A twentieth century history and biographical record of north and west Texas, Volume I, Part 11

Author: Paddock, B. B. (Buckley B.), 1844-1922; Lewis Publishing Co., Chicago, pub
Publication date: 1906
Publisher: Chicago, New York, The Lewis publishing co.
Number of Pages: 968

USA > Texas > A twentieth century history and biographical record of north and west Texas, Volume I > Part 11

Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).

When it came to deciding whether a long- established institution in the commonwealth

HISTORY OF TEXAS.

should have its foundations threatened by the general government administered through representatives from a section of the country widely remote and diametrically different in in- dustrial and social conditions, and whether the rights and powers of a state over its internal affairs should be subordinated to the federal government, the previous history of Texas would show how that state would naturally take her stand. In the first place, Texas had only re- cently fought for independence from what she considered a despotic rule directed from a too centralized authority, and it was only natural that the men who fought at San Jacinto would resent what they considered an undue usurpa- tion of powers by the government at Washing- ton. Furthermore, Texas as a nation had legal- ized the institution of slavery, had voluntarily surrendered her national prerogatives on enter- ing the Union, but without a single limitation as to slavery, and therefore, when her greatest interests were endangered, did it not seem right to her citizens that the bonds of confederation might be broken and the allegiance, scarcely fifteen years old, recalled? Such, at least, are some suggestions as to the Texas point of view in this great national crisis, and while the pre- ponderance of right, considered absolutely and from the historical eminence gained in sub- sequent years, may be greater on one side, the sincerity of the partisans on both sides must remain forever unquestioned, and their self- sacrificing and heroic patriotism, whether wear- ing the blue or the gray, will be a national pride and honor during all the ages.

The election of Hardin R. Runnels, the Dem- ocratic candidate, over Sam Houston, in 1857, by a majority of something like nine thousand, was the first definite sign of the approaching conflict in Texas. In 1820 Henry Clay's Mis- souri Compromise had forbidden slavery north of latitude thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes -the southern boundary of Missouri. In 1846 the doctrine was promulgated in the Wilmot Proviso that slavery should not be extended into the territory annexed from Mexico. In 1850 the venerable Clay again compromised so that California might be admitted as a free state

and the organization of the other territory south of the original compromise line might be effected without restriction as to slavery. Then in 1854 came Senator Douglas with his famous "squatter sovereignty" ordinances, which practically annulled the Missouri Compromise and applied, in the organization of the terri- tories of Kansas and Nebraska, the doctrine of local option as to slavery. About the same time was promulgated the famous decision in the Dred Scott case by which slaves were declared to be the same class of property as horses or cattle, and there- fore could be taken from slave into free state without losing their character as slaves. Fol- lowing the squatter sovereignty enactment en- sued the contest between the slave and anti- slave elements for the possession of Kansas, with all the bloody and disgraceful border war- fare which eventuated in that territory entering the Union as a free state.

The Kansas question directed the attention of Texas to the tightening tension between the states. Governor Runnels, in his message of January, 1858, described the state of affairs in Kansas and advocated the doctrine of seces- sion. A state Democratic convention about the same time gave vent to its feelings by propos- ing delegates to a convention of the southern states, and declaring that the doctrine of non- intervention was endangered by the federal government. On February 16, 1858, the state legislature passed a joint resolution, reciting the great danger threatened by the Kansas situation, by which delegates were to be ap- pointed by the governor of Texas to a conven- tion of the southern states whenever a majority. of said states should decide that the crisis de- manded such a convention.

The Runnels administration represented the extremes of slavery extension in Texas, and many of its supporters favored a resumption of the slave trade. This radical element was not in the majority in the state, and in the fol- lowing election in 1859 the conservative party rallied around Houston-who had previously been defeated largely because of his opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska bill-and elected him

HISTORY OF TEXAS.

by a large majority to the governorship. The people of Texas were by no means eager at this time to repudiate the Union, hoped to continue its beneficent rule, 'and only by force of sub- sequent events were they moved into the seces- sion stream.

By the time Houston took the executive chair the north and the south were so em- bittered in their feelings that amicable settle- ment of the difficulties was impossible. Kan- sas had come into the Union as a slave state, John Brown's raid had provoked indignation throughout the south, and in December, 1859, South Carolina's legislature affirmed the right of any state to secede from the federation of states and issued a call for a convention of the slaveholding states.

Houston's message to the legislature con- cerning these South Carolina resolutions in- dicates not only that statesman's own views, but a considerable trend of opinion throughout the people of the state. He argued vehemently against nullification and secession, asserting that separation from the Union would not cure the evils from which the south suffered and recommending against sending delegates to the proposed convention of southern states. The debate in the two houses of the legislature con- cerning this message ranged from the con- servatism of Houston to the radical views of the fire-eating Democracy. The majority resolutions were to the effect that the Union should be preserved, but that federal aggres- sion on the separate states should not be coun- tenanced; deprecated the black abolition movement in the north which might, by obtaining control of the government, use fed- eral laws for the eradication of slavery; and that, if necessary, organized resistance among the southern states should combat northern aggression. The minority reports were against premature action of the southern states ; hold- ing that the north as yet had not violated the constitutional privileges of the several states ; that the black abolitionists were in reality the worst enemies of the republic, and asserted the principle that only when the federal govern- ment should prove unable to protect the in-

dividual states in their inherent rights would there be cause for dissolution of the Union.

The culmination of national feeling was reached in the year 1860. By the disruption of the Democratic party Abraham Lincoln was elected to the presidential chair, and politically the north became dominant over the south. The secession tide running so strong in the south now reached its flood. Extreme radical- ism and disunionism, hitherto a strong mi- nority only, now gathered strength and collect- ed to itself all the elements except the stanchest conservatives and unionists of Houston's stamp. Within two months after the national election all the southern states east of Texas, South Carolina leading the way, had seceded. Under pressure, Governor Houston called a special session of the legislature to meet Jan- uary 21, 1861, and for the first Monday in the following February he ordered an election of delegates to the convention of southern states, as provided for by the legislative resolution of February 16, 1858. By every means in his power Houston protested against secession, holding that Lincoln's election, while deplor- able, was no sufficient ground for with- drawing from the Union. But the most ardent of the political leaders hastened matters by calling a state convention for January 28, 1861. The delegates to this con- vention, it is claimed, were chosen without due form and by a minority of the state's electorate. The legislature when it met disre- garded Houston's counsel for moderation, re- pealed the resolution of February 16, 1858, by which the governor had called an election of delegates to a convention for preserving the rights of the south; and declared the state convention called to meet on January 28 to be empowered to act for the people.

When the convention met it passed, on Feb- ruary 1, an ordinance of secession, by a vote of 166 to 7, and on February 23 this measure was approved by the popular will in a majority of forty-four thousand over thirteen thousand. The convention then took steps to carry out the anticipated will of the people, appoint- ing a committee of safety and also ap-

HISTORY OF TEXAS.

pointing delegates to the Confederate conven- tion at Montgomery, Alabama. The conven- tion then adjourned until March 2, and on March 4, the day of Lincoln's inauguration, it counted the votes of the people for and against the ordi- nance of secession with the result as above given. ,

Houston was throughout consistently op- posed to all these actions, and a few days be- fore the taking of the popular vote he deliv- ered a speech in Galveston in which he pic- tured the horrors of civil war and the ultimate triumph of the north over the south, but in his peroration expressing his undying love for his state and determination to stand by "my state, right or wrong." That he could thus talk di- rectly in the face of such a storm of secession shows how affectionately the people held him and how much they admired his candor and integrity even when they disagreed with his political views. Houston held that the actions of the convention were extra-legal. On March 16 he was summoned before the convention to take the oath of allegiance to the Confederate government, and when he refused to do this he was deposed and the lieutenant-governor, Edward Clark, installed in his place. Houston protested to the legislature and the people, but the former sanctioned his removal, and this commanding Texas statesman then retired to private life and remained out of the political and public embroilments of his state until his death, which occurred in 1863.

Thus Texas was aligned with the states that withdrew entirely from the federal union, and for over four years her troops went pouring forth from her borders into the fratricidal strife that all but wrecked the nation. Resources and men were sacrificed without stint, but Texas was advantaged in many ways as the other states of the Confederacy were not. The broad track of the war was down the east side of the Mississippi, across the center of the Con- federacy to the sea, and up the coast and in the Virginias. But Texas was not in this path. In fact, no northern invasion of her territory was ever permanently effective, and the state was left pretty much to herself, and was, for

much of the war period, the one reliable source of communication and of supplies for the en- tire south. The northern squadrons soon had the Atlantic and gulf ports of the other states thoroughly blockaded and all commerce cut off, while the federal armies ravaged and des- olated all the fair southland from the Missis- sippi to the sea. But the long line of Texas coast and the innumerable harbors could not be blockaded effectively, and the blockade runners were constantly slipping in with provisions or out with loads of cotton and other products of the fertile soil. Nothing could prevent the trade across the Rio Grande with the states of Mexico, and, comparatively speaking, Texas prospered during these terrible years. But of progress there was none. The best manhood of the state was fighting for its sincere faith, industries languished and were carried on only that the weakened pulse of existence might not be entirely stilled, and every department of activity suffered wounds that time alone could cicatrize.

The records of most of the sons of Texas were made on battlefields outside of the state, and not only is the state roster a long one, but among its names may be found some of the bravest sons of the Confederacy. But this his- tory must confine itself to those movements which took place within the borders of the state. Before the actual outbreak of hostilities the committee of safety had conferred with General Twiggs in command of the federal forces of the state. Twiggs was himself in favor of the secession movement, and he in- dicated his willingness to surrender the mili- tary resources of the state provided a show of force were made against him. Colonel Ben Mccullough therefore, on being assigned to the post at San Antonio, made a demonstra- tion against the city and obtained the sur- render of the forces of Twiggs together with over a million dollars' worth of property and munitions of war, the federal soldiers being allowed to leave the state. Colonel J. S. Ford took command at the Rio Grande border, tak- ing possession of Fort Brown opposite Mata-

HISTORY OF TEXAS.

moras. The state was alive with military fer- vor and activity, and by November, 1861, fifteen thousand soldiers had been enrolled in the southern cause.

The governors of Texas during the Civil war were Francis R. Lubbock, who was elect- ed in 1861, and Pendleton Murrah, who was elected in 1863.

In the summer of 1861 a movement was set on foot to invade and gain New Mexico over to the Confederacy. Lieutenant Colonel John R. Baylor crossed the Rio Grande into the ter- ritory and captured a force of seven hundred federals. Preparations were made to resist this Confederate invasion, but in the following February General Sibley of the Confederate army met and defeated the Union forces un- der General Canby of Val Verde. Santa Fe and Albuquerque then fell into the hands of the southern troops, but they later suffered a reverse at Apache Canyon, after which they retreated down the Rio Grande,, and by July, 1862, the territory was entirely abandoned, the campaign having been fruitless of practical results and having resulted in the death of many brave Texans.

The border defenses of Texas were as a rule too strong for the federal armies to penetrate. In September, 1862, Corpus Christi was cap- tured and held for a short time by a naval force. In October of the same year the port of Galveston was captured by a federal naval force, but this important city did not long re- main in their power. On New Year's day of 1863 General McGruder, by a combined land and sea attack, destroyed or captured three of the vessels in the harbor, drove the others out to sea, and by a successful assault on the land fort compelled the surrender of the troops there. Galveston remained for the rest of the war a Confederate possession, although the port was closely blockaded. A few weeks later the blockade of Sabine Pass was tempor- arily raised by the capture of two Union vessels by two Confederate boats after a hot conflict, and thereafter Sabine City was protected by a strong fort. In the latter part of 1863 Gen- eral Banks undertook to carry out his plan

for the conquest of Texas. The expedition was to land at Sabine Pass and carry on oper- ations from that point. On the morning of September 8 the gunboats attacked the fort, but the attempt ended in disaster to the fed- erals. Two of the boats were destroyed, over a hundred men killed and many more captured, while the garrison of two hundred Texans, only forty-two of whom participated in the battle, came out almost unscathed. The transports then returned to New Orleans and the expedi- tion was given up. For this brave defense of Sabine Pass, President Davis presented what is said to have been the only medal of honor bestowed by the Confederate government, it being a thin plate of silver with the initials of the words "Davis Guards" and a Maltese cross on the obverse and the place and date of the achievement on the reverse.

Late in 1863 General Banks directed a large naval and land expedition against the Texas coast and got control of nearly the entire line except at Galveston and the mouth of the Brazos, but this occupation lasted only a few months, and a naval blockade continued as the only restriction upon Texas activity along the coast. In March, 1864, General Banks and General Steele co-operated in what is known as the Red River expedition with the intention. of capturing Shreveport and entering Texas from the Northeast. But their army met a. decisive defeat at Sabine Crossroads, and their advance was effectually checked. This was the last considerable movement against Texas. during the war. In the battle of Sabine Cross- roads and in the following federal victories at Pleasant Grove and Pleasant Hill, the Texans played a prominent part. It was at Pleasant Hill that Sweitzer's famous regiment of Texas cavalry, to the number of four hundred, hurled themselves desperately against the enemy's line, and hardly more than ten of them escaped death or wounds.

There befell Texas and her people the usual train of evils resulting from war. Loyalty was the all-prevailing feeling through the state, and those who gave active opposition to . the war were comparatively very few. In such .

HISTORY OF TEXAS.

a conflict it was but natural that the bitterest animosities should be aroused. It was so in the north wherever southern sympathizers se- cretly or openly espoused their anti-union con- victions ; doubly rancorous was the enmity in the border states where former neighbors and friends ranged themselves on opposite sides; and likewise in Texas those who set themselves against the Confederacy and the cause of the beloved southland had to endure opprobrium and outrage, to escape which thousands volun- tarily exiled themselves.

The loyal Texans gladly gave their services and their all to the Confederacy. But even so, the stringency of a military regime bore heavily upon the people. With certain classes excepted, all able-bodied males from eighteen to forty-five years were liable to military ser- vice, and as the war pressed more and more heavily, and the resources of the south became taxed to the utmost, conscription was resorted to in order to fill up the depleted ranks. In November, 1863, the governor reported that ninety thousand Texans were already in the Confederate service, and when it is recalled that the number of voters at any one election had never equaled seventy thousand the sacri- fice and devotion of Texas to the southern cause can be better estimated.

During much of the war period the state was under martial law, and it was inevitable that more or less friction between the civil and military authorities should result, although this never became acute nor dimmed by the slightest shadow of the glowingrecord of Texas patriotism. The state being the great supply center of the Confederacy, a large portion of the crops and products of all kinds went to the support of the other states, and not only was the tax upon all exports very large, but large amounts of cotton had to be exchanged for state bonds and thus go to the support of the Confederacy. And so, though the year 1863 was a banner year in the production of corn and cotton, practically all the surplus went to keep alive the waning vitality of other parts of the south.

Of course Texas suffered with the other southern states in the monetary depreciation, the notes of the Confederacy becoming almost worthless before the close of the war, so as al- most to justify the story of the man who went to market with his money in a basket and returned with his meat in his vest pocket. The most strenuous efforts of the state authorities failed to keep paper at par. The notes were hardly acceptable anywhere, and transactions wherever possible were carried on by the old methods of barter and exchange.

The fact that the majority of male citizens were drawn off into other states, and the con- stant demand upon the militia for border de- fense, left the people in many places without sufficient police protection, with consequent demoralization of society and increase of crime of all kinds. Only those who passed through this period can correctly appreciate the ner- vous dread that possessed all the people and the constantly threatened disruption of all the elements of the social and political struc- ture.

In the meantime the war was approaching the end. The armies of Grant and Sherman had broken the back of the Confederacy by their wide sweep down the Mississippi valley and through the center of the south, and eventually came the fall of the capital at Rich- mond, the surrender of Lee and Johnson and the final quenching of the flames of civil strife. Of historic interest is the fact that in Texas were the final flickerings of the martial fires. General Kirby Smith continued the re- sistance in Texas for a month after the eastern armies had surrendered. General Sheridan was placed at the head of a large federal force to subdue this last stronghold of the Confeder- acy, but before he reached the state Smith surrendered, on May 26, to General Canby. On May 13 was fired the last shot of the great Civil war. Curiously enough, this engagement took place near the old battlefield of Palo Alto, where Taylor won his victory over the Mexi- cans. It is also interesting to note that this battle, although unimportant as to numbers

HISTORY OF TEXAS.

engaged or as to practical results, ended in a reverse for federal arms, so that the first and last battles of the war resulted in favor of the Confederates. And, also, as was the case in the war of 1812, the final engagement was fought after the virtual conclusion of hos-

tilities. But, happily for all concerned, peace was at hand and the Sons of Mars were al- ready returning to gather up the unused imple- ments of peace and restore the scenes of devas- tation and neglect to quiet husbandry and lasting prosperity.

CHAPTER XV.

THE ERA OF RECONSTRUCTION-THE CONSTITUTION OF 1876.

The throes of civil war were past, the per -. petuity of the Union was established, by the sovereign will of the majority of citizens and by force of arms our republic became a com- pact and self-directing nation instead of a con- federation of individual states, the peculiar in- stitution of slavery was abolished, and, theo- retically, all parts of this broad land were now free to close up the gaps made by devastating war and resume and continue with increasing vigor their course of social, moral, intellectual and political prosperity. Such, indeed, was true of the north. But south of Mason and Dixon's line, where the havoc-making war god had done his worst and prostrated every industry, checked every social advance, and destroyed material resources and blighted manhood to such a degree as nourishing time itself could not in years have restored,-here in the fair southland, upon which nature has so bountifully lavished her gifts, there became operative, through a misguided and sentimental policy of government, such legal and political restrictions as to paralyze an already stricken people, and to set back industrial and social de- velopment many years behind the march of progress and civilization.

In the south "reconstruction" is a synonym for rule by political tricksters, mountebanks, greedy carpetbaggers, and all the thirsty vam- pires that follow and feast upon the festering wounds of a body politic scourged by civil war. The north made an awful and almost ir- remediable mistake in its policies for rehabili- tating the south so as to become a fit member for the Union household, and the effects of

that error are not yet ensepulchred in the past and forgetfulness. But the twentieth century judgment of those times and events finds their chief actors to have been actuated rather by misguided sincerity than by evil intent, and that the criminal greed and despotic violence of the reconstructionists characterized only the individuals who crept into power under the faulty system,-did not mark the attitude and disposition of the northern people as a whole. The unbiased historian must take the view that, throughout the period of war and re- construction; both the north and the south were sincere, loyal to their ideals and con- science, and that the entire trouble lay in the inability of each to appreciate the point of view of the other. The north, without a con- siderable black population, without apprehen- sion of the dangers or possibilities of race domination, and with absolutely different social and industrial conditions, attempted, under the promptings of high-minded yet impractically sentimental reformers, to frame a political and social structure to which the far-away south should henceforth accommodate its civic life and habits. Of course, the movement failed, and the people of the great north have since generously recognized their former errors and have realized that the problems of the south are peculiar to the south, must be worked out by the high-minded citizenship of the south, and that broad-minded philanthropy and practical assistance will be acceptable, inter- ference never.

Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.

A twentieth century history and biographical record of north and west Texas, Volume I, Part 11

Author: Paddock, B. B. (Buckley B.), 1844-1922; Lewis Publishing Co., Chicago, pub Publication date: 1906 Publisher: Chicago, New York, The Lewis publishing co. Number of Pages: 968

Author: Paddock, B. B. (Buckley B.), 1844-1922; Lewis Publishing Co., Chicago, pub
Publication date: 1906
Publisher: Chicago, New York, The Lewis publishing co.
Number of Pages: 968