July 2, 2024 • 33 mins
Discover the untold stories and harsh realities of Texas history in our captivating conversation with John Lundberg, a history professor at Tarrant County College. From a Civil War reenactor to his book on Granbury’s Texas Brigade, John explains what he's learned about plantation life and slavery in Texas in his recent book, The Texas Low Country: Slavery and Freedom on the Gulf Coast 1822 to 1895, and sheds light on this critical yet underexplored aspects of Texas history. Join us for a thought-provoking episode that enriches our understanding of Texas's past.
John R. Lundberg, The Texas Lowcountry: Slavery and Freedom on the Gulf Coast, 1822–1895 (College Station: Texas A&M University Press , 2024) https://www.tamupress.com/book/9781648431753/the-texas-lowcountry/
Also at Amazon: https://a.co/d/j0jo0h1
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This podcast is not sponsored by and does not
reflect the views of theinstitutions that employ us.
It is solely our thoughts andideas, based upon our
professional training and studyof the past.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Welcome to Talking Texas History, the podcast that
explores Texas history beforeand beyond the Alamo.
Not only will we talk Texashistory, we'll visit with folks
who teach it, write it, supportit, and with some who've made it
and, of course, all of us wholive it and love it.
Welcome to another edition ofTalking Texas History.
(00:39):
I'm Gene Froyce.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
I'm Scott Sosby, gene .
We have somebody with us todaythat we've known for quite a
long time.
I don't know how long I'veknown John A long time.
He still is a young man and hadlots of hair.
I knew him then.
He's still a young man.
He doesn't have as much hairnow as he used to.
We're a podcast, not avideocast, so that doesn't
matter, but we're here with JohnLumber today.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
We're glad to have somebody.
We need one of these people weneed to have on these things if
we're going to talk about texashistory, right, absolutely.
You know, john, uh, golly,we've been to tons of
conferences together and, uh,john, yeah, and that's the
problem.
You know, a, you find out howmany people you need to
interview and b, sometimes, andthis is, we overlook those who
are around all the time, becausewe talk to them all the time,
(01:31):
and so, but, john, has somethingnew and exciting coming up that
we want to talk about in thisepisode.
Let's go ahead and get started,john.
Why don't you tell people whomay not be as fortunate as Scott
and I, who know you tell usabout yourself, where you're
from, where you went to schooland what you teach?
Speaker 3 (01:50):
Okay, so I am from the Austin area originally but
I've come to call Fort WorthFort Worth area my home for the
last 20 years.
For the last 20 years I went tothe University of Texas for my
undergrad and then went to TCUfor my MA and PhD and I teach
(02:12):
for Tarrant County College and,yeah, I teach both halves of the
US survey and Texas history andAfrican-American history and
whatever else they needed to.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Yes, john, there's something about you, about your
background and how you gotinterested in history that I
find very interesting, and Ithink you probably share this
with a lot of people.
You and people may or may notknow this you were a Civil War
reenactor, were you not?
(02:47):
I was, yeah, how did you getinto that?
Speaker 3 (02:53):
Oh, I had a scoutmaster when I was in the
Boy Scouts who was into that andso, you know, got involved in
that.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
I didn't know if it was your father, but it was
through the Boy Scouts, huh.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Yeah, yeah, well, huh , yeah, that's good.
That's better than some thingsthe Boy Scouts get people
involved in.
That's a plus, that's true,that's very true.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
How long did you do that?
Speaker 3 (03:16):
Oh, I reenacted for maybe three or four years.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
So did you have all the get-up, all the costuming
and whatnot.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
Oh, yeah, oh yeah.
What did you reenact?
What did you go to?
Speaker 3 (03:30):
What are some of the things you went and reenacted?
Oh, I mean we reenacted theSiege of Vicksburg out near
Weatherford one time.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
The Siege of Vicksburg near Weatherford.
Well, that had to beinteresting.
What river did you use?
It was the Long Siege.
We did, but they had backhoes,dig full-size trenches, so that
was interesting.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
Yeah, I want to see somebody reenact the Battle of
the Crater.
You know where they blow up thetrenches and everything.
I want to see that.
Speaker 3 (04:00):
I have no doubt that it's been done.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
It probably has.
Hey, there's people aroundLubbock who reenacted the
Vietnam War.
So I mean you know it's allwidespread.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Well, you know, there's big reenactments of the
American Civil War, of the Alamo, even overseas, in England and
other places.
So it's called living historynow, right, not reenacting,
right right, right.
Yeah, I've got family that'sbeen into that for 40 years and
you know, they know in manyrespects more about what they're
(04:33):
doing and about the history ofthe common people than most
academic historians know.
Speaker 1 (04:40):
Oh, absolutely.
I mean, they know all thesethings I've never ran into.
One Couldn't tell you the everbit of minutiae about the things
that they reenact.
As Gene likes to say, they knewevery mule, tear and jackass at
the Alamo.
Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
So, John, you've got a couple of books out and you've
written about the Civil War.
Let's talk about some of thosea little bit.
You've got one on Granbury, theTexas Brigade.
Speaker 3 (05:06):
Right.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
And tell us a little bit about that and what it's
about.
Speaker 3 (05:10):
Well, that was the topic of my dissertation at TCU
and Granbury's Texas Brigade wasa combat unit in the Western
Theater of the American CivilWar.
Combat unit in the WesternTheater of the American Civil
War.
You know, veterans ofGranbury's Brigade came back and
founded the towns of Granburyand Cleburne after the Civil War
(05:35):
, so it left an impression onTexas history.
You know it was militaryhistory.
I was trained in graduateschool by a Civil War military
historian and that's when I cameto focus on grad school, and so
you know, it's a good book.
(05:59):
I don't certainly think it wasmaybe my best effort, Hopefully.
I think we try to get betterwith every.
Speaker 1 (06:06):
Our first efforts are never the best efforts.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
Let me ask you an academic question, since this
was an academic exercise.
What is your thesis statement?
Speaker 3 (06:16):
The thesis statement for Granbury Sexist Brigade yeah
that they were the best combatunit in the Rebel Army of
Tennessee.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
Really, how come?
Well, they encountered a lot ofhardships earlier in the war
and there was quite a bit ofdesertion and other attrition in
their ranks, and so what itleft?
The guys that were left werereally pretty hardcore, devoted
to the Confederate cause and, asa result, ended up, I think,
(06:49):
being harder fighters.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
What was the makeup of most of the people in
Granbury's brigade?
