By Lawrence Phillip Knight, Ph.D.
Texas A&M University-Kingsville
SLAVERY IN SAN ANTONIO
The events of 1859 and 1860 kept the citizens of San Antonio in a perpetual state of alert. Three of those events, John Brown's raid, the Texas troubles, and the 1860 election, centered on slavery; the two former had no existence without slavery and the latter's importance would have been vastly different without the institution. Thus, much of what afflicted the city was bound up with the institution of slavery; therefore, a look at the institution in San Antonio is necessary.
Because San Antonio was a city in a southern state, becoming American in San Antonio included embracing that most distinctive of all southern institutions, slavery. Thus, San Antonio was not only an American city, it was an American city in the South. But as San Antonio was unique as an American city, it was also unique as a southern one, and the institution of slavery in San Antonio would be stamped with the uniqueness of the city. But why would an institution that was neither numerically large nor economically significant be important in San Antonio?
Those who owned the slaves were the part of the answer. Slaveholders, though a small minority in San Antonio, were generally wealthy and powerful people; thus their ideas concerning slavery carried much weight in the city. Slaveholders in San Antonio were far wealthier than their non-slaveholding neighbors. The gross wealth as given in the 1860 census (real estate and personal estate) for the seventy-nine identified slaveholders was $2,969,469 or $37,588 per slaveholder. Non-slaveholders averaged only $1,548. So while slavery was of little economic importance in the city, those who owned slaves in the city had great economic importance.
Another important aspect of slavery in San Antonio (though difficult to prove) was that immigrants from the free states were listed among the slaveholders, and by becoming slaveholders they admitted that the South, in its most controversial difference with the North, was correct. While it was true that not many non-southern natives owned slaves, the percentage of non-southern heads of household who owned slaves was slightly greater in San Antonio than the percentage of southern heads of household who owned slaves, and the percentage grew during the 1850's. Non-southerners in 1850 comprised 57.6 percent of the slaveholders and in 1860 they comprised 58.3 percent of the slaveholders. The numbers, without interpretation, however, had little meaning, but the Herald helped interpret what the numbers meant. Initially the Herald proclaimed the impossibility of Yankees becoming southerners.
It is useless to say that Northern men become Southernized after their removal. It is impossible for them to feel as we do. They are not to the manor born. They cannot feel hostile to their old homes, to their relatives and friends. They must always be strangers to that sectional, Southern love and enthusiasm which would constitute the all important element in the great crises.
However, the writer left the door open by admitting that there were "some worthy exceptions to these rules." By the next year the door was wide open. J.H. French, who later become mayor and was a Yankee immigrant, remarked that most northerners were ignorant about life in the South. The editor of the Herald agreed and believed that if Yankees ever came to Texas they would never leave.
If they would come among our people and see the freedom of thought and action, the general intelligence and thrift characteristic of our giant young State, the scales would fall from their eyes, and they would bid adieu forever to the land of flint rocks, freezing winds, and "free negroes" and end their days among the beautiful savannas of Texas.
In another article the Herald writer noted that "the great majority of Northern men who have come among us, and have made the South their permanent home, have become the advocates of slave labor, and many of them among the largest slave holders." The Herald's assessment was that immigrants from free states had been transformed to slaveholders and advocates of slavery. It was not a far stretch, then, to assume that since the South was correct concerning the greatest difference between the sections--as proved by Yankee slaveholders--it was also correct in all other differences between the sections.
Though not noted with the same interest, immigrants of foreign nativity were also numerous among the slaveholders. Slaveholders hailed from such diverse nations as Scotland, England, Ireland, Nova Scotia, Italy, France, Poland, Mexico, and Germany. Among those groups most associated with animosity to slavery, the Hispanics and the Germans, six slaveholders from each were found in the 1860 census. Included among the German slaveholders was state senator Gustav Schleicher.
Further proof of slavery's importance was the inordinate amount of time and effort given to slavery by the city government. Beginning in 1850 and continuing to 1860 numerous slave codes were enacted to control the city's few slaves.
The first city ordinance aimed at the slaves actually placed few restricts on them; it was merely a curfew, which could be obviated if the slave had a pass from the master. Slaves had to be in their homes by 9:30 p.m. from October 1 until April 1 and by 10:15 p.m. from April 1 to October 1, although the term "home" was not specified. To insure that slaves were not caught unaware, a warning bell was rung fifteen minutes prior to the curfew bell--the fifteen minutes was no great imposition since there was nowhere in San Antonio that one could not reach from any other point in San Antonio within fifteen minutes. Slaves caught outside after curfew were to be kept "in the calaboose" until their master paid a five dollar fine. If the fine were not paid, the slave would be worked by the city as payment. The clause was not stringent, especially since a slave need not obey it if the master allowed an exception.
