Lone Star: A History Of Texas And The Texans

by T.R. Fehrenbach

An insider's history of Texas that examines the people, politics, and events which have shaped the Lone Star State, from prehistory to the modern day

Here is an up-to-the-moment history of the Lone Star State, together with an insider's look at the people, politics, and events that have shaped Texas from the beginning right up to our days. Never before has the story been told with more vitality and immediacy. Fehrenbach re-creates the Texas saga from prehistory to the Spanish and French invasions to the heyday of the cotton and cattle empires. He dramatically describes the emergence of Texas as a republic, the vote for secession before the Civil War, and the state's readmission to the Union after the War. In the twentieth century oil would emerge as an important economic resource and social change would come. But Texas would remain unmistakably Texas, because Texans "have been made different by the crucible of history; they think and act in different ways, according to the history that shaped their hearts and minds."

Genres: History, Nonfiction, American History, Audiobook, Historical, American, Westerns

792 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1968

About the author

Theodore Reed Fehrenbach, Jr. was an American historian, columnist, and the former head of the Texas Historical Commission (1987-1991). He graduated from Princeton University in 1947, and had published more than twenty books, including the best seller Lone Star: A History of Texas and Texans and This Kind of War, about the Korean War.

Although he served as a U.S. Army officer during the Korean War, his own service is not mentioned in the book. Fehrenbach also wrote for Esquire, The Atlantic, The Saturday Evening Post, and The New Republic. He was known as an authority on Texas, Mexico, and the Comanche people. For almost 30 years, he wrote a weekly column on Sundays for the San Antonio Express-News. T.R. Fehrenbach was 88 years old at the time of his death.

Reviews

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Like Michener's novels, T.R. Fehrenbach starts at the beginning. I mean the beginning. As in the Ice Age. This makes Lone Star a broad, ambitious history, but also saps its strength towards the end. Up to and through the Civil War, there is a lot of great detail, fascinating personages, and rollicking stories. Then we get to the last couple hundred pages dealing with Texas in the 20th century and we get broad strokes, no personalities, and vague racism. (The book was originally written in 1968, but updated in 2000. As far as I can tell, the only thing that was updated was a mention that George W. Bush became president Whohoo!).

I liked Lone Star a great deal, but my joy is duly tempered. The greatness of the first half just barely supports the sub-par second half. As the author admits, Texas history up till the Civil War is a great adventure. Once the Civil War and Reconstruction rolls around, the moral atmosphere becomes cloudy. It's less easy to view segregation and Indian hunting through the prism of adventure.

This book's great attribute is the skill of its writer. Fehrenbach has never gotten the acclaim of a Shelby Foote (perhaps because he never appeared on a kick-butt documentary), but he shares a lot of Foote's abilities. He is a great writer. Take a load of this passage:

The land, the climate, the sense of endlessness yet constant change made all who came there hospitable, patriotic, violent, and brave. In the Indian it produced mysticism, as he wailed his death songs to the earth, the cold moon, and sun. In the Hispanic breast it made a communion with Nature, a poetry, a willingness to ride the broad vistas, pause under moss-hung oaks, and be. The Anglo had no eye for beauty, less feel for rock-ribbed soil. Yet the land was too big even for big men to develop and destroy. He fenced it, damned it, threw his cattle over it in prodigal hordes; he farmed it, and in drought and shattering hail and cold, cursed Nature and Nature's God. Yet all these acts were in their own way acts of love. The Anglo-Saxon laced his soil with his own and other men's blood; it would take his bones, and monstrous artifacts, and still remain. The sun would remain, while men must die. The moon would rise again, while civilizations fell. In the end would be the earth. Texas, under any name, would go on forever.

It's high-blown, overly generalized, and clearly ethnocentric. It's also interesting, powerful, vigorous. Or take this brief, weighted description of William Travis, the young lawyer-turned soldier who commanded the Alamo:

Buck Travis was one of those most fortunate of men; on the grim stone walls of the Alamo he had found his time and place. He was between twenty-five and twenty-seven years of age.

Lone Star traces Texas from the dinosaurs, through the Texas Revolution, its short-lived status as a Republic, and its history as an independent-minded state. I loved the writing. I loved how he made certain characters come alive: Travis, Sam Houston, Texas Ranger Jack Hays.

I quibble a little with the historical facts. For instance, Fehrenbach clings to the old chestnut that the Alamo was defended by 180 men, a figure that comes from San Antonio's alcalde, who counted bodies inside the fort. This number doesn't count those who attempted to escape, and were cut down by Ramirez y Sesma's lancers (in total, it seems there were some 250 defenders).

Also, Fehrenbach relates some truly unbelievable casualty figures. He relates numerous battles where the Texas Rangers met with the Comanche, and the Comanche end up losing 30 dead or 60 dead warriors. Come on! Be critical of your sources. For instance, there is one Ranger attack on a village of 60 families with 125 warriors. Two warriors per family? Really? Indian demographics have never allowed for such a thing. Nor for the ability to sustain the kind of losses that Fehrenbach reports, undoubtedly relating verbatim the wide-eyed reports of the Rangers (and could there be a worse witness than a man under the duress of battle who also happens to be virulently racist and have a vested interest in inflating the casualty lists?)

