Showing posts with label Texas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Texas. Show all posts

Sunday, August 23, 2009

On the Margins of the War: Trëue der Union

I thought that I might stay on the topic of events that happened “on the margins of the war” and tell you a story closer to home for me. As a native-born Texan, any topic related to that state and the Civil War holds some fascination for me. Texas was referred to by one wartime Southern diarist as “the dark corner of the Confederacy” and this event certainly supports that view. At the same time, it is yet another tragic example of war’s inhumanity, especially when one lives on the margins of the war.

Texas in 1860 As I wrote earlier in an essay on Sam Houston’s fight against secession, Texas was totally unlike the rest of the Confederacy. Texas was a land of tremendous diversity, with a vast, isolated and uncivilized frontier region, which was constantly under the threat of attack by hostile Indian tribes. To be certain, Texas had seen remarkable changes in the years since its revolution against Mexico in 1836. Cities had sprung up where there was once nothing, plantations and farms had overtaken empty prairie land, and even railroads had begun to appear. But, it was also still a rugged and untamed place. However, what truly set Texas apart from the rest of the South was the presence of thousands of foreign immigrants.

Texas Hill Country Most notable among these recent arrivals to the state were the Germans. By 1860, nearly 10 percent of the state’s population was foreign born, consisting primarily of former Mexican and German citizens. In fact, of the 70,000 Germans living in the eleven states that would make up the Confederacy, nearly 30,000 lived in Texas, where they made up 7.5 percent of the free white population. Most of the Germans settled in the frontier region of the state, west and northwest of San Antonio in what is still referred to as the “Hill Country” region. Here, they established prosperous communities, such as Fredericksburg and Comfort, and cleared the rocky soil for their small farms.

However, with the arrival of the secession crisis of 1861, most Texans of German heritage found themselves aligned with Governor Sam Houston in opposing secession, and some of the heavily German populated counties would cast 95 percent of their votes against leaving the Union. Unfortunately for them, this would put them opposite most of their fellow Texans, and make them the targets of suspicion and open hatred once the state seceded.

The reasons these German immigrants voted against secession are fairly simple. First, the overwhelming majority of the German population did not believe in slavery, opposing it primarily for moral and religious reasons. They agreed with Governor Houston that the East Texas leaders of the state’s secession movement were primarily motivated by their desire to maintain the institution. However, they also remained Unionists because they were proud of their new citizenship and, unlike Texans from other states, they saw themselves more as Americans than merely Texans. Finally, the isolated German settlements and farms of West Texas were constantly under the threat of attack from marauding Comanches, who controlled virtually all the land west of the Pecos and Concho Rivers, as well as the Kiowas and Lipan-Apaches. As a result, the United States Government, in the form of the U.S. Army, played an important role in the lives of these Texans. Fort Mason was one of a string of forts guarding the Texas frontier First, the soldiers provided protection from the Indians, although, at times, with limited effectiveness. In addition, the forts that stretched along the borders of the western counties also provided a vital market for the farmers of the region who could sell their surplus grain, flour, and meat to the Army. Thus, the U.S. Army, which symbolized the Union to these Texans, became a crucial part of survival, and, therefore, the Union was not simply an abstract concept to the German population.

With the coming of the war and the withdrawal of the U.S. Army, the state’s government maintained a close watch on the Unionist counties of West Texas. Initially, the German populace managed to keep a low profile, but the beginning of mandatory conscription in 1862 changed that. The Confederacy’s conscription law required all males between 18 and 35 years of age to volunteer for, pledge allegiance to, and serve in, the Confederate States Army. The law was unpopular in all Southern states and it was violently opposed in Texas, so much so that, in May, 1862, the commander of the Confederate Military Department of Texas, put the entire state under martial law and appointed provost marshals to administer conscription. The administration of the law became "ruthless" and particularly so in the Hill Country.

Governor Lubbock appointed Colonel James Duff to enforce martial law in the Hill Country and he did so with brutal efficiency. Before the war, Duff had served in the U.S. Army, but was court-martialed and discharged. Quick to enlist in the new Confederate government of the state, Duff was a ruthless man who enforced martial law with a reign of terror. He employed nightriders who traveled the back roads of the Hill Country, terrorizing residents and even hanging numerous Germans on the mere suspicion of harboring pro-Union sentiments, then burning their crops and homes. One soldier, who served under Duff, would write, "Duff, in the preparation of his infamy, believed in hanging Union men as the best way of converting Union men to the true faith."

The German populace did not lie down and simply take these actions. In Gillespie County, they secretly organized a defense organization, the Union Loyal League. The League’s purpose was to fight Confederate conscription and attempt to maintain Union loyalty within the Hill Country German communities. In response, the state’s Confederate military department declared Gillespie, Kerr, Kendall, Medina, and Bexar Counties, where the German protests were the strongest, to be "in open rebellion" and, in effect, declared war on them.

Fredericksburg was actually occupied by Duff’s troops. Duff declared himself provost, then stated in a letter, "The God **** Dutchmen are Unionists to a man…I will hang all I suspect of being anti-Confederates." Hangings were, in fact, frequent. Letters from German residents of Fredericksburg attest that many of them would leave their homes at sundown and hide in the surrounding woods in fear of raiding Anglo "guerrillas," or Die Haengerbaende, "the hanging band", who rode up in the night, snatched young men from their beds, hanged their parents, and burned their homes for avoiding conscription. This drove hundreds from their farms, with many fleeing to Union states, Mexico, or even back to Germany. But, the worst act of Confederate retribution was yet to come.

By the summer of 1862, the Union Loyal League had actually raised three companies of supposed Confederate volunteers but, through bureaucratic maneuvering and stonewalling, had managed to keep the companies in Texas, ostensible as "home guard" units. This kept Germans from being conscripted into the army and kept them at home to defend against both Indians as well as Duff’s men. Duff discovered the ruse and warned the Fredericksburg mayor and sheriff, the key personnel of the Union Loyal League, that he was about to appoint his own slate of municipal officers. Instead, he arrested the League’s key officials and had them thrown into jail in San Antonio. Fearing further arrests, the League immediately disbanded the companies and sent word that all persons wanting to make a run for Mexico to escape actual conscription should gather at Turtle Creek in Kerr County (about 15 miles west of Kerrville). On August 1, 1862, 68 men, including 63 Germans, one Tejano, and four Anglos, gathered at the appointed place and time. The group comprised mostly older men and a few young boys from Mason, Kendall, Kerr, and Gillespie Counties, but all of them were targeted conscripts. Fritz Tegener They elected Fritz Tegener as their commander, with his neighbor, Henry Joseph Schwethelm, voted in as second-in-command.

Beyond escaping to Mexico, the exact aim of the group is something historians cannot agree upon. Some say that they wished to merely escape conscription and taking any part in the war, while others contend that they sought to reach Mexico so they could enlist in Unionist Texan regiments forming there. The men seemed to have been relatively well armed with both rifles and six-shooters. The group proceeded southwest towards Mexico at a leisurely pace. Tegener was apparently convinced that there would be no pursuit. Tegener may have been correct, except that, as the Unionist force reached a crossing of the Guadalupe River, they encountered another German immigrant, Charles Bergmann, and "relieved" him of his supplies. Bergmann, angered at his turn of fortune, rode away until he found a small Confederate detachment. Bergmann was either detained by the Confederates, or decided to cooperate with them. In any case, he reported that a force of German Unionists headed for Mexico had robbed him.

When word reached Duff that these men were trying to make a run for Mexico, he became infuriated. He immediately organized a 94-man detachment under Lieutenant C.D. McRae to track down and intercept the Germans at any cost. Despite the fact that the German Unionists had a lead on his men, McRae managed to catch up with them on August 9, 1862, as the group encamped on the banks of the Nueces River between present-day Brackettville and Laguna, only 50 miles from the Mexican border. The Nueces River today At around 3:00 a.m. the next morning, the two groups would clash in a skirmish that has also long been the subject of debate among historians and descendants of the German Unionists.

The most credible accounts indicate that, at the time McRae and his men attacked, the Germans were down to only 40 men, with 28 having left to go home. The battle was brief and fierce. The Germans were camped in a bad defensive position and McRae’s men were able to overwhelm them quickly. Two Confederates were killed and 18 were wounded in the fighting and, according to the letters of one Confederate soldier, eight of the Unionists were killed, 11 were wounded, and the remainder escaped. Those who were wounded quickly surrendered. According to the account of R.H. Williams, an Englishman who was part of McRae’s detachment, the wounded Germans were initially treated with kindness. However, things would soon go terribly wrong.

Williams wrote that he and some others rode out to scout for the escapees. When he returned to the camp after an unsuccessful search for the remaining Unionists, he noticed immediately that the wounded were gone. Williams asked about their whereabouts and was told they had been moved to a "more comfortable location.” Then, the quiet of the prairie was interrupted by a loud, ragged volley of shots. Williams wrote that, at first, he thought “they were burying some of the dead with the honors of war, but it did not sound like that, either." Running in the direction of the shooting, Williams met a fellow Confederate soldier who held up his arms and cautioned Williams, "It’s all done. You needn’t be in a hurry…They have shot the poor devils and finished them off." Williams, shocked, said, "It can’t be possible they have murdered the prisoners in cold blood!" But, the soldier replied, "Oh, yes, they’re all dead, sure enough, and a good job, too." In fact, the 11 dead Germans would later be found to have been shot in the back of the head.

