OK, the problem was that the Texans (or Texians) at Gonzales were residents of MEXICO. Does it help if we add that "In 1831, Mexican authorities gave the settlers of Gonzales a small cannon to help protect them from frequent Comanche raids."
Let's add a little more background this story:
"The Mexican Constitution of 1824 liberalized the country's immigration policies, allowing foreigners to settle in border regions such as Mexican Texas. In 1825, American Green DeWitt received permission to settle 400 families in Texas near the confluence of the San Marcos and Guadalupe Rivers."
Mexicans? Americans?
The story continnues:
"Word quickly spread that up to 300 soldiers were expected to march on Gonzales. Stephen F. Austin, one of the most respected men in Texas and the de facto leader of the settlers, sent messengers to inform surrounding communities of the situation. Austin cautioned Texians to remain on the defensive, as any unprovoked attacks against Mexican forces could limit the support Texians might receive from the United States if war officially began."
Rather than fighting repression, this was one of the opening shots in another war: The US-Mexican war.
This was the war in which the U.S. annexed Texas in 1845, which Mexico considered part of its territory despite the 1836 Texas Revolution (which Gonzales was one of the Battles). Unfortunately, it is a war which most Americans are ignorant, despite the fact that it is highly important in shaping the nature of the US.
Almost every single important officer in the command structure in the Mexican war of American imperialism was later important in the Civil War. Lee was a combat engineer, who was extremely important in winning a crucial battle by (I believe) finding an unexpected way to cross a swamp. Grant was also important. Winfield Scott, considered early as Federal forces commander in the Civil War (despite his very advanced age) commanded the successful US army.
Nick, I'm really disappointed. You didn't use the words "gunsuck" or "gunloon" once. Nor did you make unsubstantiated and indefensible references to paraphilias. You're really losing your touch.
Laci persists in reminding us of things that we already know. This brings to mind the quotation, attributed to Mencken about George Bernard Shaw, that it's his life work to state the obvious in terms of the scandalous.
OK, the problem was that the Texans (or Texians) at Gonzales were residents of MEXICO. Does it help if we add that "In 1831, Mexican authorities gave the settlers of Gonzales a small cannon to help protect them from frequent Comanche raids."
ReplyDeleteLet's add a little more background this story:
"The Mexican Constitution of 1824 liberalized the country's immigration policies, allowing foreigners to settle in border regions such as Mexican Texas. In 1825, American Green DeWitt received permission to settle 400 families in Texas near the confluence of the San Marcos and Guadalupe Rivers."
Mexicans? Americans?
The story continnues:
"Word quickly spread that up to 300 soldiers were expected to march on Gonzales. Stephen F. Austin, one of the most respected men in Texas and the de facto leader of the settlers, sent messengers to inform surrounding communities of the situation. Austin cautioned Texians to remain on the defensive, as any unprovoked attacks against Mexican forces could limit the support Texians might receive from the United States if war officially began."
Rather than fighting repression, this was one of the opening shots in another war: The US-Mexican war.
This was the war in which the U.S. annexed Texas in 1845, which Mexico considered part of its territory despite the 1836 Texas Revolution (which Gonzales was one of the Battles). Unfortunately, it is a war which most Americans are ignorant, despite the fact that it is highly important in shaping the nature of the US.
http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/index_flash.html
And this makes a difference in the point why?
DeleteAlmost every single important officer in the command structure in the Mexican war of American imperialism was later important in the Civil War. Lee was a combat engineer, who was extremely important in winning a crucial battle by (I believe) finding an unexpected way to cross a swamp. Grant was also important. Winfield Scott, considered early as Federal forces commander in the Civil War (despite his very advanced age) commanded the successful US army.
DeleteNick, I'm really disappointed. You didn't use the words "gunsuck" or "gunloon" once. Nor did you make unsubstantiated and indefensible references to paraphilias. You're really losing your touch.
DeleteLaci persists in reminding us of things that we already know. This brings to mind the quotation, attributed to Mencken about George Bernard Shaw, that it's his life work to state the obvious in terms of the scandalous.
ReplyDeleteThe point of the flag and slogan remains.