( ~ / * <-^u 
 
 THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO 
 
 1835-1837 
 
 BY 
 
 EUGENE C. BARKER 
 
 REPRINTED FROM THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY 
 HISTORICAL REVIEW, VOL. I, JUNE, 1914 
 
THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO, 1835-1837 
 
 Pecuniary claims against Mexico for losses inflicted on Ameri- 
 can citizens were a matter of increasing diplomatic pressure 
 during the last two years of President Jackson 's administration; 
 and, in February, 1837, the president asked authority to use the 
 army and navy in compelling a settlement. But Congress hesi- 
 tated to resort at once to such radical means; and the claims, 
 constantly augmenting, continued to be an irritating subject of 
 negotiation until the beginning of the Mexican War. The prin- 
 cipal relations between the two countries during the period con- 
 sidered in this paper, however, were those which grew out of 
 the Texas revolution. 
 
 While there is no evidence that the Anglo-American colonists 
 settled Texas with the intention of tearing it from Mexico and 
 annexing it to the United States, they formed by their immigra- 
 tion no real ties with Mexico and broke none with the United 
 States. A perennial state of revolution compelled the govern- 
 ment to leave them largely to their own devices in local affairs, 
 and an unwise suspension of the tariff in their favor encouraged 
 trade with the United States instead of with Mexico. Vessels 
 rarely sailed between Texan and Mexican ports, though both 
 had regular connections with New Orleans. It is not surprising, 
 therefore, that the Texans turned to the people of the United " 
 States for aid at the beginning of their contest with Mexico. 
 
 On October 4, two days after the outbreak of war, Stephen 
 F. Austin wrote the committees of safety of Nacogdoches and 
 San Augustine, near the Louisiana frontier, that the Texans 
 
4 E. C. Barker M. v. H. R. 
 
 needed arms and ammunition, and asked if guns could not be 
 obtained east of the Sabine. 1 The next day General Houston, 
 writing at San Augustine, appealed for volunteers in a letter 
 which he probably intended for publication in the papers of the 
 United States. "Let each man come with a good rifle and one 
 hundred rounds of ammunition, " he said, "and come soon"; 
 millions of acres of the best land remained unappropriat- 
 ed, and volunteers would receive liberal bounties. 2 On Oc- 
 tober 9, R. R. Royall issued in the name of a central executive 
 committee at San Felipe a general appeal to the United States 
 and pledged land to satisfy the "most extravagant expecta- 
 tions. " 3 On the twenty-sixth Royall 's committee, somewhat 
 enlarged, published an address explaining the causes of the 
 revolution and pleading for help from the people of the United 
 States: "We are but one people. Our fathers side by side 
 fought the battles of the revolution. We side by side fought 
 the battles of the war of 1812 and 1815. . . You are united 
 to us by all the sacred ties that can bind one people to another. 
 . . . We invite you to our country . . . and we pledge 
 to you, as we are authorized to do, the lands of Texas and the 
 honor and faith of the people, that every volunteer in our cause 
 shall not only justly but generously be rewarded. " * In No- 
 vember the newly organized provisional government .'passed 
 liberal bounty laws and published them in the United States, and 
 as a further inducement to ambitious volunteers from that 
 quarter reserved for them for a time a number of official posi- 
 tions in the army. 5 At the same time it elected three commis- 
 sioners to the United States, Stephen F. Austin, B. T. Archer, 
 and W. H. Wharton, and instructed them to negotiate a loan of 
 a million dollars, to fit out a navy, to obtain supplies for the 
 army, and to solicit and receive donations. 6 These commission- 
 
 1 Telegraph and Texas Register, October 10, 1835. 
 
 2 New Orleans Courier, October 13, 1835. 
 
 3 Manuscript in Texas State Library. 
 
 *Niles' Weekly Register, 49: 234, 235; Texas State Historical Association, Quar- 
 terly, 7: 271-273. 
 
 s Journal of the Proceedings of the General Council of the Republic of Texas, at 
 San Felipe de Austin, from November 14, 1835, to March 1, 1836 (Houston, 1839), 
 111, 117, 124. 
 
 Journals of the Consultation held at San Felipe de Austin, October 16 to Novem- 
 ber 14, 1835 (Houston, 1838), 37. The commissioners were elected November 12, 
 
Vol. i, NO. i The United States and Mexico 5 
 
 ers appointed subcommissioners ; and, in addition, the pro- 
 visional government made a practice throughout the revolution 
 of creating special agents of those whom business or other in- 
 terests called to the United States. Some of these were merely 
 to raise volunteers, some carried blank commissions for priva- 
 teers, and others were to purchase and equip ships of war. 7 
 
 In the United States, on the other hand, popular enthusiasm 
 for the Texan cause was spontaneous and fairly general. Be- 
 fore the end of November, 1835, meetings were held at various 
 places in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, 
 Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. With the prog- 
 ress of the Texan commissioners up the Mississippi-Ohio val- 
 ley in the spring of 1836 and the reports of Mexican barbarity 
 at the Alamo and Goliad, interest still further quickened and 
 extended to the great cities of the East Washington, Balti- 
 more, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston. 8 The 
 procedure of these meetings was everywhere the same. They 
 assembled in response to a public notice in the local papers, 
 adopted resolutions of sympathy, opened a list for volunteers, 
 and appointed a committee to solicit subscriptions. Funds not 
 consumed in equipping and transporting the volunteers usually 
 found their way to the Texans in the form of munitions and 
 supplies. 
 
 In credit, loans, and donations the Texans drew their finan-^X 
 cial support almost entirely from the United States ; 9 and first 
 and last they received several thousand volunteers from the 
 same source. In the assault on San Antonio in December, 1835, 
 three companies from the United States two from New Or- 
 
 but their instructions were not prepared until December 8, and it was not until a 
 month later that they reached New Orleans. See Barker, "Finances of the Texas 
 Revolution, " in Political Science Quarterly, 19: 627-631. 
 
 7 G. P. Garrison, Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas (American 
 Historical Association, Report, 1907, vol. 2, 1908, vol. 2), 1: 61, 67; Texas State His- 
 torical Association, Quarterly, 9 : 240, 241 ; Journal of the General Council, 73-76. 
 
 s Accounts of these meetings are found in the newspapers of the states named, in 
 the Telegraph and Texas Register, which reprinted the proceedings of many of them, 
 and in the manuscript materials in the Austin papers and the Texas State Library. 
 New Orleans papers are particularly useful. For a detailed study of Kentucky's 
 part in the Texas revolution see an article by James E. Winston in Southwestern 
 Historical Quarterly, 16: 27-62. 
 
 Barker, ' ' Finances of the Texas Revolution, ' ' in Political Science Quarterly, 
 19: 612-635. 
 
6 E. C. Barker M - v - H - R - 
 
 leans and one from Mississippi 10 took an important part; 
 many of those who died at the Alamo were recent i ' emigrants, ' ' 
 as were practically all of Fannin 's command at Goliad more 
 than four hundred in number; and between March and Decem- 
 ber, 1836, Judge T. J. Chambers alone, who held a commission 
 as major general from the provisional government, sent nearly 
 two thousand men to Texas. 11 Austin wrote Governor Smith 
 in January, 1836, that the men who had just subscribed the first 
 Texas loans in New Orleans had offered to throw five hundred 
 men into Texas within six weeks, the cost of this to be repaid 
 at the close of the war with eight per cent interest, and the 
 capitalists to have the option of taking land in repayment at 
 fifty cents an acre. Ten days later he wrote that the commis- 
 sioners had authorized Colonel Thomas D. Owings, late of the 
 Twenty-eighth United States Infantry, to raise fifteen hundred 
 volunteers and have them in Texas by March, the expense of 
 arming, equipping, and transporting them to be paid by Texas 
 at the close of the war. 12 In March S. M. Williams wrote that 
 with $30,000 he could send three thousand men to Texas in 
 forty days. 13 About the same time General T. J. Green wrote 
 that he was arranging to raise $50,000, with which he expected 
 in a short time to take fifteen hundred men to Texas; that he 
 had appointed many influential officers in Tennessee, and was 
 himself awaiting in New Orleans the return of a thousand volun- 
 teers from the Seminole War, many of whom he hoped to enlist 
 for Texas. Mexico's treatment of Texas, he said, was making 
 the United States indignant from New Orleans to the falls of the 
 Ohio; with ample means he could within sixty days send to 
 Texas enough men to "take the prairie with our enemy" and, 
 if necessary, follow him home. 14 April 18, George C. Childress 
 wrote President Burnet that the South and West were "kindling 
 to a blaze " on the subject of Texas; General Richard G. Dun- 
 lap of the Tennessee volunteers was anxious to raise a force 
 of from two to five thousand men for Texas, provided he could 
 retain there the same rank which he held in Tennessee, and pro- 
 
 10 Texas State Historical Association, Quarterly, 9: 213. 
 
 ai Hid., 240, 241. 
 
