Lone Star Rising

This book provides for a good general history on the construction of The Republic of Texas. The read is definitely worth it, even if you're a native Texan and think you know it all. Take it from a true and truthful native Texan, read the book. It'll give you much more than a college class on the History of Texas ever could.

In "Lone Star Rising," William C. Davis has produced a comprehensive and thoroughly readable history of the Texas Revolution of 1836. Most history buffs will be familiar with Davis from his numerous appearances in cable television historical specials, including the A & E series "Civil War Journal." However, he should be equally well known from his vast body of work as a popular historian. This latest work is another strong demonstration of the prolific Davis's talent for producing readable, approachable works of insightful history. The land-hungry dream of carving the Texan lands away from Mexico dated from the 1820s, but Davis begins even earlier, ably and entertainingly building up the setting for the 1830s. The attention paid to the preceding history yields significant dividends later in the book. For example, by the time Davis reaches the 1836 Revolution and the infamous massacres directed by Santa Ana, we already understand why such bloodshed was almost certain to occur. The narrative introduces us to the harsh Spanish tradition of how to deal with rebels. Also, when the narrative reaches 1836, the author has already painted decades of plotting Americans engaged in piratical-if-hapless invasions, aimed at seizing the province of Texas. To the Mexicans, the 1836 Revolution looked like just another frustrating, outrageous attempt by the gringos to steal their land. The book's timing coincides with the summer release of Disney's "The Alamo," and it delivers on many of the points where the film fails. "The Alamo" promised us the Mexican side of the story of 1836; Davis's book actually delivers. In this, the book is superior to previous accounts. While he does not neglect the Texan pantheon: the stolid, conservative Stephen Austin; the unscrupulous Jim Bowie; Sam Houston, the scheming drunkard; and the fire-eating William Travis. Davis also calls attention to the often-neglected tejano (the Spanish-speaking Mexicans who had long lived in Texas) leader Juan Seguin. At last, the tejanos play a central role alongside with the American immigrants ("Texians"). Furthermore, the convoluted story of Mexican politics vis-à-vis the Revolution finally receive their due. Antonio Santa Anna, a fascinating character who is too often reduced to the role of a tin pot dictator and villain, also receives full attention. Davis has penned a successful work, depicting how three very distinct groups of people struggled over both the land and the idea of what would become Texas, and how the Americans eventually triumphed. He avoids making an argument in favor of simply telling a story, and unlike his predecessors he tells a complete story. Consequently, the book reads as a new take on a very old story. It should become a major work among the popular histories of Texas.

This work is an outstanding history: scholarly with extensive footnotes, but written in accessible manner for the "average person". This book is timely, with the release of the movie "Alamo" after the holidays, popular interest in this siege and the Texas Revolution as a whole is rising. The standard cast of characters is here, but Mr. Davis goes much farther than a retelling of the interaction of these American icons-for that, "Three Roads to the Alamo" is outstanding- and shows how the influence of the American and French Revolutions affected the Spanish colonists in "Tejas". As American colonists, "filibusters", moved into Texas territory, they refused to integrate into Mexican culture, and soon became a problem. With the Mexican Revolution against Spain diverting government attention, the American colonists demanded more and more autonomy. A liberal army officer, Santa Anna, managed to defeat the royalists and try to gain some control over a huge land and heterogeneous culture. Surprisingly, Stephen Austin and others recommended allying with Santa Anna, petitioning his government for said greater autonomy (leading ultimately to independence for the more radical colonists). After putting Austin in prison, combat actions begin as the colonists protest this and other actions. For his part, Santa Anna realizes that Texas is more than a threat to his power: it may be the beginning of a Mexican disintegration. What the author reveals is something more than a revolt against "tyranny" with mythic heroes, and something considerably less than a mere Anglo land-grab as some revisionist histories claim. This book, in conjunction with his previously mentioned "Three Roads to the Alamo" gives both the average reader, and the historian a detailed discussion of this part of Texas history, and a social history of the US in the early 19th Century. Highly recommended.

