 in Dallas County. Profits in 1862 and 1863 totaled $30,783.30 for Marion County, $3,298.00 for Harrison County and $10,462.40 for Dallas County.^ In 1864 Marion County was assessed a

Hj. Fair Hardin, "An Outline of Shreveport and Caddo Parish History," Louisiana Historical Quarterly, XVIII (1935), 855. •^Texas Almanac, 1867, p. 140; Shreveport Southwestern, July 20, 1864; Rupert Uorval Richardson, Texas, the Lone Star State, 2nd edition (Englewood Cliffs, 1958), p. I9?J. 13wConfederate States'Tax," Abstract from the Rolls in the Office of the State Collector, Austin, Texas, 1864, in Texas Almanac, 186g> (Galveston, 1864), pp. 60-61. 56 total of $13,700.04 for taxes on merchandise, occupations, and the sale of liquor. The same tax assessment for Dallas and Harrison Counties amounted to $2,578.49 and $5,800.71 respectively.^ In 1860 town lots in Marion County had a total assessed valuation of $302,963.^ This increased to $335,320 in 1861, to $451,660 in 1862, and jumped to $676,542 in 1868.Ex- cept for 1861 and 1868 these figures represent an assessment in terms of inflated Confederate currency, and do not neces- sarily indicate an actual rise in property. Using the same inflated currency as a basis for valuation, however, the farm land in Marion County decreased in value during the war.1"?

The total valuation of town lots in Harrison County for 1861 was $261,173 and in Dallas County they amounted to only 1 ft $109,335. In 1862 Harrison County's assessed valuation of taxable property in town lots decreased to $215,040 while

Dallas County's increased to $114,840."^ 14-Texas Almanac, 1865, pp. 50-51.

-^Texas Almanac, 1861 (Galveston, I860), p. 245. !%exas Almanac, 1862 (Houston, 1862), p. 33; Texas Almanac, 1863 (Houston, 1862), p. 43; Texas Almanac, 1870, p. 225.

170f. Texas Almanac, 1862, p. 33; Texas Almanac, 1863, p. 43; Texas Almanac, 1865, p. 51. 18Texas Almanac, 1862, pp. 31-32.

^Texas Almanac, 1863, p. 42. 57

Marion County's assessed valuation of taxable property- reflected a more active "business economy than Texas counties much larger in size and population. Jefferson, the only town in Marion County, had "become the leading commercial center in northeast and north central Texas "before the end of the war. In 1865, commercially and industrially, Jefferson had more potential than any other town in the area. It had excellent water transportation, a good business climate, and a commercial promise of an abundant amount of cotton for shipping. The foundation existed in 1865 for what Y/ard Taylor, Jr., editor of the Daily Jimplecute, called the beginning of Jefferson's "great, bikt brief, financial prosperity."2® Prior to the Civil War 92 per cent of the Cass-Marion County population had emigrated from seven Southern and border states. Alabama led with 25.3 per cent, followed by Georgia (20.4 per cent), Mississippi (13.9 per cent), Tennessee (12.3 per cent), Arkansas (9.7 per cent), Louisiana (5.8 per cent), Missouri (2.2 per cent), and Kentucky (2.2 per cent).21 Among other things, the people from these states settled in East Texas because of its size, its accessibility, and its environment. The environment of East Texas, similar to that of their home states, required the immigrants to make little or no adjustments.22

^Ojefferson Daily Jimplecute, September 1, 1876. ^Barnes p. lathrop, Migration into East Texas 1835-1860 (Austin, 1949), p. 37. 22Ibid., pp. 37-38, 56. 58

The 3,977 inhabitants of Marion County in I860 included 2,017 Negroes or 50.7 per cent of the total population.2^ Foreign-born residents in the county numbered 106 or 2.67 per cent of the total population.24 The nativity of the immigrants changed little after the war. The population of Marion County totaled 8,562 persons in 1870 and approximately 35 per cent of this total immigrated to the county from the five Southern states of Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, and Louisiana. Persons who had lived in Texas long enough to be listed as native Texans comprised 39•3 per cent of the total while foreign-born inhabitants of the county totaled 402 or 4.7 per cent of the population.25 The Negro population in Marion County increased to 4,362 by 1870 and represented 50.95 per cent of the population.2^

In I860 Jefferson*s population of 988 persons included 266 Negroes. This accounted for 26.9 per cent of the city's

2?U. S. Department of Interior, Population of the United States in I860, Vol. I of Eighth Census of the "United States, 4 vols.jfWashington, 1864), pp. 475, 481~Thereafter referred to as Eighth Census of Population). Per cent rounded to the nearest tenth. 24Ibid., p. 488.

25u. S. Department of the Interior, Population of the United States in 1870, Vol. I of Ninth Census of the~TTnited States, 3 vols. (Washington, 1872), pp. 63-64,"572 (hereafter referred to as Ninth Census of Population). Percentages were compiled from available statistics and rounded to the nearest tenth. p C Ibid., pp. 63-64. Percentage rounded to the nearest hundredth. 59

population and 13.1 per cent of the total number of Negroes 27 in the county. The population of Jefferson in 1870 rose to 4,190 and the Negro population increased to 1,825. This represented 43.5 per cent of the city's total population and 41.8 per cent of the total Negro population of the county.28 The 374 foreign-born residents of Jefferson accounted for 8.9 per cent of the city's population and 93 per cent of the total foreign-born population in the county. The population of Marion County increased by 4,585 persons between I860 and 1870. Jefferson acquired 3,102 of these. In I860 approximately 24.8 per cent of the people in the county lived in Jefferson, and by 1870 the percentage had increased to 48.9 per cent.50 ^he increased population of Marion County and Jefferson has particular significance when compared to the population of Harrison County and Marshall. The population of Harrison County decreased from 15,001 in 1860 to 13,241 in 1870. For the same period, Marshall's population declined from an estimated 4,000 persons to 1,920.^"'' Harrison County, with the exclusion of Marshall, gained in population,thus indicating that an exodus from the farms did not occur. Marshall, despite 2^Eighth Census of Population, I, 486. 28Ninth Census of Population, I, 273. 29lbid. 30Qompiled from Eighth Census of Population, I, 481, 486: Ninth Census of Population, 1, 63-6*7 3lTexas Almanac, 1964-65, pp. 118, 124. 60

the aid of Confederate bureaus, war contracts, and even railroad connections to Shreveport "by the end of 1866, simply

did not attract new settlers or hold her old ones.32 With an economy "based almost entirely upon slavery and cotton, she could not compete with the river traffic and diversified commerce at Jefferson.^3 The economic prosperity of Jefferson does not appear to have "been affected, at least not adversely, by the political conditions that existed after the Civil War. A conflict between the civil and military authorities in Jefferson developed almost immediately and continued intermittently throughout the Reconstruction period. After 1867, when Radical Reconstruction was introduced, the incidents became more severe and resulted in Jefferson being occupied by Federal troops, but even violence and military control did not prevent ibhe city from Attaining its greatest prosperity.^4 The first occurrence involving civil and military authorities at Jefferson arose from the efforts of the United States government to confiscate all property belonging to the state or Confederate governments. Cotton abounded at Jefferson's

-^Marshall Texas Republican, August 4, 1866, cited in Armstrong, op. cit., p. 496; Marshall News Messenger, November 10,19557 Sec. G, J,T ^^Marshall News Messenger, November 10, 1963, Sec. G. ^Charles W. Ramsdell, Reconstruction in Texas (New York, 1910), pp. 44, 81, 230-231; Marion County, Inventory of the County Archives of Texas, No. 155 (San Antonio, 1940), p. 9 (hereafter referred to as Marion County Inventory); Jefferson Daily Jimplecute, September 1, 1876. 61 wharves, and in the process of determining the proper owner a great deal of fraud took place. R. S. Robertson, a United States treasury Agent, was arrested and indicted on charges of swindling and theft "by the civil authorities in Jefferson. The post commander interceded and obtained Robertson's release, but the district judge ordered him confined again. After appealing unsuccessfully to the judge for Robertson's release, a body of soldiers forced their way into the jail and removed him. Both civil and military authorities appealed to higher authorities for advice on jurisdiction in the case. The matter received some consideration, but no attempts were made to bring Robertson to trial.^ The first serious riot in Jefferson occurred July 4, 1868. According to the Jefferson Radical bands of local citizens threatened to massacre the Radical leaders of the town, and at least two Radicals left the state. The remaining Radicals were in constant fear of attack.Newspaper reports of the situation in Jefferson after this outburst differ, but it appears that both sides lived in fear of the other.^ While the Radicals and Negroes lived in fear of attack by the ruling

55ibid.t pp. 81-82.

Jefferson Radicalt August 11, I869. 37cf. Marshall Courier Journal, April 5, I869, cited in The Weekly Harrison Flag /Marshall 7* May 13, 186§» 62 class,whites were afraid of the influence that Radicals might have on the Negro. To the white supremist, the Radicals posed a threat to their immediate safety and to their future political domination of local government.^8 George Washington Smith, the Radical Republican most despised and feared by the majority of white Jefferson citizens, was a New Yorker who moved to Jefferson soon after the war ended and began to work with the freedmen.^9 the Republican press he was aiding the downcast Negro; to the Southern Democrats he was living in licentiousness with the Negro to inflame them against the whites.40 His associations with the freedmen, whatever the purpose, created an atmosphere in Jefferson that resulted in mob violence. Smith, head of the loyal League in Jefferson and delegate to the Constitutional Convention in 1868, reportedly had un- limited control over the Negroes in Jefferson. According to opposition newspapers, Smith bragged about his influence over the Negro and boasted that the women of Jefferson feared the consequences of a race war and protected him from harm.^l

58Ibid. ^^Marshall Texas Republican, October 30, 1868, p. 2* Marshall Courier Journal, April "5, 1869, cited in The Weekly Harrison Flag /Marshall /, May 13, 1869. ^Qjefferson Radical, August 11, 1869; Marshall Courier Journal, April 5, 1869, cited in The Weekly Harrison Flag ^Marshall_/» May 13, I869. ^Marshall Courier Journal, cited in The Weekly Harrison Flag f~Marshall /, May 13. 1869; Marshall Texas Republican, Oclober 30, 1868, p. 2. 63

Charges were made that Smith told the Negroes they would never be able to control Jefferson until they burned it.42 A short time later, on February 29, 1868, a fire in the business district destroyed an estimated $1,000,000 worth of property. Fifty business houses within a four block area sustained losses from the fire. Despite Jefferson's previous experiences with fire, no fire companies had been organized or any preventive measures taken.43 The Weekly Harrison Flag and the Texas Republican made it clear they believed the statements attributed to Smith and the fires were related.44 The Jefferson Radical, established in 1869 by C. T. Garland, Judge of the Eighth Judicial District, had a different version of Smith's experiences, but both sides inferred that a hostile climate existed in Jefferson.45 Hostility erupted into open violence on October 3rd and 4th, 1868. Trouble started from an incident involving the theft of Smith's saddlebags. In attempting to recover the bags fighting broke out between Smith, aided by a group of Negroes, and five or six members of the local resistance

4%arshall Texas Republican, October 30, 1868, p. 2. 43Marshall Texas Republican, March 7, 1868, p. 2; Marshall Courier Journal, April 6, 1869, cited in The Weekly Harrison Flag / Marshall 7. May 13, I869. 44Marshall Courier Journal, April 5, I869, cited in The Weekly Harrison Flag / Marshall 7» May 13, 186§; Marshall Texas Republican, March 7, 1868, p. 2. 45Jefferson Radical, August 11, I869. 64 group known as the Knights of the Rising Sun.46 Smith escaped unharmed and turned himself over to the military authorities. After receiving the pledges of Mayor W. N. Hodge and the citizens that Smith addthe freedmen would receive a fair in- vestigation, Capt. James Curtis, post commander at Jefferson, released Smith and the freedmen to the civil authorities.47 Smith and the freedmen remained in the county jail throughout the night of October 3rd without incident. The next day rumors began to circulate that the jail would be attacked. Curtis, anticipating trouble, sent a dispatch to Marshall asking for assistance, and enlarged the number of military guards at the jail to sixteen. At about 8:30 or 9:00 P. M. an estimated 100 men succeeded in entering the jail, murdering Smith in his cell and carrying the freedmen into the streets where two were killed and one wounded.48

4%ietter from Bvt. Major James Curtis, Jefferson, Texas, to Lt. C. E. Morse, Headquarters, Fifth Military District, Austin, Texas, October 5, 1868, in U. S. War Department, Re- cords of the War Department, Office of the Adjutant General, Record Group No. 94 ^"excerpt 7. Orders of the Fifth Military District, National Archives of the United States (Washington, 1934) ^""copy_7' (hereafter referred to as R. W. D.). 4?Letter from Capt. James Curtis, Jefferson, Texas to Lt. C. E. Morse, Headquarters Fifth Military District, Austin, Texas, October 5, 1868, ibid., pp. 2-3. 48lbid., p. 3; Telegram from Bvt. Major James Curtis, Jefferson, Texas, to Lt. C. E. Morse, Headquarters Fifth Military District, Austin, Texas, October 5, 1868, ibid., p. 15; Telegram from Bvt. Brig. General J. Hayden, Marshall, Texas, to Headquarters Fifth Military District, Austin, Texas, October lt6, 1868, ibid., pp. 16-17. 65

Curtis arrived at the $ail before the mob reached Smith1s cell and attempted to dissuade them from taking further action. In a polite but determined manner, mob leaders cautioned that neither Curtis nor his men would be harmed, but "they came there for Smith and were bound to have him."^9 Realizing the helplessness of his situation, Curtis did not order his men to resist. After completing their task the mob returned the aims they had taken from the guards and disappeared into the darkness. The same mob, or some portion of it, marched to the home of Supreme Court Judge C. C. Caldwell, but no crime was committed there.^ The murder of Smith aind the freedmen marked the beginning of military control in Jefferson. Curtis reported on» the morning of the fifth that things appeared quiet, but that he feared trouble from both the Negroes and the whites. Some of the most adamant members of the white resistence groups left town, but Curtis expressed fear that Radical leaders, Caldwell and County Judge Donald Campbell, would be attacked by anti-Radical groups. He estimated that at least a regiment of troops would be needed if that should happen.51

49i,etter from Bvt. Major James Curtis, Jefferson, Texas, to lit. C. E. Morse, Headquarters Fifth Military District, Austin, Texas, October 5, 1868, ibid., p. 4.

5Qlbid.t p. 4» General Orders, No. 175, Headquarters Fifth Military District, Austin, Texas, October 2, 1869, ibid., pp. 4-5, 5-^Letter from Bvt. Major James Curtis, Jefferson, Texas, to Lt. C. E. Morse, Headquarters Fifth Military District, Austin, Texas, October 5, 1868, ibid., p. 4; Marion County, "Minutes of Commissioner's Court," Office of the County Clerk, Jefferson, p. 98 (hereafter referred to as "Minutes of Com. Ct."). 66

On October 22, 1868, General J. J. Reynolds, commander of the Fifth Military District, sent a report to the Adjunct General of the United States informing him of the situation in East Texas and Jefferson. According to the report, civil law "east of the Trinity River is almost a dead letter."-*2 Oivil authorities were of three different classes. They either belonged to the Klan, fled the county, or had little influence, lawlessness and crime reigned supreme because those committing them could not be punished by the civil courts. In Reynolds1 estimate, "free speech and free press, as the terms are generally understood in other states, have never existed in Texas."53 Describing Jefferson as "the centre from which most of the trade, travel, and lawlessness of eastern Texas radiate . . .," Reynolds requested that a regiment of troops be stationed in the vicinity.54 The troops would have to be taken from the frontier posts, but he considered the lawlessness and crime in the interior to be a more urgent problem than the defenses of the frontier against Indian depredations.55 Reynolds warned that troops would be delayed in reaching Jefferson because of the lack of telegraphs and railroads in

52Letter from Bvt. Major General J. J. Reynolds, Austin, Texas, to the Adjunct General, United States Army, Washington, D. C., October 22, 1868, R. W. D, p. 81. 5?Ibid., pp. 8-9.

5Ibid., pp. 10-11. 55Ibid. 67 the frontier area. Not until November 6, 1868, did the Texas Republican report two companies each of cavalry and infantry- arriving in Jefferson to supplement the small force there.56 General George P. Buell, the new post commander, did not arrive in Jefferson until December, 1868.^7 The distribution of troops in Texas for 1869 as indicated by the Texas Almanac showed that Jefferson had three companies of cavalry and four companies of infantry. When General Buell arrived in Jefferson, four men were in military custody for their part in the murder of Smith. Be- tween December and July, Buell arretted twenty-five other men including four colored. Some of the men arrested were described by Buell as being among the most influential citizens of Jefferson.59 According to newspaper reports, other citizens of Jefferson including F. J. Patillo, editor of the Home Ad- vocate t Col. W. L. Crawford, a lawyer for the prisoners, Tom Wallace, W. J. Murphy, and R. D. Bateman, local business men, were arrested and subsequently released.^0

56iMd.f p. 15. Marshall Texas Republican, November 6, 1868, p. 2. ^Letter from Bvt. Brigadier General (George P.) Buell, Jefferson, Texas, to Col. H. Clay Wood, Headquarters Fifth Military District, Austin, Texas, July 8, I869, R. W. D., p. 6. 58Texas Almanac, 1870, p. 203; Marshall Texas Republican, January 15, 1869, p. 21. 59Letter from Bvt. Brigadier General (George P.) Buell, Jefferson, Texas, to Col. H. Clay Wood, Headquarters Fifth Military District, Austin, Texas, July 8, I869, R. W. D., p. 6. ^°The Weekly Harrison Flag /"Marshall 7, February 8, 1869; ibid., duly It?, 18b9; jerrerson Ilaily Jimplecute, n. d., cited in ibid.t May 20, I869. 68

Opinions of what transpired in Jefferson, like the accounts of Smith's arrest, varied with the political beliefs of the local editors. Judge Garland maintained that Smith was murdered for his politics, and like John Brown, died a martyr.^ He justified the arrest and trial of Jefferson citizens by saying that more than 100 men in Jefferson still walked the streets who were responsible for the killing of defenseless men. In Garland*s opinion, the government would be justified in spending $5,000,000 for the apprehension and trial of all such men.^

R. W. Loughery, editor of the Jefferson Times and Marshall Texas Republican, justified the murder of Smith as being "demanded by public safety."^ Loughery maintained that Jefferson had rid herself of a scalawag who threatened the safety of both radicals and conservatives. The only regret he felt was that Smith died in the charge of civil authorities, but even this did not necessitate military control, loughery further claimed that the people of Jefferson were "quiet, peaceable, and law abiding. "64

^-^-Jefferson Radical, August 11, 1869.

^Jefferson Radical, August 11, 1869, cited in The Weekly Harrison Flag 4/~Marshall_7, August 26, 1869. ^Marshall Texas Republican, November 6, 1868, p. 2. 64Ibid. 69

The most bitter criticism of the Federal troops stationed

in Jefferson resulted from the arrest of citizens accused of

taking part in the murder of Smith. The manner in which soldiers made arrests and the length of confinement without a hearing

caused most of the complaints. Denunciations of the entire affair continued from the first arrest throughout the length

of the trial.^ Despite assertions that the trial was "more

like a farce that succeeds a tragedy on the stage . . .," the military commission found only six of the twenty-three accused men guilty.^6 Three were given life sentences at Huntsville

and the other three received four year terms.^

In his efforts to prevent further outbreaks of violence,

Reynolds appointed Brevet Colonel A. G. Malloy mayor of Jeffer-

son on November 9, 1868, and ordered that he be "duly respected

and recognized in his official acts . . . . "^8 Malloy replaced

W. N. Hodge who had been appointed mayor only four months

^^The Weekly Harrison Flag /"Marsha11_7, July 15, 1869; ibid., August 5, 1869: ibid., February 18, 1869; The Home Advocate ^Jefferson^, June 4, 1869*

6%he Home Advocate ^"jefferson^, June 4, 1869.

^General Orders, No. 175, Headquarters Fifth Military District, Austin, Texas, October 2, 1869, R. W. D., pp. 10, 12, 14. John H. McLean, prominent clergyman of Jefferson, reported that five men were sentenced, one escaped and the other four were released a few months later. John H. McLean, Remi- niscences of Rev. Jno. H. McLean (Nashville, 1918), p. 119.

68special Orders, No. 78, Headquarters Fifth Military District, November 9» 1868 /"copy 7, Jefferson, Texas, "Minutes of the Meetings of the Board of Aldermen," November 23, 1868, p. 351 (hereafter referred to as '.'Minutes of the Board"). 70

earlier because of the death of James S. Elliot.^9 Hodge lost favor with the military authorities when he failed to keep his pledge to protect Smith. The same orders which appointed Malloy mayor of Jefferson gave neglect of duty and inefficiency as reasons for the removal of Hodge. Malloy served as the mayor of Jefferson from November 9, 1868, until May 13, 1872, a period of three years and seven months.The greatest criticism Malloy received came early in 1869. Gapt. William Perry, one of the oldest citizens of Jefferson, was killed by a group of soldiers on January 2 and Malloy was accused of having dispatched the troops responsible for his death. The fury of the people only increased when the soldiers announced that Perry was not the man for whom they were looking.^2 The criticism of Malloy as a result of Perry's killing was not restricted to editorial denunciation. The city aldermen, serving in an elective capacity, felt enough pres- sure from the local citizenry to issue a statement declaring that certain charges against Malloy were untrue. The charges included procuring the appointment of a military police guard

^Special Orders, No. 141, Headquarters Fifth Military District, June 25, 1868 /"copy 7, ibid.t July 13, 1868, p. 316; ibid., June 15, 1868, p. 312. ^Special Orders, No. 78, Headquarters Fifth Military District, November 9» 1868 /""copy 7, ibid., November 23, 1868, p. 351. 7^Ibid.} "Minutes of the Board," May 13, 1872, pp. 155-156. 72The Weekly Harrison Flag /""Marsha llj^, January 7, I869. 71

for the purpose of annoying and harassing the citizens,

moving the mayor's office without consulting the Board., em-

ploying the city marshall without the consent of the Board,

employing men as policemen who were not citizens, and sending

out a Provost guard on the night that William Perry was killed.

The city aldermen who signed the statement declaring the

charges untrue were John Penman, P. A. Schulter, N. A. Birge,

J. C. Kolster, S. Marsh, K. D. Bateman, Theodore Nichols, and

L. S. Lockhart.74 Bradstreet's Reports for 1873 included list-

ings for Kolster, Bateman, Birge, Nichols, and Schulter,in-

dicating that they were substantial citizens.With their

support in this matter, it is a little surprising that on

July 19, I869, Marsh, Bateman, Birge, and Lockhart were unex- plainably dropped from the rolls as city aldermen. In their place appeared the names of E. Terry, C. D. Morris, Don

Campbell, and W. P. Williams, who were recognized Radicals.76

Despite the city council's attempt to vindicate Malloy, charges of misconduct continued to be levied against him.

73nMinutes of the Board," January 18, 1869, pp. 360-361.

74lbid.. p. 361.

bradstreet's Reports /""New York, 1873_7, XXXIII, 9-10; Earline Hart Burnett, "A History of the Pirst Methodist Church, Jefferson, Texas, 1844-1954," unpublished master's thesis, Department of History, Stephen P. Austin State College, Nacog- doches, Texas, 1954, p. 12; The Texas New Yorker /"New York /, April 14, 1873.

76"Minutes of the Board," July 19, I869, p. 379. 72

Jefferson Republican accused him of offering bribes and making threats in order to obtain incriminating information about respectable citizens. Claiming that it had the written testimony of responsible Negroes to prove its charges, the paper warned that the mayor's office was being used as a subterfuge for espionage and corruption in Jefferson.77

Malloy suffered a great deal of criticism because of his reputation and associates. While serving in Marshall as the head of the Freedman's Bureau, Malloy alienated many of the white citizens who thought him to be a tyrant and a liar.78 After arriving in Jefferson he used the services of Charles Bostwick and Jesse Robinson, pictured by Democratic newspapers as dangerous characters. Bostwick, thought to.be an instrument of Reynolds, was used when a job called for co-

ercive measures.79 Robinson worked for Malloy until his reputation as a beater of dogs, drunks, and his wife forced Malloy to fire him. Buell replaced Robinson on special duty and was accused of arranging the latter1s release from jail after being accused of murder.®*^ Both Robinson and Bostwick

77jefferson Republican, January 29, 1869, cited in The Weekly Harrison~Flag / Marshall 7# February 4, 1869.

7QThe Weekly Harrison Flag £~.Marshall__7, February 4, I869. 79Marshall Courier Journal, April 5, I869, cited in ibid., May 13, I869. 80The Weekly Harrison Flag /"""Marsha 11_7, August 19, I869. 73 contributed to the citizens* hatred of military control. Be- cause of their associations with men of this type, Malloy and

Buell suffered greater criticism.

Despite the political disturbance, Jefferson continued to prosper under the control of Buell and Malloy. At the same time he denounced the military despotism existing in Jefferson,

G. W. Barrett, editor of The Weekly Harrison Hag, marveled at the city's growth and prosperity. In March, 1869, Barrett traveled to Jefferson and found that a number of large brick business houses had been erected in the few months since his last visit. New streets had been opened and Jefferson looked

"decidedly city like."®l Barrett thought business was good for the season, but duller than it might have been except fbl* the conditions of the roads. He did not seem to think the arrests of citizens were hurting Jefferson's growth.^

The military trial of Jefferson's prisoners was in progress when four months later Barrett again visited Jeffer- son. While the trial held everyone's attention, he still found new buildings going up, a considerable amount of business activity for the summer season, "and other palpable indications of the energy and prosperity of the 'Bayou City*.The Board

81Ibid., April 1, I869. 82jbid.

8-'lbid., August 5, I869• 74 of Aldermen, which might be accused by staunch Democrats of falsifying reports to glorify Malloy and the Radicals, reported 200 buildings under construction in 1870. Between 1868 and 1870 buildings amounting in value to $10,000,000 were erected. This included the rebuilding that became necessary after the fire in 1868 which in the council's estimate destroyed over half the wealth of the city.8^ One reason Jefferson continued to grow during the Re- construction period can be explained by the ability of her financially prominent citizens to separate their business lives from their political beliefs. Had such men as W. M. Harrison, president of the First National Bank, Sam F. Moseley, lawyer and largest land owner in Jefferson, V. H. Claiborne, dealer in insurance and real estate, M. D. K. Taylor, state representative, and others, refused to col- laborate with Radicals in business, financial growth would have been much slower. From the number of businesses incorporated by the state for Jefferson, it is apparent that few disliked the ladicals enough to refuse to do business with them.®^

Digest of the Laws of the City of Jefferson, Texas (Jefferson, 1870), pp. 3-4. ®5cf. H. P. N. Gammel, editor, The Laws of Texas, 10 vols. (Austin, 1898), I, 40, 699, 720, 1252, 15T5T I5~95; Texas Almanac, 1870, pp. 196-198; Jefferson Radical, November 13, 1869; Mrs. Arch McKay and Mrs. H. A. Spellings, 0£. cit., pp. 12-14; J. A. R. Moseley, The Presbyterian Church in Jefferson (Austin, 1946), pp. 32, 34. 75

On a more personal basis, politics and "business often came into conflict. G. T. Garland., editor of the Jefferson Radical charged that Loughery of the Jefferson Times had organized a league of businessmen who agreed not to hire either black or white Republicans. Garland claimed that when the organization failed Loughery began an open attack to destroy the Radical.8** Loughery attempted to put Garland out of business by making it impossible for the Radical to obtain advertisers. He printed a list of the businesses that ad- vertised in the Radical and criticized them for patronizing the paper.8? The Radical did not have many local advertisers, and relied heavily on patronization from national companies located in the North. Garland admitted that advertisements were few. He claimed, however, that everyone wanted to advertise in his paper but no one wanted to be the first.88 To completely confuse the issue, the Jefferson Jimplecute, another anti-Radical newspaper, sided with Garland and denounced Loughery's efforts to dictate to the business houses where they could advertise.89

8%efferson Radical, December 18, 1869• 87lbid., December 4, 1869.

88Ibid., January 8, 1869; ibid., December 4, I869. 89jefferson Daily Jimplecute, n. d., cited in Jefferson Radical, December 4, 1869. 76

Pactions did exist in the business community, but probably no worse than under normal conditions. Loughery accused the businessmen of selling military clothing and hinted that the

Jews dealt in "shoddy." Garland warned that Loughery had alienated an influential segment of the business community by this accusation.90 The Radical openly sought the support of the German populace in Jefferson. Appealing to their liberal mindedness and sense of loyalty to the government,

Garland encouraged the citizens of German ancestry not to betray the government that gave them citizenship and offered asylum to millions of their countrymen.91 Evidently many of the Germans supported the Radical cause, or at least remained as neutral as the situation would permit. Garland attended parties "with German friends at the Harmony Club Ball," and many of his local advertisers were Germans.92

Garland apparently did not have a great many friends in

Jefferson. In 1871 C. W. Garland, his brother and publisher of the Radical, was removed from the office of City Recorder and Collector. The City Council asserted that articles ap- pearing in the Radical had shown contempt for the city authorities and had attempted to destroy their effectiveness

90jefferson Radical, December 18, 1869.

91lbid., November 13, 1869.

92iMa. < December 18, 1869; ibid., December 25, I869. 77 as city leaders. They further claimed that he had been in- compentent as a city official.95 [pjie Jefferson Radical had been designated the official city newspaper in September, 1869, but a vote of the City Council in December, 1870, rejected a renewal of the arrangement. Only three members of the Board voted to permit the Radical to continue publishing the city records.94

The dismissal of Garland and the Board's refusal to permit the Badical to monopolize the city's official printing demonstrates that Malloy and the Radicals did not dominate the city government, at least not after 1870. Even if Malloy did influence the Board's decisions, little evidence exists to show that he acted contrary to the best interests of the city. Strenuous efforts were made to provide internal improvements for the city, with particular emphasis placed on

securing railroads.95 Nevertheless, except for the $200,000

93«Minutes of the Board," June 26, 1871, p. 52. 94Ibid., September 20, I869, p. 386; ibid., December 23, 1870, p. 503. 95cf. "Minutes of the Board," October 3, 1870, p. 437; ibid., October 19, 1870, p. 447; ibid., April 6, 1871, p. 36; ibid., Afrril 12, 1871, p. 41; ibid.t October 19, 1871, PP- 91- 92; "ibid., October 20, 1870, p. 456; ibid., July 21, 1868, pp. 517-318; ibid., December 19, 1871, p. 116; ibid., p. 286. Marion County obligated itself to donate a total of $900,000 in bonds to three railroads, the Southern Transcontinental, the International, and the East Line and Red River, while Malloy was mayor of Jefferson. "Minutes of the Com. Ct.," pp. 277, 307, 366. 78 appropriated for the construction of a dredge boat, wharves and levees, a city hall, a markethouse, and a water-works, the largest payable debts were not acquired until after

Malloy's tenure.96

Jefferson had no outstanding public debt in 1870.97 In

January, 1872, Malloy vetoed an attempt by the Board to build a new wharf because of the high cost. Malloy thought the old r wharf easily could be repaired and extended for much less money. The Board did not override his veto, but proposals for a new wharf continued.98 on the other hand every effort was made to secure improved fire protection, including a water works system that would help prevent a shortage of drinking water. Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars in bonds were voted for this improvement providing a change could be made in the city charter to permit it.99

The most actively sought internal improvement was the railroad. Before the state legislature passed a law in 1871 allowing cities and counties to render financial assistance

Digest of the Laws of the City of Jefferson, Texas, p. 4. For evidence of expenditures after Malloy's tenure see "Minutes of the Board," July 11, 1873, p. 430; ibid., September 9* 1872, pp. 271-273; ibid., September 16, 1872, pp7~?74-280; ibid., September 21, 1872.

97ujnth Census of ?/ealth and Industry, III, p. 60.

98«Minutes of the Board," January 23, 1872, pp. 131-132.

