Is Texas more Western or Southern? (Alamo, Howe: crime, costs, expense)

[TexasHorseLady]

Well, I realize I'm feeling cranky tonight - not much sleep last night and a touch of heartburn doesn't help my mood, either.

[TexasReb]

Why don't we just put this topic/subject to bed good and all? There is no "right answer" anyway. We all have our own opinions and all are equally valid and worthless, depending on the opinion itself! LOL

Seriously, let's just agree to disagree. It ain't worth it to keep hollering at each other over something that will never get settled and never will...

[doctorjef]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

Yes, Houston was prophetic on that point. His underlying reason for opposing secession was that it would lead to a war that -- in the long run -- the South could not possibly win. BUT...the main point is, that when it came down to it, Houston cast his lot with Texas and the South...whatever the outcome might be. Houston was NOT a northern symathizer, as some history books sorta portend to make him out to be. He was a Southerner who deeply loved the South; enough that he expressed it in very sublime ways. I truly respect the memory of Houston...even if I might have opposed him at the time. But he WAS a Texan who loved Texas and a Southerner who loved the South.

No, Houston did NOT take up arms against his "lawful" country. How do you figure that...?

Far as that goes, neither did any other Southerner who defended their homeland against invasion (and that includes your own ancestors who felt the same way). The War could have been avoided if Lincoln had not been hell-bent on coercing the Lower South (which included Texas at the time) back into a Union they no longer wanted to be a part of. All the South wanted was to be left alone...

In regard to Houston, it would seem extremely unlikely that having made annexation such a public priority of his political career during the Republic, he could then easily turn around and espouse secession only 15 years later.

As to what my own ancestors actually "thought", I don't claim to know. Most people prefer to stay out of a war effort and don't like the untoward economic effects. Farmers weren't paragons of patirotism during the wars that took place on American soil or in which incursions were made into America. And in the War of 1812, as you know, much of New England was intensely unsupportive of their own country due to the depressing effect on the local shipping industry and the whole economic sector surrounding it. It's interesting to me that my ancestors likely managed to spare themselves much grief in the conflict to come when they decamped from Tennessee to Texas in the 1850s, or at least managed to spare themselves proximity to any actual war zones.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by Nairobi

So my view is merely an opinion, but yours is an indisputable fact? Hmm. .

I wish I could give you an "official" rep point for this point, Nairobi, but I can't... so consider it done here. This is right on the money!

LATER EDIT: After more careful reading of subsequent exchanges, please consider this post of mine unneccesary and possibly even inflamatory. I apologize for it. I stand by the general sentiment, but perhaps I could have worded it different. If a Moderator can remove it completely, I would appreciate it.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by doctorjef

In regard to Houston, it would seem extremely unlikely that having made annexation such a public priority of his political career during the Republic, he could then easily turn around and espouse secession only 15 years later.

This is true on many levels. All I am saying is that, when it came down to brass tacks, he stood with Texas and the South. Hell, I admire Houston, for sure. Even though I might have opposed him at the time, I cannot help but be awed and respectful of what he predicted. He was one of the few Southern men who truly forecast accurately what the result of secession might be.

That is, it would lead to a war that the South could not possibly win, if it was a drawn out war. The South banked upon that England and France would recognize and come to their (our) aid out of a need for cotton. He predicted (accurately) along the lines of (paraphrased), in a speech to his fellow Texans:

"You may, after the sacrifice of thousands of lives and millions of treasure, win Southern independence, but I doubt it. While I agree with you in the principle of States Rights, I tell you now that the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive, people as we are...but once they begin to move in a given direction, they do so with the steady momentum of a mighty avalanche...and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South with ignoble defeat"

*sighs*

As to what my own ancestors actually "thought", I don't claim to know. Most people prefer to stay out of a war effort and don't like the untoward economic effects. Farmers weren't paragons of patirotism during the wars that took place on American soil or in which incursions were made into America. And in the War of 1812, as you know, much of New England was intensely unsupportive of their own country due to the depressing effect on the local shipping industry and the whole economic sector surrounding it. It's interesting to me that my ancestors likely managed to spare themselves much grief in the conflict to come when they decamped from Tennessee to Texas in the 1850s, or at least managed to spare themselves proximity to any actual war zones.

Your point is good and understood. I just want to mention that on a personal level -- all constitutional considerations aside as to why I absolutely -- without question or qualm -- believe for sure that the South was "right" -- is that those "farmers" fought for something that is intrinsic to the natural instincts of human nature. That is, to defend one's family and land and home.

Hell, Doc...take the typical Confederate soldier from Mississippi, Tennessee, or Texas. He was probably around 19 years old and never had a slave and didn't care a lick about whether it existed or not. All he knew were that some folks called "yankees" were coming down to stomp him and his kinfolk and trample his land. Them's fightin' words, he thought...where do I sign my name and join up...?

