Tuesday, October 15, 2024

The Tonkawa and Austin in 1842 and Post-1862


W.C. Walsh article from 1924



NOTE: this is a work in progress towards a possible historical marker for the story of the Tonkawa in early Austin. It is in no way a review of Tonkawa history. Rather, it is a critical review (trying to make sense) of a specific article written in 1924 by W.C. Walsh, and speculations / suppositions / historical errors made by film maker Bob O'Dell based on that article.

Overview

Sept. 12, 2024 members of the Tonkawa tribe from Oklahoma were in Austin for Austin-Tonkawa Friendship Day, a recognition of the friendship that has endured since Austin became the Texas Capital in 1839. The event was initiated by filmmaker Bob O’Dell who is working on a documentary about the tribe. Prior to the event O’Dell did an interview published in the newspaper, subtitled “Thanking the Tonkawa for saving the capital of Texas” (Austin American Statesman, May 7th, 2024, page D01). It was based on a white paper written by O'Dell and filed with the Austin History Center ("How The Tonkawa Tribe Came to Live in Austin Texas", Bob O’Dell, August 2, 2023 Version 1.0).

The Statesman piece ran before TCHC and O’Dell met to discuss a potential future historical marker. In this article I’ll discuss a number of concerns about historical claims that were discussed with O’Dell, but unfortunately after the American Statesman article had already been published, and after O'Dell had reached out to the City of Austin's mayor, conducted podcast interviews, etc.

These clarifications are important for any potential future historical marker, but in general to also correct, clarify and suggest further research needed on claims made in the article(s) which have already been made public.

William C. Walsh Article of 1924

The most serious problem begins with the Walsh article itself. The sole source for O’Dell’s claims with respect to 1842 is a single paragraph from a news article by William C. Walsh (1836-1924) published in 1924, and in particular a single sentence in that paragraph. 

Again citing the Handbook of Texas, Capt. William C. Walsh was a Civil War officer (CSA) and Texas land commissioner, born in Dayton, Ohio in 1836. He moved to Austin in 1840 with his father, a blacksmith, and his mother. In 1924, the year he died, he was interviewed for a series of 14 articles on the early days of Austin. In his preface to the series Walsh said upfront “... I shall endeavor to tell the truth and nothing but the truth [about old Austin], but I fear to trust the memory of an old man..." (The Austin Statesman, Jan 27, 1924). In 1924, the year he died, Walsh was 88 years old, remembering events 82 years prior when he was only 6 years old.

Here’s the entirety of what Walsh said about the Tonkawa camp as published in the newspaper:

Odds and Ends—Indians.

The Tonkaway (sic) Indians were, from the first settlement, friendly to the whites and thereby secured the enmity of the Lipans, Comanches and other inimical tribes. In 1842, these Indians made an united attack on the Tonks (sic) and almost entirely wiped them out. A short time afterwards, the remnant, about two hundred and fifty, came to Austin and for mutual protection camped in the city limits. Their camp was situated in a liveoak grove on West Fourth Street, on ground now occupied by what is known as the "Walker Properties." [generally today's Republic Square] The treaty was brief. The Tonks (sic) were to refrain from pilfering, were to act as watchmen and give the alarm if danger approached; were also to join in pursuit of depredators and act as guides. In return, they were privileged to trade meat and pecans and wild fruit for corn, potatoes and other foodstuff. During the next two years of their residence in the city they held faithfully to the above terms. (Austin American-Statesman, 20 Apr 1924, Sun, Page 8)

In describing the matters of 1842 Walsh straightaway begins with what O’Dell admits is a "possible" mistake, underlined above: Walsh confuses or conflates the Tonkawa Massacre of 1862[1] with events of 1842. Walsh himself warned about trusting his memory. 

From O'Dell's white paper, in reference to this sentence, "It is possible that Walsh was mistakenly thinking about a united attack that happened much later in 1862", i.e. the Tonkawa Massacre of 1862.

Confusing the Tonkawa Massacre of 1862 with 1842 is a significant mix-up and a problem for the credibility of the Walsh article's 1842-claim as a whole. Let's see why. We seem to be left with three possibilities: 

  1. there was no mix-up, something like the 1862 massacre as described by Walsh did take place in 1842, or
  2. the date of 1842 is right, but the description of events (which O'Dell himself points out sounds oddly like 1862) is wrong, or
  3. the description of events is right (surely the 1862 massacre) but the date is wrong, so 1842 is not right

There really is no way around this ("possible") mix-up; any claims based on this mix-up are likewise going to be ("possibly") wrong. As the rest of this article shows, there are a lot of unresolved questions that appear to stem from this mixup.

Let's use "reductio ad absurdum" to move Walsh's sentence above (highlighted) from "possibly" wrong to definitely wrong. At face value, what Walsh presented (#1) is that the Tonkawa experienced an 1862-like event in 1842; so once in 1842, then again in 1862, the latter known as the Tonkawa Massacre of 1862. Which means:

  • given the known impact on the tribe from 1862 alone, two such events would have surely, as Walsh puts it, "wiped them out" .. the fact they were not wiped out implies two such events did not happen
  • such an 1842 event would surely have found it's way into the history books, just as the 1862 event did, and be part of their oral history just as 1862 is
  • and a "united attack" by tribes in 1842 that included the Comanche and their then enemies is not believable. 
So #1 just doesn't seem plausible; what Walsh presents in the article about 1842 is historically incorrect (#1). Full stop. But which of our remaining possibilities is right?

Possibility #2 would mean the date is right, and something happened in 1842, but we don't know what. 

Possibility #3 would mean Walsh was clearly thinking about the 1862 massacre and just got the date wrong, so what, if anything, happened in 1842? We don't know.

Possibilities #2 and #3 combined shed a lot of question on what if anything happened in 1842.

The simplest explanation (Occam's razor) may be #3, that the date is wrong: 1842 was a slip of the tongue (or memory) or a newspaper typo. A one digit typo (1842 should have been 1862) and Walsh's story largely fits, and most of the questions raised go away, i.e. it explains why we see nothing (thus far; more research needed by O'Dell) written about the Tonkawa camped at Republic Square in Austin from 1842 through 1844 (we'll discuss the Mary Mitchell article below). If you read the Walsh article carefully, he never refers to the Mexican Army taking San Antonio, and Austin being evacuated. The events of 1842 and the evacuation of Austin are never brought up in the article. It is odd that Walsh would mention 1842 -- a defining part of Austin's early history -- then never explain to the reader what the significance was. Further arguing for #3.

Quickly (we'll look this in more detail below), if you look at what Walsh said, but plug in 1862 rather than 1842, it fits the documented history of the Tonkawa after the 1862 massacre well; let's do that below:

"In [1862] these Indians [Comanches and other tribes] made an united attack on the Tonks (sic) and almost entirely wiped them out. A short time afterwards [ca.1863], the remnant, about two hundred and fifty, came to Austin..."

To illustrate this issue of the lack of reports of Tonkawa in Austin 1842-1844 at the Republic Square camp, William Bollaert, an English explorer, writer, chemist, geographer, and ethnologist traveled through Texas in 1842 to 1843. He is known for his journal and copious notes; he is a primary source and eye witness to Austin during this period.

He is in both Bastrop and Austin in August 1843 on consecutive days. Passing through Bastrop enroute to Austin he meets with Chief Campo, sees families camped, goes to a store "full" of Tonkawa trading. The next day he's in Austin for 2 nights, nearly 3 days (leaves the evening of the 3rd day) .. records nothing about seeing Tonkawa. None camping. None trading with residents. (more below: William Bollaert's Notes on Tonkawa 1843). The almost total focus on documenting the Tonkawa in Bastrop compared with the complete lack of reference to any Tonkawa in Austin by Bollaert begs the question of whether they were there in Austin in 1843.