Another big problem I had was the treatment of blacks and Mexicans throughout the book. It's not overtly racist; indeed, Fehrenbach does seem to try for fairness in a 60's sort of way. However, there is constant patronization of these groups, especially blacks. I read these passages without anger, calmed by the presidency of Barack Obama and hopes for a post-racial, enlightened America. Still, some of the crap Fehrenbach is peddling - about how integration is against human nature - is ignorant garbage no matter what era you're in. For instance, at one point, Fehrenbach chides the Federal government and the Supreme Court for its "dangerous experimentation." At this point, I nearly quit. That's what you call integration? I'm sorry, for a second there, I thought that laws forcing employees to pay their workers, allowing people the right to vote and own property, and to enter public buildings, were a good and noble thing. You know, basic human and legal rights. I guess I was wrong. They were dangerous experiments.

Okay, so maybe these parts made me a little angry. They are incredibly ignorant. I'll chalk it up to the period in which this book was originally written.

On the whole, this is a good story well told.

I think of Texas as a sort of American Jerusalem. It is the place you can go where your sins will be forgiven and you can begin anew. The Anglo men who originally swarmed over its borders were failures: they ran from broken marriages, lost loves, failed businesses, lost elections. They were men like Travis, a modest lawyer looking for greatness; or Houston, who'd lost his chance for the presidency after his wife left him; or Crockett, who dared challenge Andy Jackson and lost his place in Congress. By any measure, these were middle aged losers who found, inconceivably, a second chance to reach for the stars. Texas gave them a chance for success, for immortality. The State embodies the American ethos that the smallest among us can reach great heights; that it is not who you are, but what you might become; and that while you are alive, there's still a second chance out there. Or a third. Or a fourth.

[Hope · Rating 1 out of 5]

Book Challenge Category: A Book With More Than 800 Pages

I love Texas. I love the land and the people. But, it is also important to face the uncomfortable parts of our history-- honestly and forthrightly. But this book is not one to do this.

I love the descriptions and personalizations of Austin and Houston. And the level of detail in this book gives so much more context than my Texas History books in school. But, I have no patience for sympathy towards slavery, demonization of Native people, and I can not abide "The War Between The States" (as opposed to the Civil War). So, this book made me realize how much I don't know about the history of my beloved state-- but I need to find a better volume.

[Derek · Rating 5 out of 5]

It only took me about 4 1/2 months, but I finally finished this mammoth book. At 750+ pages, sometimes I felt like I was reading War and Peace, but it hardly ever lagged, and was persistently well-written and informative.

Having moved to Texas a few years ago, this book answered many questions that I once had about this state and its inhabitants. Questions such as:

• Where did all of these street and city names come from? (Austin, Houston, Travis, Lamar, San Jacinto, etc.)
• Why are we supposed to remember the Alamo? (Answer: William Travis was a badass)
• Texas fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War, right? How did that go? (Spoiler: not so well)
• Who were the Texas Rangers? (Spoiler: no mention of Chuck Norris in this book)
• All that Wild West, cowboys-and-Indians shootout stuff is just myth, right? (Answer: no, and you wouldn't have lasted two minutes there, you lily-livered horse thief)
• What happened to the Indians? (Answer: the story of the Comanches will make you rethink everything you hold sacred)
• What's the deal with all that Texas Pride? (Answer: veni vidi vici, suckers)
• Why do people keep voting for Rick Perry? (Admittedly, still somewhat of a mystery to me)

I had one small complaint about the book, which is probably due to my status as a non-native Texan living in the year 2011. To Fehrenbach's credit, he doesn't fall victim to historical presentism by passing too much judgment on the ethics of Texas's past. But I feel that the author crosses a line at a certain point when he begins to talk of these controversial practices and events (for example, slavery and Indian extermination) as not only understandable, but "logical" (he uses this word) responses to the situations and needs of the time. It's one thing to understand it, but quite another to endorse it.

The author does force you to imagine yourself in the same situation as these early Texans: If you were living on the frontier, at constant threat from either wars with Mexico on one side or Indian attacks on the other and you had been brought up in a culture that believed it was morally and racially superior (as many cultures do), wouldn't you have acted in the same way? It's difficult to pass too much judgment when you think about it in this light (even though they were still wrong). Fehrenbach definitely has a more realistic and pragmatic approach to history than I'm used to reading, and at times, it made me a little uncomfortable (a good thing, I believe).

All in all, an entertaining and informative read. Well worth it!

[Jo · Rating 2 out of 5]

I did not find Lone Star an easy book to read. This had nothing to do with its length and everything to do with Fehrenbach's frequent editorializing and his attitudes towards Native Americans, African Americans, and Mexicans. I understand that Texas is unique but I tired of reading that there was so much about the state and its frontier conditions that Easterners did not comprehend.

