The Ideological Origins of the Texas Revolution

IF 0.8 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY JOURNAL OF SOUTHERN HISTORY Pub Date : 2024-07-16 DOI:10.1353/soh.2024.a932552
Stefan Roel Reyes
{"title":"The Ideological Origins of the Texas Revolution","authors":"Stefan Roel Reyes","doi":"10.1353/soh.2024.a932552","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\n<p> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> The Ideological Origins of the Texas Revolution <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Stefan Roel Reyes (bio) </li> </ul> <p>D<small>uring the convention of</small> 1836, <small>delegates adopted the</small> T<small>exas</small> Declaration of Independence. It justified independence by accusing the Mexican government of having failed “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.” Later in the document, the writers reiterated the association between property and liberty by arguing that trial by jury was the “guarantee” of the right to “life, liberty, and property of the citizen.”<sup>1</sup> Such statements almost echo the American Revolution’s declaration, which espoused the rights to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”<sup>2</sup> In fact, Thomas Jefferson had originally considered property among the inalienable rights. While historians debate whether Jefferson substituted <em>happiness</em> to signify a life of virtue or to reflect his uneasiness with slavery in the euphemism of property, Texans held no such qualms.<sup>3</sup> Why this difference between the American and Texas Declarations of Independence? Did Texans see property in slavery as a prerequisite for the pursuit of happiness as well as other liberties?</p> <p>It is difficult to take Texas revolutionaries’ language of freedom and rights seriously when they also believed in racism and slavery. Modern historians dismiss Texas revolutionaries’ arguments as a propagandistic narrative. Indeed, scholarly skepticism toward such rhetoric is well justified. Since the nineteenth century, Texas historians and writers have attempted to cleanse Texas history of the stain of slavery, often by emphasizing American exceptionalism—that is, by casting the Texas <strong>[End Page 479]</strong> Revolution as an heir to supposedly irresistible American ideas of universal human liberation. In 1855, Henderson K. Yoakum published one of the earliest accounts of the Texas Revolution. Although Yoakum refers to slavery a few times, the account is dominated by a narrative of affinity between Texan and American values.<sup>4</sup> Eugene C. Barker built on this perspective that the Texas Revolution was the offspring of the American Revolution. Barker’s work recognizes that the issue of slavery called into question the sincerity of Texan ideals. Nonetheless, he argues that the Mexican government’s attempt to enforce laws on a culturally different people was the impetus for the Texas Revolution, drawing parallels to Britain’s attempts to bring the American colonies under control. Barker suggests that Texas settlers were too American to blend successfully into Mexican society.<sup>5</sup> Amelia Worthington Williams was a historian, a student of Eugene Barker’s, and an active member of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, a group that perpetuated the idea that the American Civil War was not fought over slavery. Williams’s 1931 dissertation reflects Barker’s depiction of a tyrannical Mexican government and Texans’ cultural differences as the main drivers of the Texas Revolution.<sup>6</sup></p> <p>Should historians take Texas revolutionaries’ arguments at face value? After all, to explore seriously the language of the revolutionaries has traditionally served to sanitize Texas history. Barker’s and Williams’s mythologization of Texas history has left its mark on the historiography. Some historians, such as Phillip Thomas Tucker, have reacted to older literature. In his examination of American volunteers in the Texas Revolution, Tucker concludes that allusions and references to the American Revolution were simply rhetorical.<sup>7</sup> Other historians, such as Sam W. Haynes, have walked a tightrope between older and newer sentiments. Haynes analyzes how Texas revolutionaries drew from <strong>[End Page 480]</strong> their national historical experience to perpetuate the discourse of the American Revolution. He argues that Anglo-Texans used the American Revolution as a template to understand their own crisis with the Mexican government. Although Haynes underscores a shared discourse of tyrannical government among American and Texas revolutionaries, he highlights the “performative” aspect of this historical experience.<sup>8</sup></p> <p>What can reexamining the ideas espoused in the Texas Revolution add to the existing literature? It is imperative to understand, on a deeper level, how concepts employed during the Texas Revolution intersected with contemporary and historical revolutionary traditions. Such work goes beyond the U.S.-centrism in the historiography and reveals Texas’s connection to a larger Age of Revolutions. Texas revolutionaries believed that their justifications were genuine, and they drew...</p> </p>","PeriodicalId":45484,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF SOUTHERN HISTORY","volume":"171 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF SOUTHERN HISTORY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/soh.2024.a932552","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • The Ideological Origins of the Texas Revolution
  • Stefan Roel Reyes (bio)

During the convention of 1836, delegates adopted the Texas Declaration of Independence. It justified independence by accusing the Mexican government of having failed “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.” Later in the document, the writers reiterated the association between property and liberty by arguing that trial by jury was the “guarantee” of the right to “life, liberty, and property of the citizen.”1 Such statements almost echo the American Revolution’s declaration, which espoused the rights to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”2 In fact, Thomas Jefferson had originally considered property among the inalienable rights. While historians debate whether Jefferson substituted happiness to signify a life of virtue or to reflect his uneasiness with slavery in the euphemism of property, Texans held no such qualms.3 Why this difference between the American and Texas Declarations of Independence? Did Texans see property in slavery as a prerequisite for the pursuit of happiness as well as other liberties?

It is difficult to take Texas revolutionaries’ language of freedom and rights seriously when they also believed in racism and slavery. Modern historians dismiss Texas revolutionaries’ arguments as a propagandistic narrative. Indeed, scholarly skepticism toward such rhetoric is well justified. Since the nineteenth century, Texas historians and writers have attempted to cleanse Texas history of the stain of slavery, often by emphasizing American exceptionalism—that is, by casting the Texas [End Page 479] Revolution as an heir to supposedly irresistible American ideas of universal human liberation. In 1855, Henderson K. Yoakum published one of the earliest accounts of the Texas Revolution. Although Yoakum refers to slavery a few times, the account is dominated by a narrative of affinity between Texan and American values.4 Eugene C. Barker built on this perspective that the Texas Revolution was the offspring of the American Revolution. Barker’s work recognizes that the issue of slavery called into question the sincerity of Texan ideals. Nonetheless, he argues that the Mexican government’s attempt to enforce laws on a culturally different people was the impetus for the Texas Revolution, drawing parallels to Britain’s attempts to bring the American colonies under control. Barker suggests that Texas settlers were too American to blend successfully into Mexican society.5 Amelia Worthington Williams was a historian, a student of Eugene Barker’s, and an active member of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, a group that perpetuated the idea that the American Civil War was not fought over slavery. Williams’s 1931 dissertation reflects Barker’s depiction of a tyrannical Mexican government and Texans’ cultural differences as the main drivers of the Texas Revolution.6

Should historians take Texas revolutionaries’ arguments at face value? After all, to explore seriously the language of the revolutionaries has traditionally served to sanitize Texas history. Barker’s and Williams’s mythologization of Texas history has left its mark on the historiography. Some historians, such as Phillip Thomas Tucker, have reacted to older literature. In his examination of American volunteers in the Texas Revolution, Tucker concludes that allusions and references to the American Revolution were simply rhetorical.7 Other historians, such as Sam W. Haynes, have walked a tightrope between older and newer sentiments. Haynes analyzes how Texas revolutionaries drew from [End Page 480] their national historical experience to perpetuate the discourse of the American Revolution. He argues that Anglo-Texans used the American Revolution as a template to understand their own crisis with the Mexican government. Although Haynes underscores a shared discourse of tyrannical government among American and Texas revolutionaries, he highlights the “performative” aspect of this historical experience.8

What can reexamining the ideas espoused in the Texas Revolution add to the existing literature? It is imperative to understand, on a deeper level, how concepts employed during the Texas Revolution intersected with contemporary and historical revolutionary traditions. Such work goes beyond the U.S.-centrism in the historiography and reveals Texas’s connection to a larger Age of Revolutions. Texas revolutionaries believed that their justifications were genuine, and they drew...

