Throughout the narrative, Buenger’s study differs from Jordan’s views, contending that the frontiersman did not believe in partisan politics; they support the person that would assure them protection from Indian raids. They became highly critical of anyone who did not protect them as Indian raids increased in the late 1850s. They supported Runnels, not because of his secessionist view, but because he promised to protect them from raids. Unfortunately for Runnels, Indian raids increased. Runnels faced problems between the federal government and frontiersman when the army defended the Indians and Brazos Indian Agency against three hundred settlers led by John R. Baylor. The settlers wanted the federal government to remove the Brazos…show more content… His analysis agrees with the claims outlined by Jordan and Lundberg (below), that the cultural, economic, and political ideologies influenced the electorate to vote against secession in the Northern and Western counties of Texas. Following the analysis of these other counties he turns to Angelina by conducting an extensive analysis of twelve counties in the Eastern cotton plantation region, to include Angelina, utilizing Ashcraft analysis mentioned above. Also, McCaslin utilizes Timmons’ voting article to discover the voting participation record made by these counties during the 1860 Presidential election and secession vote. By analyzing the seventh and eights census reports, he outlines the population growth, the improved acreage, and the cotton production rate that occurred from 1850 to 1860 within each county. McCaslin analysis concludes that “the economic development of Angelina remained behind that of its neighbors.” His findings demonstrate that of the 116 slaveholding households in the county, they constitute only 17.3 percent of households, but accounted for 51.3 percent of the cotton crop, and possessing 39.3 percent of improved acreage. The previous claim by Lundberg of “economic power translated into political power, and the economic and political power rested in the hands of the slaveholders” holds true here as the slaveholding households exerted some economic influence in local politics, claiming eighteen out of forty-two county office positions. However, McCaslin asserts that the restrictions of geography prevented total political influence by the “planter elite.” He acknowledges that due to the sandy regions “only the bottomlands along waterways supported intensive agriculture.” Leaving a significant portion of the county infertile to the production of cotton, resulted in a smaller portion