Fehrenbach's racial terminology leaves a lot to be desired. I kept reminding myself that the book was first published in 1968 but, even so, his references to "wild Indians" and "howling Indians" grated. There's a great deal of stereotyping, too, about the "Mexican soul". And I disagree with his view that Reconstruction was unnecessary.

I'm giving it two stars because I did actually learn a lot about Texas history, but there were several times when I found the author's opinions and biases so unpalatable that I almost abandoned the volume.

[Deb (Readerbuzz) Nance · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lone Star is seven hundred sixty-seven pages of fascinating stories about Texas. It’s all here---the original peoples, the Spanish explorers, the Mexican settlers, the American settlers, the wars, and Texas as part of Mexico, Texas as an independent nation, and Texas as part of the United States. As I read along, I kept thinking how much reading these stories explains a lot about the way Texas is now---the conflicts on the border today mirroring conflicts on the border many years ago, the desire of Texans to be independent of a central government, the way the rainfall on the land has shaped the agriculture and ranching of the state. A compelling read.

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is another book that I received as a secret Santa gift that I would not have picked out for myself. And boy what a fantastic choice it was.

Lone Star is a sweeping history of Texas, originally published in 1968 and then updated for a re-release in 2000. It covers the entire range of human occupation of the land, starting with the original arrival of early man during the last ice age and proceeding through the end of the 20th century. (My edition is 725 pages long.)

A book of this length and scope could easily suffer from an overwhelming amount of detail or a dry academic style trudging linearly through the decades (or both). True, the book contains thousands of names and dates that I won't pretend to remember, but it does an excellent job alternating between narrating those specific historical events and pulling the camera back for a wider view of history. The details are always put in a broader context.

The writing is also just plain engaging. Fehrenbach has a knack for story-telling, and he fills the narrative with personality. The style seems intentionally patterned in some ways on Gibbon's Decline and Fall. Here, for example, are a couple paragraphs on the migration patterns of hunter-farmers:

They divided their time among hunting, fishing, and backbreaking work, and like the pure hunter, they were crowded by more industrious neighbors. When the Indians were gone, and the country settled up, with newer, richer settlers rising all around, this class tended to sell out or move out, heading on. These men were adventurous, restless, and in terms of organized society, shiftless; but they were stubbornly proud and Calvinistic for all of that. They were freedom-loving. They scorned to work for wages or to be tenant to another man. In fact, they probably worked harder and gained less with the rifle than they might have done with the plow, and they held themselves to be equal with any man.

Again and again, the hunter-settler packed up his few belongings, his grubby children, and his gaunt woman and wandered on. He rarely changed his condition but merely repeated his former life. He carried certain dreams, and certainly a certain heartbreak, with him where he went. He tended to despise the successful gentry, the lawyers, the merchants, and their airs. This man, like the trapper before him, was a true pioneer; he helped break a savage land, but he paid a savage price. His kind made up the mass of poor whites on the Southwestern frontier.

The prose is a little purple (e.g., "grubby children" and "gaunt woman"), but it makes reading this much history really entertaining.

The other refreshing aspect of this history is that, because it was originally written in 1968, to my ear it seems delightfully free of modern politically-correct ax-grinding. Fehrenbach describes the savagery of the way the Texans persecuted the Indian tribes, but he also provides the gruesome details of the treatment the other way; he describes not only the racism of the Southern whites but also the challenges that came with post-Civil War emancipation of the slaves. From what I can tell, Fehrenbach has directly addressed topics that modern historians would either tip-toe around or only mention after extensive self-flagellation. As a result, the book contains passages like:

The morality of this opening border warfare was meaningless, because morality could only be defined within a culture, never across two cultures. The moral, upstanding Comanche who lived by the laws and gods of his tribe enjoyed heaping live coals on a staked-out white man’s genitals; a moral Mexican, for a fancied insult, would slip his knife into an Anglo back. The moral Texan, who lived in peace and amity with his fellows, would bash an Indian infant's head against a tree, or gut-shoot a “greaser” if he blinked. Relations between disparate cultures were to be determined, as always, by the relative strength and weakness of each, and by the dynamic or regressive nature displayed by Anglos, Indians, and Mexicans. Relations could not be governed by individual, internal ethics or morals any more than history had been determined by such parameters in the past. The great change the frontier Texan made from the Anglo-American mainstream in these years was the real, if unarticulated, understanding that his enemies were "different."

I'm not even informed enough to have opinions about whether Fehrenbach is correct with his descriptions; it is just nice to read coverage of challenging periods in American history with writing that is straight-forward and without a bunch of awkward modern throat-clearing.

If I have one small criticism of the book, it is that the coverage of the 20th century feels rushed after all the time spent on the 18th and 19th centuries. As soon as the narrative arrives at 1900, it just hurries through a decade at a time of factual history (with some statistics about Texas's growth lumped in) before abruptly ending. That is perhaps to be expected given when the book was originally written, but I am surprised the year 2000 revision didn't further flesh out at least the first half of the 20th century. It may have been more elegant to conclude after the reconstruction era.

