Texas History Stephen Austin (1793-1836) Is Known

¶ … Texas History

Stephen Austin (1793-1836) is known as the Father of Texas because he was instrumental in leading the second and ultimately successful colonization of the region by U.S. settlers. His name is on a number of streets, schools, parks, and Texas State facilities. Based on the text, though, and the way that historical figures tend to become more mythic as their legend grows, I wondered about different points-of-view surround Austin and even the legality and morality of the Texas annexation.

I was surprised that initially Austin was reluctant to accept his Father's empresarial grant after he died, having to be persuaded by his mother. The situation, it seemed, was quite complex. Mexico granted land parcels under one government, and then changed the rules under another. I was also surprised that Austin supported Santa Anna, who would ultimately become his enemy. Essentially, if one takes off the myth, it appears that what really happened is that as more and more settlers moved into the Texas territory, they seemed to believe they should have their own state. This time in American history seemed to push more and more settlers west, and most refused to abide by the boundaries set in the Louisiana Purchase. Most of the settlers felt that the more Americans that came to the area, the fewer the Indian raids, and the more likelihood of a republic. The hunger for land helped fuel the psychological need for independence, and after Mexico refused the purchase offer from the U.S. In 1830, Mexico also decided to control immigration and increase taxes.

We all know the standard story -- settlers banded together and fought a heroic battle at the Alamo, causing the formation of the Republic of Texas and Santa Anna's eventual defeat at San Jacinto. The text caused me to think about the situation in an alternative way, though. Mexico legally owned Texas through rights from Spain. At the time, Mexico was more of a European type power, and the U.S. A struggling small Republic. What is at least partially true is that there was a great deal of "nation-building" going on, with the attitude of occupation being a legal right to continue to settle. One could say that the idea of "manifest destiny," popularized in a newspaper article urging for Texas' annexation, was the word of the day -- with the eventual goal of American owing all the lands between the Atlantic and Pacific that it desired.

Part 2 -- The idea of populating Texas came from a series of ideas and agreements beginning around 1810 with America's desire to have a way to have a safe passage to California and a way to reduce Comanche, Apache, and Navajo Indian influence in the area. The Mexican government, it seems, wanted to use American settlers as a buffer between Indian raids and Mexican territory and, for a time, encourage the settlement into the northern territory. What they failed to realize was the old adage, "possession is 9/10 of the law." It was certainly easier for Mexico to find reasons and ways of encouraging settlers into the area than it was to tax them and govern them.