That’s not what I was getting at at all. What I was getting at was exactly what I asked, but apparently the War of 1812 is a more interesting issue.
Come on, people! Texas? Yes or no?
Sorrry! I guess I let the 1st sentence in the OP;
throw me a little. After re-reading the OP I see you were asking for history.
Anyway;
Texas? I don’t think so. Weren’t the Texans, not the Mexicans, the invaders? Now had the Indians risen up against the Mexicans, and won, maybe that would be a yes.
Besides, none of that really applies to the US as it is today. Different world, I say.
Yes, in the past, right here in America, certainly.
Now, if the OP wants to ask another question- “Could it be done now” that’d have to go into GD or IMHO.
Great Debates, because it’s about guns.
That would be interesting.
No. The Texans were not invaders , for the most part. Mexico encouraged americans to immigrate there, and gave them land if they did so. The Mexican constitution of 1824 is what gave them freedom and citizenship in Texas/Mexico.
Yeah, some of those who fought, were not Texans before Santa Anna wanted to throw away the 1824 constitution and oppress the people of Texas/Mexico, like Davy Crockett and his followers, they were from Tennesee and I think they arrived in Texas after Santa Anna tried to get rid of the 1824 constitution, but most of those who resisted, and then fought for and won, Texas independence, were Mexican/Texans- for example, Jim Bowie was a Texas/Mexican citizen. I am not sure of the timing of Davy Crockett, he might have entered Texas after Santa Anna suspended the 1824 constitution, but most certainly Davy went to Texas under the impression that the 1824 constitution was in existance, and that he would be able to get free land from Mexico as a Mexican citizen - that was the whole point of Davy going to Texas, to get mexican land since Mexico was promising land to any American who would immigrate to Mexico and settle there. Davy had hopes of getting a lot of land, legally, and then perhaps running for office in Mexico.
Freedom, and the right to bear arms, was what the status quo was from 1824 until Santa Anna. Santa Anna tried to disarm the Texans in 1836, he was trying to take away the cannon and small arms that the Texans had, and wanted to stop immigration into Mexico, and that is what actually caused the whole war.
When the Texans were at the Alamo, it was the Mexican flag(constitution) of 1824 that they were flying, and what they were defending.
Its really not about guns, its about freedom, and self determination, whether it is the native Africans fighting the British in South Africa, the Texans, the Vietnamese, or the American colonists. Some of them fought decades, but eventually they won out over the oppressor.
Some did not win, like the jews and other europeans in the 1930’s, the Armenians, the confederate states, etc.
Even though they were hopelessly outnumbered, if the confederates were as disarmed as the jews and Armenians were, I doubt that the War between the States would have lasted 5 years, and I doubt that the Americans would have defeated the British. If the Texans had no guns, the Alamo would have been taken the first day and Texas would still be a Mexican state.
Again, I was replying to DrDeth, who said;
Which is about guns. Whether an armed (with guns) populace could today resist a military takeover. I would assume the question to mean “successfully resist”.
Remember, the Confederates lost, as did the Texans at the Alamo.
If the OP is asking sinply if anyone ever took a gun and resisted, well, of course some did. Lots of times. Recently, even. They always lost, though. Waco, etc.
The Texans won in the end, and the Colonials won in the Revolutionary War. There’s two- and just in the USA.
Dang! You guys keep (slyly) changing your ckaims on me.
The Colonials regular army, with the help of allies, won.
I’m not real clear on Texas, but didn’t the the US kick Mexicos butt? I thought that Texans didn’t much want to be part of the US. Still don’t, I hear tell.
1, There wouldn’t have been any regular army if the militia and irregulars hadn’t been there to do a fairly good job of holding off the Brits for a while. In other words, they were crucial, and thus they “won the war”.
- No, you’re thinking of the Mexican-American War, not the Texas war of Independence.
DrDeth:
mangeorge:
Done been did, back when. I don’t recall the thread title, whether or not it was a dedicated thread or a hijack, or what the ultimate conclusion (if any) may have been.
But it has been done.
In direct response to the OP: I don’t know about military takeovers, but political? Yes.
In the Virginia colony in 1676, Nathaniel Bacon led a popular uprising against Governor William Berkeley, burning Jamestown to the ground.
In 1689 in the colony of Maryland, former assemblyman John Coode led a popular uprising against the ruling Calvert family, capturing the governor, and getting the Calvert’s charter revoked until 1715.
In 1779-1781, Frances “The Swamp Fox” Marion and Thomas “The Gamecock” Sumter organized and led effective guerilla campaigns against Cornwallis in South Carolina. While never doing well in a “line of battle,” they were supremely effective scouts and guerilla fighters, and drove Cornwallis quite to distection.
And no, I’m not citing The Patriot as a source of information. 