We’re all taught about Mirabeau B Lamar in school (at least in Texas). Many of us hear the name and forget, while others simply remember him as the second president of the Republic of Texas. He has many monuments in the state of Texas, ranging from statues to namesake buildings. The statue that caught my attention, as I live in Richmond, is the one located in front of the Richmond courthouse. There are silences in every narrative, especially concerning the narratives of Texas heroes such as Lamar. My job is to uncover them.
Lamar, as I said previously, was the second president of the Republic of Texas. He won unanimously after both of his opposers committed suicide (suspicious, I know). His term would last from 1838–1841. He left Texas with large amounts of debt and would really sour his reputation with the Santa Fe expedition. It resulted in the deaths and captures of many Texans. Although the men that survived were eventually freed, they experienced starvation and lack of supplies. No wonder Texas reelected Sam Houston immediately after. Lamar leaving the post was good riddance for the people of Texas.
Now, let’s talk about the things he was able to succeed in. Lamar, and most other Texans at the time, wanted to get rid of the Natives. He also wanted to keep all Black people in Texas enslaved by making it impossible to live as a freedman, even if from out of state, and he accomplished both. These are some of the reasons he is commemorated.
The Richmond statue was erected in 1936. This was the centennial of Texas independence from Mexico. This carries significance as it would’ve been a highly patriotic time in the state. January 26 is actually Lamar day in Richmond. Lamar in addition to being president, was also the VP during Houston’s first presidency and would serve during the Texas fight for independence. These are the only reasons many would claim he was being commemorated for now, ignoring the less palatable reasons above.
Lamar truly hated the Natives and wanted them gone. He once said “the Cherokees can no longer remain among us” and he felt this way about most tribes [1]. He was able to expel both the Comanche (for the most part) and Cherokee tribes from Texas. His methods were extremely violent and he didn’t care how many died, he just wanted them out of Texas. Lamar felt Texas was owed to them and that Natives had no right to the land whatsoever.
The Native tribes went from living in a country where the previous president was sympathetic to them to Lamar who was dead set on removing them from Texas. The Cherokees had experienced displacement already and wouldn’t give up so easily, but in the end they suffered much loss and were defeated, settling in Oklahoma. Other tribes saw this and left on their own accord to avoid experiencing the same. Comanches, on the other hand, were the last tribe to leave. Comanches were horse riders (one of the only tribes to do so), would regularly raid Anglo settlements and were considered violent. They would not be fully expelled until 1874, long after Lamar’s presidency.
The Natives that survived disease could have possibly successfully coexisted with Anglo settlers if they weren’t so entitled to the land and respected their set cultures. White people saw Native customs as uncivilized and thought only their way was the one, correct way. Cherokees were a matrilineal tribe, meaning the women were the landowners and property and statuses were passed down through them, unlike the Anglos. Men were still expected to go to war, while the women stayed at home and tended the farm. Comanches had similar gender roles to Western cultures. The men went to war and hunted, while the women took care of the home and kids.
Similarly, Lamar wanted no free Blacks in Texas. An act was passed under his presidency to effectively make it impossible to live in Texas as a freedman. Lamar and most of the white population felt they were entitled to Black bodies. The act specified that “it shall not be lawful for any free person of color to emigrate to this Republic.” [2]. Any free Black that moved to Texas would be would be sold into slavery for a year. After that year, if they couldn’t make bond, they would be sold into slavery for the rest of their lives. It gave Texas-native free Blacks two years to move out of the state before they would be subject to the same conditions. Something tells me they thought that was generous.
Lamar couldn’t care less that they would likely be uprooting people and their loved ones. Since they weren’t the white man’s slaves then they had no use to the state. Only one single family (the Ashworth family) was exempt from the act and this was due to the fact that they were considered a great help during the Texas Revolution. If not for that, they likely would’ve had to leave too.
As Trouillot said, “because the [Anglo] observers did not find grammar books or dictionaries among the so-called savages” they considered their history to be one and the same with fiction [3]. This also ignored that for many, history was told orally. History is written by the winners and this results in a one sided story. We must ask ourselves why commemoration is still in order for a man such as Lamar. This is not to say that his statues must be torn down, but the full story of what he did, both good and bad, should be told at any historical sites of his.
Lamar is not the only Texas hero with a spotty history that is untold or largely ignored. As a progressing society we should all look upon all public monuments and ask if the ideas they commemorated at the time are what we still believe. If not, use the monuments to educate by including all silenced narratives and not just the winning ones. Hopefully, one day all sites of public history will be places of true history and not just a winning narrative.
[1] Mirabeau B. Lamar to David G. Burnet and others, June 27, 1839. Texas Indian Papers Volume 1, #36, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[2] “AN ACT,” February 5, 1840, reprinted in H.P.H. Gammel, The Laws of Texas, 1822–1897, 12 vols., (Austin: Gammel Book Co., 1898), 2:325–327. http://texinfo.library.unt.edu/lawsoftexas
[3] Trouillot, Michel-Rolph. Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History. Boston, Mass: Beacon Press, 1995. Print
[4] Mirabeau B. Lamar, Presidential Address on the Protection of the Frontier, February 28, 1839. Mirabeau B. Lamar Papers #361, pages 118–121. Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[5] Mirabeau B. Lamar to James Webb, February 23, 1842. Mirabeau B. Lamar Papers #2126 . Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.