Sources for additional information in my previous posts can be found at the following sites and in the following books.

A brief biography of Philip Nolan by noted Texas historian Archie P. McDonald in his syndicated column “All Things Historical” can be viewed at http://www.texasescapes.com/AllThingsHistorical/PhilipNolanAM703.htm.

A good biography of Moses Austin is D.B. Gracy, II’s Moses Austin: His Life published by Trinity University Press in 1987. Additionally, Moses was born in Connecticut and later moved to Virginia. So, if the tariff was truly what the Austins were against by establishing a colony in Texas, isn’t that a little hypocritical given Moses’ actual birthplace? (Of course, as “Billy Yank” points out, this comment ignores the mounds of historical evidence against the tariff argument as a cause of the Civil War. James McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom is a secondary source that bears this out well.)

A brief biography and links to several letters by Stephen Austin are available at the Texas State Library & Archives Commission webpage http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasures/giants/austin/austin-01.html.

The Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819 and France’s and Spain’s swapping of Louisiana and Texas can be found in several good histories of the United States. The Oxford Companion to United States History by Paul S. Boyer is one that discusses the treaty’s impact on both United States and Texas history.

While this has become an effort to set the record straight as to why Moses and Stephen Austin established a colony in Texas, I’ll say this about battlefield preservation. Any battlefield, from any war, contains so much area associated with it that if we halted all development because of this there would be little development to be had, particularly on the eastern coast of the United States where three major wars of our history have occurred. I’m not saying battlefield preservation isn’t important. What I am saying is that we need to temper our desire to preserve these things with the knowledge that we cannot preserve all of it, but we should focus on the most important parts of the battlefields where fighting actually took place. We would do well to follow the example of all good generals in choosing the time and place of our engagement rather than letting our opponents do it for us.

Over commercialization is a problem in this country and Wal-Mart is a prime culprit. From the comments, it seems that many have more problems with Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. rather than the actual planned development of the area. Mr. Aubrecht points out that three Wal-Marts exist along the route to this area. That would seem to be poor marketing on Wal-Mart’s part, not to mention the reason for so much ire from locals and history lovers everywhere – no matter whom it’s directed at, Wal-Mart or the developers. Bill Quinn’s book is a good one, but Mr. Quinn (with whom I have conversed with on the phone on several occasions and have a deep respect for) and many others totally ignore the corporate nature of all such endeavors that Mr. Williams alludes to in his post above. While we cannot save everything, we must, as historians, researchers, teachers and history lovers endeavor to prevent the most egregious mismanagement of these site, ones like in Georgia of which Mr. Noe speaks.

My antipathy toward neo-Confederate hooey such as that posted by Mr. Shandrick is well-known. I am all for anything that rebuts, so please, feel free. Please feel free to put up whatever you want to rebut it.

Eric

First, it’s “Stephen,” not “Steven,” Austin. Second, it wasn’t his idea to settle Texas in the first place. Two things can be argued here. 1) Filibustering expeditions under the likes of Philip Nolan began in the late 1700’s. Austin did not come with his “Old 300” (the original Texas colonists) until 1821. 2) It was Moses Austin, Stephen’s father, who requested a land grant from the Mexican government for settling what is now Texas. Third, the Austin family’s expeditions into Texas had nothing to do with tarrifs and the high price of imported goods. It did have to do with some group of people getting rich, but not the group Mr. Shandrick points to. The colonization of Texas was a business proposition designed to make the Austin’s rich. A similar plan had been successful for Moses in the 1790’s in Missouri under the Spanish when it controlled that area. (Yes, it later became part of the Louisiana Purchase. But that also explains the reason the US laid claim to Texas until the Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819. Spain and France had swapped Texas in these transactions as well.) Oh, and by the way, the Austin’s were lead miners from Virginia, as well as investment bankers (land speculators), lawyers, and plain old politicians. So, the “Yankee corprate greed” comment is a little humorous.

I have offered a brief rebuttal to Mr. Shandrick’s inaccuracies. I realize I have not provided sources, but, since this is not my blog, I have tried to keep it short. Should Mr. Wittenberg desire, I’ll be happy to provide readers with sources to verify these statements in greater detail.