I mean, what was theirbackground?
Where'd they come from?
Who were they?
Speaker 3 (07:00):
A lot of them were former.
They were dismounted cavalry.
They had dismounted the cavalryand taken their horses away and
turned them into infantry.
But you know, they there werequite a few of them that were
enslavers, but probably no morethan your average Confederate
(07:20):
unit.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
So you wrote another book on Vicksburg and the
Vicksburg campaign and that's abig topic.
Tell us about that.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
Well, so I wrote an article in an anthology about
the Vicksburg campaign and Iwrote about the actions of
General Joseph E Johnston inthat campaign, who, of course,
completely destroyed anyConfederate ability to win that
campaign, and just analyzed hisactions and movements and why he
(07:56):
did what he did.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
So why was Johnson so bad of a commander?
Speaker 3 (08:05):
He was.
He was hesitant, he was moreinterested in keeping his army
together than he was in using it.
Um, there are a number ofreasons he was there, but he was
the Confederate McClellan.
He was the ConfederateMcClellan.
Yeah, in a lot of ways, yeah,absolutely.
Speaker 1 (08:29):
He was pretty.
I mean, he was fairly, I meanwell trained, right, he was
highly highly trained, right hewas highly, highly regarded.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
He was highly regarded.
Yeah, absolutely, absolutelyfact he was a.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
As someone who studies military history, you
know and you know civil war were.
You know we really got thefirst of these real
professionally trained officers,you know when they were in the
field and things like this.
But a lot of those veryprofessionally trained officers
didn't turn out to be real greatcommanders.
So why would John Lumberg, thecivil war scholar, why would he
(09:05):
say that was the case?
You?
Speaker 3 (09:06):
know that's a good question and I don't know that I
have a good answer.
It all depended on thepersonality and the situation
they were placed in.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
Some of them responded you don't have to have
a good answer.
Act like me, just make some.
Speaker 3 (09:23):
Well, I mean, most of them had seen action in Mexico
during the US-Mexican War, butyou know a lot of that was just
not enough combat experience tocreate good general officers,
maybe field line officers, butnot general officers, not
commanders at that level.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
Was it I heard.
I don't even remember who itwas.
One time it was some Civil Warhistorian.
You know, I'm trying to thinkwho it was and I it was some
Civil War historian.
I'm trying to think who it wasand I just can't remember.
He one time said that one ofthe problems was that many of
these officers were fighting thelast war and by the last
(10:06):
strategies and essentially CivilWar was the first modern war
and they didn't know how tofight.
They were bad tactics.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
Is it as simple as that it's not quite as simple as
that?
I don't think.
But you're right, A lot of themdid not adapt their tactics to
the new weaponry.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
Well, I mean, that was part of the whole problem
with the junior officers is thatyou had people like Winfield
Scott, who was a Mexican wargeneral who was running things,
phil Scott, who was a Mexicanwar general, who was running
things.
And you know it's as Scott wassaying, as you were just saying.
You know a lot of them had notcaught up and it.
You know.
(10:43):
It's really an interestingstudy because I think in every
major war, right, you've got newtechnology, but then it's
getting the people in the fieldto adapt that new technology.
Sometimes they're behind thecurve.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
Exactly, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
Hey, let's talk about your transition to a new book,
and you know, I remember whenyou were working on this,
because you came out to theRichmond Rosenberg area and you
were working on a new book wehad barbecue together and it
just came out recently.
Right, it's called the TexasLow Country Slavery and Freedom
(11:24):
on the Gulf Coast.
Tell us about this book andwhat got you interested in it
you interested in it.
Speaker 3 (11:35):
So, honestly, what sparked my original interest was
, if you look at theconcentration of enslaved people
in Texas in 1860, there's quitea bit over in the Pinewoods, as
you know Harrison County, notso much Nacogdoches County as
much, but there are some overthere.
But then if you look at the map, it sticks out like a sore
thumb, this huge concentrationof enslaved people, greater than
(11:59):
anywhere else in the state.
And it's these four countiesjust south of Houston.
It's Fort Bend, matagora,wharton and Brazoria counties.
And so my question was why?
How did it get to be that way?
Why was it that way?
And that's what sparked myinterest in that region.
And it turns out that was theheart of Austin's original
(12:22):
colony.
Stephen F Austin designed thatplantation region as much as
anyone else did he's the fatherof that plantation region.
Speaker 2 (12:33):
Yeah, that Brazos River region.
Speaker 1 (12:36):
Tell us something, John, this is a subject that,
surprisingly, has beenunderstudied, I would say, in
Texas history.
We don't have particularlythese focused, real, you know,
specific accounts of plantation,life and practice in the
institution of slavery and theenslaved people that you do when
(12:58):
you were working on this, andwe always do this.
Every time we work on something, we come across something, we
go man, I didn't know that.
Or something that reallysurprised us.
What was something?
Tell our listeners a couple ofthings something about as you
researched this book that reallysurprised the hell out of you.
Something.
Tell our listeners a couple ofthings of something about as you
research this book that reallysurprised the hell out of you um
, I think it was.
Speaker 3 (13:18):
What really surprised the hell out of me was the
sheer depravity of the system ofslavery as it existed down
there.
That you know.
There there are differences inthe way systems of slavery were
practiced across the state, butthe amount of sheer depravity.
(13:43):
You know, I ran across anaccount where an enslaver named
Ann Thomas had purchased asix-year-old girl named Adeline
as a nursemaid.
But Adeline didn't work well asa nursemaid so they put her to
work in the cotton fields at sixand she ran away from the work
in the cotton fields and theyfound her and Ann Thomas'
(14:03):
husband gave her a number ofsevere whippings for just not
wanting to work in the cottonfields and I think it was that
sort of and there are multipleaccounts of children that age
being forced to work in thecotton and sugar fields.
And so I think it was just thesheer brutality of it, the
(14:29):
inhumanity of it, but also themortality rates, among those who
work with sugar especially.
We're not talking about asustainable population of
enslaved people.
We're talking about a negativeyear-over-year population growth
.
The only way to keep it evensteady was to import new
(14:51):
enslaved people, mostly from NewOrleans and elsewhere in the
Upper South, but you had maybe amortality rate of negative 5%
per year.
Speaker 1 (15:04):
That's astounding.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
I'm sorry, john.
What were the size of theseplantations?
Were these larger?
Because you know you look athistory and the history of
slavery on some of the largerplantations.
