The Two Perceptions of Montgomery History
Research
by Kameron Searle:
The
first settlers in what is now Western Montgomery were granted leagues from Stephen
Fuller Austin’s second colony in the Mexican State of Coahuila y Tejas in 1831.
As these settlers arrived, the area became known as the Lake Creek Settlement as
early as 1833. On September 15, 1835, a settler by the name of William C. Clark
sold 200 acres of his 600 which was initially John Corner’s to William Watters
Shepperd. Shepperd set up a trading post and subsequently, in July, 1837, the
town of Montgomery, named after Montgomery, Alabama, was founded by W. W.
Shepperd and John Wyatt Moody. Shortly after, in December 13 of the same year,
Montgomery County was recognized. Subsequently, Shepperd bought more land south
of the original plot and the new and old were named Old Town under the Hill and
New Town on the Hill respectively. Consequently, on March 1st, 1838,
the county seat was relocated to the New Town of Montgomery on the Hill.
Oral
History:
The settlers who came to the area
which would be Montgomery found an Indian trading post upon arrival. As time
progressed, this trading post became a cultural center of the early settlement
and the encompassing land became known as the Montgomery Prairie or Montgomery
Settlement. As a town was founded in close proximity, it took the name of
Montgomery from the trading post. Afterward, when the county was established,
it duplicated the name Montgomery County.
My
Personal Reflections:
I believe that the research by
Kameron Searle is the true history of Montgomery due to his commitment to
locating and piecing together documents and evidence. He has trustworthy proof
to most of his claims whilst the oral history has no verification other than
the word of ancestors. Although others may argue that we need to trust our predecessors,
I think otherwise. I believe that if someone can bring up the evidence required
to prove their point of view and if the opposing thought party cannot retort or
contradict, then we, the bystanders, should support the one who has gained
trust through hard work, determination, and evidence.
In conclusion, Kameron Searle’s
perspective on Montgomery History should be embrace as the rightful truth.
However, if the supporters of the oral history have better proof that can
overpower Searle’s research, then we
should shift our views.
