The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-05-14
LEAF FROM THE PAST.
The Texas Revolution. The Causes that Led
to IT,

There is general impression that the citi-
zens of the United States who immigrated to
Texas under the Colonization laws came with
the intention of revolutionizing the country
and annexing it to the United States. There
may have been some who cherished this idea
but certainly the leaders did not. They took
an oath of fidelity to the Government of
Mexico, and to suppose that they did it with
the intention of rebelling against that autho-
rity would be to impute to them bad faith.
Austin certainly acted in good faith to the
Mexican Government. Next to Austin,
Hayden Edwards had done the most towards
introducing colonists into Texas. Yoakum
says Edwards expended some $50, 900 for the
benefit of his colony. 1t is not charged that
Edwards acted in bad faith towards the Mexi-
can Government until Saucedo, the Chief of
the Department of Texas at San Antonio, an
nulled Edwards grant, and without permit
ting him to make any defense, peremptorily
ordered Edwards and his brother to leave the
country.
We give some of the causes that led to the
Texas Revolution
All the colonists were required to profess
the Roman Catholic religion. At first this
was construed to imply nothing more than q
general belief in Christianity When it was
rigidly enforced, and colonists required to
bring their children to the priests for bap-
tism, it produced irritation
Texas was too remote from the seat of
government in Mexico to have real grievances
promptly redressed.
It's legislative connection with the remote
and purely Mexican State of Coahuila was
most unfortunate. Between these two peo-
pies there was no identity of interest and no
sympathy.
The law of colonization gave preference
to Mexican over American settlers. All con-
troversies before the Alcaldes were decided in
favor of Mexican ltigants.
The colonists were compelled to buy their
necessaries of Mexican dealers, legitimate
commerce with the United State being pro-
hibited.
All traffic in negro slaves was prohibited
Children of slave parents introduced in the
families of colonists were to be taught to read
and set free at fourteen years of age
The first officers sent to rule in Texas we're
not suited to the task We have seen how
Saucedo, Chief of the Department, arbitra-
rily banished the Edwards. He was never
known in q controversy between a Mexican
and an American to decide in favor of the
latter.
Bradburn, the subordinate commander at
Anahuac, was even more odious than Sau-
cedo. Bradburn compelled servants to work
for him without compensation, and permitted
his soldiers to rob and pillage the people. In
true Mexican style he threw citizens into
prison-among them, p. FL. Jack, William
B. Travis, and Monroe Edwards.
Above all, the frequent changes of the
Mexican Government made it difficult for
Texans to decide what course to pursue.
Sometimes that Government passed most hos
tile acts toward Texas In 1880 a law was
passed prohibiting natives of the United
States from coming into Texas.
Still later, orders were given to suspend
giving land titles to colonists Finally list
Of persons prescribed was published. 1t in
cuded S. M. Williams, the efficient Secre-
tary of Austins Colony, Anson Jones, Il. M.
Williamson, Ghree-legged Willie), w. b.
Travis, Mosely Baker, John H. Moore,
Caravahal, Zembrano and many others. The
two Mexicans we're seized and sent into Mexi-
co to prison, and the others would have
shared the same fate but for the breaking
out of the revolution.
Still there were good men in Texas who
thought the colonists should contend for the
Constitution of 1924, and restore to Mexico
such a Government as it enjoyed under
Guadalupe Victoria, first Constitutional Pre-
sident.
These parties (and some of them, like Colo
mel Elias p. Bean, had fought for Republican
ism in Mexico for quarter of century,
thought Texas might become the means for
regenerating Mexico, and that the colonists
ought instead of declaring their indepen-
dence, to seek to reform the Mexican Govern
mept.
Stephen F. Austin had contended so
strongly for the rights of his colonists that he
had been for months thrown into loathsome
Mexican prison. When Santa Anna resumed
the reins of power in May, 1884, he gave
promise of great reforms. Austin and Zavala,
the imprisoned Texas Commissioners, were
released and courteously listened to by the
President and Council and reforms promised.
Though Austin had done and suffered SO
much ia the cause of Texas when the con-
sultation of 1885 determined to organize a
Provisional Government, Henry Smith was
elected to that Office, having beaten Austin a
few votes. 1t was thought Austin was toe
conservative, and that he placed too much
faith in the declarations of Santa Anna, who
had released him from prison and made such
fair promises to Texas.
Suppose the Texans had ther
determined to remain a part of the Mexican
nation and to contend for their rights; sup
pose they had coalesced with the true repub
licans of Mexico; suppose the men who
fought at San Jacinto had crossed the Rio
Grande to Americanize that country, intro
duce a sure enough republican government
and reduce the chaos there to order, will
Sam Houston President of the regeneratet
Mexican Republic? Suppose all this-ther
what?
m. Halle