99rbjd., February 20, 1871, p. 22; ibid., April 6, 1871, p. 34. 79 to private corporations, the Board had passed an ordinance pledging to subscribe to the stock of any corporation that would construct a railroad through Jefferson*s limits.100 The state senator and representatives, all Radicals, were requested to use their influence to secure railroads for the city, with the assurance that the city would make all reasonable efforts to aid in its construction.1®-1- Agents from the city were dispatched to Austin in an effort to promote Jefferson's railroad interests, and Malloy himself made trips to New York and Austin to sell stock and obtain changes in the city charter to permit a larger issue of the city bonds.102 Under the direction of Malloy, Jefferson obligated itself to aid in the construction of two railroads. In December, 1870, the Board voted to subscribe to stock amounting to $250,000 in the Jefferson and Great Western Railroad.10^ There is no record of this road ever being incorporated, and no track was laid. On February 10, 1871, the Board donated $200,000 in city bonds to the International Railroad Company. The donation was made upon the request of a number of citizens.104 The company did not fulfill its agreement, and no bonds were paid.

100Gammel, o£. cit., VI, 931-934. iOlnMinutes of the Board," December 13, 1870, p. 478. 102Ibid., January 30, 1871, p. 11; ibid., January 2, 1871, p. 3; ibid., December 31, 1870, p. 506. 105Ibid., December 24, 1870, p. 505. 10^Ibid., February 10, 1871, pp. 14-16. 80

When Malloy, the military mayor of Jefferson, left office in May, 1872, economic troubles "began. Financial reports for the city reflected a decline in her business activity. On March 7, 1872, the Daily Democrat reported that business was slow and had been for several days.-^®^ The financial and commercial report of the Jefferson Daily Times on May 21 noted a scarcity of money and business activity in Jefferson.10 ^ The following February, a prominent citizen of Jefferson told De- Morse of the Clarksville Northern Standard that the city had undergone a long siege of inactivity and necessities were even difficult to secure because few boats had arrived that season.107

Irregular steamboat traffic on Big Cypress caused the economic recession in 1872, not Malloy or his defeat at the polls. There is no positive evidence that military control had any adverse effects on Jefferson's financial growth whatever. The city and its citizens suffered abuse from Federal troops stationed there, which unfortunately resulted from the action of "a few hot-bloods to whom patience is unknown . . .," but they did not suffer financially.108

105jefferson Daily Democrat, March 7, 1872, cited in Olarksville Northern Standard, March 9, 1872. lO^jefferson Daily Times, May 21, 1872, cited in Olarks- ville Northern Standard, May 25, 1872. 107darksville Northern Standard, February 1, 1873.

lO^A# Gray, "History of the Texas Press," A Comprehen- sive History of Texas. Vol. I edited by Dudley G. Wooten, 2 vols. (.Dallas, 1898;, p. 104. CHAPTER V

PROSPERITY AND DECLINE AFTER 1870

The fifteen year period between 1865 and 1880 constitutes the most memorable period in the history of Jefferson. For the first seven or eight years the city grew to unprecedented size and ranked high among the leading cities of the state. During the remainder of the time, Jefferson experienced a meteoric decline. Some Texas cities experienced a rapid increase in size and importance during the period; others either declined or grew very slowly. Pew could claim the distinction of having

"been a part of both groups.

The prosperity and subsequent decline of Jefferson is illustrated by fluctuations in her population. Between 1870 and

1872 Jefferson's population increased over 70 per cent, from

4,190 to 7,297. Prom 1872 to 1880 her population declined over

50 per cent to 3,260."'' In less than twenty years Jefferson

•%. S. Department of Interior, The Statistics of the Wealth and Industry of the United States in 1870, Vol. I~olTTJinth Census of theHJhited States, 3 vols. (Washington, 1872), pp. 572- 573 (hereafter referred to as Ninth Census of Wealth and Industry); House Executive Documents, 43rd Congress, 1st Session, No. 1, Pt. 2 (Washington, 1874), p. 671; U. S. Department of the In- terior, Compendium of the Tenth Census of the United States, Part I (Washington,~T885), p. 304 (hereafter referred to as Tenth Census of Manufacturing). Estimates of her population by un- official sources ranged from 10,000 to 17,000 persons. Texas Almanac, 1873 (Galveston, 1872), p. 101; Texas Almanac, 1870 (Galveston, 1869), p. 151; Jefferson Daily Jimplecute, September 1, 1876; Jefferson Radical, September 18, 1869; John H. McLean, Reminiscences of Rev."John H. McLean (Nashville, 1918), p. 107. 81 82 traveled full circle in rank among Texas cities. Ranking fourteenth in I860, she moved to sixth in 1870, and dropped to fifteenth in 1880. Since 1880 she has retained approximately the same populations she had then, but now ranks far down the list among Texas cities.^

The extent of Jefferson*s prosperity and decline is further indicated "by the level of commercial activity "between 1865 and 1880. Statistics of total exports and imports at Jefferson are not available, but Table I shows the ap- proximate number of bales of cotton exported during the period.

Except for the 1867-1868 season Jefferson's cotton exports increased rapidly from the end of the war through the 1869-

1870 season. After 1869-1870 the level of trade remained high for two years. Although a lack of statistics makes it impossible to know the extent of decline in cotton exports for

1873, it is evident that trade began its downward spiral at that time.

Between 1867 and 1870 the total trade at Jefferson reportedly increased from $3,000,000 to $8,000,000.^ Propor- tionally, the exports of other goods was as large as cotton during the prosperous years. In 1870-1871 Jefferson exported

84,762 dry hides, 18^-71 green hides, 87,623 pounds of wool,

^Texas Almanac, 1964-65 (Dallas, 1963), pp. 122-126.

•^A Digest of the Laws of the City of Jefferson, Texas (Jefferson, 1870J, p. 3T 83

TABLE I

COTTON EXPORTS FROM JEFFERSON BETWEEN 1865 AND 1880*

Date Number of Bales Exported 1865-1866 25,000 1866-1867 42,000 1867-1868 45,000 1868-1869 59,000 1869-1870 75,352** 1870-1871 76,328*** 1871-1872 76,328 1874-1875 30,272 1875-1876 40,333 1880-1881 36,821

•Sources: Jefferson Daily Jimplecute, September 1, 1876; Texas Almanac, 1872 (Galveston, 1871), p. 57; Galveston Raily Newst September 1, 1881, p. 6; "The City of Jefferson as a Manufacturing District," Jefferson Historical Museum, Jefferson, Texas. **The total number of bales exported by way of Red River was estimated at 125,000. Texas Almanac, 1870, p. 172.

***Cf. House Executive Documents, 43rd Congress, 2nd Session, No. 1, Pt. 2 (Washington, 1874), p. 671; "The City of Jefferson as a Manufacturing District," op. cit.; Texas Almanac, 1872, p. 57.

48,210 peltries, 9,721 bushels of bois d'arc seeds, 5,381 cattle, 821 sheep, and 121,000 feet of lumber, and undis- closed amounts of beeswax, feathers, beef, and tallow.^"

Jefferson's imports are more difficult to determine.

The only statistics available are those given by the Daily

Jimplecute. According to the newspaper Jefferson imported

^House Executive Documents, 43rd Congress, 1st Session, No. 1, Pt. 2 (Washington, 1874), p. 671; "The City of Jefferson as a Manufacturing District," op. cit.; Texas Almanac, 1870, p. 170. 84

350,000 packages of merchandise for her interior markets and goods valued at $10,000,000 for her home markets during the 1869-1870 season.5 While the amount of exports and imports continued to increase in the early 1870*s, only slight changes occurred in their destination. In 1869 a regular line of steamships began trading between Jefferson and St. Louis. The editors of the Texas Almanac speculated that this trade might some- day rival that which existed between Jefferson and New Orleans.^ A pamphlet published by the Texas and Pacific Railroad Company in 1873 indicated that the prophesy of the Texas Almanac was partially true. The trade between Jefferson and St. Louis grew rapidly between 1870 and 1873, while the trade between

Jefferson and New Orleans fell proportionally.7 By 1880 St. Louis acquired more Texas cotton than New Orleans. The trade established by Jefferson and St. Louis increased when railroads penetrated the state—only Jefferson was excluded.8 At the height of its prosperity and influence, Jefferson served as the market and distribution center for an area extending northwest and west for approximately 200 miles.

5Jefferson Daily Jimplecute t September 1, 1876. ^Texas Almanac, 1870, p. 171• 7"Notes on the Texas and Pacific Railway," (Philadelphia, 1873), p. 31. ^Galveston Daily News, September 1, 1880, p. 3. 85

The area dependent on Jefferson covered an estimated twenty- counties, a portion of Arkansas, and the Indian Territory. Cities as far away as Dallas and Sherman looked to Jefferson as a market for their products and a source of supply.9 The roads "between Jefferson and the interior were heavily traveled and at times wagons lined up for four or five miles trying to reach the wharves at Jefferson.-1-® Although the Red River permitted an occasional venture above or around the raft, navigation was not regular or safe enough to compete with Jefferson "before 1873.11 Further evidence of Jefferson's spectacular rise to prominence followed by an equally spectacular decline can be found in her manufacturing efforts. Building on the impetus provided by the war, Jefferson's industrial output by 1870 exceeded that of all other Texas cities except Galveston.-^ In that year Marion County had thirty-three industries with a total capital.investment of $338,962. The firms employed 298 persons and paid them $171,425 in annual wages.

^Galveston Daily News, September 1, 1881, p. 6; Texas Almanac, 1871, p. 58; A Digest of the laws of the City of JeffersonT~p7 3. ^Galveston Daily News, September 1, 1881, p. 6. l^Texas Almanac, 1870# p. 171; Grant Foreman, "River Navigation in the Early Southwest," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XV (April, 1929), 1-65. 12Ninth Census of Wealth and Industry, III, 572-573; Vera Lee Dugas, "Texas Industry 1860-1880," Southwestern Historical Quarterly, LIX (April, 1956), 166. 86

CQ -P o oooooooooo O O OOOlAOOOOlAO 3 o oinHooow+LTiiA O in ir\cnt--'3-côOmc--Oir\ u CM -sh rj- CM CM O IT» K> CM CO rH rH 03 o oooooooooo •H o ooomooomoo u cr> ooriwinoo^ô O -P rH KM^HOOOCVIOÔH £ H CM CM rH F-tO CM HHlA a CQ o oooooooooo •H H • 0) O UMAOOOOOlAOO t*0 cr\ cm i>-ocm ino cm ct^cm o c-oooocncno-ôjô rH rH rH rH CM rH O ooooooomr-o ! CO 05 o OOOOOOOt-COO -P tn ooocoinotnintoo •H •* H Pi CM tAVO rH^CMVOO^tnm in M 05 CM CM H CM -^K\CM CM Hm O 3 cq a> T3 t>s 3 a o m t-COVOOOHCO^ÔO €r\ 05 iH i—I i—I CM CM i—J K\ rH i—Iin H P< a -p CO I •M-dlaJ O © g: CQ P TH -P -P -H rH 5m S3 C • P Q) m HH^-CMCVlH^CMtOCM a> t=> co iS a 0 ,HI •p a> o 0} i> ia_ as -PI Pt K\ 03 »0 P. cd o5 O 3 CQ S3 f-i tj ft o> ra 05 +5 £-* £-i•HQ ) O ! m *&•M * •H CD »H O 0)- P H -O -P o5 09 O - CJ &§ S3 -O ^ O CD ,Q -H u & u •H tj

The gross value of goods produced amounted to $756,250.-^ Twenty-eight of the industries lifted for Marion County had a gross production of more than $10,000 (See Table II.) and included some of the leading concerns in Texas. Among those industries particularly outstanding in comparison with the rest of the state were the manufacture of men's clothing, boots and shoes, furniture, and sash, doors, and blinds. Manufacturing in Jefferson continued to increase as late as 1873. In December, 1873, the Texas New Yorker reported that the Hotchkiss and Rome sash, door, and blind factory had been added since 1870. One wagon factory produced goods valued from $60,000 to $70,000 whereas four wagon facto- ries had produced a volume of only $27,100 in 1870. A foundry owned by Morris, McKeown and Company produced an estimated $110,000 in iron products and did some work for Texas and Pacific Railroad. A cotton compress, built in 1873 by a joint- stock company, boasted that it could compress 5,000 pounds of cotton into a bale eight inches in diameter. According to their reasoning it would then be as economical to ship by rail to Galveston and Houston as by water to New Orleans. The iron furnace of George A. Kelly did not produce any iron in the census year of 1870. A furnace built in 1866

l^Ninth Census of Wealth and Industry, III, 572. -^Ibid.; Dugas, 0£. cit., pp. 160, 163, 166. ^Texas New Yorker, April 14, 1873; Galveston Daily News, February 4,1883. 88

1 6 burned, that same year, and was not replaced until 1869. The Texas Almanac for 1872 indicated that Kelly had established extensive foundaries and machine shops and his iron furnace produced seven tons of pig iron per day.1"? In 1873 Kelly employed about 100 men at this foundry and furnace and produced plows of all types, agricultural implements, stoves, sweeps, cultivators, and hollow-ware.18 Kelly made arrange- ments to sell an interest in his foundry and furance to the Patrons of Husbandry. After three years the Grangers failed to buy the agieed amount of stock and the joint-stock effort

collapsed.jn 1880 the census reported Kelly to have the only iron furnace in Texas. Unfortunately he spent $27,720 on wages, $23,580 for materials, and produced a product worth only $36,000.20

In 1881 the Kelly furnace, worked by 150 convicts, was producing nine and one-half tons of pig iron per day. The foundry was still the most profitable of Kelly's enterprises, but iron was being shipped to St. Louis and used locally l^Dugas, 0£. cit., pp. 160, 163, 166. ^Texas Almanac, 1872, p. 61.

18Texas New Yorker, April 14, 1873. Jefferson Daily Jimplecute, September 1, 1876; John S. Spratt, The Road to Spindleton (Dallas, 1955), p. 167. 20B. S. Department of the Interior, Manufactures of the United States in 1880, Vol. II of Tenth Census of the United Statest 22 vols. {Washington, 1883), pp. 371, 189-l9(T (hereafter referred to as Tenth Census of Manufacturing). 89 for railroads. The total estimated value of production at

Kellyville in 1881 was $230,000.21 Because of a fire that

destroyed his furnace, the loss of cheap water transportation, and a re-organization of the company not suitable to him, Kelly 22 moved his foundry to Longvisw and specialized in making plows.

The iron lands near Kellyville passed to a New York capitalist, but nothing was done with the iron ore until 1887•2^

Many people, including Governor 0. M. Hoberts, expected

the railroad to stimulate the iron industry in Texas. Because

of freight differentials, an abundance of coking coal and other

necessary materials, and the lack of them in Texas, the northern

industry could ship iron to the state cheaper than it could be

produced here although the ore at Jefferson was considered a

high grade. Rather than aiding the iron industry in Texas,

the railroad worked against it by removing the advantage of 24 position once held by enterprises such as Kelly's. In 1872, 103 Jefferson businesses and individuals published

a pamphlet for the purpose of attracting industry to the area. 21Galveston Daily News, September 1, 1881, p. 6. 22J. L. Dickenson, "Marion County, Points of Interest," in Earl Vandale Collection, University of Texas Archives, Austin, Texas; Mrs. Arch McKay and Mrs. H. A. Spellings, A History of Jefferson, 1836-1936 (Jefferson, n. d.), p. 26. ^Galveston Daily News, February 4, 1883; Mrs. Arch McKay and Mrs. H. A. Spellings, 0£. cit., p. 26. 24T. C. Richardson, Bast Texas, Its History and Its Makers, Vols. I-III, edited by Dabney White, 4 vols. (New York, 1940), p. 453. 90

They emphasized the natural advantages Jefferson had to offer, promised that the city would soon become the railroad center of northeast Texas, and suggested certain enterprises that would meet with immediate success. Of the 103 signers of the pamphlet, the most numerous businesses and professions mentioned were commission merchants (13), land agents and real estate (9), lawyers (8), physicians and surgeons (6), banks (5), wholesale grocers (7), and general merchants (5).2-* The business structure of Jefferson did not change radically before 1873. In that year a total of 188 citizens and businesses of Jefferson were listed in Bradstreet? s Report. The businesses included ranged from a picture gallery and seller of musical instruments to bankers and commission merchants. The most numerous businesses listed were thirty- eight grocery stores, twenty-three general stores, and twelve dry goods and clothing establishments.2^ Compared with the fifty business houses remaining in 1881, Jefferson was ex- ceptionally large and prosperous in 1873.^ Descriptions of Jefferson in the latter 1860*s and early 1870's indicate that socially the city was also wealthy. Because of its size, the transient immigrant population, and

25"The City of Jefferson as a Manufacturing District," op. cit. 2%radstreet's Report, XXXIII ^/"Tlew York, 1873J7, 9-10. ^Galveston Daily News, September 1, 1881, p. 6. 91

the constant influx of farmers from the interior, Jefferson became an entertainment center. Entire families came to Jefferson to see the beautiful homes, the new "brick buildings, and such novelties as artificial ice, gas lighting, and soda water.28 For the mature only, Jefferson offered everything from cock fights, gambling, and saloon brawls to operas, con- certs, and picture galleries.29 If not the most cultivated city south of St. Louis as claimed by J. A. R. Moseley, Jefferson certainly could boast of diversity of entertainments wide enough to suit the most sophisticated and the most vulgar. Jefferson's religious and educational facilities reflected her good fortune. At one time there were no less than nine private academy level schools and numerous private primary and grammar schools in Jefferson.51 Marion County fought the state efforts to establish public schools and filed an in- junction temporarily preventing school taxes from being collected in the county. Ostensibly they resented the action

28w[arion County t Inventory of the Archives of Texas, No. 155 (San Antonio, 1940), p. 10 (hereafter referred to as Marion County. Inventory); The Home Advocate £Jefferson_/, June 4, 1869• ^^Marion County, Inventory, pp. 10-11; J. A. R. Moseley, The Presbyterian Church in Jefferson, Texas (Austin, 1946), p. iTl 5°Ibid.

