One Way Road Secession

One Way Road: Secession

Even as President Anson Jones turned the leadership of Texas over to Governor James Henderson in 1846, the national issue of slavery was heating up. The ongoing debate had already split the country into North and South factions, the Southerners supporting not only slavery, but defending their established economy and way of life. The annexation of Texas as a slave state fueled the fire of abolitionists who were concerned slavery would continue west even as southerners welcomed the opportunity Texas provided to expand their “peculiar institution” (Howell 137,138). The early statehood of Texas was a one-way road paved with social, economic and political bricks forged in the institution of slavery that led inescapably

to secession from the Union.
Texas’ annexation drew settlers from all over the country and Europe, resulting in a dramatic increase of population, two-thirds of which consisted of southern born whites and black slaves (147).

Settlers brought their cultures with them, and the southerners quickly established the slave-driven plantation culture with class distinctions they were accustomed to. The upper class was comprised of planters who enjoyed benefits of economic wealth and political power gained via slave labor. Middle class consisted of farmers and city dwellers while poor whites were considered lower class and free blacks were even lower than poor whites (147). Each social class was distinct from the other, yet there existed a societal co-dependency that tied most of the population to slavery in one form or another (156). The layered Texas southern culture and lifestyle based on slavery formed strong social bricks which reinforced the road to secession with shared values and heritage of the other slave

states.
Soaring cotton production correlated with the increase of slave population, and plantations quickly dominated the state’s economy. Texas cotton production grew from 60,000 bales in 1850 to 400,000 bales just ten years later (148). While only 25% of the people owned slaves, slaveholders controlled three-quarters of the wealth in the state (148). The phenomenal success of the cotton plantation industry retarded economic diversity and created a state-wide economic dependency upon cotton production. “Texans, like most Southerners, resisted urbanization because profitability of cash crops and their investments in human property kept them tied to their landholdings” (149). Planter-slave holders commanded not only the state’s wealth, they also dominated the state’s political offices because wealth “permitted leisure time for political activities” (148). Each bale of cotton represented an economic and political brick of profitability rooted in the southern plantation slave labor economic model, and worked to reinforced the road of secession Texas was traveling.
The North, meanwhile, continued to work against slavery during the early years of Texas’ statehood, placing well laid bricks on the secession road here and there.

From Wilmot’s controversial amendment during the Mexican War to the dispute over Texas’ claim to Santa Fe, Texans were very aware of the attempts to curb slavery’s expansion, and the Compromise of 1850 only delayed again the sectional crisis over slavery that loomed ahead. Three chief events stand out as the catalyst for finally forcing Texas to the end of the brick-laden road to secession: John Brown’s raid on Harper Ferry, the “Texas Troubles”, and the election of Abraham Lincoln. Abolitionist John Brown’s failed attempt to start an armed slave revolt caused Texans and other southerners to believe the institution of slavery was in direct danger (153). The “Texas Troubles,” a series of fires across the state, were suspected to be the actions of an organized plot by the Republicans or abolitionist ministers. After months of fires, “sentiments toward breaking away from the Union increased throughout Texas” (153). The Conflict between the North and South reached a breaking point during the presidential election of 1860. Southerners were convinced any candidate that “did not strongly support slavery [was] an enemy to the South” (153). Republican Abraham Lincoln was therefore equated to be the greatest threat to slavery and upon his election secessionists in Texas demanded a special legislative session to approve the

discussion of secession (154). Unionist Governor, Sam Houston tried to stall the growing momentum for secession, but a Secession Convention was held in January 1861.
Texas had reached the end of the road dependence on slavery had built. By 1860, Texas southerners had integrated so much of the Old South socially, economically and politically, any threat to slavery was construed as a threat to Texas as a whole. As Charles DeMorse, editor of the Northern Standard wrote, “We want more slaves… we desire the practicality, the increase in our productions; the increase of the comforts and wealth of the populations; and if slavery, or slave labor… ministers to this, why that is what we want” (167). When the referendum to secede was put to Texas voters, 85% of the counties voted for standing by their “peculiar institution” and seceded from the Union.

Work Cited
Howell, Kenneth W, et al. Beyond Myths & Legends: A Narrative History of Texas. 4th ed., Wheaton, IL, Abigail Press, 2013.