1. Slavery in the United States
What is commonly known as the secession movement covers comparatively few years. But essentially it was one of a series of controversies between the states which arose early, and are still arising. It grew more immediately out of the controversy which arose over the institution of negro slavery. But the real cause of the movement was the difference in economic conditions prevailing in the several sections of the country, and the inability of the central government to adapt itself to these conditions. In the North slavery was never profitable, but in the warm and fertile South where the large open areas of land were favorable to agriculture, and where the climate made it difficult for people of North European birth or extraction to perform severe manual labor, slavery established itself firmly. As the Louisiana territory and Florida were added to the Union, it spread over those territories. The plantation system with its enormous acreage cultivated by slave labor became the established order.
In the early years of our history the North and the South had united in placing restrictions upon slavery. Together they had abolished the slave trade, and prohibited slavery forever in the Northwest Territory. But the economic development of the country progressed along different lines in the two sections. In the Northern states, where it was unprofitable, slavery was soon abolished, while in the South the institution and the problems to which it gave birth became more serious. In the opinion of the South slavery was essential to its economic progress and to the perpetuation of the social conditions which had arisen with the plantation system. But the problem of abolishing a financially profitable institution where it was considered necessary to the existence of the plantation system and to the social conditions dependent upon it, was not the only difficulty that confronted the South; the question as to what disposition could be made of the hundreds of thousands of liberated negroes presented an equally serious problem. The most southern point of free territory had been reached by 1800. From that time on, the country had distinct free and slavery sections. And as time passed, there grew up an aggressive element in the North hostile to slavery. It expressed its views freely on the subject, and held the nation responsible for the system which it considered inhuman and odious. In the South the feeling grew that one of its necessary institutions was condemned and threatened, and that the South in order to hold its own must act as a unit. From such a beginning grew distinct political alignments and solidification of the sections, which eventually became the cause of secession and civil war.
2. The Beginning of Slavery in Texas
It is apparent that Texas could not escape the tide of anti-Northern sentiment and of disunion that passed over the other Southern states. Though not a member of the Union until 1846, Texas, was, nevertheless, closely affiliated with the other Southern states; the majority of her inhabitants had emigrated from those states, and her economic conditions were substantially the same as theirs. From the beginning of American immigration into Texas, settlement and slavery went hand and hand. The Mexican government abolished slavery throughout the Mexican states in 1829, but Texas was soon after, at the request of Stephen F. Austin, exempted from the decree, and the Republic of Texas firmly established slavery within its boundaries. The constitution of 1836 provided that all who were slaves at the close of the revolution should remain such. Congress was forbidden to pass any law prohibiting immigrants from bringing their slaves with them; and no one was permitted to free his slaves, except by consent of Congress, unless he first sent them out of Texas; nor were free negroes permitted to reside in the state. But the African slave trade, except with the United States, was prohibited and declared piracy. 148
When, in 1837, Texas proposed to enter the Union, the slave question again loomed up in the United States. The facts, that the acquisition of Texas would add to the United States a vast slave territory, and that new life would thus be given to the institution, gave rise to spirited and acrimonious discussions in Congress. A great struggle between the representatives of the Southern states and the Northern abolitionists over the right of petition growing out of the slavery question had just been ended. Northern members looked with contempt upon the application for annexation. It was not until nine years later that enough of the people of the United States “realized,” as Dr. Garrison says, “the supreme importance of acquiring Texas to turn the scale in favor of accepting her, slavery and all.” 149
1. Interest Occupied by Local Affairs
That the Texans took but comparatively little interest in the slavery controversy before 1854 was due to various circumstances. Texas had little time to devote to the affairs of the nation. Her time and attention were given to adjusting her own affairs. The Indians were troublesome and her frontiers had to be protected. The Mexicans gave trouble to the new government by inciting the negroes to conspiracy and insurrection. 150 Other questions of vital importance to her at that time were those involving her boundary dispute, her debt, the problems connected with her unoccupied lands, internal improvements, and the development of her resources. Furthermore, Texas was a new state and was sincere in her loyalty to the Union; and the plantation system had not yet developed to such an extent that the great plantation owners could control the policy of the state and mould public opinion in support of slavery.
2. Early Attitude toward the Slavery Controversy
Yet Texas could not escape entirely the great controversy agitating the Union just before the compromise of 1850. Her representatives in Congress took part in the struggle there, and the people at home were not entirely silent.
The earliest evidence that I have found in regard to the attitude of Texas toward the situation at that time is a series of resolutions adopted by a county convention which met at Galveston, January 31, 1848, to select delegates to the state convention, which was to choose the four Texan delegates to the national convention at Baltimore. 151 These resolutions maintained that any legislative interference on the part of the federal government with the domestic policy of the citizens of the United States living in any of the territories would not be in the true spirit and meaning of “needful rules and regulations,” and hence would be unconstitutional; that all acquired territory belonged to the states of the Union for their common use and benefit; that until a territory should be admitted to statehood, the citizens of all the states had a right to emigrate thither with their property and there enjoy it; and that it would be inexpedient for the Texas delegates in the national convention to support any candidate from the non-slaveholding section of the Union who did not advocate the opinions expressed in these resolutions. 152 The convention specifically endorsed a resolution offered by Senator Dickinson of New York in December, 1847, favoring expansion, and denying the power of Congress to impose on any territory required restrictions “inconsistent with the right of the people thereof to form a free sovereign state, with the powers and privileges of the original members of the confederacy;” but it repudiated his second resolution, that questions of domestic policy should be left to the territorial legislatures. 153 The discussions to which these resolutions gave rise show that the sentiment which they expressed was by no means unanimous. A Mr. Megginson, in giving his reasons for refusing to serve as a member of the committee that drew up the resolutions, said that the great questions of the day were those involving the preservation of the constitution and the protection of slavery. So far as he could see neither the Whigs nor the Democrats could be depended upon to defend slavery, for both parties in the North were fighting it. He could see no use in sending delegates to the national convention; the four men from Texas could accomplish nothing there, and the people of Texas would not be benefited in any manner by sending delegates. A Mr. Sherwood declared that he had never found more than three or four individuals who pretended to defend the institution of slavery in the abstract; that the people in the North and the people in the South had the same feelings on the subject; that it was an institution prejudicial in its operation to the best interests of the country; that it was an evil which had been introduced without the fault of that generation; that the only apology offered for its continuance was the difficulty of abandoning it; that, more than this, the South had up to that time always agreed with the North that Congress had absolute control over the territories, and that it was then inexpedient to change that view. Louis T. Wigfall and Ashbel Smith on the other hand, defended the principles embodied in the resolutions. The latter maintained that no one could contend that the right to establish or abolish slavery was conferred upon Congress, and that neither Congress nor a territory could abolish slavery within the borders 154 of such territory.
The only other evidence I have found that the people of Texas were taking an interest in the disposition of the newly acquired territories is found in an editorial of that day, which indicates that the course of the federal government was not entirely satisfactory to Texas. The editor complained that, although the South had furnished the greater number of men in the war with Mexico, Congress was trying to defraud the South of its rights in the territory thus acquired. 155
3. Attitude of United States Senators from Texas
The Texas representatives in Congress were in the midst of the struggle over the organization of the Mexican cession, and hence could not avoid taking part in it. Texas was represented in the Senate by Sam Houston and Thomas J. Rusk, both elected in 1846. Rusk had served Texas well during the revolution, fighting side by side with Houston at San Jacinto; and later, during the Republic, he had served as chief justice. While a member of the Senate he voted on all occasions with the other Southern members; but as he died before the real “tug of war” came in Texas, in regard to secession, his influence on the movement was not great.
