Close Up of 1858 Map of Grimes County

   Above is a scan of the 1858 map of Grimes County that was used by Robin and Joy Montgomery to prepare Robin and Joy Montgomery's Map #1 without all of their alterations and additions. Note the thick grey line running north to south through the Asa Yeamans League and the Jacob Shannon League down to the northeast corner of the William Montgomery League. That is the Grimes County line separating Grimes County from Montgomery County. The county line then runs south down the eastern boundary line of the William Montgomery League. You will also notice that the William Montgomery League is located entirely to the west of the Grimes County line. No part of the William Montgomery League crosses into present day Montgomery County, and it is totally incorrect to claim that it does.

   In the map below prepared by Searle, Grimes County and Montgomery County are designated on each side of the county line which is indicated here with a black line.

Close Up of 1858 Map of Grimes County Showing the County Line

   Note that the northeasternmost sliver of Asa Yeamans' League is located in Montgomery County and the southwesternmost sliver of Jacob Shannon's League is located in Grimes County. But all of William Montgomery's League is located entirely within Grimes County. The part of Robin and Joy Montgomery's Map #1 that makes no sense at all is the part where they have drawn their red rectangle onto the land east of the William Montgomery League. The lands to the east of the William Montgomery League as shown on Robin and Joy Montgomery's Map #1 were never surveyed for, granted to or owned by William Montgomery.

   Below is the 1858 Grimes County Map in its entirety. It is shown here so that the reader can see the location of the eastern Grimes County line separating Grimes County and Montgomery County.

1858 Map of Grimes County, Texas

Earlier Primary Sources: An Act Creating Grimes County

and the

Original Land Owners

   Grimes County was created by the Texas State Legislature in 1846 from part of the territory of Montgomery County. Below is a transcription of "An Act Creating Grimes County" from Early Laws of Texas: General Laws from 1836 to 1879, Compiled and Arranged by John Sayles and Henry Sayles (The Gilbert Book Co., St. Louis, 1891), page 30. Note that the "league of land granted to W. Montgomery" is mentioned specifically in the act creating Grimes County. The eastern boundary line of the William Montgomery League forms part of the eastern county line of Grimes County by statute.

An Act Creating Grimes County

   In the map below prepared by Searle, the actual boundary lines of William Montgomery's League have been outlined in red. Please note the differences between the red outline of the William Montgomery League on this map and the red outline of the William Montgomery League on Robin and Joy Montgomery's Map #1.

Close Up of 1858 Grimes County Map with Boundary Lines of the William Montgomery League Correctly Outlined in Red

   Again, you will notice that William Montgomery's League does not extend across the Grimes County line into Montgomery County as claimed repeatedly on the Montgomery: Naming Questions webpage. On Robin and Joy Montgomery's Map #1, the red outline incorrectly extends across the Grimes County line into Montgomery County to include lands that were never owned by William Montgomery.

   Please notice the names on the lands to the east of the Grimes County line enclosed by Robin and Joy Montgomery's Map #1 as though the land had been surveyed for, granted to, or owned by William Montgomery: M. Shannon (Patent Date: August 31, 1844), Wm. Miller (Patent Date: January 27, 1849), A. Tinny (Patent Date: February 24, 1847), and T.C. Bradberry (Patent Date: March 27, 1861).

   A patent is the legal instrument transferring land from the public domain to private ownership. These names (M. Shannon, Wm. Miller, A. Tinny and T.C. Bradberry) are the names of the FIRST private owners of these tracts of land. These are the names of the people who received these tracts of lands from the government of the Republic of Texas or the State of Texas ORIGINALLY. Click the names above to see the original land grants of each of these individuals in the Texas General Land Office online database. These tracts of land were NEVER surveyed for William Montgomery! These tracts of land were NEVER granted to William Montgomery! And William Montgomery NEVER owned these tracts of land!

