This essay should be approximately 1 – 2 double-spaced page long. Correct spelling and grammar are important.
Despite the well-known history of racism and bigotry in early Texas, ethnic relationships were more complex than this single dimension. List and discuss three examples that demonstrate the racial harmony and cooperation that existed in Texas from the 1500’s to the end of the 1800’s. Be sure to include evidence and examples of this harmony and cooperation from each of the following time periods:
Spanish-owned Texas (through 1821 “Section 1”),
Mexican-owned Texas (1821 – 1836 “Section 2”), and
Texas from the founding of the Republic of Texas (1836) through the Civil War (1865)–“Section 3.”
In other words, include one example of racial cooperation or harmony from each of the periods listed above. No points will be awarded for examples of hatred, violence, or discord.
Use only the resources provided by this course (textbooks, monograph, Virtual Reader).
This essay should be approximately 1 – 2 double-spaced page long. Correct spelling and grammar are important. Despite the well-known history of racism and bigotry in early Texas, ethnic relationships
1 Chapter Two CHAPTER 2: SPANISH TEXAS THROUGH MEXICAN INDEPENDENCE The first Spaniard of consequence to explore Texas was Cabeza de Vaca (translation “head of a cow ”), whose crew was shipwrecked off the coast of Galveston in 1525. Of the 90 survivors, only 4 would ever live to see their countrymen again. The rest were killed by Karankawa or died from disease or exposure. De Vaca was held prisoner for 5 years as a slav e of the Karankawa. Once, he helped cure a n ailing Native and received more respect from the tribe, even gaining the title — shaman. He eventually escaped the Karankawa with his companion, Esteban (Estevanico), and WALKED to El Paso, thinking he was on his way to Mexico City. De Vaca covered approximately 2000 miles in two years. Along the way he observed and notated the peoples, wildlife, and vegetation that he came across, while claim ing all the land he traversed for Spain. He heard stories about “Seven Citi es of Gold,” said to have been established long ago by 7 Portuguese Bishops who had fled Islam in the 8th century, came west, and founded 7 empires of great wealth. Spanish officials ordered a follow -up expedition led by Fray Marcos di Niza, who claimed to have seen from a distance, one of the magnificent cities. However, historians believe this was probably just quartz reflecting in the sun. Figure 1:D e Vaca’s route 2 CORONADO With imaginations ablaze, authorities sought a bold adventurer not afraid to place his own fortune on the line in order to find Cibola (7 Cities). Francisco Vasquez de Coronado was such a man. Beginning in 1540, he searched for the Seven Cities of Gold for two years in the present -day Panhandle, New Mexico, and Kansas areas. His entourage included 300 hor semen, 70 footmen, and over 1000 conquered Native s. After investigating many rumors, all that was ever found were the Grand Canyon and poverty -stricken Native villages. Most likely, the Natives made up these stories about golden empires to keep the Spanish moving away from THEM. The Crown’s interest in Texas declined after reading Coronado’s report, which said Texas was suitable for agriculture, but nothing else. According to Coronado, Texas was “a gigantic expanse populated by generally inhospitable savage s who had no gold or silver.” However, because of the many abuses of Coronado and earlier Conquistadors, within the year the Spanish Crown passed new laws prohibiting personal adventures that led to the killing of Natives , and the Pope issued a decree re -affirming the humanness of the Natives and their right to religious instruction. The day of the Conquistado r was over. 3 MISSION/PRESIDIO SYSTEM From this point on, Spain showed marginal missionary interest in Texas that was usually piqued only when control of the region was challenged by others. Texas was thought of mostly as a buffer zone to insulate the mo re valuable Spanish holdings to the south. The Spanish attempt to consolidate their hold on Texas was based upon the Mission/Presidio system that had worked very well against the Moors back in Europe. Missions were manned by Franciscan Monks attempting to Christianize the Native s, indoctrinate them into the Spanish ways, (making them loyal to the King of Spain), and to help hold the territory against intruders. The mission grounds usually included a chapel and living quarters for the holy men and whatever f riendly local s wanted to live there. Sometimes a protective wall, workrooms, and storerooms completed the facility. Fields and pastures were maintained beyond the walls. Towns were rigidly laid out with the streets perpendicular according to the 4 cardina l directions. The east side was reserved for the church; the west side they designated for the government. The Friars instructed the Natives in Christianity, employing a rigid religious routine, enforced by corporal punishment. Exploitation for labor was r ampant. Few Natives thought such tactics tolerable, although some members o f the local tribes sought new allies or at least safe refuge in the missions from the fiercer tribes. Unfortunately, the afore -mentioned disease took a terrible toll on th ose who regularly intera cted with the missionaries. Some Natives believed that it was the baptism of Holy Water that was generating the deaths. In many cases, the various tribes were such sworn enemies that separate missions had to be established in order to avoid bloodshed. If a mission was particularly successful, sometimes settlers from Mexico would come and join, creating ranchos stocked with cattle and even villas , with shops and artisans. At such a point the mission would convert into a local parish, and the missionaries would move on. The Spanish crown was usually generous in granting land to those who would brave this frontier. Unfortunately, success usually attracted the attention of the more aggressive Native tribes who would be drawn to the mis sion for the opportunity to plunder. The Spanish also built presidios (small forts) manned by a handful of soldiers to protect the mission. These forts were typically under -manned and under -equipped for seriously defend ing a territory from the warrior tribes. One presidio was found to have only 2 guns and 2 shields for its 60 -man contingent and suffered further from an inadequate number of horses. The chain of command was tightly maintained, and few officials were inclined 4 to do anything without approval from above. The decision -making process stretched across the Atlantic to Spain. The communication and supply process often took years. The idea of the “sword and cross” working together was a good example of the unity of Church and state in Spain. The Crown would oversee and promote the spread of Catholicism and maintain the Church. In return, the Church would endorse the aims of the State and tolerate political intervention in ecclesiastical affairs. Remember, such roots were well -established since the Crusades . The prevailing theory of mercantilism maintained that trade should be kept as much as possible within the empire. No thing was supposed to flow to neighboring jurisdictions, such as New France or later, the United States. Therefore, trade with the neighboring French colony was prohibited –despite the shortage of supplies and desperate need for commercial markets. Even du ring the rare times when France and Spain enjoyed good relations, the Spanish were reluctant to exchange goods. Problems escalated when a decree in 1776 stated that all unbranded livestock were the property of the Crown, and no “poaching” would be permitte d. Morale was often low. Frenchman Luis Juchereau de St. Denis and Spaniard Father Hidalgo (1713) attempted to combine trade and missionary activity in East Texas, for example, but the Spanish Crown all but vetoed the idea. Missions and Presidios in East Texas seemed to fare the worst under the system. As the most remote outpost on the Spanish frontier, they were the last to receive supplies. At each settlement along the way, extra charges were added before the supplies moved on, making costs prohibitive when finally reaching East Texas. Sometimes, the closer missions took more than allocated, leaving a shortage for the East Texas outposts. This could explain why East Texas missions came to be more independent of authority. Figure 2: Rose Window in Mission San Jose y San Miguel de Aguayo, Founded in 1720 in San Antonio . 5 THE SPANISH CAS TE SYSTEM PENINSULARES (European -born Spaniards) enjoyed the greatest prestige and advantage among the Spanish living in America . CRIOLLOS (pure -blooded Spaniards born in America) also held a favored status. MESTIZOS — a Spanish/Native ethnic mix generally received few considerations, while Indians and Africans filled in the lower end of the social order. Generally, females were subordinate to males . It is notable that the hazards of frontier life served as somewhat of an equalizer for sex as well as race. MINIMAL POPULATION Many factors combined to keep population increase low. Lack of proper sewage facilities and the presence of dead animals (often left to lay in water supplies) contributed to frequent smallpox and cholera epidemics . Doctors and medicines rarely made their way this far north. The link between sanitation and disease was not well known. Most settlements survived –but wit h dreadful losses. Infant mortality was especially high, and warfare with Indians was a constant. The sexual ratio was grossly out of balance, with males predominating. Unlike France and England, which had surplus population to export to America, Spain was a relatively sparsely populated country, with a labor shortage problem at home. Those few who did come to the New World naturally preferred the more settled regions of Mexico to the rawness of Texas . Mexico itself was underpopulated and thus discouraged i mmigration of its residents to Texas. In contrast, the livestock population thrived. It was enhanced by Alonso de Leon (1689), who brought cattle, horses, and mules to Texas for the purpose of propagation. He traveled through the territory, depositing a m ale and female for each species on the bank of every water source he crossed from the Neches River to the Rio Grande. It was not long before nature brought its own steady increase. COMPETITION FOR TEXAS 1. NATIVE TRIBES –Little noticed at the time were the few horses that were lost or stolen from Coronado. These horses would multiply and become cultivated by the tribesmen along the Great Plains. By 1659, Apaches on horseback were raiding Spanish and Native settlements. For the first time in history, American Natives were equipped to meet European invaders on equal or even superior military terms on their own land. Although the Spanish maintained a strict policy of not selling guns to the Natives , the French had no such proh ibition. 6 Eventually, all Texas tribes learned about the horse, as had indigenous tribes as far away as Canada. The Texas area attracted these other tribes like a magnet. One group came from the Rocky Mountains of Colorado, and after stealing a herd from a competing tribe, went on to earn the reputation as the greatest horse men of them all. This tribe, named from a Native word for “snake people” became known as the Comanches . The horse gave the Comanches the freedom to become completely nomadic and follow the buffalo. The buffalo provided their food , clothing, meat and drink. The horse became the primary medium of value or exchange, which led the Comanche to bec ome so skillful at horse thievery. They never planted a seed, and while other tribes such as the Apache learned to ride; the Comanche pra ctically lived on his horse. The Comanche hordes seized a vast new kingdom: all the high plains and central plateaus of Texas. They were armed with the long bow, and they could fire a shower of arrows with deadly acc uracy from the gallop. Comanches rode to war by the light of the moon . T heir favorite tactic was to strike deep into enemy territory and make their get -away before resistance could be organized. Eventually, all Apaches were driven from the plains and enti re tribes known to the Spanish in New Mexico disappeared from history (NOT from disease or Europeans, but from the Comanche). The Caddo stayed in the forests of East Texas and rarely ventured out; the Karankawa were confined to the marshy, fever -ridden coa st; and the Coahuiltecans to the south barely survived their encounters with the Comanche. Thus, although the Spanish soon came into painful contact with the Comanche, they did not understand the full extent of the power shift that had occurred. It would s oon be a Comanche boast that the warrior tribes PERMITTED Spanish settlements to exist on the fringes of Comanche territory only to raise horses for the Comanche to later steal. The worst defeat for the Spanish military in Texas came at the hands of the Co manche on the very first encounter. In 1758, following the Comanche destruction of a mission in San Saba, the Spanish ordered a punitive expedition. This 600 -man excursion was nearly annihilated by the 2000 Comanche they pursued (the battle of Spanish Fort ). One -sided victories over sedentary Indians on the magnitude of Coronado or Cortez were no longer possible now that the Plains Indians had mastered horse -oriented warfare. The Spanish eventually concentrated defenses south of the Rio Grande to defend the established ranchos and silver mines. Most of Texas, therefore, could be considered “behind enemy lines.” In a gross miscalculation, the Spaniards never gave the Comanche sufficient respect, considering their most serious adversary to be the French. Fro m time to time, temporary truces were arranged, usually on the basis of the Spanish making annual “gifts” to the Indians. However, making peace with one group of Comanche, for example, carried no weight whatsoever with any other Comanche group , due to thei r fragmented organization . 7 2. THE FRENCH –The FRENCH became covetous of the Spanish riches and sought to become a presence in America, themselves. After having a colony in Florida wiped out by the protective Spanish, the French concentrated in midwestern N orth America, where the Spanish had little interest. They established mostly fur -trading outposts. Requiring little land, cooperating with the Indians, and promoting inter -marriage between French and Indians made for excellent French -Indian relations. This can be contrasted with the brutal Spanish conquistadors who preceded them or the land – hungry English who came later. Unfortunately, most French Catholics did not want to leave France, and none of the persecuted French Protestants were allowed to come. Thus, the French settlements remained very sparsely populated. Spain paid little attention to the French until Frenchman Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle , looking for the mouth of the Mississippi, instead found Matagorda Bay off the coast of Texas (1685). He constructed Ft. St. Louis and claimed all of Texas for Fra nce (one of the 6 Flags over Texas). This was galling to the Spaniards who were currently enemies with France. The French settlement was a disaster, however. Disease, internal squabbles — including La Salle’s assassination , and trouble with the Natives eventually demo lished the French. Few of the original 300 settlers survived. Periodically, France would return with new claims upon the area. However, b eginning with La Salle’s excursion, jealous Spaniards were ever on guard to protect their “precious” Texas whenever th e French showed any interest in the region. Finally, in 1763, France gave the Louisiana Territory to Spain as compensation for Spain’s help in the French and Indian (7 Years) War. Once the French were no longer a threat, New Spain authorities ordered the settlers in East Texas to pull back in support of the San Antonio area, which was much troubled by hostile Natives . Years later, w hen the Spanish Crown felt a need to reestablish holdings back in the East Texas region, the original settlers were allowed move back but at tremendous loss of time, life, and property. 3. THE UNITED STATES –By the end of the 1700’s, the French lost interest in Texas and all of North America. Napoleon needed money to fight his democratic liberation wars in Europe and sold Louisiana to t he United States for $15 million (1803). The border between this Louisiana Purchase and Texas was unclear. President Thomas Jefferson claimed territory all the way to the Rio Grande. To keep the U.S. and Spanish soldiers from unnecessary fighting, military leaders on both sides created a “no man’s land” between the Sabine River and the Arroyo Hondo, where neither side was permitted. Unfortunately, this strip became a haven for outlaws from both countries. Meanwhile, land -hungry, undocumented Americans began to filter into East Texas, and La Salle, courtesy the Lone Star Junction . 8 militant Americans marched t hrough the region in expeditions called “filibusters” (such as the one led by Philip Nolan) , attempting to create new republic s for themselves or to claim the land for the U nited States . Spanish soldiers defeated all American attempts to wrest land from Texas, and these unauthorized attacks from the U .S. eventually ceased. In 1819, the Adams -Onis Treaty gave Florida to the U.S., and the United States relinquished all claims to Texas . However, the threat of North American incursion into Texa s was always a possibility. MEXICAN INDEPENDENCE Mexico found much to complain about Spain’s colonial policies –not the least of which was the Peninsulares’ disdain for the local Mestizos . Heavy taxes and involvement in the mother country’s wars also became cause for lament. Spain finally lost its grip on New Spain altogether during the Napoleonic Wars in Europe. The Spanish King was deposed by Napoleon Bonaparte and for a time was replace d by a “democracy” headed by Napoleon’s brother. The forthcoming liberal constitution in Spain did not sit well with Mexican conservatives, and the anti -clerical tendencies of the new government in Spain did not suit Catholic officials in Mexico. Old Spain had become too liberal for New Spain, and for once, the upper classes in Mexico were favorably disposed for independence. Mexican liberals had long sought independence, and so formed a coalition with Mexican conservatives. Father Miguel Hidalgo ignited t he Mexican War for Independence in 1810, and a decade of bloody fighting (ten percent of the Mexican population –600,000 – -was killed) ensued. He called his revolt a “reconquista,” a reversal of Cortez’ conquest of Mexico. Revolutionaries eventually wreste d control of the country from the Spanish viceroy in 1821, with the Plan of Iguala , a constitutional monarchy . Not e ven the restoration of the Spanish King after Napoleon’s defeat could generate sufficient interest to bring Mexico back under Spanish contr ol. In addition, the United States issued the Monroe Doctrine , which guaranteed the political integrity of ALL Latin American nations who had declared independence during the Napoleonic era . Great Britain, quickly able to establish trade with these fledgli ng nations, supported the U.S. in the policy. Under the new Mexican Constitution, the provinces of Texas and Coahuila (today’s northern Mexico) lacked sufficient population for individual statehood, so the two were combined into a single state, with the e mphasis on Coahuila. The two merged territories rarely shared the same agenda . 9 REASONS FOR SPAIN’S FAILURE TO MAINTAIN AND PROSPER IN TEXAS AND MEXICO 1. The Spanish government’s s trict commercial policy prohibited trade with France and even between different Spanish territories . This unrealistic policy result ed in law – breaking and needless poverty and deprivation. Very strict rules made it almost impossible for “legitimate” enterprises to survive. 2. A strict and tyrannical government was r iddled by graft from within. Spain was under the misguided illusion that poorly paid, isolated officials would remain vigorous and honest as they carried out their duties . 3. Hostility of the nomadic Indian tribes –especially after the assimilation of the horse — hastened the demise of Spanish control. An ill -conceived Native policy –refusing to sell firearms to friendly tribes –left such tribes at the mercy of their enemies or drove them into the arms of the French who would sell the weapons. Thus, the Natives were never significantly incorporated into the Spanish system and often preferred to ally with the French. 4. There was a failure to sufficiently populate Texas. Only three towns emerged from the Spanish colonial era. 5. There was an overall lack of realistic polic ies. Spain held to the presidio/mission system long after it was proved unworkable. “Peso -pinching” government expenditures , especially where Texas was concerned , fostered resentment. SPANISH LEGACY IN TEXAS The Spanish legacy in Texas endures to this day. It include s: Spanish language, names of geographic locations (every major river in Texas bears a Spanish name), architecture, lifestyle, religion, established cities, modern highways that follow old Spanish trails, imported and distributed livestock, and techniques for livestock management, such as chaps, lasso, etc. Certain aspects of Spanish law, such as the idea of community property and the homestead have found their way into Texas tradition. Spanish fo ods complete the list. It is important to r emember that Spain ruled Texas for well over 300 years –about twice as long as Texas has belonged to the current owners . Virtual Reader : “Spain Reacts to the French Presence in Texas, 1689” Letter of Father Massanet to Don Carlos de Siguenza, 1690 We started the next morning, and three leagues off we found the village of the Frenchmen on the bank of the stream, 3 as I had been told by the two Indians, the 10 Querns and Juanillo the Papul. We arrived at about el even in the forenoon, and found six houses, not very large, built with poles plastered with mud, and roofed over with buffalo hides, another larger house where pigs were fattened, and a wooden fort made from the hulk of a wrecked vessel. The fort had one l ower room which was used as a chapel for saying mass, and three other rooms below ; above the three rooms was an upper story serving for a store -house, wherein we found some six loads of iron, not counting scattered pieces, and some steel, also eight small guns and three swivels made of iron, the largest pieces being for a charge of about six pounds of shot. The pieces and one swivel were buried, and Captain Alonso de Leon carried off two of the swivels. There was a great lot of shattered weapons, broken by the Indians — firelocks, carbines, cutlasses — but they had not left the cannon, only one being found. We found two unburied bodies, which I interred, setting up a cross over the grave. There were many torn -up books, and many dead pigs. These Frenchmen had a piece of land fenced in with stakes, where they sowed just a little corn, and had an asparagus bed; we found also very good endive. This place affords no advantages as to situation, for good drinking -water is very far off, and timber still further. T he water of the stream is very brackish, so much so that in five days during which the camp was pitched there all the horses sickened from the brackish water. The next day, we went down to explore the bay of Espiritu Santo, and coasted it until we succee ded in finding the mouth ; in the middle of this there is a flat rock, and all along the shore of the bay there are many lagoons which it is very difficult to cross. Blackberries are abundant, large and fine, and there are a number of stocks which seem to be those of grape vines, but no trees, and no fresh water. The Indians dig wells for drinking water. After exploring the bay we returned to the main body of our party, whom we had left in the village ; we arrived there at noon, and remained there that af ternoon, and the next day they bent the large iron bars, making them up into bundles, in order to carry them with ease. We found the Indian with the reply to the letter which we had written to the Frenchmen; they said that we should wait for them, that the y would soon come, that another Frenchman was further on, and that they were waiting for him in order that they might come all together. The Indian received the horse, as we had ordered. As to the fort, Captain Alonso de Leon would not have it burnt down, and it remained as it was. The next day we set out on our return trip to the Guadalupe River, and when we got halfway, since we saw that the Frenchmen did not come, Captain Alonso de Leon, with twenty – five men, 3 went to the rancheria where they were, a nd the main party went on as far as the Guadalupe River, where it remained waiting three days. The Frenchmen were in the rancheria of the Toaa Indians, with the Tejas; they came to the Guadalupe with Captain Alonso de Leon and arrived there on the 2d 4 of May, ’89. Two Frenchmen came, naked except for an antelope’s skin, and with their faces, breasts, and arms painted like the Indians, and with them came the governor of the Tejas and eight of his Indians. Through that day and night I tried my utmost to show all possible consideration to the said governor, giving him two horses, and the blanket in which I slept, for I had 11 nothing else which I could give him. Speaking Spanish, and using as an interpreter one of the Frenchmen whom we had with us, I said to the governor that his people should become Christians, and bring into their lands priests who should baptize them, since otherwise they could not save their souls, adding that if he wished, I would go to his lands. Soon the aforementioned governor said he woul d very willingly take me there, and I promised him to go, and to take with me other priests like myself, repeating to him that I would be there in the following year, at the time of sowing corn. The governor seemed well pleased, and I was still more so, se eing the harvest to be reaped among the many souls in those lands who know not God. The next day was the day of the Holy Cross 1 — the 3d of May ; after mass the governor of the Tejas left for his home and we for this place. We arrived at Coahuila, and C aptain Alonso de Leon sent two Frenchmen — the one named Juan Archebepe, of Bayonne, the other Santiago Grollette — from Coahuila to Mexico, with Captain Francisco Martinez, and His Excellency the Conde de Galbe had the Frenchmen provided with suitable clo thes and dispatched to Spain on ship – board in the same year, ’89. All this news did not fail to create excitement and to give satisfaction not only to His Excellency but also to other men of note in Mexico, and there were several meetings held in order to consider measures not only for keeping the French from gaining control of those regions and settling in them, but also for the introduction of religious ministers. Haynes, Sam and Wintz, Cary, Major Problems in Texas History , Cengage Learning, 2017, pages 34 and following. Practice Questions: 1. The most tangible value to Spain of Cabeza de Vaca’s march across Texas was: a) discovery of the 7 Cities of Gold. b) strengthening Spanish claims to the territory. c) the conquest of the territory from t he Indians. d) the detailed map -making of the area. e) making peace with the Karankawa 2. Name the single event that made Spain the most jealous over its province of Texas? a) Mexico’s invasion of the Alamo at San Antonio b) the discovery of large amounts of gold and silver in Texas c) the increasing territory utilized by Comanche far ms d) discovery of rich oil deposits in East Texas e) La Salle’s construction of Fort Saint Louis 3. Missions are to friars as presidios are to ________________. a) horses b) soldiers c) priests d) food storage e) presidents 12 4. Which group does not belong on this list? (Figure out what kind of list it is). a) Portugal b) France c) the United States d) the Comanche 5. The Monroe Doctrine was well received by most of the Mexican population. a) True b) False 6. Which term does not belong on this list? (Figure out what kind of list it is). a) language b) geographic names c) church -state affiliation d) religion e) architecture Please match the descriptors with the appropriate answers: 7. Spanish father; Indian mother 8. Companion to Cabeza de Vaca 9. full blooded Spaniards, born in Mexico 10. pure Spaniard, born in Spain 11. “seeded” livestock i n Texas a) Alonso de Leon b) Criollos c) Mestizos d) Peninsulares e) Esteban 13. Spanish interest in Texas not only included keeping the French from gaining control of the region, but also a) to convert natives to Christianity. b) to exploit the furs and precious metals in the region. c) to gain an area for staging expeditions into U. S. territory. d) to establish important port cities along the Texas Gulf Coast. For Discussion: Why did Spain cling to her traditional policies for maintaining control of Texas long after these policies proved to be ineffective?
