Episodes

  • Episode 57 – The Civil War starts and Texans Start Killing Each Other

    Episode 57 – The Civil War starts and Texans Start Killing Each Other
    Dec 18 2024
    Welcome to Episode 57 – The Civil War starts and Texans Start Killing Each Other In the previous episode I talked about the path to secession. How Texas called a convention to consider the issue and how, even though some resisted the whole idea, it still went through. In fact, President Lincoln did tell then Governor Sam Houston that if he wanted to resist the convention, then Lincoln would be willing to send in Federal troops. However, Houston rejected that idea because he did not want to turn what was already a tense situation into an outright violent conflict among Texas citizens. Remember that during the convention, the Civil War Committees of Public Safety was formed. Even though secession had not formerly been approved by the rest of the citizens, the committee started to negotiate with Maj. Gen. David E. Twiggs, who was the commander of United States troops stationed in Texas. Twiggs, originally from Georgia was in poor health and at the end of his career. On the morning of February 16, Benjamin McCulloch, a veteran Texas Ranger and Mexican War hero, led a force of about 500 volunteers into San Antonio. Once there, they surrounded the garrison at their headquarters and demanded Twiggs surrender. Twiggs did not put up any resistance and readily agreed to the surrender of all federal property in Texas. He also agreed to evacuate all 2,700 Union troops that were stationed in the various frontier forts. This resulted in Camp Charlotte, Camp Colorado, Camp Cooper, Camp Davis, Camp Del Rio, Camp Montel, Camp San Saba, and Camp Verde all becoming forts for Texas Confederates. It's important to remember that even though a significant majority of Texans approved of the efforts of Texas politicians to support and join the Confederacy there were Texans who were loyal to the Union. After all, more than 14,000 Texans voted against secession. Who were those opposed? Members of various political parties including the Whigs, Know-Nothings, Democrats, and others all maintained some degree of support for the Union. Texas had also seen a very steady stream of German immigrants and from those who originated in the northern (or free) states. These were people who were inclined to support the union. In fact, as 1860 came to a close German immigrants who lived in the Fredericksburg and New Braunfels areas formed the Union Loyalty League. To become a member a person had to swear loyalty to the United States, of course, over the next several years members of the league faced violent reprisals from Confederate sympathizers. In 1862 then Governor Lubbock declared martial law for several counties in the Hill Country (which is where this program originates from and where my ancestors settled) and the confederate legislature passed the Confederate Conscription Act that specifically targeted German Unionists. These actions had the effect of increasing desertions and draft dodging as people did their best to get out of the confederate army. While some German immigrants from the Austin County region did join up and helped to form three companies of Waul’s Texas Legion, once they were captured at the battle of Vicksburg, they quickly took the oath of allegiance to the United States. However, certain of the early Texas Union supporters such as James W. Throckmorton (I spoke about him in the previous episode), and Ben H. Epperson, who was once one of the leaders of those in East Texas who opposed secession, did in fact accept and endorse the Confederacy after Fort Sumter. Others, such as David G. Burnet, E. M. Pease, and Sam Houston, rather than stay in the public eye, withdrew from public life and did their best to avoid controversy. Some of those opposed to secession either left the state or tried to leave. There were some, such as S. M. Swenson, the man who led or started the immigration of Swedes to Texas and William Marsh Rice, who came to Texas from Massachusetts and who made a fortune in the mercantile busi...
