At the period of Mexican independence in 1821, Texas was
uninhabited by a civilized population, except the towns of Bexar and
Goliad-— It was infested by numerous bands of hostile Indians
who sallied forth at pleasure to rob and desolate the settlements on
the rio Bravo, extending their depradations into the mountains to
the neighborhood of Monclova and Monterey, and along the coast of
Tamaulipas—
The system of frontier defence used by the Spanish Govt of
establishing military posts or presidios was never an effectual barrier,
for when those posts were in their best state of armament, the most
that was done was to protect the immediate vicinity without being
able to cover the whole country, or prevent the Indians from
harassing the frontier settlements, and committing robberies on the public
roads
The natural consequence was, that the civilized settlements were
limited to the garrisoned towns. A few scanty villages were thus
sustained like isolated specks in the midst of a wilderness at an
enormous expense to the govt and a great waste of men and money—
A country thus situated could evidently yield no revenue in return
for the millions expended in its defence; it could not advance much
in population or improvement, nor add anything to the physical
force of the nation, but on the contrary, weakened it.
It may therefore be said with truth, that under the old system of
presidial defence, the whole of that part of the Mexican territory
situated north and east of a line from near Soto la Marina on
the gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of California was an expence and a
dead weight to the government.
The experience of years had already convinced the Spanish
authorities of the internal provinces, of the absolute inefficacy of the old
system of frontier defence, and that the only effectual and
permanent barrier was population, the settlement of the frontier by a
hardy and interprising race of people before whom the savages
would retire, or become submissive
The result of this new opinion was a total change of the ruinous
restrictive system which had for centuries locked up the whole of
the Spanish possessions from the rest of the world— The first step
that was taken towards the new system of frontier defence was
the grant to Moses Austin on the 17 January 1821, to settle a colony
of Forth Americans in the wilderness of Texas.
During that year, 1821, the independence was achieved, and the
lights of liberal and republican principles shed their benign
influence over the whole country. One of the first acts of the new
government was to open the door to the emigration of foreigners, the
colonization laws were enacted, and emigrants were expressly and
earnestly invited to enter. Under the faith and operation of those
laws the settlement of Texas was commenced, and its wilderness was
rapidly changing its uninhabited state and wild aspect, and
yielding to the progress of civilized population, led on by enterprise and
perseverance.
The emigrants to Texas, it is well known, have never received
any succors from the government—no garrisons were sent to
protect them during their infancy from the hostile indians who then
filled every part of the country, They have never cost the government
one cent—all they have ever recd was permission to settle in the
country, and a title for the lands they redeemed from the wilderness,
lands that were then valueless to Mexico or to civilized man— Left
to their own resources and daring enterprise, they have conquered
a wilderness, and made known to Mexico and to the world the true
value, and developed the resources, of a large portion of the Mexican
territory which was before hid in obscurity,— They have also
greatly contributed to the new system of frontier defence by means
of population and fully tested its efficacy, for the savages have
retired before them, as they will continue to do, if the same system is
pursued, until they are reduced to full subjection or settled in
villages as agriculturists.
It is certainly a natural and very rational inquiry. What
inducements, what incentives, what hopes, could have operated so
powerfully upon the minds of the emigrants to Texas, as to have given
them fortitude to brave the dangers of savage foes, to dispise the
hardships and privations of the wilderness, to support them through
tryals and privations at which the stoutest hearts shrink— The
cries of their little children even for bread, the well founded fears
and despondency of their wives, surrounded as they were the first
years of the settlement, by Indians, famine, and sickness and by
the dark gloom of moments when even hope almost recoiled from
the future?— What impulse of freedom and deeply imbeded hope
bore them up and carried them through such difficulties?— Was it
the bare expectation of getting a piece of land in a wild wilderness
and there living on the mere products of their manuel labor, and
degenerating into the habits of wild Indians? No—common sense,
and the characters and former habits of those settlers, unite in
saying NO— But on the contrary the great and nerving hope that
bore them onward, was to redeem this country from the wilderness,
and convert it into the abode of civilization, of abundance and
happiness, and by that means to repay themselves, their wives and
children for the hardships and sufferings of their early settlement,
and also to repay the government more than thousand fold for the
privilige of settling in Texas, and of making wild lands valuable,
that before were valuless—
On what grounds was such a hope as this founded? It was
founded on the colonization laws, on the general, liberal and broad
invitation given in those laws to the whole world to come and settle
in Texas—on the faith of the Govt that such an invitation would
not be thus given merely to draw a few unsuspicious emigrants to
this wilderness and then to close the door and shut them out
forever from their friends and relations, and in fact from the balance
of the civilized world, when years of struggling through difficulties
had just begun to realize their hopes— Could the first emigrants
have supposed that they would have been deprived of the privilege
of settling by their sides a son or daughter, an aged father or wid-
owed mother, a brother or sister, an old and affectionate friend or
neighbor of other days and of other countries, because they did
not emigrate on this or on that particular day? Could they have
supposed that the general invitation of the colonization laws were
mere time serving and temporary expedients which were to be
changed without any apparent reason and without any violation of
duty on the part of the first emigrants, is it reasonable to suppose
that they would have labored as they have done, suffered what they
have suffered, to bring forward this country, and give value
character, and credit to it? No—they built their hopes on the
permanency of the colonizing system, on the faith of the government
pledged in their colonization laws, on the broad basis of
philanthropy and republican freedom which they supposed had been
adopted as the foundation on which the social institutions of Mexico
were erected— Those hopes were certainly not entertained
without a sufficient cause, and neither are they now destroyed
notwithstanding the restrictions which are imposed by the law of 6 April
1830 which totally interdicts the emigration of North Americans
for it is confidently believed that those restrictions grew out of
peculiar circumstances, party excitements and hasty jealoucies
which no longer exist—
It seems to have been received as a correct opinion that the
inhabitants of Texas wished to separate from Mexico and unite with the
U. S. of the North— It seems that the virulence of party feelings
even went so far as to suspect that a friendly and republican govt
whose territory is already too great for its population, wished to
sieze upon Texas— such opinions and suspicions are evidently at
variance with the conduct and avowed wishes of those emigrants,
and with the true and substantial interests of Texas, on the one hand;
and with the good faith and established policy and principles of the
Govt of the U. S., on the other— Texas could gain nothing by a
separation from Mexico, except a removal of the ruinous restrictions
that now impede its progress in population and wealth, and if those
restrictions were taken off, there is not a rational man in the country
who would not oppose a separation— The true interests of Texas
are to become a State of the Mexican confederation, and this is the
desire of its inhabitants— By the law of 7 of May 1824, forming the
State of Coahuila and Texas, the latter was only provisionally
annexed to the former, untill it possessed the necessary elements to form
a state of itself and this very law was another inducement to the
emigrants to preserve, for it held out the inducement amounting
even to certainty, that Texas would be a State so soon as its
population and resources were sufficient. Moral obligation, and interests
are the two great cords that bind communities, states and nations
together— In no instance can the principle of interest be stronger
than in the present one, supposing the restriction against emigration
to be taken off
Texas must he an agricultural country, and the most of its
agricultural productions will find a much better market in the Mexican
ports than in those of any part of the world. The interior trade by
land will also be very important. At this time, this trade is
principally carried on through Missouri to New Mexico and Chihuahua
but the geographical situation of the country and the practicability
of roads from the harbors of Texas, evidently indicate that the
natural channel of that trade, is from those ports, in preference to the
circuitous route by Missouri through a foreign country, subjecting
merchandise to a double duty which they would be exempt from if
taken from the ports of this nation— The manufactures of Texas
abounding as this country does in facilities for their establishment
would evidently lose by a separation from Mexico. In fact there is
not one interest in Texas that would not be injured by a separation
not one that would not be materially benefited by the erection of this
country into a state of Mexico.
This being the case, why drive the people of Texas to desperation
by a system of restriction, that is at varience with the inducements
and well founded hopes first held out to the emigrants, and with
the true interests of the country? The 11th article of the law of
6 April 1830 totally prohibits the immigration of North Americans,
and suspends contracts previously entered into by the government
thereby depriving the present settlers of the consolation of settling
there relatives and friends along side of them. It also cuts off all
hope of future advancements for years to come and condemns this
country to a wilderness. The hope of bringing out emigra[n]ts
from Europe, is a faint and distant one, and will require many years
and a vast amount of capital to accomplish it. And besides, what
security or guarantee have they, in coming here, that they will not
also be deprived of the privilege of bringing out their relations and
friends after they have suffered years of hardships in preparing a
home for them, as the settlers from the U.S. have been by the law
of April 6, 1830?
under this view of the subjects, it certainly appears evident that
that part of the law of 6 April 1830 prohibiting the immigration of
north Americans, is unjust and at varience with the faith and pledges
of the Govt and with the true and substantial interests of Texas—
That law will not, and cannot prevent the introduction of hundreds
and thousand into Texas, who, if they do not receive the sanction
of the Govt to remain and acquire real estate, will, as a matter of
course, become restive and perhaps, jeopardize the public tranquility
But, on the other hand, by opening the door for admission of honest
and honorable men of high character and property, the moral
influence of such men will correct and direct public opinion, and make
the moral tie, as well as that of interest, which does and ought to
bind Texas to Mexico indisoluble—