This essay should be approximately 1 – 2 double-spaced page long. Correct spelling and grammar are important. Despite the well-known history of racism and bigotry in early Texas, ethnic relationships
1 Chapter Four Chapter 4: TEXAS AS A REPUBLIC –THE LONE STAR STATE Once independence was won, many of Texas’s problems remain ed. The temporary government was anxious to divest itself of its responsibility, so it called for national elections earlier than originally planned. The voters ratified the newly written constitution (including “No free Negro shall reside in Texas without the consent of Congress”), gave approval for Texas to seek annexation to the United States , and elected Sam Houston , president and Mirabeau B. Lamar , vice – president. To cover all political bases, Houston appointed Stephen F. Austin as Secretary of Stat e and Henry Smith (the former provisional governor) Secretary of Treasury. Unfortunately, Austin died from pneumonia after serving only two months. The first capital of Texas was Columbia, but Houston relocated the seat of government to his namesake city in 1837. The Allen brothers had given Sam Houston some plots of choice land in return for the use of his name and his influence for making Houston the 2 capital. In a special election, Texans voted overwhelmingly to seek immediate annexation into the United States. KEY ISSUES OF THE REPUBLIC: POLITICS Since the Texas constitution stated that the 1st president of Texas could serve only two years and could not succeed himself, Houston was prohibited from seeking reelection in 1838. His vice -president, but political opponen t, Mirabeau B. Lamar, ran virtually unopposed and served from 1838 -1841, despite Houston’s efforts to find a suitable “stand -in” candidate . (His first two choices committed suicide. ) Therefore, for three years Texas came under the leadership of men who detested Sam Housto n and whose main objective was to reverse everything that had been done in the first two years of its existence . To further his own popularity in the West and to reduce the influence of Houston territory along the Gulf Coast, President Lamar quickly relo cated the nation’s capital to the newly created city of Austin. This move was somewhat popular among the legislature, as several representatives had noted the “city” of Houston had to be “the most miserable place in the world,” due to the heat, humidity, a nd mosquitos. Later attempts by Houston to return the capital to the Gulf Coast were thwarted by armed hostility from the people of Austin and the surrounding settlements. Most of the Republic’s politics revolved around these two leaders. Campaigns were typically viciously negative, centering on the perceived character faults of the opponents , rather than on the issues. The following (third) election found Sam Houston winning again and serving between 1841 and 1844. Anson Jones (a Houston follower) served as the final Texas president from 1844 -1846. FINANCES Under all the presidents, the government was embarrassingly poor, and when the ir primary trading partner, the United States , experienced the Depression of 1837, things got worse. Taxes and tariff s generated scant revenue for the government of Texas . Sam Houston was reliably frug al, reducing spending at every opportunity . On occasion, he pledg ed his own personal credit to make purchases for the government. Unfortunately, he stayed drunk through much of first term in office , putt ing himself in situations that made him a laughingstock among his enemies . Lamar was a much more ambitious spender. Ultimately the government turned to paper money to finance his projects, but the resulting inflation caused Texas currency to bottom out at 12 cents on the dollar. It had been w orth 100 cents at issue when spent by the government, but subsequent holders of the currency took the brunt of the 3 devaluation later. Lamar was able to borrow some money from the U nited States but could never get close to the $5 million he sought. The improved transportation facilities that could have generated more income were never realized under the Republic of Texas because of the dearth of funds. By the time of the annexation to the United States , the debt of the Texas Republic had topped $10 million. Abundant land was about the only financial asset enjoyed by the new nation. Unfortunately, conflicting land policies minimized this advantage. On one hand, land was to be used to back notes issued by the government. On the other hand, generous land grants were used to attract immigrants. But when vast amounts of land were given away, the resource was of little use as collateral because it could not hold its value. Adding to the problem, there was wid espread fraud that developed in Texas and in the United States in connection with the practice of issuing land scrip t that had no legal basis. One bad incident relating to land fraud occurred in East Texas where the so -called Regulators and Moderators foug ht for two years, with the loss of 50 lives and the breakdown of law and order. Taxes were evaded expertly and were difficult to collect because there was so little hard currency in Texas. The only re liable source of revenue became customs collections. Addition ally, throughout the history of the Republic, almost all manufactured goods had to be imported. This destroyed the balance of trade and aggravated the shortage of currency. During his second administration, Houston drastically reduced the budget . Where Lama r had spent $5 million, Houston’s second administration spent only $500,000. However, he was unable to retire any of the national debt. Interest caused the debt to swell to $12 million by 1846. Figure 1: Mirabeau B. Lamar (1798 -1859). Fought at the Battle of San Jacinto, Sam Houston’s Vice President and successor as the second President of the Republic of Texas. Credit: Texas State Library and Archives Commission, Aust in, TX. 4 POPULATION GROWTH The Texas population in 1836 was about 50,000. By the time of annexation in 1845, it had tripled to approximately 150,000. Emulating the Spanish and Mexican precedent, the Nation of Texas contracted with colonizers (empresarios ) to recruit more settlers. Immigration fr om the U nited States accounted for most of the increase, thanks to the Headright System which offered very cheap land and an escape from a depression that gripped the United States for several years. Settlers also came from Europe — especially Germans –who bec ame the most numerous of the non -U.S. settler s. Many sought to escape harsh economic conditions and threats of European war. A primary goal of both key Texas presidents was to gain formal political recognition for the Republic. Without it, Texas was little more than a misbehaving Mexican province, with limited opportunities to establish credit, sell land, or negotiate commercial treaties. The United States gave recognition as early as 1837, but it was 1839 before the first European nations extended s uch. England even offered to mediate a peace agreement between Texas and Mexico, but Mexico refused until very late. In 1842, the Catholic Pope granted de facto recognition by assigning a bishop to Texas. MILITARY 5 Immediately following the Texas War for Independence , the regular Texas army became a serious threat to the nation . The soldiers considered attempting a military dictatorship to show their displeasure over Santa Anna ’s release to the United States , instead of his execution . The soldiers , under the leadership of Felix Huston also wanted to attack and plunder Mexico. When Felix Huston traveled to the capital city to ask for permission for the Mexican campaign, Sam Houston dissolved nearly the entire army , even provid ing free passage to New Orleans for any soldier who wanted to return to the United States . Alternatively, he issued 1280 acres of land for each of those who stayed in Texas as civilians . Only 600 remained in the Texas Army, and th is danger from within passed. To offset the reduction of the army, Congress created the Texas Rangers , presumably loyal to Houston and the constitution. Houston typicall y pushed for reductions in the military while Lamar favored expansion of the army. This was typical of their general spending patterns. Each had his way while in office. RELATIONS WITH NATIVE AMERI CANS While many Texans focused on Mexico as the most pressing enemy, Comanches and their Kiowa allies were an equal threat. The warrior tribes had total control of West Texas and frequently raided the frontier , killing the male settlers while often taking women and children as hostages. Houston’s policy was very sympathetic toward the Indians, granting them title to the lands upon which they lived. Houston had lived among the Indians for several years, himself, and felt a sincere kinship with them. Consequently –other than the Comanches – -there was little trouble with the tribe s while Houston presided. This policy was consistent with his ambition to cut down public spending. Lamar’s aggressive frontier policy was the opposite of Houston’s. According to Lama r and his followers, Indians had no rights to the land on which they lived. Whites could take it whenever they desired. Native Americans must allow the takeover, leave Texas, or be exterminated. This led to the bloodiest Indian warfare Texas had ever known. Cheroke es attempted an anti -Texas alliance with Mexico but were vanquished and the survivors were driven into Oklahoma. Comanches attempted to slow the westward progression of the whites. As we have seen, the Comanches were prolific warriors who used extremely b rutal tactics, but they eventually were pushed into extreme West Texas. Lamar’s Indian policy cost $2.5 million and many lives. Some called it unjust, but it was certainly very thorough . East Texas was made secure and the frontier was greatly extended. Eve ntually a series of forts would define the Texas frontier. This uncompromising Indian policy was very popular with West Texans. Only the Alabama and Coushatta Indians were spared this 6 offensive. They had aided Texas during its war for independence from Me xico and were eventually rewarded with some land on the lower Trinity River. One of the most memorable events involving Native Americans occurred in 1840. The Council House (San Antonio) incident was especially brutal . Indian leaders were invited to bring in all their white c aptives in return for an opportunity to discuss a treaty. Unfortunately, they only brought in one captive –a girl who had been tortured, raped, and disfigured. An Indian chief was quite arrogant about it. After informing the whites that if they wanted more captives, they would have to pay more money. His next (and last) utterance was most impolitic, as he stated: “How you like that for an answer?” Enraged Texans began to shoot ; a melee ensued . By the end of the day, 35 Comanches had been killed and another 27 were taken prisoner. Seven Texans died. The Indians felt that their negotiators had been killed by a treacherous ambush. In return, remaining white captives held by the tribes were tortured and killed, and Indian wars resumed with added fury . Upon his election as the third president of the Republic, Houston reversed Lamar’s Indian policy and reestablished a significant measure of peaceful coexistence. His Bureau of Indian affairs created peace and commerce between the nation and the Natives. Notably, the Comanche did not pa rticipate in the treaties. LIFE IN THE REPUBLIC: EDUCATION Most of the groundwork for public education in Texas came under the Lamar administration. He has been dubbed, “The Father of Education in Texas.” The Education Act of January 20, 1839, gave each Texas county three leagues of land (later 4) to sell to generate funds for public education. This averaged out to about $1.50 per child initially, and many parents tutored their children and claimed the money for themselves at the end of the year. Few public sc hools emerged at this time, mostly because t he need for child labor in the fields kept many children away from school for months at a time. Also , in such a spread -out rural environment, there w ere few areas densely populated enough to merit a public school. However, the basis for a very generous higher education policy was established –especially for two future colleges that would be endowed with 50 leagues of state land . We know those colleges today as the University of Texas and Texas A &M. TEXAS CHARACTER Texans felt a certain pride and braggadocio about winning the land from Indians and from Mexico and about being an independent nation. The nation attracted many who 7 were unsavory or at best crude frontiersmen. As law and order was irregular, many problems were “solved” privately –often through brawling or dueling. TEJANOS Texans of Hispanic descent attempted to fit into the new system. Unfortunately, many did not know the English language and had little understanding of the U.S. culture and institutions that now pre vailed. Because of the massive immigration from the United States and Europe, Hispanics had become a small minority, often feeling like foreigners in their native land. Many Anglo -Texans hated Mexico because of Santa Anna ’s excesses and took out their animosity on their Hispanic neighbors . Despite a few exceptions, most Hispanics were un able to successfully adapt and accommodate to the new Anglo leadership . RELATIONS WITH MEXICO Mexico never recognized the Treaty of Velasco that granted Texas independence. To Mexico, Texas was merely a Mexican territory temporarily controlled by “a horde of adventurers in rebellion against the laws of the government.” Mexico constantly threatened to retake Texas, but so many new settlers poured in from the United States that the Mexican menace would never be realized. At the very least, Mexico insisted that it was not the Rio Grande that was the border separating the two nations, but the Nueces River , which was about 150 north of the Rio Grande . Mexican patriot s and bandits raided the “Nueces Strip,” constantly to try to fo rce Texans out. The strip ultimately became a “no man’s land” — a haven for criminals, renegade Indians, and runaway slaves . Texas constantly sought formal recognition of independence from Mexico, so that the likelihood of Mexican invasion would end . Three age nts went from the Republic to Mexico to negotiate, while Texas simultaneously solicited the aid of the U nited States and England to smooth relations –all to no avail. Houston empowered one agent to offer Mexico $1 million to recognize both independence and the Rio Grande as the border. When this offer was rejected, some Texans under Lamar wanted immediate war to force Mexico to recognize the ir independence. Upon becoming president, Lamar sent an expedition in 1841 into New Mexico to strengthen Texas claims to that western area. Some Texans had dreams of annexing Mexican territory all the way to California. This “Santa Fe Expedition” proved to be a disaster. Suffering numerous hardships on the march west, the entire expedition was captured by Mexican officia ls soon upon their arrival in New Mexico. The survivors were marched to Mexico City for trial and spent some time in a Mexican prison. They were eventually released through friendly intervention by the United States. 8 In response to this “invasion ,” an agg ravated Santa Anna twice sent an army into Texas in 1842, conquering San Antonio, Victoria, Goliad, and other towns. Before the Texans could organize a military counterattack, the invaders returned to Mexico. The biggest result of Santa Anna’s attack was a second “runaway scrape” that saw Texans fleeing to the east. An unauthorized, independent counterattack by 300 volunteers next marched into Mexico . This is known as the Mier Expedition . After a bloody battle, the Texans were defeated and captured. As the prisoners marched toward Mexico City, they temporarily escaped, but were quickly recaptured. As punishment, 10% of the Texans were ordered executed. The men drew dry beans from a pot wh ile blindfolded. Those who drew the black beans were executed on the spot. The rest spent time in prison. RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES DURING THE REPUBLIC ERA Where Houston sought annexation to the United States, Lamar sought to compete with the U.S. by becoming a great southwestern empire. The only good to come of the ill -fated Mier excursion was that the expedition reawakened the North American public and Texans to the subject of Texas annexation. Initially, U.S. President Andrew Jackson had r efused to seek annexation of Texas. He doubted that Texas could sustain its freedom, and he was hesitant to offend Mexico. Anti -slave northerners strongly opposed an additional slave state. Insulted, Texas withdrew the offer. However, concurrent with his re -election, Sam Houston coyly began to show public enthusiasm toward forming a partnership with England . England would have been happy to secure this “Canada of the South.” Th ese treaties and proposals generated much jealousy in the United States , as Americans did not enjoy the British influence to the north in Canada and certainly did not want it to the sou th as well. By this time (1844), many Americans were caught up in the Manifest Destiny theme, dreaming of a nation that stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In the U.S. presidential election of 1844, James K. Polk campaigned on an expansionist platf orm, and his victory was interpreted as a mandate for the annexation of Texas. On February 28, 1845, lame duck President John Tyler encouraged the Congress to pass a joint resolution providing for incorporating the Republic of Texas into the United States Union. The terms included: Figure 2: James K. Polk, courtesy of the Library of Congress. 9 1. The people of Texas must approve the annexation. 2. All questions of the international border of Texas would be resolved by the United States government. 3. Texas would cede to the U nited States certain property, including its navy, forts, and military grade weapons . 4. Texas would enter the Union as a state, not a territory. It could keep its public lands to apply to the payment of the Republic’s debt. 5. With Texan consent, 4 more states could be carved out of Texas. 6. There would be no slavery allowed north of 36’30” if it was judged that the Texas border extended that far. 7. President Polk could withhold this proposal and write his own if he so desired. Please note: Contrary to myth and legend, Texas did not retain the right to leave the United States at will at any time in the future. England and France bitterly opposed annexation and had even convinced Mexico to recognize Texan independence, hoping that this would make maintaining the Republic more attractive to Texans. Howe ver, both the Texas congress and the people spurned the Mexican treaty in favor of annexation. On December 29, 1845, Texas officially became a state. At a special ceremony in 1846, President Anson Jones turned the government over to newly elected governor, J.P. Henderson and said, “The final act in this great drama is now performed; the Republic of Texas is no more.” Sam Houston and Thomas Rusk were elected as the first Senators to the U.S. Congress. Someone in the crowed hollered out : “Texas will now lead the United States to greatness.” The Republic of Texas’ main claim to fame was its endurance. Its settlers, unlike other Americans who had significant military help, cleared a large region of hostile Natives by themselves, established farms and communities, and persevered through extreme economic hardship. Texas had tripled its population in ten years and had won recognition from the United States, several European nations, and the Catholic Pope. Texans never forgot that they were once a free and independent . 10 MEXICAN WAR At the time of its annexation of Texas, the mood in the United States was vigorously expansionist. There was much talk of Manifest Destiny, settling new territories, and adding new states. California , especially, seemed destined to become the next part of the U nited States . San Francisco Bay appeared to be the gateway to trade with the Orient. President James K. Polk had been recently elected on an expansionist platform. He had even promised to acquire the Oregon Territory from Canada up to the 54’40” paral lel or he would send in the soldiers (54′ 40″ or Fight). UNITED STATES/ MEXICO RELATIONS An unhappy Mexico recalled its ambassador to the United States shortly after the annexation of Texas. Within a month, the U.S. recalled its own ambassador, leaving the two nations with no diplomatic relations. An on -going dispute centered around the Texas -Mexican border. Texans had claimed since the Treaty of Velasco that the Rio Grande separated the two nations. Mexico, while still claiming all of Texas, insisted that the Nueces River should be the dividing line, if one must be drawn. Tradition sided with the Mexican definition, although neither Spain nor Mexico had ever been overly concerned just where Texas began, and the neighboring province ended. It was into this highly charged atmosphere that the U.S. sent agent John Slidell to attempt to purchase from Mexico the New Mexican Territory for $5 million and to purchase California for an additional $25 million. Mexican officials rebuffed Slidell and ordered him to le ave. In obvious aggression, President James Polk sent American soldiers to the borders of California and New Mexico, poised to act. Next, he sent troops into the disputed border 11 region of Texas, knowing Mexico would consider this an INVASION of its territ ory. When Mexican troops attacked (near Brownsville), Polk claimed Mexico had “shed American blood on American soil.” His war speech was already written. Simultaneously, the troops outside California under John C. Freemont and troops near New Mexico invade d and conquered those territories. While the U.S. must accept much of the blame for this war, it should be remembered that the Centralists were back in power in Mexico. They hated the Americans and made little effort toward peaceful negotiation of the U.S. / Mexican border. WARFARE OF THE MEXICAN WAR The U nited States quickly pushed below the Rio Grande and captured several Mexican cities, including Monterrey. The United States hoped for a quick settlement, but the Mexicans would not give in to the Americans’ d emands. In a highly -irregular development, President Polk paid a considerable sum of money to Santa Anna to come out of retirement (banishment , actually ) and act as America’s agent in persuading Mexico to accept the U.S. terms. Santa Anna double -crossed Polk, however, and reinstal led himself in power and prepared to lead the troops in battle, financed partially by the American money he had received from Polk . At Buena Vista , a determined and high -spirited Mexican army, engaged in very bloody fighting with the U.S. troops. As the Mexicans enjoyed a 3 -1 supe riority, all did not go well for the Americans , wh o would have been soundly defeated if not for the timely arrival and bravery of Jefferson Davis and the Mississippi Long -Rifles . These reinforcements deployed their line of men to form a “V” and bring fire upon the Mexicans from three sides . This troop deployment stemm ed the Mexican attack and resulted in a come from behind victory for the Americans, while assur ing the future political career of Davis . The Mexican s pulled out without resuming battle. Th ey were suffering from heavy casualties and had been without supplies for a long time. Men were starving and were exposed to harsh weather without shoes or blankets. This retreat was not well -received by most Mexicans, however, and led to unrest within the Mexican government . Americans quickly went on to capture Vera Cruz and Mexico City. 12 THE TREATY OF GUADALUPE -HIDALGO However, still no Mexican official would submit to the U.S. cease -fire demands. Leaders feared the wrath of their people more than the continued fighting. Finally, the Treaty of GUADALUPE -HIDALGO was signed on February 2, 1848, after an uprising remov ed Santa Ann a. By virtue of this treaty, the United States gained clear title to Texas all the way to the Rio Grande –plus modern -day New Mexico, California, and parts of Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, and Colorado. This amounted to about one -half of all Mexican territory. Soon after the t reaty, the U nited States paid around $20 million for the territorial gains and for the right to claim that the entire venture was a purchase and not a mugging. Hispanics living in the region retained property rights and the option of becoming American citizens. During the war, the Texas Rangers performed bravely, frequently serving as scouts for the U.S. regular military. While second to none in battle, the Rangers refused to wear uniforms or to follow regulations. Their hatred of Mexicans drove them to numerou s abuses –pillaging towns and slaughtering prisoners. They earned the nickname, Los Diablos Tejanos (Texas Devils). THE LEGACY OF THE MEXICAN WAR Northerners called this whole affair a “Southern slave -owners’ conspiracy.” The U.S. gained over a mill ion square miles. But this new territory would cause a multitude of problems. Would it be slave or free? This issue contribute d heavily to the coming of the Civil War . The Mexican War also served as a training ground for such future notables as Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant, Stonewall Jackson, William T. Sherman, and Jefferson Davis. In addition , the war left a legacy of mistrust and mutual animosity between the U.S. and Mexico that would not soon dissipate. In many ways, it was the inescapable conclus ion of the Texas Revolution, settling once and for all that Texas would never return to Mexico. Finally, the war helped to further the Texas mystique . Northern soldiers and newspapermen publicized stories of the Tall Texan and the wild frontier land in wh ich he Figure 3: Land ceded by Mexico to the United States in 1848. Courtesy California Historical Society. 13 lived. These stories circulated the globe, stimulating the imagination for even more far – fetched stories. Virtual Reader: Personal Hygiene This is a brief look at the typical level of personal hygiene of Texans during the Era of the Republic –available in audio or as a text file. Engines of Our Ingenuity No. 170: EARLY TEXAS by John H. H. Lienhard (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. Click here for audio of Episod e 170. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. Today, a glance at the tools of a new country. The University of Houston’s College of Engineering presents this series about the machines that make our civilization run, and the people whose in genuity created them. The Republic of Texas seceded from Mexico and became a separate nation in 1836. And a wild, unsettled nation it was! Ellen Murry, at the Star of the Republic Museum at Washington on the Brazos, writes about the early technologies of this rough land. First of all, early Texans were intimate with untimely death as we’ve never been. Mourning and memorializing death was a large social activity. Almost morbid attention was paid to the crafts of preparing, displaying, transporting, and bur ying the dead. 14 With death so commonplace, women sustained life by marrying in their mid to latter teens and by raising lots of children. Normally, six or seven kids survived after murderous infant mortality. Texas frontier women — often managing with the ir husbands gone for long periods — did the child -raising, educating, and civilizing. These settlers had little access to any developed medical technology. They fought illness by trying to rid the body of whatever ailed it. They embraced the medieval idea of curing by blood -letting, emetics, and laxatives. “Puke and purge” was a saying that began and ended most medical treatment on the Texas frontier. People did recognize that unsifted whole -wheat flour was good for the digestion. A major apostle of that notion was Sylvester Graham — promoter of the Graham cracker. He also suggested that i t reduced alcoholism and damped the bothersome sex drive. Bathing was also a form of medical treatment. It had little other place in everyday life. In 1840 a writer denounced the bathtub as … an epicurean innovation from England, designed to corrupt the democratic simplicity of the Republic. Early Texans washed their hands and faces before meals, but it was normal to go a year or more between baths. Tobacco, especially chewing tobacco, was an early Texas fixation. Children were taught to use the stuff. Cuspidors were universal items of furniture. A visitor to the Texas Congress observed, The way the members were chewing Tobacco and squirting was a sin to see. And an Austin church posted the notice, Ye chewers of the noxious weed Which grows in earth’ s most cursed sod, Be pleased to clean your filthy mouths Outside the House of God. The Republic of Texas lasted less than a decade. Any way you hold them up to the light, the people who formed it were tough, independent, adaptive, and idiosyncratic. We g et to know them when we look at their daily means — their rough -hewn technologies. There was nothing ordinary about people who used these elementary tools to carve freedom — and the good life we live — out of a harsh, and seemingly infinite, land. 15 Vir tual Reader: President Mirabeau B. Lamar’s Thoughts on Annexation to the U.S. The 2nd President of the Republic of Texas was Mirabeau B. Lamar. Lamar opposed the annexation of Texas into the United States. He preferred Texas to remain the Lone Star State, competing with the United States. He details his position in the speech below: “Notwithstanding the almost undivided voice of my fellow -citizens at one time in favor of the measure,” said Mirabeau B. Lamar in his inaugural address in December, 1838, and notwithstanding the decision of the National Congress at its last session, inhibiting the chief magistrate from withdrawing the proposition at the Cabinet of Washington, yet still I have never been able myself to perceive the policy of the desired con nection, or discover in it any advantage, either civil, political, or commercial, which could possibly result to Texas. But, on the contrary, a long train of consequences of the most appalling character and magnitude have never failed to present themselves whenever I have entertained the subject, and forced upon my mind the unwelcome conviction that the step once taken would produce a lasting regret, and ultimately prove as disastrous to our liberty and hopes as the triumphant sword of the enemy. And I say this from no irreverence to the character and institutions of my native country –whose welfare I have ever desired, and do still desire above my individual happiness –but a deep and abiding gratitude to the people of Texas, as well as a fervent devotion to those sacred principles of government whose defense invited me to this country, compel me to say that, however strong may be my attachment to the parent land, the land of my adoption must claim my highest allegiance and affection. When I reflect upon thes e vast and momentous consequences, so fatal to liberty on the one hand, and so fraught with happiness and glory on the other, I cannot regard the annexation of Texas to the American Union in any other light than as the grave of all her hopes of happiness a nd greatness; and if, contrary to the present aspect of affairs, the amalgamation shall ever hereafter take place, I shall feel that the blood of our martyred heroes had been shed in vain — that we had driven the chains of Mexican despotism only to fetter our country with indissoluble bonds and that a young republic just rising into high distinction among the nations of the earth had been swallowed up and lost, like a proud bark in a devouri ng vortex. 16 Virtual Reader: Terms of Annexation Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States Approved March 1, 1845 Related Links Narrative history of An nexation (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. | Narrative history of Secession and Readmission (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. 1. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State to be called the State of Texas, with a republican form of government adopted by the people of said Republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing Government in order that the same may by admitted as one of the States of this Union. 2. And be it further resolved, That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, to wit: First, said state to be formed, subject to the adjustment by this government of all questions of bou ndary that may arise with other government, — and the Constitution thereof, with the proper evidence of its adoption by the people of said Republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United States, to be laid before Congress for its fin al action on, or before the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and forty -six. Second, said state when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy y ards, docks, magazines and armaments, and all other means pertaining to the public defense, belonging to the said Republic of Texas, shall retain funds, debts, taxes and dues of every kind which may belong to, or be due and owing to the said Republic; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas, and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be dispo sed of as said State may direct; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States. Third — New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution ; and such states as may be formed out of the territory lying s outh of thirty -six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise Line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State, asking admission shall desire; and in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory, north of said Missouri Compromise Line, slavery, or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited. 3. And be it further resolved, That if the President of the United States shall in his judgment and d iscretion deem it most advisable, instead of proceeding to submit the 17 foregoing resolution of the Republic of Texas, as an overture on the part of the United States for admission, to negotiate with the Republic; then, Be it resolved, That a State, to be f ormed out of the present Republic of Texas, with suitable extent and boundaries, and with two representatives in Congress, until the next appointment of representation, shall be admitted into the Union, by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the e xisting States, as soon as the terms and conditions of such admission, and the cession of the remaining Texian territory to the United States shall be agreed upon by the governments of Texas and the United States: And that the sum of one hundred thousand d ollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated to defray the expenses of missions and negotiations, to agree upon the terms of said admission and cession, either by treaty to be submitted to the Senate, or by articles to be submitted to the two houses of Congress, as the President may direct. Approved, March 1, 1845. SOURCE: Peters, Richard, ed., The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, v.5, pp. 797 -798, Boston, Chas. C. Little and Jas. Brown, 1850. Practice Questions: 1. Whic h of the following DID NOT serve as a president in the Republic of Texas? a. Sam Houston b. Stephen F. Austin c. Mirabeau B. Lamar d. Anson Jones 2. A major source of conflict between the Republic of Texas and the nation of Mexico involved: a. attempts by Great Britain to goad the two nations into war. b. the border between the two nations. c. unpaid debts Texas citizens owed to Mexican creditors. d. the issue over whether all Alamo defenders died fighting, or if some were executed. e. prisoners of war being held by each side as late as 1848. 3. Concerning relations between Texas and the United States: in general, Mirabeau Lamar sought annexation to the U.S., while Sam Houston sought to compete against the United States. a. True b. False 18 4. Texas President Mirabeau B. Lamar is most respected for his contributions to the Republic’s: a. financial security. b. diplomatic relations with Mexico. c. education. d. enlightened Indian policy. e. bipartisan initiatives with t he supporters of Sam Houston. 5. The Treaty of GUADALUPE -HIDALGO transferred about half of Mexican territory to the United States, due to Mexico’s loss in the Mexican war. a. True b. False 6. As president of the Republic of Texas, Sam Houston was much more financially responsible that Mirabeau Lamar. a. True b. False 7. President Lamar was much more accepting of Native American rights than was President Houston. a. True b. False 8. Under the terms of annexation, Texas was fr ee to leave the United States at any time for any purpose. a. True b. False For Discussion: Evaluate the effectiveness of the Republic of Texas. Was there much for Texans to take pride in during the era, or was the Lone Star Republic more of a bumbl ing, ineffective joke?
