This paper examines slavery in the Republic of Texas, with particular focus on Austin between 1836 and 1846. Drawing on primary sources such as the James F. Perry letters, period newspaper advertisements, and historical scholarship, the paper covers the origins of slavery in Texas under Mexican rule, public attitudes toward the institution, the economic value of enslaved people, how slaves were acquired and transported, class structures among the enslaved population, living conditions, and the trajectory of slavery into the 1850s and beyond. The paper argues that while slavery in Texas shared many features with the American South, the proximity to Mexico, the influence of Mexican abolitionist sentiment, and the demands of a cattle-based western economy produced conditions that were in some ways distinct from the Old South plantation model.
The legacy of slavery in America has caused a great deal of ongoing stigma and represents a lasting stain on the nation's history. The subject is a difficult one to explore because of the sensitivities involved and the shame associated with the practice. There are many dimensions that can be examined when delving into this topic. Although slavery was prevalent in many states, much of the existing research concentrates on only a few of them. The purpose of this paper is to focus on slavery in the Republic of Texas — more specifically, slavery in Austin, Texas in the decade between 1836 and 1846. The discussion covers public opinion on slavery, the relationship between slaves and their masters, the economic value of enslaved people in this region, the history of slavery in Texas, how slaves were acquired and advertised, how slaves were transported, the class structure that existed among the enslaved, who owned the largest number of slaves, how frequently ownership changed hands, the living conditions of slaves, and the trajectory of slavery in Texas beyond the 1840s.
According to Bugbee (1898), the history of slavery in Texas began in 1821, when Moses Austin became the first person to receive permission to establish an Anglo-American colony on the banks of the Colorado River and the Brazos. At the time of Austin's venture into the region, there were some Black people living in the small towns of Bexar and La Bahia; however, their numbers were likely insignificant and restricted to personal servants of wealthy families. The introduction of Moses Austin and other pioneers to develop the rich bottomlands of Texas marked the beginning of a new order — one in which slavery would soon become a major point of contention, including with the neighboring nation of Mexico.
Bugbee (1898) explains that in Mexico, the slavery of Black people was both tolerated and protected by the government, yet conditions there were so adverse that the practice never became as prevalent as it did in the United States. The concept of slavery in Mexico at this time was limited to the areas known as Vera Cruz and some of the hot lowlands. Even as Mexico began to grow sugarcane, there were very few slaves. In the early 1800s, there were believed to be about nine or ten thousand slaves in the entire region known as New Spain. The British agent in Mexico, H. G. Ward, argued that there were no more than six thousand in 1793, and that the number had declined steadily through 1827.
The absence of a large enslaved population in the region was due in part to many enslaved people receiving their freedom in return for service in the patriot army. Ward was recorded as saying that "there is now hardly a single slave in the central portion of the republic" (Bugbee 1898, quoting H. G. Ward). The author also notes that there were no slaves to be found in Orizaba or the valley of Cuernavaca — both among the most substantial regions for the growth and harvesting of sugar and coffee in all of Mexico. With these realities understood, Moses Austin believed that slave labor would be essential to the thriving of his new colony, allowing colonists to produce more and accumulate wealth more quickly, thus accelerating the colony's growth. In January 1821, Austin's petition to settle a colony in Texas was granted; however, neither the petition nor the grant made any mention of slavery.
It was Austin's intention that most of the colonists would come from the southern United States, and he was in favor of allowing the new colonists to bring their slaves with them so that the city could be built quickly. However, Moses Austin fell ill from the rigors of the journey and died. The responsibility for establishing the colony in Texas therefore fell to his son, Stephen Fuller Austin. At only twenty-eight years old, Stephen toured Texas and was recognized as the successor to his father's grant, receiving approval of the settlement plan from the governor, including provisions for the distribution of lands. Bugbee (1898) explains:
"This plan, after making provision for the head of the family and allowing a liberal portion for the wife and each child, further provided for a grant of eighty acres of land for each slave belonging to the family. In approving this plan, the government of Mexico, through its representative in Texas, acquiesced in and substantially encouraged the introduction of slaves into the new settlement. A great many immigrants found their way into Texas before the summer of 1822, most of them bearing contracts signed by Austin or his agents, in which they were promised land in accordance with the plan already mentioned. They were nearly all from the southern portion of the United States, and many of them were the owners of at least a small number of slaves. Thus it was that the institution was introduced into Texas. But difficulties arose: for some reason the governor of Texas declined to put the settlers in possession of the promised lands, and Austin felt that the situation demanded his presence in the City of Mexico, where Congress was in session (Bugbee 1898)."
Bugbee (1898) further asserts that the consequences of Austin's extended trip to Mexico were not fully understood at the time. Austin stayed in Mexico for over a year, during which he worked to learn the Spanish language and familiarize himself with the culture. He also cultivated friendships with Mexican leaders and worked to gain the trust of the government by demonstrating his commitment to the establishment of an Anglo settlement in the Texas wilderness.
According to Lack (1981), only a month after receiving corporate status, the local newspaper described Austin as "the infant City, just throwing off the last vestiges of savage barbarianism." For many years following incorporation, there were concerns that this description had been optimistic, given the number of challenges the city faced and the isolation of its location. Although the city endured, it did so with a population of only 854 people after ten years of existence. Most early residents in the region did not demand or receive much in the way of municipal services, and formal law enforcement was primitive at best.
There was a great deal of tension between the Anglo settlers and the Mexican government, which continuously attempted to outlaw slavery in Texas. However, in 1836 the settlers in the region rebelled from Mexico and the Republic of Texas was established ("The Texas Slavery Project"). As a result, "from 1836 to 1845, slaveholders from the American South poured into this new nation between the borders of the United States and Mexico" ("The Texas Slavery Project").
