How the Native Texans impacted the Europeans and later Americans who came into the region?
The native Texans mostly influenced both the Americans and the Europeans who came to spread Christianity and to seek for land. However, the importance of the Texan residents to the two groups differed considerably as explained hereafter. When the Americans landed in Texas, their primary objective was to acquire the Indian land and to convert them into Christians. To achieve the stated goals, they had to interact closely with the natives. During the interactions, the American borrowed artistic skills from the Indians who were the primary producers of decorative objects. Some arts seen in America today were acquired from the native Texans. Additionally, the English words were borrowed from the Indian language. Such words as barbecue, cannibal, caribou, chipmunk, chocolate, cougar, hammock, hurricane, mahogany, and moose were borrowed from the Indian language (Glasrud and Wintz 134). Lastly, the Americans adopted their building styles from the Indian structures.
As opposed to Americans whose primary effect revolved around the language and the arts, the Europeans mainly borrowed the Indian agricultural practices. The Europeans adopted some crops from the Texan natives, which they grow even today like white and sweet potatoes among others. Some of the listed crops are produced in Europe even today. In addition to adopting the Indian crops, the Europeans also used the Indian knowledge of Texas to explore the country. The Europeans employed the routes that the natives had established to reach major cities in the country. Additionally, the Europeans borrowed the skill of producing clothes from cotton from the Indians. The use of skin from animals to make garments was a practice exercised by the Indians. The skills were passed to the Europeans as evidenced by the existence of big textile factories in Europe today.
Compare and contrast the Spanish experience in Texas with the Mexican experience in Texas. In what ways did the Mexicans succeed where the Spanish failed?
Both the Spanish and the Mexican settlers faced considerable resistance from the native Texans who opposed the invasion. The residents fought the immigrants’ action to take away their land, which they had cultivated for years. The opposition was compounded by the fact that most of the natives were Indians who were reluctant to embrace Christianity. The natives attacked the immigrants and stole their cattle to discourage the move by the settlers to settle in the region.
The Spanish were the first to arrive in Texas with a view of spreading Christianity in the region. The other reason for occupying the state was to colonize it and enjoy the cheap land availed by slaves. Spain was, however, unable to persuade its citizens to settle in the remote areas of Texas, thus, limiting their intention to colonize the country. In an attempt to continue with its plan to colonize Texas, Spain made agreements with other foreign settlers allowing them to settle in the region (Buenger and De León 123). The settlers, however, had to agree to change their citizenship to Spanish and to convert to Christianity. Following the agreements, settlers from other nations such as the US and Mexico penetrated the area to acquire cheap land and affordable labor. However, the Mexican settlers were given the priority regarding occupation.
After a while, Texas was inhabited mainly by Mexicans who acquired vast plots of land and used cheap labor from slaves to produce agricultural products. The Mexicans gradually took over the control of the country and encouraged more settlers to come into the region in exchange for generous pieces of land. As opposed to Spain, which did not break the laws barring the slave trade, the Mexicans continued to the trade to benefit from cheap labor. All the laws prohibiting slave trade were exempt to the Mexicans, which facilitated increased agricultural production. The greatest achievement of Mexico as compared to their Spanish counterparts was the ability to convince its people to move into Texas hence facilitating its dominance.
Explain how the United States impacted both Mexican and Republican Texas. How did the experiences of the former condition the latter?
One of the effects the US had in the two countries is the abolition of the slave trade that was flourishing due to the increase in agricultural activities. The US had strict laws barring slavery, which it forced on the two countries. The abolition of slave trade led to the reluctance of the settlers to settle in Texas since the availability of cheap labor was one of the key incentives that had attracted the settlers into the country. Consequently, Texas experienced a shortage in food production.
The other effect the US had in both Mexico and Texas is that it ended the violence between them. The stoppage was facilitated by the annexation of the US and Texas. The occupation caused Mexico to refrain from struggling to acquire the country. The US convinced the Texan leaders to annex with the US although Texas wanted its independence. The annexation blurred Mexico’s vision of colonizing Texas thus easing the warfare between Texas and Mexico.
