|
It was 1845. Far to the
southwest beyond the realms of Anglo-Saxon civilization, a nation had been
born. Her independence had been maintained for ten years. Her ambassadors
had been kindly received and her sovereignty recognized by several of the
leading nations of the world. She laid down her complete sovereignty by
entering into the American Federal Union. All this was done through the
art of diplomacy. Such rapid, far-reaching, ever-enduring national changes
had not been seen in the world's history. This was Texas.
Anson Jones, the President of the Republic,
voluntarily surrendered the highest office in the gift of his people, and
by public speech commended them for the course they had given events. The
transition was easy, though not less important. Following President
Jones's retiring message came the official salutation of J. Pinckney
Henderson, governor-elect. Mr. Henderson was himself no novice in the
service of his adopted country. He had stood before kings as ambassador of
the Republic of Texas. He was a past master of the art of diplomacy. In
the audience that day, witnessing the important events, were many men,
real giants, as evidenced by subsequent public service. The history of the
Republic has been well set before the reader by another. It is ours to
tell of the state during her first period after admission to the Union.
Jones, in his memoirs, says the people of
Texas went wild when annexation was finally assured. They saw visions of
peace and protection by their old friends and kinsmen. They saw their
lands rise to fabulous prices, and riches appeared everywhere. They saw
schools and churches and homes secure through the protection of a strong
government, willing to help. They saw an end of Indians marauding the
country and murdering helpless women and children. They saw a chance to do
business unmolested by robbers and intruding Mexicans. They saw a chance
for crops to grow. They saw too much, 'tis true, but, like everyone rising
from hardship and despair, took too quick counsel from hopes and desires.
Many Texans then hoped, in vain, for what their children have since
bountifully enjoyed. Concerning the annexation of Texas, President James
K. Polk said, Dec. 2, 1845: "In contemplating the grandeur of this event,
it is not to be forgotten that the result was achieved in despite of the
diplomatic interference of European monarchies. Even France took part in
an effort to prevent annexation and to impose on Texas, as a condition of
the recognition of her independence by Mexico that she would never join
herself to the United States. We may rejoice that the tranquil and
pervading influence of the American principle of self-government
sufficient to defeat the purposes of the British and French interference *
* *" [Messages of the Presidents, IV.; p. 387.]
Texas in the Mexican War.
Following close upon the annexation of Texas
came the war between the United States and Mexico. The United States
government had many and just causes of complaint against Mexico, on
account of the treatment of citizens of the former by the latter. In it
all, Mexico was evasive, and diplomatically asserted that the United
States government colonized Texas while it was a province of Mexico, only
later to acquire it for selfish purposes. [V. S. Public Documents, Mexican
War, No. 196, pp. 45, Et. Seq.]
President Polk had already ordered General
Zachary Taylor to go to the frontier of Texas, to use such forces as he
had, and to acquire any others needed for the repulsion of any attack on
Texas by the Indians or others, pending the complete annexation. War was
imminent in the light of the insulting threats of Mexico and the conscious
independence of the United States.
Enquiry was made of General Taylor how many
troops were available from Texas. Confidence was expressed that the state
would furnish men quickly and promptly. Orders having been given to make
requisition upon the governor of Texas, General Taylor called for four
regiments of volunteers; two mounted, two foot. The war had actually
begun. In the beginning of this war there opened a school "which, in two
years, turned out the best educated army in the science and practice of
war the world ever saw. The alumni of this Alma Mater in the after-time,
from honest conviction, espoused different sides, and conducted the war of
giants on a scale of grandeur suited to the combatants, with a skill and
courage unequalled in ancient or modern times, and with a fealty and
devotion to the sides they espoused, at once the badge of honor and brevet
of manhood and nobility," [Maxey in Comp. History of Texas, I., p. 690.]
