"and did we know we could drive down to Mexico for dinner this very night if we had a car?" LOL, just remembering, I later took my mid school teacher up on this offer, except for a visit to la farmacia ans zona rojo.
It virtually guaranteed the War with Mexico in that his parliament (?) retroactively protested terms of cession that a prisoner of war should not be negotiating without any government input.
The reason is both Santa Anna and Sam houston were masons. Hats why Santa Anna stuck to his word after going back to Mexico.
and to the original question, houston was not only not a traitor, he is the single person most responsible for preventing total annihilation of the rebels and anglo expulsion from texas. if there were any traitors it was people like dr. james grant, who on the eve of the siege, stripped the alamo of critical supplies and manpower in order to attempt to "invade" mexico (his motives were that he had vast landholdings in the area). he and about 100 other rebels were all killed along the way there. and i would not go so far as to call them traitors, but bowie had orders from houston to blow up the alamo and bring everyone back east to the colonies...he disobeyed those orders. and fannin had orders to abandon goliad which he waffled on until it was too late. there are plenty of books out there that are critical of houston's strategy (or lack thereof) and i have always been critical of him, but ive turned around in the last couple years. he was smart, forward thinking and pragmatic at a time when you had a bunch of dumbasses running around constantly disobeying his direct orders. he was in general in chief of what basically amounted to an angry, vengeful mob who for the most part despised him and he somehow managed to keep it together long enough to make it to san jacinto.
It's true. The masons have a special bond with each other. Santa Anna could've easily just come back with the mexican army and fought more but he stuck to his word.
No; and it's extremely frustrating how indignant you get with others when you're obviously too lazy to research factual information.
He was a captive general and head of state of a losing army. He signed away territory to save his own life, his own legislature disputed it and we fought another ****ing war with them ten years later to resolve it. No credible academic historical sources interject any details about Freemasonry; your lazy, broken mind and personal fetish for easy, sensationalist answers doesn't change that.
That da1 won't provide evidence of of said relationship is enough to conclude he's trolling. By the way, don't expect him to offer up any such evidence, and as to your own point: http://samhoustonmovie.com/index.php/myths_and_legends