This ordinance was followed a few months later by an ordinance that defined "home." Home was that place so designated for the slave by the master. However, even this restriction allowed the slave to sleep outside the home if the slave's master provided a pass for the slave designating the place and duration of residence away from home. The punishment for violating the first part of the code was a fine of five dollars to be paid by the master, or the slave would pay for the punishment by being whipped. The second section of the ordinance prohibited, without exception, the right of a slave to rent his own place. In case of a violation of this section, all punishment, a fine of from $10 to $50, was assigned to the master. The third section of the ordinance prohibited slaves and free blacks from opening an eating or rooming establishment unless given express consent to do so by the city council, an unlikely event. Violations of this section of the ordinance were punishable by a ten dollar fine to be paid by the master of the slave.
No further slave ordinances were passed for more than a year, when the city added three further restrictions to the lives of the slaves. No one was allowed to sell them liquor, they were not allowed to sell anything, and they could not carry weapons in town--all with the exception that these things could be done with permission from the master. Punishment for violations was a fine of five to twenty dollars for anyone selling liquor to the slave, a fine of five to twenty-five dollars for buying from the slave, and a fine of from one to ten dollars levied against the master of the slave carrying a weapon without permission or a thirty day incarceration for the slave.
The relatively mild slave codes--codes that largely left control of the slave up to the master--were made more severe and allowed less leeway for masters following the Texas troubles.
The new slave ordinance lengthened the number of hours in which slaves had to be off the city's streets. The curfew from April to October now began at 8:15 p.m. and from October to April at 7:15 p.m. Any slave outdoors after that time was to be arrested and the master was to be fined $2.50 per day from the time of the slave's arrest. If the owner refused to pay the fine, the slave was to receive up to twenty lashes with a whip or to provide labor for the city for up to five days. If the master arrived and wanted the slave whipped, the fine was dropped but the master had to pay one dollar for the whipping. The only exception was that a slave could be out during the hours of curfew if he had a pass from the master. Unlike the 1850 ordinance, however, the pass was only good for one day and had to state the purpose of the slave's outing.
The lives of the slaves of San Antonio, never one of freedom of course, were more severely restricted in other ways as well. Slaves could not live separately from their masters and no provision was made for the owner to give his consent for such activity. Nor could a slave visit or even "hang around" a liquor selling business. Both of these offenses were punishable by fines of up to $50, and for the former the slave could also receive up to thirty-nine lashes.
Other provisions were focused on the master, though the slave might still bear the punishment. A slave was not allowed to "hire his or her time, or to go at large and trade as a free person." The master of a slave caught in such action was to be fined up to $50. Although a slave could not hire himself out, a slave could be employed by other than his master but only with the written permission of the master, and the permit was valid for no more than a week. Those wanting to employ a slave had to do so directly from the master or from an agent, but if from an agent permission in writing from the master had to be obtained.
Previously there had been no restrictions on slaves assembling, but by the new ordinance no more than five slaves could gather, with two exceptions: if the owner allowed the slaves to gather or at worship services. If more than five slaves were gathered, except at worship services, an owner had to be present. This was especially true for dances; a master had to be present and had to have written permission to hold the dance from the mayor. Punishment for violating this portion of the ordinance could be as much as $20 for the owner of twenty lashes for the slave.
Two sections of the ordinance were aimed at slaves and free Negroes. No one from either group could keep a weapon; nor could he play cards. The punishment for carrying a weapon was the severe thirty-nine lashes or a fine of $10. The punishment for card playing was twenty lashes or $10. More severe monetary punishment was reserved for a white person who played cards with a black person; the fine could be as high as $75. One section of the ordinance remained the same as the previous ones--the city would provide the service of administering a whipping that consisted of up to thirty-nine lashes for only one dollar.
Not only were the slave ordinances made more strict, the city council also established a night watch for the city, and citizens were warned to secure their property at night. A night watch had been established once before in the city--during the political turmoil of 1856 the city council established a night watch--but it met with such opposition that it was repealed. The fear of incendiaries, however, insured that there was no such opposition this time.
Two aspects of the stringent revisions stood out. Only two of the eight councilmen owned slaves, and nothing occurred in San Antonio to warrant the new slave codes. No fires were set, no wells poisoned, no secret slave society uncovered, and no abolitionists unearthed. Such action based on so little proof itself proved the importance of slavery to the city leaders.
