Secession Movement In Texas Essay

The secession movement in Texas becomes a hotly debated topic as historians of the past and present, determine how the secessionists obtain enough power to overcome the government controlled Unionists? By researching primary and secondary sources, it becomes evident that following the 1859 Gubernatorial election the secessionists sought political and social power in Texas over the pro-Unionist. Evidence demonstrates that following the 1860 Presidential election; the secessionist achieved their goal of dominance over the Unionist. There exist several factors for secessionist success in defeating the Unionist in Texas. Following the annexation of Texas to the Union in 1845, the population tripled, with most of the population migrating

from portions of Upper and Lower Southern states. Due to this migration, Texas became divided between those sharing the same cultural, economic, and political characteristics of either the Upper or Lower South. Those residing in the Southern and Eastern parts of Texas shared the characteristics of Lower South by cultivating cotton, developing large slaveowner plantations, and supporting Southern rights. Those living in the Northern and Western Frontier shares the Upper South characteristics by cultivating grain products (wheat and corn). These residents possessed few slaves and supported Unionism. The factors of population growth and the cultural, economic, and political differences collided during the secession debate following the election of Lincoln that ultimately enabled the secessionist to dominate Unionist in Texas.
Between the 1859 Gubernatorial election and the 1861 Secession Referendum vote, significant historical events changed the viewpoints of the citizens of Texas. The historical significance of this paper will contribute to existing scholarships by arguing how secessionist strength among the populace grew during this period while adding how Unionist became disorganized under the leadership of Sam Houston that contributed to the Unionist failures. This paper centers on understanding how population growth, cultural, economic, and political differences transformed those viewpoints into accepting the secession ideology that ultimately brought the Texas on the side of the Confederacy.
In recent years, historians Richard McCaslin, Walter Buenger, James L. Haley, Stanley McGowen, James Marten, and others have conducted an extensive reanalysis of the secession movement in Texas. These authors apply new methodologies to previously studied materials and utilizing these methodologies to newly discovered primary and secondary sources for their studies. By analyzing the interpretations of authors from the early years of the twentieth century to the differing opinions presented by recent historians, this adds to the historiography of the secession movement during this period in Texas’ history. The historiography significance of this paper centers on bringing forward a comprehensive study of the secession movement and not just identifying the political differences of secessionist versus the Unionist. The comprehensive study includes discussions on the difference and commonality between secessionist and Unionist, to include the sub-divisions of each group. The historiography of studies conducted on the secession movement and the key political figures representing each political division. The studies of the cultural and economic differences between regions throughout Texas. The regional voting patterns during the Gubernatorial, the Presidential elections, and the secession referendum. Finally, discussions of the effects of the referendum on the secessionist as they dealt with certain Unionist that voted against secession.
Historians studying the secession movement assert that Texas possessed a one party system.

These historians state that since the annexation of Texas in 1845, the Democratic party has represented the dominated political party, with small elements of the Southern Whig’s supporters. Following the demise of the Whig party in 1854, the American party or the Know-Nothing party briefly garnered some support, but only for the next two years when it too died as a political party by 1856. Due to the association with abolitionists and the anti-slavery stance, the newly formed Republican party failed to materialize in

Texas.
The one party system in Texas becomes difficult for historians as they try to define or place individuals into the “secessionist” or “Unionist” category. John V. Mering argues that historians consistently assumes that “because one party called itself Union, the other party must have at least countenance disunion.” By studying the Constitutional Union and the Southern Democratic party during the 1860 Presidential election, Mering asserts “the actions of party leaders fails to affirm these clear choices. Rather than offering sharply defined alternatives to voters, the two major slave-state parties in 1860 illustrated consensus within the framework of party competition.” He submits three consensus or commonalities between each party, “the unquestioning devotion to perpetual slavery as necessary for racial control.” Each party stressed their version of Unionism while accusing the other of secessionist tendencies, and “both parties disseminated an image of the Republican party as fanatically bent on the direct abolition of slavery.” Mering’s study focuses on the National level and party affiliations, however, studies conducted on Texas Unionist and secessionist reveal the same consensus views. The continued support for slavery and a complete aversion towards the “black” Republican party become readily identifiable, but the differing views on and support for Unionism become harder to identify when researching information on Texans and the secession movement.
The studies conducted by Ralph A. Wooster and Walter L. Buenger provide a clear understanding of the secessionist and Unionist platform and characteristics. Wooster’s study come from the actual voting records of the original seven seceded states secession convention members and the three voting groups. The Conditional Union (Unionist) opposed separation from the Union, believing a compromise in the form of constitutional amendments that would guarantee the protection of Southern rights while preventing Southern states from seceding from the Union. Co-operationists “favored withdrawal from the Union, but in the form of United Southern action…immediate secessionists favored withdrawal by separate state action without delay.” The clarification of these three groups enables Wooster to assert a commonality of personal characteristics between each. Although the co-operationists would side with the secessionist, they supported the Conditional Union attempt to delay secession from the Union.
The clearest description of a secessionist or Unionist comes from actual Texans who wrote about the political history of Texas between 1858 and 1861.

For example, editorials by John Marshall in Austin Texas State Gazette, June 9. 1859, and B. W. Loughery in Marshall Texas Republican, June 3, 1859. Utilizing these editorials, Buenger provides the cultural and ideological identity associated with four political factions, two associated with the secessionist and two with the Unionist. The radical separatists (secessionist), a small group, wanting to secede immediately, shared the Lower South culture and ideology of defending Southern rights. They believe the responsibility of the nation centers on protecting “the rights and property of the individuals.” Moderate secessionists shared the Lower South Democratic party characteristics, of the “slaveholding and cotton growing culture.” These moderates’ also included some wheat growers from the Upper South and Germans living close to the cotton growers that supported secession. Moderate unionists shared the attributes of the Upper South or European culture, believing in the Union “and less concern for the responsibilities of the nation to the individual.” These moderates’ resisted secession until after the referendum but later accepted it. Radical Unionists comprised of a small group of immigrants from Germany and the Upper South. These radicals’ never agreed to secession believing that “the nation deserved to be

protected and preserved for what it was, instead of what it could do for the individual.” Although the radical divisions of each faction would never deviate from their political views. The evidence of voting records demonstrates that the moderates tended to fluctuate between each group depending on the certain circumstance at the time of the election. Throughout the remainder of this paper, Buenger’s four political faction descriptions will become the dominant view concerning a “secessionist” or “Unionist.” Understanding these faction’s assist in providing clarification on how the secessionist gained power over the Unionist in the secession referendum.