[quote]ukrainian wrote:
It’s easy to make fun of the US educational system, but at least I know history. [/quote]
You know nothig but liberal bullshit.
All you did was make ad hominem attacks against various people in history that had nothing to do with the fact that slavery was a footnote, if that, to the real reasons for the Texas Revolution.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Anthony50 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
DFW area got a LOT worse after Katrina. I can’t imagine other areas were not affected, as well.
Oh, and as much as I want to love San Antonio (Remember the Alamo!), it has indeed turned into a crime infested city. Most of my maternal family live there, and that city has changed a LOT over the past 30 years. Not at all for the better. [/quote]
I was born and raised in San Antonio and I would not call it a crime infested city. Although I couldn’t tell you how different it is compared to thirty years ago, I have never felt the slightest bit unsafe in SA. Of coarse, there are certain areas to stay away from…[/quote]
How long were you there, and when?
I cannot say that it is in fact a crime infested city, but I can say that without hesitation that it is becoming a lot more like Detroit and a lot less like the idyllic Hill Country burgh of my childhood. My family has lived there for upwards of 100 years. After WWII (incidentally, Japan), my grandfather raised a family of 7 kids working at the Pearl brewery for 37 years. My grandmother spent her entire career working at the Express-News.
The little piece of America my mother grew up in was already fairly bustling when she was born in the 50’s. I spent a large portion of my childhood in San Antonio as well, and I know it was already at that time included in the Big Three Texas cities. So I don’t believe it is because the city has grown that it has lost it’s innocence, so to speak.
My grandparents’ neighborhood used to be the picture perfect little snapshot of wholesome, safe, Leave it to Beaver American life. Now it is little more than a rotten, garbage strewn ghetto, covered in gang graffiti and overrun by weeds.
Downtown SA used to be a lovely, well tended cultural experience, the last time I went, it had become an obstacle course of homeless, panhandlers and loud-mouthed assholes. I was keyed up and on my guard every time we were out in public. And I have went to a bunch of different areas the last time I was there.
I’m not trying to pick a fight with you. It genuinely makes me sad to see such a majestic cultural center, certainly the most important city in Texas, fall to such disrepair. [/quote]
This. I’m from the San Antonio area as well. I much prefer the city of Austin.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]ukrainian wrote:
It’s easy to make fun of the US educational system, but at least I know history. [/quote]
You know nothig but liberal bullshit.
All you did was make ad hominem attacks against various people in history that had nothing to do with the fact that slavery was a footnote, if that, to the real reasons for the Texas Revolution.[/quote]
I am just pointing out what happened in the US (and in general North America) before and around those times. My point it that the Texas Revolution was not as pure as it is sometimes seen. What was happening to Texas at the time is what was happening, and there is no arguing that. It’s history; you can’t argue against facts. That is why my argument seemed ad hominem, but my point still remains that the Texas Revolution was not pure. That does not mean it was not “good” (again, I understand my first point was not well put, and I admit that I was wrong about that) as a whole, but there were definitely some parts that cast a big shadow on the independence movement.
Slavery was a big deal in Texas before the Civil War. I don’t see how there is any denying that. It was not prominent before the independence movement, but many plantation owners wanted to see it become much bigger. That is why in ten years after revolution the number of slaves increased six fold. The first century of the US was dominated by slavery. Heck, one of the greater debates during the drafting of the Constitution was dealing with slavery. So saying that slavery, in any movement in the South, was just a footnote in forgetting how important slavery was to the US.
[quote]ukrainian wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]ukrainian wrote:
It’s easy to make fun of the US educational system, but at least I know history. [/quote]
You know nothig but liberal bullshit.
All you did was make ad hominem attacks against various people in history that had nothing to do with the fact that slavery was a footnote, if that, to the real reasons for the Texas Revolution.[/quote]
I am just pointing out what happened in the US (and in general North America) before and around those times. My point it that the Texas Revolution was not as pure as it is sometimes seen. What was happening to Texas at the time is what was happening, and there is no arguing that. It’s history; you can’t argue against facts. That is why my argument seemed ad hominem, but my point still remains that the Texas Revolution was not pure. That does not mean it was not “good” (again, I understand my first point was not well put, and I admit that I was wrong about that) as a whole, but there were definitely some parts that cast a big shadow on the independence movement.
