The Bob Bullock Texas History Museum

Bob Bullock was not one of my favorite Texas politicians but the Bob Bullock Texas History Museum makes up for that and then some. My wife and I spent two hours there yesterday and could have spent two more easily. It presented the history of Texas in a frank, unvarnished way, without being either Politically Correct or Worshipful. For more info, check out the website at
http://www.thestoryoftexas.com/

March 2

Texas Independence Day. 176 years ago a number of people took their stand.

J. Frank Dobie

Although I have not read much in the way of Texas Literature, I have read a fair amount over the last year about Texas Literature. Anybody who delves into this topic must deal with the overwhelming presence of J. Frank Dobie. Dobie, perhaps more than any other author defined Texas as Western. The iconic event for this occurred back in 1939 when the Texas Institute of Letters awarded its first "Best Texas Book" to Dobie over Katherine Anne Porter. Politics aside, it points out a dichotomy in the identity of Texas, Dobie represents the West, Porter the South.
If one looks at a road map of Texas, taking I-35 as their guide, one can best see the division. To the east is that Texas which is Southern, to the west Western. The awarding of the TIL prize signified that Texas was hereafter to be considered a Western state.

A Texan on Culture

A cultivated mind is the Guardian Genius of Democracy.
-Mirabeau B. Lamar

It is interesting to note that J. Frank Dobie gave this quote (unattributed) in A Texan in England when comparing the recreational activities provided by American forces (Red Cross Huts) and English forces (lecture series)(210).

Texas

When [Texans] have lost [their Texan-ness] altogether, and when the office-working, car-driving Texan is completely indistinguishable from his Northern counterpart, the history of Texas, as Texas, will be done.
-T. R. Fehrenbach. Lone Star: A History of Texas and Texans. (717-718)

Texas Independence Day

Today is Texas Independence Day. Surprised? It has gone by with hardly a mention. This is the 175th anniversary of that event. Twenty-five years ago, the sesquicentennial was so pervasive, Texaco gave away glasses commemorating the event. And, of course, at the centennial seventy-five years ago, it was a major party with national and international recognition. Will it be any different twenty-five years from now? Not if one judges by recent anniversaries. The bicentennial of Lincoln's birth saw hardly a mention. Same for the Reagan centennial last month. I believe the turning point came some time between 1987 and 1992, when the country went from the schmaltzy Constitution bicentennial to the semi millennium day of mourning over Columbus. Fear not!, O anniversary deprived, I am sure Charleston, South Carolina has something cooked up for April 12th.

Another History of Texas

James L. Haley., Passionate Nation: The Epic History of Texas. (2006)

Like most passionate nations, Texas has its own private history based on, but not limited by facts--John Steinbeck

For the most part, this is an enjoyable read but it is occasionally clouded by bias, ignorance, and errors.
In the realm of military history, Haley does not understand military organization terminology. He ranks Philip Sheridan as a division commander in 1867 when he was a department commander. (329) Earlier, in describing the 2nd Texas Infantry Regiment, Haley writes that "when it was repatriated after capture, [it] could muster no more than a brigade." (316)
There is an overworking of the term "yahoo" and a strong bias against organized religion. This bias manifests itself in the constant degradation of the Second Great Awakening as being oppressive and moronic. For example: "The frosty certainty with which early church leaders viewed their right to schoolmarm over the lives of their followers and others was rooted more in the unlettered [emphasis mine] Second Great Awakening than it was in any biblical warrant." (279) Has the man not read the Gospels or the Letters of Paul (especially those to Timothy and Titus)?
Finally, there are some oversights. Texas music receives little coverage other than Bob Wills and Janis Joplin. Sports? Do sports matter to Texans? Most glaring is the assassination of Kennedy. No mention of Oswald, Warren Commission, or how the nation reacted to Texas, and in particular, to Dallas. Enjoyable, but read with caution.

Schools of History, Texas-Style

What gives the debate [over how Davy Crockett died] its particular rancor is that it has sharpened the differences between two competing schools of thought on how Texas history should be approached. On one side are traditionalists, typically older and more conservative, who, even their sympathizers have to admit, sometimes treat their subject like the proving ground for a cultural value system and who become annoyed at any presentation of contradictory evidence. On the other side stand revisionists, mostly academic, who, while they raise important new questions, often enrage traditionalists with an affirmative action scholarly agenda and with conclusions that sometimes leap beyond the arguments constructed.
James L. Haley. Passionate Nation: The Epic History of Texas. p. 162. (2006)

A Comment on 19th Century American Historiography

By a combination of ability and good fortune all the remaining obstacles, by no means contemptible were swept away, the will of the two nations was executed; and before long it was generally realized that their union was expedient, logical, and practically inevitable. For a variety of reasons, however-chiefly natural prejudices and equally natural want of information and the fact that certain gifted opponents of annexation enjoyed great prestige in quarters where much attention has been paid to historical writing-some inaccurate views regarding the matter have unavoidably prevailed. (Justin H. Smith. The Annexation of Texas. 469)

How much of what we study as American History was shaped by the New England historians of the mid to late nineteenth century? How much of that bias still affects us today? I am writing of the gentleman historians of Boston and New York, those writers with the time to write history as they saw it, at their leisure, historians who predate Henry Adams. Justin Smith wrote this nearly a century ago. He dedicated his work to George Garrison, another early professional historian. The work of Smith demonstrates definitely the influence of Ranke in his obsession with the original materials and his documentation of the same. Here, in the concluding sentences of his massive The Annexation of Texas, Smith is taking a swipe at his predecessors by claiming that they allowed sectional prejudice to color their writings. We can see in this work the transition from the amateur historian to the professional. How successful was Smith? To write anything about this event, his work cannot be ignored.

The 1844 Sales Pitch for Annexation

At this point let us halt for a moment, and let us recall the three general ways in which Texas has been found a menace to the United States. Had she remained independent and acquired northern Mexico, including California, she would have been a serious rival and probably the cause of numerous complications. Had she remained independent and fallen in line with the designs of England, as apparently she almost certainly would have done, she would not only have exerted in these directions all the power she herself possessed, but would have been supported and guided by a great nation that had aims believed to be inconsistent with the prosperous development of the United States. While, had the project of annexation been definitely rejected by the votes of the North, she would have perhaps caused the dismemberment of the American Union and the formation of a new confederacy, including herself, the southern States and a large portion of Mexico, that might not only have rivalled but have overshadowed the wreck of the old republic. (Justin Smith. The Annexation of Texas. (220))

Texas Tidbits

A. C. Greene. Texas Sketches. (1985)

The conversational tone of Texas Sketches perfectly lends itself to utilization in the classroom. It provides many interesting stories that would liven up any Texas History class. A. C. Greene gives the story behind the story in the founding of some of Texas's most noteworthy cities and compelling stories about the early residents. The brevity of each of the sketches lends itself not just to the classroom but conversation. It is enjoyable, light reading.

British Intrigue and the Texas Revolution

Stuart Reid. The Secret War for Texas. 2007. Texas A&M University Press.
"Could the British have stopped Manifest Destiny in its tracks in 1836? A Scottish doctor named James Grant was the agent who tried to make it happen and Texas was the stage on which the secret battle was fought." (Dustjacket)
James Grant is one of those figures in history who make an appearance, seemingly out of nowhere, and who disappear almost as quickly, a cipher if you will. Was he an agent of the British Foreign Office? Did his scheme of a Northern Mexico Federal Republic have a realistic chance? Or was it a method concocted by Grant to advance some land claims that he had? Most historians of this period believe it was all about the land claims and thus Dr. Grant does not rate very high in the estimation of Texans. He was a distraction. Unfortunately for the reputation of Dr. Grant, this monograph of Stuart Reid does little to change that estimation to this historian's eyes. There exists in this work too much "what if" and "only if", especially in regards to the attack on Matamoras, which never happened. The author sees the eventual annexation of Texas by the United States as inevitable once the Northern Federation fell apart. Inevitability is hindsight not history.

Something Different

Dallas is a religious city. In the fall we go to our churches up to four times on weekends. Friday night its high school football. Saturday is for college football. Sunday morning we go to the house of worship of our choice and pray the sermon doesn't run so long that we are late for the fourth service: the Cowboys. Dallas has been like this as long as I can remember. When Roger Staubach retired in 1980, all the local stations (except the PBS affiliate) carried it live. So it comes as no surprise that the lead story on the news tonight is the apparently imminent breakup of the Big 12 conference. Colorado is gone (were they ever in?). Nebraska is on the verge of leaving. And rumors are flying as to what UT, Tech, A&M, OU, and OSU are going to do. If they follow Colorado's lead and go to the Pac-10, I believe they will feel right at home. USC's latest shenanigans would have been right at home in the days of the Southwest Conference and the Big 8. The Jackie Sherrill era at A&M, the Mike Leach era at Tech (from which the dust has yet to settle), the Barry Switzer years at OU. All of these draw some comparison to USC's current troubles. Now we know why Pete Carroll left La-la land for the Pacific Northwest. He said in his statement today that he knew nothing of the charges against USC while he was coach. Sorry Pete, but your audition for the role of Sgt. Schultz in the remake of Hogan's Heroes is next week. If USC does have to vacate the title from their blowout of OU, what does that say about Vince Young and UT's win over virtually the same team the next year? Certainly one of the greatest games ever. The sad thing about all the commentary about USC? I heard one talking head compare in severity to that of SMU in the 80s. Isn't it time to leave SMU alone?