|
Post by alanhufffines on Nov 6, 2010 19:18:30 GMT -5
QUISLINGI'd never heard this word before so I looked it up. Definition - Quissling: A traitor who serves as the puppet of the enemy occupying his or her country.Definition - coined after Vidkun Quisling, who assisted Nazi Germany to conquer his own country and ruled the collaborationist Norwegian government, is a term used to describe traitors and collaborators.Obviously quite a loader term. One could ask who was the enemy occupying Texas, Mexico or the Anglo Texans. We are all here to LEARN more. Please let's keep this discussion on a factual basis. No one benefits when emotions take over. Paul Meske Sun Prairie, Wisconsin Well done, Paul. By quisling I meant Seguin was with the Texians and then assisted in bringing in an invader to conquer his former compatriots and homeland. Survey says scumbag for fighting with the Santanistas during the US-Mexico War as well. He should have been hanged with the San Patricios.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Nov 6, 2010 20:08:59 GMT -5
Paul: That was my point. The term Quisling did not seem to fit Seguin. I was and am quite aware of his post revolutionary activities. I have always thought that his shortfalls were due more to circumstance than anything else. Perhaps I am giving him a pass because of his service to Texas during the revolution. His service to Mexico during the Mexican war cannot be counted as treason I don't believe. For it to be such Seguin would have had to be a United States Citizen, and I don't believe he was, at least not then. That is a good point. When Texas joined the Union, all citizens of the Texas Republic became US citizens. Juan was not living in Texas at the time, and was in fact, in the service of Mexico. So, by his actions, it would appear he gave up his Texan citizenship. While in a court of law that would stand up, to his former comrades in Texas, Juan had, in their eyes, betrayed them. Regardless of the legalities, they did consider him traitor. To be far, Anglo's and non-Hispanics are not the only people who are critical of Juan. At the time the PBS Seguin was being made, Rudy Acuna said "To make heroes of Mexican people defending the Alamo is like making heroes of the Vichy gov- ernment." It is interesting to compare the careers of Juan Seguin, who supported the Texas Independence movement and the early years of the Republic, to Carlos de la Garza, the Goliad area rancher, who stayed loyal to the Centralist cause. Both men formed Hispanic volunteer companies that served effectively for both causes. de la Garza, probably owing to his beleif in a cause and because of some his efforts to help save colonists captured by Mexican forces, returns home, and despite some problems with the newer wave of immigrants, still lives out his life on his old homestead and is active in the community. Seguin's goes just the opposite. I think both men saw the same type of anti-Hispanic activities after the Revolution.
|
|
|
Post by Seguin on Nov 6, 2010 20:17:45 GMT -5
Chieftan, you raise some valid points. If Seguin was´nt a US citizen at the time of the Mexican-American War, then you can´t call him a traitor what that war is concerned. I too, think Quisling is a rather harsh word because what Quisling did in Norway was far worse than Seguin being forced to participate in the Woll expedition. Quisling was´nt under any duress to do what he did. He was Nazi from the very beginning.
Anyway, I think Seguin´s contributions to the Texian Revolution far outweighs the fact he was forced to be part of the Woll expedition. Rotting till you die in a Mexican prison was hardly a real alternative. Again, I think the real culprits were those Anglos who came to Texas after independence and took part in ousting Seguin because he stood up for his fellow Tejanos when they were being exploited by the newcomers.
I have´nt read Ben McCulloch´s letter (maybe somebody could post it here?), but I think calling Seguin a Judas Iscariot is going too far. That´s pretty strong language. As for racism, that was rampant after Independence, especially among the newcomers, so that´s a relevant point too. It´s not a matter of being Politically Correct in 2010, it was just the way it was back then.