Analyze the impact of the Civil War on the people of Texas
The civil war in Texas involved both the Indian Americans who were the native communities in the land. The invasion of Texas by the Europeans led to warfare due to the scramble for farming land. The Europeans sparked the violence by taking away the land from the natives who resisted the invasion. The war continued for an extended period until the leaders of the state intervened. The war had both negative and positive effects as explained later in this paper.
The primary aim of the Europeans was to grab the lands initially held by the Indians. In that regard, they forced the Indians to vacate the land to occupy it. The eviction created animosity between the Indian Americans and the settlers. The Indians united against the invading foreigners to defend their land from being taken away by the foreigners (Glasrud and Wintz 103). Following the war, the states’ laws were altered to accommodate the interest of every citizen through the prevention of further invasion of the Indian land by the foreigners. The treaties signed by both the Indians and the foreigners united the country. The violence was mainly caused by the action by the foreign to invade the Indian American’s land. The security given to the Indians regarding their land served the purpose of eliminating the war hence promoting unity.
The warfare between the Indian Americans and the foreigners resulted in deaths from both sides with the Indians recording a high number of casualties compared to their rivals. The deaths united the Indians against the foreigners making them more firm and immovable. Additionally, women and children’s responsibility increased because of the absorption of men in the military to support the warfare. Moreover, the agricultural production slowed down due to inadequate labor supply. However, wheat and corn production increased rapidly due to the growing need to feed the warring soldiers. Some of the Indians were converted to Christians owing to their interaction with the Europeans whose primary objective was to spread Christianity. Though not many of the Indians converted to Christians, a considerable number of Indians converted to Christianity.
In conclusion, therefore, the European invasion of Texas caused the natives to unite against the foreigners. The deaths that resulted from the warfare between the natives and the foreigners caused unity among the citizens. Therefore, it can be argued that the invasion served as a uniting factor as opposed to division.
Sam Houston served as President of independent Texas, as Senator to the U.S. Congress and Governor of the state of Texas. Discuss the successes and failures of each of those assignments
As president, Houston promoted peaceful coexistence between the people of Texas. He protected the Indians whose rights had been infringed by the Americans living in Texas for a long time. From his interaction with the Indians, Houston had acquired a great love for the Indians hence his decision to protect Indian Americans. He discouraged warfare against the American Indians by encouraging his troops to treat the all the Texan community equally. Houston disbanded the regular army troops and established new troops in his second term in office. The new troops were ordered to protect the Indian land from settlers and other unauthorized persons who invaded the lands. The instability in Texas was primarily caused by land disputes. Hence, the move to protect the Indian land eased the violence. He saw the signing of The Treaty of Bird’s Fort in 1843 that ended hostilities directed at the Indians the treaty established a border between the Indian and the sellers’ land (Glasrud and Wintz 116). The agreement was meant to stop the cycle of violence between the Indians and the white settlers who regularly invaded the Indian lands.
The other achievement made by Houston’s like the president of Texas was the savings regarding annual budget. In his term as a senator, he spent less amount of money as compared to his predecessors. To achieve savings, he refrained from engaging in direct warfare with Mexico. The huge savings obtained by the leader was used for developmental purposes earning him a second term in office.
However, inasmuch as Houston achieved much in both capacities, he had his failures. As a governor, he failed in his campaign against slavery that had escalated in America. He fought greatly against slavery although he owned slaves. He advocated for the step-by-step abolition of the slave trade to avoid resistance from the settlers. The fear of opposition is primarily linked to his failure to stop the trade that was greatly criticized by the international community.
Next, as a governor, he failed to prevent Texas secession from the US even though he had successfully negotiated for the annexation (Buenger and De León 123). He refused to sign the act authorizing the secession of Texas from America causing the legislature to pass a vote of no confidence in him. America offered to support him in defending his position, but he declined to argue that this would lead to further bloodshed.
Works Cited
Buenger, Walter, and Arnoldo De León. Beyond Texas through Time: Breaking Away from Past Interpretations, Texas: Texas A&M University Press, 2011. Print.
Glasrud, Bruce, and Cary Wintz. Discovering Texas History, Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 2014. Print.