Does Stephen F. Austin deserve the title "Father of Texas"?
October 1999
Does Stephen F. Austin deserve the title "Father of Texas"?
October 1999
From: "Wallace McKeehan"
Date:10/10/99
Whether Stephen F. Austin is the "Father of Texas" is semantics---STEPHEN F. AUSTIN IS TEXAS--in microcosm in any one single individual past and present, making all other examples a distant, distant second. In Austin's experience, we find the entire evolution of Texas with all the political, economic and moral elements at play that gave rise to and comprise those at play in Texans of today. Visionary, but realistic and practical in the present; patient, tolerant and loyal to a sin to family, regimes, and benefactors, but unforgiving when betrayed beyond hope; self-sacrificing to the brink of martyrdom for the greater good, but mindful of making a living and enjoying a good cigar; self-analytic and initially insecure to extremes, but decisive and forceful when it's time to act. These are to name a few. To date there has not been his equal in the Presidents of the two Republics that he served nor in a Governor of the State that one became. Let's hope there will be, both in the President of the remaining Republic (Mexico) and Governor of the State.
Author Gregg Cantrell's most recent contribution, Stephen F. Austin, Empresario of Texas, is a timely, impressive tribute to Austin that adds to the above despite frequent 20-20 hindsight-based parenthetical personal opinion and speculation (probably did this probably did it for that.) and sounding like my wife in his parenthetical comments about Austin's hotel bill add-ons. Cantrell's implication from time to time that Austin and other Anglo Mexican immigrants like him had few dreams (and real loyalties) for the Republic of Mexico with Texas as the star example, or that there were no Mexican's with similar vision; and that somehow Austin could have affected the course of Afro-slavery and Indian problems in Texas fail to have impact on his positive tribute to the Father of Texas. His discussion of Austin's detractors were thorough and fair, when matched against those of any other candidates for "Father" are pale, although I was afraid in a desperate grasp for negative quotes, the author might turn to Noran Maillard, or even Gen. Santa Anna or Filisola. [Nota bene: Does choice of words "Empresario" rather than "Father" have some hidden meaning?]
Wallace L. McKeehan
Austin above all others deserves the title "Father of Texas." Here was
a man that sacrificed his personal life to serve the colony/country he
was helping to build. Austin gave his all by starting the colonization
process in Texas and working to make Texas a prosperous and important part
of the country of Mexico. He spent time in a Mexican prison and participated
in the conflicts of the revolution. He ended up being shoved aside
by the government he helped to build and died while still in the service
of Texas. Austin was a man not appreciated for the sacrifices he
had made in the service of his country.
From: Katie
Long
Date: 10/13/99
I think not. Although I live in Austin and think it is great. I also think Stephen F. Austin was cruel and does not deserve the title Father of Texas. I think Sam Houston does.
Katie Long, Austin, Texas
From: Corinna Adams
Date: 10/13/99
He certainly does. He is the one that planned it so that many Americans could come over and get some cheaper land than in America. He brought the first 900 American settlers to Texas. He went to Mexico to talk to Santa Anna about how people are feeling that they were treated unfairly. Santa Anna threw him in a prison for saying that. He went through discomfort to make it so that the Texans were treated fairly peacefully.
Corrina Adams
From: William
& Nydia A Barowski
Date: 10/14/99
Stephen F. Austin is definitely NOT the father of what is now Texas. Simply put, villas and towns existed in Condado de Bejarano long before Austin was even born. Settlers were brought into these areas as early as 1659, this is several hundred years before Texas. It was very easy for North Americans to come into a area that already did the hard work of setting up the villages (Plan of the Indies) and become residents. Tremendous contributions were made by the Spanish and Indigenous People long before and after Texas and Austin.
When a child is already born, has a name and then becomes part of another family living in another country he's not the father, but a contributor, possibly a family member but the Father title starts at the beginning of family, not the middle.
Texas and American Veterans have served gallantly, in many conflicts and battles in many foreign countries, but they are not the Fathers of those countries even if they settled there after the war.
Lets take a long hard look at all the History of Tejas before we proclaim whom the Father is to be.
Members of our family arrived in what is now Northern Texas as the lead in the Coronado Expedition (Tristan de Luna Arellano) in 1540, another had Bexar County Named after him in 1659, another started the building of the church at mission San Jose in the 1700s, we have a long family history here since 1519, yet we were born in a northern state, so I guess that makes us Yankees?
William & Nydia A Barowski
The Family Ramirez de Arellano Y Zuniga de Bejarano
P.S. Lets read some real history books, before we proclaim who brought how many people here and when.
