Customer Reviews

Lone Star: A History of Texas and the Texans

5 star:		(20)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This is by far the best history of Texas I've ever read. I am a fith generation Texan whose family arrived here from Georgia in the 1830's and 40's. Feherenbach is neither romantic nor aplogetic about the State's raucous and turbulent past. His discussion of the frontier wars is especially helpful in understanding why Spain and Mexico could never gain a firm foothold in Texas, the critical factor that led Mexico to legitimize and encourage Anglo-American emigration in the 1820's. The historical ramifications of this odd and little understood policy and the subsequent Anglo Texas/Comanche wars on the Texas frontier are largely responsible for the State's distictive social and political character. This is the one book that should be read by anyone having a serious interest in Texas history.

My volume is the original 1968 version, so my comments do not emcompass whatever changes have been introduced in the recent edition. Nonetheless, Fehrenbach's book is simply the best of the breed with respect to a single volume history of Texas and its people.

If you are politically correct, you will not like the historical accuracy of this book. The author clearly gives the Scotch-Irish (Anglo-Celts) their due for pushing the frontier westwards, settling Texas, and giving it its "Texas" tradition. One reviewer speaks of the absence of the Hispanic contribution, but it must be remembered that at the time of the Texas Revolution, Anglos outnumbered Mexicans ten to one in Texas. Indeed, the growth of Mexican population figures in Texas is a post World War II phenomenon, and the current ethnic composition is of recent vintage. The author is historically correct to limit his coverage of Mexicans in Texas to south of the Nueces, San Antonio, the Rio Grande valley and Ybarbo's group until after World War II. Had the Mexicans been able to defeat the Lipan Apaches and Comanches, the history would have been different.

Another reviewer pans the book due to the author's leaving out a reference to a diary's author and then proceeds to allege the meeting in question was fictional. Based on this single case, he relegates the entire book to fictional status. It seems to me that there must be something else at work here.

The author tells it like it was. Attitudes such as the Indians losing their land because they didn't develop it were normal in the time period involved, and the choice to fight for the Confederacy did revolve more around fighting with and for kin and neighbors rather than an abstract idea like states rights or anything else. In addition, Texas had only recently joined the Union, and the belief that it had the right to secede from the Union was widespread (and probably judicially correct except that the Civil War eliminated that viewpoint in law for the forseeable future.) And yes, Indians, blacks and Mexicans were looked down upon as inferior in general by the Scotch-Irish almost until the book was first written. But saying that this attitude was prevalent doesn't make the author racist or inaccurate in his depiction of the reality of the times. Observations on Indian culture and civilization may offend the politically correct individual in the twentieth century, but that does not make them less accurate. Those who wish to make a counter argument should do so in their own work, not simply rant against a position without supporting observations or facts.

One negative reviewer has a legitimate criticism in bemoaning the lack on emphasis on water availability. This was particularly important west of Sweetwater and San Antonio, but one should recognize that any single volume will have omissions due to space. That does not make a book not worth reading -- only that it does not cover some reviewer's pet points. The author has done the best possible job of covering Texas history in 719 pages and should be commended.

This book is a "must" for any American interested in American History even if one does not agree with certain depictions or feels significant events or discussions are missing.

Marvelous! This is the book I've been looking for about Texas History since I first moved here 10 years ago. Fehrenbach not only makes individual characters like Stephan F. Austin and John "Rip" Ford come alive with interest and passion, but he does a first rate job with the larger historical currents such as the westward movement of the "anglo-celts" across the continent or the economic and social impact of the Spanish Mustang on the Native Americans.

The scope of the book is vast and it is almost too long and involved for an amateur like me with limited time. However the story is so compelling and even riveting that at times I could hardly put it down. It almost reads like a good novel.

The narrative overflows the strict confines of what might be considered "Texas History." The author ventures far afield in time, distance and circumstance to weave the various historical threads together into the drama of Texas. It is a work for those interested in American, Southern, Southwestern, Native American or Mexican History. It is a good reference.

