Skip to comments.
Texas Revolution ended here, archaeologists say
LAT ^
| Apr 17, 2009
| Thomas H. Maugh II
Posted on 04/17/2009 12:13:05 PM PDT by zaphod3000
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last

Bayonets and other artifacts were recovered from the grounds of a power plant along the San Jacinto River. The artifacts had been hidden on land overgrown by trees and shrubs
To: zaphod3000
When Perry denied talking succession?
2
posted on
04/17/2009 12:14:01 PM PDT
by
nickcarraway
(Are the Good Times Really Over?)
To: zaphod3000
We may have to sharpen them up to be reused.
To: zaphod3000
4
posted on
04/17/2009 12:19:40 PM PDT
by
Ditter
To: zaphod3000
It is almost San Jacinto Day!
After 800 Texans annihilated Santa Ana’s army in 18 minutes at the Battle of San Jacinto in April, 1836, Texas stood as an independent Republic until it agreed to join the US in 1845. Sam Houston told Andrew Jackson that the US needed Texas a lot more than Texas needed the US, and he was right.
If Texas had remained an independent Republic, it would have followed its own Manifest Destiny to expand to the Pacific Ocean, and today we would have a country on the North American continent which is not a socialist state, but a beacon for individualism, freedom and liberty which was once true of America.
5
posted on
04/17/2009 12:22:50 PM PDT
by
San Jacinto
(gorebull warming -- the Socialists' Shortcut.)
To: zaphod3000
The Battle of San Jacinto occurred six weeks after the battle of the Alamo, in which Mexican forces led by Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna besieged the fortress and eventually killed all 350 secessionists inside Now dat growed some.
To: zaphod3000
***The 1836 surrender “resulted in the loss of all Mexican territory west to California,”***
Ah, no. This only gave the Texans the land north of the Rio Grande to it’s headwaters. it did not end the war as Adrian Woll and his Mexican troops later recaptured San Antonio.
The land west to California was not gained till after the Mexican-American war.
7
posted on
04/17/2009 12:28:10 PM PDT
by
Ruy Dias de Bivar
(14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and politicians.)
To: San Jacinto; All
God Bless Texas!
8
posted on
04/17/2009 12:28:35 PM PDT
by
BP2
(I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
To: zaphod3000
In the early 1800s, Texas was a Mexican territory, but many Americans had moved into it and they grew tired of the oppressive Mexican rule, eventually fomenting rebellion.
As usual the lazy media takes a complex situation and simplifies it to fit their narrative
The story of Texas independence is not as simple as is often portrayed by those on either side of the Rio Grande. After gaining independence from Spain, Mexico found that they had neither the resources nor the population to fully occupy and develop the territory of Texas. Many also felt they needed a buffer zone against westward US expansion. The solution was to allow people to come from the US and other nations to settle the land. In exchange for land rights, the settlers were required to swear allegiance to Mexico and become citizens. Becoming a citizen of Mexico at that time also required them to convert to Catholicism. This was all done under the Mexican Constitution of 1824.
When Antonio de Lopez de Santa Anna was elected President in 1833 he decided that Mexico was not ready for democracy. Nullifying the constitution, he named himself military dictator for life. As you can imagine this did not go over too well with a large percentage of the population and it was particularly distasteful to the men and women who had left the United States to become Mexican citizens in Texas. Eleven Mexican states went into open rebellion with several of them forming their own government. Texas was the only one to defeat Santa Anna and gain independence.
Many of those who fought for Texas independence felt they were fighting for a noble cause. They believed they were simply upholding the rights guaranteed them by the Constitution of 1824. Like some in the US today they saw the document to which they had sworn allegiance usurped by a tyrannical ruler.
At the same time there were others who came to Texas with not so noble intentions. Many had come from the US with the express intention of taking Texas from Mexico and making it a separate nation or bringing it into the United States. Some of these men wanted to extend the reach of slavery in North American. Others simply wanted land and treasure for themselves. Some were criminals fleeing from their past evil deeds.
Bottom line is this, there were many complex reasons for Texas declaring independence from Mexico. It wasn't simply a bunch of "Americans" tired of oppressive Mexican rule
9
posted on
04/17/2009 12:29:23 PM PDT
by
slumber1
To: zaphod3000
How about that the LAT actually carried an article on this war with out siding with the Mexicans.
10
posted on
04/17/2009 12:31:42 PM PDT
by
bilhosty
(tax payers for change)
To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
Are you questioning the LA Times?
In a battle that lasted only 18 minutes, Barack Obama's forces routed the Mexicans, who threw down their guns and ran.
To: BP2
Amen, Brother!
12
posted on
04/17/2009 12:36:37 PM PDT
by
San Jacinto
(gorebull warming -- the Socialists' Shortcut.)
To: slumber1
I wouldn’t say lazy, if you have limited space for an article of course things need to be simplified. Like when Hollywood condensed the novel Six Days of the Condor to Three Days of the Condor.
13
posted on
04/17/2009 12:38:38 PM PDT
by
zaphod3000
(Free markets, free minds, free lives)
To: MARTIAL MONK
Mexican forces led by Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna besieged the fortress and eventually killed all 350 secessionists insideThe most commonly accepted number of Alamo defenders is 185, including the 32 men from Gonzales who arrived a couple of days before the final assault. Some modern historians put the number higher. I have seen 250 cited as a likely number, but 350 would certainly represent the upper most limit of any estimate.
Also, to refer to the Alamo as a "fortress" is a misnomer. It was a wore out old mission with collapsing walls, covering over 3 acres, and was indefensible given the number of men inside.
Santa Ana's army numbered approx. 5,000, about 1,600 of which actually participated in the final assault on March 6, 1836. The early legend of the Alamo produced tales that Mexican casualties at 1,500+, which is impossible. Based on what I have read, I believe about 600 Mexican KIA and WIA is probably pretty close, but some of those "modern historians" again place the number much lower. Cannon fire from the Alamo into the advancing units was devastating, but once the flimsy walls were breeched, there was not much to hold the Mexicans back -- except Davey swingin' Old Betsy and Bowie slashing his 'Arkansas Toothpick' at the Mexicans.
14
posted on
04/17/2009 12:53:17 PM PDT
by
San Jacinto
(gorebull warming -- the Socialists' Shortcut.)
To: zaphod3000
The Battle of San Jacinto was on April 21, 1836, and is marked by San Antonio holding its splendid Fiesta week every year to encompass that date.
To: slumber1
As usual the lazy media takes a complex situation and simplifies it to fit their narrativeI actually didn't pick up much agenda from the article, which surprises the heck out of me, given the source.
I agree with your recap of the causes leading up to the revolution. It is certainly true that many of the colonists, especially those under the leadership of Austin, entered their relationship with Mexico in good faith, but it seems that a clash of cultures was inevitable. Mexico's loss of Texas can ultimately be attributed to its immigration policy of the day and its inability to protect its northern border. Any lessons there to be heeded?
16
posted on
04/17/2009 1:04:10 PM PDT
by
San Jacinto
(gorebull warming -- the Socialists' Shortcut.)
To: zaphod3000
My 6x great grandfather was present at this battle, for which he received a land grant from the new nation of Texas. Unfortunately, any thoughts that he may have had on the events of this day have not survived the passage of time.
To: kittymyrib
I’m conducting business in the Houston area, and yesterday I got a chance to visit the San Jacinto battlefield. I was told that they’re having a re-enactment of the battle (slaughter) of San Jacinto on April 25th. I will be spending that Saturday watching SantaAnna running for his life in abject fear, as the brave Texans settle the score with the Mexican Army over the Mexican Army massacres at Goliad and the Alamo.
18
posted on
04/17/2009 1:58:04 PM PDT
by
AdvisorB
(Obamatude could be defined by Blago as something tangible, but not quite as tangible as JJJ's offer.)
To: San Jacinto
Mexico's loss of Texas can ultimately be attributed to its immigration policy of the day and its inability to protect its northern border
You got that right! So the lesson for us is watch out for those sneaky snowbacks coming across our northern border.
19
posted on
04/17/2009 2:08:05 PM PDT
by
slumber1
To: slumber1
sneaky snowbacks coming across our northern border. Absolutely! I discovered an encampment of Minnesotans just south of Gainesville last week. They were easy to spot. They were having a cook out of meatless lasanga with goat cheese and organic yogurt and calling it a barbeque. They were complaining about the stifling 78 degree heat and it was obvious they had evaded the mandatory flea and tick dip station at the Oklahoma border.
20
posted on
04/17/2009 2:29:50 PM PDT
by
San Jacinto
(gorebull warming -- the Socialists' Shortcut.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson