When Fort Brown Sat on Someone Else’s Land

Maria Josefa Cavazos, the U.S. Army, and Charles Stillman

In February 1870, the United States Congress printed a thick stack of documents with a deceptively simple title:

“Maria Josefa Cavazos.”

Behind that name lay one of the most revealing land disputes in early Brownsville history — a case that quietly confirmed something few people today realize:

Fort Brown — the military post that gave birth to Brownsville — stood on land the federal government did not legally own.

And everyone knew it.

Before Brownsville — There Was Espíritu Santo

To understand this story, we have to go back to 1781.

That year, under the Spanish Crown, a massive tract of land on the east bank of the Rio Grande was granted to José Salvador de la Garza. The grant was known as:

El Potrero (Agostadero) del Espíritu Santo

It stretched across what would later become:

The city of Brownsville
The site of Fort Brown
Riverfront lands opposite Matamoros

Under Spanish and later Mexican law, this was valid title.

When the United States won the Mexican War in 1848 (a.k.a. the U.S. invasion of Mexico), the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo promised that legitimate property rights would be honored.

That promise would be tested immediately.

1846: The Army Arrives

In March 1846, as war with Mexico began, U.S. troops under General Zachary Taylor occupied land along the Rio Grande.

A fortification was built. It would become Fort Brown.

The land was taken for military necessity. No purchase. No lease. No rent.

At the time, there were multiple claimants to the land. Among those in possession was a rising merchant named:

Charles Stillman.

The Border Is a Legal Earthquake

After the war ended, the land situation exploded into confusion.

There were now at least three competing systems of title:

The original Spanish grant (1781)
Matamoros municipal labor grants (“labors”)
Texas headright certificates and surveys

The Rio Grande was now an international boundary. But land records did not move as neatly as armies.

And in that confusion, fortunes were made — and challenged.

Enter Maria Josefa Cavazos

Maria Josefa Cavazos was heir, through marriage, to the original Espíritu Santo grant.

In 1849, she and other heirs filed suit in federal court in Texas to quiet title to the entire grant — including the land occupied by Fort Brown.

Among the defendants?

Charles Stillman.

Charles Stillman’s Role in the Litigation

This is where things get interesting.

When U.S. troops withdrew from Matamoros in 1848, Charles Stillman — an American merchant then operating on the Mexican side — began securing land interests on the Texas side of the river.

He purchased:

Possessory rights from Matamoros labor holders
Texas survey locations
Claims based on state-issued certificates

Stillman was not acting recklessly. He was acting like a frontier businessman protecting his future.

But here was the problem:

Those claims were not derived from the original Spanish grant.

When Cavazos sued in 1849, Stillman and others defended under:

Texas-issued titles
Matamoros labor rights
Adverse possession claims

In January 1852, the United States District Court for Texas ruled:

The Spanish grant of 1781 was valid.
Title vested in Cavazos and her co-heirs.
The adverse Texas and municipal titles were declared null and void.

Stillman’s claims, at least in that case, were judicially defeated.

Attempts to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court failed on procedural grounds.

Legally speaking, the decree stood.

But Law and Frontier Reality Are Not the Same

Even though the court ruling favored Cavazos, Charles Stillman continued to be one of the most powerful figures in the region.

He:

Helped build Brownsville commercially.
Invested heavily in river trade.
Played a central role in the town’s development.

And here is the quiet truth:

The growth of Brownsville depended heavily on Fort Brown.

The federal government’s military presence increased land values dramatically.

One Quartermaster later admitted bluntly:

Without the military post, Brownsville might not have become what it was.

This made the question of rent explosive.

The Claim: $130,416

By the 1860s, Maria Josefa Cavazos formally demanded compensation.

Her claim:

$130,416
For rent and damages dating back to 1846

The War Department hesitated.

Why?

Because:

The land had been under litigation for years.
There had never been a formal partition among co-heirs.
The city of Brownsville protested.
Additional heirs appeared with competing claims.
Paying rent could be interpreted as admitting federal liability retroactively.

The case bounced between:

The War Department
The Attorney General
The Quartermaster General
Congress

The Attorney General’s Critical Conclusion (1868)

Attorney General William M. Evarts reviewed the case carefully.

He concluded:

The Spanish grant was valid.
Title to the tract had been confirmed by federal court.
Mrs. Cavazos held sufficient title to justify payment.
However — rent should only be recognized from November 20, 1853 forward, when her separate ownership appeared clearly established.