Close Up of Robin and Joy Montgomery's Map #1

   Here is a close up of Robin and Joy Montgomery's Map #1 showing the additional tracts of land that Robin and Joy Montgomery incorrectly claimed were part of William Montgomery's original land grant. It has been enlarged to make it easier to read the names of the true original land owners (Shannon, Miller, Tinny and Bradberry). In the next section, we will look closely at William Montgomery's Mexican land grant and Surveyor E. R. Wightman's field notes and plat. We will then dispose of this issue permanently.

Earliest Primary Sources: William Montgomery's Mexican Land Grant - League No. 5 and 9

and

Surveyor Elias R. Wightman's Field Notes and Plat

   Just in case there are still any doubts in anyone's mind, let's look closely at the two most important primary sources. These date from the time closest to the events in question themselves. Here is a close up of the Mexican land grant William Montgomery received from Stephen F. Austin in 1831. In the close-up of William Montgomery's Mexican land grant, we see he received "Sitio No. 5 y 9" (League No. 5 and 9). More importantly, we see that William Montgomery received League No. 5 and 9 and nothing else!

Land Description from William Montgomery's Mexican Land Grant Showing Sitio No. 5 y 9

Sitio No. 5 y 9

Close Up of William Montgomery's Mexican Land Grant With Sitio No. 5 y 9 Enlarged

   Happily, you do not have to rely on my translation of the land grant from Spanish to English. Below, are excerpts from the English translation of William Montgomery's Mexican land grant (William Montgomery League) prepared by Dr. Brian Stauffer the Spanish Translator of the Texas General Land Office. The translation was prepared for Kameron Searle on September 29, 2020. For the complete translation of William Montgomery's entire Mexican land grant, just click on either of the English excerpts below and the links will take you to Dr. Stauffer's translation of the whole document.

Excerpt from the English Translation of Page 1 of William Montgomery's Mexican Land Grant (William Montgomery League)

Excerpt from the English Translation of Page 3 of William Montgomery's Mexican Land Grant (William Montgomery League)

   E. R. Wightman surveyed League No. 5 and 9 which was one league (4,428.4 acres) of land. The naming of this League is unusual. It is a single league designated by a double number "5 & 9." Because the John Landrum League had already been designated League No. 5 and the Asa Yeamans League had already been designated League No. 9, Wightman designated the William Montgomery League as League No. 5 & 9 and that is exactly how the league is designated in survey field notes and the plat [map] included with the field notes. In the Texas General Land Office, these field notes are designated Field Notes 6-418. Click the link to read them.

   E. R. Wightman wrote a note at the end of his field notes for League No. 5 & 9 and Quarter No. 12 & 16. Wightman wrote, "N.B. Some of the Leagues and Quarters being laid off subsequent to the numbering of others and consequently out of the [sic] routine I have substituted a double number such as 5 & 9 ═ 12 & 16 from being adjoining such numbers." [N.B. is the abbreviation for a Latin phrase meaning "note well." In Modern English, N.B. is used, particularly in legal papers, to draw the attention of the reader to a certain (side) aspect or detail of the subject being addressed.]

   At the same time that he surveyed League No. 5 and 9, Wightman also prepared a survey of Quarter No. 12 and 16 (a quarter of a league is 1,107.1 acres) for Stephen F. Austin. Quarter No. 12 and 16 was never surveyed for William Montgomery and Quarter No. 12 and 16 was never granted to William Montgomery by Stephen F. Austin. And Quarter No. 12 and 16 was never owned by William Montgomery. It is very misleading to suggest that Stephen F. Austin conveyed Quarter No. 12 and 16 to William Montogmery. As we saw earlier, Stephen F. Austin NEVER granted Quarter No. 12 and 16 to ANYONE. The lands that made up Quarter No. 12 and 16 are located in present day Montgomery County. The people who originally received these lands, as we saw earlier, were M. Shannon (Patent Date: August 31, 1844), Wm. Miller (Patent Date: January 27, 1849), A. Tinny (Patent Date: February 24, 1847), and T.C. Bradberry (Patent Date: March 27, 1861)!

