The most serious problem begins with the Walsh article itself. The sole source for O’Dell’s claims with respect to the camp in 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 (we'll look at another article by Mary Smith Mitchell published in 1905 later).
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. If indeed he was remembering events from his childhood in 1842, that was 82
years prior when he was a child of 6. And having arrived in Austin at age 4, did earlier memories of Tonkawa in and around Austin affect his recollections?
In the paragraph above Walsh straightaway begins
with what O’Dell admits is a "possible" mistake, underlined above: Walsh confuses or conflates the Tonkawa Massacre of
1862 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.
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 Austin 1842.
I will add, possibility #2 faces the same objection as #1: newspapers like the Telegraph and Texas Register reported on matters of 1842 that were of far less consequence to the Tonkawa than a hypothetical event that required the tribe to take refuge inside Austin. Other news from 1842 show the Tonkawa being mustered to Corpus Christi. We will however keep possibility #2 on the table for further exploration.
Simplest explanation: 1842 should have been 1862
The simplest explanation (Occam's razor) is scenario #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 of 1905 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 at this in more detail below) let's look at what Walsh said, but plug in 1862 rather than 1842:
"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..."
This fits the documented history of the Tonkawa after the 1862 massacre well. This may also explain an otherwise curious quote from Walsh; the Tonkawa were encamped in Austin for "mutual protection" for two years. Why two years? Consider that 1863 + 2 = 1865. The Civil War ended in 1865 and Austin, a Confederate State, was then surrendered to the Unite States and occupied by Union troops. No more need for "mutual protection". And at this time management of "Indian affairs" passed from the C.S.A. to the United States.
Later we'll explore in more detail the case for a camp in 1862.
Why did the Tonkawa leave in 1844 (or 1843)?
Related to the above, just as a camp from 1863-1865 makes sense of Walsh's camp of two years duration in Republic Square, it's seemingly a problem for a camp from 1842-1844: why would the Tonkawa have left in 1844? Austin was
not re-designated the capital until the the Convention of 1845,
and annexed by the United States that same year. In 1844 Texans and Austin residents in particular had no way of knowing if Austin would or wouldn't resume as the capital so early residents like Francis Dieterich (1815–1860) who had left in 1842 did not return to
Austin until 1845 (Handbook of Texas)(Merchant to the Republic). So if mutual
protection was the reason for the camp, why leave before Austin's fate was known and it was re-populated? If Austinites needed protection the Tonkawa were providing, asking the Tonkawa to leave before Austin's fate was known doesn't seem reasonable.
Further arguing for #3, the camp was ca.1863-1865.
As an update, O'Dell has recently (November 2024) claimed the Tonkawa camp was 1842-1843, not 1844.
William Bollaert's 1843 eye witness account; news reports of the Tonkawa in Bastrop
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.
That they were somewhere other than Austin, notably Bastrop, during this period is backed by historians like Himmel: "By 1838 [the Tonkawa] had located their main campsite on the east side of the Colorado River, below Alum Creek, on lands claimed by General Edward Burleson. The association between the Tonkawas, led by Placido and Campos (sic), and General Burleson would sustain the Tonkawas through the turbulent years of the republic.." (Himmel, p.82). Alum Creek is about 5 miles east of Bastrop, its mouth on the Colorado River about 7 miles southeast of town. That location jives nicely with Bollaert having visited Campo then into downtown Bastrop later that day.
Bastrop as main camp also jives with news accounts from 1843 when a split happened in the tribe, one group heading to the Rio Grande and possibly into Mexico, but "The main body of the [Tonkawa] tribe is still in the vicinity of Bastrop..." (The Morning Star. (Houston, Tex.) May 6, 1843).
 |
1843 news article: "The main body of the tribe is still in the vicinity of Bastrop..."
|
Constructing population counts from news articles is hard, but this 1843 article provides a way to "guesstimate" upper and lower bounds on how many may have been camped in Bastrop before the split.
Simply as an example, if 2/3 is the majority that remained (just keeping the math simple) and 1/3 left, that would have been 30 camps or families before the split, or 90-120 "warriors". If each warrior had X number of family members .. you get the idea .. a pretty good size camp for the time.
