Rawhide said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

From the vantage point of history it is clear that the Alamo defenders were deeply flawed humans who saw other humans as property. They were men of their times and to them slavery was OK. These men fought bravely no doubt but again from a historical perspective they were not heroes. Heroes die for just causes. Any other virtues that we might perceive like "liberty" or "freedom" is again against a backdrop of slaves who would neither know liberty or freedom.

---

if you actually cared about the truth then we could continue but it's obvious that you don't

If you want to continue this dialogue, please explain to me in detail your viewpoint on how the battle at Gonzalez was an effort to create a slavery state

---

It's a part of the Texas Revolution whose cause was slavery.

---

you've yet to prove the cause of the revolution was slavery. Several here have shown evidence that it was not.

Open another bottle and relax

---

Yes I have. It was built into the 1836 Texas constitution. I posted that fact.
Read the book and the letters of Austin. He advocated for slavery. Mexico certainly understood it was slavery.

---

Which state do you live?

---

Texas 7 generations deep.

Thee University said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Canon said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

From the vantage point of history it is clear that the Alamo defenders were deeply flawed humans who saw other humans as property. They were men of their times and to them slavery was OK. These men fought bravely no doubt but again from a historical perspective they were not heroes. Heroes die for just causes. Any other virtues that we might perceive like "liberty" or "freedom" is again against a backdrop of slaves who would neither know liberty or freedom.

---

outside of Christ, who would you describe as a hero that was not deeply flawed?

---

The trick is to conflate heroism with victim hood. A victim will always be the victim of someone or something ostensibly despicable. Thus calling a victim a hero absolves the victim from critique, lest the person critiquing them be seen as siding with the victimizer.

It's a very Marxist trick, but look who is using it.

---

You mean that establishing victimhood absolves the Comanche of their selling of slaves, after they would raid whites and sell off their slaves, or the ownership of slaves by the Cherokee and Creek Indians who would buy them from the Comanche.

Not trying to say the natives were not badly mistreated, but there were some really bad people among them. Some brutal beyond what our civilized mind is used to, the Iroquois were particularly brutal...

Quote:

---

First the victorious Iroquois warriors would mangle the prisoners' hands; they did this by pulling out the captives' fingernails and/or cutting off some of their fingers. The victors usually subjected the prisoners to a heavy beating at the same time. Thereafter the Iroquois took the captives to their village and subjected the men to the gantlet (or gauntlet). They then humbled those who survived in a number of ways; for example the Iroquois might strip them naked in front of the village and force them to sing and dance. This process always ended either in a slow death by fire and scalping or with adoption into the Iroquois village. The Iroquois tortured only men to death when they weren't adopted; they either killed quickly women and children who were unadopted.

There are definitely reasons behind this torture that do not extend into metaphysical domains. The initial beating obviously broke the spirits of the captive and ensured submission. The act of battering prisoners to break their will is no isolated policy of the Iroquois alone, but of nearly every race throughout history.

At this time the Iroquois also mangled a prisoner's hands, a brutality performed so that the captive could no longer wield a weapon. After returning to their village, the Iroquois used the gantlet to further break the spirits of the captives and to serve as a test of endurance and physical tolerance. The Iroquois would execute without ceremony those captives who fell and did not get up, which indicates disdain for mental and physical weakness. Indeed, the Iroquois expected even those captives who underwent subsequent lethal torture to stand strong and not cry outthe warriors would disgustedly dispatch a captive who lost his composure. As the night went by and the prisoner remained silent, the entire tribe would become more and more frenzied until the sun came up and the prisoner was killed. Thus it seems that torturing captives to death was a ritualized act of vengeance that was truly fulfilled only when its objective (making the victim respond to the torture) failed!

The warriors were not the only ones who conducted the torture, however; the women and children of the village had just as much of an active role as the men did. While the captives were perched upon the scaffold, the children of the tribe would jab at the prisoner's feet with knives. In addition to this, every person in the village took turns with the burning torches during the night ritual. In fact, the rest of the tribe would scorn anyone who did not partake in the torture as a weak and lazy individual. Because everyone took part, it becomes clear that besides being an act for grieving family members to vent their frustration on an unyielding victim and doing so feel avenged for the loved ones' deaths, it was a reassertion of Iroquois dominance and power. Yet this second purpose seems of less importance considering the specialized nature of the mourning war. That is to say, the process of the mourning war is oriented far more towards the grieving matriarchs rather than the entire village.

