Right, all of this is true. Mexican inconsistency about enforcing the ban on slavery had a bunch of causes, ranging from a concern about pissing off the American immigrants, to the basic logistical problems of enforcing laws on the frontiers of a large and sparsely populated region. It was one thing to pass a law in Mexico City, but another to make sure the law was obeyed a thousand miles away.
And it’s also true that not all the colonists were primarily concerned with slavery. The Texian society mirrored the American South in important ways, including the fact that a minority of the population actually held slaves. But, as in the American South, many of the wealthiest and most influential settlers were also slaveowners, and pro-slavery ideology formed an important part of their ethos, which was generally embraced even by those who did not own slaves.
Apparently the show basically starts with the aftermath of the Alamo battle. This is, i guess, one way to avoid dealing with all of the messy background about the causes of Texian dissatisfaction with Mexico. If you omit the background politics, and focus on the battles and stuff, you can ignore some of the thornier historical questions.
I haven’t yet seen an academic reviews of the show, although i’m sure that there will be some in the coming weeks or months. The New York Times and the Boston Globe certainly have not been especially complimentary.
The Times also complains about “truly awful dialog” and “a disjointed collection of clichés, often staged with the clumsiness of bad community theater.”
Here’s how the Boston Globe review begins:
And it finishes:
Emphasis mine.
Looking at this thread, the answer to that question, for some people at least, appears to be a resounding “no!”
After the Mexican War of Independence in 1821 Texas became a province but, as discussed, declared itself independent and became the Republic of Texas in 1836. Yes, it’s more complicated than just that but many people probably don’t realize it was part of Mexico for only 15 years.
Well, there’s these things called “trials”, which Santa Anna apparently had little use for. Indeed, perhaps some of the Texians were guilty of crimes that called for execution. Once they surrendered, you could hold them and have those trials.
Spanish Texas, 1519-1821 by Donald Chipman tells the first part of the story. When I first studied Texas History, were taught to revere Jane Long, wife of James Long, a “filibuster”–or early imperialist rebel.
She wasn’t even the first Anglo to give birth here. The book includes a summary of the First People* who preceded the Spanish. Who may have settled sparsely, but left considerable history.
The author’s thoughts on phraseology–included because I like the way he writes:
tl;dr But Texas History can actually be* interesting.*
Yes, a war crime under conventions and international laws and treaties that did not exist in 1835.
My main point, as i have been at pains to point out on more than one occasion, was not to excuse Santa Anna’s conduct, but to bring a little historical balance and perspective. The Texian troops engaged in similar conduct, for example, with surviving Mexicans after the Battle of San Jacinto. But i guess the OP doesn’t know anything about that, because he hasn’t got to that part of the TV show yet, if indeed the TV show decides to portray that particular historical episode.
Well, first of all, Santa Anna was a dictator, who dissolved the elected government and imposed draconian measures. Texas wasnt the only part that rebelled.
wiki: *In May 1834, Santa Anna … The Plan of Cuernavaca, published on 25 May 1834, called for repeal of the liberal reforms.[10] On 12 June, Santa Anna dissolved Congress and announced his decision to adopt the Plan of Cuernavaca.[11] Santa Anna formed a new Catholic, centralist, conservative government. In 1835 it replaced the 1824 constitution with the new constitutional document known as the “Siete Leyes” (“The Seven Laws”). Santa Anna dissolved the Congress and began centralizing power. His regime became a dictatorship backed by the military.Several states openly rebelled against the changes: Coahuila y Tejas (the northern part of which would become the Republic of Texas), San Luis Potosí, Querétaro, Durango, Guanajuato, Michoacán, Yucatán, Jalisco, Nuevo León, Tamaulipas, and Zacatecas. Several of these states formed their own governments: the Republic of the Rio Grande, the Republic of Yucatan, and the Republic of Texas. *
Here’s what SA had to say about liberty and democracy and the Mexican people: *Santa Anna replied:
Say to Mr. Poinsett that it is very true that I threw up my cap for liberty with great ardor, and perfect sincerity, but very soon found the folly of it. A hundred years to come my people will not be fit for liberty. They do not know what it is, unenlightened as they are, and under the influence of a Catholic clergy, a despotism is the proper government for them, but there is no reason why it should not be a wise and virtuous one.*
