Print 🖨

The 1836 Project Advisory Committee met on June 22nd to discuss a draft pamphlet to be distributed to driver’s license applicants through DPS. A video of the hearing can be found here.

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics taken up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the discussions but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.

Opening Comments

Kevin Roberts – Chair

  • Formal adoption of final product scheduled for August 2nd, members discuss schedules

Discussion of Draft Pamphlet

  • HB 2497 requires committee to provide a pamphlet by Sept. 1st, 2022
  • Chair Roberts – appear to be ahead of schedule
  • Will discuss the pamphlet and provide feedback today, Dr. Frazier’s subcommittee will then bring back a final document to vote on later this summer
  • Don Frazier’s virtual opening remarks about the pamphlet
    • Started with an outline, then built a narrative that had two rounds of editions made to it
    • Third edition of the pamphlet will be they look over
    • Vision was to develop something that would provide support to incoming Texans during the licensing process
  • Roberts – Dr. Crimm and Mr. Woodward, I would love your comments about how the process went, and how much people had the opportunity to say their piece on the committee
    • Crimm – would have helped to have had commentary on the side to have known whose comments were whose but overall, it was a very effective way to do it
    • Woodward – Difficult to consolidate the story of Texas, so many great things, but we did a great job
  • Roberts – so grateful for all members of this committee for helping make this story about all Texans, not just one specific group or party
  • Roberts – any comments or questions that anyone wants to ask the subcommittee?
  • Sylvester – Scope of Texas committee had a couple tweaks, but aren’t we not also tasked with producing a longer report?
    • Roberts – you are entirely correct, but I do not know the timeline for that. I believe it is sometime after September first with the first being only the pamphlet
  • Sylvester – Commends committee because our history is being very politicized, and this is not a political piece
  • Roberts – opens document and discusses how changes will be made to the document based on agreement of each comment
  • Not going to take a vote on the entire pamphlet today but at the next meeting
  • Sylvester – would like to expand the diversity of Texas’ economic strength in the pamphlet, most specifically in the tech sector
    • Want to make sure people know the economic strength of Texas is no accident
  • Sylvester – Scope of Texas subcommittee is planning on doing a hearing closer to the end of August so that we can hear from many of the entrepreneurs that have come to Texas
    • Roberts – can get guidance for the final text and the hearings will be great for the legislature in the coming year
  • Beginning of their discussion of the pamphlet edits
  • Edison – there should be a page that includes state flag, flower, mottos, birds, etc.
    • Woodward – thinks that would be a great image piece of the pamphlet
    • Trabulsi – Should flag item E to group with other items
  • Trabulsi – Insert “European style” into a specific sentence in the pamphlet
    • Sylvester – also found that sentence troubling
  • Suggestions to add words for clarity in sentences
  • Discussion of whether the Battle of Medina should be included because of it being one of the largest battles in the State of Texas
    • Crimm – just add the three words regarding the one time it is included
  • Deletion of unnecessary language
  • Addition of language to clarify timeline
  • Discussion of whether to add a statement regarding the “opposition of loss of local control by the Mexican States”
    • Suggestion made
  • Crimm – wanting to add words by general Sam Houston, due to debate about whether it was said, they chose to leave it out
  • Sylvester – addition of words for greater clarification
  • Cutting words for greater clarity
  • Crimm – How did you all feel about the Dr. Amos Pollard?
    • Is he that well known that we would want to include him?
    • Comment is from Mr. Patterson
    • Trabulsi – anytime we tend to stay consistent with what we are seeking to accomplish and include non-Anglo Texans playing a role in our state it’s a good thing
  • Sylvester  and Robert discuss using the terms non-Anglos and Anglos
    • Robert- would recommend being specific about the specific regions and places that these Europeans developed
  • Roberts – for sake of the proportion of the document it appears we don’t want to include the name of doctor Pollard
    • Robert – I think that is the right choice
  • Sylvester – is it accurate to say both Anglo and Hispanic in the context of the sentence being discussed? Is that true and can we say that?
    • Woodward – I would suggest we change Hispanic to Tejano
  • Roberts – any further questions regarding this paragraph on page six?
    • Just clarification of what they now want to identify in that paragraph
  • Committee catches Patterson up on some information he missed earlier in meeting
    • “Loss of local control section”
    • Patterson – instead of saying several, we should say the number
  • They change that sentence to ‘8 Mexican states’ instead of ‘several’
  • Moves to bottom of page 6
  • Patterson – should we mention Juan Seguin
    • Sylvester – He was a native of San Antonio so certainly
    • Woodward – I think we need to change that last paragraph
  • Patterson – so Seguin was a native of Mexico?
    • Woodward – no he was a native of San Antonio, now they were all a piece of Mexico
    • Woodward – they were Tejanos living in Texas
    • Crimm – helps to clarify suggestions and plot them
  • Move to the page seven
  • Crimm – do we need to be specific about what they demanded and what the problems were? Think that is too great of detail
    • Roberts – we could change the word demanded
  • Crimm – discussion of grammatical fixes
  • Moving to page 8
  • Crimm – change the word ‘leaders’ to specify them as ‘Presidents’
  • Sylvester – believes that ‘Indian affairs’ leads to problem
    • Trabulsi – I think navigating problems is fine. Indian affairs are fine, and unrest works if we want to shorten
    • Crimm – unrest may only specify only some Indian groups, not all
    • Sylvester – recommends navigating Indian affairs
    • Roberts – agrees and makes change
  • Woodward – addition of words for more clarification
  • Cuts of further typos on page 8
  • Patterson – many Tejanos and other groups opposed slavery meaning that they may have supported the Union but that is not the case – need to find a way to greater specify their preference to serve for the south
    • Discussion of ways to make that revision
  • Edison – restate that Juneteenth is now a National Holiday
    • All agree
    • Specify that it originated here in Texas and now it is a national holiday
  • Page 9
  • Trabulsi – copy edit comment
  • Patterson – clarification of phrasing
  • Crimm – believes some of the language sounds negative, and wants to make it less biased to one side and more specify just exactly what happened
  • Members discuss changing quotes included on Page 9
  • Crimm – wants to further eliminate negative comments
  • Roberts – any other questions regarding the ninth page?
  • Crimm – wants to eliminate the inclusion of the 10th amendment phrase to include ‘state’s rights’
    • Roberts – strongly objects the phrase state’s rights because states don’t have rights people have rights’
  • Roberts – all for mentioning states and tenth amendment but I believe we fall into a rhetorical trap when using the phrase state’s rights
  • Woodward – maybe we should include the tenth amendment?
    • Crimm – we do not need to include the entire tenth amendment here
  • Sylvester – wants to acknowledge the 1876 reversal of rights for Native and African Americans
    • ‘As the state recovered…’
  • Patterson – where do we refer to Jim Crow?
    • Roberts – on page 10
  • Trabulsi – Will need to explain “Jim Crow laws,” could say “discriminatory Jim Crow laws”
  • Members discuss explaining “Jim Crow,” will work on language; Trabulsi presents definition defining these as laws that legalized segregation
  • Crimm and Sylvester suggest noting that the White Primary was Democratic
  • Roberts – Suggestion from Trabulsi to recognize Voting Rights Act in addition to “Great Society” policies from LBJ
  • Sylvester – Discusses list of Governor names and focus on most recent names that people may know
  • Trabulsi discusses expansion of subject 10 in the outline, will be drafting specific language in writing for the advisory committee to consider
  • Patterson and Crimm discuss usage of “Hispanic” and “Tejano,” Crimm notes Tejanos were born in Texas before 1836, members suggest using “Anglo” and “Hispanic” to differentiate
  • Roberts – Suggestion to add passage noting Fort Bend County is one of the most diverse in the US
  • Trabulsi – Want TPPF or TEA or someone to confirm
  • Members discuss moving highlight quotes to the beginning of the pamphlet for emphasis & guiding statement, also ending the pamphlet on a welcome

Closing Comments

  • Crimm – Is there a way to spread the word about the hearing beyond burying it on the Secretary of State website?
    • Roberts – Need to use our platforms, TPPF, Heritage Foundation, etc. will share the information; encourages members to spread awareness ahead of the next meeting
  • Roberts – We have a question into TEA about when the longer document is due, currently focusing on pamphlet for DPS required to be submitted on September 1st
    • Crimm – Wasn’t the longer document November
  • Roberts – It’s later, but don’t recall specifically
  • Patterson – How long is the pamphlet?
    • Chair Roberts – About 15 pages, longer doc likely around 50 pages, will be available on the website