Waco1947 said:I have refuted all these claims.Forest Bueller_bf said:
Of course 47 says nobody has ever refuted anything he has said. Which of course is false, here is a small compilation of SOME of the remarks refuting or correcting his foolishness that have been posted. Of course none of them matter to him since they don't agree with him. There were a lot more, but went with folks who seemed to have a real working grasp of History.Quote:
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.
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.
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.
The Alamo defenders did not fight for slavery. That's just reductionist bull***** You just gave a perfect example of out of context.
They fought for independence from Mexico. There were a lot of reasons for that - primary among them was Mexico not honoring its own Constitutional obligations towards Texas. Many of them were merely fighting against the heavy boot heel of Santa Anna. Few of them owned slaves or were even farmers. A few were and did, but they managed to continue that while part of Mexico anyway.
You think Davy Crockett went to Texas to fight for slavery? He went to Texas because he was pissed off he lost a Congressional election in Tennessee to the Jacksonians (another group I'm sure you detest) and he went west trying to find a frontier and a new place to live out the rest of his life, then got caught up in the revolution.
Its worth remembering that the dispute originally started primarily because the Texas Anglo settlers wanted Texas to be its own Mexican state. Accordingly, its difficult to see how protecting slavery was their primary goal.
The dispute escalated and the men at the Alamo died fighting for their right to live where they had control over their own destiny; the same reason their ancestors had fought the British. Slavery was a meaningful consideration to some but not all of both groups.
But what is most important is the central ethic of both conflicts-a people has a right to self-rule. Abolition, suffrage and the civil rights movement were expansions of that theme: that all people should have a right to democratic self rule. It would have been nice if all those principles came to fruition in 1776 or 1836, but humans evolve rather than mutate.
So while it is worthwhile to understand the nuances, we are missing the forest for the trees. The main point of 1776 and 1836 is that freedom advanced. It was simply the arc of the universe bending towards justice, although not achieving perfect justice. Those events are worthy of celebration.
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 *****
While I criticize the right far more often, the left does things that drive me crazy also. Ignoring the progress we have made and refusing to accept incremental progress are the two that make me the craziest.
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.
his probate inventory listed only eighteen head of cattle, eleven hogs, and a branding iron. No slaves.
Not 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.
You're not dealing in history. You're dealing in grievance resolution on matters long since settled. Please stop. It's embarrassing.
Santa Anna was a tyrant, an arrogant aristocrat and a murderer. I believe that the men of the Alamo stayed and fought because they thought help was coming. It didn't come and disaster fell. The men in Goliad chose a different path to the same conclusion.
Yes, there were some bad people involved on both sides. Yes, there were men that supported slavery and much of the Mexican army were forced soldiers. What is the difference there? But the result is great. Mexicans are still desiring to cross the Rio Grande into the promise land where jobs are plentiful.
And of course the OP doesn't mention that a big part of Crockett's beef with the Jacksonians had to do with Indian removal. He was basically alone on what's now seen as the right side of history.
...arrived in areas so devoid of Mexican citizens that the Mexican government gave millions of acres of land grants to empresarios who were citizens of another country to bring citizens in from all over the world to settle drylands with marginal rainfall which were so cold in the winter, hot in the summer, and full of marauding indian tribes that Mexican citizens simply would not live there.
If it weren't for ideology, your posts would have no ideas at all.
Yep, the author is attempting to describe the picture on a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle using only one piece
You have zero comprehension of Texas history .
You have zero comprehension of the history of the West .
You have zero comprehension of US history .
Believing the effort, sacrifice, and cause weren't noble or just because there was injustice in the world at the time. It's really a fatal flaw in your's and many in the historical grievance camp.
One hundred eighty-nine men from 23 states and seven countries that included England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Denmark, Germany and Mexico brought Jim Bowie, William Travis and the legendary David Crockett to the Alamo to defend her against the Mexican Army led by Mexican President Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.
The most immediate cause of the Texas Revolution was the refusal of many Texas, both Anglo and Mexican, to accept the governmental changes mandated by "Siete Leyes" which placed almost total power in the hands of the Mexican national government and Santa Anna. ... Many Mexicans felt exactly the same way.
Primarily the people were fighting for Independence, Federalism, Immigration rights, and not to be under almost dictatorial type control.
To say the fight was primarily about Slavery is like saying immigrants coming in from the southern border is primarily about expanding the drug trade and drug cartel influence.
The Battle of the Alamo had 180+ Texan deaths. 500-800 Mexican army deaths and 800-1000 Mexican army wounded. Mexican captain Fernando Urizza said "another such victory as this, we'll go to the devil". It was not much of a massacre...more like a very costly Pyrrhic victory.
The Mexican army that invaded Texas is said by historians to have been about 4,000-6,000 men strong.
So their army was delayed for almost two weeks taking the Alamo. They lost 1/4th to maybe even half their fighting strength taking the fort. Massive amounts of ammo, gun powder, and supplies were used up trying to take the fort.
It gave time for Gen. Houston and his Texas forces to move east, organized, and let volunteers join them.
It hurt Mexican army morale (no longer any talk of a quick campaign to put down the Texas rebels), while giving a huge boost to Texan morale and fighting motivation.
And cost the mexican army valuable men and material that they could not easily replace from far away Mexico City.
It is impossible to know if things would have worked out better had Travis evacuated the Alamo and headed East. He had no draft animals to take the artillery pieces with him. And we can't second guess history. The Texas cause was ultimately successful.
"While the Mexicans won the Battle, the troops under Santa Anna felt that the battle was a loss for them due to the number of lives lost, and the fact that the losses they suffered could have been avoided."
https://lurj.org/issues/volume-1-number-2/alamo
I have read historians and books that think the battle of the Alamo should have been avoided. But not that the Mexican army was in good morale after it took place. The average Mexican solider was shocked the Alamo defenders could hold out for two weeks and shocked at the cost in blood.
During the early 1830s, the Mexican government wavered back and forth between federalist and centralist policies. When the pendulum swung sharply towards centralism in 1835, several Mexican states revolted.
Texas was sharply divided but originally many settlers like those in the town of Gonzalez was pro Centralist Mexican govt.
since the mexican army wasnt able to spare troops for protection, the settlers formed the texas militia. The mexican army did loan the town a small cannon to help fend off the comanche attacks. The commander of all mexican troops in Texas felt it was unwise to leave the cannon with the town during these later times of unrest once the revolts began. Troops were sent to retrieve it.
On sept 10, a Mexican Soldier beat a Gonzalez citizen and the town was outraged. In late september, when the small group of soldiers arrived as ordered to pick up the cannon, they were turned away.
Both sides received reinforcements, after voting to resist, October 2 the Texans forcefully pushed the Mexican army back and kept the cannon.
Besides being the first military engagement, it also marks a shift of the centralist support for Santa Anna in Texas to the support for Texas Independence. Many Texans pushed for supporting Santa Anna and the centralist govt in the early 1830's
Anahuac Disturbance Of 1835 clearly shows the texan settlers were upset of unfair taxing policies.
i am not disputing that
You say Texas independence was about slavery, i am telling you that your key evidence of Austin's adverts doesnt help your cause that Independence was fought for slavery since Austin didnt want to be independent from Mexico
Texas Quote
"The reasons for a partial toleration of this evil have now ceased; and the true prosperity and happiness of Texas require that an everlasting bar should be interposed to the further introduction of slaves I am of the opinion that Texas will never become a slave state or country. I will be candid with you on this point, and say I hope it never may."
Stephen F. Austin
in a letter to potential immigrants to Texas from Alabama, June, 1830