McRae’s subsequent message to Duff listed no survivors, reading in part, "I have met determined resistance, hence I have no prisoners to report." Of the surviving escapees who managed to flee for Mexico, seven or eight were killed by yet another patrolling Confederate force in October as they tried to cross the Rio Grande, and nine more were captured at various locations and hung. The Germans who were killed in the fighting and the wounded that were subsequently executed were left unburied on the banks of the river.

Hangings of Unionists in TexasWhen news of what became known as the Nueces Massacre reached San Antonio and the German settlements, rioting and open resistance broke out. Duff dispatched a second force that rounded up another 50 men, including some of the 28 who had fled the camp before the battle and were now hiding in the hills. Within weeks, more lifeless German bodies would be hanging from tree limbs and scaffolds across the Hill Country.

The German dead on the Nueces were never buried, and, for the balance of the war, Confederate authorities prohibited anyone from visiting the area. Once the war was over, a group from Comfort went to the battle site to retrieve the remains of those who had been killed. Treue der Union Monument-Comfort, TXDespite the fact that animals had disturbed the remains and scattered bones in all directions, they were able to collect what they could find, and bring them back to Comfort. They would bury them in a mass grave on a small hill in the middle of the town and erect a tall limestone obelisk next to it. This monument was among the first erected in the United States commemorating the Civil War and, ironically, it would stand in a state of the Confederacy, honoring those who had lost their lives resisting the Southern cause. On its sides are listed the names of those who died under the inscription “Trëue der Union” or “Loyal to the Union.”

Saturday, May 2, 2009

In Search of a Southern Manifest Destiny: Sibley's Brigade - The Confederate Army of New Mexico

Many of you have probably never heard about the episode of the Civil War I will describe here, and it has been one that has long held a special fascination for me. It took place in what was called the “Trans-Mississippi” theater of the war, which was the term applied to anything west of the Mississippi River. During the first year of the Civil War, as large opposing armies struggled in the initial battles and campaigns east of the Mississippi, this smaller drama was being played out in the American West along the Rio Grande River. There, a brigade composed mostly of Texan volunteers, under the command of an enigmatic former U.S. Army officer, would undertake a campaign into the desolate New Mexico Territory in an attempt to expand the Confederacy westward, all the way to California. However, what would seem at the outset to be a glorious and even imperialistic quest, a sort of Southern “manifest destiny,” would turn into a mismanaged military failure with a retreat that would rank among the most agonizing in American military history.

The brigade was known as Sibley’s Brigade, named for its commander, General Henry Hopkins Sibley, and, later, as the Army of New Mexico. It would number a mere 3,000 men, most of whom came from eastern Texas counties with strong secessionist sentiments. They would enlist to fight for their state and the Confederate cause with idealism and even a sense of impending adventure. Just like many other volunteers on both sides of the conflict, they would eventually learn how hard war can be. Further, as with many young soldiers in all wars, they would experience the frustrations and discomfort that came with life in an army camp, the loneliness that comes from being far from home and loved ones, and they would see firsthand the inhumanity, terror, and horrible loss that comes with war. However, the extreme hardships they would endure in New Mexico would lead many of the soldiers in this army to question the campaign’s objectives as well as the competence and even the humanity of their commander.

While the official objectives for the Confederate campaign into New Mexico are somewhat uncertain, it can be stated with confidence that the campaign’s genesis resulted from the efforts of one man, Henry Hopkins Sibley. Further, no examination of the Confederate Army of New Mexico would be complete without some discussion of Sibley himself.

Gen. Henry Sibley Henry Sibley was a career Army officer from Louisiana who served in the Florida campaigns against the Seminoles, fought in Mexico, and then spent the balance of his Army career in the West. In fact, his last assignment prior to his joining the Confederate cause was as a Captain in New Mexico. Sibley has been described as the “most curious of soldiers.” He was a terribly complex man, seen as intelligent but vain, good natured and kind, demanding and uncompromising, condescending but obstinate, a schemer and dreamer but, at times, convincing and professional. He was not a dedicated secessionist as much as he was an opportunist, and it is likely that he saw service to the Confederacy as a means to achieve the career successes he was denied in the U.S. Army.

While Sibley gained some small success in the Army through his development of equipment such as the Sibley Tent and Sibley Portable Stove, his Army career was punctuated by a series of incidents all related to his reputation as a heavy drinker. Sibley’s drinking, which may have been caused by attempts to relieve pain resulting from renal colic, led to numerous official reprimands, a near court martial in Mexico, and actual courts martial while serving in both Utah and Louisiana. Sibley also has been described as an officer who was “loved by those who knew him best, but often hated by those he led in battle.” Again, this may have been related to his drinking, which seemed to plague him worst in times of crisis and led some serving under him to believe him heartless and even a coward.

Upon leaving Federal service, Sibley traveled directly to Richmond, where he sought and received an audience with President Jefferson Davis. Unfortunately, there is no official written record of his conversation with President Davis and any detailed instructions Sibley received were, apparently, verbal. Shortly after the meeting, Sibley was commissioned a brigadier general and on July 8, 1861, he received official orders, which stated:

SIR: In view of your recent service in New Mexico and knowledge of that country and the people, the President has intrusted [sic] you with the important duty of driving the Federal troops from that department, at the same time securing all the arms, supplies, and materials of war. You are authorized to take into the Confederate States service all disaffected officers and soldiers on the original commissions of the former and enlistments of the latter.

Additionally, the orders directed Sibley to proceed to Texas and raise two regiments of cavalry and a battery of artillery. Once in New Mexico, the orders stated that he was to create a military government, the details of which he was to forward to Richmond as soon as possible. Beyond that, Sibley was given broad latitude and was directed to “be guided by circumstances and your own good judgment.” Therefore, as far as can be seen, Sibley was told to do no more than seize the Territory of New Mexico and create a Confederate military administration to govern it.

However, Sibley would tell a different story. Months later, in a conversation described after the war by Major Trevanion T. Teel, Sibley painted a grandiose picture of an imperialistic campaign aimed at a total conquest of the American West. The general told Teel that he informed President Davis of conditions in New Mexico, which, in Sibley’s mind, apparently included a general population ready to support the Confederate cause, Federal army units filled with potential defectors, and Army storehouses brimming with supplies to sustain Sibley’s invading army. According to Sibley, Davis then authorized him to form three regiments, arm them with what was available in Texas, and, later, sustain them with whatever could be captured from Federal forces in New Mexico.

Sibley went on to say that he was directed to recruit additional men from the supposedly pro-secessionist population in New Mexico, California, Arizona, and Colorado to form a larger army. From that point, Sibley stated the campaign would move forward to its greater goals: “The objective aim and design of the campaign was the conquest of California, and as soon as the Confederate army should occupy the Territory of New Mexico, an army of advance would be organized and ‘On to San Francisco’ would be the watchword; California had to be conquered so that there would be an outlet for slavery.”

Whether Sibley actually received these instructions from Davis or whether they are an example of his nature as an imaginative schemer cannot be stated with absolute certainty. However, it would seem he should have known better given his previous service in New Mexico. First, while the Hispanic population of New Mexico was, in general, apathetic about the war, they hated and feared the Texans. Therefore, they were unlikely to support a Confederate force originating from that state. In fact, while he was in San Antonio forming the brigade, Sibley received correspondence from Colonel John Baylor confirming that very situation. Baylor, who seized Fort Bliss in El Paso and then Fort Fillmore near Mesilla with his 300-man force in July 1861, sent Sibley a series of dispatches in September and October describing the situation. In one of those letters, he told the general, “The Mexican population are decidedly Northern in sentiment, and will avail themselves of the first opportunity to rob us or join the enemy.”

Further, Sibley’s belief that Union forces still contained potential defectors who would join the Confederate cause and hand over their supplies was, at best, an erroneous concept based on dated information and, at worst, a totally reckless assumption. Finally, the idea of almost total reliance on captured Federal supplies was especially risky since Sibley must have realized how difficult it would be for his forces to live off the land in the harsh terrain of New Mexico should those supplies not be there for the taking.

As ordered, Sibley proceeded to San Antonio in early August 1861 and set about organizing his brigade. Upon his arrival, he discovered that the local press not only was trumpeting his impending arrival from Richmond, it was also publicizing his goal of organizing a brigade, calling upon volunteer companies to come to San Antonio “armed and fully equipped for a Winter campaign.” Despite this, the task of garnering the required manpower turned out to be far from easy. Sibley found his efforts frustrated by an inefficient state military organization and competition with the need for units east of the Mississippi. Sibley finally gave up relying on the state’s military system, and “resorted direct to the people themselves.” The result was additional publicity that finally began to achieve the desired results. Theophilius Noel, who would serve as a private in Company A of the 4th Texas Regiment of Mounted Volunteers, recalled hearing of Sibley’s recruiting campaign, saying that, “Through the medium of our patriotic press, the public was quickly acquainted with his designs and intentions as well as his authority and his wants.” As a result, between late August and October 1861, Sibley managed to put together three regiments in San Antonio, the 4th, 5th, and 7th Texas Regiments of Mounted Volunteers, totaling some 2,700 men.

Not surprisingly, these regiments, as well as those in Baylor’s force, reflected the strong secessionist sentiments found in Texas at that time. Forty-four of the companies that served under his command consisted of men from 32 Texas counties, with three of Baylor’s companies having been recruited in New Mexico’s Mesilla Valley. Of those 44 Texan companies, all but four came from counties that voted in favor of secession in the statewide referendum held on February 23, 1861. Further, 21 companies, almost half of those from Texas, contained men recruited from fifteen counties where the vote for secession was a staggering 90 percent or more. Further, an additional four companies came from counties where the vote to secede exceeded 80 percent.