   So, when Robin and Joy Montgomery drew the boundary of the William Montgomery League to the east beyond the William Montgomery League on Robin and Joy Montgomery's Map #1, they included more than 1,100 acres of land that were never surveyed for, granted to, or owned by William Montgomery. It is actually many hundred of acres more as the boundary line on Robin and Joy Montgomery's Map #1 includes several hundred acres south of Quarter 12 and 16 as well.

From English Field Notes 6-418: Plat Prepared by Elias R. Wightman Showing League 5 and 9 (William Montgomery League)

and Quarter 12 and 16 (Never Granted by Stephen F. Austin to Anyone)

Plat Prepared by Elias R. Wightman Showing League 5 and 9 (William Montgomery League) Outlined in Red

Plat Prepared by Elias R. Wightman Showing League 5 and 9 (William Montgomery League) Outlined in Red and Indicating the Other Leagues Granted by Stephen F. Austin

Excerpt from the English Translation of Page 3 of William Montgomery's Mexican Land Grant

Metes and Bounds of League 5 and 9 (William Montgomery League)

   Here, again, we have the actual metes and bounds of William Montgomery's Mexican land grant. Please compare it to the map above with the red outline of William Montgomery's League correctly outlined and see that in 1831 William Montgomery received "League 5 and 9" and not "Quarter 12 and 16." No part of Quarter 12 and 16 is mentioned anywhere in the description of the metes and bounds of the William Montgomery League.

   The following is quote from History of Texas Public Lands, Appendix II, page 17, a publication of the Texas General Land Office. "Surveying the land in Mexican Texas followed the metes and bounds system, where natural features of the land (such as trees) are used as landmarks for the corners, with the distances indicated between them. The surveyors equipment was a stick called a "Jacob's staff," a compass for determining direction, and a chain for measuring distances. Each link in the chain was a specified length, making it easier for the surveyor to calculate. Texas surveyors were required to use the Mexican system of land measurements. The basic unit of linear measurement was the vara, which in Texas came to equal 33 1/3 inches. The basic unit for measuring area was the sitio or league, equal to 25,000,000 square varas (4,428.4 acres) and the labor, equal to 1,000,000 square varas (177.1 acres)."

   William Montgomery's Mexican land grant reads as follows, "it is known as League No. 5 and 9 adjoining and south of John Landrum's and Asa Yeaman's tracts; and from the southeast corner of Yeaman's said league, which is No. 9, a line was run west with the south boundary of said No. 9 4,000 varas to the east boundary of No. 5; thence south with said boundary 792 varas to the southeast corner of said No. 5; thence west with the south boundary of said No. 5 belonging to said John Landrum 2,000 varas to a landmark on said boundary; thence south 3,639 varas to a mound of earth; thence east 6,000 varas to a mound of earth; and thence north 4,431 varas to the place of beginning, comprising within said boundaries one league of land in area.

   To claim the lands to the east of William Montgomery's League were ever granted to William Montgomery is simply false. William Montgomery had received a league (4,428.4 acres) from Austin and as such William Montgomery was NOT entitled to any additional land from Stephen F. Austin as a colonist.

More Bad Maps and Incorrect Statements

   We have looked closely at Robin and Joy Montgomery's Map #1 and the statement that accompanied it which read, "Note the land to the east of William Montgomery's survey was also part of his original land grant in 1831." By looking at unaltered maps, the Act Creating Grimes County, William Montgomery's Mexican land grant and E. R. Wightman's English field notes and his plat, we know that Robin and Joy Montgomery's Map #1 as altered was grossly incorrect and misleading and that the statement accompanying the map was in fact false.

   We will now turn our attention to other statements and maps on the webpage Montgomery: Naming Questions. It will become readily apparent that the other statements and maps accessed from Montgomery: Naming Questions are just as erroneous as the map and statement we looked at above. Let's start with another map and the map legend accompanying it.

