ilbb990912 said:

---

Mexico enslaved and abused indigenous Indians to Mexico for multiple centuries..they would have done the same to indigenous Texas Indians but for the "combativeness" of the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache. Hence the invitation to American settlers to Texas to act as buffers to the raids of these tribes into Mexico.

---

This is accurate.

Redbrickbear said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Chamberman said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

There is standing for these "heroes" because they stood for slavery and nothing else.

---

My ancestor was an Alamo defender from Gonzales TX. He and his wife owned no slaves. They had a small farm, and were only interested in a quality of life for Texans.

Know your **** before you start spouting your *****

---

Similar. Mine was a dirt poor, illiterate, young man from Illinois who came to Texas in 1833 to apply for a land grant. He joined just after the Revolution broke out and died on March 6, 1836.

47 - his probate inventory listed only eighteen head of cattle, eleven hogs, and a branding iron. No slaves.

---

No only was that the average bio of a Texas Independence war solider....it was the average bio of a civil war solider (USA or CSA).

The woke and their attempt to attack these men makes my blood boil.

These were young poor men.

---

The norm has always been that young poor men were at the front of battle, of course there are exceptions, there always are, but that is the norm.

Redbrickbear said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Chamberman said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

There is standing for these "heroes" because they stood for slavery and nothing else.

---

My ancestor was an Alamo defender from Gonzales TX. He and his wife owned no slaves. They had a small farm, and were only interested in a quality of life for Texans.

Know your **** before you start spouting your *****

---

Similar. Mine was a dirt poor, illiterate, young man from Illinois who came to Texas in 1833 to apply for a land grant. He joined just after the Revolution broke out and died on March 6, 1836.

47 - his probate inventory listed only eighteen head of cattle, eleven hogs, and a branding iron. No slaves.

---

No only was that the average bio of a Texas Independence war solider....it was the average bio of a civil war solider (USA or CSA).

The woke and their attempt to attack these men makes my blood boil.

These were young poor men.

---

Yep. Same with the civil war soldiers - poor scots irish white trash fighting for their families / states / homeland. They never benefited from slavery - in fact it was probably an economic detriment to them all along. They were more noble than any woke twitterer.

Chamberman said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

There is standing for these "heroes" because they stood for slavery and nothing else.

---

My ancestor was an Alamo defender from Gonzales TX. He and his wife owned no slaves. They had a small farm, and were only interested in a quality of life for Texans.

Know your **** before you start spouting your *****

---

I know stuff. After the Texas Revolution ended in 1836, the Constitution of the Republic of Texas made slavery legal. The General Provisions of the Constitution forbade any slave owner from freeing his slaves without the consent of Congress and forbade Congress from making any law that restricted the slave trade or emancipated slaves.

Waco1947 said:

---

Chamberman said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

There is standing for these "heroes" because they stood for slavery and nothing else.

---

My ancestor was an Alamo defender from Gonzales TX. He and his wife owned no slaves. They had a small farm, and were only interested in a quality of life for Texans.

Know your **** before you start spouting your *****

---

I know stuff. After the Texas Revolution ended in 1836, the Constitution of the Republic of Texas made slavery legal. The General Provisions of the Constitution forbade any slave owner from freeing his slaves without the consent of Congress and forbade Congress from making any law that restricted the slave trade or emancipated slaves.

---

I know stuff too....small world.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Chamberman said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

There is standing for these "heroes" because they stood for slavery and nothing else.

---

My ancestor was an Alamo defender from Gonzales TX. He and his wife owned no slaves. They had a small farm, and were only interested in a quality of life for Texans.

Know your **** before you start spouting your *****

---

Similar. Mine was a dirt poor, illiterate, young man from Illinois who came to Texas in 1833 to apply for a land grant. He joined just after the Revolution broke out and died on March 6, 1836.

47 - his probate inventory listed only eighteen head of cattle, eleven hogs, and a branding iron. No slaves.

---

one line of my family arrived in the area currently known as Texas in 1806. I dont have an ancestor from the Alamo

a great uncle of mine marched under Fannin.

4th and Inches said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Chamberman said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

There is standing for these "heroes" because they stood for slavery and nothing else.

---

My ancestor was an Alamo defender from Gonzales TX. He and his wife owned no slaves. They had a small farm, and were only interested in a quality of life for Texans.

Know your **** before you start spouting your *****

---

Similar. Mine was a dirt poor, illiterate, young man from Illinois who came to Texas in 1833 to apply for a land grant. He joined just after the Revolution broke out and died on March 6, 1836.

47 - his probate inventory listed only eighteen head of cattle, eleven hogs, and a branding iron. No slaves.

---

one line of my family arrived in the area currently known as Texas in 1806. I dont have an ancestor from the Alamo

a great uncle of mine marched under Fannin.

---

Did your ancestor survive the Goliad Massacre? (assuming he was still with Fannin in March 1836)

whitetrash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Chamberman said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

There is standing for these "heroes" because they stood for slavery and nothing else.

---

My ancestor was an Alamo defender from Gonzales TX. He and his wife owned no slaves. They had a small farm, and were only interested in a quality of life for Texans.

Know your **** before you start spouting your *****

---

Similar. Mine was a dirt poor, illiterate, young man from Illinois who came to Texas in 1833 to apply for a land grant. He joined just after the Revolution broke out and died on March 6, 1836.

47 - his probate inventory listed only eighteen head of cattle, eleven hogs, and a branding iron. No slaves.

---

one line of my family arrived in the area currently known as Texas in 1806. I dont have an ancestor from the Alamo

a great uncle of mine marched under Fannin.

---

Did your ancestor survive the Goliad Massacre? (assuming he was still with Fannin in March 1836)

---

My great-great-great-grandmother lost a brother in the Goliad Massacre (John H. Barkley). Her father (Robert Xenophen Barkley) was killed in the Dawson Massacre near San Antonio in 1842 (Santa Anna's last incursion into Texas that was repulsed at Salado Creek near Ft. Sam Houston), and another brother was one of the 15 survivors taken prisoner by the Mexican Army
.

---

And slavery is still an abomination. And your relatives no matter how cruel their death still fought for slavery

And slavery was and is still morally wrong. Great for those Tejanos but too many had their land confiscated.

GrowlTowel said:

---

If you put 47 on ignore (which I highly recommend making permanent), this thread is a highly entertaining and educational read.

And it is the complete opposite of what 47 wanted.

---

Proud of yourself?

Robert Wilson said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Great those Tejanos but too many had their land confiscated.

---

Those Tejanos had just stolen land from indigenous peoples, you racist colonizer.

And the indigenous peoples loved to run slaves, as they continued to do after the emancipation proclamation, but since you are now pro slavery you're probably good with that.

---

Convoluted logic.
OK Tejanos stole land and Native Americans had slaves.

Regardless of your logic or lack of logic the Texians still fought for slavery and entered the Union as a slave state where they still fought for slavery.

After the Texas Revolution ended in 1836, the Constitution of the Republic of Texas made slavery legal. The General Provisions of the Constitution forbade any slave owner from freeing his slaves without the consent of Congress and forbade Congress from making any law that restricted the slave trade or emancipated slaves.

Americans of European extraction and slaves contributed greatly to the population growth in the Republic and State of Texas. Settlements grew and developed more land under cultivation in cotton and other commodities. The cotton industry flourished in East Texas, where enslaved labor became most widely used. The central part of the state was dominated by subsistence farmers. Free and runaway blacks had great difficulty finding jobs in Texas. Many worked in other parts of the state as cowboys herding cattle or migrated for better opportunities in the Midwest, California, or southward to Mexico.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Yeah, we'd be better off as part of Mexico.

---

Wrong point.

Porteroso said:

---

Thee University said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Remembering their heroism isn't the same as condoning their individual actions throughout their lives. Nothing more than trash cancel culture.

---

Can you say the same for all of the Confederate leaders who have had their statues destroyed and torn down?

Columbus?
Washington?
Grant?
Francis Scott Key?

---

Telling people to forget history is a far cry from glorifying individuals with statues and monuments. Removing a statue of a KKK leader from public property to a Confederate cemetery isn't the same as canceling the Alamo.

---

Who's canceling it? It happened. It's history. But that history is very different from we taught in the 7th grade. We are looking at from a different perspective and moiore correct

ilbb990912 said:

---

Mexico enslaved and abused indigenous Indians to Mexico for multiple centuries..they would have done the same to indigenous Texas Indians but for the "combativeness" of the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache. Hence the invitation to American settlers to Texas to act as buffers to the raids of these tribes into Mexico.

---

Surely they did but After the Texas Revolution ended in 1836, the Constitution of the Republic of Texas made slavery legal. The General Provisions of the Constitution forbade any slave owner from freeing his slaves without the consent of Congress and forbade Congress from making any law that restricted the slave trade or emancipated slaves.

Americans of European extraction and slaves contributed greatly to the population growth in the Republic and State of Texas. Settlements grew and developed more land under cultivation in cotton and other commodities. The cotton industry flourished in East Texas, where enslaved labor became most widely used. The central part of the state was dominated by subsistence farmers. Free and runaway blacks had great difficulty finding jobs in Texas. Many worked in other parts of the state as cowboys herding cattle or migrated for better opportunities in the Midwest, California, or southward to Mexico.

4th and Inches said:

---

The "americans" that moved to Texas were mexican citizens. The problems started when Mexico's republic government which made certain promises to the Texas region of Mexico changed its ruling processes when the political leadership and style of govt changed.

Heros like Bowie married a local Mexican woman and had children. There is a statue of Juan Seguin at the Alamo. The locals were not marginalized. The sacrifices made by the men and women who fought for independence at Goliad, Gonzalez, Refurio, the Alamo, and San Jacinto should not be marginalized by idiots who havent taken the time to read the letters and journals to get to the internal thoughts and feelings of those who were there

The US didnt want another slave state, Texas was a republic for years before becoming a state.

Everything about this book appears to be bias slanted trash having little to do with the truth of what happened.

---

yeah Andrew Jackson wanted another slave state as did the south

Doc Holliday said:

---

The Aztecs performed human sacrifices, which is worse than anything related to the Alamo.

Should we forget the Aztecs?

---

Immaterial to my argument which is slavery.
After the Texas Revolution ended in 1836, the Constitution of the Republic of Texas made slavery legal. The General Provisions of the Constitution forbade any slave owner from freeing his slaves without the consent of Congress and forbade Congress from making any law that restricted the slave trade or emancipated slaves.

Americans of European extraction and slaves contributed greatly to the population growth in the Republic and State of Texas. Settlements grew and developed more land under cultivation in cotton and other commodities. The cotton industry flourished in East Texas, where enslaved labor became most widely used. The central part of the state was dominated by subsistence farmers. Free and runaway blacks had great difficulty finding jobs in Texas. Many worked in other parts of the state as cowboys herding cattle or migrated for better opportunities in the Midwest, California, or southward to Mexico.

OsoCoreyell said:

---

I often hear complaints about how folks on the right are "living on outrage" or "addicted to indignation."

There is some truth to that, and there are certainly media folks on the right that try to make money off of feeding the outrage machine.

But It's hard to maintain that criticism when the left keeps pumping out garbage like this that is an "outrage" in any objective sense.

'47 knows it. He's just trolling because he's bored.

---

It isAfter the Texas Revolution ended in 1836, the Constitution of the Republic of Texas made slavery legal. The General Provisions of the Constitution forbade any slave owner from freeing his slaves without the consent of Congress and forbade Congress from making any law that restricted the slave trade or emancipated slaves.

Americans of European extraction and slaves contributed greatly to the population growth in the Republic and State of Texas. Settlements grew and developed more land under cultivation in cotton and other commodities. The cotton industry flourished in East Texas, where enslaved labor became most widely used. The central part of the state was dominated by subsistence farmers. Free and runaway blacks had great difficulty finding jobs in Texas. Many worked in other parts of the state as cowboys herding cattle or migrated for better opportunities in the Midwest, California, or southward to Mexico. objective.. Slavery was the issue.

redfish961 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The "americans" that moved to Texas were mexican citizens. The problems started when Mexico's republic government which made certain promises to the Texas region of Mexico changed its ruling processes when the political leadership and style of govt changed.

Heros like Bowie married a local Mexican woman and had children. There is a statue of Juan Seguin at the Alamo. The locals were not marginalized. The sacrifices made by the men and women who fought for independence at Goliad, Gonzalez, Refurio, the Alamo, and San Jacinto should not be marginalized by idiots who havent taken the time to read the letters and journals to get to the internal thoughts and feelings of those who were there

The US didnt want another slave state, Texas was a republic for years before becoming a state.

Everything about this book appears to be bias slanted trash having little to do with the truth of what happened.

---

There is an obvious pattern here.

Never let the truth stand in the way of a good diatribe.

---

What is the truth?

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The Aztecs performed human sacrifices, which is worse than anything related to the Alamo.

Should we forget the Aztecs?

---

Immaterial to my argument which is slavery.

---

That's a topic, not an argument.

What is your actual argument?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You'd think lefties would NEVER want to forget the Alamo. A bunch of white rednecks with guns defending a Christian church getting smacked down by brown people? This is literally their wet dream.

---

The Texians were not protecting a church. The Catholic church had long since abandoned it

Redbrickbear said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Thee University said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Yeah, we'd be better off as part of Mexico.

---

We already are!

---

Not yet....but its going to happen eventually .

---

Mexico is a relatively poor semi-narco state......It might implode before the USA empire.

It's central government is incredibly corrupt...and it has a worse oligarchy problem than the USA.

Its nominal GDP is only around $10,000....compared to the USA at $65,000

So its down there with Bulgaria and Kazakhstan in terms of nominal GDP.

It's one saving grace was always its large birth rate that insured future generations of Mexicans...but the nino bank is going broke. Mexico's fertility rate is now 2.14 or barely at replacement level. And its falling fast. By 2050 Mexico will reach its maximum population (150 million) and then start to drop fast after that. By the end of the century Mexico might still be poor and will certainly be de-populating unless it can get its birth rate back to replacement level.

https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2010/04/22/when-the-ninos-run-out

---

Saving grace? Our fertility rate is falling too and we need workers for an aging population

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The "americans" that moved to Texas were mexican citizens. The problems started when Mexico's republic government which made certain promises to the Texas region of Mexico changed its ruling processes when the political leadership and style of govt changed.

Heros like Bowie married a local Mexican woman and had children. There is a statue of Juan Seguin at the Alamo. The locals were not marginalized. The sacrifices made by the men and women who fought for independence at Goliad, Gonzalez, Refurio, the Alamo, and San Jacinto should not be marginalized by idiots who havent taken the time to read the letters and journals to get to the internal thoughts and feelings of those who were there

The US didnt want another slave state, Texas was a republic for years before becoming a state.

Everything about this book appears to be bias slanted trash having little to do with the truth of what happened.

---

Short sighted reading of San Antonio. Tejanos were marginalized as soon Texians arrived.

---

Many of the Tejanos in Texas before 1900 were rich land owners in South Texas.

They were certainly incorporated into Texas political, economic, and cultural life.

Now this did change around 1900 with the large scale immigration of non-Tejano decedent Mexicans from much farther south in central Mexico. "Between 1900 and 1930, political turmoil in Mexico combined with the rise of agribusiness in the American Southwest to prompt a large-scale migration of Mexicans to the U.S."

And then another great wave of Mexican immigrants arrived from 1970-present.

These 2nd larger waves of Hispanic immigrants did some times face discrimination...but the rich, educated, and politically powerful Tejanos from the time of the Texas revolution can not be lumped into the same groups.

This is like lumping in the Dutch in New York in 1780 with the Irish in New York in 1880 because they both had light skin/were European.

---

Great story but the issue is slavery. Incidentally TX Rangers slaughtered Tejanos on the border.
After the Texas Revolution ended in 1836, the Constitution of the Republic of Texas made slavery legal. The General Provisions of the Constitution forbade any slave owner from freeing his slaves without the consent of Congress and forbade Congress from making any law that restricted the slave trade or emancipated slaves.

Americans of European extraction and slaves contributed greatly to the population growth in the Republic and State of Texas. Settlements grew and developed more land under cultivation in cotton and other commodities. The cotton industry flourished in East Texas, where enslaved labor became most widely used. The central part of the state was dominated by subsistence farmers. Free and runaway blacks had great difficulty finding jobs in Texas. Many worked in other parts of the state as cowboys herding cattle or migrated for better opportunities in the Midwest, California, or southward to Mexico.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Canon said:

---

Remember the Alamo because Mexico is a complete s*** hole and Texans fought to escape that corrupt culture and turn Texas into the greatest nation on earth.

"You may all go to hell and I will go to Texas." Davy Crockett

---

There is standing for these "heroes" because they stood for slavery and nothing else.

---

The is a natural (though perverted) out growth of "1619 project" American history revisionism.

Trying to reframe the American war of independence as nothing more than a war to defend slavery from the British.

It was widely condemned by mainstream scholars.

The idea that the Texas war of Independence was also nothing but a pro-slave rebellion is equally as fanciful.

The abolishment of the Mexican Constitution of 1824 was the primary cause: "One of Mexico's first constitutions written in 1824, which was about the time that the first settlers arrived in Texas. This constitution was heavily weighted in favor of states' rights (as opposed to federal control). It allowed the Texans great freedom to rule themselves as they saw fit. This constitution was overturned in favor of another that gave the federal government more control, and many Texans were outraged (many Mexicans in other parts of Mexico were, too). Reinstatement of the 1824 constitution became a rallying cry in Texas before the fighting broke out."

Other reasons were: The chaos in Mexico city and the Federal government. The strong economic ties between Texas settlers and the USA. Along with the bad treatment of Texan envoys to Mexico city, prohibition of further immigration to Texas from the United States, and increased taxes also increased the desire for independence.

Slavery (or the fear of losing it) was not the primary or even secondary driving force of Texas and the Central government of Mexico coming to blows.

---

Try this history. After the Texas Revolution ended in 1836, the Constitution of the Republic of Texas made slavery legal. The General Provisions of the Constitution forbade any slave owner from freeing his slaves without the consent of Congress and forbade Congress from making any law that restricted the slave trade or emancipated slaves.

Americans of European extraction and slaves contributed greatly to the population growth in the Republic and State of Texas. Settlements grew and developed more land under cultivation in cotton and other commodities. The cotton industry flourished in East Texas, where enslaved labor became most widely used. The central part of the state was dominated by subsistence farmers. Free and runaway blacks had great difficulty finding jobs in Texas. Many worked in other parts of the state as cowboys herding cattle or migrated for better opportunities in the Midwest, California, or southward to Mexico.

Doc Holliday said:

---

All this rhetoric because you want reparations paid for by white people. Shame on you.

---

You just made that up. That's a lie.

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Thee University said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Yeah, we'd be better off as part of Mexico.

---

We already are!

---

Not yet....but its going to happen eventually .

---

Mexico is a relatively poor semi-narco state......It might implode before the USA empire.

It's central government is incredibly corrupt...and it has a worse oligarchy problem than the USA.

Its nominal GDP is only around $10,000....compared to the USA at $65,000

So its down there with Bulgaria and Kazakhstan in terms of nominal GDP.

It's one saving grace was always its large birth rate that insured future generations of Mexicans...but the nino bank is going broke. Mexico's fertility rate is now 2.14 or barely at replacement level. And its falling fast. By 2050 Mexico will reach its maximum population (150 million) and then start to drop fast after that. By the end of the century Mexico might still be poor and will certainly be de-populating unless it can get its birth rate back to replacement level.

https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2010/04/22/when-the-ninos-run-out

---

Saving grace? Our fertility rate is falling too and we need workers for an aging population

---

Can you even read?

That was in reference to Mexico.

As in the one saving grace of the Mexican state has long had was its ability to create more young citizens.

How can you possibly have a college education?

Canon said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Canon said:

---

Remember the Alamo because Mexico is a complete s*** hole and Texans fought to escape that corrupt culture and turn Texas into the greatest nation on earth.

"You may all go to hell and I will go to Texas." Davy Crockett

---

There is standing for these "heroes" because they stood for slavery and nothing else.

---

The is a natural (though perverted) out growth of "1619 project" American history revisionism.

Trying to reframe the American war of independence as nothing more than a war to defend slavery from the British.

It was widely condemned by mainstream scholars.

The idea that that Texas war of Independence was also nothing but a pro-slave rebellion is equally as fanciful.

The abolishment of the Mexican Constitution of 1824 was the primary cause: "One of Mexico's first constitutions written in 1824, which was about the time that the first settlers arrived in Texas. This constitution was heavily weighted in favor of states' rights (as opposed to federal control). It allowed the Texans great freedom to rule themselves as they saw fit. This constitution was overturned in favor of another that gave the federal government more control, and many Texans were outraged (many Mexicans in other parts of Mexico were, too). Reinstatement of the 1824 constitution became a rallying cry in Texas before the fighting broke out."

Other reasons were: The chaos in Mexico city and the Federal government. The strong economic ties between Texas settlers and the USA. Along with the bad treatment of Texan envoys to Mexico city, prohibition of further immigration to Texas from the United States, and increased taxes also increased the desire for independence.

Slavery (or the fear of losing it) was not the primary or even secondary driving force of Texas and the Central government of Mexico coming to blows.

---

Texas became a slave country and then a state. You can't away that fact.

---

Don't care. Texans were heroes who did heroic deeds in an age of slavery. Anyone who says otherwise can go **** themselves.

---

What was heroic about fighting for slavery? I really would like to know.