Cuerno Largo

In early November of 1493, a fleet of seventeen Spanish ships carrying over one thousand men, including Christopher Columbus, landed on an island that Columbus named, Dominica. Also on-board the ships were domesticated pigs, horses, and of course, cattle.

Twenty-six years later, Hernán Cortés began his conquest of New Spain, (Mexico) with six hundred soldiers and fifteen horsemen. The horses were descendents of the original herd brought to Dominica in 1493. In 1521, Gregorio de Villalobos transported the first cattle, also descendents of the first herd, from Dominica to New Spain.

New world cattle soon became a form of currency for the Spanish. Owning a great herd provided men with disposable and liquid wealth. Cortés stocked his great estate in New Spain with significant numbers of the animal.

As the Spanish began their campaigns to conquer their new world, they took with them, horses and cattle. In 1540, one conquistador, Francisco Vázquez de Coronado set off in search of the famed Seven Cities of Cibola. He departed with thousands of sheep, goats, hogs, and, by most estimates, five-hundred head of cattle. Coronado’s ‘five-hundred’ were the first cattle to set ‘hoof’ in what is now the United States.

Over time, escaped, dispersed by Indian raids, abandoned, or left behind purposely, these strays or wild cattle propagated prolifically. Left to their own survival, Spanish cattle developed the traits necessary to survive and reproduce efficiently and providently in the new world environment. These traits included robustness, vitality, fertility, and most importantly browse-efficiency. By 1835, wild cattle, sometimes referred to as mustang cattle, and later, Texas cattle, could be found from the Red River to the Rio Grande. Some records of the same year put the total number of cattle and horses running wild inside this area as three million head.

These Texas cattle, what we today call longhorns, were, in the words of Captain Richard Ware, “…wilder than deer.”

Another chronicler, Colonel Richard Irving Dodge offered the following comment on wild Texas cattle. “…animals miscalled tame, fifty times more dangerous to footmen than the fiercest buffalo.”

After the Civil War, men returned home to Texas to find untended fields and millions of wild Texas cattle. A few far-thinking men looked at the vast cattle herds and saw a profitable future ahead. These far-thinking men began to round-up, brand, and then drive these wild Texas cattle toward railheads that serviced burgeoning northern markets, markets “hungry” for beef. We know these men by names such as cowboy, rannie, buckaroo, or cowpuncher, but they are all descendents, not by blood, but instead by the common love of their occupation from the Mexican vaquero.

The cattle drive era was short in duration but provided millions in gold to those few entrepreneurs who saw the potential of a rangy, long-legged animal that was shaped by Mother Nature for self-preservation. The Texas longhorn could live on a diet of browse that would kill other breeds. It was an animal that could go tremendous distances without a drink, swim the broadest rivers, and run, when needed, like a mustang pony. In short, the longhorn of that period was the right animal to accomplish what those far-thinking men had in mind. The longhorn, Cuerno Largo, was without peer.

Mike Kearby's Texas copyright 2009

The McCormick League

The San Jacinto battlefield, a prairie located eight miles north of New Washington, was situated within a league of land owned by Margaret (Peggy) McCormick. Buffalo Bayou bordered the league on the northwest, San Jacinto Bay on the northeast, and a large swamp known as Peggy's Lake on the southeast.

Eight miles to the southwest lay Vince's Bridge, which led to Harrisburg, the only escape route for the Texian and Mexican armies before the battle. Deaf Smith, and six volunteers, Peter Alsbury, Moses Lapham, Denmore Reaves, John Coker, E.R. Rainwater, and John Garner, burned the bridge on April 21 before the fighting began.

Photo- Henry McArdle's Battle of San Jacinto 1895

Peggy McCormick moved to Texas in 1824 with her husband, Arthur and sons, Mike and John. The McCormick's were members of Stephen F. Austin's first colony. Arthur McCormick drowned in Buffalo Bayou in 1824 leaving Peggy and her two young sons to work the land as best they could. The widow McCormick made ends meet by raising and selling cattle.

Peggy and her sons fled their ranch in late April as Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna's troops approached. Days after the battle of San Jacinto, Peggy returned home to find her cattle pilfered by both armies and her land strewn with the bodies of Mexican soldiers. She confronted Sam Houston and Santa Anna demanding that one or both men bury the dead. Both refused. Peggy and her sons buried what bodies they could.

John J. Linn who arrived at San Jacinto with Vice-president Lorenzo de Zavala after the battle and later interviewed Santa Anna recalled the conversation between Peggy and Gen. Houston that day. Linn said Houston told Mrs. McCormick, "Madam, your land will be famed in history." To which Peggy replied, "To the devil with your glorious history!"