Regardless, I really enjoyed this book and would strongly recommend it to anyone interested in Texas history.

[Ashton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Finally finished this behemoth of a book. Could not recommend it more to anyone interested in Texas History. You’ll learn something new on every page. There were some parts that we’re exciting and some areas I found less stimulating (when political parties were discussed).

[Ayne Ray · Rating 4 out of 5]

It can be argued that Austin is to Texas what Lawrence is to Kansas (for all my Kansas brethren, you know what I mean), and I’ll admit that I had many stereotypical ideas about Texas before I moved to its capitol city. But I’ve found it to be a truly unique state with a fascinating history, and Texans have a rather singularly deep appreciation for the sense of place and identity the state stamps upon its citizens. So forget what you think you know, and take a look at Texas with a pair of fresh eyes; what you’ll find is a state with a rich and varied cultural tapestry that is unlike any other. While I consider myself a Midwesterner more than simply a Kansan or a Texan (although there’s a little Southern in there as well, thanks to North Carolina), I’ve learned to love this place and can’t imagine calling anywhere but Austin home. Hook ‘em!

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Flags change, but the land remains."

Fehrenbach's 1968 (updated in 2000) history of Texas (and Texans) is a wonderfully colorful, often brutal, account of one of the (if not the) most culturally unique states in the Union. In Fehrenbach's history, the land and the people remain the constants, even if the flags switch out or the demographics shift.

He deftly takes us through the period where each of the six flags (Spain, France, Mexico, Republic of Texas, Confederate States, and United States) flew over texas -- focusing less on the political machinations of the owners of said flags, than on the perceptions, beliefs, psychological underpinnings that made Texans Spanish, French, Mexican, Texian, Confederate, or American.

There's intractable indian fighting, there's open range war, there's healthy (and unhealthy) distrst of all things capitalistic or Eastern (or even governmental) -- and Fehrenbach covers all of it with vivid prose and plenty of insight on how the Texan mentality/psychology/mythos/mythology arose.

Unfortunately, his history largely stopped around the end of the 19th century and the start of the 20th. Given that this was written in 1968, that's somewhat understandable as there's not enough removal from the present to gain perspective -- but there's a clear dividing line as Fehrenbach book enters the 20th century. While trhe first 4/5 are a history centered around people and peoples, the 20th century and last 1/5 is largely devoid of personalities and becomes more a history of faceless "forces" and it becomes filled with more and more general pronouncements of how certain groups act/react rather than an exploration with specifics of how/why . This is particularly so as Fehrenbach attempts to tackle 20th century racial dynamics - he does the best he can, but it feels.....thin and half-hearted (and a TAD too forgiving of the white majority). The 2000 update doesn't really add much beyond a quick recap of the politics of Texas at the gubernatorial level.

But as a history of the land and its peoples until the 20th century, "Lone Star" is a tremendously valuable and readable work.

[Scott McCoy · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was really impressive in its depth and detail. As a Floridian who moved to Texas and married a Texan, it really helped me understand a lot of the culture and background behind the proud people of this state.

I think the author does a good job focusing on the thorough history of Texas and the people who lived there. He talks a lot about the ethnic groups who have lived in the United States, Mexico, and Texas, makes strong claims on values and prejudices within each ethnic group in a way that helps explain the motive behind different peoples’ lifestyles and decisions (he does this for all groups, the Comanches, Mexicans, Black Americans, and Anglo-American Texans). Though it may be hard to avoid, because fleshing out the cultural versus individual values that influence peoples’ decisions are probably too complex for a broad history book, it did sometimes make me uncomfortable and hesitant at how broadly he categorically grouped each ethnic groups’ values and motives. Though he seemed to attempt to avoid giving his own personal opinion, when it did come out, it felt he was sometimes a bit too harsh, and sometimes too lenient. What actually happened historically is more clear; the cultural or personal motives that drove their decisions is more debatable, and the author does make some strong claims at times on these motives, that make me wonder if other historians would agree or not.

Overall, it was an enlightening, helpful, thorough book on the history of a state and people who will probably continue to be influential in America and the world for centuries to come.

[Alexander Debkaliuk · Rating 5 out of 5]

Enjoyed the book thoroughly. Great way to quench my sudden thirst for Texas history and general interest in US history.

Author brings together global and local perspectives, tackles the complete history of the region, down to late 20th century; small details of day-to-day lives, high-level impact on US (incl. Americas, world) history and politics, describes the spirit, mind and thinking of Texans, all in a well balanced (to my taste) mix of 'interesting' and 'comprehensive'.

Took a while to get through the book, but only because of how little time I manage to allocate for reading lately. Was not considering abandoning this volume at any time.

Key thing I took from the book is better understanding of Americans in general, and Texans in
particular.

Great experience start to finish.

