Preserving Early Texas History: Essays of an Eighth-Generation South Texan

By José Antonio López

At a time in our history where the Spanish Mexican roots of this great place we call Texas are being questioned, this third volume of selected essays is most timely. For example, if Texas history begins in 1836 as implied in mainstream Texas history, why then is everything historically old (towns, roads, rivers, mountain ranges, regions, etc.) named in Spanish? Our ancestors’ legacy is why we have a right to practice our heritage year-round; not just during Hispanic History Month.

Importantly, the network of vibrant communities in New Spain connected by the Camino Real are indeed what first attracted U.S. Anglo Saxon and Northern European immigrants to Texas and the west. In remembering our ancestors, “Aquí todavía estamos, y no nos vamos”. (Here we still are and we’re not leaving.)

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Mar 5, 2023
• ISBN: 9781669865971

José Antonio López

Mr. Jos Antonio (Joe) Lpez was born and raised in Laredo, Texas. USAF Veteran. He is a direct descendant of Don Javier Uribe and Doa Apolinaria Bermdez de Uribe, one of the earliest families that settled in what is now South Texas in 1750. He is married to the former Cordelia Jean Cordy Dancause of Laredo. He has college degrees from Laredo Jr. College and Southwest Texas State University, San Marcos, TX. He earned a Masters Degree in Education. Other books by the author: The Last Knight (Don Bernardo Gutierrez de Lara Uribe, A Texas Hero), Nights of Wailing, Days of Pain (Life in 1920s South Texas), The First Texas Independence, 1813 (a reprinted bilingual version of his first book The Last Knight), Preserving Early Texas History (Essays of an 8th Generation South Texan), and Friendly Betrayal. Mr. Lopez is also a newspaper columnist who writes about issues affecting Spanish-surnamed citizens in the Southwest. He and his wife visit school campuses and meet with genealogy, history, and social service groups throughout South Texas sharing the Spanish Mexican roots of Texas and Southwest. Mr. Lopez is the founder of the Tejano Learning Center, LLC, and www.tejanosunidos.org , a web site dedicated to Spanish Mexican people and events in U.S. history that are mostly overlooked in mainstream history books.

Book preview

Dedication

Dedicated to Las Villas del Norte founding

families and their descendants.

Introduction

(Tejanas and Tejanos Defending their Birthright in Texas)

*

"That Spaniards came to the New World simply to plunder,

whereas Englishmen and Frenchmen came to settle and to

engage in honest trade is a popular, but false statement."

(Historian David J. Weber)

*

"It is time to realize that there will not be found any more

cruelty, tyranny, and superstition in the résumé in past Spanish

history than in the corresponding résumé of Anglo-Norman history."

(Poet Walt Whitman, 1883)

*

"As for those in power, they are so anxious to establish

the myth of infallibility, that they do the utmost to ignore truth."

(Poet Boris Pasternak)

*

"History is always written by the winners. When two cultures clash,

the loser is obliterated, and the winner writes the history books –

books which glorify their own cause and disparage the conquered foe."

(Historian Dan Brown)

*

Selected Early Texas History Words of Wisdom and Key Points.

****

Oftentimes, during my ten-year career of sharing our early Texas story with others, a particular question has been asked by many attendees to my presentations. Why isn’t the information you just provided not found in Texas history books? It’s a very revealing question and is at the core of my early Texas history educational venture. The answer is that mainstream Texas history books, school curricula, and most online history content, is written with a pronounced and heavy post-1836 Anglo-slanted viewpoint. (See above for Dan Brown’s view.) Doing so, generations of mainstream historians have purposefully tried to hide the Spanish Mexican founding families and their history of this great place we call Texas. It is with that thought in mind that I became a writer.

Thus, with this third (and last) volume of Preserving Early Texas History, the details below are provided as food for thought. (Though the items are somewhat listed chronologically, they are not in any particular order.) This book and volumes 1 & 2 cover the topics in more detail, and so, they are listed here as a quick reference. They describe the reasons it is important to preserve and practice our Spanish Mexican heritage on this side of the border. (Note: Always remember that when it comes to early Texas history, it’s never repetition, it is reinforcement.)