51t. C. Richardson, III, 1109; Moseley, 0£. cit., p. 14; Jefferson Daily Jimplecute, September 1, 1876; The Daily Jefferson Democrat, December 21, 1873. 92

32 "because it was initiated "by the Radicals. The churches in Jefferson, Baptist, Methodist, Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Catholic, were large and substantial "buildings. In 1875 a Jewish Synagogue was added to the community of churches. Jefferson supported a number of civic organizations including the Masons, Odd Fellows, Order of the Seven Yft.se Men, "54. I. 0. 0. F., Chamber of Commerce, and Temperance Council. ^ The Texas Almanac for 1872 and 1873 listed five newspapers for Jefferson, four weeklies and a daily.^ By March, 1873, only two newspapers were operating, and one of these suspended publication for two months.^ Jefferson's first warning of danger to her commercial importance and continued growth came early in 1872. From January through May local newspapers reported a scarcity of cotton, money, and general business.This situation persisted 32ciarksville Northern Standard, April 6, 1872, citing Letter from the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, State of Texas, Austin, March 15, 1872. 33jefferson Daily Jimplecute, September 1, 1876; Mrs. Arch McKay and Mrs. H. R. Spellings, op. cit., pp. 16-22; Jefferson, Texas, "Minutes of the Meetings of the Board of Aldermen," City Hall, Jefferson (hereafter referred to as "Minutes of the Board*). ^^Moseley. op. cit., p. 14; Jefferson Daily Democrat, December 21, 18757 35Texas Almanac, 1872, p. 210; Texas Almanac, 1873, p. 58.

^Clarksville, Northern Standard t March 15, 1873. 37jefferson Daily Democrat, March 7, 1872, cited in Clarks- ville Northern Standard, March §, 1872; Jefferson Daily Times, May 21, 1872,cited inClarksville Northern Standard, May 25, 1872; Jefferson Times, January 4, 1873, cited in Clarksville Northern Standard, January 13, 1873. 93 throughout the 1872-1873 season, and Jefferson's commerce fell below its previous level. Less cotton had been brought to Jefferson from the interior, and a low water level in Caddo Lake made navigation to the port impossible for much of the season. By March, 1873, small boats had resumed regular trips between Jefferson and the Red River, and the citizens were optimistic that regular trade would resume. In order to boost the trade at Jefferson bankers began advancing money on cotton without charging a commission.^9 They adopted this method to try and offset the irregularity of the water traffic and to compete with the railroad and steamboats that had moved into their trade territory. In July, 1872, the Houston and Texas Central Railroad reached Dallas and in March, 1873, it connected with the Missouri, Kansas, and Texas at Denison and provided the northeastern and central part of Texas a through route to either Galveston or the eastern cities.^0 The United States Engineers opened a channel through the Red River raft in May, 1873, making it possible for steamboats to reach the upper Red River once again.41

380iarksville Northern Standard, February 1, 1873; Jefferson Daily Democrat, February 25, 1873, cited in Clarksville Northern Standard, March 1, 1873. ^Clarksville Northern Standard, March 1, 1873. 4^T. C. Richardson, 0£. cit., I, 371-372. 4-^-House Executive Documents, 43rd Congress, 1st Session, No. 1, Pt. 2 (Washington, 1874), p. 616. 94

By the middle of 1873 both the railroad and the Red River steamers were competing for the trade once monopolized by- Jefferson. The Panic of 1873 further blighted the future of Jeffer- son. While creating hard times in all parts of Texas, the panic made conditions particularly bad in manufacturing areas.42 Jefferson's industry, like that in most other Texas cities, had not accumulated sufficient capital reserve to survive the crisis. The Daily Jimplecute declared in 1876 that store houses were re-opening and some of those people who left town had returned. The paper maintained that manufacturing was the thing most needed in Jefferson.43 By 1880 Marion County had ten manufacturing establishments, Their capital investment amounted to $78,800. Two hundred and forty employees received $63,870 in wages, and produced goods valued at $164,811.^ Only two establishments manufactured a volume in excess of $20,000 in the census year of 1880, and both of them belonged to Kelly.^ His foundry employed forty-five persons, paid wages amounting to $22,500, and produced goods valued at $75,000. Kelly's furnace, the

42e. T. Miller, "The Historical Development of the Texas State Tax System," Southwestern Historical Quarterly. LY (1952), 4-5. SL

43Jefferson Daily Jimplecutet September 1, 18$6.

44;penth Census of Manufacturing, II, 188.

4^Ibid.t p. 37I; Galveston Daily Mewst September 1, 1881, p. 6. 95 only one in operation in Texas, employed 140 men, paid a total wage of $27,720, and produced $36,000 worth of charcoal pig iron.

In September, 1872, Jefferson's issued, appropriated, and floating indebtedness amounted to $1,051,372. This included the city's share of the county debt. The total amount attributed to city projects alone accounted for $470,000 of the total.47 in less than a week, the city increased her debt by appropriating $200,000 in city bonds, the market value of which ranged between fifty-five cents and fifty-

seven and one-half cents on the dollar.48

According to Mayor L. T. Gray, Jefferson citizens paid a combined state, county, and city tax of per cent in

1872. He described this as being more than the taxes paid by New York and Boston, and 3.5 per cent greater than

economists recommended for sound credit and stock values.49

In accordance with the city charter adopted in April, 1873,

the Board levied the maximum ad valorem tax of 2 per cent

for 1873."^ General municipal purposes received 1 per cent

4%enth Census of Manufacturing, II, 371, 189, 748-749* 47"Minutes of the Board," September 16, 1872, p. 278. 48ibid., September 21, 1872, p. 286; ibid., September 16, 1872, p. 276. 49ibid., September 16, 1872.

5Qlbid., May 7, 1873, pp. 409-411; H. P. N. Gammel, editor, The Laws of Texas, 10 vols. (Austin, 1898), VII, 967* 96 and the other 1 per cent, along with occupation taxes went for the payment of the city's indebtedness.51 The minutes of the Board meetings are missing "between 1873 and 1877, "but the records for 1877 show that the city*s financial condition did not improve. In December, 1877, the Board passed a resolution promising that no more than one- fourth of 1 per cent for current expenses and one-half of 1 per cent to redeem city indebtedness, and one-half of 1 per cent to pay a court judgment against the city, would be levied for 1877. The Board agreed that a previously passed tax of 1 per cent for the payment of the city's bonded indebtedness would not be collected.52 The one-half of 1 per cent levied for the purpose of paying the court judgment against the city became necessary after the United States Court of Appeals at Tyler issued a mandamus instructing the city to levy a tax of 1 per cent on all taxable property until a total of $14,189.23 had been paid to G. W. King.53 In 1878 the aldermen of Jefferson pledged themselves to make every effort to scale the city debt to a limit the city could pay without causing an inconvenience to the

51«Minutes of the Board," Mjpy 7, 1873. 52Ibid., December 26, 1873. 55Ibid., May, 1878, pp. 82-84; ibid., December 26, 1877, pp. 37-38. 97 citizens.54 Upon the recommendation of a special committee which had investigated the indebtedness of the city, the Board voted to dispense with all municipal taxation for 1878 with the exception of a one fourth of 1 per cent tax for current expenses. The taxes repealed for 1878 included the special tax order "by the courts. Until some final arrangement with the city's creditors could "be made, the Board intended to give the citizens some relief from taxation.55 The question of taxes and payment of debts created dis- sention among the Board members. Some, perhaps representing the feelings of the creditors, objected to the decision not to raise taxes for debt purposes.56 on June 6, with the total debt of the city listed as $230,000, the Board entertained a motion to scale the debt to thirty cents on the dollar. The motion failed by a vote of four to three.57 Board met on June 14, passed an ordinance setting the tax for 1878 at one fourth of 1 per cent, accepted the resignation of six aldermen and adjourned. It did not reconvene until March 10, 1880.5®

54Ibid., April 19, 1878, pp. 74-75.

55rbjd.t May 6, 1878, pp. 84-85.

56Ibid., May 20, 1878, p. 87. 57lbid., June 6, 1878, p. 95.

5®Ibid., June 14, 1878, pp. 96-97; ibid., March 10, 1880, p. 100. 98

A petition from nineteen citizens of Jefferson initiated the reorganization of a municipal government in 1880. The petitioners included many of those people to whom the city- owed money. At the first meeting the aldermen responded to the wishes of the creditors "by inviting them to present and arrange the "basis of settlement of the city's indebtedness.59 On March 15, at the second meeting of the Board, Col. Y/illiam H. Harrison, trustee for the creditors,, proposed that the city's debt be scaled to twenty-five cents on the dollar and be paid in 6 per cent twenty-year bonds. The Board accepted the proposal and organized a committee to see that only those creditors who registered would receive the new bonds of the city.60 Actual re-organization of the city government proved to be difficult. Y(hen the Board reconvened it had problems other than the city indebtedness. Because of the disorganized situation in Jefferson, it took two elections to get the aldermen elected, and they still lacked one member at their first meetings. A. G. Malloy, ex-military mayor of Jefferson, had been elected alderman by one of the wards, but was declared unqualified to hold the office. An election held April 6 proved to be as discouraging as the others. Although the

59ibjd.t March 10, 1880, p. 100; ibid., May 6, 1878, p. 84. 60Ibid., March 15, 1880, p. 104. 99

Board accepted the returns as valid, charges were made that the polls had not been opened in some wards and the election did not express the will of the people.^ Disagreement among the Board members continued throughout the summer of 1880.^ The minutes of the Board meetings indicate that no meetings were held from October 17, 1880, until December, 1886. After the entry for December the minutes show a newspaper clipping which contains a petition dated April 8, 1891. The petition called for an election to fill the vacancies in municipal offices, indicating that twenty- years after economic troubles began, the city government had not yet fully recovered.^3

The conditions which reduced commercial activity at Jefferson in 1873 started a chain reaction. As the commerce at Jefferson decreased, the commercial class left, carrying with them much of the city's wealth. The loss of commerce and population left the city government with financial obligations that were designed to be paid by an increasing population, not a decreasing one. The city's efforts to pay and their failure to succeed added to Hike reaction and

^"Minutes of the Board," March 10, 1880, pp. 100-102; ibid., March 15, p. 104; ibid., April 8, 1800. 62Cf. ibid., April 8, 1880, p. 107; ibid., June 15, 1880, p. 115; ibid., August 3, 1880, p. 123. 65Ibid., October 17, 1880, p. 123; ibid., December 21, 1880ifi , ). 124; ibid., n. d., p. 126. 100

contributed to the exodus of population and wealth.. Industry, which had never "been a large contributor to the wealth of Jefferson, found that under the circumstances attractions at other places were much greater than at Jefferson. The loss of actual and potential manufacturing establishments discouraged the hope that industry might replace the lost commercial prosperity. A number of reasons account for Jefferson's failure to continue attracting commerce and industry after 1873. The' Panic of 1873, the renewal of westward migration, and the introduction of railroads into the state constitute the most important. Ward Taylor, Jr., editor of the Daily Jimplecute, explained it simply as "the want of enterprise at home and the use of it at other points."^ According to Taylor prosperous times between 1868 and 1870 made the people of Jefferson overly confident. Believing that natural advantages would continue to bring prosperity, the people had failed to do their part in assisting those advantages. When the railroads entered the state, Jefferson was unprepared to meet the challenge.^5 Jefferson's success or failure depended upon a transportation system that was outmoded by the railroad. While part of the difficulty she experienced resulted from her failure

^Jefferson Daily Jimplecute, September 1, 1876. 65lbid. 101 to adjust to changing conditions, some of the factors which contributed to her decline were uncontrollable and inevitable, In both cases, the key to her problem was transportation. CHAPTER VI

THE FIGHT FOR SURVIVAL

The Civil War and its aftermath preserved and increased the financial prosperity of Jefferson. As the terminal port on an inland waterway, Jefferson emerged from the conflict more prosperous and with a "brighter future than other- wise could have "been possible. The war prevented the construction of railroads across Texas and halted efforts to remove the Red River raft, thereby continuing the transportation conditions that influenced the growth of Jefferson between 1845 and I860. Ox-wagons and steamboats continued to be the only means of transporting goods to and from the interior of the state. As the nearest and cheapest outlet available, Jefferson enjoyed her greatest prosperity.

The Civil War also contributed to an increase in the volume of trade in the area monopolized by Jefferson. During the war the Texas frontier receded eastward, causing the population and productive capacity of the eastern half of Texas to increase. Indian uprisings prevented the frontier from moving westward until the mid-1870's. When immigration to Texas resumed after the war the area eastward from the 102 103

Black and Grand. Prairies acquired a large share of the population.1 Jefferson's fortunate position permitted her to benefit from the increased trade created by this situation. Jefferson attracted the trade of northeast and north central Texas because she served as the terminus for the best available system of transportation in that area. The transportation she offered was uncertain, irregular, and dangerous, but farmers from as far away as Dallas and Denton came there to trade.^ They came because they had very little choice in market centers. Under these circumstances the merchants of

•7. Jefferson did not have to seek business. It sought them. Convinced by success that continued prosperity depended upon the maintainance of water communications with the Red River, the citizens of Jefferson devoted much of their attention to the building and repair of city wharves, the improvement of the channel between Jefferson and Shreveport, ^-William Curry Holden, Alkali Trails or Social and Eco- nomic Movements of the TexasThrontier (Dallas, 1930), pp. 56-57. 2Texas Almanac, 1867 (Galveston, 1866), p. 140; ibid., pp. 99» 105; Clarksville Northern Standard, March 15, 1873; The Weekly Harrison Flag /_ Marshall /, February 18, 1869; John Edward Guardia, "Successive Human Adjustments to Raft Conditions in Lower Red River Valley," unpublished master's thesis, Depart- ment of Geology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 1927, p. 84. 3Jefferson Daily Jimplecute, September 1, 1876. Millican, in Brazos County, was the terminus for the Houston and Central Texas Railroad during the Civil War, and attracted some of the trade in the Dallas area. T. C. Richardson, East Texas, Its History and Its Makers, edited by Dabney White, 4 vols. (New York, 19I» TW* 104 and the raising of money to pay for the improvements.4 Pe- titions from citizens frequently urged the Board of Aldermen to do more to extend the wharves and improve navigation to Jefferson. Citizen groups cooperated in the effort to improve navigational facilities by contributing financial aid, and on at least two occasions, they advanced money to the city for the purpose of building wharves and clearing the channel.^ The city made its most notable effort to improve the navigation of Big Cypress Bayou in 1870 when it purchased a dredge boat for the purpose of excavation and deepening the channel. Described as being an excellent machine for most purposes, but not adapted to pulling stumps, the boat cost the city $20,000. By December, 1872, when they loaned it to the federal government to use in the improvement of the

^Jefferson, Texas, "Minutes of the Meetings of the Board of Aldermen," September 23, 1867, p. 297 (hereafter referred to as "Minutes of the Board"); ibid., December 3, 1866, p. 265; ibid., November 18, 1867, p. 303; ibid.« July 21, 1868, p. 317; ibid., June 1, 1870, p. 410; ibid.t September 22, 1870, pp. 430- 433; ibid., October 3, 1870, p. 437; ibid., October 25, 1870, pp. 459-462$ 464; ibid.t March 20, 1871, pp. 27-30; ibid.t July 7, 1871, pp. 59-60; ibid., October 19, 1871, p. 91; ibid., January 8, 1872, p. 219; ibid., April 1, 1872, pp. 147-148; ibid., May 23, 1872, p. 168; ibid., June 25, 1872, p. 185; TETcL , July 22, 1872, p. 238;~T5Td., July 27, 1872, p. 242. 5Ibid., June 1, 1870, p. 410; ibid., July 5, 1871, p. 61; ibid., October 19, 1871, p. 19; ibid., June 26, 1871, p. 61. 105 channel, the cost of operating and maintaining the dredge boat had increased the expense an additional $30,000. The federal government began making improvements on the Caddo Lake-Cypress Bayou waterway in 1872. In the first phase of work, from 1872 to 1880, Congress appropriated $94,000 for the explicit purpose of straightening, dredging, and removing obstructions from the channel. Admittedly a temporary measure, the work up to 1880 made navigation safer during high water periods than before, but it did not extend the length of the navigational season or insure permanent navigation on the lakes and bayous.7 Engineers maintained that only a lock and dam strategically located at the foot of Caddo lake could make navigation permanent. They warned that without the lock and dam, navigation from Jefferson to Shreveport would become impossible as less water flowed into the lakes from the Red River.®

^"Minutes of the Board, June 1, 1870, p. 410; ibid., October 25, 1870, p. 464; ibid.t March 20, 1871, ppTTT-30; ibid., March 19, 1872, p. 143; House Executive Documents, 43rd Congress, 1st Session, No. 1, Pt. 2 (Washington, 1874), pp. 613, 671; Congressional Record, 44th Congress, 1st Session, IV, Pt. 5 (Washington, 1876). ^House Executive Documents, 43rd Congress, 1st Session, No. 1, Pt. 2 (Washington, 1874), pp. 613-621; Senate Reports, 62nd Congress, No. 679 (Washington, 1912), p. 370; House Executive Documents, 48th Congress, 1st Session, NoT 64 (Wash- ington, 1884), p. 258. SHouse Executive Documents, 43rd Congress, 1st Session, No. 1, Pt. 2 (Washington, 1874), pp. 621-669; House Executive Documents, 42nd Congress, 3rd Session, No. 1, Pt. 2 (Washington, 1872), p. 573; House Executive Documents, 44th Congress, 1st Session, No. 1, Pt. 2 (Washington, 1875), pp. 529-530. 106

After a four-year interval the government renewed its efforts to improve the waterway from Jefferson to the Red River. In this phase of the project the engineers continued their maintenance work and made numerous surveys to determine the feasibility of constructing a dam.^ Dredging continued, but the water in the lakes became lower as a result of the work being done simultaneously on the Red River raft. The navigation season became shorter, the steamboats smaller, and the trips more irregular. The last boat of any size made the trip between Jefferson and Shreveport in 1897.^ The lock and dam were never built. After many years of surveying Congress finally appropriated $100,000 for the construction of a dam at the foot of Caddo Lake in 1910. Without a lock, the dam represented the end of steamboat navigation between Shreveport and Jefferson.H While the Corps of Engineers worked to improve water navigation to Jefferson, they were working just as hard to destroy obstructions in the Red River tiat had made navigation to the city possible. In 1872, a few days before work

^Senate Reports, 49"th Congress, 1st Session, No. 1391 (Washington, 1886), p. 235; Senate Reports, 62nd Congress, 2nd Session, No. 679 (Washington, 1912), p. 370. l^House Documents, 58th Congress, 3rd Session, No. 425 (Washington, 1905), pp. 632, 698, 773, 1021, 1100, 1246; Senate Reports, 62nd Congress, 2nd Session,(No. 679 (Washington, 1912), p. 370. H-House Documents, 63rd Congress, 3rd Session, No. 1408, Pt. 2 (Y/ashington, 1914), p. 2353. 107

commensed on the improvement of Cypress Bayou, government engineers renewed their attack on the raft.12 Using snag boats, shore parties and nitro-glycerine, government engineers, under the direction of Lt. E. A. Woodruff, cut a channel through the seven miles of debris obstructing navigation between Shreveport -i ^ and Pulton. J Woodruff did not completely destroy the raft or remove the causes of its accumulation, but he did make it possible for steamboats to reach Pulton regularly during the high water season for the first time in twenty-nine years. More important to Jefferson, the work in 1872 and 1873 caused a significant reduction in the amount of water being diverted from the regular channel into the lakes and bayous. With each improvement on the Red River after 1873 the amount of water flowing through the regular channel increased while that in the lakes declined.-*-4 Tenth Census lists the date of the rant's final removal as 1876, but funds specifically designated for the raft continued to be appropriated until 1882. After 1882 general l^House Executive Documents, 43rd Congress, 1st Session, No. 1, Pt. 2 (Washington, 1874), p. 613. 13lbid., pp. 617-618; Senate Reports, 49th Congress, 1st Session, No. 1391 (Washington, 1886), p. 236; House Executive Documents, 42nd Congress, 3rd Session, No. 1, Pt. 2 (Washington, 1872), p. 569. l^House Executive Documents, 43rd Congress, 1st Session, No. 1, Pt. 2 (Washington, 1874), p. 617; House Executive Documents, 45th Congress, 3rd Session, No. 39 (Washington, 1879)i PP» 2-3; Senate Reports, 62nd Congress, 2nd Session, No. 679 (Washington, 1912), p. 327. 108 appropriations for the Red River provided for the construction of levees, the removal of debris, and the closing of outlets, all of which resulted in a decreasing water level in Caddo Lake.^ In 1872 and 1873 T/oodruff noted that the greatest ob- jection to the removal of the raft was the injury it would bring to Jefferson. The prosperity of the city, the un- certainty of the final results of removing the raft, and the energetic efforts made to preserve and improve navigational facilities to Jefferson, constituted strong arguments in the city's favor. Nevertheless, these were not considered sufficient reasons to stop the removal of the raft. Those people along the upper Red River held a prior claim to the water in the river, and retention of the raft meant certain destruction of their farm land. "As the greatest good to the greatest number . . .," the commercial interests of

15u. s. Department of the Interior, Social Statistics of Cities in the United States in 1880, Vol. XIX, Pt. 2 oT Tenth Census of the "United States, 22 vols. (Washington, 18873, p. 298; Senate Reports, 49th Congress, 1st Session, No. 1391 (Washington, 1886), pp. 236-237; Senate Reports, 62nd Congress, 2nd Session, 679 (Washington, 1912), p. 327; House Documents, 63rd Congress, 3rd Session, No. 1408, Pt. 2 (Washington, 1913), p. 868. For a complete list of appropriations for the improvement of the Red River to 1881 see House Executive Documents, 48th Congress, 1st Session, No. 64 (Washington, 1884), pp. 258-259* 109

Jefferson were subordinated to the landed interests adjacent to the upper Red River. Woodruff seemed particularly concerned about the plight of Jefferson. Realizing that the injury to water navigation would increase as more of the outlets and canals above Shreveport were closed, he urged his superiors to be cautious. Although the interest of the majority demanded that the raft be removed, Y/oodruff thought justice required that steps be taken to relieve Jefferson as much as possible. In order to compensate for the loss of water in Caddo Lake, he recom- 17 mended a lock and dam as the only solution. Concern for their declining commerce and waning water navigation caused the citizens of Jefferson to petition Congress for aid in maintaining water connections with the Red River. In 1872, before Congress made its first appropriation for Cypress Bayou, Jefferson asked for $250,000

^House Executive Documents, 43rd Congress, 1st Session, No. 1, Pt. 2 (Washington, 1874), pp. 649-650, 664-665, 671; House Executive Documents, 42nd Congress, 3rd Session, No. 1, Pt. 2 (Washington, 1872), p. 570. The Chamber of Commerce of New Orleans, their trade jeopardized by both the raft and the railroads, had a solution to the problem. They urged Congress to remove the raft, but divert a heavy volume of water directly and rapidly on the central and lower sections of the waterway to Jefferson. This would provide water navigation to the upper Red River, to Jefferson and to New Orleans. Senate Miscellaneous Documents, 42nd Congress, 2nd Session, No. 92 (Washington, 1872), pp. 2-4. •^House Executive Documents, 43rd Congress, 1st Session, No. 1, Pt. 2 (Washington, 1874), pp. 669, 621, 650. 110 but received only $10,000.18 Two years later Jefferson appealed to Congress through the state legislature, which instructed the Texas Senators and Representatives in Congress to use their influence to procure $300,000 for the construction of a lock and dam.1^ Another appeal directly from Jefferson in 1877 emphasized the importance of aid to their navigation "but did not specify the amount of appropriations desired.^0 Beginning in 1875 engineers and Congressmen expressed doubts that the amount of trade at Jefferson warranted a heavy expenditure of government funds to provide slackwater navigation to Jefferson. The feasibility of a project to construct a lock and dam on Caddo Lake was questioned on two accounts. First, the Red River below Shreveport became impassable for several months of each year. Even if steamers could travel between Jefferson and Shreveport all year, they would be unable to reach markets below Shreveport during the low water season. Second, the amount of trade at Jefferson had declined rapidly since 1873. While imperfect navigation had undoubtably contributed to the decline, the completion of railroads through Jefferson and northeast Texas had diverted

l^Ibid.t p. 671; House Executive Documentst 48th Congress, 1st Session, No. 64 (Washington, 1884), p. 228. P. N. Gammel, The Laws of Texas, 10 vols. (Austin, 1898), VIII, 242. 20tiMinutes of the Board," October 29, 1877, pp. 26-27. Ill

the trade once monopolized "by Jefferson and New Orleans to other commercial centers. Improved water navigation, limited and seasonal at best, might not he able to regain this lost commerce. Despite an expenditure of approximately $170,000 for improvement and maintenance of the waterway before 1912, the federal government was never convinced that trade could be restored to Jefferson by providing permanent navigation from Shreveport.22 xt is regrettable that a large appropriation was made for temporary relief when it might have been applied to the estimated $200,000 needed in 1873 for the construction

of a lock and dam.23 The government's reluctance to appropriate funds for such a project is understandable. Railroads had proven their supremacy over steamboats as a means of inland transportation; their speed, regularity, frequency, reliability, and convenience could not be equalled by steamboats.^^ If river towns with better access to water navigation

^Congressional Record, 44th Congress, 1st Session, IV, Pt. 5 (Washington, 18?7), p. 4576; House Executive Documents, 44th Congress, 1st Session, No. 1, Pt. 2 (Washington, 1875), p. 4576; House Executive Documents, 48th Congress, 1st Session, No. 64 (Washington, 1884), p. 65; Senate Reports, 62nd Congress, 2nd Session, No. 679 (Washington, 1912), p. 327.

^^Senate Reportst 62nd Congress, 2nd Session, No. 679 (Washington, 1912), p. 370. 23House Executive Documents, 43rd Congress, 1st Session, No. 1, Pt. 2 (Washington, 1874), p. 641. 24;Louis C. Hunter, Steamboats on the Western Rivers (Cambridge, 1949), P» 585. Cf. Prank E. Williams,"The Geography of the Mississippi Valley," Great Inland Waterway Projects in the United States, Vol. CXXXX of the Annual of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (Philadelphia, 1928), p. 9- 112

than Jefferson had lost trade to the railroads, how could Jefferson hope to retain her trade against the same op- 25 position with only seasonal navigation? v The construction of a lock and dam on Caddo Lake after 1873 would not have restored Jefferson to her former position of commercial importance. The rate of decline might have been slowed by permanent navigation to Shreveport, but the loss of commerce to railroads could not have been prevented. Because of the advantages of railroads and the imperfections of navigation on the Red River, Jefferson was no longer the terminus for the nearest, cheapest, and most convenient route by which farmers could market their crops. Little value could be derived from all-year access to Shreveport when the river below was unnavigable for a few months each year. The time had passed when farmers would pursue the old system of hauling their crops to market by ox-wagon and then wait for the water to rise before marketing their crops.^ Railroads made this unnecessary, and Jefferson could offer the farmer nothing else. The futility of Jefferson's efforts to maintain her trade by improving the water route to Shreveport is illustrated

^Hunter, 0£. cit., pp. 585-586, 561-566.

26jefferson Daily Jimylecute t September 1, 1876; New Orleans Picayune, n. d., cited in Marshall News Messenger, January 9, 1880. 113 by the unfortunate experience New Orleans had with railroads. New Orleans did not have railroad connection with Texas until late in 1881. As a result St. Louis replaced her as the major recipient of Texas cotton.^7 More significant, however, St. Louis acquired some cotton from planters living near the Red River below Shreveport. Rather than use the river to transport their cotton to New Orleans, they shipped their crop up to Shreveport. Prom Shreveport the Texas and Pacific Rail- road carried the cotton to either the Iron Mountain railroad at Texarkana where it was transported to St. Louis or to the Missouri Pacific railroad via Dallas where it was transported to Eastern cities.If the Texas and Pacific could divert trade from points below Shreveport to St. Louis, it does not seem possible that permanent navigation from Jefferson to Shreveport would have helped Jefferson. In listing the causes of the decline of commerce at Jefferson two contemporary editors failed to include the loss of water transportation. According to the Galveston Daily News, the building of the Texas and Pacific worked an era of decline for Jefferson which has depreciated her property 70 per cent since 1874;

^Marshall News Messenger, December 9» 1881; GFalveston Daily News, September lt 1881, p. 6. ^®New Orleans Picayune, n. d., cited in Marshall News Messenger, January 9, 1880. 114

forced half her population to move away; left her finest "buildings without a tenant; and partially- made her the Palmyra of Texas. The railroads, by opening up the country tributary to Jefferson to other markets instead of increasing the business and trade of the town, cut it off. Railroad competition for freights had also forced steamboats out of the bayou, which they now rarely ever ascend as in former days, but stop at Shreveport. The decline of the place will illustrate the power of railroads.29 The Jefferson Daily Jimplecute criticized the citizens of Jefferson for their lack of enterprise in preventing the decline, but stated that "the building of the Texas Central Railroad caused the withdrawal of the first trade from us, 30 which was followed by the opening of the T & P . . . Jefferson received an abundance of advice concerning her predicament. Before railroads reached Jefferson or the raft had been removed, the Texas Almanac and the Clarksville Northern Standard warned that railroads running through Jeffer- son would divert trade to other points. Both advised Jefferson to develop its mineral and manufacturing resources to offset this loss.^l The Northern Standard suggested that permanent navigation and industry might enable Jefferson to "attain a permanent prosperity, far more reliable than she has had here- tofore . . . ."32 r. Loughery, editor of the Texas Republican

29Cralveston Daily News, September 1, 1881, p. 6. ^Ojefferson Daily Jimplecute, September 1, 1876. ^Iciarksville Northern Standard, March 15, 1873; Texas Almanact 1871, p. 58. 32ciarksville Northern Standard, March 15, 1873. 115 and an advocate of railroads for Jefferson since 1848, was convinced that Jefferson needed "both systems of transportation in order to remain a commercial center.^3 All the recommendations to Jefferson carried a warning that railroads could "be dangerous to her trade. The city- could survive only if she had something to attract trade and most of the editors indicated that river navigation was not a sufficient reason for railroads to stop at Jefferson. Railroads did not need the additional trade that Jefferson as a river port had to offer and they could only be expected to supplement the trade if river transportation remainded competitive and industry thrived. The only hope Jefferson had of retaining her commercial trade was to acquire railroad connections to her source of supply in the interior. Railroads were going to be built whether Jefferson approved or not, and like the river towns along the Mississippi River, she had to have the trade they could bring—or take away.^^ Without railroads Jefferson would have been totally dependent on ox-wagons and steamboats, and the railroad's advantages over ox-wagons were greater than

^Marshall Texas Republican, November 27, 1868, p. 2; T. C. Richardson, ojd. cit., I, 365. 34-Hunter, 0£. cit., p. 586. 35ibid. 116

its advantages over steamboats. Jefferson had to take the chance that railroads would replace the ox-wagon and supplement her steamboats. WardTaylor, Jr. of the Jefferson Daily Jimplecute criticized the citizens of Jefferson for not aiding the natural advantages that had made the city prosperous. Ob- viously he had in mind their failure to secure railroads that terminated at Jefferson's wharves and industry that would in- 36 crease the city's income and trade. Despite repeated efforts to secure a railroad, Jefferson did not have a railroad that reached the heart of her trade territory and terminated at her wharves until after 1876.^7 This railroad, the East Line and Red River, reached Greenville in Hunt County in 1881 and served the interests of Jefferson despite competition from through lines at both ends of its track. After Jay Gould purchased the railroad its track was extended at both terminals and it, too, became just another railroad running through Jefferson.-*® Although Jefferson did not have a railroad that brought trade to, rather than through, her corporate limits until ^Jefferson Daily Jimplecute, September 1, 1876.