    Show more Show less
    11 mins
  • Episode 56 – Texas Votes and It’s War (Audio Version)

    Episode 56 – Texas Votes and It’s War (Audio Version)
    Dec 9 2024
    Episode 56 - Texas Votes and it’s War Remember from the last episode that those who wanted to leave the union forced the state to call a special convention. In that election the separatists pushed through their agenda and quite frankly ignored any semblance of legitimacy. The procedures they followed were not even remotely close to having any type of standards. Many delegates were elected by a simple voice vote at a public meeting, and since there was so much fervor for secession, those who supported the union often didn’t even attend. The delegates they selected were much like the folks around them. They averaged 40 years old, and virtually every one of them had originated from one of the states in the south where slavery was accepted. Some of them had more money than most Texans, but you can’t say the extremely wealthy dominated things. However, about 40 percent of them were lawyers and about 70 percent of them were slaveholders. The convention opened on Monday afternoon, January 28, and the presiding officer offered these words, "All political power is inherent in the people. That power, I assert, you now represent." The next day, January 29 John A. Wharton made a motion "that without determining now the manner in which this result should be effected, it is the deliberate sense of this Convention that the State of Texas should separately secede." His motion was seconded by George M. Flournoy, and needless to say it passed 152 to 6. Over the next 2 days, the delegates wrote out the formal ordinance of secession, which called for a popular vote. This was different from the lower southern states, who simply passed a resolution and declared they had seceded. Of course, there was opposition to having a popular vote, but that motion was easily defeated, 145 to 29. Since Texans had held a referendum before they joined the union, most of the delegates insisted that the same procedure should be followed if they were to leave the union. Because he knew the significance of what was taking place Governor Houston and other members of the legislature asked for a referendum. They believed that a popular vote would end all doubt and questions over the legality of secession. The final vote was taken in the morning of February 1st. It was a roll-call vote taken in alphabetical order. The final vote was 166 for secession and 8 against. One of the first steps the convention took after the vote was to form the Civil War Committees of Public Safety. They also sent delegates to Montgomery, Alabama, who took part in officially establishing the Confederate States of America. On February 4th, they adjourned. Before the popular vote took place, the Committee on Public Safety, using power it had been given by the convention authorized the seizure of all federal property in Texas. This included the arsenal at San Antonio, which would later become the headquarters for the H.E.B. grocery chain and that sits on the bank of the San Antonio River. This order resulted in the evacuation of almost 3,000 federal troops from Texas. These actions essentially made the secession referendum itself an afterthought. However, there were some people and counties in the state that did not consider the referendum to be insignificant. Those opposed to secession were primarily situated along the northern border of the state and in the counties that surrounded Austin. Some leaders such as Throckmorton and Benjamin H. Epperson in North Texas and Elisha M. Pease, Svante Palm, and George Paschal of Austin led the local fights against secession. Sam Houston continued to question whether it was necessity or wise to leave the Union. Federal United States representative Andrew J. Hamilton, who was also a resident of Austin, campaigned against secession. What were some of the common features of those opposed to secession? The areas it was most prominent in were culturally, geographically, and economically unlike the lower South.
    Show more Show less
    9 mins
  • Texas Argues About Secession

    Texas Argues About Secession
    Nov 30 2024
    In any discussion of Texas history, we have to understand how and why Texas Argued for Secession. So, it’s about time to talk about the one subject that is almost guaranteed to make someone, somewhere angry. Somone will absolutely tell me I’m wrong, or that I’m some kind of fanatic. What is the subject? Today the subject is what were the reasons Texas joined the Southern states to secede from the Union In 1861 the southern cotton-growing and slaveholding states decided to leave the union and to form the Confederate States of America. Texas was the seventh state to secede and the last to officially leave before the rebels opened fire on Fort Sumter. Let me start with reading from the official “DECLARATION OF CAUSES” put forth by the Texas state government on February 2, 1861 "A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union. In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.” We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States.” Those are the official words put forth, but what caused them to put slavery ahead of their previous oath to the union? When Republican Abraham Lincoln was elected president, the slaveholding states, feared that the executive branch would threaten their rights to own slaves. As an ancillary thought, they also did believe that if the federal government would outlaw slavery that meant they might also infringe on other rights. Some Texans were slow to accept secession, however, or never accepted it. They did not simply react to the election of Lincoln and emulate South Carolina. Indeed, the timing of the secession of Texas and the motivation behind it are of continued interest because they open up a series of questions about the nature of the Texas economy, the population, political parties, local needs, the role of such Unionists as Sam Houston, and the effects of public pressure to conform. Regardless, a common thread running through all of these questions is the role of slavery. As I have mentioned in previous episodes, in the 1850s, there were many Texans who were absolutely convinced that the institution of slavery was not only important, but it was also vital to keep the Texas economy going. It had become such an important part of the Texas economy that in the 15 years after Texas became a state, by 1860 approximately 30 percent of the total population were slaves. However, slaves were not dispersed equally throughout the state. In fact, the vast majority of them were concentrated in and along the rivers in East Texas and along the Gulf Coast near Houston and Galveston. The primary reason for this was something we mentioned in an earlier episode, they had easier access to markets. That concentration of slaves in a narrow geographic region, while economically powerful, meant that other parts of Texas had economies that depended upon livestock,
    Show more Show less
    14 mins
  • Episode 54 – Antebellum Texas – Ready To Secede

    Episode 54 – Antebellum Texas – Ready To Secede
    Nov 16 2024
    This is Episode 54 - Antebellum Texas - Ready to Secede. – the state and stage is set for secession. We are getting closer to Civil War. In the previous episode I discussed how important slaves and slavery was to the economic engine of Texas during the antebellum period. However, it is interesting to note that the majority of Texans did not own slaves and had no participation in the cotton or cash-crop industries. It’s estimated that about only one in four families actually had even a single slave and most had fewer than five. The planters who owned more than ten slaves actually held over half of all those people that were held in bondage in the state. A percentage of these people also made large profits from their investments in land, labor, and cotton and they played a major role in driving the Texas economy. Antebellum Texas gave birth to what would become agricultural Texas. Agriculture began to develop quickly and steadily with an ever-increasing number of farms being established. Those farmers worked hard to expand the land that was tillable, which in turn helped to increase the value of their livestock and the total yield of their crops. Of course, slave labor was an important asset and contributor to that economic growth. Unfortunately, during this same time period, industry, finance, and urban growth stagnated. During the decade of the 1850s approximately 1 percent of the heads of households in Texas worked in manufacturing. In 1860, Texas industries produced a meager 6.5 million dollars’ worth of goods, as opposed to the northern state of Wisconsin which produced close to 28 million dollars’ worth of manufactured goods. Due to the Texas constitutional prohibition on banking, the finance or commerce industry also lagged behind other states and less than 5 percent of the citizens worked in it. Due to the limitations on industry and commerce, the urban areas of Texas were sparsely populated and in 1860 only San Antonio, Galveston, Houston, and Austin could actually be considered cities. Their combined populations of about 23,000 was less than Milwaukee’s. When we look at antebellum Texas and wonder why there was a failure to create a more diversified economy we find several valid reasons. Geography is one, Texas has a great climate and in both Central and East Texas the soil is very suitable for crop production. The continued reliance on slaves also served to slow down the growth of any type of manufacturing, since plantation production was much more profitable due to lower labor costs. With the plantations being profitable there was no real incentive to expand outside of agriculture. Because the plantation owners were some of the richest most powerful people in Texas, they would have had to lead Texas in any move to diversify the economy. They could see no possible return on their investment that would make them more money than their current system, so they made no effort to change. The one part of the Texas experience the plantation owners did have a vested interest in seeing improved was transportation. The early settlers of Texas had always used the rivers as their primary transportation routes. While the rivers could be an excellent way to travel during most of the year, heavy rains, or the opposite drought and low levels which helped to expose sand bars, made the rivers very unreliable. The roads, which were nothing but dirt trails turned into massive mud pits during the rainy season, (even now they still become that way in some parts of Texas) and so wagon transportation was slow and cumbersome. In fact, I was often told of how my great-grandfather William Ollie Wilson who was born in 1860 and drove a freight wagon in the 1880s, would normally make the trip from Johnson City Texas to Marble Falls Texas in about 3 days, yet in the rainy season it could easily take him more than a week to cover the same 23 miles. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).
    Show more Show less
    21 mins
  • Episode 53 – Antebellum Texas – Headed To Civil War Part 1

    Episode 53 – Antebellum Texas – Headed To Civil War Part 1
    Nov 12 2024
    Episode 53 - Antebellum Texas – Headed To Civil War Part 1 We call it the antebellum period in American History, but exactly what is that? The Antebellum Period in American history refers to the time leading up to the Civil War, specifically from the late18th century through 1861. The term "antebellum" means "before the war" in Latin, and it is often associated with the Southern United States. This era was marked by significant economic, social, and political changes, particularly in relation to slavery and the expansion of the U.S. territory. Some of the main or key features that help us to recognize the Antebellum Period are: Slavery and Tensions: I’ve talked about this issue and how prevalent slavery became in the state of Texas. How it served as an economic engine for Texas. The increase in slaves and slavery led to intense moral, economic, and political conflicts between the Northern and Southern states. One of the primary reasons for this tension was the North had begun moving toward industrialization and abolitionist movements were gaining strength. Westward Expansion: Remember I talked about manifest destiny and the role that played as the nation acquired vast new territory in the West. As a result, there were conflicts over whether new states should permit slavery, further heightening regional tensions. Economic Development: This was a big driving force and source of tension. The North and South developed distinct economies, the North focused on industry and urbanization while the South remained largely agricultural, relying on cotton production and slave labor. Social Reform Movements: The period saw the rise of various social reform movements, including abolitionism, women’s rights, temperance, and educational reform. Key figures like Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, and others became prominent advocates for change. Needless to say, these types of movements caused great concern in southern states. Political Conflicts and Compromises: Efforts to balance the interests of slave and free states led to significant legislation, such as the Missouri Compromise (1820), the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854). However, these efforts ultimately failed to resolve the underlying tensions. The Antebellum Period ended in 1861 when the Southern states seceded from the Union, and the outbreak of the Civil War. Last episode I spoke about the crisis of 1850 and how it proved there was strong positive feelings for the union in Texas, but it also revealed that in spite of its location in the southwest, many of its citizens still proudly identified with the Old South. During this period, especially during the first few years of statehood, more people started coming to settle in Texas. The census of 1847, which was a state census showed the population was 142,009. Only 3 years in 1850 later the official U.S. census showed a population of 212,592 people. Almost 70 percent of the state's 212,592 inhabitants were white, and the vast majority of them were settlers from other states. About 28 percent were black slaves and the rest were Hispanic or Indian. Native peoples were not counted in the official census of the U.S. until 1890. Those new Texas arrivals originated from the upper South and states that at one time were considered the frontier, primarily in the Northwest such as Illinois. They arrived by traveling through the Marshall-Jefferson area, those who travelled through the Nacogdoches area were largely from the lower South. Meanwhile the Gulf Coast, Galveston and Indianola were the main entry points for many from the lower southern states; along with a large percentage of foreign-born immigrants, especially Germans, who arrived in the late 1840s. For the most part, even though most historians don’t think of these settlers as “true frontiersmen” they were true pioneers, because Texas was truly a frontier state.
    Show more Show less
    14 mins
  • Episode 52 – The Compromise of 1850 and some Texans are already angry

    Episode 52 – The Compromise of 1850 and some Texans are already angry
    Nov 5 2024
    This is episode 52 of the Hidden History of Texas - The Compromise of 1850 and some Texans are already angry and ready to leave the union This is episode 52 of the Hidden History of Texas - The Compromise of 1850 and some Texans are already angry and ready to leave the union In the past few episodes, I’ve talked about relations between Texas and Mexico, Anglos and Mexicans, and how slavery was part and parcel of life in Texas. The fact that there was, and in reality, still is racial animosity and other types of bigotry towards non-whites and non-protestants among the Anglo citizens of Texas isn’t, or at least shouldn’t be a surprise. The earliest Anglo settlers primarily came from the Southern states and carried with them their culture. They were very much like a large percentage of those who resided in many of the States, including some in the north. At the same time America was flexing its muscles and trying to expand its territory. From 1845 to 1865, America operated under the concept of Manifest Destiny as put forth by John L O’Sullivan when in 1845, he wrote, “…the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions”. Although originally written as a defense in the argument for