Danver Steven L. (Edited). Revolts, Protests, Demonstrations, and Rebellions in American History: An Encyclopedia (ENG)
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
from 15 to 56. Although a t rickle of volunteers from the United States, like the
New Orleans Greys and others led by David Crockett, emboldened the
commanders, they were still desperately shorthanded. However, they believed that
reinforcement would surely come.
Santa Anna shocked the Texians by arriving in San Antonio on February 23. As
Texian co-commander William B. Travis knew that the garrison could not last long
against Santa Anna’s forces, he confidently dispatched messages to both Gonzales
and the General Council for reinforcement.
On Feb ruary 24, the Mexican army laid siege. As the other commander, James
Bowie, was sick, Travis took full command. It was during this siege that Travis issued
“never surrender or retreat” letters for reinforcements “to come to our aid, with all
dispatch.” Although “the immortal 32,” a group fro m Gonzales, fought their way
through the enemy to reach the Alamo, they were the lone reinforcements.
By March 3, the effectiveness of the siege was evide nt. Mexican cannons had
severely weakened the walls. Travis wrote a letter of defiant rebuke: “I shall have
to fight the enemy on his own terms; yet I am ready to do it, if my countrymen do
not rally to my relief, I am determined to perish in defe nse of this place, and my
bones shall reproach my country for her neglect.”
Before nightfall on March 5, the Mexican guns fell silent. In the silence, many
Texians collapsed into exhausted sleep. By 3:00 a.m., Santa Anna assembled some
1,800 assault troops for the attack. With tension building, by 5:00 a.m., one nerv-
ous soldier shouted “Viva Santa Anna.” Other Mexi can soldados responded with
shouts of their own that alerted the slumbering Texians into action.
Travis ran to his position, where he was shot in the forehead and killed. With the
defenses deprived of a commander, the first wave of attack was repulsed. On the sec-
ond wave, the defensive line collapsed. Some retreated to the Long Barracks, where
combat became hand to hand. Others were cut down by light cavalry. By dawn, the
90-minute battle had concluded. At the cost of 600 lives, Santa Anna h ad killed
189 known rebels. All were burned on a funeral pyre, save Jose
´
Enrique Esparz a,
whose body was identified by his brother and given a Christian burial.
So why do Americans, and Texans in particular, so cherish a battle that ended in
defeat? Militarily, little was gained. Houston, in treaty with the Cherokee, was not
with his army. Santa Anna had wasted supply, forcing his maneuver to San Jacinto.
However, both politically, and morally, this sacrifice was indispensable to the
rebels. When Susannah Dickenson and Travis’s slave Joe relayed the news of what
had happened, Travis’s death reproached the Texians. With danger made actual, a
rallying point was cr eated. Combined with the news of the Goliad Massacre,
where 342 rebels who were promised clemency were cut down, the threat of tyr-
anny was made real. Civilians began the “runaway scrape” to America, while the
Texian soldiers prepared to meet Santa Anna. Burning in righteous outrage, it
304 Texas Revolt (1835–1836)
should come as no surprise that as the Texians crested the hill at San Jacinto,
“Remember Goliad, Remember the Alamo!” was their clarion call.
—Andrew Galloway
Further Reading
Groneman, Bill. Alamo Defenders: A Genealogy, the People and Their Words. Austin, TX:
Eakin Press, 1990.
Winders, Richard Bruce. Sacrificed at the Alamo: Tragedy and Triumph in the Texas Rev-
olution. Abilene, TX: State House Press, 2004.
Austin, Stephen F. (1793–1836)
In the wake of the Panic of 1819, Stephen F. Austin was down on his luck. His
family’s fortune was wiped out, and its privilege gone. The young Austin, once a
business, civic, and community leader, found himself unemployed, and he found
the knowledge gained at school and at Transylvania University to be useless. Drift-
ing from Missouri to New Orleans, Austin searched unsuccessfully for e mploy-
ment. Cap in hand, he accepted financing from a lawyer, Joseph H. Hawkins, in
the hopes that his father might get another break in Spanish territory. His father
was granted an empresario (land agent) contract in Texas, but then he died, and left
his grant to Austin.