To conclude, from the Walsh article we don't know what happened when. Without more evidence claims based on the article are suspect.

To overcome what certainly does appear to be a mix-up and defend O'Dell's 1842 claims would require primary evidence, or at least evidence from someone connected with someone known to have been there (Austin in 1842-1844) like Mary Mitchell (extended family of Robertson who was there; more on her article below). That level of evidence has not yet been presented by O'Dell, nor have I found it. There are other primary sources one could research; that would be a next step for O'Dell. 

In the rest of the article we'll start with possibility #2. Then towards the end look at the period ca. post-1862 during the Civil War when the Tonkawa are known to have returned to Austin, i.e. consider possibility #3.

1842 in Austin

Let’s back up and look at what was happening in 1842 in Austin; later we'll also look at Austin post-1862 during the Civil War as it relates to the Tonkawa.

From the Handbook of Texas: “In the years following the battle of San Jacinto, Mexican leaders periodically threatened to renew hostilities against Texas. Lacking the resources to attempt reconquest, the Centralist government of Antonio López de Santa Anna, who had returned to the presidency in the fall of 1841, ordered the army to harass the Texas frontier; his policy was intended to discourage immigration and foreign capital investment in the young republic. Accordingly, a force of 700 men under Gen. Rafael Vásquez marched into Texas and seized San Antonio on March 5, 1842. Forewarned of the Mexican advance, most Anglo-American residents had already evacuated the area allowing Vasquez to enter the town unopposed.” It was during this period that much of Austin’s population left; it was during this period the infamous “Archives War” took place.

To paraphrase O’Dell’s interview published in the American Statesman: in 1842 while Austin was largely evacuated, the Comanches kidnapped two children, William and Jane Simpson, who lived on West Pecan today's W 6th St. O’Dell claimed in his interview the kidnapping was a “triggering event” for Austinites to invite the Tonkawa into the city to protect against further raids. He then claimed that in the period they were camped in Austin all raids stopped, and their presence prevented Austin from being destroyed, e.g. by the Comanche, i.e. they “saved Austin”, or as expressed in a pod-cast,How the Tonkawa Tribe Saved Austin's Capital Status”.

There are a number of historical problems with this. Again, the article was published before O’Dell scheduled a meeting with TCHC so this will hopefully clarify things as we work towards a possible historical marker. 

Simpson Children Abduction: 1844, not 1842

First, although O’Dell cited The Indian Papers of Texas and the Southwest 1825-1916 he failed to notice that the Simpson kids were kidnapped in 1844, not 1842, after the Tonkawa had left. This is abundantly documented in Republic of Texas correspondence on the matter, as well as various newspapers across Texas that reported on it. So, abduction of the Simpson children was not a “triggering event” for Austin inviting the Tonkawa to Austin as O'Dell suggested.

Republic of Texas correspondence on the abduction of the Simpson children in 1844

Congressional resolution for ransom of Simpson children, 1844

The Standard (Clarksville, Texas) 4 Dec 1844, Wed
 

Further documentation in the Indian Papers shows the children were abducted by Comanches, but that it caused a rift with bands that were at this time trying to pursue peace with Texas. Michno (Fate Worse than Death) summarizes the story (p.82) “Apparently a significant number of Comanches [under Chief Cut Arm] were trying to remain at peace with Texans. They knew who [Comanches under Chief Mopechucope] had led the raid on the Simpsons”; those responsible were confronted resulting a fight in which Cut Arm was killed, along with the son and father responsible for the abduction. So in a rare case, the specific individuals, a father and son, were actually identified. A report is available in The Indian Papers of Texas and the Southwest 1825-1916: Volume 2 pp. 283-84 & 298-99. I think this -- some Comanches were pursuing peace -- may help explain why they did not burn Austin, or San Antonio for that matter, to the ground ca. 1842. More on that below.

No Evidence of an "Invite"

What about O’Dell’s claim the City of Austin invited the Tonkawa? He concedes (private communications) there is no evidence of an invitation. Walsh makes no mention of an invite. Some of Walsh’s derogatory language about “pilfering” suggests this was not just an omission, rather he never meant to imply an invite was extended (you do not generally extend an invite to someone then ask them to refrain from pilfering). One would think something as important as this would have been reported somewhere, notably correspondence of the Republic of Texas as documented in The Indian Papers. I’ve found no evidence of an invite thus far.

Texas Army ("a force of sufficient strength to defend Austin")

Another fact that brings to question an invite by Austin. March 5th, 1842 the Mexican Army under Gen. Rafael Vásquez marched into Texas and seized San Antonio. Within days Texas Secretary of War, George W. Hockley, ordered a battalion of Col. Henry Jones' regiment to Austin. That, with the men already in Austin, were thought to "...constitute a force of sufficient strength to defend Austin..." (ATTACK AND COUNTERATTACK: The Texas-Mexican Frontier, 1842. Nance, pp.55-56. Retrieved from Texas State Historical Association 10/4/2024). 

Mexican General Woll then invaded San Antonio in September. While still not clear how much of or when the Texas Army was withdrawn from Austin (more research needed), if present through September (Woll retreated after the Battle of Salado Creek) that is a large part of 1842 where an "invite" to the Tonkawa to protect Austin makes little sense.

 

A battalion of Col. Jones' regiment ordered to Austin in March of 1842 for protection of Austin, the capital. The Standard (Clarksville, Texas), Sat, Sep 3, 1842.

Deaths of Dolson and Black, Killed at Barton Springs

Walsh describes the deaths of Captains Dolson and Black. While his details surrounding their death differs a bit from one newspaper obit, their date of death can be confirmed with their burial at Oakwood Cemetery, as well as probate records for Dolson on file with the Travis County Clerk's office, Austin.

Their date of death was August 1st, 1842.  

As an aside and for clarification, at the time of his death Dolson was presumably no longer a captain; in 1841 he and a Mr. King filed deeds for a saloon (Travis County Deed Records: Deed Record A Page: 398). https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1595810/m1/442/ George M. Dolson appears in a number of interesting write ups like "Did David Crockett Surrender at the Alamo?" (Connelly, The Journal of Southern History, 1960. Has a short bio on Dolson; he was not active military when he died)

Back to the main story .. 

In other reports of their death, and indeed as reported by Walsh himself, there is no mention of Tonkawa involvement: no raising alarm or tracking the "depredators". As in the next section on the 1843 raid on Austin, this brings up questions as to whether the Tonkawa were at the time encamped, in this case quite close to Barton Springs.

 O'Dell has explained this lack of reference (private communications) by saying their deaths were not within the city limits. While I find that explanation lacking, the same could then be said of his speculation (a later version of his white paper) that had the Tonkawa been present in Austin in 1844 perhaps the Simpson kids would have been saved (this was after he learned they weren't abducted in 1842); the kids were in Shoal Creek which is west of West Avenue, the city limits of the time. There are certain locations that even in 1842, while technically not within the city limits, have I would argue always been considered "Austin": Mount Bonnell, Shoal Creek, Treaty Oak (all west of West Ave.), and Barton Springs being in this category.

Regardless, if the Tonkawa were encamped at Republic Square in August, and if Dolson and Black were killed at Barton Springs as recalled by Walsh, one might expect some mention if only to say "the Tonkawa wanted to track the depredators but were discouraged as it was outside the city limits". I find the complete lack of reference to the Tonkawa, even by Walsh, raises questions that I'll explore more in the next section in the context of the year 1843.