Slavery was also often a subject of the newspapers of the city; regular reading about slavery made it an important aspect of the lives of the citizens despite the fact that few of them owned slaves. Shortly after the firing on Ft. Sumter the editor of the Ledger and Texan noted that the "question of slavery is the only question between us, all others are incidental and subsidiary...It is the negro and the negro alone that underlies our undying hostility." His statement was merely the culmination of years of articles about slavery in the newspapers. In the mid-fifties the papers noted the runaway slave scare that swept through Texas, reported the formation of a Vigilante Committee of ten of the city's leading citizens, and reported the notice of a reward offered by three of city's slaveholders “for the apprehension and conviction of any free person who may be guilty of enticing away or stealing any slave from the County of Bexar.” The runaway scare--that produced no runaways in San Antonio--was followed closely by the political fight between the Know-Nothings and Democrats. Though each party had the same stand on slavery, each flailed away at the other on the issue. The Democrats accused the Know-Nothings of softness on slavery and the Know-Nothings tried to prove that the Democrats were abolitionists by linking them to the Germans and the Germans to abolitionist Adolf Douai. Throughout the decade the paper also carried advertisements of owners seeking runaway slaves, and the Texas troubles were also widely carried in the papers. Thus slavery as a topic was seldom long missing from the city press.
Another aspect of slavery that enhanced its importance was the opposition to it. The most outspoken opponent of slavery in San Antonio was Douai. His importance was not so much his opposition to slavery but the assumption that he represented many other Germans who, though too afraid to speak openly against slavery, were nevertheless ready if the opportunity arose to aid in a slave escape, join a slave revolt, or quietly increase in numbers until they were powerful enough to establish a free state of Western Texas. Allied to the Germans in their opposition to slavery was, it was believed, the majority of Hispanic citizens. Though they did nothing overt to help the slaves, they wanted to see slavery end and would support the Germans in establishing a free state with San Antonio as its major city. This belief was enforced by the Hispanics' penchant for displaying no distinction of race. Benjamin Lundy noted this in the 1830s. In speaking to a free black in San Antonio who was a blacksmith, Lundy learned that the Hispanics gave him "the same respect as to other laboring people, there being no difference made here on account of color." Frederick Law Olmstead observed the same thing in the 1850s. He noted that the Hispanics of San Antonio "consort[ed] freely with the negroes, making no distinction from pride of race." Their "intimacy with the slaves" caused the slaveholders to hold them in "great contempt and suspicion." That few Germans or Hispanics opposed slavery strongly enough to take any action against it was of little importance. The perception of opposition made slavery, and the need to protect it, more important.
The final factor that made slavery important in San Antonio was simply the southern mentality that believed slavery was good and that blacks, free or slave, were inferior. The first was shown in the Herald's attitude toward the disposition of Africans aboard the ships of slave runners that were captured by the U.S. Navy. Though a supporter of the Houston Democrats, and therefore opposed to the reopening of the slave trade, the paper nevertheless disagreed with the government's policy of sending the Africans back to Africa. The question was not one of economics but of morality. What was best for the Africans? Returned to Africa the slaves would be condemned to a life of subsistence and savagery which when ended would only lead to a worse existence in the fires of Hell. Life in the South, which the Herald thought should be the destination of the captured Africans, would instead provide material well being and civilization which would be followed by the eternal bliss of Heaven for the Christianized slaves. Why was this course not followed by the Federal Government? Because those in charge of the government were opposed to slavery; but their misguided opposition did not alter the goodness of the institution of slavery.
The primary factor that made slavery good was that it gave an inferior race a place in American society. But while slavery was the greatest proof of inferiority, free blacks were also considered inferior. While free blacks in San Antonio were regulated far less strictly than were the slaves, they were still more circumscribed in their affairs than all other "free" inhabitants of the city. An ordinance passed in 1851 excluded only slaves and any "free person of Color" from opening an eating or rooming establishment unless given express consent to do so by the city council. Violations of this section of the ordinance by "free Coloreds" were punishable by a ten dollar fine, or the free Negro could forego the fine by providing the city with twenty days of labor. Even the first city ordinance aimed at slaves carried with it a sense of Negro inferiority; it was initially termed "An Ordinance Concerning Negroes" while what was meant was slaves; it however well made the point of the inferiority of the African race.
