Exodus From the Alamo: The Anatomy of the Last Stand Myth

by Phillip Thomas Tucker

  Like Southerners who later viewed slavery’s abolition as inevitable when President Lincoln was elected in the winter of 1860, and thus determined to secede from the Union, so Texans viewed abolition in Mexico as catastrophic. In 1829, just one year before Mexico outlawed the import of slaves into Texas, one Southern journalist, with the “lessons of St. Domingue” in mind, summarized what the abolitionist threat entailed for Texians: “An attempt by the General Government to emancipate our slaves . . . would not only threaten to deprive us of a large part of our property, it would also produce immediate danger of the massacre of our families, and of a horrid servile war.” 78

  It could no longer be denied that Mexico’s enlightened philosophies and humanitarian principles posed a serious long-term threat to the Texans’ way of life. When Mexico declared independence from Spain, Mexico’s leaders, ironically motivated by the same ideals that had sparked the American Revolution in 1775, promised equality for Mexicans of all castes, colors, and classes. Far more egalitarian than anything in the United States, these enlightened principles for mixedrace peoples and people of African descent, all of whom were denied equality in the United States, astounded white Americans. Mexico’s position posed a serious threat to the firmly entrenched racial, economic, political, and social norms that held the fragile fabric of society together. 79

  After much protest, Texas received an exemption from Mexico’s president, because the original 1822 grant from the Mexican government to Austin had placed no restrictions on slavery. However, Mexico’s leaders and people yet desired gradual emancipation for slaves in Texas. The clock was therefore ticking away from an early date, and everyone knew it. Austin admitted as early as 1822 what lay at the heart of the differences between the new republic of Mexico and the Anglo-Celtic settlers: “the principal difficulty is slavery.” 80

  Other than armed might, only legal restrictions from Mexico City on what Anglo-Celts believed to be slavery’s natural extension could slow the flood of Americans migrating to Texas. Austin knew that “ruin would befall the colony if the original three hundred families could no longer rely on their slaves.” 81 Yet Mexico, committed to gradual emancipation, declared that all African American children in bondage would be freed once they reached the age of fourteen, ending the cycle of generations of men and women in permanent bondage. In response, Austin, heading a committee to buy time, advocated a key concession: he proposed a revision of abolitionist laws and regulations to provide a legal guarantee that “the slaves and their descendants of the [original] 300 families [of the Austin Colony] shall be slaves for life.” 82

  In addition to laws emanating from faraway Mexico City, decisions passed by the legislature of Texas and Coahuila likewise threatened slavery. Unrest spread through Anglo-Celtic settlements when rumors began that the legislature was considering abolishing slavery in its jurisdiction. Constitutional restrictions on slavery were indeed enacted and issued in the March 1827 Constitution of the State of Coahuila and Texas. These decisions included mandating the freedom of slaves at birth and prohibiting the arrival of new slaves six months after the law’s passage. Employing a loophole in Mexican law, however, Texas settlers continued to bring slaves into Texas under the guise of indentured servants, or slaves for life. 83

  Nevertheless, legal restrictions allowing only for the entry of slaves with contracts as indentured servants were seen as a threat, given the common view that slavery in Texas—not to mention the booming economy based on cotton—was no longer safe as a long-term investment. At any time and upon a whim, faraway Mexican politicians, whether honest or bribed, might pass a law to abolish slavery in Texas altogether, and the settlers could do nothing to stop it.

  After a revealing pre-Texas Revolution inspection of Texas, an alarmed Teran, who advocated anti-slavery laws, reported to President Guadalupe Victoria: “If these laws [prohibiting slavery] were repealed— which God forbid—in a few years Texas would be a powerful state which could compete with Louisiana.” 84 In 1830, confirming the antislavery measures passed by the legislature of Coahuila and Texas, the Mexican Congress was adamant that no additional slaves should be brought to Texas. Texas, whose slave population had swollen nearly to the size of the Tejano population by the end of the 1820s, was now threatened with certain “economic ruin.” 85