Utilizing his political acumen, business savvy, and a long-suffering persistence;
Austin worked out a colonization plan so grand and successful he would become
known as the Father of Texas. Austin’s empresario contract survived numerous
governments. Austi n maneuvered to ensure prosperi ty for his settlers. He chose
rich alluvial soil between the Brazos and Colorado rivers for settlement. His land
allotments grew from 64 0 acres per head o f household, to a Spanish league
(4,428 acres). Austin’s surveying allowed for the easy transfer of title. Austin
enabled the landing of foreign registered vessels at Galveston by 1825. The mari-
time prosperity encouraged officials to turn a blind eye to other illegitimate land-
ing points. Austin worked for other empresarios, and this generosity placed
others on the periphery of his colonies, limiting Native American attacks and
thereby increasing the desirability of his lands.
Austin worked out other compacts. Austin’s colonials did not have to pay the
total amount for their land until after a year. Texas was free of tariffs for seven
years, and debt collection cases could not be heard in Texas courts for 12 years.
Austin was even able to get the prohibition on slavery lifted for Texas to encourage
colonization.
Texas Revolt (1835–1836) 305
Austin’s endeavors flourished. By 1829, General Mier y Tera
´
n was sho cked to
find Tejanos outnumbered by “ten to one.” The Decree of April 6, passed in
1830, attempted to stymie foreign influence. Austin, as well as many Texan s,
was infuriated at these impediments. He traveled to Texas’s sister state, Coahuila,
to argue for Texas. In his absence, the threats to prosperity prompted the Texans to
rebel. The Mexican commanders at Fort Anahuac and Velasco were forced to sur-
render. To avoid trouble, the Texans proclaimed loyalty to the new leader of
Mexico—Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.
Austin returned to find Texans excited about the possibility of separate Mexican
statehood. While he found the desire to push ahead politically unwise, Austin took
leadership positions in political conventions of 1832 and 1833. Austin was chosen
to represent Texas before the Mexican Congress.
Austin won many concessions for Texas. Overjoyed, he wrote that preparations
for separate statehood should begin. This letter was intercepted and found danger-
ously insubordinate by Santa Anna, who ordered Austin’s arrest. In Saltillo, Aus-
tin was taken into custody and escorted back. Although not charged, he
remained incarcerated until December 1834 and was not allowed to leave Mexico
City until July 1835.
Austin returned to Texas a changed man. His conciliatory approach was gone.
As Mexico was ready to exert authority over Texas, another political meeting,
the Consultation, was called for. Before that could happen, the opening shots of
the Texas revolution occurred at Gonzales, October 2.
Austin was elected to command the Texian volunteers at the siege of Bexar (San
Antonio). By November, the provisional government sent Austin and two others as
commissi oners to the United States. Austin labored in New Orleans to gain men,
money, supplies, and recognition for Texas. He was fairly successful and returned
after the victory at San Jacinto. In September 1836, Austin bid for the first
president of the Republic, but was defeated by Samuel Houston. H e accepted an
offer to be the Republic’s secretary of state. This final service did not last long.
At Columbia, A ustin’s exhausted body could not take the cold of the winter. He
contracted an ailment tha t soon p rogressed to pneumonia. S tephen Austin died
on December 27, 1836, leaving the nation that became a state forever in his debt.
—Andrew Galloway
Further Reading
Barker, Eugene C., ed. The Austin Papers . Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,
1928.
Cantrell, Gregg. Stephen F. Austin: Empresario of Texas. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 1999.
306 Texas Revolt (1835–1836)
Houston, Samuel (1793–1863)
Samuel Houston, the fifth of nine children, was born in Virginia on March 2, 1793.