The rules of military honor were generally recognized since the middle ages. Note it was Santa Annas own disregard for the recognized customs of warfare that lost him Texas, and eventually his capture: The New York Post editorialized that “had [Santa Anna] treated the vanquished with moderation and generosity, it would have been difficult if not impossible to awaken that general sympathy for the people of Texas which now impels so many adventurous and ardent spirits to throng to the aid of their brethren”.[13]
Santa Anna betrayed his own country:*In 1846, the United States declared war on Mexico, hoping to gain new territories to the west of its borders, including California. Santa Anna wrote to Mexico City saying he had no aspirations to the presidency, but would eagerly use his military experience to fight off the foreign invasion of Mexico as he had in the past. President Valentín Gómez Farías was desperate enough to accept the offer and allowed Santa Anna to return. Meanwhile, Santa Anna had secretly been dealing with representatives of the U.S., pledging that if he were allowed back in Mexico through the U.S. naval blockades, he would work to sell all contested territory to the U.S. at a reasonable price. Once back in Mexico at the head of an army, Santa Anna reneged on both of these agreements. Santa Anna declared himself president again and unsuccessfully tried to fight off the U.S. invasion. …He funneled government funds to his own pockets, sold more territory to the U.S. with the Gadsden Purchase, and declared himself dictator-for-life with the title “Most Serene Highness.” *
Note that the central Government in Mexico never had any real control over Texas. Few people there were “Mexicans” :By 1834, an estimated 30,000 Anglos lived in Coahuila y Tejas,[19] compared to only 7,800 Mexican-born residents.[20]
Altho it’s true that Slavery was allowed in Texas, it had only been outlawed in Mexico a couple years before and the law was slow to take effect and largely ignored for years in the rest of Mexico. In fact the law specifically exempted the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, and later all of Texas.
I’m not sure why people keep responding by telling me things that:
a) i already know
b) i probably know a hell of a lot better than them, from places that are not Wikipedia (you know, actual books, and articles from scholarly journals)
and
c) don’t actually respond to the arguments that i have been making.
I mean, if my argument was something along the lines of, “Santa Anna was a great guy and a lover of democracy who did did everything he could to maintain liberal institutions in Mexico,” then you might have a point. If my argument was, “Why did Texas rebel, when all the other Mexican states loved Santa Anna?”, then you might have a point. If my argument was, “Santa Anna treated his prisoners with generosity and courtesy, and the ungrateful Texians still continued to fight,” then you might have a point. But since i never made any of those arguments, and was well aware of everything that you found in your exhaustive (and no doubt exhausting) run to Wikipedia, your whole post is one big non-sequitur.
a- maybe you do, but your posts do not show it. Altho it’s true that before the Hauge in 1890 there was no actual International Law on those issues, there was a general code of conduct, recognized by all civilized nations, and breaking it caused many issues- in this case losing a war. You seem to post as if what Santa Anna did was OK since it wasn’t against actual law. Thus, killing prisoners was a War crime- punishable by extreme reactions among the civilized nations- and losing the fucking war. Murder was a crime before the Code of Hammurabi.
b. Altho I recognize that "places that are not Wikipedia (you know, actual books, and articles from scholarly journals)" are great cites- you have given exactly one.
Wiki is a nice source as it’s easy to search and there’s no worries about copyright or fair use.
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post Do you believe that there is an excuse for taking up arms against, and killing large numbers of people from, the very country that has invited you in and offered you large amounts of land and an opportunity for greater economic prosperity?
So yes, there are excuses, among which are the illegal taking of property, the abrogation of agreements and even the Constitution. What Santa Anna did was completely illegal, he had no right to abrogate the constitution of Mexico and make himself a dictator or Most Serene Highness. The Texians were following the laws- Santa Anna was not.* Santa Anna* was actually the person “taking up arms against, and killing large numbers of people from, the very country that invited you in”. (You dont appear to realize SA killed many thousand of Mexicans, too, more than the Texans did, in fact). And in point of fact the Texians did NOT take up arms against the very country that has invited you in they took up arms vs a illegal dictator who was being a cruel tyrant to their fellow countrymen. The Texains were joined in this by the States of San Luis Potosí, Querétaro, Durango, Guanajuato, Michoacán, Yucatán, Jalisco, Nuevo León, Tamaulipas, and Zacatecas.
So perhaps you did know all this- but your post "Do you believe that there is an excuse for taking up arms against, and killing large numbers of people from, the very country that has invited you in and offered you large amounts of land and an opportunity for greater economic prosperity?" and "I was merely pointing out that emphasizing the word “revolution” does not somehow provide a justification for people taking up arms against a country that has gone out of its way to invite them in" displayed a complete ignorance on the actual political realities in Mexico at that time, since the Texians did NOT “take up arms” vs Mexico- they took up arms vs the** illegal tyrant Santa Anna. ** In fact the Texians originally ** declined to declare independence** and simply installed an interim local government.
True, there were tensions before, and perhaps Texan independence would have occurred anyway.
But the Texians were revolting (along with many Mexicans) vs a illegal dictator,** not **the country that invited them in.
I guess my expectations are much lower. Texas Rising is a mini-series created for mass entertainment and some historical education. They paint a large picture reasonably accurately. I don’t expect every scene depicted to be accurate down to the finest pixel. Heck, I’ve seen academics nit pick high school history books. Freaking out over the most tiny details. Put 10 historians in a room and get the popcorn ready. There will be some very intense arguments. Or go to a school board meeting when they are arguing over new textbooks to buy for the schools. No one is ever entirely happy with a textbook. They can’t include everything because they are trying to summarize several hundred years of history or maybe even a thousand years of history into a few hundred pages.
The one thing missing in Texas Rising is diaries. The History channel did a similar mini-series on the American Revolution. Quite a few characters (soldiers, housewives, even kids) had written diaries and they were used. It really gave a wonderful personal perspective on events. I’m surprised they couldn’t find any diaries from the Texas Revolution.
Historians refers to the 1835/1836 revolution that took place in the Mexican territory of Texas as the Texas Revolution, or Texas Revolution, if you prefer. I don’t believe that underlining the word revolution changes it’s meaning. YMMV.
Spanish Texas was one of the interior provinces of New Spain from 1690 until 1821.
Whether the territory of Mexico was controlled by France, Spain, or Mexico, the area known as Texas was a part of Mexico until Texas won independence in 1836.
Are you referring to Sons of Liberty? Which was an unhistorical atrocity–shot in Romania. I couldn’t watch that one all the way through, either. (I actually enjoy Turn, which departs from history in many ways; but it’s done with a bit of style. I find stupidity boring.) No, Samuel Adams was not an athletic cutie with permastubble; his cousin John was* not* older. No, Gage did not shoot Warren because he was shtupping Mrs Gage. (He didn’t shoot Warren at all.)
But the presence of diaries would have been accurate–Massachusetts was highly literate. Even many of the women could read & write.
Texas, not so much. The most famous diary was written by José Enrique de la Peña, hardly a Texan.
Hmmm… Sam Houston was one of the few Texans wounded at San Jacinto–he was shot in the ankle. Will we see Santa Anna shoot him over Emily’s affections?
I saw Sons of Liberty and agree they took too many liberties. As you mentioned in giving historical characters stereotypical hollywood screen traits. That’s necessary in dramatic historical movies, but they just got ridiculous with their heartthrob casting and made up personalities.
The mini-series about the American Revolution is a six or seven hour documentary with reenactments. They often read excerpts from real diaries. Its shown every year near July 4. Best thing they’ve ever produced. imho. Very comprehensive and and it covers all the major battles, dissatisfaction with Washington’s tactics, issues with funding etc.
There was damn little “informal” documentation of the Texas Revolution. (Here are some more official sources.) For one thing, it didn’t last nearly as long as the American one.
Comparing the populations of the northern half of Tejas y Coahuila and The 13 Colonies, there were far more people in the latter group & literacy standards were higher there, especially in the Northern colonies. Most Anglo immigrants to Texas came from the South.
Final episode tonight focused on Sam Houston and the aftermath of the war of Independence. The negotiations with Santa Anna were interesting. Mexico was by no means entirely defeated. They could have easily sent another army. The negotiations between President Jackson and Santa Anna defined the borders and terms for acquiring the lands.
I have wondered why Mexico gave up Texas so easily. Losses at the Battle of San Jacinto (cite wikipedia)
630 killed
208 wounded
730 captured (including Santa Anna)
Not an overwhelming number. The army could replace the men if Mexico wanted to keep their territory badly enough. .
But I see now that a lack of finances and other rebellions would change everything. Neither Mexico or the US had any idea there were huge oil deposits worth millions. It took another 75 years before oil mattered.
And it finishes: