# History of Mexico (Bancroft)/Volume 5/Chapter 7

Table of Contents
CHAPTER VII.
TEXAN INDEPENDENCE; MEXICO’S CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT.
1819-1841.
Boundary Line — American Aims — Long's Invasions — Colonization Plans — Colonies Formed by Austin and Others — Mexico's Liberal Policy — Coahuila and Texas — Stephen F. Austin's Imprisonment — Texas Separates from Coahuila — Revolutionary Acts — Mexican Troops Assailed — San Antonio de Béjar Taken — Course of the United States Neutrality Violated — American Troops Invade Texas — Declaration of Independence by Texas — Texan Garrison at Álamo Massacred — Battle of San Jacinto, and its Results — President Corro's Administration — President Bustamante — Spain Recognizes Mexican Nationality — Financial Distress — Political Troubles
The province of Texas, situated on the gulf of Mexico between the United States of North America and the Rio Grande, and between latitudes 26° 50′ and 36° 30′, had been for some time, prior to 1819, a subject of disagreement between the American republic and Spain, the former claiming that Louisiana ex tended to the Rio Grande. Her great desire, how ever, was to own Florida in order to possess the whole range of coast from the Sabine River to Nova Scotia. After getting possession of that peninsula the government of the United States voluntarily gave up its alleged right to Texas, by the treaty of February 22, 1819, concluded between the secretary of state, John Quincy Adams, and the Spanish plenipotentiary Luis de Onis. But that treaty caused much dissatisfaction ​on the part of the western and south-western states of the American Union, and it was opposed by many of her most prominent statesinen.
In the following year, under the so-called Missouri compromise, entered into by the slave-holders of the southern states, slavery was not to be extended north of 36° 30'. This compromise, together with the southern boundary stipulated in the Adams-Onis treaty, greatly reduced the area in which slave states might be formed.
The state of Louisiana was separated from Texas by the Sabine River, and it becane desirable to acquire the latter province for the benefit of the slaveholding interest. Several devices were thought of to accomplish that purpose. The first one attempted was that of forcible seizure shortly after the treaty with Spain was concluded. The leader of that movement was James Long, a Tennesseean, who with about 75 men started from Natchez on the 17th of June, 1819, and reached Nacogdoches in Texas. On the 23d of that month he issued a proclamation styling himself president of the supreme council of Texas, and declaring that "the citizens of Texas have long indulged the hope that in the adjustment of the boundaries of the Spanish possessions in America, and of the territories of the United States, they should be included within the limits of the latter." The proclamation of independence of the republic of Texas then followed. Long established a provisional government at Nacogdoches, and then went to Galveston to secure the aid of the buccaneer Lafitte. In his absence the royalist troops routed his force, of whom a number were killed, the rest being taken prisoners. Long made a second invasion, and without difficulty possessed himself of La Bahía del Espíritu Santo. This was after New Spain had acquired her ​independence. Long and his followers were captured and taken as prisoners to Mexico.
The next device resorted to in the scheme for wresting Texas from New Spain was that of colonization. Under the 5th article of the Spanish treaty, the inhabitants of the territories ceded to the east and north of the line designated in the 3d article could transfer themselves at any time to the Spanish dominions. Under this clause Moses Austin petitioned Brigadier Arredondo, governor of the eastern provincias internas, for leave to settle in Texas 300 families, which petition was supported by the few ayuntamientos in Texas, and by Brigadier Antonio Martinez, military commandant of the province. On January 17, 1821, the viceroy directed Commandant Martinez to allow Austin to establish his colonies on the right bank of the Rio Brazos at the distance of 90 miles from the coast, but under the condition that the families were to be from Louisiana, of good moral character, and professing the Roman catholic religion. They might bring their slaves with them, and were required to take an oath of allegiance to the Spanish crown, and of obedience to its laws and authorities in Texas. While these arrangements were being completed Moses Austin died in June 1821, and his son Stephen F. Austin inherited the grant, and carried it into effect midst all the difficulties resulting from the disturbed condition of Mexico.
Since the passage by the constituent congress of a ​general colonization law leaving the state governments free to regulate the establishment of colonies within their respective territories, several legislatures formed rules for promoting the occupation of their wild lands for industrial purposes.
With the adoption of the federal form of government in Mexico, Texas was united to Coahuila, the two former provinces now forming one state, which in its sovereign capacity made to Austin several grants, among them that of settling eight hundred families, for which he was assigned a larger extent of land. Austin was an active, industrious man, and laboring assiduously in carrying out his colonization schemes, succeeded in planting colonies on the Brazos and Colorado rivers near San Antonio de Béjar, which early in the third decade of this century were already in a flourishing condition.
Austin was not the only person to whom such grants were made in Texas; they were made to all foreigners asking for them, and the country thus became in a short time populated by about eight thousand families of different races, religions, and habits, and by adventurers from all parts of the world, many of whom took possession of such land as suited them, with no better title than that afforded them by their rifles. All settlers were exempt from taxation during seven years under a Mexican law. This state of affairs greatly facilitated smuggling on the frontier states, to the injury of the Mexican revenue.
Such was the condition of Texas when President Victoria's administration appointed a commission in ​1827, with General Manuel Mier y Teran as its chief, to ascertain the boundary line between the Mexican and American republics under the treaty of 1819. Teran then had an opportunity of observing the giant springing up in that portion of his country. He went as far as Laredo and San Antonio de Béjar, and examined nearly the whole of that region. Austin's colonists were almost all Americans, and of the same nationality were those who in 1826 settled the western line of the Colorado and Nueces. For this reason the American government and people became the more anxious for the acquisition of Texas, which was made manifest in various ways; namely, by offers to purchase, by throwing obstacles in the way of the treaty of limits to delay its becoming effective, and by attempting to extend the boundary of Louisiana beyond the Sabine River.
The impression had meantime been gaining ground in Mexico that there was serious danger of a disruption of Texas from the republic. Indeed, there were divers good reasons for that apprehension, the chief being the class of population, with its manners and customs, language, religious toleration, and love of liberty. The conquests of industry and ​enlightenment are above all others solid and irrepressible. Only men inexperienced in the ways of human nature, or blinded by their ignorance and pride, could have entertained the idea that a mere government decree could undo what had been done by an aggressive, resolute people such as now held Texas for themselves and future comers. Had the Mexican government been guided by wise and generous counsels, it might have secured for the whole country benefits from this immigration by giving to its guests good laws and guaranties, thereby winning their good will and confidence; instead of which, the retrogressive administration of Bustamante, whose guiding spirit was Lúcas Alaman, attempted to solve the problem with a few lines involving a hostile declaration against a rich and powerful neighbor, whose policy consists in'making practical the principles of the most unrestricted liberty. The law of April 6, 1830, prohibited the colonization by foreigners on lands situate within states or territories of the republic adjoining those of their nationality. It suspended all contracts that had not been carried out, or that were not strictly within the letter of it. The law proposed to form colonies on such lands with convicts from Vera Cruz and elsewhere; foreigners coming into Mexico through the northern frontier were to have passports from agents of the Mexican government; land contracts were to be revised to ascertain how the contractors had carried them out; military posts and garrisons and customhouses were to be established at once. The law did not name Texas, but that was the only state which could have been contemplated by those enactments. ​Teran was commissioned to carry out these enactments. It was no easy task; for it will be readily understood how impracticable it must have been for Mexico, where civil war was the normal condition, to make such a policy effective with colonists so advanced and powerful. Teran, however, began his difficult duty, entering Texas with a considerable force of infantry
and cavalry, including presidial companies. He appointed officials, and declared null and void, or at least suspended for reconsideration, a number of land grants made by the government of Coahuila.
​But the differences between the Texan settlers and the Mexican authorities had begun even at an earlier date, and doubtless prompted the adoption by Mexico of restrictive measures. One of the colonies was that of Hayden Edwards in eastern Texas — founded about the same time as Austin's — which soon was involved in difficulties with its Mexican neighbors, and through them with the authorities. Governor Blanco having ignored Edwards' claim, about 300 of his men, who were known as Fredonians, attempted January 1827, a revolution with the assistance of the Indians, and intrenched themselves at Nacogdoches; but being abandoned by the red men on the approach of a Mexican force, they retreated across the Sabine. The Mexican congress thereupon empowered the executive to employ military force to quell Texan disturbances.
One circumstance confronted the Texas settlers to their displeasure, as well as that of the slave-owners in the American border states; it was the Mexican policy of abolishing slavery. Previously the slaveholders in these states looked upon Mexico with less jealousy. The planters could cross the line with their slaves, and there was no apprehension with regard to the recovery of fugitive slaves. But after the Mexican government, on the 13th of July, 1824, strictly forbade the importation of slaves from foreign countries, border relations became much changed. Subsequent enactments aimed at the total abolition of slavery, whose future area would, therefore, be still further contracted, frustrated the views of the Texan settlers, and discouraged future importations of slaves from the southern states. This condition of things both alarmed and irritated the supporters of ​the slave-holding interest. It is needless to say that Mexico's humane and enlightened policy was rendered nugatory by that interest. The southern slave laws became firmly implanted.
The execution of the decree of April 6, 1830, with its attendant coercive measures, including imprisonment of citizens, superadded to Texan sympathy with the movement in favor of federalism in Mexico, gave rise to an uninterrupted series of partial revolts at different settlements, which daily increased the insubordination of the colonists and their animosity toward the powers placed over them by the Mexican government. Garrisons were assailed and destroyed, or compelled to surrender; and at the end of 1831 a sort of provisional government had been set up.