But the point really is, if the main body of Tonkawa are in Bastrop, they aren't in Austin. Given estimates of population size, it's not reasonable to have a main camp in Bastrop, another group on the Rio Grande, and yet another 250 camped in Austin.
This also jives with other eye witness accounts of Austin and Bastrop in 1842 (Latham, Francis. Travels in the Republic of Texas, 1842)
Walsh's mixup in summary: we don't know what happened when, but ...
To conclude, from the Walsh article we don't know what happened when. Without more primary evidence claims based on that article are suspect.
But, the 1924 Walsh article aside, if one simply spends time searching through newspaper accounts from 1842 through 1844 (primary sources, and keeping in mind the various spellings like "Tonkewas" and "Tonkaways") the Tonkawa seem to be nearly everywhere but Austin, and in particular as noted above, Bastrop.
To overcome what certainly does
appear to be a mix-up and defend O'Dell's 1842 claims would require corroborating 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 1905 article below). That
level of evidence has not yet been presented by O'Dell, nor have I found
it.
In the next section we'll look at possibility #2 from above. After that we'll look at possibility #3 as to what Walsh's article was talking about; the period after the 1862 Tonkawa massacre ca. 1863 during the Civil War when the Tonkawa are known to have returned to Austin.
II. Problems with O'Dell's Claims on Tonkawa Camp in 1842-1844
In this section we look at possibility #2 above: the date of 1842-1844 is right, although O'Dell admits Walsh confused what happened with events that actually happened in 1862. O'Dell also makes a number of unsubstantiated claims. We'll explore these here. Although O'Dell has made revisions based on TCHC feedback to his original white paper on file with the Austin History Center, news stories, podcasts, ceremonies etc. were made public based on 1.0 so need to be addressed.
It's important to reemphasize: the Walsh article contains a single paragraph of 163 words. In what follows below, if it's not in the original paragraph, it was added by O'Dell and or newspaper accounts based on his interview.
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 May 2024 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 white paper and 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 at Republic Square in Austin all raids
stopped, and their presence prevented Austin from being destroyed by the Comanche, i.e. the Tonkawa “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. But again, the white paper filing with AHC, news paper interviews, podcasts, contact with the mayor and county officials, etc. all happened before O’Dell scheduled a meeting with
TCHC otherwise TCHC et.al. might have caught some of this earlier.
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.
Beyond correcting this error (O'Dell filed a correction to his white
paper with the AHC) this is an example of O'Dell's speculations on events which aren't even part of the Walsh
article.
 |
Republic of Texas correspondence on the abduction of the Simpson children in 1844
|
.jpg) |
| 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.
Another incident brings into question this notion of an "invite" in 1842 to "save" Austin. In 1842, the Tonkawa allies refused to accompany Burleson on an expedition after the murder of a Tonkawa man by an Anglo Texan in Bastrop. In response Burleson "threatened to evict the Tonkawas from the Colorado River" if they did not support the expedition. First, yet another reference to the Tonkawa being located in Bastrop (see sections on Bollaert in this article), but why threaten to evict the Tonkawa from the Colorado River if indeed they were seen as needed to "save" Austin? (Himmel, p.87)(Houston Telegraph and Texas Register, September 7, 1842).
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; where are the Tonkawa?
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 (private communications and 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, beyond the city limits of the time.
There are certain locations that even in 1842, while technically not within the city limits, would have been considered "Austin": Mount Bonnell, Shoal Creek, Treaty Oak (all west of West Ave.), and Barton Springs being in this category.
Regardless, if as O'Dell says, the Tonkawa were camped "strategically ... at the mouth of Shoal Creek, near where Dolson and Black were scalped ...", one might expect some mention (not just by Walsh, but any of the chroniclers of this story) 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 raises questions that I'll explore more in other sections: were the Tonkawa actually encamped at that time.
1843 raid on Austin
Concerning O’Dell’s 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 (Briscoe Center for American History, John Scott and Justina Rowzee Pickle Family Papers, 1834-1960. https://txarchives.org/utcah/finding_aids/04466.xml). By accounts (which do vary on details and I suspect Julia Lee 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:
 |
Click to enlarge. A compilation of a few sources on the 1843 raid on Austin. Details of the handwritten note by John Smith suggest 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 revisited
Some of the points here have already been touched on above (William Bollaert's 1843 eye witness account; news reports of the Tonkawa in Bastrop). But given O'Dell is specifically claiming that Walsh meant 1842-1844, this topic needs to be revisited, especially as it is primary / eye-witness accounts of the Tonkawa being in Bastrop, not Austin.
