 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:34
|
|
DECLARATION OF THE PEOPLE OF TEXAS IN GENERAL CONVENTION
ASSEMBLED
Whereas, General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, and other military chieftains, have, by force of arms, overthrown the federal institutions of Mexico, and dissolved the social compact which existed between Texas and the other members of the Mexican confederacy; now the good people of Texas, availing themselves of their natural rights.2
SOLEMNLY DECLARE,
1st.
That they have taken up arms in defence of their rights and liberties, which were threatened by the encroachments of military despots, and in defence of the republican3 principles of the federal constitution of Mexico, of eighteen and twenty-four.4
2d.
That Texas is no longer morally or civilly bound by the compact of union; yet, stimulated by the generosity and sympathy common to a free people, they offer their support and assistance to such of the members of the Mexican confederacy as will take up arms against military despotism.5
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publicat.../015003182.html
Somehow, I find it amazing that people are not taught what actually happened, but some fiction that substitutes anti-Americanism for fact. Santa Ana overthrew the constitution and abolished the states, and two states revolted. One was Texas. That is the reason for the war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
errr....... Ned, one of those rights included the right to keep other people as slaves.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Ned - what the younger posters are getting here is that just because Santa Anna was a dictator did NOT make the Texans this great and noble group of people. You have an anti-slavery despot versus a pro-slavery very limited democracy that was more of a voting oligarchy (like much of the South) than it was a true democracy. There were no "good guys" in that conflict, and the actions taken by the US Government and it's representatives (including state governments) abrogating property rights insured by treaty shows you there is plenty of dirt on the US side of the history. If you ask the Native Americans which government did they prefer, that's like asking if I want to be drowned or strangled. I'd rather a different choice.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
That's where you and I have one of our few fundamental disagreements. For example, George Washington was a great man, and we can both list his achievements, especially his keen understanding of politics and strategy (i.e. the most important goal early in the war was to keep his army intact). However, that does not change the fact he was a slave holder, when already many people were questioning it's morality, and he engaged in a vicious genocide in the Ohio Valley, ordering his troops to exterminate women and children.
By not teaching the totality, we instead end up with cardboard heroes instead of real people, and a very shallow understanding of our legacy as a nation. If that history had been taught properly, the widespread massacres in the Phillipines may well not have occured. If the guards at Abu Graib had been taught about the US Army's actions in the Phillipines, or about Mai Lai and the heroic helicopter crew that stopped it, and about the lynchings and the widespread community celebrations that accompanied them, or the conditions of Native Americans who were rounded up by military units, we might not have had to deal with a major propoganda coup for Muslim extremists. That's why history, and how it is taught, is so important.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Actually, Ned, you and I don't have a fundamental disagreement over the use of Nuclear Weapons in WW2. It's a very naunced argument (I've got some more data but I won't thread jack) and you brought me around to the fact that it was not quite so clearcut as I had been taught. You come down on one side of a very fine division, and I come down on the other.
I stayed out of the argument you had with Molly Bloom. I read it after I got out of the hospital, and didn't want to spike my BP. Your points about Great Britian and WW2 had certain excellent facts, but you did a terrible job at presentation, i.e. it could be interpreted that you were excusing certain German actions. Note I'm not saying that is whay you said - but once it is open to that interpretation, you'll get pounded on no matter how good your point. FYI, I've considered writing a book - "Pox Brittanica - the legacy of the British Colonial Empire and modern conflicts" looking at how the abuse of British Common Law (Right of Conquest), British Diplomatic policy, and their empire created the roots of many of the worst conflicts post WW2. The Brits have not only more unpleasant deeds to account for, they had an arrogance that the Bush Jr. administration would feel right at home with (I couldn't resist  )
The fact our founding father's kept slaves does very much lend a certain illegitimacy to their struggles for indepedence (when read as freedom), especially in the South. The acquiescence of the Northern States to that "peculiar institution", and their profiteering from it, helped create the roots of the Civil War. You might veiw it as tarnish on a valuable silver coin. It doesn't lessen the value (tarnish is inevitable) but it might have been nice to have had a gold coin instead.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Drake, if they had been taught about that, the studies on authority figures and torture (lab coats and shocking subjects, I cannot remember the name of the study), and about Nuremburg and the "I was only following order's" defense - I honestly don't think it would have happened. The Army JAGS covered their butts well beforehand, they understood the underlying law and history. If the grunts had a little more training and education, we might have had more people at the beginning standing up and saying you cannot do this, or at least you cannot do this until you know they are guilty - remember, most of the people abused their were suspects and were innocent!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
So, why did that OTHER state revolt? Or, is it your position that liberty with slavery is not worth it? Then you deny our own revolution and our own constitution. We, as the Texans decades later, were fighting tyranny even though we had slaves. |
Because Santa Anna decided to execute slave owners who failed to set their slaves free.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-06-2005 08:24
|