 12 Garrison, Diplomatic Correspondence of Texas, 1 : 55-61. 
 
 is Williams to Fannin, March 27, 1836, manuscript in Texas State Library. 
 
 i* Green to Burnet, April 8, 1836, manuscript in Texas State Library. 
 
Vol. i, NO. i The United States and Mexico 7 
 
 vided Texas would furnish transportation. Childress had no 
 doubt of his ability to get the men and authorized him to pro- 
 ceed. 15 He hoped to carry with him the whole force of Tennes- 
 see volunteers which would be mustered out of the Florida serv- 
 ice in June. Before he made any progress in this plan, how- 
 ever, Governor Cannon received a call from General Gaines for 
 a brigade to help defend the southwestern frontier; and Dun- 
 lap enlisted "with a full Conviction, " as he explained, "that 
 we would not be detained long in the service of the U. Sts, and 
 that in that event I could take the whole volunteer Corps with 
 me to Texas. " 16 In April, the papers made much of the de- 
 parture of Captain John A. Quitman from Natchez with twen- 
 ty-five or thirty ' * armed emigrants, ' ' fifteen of whom were said 
 to be members of his old company, the Natchez Fencibles. 17 
 General Felix Huston published his intention to leave the same 
 place early in May with several hundred companions. 18 
 
 The greatest interest in the cause of Texas was manifested 
 in the Mississippi Valley south of the Ohio ; and every state in 
 that section contributed liberally in men and money ; but organ- 
 ized companies went also from Ohio and New York, 19 and others 
 offered themselves from Indiana, western Virginia, and Penn- 
 sylvania, 20 while individuals went from nearly every state in 
 the Union. 
 
 The motives of most of these men seem fairly obvious. The 
 people of the United States have always had a hunger for own- 
 ing land, but at this time that hunger became greed. In 1835, 
 the government sales were nearly twelve million acres; and, in 
 
 IB Garrison, Diplomatic Correspondence of Texas, 1 : 84-86. Childress with G. 
 M. Collinsworth had been commissioned by President Burnet to take the place of 
 Austin, Archer, and Wharton in the United States. Their ultimate mission was to 
 try to get the United States to recognize the Texan government. 
 
 is Ibid., 94, 97. As will later appear, General Gaines withdrew his call before 
 this force got into service. 
 
 IT New Orleans Commercial Bulletin, April 13, 1836, from Mississippi Free Trader. 
 
 is The Mississippian (Jackson), April 29, 1836. 
 
 i Vallette to Burnet, May 31, 1836, manuscript in Texas State Library; New 
 York Daily Advertiser, November 23, 1836. 
 
 20 Columbus [Ohio] Monitor, September 26, 1836; Vallette to Burnet as cited 
 above; Schuler et al. to Austin, November 19, 1835, and Steedman to Smith, Decem- 
 ber 30, 1835, manuscripts in Texas State Library. Vallette wrote Burnet that two 
 hundred men from the Kanawha region of Virginia were expected at Cincinnati early 
 in June, and that the Texas committee of Cincinnati would provide them with arms. 
 
8 E. C. Barker M - v - H - R - 
 
 1836, they exceeded nineteen million; but the government now 
 sold only for cash at $1.25 an acre ; and even the easy loans of 
 the "pet banks " were beyond the reach of many who thus saw 
 themselves deprived of a future competency for want of a trif- 
 ling sum. To these the Texan bounty laws opened the door of 
 opportunity. 21 Transportation was furnished free, the Mex- 
 icans were poor creatures who would not fight, the war would 
 soon be over, and every soldier would find himself at the end 
 possessed of a princely grant of the finest land in the world. 22 
 Moreover, it was an age when men talked ardently of liberty, 
 democracy, and the Constitution, and felt as they talked. Amer- 
 icans had not been indifferent to the heroic deeds of Bolivar or 
 to the struggles of the Greeks and the Poles ; should they be 
 less concerned when their own kinsmen and fellow countrymen, 
 " lured " to Texas by fair promises and the guarantees of re- 
 publican government, were contending at their very doors 
 against despotism which no "American born citizen could 
 bear?" 2S With a sense of humor and a knowledge of the facts, 
 we may smile at the idea of Mexico 's luring colonists to Texas ; 
 but a study of the public meetings of 1835 and 1836 will convince 
 students that it expressed the sober conviction of a large portion 
 of the American people. The newspapers were important 
 agencies in stimulating interest. They were almost uniformly 
 friendly to Texas, and did much to shape the public opinion 
 which they reflected. The Mexican charge d'affaires at Phila- 
 delphia, Castillo y Lanzas, was quick to realize this, and sug- 
 gested to his government that it should subsidize some of the 
 more influential papers to suppress anti-Mexican articles and 
 publish favorable matter. 24 Nothing favorable to Mexico had 
 ever been printed in these papers in the past, he said, except 
 at the price of money or fair words ; and at present the former 
 
 21 See, for example, Texas State Historical Association, Quarterly, 9 : 171, 182. 
 
 22 See, for example, proceedings of public meetings at Nashville, Tennessee, and 
 Greensborough, Alabama, in Telegraph and Texas Register, February 20, 1836, and 
 El Correo Atlantico (New Orleans), April 18, 1836. 
 
 2 s Proceedings of a meeting at Mobile, October 19, 1835, manuscript in Texas 
 State Library. This is typical of the tone of many speeches and resolutions. See 
 also proceedings of a meeting in Tammany Hall, November 12, 1835. New York 
 Daily Advertiser, November 13, 1835. 
 
 2 *"Pagar bien a los editores que se prestasen a sostener nuestro credito y jus- 
 trcia.' 
 
Vol. i, NO. i The United States and Mexico 9 
 
 was indispensable, the best of promises having lost their virtue. 
 His experience with the New York Courier and Enquirer had 
 proved the efficacy of this method. During a visit to New York 
 in August he had talked at length with one of the editors, and 
 since then its language had changed. The government ap- 
 proved the suggestion and sent Castillo a thousand dollars to 
 use with the papers which had most distinguished themselves 
 by their attacks on Mexico, admonishing him at the same time 
 to "move with circumspection, so as not to compromit the na- 
 tional decorum. ' ' 25 Land speculators may have been at the bot- 
 tom of some of the enthusiasm displayed for the Texan cause, 
 but their influence can hardly be established. 26 Of a conscious 
 purpose to aid the Texans in order to bring more slavery ter- 
 ritory into the United States, the writer has found no evi- 
 dence. 27 
 
 All these pro-Texas activities were carried on with the utmost 
 publicity. Meetings were called by newspaper notices, their 
 proceedings were fully reported and widely copied, committees 
 used the press to urge contributions to the Texan cause, and 
 advertisements for volunteers were common. 28 With equal lack 
 
 25 Castillo to secretary of relaciones, October 2, 1835, and answer of the secretary, 
 November 5, 1835, transcripts of University of Texas from Mexican foreign office. I 
 have not had an opportunity to verify Castillo's statement that the tone of the En- 
 quirer changed in August. It certainly was hostile to Texas after that time. 
 
 26 The New York Daily Advertiser in the issue of November 14, 1835, comments 
 editorially on the meetings of Texan sympathisers in New York, and wonders how 
 much enthusiasm is due to disinterested love of liberty and how much to speculation 
 in Texas land. From the list of names most active in the movement, it suspects that 
 the latter consideration cuts some figure. James Gordon Bennett in the New York 
 Herald (April 2, 1836) says that he is heart and soul for the true Texan cause but 
 dead against the speculator. The New Orleans Commercial Bulletin (November 21, 
 1835), however, indignantly denied the charge of the New York Courier and Enquirer 
 (October 31) that the Texas committee in New Orleans was "a sort of Wall Street 
 Stock-jobbing company ": "the majority . . . are not interested in a rood of 
 ground in Texas and are not even in the remotest manner connected with any specu- 
 lation in that section." 
 