  With recurring threats to slavery after 1824 by Mexico’s efforts to undo the “salutary neglect” long enjoyed by the Anglo-Celtic settlers, Texans began to view the liberal Constitution of 1824 as a guarantee for future prosperity, because it was modeled after the United States Constitution, which possessed ample safeguards to protect slavery. As long as the 1824 Constitution was in place, the “peculiar institution” in Texas would endure. Support for the 1824 Constitution became stronger after the 1827 prohibitions of slaves to Texas by the state constitutions of Coahuila and Texas, and by the Mexican federal government degree of 1830. It grew further and became especially important in 1832, when the loophole allowing for indentured servants was tightened, limiting service by contract to no more than ten years. 86

  Without question, by the time of the Texas Revolution cotton was king, especially in east Texas. Cotton production boomed in the Austin Colony, which contained the best “soil in the world for the cultivation of cotton and sugar,” as a New England newspaper proclaimed in September 1829, and where production had grown from 600 bales in 1827 to 2,000 bales in 1833. The same editor wrote: “The prospects of the crops [in July 1829] were very flattering and it was estimated that 1,000 bales of cotton . . . would be made” by the Austin Colony’s farmers. Amid the fertile lands located just west of the Sabine, the Nacogdoches District of east Texas alone grew 2,000 bales in 1834. Most cotton was shipped to New Orleans for markets in the north and Europe, but hundreds of cotton bales were sent to Mexican ports, such as Matamoros, Vera Cruz, and Tampico. 87

  The lines between Mexicans and Texans were being drawn fundamentally over the contentious issue of slavery, which was the core element of the desire for greater autonomy and independence. The Texans held conventions in April 1830 and October 1832, requesting repeals of the slavery prohibitions and the establishment of a separate state government for Texas, independent of Coahuila. When Santa Anna assumed dictatorial powers as president in April 1833 to overthrow federalism for centralism, Texans saw him as a threat both to their aspiration for separate statehood for Texas and to their maintenance of slavery. Austin wrote from Matamoros at the end of May 1833 on his mission to Mexico City to emphasize that, above all else, Texas had to be “a slave country.” 88

  At the time, a good many voices, both Anglo-Celtic and Mexican, blamed the beginning of the Texas Revolution on the curse of slavery. In the words of José María Tornel, the Secretary of War: “The land speculators of Texas have tried to convert it into a mart of human flesh where the slaves of the south might be sold and others from Africa might be introduced, since it is not possible to do it directly through the United States.” 89 Benjamin Lundy wrote in 1837 that “the immediate cause and leading object of the contest originated in a settled design, among the slaveholders of this country (with land speculators and slave traders) to wrest the large and valuable territory of Texas from the Mexican Republic, in order to reestablish the SYSTEM OF SLAVERY; to open a vast and profitable SLAVE-MARKET therein.” 90 Clearly, the battle on behalf of the Constitution of 1824, which emphasized states rights as opposed to centralized authority, and which protected slavery in Texas, was a principal motivation for Texas Revolutionaries, including those at the Alamo, especially at the opening of the war. 91

  Colonel Francis White Johnson, a key player who nevertheless did not know of the New Orleans Greys’ flag at the Alamo, explained in a November 27, 1836 letter that “if any flag was used [at the Alamo] it was the Mexican, as Col. Travis had not been informed of the declaration of independence, which was made on the 2d March” 1836. 92 Ironically, the men of the Alamo fought not only for their own freedom, but also for the freedom to keep men, women, and children
in bondage. “One of the freedoms cherished by the American colonists in Texas was the freedom to maintain slavery.” 93 In his classic Santa Anna of Mexico, historian Will Fowler correctly identified the central paradox of the Texas Revolution: “The fact that the imposition of a centralist state would result in the abolition of slavery in Texas remains one of the main, yet often downplayed, reasons why the Texans rose up in arms.” 94

  Indeed, fearful Texans finally resorted to open revolution because of Santa Anna’s ascent to the presidency and his consolidation of centralized power, which now meant that the abolition law of 1829 could be enforced to the letter, and they were convinced that General Cós’ troops sent by Santa Anna into Texas in 1835 were determined “to liberate your slaves.” 95 In October 1835, the Matagorda, Texas committee of safety and correspondence declared that Mexican troops under General Cós were determined “to give liberty to our slaves [so as] to let loose the blood hounds of savage war upon us.” 96 This all-consuming fear was confirmed by General Cós himself, who undiplomatically declared in no uncertain terms that “the inevitable consequences of war will bear upon [all revolutionaries] and their property.” 97 This, of course, meant the slaves would be liberated.

