Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Perhaps a loss at San Jacinto would have been sufficient to draw America into the war. A defeat would have left the women and children accompanying Houston's army undefended..cause enough to send American troops over the border to protect or perhaps recover them. President Jackson was already a close friend and strong supporter of Houston, so he would not have required much in the way of an excuse to intervene. Going to the aid of helpless American Protestant females who had fallen prey to the savage Papists of Mexico would not have been that hard a sell to the public, especially to the nearby southern men who were living in an age of great romantic chivalry.
Definitely a possibility though in victory Santa Anna could afford to be merciful especially in the face of a numerically superior force. We know from letters that some in the US Army were at least privately laying the pretense of a massing Indian force in Texas which by treaty would allow the US Army to enter Mexico without it being an act of war. Having heard of such a border crossing and having spared the women and children Santa Anna could still turn southwest and flee while thanking the Americans for their help against the savages preying on Mexican farmers. In such a case perhaps the US Army ends up unofficially occupying east Texas indefinitely, and Santa Anna escapes for now.
Besides I prefer an alternate history where a victorious Santa Anna meets his fate at the hands of Comanche war party somewhere on the road back to San Antonio anyways.
Poor Santa Anna...
A tribe of illegal squatters from a strange religion......that were generously invited by the Mexican government because they were starving...not only promote an insurrection against his country....they also demonize him in the present as if the others were christian souls and not bandidos.
The problem with Mexico, Luisiana and Florida is that they let in squatters as "guest", and they were all a fifth columnists of the country they fled.
Nothing to do with language or religion, that's nonsensical. English had exactly the same problem with squatters, in fact, Spain and England sided against the "home of squatters".
They tried to do the same in Canada.
Last edited by Krokodill; 03-26-2016 at 06:45 AM..
Poor Santa Anna...
A tribe of illegal squatters from a strange religion......that were generously invited by the Mexican government because they were starving....
Mexico has legitimate beefs here, but the above is inaccurate. The "generous" invitation was actually a consequence of Mexico's total inability to populate Texas with Mexicans. Few were interested in going there to take their chances against a Comanche nation which Mexico had failed to subdue.
Mexico's claim on Texas and the rest of the SW was a shaky one in that they occupied very little of it, and actually controlled even less. The real masters remained the native tribes of the regions.
Mexico has legitimate beefs here, but the above is inaccurate. The "generous" invitation was actually a consequence of Mexico's total inability to populate Texas with Mexicans. Few were interested in going there to take their chances against a Comanche nation which Mexico had failed to subdue.
Mexico's claim on Texas and the rest of the SW was a shaky one in that they occupied very little of it, and actually controlled even less. The real masters remained the native tribes of the regions.
Indeed. All his other issues aside, Jim Bowie was well regarded by the Mexican and American settlers in Texas because an expedition he led to find a lost silver mine had won a great victory against the Comanche. Three of the six men under his command were killed, but they managed to kill an equal number of Comanche warriors. It was reckoned one of the best victories anyone had ever won against the Comanche at the time.
Indeed. All his other issues aside, Jim Bowie was well regarded by the Mexican and American settlers in Texas because an expedition he led to find a lost silver mine had won a great victory against the Comanche. Three of the six men under his command were killed, but they managed to kill an equal number of Comanche warriors. It was reckoned one of the best victories anyone had ever won against the Comanche at the time.
The American immigrants to Texas did for themselves what the Mexican government was unable to do. Stephen Austin organized the first Texas Ranger units in 1823 (they would not gain formal status until 1835) and tasked them with defending the settlements in SE Texas. The Comanches had repeatedly bested the Mexican soldiers sent to chastise them, but the Rangers turned out to be a lot tougher, employing Indian tactics themselves and being able to sustain themselves in the field far longer.
The American immigrants to Texas did for themselves what the Mexican government was unable to do. Stephen Austin organized the first Texas Ranger units in 1823 (they would not gain formal status until 1835) and tasked them with defending the settlements in SE Texas. The Comanches had repeatedly bested the Mexican soldiers sent to chastise them, but the Rangers turned out to be a lot tougher, employing Indian tactics themselves and being able to sustain themselves in the field far longer.
Definitely! The Comanche had enough respect for them to at least talk with an envoy from the Rangers about setting an boundary between Texas and Comancheria. They simply killed the Mexican and Spanish soldiers before them and took what they wanted.
I did not realize Austin had started the Rangers. He was the true essential man in Texas history. So many times it was his personal pleading that held the hand of the Mexican government against the Texicans. A shame he did not become the first president instead of Houston even if he would have died in office.
Mexico has legitimate beefs here, but the above is inaccurate. The "generous" invitation was actually a consequence of Mexico's total inability to populate Texas with Mexicans. Few were interested in going there to take their chances against a Comanche nation which Mexico had failed to subdue.
Mexico's claim on Texas and the rest of the SW was a shaky one in that they occupied very little of it, and actually controlled even less. The real masters remained the native tribes of the regions.
Typical excuses of invaders that are not legit anymore.
Mexico invited squatters from the new nation to settle in Texas, as the Spanish and English did erroneusly in Florida, as the Spanish and later French did erroneously in Louisiana.
True or not true?
As to the reason why they committed such error, it was plain ignorance but invaders should not judge the ignorance of their victims.
They probably though erroneously that those immigrants were hard-worwing colones as the ones that England, Spain and France scrambled in Minorca, Canary Island, Acadian refugees, Malaguenos, etc.
Mexicos's claim to Texas, California and Nuevo Mexico is old, as those regions were Spanish since the days of the conquest and were transferred to Mexico on independence.
Northern Mexico always suffered the attack of Apaches, Comanches, etc. No reason to invade.
Those regions always had shortage of population because during the 18th and 19th centuries it was impossible to find people willing to settle in those lands.
Mexicos's claim to Texas, California and Nuevo Mexico is old, as those regions were Spanish since the days of the conquest and were transferred to Mexico on independence.
.
You are wasting your time trying to argue this on moral grounds. Morality has never determined property ownership, the power to take and hold property has. By your reasoning the US was stealing Mexico's property, but why do you not apply this same thinking to the Mexicans stealing it from Spain in the first place? Or the Spanish taking it away from the native tribes before that? Or the Comanches displacing the weaker tribes when they arrived?
When I say that Mexico had a weak claim on the SW. I do not mean weak morally, I mean they barely had a basis to claim that they controlled these lands. Their presence there was tiny, scattered and ineffective. Most of the Mexican citizens in these territories were self governing because they received almost nothing in the way of assistance from the Mexican government. It could not protect them from the native tribes, it could not provide essential services.
Americans were invited to settle in Texas because the Mexican government had failed so miserably in trying to settle it with Mexicans. This eventually backfired on Mexico because Texas, with 80% of the population being American immigrants, became American in character.
You are wasting your time trying to argue this on moral grounds. Morality has never determined property ownership, the power to take and hold property has. By your reasoning the US was stealing Mexico's property, but why do you not apply this same thinking to the Mexicans stealing it from Spain in the first place? Or the Spanish taking it away from the native tribes before that? Or the Comanches displacing the weaker tribes when they arrived?
Most of us tried that reasoning in another thread, he simply ignored it and repeats the same thing in his semi-coherence over and over. Most of us gave up even answering him at this point. Answer him purely for amusement value (It's like communicating with "Borat"), not for discussion value.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