Notwithstanding, there were other and just
reasons for the war. Mexico insisted on making Texas both the occasion and
the place of its early conflicts. All of this was of great interest to the
new state. Her geographical position called for cooperation with greater
readiness than in other states. Her citizens were inured to hardships and
dangers. They did not shirk any call of duty. Even Governor Henderson
answered the call, taking command of several regiments. This good man went
to war by authority of the legislature, even technically violating the
state constitution to do so. In all the army movements none were more
gallant or responsive than the Texans. At the battle of Monterey they were
especially valiant, true and aggressive. When the Mexican commander,
Ampudia, surrendered, Governor Henderson, then a major-general, was
appointed one of the commissioners on terms of capitulation.
It is not known just how many volunteered from
Texas, the state records having been burned some years ago. Governor
Lubbock says there were 8,000; but quotes Mansfield, whose history gives
6,600. [Lubbock's Memoirs, p. 183.] Brown says, "As near as can be
ascertained, 8,018 Texans served under the United States during the war."
[Brown's History of Texas, II., 323.] The records of the war department at
Washington show the following organizations in the service of the United
States from the state of Texas during the war with Mexico:
"First Texas Mounted Rifles, Col. J. C. Hays;
First Texas Mounted Volunteers; First Texas Mounted Volunteers, six
months, 1847; First Texas Foot Riflemen; Second Texas Mounted Volunteers;
Third Texas Mounted Volunteers; Bell's Regiment, Texas Mounted Volunteers;
Brower's spy company, Indians; Bell's company, Texas Mounted Volunteers;
Cady's company, Mounted Bangers; Chevallie's battalion, Texas Mounted
Volunteers; Conner's company, first service, Texas Mounted Volunteers, six
months, 1846; Gillespie's company, Texas Mounted Bangers; Gray's and
Grumble's companies, Texas Mounted Volunteers; Hay's Texas Mounted
Rangers, three months, 1845-46; Hill's company, Texas Mounted Volunteers;
Lamar's company, first service, Texas Mounted Volunteers; McCulloch's
company, First Regiment Texas Mounted Volunteers; Price's, Robert's and
Ross's companies, Texas Mounted Volunteers; Shiver's and Seefeld's
companies, Texas Volunteers; Smith's company, Texas Mounted Volunteers;
Stapp's company, Texas Mounted Volunteers; Sutton's company, second
service, Texas Mounted Volunteers; Walker's company, Texas Mounted
Rangers, and Wyman's company, Smith's battalion, Texas Mounted
Volunteers." [Comp. History of Texas, I., p. 691.]
There is no doubt that many other regiments
would have joined the army, but it was thought that the superiority of the
United States over Mexico would soon end the conflict. Most men go to war
not for military glory or promotion, but for defense of country. With this
in view, many brave Texans staid at home in readiness to go at call.
Lubbock was in this class. Whatever else may be said, it is true that
"Texas furnished more troops to the war than any other state in proportion
to her population" * * * "and whenever the occasion presented itself
during the progress of the war, Texas troops were always where duty called
them. They were among the bravest of the brave, as will be shown by the
official records of the war." [Comp. History of Texas, I., p. 691.]
State Boundary.
From the earliest knowledge of Texas its
border lines have been in dispute. It has been contended, with a good show
of reason, that Texas was a part of the Louisiana Territory purchased from
France in 1803, and by many writers its annexation is always spoken of as
"reannexation." Thus affirmed the Baltimore Democratic Convention in 1844,
on whose platform James K. Polk was elected President of the United
States. As a matter of fact, the United States government set little store
as to whether the Sabine or Rio Grande was the southwestern limit. Few
men, at the time of the Louisiana purchase, could see any good to come
from so much apparent waste.
It is well known that revolutions are not
governed by the law of justice, but by sustained force. They have little
regard for the conventionalities of treaties or the wishes of crowned
heads. Titles are vested in the power to hold possession against all
comers. An illustration of this can be seen in the fact that previous to
the secession of Texas from Mexico, the political limits of Texas "were
the Nueces River on the west, along the Red River on the north, the Sabine
on the East, and the Gulf of Mexico on the south." [House Doc. 35, 2d Sess.,
24th Cong.] As soon as the new Republic had completed its governmental
machinery it at once claimed the Rio Grande to be its western boundary.
