|
Post by martyb on Jul 27, 2012 14:31:01 GMT -5
First, the claim that Mexico was really owned by the First Peoples ("Native Americans") and neither Mexico or the United States is, as Allen noted, a claim that could be made for all of the United States, then and now. When I read this I heard the voice of Spencer Tracy with some beautiful music in the background....."This land has a name today, and is marked on maps. But, the names and the marks and the maps all had to be won, won from nature and from primitive man.'
|
|
|
Post by jamesg on Jul 27, 2012 20:30:53 GMT -5
From the early Spanish colonization to Mexican Revoultion 1821 and beyond till...The culture didn't have a formal slavery system as the U.S. becuase of it Catholic influence.. but very much did have a CAST system where the lowest cast might as well have the term "slave". Mexico's claim to Texas is only from 1821 to the Revoultion of 1836 is only 15years. Spain had a longer claim but Mexico thru Spain out.
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Jul 28, 2012 14:16:12 GMT -5
Some of the best academic studies of the Texas Revolution were done during the period of the late 19th century to the early 1930s. Proof of that can be found in the articles published by the Southwestern Historical Quarterly (SHQ).
Among the most prominent historians of the period was Eugene C. Barker, professor of American History at the University of Texas.
It's hard to find, but Barker's Mexico and Texas 1821-1835 subtitled "University of Texas Lectures on the Causes of the Texas Revolution," is the single best volume on the subject.
Bear with me, but I'm going to transcribe the preface (minus the initial paragraph.)
The causes of the Texas Revolution are more than a study in local history. Misapprehension concerning them and of the consequences to which the revolution led lies at the bottom of much of the suspicion and distrust which have animated Latin American anxiety concerning the future development of the United States for nearly 100 years.
It is the further misfortune of the United States that its expansion after 1820 was commonly interpreted by its own orators, reformers, and historians in terms of the slavery controversy, which overshadowed all other national problems from the conclusion of the Missouri Compromise to the beginning of the Civil War. Since toleration of slavery was in their eyes a national crime, and since, as they contended, expansion was for the purpose of getting more territory to make into slave states, it followed that expansion was itself was shameful and must be accomplished by shameful methods without consideration for the rights of more humane and less powerful neighbors.
To such as these the settlement of Texas by emigrants from the United States was the first link in a chain of events purposefully forged to accomplish a definite end, the acquisition of more territory for slavery—and the truth of the assumption was proved to their minds by the subsequent revolt of the emigrants and the annexation of Texas to the United States. The Mexican War followed the annexation of Texas, and the same earnest persons who proclaimed so assuredly the shame of our government in all its relations to Texas explained the Mexican War as the last wretched expedient of a ruthless imperialist to wrest California and more slave territory from the abused and helpless Mexicans.
As I read the evidence, and as I have interpreted it in these studies, the Anglo-American settlement of Texas, begun in 1821, was a phase of the westward movement which had already carried the frontier line from Atlantic tide-water across the Mississippi and was soon to carry it to the Pacific. Texas once settled, the revolution was the inevitable result of the racial inheritances of the two peoples thus brought into political union with one another. And this in spite of intelligent consideration and cordial good will on the part of individual Mexican officials charged with the administration of Texas and in spite of the sympathetic understanding and long-enduring patience of some of the settlers, notably of Austin, whose attitude controlled that of the great body of the colonists. The Texan revolution, in other words, was neither the culmination of a deep-laid program of chicanery and greed nor the glorious response of outraged freemen to calculated oppression of tyrants.
Eugene C. Barker, University of Texas June 30, 1928
|
|
|
Post by acbntx on Aug 3, 2012 9:01:46 GMT -5
who would have thought!......Navajos being sold as slaves in Mexico. Now that is an interesting twist in American Indian history. I was cluesless that that even occoured, nobody ever hears of that if it is true.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 3, 2012 9:46:18 GMT -5
You can read about it quite a bit in histories of the region. Slavery and the buying & selling of humans was commonly practiced by Indians (the Comanche, for example), Mexicans and anglos. In fact, my impression is that most civilizations practiced slavery and it was the rule rather than the exception in history. When Aristotle was writing all his famous treatises he lived in a society that kept slaves. In fact, slavery and human trafficking are still practiced today, albeit illegally in many places, including this country.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 3, 2012 9:54:17 GMT -5
It wasn't just the Navajo, though they were probably the most numerous, but captives from many of the tribes of the SW were enslaved by the Mexicans. The Taos, New Mexico, slave market is mentioned quite often. In fact, during the Taos revolt against the Americans during the war with Mexico, Kit Carson's wife escaped the mob by pretending to be a slave.
There are numerous sources on the Mexican enslavement of Indians. Hampton Sides discusses it in his book "Blood and Thunder" which is part history of the Navajo and part biography of Kit Carson. It's a highly readable, well documented book.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 3, 2012 9:57:38 GMT -5
I agree on the Carson book; Sides is a good writer and researcher. As I recall, the Navajo themselves took slaves during raids and were nearly as much a terror to whites, Mexicans and other tribes as the Comanche. Other tribes were happy to join the Americans in fighting and banishing them.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Aug 4, 2012 1:17:09 GMT -5
The Texan revolution, in other words, was neither the culmination of a deep-laid program of chicanery and greed nor the glorious response of outraged freemen to calculated oppression of tyrants.