Wealthy owners, the attention of city leaders, space in the local newspapers, opposition to slavery (real or imagined), and the southern belief in the rightness of the institution and the inferiority of blacks all proved that slavery was important in San Antonio. But how did the slavery actually appear in practice in San Antonio? What effect and place did it have on the economy? Were the slaves of San Antonio prone to run away as suggested in the city's papers from time to time? Did Germans or Hispanics entice the slaves to run away or aid them in their quest for freedom? How did the citizens of San Antonio perceive the slaves?
That slavery had little effect on the economy was shown by the 1850 and 1860 censuses. In 1850 the total free population of the city was 3,168; the slave population was 220, only 6.49 percent of the total population. By 1860 the free population had grown to 7,683 and the number of slaves to 514; however, this was a relative drop in the slave population to 6.27 percent. Not only had the percentage of slaves dropped, but the percentage of slaveholders dropped even more dramatically from 6.34 percent of the city's heads of household in 1850 to 4.24 percent in 1860.
An examination of the age and gender of the slave population also showed that slavery was economically unimportant in the city. Of the 167 slaves with owners listed in the San Antonio census in 1850, 100 were females and 67 were males, a sex ration of 1.49. The sex ratio increased according to the 1860 census to 1.58. Also of the 352 slaves whose owners could be identified in the manuscript census of 1860, an equal number, 176, were adults and children. Thus, in 1860 adult male slaves in San Antonio comprised only 19.3 percent of the slaves. This figure revealed that the slaves in San Antonio were primarily used as house servants--a group not known to produce great economic gain in a society.
A further proof that slavery was not economically important in San Antonio was the 1850 and 1860 Product of Industry Censuses. In 1850 the city reported thirteen industries; by 1860 that number had risen to twenty-eight. Neither census reported slave labor in any of these industries. Certainly, slaves were employed in some San Antonio businesses. Rice and Childress were prominent saddle makers in San Antonio and reported jointly owning a slave, and W.A. Menger employed six slaves, four of whom were not yet teenagers, in his hotel. Slaves were even sold at auction in San Antonio; but even here the evidence showed the unimportance of slavery in the city. In side by side advertisements J.M. Carolan and Frank Paschal advertised their auction houses. Carolan included slaves as one of the properties he auctioned, Paschal--a slave owner--did not. The low number of slaveholders and slaves, the gender and age of the slaves, and their economic boon to San Antonio showed that slavery in the city was economically of little importance.
Because of the stir caused by the runaway slave scare in 1854, the often stated belief that the Germans and Hispanics of San Antonio opposed slavery, and the fear engendered by the Texas troubles over the influence of abolitionists upon the slaves of San Antonio, one might, from reading the city's papers, assume that holding onto one's slaves in the city was a problem. The facts revealed otherwise.
It is doubtful whether any slaves were satisfied to be slaves; however, given the parameters of slavery, the slaves in San Antonio were satisfied with their place in life and had no reason to run away. Felix Haywood, the only San Antonio slave interviewed in the Slave Narratives, stated that he and his father spoke of fleeing to Mexico, but "we didn't have no idea of running and escaping. We were happy." The Ledger noted the same fact during the days of slavery. Despite the proximity of San Antonio to Mexico, the slaves in San Antonio "being all well treated are happy and contented [and] evince no disposition to leave their owners." This satisfaction with their lot was borne out by the 1860 Census of Bexar County that reported only one runaway slave from San Antonio.
