Americanization and Mexican Influence in East TexasChristi Laney
5/9/2008HIS 495.01
Sam Houston State University
Americanization and Mexican Influence in East Texas
While the Mexican history of Texas runs deep in both the veins of its people and
its culture, not all parts of the state equally reflect the years under Mexican rule. The
Valley of Texas carries a rich culture of Mexican settlement while the Hill Country fades
that trend with an intermingling of Hispanic and Anglo colonization. Yet the antithesis
and exception of Mexican influence can be best experienced along the Louisiana-Texas
border in the wooded hills of East Texas. Because of the prevalence of Anglo-American
settlers in East Texas prior to the War for Independence, the Mexican government had
little presence in the Piney Woods except through laws and expeditions sent to quell the
flow of white immigrants from the United States. The dense forests and rolling hills
along the eastern border of Texas failed to appeal to Mexican families, and while some
were awarded land grants in the area, few ever made the effort to claim or settle their
lands. Yet through the Law of April 6, 1830 and the expeditions of Manuel de Mier y
Terán, the Mexican government made several brief appearances in the area, leaving few
footprints behind as it unsuccessfully attempted to prevent further Americanization of
East Texas.
The physical layout of the land, vegetation, and climate of the area serve as
perhaps the most basic reason for lack of Mexican settlement. During the first
government expedition to East Texas under Mier y Terán, a scribe named José María
Sánchez chronicled the Mexicans’ discontent with the changing landscape as the travelers
made their way from Mexico through the Brazos River valley and across the Trinity
River to Nacogdoches. In the majority of the opening entries, Sánchez describes his
surroundings with favorable adjectives and a positive connotation. On February 21, 1828,
Sánchez writes, “At about seven o’clock in the morning we resumed our march over
ground that was as level as that of the previous day, but more pleasing to the eye because
the small shrubs that cover the land permit the eye to roam over a limitless horizon that
seems to touch the blue sky in every direction1.” As the group transitions from the desert
plains to the Hill Country, Sánchez notes the increase in vegetation and advent of gently
rolling hills, both of which the group appears to enjoy. “The ground continues to be
covered with vegetation, which seems to increase as one approaches the interior of
Texas…but I noticed that the increased vegetation and the numerous small trees scattered
everywhere made the view delightful2.” Yet on April 22 as the attaché enters the flood
plains of the Brazos River and into the Piney Woods, the mood quickly turns sour. “We
rejoined the party and continued on our way along heavy woods that show no particular
beauty…seeing how unattractive it was I suggested they name it after me…in the
afternoon it rained considerably3.” Once the expedition reaches the Brazos River and
enters the heart of East Texas, disaster hits as floodwaters in the area produce intense
humidity, muddy conditions make travel nearly impossible and hordes of mosquitoes
harass the party to the point of illness. “To the unbearable heat were added the continuous
croaking of frogs, the discordant singing of the drunken negroes and a numberless legion
of mosquitoes that bit us everywhere, all of which kept us from sleeping a wink… we
saw the terrible onslaught that these cursed insects had made upon us, leaving us full of
swollen spots, especially on the face of the general, which was so raw that it seemed as if
1 José María Sánchez, “A Trip To Texas In 1828,” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online 29, no. 4 (January 2006): 251. Available from http://www.tshaonline.org/publications/journals/shq/online/v029/n4/article_3.html. Accessed 28 Feb. 2008.2 Ibid. 252.3 Ibid. 263.
it had been flayed1.” Finally, the expedition is forced to turn back after the majority of the
soldiers fall ill while Mier y Terán and Sánchez continue alone. The pair encounters
further tribulations upon crossing the Trinity River on May 25. “The mosquitoes, the lack
of food and the inability to cross the river all added greatly to this calamity. May the Lord
have pity on us2!” As evidenced through the diary entries of Sánchez, most Mexicans
were unaccustomed to the humid climate and thick forests of East Texas and therefore
found no interest in settling the area. The vast plains of the Chihuahua Desert, the dry
climate of Mexico and the sparse vegetation of their home country presented a much
more appealing location in which to live, leaving the Piney Woods practically void of
permanent Mexican influence.
While the political owners of East Texas found little use for it, the American
immigrants utilized the lush forests and floodplains to their advantage. Most grew up in
wooded areas in Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee and were comfortable with raising
cattle, clearing land and planting crops in such terrain. George W. Smyth, an American
settler in Nacogdoches, wrote a letter to his father on April 14, 1833 praising life in East
Texas. “There is no country in the word [sic] where a living can be procured more easily
than in Texas. Cattle require no feeding at any Season Hogs require only to [be] kept
gentle and Horses require feeding only when in actual service3.” The stark contrast in the
opinions of Sánchez and Smyth illustrate the different views of the value of East Texas
held by the American settlers and Mexicans. Few Mexicans acknowledged the
1 José María Sánchez, “A Trip To Texas In 1828,” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online 29, no. 4 (January 2006): 265. Available from http://www.tshaonline.org/publications/journals/shq/online/v029/n4/article_3.html. Accessed 28 Feb. 2008.2 Ibid. 268.3 George W. Smyth to Andrew Smyth. The Second Flying Company of Alamo de Parras. 14 April, 1833. Texas A&M University database on-line, 2005. Available from The Archives of Alamo de Parras. http://www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/adp/archives/archives.html. Accessed 28 Feb. 2008.
advantages of living in the Piney Woods while American immigrants traversed hundreds
of miles to settle it. Much like the disparagement between the country caudillos and the
urban intellectuals of Argentina, the vast physical differences between East Texas and
Mexico created a rift between American immigrants and Mexicans that encouraged
foreigners to cultivate the land yet discouraged Mexican settlement.
In addition to the physical differences, the distance between East Texas and
Central Mexico also prevented extensive Mexican influence from inundating the Piney
Woods. East Texas stood far removed from the seat of Mexican government and few
expeditions risked the threat of Indian raids to establish colonies in the area. Sánchez
wrote in his journal that “The great number of Indian tribes found scattered throughout
the Department (of Texas) at present prevent, by their constant raids and depredations,
the increase of the population and the development of agriculture1.” With so much land
available at a closer proximity to Mexico, most Mexican nationals chose to make their
homes along the Rio Grande or in the Valley. The Mexican government had made peace
with most of the Indians of that region, which left little chance of raids. By remaining in
the southern portions of Texas, the Mexican settlers also kept within a convenient
distance of the larger cities of Mexico such as Mexico City and Monterrey.
The Mexican government had only recently established itself as independent from
Spain and had little money or manpower to support settlers in the northern regions, so
staying closer to home held many advantages. Texas had been lumped with the state of
Coahuila and received little separate attention from the federal government. Settlers along
the frontier had to rely on homemade supplies while those closer to Central Mexico
1 José María Sánchez, “A Trip To Texas In 1828,” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online 29, no. 4 (January 2006): 257. Available from http://www.tshaonline.org/publications/journals/shq/online/v029/n4/article_3.html. Accessed 28 Feb. 2008.
utilized reliable trade routes and well established suppliers to obtain food and clothing for
sustenance and machinery for cultivation of their lands. Most of the American settlers
had the skills to produce their own goods or ties to the United States to obtain them while
Mexicans in East Texas were essentially on their own. Because the weak Mexican
government found itself unable to support its people from any great distance, settling
along the eastern border provided little incentive for Mexicans to leave the dependability
of proximity to the heart of Mexico.
However, the great distance from Mexico City allowed hundreds of illegal
immigrants from America to settle the eastern portions of Texas with relative ease. Once
these Americans established their new lives in Texas, they grew accustomed to autonomy
from the Mexican government and quickly became the overwhelming majority in East
Texas. On April 27, Sánchez reaches the first settlement of Stephen F. Austin on the
Brazos where he expresses his dislike for the American settlers who have taken over the
area. “It’s population is nearly two hundred persons, of which only ten are Mexicans, for
the balance are all Americans from the North…the greater part I have seen eat only salted
meat, bread…coffee and homemade cheese. To these, the greater part of those…add
strong liquor, for they are in general…lazy people of vicious character1.” In perhaps one
of the best foreshadowing statements in Texas history, Sánchez exposes his disdain for
the prevalence of Americans and his deep fear that their independent attitudes may soon
spell trouble for the Mexican government. “Beyond the village in an immense stretch of
land formed by rolling hills are scattered families brought by Stephen Austin, which
today number more than two thousand persons. The diplomatic policy of this
1 José María Sánchez, “A Trip To Texas In 1828,” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online 29, no. 4 (January 2006): 263. Available from http://www.tshaonline.org/publications/journals/shq/online/v029/n4/article_3.html. Accessed 28 Feb. 2008.
empresario… has, one might say, lulled the authorities into a sense of security… In my
judgment, the spark that will start the conflagration that will deprive us of Texas will start
from this colony. All because the government does not take vigorous measures to prevent
it. Perhaps it does not realize the value of what it is about to lose 1.” As fewer Mexicans
considered moving to the Piney Woods, more Americans made the journey to claim lands
in East Texas as the Mexican government gradually lost any semblance of control in the
region.