 27 The only reference to the subject that I have noticed is in The Mississippian 
 (Jackson) of March 18, 1836. A writer there, in reviewing a pamphlet by Wharton 
 on the causes of the Texan revolution, points out that the possession of Texas by the 
 United States would open an immense region for the diffusing of slaves in which the 
 older slave states could dispose of their surplus to advantage. 
 
 28 For a typical notice see the Columbus, Mississippi, Southern Argus (December 
 4, 1835) : "Texas Volunteers! ! ! All such as are willing to risk their life and for- 
 
10 E. C. Barker M - v - H - R - 
 
 of concealment the papers chronicled the movements of volun- 
 teers already on the way. 
 
 It required no gift of prophecy to foresee that the Texans 
 would expect to draw much of their support from the people 
 of the United States, although, at the very outset of the revo- 
 lution, our government gave Mexico formal notice of its de- 
 termination to observe scrupulous neutrality. On October 21, 
 1835, Henry Carleton, the United States district attorney at New 
 Orleans, wrote the secretary of state that he had no doubt that 
 persons in his district intended going to Texas "to act in con- 
 cert with the Texans, " but that it was difficult to bring them 
 within the scope of the law of April 20, 1818, "for it does not 
 appear that any regular enlisting or entering as soldiers has 
 taken place within the meaning of the statute, or that any 
 definite or tangible military expedition or enterprise has been 
 set on foot or begun/' 20 He had expressed to Pizarro Mar- 
 tinez, the local Mexican consul, his willingness to prosecute 
 such offenses against the Mexican government and had asked 
 him to assist in finding evidence against those who violated the 
 law, but Martinez "seemed to think his agency would be un- 
 availing, and said he could do nothing more than communicate 
 the facts, as they occurred, to the officers of his Government. ' ' 30 
 Before receiving this letter, Forsyth wrote Carleton (October 
 27) that it was the president's fixed determination to discharge 
 all the obligations of the government and especially that one 
 which "requires that we shall abstain, under every temptation, 
 
 tune for the cause of LIBERTY in Texas are requested to come forward and register 
 their names. A list may be found in the hands of the editor of the Argus. ; ' 
 
 29 Certain provisions of the law made it a misdemeanor, punishable by fine and 
 imprisonment: (1) for a citizen of the United States to accept and exercise a com- 
 mission to serve any foreign power against another power with which the United 
 States was at peace; (2) for any person to enlist or cause another to enlist within the 
 jurisdiction of the United States, or to cause another to go beyond the jurisdiction 
 of the United States with intent to be enlisted; (3) for any person ''within the ter- 
 ritory or jurisdiction of the United States [to] begin or set on foot, or provide, or 
 prepare the means for, any military expedition or enterprise to be carried on from 
 thence against the territory of any foreign prince or state," etc.; (4) for any person 
 to fit out within the jurisdiction of the United States a vessel for war against a power 
 with which the United States was at peace. Statutes at Large, 3 : 447-450. 
 
 *o 25 CTopgress, 2 Session, House Executive Document 74, p. 3 ; Martinez to 
 secretary of reladones, November 14, 1835, University of Texas transcripts from 
 Mexican foreign office. 
 
Vol. i, NO. i The United States and Mexico 11 
 
 from intermeddling with the domestic disputes of other na- 
 tions "; he would, therefore, prosecute "without discrimina- 
 tion " all violations of the neutrality laws of the United States. 
 At the same time the secretary wrote Governor White of Lou- 
 isiana, asking him to cooperate with the federal authorities in 
 preventing violation of the law. 31 And on November 4, he out- 
 lined very clearly to the Mexican charge d'affaires the policy 
 that this government would pursue. The president wished 
 Mexico to know, said Forsyth, that the United States viewed 
 the contest with Texas as a purely domestic struggle, in which 
 the United States should maintain absolute neutrality ; the presi- 
 dent would not depart one jot from this policy, and had already 
 determined to instruct the proper officials to that effect; but in 
 this connection it was indispensable for Mexico to understand 
 that the United States government could not prevent public 
 meetings from voting to collect money, arms, and men to aid 
 the Texans, nor could it prevent merchant vessels sailing from 
 its ports to Texas with contraband of war; there would prob- 
 ably be a good deal of such trade, with both Mexico and Texas, 
 but whether the cargo were money, arms, or men, it was the 
 task of Mexico, or of Texas, as the case might be, to prevent 
 the vessels from landing, and not the duty of the United States 
 to prevent them from sailing. 32 The same day Forsyth sent 
 instructions similar to those already given Carleton to the fed- 
 eral attorneys at Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, 
 Mobile, and St. Martinsville, Louisiana ; 33 and, on November 9, 
 he instructed Butler to make at Mexico substantially the same 
 statement concerning our policy that he himself had already 
 made to Castillo. 34 
 
 The limitation of the government by the Constitution and the 
 law of April 20, 1818, was a fact, however, which Mexicans, with 
 their own political background of arbitrary government and 
 capricious judicial procedure, were unable to understand; and, 
 seeing our government inactive in the face of what appeared to 
 them palpable breaches of neutrality, they felt that they had 
 
 si 25 Congress, 2 Session, House Executive Document 74, pp. 3, 4. 
 2 Castillo to secretary of relaciones, November 14, 1835, University of Texas tran- 
 scripts from Mexican foreign office. 
 
 83 24 Congress, 1 Session, House Executive Document 256, p. 36. 
 a* Ibid., 3. 
 
12 E. C. Barker M - v - H - R - 
 
 sufficient reason to doubt its sincerity. It is not necessary here 
 to examine all the correspondence of the state department on 
 this subject ; a few passages will illustrate its tone and the pro- 
 cedure of the department. On October 29, Castillo wrote For- 
 syth that vessels were commonly leaving New York and New 
 Orleans laden with arms and munitions for the colonists; and 
 he hoped, for the sake of peace and harmony between his nation 
 and the United States, that the president, in his "inflexible rec- 
 titude, ' ' would take measure to put an end to such; proceedings. 
 Forsyth replied that instructions had been issued to the dis- 
 trict attorneys at those places to prosecute all violators of the 
 law; and both attorneys soon had occasion to attempt to carry 
 out the instructions. In New York, the Mexican vice consul 
 called attention to a meeting at the Shakespeare Hotel on No- 
 vember 7 which adopted resolutions and appointed a committee 
 "to solicit and receive subscriptions for the benefit of the Tex- 
 onians." Attorney William Price put the matter before the 
 federal grand jury, which was in session, and that body applied 
 to the court for an interpretation of the law. Confining itself 
 strictly to the question as phrased, the court ruled that dona- 
 tions to the Texans "to enable them to engage in a civil war 
 with the sovereignty of Mexico" were not a "beginning, or 
 setting on foot, or providing the means for, a military expedi- 
 tion from the United States," and were therefore not a viola- 
 tion of the law. In December the rumor spread in New Orleans 
 that the schooner Brutus was being armed for the purpose of 
 capturing vessels in the Mexican trade ; and a number of mer- 
 chants and insurance companies requested Carleton to prevent 
 its sailing. He began proceedings and examined many witness- 
 es, including those who made the complaint, but failed abso- 
 lutely to make a case, though the Brutus was in fact fitting out 
 as a Texan man of war. 35 On April 4, Gorostiza, the Mexican 
 envoy extraordinary, brought to Forsyth 's notice newspaper 
 reports that the ladies of Nashville were raising a company at 
 their expense, as well as a printed letter from General Felix 
 Huston, dated Natchez, March 4, 1836, saying that he expected 
 to take five hundred emigrants to Texas about the first of May 
 
 ss 24 Congress, 1 Session, House Executive Document 256, pp. 8, 29 ; 25 Congress, 
 2 Session, House Executive Document 74, pp. 4-21. 
 