Peggy later petitioned the Republic of Texas for damages caused by the two armies to her property. The new government refused her request of one hundred forty head of cattle, seventy-five bushels of corn, and two horses. Later county surveyor, George M. Patrick re-surveyed the McCormick league and unbeknown to the family, moved almost half of the McCormick land east into the San Jacinto swamp. The "new" western land produced by the re-survey was assigned to a veteran of San Jacinto who quickly resold the land to Patrick.

Peggy died in a suspicious fire in her home in 1854. Speculation was that the widow, who had once owned one of the largest cattle herds in Harris County, had been robbed and possibly murdered before the fire was set.

Mike McCormick drowned in Buffalo Bayou in 1875 near the spot where his father had drowned in 1824. During the revolution, Mike, acting as a courier between Gen. Houston and Pres. Burnet, warned Burnet of the approaching Col. Almonte at New Washington thus saving the lives of Burnet, his wife, as well as other members of the provisional government…but that…well that's a whole 'nuther story...

Read more about Peggy McCormick at: http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/MM/fmcbs.html

Mike Kearby's Texas Copyright 2009 All Rights Reserved

The Tragedy of Post-Independence Texas

After the Texian victory at San Jacinto in April 1836, a flood of animosity was unleashed first on Bejareños [1] and later on all Tejanos in the new Republic. Anglo-American volunteers who participated in the revolution were largely ignorant of Tejano culture and politics. This lack of knowledge led to a belief that all Mexicans were dubious in their intentions toward Anglos and held hidden loyalties to General Don Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna's centralist government. (Image - Don Martín De León from the Sons of DeWitt Colony, http://www.tamu.edu/)

Under a swell of Anglos surging into Texas from the United States, Tejano families who had fought valiantly alongside Anglo-colonists and volunteers found themselves fighting once again, only this time for ancestral property and land. In a short period, Texas, a once-proud colony of Spanish acculturation, now embraced Anglo-American values and manners. The homogeneous tide of settlers into the Republic viewed Spanish culture and its caste mentality as mongrel and inferior. Moreover, those Tejanos who had rejected centralism became pariahs in both Mexican and Texan society.

Perhaps one of the greatest tragedies inflicted upon loyal Tejanos involved the aristocratic family of Empresario Don Martín De León, founder of De León Colony and Victoria, Texas. Don Martin died in 1833, but his wife, Madam Doña Patricia De León provided both sons and money to the Texas revolution. After San Jacinto, the family suffered the cruel prejudices and antipathy of the new Anglo citizenry. Victims of racial hatred, the De León family fled to New Orleans, where they lived in abject poverty for three years before returning to Mexico.

In 1844, Madam De León returned home to Victoria only to discover that her family's homes, property, and livestock were all gone, seized by ruthless and dishonest newcomers into the Republic. The De León family, who contributed much to the independence of Texas, found their repayment to be ostracism and banishment. Madam De León died in 1849 and was buried next to Don Martin in the Victoria churchyard.

Victor Rose concludes his History of Victoria (1883) with, "Alas, what a sad commentary upon the administration of human justice, to say nothing of its ingratitude, is that presented in the misfortunes of this most worthy family."

In 1971 the Don Martín De León Memorial Foundation was established and funds were raised and permission granted to establish State Historical Markers and a preserved site in the cemetery to honor members of the De León family and their contribution to Texas. Markers were established for Empresario Martín De León, wife Patricia De León, and sons Fernando, Silvestre, Felix and Agapito. On 8 April 1972, dedication services were held at Victoria City Hall and Evergreen Cemetery. It was attended by several hundred including dignitaries from Texas, the United States and Mexico. Present was the great grandson of first President of Mexico Guadalupe Victoria after which the city was named.[2]


[1] A citizen of San Antonio de Bexar
[2] From The Empresario by A.B.J. Hammett, 1973 – Sons of DeWitt Colony Texas Web Site

Read more about the De Leon family at: http://www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/deleon2.htm

Mike Kearby's Texas Copyright 2009 All Rights Reserved

Travis's Last Messenger

On Saturday evening March 5, 1836, James L. Allen volunteered to deliver Col. William B. Travis's final plea for relief to Col. James Fannin at Goliad. The twenty-one year-old courier arrived in Goliad on March 8, but was unable to obtain any assistance from Fannin. Allen then rode to Gonzales where on March 11, he learned that the Bexar garrison had fallen. Image - Messenger James Butler Bonham Arrives Back at the Alamo on March 3.