Houston on the other hand, was so closely identified with the whole movement, that the story of his life becomes a part of the secession movement in Texas from 1848 to 1861. Although a strict constructionist, and always jealous of the rights of Texas, he was at the same time a strong Union man. In a speech delivered in the Senate July 3, 1850, on the right of Texas to Santa Fê, he defined his idea of sovereignty in the following words: “The Sovereign power of this Union is shared by every free man, its embodiment passing through the States from the people; a portion of it is centered in the Federal Constitution, and thereby that becomes the supreme law of the land and is the only embodiment of sovereignty.” 156 He was a slaveholder and accepted the institution as a part of the social system in which he found himself. On one occasion he said that he was neither the enemy nor the propagandist of slavery. While he most strenuously objected to the extension of slavery, he denied just as strenuously the right of the federal government to interfere with the institution in the states where it was established. He saw clearly that the outcome of the dispute, if given time and scope, would lead to disunion and civil war. As a stanch friend and follower of Andrew Jackson, he had easily become imbued with a strong attachment for the constitution, which he believed should be strictly construed and enforced both by the North and the South. As a senator he allied himself with Benton and the old Union Democracy of Jackson in opposition to Calhoun and the other Southern leaders. When the Oregon territorial bill came up in Congress in 1848, it contained a provision prohibiting in accordance with the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 the establishment of slavery in Oregon. The bill was denounced by Calhoun, who held that Congress had no right to prohibit slavery in a territory. Threats of disunion were heard. Houston advocated the bill, and in the course of his speech said that he had heard threats of dissolution and disunion so often that he had become familiar with them, and that they no longer frightened him. He declared that, as for himself, he knew neither North nor South; he knew only the constitution and the Union. 157 This speech caused great excitement and anger in the Southern states, but no word of disapproval came from Texas. Instead, he was commended by one newspaper, at least, for his able speech and for the applause he had received from the galleries. 158
In the great debates that preceded the compromise of 1850 Houston was not silent. At this time he zealously defended the rights of Texas, whose western boundary was in dispute, but he voted on all occasions for the measures that restricted the extension of slavery. He had voted against the extension of the Missouri Compromise line over the newly acquired territory in 1849, and in 1850 he voted for the admission of California as a free state, and for the abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia. But no protest seems to have been made in Texas. In the meantime, the Southern leaders, realizing that California and probably New Mexico would be lost to slavery, issued an address for a convention to meet at Nashville, Tennessee, in the summer of 1850. Houston refused to sign the address, and ridiculed the idea of a convention.
That the people of Texas paid so little attention to the slavery controversy in 1850, although their senator was elsewhere severely criticised for his action in it, was probably due in part to the fact that all their interest was centered in the disposition of their western boundary.
It was not until 1854, when the Kansas-Nebraska bill came before Congress, that the Texans began to take any real interest in the controversy that had agitated the other portions of the country during the past half dozen years, or longer. The compromise of 1850 was merely a lull before the storm. The fugitive slave law no sooner went into effect than the people of the North began seeking ways and means of evading it; and the “personal liberty laws” did not tend to allay the slavery agitation. The Texas press began to show its interest in the controversy by reprinting editorials on the subject from the leading Southern papers. When comments were made, which was seldom, they were in accord with Southern sentiment, but the papers appeared to hesitate to take a firm stand on either side, as if conscious that the reading public was divided on the issue.
In the great struggle in Congress over the Kansas-Nebraska act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise, and placed the South on an equal legal footing with the North in a vast territory that had before been dedicated to freedom, Houston took an active part against the measure. He opposed it vehemently and unflinchingly. He spoke of the perils of such a measure and especially of those that it would bring upon his state, which was the southern terminus of the slave population. He called attention to the fact that her favorable conditions for the production of cotton, sugar, and tobacco would demand an enormous amount of slave labor; that the disproportion of the slaves to the white population would soon become enormous and the consequences frightful; that the South's demand for non-intervention by Congress would be as useless in theory as it would be dangerous in practice; that if the measure were adopted, it would not secure those territories to the South, nor preserve the Union of the states nor allay the agitation in the North; that it would sustain neither the Democratic nor the Whig party in its organization; and that the effect upon the government would be most disastrous, because it would destroy the future harmony of the nation. He declared that the people reverenced and respected the Missouri Compromise as a line defining certain rights and privileges to different sections of the Union, and that by its destruction the people would become exasperated and bitter agitation would follow. 159 Because of this attitude toward the controversy, Houston was accused of being an abolitionist, of betraying the state he served and the cause he was in Congress to defend. In reply to these charges he said that he had no intention of remaining silent or shirking his duty in the face of such a dangerous measure; it was his duty to tell the South what the results would be in spite of all “intimidation, threats, or consequences.” The Texans were awakened, however, to the seriousness of the North's opposition to slavery, and, on account of his attitude toward this bill, Houston lost for a time much of his popularity in Texas.
1. The Beginning of Political Parties in Texas
The sentiment of Texas after 1854, as reflected in the party platforms, in the acts of the legislature, and in the press of the state, was entirely in sympathy with the Southern movement to maintain Southern rights at any cost. In 1854, there were both Whigs and Democrats in Texas, but party organization did not become crystalized until Pease's administration, 1853-1857. The people concurred in the efforts of the state government to attend to the affairs of the state, both local and national. The party factions opposed to each other were of a personal rather than of a political character; it was the man and not the party he represented that was taken into consideration. When the Whigs were disrupted in 1854, the “American” or “Know-Nothing” party sprang into existence. This secret organization, opposed to alien immigration and to Catholicism, spread rapidly over the whole country and for a short time acquired considerable influence in Texas. Many lodges were organized, especially in the eastern part of the state. This party, in 1855, elected its candidate to Congress; and its candidate for Governor against Pease, although defeated, received nearly eighteen thousand votes. After that time, though they did not put forth any candidates for state offices, Know-Nothing votes were, for several years, nevertheless, of considerable consequence in state elections.
This party affected the secession movement only indirectly. It stood for the preservation and perpetuation of the constitution and the federal union; opposed the formation of sectional parties; and believed in a strict construction of the constitution and the preservation of the rights of the states. 160 It was therefore a Unionist party, and opposed the more radical sentiments of the Southern Democrats. Houston and many of the Unionists of Texas were affiliated with the party for a time. The Democratic party, recently reorganized on the basis of national issues, was able to defeat the Know-Nothing candidates for state offices; but by 1857, the American party, having given up its secret methods, emerged well organized, independent, and ready for combat. Then it was necessary for the Democrats to unite all available forces in order to defeat Houston for the governorship.