The book was written some time ago (1968) and has been updated (2000). It is relatively free of sterile "correct" language which I think allows it to be wonderfully original and more credible. It is not a whitewash. The author is sometimes unapologetic and he can offend. He does criticize but also gives admiration, credit and praise where I did not expect it. This is a man who wants to get to the heart and soul of the matter. He knows these colorful people and their setting and through his perceptive narrative you interact with them, too. You can almost see and touch them. This is just dog-gone interesting stuff!

This book is a keeper. It has found a permanent spot on my shelf even if I move far away from Texas. I hope you get as much out of it as I did.

I am a fifth generation Texan. My matriarchal lineage arrived on the Texas frontier from Tennessee in 1855. My patriarchal lineage arrived from Virginia in January 1859. All my life, I heard stories from the family about the early years in Texas. Also, I noticed a difference between Texans and Texas and the citizens of the other states that we visited on vacation in the 1950's and 60's. A student of Texas history, I received the book as a gift in 1986 for the Sesquicentennial. Mr. Feherenbach tells the story like a kindly grandfather..."this happens and then this happens; so-and-so does that, and that's why things are the way they are." Understanding the "why" of history makes the story come alive. My favorite chapters include the discussion of how the introduction of European horses and cattle change American history forever. The dispersion of the Spanish Mustang about 1680 leads to the highpoint of the Plains Amerind (Indian) culture; the cow contributes to the devastation. The Anglo-Celt and the Way West chapters discuss westward migration. I consider the chapter on the Alamo to be the best ever written in a general presentation. Houston's victory at San Jacinto and his politically unpopular defense of the Union 25 years later are equal aspects of the man. Civil War and Reconstruction also affect the state, but the cattle drives beginning in the 1870's bring new wealth to the state that hastens the state's recovery faster than the Deep South. Likewise the Constitution of 1876 still affects Texas and US politics even today in ways that are not readily appreciated. I recommend the book to all students of history. To the native Texan, it gives a valuable insight into our native land. To the newcomer, it explains why Texas is more than a state, it is a "state of mind," and why so many newcomers decide they "don't wanna ever leave!" To all readers, it is a wonderfully told story that many will read again and again.

In a crisp, authoritative and compellingly readable style Fehrenbach wraps the history of Texas up like no other.

Beginning with this part of the continent's emergence from pre-history, Fehrenbach introduces us to its earliest inhabitants. We travel with the peaceful Indians who migrated from Wyoming through Nebraska and New Mexico into Texas, afoot and gathering their food from wild plants. The "lowly gatherers", they were called, confined to the ground they could cover on foot, and little match for the fleet game that abounded on every hand.

But when they encountered horses brought in by the Spanish they became obsessed with horsemanship. Large numbers of horses were stolen in nighttime raids on Spanish remudas and the "gatherers" were transformed into the fiercest Indians on the North American continent: the Comanches.

With their new mobility they could appear from nowhere, strike the Spanish settlements and disappear into nowhere like the passing wind. Better horsemen have never lived, and horses have never been used as instruments of war with such expertness as they were used by the Comanches. The Spanish incursion was pushed back, and further back.

So when Stephen F. Austin applied to the Mexican authorities to settle eastern Texas he was seen as added defenses against the marauding Comanches. Houston was given huge grants of land and he brought in settlers. Spanish soldiers -- fighting for they knew not what -- were one thing. Men fighting the Comanches to protect their homesteads were something else, and they fought back blow for blow. So the Comanches were encouraged to occupy west Texas, leaving the settlers the eastern part of the land pretty much alone.