In terms of the dominant culture or origin of the local population, this strong secessionist sentiment is again evident. Twenty-six companies were recruited in counties where the dominant culture was from the lower southern states, where secessionist sentiments were strongest in the United States. Interestingly, only three companies came from counties with a dominant culture from the upper south, where there was generally less support for secession, and two of the counties represented by those three companies actually voted against secession.

The men who led their companies came from a variety of occupations, but several were more prevalent than others. For instance, of the 48 men who served in these command positions, 19 were farmers and 15 were lawyers. But, there were also four sheriffs, three physicians, and three clerks. The remainder consisted of a merchant, a minister, a blacksmith, and one professional soldier. But perhaps most interesting is the fact that 21 of these commanders were Freemasons and members of the Masonic Order.

As evidenced by those who recorded their life in the army, the experiences and attitudes displayed by men of the Army of New Mexico were similar in many ways to Civil War soldiers on both sides. First, they were proud of themselves and their comrades as they reported for service, with Theophilius Noel referring to the men of this mostly Texan army as “the best that ever threw leg over a horse or that had ever sworn allegiance to any cause.” He also remembered that there was also a sense of adventure in volunteering to join with Sibley, saying that the “Sibley’s Brigade California Deal” was considered a choice assignment by most military age gentleman of the region.

These young men also displayed intense, almost romantic idealism for the cause they were volunteering to defend. As he left for San Antonio to be mustered into service, William R. Howell, a young private in Company C of the 5th Texas, wrote in his journal that while a soldier goes to battle knowing he may “die on the battlefield unhonored [sic] and perhaps mangled and crippled,” a Confederate soldier was different. Howell wrote on that “the Confederate soldier goes to battle with the belief that our cause is just and right and that if he lives or dies the God of battles will not suffer him to pass unnoticed or unattended in his dying moments.”

As the companies arrived in San Antonio, all of them went through the same enlistment and mustering process. The men would be formed on the Main Plaza in front of Plaza House and then sworn into the service of the Confederacy, the officers going first, followed by the enlisted men. As each soldier was mustered in, his horse and equipment were appraised. These values were officially recorded on the company muster-in roll and became a part of his official military service record. For instance, one soldier from Columbus, Texas, John Henry David, was mustered-in to Company A of the 5th Texas on August 29 for a period of “the war.” His muster-in roll indicates that his horse was appraised at a very valuable $150, while his other equipment, which probably included his personal weapons, was listed as being worth only $20. Howell wrote tongue-in-cheek that, “We have this day ‘sold ourselves for a mess of pottage’ and consequently receive our forage and provisions from our gov’t [sic], the Confederate States of America, long may they flourish.”

Then, as the companies were moved to their respective training camps outside of San Antonio along Salado Creek, these young soldiers entered a world that any other Civil War soldier would have recognized. Noel later referred to himself and his fellow novice soldiers as “Saplings” that “by reason of their zeal were easily ‘bended’.” Young Private Noel also expressed the complaints typical of any soldier living in an army camp for the first time. He noted the constant bugle calls as an irritant but, more so, he criticized the food. He wrote that, while full rations were always available, “we nevertheless had some grumbling on the quality of the beef as well as the quantity of Coffee, all of which we got most gloriously over in the course of time.”

As they entered training, these Texans were also full of swagger and confidence. On his very first day in camp, Howell would boast in a letter to his family that he was “ready to meet Mr. Lincoln and any of his vandals.” But, at the same time, Private Howell would also write of experiences in camp that indicated his regiment was not quite ready for war. Early in his stay at the encampment near San Antonio, Howell recorded a tragically humorous incident in which a soldier standing guard fell asleep, a common enough occurrence in any Civil War training camp. Unfortunately, in this case, the soldier fell asleep while holding a loaded rifle which discharged upon dropping from his hand, with the round traveling through a series of tents until it hit one soldier in the arm and then went on to wound another in the hip.

Theophilius Noel would also humorously recall the practice of standing a rigorous guard routine while only encamped for training, safely away from any enemy, and, in the process, recorded his disdain for those commissioned as officers.

The strictest guard that we ever had around camp was while we were camped on the Salado, a thousand miles or more from a foe. We had a camp guard, a picket guard, and everything was so guarded that one had to be on guard when he spoke, lest he might offend the “rank” which as we have long since learned, means only those who wear “stars and bars.”

As with many units operating in the early days of the war, the men of Sibley’s army were permitted to elect their company officers and noncommissioned officers. However, this process could be far from pristine, as demonstrated in the journal of Alfred B. Peticolas, a young lawyer and fifth sergeant in Company C of the 4th Texas. In this particular company election, Peticolas was nominated for the 3rd Lieutenancy position and was slated to run against two other soldiers for the position. The first ballot did not achieve a majority for anyone, but the third candidate was eliminated. In the resulting runoff election, Peticolas lost by only two votes. However, to his chagrin, he later learned that his opponent bought one of the winning votes by promising a to help a soldier get a better horse if elected.

There were also companies in Sibley’s army that had a far different enlistment experience from those in San Antonio. One of these was the Arizona Guards, which was enlisted from a small mining camp at Pinos Altos, New Mexico. Hank Smith, a 37-year old miner, remembered receiving the news that John Baylor and his command had arrived in Mesilla and that they were recruiting local volunteers. A heated debate ensued in the camp and those miners who were Southern sympathizers packed up for Mesilla. When they arrived there, Smith recalled that they were subjected to a series of patriotic speeches, with one given by Colonel Baylor himself. Apparently the speeches were not very effective, so Baylor tried a different tactic to gain his needed enlistments. That night, the miners were plied with liberal amounts of free liquor and provided with the companionship of some local ladies as an inducement to fight for the Confederacy. This proved to be very effective, as all of the miners enlisted the next day.

While Sibley got his recruits, he still faced the thorny problem of equipping them. Here, he was further frustrated by administrative problems with the state military establishment. Sibley was finally forced to direct the purchase of the materiel he needed on credit, but there was little to purchase. As a result, when the brigade headed west, it had two batteries of four twelve-pound mountain howitzers from the former Federal arsenal in San Antonio, but little in the way of rifles or side arms. Therefore, most of the men left San Antonio armed with what they had brought with them, an odd collection of “squirrel-guns, bear guns, sportman’s-guns, shot-guns, both single and double barrels.” In fact, things were so desperate that Sibley outfitted two companies of the 5th Texas as lancers who were armed with nothing more than nine-foot long poles, hung with crimson pennants and tipped with 12-inch steel blades.

On October 22, 1861, the brigade began its move west, with the 4th Texas leading the way, and on November 18, General Sibley and his staff departed San Antonio. The regiments were carefully spaced, departing several days apart, which would allow the few water holes along the way to recharge between regiments. They would follow a trail that led, first, southwest to San Felipe Springs on the Rio Grande, then west to Fort Stockton, Fort Davis, and, finally, Fort Bliss, a distance of nearly 700 miles. In addition, Sibley decided to march westward with a minimum of supplies. He still believed that there would be plenty to be found in New Mexico and, he was receiving reports from Confederate agents in El Paso that seemed to confirm his views. One of those agents wrote Sibley, “Be easy about your supplies; we shall get all we want from Sonora--what this valley cannot furnish--until such time as you may be in full possession of New Mexico, and can avail of its resources or such part as the hungry Federals may leave for your command.”

Unencumbered by supply wagons, Sibley and his staff moved quickly, passing the regiments on the road, and arrived at Fort Bliss in early December. On December 14, 1861, he issued General Order Number 10 in which he assumed command of all troops in the region, which now included Baylor’s small force, and declared his brigade was hereafter to be known and designated as the “Army of New Mexico.”

As Sibley made his proclamations at Fort Bliss, his small army continued its difficult trek westward. Rations were limited to dried beef and wormy crackers, water was in short supply, and, often, there was not enough wood available in the arid terrain to make a fire on the increasingly cold winter nights. As the march dragged on, one soldier was heard to comment, “When I go to another war, I’m goin’ to it a way I can get to it quicker that I can this ‘ere one.” In addition, there were numerous disciplinary problems, which is not surprising given the short time these young men had been in the army. Several of the journals and memoirs describe courts martial being held while on the march to Fort Bliss, with striking a superior officer being the most common charge. However, the most bizarre incident, involved a senior officer, and indicates that there was a little of the “untamed West” in the character of these Texans.

Col. John Baylor While in Mesilla, Colonel Baylor was accused of cowardice in a newspaper article written by Mr. Kelly, the editor of the Mesilla Times. Baylor wrote a letter to Kelly in which he requested the editor retract the charge and formally apologize in print. Mr. Kelly refused and Colonel Baylor became incensed. Hank Smith witnessed the results of this dispute first-hand. Smith recalled that Baylor was with him in the adjutant’s office when the colonel observed Kelly coming down the street. Baylor asked Smith to hand him a nearby pistol. Then, gun in hand, Baylor approached Kelly as the newspaperman passed the door of the office, and again demanded Kelly retract the charge of cowardice. When Kelly refused, Baylor calmly raised the pistol and shot him as he stood in the office doorway. Baylor subsequently surrendered himself and a court of inquiry was immediately convened, which declared the killing of Mr. Kelly completely justified.

By mid-January 1862, all of Sibley’s forces had arrived at Fort Bliss. Despite the worn condition of his troops and their mounts, Sibley decided to immediately begin his move up the Rio Grande into New Mexico. Perhaps he might have delayed had he been aware that his small army was showing the initial signs of what would eventually become a severe moral problem.