The Democratic party in its first state platform, in 1855, recognized the existence of the national controversy over slavery, and from that time on until Texas withdrew from the Union, the party's platforms were devoted almost entirely to the all-prevailing question. In 1855, the party stood for strict adherence to the principles of state rights; maintained that Congress had no right to interfere in the affairs of sovereign states; condemned the attacks of the North upon the integrity of the constitution and the rights of the South; endorsed the principles of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and denounced the Know-Nothing party as the enemy of good government. 161
2. Houston Censured for Vote on Kansas-Nebraska Bill
Immediately after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill public opinion changed rapidly and radically in regard to the national controversy. That bill was heartily endorsed throughout the state as embodying the principles of true democracy. Houston's opposition to the measure was severely condemned by the press, by the people at large, in county conventions, by the state legislature, and by the state Democratic convention in 1856. His nearest friends could not uphold his action in regard to that measure. The correspondent of the “Prairie Blade,” published in Corsicana, speaking of the sentiment of northern Texas which, judging from the newspapers of the day, was the prevailing sentiment throughout the state, was very much surprised that Houston had not yet been overtaken by political justice, and that he still retained his seat in the United States Senate, where he had twice betrayed the interests of Texas on the most vitally important subject that ever came before that body; he had basely and treacherorously betrayed her cause on the Nebraska bill, and, no matter what his excuse might be, had voted with the abolitionists, the pledged and uncompromising enemies of Texas; and he had committed the sin of abolitionism in his votes, both on the Oregon and the Kansas-Nebraska bills. In conclusion the writer asked, “Will Texas endorse this course and tamely submit not only to be misrepresented, but have her interest assailed by Houston in conjunction with his abolition allies? Is there not enough of the spirit of '76 and '36 in Texas to defend their own interest from the attacks of their own Senator? If there is, I hope to see the next legislature request him, in the consideration of his many political sins, to resign.” 162
Houston's attitude toward the Kansas-Nebraska bill and his affiliation with the Know-Nothing party were condemned by the Democratic press with equal harshness. During 1855 and 1856, the State Gazette, the recognized organ of the rapidly growing Democratic party, devoted much space in every issue to denouncing the Know-Nothing party as a secret organization and as antislavery in sentiment; speeches on “Know-Nothingism,” freely reprinted from the papers of other states, and letters on the policy and legality of the organization, occupied much space. In November, 1855, a great assembly of Democrats opposed to the Know-Nothing party assembled at Austin to commemorate their victory over the “secretly marshalled forces of the ubiquitous Sam” in the recent elections.
Not less than twenty-two county conventions, in the fall of 1855 adopted resolutions upholding the doctrine of state rights, and of political equality, endorsing the Kansas-Nebraska bill, condemning the Know-Nothing party, and disapproved of Houston's attitude toward the Kansas-Nebraska bill; others recommended that the state legislature demand his resignation from the United States Senate. The Hays County convention declared that the many past services of Houston only added to his present shame and infamy, because of his base and traitorous desertion of Democracy and the just cause of the South; that by persisting in the grossest misrepresentations of both the will and the interests of the state, he had forfeited all claims to his title of honor, and to the confidence of his constituents. 163 The Cass County convention declared that he had violated the confidence reposed in him by his constituents, and that in view of the almost unanimous wish of the people, he ought to resign his seat, so that a man, who would become the exponent of their principles and the defender of their rights, might be elected. 164 Walker County, his own county, was probably most severe in its condemnation. Resolutions were adopted at Huntsville, to the effect that Houston had forfeited all claims to Democratic support by joining the Know-Nothing “conspirators”; that it was the bounden duty of the legislature to pass resolutions instructing him to vacate his seat in the Senate; that the integrity of the Democratic party, the interests of the South generally, and of Texas particularly, and a proper sense of self-respect, demanded this action at their hands. The convention also most heartily endorsed Senator Rusk's vote on the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and recommended to the incoming legislature, his re-election to the United States Senate. 165
Many of these conventions organized Democratic associations, and a few authorized the appointment of vigilance committees. The general object of the associations, as given in an address on the purposes of such organizations by a committee appointed by the Travis County association, was to secure the permanent success of the national Democratic party, whose effort had always been to protect the national rights of the South from outrage, to elevate the condition of the people, to extend and strengthen Southern institutions, and to protect Southern rights when threatened with violence. 166 The duties of vigilance committees were of a general nature. For instance, the chairman of the Cass County convention was authorized to appoint a vigilance committee whose duty it should be to perform all things necessary to further the cause against “Know-Nothingism” and “abolitionism;” and the chairman of the Freestone County convention was authorized to appoint a vigilance committee of twenty-five to act in concert with the Democratic association.
The legislature of 1855 reflected the general feeling of resentment against Houston for working against what the people considered their interests. According to the Austin correspondent of the Galveston News, nearly everything connected with the history of the Compromise of 1850, the fugitive slave law, and the record of Houston was under discussion. Not even Houston's personal friends sustained him in his course. 167 After much heated discussion the legislature, by a vote of seventy-three to three, adopted the following resolution, disapproving of Houston's vote: “Be it resolved by the legislature of the State of Texas, that the legislature approves the course of Thomas J. Rusk, in voting for the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and disapproves the course of Sam Houston, in voting against it.” 168 As a further indication of its approval of Rusk's position on the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the legislature, more than a year before his term expired, unanimously re-elected him to the United States Senate for another term of six years, from March, 1857. 169 Houston found it necessary to visit the legislature and justify his action. On November 23, 1855, he delivered an address before the legislature wherein he explained his vote by saying that Texas, in accepting the resolutions of annexation, recognized the Missouri Compromise, and that he therefore considered himself bound to vote with the North in maintaining it. 170
The Texas press watched closely the development of the trouble between the anti- and pro-slavery factions in Kansas. The situation was fully and freely discussed. The anti-slavery element was designated as “blood thirsty free-soilers,” and extracts from letters telling of atrocities committed by the free-soilers upon the peace-loving pro-slavery men who dared protect their property were reprinted from other Southern papers. During the summer of 1856, a circular addressed to the Southern states by the managers of the Lafeyette Emigration Society of Missouri was published in the newspapers. It advocated prompt and decisive action, if Kansas was to be saved to slavery. 171
When the men active in public affairs of the state met again in convention at Austin in 1856, they further expressed the sentiments of the party in regard to the Kansas situation as well as in regard to slavery. The members of the convention maintained that the abolitionists of Kansas, fostered, supported and encouraged by the abolitionists of the Union, attempted to control the government, and that this course was at war with the principles of the constitution, and subversive of free government. They further sympathized with the citizens of the slaveholding states in their efforts to induce real settlers to become citizens of the territory, and asserted that the citizens of Missouri who had immigrated into the territory deserved the gratitude and warm support of all the friends of the Union and the Constitution. 172
