Among Mexico's requirements for colonization, was that each new colonist become Roman Catholic.

What role did Religion play in the Texas Revolution?

Views expressed are not necessarily those of The Second Flying Company of Alamo de Parras

 

Despite the emotion generated by the principle and the popularity of the topic with those searching for hypocrisy and evil motive of Anglo-Mexican immigrants, the fact that Apostolic Catholicism was the official religion of Mexico on paper had very little real impact on the settlement and separation of Texas from the United States of Mexico at the local level.  The subject often appeared in inquiries by potential immigrants to empresario Austin and other officials, but on average was much less of concern than economic issues.  In reality, many were much more concerned with the lack of churches and schools at all on the frontier and would have preferred state-sponsored catholic to none at all.  A great majority of Anglo-Mexican colonists were independent-minded frontiers people, Christian in concept, but ecumenical in practice, therefore, they were easily reconciled to becoming Catholic as long as the ritual were not enforced to the extent it would interfere with carving a society out of the wilderness.  Ironically, the principle associated with having to become Catholic delayed the immigration of fanatic Protestants, themselves a threat to colonization goals and the eventual establishment of religious tolerance in Texas, and with Texas as an example, throughout a truly republican United States of Mexico.  This is not to say that evangelistic activity did not take place in the colonies, but most ministered quietly with respect for the official Catholic religion and often as not were individualists as to specific ritual and doctrine, teachers and often patriotic citizen soldiers.

Among both Anglo- and Tejano-Mexicans in Texas, there was hope for evolution of religious tolerance in a republican Mexico.  Many native Tejano-Mexicans raised for generations in the Catholic faith under Spain and Mexico were advocates of religious tolerance.  Erasmo Seguin expressed the opinion that in fact Texas experienced religious tolerance under Spain, private worship would not be disturbed by Mexican authorities and immigration would not be limited to pre-existent Catholics as long as they were Christian.  His opinion was confirmed by failure of a legislative proposal to restrict immigration to Catholics in 1824, which failed with only one vote for.  Hope was high with the installment of President Guerrero in 1829 over unanimous opposition of the Roman Catholic ecclesiastics for modification of the Constitution of 1824 to include religious tolerance.  The liberal and intellectual friend of Texas and empresario Austin, Gen. Manuel de Mier y Teran , supported freedom of religion in Texas and probably all of Mexico.  The legislature at Montclova passed in 1834 "No person shall be molested for political and religious opinions, provided he shall not disturb the public order," although the act probably exceeded constitutional authority and may have been motivated by either land sale policy or against centralista rule.

In sum prior to abrogation of the Constitution of 1824 and republican principles by the centralista dictatorship, government policy regarding the provision of the constitution specifying the official state religion was, in practice, tolerance.  In Nacogdoches in 1832, a revival meeting by Rev. Alford and Bacon was opposed in concept by alcalde James Gaines and someone reported the meeting to Commandante Piedras.  Piedras replied "Are they stealing horses?"  The answer was "No."  "Are they killing anybody?"  "No."  "Are they doing anything bad?"  "No."  "THEN LET THEM ALONE!" ordered the Commandante (From Thrall's History of Methodism in Texas). In some cases, enforcement actually came from colonists who resented being proselytized to about a particular sect's theoretical principles relative to the realities of the frontier.  Article 5, section 1 of the Texian Constitution of 1836 hardly referred only to clergy of the Roman Catholic church: "Ministers of the gospel being, by their profession, dedicated to God and the care of souls, ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions; therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatever, shall be eligible to the office of the executive of the republic, nor to a seat in either branch of the congress of the same."

In essence, the de facto religious tolerance in Texas in the 1830's was the situation in many states that retained an official state religion at some stage on paper took well into the 20th century to achieve or are still trying to achieve today.  This includes current European countries (England, Sweden, Holland and others) and Mexico and south in the Americas who retain an official state religion on paper.

 Finally, it is noteworthy that in none of the many memorials, declarations and documents based on consensus prior to the full Declaration of Independence in 1836 was the principle of religious freedom or anti-catholicism expressed specifically.  On the contrary, until Texians were betrayed by the racist, self-serving and anti-religious dictatorship that took control of their government and their property, lives and liberty threatened, their official documents supported the Constitution of 1824 with its dictate of a state religion with only the hope that it would be changed with time.

All said about the local level in Texas, no doubt the re-union of church and state as power hungry ecclesiastics rushed to prostitute for Santa Anna, who welcomed them warmly, played a great role in the final separation and resistance as the threat of enforcement of religious or political belief reversed de facto religious tolerance.

W.L. McKeehan
Consulting Editor
Alamo de Parras

---

During the time of Texas colonization and revolution, the role of religion in America was much greater than it is today. The people of that time believed in two forms of religion, one public and one private. The private, or church, religion was a personal relationship between a person and their God. However, the public religion was more prominent. It concerned a vision of the nation as God's chosen instrument. There was a general feeling among those in the United States that their country had been divinely selected as the new Israel that was to influence the rest of the world.

There were two separate visions of what the new nation's role would be. One group considered the U.S. to be "a light to the nations."  They were to lead the world by example. The nation would become so great, good and successful that the rest of the world would want the same.  The other vision was of  the U.S. as "the liberator of the oppressed."  The Americans were the new leaders of the nations and it was their responsibility to spread freedom and enlightenment to the less fortunate, sometimes whether they liked it or not. They answered only to God. No doubt this inspired vision of America's mission served as the moral justification to many as they enlisted to fight in Texas' battle against Mexican tyranny.

The only churches in Texas at this time were Catholic because that was all that was allowed by Mexican law. There was not a lot of anti-Catholic feeling among Americans in general because, after all, a Catholic country (France) had aided America in its struggle for independence, as had most Catholics living in the U.S. at the time. At this point in America's history, Catholicism was on the rise.

Among the general U.S. population, about 50% regularly attended church, with the Methodists and Baptists having the largest membership. When Alexis de Toqueville visited the U.S. in the 1830's, he remarked "there is no country in the world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of  men than in America."

The organized churches were keenly aware of the lack of churches on the western frontier and would send missionaries and circuit riders to sow the seeds for church establishment.

Americans were fiercely independent-minded and churches were always experiencing schisms, with new ideas and doctrines constantly springing up. The idea of one group of Christians persecuting another was abhorred by most Americans. That was what had driven many to America in the first place. The new nation of God would have no part of that.

While most Texans were very lax in their private religious observances, this was always the case along the frontier. The volunteers from the U.S. brought with them this "national religion" and many of their own "private church religion" practices as well. It should be remembered that among those who died at the Alamo were William Garnett and James Northcross, Baptist and Methodist ministers.

Ed Dubravsky
Alamo Battlefield Association