They did outnumber them, they were allowed to be there. They revolted because the Mexican government wanted them to pay taxes and outlawed slavery. Around this same time, they stopped immigration. It continued illegally for years before they rebelled. Many of the people who fought in the revolt were American 'adventurers'. Basically, they were just there to fight. Texas joined the USA for protection from Mexico. Then the USA took half of Texas and turned it into other states. Also, please note that we won Texas from Mexico when we invaded them and beat their asses. It would be like the CSA joining France and then France invading the USA because they invaded France for being in Georgia or something. Call it what you want, but we land grabbed Texas.
The Truth About Ron Paul - Part 2
- Thread starter deprave
- Start date
It comes out the same either way. Texas got cut into pieces and now is part of the USA. Don't try to pretend it was some glorious rebellion though, it was just a land grab by the United States. 300 families is only 1500-2000 people tops with 500 or so able to fight. There were thousands in the army that beat Santa Anna, where do you suppose they came from? It is not a rebellion or a revolution when the entire army of the rebelling side are foreigners. It is called an invasion.
sync0s
Well-Known Member
Declaring independence and being independent are two different things. I can declare my yard an independent country, and Chavez would probably support me. However, if I pay my taxes, no one will care, it doesn't make my yard a country, and if Cuba lands an army in my yard, the Government will intervene. Texas joining the Union was a land grab and nothing more.
Note that the statement above says"The likelihood of Texas joining the Union as a slave state delayed any formal action by the U.S. Congress for more than a decade. In 1844, Congress finally agreed to annex the territory of Texas." That means the US was trying to annex Texas before 1834. Texas didn't rebel until 1836. No serious historian would suggest that it was anything but a land grab by the US on Mexican territory. They even paid Mexico 15 million for Texas and California after the war ceased. See how the history kind of hints at the US land grabbing but ultimately tries to paint it more as neutral for blame or even blaming the Mexicans?
As far as why we were talking about it, I was pointing out that Mexicans aren't horrible immigrants coming to steal the white mans land.
sync0s
Well-Known Member
Even if that were true, it is apparent that the Texas congress was torn between annexing California or joining the United States. Sounds to me like they fit in well!
I see. People only take on that perspective against Mexicans because they can't take responsibility for themselves. They always want to look for someone to blame for the economy, their lack of a job, and their lack of a work ethic.
Our founders told us when those laws step on our rights, society has a duty to break those laws. Good for you for getting something right.
agreed. The unintended consequences has caused animosity toward Mexicans. The problem isn't the people, the problem is policy.
deprave
New Member
MSNBC
"Ron Paul Speaks about things that are not sexy, like the gold standard and the federal reserve"
Ill say it again
Sexiness Vs Philosophy
Who is the most sexy? Is that what is the most important to America, the issues or sexiness? Britney spears or Thomas Jefferson? time will tell. Its almost like 1984 vs 1776
[video=youtube;YWrqoIPyFH4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWrqoIPyFH4[/video]
"Ron Paul Speaks about things that are not sexy, like the gold standard and the federal reserve"
Ill say it again
Sexiness Vs Philosophy
Who is the most sexy? Is that what is the most important to America, the issues or sexiness? Britney spears or Thomas Jefferson? time will tell. Its almost like 1984 vs 1776
[video=youtube;YWrqoIPyFH4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWrqoIPyFH4[/video]
dukeanthony
New Member
Looks Like a whole bunch of black people in that Ron Paul stadium picture
I count ...none
I count ...none
12.5 percent of the population is black. 90% of those black people support Obama, who Ron Paul is running against. That means that about 1 in 100 statistically should be black. Do you have some super power that allows you to tell from that picture if people who are facing away from the camera and have dark hair are black or not? That being said - what is your point? Oh, thats right, to continue to spread lies about Ron Paul outright or by suggestion.
If you are trying to insinuate racism, lets ask this question instead - why do almost all blacks support Obama when they don't support a white candidate with essentially the same views, running in the same party, and promising the same thing?
Yea, kill whitey!