"the reason Mexico lost Texas: they trusted all those gabacho settlers."
They obviously receive there information from Chicano Studies, such as those taught here at the University of Dayton. The only problem is that it is an incomplete and poorly interpreted history to demonize the USA and "white" American Citizens. They fail to realize what lead up to the Texas Disillusionment.
Texians had become increasingly disillusioned with the Mexican government. Many Mexican soldiers garrisoned in Texas were convicted criminals who had been given the choice of prison or serving in the army in Texas. Many Texians were also unhappy with the location of their state capital, which moved periodically between Saltillo and Monclova, both of which were in southern Coahuila, some 500 miles (800 km) away; they wanted Texas to be a separate state from Coahuila (but not independent from Mexico) and to have its own capital. They believed a closer capital would help to stem corruption and facilitate other matters of government.And then you have Santa Ana's contributions to the problem as well:
The Constitution of 1824 that was no longer being recognized by General Antonio López de Santa Anna Pérez de Lebrón who decided to abolish the Constitution of 1824 and proclaimed a new anti-federalist constitution in its place, the Siete Leyes of 1835.
Between 1829 and 1832, a series of Mexican presidents were killed in a series of coups. Santa Anna had a hand in each of these events. The Mexican Republic became heavily divided between two factions known as Conservatives, who were for a centralized monarchical government, and Liberals, who were for a democratic federal government. In the presidential elections of 1833, Santa Anna ran as a liberal and won. Soon after, Santa Anna retired to his hacienda, allowing Vice President Valentín Gómez Farías to run the country. The government initiated drastic liberal reforms, angering the Conservatives. Returning from his hacienda, Santa Anna renounced the government's policies and overthrew the presidency, forcing Gomez Farías and many of his supporters to flee Mexico for the United States. Santa Anna declared that Mexico was not ready for democracy, became an openly Conservative centralist, and appointed himself dictator. The War of Mexican Independence started after Napoleon invaded Spain in 1808, now Santa Anna fancied himself, the Napoleon of Mexico.
At the same time Texas declared independence, other Mexican states also decided to secede from Mexico and form their own republics. The state of Yucatán formed the Republic of Yucatán, which was recognized by Great Britain, and the states of Coahuila, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas joined together to form the Republic of the Rio Grande. Several other states also went into open rebellion, including San Luis Potosí, Querétaro, Durango, Guanajuato, Michoacán, Jalisco and Zacatecas. All were upset with Santa Anna abolishing the 1824 Constitution, disbanding Congress, changing the structure of government from a federal structure to a centralized one, and the expulsion of the Spaniards. Texas, however, was the only territory to be successful in detaching itself from Mexico.
So, after the missing information left out by those that blame the "white man" for their own ethnic strife, where is it that the USA or the "white man" stole Mexican land, i.e. Texas from Mexico??
10 comments:
If you could become aware of this history, Liquid, then what is keeping Tony Cheek, Oscar, et al back? It sure isn't a secret history.
Haha! It seems as though Tony Cheek doesn't like the "new and improved" civil discourse on the HB forums. He can't stand the fact that he can't hurl racial epithets and insults at whites and those with whom he disagrees. Even non-reconquistas' opinions are allowed there now.
TONY_CHEEK'S COMMENTS ON CIVIL DISCUSSION ON HB:
"Honestly?
SnoozeFest 2009.
What with the incessant political spam by Bob and DD and the attempt by Jeremy to turn this into an online version of the college debate team, the place has been as interesting to visit as the Lava Lamp Webcam.
To which the ads on this site will attest."
I guess he misses airhead's vitriolic rants and threats to do bodily injury to those who see things differently. That was so much more interesting, professional, and becoming a forum connected to a business magazine.
Take note that neither Tony nor Oscar has responded to CTA's comment, instead ran with the 1491 and Cortez argument.
This is the same things Analisa and Evelyn attempted to do, neither one 'believing' what was being said, even when I pointed out to Evelyn, my information came from the very pages she linked to in order to get her information, she still would not accept the information as factual.
These peoples minds are so full of hate for the 'white man' its ridiculous.
That is the bottom line truth of the matter, Liquid. They cannot stand that this is a majority white country. I guess them being the majority in 22 other countries on the Western Hemisphere isn't enough for them?
So tell me what benefit is it to bring in 10s of millions more to be indoctrinated into this mindset. How does this benefit the nation? How does this preserve cohesiveness?
To them, Alie, its not about cohesiveness, its about, as Oscar puts it: "My point exactly, the people that came from a foreign land forced their laws upon the people that were already here. White people did not sneak into this land, they took what they wanted. Even Lincoln encouraged the migration to the west so people could take land that did not belong to them."
and then he says this: "I support what is right. This land does not belong to Europeans or their offspring that came to this continent on the Mayflower and imposed their will on the people that were already here. A will that even today stands. No I do not support the people that came here Illegally and took what was not theirs."
CTA has a good response: "
According to the U.S. government that encompasses the 50 states, anyone born here in this country has a right to be here, regardless of what their ancestors did or didn't do. The native tribes that occupied what is now U.S. territory has treaties with the U.S. government and they have all the rights of a U.S. citizen and their sovereign lands. What about all those immigrants who came way after the Mayflower, the Asians for example are their descendants here illegally to then or is it just the white man you object to? By the way, it was the ancestors of the Mestizos (white Spanish Europeans) who also migrated over here so that makes the current day Mestizos illegally here also then, doesn't it? I mean if we are going to go by ancestry in your arguments."
Lets see how Oscar responds to that.
I'm just so darned sick and tired of these reconquistas. They want to separate themselves from us, maintain their hostile attitudes, and then whine about how "racist" white America is!
Yes, cta had a great response. The Native American nations which were indigenous to what is now the U.S. have treaties with the U.S. government and are full citizens of this country in addition to maintaining control of their own sovereign tribal nations.
The Mestizos of Mexico have NO CLAIM to this land. They need to address their grievances with the MEXICAN GOVERNMENT and if THAT doesn't work, bang on Spain's door. I'm sick of their lame propaganda and revisionist history which sole purpose is to undermine our sovereignty and claim this country as their own.
Furthermore, if Mexico were a first world nation with a thriving economy and the U.S. were an under-developed, poverty-stricken country, they would have NO INTEREST in "the land." They would be happily busy living their lives in Mexico, and taking all necessary means to keep Americans from sneaking in!
Alie, what do you mean by mestizos taking their problems to Mexico and Spain? If I'm of Spanish descent I'm as European as you, and if I'm of Mexican descent, I'm also of Indian descent. The Spanish, English, and French governments all settled and conquered this continent and took it from the Indians claiming to be domestic governments with world recognition. This governments issued land patents on the conquered territories, and are still valid to date, because of international treaties, including the Indian treaties, or do you think only the thirteen original English colonies are recognized?
I'm a land grantee in Texas, does that make me un-American because I fought to keep my property from being confiscated for the border wall? The grants were issued by Spain, validated by Mexico, the Republic of Texas, and later by Texas, by mandate of the 1848 Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty. How about giving up your property/home?
Yes, Texas stole our land patents by legislating law upon law to foreclose, adversly possess, taxation, statute of limitations, possession of mineral rights, and overwhelming litigated partition lawsuits to transfer our land grants to certain politically powerful individuals.
Our Spanish ancestors helped the New Englanders fight the British and win their independence. Some fought in the civil war, World War I and II, and every war to this date, including the present ones. Are we unpatriotic? I thougth this government is for the people , by the people, and for the people of all nationalities.
The Indian land grants are sovereign in every state, including Texas, especially the Spanish grants which proptected the Indians, but so are ours, and Texas completely ignores it. Private property rights are protected by international law all over the world, including the U.S.
Anonymous, I believe that Liquidmicro address many of the "stolen land" arguments.
However, I will say this: the fact that certain individuals/families had land grants from Spain (how did Spain get that land to grant it to anyone?) does not entitle every single Mexican South of our border TODAY to enter the U.S. in defiance of our immigration laws.
The descendants of those families who had their properties taken from them i the Southwest have a case against the Federal government and need to seek redress with them. Again this is no way justifies the illegal entry of millions upon millions from Mexico/Central/South America. Their ancestral homes were here:
http://www.crystalinks.com/aztecs.html
The Native Americans indigenous to what is now the U.S. have treaties with the U.S. government.
Theose indigenous to what is Mexico/Central/South America need to take up their issues with their governments.
Those who were here prior to the Mexican-American war and chose to stay here and not go to Mexico are ALREADY HERE. They don't need to COME here.
Bottom line, anonymous, is that the U.S. is a sovereign nation just like MEXICO, just like any other country in this world, and as such, has the right to set immigration policies which benefit this nation and its citizens.
Our nation was founded by those old, dead white guys who came from England. Our Constitution was written in English. Our laws are based on English common law which has its basis in the Magna Carta.
Mexico and Central/South America were settled and colonized by Spain, which is why I said that if their own governments cannot address their issues, maybe they need to take it up with Spain (or Portugal). I was really saying this tongue-in-cheek, but in reality our government is not responsible for people living in Mexico/Central/South America. Their own governments are.
The government of the U.S. is run by its CITIZENS who happen to come from many ethnic backgrounds; it is not a matter of the ethnic background of our ancestors. It is a matter of maintaining our sovereignty and that the people who become citizens put their loyalty to their NATION ahead of their particular ethnicity and the land of their ancestors.
We now living in the 21st century with internatonally recognized borders and immigration laws and the right and responsibility to enforce them just like every other country in this hemisphere and in the world.
Hope that helps.
I'm a land grantee in Texas
I'm guessing Western Texas, since Eastern Texas was not and is not in dispute from 1836 to 1848. You are trying to prove that your land grant is mandated by Guadalupe Hidalgo.
Yes, Texas stole our land patents by legislating law upon law to foreclose, adversly possess, taxation, statute of limitations, possession of mineral rights, and overwhelming litigated partition lawsuits to transfer our land grants to certain politically powerful individuals.
Where you part of the lawsuit from 1991? What do you know of the Bourland and Miller Commission? What of the confirmations of 1852?
As for International Law... You have no understanding of how it affects you nor the Citizens of this country, or for that matter, nationals from other countries visiting here.
Post a Comment