Robin and Joy Montgomery's Map #2

   For the sake of discussion, we will refer to the map above from the Montgomery: Naming Questions webpage as Robin and Joy Montgomery's Map #2. There are other problems with Robin and Joy Montgomery's Map #2, but we will focus on the William Montgomery League since it is the subject of this webpage. The map used by Robin and Joy Montgomery to create Robin and Joy Montgomery's Map #2 was Surveys in Austin's Colony along the west bank of the San Jacinto River by Austin Colony surveyor E. R. Wightman and located in the Texas General Land Office. Click here to see the original Surveys in Austin's Colony along the west bank of the San Jacinto River without the changes made to Robin and Joy Montgomery's Map #2. Underneath Robin and Joy Montgomery's Map #2 is a legend that reads, "Red: William Montgomery's survey of 1831." Below, we will see the red outline is false.

Close Up of Surveys in Austin's Colony along the west bank of the San Jacinto River Darkened

   The original map is torn and faded. Using the original scan from the Texas General Land Office, Searle has zoomed in for a close up and digitally darkened the image so that the lines between the various leagues and between League 5 and 9 [William Montgomery League] and Quarter 12 and 16 [Never granted by Austin] can be seen more easily.

   Here is the same map prepared by Searle showing the William Montgomery League correctly outlined in red on the north, south, and east sides. As we saw above, William Montgomery only received League 5 and 9 and never received Quarter 12 and 16. On Robin and Joy Montgomery's Map #2, Robin and Joy Montgomery have actually enclosed more than 1,100 acres of land that never belonged to William Montgomery. Their diagram incorrectly enclosed Quarter 12 and 16 (a quarter league which is 1,107.1 acres of land) plus several hundred more acres just south of Quarter 12 and 16.

 • • •

   Here is another statement from Montgomery: Naming Questions. This statement makes reference to yours truly, Kameron Searle.

   Knowing what we do from all of the primary sources above, the reader will immediately observe that the statement, "Searle focuses on today's Montgomery County but fails to mention that William Montgomery's land grant of 1831 in Today's Montgomery county." is a completely false statement. The reason Searle has never mentioned "William Montgomery's land grant of 1831 in Today's Montgomery county" is that no part of William Montgomery's land grant is located in Montgomery County today!

   One of the main areas of Kameron Searle's historical research has been the Lake Creek Settlement. After many years of research, Searle began to present his findings to any and all who would listen. The Lake Creek Settlement had been forgotten. Out of ignorance, the Lake Creek Settlement and its important role in the early history of Montgomery County had been completely left out of the Montgomery County history books. To fill the void, guessing and family legends replaced the true history. To correct the problem, Searle became the most active proponent of the Lake Creek Settlement and tried his best to convince as many people as he could of the existence of the forgotten Lake Creek Settlement. He did this until the Lake Creek Settlement became commonly accepted and widely recognized by Montgomery County historians and non-historians alike.

   Many of the non-historical assertions stated in Robin Montgomery's 1975 book, The History of Montgomery County were undone and proven to be incorrect by the rediscovery of the Lake Creek Settlement. These incorrect assertions that had been presented as facts by Robin Montgomery in The History of Montgomery County were shown for what they actually were: incorrect guesses by the author or the erroneous details of a Montgomery family fable believed by the author and repeated to his readers. Examples of these non-historical assertions included the so-called Andrew Montgomery Trading Post for which no primary source evidence has ever been found to prove its existence. Another claim was the alleged existence of a road or trace called the the Loma del Toro. No such road by that name ever existed in the area that became Montgomery County. Yet another example of an incorrect assertion is the Upper Coushatti Trace. This is yet another road that did not exist and for which there is no primary source evidence. There was also no road or trace known as the Lower Coushatti Trace as alleged in The History of Montgomery County. On the map in The History of Montgomery County, the actual Coushatti Trace is drawn in the wrong place and shown heading in the wrong direction. Robin Montgomery must have claimed a dozen times or so that the area around the Andrew Montgomery Trading Post [which did not exist] and where the town of Montgomery would later be founded had been known as Montgomery Settlement or Montgomery Prairie. But as the world has now learned, the area in which the town of Montgomery was founded was actually known as the Lake Creek Settlement prior to the founding of the town.

