Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SwinneySwitch
They were all "Texicans" in 1835

Sheesh. I thought you were going to chastise me for getting the history wrong - Houston and Crockett weren't at Goliad!

For the record, this is what happened at Goliad:

After Fannin's surrender, he and 400 Texan troops were marched back to Goliad and held prisoner by Urrea. Although he requested that Fannin's troops be treated as prisoners of war, Santa Anna refused and ordered Urrea's command to execute all the prisoners, which they did on March 27th. The outcome of the Goliad Campaign is generally credited to two factors: First, the strategies of Colonel Fannin and General Urrea: Fannin divided his forces, hesitated several times and improvised his strategy on the spot, while Urrea had a clear objective, pursued the Texans vigorously and organised his own forces quickly. Second, the decision by Santa Anna to summarily execute all Texan soldiers. The Goliad massacre became the most promenent symbol of the brutality that the Texans had ascribed to the Mexican army, and in particular to Santa Anna. Over time, however, it has become overshadowed in history by the Alamo. In part, this is because Goliad had no otherwise famous figures involved: while Davy Crockett, James Bowie and Santa Anna have all passed into history as legends, James Fannin, William Ward and Jose de Urrea have faded into obscurity.

Funny, but I don't get the impression that it was a bunch of Anglos and Spaniards all holding hands and singing "we are the world". And here is the prelude to the whole thing: Come and Take It

I don't know what your point is - so I have to guess. Perhaps you would like me to believe that Anglos and Mexicans fought side by side against the illegitimate government of Santa Anna, and that aside from that, everyone was just fine with each other, one big happy family?

That's simply wrong. The Americans were 98% Anglo-Protestant, the Mexicans....Catholic Spaniards. The two groups had been at war with each other in different venues for 300 years at this point. Americans were largely British, and Britain had been at odds with Spain basically forever. It was insane for Mexico to invite in Moses Austin's settlers. They actually thought they could control them, and thus control land that they had never been able to control (er, rather, Comanches they had never been able to control....something the first Texas Rangers had no problem doing, if you read the link).

So enlighten me. What do you mean?

14 posted on 07/27/2005 6:06:37 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: Regulator
The Americans were 98% Anglo-Protestant, the Mexicans....Catholic Spaniards

They were Texicans if they were in Texas. At least my ancestors considered themselves not Mexican, not American, but Texican. Wasn't it Davy Crockett who basically told America to go to hell, because he was going to Texas? As for Catholicism, others may know history better than I do, but one of the hallmarks of the Mexican government (after independence from Spain) was to stymie Catholicism.

18 posted on 07/27/2005 7:46:10 PM PDT by hispanarepublicana (There will be no bad talk or loud talk in this place. CB Stubblefield.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: Regulator

"Come and Take It"

Thanks for the reference. Inspiring reading.


27 posted on 07/28/2005 1:25:08 PM PDT by strategofr (What did happen to those 293 boxes of secret FBI files (esp on Senators) Hillary stole?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson