Does anyone ever want to LEAVE Texas?? (Houston, San Antonio: camp, housing market)

[TexianPatriot]

Originally Posted by doctorjef

TexianPatriot, most of what you express are beautiful sentiments, but is it really necessary to invoke the realistically remote notion of secession and the federal government "bringing war upon" Texas? BTW, it's guerrilla war, literally meaning a little war (skirmish and disappear tactics, rather than conventional large-scale battle tactics).

Texas is a huge state and there are many places - less remote than Pecos - where you presumably shouldn't feel pressed upon or invaded.

Lest you be prone to dismiss my remarks based on my present location, I'm a fifth generation, native born Texan who has lived in the state for 36 out of my present 54 years on this earth.

I'm all for peace. I'm also firm believer in the right of self determination. If the people of this state ever decided to leave the union peaceably, I'd defend their right to do so until the day I died. Anyone who stood to coerce us back into an a union we want no part of will be treated as an invader, a threat to liberty, and will have to answer to guerilla tactics of Texas' finest militiamen. The aggressor will be met with self defense and an offensive to drive them out of our homeland.

Originally Posted by Canine*Castle

You might want to keep in mind that those who fought for her independence, very few if any (can't quite remember) were Texans. They were from many other states and countries such as France, Mexico, and Great Britain. Do you think the Father of Texas was a Texan? It really doesn't matter to me but before you put down the rest of the United States, you may want to thank them for helping Texas gain her independence. You don't want those gorillas on your back.

Yeah, but back then America was an admirable place. You could be proud to consider yourself an American. Jackson did away with the banking establishment and people were relatively free to do as they please (other than the slaves and indians, which I don't condone), as long as it didn't affect the liberty of others. Looking at us now, we live in a bankrupt welfare/warfare empire on the verge of collapse as the Illuminati profit from interest collected on "money" created out of thin air to finance this parade.

[theloneranger]

Originally Posted by Canine*Castle

You might want to keep in mind that those who fought for her independence, very few if any (can't quite remember) were Texans. They were from many other states and countries such as France, Mexico, and Great Britain. Do you think the Father of Texas was a Texan? It really doesn't matter to me but before you put down the rest of the United States, you may want to thank them for helping Texas gain her independence. You don't want those gorillas on your back.

The vast majority of them were God-fearing Southerners, a completely different type from many of the people coming into our great state today.

[texdav]

I have been to and live in quite a few sates. I hated the northeast were my parents were from. I guess I ma like most people in that I like texas and my life here. I like the coastal areas of califrnia but its juts crazy there to me ;personally;the rwst of teh stae really isn't that great. I hate the heat and alleriges I got in nevada and arizona that I got no where else. The dust especailly was terrible. I love parts of colorado but those parts are way too cold for me most of the year.So I guess I'm here to stay.

[Canine*Castle]

Originally Posted by theloneranger

The vast majority of them were God-fearing Southerners, a completely different type from many of the people coming into our great state today.

I'm sorry; I must have misunderstood some of the other posters. It is my understanding that anyone outside of the state is a yankee.

Yes, I'll agree they were completely different types of people than you'll find ANYWHERE in the U.S. today. It's just not like it used to be and never will be again. What a pity.

[doctorjef]

Just a couple of reminders about the Texas Revolution. Apart from the various indigenous (Indian) tribes, the population of Texas at the time of the Revolution was mixed Anglo-Celtic American (the Texians) and Hispanic (the Tejanos). Both groups participated in the Revolution, with Juan Seguin being one of the prominent Tejano figures. One might also recall that Lorenzo De Zavala was the first (IIRC) vice-president of the Republic of Texas. In any event, the Revolution resulted from the abrogation of liberties within the province of Texas by the Mexican dictatorship of Santa Ana and indeed the attempt by the dictatorship to erase the entire political character of Texas as a distinct province within the Mexican republic. The policy was also to make the Anglo-American settlers sufficiently uncomfortable that they would leave the territory. The Revolution aimed at restoring democracy and autonomy to the territory north of the Rio Grande. Much like the American Revolution, there was first an attempt to have grievances redressed and then when these attempts were rebuffed, an all-out war for independence. Possibly this was inevitable, as some would argue, but at the time it seems entirely likely that the Anglo settlers would have been content to live within the larger polity of Mexico were it not for the collapse of republicanism government in Mexico and the tyrranny of Santa Ana.

Unfortunately, the Tejanos were not treated as equals by the Anglo Texians, with the result that much of the Tejano population later became alienated from the Revolution in which they had participated on the same side. Seguin himself manifested a great deal of ambivalence toward the Republic of Texas later.

That the Texians were not simply intent on annexation by the USA is demonstrated by the opposition to such a development by prominent Texas politicians like Mirabeau Lamar, the second president and supporter of the capital being at Austin, and even by the ambivalence of Anson Jones, the final president, who swung back and forth on annexation. Annexation really was seen as a practical necessity in view of the continuing threat from Mexico.

A footnote to the above is that at the time of the Civil War, Sam Houston - who opposed secession - took the position that if Texas did secede, it should resume its former status as an independent republic rather than joining the Confederacy.

