and then they begin moving to the south toward labea. by the time they arrive there in august, they will siege that position for four months before the spanish finally surrender. and then they will move to the north and west against san antonio, even capturing san antonio. now, here is when the gutierrez/de lara/magee expedition runs awry. there are ethnic divisions within these ranks. and once they capture san antonio, the tejanos decide they're going to execute the governor. he will be executed and many americans will say, we didn't get involved in this to settle old scores. we got involved in this to bring

texas into the union. well, americans began leaving the rebellion. and within a few weeks, a mexican force coming from the south will defeat the revolutionaries at the battle of medina just outside of san antonio. a young lieutenant that was on that expedition from mexico is antonio lopez de santana. it's his first taste of texas. in the days of this expedition, there are others that will see texas as a fertile ground just waiting to be taken. you may know of the famed privateer jean lafitte. he and his brother pierre will

join with a french privateer. in 1817, he and his brother create a settlement at galveston and they're having a wonderful time plundering mexican and spanish and american ships, until 1819, the american government says, that's enough -- enough's enough. and they send a navy expedition over. they hang about nine pirates. it's amazing. you hang a few pirates and that stopped it. literally all at once. well, at the same time lafitte is there at galveston, there's also a group of french napoleanic officers. who create a settlement. they envisioned of liberating napolean from saints helena and he would have this empire along the gulf coast. well, napolean dies at st. helena. and the empire -- if you ever go

out east into alabama, there's a place called demopolis, that was to be the foundation of napolean's empire here in north america. and it doesn't play out. in the aftermath of the war of 1812 this border land between louisiana and texas is a hotly contested area. and one of my favorite characters in all of american history -- it's not john smith -- lature. how many of you guys have heard of lature? my wife has. that's because she's lived with me for all these years. lature is an enigmatic figure. he lived in the shadows of american history. he's a frenchman. you can tell that by the name. he makes it to louisiana in 1803 and he's an architect. he's an engineer. he had trained as a military engineer.

well, by the time of the war of 1812, he's a having a hard time making ends meet. so he joins andrew jackson to fight in this war of 1812. and, in fact, he is the person who designed the defenses for jackson at shalmette. well, after the battle, jackson dismissed the army by march of 1815. lature is unemployed. he speaks french. he speaks spanish. he speaks english. so he's actually going to be hired by the spanish government to go on an expedition. he claims it's an expedition into the gold-producing regions of arkansas. yeah, you can actually find gold in arkansas if you're lucky. so he and jean lafitte will go up into arkansas. and for eight months, they are

out of sight. when he returns, being an architect/engineer, he drafts a map, he writes a pretty lengthy report. and hopefully he had visited the headwaters of the arkansas, the colorado rivers, he had made it all the way almost to santa fe. and when he writes this report, he gives a copy to the spanish government. it makes its way to the captain general of cuba, the vice royal of mexico, copies were sent to all the governors of the internal provinces. man, this report is revealing. he says, and, quote, the americans aspire to supremacy over the future republics of the new world. yes, they do. and this desire is founded on national interest rather than the liberality of ideas or the happiness of mankind.

in other words, they want the territory for their own selfish means. and he says, the government works for this end. and the primary and first author of this plan was none other than mr. jefferson. lature was convinced that if the spanish don't put up a wall, they don't put up a wall, americans are going to flood into texas. in fact, he said, should spain not do something, the time will come and unfortunately is not far off when the americans will pour myriads into mexico. so they won't even just go to texas, they'll make it all the way to mexico. the reason, he says, because the americans have strength of character, they have courage, they have skill in the use of guns and their eyes are fixed on texas and mexico like the jews on the promised land.

well, he insisted they would join any expedition, like they had done with the gutierrez/de lara/magee expedition. they would join any expedition even if it had little prospect of success because they had everything to gain and nothing to lose. well, what lature is telling them, you guys have got to do something here. americans are already gathering in arkansas and they're beginning to trickle over into texas. it's only a matter of time. and, of course, those reports are read by the governors of the internal provinces of mexico and they say, well, tell us something new. we know this. you've got to give us more men. you've got to give us more money. and until you do so, we can't build that wall there to keep them out. well, spanish don't give them the things they need.

