A Tendentious Revisionist

That's what Josh Treviño calls me for saying that slavery had a lot to do with Texas secession from Mexico in 1836. If by tendentious revisionist, he means that I'm like the majority of academic historians and scholars more broadly who don't take myth as reality, who use the work of other historians to build upon for new work, and who think race, class, gender, and sexuality are important categories of analysis, then that is what I am.

There's little of value in Treviño's rebuttal. He makes broad statements with lots of names and events, but his source base extends no further than Texas websites and Wikipedia. Meanwhile, I've cited a half dozen major historians, some of whom have written prize winning work, and I could have done a lot more. So you all can judge for yourself--believe the historical community of which I am just one small part or the blowhard right-winger.

As for the substance of Treviño's post, well, again there's little to actually rebut. He notes that I don't like conservatives. I don't know how he could tell that. He starts with an a priori assumption that Santa Anna was an unspeakably bad guy who Texas was more than justified in revolting against, but shows no evidence that he actually knows the first thing about him or about the Mexican context in which Texas existed. This is a curious thing about Texas history--everyone just assumes without the first bit of reflection that Santa Anna was the bad guy. In the Texas State History Museum for instance, any thought that Santa Anna could be justified in keeping his nation together is completely dismissed out of hand.

He claims that I am saying that the Texas revolt was only about slavery when I directly say that it is complex and that not every factor was about slavery--again, there was also the distance between Texas and Mexico City, religious differences, white supremacy over Mexicans, and the fact that most of these men always intended on making Texas part of the United States. Many of these things have something to do with slavery, but it isn't always direct link. Again, Treviño shows little ability to think in complex ways.

Treviño also shows limited ability to use evidence. Whereas I bring in several pieces of strong evidence to support my claims, including direct quotes in private correspondence as well as the actions of leading heroes of the Texas revolution that furthered the slave cause, he simply relies on the public statements of Texans, which while not without importance or value, were also published for public consumption. The Declaration of Independence is an important document but it provides far from a complete understanding of the American Revolution. However, these are connections that if Treviño makes, he doesn't talk about.

And while I'll be the first to admit that comparisons through time and space are often of limited value, Treviño's dismissal of my comparison of the United States in 1786 and Mexico in 1836 is absurd. First, I'll bet Treviño loves to use Munich analogies for every U.S. foreign policy action. It's always 1938 and it's always Hitler vs. Chamberlain. Now there's an analogy that is crazy! But in this case he says that my comparison is silly because he can name lots of ways they are different too. You think? Wow, that takes some deep historical thinking to come up with that. Obviously, there are a million differences between the two nations 50 years apart. However, there are some important similarities too that one cannot simply dismiss.

The United States, 1786:
1. A new nation that had recently thrown off its colonial leader.
2. A nation with a weak central government and ineffective mechanisms to deal with that problem.
3. A nation facing internal threats with little contact between regions or a strong sense of nationalism.

Mexico, 1836
1. A new nation that had recently thrown off its colonial leader.
2. A nation with a weak central government and ineffective mechanisms to deal with that problem.
3. A nation facing internal threats with little contact between regions or a strong sense of nationalism.

The major differences were in leadership--Washington and Santa Anna were very different. And for all the differences that Treviño may claim between the two nations and times, these three factors are striking and suggest that a comparative look is of value. If Treviño can't deal with even thinking there might be two sides to this story, well, there's a right-winger for you. Unable to deal with complexity, holding onto national myths out of some deep psychological need, and making bold arguments with little to no evidence. With these kinds of skills, how did he not get a job in the Bush State Department?

Again, if all of this makes me a tendentious revisionist, I'll wear that badge with pride. Because what I'm really doing is acting like a professional historian should act, using evidence to make reasonable arguments about the past in ways that are useful to the present.

Also, if anyone has any particular questions regarding his rebuttal that they want me to answer, like his bringing up of the lack of violent events around slavery in Texas in 1836, let me know. I'd be happy to go into more detail, but it seems that the post is long enough as it is. But I also don't want anyone to think I am shying away from any point of his argument.