[theloneranger]

Originally Posted by doctorjef

Just a couple of reminders about the Texas Revolution. Apart from the various indigenous (Indian) tribes, the population of Texas at the time of the Revolution was mixed Anglo-Celtic American (the Texians) and Hispanic (the Tejanos). Both groups participated in the Revolution, with Juan Seguin being one of the prominent Tejano figures. One might also recall that Lorenzo De Zavala was the first (IIRC) vice-president of the Republic of Texas. In any event, the Revolution resulted from the abrogation of liberties within the province of Texas by the Mexican dictatorship of Santa Ana and indeed the attempt by the dictatorship to erase the entire political character of Texas as a distinct province within the Mexican republic. The policy was also to make the Anglo-American settlers sufficiently uncomfortable that they would leave the territory. The Revolution aimed at restoring democracy and autonomy to the territory north of the Rio Grande. Much like the American Revolution, there was first an attempt to have grievances redressed and then when these attempts were rebuffed, an all-out war for independence. Possibly this was inevitable, as some would argue, but at the time it seems entirely likely that the Anglo settlers would have been content to live within the larger polity of Mexico were it not for the collapse of republicanism government in Mexico and the tyrranny of Santa Ana.

Unfortunately, the Tejanos were not treated as equals by the Anglo Texians, with the result that much of the Tejano population later became alienated from the Revolution in which they had participated on the same side. Seguin himself manifested a great deal of ambivalence toward the Republic of Texas later.

That the Texians were not simply intent on annexation by the USA is demonstrated by the opposition to such a development by prominent Texas politicians like Mirabeau Lamar, the second president and supporter of the capital being at Austin, and even by the ambivalence of Anson Jones, the final president, who swung back and forth on annexation. Annexation really was seen as a practical necessity in view of the continuing threat from Mexico.

A footnote to the above is that at the time of the Civil War, Sam Houston - who opposed secession - took the position that if Texas did secede, it should resume its former status as an independent republic rather than joining the Confederacy.

I'd rep you but I have to spread some around.

Your posts, as always, are coherent and incredibly accurate factually, even if I don't agree with all of your opinions sometimes.

[catman]

doctorjef: Excellent post. I repped you for it! Most people don't realize the part that Tejanos played in the Texas Revolution. We, and everyone else, have a distressing tendency to lump groups of people together and say that they are all alike, when of course they aren't.

When one country is (or has recently been) at war with another, of course all the people in the opposing country are demonized, along with all those who are racially connected (witness the treatment of Japanese-Americans during WW2).

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by theloneranger

The vast majority of them were God-fearing Southerners, a completely different type from many of the people coming into our great state today.

Is the problem that today's newcomers aren't God fearing or that they're not Southerners?

[tindo80]

Originally Posted by doctorjef

Just a couple of reminders about the Texas Revolution. Apart from the various indigenous (Indian) tribes, the population of Texas at the time of the Revolution was mixed Anglo-Celtic American (the Texians) and Hispanic (the Tejanos). Both groups participated in the Revolution, with Juan Seguin being one of the prominent Tejano figures. One might also recall that Lorenzo De Zavala was the first (IIRC) vice-president of the Republic of Texas. In any event, the Revolution resulted from the abrogation of liberties within the province of Texas by the Mexican dictatorship of Santa Ana and indeed the attempt by the dictatorship to erase the entire political character of Texas as a distinct province within the Mexican republic. The policy was also to make the Anglo-American settlers sufficiently uncomfortable that they would leave the territory. The Revolution aimed at restoring democracy and autonomy to the territory north of the Rio Grande. Much like the American Revolution, there was first an attempt to have grievances redressed and then when these attempts were rebuffed, an all-out war for independence. Possibly this was inevitable, as some would argue, but at the time it seems entirely likely that the Anglo settlers would have been content to live within the larger polity of Mexico were it not for the collapse of republicanism government in Mexico and the tyrranny of Santa Ana.

Thats a very one sided view of Texas history. There are many historians who would argue that the Anglo-Celtic Texans settled the state with no intentions at all from the beginning of remaining part of Mexico, very likely to join the Union as a slave state.

There are many coincidences to note once you consider the Texas Revolution in context with the American Mexican war, and the Confederacy that definitely lean towards this argument. The Anglo American settlers were from slave states, and came with their slaves, and refused to follow already established Mexican law and abandon slavery. Later, many of the Texas politicians and their supporters (who were also southerners from slave states) were the primary supporters of going to War with mexico. Most of them hoped to simply 'remove' the mexicans from their territory and claim it as American and settle it with more southern slave owners, thereby adding more slave states.

When it did not turn out that way, the same folks who supported the war instantly turned on the idea of accepting Mexico as a whole into the Union, due to their perceived 'inferiority' of the Mexican people (though it should be noted that Mexicos rejection of slavery and support of higher tax systems was not agreeable to Southern Politicians).

Later, those same southern politicians who supported the war with Mexico became the supporters of the confederacy, advocating leaving the Union as a whole and open warfare. You mentioned Sam Houstons opposition. It should be noted that the once great and praised President of Texas was threatened with banishment from the state for his opposition to the confederacy (and later slavery).

This leans toward the idea that there was never any intent to co-mingle with Tejanos, before the revolution or afterwards. There are a large number of non-Texan historians who lean towards this ideal.

I am not a history professor, so I cant say what for what, but over the years the many inconsistencies I was taught growing up in San Antonio about Texas history did not really get explained until I left the state and took history classes that were from a non-self gratifying perspective.

[theloneranger]

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

Is the problem that today's newcomers aren't God fearing or that they're not Southerners?

I didn't say either one was a problem, it was simply a statement of fact.