The liberal party having soon after been restored to power in Mexico, these movements did not for a time lead to serious consequences. There was a lull in the troubles of Texas. But the Texans had not changed their views as to the desirability of having a government separate from that of Coahuila. A council was held at San Felipe, the head town of Austin's colony, and a constitution adopted for the state of ​Texas. A commission, composed of Austin, Wharton, and Miller, was appointed to lay before the congress of Mexico a memorial setting forth the grievances of the people, and a petition for their relief. Austin was the only commissioner that went to Mexico. His arrival was at an inopportune time, the whole country being in a state of revolution. Under the circumstances the congress showed no disposition to listen to Texan complaints. Austin was put off from time to time with unfulfilled promises till he began to lose patience; still, unwilling to go back without trying every expedient, he remained in Mexico, but wrote a letter to the municipalities of Texas urging them to complete their organization of a state government. That letter was intercepted, and Austin was arrested at Saltillo, brought to Mexico and thrown into prison, and kept therein several months. During his imprisonment, the Mexican government despatched Colonel J. N. Almonte to visit Texas, and report his observations. In January 1835 he published a portion of his official report, which, though showing indifference and ignorance on the part of Mexico in regard to Texas, was still a link in the chain of historical evidence. He pretended that the political ​dissensions of Mexico were seldom, if ever, felt in Texas, which was far from being true. His aim evidently was to draw Mexicans to settle in Texas.
In 1835 the Texans appointed committees of safety, and resolved upon having a separate government, the war-cloud was darkening and foreboding ill. Large bodies of Mexican troops were crowding into Texas with the evident purpose of subjugation. The Texans, on their part, were resolute, and soon began to show their spirit in a series of assaults on Mexican garrisons, which met with success. I give in a note the main particulars of these encounters.
On the 3d of November, 1835, the delegates chosen the preceding month to a general consultation met at ​San Felipe de Austin, and at once constituted a provisional government, with a governor, lieutenant-governor, and general council to consist of one member from each municipality. Samuel Houston was made commander-in-chief of the army, and Stephen F. Austin, Branch T. Archer, and W. H. Wharton were appointed commissioners to represent the wants of Texas in the United States, soliciting aid to prosecute the war.
A declaration was likewise issued regarding the causes that prompted their movement. It will be seen that no intention is manifested as yet of severing the connection with Mexico. The authors of that instrument merely assert their claim to sustain by force of arms their rights and liberties, and the federal constitution of Mexico as adopted in 1824. The die was cast, however, and the consequences to be expected were a bloody war and possibly defeat with the horrors of Mexican vengeance. Urgent appeals for resources had been made beforehand to friends in the south of the American union, who were not urged in vain; and from this time the Texans were in constant receipt of money, provisions, arms, ammunition, and even fighting men openly enlisted in ​New Orleans and other parts. The cause of the insurrection was also encouraged and supported by the press and at public meetings.
In this connection with Texan affairs, it will be well to consider what course was pursued by the government of the United States, and what efforts, if any, were made by it to prevent acts which were open violations of the neutrality laws. The attention of the secretary of state having been repeatedly called by the Mexican legation to the fact that war material and armed expeditions were constantly leaving for Texas to wage war against Mexico, with which power the United States were at peace, orders were transmitted to the several districts to prevent such acts. The secretary assured that legation that it was the wish and resolve of the United States to preserve the neutrality; and in January 1836 added that the government would use every endeavor as far as possible to prevent injury to Mexico; but that "for the conduct of individuals which the government of the United States could not control, it was not in any way responsible." This seems to have been the loop-hole through which the American government sought to escape responsibility; for the fact stands that none of its alleged efforts availed to prevent the departure of men and supplies to aid the Texan belligerents. Nor was this all. The United States government shortly after resolved upon the military occupation of Texan territory. The ground for this action was a reported disaffection of a number of tribes or fragments of tribes of Texan Indians, and of some others that had formerly dwelt in United States territory. The people of Texas were glad, for political as well as economical reasons, to have United States troops ​at Fort Gibson, and intentionally spread reports of intended Indian raids, most of which were unfounded. The result was that after peace was established in Texas, and when the people were organizing a civil government, American troops had been stationed upward of a month among them. A long correspondence passed on this and other subjects connected with Texas, bet ween Gorostiza, the Mexican minister at Washington, and Forsyth, the secretary of state, from March 9th to October 15th, the former chiefly complaining of the measures then in progress for the violation of Mexican territory under the pretence of punishing Indians; and the latter asserting that the advance of the American forces under General Gaines to Nacogdoches was a measure of necessity; that through Mexico's inability to restrain the Indians, it had become imperative on the United States to protect their citizens, and that such a course was in accordance with treaty stipulations. Finally, in consequence of what Gorostiza conceived to be an invasion of Mexican territory by the United States, he on the 15th of October wrote a long letter of remonstrance to the secretary of state, concluding that he considered his mission at an end, and requesting his passports, which were transmitted to him on the 20th.
​The men at the head of the new centralized governiment of Mexico showed their incompetency to deal with the Texan insurrection. It is true that they made a lame effort to conciliate the rebels with the offer of a further exemption from all taxation during the next ten years, but on the 30th of December, 1835, they passed a law by which they foolishly expected to check the swelling of the Texan ranks from the United States. The offer came too late, and the law produced no other effect than a number of horrible massacres, and the consequent exasperation of the victims' sympathizers, together with a nmore determined resistance.
Those in power misunderstood the difficulties they had to contend with, namely, the character of a population which might be exterminated, perhaps, but never subdued, and the natural obstacles offered by the region and climate. They seemed to think that in a contest between Mexican soldiers and colonists, the latter must of course succumb; but they did not consider that those soldiers would be fighting at a distance of about 600 miles fronm home, while the Texans were fighting for their hearths on their own ground.
The Texans now concluded, in view of Mexico's hostile attitude toward them, to sever all connection with that country; and on the 2d of March, 1836, in convention assembled at Washington, on the Brazos, ​unanimously adopted a declaration of independence, which in synoptical form I give below. The arguments of the declaration are quite assailable. It is not true that the settlers were invited and admitted under the faith of a compact in the form of a republican constitution. Mexico acceded to the petitions of the first colonists when she was still under vice-regal rule, as an appendage of Spain. The changes subsequently experienced in the institutions could not justify their defection. An insignificant minority, as the Texans then were, had no right to arrange the whole country's administration to its own liking. If that minority disliked the changes, it was at liberty to leave the country. In the political vicissitudes of the Mexican republic, Texas, as an integral portion, had to bear her part of neglect, burdens, and general troubles, like the other states and territories, neither more nor less. Military coercive measures, unwise or brutal though they undoubtedly were, resulted from the general political disturbance; and so far ​as they affected Texas, in the revolt against the legally or illegally constituted authorities, they were no worse than those dealt to citizens of other parts of the country under similar circumstances. The fact is, that the Texan rebellion and secession were the result of a preconcerted plan, as alluded to early in this chapter, to establish a market for African slaves in contempt of the Mexican laws, and afterward to annex the new country to the United States. It might have been, perhaps, more honorable, for the parties interested, if their project had been openly avowed from the first, instead of trickery and subterfuge being resorted to.
The national convention on the 17th of March, 1836, adopted a constitution. It also established a provisional government with plenary powers, electing David G. Burnet president, and Lorenzo de Zavala vice-president, with four secretaries of state. Samuel Houston was reappointed commander-in-chief of the forces.
Let us now consider what the Mexican government was doing to bring these rebellious subjects to allegiance. Resources were scarce, but the government made the most of them, and together with voluntary contributions from patriotic citizens, organized an army for the campaign. The chief command of it was intrusted to General Santa Anna, who in November 1835 visited San Luis Potosí to complete preparations and to set the troops in motion. Toward the end of December, the forces, said to be 6,000 strong, started for San Antonio de Béjar, then occupied by the enemy. They invested the Álamo, a ​strong fortress near San Antonio de Béjar, which had 14 guns in position, and was garrisoned by about 150 men under W. B. Travis. During 11 days' siege and bombardment, 32 more men forced their way into the fortress. Travis would neither surrender nor attempt to retreat. At last Santa Anna, on the 6th of March, ordered the assault; the stronghold was taken, and the whole garrison put to the sword. Among the slain were colonels Travis, Bowie, and David Crockett, and also twenty residents or traders of San Antonio de Béjar. Only a woman and her child and a negro servant were spared.
The blood, both of Mexicans and Texans, shed at the Álamo was a useless sacrifice. The massacre, even if in accord with the barbarous usages of war, did not serve the cause of Mexico, but, on the contrary, impressed the Texans with the firm conviction that no settlement except by the sword was any longer possible. It was now with them a question of victory or subjugation accompanied with the direst consequences. The fact was that the siege and storming of the Álamo was a childish display of vanity, to ​make it appear that San Antonio de Béjar had been retaken by force of arms with a heavy loss of life on both sides. Nor did Santa Anna's blood-thirstiness end there.
Colonel J. W. Fannin was stationed at Goliad with about 500 men, when he received orders from General Houston to fall back on Victoria. These orders were not promptly obeyed, and a Mexican force largely superior in number came upon Fannin, who, having heard that General Urrea was marching on Refugio, despatched thither Captain King with 28 men, on the 11th of March, to cover the retreat of the American citizens. This small force had to seek refuge at the old Refugio mission on the 13th. Next day Fannin sent 112 men with Lieutenant-Colonel Ward to rescue King and his party. The latter, however, while reconnoitring were captured and shot to a man, and their bodies left on the field, food for carrion birds and beasts. Ward and his command then attempted to escape toward Victoria, but being intercepted, were captured, and soon after executed at Goliad. On the 17th of March, Fannin hearing nothing from Ward or King, attempted a retreat, but after a series of engagen:ents found himself surrounded by a very superior force, and with scarcely any supplies or ammunition. At La Coleta, however, eight miles from Goliad, he fought a desperate action, March 18th. The next day the Mexicans, 1,900 strong, under Urrea, on the Llano Perdido, summoned Fannin to surrender, which he was compelled to do. It has been alleged that the surrender was made under terms of capitulation, by which Fannin, his officers and men, were to be treated as prisoners of war. The terms of ​capitulation, if any were actually granted by General Urrea, were ignored by the commander-in-chief, General Santa Anna; and on Sunday, March 27th, the prisoners, who had been sent to Goliad, were marched out of the fort and shot.
Santa Anna in a letter of May 23, 1836, to the executive of Texas denies that the Mexican force hoisted a flag of truce, or that its commander gave any assurance of quarter by accepting a capitulation. Urrea in his report to Santa Anna declared that he had refused to grant terms of capitulation, as indeed he was prevented from doing by the law of December 30, 1835. According to Lieutenant-Colonel Holzinger, who was present at Fannin's surrender, Urrca gave no warrant that the prisoners' lives would be spared; but his commissioners assured Fannin that the Mexican government had in no instance taken the life of a prisoner that appealed to its clemency. Fannin was not satisfied with the assurance, but concluded to surrender and trust to the generosity of the Mexican government. Urrea seems to have promised that he would ask mercy for them. Holzinger blames Urrea for want of frankness in his reports to Santa Anna in not informing him that he had promised clemency to the prisoners. On the other side, Ramon Martinez de Caro, Santa Anna's military secretary, says that Urrea strongly recommended merciful ​dealing with the helpless prisoners, more than 200 of whom he was about sending to Bahía del Espíritu Santo or Goliad; and that Santa Anna's answer had been a severe reprimand, telling him not to stain his triumphs with misplaced compassion. The order for the execution was repeated to Urrea and to the commandant at Goliad. Then again, we have the statement that the commandant at Goliad reported to Santa Anna that Fannin, before he started from that place, had burned the town, leaving the people without shelter, for which, as well as for the loss of their cattle, they felt very indignant, and clamored for the death of the prisoners.
The reverses of Alamo and Goliad only had the effect of crystallizing the spirit of opposition to Mexico. General Houston addressed the remnants of his army, telling them they must retreat till they were better able to meet the enemy in battle. His force was now of 600 to 700 men, with whom he retreated to the Brazos, and a few days after to a point near the San Jacinto River. His plan was to concentrate all his available forces from all quarters, and to draw the enemy away from his base of supplies. The plan met with all the success Houston desired. Santa Anna with a portion of his force, about 1,600 strong, marched to the banks of the San Jacinto, where he was attacked on the 21st of April, and utterly routed and taken prisoner. Houston, according to his own report, had an aggregate force of 783 men. The conflict lasted about twenty minutes from the commencement of close action till the Texans took possession of the enemy's encampment, together with a loaded piece, four stand of colors, all the camp equipage, stores, etc. The rout began about half-past ​four in the afternoon, and the pursuit continued until twilight.
General Houston in his official report to President Burnet on the 25th of April states that the Texan loss was two killed and 23 wounded, of whom six died. Houston himself was seriously wounded, and in consequence General T. J. Rusk succeeded him in the command. The enemy's loss he sets down at 630 killed, 208 wounded, and 730 prisoners. Santa Anna, General Cos, and four colonels, aids to Santa Anna,
one of whom was Colonel Almonte, were included in the latter number. Though the numbers that took ​part in the battle of San Jacinto were insignificant as compared with those in other engagements, the result was momentous to the Texan participants, and to the young republic, whose independence it secured.
Santa Anna's life was now in grave peril, owing to the execution of Texans effected under his orders. To save himself and his companions he entered into an armistice with General Houston, preparatory to arrangements looking to the recognition of the independence of Texas. He accordingly sent a written order to his second in command, General Filisola, instructing him to retreat at once, which was done. On the 14th of the following May he signed a treaty with David G. Burnet, president of Texas, binding himself in its first article neither to take up arms nor to use his influence with Mexico to induce her to do so, during the pending contest for Texan independence. In a note will be found the remaining articles of this convention. There was also a secret ​agreement in six articles intended to pave the way for peace and the recognition by Mexico of the independence of Texas. Below will be found the said articles.
The Mexican congress issued a manifesto repudiating this arrangement and exhorting the people to continue the war. Nor was the other side in any way satisfied with it. The Texan secretary of war, General Lamar, had on the 12th protested against any treaty being made with Santa Anna, insisting that he should be treated as a murderer. However, after the treaties were signed he acquiesced in them, and afterward vindicated his official associates when they were assailed for their action therein. The Texan army was greatly dissatisfied at Santa Anna's liberation, and resolutions were adopted disapproving the course of the government. A few days after, when Santa Anna was already on board the Invincible, which was to convey him to Vera Cruz, two vessels arrived at Velasco, with a large number of volunteers under General Thomas Green, who insisted on his ​not being allowed to sail. President Burnet, in view of the situation, caused Santa Anna to be brought back on shore, against his strong protest. Some correspondence passed between him and the Texan government, early in June, arising from his protest against violations of the agreement. The latter explained that it had been out of its power to avert the infringements complained of; that it had been at all times disposed to treat the Mexican prisoners kindly, and to show Santa Anna every consideration consistent with his safety and the poor facilities at its disposal. Santa Anna was now kept in close confinement until after the meeting of the Texan congress. In July he addressed himself to the president of the United States, asking for his mediation to bring about a settlement of the question between Texas and Mexico. President Jackson answered that he could not act in the matter, as the Mexican minister had notified the American cabinet that his government would not recognize in Santa Anna any authority to act in its name while a prisoner. He was finally released and taken to the United States.
The fate of the "illustrious prisoner of San Jacinto was officially heard of in Mexico January 11, 1837, when the government by a letter from the Mexican consul in New Orleans was informed that Santa Anna, according to his despatch to that official, had been generously liberated by the Texans and had proceeded to Washington, whence he had gone to a northern port of the United States to embark for Vera Cruz.
On his arrival there, about the 23d of February, he ​was received with presidential honors, after which he retired to his estate of Manga de Clavo. It was supposed that his visit to Washington had been for the purpose of entering into some convention, but this was made to appear unfounded. Being well aware of his loss of popularity, Santa Anna on the 4th of March signified his resolution to retire to private life. But on the 9th of that month he took the oath as a Mexican general to support the government under the existing régime.
The Mexican government was apparently in earnest about continuing its exertions to bring Texas under subjection. Large bodies of troops were despatched at the end of 1836 to reënforce the expeditionary army. General Filisola was superseded by Urrea, and the latter, shortly after, by Bravo. Efforts were made to awaken the people's patriotism, and some private parties aided with their means; but for all such efforts, the war henceforth was a very passive one. It would have been a wise policy to have recognized Texan independence and made peace, which would have saved Mexico from greater troubles in the near future. But that policy was not adopted, and the Texan war became a farce and a party weapon.
In May 1839 Bernard E. Bee arrived from the United States at Vera Cruz, commissioned by the Texan government to treat with Mexico for the independence of Texas. The government, however, refused to receive Bee, and simply instructed Victoria, then comandante general at Vera Cruz, to hold private conferences with him and ascertain the real object of his visit; if the independence of Texas was asked for, he was to make him reëmbark at once. Bee after exchanging some notes with Victoria returned to the ​United States. During the same year the Texans were endeavoring to form Texas and some of the northern states of Mexico into a North Mexican republic, and there were not wanting men in these states holding similar views.
In 1840 the Texan government, while discountenancing raids into Mexico, such as that of Colonel Ross, claimed that the territory of the new republic extended beyond the river Nueces to the Rio Grande, as had been fixed by her first congress, and Colonel Cook was ordered there with a force of regulars to protect the boundary. In the same year the Texan navy had already begun to assume proportions; its officers had served in the American and other national navies. It began hostilities against Mexican commerce in August, war vessels appearing before Mexican ports. Its men could land wheresoever they pleased, and its cruisers after a while approached Vera Cruz. Finally the Texan government made that of Mexico understand that if the independence of Texas was not recognized within a given period, the ports of Mexico would be blockaded and her territory invaded. The peninsula of Yucatan, having seceded from Mexico, admitted and saluted in its ports Texan war vessels, and looked to them for aid. In 1842 they rendered assistance to Yucatan, which contributed to their support.
Early in 1841 the Mexican forces on the Texas frontier amounted to about 2,200 men, besides the troops at Matamoros and San Luis Potosí. General Arista was preparing for a campaign in Texas. The Texans, on their side, began to move upon the Mexican ​frontier under generals Houston, Green, and Barton. In September large bodies of Texans appeared in New Mexico, the chief ones in the cañada de Trujillo, and on the banks of the Pecos, A few trifling encounters took place with the Mexicans under García Conde.
In the midst of his labors, President Barragan was attacked by a putrid fever, which put an end to his life on the 1st of March, 1836. His death was universally regretted, and his political crrors condoned even by the most advanced liberals in consideration of his good personal traits, and patriotic services, especially that of capturing San Juan de Ulúa.
Owing to General Barragan's illness, the chamber of deputies, on the 27th of February, 1836, chose José Justo Corro, of Guadalajara, to fill the position of acting president. Corro was called to govern the nation at a time when it was beset with troubles both internal and external, and showed himself entirely unfit for so responsible a position. He was a man of excessive piety and timidity, and utterly ignorant of military affairs, when the country might have to bring into use at any moment its resources and energies in a war with the United States on the Texas question.
Amid the confusion in the interior a plan of 'concordia,' as it was called, was brought forward in June, ​at Puebla. Corro's government misconstrued the conciliatory purposes of its authors; though it must be confessed that under the circumstances the plan was an impracticable one. The agitation was somewhat allayed by the return from exile of Anastasio Bustamante, on whom the people began to turn their eyes for their next president.
During Corro's administration in 1837 the pope recognized the independence of Mexico, on the understanding that anti-ecclesiastical laws had been repealed, the pope promising to accredit an internuncio, as the poverty of the holy see did not permit of his sending an official of higher rank. The internuncio was to be comfortably supported by the Mexican government. Corro is said to have been greatly pleased by so much condescension on the part of the pope. The same year the admiral commanding the French forces in the Antilles visited Mexico to make reclamations, which if not grauted might have led to war.
