A Senatorial atonement for past blocking of anti-lynching bills

[Odin]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


If you're talking about the Texan war for independence then actually it was about the abolition of slavery. Santa Anna, a former slave himself, outlawed slavery at which point those states controlled by slave owners revolted.

Exactly.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned


Then you are being taught an anti-American lie.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
MtG, you seem to acknowledge, then, that Polk did offer to buy the California, etc., and to settle the issue of the disputed territory peacefully before the Mexicans invaded. You must think Polk a fool for not preparing for war given the Mexican position that if Texas was annexed there would be war.

As to whether the outcome was a forseeable victory by the US, given our performance in the war of 1812, I don't think our victory was all that assured.

Tell ya what, Ned. I'll buy your house for $10,000.

Since you're obviously going to sell your house to me, I'm going to send a large group of armed men next door, waiting for you to decide to sell your house to me. You have until next week to sell. And oh, by the way, those people that are already there are the new tenants, I told 'em it was ok to move in a little early.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


If you're talking about the Texan war for independence then actually it was about the abolition of slavery. Santa Anna, a former slave himself, outlawed slavery at which point those states controlled by slave owners revolted.

Perhaps, Dr. Strangelove, the change in status from a state to a province had something to do with the legality of the directive.

Regardless, we get the very same argument time and again from the MtG's of the world that the civil war was about States Rights. But in the case of the Texas revolt, I actually believe the Texans on this point. Most of the Americans entered Texas with Texas a state. This gave them some autonomy from the central government on matters such a slavery. The change in status was a big deal.

[Ned]

MtG, it is interesting that you seemed to have switched sides on the issues of the Old South when it is the Mexican central government acting in a tryanical manner.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun
I have to agree with some others in here -- the education of American history has significantly improved.

Wouldn't know it from reading Ned's posts.

[KrazyHorse]

Man, I knew I would regret opening this thread. You can smell the stupid all the way over in the forum index.

[KrazyHorse]

A lucky someone has finally made it onto my ignore list due to his posts here.

[Boris Godunov]

Who, Ned? Join the club.

[KrazyHorse]

This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]

What did you say?

[Boris Godunov]

Mean...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


The cause of the war was desire for territorial expansion, nothing more.

We apparently were talking about two different things. I was talking about the Texan's revolt in 1836. You apparently are talking about the war of Mexican aggression in 1847.

[KrazyHorse]

I think this might shed some light on the issue, Ned.

http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/

[Boris Godunov]

Hee!

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned


Perhaps, Dr. Strangelove, the change in status from a state to a province had something to do with the legality of the directive.

Regardless, we get the very same argument time and again from the MtG's of the world that the civil war was about States Rights. But in the case of the Texas revolt, I actually believe the Texans on this point. Most of the Americans entered Texas with Texas a state. This gave them some autonomy from the central government on matters such a slavery. The change in status was a big deal.

Errrrr...... We're talking about Mexico. I don't think they had the 9th and 10th amendment in their constitution. You can't use US law when discussing politics in Mexico.