Initial laws governing East Texas fell short of fully recognizing the lack of
Mexican settlements in the area and failed to stem the flow of unwanted American
immigrants. One of the government’s first attempts to investigate American settlement in
the area included the expedition manned by Mier y Terán and chronicled by Sánchez.
While a battle raged in the capital between Centralists and Federalists, the Mexican
military slowly awakened to the other growing problem in a region further from home.
Troubled by reports of large numbers of American squatters, the government
commissioned Mier y Terán to assess the situation in East Texas and draft a
recommendation concerning governance of the region. “…No doubt the party was to
assess needs for occupation and defense, the possibility of balancing the rapid settlement
by immigrants from the United States of the North with European immigrants, and the
status of the native Indian populations2.”
After enduring stifling humidity and debilitating illnesses only to be met by
masses of Americans largely ignorant of Mexican law, Mier y Terán understandably
1 José María Sánchez, “A Trip To Texas In 1828,” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online 29, no. 4 (January 2006): 264. Available from http://www.tshaonline.org/publications/journals/shq/online/v029/n4/article_3.html. Accessed 28 Feb. 2008.2 Wallace L. McKeehan, “Manuel de Mier y Terán 1789-1832.” The Sons of DeWitt Colony Texas, undated. Database on-line. Available from http://www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/teranframe.htm. Accessed 28 Feb, 2008.
wrote disheartening reports of the lawlessness and uselessness of the Piney Woods in
East Texas. He presented “an alarming view, at least in the eyes of some governmental
officials, of an Anglo-American infiltration, and other problems in the area…he deplored
the neglect of the garrison at Nacogdoches and called for more support1.” This would be
the first attempt by the Mexican government at suppressing the American autonomy in
East Texas the beginning of American resentment toward their Mexican rulers.
Ironically, a small number of Mexican elites favored American immigration and
noted the advantages of giving settlers autonomy. They saw a need for skilled workers to
cultivate the land and understood that American immigrants carried the ability to utilize
the Piney Woods while most Mexicans did not. More importantly, they realized that the
American immigrants were the only ones willing to travel to East Texas to settle it. One
member of the Tejano elite clearly spelled out what he saw as the economic, social and
political advantages of American settlement in an undated letter concerning Anglo
immigration. “The advantages of liberal North American immigration are innumerable:
(1) The colonists would afford a source of supply for the native inhabitants. (2) They
would protect the interior from Indian invasions. (3) They would develop roads and
commerce to New Orleans… (4) Moreover, the ideas of government held by North
Americans are in general better adapted to those of the Mexicans…2. Yet few in the
Mexican government held the same views and relations with the American settlers soon
became strained as a result of political action aimed at limiting their autonomy and
preventing further growth in their numbers.
1 Wallace L. McKeehan, “Manuel de Mier y Terán 1789-1832.” The Sons of DeWitt Colony Texas, undated. Database on-line. Available from http://www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/teranframe.htm. Accessed 28 Feb, 2008.2 Eugene C. Barker, “Anglo-Mexican Relations In Texas.” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online 46, no. 3 (January 1943): 329. Available from Digital History. http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/mexican_voices/voices_display.cfm?id=41. Accessed 28 Feb. 2008.
Once the Mexican government realized the problem posed by so many foreign
settlers concentrated in one area, it attempted to reverse its mistake by issuing the Law of
April 6, 1830. Based on the recommendations of General Mier y Terán, the Law of April
6, 1830 prohibited any further immigration from Mexico, provided financial assistance to
any Mexican family wishing to settle on the eastern frontier and called for militarization
of points across East Texas to enforce the aforementioned provisions. These laws served
as the first government action to suppress and control the Americans living in Mexico
and caused the first rifts to occur between the immigrants and authorities. In the most
controversial and strict segments of the decree, Article IX states, “The introduction of
foreigners across the northern frontier is prohibited under any pretext whatever…1.”
While officials created this provision to limit American influence and build up Mexican
settlement in the area, lack of funds and the long distance from the central government
prevented authorities from actually enforcing the law. While the amount of American
immigrants decreased, many still managed to find their way into Texas and Mexican
immigration to the region failed to materialize. “[The Law of April 6, 1830] absolutely
prohibits immigrants from North America coming into Texas, but there are not enough
troops to enforce it; so the result is that desirable immigrants are kept out because they
will not violate the law, while the undesirable, having nothing to lose, come in freely1.”
In Article XIV, the government authorizes the establishment of forts along the eastern
frontier in order to enforce the immigration laws, yet the attempt at military control of the
area was short lived.
