Join 3,377 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Happy Independence Day
March 2, 2006 11:22 AM   Subscribe

Today is Texas Independence Day On March 2, 1836, the Texas Declaration of Independence was signed at Washington-on-the-Brazos. The document was created by the Convention of 1836 while almost a couple hundred brave Texans at the Alamo held Gen. Santa Anna's army of several thousand at bay for 13 days. On March 6, the Alamo finally fell, slaughtered to the last man. On March 27, 352 Texas soliders were slaughtered at the Goliad Massacre. Finally on April 21, the untrained armies of Texas, outnumbered and under the command of Sam Houston, decisively defeated the much larger and better trained and equipped Army of Mexico at the Battle of San Jacinto and captured the Mexican dictator Santa Anna. Happy Texas Independence Day.
posted by dios (89 comments total)

 
I predict great things for this thread.
posted by keswick at 11:25 AM on March 2, 2006


Hey Dios shared something I didnt know. So thanks man!!
posted by wheelieman at 11:30 AM on March 2, 2006


I really didn't think I would like Texas. but then I visited, and I loved it.
loved it
posted by matteo at 11:30 AM on March 2, 2006


I always thought Santa Anna had a mustasche and sombrero.
posted by iamck at 11:32 AM on March 2, 2006



posted by dios at 11:33 AM on March 2, 2006


Sam Houston seems like he lead a very colorful life.

The link for the Battle of San Jacinto has very little to do with that battle, though.
posted by empath at 11:33 AM on March 2, 2006


This is supposed to be the link for the Battle of San Jacinto. I'll see if I can get Jessamyn to help me out.
posted by dios at 11:35 AM on March 2, 2006


In seventh grade, our Texas History book was thicker than most college textbooks I ever had... seriously, this thing was at least 4 inches thick... that's huge to a 12yr old...

And it was the oddest color of rust/burnt orange...

I've tried to locate an image to show you, but I haven't been able to find one...

Anone of my fellow Texans remember this monstrosity...?
posted by WhipSmart at 11:39 AM on March 2, 2006


*Anyone

new keyboard... breaking it in..
posted by WhipSmart at 11:39 AM on March 2, 2006


Austin should totally invade Dallas.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 11:43 AM on March 2, 2006


Hey, you know, I really liked that film "Alamo" with Billy Bob Thornton, even though the critics hated it. In fact, before seeing it, I had no idea that the battle of San Jacinto lasted only about 15 minutes. I would recommend this film highly, if only for the cannon-ball's eye view it gives of the whole Alamo compound. You never really get a good idea from other films on the subject. And, dang, if Billy Bob Thornton doesn't make a great and original Davey Crockett -- half humbug, half hero, in the great American tradition. I like it that he dies defying Santa Anna. A good movie. Even if it does telescope the siege, a bit.
posted by Faze at 11:45 AM on March 2, 2006


I lived in texas for 12 years and encountered a lot of people like Dios. Did you used to hang out at 8.0 Dios?
posted by 2sheets at 11:48 AM on March 2, 2006


That movie sucked... concerning its accuracy, it was ok... but as cinema, it was horrible... I watched it once and I shiver whenever I see it on the channel guide...

One of the greatest stories in American history, and we get Dennis Quaid and Billy Bob..? C'mon...
posted by WhipSmart at 11:53 AM on March 2, 2006


Who would you cast, WhipSmart?
posted by Faze at 12:00 PM on March 2, 2006


What is a "Texas solider?"

Whip, I don't remember that book, but I remember learning 3 Texas facts to every 1 Rest-Of-America fact while I was in grade school there. I wonder if any other states come close.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 12:02 PM on March 2, 2006


WhipSmart. I remember that book! My back still hurts from lugging it around in 1983-84. Do all states require such comprehensive state history to be taught?
posted by punkfloyd at 12:10 PM on March 2, 2006


Frederick Douglass on Texas, Slavery, and American Prosperity.
posted by homunculus at 12:11 PM on March 2, 2006


California requires state history in 4th grade. That means learning a lot of about "The Goldrush" and building Spanish missions out of sugar cubes.

