01'r Catholic Heritage in T e%as
260
that an election be immediately called. This Solomonic decision did not, however, restore peace and harmony. Many protested that the failure to hold the election at the regular time in the fall of 1834 had, in fact, left the State of Coahuila and Texas without a constitutional govemment. 3 In September, 1834, Oliver Jones, representative of the Department of the Brazos at Monclova, wrote to Henry Smith, political chief of the Brazos, that the State government had fallen to pieces. He then raised the question, "Is not Texas as much entitled to a government as the former [Coahuila] ?" Following the same reasoning, the political chief of Bexar issued a call on October 13, for a convention in San Antonio, invited "the people of Texas to unite with their fellow-citizens of Bexar in deliberating upon the means which it may be expedient to adopt in order to save the country from ... anarchy and confusion." Before this proclamation reached the Brazos, Political Chief Henry Smith had published a broadside on October 20 entitled, "Security of Texas," advocating out-and-out separation. Smith argued that the time had come for the organization of a state government separate from Coahuila. "The unnatural connection with Coahuila, a dissolution of which has been so much desired by Texas," he declared, "is now by the act of the former dissolved; let Texas then abandon her to her fate ... let Texas keep herself within the pale and provisions of the constitution which she has sworn to support and protect."' The old settlers, who constituted the bulk of the inhabitants, were hesitant to take suc;h a step. The Central Committee erected by the Convention of 1833, composed of James B. Miller, Wily Martin, Robert Peebles, William Pettus, William B. Travis, William F. Jack, and F. W. Johnson, replied to the appeal of Smith on October 28. It was absurd, they declared, to contend that because revolution had overtaken Coahuila, the Constitution had been overthrown and the union with Texas dissolved., They posed this question: "Because one part of a state or community has lawlessly violated the constitution, is that a justifi- cation, or even an excuse, for another for doing the same?" Developments in Monclova in the spring of 1835, however, brought matters to a head. The new Legislature, elected in accord with the recommendation of Santa Anna, met in March. Far from being servile, it adopted a vigorous protest against the changes made in the national 1 F. W. Johnson, A Hi.story of Te:ras and Te:r011s (edited by E. C. Barker and E. W. Winkler), I, 178-180. 4 /bid., 180-181.
Powered by FlippingBook