This essay should be approximately 1 – 2 double-spaced page long. Correct spelling and grammar are important. Despite the well-known history of racism and bigotry in early Texas, ethnic relationships
1 Chapter One Chapter 1: Native Texas The human species was not native to the Western Hemisphere and did not even find it for thousands of years. Immigration to America began about 20,000 years ago. At intermittent periods, enough water would accumulate in massive glaciers worldwide to lower t he sea level several hundred feet. During these periods, the Bering Strait would become a 1,300 -mile -wide land bridge between North America and Asia. Game animals crossed, followed by hunters from Siberia and other parts of the continent. As thousands of years passed, the ice caps receded, and the melted water re -covered the land bridge. The immigrants who had already crossed, fanned out all over North, Central, and South America into as many as 2200 separate tribes. They spoke with different dialects, practiced unique religious ceremonies, and reached differing stages of cultural development. Artifact recovery in modern times, such as “Midland Minnie” and the Leander, Texas skeleton, prove that humans had migrated as far south as Texas approximately 1 2,000 years ago. 2 By the time of Columbus’ discovery of America in 1492, some Native civilizations had developed sophisticated governments, with cities as large as London or Paris. The Aztecs had pyramids, palaces, canals, and zoos. The Incas had developed a sophisticated highway system and had even practiced a form of brain surgery. Others, including some native Texan tribes, were relatively backwards, little removed from “stone age” status. The Indians, themselves, felt little kinship with one another. How ever, the Europeans, noting the straight black hair, prominent noses, and skin color, at first assumed the natives to be one general society. DISCOVERY OF AMERICA Historians are certain that European Vikings discovered America in the 11th Century, but since nothing significant came of this discovery, it has received little historical attention. Nordic colonies were established in Greenland, Iceland, and Newfoundland, but cold weather and hostile natives brought an abrupt disbandment to the settlement s. The Vikings were not a literate society, so in time, the record of these findings faded from Europe’s memory. It was not until the 20th century that scientists knew for certain this contact had ever been made. There is also some evidence suggesting tha t African boatmen made unintentional, one -way journeys to South America, as well, but like the Viking discovery, relatively little came from this interaction. For the next 400 years there was no provable contact between the Old World and the New. CH RISTOPHER COLUMBUS While most seafarers were excited about the prospect of reaching Asia by the southern route, Columbus felt that a circumnavigation of the world would be shorter still. Like most educated Europeans, he believed the world was round, but he vastly underestimated its size (the distance was 12,000 miles, not 4500), and he did not expect a mammoth land mass (America) to block his path. He also thought Asia extended much further east than it actually does. Had he continued without obstruction, he would have run out of supplies long before reaching Asia. For five years he sought funding. Eventually, the Spanish monarchs, Ferdinand and Isabella, agreed to provide financial backing in return for 90% of any riches he might find. In 1492, he set out in the NINA, PINTA, and the SANTA MARIA. After 30 days, his crew rebelled, arguing there were barely enough supplies to make it back to Europe. Columbus persuaded them to journey onward for three more days of travel. On the third day, land was sighted –one of the islands near present -day Cuba (probably San Salvador in the Bahamas). As the story goes, he called the inhabitants of that region, “Indians,” as he thought he had reached India. 3 Courtesy of the Library of Congress Columbus returned 3 more time s to the Western Hemisphere, but never could find his way through this unexpected land mass (America) to the famous trade centers. He eventually died in a debtor prison. Some say he never admitted that it was not Asia that he had reached. Columbus was eve n denied the honor of having the continent named after himself. Amerigo Vespucci , an adventurer aboard later explorations, convinced mapmakers that the land mass across the Atlantic was not the Orient but a new continent. The mapmakers thus named it “Ameri ca,” after the man that publicized it. THE TREATY OF TORDESILLAS –1494 Arguably the most powerful person in the Western World, the Catholic Pope Alexander VI, awarded his two most favored nations virtual control of the “uncivilized” world. Spain received all of America, except for Brazil, which went to Portugal. The Portugues e were also given authority over Asia. SPAIN IN SOUTH AMERICA Subsequently, Spain found enormous surface wealth in the form of gold and silver in the parts of South America she controlled. Spain eventually transferred over 200 tons of gold and 16,00 0 tons of silver from America to Spain. For a time, this helped Spain become the leading nation in the world. Most of the gold was acquired by CONQUISTADORS , private entrepreneurs who daringly brutalized the Indians to gain control of the precious metals. Hernando Cortes was the most effective and most brutal, burning cities and temples and destroying the basis of the civilizations he was attacking. War had long been a way of life in Spain. The thirst for gold coupled with religious zeal pulled Spain ever d eeper into the New World. Myths of a Fountain of Youth and the Seven Cities of Gold eventually led the Spanish into Texas. Meanwhile, from the New World to the Old came corn, squash, beans, potatoes, peppers and the turkey. From the Old World to the New came livestock and disease. 4 TEXAS Part of the Spanish holdings included modern day Texas –an area that stretches 801 miles from the Panhandle to the Rio Grande and 770 miles from the Sabine River to El Paso –267,000 square miles. Texas is the only state that contains four distinct natural landform regions in the United States. ROCKY MOUNTAIN SYSTEM –Far west Texas makes up the highest elevation of the state, forming the basis for an elevational slant that runs generally in a northwest to southeast direction. This accounts for the fact that all the major rivers in Texas flow in the same southeasterly direction. The dry climate has led some to believe that West Texas is a very healthy place to live. An old folk saying goes: “If the people there want to die, they have to go live somewhere else.” GREAT PLAINS –(Llano Estacado in the north and Edwards Plateau in the south). The Plains area has been described as an ocean of desert prairies often with severe drought problems. It was thought unfit for human habitation for many years. INTERIOR LOWLANDS –This is pa rt of the rolling plains that extend all the way to the Great Lakes. This land is very suitable for human habitation. The COASTAL PLAINS boast rich soil, deep bays, ample rain and a long growing season, very similar to the deep South. The border of the In terior Lowlands and the Coastal Plains is said to be the point where the United States “South” ends and the “West” begins. The region is susceptible to hurricanes brewing from the Caribbean. 5 TEXAS NATIVES Indians of Texas reflected the continenta l diversity. On the east coast of Texas lived the Caddos . The favorable climate encouraged farming, and the Caddos grew crops such as corn, squash, and beans –with the help of a wooden hoe. They also hunted –more as a supplement than as a staple –fished an d gathered plants for food. They used trees, grass, and leaves to make their homes, which were large timbered houses, domed and thatched, furnished with colored rugs, baskets, and pottery. They covered their bodies with tattoos. By the time of Columbus, th ey had domesticated the dog and the turkey, but no other animals. Both men and women worked the soil, and house -raising’s were public affairs. A typical home averaged 45 feet in height and 60 feet in width. Several families dwelled in a single structur e. Villages were of respectable size, reflecting the relatively advanced state of civilization enjoyed by the Caddos. Most Caddo tribes enjoyed an agricultural surplus that permitted the m to trade food for comfort items. The people constructed great eart hen mounds for rituals, much like the Mound Builders of the Mississippi River region. These tribes were very amiable to white men during the first years of contact and engaged in extensive trade with all Europeans and other Indian tribes. In fact, the name , “Texas,” comes from the Caddo word “tayshas” or “tejas,” which means friends. Over the years, the name was corrupted to the modern pronunciation of “Texas.” 6 The Karankawas (ka -RAN -ka -was) lived along the Coastal Plains of southeastern Texas. Tall and well -built, they fished, and they traveled nimbly in dugout canoes. They stuck pieces of cane through their lower lips and nipples for decoration. They hunted for alligators al ong the coast, and Spanish explorers wrote that these Indians put alligator fat on their bodies to keep mosquitoes from biting them — an odor repulsive to the Europeans. Unlike the Caddo, they lacked formal organization and led a nomadic life , living in read ily moveable wigwams . They caught seafood from the Gulf of Mexico. They foraged for berries, nuts, plants, and game , as they practiced no agriculture, whatsoever . Because of a general scarcity of food, Karankawa children commonly nursed until age 12. As historian T.R. Fehrenbach noted: “the Karankawas avoided all contact with Europeans; they refused to cooperate with them in any way and attacked any incursion of their territory with fury. In return, no Amerind tribe was ever described in worse terms or ex terminated with greater relish or sense of justification.” The Karankawa had a reputation as cannibals, although their flesh -eating was more for ritual than for dietary benefit. They felt that to partially consume another human was to deny that enemy ent ry to eternal life. Karankawa’s also felt that this consumption captured the “essence” of the victim (courage, strength) and added such to their own character. It is likely that the name, “Karankawa,” means “dog lovers,” or “dog raisers.” The group was known for the coyote -type canines that served them. Because their location was at the first point of contact with the Spanish, they were the one of the first Texas tribe s eliminated by Europeans. The Coahuiltecans (co -WHEEL -te-cans) lived in the dry pla ins of South Texas. In terms of natural resources, this was easily the poorest region in Texas. They were scantily clad hunters that led a nomadic life. Their homes were usually nothing more than windbreaks. Since buffalo herds did not live that far south due to a lack of thick grass, these Indians hunted deer, rabbit, turkey, and wild pig. In addition, they consumed spiders, ant eggs, lizards, rattlesnakes, worms, insects, rotting wood, and fished when they were near a stream. Fehrenbach notes, “they set [the fish] in the sun for several days, collecting flies and maggots. The enriched food was eaten with gusto. . . . One peculiar source of food –was known as the ‘second harvest.’ Whole seeds and similar items picked out of human feces, cooked and chewed.” The Coahuiltecans also concocted a drink, mescal, from a plant that was intoxicating — even to the point of hallucinogenic. I t remains the principal intoxicant of the Mexican peasantry even today. 7 The Coahuiltecans did not seek war but fought if their te rritory was violated. They frequently killed the female captives of their enemies, because they felt the land was already over -populated. Additionally, they often threw their own newborn girls to the dogs, lest these girls eventually became kidnapped and came to serve as birth mothers for enemy tribes. For themselves, they purchased wives from other tribes. Because of their abject poverty, the Coahuiltecans were the group most enthusiastic toward the Spanish missionaries. The Jumano (who MAN o) in far West Texas and New Mexico, were divided into two groups . One focused on farming, while the other specialized in trade. The trading element was quite prolific, extending all the way from the Pueblos of New Mexico to the Caddo in East Texas . The farming branch lived in large structures built half above and half below ground. The surface walls were made of adobe -type bricks. Physically muscular and tall, a ll were well -dressed in tanned leather and possessed ample pottery. They avoided war. The Spanish evidently felt some degree of respect for this tribe, giving them the name that means “human,” in Spanish. 8 By the start of the 14 th century, t he teepee -dwelling Apaches lived on the plains of North and West Texas , including the Panhandl e. Historians know the westernmost group as “Mescalero” Apaches and the eastern group as “Lipan.” Both were nomadic, hunting for buffalo, deer, and rabbit. The Apaches were warlike and unusually fierce and were skilled at fighting . They were a savage but fragmented group. Organized around extended families, there was no notion of an Apache nation, for example. Their only socializing acts were hunting and war. The group economy was based as much on theft and plunder as self -sufficiency. Constantly on the m ove, they had no use for pottery or basketry. Water was transported in bags made from the stomachs of dead bison and food was generally wrapped in buffalo robes. They trained large dogs to pull their belongings on a type of dry -land sled. Apache were ofte n infested with lice, but they would bite and lick the lice and eggs off the seams of their clothing as a snack. Comanche Invaders from the North 9 Later would come the invading Comanches –around 1700 -1750 –who would prove to be the toughest challenge of all to the European immigrants. They roamed from the Panhandle to the northwest of San Antonio as nomadic buffalo hunters. The Comanche were highly skilled horsemen and aggressive, deadly warriors. They were the masters of the surprise atta ck and showed little mercy to their prisoners. This was their way of life, and they were a danger to all other groups — European, as well as Native . Courtesy of the National Gallery of Art Texas tribes were by no means static. Over time, various groups rose while others fell. Some groups combined with others. Some are known by different names. It is not within the scope of this book to provide an exhaustive treatment of this topic , but rather to offer a survey of some of the better -known groups. DISRUPTION OF NATIVE LIFE It has been estimated that as many as 120 million Indians inhabited the New World at the time of Columbus’ discovery. Many Indians were in a balanced environmental situation, self -sufficient, well -organized, and often l ed by chiefs and medicine men. Yet, it was not long before the European had decimated the Native, swept him aside, and undermined the very basis of the Indian way of life. Several forces combined to accomplish this: DISEASE –As many as 95% of the Indians who encountered Europeans died from European disease from which the Natives had no natural immunity. Smallpox , measles, influenza, cholera, whooping cough, and typhus had never existed in the Western Hemisphere before. This begins to explain how 120 Conqui stadors were able to 10 conquer Mexico. Spaniards reported they saw dead Indian bodies piled so high as to block out the sun. Most of the Indian leaders perished. The leaders who survived suffered a credibility problem, as they had no answers for the devasta ting plagues. It is said that some Conquistadors practiced an early form of biological warfare. They offered to Indian leaders gifts of blankets and clothing that had been worn by those who had perished from disease. Thus, it was likely that large or well -organized tribes could be conquered once the leadership was eliminated in this manner. Nomadic tribes constantly on the move fared the best in surviving these catastrophic diseases , while those tribes with settled lifestyles and regular contact with the Eu ropeans were especially vulnerable . The Caddo population, for example, declined by as much as 90% within 200 years from their first contact with Europeans. VALUE SYSTEMS AND LEADERS DISCREDITED –At this same time, especially in South America, missionaries convinced many Indians that humans lived in a despiritualized world –a world in which the only creatures that possessed souls were humans. Deer and beaver did not have souls. Therefore, Indians could kill as many fur – bearing animals as they wa nted, and there would be no spiritual retaliation. There was no longer a religious reason to practice conservation of animals or other resources. As tribal leaders failed to protect their people from the ravages of disease, both chiefs and shamans suffered a loss of credibility. EUROPEAN TECHNOLOGY –was made available to Indians who would serve the Europeans. In exchange for services and furs, Indians could gain processed flour, metal tools, and European trinkets. To many Indians, it seemed futile to persis t in constructing inferior products from their old traditional labors. This also added to the loss of respect for the environment and further loss of self -sufficiency. European artillery and firearms, were not really that efficient or accurate, but command ed a huge psychological effect,. FRAGMENTATION OF POPULATION –Europeans were often successful at playing one group of Indians off against another. There were century -old traditions of animosity among tribes in many cases, and the Indians hoped an alliance with the whites might rid them of traditional enemies. Quite often, the alliance was of more benefit to the European than the tribe. DEBATE OVER THE “WORTH” OF A NATIVE AMERICAN LIFE Some Europeans believed that Native Americans were human and capable of being Christianized. To them, the Natives were noble savages and children of nature. Some Europeans cited Indians’ great works of art, mathematical principals, and engineering marvels as proof of Indian “humanity.” Some respected the lessons they had learned from the Indians, concerning new foods, tools, and methodologies. In addition, the Natives could produce offspring with “proven humans ” (Europeans); thus, Native s were obviously human, too, as no member of the animal kingdom could produce offspring 11 with mankind. The American Natives also demonstrated the various human emotions of joy, fear, and love. Some European Christians cited the Biblical passage, “Go ye and teach all nations,” as proof of the need to instruct the Natives in religious topics. There was an o pposing view, however, that considered Indians as subhuman, unworthy of Christian instruction or human consideration. As Aristotle once said, “Some men are slaves by nature.” According to this line of thinking, such inferior beings were actually improved by slavery. According to this view, one need only look at the “rudeness” of Indian dress and habits as opposed to the “civilized” appearance of Europeans. Besides, the gravity of Indian sins –idol worship, human sacrifice (100,000 sacrifice victims found in one location), cannibalism –merited harsh treatment. The Bible was also used as proof to this point — “Cast not your pearls before swine.” Those who felt the Natives were less than human insisted that Indians could no more appreciate the Sacrifice of Ch rist than pigs could recognize the beauty and value of a handful of pearls. Indian death by disease was seen by many as indisputable proof to disclaim Native humanness, since most European “humans” did not perish from flu, measles, or many other Old -World diseases. 12 From the Virtual Reader : Cabeza de Vaca Encounters the Indians of Texas, 1535 The Spa nish explorer recorded his first impressions of a Caddo Indian tribe that he stayed with for a short time. All those people are archers and well built, although not as tall as those we had left behind us, and they have the nipple and lip perforated. Their principal food are two or three kinds of roots, which they hunt for all over the land; they are very unhealthy, inflating, and it takes two days to roast them. Many are very bitter, and with all that they are gathered with difficulty. But those people are so much exposed to starvation that these roots are to them indispensable and they walk two and three leagues to obtain them. Now and then they kill deer and at times get a fish, but this is so little and their hunger so great that they ea t spiders and ant eggs, worms, lizards and salamanders and serpents, also vipers the bite of which is deadly. They swallow earth and wood, and all they can get, the dung of deer and more things I do not mention; and I verily believe, from what I saw, that if there were any stones in the country they would eat them also. They preserve the bones of the fish they eat, of snakes and other animals, to pulverize them and eat the powder. The men do not carry burdens or loads, the women and old men have to do it, for those are the people they least esteem. They have not as much love for their children as those spoken of before. Some among them are given to unnatural vices. The women are com pelled to do very hard work and in a great many ways, for out of twenty -four hours of day and night they get only six hours’ rest. They spend most of the night in Figure 1: Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca. By Pilar Cortella de Rubin. Image Courtesy of City of Houston, Municipal Art Office. 13 stirring the fire to dry those roots which they eat, and at daybreak they begin to dig and ca rry firewood and water to their houses and attend to other necessary matters. Most of these Indians are great thieves, for, although very liberal towards each other, as soon as one turns his heads his own son or the father grabs what he can. They are great liars and drunkards and take something in order to become intoxicated. They are so accustomed to running that, without resting or getting tired, they run from morning till night in pursuit of a deer, and kill a great many, because they follow until the ga me is worn out, sometimes catching it alive. Their huts are of matting placed over four arches. They carry them on their back and move every two or three days in quest of food; they plant nothing that would be of any use. They are a very merry people, and even when famished do not cease to dance and celebrate their feasts and ceremonials. Their best times are when “tunas” (prickly pears) are ripe, because then they have plenty to eat and spend the time in dancing and eating day and night. As long as these t unas last they squeeze and open them and set them to dry. When dried they are put in baskets like figs and kept to be eaten on the way. The peelings they grind and pulverize. While with them it happened many times that we were three or four days without fo od. Then, in order to cheer us, they would tell us not to despair, since we would have tunas very soon and eat much and drink their juice and get big stomachs and be merry, contented and without hunger. But from the day they said it to the season of the tu nas there would still elapse five or six months, and we had to wait that long. When the time came, and we went to eat tunas, there were a great many mosquitoes of three kinds, all very bad and troublesome, which during most of the summer persecuted us. In order to protect ourselves we built, all around our camps, big fires of damp and rotten wood, that gave no flame but much smoke, and this was the cause of further trouble to us, for the whole night we did not do anything but weep from the smoke that went t o our eyes, and the heat from the fires was so insufferable that we would go to the shore for rest. And when, sometimes, we were able to sleep, the Indians roused us again with blows to go and kindle the fires. Those from further inland have another remedy , just as bad and even worse, which is to go about with a firebrand, setting fire to the plains and timber so as to drive off the mosquitoes, and also to get lizards and similar things which they eat, to come out of the soil. In the same manner they kill d eer, encircling them with fires, and they do it also to deprive the animals of pasture, compelling them to go for food where the Indians want. For never they build their abodes except where there are wood and water, and sometimes load themselves with the r equisites and go in quest of deer, which are found mostly where there is neither water nor wood. On the very day they arrive they kill deer and whatever else can be had and use all the water and wood to cook their food with and build fires against the mosq uitoes. They wait for another day to get something to take along on the road, and when they leave, they are so badly bitten by mosquitoes as to appear like lepers. In this manner they satisfy 14 their hunger twice or thrice a year and at such great sacrifice as I have told. Having been with them I can say that no toil or suffering in this world comes near it. Major Problems in Texas History by Sam W. Haynes, Thomas Paterson and Cary D. Wintz (2001, Paperback) Practice Questions 1. Which Texas Native tribe in the 1500’s would have had the most use for the white man’s plow? a) Coahuiltican b) Apache c) Karankawa d) Caddo e) Comanche 2. With which Native Texas tribe would you least likely accept a dinner invitation in the 1500’s? a) Western Jumano b) Caddo c) Coahuiltecans d) Eastern Jumano 3. England and France likely approved of the terms of the Treaty of Tordesillas. a) True b) False 4. Hernando Cortes is today considered a hero among the native peoples of South America. a) True b) False 5. The “New World” was to HORSE as the “Old World” was to _______________. a) disease b) cattle c) bird d) ice e) corn 6. The strongest evidence at the time of Spanish rule in America that Natives were actually human beings was that the Natives ______________________. a) could build structures. b) could display “human” emotions. c) could communicate. d) produced offspring with known humans. e) generated considerable work under duress. 15 7. The most significant “scientific” evidence available at the time that suggested Indians were subhuman was that they ___________________. a) had very limited intelligence. b) had no immunity to com mon European (human) diseases. c) were “slaves by nature.” d) practiced cannibalism and other barbaric rituals. e) generated considerable work under duress. Please match the following descriptors with the appropriate answers: 8. prolific traders; concentrated around modern -day El Paso and New Mexico 9. cut -throats; thieves; nomadic, with very little formal organization 10. reputation as cannibals; despised by Europeans; lived in Southeast Texas 11. developed villages; traded with Euro peans; “friendly” 12. fierce horse -warriors from the north; nearly unstoppable militarily a) Karankawa b) Jumano c) Caddo d) Apache e) Comanche 13. In general, the nomadic tribes suffered less from European disease than did the missionary Indians. a) True b) False 14. The most troublesome insect bites recorded by Cabeza de Vaca came from a) bees. b) mosquitoes. c) spiders. d) ants. e) fleas. 15. Major disease epidemics among the Native Americans included all the following EX CEPT a) smallpox b) cholera c) mumps d) whooping cough e) measles 16 For Discussion: If given the choice, which native Texan Indian tribe would you belong to in the 1600’s? Why? For Discussion: Comment on any Texas -based motion picture, book, or television show. Review, praise, critique such media as The Alamo (new or old version), the Dallas television show, the movie version of Michener’s Texas, Comanche Moon, etc.
This essay should be approximately 1 – 2 double-spaced page long. Correct spelling and grammar are important. Despite the well-known history of racism and bigotry in early Texas, ethnic relationships
1 Chapter Six CHAPTER 6: TEXAS IN THE CIVIL WAR THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR –A Brief Overview Fort Sumter — Shortly after the formation of the Confederate States of America, o ne fort that did not submit to Confederate demands for capitulation was Ft. Sumter, located just off the coast of Charleston, South Carolina. Realizing that the loyalist outpost could not last indefinitely in hostile territory , the fort’s commander asked President Lincoln for reinforcements. Lincoln realized that to reinforce the garrison would be to appear as “invading” the South and initiating military hostilities . Instead, he shrewdly sent unarmed supply ships to Fort Sumter. Confederates realized that t he se supplies would enable Union soldiers to remain in place, commanding one of the most important southern port forever . Therefore, South Carolina soldiers decided to attack the fort before the supplies arrived . This battle took place on April 12 -13, 1861. The mutual bombardment lasted a full 48 hours. Amazingly, there were no deaths on either side , fueling the hopes among some that a compromise settlement could still be reached . Eventually, however, the fort su rrendered when all its walls were smashed and destroyed, and its ammunition depleted . At this point, President Lincoln required that ALL states remaining in the Union must contribute soldiers to put down the rebellion. This had the negative effect of forc ing reluctant secessionist states, like Virginia, out of the Union because they could never take arms against a sister southern state. The Confederacy was now complete with 11 2 states , instead of seven (South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi , Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas ). Uninterested in secession , the western part of Virginia fought for separation from the rest of the state in order to stay in the Union . Congress rewarded this loyalty to the United States by creating the new state of “W est Virginia. ” NORTHERN ADVANTAGES In addition to a population that was two and one -half times greater than the South ern population (22 million to 9 million –only 5.5 million whites) , the Union enjoyed 81% of all the nation’s industrial capacity, 61% of all railroad track s, and 80% of the banking and capital. Most of the food producing states remained within the Union. Practically all naval vessels were stationed in the North, as well as the nation’s commercial flee t. The South tried desperately to provide for its own foodstuff and material needs, but it could not “catch up” in such a short time. It is also important to note that the North utilized the 3 well -established United States government branches, while the Sou th attempted to create a central government on the fly . SOUTHERN ADVANTAGES The South enjoyed the homefield advantage, which included knowing the geographical terrain, having the support of the civilians , and requiring much less troop movement. Initi ally, the Confederacy boasted of the better military leaders. Since the military tradition was very strong in the South, a large percentage of the West Point Academy and the United States Army were from the South. At the start of hostilities, t hese officer s generally resigned from the U.S. Army to take positions in the Confederacy. The war was better supported in the South among the general population than it was in the North . M any Southerners felt their very way of life was at stake. The most important crop, cotton, was the domain of the South, although the Confederacy was never able to do much with this commodity once the northern blockade took effect. Perhaps most important to the South was the fact that their war obje ctive was less difficult than that of the North. All they had to do was to fight a defensive war , keep ing the North from militarily occupying them . The Union, on the other hand, was required to invade, conquer, and maintain control of a hostile territory u sing very long supply lines. THE UNION GOVERNMENT After secession, Congress passed laws that encourag ed westward settlement, promot ed higher education, and establish ed higher tariffs. The tariffs, the sale of war bonds, higher taxes, and the increas ed amount of paper money in circulation combined to fund the northern war effort. The North implemented a draft, but a man of means could avoid it by hiring another person to fight in his place or by paying the government a fee of $300. If a state could fill its quota with volunteers, t here would be no draft for that state. The most violent anti -draft display occurred in New York over 4 days in 1863. Several hundred people were killed , including civilian blacks , who were blamed for the war . Rioters burned down a considerable amount of property. Abraham Lincoln in many ways proved to be a political genius. Despite his unpretentious ways, Lincoln was a very firm leader and came very close to exercising near dictator ial powers . For example , he called for soldiers and a blockade when Congress had not declared war. He withdrew money from the Treasury without Congressional authorization to begin funding his war effort . He took it upon himself to order censor ship of the mail , fearing possible breaches of classified information . He suspended the writs of habeas corpus, especially in Maryland which could not be allowed to secede because it housed Washington, D.C. He ordered the arrest of over 15,000 Americans secessionists without authorized warrants, impri soning them and not charging them with a crime. Most spent the duration of the war in jail for exercising their 4 freedom of speech or press in a disloyal fashion . Lincoln even defied a direct Supreme Court order that required him to release a leading Maryl and secessionist. In his defense, Lincoln said: “I will gladly violate 10% of the Constitution to save the other 90%.” Peace Democrats, or “Copperheads, ” provided his stiffest political competition during the war. THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT The Con federate Constitution was very similar to the U.S. Constitution of 1787. The major differences were that it proclaimed the superiority of the individual states to that of the central government. It also affirmed white supremacy. The biggest problem faced by the Confederate government was this states’ rights decentralization. The proud and independent -minded states regularly refused to submit to the central Confederate government. Consequently, only 1% of the southern war effort was funded by taxes. Since borrowing opportunities were limited, the So uth ended up printing reams of paper money, inflating currency value to almost nothing. Southern troops would have to endure serious shortages of food and equipment for most of the war. Furthermore, many troops were reluctant to fight outside of their hom e state. By 1862, a draft was in place, but owning 20 or more slaves brought an automatic exemption. Many complained that this was a “rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.” In many cases, Southern women were left alone to manage the plantations and all the slav es. Confederate President, Jefferson Davis appeared to be well -qualified for his position. He had been a West Point graduate, a Congressman, a hero in the Mexican War (success at the battle of Buena Vista ), and a Senator. His racial philosophy was typical of most Southerners: “Under the slave syst em brutal savages have been elevated under the supervision of a superior race into docile, intelligent, and civilized agricultural laborers. Slaves were content until the Union serpent tempted them with the apple . Jefferson Davis, courtesy the Library of Congress. 5 of freedom.” The Confederate constitution made the abolition of slavery practically impossible. A peculiarity of Davis was that he tried to fight a “gentlemanly” war. He declared some days to be reserved for prayer and fasting only. He was quite lenient on Southern deserters eschewing execution . He refused to censor the mail in the South, and the Union often gained valuable information from captured postal dispatches. Davis instructed his generals to PAY for whatever supplies and food they needed rather than just TAKE them from civilians. When given a chance to purchase a n ew invention, a type of machine gun, Davis rejected this inhuman, “barbaric instrument.” In contrast, Lincoln ordered a thousand on the spot . There was no political party system in the South. This became a disadvantage, because it left no acceptable outlet for criticism of the government. All criticism became personal – -and aimed at Davis. SOLDIERING IN THE CIVIL WAR Initially, young men o f both the North and South were eager to enlist in the military. To them, w ar seemed a romantic, exciting experience and a way to escape the boredom of farm life . Many were afraid hostilities would end before they had a chance to participate. Some very you ng men, aged 14 -17, were below the age to legally enlist. Because most had no birth certificates to prove their age, they were required to swear on the Bible that they were “over eighteen.” Not wanting to tell a lie before God, some clever fellows wrote th e number “18” on a piece of paper and put the paper in their shoe. Now, they could testify that they were “over eighteen” and they would technically not be lying under oath . Drill sergeants found that many recruits were so un schooled they did not know the ir right from their left. This caused so many problems that recruits were instructed to tie a piece of hay to their left boot and a wisp of straw to their right. Now when the sergeant chanted “hay foot, straw foot, hay face, ” everyone knew which way to go. New recruits were often nicknamed, “Strawfoot.” Discipline among the recruits was poor, especially early in the war when troops were allowed to elect their own officers. When the going got tough, many soldiers would disobe y a distasteful or dangerous order from their old childhood friend (the officer). Ultimately, both armies came to practice the pairing of officers from one state with enlisted men from another state. The unacquainted officers were more likely to punish dis obedience than their earlier counterparts. 6 CIVIL WAR FOOD No men were ever trained as cooks. Officers usually detailed the least valuable soldiers to oversee the mess tent, feeling that these “goof -offs” would do less damage here than anywhere else . As it turned out, t hese n’er do wells sometimes sold off the best cuts of meat, consumed other choice items themselves, and gave little care to general food preparation — much to the detriment of their colleagues in arms . While on the battle field, soldiers generally ate from their knapsack. The staple foods we re salted pork or beef and hardtack (crackers) for Yankees and salted pork and cornbread for the Rebels. Veterans remarked that it was usually best to eat in the dark where one could not see the mold and/or weevils that infested the food. CIVIL WAR MEDICINE Doctors of this era had no knowledge of germs or bacteria. They frequently whet their blades on the leather soles of their filthy shoes and wiped off the gore from a previous patient on their aprons –thus spreading disease from one patient to an other. Gangrene cases were common and required amputation, performed by cleaver or saw. If the doctor was exhausted or did not have a steady hand, the operation could last a long time. There was little or no anesthesia available. CAMP HYGIENE With tens of thousands of soldiers and animals producing gallons and tons of urine and defecation daily, “camp disease” actually killed more troops than enemy fire during this war . Bacteria was spread and ingested b ecause the soldiers march ed through the sludge and then dr ank or ate tainted meals with filthy hands. Rain downpours served to spread the filth even further . 7 WEAPONRY The standard gun was a rifled Springfield .54 caliber that could fire about two shots per minute and had a range of nearly one mile (effective ran ge of 250 yards). Such range gave the advantage to the defense, which could sit back an d annihilate an enemy well before the offensive attack matured. Frontal attacks were tantamount to mass suicide. Unfortunately, most Civil War generals had been classically tr ained and tended to emulate ancient Roman and Greek tactics that featured aggressive charges and frontal assaults. Southern officers, especially, held an attack mentality and many times the Confederate officers were out in front of their troops, boldly l eading the way. Casualties of such men were astronomical. THE ROLE OF SEA POWER The Union, with most of the U.S. Navy intact, was able to blockade the Southern seaports for much of the war, strangling off potential trade with Europe. Southerners use d blockade runners built by the British (like the ship, Alabama ) and smuggled goods through Texas to Mexico for modest advantage. A Confederate iron -clad warship, the The Merrimac, courtesy the National Archives. Merrimac enjoyed initial success at ramming Union ships, but the North quickly developed its own armored ships (like the Monitor ) which could nullify the southern advantage. The North also used joint land and water operations to great ad vantage to attack major southern cities along t he Mississippi River . The South ultimately invented a torpedo boat, which sported a bomb at the end of a long pole that was designed to ram an enemy vessel to deploy the bomb. V arious rebel submarines attempted to quietly drill holes in the sides of Union ship s, stick bombs on enemy ships, or sink a ship with a bomb suspended on a chain which trailed the submarine by a considerable distance. Enlistment in the submarine and torpedo boat crews were typically of short duration. 8 RELIANCE ON TECHNOLOGY In add ition to the innovative naval tactics, r ailroad s were put to good use for moving troops , especially by the North. Private telegraph lines kept the generals informed of front -line conditions from a safe distance. The tin can eventually allowed a greater variety of foods to be kept for a longer time and to be more safely consumed at the front lines. The South even dabbled with hot -air balloons for surveillance runs, but success was limited. FOREIGN DIPLOMACY Although England and France f avored a Confederate victory, they never provided substantial aid to the South. The South had hoped that European desperation for Southern cotton would bring the two European nations into the war. However, many Europeans opposed the concept of slavery. Oth ers feared retaliation from the North. Some were afraid the North would cut off grain shipments to them if substantial aid went to the rebellious states . In general, E urope waited for a sign that the South actually had a chance of winning before committing substantial aid . This sign never occurred. MAJOR BATTLES First Bull Run — At this fight, o verconfident Union troops were badly defeated by the southern r ebels. Fleeing Yankees threw down their weapons and supplies and ran over their spectators to escape southern troops. The heroes of the battle were General Thomas Jackson , who made his men hold like a “stone wall,” and Jefferson Davis, who suggested that reinforcements be deployed in an inverted “V” to bring fire on the enemy from three sides (as he had done at the Battle of Buena Vista in the Mexican War) . Jackson, Lee’s right -hand man and a very effe ctive commander, was later killed at Chancellorsville –a loss the Confederates never seemed to overcome. Richmond –In addition to blockading the South, Lincoln wanted to capture the Confederate capital of Richmond, Virginia. He placed General George B. Mc Clellan in charge of the effort. McClellan was excellent at training the soldiers, but he was VERY reluctant to lose any of them. He avoided direct confrontation with the enemy and actually put little pressure on Richmond. Antietam –was a bloodbath. The S outh hit the North with everything they had, but the North did not break. Some say the South knew from this battle forward that they could not militarily defeat the North . Lincoln felt so good about the outcome that he announced after Antietam that the Uni on war aim would henceforth be liberation of slaves as well as preservation of the Union. His “Emancipation Proclamation” probably freed very few slaves, if any in the short run. The emancipation was aimed only at Confederate slaves, where Lincoln had no c ontrol and the law was not obeyed. 9 Slaves in Northern states were not covered by the emancipation, at all. However, it was now clear that Lincoln had now added the end of slavery as war aim, so the great sacrifices endured by northerners appeared more just ified. About 186,000 of the men inspired or freed by this Eman cipation speech would come to serve in the Union forces. Unfortunately, their pay and equipment would be inferior to that of the white soldiers, and the blacks could only march under the orders of white officers. Training and equipment were questionable, and the attritio n rate was extremely high. Oftentimes, black troops would be the preferred targets of Confederate soldiers. Meanwhile, i n the Western theater of war, Ulysses S. Grant was very successful in gaining control of the Mississippi River. With victories at Shiloh, Vicksburg (after a long siege to starve out the Confederates), and New Orleans , the Union stopped all Confederate traffic on the Mississippi and managed to sever th e South in two. Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana would henceforth be isolated. This was a turning point in the war. By invading the North in Pennsylvania a t the Battle of Gettysburg (July 1 -3, 1863), the Confederates hoped to pressure Northern civilians suf ficiently to cause them to demand that Lincoln end the war . At the least, they hoped to prove to Europe that they could successfully invade Northern provinces. Confederate Commander Robert E. Lee marched from Virginia, through Maryland, to Pennsylvania. Wh en he encountered Union troops, the Yankees held the higher ground and outnumbered Lee’s forces 90,000 to 75,000. Although the prospects were not good for battle, Lee felt he could not retreat because of the deleterious effect it would have upon his men an d on the South. Robert E. Lee, courtesy the Library of Congress Ulysses S. Grant, courtesy the Library of Congress. 10 After one day of exchanging artillery fire, Lee attempted to take the highest flanking positions on the field. The South came close but could not dislodge the Yankees. On the third day, Lee bet everything on General George Pickett’s charge ri ght up the center of the Union lines. Pickett’s men were cut to ribbons. Fifteen thousand began the charge, but only 5,000 made it to the top. There were not enough of Lee’s men left to continue the fight. The attack stalled; the men ran while being shot at from behind. On July 4th, Lee began his retreat, but heavy rains flooded the river , and he was trapped on the Union side. Lincoln ordered Union General George Meade to come down from the hills and crush Lee, but Meade’s men had suffered casualties, too, and the general was reluctant to engage the Rebels again. After a few days, the waters subsided, and Lee escaped. The chance to end the war in 1863 was lost, and military hostilities would continue for two more years. At Gettysburg, d ead soldiers remaine d unburied for some time. Eventually, it was decided to make a cemetery right there at the battle site . Lincoln and others were to give speeches to dedicate the cemetery. Lincoln’s speech was very short ( only 90 seconds). Th e brevity of his words initially annoyed t he crowd, many who had waited for hours to hear him speak. However, the speech was short enough to be published the next day in the newspapers in its entirety. His Gettysburg Address was so well -written that it has remained one of the most famous of all American speeches. Briefly, Lincoln charged all living Northerners to finish the work of the dead Union troops so that they would not have died in vain. Fr ustrat ed that Meade had not attempted to put the rebels away , Lincoln called for the one general he knew would always be willing to fight — Ulysses S. Grant. Grant understood that the only way to win the war was to kill Confederate soldiers. After an engagement, Grant would not stop to rest, as had the other Union generals, but he would push on for another engagement. Losses on both sides were enormous, but Grant knew the side with the most men would ultimately win from this type of warfare. Grant pursued Lee to Richmond , while sending General William Sherman on a march through Georgia, burning everything in a 60 – mile -wide path (including Atlanta) in an attempt to destroy Southern resistance. Meanwhile, outmanning Lee 3 -1, Grant took the Confederate capital and burned it to the ground . Lee was trapped, too weak to break out, with Union armies coming toward him on all sides. Further bloodshed was futile. He surrendered at the Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865, and the war was essenti ally over. 11 LINCOLN’S ASSASSINATION Overjoyed at the news of victory, Lincoln decided to celebrate by taking in a play on April 14. John Wilkes Booth shot the president, jumped to the stage, made a short speech, and rode away. Weeks later, he was killed before questioning, and the nation nev er felt like it knew all details of th e conspiracy to kill the president . THE ROLE OF TEXAS IN THE CIVIL WAR As many as 80,000 Texans fought for the South. These troops were primarily cavalry who were self -equipped and displayed a wide variety of firearms and uniforms. In time, the Texas state prisons became a major source of cloth weaving for military uniforms , and sev eral small munitions factories were established around the state. Terry’s Texas Rangers were the best -known brigade for bravery and daring, but their attrition rate of 67%, suggest ed that caution and careful planning were traits not highly prioritized. N onetheless, Confederate President Jefferson Davis was highly complimentary of the prowess of the Texas soldier, saying: “The troops from other states have their reputations to gain. The sons of the defenders of the Alamo have theirs to maintain.” Confederate Col. San tos Benevides was the highest ranking Mexican American in either army. About 2500 Texans fought for the Union, including 958 Tejanos and a regiment of loyalists recruited by future governor E. J. Davis. Texas was important to the Confederacy for several reasons: It had a great reservoir of men with military experience. With over 400 miles of shoreline, the state could provide 12 important ports. As the most westerly of the Confederate states, Texas held the key to expansion in the west. Texas was also us ed as a place of “safekeeping” for Northern prisoners of war and for the slaves of the other southern states (an influx of about 200,000 by 18 65). Some of these slaves were “impressed” (drafted) into auxiliary military service by the state. Because it was never successfully occupied by Union forces, Texas ’ agricultural economy was never disrupted. Texans produced food and managed livestock in suff icient quantities to feed the state for the duration of the war. With no disruption to the slave labor force, cotton continued to be the primary cash crop and was often shipped overseas under the flag of Mexico after being smuggled across the Rio Grande. There were wartime problems peculiar to Texas. It had to defend three of its borders from hostile forces: the Union soldiers from the east , Mexican bandits along the southern border, and hostile Native Americans and outlaws (often deserting soldiers) along the western frontier. In fact, hostile Indians roll ed back the West Texas frontier over 100 miles by 1865 , inflicting upwards of 400 casualties . The main source of tension between the state of Texas and the Confederate government was the question of allocating manpower between the defense of Texas and the absorption of troops into the Confederate army. To suppress disloyalty, Confederate sympat hizers arrested opponents of the war and tried them in kangaroo (lynch mob) courts. At least 40 were hanged for treason, although probably only a very few had actually been working as spies for the North as often charged. The best -known act of atrocity cen tered around 65 Germans from Fredericksburg who attempted to slip into Mexico until the war was over. Confederates gave chase; twenty -five of the Germans were killed on the spot and nine were captured. The prisoners were later executed. Figure 1: Terry’s Texas Rangers, c1863. Photograph courtesy of the Portal to Texas History, UNT. 13 Once the Union was able to capture the Mississippi River and blockade the G ulf Coast, the Confederacy was split in two. The North then determined to concentrate on destroying the eastern half, leaving Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas relatively isolated. Battles occurring in Texas were mainly for harassment. All casualties over 4 yea rs of war in Texas would not come close to equaling the one -day losses at any single major campaign in the East. Thus, the slave and agricultural systems in Texas were not disrupted during the war , as in many of the other Confederate states . Texas was led by t wo governors during the Civil War. Francis Lubbock (shown) presided over the state from 1861 to 1863. As a matter of personal pride, instead of seeking reelection, Lubbock resigned the governorship so he could serve in the Confederate military. Pendalton Murrah became governor at that time and served through the end of hostilities in 1865. Figure 2: The Great Hanging of Gainesville, 1862. Illustration depicting the killing of Texas unionists from Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper, February 20, 1864. 14 TEXAS MILITARY CAMPAIGNS New Mexico –If the Confederates could capture Santa Fe, New Mexico –the major settlement in the Southwestern territories –the South would be able to control much of the Mexican Cession territory. Thus, Texans under General Henry Sibley marched west. After initial vi ctories at Albuquerque and Santa Fe, Union troops, bolstered by the Colorado militia, slipped behind Texas General Sibley’s lines. They burned his wagons and supplies and bayoneted 600 mules and horses . This was known as the Battle of Glorietta Pass . With out supplies and transportation, the defeated Texas troops limped back into their home state i n the summer of 1862 with casualties of 50%. The South had hoped to take California with this expedition and get control of the gold, the lumber, and the western ports which could not have been blockaded by the North. Some have called this New Mexico campaign the “Gettysburg of the West,” though that is likely overstating its importance on the course of the war. A very important battle at this time was not fought by Americans at all, but by Mexican troops near Mexico City. Knowing the United States was totally preoccupied with its Civil War, Maximilian — the leader of France –took the opportunity to try and annex Mexico into their overseas empire. However, o n the 5 th of May,1862, Mexican soldiers won a significant battle against the French, temporarily thwart ing this act of foreign aggression . Had the French succeeded in conquering Mexico at this point in time , it is likely the French would have supported the Confed eracy ’s Civil War efforts in a variety of economic and military ways . T he character of the American Civil War might have changed. Today’s Cinco de Mayo celebration commemorates this victory, even though the French ultimately did gain control of Mexico. Galveston –In the fall of 1862, a mere150 Union troops captured a relatively undefended Galveston. Months later, Texas Major General John Bankhead Magruder brought 2000 soldiers from mainland Texas and launched a counterattack on New Year’s Day of 1863. A combin ed land/sea operation (using the remains of Sibley’s units) sank 2 Union gunboats and drove away 2 others. Lacking naval support, the Unionist s surrendered. Interestingly, t wo Confederate ships were “cotton -clad” –lined with bales of cotton for protection from enemy shells . Magruder then beefed up Galveston security sufficiently to discourage further northern incursions against that city . Sabine Pass –In the fall of 1863, the Union attempted a more serious invasion of Texas at the Sabine Pass, a very strategic location nor th of Houston. Four Union gunboats and 22 troop transport ships, carrying up to 5,000 northern soldiers steamed into the pass. It was defended by the Davis Guards, commanded by Lt. Richard Dowling –2 small gunboats and 46 men, in all. According to popular accounts, Dowling and his men played cards while the Federals searched the coast for a suitable place to land. The northerners sank to their knees in mud (a classic example of the homefield advantage). After giving up on landing the troops, the Union next attempted to shell the Texan fort from their gunboats. When the first Union ship got into the fort’s range, artillery from the fort easily destroyed it. All other Union ships but one then retreated. The final ship 15 approached the fort, guns blazing. Rebel s hips disabled the vessel and it ran aground — a sitting duck for the guns at the fort. It, too, surrendered. In all, Texans captured 350 men, killed 100, and disabled 2 ships. The Texans did not lose a man. This was most important as a morale booster, comin g shortly after the twin Confederate military disasters at Vicksburg and Gettysburg. Perhaps most importantly, this Confederate victory discouraged the Union from returning to the Gulf Coast. Had this Union attack succeeded, it is likely that the city of Houston would have been captured and possibly burned. Confederate President Jefferson Davis stated that the defense of Sabine Pass was “one of the most brilliant and heroic achievements in the history of the war.” The Red River Campaign saw 25,000 Union soldiers massing in Louisiana, with the idea of soon marching into Texas. With the idea of defeating the Union Army before it could attack Texas, this invading army was routed by Confederate troops (many of them Texan) 40 miles beyond the Texas border in the Battle of Mansfield . The Union army lost several thousand men as casualties and prisoners of war. Because of this discouraging defeat, t here would be no further attempts by the North to invade Texas. 16 Pictured: The Confederates evac uate Brownsville, Texas. Brownsville –This city was captured by the Union in 1863 in an effort to disrupt the southern cotton trade through Mexico. Texans regained the town in the summer of 1865 (Palmito Ranch –May 11, 1865). This military action is cons idered the last battle of the Civil War, as it took place a month after Lee’s surrender. The Brownsville area was so remote, the combatants had not yet received the news that the war was over. As Confederate prospects for victory dissolved and shortages o f consumer goods and a currency wracked by inflation began to inflict hardship on the civilian population , morale broke down in Texas. Many soldiers mutinied. Some raided the state treasury but found only $5000 in species. Texas had an opportunity for a wa y out of some of its troubles when a representative from Union General Ulysses S. Grant offered a separate peace with Texas, so Union and Texas forces could unite in a show of force against the French in Mexico. Had Texas not rejected the offer , Texas might have been spared some of the later hardships of Reconstruction. After Lee’s surrender, Union officials invited Texas General s Magruder and Kirby Smith to come aboard a federal ship to discuss terms. Texas signed the Figure 3 Texas Governor Pendleton Murrah 17 surrender papers on June 2. On June 19, 1865 , Union General Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston with 1800 men to begin Union occupation. Granger proclaimed the emancipation of the slaves ( Juneteenth ), and A. J. Hamilton , a Texas Unionist and former congressman, was named provision al governor. The wartime e lected governor, Pendleton Murrah (shown) , and many other Confederate officials fled to Mexico out of fear of prosecution for their involvement in the revolution. Virtual Reader Speech: “The Juneteenth Proclamation” President Abr aham Lincoln’s speech, the Emancipation Proclamation , had been issued on September 22, 1862, with an effective date of January 1, 1863 . However, it had little immediate effect on most slaves’ day -to -day lives, particularly in Texas, which was almost entirely under Confederate control. Juneteenth commemorates June 19, 1865, the day Union General Gordon Granger and 2,000 federal troops arrived on Ga lveston Island to take possession of the state and enforce the emancipation of its slaves. Legend has it while standing on the balcony of Galveston’s Ashton Villa, Granger read the contents of “General Order No. 3” “The people of Texas are informed that, i n accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between th em becomes that between employer and hired labor. The freedmen are advised to remain quietly at their present homes and work for wages. They are informed that they will not be allowed to collect at military posts and that they will not be supported in idle ness either there or elsewhere.” That day has since become known as Juneteenth, a name derived from the combination of the words “June ” and “nineteenth. ” Former slaves in Galveston rejoiced in the streets with jubilant celebrations. Juneteenth celebrations began in Texas the following year. Across many parts of Texas, freed people pooled their funds to purchase land specifically for their communities’ increasingly large Juneteenth gatherings — including Houston’s Emancipation Park, Mexia’s Booker T. Washingto n Park, and Emancipation Park in Austin. Juneteenth celebrations include a wide range of festivities, such as parades, street fairs, cookouts, or park parties and include such things as music , dancing , baseball, or even contests of physical strength and in tellect. 18 Virtual Reader Article: LINCOLN -KENNEDY ASSASSINATION COINCIDENCES Not part of mainstream historical thought, but nonetheless interesting are a series of coincidences between President Abraham Lincoln’s assassination and that of President John F. Kennedy. Lincoln was elected in 1860; Kennedy was elected in 1960. There were seven letters in each man’s name. Both Presidents were slain on Friday; both were slain in presence of their wives. Both presidents were directly concerned with black Ci vil Rights. Both First Ladies had lost children through death while in the White House. Both of their successors were named Johnson: Andrew Johnson and Lyndon Johnson. Each Vice -President’s name contains 13 letters. Both Vice -Presidents had served in the U.S. Senate. Both Vice -Presidents were southern Democrats. Lyndon Johnson was born in 1908; Andrew Johnson was born in 1808. Booth and Oswald were born one hundred years apart. Oswald shot Kennedy from a warehouse and hid in a theater. Booth shot Lincoln in a theater and hid in a (tobacco) warehouse. Both Booth and Oswald were murdered before trial could be arranged. Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wilkes Booth – each name has 15 letters. Kennedy’s secretary, whose name was Lincoln, warned him not to go to Dallas. Lincoln’s secretary, whose name was Kennedy, warned him not go to the theater. On his way to the theater, Lincoln rode in a Kennedy carriage. On his way through Dallas, Kennedy rode in a Lincoln. 19 Practice Questions : Texas in the Civil Wa r Match the topic at the top with the descriptor on the bottom. _____ Col. Santos Benevides _____ Jefferson Davis _____ camp hygiene _____ Santa Fe Campaign _____ Comanche and Apache _____ Antietam _____ Red River Campaign _____ John B. Mag ruder _____ Gordon Granger _____ slaves _____ Dick Dowling _____ Palmito Ranch _____ Camp Ford _____ E.J. Davis _____ cotton _____ Francis Lubbock _____ Huntsville prisoners _____ German Texans _____ Matamoros _____ Pendleton Murrah All descriptors below will be used once, except one that will not be used at all . a. Immediate destination for Texas cotton slated for overseas sale b. Highest ranking Hispanic in either Civil War Army c. Directed the Texas victory over the Union at S abine Pass d. Declared emancipation for Texas slaves e. After this northern victory, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation f. This objective was to bring western states and territories under Confederate control g. “The troops from other states have their reputations to gain. The sons of the defenders of the Alamo have theirs to maintain.” h. Hero of the Battle of Galveston i. Considered the turning point of the entire Civil War j. Civil War Texas defended 3 borders: vs. the Union in the East, vs. Mexican bandits and patriots in the South, and vs. ______________ in the West. k. Protected Texas gunboats from enemy fire at the Battle for Galveston l. Governor of Texas at the beginning of the Civil War hostilities m. Texas Governor at the end of the Civil War n. Raised a regiment of Union -loyal Texans to fight for the North o. made gray cloth for Texans fighting for the Confederate Army 20 p. Victims of Texas Confederate vigilantism during the Civil War q. This battle prevented a major Union Army from invading Texas from the Louisiana border. r. served in non -combat roles for Texas and the Confederacy s. the last battle of the Civil War t. Texas prisoner of war camp for captured Union soldiers u. re sponsible for incredible numbers of non -combat deaths FOR DISCUSSION: Texas in the Civil War Given the advantage of hindsight, how could the Confederacy have better used Texas to possibly have affected the outcome of the Civil War? FOR DISCUSSION: Confederate Monuments, Street Names, and School Names In the past few years, there has been considerable discussion concerning prominently placed monuments to Confederate leaders. Equally controversial are public schools and streets name d to honor historical Texans who fought for the Confederacy or at one time owned slaves. Consider one or more of the following questions: In your opinion, should we leave all those items alone? Why, or why not? Should we pull down, relocate, or change t he name of all of them? Why, or why not? Is there any compromise solution possible that would be acceptable to those who passionately believe in one or the other courses of action? Is it fair to use 21st century values to judge the lifestyle of people w ho lived in the 19th century?
