but the reason i tell you about this little uprising, when it's mentioned in history books, it's called the west florida rebellion. now, rebellions generally imply they're not successful. revolutions imply they are successful. well, here you have a west florida rebellion that is successful. and for about 90 days, this is the republic of west florida. president james madison in late october will finally annex this region in the united states, and he doesn't do so as if he is annexing an independent country. he says, oh, god no. this was part of the louisiana purchase. we're just now getting around to incorporating it. but what you have here in this west florida rebellion was exactly what jefferson had

mentioned, that americans would move into a territory. they would profess loyalty to that government, and then when the opportunity presented it self, they would rise up, throw off the shackles of foreign control and ask to be annexed into the union. well, what happens is this single star of the west florida flag will be incorporated into the constellation of stars and stripes. now, at the same time this event is going on, there's also -- you probably -- you may remember this guy here, father miguel hidalgo. you know, in 1810 he leads -- begins a revolution in mexico. it's going to last for about a year and a half before he's finally executed, but at the same time that this is happening, you have what's going on in baton rouge. and shortly after that, there is

a filibuster attempt that leaves the united states, leaves nacogdoches, louisiana. it's led by a tejano by the name of maximillian gutierrez de lara. he's got the assistance of a cuban revolutionary by the name of don jose toledo dubois. i wonder where he got the dubois part, and there's a former american army officer named augustus william magee. they will set off from nacogdoches, cross into the neutral territory into texas, beginning in the summer of 1812. when they finally arrive at nacogdoches, the spanish garrison there surrender. they join the filibuster. 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 spanish governor, manuel salcido. 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 after 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. jean and his brother pierre will join with a french privateer. louis arie.

in 1817, they 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. they create a settlement and what they envisioned is that they would liberate napoleon from st. helena, and he would have this empire along the gulf coast. well, napoleon dies at st. helena, and the empire, well, there's that here, and if you ever go out east into alabama, there's a place called demopolis, which was founded by the french emigres.

that was to be the foundation of napoleon'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 -- latour. how many of you guys have heard of latour? my wife has. she's lived with me all these years. latour is kind of these enigmatic figures. he's lived in the shadow of the american history. he's a frenchman, as can you tell 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. latour 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 the 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 ultimately he had visited the head waters of the red, the sabine, the trinidad, the oregon, the colorado rivers. he had made it almost all the way to the santa fe. and when he writes this report, he gave 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. latour 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 in myriads into mexico. so they won't even just go to texas, but 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 latour is telling them, you guys got to do something here. you know, 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. yeah, 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 latour'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, you know, 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 americans into texas. how quickly were they coming? well, by 1824, there were roughly 2,000. by 1830, there were 20,000, and by 1835, there were 35,000. someone has turned the spigot on and forgot to turn it off, just as jefferson and latour had prophesized. you know, jefferson was hoping 100,000. well, he was well on his way to getting that many people there. well, of course, you guys know what happened next. john wayne, richard widmark,

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 of it. at the time they didn't realize that mexico had its own internal problems. there's a struggle between centralists and federalists. americans in texas just get caught in that struggle. well, of course, the texas revolution, you notice it was 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 is not until the election of 1844 when 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.

instead of two-thirds of both parties, 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, "u.s. magazine and 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 federal development of self-government entrusted to us. it is rights such as that of the tree to the space of air and earth suitable for the destiny and expansion and growth." this is manifest destiny. although it is 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. so this idea of manifest destiny and jefferson's empire liberty, they're synonymous, they're 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? i don't think i ran over. we teachers have a tendency to talk on ad nauseum so i tried to keep it short and sweet. you make them up and i'll make up answers. no one? hey. that's easy for me then. thank you so much. >> you have a question? we do have a question? >> thank you, dr. smith. come on, be thinking of those 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 mulatto. >> i'm so glad you asked me that question. i'm actually a scholar of the war of 1812. and i just finished a manuscript on african-americans in the war. i can tell you there's quite a few of them. >> i know it is. i know it is. >> quite a few of them participated in the war. >> i know it is. they fought in the alamo and everything. we don't get credit for it. >> you're right. >> only thing you think ever 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 -- >> lot of them didn't come here slaves. some of them came and helped

america. >> you're right, some of them did, exactly. and yet what we see is we tend to create in the narrative 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. >> yeah. >> 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 is due. >> i agree. i agree. 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 was 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 hands away and the clock runs. well, the deists believe 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.

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, my god. >> yeah, come on, now. that one too. >> yeah. >> 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. 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 ideas to satisfy our current needs. and here in the early part of the 21st century, i think we're 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 on to 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. that kind of answer your question? >> one last question. where was it originally written, and what did -- is thomas jefferson the original author of that phrase? >> you know, 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 can't -- 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 danbury baptists in connecticut. >> yes. >> saying -- they were concerned about the church of england. >> yes. >> oppressing them and church of england, of course, was 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 expansion? yes, ma'am. >> i'm wondering about the authorities who are approving

moses austin and stephen f. austin's immigration plan, what knowledge they had of the latour report. and if they did have knowledge -- >> you mean the spanish officials? >> yes. and if they had knowledge of that -- >> oh, they have knowledge of latour's report, certainly. >> is it then just their sort of immediate needs kind of overcome that, overtake that knowledge? >> well, first of all, you got to keep in mind -- okay, as i said the report is submitted to the captain general of cuba, the vice royalty of mexico. so it is those high officials, then it circulates and trickles down to the various independent governors. by the time it gets to the independent governors, they are already besieged and 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 got to worry about these americans pouring in. well, hell, i know that. they're already coming. 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? >> yeah. >> that's all the questions we can take. got to keep moving. we're on tv. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you very much. on tomorrow morning's "washington journal," associated press economics writer derek kravitz, consumer protection rules for the mortgage services industry. sean spicer and brad wood house of the national committee discuss rick santorum's withdrawal from the presidential race and what issues are most important in this year's campaign. 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, sonya soda mayor, and elena kagan. the events hosted by the supreme court historical society and the freedom forum live at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span2. also tomorrow, live coverage of the indiana senate republican primary debate between senator richard lugar and challenger richard murdoch who serves as indiana's treasurer. the hoosier state holds its primary on may 8th. live at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span or listen on c-span radio.

april 15th, 1912. nearly 1,500 perish on the ship called unsinkable. >> once the lookout bells were sounded, the lookout -- once the lookout sighted an iceberg ahead they struck the bells three times, ding, ding, ding. which is a warning saying there's some object ahead. doesn't mean dead ahead, means ahead of the ship. doesn't say what kind of object. what the lookout then did after 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 hellburn on the truths and myths of that night sunday at 4:00 p.m. eastern, part of

american history tv this weekend on c-span3. we continue now with american history tv in primetime with more from that 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 texas revolution was funded. this is about 45 minutes. our next speaker is mr. james p.bevill. jim bevill has spent his career in the financial services community. he is a first vice president of investments in the office of ubs financial services. he's the author of the paper republican, the struggle for money, credit, and independence in the republic of texas, a nonfiction work on the social and economic work of history

from texas through the colonial period to the annexation by the united states. the book was named the 2010 winner by the sons of the republic of texas and the best specialized book on the u.s. paper money by the numismatic literally guild. jim lives in houston with his wife jody. his presentation is entitled, "behind the battle: financing the texas revolution." please welcome jim bevill. >> 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