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 of significant size just off Congress Ave. would have been noticed.
These two reports a day apart seem to paint a different picture of the Tonkawa in 1843 than that of Walsh's article (per possibility #2), 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, in Bastrop, 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 (per possibility #2) and O'Dell's claims.
The description of the Tonkawa in Bastrop does raise a question.
Per Walsh, we have 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 .. where some like Campo himself were camped.
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 Austin in 1843.
"Saving Austin". Why Austin was not destroyed
First I'll reemphasize: the Mexican invasion of San Antonio in 1842 and the evacuation of Austin are never brought up in Walsh's article. That was added by O'Dell and subsequent American-Statesman articles that followed.
O’Dell’s claims 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 (and other anti-Houston Texans) 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.
|
III. Did Walsh Confuse / Conflate 1842 with 1862?
Some of what is here in Section III is revisiting points from previous sections but worth a second look as we add additional context.
We've already discussed that Walsh confused events from 1862 with 1842; a confusion O'Dell acknowledges. 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: 1842 was a slip of the tongue 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. Walsh was talking about a camp in Austin ca.1863-1865 during the Civil War; we know with certainty there were Tonkawa in Austin as late as 1867 at which time they were relocated from Austin north to Jacksboro, then on to Fort Griffin that same year.
Let's run through some more questions about a Tonkawa camp date of 1842-1844, but then conclude with a look at what was going on with the Tonkawa and Austin post-1862 during the Civil War.
1843 Raid on Austin revisited; where were the Tonkawa?
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. For example, 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 some Comanche were killed?
There is the possibility that the Comanche retrieved the bodies of
their dead comrades as they were known to do in battle, 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.
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. In the same article she
also wrote about Austin during the evacuation of 1842. But,
- she never gives a date
on the camp
- puts the duration of the camp at months, not years, as claimed by Walsh and O'Dell
- 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.
Mary Smith Mitchell's account simply doesn't back up either Walsh or O'Dell's claims: no statement the camp was in 1842; camp duration is months, not years; it's in two separate parts of her article.
There is another aspect to the Mitchell article that raises questions: she refers to ritualistic cannibalism by the Tonkawa in "... their camp, on the old court house square [Republic Square] ...". It is hard to believe citizens of Austin regardless of camp date would have allowed this in the city limits. The claim is based in some part on other sources; it is surely a conflation of stories told about the Tonkawa elsewhere and the camp in Austin. It is further evidence that the Mitchell article cannot be taken as completely historically accurate.
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 such a seminal year in Austin's history. This seems to argue for interpretation #3 of Walsh's article: he doesn't mention the evacuation of Austin because he was talking about events after 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? Or was 1842 a slip of the tongue (or memory) or a newspaper typo.
The latter seems the simplest explanation. 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..."
This may also explain an otherwise curious quote from Walsh; the Tonkawa were encamped in Austin for "mutual protection" for two years. What is the significance of two years? Consider that 1863 + 2 = 1865. The Civil War ended in 1865 and Austin, a Confederate State, was then surrendered to the United States and occupied by Union troops. No more need for "mutual protection". And at this time management of "Indian affairs" passed from the C.S.A. to the United States.
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 (or Mary Mitchell's camp of months) seems plausible. See also (TxDOT Tribal Histories, Tonkawa Tribe, p.24). That same year (1867) the Tonkawa were then resettled on a reservation near Fort Griffin in Shackelford County (McGowen, Stanley S. The Texas Tonkawas, p.20).
This abstract below 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 along the way 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 -- 200 (Mitchell) 250 (Walsh)? -- 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).
That there may have been many that decided to not go north is made plausible by a letter written by John Lovejoy, the Indian agent in charge of the move; he reported that upon arriving in Austin they (the Tonkawa) were "... seemingly much dissatisfied and manifesting an unwillingness to leave [Austin], however, I gave the orders, and soon everything was in readiness to move." (Dallas Herald, Saturday, May 18, 1867, p.3).
An "unwillingness to leave" Austin: Walsh's camp of 250 (or Mitchell's 200), 135 willing to leave initially, and 103 making it all the way. Alternatively that a camp of 250 at Republic Square dwindled after 1865, the end of Civil War. Another newspaper that year put the number at 150 in Austin (The State Rights Democrat. (La Grange, Tex.) Friday, March 22, 1867, p.2). Plausible numbers all around.
A final note: McGowen gives the number resettled to Fort Griffin as 143; if 103
arrived in Jacksboro before resettlement to Fort Griffin that would
indicate a significant portion of those resettled had come from Austin.
 |
| Texas Indian Papers document that from March to April 1867 members of the Tonkawa tribe were being escorted back north out of Austin. See also TxDOT Tribal Histories, Tonkawa Tribe, p.24, and Dallas Herald, Saturday, May 18, 1867, p.3 |
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 both Tonkawa and Texans, 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 Austin itself was in a weakened state and Bastrop would have been a safer place (see Bollaert above).
IV. 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.
V. 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 claims, 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 by the Texas Historical Commission.
On balance, a camp after the 1862 massacre from 1863 through 1865 when the Civil War ended, seems most plausible, jives with Walsh's story (explained as a one digit typo) and is better documented in the history of the Tonkawa leading up to their relocation out of Austin starting in 1867. There is a complete absence of supporting primary sources (Walsh's article not being credible as written) looked at thus far, or presented by O'Dell, of the Tonkawa encamped in Republic Square in Austin in 1842-1844. Primary sources and scholarly works place the Tonkawa in places other than Austin during this period, Bastrop appearing to have been the main camp at this time.
The adage "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
applies to history. Much more evidence is needed to
justify claims being made by O'Dell. 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 they are taken to be so; the genie is out of the bottle. The Tonkawa story should not be one of these.
I do wish O'Dell's white paper and subsequent news interview 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.
VI. 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
"Tonkawa Tribe honored for pivotal role in Austin's foundation after 140 years", by John-Carlos Estrada, CBS Austin:
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 (not invited): "HERE IS STORY OF AUSTIN FROM DAYS WHEN STOCKADE WAS PROTECTION FROM INDIANS", The Austin Statesman, Jan 19, 1913
Some Sources Referenced (no particular order) for this Article
Nance, ATTACK AND COUNTERATTACK: The Texas-Mexican Frontier, 1842.
Buffalo Hump, Shilz and Shilz
Connelly,
Did David Crockett Surrender at the Alamo?, The Journal of Southern History, 1960 (relates to George M. Dolson)
Smithwick, Evolution of a State
Michno, Fate Worse Than Death
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 (primary) from that period. Sources used were Portal to Texas's newspapers which allows searching by date; also Newspapers.com. When searching the newspapers one has to keep various spellings in mind, e.g. "Tonkewas", "Tonkaways"
Oakwood Cemetery records
Jeff Kerr, Republic of Austin
Jeff Kerr, Seat of Empire: Embattled Birth of Austin
Pierce, Texas Under Arms
The Indian Papers of Texas and the Southwest 1825-1916. Re-print of a historical compilation of Native American papers in the American Southwest region. Winfrey, Dorman H. & Day, James M. 1995.
The Texas Tonkawas, McGowen
Travis County Clerks' probate records; deed records
TxDOT Tribal Histories, Tonkawa Tribe (written in conjunction with tribe)
Wilbarger's Indian Depredations in Texas
William Bollaert's Texas, paperback printing 1989
Newlin. "The Tonkawa People: A Tribal History, from Earliest Times to 1893.” Thesis. Texas Tech University, 1981
Hasskarl, THE CULTURE AND HISTORY OF THE TONKAWA INDIANS, Plains Anthropologist , November, 1962.
Bonham, Dora Dieterich, Merchant to the Republic,
book,
1958;
San Antonio, Texas.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1013938/:
accessed October 16, 2024)
Himmel, Kelly F., The Conquest of the Karankawas and the Tonkawas, 1821-1859, Elma Dill Russell Spencer Series in the West and Southwest, Texas A&M University Press, 1999
Sjoberg, THE CULTURE OF THE TONKAWA, A TEXAS INDIAN TRIBE, THE TEXAS JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, 1953 (cited in the TxDOT report developed with tribe)
Latham, Francis. Travels in the Republic of Texas, 1842.
.jpg)