   Searle’s research into the Lake Creek Settlement put an end to all the nonhistorical assertions that the area where the town of Montgomery was founded had once been known as Montgomery, Andrew Montgomery's Trading Post, Montgomery Settlement, or Montgomery Prairie prior to the founding of the town of Montgomery.

   As historian David Hackett Fischer has stressed the burden of proof for any historical assertion rests on the historian making the assertion and not his readers. Robin Montgomery shirks this responsibility regularly leaving it to others to point out his non-historical mistatements and incorrect assertions. My article, Andrew Montgomery Never Received a Land Grant From Stephen F. Austin, and its companion article Montgomery Brothers Were Latecomers, and this webpage, William Montgomery Land Grant Not Located in Montgomery County are three more examples of this. It would seem his strategy is to make an assertion, and if no one challenges it, it must be true. If this is his strategy, it is nothing more than a political trick (such as spin and fake news) and has no place in scholarly historical writing.

Lake Creek Settlement Marker Dedicated on February 25, 2017

in front of the Nathaniel Hart Davis Museum and Pioneer Complex in Montgomery, Texas

   In 1837, the town of Montgomery was founded in the middle of the Lake Creek Settlement on 200 acres of land owned by W. W. Shepperd and located on the John Corner League. William Montgomery did not live in the Lake Creek Settlement and neither did his sons, Andrew, Edley and John. The false assertion that William Montgomery's survey/land grant/league is somehow located in Montgomery County today appears to be a rather desperate attempt to place William Montgomery closer to the Lake Creek Settlement and the location where the town of Montgomery was actually founded.

 • • •

   From the webpage Montgomery: Naming Questions, we find another map by Robin and Joy Montgomery that we will call Robin and Joy Montgomery's Map #3. This map is preceded by two statements which are included here as they appeared on September 9, 2020.

Robin and Joy Montgomery's Map #3

   Knowing what we do from all of the primary sources above, the reader will immediately observe that the statement, "As it turns out- William's survey extended into today's Montgomery County in 1831, (See below)" along with the map accompanying the statement are again completely false. See the evidence we looked at in the primary sources above (1858 Map of Grimes County, the Act Creating Grimes County, William Montgomery's Mexican land grant, and E. R. Wightman' field notes with plat).

   The statement, "William Montgomery's survey in present Montgomery County," is also false. If you have stayed with me so far, you will immediately see the problems with Robin and Joy Montgomery's Map #3. As in Robin and Joy Montgomery's Map #1 and Robin and Joy Montgomery's Map #2, the boundary line of the William Montgomery League is incorrectly drawn. It is even sloppier here. The supposed boundary line of the William Montgomery League has been drawn with a thick orange line by Robin and Joy Montgomery up into part of the Asa Yeamans League and over into the John Landrum League again. The orange boundary line is incorrectly drawn to the east of the William Montgomery League so as to include all of Quarter 12 and 16, the land just south of Quarter 12 and 16, part of the Noah Griffith League and part of the Jacob Shannon League. Since Quarter 12 and 16 was never granted to William Montgomery, Robin and Joy Montgomery's Map #3 is incorrectly drawn in the same manner as Robin and Joy Montgomery's Map #1 and Robin and Joy Montgomery's Map #2.

   There is is also a problem with the Grimes County line as drawn on Robin and Joy Montgomery's Map #3. It is shown with a light blue line/arrow running due north and south. We all know, having looked at the 1858 Grimes County map earlier, that the Grimes County line runs from the northeast corner of the William Montgomery League at an angle towards the southwest corner of Walker County. The blue line/arrow on Robin and Joy Montgomery's Map #3 appears to run due north and south and does not follow the true direction of the Grimes County line. See the 1858 Grimes County Map and "An Act Creating Grimes County" above.

