Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Board signals it will keep ‘heroic’ in Alamo defenders in Texas history curriculum

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

    Seguin was also a cattle thief, rapist, and murderer. If we're being all truthful about things.
    And if he was raping his stolen cattle he'd have been your stereotypical Texan.

    Rimshot

    Given the New Yorkers massacring free blacks because of the draft in 1863, I would say that the Texas leadership was decades ahead of the termite mound.
    Not really New Yorkers but very recent arrivals: Shanty Irish, fresh off the boat, corrupt, promiscuous, and self-serving. A few years earlier they raised riot over a rivalry between two Shakespearean actors. It was the Micks who founded the big city Democratic machines that we all know and love today. Ultimately most of them became cops.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    I am well acquainted with the three. Bowie left his family (including a Black uncle) in Louisiana. He did business with Jean Lafitte and was always looking for an easy score. He went to San Antonio and posed as a rich Americano while he courted a local Beauty (rich of course!). To marry he signed a piece of paper pledging several thousand cattle as a surety. By the time of the Alamo, his wife was dead and his in-laws were pressing him for the cattle. The Revolution came very just in time.

    Travis was a philanderer that kept a record of every visit to a prostitute and how much he spent. Ole Buck abandoned his wife and children in Alabama. A second classy fellow. He got his rank by claiming he could raise enough recruits to fill a Battalion. I think he only found about fifty. Recruits were scarce because this was for the Regular Texas Army and not the Militia. It was expensive to bring a horse, outfit and arms.

    Crockett's main problem is he got on Andy Jackson's bad side. Jackson ruined him in Tennessee. Some of my ancestor's also made the same mistake and had to leave a plantation near Nashville for Mississippi. David thought he would go to Texas at the end of the uprising, get a political base and re-enter US politics after Texas was annexed. His timing got him fame and death.

    I don't know as much about Juan Seguin. A lot of those charges could have came after he relocated. The Mexicans could have hung him or they could hire him to do raids into Texas. I think a lot of Texas Hispanics were stripped of their land. The Texas Land Grants often overlapped and who would win in a Texas court? Seguin lost his court cases. I feel more empathy for him than the other three.

    Pruitt
    Bowie made his living smuggling slaves into the USA, too.

    Seguin was a horse thief and rustler his entire life. As we've both noted, he wasn't any worse than the other major lights, but since he lived long enough for his crimes to catch up with him, he paid for them.

    The problem with the land issue was many-fold. Texas had belonged to Spain (parts to France), and they awarded the land. Then the Mexicans rose in rebellion, and instituted land reform against a lot of the landowners who were Spanish supporters. Which like many forcible land reforms, was counter-productive.

    Then they had the bright idea of inviting Americans into Texas with land taken from Spanish grants to act as a buffer and bullet sponges against the Comanche.

    But the Americans, not the most savory lot, rebelled and seized Texas.

    So: You had land grants from the Spaniards, some of which had been declared invalid by the Mexican government. You had land grants from the Mexican government, some of which were revoked by the Mexican government in 1836. Then you had land titles issued by the Texas Republic, which recognized some Spanish grants, some Mexican grants, but not all of either.

    And then the USA took over.

    Even if everyone involved was noble and righteous, the ownership of land was not going to be settled to everyone's satisfaction. You had three different governments issuing grants for the same land. And then just as the dust was settling, however fairly or unfairly, Texas became part of the CSA, and made new land grants.

    And then reverted back to the USA. Whose judges were inclined to act against CSA actions.

    IIRC the last of these land disputes were settled in the 1920s.

    A lot of people of all races got the shaft.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    I am well acquainted with the three. Bowie left his family (including a Black uncle) in Louisiana. He did business with Jean Lafitte and was always looking for an easy score. He went to San Antonio and posed as a rich Americano while he courted a local Beauty (rich of course!). To marry he signed a piece of paper pledging several thousand cattle as a surety. By the time of the Alamo, his wife was dead and his in-laws were pressing him for the cattle. The Revolution came very just in time.

    Travis was a philanderer that kept a record of every visit to a prostitute and how much he spent. Ole Buck abandoned his wife and children in Alabama. A second classy fellow. He got his rank by claiming he could raise enough recruits to fill a Battalion. I think he only found about fifty. Recruits were scarce because this was for the Regular Texas Army and not the Militia. It was expensive to bring a horse, outfit and arms.

    Crockett's main problem is he got on Andy Jackson's bad side. Jackson ruined him in Tennessee. Some of my ancestor's also made the same mistake and had to leave a plantation near Nashville for Mississippi. David thought he would go to Texas at the end of the uprising, get a political base and re-enter US politics after Texas was annexed. His timing got him fame and death.

    I don't know as much about Juan Seguin. A lot of those charges could have came after he relocated. The Mexicans could have hung him or they could hire him to do raids into Texas. I think a lot of Texas Hispanics were stripped of their land. The Texas Land Grants often overlapped and who would win in a Texas court? Seguin lost his court cases. I feel more empathy for him than the other three.

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    Texas screwed Juan Seguin after the Revolution. They ran him off his land and he had to relocate South of the Rio Grande. Sure they named a county after him, but he is not an example of how Texas should treat patriotic Hispanics. Seguin's men died in the Alamo.

    Pruitt
    Well, his habits of stealing cattle and horses also had a bit to do with that. The prisons are always full of veterans. Just because you served does not give you carte blanche.

    Bowie was noose-bound until he died at the Alamo; he was a life-long criminal. Travis left the USA because of legal complications. Crockett was a failed farmer, businessman, and politician.