vol. i, NO. i The United States and Mexico 13 
 
 and that he was making arrangements for arms, ammunition, 
 and uniforms' at a cost of $40,000. An editorial in the paper 
 which printed this letter advised its readers that, if they desired 
 to go to Texas "to aid in the struggle for independence/' they 
 could not go under a more accomplished leader. Gorostiza ex- 
 pressed the hope that the state department might block this 
 plan. Forsyth, as usual, issued formal instructions to the dis- 
 trict attorneys of the Mississippi Valley to prosecute General 
 Huston or any one else who violated the law; but the reply of 
 one of these attorneys was that he knew of no persons in Ken- 
 tucky "so deporting themselves as to come within the provisions 
 of the act of Congress ' ' ; and another said that, while he had no 
 doubt that a movement of some description was preparing for 
 the assistance of the Texans, he was "unable to obtain any 
 legal evidence of a violation of the laws, on which to base a 
 prosecution. " Again, on July 21, Gorostiza inclosed extracts 
 from the Grand Gulf [Mississippi] Advertiser saying that Colo- 
 nel Wilson had recently passed there with more than two hun- 
 dred men bound for Texas, "drums beating and fifes playing, 7 ' 
 and that three hundred others were following from "old Ken- 
 tucky. " This and other evidence which he mentioned caused 
 him to believe that "some agents of the Federal Government 
 in the States" were not obeying the president's instructions. 
 The acting secretary of state replied that the facts would be 
 investigated and violations of the law punished, and would Mr. 
 Gorostiza please inform the department of any specific derelic- 
 tion on the part of federal officers. 36 
 
 It is difficult not to sympathise with Gorostiza 's exasperation. 
 The law of April 20, 1818, lent itself to easy evasion, and volun- 
 teers were coached in all its loop-holes, being especially warned 
 that they must go to Texas in their individual capacity. An 
 editorial in the New Orleans Commercial Bulletin (November 
 25, 1835) declared that the law did not "mean to prevent any 
 citizen from taking passage in any merchant vessel, to go any- 
 where and with any intent, and with arms and munitions of 
 war"; and sooner or later this was repeated in substance by 
 
 3824 Congress, 1 Session, House Executive Document 256, pp. 13, 30; 25 Congress, 
 2 Session, House Executive Document 74, p. 23; 24 Congress, 2 Session, Senate Docu- 
 ment I, pp. 40, 41. 
 
14 E. C. Barker M - v - H - R - 
 
 most of the newspapers and most of the public meetings of the 
 period. A particularly bald statement of the subterfuge ap- 
 pears in the Mississippi Free Trader (April 8, 1836) in a " word 
 of advice to those who intend going to Texas with General 
 Huston and Captain Quitman." "Be cautious in conversa- 
 tion, " said the editor, "not to use any language which would 
 justify an arrest in the United States. That men have a right 
 to travel together there can be no doubt. And further, no one 
 who joins General Huston on the 21st is bound to engage in the 
 Texian war. Nor do they make any engagement to do so. 
 General Huston, it is true, has some odd notions of his own, and 
 does not wish any one to travel to Texas with him who does not 
 have a good horse, rifle or musket, and brace of pistols . . . 
 but that is nobody's business. " District Attorney Sanders 
 of Frankfort, Kentucky, wrote the state department concern- 
 ing Colonel Wilson's movements, of which Gorostiza had com- 
 plained on July 21, that he was personally acquainted with Wil- 
 son and had talked with him and some of his fellow-emigrants 
 and they told him that their motive in going to Texas was ' ' emi- 
 gration only." "There was no apparent movement by Colonel 
 Wilson or his associates within my knowledge, exhibiting them 
 as an armed force, or in a position to authorize the inference of 
 their certain intent to violate the neutral relations of the United 
 States with any foreign Power. Nor did I perceive or did any 
 information come to my knowledge upon which I could justly 
 institute any legal proceeding against them." 37 Another at- 
 torney for the Nashville district is said to have declared that 
 he would accompany his men to the border to see that they did 
 not violate the law in the United States ; and, if they chose to 
 step over the line as peaceable emigrants, they would then be 
 beyond his jurisdiction. 38 
 
 Whether a greater exhibition of zeal on the part of the ad- 
 ministration would have stimulated local officers into more ef- 
 fective efforts is doubtful. Public opinion was such that con- 
 victions in a jury trial would have been almost impossible. We 
 
 7 Sanders to Dickens, August 5, 1836. 24 Congress, 2 Session, Senate Document 
 1, pp. 53, 54. 
 
 88 Carson to Burnet, June 1, 1836, Garrison, Diplomatic Correspondence of Texas, 
 1: 92. 
 
Vol. i, NO. i The United States and Mexico 15 
 
 have already seen the attitude of the grand jury and the court 
 in New York, and the failure of Carleton to obtain evidence 
 against the Brutus in New Orleans. 39 In March, Carleton in- 
 stituted proceedings against William Christy for aiding Gen- 
 eral Jose Antonio Mexia in fitting out a filibustering expedi- 
 tion against Mexico. The facts alleged were substantially true. 
 Christy was chairman of the Texas committee in New Orleans, 
 was in close touch with Mexia, and undoubtedly assisted him in 
 organizing his expedition ; 40 yet in the trial, lasting five days, 
 which curiously enough was conducted by Judge Rawle of the 
 city court at the request of the federal judge, there was found no 
 evidence to sustain the charge. The testimony showed that 
 Christy had declined to assist Mexia and that his " language 
 . . . was to dissuade persons from any enterprise to Texas, 
 and from joining Mexia 's expedition/' 41 Mexia had returned 
 to New Orleans after the failure of his expedition ; 42 and, on 
 May 16, the grand jury found an indictment against him, but 
 the case seems never to have come to trial. 43 
 
 In his conference with Castillo on November 4, 1835, Forsyth 
 brought up a subject of some importance in connection with the 
 subsequent occupation of Nacogdoches by United States troops. 
 The treaty of 1828 had described the Louisiana-Texas bound- 
 ary as beginning ' ' at the mouth of the river Sabine, in the sea, 
 continuing north along the western bank of that river to the 
 thirty-second degree of latitude, " etc.; but the commission for 
 which the treaty provided had never met to mark this boundary. 
 The United States absolutely without ground set up the 
 
 39 See ante, 12. 
 
 40 < < The [New Orleans] committee informs us that ... a vessel well fur- 
 nished and manned, by about one hundred and fifty efficient emigrants, would sail 
 about the 27th ultimo [October] for Tampico, under the command of General Mexia." 
 (Journal of the Consultation, 24.) On November 4, Christy wrote the provisional 
 government of Texas : ' ' The contemplated expedition to be commanded by General 
 Mexia, consisting of about one hundred and fifty men, will sail tomorrow on board 
 the schooner Mary Jane, all well armed and provisioned: Tampico is the place of 
 destination, which place we have no doubt will be in the possession of the General 
 in a few days. ' ' Manuscript in Texas State Library. 
 
 2.5 Congress, 2 Session, House Executive Document 74, pp. 21-23. 
 
 42 For an account of this movement see ' ' The Tampico Expedition, ' ' by the writer 
 in Texas State Historical Association, Quarterly, 6: 169-186. 
 
 The indictment is no. 3797, United States District Court, Eastern District of 
 Louisiana. 
 
16 E. C. Barker M - v - H. B. 
 
 claim in 1829 that the Neches River, which flows into Sabine 
 Lake west of Sabine Eiver, was the line intended by the treaty ; 
 and Forsyth now suggested that, since the territory between the 
 two rivers was in dispute, the best way to avoid trouble there 
 was for Mexico to give "very positive and definite " \rnuy 
 fuertes y terminantes] orders that in no manner and under no 
 pretext whatever shall Mexican troops advance to that point 
 [hasta alia]: 4 * Castillo seems not to have discussed the matter 
 at the time; but, when President Jackson stated in his annual 
 message of December 7 that Mexico had been notified that "we 
 should require the integrity of our territory to be scrupulously 
 respected, " 45 he asked whether the president perchance intend- 
 ed "to convey the idea that he recognizes limits which are not 
 those expressly determined in the second article of the treaty." 
 Forsyth replied, in accordance with the newly developed doc- 
 trine of Jackson 's administration, that remarks made by the 
 president in a message to Congress were not considered a prop- 
 er subject for diplomatic explanations ; 46 and there the subject 
 rested until it was again brought forward by General Gaines 's 
 movements on the frontier. 
 
 A letter of January 22, 1836, from the adjutant general warn- 
 ed General Gaines that conditions west of the Mississippi might 
 soon claim his attention ; and the next day a formal order from 
 the secretary of war instructed him to proceed to the south- 
 western frontier and assume personal command of the troops 
 to be employed in that quarter. The revolution then going on 
 in Texas made this a position for the exercise of great discre- 
 tion and experience, because it was the duty of the United States 
 to remain entirely neutral and to cause its neutrality to be re- 
 spected by others. On the one hand Gaines would see to it that 
 neither of the belligerents crossed the national boundary in 
 arms, and on the other that Indians from the United States did 
 not invade Texas. 47 The first of these letters General Gaines 
 received at Pensacola Bay on February 6, and replied that plans 
 
 44 Castillo to secretary of relaciones, November 10, 1835, University of Texas 
 transcripts from Mexican foreign office. 
 
 45 Bichardson, Messages and Papers, 3 : 151. 
 
 46 24 Congress, 1 Session, House Executive Document 256, pp. 12, 29. 
 
 4725 Congress, 2 Session, House Executive Document 351, p. 765; 24 Congress, 1 
 Session, House Executive Document 256, pp. 40-42. 
 
Vol. i, NO. i The United States and Mexico 17 
 
 already in execution for cooperating with General Clinch in the 
 Seminole War made it inadvisable for him to move westward 
 unless the government, with a full knowledge of those plans, 
 ordered Mm to do so. 48 Cass 's order of the twenty-third reached 
 him at New Orleans on March 28, and he then immediately set 
 out for the frontier. Prom Baton Rouge the next day he out- 
 lined to the war department the policy which he should pursue 
 unless he was otherwise instructed. Assuming apparently 
 for as yet he had no evidence of the fact that the Mexicans 
 were in alliance with the Indians, he said that he should deem 
 it his duty to take the offensive, if they showed any disposition 
 to menace the frontier. 49 From Natchitoches, on April 5, he or- 
 dered the 'post commanders of western Arkansas at Fort Gib- 
 son and Fort Towson to prevent both Texans and Mexicans 
 from crossing the boundary in arms, and to keep United States 
 Indians from joining in the Texan disturbance. 50 On the eighth, 
 he wrote the secretary that he was convinced that several tribes 
 of United States Indians had crossed the Texan boundary ; that 
 Santa Anna was said to be approaching rapidly through the cen- 
 ter of Texas, determined to exterminate all who refused to yield 
 to his dictation; and that it was reported that these Indians 
 would unite with him as soon as he reached the Trinity. He 
 thought it his duty, therefore, "to prepare for action," and had 
 asked the governors of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee 
 for a brigade, and the governor of Alabama for a battalion of 
 volunteers. 51 At the same time he ordered from Fort Gibson 
 six or eight companies of the Seventh Infantry for service be- 
 
 48 Gaines to Jones, February 6, 1838,, manuscript in war department. 
 
 4825 Congress, 2 Session, House Executive Document 351, p. 768. The treaty 
 of 1831 mutually pledged the United States and Mexico to maintain peace among 
 the border Indians under their respective jurisdictions (W. M. Malloy, Treaties, Con- 
 ventions, International Acts, Protocals, and Agreements between the United States 
 and Other Powers [Washington, 1910], 1: 1095.), and it was not a new doctrine 
 in the United States that in case of the inability or unwillingness of Mexico to 
 carry out the treaty, the United States would, in self-defense, be justified in 
 crossing the boundary to restrain the Indians. President Monroe had given substan- 
 tially this interpretation to a similar provision in the Spanish treaty of 1795. Richard- 
 eon, Messages and Papers, 2:30. 
 
 so Gaines to Arbuckle and Vose, Letter Book of Western Department, 7 : 298, in 
 adjutant general's office. 
 
 BI Ibid., 323 ; 25 Congress, 2 Session, House Executive Document 351, pp. 769, 770. 
 
18 E. C. Barker M - v. H. K. 
 
 tween Fort Towson and Fort Jessup, where for a short time he 
 established his headquarters. 52 
 
 A glance at conditions in Texas will help to explain the rumors 
 of Indian activities which so much alarmed General Gaines. 
 After destroying the garrison of the Alamo on March 6, Santa 
 Anna had begun his advance across the heart of the settlements, 
 with Houston retreating before him; on March 19, Fannin sur- 
 rendered to General Urrea, and a week later was massacred 
 with more than three hundred of his men; and, on April 13, 
 Santa Anna, leaving Houston in his rear, crossed the Brazos 
 and made a dash for Harrisburg which President Burnet had 
 chosen for a temporary capital. Burning the town, which he 
 found deserted, he pursued the fleeing government until stopped 
 by the waters of Galveston Bay, and was returning westward to 
 unite with his main division when Houston encountered him at 
 the San Jacinto and won the celebrated battle of that name on 
 April 21. Santa Anna's advance and Houston's retreat had 
 been the signal for a panic stricken exodus from the most thickly 
 settled portion of Texas; and many believed that Santa Anna 
 was in a fair way to make good his alleged 53 threat of sweeping 
 every Anglo-American beyond the Sabirie. 
 
 Naturally the desirability of active intervention of the United 
 States did not escape the Texans; and it seems evident that 
 alarming reports of warlike Indian movements were deliberate- 
 ly manufactured, or at the least greatly exaggerated, for the 
 purpose of bringing this about. Sam P. Carson, the Texan 
 secretary of state, wrote President Burnet from Natchitoches, 
 on April 14, that General Gaines had ordered thirteen compa- 
 nies to the east bank of the Sabine, and that he would consider , 
 it his duty to take the aggressive if he found that the Mexicans 
 had incited Indians under the control of the United States to 
 
 52 25 Congress, 2 Session, House Executive Document 351, p. 289. 
 
 & 3 I say "alleged threat" because I have never seen satisfactory evidence that 
 Santa Anna had formed or announced such drastic intentions; while there is, in 
 fact, pretty good evidence to the contrary in a long letter from Santa Anna to the 
 secretary of war, Tornel, February 16, 1836, asking for instructions concerning the 
 policy which he should pursue after the rebellion in Texas was crushed. He sug- 
 gested that the colonists, as the aggressors, should pay the cost of the war and 
 asked whether those who participated in the rebellion should be driven from the 
 republic, sent into the interior, or left where they Were. University of Texas tran- 
 scripts from Mexican war department. 
 
vol. i, NO. i The United States and Mexico 19 
 
 commit depredations on either side of the boundary. The fact 
 was, he said, that Caddo, Cherokee, and other Indians of the 
 United States, were already with the Mexicans, and Gaines had 
 only to be assured of this to act "with energy and efficiency/' 
 "The proof s," he added, "will, I have no doubt, be abundant 
 by the time he reaches the Sabine. ' ' 54 
 
 This confidence was justified. Citizens of Nacogdoches and 
 San Augustine, near the Louisiana line, had been busily spread- 
 ing an Indian scare to the eastward before General Gaines ar- 
 rived; and it was upon evidence provided by them that he ad- 
 vanced to the Sabine. 55 In the meantime, however, he had de- 
 tailed Lieutenant Joseph Bonnell of the Third Infantry to in- 
 vestigate the Indian situation; and, while that officer's report 
 on April 20 showed that one Manuel Flores had been trying to 
 incite the Caddo to war on the Texans, there seemed no imme- 
 diate necessity for a further advance of United States forces. 
 On the twenty-eighth, Gaines received reliable reports of the 
 battle of San Jacinto ; and at the same time he learned that the 
 "Cherokees and other Indians in Texas from our side of the 
 national boundary line, are disposed to return to their villages, 
 plant corn and be peaceable" 56 He withdrew, therefore, his 
 requisition upon the governors of Louisiana, Mississippi, Ala- 
 bama, and Tennessee for reinforcements, sent to the command- 
 ers of the Mexican and the Texan armies an offer of friendly 
 mediation, and ordered Captain Hitchcock to Washington to 
 supply the government with information that might be helpful 
 in case, as seemed certain, the Texans should apply for annexa- 
 tion to the United States. 57 By June 7, he had reason to doubt 
 that the capture of Santa Anna would cause Mexico to recognize 
 Texan independence: "The Indians may, therefore, again be 
 required to act against the inhabitants residing in the disputed 
 territory [between the Sabine and the Neches] . ' Reenf orce- 
 ments might still be needed, and he had notified Governor Can- 
 non to hold the Tennessee brigade ready for action. Toward 
 
 5-* Manuscript in Texas State Library. Extracts of the letter are printed in 
 Texas State Historical Association, Quarterly, 4 : 253, 254. 
 
 55 Gaines to Cass, April 20, 1836, 25 Congress, 2 Session, House Executive Docu- 
 ment 351, p. 771, with inclosures, 773-783. 
 
 56 Hid., 783. 
 
 57 Hid., 782, 784, 786. 
 
20 E. C. Barker M - v. H. B. 
 
 the end of June, he was informed that Indians ' i suspected to 
 have been Caddoes" had committed depredations in Robert- 
 son's colony in the interior of Texas, and this, in connection 
 with the report that General Urrea was leading a large force 
 to renew the war in Texas, caused him to order a detachment 
 to Nacogdoches. On July 10, he instructed "the officer com- 
 manding the United States troops at or near Nacogdoches near 
 Texas " to restrain by force any Indians from acts of hostility 
 1 i against the United States troops or against any of the inhabi- 
 tants of this frontier, or the disputed territory to the South or 
 East or North of Nacogdoches." But at the same time he 
 warned that officer that the hostility of the Indians should be 
 "demonstrated ~by their conduct rather than by their threats." 
 A copy of this order was forwarded to the secretary, and was 
 received at the war department on August 5. 58 Whether this 
 force immediately occupied Nacogdoches is not disclosed by the 
 records of the war department; but on July 31 three troops of 
 dragoons and six companies of the Seventh Infantry arrived 
 there from Fort Towson. 59 These troops remained at Nacog- 
 doches until December 19. 60 
 
 The strict letter of his instructions gave General Gaines au- 
 thority for this movement, but their spirit enjoined a greater 
 degree of critical judgment than he was capable of exercising. 
 On April 25, in answer to his letter of March 29, General Cass 
 /wrote him that if the approach of the contending parties or the 
 (excitement of the Indians jeopardized the lives and property of 
 jour citizens on the frontier, he might take up a defensive posi- 
 tion on either side of the boundary line, but under no circum- 
 stances was he to advance beyond Nacogdoches, which was 
 I" within the limits of the United States as claimed by this Gov- 
 ernment." On May 4, Cass wrote him that much must be left 
 to his discretion, on account of the distance from the seat of gov- 
 ernment, and reminded him that his objects were the protection 
 of the frontier, and "as strict a performance of the neutral 
 duties of the United States as the great object of self defense 
 
 ss Manuscript in war department. See also Gaines to Cass, June 28, 1836, Letter 
 Book of Western Department, 7: 340. 
 
 59 25 Congress, 2 Session, House Executive Document 351, p. 788 ; Lieutenant 
 Colonel William Whistler, August 4, 1836, manuscript in war department. 
 
 60 Report of Lieutenant Colonel Whistler, manuscript in war department. 
 
Vol. i, NO. i The United States and Mexico 21 
 
 . -.--< 
 will permit. You will take care and do no act which can give 
 
 just cause of offence to any other government; and, on the other 
 hand, you will not permit the frontiers to be invaded by any 
 forces whatever. " A week later (May 12) Cass repeated this 
 statement and added that, if Indians were not employed imme- 
 diately on the border, there would be no need to advance "be- 
 yond the territory heretofore in the actual occupation of the 
 United States. ... I must impress upon you the desire of the 
 President that you do not advance unless circumstances distinct- 
 ly show this step is necessary for the protection of the district 
 of our country adjoining the scene of operations in Texas. " 
 On August 5, President Jackson refused to confirm Gaines 's call 
 of June 28 for a brigade from Tennessee, saying that the evi- 
 dence submitted failed to show the necessity for it, and that the 
 well known disposition of the people of the United States to 
 befriend Texas made it necessary for the government to be ex- 
 tremely careful to avoid any reasonable suspicion of overstep- 
 ping its neutral obligations. Finally, on September 4, the pres- 
 ident himself wrote Gaines : The policy of the United States 
 was one of strict neutrality, and Gaines as commander of our 
 forces on the frontier "must religiously observe and maintain 
 it. ' ' By treaty Mexico was under obligation to prevent the In- 
 dians in its territory from warring on our citizens; and, if it 
 was unable or unwilling to do this, international law and self- 
 defense would justify the United States in doing it. To this 
 end Gaines should take the position most favorable to the secur- 
 ity of the frontier and pursue such Indians wherever he found 
 them, regardless of the boundary line ; but he must be very care- 
 ful "not to be deceived by the evidence on which so responsible 
 an act is to be justified. Unless the necessity exists, unless there 
 are actual disturbances of the peace of the frontier, or a moral 
 certainty that the Indians are in hostile array for the purpose 
 and are drawing the means of operation from the territory of 
 Mexico, the occupation of an advanced post in that territory, by 
 our troops, must be avoided/' Just as he finished this letter, 
 President Jackson received from the war department a letter 
 from Gaines of July 21, with inclosures, wjiich seemed to leave 
 no doubt that the Mexicans were inciting the Indians ; and he au- 
 thorized him, if he found the statements true, to march to Na- 
 
22 E. C. Barker M - v. H. E. 
 
 cogdoches with his whole force ; but he was to keep ever in view 
 "our neutral position in reference to the civil war in Texas, and 
 our treaty obligations in reference to the authorities of Mex- 
 ico. " 61 
 
 In the meantime, General Gaines 's movements had been a 
 subject of prolific correspondence between Gorostiza and the 
 state department. On April 20, Forsyth in a personal confer- 
 ence informed Gorostiza that Gaines would take a position to en- 
 able him to protect both Mexico and the United States from 
 Indians and the territory of the United States, as well, from 
 violation by Mexicans and Texans. If, in the accomplishment 
 of this end, his troops advanced beyond the line that Mexico 
 might suppose to be the limits of the United States, Mexico 
 should not consider it an indication of hostile feeling, or of a 
 desire to claim territory that the boundary treaty denied us. 
 "The occupation would be precautional and provisional, and 
 would be abandoned whenever . . . the disturbances in that 
 region should cease. " To this Gorostiza replied formally the 
 next day saying that it was perfectly reasonable for the United 
 States to wish to preserve its territory from violation, and 
 Mexico could of course offer no objection so long as General 
 Gaines remained within ' l the known limits of the United States. " 
 Territory long occupied by Mexico, however, should be regarded 
 as Mexican territory until the boundary survey adjudged it to 
 the United States ; and in the meantime the United States should 
 keep its hands off. At the same time he expressed the hope 
 that General Gaines would be instructed to ' ' oppose the entrance 
 into Texas of any American citizen, who may attempt to pass 
 the frontier armed, or as a colonist, for the purpose of joining 
 the ranks of the rebels." Forsyth answered this on the twen- 
 ty-sixth by saying that Gaines had not been ordered to take a 
 position in the disputed territory, and that it was hoped that he 
 would not find it necessary to do so ; but, upon the right of the 
 United States to take such a position in self-defense, Forsyth 
 was unyielding. Gorostiza was firmly convinced that the object 
 
 6i Cass's instructions of April 25 and May 4 and 12 are in 24 Congress, 1 Session, 
 House Executive Document 256, pp. 45, 48, 54; Jackson's letter to Governor 
 Cannon in 24 Congress, 2 Session, Senate Document 1, pp. 60-62; and Jackson's let- 
 ters to Gaines in the manuscripts of war department. 
 
Vol. I, No. i The United States and Mexico 23 
 
 of the movement would be to favor the Texans, and he wrote 
 his government that he intended to ask for his passports and 
 terminate his mission whenever he learned that Gaines had 
 crossed the Sabine. 62 Forsyth pretended to believe that Goros- 
 tiza 's opposition rested solely on his fear that the occupation 
 of an advanced position would be used by the United States to 
 prejudice in its favor the boundary survey, and several times 
 aroused the latter 's indignation by assuring him that such was 
 not the intention of the government, and that he ought therefore 
 to be content. 
 
 On May 9, Gorostiza learned of Gaines 's instructions to ad- 
 vance at his discretion as far as Nacogdoches; and, from then 
 until October 15, when he abandoned his mission in disgust, the 
 burden of his correspondence with the state department was 
 one question: "Has Gaines crossed the Sabine ?" On Au- 
 gust 4 and 23, the state department told him that the govern- 
 ment had no information that any portion of Gaines 's force had 
 crossed that river. 63 September 23, Forsyth informed him 
 that, although the government had no official report on the sub- 
 ject, it appeared from certain letters addressed to Gaines by 
 Lieutenant Bonnell on August 9 that some of the troops were 
 at Nacogdoches ; and on October 13 the acting secretary of state, 
 
 62 25 Congress, 2 Session, House Executive Document 190, pp. 74-79. 
 