1 “Law of April 6, 1830,” The Texas Gazette, 3 July 1830. Available from Texas State Historical Association. http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ssc/primary_resources/pdf/texas/Law_of_April_6_1830.pdf. Accessed 28 Feb. 2008.1 Eugene C. Barker, “Anglo-Mexican Relations In Texas.” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online 46, no. 3 (January 1943): 328. Available from Digital History. http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/mexican_voices/voices_display.cfm?id=41. Accessed 28 Feb. 2008.
Initially, the military constructed six forts throughout the region, including Fort
Tenoxtitlán (1830) in present-day Burleson County along the Brazos River and Fort
Terán (1831) on the Neches River in what is now Tyler County. Both forts lasted less
than five years due to lack of financial support, low morale among the troops and
American backlash. The troops of Fort Tenoxtitlán abandoned the garrison just two years
after construction finished when Mier y Terán committed suicide over his failed attempt
to Mexicanize the eastern border. Two years later in 1834, the last of the soldiers left Fort
Terán when the government failed to follow through on promises of financial support.
Despite their efforts to introduce Mexican settlement and control the American
immigrant population, the Mexican government found itself in over its head.
By this time, the American settlers in East Texas had experienced relative
autonomy so long that resentment built up over the Mexican laws and eventually
contributed to the initial sparks of the Texas War for Independence. Immediately
following the introduction of the Law of April 6, 1830, the American immigrants began
expressing suspicion and resentment toward the Mexican government. “[Stephen F.]
Austin secured exemption from the operation of the Law for his contract…but the
measure shook his belief in the good will of the Mexican government1.”
With tensions high on both sides, the immigrants reached their boiling point in
one of the lesser-known battles in Texas history. On August 2, 1832, Colonel José de las
Piedras ordered a band of Americans in Nacogdoches to surrender their firearms to the
Mexican government per the Law of April 6, 1830. Already inflamed over the provisions
of the law, the immigrants refused, established a “National Militia,” and called to
1 Eugene C. Barker, “Law of April 6, 1830.” The Handbook of Texas Online, undated. Database on-line. Available from http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/LL/ngll.html. Accessed 28 Feb. 2008.
neighboring settlements for military aid. When the Americans took control of the town,
Piedras and his men fled Nacogdoches and left East Texas victorious and void of any
Mexican military presence.
The Battle of Nacogdoches, as it came to be known, “cleared East Texas of
military rule and allowed the citizens to meet in convention without military
intervention2.” With the Law of April 6, 1830 creating more problems than it solved and
anti-Mexican sentiments growing among the American immigrants, the pot soon boiled
over. Just as Sánchez predicted in 1828, the spark that ignited the flame of Texas
independence began along the eastern frontier due to excessive American immigration in
a region the Mexican government found practically impossible to govern.
Despite repeated attempts to regain control in East Texas, the large number of
American immigrants coupled with the great distance required to reach the region
prevented Mexico from ever exerting any substantial influence over the Piney Woods
area. Once the Anglo settlers grew accustomed to political and cultural autonomy, the
Law of April 6, 1830 served only to foment anger and resentment rather than solve the
problem of foreign influence. Too many physical and cultural barriers arose to prevent
Mexicans from reclaiming the area and a general lack of interest on the part of Mexican
citizens from settling the area created the window of opportunity for American
immigrants to take over. With virtually no military presence and practically zero Mexican
population, the distant Piney Woods of East Texas soon became more American than
Mexican and provided the first instances immigrant rebellion in Mexico, ultimately
leading to the demise of Mexican rule and rise of Texas independence.
2 Archie P. McDonald, “Battle of Nacogdoches.” The Handbook of Texas Online, undated. Available from http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/NN/qen1.html
Bibliography
Barker, Eugene C. “Anglo-Mexican Relations In Texas.” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online 46, no. 3 (January 1943): 328-329. Available from http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/mexican_voices/voices_display.cfm?id=41.
Barker, Eugene C. “Law of April 6, 1830.” The Handbook of Texas Online, undated. Available from http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/LL/ngll.html.
“Law of April 6, 1830.” The Texas Gazette, 3 July 1830. Available from Texas State Historical Association. http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ssc/primary_resources/pdf/texas/Law_of_April_6_1830.pdf.
McDonald, Archie P. “Battle of Nacogdoches.” The Handbook of Texas Online, undated. Available from http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/NN/qen1.html.
McKeehan, Wallace L. “Manuel de Mier Y Terán 1789-1832.” The Sons of DeWitt Colony Texas, undated. Available from http://www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/teranframe.htm.
Sánchez, José María. “A Trip to Texas in 1828.” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online 29, no. 4 (January 2006): 265. Available from http://www.tshaonline.org/publications/journals/shq/online/v029/n4/article_3.html.
Second Flying Company of Alamo de Parras. The Archives of Alamo de Parras. Texas A&M University, 2005.
Top Related