---

Quote:

---

Though modern Americans do not associate other tribes with the practice of mourning wars, they performed the same methods of torture that the Iroquois did. These accounts are much less frequent than descriptions of Iroquois torture, nevertheless they do exist and are no less ruthless in nature. Samuel de Champlain's notes contain accounts of the Algonquins, Montagnais, and Etechemins as the aggressors. After they captured a handful of Iroquois in battle, these "friendly" tribes proceeded to torture the captives to death. They burned the body of one captive Iroquois then poured water on him in cycles so that his flesh would fall off his body. When they had finally killed him and threw his innards into the river, the Indians told Champlain that this act was done in vengeance for their own mutilated tribesmen. There is mention in Relation des Hurons of the Neutrals and Hurons performing the same cruelties, and the Hurons are mentioned for taking captives to be adopted. Nevertheless there are no vastly different reasons that can be determined for the atrocities of the other northeastern tribes. All of these other tribes practiced torture as an act of vengeance for their own mutilated dead, and in some cases even performed similar adoption ceremonies.

But can a desire for vengeance be sufficient to explain Iroquois cannibalism? In nearly every instance the Iroquois ate parts of the bodies of war prisoners who had been tortured to death. In Father Vimont's previous account it was the heart or other internal organs that were consumed as well as the hands and feet of the tortured prisoner. Another Jesuit gives this account: "having cut off (the captive's) hands and feet, (the Iroquois) skinned him and separated the flesh from the bones, in order to make from it a detestable repast." Further accounts include multiple mentions of the cannibalistic "customary feasts" of the Iroquois. There is obviously more to this form of cannibalism than the necessity of consuming human flesh to stay alive in hard times. Vengeance alone does not provide an ample explanation for cannibalism like it does for torture, yet the two always occur together.

As previously mentioned, the Iroquois were not alone in this practice, as various accounts describe the Winnebagos, Huron, and other French-sympathizing Indians partaking in feasts of human flesh. In the aforementioned Champlain account, the Algonquins, Montagnais, and Etechemins did not actually eat the Iroquois captive's flesh, but rather forced the other captives to eat his heart. Though this makes a case against cannibalistic practice, another account one year later tells of these same three tribes taking a quartered body home to be eaten. In another part of the country, a Neutral brave is recorded in Relation des Hurons saying to the Jesuit Father Brebeuf and his company, "[I've had] enough of the dark-colored flesh of our enemiesI wish to know the taste of white meat, and I will eat yours." In the same set of accounts the Jesuits chastise the Hurons to "eat no human flesh" so that they could be good Catholics.

---

---

But, but.... Dances with Wolves.... ??
I thought they were noble and honorable and one with nature???

---

Well we are certainly being force fed everybody is noble even heroic. Everybody except white folk that is. No they are an evil lot deserving elimination.

---

I am a man of color.

European.

We rule the world. Always have and always will.

---

you aren't trying.

ShooterTX said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Canon said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

From the vantage point of history it is clear that the Alamo defenders were deeply flawed humans who saw other humans as property. They were men of their times and to them slavery was OK. These men fought bravely no doubt but again from a historical perspective they were not heroes. Heroes die for just causes. Any other virtues that we might perceive like "liberty" or "freedom" is again against a backdrop of slaves who would neither know liberty or freedom.

---

outside of Christ, who would you describe as a hero that was not deeply flawed?

---

The trick is to conflate heroism with victim hood. A victim will always be the victim of someone or something ostensibly despicable. Thus calling a victim a hero absolves the victim from critique, lest the person critiquing them be seen as siding with the victimizer.

It's a very Marxist trick, but look who is using it.

---

You mean that establishing victimhood absolves the Comanche of their selling of slaves, after they would raid whites and sell off their slaves, or the ownership of slaves by the Cherokee and Creek Indians who would buy them from the Comanche.

Not trying to say the natives were not badly mistreated, but there were some really bad people among them. Some brutal beyond what our civilized mind is used to, the Iroquois were particularly brutal...

Quote:

---

First the victorious Iroquois warriors would mangle the prisoners' hands; they did this by pulling out the captives' fingernails and/or cutting off some of their fingers. The victors usually subjected the prisoners to a heavy beating at the same time. Thereafter the Iroquois took the captives to their village and subjected the men to the gantlet (or gauntlet). They then humbled those who survived in a number of ways; for example the Iroquois might strip them naked in front of the village and force them to sing and dance. This process always ended either in a slow death by fire and scalping or with adoption into the Iroquois village. The Iroquois tortured only men to death when they weren't adopted; they either killed quickly women and children who were unadopted.

There are definitely reasons behind this torture that do not extend into metaphysical domains. The initial beating obviously broke the spirits of the captive and ensured submission. The act of battering prisoners to break their will is no isolated policy of the Iroquois alone, but of nearly every race throughout history.

At this time the Iroquois also mangled a prisoner's hands, a brutality performed so that the captive could no longer wield a weapon. After returning to their village, the Iroquois used the gantlet to further break the spirits of the captives and to serve as a test of endurance and physical tolerance. The Iroquois would execute without ceremony those captives who fell and did not get up, which indicates disdain for mental and physical weakness. Indeed, the Iroquois expected even those captives who underwent subsequent lethal torture to stand strong and not cry outthe warriors would disgustedly dispatch a captive who lost his composure. As the night went by and the prisoner remained silent, the entire tribe would become more and more frenzied until the sun came up and the prisoner was killed. Thus it seems that torturing captives to death was a ritualized act of vengeance that was truly fulfilled only when its objective (making the victim respond to the torture) failed!

The warriors were not the only ones who conducted the torture, however; the women and children of the village had just as much of an active role as the men did. While the captives were perched upon the scaffold, the children of the tribe would jab at the prisoner's feet with knives. In addition to this, every person in the village took turns with the burning torches during the night ritual. In fact, the rest of the tribe would scorn anyone who did not partake in the torture as a weak and lazy individual. Because everyone took part, it becomes clear that besides being an act for grieving family members to vent their frustration on an unyielding victim and doing so feel avenged for the loved ones' deaths, it was a reassertion of Iroquois dominance and power. Yet this second purpose seems of less importance considering the specialized nature of the mourning war. That is to say, the process of the mourning war is oriented far more towards the grieving matriarchs rather than the entire village.

---

Quote:

---

Though modern Americans do not associate other tribes with the practice of mourning wars, they performed the same methods of torture that the Iroquois did. These accounts are much less frequent than descriptions of Iroquois torture, nevertheless they do exist and are no less ruthless in nature. Samuel de Champlain's notes contain accounts of the Algonquins, Montagnais, and Etechemins as the aggressors. After they captured a handful of Iroquois in battle, these "friendly" tribes proceeded to torture the captives to death. They burned the body of one captive Iroquois then poured water on him in cycles so that his flesh would fall off his body. When they had finally killed him and threw his innards into the river, the Indians told Champlain that this act was done in vengeance for their own mutilated tribesmen. There is mention in Relation des Hurons of the Neutrals and Hurons performing the same cruelties, and the Hurons are mentioned for taking captives to be adopted. Nevertheless there are no vastly different reasons that can be determined for the atrocities of the other northeastern tribes. All of these other tribes practiced torture as an act of vengeance for their own mutilated dead, and in some cases even performed similar adoption ceremonies.

But can a desire for vengeance be sufficient to explain Iroquois cannibalism? In nearly every instance the Iroquois ate parts of the bodies of war prisoners who had been tortured to death. In Father Vimont's previous account it was the heart or other internal organs that were consumed as well as the hands and feet of the tortured prisoner. Another Jesuit gives this account: "having cut off (the captive's) hands and feet, (the Iroquois) skinned him and separated the flesh from the bones, in order to make from it a detestable repast." Further accounts include multiple mentions of the cannibalistic "customary feasts" of the Iroquois. There is obviously more to this form of cannibalism than the necessity of consuming human flesh to stay alive in hard times. Vengeance alone does not provide an ample explanation for cannibalism like it does for torture, yet the two always occur together.