Most importantly, it is at this time that I take the opportunity to thank God, family, and friends for their awesome support during my second career as an early Texas history aficionado, public speaker, author, and newspaper columnist.

First, indeed I am truly blessed that God granted me the ability to effectively write English to preserve our pre-1836 Spanish Mexican Texas history and share it with a wider audience. For a child who grew up with English-as-a-second language (ESL) in El Barrio Azteca (Laredo, Texas), it is a gift beyond words.

Second, a particular response some years ago was a great motivator. It came from a distinguished and most respected Tejano historian. After listening to one of my presentations, he said Joe, you present your material as we professors wish we could teach it, but we’re not allowed to. Thankfully through the many years of giving presentations, many other educators provided me with similar encouragement.

In retrospect, two other comments stand out. One was from a gentleman from Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico. After one of my presentations in Harlingen, he told me in Spanish, "Señor López, vine preparado a criticar su presentación, pero después de haberle oído hablar, no es necesario. (I came here prepared to criticize your presentation. However, after hearing you speak, there’s no need.)"

Likewise, a teacher approached me after I visited her school, Mr. López, I am a Texas history teacher and a history major. I’m sorry to say that I never heard any of this in my college Texas history courses.

There is one more specific comment that I am pleased to add. After one of my presentations to a chapter of the Sons of the Republic of Texas, an elderly gentleman approached me afterwards. He said, Mr. López, even as a young child, I always wondered why Sam Houston had it so easy. After listening to your presentation, I now know why. Thank you. (Note: To me, his reaction was an indication that even those who have been raised on the strict diet of biased one-sided Anglo-based Texas history, they are willing to learn the other side of the story. Having also spoken in front of several mostly Anglo and Northern European-descent audiences, his were comments I often heard from similar open-minded attendees.

Special thanks to Mr. Steve Taylor, Editor, Rio Grande Valley International News Service, who greatly assisted me in sharing the true foundation of our state with others. Credit is also extended to other printed media that kindly published my work, such as the San Antonio Express-News, and the former print newspaper LareDos (Meg Guerra, Editor/Publisher).

Many thanks also to early Texas history giants (most especially, Dr. Lino Garcia, Jr., Dr. Andrés Tijerina, Dr. Caroline Castillo Crimm, and Robert H. Thonhoff). Not only did I greatly admire them before and after I began to write, but am honored to call them good friends.

Much gratitude to the many parents and teachers for their positive feedback and who basically responded with two common themes after attending my presentations: Why haven’t we ever heard of these historical people and events before? and Why isn’t this being taught to our children?

Such encouragement helped me write over 500 articles. In short, I am humbled beyond words. Becoming a newspaper columnist is an experience that I never envisioned, gave it my best, and tremendously enjoyed. Thank you all, again.

Regrettably, such a wealth of historical information (and much more) is still missing from mainstream Texas history. In my view, the two key questions from parents and teachers mentioned above are good questions for concerned citizens of Mexican-descent to ask the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE). Unfortunately, board members are fixated on the delusional idea that Texas history begins in 1836 with the arrival of Anglo immigrants from the U.S. Nothing is farther from the truth. In short, including pre-1836 people, places, and events will finally provide the big picture of Texas history.

Hopefully, readers will be inspired to reflect on the contents of this book (as well as volumes 1 and 2). Specifically, I ask that they help carry the torch of knowledge and enlighten others regarding pre-1836 Texas. Our end objective? That one day, students of all backgrounds in Texas schools will learn the true seamless history of this great place we call Texas.

The Birth of Texas. Texas was born in 1691. Domingo Terán de los Rios was named the first Texas Governor. Over 30 other Spanish governors followed until 1821. For that reason, Stephen F. Austin cannot be the Father of Texas as claimed in mainstream (mandated) Texas history, since Texas was already 130 years old when he got here.

Likewise, Sam Houston took over a work in progress as regards Texas independence. How and why?