You know, like FrederickDouglass, all these, they talk
about the brutality because youhad absentee landlords and you
had, you know, various overseerswho worked the plantation and
(15:33):
you know they had no investmentin the slave except making them
obey, whereas enslaved people insmaller may have reported
sometimes that they had moreintimate relations with their
enslavers.
Were these large plantations?
How does that fit into thatkind of idea that a lot of
(15:54):
people have?
Speaker 3 (15:55):
Let's put it this way the largest enslavers down in
that area were Robert and DavidG Mills, who were also merchants
, and they collateralized theirbusinesses with plantations.
They had three of them and in1860, they had between the two
of them over 340 enslaved people.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
Really Wow For Texas that's a lot.
Speaker 3 (16:26):
Yeah, so there was also an enslaver who he passed
away in 1863 and they had toauction off his estate and the
auction amounted to.
This was, in Wharton County,144 people over the course of
(16:53):
two days.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Wow, that is also astounding.
Just you know that there's thatmuch of it going on these are
large operations.
Speaker 3 (17:04):
I documented almost 200 plantations in these four
counties alone and I defined aplantation as anyone with 20 or
more enslaved people.
Anything less than 20, I justdidn't even count as a
plantation.
So there were almost 200 suchestablishments in these four
(17:29):
counties alone.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
Area Richmond-Rosenberg area
especially unmarked graves, andthis was what they have dated
(17:51):
back to the convict lease systemand in those days they were
doing a lot of rice and sugarplantations.
What were they doing back then?
Speaker 3 (18:03):
Well convict, leasing was mainly sugar.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
Well, I mean, as far as the plantations you were
studying in the antebellumperiod, they were doing made
with sugar.
Well, I mean, as far as theplantations you were studying in
the 18th Antebellum period,they were doing cotton and sugar
.
So sugar was even profitableway back then.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
They started cultivating sugaron a large scale right around
1840.
And the sugar crop down therewas not as reliable as it is in,
say, south Louisiana, becauseof the hurricanes that hit Texas
(18:37):
more than they hit Louisiana,at least at that time, and so
they would collateralize theirsugar crops with cotton crops.
So if one failed, the otherwould bail them out for they
knew John.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
This is in your book coming up.
This one thing is we don't.
If you look at Virginia andsome of the deep south states
and things like this, there's anumber of these detailed.
We're looking at theplantations and studying the
plantations and what went on,but Texas is not ever.
We don't have a lot of that.
We have some large scalestudies of the institution but
(19:16):
we don't have a whole lot ofpeople that dug down and studied
the plantation.
That's one reason why your bookis going to be so valuable.
Why do you think that was?
Why did we not?
Why did Texas historians notget involved in that?
Speaker 3 (19:28):
Because of the mythology surrounding Texas
history.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
I agree with that, but there's mythology
surrounding Alabama history too.
But they documented a lot ofplantation.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
Was it more the idea that Texas is a western state
than a southern state?
That's a part of it.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
In Alabama.
You don't have the TexasRevolution to fall back on and
spend all your attention on.
You go back and Alabama.
History is just straightslavery, and so you know.
I think that Texas historianswere rather hesitant and wanted
(20:08):
to build a certain image of thestate and slavery.
In particular, deep Southslavery like we're talking about
, just didn't have a place.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
Yeah, yeah, you're right.
I think you're right.
Well, and then Mike Campbellcame along.
But even Campbell's study is,he studies the institution,
which is great, but he doesn'tget down to that plantation
level as much.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
He does in some ways in.
Speaker 1 (20:40):
Harrison County but slavery in.
Speaker 3 (20:43):
Harrison County is going to be much more similar to
slavery in North Louisiana asopposed to South Louisiana, and
what we're looking at here withthe Texas Lowcountry is an area
that's much more like theLouisiana Sugar Parishes and or
the South Carolina Lowcountry.
And so that's why I titled itwhat I did, because I feel it's
(21:08):
a mixture of those two societiesthe Louisiana sugar parishes
and the South Carolina oilcountry.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
Yeah, I am reading it right now.
I haven't finished it yet, soI'm getting into it, but that's
something I think if someoneelse begins to you go much past
the period of slavery and theCivil War in the book you go on
down and you take it almost tothe 20th century.
Tell us about that part of it,because I think all that is
fascinating, particularly whenwe get into this how Texas, like
(21:39):
other southern states, tried tokeep their biracial order in
place.
Speaker 3 (21:43):
They did so.
Here's the issue In that regionin 1865, when freedom comes
over, 70% of the voters areblack.
So what you're going to haveare Republican county
governments that are entrenchedthere for the next 20 years,
(22:06):
republican county machines,republican County machines, and
so reconstruction really doesn'tfully end until the last of the
black office holders are forcedout of office, and they're
forced out of office by violentcoups the Jaybird-Pecker war was
(22:28):
in Fort Bend County.
But what they did, of course, isthey formed the White man Union
Associations In Fort BendCounty.
There was one in MatagordaCounty, one in Brazoria County,
one in Wharton County, and so asthey formed these White man
Union Associations, then ofcourse it forced these black
(22:49):
office holders out, and NathanHaller, the last black
legislator from that area,didn't lead the legislature
until 1895.
And so to me Reconstructiondoesn't fully end down there
until 1895.
Speaker 1 (23:05):
Certainly that's a great point.
It certainly is.
I want to get something elsewhile we're here, because you've
been part of it.
You're kind of one of theseGene and I are not so much young
gun, but you're kind of ayounger scholar getting involved
in this in Texas history.
Some would say that the fieldof Texas history is at a
(23:25):
crossroads.
The state of it right now iswe're going to figure out how
this is going to advance.
Is it going to continue in onedirection?
Is it going to fall back on theold ideas of mythology?
But a lot of people like youare forming new paradigms, new
interpretations of history.
Would you agree?
Would you say that?
(23:46):
That?
What world?
What world are we going to?
Where are we going with thestate of Texas history?
Is it going to advance?
Are we going to come up withthese new interpretations or is
that mythology going to alwayshold us back?
Speaker 3 (24:01):
The mythology will always be there.
I don't think the mythologywill always hold us back.
I don't think the mythologywill always hold us back.
I think we've reached a tippingpoint, culturally and socially
in Texas, where we are diverseenough.
The academy is diverse enoughin Texas, where the younger
(24:23):
scholars coming up are diverseenough in Texas, that we are
tearing down that old regime,that old mythology.
And it has to happen.
It's a new generation ofscholars, it's a new generation
of historiography and I don'tknow if the old myths about
(24:49):
Texas will ever completely die.
I doubt it.
But you're going to have anacademic world that started in
the 80s but really didn't startto push through until the 90s,
and now you're seeing it startto take over.
And that's what thetraditionalists are freaking out
(25:10):
about is that these newinterpretations are becoming,
starting to become moremainstream interpretations where
, when you exclude slavery froma discussion of the Texas
Revolution, no one takes youseriously anymore.
Now we could argue till thecows come home about you know
(25:31):
what percentage of the TexasRevolution was caused by slavery
, but the point is you have tohave it in the discussion.
Speaker 1 (25:40):
That's just one example yeah, and you're right.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
You know, john, one of the other things you know a
little bit different and besides, you're young and Scott and I
are getting long in the tooth.
You do this research andwriting, but you're at a
two-year institution.
Speaker 3 (25:58):
I am.
Speaker 2 (25:59):
When you're teaching, you know you've got students
coming in there.
You may not see them go on toget their four-year degree.
Some of them aren't there for afour-year degree.
So what is it you're trying tocommunicate?
What is it you're trying to dowhen you teach?
Are you looking at skills?
Are you looking at content?
(26:19):
What do you want the studentsto walk away with?
Speaker 3 (26:25):
There are two things I want my students to always
walk away with.
One is always historical factsor historical paradigms that
they've never even considered.
You know that, for instance, thetransition, if you're doing US
(26:46):
History 1301, the transitionfrom indentured servitude to
race-based slavery, right, thefact that race-based slavery
didn't just come out of nowhere,that it was a system that was
cultivated one court decision ata time, one person at a time
over time, right and so I wantthem to come away with things
(27:10):
like that.
But more than that, I want themto come away with the idea, to
the ability to think critically,the ability to think for
themselves, to take these factsand to become better informed
citizens, because I think that'sa lot of what's wrong with the
(27:34):
country right now is we have toofew people who think through
what it is they believe,thoroughly examine themselves
and thoroughly examine thosebeliefs and belief systems.
And so if I can get them to dothat through the lens of history
whatever lens of history itmight be if I can get them to
(27:59):
see that fascism is notimpossible as a takeover here in
the United States, it's verypossible, and some days I think
we're closer than others.
But if I can get them to seethat, you know, just take into
effect or take into accountthese, use history to try to get
(28:28):
them to see the world in waysthat they wouldn't necessarily
see it before, and use that toenhance their critical thinking
skills.
That's what I'm looking at.
Speaker 1 (28:43):
Well, are you concerned about the current
environment and how it's goingto affect yours, mine, gene's,
many of ours ability to do justthat?
I mean, I got an email today,just today, for example, that
because we're part of theUniversity of Texas system, sfa
is now that we must submit everyone of our syllabi and if
(29:07):
there's any reference toanything related to DEI, we must
take it out.
It must be completely cut outof our syllabi and they will
tell us what it is and what wewill cut out.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
How will they know we don't give detail plans?
Speaker 1 (29:28):
Well, that's a good question, Gene, but they're
looking.
They're looking for anykeywords, anything I'm telling
you, anything they think theycan see.
Speaker 3 (29:36):
I don't know.
I don't know what they're doing.
I think.
Well, of course it is, but Ithink that this is a in the
short term, yes, I am worried.
In the long term, I'm not.
I think we're going throughsomething akin to McCarthyism in
the 50s and that eventually thetide will change back in the
(29:59):
other direction, Hopefully, Imean look, I hope you're right,
it is disconcerting and I don'tknow for sure, but I'd like to
think that's what's happeningyou might be more optimistic
(30:19):
than I am.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
I don't really care about political my students,
political affiliation.
I want them to vote.
I'd like for them to vote likeI vote, but I don't try to get
that across.
Speaker 1 (30:39):
Nobody votes like I vote but here's the thing.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
But here's the thing.
As a university professor, Idon't like oversight and
micromanagement on what I'mteaching in class.
I shouldn't be teaching stuffthat isn't part of my field of
study.
I don't care which politicalparty it is or which political
(31:09):
ideology it is.
When you start doing that andtelling professors, you can't
teach this you can't teach that.
Speaker 3 (31:23):
That is going to make a lot of us upset.
Speaker 2 (31:33):
Yeah, it has made a lot of us upset.
Speaker 3 (31:33):
Uh, yeah, it has made a lot of us upset and the I
don't know what the end game is.
I don't know what's going tohappen.
I'd like to think it's a momentwe're living through and not a
sea change, but I don't knowthat for sure.
Speaker 1 (31:48):
I think you're exactly right.
It is disconcerting.
I guess we will see how thiswill shake out.
It'll be something that thispodcast can deal with as we go
through Absolutely Well.
We've reached that.
These things always go so damnfast, I tell you.
We act like we've just gottenstarted and they're over with.
But we've learned.
We've learned by heartexperience.
Nobody wants to listen to Geneor I more than 30 minutes, so we
(32:11):
keep them at that together.
But we've reached that point,John Lumberg, where we always
ask the last question and giveyou your chance to opine on
anything you wish to opine on,be it an aphorism, be it a
little gem of wisdom.
You want to send somebody, orwhatever it is.
So we ask, Dr John Lumber, whatdo you know?
(32:33):
What I know?
Speaker 3 (32:36):
is that Texas history and the field of Texas history
is headed in the right direction.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
Good, for you.
That's optimistic, I'm glad.
Speaker 3 (32:45):
Finally starting to break free of the old chains of
the old, some of the olderorganizations that had begun to
turn into ancestors to worship,and starting to turn a corner in
a in a new and positivedirection.
Speaker 1 (33:03):
Well, that's a well.
I'm glad you say that.
I'm glad to know that it's beengreat, john Folks.
The latest book John has out isthe Texas Low Country Slavery
and Freedom on the Gulf Coast1822 to 1895.
Go out, buy it, order it.
It's Texas A&M Press, correct,john?
Speaker 3 (33:21):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (33:23):
Texas A&M Press.
They'll sell it to you directly.
Go to their website, buy itdirectly on that.
Call Jay Du.
I'm telling him that Gene saidto give you a discount.
See how far that gets you.
Speaker 2 (33:33):
Give him the price discount.
That's why they charge youdouble.
Speaker 1 (33:36):
Probably so.
Thanks, john, it's been good,all right, great John.
Speaker 2 (33:41):
Thank you.
This podcast is not sponsored by and does not
reflect the views of theinstitutions that employ us.
It is solely our thoughts andideas, based upon our
professional training and studyof the past.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Welcome to Talking Texas History, the podcast that
explores Texas history beforeand beyond the Alamo.
Not only will we talk Texashistory, we'll visit with folks
who teach it, write it, supportit, and with some who've made it
and, of course, all of us wholive it and love it.
Welcome to another edition ofTalking Texas History.
(00:39):
I'm Gene Froyce.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
I'm Scott Sosby, gene .
We have somebody with us todaythat we've known for quite a
long time.
I don't know how long I'veknown John A long time.
He still is a young man and hadlots of hair.
I knew him then.
He's still a young man.
He doesn't have as much hairnow as he used to.
We're a podcast, not avideocast, so that doesn't
matter, but we're here with JohnLumber today.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
We're glad to have somebody.
We need one of these people weneed to have on these things if
we're going to talk about texashistory, right, absolutely.
You know, john, uh, golly,we've been to tons of
conferences together and, uh,john, yeah, and that's the
problem.
You know, a, you find out howmany people you need to
interview and b, sometimes, andthis is, we overlook those who
are around all the time, becausewe talk to them all the time,
(01:31):
and so, but, john, has somethingnew and exciting coming up that
we want to talk about in thisepisode.
Let's go ahead and get started,john.
Why don't you tell people whomay not be as fortunate as Scott
and I, who know you tell usabout yourself, where you're
from, where you went to schooland what you teach?
Speaker 3 (01:50):
Okay, so I am from the Austin area originally but
I've come to call Fort WorthFort Worth area my home for the
last 20 years.
For the last 20 years I went tothe University of Texas for my
undergrad and then went to TCUfor my MA and PhD and I teach
(02:12):
for Tarrant County College and,yeah, I teach both halves of the
US survey and Texas history andAfrican-American history and
whatever else they needed to.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Yes, john, there's something about you, about your
background and how you gotinterested in history that I
find very interesting, and Ithink you probably share this
with a lot of people.
You and people may or may notknow this you were a Civil War
reenactor, were you not?
(02:47):
I was, yeah, how did you getinto that?
Speaker 3 (02:53):
Oh, I had a scoutmaster when I was in the
Boy Scouts who was into that andso, you know, got involved in
that.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
I didn't know if it was your father, but it was
through the Boy Scouts, huh.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Yeah, yeah, well, huh , yeah, that's good.
That's better than some thingsthe Boy Scouts get people
involved in.
That's a plus, that's true,that's very true.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
How long did you do that?
Speaker 3 (03:16):
Oh, I reenacted for maybe three or four years.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
So did you have all the get-up, all the costuming
and whatnot.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
Oh, yeah, oh yeah.
What did you reenact?
What did you go to?
Speaker 3 (03:30):
What are some of the things you went and reenacted?
Oh, I mean we reenacted theSiege of Vicksburg out near
Weatherford one time.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
The Siege of Vicksburg near Weatherford.
Well, that had to beinteresting.
What river did you use?
It was the Long Siege.
We did, but they had backhoes,dig full-size trenches, so that
was interesting.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
Yeah, I want to see somebody reenact the Battle of
the Crater.
You know where they blow up thetrenches and everything.
I want to see that.
Speaker 3 (04:00):
I have no doubt that it's been done.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
It probably has.
Hey, there's people aroundLubbock who reenacted the
Vietnam War.
So I mean you know it's allwidespread.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Well, you know, there's big reenactments of the
American Civil War, of the Alamo, even overseas, in England and
other places.
So it's called living historynow, right, not reenacting,
right right, right.
Yeah, I've got family that'sbeen into that for 40 years and
you know, they know in manyrespects more about what they're
(04:33):
doing and about the history ofthe common people than most
academic historians know.
Speaker 1 (04:40):
Oh, absolutely.
I mean, they know all thesethings I've never ran into.
One Couldn't tell you the everbit of minutiae about the things
that they reenact.
As Gene likes to say, they knewevery mule, tear and jackass at
the Alamo.
Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
So, John, you've got a couple of books out and you've
written about the Civil War.
Let's talk about some of thosea little bit.
You've got one on Granbury, theTexas Brigade.
Speaker 3 (05:06):
Right.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
And tell us a little bit about that and what it's
about.
Speaker 3 (05:10):
Well, that was the topic of my dissertation at TCU
and Granbury's Texas Brigade wasa combat unit in the Western
Theater of the American CivilWar.
Combat unit in the WesternTheater of the American Civil
War.
You know, veterans ofGranbury's Brigade came back and
founded the towns of Granburyand Cleburne after the Civil War
(05:35):
, so it left an impression onTexas history.
You know it was militaryhistory.
I was trained in graduateschool by a Civil War military
historian and that's when I cameto focus on grad school, and so
you know, it's a good book.
(05:59):
I don't certainly think it wasmaybe my best effort, Hopefully.
I think we try to get betterwith every.
Speaker 1 (06:06):
Our first efforts are never the best efforts.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
Let me ask you an academic question, since this
was an academic exercise.
What is your thesis statement?
Speaker 3 (06:16):
The thesis statement for Granbury Sexist Brigade yeah
that they were the best combatunit in the Rebel Army of
Tennessee.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
Really, how come?
Well, they encountered a lot ofhardships earlier in the war
and there was quite a bit ofdesertion and other attrition in
their ranks, and so what itleft?
The guys that were left werereally pretty hardcore, devoted
to the Confederate cause and, asa result, ended up, I think,
(06:49):
being harder fighters.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
What was the makeup of most of the people in
Granbury's brigade?
I mean, what was theirbackground?
Where'd they come from?
Who were they?
Speaker 3 (07:00):
A lot of them were former.
They were dismounted cavalry.
They had dismounted the cavalryand taken their horses away and
turned them into infantry.
But you know, they there werequite a few of them that were
enslavers, but probably no morethan your average Confederate
(07:20):
unit.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
So you wrote another book on Vicksburg and the
Vicksburg campaign and that's abig topic.
Tell us about that.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
Well, so I wrote an article in an anthology about
the Vicksburg campaign and Iwrote about the actions of
General Joseph E Johnston inthat campaign, who, of course,
completely destroyed anyConfederate ability to win that
campaign, and just analyzed hisactions and movements and why he
(07:56):
did what he did.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
So why was Johnson so bad of a commander?
Speaker 3 (08:05):
He was.