As previously mentioned, the Iroquois were not alone in this practice, as various accounts describe the Winnebagos, Huron, and other French-sympathizing Indians partaking in feasts of human flesh. In the aforementioned Champlain account, the Algonquins, Montagnais, and Etechemins did not actually eat the Iroquois captive's flesh, but rather forced the other captives to eat his heart. Though this makes a case against cannibalistic practice, another account one year later tells of these same three tribes taking a quartered body home to be eaten. In another part of the country, a Neutral brave is recorded in Relation des Hurons saying to the Jesuit Father Brebeuf and his company, "[I've had] enough of the dark-colored flesh of our enemiesI wish to know the taste of white meat, and I will eat yours." In the same set of accounts the Jesuits chastise the Hurons to "eat no human flesh" so that they could be good Catholics.

---

---

But, but.... Dances with Wolves.... ??
I thought they were noble and honorable and one with nature???

---

Well we are certainly being force fed everybody is noble even heroic. Everybody except white folk that is. No they are an evil lot deserving elimination.

---

I'm pretty sure that there aren't any injuns today who act like the savages of old... so they probably don't need to be eliminated, as you say.

---

I wasn't talking about natives that folks seem to wish they could eliminate.

Thee University said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Canon said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

From the vantage point of history it is clear that the Alamo defenders were deeply flawed humans who saw other humans as property. They were men of their times and to them slavery was OK. These men fought bravely no doubt but again from a historical perspective they were not heroes. Heroes die for just causes. Any other virtues that we might perceive like "liberty" or "freedom" is again against a backdrop of slaves who would neither know liberty or freedom.

---

outside of Christ, who would you describe as a hero that was not deeply flawed?

---

The trick is to conflate heroism with victim hood. A victim will always be the victim of someone or something ostensibly despicable. Thus calling a victim a hero absolves the victim from critique, lest the person critiquing them be seen as siding with the victimizer.

It's a very Marxist trick, but look who is using it.

---

You mean that establishing victimhood absolves the Comanche of their selling of slaves, after they would raid whites and sell off their slaves, or the ownership of slaves by the Cherokee and Creek Indians who would buy them from the Comanche.

Not trying to say the natives were not badly mistreated, but there were some really bad people among them. Some brutal beyond what our civilized mind is used to, the Iroquois were particularly brutal...

Quote:

---

First the victorious Iroquois warriors would mangle the prisoners' hands; they did this by pulling out the captives' fingernails and/or cutting off some of their fingers. The victors usually subjected the prisoners to a heavy beating at the same time. Thereafter the Iroquois took the captives to their village and subjected the men to the gantlet (or gauntlet). They then humbled those who survived in a number of ways; for example the Iroquois might strip them naked in front of the village and force them to sing and dance. This process always ended either in a slow death by fire and scalping or with adoption into the Iroquois village. The Iroquois tortured only men to death when they weren't adopted; they either killed quickly women and children who were unadopted.

There are definitely reasons behind this torture that do not extend into metaphysical domains. The initial beating obviously broke the spirits of the captive and ensured submission. The act of battering prisoners to break their will is no isolated policy of the Iroquois alone, but of nearly every race throughout history.

At this time the Iroquois also mangled a prisoner's hands, a brutality performed so that the captive could no longer wield a weapon. After returning to their village, the Iroquois used the gantlet to further break the spirits of the captives and to serve as a test of endurance and physical tolerance. The Iroquois would execute without ceremony those captives who fell and did not get up, which indicates disdain for mental and physical weakness. Indeed, the Iroquois expected even those captives who underwent subsequent lethal torture to stand strong and not cry outthe warriors would disgustedly dispatch a captive who lost his composure. As the night went by and the prisoner remained silent, the entire tribe would become more and more frenzied until the sun came up and the prisoner was killed. Thus it seems that torturing captives to death was a ritualized act of vengeance that was truly fulfilled only when its objective (making the victim respond to the torture) failed!

The warriors were not the only ones who conducted the torture, however; the women and children of the village had just as much of an active role as the men did. While the captives were perched upon the scaffold, the children of the tribe would jab at the prisoner's feet with knives. In addition to this, every person in the village took turns with the burning torches during the night ritual. In fact, the rest of the tribe would scorn anyone who did not partake in the torture as a weak and lazy individual. Because everyone took part, it becomes clear that besides being an act for grieving family members to vent their frustration on an unyielding victim and doing so feel avenged for the loved ones' deaths, it was a reassertion of Iroquois dominance and power. Yet this second purpose seems of less importance considering the specialized nature of the mourning war. That is to say, the process of the mourning war is oriented far more towards the grieving matriarchs rather than the entire village.

---

Quote:

---

Though modern Americans do not associate other tribes with the practice of mourning wars, they performed the same methods of torture that the Iroquois did. These accounts are much less frequent than descriptions of Iroquois torture, nevertheless they do exist and are no less ruthless in nature. Samuel de Champlain's notes contain accounts of the Algonquins, Montagnais, and Etechemins as the aggressors. After they captured a handful of Iroquois in battle, these "friendly" tribes proceeded to torture the captives to death. They burned the body of one captive Iroquois then poured water on him in cycles so that his flesh would fall off his body. When they had finally killed him and threw his innards into the river, the Indians told Champlain that this act was done in vengeance for their own mutilated tribesmen. There is mention in Relation des Hurons of the Neutrals and Hurons performing the same cruelties, and the Hurons are mentioned for taking captives to be adopted. Nevertheless there are no vastly different reasons that can be determined for the atrocities of the other northeastern tribes. All of these other tribes practiced torture as an act of vengeance for their own mutilated dead, and in some cases even performed similar adoption ceremonies.

But can a desire for vengeance be sufficient to explain Iroquois cannibalism? In nearly every instance the Iroquois ate parts of the bodies of war prisoners who had been tortured to death. In Father Vimont's previous account it was the heart or other internal organs that were consumed as well as the hands and feet of the tortured prisoner. Another Jesuit gives this account: "having cut off (the captive's) hands and feet, (the Iroquois) skinned him and separated the flesh from the bones, in order to make from it a detestable repast." Further accounts include multiple mentions of the cannibalistic "customary feasts" of the Iroquois. There is obviously more to this form of cannibalism than the necessity of consuming human flesh to stay alive in hard times. Vengeance alone does not provide an ample explanation for cannibalism like it does for torture, yet the two always occur together.

As previously mentioned, the Iroquois were not alone in this practice, as various accounts describe the Winnebagos, Huron, and other French-sympathizing Indians partaking in feasts of human flesh. In the aforementioned Champlain account, the Algonquins, Montagnais, and Etechemins did not actually eat the Iroquois captive's flesh, but rather forced the other captives to eat his heart. Though this makes a case against cannibalistic practice, another account one year later tells of these same three tribes taking a quartered body home to be eaten. In another part of the country, a Neutral brave is recorded in Relation des Hurons saying to the Jesuit Father Brebeuf and his company, "[I've had] enough of the dark-colored flesh of our enemiesI wish to know the taste of white meat, and I will eat yours." In the same set of accounts the Jesuits chastise the Hurons to "eat no human flesh" so that they could be good Catholics.

---

---

But, but.... Dances with Wolves.... ??
I thought they were noble and honorable and one with nature???

---

Well we are certainly being force fed everybody is noble even heroic. Everybody except white folk that is. No they are an evil lot deserving elimination.

---

I am a man of color.

European.

We rule the world. Always have and always will.

---

When did this rule begin?

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

From the vantage point of history it is clear that the Alamo defenders were deeply flawed humans who saw other humans as property. They were men of their times and to them slavery was OK. These men fought bravely no doubt but again from a historical perspective they were not heroes. Heroes die for just causes. Any other virtues that we might perceive like "liberty" or "freedom" is again against a backdrop of slaves who would neither know liberty or freedom.

---

if you actually cared about the truth then we could continue but it's obvious that you don't

If you want to continue this dialogue, please explain to me in detail your viewpoint on how the battle at Gonzalez was an effort to create a slavery state

---

What's your truth?

" Primarily the people were fighting for Independence, Federalism, Immigration rights, and not to be under almost dictatorial type control."
Primarily the people were fighting for Independence,
1) Federalism, a central government that abolished slavery
2) Immigration rights, to insure more slave owning immigrants. They would not go to TX if MX banned slaves. Austin could not attract them.
3) and not to be under almost dictatorial type control. No, Santa Ana gave them what they wanted but it wasn't enough and the Mexican Nation was so huge there was little "dictatorial" control. Plus Mexico was in a constant state of Revolution.

Yo Cinque!

Waco1947 said:

---

" Primarily the people were fighting for Independence, Federalism, Immigration rights, and not to be under almost dictatorial type control."
Primarily the people were fighting for Independence,
1) Federalism, a central government that abolished slavery
2) Immigration rights, to insure more slave owning immigrants. They would not go to TX if MX banned slaves. Austin could not attract them.
3) and not to be under almost dictatorial type control. No, Santa Ana gave them what they wanted but it wasn't enough and the Mexican Nation was so huge there was little "dictatorial" control. Plus Mexico was in a constant state of Revolution.

---

LOL now he's defending the probity of the Santa Ana regime.

Waco1947 said:

---

Thee University said:

---

I am a man of color.

European.

We rule the world. Always have and always will.

---

When did this rule begin?

---

I am a man of color. Nothing else matters. That's all you need to know.

Now bow down and give me reparations!

Thee University said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Thee University said:

---

I am a man of color.

European.

We rule the world. Always have and always will.

---

When did this rule begin?

---

I am a man of color. Nothing else matters. That's all you need to know.

Now box down and give me reparations!

---

How dare someone else force an artificially constructed identity upon you!

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

" Primarily the people were fighting for Independence, Federalism, Immigration rights, and not to be under almost dictatorial type control."
Primarily the people were fighting for Independence,
1) Federalism, a central government that abolished slavery
2) Immigration rights, to insure more slave owning immigrants. They would not go to TX if MX banned slaves. Austin could not attract them.
3) and not to be under almost dictatorial type control. No, Santa Ana gave them what they wanted but it wasn't enough and the Mexican Nation was so huge there was little "dictatorial" control. Plus Mexico was in a constant state of Revolution.

---

LOL now he's defending the probity of the Santa Ana regime.

---

No I am not. That''a your straw man.
Santa Ana was a brutal, murderous vicoter of the Alamo but in the run up to it he tried to grant what Austin wanted.

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

" Primarily the people were fighting for Independence, Federalism, Immigration rights, and not to be under almost dictatorial type control."
Primarily the people were fighting for Independence,
1) Federalism, a central government that abolished slavery
2) Immigration rights, to insure more slave owning immigrants. They would not go to TX if MX banned slaves. Austin could not attract them.
3) and not to be under almost dictatorial type control. No, Santa Ana gave them what they wanted but it wasn't enough and the Mexican Nation was so huge there was little "dictatorial" control. Plus Mexico was in a constant state of Revolution.

---

LOL now he's defending the probity of the Santa Ana regime.

---

No I am not. That''a your straw man.
Santa Ana was a brutal, murderous vicoter of the Alamo but in the run up to it he tried to grant what Austin wanted.

---

I see. Brutal, murderous, but otherwise responsible leader that did nothing that justified a settler revolt in Texas. Got it.

---

The wokesters have turned against the Founding Fathers, against Davy Crockett / pro Santa Anna, and are now full-on pro segregation.

I'm waiting for them to figure out how we were in the wrong during WWII and turn against Ike and D-Day. We did invade Europe, after all. I'm sure some of these idiots will come up with an angle if we just give them some time. We were reverse colonizing or appropriating European culture or some such ***** They'll start with Patton and then work their way out from there.

Robert Wilson said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

" Primarily the people were fighting for Independence, Federalism, Immigration rights, and not to be under almost dictatorial type control."
Primarily the people were fighting for Independence,
1) Federalism, a central government that abolished slavery
2) Immigration rights, to insure more slave owning immigrants. They would not go to TX if MX banned slaves. Austin could not attract them.
3) and not to be under almost dictatorial type control. No, Santa Ana gave them what they wanted but it wasn't enough and the Mexican Nation was so huge there was little "dictatorial" control. Plus Mexico was in a constant state of Revolution.