And to be fair? The average northern farm boy didn't give a damn about slavery either...all he knew was that some folks down South had fired on the U.S. flag at Ft. Sumter, and it was necessary to put these "rebels" in their place.

They were mostly just boy/men who really had nothing against one another at all, and just wanted to go home...

[doctorjef]

Although it could be argued that it was nothing more than skillful war propoganda, ISTM that the youthful Federal troops rather quickly caught the idealism of defeating the slave-holding regime. After all, they were early in the war singing, "John Brown's Body Lies a-Mouldering in the Grave...but his truth goes marching on". And the re-write by Julia Ward Howe was much better propoganda than anything the South put out. The loyalist USA could offer a positive idealism to rally its troops -- something which the CSA really could not do. The Union principles in the war were transformative, closer to the Liberte, Fraternite, Egaulite of the French Revolution and the imagery of La Marseillaise than the sentimental, backwards-looking institutional conservatism that the CSA had on offer. Interestingly, the Union offered a revolution, whilst the secessionist South offered no progressive principle, only territoriality.

TexasReb, your Southern idealisation of Texas is essentially backwards-looking - a long, sniffly fare-thee-well to a time past its sell-by date - while the Lone Star State and the rest of the country are rushing headlong, or drawn inexorably, into the future!

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by doctorjef

Although it could be argued that it was nothing more than skillful war propoganda, ISTM that the youthful Federal troops rather quickly caught the idealism of defeating the slave-holding regime. After all, they were early in the war singing, "John Brown's Body Lies a-Mouldering in the Grave...but his truth goes marching on". And the re-write by Julia Ward Howe was much better propoganda than anything the South put out. The loyalist USA could offer a positive idealism to rally its troops -- something which the CSA really could not do. The Union principles in the war were transformative, closer to the Liberte, Fraternite, Egaulite of the French Revolution and the imagery of La Marseillaise than the sentimental, backwards-looking institutional conservatism that the CSA had on offer. Interestingly, the Union offered a revolution, whilst the secessionist South offered no progressive principle, only territoriality.

DocJ? If my history is correct, the French Revolution brought on the first (although certainly not the last) mass executions and tyranny in history, right? (Later, the socialist/communist regimes practiced it and gulags and graveyards are existing monuments to the fact (no ironic pun intended!). If you believe that a Union is a Union which has to be held together by force, then we are just talking past each other.

Idealism and lying? Ha. It was necessary for the Lincoln administration to lie to the northern populace to support an invasion of the Southern states. What wrong had the South done the North? The early sentiment was to just let the Lower South states (South Carolina thru Texas) to go in peace. Why couldn't they? Lincoln needed the tax money and later said so. He had to provoke/approve an incident at Ft. Sumter to rally northern opinion around putting down the "upstart rebels"...and I admit it worked.

TexasReb, your Southern idealisation of Texas is essentially backwards-looking - a long, sniffly fare-thee-well to a time past its sell-by date - while the Lone Star State and the rest of the country are rushing headlong, or drawn inexorably, into the future!

Them is mighty pretty, and flowery and idealistic wording, and phrasing...but just what does it mean....? Backward looking? As opposed to what? Forward looking? Which means...whaaaaat? What the hell future are you talking about? What is the ultimate ideal?

Can you give some actual specifics rather than a bunch of vague BS? The "future" can be Orwells 1984....

[busterkeaton]

I think Texas is more Jamaican, mon!

[ReppingDFW]

Also, from a political standpoint, Texas resembles Mississippi and Alabama (a more religious neoconservatism) rather than Montana or Colorado (more of a libertarian "less government" conservatism).

[doctorjef]

The strong religious element in Texas' politics is a relatively new thing, unlike the incursions of fundamentalist religion into public education, for example, in some other places in the South. That's what the reactionary elements of the Repugnican Party have brought the State.

@TexasReb. Both the French Revolution and the American Civil War involved the shedding of blood. The former swept away the Ancien Regime irrevocably. It brought the Declaration of the Rights of Man as well as Robespierre, and ultimately - with the advent of the Third Republic - a stable democratic France based on a foundation of strong humanistic ideals. The latter proved to be a conflict in which, to paraphrase Lincoln's Second Inaugural, every drop of blood extracted by the slaveholder's whip had to be payed for in the blood of the war dead, but also finally created an unquestionably indissoluable political union in which the national government has definitive authority, the priniciple of equality under law is established, and a feudalistic system was swept away. It created essentially a Second American Republic. You may pine for the previous republic; I find the one given us by Lincoln vastly preferable to its predecessor.