   In the map prepared by Searle above, the boundary line of the William Montgomery League has been corrected using a thin red line to distinguish it from the thick orange line used by Robin and Joy Montgomery. Nothing outside the thin red boundary line ever belonged to William Montgomery. And, of course, no part of the William Montgomery League extends into present day Montgomery County.

   Last is a map prepared by Searle showing the correct angle of the Grimes County line (dark blue arrow) as it moves from the northeast corner of the William Montgomery League up towards the southwest corner of Walker County. See the 1858 Grimes County Map and "An Act Creating Grimes County" above for a better understanding of this angle.

 • • •

   There are more statements on the Montgomery: Naming Questions webpage claiming William Montgomery's League is somehow located in Montgomery County today. Here are two more examples of statements accessed on September 9, 2020. If you have stayed this far, you can immediately see for yourself that both of the statements below are false.

   Both of these statements are, of course, false. There may be more such statements, assertions and maps on the Montgomery: Naming Questions webpage; but you get the picture, and we do not need to analyze additional examples at this point. So let's move along.

Just the Place for a Snark!

>   Throughout the webpage, Montgomery: Naming Questions, assertions are made to the effect that William Montgomery's League is somehow located within the boundaries of today's Montgomery County. This is just so much nonsense. Here are the six examples previously discussed in the sections above. As concerns the William Montgomery League, none of these statements are true. These are examples of a historical fallacy that Pulitzer Prize winning historian David Hackett Fischer refers to on page 302 of his book Historians' Fallacies: Towards a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper and Row, 1970) as an argument ad nauseam.

   Fischer describes argument ad nauseam as "a serious error, in which a thesis is sustained by repetition rather than by reasoned proof. This strategy was a favorite of Lewis Carroll's immortal Bellman in The Hunting of the Snark."

"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried

What I tell you three times is true."

The Complete Works of Lewis Carroll, p.757    

   William Montgomery received a league of land from Stephen F. Austin in 1831 which is located entirely in Grimes County today. No part of the William Montgomery League is located in Montgomery County today. To say that part of the William Montgomery League is located in Montgomery County today is obviously not true. And such statements never will be true no matter how often they are repeated!

Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repetition):

This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again.

But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place.

Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again;

what is fallacious is to expect the repetition alone to substitute for real arguments.

Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate - CSUN.edu

CSUN.edu (California State University, Northridge)

The real danger is not that a scholar will delude his readers, but that he will delude himself.

Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought

David Hackett Fischer (Harper and Row: New York, 1970), p. 63

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

Attributed to Mark Twain

"Juuuusst a bit outside. He tried the corner and missed."

Harry Doyle (Bob Uecker)

Major League (1989)

Letter to the Editor

When Does Family Tradition Become Family Fiction?

"Montgomery Family Tradition"

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 Edition

Montgomery County News

           In one of my articles [in the Montgomery County News newspaper], I had mentioned that William Harley Gandy had interviewed J. L. Montgomery of Richards, Texas while writing his master’s thesis in 1952. I had questioned the fact that Robin Montgomery’s grandfather J. L. Montgomery made no mention of an Andrew Montgomery trading post in his interview with Gandy. In this 1952 interview, J. L. Montgomery had advised William Harley Gandy that Montgomery County was named after a surveyor named William Montgomery.

            In his 1952 master’s thesis, Gandy wrote, “Another local story has it that Montgomery took its name from William Montgomery, a surveyor and widower, who came to Texas in 1822 with his sons…. In 1830, he settled some seven miles southwest of the town of Montgomery in what is present day Grimes County…. It is claimed by the descendants of these two brothers [John and Andrew] that the county was named for the surveyor William Montgomery.” 

In 1975, after 152 years of silence, from the alleged date it was founded, the Andrew Montgomery Trading post sprang forth in Robin Montgomery’s book, The History of Montgomery County (Austin: Jenkins Publishing Co., 1975) complete in every detail for the very first time anywhere.

