Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Ditto
Under the Texas Annexation agreement was a clause that allowed Texas to form itself into as many as five states if it chose, and if congress agreed.

Correct. Except that Congress agreed, when they admitted Texas. It's a done deal, all Texas has to do is their end now, to do the split. Texas doesn't need any further permissions, as I understand it.

Your reading of Texas demography in 1855 is correct. The slaves were heavily concentrated in the "peach bottoms" of the rivers near the coast. According to a lecture I once heard at a Houston Archeological Society meeting, Brazoria County south of Houston was something like 90% black slaves by the outbreak of the Civil War. The slaveholders were relatively few, tended to be men of English stock (remember that the next time you feel inclined to whip up on the Scots-Irish Southerners) in their 40's who'd immigrated from the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. (Jared Groce, the first man to bring any numbers of slaves to Texas, was from Georgia.)

The inhabitants of more northerly and westerly homesteads tended more to be younger, thirtyish Scots-Irish from Missouri, Tennessee, and Kentucky, only one in five owned a slave, and if he did it was a single slave who lived in a dog-run shack with the rest of the family. Their take on slavery and States' rights was rather different from the planters', who owned the legislature: the Scots-Irish were Jacksonian Democrats, equalitarian and narrow. The planters were more Whiggish and more liberal in their deportment (like Gunnar Myrdal) precisely because social distance made them relatively untouchable. Serene in their social inviolability, they received black men through the front door, as Texas historian T. R. Fehrenbach tells us, whereas the hardscrabbles who were truly threatened by bond labor, labored themselves at maintaining social distinctions that it was a luxury of wealth and position to affect to disdain.

548 posted on 05/28/2002 10:29:20 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies ]


To: lentulusgracchus
"The slaveholders were relatively few, tended to be men of English stock (remember that the next time you feel inclined to whip up on the Scots-Irish Southerners)...

I would be inclined to think that true throughout the south, not just in Texas. The aristrocrats and largest slaveholders tended to be the "old" money class who held the reigns of power. BTW, I only 'whip up" on the Slaveocrats like Davis who started that awful war. The rest of the southerners were victims of their corruption, greed and arrogance before, during and after the war and it mystifies me that anyone could admire men like that.

581 posted on 05/28/2002 1:41:52 PM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 548 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson