Old Narratives, New Beginnings

 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 history, just like this story, that ultimately can't be filled, they just can't. Perhaps it was meant to be that way, perhaps not. The point at this juncture in the story is that it's an incredibly intractable and complicated narrative.

I'm reaching as far back as I can and trying with all my might to put forth my opinion because facts are hard to come by. I think that there are a couple of things happening here. 1) As the GLO specialist told me, "Becerra's land title never got properly filed. The problem is that for whatever reasons Becerra did not file it through the Ayutamiento of Goliad, we may never know. Instead the family held on to the original land title when it should have been filed. There's nothing we can do about that now and we may never know why anymore. That has been lost to history, and it's never coming back. 2) Because of what happened, the wheels of fate rolled unfavorably and inexorably against Francisco and Antonio, slowly but surely. Unaware, that white Anglo colonists shortly after the Mexican War were snapping up all the Power and Hewetson grant offerings, they surely could not have known that their names weren't on any map.

3) They couldn't have known. Think about it? No technology, no phones, no anything. They were to busy tending to the land and their herds of cows, horses, etc. They had to leave during the Annexation period of Texas and then leave again during the Mexican uprising. Huson makes a point of stressing in his book that Francisco was indeed on the other side of the Rio Grande (Texas side) till roughly 1845! He along with hundreds (Anglo, Mexican) fled in all directions during the skirmishes in Refugio! Not to mention the fact that Karankawa Indians were marauding and pillaging through South Texas, Refugio and Goliad. 4) They came back. I found the Census of 1850 and 1860 where it says they were all living in Refugio. That may come as a surprise to some.

Finally, I do think that when push came to shove, they came looking for Antonio after Francisco had passed away. Antonio was only 22 years old (young) in 1870. I believe he left Refugio due to all the violence being perpetrated against him and others. The Goliad Census of 1870 says he was living there. By now, reliable sources say the white Anglo ranchers were fencing off their proper land. It's a sad possibility, but a real one at that, that this is when things got hot for Antonio. The racial discrimination and violence towards Tejanos was a very real thing at that time. I do think the inventory report pertaining to Francisco was a mere formality to these people. The fact that they listed personal property like horses, cows, etc as well as the 1/2 league of land, which by the way, sold to Thomas O'Connor, was in effect, a forgone conclusion.

The act had already been consummated, they were searching for Antonio in Goliad to merely legitimize what he thought was still his, they wanted him to know it was an over and done thing. They basically, I think, knew he didn't own actual title with the state and wanted to make sure that he signed off on the drawn-up inventory in order to finalize it and close the possibility of him ever coming back again. They wanted to make sure he never set foot in Refugio.

It was a cruel thing, but I think that unlike Don Carlos de la Garza, brother to Francisco, life had been brutal and banal due to the circumstances of not finalizing a land grant. It had been a symbiotic relationship up until 1870 perhaps. Francisco was a well respected ranch herdsman and everyone and I mean everyone knew about his tie to Don Carlos de la Garza. But ultimately, every man has to meet fates that only that man must face and no one else. We all do, in our own personal and sometimes painful existences we live by.

Now with Francisco de la Garza gone, they saw a young 22-year-old they could exploit. They probably made his life a living hell. That is why he was probably living in Goliad in the summer of 1870.

I do think that other family members like Trinidad stayed on their property longer than Antonio did. However, white Anglo ranchers would have eventually set their gaze on her as well. They would know without a doubt, that they had the upper hand. I do not think the O'Connors come out of this unscathed. I do think in my heart of hearts that Thomas not only paid the $100 for the 2,200 acres but that he helped expedite a favorable situation he saw with young Antonio. I also think that O'Connor just simply followed the path of least resistance, so to speak, and provided the muscle needed. Of course, we'll never have clear answers to that or many others. But I do think that Antonio was a good and courageous man that was ultimately dealt a bad hand. He played it as best as he could and kept his head up high, much respect to grandfather Antonio de la Garza.

Mark Lee Carbajal