Lorenzo Sherwood, of Galveston, was rejected as a delegate by the convention because of a speech he delivered in the house of representatives a short time before. It was considered anti-Southern in sentiment, for he had asserted that slavery was an evil in the abstract, although the institution was the best that could be devised for white and black. He also thought Congress had a right to deal with slavery in the territories. 173 His own constituents, also, after fully considering the sentiment expressed in his speech, repudiated him, and demanded his resignation. They charged that he was false to his declarations and professions made at the time he was elected; that he had forfeited their confidence and respect; and that they had been mistaken in their belief that he was not only a high-minded, honorable, intelligent and truthful gentleman, but also sound on the subject of slavery. 174
The convention adopted the platform of the national convention of 1852, as embracing the only doctrine which could preserve the integrity of the Union and the equal rights of the states. 175 They further endorsed the Kansas-Nebraska act as “a triumph of the constitution over fanaticism and sectional madness,” and maintained the equality of the states and the rights of slavery to protection in the territories until such territory should be admitted as states into the Union. 176 That the radical leaders were becoming intolerant of opposition to their ideas on the subject was shown in other action taken by the convention rather than in its platform. A resolution to censure Houston because of his attitude toward the Kansas-Nebraska bill was adopted. The first resolution offered was very severe and caused much discussion. The following substitute, offered by Judge Oldham, was unanimously adopted:
“Resolved, that this convention do most fully and cordially endorse and approve the votes of Senator Rusk and Representatives Geo. W. Smyth and Peter H. Bell upon the Kansas-Nebraska act, and that we do further most decidedly disapprove the vote of Senator Houston upon said act, as not in accordance with the Democracy of Texas.” 177 And, according to the State Gazette, the organ of the Democrats, the convention was heartily endorsed by the leading newspapers of the State, as well attended, harmonious and enthusiastic, and as having well and nobly performed its duty in adopting the platform as it did. 178
3. The Gubernatorial Campaign, 1857
The state campaign for the governorship in 1857 began in 1856. Names of desirable candidates as nominees for governor began to be suggested by the newspapers in the fall of that year. Even Houston's name, as that of a possible candidate, loomed up, and the Southern Intelligencer took upon itself to warn the people against him. This newspaper declared that if the people agreed upon any one subject it was in their approval of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and in their condemnation of all who did not favor that eminently Southern measure; but that General Houston had opposed that measure, and, more than that, he had defended his action with all the arguments employed by the Black Republican party. 179
The next year witnessed the beginning of the real struggle between Houston and his opponents for the good will and support of the people. The first fully organized Democratic state convention held in Texas for nominating state officers was held at Waco in May, 1857. In order to unite and bind the Democrats together in the canvass against Houston and his adherents for the governorship and other positions in the state, a resolution was adopted pledging the delegates to support the nominees of the convention. 180 Hardin R. Runnels and Frank R. Lubbock were nominated for governor and lieutenant-governor, respectively. Lubbock canvassed the entire state before the election. Houston and Jesse Grimes, as independent Democrats, announced themselves as applicants for the governorship and lieutenant-governorship, respectively. The canvass of 1857 was styled “Houston versus Democracy.” Many bitter and acrimonious speeches were delivered during the summer. The attack on Houston by the opposition press was severe. His whole record as United States Senator was reviewed, and condémned. He was accused of vindicating before the Senate a petition of three thousand New England abolition clergymen, and of voting against all bills in the interest of slavery; of blaming the frontier settlers for the Indian outrages; of preaching submission to Fremont; of advocating secret political conventions; and of using the Baptist Church for the purpose of advancing his political prospects. 181 Houston was supported by the Union Democrats and the remnants of the Whig and Know-Nothing parties. The struggle culminated in the election of Runnels and Lubbock by nearly ten thousand majority. The people had not yet forgiven Houston for his support of the Kansas-Nebraska bill.
One of the duties of the seventh legislature, that met November 2, 1857, was to elect two United States Senators, one to fill the unexpired term of Senator Rusk who had recently died, and another to fill Senator Houston's place whose term would expire in 1858. Houston stood for re-election, but the pro-slavery Democratic strength was too great. John Hemphill received the caucus nomination and was elected.
4. The First Threats of Secession
After their victory in 1857, the Democratic leaders became bolder in their pro-slavery declarations and in their denunciations of the federal government. Governor Runnels was an extreme state rights man, and his inaugural speech represented the views held by his party in regard to the slavery controversy. He severely condemned Governor R. J. Walker's attitude in the Kansas troubles, accusing him of betraying his official trust and of trying to make Kansas a free state for everybody but Southerners with their property. He advocated a liberal policy in regard to the organization of state militia. And he openly advocated secession as the remedy if the trouble in Kansas should not be settled in a manner satisfactory to the South. Again, in his message to the legislature in January of 1858 he gave a history of the struggle in Kansas, and added that the Northern states had increased their obstructions to the operation of the fugitive slave law. In his opinion the North was determined to defeat the federal government in its attempts to protect Southern rights. He recommended that the legislature pass resolutions declaring the sentiment of the people in Texas in regard to Northern aggression, and that it provide a way by which Texas could co-operate with the other Southern states in protecting their rights. 182 The legislature responded with the resolutions suggested, and to meet his second recommendation authorized the governor to order an election of seven delegates to a Southern convention, whenever a majority of the other slave-holding states should think such a convention necessary. Ten thousand dollars was appropriated to defray the expenses of such delegates. But if it should become necessary for Texas to act alone, the governor was authorized to call a special session of the legislature in order that it might call a convention. 183
But a more radical measure had been proposed a little earlier in the year by Judge T. J. Chambers, an influential leader of the party in the state convention. He advocated withdrawal from the Union in case the federal government should try to embarrass, delay, or defeat the admission of Kansas as a member of the Union on any pretext referring to slavery, as such an act would be an usurpation of power and a violation of the compact of the Union. Sister states of like sentiment were invited to join Texas. 184 The resolution was tabled; nevertheless, it expressed the feeling of many of the Democratic leaders who were shaping public opinion in Texas. This process of moulding public opinion to the maintenance of state rights in regard to slavery at any cost had been going on for some years. Many of the influential newspapers were controlled by the radical element in the state, and they exerted themselves to the utmost in shaping public opinion.
5. The Question of Re-Opening the African Slave Trade
The policy of reopening the African slave trade was at this time gradually coming to be advocated as a necessary economic measure. The supply of slave labor did not equal the demand; hence slaves were very expensive and the agricultural pursuits of the South suffered in consequence. The pro-slavery leaders were uneasy lest the border states of Virginia, Maryland, and Kentucky should become free soil by the gradual exodus of slaves to the cotton regions further south. This movement would continue as long as the high price of negroes was protected against a foreign supply, and it would mean the certain transfer, eventually, of these states to the ranks of the freesoilers. Moreover, slavery, it was argued, was a benign institution, just as good for the negro as for the white man. On the platform and in the press the institution was defended on economic, religious, social and moral principles, until gradually the people came to look upon it in that light; and when they believed it threatened by the North they were ready to resort to arms in its defense.
As early as 1856, the State Gazette began to note closely all discussions relating to the reopening of the slave trade that took place in the other Southern states. It not only quoted liberally from the press of these states, but gave its own opinions freely. For instance, in an editorial of March 1, 1856, the editor of the Gazette commenting on a discussion in the Georgia legislature on the question of repealing all laws obstructing the importation and sale of salves in Georgia, said that discussion was a very good move, because all laws interfering with the freedom of trade were wrong, and that the law of supply and demand should control every department of commerce. “Indeed we would urge, if practicable, the importation of negroes from Africa, and it would not only improve their physical condition but add to their happiness, while at the same time subserving the purposes of civilization in our own country.” 185 From that time the question was never lost sight of. The State Gazette, perhaps one of the most influential papers in the state, did all in its power to mould public opinion in its favor. By 1858 slavery, according to this paper, had become both just and expedient, in accordance with divine law, and a moral, social, and political blessing. It argued that there were not enough slaves in the South, and that every planter in Texas felt the want of slave labor; that this want of labor cramped the energies and diminished the resources of the planters and retarded the general prosperity of the state. 186 The Highland Eagle, a Bell County newspaper, urged the Gazette to spread far and wide the truths as to slavery, its divine origin and beneficent effects. It further urged all papers to do the same, and then, according to this zealous advocate of slavery, “we shall in good time be the most united and the strongest people on earth.” 187
With advocacy of the reopening of the African slave trade went hostility to the opponents of such trade. Interspersed with articles on the slave trade and cheap slaves, in the Gazette, were such editorials as “The True Status of Northern Opposition,” “Democracy and Black Republicanism,” “What the South Should Do,” “The Wiles of the Enemy,” “Black Republican Exultation over Defeat of the Kansas Bill,” “Our Duty to Defend the Rights of the South to the Last Extremity,” “Wither are we Drifting?,” and “Beauties of Negro Equality.” 188 Such titles occur frequently, particularly in the Gazette. Under such guidance a considerable portion of the population had come by 1859 to be in favor of reopening the slave trade. Evidence of this is seen in resolutions adopted by county conventions during the year. There can be no doubt, either, but that the question was an issue in the gubernatorial contest of that year, and that many of the Democratic leaders advocated the measure. John Marshall, for instance, the editor of the Gazette, in which very many editorials and other articles on the slave trade appeared, was chairman of the state Democratic committee and called the convention to meet at Houston in 1859. And naturally, the people who were in favor of the reopening of slave trade were also in favor of the extension of slave territory.
That the proposition to reopen the slave trade was a real issue is further indicated by the records we have of the opposition to it. The De Witt County convention, for instance, took a strong stand against the slave trade; declared it piracy and forbade its delegates voting for any such measure. This sentiment was very general in the Guadalupe valley. 189 The Galveston delegates were likewise instructed to vote against the adoption of any and all platforms which in any way would tend to the reopening of the African slave trade. Victoria County advised against the introduction of any new planks into the platform, especially upon the subject of the African slave trade, because if introduced into the platform, they would tend to divide, distract, disorganize and defeat the party.
Many counties advocated the acquisition of Cuba on any terms. 190 Some were silent on both questions, Ellis County merely upheld the constitution and the Union. The convention of Madison County believed that the constitution as interpreted in the Dred Scott decision secured to every American citizen the right to make his home in any of the common territory, and to protect him in the peaceable possession of any species of property that was recognized as such at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and that no legislative body had the power to disturb that right. The Parker County convention condemned the act of Congress making the African slave trade piracy; denounced abolition, Black Republicanism, nullification, secession and disunion, as elements of discord and distraction having a common tendency to weaken the bonds of the Union, and declared that every lover of his country should be found in united opposition to them. The resolutions of the convention of Guadalupe County declared slavery a social and political blessing and morally right; it could therefore see no reason why the Southern people should not have the privilege of purchasing slaves in the best market, and concluded as follows: “Should the Houston convention fail to endorse the proposition now made in various portions of the state, to-wit: The reopening of the African slave trade, then the delegates appointed by this meeting to attend said convention be hereby requested to express in plain terms their disapprobation of such a course.” 191 The Gonzales County convention resolved that the right of Congress over the slave trade was doubtful, and should not be exercised by that department; that this right should be left to the sovereignty of the states to determine for themselves; that laws making the slave trade a piracy were unconstitutional; that slavery as practiced in the Southern states was a humane and beneficent institution, and that the African slave trade as the source and necessary concomitant of slavery was morally right. The delegates were instructed to introduce and advocate measures for the introduction into the Southern states of slaves from abroad. 192 The resolutions by the Fort Bend convention were probably the most radical of all those passed during the year. That convention declared that all congressional acts inhibiting the African slave trade, though not unconstitutional were, nevertheless, a standing reproach and an offensive stigma upon the institution of slavery, which in the South was regarded as a great and signal good, both to the white and negro race, and clearly defensible upon religious, social, and moral grounds. All laws prohibiting the trade were declared subversive of the leading interests of the slave states, oppressive in their bearing, and deserving of prompt repeal. And it concludes that as this could not be done, because the anti-slavery element in the North controlled the federal government and refused to grant to the South any measure that would be to her interest: “That we not only consider it expendient but excusable to disregard the obnoxious acts in question, and that we especially commend the public spirit, liberality and enterprise of those by whom the voyage of the `Wanderer' was projected and consummated. And that so far from that act of `piracy' receiving condemnation by us, we accord it our unqualified countenance and approval.” 193
6. The Gubernatorial Campaign of 1859
The issue in the gubernatorial election of 1859, so far at least as the leaders were concerned, was “union” or “disunion.” The platform adopted by the Regular Democrats at Houston endorsed all the old planks in both the national and state platforms, and then declared the Dred Scott decision to be a true exposition of the constitution, and that the Democrats were in favor of the acquisition of Cuba as imperatively necessary to their self protection. A resolution favoring the reopening of the slave trade was, after much heated discussion, tabled by a vote of two hundred twenty-eight to eighty-one, and a resolution condemning the same measure was tabled unanimously. 194 Runnels and Lubbock, exponents of the pro-slavery and anti-union doctrine, were nominated for their respective positions.
It seems that the Unionist forces had no definite organization. But at a public meeting at Brenham, Houston and Edward Clark were nominated by acclamation. Houston accepted the nomination in a letter in which he declared himself a National Democrat and announced that the constitution and the Union embraced the principles by which he would be governed if elected. He declared that they comprehended all the old Jackson National Democracy he had ever professed. 195 In it he promised protection to the frontier, protested against the reopening of the African slave trade, extolled the federal union, denounced his opponents and appealed with great effect to his old comrades of 1836. The campaign that followed was very bitter. Against Houston were arrayed the whole party machinery, most of the prominent public men and nearly all of the influential newspapers. Houston was again subjected to all the abuse that had been heaped upon him in the former canvass. Because of his votes in the Senate on the slavery measures, and because of his attitude toward the New England ministers, he was accused of betraying the state and the South to further his ambition to attain the presidency. Houston conceived the entire system of conventions to be inconsistent with Democratic principles and subversive of the rights of the people. This attitude toward the framework of the state rights party which was believed to be the only bulwark between the people and northern aggression as well as his affiliation with the Know-Nothing party was made the occasion for abusive articles by the opposition press. 196 Old charges of insincerity, immorality, and cowardice from the days of the Texas revolution were reopened, emphasized, and spread broadcast throughout the state. Houston and his adherents, in their turn, accused the Democratic leaders of disunion and treason and of advocating the reopening of the slave trade. Governor Runnels's forntier policy was attacked with great vigor, for both the Indians and Mexicans were very troublesome, and Runnels had not been able to keep them in check. That the reason for such a state of affairs, was probably more the fault of the United States government than of the governor, the people did not see. Houston had been fairly successful in his dealings with the Indians when he was at the helm of state affairs, and this fact no doubt, as well as his great personal popularity with the common people, played an important part in his overwhelming victory, at the polls in 1859.
