William Carrigan 's Violence During The Nineteenth Century

The railroad played a key role in the economic development of San Antonio after the Civil War. The railroad encouraged the development of cattle trade and brought tourist to the city. Newspaper accounts inflamed residents, spreading rumors that Mexicans had armed themselves. In August 1894, Blacks attacked Mexicans at Beeville, Texas. Mexicans were brought there to drive down wages of blacks and to create a labor surplus. The federal government encouraged this antagonism by stationing black soldiers in Mexican areas. The history of Texas being known as a state of violence, brought terror toward the Mexicans since they didn’t have the same protection under the law. On the other hand, in South Texas, Mexicans outnumbered the North American, latter controlled politics and the land. Mexicans did not accept North American rules and they hardly felt like liberated people. They called them greasers and denied them the opportunity to acquire property, to exercise political control over their own lives, and to maintain their rights within the society. Mexicans in the country banded together along lines of race and class taking direct action in the response to the political chicanery of foreigners. It was a class struggle against the rich and powerful establishment.

Firstly, he discovered that the “Texas revolt was a much more complicated event than a race war.” According to Crisp, the conflict arose over the fundamental differences between the white colonists of Texas, rather than a cultural conflict. Differences such as disagreements over states’ rights, excessively high tariffs and a dictatorial type of Mexican Government were some of the reasons that forced the white colonists of Texas to break away from the Mexican rule. Crisp believed, “that conflict between the two groups was not so much an immediate cause as it was an eventual consequence of Texas’s separation from Mexico.” In other words, the racial

     In times before the confrontation at the Alamo, the Mexican government welcomed settlers into Texas. The motive behind Mexico’s act was to create a buffer zone between Mexican settlements and the Indians. Settlers were able to come to Texas as long as they promised to convert to Catholicism and become Mexican citizens among other

The war with Mexico is also opposed by many due to the status of Texas as a slave state. Webster firmly believed that the annexation of Texas as a slave state gave the south more political clout and representation in the house of representatives. This argument is rooted in the fact that the constitution

Examining how the book enhances the reader's understanding of Texas history, it could be asserted that Barr's exposition provides a considerable amount of insight into the development not only of the black community but also the development of the state in general. Barr shows that blacks played an integral role in the development of Texas: a fact that is often overlooked by many historians. Even though the book provides a considerable amount of insight, however, it is overall quite dry. As such, the book would probably be useful for history students, graduate students and instructors looking to discover more about Texas or black history.

Throughout Texas history, especially in the 1920s, the state had many impediments barring a normal life from anyone who was not anglo-american. From politics to churches to even bars, life was purposely made hard for anyone who was different from this standard of purity or whiteness. However, despite the overwhelming culture of white supremacy in Texas that impeded any opposing cultural differences, there remained pockets of differing ideological backgrounds and attitudes. Consequently, clusters of progressive communities became normal in Texan society, exemplifying the deepening trends of discrimination into Texas history and the lack of control anglos held on the southern portion of Texas.

In Doc D Para 2, the quote said, “Slaveholders crossed the Sabine River with their slaves, in defiance of the Mexican ordinance of freedom.” The location of the Sabine RIver is between Louisiana and Texas so people in the United States were moving into Texas. The most likely people coming into Texas from their state would be California. California had white people moving into the state. (Doc A Para 3) America was losing people. “Mexico was achieving their independence and decreed the abolition of human slavery embracing the province of Texas”(Doc D Para 1). The US was justified in going into war in Mexico because Mexico was gaining independence by having more people in

A man named John L. O’Sullivan says that Mexico is “...hammering our power, limiting our greatness, and checking the fulfilment of our manifest destiny” (Document A). This quote talks about how the Mexican government is affecting the Texas in a bad way. O’Sullivan also states,”Mexico never can exert any real governmental authority over such a country” (Document A). The quote is talking about California, which is with Mexico and has anger towards the government as well. A Mexican, named Jesus Velasco-Marquez, said “...when Texas and America signed the treaty, it would be considered a declaration of war” (Document C). This shows how desperate the government is toward getting back at Texas for leaving. Also “Mexico was catholic and non-slavery, while Texas was protestant and pro-slavery” (Roden 317). Texas left because Mexico and Texas had different beliefs. The Mexican government gave Texas a great reason to leave because no one can live in a country with a terrible government, and different

During the early-mid part of the 19th century (mainly 1820-1860) Americans objected many things they didn’t like. Taxes, the government, even presidents were some of the rejections of the people. But the one thing the people did not like during this time period was the annexation of Texas and the Mexican

Charles Sumner, representing the Massachusetts Senate, wrote “certainly (Mexico)...might justly charge our citizens with disgraceful robbery.”(Doc D). The claim of Americans not respecting boundaries and laws is only aided by the fact that when Mexico allowed American citizens to move into their territories, “slaveholders crossed the Sabine (river between Louisiana and Texas) with their slaves, in defiance of the Mexican ordinance of freedom.” , although “Mexico, on achieving independence of the Spanish Crown...decreed the abolition of human slavery within her dominions. ”(Both Doc.

Texans fought in the Civil War to protect states rights. Document B states, “ 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...is mutually beneficial to both bond (slave) and free.” This shows that the Texas was trying to protect their rights of having slaves but America was trying to tell them that they couldn’t. Texas was trying to protect the rights of having slaves. Document C states, “ The true theory of our (national) government as an association of sovereignties (independent states), and not a blended mass of people in one social compact.” This is showing that people

Slavery was widespread all over the Texas territory even though Mexico had abolished it in 1829. This caused tensions to rise between Texas and Mexico, so Texas decided if Mexico wasn’t going to allow them to have slaves they might as well belong to a country that would allow the practice.

In the 1820’s, Texas was part of Mexico. Mexico and the United States shared the same border. The United States wanted to extend their territory west but most of this land in the American Southwest belonged to Mexico. Mexico then encouraged American citizens to move to Texas to help populate it. English speaking colonists were called Anglos and many of them moved to Texas. They were allowed to have cheap land if they followed the laws of Mexico causing the Anglo population to grow.

Demonstrated in a slavery pamphlet in 1830, Benjamin Lundy reports “The immediate cause and main goal of this war-led by the slaveholders of this country. (with land speculators and slave)---has been to grab the large valuable territory of Texas from the Mexican Republic in order to re-establish the System of Slavery..” To justify, this quote unfolds Texas motive for war explaining how their reasons for war were justifiably incorrect because one of their main purposes is to gain land for slaves leading to their own wealth and wealth of the US. This being unworthy of War and selfish, overall going against our constitution. Likewise, Rafael Antonio Manchola, a Tejano living among Americans at the time, references to a military commander with concern “We cannot trust the Anglo-American's colonist because they are continually demonstrating that they refuse to follow our laws unless if it's convenient for them… forgetting they swore to obey the laws of Mexico.”

In April of 1846, President Polk dispatched General Zachary Taylor to move American soldiers to into the region between the Nueces River and Rio Grande (Foner 468). According to Grant, the mobilization of U.S. troops into the disputed territory beyond the Nueces was an antagonistic act set in motion to intimidate Mexico and force them into initiating war. He affirms that although the land itself had immeasurable wealth, it could have been “obtained by other means” (Grant). A large number of Americans agreed with Grant, viewing the move against Mexico as an act of hostility against a weaker nation to satisfy the United States and President Polk’s desire for more land. Among the war’s critics, was Congressman Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was skeptical of the motives behind the invasion of Mexico, citing it as unconstitutional and questioning the validity behind Polk’s claim of American casualties at the hands of Mexican soldiers (Foner 468). The intention behind the war became apparent when newly acquired territories allowed for slavery. Texas adopted slavery protection laws and created additional laws that denied civil rights to people of color while California courts allowed Indian children and orphans to be sold into slavery (Foner 471,473). Grant’s narrative asserts his shared skepticism behind the United States invasion of Mexico and his disapproval