This essay should be approximately 1 – 2 double-spaced page long. Correct spelling and grammar are important. Despite the well-known history of racism and bigotry in early Texas, ethnic relationships
1 Chapter Three CHAPTER 3: TEXAS UNDER MEXICAN RULE As mentioned earlier, under the new Mexican Regime, the provinces of Texas and Coahuila (northern Mexico) were combined into one state within the federation, because neither had sufficient population to be an individual state. Coahuila housed the capital a nd sent 10 representatives to the legislature while Texas sent but one. The two regions rarely agreed on policy, reflecting the differences in agendas between the “Anglos ” in Texas and the Hispanics in Coahuila. COLONIZATION A chief problem for the Mexic an government was to populate its northern areas to protect them from Native attacks or United States’ encroachment. To solidify its grip on Texas, Mexico used the empresario system to solicit North American immigrants to enter. The precedent had already been established under Spanish policy. The state contracted with a person who agreed to bring a specified number of industrious Catholic families into a designated area within 6 a year time period. Few citizens of southern Mexico would emigrate north of th e Rio Grande, so defense of Texas would largely depend upon North Americans. The logic of the Mexican policy of encouraging settlement by people from the nation it feared most was questionable, but it really had little choice. Figure 1The Alamo, copyright, Roger Burgess. 2 Land -hungry North Americans considered Texas more attractive than most of the Louisiana Purchase that the U.S. had obtained in 1803, because Eastern Indians had been pushed up against the unyielding Plains Indians and were making a very determined effort to not lose any more ground. Additionally, American businessmen feared a labor drain if westward movement was too inviting , so they conspired to keep U.S. land costs relatively high. 4600 acres in Texas cost about the same as 80 acres in the American West ($50), and under certain circ umstances, Texas land was available for free. Besides, Texas land was richly grassed and well -watered. Much of the land formerly occupied by the Caddos (now decimated by disease), was already cleared and could be made productive with minimal effort. Place d in charge of much of the colonization movement was Moses Austin , who died and was replaced by his son, Stephen F. A young man (late 20’s), Austin was about the only person trusted implicitly by both the Mexican government and the Anglo immigrants. Although Mexico appointed a total of 41 empresarios (most importantly Green DeWitt and Martin de Leon), Austin was by far the most successful. Empresarios were paid in land grants for their efforts. Immigrants received one “labor” (177 acres) if they intended to farm and one “league” (4,428 acres) if they planned on ranching. Most proclaimed their desire to do both. Enjoying almost dictatorial control, Austin required affidavits testifying to the reputation of his colonials, and drunks or troublemakers were soon expelled. Between 1820 and 1836 about 35,000 North Americans came to Texas. This is a remarkable number in such a s hort time, when compared to what Spain had been able to draw. Many came on foot — “human porcupines,” with pots, shovels, and odd pieces of wood strapped around their bodies. Most were honest and law -abiding. Records indicate little crime. A frontier spiri t developed. The new colonists were exempted from general taxes for ten years and paid no customs duties for seven years. Many practiced subsistence farming and sold a few cattle to survive. Some were able to export surplus cotton or corn. Smuggling was profitable and not usually discovered. Initially, m any of these early immigrants dwelled in tents or cave homes and counted on wild pecans as an important part of their diet. Some of the biggest challenges to relocating in Texas were crossing the Neutral Ground near the Louisiana border, where pirates, con -men, and criminals resided . Cholera epidemics posed yet another threat. Figure 2: Stephen F. Austin, the “Father of Texas” (1793 -1836). Portrait painted in New Orleans in 1836. Cr edit: The State Preservation Board, Austin, Texas. 3 The Mexican government require d that all settlers become Catholic , and th at slavery was not allowed. These official requirements were often cir cumvented by tricks and ruses. Some slave -owning immigrants claimed that their chained workers were merely 99 -year “indentured servant s.” The “Catholics only” policy caused quite the moral dilemma for the Protestant newcomers. To receive the free land, the settlers had to reject the religion that they and their ancestors in Europe had so ardently defended against Catholicism. Many were known to lie about their denomination, only to return to their Protestant King James versions of the Bible as soon as th e authorities left the area. The religious requirement was practically a moot point, however. The scarcity of priests in Texas made it difficult to sanctify marriage or baptism. Only o ne or two Irish priests (like Michael Muldoon) took Texas as their pas torate, because Mexican priests would not accept assignment to Texas . The se priests allowed considerable latitude . Enforcement of Church law was initially lax. A lack of capital and a dearth of roads, banks, and schools prevented the development of mu ch substantial business. Texas harbors, like Galveston and Matagorda Bay, were both very hazardous for ships. In Mexico, political control alternated between the liberal and conservative partie s and often centered around Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna , who vacillated back and forth . In1824, the liberal Mexicans wrote a fine constitution, based somewhat upon the American example. Unfortunately, no leader emerged who could (or would) rule under it. This Constitution of 1824 established a “states’ rights” gove rnment whereby local officials wielded considerable power. Texas still was not given statehood within the nation of Mexico; it remained merged with Coahuila, but there was no reason to think statehood would not come as soon as the population warranted it. In the meantime, Austin wrote many laws for his colonists and, as empresario, generally settled all disputes and organized defense s. STEPS TO REVOLUTION After a few years, American colonization of Texas was so successful that Mexico became fearful t hat they would lose their northernmost state . Hispanic citizens in Texas were outnumbered 10 to 1 by Anglos, and most Hispanics were mere laborers for white landowners. To the Mexicans, there were numerous flaws in the Anglo character –black slavery, disre gard for the Native population , intolerance for Figure 3: Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna (1794 -1876). This lithograph presents a highly romanticized view of the Mexican leader around the time of the Texas Revolution. Credit: San Jacinto Museum of History, Houston, Texas. 4 any people with different ways and beliefs . A t their worst, the North American immigrants were said to be “godless marauders who plundered quiet villages, desecrated Catholic images, raped pious women, and w ere born with an unholy appetite for gold and silver.” The constant influx of new Anglos into Texas meant that the older settlers could never acclimate to Mexican ways . How could they assimilate into the minority population? The new North American settle rs were constant reminders of the “better life” back in the United States . Anglo settlers did not seem to take Mexican citizenship seriously, believing it was only a matter of time before Texas joined the United States. More and more, Anglos were agitating for their (U.S.) “Constitutional” rights, although many of these rights were not recognized by the Mexican constitution, at all. “Spoiled” by U.S. ways, the Anglos considered many Mexican government actions as tyrannical. Furthermore, the U.S. government constantly pestered the Mexican government to purchase Texas from Mexico, raising suspicions still further. Other issues intensified the problems between mother country and colony. Anglos of that time -period looked down on Mexicans as an inferior race, la zy, with a suspect religious belief, a strange language, and no understanding of real democracy. Between 1833 and 1855, the Mexican presidency changed hands 36 times –the average term was 7 1/2 months. The Anglo -Texans detested the Mexican troops quartered among them, as well as the practice of using the military to enforce civil law. They wanted no connection between church and state. Clandestine Protestant religious services were held “underground,” and preachers often encouraged revolution as the quicke st way to redeem Texas for the Protestant faithful. These agitators exaggerated the excesses of Catholicism and considered the Mexican land law requiring religious conversion to be immoral. They encouraged settlers to go through the sham of conversion and then practice their true religion in private. With this degree of cultural misunderstanding, there was bound to be trouble. THE FREEDONIAN UPRISING Because Mexicans were preoccupied with political instability at home while the Anglos were busy with t he rigors of frontier survival, it was 1827 before the first serious clash between the two occurred. Haden Edwards , an empresario, was ordered to leave Texas because of some governing irregularities. His brother, Benjamin, took over Nacogdoches and proclai med the Republic of Freedonia . Mexican troops arrived, and Edwards fled to the U.S. Although Edwards was not supported by Austin and the other empresarios, many Mexican officials considered the uprising to be one more plot by Americans to steal their land . A uthorities became even more suspicious of the remaining Anglo -Texans. It was exactly at this time that the U.S. made another high -pressure pitch to buy Texas from Mexico. The proposal was ill 5 received. Und er conservative control again, Mexico sent General Mier y Teran to take the political/cultural pulse of Texas. The further east he traveled, the less Mexican influence he found. He recommended a counter -colonization program that came to be known as : THE DECREE OF APRIL 6, 1830 1. Further North American colonization was prohibited in Texas but permitted further South below the Rio Grande. This made it difficult for family members or friends to join those already in Texas. Fathers, for example, had come to Texas to build a home and start a small farm, planning to send for their wives and children as soon as feasible. This new decree thwarted such plans. However, Mexico could not patrol its entire border. Ironically, illegal North Americans came to sneak ac ross the border into Mexico in search of a better life . So, 2. Mexico established military outposts in Texas . These forts were manned by convict – soldiers , as Mexican “regulars” did not want to transfer north of the Rio Grande. Their primary assignment was to secure the border and to maintain surveillance of the North Americans already living in Texas. There were numerous abuses. 3. M exico m ore strictly enforced the prohibition of slaves , limiting service contracts to ten years. The rest of Mexico by th is time had prohibited slavery altogether. 4. The government encourag ed Mexican and European settlement to Texas to dilute the strength of the North Americans. However, f ew immigrants from Europe arrived, discouraged as they were by the stagnant economy, unstable government, and religious intolerance. Hispanics from south of the Rio Grande were rarely interested in relocating to Texas because of the lack of culture, scarcity of churches, and the hostility of the Native tribes. North American “Texicans” wer e especially outraged by the “no slave” clause. They felt their best hope for the future lie in attracting well -to -do slave owning southerners to Texas to replicate the slave -based economic success of Virginia or South Carolina. Texas could not attract th is group if slavery was prohibited. This decree of April 6 would be repealed in 1834, but not before thoroughly straining relationships between Mexico and Texas to the breaking point. The decree also marked the end of salutary neglect — self -rule, no taxes, etc. In fact, officials canceled the Texas exemption from Mexican fees and duties. So -called “War Dogs” attempted to equate the April 6 Decree with the British Stamp Acts of a century earlier. 6 DISTURBANCES OF 1831 AND 1832 The cruel and unpopular tax collector, John Bradburn (who often made arbitrary arrests), agitated Texans. Rumor had it that Bradburn’s men were raping Texan women and were inciting slaves to revolt. Neither charge was likely true. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna was meanwhile leading a rebellion against Mexican President Anastacio Bustamante , a military dictator who was ignoring the Constitution of 1824. The Texans then started an uprising in Anahuac against Bradburn, agent of Bustamante (12 deaths). This would have been grounds for s evere punishment except for Santa Anna’s victory in Mexico City. Texans claimed in their Turtle Bayou Resolutions that the ir uprising clearly demonstrat ed their loyalty to the constitutionalist, Santa Anna. In appreciation, Santa Anna recalled Bradburn, released Bradburn’s prisoners, and decreased official Mexican presence in Texas for several years. CONVENTIONS OF 1832 AND 1833 In 1832, Texans assembled and wrote a petition seeking repeal of the April 6 Decree, and asked for tariff exemption for three more years, bilingual administrators, and customs officials locally appointed. They also demanded the formation of Texas as a stat e within the Mexican nation, because Coahuila, the parent state, was replete with corruption and graft and could outvote Texans by a 10 to 1 margin on major issues. Such conventions and petitions were not recognized as legal by the Mexican government, and so the petition was rebuffed. This led to the more militant . . . CONVENTION OF 1833 , which sought similar demands as before, but included a state constitution for Santa Anna’s approval (like one would do in the U.S. but considered a rebellious act in Mexi co ). Stephen F. Austin went to personally present the petition to Santa Anna. Austin got the run -around for a while, until Mexican liberals once again gained control of the Mexican government. Meanwhile (annoyed), Austin wrote to Texans to go ahead with fo rming their own state , separate from Coahuila . Eventually Santa Anna met with Austin, and the Texans received everything they asked for (English language, religious toleration, lowered tariffs, trial by jury) except statehood. This was refused on the grou nds of insufficient population. Even the anti -immigration law was rescinded, as was the rest of the Decree of April 6. Austin happily headed for home but was arrested shortly after because his letter urging the formation of a separate state had just been i ntercepted, and it made him look quite revolutionary. He was jailed for over two years, including three months of solitary confinement. This incident spawned further anger on both sides. 7 SANTA ANNA’S TYRANNY In time, Santa Anna discovered there wa s more powerful support for an ultra – conservative leader than for a liberal constitutionalist in Mexico. Therefore, he repudiated liberalism, dissolved Congress, and threw out the Constitution by 1835. He began to imitate the style and mannerisms of Napole on Bonaparte, whom he admired. Altogether, Santa Anna served as Mexican president on 11 separate occasions. He butchered thousands of those who refused to change political positions as fast as he had changed his. Hardest hit was the Mexican state of Zacate cas, which rebelled against him after he subverted the Constitution of 1824. After thoroughly defeating their military resistance, Santa Anna executed twenty -five hundred citizens in Zacatecas and allowed the women of the region to be abused and humiliated by his soldiers . ANAHUAC He then sent out more unwelcomed tariff collectors into Texas. At Anahuac, the citizens did not want to pay unless tariffs were fairly and uniformly collected. Will B. Travis gathered some men and drove the Mexican officials away. Mexican General Martin Pe rfecto de Cos (Santa Anna’s brother -in-law) demanded that other Texans turn over Travis and his men. The Texans refused. Rumors spread that Cos was going to free all slaves and punish Texas for its disobedience. Committees of Correspondence , similar to tho se in Boston in the 1700’s, were established to keep Texans informed of the latest developments. It was a t this time that Stephen Austin returned from Mexican arrest, less loyal to Mexico than before. He was nominated leader of the revolution and began to prepare for war. THE TEXAS REVOLUTION Due to the controversy over taxation, General Cos ordered more troops from Mexico into Texas . He sent these soldiers to Gonzales to pick up a cannon the Mexican army had loaned Texas years before. About 160 Texa ns assembled to protect the cannon, unfurling a sign which read “Come and Take It.” The Texans attacked and drove the Mexican army away. The Texas Revolution had begun in earnest. This skirmish has often been called the “Lexington” of the Texas Revolution. Soldiers of fortune, like the New Orleans Grays, drifted into Texas, lured by the prospect of free land in Texas in exchange for fighting for independence . 8 Austin (and others) left for the U.S. to seek aid. There were several early skirmishes with the Te xans doing very well, especially in defeating General Cos in San Antonio. (“Who will go into San Antonio with old Ben Milam?”) After a 41 -day siege, the Texans expelled Cos and his men from the Alamo. In exchange for their release, t he defeated Mexican arm y took and oath that they would never again oppose the Mexican Constitution of 1824 . Four -hundred Texans had defeated about 1300 Mexican soldiers who had held the superior field position. This success, however, may have caused later Texans to overestimate their own prowess and underestimate the Mexican Army. The Texans claimed all public property, money, arms, and supplies in San Antonio and gained occupation of an old, deserted mission called the Alamo, as this was the only defensible position around San Antonio. Unfortunately, the holes blasted into the walls by the Texans at this skirmish would be the very holes breached by the Mexican army months later. CONFUSED GOVERNMENT While Austin was away, Henry Smith had been appointed provisional governor o f Texas, with Sam Houston given the charge of Commander -in-Chief of the Texas military. Unfortunately, Smith and the Texas legislature quarreled constantly, with each side nullifying the acts of the other. The result was that no money was raised, and no one truly governed. Indecision reflected the dichotomy of declaring independence or merely championing the restoration of the Mexican Constitution of 1824. Militarily, Texas was splintered around “favorite” commanders, and Houst on did not really have authority overall. Sam Houston was an unforgettable figure. He was about four inches over six feet, with broad shoulders and brilliant gray eyes. He dressed in an audacious style, combining Indian, Mexican, Arab, and European a rticles of clothing. He wore several finger rings and a variety of earrings. He had been wounded in the War of 1812, but the wound had never closed and oozed fluid constantly. When depressed, he would often lapse into drunkenness or an opium – induced stupor . Several times in his life he had gone off to live with the Indians to get away from his troubles. Hisp anic Texans faced a dilemma. Many hated Santa Anna and resented him for nullifying the Constitution of 1824. However, many also suspect ed that in a new Anglo -controlled Texas, the Hispanic would be relegated to second -class citizen. Figure 4: Sam Houston (1793 -1863). This 1848 lithograph capture’s Houston’s strength and pride far better than do earlier portraits. Credit: Center for American History – UT Austin. di_07522. The Dolph Briscoe Center for American History. The University of T X 9 SANTA ANNA INVADE S TEXAS In February of 1836, Santa Anna, himself, determined to personally lead the attack against the Texans. Forty -two years old, chest gleaming with medals (many of them self -awarded ), wearing extravagant uniforms, he considered himself the Napoleon of the West. He was determined to avenge Cos’ defeat and cover himself in glory. He was known to be extremely cruel when provoked, as exemplified by his annihilation of the Mexican state of Zacatecas. Santa Anna was an opium addict, making significant decisio ns while “out of his mind.” Starting out with as many as 6,000 men (troops, draftees, Yucatan (Mayan) Indians) and an enormous entourage, he marched from Mexico to San Antonio to put an end to this revolution. The camp followers were essential to this ar my, serving as foragers for the soldiers’ food. Fewer than 10% of his foot soldiers wore a military uniform and were properly armed. Along the way, there was an unexpected freeze (over a foot of snow) which killed many of his men (barefoot and scantily cl othed) and livestock. Comanche and Apache attacked the weakened army, who were short on food, physicians, and medical supplies. Texas scouts burned the countryside in front of the Mexican Army to deprive them of as much foraging as possible. Upon arriving in San Antonio on February 23, 1836, Santa Anna unfurled a special 12′ blood red flag –signifying his policy of “n o surrender / no prisoners. ” Defenders answered with a cannon shot and was said to have hoisted the Mexican flag, with the number s “1824” superimposed to signify their support for the Mexican Constitution of 1824. It was thus highly ironic that the authentic Mexican army flew a “pirate” flag, while the so -called “pirates” flew the authentic Mexican flag (T.R. Fehrenbach). 10 Figure 6: Mexican flag of 1824. Credit: The Sam Houston Memorial Museum, Huntsville, Texas. Figure 5Approximation of Santa Anna’s Blood Red flag signifying he would not be taking prisoners at this encounter. 11 THE ALAMO Holed up inside the Alamo , an abandoned mission, were fewer than 200 defenders. Fortunately for the defenders , the structure was slightly elevated with a clear field of fire on all directions. Sturdy walls, 8 to 9 feet thick surrounded most of the grounds. The ample space (about 1 modern city block) within the grounds of the Alamo contained plenty of beef, water, and other foods, and several of the defenders held Kentucky long rifles –very accurate at great distances (300 yards). The men were very adept at “shooting at braid” (officers). The Alamo was equipped with as many as 21 artillery pieces, although not all of them were serviceable; quality gunpowder was in short supply; and not enough troops coul d be spared to man them. The men were led by Colonel William Barrett Travis, Jim Bowie, and Davey Crocket . M exic an army at t ack t he Alamo The Bet t mann Arc hive 12 “Buck” Travis was a South Carolinian about 26 years old in 1836. Like many Texans, he had abandoned his wife when he relocated to Texas. He is best known for his eloquent letters sent from the Alamo requesting help. Travis was one of the first defenders to die in the battle, suffering a bullet wound to the head. David Crockett was an adventurer whose life had been exaggerated in dime -store nov els. The real David Crockett had difficulty living up to the legend. This is part of the reason he initially came to Texas. It was Crockett who preferred to leave the Alamo and fight out in the open. He did, however, play a lively tune on the fiddle and en tertained the men on several evenings. Jim Bowie was quite respected as a fighter. The famous knife (Bowie Knife) he developed was designed for close fighting. He had spent most of his time in Texas dealing in land transactions –some of a questionable nature. He would become deathly sick with typhoid pneumonia shortly before the battle and would die either at the hands of the Mexicans or from his illness. Because of his ill -health, the much – debat ed controversy over who was actually in military command at the Alamo became largely a moot point. 13 Although ordered by Sam Houston to abandon San Antonio and destroy the Alamo, the men decided to hold their post. ” We shall never surrender or retreat ,” Travis wrote in his letters asking for help as the Mexican army prepared to attack. James Bonham bravely rode out twice through Mexican lines to recruit reinforcements and rode back in again. Many of the Alamo defenders felt betrayed by their Texas “cou ntrymen,” when only 32 settlers from Gonzales (the entire male population) answered Bonham’s call — none braver –marching to certain death. Unfortunately, they came without much in the way of supplies or ammunition. The Texas government, being in splintered disarray at this time, could provide no official assistance. Col. Travis gave his men a chance to escape by drawing a line in the sand with his sword, asking all who were willing to fight to cross the line. Only one (Frenchman Louis Rose) refused to cros s, and he escaped in the dark of night. “Only fools and amateurs would try to defend this place,” he said. It is likely that the line in the sand scenario actually occurred, because that was a common method of voting by volunteer soldiers. THE BATTLE Santa Anna besieged the fort with cannon for 13 days, while waiting for the bulk of his army to catch up with his advance units. The fire was largely ineffective, as the highly 14 structured Mexican army was not empowered to alter the line of fire with out Santa Anna’s command. Thus, many of the cannon balls (more than 200) landed harmlessly in open spaces and rolled to the Alamo pasture , sometimes to be picked up and fired back at the Mexicans. In one of his letters, Travis claimed to “have not lost a man” prior to the direct assault on the final day. There had also been miscellaneous skirmishes during the first week, with the Mexicans evidently getting the worst of the exchange each time. Mexican psychological warfare was effective, however. Each night the Mexicans would either fake an attack or have their bands play loud music to disrupt the defenders’ rest. Numerous reports put Santa Anna in San Antonio proper at this time, seeking a sexual conquest and resorting to a fake marriage to accomplish it, much to the shame of his senior officers. Thus, with the siege u nable to bring about the Alamo’s surrender, Santa Anna ordered an all -out attack on March 6 . Mexican critics said he should have continued the siege until he starved the Texans out to lessen h is casualties. But some say that Santa Anna’s greatest fear was that the Alamo would surrender without his gaining a great military victory. The commander felt that his prestige diminished with every day the Texans held out . Additionally, it was not unnot iced by Santa Anna and the Mexican troops that Mexican General Jose de Urrea had already w on some personal glory in a campaign to the east. The early morning attack was to be a surprise, but overenthusiastic Mexican troops yelled out some “Viva’s” and by giving away their position, they paid for it in grapeshot. Travis’ last known command was: “The Mexicans are coming. Give ’em Hell!” Contemporary reports claim that the Mexican army used the barefoot and often unarmed Yucatan Indians and Mestizos as human battering rams to directly assault the walls. Wave after wave bravely attacked the fort with hundreds of men dying primarily from artillery fire. As the attack lost its cohesion, Santa Anna threw his professional soldiers to reinforce the assault . This was likely an un wise decision, because the field of battle was still dark, filled with smoke and very crowded with survivors from the first attack. As it turned out , the reinforcements inadvertently shot many of their own men who were positioned in front of them. Eventually, however, the thin line of Texas defenders became so sparse that entire sections of the wall were manned by only a handful of soldiers. Finally, a 4 -sided simultaneous attack overwhelmed the defenders in about 90 minutes. Once the walls had been breached, many defenders took refuge inside the “long barracks” that had been specially set up as a last means of defense. Mexicans turned the Texans’ own cannon s on the barracks, blast ing down the doors . H and -to-hand combat ensued. Mo st Texans had no bayonets, as did the Mexicans, but they did have their empty guns as clubs, their knives, and their tomahawks. Compared to the Mexican soldiers , the Texans were enormous men, averaging over a head taller than their adversaries. The defend ers fought nearly to the death of the last man. Enraged Mexican troops, admittedly “out of control,” continued to stab and shoot the Texan corpses, often making hundreds of wounds per body. 15 One Mexican officer’s report (that did not surface for many years ) claimed Crockett and others begged for their lives and were shot like dogs. It is possible that Crockett and about 5 others surrendered as prisoners of war to a Mexican officer who promised protection. Santa Anna criticized th is officer and stated: “I do not want to see these men alive.” Other reports say the prisoners were bayoneted immediately and went to their death bravely. (See the de la Pena article in the Virtual Reader for more details). Alamo survivors (Susanna Dickinson , her daughter Angelina, T ravis’ slave (Joe) , and a few Hispanic women) helped spread the story that emphasized the glory of the defenders. Since they would be inclined to praise their allies , the stories cannot be accepted without some reservation. As the Mexican officials would w ant to downplay the glory of the Alamo, their story cannot be entirely trusted either. However, since escape had been possible for the defenders up until the last night, it seems that they had already resigned themselves to honorable death and would not li kely have changed their mind at the finish. The dead Texan bodies were stacked on a pile of wood and burned, much to the horror of friends and families who wanted to claim the bodies for Christian burial. Instead, the remains were left for the scavengers, vultures, and dogs. A year later, Captain Juan Seguin , a Tejano Revolutionary, gathered some of the ashes and bones in a coffin. After an honorable ceremony, the ashes were buried by a peach orchid. The Mexicans, though, had lost from 600 to 1600 men, in cluding many of Santa Anna’s best soldiers. Some reports arrived at the lower figure by counting the cemetery graves, but the official in charge of burying the Mexican dead admitted that there were so many casualties that he finally had his men toss untold bodies — friend and foe — into the river. In any case, the horrible casualty total affected the morale of the Mexican army, and everyone agreed that another “victory” such as this could effectively end the campaign. Also, the lengthy delay of this campaign gave remaining Texans more time to prepare for the forthcoming struggle. The example of bravery at the Alamo also rallied the countryside –inspiring some and shaming others into action, while providing the patriotic slogan of the revolution, “Remember the Alamo!” This example of courage increased support (some official, most unofficial) from the United States. Shortly before the fall of the Alamo ( on March 2 ), the Texas legislature approved a Declaration of Independence and Constitution and selected David Burnet as Provisional President . The defenders of the Alamo never knew it. BACKSTORY: TEXAS DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE March 1, 1836 was a cold and rainy night at the tiny village of Washington (on -the – Brazos) as delegates from all over Texas cam e together. The single street was ankle – deep in mud, and the cloth stretched across the openings for windows in the unfinished 16 building failed to exclude the chilling wind. The primary topic of debate was whether Texas should declar e its independence or me rely demand that the Mexican government restor e the Mexican Constitution of 1824. There were no troops between San Antonio and Washington on the Brazos . The situation was grave, possibly hopeless. Every hour brought some new rumor or bit of news relative to the Mexican advance. When Will Travis’ eloquent plea for help reached the delegation, some wanted to adjourn immediately and go the aid of San Antoni o. It took Sam Houston’s counterargument that it was the greater duty of the assembly to remain at their posts and set up an organized government. Once the decision for independence had been reached, t here was no time to lose. The conference appointed a c ommittee of five