Before It Was Houston

[sinister1]

What was the area we now know as Houston called/named when Texas was still part of Mexico?

[TheNiche]

What was the area we now know as Houston called/named when Texas was still part of Mexico?

It was part of the John Austin land grant and had no name, otherwise. For a short while after it was founded, most people called it 'Houston City'.

The nearest settlement was Harrisburg, to the east, and Harris County was originally Harrisburg County or sometimes spelled Harrisburgh County. Given that, for a brief few months, Harrisburg was also the officially decreed seat of government of Texas...which meant nothing...and for which Santa Ana burnt it down...I'd figure that people would've associated the rural land around it with Harrisburg's sphere of influence.

Also...by an interesting quirk of fate, the Allen Brothers had attempted to buy Harrisburg to re-name it Houston, however the land was tied up in probate at the time.

[plumber2]

My dad's birth certificate says he was born in Harrisburg, Texas. He always claimed he was born in Houston. Lucky for him that he didn't run for a political office. Just think what the "birthers" would have said about that!

[FilioScotia]

Texas historians tell us that the area known as Harrisburg -- which was platted by John R. Harris in 1826 -- was the Allen Brothers' first choice for where they wanted to buy land and resell it for new development. Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your viewpoint, the Allen brothers couldn't buy Harrisburg since Harris had died, and no clear title to the land existed. So the brothers went to their second choice farther up Buffalo Bayou away from Harrisburg by a few miles.

Harrisburg remained an important rail town until a fire in the 1870s destroyed the rail yards, which were rebuilt in Houston. The population of Harrisburg dwindled with the loss of the railroads and with the widening of the Houston Ship Channel in 1919. By the 1920s, the population was down to 1400 or so, and whatever Harrisburg had in the way of local governance had disappeared. The City of Houston annexed it in 1926.

Since Harrisburg was a "town" or a "community" for many years, there are a lot of families with parents and grandparents who were born there.

[sinister1]

Thanks for the responses but this really doesn't answer my question, Harrisburg, Stephen Austin, The Allen brothers came later, I find it hard to beleive that this area had no Spanish or Native Indian name pre Anglos. I am actally looking for pre-Harrisburg\Frost Town when the area was still Mexico and before Americans were granted land rights. But non the less thanks.

[kylejack]

Does anyone know what are some of the oldest buildings in what was formerly Harrisburg?

[FilioScotia]

Oh - THAT's what you wanted. Your original question didn't indicate how far back you wanted to go.

The only Indians known to have lived in the general area now known as Galveston and Houston were the Karankawas, who are now extinct. They were there when the Spanish and French were exploring this region in the 1500s and 1600s. They managed, somehow, to survive until the 1850s, when they were literally exterminated.

Here's a link to a fine article about them in the Texas State Historical Association's Handbook Online:

http://www.tshaonlin.../articles/bmk05

[Pleak]

pantanos infestados de insectos.

[IHB2]

Thanks for the responses but this really doesn't answer my question, Harrisburg, Stephen Austin, The Allen brothers came later, I find it hard to beleive that this area had no Spanish or Native Indian name pre Anglos. I am actally looking for pre-Harrisburg\Frost Town when the area was still Mexico and before Americans were granted land rights. But non the less thanks.

The short answer is that pre-Anglos the Houston area had no formal name on Spanish maps. Anahuac, which was founded after Anglo arrival, was the closest named settlement on an 1830 map, and earlier maps showed the name "Arcaquisas" (Arkokisa on an 1835 map, by which time Harrisburg and Lynchburg are on the map) roughly at the northern tip of Galveston/Trinity Bays. There was a failed Spanish mission St. Agustin there, gone by the mid-1700s. Closer to the coast Karankawa denoted the area roughly from Galv Bay to Matagorda. After Anglos arrived the area is shown only as part of the Williams and Austin Colonies.

Since Texas was nothing more to Spain than a buffer between the riches of Mexico and French Louisiana, the Spanish didn't even attempt to map southeast Texas until the 1700s. As long as they just occupied Nacogdoches and Adaes as border posts, all they really cared about was good mapping between that part of east Tx and San Antonio.

When Anglos 1st arrived in the early 1820s there were no more than 2000 Spanish-descent people in all of Spanish Tx after over 200 yrs of settlement, which pretty much sums up the level of Spanish interest in Tx as a colony.

[IHB2]

pantanos infestados de insectos.

jajajajaja

[august948]

When Anglos 1st arrived in the early 1820s there were no more than 2000 Spanish-descent people in all of Spanish Tx after over 200 yrs of settlement, which pretty much sums up the level of Spanish interest in Tx as a colony.

It wasn't so much that the Spanish government wasn't interested in Texas as that they couldn't convince anyone to move there. Only the anglos were interested.

[Earlydays]

It wasn't so much that the Spanish government wasn't interested in Texas as that they couldn't convince anyone to move there. Only the anglos were interested.

A key factor were the Commanches...they put a major damper on all colonization efforts.

[plumber2]

A key factor were the Commanches...they put a major damper on all colonization efforts.

and mosquitos!

[Ross]

I don't think the Comanches were this far South and East.

[FilioScotia]

The Comanche territory -- Comancheria -- covered much of the midwest, and it reached far south into all corners of Texas.

Remember it was the Comanches that attacked Fort Parker near present day Waco in 1836, and took Cynthia Ann Parker. They were practically everywhere in those times, but it's not accurate to say they "put a major damper on colonization."