[John Connolly · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good history of Texas but was lacking in a few areas. It mentioned the history of what happened to minority Texans at the hands of Angelo Texans (usually bad things) but did not tell the history of these minority Texans themselves. I would have loved to have read more of the what the African American, Mexican and Indian Texans were doing and feeling rather than just what was happening to them at the hands of other Texans. Also it focuses more on Old Texas history rather than modern history. It’s not the book to read if you’re curious about the most recent 50 years of Texas history. I wanted to know more how Texas culture (Cowboys, country music, small town football) has developed in Texas in recent times but there was very little of that. Still glad I read it.

[Cindy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Learn the fascinating history of Texas.

[Mandy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think it’s taken me fifteen years to finish this tome, a journey I started because my dad gave it to me, and I’m a seventh generation Texan. Fehrenbach has some great insights, but the book keeps climaxing in platitudes that it seems to deconstruct moments later. I really liked the sections on the Texas Revolution and modern Texas, including that Pappy O’Daniel was a real politician who came to power through radio shows playing country music (fans of the movie O Brother Where Art Thou, take note) and defeated young LBJ in the senate.

[Markus · Rating 4 out of 5]

Texas is quite a place, with quite a history. Today, Austin, Texas is relevant in becoming an epicenter for stand-up comedy, which is where the Estonian Ari-Matti also has become famous in. We must start much earlier though.

America is a civilization of white European Christians. They came to a new land to create something out of nothing and it was a hard life most people couldn't last a few days in but it had a sense of freedom. They built a new free world that was based on European civilizations and yet it was different, it was new. These people were religious and enjoyed a simple life, but they took care to maintain their freedoms, so they read a lot. Some publications of newspapers reached almost every family in Texas and 95% of the whites could read and write in the middle of the 19th century - a better average than any European nation.

There was still slavery as there was in all the rest of the world until white Europeans abolished it but still only about 5% of whites held slaves. Even still, black slaves were investments, so their lives were generally better than the lives of poor white workers - better food, better access to health care for example as owners couldn't afford sick slaves. Many slaves were also permitted to earn money by making shoes, for example. In any case, lives were miserable for most people back then.

Texas was a significant place in American history at least in the sense that it lied in the very periphery of civilization, encountering American Indians (the Amerind) and Mexicans - both cultures of extreme violence and hostility as we're about to see.

The conflict with Mexicans is said to have started with the massacre of Alamo in the Mexican controlled area of present-day Texas where a garrison of about 100 Texans were killed in 1836 by the 1500 strong Mexican army lead by Santa Anna. In the garrison, a letter of call to arms was sent out by an officer which bears to be repeated here. Before you read this just imagine the contrast between these men and the politicians of today who import millions of Third World immigrants, who hate the Western culture, just to get votes and more political power.

Fellow Citizens and Compatriots:

I am besieged with a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I have sustained a continual Bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have not lost a man. The enemy has demanded surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison is to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken. I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the wall. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism, and everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due his honor and that of his country.

VICTORY OR DEATH.

William Barret Travis
LT. COL. COMD'T.

Anyway, all the Texans were eventually killed in the garrison, but it sparked something in the spirit of the Texans that couldn't be stopped. Adding to that, another 450 Texan soldiers were massacred in 1836 in the town of Goliad after they surrenders in the belief that they'd be set free in a few weeks.

Thus, we come to the battle of San Jacinto in the same year, where about 900 Texan soldiers led by Sam Houston (the future president of the Republic of Texas) were pursued by a veteran Mexican force of about 1200-1300 soldiers led by Santa Anna. These Texans weren't professional soldiers but volunteers with minimal training who had been riled up to fight for Texas after the Alamo massacre. In contrast, the Mexican force comprised of veteran Mexican soldiers who had been toughened up in Mexican internal wars - the best soldiers Mexico had to offer. So, in essence it was a clearly superior force pursuing a smaller and inferior force, but what Santa Anna didn't consider was that these were Texan frontiersmen who had learned to shoot rifles since they were small boys hunting anything they could get. In addition to that they weren't predictable as a regular army would be.

Sam Houston knew that he had to fight the Mexicans in his own terms and he led himself into an apparent trap and garrisoned next to a river. They were surrounded by the Mexican army who settled down to rest after a long pursuit, getting ready for battle the following day behind garrisons of their own. Sam Houston held a war council and since the army was sick of backing down from the Mexicans and itching to avenge the massacred Texans from Alamo and Goliad, all the companies voted to attack immediately. Then they traversed almost a mile of open grassland in a bright sunny day and somehow caught the Mexicans by surprise having a FUCKING SIESTA and then killed most of them, shouting "REMEMBER THE ALAMO" and took Santa Anna prisoner for future negotiations. That's how the West was won.