It´s not that I´m totally unbiased (as you can see I use Seguin´s name as my handle), but from what I´ve read Seguin was a true Texan hero who got caught up in events after independence which ultimately drove him out of Texas and into circumstances (the Woll Expedition) he would rather have been without. When I put his contributions to the revolution on one scale, and his participation in the Woll expedition, and in the Mexican American War, on the other, then I think the scales weigh down in Seguin´s favor on the whole. Again, I´m somewhat biased, but I´m certainly willing to listen to all aspects and opinions. After all, we´re here to learn and to try to get closer to the truth, which is seldom black or white.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Nov 6, 2010 21:43:06 GMT -5
In the most strict sense of the word, every man who took up arms against the Crown, including the Founders, especially the Founders, was guilty of treason. Every man who took up arms against the United States in the Civil War was guilty of treason. Each Mexican Citizen living in Texas who took up arms against the established Mexican Government was guilty of treason. Other persons who took up arms against Mexico were nothing more in the eyes of international law, then hired mercenaries, who are by that same law offered no legal protection. Those who came as U S Citizens to fight in Texas were also in violation of a number of U S Laws as well. Therefore, it would seem that one man's traitor is another man's patriot.
I think it might be well to remember that this country found in it's heart the ability to forgive Jeff Davis and Robert E. Lee. Certainly it can find the same means to forgive Juan Seguin.
|
|
|
Post by cantador4u on Nov 6, 2010 22:01:47 GMT -5
I suspect that the reason Tejanos fought for independence was different than why Anglos fought. These are two very different cultures.
Stepping back a little further to try to figure out the differences, I tried to compare the Mexican battle for independence from Spain and the US battle for independence from England. I'll be the first to acknowledge that I don't know as much as I should so what I'm about to say is probably best described as personal OPINION.
The battle for independence from England was more about business men wanting the ability to make money without the government messing around with the supply and demand curves.
In the Mexican battle for independence the few successful business men DEPENDED on Spain for the restrictions that made them profitable. These are the few people given large estates with vassals (peasants) to take care of them. The battle seems to me to have been not so much a battle for independence but a battle to see who was going to be the next ruler. Very little changed with "independence" from Spain in 1821. The upper class remained upper class and it was very difficult for any of the lower class to move up.
At this point my brain melts and I don't know how/if this pertains to Seguin and the other Tejanos of the Texas Revolution. Duuuuhhh...
Paul Meske
|
|
|
Post by alanhufffines on Nov 6, 2010 22:11:22 GMT -5
In the most strict sense of the word, every man who took up arms against the Crown, including the Founders, especially the Founders, was guilty of treason. Every man who took up arms against the United States in the Civil War was guilty of treason. Each Mexican Citizen living in Texas who took up arms against the established Mexican Government was guilty of treason. Other persons who took up arms against Mexico were nothing more in the eyes of international law, then hired mercenaries, who are by that same law offered no legal protection. Those who came as U S Citizens to fight in Texas were also in violation of a number of U S Laws as well. Therefore, it would seem that one man's traitor is another man's patriot. I think it might be well to remember that this country found in it heart the ability to forgive Jeff Davis and Robert E. Lee. Certainly it can find the same means to forgive Juan Seguin. Had Lee shifted sides at G'burg this would be comparable. Jeff Davis and Robert Lee need no forgiveness from anyone this side of Again. And neither did all of my 'treasonous' Confederate ancestors.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Nov 6, 2010 23:03:15 GMT -5
Need it or not, they were forgiven by means of parole, to return to their homes and take up their lives where they left off. That is black letter history.
I don't know about your folks, but mine that served in the Stonewall Brigade, those that survived, did exactly that. Others of my relations that served in the Philadelphia Brigade, the ones that made it past Sharpsburg/Antietam, were quite glad they did.
The point here is that it was a different time, where loyalties to state or commonwealth, were in conflict with loyalty to a nation state. I don't believe then that anyone after a hundred and fifty or more years can judge a Lee or Seguin by the standards of today. Reading letters and contemporary accounts can give us insights into how people thought about these issues at the time. Read what Union officers, who may have been personal friends or classmates in the "Old Army" thought about the actions of John Bell Hood, or Lee, or Longstreet. That is what is comparable. Also remember that Longstreet and John S. Mosby served in the Grant Administration, and Fitzhugh Lee and Joe Wheeler served as general officers in the United States Army. Then there is that "with malice toward none and charity for all, bind up the nations wounds" stuff you may have heard about in passing.
