I recently happened upon an article in the Texas Monthly (of all places) about a bunch of drama occurring within the Texas State Historical Association about what some conservatives in that association consider a creeping "woke" attitude toward Texas history. One of the larger points of contention is regarding the birth of the Republic of Texas. Yes, Republic - Texas was an independent country before becoming a U.S. state. Of course, before becoming either of those it was part of Mexico. I won't go into detail about the article, although it is an interesting dive into the kind of revisionist thinking, writing, and policy that underlies the myth that most people who were educated in the United States believe about the founding of Texas.
The "accepted" Texan (and U.S.) narrative about Texas winning its independence from Mexico centers around the brave and virtuous (and mostly white) settlers in Texas wanting to free themselves from the tyranny of Mexican rule. The iconic brick-and-mortar monument to Texas independence is, of course, the famous Alamo, located in what is today San Antonio, Texas. The events most of us know about the battle of the Alamo are mostly true: a group of Texans declared themselves and Texas independent of Mexico; Mexico's General Antonio López de Santa Anna led the Mexican Army into Texas to quell this rebellion; a small group of Texas rebels holed up in the grounds of a former Spanish mission called the Alamo; Santa Anna's army laid siege to the Alamo and, ultimately, ended up killing all of its defenders; some of these defenders include revered names from U.S. history: James Bowie, Davey Crockett, and William Travis; after the defeat of the rebels in the Alamo, Sam Houston went on to defeat the Mexican Army and win independence for Texas.
The mythic part of all this centers around the answer to the questions: why did Texas want independence from Mexico? Why were men willing to die rather than live under Mexican rule? The false answer, the myth, is that Texas settlers saw Mexico in general, and Santa Anna in particular, as tyrannical and dictatorial. The freedom-loving rebels of course wanted to sever their ties to Mexico and ride off into the sunset as free men.
The true answer - what modern conservatives eye-rollingly call the "woke" answer - is that Mexico at that time was an abolitionist country, and Texans wanted slaves. None of this is lost to history, it is simply not written in grade school textbooks. It is a fact that Mexico won its independence from Spain in 1821. It is also a fact that Mexican president Vicente Ramon Guerrero abolished slavery in most of Mexico in 1829. It is a fact that the U.S. did not abolish slavery until 1865. It is a fact that many people in the U.S. profited from slavery, especially those in agriculture. And it is a fact that Texas settlers, farmers, and landowners also wanted to enjoy the same profits from slavery that white landowners in the southern United States benefited from.
The story of Texas' independence is this: Texas wanted slaves, but Mexico had abolished slavery. It is this economic and moral schism that Texas found unpalatable, enough so to go to war over it. And really, not a stretch given that 25 years later, the entire U.S. would be engaged in a war wherein the question of slavery played a central role.
I get that people find it uncomfortable to dwell on ugly events of the past. And if that is the attitude of those who take a conservative and revisionist view of Texas history, then perhaps those people should just ignore the birth of Texas altogether. What I find completely unacceptable is that instead of doing that, they glorify that birth; and in glorifying it, they make the wrong party out to be the villain - namely, Mexico.
Santa Anna and Mexico had many faults at the time of the Texas independence movement. Profiting off of the enslavement of human beings wasn't one of them. That is a fault that the U.S. and Texas owned. And if it is "woke" to recognize that, then perhaps in the eyes of conservative Texas, "woke" and "truth" are synonymous, as are "tradition" and "lies".
Yes, thank you Mike. What you share about the history of Texas makes great sense. It seems that delusional thinking about the history of the US has been a consistent narrative in our country. When I first read about the 1619 project from the NYT, it was clear to me that while no history is perfect, the history that was shared by Nikole Hannah-Jones and others was far closer to an honest story about how and why slavery unfolded over the past 4 centuries. Thank you for shedding more light. How can we heal from the past if we can't name what happened? 💜
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/1619-america-slavery.html
It took a while for a smile to break free from my face. As I read your post, half my muscles wanted to crack a smile and some rogue muscles opposed it. You could say there was a civil war between my (colonized) upper lip and my (woke) lower lip. If I could discern with some degree of clarity the images, thoughts and feelings flowing through, I'd say, a (big) part of me accepted your assertions with seriousness. And, I wanted to giggle like a little girl in church mass because I appreciate your humor. Thank you for all you do to inform yourself and then share with us.