Charles William Ramsdell - Reconstruction in Texas

PREFACE.

IN narrating the process of reconstruction in any of the Southern States, one is naturally drawn into a sympathetic attitude toward the people whose social and political system was being reconstructed. But, though this is essential to a clear understanding and a just portrayal of their problems, their motives, and their acts, it is equally necessary to keep in mind the great and pressing problems that confronted the national government and the forces that determined its policies. An exposition of the national point of view is, of course, precluded here by the character and limitations of the subject, but the author has been careful to keep it in a corner of his mind, and has often found it a valuable corrective. It is hoped that this monograph may present in fairly clear outline a period that has left a deep impress upon the later history, the political organization and the public mind of Texas.

Chapters III to VI, with slight modifications, are reprinted from the Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association, with the kind permission of the editor, Professor George P. Garrison. The author is especially indebted for information and suggestions to Mr. and Mrs. W. W. Mills, General Webster Flanagan, Major Ira H. Evans and Judge A. W. Terrell, of Austin, Texas; to Mr. P. H. Windsor, formerly Librarian of the University of Texas; Mr. E. W. Winkler, Librarian of the Texas State Library; Mr. Worthington C. Ford, formerly of the Library of Congress; and to Professor A. C. McLaughlin, formerly of the Carnegie Institution. Professor Wm. A. Dunning of Columbia University has generously given valuable time to reading the manuscript and preparing it for the printer, and has made many helpful criticisms and suggestions. Above all the author is indebted to his wife for faithful assistance and constant encouragement.

CHARLES W. RAMSDELL.

AUSTIN, TEXAS, November 22,1909.

CONTENTS

FOR nearly a decade after the annexation of Texas to the Union the questions uppermost in the public mind of the state were the local issues growing out of the days of the Revolution and the Republic. The heavy state debt, the ravaged frontier, and the boundary dispute determined the complexion of the party platforms and measures and furnished the staple subjects of political discussion. Issues of national politics held second place until after the Compromise of 1850, which settled the boundary question, and at the same time provided the means of paying off the state debt. The protection of the frontier was to be a problem for twenty-five years more.

Gradually, the questions involved in the great dispute over slavery forced themselves upon the immediate attention of the people of Texas. Slavery had existed in the state ever since the Anglo-Americans had first pushed their way into the wilderness; and climatic conditions, agricultural development, and constant immigration from the older southern states had contributed to the spread of the institution. It had rooted itself most firmly in the populous eastern and southeastern counties, along the Sabine, Trinity, Brazos, and Colorado rivers, where the plantation system was in almost exclusive possession of the country and conditions, social and economic, were practically identical with those existing in the older slave states. In the other regions there were fewer slaves and correspondingly more free labor. The northern counties contained a large number of settlers from Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky who were mostly non-slaveholding; the frontier counties, running south through the middle of the state, had only a small proportion of slaves, and the southwest, with a heavy German population, had fewer still. However, in these districts, except, possibly, the lastfor the Germans were still segregated and unfamiliar with the institutionthe absence of slaves argued no hostility to the ownership of human chattels, but simple inability to own them. Texas was still a new country, half covered with savages, and most of the people were poor after the manner of pioneers. Standing between the old South and the new West, partaking of the character of both, every year of slavery saw her drawn closer to the former; and it was inevitable that she should soon find herself in the political current setting so strongly toward secession.

It was the fight over the Kansas-Nebraska Bill that first drew Texas into the arena of national politics. Sam Houston, then United States Senator, opposed the bill and lost much of his popularity thereby; for most of the voters and political leaders were state-rights Democrats. Nevertheless, he was backed by a strong following of independent Democrats, old line Whigs, Know-Nothings, and others who deprecated agitation of the slavery question as dangerous to the peace and permanence of the Union. The feeling aroused in the contest over Douglass bill was intensified by the quarrels over the Fugitive Slave Law and particularly by the outbreak of the border war in Kansas. In 1857, after an exciting canvass, Houston was defeated for the governorship by H. R. Runnels, the Democratic nominee and an extreme state-rights man. However, Texas had not yet given permanent adhesion to extreme measures and the strong conservative element became alarmed at the disquieting utterances of some of the radical Democrats, who were now advocating the purchase of Cuba, the promotion of filibustering in Central America, and the reopening of the African slave trade. These propositions were never popular in Texas and the Democratic organization never championed them; but because of a few inconsiderate and hot-headed leaders, the party fell under suspicion, and in 1859 conservatism was able to administer a severe rebuke by reversing the decision of two years before. Runnels and Lubbock, again the Democratic nominees for the chief state offices, were defeated by Houston and Clark, and T. N. Waul, Democratic candidate for Congress from the western district, was beaten by A. J. Hamilton, who ran on the Houston or Independent ticket. In the eastern district, John H. Reagan, Democrat, was successful.

In October, John Brown made his raid on Harpers Ferry. The effect in Texas was to neutralize the results of the recent conservative victory, and to place the fire-eating section of the Democracy in the ascendancy. When the legislature met in November it elected to a vacancy in the United States Senate, Louis T. Wigfall, the most rabid state-rights man in Texas and one particularly obnoxious to Houston. The course of the debates in Congress and the speeches of Republican leaders were followed with the liveliest apprehensions, and talk of secession as the only way to safety from abolitionist aggression became common. In the national Democratic convention at Charleston in April, 1860, the Texas delegates bolted along with those from the other southern states, and at Baltimore helped nominate the ticket headed by Breckenridge and Lane. The situation was far beyond the control of Governor Houston, but he made tremendous efforts to still the rising storm. Under his leadership the Unionists gathered to the support of Bell and Everett, in the vain hope that evasion of the great issue would bring peace. When the state-rights extremists declared that the election of the Black Republican candidate, Lincoln, would be a declaration of war upon the South and would necessitate secession, he denounced them as traitors, and insisted that secession was an unconstitutional and revolutionary measure and could be justified only after the federal government should begin aggressions upon the slave states. Until that time should come, he pleaded for caution and for confidence in the government.