I can even forgive Arnold. He gave up West Point, but the way the Army football team performed against Air Force today, it might have been better if we had let the Brits keep it.
While you are fond of quoting Genesis, I have always been a Saint Mathew man myself, especially the part where he reports that to be forgiven, we must first forgive.
|
|
|
Post by alanhufffines on Nov 7, 2010 9:43:14 GMT -5
Just to follow the logic here, Stalin is forgiven?
To be forgiven there most be contriteness and a sin. What the South did was in no way sinful or treasonous. Besides, it is not me the 'sin' was committed against so it is not up to me to forgive any of these people including Arnold and Seguin.
What Seguin did was change sides--that is the problem. And he did so just like Arnold, Judas and the San Patricios, and they ALL had their reasons. The Colonies did not change sides in the middle of the conflict, neither did the South (Galvanized excepted and somewhat understood). Seguin followed the roadmap for a Latin Revolutionary--change sides when is gets too tough.
Adios.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Nov 7, 2010 10:08:30 GMT -5
No forgiveness takes only an act of my will. Contriteness must be on the part of the offender.
By the way had I been alive during the Revolution and given the responsibility, I would have given Arnold a fair trial, taken into mitigation his excellent service in Canada, Upper New York, and Saratoga, found him guilty and hung him alongside of his wife. Both committed treason. My forgiveness in no way stands in the way of justice, and the retribution that must be handed out for such acts.
Had Seguin been brought to trial, and the evidence was there, I may have done the same thing. The San Patricio's were clearly guilty of treason, in that they were United States soldiers who deserted and took up arms against the United States. They got what they deserved. Nonetheless I forgive them. We are many years removed from these events. What purpose does it serve to continue on with these concerns when we have no way to change what happened. Just does not make sense to me. The reason history is to be studied is to learn from it and apply its lessons, so that we might avoid the mistakes of the past. I must say we are not very good at it, but that is no reason in my view to stop trying.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Nov 7, 2010 12:20:48 GMT -5
When a man hath no freedom to fight for at home, Let him combat for that of his neighbors; Let him think of the glories of Greece and of Rome, And get knocked on the head for his labors.
To do good to mankind is the chivalrous plan, And is always as nobly requited; Then battle for freedom wherever you can, And, if not shot or hanged, you'll get knighted.
Lord Byron 1820
The McCulloch quote from the letter to Bliss is:
Seguin passed up the River san Juan a few days before we arrived hre and might have been overtaken. He had forty thieves and murderers from about San Antonio to kill which would be doing God a service. It would be ridding th world of those that are not fit to live in it. They will never come to terms, because they would be condemned by the Civil Laws and executed Accordingl, they mustdo the frontier of Texas no little harm by robbing and sealing from its citizens. Any orders the General may give will be thankfully received and obeyed to the letter.
This was written during the opening stages of the Mexican War, when McCulloch's company were working a scouts for the US Army in Northern Mexico, and taking care of Mexican illregulars attacking supply lines.