    Frontiers often attract men who do not play well with others.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

    If a guy sweats and fights and bleeds alongside you, it takes an exceptional level of inhumanity to continue to view him as property.

    No doubt your ancestor did better by his slaves than the State of Texas did by Juan Seguin, but perhaps those fat a$$holes in Austin did not avail themselves of the honor of fighting alongside Mr Seguin. More's the pity.
    Seguin was also a cattle thief, rapist, and murderer. If we're being all truthful about things.

    Given the New Yorkers massacring free blacks because of the draft in 1863, I would say that the Texas leadership was decades ahead of the termite mound.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    Well my great grandfather on my mother's side, Jessie Billingsley, freed the two Black slaves that were in his company of rangers for fighting at San Jacinto so don't heap that on everyone who fought in the Texas revolution.
    If a guy sweats and fights and bleeds alongside you, it takes an exceptional level of inhumanity to continue to view him as property.

    No doubt your ancestor did better by his slaves than the State of Texas did by Juan Seguin, but perhaps those fat a$$holes in Austin did not avail themselves of the honor of fighting alongside Mr Seguin. More's the pity.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    Texas screwed Juan Seguin after the Revolution. They ran him off his land and he had to relocate South of the Rio Grande. Sure they named a county after him, but he is not an example of how Texas should treat patriotic Hispanics. Seguin's men died in the Alamo.

    Pruitt
    Well my great grandfather on my mother's side, Jessie Billingsley, freed the two Black slaves that were in his company of rangers for fighting at San Jacinto so don't heap that on everyone who fought in the Texas revolution.

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    Are we really using the 1800's as a sign of America's acceptance of multiculturalism? The problem with multiculturalism is that Americans no longer value freedom or the diversity of ideas. If they ever have.

    Today, it's only going to lead to civil conflict.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    Texas screwed Juan Seguin after the Revolution. They ran him off his land and he had to relocate South of the Rio Grande. Sure they named a county after him, but he is not an example of how Texas should treat patriotic Hispanics. Seguin's men died in the Alamo.

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    Multiculturalism is a flawed and failing concept.
    But it was multicultural forces that held the Alamo and ultimately defeated Santa Anna, thus gaining Texas' independence. The fact that Texas today boasts a "Juan Seguin County" certainly attests to the fact that people of differing backgrounds can work together to achieve a greater good without having to "sell out" their cultural distinctiveness, no?

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Multiculturalism is a flawed and failing concept.

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    No, I'm not. You made a generalization about history books. I pointed out one that is used by some school districts and schools, and not a few. Multiculturalism that you allude to is a waste of time in K to 12. Learning a few facts about a mishmash of cultures irrelevant to American history is useless. African history is largely, if not entirely irrelevant to American history outside of the slave trade. It had no influence beyond that on the US... unless you want to count the Barbary Pirates and Barbary wars, but those were Arabs and Berbers, not Blacks.
    Kids should be learning American history before being given a smorgasbord of useless trivia on the rest of the world. But, we're not even teaching them that any more.
    You can disagree with what should be taught all you want, my point and the fact is our history teachings are far from liberal. It's the opposite.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
    A People's History isn't in the curriculum so you're off topic. As far as the history that we're teaching in our schools, it serves as nothing more than an indoctrination into faux patriotism. Our history books only focus on the accomplishments of western Europe and leaves out all other cultures, despite the many advances made in other parts of the world. Creating a new generation of self righteous sheep who think they're the center of the universe. The darker sides of American history are also left out. Again, this selective history gives a false impression of who America truly is. Our schools also separate African-American history from American history, reinforcing that blacks and whites in America are two separate entities instead of one collective. All while forcing our kids to pledge their allegiance every morning as if we're some sort of military dictatorship. This approach to brainwashing our youth is certainly not liberal, it's highly conservative.
    No, I'm not. You made a generalization about history books. I pointed out one that is used by some school districts and schools, and not a few. Multiculturalism that you allude to is a waste of time in K to 12. Learning a few facts about a mishmash of cultures irrelevant to American history is useless. African history is largely, if not entirely irrelevant to American history outside of the slave trade. It had no influence beyond that on the US... unless you want to count the Barbary Pirates and Barbary wars, but those were Arabs and Berbers, not Blacks.
    Kids should be learning American history before being given a smorgasbord of useless trivia on the rest of the world. But, we're not even teaching them that any more.

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    A People's History isn't in the curriculum so you're off topic. As far as the history that we're teaching in our schools, it serves as nothing more than an indoctrination into faux patriotism. Our history books only focus on the accomplishments of western Europe and leaves out all other cultures, despite the many advances made in other parts of the world. Creating a new generation of self righteous sheep who think they're the center of the universe. The darker sides of American history are also left out. Again, this selective history gives a false impression of who America truly is. Our schools also separate African-American history from American history, reinforcing that blacks and whites in America are two separate entities instead of one collective. All while forcing our kids to pledge their allegiance every morning as if we're some sort of military dictatorship. This approach to brainwashing our youth is certainly not liberal, it's highly conservative.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
    Our history books are already extremely skewed, biased and selective. Taking out the word heroic, won't change that.
    Not compared to the re-writes the Left does to them. Howard Zinn's A People's History of the US is little more than a selective hit piece on everything Western and American. It is a Marxist fiction of class struggle tinged with every form of Leftist dogma. And, it is hardly the only one. Today we have "ethnic" and women's studies that propagandize racism, sexism, and hatred of those that disagree. These are trickling down into the public schools where real history is tossed out the window in favor of social and economic justice taught as little more than propaganda and indoctrination.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X