The United States recognized the claim by the command issued to General
Taylor in his first march towards Mexico. Even after the Mexican War Texas
sent a district judge to give judicial oversight to its management. The
United States government ordered General Kearny, then in command at Santa
Fé, to set up laws there as in any territory. Texans were insistent on
their rights. The breach came near being serious, when the Texas
authorities were notified that if they interfered with affairs in New
Mexico they would be treated as intruders. Texas had the good sense to
yield to superior strength, without a contest, but resorted to diplomacy,
through which she got $10,000,000 from the United States for the territory
in dispute. Many Americans doubted the validity of the Texas claim, but
President Polk believed in it. [Polk's Special Message, July 24, 1844.]
The Greer county case, probably the last boundary dispute of Texas, was
settled in 1896, wherein said county was declared to be in Oklahoma.
Political Conditions.
Texas was not an independent government long
enough to develop political parties such as sprang up in the very earliest
political movements of the United States. This young Republic had been
settled by men who held certain powers acquired from the Mexican
government. These men could not shirk leadership and the people could not
help following. Naturally enough, the warlike times developed the heroic
spirit. Men were elected to office for personal, rather than political,
reasons. An example is often quoted wherein Governor Henderson, by an
oversight, failed to mention in his official report the heroism of Col.
Geo. T. Wood at the battle of Monterey. This neglect Wood's friends
resented, and, in retaliation, they elected Wood governor. Soon after
annexation policies of the general government began to have more weight.
Men lined up first for men, then for policies.
The extreme northern part of Texas was
included in the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Texas's first United States senators,
Houston and Rusk, were divided in their sympathies and their votes in
regard to this act. Rusk favored; Houston opposed. Houston's speeches, in
the Senate and at home, in defense of his conduct brought him bitter
unpopularity among many of his former valiant comrades in arms. Lines
became rigidly drawn. Whatever was said about slavery, for or against, at
home or abroad, aroused opposition to the policies, or the men who
defended them. Texas, in relation to slavery, fast came to be the theme
for public discussion all over the Union. The newly acquired territory
from Mexico and Texas was the occasion. The debates were heated wherever
held. In the South and in the North interests and sympathies bound the
sections compactly together, only later to oppose each other the more
fiercely. Texans joined heartily in every verbal combat in defense of the
rights of the states. They hated cordially every suggestion that came from
England in her well-known fight against slavery. In instances the question
was largely academic, but vigorously contested. The Mobile Tribune (1849)
is quoted as saying that the newly acquired territory is too far away to
be of service in the spread of slavery, yet should be held on principle.
[Niles's Register, LXXV., p. 75.]
In the evolution of political parties in
Texas, the two-thirds rule was adopted by the Democrats. This is explained
by the fact that during the first years of American statehood new states
came in by pairs, one Northern, one Southern. When the great Northwest,
cut into many territories, began to come in one by one, the South saw her
dominance in the United States waning. Likewise could the South be easily
defeated by the Northern Democrats on the basis of a bare majority. So,
before the political contest reached the breaking point, the South had
grafted into the political party law of the Democrats that nominations
should be by two-thirds majority. Thus a Southern minority in population,
if it amounted to more than one-third of the voting strength in the
nominating conventions, could control the nominations for national
affairs. In all this, Texas, as a whole, entered into perfect accord, both
in State and in Federal affairs. It is believed that Texas public men were
freer from fanaticism than many of their friends in the East, which may be
accounted for in the fact that her people were more cosmopolitan.
By 1855 the Know-Nothing party, with its
secret political societies, with its well-known anti-Catholic and
anti-foreign policies, came into Texas. It is singular that its methods of
political warfare should have ever appealed to Gen. Sam Houston, who, in
1856, "was the acknowledged leader of the Know-Nothing party in Texas, and
had already thrown down the gauntlet of defiance to the Democracy in a
great speech under the very nose of the Democratic legislature."