On page 285 of The History of Montgomery County, Robin Montgomery wrote, “This book has shown that the reason the town and county came to be named for Andrew Montgomery lies in the events surrounding his trading post.”  Robin goes on to write, “Andrew immediately set about encouraging settlers to venture down these roads to become his neighbors and clientele. In this manner Andrew’s Trading Post became the major pivot point around which the settlement of the later Montgomery County region revolved. Andrew’s last name became a unifying element among the gradually expanding circle of settlement.”

         In my article, I had asked why J. L. Montgomery, nor any other member of the William Montgomery family, had ever made any mention of this Andrew Montgomery Trading Post before 1975. If the trading post was established in 1823, how is it that no one ever mentioned it for 152 years until 1975?

          In his May 20, 2009 letter to the editor, Robin attempts to address this question and provides a most extraordinary answer with ramifications that would seem to completely undo Robin’s history of the Andrew Montgomery Trading Post. I do not believe I could have written a more critical or damaging statement regarding this portion of Robin’s history than he himself has written. 

My contention is that a couple of Robin's comments in his letter to the editor completely undo his history of the Andrew Montgomery Trading Post and reveal it for what it is: family fiction rather than family tradition.  Robin's grandfather, J. L. Montgomery, clearly knew nothing about an Andrew Montgomery Trading Post when Gandy interviewed him in 1952.  It is Robin's response to this point in his letter to the editor that wreck's his history. 

Please read this very carefully. In his May 20, 2009 letter to the editor, Robin wrote:

“…the William-Andrew Montgomery descendants did not know of the Shannon tradition until the Historicade in Conroe in 1949. When actors in that ceremony stated that the town was begun by a Montgomery Trading Post operated by the Shannon’s, as a child I heard the elder members of my family exclaim, “They have forgotten William and Andrew!””

“Hence the family pieced together the logical sequence that, if Shannon tradition ran true, the Shannon’s assumed a facsimile of the business which Andrew, by then into surveying, had pioneered years earlier, and given that Owen Shannon’s wife’s maiden name was Montgomery, continued the name.” 

“Also during the early fifties, from an elderly relative the family received a book of notes since referred to as the Crittendon papers.  It included an excerpt from the family Bible reinforcing oral tradition: “Andrew rode with Dr. Long [Long Expedition 1819-1820] Started Montgomery Settlement.” Accordingly, during this period of reassessment the Montgomery family began to consider Andrew rather than the patriarch, William as the probable basis for the naming of the town.”

Fascinating! J. L. Montgomery had the opportunity to set the record straight in his interview with William Harley Gandy in 1952.  But, as upset as the Montgomery Family allegedly was following the 1949 Historicade, J. L. Montgomery made no mention to Gandy of any trading post operated by the Montgomery family in the 1820’s.

            Robin then admits that the Montgomery “family pieced together the logical sequence that if Shannon tradition was true, the Shannon’s assumed a facsimile of the business which Andrew…had pioneered years earlier…”  Robin amazingly admits the Montgomery family incorporated the Shannon family tradition of a Montgomery Trading Post directly into the Montgomery family tradition.

            No fact checking was done. It just says, “that, if Shannon tradition ran true.” Whether it was true or not, Robin informs us that the Montgomery family incorporated the Shannon tradition into their own family tradition.  Though unchecked, the Shannon's Montgomery Trading Post story was obviously a very popular idea, so the Montgomerys just included it into their story. 

Robin then mentions an excerpt from “the family Bible.” He wrote that the Crittendon papers “included an excerpt from the family Bible reinforcing oral tradition: “Andrew rode with Dr. Long [Long Expedition 1819-1820] Started Montgomery Settlement.””

We are left with a great many questions about this “excerpt from the family Bible” and the Crittendon papers. Why is this excerpt not mentioned in Robin’s 1975 book or any book or article written by Robin since 1975.  Why is this excerpt coming to light for the first time in May of 2009.  Whose family bible was this? Who wrote the note? Whose handwriting is the note in?  What is the provenance of this family Bible?  Why has no one been allowed to see this excerpt or the Crittendon papers since 1975? Is there anything about the excerpt that tells us where the “Montgomery Settlement” was supposed to have been? Will Robin Montgomery allow us to see the Crittendon papers or this excerpt in order to judge their historical value?

