Whose side are you on - Texan War for Independence, 1835-1836?

Texan War for Independence - whose side are you on?


  • Total voters
    51

Salah

Forum Staff
Oct 2009
23,284
Maryland
Well, these threads are hip these days, and this conflict doesn't get a lot of press on Historum.

Even though the Texans were effectively trying to expand the territory of the slave-owning American South, I would still favor their side over the Mexicans in this war. For two reasons, both of them basically emotional - national bias, combined with my disgust with Santa Anna's tendency to murder combatants who surrendered. The Alamo and Fannin massacres were despicable incidents that cost the Mexicans even a faint chance of enjoying the ethical high ground in this conflict. Santa Anna was a curse to Mexico herself, and I enjoy seeing him humiliated at San Jacinto.
 
Last edited:

Baltis

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
4,005
Texas
I am not a big fan of countries that try to claim ownership or control over vast territory that they have not populated. I have little problem with the idea of Europeans immigrating to the US and none with the westward expansion. I do have feelings of compassion for the plight of the Indians but not at all for Mexico or Spain. No reason to respect their ownership of land that lies unprotected and empty.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,703
Spain
I am not a big fan of countries that try to claim ownership or control over vast territory that they have not populated. I have little problem with the idea of Europeans immigrating to the US and none with the westward expansion. I do have feelings of compassion for the plight of the Indians but not at all for Mexico or Spain. No reason to respect their ownership of land that lies unprotected and empty.
The same respect you have by Spain it is the respect i have for you. Yes, it was a terrible mistake to support USA in 1776-1783. It would be better the British Alliance.
And now.. .You LIE. When you say Spain didn´t established Cities, villages, ranchs (in fact, the name is Ranchos), Crops, Cattle, Livestock etc etc in Texas... In fact, The Spanish in Texas is from 1513.
No reason to respect the Canadian ownership or american ownership in Northwest Territory or Alaska.... almost empty... right? Russian, of course, have the right to annex Mongolia... right?

USA lacked of Rights over Texas... Do you want to copy word by word the Treaty between The Catholick King and USA? Do you know where was the border Between Spain and USA? Do you know USA recognized the Spanish Sovereignty over Texas?... It is funny... some of them say that USA respected the treaty because.. when they arrived to Texas... Spanish sovereignty had blown out from 1821...

So.. you must learn too much when you say no spaniards were in Texas before Yankees arrived... exactly you write Spain (...) empty. So it means no Spaniards in Texas... right? Well, so who wrote about the continous presence of spaniardars in Texas as early as 1520 is wrong...

It is funny you say no spaniards in Texas (empty) before Yankees arrived there... you are very very wrong...


Spanish Army in Texas, 1790
 

FLK

Jul 2015
85
United States
I am not a big fan of countries that try to claim ownership or control over vast territory that they have not populated. I have little problem with the idea of Europeans immigrating to the US and none with the westward expansion. I do have feelings of compassion for the plight of the Indians but not at all for Mexico or Spain. No reason to respect their ownership of land that lies unprotected and empty.
The supposition that Mexico and Spain left Texas empty and undefended goes against everything I've ever learned in school and from books, and from simply living in Texas over the past forty years -- not to mention that it even contradicts physical features in the very landscape. I kind of don't even know where to begin attempting to correct such a statement.
 
Last edited:

Zhang LaoYong

Ad Honorem
Oct 2014
5,123
On the prowl.
The supposition that Mexico and Spain left Texas empty and undefended goes against everything I've ever learned in school and from books over the past forty years -- not to mention even contradicting physical features in the landscape. I kind of don't even know where to begin attempting to correct such a statement.
It was sparsely populated to the point that there were not enough people to make Texas a state in Mexico, we were just a region of another state just like New Mexico. Where was all this development and the troops to defend settlers against the Comanche?
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,708
San Antonio, Tx
The same respect you have by Spain it is the respect i have for you. Yes, it was a terrible mistake to support USA in 1776-1783. It would be better the British Alliance.
And now.. .You LIE. When you say Spain didn´t established Cities, villages, ranchs (in fact, the name is Ranchos), Crops, Cattle, Livestock etc etc in Texas... In fact, The Spanish in Texas is from 1513.
No reason to respect the Canadian ownership or american ownership in Northwest Territory or Alaska.... almost empty... right? Russian, of course, have the right to annex Mongolia... right?

USA lacked of Rights over Texas... Do you want to copy word by word the Treaty between The Catholick King and USA? Do you know where was the border Between Spain and USA? Do you know USA recognized the Spanish Sovereignty over Texas?... It is funny... some of them say that USA respected the treaty because.. when they arrived to Texas... Spanish sovereignty had blown out from 1821...

So.. you must learn too much when you say no spaniards were in Texas before Yankees arrived... exactly you write Spain (...) empty. So it means no Spaniards in Texas... right? Well, so who wrote about the continous presence of spaniardars in Texas as early as 1520 is wrong...

It is funny you say no spaniards in Texas (empty) before Yankees arrived there... you are very very wrong...


Spanish Army in Texas, 1790
Did he say that? Of course the Spanish were in Texas. After Mexican Independence from Spain, Mexico took over administration of Texas, Oklahoma, parts of Colorado and certainly New Mexico (not to mention Alta California. It was difficult for Mexico to send sufficieent settlers in their northern provinves. Their far-flung missions on the Louisiana Terrirory border were difficult to maintain and supply, Soon, at least three of these were moved to Bexar (where San Antonio today is. Because Texas needed settlements and developments American Impresarios secured permission to late settlements in Texas. Although sslavery was not permitted, southern planters brought them anyway from thw United States.

But the war of Texas Independence was not fought to unite with the United Sates, but to be an independent nation, which inependence was gained at San Jacinto in 1836 in a treaty negotiated while Santa Ana was a prisoner of Sam Houston's Army. Texas delegations in Washinton DC tried to bring the US into the war bu they were not successful because there was a previous treaty with Mexico. President Jackson woulld have none of it. But he would not stop Americans from immigrating to the new state.

After Texas gained its independence it received a couple of European missions by way of recognition, but Texas independence was precarious - the state was basically broke and, being now independent was a candidate for union with the USA. This would not affect the Hispanic farmers and rancheros that were already there, most notably in Bexar.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,302
SoCal
It was sparsely populated to the point that there were not enough people to make Texas a state in Mexico, we were just a region of another state just like New Mexico. Where was all this development and the troops to defend settlers against the Comanche?
Wait--you're a Texan?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,302
SoCal
The Texans were the lesser of the two evils and thus I would have supported them and their fight for independence from Mexico.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,703
Spain
Did he say that? Of course the Spanish were in Texas. After Mexican Independence from Spain, Mexico took over administration of Texas, Oklahoma, parts of Colorado and certainly New Mexico (not to mention Alta California. It was difficult for Mexico to send sufficieent settlers in their northern provinves. Their far-flung missions on the Louisiana Terrirory border were difficult to maintain and supply, Soon, at least three of these were moved to Bexar (where San Antonio today is. Because Texas needed settlements and developments American Impresarios secured permission to late settlements in Texas. Although sslavery was not permitted, southern planters brought them anyway from thw United States.

But the war of Texas Independence was not fought to unite with the United Sates, but to be an independent nation, which inependence was gained at San Jacinto in 1836 in a treaty negotiated while Santa Ana was a prisoner of Sam Houston's Army. Texas delegations in Washinton DC tried to bring the US into the war bu they were not successful because there was a previous treaty with Mexico. President Jackson woulld have none of it. But he would not stop Americans from immigrating to the new state.

After Texas gained its independence it received a couple of European missions by way of recognition, but Texas independence was precarious - the state was basically broke and, being now independent was a candidate for union with the USA. This would not affect the Hispanic farmers and rancheros that were already there, most notably in Bexar.
Mr Royal,

+1 You are right but yes, he said Texas was empty under Spain. That is lie, so simple or if you prefer it is not truth. It is against the historical Evidences. In fact, there were more people in Texas under Spain in 1767 than in Northwest Territory under Britain in 1867...The Archeology confirm the Spanish presence in Texas before people thought (Texas University). Spaniards arrived to Texas sooner or at the same time than in Mexico. Probably in 1513. for sure from 1520.

Remember, Texas belonged to Spain for 301 years and to Mexico only 14 years... Texas belonged to Mexico for only 14 years! Thats the reason because the Texian (in original language, Texanos or Tejanos) saw themselves as Spaniards, and not as mexican. In fact, when it begun the War of Texas Independence, the Texians or Tejanos are going to fight against Mexico.

The great ignorance you can find nowadays into the Society (Also in the high Society) is responsible to write no Spaniards lived in Texas before arriving anglo-american...(Wrong). or that Spaniards were Mexican (Wrong too):

Texians did not see themselves as Mexican Texans as the label is commonly imposed on them today,(...) they called themselves Spaniard as opposed to Mexican, (...) those Tejano Texians as well who although in writing they referred to themselves as Mexican, in context, they clearly recognized they were criollo, that is, full blooded Spaniards born in the New World, and not mestizos or genizaros as the great majority of Mexicans are.

So to say Texas was Empty is FALSE. They were Spaniards living in Texas from 1520.. Today Eva Longoria (a Texian or Tejanas) actress.. well.. their family came from Asturias and they are living in Texas from 1767...
So the man said no spaniards in Texas before 1820.. he is not saying the Truth.


Spaniards Texian or Tejanos arrived to Texas many generations before anglo-american arrived there... nobody can argument against these. Although Texas became what today is thanks to the Yankee Inmigration... but facts are facts.. and to say no spaniards in Texas.. it is FALSE.