That’s because José Bernardo Gutiérrez de Lara led the Mexican Army of the North (First Texas Army) and achieved the first Texas independence in 1813. He became the first president of independent Texas. His war effort has the credentials to prove it was a true revolution – first Texas Declaration of Independence and the first Texas Constitution. It is not an expedition as mainstream historians have long tried to diminish it. Incidentally, Tejanos who later joined Sam Houston received their on-the-job training (OJT) battle preparedness as part of Lt. Colonel Gutiérrez de Lara’s Army of the North.

Why doesn’t the Texas SBOE recognize the first Texas Independence? Because it would dismantle their insecure house of cards mainstream version of our state’s history; based primarily via movie-inspired myths and legends.

The Seven Sisters of Texas: California, New Mexico, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León, and Nuevo Santander (Tamaulipas). They were all part of New Spain and later the Republic of Mexico. They straddle the U.S.-drawn southern border.

Particularly the states north of that line (in the U.S.) encompass what today is known as the Southwest; about half of Mexican land (and people) now claimed by the U.S. as its own.

So, for the above reason and by overwhelming numbers, Mexican-descent U.S. citizens greatly outnumber other Hispanic groups in the U.S. In truth, they have earned their right to celebrate their heritage year-round and be more visible in the media. However, that’s not the case. Why? Corporations (and U.S. Anglo society) tend to treat Hispanics (largest U.S. minority population) as one homogeneous immigrant group. In fact, most find it difficult to understand (and/or accept) the following distinguishing statistics.

U.S. citizen population groups of Hispanic descent (Over 60 million):

-Mexico: 65% (over 35 million)

-Puerto Rico: 10% (Approx. 5 million)

-El Salvador: 3% (Approx. 2 million)

-Cuba: 3% (Approx. 2 million)

-All others: 19% (Approx. 18 million)

Notes: Spanish Mexican-descent citizens who originate in Texas and the Southwest are not immigrants to the U.S. They are descendants of the original residents when the U.S. took the land from Mexico in 1848. That’s what separates Mexican-descent citizens from sister Hispanic groups. Said another way, it is why it can be said that the U.S.Mexico border sits in the middle of Old Mexico. Again, Anglo Saxon and Nordic-descent people refuse to understand these determining distinctions, simply because (in my view) they don’t want to be confused by the facts.

-Likewise, Spanish-speaking Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens. As with their Southwest Mexican kin, they were granted citizenship after the U.S. took Puerto Rico from Spain. Unfortunately, most folks in the U.S. are unaware of these historical facts. On a broader scale, Anglo-dominated society tends to put all minorities into one group. That attitude displays a profound lack of knowledge.

By way of background, what follows is my own interpretation of the arrival of the first invited (versus uninvited) Anglo immigrants from the U.S. in 1820s Texas:

New Spain (and later, the Mexican Republic) were anxious to quickly settle north and northeast Texas (beyond San Antonio de Béxar, Goliad, and Nacogdoches). As such, our ancestors handed Anglo immigrants from the U.S. generous land grants. All they asked in return was that they be law-abiding and live side-by-side with Mexican settlers already living there. The end goal was to help Mexican pioneer families in further populating the region.

For example, Stephen F. Austin and the Old 300 families willingly rejected U.S. citizenship and decided to become Mexican citizens in exchange for free land. Stephen even changed (and signed) his name as Estéban.

Sadly, primarily due to the slavery issue (Mexico abolished slavery in 1829), the Anglo-Mexican relationship in Texas rapidly soured when Mexican government officials told the Anglos to free their slaves. The result? The Anglo immigrants illegally rebelled and succeeded in seceding the province (Mexican state) of Texas from the Republic of Mexico.

As an eighth-generation Texan, I offer my own personal viewpoint as to why and how Anglos immigrated to Mexico (Texas).

The question is, why would white, Anglo-descent citizens abandon the U.S. and choose to immigrate to Spanish-speaking Texas? The answer is that life in the U.S. in those days was radically different from today. For one thing, there was no middle class. There were only two classes in white U.S. society – the haves and the have-nots.

Not surprisingly, the have-nots were the ones who accepted Mexico’s immigration invitation. They were mostly sharecroppers who barely scraped enough together to feed their families in farms owned by wealthy landowners.

Interestingly, Mexico was a land inhabited with the Anglos’ historical enemies (the Spanish). So why did they immigrate to Mexico? Answer: To start a new life and better themselves in a foreign country.

Coincidentally, their natural reaction of self-preservation is a basic instinct that has been repeated by people in need for millennia. By extension, that’s similar to the formidable challenge poor people face today around the world.

By the way, immigration is not a recent development. Nor does it occur only on the U.S. Mexico border, as consistently implied by intolerant politicians and the media. It’s a serious worldwide problem that urgently deserves solving, not criticism. In my personal view, it’s unfair and un-Christian to use immigrants as scapegoats for any of our country’s problems.

Moses Austin. Here’s an interesting fact about senior Mr. Austin. Few folks today know that when Spain granted Moses his land grants, he was no longer a U.S. citizen and lived in Spanish Missouri. Equally, he was already a Spanish citizen. Upon Moses’ death, the land grants were transferred to his son, Stephen (Estéban).

Daniel Boone. As with Moses Austin, most folks don’t know that Daniel Boone also rejected his U.S. citizenship. Plus, he was actually a Spanish government official. Interestingly, his larger-than-life image is debatable, as he is depicted in movies and TV shows. That’s not surprising, since both his (and David Crockett’s) popular personas were fabricated in Hollywood. Though, what’s more important to note here is that both Boone’s and Moses’ early stories (as well as many others) are part of a deliberate deception and suppression campaign in mainstream U.S. and Texas history. Clearly, it is part of their effort to conceal (rewrite) unpleasant parts of U.S. history; a tactic long practiced by Anglophile mainstream U.S. and Texas historians.

No one knows why our ancestors were unsuccessful in convincing post-1836 Anglo arrivals in Texas that the New Spain Spanish Mexican roots of Texas are as important as that of New England.

Here’s two key points to consider: Texas and the Southwest are in New Spain, and, by the way, there’s no Plymouth Rock off the Texas coast in the Gulf of Mexico.

While mainstream Anglo society have consistently failed to treat Mexican-descent people as equal human beings, they have unabashedly embraced Spanish Mexican customs and traditions. For example, our vibrant Mexican lifestyle, ranching, cowboy persona (way of life), and Mexican food. Incredibly, they won’t admit that all of these attributes are clearly of Spanish Mexican origin. Today, it’s called Cultural Appropriation.

As a child who was punished for speaking Spanish on-campus at my elementary school, it’s disheartening to me that the adverse attitude by dominant Anglo society toward Spanish Mexicans still exists today.

Equally strange is the fact that it frightens mainstream Anglo society when they hear us speak Spanish. Their reaction is truly bizarre, since Anglos live in states still heavily populated with the descendants of pre-1848 Spanish Mexican founding families. To say it another way, the anti-Spanish language prejudice in Texas (and the U.S.) can be demonstrated by way of comparison, as shown below.

It’s interesting to note that U.S. conventional historians and mapmakers refer to the initial English states on the east coast as New England.

Yet, they refuse to recognize the origins of the Southwest as New Spain. It’s a contradiction that exposes the clear double-standard that mainstream Anglo Saxon historians use in recording U.S. history. That is, if states on the east coast are given credit for their English past, then the same courtesy must be extended to southwest states by recognizing their proven Spanish Mexican past.

Here’s another point to consider. Politicians and media personalities push their unfair English-only attitude in our country. They insist that to gain acceptance, minorities must only speak English. However, speaking English hasn’t helped Black people (nor Native Americans, Native Alaskans, and Native Hawaiians) receive equality in Anglo-dominant U.S. society.

Texas and the Southwest are in Old Mexico. Most people in mainstream Anglo society seem clueless as to this obvious fact. That is, we preserve and practice our Mexican customs and traditions as part of our unique Southwest heritage, not national identity or political allegiance to Mexico. If only intolerant Anglos learned this simple lesson, I’m confident that most of their animosity, suspicion, and confusion would disappear.

