|
Joe?
Nov 23, 2009 18:32:59 GMT -5
Post by sloanrodgers on Nov 23, 2009 18:32:59 GMT -5
It seems to me that there were probably many slaves with the common name of Joe residing in Texas and the South during the late 1830s. I'm not sure anyone could positively connect one to Buck Travis' servant or locate him in Alabama or elsewhere without very specific information. Jeremiah Dwyer even lost (through theft or death) a slave called Joe during the Texas Revolution. After the conflict Dwyer claimed damages for is lost servant. Good luck to those looking for the Real McCoy. Negro Man named Joe ~ $1000.00 / Republic Claim 250-494 tslarc.tsl.state.tx.us/repclaims/250/25000494.pdf
|
|
jerry
Full Member
Posts: 60
|
Joe?
Nov 24, 2009 9:11:39 GMT -5
Post by jerry on Nov 24, 2009 9:11:39 GMT -5
A few years ago - during an Alamo Battlefield Association bus tour - Ron Jackson, co-author of the forthcoming book on Joe, gave a short talk about the book. He spoke in general terms not providing any details. If my memory is correct, Ron said Joe's surname would be revealed in the book.
Jerry
|
|
|
Joe?
Dec 17, 2009 19:48:46 GMT -5
Post by pawbear on Dec 17, 2009 19:48:46 GMT -5
Hi:
Been away a bit, but have been reading. The whole issue of Joe just fascinates me.
It is imperitive how the name is discovered. For instance if the author of the article appearing in Austin in 1875 had a journal and mentioned Joe there; it would be a valid primary source. The only name I ever came across is in one of the anthologies on the Alamo stating Joe's master prior to Travis was Mansfield. The hypothesis was he used that name.
I'm also curious as to whether this work will give any validity that Joe returned to Alabama to meet with Travis' family or, for that matter to live. My hypothesis is that he lived in Mexico for a bit or in a Mexican community since his escape from slavery was with a Mexican. This, however, unlike another post, is not to say my opinion has any feather of weight to it. Just supposing.
|
|
|
Joe?
Dec 29, 2009 14:34:08 GMT -5
Post by jesswald on Dec 29, 2009 14:34:08 GMT -5
I have received my Crockett in Congress, but Amazon referred me to Ned Huthmacher himself for a copy of One Domingo Morning. Ned promises to send it to me in January, adding a comment about them having to eat snakes before they get in here, Jim. I remember seeing the Last Command back during the Davy Crockett craze in 1955 and wondering whether it was Santa Anna who gave the last command or what. I was eight. Anyway, I look forward to the publication of the Joe biography and will hold off doing my creative work until then. Before the year is out, I wonder if the 200th anniversary of William Barret Travis' birth was observed here or anywhere else in August. Happy New Year, everybody.
|
|
|
Joe?
Mar 12, 2010 12:55:31 GMT -5
Post by jesswald on Mar 12, 2010 12:55:31 GMT -5
Sorry I could not come to Bejar to meet everyone at the HHD last week. Sounds like a blast. Maybe some day. Anyway, I am still researching Joe. I am in the midst of Ned Hutmachter's book "One Domingo Morning," which is great fun, and obviously researched, but Ned has decided to ride with many of the myths, probably because they lend drama. Not up to the line in the sand yet, so I don't know if he included that. But he does have "Davy" shooting down a Mexican gunner who comes in too close early in the siege, using "Old Betsey." Oh well. I'm enjoying it immensely. At some point in my internet browsing I think I ran across a transcript of Travis' will, but I lost track of it and cannot relocate it. Can anyone help me with a site? And was there more than one will?
Also, I have always been intrigued by the fact that while the Alamo was falling, the convention was drafting a constitution for Texas which, in addition to preserving slavery, also provided that no free blacks could reside permanently in Texas without the consent of congress. Any thoughts on the purpose of this provision? Was it to protect the economic interests of poor whites? At the same time the constitution outlaws the importation of blacks from anywhere except the USA. What is this?
I had thought that I would hold off on beginning my project, which is a one-act play about Joe, until after the publication of the forthcoming study of him. Anyone know when that is scheduled? I am getting itchy, and may, once I am sure I am right, go ahead. I don't like being hemmed up. Jesse Waldinger
|
|
|
Joe?
Mar 12, 2010 15:42:20 GMT -5
Post by Wade Dillon on Mar 12, 2010 15:42:20 GMT -5
Jesse,
I do not know of the release date, but I understand it is about 500 pages of awesomeness.
~Wade
|
|
|
Joe?
Mar 14, 2010 3:33:07 GMT -5
Post by Tom Nuckols on Mar 14, 2010 3:33:07 GMT -5
Also, I have always been intrigued by the fact that while the Alamo was falling, the convention was drafting a constitution for Texas which, in addition to preserving slavery, also provided that no free blacks could reside permanently in Texas without the consent of congress. Any thoughts on the purpose of this provision? Was it to protect the economic interests of poor whites? At the same time the constitution outlaws the importation of blacks from anywhere except the USA. What is this? I'm guessing it was a "supply and demand" provision. An example of government "intruding into the marketplace" to favor business. There must've been Texian slave business interests that didn't want competition from overseas slavers..or from free American blacks who wanted to immigrate to Texas. They wanted the only blacks in Texas to come from their slave business partners in the other Southern states, so they used government to write it into law.
|
|
|
Joe?
Mar 14, 2010 8:12:40 GMT -5
Post by Kevin Young on Mar 14, 2010 8:12:40 GMT -5
Also, I have always been intrigued by the fact that while the Alamo was falling, the convention was drafting a constitution for Texas which, in addition to preserving slavery, also provided that no free blacks could reside permanently in Texas without the consent of congress. Any thoughts on the purpose of this provision? Was it to protect the economic interests of poor whites? At the same time the constitution outlaws the importation of blacks from anywhere except the USA. What is this? I'm guessing it was a "supply and demand" provision. An example of government "intruding into the marketplace" to favor business. There must've been Texian slave business interests that didn't want competition from overseas slavers..or from free American blacks who wanted to immigrate to Texas. They wanted the only blacks in Texas to come from their slave business partners in the other Southern states, so they used government to write it into law. There was a strong fear of slave insurrection in the South which is one of the reason for the restrictions on free blacks. It was felt that their influence was a negative on slave populations (in Charleston, free blacks who were sailors on ships in port were confirned during their visits to port). Campbell gets into this in Empire for Slavery. The Republic of Texas was just following the example.
|
|
|
Joe?
Mar 14, 2010 11:51:11 GMT -5
Post by Herb on Mar 14, 2010 11:51:11 GMT -5
Kevin,
I realize they're different eras, but the mention of Charleston confuses me. I remember from when I lived near there visting several historic locations that were owned by free Blacks that owned slaves prior to and during the Civil War. It was eye-opening for me for prior to that, I didn't know there was any slave owning Blacks, nevertheless in any signicant numbers.
|
|
|
Joe?
Mar 14, 2010 12:14:13 GMT -5
Post by Kevin Young on Mar 14, 2010 12:14:13 GMT -5
And a free black barber in Natchez also owned slaves....and New Orleans had a large Free Persons of Color population.
However, in 1822 South Carolina enacted laws restricting the movements of free black sailors when in their ports. Other seaboard states also had such laws. Take a look at United States Circuit Court for South Carolina as Elkison v. Deliesseline.
Like many laws enacted restricting the movement and education of slaves, and free blacks, this had a lot to do with slave revolts and plans of slave revolts (in this case, Denmark Vesey, a free slave, who may or may not have been planning a slave and free black uprising in South Carolina).
|
|
|
Joe?
Mar 14, 2010 18:43:00 GMT -5
Post by Herb on Mar 14, 2010 18:43:00 GMT -5
And a free black barber in Natchez also owned slaves....and New Orleans had a large Free Persons of Color population. In fact, two of the regiments that defended New Orleans from Farragut's invasion and capture of New Orleans in 1862 were Black (I asume free). Stonewall Jackson's Valley Army, and later Corps, in 1862 had substantial numbers of Black soldiers, so much so that it was commented on by a Union officer when Jackson passed trough Frederick, Maryland in Lees' 1862 Invasion. When Lincoln said The Emancipation Proclamation was about denying the South manpower it was mcuh more literal than we realize today.
|
|
|
Joe?
Mar 14, 2010 18:49:53 GMT -5
Post by Kevin Young on Mar 14, 2010 18:49:53 GMT -5
and yet Pat Cleburne's career suffered because he advocated freedom for slaves who would join the Confederate Army.
|
|
|
Joe?
Mar 14, 2010 20:28:55 GMT -5
Post by Herb on Mar 14, 2010 20:28:55 GMT -5
and yet Pat Cleburne's career suffered because he advocated freedom for slaves who would join the Confederate Army. True, there's a lot of this that just doesn't make sense (there were still some Black solders in Lee's Army at the Battle of Gettysburg). I did a lot of research on this a decade or so ago, but I still don't have a good handle on it. From what I found outside of Louisanna, Black service in the South in the early war, was much like that in the American Revolution, War of 1812, etc. I guess, it's the difference between what is done unofficially and Cleburne wanting to make it a formal policy, requiring Politicians to make a decision! Still you have to wonder what would have happened had Cleburne ever been promoted as he should have been.
|
|
|
Joe?
Mar 23, 2010 19:36:28 GMT -5
Post by sloanrodgers on Mar 23, 2010 19:36:28 GMT -5
When I was in school I was taught by an African American history teacher that the Civil War was fought for the sole purpose of freeing the U.S. slaves and forcing the Southern States to adopt the equality beliefs of the Declaration of Independence. I learned that Black soldiers served heroically in the U.S. army and simply to free their brethren, but that was about it. It wasn't until years later that I found that Black soldiers and sailors also served in the Confederate army along with Mexicans and Indians. It seems to me that for a long time people wanted to oversimplify this war into a blue against gray conflict when their were many different colors involved. Joe could have served in a confederate unit depending on his circumstance and motivations at the time, but I guess we'll never know for sure. I'm just glad he escaped Texas slavery.
|
|
|
Joe?
Jul 26, 2010 9:40:58 GMT -5
Post by jesswald on Jul 26, 2010 9:40:58 GMT -5
For my long-delayed and breathtakingly anticipated teeny playlet about Joe, two inquiries: 1. According to William C. Davis (p. 447), Travis' will dated May 25, 1835 provided for Henry Smith to act as executor. Yet it appears clear that John Jones was running the estate, at least when Joe escaped from slavery in 1837. Was there more than one will? Or, was Jones a co-executor or alternate executory in the original will? Anyone know how I can get hold of the will short of going to Texas? 2. Any new news on White and Jackson's forthcoming tome on Joe? Jesse Waldinger
|
|