Our book was about an inch, though.
posted by sideshow at 12:15 PM on March 2, 2006


I don't rememeber ever having to study Michigan history while I was in school.

Nice post, dios.
posted by goatdog at 12:23 PM on March 2, 2006


Faze,
Given the ages and backgrounds of the real people involved, I would possibly cast Val Kilmer as Bowie, Matthew McConaughey as Travis, Russel Crowe as Crockett and Kevin Costner as Houston...

of course, in a perfect world, Steve McQueen would make an awesome Crockett...
posted by WhipSmart at 12:26 PM on March 2, 2006


It's probably apochryphal, but I can't hear about San Jacinto without thinking of The Yellow Rose of Texas.
posted by TedW at 12:27 PM on March 2, 2006


doug,
I think they discontinued that particular book sometime around 1988-89... if you were in junior high after that, you would have had a different text...

Wow, I'm really dating myself here...
posted by WhipSmart at 12:28 PM on March 2, 2006


TedW: And here I was thinking The Yellow Rose was just a strip club.
posted by fourstar at 12:34 PM on March 2, 2006


whipsmart: I HAD THAT BOOK in 7th grade too ! It was easily bigger than a college calculus text. They were ratty by the time we got them & the following year they were phased out.
posted by ernie at 12:35 PM on March 2, 2006


A friendly historical nag: At the Alamo, one side was fighting for a system based on slavery, which the other side had abolished. In fact, preserving their property in slaves was a major reason for the Texan's rebellion.
posted by LarryC at 12:36 PM on March 2, 2006


[fixed san jacinto link]
posted by jessamyn at 12:41 PM on March 2, 2006


My Granny was a Yarbrough. As I was being raised, I was told about twice a month that "there was a Yarbrough with Houston at San Jacinto."

But then one of my ancestors had the bad taste to marry a Cherokee [Texas ain't Oklahoma, boy], and Granny's Yarbroughs got banished to the wilds of East Texas. I remember it as being "Grapeland", but someone from East Texas recently told me she'd never heard of Grapeland, but had heard of Grapevine. So that could be where they settled.

When Granny was a young woman, she used to help her Grampy out in the summers, running his ferry. One day some "bad men" came and forced him to take them across, then beat him up; she ran the ferry alone while he was recovering, and so when the handsome young Ranger came a day later in hot pursuit (a day was pretty "hot" back then, there -- it was wild country as recently as the 1950s), she ferried him and his horse across the river.

On the way across, she admired his backup sidearm [ahem!], a Ruger .38. He gallantly offered to let her shoot it, and suggested a target: "How about that branch?"

Granny accepted the offer, but countered: "How about the knot-hole, halfway down the branch?" And then proceeded to peg the hole. Accounts vary, but "50 feet" was commonly waved around. (Scoff all ye like, pistol afficianados, but read on.)

The young Ranger was mighty impressed. So impressed, that when he returned that way a few days later (bad men naturally in tow), he presented her with the little Ruger as a token of his admiration.

Fast forward oh, I don't know, maybe 50 years. Granny is an old woman, and hasn't picked up a firearm in about 40 of those years. My brother persuades her to take a few pop shots at a target with his Remington .22. He lectured her on safety precautions with semi-automatic rifles, and she took it with good grace. Sat down in a textbook seated shooting position, squeezed the trigger three times in the space of about two seconds, peered down range, put on the safety, said "Thank you, I've had enough," and handed to rifle back to my brother. He walked the fifty feet to the target, and brought it back with a kind of stunned look on his face to show us a group smaller than my palm.

(Now, that, boys, is a Texas story....)
posted by lodurr at 12:49 PM on March 2, 2006


Lodurr: There's nothing really "Grapey" named in East Texas but if its Grapevine then thats North Central TX.

It does sound like your granny could have raised Chuck Norris though. :)
posted by ernie at 12:56 PM on March 2, 2006


I'll admit my ignorance on this subject not being American, but I thought the Battle of the Alamo was about the Mexico fighting to get their stolen land back from America? Is this a source of conflict between Mexico and America?
posted by SSinVan at 1:07 PM on March 2, 2006


Every schoolchild in Mexico is taught that their country looked like this, and its basically everything south of the Lousiana Purchase.

