Remember the Alamo 2023 (Austin, Crockett, Bowie: high school, bill, discount)

[ScoPro]

I am damn glad they did what they did and will celebrate it.

If some of you don’t, that’s fine, but would you prefer being a part of the narco-state that is now what Mexico is?

[escanlan]

Originally Posted by ScoPro

I am damn glad they did what they did and will celebrate it.

If some of you don’t, that’s fine, but would you prefer being a part of the narco-state that is now what Mexico is?

It would help with lowering the cost of their hallucinogenic material intake.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Pilsn3r

Curious, coming from someone's who's handle is "NewMexicoCowboy"....

Alamo was fought to allow slavery. It's a widely known fact.

What do you think of the New Mexican territory army and people who fought against the Texan Confederate pansies during the Civil War? The war in which Texan cowboys wanted to keep slavery and expand it into the NM territory so they invaded the NM territory. Also where the New Mexican's kicked the pro-slave Texas cowboy @ss!!!! (with help from Colorado and Native Americans).

What do you think of that Texas and what do you think of that New Mexico?

So you believe de Santa Anna and friends were rampaging north to end slavery in Texas?

[atadytic19]

Originally Posted by EDS_

So you believe de Santa Anna and friends were rampaging north to end slavery in Texas?

As an Army General Santa Anna's job was not to legislate, it was to quell rebellion.

The Mexican government had begun to regret inviting

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by atadytic19

As an Army General Santa Anna's job was not to legislate, it was to quell rebellion.

The Mexican government had begun to regret inviting

By then de Santa Anna was a dictator he didn't need to legislate as he had previously dissolved The Mexican Congress and shredded The Mexican Constitution.


The other guy said, "the Alamo was fought to allow slavery". "It's a widely known fact."

Taking no liberties that means the other poster believes it's a widely know fact that those defending the Alamo were fighting for slavery and de Santa Anna was fighting to stop slavery.

The fact is none of the two more or less direct and one implied claim made by the other guy are correct.


__________


While you guys pile Abolitionist praise on de Santa Anna and 1830s Mexico for nominally abolishing slavery......keep in mind they enjoyed the peon farming system of feudal times instead, still do.

[texasdiver]

Originally Posted by EDS_

By then de Santa Anna was a dictator he didn't need to legislate as he had previously dissolved The Mexican Congress and shredded The Mexican Constitution.


The other guy said, "the Alamo was fought to allow slavery". "It's a widely known fact."

Taking no liberties that means the other poster believes it's a widely know fact that those defending the Alamo were fighting for slavery and de Santa Anna was fighting to stop slavery.

The fact is none of the two more or less direct and one implied claim made by the other guy are correct.


__________


While you guys pile Abolitionist praise on de Santa Anna and 1830s Mexico for nominally abolishing slavery......keep in mind they enjoyed the peon farming system of feudal times instead, still do.

The Alamo and battles involving Santa Anna had their own internal logic. Once war or rebellion starts, things quickly fly out of hand.

But it is indisputable that one of the primary reasons why white American Texans sought independence was to preserve slavery. The majority of them were southerners who sought to expand the southern slave economy westward.

There were of course other grievances and issues that white Texans had with the Mexican government. From religion to land tenure to taxes (tariffs) to immigration restrictions to Santa Anna's dictatorship. But slavery was one of the most fundamental reasons for seeking independence. Without slavery, Texas was not a viable option for white southerners who wanted to build wealth.

Or, to put it another way, had Mexico welcomed and protected slavery in Texas the revolution would likely have never happened.

[Dopo]

Originally Posted by ScoPro

I am damn glad they did what they did and will celebrate it.

If some of you don’t, that’s fine, but would you prefer being a part of the narco-state that is now what Mexico is?

I celebrate Texas joining the union in 1845

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by texasdiver

The Alamo and battles involving Santa Anna had their own internal logic. Once war or rebellion starts, things quickly fly out of hand.

But it is indisputable that one of the primary reasons why white American Texans sought independence was to preserve slavery. The majority of them were southerners who sought to expand the southern slave economy westward.

There were of course other grievances and issues that white Texans had with the Mexican government. From religion to land tenure to taxes (tariffs) to immigration restrictions to Santa Anna's dictatorship. But slavery was one of the most fundamental reasons for seeking independence. Without slavery, Texas was not a viable option for white southerners who wanted to build wealth.

Or, to put it another way, had Mexico welcomed and protected slavery in Texas the revolution would likely have never happened.

I don't precisely agree with all points but that is a reasonable run down. My point per the comment several posts above remains de Santa Anna did not lay siege on the Alamo to end slavery in Texas. The idea of de Santa Anna the dictator-murderer but somehow also great humanitarian-slave freer is preposterous.

[Pilsn3r]

Originally Posted by atadytic19

And they are scared that the kids of today not getting the whitewashed version.



I don't know how adults nowadays think it's best to just flat out ignore the history they don't like



It's freedom to keep other human-beings unfree.
Let's celebrate keeping others enslaved

I also do not understand how adults in this decade still whitewash (perfect word for it) the slavery aspect of texas independence and confederacy, except for a lack of education in grade schools (due to the state restrictions), then in institutions of higher learning, deliberately avoiding anything that could possibly put a damper on their cheerleading viewpoint of Texas history. Instead, as already demonstrated by some people, the whitewashers parrot Dan Patrick talking points and engage in whataboutism and non sequiturs.

"Once the rebels succeeded in breaking Texas away from Mexico and establishing an independent republic, slavery took off as an institution. Between 1836 and 1840, the slave population doubled; it doubled again by 1845; and it doubled still again by 1850 after annexation by the United States. On the eve of the Civil War, which Texas would enter as a part of the Confederacy, there were 182,566 slaves, nearly one-third of the state’s population."

As for the "brave" - Crockett, a slave owner, surrendered and was executed. About a third or more ran away from the Alamo and were killed by the Mexican cavalry - the alamo defenders didn't stay and fight to the death, many surrendered or ran and were executed. This is horrible treatment of people who surrender in wars/rebellions then, and still now, even a few days ago in eastern europe for example. Another "brave" alamo "defender" Jim Bowie - made lots of money as a slave trader and owned slaves, yet he is revered by the same Dan Patrick parrots.

[ScoPro]

Originally Posted by Dopo

I celebrate Texas joining the union in 1845

I do too.
The citizens of the Republic could hardly wait to join the Union, then just 15 years later did a 180 because of slavery.
Those idiot firebrands should have listened to the real Union patriots, Houston & Throckmorton.