quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The death by both Anglos and Mexicans as heroic in the face of the fire and iron.

The fact the Texans revolted largely over slavery after taking oaths of loyalty to the Mexican government is also a fact.

Yes, and you're an idiot......

Most of the cause of the revolt was the constitutional ( Mexican constitution) repealing freedom of religion. Making Catholicism the law of the land.......

You and your revisionist history......Mexico wanted and allowed all those protestant Anglos as a buffer against the Comanche.....then once they got em they shuffled the deck......

You are and will remain a woke idiot.....man bun and all....

Oh, another Woke charge that would be leveled against Travis is he owned a slave. It was 1836 folks, I'm not advocating it, but it happened.

Travis was the officer on the ground. He understood the situation and while disobeying an order can't really be defended, I think it worked out for the best.

As to Mike Mitchell's claim that Travis didn't see much of the fight because he was killed early in the final assault, I take issue with that. First, it was a 13 day siege, so that's a bit of fighting. Second, we only have Mexican accounts of the final assault.

When I was in college at Texas Southmost College in Brownsville, Texas in the seventies, Texas History was a required course. We had a professor that taught it from the Mexican perspective and one of the things he stressed was that the Texicans, as they were called then were better armed and it wasn't a fair fight, despite the numbers. 5,000 to 183 doesn't seem like a fair fight, does it? So how can the outnumbered party be criticized for having better weapons. I've never got into a fair fight by choice in my life, although I've certainly had a few.

Second, he ignored the atrocities and incompetencies of Santa Anna. If Santa Anna had half a brain, he would have left 500 men to keep the men at the Alamo pinned down and bypassed them so he could proceed north. He cost his army two weeks, thanks to the heroism of the defenders of the Alamo.

Still think Travis and company were heroes.

That all said, the Mexicans had a couple of points. The land grants were tied to the incoming Americans agreeing to a couple of conditions. One, they were supposed to become Catholic, and they brought their Protestant preachers and two, slavery was prohibited in Mexico and they brought slaves. But that wasn't the basis of the war.

Bottom line is that the Texican were illegal immigrants, and invasion, for several reasons.

They made promises, which either they just didn't keep or lied making them.

The elites at the time intended to make Texas a slave state, They all knew, and intended to get rich, get free land and own slaves.

Promises were nothing to them.

For the Texans…

Given my knowledge of the early days of Texas was from a MN HS US history course and mostly a Michener novel… along with watching a few movies…

Is there a good basic level book on this (as in under 1000 pages or less than $100) that is reasonably accurate and not revisionist/political?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Bottom line is that the Texican were illegal immigrants

and you feel free, far away of course, to accuse Texans of "making stuff up" - invited settlers -- and who changed the "deal"? Even the most left, revisionist will flat out state that MEXICO changed the terms of the agreement, and tried to make it ex post facto -- no doubt you'll try to take the "Laws of April 6, 1830" out of context, and will totally ignore the 1832 coup in Mexico .. but, we expect you only read, recall, and quote what suits you..

do remember to recall this statement, when we are discussing your views, at the cenotaph --- might want to emphasize how we are all scoundrels, liars, and rapscallions .. i am certain that topic will be warmly received and rebutted

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:


I've noticed that you are at your best about this time of evening.

around 7 to 8 pm, on a workday -- yep.. home from work, dog walked, spent some time with the family, had dinner, setup coffee, dealt with whatever honey dos need to be done and then logged into AR .. most folks call that living their life -- oh, btw, my wife is a retired counselor, just has a master's degree in the field, and when i read your post to her, SHE ascribed your actions .. but, i get it, little men like to knock everyone else down to their level

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:


You said , "I'm not disparaging them either."

My Man, the above is nothing but disparaging.

Lighten up a little.

I'm "listening" to you my friend.

Mostly in the post you quoted I am "disparaging" present day Texans, for the reasons stated, history revisionists mostly. They like to make up sh!t and have for a long time. Also, hard heads - it's in the genes or the water - can't tell which.

Regarding the martyrs, I'm mostly just telling some of the "rest of the story". They can still be brave heroes inclusive with the truth and backstory, and embellishments. Hardly anything is pure and simple and practically everyone makes mistakes, flawed in some way, and has several reasons for their actions, even ulterior motives. They can be brave heroes too, nonetheless.

I just like it a lot when I find an excuse to pick on present day Texans.

Yet again, your failings are SPECIFICALLY pointed out to you, and you refuse the feedback, even when you have asked for this feedback in the past

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
ME,
Let me buy you a plane ticket to San Antonio. Lane, Mitchell, maybe Jines, and I will meet you there - we'll show you SA, eat some interesting food, some great ritas, and take you for a walk along the riverwalk

we can discuss your "views" on the Texas Revolution within sight of the Alamo, perhaps right at the cenotaph. Run your mouth all you want - we'll listen patiently and wait our turn to rebut

maybe I can get the other guys to go in on the plane.

then, whoever is still up to it, we can go up to driftwood and have bbq

I'm in.

While I appreciate the gesture, there is a problem. I don't fly anymore. Even in a crisis of some sort, I'd find another way or option.

The "expert" is working on my "short bus" now. I named it the blunder bus. For all its issues mechanically, it's still a good solution to my travel transportation, and it's still less expensive compared to alternate vehicles, especially a regular motor home. And it's a pleasure to drive when it's running right. After all the work done, it should be mostly fixed now - 12 to 15 thousand $, not counting the initial purchase, and not counting what the "expert" will charge.

Breakdowns on the road, away from home, are a bitch though. I drove it to Alaska and back once - broke down twice. I lucked out and found mechanics each time who mostly did right. Broke down in Florida once, last summer in the heat. 100 to 105 degrees. Found shade and plugin for the AC and finally a decent diesel mechanic. Still, that was stressful and expensive. I have big dogs with me so that makes it more complicated. They will overheat before I will.

All those videos on YouTube showing bus conversions focus on the interior mods. None talk about the mechanical costs, which I found to be much more significant that all else, even wiring and AC which I did myself.

well, this will make for an interesting back/side story for a serial killer in a ebook, let me catch this little story about the 7.3 BTK in a chartreuse short bus .. and his hounds

but it is a great excuse "i don't fly" to avoid having a warm conversation -- i mean, yeah, i'll make fun of you and you OWNING the short bus, but that's for another time

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
For the Texans…

Given my knowledge of the early days of Texas was from a MN HS US history course and mostly a Michener novel… along with watching a few movies…

Is there a good basic level book on this (as in under 1000 pages or less than $100) that is reasonably accurate and not revisionist/political?

"Lone Star" by TR Fehrenbach is the definitive history of Texas.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Oh, another Woke charge that would be leveled against Travis is he owned a slave. It was 1836 folks, I'm not advocating it, but it happened.

Travis was the officer on the ground. He understood the situation and while disobeying an order can't really be defended, I think it worked out for the best.

As to Mike Mitchell's claim that Travis didn't see much of the fight because he was killed early in the final assault, I take issue with that. First, it was a 13 day siege, so that's a bit of fighting. Second, we only have Mexican accounts of the final assault.

When I was in college at Texas Southmost College in Brownsville, Texas in the seventies, Texas History was a required course. We had a professor that taught it from the Mexican perspective and one of the things he stressed was that the Texicans, as they were called then were better armed and it wasn't a fair fight, despite the numbers. 5,000 to 183 doesn't seem like a fair fight, does it? So how can the outnumbered party be criticized for having better weapons. I've never got into a fair fight by choice in my life, although I've certainly had a few.

Second, he ignored the atrocities and incompetencies of Santa Anna. If Santa Anna had half a brain, he would have left 500 men to keep the men at the Alamo pinned down and bypassed them so he could proceed north. He cost his army two weeks, thanks to the heroism of the defenders of the Alamo.

Still think Travis and company were heroes.

It's a "woke" charge to disparage Travis by pointing out he owned slaves?

quote:

Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 29 February 2024 00:13

At your best in the evenings, yet again.

Too bad you went to all that truble just to be ignored.

After that rant/dump, you should flush twice just to be sure.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Oh, another Woke charge that would be leveled against Travis is he owned a slave. It was 1836 folks, I'm not advocating it, but it happened.

Travis was the officer on the ground. He understood the situation and while disobeying an order can't really be defended, I think it worked out for the best.

As to Mike Mitchell's claim that Travis didn't see much of the fight because he was killed early in the final assault, I take issue with that. First, it was a 13 day siege, so that's a bit of fighting. Second, we only have Mexican accounts of the final assault.

When I was in college at Texas Southmost College in Brownsville, Texas in the seventies, Texas History was a required course. We had a professor that taught it from the Mexican perspective and one of the things he stressed was that the Texicans, as they were called then were better armed and it wasn't a fair fight, despite the numbers. 5,000 to 183 doesn't seem like a fair fight, does it? So how can the outnumbered party be criticized for having better weapons. I've never got into a fair fight by choice in my life, although I've certainly had a few.

Second, he ignored the atrocities and incompetencies of Santa Anna. If Santa Anna had half a brain, he would have left 500 men to keep the men at the Alamo pinned down and bypassed them so he could proceed north. He cost his army two weeks, thanks to the heroism of the defenders of the Alamo.

Still think Travis and company were heroes.

It's a "woke" charge to disparage Travis by pointing out he owned slaves?

Even the Slave Holders knew Slavery was inconsistent w the principles of the Constitution. That is why they used euphemisms like bond servitude and peculiar institution.

They said such was inconsistent when the seceded. Go read the agrees by the Confederacy Vice President in the eve of the Civil War. I have posted it before.

The refusal to excuse slavery is not Wokeism They knew it was not supportable morally in their own time by the rules they established.

They knew when they came to Texas slavery was not state sponsored, supported.

Both things can be true as ME and Lavaca have demonstrated. Travis and all the Alamo defenders were heroic. None of us would permit Nationalized former Mexican citizens to seize New Mexico.

Mike Mitchell and LHeym,

I'm not supporting or justifying slavery in any way. It is wrong now and was clearly wrong then, but it was accepted in society at the time. My ancestors purported to own slaves. I say purported because I don't believe anyone can "own" another human being.

That along with my great, great, great grandfather's belief that tractors were a newfangled contraption and his affection to Clydesdales ended up bankrupting the farm. It seems that not only did none of the putative slaves leave after emancipation, they stayed and brought their spouses and had children. It was too much to support.

And yes, Mike, it is Woke to judge people who lived nearly 200 years ago by today's standards.

During the days of the Barbary Pirates, it was common to refer to them as Musselmen. We would not do that today, but can we be critical of the people who did so at the time?

When the people who engaged in the practice no it was not supported by the principles they created a government under, the answer is yes we can judge them.

Slavery was wrong in 1836. That was known. It is wrong today. We need yo be honest about it now as we tried to hide the dishonesty then.

Again, go read the Vice President of the Confederacy address. I have posted it before. They knew.

Damn, LHeym. Even if you are right, and I don't think so, is that my fault? Or yours? I don't think so. How far back do you want to go? Do you want to consider the African's complicity in the slave trade? Do you want to consider the fact that the Masai invaded Masailand and had no claim to that land? The Romans did a whole lot of bad stuff. Should present day Italy be responsible for all that? We can keep going back in history to all the injustices that one people inflicted on another and get nowhere, OR, we could look forward and figure out how to make it equitable going forward.

Reparations are an abomination. We need to look forward, not back. Learn from history, but don't apologize for it, because you didn't commit it. But do learn from it, and make it better going forward.

One of my favorite revisionist history examples is General George Custer.

Today Custer is seen as a murderer and a failure as a combat officer, yet in his time Custer was honored and awarded for his service and actions. Indians weren't "indigenous", they were the enemy and Custer pursued them as such. During the Civil War the Confederates weren't fought with, "rules of engagement", Custer fought, attacked and killed the enemy.

Did Custer make a mistake at Little Bighorn? I guess, but his same tactics worked at Washita. General Sheridan loved Custer and who do we think should be a better judge of Custer than Sheridan?

So here we are 200 years later putting our 21st sensitivities and modern day condemnations on men and a time in all honesty we don't have a clue about. Pretty stupid.

Well this doesn't shed much light. Magine, where the hell are you from? Guessing New York, California or Minnesota.

Scott,

I've read a lot about Custer and he was the recon at Gettysburg and did well. After that, he tended to go in without recon and it worked at the Washita, at the Little Big Horn, not so much.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Scott,

I've read a lot about Custer and he was the recon at Gettysburg and did well. After that, he tended to go in without recon and it worked at the Washita, at the Little Big Horn, not so much.

Out in the field and only had his experience and training to go forward with.

In many cases I don't consider these figures good or evil but rather a product of their times.

George Washington was a slave owner and yet as far as I can see about as perfect a man as could follow behind Jesus. President Washington was in part a product of his times.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
One of my favorite revisionist history examples is General George Custer.

Today Custer is seen as a murderer and a failure as a combat officer, yet in his time Custer was honored and awarded for his service and actions. Indians weren't "indigenous", they were the enemy and Custer pursued them as such. During the Civil War the Confederates weren't fought with, "rules of engagement", Custer fought, attacked and killed the enemy.

Did Custer make a mistake at Little Bighorn? I guess, but his same tactics worked at Washita. General Sheridan loved Custer and who do we think should be a better judge of Custer than Sheridan?

So here we are 200 years later putting our 21st sensitivities and modern day condemnations on men and a time in all honesty we don't have a clue about. Pretty stupid.

He is taught at West Point for being stupid over 15 years ago.

Hie do I know? My professor used to teach at West Point bf teaching me in 2009.

Yes, he heroically got his command decimated.

He was also court martialed for being awol and mistreatment of alleged deserters.

Many years ago I too read a lot about Custer and his last stand. He was on an extermination mission.

I still have the book Son of the Morning Star.

I read other accounts as well.

Also I watched the movie:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...tar_(film)#Reception

Variety praised the production as "a master work", with special mentions of quality in production, direction, cinematography and editing.[5] New York magazine drew a comparison with the recently released Dances with Wolves, stating that Son of the Morning Star "deals in delusions instead of dreams".

George Armstrong Custer quotes:

"There are not enough Indians in the world to defeat the Seventh Cavalry."

"Benteen, come on, big village, be quick. Bring packs."

"I would be willing, yes glad, to see a battle every day during my life."

Quotes about Custer:

The Southern Cheyenne, Brave Bear, questioned Custer's courage, asserting that although the "whites don't like [to] hear that Custer did not act brave in this battle," the "Indians here all think he acted cowardly"

Two important controversies followed Custer after the Washita attack. First was the death of the Cheyenne peace chief Black Kettle, who was killed in the village, along with other peaceful Cheyennes. Second was the supposed abandonment of Major Joel Elliott and his men during the attack, who were cut off and killed.

Why wasn't Custer scalped?
Will Frackleton, after being adopted into the Crow, was told that the Indians regarded Custer as insane and that Indians do not scalp or mutilate the corpse of a madman.

What mistake did Custer make at Little Big Horn?
Understanding Custer's Defeat at Little Big Horn ...
Some believe that Custer's decision to split up his Seventh U.S. Cavalry Regiment in the face of a larger, well-armed enemy put him in a precarious position. Many also point to his failure to gather proper intelligence on the size of the Indian forces.

Did any soldiers survive Little Bighorn?
Comanche, Survivor of the Battle of the Little Bighorn ...
While no US Army soldier survived the engagement, one horse was found alive on the battlefield. The horse, named Comanche, had belonged Capt. Myles Keough, and had suffered no less than seven bullet wounds during the battle.

Of the 35 Indian scouts who rode with Custer's 7th cavalry, six scouts including the Arikaras Bloody Knife, Custer's favorite scout, Sergeant Bobtail Bull, and Little Brave, and Mitch Bouyer, a half-Lakota, half-French scout who was married to a Crow woman, were killed at the Battle of the Little Bighorn.

In the battle, the 7th Cavalry lost the five companies (C, E, F, I, and L) under Custer, about 210 men. Of the other companies of the regiment, under Reno and Benteen, 53 men were killed and 52 wounded. The Indians lost no more than 100 killed.

All of the horses of the five companies that rode with Custer died with one notable exception. Comanche, Myles Keogh's horse, was wounded several times but survived the battle. When he died in 1891, his body was preserved and mounted. Comanche is on display today at the University of Kansas.

Crazy Horse led a band of Lakota warriors against Custer's Seventh U.S. Cavalry battalion.

Custer was among the last who fell, but when his cheering voice was no longer heard, the Indians made easy work of the remainder. The bodies of all save the newspaper correspondent were stripped, and most of them were horribly mutilated. Custer's was not mutilated. He was shot through the body and through the head.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com...n%20and%20suspension.

His self-indulgence continued through his first year in Kansas. He rode off from his column in the field to hunt a bison, then accidentally shot his own horse dead. He abandoned his assigned duties (and two of his men who had been gravely wounded in an ambush) in order to see Libbie, earning a court-martial, conviction and suspension.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 29 February 2024 00:13

At your best in the evenings, yet again.

Too bad you went to all that truble just to be ignored.

After that rant/dump, you should flush twice just to be sure.

*trouble

but thanks for confirming

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
but, we expect you only read, recall, and quote what suits you..

though i should have included "ignore"

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Too bad you went to all that truble just to be ignored.

*trouble

but thanks for confirming

I miss-spelled the word "trouble" on purpose because I didn't want to be guilty of making psycho claims about you, like you did for me.

Troubled: "The quality or state of being troubled especially mentally."

You may apologize at any time. Now would be good.

https://time.com/6288437/custe...d-history-education/

Why We’ve Gotten ‘Custer’s Last Stand’ Wrong for Nearly 150 Years
11 MINUTE READ

More revising the revisionists:

https://time.com/6072141/alamo-history-myths/

We’ve Been Telling the Alamo Story Wrong for Nearly 200 Years. Now It’s Time to Correct the Record
7 MINUTE READ

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/16...story-bryan-burrough

'Forget The Alamo' Author Says We Have The Texas Origin Story All Wrong
JUNE 16, 202112:30 PM ET
HEARD ON FRESH AIR

https://www.washingtonpost.com...s-history-all-wrong/

The myth of Alamo gets the history all wrong
Instead of a heroic stance for freedom, Texans fought to be able to enslave people
Perspective by Bryan Burrough and Jason Stanford
June 10, 2021 at 6:00 a.m. EDT

Texas Observer:

https://www.texasobserver.org/...yths-or-rather-lies/

‘FORGET THE ALAMO’ UNRAVELS A TEXAS HISTORY MADE OF MYTHS, OR RATHER, LIES
Three Texan authors build on a long tradition of dissent from patriotic accounts of Texas history in a new book on the racism baked into our story of the Alamo.

by NIC YEAGER

JUNE 10, 2021, 8:00 AM, CDT

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
https://time.com/6288437/custe...d-history-education/

Why We’ve Gotten ‘Custer’s Last Stand’ Wrong for Nearly 150 Years
11 MINUTE READ

I read the article and I don't think I saw anything I disagreed with.

All these historical figures as well as modern day names have flaws and failures. Travis's fight and death brought attention and support to that cause. Custer's fight and death the same. Both flawed men and both an important moment in their time. Both absolutely a product of their time.

I think it's exceedingly rare to have an individual as virtuous as President Washington, tho we know he wasn't perfect. I guess General Patton was a pretty crummy guy in some ways but he won! I'm sure Field Marshall Montgomery was as refined and civilized as any British gentleman and officer could be,....but he didn't win.

So at what cost do we put up with the problem children? How many times do we have to turn the other cheek? Travis and Custer were worth it.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

You may apologize at any time. Now would be good.

you, calling all Texans liars and idiots, want to be apologize to for calling out your actual actions -- sir, you are correct, an apology is due ... when will you be providing it? Oh, you won't, you'll wenge that you are the offended party when you have been, even by your own admission, have been rude to a class of people that you have zero connection with -- i guess it's racism .. hmm, nah, not even I would take that stand with you --

Say, how's the short bus today?

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

So, you see, Texans are the ultimate hypocrites. It's no small wonder why they are so keen about immigrants and demonizing them.

You said , "I'm not disparaging them either."

My Man, the above is nothing but disparaging.

Lighten up a little.

while opinions vary, i am not the only one holding this opinion -

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
M.E., you've obviously got a burr in your saddle lately, how about working on the burr instead of being grouchy with us?

A lot of what I'm writing here, lately, are ideas that have been developing a long time. Much of it I haven't said or written before. The expression of it is new turf, but the ideas have been latent for many years.

i think that's called ideation or chronic psychosis - you can get help for that www.betterhealth.com

Poor little thang is upset that i BELIEVE i knew a name for his statement of his ideation, which he states he's had "for years" --

Oh, honey, bless your heart

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Damn, LHeym. Even if you are right, and I don't think so, is that my fault? Or yours? I don't think so. How far back do you want to go? Do you want to consider the African's complicity in the slave trade? Do you want to consider the fact that the Masai invaded Masailand and had no claim to that land? The Romans did a whole lot of bad stuff. Should present day Italy be responsible for all that? We can keep going back in history to all the injustices that one people inflicted on another and get nowhere, OR, we could look forward and figure out how to make it equitable going forward.

Reparations are an abomination. We need to look forward, not back. Learn from history, but don't apologize for it, because you didn't commit it. But do learn from it, and make it better going forward.

Very well written Sir.


.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

So, you see, Texans are the ultimate hypocrites. It's no small wonder why they are so keen about immigrants and demonizing them.

You said , "I'm not disparaging them either."

My Man, the above is nothing but disparaging.

Lighten up a little.

while opinions vary, i am not the only one holding this opinion -

If you are not careful Jeff, you will get put on ignore.

ME is only here to lay down his truth and will Brook no dissent. It says alot that he will engage with bravery and valour on the internet, but wont speak of such issues face to face. Or take up a generous offer of camaraderie.

I too have noticed of late that even A mild question or comment will be met with passive aggressive comment or Emoji as a starting point.

On the subject, Im not really that sure that it was Santa Anna's to give up, or keep.

quote:

During the Spanish Colonial Era (1690-1820), Spain made numerous attempts to settle and control Texas. But the major challenge that Spain never overcame was that various American Indian tribes remained the dominant forces controlling the regions that would eventually become Texas.

Beginning in the 1690s, Spaniards attempted to control Texas by establishing numerous missions throughout the region. The goal of these missions was to instruct local native peoples on Spanish civilization and, in the process, transform them into loyal Spanish subjects. Yet these missions never succeeded because they failed to attract Indians (since virtually none wanted to adapt themselves to Spanish culture) and Spanish authorities in Mexico City put few resources into supporting these far-flung missions. Spain, as a result, never secured a strong presence in Texas and began abandoning the region’s mission system during the 1790s.

By the early 1800s, the Comanches and Apaches of the Texas Plains and the Caddos of East Texas controlled far more of the region than did the Spanish.
When the Mexican War for Independence broke out in 1810, the violence and bloodshed that followed further weakened the already anemic Spanish presence within Texas. When Comanches and Apaches responded by increasing their raiding of San Antonio during the 1810s, Spain’s presence in Texas careened toward the edge of total collapse. By late 1820, the situation had become so dire that the Spanish leadership in San Antonio considered abandoning the province altogether. Which turned out to be the same moment that Moses Austin arrived in San Antonio from the United States with a proposal to bring American colonists into Texas.

Thanks, I will look in to that one.

ETA turns out its only $13 on apple books so that was easy enough...

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
For the Texans…

Given my knowledge of the early days of Texas was from a MN HS US history course and mostly a Michener novel… along with watching a few movies…

Is there a good basic level book on this (as in under 1000 pages or less than $100) that is reasonably accurate and not revisionist/political?

"Lone Star" by TR Fehrenbach is the definitive history of Texas.

Well, right at the beginning the "seventh infantry cavalry" kind of killed it for being some sort of premise of accuracy.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
https://time.com/6288437/custe...d-history-education/

Why We’ve Gotten ‘Custer’s Last Stand’ Wrong for Nearly 150 Years
11 MINUTE READ

I read the article and I don't think I saw anything I disagreed with.

All these historical figures as well as modern day names have flaws and failures. Travis's fight and death brought attention and support to that cause. Custer's fight and death the same. Both flawed men and both an important moment in their time. Both absolutely a product of their time.

I think it's exceedingly rare to have an individual as virtuous as President Washington, tho we know he wasn't perfect. I guess General Patton was a pretty crummy guy in some ways but he won! I'm sure Field Marshall Montgomery was as refined and civilized as any British gentleman and officer could be,....but he didn't win.

So at what cost do we put up with the problem children? How many times do we have to turn the other cheek? Travis and Custer were worth it.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Well, right at the beginning the "seventh infantry cavalry" kind of killed it for being some sort of premise of accuracy.

So, where is your problem?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...f_the_Little_Bighorn

7th Cavalry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..._Bighorn#7th_Cavalry

https://history.army.mil/books/R&H/R&H-7Cav.htm

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
On the subject, Im not really that sure that it was Santa Anna's to give up, or keep.

quote:

During the Spanish Colonial Era (1690-1820), Spain made numerous attempts to settle and control Texas. But the major challenge that Spain never overcame was that various American Indian tribes remained the dominant forces controlling the regions that would eventually become Texas.

Beginning in the 1690s, Spaniards attempted to control Texas by establishing numerous missions throughout the region. The goal of these missions was to instruct local native peoples on Spanish civilization and, in the process, transform them into loyal Spanish subjects. Yet these missions never succeeded because they failed to attract Indians (since virtually none wanted to adapt themselves to Spanish culture) and Spanish authorities in Mexico City put few resources into supporting these far-flung missions. Spain, as a result, never secured a strong presence in Texas and began abandoning the region’s mission system during the 1790s.

By the early 1800s, the Comanches and Apaches of the Texas Plains and the Caddos of East Texas controlled far more of the region than did the Spanish.
When the Mexican War for Independence broke out in 1810, the violence and bloodshed that followed further weakened the already anemic Spanish presence within Texas. When Comanches and Apaches responded by increasing their raiding of San Antonio during the 1810s, Spain’s presence in Texas careened toward the edge of total collapse. By late 1820, the situation had become so dire that the Spanish leadership in San Antonio considered abandoning the province altogether. Which turned out to be the same moment that Moses Austin arrived in San Antonio from the United States with a proposal to bring American colonists into Texas.

Exactly!

It was no-man’s land colonized and held by hearty frontiersmen.

quote:

During the Spanish Colonial Era (1690-1820)

https://education.texashistory.../7/spanish-colonial/

Texas History for Teachers has been created in partnership between the University Libraries and Department of History at UNT.

Grade 7

It's the Texas version of Woke.

===============================================

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...th_the_United_States

CR: There is a grat deal of very good information about Texas online here:
https://texashistory.unt.edu/
And here:
https://www.tshaonline.org/han.../entries/swedonia-tx
I happened to pull up the entry on the vanished community of Swedonia because my grandmother was born there in 1893, delivered by a beloved German doctor from Roby.
Gentlemen, who is with me on simply banning the word "woke" as a basically vague and meaningless pejorative artifact of the third decade of the 21st century?

quote:

Gentlemen, who is with me on simply banning the word "woke" as a basically vague and meaningless pejorative artifact of the third decade of the 21st century?

I'm in.

You perfectly described my intent in using the word in re to Texas history indoctrination in schools.

After all, that's as woke as it gets in Texas.