Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Texas stays independant

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    I don't have the time to search but I am only aware of the 1st Texas Cavalry (Union). Just goes to show that Texans had to leave to serve in the Union Army. You are aware that a number of Rebel Prisoners were recruited to fight Indians? That could account for some of your "fillers". Some Confederate deserters enlisted in the New England regiments in Louisiana. If they were captured and recognized they were hung. I have a book put away written by a Texan that tried to dodge the Draft in the Big Thicket and had to run to the woods along the upper Calcasieu River. There the Confederate Cavalry made him run for Union lines. He enlisted as an officer in a Louisiana Union Cavalry Regiment and participated in the Red River Campaign. He ended the war with a job in the Freedman's Bureau.

    Pruitt
    Yes, I know about 'Galvanized Yankees'. I wasn't counting those.

    The Big Thicket fighting has seen substantial documentation.

    But again, why are you discussing the ACW in a thread about a period twenty years earlier?
    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

      In 1836 there were probably 5,000 blacks, 30,000 Anglo-Americans, 3,470 Hispanics, and 14,200 Indians in Texas.

      The majority of the blacks were slaves. You can figure about a third of the Hispanic population was not pro-Republic.

      So a regular army of 300-600 was the most Texas could field without wrecking its economy. They did have a standing force of 200 men on and off for a total of 30 months out of 9 years, but lacking a treasury they frequently disbanded it for lack of funds.

      In 1847 a partial enumeration was made showing a population of 135,000, of whom 39,000 were slaves. Still insufficient to field an army of 5000, even if there were funds available.

      By comparison, in 1860, the population was 604,000, of which 182,000 were slaves. Possibly sufficient to field a regular military of 5000 with a peacetime economy.

      So, you are looking at 24 years minimum commitment of troops. And not incidentally, the sponsoring nation would have to be willing to send said troops to defend a new nation where slavery was legal; a key element in the Texas Revolution was Mexico's opposition to slavery. Great Britain opposed slavery and the slave trade, so would they help a slave-owning nation? Without slavery, Texas' population and economy would not have grown as rapidly as it did historically.

      As noted, Texas was a cotton state in the 1830s-60s, which meant slavery.
      While the Indians were a threat and doubtless prevented the full settlement of Texas, the Anglo Americans were surviving before the annexation. Plus despite the Indians the Mexicans and before them the Spanish had managed to survive for centuries. And the Spanish would have had flintlocks when they first arrived.
      Over time the Anglo Americans would only have go stronger and more populous.
      "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
        But again, why are you discussing the ACW in a thread about a period twenty years earlier?
        It was that line about Texas being a Cotton State before the ACW, which meant Slavery. Cotton does not strike me as growing well in the East Texas Piney Woods to the Austin area. The Germans around Fredericksburg made it work without Slaves. Texas was involved with Cattle Drives to New Orleans since the Spanish era. Cattle were sent over the Camino Real. A branch was through the Sulphur, LA area I lived in.

        Pruitt
        Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

        Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

        by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Surrey View Post

          While the Indians were a threat and doubtless prevented the full settlement of Texas, the Anglo Americans were surviving before the annexation. Plus despite the Indians the Mexicans and before them the Spanish had managed to survive for centuries. And the Spanish would have had flintlocks when they first arrived.
          Over time the Anglo Americans would only have go stronger and more populous.
          The Spanish had matchlocks when they first arrived.

          The Spanish, as was their habit, released horses into the wild so that they could, in the future, gather remounts locally instead of a constant shipment of horses. This literally created the Plains Indian culture. With time, the Comanche, now mounted, pushed the Spanish/Mexican presidio line back, until the Mexican government had the bright idea of inviting Americans into Texas as colonists to act as a buffer against the Indians. This turned out as you know.

          During the time of the Republic the Comanche raided clear to the coast, sacking an entire town on one occasion. Only the smallpox outbreaks gave the settlers any respite, but that was, as history shows, just a temporary aid, just as the post 1836 political turmoil in Mexico helped them for the first five years.

          But without troops and cash, the Republic was doomed, and they knew it. Reading from the period it is clear that the Texans (or Texians) were just marking time until the USA came in.

          Once in the USA all Texas needed was the 'fort line' and troops to manage them, because the war that unification brought settled the issues with Mexico for decades.

          The price of Texas for the USA was war, first with Mexico, then the fort line until the 1880s.

          The only way Texas could exist is with the aid of a government that shouldered that load.
          Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Pruitt View Post

            It was that line about Texas being a Cotton State before the ACW, which meant Slavery. Cotton does not strike me as growing well in the East Texas Piney Woods to the Austin area. The Germans around Fredericksburg made it work without Slaves. Texas was involved with Cattle Drives to New Orleans since the Spanish era. Cattle were sent over the Camino Real. A branch was through the Sulphur, LA area I lived in.

            Pruitt
            We still grow a lot of cotton today. Two billion dollars worth. We've always been a cotton state.

            Cotton = slavery, and slavery = cotton in the pre-ACW USA.

            There were not 182,000 house servants in Texas in 1860, nor were slaves used to herd cattle.
            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

            Comment


            • #36
              Cotton was just being introduced in Northeast Texas in the Marshall area. There was even a rail line built to there so the crop could be shipped through Shreveport and down the Red. The soil here was rich and there was enough rainfall. Now Cotton is grown far to the West because they can use fertilizer and pump water from the aquifers.

              Pruitt
              Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

              Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

              by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

              Comment

              Latest Topics

              Collapse

              Working...
              X