His father died shortly after completing the sale of the old estate and acquisition of
new lands in eastern Tennessee. Young Samuel prefe rred his father’s book s to
either schoolwork or labor. When his family tried to force him to be a clerk at their
store, Houston ran away. He headed west, albeit only eight miles, to live as a
Cherokee.
With the Cherokee, Houston gained valuable lessons. Chief Oo-loo-te-ka (“He
who puts away the drum”) was known for his willingness to search for conciliation
rather than war. This deeply affected the young Houston. He found favor, was
adopted into the chief’s own fa mily, and given the name o f “Colonneh,” which
translates to “The Raven,” a sign of good luck.
Shortly after the s ix-foot, two-inch Houston returned to American society, the
War of 1812 began. While Houston’s charisma propelled him to sergeant, it was
his bravery and military skill that caught the eye of General Andr ew Jackson. So
impressed was Jackson that Houston was cared for by Jackson’s own doctor and
granted convalescences in Jackson’s home. Though he did receive t hree near-
fatal wounds during his service, he was a first lieutenant when he left the army
in 1818.
After passing the bar, Houston turned to politics. In a meteoric rise, by 1823 and
1825, Houston was elected to Congress, and in 1827, he became governor of Ten-
nessee. By 1829, Houston took Eliza Allen as his bride. But as quickly as his star
rose, it fell twice as fast. As he was preparing for reelection, his three-month mar-
riage fell apart. Historians still have no idea why Eliza packed her bags and went
home. Houston responded by resigning, escaping west to “Indian territory,” (today
known as Oklahoma). There he met both the Cherokee and a whiskey bottle.
By 1832, Houston moved west once again, to Texas. Quickly he became
embroiled in politics. He represented Nacogdoches at the Convention of 1833.
By 1835 he was appointed general of the military district east of the Trinity, and
he was elected a representative to the Consultation of 1 835. By 1836, indepen-
dence from Mexico was decided and Sam Houston was elec ted commander in
chief of the armies of the new Republic of Texas.
Although at first, only some respected his title, the defeats of the Alamo and
Goliad solidified loyalty. Houston conducted a masterful retreat. His soldiers thirst
for battle culminated on April 21, 1836, at the Battle of San Jacinto. In a battle that
officially lasted only 18 minutes, Santa Anna was defeated, and independence
was won.
Texas Revolt (1835–1836) 307
Houston served the new republic from the start. He was elected as Texas’s first
president in 1837. And after tenure as a congressman, he ran and won the
presidency again in 1841. In his terms, he carried a pacific policy towards relations
with Mexico and a balanced budget. Wanting always what was best for Texas,
Houston worked for annexation to the United States, and although it remained
out of his grasp, Texas eventually was annexed under his hand-picked successor,
Anson Jones.
After Texas joined the United States, Houston still worked for Texas as senator.
This was done unt il 1859, when Hous ton left national office to serve as governor
of Texas, making him the first and only American to serve as governor of two dif-
ferent states. He did this in the hopes that he could keep Texas in the Union, but by
1861, this was impossible. As he preferred to whittle in the basement of the capital
rather than take an oath of allegiance to the Confederacy, Houston was removed
from office in March of that year.
Though demonized by some of the populace, his love for Texas never died. On
July 26, 1863, he lay in his bed in Huntsville, fading from pneumonia. As his wife
Margaret read from the Bible, t he 70-year-old Houston spoke. A fading whis per
carried his last words “Texas ...Texas ...Margaret.”
—Andrew Galloway
Further Reading
Campbell, Randolph B. Sam Houston and the American Southwest . 2nd ed. New York:
Longman Publishers, 2002.
Santa Anna, Antonio Lopez de
(1794–1876)
Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna was a leader who personified ambition, and who
possessed the skills to thrive in most of the political chaos of his life. Born Febru-
ary 21, 1794, to a middle-class family in Jalpa, Vera Cruz, he refused limitations.
By 1810, at age 16, he entered the Spanish Vera Cruz battalion as a cadet. Under
the leadership of Joaquı
´
n de Arredondo, he displayed his martial talent. By 1813,
Lieutenant Santa Anna was in Tejas. At the battle of Medina, Arredondo put to
the sword 1,300 of the 1,400 reb els; S pain, me anwhile, lost only 55 men. Arren-
dondo proceeded to disdainfully pacify and depopulate Tejas through a campaign
of terror and mass executions. Besides a citation for bravery, Santa Anna learned
strong lessons on dealing with insurgents.
308 Texas Revolt (1835–1836)
Feeling change in the political winds, and despite his promotion to brevet lieu-
tenant colonel, Santa Anna threw his support to rebel Agustin de Iturbide in 1821.
Although he received the rank of general and helped Mexico win independence, he
remained unsatisfied. By 1 823, he overthrew the increasingly despoti c Emperor
Iturbide. Seen as a champion of liberalism, he was promptly elected military g
overnor of Yucatan in 1824. As an expedition to Cuba floundered , he grew tired
of hi s position and resigned. Moving to Vera Cruz, he married, and was made
governor.
Spain’s attempt to re-conquer Mexico i n 1829, brought Santa Anna a needed
diversion. Winning fame through repulsion of the Spanish, he a nnounced his
retireme nt. Three years later, however he was bac k. Santa Anna, feeling the
change of political winds, overthrew the centralist government. By 1833, his victo-
rious army brought a return to federalism. Under his presidency, Mexico was given
back to her people—at least for six months. By 1834, Santa Anna demanded the
states disband their militias, causing 11 states to rebel. Mercilessly, the rebellions
were put down. When Santa Anna defeated the state militia of Zacatecas, he
allowed the “rape of Zacatecas,” where his soldiers looted for 48 hours.
At the end of this ca mpaign, Texas began her fight for independence at
Gonzales, October 2, 1835, and Santa Anna rushed to Texas. Ordering no quarter
to the Texians at the battle of the Alamo, followed by the slaughter of 350 Texians
at Goliad, Santa Anna followed the formula of halting rebellion. His failure to post
guards San Jacinto, on April 6, 1836, was a supreme miscal culation, and Samuel
Texas Revolt (1835–1836) 309
A controversial figure in Mexican history,
Antonio Lo
pez de Santa Anna became
Mexico's president in 1833. Though he
won some battles, notably at the Alamo,
he was forced into retirement following his
defeat in the Texas Revolution in 1836.
Ten years later, Santa Anna led Mexico
through the disastrous Mexican-American
War that resulted in a massive loss of
Mexican territory and a humiliating defeat
for Santa Anna's forces. (North Wind
Picture Archives)
Houston used this opportunity to attack. The surprised Santa Anna was defeated in
less than 18 minutes. After capture, he signed the Treaty of Velasco, rec ognizing
the independence of Texas.
After a trip to the United States, the disgraced Santa Anna retired to his estates
in Mexico, where opportunity arose again. Over Mexico’s debt, the French invaded
beginning the “Pastry-War.” Though the French were forced to retreat, Santa Anna
lost a leg to shrapnel. Riding the fame, he served as president in 1839 and liked it
so much that he overthrew the presidency of Bustamante in 1841 and became
dictator. His greed and excesses led to an empty treasury. By 1845, he was exiled
to Cuba.
Events brought Santa Anna home, namely the Mexican-American War. Santa
Anna convinced the American president, James K. Polk, that he could negotiate
peace. Allowed to return to Mexico, he raised an army of 18,000 to fight the invad-
ers. After a draw against Zac hary Taylor at Buena Vista, he retreate d to Mexico
City. He then had to face Winfield Scott’s army. An oversight at Cerro Gordo led
to his retreat and the capture of Mexico City. Following the surrender to the United
States, Santa Anna was again exiled.
By 1853, Mexico was wrought with difficulties and called Santa Anna back. To
help fill the empty treasury, Santa Anna sold more than 20 million acres to the
United States of America in the Gadsden Pu rchase. By 185 5, Santa Anna was
overthrown and banished. Over more than 11 years, Santa Anna plotted his return.
