This is all part and parcel of the denigration of American history. Columbus was a imperialistic murderer, Jefferson and his slave girl, the Alamo defenders, the list goes on and on. All leading to that America is the source of all evil in the universe.
Nickelodeon tells kids: Alamo fought for slavery
- Thread starter Desertdog
- Start date
- Status
MikeB
Member
Rebar said:
Those criticisms have some element of truth to them. The problem is according to many current PC philosphies what they may have done is considered an abnormality instead of the norm. Were they wrong, probably. Were they wildly outside of common behaviour of the time, that's unlikely. The histoical context of actions is important to understanding the motives and actions of figures from the past. Something considered immoral or brutal today wasn't always in the past. Some day we may have zats or phasers and be able to instantly stun enemies or criminals, couldn't our regular talk of one shot stops and "stopping the attack" be considered barbaric by comparison?
I see people celebrating the idea of Molon Labe here all the time. I happen to agree with the sentiment. The Spartans however were a brutal people who kept slaves, kept women as homemakers and childbearers and slightly better than slaves, engaged in institutionalized homosexuality (I have no problem with homosexuals - just making a point here), and other beliefs and actions condisered brutal, immoral, unfair and racist by some people or most people depending on the particular issue today. Should we not recognize "heroes" of the past because our current beliefs don't mesh with the reality of their era's. Personally I think we should not always denigrate them based on our "enlightened" state comparatively.
Blackburn.
I almost hate to historically rain all over your pat, neat little parade, but you've asked for it in this thread.
So here goes.
The "underground railroad" existed mainly to get escaped slaves into Canada.
There were NO "free" states in the US after the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850.
A slave was a slave was a slave, no matter what patch of US ground he got to, according to the Fugitive Slave Act.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1850fugitive.html
A few years later, none other than Frederick Douglass gave a fiery speech against slavery in Rochester, NY.
In that speech, Douglass rails against the Fugitive Slave Act.
He also rails against a group of Northern ministers who supported slavery and who Douglass sarcastically labels "The Divines."
Douglass also spends much of that speech delivering a verbal smack-down against his audience, who were largely white, northern abolitionists. He smacks them down because they aren't doing anything about the Fugitive Slave Act or the so-called "Divines" who support and condone slavery from their northern pulpits.
Here's that speech.
http://douglassarchives.org/doug_a10.htm
And, oh yeah, perhaps you've heard of the Dred Scott case?????
http://library.wustl.edu/vlib/dredscott/
Slavery was endemic in the US.
Yes, every single state that seceded from the Union in the Civil War was a slave state. Yes, the Confederate Constitution did not allow any Confederate state to ban slavery. Yes, one of the "states rights" at issue was slavery.
But US slaves (In Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey) had to wait for another seven months after the Confederacy ceased to exist before the 13th Amendment freed them.
And here's a bit from the Wikipedia entry on New Jersey.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey
On November 20, 1789 the state became the first in the newly-formed Union to ratify the Bill of Rights.
"Ironically, on February 15, 1804 New Jersey became the last northern state to abolish slavery by enacting legislation that slowly phased out slavery. However, by the close of the Civil War, several African-Americans in New Jersey were still in bondage and New Jersey initially refused to ratify the Constitutional Amendments banning Slavery and granting rights to America's black population."
I almost hate to historically rain all over your pat, neat little parade, but you've asked for it in this thread.
So here goes.
The "underground railroad" existed mainly to get escaped slaves into Canada.
There were NO "free" states in the US after the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850.
A slave was a slave was a slave, no matter what patch of US ground he got to, according to the Fugitive Slave Act.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1850fugitive.html
A few years later, none other than Frederick Douglass gave a fiery speech against slavery in Rochester, NY.
In that speech, Douglass rails against the Fugitive Slave Act.
He also rails against a group of Northern ministers who supported slavery and who Douglass sarcastically labels "The Divines."
Douglass also spends much of that speech delivering a verbal smack-down against his audience, who were largely white, northern abolitionists. He smacks them down because they aren't doing anything about the Fugitive Slave Act or the so-called "Divines" who support and condone slavery from their northern pulpits.
Here's that speech.
http://douglassarchives.org/doug_a10.htm
And, oh yeah, perhaps you've heard of the Dred Scott case?????
http://library.wustl.edu/vlib/dredscott/
Slavery was endemic in the US.
Yes, every single state that seceded from the Union in the Civil War was a slave state. Yes, the Confederate Constitution did not allow any Confederate state to ban slavery. Yes, one of the "states rights" at issue was slavery.
But US slaves (In Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey) had to wait for another seven months after the Confederacy ceased to exist before the 13th Amendment freed them.
And here's a bit from the Wikipedia entry on New Jersey.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey
On November 20, 1789 the state became the first in the newly-formed Union to ratify the Bill of Rights.
"Ironically, on February 15, 1804 New Jersey became the last northern state to abolish slavery by enacting legislation that slowly phased out slavery. However, by the close of the Civil War, several African-Americans in New Jersey were still in bondage and New Jersey initially refused to ratify the Constitutional Amendments banning Slavery and granting rights to America's black population."
Ezekiel
Member
What dogma is this?
No, just "some" evil. Anyone who believes otherwise is either an idiot or naive.
I'll stand behind that statement to anyone.
I still think we're the best nation around.
Oh yeah, Columbus was not Imperialistic, he was LOST.
No, just "some" evil. Anyone who believes otherwise is either an idiot or naive.
I'll stand behind that statement to anyone.
I still think we're the best nation around.
Oh yeah, Columbus was not Imperialistic, he was LOST.
Thanks for the info. I honestly have no emotional or intellectual investment in the good 'ol war of 'northern aggression', but thanks for taking the time to edumacate me.
Doesn't change the fact that the North won. Whether they were evil or not, all we remember about the wars in Europe is who won, not whether they were in 'the right'. Soon that'll be the same way with the war of southern states exercising their constitutional right to secede, and the desperate struggles of men in power feeling that if the Union disolved that the 'Great Experiment' would die. No black and white. Shades of gray. No great heroes, no evil villains- just Man, with his problems, his faults, his mistakes, and his attempts to hold things together the best he can.
The one problem I have with it is that the Southerners rebelled (good for them) and then LOST. Thanks for making it pretty much impossible for secession to ever be taken seriously, guys. That was great.
jefnvk
Member
Don't think that that has changed in most places until the last 100 (maybe 50) years ago.
Maybe someone with just a general overview of history, but to anyone that cares to know and form their own opinion, the info is there. I know that the Russkies won in WWII, and they can hardly have been said to have been in the right. I know that the Mongols won quite a few battles in their days, and they could hardly have been said to be in the right.
Unfortunately, the Average Joe doesn't know all this, and that is why it is so easy to sway the public to your opinion. The info is out there to anyone that cares to think for themselves, though.
El Tejon
Member
How is that inaccurate?
Slavery was the reason Texas left the Union. That reason is spelled out and hanging on the wall of the state museum (what a great place) in Austin.
As that museum in Austin also displays, was not slavery also a reason for rebellion against Mexico. Texicans reneged on promises such as to abandon slavery and convert to Catholicism?
Slavery was the reason Texas left the Union. That reason is spelled out and hanging on the wall of the state museum (what a great place) in Austin.
As that museum in Austin also displays, was not slavery also a reason for rebellion against Mexico. Texicans reneged on promises such as to abandon slavery and convert to Catholicism?
Here is my stab at things:
The Texans were allowed to immigrate to Texas starting in the 1820's. At the time, the Mexican Govt was under the Constitution of 1821 that granted citizens similar rights to the US Constitution. The conditions were that they had to become Catholic. Most of the people were primarily Southerners.
The Mexican Governor in Texas was looking for the Texans to act as a barrier to the Commanches, and he was also concerned that many Americans would try to come into Texas anyway.
I think it was in the early 1830's that Santa Anna became El Presidente and promptly assumed dictatorial powers, disolving the govt and constitution. There were some other political things that went on before and after that, but essentially Santa Anna decided that he didn't like those uppity anglos in Texas and he demanded that all Texans give up their firearms. There was also at least one group of Mexicans in Texas who were not well liked in Mexico City. Juan Seguin was the most prominent if I am not mistaken.
Anyway, what someone else already said, the Mexican soldiers in San Antonio went to Gonzales to take away the cannon they had. The people of Gonzales told them to Come and Take It. The Revolution started pretty quick from there.
I think the defenders of the Alamo were about 1/3 Mexican. There are a lot of Mexican names listed among the defenders there now. I know Houston's army at San Jacinto was 1/3 Mexican. That is what the video at the San Jacinto Monument said anyway. I think Juan Seguin was one of Houston's Mexican Commanders. There were others.
If anything, the Texans were rebelling against a dictator that took over the Mexican Govt. It was not the same govt as when the Texicans immigrated. Santa Anna was trying to take away rights they were granted when they immigrated. I am talking about gun ownership here not slavery.
As far as slavery, I don't remember ever hearing about slavery as primary issue at all in Texas until we were looking to get annexed by the US. There were very few slaves in Texas and they were mostly in East Texas (especially compared to other Southern States). I think there was discussion on it when we set up our original Republic and later during the annexation stuff. I don't believe most of the immigrants were rich enough to own slaves. Since most of the Anglos in Texas came from Southern states, it doesn't surprise me that they would join the other southern states. There were a few prominent black businessmen in the Republic of Texas as well. I remember one was named who was in the lumber business in East Texas.
Personally, I always laugh when the Mexican Govt brags about not having slavery for such a long time. They have treated their people like slaves for years.
The Texans were allowed to immigrate to Texas starting in the 1820's. At the time, the Mexican Govt was under the Constitution of 1821 that granted citizens similar rights to the US Constitution. The conditions were that they had to become Catholic. Most of the people were primarily Southerners.
The Mexican Governor in Texas was looking for the Texans to act as a barrier to the Commanches, and he was also concerned that many Americans would try to come into Texas anyway.
I think it was in the early 1830's that Santa Anna became El Presidente and promptly assumed dictatorial powers, disolving the govt and constitution. There were some other political things that went on before and after that, but essentially Santa Anna decided that he didn't like those uppity anglos in Texas and he demanded that all Texans give up their firearms. There was also at least one group of Mexicans in Texas who were not well liked in Mexico City. Juan Seguin was the most prominent if I am not mistaken.
Anyway, what someone else already said, the Mexican soldiers in San Antonio went to Gonzales to take away the cannon they had. The people of Gonzales told them to Come and Take It. The Revolution started pretty quick from there.
I think the defenders of the Alamo were about 1/3 Mexican. There are a lot of Mexican names listed among the defenders there now. I know Houston's army at San Jacinto was 1/3 Mexican. That is what the video at the San Jacinto Monument said anyway. I think Juan Seguin was one of Houston's Mexican Commanders. There were others.
If anything, the Texans were rebelling against a dictator that took over the Mexican Govt. It was not the same govt as when the Texicans immigrated. Santa Anna was trying to take away rights they were granted when they immigrated. I am talking about gun ownership here not slavery.
As far as slavery, I don't remember ever hearing about slavery as primary issue at all in Texas until we were looking to get annexed by the US. There were very few slaves in Texas and they were mostly in East Texas (especially compared to other Southern States). I think there was discussion on it when we set up our original Republic and later during the annexation stuff. I don't believe most of the immigrants were rich enough to own slaves. Since most of the Anglos in Texas came from Southern states, it doesn't surprise me that they would join the other southern states. There were a few prominent black businessmen in the Republic of Texas as well. I remember one was named who was in the lumber business in East Texas.
Personally, I always laugh when the Mexican Govt brags about not having slavery for such a long time. They have treated their people like slaves for years.
Ezekiel
Member
That is an interesting perception...
Ezekiel, I guess I was refering to the near feudal society in Mexico that existed for many years. The rich and powerful lording it over the peasants. I couldn't tell you if that is still the case today. The Texas revolution was certainly not the only revolution Mexico went through. There were quite a few.
Ezekiel
Member
Touche!
Carl N. Brown
Member
Another .02
Santa Anna tore up the Mexican constitution and did more damage to
Mexico than any of their enemies could ever have done. The Texians at
the Alamo, expatriate Anglos and native Mexicans, fought under the
banner of the Mexican constitution. In real life, they probably were
scared crapless regular people but stood their ground anyway; to me
that is braver than fearless, mythic heroes could ever be.
Santa Anna tore up the Mexican constitution and did more damage to
Mexico than any of their enemies could ever have done. The Texians at
the Alamo, expatriate Anglos and native Mexicans, fought under the
banner of the Mexican constitution. In real life, they probably were
scared crapless regular people but stood their ground anyway; to me
that is braver than fearless, mythic heroes could ever be.
- Status