Alamo Legacy, author, Ron Jackson tells in his book of an interview with F.C. Proctor who claimed to have heard Allen's own account as a young boy. Proctor's account was later verified by Allen's daughter, Mary L. Cunningham.

" . . . Travis told Allen he would be the one to make the attempt to carry the message to Fannin because he had the fleetest mare. Shortly after nightfall, Allen grabbed the reins on the bridle of his horse and mounted bareback. A gate was opened and off he rode. Allen bent low and hugged the horse's neck, providing a lesser target as he dashed through the Mexican lines . . . "

After learning of the Alamo's fall, Allen realized he owed his life to his horse.

A month later, Allen served as a scout with Deaf Smith and helped burn bridges around San Jacinto dooming any thoughts of retreat by the Mexican army.

After San Jacinto, Allen rode with the Texas Rangers under Captains Ward and Bell.

At the outbreak of the Civil War, Allen worked as a tax-assessor-collector for Calhoun County. Refusing to take an oath of allegiance to the Union, Allen was arrested and detained on Saluria Island where he escaped and fled to Port Lavaca . . . but that . . . well that's a whole nuther story.

Read more about James L Allen at the handbook of Texas online:

www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/AA/fal20.html

Mike Kearby's Texas Copyright 2009 All Rights Reserved

Dilue Rose Harris

In 1900, the recollections of Dilue Rose Harris were published in the Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association. (Vol. IV, Southwestern Historical Quarterly) Dilue's reminiscences were combined with journal accounts kept by her father, Dr. Pleasant W. Rose. The journal dates, 1833 – 1837, offer readers an intense, vivid pictorial of the "Runaway Scrape," the scramble by Texas colonists to the Louisiana border and protection in the United States. Photo of the Runaway Scrape Oak, where Sam Houston camped during the first night of the Texian retreat from Gonzales.

The Rose family farm was located on the east bank of the Brazos River, (Fort Bend County), west of present day Houston. The Roses' were friends of Colonel William B. Travis and after hearing of the deaths of he and his men at the Alamo began making plans to flee Santa Anna's approaching Santanistas. Mrs. Rose's brother, James Wells, made preparation to join Houston's army and Dilue recounts how her mother sewed James two striped hickory shirts, while she (Dilue) melted lead in a pot to be used in the molding of bullets for her uncle. In Mid- March, the Rose family left home hauling their possessions on a sled pulled by a yoke of oxen. Upon reaching the San Jacinto River crossing, they became part of an exodus of five-thousand people. The ferry crossing took three days.

Dilue recalled how her mother reminded the children that a hundred-mile walk with thousands of people was not frightening compared to the family's other travails in Texas, shipwrecked on the coast, attacked by wolves, and a most unsettling visit to their farm by an escaped slave, known locally as The Wild Man of the Navidad. Dilue's account of the Trinity River crossing provides a powerful chronicle of the hardships placed on the fleeing farmers. A rising Trinity ran over its banks stranding the family for several hours. During their crossing, one of Dilue's young sisters, sick when their journey began, went into to convulsions and died later. The Roses' buried the child in Liberty, Texas.

On April 22, while proceeding to the Sabine, a courier named McDermot, arrived with a dispatch from Gen. Houston telling the colonists that Santa Anna's army had been defeated at San Jacinto and it was safe to return to their homes. McDermot, an actor, stayed in the Rose family camp that night relating the Battle of San Jacinto in great theatrical fashion . . . but that . . . well that's a whole 'nuther story . . .

Read more about Dilue Rose online:

www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/HH/fha.89.html

www.archive.org/stream/southwesternhist04texauoft/southwesternhist04texauoft_djvu.txt

Copyright 2009 Mike Kearby

The Hypocrisy of Culture

Twelve thousand years ago, small patriarchal bands of East Asians began an arduous trek across the Bering Strait and into the Americas. Over thousands of years, as these hunter and gatherers began to disperse throughout the Americas; new patterns of band behavior began to emerge. These patterns coalesced into what we now refer to as "culture." Although this East Asian migration was comprised of one people (most likely with one linguistic stock and belief system), after thousands of years in the new world, these bands were no longer able to communicate with one another. Both their language and culture splintered. Their adapted behavior patterns were simply societal imperatives that served to assure band survival.

(Photo - Courtesy of The Library of Congress)

The singular most devastating threat to these primitive bands was the death of a warrior, because a warrior's death meant less protection and less protein for the band. Therefore, the foremost band dictate for its warriors was – "Stay alive."

