American and Mexican Culture: the Inevitability of the Texas Revolution

Many scholars have debated the nature of the Texas Revolution and the events that led to the rebellion. Whether or not the conflict was inevitable is at the core of these debates. There are many dimensions of the revolution that must be examined in order to achieve an understanding of the political and social upheavals of the mid 1830s. Although many of these details reveal a Texas population that was loyal to Mexican federalism, even the radical war hawking minority or the so-called land hungry Texans could not have single handedly brought on the rebellion. Instead, it is Anglos attitudes in regards to federalism, racial tensions, and the rhetoric of “liberty” and “tyranny” left lingering in the personas of Anglo Texans that result in the revolutions inevitability.
Since the beginning of the 19th century Anglo filibusterism was prevalent throughout Texas and the Spanish West. The Gutierrez-McGee expedition of 1812, one notable example, resulted in the bloody battle of Medina and a drafted Declaration of Independence in Nachadoches. While attempts to establish independent Anglo settlements in Texas were thwarted by both Spanish and later Mexican governments, the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 and the Adams-Onis treaty, 1819-21, surrounded the state of Coahuila y Tejas with Anglo claims. The Coahuila y Tejas Immigration Law of 1824 allowed foreigners into the region but recognized and encouraged Spanish as the official language and catholic preference. The Mexican government did feel threatened by Anglo influence and the liberal immigration policy was intended to create a multinational region.
The cultures of Mexicans and Anglos were starkly different. The new federalist government of Mexico drafted a constitution surprisingly similar to their neighbor’s to the Northeast. Most American immigrants to Texas were willing to accept ideals of Mexican federalism that was not much different from that of the United States. Nevertheless, the economic Panic of 1819 had driven many Americans West as well as into Texas. With this expansion came American values that would later be critical influences to the revolution. Along with unique American ideas in regards to property, notably slavery, Anglos brought the American style of individuality and most importantly economic self interest and notions of economic betterment that deluded many Americans in the Jacksonian era. Overall, Anglos saw Mexicans as barbaric and backwards people and often even popish conspirators (De Leon, 100).
Thus, although grievances would later be voiced against Mexico by Anglo-Texians, it is the clash of cultures and loss of Mexican influence that created an air of inevitability for conflict. In 1829 the legislature of Coahuila y Tejas officially prohibited slavery in the region — a decision that did not set well with conceptions of property held by Anglos in Texas. To these settlers slavery was a critical economic resource as well as a nearly divine right to property in the minds of the Anglo immigrants in the region (who were mostly southerners). Tensions would be exacerbated further in 1830 with the passing of the April 6 law. This decree by the Mexican government is analogous to the Stamp Act of the American Revolution. This act encouraged Mexican immigration to Texas, created new tariffs, and forbid immigration by Americans. The abolition of slavery as well as the 1830 restrictions on immigration began to galvanize Anglos against this Mexican so-called “oppression.”
The April 6, 1830 law, the Mexican effort to exert its influence in Texas, in actuality only polarized the Anglo settlers against Mexican government. The restriction of immigration brought increased economic suffering to Texas by limiting capitalistic enterprise and paralyzing immigration (Haynes, 95: Document 8). With the American Revolution in the recent past for Americans, new voices began to rise in Texas proselytizing with rhetoric of tyranny and liberty. Among these voices were William H. Wharton and William Barrett Travis. These individuals were the John Adams and Patrick Henry, so to speak, of the Texas Revolution and both were involved in incidents that escalated tensions with the Mexican government. These radicals had been proponents of Texas independence for some time but were not taken particularly serious by most of the population.
The short lived Freedonian Republic of 1826-27 is indicative of both the Anglo drive for independence and the support of Anglos to the Mexican government. On one hand, Stephen F. Austin volunteered his militia to assist Mexico in quelling the rebellion. However, the leaders of the revolt sought to correct “lawless and repeated outrages” against the “sons of America” (Haynes, 90: Document 5). The radical acts of individuals would again stir controversy in 1832 with the Anahuac incident. Both Wharton and Travis were involved in a confrontation with the Mexican military instigated by the unwarranted arrest of Travis. Shots were fired and, although few in number, casualties taken on both sides. What is more important than the conflict, however, are the Turtle Bayou Resolutions adopted in the wake of the incident. The Turtle Bayou Resolutions voiced grievances with the laws of 1830 as well as those that directly led to the Anahuac disturbance. However, the resolution maintained submission to Mexican authority. Further resolutions by the conventions of 1832-33 resulted in the repeal of the 1830 laws, granted state-hood as well as military protection, established habeas corpus, and reduced tariffs. Resolutions of this kind were common in the Anglo political tradition but were a backhanded gesture in the eyes of the Mexican government. Thus, these political differences along race lines hindered positive relationships between Mexico and its settlers and further advanced the inevitability of conflict by the end of 1832. Despite these hindrances, in early 1834 Mexico repealed the April 6, 1830 law.
The loss of Mexican influence, intensified by political customs, and property issues (both land and slaves) are all important precursors to the revolutions. However, it is not until attempts at re-strengthening the central government by General, and by 1835 military dictator, Antonio López de Santa Anna that a political eruption occurs throughout the federation. Santa Anna’s Plan of Cuernavaca suspended the constitution of 1824, a constitution that federalist leaning Anglos happily supported as loyal Mexican citizens, and sparked various rebellions in several regions of Mexico. Thus, Texas is only one example of many rebellions. Nevertheless, the political environment of 1834 gave the radical positions of Travis and Wharton validity in the hearts of constitutionally minded Anglos and revolutionary support grew. This reigning in of the federation to a more centralized government was a threat to American liberty that Anglo-Mexicans felt they deserved.
Much like the British garrison in New York harbor in the early 1770s, the standing Mexican army in San Antonio became a tyrannical threat to liberty. As tensions increased and with militia forming across Texas, Mexico sent in forces. In Gonzalez the Mexican army sought to seize cannon from could be rebels. While this could have occurred without incident, the arrival of Wharton the evening prior stirred up a rebellious frenzy in a speech reminiscent of the American Revolution. When Mexicans and Anglos exchanged fire at Gonzalez battle lines were drawn and these divisions were formed along racial lines. The “haunting prospect” of rule by Anglos brought years of racial tensions to a head and this so-called tyranny, whether a delusion of the Anglos or a reality, ceased the efforts of both races to exist in a multicultural Texas (Deleon, 104).
The small but significant Battle of Gonzalez is the official beginning of the Texas Revolution and has earned the title “Lexington” of the Texas Revolution. The outcome of the Revolution is well known and in typical historical fashion is distorted by myth-making and legend. While many factors led to the revolution, the altogether dissimilar mentality of Anglos and Mexicans was both the origin and culmination of the drive towards Texas Independence. In the spirit of the era, Americans, that according to Tocqueville “carried constitutions in their pockets,” could not permanently co-exist in a Mexican society. Notions of Anglo-superiority, as well as the legacy of American individualism, were too strong to truly submit to the will of Mexico.

Stephen Hicks, Ph.D.

This guy is a genius....

best 3 hours ever