Upon landing in Mexico however, he was again arrested and banished. In exile, he
wandered throughou t th e Caribbean. He was finally allowed back to Mexico in
1874. His pleas for a pension for his service to Mexico fell on deaf ears. Living
on the grace of his son-in-law, Santa Anna slowly faded for three years. On
June 21, 1876, he died in obscurity.
—Andrew Galloway
Further Reading
Hardin, Stephen. The Alamo 1836: Santa Anna’s Texas Campaign. Westport, CT: Praeger,
2004.
Meyer, Michael C., and William L. Sherman. The C ourse of Mexican History.4thed.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
310 Texas Revolt (1835–1836)
Dorr Rebellion (1841–1842)
The 1842 constitutional crisis that briefly resulted in the state of Rhode Island
having two competing popularly elected governments and the threat of an armed
civil war is sometimes referred to as “Dorr Rebellion” or “Dorr’s War.” The persis-
tence of the terms of the original 1663 colonial charter that was wholly inadequate
for the society brought forth by the American Revolution was, more than 50 years
later, the source of active resentment. As the rest of the United States moved
toward a more expansive and i nclusive definition of who had suffrage, Rhode
Island remai ned trapped under a system that defined the electorate narrowly and
whose original provisions had no method of amendment. Before, during, and after
the rebellion, both political parties used the “Dorr War” to advantage with fol-
lowers. For Democrats, popular sovereignty found its hero in Thomas Dorr and
his followers. Whigs saw a cautionary tale about insurrections and mobbing driven
by Jacksonian politics.
The charter system favored rural free-hold f armers, and in a state where the
American industrial revolution was born and the percentage of men in the com-
mercial sector w as high, the practical effect was the disenfranchis ement of
between 40 and 60 percent of the adult w hite male population by 1840. Only
“freemen” who were defined as native-born adult white male land holders and
their eldest sons had access to the ballot, the right to serve on juries, and the ability
to sue in court. Increasingly, the majority of the state’s population was concen-
trated in towns and cities and was at a political disadvantage in the General
Assembly. Democrats and Whigs claimed to be bound by the pr ovisions of the
original charte r’s terms, which allowed alterations by the London government,
but the system suited them both. Democrats who wanted suffrage expanded to
foreign-born white men who immigrated for work in the textile mills wanted
native-born black men excluded. At a stalemate in terms of the parameters of re-
form, both parties concentrated on gaining power in the state, while the disenfran-
chised grew restive as they watched the rest of the nation continue to expand the
franchise state by state.
Popular reform efforts in the decades prior to the 1842 rebellion failed— most
notably that of the Rhode Island Constitutional Party of t he 1830s. The Rhode
Island Suffrage Association founded in 1840 was more determined. Their position
was that the majority had earned t he right with the Revolution to determine the
311
nature of their governme n t. The Suffragists had widespread support, and former
Whig assemblyman Thomas Wilson Dorr quickly became the leader of the party.
Dorr, a Harvard-educated at torney, was him self a beneficiary of the existing sys-
tem as the son of a prosperous man whose holdings included extensive real estate
and textile mills. His father, Sullivan Dorr, was in fact active in the Charterite
opposition during the crisis.
In October 1841, the Suffrage Association held a statewide constitutional con-
vention to force the issue of reform. The resulting “People’s Constitution”
included a widely expanded definition of suffrage, modified the legislative appor-
tionment for the state, established an independent judicial system, and included a
state bill of rights. The Suffragists ran an extralegal statewide referendum, which
drew up to 60 percent of the white male population of the state. The vote, the
organizers claimed, was nearly 14,000 (or more than half the total male population
of the state) for the People’s Constitution and fewer than 100 against. The figure,
whether corre ct or incorrect, was significa nt not only for its claims abou t a true
popular sovereignty on the question but because the turnout percentage would
have had to include a clear majority of already enfranchised freeholders. The
response from the state government an d Charterites was to offer a competing
constitution with many of the same reforms. The “Law and Order Constitution”
was opposed by the D orrites. The opposition from the Suffragists was primarily
located in the constitution’s failure to include the large population of foreign-
born white men who made up a significant percentage of their party. Thomas Dorr
and the Suffragists boycotted the referendum and, ironically, had an active ally at
the polls in the form of hard-line Charterites who opposed any amendment to the
original charter that served them so well. The Charterite Law and Order
Constitution was put to a public referendum in March 1842, and it too passed, giv-
ing the state two popularly approved new constitutions. Despite the clear message
that a majority of voting Rhode Island men found reform adequate , Dorr and the
Suffragists pressed on calling for an election of a new governor and legislature
under the terms of its constitution of October 1841.
