Texas Divided: Loyalty and Dissent in the Lone Star State 1856-1874. By James Marten. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1990. Pp. x, 246, ISBN 0-8131-1700-3.

            Marten’s Texas Divided analyzes the Civil War’s effect on the Lone Star State’s politics. Marten’s history of Texas identifies the complex relationship between supporters of secession and dissenters to the confederate cause. The author identifies dissenters as people who opposed the Confederacy for political, constitutional, cultural, or self-interest reasons. This varied cross-section of dissent is designed to complicate the monolithic idea of the South by showing the variety with which people opposed Texas’s participation in a unified southern cause or identity. Marten not only models his work on Degler’s The Other South but also tries to reach Degler’s same conclusion about southerner’s fractured identity by using Texas as a case study. The work also seems like an intellectual inheritor of Buenger’s Secession and the Union in Texas as many of this work’s ideas are brought to their logical conclusion, and Marten expands his analysis well beyond German dissent and Sam Houston.

            To break down the southern monolith Marten employs a variety of methods to understand Civil War Texas. He analyzes specific historical figures and general cultural groups using traditional historical sources. Marten then takes this information and compares it to established academic narratives analyzing the rest of the South to show the congruence and disparity in Texas’s experience from the rest of the South during the Civil War.

            The organization and periodization of Marten’s book is fairly traditional but also quite effective. He divides his work so each chapter covers a different group of Texans. He also assesses these groups within the three traditional time periods concerning the conflict: antebellum South, the war, and Reconstruction. Marten tries to fabricate an innovative historical narrative about a complex and dynamic group of people, but the result he achieves seems primarily to rearticulate the established narrative of Texas exceptionalism with broader focus, deeper analysis, and a larger network of historiographical support. He adds to studies like Buenger’s and connects them to studies like Degler’s.

            However, one of the truly interesting things about Marten’s work is the ultimate conclusion he comes to after taking into account the various groups, with various motivations, at various times. He concludes that Texas politics were too complex to see them as a monolithic entity. Texans were not only divided on the issues of union and secession they were also dived in why and how they should support union or secession. Marten’s analysis of Texas politics at the end of Reconstruction points to the creation of a monolithic South rather than its redemption. The need to disenfranchise black voters and reclaim political power from radical Republicans forced southerners to draw a line in the sand about what it meant to be southern. Secessionists were in defacto control of the nation they had created, but real and legitimate political opposition demanded that they effectively organize “us” against “them.” Marten points to the creation of the Solid South and a monolithic southern identity as entirely reactionary to the results of the war.

            The exceptional nature of Texas in both its geographical location and its demographic characteristics makes it an excellent example in Marten’s argument to disprove the homogeneity of the South, however his success at describing the unique politics of dissent at play within Texas inhibits his ability to extend that analysis beyond the state’s borders to the rest of the Confederacy. Marten writes an excellent history of Texas dissent that validates Degler’s argument in regards to Texas and propels Buenger’s ideas concerning Texas into the next generation of scholarly discussion.

Andrew Klooster

Texas Divided: Loyalty and Dissent in the Lone Star State, 1856-1874. By James Marten.  (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, c. 1990 Pp. x, 246).        

Although Texas fought in the Confederacy, not all Texans were ardent Confederate patriots.  In fact, there were a significant amount of dissenting groups within Texas during the Civil War.  Marten’s book illustrates how much dissent there was in the Lone Star State, as well as the substantial level of loyalty.  The author’s main argument is that Texas acquired its loyalty along with other Southern elements from immigrants from the Upper and Lower South, which constituted a majority of Texas’ population.  Many of these Southern immigrants carried their Southern ideals and traditions with them to Texas, and looked to implement their way of life on the Lone Star State.  In addition to this, these immigrants from the Upper and Lower South believed that everyone else should likewise adhere to these beliefs, although this was not always the case.