Amen, Eugene B.
|
|
|
Post by aleman73 on Aug 14, 2012 18:18:38 GMT -5
Hello Gentlemen, I am new to the forum and like everyone here I am an avid alamo enthusiast and passionate lover of history. Anyhow I thought I'd weigh in on this "Question". I have heard a the Alamo referred to as a racist symbol before and my response to that is this. Despite what folklore, Hollywood or Texas history class might have passed on to us about the battle being fought between the Texians on the side of liberty against the invading Mexicans on the side of tyranny students of history such as ourselves know that it wasn't so simple. The first thing is that people get hung up on race when truth be told there were Tejanos and Anglos on BOTH sides. It seems that people outside of this forum tend to forget that. Of course they also want to think of Texas as being a free country being invaded by Mexico when technically couldn't we consider the legitimate settlers such as Austin and DeWitt Mexican citizens as well as Texians.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Aug 19, 2012 1:06:44 GMT -5
Good timing, Aleman73. Yesterday (August 18th) was the 101st anniversary of the Battle of Medina. Though still largely overlooked by Texas historians, it was the largest military battle ever fought on Texas soil. It was part of the "first war for Texas independence." In the "first war," folks who lived in what we now call Texas and folks who lived in what we now call Mexico found common cause and fought for independence from Europe. These freedom fighters were Tejano, Anglo, and Native American. They lost the Battle of Medina. But freedom from Europe eventually prevailed. Having been freed from Europe, in 1835/6, the folks on either side of the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo (or the Nueces River--pick your boundary) fought the "second war for Texas independence." The Alamo was a battle in the "second war." If you grew up in Texas (like me), you were taught about the "second war" and the Alamo in 7th grade, but not about the "first war" and the Battle of Medina. Is that racist? I don't know. Is that poor teaching of Texas' real history? Definitely.
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Aug 19, 2012 9:06:35 GMT -5
I dont think the Medina's exclusion from Texas history is necessarily racist. The battle was fought as part of the Mexican Revolution and is therefore not considered part of "Texas" history. How many Americans have ever heard of the Battle of the Monongahela in Pennsylvania (in which Braddock, the British commander, was killed and in which a young George Washington served) or the Massacre of Fort William Henry in New York during the French and Indian War? All fought on "American" soil. All forgotten or ignored. They're not quite "American" enough - although that War, and in particular Braddock's conduct, is where Washington learned to lead men in combat. The same thing is true of the Medina. That campaign is where Santa Anna learned to put down insurrections through his mentor Arradondo - who summarily massacred prisoners and ther families. So, if one is to understand Santa Anna's conduct of the Mexican "invasion" of Texas in 1836, one must first study Arradondo's Medina campaign 25 years earlier. That's why it should be studied in Texas schools - not just because it occured on Texas soil.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Aug 19, 2012 15:12:56 GMT -5
I dont think the Medina's exclusion from Texas history is necessarily racist. The battle was fought as part of the Mexican Revolution and is therefore not considered part of "Texas" history. When did "Texas" history begin? I think conventional wisdom is that it started when Cabeza de Vaca landed (though I can understand Native Americans taking issue with that). If so, it seems logical to say that Medina and all else that happened in Texas after Cabeza de Vaca is--and should be taught as--part of Texas history, even if it came about as a result of decisions made in by folks in Mexico City and Madrid.
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Aug 20, 2012 11:09:09 GMT -5
I dont think the question was about the beginning of Texas history but rather the exclusion of the Battle of Medina as somehow racist. I dont think it is, based upon the exclusion of battles fought on "American" soil before the American Revolution. They were not "American" history so much as British history. However, like I wrote, I think the Medina should be included because it tells us something about Santa Anna's approach to the Texas Revolution, i.e., his decision to execute prisoners.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 20, 2012 14:46:38 GMT -5
It is included in many Alamo and related books, if only to give that part of Santa Anna's background. The distinction is that the Alamo was part of the Texas revolution and Medina was not. If there has been a racist element involved it is in the lack of regard for the Tejano participation in the revolution and their treatment afterward.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Aug 20, 2012 20:53:03 GMT -5
It is included in many Alamo and related books, if only to give that part of Santa Anna's background. Medina was the largest battle ever in Texas, yet most historians treat it solely as a sidebar to the Alamo simply because SA took part. Even without the SA tie-in to the Alamo, certainly the largest battle ever in Texas has its own, stand-alone significance in Texas history. [/quote]The distinction is that the Alamo was part of the Texas revolution and Medina was not. [/quote] Is that to say that the only events that are part of Texas history are those that were part of the Texas Revolution? That events such as Cabeza de Vaca's jopurney and La Salle's voyage, which weren't part of the Texas Revolution, are not part of Texas history? That's really the fdundamental issue here: Does Texas history include events that were not part of the Texs Revolution? I say it does. [/quote] If there has been a racist element involved it is in the lack of regard for the Tejano participation in the revolution and their treatment afterward.[/quote] Ironically, Medina was the first time Anglos and Tejanos participated together in a revolution in Texas for their independence. Having suffered a defeat, few of them remained in Texas to make "Remember Medina" part of Texas history. In contrast, many family and friends of those who died at the Alamo subsequently remained in, or came to, Texas. They wrote the Texas history they knew. That's the Texas history we've known for 175 years. But now we know more. Texas history involves much more than the Texas revolution.
|
|