  The Texas Revolution was not triggered over the ownership of the little “Come and Take It” cannon at Gonzales in early October 1835; it was brought on by the fear of Texas slave-owners that Cós and his Mexican troops, as Robert McAlpin Williamson warned at a protest meeting in San Felipe de Austin, would “compel you to liberate your slaves.” 98 Such warnings also played into the deep-seated fear of a possible slave revolt, which was felt throughout the South, and had helped to galvanize support for the patriot cause there as early as the American Revolution. Paradoxically, the fear of slave revolt also brought such overriding concern during General Cós’ occupation of San Antonio, that calls for peaceful reconciliation were raised in Texas. 99

  This Anglo-Celtic obsession was well founded. Across Texas, an historical analogy was made between Texas and St. Domingue, where a slave revolt that sent the great sugar plantations of the island’s northern plains up in flames during the summer of 1791 erupted into a fiery revolution, transforming the island into a hell on earth. Inspired by the ideals of the French Revolution, “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity,” the success of the Black Jacobins led to the establishment of the first black republic in the New World in 1804, after more than a dozen years of bloody warfare. Americans read about the slave revolt and resulting massacres in newspaper articles, and heard of its horrors from thousands of French refugees, including not only whites but many free blacks of the mulatto class, who poured into the Deep South and especially into New Orleans. The lesson learned was that slave revolts could unleash the nightmare of a savage race war to threaten the South’s political, social, and economic foundations, including those of Texas. 100

  The fear of repeating the events at St. Domingue was no less of a major catalyst for the Texas Revolution than it was for the Civil War. Fortunate to have escaped the hellish Caribbean island with their lives, St. Domingue refugees in New Orleans were nearby visible examples for the Texans, who feared how liberal French revolutionary concepts would also inspire their own slaves to revolt. Indeed, slaves across the South had already been influenced; the thousands of slaves who had risen up just north of New Orleans in January 1811 in America’s largest, yet quickly crushed, slave insurrection had been inspired by events on St. Domingue.

  St. Domingue was a powerful moral symbol for black regeneration and “Avengers of the New World.” A good many heads of black Louisiana rebels were planted on poles for slaves to see as a warning, yet concern among whites about future revolt remained high. Remembering the most radical political, racial, and social revolution in the “Age of Revolution,” Stephen Austin warned of impending doom as early as 1831, expressing great concern that not only Texas, but the South as a whole, would “be Santa [sic] Domingonized” in the future. 101

  Austin was so consumed by this fear of slave insurrection that he, unlike most colonists, became anti-slavery, because he believed that slaves were potential enemies who would rise up one day in a war of revenge. Austin was also concerned that the increase in the slave population would lead to the worst of all horrors in the minds of white Southerners: miscegenation. He was obsessed by the “horrible fate” that would befall “a long-cherished, beloved wife, a number of daughters, granddaughters, and great granddaughters” and the “overwhelming ruin” that he believed miscegenation would bring if slaves were freed. 102

  Fully realizing the deadly potential of his Faustian bargain—great wealth reaped at the risk of slave revolt—Austin further revealed in a June 1830 letter the deep psychological impact of his concern: “The idea of seeing such a country [Texas] as this overrun by a slave population almost makes men weep—It is in vain to tell a North American that the white population will be destroyed some fifty or eighty years hence by the negroes, and that his daughters will be violated and butchered by them.” 103 Paranoia about possible slave revolts was rampant across the South. Making the analogy with the black revolutionary Jacobins, who rose up in righteous rage against their French masters on St. Domingue, one Southerner declared: “Let it never be forgotten; that our Negroes are freely the JACOBINS of the country [and] the COMMON ENEMY OF CIVILIZED SOCIETY, and the BARBARIANS WHO WOULD, IF THEY COULD, BECOME THE DESTROYERS OF OUR RACE.” 104 On the other side, abolitionist William Wells Brown, the son of a white plantation owner and black slave, eagerly awaited a slave revolt. “The day is not far distant when the revolution of St. Domingo will be reenacted in South Carolina and Louisiana,” he grimly warned. 105

