Sam Houston and the Texas Revolution: Justified or Not?

Introduction: The Legitimacy of the Texas Revolution

The Texas Revolution was a war waged by a largely American population that desired independence and a more representative form of governance. It was waged against an oppressive, dictatorial regime — in defense of slavery. It was led by a man who had once married a Native American woman, Sam Houston, in the name of the right to hold men and women of a different race in bondage. Historians have long asked: was the Texas Revolution a war of independence, or an act of piracy by an increasingly expansionist United States?

Although it is very likely true that the U.S. government did not calculatedly inject new settlers into Texas territory to gain new land, it is also true that the Anglo-American settlers knew what they were getting into when they accepted the terms of the Mexican government in exchange for land. They agreed to become Roman Catholics, learn Spanish, and abide by Mexican law. Because of internal turmoil within Mexico and the relative remoteness of the capital, Mexico was lax in enforcing these terms at first. The Texan settlers became accustomed to their old ways of life, and when Mexico reasserted its control, its restrictions — often oppressive and contrary to the laws of the United States — felt like unjustified tyranny, even though the settlers had agreed to those demands from the outset. Thus, the rebellion was not justified, even if it may have been inevitable and, to some extent, understandable.

One must hasten to add that the most extreme, polarized views of the revolution on either side of the debate cannot be sustained. The Texas Revolution was not a calculated attempt to destroy the Mexican nation by U.S. nationalists. But the settlers' complaints about the nature of Mexican justice were not entirely without merit. Perhaps the most accurate view of the revolution is that it was the product of a perfect storm of historical circumstances — U.S. land policies, racism, and opportunity.

Economic Pressures and the Settlement of Mexican Texas

It was the policy of the American government regarding the sale of unoccupied land within its borders that motivated many Americans to migrate to Mexican Texas. As a result of a financial crisis, the money supply of the United States tightened, particularly after 1819. The U.S. government began to sell land on a cash-only basis. Lacking ready cash or an available line of credit, many poorer Americans hoping to move west took advantage of Mexico's offer of free land. In exchange, they agreed to the terms of the Mexican Republic ("Causes of the Texas Revolution," 2008).

These terms included adopting Roman Catholicism and learning Spanish. The settlers, eager for land, agreed to these conditions without question. They also agreed to abide by the laws of Mexico. However, Mexico was a republic in name only. It did not respect constitutional principles of governance as the United States did. In its system of justice, the accused were presumed guilty until proven innocent. It followed the Napoleonic Code's inquisitorial procedures and was governed by a dictatorial leader with little input from the populace ("Causes of the Texas Revolution," 2008).

Mexican Governance and the Culture Clash

All of these aspects of living under Mexican law might have deterred more settlers, were it not for the fact that unrest within the Mexican government caused Texas to be governed in a laissez-faire manner, compounded by Texas' isolation from the center of Mexican executive control. Settlers agreed to the required terms and then ignored them once they realized how lax enforcement actually was. The knowledge of this hands-off policy in practice, if not in name, drew even more Anglo settlers to Texas in search of cheap land, with little intention of becoming loyal Mexican citizens.

Resistance to obeying Mexican law was further fueled by the ethnic, religious, and racial tensions of the region, between native Mexicans and the growing influx of Anglo immigrants. There were now, in effect, two Mexicos — the Mexico of the gringos and the Mexico of the natives. Combined with the mutual racism of both peoples, the Anglo discomfort with using Spanish as a national language, and the difficulty the largely Southern immigrant population had in adopting Roman Catholicism, conflict and resistance were virtually inevitable.

Conclusion: Moral and Legal Verdict on the Revolution

The Texans agreed to become Mexicans, live by Mexican law, and adopt Mexico's national religion and language, and, when this policy was not initially enforced, they abdicated that responsibility entirely. When Mexico finally compelled compliance, the settlers reacted with outrage — most especially when threatened with the loss of the right to hold other people in bondage. While Houston's tactical and military skill enabled his numerically smaller army to win Texan independence, the Texans' moral and legal justifications for beginning and sustaining their revolution remain, at best, deeply suspect.

Works Cited

Campbell, Randolph. Sam Houston and the American Southwest. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers, 1993.

"Causes of the Texas Revolution." History. [University]. 13 Feb. 2008.

Nostro, Rita. "Sam Houston." Hyper History. 12 Feb. 2008.