[Lubbock's Memoirs, p. 205.] The defiant cry for a rule of the people was
everywhere against the Know-Nothings. While the Democrats met for the
first time in state organization as a party in Austin, April 27, 1846, yet
the first state gubernatorial convention met in the then small town of
Waco in 1857. It was very necessary for the Democrats to unite if they
beat Houston, who had the support of the Know-Nothings. This canvass for
state officers was swift and severe. To beat the old general, now the
opposing candidate to the Democracy, was no small thing no matter what he
advocated; but its party principles had become more and more fixed in the
minds of the Texans. H. E. Runnels, for the Democracy, won by nearly
10,000 votes. The following year Houston was also defeated for the United
States Senate by Judge Hemphill.
Public Debt of Texas.
Just prior to annexation there was a fearful
poverty in public finances. Expenses of international diplomacy,
protection against Indians and marauding Mexicans, conduct of home
affairs, all together had left the public treasury in a bad fix. There was
paper money irredeemable, except in vast lands unlocated, unsurveyed and
without buyers. The credit of the Republic was wretched. No one knew the
future. In three years of Lamar's administration the debt had accumulated
from little less than two millions to over seven millions, and by 1851
there was a debt of $12,436,991.34. [Gouge's Fiscal History of Texas, p.
276.] It must always be said to the credit and wisdom of Anson Jones, the
last President, that he stood firm for the credit of the nation. He
advocated and caused to pass the repeal of all laws by which paper money
could be issued by the government, corporations or individuals. No debt
was created during his administration.
The state profited by the experience of the
Republic. However, for years it seemed that she could not pay large
amounts due to war creditors. By agreement with the United States, Texas
held all her public lands, with which she was to pay her creditors. It
must be remembered that funds had been borrowed on the expectancy of the
custom receipts. Texas was not now a nation. Her custom houses, ships,
barracks and other national paraphernalia were surrendered to the Union.
Creditors began to look to the United States to meet the bills long past
due, for Texas could collect no tariff and had no buyers for her lands.
Finally, a bill was introduced and defended by Henry Clay that the rights
of the creditors did hold against the United States, and that the same
should pay them off. He further said that he did not believe Texas's claim
to New Mexico valid, yet in the light of surrendered customs, and as a
compromise for the claim, he favored paying Texas $10,000,000. This was
passed in 1850. The United States held back $5,000,000 for a time in order
to meet prompt payments of any outstanding accounts. This latter Texas
resented somewhat, believing herself willing to settle honorably with her
creditors. It must be
understood that in no case did moneylenders ever buy Texas bonds at par.
In fact, they were often bought for just a few cents on the dollar. Now,
however, the same creditors wanted one hundred cents on the dollar, though
they never expected it at the time of the purchase. Texas therefore
entered upon a systematic plan of scaling the debts from par to
approximately the market value at the time of their purchase, with accrued
interest. Gouge deprecated the conduct of Texas, but Texas defended it.
Scaling debts was a bad policy, but the example was set by the United
States in the settlement of her first war debt. [Lubbock's Memoirs, p.
194.] Texas paid all she ever realized and more, said Houston. [Speech in
Senate, Feb. 4, 1853.] It was thought by many, at the time, that Texas
traded worthless land to the United States for money by which she had won
her independence. All of that land in New Mexico formerly called worthless
is now rapidly settling up by good people, and is known to be valuable
beyond even the dreams of the early Texans. The trade was mutually
helpful.
Social Conditions.
It is difficult for any reader, without
experience in frontier life, to enter into the real social status of the
early Texans. They were far removed from the markets. It was difficult
either to buy or sell. It was not known what could be grown to advantage
on the lands. Flowing water was scarce. Wells were few. No one dreamed
that just under the surface, and even in the far western parts, water was
abundant. Houses were poor. In 1847 there were, by the first census,
100,508 Anglo-Texans and 4,000 Mexicans. This gave about two and a half
square miles, or sixteen hundred acres of land, to each inhabitant.
National character was slow in building. Neighbors often lived miles
apart, except in villages or so-called settlements. Schools and churches
were rare at first. Life was precarious, at best, on account of the danger
of the Indians to life and property. Particularly was this true when the
men were away from home, in search or care of live stock, or in defense of
their country from hostile attacks.
It must not be thought that the people were
either bad or ignorant, because adventurous enough to seek homes under
such conditions. "During the last years of the Republic, graduates from
half the colleges in the United States could be found in Texas."
