|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 8, 2010 13:32:36 GMT -5
Stuart, that point was made in some of the quick reading I did on this yesterday. That was the view of many tejanos; they didn't bargain on annexation to the U.S. Like the Anglo settlers, they broke down into groups that were Federalist, secessionist, and maybe a few centralists. The war didn't really "catch on" with that broad a populace until after the Alamo, Goliad and the Runaway Scrape.
|
|
|
Post by Seguin on Nov 10, 2010 21:12:47 GMT -5
Good question! So far, we only have Seguin´s explanation. He claims he was given the choice between military service or jail, and according to De La Teja´s book ("A Revolution Remembered"), "No records regarding Seguin´s encounter with Mexican authorities remain." (page 45). I think it´s quite likely he would have ended up in jail had he refused to play ball with the Mexicans. I don´t see any reason to doubt his explanation unless something comes up that points in another direction. Whether or not he regarded a return of Mexican government to be preferable to an American takeover is of course open to speculation, but I´m afraid it´ll be just that. Still, it might be worth looking into, if it´s possible at this late date.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Nov 14, 2010 2:22:42 GMT -5
Santa Anna is rightfully condemned for his actions of forgetting who brought him to the dance. But with Seguin, it's alright because he was 'picked on by racists' and was run out of Bexar. Being a victim of racism seems to make any other sin acceptable or at least forgivable these days. Because he is one of the few Tejanos to serve with the federalist Texians it has become fashionable to raise him on the altar with the other heroes because his early efforts outweigh his later mistakes. Why equate what Seguin did with SA's "forgetting who brought him to the dance?" Who "brought" Seguin to the revolution? Does that imply Seguin should have stayed permanently allied with Anglos against Mexico because Anglos "brought" him to "their dance" (i.e. the revolution)? Seguin joined the revolution himself. He fought it through to the end and helped create a new nation. (Significantly, that's something Arnold and Quisling did not do.) It was courageous of Seguin. It was as much or more courageous an act for him than for the Anglos because it required a decision no Anglo had to make: to cut ties with his mother country. I agree that his involvement in Mexican affairs was OK with Anglo old timers (many of whom had done the same thing), but unacceptable to the newer Anglo immigrants (who viewed things as "us vs.them"). If so, then didn't a Texas full of new immigrants turn on Seguin as much or more than Seguin turned on a Texas full of new immigrants? (Again, that's not a phenomenon either Quisling or Arnold had to deal with.) Bottom line? Whatever Seguin's flaws, they don't rank with Quisling's or Arnold's. It's over the top to lump them together. As for raising Seguin on an altar with other heroes, we raise Bowie on that altar and he was a flat out swindler. We raise Travis on that altar and he was a deadbeat and an adulterer. We raise Crockett on that altar and he was the worst of them all--a politician! Why is it honorable to put Bowie, Travis, and Crockett on the altar despite their flaws, but merely "fashionable" to do the same for Seguin? The only difference is that the flaws of the former were manifested before the revolution, but the flaws of the latter were manifested afterwards. Is timing that important, or is there some other animus for treating Seguin's flaws as something fundamentally different than the flaws of the Big 3? I say treat all their flaws the same and keep all four of them on the altar.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Nov 14, 2010 22:55:08 GMT -5
Juan Seguin's contemporaries seemed to have forgiven him despite his martial transgression against Texas. After Seguin's Mexican War service with the enemy he was granted permission to return to Texas and lived next to his father. Seguin was later elected a Bexar Co. justice of the peace and Wilson County judge, organized the Democratic Party and lived in Texas peacefully for several years. Upon learning of Juan Seguin's 1890 death at his son's home in Nuevo Laredo, our state government lowered the flag to half mast on the present capitol out of respect for his service to Texas.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Nov 15, 2010 0:49:02 GMT -5
Juan Seguin's contemporaries seemed to have forgiven him despite his martial transgression against Texas. After Seguin's Mexican War service with the enemy he was granted permission to return to Texas and lived next to his father. Seguin was later elected a Bexar Co. justice of the peace and Wilson County judge, organized the Democratic Party and lived in Texas peacefully for several years. Upon learning of Juan Seguin's 1890 death at his son's home in Nuevo Laredo, our state government lowered the flag to half mast on the present capitol out of respect for his service to Texas. I don't know enough to say if Quisling or Arnold were ever legitimately elected to office after their dastardly deeds nor if their countrymen honored them enough to fly flags at half mast when they died, as Seguin's countrymen did. I doubt it. All I can say is that, based on what I know, I think Seguin belongs in the company of Travis, Crockett, and Bowie as opposed to Quisling and Arnold. Perhaps Seguin changed after he fought so hard to make Texas independent. But didn't Texas change as well? Maybe the post-revolution immigrants didn't like Seguin. However, they were johnny-come-latelies. They didn't fight in the revolution. They were opportunists who risked little in coming to Texas. After all, Seguin and the others had already done all the fighting. Seguin risked all and fought the revolution to the end as hard as any other rebel. That's not opportunism and that's not what Quisling or Arnold did. I say keep him on the altar.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 15, 2010 9:18:41 GMT -5
Arnold was persona-non-grata once he turned coat and finished his days in England. I believe he served in their military, but can't recall. I do recall that even the British looked down on him as someone who had sold out his countrymen. Again, IIRC, Arnold essentially did it for the money. His wife had expensive tastes and he felt screwed by the system because he didn't get the promotions he expected or the recognition for his battlefield accomplishments. Those aren't particularly noble motives.
From what little I can gather about Seguin, his situation was quite different. He supported and fought wholeheartedly for Texan independence, which alienated him from tejanos who were wary of independence and still wanted to push for a return to federalism and granting Tejas full statehood. Other tejanos, of course, sided with Seguin. After the war, tejanos were marginalized and pushed out, often by those who were johnny-come-latelies to the land. Annexation to the U.S. alienated many of them further; they hadn't signed on for that. The U.S. had never been their country and they saw annexation as a further, serious threat to their already diminishing status in Texas. Seguin seems to have had good reason for fleeing to Mexico. I have no knowledge of the circumstances under which he ended up fighting for Mexico in the Mexican War, but why would it be surprising if he had done so? If he opposed annexation, it would be the obvious course as the war was clearly being fought over U.S. annexation of Texas.
These things never seem as cut-and-dried as they may appear; history and life are far more nuanced and multi-dimensional than that. Seguin's record is long and complex, as were the events he lived through. It's quite significant that he was welcomed back into Texas and even won political office, and was regarded as hero of the revolution ever after, as I think he deserves to be.
Houston may be a somewhat comparable case. He was the #1 hero in Texas for years, but parted company with Texas' course over secession. Does that make him somehow disloyal or treacherous? Who can say what post-war behavior Bowie, Travis or Crockett might have engaged in had they lived? Times change and people change with them.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Nov 15, 2010 11:09:41 GMT -5
Arnold was commissioned a Brigadier in the British Army and later led some coastal raids against the colonies. The one against New London, CT is the only one I can recall a location for, but there were others. His later treatment by the British was somewhat mixed in that there were some who thought he did the right thing by seeing "the error of his ways" and other who thought that if he would betray once he would do it again. Peggy Shippen is another story. Of the two she was much more of a what's in it for me type. Arnold's big fault was his personality in that he did not suffer fools gladly, and was not crazy about the people who were in command of the Continental Army at the time, particularly Gates. Not liking Gates is a plus for him in my book. I don't think Arnold was perceived to be a "gentleman" in the eyes of some of the more fortunately born members of the Continental leadership.
So in the end, everything is not all black, nor is it all white
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Nov 15, 2010 12:09:19 GMT -5
Arnold was commissioned a Brigadier in the British Army and later led some coastal raids against the colonies. The one against New London, CT is the only one I can recall a location for, but there were others. He also led British troops in VA, irrc Jefferson's famous flight was from Arnold's troops. Armold's story is far more complex than what is generally known, as a battlefield commander he was probably the best in the American Army - definitly in the top three or four. Part of his downfall was pure politics. Despite his obvious merit - Congress refused to promote him. because his colony/state already had its allotment of generals. Incompetent subordinates to include the arch tratior Wilkinson were promoted over him, and of course Granny Gates got the credit for what was in fact Arnold's victory at Saratoga. Arnold was also a Washington man, at a time that a large protion of Congress was openly trying to replace Washington with Gates. Arnold had spent a large portion of his personal wealth to and had signed notes to fund the Continetal Army in the North. Funds and notes that Congress, long refused to honor. Whle many of us look at the luminaries that served in Congress in 1776 - in just a couple of years most of them were gone (returned to serve in their local governments or to represent the colonies overseas) and Congress was filled with a very different set of men. A far more complex set of issues than simply betraying your country for money (as Wilkinson did) that is often generalized. I personally like, the Revolutionary War monuments to Arnold at Saratoga, Arnold's greatest victory is a monument to his leg that was wounded in the 2nd Battle, and at West Point, in the Old Chapel are plaques honoring all of the Revolutionary War Generals. Arnold's plaque is identical to all the others - except his name is blotted out.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Nov 15, 2010 13:07:31 GMT -5
While I am not disagreeing with the general tone on this, I think that saying all the fighting had been done does not take into consideration the "attack & counterattack" nature of the Texian Republic including the 1842 Invasions...