As discussed earlier, our ancestors invited Anglo U.S. citizens to immigrate to Texas to help settle the state, alongside Mexican pioneers. However, due to the slavery issue (Mexico abolished slavery in 1829), the Anglos soon betrayed their host Mexican government and opted to declare independence. A point to remember about this illegal act, is that the Anglos’ independence didn’t last long. After a mere nine years, the Anglos traded their independence to join the U.S. as a slave state.

Texas history without Tejanas and Tejanos is like a book with no beginning. Said another way, the first chapters of Texas history may be written in Spanish. However, all it means is that Texas is justly bilingual and bicultural. Not only that, but most of the Texas state government institutions we all rely on today were initiated by the Spanish. It’s a true, but little known fact.

Truly, Texas has four independence days: September 16 {el diezyseis, el grito} (1810), April 6 (1813), March 2 (1836), and July 4 (1776).

Those of us Spanish-surnamed citizens in the U.S. that originate in Texas and the Southwest have a right to celebrate our heritage and culture year-round, not just during Hispanic Heritage Month.

Indeed, the entire bottom half of the U.S. is former Spanish Mexican land. For example,

The U.S. coerced Spain into ceding Florida (including what is today Alabama and Mississippi) in 1821.

The U.S. took the Southwest (over half of Mexico’s sovereign territory) in 1848 (from Texas to California).

Likewise, the Louisiana Purchase was in reality a Spanish possession shortly before the U.S. purchased it from France in 1803.

David Crockett didn’t call himself Davy nor did anyone in Tennessee. That nickname was given by Hollywood and paperback fiction writers. Also, it’s unproven that he ever wore a coonskin cap as popularized in movies and television shows. As with all the other Anglo illegal immigrants, Mr. Crockett didn’t come to Texas to fight for its independence, he came looking for free land.

Truth be told, Mr. Crockett may have been a hero in his home state of Tennessee. However, in my view, despite the larger-than-life reputation mainstream white society has given him, he doesn’t qualify for that distinction here in Texas. Why? Because he was only here for a few days. For another, he never personally addressed (wrote about) Anglo grievances against the Mexican government. He never signed a document (press release or newspaper editorial). Nor did he ever engage in protesting the fabricated injustices that the Anglo trespassers used as a ruse to ignite their 1836 illegal insurrection, etc.

Unfortunately, most people in mainstream U.S. society worship the make-believe Crockett persona developed in movie lots and fiction paperback novels. In fact, he was a simple, un-assuming man. He once said that his supposed heroic feats were tall tales made up by newspaper and magazine writers.

Why did David Crockett leave Tennessee? He lost a U.S. Congressional race to a man backed by his bitter enemy, Andrew Jackson. Unfortunately, when he arrived in San Antonio, he joined the wrong crowd -- armed troublemaking Anglo immigrants. After the 1836 Álamo Presidio battle, Crockett was listed as a survivor. Interestingly, the Mexican Army identified him as a naturalist (woodsman) in the official record. They didn’t consider him a combatant. So, why was he executed? Because he was armed and at the wrong place, at the wrong time.

For the record, the recalcitrant Anglo trespassers inside Presidio San Antonio de Béxar were given ample time to leave, they foolishly decided to stay until it was too late.

In a very real sense, William Travis, Jim Bowie, et al, were in actuality unsavory characters and don’t deserve to be called heroes, in my view. Also, by refusing Sam Houston’s direct order, it is clear that their disobedience led to their needless death. Besides, per military protocol, had they survived, they would have been charged with insubordination and treason; charges that would have resulted in their execution by firing squad.

Even today, General (President) Santa Anna still receives an unfair, never-ending adverse reputation in Texas and the U.S. Yet, he had every right to quell the Anglo illegal rebellion in San Antonio de Béxar, Texas, a province (state) of Mexico. Moreover, it was one of many civil disturbances within the Republic of Mexico. In my view, he doesn’t deserve the bad press. Of note is the fact that he continued to serve and govern Mexico during very turbulent times for many years. He lived to a ripe old age of 82.

The name Álamo has a direct connection to the Mexican state of Coahuila, not Texas. Why? Because the Álamo de Parras, Coahuila military unit was stationed at Presidio San Antonio de Béxar. That’s the reason local Bexareños nicknamed the presidio as el Álamo (el lugar donde vive la gente de el Álamo) (the place where the Álamo de Parras families live).

Texas Declaration of Independence? Unravelling this popular myth.

To hear mainstream U.S. historians tell the Texas story, independence from Mexico was a daring act led by immigrant white Anglo Saxon-descent Protestants in Texas who wrote the declaration of independence. The truth?

First, the Texas Declaration of Independence is short on originality. Why? Because a U.S. citizen named George Childress wrote the document while living in the U.S., not Texas. Using the U.S. Declaration of Independence as a model, Mr. Childress merely filled in the blanks (cut-and-paste). With the debatable document in hand, he then crossed the Red River and illegally entered Mexico, joining U.S. plotters already in Texas.

Second, the Texas Declaration of Independence is an invalid document in my view. That’s because of the 59 signers of the declaration, 56 were not native-born Mexican citizens; they were illegal immigrants from the U.S. Only three signers were native-born Mexicans, induced into signing the dubious document (Señores de Zavala, Navarro, and Ruiz). They were later betrayed by their Anglo allies.

Third, Texas independence lasted only for nine short years because the Anglos traded their independence to join the U.S. as a slave state in 1845. (Reintroducing slavery in Texas was always the Anglos’ primary objective.)

Lorenzo de Zavala, a proven brilliant statesman, had hopes that by joining Sam Houston, he would realize his dream of a Texas where both Anglo immigrants and Mexican citizens could co-exist. Based on his loyalty to his newfound Anglo friend, Sam Houston, he became Vice President after the revolution. Quite fittingly, upon taking office, he asked why Tejanos weren’t filling positions of authority in the new government. The Anglos bluntly ignored him.

To the Anglos, Tejanos looked like the enemy, spoke Spanish like the enemy, and worshipped as Catholics like the enemy. As such, they treated Tejanos like the enemy. The ill-treatment from his former allies was too much for him to take.

Deeply disappointed, Lorenzo de Zavala resigned his position of vice president after just a few months, and retired to his home in east Texas. While out boating, his boat capsized, he caught pneumonia, and died shortly afterwards.

Of consolation is the fact that Mexican-born Lorenzo de Zavala’s submission of his idea for the first Texas flag was approved by the Republic of Texas. Said another way, a Mexican put the star on the Texas Lone Star Flag. Sweet revenge.

More on Lorenzo de Zavala’s historical impact. Mainstream Texas history writers have long pushed the idea that Mexico considers Lorenzo de Zavala a traitor for supporting the 1836 Anglo immigrant-led insurgency in Texas. In making that unfair claim, they fail to recognize the significant political differences between Colonial New Spain and the independent Republic of Mexico.

In truth, it was New Spain officials who considered Lorenzo de Zavala a rebellious revolutionist; at one time imprisoning him for his liberal views.

Incredibly, those who champion the English colonies’ struggle for independence from England don’t credit New Spain’s Spanish Mexican residents for doing the same thing – ending colonial European rule in America.

Mainstream Texas historians have helped build the myth that the Anglos’ 1836 insurrection was unique and the only instance of civil rebellion. Actually, it was one of several, because Mexico was deep in civil war conflict (centralists vs. federalists).

Having successfully defeated a revolt in Zacatecas, President Santa Anna marched to Texas, exercising his natural right as head of state to protect Mexico and its sovereignty from foreign armed invaders.

Arriving in San Antonio, he informed the illegal immigrant Anglos that they were trespassers in the Mexican province (state) of Texas. The Anglos ignored his ultimatum. As the president of the Republic of Mexico, General Santa Anna had no choice, but to face (and