Chapter 10—Forging a More Democratic Society, 1820–1840 319

participated in the Whig campaign like never before,cheering avidly at rallies and torchlight parades.Whigs portrayed Van Buren as an extravagant aris-tocrat while lambasting Jackson for turning the fed-eral government into a monarchy. Van Buren triedfutilely to draw the campaign back to monsters,monopolies, and paper money. It was an uphill fight,however, and the Democrats faltered.

The Whigs swept to victory. Harrison carried 19 of 26 states with an electoral vote margin of 234 to 60. The real significance of the election, however, wasthe turnout—an astounding 80 percent of the eligiblevoters. Although he suffered defeat, Van Buren’s concept of parties and what it took to win elections tri-umphed. “They have at last learned from defeat the artof victory,” a Democratic newspaper moaned. “Wehave taught them how to conquer us.” It was a hollowvictory, however. On March 4, 1841, the sixty-seven-year-old Harrison read the longest inaugural speech inhistory. Underdressed for the chilly Washington weath-er, he contracted pneumonia and died a few weekslater. Presidential leadership shifted to John Tyler, thefirst vice president to assume office on the president’sdeath. A Democrat in Whig clothing, Tyler did not buyinto the Whigs’ legislative agenda. Thus, the Whigs’next political battle would be with themselves.

THINKING BACK

1. What were the major differences betweenDemocrats and Whigs?

2. How did the Whigs defeat the Democrats in1840?____________________________________________________________________________

THE LOCAL PERSPECTIVE: FOCUSON TEXAS, THE LONE STAR REPUBLIC

The occupation of Texas byAnglo-Americans in the 1820sand 1830s was indicative ofAmerican support for territorialexpansion. Andrew Jackson and

Southern slave owners were particularly enthusiasticabout Texas, reasserting the claim that John QuincyAdams had negotiated away in the TranscontinentalTreaty (see pp. 270–71). Colonization resonated withAmerican chauvinism.

During the 1820s and 1830s, Texas was a complex bor-derland of multiple and contrasting cultures. Native

Americans, Tejanos, and Anglos (immigrants from theUnited States) formed an uneasy coexistence with oneanother. Political boundaries meant little at that time;people crossed and re-crossed them with relative ease.National identities were fuzzy too. Texas was a huge ter-ritory, yet most Tejano and Anglo residents were settledinto a triangle formed by San Antonio, Goliad, andNacogdoches in the southeast portion of the territory.Indians presided over the rest. Each culture group kepta distrustful eye on the others.

The ripples of President Andrew Jackson’s Indianremoval policy could be felt in Texas. Bands of dis-placed tribes chose Texas over Indian Territorybecause Mexico had a better reputation for dealingwith Indians than the United States. The largest con-tingent comprised Cherokees who crowded onto thetraditional lands of various native Caddos along theSabine River. The Caddos actually welcomed thepowerful newcomers as useful allies. Cherokees alsooffered their services to the Mexicans who weredefending themselves from marauding Comanches.

Most Tejanos were peasant farmers and stock raisershuddled around San Antonio and Goliad. A tiny mil-itary garrison at Nacogdoches ostensibly guarded theborder with the United States, and a few ranchersowned herds of longhorn cattle that grazed on thedry prairies of South Texas. Tejanos were actually amixed population of Spanish settlers, Canary Islandimmigrants, and mestizo soldiers (many of ancientAztec ancestry). But a common Tejano culture andsense of community had emerged by the 1820s andare clearly evident today. Women grilled flat tortillasfrom stone-ground corn meal and tamales filled withchopped beef, beans, and hot cayenne pepper.Tejanos consumed beef like the Comanches utilizedbuffalo, crafting carpets, chair bottoms, beds, packs,and ropes out of the rawhide. They interacted withpeaceful Indians and Anglos to such an extent that amember of a Mexican government inspection teamin 1828 observed that “they are Mexican only bybirth, for even the Castilian language they speak withconsiderable ignorance.”

By 1830 some 7,000 Anglos resided in Texas, twicethe number of Tejanos. Stephen F. Austin had beenthe most successful of the empresarios (or contrac-tors) that the Mexican government had contracted tobring 300 settler families from the United States.Indeed, Austin negotiated four more colonizationcontracts that brought an additional 900 familiesinto Texas. Most of them were upstanding citizens

What caused therevolution in

Texas?

mon49692_ch10_Ch10 25/06/14 2:35 AM Page 319

320 Chapter 10—Forging a More Democratic Society, 1820–1840

content to mind their own business, farming andranching in eastern and central Texas, but othersdreamed of annexation by the United States or of anindependent Texas republic. In 1826 Haden Edwards,a small-time empresario, led an unsuccessful revoltagainst Mexican authority, and in 1832 one ofAndrew Jackson’s Tennessee army companions, SamHouston, entered Texas with dreams of conquest.Despite Austin’s efforts to keep the Anglos undercontrol, many of them violated Mexican law, soldland illegally to other immigrants, and openly smug-gled through clandestine coastal landings. Inresponse, alarmed authorities in Mexico passed theLaw of April 6, 1830, which suspended further colo-nization and prohibited the importation of addi-tional slaves. Illegal adventurers and vagabonds con-tinued to pour into Texas, however, and by 1835some 27,000 Anglos and 3,000 African-Americanslaves resided in Texas.