I wouldn't say all Mexicans walk around carrying a grudge about it but they won't hesitate to remind you (as a Texan) that your land was theirs but later stolen. But hey, thats part of being an American I guess, Manhattan didn't win its name in a raffle.
posted by ernie at 1:21 PM on March 2, 2006


SSinVan, it depends who you ask. In fact, Henry David Thoreau wrote a famous essay about it--"Resistance to Civil Government," later retitled 'Civil Disobedience,"
since he was pissed off that his tax dollars were going to support a land-grab in Mexico.

(Not that Texas was alone in fighting to keep their slaves, but more succesful than other Southern states in a PR campaign to replace perceived avarice with blood n' glory over dirty Mexicans.)
posted by bardic at 1:30 PM on March 2, 2006


That is an odd way of looking at it. Mexico and Texas were part of Spain. A revolution occurred to throw off Spanish control. A similar revolution threw off Mexican control of Texas. The US wasn't involved. People in Texas fought for independence and got it. Later they joined the US.

So, if you want to say that the land was stolen from Mexico, you would also be saying the land was stolen from Spain, and stolen from the natives before Spain got there, etc. You would also be saying that the US was stolen from England.

The more sensible way of looking at it is that the Law of Nations and the Law of Conquest are at play. Conquest occurs. Revolution occurs.
posted by dios at 1:32 PM on March 2, 2006


Apparently, Texans are held in icy (well, sometimes hotly bitter) contempt in, of all place, Colorado, and supposedly it has something to do with ernie's map. An old friend who was born in Texas moved to Colorado when he was about 8 or 9. They pegged him right away by his accent, and he was mercilessly persecuted. Other folks who lived in Colorado have told me that you drive thorugh some parts of the state at your peril -- if you're sporting Texas plates on your car. You might come out with a few shot-holes.

The story I've been told is that Coloradans feel as though Texans treat them like wayward children, because "Colorado used to be part of Texas, and Texans think it still is."

As a kid I used to cross from family gatherings in Oklahoma City directly to family gatherings in Fort Worth, so I had some sense for the carefully sublimated rage that a lot of Okies felt toward Texans. ("Texican" was the usual term of reference, and my parents -- who wouldn't use it -- were too well-bred to explain to me that it was racist.) It just rankled more that they couldn't seem to reliably dominate them in football, let alone the fact that they didn't have a pro team.

I had a prof years ago who was from west Texas, who insisted that the New Mexicans, while just as contemptuous, were much more layed-back about it. Maybe if I get real bored I'll come back in a bit and type out the belt-buckle joke.... maybe dios knows it and could save me the trouble ;-).

ernie, re. "Grapeyness": I think the town probably doesn't exist anymore. It was kind of a backwater at best; my mom speculated that it's probably been digested by the Houston Metroplex by now. Tragically lost home towns are a theme in her family, anyway; as kids, we were continually reminded that "if Birdville had gotten the railroad instead of Fort Worth, it'd be called the Dallas-Birdville Airport." (Mom played center for the Birdville High basketball team....)
posted by lodurr at 1:38 PM on March 2, 2006


An issue today, it seems, is that many school systems are "softening" what has been said between thetwo contending parties so as not to offend the many Mexican-Americans now in Texas schools--pc strikes again. Ps: a soldier who was involved in this conflict but thought it was wrong later went on to become rather distinguished in a later war: Gen U. S. Grant.
posted by Postroad at 1:38 PM on March 2, 2006


I've only driven through Texas, and found it a barren and God-forsaken land. But hey, I only saw a little bit, so what do I know?

I do know that my boss, upon graduating from Penn State and taking his first job in Dallas, was pulled over roughly once a week, apparently guilty of being a Yankee, until he finally got Texas plates on his car, after which, oddly enough, the pull-overs stopped.

Mexico can have it back.
posted by jalexei at 1:38 PM on March 2, 2006


dios, wrong once again. Mexico gained independence from Spain in 1810. The Mexican Empire under Santa Anna was falling apart, not just in the westernmost reaches of the US at the time (unrest in the Yucatan), and a vast number of slave-owning whites had moved into the area of Tejas-Texas in the decades before to avoid the scrutiny they'd face in new US states and territories re: their "property." Look, it's all realpolitik to me--I don't lost sleep over it, but it's funny that Texans take so much pride in their ancestors, who were basically fighting to protect slavery.

As for "Law of Nations and the Law of Conquest," um, what the hell are you talking about? To whom do these laws apply? What jurisdiction are you talking about? Have you been playing lots of Civilization 4 or something?
posted by bardic at 1:45 PM on March 2, 2006


While Mexico was a Spanish colony for several hundred years, the bulk of people who are in Mexico today are, for the most part, clearly the descendants of the indiginous people who lived there before 1492. (Get on the Metro at rush hour and you'll see the Aztecs never 'fell', go to Yucatan and youll be surrouned by Maya, etc).

If the we steal a stolen car, it doesnt make us any less guilty from the perspective of someone who identifys themselves as a pre-Columbian native as well as a patriotic national.
posted by ernie at 1:46 PM on March 2, 2006


Based on what I can recall of Texas, I wouldn't live there. I haven't been to visit since I was about 19 (when Granny died), but it just seemed kind of awful at the time. The relentless "Texas Patriotism" used to drive me nuts, even just getting it from my mother while growing up in NY. From a utilitarian standpoint, I'd put it ahead of most of the south; but the attitude would absolutely drive me insane, so much so that I think I might very well prefer to live in Arkansas.

As for state history: We did a lot of it (in NY), in 4th grade, but never very much after that. I might remember having more than we did, though, since I read a lot more than the other kids did.
posted by lodurr at 1:47 PM on March 2, 2006


dios, wrong once again. Mexico gained independence from Spain in 1810.

What the hell was I wrong about? What in the hell do you think I said that you just contradicted? I now remember why I quit responding to you... you are more interested in "slap me down" then in understanding what I actually say.

As for "Law of Nations and the Law of Conquest," um, what the hell are you talking about? To whom do these laws apply? What jurisdiction are you talking about?

Guess that is something you have to know Supreme Court cases to know about.
posted by dios at 1:49 PM on March 2, 2006


"I do know that my boss, upon graduating from Penn State and taking his first job in Dallas, was pulled over roughly once a week, apparently guilty of being a Yankee, until he finally got Texas plates on his car, after which, oddly enough, the pull-overs stopped."


Thats funny, the summer I lived in the midwest we'd get the pull-over routine every week for having plates from "a drug-border state".
posted by ernie at 1:50 PM on March 2, 2006


bardic, I wouldn't defend Texian slaveholders, but I think the bulk of the people who were fighting for Texas independence were doing it for other economic reasons. There was just more economic opportunity to be gained if they could live by their own rules, rather than Santa Anna's. As I understand it, slavery wasn't very econimically viable in most of Texas, anyway. (And wasn't it outlawed there before the Civil War?)
posted by lodurr at 1:50 PM on March 2, 2006


Postroad, the Mexican-American War was to the Civil War what the French-Indian was to the Revolution. Tons of Union and Confederate generals cut their teeth pushing the US borders west. (My favorite anecdote: Lee was a pretty amazing engineer at the time of the Mexican American War, but for some reason he didn't think he could get guns up to the summit of Big Round Top at Gettysburg. If he had, it would have been game over for the Union, at least for that day.)
posted by bardic at 1:50 PM on March 2, 2006


They just wanted to keep their slaves.
posted by delmoi at 1:51 PM on March 2, 2006


WhipSmart. I remember that book! My back still hurts from lugging it around in 1983-84. Do all states require such comprehensive state history to be taught?