The financial affairs, like the political, were in the worst possible state. Money had to be borrowed on the most onerous terms. The army, not being paid with regularity, sought only promotion and honors, caring little for the country's good name or peace. The people, instead of progressing, were sinking deeper into the slough of ignorance and superstition. Such were the circumstances of the Mexican republic when Bustamante was elected president. Corro ​surrendered the executive authority on the 19th of April, 1837, never again to appear in public life. His rule had been one of the most injurious to Mexico in every sense of the word.
President Bustamante encountered from the first a number of obstacles clearly indicating how difficult it would be to sustain himself in power for the term of eight years for which he had been elected. The promises of his inaugural address were received by the nation at large with indifference. Acts, not theories, were wanted. The liberal masses had been, however, buoyed up with hopes that the new administration would really endeavor to carry out an enlightened course; but they were disappointed from the first, as soon as the names of the ministers called to form the cabinet became known, for the reason that they belonged to the ranks of the aristocracy and intolerance. Luis Gonzaga Cuevas, the minister of relations, as a creature of Lúcas Alaman, was generally looked upon with distrust; Manuel de la Peña y ​Peña, minister of justice and ecclesiastical affairs, was a fanatic in religion belonging to the most moderate wing of the liberal party, and had held important positions under the colonial government; Joaquin Lebrija, minister of the treasury, was considered incompetent for the position; and Mariano Michelena, called to fill the portfolio of war and navy, was almost unknown to the army.
On the 8th of May the list of the members elected to form the 'supremo poder conservador' was published. It was as follows: Justo Corro, Rafael Mangino, José Ignacio Espinosa, Francisco Tagle, and General Melchor Muzquiz. The suplentes were Cirilo Gomez Anaya, José María Bocanegra and Cárlos María Bustamante. The body was organized with General Muzquiz as president and Tagle as secretary.
Shortly after the inauguration of the new government the news came that the Spanish court had formally recognized the independence of Mexico in a treaty concluded at Madrid between the minister of foreign affairs, Calatrava, and the Mexican plenipotentiary, Miguel Santa María, on the 28th of December, 1836. With the sanction of the Mexican congress, on May 1, 1837, the executive ratified the treaty on the 3d, together with a secret article binding Mexico not to allow the fitting-out of expeditions, nor the planning of schemes within her territory ​against the Spanish possessions in the New World. The treaty was subsequently ratified by Spain, and became a law in Mexico February 28, 1838.
About two years afterward, on the 19th of December, 1839, the first Spanish minister plenipotentiary accredited to the Mexican government, Angel Calderon de la Barca, arrived at Vera Cruz on the war brig Jason, and his reception was most cordial.
The political parties hitherto existing under the names of yorkinos, escoceses, liberales, progresistas, and retrógrados now organized themselves into two great parties, known respectively as federalists and centralists, the latter being strong in the capitals and other parts where the clergy and army had influence, and the former in places where the fallen system had created many interests and aspirations. This party was much strengthened by the accession of some military officers of good repute for courage and ability.
This second administration of Bustamante compares unfavorably with his first, as regards respectability, foreign credit, and success in promoting public prosperity, but was superior in its manner of using the supreme authority, which was moderate and within legal bounds. Restricted as the president was by constitutional checks, even from proposing measures to congress, or returning for reconsideration such as the chambers had enacted, he seemed to be guided by no well defined policy, which was owing in a great measure to the fact that he had not the uniform cooperation of his party.
Soon after Bustamante assumed power, revolts broke out in several parts of the republic, which, ​though quelled, kept the public peace constantly disturbed, a condition of things made still worse by the petitions of several military organizations in favor of a change in the system of government. The administration was thus beset by internal troubles when it needed entire freedom to devote its whole attention to the Texan war, and to the relations with France, which were in a very strained condition, the latter power having lately uttered threats against Mexico.
The alarms from which some portions of the country suffered were not wholly political. Nature also added to the distress with heavy earthquakes and other calamities.
The national treasury was empty, and there was no means of replenishing it, or even of procuring money to meet the most pressing demands. Direct taxation was tried and failed, private property being excessively encumbered already. The only estates exempt from heavy burdens were those of the church, and hence the necessity of mortgaging them began. to grow popular. At the time the cabinet was formed, much had been expected from the minister ​of the treasury, but he accomplished nothing, and meantime the expenditures greatly exceeded the receipts. Rumor succeeded rumor, each as false as the preceding one, but all containing a little grain of truth as to the president's views in favor of a change of system. His vacillation at last displeased the ministers, and they resigned in a body on the 14th of October. It was reported that the president wanted the federation restored, and the agitation was very great. At last, a few days later, he appointed a new cabinet as follows: José Antonio Romero, of relations; José María Bocanegra, of hacienda; Ignacio Mora y Villamil, of war, and ad interim of justice. ​
* ↑ A copy of the treaty may be found in Méx., Derecho Intern., 1st pt, 138-44.
* ↑ That document was published in the Louisiana Herald, evidently to invite American citizens to join Long's standard. Jay's Rev. Mex. War, 11.
* ↑ After a short imprisonment they were released. Long was murdered shortly after in 1822. Am. Cyclop., xv. 677.
* ↑ He alleged that catholics were not countenanced in the United States.
* ↑ The concession was ratified by the imperial government of Iturbide. Austin visited Mexico to arrange the matter, as the progress of colonization had been checked, and the council of state approved his plan with a few modifications relating to formalities and requirements to give possession of land grants. After the downfall of the empire the concession was annulled, but the executive issued a decree, April 14, 1828, confirming the grant to Austin with further power to adopt necessary measures to insure order together with security and progress of the new settlements. These were formed with settlers mainly from Tennessee, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Austin was commissioned a lieut-col of the Mexican army.
* ↑ August 18, 1824. Dublan and Lozano, Leg. Mex., i. 712-13. Bustamante calls that measure 'la borricada mayor que pudo cometer el primer congreso.' Voz de la Patria, MS., x. 136.
* ↑ Vera Cruz was one of those states, where a French colony settled on the Goazacoalco, but for several reasons the enterprise failed.
* ↑ The state of Coahuila and Texas, March 24, 1825, passed a law inviting foreigners to settle on lands of the state, 'eran libres para hacerlo, y se les invitaba por esta ley á verificarlo.' Zavala, Revol. Méx., ii. 308; Thrall's Hist. Texas, 155-6.
* ↑ The commission performed that duty from early in 1828, and used its best endeavors to save Texas to Mexico. Tornel, Brere Reseña Hist., 171-3.
* ↑ The offers of money were made at first with the view of securing the Colorado River as the boundary line, but such propositions led only to the acceptance on the 12th of Jan. 1828, of the line designated in the treaty of 1819. However, in 1829, President Jackson caused the negotiations to be resumed, designating four distinct lines as admissible, and naming several sums of money; but they were productive of no result. The details of the negotiations present no matter of special interest. Gen. Nicolás Bravo is supposed to have used his influence against the American wishes. Similar instructions to the American minister in Mexico were repeated in 1833 and 1835. Niles' Reg., liii. 180; U. S. Govt, cong. 25, ses. 1, H. Ex. Doc. 42; Mex. Derecho Intern., 1st pt, 114-17; Mayer's Hist. Mex. War, i. 52; Jay's Rev. Mex. War, 20-1.
* ↑ Both governments at last, on the 3d of April, 1835, made a convention proroguing for another year the time to appoint commissioners for running the boundary line. Mex. Derecho Intern., 1st pt, 177-80. The president of the United States urged congress to make provision at once for carrying out that treaty; but it was never done.
* ↑ Private transactions, public acts, and newspapers were in English, which was the common language. Zavala, Revol. Méx., ii. 306; Mayer's Hist. Alex. War, 46.
* ↑ Articles 4th to 7th empowered the government to take possession of such lands as might be suitable for military defenses and new colonies, indemnifying the states for them. Dublan and Lozano, Leg. Mex., ii. 238-40; Thrall's Hist. Texas, 178-9.
* ↑ Under the law, convicts and army deserters were sent to Texas as colonists. Arrillaga, Recop., 1831, 430; Id., Leyes, ap. 1833, 132-7; 1834, 47-50; Méx., Mem. Justicia, 8-9, 50-1; Vallejo, Col. Doc., ii. 151. That law, however, had no effect whatever to check the tide of immigration. The population, which had been rapidly increasing since 1826, was now about 20,000. Baker's Texas, 36.
* ↑ 15 The Mexican minister of war, in his report of April 1883 to congress, says that three battalions and a regiment, with artillery, etc., had been sent to the frontier of Texas to check Indian raids, and to bring under subjection the new colonies, which were already showing symptoms of restlessness. He advised the building of forts in Texas. Méx., Mem. Guerra, 1833, 8.
* ↑ The law of Feb. 23, 1827, placed at his disposal 4,000 men and half a million dollars.
* ↑ The constitution of Coahuila and Texas in 1827 gave freedom to children born of slave parents after its date, and prohibited the importation of slaves. The work of emancipation was completed by the act of the Mexican congress of Sept. 15, 1829, manumitting every slave in Mexico.
* ↑ Teran had been also directed to liberate every slave found in Texas.
* ↑ In 1841 the government of Texas expelled from its territory the free colored people. Rivera, Hist. Jalapa, iii. 516.
* ↑ The 11th article struck a deadly blow at civilization enterprises. In some cases, like that of the 'compañía de tierras de Tejas y Bahía de Galveston,' whose assignèes were Americans, heavy pecuniary losses were inflicted, and Mexico was afterward called upon to settle them. Curtis' Letter to Col Mejía, in Suarez y Navarro, Hist. Méx., 315–19; Kennedy's Texas, ii. 76.
* ↑ An adventurer named John Austin went from town to town inciting the people to proclaim the independence of Texas, and arms were brought from New York and New Orleans. In 1832 the garrisons at Anáhuac and Velasco were captured. A few weeks afterward a Texan force, said to be 250 men, after being assured of the neutrality of the Cherokees and Shawnees, marched against the garrison at Nacogdoches, set down at 375 men, and demanded of its commander, Colonel Piedras, either an unconditional surrender or the proclamation of federalism, together with support of the Mexican constitution of 1824; compliance being refused, a fight ensued, ending in Piedra's utter defeat. Swisher's Am. Sketch Book, vi. no. 5, 375-83; Rivera, Hist. Jalapa, iii. 262; Baker's Texas, 36-7; Kennedy's Texas, ii. 5-7. Moffitt, an agent of the United States in Texas, is said to have placed the action against Piedras in 1827. Thompson's Recoll. Mex., 174.
* ↑ Presided over by William H. Wharton. Among its members were Stephen F. Austin, Samuel Houston, David G. Burnet, J. B. Miller, and Branch T. Archer.
* ↑ The chief complaint was against unconstitutional laws passed by the state legislature; the neglect of Texan interests; the wanton grants of lands etc. — all of which rendered it necessary that Texas should have a separate organization. Austin also, under his instructions, demanded an improved mail service between Monclova and Nacogdoches, extending to the United States line, the Sabine River; correction of custom-house abuses; the punctual payment of the presidial companies; and the circulation of the official journal, El Telégrafo, to the ayuntamientos of Texas. Austin, Espos. sobre Tejas, 9-32.
* ↑ From Feb. 13 to June 12, 1834. During the first three months he was treated with the utmost rigor. After being bandied from court to court without the slightest idea of what his fate would be, he was released on bail, and finally given the benefit of an amnesty. It is said that he owed his pardon to Santa Anna. Rivera, Hist. Jalapa, iii. 263. His long imprisonment and detention had been grounded on reports from the government of Coahuila and Texas; some of his own countrymen also had been slandering him, though his motto had ever been fidelity to Mexico, and opposition to violent men and measures. He had warned the Texans against meddling with the family feuds of the Mexicans, as they had nothing to gain and much to lose by such interference. Kennedy's Texas, ii. 20, 58-60, 63; Domenech, Mission Adv., 20; Thrall's Hist. Texas, 49, 60-2. Austin's treatment caused much indignation in Texas. Lester's Houston, etc., 46-51
* ↑ 'Con excepcion de algunos revoltosos' the inhabitants were wholly devoted to their industrial pursuits. Almonte, Not. Estad., 5-96; Kennedy's Texas, 69-72, 81.
* ↑ Cos, the Mexican comandante general, attributed the agitation and disturbance to acts of aliens and political intriguers. He called on good citizens to lay their complaints before the general government. Other prominent men were also trying to allay the ferment. Texas, Coll. Doc., in Pinart, Coll., MS., nos 31, 32, 35-7, 41.
* ↑ The centralists had possession of the government in Mexico, and were resolved to crush out the rebellious spirit of the Texans.
* ↑ The first one was at Gonzalez on the 2d of October, 1835, when Col Moore defeated a body of Mexicans, and drove them to flight towards San Antonio de Béjar, leaving behind their dead and wounded. Six days later — Oct. 8th — the fort at Goliad was attacked and taken by the Texans. The next encounter was on the 28th of the same month, near the Concepcion mission, when Bowie and Fannin routed a large body of Mexicans, killing about 100 and capturing their field-pieces. Kennedy's Texas, ii. 105-9, 11722; Crockett, Life of, 369-70; Holley's Texas, 337-56. After the last affair no fighting worth record occurred till December. Gen. Burleson with 800 men of the federalist army, in two divisions, under Col F. W. Johnson and Benjamin R. Milam, between the 5th and 10th of that month, compelled Gen. Cos, who had with him 1,250 men at San Antonio de Béjar, to surrender on the 11th with upward of 1,100 and all his arms, the rest of his men having been kiiled in the results. Milam was killed. Burleson's official report, Dec. 14, 1835, in Foote's Texas, ii. 161-75; Thrall's Hist. Texas, 222-9. Moffitt's report on this affair seems to be exaggerated. He makes Cos and 1,300 Mexicans surrender to 400 Texans. Thompson's Recoll. Mex., 174-5; Mayer's Hist. Mex. War, 47. On the 15th of December, Cos and his followers, under the terms of their capitulation, began their march to the interior, and in a few days there was not a Mexican centralist soldier to be seen between the Sabine and Rio Grande. Willson's Am. Hist., 646-8. Bustamante speaks of a letter published in Mexico from Colonel Ugartechea of October 28th from Álamo recounting the defeat by 300 Mexican cavalry of twice that number of Anglo-Americans, of whom 78 were killed and a large number wounded. He next alludes to Cos' surrender, adding that he behaved honorably; for the cause of the revolt was that he had endeavored to check the governor and deputies who were selling the fine public lands at nominal prices. Voz de la Patria, MS., x. 168-9.
* ↑ Governor, Henry Smith; lieut-governor, James W. Robinson. The latter was to be ex-officio president of the council. This body was clothed with the powers of government, and continued acting till March 1836.
* ↑ 1st. That the object of taking up arms was the defence of their rights and liberties threatened by military despots, as well as of the republican principles of the Mexican federal constitution of 1824. 2d. That Texas was no longer morally or civilly bound by the compact of union; yet, prompted by generosity and sympathy, she offered support and assistance to such members of the Mexican confederacy as would take up arms against military despotism. 3d. Refusal to acknowledge the 'present authorities of the nominal Mexican republic.' 4th. Resolution to continue in arms as long as Mexican troops remained in Texas. 5th. While claiming the right of defence and to establish an independent government, Texas will continue faithful to the Mexican government so long as it is carried out under the constitution of 1824. 6th and 7th refer to expenses of the army, pledging the faith of Texas to the payment of debts contracted. 8th. Offering land grants to such as may come to render military service in the present struggle. 9th. A solemn vow to carry out these declarations. Baker's Texas, 43-5; Filisola, Mem. Hist. Guerra Tejas, ii. 173-6; Thrall's Hist. Mex., 187-91; Foote's Texas, ii. 41-65. The plan to establish a separate state government had been agitated in 1834, but failed. The anti-separation party succeeded in allaying the excitement, and an adjustment of differences was effected under Santa Anna's arbitration. Kennedy's Texas, ii. 62-7; Willson's Am. Hist., 639-40.
* ↑ Niles' Reg., 1. 210-13.
* ↑ They had from the United States 'una proteccion encubierta y constante.' Rivera, Hist. Jalapa, iii. 283. And if the government thus practically manifested its sympathy for Texas, would the partisans of that country be regardful of the laws of neutrality?
* ↑ General Gaines, of the United States army, concentrated large bodies of men on the frontier. See his letter from Camp Sabine, Aug. 28, 1826, to the governor of Tennessee, in Niles' Reg., li. 87-8.
* ↑ He had come in February 1836 as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary.
* ↑ Forsyth wrote May 10th that the instructions given to Gaines had not been based on the belief that the United States had claims to the territory beyond Nacogdoches, but simply to prevent consequences that might grow out of the bloody contest begun in Texas. Gaines' instructions were to fulfil its stipulations in reference to the Indians, 'whether belonging to the territory of the United States or Mexico, and especially to maintain a strict neutrality in regard to the contending parties in Texas.' Gaines called on several states for reënforcements to repel Indian attacks. When he found that he had been deceived as to the intentions of the Indians, he recalled his requisitions. Some time after the United States forces abandoned the country. The correspondence on the Texas question may be found in Gaines, Gen., Correspond.; Leg. Extraord., 1-122; Niles' Reg., 1. 207-9, 213-16; li. 113, 129, 409-12; Méx., Contestac. Leg. Extraord., 1-79; Am. St. Pap. — new set — Milit. aff., vi. 412, 416-27; U. S. Govt, Cong. 24, Ses. 1, H. Ex. Doc. 249, 256, vol. vi.; Id., Cong. 24, Ses. 2, H. Ex. Doc. 2, pp. 25-101; Id., Cong, 25, Ses. 2, H. Ex. Doc. 74, pp. 1-24, vol. ii.; 190, pp. 1-120, vol. iv.; Cong. Debates, 1837, xiv. 176-96; Mex. Correspond., Paso del Sabina, 1-122.
* ↑ The law in question declared that efforts were made in the United States, in violation of the neutrality laws and of the wishes of that government — such had been its assurances — to fit out armed expeditions to help the rebels of Texas. In consequence, the following rules were established: 1st. Foreigners landing at any part of the republic, or entering her territory by land, armed and with hostile intent, were to be dealt with as pirates. 2d. The same treatment was to be awarded to foreigners found landing or introducing arms or other war material at places in a state of insurrection against the Mexican government with the intent of placing them in the rebels' hands. Under this law almost all Texans taken with arms in their hands might be treated as pirates. Rivera, Hist. Jalapa, iii. 280-1; Dublan and Lozano, Leg. Mex., iii. 114-15.
* ↑ The fatuous rulers took no account of obstacles, such as streams, rain, snow, swamps, nor of the necessity of providing supplies for the soldiers. Moreover, the force employed to attempt the subjugation of the Texans was too small for such an undertaking. Mora, Obras Sueltas, i. pp. cclxxxviii.-ix.
