NomadBard

Texas history did not grow in size until Texas's centenniel in 1936. Prior to this, the Alamo, Goliad, and San Jacinto were barely remembered as anything.

These "battles" of course occured after the "Texans" became Mexican citizens, given very good conditions as frontiersmen. They had to pay few taxes, could remain protestant, did not have to pay the Catholic church, didn't have to contribute to the Mexican army, and were often allowed to keep slaves, although Mexico had abolished slavery.

The diary of a Mexican at the Alamo tells of executing a number of soldiers that had surrendered, listed among them was Davy Crockett. The Texans were massacred at the Alamo, the Texans were massacred at Goliad after surrendering, and the Texans massacred the surrendering Mexicans at San Jacinto after attacking them during their siesta.

What is everyone else's impression of Texas History?

Lucius

Barely remembered as anything by whom? Students of military history? I don't know. I think Houston's operations leading up to San Jacinto were pretty smart. The "battles" themselves were basically massacres of course. But Houston led Santa Anna by the nose until he got the Mexican army right where he wanted it. I give him credit for that.

NomadBard

Texans during the centenniel boasted that San Jacinto was the 16th most decisive battle in the history of the world. Prior to this, no one had cared for Texas history. The Daughters of the Texas Revolution, much like the UDC, had to buy up the Alamo because it was literally crumbling. People didn't really take notice until the centenniel glorified Texas.

Lucius

I think I see what you mean. A certain amount of "puffery" is to be expected. And Texans have a bit of a reputation for being especially high on themselves. Obviously, it wouldn't have mattered if the Mexicans had won the Battle of San Jacinto. Texas, California, and everything in between would have still been annexed by the U.S. on account of what happened a decade later at Vera Cruz and Mexico City.

NomadBard

I just really enjoy how Texas received the image of being a pillar of freedom, even though the Texans were slave owning ingrates.

Lucius

Ingrates? Do you mean because Texas seceded from the Union after having been allowed to join just 15 years earlier?

NomadBard

No, I meant because of all the rights the Mexicans freely granted the Texans. Rights they did not allow their own citizens, just so that someone would settle the Texas frontier.

Komrade

I like how the Texas centennial created Texas-sized egos but here in Virginia nobody really cares about our quad-centennial.

Orion

Well, since I teach Texas History, my impression is that it is a rich history and one that you have obviously not studied at length. Your "facts" are typical revisionists propaganda and lack any credibility. I would post the letters of Alamo defenders, as well as entries from Mexican Colonel Urrea's diaries for you, but I doubt your obviously small mind would comprehend it all. I invite you to visit the Lone Star State (the only state to enter the Union via treaty) and spout off about our "shamstory".

By the way, the "massacre" at Goliad was after Fannin's men surrendered to "fair treatment". They were marched out (on Palm Sunday) for a work detail and shot in the backs. Those that were still alive were run through by bayonet by the glorious Mexican Army.

Oh, the "diary" of which you speak (the ONLY one to have that misinformation of any Mexican officer) was written by a certain Colonel Pena.....three weeks AFTER the Alamo.

Orion

And just where are you from? Mars? Venus?

Once again, only 25% of the Texas population even owned slaves. The majority of those "slavers" had a single domestic. You really are a clueless one, aren't you?