Context
.~*~.¸¸.~*~.¸¸.~*~.¸¸.~*~.
Texas in the early 1830s. Many American settlers lived there, drawn by Mexico’s generous policies and cheap land. They wanted to govern themselves, manage their own affairs with minimal interference from a distant central government-over a thousand miles away in Mexico City-and continue the economic development that made their settlements thrive.
When Santa Anna burst onto the national scene, he promised a liberal government, echoing the principles of the beloved 1824 Mexican Constitution – a document that guaranteed significant power to individual states, including Texas. This was music to the settlers’ ears. It meant local control, the potential to secure land titles, and the preservation of their cultural practices, including the controversial institution of slavery, which was increasingly under threat from a more centralized Mexican authority. For a brief, shining moment, Santa Anna was their man, their champion for a more self-determined Texas within the Mexican Republic.
In 1833, riding a wave of liberal sentiment, Santa Anna was elected president. He presented himself as a Federalist, advocating for the very state autonomy that Texas craved. Yet, he largely delegated the actual governing to his liberal Vice President, Valentín Gómez Farías. Farías, with Santa Anna seemingly in the background, launched a series of bold reforms, aiming to curb the immense power of the military and the Catholic Church.
These liberal reforms, however, deeply unsettled Mexico’s powerful conservative elite. Sensing the shift in the political winds, Santa Anna began to pivot. He abandoned his Federalist facade and started to align himself with the very Centralist conservative factions he had once opposed. The growing conservative backlash became his ladder to absolute power.
Santa Anna was a political chameleon, a master of opportunism. His rise to power was a whirlwind of military coups and political dealings, a testament to his charisma and ruthless pragmatism.
In a move that sent shockwaves through the nation, Santa Anna dissolved the liberal Congress, dismissed his reformist vice president, and systematically dismantled the 1824 Constitution—the very document that had earned him Texan support. In its place, he imposed a profoundly Centralist constitution.
This new Constitution of 1836 was a death knell for state autonomy. Among other things, it abolished state legislatures, transforming them into mere departments controlled by Mexico City, and drastically concentrated power in the hands of the central government. Overnight, Santa Anna and his supporters transformed Mexico into a centralized government, with himself as its undisputed dictator.
This betrayal extinguished any remaining hope among the American settlers and many Tejano Federalists. The man they had once supported now threatened to strip away their autonomy, their established rights, and their very way of life. The stage was set for an inevitable confrontation.
Santa Anna’s calculated shift from a Federalist ally to a Centralist dictator wasn’t just a political maneuver; it was the direct catalyst that ignited the fires of the Texas Revolution, forever altering the destiny of the region and cementing his controversial legacy in history.
Usurpers
In his letter from New Orleans on January 16, 1836, Stephen F. Austin outlines the logical and moral journey that led Texans to the brink of declaring independence. He frames the Texas Revolution not as a rash act of rebellion but as a final, unavoidable step taken in defense of a written constitution and republican principles.
Austin begins by emphasizing that the people of Texas have always been loyal Mexican citizens. He states that they were “bound by their oath” to adhere to the Federal Constitution of Mexico of 1824 and that they have “done their duty” to this document. The conflict, he explains, is not with Mexico as a nation but with the unconstitutional, “dictatorial” government that has seized power.
According to Austin, the final rupture became inevitable when the dictatorial government, led by Santa Anna, began to suppress the federalist party, which still supported the Constitution of 1824. This change in circumstance, he argues, “forces Texas to take the final step and resort to her national rights by an absolute declaration of independence.”
To clarify Texas’ position, Austin makes a crucial legal distinction. He explains that Texas is the de jure government of Mexico. The term de jure is a Latin phrase meaning “by law” or “by right.” This means Texas, by adhering to the lawful constitution, is the rightful government. Conversely, the authorities who have taken power in Mexico City are referred to as usurpers, a term for those who seize power or a position illegally or by force. Austin clarifies that these usurpers have created a de facto government, meaning a government that exists “in fact,” holding actual power regardless of its legal standing.
Austin’s core argument is that a written constitution is the bedrock of a republican form of government. When a government abandons its constitution, it ceases to be legitimate. By defending the Mexican Constitution of 1824, Texans believe they are not only acting in self-defense but also upholding the last vestiges of true republican governance in Mexico. This stance, Austin argues, gives Texas a moral high ground and makes it inconsistent for the United States, which is also founded on republican and just principles, to not support them. The letter concludes by laying out Texas’ two desired paths: to join the United States as a new state or to become an independent nation.
New Orleans, January 16, 1836
Dear Sir,
The affairs of Texas are about to assume a definite and fixed character – The people have been activated by sense of duty in all they have done – They have adhered to the Federal Constitution of Mexico, as they were bound by their oath to do so. They have done their duty as Mexican citizens. They will do their duty to themselves. If they have erred [thus far], it has been on the side of patience, and not on that of hastiness. The history of the past will fully establish the truth of these aspirations.To the declaration of the 7th of November last made by the Convention of Texas was for the republican principle of the Constitution of 1824. It declared an absolute separation from the existing and unconstitutional government of Mexico but left open a door for a reunion with Texas to the Mexican confederation in case of its reestablishment of truly republican principles. There appears to be no hope of reestablishment. Accounts say that the [Mexican] Federal party have united with Santa Anna to invade Texas.
This changes the aspect of things, and forces Texas to take the final step and resort to her national rights by an absolute declaration of independence. Such a declaration will be made in February or March. It is certain. Public opinion is now prepared for it. It will be unanimous. We had to arrive at this point of steps. Any other mode would have been hazardous, and perhaps, ruinous.
The first wish of the Texians, as I believe (I confess it is mine) is to form a State of these United States. The next wish is to form an independent nation. We shall be satisfied with either, but with the proper guarantees if united with the United States.
The question now arises, will the United States recognize our independence and treat with us on an application for admission into this Union, or will they sustain us by a treaty arrangement as an independent government?
Another question – as we now stand under our declaration of 7th November last, we are the Constitutional government (and all that is left of it) of Mexico, we are the government de jure. The persons who have assumed the power of government in the City of Mexico and usurpers.
The Treaty between the U.S. and Mexico was made with the Constitutional government and not with the persons who have usurped the authority… If the usurping government should drive Texas to an absolute declaration of independence as a measure of self-defense, can the U.S. government refuse to sustain her, and favor the usurper without acting inconsistently with the republican and broad principles of justice upon which the Constitution of the U.S. is founded?
I have been detailed here longer than I expected…
Transcript of letter from Stephen F. Austin, January 16, 1836, University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History
Why Historify?
I discovered the power of story as a history teacher, and the singular privilege of working at a Texas state archive filled with letters penned by people whose thoughts, attitudes, and experiences reflect the times in which they lived.
This simple website was created as a free, uncomplicated, and time-saving introduction to the richness and value of historical sources.
Please join me as we study the past through the words of those who lived it, one life at a time, and thank you for being here.
Buck
Why Historify?
I discovered the power of story as a history teacher, and the singular privilege of working at a Texas state archive filled with letters penned by people whose thoughts, attitudes, and experiences reflect the times in which they lived.
This simple website was created as a free, uncomplicated, and time-saving introduction to the richness and value of historical sources.
Please join me as we study the past through the words of those who lived it, one life at a time, and thank you for being here.
Buck