* ↑ The Mexican government had invited them to settle and reclaim the wilderness, under the pledged faith of the written national constitution, which was republican, and similar to the one they had lived under in their native land. Their expectations had been disappointed. Santa Anna had overthrown the constitutional system, offering them the alternative of abandoning the homes they had made after many privations, or of submitting to the combined despotism of the sword and the priesthood. Texas had been sacrificed for the benefit of Coahuila; the petitions of her citizens for a separate state organization had been disregarded. Their fellow-citizen, Austin, had been incarcerated a long time for his zealous endeavors, within legality, on behalf of Texan interests. Trial by jury and a system of public education had never been established. Military conimandants had exercised arbitrary tyrannical powers. The state congress of Coahuila and Texas had been dissolved by force of arms, and the representatives compelled to flee for their lives. Good citizens had been unjustly seized by military authority, carried away from their homes, and tried on trumped-up charges. Piratical attacks had been committed on Texas commerce by desperadoes in the service of Mexico. The right of worshipping God according to the dictates of their conscience had been denied them. They had been required to surrender the arms they needed for their defence. Their country had been invaded and laid waste, and their citizens driven away. The Indians had been incited to ravage and massacre. The citizens had been made the contemptible sport and victims of military revolutions. The Mexican government had invariably shown the characteristics of weakness, corruption, and tyranny. This declaration was signed by 57 members, of whom 10 appear to be from northern and European regions, and 3 native Mexicans; the rest were natives of the southern states of the American Union. Baker's Texas, 65-71; Texas, Laws Repub., i. 3-7.
* ↑ This has been denied on the ground that at the commencement of the troubles slavery existed in Texas only to a trifling extent. Edinburgh Rev., cxlvii. 261-2. But the same writer acknowledges that the prohibition to import fresh slaves was looked on with jealousy, as it would prevent the immigration of wealthy planters.
* ↑ A copy of it may be found in Baker's Texas, 143-79; Texas, Laws Rep., i. 9-25.
* ↑ According to Bustamante, Santa Anna's army in Texas did not exceed 10,000 men. Hist. Invasion, MS., i. 6. Eight thousand of the best troops in Mexico. Kennedy's Tex., ii. 176-7. Another account makes the force 7,500, provided with artillery and other supplies. Am. Cyclop., xv. 678. Santa Anna wanted Béjar for his centre of operations, it being the only place in Texas inhabited by Mexicans. This explains why he traversed such an enormous distance of desert country. Filisola, Mem. Hist. Guer. Tejas, ii. 228-30.
* ↑ The Texan or American accounts of this struggle place the Mexican casualties at 1,600. According to the account formed by the Mexican general Juan de Andrade, from the reports of the several organizations constituting the storming parties, the casualties were: officers, 8 killed and 18 wounded; rank and file, 52 killed, 233 wounded; total, 311. Santa Anna reported 70 killed and 300 wounded, and with his usual unscrupulous disregard of veracity, sets down the Texan loss at over 600, all foreigners, buried in the ditches and trenches, and 'en las inmediacioncs un crecido número que no se ha podido exaininar.' He claims also that the Texans used 21 pieces of artillery. According to Mexican accounts, the investing force, together with that hovering at short distances, exceeded 5,000 men. Santa Anna detailed four columns, each composed of one battalion and two companies, besides a reserve of one battalion and five columns, for the assault. Dic. Univ. Hist. Geog., i. ap. 135-8; Filisola, Mem. Hist. Guer. Tejas, i. 6-17, ii. 382-90; Houston, Life of, 93-4; Thrall, Hist. Texas, 238-46, giving a detailed account of the siege and capture of the fort, says that only two women and a negro servant escaped with life. Maillard, Tex., 101-3, says six men and one woman escaped out of a garrison of 450 men. The same authority and the Mexicans assert that Travis had offered to surrender, but the privilege was denied him. Bustamante, Hist. Invasion, MS., i. 6-7, says that Santa Anna at the taking of the Alamo lost 600 men, which may be exaggerated.
* ↑ The Mexican loss is set down as between 300 and 500, and that of the Texans at only 7 killed and 60 wounded. Baker's Texas, 54; Thrall's Hist. Tex., 249.
* ↑ The following are the alleged terms: 1st. The Texans should be treated as prisoners of war according to the usages of civilized nations; 2d. Private property should be respected and restored, but the side-arms of the officers should be given up; 3d. The men should be sent to Copano, and thence in eight days to the United States, or as soon as vessels could be procured to take them. The officers should be paroled and returned to the United States in like manner. Id., 249-50.
* ↑ During the execution 27 of the prisoners broke away from their guards and escaped. Reports disagree as to the number executed. Foote makes it 330, and the Texas Almanac for 1860 has 385, giving the names of the victims. Col Alcérreca superintended the execution. Rivera, Hist. Jalapa, iii. 284.
* ↑ Bustamante, Hist. Invasion, MS., i. 7-8, claims that Mexico should not be blamed for acts which often occur in war when men lose reason. He pleads that during the 10 years' war many Texans fell prisoners and were kept in forts and not treated as criminals. When Canales, with 300 Texans, invaded Mexico and capitulated, they were amenable to the death penalty and yet were liberated. He gives other instances of mercy to Texan prisoners.
* ↑ Fannin's words were: Well, I have no water; my wounded need attendance. I particularly recommend these unfortunates to you. I will surrender at the discretion of the Mexican government.' Urrea, Camp. de Tejas, 128-33.
* ↑ There were 80 or 86 volunteers from New Orleans, taken in Copano, but not having arms in their possession, they were not included in the order of execution. Thrall's Hist. Tex., 250; Niles' Reg., 1. 310; Caro, Verd. Idea, 13-14; Urrea, Camp. de Tejas, 13–19; Filisola, Mem. Hist. Guer. Tejas, ii. 417-29.
* ↑ Santa Anna was hidden in the grass when captured; he was disguised in a miserable rustic dress, wearing a skin cap, round jacket, and pantaloons of blue domestic cotton, and a pair of coarse soldier's shoes.
* ↑ Santa Anna was taken on the 22d and Cos on the 24th. There were captured also 600 muskets, 300 sabres, and 200 pistols a large quantity of arms was lost in the morass and bayou — 300 valuable mules and 100 fine horses, besides other valuables, including $12,000 in silver. See Houston's report in Thrall's Hist. Texas, 265-8; Id., in Kennedy's Texas, ii. 222-7; Lester's Houston, 109-39; Bustamante, Voz de la Patria, MS., xi. 22-9; Willson s Amer. Hist., 660-1; Caro, Verd. Idea, 18-45, gives Santa Anna's version of the affair, with comments showing the absurdity of many of that general's statements. Filisola, Mem. Hist. Guer. Tejas, ii. 452-70, gives without comments Santa Anna's report of the campaign, from Manga de Clavo. March 11, 1837.
* ↑ The onslaught at San Jacinto had been made to the cry of 'Remember the Álamo!'
* ↑ The Mexican army, now about 4,000 strong, looked upon Santa Anna's orders as invalid, consequent upon his agreement having been extorted from him while in duress. Filisola, however, thought otherwise, and carried them out. Anonymous diary, in Urrea, Diario, 91. The retreat was effected under great distress. The orders had reached Filisola April 28th at San Bernardo. Heavy rains had made the roads almost impassable, and the artillery became mired, and would have been lost but for Colonel Ampudia's great exertions. The passage of the Colorado was difficult. Filisola established his headquarters at Goliads to obtain supplies by sea and open communications with the interior. Urrea with his division returned to Matamoros. Texan cruisers shut out the hope of maritime succor. Goliads was therefore evacuated in ten days, and the retreat began for the Rio Grande. Maillard's Tex., 117-18; Kennedy's Tex., iii. 231-2; Filisola, Mem. Hist. Guer. Tejas, ii. 470-99.
* ↑ Art. 2. Hostilities between Mexican and Texan forces, both on land and water, shall cease immediately; 3. The Mexican troops shall evacuate the Texan territory, passing to the other side of the Rio Grande del Norte; 4. The Mexican army in its retreat shall not take any private property without obtaining the owner's consent, and must pay a just indemnification; 5. Private property taken by any part of the Mexican army since the invasion, including negro slaves or indentured persons that have taken refuge within its lines, must be surrendered; 6. The troops of both armies shall refrain from coming into contact with each other; 7. The Mexican army must not delay on its retreat longer than absolutely necessary; 8. This agreement to be at once notified to generals Filisola and Rusk for its fulfilment; 9. Texan prisoners in the hands of the Mexicans to be released at once, and passports furnished them to return to their homes; Texas to release a corresponding number of Mexican prisoners, and treat the remainder with due humanity; 10. Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna will be sent to Vera Cruz as soon as it shall be deemed proper.' Thrall's Hist. Texas, 276-7; Filisola, Represent., 68-70; Id., Mem. Guer. Tejas, i. 298-300; Kennedy's Tex., ii. 233-5.
* ↑ Santa Anna solemnly pledged himself to fulfil the stipulations: 'Art. 1. He will not take up arms, nor cause them to be taken up, against the people of Texas, during the present war of independence: 2. He will give orders that in the shortest time possible the Mexican troops leave the territory of Texas; 3. He will so prepare matters in the cabinet of Mexico that the mission that may be sent thither by the government of Texas may be well received, and that by means of negotiations all differences may be settled, and the independence that has been declared by the convention may be acknowledged; 4. A treaty of comity, amity, and limits will be established between Mexico and Texas, the territory of the latter not to extend beyond the Rio Bravo del Norte; 5. The present return of General Santa Anna to Vera Cruz being indispensable for the purpose of effecting his solemn engagements, the government of Texas will provide for his immediate embarkation for said port; 6. This instrument, being obligatory on one part as well as on the other, will be signed in duplicate, remaining folded and sealed until the negotiations shall have been concluded, when it shall be restored to his excellency General Santa Anna — no use of it to be made before that time unless there should be an infraction by either of the contracting parties.' The foregoing is given by Thrall, Hist. Tex., 277-8, as taken from Yoakum, ii. app. no. 5, 528; Rivera, Hist. Jalapa, iii. 313-14; Zarco, Hist. Congreso, i. 107-8; Niles' Reg., lxix. 98; Bustamante, Mem. Hist. Mex., MS., ii. 86–90, vi. 35-8; Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos, 538-41.
* ↑ On the 29th of July, 1836. Méx., Manif. Cong. Gen., 1-20.
* ↑ Niles' Reg., li. 191.