I think Juan has become the "poster child" for disfranchised Tejanos who found themselves "strangers" in their own land following Texas independence...Certainly he has become that in recent years. Texas certainly has done more than forgive him...his portrait hangs in the capital, his remains (?) were returned to burial in Seguin and now has that big statue...Juan outlived most of his Texas Rev/Republic/Mexican War associates...The US History book our local students use has a lot more on Seguin in the Alamo/Texas Rev section than it does about William Travis.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Nov 7, 2010 12:31:04 GMT -5
I suspect that the reason Tejanos fought for independence was different than why Anglos fought. These are two very different cultures. Stepping back a little further to try to figure out the differences, I tried to compare the Mexican battle for independence from Spain and the US battle for independence from England. I'll be the first to acknowledge that I don't know as much as I should so what I'm about to say is probably best described as personal OPINION. The battle for independence from England was more about business men wanting the ability to make money without the government messing around with the supply and demand curves. In the Mexican battle for independence the few successful business men DEPENDED on Spain for the restrictions that made them profitable. These are the few people given large estates with vassals (peasants) to take care of them. The battle seems to me to have been not so much a battle for independence but a battle to see who was going to be the next ruler. Very little changed with "independence" from Spain in 1821. The upper class remained upper class and it was very difficult for any of the lower class to move up. At this point my brain melts and I don't know how/if this pertains to Seguin and the other Tejanos of the Texas Revolution. Duuuuhhh... Paul Meske If one has not read Tim Henderson's book on the Mexican Wars For Independence I would strong suggest it. It is the best modern view of this complex subject that I have read. The key is that Mexico did not fight a single, continuous war for independence, but a series of them, with different leaderships. What Hidalgo invisioned when he raised the banner in 1810 was not what Iturbide created when he switch sides in 1821.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 7, 2010 14:11:52 GMT -5
I know little about Seguin beyond his service in the Texas Revolution, but this short sketch (from Alamo de Parras) gives a bit of context to his later actions: www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/adp/history/bios/seguin/seguin.htmlAlthough he cites no source, William C. Davis has this to say in Lone Star Rising (p. 288): "Yet within weeks of the end of hostilities in 1836 Anglos slowly began to freeze them [ tejanos] out, challenging or revoking their land titles, denying their election to office, and even threatening their lives. Within a few years hundreds, including Seguin himself, simply left their homes to resettle in Mexico, where at least they could blend with the rest of the population. Those tejanos who fought with Houston might have believed they were fighting to create a new nation, but they could hardly anticipate that they were only helping create a country for another people, and that soon enough they would be outcasts in their own land."
|
|
|
Post by Seguin on Nov 7, 2010 20:36:42 GMT -5
In the most strict sense of the word, every man who took up arms against the Crown, including the Founders, especially the Founders, was guilty of treason. Every man who took up arms against the United States in the Civil War was guilty of treason. Each Mexican Citizen living in Texas who took up arms against the established Mexican Government was guilty of treason. Other persons who took up arms against Mexico were nothing more in the eyes of international law, then hired mercenaries, who are by that same law offered no legal protection. Those who came as U S Citizens to fight in Texas were also in violation of a number of U S Laws as well. Therefore, it would seem that one man's traitor is another man's patriot. I think it might be well to remember that this country found in it's heart the ability to forgive Jeff Davis and Robert E. Lee. Certainly it can find the same means to forgive Juan Seguin. Good points, Chieftan! Like beauty, it´s all in the eye of the beholder. Kevin, thanks a lot for the McCulloch quote! Allen, thanks a lot for the Alamo De Parras link, and the William C. Davis quote! I think both help explain the background for Seguin´s participation in the Woll expedition and in the Mexican-American War. It seems to me it was not something Seguin wanted to be part of. It was just the only option he had left if he did´nt want to rot in jail. I think the real culprits were those who falsely accused him of siding with Mexico and who drove him out of Texas into the hands of his former enemies who of course exploited the situation.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Nov 8, 2010 9:23:41 GMT -5
As we seem to be into quotes I reckon we can't do better than old Bill Shakespear: "Treason never doth prosper, why? For if it doth prosper then none dare call it treason!"
Seriously though I think we're missing a big point here.
Like a lot of Tejanos in the 1830s Seguin was a Mexican Federalist, and the only difference between the Seguins and the Benavides was that while the latter threw in with Grant and the projected Republic of Rio Grande, Seguin went for the more realistic aim of Texan secession, which is why he ended up serving the Republic of Texas rather than letting his bones bleach at Agua Dulce or reaching an accomodation with the Centralistas.
However while he signed up for an independent Texas he didn't sign up for becoming a US citizen. We're familiar with the stories of how all the post-revolution incomers started to change the face of Texas and how badly the Tejanos from Seguin on down were being treated; but how did Seguin take this. Did he really only serve under Woll because he was threatened with jail, or did he regard a return of Mexican government to be preferrable to an American takeover?
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Nov 8, 2010 10:30:48 GMT -5
Stuart: While we are in to quotes, one from Lincoln comes to mind - "The best way to defeat your enemies is to make them your friends" It is my fervent wish that we would spend more time on this rather than unproductively pulling scabs off old wounds.
|
|