Chapter Ten

Conflict spread rapidly in the first few years that Mexicans and Americans shared the frontier. The conflict was multifaceted-between Mexican and Anglo, between Anglo and the Mexican government, between Mexican and Mexican government.

The conflict between Mexican and Anglo began as a result of the attitudes the two people developed during their earliest contacts. As we have seen, the relationships between the two were generally friendly. But early impressions are difficult to erase and certain stereotypes evolved and hardened. Americans often thought of Mexicans as lazy, cowardly, and backward; Mexicans saw Anglos as arrogant, rude, aggressive, and dishonest. Many people accepted these unfair generalizations rather than judging a man on his own merits and accomplishments. The result, of course, was a growing animosity.

Rebellion in Texas

The conflict between the people and the Mexican government evolved, on one hand, out of the Americans' lack of respect for Mexican law (chapter 9) and, on the other, out of the lack of any tradition of self-government on Mexico's northern frontier. Mexicans and Anglos alike wanted self-determination and were willing to fight for it. These combined factors of conflict created a situation that would eventually lead to violence.

The first violence, occurring in Texas, was directed against the Mexican government. Both Mexicans and Americans participated in rebellion against the government, but the Anglos, because of their numerical superiority in Texas (chapter 9), led and controlled the movement.
Anglo-Texan settlers became involved early in revolutionary activities. Trouble began soon after Spain was ousted from Mexico in 1821. After a brief flirtation with monarchy, independent Mexico adopted a democratic system of government. Self-governing states united under a central authority and the old Spanish provinces of Nuevo Leon, Coahuila, and Texas were all united as one vast state.

Stephen F Austin

Stephen F. Austin (1793-1836) received permission from the Mexican government in 1823 to establish a settlement in Texas, provided the American colonists became Mexican citizens, practiced the Catholic religion, and observed all Mexican laws, including the prohibition of slavery. Fifteen other impresarios soon founded their own settlement. The Mexican government hoped the colonies in Texas would provide a barrier against American expansion.
When Austin parceled out land to his colonists, each family interested in farming was given 177 acres, and stock raisers were eligible for 4,428 acres. Most of the families declared that they intended to raise cattle. Austin himself received 97,416 acres because he was the founder. By the end of 1824, 297 titles to land were issued. These first settlers selected the best land along the Brazos, Colorado, and Bernard rivers. They came to be known as the "Old Three Hundred." Austin later enlarged his colony considerably.

Within ten years there were from twenty to thirty thousand Americans at a time when slavery was becoming an important issue in the United States. The Texans did not get along well with Mexican authorities and rarely fulfilled the conditions of settlement set by Mexico.
With the continuous turbulence and instability of the Mexican government, officials of the Mexican state of Coahuila were unable to maintain law and order in Texas. Austin was sent to Mexico City in 1833 with a petition that Texas be made a separate state of Mexico. Thinking that Austin advocated rebellion, the Mexicans jailed him for eighteen months. Conditions remained tense when Austin finally was released. When he returned to Texas his speech in favor of independence marked the beginning of war between Texas and Mexico. Texas became the Lone Star Republic because the northern states opposed the admission of another slave state into the Union.

After the war Austin lost the election for president of Texas to war hero Sam Houston. He died shortly thereafter in 1836. Today Austin is remembered as the father of Texas.

Drive for Separate Statehood

The story of the Texans' rebellion against the federal government was, first of all, the story of a drive for separate statehood in Mexico. In May 1824, the province of Nuevo Le6n won separate statehood. The Texans demanded the same status. They believed the territory as far south as the Rio Grande should be separated from Coahuila and should take its proper place among the states of Mexico.

Other factors soon compounded Mexico's problems with her northern province. In an era when new nations were forming and American people were breaking their ties with distant European mother countries, the people of Texas began to think of breaking their ties with a distant government in Mexico City. Many Mexicans and Anglos alike began to dream of building a new and independent republic. Moreover, as early as 1825, some Anglos began to think of bringing Texas into the United States. The Mexican government may have dealt calmly with demands for separate statehood, but ideas of total separation from Mexico were tantamount to treason and would have to be suppressed.

