TEXAS REVOLUTION - STEPHEN F. AUSTIN'S ARGUMENT AGAINST THE LAW OF APRIL 6, 1830

Contributed by: Joan Renfrow

***************************************************************************
USGENWEB ARCHIVES(tm) NOTICE 
All documents placed in the USGenWeb Archives remain the property of the 
contributors, who retain publication rights in accordance with US Copyright 
Laws and Regulations. In keeping with our policy of providing free information 
on the Internet, these documents may be used by anyone for their personal 
research. They may be used by non-commercial entities so long as all notices 
and submitter information is included. These electronic pages may NOT be 
reproduced in any format for profit. Any other use, including copying files 
to other sites, requires permission from the contributors PRIOR to uploading 
to the other sites.  The submitter has given permission to the USGenWeb 
Archives to store the file permanently for free access.

http://www.usgwarchives.net
***************************************************************************
Stephen F. Austin's Argument Against the Mexican Law of April 6, 1830
 
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 depredations 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 government 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 government 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 expense 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 enterprising 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 
North 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 fill every part of the country. They have never cost the 
government a cent-all they have ever received 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 conquer 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 defense 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 power fully upon the minds of the emigrants to 
Texas, as to have give them fortitude to brave the dangers of savage foes, to 
despise the hardships and privations of the wilderness, to support them through 
trials and privations at which the stoutest hearts shrink, the cry of their 
little children even for bread, the well-founded fears an despondency of their 
wives, surrounded as they were the first year 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 imbedded 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 manual 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 privilege of settling in Texas, and of making wild lands 
valuable, that before were valueless. 

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 
government 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 widowed 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 invitations 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 jealousies 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 United States of the 
North. It seems that the virulence of party feelings even went so far as to 
suspect that a friendly and republican government whose territory is already too 
great for its population, wished to seize 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 
government of the United States 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, until it possessed the necessary elements 
to form a state of itself and this very law was another inducement to the 
emigrants to persevere, 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 emigrants to be taken off. Texas must be 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 
variance with the inducement 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 their relatives and friends 
alongside 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 
emigrants from Europe is a faint and distant one, and will require many years 
and 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 United 
States have been by the Law of April 6, 1830?

Under this view of the subject, it certainly appears evident that that part of 
the Law of 6 April, 1830, prohibiting the immigration of North Americans is 
unjust and at variance with the faith and pledge of the government and with the 
true and substantial interests of Texas. That law will not, and cannot prevent 
the introduction of hundreds and thousands into Texas, who, if they do not 
receive the sanction of the government 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 indissolubly.