He was hesitant, he was moreinterested in keeping his army
together than he was in using it.
Um, there are a number ofreasons he was there, but he was
the Confederate McClellan.
He was the ConfederateMcClellan.
Yeah, in a lot of ways, yeah,absolutely.
Speaker 1 (08:29):
He was pretty.
I mean, he was fairly, I meanwell trained, right, he was
highly highly trained, right hewas highly, highly regarded.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
He was highly regarded.
Yeah, absolutely, absolutelyfact he was a.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
As someone who studies military history, you
know and you know civil war were.
You know we really got thefirst of these real
professionally trained officers,you know when they were in the
field and things like this.
But a lot of those veryprofessionally trained officers
didn't turn out to be real greatcommanders.
So why would John Lumberg, thecivil war scholar, why would he
(09:05):
say that was the case?
You?
Speaker 3 (09:06):
know that's a good question and I don't know that I
have a good answer.
It all depended on thepersonality and the situation
they were placed in.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
Some of them responded you don't have to have
a good answer.
Act like me, just make some.
Speaker 3 (09:23):
Well, I mean, most of them had seen action in Mexico
during the US-Mexican War, butyou know a lot of that was just
not enough combat experience tocreate good general officers,
maybe field line officers, butnot general officers, not
commanders at that level.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
Was it I heard.
I don't even remember who itwas.
One time it was some Civil Warhistorian.
You know, I'm trying to thinkwho it was and I it was some
Civil War historian.
I'm trying to think who it wasand I just can't remember.
He one time said that one ofthe problems was that many of
these officers were fighting thelast war and by the last
(10:06):
strategies and essentially CivilWar was the first modern war
and they didn't know how tofight.
They were bad tactics.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
Is it as simple as that it's not quite as simple as
that?
I don't think.
But you're right, A lot of themdid not adapt their tactics to
the new weaponry.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
Well, I mean, that was part of the whole problem
with the junior officers is thatyou had people like Winfield
Scott, who was a Mexican wargeneral who was running things,
phil Scott, who was a Mexicanwar general, who was running
things.
And you know it's as Scott wassaying, as you were just saying.
You know a lot of them had notcaught up and it.
You know.
(10:43):
It's really an interestingstudy because I think in every
major war, right, you've got newtechnology, but then it's
getting the people in the fieldto adapt that new technology.
Sometimes they're behind thecurve.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
Exactly, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
Hey, let's talk about your transition to a new book,
and you know, I remember whenyou were working on this,
because you came out to theRichmond Rosenberg area and you
were working on a new book wehad barbecue together and it
just came out recently.
Right, it's called the TexasLow Country Slavery and Freedom
(11:24):
on the Gulf Coast.
Tell us about this book andwhat got you interested in it
you interested in it.
Speaker 3 (11:35):
So, honestly, what sparked my original interest was
, if you look at theconcentration of enslaved people
in Texas in 1860, there's quitea bit over in the Pinewoods, as
you know Harrison County, notso much Nacogdoches County as
much, but there are some overthere.
But then if you look at the map, it sticks out like a sore
thumb, this huge concentrationof enslaved people, greater than
(11:59):
anywhere else in the state.
And it's these four countiesjust south of Houston.
It's Fort Bend, matagora,wharton and Brazoria counties.
And so my question was why?
How did it get to be that way?
Why was it that way?
And that's what sparked myinterest in that region.
And it turns out that was theheart of Austin's original
(12:22):
colony.
Stephen F Austin designed thatplantation region as much as
anyone else did he's the fatherof that plantation region.
Speaker 2 (12:33):
Yeah, that Brazos River region.
Speaker 1 (12:36):
Tell us something, John, this is a subject that,
surprisingly, has beenunderstudied, I would say, in
Texas history.
We don't have particularlythese focused, real, you know,
specific accounts of plantation,life and practice in the
institution of slavery and theenslaved people that you do when
(12:58):
you were working on this, andwe always do this.
Every time we work on something, we come across something, we
go man, I didn't know that.
Or something that reallysurprised us.
What was something?
Tell our listeners a couple ofthings something about as you
researched this book that reallysurprised the hell out of you.
Something.
Tell our listeners a couple ofthings of something about as you
research this book that reallysurprised the hell out of you um
, I think it was.
Speaker 3 (13:18):
What really surprised the hell out of me was the
sheer depravity of the system ofslavery as it existed down
there.
That you know.
There there are differences inthe way systems of slavery were
practiced across the state, butthe amount of sheer depravity.
(13:43):
You know, I ran across anaccount where an enslaver named
Ann Thomas had purchased asix-year-old girl named Adeline
as a nursemaid.
But Adeline didn't work well asa nursemaid so they put her to
work in the cotton fields at sixand she ran away from the work
in the cotton fields and theyfound her and Ann Thomas'
(14:03):
husband gave her a number ofsevere whippings for just not
wanting to work in the cottonfields and I think it was that
sort of and there are multipleaccounts of children that age
being forced to work in thecotton and sugar fields.
And so I think it was just thesheer brutality of it, the
(14:29):
inhumanity of it, but also themortality rates, among those who
work with sugar especially.
We're not talking about asustainable population of
enslaved people.
We're talking about a negativeyear-over-year population growth
.
The only way to keep it evensteady was to import new
(14:51):
enslaved people, mostly from NewOrleans and elsewhere in the
Upper South, but you had maybe amortality rate of negative 5%
per year.
Speaker 1 (15:04):
That's astounding.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
I'm sorry, john.
What were the size of theseplantations?
Were these larger?
Because you know you look athistory and the history of
slavery on some of the largerplantations.
You know, like FrederickDouglass, all these, they talk
about the brutality because youhad absentee landlords and you
had, you know, various overseerswho worked the plantation and
(15:33):
you know they had no investmentin the slave except making them
obey, whereas enslaved people insmaller may have reported
sometimes that they had moreintimate relations with their
enslavers.
Were these large plantations?
How does that fit into thatkind of idea that a lot of
(15:54):
people have?
Speaker 3 (15:55):
Let's put it this way the largest enslavers down in
that area were Robert and DavidG Mills, who were also merchants
, and they collateralized theirbusinesses with plantations.
They had three of them and in1860, they had between the two
of them over 340 enslaved people.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
Really Wow For Texas that's a lot.
Speaker 3 (16:26):
Yeah, so there was also an enslaver who he passed
away in 1863 and they had toauction off his estate and the
auction amounted to.