Houston announced his candidacy in nearly all the anti-Democratic papers as follows:
“Announce Sam Houston as a National Democrat, a consistent supporter of James Buchanan in his struggle with Black Republicans, and the little less dangerous Fanatics and Higher Law men at the South, as candidate for Governor.” During the whole bitter controversy and everywhere he went, Houston made eloquent appeals for the preservation of the Union.
That the struggle was a fight principally between the lovers of the Union and those who wished to secede, was also shown in the position John H. Reagan assumed toward the movement, and by the abuse he received in consequence, as well as by the fact that the Democratic nominees were placed on the defensive in the campaign. Reagan was forced by Guy M. Bryan to give in Congress his views of the situation. Reagan declared himself against sectionalism, the demoralizing doctrines of filibusters, and the dangerous heresy of reopening the slave trade. As soon as the contents of this speech became known in Texas, the Democratic press charged him with being too national for a proper representative of a Southern constituency, and heaped upon him vile personal abuse. As a result of this he decided to stand for re-election, went to Texas, and was re-elected by a large majority over his opponent, William B. Ochiltree. 197
The Texas Enquirer upheld the Democratic party against the Southern Intelligencer's accusation that the party favored secession. It maintained that no word had been spoken by any man of any prominence in the state connected with the Democratic party about secession as a probable event, or as anything likely to occur, at least not unless the same should be forced upon the South as a choice between remaining in the Union with positive disgrace on the one hand, and of going out of it on the other hand. 198
Lubbock also was forced to defend his position on the subject of the slave trade. In an open letter to the editor of the Galveston Union, he stated that he had been renominated by a convention that had emphatically rejected a resolution in favor of reopening the slave trade. In an open letter to the chairman of the state executive committee, endorsing Lubbock's letter Governor Runnels says: “I am now, as I have ever been, for the Union under the constitution and the strict maintenance of the supremacy of the laws; and I do not consider that there is any cause for a dissolution of the Union at this time.” 199 It seems that the primary object of the Democratic leaders at this time was to preserve their rights in the Union if they could; but at the same time they were preparing the minds of the people for the idea of withdrawing from the Union should a situation arise in which these rights would be threatened. That such might be the case in the near future, it took no seer to discern. The final crisis seemed to depend upon the presidential election the following year. Houston had always been a state-rights man, and although he himself upheld the federal doctrine that secession meant revolution, both he and his adherents firmly believed that it was a matter of expediency to remain in the Union, that the rights of the state could be better preserved in the Union than out of it. The Democrats, on the other hand, held that the state had a right to secede, and that to secede would probably soon be a wise course to pursue. The outcome of the election was a decisive defeat for the party which had controlled the affairs of the state since 1845, as far as congressional representation and the governorship were concerned. But this did not necessarily imply that the sentiment of Unionism had triumphed in Texas. As has already been stated, there were other factors that played an important part in the election. And the Democratic party had by no means been defeated, for the Democrats still controlled both houses of the legislature.
What Union sentiment there was in Texas in 1859 received a rude shock in the John Brown raid at Harper's Ferry. This was fully believed to be a premeditated attack by Northern abolitionists upon the institutions of the South; and the result was soon seen in Texas. Louis T. Wigfall, one of the most radical men in the state, and Houston's most bitter opponent, was elected to the United States Senate just before Houston's inauguration. According to one leader the election was due to the resentment against the Harper's Ferry outrage, and there are indications that this opinion was shared by many. 200 To elect him, however, a party caucus was necessary. Since Wigfall at the time was a member of the state senate, it also became necessary to reinterpret a clause in the state constitution referring to the ineligibility of a member of the legislature to any other office. 201
Immediately after his election, Senator Wigfall addressed the legislature on the all-absorbing question of the day. In his opinion Congress under the power to regulate commerce had no right to declare any branch of trade piracy. He reprehended the attempt he had seen to read Democrats out of the Democratic party because they held opinions favorable to the reopening of the slave trade. He denied the right of Congress on principle to prohibit either the foreign slave trade or the slave trade between the states, and as for himself, he was a Southern rights man, a state rights man, and a Democrat. 202 This speech was highly commended as representing the views of the regular Democrats.
Governor Runnels in his last message to the legislature also proclaimed the views of the party and foreshadowed the final result of the movement now fully inaugurated by the leaders of the secession movement. He upheld the doctrine of state sovereignty, and doubted very much that the general government would be able to uphold and protect the rights of the South. He thought that as soon as it should become evident that the United States could not do so, the only thing for the Southern States to do would be to co-operate in protecting themselves. In conclusion he said:
If there can be no longer unity and harmony of sentiment, if the Southern people are no longer to look to it [the federal government] as the chief reliance for the maintenance of their equal rights, their internal peace and security, the sooner it is known the better. They should neither cheat, nor should they submit to be cheated. I therefore recommend a clear and unequivocal expression of opinion by the legislature on the subject. Equality and security in the Union, or independence outside of it should be the devout conviction, that if guided by wisdom, prudence, sagacity and patriotism, the Divine Being will smile on your councils, and that all may yet be well. 203
Governor Houston soon learned that his task would be an extremely difficult one. All the criticism, disparagement, and party animosity exhibited by the Democratic party during the campaign continued. He had learned before he entered upon his duties as Governor that the legislature was hostile, and he was soon to learn that the Democratic leaders were determined that the state should withdraw from the Union, no matter what action he took to prevent it.