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Nov 15, 2010 15:49:19 GMT -5
Houston may be a somewhat comparable case. He was the #1 hero in Texas for years, but parted company with Texas' course over secession. Does that make him somehow disloyal or treacherous? Who can say what post-war behavior Bowie, Travis or Crockett might have engaged in had they lived? Times change and people change with them. Exactly the point I was about to make. In terms of personalities and politics none of the immortal three stands up to the sort of scrutiny accorded everyone else who fought in the revolution from Houston on downwards except in the all important fact of their martyrdom, or as was said of somebody else whose name I forget: "Nothing became him in life so much as the manner of his leaving it". Given their past histories I'd say that had they lived, their future lives and careers would have most likely been blighted by misfortune, acrimony and failure. A bit harsh I know, but dying gloriously wiped the slate clean. Interestingly in the light of his later role as a villain it did so too for James Grant, of whom Abner Lipscombe declared in 1840 "no man's memory is held in more respect by the people of this country than his." On the other hand dying didn't do much for Fannin's posthumous reputation and I wonder how much politics was involved. Crocket was a national figure already, but it may be significant that Houston had a down on Travis - and probably Bowie too for disobeying orders, while he and Grant were known to be bitter enemies. In 1840 under Lamar's administration they were all dead heroes of the revolution - Seguin on the other hand was alive and Houston's man. This may not have been enough to d**n him, but it may have been sufficient to deny him support.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Nov 15, 2010 16:42:20 GMT -5
Stuart makes an excellent point-getting killed at the Alamo elevated those folks and in many ways got them social forgiveness for any of their earlier sins...enough so that for years on those who died in the Alamo were considered heroes, and those who served as couriers did not...a situation that somewhat has changed over the years...then again consider William Oury(who I agree, probably made up his Alamo service)...remembered as a Alamo messenger and honored as so, but who was one of the ring leaders in the infamous Camp Grant Massacre...
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Nov 15, 2010 19:24:35 GMT -5
I don't know enough to say if Quisling or Arnold were ever legitimately elected to office after their dastardly deeds nor if their countrymen honored them enough to fly flags at half mast when they died, as Seguin's countrymen did. I doubt it. All I can say is that, based on what I know, I think Seguin belongs in the company of Travis, Crockett, and Bowie as opposed to Quisling and Arnold. Perhaps Seguin changed after he fought so hard to make Texas independent. But didn't Texas change as well? Maybe the post-revolution immigrants didn't like Seguin. However, they were johnny-come-latelies. They didn't fight in the revolution. They were opportunists who risked little in coming to Texas. After all, Seguin and the others had already done all the fighting. Seguin risked all and fought the revolution to the end as hard as any other rebel. That's not opportunism and that's not what Quisling or Arnold did. I say keep him on the altar. I haven't placed any of those colonels on a lofty alter, but think Seguin belongs with them on the grand stage of Texas revolutionary heroes and heroines. Oury on the other hand should probably be placed in a hole. There's no evidence he was an Alamo courier and he probably didn't even serve in the conflict. He stated that he fought in various battles (Bexar, Alamo, San Jacinto, Mier, etc.) against Mexicans, but where are the muster rolls, witness statements, donation land grants, republic claims, etc? The only service I've found for him are his late '36 regular infantry enlistment and his '40s duty as a ranger. I might be wrong, but Old Bill Oury sounds like a big yarn spinner without some documentation to back up his heroic claims. I'm sure TRK would agree.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Nov 15, 2010 21:15:13 GMT -5
TRK convienced me sometime ago that Oury needs to be removed from reference that has him in Texas service...
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Nov 16, 2010 0:38:54 GMT -5
While I am not disagreeing with the general tone on this, I think that saying all the fighting had been done does not take into consideration the "attack & counterattack" nature of the Texian Republic including the 1842 Invasions... Very good point. Thanks for correcting my oversimplification. I hate it when I do that.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Nov 16, 2010 9:08:27 GMT -5
While I am not disagreeing with the general tone on this, I think that saying all the fighting had been done does not take into consideration the "attack & counterattack" nature of the Texian Republic including the 1842 Invasions... Very good point. Thanks for correcting my oversimplification. I hate it when I do that. No problem.
|
|