Urban Legends & Misconceptions

Some stories just won't die. And if misinformation spread was bad with people doing copy and paste, rather than real research, then .. well .. welcome to the age of "AI" chat bots. As the saying goes, "To err is human, but to really screw-up it takes a computer" and "AI" chat bots are absolutely proving that old saying true.  

Here's a short collection of some of Austin's urban legends, misconceptions and unsubstantiated claims. Stories that just won't die. 

 

Bigfoot! Royalty-free stock illustration, free for use & download.

Treaty Oak

The best known story associated with Treaty Oak concerns Stephen F. Austin: "Though proof is lacking, it is said that Stephen F. Austin signed the first boundary agreement between the Indians and the settlers under these trees."(TSHA)  But as the Daughters of the Republic of Texas pointed out as early as 1925, Stephen F. Austin died in 1836 before either Waterloo or Austin were founded and "[he] never held any conferences with Indians as far west as Austin."  In 1936 the Texas Centennial Historical Commission concluded the story was "unfounded romance ... without historical foundation". The Commission also concluded the "tradition probably grew out of a treaty made by Carita, Tonkawa Indian chief, and Stephen F. Austin in 1824, by which the Indians agreed to keep out of the colony." The colony referenced is San Felipe de Austin in today's Austin County, Texas which was conflated with the current City of Austin, Travis County. That verbal agreement, and never called a "treaty" per se, was documented in a letter from Stephen F. Austin to Jose Antonio Saucedo in 1826. A story about the Tonkawa that took place in Austin County was thereby ascribed to Austin, Texas. The Austin Statesman from March 16, 1923 did in fact conflate events at "the colony" at San Felipe de Austin, Austin County, with the current City of Austin, Travis County, then went on to embellish the story beyond what actually happened at San Felipe de Austin, helping spread the confusion.

Texas State Historical Association. The Historic Treaty Oak of Austin: A 500-Year-Old Treasure. https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/treaty-oak

The Austin Statesman, "Treaty Oak" Loses Precious Legend, May 8, 1925, p.10

The Austin American. Treaty Oak Story Just Tradition. March 1, 1936, p.9 

Stephen F. Austin to Jose Antonio Saucedo, 05-19-1826. Correspondence of Stephen F. Austin, Digital Austin Papers, crediting Department of History, University of North Texas' Portal to Texas History, and partners. https://digitalaustinpapers.org/document?id=APB1160.xml

The Austin Statesman, Austin's Oldest Live Oak, With Spread of 110 Feet, May Become State's Newest, Smallest Park. March 16, 1923, p.4

Mount Bonnell: not the highest point in Austin

Mount Bonnell is often described as the highest point in Austin, with the elevation at its peak about 775 feet above sea level. But it's neighboring peak, Mount Barker is 840 feet.  At Austin's founding in 1839 neither Mount Bonnell or Mount Barker were part of the Austin city limits or its government outlots so Mount Bonnell would not have then been the "highest point in Austin".  City of Austin records indicate that the city annexed for "full purpose jurisdiction" both Mt. Bonnell and Mt. Barker as part of the same parcel in 1951; i.e. Mt. Bonnell entered Austin with its higher neighbor, Mt. Barker, at the same time. Today many peaks in Austin are higher than Mount Bonnell, but few publicly accessible spots offer such a sweeping view of the downtown area.

Texas State Historical Association. Exploring Mount Barker: A Summit in Austin, Texas. https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/mount-barker

General Land Office. A Topographical Map of the Government Tract Adjoining the City of Austin, map #2178, Plotted and Drawn by William Sandusky, 1840

 "History of annexation actions taken by the City of Austin". City of Austin official open data portal. https://data.austintexas.gov/City-Government/Annexation-History/mbvh-ma49/about_data

Original townsite of Montopolis vs. the neighborhood (and neither is 10 years older than Austin)

A story that has circulated in the news and even City of Austin publications and websites is that the Montopolis neighborhood south of the river is almost ten years older than Austin. Michael Barnes' article "Older than Austin, Montopolis opens up its history" helped spread the erroneous date of 1830 based on misinformation he was given.  In addition to the erroneous date, the article conflates Jesse 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. Today a historical marker in Govalle Neighborhood Park on the north side of the Colorado River marks the site of the original Republic of Texas era Montopolis, founded 1839, the same year as Austin.

Historical Marker Database. The Original Townsite of Montopolis. https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=240194

Texas State Historical Association. The History of Montopolis: From Republic of Texas to Modern Community, https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/montopolis-tx

Waterloo's founding: not 1830, not even really a "town" per se 

GLO's list of the thirteen persons (grantees) considered the residents of Waterloo at it's peak!

A misconception one may see concerning Waterloo is that the "village" or "town" of Waterloo, the precursor to Austin, was founded in 1830, nearly a decade before being selected as the capital. The planned townsite of Waterloo was surveyed by Edward Burleson in 1838  and incorporated January, 1839, only months before selection as the site of the new capital, ending its brief existence and being renamed Austin. Describing Waterloo as a village or even larger, a town, in existence for nearly a decade conveys the misconception of a settlement of significant size and organization, but in its very brief existence it was comprised of only about four families. One early visitor to Waterloo, George W. Bonnell, gave this description while traveling up the Colorado River: "[having passed the new town of Montopolis we] passed up the river 3 miles further, and reach (sic) another new town called Waterloo. It has nothing in the way of improvement but a name; and I wish it had not that, if the proprietors could not give it one without borrowing from a foreign country." Waterloo was extant for a only a short time as a planned townsite and was never what today we would refer to as a town.

 

Description of Waterloo right after the site selected for the state's capital: four families

 

Texas State Historical Association. The History of Waterloo: The Birthplace of Austin, Texas, 1952, updated 1995. https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/waterloo-tx-travis-county

Telegraph and Texas Register (Houston, Texas). May 1, 1839, p.6. Travel journal entry published anonymously describing Waterloo as having "nothing in the way of improvement but a name". The anonymous journal is attributed to the “Observations” of George William Bonnell. He was accompanied on this trip by Burleson. See Texas State Historical Association article on “Mount Bonnell.” https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/mount-bonnell

General Land Office (GLO) write-up on Waterloo including the original 13 grantees, those buying lots from Burleson https://medium.com/save-texas-history/original-austinites-identifying-the-citizens-of-waterloo-48e18cbca1c8