|
Post by Don Guillermo on Sept 2, 2008 19:35:01 GMT -5
Celebrate this month with Sons of DeWitt Colony TexasHidalgo's Grito de Delores A milestone toward the liberty and independence of Texas Beginning with this development, Texas became part of an independent Mexico and a "Lone Star" of hope for democracy and Federalism in the Americas, west to the Pacific and south to Tegucigalpa. Some modern historians have stated that Texas had no part in Mexico's struggle for independence......The Casas government proclaimed free commerce between the United States and Texas...press of the United States said "by autumn of 1811 self-government would be exercised by the people from Texas to the Gulf of Darien...United States citizens would [have] free and profitable commerce with Texas and Mexico." The Texas revolution.....kept open communications between the insurgents of Mexico and the United States; hence, it was a safeguard to the [whole Mexican] revolution. Lic. Ignacio Aldama was shot in Monclova [Coahuila y Texas], June 20, 1811. Father Juan Salazar was condemned to death for high treason, and shot in Monclova.....[royal governors] Manuel de Salcedo and Simon de Herrera of Texas; Juan Manuel Sambrano with the counter-revolutionists in Texas....accomplished the capture of the insurgent [Hidalgo and his] chieftains....these Texas leaders ended the first period of the Mexican revolution---Authors Garrett and Chabot Texas-based independence movements (de Lara, Toledo, Mina, LaFitte and Long) kept the spirit of resistance and independence alive. Texas played a decisive role in the timetable and evolution of Mexican independence as did Mexican independence in the independence of Texas
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Sept 3, 2008 17:11:24 GMT -5
That was a very interesting synopsis of the first Texas Revolution Guillermo. It's strange the way history often repeats itself with similar events. I'm not sure I would categorize the pirate Lafitte as an independence revolutionary, but maybe that's just me. He seemed pretty self-serving in his activities.
|
|
|
Post by Don Guillermo on Sept 3, 2008 21:08:26 GMT -5
Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water." A Letter of Marque and Reprisal authorizes private persons, small businesses if you will, that is not an official part of the countries armed forces, to conduct reprisal operations outside the borders and in the interest of the country issuing the Marque with their compensation in large part the salvage and bounty captured. Such letters are included in the U.S. Constitution to this day because it is also compatible with international law.
Lafitte operated under such letters and commissions most commonly from anti-Spanish colonial governments as Argentina, Caribbean Islands, and South American countries. As continues today in terms of world affairs, the hypocritical US government turned on their anti-colonial independence and freedom-loving friend who served them in the War of 1812 against the British when he continued his anti-Spanish activity on Galveston Island in behalf of Mexican and eventually Texas independence.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Sept 4, 2008 10:15:34 GMT -5
This is why I love this place. I seem to learn something new here every day, and this is a fascinating example of that. I had no clue.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Sept 5, 2008 1:12:42 GMT -5
While its understandable that you guys should look at the question from an American perspective, its also important to look at what was going on from a Mexican/European perspective.
Modern Mexico only began with the Plan of Iguala on February 27 1821 and while its easy to mock Iturbide's apparent megalomania his decision to proclaim himself emperor was entirely justified by the fact he wasn't ruling over a single unitary country but a massive agglomeration of former Spanish provinces - in fact all that was left at the time former Spanish empire on the American mainland.
Colombia was originally a "part" of Mexico and Yucatan tried for 20-odd years to break away. There was no reason at all therefore why 14 years after the proclamation of the Mexican state, some of the northern provinces should try to break away from the centre.
Texas alone succeeded thanks to American invervention, but without Santa Anna, James Grant's far bigger Republic of Rio Grande might have come into being - or then again it might not, but there was no fundamental reason why it shouldn't have happened, and then what.
In the Mexican War in the 1840s the US acquired all of Mexico north of the Rio Grande simply because it was too remote and too sparsely settled to be properly defended. But what if those provinces were part of a Republic of Rio Grande centred on Monterrey or Matamoros?
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Sept 5, 2008 10:13:06 GMT -5
Let me put it another way. Until 1845 Texas was part of Mexico (yes independence was declared in 1836 but it wasn't acknowledged by Mexico); therefore is it not more logical to consider the Texas Revolution as Mexican history rather than American history?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Sept 7, 2008 8:12:15 GMT -5
What you say makes sense. Maybe things would have been much more difficult.
The vastness of the Texas territory is what prompted the Mexican government to reach out to Americans with the offers of land grants (in return for swearing an allegiance to Mexico and adopt the Catholic faith), that brought many Americans to Texas in the first place. It was too far from the central government, and could not be adequately protected by Mexico.
But if there had been a Republic of the Rio Grande, as you mention, perhaps the situation would have been much different. I guess we'll never know.
I don't have the source, but I recall a discussion with a historian some years back who noted that the United States almost backed out of its war witrh Mexico because of growing public dissent. In fact this guy likened the situation to the public sentiment over Vietnam in the '60s and early '70s. I'm not so sure I buy into that 100 percent, but I would agree that for the average American NOT living in or near Texas, this might well have been the sentiment.
If the President had yielded to this poressure, cut his losses, and quit the war, what then?
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Sept 7, 2008 9:34:22 GMT -5
Let me put it another way. Until 1845 Texas was part of Mexico (yes independence was declared in 1836 but it wasn't acknowledged by Mexico); therefore is it not more logical to consider the Texas Revolution as Mexican history rather than American history? I wouldn't tell that to a hard-headed Texan in person. I guess it's a matter of perspective on recognition by Mexico and others. Texans tend to go by the 1836 Treaty of Velasco that Santa Anna signed, but the Mexican government failed to ratify. Texans also felt we had the right of conquest, which was a part of international law in the 1800s. Of course the Indians of Tejas thought we were all interlopers.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Sept 7, 2008 9:58:56 GMT -5
I don't have the source, but I recall a discussion with a historian some years back who noted that the United States almost backed out of its war witrh Mexico because of growing public dissent. In fact this guy likened the situation to the public sentiment over Vietnam in the '60s and early '70s. I'm not so sure I buy into that 100 percent, but I would agree that for the average American NOT living in or near Texas, this might well have been the sentiment. If the President had yielded to this poressure, cut his losses, and quit the war, what then? There was considerable opposition; Abraham Lincoln, then a congressman, opposed it and also the U.S. claim that the border of Texas was the Rio Grande, not the Nueces. U.S. Grant called it one of the most unjust wars by a stronger power against a weaker in history (or words to that effect). Polk took office claiming the U.S. had a right to Texas by virftue of its citizens having populated it (not to put too fine a point on it, but not altogether unlike 20th century German claims that it was invading European countries to protect German nationals). I was told in school that "we stole Texas," but I keep thinking back to that scene in the early part of Red River, where John Wayne tells the Mexican gunmen that the land had already been "stolen" once from Indians and he was claiming it for himself, backed, of course, by his guns. There's a lot of irony in here somewhere, especially given the current issue of illegal immigration by foreign nationals onto U.S. soil. AW
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Sept 7, 2008 10:52:31 GMT -5
Let me put it another way. Until 1845 Texas was part of Mexico (yes independence was declared in 1836 but it wasn't acknowledged by Mexico); therefore is it not more logical to consider the Texas Revolution as Mexican history rather than American history? I wouldn't tell that to a hard-headed Texan in person. I guess it's a matter of perspective on recognition by Mexico and others. Texans tend to go by the 1836 Treaty of Velasco that Santa Anna signed, but the Mexican government failed to ratify. Texans also felt we had the right of conquest, which was a part of international law in the 1800s. Of course the Indians of Tejas thought we were all interlopers. I wouldn't disagree and its interesting just how much of Yoakum's history of Texas is devoted to "proving" that the French got there first and that Texas was therefore rightfully a part of the Louisiana Purchase. Nevertheless, because it was Mexican territory in 1835 any serious study of what was going on has to be very firmly grounded on a thorough knowledge of Mexican history rather than the country next door. The American perspective is obviously important given that the majority of the rebels were Americans or at least thought of themselves as Americans, and because so much aid was given to the rebels by the Americans, but the Mexican perspective has to be the bedrock on which the story is built if we are to properly understand it.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Sept 7, 2008 12:55:24 GMT -5
The ownership of Texas reminds me of that old Seinfeld bit about car reservations. Several countries could have claimed Texas, but "holding it" is really the most important part. I think most studies of Texas history incorporate the contributions of the Indians, French and especially the Spanish before the Americans ever got into the picture.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Sept 8, 2008 6:04:42 GMT -5
I don't doubt that Americans were best placed to hold Texas and that barring the creation of Grant's Republic of Rio Grande the annexation of Texas was probably inevitable, but my point is that to really understand how the Texan revolution came about and what happened when it did, approaching it from a Mexican perspective is probably more important than sticking with the traditional American approach
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Sept 8, 2008 8:54:58 GMT -5
“In the Mexican War in the 1840s the US acquired all of Mexico north of the Rio Grande simply because it was too remote and too sparsely settled to be properly defended. But what if those provinces were part of a Republic of Rio Grande centred on Monterrey or Matamoros?” Ummm… the US did conquer Mexico, and occupied Mexico City. I’d say we acquired that territory through the hard fighting of US soldiers. Don’t play what those men did down by attributing our success to the area being “sparsely settled”. “Let me put it another way. Until 1845 Texas was part of Mexico (yes independence was declared in 1836 but it wasn't acknowledged by Mexico); therefore is it not more logical to consider the Texas Revolution as Mexican history rather than American history?” Mexico did recognize a border regardless of whether it was or was not the same border we recognize today. And as RR pointed out the Texians held Texas, Mexico did not and by that right Texas broke free from Mexico and became independent much like Mexico broke free from Spain and became independent. I’ll go away for a while now and cool off… I’m one of those hard-headed Texans RR mentioned and an affair of honour between a Texan and a Scotsman might lead to an international incident!