Further proof of the lack of runaways was provided by the papers of San Antonio which carried information and advertisements concerning runaway slaves. The paid notices found in the city's newspapers of owners seeking runaways revealed that runaway slaves were not a problem in San Antonio. A search of the San Antonio newspapers for the period 1857-1859 proved that point. The first notice advertising a runaway slave in the San Antonio newspapers occurred in the July 11, 1857 Ledger. The notice concerned a fourteen-year-old who was apparently abducted from San Antonio to East Texas or Louisiana--hardly the place a runaway searching for freedom or a abolitionist assisted runaway would head. The boy spoke English, Spanish, and French and was apparently coerced or coaxed away from San Antonio for that reason. In October of that year two runaways were captured on two stolen horses on Culebra Creek, but they were not from San Antonio. The next runaway report in the San Antonio papers concerned two slaves who murdered their master in Ft. Bend County in February 1858. No other runaways were reported until July when two slaves belonging to General Waul of Gonzales ran away and were found near Houston; a further report that same month told of a runaway slave from near Richmond, Texas, 150 miles to the east of San Antonio. Two weeks later the Ledger ran another advertisement for three runaways from two owners in Freestone County. But Freestone County was over 200 miles to the northeast of San Antonio; the advertisement was in the San Antonio paper because it was assumed that the runaways were "aiming for Mexico or the Indian Nation," either one of which might bring them through the area of circulation of the San Antonio papers. Another runaway was reported in November 1859, but, like the reports that preceded it, the runaway was from far away, this time Brazoria. A good indicator of the scarceness of the problem of runaway slaves in San Antonio was the number of advertisements and notices of strayed and runaway horses and mules compared to the number of advertisements and notices of runaway slaves. The paper reported strays in almost every issue. Two strays and two stolen horses were reported in November and December 1857. In February 1858 two stray mules and three stray horses were reported. In April two horses were reported as strays and in May a gray Spanish mare was reported as strayed. In June five horses and six mules were reported as strays. In October a strayed or stolen bay mare and colt were reported. Not only were the numbers of strayed or stolen horses and mules more numerous than the reports of the runaway slaves, the reports of the horses and mules were from San Antonio and its surrounding area while those of the slaves were from areas far from San Antonio Regardless of what have been printed in the city's papers during a time of stress or hysteria, the slaves of San Antonio were not prone to run away.
Neither was their any indication that anyone in San Antonio ever attempted to aid a slave's escape nor encouraged a slave to escape. The only incident reported in the city's papers remotely akin to that was the report of an incident in which three Hispanics, Doloros Salinas, Romana Montes, and Juana Ydalgo, were each fined $20 for trading with slaves. Certainly, the failure of slaves to run away from their masters in San Antonio was proof that either the Germans and Hispanics of the city were not enticing the slaves to do so, or at least that they saw no success from their efforts.
Slaves were unimportant economically in San Antonio and were satisfied with their lot in life, but as people they were viewed somewhat ambiguously by the citizens of San Antonio. Sometimes they were seen as children who never grow up, sometimes as a people whose place at the bottom of society gave them a gift of wisdom, and sometimes as immortal beings whose souls needed to be saved.
Since slaves were viewed as children they were often seen as foolish and were made the butt of jokes. Two examples from the Herald revealed this.
“Colored ladies, says an exchange, may be compared to many roses because they were ‘born to blush unseen!’ It is the fragrance rather than the hue that makes the rose, and if colored women are ‘born to blush unseen’ they are not born to blush unsmelt. A fact we know.”
Look here, Clem, can you tell dis nigger why dat wooly head ob yours and de moon am alike?
Well, Sambo, I guess its kase dey am bof round!
No, dat am not it; it is kase day am bof sposed to be inhabited.
Slaves were not just the butt of jokes, however, they could also be wise. Even the joke about Sambo and Clem showed the intelligence of Sambo, but better proof came in the aftermath of John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry. During the raid a slave boy was captured with his master. The boy was given a pike and told that he was now free and should fight the whites. He replied, "I don't know anything about [illegible], I was free enough before you took me. I'm not going to fight until I see Massa Washington is fighting, and then I will fight for him," which showed that slaves were wiser than those who attempted their "emancipation." Another newspaper entry entitled "Bound to Come" strengthened the argument about slave wisdom. In the article slaves were praised for their wisdom and insight--this time into the workings of the South. The article, reported on a group of slaves working on a railroad in one of the seceded states. In this report on the slaves' wisdom they were referred to as Negroes instead of the more common appellation niggers, and were asked why the flags that they hoisted on their work cars had eight stars since only seven states had as yet seceded. The reply of the wise slaves was, “Old Wirginny’s bound to come.”
While it was believed that the teachings of the church would help maintain order among the slaves, it was just as true that the care of the souls of the slaves was a primary interest. Slaves had souls that needed to be nurtured. Francois Guilbeau had the son of one of his slaves, Pauly, baptized at San Fernando Church in 1856. The child was not only baptized but was given the surname Guilbeau, and had as his godparents James Callaghan, one of Francois' friends and Anita Guilbeau, Francois' eldest child. The local churches also accepted slaves into their congregations. The Baptists of the area organized in 1858 as the San Antonio River Baptist Association and their membership of 362 included forty-two Negroes. The Methodists too accepted slaves in large numbers. By 1861 the Paine Church, the local Methodist church had 127 members of which 60 were Negroes.