This was, in Wharton County,144 people over the course of
(16:53):
two days.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Wow, that is also astounding.
Just you know that there's thatmuch of it going on these are
large operations.
Speaker 3 (17:04):
I documented almost 200 plantations in these four
counties alone and I defined aplantation as anyone with 20 or
more enslaved people.
Anything less than 20, I justdidn't even count as a
plantation.
So there were almost 200 suchestablishments in these four
(17:29):
counties alone.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
Area Richmond-Rosenberg area
especially unmarked graves, andthis was what they have dated
(17:51):
back to the convict lease systemand in those days they were
doing a lot of rice and sugarplantations.
What were they doing back then?
Speaker 3 (18:03):
Well convict, leasing was mainly sugar.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
Well, I mean, as far as the plantations you were
studying in the antebellumperiod, they were doing made
with sugar.
Well, I mean, as far as theplantations you were studying in
the 18th Antebellum period,they were doing cotton and sugar
.
So sugar was even profitableway back then.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
They started cultivating sugaron a large scale right around
1840.
And the sugar crop down therewas not as reliable as it is in,
say, south Louisiana, becauseof the hurricanes that hit Texas
(18:37):
more than they hit Louisiana,at least at that time, and so
they would collateralize theirsugar crops with cotton crops.
So if one failed, the otherwould bail them out for they
knew John.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
This is in your book coming up.
This one thing is we don't.
If you look at Virginia andsome of the deep south states
and things like this, there's anumber of these detailed.
We're looking at theplantations and studying the
plantations and what went on,but Texas is not ever.
We don't have a lot of that.
We have some large scalestudies of the institution but
(19:16):
we don't have a whole lot ofpeople that dug down and studied
the plantation.
That's one reason why your bookis going to be so valuable.
Why do you think that was?
Why did we not?
Why did Texas historians notget involved in that?
Speaker 3 (19:28):
Because of the mythology surrounding Texas
history.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
I agree with that, but there's mythology
surrounding Alabama history too.
But they documented a lot ofplantation.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
Was it more the idea that Texas is a western state
than a southern state?
That's a part of it.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
In Alabama.
You don't have the TexasRevolution to fall back on and
spend all your attention on.
You go back and Alabama.
History is just straightslavery, and so you know.
I think that Texas historianswere rather hesitant and wanted
(20:08):
to build a certain image of thestate and slavery.
In particular, deep Southslavery like we're talking about
, just didn't have a place.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
Yeah, yeah, you're right.
I think you're right.
Well, and then Mike Campbellcame along.
But even Campbell's study is,he studies the institution,
which is great, but he doesn'tget down to that plantation
level as much.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
He does in some ways in.
Speaker 1 (20:40):
Harrison County but slavery in.
Speaker 3 (20:43):
Harrison County is going to be much more similar to
slavery in North Louisiana asopposed to South Louisiana, and
what we're looking at here withthe Texas Lowcountry is an area
that's much more like theLouisiana Sugar Parishes and or
the South Carolina Lowcountry.
And so that's why I titled itwhat I did, because I feel it's
(21:08):
a mixture of those two societiesthe Louisiana sugar parishes
and the South Carolina oilcountry.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
Yeah, I am reading it right now.
I haven't finished it yet, soI'm getting into it, but that's
something I think if someoneelse begins to you go much past
the period of slavery and theCivil War in the book you go on
down and you take it almost tothe 20th century.
Tell us about that part of it,because I think all that is
fascinating, particularly whenwe get into this how Texas, like
(21:39):
other southern states, tried tokeep their biracial order in
place.
Speaker 3 (21:43):
They did so.
Here's the issue In that regionin 1865, when freedom comes
over, 70% of the voters areblack.
So what you're going to haveare Republican county
governments that are entrenchedthere for the next 20 years,
(22:06):
republican county machines,republican County machines, and
so reconstruction really doesn'tfully end until the last of the
black office holders are forcedout of office, and they're
forced out of office by violentcoups the Jaybird-Pecker war was
(22:28):
in Fort Bend County.
But what they did, of course, isthey formed the White man Union
Associations In Fort BendCounty.
There was one in MatagordaCounty, one in Brazoria County,
one in Wharton County, and so asthey formed these White man
Union Associations, then ofcourse it forced these black
(22:49):
office holders out, and NathanHaller, the last black
legislator from that area,didn't lead the legislature
until 1895.
And so to me Reconstructiondoesn't fully end down there
until 1895.
Speaker 1 (23:05):
Certainly that's a great point.
It certainly is.
I want to get something elsewhile we're here, because you've
been part of it.
You're kind of one of theseGene and I are not so much young
gun, but you're kind of ayounger scholar getting involved
in this in Texas history.
Some would say that the fieldof Texas history is at a
(23:25):
crossroads.
The state of it right now iswe're going to figure out how
this is going to advance.
Is it going to continue in onedirection?
Is it going to fall back on theold ideas of mythology?
But a lot of people like youare forming new paradigms, new
interpretations of history.
Would you agree?
Would you say that?
(23:46):
That?
What world?
What world are we going to?
Where are we going with thestate of Texas history?
Is it going to advance?
Are we going to come up withthese new interpretations or is
that mythology going to alwayshold us back?
Speaker 3 (24:01):
The mythology will always be there.
I don't think the mythologywill always hold us back.
I don't think the mythologywill always hold us back.
I think we've reached a tippingpoint, culturally and socially
in Texas, where we are diverseenough.
The academy is diverse enoughin Texas, where the younger
(24:23):
scholars coming up are diverseenough in Texas, that we are
tearing down that old regime,that old mythology.
And it has to happen.
It's a new generation ofscholars, it's a new generation
of historiography and I don'tknow if the old myths about
(24:49):
Texas will ever completely die.
I doubt it.
But you're going to have anacademic world that started in
the 80s but really didn't startto push through until the 90s,
and now you're seeing it startto take over.
And that's what thetraditionalists are freaking out
(25:10):
about is that these newinterpretations are becoming,
starting to become moremainstream interpretations where
, when you exclude slavery froma discussion of the Texas
Revolution, no one takes youseriously anymore.
Now we could argue till thecows come home about you know
(25:31):
what percentage of the TexasRevolution was caused by slavery
, but the point is you have tohave it in the discussion.
Speaker 1 (25:40):
That's just one example yeah, and you're right.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
You know, john, one of the other things you know a
little bit different and besides, you're young and Scott and I
are getting long in the tooth.