Although there were always people in America who opposed slavery and sought its abolition, the general consensus — particularly in the South — was that slavery was a necessary institution, a means to an end. Those who supported slavery typically had a vested financial interest in it, and many were also convinced that Black people were not fully human and therefore that their treatment was of no moral consequence. Slave ownership increased profit margins and generated wealth. Those who opposed slavery were fewer in number, and their voices often went unheard. Furthermore, the type of work required to colonize this region of the country demanded a large labor force, and the pro-slavery faction believed that enslaved people were therefore indispensable.
Although slavery was generally accepted in the American South, it was not as readily accepted in the Republic of Texas at the time, owing to the influence of Mexico. Yet many of the people who colonized what became Austin were from parts of the South where slavery was already practiced and viewed as a way of life, not as an immoral institution. Nonetheless, the issue of slavery in Austin did create difficulties when it came to passing laws that would formally permit it. Bugbee (1898) reports:
"The question of slavery presented the greatest obstacle to the passage of the law. Austin believed that at least temporary toleration of slavery was necessary to the success of his colony. It was the slaveholding population of Missouri, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, and Mississippi that had shown the greatest interest in his settlement, and it was from the slave states of the American Union that he expected future support in his enterprise. On the other hand, the Mexican people were at that time passing through a period of fervent advocacy of liberty. Had they not just been freed from Spain? Should they not extend this great boon, liberty, to all people within the authority of their laws? Then, too — and this was more important than all their theories of liberty and natural equality — it was merely an abstract question with them, for they had few slaves to lose by a general emancipation (Bugbee, 1898)."
There were some important differences between the way southern states viewed slavery and the manner in which it was viewed in the Republic of Texas. Because the Mexican people had experienced their own form of bondage, they were less tolerant of the institution. Additionally, Mexicans were largely able to grow and harvest their own crops without the use of enslaved labor, which meant they understood full well that slavery was not a necessity. The public sentiment in the Republic contributed to the development of social contingencies for Black people that differed from those found in other regions of the United States.
All enslaved people lived in deplorable conditions. When a human being is regarded as property, their treatment cannot be humane. With that said, the nature of the relationship between enslaved person and master depended greatly on the disposition of the master. Some masters regarded their slaves as nothing more than commodities to be bought, sold, or replaced at will. Many slaves were beaten when they could not or did not perform the tasks expected of them. Quite often, masters would make an example of one slave to intimidate others and prevent rebellion. Revolt was a constant threat for masters seeking to maintain control.
There were also masters who recognized that "good slaves" were extremely valuable and therefore treated them less harshly. These masters understood that beating enslaved people or depriving them of food and sleep diminished productivity. Such behavior was not about kindness but about protecting investments and maximizing profitability. Some masters also extended a degree of trust to certain enslaved people — those believed to be less likely to run away — allowing them greater freedom of movement, even out of the master's direct sight.
There were also ways that slaves were treated in Texas that differed from treatment in the American South. This difference was due partly to the western context and partly to the already-significant presence of free Black people in the region. According to Quintard (2005):
"The hopes of free blacks and their supporters who settled in Mexican Texas during the 1820s and 1830s for a free, racially tolerant Texas soon clashed with Southern white planters' ambitions to convert the Mexican province into an empire for slavery. The victory of the Texas revolutionaries over the Mexican army set in motion the decline in status of the free blacks who had sought refuge in Texas and established African slavery as the state's prevailing labor system. However, even in the era of Texas slavery, the manifestations of African-American bondage were not identical to that seen in Virginia or Mississippi. The fact that slaves worked in the emerging cattle industry suggests cultural and economic links with the West. Moreover, the phenomenon of urban slavery in Texas diverges from the Old South model of bondage (Quintard, 2005, 44)."
This difference in treatment was noticeable and was recorded at the time. Part of it stemmed from the types of industries prevalent in the West compared to the South — specifically, a greater emphasis on cattle ranching than on crop production.
During this period in Austin, Texas, the development of the Republic was a paramount concern. Moses Austin and later his son Stephen Austin recognized the region as containing many untapped resources. In order to fully exploit those resources, human resources — enslaved people — also had to be brought to the region and put to work. Slavery in this region, as elsewhere, was fundamentally an economic enterprise. Colonists sought a comfortable life and saw the region as capable of providing it, especially with access to a large, unpaid labor force.
There was great value placed on slave ownership throughout this era, both for the financial returns that enslaved labor generated and as a marker of social status. In many ways, owning slaves was a status symbol across all time periods when the institution was legal.
By the time the Republic was established, the value of enslaved people had already begun to rise. As the colony developed and independence from Mexico was secured, slave prices increased further. Although some opposition to slavery persisted, those already in Texas were joined by increasing numbers of migrants from the American South. There were also deliberate efforts to undermine abolitionist sentiment, including assertions that enslaved people in Texas lived better lives than many Mexicans. One proponent of slavery wrote in the Telegraph and Texas Register:
"We understand that the abolitionists of the north are renewing their efforts with increased fervor and daring. Their societies and emissaries augment, and apprehensions are seriously entertained for the result of their proceedings… We seriously wish that the abolitionists could impartially compare the relative evils of negro and white slavery. It is a fact well-known to all persons who have travelled through Mexico, that half of the population are in a state of slavery intolerable compared with that of most of the southern negroes… and we will venture to say, that there is more intelligence to be found among the negroes of the south than is among one half of the Mexican population ("Untitled")."
"Rising slave prices, trade routes, and newspaper advertisements"
"Hierarchy among enslaved people, ownership patterns, daily life"
"Urban slavery laws, curfews, and path to emancipation"
"Synthesis comparing Texas and Southern slavery models"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.