01'r Catholic Heritage in Texas
the Imperial Colonization Law of 1823 did not prohibit the introduction of slaves by immigrants; it merely banned slave trade. The national Law of July 13, 1824, explicitly prohibiting slave trade throughout the Republic, 35 was interpreted by some as emancipating all slaves within the bounds of the nation. This interpretation was, naturally, protested by Austin and the colonists. Since the position taken by the settlers was held likewise by Land Commissioner Padilla in Texas, the law did not greatly affect the colonists. Neither the Federal Constitution of 1824, nor the Federal Coloniza- tion Law of 1825 made any reference to slavery. The state colonization law limited itself to the general statement that "the new settlers shall subject themselves to the laws that are now, and shall be hereafter established on the subject." The State constitution of Coahuila and Texas promulgated in 1827, stipulated, however, in Article XIII that children born to slaves after publication of the instrument were to be free from birth and that further introduction of slaves was to cease Within six months. Since the constitution was not published in San Felipe until May 29, it was concluded by the colonists that immigra- tion with slaves was permitted until the end of November." A considerable flurry was caused, nevertheless, by the Regulatory Act of September 15, 1827, for the implementation of Article XIII. It provided for a census of slaves within six months respecting age, name, and sex; required a quarterly report on births and deaths of slaves; and declared free those slaves whose masters died without direct heirs. Protests were general. Austin argued not only that it was un- constitutional, but also that if it was not modified, immigration would stop and Texas would revert to the Indians-thus leaving the frontiers of Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, and Coahuila again exposed to Indian attack. As a result, two amendments were secured: one stipulated that slaves of masters who died under questionable circumstances and with- out heirs were not to be freed; the other, that slaves could change masters provided the new master indemnified the former owner. 37 With this amendment as a legal ruse, traffic in slaves continued. The Emancipation Decree of September I5, I829. Agitation over the Regulatory Act had hardly subsided when the presidential decree S5For the full text of this law see Dublin y Lozano, Legislacwn Me:ricana, I, 710. "The original draft of the article in question was much more drastic and declared all slaves free upon publication. The strong protest of Austin, seconded by the political chief of San Antonio and the ayunlamiento, secured a modification. Ibid., 234-237. llGammel, LQ1lls of Texas, I, 188, 20:2.
Powered by FlippingBook