One thing that makes me prefer the interpretation of Crisp regarding Anglo racism is his strong defense of moderation: that race and racism should not be seen as “immutable ‘givens’ in any historical situation” (41). I think that is definitely true. It is economic and political differences that give rise to racism in the first place (i.e. the plantation economy created transatlantic slavery which then created the racism to justify it). Crisp agrees with this interpretation, arguing that racism was more a “consequence” than a “cause” of the Texas rebellion (41). So racism might have added to a conflict, but race itself is subordinate to more intense political and economic considerations. Hence, racism is not a “core explanation for the Texas Revolution.
But Sam Houston’s words seem so intense. How could it be possible that racism were not an enormous force in the Texas Revolution if Houston were using a terribly racist speech to persuade his volunteer army not to attack south (27-28)? Houston certainly intended his words to have a military impact, by keeping his men in an ordered and reasonable fashion. The fact that he suspected he could inspire his men with racism shows how much of it there must have been.
Under such an interpretation, it seems reasonable to think that the Texas Revolution was an entirely racist rebellion, and that it was simply intolerable for people of Anglo descent to be forced to live under “’half indians’” (38). But this could not be the case. So much of the lore involving the Texas Revolution involves a repitition of the battle for American Independence. Settlers in a new land were oppressed by a foreign tyranny and needed to fight for independence. One surely could not say that the American Revolution was fueled by racism. From this we see that a revolution is fully capable of occuring for non-racist reasons.
A final support for the idea that racist was not the core of the Mexican revolution involves Sam Houston’s protection of the Tejanos of San Antonio from the racism of the white invaders. In other places, “even Tejanos who had actively supported the Revolution” were subject to racist violence. The fact that Sam Houston sought to help them shows that he was not an intense racist (at least not of the most extreme sort). But the general violence shows the general racism present. Why the contrast between commander and commanded? My guess is in agreement with an idea of Crisp. I think that the war began for non-racist reasons, but once people needed their troops to fight visciously in battle, they created racist rhetoric to motive the troops. From this perspective, Houston’s racist speech does not show the racism that caused the war. Instead, it shows how racism can be utilized in times of strife for political and military gain.