First, some of the men were now experiencing natural longings for home and family, with some even questioning their decision to join the army. One officer, Captain John Shropshire, commander of Company A of the 5th Texas, was already forgetting the excitement of joyously joining the Confederate cause. Shropshire, a wealthy attorney, was a tall, vigorous man who recruited the young men of Capt John Shropshire Colorado County to his company with promises of adventure and glory. On the day the company was formed, he paraded the men throughout the town of Columbus and made certain he went around and around his sister’s house so she could see the grand and glorious spectacle. However, as the army’s journey toward war stretched on and the separation from home and family became longer, his attitude changed. The soldier who proudly paraded his men in August wrote to his wife in December, saying, “From the present prospects, I fear it will be a long time before I see you again. I fear I will be tempted to desert yet, or do something else desperate.” Then, in January, as the 5th Texas moved north into New Mexico, he wrote to her again, saying, “I am no soldier and am longing for a release. My home with my wife and little one are more to me than all the flags and pomp and circumstance of the military.”

Perhaps more severe, however, was a growing disenchantment with the goals of the campaign, particularly the lack of value the men placed on land they were to seize for the Confederacy. As early as late December, before they even reached southern New Mexico, John Shropshire wrote to his wife of his disdain for the desolate land they were traveling through. He referred to the area as “a wilderness where a scarcity of everything essential to comfort prevails.” Shropshire went on to state, “I candidly confess I never would have come this way had I imagined the country was so mean. If I had the Yankees at my disposal, I would give them this country and force them to live in it.”

Private Howell also displayed a deep resentment that questioned fighting to capture a place for which the Texans could see no value. Commenting on the death of a friend, he wrote, “Hard indeed to die and be buried in such a country.” Even years later, Theophilius Noel would ungraciously refer to New Mexico in his memoirs as “that cold and barren land.” The feeling that Howell and Noel expressed was one that seemed to take hold almost as soon as Sibley’s army began to move into New Mexico. Soon, however, the combination of combat and growing physical hardships would increase the men’s disillusionment. Worse, it would eventually spill over into opinions about their officers, and grow into genuine anger over the handling of the campaign, with much of that anger directed towards General Sibley.

Col. Edward Canby While Sibley was busy organizing his forces and making the march to Fort Bliss, the Federal opposition was actively preparing as well. In early November, the Department of New Mexico was re-established and placed under the command of Colonel Edward R. S. Canby, who had been serving as the commander of the U.S. Military Department of New Mexico since June. Canby was a steady but somewhat cautious career soldier who served in Utah and New Mexico with Henry Sibley. In fact, he was the best man at Sibley’s wedding and was married to a cousin of Sibley’s wife. Now, however, he found himself trying to develop a defensive strategy and organize the limited forces he had under his command to counter an impending offensive led by his former comrade-in-arms.

Canby quickly began to recruit and reorganize the local militia to meet the threat from Sibley. Within weeks, he assembled a force that included some 3,800 men from elements of the 1st and 3rd U.S. Cavalry, and 5th, 7th and 10th U.S. Infantry Regiments, plus troops from Colorado and New Mexico volunteer regiments. While he was unsure how Sibley would make his approach, he finally decided that an axis of attack up the Rio Grande was the most likely. Therefore, he elected to place the bulk of his forces at the only remaining Federal outpost along the river, Fort Craig, and set about strengthening the garrison with earthworks. By the time Sibley began to move up the river towards him, Canby’s preparations were complete. Ft Craig

Sibley moved cautiously northward and his forces reached the vicinity of Fort Craig on February 16, 1862. Upon observing Canby’s strong position and fully realizing he did not have the heavy artillery needed to successfully lay siege to the fort, Sibley decided to bait Canby into coming out to fight. His plan was to seize the river ford at Valverde, north of Fort Craig, thus cutting Canby off from his route of supply and reinforcement, forcing him to fight.

Early on the morning of February 21, Sibley began moving his forces northward behind the cover of a large mesa that dominated the terrain east of Fort Craig on the far side of the Rio Grande. By 7:30 a.m., Sibley’s lead elements reached the ford but ran into a considerable force of Federals guarding the river crossing. Canby had wisely sent scouts out to observe Sibley and they detected the Texans moving towards Valverde. Canby realized what Sibley was trying to do and quickly dispatched a force of 850 men with a battery of artillery to the river crossing. As soon as the Texans approached the river, they were engaged by the Federals. Sibley’s men quickly fell back to the cover of a dry riverbed a few hundred yards east of the crossing and the Battle of Valverde began.

Valverde Crossing Today By early afternoon, most of their forces from both sides were in place and a series of bloody charges and counterattacks ensued. However, as fighting increased in intensity, General Sibley became less and less of a factor in commanding the Texans. Reportedly in pain from his chronic illness and under great stress, he began to drink. By 1:00 p.m., he was so intoxicated he could no longer stand up much less stay in the saddle. At that time, he relinquished command to Colonel Tom Green, a much-respected veteran of the Mexican War who was commander of the 5th Texas. While Colonel Green would perform admirably, the rumors of Sibley’s intoxicated state would quickly spread throughout the command and permanently damage his reputation with the men. Col. Tom Green

As the fighting reached its peak in late afternoon, Canby attacked the Confederate left and, in doing so, exposed the center of his own line, which included almost all his artillery. Green exploited this mistake, ordering 750 men from the 4th and 5thTexas to charge the guns on foot. They quickly overran the battery and the New Mexico volunteers defending it panicked, running across the Rio Grande to the rear. Within minutes, the Federal center collapsed. Seeing his line giving way, Canby elected to withdraw to Fort Craig and the battle was over. Sibley, now sober enough to exercise some authority again, did not order any pursuit and elected instead to allow Canby to remain safely inside the fort. While Sibley won the field, he failed to capture Fort Craig and its vital supplies, a mistake that would have a lasting and decisive impact on the campaign’s outcome.

As for Sibley’s men, their first taste of combat at Valverde had a profound impact. Just prior to the battle, some soldiers also displayed increasingly harsh attitudes toward their enemy. Some of the Texans derisively referred to the New Mexico volunteers as “greasers.” Others, using a more curious expression, referred to Union soldiers as “Abs,” a shortened and probably insulting version of “Abolitionist.” This term, which may have been unique to Sibley’s army, can be found in the journals of both Alfred Peticolas and William Howell, as well as in a letter written by Private Elias Boles. However, after the first fight at Valverde, attitudes about the war seemed to change and even their feelings toward the enemy may have softened somewhat.

Private Peticolas’ entries in the days following Valverde are a chronicle of men telling tall tales of their exploits, and then slipping into intense sadness when told of the death of a comrade. In addition, the sight of so many wounded men was deeply effecting to Peticolas, who wrote, “It was a sad sight to see these young men, so lately in all the strength and vigor of manhood, now lying pale and weak around these fires, suffering.” In addition, Howell exhibited a respect and affinity for his enemy the day after Valverde when he wrote, “Judging from the firing at Craig they too are burying many a poor soldier far from his relatives and the home of his youth.”

After pausing a few days, Sibley resumed the march north up the Rio Grande. With the supplies from Fort Craig still in Federal hands, Sibley’s meager provisions were almost exhausted. The commissary had nothing to feed the troops but coarse beef. However, there were reportedly plentiful supplies some 50 miles ahead in the Federal warehouses in Albuquerque. But, when Sibley’s men reached Albuquerque on March 2, they found the Federals had removed all the munitions and burned whatever food and other supplies the local population had not stolen. While the Texans were able to find some supplies in a small Federal warehouse west of Albuquerque, their situation was still desperate.

As the soldiers marched north to Albuquerque, they began to record even more candid feelings regarding the campaign. Four days after Valverde, Private Abe Hanna, an 18-year in Company C of the 4th Texas, wrote, that the severity of the climate combined with the lack of wood, water, or grass, made the march “worse than all the horrors that is witnessed on the battlefield.” Three days later, Alfred Peticolas wrote a telling and bitter passage in his journal that provides evidence of a growing disenchantment:

But to trudge along day after day with nothing to eat save beans, with no teams fit to transport our baggage, and no forage, and then to see our officers, every one of them with great sacks of flour and sides of bacon, living high while the men are really suffering for something to eat—to go from early breakfast till late supper, and feel the weakness and gnawing of hunger—hunger for the staff of life—is a feature of soldiering without any redeeming trait.

Passages such as these became more common in these soldiers’ journals as the campaign went on. To be sure, throughout the journals there is the usual complaining one would expect from troops in the field, such as referring to headquarters personnel as a “gang of pits and nincompoops.” In addition, there are also expressions of admiration for some senior officers. For example, Colonel Tom Green was affectionately referred to as “Daddy” by the men in his regiment, while Peticolas wrote that Colonel Scurry was the “best officer, most polished gentleman, most sociable gentlemen, and the most popular Col. in the outfit.” However, when the men wrote of the officers in a more anonymous sense or in referring to campaign’s conduct, the tone changed. Shortly after Valverde, Private Howell wrote on the occasion of an evening meal on the march that the “officers get some butter this evening, but privates continue to live hard as usual.”

However, the strongest criticism was clearly aimed at General Sibley. As the campaign progressed, the early descriptions of Sibley as “a perfect gentleman” and “a fine drill officer” changed dramatically. There is little doubt the stories of Sibley’s drunken state at Valverde affected the loyalty of the troops and their confidence in him. It seems to have been commonly stated that the general’s “love for liquor exceeded that for home, country, or God.” The soldiers began to view Sibley as a poor soldier and, worse, an inhumane commander.

