brazoseagle Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 All of you Texas Guys ( or even Oklahoma and Arkansas and Louisiana guys) Send you name, handle and email info to: [email protected] I want to organize the group for newsletters and events. Pass it on to others you know of that would be interested. We need to get a stronger brotherhood going!!!!
Rushman Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 Bumpity bump --- I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=20.630221,-87.069857
CanuckSARTech Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 Seriously? Three bumps, but no additions, in 24 hours?? EDIT: And....I just added to this madness....
Rushman Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 Seriously? Three bumps, but no additions, in 24 hours??EDIT: And....I just added to this madness.... Come on down to Texas !! --- I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=20.630206,-87.069845
brazoseagle Posted October 19, 2012 Author Posted October 19, 2012 Seriously another bump, this is pitiful. Only 5 Texas Members so far. I'm glad we had a better showing at San Jacinto or we'd be living in North Mexico right now!!!
AverageJoe83 Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 Remember the Alamo! LOL, not a point of history I think is appropriate to rally behind, but good luck!
Rushman Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 Well, ya know what I always say.....two texans can get into or create more trouble in one night then most can do in a year. Big herf, little herf, don't matter as I will be there, as will Brazos. Boom!! --- I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=20.631726,-87.070655
Dozerhead Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 E-mail sent. You can make it an even half dozen now.
brazoseagle Posted October 21, 2012 Author Posted October 21, 2012 LOL, not a point of history I think is appropriate to rally behind, but good luck! Do elaborate........
AverageJoe83 Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 Do elaborate........ Well the call to join a forum group on the basis of remembrence of a time where a group of rebels who didnt want to pay taxes and wanted to own slaves were utterly decimated doesn't seem to make sense. Just saying.
brazoseagle Posted October 21, 2012 Author Posted October 21, 2012 Well the call to join a forum group on the basis of remembrence of a time where a group of rebels who didnt want to pay taxes and wanted to own slaves were utterly decimated doesn't seem to make sense. Just saying. That is your take on the Battle of the Alamo??? Seriously???
AverageJoe83 Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 That is your take on the Battle of the Alamo??? Seriously??? Facts are facts. Whether or not people choose to romanticize them is their own choice.
Rushman Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 Really? --- I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=20.631752,-87.070720
brazoseagle Posted October 21, 2012 Author Posted October 21, 2012 Facts are facts. Whether or not people choose to romanticize them is their own choice. Facts are in fact, facts if the facts are actually facts, but the fact is that your facts are in fact, not factual in fact. = ( Your facts are wrong)
AverageJoe83 Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 Facts are in fact, facts if the facts are actually facts, but the fact is that your facts are in fact, not factual in fact. = ( Your facts are wrong) Really? Fact: President Anastasio Bustamante implemented several measures on April 6, 1830. Chief among these was a prohibition against further immigration to Tejas from the United States, although American citizens would be allowed to settle in other parts of Mexico. Furthermore, the property tax law, intended to exempt immigrants from paying taxes for ten years, was rescinded, and tariffs were increased on goods shipped from the United States. Fact: The Mexican government had invited immigrants to Mexican Texas with the understanding that they would produce food crops, insisting upon production of corn, grain and beef.Former American settlers found such micromanagement of the land use to be opposed to their economic interests in slavery. They tended to ignore their contracts. If these were enforced, Texas slave-owners stood to lose a large investment in slave labor. Cotton was in high demand throughout Europe and so a lucrative export throughout the southern United States. Much of the land being opened up to Anglos in Mexican Texas was well suited for cotton, but raising cotton was a labor intensive endeavor at the time, and many Texans thought that slave-labor was more profitable. Most of the American settlers in Mexico were from southern states, where slavery was still legal. They even brought their slaves with them. Because slavery was illegal in Mexico, these settlers made their slaves sign agreements giving them the status of indentured servants – essentially slavery by another name. The Mexican authorities nominally regulated this practice, and the issue continued to flare up, especially when slaves ran escaped. By the 1830s, many settlers were afraid that the Mexicans would take the slaves away, which made them favor independence. Some non-slave-owning settlers recognized the economic impact of the prohibition, and as potential beneficiaries of the slave-based economy, supported independence as well. Fact: Following a 13-day siege, Mexican troops under President General Antonio López de Santa Anna launched an assault on the Alamo Mission near San Antonio de Béxar (modern-day San Antonio, Texas, USA). All but two of the Texian defenders were killed. Fact: The Alamo has been the subject of numerous non-fiction works beginning in 1843. Most Americans, however, are more familiar with the myths spread by many of the movie and television adaptations, including the 1950s Disney miniseries Davy Crockett and John Wayne's 1960 film The Alamo. So my facts are straight? Wheres the discrepancy? Anyways good luck with your group!
brazoseagle Posted October 21, 2012 Author Posted October 21, 2012 Really? Fact: President Anastasio Bustamante implemented several measures on April 6, 1830. Chief among these was a prohibition against further immigration to Tejas from the United States, although American citizens would be allowed to settle in other parts of Mexico. Furthermore, the property tax law, intended to exempt immigrants from paying taxes for ten years, was rescinded, and tariffs were increased on goods shipped from the United States. Fact: The Mexican government had invited immigrants to Mexican Texas with the understanding that they would produce food crops, insisting upon production of corn, grain and beef.Former American settlers found such micromanagement of the land use to be opposed to their economic interests in slavery. They tended to ignore their contracts. If these were enforced, Texas slave-owners stood to lose a large investment in slave labor. Cotton was in high demand throughout Europe and so a lucrative export throughout the southern United States. Much of the land being opened up to Anglos in Mexican Texas was well suited for cotton, but raising cotton was a labor intensive endeavor at the time, and many Texans thought that slave-labor was more profitable. Most of the American settlers in Mexico were from southern states, where slavery was still legal. They even brought their slaves with them. Because slavery was illegal in Mexico, these settlers made their slaves sign agreements giving them the status of indentured servants – essentially slavery by another name. The Mexican authorities nominally regulated this practice, and the issue continued to flare up, especially when slaves ran escaped. By the 1830s, many settlers were afraid that the Mexicans would take the slaves away, which made them favor independence. Some non-slave-owning settlers recognized the economic impact of the prohibition, and as potential beneficiaries of the slave-based economy, supported independence as well. Fact: Following a 13-day siege, Mexican troops under President General Antonio López de Santa Anna launched an assault on the Alamo Mission near San Antonio de Béxar (modern-day San Antonio, Texas, USA). All but two of the Texian defenders were killed. Fact: The Alamo has been the subject of numerous non-fiction works beginning in 1843. Most Americans, however, are more familiar with the myths spread by many of the movie and television adaptations, including the 1950s Disney miniseries Davy Crockett and John Wayne's 1960 film The Alamo. So my facts are straight? Wheres the discrepancy? Anyways good luck with your group! None of that is the reason this specific battle was fought. The Alamo was an abandoned Mexican Mission, a group was sent to dismantle it and destroy it so the Mexican forces could not use it as a fortified station point. During the process of dismantlement, the group was attacked and outnumbered by storming forces. Not intending to even being there to fight, the group sent for dismantlement was forced to bunker down and fight for their lives, unprepared and outnumbered, and mainly consisting of misfits and hooligans, were forced to call for any and all reinforcements that were willing to help men, woman and children in need. The group mostly consisted of Tejanos originally, it wasn't until reinforcements showed up willing to help the defenseless that Texans and other US citizens trekked down to offer help. Still outnumbered, they were slaughtered, which in turn started a movement even larger and more imparitive than before. These are the facts surrounding the actual reason the specific battle of the Alamo was fought. Your facts, political in nature, revolve around a very small biopsy of many reasons and facts surrounding the general conflict between Mexico and Tejanos, Spanish Reliance, Texans, the Union and non allied Farmers.
AverageJoe83 Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 None of that is the reason this specific battle was fought. The Alamo was an abandoned Mexican Mission, a group was sent to dismantle it and destroy it so the Mexican forces could not use it as a fortified station point. During the process of dismantlement, the group was attacked and outnumbered by storming forces. Not intending to even being their to fight, the group sent for dismantlement was forced to bunker down and fight for their lives, unprepared and outnumbered, and mainly consisting of misfits and hooligans, were forced to call for any and all reinforcements that were willing to help men, woman and children in need. The group mostly consisted of Tejanos originally, it wasn't until reinforcements showed up willing to help the defenseless that Texans and other US citizens trekked down to offer help. Still outnumbered, they were slaughtered, which in turn started a movement even larger and more imparitive than before. These are the facts surrounding the actual reason the specific battle of the Alamo was fought. Your facts, political in nature, revolve around a very small biopsy of many reasons and facts surrounding the general conflict between Mexico and Tejanos, Spanish Reliance, Texans, the Union and non allied Farmers. Only partially true. Houston could not spare the number of men necessary to mount a successful defense. Instead, he sent Colonel James Bowie with 30 men to remove the artillery from the Alamo and destroy the complex. Bowie was unable to transport the artillery since the Alamo garrison lacked the necessary draft animals. Neill soon persuaded Bowie that the location held strategic importance. In a letter to Governor Henry Smith, Bowie argued that "the salvation of Texas depends in great measure on keeping Béxar out of the hands of the enemy. It serves as the frontier picquet guard, and if it were in the possession of Santa Anna, there is no stronghold from which to repel him in his march toward the Sabine."The letter to Smith ended, "Colonel Neill and myself have come to the solemn resolution that we will rather die in these ditches than give it up to the enemy." The entirety of the war has a foundation of what I stated earlier, not really sure how the Alamo can exempt itself from the ideas of the war it was fought during just because it was the rally point for more people to fight for no taxes and slavery. Anyways I've wasted far to much of my time argueing about this, I stand by my original statement, and still wish you good luck with your *****INT texas group. Good day
brazoseagle Posted October 21, 2012 Author Posted October 21, 2012 Only partially true. Houston could not spare the number of men necessary to mount a successful defense. Instead, he sent Colonel James Bowie with 30 men to remove the artillery from the Alamo and destroy the complex. Bowie was unable to transport the artillery since the Alamo garrison lacked the necessary draft animals. Neill soon persuaded Bowie that the location held strategic importance. In a letter to Governor Henry Smith, Bowie argued that "the salvation of Texas depends in great measure on keeping Béxar out of the hands of the enemy. It serves as the frontier picquet guard, and if it were in the possession of Santa Anna, there is no stronghold from which to repel him in his march toward the Sabine."The letter to Smith ended, "Colonel Neill and myself have come to the solemn resolution that we will rather die in these ditches than give it up to the enemy." The entirety of the war has a foundation of what I stated earlier, not really sure how the Alamo can exempt itself from the ideas of the war it was fought during just because it was the rally point for more people to fight for no taxes and slavery. Anyways I've wasted far to much of my time argueing about this, I stand by my original statement, and still wish you good luck with your *****INT texas group. Good day We can cordially agree to disagree. When a country or Dictator invades another territory or attempts to lay claim of another territory with the intent to conquer, rule and control, issues such as Taxes, Slavery, Share-cropping, ect. are secondary and somewhat moot in comparison to being invaded, controlled and conquered. Also in the time period at hand and up to the civil war, your issues stated are just few of many issues that fall under the category of "State's Rights" of which was and is a valid concept to stand behind and support. Furthermore, I'm very glad some of these issues were fought for with resolve, because to this day, we in Texas still don't have to pay any State Taxes! P.S. Nice Thread Jack P.S.S. I can only assume that your sources are not highly regarded and well known and respected published and credible scholars.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now