Slavery was a big deal in Texas before the Civil War. I don’t see how there is any denying that. It was not prominent before the independence movement, but many plantation owners wanted to see it become much bigger. That is why in ten years after revolution the number of slaves increased six fold. The first century of the US was dominated by slavery. Heck, one of the greater debates during the drafting of the Constitution was dealing with slavery. So saying that slavery, in any movement in the South, was just a footnote in forgetting how important slavery was to the US. [/quote]
There were 5,000 slaves in Texas (which was then Texas, Oklahoma, and much of New Mexico and Colorado) at the time of the Texas Revolution, less than 1% of the population.
Slavery was a non-issue in the Texas Revolution, except for propaganda purposes by the Spanish.
Did slavery increase later? Yep. After the revolution and joining the union, slaves began to be imported and became upwards of 20% of the population.
Go to wiki, all the census figures are there.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Anthony50 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
DFW area got a LOT worse after Katrina. I can’t imagine other areas were not affected, as well.
Oh, and as much as I want to love San Antonio (Remember the Alamo!), it has indeed turned into a crime infested city. Most of my maternal family live there, and that city has changed a LOT over the past 30 years. Not at all for the better. [/quote]
I was born and raised in San Antonio and I would not call it a crime infested city. Although I couldn’t tell you how different it is compared to thirty years ago, I have never felt the slightest bit unsafe in SA. Of coarse, there are certain areas to stay away from…[/quote]
How long were you there, and when?
I cannot say that it is in fact a crime infested city, but I can say that without hesitation that it is becoming a lot more like Detroit and a lot less like the idyllic Hill Country burgh of my childhood. My family has lived there for upwards of 100 years. After WWII (incidentally, Japan), my grandfather raised a family of 7 kids working at the Pearl brewery for 37 years. My grandmother spent her entire career working at the Express-News.
The little piece of America my mother grew up in was already fairly bustling when she was born in the 50’s. I spent a large portion of my childhood in San Antonio as well, and I know it was already at that time included in the Big Three Texas cities. So I don’t believe it is because the city has grown that it has lost it’s innocence, so to speak.
My grandparents’ neighborhood used to be the picture perfect little snapshot of wholesome, safe, Leave it to Beaver American life. Now it is little more than a rotten, garbage strewn ghetto, covered in gang graffiti and overrun by weeds.
Downtown SA used to be a lovely, well tended cultural experience, the last time I went, it had become an obstacle course of homeless, panhandlers and loud-mouthed assholes. I was keyed up and on my guard every time we were out in public. And I have went to a bunch of different areas the last time I was there.
I’m not trying to pick a fight with you. It genuinely makes me sad to see such a majestic cultural center, certainly the most important city in Texas, fall to such disrepair. [/quote]
My family has lived here since the 70’s and I’ve experienced SA, as an adult, through the 2000’s. As doogie stated doing, I have been downtown at practically all hours and have never felt threatened. I’m not sure when the last time you have been down here, but the city has been actively restoring and infusing culture into the Riverwalk and the downtown area for years now.
No worries. Perhaps the city isn’t what it once was, but what is? I still love my city and suggest you give it another chance before claiming it as a “crime infested city” in “disrepair.” You may be pleasantly surprised.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
This. I’m from the San Antonio area as well. I much prefer the city of Austin. [/quote]
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]ukrainian wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]ukrainian wrote:
It’s easy to make fun of the US educational system, but at least I know history. [/quote]
You know nothig but liberal bullshit.
All you did was make ad hominem attacks against various people in history that had nothing to do with the fact that slavery was a footnote, if that, to the real reasons for the Texas Revolution.[/quote]
I am just pointing out what happened in the US (and in general North America) before and around those times. My point it that the Texas Revolution was not as pure as it is sometimes seen. What was happening to Texas at the time is what was happening, and there is no arguing that. It’s history; you can’t argue against facts. That is why my argument seemed ad hominem, but my point still remains that the Texas Revolution was not pure. That does not mean it was not “good” (again, I understand my first point was not well put, and I admit that I was wrong about that) as a whole, but there were definitely some parts that cast a big shadow on the independence movement.
Slavery was a big deal in Texas before the Civil War. I don’t see how there is any denying that. It was not prominent before the independence movement, but many plantation owners wanted to see it become much bigger. That is why in ten years after revolution the number of slaves increased six fold. The first century of the US was dominated by slavery. Heck, one of the greater debates during the drafting of the Constitution was dealing with slavery. So saying that slavery, in any movement in the South, was just a footnote in forgetting how important slavery was to the US. [/quote]
There were 5,000 slaves in Texas (which was then Texas, Oklahoma, and much of New Mexico and Colorado) at the time of the Texas Revolution, less than 1% of the population.
Slavery was a non-issue in the Texas Revolution, except for propaganda purposes by the Spanish.
Did slavery increase later? Yep. After the revolution and joining the union, slaves began to be imported and became upwards of 20% of the population.
Go to wiki, all the census figures are there.[/quote]
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/ulc01
10% of the population were slaves in 1836. 5,000 out of 50,000.
This is the a site devoted to Texas history, and those are the figures.
[quote]Anthony50 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Anthony50 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
DFW area got a LOT worse after Katrina. I can’t imagine other areas were not affected, as well.
Oh, and as much as I want to love San Antonio (Remember the Alamo!), it has indeed turned into a crime infested city. Most of my maternal family live there, and that city has changed a LOT over the past 30 years. Not at all for the better. [/quote]
I was born and raised in San Antonio and I would not call it a crime infested city. Although I couldn’t tell you how different it is compared to thirty years ago, I have never felt the slightest bit unsafe in SA. Of coarse, there are certain areas to stay away from…[/quote]
How long were you there, and when?
I cannot say that it is in fact a crime infested city, but I can say that without hesitation that it is becoming a lot more like Detroit and a lot less like the idyllic Hill Country burgh of my childhood. My family has lived there for upwards of 100 years. After WWII (incidentally, Japan), my grandfather raised a family of 7 kids working at the Pearl brewery for 37 years. My grandmother spent her entire career working at the Express-News.
The little piece of America my mother grew up in was already fairly bustling when she was born in the 50’s. I spent a large portion of my childhood in San Antonio as well, and I know it was already at that time included in the Big Three Texas cities. So I don’t believe it is because the city has grown that it has lost it’s innocence, so to speak.
My grandparents’ neighborhood used to be the picture perfect little snapshot of wholesome, safe, Leave it to Beaver American life. Now it is little more than a rotten, garbage strewn ghetto, covered in gang graffiti and overrun by weeds.
Downtown SA used to be a lovely, well tended cultural experience, the last time I went, it had become an obstacle course of homeless, panhandlers and loud-mouthed assholes. I was keyed up and on my guard every time we were out in public. And I have went to a bunch of different areas the last time I was there.
I’m not trying to pick a fight with you. It genuinely makes me sad to see such a majestic cultural center, certainly the most important city in Texas, fall to such disrepair. [/quote]
My family has lived here since the 70’s and I’ve experienced SA, as an adult, through the 2000’s. As doogie stated doing, I have been downtown at practically all hours and have never felt threatened. I’m not sure when the last time you have been down here, but the city has been actively restoring and infusing culture into the Riverwalk and the downtown area for years now.
No worries. Perhaps the city isn’t what it once was, but what is? I still love my city and suggest you give it another chance before claiming it as a “crime infested city” in “disrepair.” You may be pleasantly surprised.[/quote]
Do you live in Alamo Heights perhaps?
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Anthony50 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Anthony50 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
DFW area got a LOT worse after Katrina. I can’t imagine other areas were not affected, as well.
Oh, and as much as I want to love San Antonio (Remember the Alamo!), it has indeed turned into a crime infested city. Most of my maternal family live there, and that city has changed a LOT over the past 30 years. Not at all for the better. [/quote]
I was born and raised in San Antonio and I would not call it a crime infested city. Although I couldn’t tell you how different it is compared to thirty years ago, I have never felt the slightest bit unsafe in SA. Of coarse, there are certain areas to stay away from…[/quote]
How long were you there, and when?
I cannot say that it is in fact a crime infested city, but I can say that without hesitation that it is becoming a lot more like Detroit and a lot less like the idyllic Hill Country burgh of my childhood. My family has lived there for upwards of 100 years. After WWII (incidentally, Japan), my grandfather raised a family of 7 kids working at the Pearl brewery for 37 years. My grandmother spent her entire career working at the Express-News.
