Anyone Watching Texas Rising? It Continues this week.

[Bridget_Burke]

@aceplace57

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.

Mexico, and Spain before her, always had a problem settling the vast area that is now Texas & parts of other Southwestern states.

Simple farming–or even ranching, after the *Tejanos *invented it–were not enough. Who wants to work? (The early Spanish explorers had wasted a lot of time looking for Cities of Gold.)

Then folks from the Southern states realized that cotton could be raised in much of the new territory. (Because it did not look like the desert shown in Texas Rising.) You could get rich on the backs of slaves–but Mexico had made slavery illegal. The nefarious careers of Bowie & Fannin included slavetrading but most of those who died at the Alamo & Goliad had other reasons; look to the prosperous old farts writing the new Constitution at Washington on the Brazos.

I bailed on this series; how did it handle these aspects of the reason for the rebellion? I do not insist on 100% historical accuracy–hey, I enjoyed Turn. But the overall fake *look *of the series–the landscape & the dreadful cowboy outfits–nauseated me.

[DrDeth]

@Bridget_Burke

Then folks from the Southern states realized that cotton could be raised in much of the new territory. (Because it did not look like the desert shown in Texas Rising.) You could get rich on the backs of slaves–but Mexico had made slavery illegal. The nefarious careers of Bowie & Fannin included slavetrading but most of those who died at the Alamo & Goliad had other reasons; look to the prosperous old farts writing the new Constitution at Washington on the Brazos.

Actually, Mexico had exempted Texas (to a degree, there would be no new slaves), so slavery really wasnt a big issue. Nor were there many slaves in Texas at the time. Of course as time went on Texas become more and more “Southern” in it’s views towards slavery. Nor was much cotton grown at the time of the Texas revolution, that came later.

[doorhinge]

@aceplace57

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.

The Texians and Tejanos, didn’t just capture the Mexican forces military commander, General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, they captured EL PRESIDENTE Santa Anna, dictator of Mexico. Big difference. A mere military commander isn’t authorized to sign a treaty, unless authorized to do so. El Presidente can.

*To obtain his release, he signed two treaties, recognizing Texas independence, and promising never to fight Texas again.

The defeat at San Jacinto and the subsequent loss of Texas cost Santa Anna the presidency, for he returned to Mexico in disgrace. His assertions that the treaties meant nothing because he had signed under duress and only as a private citizen carried little weight. Mexico repudiated the treaties but the U.S. recognized Texas independence in 1837.*

Texas History|Biography of Mexican General Santa Anna

Bottom line - Santa Anna lost the Texas Revolution, Texas, and his job. Santa Anna did get his job back. And lost it, again. And got it back, again. And…