Part 238

After the final ratification of that treaty by both governments, and the cession and delivery of the Floridas to the United States, the Spaniards took formal possession of the country west of the Sabine, and erected it into the 'Province of Texas,' under the authority and jurisdiction of the Viceroy of Mexico. From that time the Sabine River was the western boundary of the United States, near the Gulf of Mexico. The province of Texas at this time was occupied by the native tribes of savages, interrupted only by a few Spanish settlements. … The whole population, including some settlements in the vicinity of the seacoast, scarcely exceeded 5,000 souls, of whom the greater portion were the remains of old colonies formed during the Spanish dominion over the province of Louisiana. Each principal settlement, from San Antonio de Bexar to Nacogdoches, was placed under the government of a military commandant, who exercised civil and military authority within the limits of his presidio. … Such was the province of Texas under the Spanish monarchy until the year 1821, when Mexico became an independent nation. … On the 24th of October, 1824, the Mexican States adopted a Republican form of government, embracing 'a confederation of independent states,' known and designated as the 'United States of Mexico.' In this confederation the departments of Texas and Coahuila were admitted as one state, and were jointly represented in the Congress of Mexico. Soon after the establishment of independence in the United States of Mexico, the colonization and settlement of Texas became a favorite subject of national policy with the new government. To attract population for the settlement of the country, colonization laws were enacted, to encourage enterprising individuals from foreign countries to establish large colonies of emigrants within the limits of Texas. Under the provisions of these laws enterprise was awakened in the United States and in some portions of Europe. Founders of colonies, or 'Empresarios,' were induced to enter into engagements for the occupancy and settlement of large tracts of country, designated in their respective 'grants'; the extent of the grant being proportionate to the number of colonists to be introduced. The first grant was made to Moses Austin, a native of Durham, Connecticut, in 1821, and under its provisions he was required by the Mexican authorities to introduce 300 families from the United States. This enterprising man, having departed from Bexar for the introduction of his colony, died on his journey through the wilderness, leaving his plans of colonization to be prosecuted by his son, Colonel Stephen F. Austin, who possessed the talents, energy, and judgment requisite for the arduous undertaking. Having succeeded to his father's enterprise, he subsequently acquired more influence with the Mexican government than any other 'empresario' in the province. … But a few years had elapsed when nearly the whole area of the department of Texas had been parceled out into extensive grants for settlement by the different 'empresarios' with their colonies. … Emigration from the United States, as well as from Great Britain and Ireland, continued to augment the population in all the departments until the year 1834, when political troubles began to convulse the "Mexican Republic." In 1835 "the whole Anglo-American population of Texas was about 20,000; of this number General Austin's colony comprised no less than 13,000, or more than half the entire population. These were chiefly emigrants from the United States. … The Mexicans within the limits of Texas at this period scarcely exceeded 3,000, most of whom resided in the vicinity of Bexar."

_J. W. Monette, Discovery and Settlement of the Mississippi Valley, volume 2, pages 569-572._

ALSO IN: _H. Yoakum, History of Texas, volume 1, chapters 15-21._

{3102}

TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836. The introduction of Slavery. Schemes of the Slave Power in the United States. Revolutionary movement under Houston. Independence of Mexico declared, and practically won at San Jacinto.

The American settlers in Texas "brought their slaves with them, and continued to do so notwithstanding a decree of the Mexican Congress, issued in July, 1824, which forbade the importation into Mexican territory of slaves from foreign countries, and notwithstanding the Constitution adopted the same year, which declared free all children thereafter born of slaves. About that time the slave-holders in the United States began to see in Texas an object of peculiar interest to them. The Missouri Compromise, admitting Missouri as a Slave State and opening to slavery all that part of the Louisiana purchase south of 36° 30', seemed at first to give a great advantage to the slave power. But gradually it became apparent that the territory thus opened to slavery was, after all, too limited for the formation of many new Slave States, while the area for the building up of Free States was much larger. More territory for slavery was therefore needed to maintain the balance of power between the two sections. At the same time the Mexican government, growing alarmed at the unruly spirit of the American colony in Texas, attached Texas to Coahuila, the two to form one state. The constitution of Coahuila forbade the importation of slaves; and in 1829 the Republic of Mexico, by the decree of September 15, emancipated all the slaves within its boundaries. Then the American Slave States found themselves flanked in the southwest by a power not only not in sympathy with slavery, but threatening to become dangerous to its safety. The maintenance of slavery in Texas, and eventually the acquisition of that country, were thenceforth looked upon by the slaveholding interest in this Republic as matters of very great importance, and the annexation project was pushed forward systematically. First the American settlers in Texas refused to obey the Mexican decree of emancipation, and, in order to avoid an insurrection, the Mexican authorities permitted it to be understood that the decree did not embrace Texas. Thus one point was gained. Then the Southern press vigorously agitated the necessity of enlarging the area of slavery, while an interest in the North was created by organizing three land companies in New York, which used pretended Mexican land grants in Texas as the basis of issues of stock, promising to make people rich over-night, and thus drawing Texas within the circle of American business speculation. In 1830 President Jackson made another attempt to purchase Texas [Henry Clay, in 1827, when Secretary of State under John Quincy Adams, had already made a proposal to the Mexican government for the purchase], offering five millions, but without success. The Mexican government, scenting the coming danger, prohibited the immigration of Americans into Texas. This, however, had no effect. The American colony now received a capable and daring leader in Sam Houston of Tennessee, who had served with General Jackson in the Indian wars. He went to Texas for the distinct object of wresting that country from Mexico. There is reason for believing that President Jackson was not ignorant of his intentions. Revolutionary convulsions in Mexico gave the American colonists welcome opportunities for complaints, which led to collisions with the Mexican authorities. General Santa Anna, who by a successful revolutionary stroke had put himself at the head of the Mexican government, attempted to reduce the unruly Americans to obedience. In 1835 armed conflicts took place, in which the Americans frequently had the advantage. The Texans declared their independence from Mexico on March 2, 1836. The declaration was signed by about 60 men, among whom there were only two of Mexican nationality. The constitution of the new republic confirmed the existence of slavery under its jurisdiction, and surrounded it with all possible guaranties. Meanwhile Santa Anna advanced at the head of a Mexican army to subdue the revolutionists. Atrocious butcheries marked the progress of his soldiery. On March 6 the American garrison [250 men] of the Alamo [a mission church at San Antonio de Bexar] was massacred, and on the 27th a large number [500] of American prisoners at Goliad met a like fate. These atrocities created a great excitement in the United States. But on April 21 the Texans under Houston, about 800 strong, inflicted a crushing defeat upon Santa Anna's army of 1,500 men, at San Jacinto, taking Santa Anna himself prisoner. When captive Mexican President concluded an armistice with the victorious Texans, promising the evacuation of the country, and to procure the recognition of its independence; but this the Mexican Congress refused to ratify. The government of the United States maintained, in appearance, a neutral position. President Jackson had indeed instructed General Gaines to march his troops into Texas, if he should see reason to apprehend Indian incursions. Gaines actually crossed the boundary line, and was recalled only after the Mexican Minister at Washington had taken his passports. The organization of reinforcements for Houston, however, had been suffered to proceed on American soil without interference."

_C. Schurz, Life of Henry Clay, chapter 17 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN: _H. von Holst, Constitutional and Political History of the United States, volume 2, chapter 7._

_H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapter 7._

_A. M. Williams, Sam Houston and the War of Independence in Texas._

TEXAS: A. D. 1836-1845. Eight years of independence. Annexation to the United States. The question in Congress and the country.

"Santa Anna, … constrained in his extremity to acknowledge the independence of Texas, … was liberated, and the new republic established in October, 1836, with a Constitution modeled on that of the United States, and with General Houston inaugurated as its first President. The United States forthwith acknowledged its independence. In less than a year application was made to the United States government to receive the new republic into the Union, and, though this was at the time declined, it was obvious that the question was destined to play a most important part in American civil policy. The North saw in the whole movement a predetermined attempt at the extension of slavery, and in the invasive emigration, the revolt, the proclamation of independence, the temporary organization of a republic, and the application to be admitted into the Union as a state, successive steps of a conspiracy which would, through the creation of half a dozen or more new states, give a preponderance to the slave power in the republic. {3103} Mr. Van Buren, who had declined the overtures for the annexation of Texas, was succeeded in the Presidency by General Harrison, who, dying almost immediately after his inauguration, was followed by the Vice President, Mr. Tyler, a Virginian, and a supporter of extreme Southern principles. The annexation project was now steadily pressed forward, but, owing to the difficult circumstances under which Mr. Tyler was placed, and dissensions arising in the party that had elected him, nothing decisive could be done until 1844, when Mr. Upshur, the Secretary of State, being accidentally killed by the bursting of a cannon, Mr. Calhoun succeeded him. A treaty of annexation was at once arranged, but, on being submitted to the Senate, was rejected. Undiscouraged by this result, the South at once determined to make annexation the touchstone in the coming Presidential election. … Mr. Van Buren and Mr. Clay, the prominent candidates of the two opposing parties for the Presidency, were compelled to make known their views previously to the meeting of the nominating Conventions," and both discountenanced annexation. Van Buren was accordingly defeated in the Democratic Convention and James K. Polk received the nomination. Clay was nominated by the Whigs, and made an attempt, in the succeeding canvass, to change his ground on the Texas question; but "his attempt only served to make the matter worse, and cost him the support of the anti-slavery party, whose votes would have elected him." Polk was chosen President: but the annexation of Texas did not wait for his inauguration. "On December 19th a joint resolution was introduced into the House of Representatives providing for annexation. Attempts were made to secure half the country for free labor, the other half being resigned to slavery. … This proposition was, however, defeated. … As the measure eventually stood, it made suitable provision for the mode in which the 'State of Texas' should be admitted into the Union, the disposal of its munitions of war, public property, unappropriated lands, debts. On the main point it was arranged that new states, not exceeding four in number, in addition to Texas proper, should subsequently be made out of its territory, those lying south of latitude 36° 30' to be admitted with or without slavery, as their people might desire; in those north of that line, slavery to be prohibited. Mr. Tyler, on the last day of his term of office, unwilling to leave to his successor, Mr. Polk, the honor of completing this great Southern measure, dispatched a swift messenger to Texas; her assent was duly secured, and the Mexican province became a state of the Union. But the circumstances and conditions under which this had been done left a profound dissatisfaction in the North. The portion of territory ceded to freedom did not belong to Texas; her boundary did not approach within 200 miles of the Missouri Compromise line. The South had therefore secured the whole of the new acquisition; she had seized the substance, and had deluded the North with a shadow."

_J. W. Draper, History of the American Civil War, volume 1, chapter 22._

ALSO IN: _T. H. Benton, Thirty Years View, volume 2, chapters 135, 138-142, 148._

_H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 8, chapter 13._

_H. Greeley, History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension, chapter 10._

TEXAS: A. D. 1846-1848. The Mexican War.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1846; 1846-1847: and 1847.

TEXAS: A. D. 1848. Territory extorted from Mexico in the Treaty of Guadaloupe-Hidalgo.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

TEXAS: A. D. 1850. Sale of territory to the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

TEXAS: A. D. 1861 (February). Secession from the Union.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

TEXAS: A. D. 1861 (February). Twiggs' surrender of the Federal army, posts and stores.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860-1861 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY).

TEXAS: A. D. 1862. Farragut's occupation of coast towns.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

TEXAS: A. D. 1865 (June). Provisional government set up under President Johnson's Plan of Reconstruction.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

TEXAS: A. D. 1865-1870. Reconstruction.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), and after, to 1868-1870.

TEXAS: End--------

TEZCUCO.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

THABORITES, The.

See MYSTICISM.

THAI RACE, The.

See SIAM.

THAMANÆANS, The.

An ancient people who occupied the region in western Afghanistan which lies south and southeast of Herat, from the Haroot-rud to the Helmend.

_G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies, Persia, chapter 1._

THAMES, Battle of the.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

THANAGE.

An old Celtic tenure by which certain thanes' estates were held in Scotland, and which feudalism displaced.

_W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, volume 3, page 246._

THANE, THEGN.

See COMITATUS; and ETHEL; and ENGLAND: A. D. 958.

THANET, The Jute Landing on.

See ENGLAND: A. D.449-473.

THANKSGIVING DAY, The American: Its origin.

"The Pilgrims [at Plymouth], fond as they were of social enjoyment, had since landing known no day of rest except the sacred day of worship. Now [in 1621, the year after their landing from the Mayflower] that the summer was past and the harvest ended, they determined to have a period of recreation, combined with thanksgiving for their many mercies. The Governor thereupon sent out four huntsmen, who in one day secured enough game to supply the Colony for nearly a week. Hospitality was extended to Massasoit, who accepted and brought ninety people with him. The guests remained three days, during which they captured five deer to add to the larder of their hosts. The motley company indulged in a round of amusements, and the Colonists entertained their visitors with military tactics and evolutions. Without doubt, religious services opened each day; for the Pilgrims were cheerful Christians, who carried religion into all their affairs. Thus heartily and royally was inaugurated the great New England festival of Thanksgiving. For two centuries it continued to be a peculiarity of the Eastern States; but it has now become national, its annual return finding a welcome along the Lake shore and the Gulf, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific. … {3104} In 1623 a public day of Thanksgiving is noticed; and one is mentioned in a letter of 1632. … I do not doubt that such a religious festival was held after every harvest, and that it was so much a matter of course that the records did not mention it any more than they did the great training-day, with its sermon and holiday features."

_J. A. Goodwin, The Pilgrim Republic, pages 179-180, and foot-note._

THANN, THAUN, Battle of (1638).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

Battle of (1809).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

THAPSACUS.

Thapsacus "was situated just above the modern town of Rakka, at the only point in the central course of the Euphrates where that river is fordable (though even here only at certain seasons of the year), for which reason it continued to be used alike by the Persian, Greek and Roman armies during a long period. It was also a commercial route of importance in ancient times."

_E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 10, section 2 (volume 1)._

See, also, APAMEA.

THAPSUS, The Battle of (B. C. 46).

See ROME: B. C. 47-46.

THAPSUS: The Tyrian colony.

See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

THASOS. THASIAN MINES.

Thasos, an island off the coast of Thrace, in the northern part of the Ægean Sea, was celebrated in antiquity for its gold mines, first discovered and worked by the Phœnicians. Still more valuable mines on the neighboring Thracian coast were developed and worked by the Thasians. They were subdued by the Persians and subsequently became subject to Athens.

See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.

THAUR, The Cave of Mount.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.

THAUSS, Battle of (1431).

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

THEATINES, The.

The founders of the Order of the Theatines (1524) were "Gaetano of Thiene, a native of Vicenza, and Gian Pietro Caraffa [afterwards Pope Paul IV.]. The former had quitted a lucrative post at the Roman court in order to transplant the ideas of the Oratory of the Divine Love to his native city, Venice, and Verona, and had gradually come to concentrate his pious thoughts upon the reformation of the secular clergy of the Church. On his return to Rome, Bonifacio da Colle, a Lombard lawyer, became interested in his design, and then it was enthusiastically taken up by Caraffa, whose bishopric of Chieti, or, according to the older form, Theate, gave its name to the new order of the Theatines."

_A. W. Ward, The Counter-Reformation, page 28._

"To the vow of poverty they made the special addition that not only would they possess nothing, but would even abstain from begging, and await the alms that might be brought to their dwellings. … They did not call themselves monks, but regular clergy—they were priests with the vows of monks. Their intention was to establish a kind of seminary for the priesthood. … They devoted themselves rigidly to their clerical duties—o preaching, the administration of the sacraments, and the care of the sick. … The order of the Theatines did not indeed become a seminary for priests precisely, its numbers were never sufficient for that; but it grew to be a seminary for bishops, coming at length to be considered the order of priests peculiar to the nobility."

_L. Ranke, History of the Popes, book 2, section 3 (volume 1)._

THEBAIS, The.

The southern district of Upper Egypt, taking its name from Thebes.

THEBES, Egypt.

"No city of the old world can still show so much of her former splendour as Egyptian Thebes. … Not one of the many temples of Thebes has wholly disappeared; some are almost complete; many of the royal and private tombs were, until the tourist came, fresh with colours as of yesterday. … The origin of the great city is obscure. Unlike Memphis, Thebes, her southern rival, rose to the headship by slow degrees. It was towards the close of the dark age marked by the rule of Hanes, that a new line of kings arose in the upper country, with Thebes for their capital. At first they were merely nobles; then one became a local king, and his successors won the whole dominion of Egypt. These were the sovereigns of the Eleventh Dynasty. Their date must be before Abraham, probably some centuries earlier. … Thebes, like the other cities of Egypt, had a civil and a religious name. The civil name was Apiu, 'the city of thrones,' which, with the article 't' or 'ta,' became Ta-Apiu, and was identified by the Greeks with the name of their own famous city, by us corruptly called Thebes. The sacred name was Nu-Amen, 'the city of Amen,' the god of Thebes; or simply Nu, 'the city,' and Nu-ā, 'the great city.' In these names we recognize the No-Amon and No of Scripture."

_R. S. Poole, Cities of Egypt, chapter 4._

See, also, EGYPT: THE OLD EMPIRE AND THE MIDDLE EMPIRE.

THEBES, Greece: Start--------

THEBES, Greece: The founding of the city.