37Ibid. ^®Galveston Daily News, February, 1883, p. 3; ibid., September 1, 1881, p. 6; Ira G. Clark, Then Came the Rail- roads (Norman, 1958), p. 142. 117 after 1876, she demonstrated an awareness of her need for a railroad soon after the end of the Civil War. In 1866 her citizens raised $500,000 for the construction of a railroad from Jefferson to Grayson County in northeast Texas.^9 u0 track was laid, but the promise of $500,000 for such a purpose indicated the seriousness of their intentions. In 1867 work resumed on the Jefferson branch of the Memphis, El Paso, and Pacific Railroad between Jefferson and Moore's Landing on the Sulphur River. Because the raft continued to obstruct navigation to Moore's Landing, Jefferson was the initial point of construction and the supply depot for the contractors.^® Despite reports of large scale activity and promises of financial assistance from Prance, no tracks were laid and the company went into receivership in 1870. The company later was purchased by the Texas and Pacific Railway Company.41

Radical Republican control of the state and city after 1868 brought profound changes to the methods of financing

^Marshall Texas Republican, September 8, 1866, p. 2, citing Jefferson Jimplecute, n. d.

^Texas Almanac, 1868 (Galveston, 1867), p. 137; Texas Almanac, 1870 (Galveston, I869), p. 185, citing the Jefferson Jimplecute, December 3, I869.

4-kpexas Almanac, 1870« p. 185, citing Jefferson Jimplecute, December 3, /_ 1869_/\ Texas Almanac, 18711 p. 179; Interstate Commerce Commission, Valuation Reports (Washington, 1930), XXIX, 580; Jefferson Daily Jimplecute, September 17, I869, cited in The Weekly Harrison Flag / Marshall 7« September 23, 1869; Julius Grodinsky, Transcontinental Railway Strategy, 1869-1893 (Philadelphia, 1962), p. 8. 118

the construction of railroads in Jefferson. Beginning in October, 1870, the Board of Aldermen passed resolutions promising financial assistance to any railroad contractor who would construct a railroad from Jefferson to some agreed destination. The resolution urged railroad companies to use their influence to get favorable legislation passed for the

awarding of financial aid to railroads.42 in other resolutions, state senators and representatives were requested to use their influence in procuring a state charter for a railroad to run from Jefferson to Sherman and to urge the International Rail- way Company to comply with the conditions of her charter and begin construction at Jefferson.4-3 The Board appointed committees to represent the city's interests in Austin and periodically sent representatives to procure railroads and financial assistance for the city.44 Between 1870 and 1875 not less than twelve railroads, including a city railroad, were incorporated by the state

legislature to either commence or pass through Jefferson.45

42«Minutes of the Board," October 19, 1870, p. 447. The Board complied with this resolution only once. On December 24, 1870, they pledged to subscribe to $250,000 worth of stock in the Jefferson and Great Western Railroad Company, but no railroad was ever constructed. Ibid., December 24, 1870, p. 505- 43ibid., December 13, 1870, pp. 478-479* 44ibid., December 31, 1870, p. 506; ibid., January 27, 1871, p. 10; ibid., April 13, 1871, p. 42.

45cf. Marion County t Inventory of County Archives of Texas, No. 155 (San Antonio, 1940), pp. 71-85. 119

Only three of these, the International, the Trans-continental branch of the Texas and Pacific, and the East Line and Red River, had any direct "bearing on the city. Together with her pro rata in the county debt, Jefferson was obligated to donate over $1,000,000 to these railroads, but only the Texas and Pacific and the East Line and Red River ever built a railroad through her limits.^ The International Railroad Company received a charter from the state on August 5, 1870, to construct a railroad from a point opposite Pulton, Arkansas, by way of Austin and San Antonio to Laredo on the Mexican border. According to the charter, the trunk line of the International must pass through the corporate limits of Jefferson, or a branch line constructed to connect the city with the main track, which could not be located farther than thirty miles from Jefferson. Work could begin at any convenient point on the trunk line where materials and supplies might be secured.47 In February, 1871, Jefferson donated $200,000 in city bonds to the International Railway Company provided that within twelve months fifty miles of track would be constructed from the city limits as designated by the city charter of 1866.

46nMinutes of the Board," September 16, 1872. p. 278; Congressional Record, 44th Congress, 1st Session (Washington, 187?), p. 4576: p. N. Gammel, The Laws of Texas, 10 vols. (Austin, 1898), VI, 606-607. 120

In addition, the city granted a little over thirty-two acres of land for the erection of a machine shop, four city lots adjacent to Big Cypress Bayou for a depot site, and a right-of-way through the city for both a trunk and a spur line. The land donated to the railroad amounted to an additional $25,000.48 J. Sanford Barnes, president of the International Rail- road Company, assured Jefferson that the company would oon- struct its main line through the city.^9 However, construction began at Hearne in South Central Texas, and after completing the first fifty miles of the track, the railroad became irn- meshed in a political and legal quarrel with the state. Con- servative Republicans and Democrats accused the company of being a corrupt out-of-state organization and demanded that state bonds not be issued. Claiming that the company had begun construction at Hearne rather than above Jefferson as provided by charter and agreement, the State Comptroller

48nj/[inu-t,es of the Board," February 10, 1871, pp. 14-16; ibid., February 22, 1872, pp. 159-140; ibid., June 3, 1872, pp. 171-172; ibid., June 8, 1872, p. 177. Marion County donated $300,000 in county bonds to the International Railway Company. Marion County, "Minutes of the Commissioners Court," Office of the County Clerk, Jefferson, Texas, pp. 288-290, 307 (hereafter cited as "Minutes of Com. Ct."). 49i,etter from J. Stanford Barnes to T. J. Campbell, Jefferson, Texas, February 20, 1872; Jefferson Democrat, n. d., cited in Clarksville Northern Standard, March 9, 1872. 121 refused to sign the state bonds as authorized by Governor E. J. Davis.50 A bond suit between the International Railroad Company and the state resulted in a compromise. The settlement reached in 1874 was very similar to the recommendations made to the state legislature by approximately 600 citizens of Marion County. The petitioners suggested that the International expand its line only to Jefferson on the east and San Antonio on the west rather than constructing the amount of line originally specified. The state then would be required to issue bonds for approximately 360 miles of track instead of the original 600 miles.51 Despite its insistence that the International be treated fairly and its obvious desire to lend financial assistance, Marion County and Jefferson did not benefit from the settlement.

5%. C. Nunn, Texas Under the Carpetbaggers (Austin, 1962), p. 35; Clarksville Northern Standard, February 22, 1873; ibid., March 3, 1873; ibid., March 9» 1863; Letter from J. Stanford Barnes to Gov. E. J. Davis, Austin, Texas, December 12, 1871; Documents and Opinions Relating to the International Railway Company'IT Claim on the State offfeixas /1872p . 3; Letter from Barnes to Davis, December 13, 1871, ibid., p. 4; Letter from Davis to Barnes, December 12, 1871, ibid.p. 3; Texas Almanact 1873, pp. 193-194. 5%arion County, Petition of Marion County Citizens Regarding a Compromise and Adjustment of Differences Between the International Railroad Company and the State, Memorial No. 192, May 7, 1873, Texas State Library, Austin; Gammel, op. cit., VIII, 315. 122

In 1873 the International's northward progress stopped when it reached the Texas and Pacific at longview.52

The Texas and Pacific Railway Company received its original charter from the United States Congress on March 3,

1872. On May 2, 1872, an amendment to the original charter changed the name of the company from Texas Pacific to Texas and Pacific and authorized it to construct a railroad from the lower Mississippi River to the Pacific coast in California.53

The Texas legislature meanwhile passed an act authorizing the

Texas Pacific to purchase the Southern Pacific and the Southern

Transcontinental Railroad companies, both of which had received lucrative grants from the state.54

The Texas and Pacific Bailway Company purchased and consolidated the two Texas companies in March, 1872. These formed the nucleus of the Texas and Pacific along with the

Memphis, El Paso and Pacific, which was acquired in 1873.55

The Southern Transcontinental Railway received a charter from the state in July, 1870. The charter provided for the construction of a railroad as near as possible along the route

^Texas Almanac, 1873, p. 38; Clark, o£. cit., p. 64.

53jnterstate Commerce Commission, Valuation Reports, XXIX, 526; J. R. Perkins, Trails, Rails and War (Indianapolis, 1929), p. 247.

54-Gammel, o£. cit., VI, 1623-1628; H<« P. N. Gammel, The Laws of Texas, 10 vols. (Austin, 1898), VII, 202-205.

55jnterstate Commerce Commission, Valuation Reports, XXIX, 526. 123 previously followed by the Memphis, El Paso and Pacific and a branch line from Jefferson to the main line at Moore's Land- ing. 56 In November, 1871, the legislature gave the Southern Transcontinental the right to construct a railway between Marshall and Jefferson but did not permit the company to apply state subsidies to the work. The State expected the company to finance the construction of this section as its purpose was more convenience and certainty in obtaining materials and supplies.57 As the successor to the Southern Transcontinental the Texas and Pacific had the same right to construct a railroad between Marshall and Jefferson, but still could not apply state subsidies. The State did not pass an act until May of 1873 which assured the Texas and Pacific's receiving equal grants of land for the railroad built between Marshall and Jefferson.58 Under these circumstances the instructions to begin work on the Jefferson Division given by Colonel Thomas Scott, president of the Texas and Pacific Railway

Company, in February, 1872, had special meaning.59 Scott and a group of prominent Easterners visited Texas in the spring of 1872 for the purpose of inspecting the area

5%ammel, o£. cit., VI, 543. 5^Gammel, 0£. cit., VII, 203. 58Gammel, o£. cit., VIII, 1020. 59Clarksville Northern Standard, February 22, 1872. 124 and obtaining financial aid for the Texas and Pacific Rail- road. On June 21 the entourage traveled to Jefferson. Arriving in the city about 10:00 P.M., they received "a most fin cordial and enthusiastic reception from the people . . . ." They were welcomed by a committee of citizens, both fire departments, a band that played "Hail to the Chief," a large procession of people, and a salute by cannon fire. Lights burned in every house and bonfires lighted the streets as John W. Forney, a director of the Texas and Pacific, made a speech. Afterward, the visitors were served refreshments and taken to a ball held in their honor.^ After a night of entertainment Scott and his associates toured the city and discussed business with the citizens of Jefferson. Satisfied with the cordial response to his prop- osition, the group returned to Marshall that evening, but Scott then announced that the Texas and Pacific machine shops would be erected in Marshall, which had persuaded Harrison County to donate $300,000 in bonds and sixty acres of land 62 to the company.

^Ojohn w. Forney, What I Saw in Texas (Philadelphia, /~1872__/), p. 55; Cf. "Minutes of the Board," June 3, 1872, P. 173. ^Forney, 0£. cit., p. 55; "Minutes of the Board," June 20, 1872, p. 185. ^'Minutes of the Board," pp. 7, 9> 56. 125 The citizens of Jefferson and Marion County responded immediately to Scott's visit. On June 25 both the city and county officials received petitions requesting that an election be held to determine whether bonds might be donated to the T & P.63 The county bond election for $125,000 passed by a majority of 726 to 2. Jefferson voted to donate the railroad $175,000 in city bonds. No one voted against the measure.^4 in order to receive the city and county bonds, the Texas and Pacific had to commence work within ninety days and have the entire railroad between Marshall and the north side of the Sulphur River completed by October, 1873. The railroad could not be consolidated with any other between Jefferson and Moore's Landing on the Sulphur River and the Texas and Pacific was requested to land its iron and supplies for the Jefferson branch railroad at Jefferson.^5

"Minutes of Com. Ct.," pp. 343-345; "Minutes of the Board," June 25, 1872, pp. I86-I96. ^^"Minutes of Com. Ct.," pp. 355-356; "Minutes of the Board," August 5, 1872, pp. 247-249. There is a myth that Jay Gould, financier and railroad tycoon, came to Jefferson in the early 1870's and asked for certain concessions from the citizens in return for his routing the Texas and Pacific through the city. According to the myth, the people either thought the railroad could not afford to by-pass a thriving city such as Jefferson, or they were afraid the railroad would destroy Jefferson as an inland port and commercial center. In either case, the citizens refused Gould's request and he built the railroad around Jeffer- son. The myth attributes the decline of Jefferson to the city's failure to accomodate Gould. Cf. Sam Acheson, "Jefferson's Feud with Jay Gould," The Dallas Morning News, May 6, 1954; H. Bailey Carroll, editor, "Texas Collections, Southwestern Historical Quarterly, XLVIII (1945), 108; T. C. Richardson, o£. cit, IIIt 1108; Marion County Inventory, 0£. cit., p. 11. 65«Minutes of Com. Ct.," pp. 343—345; "Minutes of the Board," August 5, 1872, p. 247* 126

The provision that the Texas and Pacific must use the water facilities at Jefferson to transport its iron and supplies for the Jefferson branch delayed progress on the railroad and further angered towns along the upper Red River who were waiting for the road to reach them.66 General

Grenville M. Dodge, chief engineer for the Texas and Pacific, considered the Red River unreliable and in early 1872 had secured supplies from Houston via the Houston and Texas

Central and the International. This route required the use of wagons between the end of the International's tracks and the Texas and Pacific line, but was considered a better route than the Red River.^ Jefferson definitely postponed a sharp decline in trade by including this provision in the contractus

In addition to its donation of $175,000 in city bonds,

Jefferson contributed eight blocks of land for a depot and a right of way through the city for the trunk and spur lines of the Texas and Pacific.^9 company first proposed a donation of twenty-one acres of land for a depot, and the city secured eighteen acres on the far northeast corner of

^Clarksville Northern Standard, May 17, 1873; ibid., July 26, 1873; ibid., May 10, 1873; ibid., June 17, 1573". ^^Ibid., February 22, 1872; Notes on Texas and the Texas and Pacific Railway, p. 11.

