Stolen Heritage Revisited

Phase I: 1810 - 1834, everything Becerra, including his accomplishments, travels, correspondence leading up to his petitioning and granting of title in 1834. It will include the conflicts and communication via the Ayuntamiento of Goliad and will include colonization efforts by Powers and Hewetson as well as disputes with Martin de Leon. It will include evidence I have from the General Land Office, his actual title. It will include evidence that is central to this story and that is his disputes with colonization efforts by Powers and Hewetson. No stone left unturned... Completion estimate: December 31st, 2023. Phase II: 1835 - 1860, everything Becerra including transitioning to the de la Garza's, including his ongoing disputes with the colonization efforts by Powers and Hewitson. The war of 1836 and the emergence of the Republic of Texas and its effect on Mexican Tejano settlers. The lost years between 1836 and 1848. The filing of and the legitimization of his land as

  This is the conveyance of land from Maria Josefa and Jose Maria to Francisco de la Garza. The bottom picture is the start, and it finishes at the top of the next picture, the one on top. If this isn't legitimate ownership of title, then I don't know what is...

So, recall when I said I had found the actual deed. If you look at an earlier picture, I found the entry for the conveyance of a grant from Coauhila y Tejas to Manuel Becerra. Since the deed is a written legal document transferring ownership of property from one person to another person it is a way of the government entity at the county level to legitimize the conveyance. So, it seems like back in the days, the county clerk would transcribe a legal instrument like a grant, a warranty, a court decision, etc. I looked at a lot of the Mexican land grants that were recorded as deeds in their books, the county clerk often took their time writing these long, beautiful pages in Spanish or English detailing by pencil the grant in question. As luck would strike, the county clerk who legitimized the grant by recording it as a deed in the books did a bad job copying what was on Becerra's land title. As you can see below, it was done by pencil, it was done rather cheaply where they would sket

Here's looking through Abel's eyes. You have the transactions with Henry Koehler, Francisco de la Garza and last but not least the proof that his land title was documented and filed!  

  I nside the layer of the dragon. Refugio County Courthouse So I'm led into the archives, inside the courthouse. An employee simply told me how to figure things out and walked away. I'm standing in front of this book, literally the breath just left my body as I looked around and said what is this? You see that giant book there? In order to find a grant or any instrument you need to go through those books underneath that book and when you find say a transfer of grant title at the very end of the row, it tells you a specific book letter and a page number. At that point, you have to walk across to the other side from you. See all those volumes of books against the wall? There you have to pull out the specified book referenced to in the first book and go to that page number to find a grant, a deed, etc. I am not kidding. I know in my heart, that it didn't change one iota since Abel Rubio stood here (very spot) in 1975. Not one iota!

 T HE DEFECT OF HISTORY I think before I begin with Don Manuel Becerra, I'd like everyone who's following my posts to take a step back for a moment, and examine a few things here. I think it's important because what I'm about to say ties into Manuel Becerra, Hobart Huson (Refugio attorney for the O'Connors), Power & Hewetson, etc. What's difficult is that what I'm going to argue about is not really 'boring.' It's what makes the difference between believing one system of thought over another, one's view of history over another. So why would that be important and what is the connection to Stolen Heritage? Well for starters, it helps to clarify a few things. So, let's dive right into this. For instance, they say there's a difference when one says the "Past" and one says "History." It is true, the past is only what has happened at some point before now. Once "the past" is gone it's gone forever.

So how do we come to understand historical outcomes? How can we come to understand the gaps that exist between a series of events? The natural thing to do is to look at the byproduct of a chain of events that took place over 150 years ago and to draw assumptions. Yet assumptions can never be trusted. Assumptions can be correct, or they can lead us astray, they can lead us into a wilderness of non-existent facts and narratives that can't be tested. I do think the natural byproduct we have come accustomed to is the end result. This end result as we all know by now is the plight of Antonio de la Garza and his family. Yet, the more important question to ask is how did it all begin? How did history lead us to this point? I believe that in order to understand this chain of events and to see it with a clear lens is to take a step back and start at the beginning. I have a good idea now as to whether Becerra's claim to title is valid or not. I plan on showing that it was. But I

It's been a while since I last posted on Stolen Heritage-Revisited. Well, I'm back. I started back with my college classes and have a full schedule. However, after speaking with el primo Lonnie Ybarbo, I've come to realize that it's not that simple. There are mysteries and buried stories that take one down the proverbial "rabbit hole." My aim from the beginning was to understand what happened, but in the process, may have exceeded my grasp in trying to understand the plight of Antonio de la Garza.    I guess I shot first and asked questions later. But to be real, to be honest, to reach back in time it takes an extraordinary amount of time and effort. Yet, I came to realize that the O'Connors were mere pawns in this game. I came to the conclusion that there were bigger players involved in this damn saga. It's bigger than me, it's bigger than all of us. It's a tragedy. Thanks to that devil, Hobart Husson and his book: Refugio: A Comprehe

  I want to give my opine today, my opinion on what I've read, what I've seen, people I've spoken to, etc. This is nothing more than a snapshot, an educated guess at this moment in time and perhaps the last for me. I'll be honest with you all, the truth of the matter is, we may never be able to resolve the question of rightful ownership of land - Francisco or Antonio de la Garza. The fact is, is that it's not a clear path so to speak, you know like from A to Z. Instead, the story and the facts zig zag and meander left and right, abruptly stopping, then heading in a different direction. I do think there is a terminal point where the desired explanations or reasons we're seeking, stop. Reasons and explanations, like a philosopher once said, must be able to come to an end at some point. There is a scattering of facts, but the majority of the rancho alamito story is mired in a smoky haze, a haze that history has made to last permanently. There are gaps in his

Well, it may come as no surprise to some, but I needed to validate this map search for myself and perhaps others in the group. Remarkably, what was said by Rubio speaks out in the maps.  I was fortunate to access the Texas General Land Office database in Austin . More specifically, I was able to locate all the maps that were relevant to the story timeline. These Refugio Co maps date from 1850 - 1875. They are relevant only because they date the span of time the de la Garza's were on the land. Looking at them I was disappointed to see that all 5 original maps did not contain a Becerra or de la Garza name. Now, this is where it gets interesting. It's simple, 1. Becerra and de la Garza families lived in a parallel universe and the rest of Refugio lived in another, as in the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing, 2. They knew who was on the land but didn't care to investigate. Instead allowing Anglo colonizers to take it outright and not bother as to w