Obit from newspaper for Dolson and Black. Details differ a bit from what Walsh describes, i.e. they had gone swimming at Barton Springs. Obit pulled from https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/63887231/george-m-dolson

1843 Raid on Austin

Concerning O’Dell’s interview claim there were no raids on Austin while the Tonkawa were encamped; he is ignoring the sizable raid of 1843 (number in the party range as high as 40), probably by Comanches, and documented in several books (Wilbarger's Depredations; John Holland Jenkins, Recollections of Early Texas, p.166; Andrew J. Sowell, Rangers and Pioneers of Texas, pp.58-59; Frank Brown, Annals, X p.46, 49) and by early Austin resident and historian Julia Lee Sinks (Quarterly, Texas State Historical Association, 1900). We even have an eye witness account by James Smith and son John (their homestead is today’s Boggy Creek Farm; second oldest homestead in Austin, thought built same year as French Legation). John Smith documented the raid in a letter; a copy is on file at the Briscoe Center for American History. By accounts (which do vary on details and I suspect Sinks was trying to piece it all together in her paper for TSHA) the raid came from the east, passing Robertson Hill in Austin’s out lots, then north along Waller Creek through the eastern part of Austin, then escaping into the “mountains” (a reference to the hills west of Austin) after a skirmish with Austin residents. Residents of Austin were killed in the raid. Brown comments that when Bell and Coleman were assaulted, a Mrs. Browning and daughter, standing in their door near Waller Creek on East Avenue were within two hundred yards of the raiding party. 

None of the half dozen accounts above mention Tonkawa involvement: raising alarm, help in pursuit, or engaging the raiding party which happened toward dusk with some (three?) of the raiding party killed. 

More on this below as we revisit the raid of 1843.

Link to Brown's account on the Portal:

 

A compilation of a few sources on the 1843 raid on Austin. Details of the handwritten note by John Smith suggest to me the raiding party was Comanche, and perhaps even some that had been involved in the events of 1840 (they wore "American" clothing; maybe from Linnville?). If indeed Comanche, the raid may well have been on-going retribution for the Council House Massacre of 1840. The raiding party appears to have approached from the east, headed west. Keep in mind, the old entry to Austin was from the east via Bastrop, Webberville and Hornsby Bend; old Fort Colorado was on this eastern entry to what would later be Austin and was the location of many Texas and Comanche skirmishes, but also a treaty for peace by the Comanche in 1837.

 

Page from John Smith letter


Key locations based on accounts of the 1843 raid on Austin including eye witness description of James Smith and son John, described by John in a letter on file with Briscoe.

 

William Bollaert's Notes on Tonkawa 1843

William Bollaert, writer, chemist, geographer, and ethnologist traveled through Texas in 1842 to 1843. His detailed journals (posthumously compiled into a book in 1956) provide a primary source of information on Texas during its early days as a republic; his journal includes notes on Tonkawa, including one on one meetings. (William Bollaert's Texas, paperback printing 1989)

In August through September of 1843 he traveled from Houston to Austin and back.

August 22nd just outside Bastrop Bollaert spends time with a young Tonkawa man, "Mr. M", then later with Tonkawa Chief Campo, encamped there with "four or five" families. Campo reported having just recently returned from buffalo hunting, and that later that summer planned to "visit the coast .. to see the ocean and hunt mustangs and deer". That same day Bollaert then went into Bastrop where there was a dry goods store "full of Tonkeways (sic)" bartering  for goods including "beads, and such finery" for their wives, and even whiskey from the "tippling shop".

He arrived in Austin August 23rd, spent all of August 24th and most of August 25th, leaving that evening for Webber's Prairie where he spent the night. His brief stay in Austin may have (he does not elaborate) been in part due to health (he became ill the 26th) but also perhaps the poor shape Austin was in, which residents blamed on Sam Houston.  

By far, documenting the Tonkawa in Bastrop was Bollaert's main focus.

Of all the observations he made on Austin -- he mentions visiting the French Legation, the Capitol, the President's house, residences, some businesses -- there is no mention of having seen any Tonkawa camped anywhere (Republic Square being just .2 miles off Congress Ave) or trading with residents. Maybe all the men were out hunting? That still leaves the women and children, say 2/3 of the tribe, that would presumably still be in Austin tending camp? In a depopulated Austin surely a camp of Tonkawa that size would be hard to miss just off Congress Ave.?

These two reports a day apart seem to paint a different picture of the Tonkawa in 1843 than that of Walsh's article, and O'Dell's claims, of a tribe of some 250 in a weakened state huddled in Austin's city limits for protection.

The fact that Campo had just returned from buffalo hunting, and was then planning a visit to the coast to see the ocean, almost like a vacation!, with other members of the tribe bartering for "finery" and whiskey? It's almost like Walsh confused Austin for Bastrop. I'm not suggesting that is so, just that Bollaert's description of the Tonkawa in Bastrop vs. Austin (no mention) is not what one might infer from Walsh's article and O'Dell's claims.

The description of the Tonkawa in Bastrop does raise a question. Per Walsh, some 250 Tonkawa 2/3 of which were probably women and children, by Walsh's account not in great shape, needing refuge. With Austin largely depopulated and itself in weakened condition, why would anyone go to Austin for safety if indeed you suspected that it was the bullseye for an attack by the Comanche? The residents of Austin that stayed did so because their lives were rooted in homesteads and businesses (as Bollaert commented on). The Tonkawa were mobile and could have gone anywhere .. like Bastrop .. which some including Campo obviously did. As well as the coast to see the ocean.

I'll reemphasize, Bollaert's description of the Tonkawa in Bastrop in 1843 seems to show a tribe that is still mobile and not afraid to move about. Bollaert is a primary source, eye witness account to Austin in 1843, from a man known to document details. 

The almost total focus on documenting the Tonkawa in Bastrop compared with the complete lack of reference to any Tonkawa in Austin by Bollaert begs the question of whether they were there in 1843.

Why Austin Was Not Destroyed

O’Dell’s interview (and podcast interview; see below) implies that if not for the Tonkawa encampment, Austin would have been destroyed by the Comanche, or nearly so, as to rule it out as the future Capital of Texas; see “How the Tonkawa Tribe Saved Austin's Capital Status”. Their presence saved Austin. Again no evidence of this, and there are other plausible explanations. 

On the face of it, it’s hard to reconcile that the Comanche and their allies, who thwarted Texas westward expansion for another three plus decades, would have been dissuaded from burning Austin to the ground as they had done with Linnville just years before by a force of some 250 Tonkawa, 2/3 of which were likely women and children. Despite the number of chiefs killed in the Council House Massacre in 1840, the Penateka (much less the other Comanche divisions) still had powerful chiefs remaining: Buffalo Hump, Yellow Wolf, and Santa Anna (no not that one!) to name a few.

I would also point out that San Antonio wasn’t leveled either even while under the command of the Mexican army who might well have helped. San Antonio was, after all, the location of the Council House Massacre of 1840. With Houston back as Texas’ president, and given the events of 1840 (Council House Massacre, Raid on Linnville, Plum Creek Battle, and Moore’s raid into Comancheria), many of the Penateka were ready for peace. This is a documented fact. The Comanche had already approached Fort Colorado in 1837 asking for a treaty of peace (Smithwick).

Frank Brown also weighed in on this question speculating "... they [the Comanche] probably considered the place [Austin] doomed and the game not worth the candle." (Annals of Travis County and of the City of Austin Volume 4, p.9 or p.57 on the portal). In other words, Texas itself (Houston et.al.) was doing a pretty good job of trying to shut Austin down; it wasn't worth risking additional casualties and any potential peace treaties with Houston that might be in the near future. Work smarter, not harder. Let Houston -- or the Mexican army -- finish it off. 

This is ultimately a question best addressed by historians of the Pekka Hämäläinen caliber, and indeed may likely never be answered. 