At some point the Mexican authorities became uneasy over the large numbers of settlers coming in and friction arose. Austin was forcibly detained during a negotiating confab in Mexico, but still the settlers came. Eventually, after Houston's release, the differences between the settlers and their Spanish overlords became hostilities that ultimately led to the Battle of the Alamo. The long siege of the Alamo allowed a prolonged consolidation and retreat of General Sam Houston's ragtag army -- a retreat that was roundly criticized by politicians issuing proclamations from their comfortable homes -- that ended in the decisive fight for independence in a low-lying palmetto and scrub-oak studded swamp east of today's Houston -- the Battle of San Jacinto.

There, 800 untrained but well-led and determined Texians staged a daring midday attack on the 1,500-man Mexican army led by the feared General Santa Anna -- a confident army enjoying its siesta, arms neatly stacked. It was Santa Anna who had taken over the Alamo siege from his subordinate and ended the holdout, and it was he who would annihilate the Texian army once and for all. But in less than an hour General Sam Houston's men, shouting "Remember the Alamo" and "Remember Goliad" killed 600 Mexicans and wounded 200. They would capture 700, including Santa Anna. The general had disguised himself as a common soldier, but was unveiled when an officer saluted him.

Six of General Houston's men were killed and 30 wounded. Texas was free of Mexican rule forever and The Republic of Texas was a reality. Texas bred some ferocious fighters, and from their ranks evolved a group of lawmen/fighters never equaled in U.S. history: The Texas Rangers -- not the politicized force of today, but a strategic fighting unit of such gritty ferociousness that it could, and did, change the course of a war.

It pulled General Zachary Taylor's fat out of the fire in the war between the U.S. and Mexico in 1846, allowing victory at Monterey. The Rangers applied their uncanny scouting skills, learned from the Comanches, to discover the precise locations and numbers of Mexican field units. This tactical advantage, plus the Rangers' superbly effective strategies and fearless battle tactics that harried the Mexican army, were critical to the U.S. victory at Monterey.

It was during the 8-week truce there, while the city was occupied by Taylor's army, that a hapless Mexican snatched a bandanna from a mounted Ranger and was shot dead in his tracks. Taylor brought in the Rangers' Captain to dress him down, only to be told that the Captain would not order his men to tolerate the slightest display of disrespect from a Mexican.

General Taylor and the Rangers won the north of Mexico. Taylor went on to become president. Ranger Rip Ford remained a Ranger. Even when the state had become relatively peaceful, Ford would emerge from his San Antonio hotel, stand quiet and still in the shadow of the porch, hand on his Colt, wary eyes examining the street scene before venturing forth.

Texas was an independent Republic when it joined the United States, which is why none of its territory would be carved out and reserved by the U.S. Government, as happened to every other state that was "granted" statehood. Those portions of Texas now owned by the U.S. were sold or granted to the federal government by the State for some specific purpose...

The story of Texas, as drawn from its history, is far more interesting and provocative than any novel could ever be. T.R. Fehrenbach provides a wonderfully sweeping view of the geography, the "aboriginals", the conquistadors, the newly independent Mexico with its 1824 constitution, and a deep insight into the minds and hearts of those who wrested Texas from Mexico --- from (as the Texas Declaration of Independence says) "the tyranny of the priesthood and the sword."

The book tells of the "Comanche Line" of forts out in the western part of the frontier -- and of its commanding officer, R.E. Lee, who, at the time of the secession, was in command of 10% of the standing army of the United States!

From Reconstruction, through the initial oil discoveries, the Great Depression, and the rise of Lyndon Baines Johnson, the story of Texas before OPEC, is compelling reading. Because Texas was the only nation to enter the Union, there remains a strong "national" pride in the hearts of native Texans who, when travelling abroad and asked where they are from, more often than not, say TEXAS, and not the USA. The former is natural, and the latter does not even occur to them. The Lone Star will give the reader a better understanding of why this is so.

T.R. Fehrenbach has written a sweeping, colorful account of Texas histroy from the prehistoric era to the present day. He takes a brutally honest view of life in the Old Southwest--with plenty of atrocities to go around among Anglos, Indians and Mexicans. This will dismay those who take a "Good Indians/Bad Whites" view of history. Fehrenbach sees the Indian wars as a tragedy--with each side holding true to itself, and with this mutual faithfulness placing both sides on a collision course. Fehrenbach surveys all the great events of Texas history, placing them in the perspective of their times and moraes. The Texas Rangers, for example, were ruthless by modern-day standards of law enforcement. But, outnumbered by violent foes in a primitive wilderness, they carried out hazardous duties which contributed greatly to the pacification of a hostile frontier. Fehrenback's narrative performs the same service for those who wish to understand the real-life--and often brutally ugly--conditions under which Texas became, first, a Republic, then, a state, and, finally, a vital contributor to the United States of America.

This is an exhaustive - and lengthy - book on not just Texas but the the history of the area before there was a Texas, the countries who owned it, the men who settled it and the people who made it what it is today. The author gives a throrough treatment on every topic and that is more amazing than it sounds. If you are studying Texas, or the Frontier, or the Civil War, or slavery, or sociology of American (not just Texan) development - you should read this book. It is fact filled AND interesting.

The best history of Texas, no exceptions, is T.R. Fehrenbach's Lone Star - A History of Texas and the Texans. I just finished re-reading it this past spring. He first published this back in 1968 (I have an original edition copy, by the way, given to me by my grandfather when I was about 12 years old), and I must say, he got it a lot more right on just about every topic than any of the revisionists of the past 30 years. Interestingly enough, a growing body of the most recent scholarship is now reconfirming the kind of analysis that Fehrenbach nailed the first time. It can only be hoped this trend indicates that the PC ideologues who have dominated anthropology and history departments the past three decades are finally passing from the scene, and that high quality writing and analysis of the sort exemplified by Fehrenbach is returning. Fehrenbach had no ideological ax to grind - he told the stories as good historians do, by reference to the documentation and with fidelity to the spirit of the characters and events. All that aside, Fehrenbach is a just plain good writer, not to mention a great historian, and Lone Star is good reading as well as good history. It's the kind of book Texans ought to have on the shelf, to pull down and read about various periods and episodes in Texas history when the occasion arises....Certainly no Texan should be without it.....

I put off reading "Lone Star" as long as I could... it's a forbidding book, over 700 pages and packed with factual information which would seem to preclude zipping through it like your average bloated Stephen King novel. Well, once I finally got my teeth into it I couldn't concentrate on any other subject until I finished, and yes, it still took me three weeks.

But don't let my lackadaisical efforts put you off from reading "Lone Star", probably the meatiest piece of historical non-fiction I've ever run across. I think it helps that it was first published in 1968, but even then if it hadn't come from the speak-your-mind state of Texas we'd still be dealing with a different animal here. Fehrenbach has an epic scope of history that precludes the notion of political correctness: the way he seems to figure it, all races change so much that they're nearly unrecognizable to their old selves from one century to the next, so it would seem narrow minded in the extreme that someone might take offense at his objective analysis of past cultures and events. It would be somewhat akin to an Anglo-Saxon of today taking offense that men of white skin in general were called out for their racial animosity a hundred years ago. No more so should the Mexican or American Indian expect to come off any more unblemished given the sobering advantage of hindsight. Nor would anyone who disagrees with that approach have much to complain of, as all races and cultures are equally celebrated and castigated as their actions demand. For instance, some time is spent chronicling the injustices that the Native Americans of East Texas faced from the Anglo-Saxons, but Fehrenbach puts things into perspective by explaining the difficulties many of the Anglos had in differentiating the Amerinds, often confusing the more peaceful tribes with the ruthless Comanches on the western fringes of the state. He does this without excusing the xenophobia and bigotry that these confusions imply, yet steadfastly asserting that it is important to judge these men not by our own standards, but by the values and ethics of their time. Similarly, Fehrenbach examines the issue of the perennial broken treaties between the US and the Amerinds, deploring Washington for instigating these treaties which they had no intention of upholding while at the same time realizing it was just as absurd for the Amerinds to agree to these terms as well, when the very loose nature of their tribal coalitions made it impossible for them to exercise the type of control over their braves which would allow them to uphold their own (admittedly less consequential) end of the treaties.