            Marten illustrates that there were four main groups of dissenters who did not conform to the beliefs and traditions of those immigrants from the Upper and Lower South.  German immigrants were the first group of dissenters that Marten examines, as they were not avid fans of either slavery or Southern nationalism.  Tejanos are the second group of dissenters that Marten describes, who were mostly indifferent to Southern racism and their quest for secession.  Blacks were another group of opposition, as they were obviously avid opponents of slavery and Southern secession for obvious reasons.  Sine Germans, blacks, and Tejanos constituted 37.4 percent of the Texas population, there was a fair amount of dissension in the state to secession and slavery.  Finally, the fourth group that Marten examines are those whites who kept Union or Northern principles, such as draft dodgers.  Not all whites adhered to the Confederate way of thinking, and many in Texas kept their Unionist beliefs, or believed that there was no necessity for a war.  Marten studies these groups in a chronological fashion, and conveys how many of them had to either hide or retire from their jobs due to their opposition to Southern secession and slavery.  Despite this amount of dissension, there was never a substantial level of opposition to slavery and secession.  Although a fair amount of Texans opposed these Southern ideals and beliefs, they were never fully unified against the Confederate cause.  In addition to this, those who were loyal to the Confederate cause made things very difficult for those who dissented during and after the Civil War.  Despite the significant amount of dissenters within Texas, there was a great amount of loyalty to the Southern cause, and they believed that everyone should adhere to their beliefs.  Those who didn’t, found things very difficult. 

            Throughout this book, Marten demonstrates the fervent efforts by loyal Southerners to extinguish or eliminate anyone who opposed secession and slavery.  Often times, the most common methods employed were vigilantism and lynching.  Yet their biggest weapon was often the fear of lynching or abuse, as it caused many to go into hiding or be quiet about their beliefs.  This fear of persecution continued past the Civil War, and well into Reconstruction.  In fact, Marten argues that this Southern loyalty and nationalism grew stronger following the Civil War, and those with Northern beliefs found it harder after the Civil War, as opposed to during it.  One of the reasons for this, was that ex-Confederates seemed more unified after the war, than they did during it.  This unification occurred because many Southern whites looked to keep their way of life, and prevent Reconstruction from changing their Southern lifestyle.  Consequently, many whites who were indifferent to the war, or not ardent Confederate patriots, became ardent patriots in order to protect their method of living.  This level of unification or passion was never found in those who dissented from Confederate beliefs and ideals.  There was never a significant level of unification during the war, and there was even less unification after the war.  Therefore, those who were bold enough to oppose Southern racism, often found things very difficult and lonely following the conclusion of the Civil War.  For those who still opposed racist beliefs, there was substantial problems in finding jobs or finding sanctuary for their ideals.

            Throughout this work, the author demonstrates that not everyone in Texas was an ardent Confederate nationalist.  In fact there were a significant amount of Texans who dissented from Southern ideals and beliefs about slavery and politics.  Germans, Mexicans, blacks, and whites with Unionist principles opposed slavery and secession.  Yet the amount of opposition they offered was never really fierce, as Confederate loyalists made things very difficult for them during and after the Civil War.  In fact, it seemed as Confederate nationalism intensified after the war, as Southern whites unified in order to protect their towns and cities from Northern carpetbaggers and scalawags. 

Albert Cox

 Texas Christian University

Texas Divided: Loyalty and Dissent in the Lone Star State 1856-1874. By James Marten. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press. 1990.

            After the annexation of Texas, into the United States, the former independent Republic fell in line with other southern slave states.  Many of the settlers that had immigrated to Texas had done so from areas of the United States south and Appalachia.  This being the case, it is not surprising that Texas develop many of the characteristics found amongst the inhabitants of the Deep South and Appalachia.  Although the majority of the inhabitants of Texas supported the secession of the state and the formation of the Confederacy, many held to their beliefs in the Union and its principals.  In his, book Texas Divided: Loyalty and Dissent in the Lone Star State 1856-1874, James Marten investigates both sides of the conflict found within Texas during the Civil War.

            Marten begins his work by looking at the political situation within Texas before the actual beginning of the Civil War.  He concludes that even before hostilities commenced, Texas had become extremely hostile to those that opposed the rights of secession and slavery.  Before events deteriorated into vigilante actions, many Texans that held views that differed from the majority lived normal lives outside of the mainstream society.  As the Civil War approached and sectionalism increased these individuals faced more hatred from their fellow Texans.  Anyone who did not support slavery was instantaneously considered a “Black Republican” and an ardent abolitionist.  Those that did not support the south or later the Confederacy were considered “un-American” or traitors to their state.  Men who opposed the majority of Texan’s beliefs were either expelled from the community, silenced or occasional killed.

            In the next chapters, Marten, investigates the antebellum dissenters found within Texas.  He states that many in Texas that disagreed with secession never had any desire to destroy the institution of slavery or any other southern institutions.  According to Marten, they feared the radical actions of the secessionist and the effects it would have on the Texas economy.  Amongst those that opposed secession were such groups as Tejanos, Germans and obviously blacks.  These ethnic Texans had no stake in slavery and felt that their loyalties should remain with the Union.  Marten explains that many that opposed secession later joined the fight for southern independence.  Others remained loyal to the Union and actively worked against the south.  The remaining loyalist buckled down and tried to stay out of the way of vigilante groups and violent southern extremists.

            Martin also examines the rash of Texas dissenters and deserters that grew as the war progressed.  He concludes that after the southern defeat at Vicksburg many Texans felt that they were fighting for a lost cause.  This helped many justify their lack of loyalty to the Confederacy and there early return home.  Many Texans also felt that they had to return home before the Union forces decided to take back Texas.  Personal issues and family always came before the Confederacy according to Martin.   Martin finishes his work by looking at Reconstruction in Texas.  He concludes that Texans were able to hold on to their way of life throughout reconstruction and actually came out glorifying its part in the Confederacy rather then forgetting it.

            Overall, Martin has produced a thoroughly interesting and educational book.  It remains fascinating to the reader, although at times it is quiet repetitive.  It is also bothersome to this reviewer the enormous amount of dissenters in Texas according to Martin.  It appears as though Martin has exaggerated the number of Unionist living in Texas during the Civil War.  It would appear to this reviewer that many that were considered Unionist were most likely falsely accused.  Although there are a few issues with this book, it remains to be an important work.  Anyone who is interested in the Civil War or Texas would thoroughly enjoy this work.  It should remain important in the area of Texas history for years to come.

Chris Draper    Texas Christian University

Texas Divided: Loyalty and Dissent in the Lone Star State 1856-1874. By James Marten. The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington Kentucky 1990.

            The Civil War itself hardly touched Texas. Of course it affected the thousands of Texans who died on battlefields far away, but it hardly touched the state itself. Never the less, the Civil War had a profound impact on Texan society and culture. That is the subject of James Marten’s Texas Divided. As Marten himself points out, “it is the history of men dealing with the sometimes fragmented Southern society in which they lived-some fighting to change it, others to preserve it-and an examination of the lines that divided Texas and Texans during the sectional conflict of the nineteenth century.” (Pp. 5)

            In the summer of 1860 a series of fires swept through Texas and many blamed them on abolitionist plotting to overthrow slavery. These allegations led to wide-spread hysteria that resulted in violence and or expulsion for many suspected to be Northerners and or abolitionists. Anyone who didn’t whole-heartedly support Breckinridge in his bid for the presidency was considered a traitor and treated accordingly. The tradition of Southern vigilantism established itself firmly in Texas after the Mexican War and, combined with the frontier nature of the state produced an environment where death was around every corner for anyone not considered loyal to slavery and Southern traditions.

            Political factions developed in Texas from pro and anti Houston men in the old Democratic Party. By the time of secession, though, these factions could be traced to the attempts of Whigs and others to maintain and opposition to the Democratic Party in the state. After secession had become a reality, loyalty was measured by support for the Confederacy and secession itself. Many Texans were conditional Unionists in the years before Lincoln’s election and his call for volunteers, but most were pushed into the secessionist camp by these actions. Sam Houston led the Jacksonian Democratic protestors against secession, but many Unionists saw it in their best interest to merely conform. Many Unionists such as James Throckmorton and Sam Houston reluctantly joined in the Confederate war effort as a matter of course, setting their politics aside for loyalty.

            However, many of these Unionists actively opposed the war. The main groups of dissenters were located in Austin and San Antonio. There were many immigrants in both places, mainly German and Swedish, who opposed secession. In Austin Unionists also had the advantage of being led by Sam Houston and other prominent Texans. Though they invited vigilantism by openly espousing Unionism or opposing slavery, many of these dissenters held firm throughout the war. Some even joined Union military outfits, though they were often mistrusted and rejected by Northerners who saw them as Southerners first and Unionists second. Much, but not all of dissent in Texas aligned itself along ethnic and pre-war political lines.

            As the Confederacy began to wane, more and more Texans joined the ranks of the deserters, speculators or bandits. Many, unhappy with the war, merely refused to serve while others engaged in less than honest business practices to become rich off the war. Still others resorted to becoming bandits to achieve their means. North Texas was a primary hotbed for these disaffected Southerners who hid out on the prairie to avoid conscription. A group of these conscientious objectors were rounded up and hanged in 1862 in what became known as the Great Gainsville Hanging. Though retaliation was the lot for a few, mostly other Texans were sympathetic or powerless to stop such activities.

            As stated previously, ethnic blocs formed the main bulwark of resistance against the Confederacy. There were exceptions such as Colonel Santos Benavides who led a Confederate cavalry regiment, or Colonel August Buchel, who died at the head of his First Texas Cavalry at Pleasant Hill, but most Mexicans and Germans tended to oppose the war to the point of outright rebellion against the Confederacy. As Marten points out: “long years of political, economic, and cultural antagonism poisoned relations between Texans and tejanos and forced a vocal minority of Germans into rebellion against the Confederacy...Uncommitted to the structures of a slave society fighting for its life against northern “aggression,” the loyalty of black, German, and Mexican Texans became immediately suspect, as it had been even before the war started, and as it would be after the war ended.” (Pp. 127)

            Reconstruction brought changes to the Texas political structure. Many Unionists returned to the old Democratic Party because of the radical impositions of Congress on the seceded states. Marten points out that white supremacy played a large factor in many Texans abandoning the Republican Party. Though they were for Union, most could not stand the idea of social and political black equality and returned to the Democratic Party in droves. The Republicans helped drive the dissenters back into the fold with their bloody shirt tactics and infighting, so that by the end of Reconstruction most white Texans had returned to the mainstream, effectually ending dissent in the Lone Star State.

            However, Reconstruction was quite difficult for the newly freed slaves in Texas. Most blacks tended to vote Republican and faced fierce legal and extra-legal threats because of their stance. Violence against former slaves was endemic across Texas and Marten points out that in many ways blacks replaced white Unionists as the principal group of outsiders in Texas. Many white Texans who would have otherwise supported the Republican Party in Texas found it personally distasteful to associate themselves with freedmen. Ironically, debates about blacks helped to close the door on political dissent in the Lone Star State.

            Though dissent ripped apart Texas and Texans during the Civil War, Reconstruction and the postwar period helped to dim these differences and produce a more solid South and Southern nationalism than could ever have existed before the war. Basking in the cult of the Lost Cause, Texas reemerged from the war more or less a politically homogenous state, drawn along strictly racial lines, which it remained throughout the nineteenth and most of the twentieth century.

  John R. Lundberg