John A Williams to Stephen F Austin, 12-18-1832


Summary: Does not agree with Austin's idea of the necessity for local organization. People of his district of east Texas much opposed. Convention of October illegal and most unfortunate.


Pine Bluff, [Texas] 18 Decbr. 1832

Col. S F. Austin

Dear Sir. your friendly communication of the 20th of November last has been recd and duly considered, and here I must acknoledge myself under many obligations for the pains you have taken to convince me of the propriety of the course you have advised. But your reasoning appears to me some what deficient. " Our political machinery with that of the whole Mexican nation," you suggest " is quite disjointed " I am not aware of the disolution of the State Government and if dangers threaten it, it is our duty as faithful citizens to preserve that govt, which affords us protection so long as it is worthy of support, you say that you are a " Mexican Citizen and as such have endeavoured to do your duty faithfully, and will continue to do so while you keep your senses and can do any thing " Why then advise me to violate my duty, by the performance of an act expressly prohibited by law, and which you as a "Mexican Citizen?" in obedeance to your duty as such, could not, and I presume would not perform, You say the late " convention terminated very hapiply, it tranquilized, harmonized, and united all—very important results in troubled times " Be it so, I am hapy to hear it, But there was nothing to harmonize and tranquiliza The people of Texas were at that time, for ought that I know perfectly tranquil, perhaps more so than they are at present, The Political Chief in particular in his official communication of the 7th of Novbr last addressed to the Ayunto of Austin, of which I have a copy, expresses himself in terms which cannot be mistaken whereby he disapproves in argumentative and pathetic language the measure taken by that " harmonizing " Convention. In this jurisdiction the people (unless I am very much mistaken) are not content with the course marked out by the San Felipe Convention, so far as we have been verbally informed of their resolutions, for I must acknoledge that our worthy conventioners have not served us with a copy of these important rules of action which (it is suggested) we aught implicitly to obey, " any law to the contrary not withstanding "

You say that your standing " Moto has been fidelity to Mexico " that you have been " faithful to that Moto " you believe that it has always been, and now is, the standing Moto of all the people of Texas " and I believe it too. and I believe further, that if all the people of Texas were consulted, and made to understand the subject in its proper light, and then the main Question put. Shall we obey the laws of the Country we have adopted, or shall we not obey them, and yeald obedeance to the Junto of San Filepe? I believe Sir that you would find an over whelming Majority in the affirmative. The question proposed is the true question which unavoidably results from your communication. The communication from the Political Chief and copies of law there with inclosed is conclusive evidence (if evidence is necessary to prove that 2, and 2, make 4) that by yealding obediance to the law we must disobey the resolutions of the convention where they contravene the law, and if they injoin no more than the law had preveously provided for, then they are wholly useless— You say the basis you go upon "is that the good sense of the people will make them do right?? and again " give them a little time and they will do right." and I go on the same basis nearly, but reather a little further. I would say if it were necessary that " the people " have done no wrong, that they need not that little time as you have suggested, to make them do right, but that the errors (if any) has been commited by their Delegates in the San Felipe convention, and now to cover their retreat from an untenable position you would advise me and the people of Trinity to commit ourselves, to lessen the responsibility of our delegates, and in order to opperate on our fears we are told the people will not submit to "Direct opposition" that it "excites them" and that an excited people like an excited individual are dangerous—This, it must be confessed is strange language to come from a gentleman so prudent, and so sincere, as I have heretofore found you, and so fond of social intercourse and perfect union—but if it is intended for any thing more than a Bugbear, as I really understand it, I shall rely upon the a good sense of the people " as you have it, no doubt purely, ad captandem Vulgus, yet as it is a precious coin from your own Mint you will surely allow me to give it circulation. But who is it that has directly contradicted the will of the people and thereby incurred the danger you anticipate, If you allude to me, you are very much mistaken, for the people of this jurisdiction to whom I consider myself responsible for my official acts, perfectly concur with me in opinion, (To wit) to perform any act either judicial, or extra-judicial in organizing the Militia according to the new System is deemed to be an infringement of the law of the state, and the fact that the Political Chief, has by a special mandate interdicted the whole of the proceeding of that convention as being unauthorised, illegal, and an attempt against the Sovreignty of State, is ipso facto, sufficient to prevent us from recognizing the proceeding of that convention as having any Vallidety or binding force—

True it is, that the people of Trinity in conformity to the official communication from the Alcaldes of your jurisdiction, did cooperate in the formation of the convention, But our delegates, while in convention, exercised a power that was never delegated to them, neither in express terms, nor by implication, But suppose we had have delegated to them all the power, severally, and collectively that we might have exercised in our own proper persons, Still that power exercised to its utmost extent, would have been far insufficient for the purpose of legislation nor do I suppose that the members of the convention thought that their resolutions would supercede law—yet according to your strange system of reasoning, it would seem that these very resolutions are at least equal to a Statute passed in due form by the legislative authority of the State, and that we ought to organize the civil Militia of this jurisdiction according to the Dictum of a voluntary association of men, Without a shadow of law or constitutional right to give vallidety to their proceedings.

But we have gotten into a difficulty, and it is our business to get out of it, in the safest manner, and as you have been my occational and prudent adviser for many years I feel it my duty to give every assistance in my power to evert the danger you anticipate (To wit) disunion Which in my humble opinion is only to be effected by a prudent course, a strict adhearance to our duty. If we have imprudently adopted any course likely to bring us in Collision with the Mexican govt, let us abandon it, and apoligize for the blunder, This is more wise and more honourable, than an obstinat adhearence to error, beside we have nothing to gain by a civil war, but every thing to loose.

Remember your excellent Moto, fidelity to Mexico Remember the resolutions of the people of the jurisdiction of Austin in favour of the plan of Vera Cruze— remember the resolutions of the Ayuntamento of Liberty on the same subject in which the people of Austin and the people of Liberty were in perfect unison by these solemn declarations, Our fortunes, our lives, and most sacred honours, stand pledged for our fedelity, These declarations have gone fourth to the world and are now spread on the Journals of our native country, of Mexico, and perhaps of urope, shall we now give ourselves the lie. and call the world to witness our want of veracity, by a willful and open violation of the law that we have thus publickly and solemnly promised to obey, No Sir, the good sense of the people (as you have repeatedly and emphatically expressed it) will prevent it. And if ever we are driven to the dreadful alternative of civil war it will not be by a voluntary act of the people, But by shortsighted, aspiring ambitious politicians, who through their zeal for popular distinction have, or may mistake their own imbecile policy for that of the public will. The public will can be nothing more than the disire of each individual to promote his own private hapiness conjointly with that of the whole society, or body politic The interest of the whole society being obligatory on each of its members. Can it be to the interest of Texas to disolye the legal political bands that unite us as one society? Will not the violation of one law with impunity lead to the violation of another? and will not a continuation of this course lead to another disregard of all law? save that of physical force-—perfect and direful Anarchy—humanity is shocked at the idea. "He who without reason exposes the people to the horror and miseries of civil war where they might enjoy an honourable and salutary peace, what guilt does he incur, or reather what a series of crimes does he commit? The slaughter of men, the pillage and devastation of provinces are his crimes he is accountable to god, and responsible to man for every person that is killed." But my worthy friend, this severe sentence is not pointd at you, nor no other man by those who would wilfully involve these infant colones and once holy and tranquil people in the miseries of civil War. No Sir, I would reather beleive that you are labouring under real, or imagenary duress than to believe that you were serious when you request to " let the organization go on by the election of officers as ordered by the convention " and to " trust to time and reason to correct etc?" and thereby urge me to betray my trust and violate the sacred obligation of the oath I have taken as an officer of this State, and for What? because the convention in the plentitude of unorthorized power had imprudently adopted a measure which was wrong, ab initio, and I must therefore, caray it into effect in this Jurisdiction, as being the only person duly authorised to legalize an illegal act;

Permit me to inform you Sir, that I do not know of five men in this Munesepalety favourable to the plan you have so warmly espoused and if I was to order the election it would be disregarded there would be no organization. This is my opinion, but if I am mistaken or have neglected my duty—a few days will bring another Alcalde into office and he will correct the blunder if any has been commited.

Jno. A. Williams [Rubric]