Then Robin writes the most extraordinary statement of all:

“Accordingly, during this period of reassessment the Montgomery family began to consider Andrew rather than the patriarch, William as the probable basis for the naming of the town.”

            The Montgomery family changed their story altogether “during this period of reassessment” in the 1950’s!  “During this period of reassessment,” they reject J. L. Montgomery’s family history that says the surveyor William Montgomery is the source of the name of the county and they “began to consider Andrew…as the probable basis for the naming of the town.”  Not only did the Montgomery family change the story, but they also guessed! 

            After about 125 years, the Montgomery family threw out the family tradition of William Montgomery as the source of the county's name after watching a play in 1949 and receiving the mysterious and unproven "Crittendon papers."  The Montgomery family arbitrarily changed, in the 1950's, what had allegedly been handed down in the Montgomery family from one generation to the next for 125 years. 

            Up until 1952, the Montgomery family tradition, of which we have a snap shot from Gandy’s thesis, was that the source of the name of the county was the surveyor William Montgomery, not a trading post. After 1952, the Montgomery family rejects their family tradition received from Robin’s grandfather, J. L. Montgomery.  They incorporate much of the Shannon family tradition regarding a so-called Montgomery Trading Post that was not present in the 1952 interview, and then they guess that Andrew must have been the probable basis of the naming of the town. 

            Wow!  Knowing now what Robin has told us, is anybody still on board with the Andrew Montgomery Trading Post at this point?

It is not what someone else or I have written or speculated. This is clearly what Robin Montgomery has written himself.  Robin’s quote is out there for all to consider and critique forever. As I stated earlier, I believe Robin has completely undone the main historical premise of his entire book.  The Montgomery family can't just decide to completely rework their family tradition into something brand new during the 1950's and then insist that it is a valid historical source or oral family tradition dating from the 1820's.

It has been difficult for historians to respond to Robin’s history of an Andrew Montgomery Trading Post as he makes so many dogmatic assertions rather than reasonable and defensible arguments. 

Famed historian, David Hackett Fischer, made it very clear in his classic book Historians' Fallacies that "the burden of proof, for any historical assertion, always rests upon its author."  See Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: HarperCollins, 1970), pp. 62 and 63. Robin cites no primary sources of evidence in his 1975 book for his history of an Andrew Montgomery Trading Post.  Only now does he tell us fragments of alleged evidence which he has not previously cited or shown to anyone before. 

Robin violates two more of David Hackett Fischer's rules of thumb for writing history.   Fischer wrote, "An historian must not merely provide good relevant evidence but the best relevant evidence.  And the best relevant evidence, all things being equal, is evidence which is most immediate to the event itself."  Rather than primary historical sources dating from the time of the event itself, Robin's evidence is a reworked family history or tradition that actually only dates in its current form from the 1950's.

            Fischer also wrote, "An empirical statement must not be more precise than its evidence warrants."  Look at Robin's 1975 book.  See what he wrote about the trading post.  It was extremely precise.  In 1975, his dogmatic assertions regarding an Andrew Montgomery Trading Post were presented as absolute facts.  Robin is now trying to convert his dogmatic assertions from his 1975 book into defensible arguments.  With no real primary historical evidence of any kind to back him up, he has an impossible task ahead of him.

Kameron Searle, J.D.

This article originally appeared in the June 3, 2009 edition of the Montgomery County News.

"A history, whose author draws conclusions from other than primary sources or secondary sources actually based on primary sources, is by definition fiction and not history at all."

Kameron K. Searle

   Andrew Montgomery - TSHA Handbook of Texas

   Lake Creek Settlement- TSHA Handbook of Texas

Kameron Searle

9111 Katy Fwy., Suite 202

Houston, Texas 77024

Telephone: 713-880-4529

ksearle1@pdq.net