After a two-week stay in the snow-covered foothills outside Albuquerque, Sibley decided to move ahead towards Santa Fe and, eventually, to the Federal stronghold at Fort Union. Again, when his men reached Santa Fe, they found all the supplies there had been destroyed. Since there was no means of sustenance in the city, Sibley, who remained behind in Albuquerque and was reportedly on another drinking binge, ordered the 5th Texas to move immediately east along the old Santa Fe Trail towards Fort Union. However, unknown to Sibley, as the Texans moved forward, a Union force of just over 1,300 men was coming west from Fort Union along the same trail.

These Federals were from the newly arrived 1st Regiment of Colorado Volunteers, a regiment composed primarily of tough miners known as “Pike’s Peakers.” They marched quickly from Denver to Fort Union when news of the Confederate threat to the region was received. On March 22, they left Fort Union, accompanied by a few hundred Regulars and under the command of the 1st Colorado’s Colonel John Slough, pushing west at a rapid pace in hopes of reaching Santa Fe at night and surprising the Texans.Apache Canyon Today

On the morning of March 26, the advance elements of the 1st Colorado and 5th Texas unexpectedly ran into one another in Apache Canyon, a narrow mountain pass about halfway between Fort Union and Santa Fe. The two sides exchanged fire and the outnumbered Texans fell back. The two sides skirmished for about an hour before Federal cavalry charged the Confederate positions. The Texan line fell apart and they fled down the canyon towards Santa Fe. In a fight that lasted only 90 minutes, Sibley’s men experienced their first defeat.

Immediately following the fight in Apache Canyon, both sides retired to nearby ranches to regroup and await reinforcements. By the morning of March 28, each army had been reinforced, and Colonel Scurry assumed command of the Texans. At approximately 4:00 a.m., Slough ordered 430 Federals to take a mountainous trail to the ridges overlooking the Confederate camp. While these men were moving into position, Slough advanced with another 900 men down the main trail through Glorieta Pass towards the Texans. If Scurry moved out to meet him, Slough planned to attack the Texans from the front and rear, catching them in a deadly pincer.

Map of the Battle of Glorieta Pass Meanwhile, as Slough moved forward, Scurry and his Texans were edging carefully up the trail towards the main Federal column. At about 8:30 a.m., the Confederates encountered the Federal force near an old hostelry known as Pigeon’s Ranch. A series of advances ensued, with each side forcing the other to give ground. At least once, the lines merged and there was vicious hand-to-hand fighting. The battle would go on until dusk and, finally, the exhausted Union force would retreat, leaving the field to the Texans. But, Scurry soon discovered that, while he might hold the ground, he had lost the battle. The Battle of Glorieta Pass

While the main battle was occurring, the other part of Slough’s command completed their march to the ridge overlooking the Texan camp. There, they discovered the Texan’s entire supply train of some 80 wagons, including mules, horses, ammunition, provisions, tents, blankets, and medical supplies. The Federals swept down upon the small detachment guarding the train and set about destroying Scurry’s precious supplies. All the wagons were methodically turned over and then set afire. With the wagons now burning, the Federals next performed the grizzly task of killing all the horses and mules, approximately 500 to 600 animals, by bayoneting them.

When Scurry found out what happened to his supplies, all thoughts of completing his victory with a march towards Fort Union disappeared. Instead, with no supplies and the loss of most of his mounts, Scurry was forced to retreat to Santa Fe. When Sibley heard of the battle’s results, he wrote an urgent message to Richmond in which he reported the loss of Scurry’s supplies, saying, “I must have reinforcements. The future operations of this army will be duly reported. Send me reinforcements.”

Scurry and Green’s forces, who had remained in Santa Fe during the battle at Glorieta Pass, returned to Albuquerque on April 9 only to learn that Canby had departed Fort Craig and was now moving north to join Slough. As a result, Sibley was faced with the prospect of being trapped between two enemy forces whose combined strength was greater than his own. That fact, combined with his lack of ammunition and supplies, led him to order not only retreat, but also an evacuation of New Mexico. Sibley addressed another report to Richmond, stating, “In our straightened circumstances the question now arose in my mind whether to evacuate the country or take the desperate chances of fighting the enemy in his stronghold (Fort Union), for scant rations at the best. The course adopted was deemed the wisest.”

On April 12, Sibley’s now demoralized army began a retreat from Albuquerque to Fort Bliss. Just below Albuquerque, they crossed to the west bank of the Rio Grande and made their way south. With the exception of a brief skirmish with Canby’s forces near the river crossing at Peralta, there would be no more fighting. For his part, the always cautious Canby had no further interest in a fight with the Texans and was content to move north, re-securing Albuquerque and Santa Fe.

The retreat of Sibley’s army to Fort Bliss would be an agonizing one. The sandy roads made moving wagons and artillery almost impossible. Further, there was no forage for the draft animals and, as Sibley stated, “the abandonment of one or the other became inevitable.” As they approached Fort Craig once more, Sibley elected to give Fort Craig a wide berth in order to avoid another engagement. His plan called for a circuitous route through the desolate mountains west of Fort Craig, which turned out to be even more difficult than the arduous march had been thus far. Many of the few remaining draft animals died, forcing Sibley’s men to abandon most of their wagons. The column would eventually stretch out for 10 miles, as men were unable to keep up the pace. The army had only a seven-day supply of meager rations when they began the 100-mile detour, and it would take 10 days to make the march around Fort Craig and reach the Rio Grande River south of the Federal garrison.

The day Sibley decided to leave Fort Craig unmolested in his rear, Private Howell wrote that this seemed odd to him, but he would “leave this subject to older and wiser heads to discuss.” Later, however, as the army staggered back to Fort Bliss, Howell was less circumspect regarding Sibley’s strategy, writing, “Gen’l [sic] Sibley’s idea of cutting off the enemy’s supplies was a bright one indeed. We only had about three days rations and the enemy I expect has at least six months rations in the fort.” Later, Howell would be more direct in his criticism, writing of a cold desert night on the march when it had been some 36 hours since they had any food or blankets. On that occasion, Howell laid the blame at Sibley’s feet, citing what he described as “Another instance of our General’s disregard for welfare and comfort.”

About the same time Howell was writing about Sibley’s lack of skill as a strategist, Alfred Peticolas was even harsher, stating that, “Sibley is heartily despised by every man in the brigade for his want of feeling, poor generalship, and cowardice.” Even Noel, who later felt Sibley was wronged by many, said most of his comrades believed the campaign was conceived in “wicked foolishness” and the leaders, especially Sibley, were “deserving of the highest possible censure and condemnation.”

On April 30, Sibley moved his headquarters back to Fort Bliss, placing the army in camp in the Mesilla Valley. On May 14, he issued a proclamation to be read to the troops, telling them that their evacuation would “be duly chronicled, and form one of the brightest pages in the history of the Second American Revolution.” However, despite his somewhat weak attempt to stir his men with this congratulatory address, Sibley realized that he could not sustain his army any longer. On May 20, he ordered Baylor’s command to begin a return march to San Antonio, and, on May 27, he reported to General Bee, the commander of the Western District of Texas, that he was ordering his entire army to evacuate.

The remainder of Sibley’s force straggled out of Fort Bliss and the Mesilla Valley in small groups over the next three weeks. There would be no formal line of march and it was every man for himself. The trip from Fort Bliss to San Antonio was more tortuous than that around Fort Craig. Unlike the cold they endured in New Mexico, the early summer heat of western Texas was now the enemy. The soldiers soon found that many of the already limited water holes were unusable, having been sabotaged by Indians, most likely the Lipan Apache. One of the water holes, Van Horn’s Wells, was even filled with dirt and animal carcasses. The heat and lack of water took a terrible toll, and, soon, the weary soldiers could be seen strung out for miles. Theophilius Noel later wrote that some men simply fell by the roadside to die, their “tongues so swollen that they could not articulate a word, more crazed than rational, they looked like frantic mad men.” He also reported seeing one man so thirsty, that he shot a steer and cut its throat so he could drink the blood.

Stage passengers traveling from El Paso to San Antonio saw many of Sibley’s men and one recalled that they were in wretched condition, “many of them were sick, many ragged, and all hungry.” As a result, news of the plight of Sibley’s Brigade reached San Antonio and soon spread throughout the state. Within days, the soldiers’ families began to descend upon the city, where they filled wagons with water and provisions, and then headed west down the trail to El Paso, anxiously looking for their loved ones. Some would find them and rescue them, while for many others, this would be where they learned that a son, husband, or brother had been lost in the campaign.

In the weeks from early July until late August, the remnants of Sibley’s once proud Army of New Mexico staggered into San Antonio. Of the approximately 3,300 men who made up the army in October 1861, only about 2,000 returned. Approximately half of the command finally reported in and the rest were never seen again, as men simply went directly to their homes. As each unit arrived, it was furloughed and dismissed for purposes of rest and refitting. However, many of the companies were never recalled. Sibley’s New Mexico campaign had ended; much of his army had disappeared; and with it had gone the South’s dream of its own Manifest Destiny.

While the Confederate Army of New Mexico and its men shared many similarities with other units on both sides of the Civil War, it still stands as unique. Few instances can be found where men endured such a harsh environment and were forced to fight both extreme hunger as well as an enemy army. In addition, these travails seem magnified given that the endeavor they were part of was founded upon false assumptions, conducted with poor planning, and led by perhaps the worst man possible for the job. Given that, it is not surprising that the men who recorded their experiences seemed, in the end, to believe the campaign to have been foolhardy and their commanding general an incompetent and even cruel officer. It is little wonder then that, of those who survived, so many went home, never to return for service again.