and, in fact, john quincy adams in 1819 will negotiate this adams/oneese line that created a southwestern border to the louisiana purchase. now, many americans chastised adams because he had given up texas. he had sacrificed texas. and by doing so, he got that toehold on the pacific northwest. by doing so, he made the united states a continental nation. and guess what? adams had read lature's report. he can give up -- he can make some concessions there because it's just a matter of time before those americans will find their way into texas and take it for themselves. well, some of my distinguished

fellow speakers will tell you about how that really happened. but in a nutshell, jefferson's vision is coming to reality here. and beginning in the early 1820s -- come on up, there we go. stephen f. austin, as you know, will begin leading settlers into texas. other impresarios will bring them into texas. how quickly were they coming? by 1824, there were roughly 2,000. by 1830, there are 30,000. by 1835, there were 35,000. someone has turned the spigot on and forgot to turn it off, just as jefferson and lature has prophesied. you guys know what happens next.

[ laughter ] john wayne, lawrence harvey, sorry, steve, i prefer the original. but in any case, what's happening here is that it's exactly as had happened in the west florida rebellion. americans had moved into texas. they had not been completely happy with the situation in texas. so they began asking for concessions to reorganize the government so that it is a separate state rather than part and parcelled. at the time they didn't realize that mexico had its own internal problems. there's a struggle between the centralists and the federalists. the americans in texas just get

caught in that struggle. well, of course, the texas revolution, you notice it is a revolution. it was not the texas rebellion. so it was successful, the texas revolution. and texas becomes a free and independent state. president andrew jackson wanted to annex texas. can't do so because of the slavery question. he does recognize it as a republic on his last day in office. his successor martin van buren won't touch the texas question because of the slavery issue. it's not until the election of 1844 that james knox polk will make the annexation of texas a political issue. and as he is being elected in the fall of 1844, john tyler will actually be responsible for the annexation of texas itself. he had tried to annex texas under a treaty. treaty needed two-thirds of both houses.

well, a joint resolution simply needs a majority. pardon me, two-thirds of the senate. joint resolution needs a simple majority in each house. so by december of 1845, december 29th, 1845, texas would become the 28th state. and this 28-star flag would be a valuable flag. it remains in existence for only one year before iowa became the 29th state in december of 1846. now, two days, two days before the official entrance of texas into the union john lewis o'sullivan, newspaper, u.s. magazine "democratic review" ran an editorial in which he said, "the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and

possess the whole of the continent which providence has given us for the development of this great experiment of liberty and federalist development of self-government entrusted to us. it is rights such as that to the tree to the space of air an the earth suitable for the full expansion and principle of destiny and growth." this is manifest destiny. and although it's 20 years after jefferson's death, jefferson's vision -- jefferson's vision has become a reality. and in the years that followed, the southwest, the pacific coast, the pacific northwest, just like jefferson had prophesied. this idea of manifest destiny and jefferson's empire of liberty, they're synonymous, connected by the dream that

americans wanted to possess this land and would take any opportunity short of war to do so. within a few years, the stars and stripes will fly from the atlantic to the pacific, just as jefferson had predicted. thank you so much. questions? questions? [ applause ] >> i don't think i ran over. we teachers have a tendency to talk on ad nauseum. so i try to keep it short and sweet. questions? you make them up and i'll make up answers. >> no one? hey, that's easy for me then. thank you so much. [ applause ] >> thank you, dr. smith. if you ask your questions you can get on tv. oh, we do have a question. yes, ma'am.

>> i just wanted to know why the african-americans were not named as fighters in the 1812 war. because they did not all come here as slaves. thomas jefferson was a malato. >> i'm so glad you asked me that question. because i've just finished a manuscript on african-american in the war. and i can tell you that there's quite a few of them who participated in the war. >> i know it is. and they fought at the alamo and everything. we don't get credit for it. >> you're right. >> only thing they think of is slaves. >> well, and to me the wonderful story about the war of 1812 is how african-americans used that as a way to secure their freedom. now, one of the great stories -- >> they didn't come here as slaves.