I remember spending about 3 week on iowa history in 5th grade. As you cani magine IT WAS VERY BORING. Did you know the capital of Iowa used to be Iowa City?
posted by delmoi at 1:53 PM on March 2, 2006


dios, I'm sure you make a fine ambulance-chaser, but a Constitutional scholar you are not. Please leave me alone.

lodurr, slavery was outlawed in the region of Texas, but it was very much in a wink-wink-nudge-nudge fashion. Look, the entire history of the US is, bluntly, a land-grab with multiple arguments and sessions of bloodletting over slavery. I just find it interesting that Texas avoids much of the stigma of slavery since their independence came at the cost of our competition to the south, i.e., Mexico.
posted by bardic at 1:55 PM on March 2, 2006


happy independence that was fought for after the americans lied about their religions and their slaves day!

have any of you ever seen the painting in the texas capitol that celebrates this? it's sickening: the mexican soldiers are depicted as dark, dirty and ugly, the texans are painted as near angelic, light haired beings.

there's a lot of bad stuff said about texas nowadays, and i've traveled throughout the state and seen that much of it is not true. on the other hand, i am not at all a fan of the myths texas has woven into its history and the way these myths are perpetuated; nor am i fond of the typical texan reaction to anybody who questions the official "party" line on texas' history.
posted by lord_wolf at 1:56 PM on March 2, 2006


Slavery was NOT outlawed before the war! IN fact It was going on AFTER the war ended, hence Juneteenth
posted by ernie at 1:56 PM on March 2, 2006


Well, who's "they"?

We can say that the Civil War would not have happened without slavery; we can also say that some kind of armed conflict was inevitable in Tejas with or without an influx of American slaveholders.

As I understand it, Houston's game was much more about land speculation than about slaves. And the Mexicans who lived there were chafing to run their own state. They'd have all been reasonably happy to stay part of Mexico if the economic reigns were loosened.
posted by lodurr at 1:56 PM on March 2, 2006



I'll admit my ignorance on this subject not being American, but I thought the Battle of the Alamo was about the Mexico fighting to get their stolen land back from America? Is this a source of conflict between Mexico and America?


No, America had nothing to do with it.
posted by delmoi at 1:56 PM on March 2, 2006


dios, I'm sure you make a fine ambulance-chaser, but a Constitutional scholar you are not. Please leave me alone.

Stellar retort. For future reference: in your effort to follow me around this website and argue everything I say, you might want to actually know what the hell you are talking about before trying to correct me.
posted by dios at 1:57 PM on March 2, 2006


Based on what I can recall of Texas, I wouldn't live there.

There's probably no state you can generalize about less than Texas, except for California and New York. Texas is a lot of places, and a lot of things, and a lot of different landscapes. It's the Van Cliburn International Piano competition, and Austin chicken races. It's Galveston and Ft. Davis. It's the most advanced and most backward place you could imagine. I'd love to hate it, but you've got to give the place credit for being almost as amazing as some Texans think it is.
posted by Faze at 1:57 PM on March 2, 2006


It's like a whole other country....somebody else's, that is.

Seriously, it's difficult to live in Texas if you're poor. My parents moved to Texas several years ago, lured by the possibility of work (there was a contractor lockout on the East Coast, when massive layoffs among the telecom folks meant that laid-off union employees had to be hired back before contractors could be used.) It took a long time for them to be able to leave Texas and come back to civilization after discovering that the "work" they were promised had evaporated en route.
posted by FormlessOne at 1:58 PM on March 2, 2006


As for "Law of Nations and the Law of Conquest," um, what the hell are you talking about? To whom do these laws apply? What jurisdiction are you talking about?

bardic, I'm sure you'll be glad to know that the "right of conquest" is indeed a traditional principle of the law of nations, a.k.a. international law. Although the "right" was progressively dismantled during the first part of the 20th century, it was certainly a central part of international law during the time period relevant to this discussion.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:01 PM on March 2, 2006


monju, I'm well aware of it. Texas wasn't a nation, ever.
posted by bardic at 2:03 PM on March 2, 2006


have any of you ever seen the painting in the texas capitol that celebrates this? it's sickening: the mexican soldiers are depicted as dark, dirty and ugly, the texans are painted as near angelic, light haired beings.

That right, Texans invented that style of paintin' yessiree bub!. You will never see that sort of demonization of another people in a battle painting anywhere!
*spits on floor*
posted by ernie at 2:04 PM on March 2, 2006


monju, I'm well aware of it. Texas wasn't a nation, ever.

