Alright, so this topic came up in the Alamo thread (this one), and I am curious as to how everyone views the history of Texas. Admittedly, I'm not so educated on the specific events and detailed history of the Texas Revolution; though, I'm not so concerned about that as much as I am the overarching "morality", if you will, of the actions of the original Texians in the first place: Were their actions justified? During formative years in school, it's not so easy to see how history is written by the victors, and so naturally, we think of other countries and peoples who were defeated by the US as in the "wrong" of some sort. That's not to say that I'm standing on a soapbox decrying the lies we've been fed our whole lives--in contrast, I think that we have a relatively untainted view of history regarding the last couple centuries... well, compared to some other countries at least. That said, it doesn't take much examination to begin to question the "righteous" cause of America's Manifest Destiny and of course, our very own Texas Revolution. I'm especially bitter when I consider how much time was spent in school curriculum romanticizing the origins of Texas all the while ignoring infinitely more important lessons regarding world history! I think it's especially imperative that we turn a critical eye to things like this lest we turn to jingoism... Anyway, back on topic, here are some well-stated starting points for the discussion from the previous thread:
Can their not be a negative liberation or positive invasion? You are asking different questions in title and body. And what does "justification" have to do with it? Make that 3 different questions. As a result, I'm not sure what I'm answering, much less what my answer is. Also, Moctazuma. Geronimo, Patchacoutec, Pocahontas, and that Indian who used to cry in those littering PSA's they used to show on TV are sharing a good laugh at Europeans in the New World complaining about being the victim of land grabs.
The anglos bought over some expensive slaves and gosh darn it if them Mexican's were taking them away, but that being said I am glad the Texan's won. I don't think I want to live in Mexico.
Can their not be a negative liberation or positive invasion? Case in point "d day". Pretty universally described as an invasion and considered positive. You are asking different questions in title and body. And what does "justification" have to do with it? Make that 3 different questions. As a result, I'm not sure what I'm answering, much less what my answer is. Also, Moctazuma. Geronimo, Patchacoutec, Pocahontas, and that Indian who used to cry in those littering PSA's they used to show on TV are sharing a good laugh at Europeans in the New World complaining about being the victim of land grabs.
Might as well start posting in here. I agree with Hairyme and Jomama that slavery, land grab, and adventuring by Anglo settlers had a lot to do with the Texas Revolution and it certainly isn't the romantic story that those of us who grew up in Texas were taught. That said I will still say that the Texas Revolution was still a net positive. While yes Anglo settlers did bring in slaves and wanted land at the same time though this is a mistake to paint it as JoMama has as slavery being a primary issue and Santa Anna being a progressive who was driving by a desire for equality of all men. Santa Anna was a tyrant and opportunist who took advantage of the chaos that led to Mexican independence and the early years of an independent Mexico to make himself a dictator. Unlike the US Civil War where slavery was a primary cause (states' rights was only important in that it allowed states to keep slaves) slavery wasn't a primary cause of the Texas revolution. Consider that several Mexican states besides Texas had also declared independence in response to Santa Anna's Seven Laws that centralized power in the presidency. At the same time while there were certainly many Anglo settlers who were looking for adventure and fame and had it in mind to wrest Texas and other western territories from Mexico there were many like Stephen F. Austin who were content to live under Mexican governance. Austin himself initially supported Santa Anna and opposed Texas independence until it became obvious that Santa Anna was a dictator. Also besides the Anglo settlers there were many ethnic Tejanos who lived in Texas who also joined in the Texas revolution. In the end we always have to be careful of projecting present day mores upon judging the past. While slavery was a repugnant idea that was opposed by many at the time it also was widely practiced and supported by the force of law in the US. This isn't to excuse it but recognize that it was acceptable that most of the settlers from the US into Texas at the time either owned slaves or considered it respectable. Keep in mind to that while slavery may have been abolished in Mexico under Santa Anna domestic servants and the poor were not entitled to the privileges of Mexican citizenship so Santa Anna was hardly an emancipator or one who believed in the equality of all men. Like most things in history the truth is always more complicated than myth. The Texas Revolution like the American Revolution wasn't undertaken for the most pure reason by very flawed men. That doesn't mean that both are negative. The men who died at the Alamo were not storybook heroes but they were men fighting against tyranny and that is something as Texans we can be proud of.
This. I was lucky enough to go to a school that had some liberal teachers that taught us both sides. Told us about the slaves not being killed at the Alamo because the Mexicans were "not at war with the negroes", etc.
did not vote in poll b/c it is much more complicated than that. once mexico started allowing anglo immigration the revolution was only a matter of time...it was neither a positive or a negative...it was going to happen...to paraphrase "no country for old men", you cant stop whats a-commin'. mexico's instability, corruption, inability to populate texas and indecisiveness plus american expansion/manifest destiny, desire for cheap land, U.S. severe economic depression and willingness to live in dangerous, indian-filled country all created the conditions that led to revolution. imo, slavery was one of the key issues and while i would not call santa anna a progressive, i do believe he was genuine in his desire to rid mexico of slavery. mexico was a country of mixed-race - spanish/indian/black. president guerrero, who abolished slavery in 1829 was of african decent...mexico had its first black president 180 years before the united states! the first conflict b/t texas settlers and the mexican government came in 1832 in part, as a result of the abolition of slavery. mexican government set up a garrison in anahuac commanded by an american, "juan" bradburn, to stop slave smuggling and he took it upon himself to allow escaped slaves to join the army. travis and others tried get the slaves returned and bradburn refused. this caused a minor skirmish and is what made a travis famous throughout the colonies. mexico outlawed importation of slaves in 1830. this prompted the texans to hold conventions requesting repeals of prohibitions and breaking off texas from coahualia to for its own state. imo, slavery was most definitely a primary issue and stephen f. austin himself agrees... "above all else, texas has to be a slave country" - may 1833 as to the differences b/t the new republic of mexico and the anglo-celtic settlers "the principal difficulty is slavery". "ruin would befall the colony if the original three hundred families could no longer rely on their slaves". "santa anna is determined to conquer texas and inhabit that country with indians and negroes" - 1836 "there is a considerable number of slaves in texas...shall we permit those wretches to moan in chains any longer in a country whose kind laws granted the liberty of man without distinction of caste or color?" - santa anna - february 1836 mexican secretary of war jose maria tornel - "the land speculators of texas have tried to convert it into a mart of human flesh where slaves of the south might be sold and others from africa might be introduced, since it is not possible to do it directly through the united states". in october 1835 the matagorda committee of safety declared that mexican troops under general cos were determined to "give liberty to our slaves to let loose the blood hounds of savage war upon us." abolitionists and pro-slavery folks in the united states were closely watching too... abolitionist benjamin lundy - "the immediate cause and leading object of the contest originated in a settled design, among the slaveholders of this country to wrest the large and valuable territory of texas from the mexican republic, in order to reestablish the system of slavery and open a vast a profitable slave market". new york herald - "santa anna has declared war against the south...if the mexicans are allowed to posses texas they will cause negro insurrections in the south, and thus become one of the most dangerous neighbors to the union that ever appeared on our borders." ***i pullled all these quotes from a book i recently read called "exodus from the alamo" - i highly recommend this book to anyone interested in this stuff...it will totally change the way you see the revolution. alot of what we know as fact came decades after the battle...this book goes back to first and second-hand accounts from both sides to paint a very different picture.
If you believe that the Texas Revolution was this terrible and oppressive event, then there is no way in hell that you can be a practicing Muslim.