[Bancroft, XVI., p. 393.] As a matter of fact, no new country is ever
developed by ignoramuses. It takes courage to leave home and launch out
upon the seas of hardship found in every frontier. Remember the New
Englander, the Virginian, the early settlers of every state of the Union.
These were men of business, men of statesmanship, men of learning, men of
God, men of faith in every calling. Only such men and women endure
heroically and constantly. What if they had few mills and had to eat crude
bread. What if potatoes often took the place of bread. What if clothes
were home-made and often coarse, wanting the cut of modern tailors. What
if transportation was slow and very hard. These were men and women who
knew luxuries and missed them; who had culture and longed for its
companionship; who had religion and lived it in the homes by necessity,
more than in public meeting-houses; who deliberately determined to create
for themselves and their posterity the blessing of the highest
civilization. It was done well in laws, in public schools, in private
colleges, and later in public normal schools, colleges, and the present
magnificent State University.
Texans owe much to the Mission Societies of
the eastern states, for the money and zeal set forth in the erection of
meeting houses, in the organization of churches, in the promotion of
denominational colleges. Higher education was done by the denominational
colleges and universities in Texas, prior to the opening of the State
University in 1883. Among the institutions organized during the period of
this paper were Baylor University at Waco, fostered by the Baptists;
Southwestern University at Georgetown, fostered by the Methodists; Austin
College at Sherman, fostered by the Presbyterians. These schools have
changed, the first from its location, the last two both names and
locations, but have continuously done a notable service by sending forth
men and women equipped for both public and private, life.
Something had to be done to enlist investment
of money from abroad in railroads. Prospect of profit was too far off. The
state gave sixteen sections of public lands for every mile of road
actually completed under certain conditions. The railway companies were
required to make the surveys and to take every alternate section. The
others went in perpetuity to the public school fund. It was a great reward
and stimulated building at a time that greatly helped the people.
Attitude of Texas as to Slavery.
The admission of Missouri into the Union was
America's first great contest over slavery; the annexation of Texas was
the second. The two inevitably led to war. Calhoun's letters and state
papers avow that to annex Texas meant to help the status of slavery in the
South, and to extend its territory to the west. As an evidence that there
were those who did not sanction Calhoun's idea, we insert what President
Burnet, of Texas, said, 1836, in a proclamation on slavery, as follows:
"Whereas, the eighth article of the general
provision of the Constitu-tion of the Republic of Texas provides that the
importation or admission of Africans, or negroes, into this Republic,
excepting from the United States of America, is forever prohibited and
declared to be piracy; and
"Whereas, the African slave
trade is equally revolting to the best feelings of our natures, and to the
benign principles of the Christian faith, is equally destructive to
national morals and to individual humanity; and
"Whereas, the most
enlightened and powerful nations of Christendom are exerting both their
moral intelligence and physical power to suppress that odious and
abominable traffic.
It was singular to prohibit it "except from the United States." Politics
and slavery were inseparable. The North and the South cordially hated each
other. Texans were offended that Vermont should, by legislative action,
ask Congress not to annex the new Republic as a state, on the ground of
the existence of slavery. Ashbel Smith, minister to the Court of St.
James, disclaimed any responsibility for the presence there of certain
abolitionists. He further announced that Texas was committed to slavery.
Judge John H. Reagan defended slavery in Congress, but denounced
fanaticism of the South as well as of the North. He was bitterly opposed
for reelection by men who favored the reopening of African slave trade,
but he easily defeated them. Concerning the Mexican War, it is said: ''The
radical wing of the Democratic party of the South soon openly avowed that
it was, in fact, a 'Southern' War," and further that the Southern Whigs in
Congress opposed acquisition of territory from Mexico, saying it meant
more free states. This was the view of Waddy Thompson, who was said to
know more of Mexico than any man in America.
Reference has been made above to reopening
African slave trade. This was proposed by a few in Texas, evidently
originating, as Governor Roberts says, in the "Gulf States east of Texas."