The truth is that colonists came in by the thousands from practically everywhere, despite the Comanches. A few people may have avoided Texas because of the Indian threats, but a lot more people packed up and came anyway.

Check out this article by the Texas State Historical Association: http://www.tshaonlin.../articles/bmc72

[rsb320]

I had remembered reading something about indian arrow heads being found at McFaddin Beach on Bolivar. This suggests they were Paleoindian artifacts. http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/mcfaddin/index.html

[ArchFan]

Interesting discussion, especially IHB2's post.

I've always found it odd that Anahuac has a Nahuatl (Aztec) name ... which BTW, means "land between the waters", so I guess it does make sense. That's also the name of the valley in Mexico that was the center of Aztec culture (where Mexico City is now).

For the same vicinity, www.texasbeyondhistory.net (search for El Orcoquisac) tells a compelling story about the Spanish response to French encroachment into "their" territory. (That site is really good; The Texas Almanac is also good, but not as much detail.) In 1756 the Spanish established a mission (Nuestra Señora de la Luz del Orcoquisac) and a nearby presidio (San Agustín de Ahumada) at the site of a former French trading post, near present-day Wallisville. They were described as “two of the most misfortune-ridden outposts of Spain in Texas”, with insects, disease, and internal conflicts. After acquiring Louisiana from France in 1763, the Spanish lost interest in the area and didn't see any value in maintaining the mission/presidio, being so isolated from the settled areas of Texas.

That does seem to support IHB2's comment about the Spanish mostly being interested in this area as a buffer zone. Despite that, we should not forget the Tejano community, and not just those who sacrificed to support Texas independence. However, I think that the bulk of that community was in the San Antonio area. (I say that with a wave to the Canary-Islanders in Floresville :-)

[IHB2]

the Comanches discussed above were a much better deterrent to any possible French or filibuster designs on Texas than anything the Spanish could have done to garrison an indefensible border with Louisiana. just the distance from that border to the Rio Grande and all the bad things in between were enough buffer.

[hbcu]

If the indians were there first, how come the Anglos get credit for the land? If anything, they stole it...right?

[Pleak]

Nah, the Spanish stole and sold it to the Anglos. And the Comanches stole it from the Indians who lived there before them as the Comanches migrated down from somewhere around Montana. And I'm sure the group that the Comanches stole it from had stolen it from the previous squatters.

And so on, back to when the group wandering across the Bering Strait ruined the pristine wilderness by stealing it from the alligators and mosquitos.

[ArchFan]

I basically agree with Pleak. Though, I guess there's room for discussion about where the line is between squattership and ownership. One could argue that, as population density increases, social contracts (i.e., ownership status) are viable means for arbitrating usage rights for land. At an earlier stage, tho', when an a band of people arrive and camp in a place, say, 10 miles from another tribe of 30 hunter/gatherers, are they "stealing"?

The Valley of Mexico is said to have had a population (at least a million, as i recall) larger than any European city when Cortez arrived with a few hundred soldiers in 1519. Prior to that, the area had gone through cycles of the currently dominant local tribe being subjugated by agressive invaders from the north, who themselves settled in as the new dominant tribe, became decadent, and therefore became easy prey for the next wave of invaders. The non-dominant local tribes had to pay various kinds of tribute to the dominant tribe and generally hated them. That helped Cortez to get local allies against the Aztecs, whom he could not have subjugated without help.

In the Houston area, there were no such large, dense population centers, with extensive use of agriculture, such as would support a complex culture like in the Valley of Mexico. The Mexican authorities invited English-speaking Americans in to act as a buffer and reduce attacks in their more highly colonized areas. One could say that it was a short-term decision that had bad long-term consquences, in terms of maintaining Mexico's claim to the territory claimed by Spain.

[plumber2]

There was one spanish speaking colony in Texas called the DeLeon Colony. It was just as successful as the Stephen F. Austin colony. The colonists were loyal to the Texas revolution and many served in the Texas Army with General Sam Houston. However, after Texas won indepence, uneducated anglo settlers robbed and killed DeLeon family members, and other spanish speaking colonists. Most anglos considered spanish speaking citizens as traitors because they just didn't know any better. Lands were eventually stolen or "acquired" by anglos through less than legal means. Remaining spanish speaking citizens were forced into a parallel sub culture that was not allowed to prosper.

[NenaE]

Interesting history IHB2. And Pleak, hahaha. Ain't that the truth...finders keepers? Well, maybe until the next group arrives. I like the one Anglo's quote...You Can all go to Hell, I'm going to Texas! Believe it was Travis who said that. Correct me if I'm wrong. The oldest, original blogs. in Harrisburg were burned by Santa Ana.

[little frau]

Blogs were around back in Santa Ana's day? Guess they were written on paper, that would explain the burning!

Just messing with you NenaE, looks like something in your above post was edited out.

[FilioScotia]

***"Since you have chosen to elect a man with a timber toe to succeed me, You can all go to Hell, I'm going to Texas! Believe it was Travis who said that. Correct me if I'm wrong.***

I waited a couple of days for someone to correct you on that Nena, so I will. Actually, it was Davy Crockett who made that famous parting shot, after losing re-election to his seat in Congress in 1835.

The "timber toe" reference was aimed at the man who defeated him, Adam Huntsman, who had a wooden leg.

[NenaE]

Haha...you too. Correct me anytime...I was too lazy to look it up, just remembered a guys TShirt, reading it, wishing I had one, love that quote!

No little Frau, that's called me trying to return to HAIF, using an IPad. I'll get it, eventually. I do like that edit key, though. Did not see that, that's funny, blog.