From: "Wallace
McKeehan"
Date:10/16/99
Correspondents Barowski's have opened up an important issue in Texas History (all history for that matter). That issue is the one of inherent property rights versus stewardship, or what one does with the property once possession is acknowledged (possession is still 9/10's of the law). Does the US own the moon and Mars using the same logic as the Kings of Europe did to hold Americans in their vice-regal grasp of exploitation, neglect and suppression of Creole property rights? The vice-regal Mexican descendants of the Spanish King under the guise of Creole nationalism and Republicanism continued the theme as visionary Hispanic-Tejanos partnered with Stephen F. Austin to set into motion the effort which made Texas what it is today. Austin was the single composite personality for which time and place conspired to qualify him as the Father of Texas as we know it today.
As the correspondents point out, the definition of "Father" in respect to property rights, custody, responsibility, credit and honor, is a debatable and difficult one. Do we define father by inherent genetics (or discovery or first ownership in respect to land) or do we define "father" in terms of stewardship, welfare and development of the child (or property and society)? This debate continues in the courts (genetic vs. adopted/foster parents) where I live every day and on the battlefields of the Balkans, Middle East and Africa as I write.
Personally, I lean toward the idea that stewardship and long term impact on the child deserves the credit rather than the uncommitted genetic father who in a moment of passion planted the seed or flag, then abandoned and left the welfare and development of the child to others.
My bias prompts me to agree with correspondent Katie Long that Houston, Texas, namesake of General Sam, certainly deserves the title "Father of current Texas" cities and Austin is not in the running. However, in regard to the men, I have to agree with Austin biographer Barker on Austin:
"He was a grave, gentle, kindly man, charitable, tolerant, affectionate and loyal, naturally impulsive but restrained by habit, sensitive, lonely, and given too much, perhaps, to introspection. He enjoyed social companionship, but his position set him apart from the colonists and made close friendships with them difficult and rare. He smoked, danced now and then, loved music (he played the flute in his younger days), and his bills show occasional charges for whiskey, brandy, and wine. He was well educated, widely read for his opportunities, and a clear thinker. His letters in their straightforward precision and naturalness remind one of Franklin. He worked incessantly, unselfishly, and generally most patiently. In short, he appears to me a lovable human character, with many charming qualities."
Austin biographer and historian Eugene Barker, 1918, Southwestern Historical Quarterly, XXII,1-17.
However, those who disagree that Austin does not deserve the title are not alone and find themselves in distinguished company:
"The first of the villains who came to this state; Was runaway Stephen F. Austin the great; He applied to the Mexicans as I understand; And from them got permission to settle this land."-- Composition by Dr. Lewis D. Dayton, anti-Austin agitator 1827-8, tried, tarred and feathered and run out of San Felipe on a rail. From Difficulties of a Texas Empresario, Lester Bugbee, 1899.
Austin used "same Jesuitic and insidious policy with which he has always marked with black footprintes the crooked path along which he has traveled, under cover of darkness, in carrying out his nefarious and perfidious designs." Sterling Clack Robertson in a petition for empresa lands to Coahuila y Texas legislature 1834 (Cantrell, Stephen F. Austin, Empresario of Texas).
"...disgusting self-deceit...arrogant dictation...inconsistent stupidity...oracular weathercock...political Proteas...presumptious dictator" --William Wharton, 1834, in response to implication by Austin that he and Chambers were conspiring against him while in prison --(Cantrell, Stephen F. Austin, Empresario of Texas).
"Col. Austin, who was himself the most crafty of the 'political fanatics, political adventurers, would-be great men, and vain talkers,' wrote in this bland style, solely to escape the clutches of the Mexican government, and not with a view to restore tranquillity to Texas."-- N. Doran Maillard referring to Austin's relations with Mexican officials in History of the Republic of Texas, 1842.
"...systematic politics and treacherous intentions...ingratitude...gravest of insults...impudence difficult to analyze...such were the maneuvers and the distinctive character of Stephen Austin...surprised Gen. Teran's loyalty by failing to keep promises...reprehensible craftiness with Gen. Filisola..." General Vicente Filisola, in memoirs of the Texas campaign in The History of the War in Texas.
"With the hypocrisy that characterized him, Austin presented himself and tried to put in motion all the influences which his audacity suggested."--Jose Maria Tornel, 1837, Secretary of War, Republic of Mexico during the Texas campaign.
Wallace L. McKeehan
The Barowski's are right with their comments of Tejas having a history of settlement long before Austin ever heard of Tejas. The point they seem to be missing is Austin is and always will be the Father of Texas, not Tejas. This is not to take away anything from the early Hispanic settlers, their sacrifices or their accomplishments for they were many and as important. What is being missed here is Austin lead the way to the creation of what was to become the Republic of Texas and eventually the state of Texas.
THE WAR ROOM ARCHIVES
Previous War Room Questions