Houston at his inauguration confined the greater part of his speech to local affairs. In regard to the slavery controversy he said he hoped that the federal government would soon attain a happy result in preserving the constitution and the Union, notwithstanding the present discord between the two sections. He then strongly advised against heated controversies that would only aggravate the evil. 204
In his first message he was very conciliatory. He was glad that the masses in the North were willing to abide by the constitution and put down the fanatical efforts of the abolitionists who were endangering the safety of the Union. He hoped their efforts would terminate the slavery agitation. And in conclusion he declared that the people, satisfied that the men whom they elected at the ballot box to represent them in Congress will bear their rights safely through the present crisis, they feel no alarm as to the result. Texas will maintain the constitution and stand by the Union. It is all that can save us as a nation. Destroy it and anarchy awaits us. 205
7. The Legislature on the South Carolina Resolutions
Soon after this Houston received the South Carolina resolutions on federal relations. These expressed the sentiment of South Carolina on the loss of Kansas to slavery and on the Virginia raid by John Brown. In the preamble the right of secession was affirmed. The resolutions recommended immediate and united action by the Southern states, and requested them to appoint deputies and adopt measures to promote a Southern convention. 206 On the receipt of these resolutions, Governor Houston sent them, together with a special message, to the legislature. The whole message was devoted to the exposure of the fallacy of the doctrines of nullification and secession. He maintained that the action of South Carolina was without just cause; that even if there were no constitutional objections to the course suggested by the resolutions, no advantages could be gained by the Southern states in seceding from the Union; that the same evils would remain, and there would be no federal government, able and willing, to maintain the rights of the state; that the ungenerous assaults by the North upon slavery would exist from like passions and like feelings under any form of government; that the only hope for the country was in the constitution and the Union; and he made a passionate plea for these against the fanatics in the North and the scheming, designing, and misguided politicians in the South. He recommended that resolutions be adopted dissenting from the assertion of the abstract right of secession and refusing to send delegates for any existing cause, and finally urged upon all the people, North and South, the necessity of cultivating brotherly feeling, observing justice and attending to their own affairs. 207 Although no final action was taken by the legislature upon the South Carolina resolutions and the governor's recommendations, majority and minority reports were submitted by the committees to which they had been referred. These reports show that the legislature in the spring of 1860, although strongly Democratic, was by no means unanimous as to what action should be taken by the state. That no definite action was taken indicates that the legislature did not at that time consider the situation very grave. The committee appointed by the senate unanimously agreed that the state was determined to preserve, adhere to, and defend the Union and the constitution, but the committee differed as to the way it should be done, differed in abstract political opinion, and differed as to the kind of resolutions the legislature should adopt. The majority report, while maintaining the doctrine of the right of state defence against aggression, expressed a firm resolve to defend the constitution and support the Union. The attempt of the Black Republicans to gain control of the federal government for the purpose of abolishing slavery was declared unconstitutional. And the committee called upon the other states to show their devotion to the constitution by defeating that party in the coming federal election. 208 The minority report did not admit the constitutional right of secession. Secession was declared to be a revolutionary act justifiable only when the federal government showed itself incapable of protecting the essential rights of the states; nothing so far had occurred to justify such a revolutionary act; hence Texas considered the South Carolina resolution premature and unnecessary, and declined to appoint deputies to a meeting of the slaveholding states. But the committee also maintained that if the federal government should become powerless to protect the rights of the states, the Union would no longer be worth maintaining, and that then Texas would again, as in 1836, raise the revolutionary standard,—but, it declared, “Texas has an abiding confidence in the conservative spirit of the American people, and in the continued preservation of the Constitution and the Union.” 209
In the house the majority report upheld the right of secession and declared that Texas would not submit to the degradation of being ruled by the Black Republican party, but would rather assert her independence. It pledged Texas to co-operate with the other Southern states, if it should become necessary to resist the federal wrongs. The minority report, on the other hand, denied the right of secession, and declared that none of the present alleged evils could be ascribed to the legitimate operations of the federal government, being chargeable to the disloyalty of those who, by obstructing the laws and authorities, were themselves the enemies of the Union; that a dissolution of the Union could cure no evils; that it was inexpedient to send deputies to a convention of slave-holding states, and that there was not sufficient cause to justify Texas in taking any step looking toward the dissolution of the Union. 210
The ultra-radical members of the house took exception to the governor's message, and eight members protested against printing it, alleging that the governor based his message on a false hypothesis, namely, “that there is a nullification and disunion element existing in the South, without any real cause and from choice”; that there are persons, “who fan the flame of discord and magnify imaginary evils into startling realities—confounding the language of individuals with the acts of government itself”; that there are persons who “desire disunion,” and so on. This they considered a grossly incorrect imputation upon the patriotism of the South which might cause the people of the North to believe that the South would tamely and unconditionally submit to them under any and all circumstances. 211
But this legislature, which in 1860, merely expressed its opinion in regard to the national controversy, co-operated fully with the secession convention the following spring.
When Houston took his seat as governor, the political situation was tense throughout the country. The Compromise of 1850 had stayed for only a short time the progress of the slavery agitation, and with the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act the contest again became serious. The civil war in Kansas, and the winning of the territory by the freesoilers in 1859, engendered hatred between the two sections. The refusal of the North to abide by the Dred Scott decision, as well as John Brown's raid, fanned the flame of the secession movement in the South. The North was on the offensive, and determined that slavery should extend no further. The South was on the defensive and fully as determined that the solution of the slavery problem should be left to the South. In the event the North should succeed in barring slavery from the territories, the South believed it would soon attempt to do the same thing in the states. And, if the constitution could not protect the Southern states in their constitutional rights within the Union, they would protect themselves outside of the Union. The entire time of the thirty-sixth Congress was devoted to heated debates between anti-slavery and pro-slavery agitators. The Northern members accused the Southern members of favoring and planning disunion, and were in turn, charged with refusing to enforce the fugitive slave law and to respect the Dred Scott decision.
The leaders of the Texas democracy were just as alive to the situation as any of their Southern brethren. And, as it was a presidential year, the political excitement was great. The task of the South was to secure the nomination of a presidential candidate who favored Southern interests, and who at the same time might be strong enough throughout the country to defeat the Black Republican candidate. The Texas state Democratic convention convened at Galveston in April for the purpose of electing delegates to the national convention at Charleston. The platform adopted looked entirely to the national political situation. It again endorsed the principles of the Cincinnati platform of 1856, and the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions; denied that Texas had given up any portion of its sovereignty in becoming a member of the Union; that in case of encroachment of the central government upon its sovereignty, Texas alone should judge of such encroachment; that Texas possessed the right as a sovereign state, to annual the compact, to revoke the powers it had delegated to the federal government and to withdraw from the Union; that every citizen had the right to move his property into any of the common territory, and to have it protected there under the federal constitution; that while Texas was attached to the Union, the election of a sectional president would force the state to hold itself in readiness to co-operate with the other Southern states in adopting such measures as might be necessary for protection. The resolutions further maintained that the government was founded for the benefit of the white race, and concluded as follows:
“We regard any effort by the Black Republican party to disturb the happily existing subordinate condition of the negro race in the South as violative of the organic act guaranteeing the supremacy of the white race, and any political action which proposes to invest negroes with social and political equality with the white race, as an infraction of those wise and wholesome distinctions of nature which as testified by all experience were established to insure the prosperity and happiness of each race.” 212
That the leaders of the secession movement had become intolerant of any opposition that might tend to block their progress, was shown here also in the expulsion of W. W. Leland, of Karnes County, who was charged with entertaining abolition sentiments. 213
148. Garrison, Texas, 215.
149. Ibid., 261.
150. Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas, II, 417.
151. Galveston News, February 2, 1848.
152. The committee that framed and signed these resolutions was composed of F. H. Merriman, Louis T. Wigfall, John Warren, W. Richardson, and I. S. Savage.
153. “Resolved, That the true policy requires the government of the United States to strengthen its political and commercial relations upon this continent, and the annexation of such contiguous territory as may conduce to that end, and can be justly obtained; and that neither in such acquisition nor in the territorial organization thereof can any conditions be constitutionally imposed, or institutions be provided for, or established, inconsistent with the right of the people thereof to form a free sovereign state, with the powers and privileges of the original members of the Confederacy.
“Resolved, That, in organizing a territorial government for territory belonging to the United States, the principles of self-government upon which our federated system rests, will be best promoted, the true spirit and meaning of the Constitution observed, and the confederacy strengthened, by leaving all questions concerning the domestic policy therein to the legislatures chosen by the people thereof.” Senate Journal, 30th Congress, 1st Session, 1847-1848, page 48.
154. These resolutions and discussions were considered of such importance in showing the attitude of Texas toward the question agitating the public mind in 1848, that they were reprinted in 1855, when the controversy over the matter began to move the Texans to action.—Galveston News, October 30, 1855.