admitting Texas into the Union, the article laid the foundation for justification of government actions that consequently had a negative effect on those who fell outside of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant group. By 1850 one outgrowth of this belief was the birth of a secretive society known as the American Order. The group stood firmly against Catholics, foreigners, and supported restrictions on immigration. They came to be known as the “National American Party’ or more commonly labeled the “Know-Nothing” political party. In Texas, they were known as the “American Party” and as a whole they argued that any foreign-born citizen be barred from voting or holding public office. In Texas, the party was anti-Mexican, pro-slavery, and they pledged to vote only for native-born Protestants for public office. Remember from last episode, after the Mexican and American war ended, Texas wanted to annex the eastern part of New Mexico. Texas was also insistent on making certain that slave owners were not only allowed to keep their slaves but also to acquire more. Southern states who identified with the Texas political views also wanted to make certain that Texas was a slave state. It was not only Texas that the Southern leaders were concerned with; they also began to insist that ALL of the territory that was acquired as a result of the treaty of Guadalupe-Hildago that ended the war be opened to slavery. Needless to say, this did not sit well with those in the north who were abolitionists, and they were determined to prevent this from taking place. Meanwhile Robert S. Neighbors, who had been sent to New Mexico by then Texas Governor Peter Bell to organize the 4 eastern counties of New Mexico into a part of Texas failed in his mission. As a result of his failure in June of 1850 there was a public outcry where some called for the use of military force to take the territory and still others called for secession from the Union. Governor Bell chose to call a special session of the legislature (in Texas the legislature only meets every 2 years, usually it keeps them out of trouble) to deal with the issue. However, even before the session began, things managed to get worse. The government in New Mexico put forth a proposed constitution for a future state and the citizens easily approved it. In their constitution, they declared the state’s boundaries to include the land claimed by Texas. At this point, President Fillmore decided to become involved, and he ordered that the army should reinforce their contingent that was stationed in New Mexico. He also publicly proclaimed that if any militiamen from Texas entered the area,
    Show more Show less
    14 mins
  • Texas Politics as we start the 1850s

    Texas Politics as we start the 1850s
    Oct 28 2024
    This is Episode 51 – Texas Politics as we start the 1850s Texas politics is a contact sport, and Texas Politics as we start the 1850s was almost a blood sport and today’s Texas politics and politicians often seem like they still are set in 200 years ago. What was Texas and America like in 1850? Frankly, it was a mess, the country was mired in controversy after controversy, especially when it came to the issue of slavery. Texas itself, after lowering the flag of the Republic in 1846 struggled to find its footing. After the war with Mexico in 1848 the state government was bound and determined to make the Rio Grande river, especially the far western part, the state’s boundary. Well, this meant that most of Eastern New Mexico, including an area that reached all the way to Santa Fe would become a part of Texas. In fact, in 1848 the state legislature declared that part of Eastern New Mexico to be named Santa Fe County and the governor, George T. Wood, sent Spruce Baird there to set up a county government. Needless to say, the proud people of Santa Fe, refused to accept the Texans and with the help of federal troops forced Baird and the other Texans with him to depart. Baird was only able to stay until July 1849 at which time he left the region. Meanwhile, in Washington D.C. a major controversy was brewing between legislators from the North and those from the South. Of course, this was over the issue of slavery and especially if it was to be allowed in the newly acquired territories that had recently been acquired from Mexico in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which ended the Mexican-American war. This necessarily drew Texas into the dispute on the side of the South, remember the early Anglo settlers of Texas were mostly southerners and their allegiance was to the south and to the slave owners. Why does this matter? Simple, because when President Zachary Taylor, took office in March of 1849, he suggested that the best way to handle adding the new territories of California and New Mexico would be to bring them in directly as states and just bypassing the whole you have to be a territory first thing. While that sounds like an easy thing to do, not so fast, because most people knew that both California and New Mexico were most likely going to prohibit slavery. Well, this set off alarms in the South, Texas and the Anglo Texans. It also angered Texans because it effectively stopped Texas from ever claiming Santa Fe and Eastern New Mexico and more importantly to the southern states, it would effectively stop the expansion of slavery at Texas. Diehard southern slave holders vowed they would break up the union before they accepted President Taylor’s