As a postscript, I will add that in 1987 a work crew excavating the foundation for a new house in Glorieta Pass found a mass grave containing 31 sets of human remains. Archeologists and historians were called in and they determined from the remaining clothing and artifacts that these were Texan casualties from the battle at Glorieta Pass. Only three of the men would be successfully identified. One soldier was identified from an inscription inside his wedding ring, while another was identified because the skeleton showed wounds consistent with those Peticolas described in his diary as having been inflicted upon his good friend, Abe Hanna.

Finally, one other soldier, an officer, was identified because he was so tall and from the fact that he wore a particular set of spurs. Unlike the others, this soldier’s descendants came forward and claimed his body. He was taken back to his birthplace in Valley Forge, Kentucky, and was buried with full military honors in the family cemetery next to his beloved wife and son. John Shropshire had finally come home.

Reap the Fearful Harvest: Sam Houston and the Texas Secession Crisis

Houston-Sam In recent weeks, Texas Governor Rick Perry mentioned the possibility of secession to a partisan crowd at an anti-tax rally in Austin. Upon hearing that, I could not help but recall my graduate research into another Texas governor and another time when Texas’ secession was being discussed. To listen to Governor Perry, one would think we were truly entering a dark and dangerous period in our history. The fallacious creation of a sense of crisis is often the tactic of a desperate politician who seeks attention. They love to tell the public that we face forbidding challenges, untold problems, and that the future is very uncertain. In this case, Perry suggests that the radical move of secession might be the answer.

Of course, the times are not as dark as he suggests. Perry is just another politician who cannot rise beyond his own personal ambitions. He is the sort of man for whom personal success and electoral victory are the sole guiding beacons, not principle, not what is moral, nor even simply right. Unfortunately, we have far too many of his ilk.

However, on occasion in our history, the times have truly been dark and there have been leaders who were willing not merely to stand for what they viewed as right, but who would risk everything its defense. This kind of political and moral courage is, perhaps, all too rare in our recent history, but certain examples from our collective past stand out and deserve to be studied and remembered. One of the most incredible of these examples, and certainly one the most dramatic, was, ironically for Rick Perry, the stand of Sam Houston against the secession of his beloved Texas.

Before I tell you the story of Houston and his fight against secession, I have to insert a personal note. Before I began my research into Houston, I had what was probably a stereotypical view of this famous Texan, assuming him to have been a vain, ambitious, and somewhat unsophisticated populist leader. However, I would find something entirely different. The library I employed for my research had volumes of Houston’s personal papers, including letters, speeches, and various memoranda. These revealed a man who not only had an astute political and legal mind, but who was extremely literate, passionate, and wise. He also possessed a keen insight into the people that, unlike many politicians of his day, extended far beyond Texas. As a result, he foresaw impending disaster, and he did his utmost to warn his countrymen of what was coming should they follow the path of secession. Now, let me tell you Houston’s story.sam-houston-painting

Texas fight for independence from Mexico was legendary in its own right, and Houston played a key role in that conflict. Later, in 1845, as president of the young Republic of Texas, he would guide her into union with the United States. Texans were naturally proud their accomplishments, and of their statehood. Not surprisingly, Unionist sentiments were strong in Texas during the 1850s and the process required to mute those feelings and allow secession from the Union in 1861, what Houston referred to as “stilling the voice of reason,” was a painful one, marked by violence and political upheaval.

In late 1860, as the secession crisis began to cast its growing shadow across the United States, Texas stood out as a distinctive and somewhat unlikely member of the new Confederate nation. Its recent history as an independent republic along with its climate, economy, population, and internal politics, all set it apart from the rest of the South. Unlike much of the Lower South, which would lead the secession process, Texas was a land of tremendous diversity, with a vast, isolated, and uncivilized frontier region. To be certain, Texas had seen remarkable changes in the years since its revolution against Mexico in 1836. Cities had sprung up where there was once nothing more than isolated villages, plantations and farms had overtaken empty prairie land, and even railroads had begun to appear. However, it was also still a rugged and untamed place that one young diarist would later call “the dark corner of the Confederacy.”

At the same time, however, Texas had become increasingly tied to the Lower South and to the cotton-based economy driven by black slavery. Cotton, those who emigrated from the Lower South to grow it, and the black slaves who harvested it, became an increasingly powerful part of the Texas economic and political landscape in the decade prior to the Civil War. But, despite the growing power and influence of cotton and the Lower South, and, again, unlike much of the South, Texas politics remained diverse and contentious, with a strong two-party character. As the secession crisis approached, the political distinctions among Texans centered primarily on the Union and Texas’ place in it.

Texas had grown rapidly since joining the Union, with a huge influx of immigrants from the Lower South, the Upper South, and a few Northern states, as well as from Europe. In fact, by 1860 10 percent of the population would be of foreign birth, with the majority of those from Germany. These various immigrant groups began to cluster in certain areas and, as a result, the state could be divided into different regions, where each reflected a dominant immigrant group as well as clear economic, cultural, and political distinctions. North Texas and West Texas consisted a band of counties that bordered the Red River, next to the Indian Territory that would become Oklahoma, and then stretched south into the Hill Country region. These areas of the state were inhabited primarily by immigrants from the Upper South, with some large concentrations of German communities. In this region, the farms were small, grew mostly wheat and corn, and slaves were almost nonexistent. These farms were also primarily subsistence in nature since there were no nearby markets and no adequate transportation system to get crops to the distant cities of the state.

The isolated settlements and farms of North and West Texas were constantly under the threat of attack from marauding Comanche, who controlled virtually all the land west of the Pecos and Concho Rivers, as well as the Kiowa and Lipan-Apaches. As a result, the United States government, in the form of the U.S. Army, played an important role in the lives of these Texans. Thus, the U.S. Army, which symbolized the Union to these Texans, became a crucial part of survival, and, therefore, the Union was not simply an abstract concept to the people of these regions.

South Texas, meanwhile, was even more isolated than the North and West Texas regions. Here, ranches with livestock were more prevalent than farms and, with the exception of the city of San Antonio, the area was a made up of isolated villages inhabited primarily by Mexican Texans, referred to as Tejanos. Most residents were very poor and illiterate, and the counties were often politically dominated by a single Tejano family. Thus, here, there was little sense of attachment to the Union, and less interest in the emerging sectional issues of the time.

It was the eastern region of Texas, however, that had become the economic powerhouse of the state. Here, the area was dominated by those from the Lower South and it was here that the plantation economy had taken root. The vision of economic prowess this region generated was so powerful that those who were not from the Lower South still wanted to emulate its success. In fact, even those Texans who did not live in East Texas came to see the future of the state in terms of East Texas’ economic success.

Still, despite economic growth in East Texas, as the secession crisis approached, only one Texas family in four owned slaves. However, those who did dominated the Texas economic, political, and social structures. These families owned 73 percent of the state’s real property, 71 percent of all improved acreage, and over 60 percent of all livestock. Yet, the real power of these slaveholders was felt in politics—some 70 percent of the state’s political leadership in 1860 were slaveholders.

Perhaps the most important way in which Texas differed from the rest of the South, especially the Lower South, was in its politics. During the 1850s, the Democratic Party was virtually the only political party in most of the Southern states. Nevertheless, in Texas, there had been a viable two-party system ever since the state had entered the Union. One of those parties was always the Democratic Party, but the competing party’s identity changed during the 1850s. At first, the Whig Party was the opponent to the Democrats and it was moderately successful. Its platform of stability, economic growth, and adherence to traditional American and Protestant values was popular with prosperous planters, merchants, and the growing professional class. However, by 1854, it was rapidly dying in Texas because it had opposed the Mexican War and Texan border claims in New Mexico. However, its biggest failing in the eyes of Texan voters was its perceived identification on the national level with abolitionism.

With the death of the Whig Party, there still was a persistent ideological vacuum to be filled in Texas, and that vacuum was over the issue of nationalism, of support for the Union. As the 1850s progressed, many Texans came to see the Democratic Party as increasingly radical on the issue of secession. Former Whigs and Democrats who were Unionists needed another party and Sam Houston would rise to fill that void.

Throughout the 1850s and, indeed, through the entire secession crisis to follow, Texas politics revolved around a single constant figure—Sam Houston. Houston was described by one historian as “hard, brave, stubborn, proud, and canny…an intensely ethical and honorable man.” Even the Democratic Party in Texas, which was described as being more a party of personalities than issues, revolved around pro-Houston and anti-Houston factions. Houston truly was a giant of the times, and a man of deeply felt principles. In 1854, he outraged Democrats while serving in the U.S. Senate by voting against the Kansas-Nebraska Act, for which he was openly described as a traitor to the South. Houston believed strongly in the principle of the Union, and the destiny of the American nation. He believed the Kansas-Nebraska Act was a product of Southern sectionalists and would demand a Northern response. He argued the eventual result would be bloodshed in Kansas and the possibility of secession and sectional violence. When the bill passed, Houston stood on the Senate floor and said, “Mark me, the day that produces a dissolution of this Confederacy will be written in the blood of humanity. All that is horror in war will characterize the future of the people. Preserve the Union and you preserve liberty. They are one and the same, indivisible and perfect.”

Houston’s vote on the Kansas-Nebraska Act and his fervent fight against sectionalism resulted in a major effort to purge him from the Democratic Party in Texas. The Democrats, who had previously been somewhat unorganized in Texas, instituted a strong central state organization during 1856, complete with a convention system. Using the newfound power of this organization, the Democratic Party ousted Houston from its ranks and had him removed from his Senate seat in 1857. But, these moves backfired on the Democrats and resulted in the creation of yet another opposition party.

