The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association, Volume 8, July 1904 - April, 1905 Page: 243

Explanation by Stephen F. Austin.

243

itself it shall notify the general congress for its decision in the
matter."
4th. Texas has the right, as its interest requires, to cement
and secure its permanent union with the Mexican federation,
which it can accomplish only as an integral part of the body
social, and not as a mere appendix.
5th. Likewise the common right that is guaranteed it in the
system adopted by the Mexican republic of promoting its welfare
and internal tranquility by an adequate organization of a local
government.
6th. Also the right and the natural duty that belongs to every
people of saving itself from anarchy and ruin on the principle of
self-preservation.
This extract is sufficient to show the principles upon which the
convention rested, in asking the general congress to admit Texas
as a state into the Mexican federation.
Since the chief object of this explanation is to throw light upon
the conduct of the inhabitants of Texas by a frank and brief state-
ment of the purposes that guided them and the motives that in-
fluenced them, it is necessary to examine here the views published
by some relative to the interpretation that the Texas convention
gave to the above-mentioned law of May 7, 1824, which interpre-
tation they characterized as revolutionary. Observe that it is not
intended to reply to any periodical in particular, but to all in
general.
The constituent act, decreed on January 31, 1824, established
the state of the East, composed of the provinces of Coahuila,
Nuevo Leon, and Texas; that of the North, composed of Chihua-
hua, Durango, and New Mexico; and that of the West, of Sonora
and Sinaloa. This organization was afterward changed by de-
crees of the constituent congress; that of the 7th of May, 1824
established the states of Nuevo Leon and Coahuila and Texas; and
by other decrees the state of the North was divided, leaving united
only Sonora with Sinaloa and Coahuila with Texas.
It must be borne in mind that when the state of Sonora and
Sinaloa was established there was expressed in the decree no con-
dition or proviso that would give to that union a temporary or
provisional character; while in the one relating to Coahuila and
Texas there were such conditions, as has been shown by giving the