to draft a Declaration of Independence. The following day, March 2 –Sam Houston’s birthday –independence was unanimously adopted by the 58 delegates, including 3 delegates of Hispanic origin –two of whom were the only native Texans in the group. There have been a variety of historical interpretations to explain the independence movement. Some say the revolt sprang from economically frustrated Texans who felt official policy prevented them from prospering. This thought has it that Texans we nt to war primarily to preserve the institution of slavery that would be forever threatened while living under Mexican jurisdiction. Another theory is p erhaps this was just one more example of America’s Manifest Destiny to spread its border over all of Nor th America — carried out by North Americans if not by the United States, itself. A well -known revisionist explanation faults aggressive Anglos, who never for a moment took their Mexican nationality seriously, and never gave the Mexic an government a chance to work out their differences. According to this theory, most Texan immigrants assum ed it was only a matter of time before Texas became part of the U nited States . According to this argument, the entire affair was a conspiracy between Texans and certain Un ited States’ officials who wanted to foment a revolution as a prelude to an American invasion. A different interpretation sites irreconcilable differences between the Hispanic and Anglo cultures, making it impossible for the two groups to share the same g eographical region. One group was Catholic, of Spanish descent, family -oriented, casual about local administration, town -oriented, obedient to authority, and extremely proud. The second group was Protestant, largely British, individually oriented, insiste nt upon good local administration, suspicious of cities, disrespectful of national authority, and just as eager for a duel as any Hispanic hidalgo. It may be helpful to study the Declaration of Independence itself to see what the delegates actually said. These words have formed the basis for the traditional interpretation of the Texas independence movement: 17 “When the Federal Constitution no longer exists; when every interest is disregarded except that of the military and priesthood; when every semblance o f freedom is removed; when anarchy prevails –the right of self -preservation permits the people to take political affairs into their own hands to abolish such government and create another. The Mexican Government invited and induced Anglo -Americans to colo nize its wilderness under the pledged faith of a written constitution that they should continue to enjoy that constitutional liberty and republican government to which they had been habituated . . . In this expectation we have been cruelly disappointed. W e delegate s therefore declare our political connection with the Mexican nation has forever ended; and that the people of Texas do now constitute a free, sovereign and independent republic.” Th at same day work began on a constitution that would be largely based on the U.S. example. David G. Burnet and Lorenzo de Zavala were elected as ad interim president and vice -president respectively. However, d eclaring independence would be a small task compared to winning it and maintaining it. THE BATTLE OF GO LIAD The next military engagement took place at Goliad , about 100 miles from San Antonio. The Texan commander, Col. James Fannin , was arguably the worst commander the Texans had. Quickly discouraged at the state of military affairs, Fannin wrote his superi ors several times requesting to be relieved of his command at Goliad. While clearly not the supreme commander of Texas forces, Fannin had a military commission guaranteeing he would be “subservient to none.” The Alamo had urged him to come to their assistance, but he could not reach a decision until it was too late. Houston wanted Fannin to leave Goliad, but Fannin showed no desire to join another arm y where he would not be the supreme commander. After changing his mind many times, he decided to defend Goliad, made barricades and stored up a huge supply of meat. He later decided to retreat and ordered his men to burn the barricades, burn the stored mea t (700 steers) and retreat to the east . That afternoon, they realized they had burned ALL the meat and now went hungry. They also neglected to bring a sufficient water supply . Fannin refused to leave the wide -open spaces they found themselves in and seek c over in a wooded area, less than a mile away. Twelve hundred Mexicans caught up with fewer than 400 Texans and raked them with cannon shot. There was no cover, and the Texans were exhausted, hungry, and dehydrated. The remains of the Texas army surrendered as prisoners of war and expected to be impris oned or deported. It was their understanding that there would be no executions or reprisals. However, Santa Anna considered them as revolutionaries and ordered the entire corps to be shot. After about a week of imprisonment, Mexican 18 troops tricked the Texa ns, divided them into 3 groups, and marched them in three separate directions. T hen they ambushed them , intent on honoring the dictates of Santa Anna’s blood red flag . Upon realizing the hopelessness of his situation, Fannin gave a Mexican officer his wal let and watch and asked not to be shot in the face and to be decently buried. He was then shot between the eyes and burned. At this “battle,” 350 Texans were killed; 28 escaped. “Remember Goliad!” became a new rallying cry. Houston’s military authority t hus became fairly solidified after the elimination of his competitors . He now held a unity of command –an essential principle of war. THE RUNAWAY SCRAPE With Santa Anna now determined to drive the last European -American out of Mexico, the people of Texas fled for their lives in what has been dubbed, “The Runaway Scrape.” Roads were jammed as folks tried to stay ahead of the Mexican army. T exans burned their t owns , cabins, and crops so they could not be used by Santa Anna . Thirst, hunger, panic and disease prevailed. Knowing his small, poorly trained and ill – equipped army could not resist the Mexicans, Houston retreated again and again, also scorching the earth behind him. To some, Houston became a laughingstock . However, he could not risk defeat, as his army represented the last of the resistance. Houston’s plan was to lure Santa Anna further and further from his Mexican home base and closer to the U.S. border. Santa Anna boasted, however, “If the norteamericanos give me any more trouble, I may march all the way to Washington.” However, supplies and recruits were arriving every day from the countryside and from the U.S., giving Houston the confidence t hat he could make a stand in the future. The U.S. ultimately loaned $10 2,000 to the Texas cause, and private American citizens donated thousands more. Many American men came to fight in return for Texas land bounties. Meanwhile, the small Texan navy was holding its own protecting Galveston and preying upon Mexican shipping. Figure 7: “Dog trot” style replica of colonial era Texan house. Credit: Nicholas P. Cox, at San Felipe de Austin State Historic Site. 19 At this point, the famous “Twin Sisters,” 2 cannon, arrived as a gift from the citizens of Cincinnati. Houston made his way to San Jacinto and made camp. On April 20, after dividing his forces and burning the city of Harrisburg, Santa Anna encamped near H ouston’s army, but on a peninsula –a position that defied all rules of common military sense. Houston had his scout, Deaf Smith, burn the bridge back across the river so that neither army could escape or receive further reinforcements. Hendrick Arnold, a f ree black pretending to be a runaway slave, acted as spy for Houston and sent important information back to the Texan camp. The Texans attacked the next day, April 21, at about 4:00 PM — traditional siesta time for the Mexican soldiers. This attack came as a complete surprise , as Santa Anna expected Sam Houston to continue his typical pattern of retreating whenever the Mexican army closed in. On this day, the sun was at the Texans’ back, blinding the Mexicans’ eyes . With thanks also to some trees and a rise in the ground, the 900 Texans crept within 200 yards of the 1500+ Mexicans . Santa Anna had not even bothered to post advance scouts. The “Sisters” blasted the Mexican camp, and the Texas soldiers attacked from 3 sides, routing the Mexic ans. Contemporaries believed (and contemporary research does not disprove) that the beautiful Emily — of mixed European and African descent (the “Yellow Rose” ) was “entertaining” Santa Anna in his tent at the crucial moment of the attack , rendering the Mexic an general unable to direct the defense . Additionally, t he Texan Army was fighting for their independence and were highly motivated to win, while the Mexican Army may not have been as committed to the fight. 20 Santa Anna fled. The fighting lasted 18 minutes, but the slaughter continued for hours longer. Frustrated Texans could not be restrained. More than 630 Mexicans were killed, even though they shouted: “Me no Alamo! Me no Goliad!” 208 Mexican soldiers were wounded; 730 captured. Nine Texans wer e killed and 34 were wounded, included Houston, whose right leg was shattered. The following day, Generals Santa Anna and Cos were captured. On May 14, 1836, the Treaty of Velasco was signed by Santa Anna. Publicly, Mexico agreed to recall all troops north of the Rio Grande and to release all Texan prisoners. An equal number of Mexican soldiers would be released. Mexican critics claim ed that subordinate officers should not have been carried out the directives in the treaty , since they were given under dures s. In a p rivate agreement, Santa Anna promis ed to 21 convince Mexican officials to recognize Texan independence. In return for off of this , Santa Anna would not be killed as the Texan soldiers demand ed . He would instead return to Mexico. Houston did not want to make him a martyr and keeping Santa Anna alive was good leverage against the resumption of hostilities from the 5000 Mexican troops still in Texas. However, t he Mexican Senate never ratified the treaty , leaving t he question of Texas independence in doubt . Sam Houston was taken to New Orleans for treatment of his wound. Texas civilians returned to their homes. Texan independence was won on this battlefield but would likely have to b e maintained on another . Virtual Reader: “Mier y Teran Fears Mexico May Lose Texas” …As one covers the distance from Béjar to this town, he will note that Mexican influence is proportionately diminished until on arriving in this place he will see that it is almost nothing. And indeed, whence could such influence come? Hardly from superior numbers in population, since the rati o of Mexicans to foreigners is one to ten; certainly Fig ure 8 Santa Anna (center) as captive. 22 not from the superior character of the Mexican population, for exactly the opposite is true, the Mexicans of this town comprising what in all countries is called the lowest class -the very poor and very i gnorant. The naturalized North Americans in the town maintain an English school, and send their children north for further education; the poor Mexicans not only do not have sufficient means to establish schools, but they are not of the type that take any t hought for the improvement of its public institutions or the betterment of its degraded condition. Neither are there civil authorities or magistrates; one insignificant little man –not to say more –who is called an alcalde, and an ayuntamiento that does no t convene once in a lifetime is the most that we have here at this important point on our frontier; yet, wherever I have looked, in the short time that I have been here, I have witnessed grave occurrences, both political and judicial. It would cause you th e same chagrin that it has caused me to see the opinion that is held of our nation by these foreign colonists, since, with the exception of some few who have journeyed to our capital, they know no other Mexicans than the inhabitants about here, and excepti ng the authorities necessary to any form of society, the said inhabitants are the most ignorant of Negroes and Indians, among whom I pass for a man of culture. Thus, I tell myself that it could not be otherwise than that from such a state of affairs should arise an antagonism between the Mexicans and foreigners, which is not the least of the smoldering fires which I have discovered. Therefore, I am warning you to take timely measures. Texas could throw the whole nation into revolution. The colonists murmur against the political disorganization of the frontier, and the Mexicans complain of the superiority and better education of the colonists; the colonists find it unendurable that they must go three hundred leagues to lodge a complaint against the petty pic kpocketing that they suffer from a venal and ignorant alcalde, and the Mexicans with no knowledge of the laws of their own country nor those regulating colonization, set themselves against the foreigners, deliberately setting nets to deprive them of the ri ght of franchise and to exclude them from the ayuntamiento. Meanwhile, the incoming stream of new settlers is unceasing; the first news of these comes by discovering them on land already under cultivation, where they have been located for many months; the old inhabitants set up a claim to the property, basing their titles of doubtful priority, and for which there are no records, on a law of the Spanish government; and thus arises a lawsuit in which the alcalde has a chance to come out with some money. In th is state of affairs, the town where there are no magistrates is the one in which lawsuits abound, and it is at once evident that in Nacogdoches and its vicinity, being most distant from the seat of the general government, the primitive order of things shou ld take its course, which is to say that this section is being settled up without the consent of anybody…. In spite of the enmity that usually exists between the Mexicans and the foreigners, there is a most evident uniformity of opinion on one point, na mely the separation of Texas from Coahuila and its organization into a territory of the federal government. This idea, which was conceived by some of the colonists who are above the average, has become general among the people and does not fail to cause co nsiderable discussion. In explaining the reasons assigned by them for this demand, I shall do no more than relate what I have heard with no addition of my own conclusions, and I frankly state that I have 23 been commissioned by some of the colonists to explai n to you their motives, notwithstanding the fact that I should have done so anyway in the fulfillment of my duty. They claim that Texas in its present condition of a colony is an expense, since it is not a sufficiently prosperous section to contribute to the revenues of the state administration; and since it is such a charge it ought not to be imposed upon a state as poor as Coahuila, which has not the means of defraying the expenses of the corps of political and judicial officers necessary for the mainten ance of peace and order. Furthermore, it is impracticable that recourse in all matters should be had to a state capital so distant and separated from this section by deserts infected by hostile savages. Again, their interests are very different from those of the other sections, and because of this they should be governed by a separate territorial government, having learned by experience that the mixing of their affairs with those of Coahuila brings about friction. The native inhabitants of Texas add to the above other reasons which indicate an aversion for the inhabitants of Coahuila; also the authority of the comandante and the collection of taxes is disputed…. The whole population here is a mixture of strange and incoherent parts without parallel in our federation: numerous tribes of Indians, now at peace, but armed and at any moment ready for war, whose steps toward civilization should be taken under the close supervision of a strong and intelligent government; colonists of another people, more progress ive and better informed than the Mexican inhabitants, but also more shrewd and unruly; among these foreigners are fugitives from justice, honest laborers, vagabonds and criminals, but honorable and dishonorable alike travel with their political constitutio n in their pockets, demanding the privileges, authority and officers which such a constitution guarantees. Source: Alleine Howren, Causes and Origin of the Decree of April 6, 1830,” Southwestern Historical Quarterly, XVI (1913), 395 -98. Virtual Reader: T he Decree of April 6, 1830 Article 3. The government is authorized to name one or more commissioners who shall visit the colonies of the frontier states and contract with the legislatures of said states for the purchase, in behalf of the Federal government , of lands deemed suitable for the establishment of colonies of Mexicans and other nationalities; and the said commissioners shall make, with the existing colonies, whatever arrangements seem expedient for the security of the republic. Article 4 . The chie f executive is authorized to take such lands as are deemed suitable for fortification or arsenals and for the new Colonies, indemnifying the States for same, in proportion to their assessment due the Federal government. 24 Article 6. The convict soldiers shal l he employed in constructing the fortifications, public works and roads which the commissioners may deem necessary, and when the time of their imprisonment is terminated, if they should desire to remain as colonists, they shall be given lands and agricult ural implements, and their provisions shall be continued through the first year of their colonization. Article 7. Mexican families who voluntarily express a desire to become colonists will be furnished transportation, maintained for one year, and assigned the best of agricultural lands. Article 9. The introduction of foreigners across the northern frontier is prohibited under any pretext whatsoever, unless the said foreigners are provided with a passport issued by the agent of the republic at the point when ce the said foreigners set out. Article 10. No change shall be made with respect to the slaves now in the states, but the Federal government and the government of each state shall most strictly enforce the colonization laws, and prevent the further introdu ction of slaves. Article 11. In accordance with the right reserved by the general congress in the seventh article of the law of, August 18, 1824, it is prohibited that emigrants, from nations bordering on this republic shall settle in the states or territo ry adjacent to their own nation. Consequently, all contracts not already completed and not in harmony with this law are suspended. Article 12. Coastwise trade shall be free to all foreigners for the term of four years, with the object of turning colonial t rade to ports of Matamoras, Tampico and Vera Cruz. Article 14. The government is authorized to expend five hundred thousand dollars (pesos) in the construction of fortifications and settlements on the frontier; … Article 18 . The government shall regulate t he establishment of the new colonies, and shall present to congress, within a year, a record of the emigrants and immigrants established under the law, with an estimate of the increase of population on the frontier. Anastacio Bustamente Source: Texas Gazet te, July 3, 1830 Virtual Reader: The Travis Letter To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World : 25 Fellow citizens & compatriots — I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna — I have sustained a continual Bombardment & cannonade for 24 hours & have not lost a man. The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the ga rrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken — I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, & our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch — The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country — Victory or Death . William Barret Travis Lt. Col. comdt P.S. The Lord is on our side — When the enemy appeared in sight we had not three bushels of corn — We have since found in deserted houses 80 or 90 bushels & got into the walls 20 or 30 head of Beeves. Virtual Reader: “The Death of Crockett” Some seven men had survived the general carnage and, under the protection of General Castrillon, they were broug ht before Santa Anna. Among them was one of great stature, well proportioned, with regular features, in whose face there was the imprint of adversity, but in whom one also noticed a degree of resignation and nobility that did him honor. He was the naturali st David Crockett, well known in North America for his unusual adventures, who had undertaken to explore the country and who, finding himself in Bejar at the very moment of surprise, had taken refuge in the Alamo, fearing that his status as a foreigner mig ht not be respected. Santa Anna answered Castrillon’s intervention in Crockett’s behalf with a gesture of indignation and, addressing himself to the sappers, the troops closest to him, ordered his execution. The commanders and officers were outraged at thi s action and did not support the order, hoping that once the fury of the moment had blown over these men would be spared; but several officers who were around the president and who, perhaps, had not been present during the moment of danger, became notewort hy by an infamous deed, surpassing the soldiers in cruelty. They thrust themselves forward, in order to flatter their commander, and with swords in hand, fell upon these unfortunate, defenseless men just as a tiger leaps upon his prey. Though tortured befo re they were killed, these unfortunates died without complaining and without humiliating themselves before their torturers. Enrique de la Pena 26 Historians Discuss the de la Pena Narrative José Enrique de la Peña has been telling stories, and not everyone wants to hear them. A lieutenant colonel in the Mexican army who fought at the Alamo in 1836, both his voice and his controversial narratives survive in the form of a massive, 680 -page diary that details his eyewi tness account of the short and brutal war that led to the independence of Texas. But thanks to one very brief passage in the text, the encyclopedic diary itself has been at the center of a heated ideological war about how Texas should view its heroes and m yths since its first English translation was published 25 years ago. Offering compelling challenges to the traditional story of how Texas came to be, de la Peña, it seems, is still fighting his tough revolution. The notorious passage, which claims that the mythic Davy Crockett was captured by Mexican soldiers and executed by order of General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna instead of dying in the glory of patriotic battle, has severely angered those loyal to Crockett’s reputation and has brought rise to countle ss historical questions. These questions and mostly unsearchable answers were the subject of a daylong conference on April 29 organized by UT’s Center for American History and titled “Eyewitness to the Texas Revolution: Jose Enrique de la Peña and His Narr ative.” Bringing together historians and experts on the Texas campaign for independence, the panels mixed high drama and deep thought to grapple with the authenticity and accuracy of the manuscript itself, as well as to discuss larger trends in the formula tion of cultural histories. Most importantly, conference organizers promised to reveal the results of scientific tests on the diary that would prove once and for all whether the voice of the colonel was authentic. The problem, of course, is that authentic ity does not guarantee accuracy. Even if it could be proven that the de la Peña diary is not a forgery, there could be no way to resolve the question of how Davy Crockett died. The Mexican observer could have lied about what he saw, after all, or he could merely be retelling false or distorted secondhand tales. Still, there was a curious mood in the LBJ Library auditorium as the results of the tests were about to be revealed. One group of college -aged kids started placing bets on the fate of the diary: “I’l l give you a dollar if this is really a fake.” There were those, too, in the audience who had spent years trying to discredit the manuscript for whom the moment seemed overwhelmingly fateful. Chief among them was Bill Groneman, the New York -based author o f Defense of a Legend, which claims that the diary is a forgery that has irresponsibly tarnished the reputation of an impeccable hero. The Crockett that Groneman and his fellow defenders continue to cherish is not a man who was captured and beaten, but the standard and iconic Fess Parker figure, complete with the intriguing hat and surrounded by piles of Mexican soldiers at his feet. 27 For those who fell somewhere in between the two sides of the fight over how Crockett died, there were a number of fascinating issues to consider. During his lunchtime address, novelist Stephen Harrigan (The Gates of the Alamo) noted that he would not be surprised if the document turned out to be fake. “There is something hauntingly not quite right about it,” he said, commenting on the diary’s shifting tone and points of view. “Something kept me from falling in love [with it].” Others simply marveled at the stubbornness and fanaticism of those caught up in the fight. “This was like a two -headed snake that struck twice with one lun ge,” said Dora Guerra, who curated the diary during its previous stay at the University of Texas at San Antonio. So when David Gracy, a professor of archival enterprise in the graduate school of library and information science at UT, took to the podium to announce the results of his tests, a great many people straightened up and sat at the edge of their seats. There was utter silence as he vigorously and exhaustively recounted the extent of the tests on the ink and the paper, the comparisons of handwriting samples, and the logical arguments to support what he found. “Unavoidable is the conclusion that the journal is authentic,” he declared in his almost inappropriate fashion, heatedly addressing many of his points directly to Groneman. And for an unspeakabl e moment, the hero Davy Crockett seemed deader than ever, marred not by blood but by ink. The second most important question of the day, and the one that is even harder to answer, has to do with the fascination and genuine need that cultures have to create unreal myths based on historical events: Why does it matter how Davy Crockett died? The f acts are that he fought at the Alamo, he did die, and he has been honored for it. To many, it seems nothing but a technicality if he was captured and killed instead of having gone down fighting. But James Crisp, a professor at North Carolina State Universi ty, argued at the conference that the instant legend of Crockett and his colleagues had a profound effect not only on the self -image of the state that they created, but on the actual immediate effects of the war. “Santa Anna lost two battles on April 21, 1836,” Crisp said, referring to the defeat of the Mexican army at San Jacinto. On the one hand, he claimed, they lost an actual and present conflict on the muddy fields in one afternoon. But there was also the subtext of the unfinished Alamo fight, made al l the more present by the cries of “Remember the Alamo.” It was the gravity of the myth that had already been formed that changed what could have been a small assault into a decisive victory that wrenched a gargantuan chunk of land from the Mexican governm ent. If the ghost of Crockett had not been there, in other words, the war might have continued much longer. But Crisp admits, too, that the issue at stake with the de la Peña diary is not just the simple question of how one man died, but the issue of how history is made and how voices are silenced. He’s right. One undeniably crucial concern which was never explicitly addressed at the conference was the fact that the diary’s Mexican origin casts complex shadows on how it has been received in an American aud ience. For those who have had trouble accepting the fact that Crockett was captured, for instance, one must wonder how much of their outrage is intensified by the fact that 28 the capture came at the hands of a Mexican army. Is the actual history made all the more unacceptable due to idea that not only was the adventurous and physically superior Crockett executed, but that he was executed by a Mexican force? When a figure like Crockett becomes the symbol of the entire state and its history, that question beco mes a bit dangerous. The factors involved in such a discussion deal with the hopelessly complex relationship between two cultures and two histories. It is a delicate conversation to have, for sure, but the argument over whether one man’s diary is real, and the argument over how one soldier was killed, becomes important only in this light. In her speech, Guerra joked that the fascination people have with the diary is akin to tales of Elvis Presley sightings. What people have invested in this debate is not so me mere fandom or kitsch, but a genuine passion for how the story of Texas is written and how it affects real life. It may no longer matter how Crockett was killed, but it does matter how we now allow him to live. Virtual Reader: Infamy at Goliad The Goliad Massacre, the tragic termination of the Goliad Campaign of 1836, is of all the episodes of the Texas Revolution the most infamous. Though not as salient as the battle of the Alamo, the massacre immeasurably garnered support for the cause against Mex ico both within Texas and in the United States, thus contributing greatly to the Texan victory at the battle of San Jacinto and sustaining the independence of the Republic of Texas. The execution of James W. Fannin, Jr.’s command in the Goliad Massacre was not without precedent, however, and Mexican president and general Antonio López de Santa Anna, who ultimately ordered the executions, was operating within Mexican law. Santa Anna’s main army took no prisoners; execution of the murderous decree of December 30, 1835, fell to Gen. José de Urrea, commander of Santa Anna’s right wing. The first prisoners taken by Urrea were the survivors of Francis W. Johnson’s party, captured at and near San Patricio on February 27, 1836. When the Mexican general reported to S anta Anna that he was holding the San Patricio prisoners, Santa Anna ordered Urrea to comply with the decree of December 30. Urrea complied to the extent of issuing an order to shoot his prisoners, along with those captured in the battle of Agua Dulce Cree k, but he had no stomach for such cold -blooded killing. When Father Thomas J. Malloy, priest of the Irish colonists, protested the execution, Urrea remitted the prisoners to Matamoros, asking Santa Anna’s pardon for having done so and washing his hands of their fate. Santa Anna replied to Urrea’s clemency letter on March 23 by ordering immediate execution of these “perfidious foreigners” and repeated the order in a letter the next day. Meantime, on March 23, evidently doubting Urrea’s willingness to serve a s executioner, Santa Anna sent a direct order to the “Officer Commanding the Post of Goliad” to execute the prisoners in his hands. This order was received on March 26 by 29 Col. José Nicolás de la Portilla, whom Urrea had left at Goliad. Two hours later Port illa received another order, this one from Urrea, “to treat the prisoners with consideration, and especially their leader, Fannin,” and to employ them in rebuilding the town. But when he wrote this seemingly humane order, Urrea well knew that Portilla woul d not be able to comply with it, for on March 25, after receiving Santa Anna’s letter, Urrea had ordered reinforcements that would have resulted in too large a diminution of the garrison for the prisoners to be employed on public works. At sunrise on Palm Sunday, March 27, 1836, the unwounded Texans were formed into three groups under heavy guard commanded by Capt. Pedro Balderas, Capt. Antonio Ramírez, and first adjutant Agustín Alcérrica. The largest group, including what remained of Ward’s Georgia Battal ion and Capt. Burr H. Duval’s company, was marched toward the upper ford of the San Antonio River on the Bexar road. The San Antonio Grays, Mobile Grays,and others were marched along the Victoria road in the direction of the lower ford. Capt. John Shackelf ord’s Red Rovers and Ira J. Westover’s regulars were marched south westwardly along the San Patricio road. The guard, which was to serve also as a firing squad, included the battalions of Tres Villas and Yucatán, dismounted cavalry, and pickets from the Cu autla, Tampico, and Durango regiments. The prisoners held little suspicion of their fate, for they had been told a variety of stories -they were to gather wood, drive cattle, be marched to Matamoros, or proceed to the port of Copano for passage to New Orlea ns. Only the day before, Fannin himself, with his adjutant general, Joseph M. Chadwick, had returned from Copano, where, accompanied by Holsinger and other Mexican officers, they had tried to charter the vessel on which William P. Miller’s Nashville Battal ion had arrived earlier (these men had been captured and imprisoned at Goliad, also). Although this was really an attempt by Urrea to commandeer the ship, the vessel had already departed. Still, Fannin became cheerful and reported to his men that the Mexic ans were making arrangements for their departure. The troops sang “Home Sweet Home” on the night of March 26. After the executions the bodies were burned, the remains left exposed to weather, vultures, and coyotes, until June 3, 1836, when Gen. Thomas J. R usk, who had established his headquarters at Victoria after San Jacinto and was passing through Goliad in pursuit of Gen. Vicente Filisola’s retreating army, gathered the remains and buried them with military honors. Some of the survivors attended the cere mony. The impact of the Goliad Massacre was crucial. Until this episode, Santa Anna’s reputation had been that of a cunning and crafty man, rather than a cruel one. When the Goliad prisoners were taken, Sam Houston led a small army of volunteers who were r etreating in the face of Santa Anna. The Texas cause was dependent on the material aid and sympathy of the United States. Had Fannin’s and Miller’s men been dumped on the wharves at New Orleans penniless, homesick, humiliated, and distressed, and each with his separate tale of Texas mismanagement and incompetence, Texas prestige in the United States would most likely have fallen, along with sources of help. But Portilla’s volleys at Goliad, together with the fall of the Alamo, branded both Santa Anna and th e Mexican people with a reputation for cruelty and aroused the fury of the people of 30 Texas, the United States, and even Great Britain and France, thus considerably promoting the success of the Texas Revolution. Copyright © 2017 Legacy of Texas, All rights reserved. Virtual Reader: The Texas Declaration of Independence (March 2, 1836) The Texas Declaration of Independence was produced, literally, overnight. Its urgency was paramount, because while it was being prepared, the Alamo in San Antonio was under siege by Santa Anna’s army of Mexico. Immediately upon the assemblage of the Convention of 1836 on March 1, a committee of five of its delegates were appointed to draft the document. The committee, consisting of George C. Childress, Edward Conrad, James Gaines, Bailey Hardeman, and Collin McKinney, prepared the declaration in record time. It was bri efly reviewed, then adopted by the delegates of the convention the following day. As seen from the transcription below, the document parallels somewhat that of the United States, signed almost sixty years earlier. It contains statements on the function an d responsibility of government, followed by a list of grievances. Finally, it concludes by declaring Texas a free and independent republic. The full text of the document is as follows: The Unanimous Declaration of Independence made by the Delegates of the People of Texas in General Convention at the town of Washington on the 2nd day of March 1836. When a government has ceased to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people, from whom its legitimate powers are derived, and for the advancement of whose happiness it was instituted, and so far from being a guarantee for the enjoyment of those inestimable and inalienable rights, becomes an instrument in the hands of evil rulers for their oppression. 