The few who favored it also favored extension of slave territory. Roberts
further said: "It was a mystery not generally understood at the time, and
that has never since been solved, how it was that eminent citizens of
Texas could believe such a thing to be possible while Texas was a state of
the Union, for had the issue been then presented even in Texas, at least
nineteen-twentieths of the people would have voted against it."
Governor Lubbock says the charge was
incorrectly and untruthfully made against the Democrats.
In 1859 there was held a "Commercial
Convention" at Vicksburg, Mississippi, whose object was to affect the
repeal of all laws against importation of slaves. Texas was invited to
have delegates present. Everybody saw secession was inevitable Houston
wrote to Reagan: "Our people are going to war to perpetuate slavery, and
the first gun fired in the war will be the knell of slavery." Meantime the
Democratic Convention, to nominate a President of the United States, met
at Charleston, South Carolina. It was a time to test the mettle of every
man. Anti-slavery North knew what it wanted. Pro-slavery South contested
every inch. Texas, with other Gulf states, withdrew from the convention.
Thus, in this public way the whole of the South presented a compact front.
Secession and Houston.
In the inaugural address of Governor Runnels
he foresaw the disunion of the states, the over-mastery of the North, and
gave advice to the people to prepare for war by enlisting and training
volunteers and by whatever other means that would save the integrity of
Texas as he saw it. He caused the legislature, in 1858, to adopt the
following: "Resolved,
etc., That the Governor of the state is hereby authorized to order an
election for seven delegates to meet delegates appointed by the other
Southern states in the convention, whenever the executive of a majority of
the slaveholding states shall express the opinion that such convention is
necessary to preserve the equal rights of such states of the Union, and
advise the governor of these states that measures have been taken to meet
those of Texas." A
difference of opinion existing as to the status of the questions growing
out of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Governor Runnels, in his retiring message,
urged that the legislature take a decided stand, and that without
equivocation. He urged that if the laws under the Act could he relied
upon, the sooner the public should know it, the better. He was opposed to
agitation, except as a means to fight that already existing. He said: "We
have asked time and again that the agitation of all mischievous questions
calculated to endanger our domestic policy, or our peace and security as
equal members of the Confederacy, should cease. Our prayers have not been
granted, and, now, shall we submit without the utterance of a murmur of
complaint, without even offering a reason to combat the false dogmas and
anti-slavery propagandism, however insidious and covert its form, or
hidden its object? My own answer—first, last and forever— is,
unconditional, no. Silence at this juncture, in view of the political
position of Texas, may be misconceived and misconstrued. Equality and
security in the Union, independence outside of it, should be the devout
conviction; that, if guided by wisdom, prudence, sagacity and patriotism,
the Divine Being will smile on your councils, and that all may yet be
well." [RunneIl's Retiring Message, Comp. History of Texas, II., p. 63.]
Judge Reagan said, 1860, if Lincoln were
elected the governors of all the slaveholding states should convene their
legislatures to present a solid front to the Northern states. Guy M. Bryan
also thought that "Texas could not, within honor, remain in the Union. She
could not remain there in safety." [Lubbock's Memoirs, p. 299.] Houston
saw what was coming, but took opposite grounds in his message ten months
before Lincoln was elected: "Texas will maintain the Constitution and
stand by the Union. It is all that can save us as a nation. Destroy it and
anarchy awaits us." [Brown's History of Texas, II., p. 386.] In 1856
ex-President Jones wrote: "I have said I believed the Union to be in
danger and I believe the next three months will determine whether it can
be maintained in its integrity and usefulness, or not." He said that the
constitution or slavery must fall, that he would rather see the continent
swallowed up than the Union destroyed. [Anson Jones's Memoirs, pp.