Then there were the Indians. The most dominant tribe among the Amerind were the Comanche as they were the first to master the horse. They maintained their dominance over the other tribes by attacking, killing and torturing other tribes and encountering the whites, they did the same. These weren't some peaceful pipe-smoking, song-and-dance-loving nature lovers as they're propagandized to be in modern media, these were blood-thirsty savages. They raided American frontiersmen for HUNDREDS of years before the conflict culminated by their eventual loss to the Texans. These raids were largely done to peaceful farmers and they regularly killed, tortured and raped these whites and took the young girls as slaves. YES THEY HAD SLAVES TOO. And yes, according to this book and other books, (Empire of the Summer Moon), it was indeed the culture of the Amerind TO TORTURE and RAPE anyone they attacked. This also applied to the Mexicans but not to the whites. Everyone knew that you cannot surrender to the Indians as you will be tortured and killed no matter what.

The Amerind were incapable of complying by treaties as according to their culture, they followed only those they respected. Thus, if an Indian chief made a treaty with the Americans, the Indians could just decide they don't respect that chief anymore and the treaty was thus void. Indeed, even the most peaceful of the Indian tribes still carried on these raids and killed and stole from whites whenever they could. They attacked soft targets and quickly retreated so the regular means of passive defense didn't really work against the Amerind. It's quite sickening to read from this book and others these matter-of-fact descriptions of rape and torture that were regularly done to the whites, including children by these Amerind and it is deemed to be morally neutral as "it was their culture" but when the whites retaliated and started attacking the bison to deplete the main food source of the Amerind, then it is deemed to be "deeply cruel" by the whites and whoever else who hates Western culture. It's just blatant propaganda and quite sickening. If the Indians or Mexicans had won, they would've wiped out every single white face and declared it as a national holiday. It was always a racial war from the perspective of both sides, but only the whites showed any real sympathy towards their enemies, so much so that it has turned into the suicidal empathy that's plaguing the Western World today.

Anyway from this Indian threat the Texas Ranger was born, who were a sort of military force, tough and clever enough to deal with the Indians and Mexicans. They started using the Indian methods of attacks and raids on the Indians themselves and started gaining the upper hand along with the invention of the Colt Walker "six shooter". Anyway, the Indians couldn't be defeated with conventional means so Texans and the U.S. military started eliminating the Bison which was the main food source of the Indians, forcing them to live in reservations. They were indeed right and eventually the Indians gave up and retreated to the reservations.

Remember the Alamo.

[Scott Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read the 2000 version. I had this book on the shelf for a long time, but finally got around to reading it. Relearned a few things long forgotten from 7th grade history and picked up some new facts. For this book, you can tell it was written by someone from Texas and the South. The American Civil War is always referred to as the War Between the States. His focus centers on the land and the role of land in Texas. Fehrenbach doesn't take the approach that Texas is the greatest land on earth, nor does he slam the state and those who have lived in it for its flaws. The population of Texas, from the tribes who first settled Texas (Karwankawas, Comanches, etc) to the Spanish/Mexicans/ and Americans, has always been tied to the land. Whether it was for political purposes or farming, owning the land and tending all associated with Texas drives the actions of the state. The mindset of the people centers on land and resources. Much of his time is spent on the pre-1900 parts of Texas history, as nations and tribes fought over the land. Once 1900 rolls around, Texas is not really the "frontier" and its history moves into the realm of that of a settled establishment. This is not a quick read, but this is a good read for someone who wants an in-depth perspective on Texas history.

[Dac Crossley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lone Star is an excellent history of the state of Texas. Fehrenbach was born in San Benito - has to know what he is talking about! He has written a dozen or so historical works, and was head of the Texas History Commission (I forget the exact title of the organization).

I read this book on my iPad. This is the 1968 edition, revised in 2002. Wish he would revise it again - he must be in his mid-eighties. I will keep it on my iPad because I'm sure to refer to it from time to time.

If you're going to buy a history of Texas - this is the one.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

As big and brutal as the land it's about, 'Lone Star' is a comprehensive, poetic history. Ferenbach shows centuries of violence, opines why they were inevitable and why many of the greatest of Texans were the most violent. No one comes off well, from the First Nations to the assorted Europeans who either betrayed them, failed them, or fell in war with them.

Did I say 'brutal?'

This book is worth reading, but not quick. Don't let the dated racial terminology throw you off. Read, review think for yourself. But if you want a comprehensive history of Texas, this should be your first stop.

[Amy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Yikes! Seriously in-depth history of Texas. It took me like a year to read through the mission period, alone. Still, once you've slogged your way through a bit, you realize exactly how amazing Texas is. Umm, sorry to thse of you who think Texas is less than amazing. Read this, and maybe it will change your mind.

[Michael Holm · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have lived in Texas most of my life and finally this book explained it to me. Fehrenbach not only tells the history of Texas but explains the character of Texas and Texans. This book should be the textbook in public school Texas History classes. He is partial to Texans being one himself, but he is very thorough and even-handed. An excellent book.