31 When the Federal Republican Constitu tion of their country, which they have sworn to support, no longer has a substantial existence, and the whole nature of their government has been forcibly changed, without their consent, from a restricted federative republic, composed of sovereign states, to a consolidated central military despotism, in which every interest is disregarded but that of the army and the priesthood, both the eternal enemies of civil liberty, the everready minions of power, and the usual instruments of tyrants. When, long after the spirit of the constitution has departed, moderation is at length so far lost by those in power, that even the semblance of freedom is removed, and the forms themselves of the constitution discontinued, and so far from their petitions and remonstrances being regarded, the agents who bear them are thrown into dungeons, and mercenary armies sent forth to force a new government upon them at the point of the bayonet. When, in consequence of such acts of malfeasance and abdication on the part of the governm ent, anarchy prevails, and civil society is dissolved into its original elements. In such a crisis, the first law of nature, the right of self -preservation, the inherent and inalienable rights of the people to appeal to first principles, and take their pol itical affairs into their own hands in extreme cases, enjoins it as a right towards themselves, and a sacred obligation to their posterity, to abolish such government, and create another in its stead, calculated to rescue them from impending dangers, and t o secure their future welfare and happiness. Nations, as well as individuals, are amenable for their acts to the public opinion of mankind. A statement of a part of our grievances is therefore submitted to an impartial world, in justification of the hazar dous but unavoidable step now taken, of severing our political connection with the Mexican people, and assuming an independent attitude among the nations of the earth. The Mexican government, by its colonization laws, invited and induced the Anglo – America n population of Texas to colonize its wilderness under the pledged faith of a written constitution, that they should continue to enjoy that constitutional liberty and republican government to which they had been habituated in the land of their birth, the United States of America. In this expectation they have been cruelly disappointed, inasmuch as the Mexican nation has acquiesced in the late changes made in the government by General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, who having overturned the constitution of hi s country, now offers us the cruel alternative, either to abandon our homes, acquired by so many privations, or submit to the most intolerable of all tyranny, the combined despotism of the sword and the priesthood. It has sacrificed our welfare to the sta te of Coahuila, by which our interests have been continually depressed through a jealous and partial course of legislation, carried on at a far distant seat of government, by a hostile majority, in an unknown tongue, and this too, 32 notwithstanding we have p etitioned in the humblest terms for the establishment of a separate state government, and have, in accordance with the provisions of the national constitution, presented to the general Congress a republican constitution, which was, without just cause, cont emptuously rejected. It incarcerated in a dungeon, for a long time, one of our citizens, for no other cause but a zealous endeavor to procure the acceptance of our constitution, and the establishment of a state government. It has failed and refused to se cure, on a firm basis, the right of trial by jury, that palladium of civil liberty, and only safe guarantee for the life, liberty, and property of the citizen. It has failed to establish any public system of education, although possessed of almost boundle ss resources, (the public domain,) and although it is an axiom in political science, that unless a people are educated and enlightened, it is idle to expect the continuance of civil liberty, or the capacity for self -government. It has suffered the militar y commandants, stationed among us, to exercise arbitrary acts of oppression and tyranny, thus trampling upon the most sacred rights of the citizens, and rendering the military superior to the civil power. It has dissolved, by force of arms, the state Cong ress of Coahuila and Texas, and obliged our representatives to fly for their lives from the seat of government, thus depriving us of the fundamental political right of representation. It has demanded the surrender of a number of our citizens and ordered m ilitary detachments to seize and carry them into the Interior for trial, in contempt of the civil authorities, and in defiance of the laws and the constitution. It has made piratical attacks upon our commerce, by commissioning foreign desperadoes, and aut horizing them to seize our vessels, and convey the property of our citizens to far distant ports for confiscation. It denies us the right of worshipping the Almighty according to the dictates of our own conscience, by the support of a national religion, c alculated to promote the temporal interest of its human functionaries, rather than the glory of the true and living God. It has demanded us to deliver up our arms, which are essential to our defense, the rightful property of freemen, and formidable only to tyrannical governments. It has invaded our country both by sea and by land, with intent to lay waste our territory, and drive us from our homes; and has now a large mercenary army advancing, to carry on against us a war of extermination. 33 It has, through its emissaries, incited the merciless savage, with the tomahawk and scalping knife, to massacre the inhabitants of our d efenseless frontiers. It hath been, during the whole time of our connection with it, the contemptible sport and victim of successive military revolutions, and hath continually exhibited every characteristic of a weak, corrupt, and tyrannical government. These, and other grievances, were patiently borne by the people of Texas, until they reached that point at which forbearance ceases to be a virtue. We then took up arms in defense of the national constitution. We appealed to our Mexican brethren for assist ance. Our appeal has been made in vain. Though months have elapsed, no sympathetic response has yet been heard from the Interior. We are, therefore, forced to the melancholy conclusion, that the Mexican people have acquiesced in the destruction of their li berty, and the substitution therefore of a military government; that they are unfit to be free, and incapable of self -government. The necessity of self -preservation, therefore, now decrees our eternal political separation. We, therefore, the delegates wi th plenary powers of the people of Texas, in solemn convention assembled, appealing to a candid world for the necessities of our condition, do hereby resolve and declare, that our political connection with the Mexican nation has forever ended, and that the people of Texas do now constitute a free, Sovereign, and independent republic, and are fully invested with all the rights and attributes which properly belong to independent nations; and, conscious of the rectitude of our intentions, we fearlessly and con fidently commit the issue to the decision of the Supreme arbiter of the destinies of nations. Practice Questions: 1. In the Decree of April 6, 1830, the Mexican government provided special incentives for Mexican families to relocate to Texas. a. True b. False 2. According to Col. William B. Travis, by March 3, 1836, the Texans had not lost a single man to any cause, despite the fact that over 1000 artillery shells have been fired at the Alamo. a. True b. False 3. Santa Anna served as Mexico’s leader on more than ten occasions. a. True b. False 4. Mexico had to depend substantially upon North Americans to colonize her 34 northern province of Texas, because most Hispanics south of the Rio Grande generally refused to relocate to Texas. a. True b. Fa lse 5. Stephen F. Austin was often seen drunk and in strange attire. a. True b. False 6. Santa Anna’s blood -red flag that he unfurled before the Alamo indicated his sorrow for the Mexican blood that had already been shed in this campaign. a. True b. False 7. The underlining purpose of Santa Anna’s “marriage” in San Antonio during the siege of the Alamo was to ensure an offspring to inherit his position. a. True b. False 8. James Bonham’s claim to immortality was that he rode in a nd out of the Alamo in an effort to recruit more defenders. a. True b. False 9. The Twin Sisters were useful in keeping Santa Anna occupied for over an hour during the Battle of San Jacinto. a. True b. False 10. Many American settlers preferred Texas rather than the United States western territories, despite the fact that Texas land was slightly more expensive. a. True b. False 11. Most Texans quietly practiced their Protestant religion, even though the y had “officially” converted to Catholicism. a. True b. False 12. Stephen F. Austin was the ayuntamiento who was most successful in attracting North American settlers to Texas. a. True b. False 13. American settlers had difficulty living under the conditions established by the harsh and tyrannical Mexican Constitution of 1824. a. True b. False 14. Texans resented the constant intrusion of the numerous Catholic priests into their everyday lives. a. True b. False 15. Protestant ministers of ten encouraged Texas settlers to consider revolution from Mexico. a. True b. False 35 16. The Mexican Decree of April 6, 1830, is quite similar to the United States document dated July 4, 1776. a. True b. False 17. Stephen Austin made a mistake when he wrote to his friends in Texas about implementing a separate Texas state constitution without Mexico’s approval. a. True b. False 18. After initially coming to power as a liberal, Santa Anna deduced in 1834 that there was more powerful support in Mexico for a staunch conservative, and so he changed his political direction. a. True b. False 19. General Cos likely approved of the goals and activities of the Texan Committees of Correspondence. a. True b. False 20. Former Spanish monarchs, Ferdinand and Isabella, would likely have approved of the Mexican Constitution of 1824. a. True b. False 21. The date is November 3, 1830. You are a prominent Anglo -Texan. Is it likely you will invite Mier y Teran to your home for dinner? a. Yes b. No 22. Would citizens of the Mexican state of Zacatecas likely sympathize with Texas revolutionaries in 1836? a. Yes b. No 23. You are a black slave, working in San Antonio. If there were a revolution, whose victory would most benefit your own position, Texan or Mexican? a. Texan b. Mexican c. neither 24. During the siege, Mexican artillery took a d evastating toll on the defenders of the Alamo. a. True b. False 25. In early 1836, one point of dispute among Texas leaders was whether to declare independence or to simply insist on Mexico’s governing Texas with the Constitution of 1824. a. True b. False 26. The primary advantage enjoyed by the Texans at San Jacinto was: a. superior numbers. 36 b. the shelling of the enemy position by the Texas navy. c. the collaboration with the U.S. military. d. the yellow fever epidemic sweeping through the Mexican camp. e. surprise. 27. Though casualty figures were about even, the Battle of San Jacinto is considered a victory for the Texans. a. True b. False For Discussion: It is said that Santa Anna snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. How would a more seasoned military leader have handled the Texan campaign so as to minimize Mexican losses and expedite the defeat of the Texas rebels?
This essay should be approximately 1 – 2 double-spaced page long. Correct spelling and grammar are important. Despite the well-known history of racism and bigotry in early Texas, ethnic relationships
1 Chapter Five CHAPTER 5: ANTEBELLUM TEXAS Since slavery was the most emotional issue of the day and was largely credited with bringing on the Civil War, it is proper to examine this institution in some detail . In 1850, there were 58,161 slaves in Texas; by 1860, there were 182,566. This amounted t o 30% of all peoples living in Texas. Almost all slaves lived in East Texas. The slave population was increasing at a faster rate than the white population. Much of this increase was due to slaveowners from other southern states shipping their slaves to Texas for “safekeeping.” DEGREE OF SLAVE OWNERSHIP A. In 1860, about 25% of white Southerners belonged to families owning slaves . This includes the 21,878 Texan families who owned slaves . B. Less than 4% of the total white population in the South owned 20 or more slaves . This was the “planter class, ” as defined by national census . Approximately 2,163 Texa ns were members of this elite group . C. To live up to the popular conception of aristocratic luxury (mansion, numerous servants, etc.) , the services of at least 50 slaves were required. Less than 1% of Southern whites could boast of this level of prosperity . Only 54 families in Texas owned 100 or more slaves. However, these families established the tone and values for the entire region . They wielded disproportionate influence and political position. POPULAR SUPPORT FOR THE SLAVE / PLANTATION SYSTEM Even NON -SLAVE HOLDING whites generally supported the system. The heavy concentration of blacks in certain parts of Texas and much of the South put whites in a MINORITY position that would be untenable should manumission take place. Some fear ed that freed slaves would seek revenge. Others strongly felt that blacks could not become self -supporting. Historical and “scientific” evidence ab ounded as to the 2 “inferiority ” of blacks, such as a widely accepted (at that time) “scientific” book which claimed that intelligence could be predicted by looking at the shape of the NOSE . According to this theory, wide flat noses predicted a low intellect , while thin and angular noses suggested high intelligence . For evidence, this author studied the results of a standardized test, making note of which races (and nose shapes) scored highest. It is highly likely the test was culturally bias ed and certainly did not consider the degree of formal education (or comprehension of the English language) that the test group possessed prior to filling out the questionnaire . With these criteria in min d, it is no surpris e that those with Native, Asian, or African roots performed at a lower level than their European counterparts. Enslavement was also seen as a means for spreading the gospel to a people who would have lived and died without ever hear ing the Word of God had they not been brought to Amer ica . I n Ephesians 6:5, Paul advised the slaves (of his generation) to “obey their masters.” Southerners generally feared that crime and welfare needs would run rampant if slavery ever ended. Southerners pointed to the depressed condition of free blacks i n the North to prove this point. Texans were quick to point out that adding up the food, clothing, lodging, transportation, medical treatment, and retirement benefits of the slave produced a much greater dollar figure than the ANNUAL WAGE of a factory -wor king free black in the North. Plus, there was no danger of unemployment. Of course, no dollar figure was subtracted to represent the loss of personal freedom and family security. Some poor whites dreamed of owning their own slave someday, but mostly, the lower – class whites needed a socio -economic group to look down on. No matter their depressed state, the white underclass could find positives in the fact that there was another group with less status. Additionally, p oor whites did not want to work alongsid e freed blacks and did not want to compete with them for land or jobs. Emancipation was highly unpopular among lower class whites because it would remove the pride and status that automatically accompanied white skin in th is acutely race -conscious society. Most importantly, the economic success of the planter class , the state, and the region depended upon slave labor. Cotton was the most important commodity in the world at this time , and t he South grew 60% of world’s cotton . Ninety percent of the cotton grown in Texas was produced by the slaveowners. Collectively, the South ern states were richer than all European nations but England . In their world, so much depended upon a massive and reliable labor system. Alternative opinions were not allowed. Holding anti -slavery sentiments was tantamount to political suicide. The dominant class, so dependent upon their “peculiar 3 institution,” fine -tuned their “slavery is a positive good” argument by convincing others of i mpending doom if emancipation should ever come to pass. Opinion was consolidated . Only Democrats held office in Texas. T he region was sealed off from Northern ideas , political liberalism, abolitionist literature , and the Republican party . LIFE OF A SLAVE A. The typical slave worked from “Can see, ’til can’t .” This means roughly 12 -16 hours per day, about 5.5 to 6 days/week . They clear ed the land, pl owed , pl anted , weed ed , and pick ed . Frederick Douglas , an escaped slave later recalled: “We worked in all weathers. It was never too hot or too cold; it could never rain, blow, hail, or snow, too hard for us to work in the field. Work, work, work, was scarcely more the order of the day than of the night. The l ongest days were too short for him (the overseer) and the shortest nights too long for him. I was somewhat unmanageable when I first went there, but a few months of this discipline tamed me. Mr. Covey succeeded in breaking me.” Labor in the RICE fields of East Texas demanded standing in knee -deep water for several consecutive hours. Foot rot and chills, pulmonary diseases, heat exhaustion, typhoid, scarlet and yellow fever epidemics were so bad that most masters would leave the area during the most dangero us months. Household slaves generally enjoyed a more comfortable existence. In many cases, house -hands were the “aristocrats” of the slave world and often passed their position on to their offspring. Many “Mammies” ruled the household and demanded a cert ain degree of respect from the master’s family because of their special skills and talents. Black nursemaids routinely raised white children and frequently nursed the white infants , as well. Frederick Douglas Figure 1: Texas Slaves. Image courtesy of Dolph Briscoe Center for American History, University of Texas. 4 Treatment of slaves ranged from cruel sadism, (needed to get the “animals” to work), to gentle paternalism, (slaves as perpetual children). The Bible was often used to influence slaves to greater control. Apostle Paul said: “Slaves, obey your masters.” The 10 Commandments admonished: Do not lie, cheat, or steal. Do not covet your neighbor’s goods or wife. Planters gradually developed a slave code. Anyone with a known black lineag e of 1/64 or more was considered a Negro and subject to slavery. Most Texans considered the mixed blood, or mulatto slave, to be superior in intelligence to the full – blooded black, although the former was considered to be less durable than their counterpar ts. The code forbade blacks to own property. Slaves could not leave the plantation without a written pass from the master, nor could any black be out after dark. Slaves never sat down or kept their hat on in the presence of a white. Slaves should never in itiate a conversation. They had to walk several steps behind whites and allow whites ample room on sidewalks –stepping into the street if necessary. Bondsmen could not carry firearms or strike a white person for any reason — even in self -defense . Black testi mony was not accept ed in a court of law . Only in church could blacks group together. The se customs and more would have to be “unlearn ed ” after emancipation by white supremacists and loyal slaves alike . The slave code even imposed restrictions upon the masters, after a time. Whites could no longer teach slaves to read and write, and ultimately it became very difficult for a white to emancipate his slave, who would possibly become a “bad example” for the others still under bondage . 5 Lazy, rebellious, or dishonest slaves often experienced the whip. Whipping was brutal and dramatic but usually did not cause permanent physical damage to the recipient. Regional slave patrols circulated constantly, bringing assurance that all was well within the system. Runaway slaves were pursued by bloodhounds and the apprehended could expect appropriate punishment — per haps having their ears nailed to a tree or a whipping. In extreme cases, disgruntled masters sold the bondsmen to a plantation far away, but generally just the threat of such a sale brought improved behavior. On occasion, slaves were killed or mutilated, b ut financial considerations usually ameliorated even the hottest of tempers. PROVISIONS The CLOTHING provided was normally 2 sets of clothes per year and one pair of shoes. This was entirely inadequate. HOUSING often was a small, drafty, leaky hut or c abin. It was not unusual for the accommodations to be shared by as many as four families. DIET –The typical diet was pork and corn products (bacon and cornmeal or rice). The bacon was all too often spoiled or worm -ridden, and the corn meal could be moldy . But Figure 2: Former slave revealing the scars he received from multiple whippings. 6 these products were plentiful and relatively inexpensive. Uncontaminated water was not in general abundance. Without dietary supplementation, slaves would work inefficiently because CALORIC intake was less than the energy burned from the hard physic al labor. However, a common punishment for sub -optimal work production was a reduction of rations. Lethargy and inability to fight off disease resulted from a dearth of certain vitamins. Eye problems, skin difficulties, weakened bones, perpetually cracked lips, tooth decay, scurvy, and beriberi can be traced to the grossly imbalanced diet. Young slaves, for the most part unattended, often turned to dirt -eating from hunger and degradation and would sometimes have to be muzzled during the day to prevent such dangerous ingestion. Mental illness was common, but not diagnosed. Whenever possible, slaves supple mented their diet with personal gardens, hunting, fishing, and stealing, although some masters insisted that every morsel of a slave’s food must come from the master’s hand. SURVIVING SLAVERY FAMILY –The maintenance of a family life was central to the slave’s emotional survival. There was no legal, binding marriage ( simply a “ jumping over the broomstick ” ceremony), but the slave owners encouraged family life , not only for the abundant reproduction that would increase the size of their wor k crew, but also because slaves who were part of a family were more easily controlled. Blood families were supplemented by adopted (extended) kinship that could include “Auntie,” “Uncle,” “Brother,” and “Sister.” Such extended family relation ships also he lped the bondsmen to combat the dehumanization of slavery. However, despite the slave owners’ encouragement of family life among slaves, black women were frequently under threat of sexual exploitation by masters (from mutual affection to outright rape) –but rarely the other way around (white females exploiting black males , which could get both parties killed ). Furthermore, about 1/3 of all slaves had families disrupted by sale. The role of the husband and father within the families was difficult. He was not the “bread winner.” He could not protect his family. RELIGION –Most blacks accepted a form of Christianity, and like the family, it became a crucial element of survival. Unlike the Scripture quoted from the white preachers, sin was downplayed among th e bondsmen . Instead, slaves took comfort in the story of Moses , who delivered his people from slavery to the Promised Land. They also appreciated such verses as, “The meek shall inherit the Earth;” “The last shall be first and the first shall be last.” Bl acks found comfort in Biblical passages which stressed individual equality before God and salvation for all. The promise of ultimate deliverance gave them hope. Slave religious services were generally practiced at night, away from the prying eyes and ears of the whites. Services tended to be highly emotional, 7 featuring spirited singing, dancing, and shouting. The black “church” allowed for a certain amount of status for preachers, elders, soloists, etc. To a certain extent, a slave CULTURE began to develop. Slaves used music as a survival mechanism. They sang of sorrow, as protest, and as a form of communication with each other. The y sang of their hopes for the future and of their reliance on the Lord. Most songs were performed “a cap pell a” or accompanied by music from homemade instruments . When it was dangerous to voice the lyrics of their yearning for freedom, they hummed the melody. Dancing, storytelling, games, and general fellowship rounded out the cultural activities . SLAVE R ESISTANCE Some historians claim that 200 years of slavery had reduced the slave to a “Sambo” character of childlike dependence — with shuffling feet, head scratching, and perpetually grinning. Docility, though, was more often used as a ruse –an act of feign ed resignation to the status quo. A careful study of slavery suggests that blacks were not mindless children totally broken in spirit by Old Marse. In fact, most blacks developed a strong sense of personal identity. Some took pride in their productivity, w hile others boasted of their malingering. Some were proud of the punishment they could absorb, while others were self -pleased with their ability to avoid it. 8 Most bondsmen resisted their condition in non -violent ways, pushing their boundaries as far as th ey could. They demonstrated quite a lot of deference, but. . . in addition to the chronic malingering (favorite song: “You May Think I’m Workin’ But I’m Not”), tools were “accidentally” broken, animals abused. Illness was frequently faked. Women claimed to be pregnant, and after 11 months still bore no child. There were small ways to exact revenge, like: “How many times I spit in the biscuits and peed in the coffee to get even with them mean white folks.” Stealing was commonplace. There was no social taboo in the slave community against stealing from the master –indeed it was sometimes essential for survival. Some mulattos were “bright” (pale complexioned) enough to pass as whites and get away for a while or escape altogether . R unning away was very common –sometimes just to get away for a little while –and then returning to take their punishment. Thousands made it to freedom in Mexico, as that country did not extradite for the “crime” of being a fugitive slave. One ingenious slave had friends pack him in a box and send him north to freedom. In total, only about 8 -10,000 slaves in the entire South ever escaped to freedom. Some did not know where to run; some were afraid; some were reluctant to leave their family and home. Slaves delighted in outwitting the mast er, and even immortalized some of their greater victories in story form –such as the UNCLE REMUS chronicles, where a small but crafty slave rabbit bested the powerful, more deadly master bear and overseer fox. Even on the auction block, slaves were not en tirely helpless. Some would kick at or spit on unwanted masters or tell lie s about having diseases. Occasionally, slave resistance took a more violent form, like poisoning the well or food, burning the barn or big house. From time to time there would be one -on-one confrontation s. A slave would rather fight and die than suffer further brutalization. Some were killed for their stand, but in other cases the master’s investment was too great, or the overseer’s risk was too high not to work out a mutually acceptable compromise. An old slave adage stated: “He was whipped oftener who was whipped easiest.” Slaves rarely became involved in group rebellion, as the risk was too great and the punishment certain death. Most revolts were stillborn, betrayed by an unwilling b lack. There is no record of a major slave rebellion in Texas, although fear of such rebellion consistently terrorized the owners. CONCLUSION In conclusion, there seems to be ample proof that slave -owning was not widespread among the white families of Texas, an d those who did own slaves did not have the unquestioned authority over their bondsmen that history has traditionally accorded. Slaves developed a family structure, a religious philosophy, a culture, and a mode of 9 passive resistance that was used to consta ntly probe and stretch the limits of bondage and restraint. The famed white supremacy so widely espoused in the South also merits a second look. It was a strange kind of racial superiority where a southern white would never socialize with a black or recog nize the race’s worth as human beings . Y et when examining the intimate practices of using black wet nurses to feed white babies or the sexual exploitation of black women by the planter class , the student of history senses a hypocrisy and confusion. This was a “racism that would not permit a black to enter the parlor but coaxed them into the boudoir.” As one ex -Mammie put it, if southerners felt the black race was so degraded, “Why should poor little white children be forced to draw susten ance from black breasts, be kissed by black lips, and hugged by black arms?” This was a “peculiar institution,” indeed. The financial success of the cotton -slave system i mpeded the development of industry . Only 1% of Texans earned their living from any t ype of industrial position. Because the most money was to be made in the rural areas, few cities of substance evolved in antebellum Texas . Th e cotton/plantation economy c ontributed to high debt, soil exhaustion, and a lack of technological innovation . Th e plantation system r etarded the growth of a transportation network . Southern and Texas s chools lagged behind the rest of the nation. Small Texas farmers could not compete with the large plantations and often sold out to their competitors. Most importantly, the souther n slave system was cruel and immoral. Generations of African Americans were abused in many ways . Repercussions from slavery are still evident today. T he nation is still paying the price from this period of history through continuing racial discord and m istrust. SECTIONAL SPLIT: COMPROMISE BREAKS DOWN The issue of slavery began to rip the nation apart, despite sincere efforts to hold things together. There were 4 major problem atic issues related to slavery : I. SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES ACQUIRED FROM MEXICO The Norther n Extremist Point of View –represented by the Wilmot Proviso –stated that there would be no slavery in the new territories acquired from Mexico. This appalled the South. Although the proviso was initially defeated, it was revived time and again. Wilmot tac ked his proviso onto several other pieces of useful legislation. These laws were never passed, because southerners voted against them due to their bundling with the unwanted amendment. The Southern Extremist viewpoint was that there be no limit on slaver y in the Mexican Cession. From this perspective, slavery remained in play for California, Utah, and the rest of the land won from Mexico. As expected, this idea was abhorrent to most northerners. 