Even if the Comanche had burned Austin to the ground, O'Dell is making a forgone conclusion (“How the Tonkawa Tribe Saved Austin's Capital Status”) that the destruction would have prevented Austin from continuing as the capital; that is a claim that would be hard to substantiate. The Archives War is a simple example of the desire of Austin residents to remain the capital. There were lots of political moving parts during this period.

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth841238/m1/57/

Frank Brown, Annals of Travis County and of the City of Austin, speculation as to why the Comanche didn't destroy Austin in 1842. While he doesn't mention the Comanche by name, his reference to Linnville clues us in.


On Walsh Confusing / Conflating 1842 with 1862

We've already discussed that Walsh confused events from 1862 with 1842; a confusion O'Dell references. Confusing the Tonkawa Massacre of 1862 with 1842 is a significant mix-up. This brings up a question: did the Tonkawa camp at Republic Square actually take place in 1842, or was it perhaps before or after the 1842 evacuation, or both, i.e. Walsh conflating an earlier camp with later events post-1862 when some Tonkawa did return to Austin.

An even simpler explanation: was 1842 a slip of the tongue or a newspaper typo. A one digit typo and Walsh's story largely fits, and most of the questions raised go away.

Let's run through some more questions about this date of 1842, but also look at what was going on with the Tonkawa and Austin post-1862 during the Civil War.

1843 Raid on Austin Revisited

As noted above, the 1843 raid on Austin was recorded in a number of sources (I'll make what I think is the reasonable assumption they were Comanche). And as noted there is no reference to Tonkawa involvement in the half dozen sources referenced above. The fact that all these sources are silent on Tonkawa involvement is puzzling. Ritualistic cannibalism around the death of enemies in combat was discussed (sensationalized) by so many chroniclers of the 1800s and early 1900s, and a topic of academic research (anthropologists and historians). The fact that Comanches were killed begs the question, why is there no mention of Tonkawa ceremony surrounding these deaths by any of the sources documenting the 1843 raid on Austin? If Tonkawa were indeed encamped in Austin in 1843, they would by accounts had time to reach the location (as did some Austin residents) where the battle culminated and where the Comanches were killed? There is the possibility that the Comanche retrieved the bodies of their dead comrades as they were known to do after battles, but in such a case there would surely have been mention of Tonkawa pursuit, again as they were known to have done in previous battles; retrieving fallen comrades takes time increasing the chance a pursuing band of Tonkawa could have pursued and even engaged the raiding party. The complete absence of reference to Tonkawa involvement would seem to suggest that in 1843 

  • a) they were not in Austin, or 
  • b) were in such a weakened condition they opted to not be involved, in which case their presence was not a reason why Austin was not burned to the ground (above discussion), or
  • c) of the half dozen sources cited that described the raid none thought it worth mentioning. 
The latter is hard to believe based on the chroniclers of this period which found the topic of such interest. So I think a) or b) is what we are left with.
 

Walsh Remembered a Camp at a Different Time

Previously noted, the Tonkawa presence in the Austin area predates Austin's founding. Surely they had a camp or camps in Austin before it was established in 1839. Could one of those be the camp Walsh remembers from his childhood having arrived in 1840 at age 4 years old?

Dr. Joseph W. Robertson and the Mary Mitchell Article of 1905

Joseph William Robertson, namesake of Robertson Hill and previous owner of the French Legation, was fifth mayor of Austin in 1843; part of the period in question. In 1839–40 he represented Bastrop County in the House of Representatives of the Fourth Congress of the Republic of Texas. At the end of his term Robertson moved to Austin (Handbook of Texas). He was also apparently the physician attached to the battalion of Col. Henry Jones' regiment in Austin in 1842.

Robertson's son-in-law, Robert A. Smith, was the brother of Mary Smith Mitchell. Far from being a random reporter, she was part of the Robertson extended family and in 1905 wrote about the Tonkawa camp at Republic Square: "Early Days In City Of Austin" (The Austin Statesman, Apr 2, 1905). This was another of O’Dell’s cited sources (white paper). In the same article she also wrote about Austin during the evacuation of 1842. But

  • she never gives a date on the camp
  • never gives a duration for the camp
  • never makes a connection between the two events, i.e. the camp and Austin evacuation
  • and the stories appear in two separate parts of her article

Surely someone (Mary Mitchell) who was part of the extended family of Robertson, Robertson having been attached to the Jones battalion as physician and then the mayor of Austin during this period, would have heard about and recorded a story about the Tonkawa camp being associated with the 1842 evacuation, and the City of Austin extending an invitation to the tribe for protection. 

Post-1862 Return of Tonkawa to Austin During Civil War; Was 1842 Walsh's Confusion, Conflation or Typo?

If you read the Walsh article carefully, he never refers to the evacuation of Austin in 1842 as the event from which Austin and the Tonkawa were requiring "mutual protection". A little odd that he would refer to 1842, but then not mention to the reader the significance of the year. With that in mind, let's revisit Walsh's confusion / conflation of 1842 and 1862.

After the attack on the Tonkawa in 1862, "Tonkawa had begun drifting further south into Texas by the summer of 1863 ... Some survivors found their way back to central Texas including near Austin ..." (TxDOT Tribal Histories, Tonkawa Tribe, p.22). O'Dell also mentions this in his white paper with additional references. 

Had Walsh conflated the events post-1862 with 1842; was he remembering a camp in Austin after their return in 1863? 

If you look at what Walsh said, but plug in 1862 rather than 1842, it fits the documented history of the Tonkawa after the 1862 massacre well; let's do that below:

"In [1862] these Indians [Comanches and other tribes] made an united attack on the Tonks (sic) and almost entirely wiped them out. A short time afterwards [ca.1863], the remnant, about two hundred and fifty, came to Austin..." 

The Civil War ended in 1865. The figure below is from the Texas Indian Papers documenting the removal of Tonkawa from Austin north to Jacksboro in 1867. If the Tonkawa started migrating to Austin and surroundings ca.1863, a camp in Austin of Walsh's cited two years seems plausible.

This abstract shows the stops on the way to Jacksboro. Vouchers on each day show expenses and also number of persons. The number shrinks from 135 to 103 by trips end, presumably in part some deciding this wasn't such a good idea after all. A starting number of 135 begs the question, how many were in Austin to begin with -- 250? --  some of whom may have decided up front that having made the long trip south to Austin after the 1862 massacre they were simply not going to go back and left on their own for elsewhere they deemed safer (like Mexico, out of the reach of the U.S. Gov't).

Texas Indian Papers document that from March to April 1867 members of the Tonkawa tribe were being escorted back north out of Austin.


So what would Walsh's claim of "mutual protection" mean if the Tonkawa camp from his story was during the Civil War post-1862 massacre? Remember, Walsh's story never spells out "mutual protection" from whom.

First, one of the factors (there are others) cited for the 1862 Massacre was the Tonkawa support for the Confederacy, while the tribes that attacked them were pro-Union. So fleeing to Austin, a fortified city in the Confederacy during the Civil War, makes sense. Fort Magruder and other fortifications were constructed in Austin anticipating Union attack (https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=69091). In this sense "mutual protection" takes on a different meaning: for Austinites it is protection from Union forces, and for the Tonkawa protection from pro-Union tribes. And to be sure, during the Civil War, Texas experienced increased raiding by tribes hostile to the Tonkawa and trying to push back Texas settlement. Post-1862 during the Civil War being inside Austin's fortifications rather than outside would have made sense for the Tonkawa. This makes more sense than seeking refuge in Austin in 1842 when it itself was in a weakened state and Bastrop would have been a better safe place (see Bollaert above).

Tonkawa Oral History

There was hope some oral history among the Tonkawa Nation itself would help. The TxDOT Tribal Histories project worked with the tribes that TxDOT, THC, TMD et.al. interface with today on issues such as NAGPRA; unfortunately the report developed with the Tonkawa is silent on this topic (link below).

https://www.txdot.gov/business/resources/environmental/compliance-toolkits/historic-resources/tribal-histories.html

More research needed.

Conclusion

This chapter of the Tonkawa / Austin history is definitely an undertold topic. While this article is a critical review of the Walsh article of 1924 and O'Dell's published newspaper interview and white paper, I do appreciate the work being done on a documentary film. But it is also important to honor the Tonkawa by telling as truthful a story on this topic as is historically possible as we move forward with a possible historical marker. That is literally one of the jobs County Historical Commissions are tasked with.

The adage "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" applies to history. In my opinion, much more evidence is needed to justify many of the claims being made. Another adage goes, "repeat something often enough and it becomes the truth", the corollary being "once the genie is out of the bottle...". Austin has plenty of stories that simply are not true but which having been repeated so often are taken to be so; the genie is out of the bottle. I do wish O'Dell's white paper had been better vetted, but again the genie is out of the bottle so we need to strive to ensure any possible marker is carefully thought through. Austin owes that to the Tonkawa.

Links, References, Notes

Snippet of Bob O'Dell interview “How the Tonkawa Tribe Saved Austin's Capital Status”. O'Dell describes how Austin "invited" the Tonkawa to Austin for protection thereby ensuring Austin remained the Capital of Texas. https://youtube.com/shorts/MVjKm5s24W4?si=sCnYf0nF7gDnvrl2

https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/story/tbt-tonkawa-tribe-honored-for-pivotal-role-in-austins-foundation-after-140-years-chief-russell-martin-filmmaker-bob-odell-racheal-starr

 

‘Austin has done almost nothing’. Thanking the Tonkawa for saving the capital of Texas. Michael Barnes' interview of Bob O'Dell, Austin American Statesman, 05/07/2024 

How The Tonkawa Tribe Came to Live in Austin Texas. Bob O’Dell, August 2, 2023 Version 1.0


'Austin has done almost nothing': Time to thank the Tonkawa for saving the capital of Texas. Bob O'Dell's film website. Retrieved 10/4/2024.

https://www.tonkawathemovie.com/news/austin-has-done-almost-nothing-time-to-thank-the-tonkawa-for-saving-the-capital-of-texas

 

There is another news article from 1913 that references the Tonkawa in Austin, but O'Dell has I believe rightly chosen to not cite that article. It is anonymously written, and appears to be parroting other sources which are uncited, plus gives numbers of Tonkawa in the camp that don't jive with Walsh, and uses derogatory language in describing their presence: "HERE IS STORY OF AUSTIN FROM DAYS WHEN STOCKADE WAS PROTECTION FROM INDIANS",The Austin Statesman, Jan 19, 1913

Some Other Sources Referenced (no particular order)

ATTACK AND COUNTERATTACK: The Texas-Mexican Frontier, 1842. Nance

Buffalo Hump, Shilz and Shilz

Did David Crockett Surrender at the Alamo?", Connelly, The Journal of Southern History, 1960 (relates to George M. Dolson)

Evolution of a State, Smithwick

Fate Worse Than Death, Michno

Frank Brown, Annals of Austin and Travis County

Historical Marker Database (HMDB.ORG)

John Holland Jenkins, 

Recollections of Early Texas, Andrew J. Sowell, 

Rangers and Pioneers of Texas

John Smith letter on 1843 raid on Austin, Briscoe

Julia Lee Sinks, Quarterly, Texas State Historical Association, 1900

Newspapers, Historic. Misc

Oakwood Cemetery records

Republic of Austin, Jeff Kerr

Seat of Empire: Embattled Birth of Austin, Jeff Kerr

Texas Under Arms, Pierce

The Indian Papers of Texas and the Southwest 1825-1916

The Texas Tonkawas, McGowen

Travis County Clerks' probate records; deed records

TxDOT Tribal Histories, Tonkawa Tribe (developed with tribe)

Wilbarger's Depredations

William Bollaert's Texas, paperback printing 1989



[1] An incident in Oklahoma in which reservations Indians of various tribes -- Shawnee, Delaware, Kickapoo, Caddo, Comanche, and Kiowa -- attacked the Tonkawa on their reservation killing by some estimates nearly half the Tonkawa tribe. See TxDOT Tribal Histories report developed in conjunction with tribes. https://www.txdot.gov/business/resources/environmental/compliance-toolkits/historic-resources/tribal-histories.html

Monday, June 20, 2022

Montopolis: The Old and New


Travis County has had two locations named Montopolis that differ in their formation and location, causing confusion when the history of the two are conflated. Michael Barnes with The Austin American-Statesman tried to clear up some of the confusion with his story "Montopolis: A Tale of Two Towns" in his book Indelible Austin: More Selected Histories, Waterloo Press, 2018. And we have a historical marker to be installed at the site of the original Montopolis town tract in Govalle Park, 5200 Bolm Road. Historians such as Mary Starr Barkley (History of Travis County and Austin 1839-1899) from the 1960s clearly remembered the original site of Montopolis and its connection to Austin's Republic of Texas era history. But it's obvious today in the 21st century, Austin is in danger of forgetting part of its own origin story.

In this article we'll sort out the true story of the two Montopolis, the old and the new. 

Contents:

  • Republic of Texas Era Montopolis (North of River)
  • From Reconstruction to Today's Neighborhood (South of River)
  • The Montopolis Crossing of the Colorado
  • References, Footnotes
  • Appendices: A) Common Misconceptions (fact check, myth busters); B) Montopolis Neighborhood on Early Maps, Texas Almanac, Texas Census of 1887-1888, Federal Census of 1950; C) Historical Marker Status

 By Lanny Ottosen and Richard Denney, Travis County Historical Commission

Republic of Texas Era Montopolis

The original Montopolis was a Republic of Texas era town established by Jesse Cornelius Tannehill (1797-1863). [1],[2],[3] Tannehill’s time in Texas preceding Montopolis is well established.[4] He came to Texas with his family in 1828 first settling near Caney Creek in Matagorda County and by 1829 was in Bastrop County as a member of Stephen F. Austin’s “Little Colony”. In 1836 during the Texas war for independence the Tannehills and other families fled Bastrop as part the “runaway scrape”. Following the war, the Tannehills lived in Huntsville and later in La Grange until 1839.[5]

In 1832 while in Bastrop, Tannehill had received a headright league on the north bank of the Colorado River, east of and adjacent to what would become Austin, and that would become the location of the Montopolis townsite. Planning and surveying of the 800 acre townsite started in 1838 and Jesse moved his family and an enslaved family to the Montopolis tract in early 1839. George W. Bonnell, who recorded his "Observations" while traveling through the Texas frontier in 1838, provided this description while traveling up the Colorado: “[July 24th we then reached] the intended scite (sic) of the new town to be called Montropolis (sic). It is on the east bank of the river, and tolerably pleasantly situated. Some 15 or 20 men are now at work at this place, who expect to have each a cabin erected in a few weeks."[6] Three miles further Bonnell reported arriving at another “new town”: Waterloo.