550-556.] During the
sectional controversies and convention splits, during the hatred of one
party against another, Gen. Sam Houston was proposed for President of the
United States. He said one time he would not run, but finally, in a
letter, he announced to the public that he had consented (May 24, 1860) to
be a candidate for President. It was even reported that his name and
picture were flaunted to the breeze in New York, but when he saw that he
could not be elected he withdrew his name. Houston wanted the Union to
stand, but wished "to beat Lincoln with any man in the field." [Letter to
General Crawford, Crane's Houston, p. 232.] He, having been defeated,
1857, as a Know-Nothing, in 1859 was elected governor as an Independent
Democrat. He was a masterful leader of those who held on to the Union. He
did not want to call the legislature to consider the question of
secession. Other states were going out. There was once more a quick
reversal of dependence on Houston's leadership. Meetings were held. One in
Marshall "Resolved that the election of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency
of the United States is a violation of the spirit of the constitution and
should be resisted by the states." Pendleton Murrah, afterwards governor,
at the Marshall meeting advised Texas to seek conference with other
states. Mr. E. Greer, in hot haste from Marshall, tendered to the governor
of South Carolina the services of a mounted regiment of Texas Volunteers.
Public sentiment finally compelled Governor Houston to call the
legislature together Jan. 21, 1861. At that time he notified it of the
secession of South Carolina and of the reception of a letter from the
governor thereof, seeking the cooperation of Texas. He hotly opposed the
course of South Carolina, and by reasons most cogent urged that Texas
stand for and in the Union. There was a long debate of days. The hour had
come. An ordinance of secession was passed Feb. 1, 1861, by a vote of 167
to 7. [Comp. History of Texas, II., 105. t Judge John C. West, Waco.]
Houston declared the act null and void. When it was passed up to the
people for a vote it was 34,415 for, to 13,841 against. A day was declared
to require an oath of allegiance to the constitution of the Confederate
States. Twelve o'clock noon was the hour, March 16, 1861. All state
officers promptly took the oath except Governor Houston, Secretary of
State E. W. Cave and Attorney-General A. B. Norton. These offices were
declared vacant and Lieutenant-Governor Clark became governor. Houston
withdrew from the capital and retired to his private home. He was a past
master of politics and men. Few men in America were ever so great in so
many ways. After the war began he stood for it, giving up his oldest son
to enter its service as a soldier. "Whatever else may be said of him, he
was never swept off by popular movements. He did his own thinking and much
of that of his followers.
J. W. Throckmorton, afterwards governor, was
one of the seven who voted against secession. There were hisses heard in
the halls. He promptly arose and said: "When the rabble hiss, let patriots
tremble. t Judge John H. Reagan writes: "A few days later delegates were
elected to a Provisional Congress which had been called by the seceding
states of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and
Louisiana. I was one of those chosen and was associated with Louis T.
Wig-fall and John Hemphill, ex-United States Senators, T. N. Waul, John
Gregg and W. B. Ochiltree." [Reagan's Memoirs, p. 108.] Judge Reagan was
quite soon made Postmaster-general of the Confederacy, a cabinet position
he reluctantly accepted and carried out in a masterly manner. Governor
Lubbock was made an aide-decamp to President Davis, with the rank of
colonel. Messrs. Reagan and Lubbock were captured at the same time, and in
company with Jefferson Davis.
The number, fidelity, heroism and work of the
Texans in the fight of the lost cause are not surpassed. They were true to
the end, and afterwards suffered in the misrule of Reconstruction as few
other states.
Bibliography.—In the preparation of the above chapter of Texas history,
1845-1861, the following works have been used: Brown, John Henry: History
of Texas (St. Louis, 1892); Bancroft, H. H.: History of Texas (San
Francisco, 1887); Crane, W. C: Life of Houston (Dallas, 1884); Gouge, Wm.
M.: Fiscal History of Texas (Philadelphia, 1852); Jones, Anson: Republic
of Texas or Memoirs (New York, 1859); Lubbock, F. R.: Memoirs (Austin,
1900); Niles' Register (Baltimore, Washington and Philadelphia,
1811-1849); Reagan John H.: Memoirs (New York, 1904); Thrall, H. S.:
History of Texas (San Antonio, 1878); Wooten, Dudley G.: Comprehensive
History of Texas (Dallas, 1898); The Texas Historical Quarterly (Austin);
The Messages of the Presidents (Washington, D. C); The United States
Public Documents of the Mexican War.
Samuel P. Brooks,
President, Baylor University. |