  The genesis of Stephen Austin’s fear was ironic, as it stemmed from the consequences of the original idealistic vision of his father, Moses Austin. It had been Austin’s dream to establish a great cotton and sugar cane empire, based upon slavery in Texas. The vast sugar cane plantations of Louisiana were based upon the St. Domingue model, after thousands of St. Domingue refugees, including sugar cane planters, resettled there. In this sense, the analogy with the most successful and largest slave revolt in modern history was most appropriate. 106

  The fear of “another St. Domingo” and the rise of some charismatic “black Spartacus” was omnipresent west of the Sabine. This was because more native Africans—always the most revolutionary of slaves, as opposed to American-born blacks—existed in Texas, as a direct consequence of the widespread smuggling that took place there after the United States ended the slave trade and barred native Africans from entering the country. The slave trade was ended as a direct response to St. Domingue, where Africans from the Congo had spearheaded the massive uprising; the United States desired to halt both refugees and “French negroes” from spreading the seeds of revolution from the Caribbean island. Even at the time of the Texas Revolution, many slaves in Texas yet bore tribal margins on their faces from the traditions of their West African tribes, and could neither speak English nor communicate with other slaves from different tribes and areas of Africa. 107

  In addition, Texas also came to be viewed as necessary to the expansion of slavery to act as a “safety valve” for the future salvation of the Deep South as abolition activity increased in the northern U.S. and in Europe, especially England during the early 1830s. An entire generation of Tennesseans, including men like Crockett and others at the Alamo and in the Texas Revolution, found wisdom in the analysis of the delegates of the Tennessee Constitutional Convention of 1834, who stated, “It is expedient, both for the benefit of the slave and the free man, that the slaves should be distributed over as large a territory as possible.” 108 Such concerns about slavery sparked early 19th century filibuster activities, primarily of U.S. Southerners in Texas.

  A wide variety of diverse factors—the expansion of slavery, self preservation, reaping vast profits, quest for land, and especially the unforgettable lessons of St. Domingue’s holocaust—combined to lay a firm foundation for the eventual fateful break with Mexic
o. 109 Because of General Cós’ own words, and because he was notably leading hundreds of “colored hirelings,” in John W. Hall’s words, of the Mexican Army to Texas, revolution was inevitable. It was believed that the intention of Cós’ men was to liberate the slaves. As William H. Wharton wrote, Mexico’s abolitionist ambitions were to “emancipate [the slaves] and induce them to turn their arms against their masters.” 110

  Subsequent events demonstrated that the fear of “another San Domingo” in Texas was not unfounded or unwarranted paranoia. In 1833–34, Colonel Juan Nepomuceno Almonte was dispatched by the Mexican government on a top secret mission to spread the news to slaves in Texas that a day of liberation lay ahead for them: freedom and even land ownership in the Republic of Mexico. 111Complicating the situation was the fact that Texas slaves were more prone to insurrection because many of them were aware that slavery was illegal in Mexico. Mexico was a nearby land of the free and a magnet for escapees.

  When the Texas Revolution erupted in the early autumn of 1835, nearly a hundred slaves rose up in revolt among the east Texas settlements along the Brazos River, which flowed between the Trinity River to the north and the Colorado River to the south. This desperate bid for freedom was sparked by rumors of an approaching Mexican Army. Bringing immediate retaliation from whites, the budding revolt was put down swiftly before it could escalate into something more serious. 112 For the Anglo-Celts, this premature slave insurrection demonstrated that if a large Mexican Army invaded Texas, slaves would be more than ready to turn on their masters in a bid for freedom. If so, then the rustic Texas revolutionaries would face two foes at once: Santa Anna’s invading army and a homegrown army of enraged slaves in their midst—a guaranteed no-win situation. Indeed, the outnumbered Texians would have no chance at simultaneously defeating opponents on two fronts, front and rear.