|
Houston
Aug 1, 2015 17:58:46 GMT -5
Post by estebans on Aug 1, 2015 17:58:46 GMT -5
Rich, I think you're right--I'm thinking about the paradox of needing both elbow room and adulation. Texas in those days was someplace Crockett could get both.
|
|
|
Houston
Aug 2, 2015 11:44:39 GMT -5
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 2, 2015 11:44:39 GMT -5
Rich, I think you're right--I'm thinking about the paradox of needing both elbow room and adulation. Texas in those days was someplace Crockett could get both. If you "follow the money," Crockett's relocations in Tennessee and his move to Texas are all driven by his financial situation, which seemed to go from bad to worse after the loss (due to a flood) of the mill enterprise he tried to establish. Between that and campaign expenses, he never really got on a solid footing again. Crockett was certainly someone who enjoyed being the center of attention and he, no doubt, basked in the limelight he was afforded on his way to Texas. It's pretty clear from his correspondence, however, that his primary goal in going to Texas was to get himself fiscally stable. He knew how much land he could expect to be awarded for his service in Texas and, from his comments, it sure seems as if that was his main motivation. His efforts to flip properties in Tennessee had been stymied by the complex and corrupt warrant system, but Texas offered the same opportunities with far fewer obstacles. Buying and selling properties was something Crockett knew a lot about, despite his previous lack of success at the endeavor. I think that once Crockett got to Texas his stance on politics might have softened a bit, especially given all the attention he received, but I take him at his word that when he left Tennessee, he was through with politics.
|
|
|
Houston
Aug 13, 2015 7:01:46 GMT -5
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 13, 2015 7:01:46 GMT -5
Our history book club discussed Jack Davis' "Lone Star Rising" last night and it was quite a lively evening! Seems the book really captured the interest of everyone and we even attracted a few new members. The land issue, the spread of slavery, the near-constant fluctuations in the state of Mexico's government ("now we're federalist; now we're a monarchy; whoops, now we're centralists") all came in for a lot of talk.
Among other things, I discussed the land issue and how it was so vital to nearly everything we see in early 19th century U.S. history (along with slavery). Whenever we read about this period, we invariably come up against the land issue. Land was a key element in the country's early economic development and an avenue of upward mobility for most Americans. Land represented wealth; those who had it (and, typically, enough slaves to work it) were wealthy. Those who didn't have it wanted it. Jackson was a poor orphan who started out with nothing, but through his acquisition of land and slaves he became wealthy. Crockett and Bowie were both preoccupied with acquiring land, and as much as possible, as a way to improve their financial and social status.
Crockett worked throughout his years in public office to make it easier for resident farmers ("squatters") in Tennessee to own the land they had worked and improved, but he had no luck due to Tennessee's bizarre land situation and butting heads with Jackson, Polk, and most Democrats at the time. It was an endless frustration for him, as were the political forces that worked against him. He was aware of the cheap, fertile land to be had in large quantities in Texas before he left Washington. In his speech on the Buffalo Road Bill he referred to Texas and said he looked forward to the territory being brought into the United States. In one of his last broadsides at Jackson and what Crockett regarded as his tyrannical presidency, he quipped that "Santa Anna's Kingdom would be a paradise in a few years" compared to the kind of country Jackson and his followers were creating. He also swore he would never live in a country governed by Martin Van Buren, whom he hated more than he did Jackson, and he made good on his word when he left for Texas.
Like most Americans, Crockett, who kept up with the news, was also aware of the trouble brewing in Texas and he and his comrades intended only to explore Texas and then return home. Once there, Crockett found that there was a huge land bounty for anyone joining the Texas army, and he decided to take the plunge. The attention he received in Texas may have rekindled some political ambitions as well, but land was his primary motivation, as it was for many who rushed off to Texas.
|
|
|
Houston
Aug 21, 2015 22:48:58 GMT -5
Post by rayjr on Aug 21, 2015 22:48:58 GMT -5
Allen, I agree with your assessment of the land motivation.
You must mean William C Davis "Lone Star Rising".
best, Ray
|
|
|
Houston
Sept 4, 2015 16:34:15 GMT -5
Post by stuart on Sept 4, 2015 16:34:15 GMT -5
He does, but some of us know him as Jack
|
|
|
Houston
Sept 8, 2015 16:28:01 GMT -5
Post by rayjr on Sept 8, 2015 16:28:01 GMT -5
Really? I did not know that. Thanks.
