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

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?