Many Texas Democrats were angered by the new organized convention system employed by the party, viewing it as confining and believing it was putting too much power to determine candidates for office in the hands of a few. However, more importantly, many Democrats were even more disturbed by the party’s increasingly shrill position on national issues, specifically their position on maintaining the Union. Ardent Texas Unionists wanted a new party and a new leader-Sam Houston gave them both. Backed by powerful, influential former Whigs and Democrats, Houston formed a new opposition party, styled as the Union Democrats. They created a slate of candidates for statewide and local offices and opposed the Democrats with ferocity in 1859’s state elections.

Houston, now 66 years old, waged a campaign that would become famous in the annals of state politics. He attacked the incumbent governor, Democrat Hardin Runnels, on his failed frontier defense policies, the Democrats’ convention system, and their support for reopening the slave trade. Houston staged a highly personal campaign, aptly termed as “rip-roaring” by Texas historian, T.R. Fehrenbach: “He traveled the state in a buggy, wore an old duster, orated on hot days without a shirt, slept in great plantation houses and farmer’s dog-run shacks. Everywhere he went, he raised cheers, cheers for Houston the hero, Houston the man.” The approach worked and Texans rallied to their former president and his emotional pleas for the maintenance of the national union. In a stunning and brilliant victory in the elections of August 1859, Houston was elected as governor and a fellow Union Democrat, Andrew Jackson Hamilton, was elected to one of the state’s two congressional seats.

Houston’s inaugural address would have a telling passage on sectionalism and the Union. He reminded the audience that, when Texas became a state, “she entered, not into the North, nor into the South, but into the Union. When our rights are aggressed upon, let us be behind none in repelling the attacks; but let us be careful to distinguish between the acts of individuals and those of a people—between the wild ravings of fanatics and the public sentiment which truly represents the masses of a State.”

The acts Houston referred to were those of John Brown in Harpers Ferry, Virginia, and, closer to home, Juan Cortina in Brownsville, Texas. Brown’s raid and the subsequent statements of support by Northern abolitionists had outraged Texans, making them fearful of slave insurrection. Cortina, meanwhile, was a Mexican bandit with a grudge against local officials in Brownsville. In September 1859, he rode into the city with his men, shot four citizens down in the streets, opened the city jails, and raised the Mexican flag over the city. He held the city for two months and it finally took a concerted effort by Texas Rangers and U.S. Army troops to drive him back into Mexico. While the raid by Cortina was totally unrelated to Brown’s acts, the militant secessionists in the state began to say that his acts were also inspired by abolitionists. These incidents were accompanied by a sudden increase in the intensity of Indian raids along the frontier and, as the crucial year of 1860 began, there was an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty in the state.

With the stage set, the last half of 1860 and the first months of 1861 would see momentous and tragic events that would move Texas toward eventual secession. But, the process of secession did not occur easily nor did it ever occur completely in the minds of some Texans. While there was a small minority of ardent, passionate secessionists, most Texans perceived the value of the Union, and only came to endorse secession only after Lincoln’s election. In fact, some would never abandon the Union. But, just as important, none of these groups truly believed secession would lead to war. One of Houston’s most ardent supporters and a man of loyalty to both his state and the Union, James W. Throckmorton, said after the Civil War, “There were few people who felt that they were going to war because of oppressing wrong, or outrage. There was not one in a thousand who felt that sufficient cause existed demanding of him his life, his all.”

Throughout the months of the crisis, Sam Houston was a dominant and central force—strong, unwavering, and stubbornly loyal to both the Union and his state. He would always maintain that, even after Lincoln’s election, there was no reason for Texas to leave the Union, urging Texans to ignore the radicals and let the constitutional system redress any wrongs that might be done. In the weeks before Lincoln’s election, he was already pushing the people to wait to see if injustice would truly be done by a Republican administration and, even then, to let the system work. In August 1860, he wrote to a political acquaintance in Alabama:

“For every wrong which the South complains, there is to be found in the Magna Carta of our rights a constitutional remedy…With proper regard to these administrations can the conservative masses of the Country be expected to follow in the lead of demagogues, who, unmindful of the teachings of the past, and deaf to the pleading appeals of the future, would fire the mind of disunion, and immolate upon the alter of a worse than maddened fanaticism the very spirit of liberty.”

However, Houston would discover that, given the tense atmosphere in Texas, the spark that fanaticism needed could spring from unlikely sources, even the weather. In July 1860, as the presidential campaigns began, the temperatures in North Texas soared to over 100 degrees and there had been no rain for months. As a result, wooden buildings became dangerously dry timber boxes and a series of serious fires broke out in several North Texas towns. Regardless of reality, what should have been a tragic event caused by nature was portrayed as an abolitionist conspiracy that became known as the Texas Troubles. The state’s secessionist press built these fires into stories of slave uprisings, murder, rape, poisoned wells, and attempted assassinations. Despite the fact that there were few slaves in the region, hysteria still spread rapidly. Vigilante committees were formed in Dallas, Denton, and other North Texas cities; arrests of suspects, both black and white, were made without basis in fact; and over 50 people were lynched. While the violence was confined to North Texas, the secessionist press made sure that fear was spread throughout the state.

Realizing how this hysteria might effect the coming presidential elections, Houston responded by, first, creating a political movement designed to place men from Texas in the electoral college who would vote for any candidate that might beat Lincoln. Second, he initiated a campaign that urged patience and reason. On September 22, 1860, at a mass meeting sponsored by the Union Club of Austin, Houston gave an impassioned address that laid the basis for that campaign. In perhaps the most eloquent oration of his political career, Houston delivered what was essentially his valedictory address.

Houston’s speech and his anti-secession platform centered around five critical themes. First, he reminded the audience of the blessings of the Union, and that the Founding Fathers had created a Union and Constitution intended to “strengthen all, to bind all together, yet leave all free.” He asked his listeners to show him the evidence that this was in vain, and pointed out that the nation had grown strong, had become an empire in its own right, and, still, the rights of the individual had been maintained. Next, Houston urged a sense of nationalism over sectionalism. He told the crowd he did not come “…to speak in behalf of a united South against Lincoln. I appeal to the nation. I ask not the defeat of sectionalism by sectionalism, but by nationality.” Because the secessionist forces argued that secession could take place peacefully, without threat of war, he pointed out that a united South would create a united North, and that anyone who believed there would be no strife or violence was foolhardy. He said that, “Strife begets strife, threat begets threat, and taunt begets taunt, and these disunionists know it.”

Then, Houston urged a faith and belief in the Constitution as a protective shield, as a guarantor of their rights. He told them that, should Lincoln be elected, it was no cause to abandon the Union. “The Union is worth more than Mr. Lincoln, and if a battle is to be fought for the Constitution, let us fight it in the Union and for the sake of the Union,” he argued. “If Mr. Lincoln administers the Government in accordance with the Constitution, our rights must be respected. If he does not, the Constitution has provided a remedy.” The other distinction Houston drew between his position on constitutionalism and his opponents’ was that, while secessionists professed to be defending the Constitution, they were doing quite the opposite. He said, “Here is a constitutional party that intends to violate the Constitution because a man is constitutionally elected President. Here is a constitutional party that proclaims it treasonable for a man to uphold the constitution.”

Houston then went further in his characterization of the secessionists by proclaiming them a dangerously corrupt group, who would make themselves the aristocratic and dictatorial rulers of the state. Houston reached back to his populist, Jacksonian roots, warning the people of these anti-republican designs.

“I warn the people to look well to the future. Among the unsatisfied and corrupt politicians of the day, are many who long for title and power. There are wealthy knaves who are tired of our simple republican manners; and they have pliant tools to work upon the forum and with the pen. So, long as the Union lasts, the masses need not fear them—when it falls, aristocracy will rear its head.”

In the end, however, Houston’s strategy would fail. Texans voted overwhelmingly for John Breckinridge and, across the nation, the Democrats split, resulting in Lincoln’s election. Houston called for calm following the election and, in late November, he sent a joint resolution of the Texas Legislature to all Southern governors calling for them to all sit down as statesmen and resolve their differences amicably. However, his calls went unheeded and, as South Carolina seceded in December, the voices asking for similar action in Texas became stronger and louder, calling for a convention to formally consider the issue of secession.

Houston responded stating that, as governor, it was his duty to uphold the Constitution and, therefore, he could not convene the legislature for the purpose of starting a revolution. Several members of the legislature then petitioned Houston to convene the legislature but, when he did not respond, they called for a convention independent of the governor. This idea for an undoubtedly illegal convention matched the vigilante thinking the times seemed to be creating. Hoping to stave off more such lawless behavior, Houston finally relented and called for a special session of the legislature to meet on January 21, 1861. Its purpose would be to consider Texas’ relationship to the Federal government. However, in his proclamation, Houston stipulated that this special session should have only that purpose and that any action affecting Texas status in the Union must be put to the people for their vote via a popular referendum.

As the legislative session and convention dates approached, Houston became more agitated and concerned. He feared a mob mentality would result from the convention and, on the eve of the legislative session, he wrote General Twiggs, commander of the U.S. Army’s Department of Texas, warning him to be on guard lest secessionist forces try to seize the forts in the state as well as the arsenal in San Antonio. He dispatched his militia commander, General Smith, to see Twiggs and assure him that the state would help defend any threatened Federal property. In addition, Houston began to become more fatalistic and his view of the future became darkly prophetic. In the days before the legislative session, secessionists dispatched an old Houston comrade, John Reagan, to visit with Houston and try to secure his cooperation with the upcoming convention. Reagan called upon the governor but Houston was adamant in his opposition. Then, he looked Reagan in the eye and told him, “The people are going to war on the question of slavery, and the firing of the first gun will sound the death knell of slavery.” When Reagan countered that the mercantile interests of the North would insure no such war would occur, Houston told him pointedly that the passions against slavery and disunion in the North would overwhelm any such financial interests.