 63 In view of the fact that the war department had received on August 5 Gaines 's 
 order of July 10 to "the Officer commanding the United States troops at or near 
 Nacogdoches, near Texas" (ante, 20), this statement may be regarded as skirt- 
 ing pretty closely the margin of veracity. Nevertheless, it was technically true, 
 and Gorostiza himself, who had read in a newspaper as early as August 18 a copy 
 of this order, wrote his own government that he had no means of knowing whether 
 that officer had marched as directed: ''The newspapers are again silent, private 
 letters give no assurances on the affair, which is so completely wrapped in mystery 
 that I am myself much puzzled with regard to it." (25 Congress, 2 Session, House 
 Executive Document 190, p. 97.) Even the alert and intelligent Mexican consul at 
 New Orleans, much nearer the scene of operations, was in a similar state of uncer- 
 tainty. August 29, he wrote Gorostiza that a friend at Natchitoches had written 
 him on August 20 saying that there were 240 infantry and 100 cavalry at Nacog- 
 doches, where they were raising a fort; but on September 3 he wrote that he had 
 just conversed with a friend who came from Gaines 's camp, and this person assured 
 him that Gaines had never crossed the Sabine or left his camp on the east bank of 
 the river; and he gave more credence to this than to the former report. (University 
 of Texas Transcripts from Mexican foreign office.) As a matter of fact both re- 
 ports were true : the troops were at Nacogdoches, and, so far as the evidence shows, 
 Gaines personally did not cross the Sabine. 
 
24 E. C. Barker M. v. H. K. 
 
 Asbury Dickens, told him that the war department had infor- 
 mation that they were still there on September 4, but whether 
 they had since retired the government was uninformed. At the 
 same time, Dickens told him that the president declined to re- 
 call the discretionary instructions given to General Gaines, be- 
 lieving them necessary to the proper protection of the frontier. 
 To this Gorostiza replied on the fifteenth, demanding pass- 
 ports. The danger of Indian attacks on the frontier of the 
 United States, he declared, had existed only in the imagination 
 of the Texans and of persons hostile to Mexico : so long as the 
 colonists were submissive to the laws of Mexico, nothing was 
 heard of the hostile designs of the Indians, although since 1832 
 Mexico had had no garrison at Nacogdoches or anywhere near 
 the frontier ; they were still quiet during the early period of the 
 revolution, while the colonists were successful; and not until 
 March, 1836, when it seemed that the victorious Mexican army 
 would soon reach the Sabine, did reports of Indian hostility 
 begin to spread ; after the battle of San Jacinto, with the disap- 
 pearance of the danger that had threatened the Texans, the In- 
 dians "also disappeared in consequence, " and Gaines withdrew 
 his call for volunteers; but, about the end of June, it became 
 known that Mexico was preparing for a new campaign, and 
 "immediately, as if by enchantment, the hostile Indians again 
 appeared "; Gaines 's partiality for the Texans was notorious, 
 and his credulity had been so great that his ' ' statements should 
 have had no weight with one so enlightened as the President of 
 the United States. " 64 
 
 It seems beyond dispute that General Gaines was over-credu- 
 lous and that he exaggerated the danger of an Indian uprising. 
 General Alexander Macomb wrote from New Orleans, April 25, 
 1836, that Governor White of Louisiana believed that Gaines was 
 deceived by persons interested in Texan speculations ; 65 and the 
 fact that General John T. Mason was one of those who urged 
 him to occupy Nacogdoches lends color to this suspicion. Lieu- 
 tenant Colonel Whistler, who commanded at Nacogdoches, wrote 
 
 e* This correspondence is in 24 Congress, 2 Session, Senate Document 1, pp. 47, 
 53, 84, 94, 101. Bonnell to Gaines, August 9, 1836, is in 25 Congress, 2 Session, 
 House Executive Document 351, p. 799. 
 
 5 24 Congress, 1 Session, House Executive Document 256, p. 55. 
 
Vol. i, NO. i The United States and Mexico 25 
 
 the war department on September 4 that there had never been 
 any disposition on the part of the adjacent tribes to attack our 
 frontier, and that whatever intention they may have had to at- 
 tack the Texans had been removed by the presence of the United 
 States forces. In a later communication (October 13) he com- 
 plained that his command had suffered the hardships of a march 
 of nearly four hundred miles ' ' to afford protection to a foreign 
 state. ' ' 66 Lieutenant Bonnell gathered some ridiculous hear- 
 say evidence to the effect that Manuel Flores was trying to agi- 
 tate the Indians and that he claimed to represent the Mexican 
 government; but while this tended to establish Flores' char- 
 acter as an ugly tempered braggart, it seems hardly entitled to 
 serious consideration in the charge against Mexico. Moreover, 
 there is a little positive evidence to refute the charge: Santa 
 Anna, writing the Mexican war department on February 16 for 
 instructions concerning the policy which he should follow in 
 Texas, asked, "What of the Indians ?" The Cherokee had done 
 good service to the nation in 1827 ; and he understood that they 
 had been promised a grant of land which they had never ob- 
 tained; should they be left without any further guarantee, 
 "thereby exposing ourselves to their hostility "; or should they 
 be ordered from the country! 67 This question is not to be rec- 
 onciled with a settled policy of alliance with the Indians against 
 the colonists. 68 In fairness to Gaines, however, it should be re- 
 
 66 Manuscript in war department. See also Hitchcock, Fifty Years in Camp and 
 Field, 98, cited in G. L. Rives, United States and Mexico, 1821-1848 (New York, 
 1913), 1: 375. For General Mason's interest in Texan lands see by the writer "Land 
 Speculation as a Cause of the Texas Revolution, " in Texas State Historical Associa- 
 tion, Quarterly, 10: 76-95. 
 
 67 University of Texas transcripts from Mexican war department. 
 
 68 The colonists, on the other hand, had deliberately contemplated an alliance with 
 the Cherokee. On December 26, 1835, the general council of the provisional govern- 
 ment asked Governor Smith to commission Sam Houston, John Forbes, and John 
 Cameron to treat with the Cherokee and to secure, among other things, ' ' the effective 
 cooperation of the Indians, at a time when it may be necessary to call all the effective 
 force of Texas into the field, and agreeing for their service in a body for a specified 
 time." (Journal of the General Council, 208.) On February 23, 1836, Houston 
 and Forbes did sign a treaty of friendship with the Cherokee, but it made no pro- 
 vision for an alliance. Sam P. Carson, writing to President Burnet, April 14, 1836, 
 said : ' ( You will perceive that we cannot use Indian auxiliaries unless in self defence. 
 The Treaty referred to [that of 1831 between the United States and Mexico] requires 
 the United States to put such conduct down. ' ' Garrison, Diplomatic Correspondence 
 of Texas, 1 : 83. 
 
26 E. C. Barker M - v - H. E. 
 
 membered, as he himself reminded General Cass, that he had 
 seen much suffering through the failure of the government to 
 act vigorously at the beginning of hostilities, before the Indians 
 started their career of killing and burning. As he said, he be- 
 lieved in "protection to the living citizen, rather than to the 
 ashes of the slain. " 69 While his sympathy for the Texans 
 caused him to exaggerate the danger, it seems to the writer that 
 he was sincere in his belief that it did exist, and that his con- 
 scious purpose was solely to protect the frontier of the United 
 States from a devastating Indian war. 
 
 The sweeping charge that Gaines 's men won the battle of San 
 Jacinto 70 demands a glance at the subject of desertions. That 
 the subject early became a serious one is indicated by an order 
 of May 1, 1836 : 71 to guard meritorious soldiers against being 
 deceived, they are "notified that arrangements will be made in 
 a few days to obtain from the proper authorities in Texas all 
 deserters now there, and those that attempt hereafter to desert 
 thither; and they are hereby assured that they shall be punished 
 with the greatest possible severity the law and the courts will 
 allow." At about this same time, General Gaines sent Lieuten- 
 ant Nute into Texas with four men to arrest deserters; and Nute 
 advanced as far as Victoria, where he found the Texan army 
 and probably was instrumental in causing General Eusk to issue 
 an order warning all recruiting officers against enlisting de- 
 serters, and ordering commanding officers to hold deserters al- 
 ready enlisted subject to identification and delivery to the Unit- 
 ed States. 72 In August, Lieutenant Griffin was at Velasco on 
 a similar mission ; 73 and General Order No. 41, issued Septem- 
 ber 26, offered a pardon to all who returned before October 
 20. 74 The records of courts martial at Nacogdoches and Camp 
 Sabine show a good many trials for desertion usually several 
 
 69 25 Congress, 2 Session, House Executive Document 351, pp. 773, 787. 
 