On July 2, 1839 Jesse Tannehill and five other men entered an agreement defining their Montopolis partnership that was recorded by the Bastrop County Clerk.[7] This document contains the earliest known plat of the original town tract. The original Montopolis town tract was designed with lots for homes, farming, out-lots, and “churches, seminaries of learning and other public buildings … to promote the general prosperity of the place”. Streets were laid out on a grid much like Edwin Waller’s design of Austin. Indeed, evidence suggests Montopolis, as well as Comanche (in Travis County at the mouth of Onion Creek on the Colorado near today's Garfield), aspired to become the capital of the new Republic of Texas, but Waterloo was selected instead. Montopolis did not develop as expected, probably because of proximity to Austin, and by 1841 the Montopolis partnership was dissolved, and land sold. Although the Montopolis partnership had ended, Montopolis as a community persisted; businesses such as Howard’s Montopolis Nursery at the heart of the original town tract preserved the memory of the original Montopolis into the 20th century.[8] Legal documents continued to reference the “Montopolis town tract” into the 20th century.[9]

Page 500 from the original Bastrop County (Tex.), County Clerk’s Office, plat of the town of Montopolis, Deed Book C. The deed records "...[the] Town of Montopolis, including the adjacent farming lands, containing in all eight hundred acres, it being a part of the Tannahill (sic) League ...". Notice drawing depicting Colorado River's eastern flow: as recorded, the entirety of the Montopolis town tract was contained within 800 acres of the Tannehill's headright league on the north side of the Colorado River. The deed was recorded July 2, 1839. Photo courtesy Lanny Ottosen.

Jesse C. Tannehill's original townsite of Montopolis in terms of modern landscape. Deed interpretation by Lanny Ottosen, Travis County Historical Commission. GIS mapping by Griffin Price.

From Reconstruction to Today's Neighborhood

The second Montopolis is a community south of the Colorado River on the Santiago Del Valle grant that began taking shape in Texas' Reconstruction era and into the early 20th century, evolving to become the neighborhood most Austinites recognize today as Montopolis. In 1838 when Tannehill laid out the original town tract north of the river, the area south of the river where the current community exists, was comprised of 9 leagues of the Santiago Del Valle grant. It was still virtually vacant land entirely owned by Galveston founder, Michael B. Menard who sold it to Thomas F. McKinney in February 1839.[10] McKinney would not begin selling portions of it until after Waterloo had been selected as the capital.[11] Tannehill never owned any part of the Santiago del Valle grant, nor was he in any way involved in development or settlement south of the Colorado River, where the current community of Montopolis is located. In the 19th century the earliest post office opened south of the river on the Del Valle grant was Bluff Springs in 1853, followed by Del Valle in 1878, Carl in 1887 and the last was the Montopolis post office opening in January 1897 on the south bank of the river near the ferry crossing; it was discontinued in 1902.[12] While short lived, the post office, along with its location on the Montopolis ford, was the catalyst for the adoption of the name Montopolis for the community that was developing south of the river.

After the turn of the twentieth century citizens of the area known today as the Montopolis neighborhood began to forge their own identity incorporating the name with local businesses. One of the most significant landmarks that identifies the neighborhood was established in 1950 when 70 local residents petitioned the Travis County Commissioners Court to rename two existing 19th century roads from Miller Lane and Boothe Lane to Montopolis Drive.[13] Most of Montopolis proper was annexed by the city of Austin in 1951. Additional portions of the area were annexed during the 1960s and 1970s.[14]

The current Montopolis community contains two cemeteries that have been designated historic by the Texas Historic Commission, the Burditt Prairie Cemetery[15] that includes burials of enslaved persons and their families and the San Jose Cemetery[16] that was established in the early 20th century and reflects the strong Mexican American influence. About 1891 a school for African American children was established in the Colorado School District as school No. 34. The building was destroyed in a storm in 1935. Land was then donated by the St. Edward’s Baptist Church and a second school constructed. That school became part of the Austin Independent School District in 1952, then closed in 1962 as part of city-wide desegregation.[17]

First page of 1950 petition by seventy residents to rename existing roads Montopolis Drive: "[request] That the name of this Roadway extending from Montopolis Bridge on the North to Burleson Road on the South be changed of record and hereafter known as MONTOPOLIS DRIVE, which is descriptive of its location, and that markers bearing this name be placed at intervals along said roadway;"

1950 Travis County Commissioners Court Minutes granting approval to rename existing roads Montopolis Drive. Click to enlarge.

The Montopolis Crossing of the Colorado

The common thread joining old and new Montopolis is the historic river crossing become ferry then bridge of the same name. The name "Montopolis" as a river ford dates to the Republic of Texas era Montopolis townsite.[18] The crossing is older than either of the two Montopolis. Indigenous people lived in and traveled through the area for thousands of years prior to the arrival of Europeans. Historic El Camino Real de los Tejas, established by the Spanish along Native American trails, skirted the eastern edge of today's Montopolis neighborhood fording the Colorado east of today's Montopolis Bridge.[19] 

During Reconstruction one of Texas' best economic resources was an abundance of longhorn cattle that could be sold in Kansas and other markets to the north. The Montopolis ford was one of the main crossings of the Colorado for the Chisholm Trail, in use from about 1867 to 1884. As historian Mary Starr Barkley wrote, "Cattle drives through Austin were a common sight, and the cattle bawled as they crossed at the two main crossings, Montopolis and Shoal Creek". In 1878 the Galveston Daily News echoed news from Austin: "TRAVIS COUNTY. Austin Statesman, March 30: On Sunday last three droves of cattle, of 2500 to 399 head each, crossed the river at Montopolis ford, and in the past week about 15,000 head have crossed that point."[20]

The old Montopolis bridge is on the National Register of Historic Places.[21] 

One of many medallions that were installed in Austin, including the Montopolis bridge, to mark the route and commemorate the Chisholm Trail. This photo if of the one on Longhorn Dam. The disposition of the Montopolis Bridge medallion is unknown pending completion of conversion of the old bridge to a pedestrian bridge.

 
In 2020 Travis County Historical Commission met with National Park Service to kick off plan for signage on the Montopolis pedestrian bridge to recognize the Montopolis crossing as part of the El Camino Real de los Tejas. All in conjunction with El Camino Real de los Tejas National Historic Trail Association, and Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority.

References, Footnotes


[1] Tannehill’s first name is variously spelled “Jessie” and “Jesse.” Tannehill descendants support the "Jesse" spelling citing the text on the burial marker in the Texas State Cemetery

[2] Montopolis Historical Marker. Texas Historical Commission, marker number 22517, marker year 2019. Marker application is on file with the Austin History Center, and available on-line through the Travis County Archives.

[3] We have been unable to find a primary source for Montopolis meaning “City on a Hill” and indeed the town tract is anything but a hill, located on the bank of the Colorado. “Mont” may have been a reference to this area which was often described as being at the foot of the mountain. But that too is speculation. See Appendix A.

[4] The motivation for the timeline is the persistent myth about Tannehill having been in Travis County in 1830 establishing Montopolis nearly a decade before Austin.

[5] History of Texas together with a biographical history of Milam, Williamson, Bastrop, Travis, Lee and Burleson Counties (Chicago: The Lewis Publishing Company, 1891), 298; University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth846133/.

[6] Telegraph and Texas Register (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 4, No. 46, Ed. 1, Wednesday, May 1, 1839 Page: 3

[7] Bastrop County (Tex.), County Clerk’s Office, plat of the town of Montopolis, Deed Book C:499-504. Also Travis County Deed Records: Deed Record Transcript 1 Page: 238 (plot and agreement) https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth787611/m1/324/

[8] Barkley, Mary Starr (1963). History of Travis County and Austin 1839-1899. Waco, Texas: Texian Press. pp. 4, 5, 9–10.

[9] Travis County Clerk's Office, partner contributing to The Portal to Texas History. University of North Texas Libraries. https://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/partners/TCCO/ accessed June 5, 2022. Search on "Montopolis town tract" in quotes. Results include only documents that have been scanned. Older handwritten documents that have not been transcribed will not appear. Some documents with misspellings (like "Mentopolis") may be missed by search unless the OCR corrections were made.