|
|
|
Houston
Sept 16, 2015 22:29:41 GMT -5
Post by timniesen on Sept 16, 2015 22:29:41 GMT -5
I need to mention the elephant in the room. The Scotch-Irish and American Imperialism. Some of you do not like ethnic interpretations of history, but I think race and ethnicity are one of the key elements in American history. Most of the Scotch-Irish and David Crockett's ancestors came into British North America and settled in Greater Lancaster County. Then Crockett's ancestors and so many others gradually migrated down the valleys of Virginia into Tennessee. A minority, like the ancestors of President Polk, came directly into the Carolinas, and then emigrated into Tennessee. They were already experienced as warriors, having defeated the Irish for the British government. This was not an easy task, for the Irish were were not only unruly but great fighters. Then they came into America in the early 1700s where they waged irregular warfare for generations against the Indians. In the backwoods of British America they became better at Indian fighting than the Indians themselves. If one goes through American History one finds that the majority of the advocates and filibusters of Manifest Destiny are Scotch-Irish. Polk, Houston, Jackson, to name just a few. William Walker was half Scotch-Irish and half Scot. His mother was the daughter of a American General in the American Revolution who surrendered at Charleston. Mrs. Polk was William Walker's mother's best friend. Bob Crockett was captured in the last and fatal Walker expedition into Honduras in 1860, and he witnessed his execution there. My study of the Walker expedition has shown that the majority of the officers in the Nicaraguan expedition were Scotch-Irish. An Irish filibuster from New York City (later a Congressman from New York City and arrested for treason early in the Civil War because he had a drink in a bar with former Nicaraguan filibuster and Confederate Frank Anderson) recruited a company of Irishmen emigrants from that urban area, and they emigrated to Nicaragua. The Irish officer was soon relieved of command because Irishmen were allowed to serve as regular filibusters in Nicaragua but not as officers there. The discrimnation against the Irish moved from Ireland to America to Nicaragua! This fact comes from an editorial in the New York Times, where William Walker's Radical Republican Uncle C. C. Norval was the writer of its financial column from 1851 to 1874. Tim
|
|
|
Houston
Sept 23, 2015 15:01:17 GMT -5
Post by timniesen on Sept 23, 2015 15:01:17 GMT -5
Jim, Please give a summary of your research concerning Crockett's son and William Walker. What was the date of the Crockett Chronicle article in reference to that issue? I recently attended the Buchanan Symposium at the LCHS where Dr. Greenberg gave a lecture on his various flips on American expansionism. At first Buchanan opposed the American annexation of Upper California yet afterward opposed the Treaty of G. H., which ended the Mexican-American War. He was the prime advocate in the Polk cabinet of the Annexation of all of Mexico movement. She is now writing a biography of Mrs. James K. Polk. Buchanan was almost certainly following the lead of the slavery elite of the eastern coast of the United States. Senator Calhoun, for instance, opposed the Mexican American War. This eastern wing of the American slaveocracy greatly feared an Anglo-American War due to their historical fear of Britain repeating their quite effective war of liberation against slavery in the American Revolution. (Has anyone here seen the two part dvd Book of Negroes? Wonderful and historically accurate show.) Tim
|
|
|
Houston
Sept 24, 2015 10:19:03 GMT -5
Post by Jim Boylston on Sept 24, 2015 10:19:03 GMT -5
Jim, Please give a summary of your research concerning Crockett's son and William Walker. What was the date of the Crockett Chronicle article in reference to that issue? I recently attended the Buchanan Symposium at the LCHS where Dr. Greenberg gave a lecture on his various flips on American expansionism. At first Buchanan opposed the American annexation of Upper California yet afterward opposed the Treaty of G. H., which ended the Mexican-American War. He was the prime advocate in the Polk cabinet of the Annexation of all of Mexico movement. She is now writing a biography of Mrs. James K. Polk. Buchanan was almost certainly following the lead of the slavery elite of the eastern coast of the United States. Senator Calhoun, for instance, opposed the Mexican American War. This eastern wing of the American slaveocracy greatly feared an Anglo-American War due to their historical fear of Britain repeating their quite effective war of liberation against slavery in the American Revolution. (Has anyone here seen the two part dvd Book of Negroes? Wonderful and historically accurate show.) Tim Hey Tim, I'll have to dig around and see if I still have my notes on all that research. A year or two ago my home was burglarized and all my computers were stolen. I lost tons of information and all my drafts of a project I'd been working on for some time. Turns out backing stuff up on multiple devices didn't matter since they stole everything. Jim
|
|
|
Houston
Sept 24, 2015 11:18:12 GMT -5
Post by timniesen on Sept 24, 2015 11:18:12 GMT -5
Jim, My sympathy for your plight. I too have had the same issue. My evil step-father threw out my entire William Walker collection. He had stated that, "I was a piece of sh... and all of my n...... research should be put in the trash." Instead he found the Walker collection. All 100 plus pounds of it in a box. Dr. Greenberg was unaware of the connection between Walker and the Crockett family. I was going to sent her to you. She did tell me that Mrs. Polk in her diary complained that Mrs. Walker would come over to her house and annoyingly talk for hours. You can just tell us what you remember. I assume at least some of you have seen her books. Tim
|
|
|
Houston
Sept 26, 2015 13:04:23 GMT -5
Post by timniesen on Sept 26, 2015 13:04:23 GMT -5
Jim, There is no hurry. She has not emailed me back yet. I must have been like a buff troll at the symposium. It was fun, nonetheless. Tim
|
|
|
Houston
Sept 30, 2015 15:04:22 GMT -5
Post by timniesen on Sept 30, 2015 15:04:22 GMT -5
I just looked up the wikapedia page for John Crockett. It incorrectly has him founding the New Orleans Crescent in 1848. John Crockett, the son of David Crockett, purchases a third share of this flourishing newspaper from William Walker in the early part of 1850. Jim, I assume that you found the same record. One of the myths of the story of William Walker is that he drove this newspaper into the ground by careless and reckless editorial activities. This erroneous story, accepted by his early biographer Carr, is the product of slander by the newspaper organs of Senator Slidell in 1858 when he supported the anti-filibuster policies of President Buchanan. Tim
|
|
|
Houston
Oct 9, 2015 19:04:11 GMT -5
Post by sloanrodgers on Oct 9, 2015 19:04:11 GMT -5
Interesting discussions on possible hostility between Houston and Crockett, but I don't recall reading of this conflict in their letters and papers. I guess it's possible since they were on different sides of Old Hickery's fence.
|
|
|
Houston
Oct 22, 2017 5:03:46 GMT -5
Post by Joshua on Oct 22, 2017 5:03:46 GMT -5
When was Houston given the rank of General, out of curiosity?
|
|
|
Houston
Oct 23, 2017 20:22:45 GMT -5
Post by mjbrathwaite on Oct 23, 2017 20:22:45 GMT -5
According to Wikipedia, "the Texas Army commissioned him as Major General in November 1835."
|
|