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
得克萨斯革命的意识形态起源
以下是内容的简要摘录,以代替摘要: 德克萨斯革命的意识形态起源 Stefan Roel Reyes(简历) 在 1836 年的大会上,代表们通过了《德克萨斯独立宣言》。该宣言指责墨西哥政府未能 "保护人民的生命、自由和财产,而墨西哥政府的合法权力来自于人民,并且是为了促进人民的幸福而建立的",以此作为独立的理由。在文件的稍后部分,作者重申了财产与自由之间的联系,认为陪审团审判是 "公民的生命、自由和财产 "权利的 "保障"。历史学家们争论杰斐逊用 "幸福 "来代替 "美德生活",还是用 "财产 "的委婉说法来反映他对奴隶制的不安,而德克萨斯人却没有这种顾虑。德克萨斯人是否认为奴隶制中的财产是追求幸福和其他自由的先决条件?当德克萨斯革命者也相信种族主义和奴隶制时,就很难认真对待他们关于自由和权利的语言。现代历史学家将得克萨斯革命者的论点斥之为宣传性叙事。事实上,学者们对这种言论持怀疑态度是有道理的。自 19 世纪以来,得克萨斯州的历史学家和作家一直试图洗刷得克萨斯州历史上的奴隶制污点,他们往往强调美国的特殊性,即把得克萨斯州 [第 479 页完] 革命塑造成所谓不可抗拒的美国普遍人类解放思想的继承者。1855 年,亨德森-K-尤库姆出版了最早的德克萨斯革命记述之一。虽然约库姆多次提到奴隶制,但该书主要叙述了德克萨斯价值观与美国价值观之间的亲缘关系。4 尤金-C-巴克(Eugene C. Barker)基于这一观点,认为德克萨斯革命是美国革命的后代。4 尤金-C.-巴克(Eugene C. Barker)从这一角度出发,认为德克萨斯革命是美国革命的后代。巴克的著作承认,奴隶制问题让人质疑德克萨斯理想的真诚性。尽管如此,他认为墨西哥政府试图对一个文化不同的民族实施法律是德克萨斯革命的动力,这与英国试图控制美国殖民地的做法相似。5 阿米莉亚-沃辛顿-威廉姆斯是一名历史学家,尤金-巴克的学生,同时也是南方联盟女儿会的积极成员,该组织一直认为美国内战不是为奴隶制而战。威廉姆斯 1931 年的论文反映了巴克对墨西哥政府暴政和德克萨斯人文化差异的描述,认为这是德克萨斯革命的主要推动力。毕竟,认真探讨革命者的语言历来是为了净化德克萨斯州的历史。巴克和威廉姆斯对得克萨斯历史的神化在史学界留下了印记。一些历史学家,如菲利普-托马斯-塔克,对旧文献做出了回应。塔克在研究德克萨斯革命中的美国志愿者时得出结论,对美国革命的影射和引用只是一种修辞。海恩斯分析了得克萨斯革命者如何借鉴 [第 480 页完] 本国的历史经验来延续美国革命的话语。他认为,盎格鲁-德克萨斯人以美国革命为模板来理解自己与墨西哥政府之间的危机。尽管海恩斯强调了美国和得克萨斯革命者对暴政的共同论述,但他也强调了这一历史经历的 "表演性 "方面。当务之急是在更深层次上了解得克萨斯革命期间采用的理念如何与当代和历史上的革命传统相交融。这项工作超越了历史学中的美国中心主义,揭示了得克萨斯州与更广阔的革命时代的联系。得克萨斯州的革命者相信他们的理由是真实的,他们借鉴了...
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
220
期刊最新文献
Faith, Race, and the Lost Cause: Confessions of a Southern Church by Christopher Alan Graham (review) Nothing More Than Freedom: The Failure of Abolition in American Law by Giuliana Perrone (review) A Man of Bad Reputation: The Murder of John Stephens and the Contested Landscape of North Carolina Reconstruction by Drew A. Swanson (review) Ruin and Resilience: Southern Literature and the Environment by Daniel Spoth (review) In the Shadows of the Big House: Twenty-First-Century Antebellum Slave Cabins and Heritage Tourism in Louisiana by Stephen Small (review)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1