Each band's cultural identity formed independently; each borne of rules and beliefs that were intrinsically necessary for band preservation. Each band member's self-concept was deeply rooted in the learned behavior patterns or culture. Thus, for some North American bands, monogamy became the cultural dictate while in South American others embraced polygamy. A band that accepted polygamy might do so in order to remove unattached females from society as unattached females in estrus ultimately led to competition between males, which ultimately led to conflict between males.

In North America, for example, once bands such as the Comanche became "horsed", ¹ the cultural dictate – "Stay alive" placed no stigma on running from a fight. This cultural imperative was contradictory to Indo-European warrior society, which dictated that a soldier who fled the battlefield without a retreat order was a coward. Indo-European society dealt harshly with such cowards. The cultural dictate – "Stay alive" also meant that band members must not kill one another. While borne out of the prime dictate for all species – survive and reproduce, the fact that bands like the Comanche did not kill one another actually makes them quite civilized by world standards. There is great irony in the fact that Indo-Europeans during the time, who considered themselves thoroughly civilized, killed one another with little regard for human life.

Band members' unfaltering belief in their cultural dictates was accomplished by cultural indoctrination, beginning as early as age three in plains Indians. Each warrior was fully entrenched with the cultural imperative – "Stay alive." This was to provide protection and protein for the band. The "Stay alive" imperative also presented a cultural dichotomy to young warriors, as engaging and killing traditional enemies, often at great risk, were the only means of achieving status within the band. Cultural indoctrination instilled the deep belief that a warrior who could not provide protection and protein was not much of a warrior and thus not much of a man. Only after the Comanche and other Southern Plains Indians became imprisoned in the reservation system did the devastating effects of this indoctrination reveal themselves through depression, alcoholism, and suicide. Because warriors bound to the reservation could no longer provide protection or protein to the band, thus abandoning their cultural dictate, reservation males were no longer warriors or men.

While cultural beliefs varied from band-to-band, tribe-to-tribe, and country-to-country – one cultural component existed (and still exists) in all societies: "We are right and they are wrong." The "We are right and they are wrong" indoctrination was necessary to keep band members from abandoning cultural values when interacting with outside cultures. Examples of the "We are right and they are wrong" illustrates how early cultures referred to themselves. Many names translated to "people," "the people," or "human beings."²

The "We are right and they are wrong" indoctrination instructed all band members that the way we are organized is right, and what we believe in is right; thus all of our actions are always inherently right. This resulted in total inflexibility toward other cultures, which gave rise to cultural hypocrisy.

Representative of this cultural hypocrisy was the killing of women and children and non-combatants in Plains Indians and U.S. military conflicts. Each side engaged in the practice based on cultural beliefs and each side denounced the other's actions. However, neither side ever admitted they were wrong for committing the very atrocities that they condemned.

Just as the declaration that slaves were only two thirds human and thus not really men, kept the Founding Father's directive that "all men are created equal" culturally intact, the Anglos used this similar cultural justification to proclaim "Native People" as ignorant savages. After many broken treaties and promises by the United States, the Anglo culture was deemed "right" and the Native People were declared wards of the government. The only way for Native People and Anglos to "get along" (co-exist) was for Native People to assimilate Anglo culture. The cultural dictate by the United States was expressed succinctly to the reservation inhabitants - we want you to dress like us, speak like us, and believe the things we believe – in short, we want to strip you of your culture and your identity and thus your self-concept. The Library of Congress photograph above speaks volumes to this hypocrisy.

In 2008, cultural hypocrisy continues unabated. A recent example is the response by the U.S. State Department concerning Russia's occupation of Georgia's capital. Secretary Condoleezza Rice stated that Russia by "invading smaller neighbors, bombing civilian infrastructure, going into villages and wreaking havoc and wanton destruction of this infrastructure," is isolating itself from the "community of nations." Her assertion totally disregarded the assertions by many in the Middle East and West that the United States occupation of Iraq in 2003 was "invading a smaller country, bombing civilian infrastructure, going into villages and wreaking havoc and wanton destruction of the infrastructure," as isolating the U.S. from the "community of nations."

These opposing views on twenty-first century conflicts are direct descendents of the "We are right and they are wrong" indoctrination. The United States maintains its culture is right and Russia is wrong; therefore, the U.S. form of government is right and Russia's is wrong. Because the U.S. is right - all of its actions are inherently right. Conversely, Russia is wrong and all of its actions are inherently wrong.

