House bill aims to downplay slavery’s role at the Alamo
Slavery was an underlying cause of the state’s battle for independence, according to scholars, but a bill before the Texas House seeks to downplay its role in Alamo history.
Legislation from State Rep. Kyle Biedermann, RFredericksburg, would focus the causes of the Texas
Revolution solely on those listed in the state’s declaration of independence.
Religious freedom, the right to bear arms and local representation in government were all included in the declaration signed by delegates in East Texas on March 2, 1836. Slavery was not mentioned, but scholars note the practice still was institutionalized in the constitution of the Republic of
Texas.
Biedermann is the primary author of the proposed legislation. Dubbed the Texas Heroes Act, the legislation outlines how the 18351836 Texas Revolution should be portrayed at the Alamo.
Biedermann said the House could vote on the bill as early as Tuesday.
When he filed the legisla
tion, Biedermann issued a news release accusing the city of San Antonio of “historical revisionism.”
“This bill is designed to combat the concerted effort to dishonor the moral character of our brave Alamo defenders,” he said in the release.
But Biedermann said Monday the bill, supported by Republican legislators, doesn’t restrict San Antonio and the Texas General Land Office from including slavery as part of its storytelling at the mission, battle site and planned future museum.
“This bill is just to basically make sure that the telling of the story of why we fought the battle of independence for Texas is as clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence,” said Biedermann, R-Fredericksburg. “And it doesn’t negate any other story. It doesn’t negate anything that happened before, during or after. It’s just the grievances and the reasons for why we fought.”
San Antonio’s public officials have emphasized their intent to give the complete history of the Alamo as a $450 million renovation project moves forward.
“The parties remain committed to tell the in-depth story of the mission but recognize that the battle of 1836 is the most widely recognized event that occurred at the site,” Assistant City Manager Lori Houston said about the bill.
Carey Latimore, a Trinity University professor specializing in African American studies, has said slavery cannot be dismissed as a factor in the birth of an independent Texas, followed by U.S. statehood a decade later. He discussed the causes of the revolution in a recent lecture.
“We often find that people don’t enter revolutions for one reason. It’s a lot of things that lead people to revolution,” said Latimore, who serves on a 30-member Alamo Citizen Advisory Committee providing input on a public-private Alamo renovation project.
After Texas won its independence, the number of slaves in the republic and state shot up from 5,000 in 1835 to about 30,000 in 1845, 60,000 in 1850, and well over 100,000 in 1860. Many lived in East Texas, although some worked in southern Bexar County and neighboring Wilson County, Latimore said.
Biedermann’s bill originally sought to ensure the Alamo and any future museum focuses on “the 1836 battle telling the history of why Texians and Tejanos fought … solely as described in the Texas Declaration of Independence.”
The bill’s wording has since been softened. The latest version directs the Land Office to ensure exhibits at the Alamo and a planned museum prominently feature the story of the 1836 battle, the history of the Texians and Tejanos who fought there, and the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence.
By contrast, the nine-page vision and guiding principles document of the Alamo project being pursued by the city, Land Office and Alamo Trust mentions “slavery” six times. It calls for the influences of slavery to be explained in San Antonio’s origins as well as the Texas Revolution, U.S. annexation and statehood.
Biedermann denied he’s trying to prevent inclusion of slavery as a topic of discussion and interpretation at the Alamo. During his presentation Tuesday on the bill, he planned to reference a man at the Alamo known only to historians as Joe — a slave owned by Alamo commander William Barret Travis.
Jim Bowie, the popular commander of volunteers at the Alamo, was a slave trader whose family owned slaves at a plantation in southern Louisiana. But David Crockett, the Alamo’s most famous defender, was not known to have owned slaves.
“People aren’t perfect — there’s no doubt about it,” Biedermann said. “We just want to make sure that we have a black-and-white document, the Texas Declaration of Independence, of why we fought. But in no way does this negate telling the whole story before, during or after.”