These are the types of people who are working for the demise of this country and they are called democrats.....

__________________
Courtesy of Swissman

A gun in the hands of a free man frightens and angers the autocrat, not because he fears the power of the gun, but, rather, the spirit of the man who holds it.

ANONYMOUS

I think a collection should be taken up to provide this poor creature transportation to her beloved, Mexico, where hopefully she can survive the cartel violence long enough to get the offal out of her head.

Gee, I wonder how she feels about the rights of indigenous peoples in Mexico, that were conquered and displaced by the Spaniards to make her own existence possible?

__________________
“Quod scripsi, scripsi"

"Sometimes, the source of the beautiful dawning light that drives back the darkness, is your house burning"

Most Americans believe the Hollywood version. Truth is we wanted expansion and sent rabble rousers down there to shake things up. One was Travis.
As it was, even if you believe the hype (political even in that day and time) we were only supposed to be disputing the line at Nueces River. Not the Rio Grande. That area between those rivers was always recognized as Mexico.

The Alamo can be blamed on two factors. The political ambitions of a commander of the relief soldiers who never came. And the stupidity of the rebels not to surrender. Santa Anna offered them their lives. They chose death.
my source is memoirs of US Grant

As far as drunks go she might have been referring to Sam Houston at the battle of San Jacinto not the Alamo.

__________________
...

Imperialists did fight at the Alamo, they were led by Santa Anna the military dictator. After seizing power he revoked the Mexican constitution replacing elected state governors with his appointees. Hostilities with what would become the Republic of Texas began when the imperial leader decided the state militias had to disarmed because they posed a threat to his dictatorial rule.

Claiming that Santa Anna offered the rebels their lives for surrender is cute. In fact after the Alamo was conquered he ordered the survivors shot and their bodies burned in a mass pyre. The "benevolent" general followed up several weeks later with the mass execution of over 300 rebels at Goliad after they made the mistake of surrendering.

After ending the war with the victory at San Jacinto the rebels didn't follow Santa Anna's practice of executing POWs including the Generalissimo. Instead they forced a peace treaty giving them their independence before allowing the war criminal dictator and his army to return to Mexico.

Of course the purveyors of Yankee imperialist grievances neglect to mention what happened after the rebels won their independence from the Mexican dictator. They declared themselves an independent country. It would be 7 years before the Republic of Texas petitioned to join the US.

Santa Ana trained as a Federal soldier, but backed rebels when they fought against Spain. His loyalties changed from one rebel leader to another as suited his ego and greed (he had a gambling problem).
However the jury will be out forever and one side has Hollywood to bolster it's views, on whether We sent agitators on purpose or if Tejas really wanted to fight against the new conservative reversal of liberal laws they had grown use to.
I can say without reservation that Sam Houston acted wisely in not executing Santa Ana as he would have become a martyr and rallying point.
I also am convinced from many writings of histories of the time that Nueces River was the disputed line. Going far beyond that to the Rio was an act of colonial expansionism.

__________________
...

Colonial expansionism sounds sinister but the Republic of Texas had no colonies so the claim is contradicted by the evidence.

You have to think: why was Sam Houston a former congressman from Tennessee even there? Why was Travis there? and Davy Crockett? Where did they come from? How long were they there? Were they settlers?
And say they we there for some sun and got caught up in this cray little war, they were still undeniably a product of western expansionist politics and thought.

__________________
...

Settlers were invited from the US by the Mexican government to purchase land cheaply. They fought a revolution against Santa Anna's tyranny.

If the revolution was the result of western expasionism why did they form an independent country?

Houston, Travis Buey (Booey?) and Crockett were not settlers.
The Mexican government gave land grants to whoever was 1) married to a Mexican and 2) was Catholic.

**a side note: that's why there are so many Methodists in Texas, because the circuit riders would go persuade the "papists" to be re baptized protestant "so they didn't go to hell" and that is what many of them (originally protestant or suspicious of Catholicism) did.

** During the aforementioned time there was a lot going on in the Spanish colony. They broke away from Spain and had a revolutionary President who some were persuaded to go against later and embrace another guy. This other guy was more liberal and his policies showed it. He made laws that you did not have to be Catholic to be a citizen-this went against many conservative Mexicans' attitudes. And there were other laws that went against the grain. Santa Ana ended up backing a guy who unseated the liberal and went on a mission to bring radical counties back into the fold.
Having seen a lot of war in his career one thing that stuck in hs mind was the slaughter of Mexicans by Anglo backed Spanish feds. So he didn't have a lot of love for them but he claimed and some witnesses claimed he did offer to accept surrender and did allow women and children (if any) to leave. Whether that is true is up for debate. I believe it from his history. But yes neither can really be proved.

Santa Anna suspected that unrest there could lead to a secessionist movement, and even to the seizure of the province by the United States.

The area of Tejas had begun living under the lax policies of the federals and other conservatives, even bringing slaves to the state after it was outlawed.

So it was a fight to keep them from seceding.

not all Mexican Texans endorsed separation from Mexico; some supported the Centralists, and many tried to avoid the fighting altogether.

But the Anglo-Tejano alliance that prevailed was cemented when Houston, who was elected president of a new Texas Republic.


Fighting broke out in Gonzales. Texans captured the town of San Antonio. The Mexican army took it back at the Battle of the Alamo.

After Coleto Creek and Goliad:

That is where I think God and karma caught up with Santa Ana. He killed those prisoners at Goliad and they thought they were to be deported.

** So this was a civil war that America stuck its nose in and has brewed resentment ever since for reasons you can quite clearly see.
The rest is history

__________________
...

I am wondering how well his twin brother will do in his run in TX.? As for Maria del Rosario Castro and her speaker son they need a real lesson in Mexico's/TX., History.

__________________
"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation... One is by sword... The other is by debt."

John Adams 1826