|
Post by cantador4u on Jan 23, 2010 15:56:51 GMT -5
There are many references to US citizens who illegally entered Texas/Mexico as pirates or filibusters. I know what a pirate is, but a not filibuster in this context. I found a book by Jeffrey Roche titled. By-ways of War; The Story of the Filibusters, and at the beginning of the first chapter he explains it this way; “The difference between a filibuster and a freebooter is one of ends rather than of means… The citizen or subject of any country, who makes war upon a state with which his own is at peace, with intent to overrun and occupy it, not merely for the piratical ends of rapine and plunder, is a filibuster in the true sense of the term. Such act of war is by the law of nations a crime against both countries. Its morality, before the meaner court of popular judgment, will rest upon the measure of its success alone. So judged, as all invaders are judged at last, the bold adventurer draws but few prizes in the lottery of fame. Cortez and Houston are among the few successful filibusters of modern times.” In other areas the author seems to be justifying and glorifying the actions of the Vikings. “Borrowing a lesson in natural history from their own lemming, they solved the troublesome problem, how to get rid of a surplus population, by sending the superfluous members forth to seek a new field… They went forth mainly to conquer, incidentally to colonize and settle.”I understand that I’m looking at this through the filters of my 21st century values and beliefs. Am I interpreting this correctly that Filibusters were considered brave, noble, even GOOD people? How can this be? What am I missing? Roche’s book can be found here. books.google.com/books?pg=PA1&dq=story+of+the+filibusters&id=_kILAQAAIAAJ#v=onepage&q=&f=falsePaul Meske, Sun Prairie, Wisconsin
|
|
|
Post by bmoses on Jan 23, 2010 19:58:06 GMT -5
There's no doubt that these interlopers came to get there own piece of Texas. Numerous leaders of independent filibuster movements schemed and plotted of ways to establish their own little kingdoms in the region. There's certainly not much to admire about such motives. However, considered individually, the majority of the filibusters were young men who were recruited by the promise of adventure and rewards (land). I can envision these young Americans hoping to strike out on their own, and perhaps to catch their lucky break. There were as many variations of this theme as there were young members of these filibustering operations.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jan 23, 2010 23:07:11 GMT -5
There's no doubt that these interlopers came to get there own piece of Texas. Numerous leaders of independent filibuster movements schemed and plotted of ways to establish their own little kingdoms in the region. There's certainly not much to admire about such motives. However, considered individually, the majority of the filibusters were young men who were recruited by the promise of adventure and rewards (land). I can envision these young Americans hoping to strike out on their own, and perhaps to catch their lucky break. There were as many variations of this theme as there were young members of these filibustering operations. And even later-the Alamo Rangers were organized in the San Antonio/Bexar County area to go help William Walker. And of course, one of the original purposes of the Knights of the Golden Circle was to take over Latin American countries (before they shifted over to the cause of Southern Secession).
|
|
|
Post by cantador4u on Jan 24, 2010 14:37:56 GMT -5
bmoses, You're right of course about there being "...many variations of this theme as there were young members...". Some when for ideological reasons, some for glory, some for fun or adventure, some for land, and some for rape, pillage, and plunder.
I'm getting mixed messages in my brain though. Were filibusters admired in general, or only admired if they succeeded?
Roche stated that filibustering was a crime against both nations, the one being attacked and the nation where the filibuster was from. Did the US Gov't have a policy about these activities?
Wasn't part of the filibuster activity an attempt to get more slave states and swing the power of the US Congress? Were Central and South American countries considered prime candidates for this endeavor?
Roche called Houston a successful modern filibuster. I don't recall if he had become a Mexican citizen or not. If he had then he would be more accurately described as a rebel. (A moot point probably) Is there any record of him intentionally going to Texas to "liberate" it from Mexico? Why WAS he in Texas at that time? I know that there is no record of him working on behalf of the US Govt.
Paul Meske, Sun Prairie, Wisconsin
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jan 24, 2010 16:57:26 GMT -5
bmoses, You're right of course about there being " ...many variations of this theme as there were young members...". Some when for ideological reasons, some for glory, some for fun or adventure, some for land, and some for rape, pillage, and plunder. I'm getting mixed messages in my brain though. Were filibusters admired in general, or only admired if they succeeded? Roche stated that filibustering was a crime against both nations, the one being attacked and the nation where the filibuster was from. Did the US Gov't have a policy about these activities? Wasn't part of the filibuster activity an attempt to get more slave states and swing the power of the US Congress? Were Central and South American countries considered prime candidates for this endeavor? Roche called Houston a successful modern filibuster. I don't recall if he had become a Mexican citizen or not. If he had then he would be more accurately described as a rebel. (A moot point probably) Is there any record of him intentionally going to Texas to "liberate" it from Mexico? Why WAS he in Texas at that time? I know that there is no record of him working on behalf of the US Govt. Paul Meske, Sun Prairie, Wisconsin William Walker, who is probably the best example of the type, was arrested for violation of neutrality laws folliwng his unsucessful attempt at taking over Baja and Senora in 1853. He was acquitted in eight minutes. When his Nicaragua presidencey finally failed in 1857, the US Navy saved his butt and brought him back to New York. A second attempt to go to Nicaragua was then stopped by the Navy, while on the third attempt the Brits got him(after he had landed in Honduras) and handed him over to Hondurian authorities who had him shot. Walker enjoyed much popular public support, and at oen time was getting help from Cornelius Vanderbilt. The US even recognized his givernment, until he ticked off Vanderbilt who not only pulled his support but also the US recognition. The both times US authorities arrested Walker the public outcry was in his favor. Ethan Allen Hitchock was actually removed from command because he attempted to stop Walker's from leaving San Francisco to attack Mexico. Yes-alot of this had to do with slavery. In both Mexico and Nicaragua Walker re-enstated the institution. Since the time of Burr, there had been a vision of expanding into Latin American quarters, and most of the attempts did come out of the South. The Golden Circle, which included everything from the border states south and west into Mexico and as far south as the top of South America, was to be a collection of "demoncratic" states which would help balance for the slave states. The Knights of the Golden Circle made it somewhat plainer by saying one of ther goals was to expand southern institutions into Latin America. During the Texas Revolution, the Jackson Adminstration was bound by treaty to observe neutrality. US troops on the border (Ft. Jesup and Ft. Towson) were suppose to stop armed volunteers from going into Texas (like that happened). What was going on on the US/Texas/Mexican border is a whole other side of the event.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jan 25, 2010 6:48:47 GMT -5
If I can chime in here with the view from the other side, so to speak; “filibuster”, or filibustero, is a Spanish term meaning pirates, not used loosely but rather, as Almonte (I think) put it; denoting men without a flag, ie; operating without the authority of a lawful government and therefore answerable to no-one.
The distinction is apparent in the fate of those engaged in the Matamoros expedition; Fannin’s men, who had invaded the Mexican republic “without a flag”, were executed after capture, but Grant’s men, who were operating in the name of the Federal Government of Mexico were not.
(Technically they were therefore rebels rather than legitimate combatants, but given the frequency of regime change in Mexico, there often seems a tendency to store up favours for next time around)
Nevertheless, acting without the express lawful authority of a government, frequently equates to plausible deniability, hence the ease with which these volunteers were recruited, equipped and shipped to Texas, often as formed units. There is no doubt either that Houston was a (deniable) American agent, reporting directly to Andrew Jackson, just as Grant was an equally deniable British one. Both were working to opposing ends; Houston to secure Texas for the United States and Grant to prevent an American takeover. Whether Houston knew Grant was a British agent is a moot point; while there’s no actual proof, it may be significant that in a letter to Jackson in the 1830s (don’t have the reference here at work, but is a published one), Houston warned of British interference.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jan 25, 2010 11:23:14 GMT -5
As Byron wrote: When a man hath no freedom to fight for at home,
Let him combat for that of his neighbours;
Let him think of the glories of Greece and of Rome,
And get knock'd on the head for his labours,
To do good to mankind is the chivalrous plan,
And is always as nobly requited;
Then battle for freedom wherever you can,
And, if not shot or hang'd, you'll get knighted.
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Jan 25, 2010 13:39:18 GMT -5
...that's a great addition Kevin!
