aalan presenting at the TSHA annual meeting

1,634 Views | 10 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by aalan94
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
https://tsha-annualmeeting2021.secure-platform.com/a/page/program

On Thursday March 3:

4:15pm-4:50pm Borders, Smuggling, and Revolution in the Texas-Louisiana Frontier
Chair: Jess F. de la Teja, Texas State University, Professor Emeritus
Presenters: Francis X. Galn, Texas A&M University-San Antonio, Los Adaes, Smuggling, and the Hidden Colonial Roots of the US-Mexico Border; James Bernsen, Independent Scholar, Smuggling and the Dawn of the Filibuster Era in Texas
Commentator: F. Todd Smith, University of North Texas
Sponsored by: Texas A&M University at San Antonio - History Department
aalan94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yes indeed. I have already pre-recorded it.
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Pre-recorded, that's weak. You need to be on the spot live!

How do we ask you any questions Raggedy Ann, do we have to send them in ahead of time?
aalan94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So since you mentioned it, I'll give you a teaser:

My book (which, knock on wood) is currently with a publisher for review right now, is on the 1812-13 revolution in Texas. It's commonly called the Gutierrez-Magee Expedition, or you might have simply heard of the Battle of Medina. All that's selling it short, because it's a revolution in the full sense, as detailed, nuanced and even dramatic as the 1836 revolution. I've captured a lot of that in my book.

The biggest insight I've had is on the origin of the filibuster into Texas. It's always been presented as, well these guys just showed up and invaded Texas, but it's far deeper than that. What I found is that the fundamental elements of the filibuster were in place or moving towards Texas before either Augustus Magee or Bernardo Gutierrez de Lara arrived on the frontier. They simply inherited a filibuster in embryo and were appointed at its head because it needed 1. A real live Mexican rebel to give it legitimacy (Gutierrez) and 2. a military commander to give it order (Magee).

There were basically 2-3 groups that built up the filibuster, and the focus of my presentation is on one of them. It is an obscure smuggling ring that the Spanish broke up, and which ultimately led to the development of the infamous neutral Ground banditti who raided Spanish commerce.

There's a lot of stuff here that I found as part of my thesis and subsequent research that no one ever did. I read through about 1200 pages of the Bexar Archives and have keyword searchable access to tens of thousands more. I dug through the US National archives and other sources. I found little confirming bits in even the smallest details. There is a smuggler named Quirk who plays a key role, and then there is a secret spy sneaking into Texas to connect Tejano rebels with American filibusters who is named Quist. Most historians have simply taken this on fact and not delved into it. I saw those two names and thought, wait a minute. So I tracked down the source of "Quist" and it's a grainy cursive letter in the National Archives. I found the original author of that letter's copy, and its clearly "Quirk." I also identified the mysterious "Smith" who is offering to bring American rebels to aid the Mexicans. He is fascinating and has a great history.

The rest of the origin story is the insight that I had after digging deeper than anyone else, that the fact that Aaron Burr wanted to invade Texas in 1806 and that someone actually invaded Texas in 1812 are not coincidences. I basically confirmed (although its a giant pile of circumstantial evidence) that this was the case. In the full book, I go into this in a lot more detail. I spent 5 years on this, and it's gone through 6 drafts. It's good, but of course, even then has to go through the vetting process of an academic publisher who is looking at it now.
aalan94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
(Responding to BQ78) That's how they're doing all of these. There will be a live session with a moderator after the presentation. Still not sure how that works and to what degree I interact.
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I guess that avoids bad Internet connections and barking dogs but you are the author not the moderator.
Rabid Cougar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aalan94

Did General James Wilkerson and Phillip Nolan have any connections with this filibuster? I ask because of Wilkerson's intrigue with the Spanish in Louisiana and Nolen supposedly being an agent for him working in Texas in the 1790's and early 1800's. The Spanish killed Nolan in1801 not far from my office. I have read that he is considered one of the original filibusters.
aalan94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Nolan no, Wilkinson only indirectly. The point of my research is that even long before Burr, there were Americans on the frontier who wanted to "liberate" Spanish territory. Wilkinson, who was simultaneously a Spanish Spy and the senior army officer in the U.S. military, was selling Burr on the idea even as he was being paid by the Spanish. Several Burr Conspiracy historians suggest (and I agree) that the whole idea of western secession was not seriously part of the Burr plan, but was a clever ruse to distract the Spanish from their own vulnerability.

Anyway, the Burr Trials in 1807 scared a lot of the big dogs away, and Wilkinson survived a court martial, but still didn't want to get involved in the 1812 invasion. For the two years leading up to it, he was out of pocket in Washington, so had no connection to it. He did discourage the filibusters when they reached out to him, but by then they had already launched their invasion anyway. I kind of liken him to Johnny Appleseed, who planted the seeds for all the apple trees for others to harvest later.

Back to Nolan, I think he was really scouting for Wilkinson to develop routes to Santa Fe. Wilkinson really didn't give a damn about Texas because there was no gold or silver there. It was an end to the means of going to Santa Fe.
DevilYack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Since it's only $25 this year, you can't go wrong. I look forward to your session.

Too bad there are so many woke sessions.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
aalan94,

Quote:


My book (which, knock on wood) is currently with a publisher for review right now, is on the 1812-13 revolution in Texas. It's commonly called the Gutierrez-Magee Expedition, or you might have simply heard of the Battle of Medina. All that's selling it short, because it's a revolution in the full sense, as detailed, nuanced and even dramatic as the 1836 revolution. I've captured a lot of that in my book.
Ecstatic to see this when dropping in. Your story and research absolutely rates such presentation, and its good given the setbacks that its on track.
FrioAg 00:
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Unfortunately the TSHA is all woke now, probably dropping my membership after it expires this time.
aalan94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's up and visible now. Like I said, this is part of the puzzle, so it's far from the full story, but I think it should get people thinking. The majority of historians living in the post Vietnam era have all seen in this event a sinister CIA style plot, but the facts actually all point the other way, and I think even this little bit disproves it. To continue to maintain the idea that the US government supported the filibuster is to argue a conspiracy so well hidden that the key players essentially left it out of private correspondence no one ever expected to see and that the special agent who would be the key person in charge would have a secret hidden correspondence that's never been discovered with the "truth" in it, while his actual correspondence goes the entire other way.
People didn't spend their entire lives trying to pull a fast one over historians 200 years in the future. That's not how things work.
The other thing I want to dispel with the history of the 1800s, is that not everybody from 1787-1860 thought, "Hmm, how is what I'm going to do going to affect the Civil War that happens in 1860?" You cannot read history backwards from an event, only forwards from it.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.