The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 47, July 1943 - April, 1944 Page: 329

Book Reviews

in the successive crises on Texas history and has given us chap-
ters of the relation of the Standard to annexation, the Mexican
War, the development of Secession, the Civil War, reconstruc-
tion, the formation of the constitution of 1876, and the ques-
tionable land policy inaugurated by Governor O. M. Roberts in
1879. Naturally, DeMorse favored annexation and supported
the Mexican War, which he regarded as a heaven-sent occasion
for paying the Texan score against the Mexicans. He was a
mild Unionist and questioned the legality of the method by
which Texas was united with the Confederacy, agreeing with
Sam Houston that the Secession Convention had no authority
to join the Confederate States without a referendum to the
people. Nevertheless, he organized a regiment and led it with
distinction during the last three years of the war. It was from
1865 until his death that DeMorse earned the right to be
deemed a statesman. His attitude toward reconstruction was
moderate and sound. He was one of the most influential mem-
bers of the Convention of 1875, which restored home rule to
the State. He suspended the Standard when he went to Austin
to serve in the convention and retired to his farm after the con-
vention was over. He revived his paper in 1879, however, to
oppose the policy inaugurated by Governor Roberts of selling
public lands to large holders at fifty cents an acre. He be-
lieved the policy detrimental to the agricultural development
of the west and contrary to the interests of public education.
He was successful in his campaign to reverse the policy and
served under Governor Ireland on the State Land Board to undo
as much as possible of the consequences of the Roberts ad-
ministration.
Though Professor Wallace has acquainted himself with all
the pertinent authorities, his principal source has been the al-
most complete file of the Standard in The University of Texas
library. He has used these public, objective materials with
critical discrimination and has produced a sound biography
within his limitations. Very little material was available for the
more personal human characteristics of his subject. He was
able to acquire a reasonably intimate appreciation of home life
and personality, which he pictures in Chapter I. His book is
a real and permanent contribution to our knowledge of lesser
known characters to whom we owe much of our heritage.
EUGENE C. BARKER
The University of Texas

329