68Qiarksville Northern Standard, June 14, 1873. 69»Minutes of the Board," December 5, 1872, pp. 334-341; ibid., September 30, 1872, p. 293. 127 the city. Because of complaints that the depot site was too distant from the commercial center of activity, a committee selected a more suitable site and asked the landowners to make sealed proposals for selling it. Before purchasing the new depot site the Board consulted with Dodge and made a number of proposals to him. One of the propositions included an offer to donate the eighteen acres previously purchased for a depot and a tax exemption for five years if the Texas and Pacific would move their machine shops to Jefferson.71 Dodge selected the city blocks nearest the business part of Jefferson for the new depot site, but did not comment on the machine shop offer.72 The change of depot sites necessitated a change in the right-of-way for the trunk and spur lines. The trunk line was moved slightly nearer to the business section of the city, and the spur line connected the new depot site with the wharves on Big Cypress. The city agreed to reimburse the company for all outlays and expenditures it encountered in changing the location of its track and to pay the damages to property owners that resulted from the relocation.75

70"Minutes of the Board," August 10, 1872, pp. 253-256; ibid., September 30, 1872, p. 289; ibid., November 20, 1872, p. 319; ibid., November 25, 1872, pp. 321-322. 71lbid., November 25, 1872, p. 323. 72Ibid., November 29, 1872, pp. 324-325. 7^Ibid., December 6, 1872, pp. 334-341; ibid., November 29, 1872, p. 324; ibid., July 16, 1873, pp. 5-6. 123 city spent approximately $41,000 in purchasing land for the 74 depot and right-of-way for the tracks. Before the city fulfilled its obligations the Texas and Pacific had to agree to three conditions: (1) return the deed for eighteen acres of land originally selected for the depot site, (2) devote the donated land to the perpetual use of the company for general passenger and freight services, and (3) use the spur line for no other purpose than receiving and conveying supplies and materials for the company.^5 The T & P accepted the conditions and the Aldermen passed an ordinance donating the land to the company. Because the Aldermen considered the ordinance an emergency, they voted "by.a three- fourths majority to pass the ordinance without first publishing it in the newspaper.76 The Texas and Pacific railroad completed the Jefferson "branch to Marshall in the first week of July, 1873 and immediately began working northeastward toward Texarkana, eastern 77 terminus of the transcontinental route of the Texas and Pacific. 74nMinutes of the Board," December 16, 1872, p. 352. 75ibid., December 5, 1872, pp. 336-338. 76Ibid., December 12, 1872, p. 345. 77siireveport Times, n. d., cited in Clarksville Northern Standard, July 12, 1873; "Minutes of the Board," July 11, 1873, pp. 426-427; Jefferson Democrat, n. d., cited in Clarksville Northern Standard, July 19, 1873. The Texas and Pacific reached Dallas a month later. Clarksville Northern Standard, August 9, 1873. 129

Despite a yellow fever epidemic that threatened to stop construction, the Texas and Pacific reached Texarkana in September prior to the onset of the financial crisis of 1873.7® Before work halted on November 3, 1873, track had been laid eastward from Sherman about ninety-six miles to Brookston, Texas.79 Construction resumed in 1875, and by 1876 the Texas and Pacific had its track completed from Marshall to Port Worth via the Southern Pacific route and from Marshall to Sherman via the Jefferson branch and Transcontinental route.®® By 1876 farmers in northeast Texas could go in any direction and locate a railroad that would transport their crops to market with a minimum of delay and inconvenience. Once served exclusively by ox-wagons and steamboats, the farmers in northeast Texas were surrounded on four sides by the only two all-rail through routes from Texas to St. Louis and other eastern markets.®-'- Only a network of tracks within

78perkins, ojd. cit., pp. 253-254.

79jnterstate Commerce Commission, Valuation Reportst XXIX, 547; T. C. Richardson, 0£. cit., I, 372. 80interstate Commerce Commission, Valuation Reports, XXIX, 547. Scott never recovered from the 1873 depression and was forced to sell his interest in the Texas and Pacific to Jay Gould in 1879* Scott remained president of the company until 1881 when Gould, with only a minority interest, became president. Julius5Grodinsky, Jay Gould, His Business Career, 1867-1892 (Philadelphia, 1957), pp. 255-256, 263; TEe Dallas Weekly Herald, May 5, 1881, p. 2. 8LT . C. Richardson, o£. cit., I, 372, 130 the rectangle formed by T & P and the Houston and Texas Central could have made the situation more convenient for the farmers in northeast Texas. Having failed to secure direct railroad connections with this area earlier, Jefferson belatedly decided to construct a road parallel to the two T & P trunk lines that would terminate at its wharves. The city hoped that the central location of the railroad and the prospect of cheap water transportation would recapture some of its lost trade.

The East Line and Red River Railroad Company was first chartered in 1871 to run from Jefferson through Mount Pleasant, Sulphur Springs, and Sherman to the western limits of the state.In 1871 appeals were made to the city and county governments at Jefferson for $250,000 each, but there is no evidence of any elections being held and no donations were made.8-* In April, 1872, Marion County voted to donate $300,000 to the railroad and Jefferson pledged $200,000 in September.

Mayor L. T. Gray vetoed the ordinance granting city bonds to the East Line and Red River Railroad for the following reasons:

8^Gammel, o£. cit., YI, 1188.

Minutes of the Board," July 19, 1871, pp. 66-67; "Minutes of Com. Ct.," pp. 252-254. 131

1. Because of former appropriations, Jefferson could legally appropriate only $100,000 in city bonds. 2. The heavy debt and taxes already threatened the prosperity and existence of the city. 3. The contract had no restrictive clauses to protect the interest and well-being of the city.82'" Jefferson's pledge to issue city bonds to the East Line and Red River Railroad Company was actually a subscription to buy stock in the railroad. According to the city ordinance the company would issue the city railroad stock amounting to $100,000 for their $200,000 donation. The city would be represented on the board and able to vote according to the r5 amount of stock subscribed. Despite a pledge of $500,000 in bonds from Marion and Titus Counties and $250,000 cash subscribed by citizens, Mayor Gray predicted that the East Line and Red River was financially anable to construct the first ten miles of track Q/T even with the aid of the city. The mayor was partially correct. The company did not construct any road until 1876.8 7

84"Minutes of the-Board," September 16, 1872, pp. 279-280. For the complete veto message, see pp. 274-280. 8^Ibid., September 9, 1872, p. 271. 86Ibid., September 16, 1872, pp. 276-277. 87u. S. Department of the Interior, Statistical Report of the Railroads in the United States, Vol. IV of Tenth Census of the United States, 22 vols. (Washington, 1883), p. 385^ 132

In 1873 an amendment to the company's charter changed the intermediate destination of the railroad from Sherman, where the Houston and Texas Central railroad joined the Missouri, Kansas and Texas, to Greenville in Hunt County. It also provided for a grant from the state amounting to sixteen sections of land for each mile of track completed, and gave permission to Hopkins County to withdraw its offer of a subsidy to the company.in 1875 an amendment to the charter extended the time allowed for the completion of the railroad and granted Titus County permission to rev©k.e its $200,000 donation.89 Desperate for a restoration of trade with"our old friends . . . from here to Sulphur Springs and Greenville," the citizens of Jefferson responded to the call- for financial aid from the company in 1876.90 A letter to the editor of the Galveston Daily Hews explained that Every citizen aside from those intending to "build the road was asked to donate, and liberally did they respond; yet many of the promises to pay still remain unpaid, while a few refused to donate.91 With funds obtained from direct advances on stock, the issuance of capital stock, land certificates, and the sale

88Gammel, o£. cit., VII, 1133-1135. 89Gammel, o£. cit., VIII, 647-648. 90jefferson Daily Jimplecute, September 1, 1876. ^Galveston Daily News, February 4, 1883, p. 3. 135

of subscriptions, the East Line and Red River Railroad reached Greenville in 1881.92 Before the East Line and Red River Railroad had completed its track to Greenville, Jay Gould purchased controlling interest in the company.93 From November, 1881, to October, 1882, the East Line and Red River was leased to the Gould-

controlled Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company.94- jn 1888 a federal receivership took control of the railroad and ran it until 1891 when the Supreme Court of Texas declared its charter forfeited on the grounds that a foreign company could not own railroads in Texas. A receiver appointed by the state court controlled the road until 1893 when it was sold to H. W. Poor, a trustee representing the Missouri, Kansas and Texas

Railway Company.95 on March 8, 1893, Poor deeded the East Line

92jnterstate Commerce Commission, Valuation Reports, XXXIV (Washington, 1931), 626; The Dallas Weekly Herald, March 17, 1881, p. 6. 9^The Dallas Weekly Herald, July 28, 1881, p. 4; Address by Ex-Governor James S. Hogg, February 5, 1901, cited in Prank W. Johnson, A History of Texas and Texanst Vol. I edited by Eugene C. Barker, 5 Vols. Chicago,-lSlTJ7-p7 590.

94lnterstate Commerce Commission, Valuation Reports. XXXIV, 625. 95«Tixj_s is the first case in the history of this country where a receiver has been appointed over a railroad at the instance of the State and it is the first one where a charter has been forfeited in this State." Robert C. Cotner, editor, Addresses and State Papers of James Stephen Hogg, Centennial edition (Austin, 1951), p. 7£). 134 and Red River property to the Sherman, Shreveport and Southern Railway Company, a predecessor to the Katy of Texas railroad.96 Immediately after purchasing the East Line for $9,500 per mile, Gould mortgaged the road for $35,000 per mile, making a profit of $3,000,000 in the transaction.97 According to James Stephen Hogg, governor of Texas and proponent of the Texas Railroad Commission, Gould used none of the profit to repair the road. Freight rates increased and service decreased. 98 Within a few years, under the new management, the roadbed, rolling stock, depots, and general equipment became so out of repair that complaint "became general against it ... . It was absolutely so dangerous that a tramp would hardly ride in its best passenger coach.99 These conditions were hardly what the citizens of Jefferson had expected when they contributed to the construction of the Bast Line. Gould visited Jefferson in January, 1882. The myth that he was responsible for the decline of Jefferson stems from this visit. Gould supposedly asked for a bonus from the

96interstate Commerce Commission, Valuation Reports, XXXIV, 596. 97ootner, ££• cit., p. 88. James Stephen Hogg, governor of Texas, was inconsistent in quoting the purchasing price of the East Line and Red River Railroad Company. Cf. pp. 190, 235. 98Ibid., pp. 20, 235. "ibid., pp. 190-191. 135 citizens of Jefferson. When they refused his offer he allegedly prophesied that "Jefferson will see the day when bats will roost in its belfries and grass will grow in its streets."100 He then completed his curse upon the city by signing the guest register at the Excelsior Hotel with the picture of a blue jay and the epitaph "The End of Jefferson, Texas."101

By the end of 1882 the statement attributed to Gould was not a prophecy but an observation. Jefferson had lost half of her population, her property had depreciated 70 per cent, and her trade was declining despite the East Line and Red

River Railroad.102 jn 1875-1876, before the construction of the East Line, and before the Texas and Pacific had an all- rail route to St. Louis, Jefferson exported 40,333 bales of cotton, a 10,000 bale increase over 1874-1875."^^ In 1881 the town exported only 36,821 bales, over half of which had been brought to Jefferson's cotton compress by the East Line. Three fourths of the cotton went to St. Louis, Galveston, or

IQOshreveport Times, March 29, 1959; Houston Post, March 12, 1962, p. 7. IQlShreveport Times, April 8, 1962, p. 10-C. The guest register is on display at the Excelsior Hotel, Jefferson, Texas, courtesy of the Jesse Allen Wise Garden Club. lO^Galveston Daily News, September 1, 1881, p. 6.

l°^Jefferson Daily Jimplecute, September 1, 1876. 136

Eastern cities by railroad, and nearly all of her wool and hides were shipped to St. Louis, "none by water and all by rail." ^4 Jefferson's support of the East Line and Red River was a desperate attempt to regain commerce that had been taken away by the transcontinental railroads. The road had not been completed before some began to realize that their efforts were hopeless. The owners of the East Line were perhaps the first to admit defeat. Despite having made a profit on the road, they decided to sell their interests in 1881. They sold out because of the competition at either end of the East Line. Rather than compete these gentlemen accepted the fact that Jefferson could no longer attract the trade of northeast Texas. They emphasized their belief that Jefferson's reign as the commercial giant of northeast Texas had ended by investing their money in manufacturing. By 1881 "the pendulum had described its arc" and Jefferson had assumed its present position as a quiet, sleepy agricultural community, not unlike hundreds of other northeast Texas towns.

-LQ^Galveston Daily News, September 1, 1881, p. 6. CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSION

In 1845 Jefferson celebrated the arrival of its first steamboat. Twenty-eight years later a barbecue was held to celebrate the arrival of railroads. On both occasions the citizens were commemorating improvements in their transportation, yet each celebration introduced a new and very different era for Jefferson. The steamboat brought twenty- eight years of growth; the railroad initiated an indefinite period of decline.

Jefferson grew in size and importance because it was fortunate enough to be located at the head of a navigable stream that connected with the Red River, rail transportation was negligible, and roads were often impassible. As the population of east, northeast, and north central Texas increased and the number of competitors for trade decreased, Jefferson became the leading commercial and distribution center in north Texas.

In the 1850's Jefferson made steady progress as an inland port. Its trade increased as federal and state attempts to destroy the Red River raft either failed or never became operative. This preserved Jefferson^ river transportation and severely restricted navigation to its competitors

137 13© on the upper Red River. With an appropriation from the state for the improvement of navigation on Big Cypress, Jefferson entered the Civil War confident that river navigation to its wharves would continue unabated.

Railroad construction "before the war did not alarm

Jefferson and certainly constituted no threat to its commerce. Most of the construction attempts failed, and those few roads constructed near Jefferson had no connections to eastern markets. The Memphis, El Paso and Pacific railroad posed the "biggest potential threat to Jefferson, "but in an attempt to obtain supplies, it delayed construction on its main line to build a branch line to Jefferson. This left

Jefferson with the impression that railroads needed river transportation and helped to assure the town that railroads would have to build to its limits.

The era of the Civil War and Reconstruction proved to be the most profitable twelve years in the history of Jeffer- son. All the conditions necessary for continued growth and prosperity were perfect. The raft remained untouched until

1872, immigration resumed, and practically no railroad or river port competitors existed to challenge the city's monopoly of the trade in northeast Texas.

The Radicals who controlled Jefferson during Recon- struction had no adverse influence on Jefferson's financial prosperity. They vigorously attempted to obtain railroads 139 for the city and went into debt for the navigational improvement of Big Cypress, but nothing they did can be associated with the loss of commerce and decline of prosperity that followed. Prom the end of the Civil War until 1881 Jefferson either verbally or financially supported the construction of railroads to its limits. The city never opposed any railroad whose charter provided for the construction of a track through the city. Despite an awareness that railroads could divert trade to other points, Jefferson had no alternative but to encourage their extension to its limits. If the fanners of northeast Texas had been given a choice between an ox-wagon to Jefferson or a locomotive to St. Louis and beyond, their decision would have been obvious and Jefferson*s loss of trade a certainty. Only by providing railroad transportation to its warehouses could Jefferson remove the ox—wagon as an impediment to its commercial importance and give steamboats an equal opportunity to compete with the all-rail route to Eastern markets. Despite such enticements as city bonds, free land, river transportation, and a large and wealthy population, Jefferson never acquired railroads in sufficient numbers to make it a rail center. Three general reasons explain the failure. First, a number of proposed railroads projected their routes through Jefferson, but for various reasons they 140 were either not built or stopped before reaching Jefferson. Second, some railroads built along routes that had been determined by the terrain of the country and by the projected routes of existing railroads. Unfortunately none of these passed through Jefferson. Third, the promise of free land, city bonds, a large population, and river transportation was not sufficient lure to warrant the construction of additional railroads to Jefferson. Before and after the Civil War many railroads failed to materialize because of speculation, insufficient financing, and political influence. The Memphis, El Paso and Pacific and the International were two railroads that might have given Jefferson the additional trade it needed tOvchange from a commercial center dependent upon an unstable waterway to a commercial center based upon rail transportation. When transcontinental railroads reached Texas in the ISTO's trade still would have been diverted to St. Louis and the Eastern cities, but the effect would have been less pronounced and Jefferson's chances of becoming a railroad center would have been much greater. The projection of railroads into Texas along routes determined by natural barriers and previously constructed railroads was a factor over which neither Jefferson nor any- one else had much control. The site of Jefferson had been selected because steamboats could reach it, but it was not 141 ideally located for railroads entering Texas. The statefs attempt to construct a network of railroads through, the rich agricultural regions of central Texas combined with federal efforts to "build a transcontinental railroad near the thirty-second parallel resulted in the exclusion of Jefferson from the trunk line of any major railroad. It eventually became a way-station on the branch line connecting the two main tracks of the Texas and Pacific Railroad. In attempting to attract railroads Jefferson erred in assuming that financial assistance, population and water transportation would bring railroads to the city and that the railroad would in turn deposit the trade of northeast Texas at its wharves. Jefferson^ most influential citizens were drawn from the commercial class. As such, they failed to place as much emphasis on manufacturing as the situation demanded. Stimulated by the demands of the Civil War, Jefferson had become Texas' second leading industrial center by 1870, but manufacturing remained secondary to commerce as an economic factor in the growth of the city. Because industry developed in the shadow of water transportation, the commercially oriented citizens did not consider it a means of attracting railroads. To them, transportation came first and industry followed. As a result, the city spent a great deal of money subsidizing rail and water transportation, but none on industrialization. Rather than actively supporting 142 industrial projects that might have caused railroads to "build to their city, or constructing branch lines of their own, the citizens continued to trust in an outmoded form of transportation for their salvation. This accounts for the Daily Jimplecute's contention that Jefferson's commerce declined because of a lack of enterprise on the part of the local citizenry.

Confidence in water transportation received a severe blow in 1873 when the federal government succeeded in cutting a channel through the Red River raft. Although Jefferson mouonad the loss of an old and trusted ally, the removal of the raft had very little effect on the town's loss of trade. If the raft had been removed in the 1850's or 1860's it would have been the major factor in Jefferson's decline, but after railroads from the East reached Texas the raft no longer had the power of life and death over Jefferson. Railroads replaced the raft in that capacity. Retention of the raft after 1873 might have slowed the decline of Jefferson, but it would not have prevented it.

The fatal blow to Jefferson came late in 1873 when the Texas and Pacific Railroad connected with a line running to St. Louis, thus becoming the second all-rail route from Texas to St. Louis that passed through northeast Texas. Trade

that had once been reserved exclusively for Jefferson could be shipped to market by rail faster, cheaper, more regularly, 145 and more conveniently than had ever been possible by steamboats from Jefferson.

Once the trade at Jefferson had been diverted to other centers of commerce, no way remained to stop the decline. .

The loss of commerce caused a decrease in property values, a decline in population, and an increase in the per capita proportion of the city debt. As taxes increased and business became stagnant, the commercial citizens of Jefferson migrated to other places. The loss of population and wealth further decreased the city's chances of recovery and the downward spiral continued.

The loss of trade—and perhaps the decline of Jefferson— was inevitable. The city became a prosperous commercial center only because temporary conditions gave it an unchallenged monopoly of trade. The existence of the Red River raft and the absence of railroads made Jefferson commercially important despite its unlikely location for such a business. When the conditions which made Jefferson prosperous vanished, so did the basis for commercial growth. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books Bradstreetfs Reports, Vol. XXXIII ^~New York, J. M. Bradstreet and Son, 1873_/. Clark, Ira G., Then Came the Railroads, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1958. Cotner, Robert C., Addresses and State Papers of James Stephen Hogg, Centennial Edition, Austin, University of Texas Press, 1951. Dallam, James Wilmer, A Digest of the Laws of Texas, Baltimore, James D. Toy, 1845". A Digest of the Laws of the City of Jefferson, Texas, Jefferson, 1870. Edward, David B., The History of Texas, Cincinnati, J. A. James and Company, 1835. Forney, John W., What I Saw in Texas, Philadelphia, Ringwalt and Brown ±QrJ2_/. Gammel, H. P. U., The Laws of Texas, 10 vols., 4-ustin, The Gammel Book Company, 1898. Gray, A. C., "History of the Texas Press," Vol. II of A Com- prehensive History of Texas, edited "by Dudley G. Wooten (2 volumes), Dallas, William G. Scarff, 1898. Grodinsky, Julius, Jay Gould, His Business Career, 1867-1892, Philadelphia, University oY~Pennsylvania Press, 1957• , Transcontinental Railway Strategy, 1860- 1893, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 19^2". Hogan, William Ransom, The Texas Republic, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1945"! Holden, William Curry, Alkali Trails, or Social and Economic Movements of the Texas Frontier, Dallas, The Southwest Press, 19357 144 145

Hunter, Louis C., Steamboats on the Western Rivers, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1949. Jackson, George, Sixty Years in Texas, Dallas, Wilkinson Printing Company, 1908. Johnson, Frank Vif., A History of Texas and Texans, Vols. I-II, edited by Eugene C. Barker (5 volumes), Chicago, and New York, The American Historical Society, 1914. Kennedy, William, Texas, She Rise, Progress, and Prospects of the Republic of Texas (2 volumes)7 Fort Worth, The Malyneau Craftsmen, reprint, 1922. Lathrop, Barnes P., Migration into East Texas, 1835-1860, Austin, The Texas State Historical Association, 1949* McKay, Mrs. Arch and Mrs. H. A. Spellings, A History of Jefferson, 1836-1936, 5th edition, JefFerson, n.~~

Bamsdell, Charles William, Reconstruction in Texas, New York, Columbia University, 1910. Rankin, Melinda, Texas in 1850, Boston, Damrill and Moore, 1852. Reed, S. G., A History of the Texas Railroads, Houston, The St. Clair Publishing Company, 1941. Richardson, Rupert Norval, Texas, The Lone Star State, 2nd edition, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1958. Richardson, T. C., East Texas, Its History and Its Makers, Vols. I—III, edited by Dabney White i4'i volumes), New York, Lewis Historical Publishing Company, 1940. Smith, Edward, Account of a Journey Through North-Eastern Texas, London, Hamilton, Adams, and Company, 1849. Smithers, Harriet, editor, The Senate Journals, Sixth Congress, Vol. I of the Journals of the Sixth Congress of the Republic of Texas (.2 volumes), Austin, Texas STa^e Library and Historical Commission, 1940. Spratt, John S., The Road to Spindletop, Dallas, Southern Methodist University Press, 1955. Texas, a Guide to the Lone Star State, New York, Works Project Administration, Hastings House, 1940. Texas in 1840 or The Emigrant Guide to the New Republic, New "York, William A. Allen, 1840. Webb, Walter Prescott and Carroll. H. Bailey, editors, The Handbook of Texas (2 volumes), Austin, The Texas State HistoricaTllssociat ion, 1952. Williams, Prank E., "The Geography of the Mississippi Valley," Great Inland Water-way Projects in the United States, Vol. CiLXJLV of the Annual of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, Philadelphia, 1928.

Articles Armstrong, A. B., "The Origins of the Texas and Pacific Rail- road," Southwestern Historical Quarterly, LVI (April. 19535, 459-497. * 147

Caldwell, Norman W.. "The Red River Raft," Chronicles of Oklahoma, XIX (August, 1941), 253-268. Connor, Seymour V., "The Evolution of County Government in the Republic of.Texas," Southwestern Historical Quarterly, LV (October, 1951), 163-2M~. Dugas, Vera Lee, "Texas Industry, 1860-1880." Southwestern Historical Quarterly, LIX (April, 1956;, 151-183. Foreman, Grant, "River Navigation in the Early Southwest," Mississippi "Valley Historical Review, XV (April, 1929) * 1-65. Hardin, J. Fair, "An Outline of Shreveport and Caddo Parish History," Louisiana Historical Quarterly, XVIII (October, 1935), 759=572: Jones, R. L., "The Autobiography of Andrew Davis," Southwestern Historical Quarterly, XLIII (October, 1939), 158-175. Lentz, Sallie M., "Highlights of Early Harrison County," Southwestern Historical Quarterly, LXI (April, 1958), 241-256. McKay, S. S., "Texas and the Southern Pacific Railroad, 1848- 1860," Southwestern Historical Quarterly, XXXV (January, 1932), T^T. Miller, E. T., "The Historical Development of the Texas State Tax System," Southwestern Historical Quarterly, LV (July, 1951), 1-30. Norman, N. Philip, "The Red River of the South," Louisiana Historical Quarterly, XXV (January, 1942), 397-535. Vandiver, Frank E., "Texas and the Confederate Army's Meat Problem," Southwestern Historical Quarterly, XLVII (July, 1944), 225-233. ?/illiams, J. W., "The National Road of the Republic of Texas," Southwestern Historical Quarterly, XLVIII (January, 1944), 207-224.

Public Documents Congressional Record, 44th Congress, 1st Session, Vol. IV, Pt. V, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1876. IS 8

House Documents, 58th Congress, 3rd Session, No. 425, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1907• House Documents, 63rd Congress, 3rd Session, No. 1408, Pt. 2, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1913.

House Executive Documentst 23rd Congress, 1st Session, No. 98, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1834. House Executive Documents, 25th Congress, 3rd Session, No. 2, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1839•

House Executive Documentst 33rd Congress, 2nd Session, No. 91, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1855. House Executive Documents, 43rd Congress, 1st Session, No. 1, Pt. 2, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1874. House Executive Documents, 44th Congress, 1st Session, No. 1 Pt. 2, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1875. House Executive Documents, 45th Congress, 3rd Session, No. 39» Washington, Government Printing Office, 1879. House Executive Documents, 48th Congress, 1st Session, No. 64, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1884. Interstate Commerce Commission, Valuation Reports, Vol. XXIX, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1930. Interstate Commerce Commission, Valuation Reports, Vol. XXXIV, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1931. Senate Documents, 20th Congress, 2nd Session, No. 78, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1829. Senate Documents, 29th Congress, 1st Session, No. 26, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1846. Senate Executive Documents, 24th Congress, 2nd Session, No. 2, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1837. Senate Executive Documents, 27th Congress, 1st Session, No.64, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1842. Senate Executive Documents, 45th Congress, 3rd Session, No. 42, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1879. Senate Miscellaneous Documents, 42nd Congress, 2nd Session, No.92, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1872. 149.

Senate Beportst 49th Congress, 1st Session, No. 1391, Washing- ton, Government Printing Office, 1886. Senate Reports, 62nd Congress, 2nd Session, No. 679, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1912. U. S. Congress, American State Papers, Vol. VII (38 volumes), Indian Affairs, Vol. I (2 volumes), Washington, Gales and Seaton, 1832. U. S. Department of the Interior, Agriculture of the United States in I860, Vol. II of Eighth Census of the United States XT volumes), Washington, GovernmenTTPrinting Office, 1864. U. S. Department of the Interior, Compendium of the Tenth Census of the United States, Part I, WasETngton, Government Printing Office, 1885. U. S. Department of the Interior, Manufactures of the United States in I860, Vol. Ill of Eighth Census o? the United States volumes), Washington, Government~~Frinting Office, 1865. U. S. Department of the Interior, Manufactures of the United States in 1880, Vol. II of Tenth Census ofThe United States X%2 volumes), Washington, Government Printing Office, 1883. U. S. Department of the Interior, Population of the United States in I860, Vol. I of Eightn Census oT the United States IT volumes), Washington, Government" Printing Office, 1864. U. S. Department of the Interior, Population of the United States in 1870, Vol. I.of Ninth Census of the United States (9T volumes), Washington, Government Printing; Office, 1872. U. S. Department of the Interior, Social Statistics of Cities in the United States in 1880, Vol. XIX of Ten-EhUensus oT the United States X?2 volumes), Washington, Government Printing Office, 1887.

U. S. Department of the Interior, Statistical Report of the Railroads in the United States in 1880, Vol. tV oT Tenth Census of tEe United States, WaSEington, Government Printing Office, 1883. 150

U. S. Department of the Interior, Statistics of the Wealth and Industry of the United States in 186U7 Vol. XII of Ninth Census oT the United States 1[T volumes), Washington, Government Printing Office, 1872.

Newspapers Acheson, Sam, "Jefferson's Feud with Jay Gould," The Dallas Morning News, May 6, 1954. Clarksville Northern Standard, March 5, 1859-August 9, 1873. The Dallas Morning News, March 17, 1881. The Dallas Weekly Herald, May 5, 1881, July 28, 1881. Galveston Daily News, September 1, 1880, September 1, 1881, February 4, 1883. The Home Advocate /""Jefferson 71 June 4, 1869. Houston Post, March 12, 1962. Jefferson Daily Democrat, December 21, 1873. Jefferson Daily Jimplecute, September 1, 1876. Jefferson Herald, August 13, 1853. Jefferson Radical, November 13, 1868, December 4, 1868, December 18, 1868. Marshall News Messenger, January 9» 1880, December 9, 1881, UovemBi? 10, 196:5. Marshall Texas Republican, March 7, 1868, September 8, 1868, October 30, 1868, November 6, 1868, November 27, 1868. Shreveport South-Western, July 20, 1864. Shreveport Times, March 29, 1959* The Texas New Yorker ^"New York_J7, April 14, 1873. Walton, Seth, "The Railroad During the Civil War Period," Marshall News Messenger, November 10, 1963. 151

The Weekly Harrison Flag /~Marshall_7, January 7, 1869, February 4, 1869, February 18, 1869, April 1, 1869, May 13, 1869, May 20, 1869, July 15, I869, August 19, 1869, August 26, 186§, September 23, I869, April 1, 1880.

Almanacs Texas Almanac 1858, Galveston, Richardson and Company, 1857. Texas Almanac 1861, Galveston, Richardson and Company, 1860. Texas Almanac 1862, Houston, Richardson and Company, 1861. Texas Almanac 1863, Houston, Richardson and Company, 1862. Texas Almanac 1865, Galveston, Richardson and Company, 1864. Texas Almanac 1867, Galveston, Richardson and Company, 1866. Texas Almanac 1868, Galveston, Richardson and Company, I867. Texas Almanac 1870, Galveston, Richardson and Company, I869. Texas Almanac 1871, Galveston, Richardson and Company, 1870. Texas Almanac 1872, Galveston, Richardson and Company, 1871< Texas Almanac 1873, Galveston, Richardson and Company, 1872. Texas Almanac 1964-65, Dallas, A. H. Belo Corporation, 1963.

Manuscripts and Collections Dickinson, J. L., "Points of Interest in Marion County, Texas," Earl Yandale Collection, University of Texas Archives, Austin, Texas. Excelsior Hotel guest register, January 2, 1882, on display at the Excelsior Hotel, courtesy of the Jesse Allen Wise Garden Club, Jefferson, Texas. Jefferson, Texas, "Minutes of the Meetings of the Board of Aldermen," City Hall, Jefferson. Marion County, "Minutes of Commissioners Court," Office of the County.Clerk, Jefferson. 15?

Marion County, Petition of Marion County Citizens Regarding a Compromise and Adjustment of Differences Between the International Railroad Company and the State, Memorial No. 192, May 7, 1873, Texas State Library, Archives Division, Austin, Texas. Marion County Scrapbook and Obituary, A-Z, The Eugene C. Barker Texas History Center, University of Texas Library, Austin, Texas. Texas General Land Office, Records of Land Grants, File: Morris County, Red River-2-114, Austin /"photostatic copy J. U. S. War Department, Records of the War Department, Office of the Adjutant General, Record Group No. 94 /excerpt 7, Orders of the Fifth Military District, National Archives of the United States, Washington, 1934 /cop1_J>

Maps, Markers, and Pamphlets Arrowsmith, John, Map of Texas, 1841, London, 1841, No. 438, Archives Division, Texas State Library, Austin. The City of Jefferson as a Manufacturing District, Jefferson, /privately printed__/, /_ 1872_/. Documents and Opinions Relating to the International Railway CompaHF~s13laim onTRe 5tate~0rTexas / 1872 A Hunt, Richard S. and Jesse F. Fandel, Map of Texas, 1839, New York, 1839* Marion County, Marker, Courthouse lawn, erected in 1936 by the State of Texas. "Notes on the Texas and Pacific Railway," Philadelphia, 1873. Whittle, Jean P., Map of Jefferson, Texas, drawn for the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Dallas, 1950.

Unpublished Materials Burnett, Earline Hart, "A History of the First Methodist Church,Jefferson, Texas, 1844-1954," unpublished master's thesis, Department of History, Stephen F. Austin State College, Nacogdoches, Texas, 1954. 153

Guardia, John Edward, "Successive Human Adjustments to Raft Conditions in Lower Red River Valley," unpublished master's thesis, Department of Geology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 1927* Russell, Norman Calvin, "The History of Titus County Since I860," unpublished master's thesis, Department of History, East Texas State Teachers College, Commerce, Texas, 1937. Singletary, Ollie, "A History of the Iron Industry of North- east Texas," unpublished master's thesis, Department of History, East Texas State Teachers College, Commerce, Texas, 1951.