Alamo renovation gets stuck over arguments about slavery

Without context, the BATTLE loses it's importance. There would have been no BATTLE without context. There would be no understanding of the BATTLE. smh. A child understands this. Why not you?

Here you poor child, read how it's done. Context first and most important.
Gettysburg

It's predictable that you would ignore or diminish the parts of Alamo history that don't fit within your facists dogma. It's predictable that you would say your debate opponent doesn't know something without asking them first. You've not been able to challenge a single part of the history I stated. You've not shown that I didn't know the context. It is YOU ignoring context. I'm the one proposing it needs to be. Try to keep up.

Typical, you just throw crap against the wall per usual. Every time you post you make clear that you don't know scientific process and now it's clear, you cannot understand causal effects in history. There's a connect there.

There's not a war museum or battle monument anywhere that doesn't put it in context FIRST so that those they are trying to teach, can understand the true meaning of the Battle. You only want this one to diminish the context because the context reflects those parts of history you prefer to ignore.



LOTR definition of Gettysburg should be, "duh, lots of people died here, fart, burp. Da good gyz won. Dat's all you need to know." lol
Sorry, but the fact that some who fought there had slaves isn't important context for this battle. Nice try though.
 
Sorry, but the fact that some who fought there had slaves isn't important context for this battle. Nice try though.

Sorry but that fact that those settling there wanted it to be a slave state for economic reasons, but against Mexican policy is the whole reason the battle happened in the first place. Context. ;)
 
lol! seriously? You throw out the price tag of the project, despite the fact that no one was talking about it?

It's the second second sentence of the quoted article. Even the liberal leaning Wash Post said the debate "devolved" into the slave debate. It makes clear that the "slave' debate is the equivalent of yelling "squirrel" at the dog. Don't be a dog. The issue is the 450 million and who gets control of it. The "slave debate" is just an opposition's way of trying to get control of that money.
 
T
Without context, the BATTLE loses it's importance. There would have been no BATTLE without context. There would be no understanding of the BATTLE. smh.

Read how it's done. Context first and most important.
Gettysburg

There's a difference between teaching and indoctrination. The former leads with facts and context and trusts the learner to come to their own conclusions. The latter is you.

It's predictable that you would ignore or diminish the parts of Alamo history that don't fit within your facists dogma. Its predictable that you wouldn't want others to know those facts. It's predictable that instead of challenging facts put forward by your debate opponent's knowledge without actually providing evidence it was lacking. And let's face it, ... wiki..., You've not been able to challenge a single part of the history I stated. Try to keep up.

Every time you post you make clear limited understanding of scientific process and now it's clear, you cannot understand causal effects in history. There's a connect there.

There's not a war museum or battle monument anywhere that doesn't put it in context FIRST so that those they are trying to teach, can understand the true meaning of the Battle. You only want this one to diminish the context because the context reflects those parts of history you prefer to ignore.





LOTR definition of Gettysburg should be, "duh, lots of people died here, fart, burp. Da good gyz won. Dat's all you need to know." lol
I spelled out the context in my post above when I talked about what factors led up to the Texans rebelling and what was the aftermath:

At this point and AFTER explaining the BATTLE you can touch on the broader topics like: Why did Americans migrate to Texas? what other Mexican provinces rebelled - did you know others did but less successfully? How did Mexico gaining independence from Spain plant the seeds for the Texas rebellion only 15 years later? How did Santa Anna violate the new Mexican constitution to trigger the uprising? What role did the USA play in the Texas rebellion during and in the immediate aftermath? How did the Texas revolution lead to the Mexican/American war of 1848?

What other context is there? Slavery? You wish to embellish certain elements like slavery to push an agenda that is largely unrelated to the Alamo. Can you explain to me the context that slavery had on the battle of the Alamo?

And why do you keep bringing up Civil War examples? Apples & oranges. Slavery obviously provides an important context to that war.
 
gosh a ruddies, Jim Bowie had been a slave trader. He had tried to circumvent the law making it illegal to import slaves from Africa. That is pretty bad.
Gosh a ruddies, slavery was the accepted practice of the day. Judging people by contemporary norms is silly. Its like 100 years from now saying that guy was a truck driver, he killed the environment, ban him!
 
You call 450 million on this little plot of land recoverable?
You seem to only be looking at it in terms of admissions (x amount of visitors). It brings people in who eat, shop, visit other near by attractions etc.
 
Sorry but that fact that those settling there wanted it to be a slave state for economic reasons, but against Mexican policy is the whole reason the battle happened in the first place. Context. ;)
That is an absolute lie and shows you to be completely ignorant of history. If it were true, why were the large group of Tejanos rebelling and fighting side by side with the American colonists? They did not have slaves. Maybe it was the suspension of the constitution of 1824 by Santa Anna. Maybe it was Santa Anna's tyrannical and arbitrary rule. Maybe the American colonists fought for religious liberty as they had been forced to convert to Catholicism. Maybe people who lived in a republican form of government bristle at being deprived of those rights. Maybe some of the American colonists moved to Texas as part of manifest destiny with the intent to bring Texas into the American family.

All of those "maybes" are true and defy your position that slavery was the primary reason. This is especially true with the Tejanos, who did not own slaves and had no interest in legalizing slavery. They, like their American counterparts, were fighting for liberty and the right to self government. That some of the former southern colonists wanted that to include the right to own slaves is strictly a side note.

Your minimization of the Tejano involvement in the war, or the slandering of their motives in fighting, is, in and of itself, racist. Why so much anti-Hispanic racism on your part? Are you so blinded by your own grievances that you see everything through that filter as you exclude everything that does not fit that template? I think so. You Sir are a racist.
 
Last edited:
It's the second second sentence of the quoted article. Even the liberal leaning Wash Post said the debate "devolved" into the slave debate. It makes clear that the "slave' debate is the equivalent of yelling "squirrel" at the dog. Don't be a dog. The issue is the 450 million and who gets control of it. The "slave debate" is just an opposition's way of trying to get control of that money.
Right, but our discussion here wasn't about that, other than you bringing it up.
 
Gosh a ruddies, slavery was the accepted practice of the day. Judging people by contemporary norms is silly. Its like 100 years from now saying that guy was a truck driver, he killed the environment, ban him!
1. At that time slavery was already illegal in half the United States, so in much of the country it was not the accepted practice
2. The United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 made the importation of slaves illegal after 1808, Bowie was involved in violating that law. That was not just bad, it was illegal. Like a truck driver involved in sex trafficking.
 
major reason for men from the American south to move to Texas was for land for the growth of cash crops using slave labor >Mexico outlawed slavery> revolt and the establishment of the nation of Texas> Mexico opposes Texas joining the United States and that annexation was the major cause of the American-Mexican War>the acquisition of Texas and the other land ceded by Mexico led to increasingly virulent debate over the extension of slavery into the territories>leading to the rise of the Republican Party, elections of Lincoln, Southern secession and the Civil War.
 
major reason for men from the American south to move to Texas was for land for the growth of cash crops using slave labor >Mexico outlawed slavery> revolt and the establishment of the nation of Texas> Mexico opposes Texas joining the United States and that annexation was the major cause of the American-Mexican War>the acquisition of Texas and the other land ceded by Mexico led to increasingly virulent debate over the extension of slavery into the territories>leading to the rise of the Republican Party, elections of Lincoln, Southern secession and the Civil War.
A very neat progression you have created. It is too bad that it ignores so much of what was actually happening. Actually your recitation is the best example of being afflicted with the use of intellectual blinders. Your myopia is simply stunning.
 
This article identifies why we're suddenly talking about slavery in the context of the Alamo:


First, the big lie that Santa Anna had a Black unit fighting the Texans is exposed:

I emailed Dr. Dimmick and asked him whether the all-black regiment existed. He responded quickly. “Bryan, I have recently finished writing a three-volume work on the Mexican army in the Texas Revolution,” he wrote. “It should be published in the next year or so. I have many documents from the Mexican military archives that have not been previously published or translated. I have seen multiple unit rosters and lists of the various units involved. I have seen absolutely nothing about any such unit in the Texas Revolution.”

It seems like Critical Race Theory is rearing it's ugly head to destroy a Texan and American icon in the Alamo:

As I’ve written before, there’s a concerted effort to cast the Texas revolutionaries as if they were fighting for slavery and possibly even white supremacy. In order to make that stick, Santa Anna has to be recast as, if not outright good, then at least not a terrible butcher. The Texas Revolution has to be cut off from the rest of the wars that engulfed Mexico at the same time, so that it can be cast as a war based on slavery and race. The considerable Tejano contribution to the revolution must be erased. The political argument that drove the war, federalists vs. centralists, must be omitted from the discussion. The complex war must be oversimplified and distorted to the point that the facts cease to drive the story.

And Purplemojo was spot on:

But the facts are stubborn. The Texas Revolution was one section of a much wider war that spread across much of northern Mexico and included states far from Texas including Yucatan. The war’s primary issue was Santa Anna’s betrayal of the federalists and his abrogation of the 1824 Mexican constitution, which was federalist, as he centralized power unto himself. He did away with state legislatures and even redrew state boundaries into military districts. When Zacatecas rebelled in 1835, Santa Anna put it down and then put it to the sword in one of his several massacres. This action informed the Texian and Tejano revolutionaries what awaited them should Santa Anna defeat them.
 
A very neat progression you have created. It is too bad that it ignores so much of what was actually happening. Actually your recitation is the best example of being afflicted with the use of intellectual blinders. Your myopia is simply stunning.
gosh a ruddies every thing listed happened
My view beats being blind to the effect of slavery on antebellum events.
 
This article identifies why we're suddenly talking about slavery in the context of the Alamo:


First, the big lie that Santa Anna had a Black unit fighting the Texans is exposed:

I emailed Dr. Dimmick and asked him whether the all-black regiment existed. He responded quickly. “Bryan, I have recently finished writing a three-volume work on the Mexican army in the Texas Revolution,” he wrote. “It should be published in the next year or so. I have many documents from the Mexican military archives that have not been previously published or translated. I have seen multiple unit rosters and lists of the various units involved. I have seen absolutely nothing about any such unit in the Texas Revolution.”

It seems like Critical Race Theory is rearing it's ugly head to destroy a Texan and American icon in the Alamo:

As I’ve written before, there’s a concerted effort to cast the Texas revolutionaries as if they were fighting for slavery and possibly even white supremacy. In order to make that stick, Santa Anna has to be recast as, if not outright good, then at least not a terrible butcher. The Texas Revolution has to be cut off from the rest of the wars that engulfed Mexico at the same time, so that it can be cast as a war based on slavery and race. The considerable Tejano contribution to the revolution must be erased. The political argument that drove the war, federalists vs. centralists, must be omitted from the discussion. The complex war must be oversimplified and distorted to the point that the facts cease to drive the story.

And Purplemojo was spot on:

But the facts are stubborn. The Texas Revolution was one section of a much wider war that spread across much of northern Mexico and included states far from Texas including Yucatan. The war’s primary issue was Santa Anna’s betrayal of the federalists and his abrogation of the 1824 Mexican constitution, which was federalist, as he centralized power unto himself. He did away with state legislatures and even redrew state boundaries into military districts. When Zacatecas rebelled in 1835, Santa Anna put it down and then put it to the sword in one of his several massacres. This action informed the Texian and Tejano revolutionaries what awaited them should Santa Anna defeat them.
Probably just a touch too much context for East, I’m guessing.
 
gosh a ruddies every thing listed happened
My view beats being blind to the effect of slavery on antebellum events.
Funny that you are too stupid to realize that is not all that happened. Take your blinders off and take the wide view of things. Well, maybe not. I don't think you could deal with the change of perspective. You have lived in your race obsessed tunnel for too long to see what is outside your narrow view.
 
Last edited:
The Battle of the Alamo was not an "antebellum event".
antebellum: : existing before a war. especially : existing before the American Civil War.

Alamo took place in 1836, twenty five years before the Civil War
The battle played a role in the Texas War for Independence
That lead to the spread of slavery and so it was an event leading to the Civil War.
 
Funny that you are too stupid to realize that is not all that happened. Take your blinders off and take the wide view of things. Well, maybe not. I don't think you could deal with the change of perspective. You have lived in you race obsessed tunnel for to long to see what is outside your narrow view.
Southerners migrated to Texas with the aim of introducing plantation based economy there, a system dependent on slavery.
 
Southerners migrated to Texas with the aim of introducing plantation based economy there, a system dependent on slavery.
1) Southerners were not the only colonists
2) Southern colonists were not the only revolutionaries
3) The large Tejano population had no interest in slavery and were just as anxious to be independent from Mexico as the Southern colonists.
4) Northern colonists had no interest in slavery and had emigrated to Texas for cheap land.
5) There were many European colonists who moved to Texas, especially from German States, but also Ireland and elsewhere.
6) The European colonists in Texas had no interest in slavery.
7) All Texians, of whatever ethnicity they may be, or no matter where they came from, were fed up with the suspension of the constitution and the dictatorship of Santa Anna.
8) There were former slaves who fought for Texas independence.

You make a sweeping statement that is clearly and demonstratively wrong, just because it fits your template and you have no capacity to accept the truth when it is looking you in the face. How sad to be a grown-up and to have the narrow mind of a child. It is truly a shame.

The world is a complex place. Maybe if you work at it you may someday be able to grasp the complex and leave your life as a simpleton behind.
 
Top