Land problems which the Anglo settlers created in Texas further complicated the situation. Newspaper advertisements in U.S. cities offered land for sale in Texas, vast expanses of it, and thousands of Americans purchased property. They flocked to Texas only to find that most of the advertisers had no claim to the land they sold. Many of the disappointed immigrants settled on lands that the Mexican government had set aside as part of the national domain, a sort of national forest or park not open to colonization. Agitated Mexican officials met with little success in driving the squatters off the land. The situation became still more explosive as some Anglos began seizing lands actually held by Mexican settlers; they attempted to force Mexicans off property that, in some instances, had been held by the same family for generations.

Edwards' Colony and the Fredonia Rebellion

New action was quickly introduced. The government of the state of Coahuila-Texas granted an American named Haden Edwards the right to settle eight hundred families near the old Spanish town of Nacogdoches. The grant encompassed a vast territory; to the west it stretched as far as the boundary of the Austin colony. When established, it would be far larger than the original Austin colony. The contract between Edwards and the government required that he respect the rights of settlers already living within the territory of the grant so long as they could prove ownership of the land. Therein lay the seeds of rebellion.

In September 1825, Haden Edwards demanded that all the people living in the territory of his grant produce proof of land ownership. He offered those who could not do so the option of either leaving or purchasing from him the territory they claimed. Almost none of the Anglos who lived near Nacogdoches owned the land they had settled; many were among those who had purchased land from dishonest Anglo real estate agents. Even fewer of the Mexicans possessed the title-the piece of paper-to their property, although the families may have held the land as far back as the eighteenth century. But all these people, having established their claim by virtue of their physical possession of the land, steadfastly refused to bow to Edwards' demands. He then threatened to drive them off the land by force.

The settlers, first the Mexicans and later the Anglos, turned to the state government as their only recourse against Edwards' demands. A barrage of complaints and grievances was directed at officials in the capital city of Saltillo. The complaints finally became so frantic and the popular opposition to Edwards' authority so intense that the government realized it would have to take some action. The alternative would be a rebellion of united Mexican and Anglo settlers against the government, with the possibility of much bloodshed and the establishment of an independent state. Consequently, government officials decided to cancel Edwards' colonization contract.

Haden Edwards and his brother Benjamin responded with their own little rebellion. They declared independence, proclaiming the establishment of the "Republic of Fredonia." Benjamin led a small force into Nacogdoches, where his men barricaded themselves behind walls and prepared to fight it out. But the Fredonians never had a chance. In the first place, the rebellion included, at most, only about thirty men (Hollon, 1968: p.112). Independence, particularly under Edwards' leadership, failed to win support from either Mexican or Anglo settlers. In the second place, Stephen Austin supported the Mexican government, demonstrating that Anglo-Texans, despite separatist ideas that might be gaining favor among a few colonists, were not yet ready to break the bond with Mexico. Austin called up his militia to join the Mexican forces marching to put down the Fredonian Rebellion. In the face of strong military opposition, the Republic of Fredonia collapsed and Edwards and his settlers were expelled from Texas.

Mexican Reaction

The rebellion, futile and easily suppressed, seems scarcely worthy of the prominence it achieved. But the Mexican government saw it as a sign of things to come, and Anglo settlement in Texas suddenly appeared to be dangerous. The potential for a full-scale Anglo rebellion combined with growing U.S. interest in Texas to increase problems for Mexican officials. In 1827, U.S. Secretary of State Henry Clay authorized an offer of one million dollars to Mexico if that nation would recognize the Rio Grande as the border with the United States (Horgan, 1954: p. 478). (As American interest in Texas increased, the offer eventually rose to five million dollars.)

