Does anyone ever want to LEAVE Texas?? (Houston: sales, house prices)

[doctorjef]

tindo80, undoubtedly there were annexationists among the later Texian settlers (please note: this is not a misspelling of Texan, but rather the title that was historically used for the Anglo-American settlers). My point was that the situation was not as simple as a group of settlers who were plotting from the get-go to get the Mexican province of Texas taken into the USA. Indeed, there's no particular reason to think that the original negotiations of Moses Austin were undertaken in bad faith, nor that Stephen Austin meant originally that their colony would become a part of the US within the foreseeable future. The Texians and Tejanos tended to occupy different parts of the territory, so I don't think comingling was an especially big issue, as the original land grant and colony covered the southeastern part of Texas, whereas the Tejano population was centralised in South Texas, from San Antonio on down. When the westward capital of Austin was founded, it was very much on the western frontier of the Republic and had not been a locus of Anglo settlement. It had been, as you may know, a hunting camp called Waterloo. As to the issue of slaves, one can't defend that and I'm not sure how that was justified. IIRC the original land grants occurred while Mexico was still under Spanish rule, though settlement didn't really get underway until after Mexican independence, so there were changes in the legal system and I confess I don't know what the original or early stipulations for the Anglo colonists were. The first flag used in the Texas rebellion was the Mexican tricolour with the date "1824" in the centre white section, indicating the date of the Mexican Constitution, which the Texians and Tejanos alike wanted restored. The Texians undoubtedly became more radicalised as Santa Ana began his aggression. Please remember, the Texians may have been slaveholders, but Santa Ana was no Mr Niceguy and he and his officers and troops perpetrated terrible atrocities in Texas, including the massacres at Goliad and San Antonio. BTW, one might remember that the town name of Goliad is an anagram for Hidalgo, the revolutionary priest who played an instrumental role in the Mexican Revolution against Spanish colonial rule.

Anyway, the truth is more complex than the Anglocentric traditional hagiography taught in Texas history and in the original version of the film, The Alamo. It's also more complex than the simplified revisionist history that you are advocating IMO.

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by theloneranger

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

Good to know, I'm thrilled to have diversity in Texas, including Yankees and atheists.

[getmeoutofhere]

I just recently returned from a wonderful trip through Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, and New Hampshire, and Texas absolutely pales in comparison to what they offer.

If only the stupid economy / housing market would cooperate...I can't wait to go reside there.

[tindo80]

Originally Posted by doctorjef

tindo80, undoubtedly there were annexationists among the later Texian settlers (please note: this is not a misspelling of Texan, but rather the title that was historically used for the Anglo-American settlers). My point was that the situation was not as simple as a group of settlers who were plotting from the get-go to get the Mexican province of Texas taken into the USA.

I would agree this was probably not the total sentiment, but the evidence seems to aim towards this ideal as a modus for the leading settlers.

Indeed, there's no particular reason to think that the original negotiations of Moses Austin were undertaken in bad faith, nor that Stephen Austin meant originally that their colony would become a part of the US within the foreseeable future. The Texians and Tejanos tended to occupy different parts of the territory, so I don't think comingling was an especially big issue, as the original land grant and colony covered the southeastern part of Texas, whereas the Tejano population was centralised in South Texas, from San Antonio on down. When the westward capital of Austin was founded, it was very much on the western frontier of the Republic and had not been a locus of Anglo settlement. It had been, as you may know, a hunting camp called Waterloo.

Yes, but the question of coexistence among the Texians and Tejanos seems to be a paramount issue. As you stated earlier, the treatment of Tejanos after the war is further verification of that.

The fact that from the beginning the settlers showed little inclination to become 'mexican' and adopt, or even accept Mexican culture, law and policy, seems to lead toward some alternative interest. If the idea was not to join the Union, it equally was not to remain as 'Mexicans'.

As to the issue of slaves, one can't defend that and I'm not sure how that was justified. IIRC the original land grants occurred while Mexico was still under Spanish rule, though settlement didn't really get underway until after Mexican independence, so there were changes in the legal system and I confess I don't know what the original or early stipulations for the Anglo colonists were. The first flag used in the Texas rebellion was the Mexican tricolour with the date "1824" in the centre white section, indicating the date of the Mexican Constitution, which the Texians and Tejanos alike wanted restored. The Texians undoubtedly became more radicalised as Santa Ana began his aggression. Please remember, the Texians may have been slaveholders, but Santa Ana was no Mr Niceguy and he and his officers and troops perpetrated terrible atrocities in Texas, including the massacres at Goliad and San Antonio.

Santa Ana was certainly a brutal dictator, there is no argument. Also, I was not attacking the settlers use of slavery, that pretty much speaks for itself. My mention of slavery was to show further that the settlers had no intention of adopting Mexican law and policy.

If it were a modern example (a totally hypothetical one), Imagine a large number of middle eastern immigrants moving to one particularized part of the US (and to clarify the hypothetical, lets just say this area was on the border of a north american islamic republic). They are explained of and agree with following American customary law and policy, but from arrival, they observe only sharia as law, allow multiple wives, and disregard local laws and taxes completely. All the while they send envoys back to their neighboring homeland to urge economic and monetary support from across the border. Whats more, when prompted to observe local law, they suggest they have no duty to, even after they accepted that they would in order to settle. It does not seem like good faith.

Anyway, the truth is more complex than the Anglocentric traditional hagiography taught in Texas history and in the original version of the film, The Alamo. It's also more complex than the simplified revisionist history that you are advocating IMO.

I agree with your first statement totally. Its the case with most history.

Revisionist history? Perhaps. It seems more likely that the history was 'revised' immediately after the events to give a 'John Wayne' noble oppressed southern american settler version of Texas history. Popular history and legends are always written by the victorious.

[theloneranger]

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

I just recently returned from a wonderful trip through Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, and New Hampshire, and Texas absolutely pales in comparison to what they offer.

If only the stupid economy / housing market would cooperate...I can't wait to go reside there.

Have fun shovelling the snow in September and paying exhorbitant taxes!

[Cupcake77]

Originally Posted by theloneranger

Have fun shovelling the snow in September and paying exhorbitant taxes!

They use snow blowers
------------------------------------------------------------

It is nice up there, but wouldnt want to live there. Now you're talking the other extrememe. My brother in law lives in Wellesley MA. He said it's done nothing but rain for 38 days straight and it's cool. He also paid around a mil for a 2400 sq foot house. He is a transplant surgeon, I guess if you can afford to live there and not live in squalor more power to you.

Yes it is beautiful there and has a lot more to offer but the fact that you are down here just shows you didn't belong up there anyway. Now you're stuck here with the rest of us.

[MaryBeth2]

I wonder how shoveling snow compares to running for our lives every hurricane season.

[Cupcake77]

Originally Posted by MaryBeth2

I wonder how shoveling snow compares to running for our lives every hurricane season.

avalache?

[MaryBeth2]

Originally Posted by Cupcake77

avalache?

lol

[theloneranger]

Originally Posted by MaryBeth2

I wonder how shoveling snow compares to running for our lives every hurricane season.

That's only Houston and the coast, though.

Most of the state loves hurricane season because of the rain it brings!