Political upheaval in Mexico City boded ill for AngloTexans. Mexico’s federal system of government couldnot improve the economy, so in 1834 GeneralAntonio Lopez de Santa Anna disbanded the nation-al congress and the constitution, assumed dictatorialpower, and began centralizing authority in MexicoCity. This action rankled the democratically mindedTexans, Anglo and Tejano, who wanted local control—

a situation similar to the conflict between Democratsand Whigs in the United States. Circumstances con-tinued to worsen. In response to a Mexican militarybuildup in Texas, a militant faction led by William B.Travis, a hot-headed Alabama lawyer, demandedindependence. Stephen F. Austin urged patience; hetraveled to Mexico City and persuaded Santa Anna togrant more autonomy for Texas. But that did not pla-cate the militants, and in 1835 an armed force ofTexans overran a Mexican military garrison atAnahuac near the Gulf coast.

Santa Anna acted forcefully to suppress the Texasrevolt. He arrested Austin, who returned to Texas andpublished a call for armed resistance. Santa Annathen led a major military assault on the disorganizedrebels. In March of 1836, Santa Anna ordered anassault on a Texan garrison in the Alamo in SanAntonio, killing all of the approximately 200 defend-ers, including Davy Crockett, William Travis, and anumber of native Tejanos. He also ordered the execu-tion of 371 Texans captured at Goliad. The Texansused the cry “Remember the Alamo” to rally supportfor independence. Believing that he held the upperhand, Santa Anna swept with his army toward thecoast, foolishly overextending his supply lines. InApril of 1836, Sam Houston, commanding a Texanforce, surprised and annihilated the Mexicans in a

The front of the Alamo mission in San Antonio, Texas, scene of the battle that became a rallying cry andsymbol during and after the Texas Revolution.

Imag

e ©

Chr

istop

her E

ng-W

ong

Phot

ogra

phy,

2010

. Use

d by

per

miss

ion

of S

hutte

rsto

ck, I

nc.

mon49692_ch10_Ch10 25/06/14 2:35 AM Page 320

Chapter 10—Forging a More Democratic Society, 1820–1840 321

battle near the San Jacinto River. Afterward, SantaAnna, who had been taken prisoner, signed a docu-ment acknowledging Texas independence.

Most Texans assumed that President Jackson and the Democratic-controlled Congress would actpromptly to bring Texas into the United States. Andthat no doubt would have happened if it had notbeen for slavery. But Martin Van Buren was seekingelection to succeed Jackson as president, and OldHickory and Van Buren both believed that the annex-ation of a slave state would split the party along sec-tional lines and might give election victory to theWhigs. Thus, Texas remained the Lone Star Republic.A slave-based plantation system developed that sup-plied cotton to British factories. In 1841, Texaslaunched a military invasion of New Mexico to layclaim to the entire Rio Grande River to its headwatersas well as Santa Fe. But nothing the Texans tried suc-ceeded in establishing a viable economy.

Like the Jacksonian Democrats in the United States,Anglo Texans had demanded freedom for themselvesalone. They brought more slaves into Texas andharassed free African Americans unmercifully.Anglos also turned against the Tejanos, includingthose who had fought alongside them for independ-ence, pushing them off their land. Loyal Tejano leaderJuan Seguin ultimately fled with his family after sev-eral racially motivated threats and attempts on hislife. Thus, the Lone Star Republic incorporated manyof the characteristics of the Jacksonian democracythat swept across the United States at that time.

THINKING BACK

1. Why did the citizens of Texas rebel againstMexican authority?

2. What role did Tejanos play in the TexasRevolution?____________________________________________________________________________

CONCLUSIONDemocracy took a firm grip on American society dur-ing the 1820s and 1830s. Andrew Jackson, who led themovement to eliminate special privilege and regardedhimself as the common citizens’ steward, proved to becorrect on several key points in dispute about the econ-omy. The tariff was helpful but not crucial to econom-ic development. Commercial production and industri-alization continued and even gathered strength despitethe elimination of tariff protection. The war against theBank of the United States revealed the BUS’s arbitrarypower, although it too had been useful in managing theeconomy. In opposing nullification, Jackson had notintended to oppose Southern slavery. He was, after all,a slave owner himself. In fact, his simultaneous refusalto block the removal of Native Americans openedadditional land for plantation agriculture. Jacksonclaimed victory in the crisis with South Carolina, but inthe process he opened fissures in the party. SouthernDemocrats did not trust Martin Van Buren, and manyof them went over to the Whigs. Democrats did succeed to a considerable extent in uniting farmers, planters, and laborers on the basis of limitedgovernment, self-sufficient rather than market-orient-ed production, and the powerful symbol of AndrewJackson—a common man who embodied democraticvalues. Whigs kept the Market Revolution going andgovernment partnership with business alive. But eventhey, clearly an elitist party, had to acknowledge thedemocratic changes in American culture were pro-found and irreversible.

mon49692_ch10_Ch10 25/06/14 2:35 AM Page 321