some of them came and helped discover america. >> you're right. some of them did. exactly. and yet what we see is that we tend to create in the narrative of american history we tend to put people in certain groups or categories. and we generalize those categories. we can say that within any group of people there are exceptions to those rules. >> yes. >> and in the process of trying to make it a narrative flow that goes from point a to the end, we talk about the generalizations rather than the exceptions. >> yeah. give credit where credit due. >> i agree. i agree. [ applause ] >> other questions? >> hi there. i have a question about thomas

jefferson. >> okay. maybe i have an answer. >> okay. the phrase "separation of church and state". >> i knew you were going to ask that. >> yeah. where does that come from? why is there such conflict over that phrase? >> well, i'm convinced the reason there's conflict is because of our misreading of who the founders were. now, most of the founders would have identified themselves as deists rather than as members of any established church. what they saw there is that there was an ultimate being out there. and it's often described as the clockmaker. you know, you have the ultimate being out there that creates the clock, winds the clock up, and then pulls their hand away and the clock runs. well, the deists believed there was some ultimate creator out there. they couldn't explain what that creator was.

but they saw that this creator was not going to be involved in the daily affairs of the individual. and what they're concerned about, they had seen this happen in new england. they were concerned that the organized religions would gain control over every facet of everyday life. and they were scared to death about that. >> all right. got that. but bring us up to today. >> oh, gosh. >> yeah. that one, too. >> well, i mean, there's just such a big dividing line on this particular phrase. >> you're right. there is. >> in politics today. could you explain what it really means and how it will -- >> well, what i can say in the first amendment of the constitution it calls for freedom of religion. and that's what the founding fathers believed in. freedom of religion. that means the freedom to worship or not worship as you see fit.

now, over the past 200 plus years, we as an american society try to expropriate those words and ideals to satisfy our current needs. here in the early part of the 21st century i think we're a people that is really struggling to determine what our mission for america and our mission for the future might be. and anything that they can find that might have that hook to provide a credence for them, they're willing to grab onto that. ultimately the debate -- the current debate over church and state i think is a debate over how much authority either entity is going to exercise. so that kind of answer your question? >> one last question. where was it originally written? and did thomas jefferson the original author of that phrase? >> i'm not exactly sure where that particular phrase comes from.

now, he does write a letter to the baptists in 1801 in which he talks about a separation of church and state. i don't remember the exact in e talks about a separation of church and state. i don't remember the exact quote. so i'm not sure if he used that exact phrase, separation of church and state. >> i think he wrote a letter to the banbury baptists in connecticut. >> yes. >> saying they were concerned about the church of england oppressing them. and the church of england was of course the established church in virginia. and that's why jefferson wrote his statute on religious freedom -- >> in 1774. yes. >> right. and he wrote a letter to the danbury baptists stating that -- and these were his words. the first amendment erected a wall of separation between church and state. that's where the phrase comes from. >> thank you. other questions.

how about about expansion? yes, ma'am. >> i'm wondering about the authorities who are aproeprovin moses austin and stephen f. austin's immigration plan, what knowledge they had of the lature report and -- >> you mean the officials? >> yes. if they had knowledge of that. >> oh, they have knowledge of letour's report, certainly. >> so is it just their immediate needs kind of overcome that, overtake that knowledge? >> well, first of all, you've got to keep in mind, okay, as i said, the report is submitted to the captain general of peru -- i mean the captain general of cuba, the vice royalty of mexico. so it's those high officials. and then it circulates and trickles down to the various independent governors. well, by the time it gets to the independent governors, they are -- they're already besxeejd beleaguered. they don't have enough men. they don't have enough money. they don't have enough supplies.

and now you're telling me i've got to wir about these americans pouring in. well, hell, i know that. i can see them coming on the horizon. so yes, they're aware of this. they just couldn't do much about it. by that point in time the spanish government is on the verge of collapse. is that good enough? okay. >> that's all the questions we can take. we've got to keep moving. we're on tv. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, dr. smith. on tomorrow morning "washington journal," associated press economics report derek kravitz, a new consumer financial protection rules for the mortgage services industry. then sean spicer of the republican national committee and brad woodhouse of the democratic national committee discuss rick santorum's withdrawal from the presidential race and what issues are most important in this year's campaign. and after that our spotlight on

magazine series continues with military analyst bing west, looking at his recent article on afghanistan. plus your e-mails, phone calls, and tweets. "washington journal" live tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> just over 30 years ago sandra day o'connor became the first woman appointed to the u.s. supreme court. tomorrow the former justice takes part in a discussion looking at her career. she'll be joined by ruth bader ginsburg, sonia sotomayor, and elena kagan, the three women who followed her to the high court and still currently serve. the event's hosted by the supreme court historical society and the freedom forum. and you can see it live at 6:30 p.m. eastern on our companion network c-span 2. also tomorrow, live coverage of the indiana senate republican primary debate between senator richard lugar and challenger richard mordock who serves as indiana's treasurer.