The Rhode Island General Assembly and Governor Samuel Ward King
responded by passing legislation (popularly called the “Algerine Law”) that crim-
inalized the activities of the Suffrage Association and its supporters. It was now
treason aga inst the state of Rho de Island to run for office in the upcoming
April 1842 election called by the Suffrage Association or to attempt to assume
any office. Knowing that the Suffrage Associa tion was strongest in the northern
half of the state, the law provided for trial of violators by the state Supreme Judi-
cial Council, who openly supported the existing government and whose authority
allowed it to try defendants in such cases in areas where reliably loyal jury pools
could be found.
312 Dorr Rebellion (1841–1842)
On April 18, 1842, the supporters of the People’s Constitution elected 35-year-
old attorney Thomas Wilson Dorr as governor and a full slate of legislative candi-
dates who called themselves the “People’s Government” and the legitimate
government of the majority of Rhode Islanders. Two days later, on April 20,
1842, the official election was held, and Samuel Ward King was reelected. As both
the factions under Dorr and King claimed legitimacy, the state had two complete
rival governments. King immediately appealed to President John Tyler fo r assis -
tance in putting down what was moving quickly in the divided state in the direc-
tion of civil war. Tyler reaffirmed the King administration’s legal rights but
urged compromise rather t han military intervention. King’s government began
arrests of known Dorrites, while T homas Dorr and 200 of the Suffragists headed
to the capital at Providence in May 1842 with the intention of seizing the state
arsenal. The Suffragists found a large contingent of men guarding the arsenal
(including Dorr’s own father and uncle) and dispersed without incident. Governor
King declared martial law in the state and called out the milit ia. Thomas Dorr,
along with many of the Suffragists, fled the state. Dorr was indicted in absentia
in August 1842.
Although the Suffragists’ 1842 coup failed, King and his charter government
still faced widespread dissatisfaction with the constitutional situation. To amelio-
rate this dissent, a new constitution was adopted in April 1843. The vote was
extended to a ll native-born a dult males (including free blacks) who h ad been in
the state for at least two years. Thomas Dorr, still in exile, believed that the time
was right to return and press for more reforms by raising the additional reform
issues in a trial for treason. Dorr returned to Rhode Island in October 1843 and
was, as he planned, arrested.
Dorr was jailed at Providence for six months before his trial. Authorities moved
him to the center of the conservative Charterite region of Newport for a trial that
began on April 2, 1844. Dorr based his defense on the idea that treason could only
be committed against the nation, not an individual state, and that during the state-
wide crisis of 1842 when the Algerine Law was passed, he and the People’s
Cons titution government were the leg itimate government because the voters had
overwhelmingly approved the constitution they had created. The judges rejected
this line of defense and did not allow the jury to rule upon it. They asserted that
since a llegiance is due to a state, treason could be c ommitted against it. Further,
they declared that the legislature elected in 1843 was legitimate and that no judge
or jury could rule on the legitimacy of that in 1842. The jury’s authority in the trial,
according to the court, was circumscribed by law to considering the facts of the
case under the existing law. Since Dorr did not refute the facts surrounding his
actions in 1842, he was found guilty of treason against the state on May 6, 1844,
and sentence to life in solitary confinement at hard labor. By all reports, Dorr did
Dorr Rebellion (1841–1842) 313