On January 21, the legislature convened as scheduled, quickly endorsed the Secession Convention, and offered the House chambers for its use. However, they also agreed with Houston on the issue of a popular referendum and stated so in the joint resolution. Houston would eventually approve the resolution, but specified that the convention could assume no powers beyond that delegated by the people and the legislature—it could only vote on the issue of secession and nothing more.

The Secession Convention met the following week and its sessions would be characterized by high drama. By the end of the second day, a draft ordinance of secession was hammered out which accused the Federal Government of failing to defend the frontier, and of being a threat to the property and interests of Texans, rather than a shield against such aggressions. It dissolved the ordinance by which Texas became a state and declared it to, once again, be a sovereign nation. The ordinance further stated that a referendum on secession would be placed before the people on February 23, 1861 and that, if approved, it would take effect on March 2, 1861—the 25th anniversary of Texas independence from Mexico and Sam Houston’s birthday. The convention delegates chose to put the ordinance to a vote of the delegates on February 1, 1861.

At midday on the day of the vote, the House galleries were full and, after Houston took his seat to observe the voting, the delegates were seated and the polling began. The final vote was in favor of the ordinance by a staggering 166-8. Of the eight men who voted to remain in the Union, seven were from North Texas and six were slaveholders. As the convention erupted in wild applause at the final outcome, Houston quietly left the chambers and the eight men who voted “no” slipped outside. They would pose standing together to have their photograph taken. It would be 66 years before the photograph would be printed or publicly displayed in Texas. For his part, Houston would issue a letter to the convention stating that “when the voice of the people of Texas has been declared through the ballot box, no citizen will be more ready to yield obedience to its will, or to risk his all in its defense, than myself. Their fate is my fate, their fortune is my fortune, their destiny is my destiny, be it prosperity or gloom, as of old, I am with my country.”

The convention then began to finish its business but, in doing so, it set the stage for further controversy. First, it was proposed that delegates be dispatched to the convention being held in Montgomery, Alabama, for the purpose of forming a Southern Confederacy. The debate over this proposal raged for two days with some delegates arguing that such appointments were outside the scope of their authority and that; further, it would be inappropriate to send these representatives prior to the popular referendum. In the end, however, those who favored the proposal were victorious.

HrptwiggsC The convention also decided to authorize its self-appointed Committee on Public Safety to remain in operation. The committee was instructed to provide for the defense of the state, which some delegates and Governor Houston saw as another usurpation of power. Despite the fact that the referendum was still weeks away, the committee decided on its own to begin seizing Federal property in the state. They sent a three-member commission to see General Twiggs in San Antonio and negotiate a peaceful surrender. Twiggs, who was a Georgian and a state rights sympathizer, had been asking Washington for instructions but had yet to receive any. Now confronted with this request, he agreed to surrender all supplies and property in exchange for an honorable withdrawal of his troops, but only after the secession ordinance had been ratified by the referendum. While negotiations continued, the commission decided to act and, on February 16, Ben McCullogh, a famed Texas Ranger and Mexican War hero, arrived in San Antonio with 1,000 men and seized all Federal property in the city. Twiggs felt he had no choice but to surrender his forces and order the transfer of all U.S. Army supplies and property in Texas to the representatives of the committee.

Despite Houston’s calls to the people to be prudent, reasonable, and conservative, it was too little and too late to stem the tide. When the votes were counted on February 23, the secession ordinance won, gaining over 62 percent of the popular vote. Only 18 counties voted against the ordinance and in only eleven others was there a vote of over 40 percent against secession. Not surprisingly, the only counties opposing secession were clustered along the Red River in North Texas and in the Hill Country of West Texas. Unionism in Texas had been mortally wounded, injured by fears of slave uprisings, Black Republicanism, and a loss of faith in the value of the Union as a protective force against instability.

The Secession Convention reconvened to canvas the vote, and, once the count was complete, Governor Houston issued a proclamation that, as of March 2, 1861, Texas was once again “a Sovereign and independent State.” Houston was as good as his word—the people had chosen the path of secession and he would go with them. However, in Houston’s mind, Texas would now simply reclaim its position as an independent republic and return to the status it had held from 1836 to 1845. Up to this point, with the exception of the seizing of Federal property, there had been a remarkable and calm adherence to proper procedure and the rule of law. However, as soon as the referendum was complete, this rapidly changed.

The Secession Convention now took matters into its own hand and exceeded the authority given it by the legislature and stipulated to by Houston when he approved the legislature’s joint resolution. Rather than concluding its business following Houston’s proclamation, the convention remained in session and, on March 5; it adopted an ordinance uniting Texas with the Confederate States of America by a vote of 109 to 2. Houston promptly informed the convention that this was beyond their jurisdiction, that their vote was not binding, and that they were to adjourn immediately. He told them he would refer the matter of joining the Southern Confederacy to the legislature, which would reconvene on March 18. The convention delegates responded by refusing to adjourn and voting unanimously that they had the power to do whatever was necessary to defend the state and complete its union with the Confederate States of America. To that end, on March 14, they adopted an ordinance requiring all state officers to take an oath of allegiance to the new Confederate constitution before Monday, March 18, 1861.

Houston was outraged. He stated that the convention was not only acting beyond its charter, but was also making Texas “subject to a Government which her people had had no share in making, and a Constitution which few of them had ever seen.” The situation was made all the worse when Houston received a dispatch from the newly appointed Confederate Secretary of War, Leroy Pope Walker, informing Houston that the Confederate government “assumes control of all Military Operations in This State.” Houston responded, telling Walker to inform President Davis that Houston did not recognize his authority or the actions of the Secession Convention. Further, he would only uphold those actions agreed to by the people of Texas, and that he would pursue no course “annexing them to a new Government without their knowledge or consent.”

Despite his strong legal and moral position, Houston could not stop the convention from continuing to take Texas into the Southern Confederacy. On March 15, the members of the convention and all the state officers, except Houston and his Secretary of State, E. W. Cave, took the new oath of allegiance. On the evening of March 15, the convention dispatched George Chilton of the Committee of Public Safety to see Governor Houston. Houston received Chilton at the governor’s mansion, and listened politely and calmly to the convention’s message. They decreed that Houston was to appear before the convention the next day at noon and take the oath of allegiance.

Chilton left and Houston said good night to his wife and their children. Throughout the long night, they could hear him pacing the floors outside their bedrooms. He remained awake all night, praying, looking for an answer. In the end, he simply could not bend to consensus and abandoned his principles. He sat at his desk, wrote a letter to the people of Texas and then, as the morning arrived, he told his wife, Margaret, “I can never do it.”

He walked to the Capitol building where a large crowd had gathered to see what Houston would do. Houston went up the stairs to his office, set the letter he had written on his desk, and sat down to whittle on a block of wood. Downstairs in the House chamber, the convention members reconvened and at precisely noon, the secretary called out Houston’s name three times. However, Sam Houston did not come down from his office to take the oath. The convention immediately passed an ordinance declaring the governor’s office vacant and appointing Lieutenant Governor Edward Clark to the position.

Houston’s friends suggested to him that there were men willing to use armed force to keep him in office, but the governor declined. In addition, President Lincoln offered twice in March 1861 to use Federal troops to keep Houston in office. The first offer was delivered by Colonel Frederick West Lander, who reported that Houston refused any such assistance. Next, Lincoln sent another agent to see Houston with a letter that proposed sending 70,000 troops to Texas and, reportedly, offered to give Houston a generalship. Houston called Throckmorton and three other close friends to the library of the governor’s mansion to discuss Lincoln’s latest offer. Only one of the group voted in favor of it. Houston concurred with the majority, but said that, had he been 20 years younger, he would have indeed fought to keep Texas in the Union. On March 30, 1861, Houston left the governor’s mansion and returned to his home in East Texas. BE062126

While returning home from Austin, Sam Houston would give the final public speech of his political career. Urged by old friends to say a few words to an, at times, angry crowd in Brenham, Texas, Houston told his audience, “The die has been cast by your secession leaders, whom you have permitted to sow and broadcast the seeds of secession, and you must ere long reap the fearful harvest of conspiracy and revolution.” Of all Houston’s prophetic forecasts, this one would be the truest of all. In his mind, the interests of the Confederate States of America and Texas were not one in the same. He could see the bloody war that was coming and he feared for his state and its people.

Sam Houston’s leadership is a bright light in this dark period of America’s history. In a time of great peril, he displayed boundless courage, dedication to the Union, strength of conviction, and, above all, a remarkable sense of personal integrity. Despite his love for the Union, when the people of Texas spoke their mind via a popular referendum, he was prepared to lead them out of that Union. Had Texas elected to remain an independent state, he would surely have remained at its head so long as he was able to do so. Nevertheless, when the Succession Convention turned the state towards the Confederacy without the consent of the people or their constitutionally elected legislature, Houston could not follow. He would sacrifice almost everything to remain true to his believes. In July 1863, Sam Houston died at his mansion in Huntsville, and would never see his beloved Texas once again in the Union.

The recent events in Austin are an insult to the legacy of a truly great American and legendary Texan. Rick Perry should be ashamed.