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Sept 8, 2008 10:26:24 GMT -5
Well, it worked OK for Crockett and McGregor, who only dueled with a fiddle and bagpipes, or so we were told.
I think the key issue here may well be Mexico's inability to really secure Texas in some tangible way. Not only was Mexico alarmed by the large influx of U.S. anglos in the area, but before that the Comanche. In fact, IIRC, one of Mexico's motivations in opening the place to settlement was to create a buffer against the Comanche.
Earlier, official Mexian tours of Texas by Tehran and Almonte warned Mexico that the place was being overpopulated by Anglos, who might not be assimilated into Mexico and who seemed likely to maintain a good deal of their American character ("They carry their Constitution in their pocket"). The only answer was to colonize the place with a larger number of Mexican nationals and maintain a real governmental presence there. Mexico was never able to do that (I don't know if Mexico actually ever tried).
Once Texan grievances began to build, Mexico had the choice of giving in or standing firm. At first the government seemed accommodating, winking at the anti-slavery laws by allowing the "99-year indentures" and not pressing for customs collections. But they would not grant independent statehood to Texas and insisted that it remain part of Coahuilla y Tejas as a way to keep in tied closer to Mexico and restrict autonomous government in Texas. Still, many Texians still wanted to remain part of the Mexican federal system and to work within that toward eventual statehood. Austin was among these until he was arrested in Mexico, after which he concluded that Mexico was never going to bargain in good faith; both sides then turned to using force.
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd guess that Mexico was doomed to lose the place due to its own inability to secure it in some meaningful way. I think this is an integral part of looking at the situation from the Mexican, rather than the U.S. point of view.
The Republic of the Rio Grande is an interesting hypothetical. Again, I can only guess, but that area did appear to be, for the most part, under much stronger Mexican control and opposition there was easily snuffed out, even when Santa Anna's forces were outnumbered at Zacatecas. Such an entity would had to have been strong enough to stave off both the Mexicans and any designs that the U.S., in an era of "Manifest Destiny," might have on the terrotory north of the Rio Grande.
As to the military action in the Mexican War, there are two questions -- First, was the war actually justified (was there really any threat to the United States?). The only justification was if there was a real threat to the U.S. from Mexico over the annexation of Texas. Second, the fighting itself. Grant said it was an unjust war by a stronger nation against a weaker. I know little about the fighting itself, except that U.S. forces were typically outnumbered, sometimes 2-to-1, but prevailed, at times through superior artillery. The U.S. casualty rate was also the highest of any U.S. war to date.
AW
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Sept 8, 2008 11:55:29 GMT -5
As to the military action in the Mexican War, there are two questions -- First, was the war actually justified (was there really any threat to the United States?). The only justification was if there was a real threat to the U.S. from Mexico over the annexation of Texas. Second, the fighting itself. Grant said it was an unjust war by a stronger nation against a weaker. I know little about the fighting itself, except that U.S. forces were typically outnumbered, sometimes 2-to-1, but prevailed, at times through superior artillery. The U.S. casualty rate was also the highest of any U.S. war to date. AW Well, our history is filled with military actions aimed at a single goal -- land. We're not unique in that regard, but it seems to underly much of what we did from colonial times onward, when we began pushing back the indigenous peoples who were here. I know there's more to it with Texas, but you can't ignore the value of land and the desire to control it in this conflict.
|
|