The little piece of America my mother grew up in was already fairly bustling when she was born in the 50’s. I spent a large portion of my childhood in San Antonio as well, and I know it was already at that time included in the Big Three Texas cities. So I don’t believe it is because the city has grown that it has lost it’s innocence, so to speak.
My grandparents’ neighborhood used to be the picture perfect little snapshot of wholesome, safe, Leave it to Beaver American life. Now it is little more than a rotten, garbage strewn ghetto, covered in gang graffiti and overrun by weeds.
Downtown SA used to be a lovely, well tended cultural experience, the last time I went, it had become an obstacle course of homeless, panhandlers and loud-mouthed assholes. I was keyed up and on my guard every time we were out in public. And I have went to a bunch of different areas the last time I was there.
I’m not trying to pick a fight with you. It genuinely makes me sad to see such a majestic cultural center, certainly the most important city in Texas, fall to such disrepair. [/quote]
My family has lived here since the 70’s and I’ve experienced SA, as an adult, through the 2000’s. As doogie stated doing, I have been downtown at practically all hours and have never felt threatened. I’m not sure when the last time you have been down here, but the city has been actively restoring and infusing culture into the Riverwalk and the downtown area for years now.
No worries. Perhaps the city isn’t what it once was, but what is? I still love my city and suggest you give it another chance before claiming it as a “crime infested city” in “disrepair.” You may be pleasantly surprised.[/quote]
Do you live in Alamo Heights perhaps?[/quote]
Nope, I live in the “ghetto.”
[quote]ukrainian wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]ukrainian wrote:
It’s easy to make fun of the US educational system, but at least I know history. [/quote]
You know nothig but liberal bullshit.
All you did was make ad hominem attacks against various people in history that had nothing to do with the fact that slavery was a footnote, if that, to the real reasons for the Texas Revolution.[/quote]
I am just pointing out what happened in the US (and in general North America) before and around those times. My point it that the Texas Revolution was not as pure as it is sometimes seen. What was happening to Texas at the time is what was happening, and there is no arguing that. It’s history; you can’t argue against facts. That is why my argument seemed ad hominem, but my point still remains that the Texas Revolution was not pure. That does not mean it was not “good” (again, I understand my first point was not well put, and I admit that I was wrong about that) as a whole, but there were definitely some parts that cast a big shadow on the independence movement.
Slavery was a big deal in Texas before the Civil War. I don’t see how there is any denying that. It was not prominent before the independence movement, but many plantation owners wanted to see it become much bigger. That is why in ten years after revolution the number of slaves increased six fold. The first century of the US was dominated by slavery. Heck, one of the greater debates during the drafting of the Constitution was dealing with slavery. So saying that slavery, in any movement in the South, was just a footnote in forgetting how important slavery was to the US. [/quote]
Having spent a significant amount of time in both, I know I’d rather live in San Antonio than Mexico D.F.
[quote]mbdix wrote:
[quote]mud lark wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
. And we can divide our state into
five states at any time if we wanted to!
We can become a republic again at any time the voters of
Texas choose, and we included these things as
part of the deal when we came on.
[/quote]
Many Texans I know think of themselves as Texans first and Americans second. That seems to be an uncommon cultural trait - to view state allegiance equal to or above national allegiance.
As a history note: Texas cannot secede. They tried that in 1861, much to the dismay of Sam Houston. Didn’t work.
[/quote]
1st. I for one love the U.S.A and I am proud to be an American. I also love Texas and I am proud to be Texan. For me it’s a lot like the Flags they (fly) are at the same level.
2nd. Wrong. Texas did secede. Joined the Confederate States, but later restored with the Union, after the civil war.[/quote]
Texas voted to secede - that part is true. However, President James Buchanan declared secession unconstitutional in 1860. That’s why they were hit with back taxes after the war - which along with reconstruction started the carpet bagger era. The legality of secession is debatable - perhaps a legal scholar such as Jewbacca may be able to address this if he so chooses.
And yes, flying the flag at the same height signifies that state loyalty is equal to national loyalty. That tends to be an unusual stance for the citizens of any other state.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]ukrainian wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]ukrainian wrote:
It’s easy to make fun of the US educational system, but at least I know history. [/quote]
You know nothig but liberal bullshit.
All you did was make ad hominem attacks against various people in history that had nothing to do with the fact that slavery was a footnote, if that, to the real reasons for the Texas Revolution.[/quote]
I am just pointing out what happened in the US (and in general North America) before and around those times. My point it that the Texas Revolution was not as pure as it is sometimes seen. What was happening to Texas at the time is what was happening, and there is no arguing that. It’s history; you can’t argue against facts. That is why my argument seemed ad hominem, but my point still remains that the Texas Revolution was not pure. That does not mean it was not “good” (again, I understand my first point was not well put, and I admit that I was wrong about that) as a whole, but there were definitely some parts that cast a big shadow on the independence movement.
Slavery was a big deal in Texas before the Civil War. I don’t see how there is any denying that. It was not prominent before the independence movement, but many plantation owners wanted to see it become much bigger. That is why in ten years after revolution the number of slaves increased six fold. The first century of the US was dominated by slavery. Heck, one of the greater debates during the drafting of the Constitution was dealing with slavery. So saying that slavery, in any movement in the South, was just a footnote in forgetting how important slavery was to the US. [/quote]
Having spent a significant amount of time in both, I know I’d rather live in San Antonio than Mexico D.F.
[/quote]
I can agree with that point. Like I said, I like Texas, and Mexico now is pretty much shitty to live anywhere in.
[quote]mud lark wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
[quote]mud lark wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
. And we can divide our state into
five states at any time if we wanted to!
We can become a republic again at any time the voters of
Texas choose, and we included these things as
part of the deal when we came on.
[/quote]
Many Texans I know think of themselves as Texans first and Americans second. That seems to be an uncommon cultural trait - to view state allegiance equal to or above national allegiance.
As a history note: Texas cannot secede. They tried that in 1861, much to the dismay of Sam Houston. Didn’t work.
[/quote]
1st. I for one love the U.S.A and I am proud to be an American. I also love Texas and I am proud to be Texan. For me it’s a lot like the Flags they (fly) are at the same level.
2nd. Wrong. Texas did secede. Joined the Confederate States, but later restored with the Union, after the civil war.[/quote]
Texas voted to secede - that part is true. However, President James Buchanan declared secession unconstitutional in 1860. That’s why they were hit with back taxes after the war - which along with reconstruction started the carpet bagger era. The legality of secession is debatable - perhaps a legal scholar such as Jewbacca may be able to address this if he so chooses.
And yes, flying the flag at the same height signifies that state loyalty is equal to national loyalty. That tends to be an unusual stance for the citizens of any other state.
[/quote]
For what it is worth. I wouldn’t want Texas to secede from U.S.A even if it is legal for our state to do so. At the same time I would not want our state to lose that right as it is written. We are both correct in the Texas secession of 1861 in my opinion. Texas voted to secede and joined the confederate states but obviously after the war the union didn’t recognize the secession and the back taxes were implemented. For me it falls in an example of the winners writing history. kinda. I am not a scholar on the topic though.
It’s all in how you look at it. We’re both right. Whether or not secession actually took place is one for the legal scholars and historians to decide. From a state point of view, they seceded. From a national point of view, the secession was null and void - they were still a part of the U.S., although in open rebellion.
As a side note, and I love this part, during reconstruction, Texas pretty much took away the powers from the Governor. In was in response to federal control of the state government during early reconstruction.
In my opinion (and I could be wrong), the two most powerful posts are the Lt. Governor and the Comptroller:
The Lt. Governor heads the state Senate and appoints the committees - so he gets to say who does what.
The Comptroller controls the budget. The Texas Constitution has a balance budget amendment. So the Comptroller gets to control the purse strings and say who gets funded and who doesn’t.
The other important posts other than Secretary of State are publically elected officials - not appointed by the Governor as in some other states.
That’s why I never understood the big fuss over who is Governor. They’re not that powerful in comparison to some of the other posts.
It’s very common for former Confederate States to have a weak Governor’s office. It was a remanent of reconstruction.
The Eyes of Texas are Upon You…
The Stars at Night are big and bright…