Well, you did a pretty good job of feigning ignorance. Forgive me for taking your comment at face value. As for your claim that Texas wasn't a nation, I think most historians would disagree.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:09 PM on March 2, 2006


Also, the law of Nations would apply to someone revolting against an established nation to create their own. Which is what Texas did. It is also what Mexico did.

monju: the guy doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. He fired his mouth off in his continued effort to hound me everytime I post. What is truly hilarious is that he follows me everywhere and I ignored his last 100 or so comments directed at me. When I finally respond, he retorts with "Please leave me alone." Isn't that too rich?
posted by dios at 2:14 PM on March 2, 2006


... almost as amazing as some Texans think it is.

"Almost" can cover a lot of territory.

Don't take it too hard. Everything that you said can be said in spirit about New York City, and I wouldn't want to live there any more than I'd want to live in, say, Dallas. (Though somewhat more than Houston. And a good deal less than Austin.)
posted by lodurr at 2:16 PM on March 2, 2006


monju, you are correct sir. 1836-1845. But one could quibble and say that it wasn't recognized by Mexico, which was kind of the point of the whole exercise, as a sovereign nation. One could also say that everyone (including the Mexicans) knew that the Republic was a convenient fiction meant to ease its incorporation into the Union (which it promptly secedes from in 1861). I'm trying to find some sort of international recognition from France, England, Spain, or Germany between 1836-1845--I'm pretty sure that never happened. American high school and college textbooks certainly don't portray it that way.

Intenational legal presumptions usually depend on a nation being recognized by other nations. International law even moreso.
posted by bardic at 2:19 PM on March 2, 2006


Texas wasn't a nation, ever.

Oh, come on, I don't like Texas and the institutionalized arrogance of the place drives me nuts, but under what definition of "nation" was Texas not a nation?

Yes, I am aware that Houston himself never particularly intended for Texas to persist as a nation-state. (He reckoned to make more money if they joined the United States.) But that does not change the fact that it functioned as one.
posted by lodurr at 2:20 PM on March 2, 2006


I'm trying to find some sort of international recognition from France, England, Spain, or Germany between 1836-1845--I'm pretty sure that never happened.

From the vary thing that Monju just linked to:

The Republic received diplomatic recognition from the United States, France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and the Republic of Yucatán.
posted by dios at 2:26 PM on March 2, 2006


But one could quibble and say that it wasn't recognized by Mexico, which was kind of the point of the whole exercise, as a sovereign nation. One could also say that everyone (including the Mexicans) knew that the Republic was a convenient fiction meant to ease its incorporation into the Union (which it promptly secedes from in 1861).

That's a reasonable position, but it's very different from saying that "Texas wasn't a nation, ever," which is what I was arguing with. In any case, Mexico signed the Treaties of Velasco, although it later repudiated them, and the Republic of Texas received diplomatic recognition from the United States, France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and the Republic of Yucatán, at least according to Wikipedia.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:26 PM on March 2, 2006


monju, like I said, you are correct. I'm sorry I didn't think more before typing that. The Confederacy was also recognized by other nations for a short time, but they did it moreso to spite the Union than out of an actual belief that Jefferson Davis was actually going to win. I think the US's relationship to the Republic of Texas was similar.

If I could edit my comment, it would now state: "Texas was an independent Republic, briefly, and recognized by the United States and some allies in order to ease its entry into the Union and avoid the messy "Territory" period that had led to a lot of unrest over slave issues in other places. This relationship also allowed Texans to gain popular and military support at the percieved grievances committed by Santa Anna, some of which happened, many of which were purely manufactured by the media in order to fire people up in support of what was, essentially, a land-grab." There are very good reasons Thoreau wrote the essay that he did, and that I enjoy reading and teaching it not just as a polemic against government in general, but as an attack on US foreign policy and support for Texas during the middle 19th century.

(Republic of the Yucatan is kind of another can of worms, as I mentioned above. Santa Anna was trying to put out multiple fires, of which Tejas was the largest. He was certainly no saint.)
posted by bardic at 2:41 PM on March 2, 2006


jalexei writes "I've only driven through Texas, and found it a barren and God-forsaken land. But hey, I only saw a little bit, so what do I know?"

I storm chased all over it, that seems descriptive.
posted by Mitheral at 2:50 PM on March 2, 2006


Mention Texas and all the "it's barren, the people are backwards," etc. comments start. Well, like all generalizations, they are true some of the time and inaccurate the rest of the time.

One doesn't have to love a state to recognize that if it encompasses 268,601 square miles, it surely has diversity of natural habitats, climates and cultures.

PS: Driven through CO many a time with Texas plates and never had any problems. North Carolina plates (on a rental car driving through Memphis, TN), however.... honking and "the bird" while crossing over the river into Memphis. Go figure.
posted by geekgal at 3:25 PM on March 2, 2006


geekgal: would your trip through Memphis have been around the time of the NCAA tournament?
posted by Carbolic at 3:48 PM on March 2, 2006


Groovy 1847 map.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:53 PM on March 2, 2006


I'm sorry I didn't think more before typing that.

No, you should be sorry you didn't do more research on an area you seem to know nothing about before typing that. You can think endlessly about something and it won't make you less ignorant about it.
posted by grouse at 3:54 PM on March 2, 2006


have any of you ever seen the painting in the texas capitol that celebrates this?

I haven't seen that, but surely it pales in comparison to the Alamo, where there's a little side... well, a little side chapel where you can, from all appearances, kneel down and pray to Davy Crockett et al.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:02 PM on March 2, 2006


grouse, go ahead and enlighten me.
posted by bardic at 4:08 PM on March 2, 2006


Mention Texas and all the "it's barren, the people are backwards," etc. comments start. Well, like all generalizations, they are true some of the time and inaccurate the rest of the time.

I certainly disclaimed that I'd seen very little - mainly a couple of cross-Texas interstate jaunts going from one coast to the other. Hell I'm from Jersey - I've got a degree in fighting generalizations.

Thats funny, the summer I lived in the midwest we'd get the pull-over routine every week for having plates from "a drug-border state".

As dumb as I agree that is, there's at least a tiny grain of reason buried in it somewhere. What did they think my boss was smuggling? Amish candies?
posted by jalexei at 4:10 PM on March 2, 2006


And March 3rd 1791 is when Congress put a tax on distilled spirits to pay for the Revolutionary War.

Celibrate the day as you see fit...
posted by rough ashlar at 5:02 PM on March 2, 2006


Texas: It's like a 'whole other planet.
posted by Balisong at 5:23 PM on March 2, 2006


slavery wasn't very econimically viable in most of Texas, anyway. (And wasn't it outlawed there before the Civil War?)

Slavery was hugely profitable in east Texas, where the soil and climate were amenable to cotton production and navigable rivers linked the plantations to international markets. And no, slavery was not outlawed in the Republic, or subsequently the state of Texas. Maybe you are remembering that slavery was outlawed in Mexico immediately after their independence from Spain--which is part of why the slaveholding anglo-Texans wanted out.
posted by LarryC at 6:32 PM on March 2, 2006


Any links about celebrations or events in and around Austin?
posted by forwebsites at 6:42 PM on March 2, 2006


Any links about celebrations or events in and around Austin?

Eeyore's Birthday is a good solid Austin exclusive. Stay away if you dislike the idea of drugged out hippes & drum circles. I personally never missed it in the years I lived there. :)
posted by ernie at 7:17 PM on March 2, 2006


Anone of my fellow Texans remember this monstrosity...?

Oh hell yes. Easily the biggest textbook I ever had.
posted by Cyrano at 7:49 PM on March 2, 2006


" Miles and Miles of Texas"
I's born in Louisiana, down on the old bay-ou;
Raised on shrimp and catfish, Mammy's good gum-bo.
I got the ramblin' fever, said good-bye to maw and paw;
Crossed that old Red River this is what I saw.

I saw miles and miles of Texas, all the stars up in the sky;
I saw miles and miles of Texas, gonna live here 'til I
die.

I rode up in to Austin, the cradle of the West;
Just ask any cowboy, he'll tell you that its the best.
And I met a Texas beauty, I got friendly with her Paw;
I looked in-to her big blue eyes, and this is
what I saw.