proposals. Not only did they urge Texas to stand strong and demand the boundaries they wanted, but the Mississippi state legislature actually called for a convention to take place in Nashville in 1850 whose purpose was "to devise and adopt some means of resistance" to what they labeled as Northern aggression. Needless to say, this was warmly greeted by the passionate Southern spokesmen in Texas, and they took up the argument. They demanded that the state send delegates to Nashville to prove that Texas would not meekly submit to the union. As my mother used to say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease and in 1849 the Texas Legislature gave in to the pressure and passed an act that created new boundaries. Once again, they proposed to create Santa Fe County and this time they sent Robert Neighbors to organize the government. Since this was a very active legislative group, they also declared that there would be an election in March of 1850 to send 8 delegates to the Nashville convention, so that they might provide "consultation and mutual action on the subject of slavery and Southern Rights." Neighbors, as Baird before him, discovered the residents of Santa Fe had no desire to be a part of Texas. Well, being the stubborn folks they were,
    Show more Show less
    10 mins
  • Episode 50 – Slaves and Slavery in Texas – Treatment of Slaves and Slave Insurrections

    Episode 50 – Slaves and Slavery in Texas – Treatment of Slaves and Slave Insurrections
    Oct 20 2024
    This is Episode 50 – Slaves and Slavery in Texas Part 3 Treatment of Slaves and Slave Insurrections In this episode I’m going to continue my discussion about a topic that often makes some folks a tad uncomfortable and that’s because I’m talking about the history of slaves and slavery in Texas. In the last episode I covered how the early Anglo settlers of Texas had roots in the deep south and brought with them their prejudices and social customs and one of those customs was slavery. I looked at how even though Mexico and Spain eventually outlawed slavery, Texas was exempted from those laws. Government officials were so eager to profit from the production of cotton that they ignored the slavery issue. Steven F. Austin, said, “The primary product that will elevate us from poverty is cotton and we cannot do this without the help of slaves.” As a result, Anglo-Americans where able to bring their family slaves with them to Texas. Until 1840, they were also allowed to buy and sell them. As I mentioned, it's important to understand that Texas was actually the last frontier of slavery in the United States. Between the years of 1821 and 1865, slavery spread over the eastern two-fifths of the state. The reality of slavery tightly bound Texas with the Old South. I realize that there are some who refer to it as the “peculiar institution” because even though slavery was a reality in many other countries, how large it was and how it was so tightly woven into Southern society made it unique or "peculiar" only to the South. Over decades Southern politicians and writers used the term to defend the practice of slavery. One thing we need to keep in mind when it comes to the issue of slavery is that it was and is an absolutely barbaric practice. In the past Hollywood made movies that sometimes-showed images of scenes of “happy” slaves, sitting around singing and generally in good spirits. The reality is slaves lived a life that was totally under the control of their owners. They were whipped, not a childish misbehavior spanking, but a brutal ripping of the skin off the back of the person being whipped. They could be hung. They could be beaten. They could be and were often sold. Female slaves could be and were raped by their masters. Families were torn apart. Slaves were considered to be less than human. There were no happy slaves. As it was elsewhere, in Texas how slaves were treated did rely on who their owner was. One story about how slaves were treated is the story of Lavinia Bell, a Black woman who had been kidnapped when she was a child and sold into slavery. She eventually escaped and part of her story was how she had been forced to work naked in the cotton fields near Galveston. She had made multiple attempts to escape and after her first failed attempt she was physically mutilated and beaten severely by her owner. Hers is not the only such story, many others who were enslaved in Texas told similar stories of violence and cruelty by their owners. Hundreds sought to escape, especially to Mexico where they knew they would be safe from being returned. Now of course, there are the outliers, such as Joshua Houston. He was owned by Sam Houston, actually he was owned initially by Houston's second wife, and he became an important part of Houston's family. He was treated well, taught to read and write, and actually the Houston family helped to prepare him for his eventual emancipation. After the Civil War he became a politician, and, at one point, offered to lend money to Sam Houston's widow when she faced financial difficulties. While the treatment of slaves in Texas may have varied on the basis of the disposition of individual slaveowners, it was clear that Anglo Texans in general accepted and defended slavery. There was also one undercurrent of reality that existed for all slave owners, and that was the fear of a revolt or insurrection by the slaves. Actions by the Texas legislature provide an apt illustratio...
    Show more Show less
    14 mins