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jan 25, 2010 19:13:26 GMT -5
Good grief! I've heard folks call Houston a lot things, but a military filibuster seems like a big stretch. He came to Mexican Texas in '32 as a lawyer, land agent and susposedly a spy for Andrew Jackson, not as the head of a bunch of freebooters. He became a Mexican citizen and later joined the Texas Independence Movement. How can he be considered a true filibuster when he only half-heartedly supported such unlawful actions (Matamoros, Santa Fe, Mier, Expeditions, Knight of the Golden Circle, etc, etc.) or not at all? In my opinion, Houston is about as much a filibuster as Thomas Jefferson. The ghosts of real blood and guts filibusters may now be insulted by this branding.
|
|
|
Post by cantador4u on Jan 25, 2010 23:31:31 GMT -5
Ranger Rod, Roche is the person calling Houston a successful filibuster. Your questioning his filibuster tendencies rings true to me. As I see it though, whether he intended to be a filibuster or not, his RESULTS would have done the most ardent Filibuster proud.
Stuart, Roche discussed the derivation of the word. The difference between a filibuster and a freebooter is one of ends rather than of means. Some authorities say that the words have a common etymology; but others, including Charlevoix, maintain that the filibuster derived his name from bis original occupation, that of a cruiser in a ["flibote," or"Vly-boat," first used on the river Vly, in Holland. Yet another writer >says that the name was first given to the gallant followers of Dominique de Gourgues, who sailed from Finisterre, or Finibuster, in France, on the famous expedition against Fort Caroline in 1567.The name, whatever its origin, was long current in the Spanish as "filibustero" before it became adopted into the English. So adopted, it has been used to describe a type of adventurer who occupied a curious place in American history during the decade from 1850 to 1860.
My 1968 Spanish/English dictionary defines the word as freebooter, another word for pirate, for practical purposes.
- Paul Meske, Sun Prairie, Wisconsin
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jan 26, 2010 2:05:51 GMT -5
Good grief! I've heard folks call Houston a lot things, but a military filibuster seems like a big stretch. He came to Mexican Texas in '32 as a lawyer, land agent and susposedly a spy for Andrew Jackson, not as the head of a bunch of freebooters. He became a Mexican citizen and later joined the Texas Independence Movement. How can he be considered a true filibuster when he only half-heartedly supported such unlawful actions (Matamoros, Santa Fe, Mier, Expeditions, Knight of the Golden Circle, etc, etc.) or not at all? In my opinion, Houston is about as much a filibuster as Thomas Jefferson. The ghosts of real blood and guts filibusters may now be insulted by this branding. I'm not aware Houston ever became a Mexican citizen, by the time he arrived in Texas there were enough Americans there for him to circulate without especial notice. I could be wrong; but either way I think the point here is that his purpose was to gain Texas, and he recognised that involvement deeper in Mexico would hinder rather than assist that aim - Grant conversely wanted to tie Texas into a much bigger Mexican revolution, which would have kept it out of American hands.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 26, 2010 21:32:39 GMT -5
It is interesting to consider some of the history involving Texas, going back to the first Spanish settlements. Spain wanted to occupy the area as a buffer against possible French expansion west of the Mississippi and sought to do it by a combination of military installations and evangelical missionaries, whose job it was to pacify the Indians. Later, Mexico sought to populate it with American immigrants as a way to control Indians. When the Revolution began, Mexico saw clear American designs behind it, just as many colonists saw the Revolution as merely a step toward annexation.
Both Presidents J. Q. Adams and Andrew Jackson had attempted to buy Texas from Mexico, but those efforts had only increased Mexican suspicions of U.S. intentions. One of Jackson's clumsy emissaries roused Santa Anna into a tantrum during which he vowed to "chastise" the U.S. if it tried to take Texas. (Yeah, yeah -- I KNOW!). Anyway, Jackson (like many other Americans) thought it was rightfully already part of the U.S. under the Louisiana Purchase. Jackson criticized Adams who, as Secretary of State, had bargained the territory away in the Transcontinental Treaty of 1819. Despite that view, Jackson later understood that a formal negotiation with Mexico would be required to annex Texas, despite Texas' status as an independent republic, since Mexico never recognized it as such. Jackson would have preferred to annex Texas quickly, but the idea ran into trouble when the issue of the spread of slavery was raised by opponents of annexation.
Jackson also saw Texas annexation as a buffer against continued British ambitions and meddling, and Britain was still involved in Texas in the 1840s. England curried favor with the young republic and offered to talk Mexico into recognizing its independence. The slave states, led by John C. Calhoun, saw British abolishionist motives in their activities in Texas, as Mexican recognition was bound to be contingent upon Texas agreeing to abolish slavery. By then, Jackson (in retirement) had become nearly fanatical in his fear that England was, in fact, plotting to reconquer the United States. Thus his determination to see Texas annexed. Ironically, Martin Van Buren, once Jackson's hand picked successor, was again seeking the presidency in 1844 and came out in opposition to annexation. Jackson, of course, abandoned him and threw his support to Tennessean James K. Polk, who ultimately won the White House that year. The Democratic platform called not only for the annexation of Texas, but also of Oregon, an area contested by the U.S. and England.
As for Houston, I don't recall what year he came to Texas or whether he'd have been considered an illegal alien under Mexico's law prohibiting immigration for the U.S., but it's clear that he wanted to yank Texas away from Mexico with the ultimate goal of U.S. annexation. I cannot tell how much he was in collusion with Jackson; I could not find reference to explicit communications between the two that would prove this. However, it may only be a matter of degree, as both clearly intended that Texas should eventually join the Union. Does that make Houston a filibuster?
Allen
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jan 26, 2010 23:09:13 GMT -5
It is well known that after nearly beating a man to death in Washington DC. that Sam Houston entered Texas in early December '32. On arriving in the settlements he did a few things that seem unbecoming to a rough filibuster. Houston applied for a land headright on Dec.24th in Stephen F. Austin's Colony as a married man, then received a divorce from his first wife. It is my understanding that for a foreigner to even be considered for a Mexican grant, the applicant had to prove he was of good character with a certificate, swear an oath of alliegance to the Mexican Republic, convert to Catholicizm and take a Spanish name. Houston was given the name "Fabio" and his application was approved by Austin himself. There's no denying Houston was a troublemaker, friend to Pres. Jackson and future rebel, but I think someone should provide a little contemporary evidence that he had filibustering intentions on coming here. Just a little.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Jan 27, 2010 4:02:29 GMT -5
By Spring, 1836, couldn't Houston's intent have been ultimately to pry Texas from Mexico for the U.S.? Consider that Santa Anna had bragged about marching all the way to Washington, D.C. I know some of y'all will posit that Houstin was a rank coward who was simply afraid to turn and fight, but might not his falling back eastward have been intended to lure the Mexicans into either crossing over or coming so close to the Sabine that American troops would officially respond (i.e. attacking under their commanders' orders and with their insignia still on their uniforms, rather than sneaking into Texas without either) and either claim Texas for the U.S or at least "move" the U.S./Mexico border west? Couldn't that make him a filibuster by that date, if not when he entered Texas?
|
|
|
Post by glforeman on Jan 27, 2010 8:56:24 GMT -5
The name that has escaped this conversation of filibustering belongs to the individual who also flew under the radar for decades --- General James Wilkinson --- the greatest scoundrel and traitor this country has ever known, and no one even comes close. We became acquainted with Wilkinson when the History Channel assigned us to produce a one hour program entitled MERIWETHER LEWIS: SUICIDE OR MURDER? We all had bought into the 'belief' that Lewis killed himself but by the time we put the program to bed the blinders had been ripped off and we 'knew' what actually happened....and there was Wilkinson, as clear as day, the designer of so much deceit, death, and intrigue, as the key instigator. The Lewis story now became the sub-plot of a larger international story which we have been following for over a decade. In a nutshell, Wilkinson began sending filibusters to Texas like Philip Nolan, Peter Ellis Bean, etc while he was operating as a double agent (he at one point was a triple agent) for the Spanish --- Agent 13 was his code--- because he and (later) Aaron Burr and Zebulon Pike , etc,.etc desired to create a rogue empire out of portions of Louisiana and Texas. This story is so huge and we probably don't have all the time here to complete this thought but, trust me on this, Wilkinson is your man when it comes to filibustering. GLF
|
|