Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Alamo

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Janos View Post
    Would have been interesting if the Texicans and Santa Ana made a deal and kept Texas in Mexico -- remember that until the Alamo all the Texicans wanted was the rights they had been guaranteed under the constitution of 1824 (?right year?), which Santa Ana had dumped. Mexico might reach almos the way to Canada today!
    You're on the red! Right. The Texans made many demands of the Mexican government, even sending Stephen Austin in 1835 to hammer things out. The slow moving cobweb of Mexican politics at the time cause Austin and Texans to change their direction. But, had information traveled quicker, the Texans would have seen that Santa Anna did indeed grant all but one concession. Texas staying in the Mexican orbit was indeed a very viable outcome.

    Comment


    • #17
      Dealing with the Devil?

      Originally posted by Janos View Post
      Would have been interesting if the Texicans and Santa Ana made a deal and kept Texas in Mexico -- remember that until the Alamo all the Texicans wanted was the rights they had been guaranteed under the constitution of 1824 (?right year?), which Santa Ana had dumped. Mexico might reach almos the way to Canada today!
      Yes, but dealing with Santa Ana was always a chancy proposition. He had a history of reneging on past deals.

      Pruitt
      Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

      Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

      by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

      Comment


      • #18
        With no or a failed Texas revolution I think she gets dragged into the US involuntarily. I don't think the supporters of Manifest Destiny, north and south, allow that much desired territory to remain out of reach.

        If the Alamo doesn't fall and the revolution succeeds I don't see much change in what happened, just one less heroic last stand in history.

        Regards,
        Dennis
        If stupid was a criminal offense Sea Lion believers would be doing life.

        Shouting out to Half Pint for bringing back the big mugs!

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by D1J1 View Post
          With no or a failed Texas revolution I think she gets dragged into the US involuntarily. I don't think the supporters of Manifest Destiny, north and south, allow that much desired territory to remain out of reach.
          Texans were split on wanting to join the US or not. But if the Tex.Rev failed, then I cannot see Mexico allowing the US to steal away Texas or at best, a sliver of it. Mexican politics since it's own independence had always been a wreck, but they could always use the loss of Texas as a rallying point. I suppose the Mex-Amer War would have happened sooner or later.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by TJAdams View Post
            Texans were split on wanting to join the US or not. But if the Tex.Rev failed, then I cannot see Mexico allowing the US to steal away Texas or at best, a sliver of it. Mexican politics since it's own independence had always been a wreck, but they could always use the loss of Texas as a rallying point. I suppose the Mex-Amer War would have happened sooner or later.
            That was my contention in the latter. The supporters of Manifest Destiny don't let the current southwest remain in Mexican hands. The Mexican-American War still takes place at some point in time.

            Regards,
            Dennis
            If stupid was a criminal offense Sea Lion believers would be doing life.

            Shouting out to Half Pint for bringing back the big mugs!

            Comment


            • #21
              If the Mex-Amer. War happens later, depending on how much later, does the Civil War happen later as well? And would starting later effect the personal decisions, i.e. Lee and others?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                Yes, but dealing with Santa Ana was always a chancy proposition. He had a history of reneging on past deals.

                Pruitt
                Agreed. Would the Texicans have rebelled had someone else been president/dictator of Mexico?
                Barcsi János ispán vezérőrnagy
                Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2003 & 2006


                "Never pet a burning dog."

                RECOMMENDED WEBSITES:
                http://www.mormon.org
                http://www.sca.org
                http://www.scv.org/
                http://www.scouting.org/

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by TJAdams View Post
                  If the Mex-Amer. War happens later, depending on how much later, does the Civil War happen later as well? And would starting later effect the personal decisions, i.e. Lee and others?
                  The CW? IMO that depends on 2 things. How the new territories are admitted to the Union and whether or not congress gets the stones to begin the process of constitutionally dealing with slavery.

                  I think it happens if the slavery question is dodged as it was historically. As to the rest, when and personnel decisions, I won't comment. How the Mexican-American War shapes up in terms of time and who does or does not survive makes that too speculative to engage in IMO.

                  Regards,
                  Dennis
                  Last edited by D1J1; 18 Jun 09, 09:11.
                  If stupid was a criminal offense Sea Lion believers would be doing life.

                  Shouting out to Half Pint for bringing back the big mugs!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Janos View Post
                    Agreed. Would the Texicans have rebelled had someone else been president/dictator of Mexico?
                    Indeed Santa Anna was a slippery worm to hook, his one self interest was himself. Even after Santa Anna was captured by the Texans, the two treaties he signed were automatically ignored by the Mexican government. No matter who was president after Santa Anna would have changed the politics. If one was to soft, he was quickly displaced by the military. And as Texas VP David G. Burnet declared, " Texas proper is bound by the Rio Grande. Texas as defined by the sword, may comprehend the Sierra Madre. Let the sword do its proper work." I think there was going to be turmoil in the region for years to come.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by TJAdams View Post
                      If the Mex-Amer. War happens later, depending on how much later, does the Civil War happen later as well? And would starting later effect the personal decisions, i.e. Lee and others?
                      Interesting. The Wilmot proviso did outline the disagreement between north and south and without that disagreement could the issue of slave expansion ever been on the table?
                      After the CW a Mexican/American War would have been part of the attempt by Napoleon II to make Mexico a colony of France. The Union army of 1866 would have sweep all before them and with issue of slavery moot the demand to make Mexico a part of the USA might have been in place. Manifest Destiny could have meant from the border with Canada to Panama.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by LtCol View Post
                        Interesting. The Wilmot proviso did outline the disagreement between north and south and without that disagreement could the issue of slave expansion ever been on the table?
                        After the CW a Mexican/American War would have been part of the attempt by Napoleon II to make Mexico a colony of France. The Union army of 1866 would have sweep all before them and with issue of slavery moot the demand to make Mexico a part of the USA might have been in place. Manifest Destiny could have meant from the border with Canada to Panama.
                        But most of the desire to assimiliate Spanish-speaking lands into the USA was to allow for the expanse of slavery -- hence the lack of Northern support for the Mex-Am war. Without slavery, I think the demand to expand to include Mexico would have been diminished, not higher.
                        Barcsi János ispán vezérőrnagy
                        Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2003 & 2006


                        "Never pet a burning dog."

                        RECOMMENDED WEBSITES:
                        http://www.mormon.org
                        http://www.sca.org
                        http://www.scv.org/
                        http://www.scouting.org/

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Janos View Post
                          But most of the desire to assimiliate Spanish-speaking lands into the USA was to allow for the expanse of slavery -- hence the lack of Northern support for the Mex-Am war. Without slavery, I think the demand to expand to include Mexico would have been diminished, not higher.
                          According to "A Glorious Defeat: Mexico and its War with the US" by Timothy J. Henderson ( great book) he states that of all the cries for NOT annexing all of Mexico came from the Southerners. Since Mexico had been against slavery, any new lands gained from the war would have strengthened anti-slavery powers in Congress.
                          But to acquire a land populated by a strong central Catholic faith, a different language & culture, was just to much for 1847 Americans to swallow.

                          Comment

                          Latest Topics

                          Collapse

                          Working...
                          X