10 Compromise Plans suggested the continuance of the Missouri Compromise line of 36’30” all the way to the Pacific, or to permit popular sovereignty to settle the issue of whether slavery would exist in the territories. The debate raged, and Congress could create no new states or organize territories until the issue was resolved. In the presidential campaign of 1848 , James Polk declined to seek reelection. The Whig Zachary Taylor was elected. Gold was discovered in California, and over 100,000 “49’ers” (1849) rushed to the coast. California needed to become a state because of its great wealth and growing population. There was mounting pressure to do something. II. SLAVERY IN WASHINGTON, D.C. The northern position was that slavery was a disgrace and it caused embarrassment when foreign dignitaries witnessed the buying and selling of human flesh in the capital of the “land of the free .” The southern view was that slavery could not be abolished in Washington, D.C. without compensation to the slave owners and without the consent of Maryland, which donated the land for the nation’s capital. To do otherwise would be a slap in the face to a state that willingly provided the land, with no mention of the future curtailing of slavery. Of course, Maryl and would never give such consent . III. FUGITIVE SLAVES Runaway slaves were difficult to get back. The South needed a national law to facilitate the recovery of their “property.” To many southerners, a favorable fugitive slave policy was the most important issue on the table. IV. TERRITORIAL DISPUTE BETWE EN TEXAS AND NEW MEXICO. Northerners wanted to limit the physical size of the Texas slave giant, while Southerners desired that Texas be as large as possible , therefore extending slavery further north and west than ever before . Some Texans claimed that th e northernmost border of Texas extended up into modern -day Colorado, while Figure 3: The shaded area represents the ambitious claims of the Texas north and west borders. Image courtesy of the Texas Almanac, via the TSHA Handbook. 11 others were confident that Texas was considerably smaller. The border dispute would have to be worked out. The South was afraid. They were overwhelmed in the House of Representativ es and barely held a 15 -15 deadlock in the Senate. California, Oregon, and Utah were on the verge of entering the Union as free states. As yet there was no serious political move among Northerners to eliminate slavery where it already existed; however, if there were never any new slave states, the South could expect permanent minority status and possibly future motions to eliminate their “peculiar institution.” It was possibly better to secede than to become the satellite of the North. The North had fears of its own. They were fearful of what they believed was a slave – owners’ conspiracy , powerful enough to br ing Texas into the Union, f ight the Mexican War, and acquire the Mexican Cession . Northerners saw these actions as a powerplay, designed to spread sla very into the North . T o them , slavery in the northern states would demean the status of free labor. Year by year, national events occurred that rip ped th e nation apart until neither compromise nor even dialogue between the North and South w ere possible THE COMPROMISE OF 1850 In an effort to settle all the above issues, Congressmen hammered out the Compromise of 1850 . Debated for 6 months, the comp romise was initially defeated. It was difficult for legislators to vote for the opponents’ required measures. The biggest obstacle was President Taylor , who was not enthusiastic about the project . After he died in office, Millard Fillmore supported the Compromise, as well as did prominent politicians, such as Stephen Douglas and Jefferson Davis . The Compromise was eventually broken into separate parts to secure passage. Congressmen could abstain on the elements they found disagreeable. Provisions of the Compromise included: 1. California was admitted into the Union as a free state. 2. The rest of the Mexican Cession was to be organized according to popular sovereignty. Once the individual territories had suffi cient population to petition for statehood, an election would be held to decide if the new state would be slave or free. 3. Texas yielded the disputed land, accepting the borders in effect today. I n return the federal government picked up the debt of the Texas Republic. This component of the compromise was beneficial to Texas, but disappointing to the rest of the South. 4. The s lave trade, but not slavery itself , was abolished in Washington, D.C. Die hard southerners saw this as a net loss. 12 5. Feeling they had given up several of their strongly held positions in the first four provisions , southern Congressmen insisted upon the passage of a very strong Fugitive Slave Law . Th is law stated that federal agents , such as United States marshals and Justices of the Peace must aid the owners in the recapture of runaway slaves. In case of dispute, the law heavily favored the slaveowner position. For example, if the suspected slave was determined to be someone’s property, t en dollars was paid to the presiding judge . However, if the judge allowed the person in question to go free, the judge was paid only $5. Only the slave owners or their agents could give testimony. Those accused of being runaway slaves could not speak in their own behalf. If anyone obstructed the return of runaway property, the penalty was u p to $1000 in fines, as well as 6 months in carceration . Predictably, t he Fugitive Law became the most contentious component of the Compromise of 1850. Some Northern states passed personal liberty laws to prohibit the return of runaways. Frequently, northern s treet mobs intervened , blocking the return of black men to the South . Escaped and free b lacks became increasingly more militant and willing to hide, and even fight, for accused runaways. These act ions clearly violated the federal Fugitive State Law. F ederal authorities arrested the obstructionists. Simultaneously, anyone facilitating the return of the unwilling to the South was in violation of the state’s personal liberty laws. This time period thus saw state and federal officials arresting each other for violating each other’s laws. The Fugi tive Slave L aw proved very expensive to enforce. In one case, it cost about $100,000 worth of federal security to return slave Anthony Burns to his master in the South. B urns’ “market value,” however wa s only about $2000. Northerners became outraged . Many of them were coming face -to-face with slavery issues that they had comfortably ignored in the past. Others were concerned about the enormous outflow of tax dollars that did not benefit them, at all . Southerners felt cheated , because after compromising on other issues, the one piece of legislation clearly beneficial to them was not being fairly implemented. 13 UNCLE TOM’S CABIN Uncle Tom’s Cabin was published a few chapter s at a time from 1851 to 185 2 in an abolitionist newspaper. It seemed as if the entire nation was caught up in the narrative and eagerly awaited the next installation. At the serial’s conclusion, the chapters were consolidated into book form . Ten thousand copies were sold the first week, three hundred thousand the first year. The publisher had to purchase 3 paper mills to maintain enough paper stock to meet sales demands. The book was eventually translated into 37 different languages. The author, Harriet Beecher Stowe said: “God wrote it. I just put down the words.” The Sou th, of course, hated the work. BRIEF SUMMARY OF UNCLE TOM’S CABIN Uncle Tom was a slave whose master fell into financial troubles and sought to pay off his debts by selling some of his slave property . Tom, a good Christian man and overseer of the pl antation, and little Harry, who could sing and dance, were sought after by a slave trader. Eliza, Harry’s mother, overhear d the proposed deal and ran away with her son that very night . The slaver attempted to capture her but met with little success. After numerous travails, s he reached Canada, became reunited with her husband , and eventually relocated to Africa. 14 Tom refused to run away and left his wife and children in an emotio n-packed scene. The son of the plantation owner promised to buy Tom back as soon as the family fortunes recovered. It wasn’t long before Tom came to run a nother plantation in the deep South . He was on the verge of gaining his freedom when his master was killed in a fight. The m istress of the plantation then auctioned off all the slaves , including Tom . Tom was sold to Simon Legree –a brute of a man, whose philosophy was to use the slaves up and buy more. He was the epitome of evilne ss and cruelty, even demand ing at one point that Tom forsake the Bible and worship him. Tom refused; large black overseers were ordered to beat Tom to death. Ultimately the young m aster from the original plantation arrived just in time to learn of Tom’s de ath. He punched out Simon Legree and left the unfortunate plantation to the pleas of “Buy me, please!” from the remaining slaves. Shaken, he departed and emancipated the rest of his own slaves upon returning to his “Old Kentucky Home.” The book appealed t o the nation’s Christian conscience. After reading this story, many people came to realize that s lavery was incompatible with Christian and American ideals. It stirred up emotions. The book told of babies being sold off of their mothers’ breasts and little slave children being whipped and crying while helpless mothers and fathers looked on. 1854 -KANSAS – NEBRASKA ACT In the presidential election of 1852, Democrat Franklin Pierce defeated Whig Winfield Scott. Pierce chose Jefferson Davis to serve on his cabinet. Davis, who would later preside over the Confederacy, quickly came to dominate the Cabinet , always us ing his position to further pro -South causes. By this time, t he U nited States had become so large, there was a pressing need for a transcontinental railroad. Souther ners sought a southern route , and Jeff Davis engineered the Gadsden Purchase to that end. However, Stephen A. Douglas wanted 15 a northern route through Chicago. The main objection to the northern route was the region was filled with hostile Native Americ ans , and there w ere few white settl ers in the area to discourage attacks against the trains . To overcome Southern disappointment and objections and to hasten settlement of the area, Stephen Douglas compos ed the Kansas -Nebraska Act. He proposed to bring popular sovereignty on the slavery issue to the two territories, thus repealing the Missouri Compromise that had forever prohibited slavery north of the southern Missouri border. Under this new law, Kansas was expected to go “slave ,” but Douglas expected thousands of pro – and anti -slavery proponents to move into this scarcely populated land, so they could cast their votes accordingly. This would solve the problem of underpopulation in the territories. There was quite a national debate. Sam Houston strongly opposed the legislation. He foretold that this a ct would inevitably lead to uncontrolled sectionalism and war. He predicted it would be a war the South would not win. The Whig party could not agree on this proposal and thus self -destructed, gone by 1856. Northern Whigs opposed the Act, while Southern Whigs approved. Between the South ern support and Douglas’ allie s, the motion carried. Now it was the North’s turn to feel betrayed . The Kansas Nebraska Act brought the reneging of an earlier compromise (Missouri Compromise) . It gave something to the South (a chance to claim Kansas as a slave territory) without providing anything in return to the North. BLEEDING KANSAS 16 Almost immediately, settlers poured into Kansas, often financed by pro – or anti – slavery organization s. An election was held in 1855 to see if the territory would be organized as slave or free . Thousands of Missourians crossed the border into Kansas and illegally voted in favor of slavery, return ing home shortly thereafter . Although there were only 1500 legal voters in Kansas, over 6,000 voted for slavery. The anti -slavers cried foul play and elected their own officials, who were called treasonous by President Pierce (under Jefferson Davis’ influence). A pro -slavery posse a rrested leaders in Lawrence , an anti -slavery stronghold, and sacked the town. There were a few deaths. Ardent abolitionist John Brown at Pottawatomie Creek sought revenge. While not sanctioned by any lawful government, Brown butchered five pro -slavery men in front of their families. The pro -slavery forces sought revenge. G uerilla warfare ensued, resulting in what was know n as “Bleeding Kansas” — a preview of the upcoming War Between the States. THE BEATING OF SENATOR CHARLES SUMNER Meanwhile, in Ma y of 1856 in the U nited States Senate, Senator Charles Sumner regularly denounced slavery and personally criticized the South Carolina Senator, Andrew Butler. Representative Preston Brooks , Butler’s nephew, approached Sumner one day, cane in hand, and beat the senator severely about the head and shoulders, making him an invalid for four years. Northern members of the House attempted to oust 17 Brooks, but h is state refused to replace him. Eventually, Brooks resigned his seat to give his constituents the opport unity to reject or ratify his behavior. When he returned in 1860, after being unanimously reelected, he was roundly applauded. The Southern press supported him. As one newspaper opined, “It was the proper act, done at the proper time, in the proper place . Northern abolitionists have grown saucy and dare to be impudent to Southern gentlemen.” Brooks received dozens of replacement canes from his admirers, as his personal cane had broken during the attack. Sumner was seriously injured. He was unable to work for three years, but his home state did not replace him. To a standing ovation, he eventually returned to serve his state. Due to this beating, t ension in Congress became nearly unbearable. It was said, “The only Congressmen who do not have a gun an d a knife are those who are armed with 2 revolvers.” The country needed a strong hand at the wheel. Instead, Democrat James Buchanan won the presidential election of 1856 . He was woefully inept. 1857 DRED SCOTT DECISION 18 Two days after Buchanan took office, an inflammatory case came before the Supreme Court. A Missouri slave, Dred Scott, was taken by his master to Illinois (a free state) and then to Minnesota (a free territory). He then sued for his freedom, claiming that his residence in a free territory had nullified his slave status. His first owner had died by this time. Scott was passed on to abolitionist relative, so his was freedom assured anyway. Of the 9 Supreme Court Justices, 7 were Democrats and 5 were Southerners. White supremacist Roger Taney was Chief Justice. Taney’s decision is paraphrased : “Blacks were not and never would be citizens and had no right to sue in the courts. Slaves are property. One could take his property into any area of the U.S. The Missouri Compromise had alway s been unconstitutional as Congress does not have the power to outlaw slavery in the territories.” Northerners were outraged. Some suggested that northern states should nullify the Supreme Court’s Decision. 1858 –Meanwhile, back in Kansas, another electi on was held to select delegates to write the actual state constitution. The anti -slavers boycotted the election; the pro – slaver y force s won and wrote the Lecompton Constitution favoring slavery. However, at the final ratification vote, th ose opposing slavery returned to the polls and rejected the pro -slavery Lecompton Constitution a total of three times, even though rejection would postpone statehood. This was a major blow to the South. Kansas would eventually enter the Union as a free state after the South seceded. In another even t ( 1859 ) at Harper’s Ferry , Virginia, John Brown , who had since left Kansas , seized a federal arsenal, and attempted to initiate a slave rebellion. He wanted to arm the slaves and march through the South killing slave owners and ending slavery forever. Cap tured by U.S. soldiers, Brown was executed, rather than committed to an insane asylum, as some moderate Southerners desired. As some had feared, Brown quickly became a martyr, with songs and poems written about the man who sacrificed his own life to help bring about the end of the institution he hated the most. He was a hero to those opposing slavery. He was a murderer to those who supported slavery. This widened the ever -growing rift between North and South. Late in the same year saw the organization of the recreated Republican Party that filled the void left by the dissolution of the Whigs. Abraham Lincoln became a party leader, critical of the backwards, stagnant South. Lincoln supported the dignity of free labor and feared that slavery degraded whites as w ell as blacks. The main plank of the Republican platform was that there would never be any extension of slavery into the territories. There was no mention of total abolition of slavery in the states were it was currently in use . However, Lincoln said: “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanen tly half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved. I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.” 19 ELECTION OF 1860 At the Democratic convention, Southern Democrats wanted official endors ement of the Dred Scott case. Northerners and Westerners offered a compromise platform. The South walked out. Northern Democrats nominated Stephen Douglas; Southerners later nominated one John C. Breckinridge. Another party, the Constitutional Unionists, selected someone named John Bell. The Republicans chose Abraham Lincoln. Southerners promised to secede if Lincoln was elected. Most Southern states did not even put his name on the ballot. Lincoln gained only 40% of the popular vote, but that was enough to win election in the Electoral College. South Carolina pulled out of the Union almost immediately . Texas and other states followed and formed the Confederate States of America. SECESSION IN TEXAS About 90% of white immigrants to Texas had come fro m the slaveholding states and felt a natural affiliation with the South. Unionist opposition was weak and unorganized, centered mainly around a very old Sam Houston. Since the Republican President was adamant about no more slaves in the territories — thu s no more slave states –Texas could not remain in the Union. Texans feared that their way of life would be destroyed . They felt northern abolitionists would eventually eliminate slavery altogether or at least stir up bloody slave uprisings, even if existi ng slavery continued. Therefore, i n 1861, Texas drew up a Declaration of Causes, detailing the need for secession: 1. The national government administered the territories in such a way that southerners were excluded (no slavery). 2. Because of the disloyalty and “imbecility” of the North, violence and outlaws reigned in Kansas. 3. The U.S. had failed to protect Texas from Mexican and Indian bandits and had refused to reimburse Texas expenses in protecting itself. 20 4. Northerners were hostile toward the South and were preaching their false doctrine of racial equality. 5. Slaveholding states were in the minority and ha d no protection against those who spoke of a higher law than the Constitution. 6. Northern extremists had now elected Lincoln as president, who would continue the above policies. A secession convention was called in Texas, with all counties invited to send delegates. Only 8 out of 174 convention members opposed secession. The convention called for a general elect ion to take place February 23, 1861. Opponents of secession were intimidated –except Sam Houston, who stumped the state opposing withdrawal from the Union and stated that if Texas had to leave the Union, it would be better for it to revert to its status as an independent nation, rather than to affiliate with the Confederacy. Houston correctly predicted that an alliance of the southern states could never act in concert, but this argument stirred little enthusiasm . On election day, 76% of Texans voted in favor of secession, and in March of 1861, Texas joined other former Southern states in the Confederate States of America. Governor Sam Houston refused to swear an oath of allegiance to the Confederacy, and so Lt. Governor Edward Clark was named Governor, a nd Houston was forced out of office . President Lincoln offered to aid Houston with military force if he would remain in office to oppose secession, but Houston was unwilling to bring civil war within the state he loved. With his body and mind battered by battle and politics, his heart broken by Texas leaving the Union and joining the Confederacy, within two years this great Texas stateman quietly passed away at his home in Huntsville, Texas. Figure 4An older Sam Houston with cane and hat. Taken by James Patterson at the Houston Museum in Huntsville. 21 Without firing a shot, the secession committee persuaded all federal troops (many commanders were southern sympathizers) to evacuate Texas and surrender existing forts and supplies –$3 million worth. Once again, a new flag flew over Texas — the Confederate flag . Virtual Reader: Sam Houston’s Final Rest Figure 5 A small bed Sam Houston’s sitt ing room where he spent his final days. Taken by James Patterson at the Sam Houston Museum in Huntsville. Figure 6 Portrait of Sam Houston’s loving wife, Margaret. Taken by James Patterson at the Sam Houston Museum in Huntsville. 22 Figure 7 Sam Houston’s funeral in the upstairs bedroom of his home in Huntsville. Taken by James Patterson at the Sam Houston Museum in Huntsville, TX. Figure 8 Sam Houston’s memorial headstone, located in Huntsville, TX. Taken by James Patterson on location. 23 Virtual Reader: The Texas Ordinance of Secession (February 2, 1861) The Texas Ordinance of Secession was the document that officially separated Texas from the United States in 1861. It was adopted by the Secession Convention on February 1 of that year, by a vote of 166 to 8. The adoption of the ordinance was one of a series of events that led to Texas’ entry into the Confederacy and the American Civil War. The ordinance text is much less known and less accessible to the gene ral public than the Texas Declaration of Independence. According to some historians, however, it ranks equally with the earlier document in its impact on Texas. A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union Th e government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A. D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co -equal States thereof, The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union. Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, ensure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery –the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits — a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave – holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non -slave -holding States, since our connection with them? The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretenses and disgui ses, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed 24 purpose of acq uiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave -holding States. By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, in famous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States. The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect th e lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such pur pose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas. These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a ret urning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration. When we advert to the course of individual non -slave -holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude. The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the sla ve -holding States in their domestic institutions –a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalti es upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith. In all the non -slave -holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exis t between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and the ir beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color –a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plaines t revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro 25 races and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long a s a negro slave remains in these States. For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave -holdi ng and non -slave -holding States. By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave -holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and en croachments. They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a “higher law” than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights . They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition. They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offences, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved. They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our fireside s. They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose. They have impoverished the slave -holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance. They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave -holding State. And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non -slave -holding States, they hav e elected as president and vice -president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ru in of the slave -holding States. In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed. 26 We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually ben eficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two r aces, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave -holding States. By the secession of six of the slave -holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Tex as has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North or unite her destinies with the South. For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons – We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freeman of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the pre sent month. Adopted in Convention on the 2nd day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty -one and of the independence of Texas the twenty – fifth. Practice Questions: 1. Although total calories provided to the slaves were sufficient, the lack of variety in their diet led to various health problems. a. True b. False 2. Culture and religion were the two most important social agents in the slaves’ survival of the institution of slavery. a. True b. False 27 3. In the South as a whole, separation of young slave children from their mothers was rarely, if ever, practiced. a. True b. False 4. Southern support for the system of slavery is demonstrated in all of the following ways EXCEPT ONE . Which is the EXCEPTION ? a. Southern slaves generally received a greater “dollar value” in food, clothing shelter, etc., than their free African -American co unterparts in the North working for a wage. b. Some seemingly scientific information supported the idea of the inferiority of the African race. c. Even many of the poor whites hoped one day to own their own slaves. d. There was a general fear t hat emancipated slaves would become more successful than many of their white counterparts. e. The lower -class White southerners needed some group they could feel superior to. 5. The Southern “Slave Codes” placed restrictions on the slave owners, as well as on the slaves, themselves. a. True b. False 6. In 1860, only about ________ percent of white Southerners belonged to families that owned slaves. a. 4 b. 10 c. 25 d. 50 7. In many slave folktales and stories, large and powerful animals representing the slave often got th e best of meaner and smaller animals that represented the master and overseer. a. True b. False 8. Significant slave revolts in the Texas and the South were numerous, but rarely successful. a. True b. False 9. Slaves who talked back against whites or who ran away were generally killed or maimed as punishment. a. True b. False 10. The Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision a. mandated congressional control of slavery in the territories. b. declared the Misso uri Compromise unconstitutional. c. granted citizenship to African Americans. d. was later overturned on appeal. e. won widespread approval in the North. 28 11. Because of his discourteous behavior in the Senate, Charles Sumner was not reelected by his home state of Massachusetts. a. True b. False 12. In his presidential campaign, Abraham Lincoln presented himself as an abolitionist, committed to the emancipation of slaves throughout the United States. a. True b. False 13. The book, Uncle Tom’s Cabin , was generally less appreciated in the North than in the South. a. True b. False 14. The Kansas -Nebraska Act was hated by many in the North, because it allowed the possibility of slavery in territories where slavery had previously been prohibited. a. True b. False 15. The primary reason for Abraham Lincoln’s victory in the 1860 presidential election was that: a. he was better qual ified than any of his opponents. b. citizens in Kansas overwhelmingly voted for him. c. Lincoln’s accommodating position on slavery made him a safe candidate for North and South. d. the Democratic party split in two. e. his experience in foreign affairs would help deal with political & economic competition from Europe. 16. Which of the following DOES NOT belong on this list? a. Alabama b. Texas c. North Carolina d. Tennessee e. Maryland 17. At this point in the class, how many of Texas’ 6 flags have flown over the state? a. two b. three c. four d. five e. six 29 For Discussion: Texas Secession From a 19th century (the 1800’s) viewpoint, did Texas make the proper decision in seceding from the Union? Was there any other viable course of action that might have had less disastrous consequences?