CHAPTER XXII.
WAR WITH MEXICO.—ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.—VAST INCREASE OF TERRITORY.—THE MORMONS.
We have already related how the adventurous La Salle, when endeavouring to establish a colony at the mouth of the Mississippi, mistook his reckoning, and entered the bay of Matagorda instead. This gave the French nation a claim to Texas. The fort built by the unfortunate La Salle was soon demolished by the Indians, and the Spaniards from their neighbouring Mexico disputed also the French right of possession, they claiming the whole of this coast as a portion of their own territory.
The first permanent settlement of the whites in Texas was by the Spaniards, in 1684, when, under San Antonio de Bexar, the fort of that name was established. In 1719 also a colony settled there from the Canary Isles. Various missionary stations and military posts were also established at different places, so that the Spaniards became the assured possessors of the country, with an increasing population. The missionary stations, unlike the simple log-huts and chapels of the early French jesuits, were massive fortresses of stone, the churches decorated with images of saints and paintings, and surmounted by enormous towers. The ruins of several of these vast erections still remain in various parts of Texas, and produce a very striking effect, especially in a country where the traces of civilised life are so scanty. The Spanish population of Texas was, however, inconsiderable at the time of the Mexican revolution in 1810, owing to the incursions of the savage Comanches and other Indian tribes, and to the police regulations of the Spanish government. As regards the relative positions and feelings of the Mexican government and that of the United States, we will give a few remarks from an American writer.[[82]] “The Mexican authorities were not so desirous of occupying Texas as of keeping her a desolate waste; that she might present an impassable barrier between themselves and their Anglo-American neighbours. The cause of this is not of difficult solution, and is derived from the old mother-country. At the time when Mexico was first colonised, Spain was at the head of the Roman Catholic countries, and all heretics were held in abhorrence by her, and exterminated by the inquisition and the sword. The changes which knowledge and general enlightenment have produced in the Protestant world universally, and even in the Catholic when it has been forced into closer contact with progressive opinion, have not reached Mexico, which has been shut up as it were, and which has jealously retained all her native aversions, prejudices and jealousies. Besides which, Mexico as a colony belonged less to the Spanish nation than to the Spanish kings, and was governed by their viceroys, regardless of the well-being of the people, merely as an estate to produce a revenue. No possible rivalry with the mother-country was permitted; meanwhile the mines were industriously worked, no commerce was permitted to the Mexicans, nor might they rear the silkworm or plant the olive or the vine.
“When, however, the English colonies asserted and established their own independence, Spain, fearing a similar revolt in her own colony, somewhat relaxed her laws regarding their trade with foreign nations, but only under severe restrictions and enormous duties, so that the freedom on the one hand might be nullified by the restrictions on the other. Very little change took place in Mexico.
“At length, in 1810, when the Spanish nation fell under the arm of Napoleon, the Mexicans revolted. But the people were not united, and after a war of eight years the Royalist party prevailed. A second revolution took place in 1821, under Iturbide, when the Mexicans succeeded in throwing off the Spanish yoke. Iturbide proclaimed himself king, and the people, wishing for a republic, deposed him; he was banished, and returning was executed. A new leader arose in the person of Santa Anna, under whose auspices Mexico was divided into States, with each a legislature, and over the whole a general government with a federal constitution similar to that of the United States. But Santa Anna was not a second Washington; the constitution became subverted, and he the military tyrant of the country.”
Having given this brief sketch of the condition and government of Mexico, we now return to Texas. When, in 1803, the United States purchased Louisiana from France, the disputed claim to Texas became transferred to them, and in 1819, when Florida was granted to them by Spain, they ceded to that country their claims to Texas as a portion of Mexico. But although they had resigned their claim to Texas, the United States could not resist their natural impulse at extension and colonisation, and, in 1821, favoured by the Mexican authorities, who hoped that the bold and determined Anglo-American settler would be a good defence against the hostile Comanches, the first attempt at the colonisation of Texas was successfully made. The intended leader of this movement was Moses Austen, of Durham, in Connecticut, who obtained a grant of land from the Mexican authorities for the settlement of a colony between the rivers Brazas and Colorado. Death prevented Moses Austen from carrying out his plans, which, however, were fully and most successfully executed by his son, Steven F. Austen. The success of Austen’s colony soon alarmed the Mexican authorities; and well it might, for these sturdy republicans once planted there would soon take such firm root as to displace any other possessor. Nor was it long before evidences of their intentions were apparent. In 1827, a movement was attempted by the settlers of Nacogdoches to throw off the Mexican yoke and to establish a republic under the name of Fredonia. The attempt was unsuccessful, but the Mexican authorities were alarmed, more especially as soon after some overtures were made on the part of the United States government to purchase Texas.
In 1833, there were about 10,000 American settlers in Texas; and at that time dissatisfaction and discontent were prevailing largely among them. The Spanish Mexicans of the province carried against them every measure in the government, and when Steven Austen was sent to the city of Mexico to petition for redress, he was first neglected, and then thrown into a dungeon. In 1835 Austen was once more in Texas. The usurpations of Santa Anna had in the meantime increased the public discontent, and the Texians generally prepared to throw off the yoke of his despotism. Adventurers from the American states hastened to take part in the approaching contest, which sooner or later was sure to be advantageous to their nation. A provisional government was appointed, and Samuel Houston placed at the head of the army in Texas.
In December the Texian forces, under General Burleton, besieged the strong fortress of Alamo and the city of Bexar, which was garrisoned by General Cos and 1,300 Spaniards and Mexicans. In a few days the fortress was taken, and the Mexicans obtained permission to retire; so that within a very short time not a single Mexican soldier remained east of the Rio Grande.
Santa Anna, who understood too well the spirit of the people, no sooner saw the stronghold of Bezar taken by a party whose purposes were so adverse to his own, than he entered Texas in person, and with 4,000 men invested Goliad and Bezar, which had unfortunately been left in the hands of a very inadequate force. The attack commenced and continued for several days, the fortress of the Alamo in Bezar being defended by its little band with a courage, says Samuel Goodrich, worthy of Leonidas and his Spartans. After having held out for a considerable time they sustained a general assault on the night of the 6th of May. They fought until Travis, their commander, fell, and seven only of the garrison were left when the place was taken, and the little remnant was torn to pieces. Two human beings only were left, a woman and a negro servant. Among those who fell on this terrible occasion was the celebrated David Crockett of Tennessee, a man well known from the eccentricity of his mind and the independence of his character; he was found surrounded by a heap of dead whom he had slain.
Colonel Fanning, who commanded at Goliad, by direction of the Texian authorities evacuated this place on the 17th of March, but had scarcely reached the open country when they were surrounded by the Mexicans with a troop of Indian allies. They defended themselves all day, and killed a great number of the enemy; during the night, however, the Mexicans being reinforced, they were obliged to surrender, on condition of being treated as prisoners of war: good faith, however, was unknown to Santa Anna, and no sooner were they in his power than he ordered them to be drawn out and shot. Four hundred men were thus murdered in cold blood; one of the soldiers saying to his fellows, when the inhuman order was given, “They are going to shoot us; let us face about and not be shot in the back.” This bloody tragedy, which stamped the name of Santa Anna with infamy, took place on the 27th of March, 1836.