[10] Travis County Deed Records: Deed Record Transcript 1 Page: 131 - 1839.02.08 Michael B. Menard to Thomas F. Mckinney. Online https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth787611/m1/217/?q=record%201

[11] Barkley, Mary Starr (1963). History of Travis County and Austin 1839-1899. Waco, Texas: Texian Press. p.9. Barkley comments "Many who had gotten grants in the Travis County area in the 1830s did not settle them. One of these was the Del Valle grant made to Don Santiago del Valle in 1832, which was a long time in being settled." See also Appendix B.

[12] John J. Germann and Myron Janzen, Texas Post Offices by County (Houston: J.J. Germann, 1986). Also Handbook of Texas entries for each community.

[13] Special Session of the Commissioners Court July 19, 1950 and the accompanying petition signed by area residents,” Travis County (Tex.), County Clerk’s Office, Commissioners Court Minutes 4:148.

[14] Montopolis. Handbook of Texas.

[15] Texas Historical Commission, Burditt Prairie Cemetery, Cemetery ID Number TV-C105, HTC Designation Date 3/11/2004

[16] Texas Historical Commission, San Jose Cemetery, Cemetery ID Number TV-C009, HTC Designation Date 7/25/2000.

[17] Travis County Historical Commission (2014). “African American Rural Schools Of Travis County 1930s-1940s”. https://www.traviscountytx.gov/historical-commission/reports

[18] Travis County Clerk Records: Commissioners Court Minutes A, p.16. June 2, 1840 the minutes report "...establishment of a Ferry (sic) across the Colorado River a short distance above [the] crossing at Montopolis...". This is one of the first documented Republic of Texas era references to the Montopolis crossing. Accessed June 4, 2022. For clarification, as alluded to in the minutes, the actual ferry may have been further upstream ("above") from the crossing. See more at Montopolis Historical Marker application. Texas Historical Commission, marker number 22517, marker year 2019, p.10.

[19] El Camino Real de los Tejas National Historic Trail Association. See "Interactive Trail Maps". In 2020 Travis County Historical Commission met with members of the National Park Service (NPS) from Santa Fe, NM who were in Austin working with El Camino Real de los Tejas National Historic Trail Association to document and commemorate the trail's route through Travis County. Working in conjunction with the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority, signage is planned as part of the Montopolis pedestrian bridge recognizing the crossing as part of El Camino Real de los Tejas. https://www.elcaminorealdelostejas.org/interactive-maps/

[20] Barkley, Mary Starr (1963). History of Travis County and Austin 1839-1899. Waco, Texas: Texian Press. p. 259. Barnes, Michael. "Looking for Fords on the Colorado", Austin American Statesman, Lifestyle's Austin360 section, October 12, 2016. The Galveston Daily News. (Galveston, Tex.), Vol. 37, No. 8, Ed. 1 Tuesday, April 2, 1878. Accessed June 4, 2022. University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, crediting Abilene Library Consortium.

[21] Texas Historical Commission. Montopolis Bridge, National Register Listing, site atlas number 2096001118. Recorded by NPS 1996.

Appendix A: Common Misconceptions (fact check, myth busters)

 

Myth #1 Tannehill started Montopolis neighborhood in 1830 .. and it had a casino!

Here's something you are likely to find on the internet: "Jesse Tannehill started the Montopolis neighborhood in 1830 when he built a cabin on a hill. Some variations have him starting a casino. One older news article said it was a Greek restaurant ("Montopolis" sounds like a Greek restaurant, right?). Let's break this one apart:

  • As discussed, there have been two Montopolis, not one. 
  • Tannehill had nothing to with the neighborhood south of the river. Tannehill's Montopolis is north of the river; the neighborhood south. 
  • Tannehill didn't start his Montopolis in 1830; he didn't even get his headright grant until 1832. Montopolis planning started in 1838, then as a partnership deed and surveyed town tract was legally recorded 1839 at which time he and family moved to his headright.
  • There was obviously no casino or Greek restaurant, but the "casino" is a great example of how absolute nonsense gets started then spreads through the internet via bots and copy and paste.
Unknowingly, Michael Barnes' article "Older than Austin, Montopolis opens up its history" (Austin American Statesman, September 24, 2016) helped spread the erroneous date of 1830 based on misinformation he was given. The article also conflates Tannehill's Republic of Texas era townsite with today's Montopolis neighborhood. Barnes later tried to redress the confusion with the article "Montopolis: A Tale of Two Towns" in his book Indelible Austin: More Selected Histories, Waterloo Press, 2018. 

You are able to read the record yourself. See Travis County Deed Records: Deed Record Transcript 1 Page: 239 Transcript of the original full deed of the "Town of Montopolis" filed July 2, 1839. The town tract is entirely within the Tannehill league on the north side of the river.
 

Myth #2 Montopolis = City on a Hill ?

Does Montopolis mean "City on a Hill"? Montopolis was apparently formed from "mont" Latin for "mountain" and "polis" Greek for "city". We have found no primary evidence the intended meaning was "City on a Hill". That is not to say that was not the proprietors' intention, but we've found no evidence of it. Nor have we found its origin; "City on a Hill" may be like some of the myths that surround Mt. Bonnell: not true, source unknown, but often repeated. The Montopolis town tract adjacent to Austin is certainly not hilly; indeed it was historically prone to flood before the dams were built. The bend in the Colorado where Austin and Montopolis sat was commonly referred to as being "at the foot of the mountains"; it is the edge of the Balcones Escarpment. The 1887-88 Texas Census used this description for Travis County: "The city of Austin, the metropolis of the county and the capital of the State, is beautifully located at the foot of a range of mountains." Stephen F. Austin and many others made references to this area as being at the foot of the mountains. Perhaps Montopolis was a reference to this "foot of the mountains" ("Mountain City"). Alternatively, there was in the 19th century a tendency to use flowery names for towns, like "Waterloo"! See Daniel Walker Howe's*, “Classical Education in America” Wilson Quarterly (Spring 2011) for interesting insight into the rise and fall of ancient Greek and Latin study in America. Howe states “Americans loved Greek and Roman names for new towns”. Waterloo, Montopolis: we may be reading too much into the names.

* From correspondence with Daniel Walker Howe as part of the state historical marker application research with respect to the origins of the name "Montopolis". Howe is Rhodes Professor of American History Emeritus at Oxford University and professor of history emeritus at the University of California, Los Angeles. His book What God Hath Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848 won the Pulitzer Prize for History in 2008.

 

Myth #3 Actual location of Tannehill's Montopolis is open to historical interpretation

Another misconception: the location of Tannehill's original Montopolis is open to historical interpretation (hence it could have been the neighborhood). It is a legally recorded partnership deed (to use today's lingo) with a surveyed town tract. Like the deed to your house, it is a legal document that is specific to where it was. It would be like the deed to your house not saying where your house was located. Deeds into the 20th century used the "Montopolis town tract" for reference. The who, when and where of the first Montopolis is legally defined. Full stop. 

Again, you are able to read the record yourself. See Travis County Deed Records: Deed Record Transcript 1 Page: 239 Transcript of the original full deed of the "Town of Montopolis" filed July 2, 1839. The town tract is entirely within the Tannehill league on the north side of the river.

 

Myth #4 Photo of the old Montopolis Courthouse, oldest in Travis County

Austin History Center PICA-04664


From a book on the Montopolis neighborhood published 2014 is this photo with a caption, quote "... the old Montopolis courthouse, said to have been the first courthouse in Travis County." The photo is archived with the Austin History Center and on-line via Portal to Texas History crediting AHC: Old Courthouse in Montopolis, Travis County. Inspection of the actual back of the photo at the AHC says "Old courthouse east of Montopolis. Said to be the first court house". 

There are a number of problems with this photo but especially the claim from the book. The photo does not say it was the Montopolis Courthouse, rather that it was a (some) courthouse east of Montopolis. Nor does the photo say it was the first courthouse in Travis County; that was added by the book's author. 