* ↑ On the application of Andrew Jackson. president of the United States. Foote's Tex., ii. 349.
* ↑ His government calls him so in a circular. Rivera, Hist. Jalapa, iii. 311.
* ↑ The announcement was celebrated in Mexico with demonstrations of joy, and the black crape was removed from the national colors. It was thought strange that Santa Anna should speak of Texan generosity after being harshly treated, even a pistol being fired at him while in prison. Bustamante, Voz de la Patria, MS., xii. 11-13, 47-84.
* ↑ A government circular made it known that he had frankly and positively stated in despatches that he had entered into no treaty, capitulation, or engagement whatever which in any manner was binding on Mexico, or injurious to her honor or the national territory. Arrillaga, Recop., 1837, 124.
* ↑ This intention he repeated July 7th, in a letter which was published in the 'Correo' and other journals.
* ↑ The Mexican government becoming aware of it, a law was passed declaring any overt act in that direction to be high treason, punishable as such. Rivera, Hist. Jalapa, iii. 428.
* ↑ Some troops of Arista's having shown themselves on the Nueces, the Texans prepared to fight. New Mexico was placed under martial law by the Mexican authorities, because it had been invaded by Texans. Id., iii. 440.
* ↑ In September 1841 Colonel Peraza was sent to Texas as minister of Yucatan to conclude a treaty of friendship and alliance against Mexico.
* ↑ They were stationed at different convenient places, and were provided with artillery. Rivera, Hist. Jalapa, iii. 515-16, 526.
* ↑ In June 1841 an expedition, generally known as the Santa Fé expedition, had started from the neighborhood of Georgetown on Brushy to occupy New Mexico and induce the people there to unite with the Texans. It had a disastrous termination, most of the men being either killed or taken prisoners and carried to Mexico, where they languished some time in prison. They were finally released, which allayed the excitement of the people of Texas who wanted to invade Mexico. Méx, Derecho Intern., 3d pt, 237; Thrall's Hist. Texas, 311-15; Baker's Tex., 93-4.
* ↑ Barragan before his death made a whimsical disposition of his remains; one portion was to be buried in the cathedral of Mexico; the eyes were bequeathed to the Valle del Maiz, his birthplace; the heart to Guadalajara; the entrails to other places; the tongue to San Juan Ulúa. It s understood that he died poor. The funeral was on a scale of great magnificence, the clergy manifesting their sorrow at his loss. Arrillaga, Recop., 1836, Jan. June, 274-5; Bustamante, Voz de la Patria, MS., xi. 9-20.
* ↑ One of the most devout lawyers in the republic. His election was a severe blow to the escoceses, and the forerunner of their loss of influence in the government. Mora, Obras Sueltas, i. p. cclxxvi.
* ↑ The chief object was to promote the union of parties. The government said it was intended to form a new party to work against Santa Anna and the administration. Rivera, Hist. Jalapa, iii. 291-2; Bustamante, Voz de la Patria, MS., xi. 29-30.
* ↑ Manuel Diez de Bonilla, the Mexican minister of foreign relations, had been accredited as plenipotentiary to the papal court to make an arrangement on spiritual affairs. A copy of his letter from Rome, dated Nov. 30, 1836, to his department, gives details of his receptions by the pope, negotiations, etc. Mora, Obras Sueltas, i. p. cclxxxiv.-viii.; Arrillaja, Recop., 1837, 133-4; Bustamante, Voz de la Patria, MS., xiii. 84-96; Rivera, Hist. Jalapa, iii. 320, and others also furnish information on the subject.
* ↑ Corro's government published a pompous manifesto, but in their obsequiousness to the admiral showed that they were under the influence of fear. Rivera, Gob. de Méx., ii. 204.
* ↑ The electoral votes were as follows: for Bustamante, 57; for Gomez Pedraza, 6; Bravo, 3; Santa Anna, 2. Niles' Reg., lii. 49; Arrillaga, Recop., 1837, 300-1; Dublan and Lozano, Leg. Mex., iii. 363; Bustamante, Gabinete Mex., i. 1-3; Id., Voz de la Patria, MS., xii. 117-18.
* ↑ C. M. Bustamante describes the act, adding that among the persons who tendered the new president their congratulations was Admiral La Bretonnière, who did it in the most courtly French, and was answered in the same language, the Mexicans being much delighted at having a president 'que pudiera pedir los garvanzos en francés como fruto de su estada en Paris.' It is well to say here that this author had undergone a change of feeling toward the president at the time of writing. The merits of Bustamante's first administration belonged to the ministers, the blunders of the administration now beginning were the president's own. Gabinete Mex., i. 2; Id., MS., ii. 1-4.
* ↑ His ministers were the following: of relations, José M. Ortiz Monasterio, oficial mayor in charge; of justice, Joaquin de Iturbide, oficial mayor in charge; of hacienda, Rafael Mangino, Feb. 21 to Sept. 20, 1836, Ignacio Alas, Sept. 21 to Dec. 18, 1836, José M. Cervantes, Dec. 19 to Ap. 19, 1827, ad interim; of war, José M. Tornel, Feb. 27, 1836, to Ap. 18, 1837, Ignacio del Corral, Ap. 18 to April 19, 1837. Méx., Mem. Hacienda, 1870, 1033-4.
* ↑ To pursue an enlightened policy; to promote the well-being of the people as the source of all political power; and to see that justice was inflexibly awarded, without fear or favor. Rivera, Gob. de Méx., ii. 207; Niles' Reg., lii. 204. The congress before which the new president was inaugurated closed its session on the 24th of May, and reopened it on the 1st of June. Bustamante, Gabinete Mex., i. 15-17; Id., MS., i. 41-3.
* ↑ Bustamante has it that the appointments were well received by the public. Id., 3-4.
* ↑ A list of the ministers, and the time each of them held office, may be seen in Méx., Мem. Насienda, 1870, 1034-5.
* ↑ Owing to Espinosa's death and Corro's absence, C. M. Bustamante early entered the body as an active member. Arrillaga, Recop., 1837, 441.
* ↑ Since August 1836 orders had been issued to discontinue all acts of hostility against Spain and her subjects. Bustamante, Voz de la Patria, MS., xi. 47. A decree of December 15, 1836, permitted Spanish vessels to enter Mexican ports, and to receive all needed assistance, but they were not to fly their colors. Arrillaga, Recop., 1836, July-Dec., 195-6, 302-4.
* ↑ The treaty was one not only of recognition of Mexico as an independent nation with alỈ the territory she then possessed, but also of amity, commerce, and navigation on the basis of the most favored nations. Art. 4th stipulated that at an early date the two powers would negotiate a special treaty of commerce on terms of mutual benefit, which was done. Bustamante, Gabinete, Мех., MS., i. 9-12, 184-7; Аlaman, Hist. Méj., v. 865-6; Arrillaga, Recop., 1838, 67-73, 368-72; Dublan and Lozano, Leg. Mex., iii. 388-91, 462-5, 536–7.
* ↑ A pensioned knight of the order of Cárlos III., commander of that of Isabel la Católica, and of the Neapolitan order of Constantino. One of the queen's secretaries, and a member of her council, Calderon had also a name in the world of letters. Rivera, Hist. Jalapa, iii. 421; Niles' Reg., lviii. 50. His arrival in Mexico city was on the 24th of Dec. Bustamante, Gabinete Mex., i. 215.
* ↑ Ugarte and Estévan Moctezuma headed insurrections in San Luis Potosí and Rio Verde. The latter was killed, and the former capitulated under the most favorable terms. But to attain these ends the government had to call troops from other departments, and even those concentrated at Matamoros for the Texan campaign. There were disturbances also in New Mexico, Sonora, and elsewhere, and attempts to break the peace in Mexico, Puebla, Guanajuato, and other places. Andrade, Revol., 1-76; Id., Calific. Legal, 1-24; Filisola, Mem. Hist. Guer. Tejas, i. 507, ii. 26-36; Dur., Represent., in Pinart, Col. Doc., 1-10; Pinart, Col. Doc. Son., ii. 279-302, 306-10; Méx., Supl. Diario Gob., 144-57; Bustamante, Gabinete Mex., i. 5-10, 17, 3356; Id., MS., iii. 3-7, 67-81, 109-10; Id., Voz de la Patria, MS., xii. 23, 81-2, 113-17; Id., Mem. Justas Quejas, 1-8; Larrainzar, in Soc. Mex. Geog. Bolet., iii. 132.
* ↑ Fears being entertained of foreign aggressions on the coast, foreigners were under the strictest surveillance.
* ↑ On the 1st of Aug. 1837, a very heavy shock was felt in Mexico. The night before a shock did some damage in Vera Cruz. Again, Nov. 22d, a shock in Mexico lasted more than five minutes, and did very serious damage to some of the strongest buildings, including the cathedral and several other churches. It was felt throughout the republic. Shortly before about 520 shocks had been experienced in Acapulco, which destroyed a part of the town, and forced the poople to abandon it. This was soon followed by an epidemic that killed millions of fish on both seas. The government adopted measures to prevent the sale of affected fish from Tampico. A great flood in the Rio Grande did much damage. Niles' Reg., lii. 402; Bustamante, Gabinete Mex., i. 26-7, 44-3; Id., MS., iii. 114-17; Jal. Not. Geog., in Soc. Mex. Geog. Bolet., vi. 314.
* ↑ Romero's appointment displeased the opposition. Indeed, though the president tried to please the opposition, it was not satisfied. Bustamante, Gabinete Mex., i. 41. The following additional authorities have been consulted for the preceding chapter: Dublan and Lozano, Leg. Mex., iii. 132-5, 215-59, 323-38, 352-03, 389-91, 443-4, 462-5, 526-7, 664-5, 723, v. 17; Méx., Col. Ley. y Órd., Jan.May 1854, vi. 69; Méx., Col. Leyes Fund., 171-218; Córtes, Diario Ses., 1835-6, ii. 227; 1836, i. 29, 211-13, ii. 111-18, 137-8; Córtes, Diario Ofic., vii. 324, ix. 171, x. 279-83; Rivero, Mex. en 1842, 24-5, 119-23; Bustamante, Mem. Justas Quejus, 1-8; Id., Mem. Hist. Mex., MS., ii. 61-76; Id., Respuesta al Allú Van, 1-20; Id., Voz de la Patria, MS., xi. 1-63, xii. 1-118; Id., Gabinete Mex., MS., i. 1-95, 109-17, ii. 1-46, 158-90, iii. 3-7, 67-81; Niles' Register, 1. 305, 393, li.-lii. passim, liii. 210, 225, 243, lvi. 323, 338, lvii. 132, Ixii. 49-51, 278, lxviii. 315-16, lxix. 98, index 'Texas;' Filisola, Mem. Hist. Guer. Tej., i. 479-507, ii. 4-6, 26-36, 88-9, 113-20, 135-51, 173-9; Gonzalez, Hist. Aguascal., 117-32; Rivera, Gob. de Méx., ii. 169-70, 202-35; Id., Hist. Jalapa, iii. 273-336, 427-30, 440-2, 460-3; Arrillaga, Recop., 1836, Jan.-June 192-4, 234-9, 252-8, 274 6, 289-96, 311-12, 334-65, 427-8, 442-5, 496; 1836, July-Dec., 48, 54, 95-6, 124-46, 271-378; 1837, passim; 1838, 67-73, 88-9, 284-6; Kennedy's Tex., i.-ii. passim; Santa Anna, Biog. del Gen$^l$, 29-32; Revista Esp., 20th April, 1836, 782; Tornel, Nac. Mej., 53-5; Oriega (Nuñez), Mem. Relac. Dipl. Mex., 83-03; Rockwell's Span. and Мех. Law, 489-92; Мosaico Мех., 271, 341, 461; Suarez, Informe, 177-89; Larrainzar, Soconusco, 102, 168; Id., Discurso, 6-10; Análisis Crit. Constituc.; Arroniz, Biog. Mex., 68-72; Mayer's Mex. Azt., i. 321-5; Méx., Reseña Hist. Negoc. Dipl. entre Esp. y Méx., 1-140; Vieyra, El Gob. del Dep$^{to}$ al Públ., 1-16; Méx., Los Males Públ.; Represent. Que los Capitulados, 1-19; Méx., Manif. Junta Depart. Méx., 1-14; Fonte, Discurso; Semblanzas de los Representantes, 1-46; Blasco, Discurso Civ., 1-8; Fossey, Mex., 358-60, 505-7; Derecho Intern. Mex., 1st pt, 387-414, 658-9, 3d pt, 237; Gudiño y Gomez, Oracion Patr., 13 pp.; Domenech, Hist, du Mex., ii. 156; Dicc. Univ. Hist. Geog., i. 751-2; Grattan's Civilized America, ii. 255; Cutts' Conq. Cal. and N. Mex., 9; Colima, Represent., 7; Caballero, Hist. Alm., 13; Arrangoiz, Méj., ii. 239-40; Correo Nac., Jan. 2-3, 1849; El Constitucional de Mérida, Feb. 3, 1838, 1-2; Constitucional del Istmo, May 15, 1337; Pinart Coll.; Bolet. del Instit., i. 96; Represent$^n$ que los Vecinos de Ciudad Victoria, 1-10; Guerra entre Méx. y los Est. Un., 16-17; Lœvenstern, Le Mexique, 83-91, 423-31; Memor. Hist., Feb. 2, 1846, 3; Mérida, Esposic. que el Åyunt., 1-12; Méx., Decreto p$^a$ el Arreglo Int$^r$ de los Depart., 1-26; Méx., Mem. Hac., 1844, 3-9; 1870, 1033-5; Id., Mem. Rel. Exter., 1838, 1-19; Id.,Supl. Diario Gob. Ultimatum, 144-57: Id., Proyecto Tercera Ley Constit., 1-18; Id., Bas. y Ley. Constit., 1837, 1-127; Miscel. ó Sea Colec., no. 2, 20-30; Nat. Calend., 18; Toluca, La Ciudad y Munic.; Andrade, Revol. Comenzada en S. L. Potosí, 1-76; Id., Calificacion Legal, 1-24; Supl. al Diario Gob. Mex., March 31, 1838, 143-57, 220; Sierra y Rosso, Represent$^n$; Vindicacion del Gen$^l$ Presidente, 1-13; Payno, Convenc. Mex., 6-14; Id., Cuentas, Gastos, etc., 600; Romero, Mich., 151; Salv., Diario Ofic., Jan. 26, 1875, 6; Zamora, Bibl. de Legisl. Ultram$^a$, ii. 277; Son. Book, ii. 265-82, 306–10; Méx., Constitucion, 1-75; Enciclop. de los Sans Culottes; Méx., Complemento; Méx., Proyecto Quinta Ley; Méx., Proyecto Sétima Ley; Soc. Mex. Geog. Bol., iii. 132, 370-2, vi. 314, vii. 293, viii. 154; Pinart Coll., Doc. no. 503; Diario Debates 6 Congr., iii. 704; Diario del Imper., June 1, 1866, 531; Disp. Varias, ii. 81, v. 35; Álvarez, Manifiesto, 16-17; Alaman, Hist. Méj., v. 865-6; Vallejo, Col. Doc. Mex., i. nos 62, 65, 71; MS., i. no. 84; vol. iv. 1-120; Wappeus, Mex. and Cent. Amer., 124; Young's Hist. Mex., 264, 307–10; Zamacois, Hist. Méj., xii. 72-182; Maillard's Hist. Tex., passim; Houston's Letter to Santa Anna; Burke's Texas Almanac, 1882, passim; Méx., Mem. Rel. Exter., 1840; Diario Gob. Mex., May 20, 1840, 1; Channing, Carta al Hon. H. Clay, 1-63; Kendall's Narr., ii. 410-17; Hunt's Merch. Mag., ii. 264-5, iv. 564, xxv. 738-9; Ward's Mex., ii. 588-9; Jay's Rev. Mex. War', 11-30, 53-7, 64-5, 87–95; Mayer's Hist. Mex. War, i. 43-9; Houston's Texas, i. 206-56; N. Am. Rev., xlii. 233-4, 244-57; Austin, Esposic. sobre Tejas, 1-32; Papeles Var., cxliii. pt 19, clxvii. pt 10; Dewees' Letters, passim; Holley's Texas, 55-72, 125-362, 393-410; Jenkins' Mex. War, 31-43, 52-6; Edinb. Rev., cxlvii. 256-66; Baker's Hist. Tex., 32-71; Thompson's Recoll. Mex., passim; Newell's Rev. in Tex., passim; Crockett, Life of, 369-77; Rev. Amér., ii. 583-4; Willson's Amer. Hist., 631-72; Ramsey's Other Side, 15-22; Foote's Texas, i. 7-26, 41-65, 218-92, ii. passim; Morphis' Hist. Tex., passim; Reid's Tramp, 42-52; Gouge's Fiscal Hist. Tex., 1-53; Thrall's Hist. Tex., passim; Texas Alm., 1857-61, 1868-9, 1872, passim; Swisher's Amer. Sketchbook, iv. no. 4, 195-227, 237-51, v. no. 5, 259-93, vi. no. 1, 76-81, no. 2, 134-9, no. 3, 214-36, no. 5, 325-45, no. 6, 409-27; U. S. Com. to Tex. Moffit's Rept, 1837, in Thompson's Recoll. Mex., 1745; Texas, Laws Rep., 1838-45, passim; Jones' Repub. Texas, 10-94, 129-520; Edwards' Hist. Tex., 14-17, 41-53, 91-110, 177-313; Br. Quart. Rev., lxi. 335-62; Lester's Houston, 45-201; Benton's Thirty Years' View, ii. 665-76; Hunt's Address, passim; Cong. Debates, 1835-6, xii. passim; 1836-7, xiii. 360, 524-8, 1010-13, 1137-40, 2010-64; 1837, xiv. 117-52; Cong. Globe, 1836-7, 6, 8, app. 225-9; 1837, 5, 9; 1837-8, 12, 25, app. 555; 1838-9, 18, 98-9, 109-10, 219; 1839-40, 274, 281, 541; 1841-2, app. 513; 1842-3, 79, 133, 340; Texas Col. Doc., nos 1-11, 13-15, 17, 29, 33, 46, 48–53, 56-9, 61-2, 64; Id., MS., 16, 18-28, 30-45, 47, 65; U. S. Govt, cong. 22, ses. 1, Acts and Resol., app. 1-24; Id., cong. 23, ses. 1, Sen. Journ., 12-13; Id., cong. 24, ses. 1, H. Journ., 14, 897-8, 1091, 1100–1, 1218-21; H. Ex. Doc., 250, 256, vol. vi.; Sen. Doc., 365, 374, 384, vol. v.; 406, 415-16, 418, vol. vi.; Id., cong. 24, ses. 2, H. Journ., 11-12, 103-6, 290, 457, 492, H. Ex. Doc., 2, 35, 105, 240; Sen. Doc. 20, 84, 172; Id., cong. 25, ses. 1, H. Ex. Doc., 40; Id., cong. 25, ses. 2, H. Ex. Doc., 53, 74-5, vol. ii.; 196, 211, vol. iv.; Sen. Doc. 50; Id., cong. 27, ses. 2, H. Ex. Doc., 266; Id., cong. 27, ses. 2, H. Journ., index Texas;' Sen. Doc. 1, vol. i.; Id., cong. 28, ses. 1, H. Ex. Doc., 2, vol. i.; Sen. Doe. 351, vol. vi.; Sen, Journ. 417, index 'Texas;' Id., cong. 29, ses. 2, H. Ex. Doc., 4.