The Mexican government reacted by imposing tighter controls on the Texans. This certainly had a great deal to do with the closing of the frontier to Anglo-American immigration in 1830. It also meant new, heavier taxes and stricter laws governing Texas. Quite naturally, the Anglos were the specific target of these measures. For instance, the state government of Coahuila-Texas made trouble for American shipping interests on the Rio Grande with a new law taxing only American-owned ships. Anglo resentment toward Mexican authorities was further augmented when, in 1830, General Manuel de Mier y Téran of the Mexican army led a force into Texas with the intention of expelling Stephen Austin and all the Americans who had settled in the Austin colony. The effort did not succeed, for General Mier led a vagabond army that was not interested in fighting. He established some military posts in Texas and then led his men back to Matamoros on the south bank of the Rio Grande.

The Campaign Intensifies

With the benefit of more than a hundred years' hindsight, we see clearly now that the attitude and actions of the Mexican government created negative reactions. As controls tightened, discontent intensified among both Mexicans and Anglo settlers, and by 1832 Texas was in a state of rebellion. Anglo Texans had built up a supply of weapons and a fleet of river schooners. In June, this little "navy" attacked the fort on Galveston Bay and defeated the Mexican force posted there. It was the first incidence of antigovernment violence since the Fredonian Rebellion. But unlike the Fredonians, these Texans were not asking for independence. They wanted only two things: both Mexican and Anglo settlers wanted Texas established as a separate state (independent of Coahuila) within the Mexican federation; in addition the Anglo Texans, the majority of the population, asked for relief from laws prohibiting further American immigration. The Mexican government, although petitioned repeatedly by its Texas citizens, took no action on either issue.

Finally, in September 1832, the Texans decided to take matters into their own hands. A convention was called to discuss separate statehood. It met in defiance of an 1824 law denying the people the right of assembly. Among its delegates were Mexicans, Americans, and European settlers.

Meanwhile, a revolution in Mexico had brought an old familiar figure to power: Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. The Texans generally supported Santa Anna, feeling that he would be more sympathetic to their cause. They were soon to discover that he was not a friend but an implacable enemy who viewed every action that was not in the interests of his government as a personal affront. This became evident after the Texas statehood convention reconvened in April 1833. The delegates framed a petition appealing for statehood and drafted a state constitution. Communication between the capital and the provinces was still haphazard at best. For a time the Mexican government erroneously believed the Texans had declared independence. When the misunderstanding was corrected, the government refused the Texans' appeal.

Stephen Austin traveled to Mexico City in a futile effort to persuade Santa Anna to change his mind and allow Texas its separate statehood. After several frustrating months waiting for an appointment to see the president, he wrote home saying that Texas should go ahead with plans for separate statehood, no matter what the government said. Santa Anna eventually met with Austin and made a number of concessions to the Texans. But when Austin's letter was discovered, he revoked the concessions and held Austin in prison for several months. The positions of both camps hardened. The hope of peaceful settlement was extinguished. Texas chose to fight.

First Skirmishes

Early in the summer of 1835, thirty Texans under the command of William Travis captured the customs garrison at Anahuac (Horgan, 1954: p. 517). A retaliatory Mexican force, commanded by General Martín Perfecto de Cos, sailed up the Rio Grande from Matamoros in small boats and was soundly defeated. A few months later the Texans seized the garrison at Goliad with its vast store of supplies Even while these skirmishes were taking place, the convention met again to form a state government and the new government once again swore the loyalty of Texas to Mexico. Then, on December 5, Texan armies seized the Alamo Mission (which was then a military supply depot) and all of its provisions. Thus San Antonio, the chief city of Texas, fell to the rebels. The Mexican government was forced to sign a treaty with the Texans agreeing to all their demands.

Antonio L6pez de Santa Anna was enraged by the Texans' action. He took it as a personal insult which he was determined to avenge with his last ounce of strength. But because of his strong reaction, the Texans, floundering through their first difficult days of self-government with weak-willed officials and undefined goals, were drawn together in a common cause. The inevitable result of the continued conflict would be a complete and final break with Mexico.
Santa Anna began raising an army, thousands of men strong, to attack Texas. He decided he would command the forces himself. The Texans countered by preparing to invade Mexico at Matamoros. In doing so, they withdrew all but a few men from the Alamo garrison-at the very time General Santa Anna prepared to attack the Alamo. He was in no hurry. While he waited for more troops, he placed his guns and spent several days casually lobbing shells at the old mission. While Santa Anna thus pinned a few Texans inside the Alamo, fifty-eight delegates (including only three Mexicans) met at Washington-on-the-Brazos. On March 2, 1836, they declared Texas an independent republic.

It seemed the Texans would have to fight for all they were worth to secure their independence. But in reality, the war was short. Texas suffered a major defeat and followed it with a major victory; the whole episode was finished with only two days of battle.

The Alamo

Mexican forces, ranging between 2,500 and 5,000 men, depending on the source one reads, attacked the Alamo before dawn on March 6. Within an hour they had killed the 182 Texans barricaded behind the mission walls. The rout of the Alamo united Texans against a common enemy. No matter what their personal views on politics, they all agreed that Mexico was the villain. But the episode of the Alamo had a more far-reaching effect. The hatred engendered among Anglos by their defeat at the hands of Antonio L6pez de Santa Anna was directed not only at Mexico but also at Texans of Mexican descent, a fact which promised ill for the future of the territory.

Santa Anna had won a decisive victory. At that point Texas was his; he could have exacted whatever terms he chose with all the traditional harshness of a conqueror. Instead, he made a fatal strategic error. He withdrew from San Antonio and, reaching a place called San Jacinto, ordered his troops to stop for rest.

Santa Anna should have known-must have known-that the Texan forces which had gone to Matamoros would be hard on his heels. Indeed, to assure a victory over Texas, he should have hunted them down and attacked as soon as he had finished with the Alamo. Instead the Texans, led by Sam Houston, attacked Santa Anna's weary and unprepared army at San Jacinto. The battle was over quickly, leaving six hundred of Santa Anna's men dead. Only nine Texans were killed (Hollon, 1968: p. 123). Santa Anna was taken prisoner and the war was, in truth, over. The Texas victory cost Santa Anna his presidency. The dictator was soon overthrown-although later he returned to office more powerful than ever. The Mexican government, however, secured Santa Anna's release and withdrew its armies. Independence was an accomplished fact, although Mexico refused to recognize the Republic of Texas.
Thus ended the first major conflict between settlers and government. It was largely a revolt of Anglo-Texans against a government they had never chosen to respect. The part played by Mexicans in Texas was necessarily small because they were vastly outnumbered by the Anglos. But the real importance of the event is that the fragmentation of Mexican territory began with the loss of Texas. It was a process that would occupy most men's thoughts throughout the course of the next decade.

Conflict in New Mexico

The people and the government came to blows in New Mexico, too, But whereas the Anglos had played the major role in the fighting in Texas, the New Mexican conflict was between Mexicans and Mexican government.

New Mexico had no tradition of self-determination. From its earliest days it had been governed from afar. Colonial administrators sent there from Spain and Mexico City had little in common with the settlers and followed the directives of superiors who had even less understanding of the needs of the northern colony. When Mexico won her independence, the Kingdom of New Mexico became a state of the new republic, and the people, briefly, saw a chance to gain a voice in government. For a time, native New Mexicans held the top posts in the state. However, in 1824, New Mexico was demoted to the position of territorial department, part of the larger State of Chihuahua.

Like the Texans, the New Mexicans resented their lack of autonomy. They had had a taste of self-government and liked it. Moreover, they were rapidly absorbing the ideas of freedom and state autonomy held by American traders and the few Anglo settlers who had come to New Mexico. Throughout the colonial period, the New Mexicans had accepted being governed by outsiders. Now they were resentful when Santa Anna appointed an outsider, Colonel Albino Perez, to rule the territory. The political cauldron was beginning to boil.

But political discontent was only one aspect of the New Mexican conflict with the government. Another was economic, and this affected the entire population on the most basic level-that of personal survival. The Mexican treasury was increasingly in need of money during the first years of independence, and one way to get it was to levy taxes and duties. The government felt that the northern provinces were especially susceptible to these measures because distance would prevent them from effectively fighting back.

1837 Revolt

We have seen some of the influence of taxation on the Texas revolution. A similar situation developed in New Mexico. Like the Anglo-Texans, the New Mexicans felt that they had been singled out for economic discrimination when direct taxes were imposed. The government instituted various new taxes in 1837. A woodcutter, for example, was required to buy a license costing five dollars a month, and shepherds had to pay twenty-five cents a head to take their sheep through Santa Fe (Horgan, 1954: p. 552). As rumors of additional, heavier taxes spread, the agitated New Mexicans finally revolted.

The first victories went to the New Mexicans. Aided by Indian allies, they forced Colonel Perez and his troops to beat a hasty retreat. The Indians caught Perez and beheaded him. Flushed with success, the rebels then repudiated Governor Manuel Armijo and elected Jose Gonzales in his place. But in time the rebellion became its own victim, for New Mexico was plagued by internal disorder and dissension even within the rebel forces. Armijo, after remaining in Santa Fe for a time to try working with the new government suddenly fled to Albuquerque. There he began gathering a force of loyal supporters to oppose Gonzales. At the same time, a hardy opposition to the new government emerged in Santa Fe. Its leader, General Jose Caballero, threw his support to Armijo. And in late September 1837, less than two months after the revolt erupted, Armijo led a volunteer army north. He captured Santa Fe and proclaimed himself governor. The New Mexican revolt collapsed totally in January 1838, when loyalist forces defeated the rebels and Gonzales was killed in battle. New Mexico, after a few skirmishes, was once again firmly in government hands.

The angry Mexican government steadfastly believed that the Americans were responsible for the revolt, as they had been in Texas. In quick and arbitrary reaction, Governor Armijo placed a tariff of five hundred dollars on each wagon-load of merchandise that came down the Santa Fe Trail (Gregg, 1967: p. 104). Unfortunately, the New Mexicans suffered most from this act, for prices soon reflected the additional cost of bringing goods into New Mexico.

Texans Intervene

But a few years later it appeared that Mexico was justified in its attitude. In 1841, the Texans took it upon themselves to "save" New Mexico from the tyranny of Governor Armijo. Their real purpose, however, was undoubtedly the annexation of New Mexico to the Republic of Texas. Northern New Mexico, the center of the 1837 rebellion, was still resentful, and the Texans imagined that the discontented elements of New Mexican society would soon join their forces. Volunteers from Texas, calling themselves the "Santa Fe Pioneers," set off for New Mexico. Their expedition, however, was a dismal failure. They were poorly prepared. No one knew the route to New Mexico; they traveled slowly and were often lost; their food ran out and hunger threatened to force them back to Texas. Moreover, they were mistaken about the attitude of the New Mexicans.

Most New Mexicans saw the Texas volunteers as a threat to their security. Once split by dissension, New Mexicans now united to face the invaders from Texas-much as the Anglo-Texans themselves had united after the battle of the Alamo. To be on the safe side, Governor Armijo tightened his security network and when the Texans arrived at Santa Fe they were unceremoniously thrown into jail. Thus the New Mexican revolt dissipated, leaving the territory little changed politically from what it had been a few years earlier, or even a few centuries earlier.

For all that the Mexican government accused Americans (and through them the United States) of fomenting the revolts in New Mexico and Texas, those uprisings could not be explained so simply. More realistically, they were bred of centuries-old problems that had plagued the frontier: the lack of communication with the capital and the failure of officials to understand the needs of people far removed from the centers of authority and the lack of goods and services which could have made frontier living less difficult. In themselves, these problems were enough to create dissension and a desire for independent action among the people of isolated provinces. Indeed these were the problems that sparked the first defiant actions by frontier citizens.

But Mexican fears were not without basis, as was shown within a very few years. Texas, with its overwhelming majority of American settlers, pulled the United States into the center of the political arena. Soon a new and more serious conflict shook the frontier-a conflict between Mexico and the United States. Its outcome would be the ultimate violence: war between two sovereign nations.

REFERENCES

Gregg, Josiah. The Commerce of the Prairies. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1967. A facsimile reproduction.

Hollon, W. Eugene. The Southwest: Old and New. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1968.

Horgan, Paul. Great River: The Rio Grande River in North American History. 2 vols. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1954.