[Mary · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall this is a solid history of Texas, written by one of the major Texas historians, and certainly worthwhile for anyone interested in the subject. It is highly readable, but I found that I could go back and forth from it, read lots of things at the same time.
The history I will endorse, but what is interesting to write about is his take on Texans, and Anglo-Americans, vis a vis American Indians, Mexicans and Latinos, and African-Americans. He has one line that utterly struck me - "The turn of the century notion of the melting pot was still in vogue, but obviously was not working, all the vast masses were no longer being Anglo-Americanized." I have what could be described as northern European heritage - German, Irish, English, Norwegian, and Scotch Irish - but certainly solidly "white", and among the results of the melting pot. More recently, though, the melting pot isn't melting, partly because of a a much greater acknowledgement of immigrant cultures, which are not "white" (typically a little to a lot browner, or more Asiatic), and partly, as Fehrenbach points out, because the whites simply would not accept that anything from those peoples would melt. I think he gets it right that the whites could not contemplate American Indian culture or mores, and that their actions were completely justified by their own standards - also true on the other side. Where I think he is limited, however, is that he considers that Texans are in fact white Anglos (and for that matter, male), with no perception on the author's part that perhaps the African Americans there and Mexicans who are increasingly arriving have as much right to be considered Texans as anyone, and that the definition should be re-conceived.
This book was originally written in 1968, and updated in 2000, and I found it fascinating that it notes that the educational system of Texas in the modern age remained fixed to the land, and did not "as Governor John Connolly fruitlessly warned, prepare Texans to compete in an increasingly conceptual and technical industrial society in the greater nation". This was presumably written in 1968, and it is interesting to see that 50 years later in 2018 that Dallas, although a finalist, was not selected to be one of Amazon's second headquarter sites - while it promised to step up its computer, etc., programs at Texas universities to produce a stronger cadre of potential employees, the sites that were selected by Amazon were in places where this investment had already taken place. (The Dallas Morning News covered this closely, and while a lot of Texans apparently felt that the decision was based on political outlook, the paper was advocating that the state recognize that it needed more STEM focus on its university offerings, and support this, even if there was not an immediate recognizable payoff.)

[John Gradoville · Rating 5 out of 5]

Texas History that starts with the most recent Ice Age. Really gets going with the arrival of the Spanish in Texas and their mis-steps caused by mad tales of cities of gold. Very good on the geographic and economic constrainst of early Spanish colonisation and why it failed.

Superb insightful re-telling of the Scots-Irish settlers from Tennessee and Kentucky and how they stamped their identity on Texas. Some of this part of Lone Star reads like a page out of hell, the harsh lives of poor families grubbing a living out of the unyielding land. But the author zooms out to show how these trials and hardships helped form the Texas character. Mr Fehrenbach should be commended for showing how the early Texans developed a courage and fortitude that was uniquely American. He contrasts this with the attitudes of the Easterners and their complete lack of understanding of the texan way of life. The hostility of soft men who had never experienced Commanche atrocities. He never quite says that Texans are the real Americans, but its an underlying theme.

The relationship between Texas and Mexico forms the spine of the middle third of Lone Star. it's richly detailed, with support from a large number of primary sources. Mr Fehrenbach shows how Santa Ana was terrible disaster for Mexico and a blessing in disguise for Texas.

The latter third of the book deals with the war between the states and the often painful interation of Texas into the Union.

Though clearly in love with his state, Mr Fehrenbach does his best not be partisan but often cannot resist extolling the virtues of Texas.

I though this was a fine book, especially so given that I had so little knowledge of Texas when I started it. It is meticulously researched and narrates the social and political development of the state carefully and lucidly. It shows the push-pull of the two great powers that tried to control it, The Mexicans and Washington. "Lone Star" is a truly compelling read.

I look forward to finding the time to read it again.

[Jackson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another great comprehensive history book by Fehrenbach, which I was motivated to read after finishing This Kind of War and wanting to know more about the state I grew up in. It is quite long (over 700 pages) but starts literally at the beginning of time and goes through up until the 1950s-60s which is when it was originally written. While there are definitely some dry spots in the book, the highlights are that you will get to know some very cool and foundational characters that influenced Texas as we know it today. From describing the many small and big battles between the Mexicans and getting to re-live some cowboys vs. Indian times, there is plenty here to keep the reader engaged. You will also get to learn about the political and economic aspects of the time and see what the viewpoint of slavery was from when they arrived in America to when they were still fighting for acceptance in the mid-20th century. The author has some quite racial overtones throughout, but if you can get past that, I think his opinions are actually closer to being unbiased and just matter-of-fact given that this was written by a white man in the 1960s. There is much to learn from this book and I highly recommend to anyone wanting a comprehensive history lesson on the Lone Star State.

[Maki Iatridis · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Texan author has imbibed too much Texas Koolaid. While the book provides an admirable breadth and depth of Texas history, the story is told with biased bravado that not only glorifies the bad, on many occasions, but also is incorrect at times, at least to events that I understand from my own independent knowledge, such as the causes and events of the Civil War to select one of several examples, which makes me skeptical about the depiction of other events of which I did not know before reading the book (and is heightened by his use of demeaning terms to describe various peoples and events). As a non-Texan, I appreciated learning about some history of Texas during my month visit to Texas but I have looked to other sources to get an accurate and balanced perspective. His multiple faulty and trite comparisons to Ancient Rome/Athens and contemporary Israel, for example, reveal elitism and an over-simplified misunderstanding that colors a superficial analysis and presentation at times.

[Jason Crow · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the best books of history and particularly of Texas history that I have read. Fehrenbach approaches the subject of the history of his home state with love and reverence for the state itself and for historical honesty. His work is far from revisionist and yet he still manages to avoid the pitfalls of an apologist as he deals with the politically and ethnically tricky topics that have cropped up in the story of Texas.
What makes this work special is that the author identifies the major groups and forces at work in the events of our history and deals with the interaction. In doing this, he often bypasses the popular details and goes right into they why things happened. For instance, his discussion of the Alamo siege was but a page and a half. His discussion of the state of Mexican politics and the different classes of Anglos that came to Texas and why is much more in depth.
If you want to learn from history, both the mistakes and the triumphs, this book is worth your time.

[Dacy Briggs · Rating 5 out of 5]

Finally (!) finished with this most epic book of the history of “Texas and the Texans”, after about 3 1/2 months of reading.

Fehrenbach’s descriptions of cultures colliding and the mayhem due to the fact is the big takeaway from this book about Texas. He then proceeds to bring about every single detail of said culture until he is blue in the face. So, you get to learn about the beginning, like very beginning of Texas land formations from before Paleo-Indians arrived to 1968 when Fehrenbach’s book came out. (He defends President Lyndon Johnson fervently, making me think that Johnson became hated in Texas due to Vietnam and the eventual abandoning of the Democrat party by Texas during Johnson’s time in office and that LBJ was a very hot-button issue in Texas at the time)

And literally every little detail in between. The details got to be a bit much, but I really enjoyed reading and learning more about my beloved home state.

[Davy Bennett · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best books I have ever read.
I still haven't read Micheners Texas.
I don't see how he could top this UT Professors account.
I always thought the Apaches were the toughest Indian tribe, pretty clear here it was the rootless Comanches. Mongols of the Plains. Very bad lads.

Sam Houston was unpopular, he advocated against Texas joining the Confederacy.
I even named an old cat of ours Throckmorton. Partly for the guy portrayed in here and partly for the bluesman Sonny Boy Throckmorton.
I grew up in Garfields hometown in Indiana so I am somewhat of an authority on cats. Kinky Friedman probably is too? He seems to know most stuff.
Townes Van Zandt died too young or else....

JFK and Nov. 22, 1963 was a black day in Texas and US and World history. RIP JFK, you were flawed but pretty sure you would have tried to keep us out of a Viet Nam escalation. The Man couldn't abide. It was a Murder Most Foul. Cue it up.

[Jennifer Elbert · Rating 5 out of 5]

For several decades, I planned to read this history of Texas by the highly regarded T. R. Fehrenbach. Finally, after reading Empire of the Summer Moon, (fabulous!) I decided now is the time. It took several months and I know I read at least half of it twice, because I kept re-reading parts, once I realized my eyes had glazed over. It is tedious. But the level of detail provides amazing insight and Fehrenbach's observations were fascinating. I finished it today and am so very glad to move onto something else, something lighter. I highly recommend this book, though! If you read it, please count the number of times the author uses the word, "atomistic." Pretty sure it's at least 20 times. Not that "atomistic" isn't a good word - it's very descriptive and relevant, but after seeing it again and again and again and again, it became annoying. If you're interested in Texas history, read Lone Star!

[Ben Adams · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fehrenbach’s Lone Star is an all encompassing historical narrative searching for the Texan soul. Where most histories are a catalogue of events, Fehrenbach uses those events to better inspect the development of the Texan ethnos— its peculiarities, its likes and dislikes, its charities and its evils.

Any such approach to history will of course tread on the toes of several types of people, but for me it is part of the appeal of historical study. Why read Thucydides if one doesn’t care to know the mind of a classical Greek? Why read Caesar if not to know the imperial stature of the Roman aristocrat? Fehrenbach finds the Texan mind shaped by the frontier hardships, descended from pioneers, pitted against the land and its caprice, and delivers it in epic fashion to his readers. The attitude of a people is developed over decades and centuries, and Fehrenbach artfully tells the story of the development of Texas and its Texans.

[Chuck Church · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lonestar by T.R. Fehrenbach is a monumental work of Texas history—long, dense, and unapologetically old school, but immensely rewarding. Yes, it shows its age at times, especially in language and assumptions that don’t align with modern standards of political correctness. And yes, it’s a commitment in sheer length alone. But taken on its own terms, this is still one of the most comprehensive and influential single volume histories of Texas ever written.

Fehrenbach weaves geography, culture, conflict, and personality into a sweeping narrative that helps explain why Texas became what it is, not just what happened. Even where one may disagree with his interpretations, the book provokes thought and invites deeper engagement with the state’s past. For anyone serious about understanding Texas history, identity, and mythmaking, Lonestar remains an essential, if imperfect, classic.