---

LOL now he's defending the probity of the Santa Ana regime.

---

No I am not. That''a your straw man.
Santa Ana was a brutal, murderous vicoter of the Alamo but in the run up to it he tried to grant what Austin wanted.

---

I see. Brutal, murderous, but otherwise responsible leader that did nothing that justified a settler revolt in Texas. Got it.

---

The wokesters have turned against the Founding Fathers, against Davy Crockett / pro Santa Anna, and are now full-on pro segregation.

I'm waiting for them to figure out how we were in the wrong during WWII and turn against Ike and D-Day. We did invade Europe, after all. I'm sure some of these idiots will come up with an angle if we just give them some time. We were reverse colonizing or appropriating European culture or some such ***** They'll start with Patton and then work their way out from there.

---

Next, we'll hear how Santa Ana made the trains run on time.

Forest Bueller said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

" Primarily the people were fighting for Independence, Federalism, Immigration rights, and not to be under almost dictatorial type control."
Primarily the people were fighting for Independence,
1) Federalism, a central government that abolished slavery
2) Immigration rights, to insure more slave owning immigrants. They would not go to TX if MX banned slaves. Austin could not attract them.
3) and not to be under almost dictatorial type control. No, Santa Ana gave them what they wanted but it wasn't enough and the Mexican Nation was so huge there was little "dictatorial" control. Plus Mexico was in a constant state of Revolution.

---

LOL now he's defending the probity of the Santa Ana regime.

---

Dude is clueless, I'm done with engaging him. He is in the middle of a group of people creating their own truth. You can't argue with that.

---

Forrest, you gone back to ad hominen attack. I thought you would be nore rational. "Dude is clueless." I am not "creating my own truth. Everything is in a fact.
What is untrue? Please don't say it has been posted because it has not. It is usually "Dude is clueless." I deserve better from you and respect answers.

Austin went to work advertising his settlement in newspapers throughout the South. The ads described rich lands, perfect for growing cotton and affordable to the average American. The advertisements made it clear that settlers would receive additional acreage if they brought a wife, additional acreage for each child, and additional acres for each slave. What Stephen Austin was offering was enticing. It was a chance for average White Americans who couldn't afford good cotton lands to become landowners and cotton producers. The land was so cheap that an average farmer who could otherwise never afford to purchase slaves could do so with the money they saved. 1822
culturalsolidarity.com

On January 3, 1823, Mexico passed legislation allowing American settlers to bring slaves, while gradually phasing slavery out after settlements had been established. Austin's settlement was also granted official recognition by the Mexican government. However, Austin still struggled to attract settlers, because new antislavery measures made it obvious that Mexico hoped to abolish slavery in the near future. In July of 1824, a national law was passed banning the slave trade: "Commerce and traffic in slaves," read the bill, "proceeding from any country and under any flag whatsoever, is forever prohibited in the territory of the United Mexican States." Any slaves brought into Mexico against this law would be freed by "the mere act of treading Mexican soil." The language of the bill, however, left an opening for slaves to be brought into Mexico just not sold there leaving an opening for Americans to bring slaves who had been purchased in the U.S. However, for American settlers hoping to participate in the slave-based cotton economy, it made little sense to purchase land in a country where the support of slavery was clearly unstable even if the land was cheap.

With the issue of slavery now under state control, most states immediately abolished it. Texas was the major outlier, but even there Austin's plans encountered trouble. Because Texas did not have a large enough population to become a state, it was merged with the state of Coahuila meaning that decisions about the Texas frontier would be made by the large population far to the west of Texas, and not by the Tejanos who supported American settlement. Austin and his Tejano allies thus turned their attention towards influencing the legislation coming out of Saltillo, the capital of the new state of Coahuila-Texas.
American Settlers Push Back on Mexican Abolition
As Austin worked to influence Mexican legislation in favor of American settlement, he also continued to build that settlement. He secured financial investments from major cotton merchants, promising massive returns for the cotton gins and equipment they provided. He petitioned Mexican officials for the right to build seaports, arguing that only direct cotton shipments to Europe would bring prosperity to Texas. In order to secure slavery in a nation that wished to abolish it, Austin drew up codes for extreme punishment to deter runaways. A White person aiding a runaway slave would be forced into hard labor and fined $1000 a fantastic sum at the time. Slaves could receive 100 lashes merely for stealing. Such policies helped slave owners feel at least somewhat reassured that their human property would be safe in Austin's settlement. Within a few years, slaves made up a quarter of the population, and Austin's settlement was producing an annual 200,000 pounds of cotton. It was a start to Austin's vision, but nowhere near the 45 million pounds produced yearly in Alabama.

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Austin went to work advertising his settlement in newspapers throughout the South. The ads described rich lands, perfect for growing cotton and affordable to the average American. The advertisements made it clear that settlers would receive additional acreage if they brought a wife, additional acreage for each child, and additional acres for each slave. What Stephen Austin was offering was enticing. It was a chance for average White Americans who couldn't afford good cotton lands to become landowners and cotton producers. The land was so cheap that an average farmer who could otherwise never afford to purchase slaves could do so with the money they saved. 1822
culturalsolidarity.com

---

you keep pushing Austin wanted slavery and I've already told you if you look at your history, Austin was against Texas independence...

---

Immaterial to my argument which is slavery was at the heart of Texas Independence

Robert Wilson said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Austin went to work advertising his settlement in newspapers throughout the South. The ads described rich lands, perfect for growing cotton and affordable to the average American. The advertisements made it clear that settlers would receive additional acreage if they brought a wife, additional acreage for each child, and additional acres for each slave. What Stephen Austin was offering was enticing. It was a chance for average White Americans who couldn't afford good cotton lands to become landowners and cotton producers. The land was so cheap that an average farmer who could otherwise never afford to purchase slaves could do so with the money they saved. 1822
culturalsolidarity.com

---

you keep pushing Austin wanted slavery and I've already told you if you look at your history, Austin was against Texas independence...

---

Immaterial to my argument which is slavery was at the heart of Texas Independence

---

You don't have arguments. You have mantras.

Plus, we've already established that you are pro slaver.

---

What are your arguments?

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Austin went to work advertising his settlement in newspapers throughout the South. The ads described rich lands, perfect for growing cotton and affordable to the average American. The advertisements made it clear that settlers would receive additional acreage if they brought a wife, additional acreage for each child, and additional acres for each slave. What Stephen Austin was offering was enticing. It was a chance for average White Americans who couldn't afford good cotton lands to become landowners and cotton producers. The land was so cheap that an average farmer who could otherwise never afford to purchase slaves could do so with the money they saved. 1822
culturalsolidarity.com

---

you keep pushing Austin wanted slavery and I've already told you if you look at your history, Austin was against Texas independence...

---

Immaterial to my argument which is slavery was at the heart of Texas Independence

---

it strongly contradicts your arguement

---

His advertisements to the south are clear he encourage slavery

Canada2017 said:

---

For many years now I have watched poster after poster attempt to have a meaningful discussion with Waco47.

It simply never works out.

The old fella is merely a semi literate, heavily medicated , under educated abortionist , who fades in and out of lucidity .


Kind of like Joe Biden without his wife present .

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Austin went to work advertising his settlement in newspapers throughout the South. The ads described rich lands, perfect for growing cotton and affordable to the average American. The advertisements made it clear that settlers would receive additional acreage if they brought a wife, additional acreage for each child, and additional acres for each slave. What Stephen Austin was offering was enticing. It was a chance for average White Americans who couldn't afford good cotton lands to become landowners and cotton producers. The land was so cheap that an average farmer who could otherwise never afford to purchase slaves could do so with the money they saved. 1822
culturalsolidarity.com

---

you keep pushing Austin wanted slavery and I've already told you if you look at your history, Austin was against Texas independence...

---

Immaterial to my argument which is slavery was at the heart of Texas Independence

---

You don't have arguments. You have mantras.

Plus, we've already established that you are pro slaver.

---

What are your arguments?

---

You're senile and a bad person