Earlier rent would belong equally to co-tenants.

It was a cautious, legal compromise.

Brownsville Pushes Back

Mayor William Nealy of Brownsville protested.

The city claimed:

That its 1850 incorporation granted title to the land.
That litigation was still pending.
That no rent should be paid until title was finally settled.

Another protest came from Antonio Longoria, claiming under other heirs.

In short:

Even in 1870, Fort Brown’s legal title was still politically radioactive.

What This Case Really Tells Us

This wasn’t just a rent dispute.

It reveals:

How Spanish colonial land grants survived into American law.
How Charles Stillman operated inside uncertain legal terrain.
How the U.S. Army occupied land it did not formally own.
How Brownsville’s development was intertwined with federal military power.
How border sovereignty created decades of unresolved title conflict.

And perhaps most fascinating:

The official printed record of Congress confirms that Stillman’s Texas-derived claims were judicially inferior to the 1781 Spanish grant — at least in that litigation.

That does not diminish Stillman’s importance.

But it complicates the story.

A Final Reflection

Brownsville was not born on empty land.

It rose from overlapping empires:
Spain
Mexico
Texas
The United States

Fort Brown anchored American power on the Rio Grande.

But under its parade grounds lay the paper trail of another world — one that reached back to 1781.

And in 1870, Congress was still trying to decide what that meant.

MARIA JOSEFA CAVAZOS
House Executive Document No. 200
41st Congress, 2d Session (1870)

This document contains a readable transcription of the official War Department and Attorney General correspondence regarding the claim of Maria Josefa Cavazos for rent of the site of Fort Brown, Texas. The language has been preserved as closely as possible to the original printed 1870 congressional document.

Official Correspondence and Reports (Transcribed)

WAR DEPARTMENT,
Washington City, February 7, 1870.

Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith certain papers relating to the claim of Señora Maria Josefa Cavazos, a citizen of Mexico, for rent of land in Texas upon which Fort Brown stands, and to ask your advice in relation thereto.

Very respectfully,
WM. W. BELKNAP,
Secretary of War.

---

WAR DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF CLAIMS,
Washington, D.C., February 3, 1870.

In the matter of the claim of Señora Maria Josefa Cavazos, of Matamoros, Mexico, amounting to $130,416, for use of and damage to lands occupied by the United States for military purposes, from March 1846 to the present time.

The land in question consists of three hundred and fifty-eight acres, more or less, situated on the Rio Grande in the State of Texas, opposite the city of Matamoros, and partly or wholly within the corporate limits of the city of Brownsville.

A portion of it was first occupied in the spring of 1846, at the commencement of hostilities with Mexico; the remainder shortly after the termination of the Mexican war. A fortification, called Fort Brown, was erected upon the land, and the premises have ever since (during the late rebellion excepted) been in the possession of the United States.

The government has paid no rent to any one for this land. The title has been claimed by various parties, and the executive branch has not deemed it prudent to recognize either of them until their conflicting claims shall be judicially determined.

Mrs. Cavazos derives her title under a Spanish grant made in the year 1781 to José Salvador de la Garza, known as the Potrero del Espíritu Santo, lying on the east bank of the Rio Grande.

In January 1849 chancery proceedings were instituted in the United States district court for the district of Texas, in behalf of Mrs. Cavazos and others, against Charles Stillman and others, claimants under Matamoros and Texan grants.

In January 1852 the court decreed that the Spanish grant was valid and that the title to the land was vested in Mrs. Cavazos and others, as tenants in common. Attempts to appeal failed and the decree became final.

The Attorney General later concluded that although no formal partition had occurred, a mutual understanding among heirs had effectively assigned the Fort Brown portion to Mrs. Cavazos, and that from November 20, 1853 forward her title was sufficient to justify payment of rent.

The Quartermaster General reported that the fair rental value would not exceed five hundred dollars per annum.

Protests were filed by the mayor of Brownsville and by Antonio Longoria, claiming under rival interests, and additional litigation was reported pending in both state and federal courts.

The Attorney General recommended that the War Department obtain further legal opinion before final action, in light of the unsettled condition of title.

---

WAR DEPARTMENT,
March 12, 1870.

True copies of original papers on file in this department.

JNO. E. SMITH,
Colonel and Brevet Major General U.S. Army.

Wednesday, February 25, 2026