Splendid work is also made of the history of the Texas Rangers. Fehrenbach makes no apologies for the cold and almost inhumanly efficient nature of these frontier hardasses, but, given the disclaimer on their psychological make up, he lauds them for their monumental efforts in clearing the state of lawlessness and peril toward the westward-marching frontier farmer. Though the author himself doesn't make the comparison, it would seem by his description that the Rangers were much the same as some people nowadays consider the Mafia -- at least the Mafia as chronicled in works like "The Godfather" and "The Sopranos", even if those are not indicative of the real life Cosa Nostra -- in other words, men who work outside of the law but nonetheless uphold their own rigid, mainly virtuous system of values, a sort of frontier code that is not only more difficult to maintain than the loose Catholic values of the semi-pious masses, but - most impressively - more OFTEN maintained in spite of this difficulty.

Fehrenbach's candor and objectivity is also of the utmost value when it comes to his biographical sketches. In this day and age it's not uncommon for historical scholars to deconstruct the achievements of great men based on unimportant character foibles (ie. Ben Franklin, in the modern era, is frequently admonished for his womanizing, often in a tone that implies such a sin largely negates his legacy, an absurd notion that would seek to make saints only of the most hardened Buddhists). In speaking of men like Stephen F. Austin, Sam Houston and even Santa Anna, praise is given where due although each individual man's shortcomings are given full account. Of these, Austin probably comes off the most untarnished, and there's no reason this shouldn't be so: he had no inclination toward separating from the Mexican nation until the suspicions of the ruling party resulted in his unjust imprisonment just before the revolution. Austin was probably the last chance the Mexicans had to work something out peaceably, and when they detained him incommunicado they lost the last mouthpiece they had for bloodless resolulion. When he was finally released, it was too late to foment the fires that burned in the souls of independence-minded Anglos, nor did Austin any longer have reason to resist such "disloyalties" himself.

Sam Houston was of the opposite temperament: here was a man who not only had no interest in amicably resolving the differences with Mexico, but furthermore would not rest until Texas had joined the United States, a feat his old friend Andrew Jackson was not able to pull off during his Presidential tenure. Houston's command of his troops between the fall of the Alamo and the Battle of San Jacinto is also objectively analyzed: though some may incline that Houston knew what he was doing all along in fleeing the Mexican army, Fehrenbach holds that - while the former may be true - it's more likely that Houston was merely waiting for either a mistake on the part of the Mexicans or an auspicious battleground that favored his troops. Either way, he found both at San Jacinto, and it's to the credit of Fehrenbach's objective eye that the result of this battle was equally credited to the bravery and skill of the Texan army as to the arrogance and incompetence of Santa Anna in securing his forces. At any rate, it was not luck that led the Texans to victory, but without the good fortune of Santa Anna's underestimation of his opponent the assurance of success on that day was far from certain.

Compared to the adventures of those early years of settling the land, gaining independence, facing Civil War less than a generation later and finally clearing the state of all Native Americans by brute force, the later chapters dealing with the economic and political development of the state following Reconstruction may seem a little dry and academic, but that is the fault of history and not Fehrenbach's writing. "Lone Star" is as good an account of the story of Texas and the people who founded it as any we'll ever get -- Fehrenbach's assessments are lucid and unbiased, either toward the Anglocentric attitude that the whites settling Texas did what they had to do and never exceeded the stark demands of necessity, nor the bias of the politically correct, who would hold that those same whites were nothing more than opportunists who took advantage of the Mexican and the Indian at every chance he got. The truth, of course, is somewhere between the two extremes, and Fehrenback never misses a chance to nail it right on the head.