home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   alt.old-west      Discussing the wild west, frontier life      1,275 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 902 of 1,275   
   Gerald Clough to Von Fourche   
   Re: Is it fair to say that The Battle at   
   17 Dec 05 21:11:37   
   
   XPost: soc.history.war.misc   
   From: firstinitiallastname@texas.net   
      
   Von Fourche wrote:   
   > "Bob Tiernan"  wrote in message   
   > news:Pine.GSO.4.63.0512170959460.26475@shell1.pacifier.net...   
   >   
   >>D. Patterson wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>The Texians were not seeking a retuen to pre-Santa Ana   
   >>government, nor of being part of a post-Santa Ana Mexico.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >     Were they seeking to become part of the U.S.A. then all along or did   
   > they have plans to be their own country?   
      
   Depends on who you talked to. And the talk didn't always match the   
   intent, just like today. Anglo-Mexican citizens of Texas earlier put   
   down an attempt to create an independent nation. (After the revolution,   
   some went on to make another effort to form a Republic of the Rio   
   Grande.) Some did oppose the Santa Ana violation of the Mexican   
   Constitution and took seriously their oath of allegiance to Mexico.   
   Clearly, some sought at least allignment with the U.S., if not statehood   
   or territorial status. Some, being the kind of folks who didn't much   
   care for any government, just didn't like being messed with and showed   
   up because it sounded interesting. But the best organized evolved   
   rapidly into a goal of independence, while initially positioning   
   themselves as loyal Mexicans, probably taking a realistic position that   
   would draw the widest support.   
      
   I think it quickly became clear that you could beat Santa Ana in Texas,   
   but could have little hope of making much change in the rest of Mexico.   
   Indeed, it was a very long time before anyone managed to keep a grip on   
   the government for very long. Once you commit to the fight and happen to   
   win, you're left with a void to fill, and setting up shop as a republic   
   becomes the only realistic alternative. I think it's important to   
   remember that there wasn't even a well defined geographical boundry   
   involved or even in mind.   
      
   I doesn't seem unlikely to me that, had Santa Ana not forced the issue,   
   Texas could have ended up as an autonomous region of Mexico,   
   independence coming along sometime later, driven by the onging   
   instability of Mexico. The distance from the capital would have made   
   Texas pretty autonomous anyway.   
   --   
                          Gerald Clough   
       "Nothing has any value, unless you know you can give it up."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca