Enough with this "written by the victors" guff; in a free, literate society tenured profs pull six figure salaries and book royalties telling the true story to anyone with the wherewithal to hit a Half Priced or the local college library. We can probably also stop pretending that there were steel mills or corporate retail chains where large landowners or ambitious entrepreneurs could make their fortune and generate a viable economy in the process. Land and commodity based economies in countries without infrastructure will create oil sheikhs and slave barons all throughout history. It didn't help that Santa Ana was a jerk and, like a lot of other revolutionary heroes, morphed into an incompetent dictator; thought the Mexican people suffered more at the hands of that then the Texians.
No, but I think he is generally regarded as a bad person. Still think it's interesting that he lived with Cherokees for a while and was given the name Raven. One would think that a school named after the man would have a raven be it's mascot/logo, but no, some dumbasses voted that it should be a made up cat-thing that has no meaning or significance at all.
What reason do the Mexicans have to care enough to make a big deal about the character of Houston beyond the spite of sour grapes? Santa Anna is traditionally portrayed in Texas as a moron, a coward, an egomaniac and a spiteful sadist. Essentially if you believe the 'party line', he comes across as one of the worst people who ever lived. I doubt he was a paragon of virtue, but I've long suspected the depiction was tainted by bias - the Texans, who willingly pledged loyalty to Mexico and then broke their oath appear to have been pushed into doing so by the 'evil' Santa Anna, as opposed to having been deceiving Mexico from the outset. I'm sure over the years there's been plenty of Mexicans who feel hurt by the loss of Texas, and Ia'm also sure that thinking of the Texans as bad people helps to make them feel better.
So you're not willing to clarify your ridiculous comment about "deuling posts." You post on a Texas- and Houston-based board asking if their founding leaders were "traitors," then when presented with contrasting or at least initial facts (since you very likely didn't research any of it) and basic line of logic, you then ask if the most prominent group in the state's history were dummies. You make false, outlandish claims; and then either slander or lash out when corrected.
Yes. Yeah a binturong, but that's not what SHSU was thinking when they came up with the Bearkat name. Spoiler He is not regarded as a bad person? Well, I guess it's just how you look at it. I had professors at SHSU who thought highly of him and others who thought he was a scumbag. I saw a documentary on him on PBS and I remember thinking less of him after seeing it. But I'm no history buff, so I can't really strongly argue one way or the other.
You posted one thing in one post, and another in the next. Pretty simple. And if Sam houston wasn't a traitor, he was at the least a sellout to his guys that he left out to dry. If they knew and didn't leave then they are fools too. But that is the debatable point of the argument. Either way Sam bided his time and saw the big picture but that still doesn't make what he did wrong.
Your last sentence doesn't even make sense. Who thought? You? Somebody else? Or did you mean to say though. Go take an English class with bigtexx.
Yeah; you're the moron who used "deuling" instead of conflicting or contradictory, even though that assertion would have still been just as irrational. Considering you were too stupid to understand the logic or grammar of the entire sentence to actually recognize the typo, maybe you can stop big-timing on the grammar. Or just stop calling people racist for not supporting mass transit, calling people racist for supporting suburban migration, stop trying to prove that people don't want to drive cars, or just posting ****ty threads altogether.
I posted that the Alamo soldiers disobeyed Houston's orders and made a sacrifice: ie, a conscious act against one's own interests for the sake of others; that might have confused the Mexican Army and helped the Republic win its independence. That wipes out your two idiotic questions and unresearched logic behind them in one fell swoop.
Slaughtering a bunch of dummies really confused those Mexicans. Typical racist propaganda from you. No surprise.
Mexicans: 630 killed 208 wounded 730 captured 1 No Más! Sam Houston led Republic of Texas: 9 killed or fatally wounded 30 wounded
What the heck did Sam Houston do that was bad? Lived with the Cherokee, came to Texas, fought for Texas, kicked Santa Anna's ass ( and even revisionist historians should be able to easily acknowledge that Santa Anna was in fact, a completely incompetent *******), became Governor, and told the people riling Texas off to secede to **** off. Well, maybe he was a traitor because he didn't enact any grandiose mass transit programs. Yeah, I guess that's a good reason.
Santa Ana Rockets just doesn't cut it. My Texas History class in middle school was cut short by D.A.R.E.
If I was Mexican I would think that the settlers in Texas were traitors myself. It was part of Mexico. The settlers took an oath. As to the slavery question. Slavery was outlawed in Mexico. Once any slaves came into Mexico they were free. After the fall of the Alamo it freed up Santa Ana to now move eastward and that created the 'runaway scrape'. The 'scrape' made it where Sam Houston had to also lose men that fled to help their families. Luckily Santa Ana made a huge blunder and split his troops deep in enemy territory far from his supply roots. (Even for the times this was considered a big no no) The 2nd blunder is when a commander does split his troops extra vigilance is needed and he chose to not set up extra forward posts when bivouac. (Very arrogant) Overall Mexico was incompetent in their affairs.
by that logic the spaniards could say that the mexicans were traitors for revolting against their rule in 1824.