You do this research andwriting, but you're at a
two-year institution.
Speaker 3 (25:58):
I am.
Speaker 2 (25:59):
When you're teaching, you know you've got students
coming in there.
You may not see them go on toget their four-year degree.
Some of them aren't there for afour-year degree.
So what is it you're trying tocommunicate?
What is it you're trying to dowhen you teach?
Are you looking at skills?
Are you looking at content?
(26:19):
What do you want the studentsto walk away with?
Speaker 3 (26:25):
There are two things I want my students to always
walk away with.
One is always historical factsor historical paradigms that
they've never even considered.
You know that, for instance, thetransition, if you're doing US
(26:46):
History 1301, the transitionfrom indentured servitude to
race-based slavery, right, thefact that race-based slavery
didn't just come out of nowhere,that it was a system that was
cultivated one court decision ata time, one person at a time
over time, right and so I wantthem to come away with things
(27:10):
like that.
But more than that, I want themto come away with the idea, to
the ability to think critically,the ability to think for
themselves, to take these factsand to become better informed
citizens, because I think that'sa lot of what's wrong with the
(27:34):
country right now is we have toofew people who think through
what it is they believe,thoroughly examine themselves
and thoroughly examine thosebeliefs and belief systems.
And so if I can get them to dothat through the lens of history
whatever lens of history itmight be if I can get them to
(27:59):
see that fascism is notimpossible as a takeover here in
the United States, it's verypossible, and some days I think
we're closer than others.
But if I can get them to seethat, you know, just take into
effect or take into accountthese, use history to try to get
(28:28):
them to see the world in waysthat they wouldn't necessarily
see it before, and use that toenhance their critical thinking
skills.
That's what I'm looking at.
Speaker 1 (28:43):
Well, are you concerned about the current
environment and how it's goingto affect yours, mine, gene's,
many of ours ability to do justthat?
I mean, I got an email today,just today, for example, that
because we're part of theUniversity of Texas system, sfa
is now that we must submit everyone of our syllabi and if
(29:07):
there's any reference toanything related to DEI, we must
take it out.
It must be completely cut outof our syllabi and they will
tell us what it is and what wewill cut out.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
How will they know we don't give detail plans?
Speaker 1 (29:28):
Well, that's a good question, Gene, but they're
looking.
They're looking for anykeywords, anything I'm telling
you, anything they think theycan see.
Speaker 3 (29:36):
I don't know.
I don't know what they're doing.
I think.
Well, of course it is, but Ithink that this is a in the
short term, yes, I am worried.
In the long term, I'm not.
I think we're going throughsomething akin to McCarthyism in
the 50s and that eventually thetide will change back in the
(29:59):
other direction, Hopefully, Imean look, I hope you're right,
it is disconcerting and I don'tknow for sure, but I'd like to
think that's what's happeningyou might be more optimistic
(30:19):
than I am.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
I don't really care about political my students,
political affiliation.
I want them to vote.
I'd like for them to vote likeI vote, but I don't try to get
that across.
Speaker 1 (30:39):
Nobody votes like I vote but here's the thing.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
But here's the thing.
As a university professor, Idon't like oversight and
micromanagement on what I'mteaching in class.
I shouldn't be teaching stuffthat isn't part of my field of
study.
I don't care which politicalparty it is or which political
(31:09):
ideology it is.
When you start doing that andtelling professors, you can't
teach this you can't teach that.
Speaker 3 (31:23):
That is going to make a lot of us upset.
Speaker 2 (31:33):
Yeah, it has made a lot of us upset.
Speaker 3 (31:33):
Uh, yeah, it has made a lot of us upset and the I
don't know what the end game is.
I don't know what's going tohappen.
I'd like to think it's a momentwe're living through and not a
sea change, but I don't knowthat for sure.
Speaker 1 (31:48):
I think you're exactly right.
It is disconcerting.
I guess we will see how thiswill shake out.
It'll be something that thispodcast can deal with as we go
through Absolutely Well.
We've reached that.
These things always go so damnfast, I tell you.
We act like we've just gottenstarted and they're over with.
But we've learned.
We've learned by heartexperience.
Nobody wants to listen to Geneor I more than 30 minutes, so we
(32:11):
keep them at that together.
But we've reached that point,John Lumberg, where we always
ask the last question and giveyou your chance to opine on
anything you wish to opine on,be it an aphorism, be it a
little gem of wisdom.
You want to send somebody, orwhatever it is.
So we ask, Dr John Lumber, whatdo you know?
(32:33):
What I know?
Speaker 3 (32:36):
is that Texas history and the field of Texas history
is headed in the right direction.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
Good, for you.
That's optimistic, I'm glad.
Speaker 3 (32:45):
Finally starting to break free of the old chains of
the old, some of the olderorganizations that had begun to
turn into ancestors to worship,and starting to turn a corner in
a in a new and positivedirection.
Speaker 1 (33:03):
Well, that's a well.
I'm glad you say that.
I'm glad to know that it's beengreat, john Folks.
The latest book John has out isthe Texas Low Country Slavery
and Freedom on the Gulf Coast1822 to 1895.
Go out, buy it, order it.
It's Texas A&M Press, correct,john?
Speaker 3 (33:21):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (33:23):
Texas A&M Press.
They'll sell it to you directly.
Go to their website, buy itdirectly on that.
Call Jay Du.
I'm telling him that Gene saidto give you a discount.
See how far that gets you.
Speaker 2 (33:33):
Give him the price discount.
That's why they charge youdouble.
Speaker 1 (33:36):
Probably so.
Thanks, john, it's been good,all right, great John.
Speaker 2 (33:41):
Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Decisions, Decisions
Welcome to "Decisions, Decisions," the podcast where boundaries are pushed, and conversations get candid! Join your favorite hosts, Mandii B and WeezyWTF, as they dive deep into the world of non-traditional relationships and explore the often-taboo topics surrounding dating, sex, and love. Every Monday, Mandii and Weezy invite you to unlearn the outdated narratives dictated by traditional patriarchal norms. With a blend of humor, vulnerability, and authenticity, they share their personal journeys navigating their 30s, tackling the complexities of modern relationships, and engaging in thought-provoking discussions that challenge societal expectations. From groundbreaking interviews with diverse guests to relatable stories that resonate with your experiences, "Decisions, Decisions" is your go-to source for open dialogue about what it truly means to love and connect in today's world. Get ready to reshape your understanding of relationships and embrace the freedom of authentic connections—tune in and join the conversation!