History does repeat itself. The reasons why Comanche and Anglos did not get along in the nineteenth century are the very same reasons that Israelis and Palestinians do not get along today: culture and identity. In order to break free of the cultural cycle of hypocrisy twenty-first century peoples must begin a new indoctrination of future generations; one that allows for understanding lessons from the past and developing an understanding for other cultures. We do not have to believe what they believe, but we should educate ourselves as to why they believe what they believe. Then, and only then, we may come to understand other cultures and their actions. Failure to develop a level of understanding will result in us once again trying to impose our own cultural beliefs on another culture, and as history has shown, the consequences are dangerous. We are doomed to repeat history's lessons as long as "different" carries the labels of ignorant, savage, or less than human and require assimilation into the "right" culture.

Our very survival as a species may rest in the idea that in order for cultures to "get along" we do not all need to be the same.


_______________________________
¹The introduction of the horse to North America had a profound impact on the Comanche. Comanche are believed to be the first native people on the plains to use the horse for hunting and war.
² The Israelites called themselves "the chosen people".

Copyright 2009 Mike Kearby All Rights Reserved

The Angel of Goliad

On Palm Sunday, March 27, 1836, fifteen year old, Benjamin Franklin Hughes was pulled from a group of Texas prisoners by an officer of the Mexican army. The prisoners, from James Walker Fannin's command at The Battle of Coleto, were unknowingly marching toward their executions. Hughes recalled years later that a young woman, Madame Captain Alavez (Francisca Panchita Alavez) spoke with General Urrea's wife moments before he was taken from the ranks.

(Photo -Bronze statue of The Angel of Goliad - Francisca Panchita Alavez in Goliad, Texas. Sculpture by Che Rickman)

Hughes was not the first Texan whose life was spared by Francisca's heroic actions. First hand narratives reveal she was responsible for saving Dr. Joseph H. Barnard and Dr. Jack Shackelford at La Bahia and Rueben R. Brown at San Patricio. Dr. Barnard later wrote, "During the time of the massacre (La Bahia) she stood in the street, her hair floating, speaking wildly, and abusing the Mexican officers, especially José Nicolás de la Portilla She appeared almost frantic." Alavez is also credited with nursing wounded Texans at Copano, Goliad, and Matamoras.

Famed Spanish author, Elena Zamora O'Shea, a King Ranch schoolteacher (1902-1903) wrote of Francisca in her memoirs, "-she died on the King Ranch and is buried there in an unmarked grave . . ." One of the ranch workers, (Los Kineños) Matias Alvarez related to O'Shea that his father was Telesforo Alavez, whose sweetheart, Francisca followed him throughout his military assignments on the northern frontier. After his father's death, Matias worked on several jobs north of the Rio Grande finally setting at the King Ranch where he was accompanied by his mother, Francisca.

A descendent of The Angel of Goliad, Dr. Lauro Cavazos, was the first Hispanic to serve in the United States Cabinet as Secretary of Education . . . but that . . . well that's a whole 'nuther story . . .

Read more about Francisca Panchita Alavez on-line at:

http://www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/goliadangel.htm

http://www.angelofgoliadhp.com/about_francisca_alvarez.htm

Copyright 2009 Mike Kearby

George Campbell Childress

In December 1835, the Texas provisional government (The General Council) called for the Independence convention to meet at Washington-on-the-Brazos. Sixty-two delegates were elected from twenty-five Texas municipalities on February 1, 1836.

The convention was called to order on March 1, 1836 by George Childress. Forty-four delegates presented credentials the first day. Fifty-nine delegates ultimately attended the convention. Three delegates, James Kerr (Jackson), John Linn (Victoria), and Juan Antonio Padilla (Goliad) were unable to attend. (Photo - Statue of George Childress at Washington-on-the-Brazos)

Richard Ellis (Red River) was elected convention president. Ellis then appointed a Declaration of Independence committee. The committee consisted of five members - James Gaines (Sabine), Edward Conrad (Refugio), Collin McKinney (Red River), Bailey Hardeman (Matagorda), and was chaired by George Childress (Milam).

The Texas Declaration of Independence was written in one day. Most historians believe Childress arrived at the convention with an almost completed draft of the document. Childress is widely accepted as the author of the six page declaration.

The document was approved without debate. Delegates began signing the document on March 3, 1836, officially establishing the Republic of Texas.

Before the convention adjourned on March 17, 1836, due to the advancing Mexican Army, Childress also made motions for the prevention of slave trading in the Republic and that the state emblem be "a single star of five points . . . "

George Childress was one of only two delegates who did not arrive in Texas until 1836. The other was Sam P. Carson (Red River) . . . but that . . . well that's a whole 'nuther story . . .

Read more about George Campbell Childress at the Handbook of Texas Online

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/CC/fch28.html

And at:

http://robertson-ancestry.com/122413-01.htm

Copyright 2009 Mike Kearby