Old Maps and Deception

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 who was cultivating or living on it.

I would like to think that option 1 is off the table and that what we're dealing here is strictly option 2. It does vex me that in all 5 maps there are so many ranchers legitimizing their parcels, but no one is aware that Francisco de la Garza, followed by his son Antonio, were raising heads of cattle and horses on it? It doesn't add up. Option 2 is what my intuition tells me is the case at hand. One last thing, nowhere do I see a dominant overreach by the O'Connors, yet. There are some parcels here and there around the rectangular areas, but not completely dominant as one would think. Am I missing something here? Are these people's names on the parcels of land fictitious? I would think not.

What I think happened later and we have to remember, is the possibility that: one, the General Land Office rule is that only the initial conveyance from a sovereign body to a private individual counts. The initial conveyance, that's all they care about, the only file they keep on record! What I'm alluding too, is that if you look at all 5 maps, you virtually see the same people's names. When I inquired, they said "if you want to know who bought the property later, you will need to go to the local county district. They would have the conveyances listed." Two, if that is the case, then we can assume that that's where the O'Connors fit in.

In other words, they would go on to purchase the original parcels from the supposed original landowners. Yet for all intents and purposes, this is a very vexing problem. It's the conjunction of two parties, at a particular period of time, in this rural community. Yet, names are being registered with the General Land Commission and these newly minted landowners are suppose to be okay with people living on their land? I think otherwise. There's something afoul about the whole affair? The problem here is very troubling. Again, option 2 is the only logical explanation for this and of course here are some reasons:

• They may not have been able to afford to have their land surveyed and mapped. This was a costly process, and many Mexican landowners were poor. This was obviously not the case as there was record of a land resurvey by David Snively in 1849 clearly showing Becerra as rightful owner.
• They may not have been aware of the need to have their land surveyed and mapped. This was a new requirement under American rule, and some Mexican landowners may not have been familiar with it. This could have been the case, yet it still slides over to option 2.  If they weren't aware that would have been due to discrimination and predatory land grabbing acts.  Why else if not that?  You would not want to tell them anything then.
• They may have been discriminated against by local officials. Some local officials may have been reluctant to include Mexican landowners on maps, either because of prejudice or because they wanted to make it easier for Anglo settlers to take over their land.
• Their land may have been lost or stolen. During the Mexican American War and the subsequent years, there was a great deal of violence and instability in Texas. As a result, some Mexican landowners may have lost their land or had it stolen from them. This was obviously more than likely the case after 1875.

This inquiry must continue and it will...

Mark Carbajal