Another indication of the belief that slaves had souls was the report in the Ledger concerning the execution by hanging of two slaves in Fort Bend County. The two had, according to the newspaper report, murdered their master. Planters from around the area brought their slaves to witness the execution, certainly hoping that the spectacle would act as a deterrent. Numerous clergymen were at the assembly and spoke to the gathered crowds, yet the only one mentioned by name in the article was Bill Lone, "a colored preacher," who led a hymn and then went up on the scaffold to talk with the condemned men. The condemned were allowed to bid farewell to their families and friends as well. It was reported that "[b]oth seemed penitent, and warned others against their fate." Had the report ended there the whole affair could have been written off as an attempt by the owners of slaves to impress upon their slaves the futility of murder and of running away. Better results from the drama could have been received, however, had both men been reported as howling for fear of their eternal souls in their last moments. Such was not the case. The paper reported that although both men expressed sorrow over their deeds, both were also ready to die because they "were both prepared for a better world."
Slavery in San Antonio presented a somewhat confusing picture. Though there were few slaveholders in San Antonio, slaves lived in the city and were visible to its citizens every day, and were thus an integral part of the life of the city. Economically the institution had little impact on the city, but psychologically, through heritage, city ordinances, newspapers, opposition, and the events swirling around them, the institution of slavery was important to the people of San Antonio; but was the fear of a Republican victory enough to drive the city of San Antonio to secession? Slavery and other questions vexing the Union would soon be tested at the ballot box.
United States Eighth Census (1860) Bexar County, Texas, Population Schedules and Slave Schedules; only those slaveholders who were found in both the Population and Slave Schedules as living in San Antonio were included, the wealth of non slaveholders was taken from a random sampling of the 1860 Population Schedules.
United States Seventh Census (1850) Bexar County, Texas, Population Schedules and Slaves Schedules; United States Eighth Census (1860) Bexar County, Texas, Population Schedules and Slave Schedules.
United States Seventh Census (1850) Bexar County, Texas, Population Schedules and Slaves Schedules; United States Eighth Census (1860) Bexar County, Texas, Population Schedules and Slave Schedules.
San Antonio, Council Journal, Book C, Aug. 8, 1860, 260 (SACCO); San Antonio, Ordinance Book, "An Ordinance to Provide for the Appointment of City Patrols and to Prescribe their Duties and Powers," 01-46, April 14, 1856 (SACCO); San Antonio Herald, April 26, 1856.
San Antonio Ledger and Texan, July 28, 1860, July 13, 1861 (first quotation); San Antonio Alamo Star, Sept. 2, 16, 1854; San Antonio Ledger, Jan. 25 (second quotation), July 14, 21, 1855; San Antonio Herald, June 12, July 10, 1855.
San Antonio Zeitung, Feb. 10, 1855; Thomas Earle (ed.), The Life, Travels and Opinions of Benjamin Lundy compiled under the direction and behalf of His children (n.p., 1847; reprint, New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1971) 48 (first quotation); Frederick Law Olmstead, A Journey Through Texas, or, A Saddle-Trip on the Southwestern Frontier (New York: Dix, Edwards, 1857; reprint, Austin: University of Texas Press, 1978), 141-142, 163 (second and third quotations).
United States Seventh Census (1850), Bexar County, Texas, Population and Slave Schedules; United States Eighth Census (1860), Bexar County, Texas, Population and Slave Schedules; the figures used for population in this chapter are a sampling of every fifth head of household from the 1850 Population Schedule and a random sampling of the heads of household from the 1860 Population Schedules.
United States Seventh Census (1850), Bexar County, Texas, Product of Industry; United States Eighth Census (1860), Bexar County, Texas, Product of Industry; San Antonio Ledger and Texan, Nov. 10, 1859.
Ronnie C. Taylor and Lawrence R. Murphy (eds.), The Slave Narratives of Texas (Austin: Encino Press, 1974), 69 (first quotation) 132; San Antonio Ledger, May 22, 1858 (second quotation); United States Eighth Census (1860), Bexar County, Texas, Slave Schedules.
San Antonio Ledger, July 11, Oct. 24, Nov. 7, 14, Dec. 5, 1857, Feb. 20, 27, April 24, May 22, June 26, July 24, Aug. 7 (quotation), Oct. 9, 1858 (quotation); San Antonio Ledger and Texan, Nov. 16, 1859.
John Ogden Leal, San Fernando Church Baptismals, 1851-1858 (San Antonio: privately printed, 1977), 277; Mrs. George L. Houston, In the Shadow of His Hand (San Antonio: privately printed, 1961) 21; Josephine Forman, We Finish to Begin: A History of Travis Park United Methodist Church, San Antonio, Texas, 1846-1991, (San Antonio: privately printed, 1991), 13a.