The photo simply reads (inscription added by AHC staff) "Said to be the first court house" but gives no jurisdiction (the first where?) or source of the claim. Austin has been the county seat of Travis from day one (formed out of Bastrop County in 1840) so the first county courthouse was in Austin. Some rural district court perhaps? Because Austin is the county seat, Judge Bob Perkins with the Commission doubts the building was ever used for district or county cases; that would have been in Austin. Maybe a rural Justice of the Peace? Maybe a confusion over a rural building associated with County Commissioners Court?

Is the reference to Montopolis on the north or south side? On the north side east of Montopolis are some of Travis' oldest communities: Hornsby, Webberville. On the south side east of Montopolis would be Del Valle. Was it the oldest rural "courthouse" of Hornsby, Webberville, or Del Valle? Nor is it clear that the building wasn't perhaps moved to some location east of Montopolis and was the oldest "courthouse" of somewhere else.

The provenance of the building and photo are unclear. Something was lost in translation when the photo was donated in 1937. The matter was further confused by the author claiming it was the old Montopolis Courthouse, and the first in Travis County; the photo says neither. This too has found its way onto the internet where it has propagated.

Back of PICA 04664 courtesy Austin History Center. Photos says "Old court house east of Montopolis". It does not say "old Montopolis Courthouse"

PICA 04663 courtesy Austin History Center. AHC says this is additional info is for photo PICA 04664. Says "Old court house east of Montopolis Said to be first court house". Photo does not say it is the first courthouse in Travis County. Was it the oldest rural district courthouse east of Montopolis for say Hornsby, Webberville, or Del Valle?

Appendix B: Montopolis Neighborhood on Early Maps, Texas Almanac, Texas Census of 1887-1888, Federal Census of 1950

Maps, census and the Texas Almanac provide a way to track the evolution of the community that is today's Montopolis neighborhood over time. That's what we'll do here.

1838 GLO Map #83006 "Bastrop District" Map. We start with a map just prior to the formation of Austin. This map of the "Bastrop District" includes today's counties of Bastrop, Travis, Hays, Comal, Blanco, and Williamson. The map says it is a certified copy of "the oldest and only Bastrop District Map on file in this Office ... Map copied is believed to be dated ca. 1838." The map shows Waterloo (the future Austin), Comanche, the J.C. Tannehill headright league, and the Santiago de Valley (sic) grant. Tannehill's Montopolis is not shown (it was recorded 1839) nor is the Montopolis neighborhood of today shown on the Del Valle grant.

GLO Map #83006 of Bastrop District. Map can be a bit confusing as it compiles the various counties; look for Waterloo. Recall Travis was originally part of Bastrop County. https://s3.glo.texas.gov/glo/history/archives/map-store/index.cfm#item/83006

1887-1888Texas Census. Montopolis is not referenced in the Texas census of 1887-1888 as a "principal town" of Travis while others such as Manchaca and Merrelltown (sic), both with populations of only 50 persons, are (Foster p.216). This "forgotten census" is of some importance because many of the records of the federal census of 1890 were lost or damaged in a fire, and it focuses specifically on Texas.

Foster, L. L. (2002). Forgotten Texas Census: First Annual Report of the Agricultural Bureau of the Department of Agriculture, Insurance, Statistics, and History, 1887-88. p.216.  https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth296841/

1894-1902 USGS, GLO, Travis County Road maps. The earliest map with the place name "Montopolis" south of the Colorado seems to be a USGS 1894 topographic map of Austin and Travis County referencing the "Montopolis Ferry", i.e. the ferry at the Montopolis river ford (PCL). But the ferry was named for the crossing, not a community. We know because that same year, 1894, a GLO map shows small communities east of Austin along the Colorado such as Del Valle, St. Elmo, Garfield, Hornsby, Dunlap, and Webberville but the community of Montopolis south of the river is absent (Pressler). Neither does Montopolis appear on the survey of Travis County roads 1898-1902 while other communities with and without post offices do (Map of Travis County Roads 1898-1902). 

Perry-Castañeda Library (PCL) Map Collection, Historical Maps of Texas Cities. 1894 Texas Austin Sheet, USGS Topographic Map. https://maps.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/historic_tex_cities.html

Pressler, Herman. Travis Co. [Austin, Tex.: General Land Office, 1894] Map. https://www.loc.gov/item/2012592086/ Accessed May 2, 2022

Map of Travis County Roads 1898-1902, surveyed by John E. Wallace, plotted by Charles  K. McDonald. Available online at Travis County Archives accessed June 18, 2022

1904 Texas Almanac. A post office named Montopolis was later established in 1897 (discontinued in 1902) on the south bank of the ferry / bridge crossing. The Texas Almanac, first published in 1857, makes no mention of a Montopolis community until the 1904 issue when the 1900 US Census data was reported, 1900 being the only census when the post office was in operation.

Ramos, Mary G. and Elizabeth Cruce Alvarez, “Texas Almanac,” Handbook of Texas Online, accessed May 22, 2022, https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/texas-almanac. Texas Almanac online at Portal to Texas History.

USGS 1896-1910. Coincident with the post office in 1897-1902, USGS shows Montopolis with a small number of buildings (the post office area) clustered around the south end of the bridge 1896-1910 editions. Little else is indicated in the way of buildings in what is today the boundaries of the Montopolis neighborhood. The 1910 edition is the last of that series based on the original 1896 survey.

USGS, Historical Topographic Map Collection https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/

Circa 1930s Travis County Topographic and Road Maps. By the 1930s, Montopolis is a regular feature on various county maps, such as the Topographic and Road Map Travis County, Prepared by the Travis County Engineering Department, l932

Texas State Archives Map Collection, https://www.tsl.texas.gov/apps/arc/maps/  

1946-1948 Census Map for 1950. The 1946 Travis enumeration districts map used for the 1950 census does not show Montopolis while including many of its neighbor communities. The map was surveyed 1946 and revised 1948.

Census, 1950. Travis Enumeration Districts. Map prepared by Texas State Highway Department et.al. 1946-1948. On the census page click on ED Map.  https://1950census.archives.gov/search/?county=Travis&page=2&state=TX

USGS 1954. Fast forward to the 1954 series of USGS maps; as with the 1946-1948 census enumeration districts map prepared by the Texas State Highway Department, Montopolis is not shown on the map.

USGS, Historical Topographic Map Collection https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/ 

USGS 1955. This year is a milestone for Montopolis on the USGS maps. Starting in 1955 the USGS introduces the Montopolis Topographic Quadrangle Map. This rise in recognition may be tied to the start of annexation by the City of Austin.

USGS, Historical Topographic Map Collection https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/

Appendix C: Historical Marker Status

A marker recognizing the original site of Jesse Tannehill's Montopolis town tract was approved by the Texas Historical Commission in 2019, Marker Number 22517, to be installed in Govalle Park, 5200 Bolm Road. Marker casting and installation was delayed by Texas' marker foundry permanent closure (The Southwell Co. of San Antonio), the process of selecting a new foundry, followed by the Covid-19 pandemic. 

Since initial approval, work with the National Park Service and El Camino Real de los Tejas National Historic Trail Association to recognize the trail's route through Travis County was on-going, including recognition of the Montopolis crossing as part of El Camino Real de los Tejas. The original marker didn't arrive until mid 2022 at which time a decision had been made to recast the marker to recognize the Indigenous Peoples of Texas that lived in and traveled through Austin and the role the Montopolis crossing played in Native American and El Camino's history. Additionally the revised marker will recognize the fact that the Tannehills brought an enslaved family to Texas.

The new marker will hopefully go up in 2023 in Govalle Park, near the center of the original Montopolis town tract.