The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 89, July 1985 - April, 1986 Page: 363
were Democrats, and all but three of these had advocated secession
upon Abraham Lincoln's election as president. But as the tide turned
against the Confederacy, disillusioned voters elected mainly ex-Whigs
and former Unionists.
Of the twenty-eight, fifteen are found to have cooperated with the
policies of the central government to "a commendable degree" and
"within recognized limits ... earned good marks for nationalism"
(pp. 9- 0). This list includes Edward Clark and Francis R. Lubbock of
Texas. Six governors did not engage in serious controversy with the
Richmond government. The remaining seven governors "are the ones
on whom is founded the charge that the Confederacy was too divided
internally to wage war effectively" (p. io). Five of these men, however,
took office when the Confederate cause was obviously lost. Pendleton
Murrah of Texas was among this group. Joseph E. Brown of Georgia
and Zebulon B. Vance of North Carolina remain as "the only governors
who significantly damaged the Confederate war effort" (p. io), and of
the two, Brown, a formidable politician, was the most destructive. Un-
fortunately, so much attention has been paid to these two men that they
are thought to be typical of Confederate chief executives.
Ralph Wooster's comment that all three of Texas's wartime governors
"had been required to expand the powers of their office far beyond
those exercised by the state's antebellum governors" (p. 215) was true of
the other Confederate governors as well. On the whole, they did as well
as limited resources and circumstances permitted. The essays in this
volume suggest that insofar as a state's cooperation with the Confeder-
ate war program can be measured by the actions of its governors, "this
part of the Owsley thesis has little validity" (p. 9). It is to be hoped that
Civil War scholars will now undertake further research into the role of
state governors under the Confederacy.
The University of Texas at Austin NORMAN D. BROWN
The Amazing Armadillo: Geography of a Folk Critter. By Larry L. Smith and
Robin W. Doughty. (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1984. Pp.
xi+ 134. Introduction, tables, maps, illustrations, notes, bibliogra-
phy, appendix. $13.95, cloth; $6.95, paper.)
How many states are so strongly identified with a particular animal
that the two practically are synonymous? Now name a state with two
such animals. Texas and the Longhorn brute go way back: the tough
breed, once nearly extinct, has long been one of the state's symbols.
Since the late 196os, the nine-banded armadillo has been the other ani-
mal strongly identified with the Lone Star State.
Here’s what’s next.
Show all pages in this issue.
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas State Historical Association. The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 89, July 1985 - April, 1986, periodical, 1985/1986; Austin, Texas. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth117151/m1/419/ocr/: accessed March 25, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Texas State Historical Association.