155. Nacogdoches Times, September 24, 1848.
156. Crane, Life and Select Literary Remains of Sam Houston, 387.
157. Crane, Sam Houston, 201.
158. Nacogdoches Times, September 9, 1848.
159. Congressional Globe, 33d Congress, 1 Sess., 1854-55, Appendix, 339-342.
160. Party Platform of State Convention held at Austin, January 21, 1856. —Galveston News, February 5, 1856.
161. Galveston News, June 23, 1855.
162. State Gazette, October 6, 1855.
163. State Gazette, November 17, 1855.
164. Ibid., October 27, 1855.
165. Ibid., October 20, 1855.
The counties that thus expressed their sentiment in regard to Houston as found in the State Gazette were Cass, Fayette, Hays, Cherokee, Walker, Freestone, Colorado, Bell, Burleson, Smith, De Witt, Lavaca, Fannin, Liberty, Lamar, Leon, Comal, Travis, Shelby, Williamson, Burnet, and Bastrop.
166. Ibid., December 1, 1855.
167. Galveston News, November 27, 1855.
168. State Gazette, December 1, 1855.
169. Ibid., November 27, 1855.
170. Ibid., December 4, 1855.
171. State Gazette, May 10, 1856.
172. State Gazette, January 26, 1856.
173. Galveston News, January 26, 1856.
174. Ibid., December 8, 1855.
It appears in this instance, however, that it was not Mr. Sherwood, but rather his constituents who had changed their views on the subject. Mr. Sherwood had expressed the same views in 1848, and they were printed in the Galveston News at the time.
The Gazette styled Sherwood a mere visionary, and in reviewing his speech concludes that “Mr. Sherwood's views are not only false in conception, and gratuitously inflicted upon us, but they are uncalled for, by a Southern community amply able to know and appreciate their rights. With some pretension to historic greatness in the calendar of statesmen, the South is yet fully able to sustain himself without the aid of Northern theorists of society, who may volunteer to teach us our duties on the subject of slavery.”—State Gazette, December 1, 1856.
175. The national Democratic platform, adopted at Baltimore in 1852, reaffirmed Resolutions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the platform of 1848, which placed the trust of the American Democracy in the intelligence, the patriotism and the discriminating justice of the American people; asserted its belief in a strict construction of the constitution; declared that the federal government had no power to carry on a general system of internal improvements; to assume the debts of the several states; to cherish the interests of one section of the country to the injury of another portion, etc. In regard to slavery the platform denied that Congress had any power to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states; declared that the party would abide by the compromise measures of 1850, and would resist all attempts at renewing the slavery agitation; would uphold the principles of the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, and uphold the war with Mexico as just and necessary.—T. H. McKee, The National Conventions and Platforms of all Political Parties, 74.
176. State Gazette, January 7, 1856.
177. Lubbock, Six Decades in Texas, 202.
178. State Gazette, February 23, 1856.
179. Southern Intelligencer, December 10, 1856.
180. “Resolved, That this convention will support no person as a nominee for any office or place of trust unless fully satisfied by his acts and declarations, or the assurance of his friends to the convention, that he is fully united with the Democratic party upon all the issues now existing between them and their opponents, and that such nominee shall abide the decision of this convention and support all the nominees with zeal and fervency.”—Lubbock, Six Decades in Texas, 209.
181. State Gazette, July 1, 1857.
182. Ibid., January 23, 1858.
183. Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas, II, 425.
184. Lubbock, Six Decades in Texas, 233.
185. State Gazette, March 1, 1856.
186. State Gazette, December 18, 1858.
187. State Gazette, July 17, 1858.
188. There are four long articles on the slave trade in the State Gazette, February 12, 1859.
189. Ibid., April 9, 1859.
190. Among these counties were Leon, Guadalupe, Madison and Bastrop.
191. State Gazette, April 30, 1859.
192. Ibid., April 9, 1859.
193. State Gazette, April 9, 1859.
The Wanderer was a yacht that landed over three hundred negroes at Brunswick, Georgia, in the summer of 1858. They were sent up the river and distributed throughout the state. The captain and owner of the yacht was indicted, but no jury could be found that would convict him.—Rhodes, History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850, II, 368.
194. Lubbock, Six Decades in Texas, 244. Speeches on the reopening of the slave trade were made by Messrs. Chilton, Wiley, Thomason, McLeod, Cone, Kittrell, Walker, Shepherd, Herbert and Scott. State Gazette, May 14, 1859. Neither Lubbock nor the Gazette quotes the resolutions offered by Messrs. Chilton for and Palmer against the reopening of the slave trade.
195. Ibid., 248.
196. State Gazette, July 1, 1857.
197. Reagan says in his Memoirs, page 71, that the Texas newspapers were so full of abuse that he was forced to burn the papers that reached him to keep his wife from seeing them. Being in doubt whether he should stand for re-election and wishing to know his wife's views on the subject, he finally let her see the papers and explained to her the reason for such an unwarranted attack. She immediately advised him to return to Texas and stand for re-election.
198. State Gazette, June 11, 1859.
199. Lubbock, Six Decades in Texas, 247.
200. Roberts, Political, Legislative, and Judicial History of Texas, etc., in Wooten (editor), A Comprehensive History of Texas, II, 56.
201. Lubbock, Six Decades in Texas, 258.
Judge Roberts in speaking of Louis T. Wigfall says “that he has been conspicuous in the advocacy of the principles of `state rights' ever since he left South Carolina and moved to Texas, about a year previous to that time.” A Comprehensive History of Texas, 57. In his dates, however, Judge Roberts seems to be in error; Louis T. Wigfall was in the Texas legislature, 1849-50; a member of the state senate, 1857-60, and had been the leader of the ultra-radical element in the state since 1848.—Appleton's Cyclopaedia of American Biography VI, 499.
F. R. Lubbock, after defending the action of the legislature in regard to Wigfall's election, adds: “Besides all this, I should have stated that Wigfall resigned his seat in the State Senate before the balloting began for United States Senator.” The balloting took place December 5, 1859.
However, I find in the “Journal of the Senate” of the eighth Texas legislature, page 311, the following letter:
“Executive Office,
Austin, December 28, 1859.
“Gentlemen of the Senate:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body, that the Hon. Louis T. Wigfall, of Harrison county, has this day tendered to me his resignation as Senator from this district, and that said resignation has been accepted. . . .
H. R. Runnels.”
202. State Gazette, December 10, 1859.
203. Roberts, in A Comprehensive History of Texas, II, 63.
204. Ibid., II, 64.
205. Ibid., 65.
206. Journal of the Senate, 1859-60, 342.
207. Ibid., 1859-60, 354.
208. Ibid., 525.
209. Ibid., 526.
210. House Journal, 1859-60, 637.
211. Ibid., 535.
212. True Issue, April 13, 1860.
213. According to the Galveston correspondent to the Gazette, Mr. Leland professed to have recanted, but the testimony of several men who had observed his movements showed the contrary. According to the same correspondent, “It was a remarkable instance of audacity and, considering all things, his treatment was exceedingly humane.”—State Gazette, April 14, 1860.
How to cite:
Sandbo, Anna Irene, "BEGINNINGS OF THE SECESSION MOVEMENT IN TEXAS ", Volume 018, Number 1, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online, Page 41 - 73. http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v018/n1/article_5.html
[Accessed Sun Nov 23 3:32:59 CST 2008]