 70 Jackson to Gaines, September 4,, 1836, manuscript in war department. 
 
 71 Order Book of Western Department, 10 : 22, manuscript in war department. 
 7(2 Gaines published Busk's order on July 2 (Orders and Special Orders, 1836-7, 
 
 vol. 275), and reported Nute's mission to the secretary on July 14. (Manuscript in 
 war department.) Rusk's order was dated June 10. 
 
 73 Morfit to Forsyth, August 23, 1836. Texas Despatches, 1836-1842, manuscript 
 in state department. Morfit 's letter is printed in 24 Congress, 2 Session, Senate 
 Document 20, p. 20, but this reference to deserters is there omitted. 
 
 Orders and General Orders, 1836-7, as cited above. 
 
Vol. I, No. i The United States and Mexico 27 
 
 at each session of the court but there is no evidence of whole- 
 sale desertions. The proximity of the border, the liberal land 
 bounties offered by Texas, and the promise of active war must 
 have presented to the average private a temptation hard to 
 resist. 
 
 In the meantime, the attitude of the United States toward 
 recognizing the independence of Texas had been a subject of 
 protest by Gorostiza. He wrote his government, on April 25, 
 that a member of Congress had just assured him with great 
 secrecy that a proposal was going to be made in Congress for 
 recognition. Gorostiza thought that the move was premature, 
 but that it would pass if the southern members urged it. His 
 policy would be to fight inch by inch and, if the measure passed, 
 to ask for passports and leave. 75 The next day, the subject was 
 brought before the senate by Senator Morris of Ohio, who pre- 
 sented a memorial from people of his state suggesting recogni- 
 tion. He moved its reference to the committee on foreign rela- 
 tions; but there was some opposition, especially by King of 
 Alabama; and Morris consented to table the petition to await 
 similar expressions from other states. In the house, Williams 
 of Kentucky asked consent on the twenty-ninth to offer a reso- 
 lution instructing the committee on foreign affairs to enquire 
 into the expediency and propriety of acknowledging independ- 
 ence ; but the house refused to suspend the rules to receive the 
 resolution. 76 As had been expected, other popular expressions 
 favoring recognition came to the senate ; and, on May 23, these 
 were, on motion of Walker of Mississippi, referred to the com- 
 mittee on foreign relations, of which Clay was chairman. 77 Gor- 
 ostiza protested vigorously against this. There was nothing 
 upon which to base recognition, he said, except a rumor of the 
 battle of San Jacinto ; and, assuming that this were as reported, 
 there were other generals in Texas to prosecute the war; and 
 even if these should "so far lose their senses as to yield to en- 
 
 75 University of Texas transcripts from Mexican foreign office. For the Texan 
 overtures to the United States for recognition, see Garrison, "First Stage of the 
 Movement for the Annexation of Texas," in American Historical Revieiv, 10: 72-75, 
 and Rather, * ' Recognition of the Republic of Texas by the United States, ' ' in Texas 
 State Historical Association, Quarterly, 13: 155-256. 
 
 W Congressional Globe, 3: 331, 338. 
 
 TT Ibid., 393-395. 
 
28 E. C. Barker M. v. H. B. 
 
 emies who could not attack them, could not Mexico, with its 
 seven million, find men to oppose Houston's six hundred ?" 
 Forsyth replied that the president must presume that Congress 
 would take no action that was not right and just, and that in any 
 case it would not be proper to discuss such action before Con- 
 gress itself reached a decision. The president wished him to 
 be assured, however, that the United States would take no step 
 inconsistent with its attitude during the contest between Spain 
 and its late American colonies, including Mexico. 78 
 
 On June 18, Clay brought in a report that the independence 
 of Texas ought to be recognized whenever it furnished satis- 
 factory information that it had an organized government cap- 
 able of performing the obligations of an independent power. 
 This passed unanimously on July 1, with an amendment author- 
 izing the president to send a confidential agent to Texas to as- 
 certain the true status of the country. The house passed the 
 senate resolution on July 4. Preston, in the meantime, had 
 called on the president for any correspondence that he might 
 have had, with the Texan authorities, in the hope that this might 
 furnish a basis for immediate action ; but the president replied 
 that he had had no such correspondence, and could have none 
 before recognition. He added that he had already sent to Texas 
 a confidential agent to report the condition of that country. 79 
 
 Preston's action aroused Gorostiza, who wrote home that the 
 purpose in calling for correspondence had been to stir up ex- 
 citement and secure recognition, after an impassioned discus- 
 sion, by a headlong vote [votacion tumultuosa]. The presi- 
 dent's reply that he had no correspondence was to be expected 
 because otherwise he would have had to admit clandestine rela- 
 tions with the rebels, contrary to his obligations to Mexico; 
 and the "singular morality of the American government is to 
 figure precisely on always saving appearances." Nevertheless, 
 this simple answer had completely ruined Preston's plan, be- 
 cause it was impossible to vote immediate recognition in the 
 face of the government's plain statement that it knew nothing 
 of the Texan government but had taken steps to inform itself. 80 
 
 78 24 Congress, 2 Session, Senate Document 1, pp. 32-34. 
 
 79 Congressional Glole, 3 : 453, 479, 486. 
 
 so Gorostiza to minister of relaciones, July 6, 1836, University of Texas transcripts 
 from Mexican foreign office. 
 
vol. i, NO. i The United States and Mexico 29 
 
 A few days after this (July 9), Gorostiza heard that two Texan 
 commissioners would soon arrive in Washington with a copy of 
 the treaty of Velasco, in which Santa Anna had recognized the 
 independence of Texas ; and, in order that the United States gov- 
 ernment might not attach too much importance to this document, 
 he notified Forsyth that his government considered all of Santa 
 Anna's acts, while a prisoner, null and void. 81 This, he wrote, 
 would prevent action for the present ; but Austin, who had gone 
 to Texas in June with confidential instructions to the ad interim 
 government, would probably soon return; and the president 
 would then decide whether to throw off the mask. 82 His sus- 
 picions of Austin's mission, however, were unfounded. Austin 
 felt keenly the neglect of the Texan government in failing to 
 keep him and his colleagues informed of local conditions, and 
 believed that this had prevented recognition in May. 83 He may 
 have returned to Texas determined to change this policy, but 
 he had no understanding with Jackson. In fact, the agent whom 
 the president did send to Texas, Henry M. Morfit, 84 advised 
 against immediate recognition ; 85 and, in his messages of De- 
 cember 5 and 21 to Congress, Jackson recommended delay. 86 
 
 Historians will hardly agree as to the uprightness of our gov- 
 ernment in its attitude toward the Texas-Mexican question. 
 My own opinion is that, despite President Jackson's desire to 
 acquire Texas and his probably strong conviction that Texan 
 success would further that end, the administration tried in a 
 lukewarm manner to meet the spirit as well as the letter of its 
 neutral obligations. That there were violations of the law, how- 
 ever, and probably with the connivance of local federal officers, 
 cannot be doubted. Was this official laxness due to the belief 
 that it would not seriously offend the government, or to the 
 knowledge that judicial convictions, in view of the overwhelm- 
 
 81 24 Congress, 2 Session, Senate Document 1, pp. 36-38. 
 
 82 Gorostiza -to minister of relaciones, July 12, 1836, University of Texas tran- 
 scripts from Mexican foreign office. 
 
 83 Austin to Burnet, June 10, 1836. Garrison, Diplomatic Correspondence of 
 Texas, I: 98. 
 
 84 Strangely enough both Gorostiza and Martinez, at New Orleans, reported to 
 the foreign office that it was Poinsett who went to Texas on this mission. University 
 of Texas transcripts, from Mexico foreign office. 
 
 85 See his letters, 24 Congress, 2 Session, Senate Document 20. 
 Richardson, Messages and Papers, 3 : 237, 238, 26-5-269. 
 
30 E. C. Barker M. v. H. E. 
 
 ing pro-Texan sentiment, would be impossible? Probably in 
 some degree to both. But in any case one cannot but regret the 
 want of more serious efforts to check, by arrest and prosecution, 
 enlistments and organized expeditions from the United States; 
 the failure of General Gaines to exercise a little more cool judg- 
 ment and hard common sense in carrying out his discretionary 
 authority to invade Texas ; and the refusal of our state depart- 
 ment to adopt a less baffling tone of curt and frigid politeness in 
 its correspondence with the representatives of the Mexican 
 government. And in any case, one cannot but feel the justifiable- 
 ness of Mexican suspicion and resentment against the United 
 States. 
 
 EUGENE C. BARKER 
 UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS 
 AUSTIN