the hoosier state holds its primary on november 8th. you can listen on c-span radio. april 15th, 1912. nearly 1,500 perish on the ship called unsinkable. >> once the lookout bells were sounded, once the lookout cited an iceberg up ahead, they struck the bells up in the crow's nest three times, ding, ding, ding, which is a warning saying that there's some object ahead. it doesn't mean dead ahead. it means ahead of the ship. and it doesn't say what kind of object. what the lookout then did once he struck the bell, he went to a telephone nest and called down to the officer on the bridge to tell them what it is that they saw. and when the phone was finally answered, the entire conversation was what do you see? and the response was iceberg right ahead. and the response from the officer was thank you.

>> samuel halpern on the truths and myths of that night. sunday at 4:00 p.m. eastern, part of american history tv this weekend on c-span 3. we continue now with american history tv in prime time with more from that si symposium looking at the 1830s texas revolution between u.s. settlers and the mexican government. we'll now hear remarks from author james bevill on how the tx te texas revolution was funded. this is about 45 minutes. our next speaker is dr. james p. bevill. jim bevill has spent his career in the financial services industry since graduating magna cum laude frustrate of houston clearlake in 1983. he is a first vice president of investments in the river oaks office of the ubs financial services. he's the author of the "paper re. you: the struggle for money, credit, and independence in the

republic of texas," a non-fiction work on the history of texas from the colonial text to the united states." it was named the best specialized book on the u.s. paper money by the numismatic literary guild at the ana world's fair on money in boston. jim lives in houston with his wife, jody. his presentation is entitled "behind the battle: financing the texas revolution." please welcome jim bevill. [ applause ] >> all right. thank you. it's my pleasure to be here today. i love speaking at a seminar

sponsored by the land office because so much of what happened during the texas revolution had to do with land. and why is history relevant? it's relevant because, number one, it repeats itself. i was on yahoo the other day. actually it was about a month ago. and i was checking e-mail. you know how you get these little news headlines that pull up. and it said libyan rebels await continual funding before continuing struggle." so some of this stuff really hasn't changed. my book goes into that. and behind the battles -- we've all heard about the battles. but how did they pay for this stuff? how did they pay for a war? how do you start a revolutionary government from scratch and continue it on? i want to thank dr. barr. what a great introduction to what i'm going to talk about because once those americans were here, once those anglos were here, they were in austin's colony in san phillipa del austin.

and in november 1835 there was a consultation gathered from across texas at the san phillipa del austin and they were there to select delegates for the formation of a provisional government. and they elected brezorria as the chairman and henry smith as the provisional governor. now, among the highest of priorities, it was said that money needed to be raised to finance the war for independence. because hostilities that commenced october the 2nd of 1835 culminating with 200 mexican cav'cavalry on the bank the guadalupe river which ended up being the battle of gonzales. and the texas answer, you want this cannon, come and take it. but they had to raise money to continue the struggle. so as the provisional government was formed, the founders established a treasury department. and he this established a treasury department initially with the committee on finance, then they had the offices of treasurer, auditor, and comptroller added shortly thereafter. but it was a treasury that was

established despite a lack of funds. they had no money on hand, and they had no money which could be disbursed. as soon as they received contributions, it was disbursed. but the importance of having regular claims against the government properly audited, having accounts kept, and having a system of checks and balances was not lost on the new government. so the government spent money that they didn't have, and they issued promissory notes against future revenues. so nothing really has changed, has it? so how did texas finance the revolution? well, they did it by taxing. they leveled ordinances and decrees, which are taxes against property. but everyone that they were going to -- whose property they were going to tax was going to be fighting in the war with them. so it's very difficult for them to collect. they did it by begging. they sent