I recently finished reading Lone Star Nation: The Epic Story of the Battle for Texas Independence by H.W. Brands, and then launched immediately into "Lone Star Rising" by William C. Davis. As two books published on essentially the same topic, with almost identical titles, and within a few months of one another, the two books obviously have a certain amount in common. But the differences are more significant than the similarities. And while which one you prefer will be largely a matter of taste, I personally found this book, Davis' "...Rising," a much stronger work of history. "...Nation," by Brands, viewed the Texas Revolution largely through the biographies of some of its major players: Houston, Bowie, Crockett, Santa Anna, and so on. It was very much a personality-driven story. "...Rising," on the other hand, focuses much more on the larger historical context of the Revolution -- so much so, in fact, that the personalities sometimes seem lost amid the larger picture Davis is painting. In the early sections of the book, especially, I found it sometimes hard to keep track of all the pirates, revolutionaries, and filibusterers Davis introduced into his narrative. In his defense, if such is necessary, however, I should note that Davis covered precisely those same personalities in more detail several years ago in his Three Roads to the Alamo: The Lives and Fortunes of David Crockett, James Bowie, and William Barret Travis. I've been debating whether to describe Davis as a "serious, albeit prolific," historian, or a "prolific and serious" one. While he has written an awful lot of books, I've never found him to be a hack, a poor researcher, a poor writer, or tendentious in his conclusions. As I said, part of this book was so densely populated that I found it a little hard to follow. But once we got into the central narrative of the unfolding Revolution, the story was both interesting and well-informed. "Lone Star Rising" is not from the "when giants strode the earth" school of epic storytelling. But if you're willing to accept a little less focus on personalities in exchange for a lot more context, William C. Davis' contribution may be just the title you're looking for. Given the option, I would maybe have given this title four-and-a-half stars instead of five. But lacking the option, I'm more than happy to round up.

I am one of those many people who read everything related to the Alamo. When I first saw this book I was puzzled as to why I had never heard of it. After reading it I am more puzzled. This is a great book. It has obviously not been promoted. I have no doubt that it will soon grow in popularity as those few of us who stumble across it will be telling our friends about this incredible find.This book fills an important historical gap: Texas from 1800 to 1836. While many books touch on this period I know of none that focus on it. Three Roads to the Alamo, and various biographies of Austin and Houston certainly touch on pre-Alamo Texas, but none with the historical sweep and detail of this book. Several examples will give you an idea of what is covered in this book, much of which I learned for the first time. Most knowledgeable readers know that the Louisiana Purchase was basically the transfer of a large chunk of Spanish, not French, land in North America to Jefferson's young nation. But this book shows how that purchase created a great deal of confusion in Texas as the US initially claimed the Louisiana Purchase extended to the Rio Grande. This uncertainty, and the power vacuum left by weakened Royalists in Mexico from 1800 to 1824, accounted for the filibusters, piracy, and tremendous unrest in Texas. These are described in detail along with the other factors that caused the population of Texas to decline, between 1800 and 1824, from 4000 to 2500.Only after the Mexican Constitution of 1824 was written was there even a legal basis upon which Austin could found his colony. This book does an incredible job of showing how Texians played off the US, Mexico, and Spain. Although Spain failed to reconquer Mexico in 1829, the cost and political stress of that war had a profound impact on Texas as the federalist Mexican constitution of 1824 was slowly replaced by a new centrism headed by the former hero of federalism, Santa Anna.The book also provided me an in depth feel for the changing relationship between Texians and Tejanos. Tejanos wanted freedom as much as the Texians but they were much more fearful of reprisal from Mexico. Tejanos regarded the conventions held by Texians as being illegal and almost treasonous, so they voiced the exact same complaints about wanting Texas to become a state, but they did them through resolutions passed at City Council meetings. The love hate-relationship of Texians and Tejanos with their legislature in the Capital at Saltillo, and the political divisions in Coahuila is absolutely fascinating If you read Alamo books in order to get the same feeling we have when we see reruns of Alamo movies every week on cable TV, this book is not for you. It does not focus of heroism. This is much more about history than personality. Much to my relief this was not a politically correct book about evil Anglo racists. Bowie and Travis, in the context of the facts presented, are seen as somewhat immature and self-cen