sigh. there is quite a bit of truth in your history lesson, but it is always a matter of emphasis in these things, and your lesson is just tilted enough to make me log on.

When President Adams was in office the petitioning and lobbying that he received from the Texas territory came from slave owners, cotton plantation owners and land speculators. The land speculators brought in settlers.

But by the time the actual "revolution" started (1835) it was about the increasingly heavy hand of Santa Anna who ruled by decree. Typical settlers were affected by El Presidente's attempts to shut down the northern border to the USA including immigration and imports. Protestantism was technically against the law (enforced at the government's convenience). The taxes and treatment were more severe on the settlers in that territory than on the citizens of the countries to the south and north. This is what roused the average man to war. Not slavery. Of the names folks know, Houston, Austin and Bowie, Bowie was the shadiest. He did a lot of things. He did some slave smuggling, but that was not his stock and trade. Generally he was an adventurous opportunist. All three were interested in making names for themselves in what they imagined might be a new country.
Santa Anna marched to quell rebellions. That is what he did when he marched. It was not a police action to apprehend and punish slave owners or to specifically enforce the anti-slavery laws.

John Quincy Adams was one of our greatest presidents and statesmen. A visionary.
At the same time, the Texas Revolution was not all "about keeping slavery." Slavery was an issue, but not the main issue. So that interpretation of MexTex history is simplistic and off the mark.

so I watched about 30 seconds of Mike and Marty and turned it off. I hate seeing Marty in Texas. I know he'll never go away, but I wish he'd move his act somewhere else. fuck him and the horse he road in on.

But whenever you are talking to a black person EVERYTHING comes down to issues of slavery.

Most Texans are misinformed about their History..
you know what they say,Whoever wins the war writes the History Books

Texas independence was more about Keeping slavery intact...
Mexico abolished it under Santa Anna

Texans kept thumbing their noses at the Santa Anna Government over the issue

Texas was a huge smuggling point into the lower united states...
Cotton and slavery were two money maker for the struggling Mexican territory of Texas
Jim Bowie a leader at the Alamo was a slave smuggler-so were a lot of those men at the Alamo

Mexico abolished slavery In Mexico and demanded the same of Texas..

slave owners in Texas were pissed over their slaves escaping to other Mexican territories
and being forbidden the trade of slaves..mostly men of southern sympathy
with large plantations..

Santa Anna's march into Texas was mostly to enforce antislavery laws of Mexico

a former President "John Quincy Adams" was absolutely 100% right when he said the Texas Revolution was about keeping slavery

Marty "Generic History Lesson" Is short on facts...

Elwood, well, slavery was definitely part of it. Texas like many southern states has a terrible, shameful past when it comes to slavery, and treatment of non-whites. That is undeniable and shouldn't be forgotten.

John Sayles made a great film called Lone Star. It gets into race relations in Texas and even touches on the kind of one-sided curriculum that Texans like myself were taught in public schools until rather recently. The poster Triumph is correct to point out that Texans have been largely misinformed. Thankfully, these days, the kids in public school get various POVs on Texas history.

I think Marty's video made an interesting point. The Texas settlers did not like Santa Anna's dictatorship, so they revolted. The British Colonists did the same against King George III. Maybe Marty is comparing Santa Anna to Miscavige and the CO$?

Which public schools did you attend, and what exactly were you "misinformed" about? I am a native Texan and can trace my Texas roots back to Austin's Colony in the 1820's. I attended Texas public schools in the 70's and 80's and don't remember being "misinformed" about anything.

My roots go right back to Austin also, bparker, with a forefather serving in the Travis Guard and helping survey Austin, then later fighting to keep Austin the capitol of Texas when Sam Houston wanted to relocate all the public records to Houston and make it the capitol. Also had a relative at San Jacinto when Santa Anna was beaten.
As a public school student in Texas, around the same time you were, I was under-informed. I'll put it that way.
And with that I am done with talking about Texas, unless bp230 wants to compare Texas notes somehow without subjecting this board to it.

Texas history is interesting, but is off-topic here. Except for the fact that Marty made a video basically comparing Santa Ana's aggression to that of the CO$ against independent $cientology.

Agreed. Critics have derailed this thread with conflicting views of Texas history, when the discussion should be on why Marty chose to use compare the Battle of the Alamo to his own accomplishments with his Independent Scientology fan club.

The difference is that, at the Alamo, all it's defenders were slain by the Mexican soldiers. Is Marty insinuating he'll go to his grave fighting Miscavige? LOL. Time for another drink, Marty.

I think it is not a derail so much as it is revelation of just how far off Marty is in his analogy. He picked a topic that he thought he had a understanding on and proved yet again that his ideas of the world are based on a revisionist mentality. I for one am not surprised he picked the Alamo.