I started tamin' broncos, made every rode-o;
Un-til I met a tough one, you know his name was Devil Joe.
And I grabbed hold of his bridle, just to ride this old out-law;
He threw me from the saddle, and this is what I saw.
" Miles and Miles of Texas"
by Tommy Camfield & Diane Johnston
posted by hortense at 10:29 PM on March 2, 2006


grouse, go ahead and enlighten me.
bardic
Er, you already were "enlightened". That was his point. You attacked dios' comment about the Law of Nations and the Law of Conquest, then later claimed that you knew what they were when it was pointed out to you. However, you then claimed that Texas was not a nation, but when that was also pointed out not to be true, you claimed that you knew that too, but really meant that Texas wasn't a recognized nation. When that too was pointed out to be false, you ended up claiming that, in fact, you knew all along that all of your previous statements were false. Somewhat odd, isn't it?
posted by Sangermaine at 11:26 PM on March 2, 2006


If only Texas could win itself independence from truck commercials.
posted by ryokoblue at 12:09 AM on March 3, 2006


My parents have retired to small-town Texas; the last time I visited them we went out to eat and the waiter asked if we were local and then felt obliged to tell this story whose climax was "there are two kinds of people in the world: those who were born in Texas, and those in a hurry to get here."

I can testify that there is at least one other kind of person in the world. But the point is that whippin out the Texas pride and strokin it in public is a big ol' pastime for Texans. (In case it wasn't obvious.)
posted by fleacircus at 4:09 AM on March 3, 2006


But the point is that whippin out the Texas pride and strokin it in public is a big ol' pastime for Texans.

Pride envy.
posted by grouse at 4:40 AM on March 3, 2006


I've lived in a couple places in Texas. I never encountered the rank Texas ego that I recall. I briefly (2 weeks!) attended highschool there, in the hill country. Nice folks. Missed the egotism. Also lived in Austin, but that barely counts.

The only other American I know where I live is from Texas. He's the loudest man in town. 'Nuff said.
posted by Goofyy at 4:48 AM on March 3, 2006


I used to work for Texas state government. We had a lot of paid holidays - Texas Independence Day, San Jacinto Day, Juneteenth, Confederate Heroes Day, and LBJ's birthday.
posted by candyland at 5:30 AM on March 3, 2006


Juneteenth, Confederate Heroes Day

Nice balance. When I was growing up in Virginia, we had Lee/Jackson/King Day. ("I'll see your civil rights leader and raise you two Confederate generals.") They separated Lee/Jackson Day into a different state holiday in 2000.

posted by kirkaracha at 6:40 AM on March 3, 2006


Confederate Heroes Day

Mostly grew up in TX and never heard of this holiday until college FWIW.
posted by ernie at 8:20 AM on March 3, 2006


After Bush is impeached we can deport him to independent Texas.
posted by davy at 10:28 PM on March 3, 2006


kirkaracha: I'm usually lost when it comes to American history, not being American and all that shit, but, like you said, that's one groovy map you linked to; shows a world that existed for the briefest of times.

Just this one thing about the map though. You know, may be I'm reading too much into it, but I'm quite bothered by the fact that they seem to have the same typeface/font-size for Tejas, Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, and Louisiana, and indeed, have clearly demarcated borders, while the rest of the states (Mississippi, Florida, Alabama) sort of blend into a white-spaced "Estados Unidos". Now, I understand that it is quite common for contemporary maps of the US, for instance, do show Canada's provinces as well, but is there any reason why these states have been demarcated to the exclusion of the rest? I suppose I could point out that Belize also gets the same treatment, and that Guatelamala has been white-spaced, so to speak, like the greater Estados Unidos.

The reason I ask this is because, to my untrained 21st century eye, there's nothing in the map that stands out and actually says "The Disputed Territory of Texas" only; were the other demarcated southern states also contested by Mexico?
posted by the cydonian at 8:49 AM on March 5, 2006


the cydonian: because they're the states closest to Mexico, and it's a map of Mexico? That said, I have no idea why the boundary between Mississippi and Alabama isn't shown. Maybe it's just a low-quality map.
posted by grouse at 3:56 PM on March 5, 2006


« Older Sex in an online game? It's about time. Naughty Am...  |  "In dramatic and sometimes ago... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments