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.

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.

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

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.

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.

---

So was the United States (a collection of colonies that had slaves...then a country that had slaves)....slavery was still not the driving factor in the American war with the United Kingdom.

Neither was slavery the driving factor in Texas conflict with the Mexican Federal government.

Slavery was a legal endeavor when Texas was a republic and became a state in 1845. Was slavery immoral? Yes, but it was an issued far from settled in the court of public opinion.

Since 1973 over 60 million legal abortions have been performed in this country. Is abortion immoral? Yes, but it is an issue far from settled in the court of public opinion.

So what is this high moral perch 1947 and others are taking in the micro-examination of others? We are living in no less moral rot than our Texas ancestors, yet we examine them and not ourselves.

What pisses me off is there are more slaves RIGHT NOW than ever before and the vast majority don't even know.

They're too busy bringing up the past and pointing fingers at people today.

ABC BEAR said:

---

Slavery was a legal endeavor when Texas was a republic and became a state in 1845. Was slavery immoral? Yes, but it was an issued far from settled in the court of public opinion.

Since 1973 over 60 million legal abortions have been performed in this country. Is abortion immoral? Yes, but it is an issue far from settled in the court of public opinion.

So what is this high moral perch 1947 and others are taking in the micro-examination of others? We are living in no less moral rot than our Texas ancestors, yet we examine them and not ourselves.

---

Surround that last sentence with blue stars

This whole business of (i) trying to critique someone's entire life rather than focusing on what they did that is pertinent to the history books and then (ii) trying to judge their entire life not within the time period during which they lived or within the flow of history, but rather by today's standards is complete foolishness. Just a way to tear others down and make us feel better about ourselves. We could all be torn apart, out of context, by other fools in the future. Who cares.

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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

---

simple answer No

---

Then stop tying 21st century people to 19th century people.

Waco1947 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

This whole business of (i) trying to critique someone's entire life rather than focusing on what they did that is pertinent to the history books and then (ii) trying to judge their entire life not within the time period during which they lived or within the flow of history, but rather by today's standards is complete foolishness. Just a way to tear others down and make us feel better about ourselves. We could all be torn apart, out of context, by other fools in the future. Who cares.

---

What is out of context? The Alamo defenders fought for slavery. It's history. Learn from it.
What were their heroic goals? Slavery is not heroic ideal. You can't name any truly historic ideals.

---

200 years of scholarship about the Texas revolution and countless historians have studied the issue on both sides of the border.

You are going to have to show more sources that the Alamo defenders were "fighting for slavery" than just the opinion of one of Mayor Adler's old political aids who is from Portland and a divorced washed up journalist from New Jersey.

Waco1947 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

This whole business of (i) trying to critique someone's entire life rather than focusing on what they did that is pertinent to the history books and then (ii) trying to judge their entire life not within the time period during which they lived or within the flow of history, but rather by today's standards is complete foolishness. Just a way to tear others down and make us feel better about ourselves. We could all be torn apart, out of context, by other fools in the future. Who cares.

---

What is out of context? The Alamo defenders fought for slavery. It's history. Learn from it.
What were their heroic goals? Slavery is not heroic ideal. You can't name any truly historic ideals.

---

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.

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.

---

Oh good grief, YOU are calling someone short sighted.

Someone who is obviously a student of History and actually does know what they are talking about.

Also Mexican's are primarily of Spanish decent, which is nothing more than another Western European, and a group who colonized Mexico at that. I thought you were all against the Western European colonizers.

Quote:

---

The first Spanish settlement was established in February 1519 by Hernn Corts in the Yucatan Peninsula, accompanied by about 11 ships, 500 men, 13 horses and a small number of cannons. In March 1519, Corts formally claimed the land for the Spanish crown and by 1521 secured the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire.

---

What is your fantasy about "people of color" somehow being more noble than "white" people. The Spaniards, who are actually white, who ran the show in Mexico and overthrew the Aztec empire is absolutely no more "noble" or "heroic" or better than anybody else, not saying they are worse either, they just do what people do. As does everybody else everywhere in the world. There is no Noble class of people and bad class of people. "We all fall short in many ways" is where we all are as a race, the human race.

When fools quit trying to segregate by race, class, income, nobility, etc. and realize we are all in this together, maybe then we will all prosper. As long as there are people like you trying to divide us by race, class, country etc. it ain't ever going to happen.

Doc Holliday said:

---

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

Should we forget the Aztecs?

---

They're building new facilities!!

You guys know Waco47 is just a troll. Why keep biting?

Waco1947 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

This whole business of (i) trying to critique someone's entire life rather than focusing on what they did that is pertinent to the history books and then (ii) trying to judge their entire life not within the time period during which they lived or within the flow of history, but rather by today's standards is complete foolishness. Just a way to tear others down and make us feel better about ourselves. We could all be torn apart, out of context, by other fools in the future. Who cares.

---

What is out of context? The Alamo defenders fought for slavery. It's history. Learn from it.
What were their heroic goals? Slavery is not heroic ideal. You can't name any truly historic ideals.

---

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.

Booray said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

This whole business of (i) trying to critique someone's entire life rather than focusing on what they did that is pertinent to the history books and then (ii) trying to judge their entire life not within the time period during which they lived or within the flow of history, but rather by today's standards is complete foolishness. Just a way to tear others down and make us feel better about ourselves. We could all be torn apart, out of context, by other fools in the future. Who cares.

---

What is out of context? The Alamo defenders fought for slavery. It's history. Learn from it.
What were their heroic goals? Slavery is not heroic ideal. You can't name any truly historic ideals.

---

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.

---

You explained it a little better than I did.

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 *****

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

This whole business of (i) trying to critique someone's entire life rather than focusing on what they did that is pertinent to the history books and then (ii) trying to judge their entire life not within the time period during which they lived or within the flow of history, but rather by today's standards is complete foolishness. Just a way to tear others down and make us feel better about ourselves. We could all be torn apart, out of context, by other fools in the future. Who cares.

---

What is out of context? The Alamo defenders fought for slavery. It's history. Learn from it.
What were their heroic goals? Slavery is not heroic ideal. You can't name any truly historic ideals.

---

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.

---

You explained it a little better than I did.

---

I thought about it longer.

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.

Booray said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

This whole business of (i) trying to critique someone's entire life rather than focusing on what they did that is pertinent to the history books and then (ii) trying to judge their entire life not within the time period during which they lived or within the flow of history, but rather by today's standards is complete foolishness. Just a way to tear others down and make us feel better about ourselves. We could all be torn apart, out of context, by other fools in the future. Who cares.

---

What is out of context? The Alamo defenders fought for slavery. It's history. Learn from it.
What were their heroic goals? Slavery is not heroic ideal. You can't name any truly historic ideals.

---

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.

---

preach! Much respect for your thoughts